Talk:Bosanska Krajina/Archive 1

Ethnic cleansing; anti-Serb sentiment
I actually lived in the region during the conflict and am of mixed ethnic background. I find it hilarious that people that have had nothing to do with the conflict take it upon themselves to "correct" a legitimate wiki page with cited sources, with their stories rooted in hatred and prejudice. The orthodox-catholics that lived in the region were not made to leave their homes and as a mater of fact many chose to stay and fight the JNA forces. However the orthodox-catholics that left before the conflict all had weapons stashed in and around their homes. Many of the Yugoslavian men were forced to come and fight the Bosnians or face imprisonment so it is not right to blame all of serbian people indeed but at the same time no one forced those soldiers to shoot flak at children, to air raid schools, rape women and children and shell funerals all of which I was a victim and a witness to at 7 years old. The JNA forces actually ran over convoys of their own civilians when they were forced to retreat. And no orthodox-catholics were forced to leave any of the newly liberated cities they simply choose to leave and not be under Bosnian rule. You talk of Serbian persecution in WWII in Jasenovac. My great grandfather was in that camp for two years and then Goli Otok for 5years. Anyone who didnt agree with Tito or the Partisan forces was imprisoned no matter the ethnicity, nationality or religion and this is where your confusion comes in. Anyone from Serbia no matter the ethnicity or religious background is a Serbian. Anyone from Bosnia no matter the ethnicity or religion is Bosnian, starting to make sense? The Yugoslav National Army was controlled by the Serbian government so yes the Serbian government is responsible for the ethnic cleansing and its people for allowing it to happen no matter their religion or ethnicity. Anyone from RS is a Bosnian since that is a republic of the Bosnia and Herzegovina federation. The fact that you dont live there tells me that you lived in Austria or Germany during the conflict and might feel a little inferior for that. We that felt it hated it and never want it to happen again no matter what we are and our once great country was destroyed for foreign interest due to ignorance spread around by people like you.Read some books,if you werent there get over it doesn't make less of anything no matter what your religion, only in American do we still hate eachother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.114.21 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above post is a load of personal opinion charged with political and nationalist orientation. Persecution of people after the war by Tito and the government were grossly exaggerated by any stretch of imagination. And ideological blindness prevents the involved, and their descendants, to accept that 99% of those "persecuted" were people who were on the nazist side in the first place anyway. The problem also got more complex when the new government decided to accept large numbers of "deserters" from chetniks and ustashas at the end of the WWII in a gesture of goodwill, yet these infiltrators managed to reach positions where they committed many atrocities that gave the government and the President a bad wrap. This is confirmed in he above comment:

"My great grandfather was in that camp (Jasenovac) for two years and then Goli Otok for 5years. " I bet you that the same people who threw his grandfather in Jasenovac, later sent him to Goli Otok. Many people were poltrons and infiltrated enemies whose only purpose in life was to destroy communists. Torturing and murdering people was what they knew best, and so that's what they did. Some had risen to the very top. to the Parliament and the government from where they tried to create "Hrvatsko proljece", ("croatian" spring), so-alled Novosadska deklaracija in Srbija, etc.

And the people were at the receiving end of these traitors. Sadly, the people are generally not very bright, especially in mass, so they fell for it and started blaming "communists" for everything.

Now they have received what they deserved. Freedom from everything. Dignity and decent life included. Twenty years after the "freedom came", the individual "states" are in absolute economic destruction. It has NEVER been this bad under Tito. In an interview to a bulgarian TV station some years ago, older Albanians in Kosovo were expressing sadness fro Jugoslavija and the good old times when people respected each other.

In the meantime, in Hrvatska people do not even remember any more when did they receive the salary last time. They only remember that it was years ago... Work and no money> Almost like a communism! Except that in communism you would walk into a supermarket and take what you need... In capitalist "democracy" you do that and go to prison for theft. Straight away.

What an improvement...

I said that I will not come to this talk page again, but I have to answer some claims here. I will not discuss here any more history of RS, but, Joy, just look this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosanska_Krajina See what is written there: "The numbers are still not determined but it is estimated that anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 Bosnians were executed as part of the ethnic cleansing campaign of the Bosnian Serbs". The person who wrote this (I will not name this person) accused the whole Serbian nation (not only responsible individuals) for ethnic cleansing against "Bosnians" (What ever "Bosnians" are in this case). Yet, the same person didn’t wanted to say that Serbs were ethnically cleansed from parts of Bosanska Krajina (And many Serbs were executed too). We know that Serbs were majority in Bosanski Petrovac, Drvar, Bosansko Grahovo, Glamoc and Kupres. It is obvious that Serbs were ethnically cleansed from that parts of Bosanska Krajina, but somebody didn’t wanted to mention this. And you claim that these articles are not anti-Serb. Ok, you don’t have to trust me, I do not live in RS, but ask some Serb who live in RS and he will tell you are these articles anti-Serb or not. And I will not write article about history of Serbs in BIH/RS (If somebody else want to write this article, he is free to do that). My intention only was to write an early history of RS, but I can`t work with people who have political attitude. RS is mainly populated with Serbs and I regard every attempt to delete history of Serbs from early history of RS as attack on these Serbs. For example, you will never see me to write anything about Serb history in Kosovo page of wikipedia, because Kosovo is mainly populated with Albanians (And you will also never see me to delete history of Albanians there). Unlike some people, I am tolerant towards other nations, but I have zero tolerance towards certain political attitudes. User:PANONIAN

There is a stetement in this article which notes that a great number of Bosanska Krajina inhabitants were killed in Jasenovac concentration camp during WWII. If one follows that article one could find that they were predominantly Serbs and no one could deny it.Dado

Actually, there is no mention in the article that killed individuals were predominantly Serbs. User:PANONIAN

Number between 10000 and 30000 is the number of missing people from this region and as in the case of Srebrenica it is a fair statement that these people may have been killed given that the region was also the place of concentration camps during Bosnian War. Some 500 corpses that were found in mass graves in Bosanska Krajina are being identified as we speak and additional 450 are awaiting identification. ICTY is also currently investigating a potential genocide in this region. There are maybe few sentences that may need to be slightly revised but the article as a whole is far from not being neutral and factually correct.Dado

My objection was that Serb people were accused for ethnic cleansing instead of the RS authorities. User:PANONIAN

Continued personal attacks and attempts to discredit my contributions to Wikipedia as political propaganda are pure non-sense.Dado

I do not continue to attack you personally, my objections simply referred about neutrality of your views. User:PANONIAN

I am not an anti-Serb nor do I have an anti-Serb agenda. On the other hand I have a feeling that there is reasoning among some that if articles are not presenting a pure Serb nationalistic propaganda than they must be anti-Serb.I know many Serbs who would widely object to such reasoning including people who live in RS.Dado

Do you even know how Serbian propaganda looks like? If I were a Serbian propagandist, I would speak something like this: "All of Bosnia is Serbian land and there is no Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia, because they are actually islamised and catholicised Serbs". That is how Serbian propaganda looks like. But, did you see me wrote this? You didn’t. User:PANONIAN

Finally if you present information in this article that are factualy correct and proven and not based on assumptions, half truths and widely believed legends I will have no problems with you edits --Dado 04:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to do that, but I do not know from where to start (to much errors in it). User:PANONIAN

I have made a correction to indicate that the ethnic cleansing was commited by RS. I made a statement in original version on this article that majority of people killed at Jasenovac were Serbs however it was removed by other users since there is a whole other article that talks specifically about Jasenovac. I had an unfortunate fate in my life to personaly experience a full range of unprovoked Serbian nationalistic propaganda from mild insinuations to outright threats. I don't need to be lectured on that issue.--Dado 21:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bu-hu... You and millions of Jugoslavs. My wife is from Split, one parent Serb, another Croat, both Dalmatians for tens of generations in Split. I am Spanish. We lived there at the start of the war. The "democratic" treatment we had to endure by the Hrvati paramilitaries is something the truth is yet to be written about. We left Split under protection of UNPROFOR or we would have been killed by police who took our house and everything we had and gave it to one of the "officers". Who really cares about your personal experiences. We all have them. They do not qualify you to write nonsense. And you do write nonsense. 99% of you, whether Srbi,Hrvati and whatnot, write whole load of nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.174.164 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Culture
''The brutal history of Bosanska Krajina may be a reason for a specific nature of its people that pride themselves on toughness and rebelliousness towards other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and especially Sarajevo. However, their position towards Sarajevo is more like a sibling rivalry rather than one of disdain and revolt. On top of that the people who live in Bosanska Krajina share a dislike of Bosnjaks from Eastern Bosnia due to a difference in culture and class rivalries which originated due to the Turkish rule of Bosnia.''

This is more of a hearsay, most likely describes how Sarajevo and East Bosnians see Krajina people. The rivalry is more due to policies of Sarajevo, Belgrade or Austria and investment into other parts of Bosnia neglecting the Krajina region. I would like to hear more from other Krajisnici about this. Strjela —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cazinska krajina
The western part of Bosanska Krajina is better known historically as Cazinska Krajina (Cazinska krajina) than Bihaćka Krajina. I can cite sources to back up my claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujanovic (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia
User:PRODUCER decided to merge and redirect these two, but the not all content was merged. There is a lot of content left over there, mostly related to medieval demographics - someone needs to check whether the old text is useful and accurate enough for inclusion here. I skimmed over it, some of it isn't controversial, but some of it may be. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Turkish Croatia... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the remainder of that text and sadly a lot of it seems to be straight copy&paste from Noel Malcolm's book (that is properly referenced here now). There's an anonymous user engaged in a revert war, undoing the redirect. Since the bulk of the spirit of the old content is now merged, and the rest is questionable (WP:COPYVIO), I recommend we protect that redirect as a counter-vandalism measure, and purge all history that has the copyvio. Anyone? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Krajina does NOT translate to a frontier in english
Whoever wrote that nonsense needs to learn serbo-croatian much, much better. The word "krajina" draws its root from the word "kraj", which means "an area". In the context "krajina" translates to a "big area", or a "large area" by the suffix "ina". Similar example could be "nož" (knife). Augmentative would be "nožina" or "nožetina", both meaning a big knife. Or, "ljudina" derivative of the word "ljudi" ( a mass noun meaning "people"), but in this context it means a "great man", or "THE man" with the suffix "ina" added to the root "ljud-". Interesting thing with serbo-croatian is that it is extremely flexible and rich language where a word can have many different meanings in a variety of contexts. In this example "ljud" is not a valid word, yet it does have a perfectly understandable meaning of "one man". Adding the suffix "-ina" creates a new valid word.

The word for "frontier" is "granica". Foreigners often confuse the word "kraj" meaning because it also means "end", hence some may think it has something to do with a "frontier", a frontier being an area where the "world as we know it" ends and an unknown land begins. However, that is not the case as the word "kraj" has a definitive meaning as "end" of something with no continuation after it. Proper translation would be "the end" in English.

The differentiation of the two meanings (the end and area) lies in the accent on the letter "a" in the word "kraj". If pronounced with a prolonged and downwards tone, it means "end". If it is pronounced as a short and rising "a", the word means "area".

There are many other areas of Jugoslav territory where the "krajina" was used. These oher "krajinas" are Bela Krajina in Slovenija (notice the word "bela" - white - in ekavian. Slovenian langage and Hrvatski kajkavian, which is merely a mild dialectal variant of Slovenian language and is the language of the majority of people in Hrvatska; are ekavian in their nature, just as today's official serbo-croatian spoken in Srbija), Bosanska Krajina, Cazinska Krajina and so on.

The only "frontiers" were Srpska Krajina and Bosanska Krajina, where Serbian population made majority and were serving as soldiers defending the border between Habsburgs and Ottomans. As Serbs lived on both sides of the border, the "frontier" term would only be meaningful to Austrians in Wienna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.174.164 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkish or Ottoman Croatia
Hi, Croatia was part of the Ottoman Empire and has enough historic details to deserve a separate article. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosanska Krajina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100203072907/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Persistently re-created and defended without any sources, based on some 19th century maps, despite numerous attempts to discuss issue based on policies and guidelines, article Turkish Croatia is glaring case of WP:CFORK (WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK) of no less than four articles dealing with the same subject from various angles: Military Frontier, Croatian Military Frontier, Bosanska Krajina and Donji Kraji. Despite the fact that Turkish Croatia has already been merged with Bosanska Krajina (rather with its section) on one previous occasion (with redirect left behind?), it's re-created for reason only its creator and current gate-keepers could explain, but most likely to vent and promote of WP:NAT POV. Whatever inner drive of editors may be, it's certainly filled with prose based on WP:FRINGE, WP:synthesis and WP:original, and completely without references WP:UNSOURCED. It seem to me that proper course of action would be (again) to merged text with references with any of those four aforementioned forks, with WP:NOPAGE in mind for reasons expressed in this post (redirect deleted and restriction on new re-creation placed). As an article on propaganda and political, ideological, or military terminology of certain era, it's still neologism and obviously goes against WP:NEO. But even if we turn blind eye, problem with WP:NOTA and WP:V remains, since no contemporary or relatively recent reliable and neutral WP:sources/WP:RS sources WP:NEXIST - except few 19th Century military maps WP:RS AGE, printed in very limited time-span WP:SUSTAINED, which makes WP:HISTRS applicable. "Turkish Croatia" was a geopolitical term and neologism, invented by Austro-Hungary geostrategists and war-propagandist. It found its way into military cartography application as part of geostrategic and war-propaganda discourse, with Austria-Hungary preparations for the war-efforts on Military Frontier / Croatian Military Frontier / Bosanska Krajina during Ottoman-Hapsburg wars, Austrian advancement toward the borders of Bosnian proper under Bosnian Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire, and as possibility of acquiring of that territory from Ottomans started becoming reality for Hapsburgs. Indeed limited only to geopolitical discourse, mirrored in maps (these 19th c. maps are only existing documents with this term in use) and war-propaganda, the term was never seriously discussed and/or published in any scholarship, not then, not now, not in between. The moment Ottoman–Hapsburg war was concluded, with Ottomans' being defeated and transfer of power in the Bosnia Vilayet from Ottomans to Austria made reality on the ground and official at the Berlin Congress in 1878, the term no longer served its purpose and disappeared from usage completely. However, it will eventually find its way and get imported into narrative of Croatian far-right politics, and can be heard, from time to time, on the ideological and fringes of populist political and academic discourse, among its more radical exponents, and in some Croatian far-right media. Most recently and most notably it was used by Franjo Tuđman, however sometimes even on his own party (HDZ) associate dismay because he used it too overtly in reference to his political and military aims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which culminated in Croat-Bosniak war and found its conclusion with ICTY judgements on Croatia involvement in Bosnian war.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Subsequently interposed clarification: The discussion above (rather its initiation) deals with a revision that, as an example of the WP: SYSTEMIC bias of two self-identified Croatian editors and as written in manner of geographical and historiographical account but from evident revisionist POV, is used in persistent reverts by two aforementioned. The current, protected revision is possible to confirm with references, but it still needs to be merged into the Bosnian Krajina, since the topic of this article is explicitly bound to the history of that region, and in accordance to above rational regarding noted circumstances, policies and guidelines.12:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The territory of Turkish Croatia and Bosanska Krajina is not exactly the same, it does not fully overlap. There is also a chronological difference between the two terms. But User:Santasa99 continuously and systematically pushes his WP:POV, ignoring and disregarding all sources, including old original maps (naming them „some“ 19th century maps“) and then talking nonsense about neologism, hapax, claptrap, lack of sources etc., only to promote his WP:NAT. Furthermore, his version of text in the article is a political pamphlet that has nothing to do with the original article dealing with distant-past topic. His text doesn't meet encyclopedic standards and criteria at all, but disrupts WP:ENC, persistently continuing WP:HA. Can it be accepted? Not at all! -- Silve  rije  20:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, this isn't the place for voting, this should be discussion in pursuit of consensus, which, obviously, isn't particularly interesting for editors to get involved, so other ways should be explored for discussion to take place. And second, if you read a word from Wikipedia guidelines and policies, such as WP:sources and WP:RS, especially about WP:PSTS primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and also WP:RS AGE and WP:HISTRS, not to mention article's rich Talk page, you wouldn't go around in attempt to persuade other parties of such a ridiculous insinuations like raising claims of WP:NAT and WP:HA - especially this second is quite harsh accusation, which without evidence falls under casting WP:ASPERSIONS, so you should be careful about making it anyway. But you seem disinterested in discussing my arguments per noted and wikilinked policies and guidelines, instead you are more interested in expressing your opinion on history, politics, nationalism and my personal, inner motives.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Political pamphlet", as you call it, is actually validated in its entirety by your own sources, only two legit references that you provided, along with some 19th century maps which are not legit per WP:HISTRS, WP:RS AGE, and WP:SUSTAINED. It is notable how you tried to use both of these sources in extremely manipulative manner, using WP:SYNTHESIS as your guiding principle.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Central Croatia was part of the Ottoman Empire and has enough historic details to deserve a separate article. There are sufficient sources from the 18th and 19 th century to support that. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Central Croatia is important enough to have its own article.Lordluka99 (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Silverije has been canvassing at Croatian Wikipedia (evidence ) trying to get people from there to vote and influence the discussion. Croatian Wikipedia is heavily compromised by nationalist POV (see here and here for an explanation). This makes Silverije's accusations above seem very hypocritical... DraconicDark (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Excellent observation, thanks. Also here.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Santasa99 did the same, earlier (evidence ) or ). -- Silve  rije  21:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Silverije. If one side is allowed to do it, the other should be allowed to do it too. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice try.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment"Turkish Croatia" was a geopolitical term and neologism, invented by Austro-Hungary geostrategists and war-propagandist. This is a fact. Reasons given by Santasa99 make very much sense. I see no real arguments which would oppose the explanation given to us in the intro. In my mind, pseudoarguments against steem from the fact that someone likes the idea of the title - Turskih Croatia. That's old news and the relevance is also questanable. How the merger would take place (scale of new/old content, would it be another paragraph etc.) should be also taken in consideration. Sadko (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Bosnian Krajina is Turkish Croatia renamed, or better said its remainings, because the Turks (Ottoman Empire) conquered parts of modern-day Croatia (Lika, Kordun, Banovina…) which were later returned to Croatia, then within Habsburg Monarchy... Ceha (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If they're the same thing, why not merge? Your argument makes no sense. DraconicDark (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are NOT the same thing. Please, read the whole text. Turkish Croatia included parts of present-day Croatia, while Bosanska Krajina doesn't. -- Silve  rije 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In accordance with my previous discussion on talk pages (Turkish Croatia and Bosanska Krajina) - before the merger discussion has been officially opened. The fact is that article Turkish Croatia has a lot of references, although some of them have been unjustifiably removed in recent months (here are some of them:, , , , ). It should remain a separate, standalone page. -- Silve  rije  20:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The content of the article Turkish Croatia was first thoroughly changed and then proposed for merger, with vague reasons and by using biased language. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The name Turkish Croatia is older than the name Bosnian Krajina (which appears first time in 19th century) and it encompasses larger area. Geographical matching (and here is not 100%) is not the only criteria; e.g. Socialist Republic of Croatia and Croatia. Turkish Croatia means area of Kingdom of Croatia under Ottoman rule, while Bosnian Krajina means (militarized) borderland area (similar to one in Habsburg Monarchy). Kubura (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is really great to have an opinion - hell, you are so famous for your opinion that even the top Croatian media has written extensively about it, NDH nije bila totalitarna a zrtve u Jasenovcu pobili su partizani: desnicari preuzeli uredivanje hrvatske wikipedije as evident in opinion piece at Signpost: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia, fortunately this is not a private blog, but of course you know that, since you are not an inexperienced editor.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  02:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Tentative oppose - I think there’s enough evidence that the term “Turkish Croatia” is notable (even as a neologism) that it doesn’t make sense to just wholesale delete it. As a compromise, would it work to include the content from this article as a subsection of the parent article, to provide historical context as to where the term originated and how it was used by Croatian nationalists and other historical political figures? Michepman (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it's not proposal for deletion, it's proposal for merger with article Bosanska Krajina, where everything you said would be included - and note that in the last couple of months I already wrote exactly that into current version of "Turkish Croatia" article with some actually reliable and neutral sources which are properly interpreted; you have to read "Turkish Croatia" article current revision - if article is reverted you can find it in my last edit in history there, it's exactly what you would expect to be, as you explained in your above post. So, note that I haven't asked for wholesale deletion, but just for merger, inclusion of valid arguments, properly referenced, into Bosanska Krajina article. So, I guess with this in mind you would actually (probably-hopefully) "supported" merger.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Since geographical Turkish Croatia is just some part of today Bosnian Krajina there is no point to convert these two entities into one, otherwise the first name for part of Bosnian Krajina is Croatian Krajina. We don't know and original area of the Bosnian Krajina(based on historical documents)  even  we have this article on Wikipedia. Maybe that information  should be first included in the article  to see which  historical documents mentione geographical location of Bosnian Krajina and then we can take necessary steps. Mikola22 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.196.94 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Overlapping but non-identical entities, with separate notability. --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Original research
, you do realise that Mikola22 entered claim referenced by paper that is original research. I hope you know policy about WP:NOR. Please respond as I will not engage in edit war, this is just violation of Wikipedia policy. --Mhare (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , as you didn't respond, I've tagged the problematic reference as original research and will seek further clarification for possibility of WP:OR to exist in the article. Mhare (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ottoman period
Sustav tipične turske kolonizacije najbolje je pojasniti na primjeru sjeverozapadne i zapadne Bosne čije je predtursko stanovništvo bilo - prema istraživanjima Milana Vasića - »čisto hrvatsko. The system of typical Turkish colonization is best explained by the example of northwestern and western Bosnia whose pre-Turkish population was - according to research by Milan Vasic - "purely Croatian. Veći dio današnje Bosanske krajine Turci su teritorijalno pripojili  svojoj upravi tek poslije višegodišnjega temeljitog pustošenja, napose u području rijeke Une, donjeg toka Sane i u Posavini. Most of today's Bosnian Krajina Turks territorial merged their administration only after years of extensive devastation, especially in the area of the Una River, the lower course of the Sana river and in Posavina. Nova turska uprava riješila je problem nenaseljenosti Bosanske krajine dovođenjem, kao i u prethodnim slučajevima, polunomadskih Vlaha, čiji su matični krajevi bili Hercegovina, Crna Gora i jugozapadna Srbija. The new Turkish administration solved the problem of the unpopulated  Bosnian Krajina area by bringing, as in previous cases, the semi-nomadic Vlachs, whose home regions were Herzegovina, Montenegro and southwestern Serbia. Valuable informations that should be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Original research and POV article. Next?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Milan Vasić was a Serbian historian, member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska since 1997 and its president in 2003. He was corresponding member of the Academy of Science and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1987. He wrote it in a book or scientific paper in Yugoslavia. Why would this be original research and POV? Burgenland Croats coming to Austria and from that area. Mikola22 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He is reliable but questionable. Some SANU members are disputed, after all they have written the most evil memorandum which destroyed Yugoslavia! If all of them are reliable - we do not know. We must respect reliable sources and what they are saying, but we much check them first. Did you check?
 * Anyways, I can't find the full version of the article to double check, from the information I have gathered so far, he published some new information/insights on the subject. Original research was needed for that. Please send us the original article and not the one quoting it. Full quote would be good do.
 * Another thing, the fact taht only some sources mention Vlachs does not mean that they were ethnic Vlachs. Again, we do not know. How can we? Did "Vlachs" write about their own culture and origin? Some sources say Serbs, other say Vlachs, some say it is the same thing, we can't just choose sources like on a buffet to fit our view, original documents also should be respected, if we know for them.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  10:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you check? I did not if you mean about original source, because I couldn't find this source. His claim is transferred by historian Mirko Valentić in this scientific work, and it is also RS.
 * Original article and not the one quoting it. I don't have this original scientific paper. (Etnička kretanja u Bosanskoj Krajini u XVI. vijeku. Godišnjak društva istoričara Bosne i Hercegovine XIII. Sarajevo, 1962, 247,  Ethnic movements in the Bosnian Krajina in the 16th century. Yearbook of the Society of Historians of Bosnia and Herzegovina XIII. Sarajevo, 1962).
 * Another thing, the fact taht only some sources mention Vlachs does not mean that they were ethnic Vlachs. I don't think I understand when you sad some sources, the originals mostly mention Vlachs, and historians, books etc ie RS they also mention Vlachs a lot. It is certain that the Yugoslavian historians are more one-sided here for understandable reasons but there are more and more sources (Austrian, Hungarian etc sources) who are returning to original documents and draw conclusions based on that. I respect all sources because this is wikipedia. As far as ethnic Vlachs is concerned, what to say. All Dalmatian Croats are also mentioned in the sources as Vlachs. I could not say that they are all originally ethnic Croats which means that for me they have and original Vlachs ethnicity. But who am I to give great conclusions. Along with those ethnic Vlachs surely many others are coming to Croatia. In any case we must respect reliable sources and wikipedia rules. And as for this last problem(Some sources say Serbs, other say Vlachs,...etc), how to solve it. In my opinion, to return sources(RS) which use the original documents as a basis. That would affect the Serbian side but also Croatian side. Surely my proposal will not pass but if we are building an encyclopedia then we must go from the ground up. That is, if I were the editor of some encyclopedia, I would build it that way. Both Serbs and Croats would probably oppose it, however that encyclopedia would be irrefutable. Mikola22 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I found the source (Etnička kretanja u Bosanskoj Krajini u XVI. vijeku. Godišnjak društva istoričara Bosne i Hercegovine XIII. Sarajevo, 1962, 247, Ethnic movements in the Bosnian Krajina in the 16th century. Yearbook of the Society of Historians of Bosnia and Herzegovina XIII. Sarajevo, 1962). Croats are mentioned. So I think everything is clear now. Mikola22 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)