Talk:Turkish Croatia

Recent activities
, it's the same "cursory mention" you yourself argued about a month ago in a discussion on TP: Duchy of St. Sava - something we find in those sources sometimes used in a desperate attempt to give credence to the existence of an article and/or its title or statement. It's when the term is mentioned in passing, without any footnote(s), without explaining its historicity, significance, without describing its territorial scope, etc., in this case in a paper in which there is no such a research on the subject and topic of the author's training and expertise, but is mentioned in a short passage in a text that is a polemical work aimed at debating more recent topics, such as politics and the war in Bosnia in the 1990s. Furthermore, the included part of the prose (two sentences) is really closely paraphrased (almost copy / pasted) from the paper and inserted by TBanned Mikola, interrupting the narrative integrity of the passage. Between the two of us for a better understanding of the broader context, it is practically a political treatise by Mladen Ančić in defense of the Herceg-Bosna enterprise and the motivation of its war-criminal masterminds. It is significant that the source was introduced by applying its outlandish anachronism by the author (who is otherwise a trained medievalist), normative for most Balkan polemical ideological-political claptrap. And although no one should comment, let alone try to deprive the author of his right to use the phrase "Turkish Croatia", it's still at the very least degutant for a trained historian to apply the name (under scare-quotes!) invented in 1699, at the office desk of Austrian-Croatian-Venetian military commission, for the description of history that took place nearly two centuries earlier, at a time when the name did not yet existed, not even as a trope that it is, so no one then used it for the area (not that anyone used it anyway in any capacity). In 2001, Ančić wrote about the beginning of the 16th century in this section of the paper and used an expression from the 18th century extremely uncritically, a term that was never accepted in (academic) mainstream geography, geographical history, or historical geography. As an average medievalist, Ančić is quite solid, however, just like our TBanned editor Mikola, he used this term anachronistically, for reasons known to him but which can still be identified, without any footnotes and descriptive explanations in polemical text, published in the academic magazine from the Croatian University of Mostar (hardly "npov" output and environment). While it would be sensible on your part, purely from a position of preserving credibility, to remove that paragraph, I certainly intend to "PROD" these few articles that are the result of some editor's arbitrary interpretation and creation of an RS-free articles as soon as I find time over the weekend, including Morlachia, Duchy of St Sava, category Turkish Herzegovina (!?). Sorry for the longer read.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, that's not a cursory explanation :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yours is not usual Balkan scope response :-)))-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  08:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the source, and rephrased the mention to clarify the context. In doing so, I found another sourcing issue. There's probably some more work to be done here to make sure WP:UNDUE is not trampled over, but at least we can find secondary sources that specifically refer to the history of the use of these terms as such. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Joy, it is not my intention to discourage you, but I think, I am convinced, that you will only waste your time trying to find some presentable sources. I myself wasted a lot of time over a few months at the time I was writing the current version of the article, all I found to be valuable, that’s what you see in the references.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)