Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia

Map
Adding a map was a wonderful idea, Kebeta! I considered it myself, but couldn't find a suitable one. However, I think we can find a better map than this one - or perhaps someone can create it? I am not sure how one can "order" a map, but I remember ordering an image of a coat of arms from a user who was more than willing to help. The problem with the present map is that is hard to read (for starters, it is not in English). Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Moving map is ok although Elizabeth's daughters lost some of Louis lands presented in that map. That's way I think map's previous position is better. --Kebeta (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did lose some territory, but the caption says that those were the lands they inherited from their father, so it's not really misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
I don't think we should name every valet that accompanied Elizabeth and Mary. It adds nothing to the article, as the reader won't have a clue who "Paul son of John" was. Imagine naming all Elizabeth's ladies-in-waiting. It's simply trivial. The article should contain relevant information - information about Elizabeth's life. Why would a reader interested in Elizabeth's life want to know where Charles sailed from? That information would be of interest to someone reading about Charles. Let's not wander off topic, please. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you on this point. Most of Elizabeths reign was a civil war in Hungary and Croatia. I think it's important to present names of leading nobles, army strenght and other circumstances that could explain to a reader what happened during her reign (which fraction oposed her and which supported her).--Kebeta (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All you said is true. I'd like to emphasise your own words: "names of leading nobles". "Paul son of John", a Gregory, an Andrew and others were not leading nobles. The leading nobles were the Garays and the Horvats, all of whom are properly introduced. You are venturing into unneccessary detail and introducing information that is relevant to other articles and not this one. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't link to irrelevant articles. See WP:Context, which says that links should be created to "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". Linking to the article about Croats creates an impression that all Croats were opposed to Elizabeth, that they were opposed to her because they were Croats or that their opposition to her had something else to do with their being Croats. Please discuss before reverting again. Please don't revert again without discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to finish writting so you can get the whole picture. Afterwards if necessary you (we) can remove if something is redundant. Please be patient, and let me write by adding more material into the article.--Kebeta (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the contentious material you already added before proceeding to add more of it. I have explained why we shouldn't name every single man in her entourage, yet you keep reinstating the names without addressing my concerns. I have also explained it to you that this article is not the place for the information you're adding. That information should be in the article about Charles II of Hungary. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't link to irrelevant articles. The fact is that Croatian nobles (most of them- all important ones at that time) were at war with Elizabeth and Mary due to many reasons which are not written in this article. Mary's insecure reign is not the only or a main reason for this. So linking Croatian is not irrelevant (or it want be after I present reasons of rebelion). She is a women-lets attack her because she is week...things don't go that way. You don't attack your queen because she is a women. --Kebeta (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that they were Croatian has nothing to do with their rebellion. They rebelled because they wanted to profit from the turmoil. They did not rebel because they were Croats. That is why the link should not be there. In fact, I replaced the wording with a better one. I am not sure why you insist on using an inferior wording. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please cool down...don't jump on every single sentence which I write. Please, Kebeta (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't. The map and information about Paul's pawning of church estates were great additions, but you don't seem to understand that this article is  about Elizabeth, not about Charles and not about the history of Hungary-Croatia. This article should contain information about this woman's life. Imagine explaining the entire situation in Hungary and in Poland. Important events were taking place there as well, such as the formation of centuries-long union between Poland and Lithuania, but this article does not go into detail about that because it is about Elizabeth. You also don't understand that discussing contentious edits is better than blindly reverting them. If a user raises concerns about your edits, discuss rather than revert. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but you just don't give me space to finish my edits...how to discuss unfinished text (of course that kindn of text wan't be as good as it should be). But you are doing the same thing for which you acuse me - blindly reverting. Opposite to you, I am trying to expand the article while you simply delete my material - immediately as I write it. --Kebeta (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can discuss what you've already inserted. Why not start from there? It's the most sensible thing to do. I have explained it to you that the material you added while expanding the article is out of this article's scope. It is unneccessary detail that reduces the quality of the article. I am sure that your goal is to improve the article, but inserting excessive detail and irrelevant information is not the way to do that. Quality is more important than quantity. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A proposal
I will stay away from this aricle for the next several days. I hope that during that time you will try to read something which I have wrote above on this talk page, instead of just repeating your self. My intention is (and will be in the future) to expand this article, since this wasn't my first edit on this article as you are awere of. I am doing this so you can cool down since obviously you seem upset. I hope that you will understand that writing some material about Elizabeth something requires explanation, which (I agree) can be a part of some other article as well. I hope that when everybody cools down, we can edit this article normally and discuss in a more friendly way. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kebeta, you haven't responded to any of my concerns. I have read and responded to everything you wrote; anyone can see that. You, however, have been merely ignoring my concerns. I applaud your intention to improve the article, but expanding it is not neccessarily the same as improving it. Adding material that does not directly concern Elizabeth and which is not indispensable for understanding Elizabeth's life hurts the article. A person reading about Elizabeth would not care about the number of ships Charles had and would not care about Charles' gathering support in an obscure Italian town. Imagine listing every promise made by Jogaila in the Act of Kreva or describing everything that happened to Hedwig in Poland; such details belong to the articles about Jogaila and Hedwig respectively, just like the information you keep adding belongs to the article about Charles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted a spelling correction several times even though I asked you not to. It proves, if nothing else, that you were blindly reverting my edits and not paying any attention to my edit summaries. Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that I gave you a fair proposal. Why accuse me further if I gave you what you want (I stopped editing the article)? Does this means that you are not interested in my proposal, at all? --Kebeta (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well, I will than make now new sections with your concerns. --Kebeta (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to the discussion, but please cease reverting. If you don't, I will have no other option but to report you for breaking the three revert rule, which you have broken several times today while I was begging you to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was open for discussion the best I could. I evan wanted to stop writing for several days, but you continued to acuse me and mock to my proposal. I would like to invite some other editors here to help us to resolve this situation, since it's becoming clear that we can't do it alone. You are breaking the three revert rule, I don't revert you, just adding more material (which apparently you don't like). --Kebeta (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How did I mock your proposal? It's quite clear what a revert is, and it what you are doing is disruptive reverting. Why is it so hard to discuss a proposed change if it's obviously contentious? I am going to request a third opinion from a neutral user. Surtsicna (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues
Manual of Style/Lead section says that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." and "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" That is way I expanded the lead.
 * Lead

I added new info into lead (shortly after her death, a big parts of Bosnia and Dalmatia were separated from Hungarian Crown.) which breaks ("Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."), but I am planning to add that content into the body of the article (into section 'Death and aftermath'.--Kebeta (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." The article had only two paragraphs (which were POV since they didn't reflect on the 'lost lands') before I expanded it. Now it has three.--Kebeta (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think that the information you keep reinserting into the lead makes it a "summary of its most important aspects" and "a concise overview"? I don't. You inserted unneccessary details and simply copy-pasted text from other sections. Anyway, you should really pay more attention to your grammar. I am not a native speaker either, and I know it can be hard, but this article (at Good Article status) should not feature things like "a big parts" and "successfull". Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about my grammar, but it's hard to focus when I have you on my neck. Yes, I think that the lead is to short and that my addition about 'lost lands' is very important.--Kebeta (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot blame me for your grammar. You had problems with it before our dispute . Anyway, what you added to the lead is not even correct. It cannot be said that Elizabeth lost Poland. She did not lose it in any sense. The lead is exactly what you cited: an introduction to the article, a summary of its most important aspects and a concise overview. Please, bear in mind that this article is about a woman, not about the history of Hungary. Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many images (paintings) in the article-that's why I think that something real thing (like Novigrad Castle) is a good image for this article. I didn't want to delete the image which you added, so I put it with other painting as double image. --Kebeta (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WL for 'Croatian'
 * Expanding vs improving
 * Images

Listed four issues for now.--Kebeta (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity
I have a question for anybody who can answer it: what ethnicity was Elizabeta? was she Croatian, Serbian, Hungarian, Bosniak (before Islamization), Polish, etc.? --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends on who you ask. The question can only generate pointless disputes. I strongly doubt she'd care, for what it's worth. Nationalism hardly existed before the 18th century. As you can see, this woman and her contemporaries had bigger problems on their mind. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean for that to sound bad... I was just wondering what she was ... Her name was Elizbeth of Bosnia and she was the Queen of Hungary and daughter of the Ban and Baness of Bosnia, she was also the mother of the Queen of Poland -- kinda confusing especially because I'm not exactly sure how that all works --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work. There is no need for it to work. The only certainty is that she was Bosnian, obviously. She was born in Bosnia to a Polish woman and a Bosnian man whose mother was Serbian, and married off as a child to a Hungarian whose father was a French-speaking prince from Naples. God knows what her native language was. What was Queen Victoria's ethnicity? Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. jeez louise -- these royals make me dizzy --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

wait a go getting that in there that ethnicity and race are totally invented and modern concepts. This isn't about nationalism. Ethnicity was formalized later, but cultural identity certainly existed, which is the basis of ethnicity as we define it today. So she had an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.216 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

New category
Would the category "Bosnian royalty" apply to Elizabeth? --63.152.96.146 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, but I am inclined to say no. Is Nicolas Sarkozy a Hungarian president? Elizabeth was neither daughter nor wife of a Bosnian king. Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments
I've been asked to comment on this article. In my opinion, it has a lot of potential but needs some work. Here are some specific and general comments.


 * Lede:
 * I dislike one sentence lede paragraphs. Can't you say what she is best known for?
 * Descent
 * "Born around 1339" Around seems a bit informal, perhaps "about"?
 * Do we know when Elizabeth's mother died?
 * "her father refused to consider the proposal". It's unclear if you mean that he was OK with the marriage, but did not like the idea of handing over the land as dowry, or if he was against the suitor under any circumstances.
 * "The same year" perhaps "Later that year,"
 * You'd probably be thanked by the non-geneologic reader if you spelled out the relation of the common ancestor to both (i.e., grandfather, great-grandfather, etc.)
 * Marriage:
 * Wouldn't Louis's hopes really be his reason for accepting the betrothal? After all, once they were betrothed, he would be expected to wed, if you understand what I am saying. So possibly his expectations should be moved into the preceding paragraph. Also, given that Elizabeth was about 14, it might be useful to mention Louis's age.
 * "her retinue included the same individuals who had served the queen mother." perhaps, "her retinue was made up of people who had served the queen mother, and remained loyal to her."
 * "For a couple of years" perhaps too informal
 * "of at least a small part of the kingdom" Perhaps "of any part of the kingdom" I'd also strike the word "own" before "maternal uncle", I don't see what it adds.

Similarly "officially" before heir presumptive, (I imagine in the 14th century, the throne would often go to whoever had the biggest battalions anyway).
 * "Elizabeth is known to have written a book" I'm not sure this sentence fits in well with the rest of the paragraph.
 * With mama-in-law off ruling Poland rather than ruling daughter-in-law, was younger Elizabeth able to break free of control?
 * "On 17 September 1374, Louis issued the Privilege of Koszyce," Hm. Given that his mother was about to (or just had) returned from Poland with a footprint on her rear end, was this thought likely to stick?
 * " and by 1374, it became certain" Well, no.  They could have all died.
 * Somewhere you should have the link to "arranged marriage".
 * Widowhood and regency
 * "centralizing policy" which has not yet been mentioned, and wouldn't it be up to Elizabeth to decide whether to continue it?
 * "John asked Tvrtko for help, but they were ultimately defeated by Elizabeth's army" Apparently he did more than ask for it, he received it, however ineffectual it was.
 * "the lack of trusted men" perhaps "a lack of men loyal to her"
 * Why was Hedwig more acceptable to the Poles? Who was her regent?


 * "Both Sigismund and Mary's relative, King Charles III of Naples, threatened to invade Hungary; the former intended to marry Mary and become her co-ruler, while the latter intended to depose her." Multiple issues. The start of this sentence reads oddly, and who exactly are the former and latter?
 * "Elizabeth was desperate in 1384" That's a strong term. Why?
 * " but the marriage turned out to be too late" I imagine for him to claim the throne. There is a LOT happening in this paragraph, and it begs for more explanations.
 * Legacy
 * "Hedwig was disappointed by her mother's procrastinations and inability to make clear decisions, while Mary was most distressed by her endless problems with Croatian nobles and failure to improve the relations with her native Bosnia" I'm not sure you've made all this clear in the article, especially Hedwig's concerns. I'd also strike "the" before relations.
 * You've not previously mentioned stealing the saint's finger.
 * General comments:
 * I think it would be helpful if you explained things a bit more, and made sure that the reasons for events are stated more clearly. People are coming and going and doing things, and you need to be careful about explaining why these things are happening. Continuity, a la the movies, is key to writing a good biographical article.  --Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and comments! I've implemented most of your suggestions and here are responses to the rest:
 * It is not known when Elizabeth's mother died or what caused her untimely death. Halecki only says that she died before the marriage of her only child. Apparently, she was last mentioned alive in 1345, but that is very vague.
 * I am not sure where to place the two sentences about her book. Would it be better to put them in a paragraph of their own? They are much less relevant to the next paragraph, which describes events that took place after the book was written.
 * Elizabeth did break free in 1370 ("Her mother-in-law's influence prevailed until 1370"), but gained substantial influence only after it was settled that her daughter(s) would become queen(s) ("Her influence had grown steadily since she had given her husband three possible heiresses").
 * I am not sure what you mean in regard to the Privilege of Koszyce. Which thought?
 * The article already says that Poles only wanted a queen who would reside in their country, so I made it clear that Hedwig moved to Poland once it was settled that she should rule it. Does that answer your question?
 * I am not sure what to do about the sentence that introduces Charles III of Naples, except for reminding the reader that Sigismund was Mary's fiancé. Could you please be a bit more specific?
 * The legend says that she stole the finger. Since it is only a legend, it should not be mentioned in the preceding sections. I've made it clear that it is a legend. Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Year of birth
, could you please explain why do you think that the new piece of information about her year of birth is important? I think there is no real difference between the two dates (about 1339 or about 1340). We should decide which one is more widely accepted. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While the subject's year of birth is obviously important, I think "about 1339 or about 1340" is very odd. Obviously "about 1339" includes 1340 and "about 1340" includes 1339. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You removed sources information based on Polish publications. As we should keep NPOV I do not why we shoul mention information based on one source and ignore based on another. Book of Rudzki is two-volumed, I do not why you removed the information of the numver of volume. I restored the information. If you again would be removing well-sourced information from articles I will ask for admin's intervetion. Swetoniusz (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , before making an edit war, could you read other editors' questions and remarks? Why do you think that there is a real difference between "about 1339" and "about 1340"? Can you prove that the latter date is more frequently mentioned in academic works? Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna started edit war and removing important information from the reference section (number of volume of Rudzki's book). We have to avoid POV in our edits. I do not why you and Surtsicna were removing important information from some articles like Wdowiszewski's book from reference section in Jadwiga of Poland. Tell me, why? Swetoniusz (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Because you were making multiple changes (or pseudo-edits) to hide your attempt to push your POV. (2) Because some information was not important. (3) Please remember this is not the article about Jadwiga of Poland. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If sources disagree on the year, we should give both, referencing reliable sources which prefer one or the other. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , if my understanding is correct, you say that the difference between the two proposed dates of birth - "circa 1339" and "circa 1340" - is so relevant, that we should give both. Sincerely, I am surprised. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is minor, given c. but we are not paper, we can mention them in the text. After all, there is some reason that a scholar would use c.1339 vs c.1340. It may be a range, but it still has a center, and it is still a minor, but nonetheless valid difference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for my bluntness, but having "c. 1339 or c. 1340" is absolutely mad. Here is a biographical dictionary entry giving even "c. 1345" as the year of birth. Robert I. Frost gives "1339/1340" (no "circa"). I am not aware of any major study of Elizabeth's life, so all these are merely guesses and not differing views. "1339/1340" makes sense; "c. 1339 or c. 1340" and "c. 1339 or c. 1340 or c. 1345" do not. Surtsicna (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then instead of c.1339 or c.1340 for which no sources have been presented, we should give a range of c.1335-1340, accompanied by a footnote which would discuss the sources (for now the two you've cited). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did 1335 come from? I may have lost track with all the years. It is difficult to discuss the sources when the sources themselves do not discuss this at all. This is not a point of contention between authors, as Elizabeth has not been the subject of any major biographical works (as far as I know). I have noticed the curious example of a Polish author who gives "ok. 1340" in one of her works and "1339" (not even "ok. 1339"!) in another. It illustrates how authors who mention her briefly or when writing about other people do not concern themselves with determining the most probable year of her birth; they are perfectly content giving an estimate with no sources or explanations. Discussing this in the article might give an impression that the sources discuss it too. It would be most useful if we could find a biography in which an estimated year of birth is elaborated. Borsoka, Piotrus, would it be possible to find a Hungarian or Polish author who actually discusses this? I assume the calculation is based on her probable age at marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, I meant not 1335 but 1345 that comes from the link you yourself just gave me above. So I meant to write c.1339-1345, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I only mentioned 1345 to illustrate the point that various authors have given their estimates with no research, argumentation or explanation. Had she been born in 1345, she would have been 4 when her future husband was widowed, 5 when the Serbian ruler supposedly wanted her to marry his son, and 8 when she finally married (and started living with) Louis. I find that highly unlikely, and I am not happy to accept it without an argumentation. My final point is that, in default of a proper biography that elaborates on her probable year of birth, we should agree on the most common estimate and present it in a way that makes sense. Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not read a book or article dedicated to her life. In a monography dedicated to the 14th and 15th-century Hungarian kings, the author states that she was born in 1339, but without discussing the theme . Louis married her in 1353, so she must have been born in or before 1341. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

My change

 * I noticed you reverted my edit and I was hoping we could discuss it here since I want to edit collaboratively and avoid making enemies. I felt that the assessment I removed was a little biased and, while sourced, may have expressed a certain point of view regarding Elizabeth’s legacy that isn’t encyclopedic. I do not understand your edit summary of “rv sock” in this context. Respectfully, Galatides (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, you are a new sockpuppet of the recently banned user . If you want to edit any articles, you should appeal your block. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I am not a sockpuppet. I am familiar with the content I’m editing but not at all with that editor. Regarding my edit, was there a particular issue with it? In any case, I will not restore it. Galatides (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I initiated an investigation here. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

New Category, part 2
I noticed how editor on IP ("63.152.96.146") asked if "Would the category "Bosnian royalty" apply to Elizabeth?", and another editor ("Surtsicna") replied "I am not sure, but I am inclined to say no. Is Nicolas Sarkozy a Hungarian president? Elizabeth was neither daughter nor wife of a Bosnian king.". I can't say for sure if editor "Surtsicna" is on point here with this Sarkozy affair, but he is certainly correct to conclude that she was not daughter of a "king", her father was a "ban", and that she shouldn't be included into "Bosnian royalty" cat. Unless, that is, a trend exists and our preference is uniformed approach throughout entire Wikipedia and especially categorizing articles and its key aspects, but instead we are using some double-standard in this particular situation - in other words: if Wikipedia considers daughter of Sweden king "Swedish royalty" even as she married into Spanish court, or more appropriate to circumstances here, if daughter of Sweden "ban" is married to Spanish king and still categorized as Swedish royalty, than person in this article should be included into "Bosnian royalty" cat, and so on. But that's not what interest me, I have another question regarding categories in this article - I am wondering: shouldn't she be included into categories "14th-century Bosnian women", "14th-century Bosnian people" and "14th-century Bosnian nobility", or without exact designation of era like in "(Medieval) Bosnian women (in the Middle Ages)" or "Bosnian (noblewomen) or (nobility)", depending which and if at all such cat's exist? I mean, she was born in Bosnia, she lived there for her entire childhood, maybe longer - when exactly she married? - and she lived in Bosnia as princess, after all. So, it appears to me (not saying others should apply exactly the same reasoning) she is Bosnian woman and princess, or maybe I am missing something, some principle or device which deals with issues-Bosnia differently from others surrounding her.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My point was that Elizabeth was not the daughter of a Bosnian king. The daughter of a Swedish jarl should not, in my opinion, be included among Swedish royalty. Whether Elizabeth was a Bosnian princess depends on how you define a princess. Normally a princess is understood to be the daughter of a king. Thus we do not define Margaret of Provence as a Provençal princess. I agree about the other categories, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Concern about the page legacy
The legacy part is too subjective. It mainly critizes her actions while does not mention her successes as an effective regent for example securing the crown of her daughter by assassinating her opponents only weeks later after his "coronation", her powerful position especially for a medieval woman and so on. You remarked me to find an account of a historian, but COME ON she was always critized by pseudo-intellectual historians who built up a grotesque figure of a power hungry woman not even slightly meantioning her positive sites. I ask you to FILL THIS GAP AND TO FIND SOURCEFUL MATERIAL ON A MORE POSITIVE VIEW ON HER AND HELP TO WRITE IT DOWN. Super20020917 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

One of the points for a good article is neutral view which somewhat misses here* Super20020917 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutrality means presenting the topic as it is presented in reliable, reputable, mainstream sources. Your beef is with the historiography, and I am afraid I cannot help with that. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Just there are not enough sources included. Neutrality means presenting both positive and negative aspects of a topic. In any case, its not a matter of everyday concern for me. The main discord is that we think of neutrality in different ways. Thanks to wikipedia that most pages here are more neutral. Super20020917 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is a serious matter. If you can cite sources that present the topic in a different light, please do so. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)