![]() | Points of interest related to
Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.
watch |
This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy ( talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ottoman-Bosnian victoryand
Bosniak population in Podrinje massacredunder First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. -- Joy ( talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Locationcolumn as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike
Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима.[Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]
Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions.I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.
The resounding victory of 12,000 Serbians over the powerful 20,000-strong army of Bosnian beys at the Battle of Mišar in 1806 raised hopes among Serbian peasants in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge's Serbia.
something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.
in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of " List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".
because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.
Judging from the above, I was right.Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan ( talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Judging from the above, I was right.is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Points of interest related to
Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.
watch |
This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy ( talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ottoman-Bosnian victoryand
Bosniak population in Podrinje massacredunder First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. -- Joy ( talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Locationcolumn as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike
Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима.[Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]
Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions.I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.
The resounding victory of 12,000 Serbians over the powerful 20,000-strong army of Bosnian beys at the Battle of Mišar in 1806 raised hopes among Serbian peasants in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge's Serbia.
something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.
in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of " List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".
because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.
Judging from the above, I was right.Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan ( talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Judging from the above, I was right.is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
References
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)