Talk:Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive 1

Year of establishing
There are sources that state that Bosansko Krajište has been established in 1392 and some claim that it has been established in 1451. Since there were battles in Bosnia even earlier than 1392 (Battle of Bileća in 1388) I will write that it was 1392, but check the exact year in other sources I find.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hamdo Čamo's HTML list says 1392, but his web site publishes Omer Ibrahimagić's published book that says 1451. I'm leaning towards removing the former as unreliable. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The same information seems to have percolated into the linked articles, but without references. I'm tagging it as dubious for now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Bosnia.html says:

Walis 1393 - 1414               Pasha Jigit-beg 1414 - 1439               Ishak-beg 1439 - 1454               Himmeti-Zade Nesuh-beg 1454 - 1463               Isa-beg Ishakovic (1st time) Sanjak Beys [...]

I assume that first term is wālis, so this could mean anything, for example, that these people were the governor of Uskub who had control over parts of today's Bosnia. Yet, Ben M. Cahoon's personal web site isn't necessarily a reliable source, either. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The same web page says:
 * 1453 Ottomans erect Hodidjed (Hodide) Vilayet from occupied parts of Bosnia.

So it's even internally inconsistent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrative division of the Ottoman Empire is not always easy to be defined. Especially in case of interim administrative units like the subject of this article was. Very often sources contradict each other. In such cases the only solution can be to present all alternatives taking in consideration npov and undue. Like I said below, I will try to find some more sources for year span issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a significant difference between presenting different reliably-sourced viewpoints and presenting unreliably-sourced or misinterpreted data. Two lists we found on people's personal websites, that describe vaguely the same thing - aren't reliable sources for claims we have here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming
@Joy: I contest your renaming of this page. You should not move this page because the topic of this article is not a conquest which is dealt with in articles about military campaigns. The subject of this article is interim borderland administrative unit. Please revert your actions and start request move discussion if you believe this article should be renamed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With this edit you not only ignored contesting of the renaming of this article. You also removed referenced text in order to adjust it to the wrong and contested renaming. Please don't continue, return the old name of the article and seek for consensus for the contested renaming.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, this was a small start-class article about a specific aspect of an essentially undescribed historical period. The starting point was no decent description of this period in the Ottoman Bosnia article and basically nothing more than a paragraph anywhere else. We needed a general article before the specific article - this was like describing the Invasion of Normandy without having an article about the war.
 * So I made the Bosansko Krajište article fit into the Bosnian history timeline, because it had few details about the organizational unit and at least as many details about general military history of the period. The references for it all are slim (often to book footnotes), and often unreliable - I can't believe you of all people quoted an encyclopedia printed in NDH.
 * The diff you invoked didn't remove any referenced text, it made it more concise for the reason clearly stated in the edit summary. Nobody indicated why this referenced person would be a minority view, one that has to be explicitly attributed to Ibrahimagić and Šabanović.
 * If you want to revert everything, it's your prerogative per WP:BRD, but it would be foolish to undo my good work just because of a series of technicalities. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The diff I presented shows that you removed referenced text "more than 50 years after first attacks of Ottoman Empire" (which is sourced by Ibrahimagić, page 15). This text clarified the difference between "Ottoman conquest of B&H" and "Bosansko Krajište".
 * This is discussion about contested renaming of the article. I am not going to revert everything because many of your edits were useful. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The text clarifies the difference in the intro, but it doesn't change the fact that the article already talked about the period between 1384 and 1592.
 * Even if we disregard my previous edits in May 2012, the version you last left there explicitly talks about the period between 1384 and 1527. In fact, it implicitly talks about the period after 1537, because it mistakenly places the formation of Sanjak of Klis in 1463, but that didn't seem to actually happen before the Siege of Klis.
 * So the strictly defined Bosansko Krajište period is 71 years (1463-1392), while the actually described period has always been over 153 years (1537-1384), and 208 years (1592-1384) in the last seven months. Given how little specific information about Krajište we actually have, it makes sense to me to keep it as a topic in the more general history article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Sanjak of Klis': Renaming mistake and removal of the referenced text can not be justified with mistakenly placed information about the Sanjak of Klis.
 * 'little specific information': Taking in consideration that you have just created Skopsko Krajište artcle with much less material I think that somebody could perceive your comment as Wikilawyering. "босанско крајиште" - 14 hits on GBS - sources on Serbian language only --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I noticed that this article had a missing link to it, and then saw that Special:Whatlinkshere/Skopsko Krajište has several links from elsewhere, so I created the stub for it based on the available factoids that I didn't have a reason to doubt. My creation of that stub is not an end-all statement that that Krajište has standalone notability and that it cannot be upmerged somewhere - I simply didn't know where to merge it. Consider it an invitation to do something constructive with it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "justify" everything with the Klis problem. I have no idea where you read that. You're being needlessly combative (again). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And also I've no idea what you mean with the link to the google search to the Serbian Cyrillic name of the territory. If anything, those 10 results are small, and could help attest to the lack of standalone notability of the organizational unit. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote : the version you last left there explicitly talks about the period between 1384 and 1527
 * The linked text says: Bosansko Krajište is name for interim borderland administrative unit of the Ottoman Empire established on the part of the Bosnia and Herzegovina during the period between 1392 and 1463 when this territory was on the border of the Ottoman Empire, but not under its firm control (Ottoman frontier).
 * You misinterpreted my position (based on the inclusion of the Sanjak of Klis within this article). With your last comment you needlessly personalize this issue (again) and assert that "10 results are small, and could help attest to the lack of standalone notability" although I specifically pointed at the fact that I presented 14 "sources on Serbian language only".  --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll avoid getting further bogged down in details (that you can overanalyze out of context, which is what you seem to have been doing so far) and just say that I still have no idea where you're going with this in general. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you write this? I clearly explained you that you made mistake when you renamed this article and I explained you why. If you did not try to justify your wrong move I would not be forced to overanalyze anything. Out of context? Please stop unnecessary personalisation of the discussion.
 * Please delete Bosansko Krajište page so I could return the old name of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, I see why you can't move - the last edit made the Move function impossible. It won't be a grave procedural problem if you restart that article manually by copying and pasting content back there. I hope you're not insisting on a page history split, but it can be done if necessary.
 * I also hope you're not planning to just leave a subset of this same information over there. What potential is there for any new content to be written there, that at the same time doesn't fit here? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content. Please delete Bosansko Krajište page so I could return the old name of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the Skopsko Krajište problem, I found where to merge the stub now, and did that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On that note, Sanjak of Bosnia could be another place to put info about Bosansko Krajište. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Bosansko Krajište was borderland interim administrative unit of the Ottoman Empire established on the part of the Bosnia and Herzegovina which existed between 1392 and 1463. Sanjak of Bosnia was one of the regular sanjaks established in 1463 on the part of the territory of Bosansko Krajište. Those two administrative units are two different topic in administrative, chronological and territorial sense. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You say that with such apparent certainty, yet we've already discussed above how the information about 1392 is effectively unsourced; what we have that is vaguely properly sourced is only 1451-1463. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Joy. I explained you that I contest your renaming of this article. I also explained you that it was not possible for me to rename it back to the original name because of the redirect you made. Instead to delete the page with original name which you redirected and allow me to return the previous name of the article, as I politely asked you two times (diff 1) (diff 2) you ignored my requests and continued to edit the article adjusting its text to the new contested name . I appreciate your efforts to improve the quality of the text of this article but I believe your edits are pushing of your pov, which is wrong and disruptive and maybe even misuse of admin tools. Can you please explain why do you do it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its interesting that we both wrote a comment at the same time about this article. The issue of the sources for year span does not affect the name issue. Still, I will try to find some additional sources for it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but it so does. If Bosansko Krajište existed for only a dozen years, and there are very few references to it, and practically none with significant coverage, then elevating it to the status of a standalone article is pointless. And, once again, nobody's a priori stopping you from forking the content out of the redirect; but the same questions that exist now will not go away when you do that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there is no significant coverage of the subject. You are wrong. There are much more than few references about it. There are plenty of sources about Bosansko Krajiste, some solely dedicated to this interim administrative unit which is important and has significant coverage. It is therefore incorrect that elevating it to the status of a standalone article is pointless. I already explained you what stops me from forking the content out of the redirect. Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content. If you wanted to create the article about Ottoman conquest of the Kingdom of Bosnia you shouldn't rename this article but create a new one.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I lend my support to Joy. It is a POV-fork to have a separate article named "Bosansko Krajiste" with the sole attempt to present the "Serbness" of the term Krajiste which was merely overtaken by the Ottoman Turks out of comfort. Strong oppose. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)