Talk:Turkish Croatia/Archive 1

Disputed
Some parts of this article are not in line with what the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina tells us For instance it presents history of city Jajce says that it fell to Ottomans in 1525. It completely neglects to mention reign of Bosnian state in this regions prior to Ottoman occupation and rather talks about this region as an extension of Croatian history. I will try to find more specific complaints soon.--Dado 14:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, there's no reason to avoid mentioning the part of history when this was part of medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. "talks about this region as an extension of Croatian history". Well, sources speak about this area as "Croazia turca, Türkisch Kroatien..." etc., so we cannot avoid that. Neither the vilayet of Hrvati. We cannot exclude the history of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the expansion of medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. See 1785, 1528-1594, 1526, 1358, 1300, 10th c., 1070, and a whole bunch of maps here. You simply cannot skip this history. All of this was the ground for the territorial claims of Kings of Hungary and Croatia, and later Habsburgs, towards that territory (according to Croatian state right, hrvatsko državno pravo, because they were titled as Kings of Croatia). Kubura (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraf in Demographic changes in Turkish Croatia section is not NPOV
I mean "Truly a great success of Milosevic and his apprentices Karadzic and Mladic". And using the words "so called"... Something as this should not be in the encyclopedia. This is just daily political talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMM (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 September 2005

Source, please?
Under Demographic changes in Turkish Croatia: "This view is rejected by the leading modern expert on Vlachs in the early Ottoman Balkans, who insists that they were regarded as a distinct population." Who is this expert, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegship (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 December 2005

Tag removal
This is not the way things work. You can't just say "totally disputed" without any explanation. Kubura (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Bosanska Krajina
Talk:Bosanska Krajina --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * let's merge this claptrap with Bosanska Krajina again(?), so that nobody gets "hurt" with slow but constant revert wars - is it possible, huh!?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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  20:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Claptrap
There is no possible version of this article that could get referenced validation in some scholarly research, or in any kind of academic discussion - there is non.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Claptrap? On the contrary, there is a significant number of sources to confirm the notability of the article. They say that the Turkish Croatia or Ottoman Croatia is a name for the territory, which (until the Turkish conquest in the sixteenth century) belonged to the medieval Kingdom of Croatia, including Croatia in personal union with Hungary, and that's why it has such a name. A neutral reader could not agree with those users/administrators who say that because of the various sources coming not from Croatia, but from other countries (Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Italy etc.). Most of those sources (books, scientific works, magazines, lexicon, maps and so on) were unjustifiably removed from the original article content and replaced with some others which were not all quite appropriate, text of the article was thoroughly changed and after that this problematic text was immediately protected by an admin. Here are some of the sources:,  , , , , , , , , . The article should contain these sources and remain a separate, standalone page.  -- Silve  rije  22:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First and foremost - always check their sources, especially if they cry foul and conspiracy against nation, country, and so on !
 * These sources, except one, are irrelevant for the article content: one is hosted at globalsecurity.org website without author's name, and is fraught with vile racist and Islamophobic tropes, describing Ottomans and Islam with usual lingo used by Croatian (as well as European) far-right white nationalists (this one is truly vile reading, short but disturbing - rather do not try to include that one into the article, any article); one is from pinterest.com image storage and social media service (?!); one is some kind of (officer or private ?) diary/journal or report from the front lines during the Austria-Hungary-Ottoman war; the rest are links to few 18th and mid-19th centuries popular magazine booklets (WP:AGEMATTERS), hosted on Google Books and one at some kind of archive (?), all of which are same reiteration of Austria-Venetian military border commission report, the one in which commission invent and use for the first time this new term. The only one matters, and it's source from genuine contemporary piece of scholarship, but one which actually goes in line with my refutations, and confirms my own edits in this article, so I am using it too to confirm those edits - it's a research on early-modern map-making in Austria-Hungary (16th-19th century), nothing more nothing less.
 * But I see through yours and Ceha's habit in referencing - you, actually, don't even look for context, you both think that any text which contains one printed instance of the word you need is enough to validate whatever you want to include, whether it's a one term or entire subject matter, or even whole article, and we see this tactic in action on rerverted version, in references place behind the very first two title words in now reverted version article lead.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Another thing and some more
Editors don't remove tags without any discussion on English Wikipedia - I don't know how is on Croatian project, but here tags are "sacred cows", not to be disturbed or touched without summoning the goddess of "Discussion" in Talk pages first. If this article is to remain (not get nominated for deletion), despite the fact that existed for years as an article on "neologism", and based on "original research" without any sources, with no references to scholarly research on the subject whatsoever, apart from few old military maps, than clarifications on the subject and clean-up was due, as well as proper tagging. Unfortunately, even now, rewritten and clarified, there will be no refs, because it's impossible to find any,. Yes, the term can be google-searched, but any usage of sources and inclusion of references should have proper interpretation and provide proper context, simply because most instances found online is sheer ideological claptrap, sloganeering and propaganda, even if it's some pre-20th century romanticized work of historiography (but these were really few and far between).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bosniak nationalistic version and vandalising article
Systematic deletion of Croatian history in that area is vandalism. Most of Turkish Croatia were never part of Bosnia before Turks, altough some parts (as parts of Zapadne Strane) were contested in century before Turkish destruction of Bosnian kingdom and banate, and some were contested two centuries before Turkish destruction of Bosnia. Town of Bihać was, for example, capital of Croatia before Turkish conquest. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I will respond despite User:Ceha aggressive tone and loaded language, which really makes me uncomfortable - I am not interested in discussing nobody's opinion, I have many as well, I am interested in reliable sources and until editor(s) provide them they are advised to restrain from persistent reverting and edit-warring, but even more from such an aggressive tone and language.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * But you are removing those sources and using biased language. Area was part of Croatian kingdom in middle ages, Bihać was it capital for some time. It's not just poltical agenda of some marginal right parties as you describe it in your version. We can talk it trought, any changes or wording which is different in two versions. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No Ceha, I am not interested in talking through any editor's personal opinion and worldview - I am interested only in talking about "one" thing: sources, sources, sources, "nice" neutral and reliable sources, verifiability and notability.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior is still disruptive
Disruptive behavior is still disruptive behavior no matter how weak article is. And it always was, unreferenced and tendentious, so much so that senior editor and experienced administrator User:Joy and also senior and experienced editor User:Potočnik battled for some time over its notability, content and POV, which appeared to be so pronounced and so extremely ideologically loaded, that these two decided to move article's few valuable bits to its proper subsection in article Bosanska Krajina, leaving WP:REDIRECT behind (as string of edits visible at History page attest). The reason was and still is very clear: this article called Turkish Croatia, beside being ideologically loaded and for that reason extremely contentious, is simply WP:COATRACK of both articles Bosanska Krajina and Donji Kraji - this other article also exist despite the fact that neither exactly meat requirements set by WP:NOTA, especially as Bosanska Krajina article exists. In other words, Wikipedia now have three articles on one small portion of Bosnia and Herzegovina, plus the region is discussed in few other articles as well, at least to some extent. However, at least Donji Kraji is actually historical name for Bosanska Krajina, and its borders are here and there little bit different.

Than, User:Silverije came along and recreated article all over again, without any discussion. It wasn't mattered to them that no references could be found, because there are no sources validating its remake under that contentious name, nor confirming anything which was written inside.

I decided to rewrite article, while focusing on its name/title and its ideological background, as well as to its pseudo-historicity - which is the only aspect of it that could be sourced to some degree. Out of nowhere User:Ceah appears, and without any discussion removes my changes, restoring everything I wrote to the version before my first edit. That he never before appeared on this article nor contributed to its content is noteworthy of mentioning, as it is a mentioning of their attack entry here on Talk page - of all the arguments which I left on talk page before, they managed to make some insinuations and accusations, bordering on personal attack.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * But you are removing those sources and using biased language. Area was part of Croatian kingdom in middle ages, Bihać was it capital for some time. It's not just poltical agenda of some marginal right parties as you describe it in your version. We can talk it trought, any changes or wording which is different in two versions. You can't proclaim pseudohistory everything you don't like. Area was part of Croatian kingdom, it's hardly possible that this could even be an issue.--Čeha (razgovor) 09:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No Ceha, I don't bring "like/dislike" preferences to WP, that's more befitting to your behavioral pattern and expressions, I proclaim pseudo-history everything that can't be validated and verified by neutral and reliable sources.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Issues concerning NPOV and WP:VERIFY
This article's previous version appears to be WP:COAT of two article on the same subject of small region of Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely Bosanska Krajina and Donji Kraji, and it fails to meet the general notability guideline criteria outlined in WP:NOTA, and more specifically per WP:NPOSSIBLE, WP:SUSTAINED, and (maybe most importantly) per WP:NOPAGE.

Both articles, Donji Kraji and Turkish Croatia, should be proposed for merger per WP:MERGE with article Bosanska Krajina.

On 29 June 2010‎ senior editor User:Potočnik with a help of senior administrator User:Joy merged previous version of Turkish Croatia with article Bosanska krajina, and protected its redirect per Talk:Bosanska Krajina because some IP meanwhile tried to undone this merger and revive Turkish Croatia, which administrator User:Joy described as "excessive vandalism".

25 February 2013 this merger was undone‎ anyway by editor User:Silverije without any explanation, and despite the fact that User:Silverije had no references to include in support of his move, not a single one. Needless to say, for entire period since article had been resurrected by User:Silverije no references have been placed.

Noe, User:Ceha appeared for the first time on 22 November 2018‎, five months after I started rewriting it on 11 June 2018 in several consecutive edits‎. User:Ceha since then relentlessly reverting my contribution and this version to previous one which is contentious as explained above, while contributing non of actual edits in prose, bits of text or any references.

User's reverts are followed only with consistent abuse of edit-summary per WP:ES and specifically per WP:SUMMARYNO, and without constructive and rational explanation and/or suggestion.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Croatian history in the area
Santa, you are systematicly removing any traces of Croatian history in the area, that's not NPOV, please stop doing that. That's nationalistic and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Also, please stop edit warring.--Čeha (razgovor) 09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After months of torture, your edit-warrior approach, insinuations regarding my personality and identity, and most of all complete avoidance of my discussion initiations, don't you think that I may be a human after all, and that I may reach the point where I feel quite fed-up with it, and sick and tired of your behavioral pattern - both in editing and conduct, and that I may be wary of your belated sudden approach, which, I am certain, is uniquely motivated with the recent developments: page is protected again, and you can't swallow that someone can repel your biased fixations on subject of Bosnia-Herezgovinian history, which invokes quite possibly strongest possible resentments and reflexes, nor understand why nobody responds to your laments and unfounded complaints and pleadings.
 * No, I am going to follow WP guidelines to the letter, and see what happens. My advice that you, for once, try this "tactics" as well. Actually, page protection is the best opportunity to make constructive changes, because in this mode your every edit will be endorsed (or not) by administrator(s') approval and not me nor anybody else will be able to undo your edits.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the current content dispute
Hi there! I'm starting this discussion in order to help Santasa99 and Ceha to collaborate with one another in regards to the current issues and disputes, and to minimize confusion as much as possible so that nobody will point fingers at the other and say that they didn't contribute or instead went to other noticeboards to forum shop. What's the issue and dispute over? Exactly what content is causing all the concern here?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was on your talk page (fixing my terrible grammar), when my alert-bell started ringing - for some reason I'm experiencing quite a lag when pinged, and sometimes pings, mention-alerts, change-alerts, doesn't go through at all. I have no solution nor explanation for this, so I am sorry if you waited.
 * Nevertheless, for starters - have you read through my previous discussion (above), it's quite clear what is the exact problem with this article. You will notice that your peer, admin Joy, resolved the issue waaaay back, only to some editor(s) decide to roll-back everything from the distance of couple of years, and when they did they never provided any references in decade or so since article was conceived, which by the way is normal, because such refs can't be provided simply because there are non in existence.
 * My first discussion initiation happened on 11 March 2019, and you can read through the rest of the TP, keep in mind dates.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User Santa is begin editing this page March 2019, and his edits were unnoticed til july. So much for the timetable.
 * The guy revrote history of that part of globe systematicly erasing any trace of Croatian history in the area. Clear nationalistic POV.
 * We can go through line to line of the diferences. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Croatia&type=revision&diff=909095125&oldid=908385938
 * The guy erased all traces of Croatian history, all maps which doesn't belong to his nationalistic POV and even declared the name itself as Austro-Hungarian conspiracy theory... Whith wording like "so-called" and similar constructs.
 * Is it realy necessary to go line from line?
 * What's wrong with this map; []?
 * Or this passage,
 * Turkish Croatia (Turska Hrvatska) was a geopolitical term for the territories which formerly belonged to the Croatian kingdom, were occupied by Otoman empire during the 15th and 16th Centuries and were still contested as a territory with the Ottoman Empire, parts of which where also known as Donji Kraji ("Lower Ends") and Zapadne Strane ("Westward Sides"). By the 19th century, with the Croatian population mostly displaced, the name "Turkish Croatia" was replaced by cartographers in favor of Bosanska Krajina (Bosnian Frontier).
 * that Santa changed it to this;
 * Turkish Croatia (Turska Hrvatska), was a geopolitical term and period neologism, which can also be viewed as hapax, invented and produced by Austro-Hungarian military cartographers sometime during the 16th to 19th century Ottoman–Habsburg wars, for the part of the contested territory in present day Bosnia and Herzegovina, specifically region of Bosanska Krajina (Krajina = Military frontier; during Medieval Bosnia known as Donji Kraji (Lower Ends) and Zapadne Strane (Westward Sides)).
 * Donji Kraji are different area, which hadn't include towns of Bihać, Cazin, Kladuša, Kostajnica, Novi... which is clearly stated in the version Santa is trying to abolish, but not in his...
 * Would't it be nice that we can read an article on wikipedia without conspiracy theory?
 * This is just the first passage, later ones are a lot more incorect, and his theories grow "wilder".
 * Bihać was for example capital of medieval Croatian kingdom, the guy erased any mention of Croats and their disapearence from the mentioned territories.--Čeha (razgovor) 19:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose you have nice set of WP:reliable and WP:neutral sources to supply and confirm your claims, I mean those claims which aren't copy/pasted paragraphs from article, and which we all can read in article main space - no reason to copy/past entire paragraphs here, that won't help your arguments look somehow more valid.
 * My time-table is good, check history.
 * There are two article dealing with this region already, both relatively verifiable and notable, albeit one article being too much for such small area.
 * This article is exactly what I explained it is - WP:coatrack for WP:synthesis and WP:original research. It's created only to promote WP:NAT WP:fringe, in order to create notion of righteous Croatian historic claim on entire part of Bosnia-Herzegovinian territory.
 * And again, you are trying to mislead with your beating around the bush elaborations on which part of the geography is included, or should be considered part of this territory or that area, but than you don't offer any explanation why is some part included under this bogus term for the title, if you now claim that other parts should be include, and which shouldn't, which town, this town, not that - everything just to make a situation more confused and less easy to understand for passer-by readers, and to make diversion off my original claim, which is that article is wrapped around pseudo-history, set-up on nationalistic pretenses, and that it's a WP:FORK, failing on WP:NOTA and WP:V.


 * By the way, another attempt to mislead casual reader is your question "What's wrong with this map: []?; well there is nothing wrong with the map, it's included into gallery section in version you are complaining against.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again? I made practical and concrete question. Clear comparision of first paragraf of two distinct changes. Look again; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Croatia&type=revision&diff=909095125&oldid=908385938
 * You are speaking 20th century politics in the historical article. This isn't place for your nationalistic views. I will ask you again, why are you using nationalistic words and claims in that first paragraf (and the rest of the article)?
 * Mentioned map is the first difference between two versions and you removed it. Why?
 * Are you trying do disaprove different border lines in medieval, that Bihać was not Croatian capital, and that the area was not part of Croatia? If not, I would ask you to stop removing any mention of Croatian history or people in the area. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you actually read any of my writings, and have you ever read any of the WP guidelines ?
 * What is practical in asking editor why they edit something, and in comparing paragraphs ? Do you believe that you alone should decide what can and can not be edited and in what manner - yes, I changed that paragraph because it was inaccurate, and because article on region's history exists under no less than two other different articles/titles, and for that it must be merged into Bosanska Krajina.
 * - No I didn't do anything of that kind, like "systematicly removed any traces of Croatian people and history", I removed bogus statements that you are unable to verify with reliable and neutral sources - read WP:SOURCES and WP:V and see what is verifiability.
 * - No, I wrote about the term "Turkish Croatia", which was never-ever used as geographical term in any scholarship, research, not even colloquially, for any piece of land in Bosnia and Herzegovina proper, nor in Croatian for that matter, except, as I explained in the article, as geopolitical and military term almost exclusively in German speaking circles, mostly in military maps at first as an expression of Austria-Hungary imperialism and expansionism toward Bosnia, and later as an expression of Croatian nationalism and territorial pretensions toward the same country.
 * - Map is in the gallery !
 * - I don't want to prove or disprove anything, Wikipedia is fortunately based on quite decent, if contradictory at times, set of rules, and requires from editors to obey them - in this case, as I repeated so many times, rules and guidelines which apply here are: WP:SOURCES for no references, which leads to lack of verifiability WP:V, and no notability WP:NOTA. Article is created as WP:coatrack for WP:synthesis and WP:original based on WP:fringe only to promote WP:NAT WP:POV.
 * Just because you don't want to familiarize yourself with these guidelines so you seem oblivious of what I'm talking about, which is apparent from all your reactions here and on User:Oshwah TP, doesn't mean that you can persuade some uninvolved administrator to do your job for you, or me to lower the bar on these rules.
 * You have two weeks of page protection which is the best opportunity to make constructive changes, because in this mode your every edit will be endorsed (or not) by administrator(s') approval, while not me or anybody else will be able to meddle or undo your edits, and all these WP guidelines which I linked for you to read and study a bit are good guidelines, and I am going to follow them to the last letter, which, if I may suggest, you should follow too.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What was inaccurate in it? You changed it into inaccurate version, again systematicly removing traces of Croatian history and people in the area.
 * And I asked you which ones were inaccurate? That's the whole point of comparison.
 * As for the term itself, it is geographical term, and as such shown in many maps, for example https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/1827_Finley_Map_of_Turkey_in_Europe%2C_Greece_and_the_Balkans_-_Geographicus_-_TurkeyEurope-finley-1827.jpg . Conspiracy theories should not be part of serious wikipedia article.
 * Which imperialism and expansionism if you yourself says that area was contested? Why are you using nationalistic terms? There is no independent Bosnia at that time, just Turkish sanjaks in the area...
 * It should be in the begining of the article to.
 * And you broke them all. Every single one of them. expression of Austria-Hungary imperialism and expansionism towards Bosnia in the times when Bosnia doesn't exists as independent state?
 * Please start acting racionatly and according to wikipedia rules that you list.
 * I'd like to know what do you find wrong in previous version. Cause, that version doesn't have any inaccouracies, fringe theories, nationalisms, pov, which your's do...
 * Proper procedure should be what I suggested. To compare versions and remove anything which is not according to wiki rules. But you are talking about imperialistic conspiracies against non existent country, so...--Čeha (razgovor) 00:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Čeha, what you are doing here is a blatant exemple of tendentious editing and nationalistic POV-pushing, in an area of Balkans, which is under discretionary sanctions. Coming to en.wiki and writting an article in a more extreme version than even the Croatian patriotic websites do, and complaining for being rightfully and logically opposed, just indicates how used you are to push your POV without being opposed. This is the result of the numerous times you did the same in Serbo-Croatian disputed articles and got unfair simpathy and support, so you believed it would be like that all time. Unfortunatelly, here, your POV-pushing called the attention of more editors.

Lets see. I did some reading and some searching. Basically, this term, Turkish/Ottoman Croatia is a term that appears given for the Bosnian north-western extreme during the Ottoman period in a hardly few-more-than-a-couple old maps. It is not even a widelly-accepted term for a specific area, but rather a rarely-used alternative name given to a certain area during a particular historical period. It was not an official name, administrative unit, unit by itself, nothing more than a vague descriptive term used in a few old maps. From there going into "...was a part of the territory[3] of the Croatian Kingdom..." is a total irredentist orgasm, I really think it wouldn´t be exagerating to say it so. Specially because you don´t even have a single source backing it was ever part in any way of Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). You intentionally misslead readers in the lede into thinking this territory was somehow part of Habsburg Croatia occupied by Turkey, but further misslead readers Croats majoritarilly lived in it, again, without a single source to back it up. You go on to claim those Croats which you implied were majority there and lived within Habsburg Croatia, were "permanently perished or displaced" suggesting some major crime occured, although, again, you don´t have a single source claiming that.

You, basically, made up, an entire story, in a phantasy that includes territorial claims, illusions of war crimes, and dreams of some power and greatness which are nowhere even mentioned. A textbook exemple of nationalistic POV-pushing. FkpCascais (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You can see my response here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Turkish_Croatia I provided some encyclopedical data for this discussion; http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?ID=62812 I am not going to argue about your opinion, nationalism, or POV. We have encyclopedical data about the term. Why are we still discussing it? Why should't we just translate this onto english? That should be wikipedia policy.


 * The source you are giving basically confirms the version standing on the article and is totally opposite of what you are adding instead... FkpCascais (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In which paralel universe do the words "Izrazom Turska Hrvatska čuvala se uspomena na raniju pripadnost toga područja djelomično Kraljevini Hrvatskoj i Dalmaciji, a djelomično Kraljevini Slavoniji, prije nego što je osvajanjem ono pripalo Osmanskomu Carstvu." Or translated "The term Turkey Croatia kept the memory of its former affiliation partly with the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia and partly with the Kingdom of Slavonia, before it was conquered by the Ottoman Empire." Speak about no affiliation of that territories with kingdom of Croatia?
 * Do we need to go in early medieval period or what's the problem there https://hrcak.srce.hr/92552 ?
 * Or we need to see maps from yugoslav atlas ? https://www.google.com/search?q=jugoslavenske+zemlje+u+10+stoljeću+karta&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiJhrqJ0fTkAhUsobQKHf8sBKAQ2-cCegQIABAB&oq=jugoslavenske+zemlje+u+10+stoljeću+karta&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.3...21735.24123..24886...0.0..0.98.529.6......0....1.aVJAXwDEDLo&ei=suePXYnlKqzC0gX_2ZCACg&bih=678&biw=412&client=ms-android-dt-hr-revc&prmd=imnv#imgrc=65uDyNtq8hpAIM

https://www.google.com/search?q=jugoslavenske+zemlje+u+10+stoljeću+karta&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiJhrqJ0fTkAhUsobQKHf8sBKAQ2-cCegQIABAB&oq=jugoslavenske+zemlje+u+10+stoljeću+karta&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-img.3...21735.24123..24886...0.0..0.98.529.6......0....1.aVJAXwDEDLo&ei=suePXYnlKqzC0gX_2ZCACg&bih=678&biw=412&client=ms-android-dt-hr-revc&prmd=imnv#imgrc=65uDyNtq8hpAIM&imgdii=8poRYoaML5pL7M


 * Everything is easily tested and can be verified.


 * Can you sign your posts, please? The article says Turkish Croatia is just a term used by cartograhers, Why you ignore that first main sentence? The second one says that the term is used to keep the memory when that territory was part partially of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia. Funny, it doesn´t even specify the time or era that happened.


 * Your map is a map comming from extreme nationalist website hercegbosna.org - https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srednjovjekovna_hrvatska_dr%C5%BEava#/media/Datoteka:Trpimir.jpg As soon as one sees Montenegro being described as Red Croatia one knows the map has no historical value. Your edit is even further biased by claiming Turkish Croatia was part of Habsburg Croatia, your entire edit of thisa rticle is pure nationalistic POV-pushing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The present article content, which is being protected, is a Bosniak nationalistic POV-pushing. The original text is different. The term is not used ONLY by cartographers, as it can be seen here:, , , , , , , , , . So it’s not “just a term used by cartographers”. By the way, maps can also be sources, can’t they? As for “maps coming from extreme nationalist websites”, as you say, they are mostly based on historiographical sources and facts. On the other hand, there are much more maps on Wikipedia coming from extreme Serbian nationalist circles: e.g.  , , . Red Croatia is a medieval historical term first mentioned in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea and is a fact, although the Chronicle itself is not quite reliable. But Croats lived in parts of that territory along with other people. At the end, you are completetly wrong: No one claims in the original text that “Turkish Croatia was part of Habsburg Croatia”. In fact it was part of the medieval Kingdom of Croatia before being captured by the Ottoman Empire.  -- Silve  rije  22:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)



I can answer instead of this person, in the area of Red Croatia we have Croatians mentioned in other historical records. Although Red Croatia itself is mentioned only in Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea other historical records prove existence of Croats in this area and whether in that area exist Red Croats or just Croats is less important because there also Croats exist. As far as Turkish Croatia is concerned I have provided proof that for this area (western part of Bosnian Krajina) an earlier name is mentioned as Croatian Krajina. If we read Wikipedia article about Bosnian Krajina, I quote " is a geographical region, a subregion of Bosnia, in western Bosnia and Herzegovina enclosed by a number of rivers, namely the Sava (north), Glina (northwest), Vrbanja and Vrbas (east and southeast, respectively)." someone might conclude that this area is all historical Bosnia, therefore if something previously was Croatian Krajina and today is Bosnian Krajina then it's actually Bosniak or Bosnian Serb pure nationalistic POV-pushing throughout Yugoslav history and today throughout Wikipedia article about Bosnian Krajina. Today we have state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and she can call her parts of the state any way she wants and we must respect that but parts of northwestern Bosnia and Herzegovina are originally Croatian territories and were earlier referred as Croatian Krajina, we and that must respect because promoting name "Bosnian Krajina" for that area actually means that there was  some "Bosnian state" earlier which is not true and if something is promoted as a lie then it is not in good faith. 46.188.158.41 (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)mikola –––––––––––––––

Factography of northwestern Bosnia
We can also add that western part of Turkish Croatia, that is a good part of the present-day Bosnian Krajina region (around Bihać) Derviş Mehmed Zillî (25 March 1611 – 1682), known as Evliya Çelebi (Ottoman Turkish: اوليا چلبى‎), Ottoman explorer mentions that this is Croatian Krajina. "Evlija states, among other things, that goods come to Belgrade from the Sava River from the fortresses on the Croatian Serhad(Croatian Krajina), named from Bihac, Kostajnica, Krupa, Udbina and Gradiska" We can see that city of Bosanska Krupa is located in the Bosnian Krajina far from the Croatian military border but according to Evliya Çelebi it is on Croatian Serhad(Croatian Krajina). Considering that I quote "from 1878 the name Bosanska Krajina began to prevail for the same area, which was first mentioned in 1719 in the title of Mustaj-beg Kapetanović, bearing the title "Commander of the Bosnian Krajina" this would mean that for part of that area first recorded term is Croatian Serhad(Croatian Krajina). Prof. dr. sc. Nenad Moačanin Dr. sc. Kornelija Jurin Starčević Odsjek za povijest Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu History Department Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb

–Evliya Çelebi Describing Kostajnica along the way, he says that she was conquered by Croats by force. (V, 520). For soldiers at Kostajnica say that they are gazies, who are fighting day and night with the Croats. He also says that Novi was built by Croatian nobles (V, 510). The town of Bihac is said to have been built by Zrinski(Croatian nobles) (V, 510), and to the governments of Murad III. He was besieged by the Bosnian governor Hasan Pasa, and was handed over to the Croats for religion.

-Otherwise, this area was previously in Croatian possession, archaeological data. "Of particular note are the systematically investigated cemeteries in Gomjenica near Prijedor and Petoševci near Laktaši, on which, apart from the findings of the spurs, others were registered the characteristic archeological findings of the ancient Croatian cultural circle; the cemeteries of northwestern Bosnia clearly indicate that from the first half of the 10th century this territory was under the political rule of the Croatian ruler. During the first half of the 10th century, and especially around the middle of it century, within the cemeteries on the soil of the Croatian Principality, certain specific objects begin to appear, such as we find exclusively in the cemeteries of northwestern Bosnia, but there are none outside that space." page 110

-There is this information as well. "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 - "pure Croatian. «3 More of the Catholic population, M. Vasic concludes, was preserved after the first Ottoman cyclone around the upper Vrbas, Kupres and Livno, and less about Jajce, Kamengrad and Bosanski Novi" 3. Ethnic trends in the Bosnian Krajina in the 16th c. century. Yearbook of the Society of Historians of Bosnia and Herzegovina XIII. Sarajevo, 1962, 247."" page 46.

-Old Croatian counties Starohrvatske_Županije De administrando imperio 10th-century, "Hlebiana (ή Χλεβίανα), Tzenzena (ή Τζένζηνα), Emota (τα "Ηµοτα), Pleba (ή Πλέβα), Pesenta (ή Πεσέντα), Parathalassia (ή Παραθαλασσία), Brebere (ή Βρεβέρη), Nona (ή Νόνα), Tnena (ή Τνήνα), Sidraga (ή Σίδραγα), Nina (ή Νίνα)" Pleba is the area around the river Pliva(For hundreds of years this region was the ultimate stronghold of the Bosnian Kingdom, with town of Jajce as permanent seat of the last kings of Bosnian Kingdom.) Jajce Pliva_(river) and Pesenta (Bihać area)

-In that area exist and Croatian ethnonyms. Name Hrvatin(Croatin) from XIV. century in Skradin, Split, Kljuc in western Bosnia and in the Zagreb area, a town Ključ in Bosnia and Herzegovina Hrvatinic in XIV. century in western Bosnia (Croatian name is in the Middle Ages most often mentioned up to Vrbas) Vrbas River( The Vrbas (pronounced [ʋr̩̂bas]; Cyrillic: Врбас) is a major river with a length of 250 kilometres (160 mi), in western Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is a right tributary of the Sava river. The city of Banja Luka is located on the river banks)Vrbas_(river) Ethnonym Croat in Anthroponymy and Toponymy

mikola — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.149.112 (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggestion to you, in good faith and in all honesty: take your "(f)actography of (N)orthwestern Bosnia" to its appropriate place, which is an article entitled Bosnian Krajina, if it can stick there with these weak references, which are mostly sourced from Google Maps (!?). "Turkish Croatia" is an invented term, according to the only few academic sources that could be found it was invented and abused. Everything you wrote here has nothing in it to validate the existence of a standalone article under current title, which is created and pushed in an almost openly irredentist tone by a group of Croatian editors, summoned for that purpose from hr.wikipedia. You see, there are other places in Europe, to stick to Bosnia host-continent, where similar situations might arise - imagine some hypothetical nationalist German editors creating and pushing for a stand-alone article entitled "Polish German-city of Danzig" and/or "Polish German-region of Kaschubien", or hypothetical nationalist French editors creating a "German France" in attempt to emphasize "desirable" quality of Saarland being French from times immemorial and Celtic tribal inheritance. At least, unlike the scant sources for Croatian history in general, and especially scanty and inadequate sources on Croatia's presence in the northwestern parts of Bosnia, which ended in around 10th century if ever stretched that far, hypothetical German nationalist editors could claim millennia of richly documented German history and presence in parts of Poland with the absolute majority there until 1945.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Counties of Sana, Vrbas and Dubica were part of medieval Slavonia before Turkish conquest. Bihać and Pounje was part of Croatia Proper. Donji Kraji changed hands in a few cenutries. And Bosnia existed as a kindom only for about 80 years (of which was just in one year recognised by Rome, it's crown was always sought as part of Croatia-Hungary Crown). Why are you having troubles with history? This is like someone would objected article like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Silesia
 * Modern borders are not the same as historical ones, that's why history exists. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this is the same philosophy about history of Bosnia and Herzegovina that you have on Croatian Wikipedia, that is as far as I know - very controversial. I don't remember that anybody uses croatian-hungary crown as a name for Hungarian crown and it's lands. Just a heads up for everybody not familiar. Mhare (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's medieval state, full name is very long, but includes Croatia and Hungary. That's should be common knowledge. Rest is gossip. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ౪ Santa ౪ I can not put the most important information because for that  territory  i.e. Bosanska Krajina or part of that area is first name as Croatian Krajina even Slavonia is mentioned so this is a very complex issue. Mikola22 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * with this you are absolutely right on the mark, but we will return to this, and all that happened here in last couple of months, when we go through all the problems in Donji Kraji.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion
This is suppose to be discussion in pursuit of consensus for merger, which is going to be tricky since article/subject is obviously obscure and not particularly interesting to editors, so I am going to request an outside help (per WP:DR), so that some discussion could take place. Persistently re-created and reverted without any reliable and neutral 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:COATRACK, and WP:CFORK (WP:POVFORK) 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, it is re-created for reason only its creator and current gate-keepers, User:Ceha and User:Silverije, know - with their suspiciously identical disruptive behavior and editing, with removal of Template messages without discussion, misuse of Edit summary, manipulation and misinterpretation of sources, and complete disregard for numerous discussion instances on policies & guidelines - but most likely to serve as a ground to vent and promote WP:NAT POV. Whatever inner drive of editors may be (WP:SYSTEMIC is among more peculiar in cases like this one), it's certainly filled with prose based on WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, and completely without references (WP:UNSOURCED). As an article on propaganda and political, ideological, or military terminology of certain era, it's still neologism and hapax, and could be considered as WP:NEO. But even if we turn blind eye on that aspect, problem with WP:NOTA and WP:V remains, since no contemporary or relatively recent reliable and neutral WP:sources/WP:RS sources WP:NEXIST - only two legit references are provided, along with some 19th century maps which are not legit per WP:HISTRS, WP:RS AGE, and printed in very limited time-span WP:SUSTAINED; it is notable how these two legitimate sources are used in extremely manipulative manner, using WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTHESIS as a guiding principle. It seem to me that proper course of action would be (again) to merge version of text that is referenced, 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).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

User Oshwah talk page discusion
Old discussion from Oshwah talk page

Ok, why is user Santa still ignoring conclusions from this discussion and why is he allowed to destroy this article with pseudohisttorical conspiracy theories? Čeha (razgovor) 21:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2019
I would like to initiate merger discussion via WP:PM, and place appropriate Template messages on articles in question. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What other article do you propose to merge this with? And on what talk page would you hold the discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to merge this article with (into) Bosanska Krajina article. I believe that discussion should be held at Bosanska Krajina TP. I would also like to get some input on how to broaden discussion beyond antagonistic editor(s) and myself, while avoiding canvasing.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge template added, with link to the discussion on the Bosanska Krajina page. I suggest placing a neutrally-worded notice on the pages of the relevant WikiProjects, which might get some more interest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Bosnian Krajina is Turkish Croatia renamed, or better said it's remaings. Also, this version of page is against any wiki rule, a hoax one.... Čeha (razgovor) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The name Turkish Croatia is older than the name Bosnian Krajina (which appears first time in 19th century) and it encompasses larger area. Kubura (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There is also fact that on Wikipedia exist article about "White Serbia" although the term "White Serbia" is not mentioned anywhere in historical data but that article still exists on Wikipedia. If we go from existing facts then first name for that area(Turkish Croatia) would be Krajina and  Croatian Krajina (Evliya Çelebi). If everyone agrees and probably everyone agrees then we could rename Wiki article "Turkish Croatia" and  "Bosnian Krajina" to Krajina and  Croatian Krajina. That would be most correctly. 46.188.149.112 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)mikola


 * This article is about an alternative name given by few geographers only in a specific historical period to the north-western part of Bosanska Krajina. It is a term that basically appears in few old maps, all from same historical period, around 1800s. As the sources say, the name given to a Ottoman dominated land and was coined in order to keep the memory alive from the time Croatia had authority over it. However, looking at history, the last time that happened was when Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) existed. It is almost an entire millenium earlier, at least more than 7 centuries before the term was first mentioned. The problem comes when instead of acknolledging this, we have editors wanting to ignore 1000 AC is not 1800 AC and wanting to make this article as some sort of province of Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The term Turkish Croatia was not even popularly used, much less some official name of any administrative unit, just a term few cartographers added in the maps for a Ottoman-controlled teritory they describe it as such in their maps themselves, never even indicating anything else more than that. Most maps from that era actually do not make any mention of any Turkish Croatia at all, and just limit to point that territory as part of Ottoman empire, same as even the ones using the term do.


 * So, the article can stand indicating what sources do, or can be merged into Bosanska Krajina as one alternative name used at one specific historical period by few geographers. White Serbia, just as White Croatia, have absolutelly nothing to do with this. The very mention of them in this discussion is beyond my understanding. FkpCascais (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Derviş Mehmed Zillî (25 March 1611 – 1682), known as Evliya Çelebi travels in that area and mentions Croatian Krajina, later is mentioned as Bosnian Krajina therefore it was originally Croatian Krajina in which today Bosnian cities are at that time in the Turkish territory of northwestern Bosnia. He is not talking about Croatian cities in Croatian territory he talking about at that time Turkish and "Bosnian" cities in the Croatian Krajina. Therefore if we going from the source then it is a Croatian Krajina not Bosnian Krajina. We cannot put original Croatian territory into term "Bosnian Krajina" because it would mislead readers of Wikipedia who might think that some Bosnian territory or state was there before Ottoman invasions. Therefore it is  Croatian Krajina and such title should be and in article(Bosnian Krajina) on Wikipedia. In article may write that parts of Croatian Krajina today are called Bosnian Krajina. We cannot go from the end (Bosnian Krajina) we must go from the beginning(Croatian Krajina).

31.217.38.203 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)mikola


 * Why is this article still protected in this, unwiki form? Why is not returned to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Croatia&oldid=916617804 version?
 * Last time, the article was protected 3 minutes after version changed, and that is a big shame for english wiki... --Čeha (razgovor) 07:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Link to the 1699 Treaty of Karlowitz Jim.henderson (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected again
Since reverts continue without any prior agreement on the talk page, I'm putting three months of full protection on the article. This is an escalation from the prior one month protection. Unless editors are willing to show patience and wait for discussions to finish, this whole thing may go to WP:AE and become a large waste of time. Consider using a WP:Request for comment to decide what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. Both version of article should have the same value. Why is always page protected in this form? It was protected at least 5 times, and always in this form?
 * I would realy like to make a compromise, but you can see how is Santasa behaving. Just look at his edits on Donji Kraji Talk page.
 * Again I was/am ready to go this through this article line by line, but Santasa isn't. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be prepared, and not the least embarrassed, to beg on my knees for you to give us a hand (to mediate) in discussion which starts at Talk:Donji_Kraji and has few more sections bellow, especially if Captain Eek, who initiated "Round-2" discussion, begins to feels, maybe, a bit overwhelmed. But imaging how that TP may look for someone uninvolved (and neutral), I would settle with you sparing 5-6 minutes quickly scanning through that discussion - even if it looks odious for it is extensive, it was really done with great deal of good faith, sparing no effort in source searching, translation and (re)phrasing, by editors Flyer, Mhare and myself, while I'm going to skip evaluating nature and quality of Ceha's effort there at this point.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would just ask you if you could before that protect this article in the other version, not this one Santasa is always trying to push and which has been always protected, even the two should be equal.
 * As for Donji Kraji, we've got two problems there. First is adding unnecesary labels to province name (Donji Kraji are mentioned just like that, not with additions like Bosnian, or Slavonia, or Pannonia and there doesn't exist any evidence that the province was ever part of Slavonia or Panonia, at least not in in original core).
 * Second one is translation. Santasa is trying to replace the lines:''
 * Vjekoslav Klaić placed the territory of Olfeld west of Usora, based on the 1244 document and citing Konstantin Josef Jireček, who described it to be in the northwest (of medieval Bosnia), towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana.''
 * with Vjekoslav Klaić citing Konstantin Josef Jireček placed the territory somewhere north in Bosnia, west of Usora county and towards Croatia, towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana.
 * even if original meaning is Vjekoslav Klaić citing Konstantin Josef Jireček placed the territory somewhere north of medieval Bosnian Core, west of Usora county and towards Croatia, towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana.
 * and there is a great problem in comunication. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 November 2019
Hello, would you please consider to evaluate if it would be appropriate to merge this article with the article "Bosanska Krajina", and leave (or delete) a redirect, based on the existing "Talk:Bosanska_Krajina. Please keep in mind that the editors Silverie and Ceha practically solicited the opposing votes from the Croatian language wikipedia, and that everyone who voted against actually came on their invitation from that outside project. Evidence for "Canvasing" was presented in this AN, while the editor User:DraconicDark who first noticed this behavior was uninvolved up until that moment, and his commentary here and here (bot or someone else removed one particularly illustrative diff so I am referring you to Draconic's both posts in that discussion)] best reflects on the situation surrounding the article and the behavior of editors Ceha and Sliverie. Any suggestion and/or advice is welcomed.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, you lost at voting and now you are complaing? :rofl: God one...--Čeha (razgovor) 19:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that's exactly how you interpreting that particular project debacle - you really beat me thoroughly, you and your team from hr.wikipedia have won.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm realy sad that you see wikipedia as a poligon for nationalistic POV, teams, etc. Why can't you have normal discusions and comunicate with arguments, and not with conspiracy theories? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)