Talk:Usora (zemlja)

Explanation of revert
Sentence is awkward and uses words like Banate in Bosnia (?!), have broken links to I suppose Duchy of Pannonian Croatia that has nothing to do with this article. And you did revert my addition (here) to the article where I tried to do a better sentence, while not removing anything of importance. And please now, let me help you do better wording of the sentence, and then try to contribute to making it better, don't just remove mine, and leave broken links. Mhare (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Banate in Bosnia, phrase?
 * Duchy of Pannonian Croatia is predecessor of Slavonian Banate...
 * I think the wording is ok, if you have a better phrase, plese rephrase it.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ps. this could be a better link for Slavonian Banate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_of_Slavonia


 * I already linked Ban of Slavonia. Banate in Bosnia is nothing. Banate of Bosnia or Bosnian Banate is the term everybody uses, and we have actual article about it. Mhare (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, Banate in Bosnia is valid term. Banovina u Bosni...
 * Are you done?
 * Why is Usora just region, and not duchy/banate?
 * Conquered is a surplus word, as souverain of both Bosnian and Usora Banate is the same person, king of Hungry, Croatia, etc.... --Čeha (razgovor) 22:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Banate in Bosnia is not valid term in English language. Yes, nominal sovereign of Bosnian bans was King of Hungary, that is known fact. Mhare (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not?
 * As for king, than the word conquered is surplous... --Čeha (razgovor) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not? I can't find single source in English language to support that claim. I can only find Bosnian banate and Banate of Bosnia. Mhare (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed conquered Mhare (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, Banate of Bosnia then? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Aditions and edits
I would add a new sentence, at the end of this part: The most famous battles include Battle of Srebrenik (1363), Battle of Dobor (1394 and 1408), and the Battle of Doboj (1415). This duchy had been separated and several times from the Banate of Bosnia and later Bosnian Kingdom in its history mostly by Kingdom of Hungary which appointed rulers of this region and sometimes attached it to Slavonian Banate. Prominent families, as Babonići had great estates, while the territories were part of Slavonian Banate. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, I would change this phrase to; Also, due to its geographical location (Pannonian plateau) as the northernmost Bosnian land and its richness, Usora was, more often than not, a most common battleground between the Hungarian_king and its vasals from Banate in Bosnia.

Usora always retained great autonomy in periods when was part of Banate of Bosnia.

--Čeha (razgovor) 22:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ps. last sentence;

From 1322, when Stephen II Kotromanic becomes a ruler in Bosnia, Usora was part of his realm and included in the titles of all subsequent bans and kings in Bosnia.

Bans are written with small letter.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources when discussing and building prose on medieval Bosnian counties
, can you access following:
 * Pavao Anđelić - "Studies on territorial-political organization of the medieval Bosnia state" ("Studije o teritorijalno-političkoj organizaciji srednjevjekovne Bosne") - on counties included into Bosnian state, from pp 237 to 241 (of course entire book is worth reading) - for download here;
 * Vego - Origin and genesis of the medieval Bosnian state (Postanak srednjevjekovne bosanske države) - I think that you can acquire Vego from Scribd too.

These two are the best for learning elementary informations about organization and structure of the state - counties, parishes, land possessions, and so on.

Lead section is terrible, real mess, and what the hell is "Croatia in the union with Hungary" (I mean I know very well what is and from where it comes from), who calls Hungarian medieval state like that - it's clumsily and awkward, and should be called with proper name and moved into some of the proper article section, where it belongs. Counties listed in Bosnian title, mentioned in most of original documents (there is great list of these intitulations in Mrgić, but she's not the only one who lists them) are medieval counties of the medieval Bosnian state, and with WP:LEAD and WP:NOTABILITY in mind all that we need to mention in lead is phrase description of that fact. All other info regarding Hungarian influence, incursion, capture, direct or indirect rule should be described in the article body, and you probably agree with my assessment. It's probably similar situation with the article Soli (region). Also, titles of these articles are problematic as they are no longer in existence as polities, so they are no longer "regions", they are "historic" or "medieval", and should be designated in some such manner?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: "semi-independent Banate (Duchy)" - that's undefendable. There is no need for such description for something that is part of the realm comprised of feudal estates. Again, per notability, if at some points in time county changed hands from Bosnia to Hungary and back, it should still be considered, and as an article, written, primarily, as part of the medieval Bosnian state, and in that context there is no "duchy" (is there?) and there is no need to emphasize "semi-independence" since all constituent parts of the realm, counties/zemlje, were autonomous to the certain extent.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have those two books somewhere on my drives, when I was doing this article.
 * It goes without saying that when it comes to counties, parishes and land possession that Vego and Anđelić did a lot of work. I agree with the changes you made, and the article looks a lot better.
 * As for semi-independent, Fine has a sentence in his book that I think referenced, that the rulers when Usora was under Bosnia always had a great deal of autonomy. Maybe that quotation is good enough. Mhare (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You make adjustments of my edits as you see fit. I have access to some of the high profile journals, so I can provide some of the papers when and if you need them, regardless of topic.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections to the article. Great! I will ping you if I myself cannot find a source! I am now grinding to make Kingdom of Bosnia look good and expand it a little bit more, something will pop up for sure. Mhare (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any time! When you find some paper that you can't access (paywall restriction), and you would like to read it beyond those one page previews, ping me, any time, and I will somehow make it available for you to see it in full.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any time! When you find some paper that you can't access (paywall restriction), and you would like to read it beyond those one page previews, ping me, any time, and I will somehow make it available for you to see it in full.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)