Talk:Banate of Bosnia

Wording

1. The name of the state is Banate of Bosnia, right?
2. It's part of Hungarian kingdom, although it has de facto independent rulers.
3. It's vassal, not jus an ally to Hungary.
Feel free to discuss, I hope, we will solve this problems fast. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian kingdom and Hungarian Crowning lands

Hungarian king (not a Hungarian-Croatian king) was "king of Croatia and Dalmatia", as well as "king of Rama". Should we then call that state Hungarian-Croatian-Dalmatian-Rama Kingdom? FFS, this is ridiculous, they are just copying stuff from Croatian wikipedia, which is doing just fine from 2013 onwards. This is just the same stuff that Serbian users tried to push, that "The Kingdom of Bosnia or the Kingdom of Bosnia represents the third period in the development of a Serbian feudal state called Bosnia, in the Middle Ages." This is really ridiculous, and should stop. Mhare (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor:, I am not sure how well you understand this pushing of a version that has narrow support among Croatian nationalist. But they are just copying stuff from CW, where they like to quote portals and dead links. This is really wrong what they are doing, I hope that senior editors that worked on medieval Bosnian articles will come and put a stop to this Mikola and Čeha's unscientific pushing for wording. Mhare (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, I understand what you are saying. The problem is that this is given as a direct quotation, and in a direct quote we are not allowed to change the text. As long as the source is accepted as a WP:RS, we have no choice but to quote it verbatim (with a best possible translation). That was why I asked Mikola22 to put the original non-English text into the note.

There is, however, another point to consider. Wikipedia is not very fond of lengthy direct quotes, but prefers paraphrasing per MOS:QUOTE. Then the main points of the quotation can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, and the full quote with translation can be placed in the note. --T*U (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor, naming Hungarian king as Croat-Hungarian king is erroneous as Hungarian king had many other titles. I really don't like this, they are pushing it, and it reminds me of a quote on Serbian Wikipedia about Bosnia: The Kingdom of Bosnia represents the third period in the development of a Serbian feudal state called Bosnia, in the Middle Ages.

This is the same agenda. They will call the Hungarian king as Croatian-Hungarian king, so to some readers, it might seem that some Croatian king ruled vassal entity Bosnia. You already probably know that Mikola ended in quite a few edit wars and noticeboards, and Čeha was blocked for similar pushing (I think the guy has more than 10 blocks in his history) and I don't want to be in the same boat. This is wrong name for a Hungarian king and Hungarian kingdom. Hungary-Croatia is just the name they like to give to the Hungarian Kingdom, and it should not be translated like that, as I already said, then we can add all other domains to the name of the Kingdom which is ridiculous. Mhare (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, I still understand, but as Wikipedia editors we have no choice in the matter. If a source is accepted as a reliable source, it is admissible, and if we quote it, we have no choice but to quote it correctly. I still think the paraphrasing option is the best way forward. --T*U (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I really have nothing to add, I tried to paraphrase it, but will likely be reverted. We'll see. Mhare (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So now what do you propose TU-nor? Mikola22, let's go to Kingdom of Hungary article, and change its name to Hungary-Croatian Kingdom, and see how that flies? Mhare (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha maybe reverte that part but from that source you leaving out all essential facts, it is not in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, leave it sure, but don't push that terminology dude. If you want that, please go to Kingdom of Hungary and change its name to what you think is right. Maybe start another noticeboard, huh? Mhare (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare Take a book "When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans" go to article about Croatia and start entering facts from that book and we see how that flies? Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you see my actions on any Croatian article!? I only see your pesty nationalistic editing across several articles. And of course, noticeboards, putting original research, etc. You unacademic bunch :)))) Mhare (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We discussed book "When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans" and this is according to majority RS, and I respect that, why don't you respect this source(Milko Brković)? As for "putting original research" original scientific article or izvorni znanstveni članak is not original research. It is important that an article was published in reviewed journals and when this is checked then we will know whether some source is original research. Mikola22 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary#Names

Please add. Mhare (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I was away for some hours and seem to have missed the fireworks. I will assume good faith and ignore the mutual hotspot comments. I have tried to balance the presentattion and have consolidated the note, including the English translation. Could we now please calm down and focus on content? --T*U (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Just marvel at this sentence: as an Hungarian ally.[3] He was involved in offensives against the Byzantines as vassal of Hungary-Croatian King, in alliance with Hungary

At first, he is an ally, then vassal, then ally.

Hungary-Croatian King is just terminology that some scholars use to refer to Hungarian kings, who was also a King of Croatia and Dalmatia, hence the Hungary-Croatian king. But you can be sure, it was always a Hungarian king. He will push it as a "direct translation". Even Croatia in union with Hungary#Name article does not mention this terminology. I would like to ask Hungarian editors what they think about naming their kings in this way. This is Wikipedia that should correspond with a global overview, not a narrow and sometimes very problematic view (as in, claiming Bosnia was Croatian, Serbian and etc.) Mhare (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Also... this From 1102, the reigning King of Hungary is also the ruler of the Kingdom of Croatia in agreement with the Croatian nobles. Article that deals about Hungarian rulers on our Wikipedia says: Hungarian kings of Croatia and King of Hungary is also ruler of Kingdom of Croatia. How that became Croat-Hungarian kingdom I am not sure :) Mhare (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Source I cited says Hungary-Croatian King not a kingdom. Otherwise English wikipedia says this "Borić (fl. 1154–63) was the first known Ban of Bosnia as a Hungarian vassal." In the books he is mentioned and as vassal what do we do now, hide that fact? We must respect book and source. Call Hungarian editors and let's see what they says about Ban Boric and Ban Ninoslav. "Siege of Szigetvár, army "2,300–3,000 Croats and Hungarians" "Habsburg Empire, Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of HungaryNikola IV Zrinski was a Croatian-Hungarian nobleman and general, Ban of Croatia. Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, As Fine also refers to Borić as a Hungarian vassal in 1154, I have corrected it in the article. Mhare (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit-war

@Mikola22:, you should consider that you have reverted parts of the text more than four times at this point, and that your edits could and should be considered reverts even if you are masking them with additional prose per single edit. It is usual procedure to warn editor on such behavior prior to reporting at AN for 3RR situation, but I would like to try to make argument here first, before posting a warning on editor's TP on eventual drastic AN report - there is no consensus on choosing to call Hungarians in such an unusual manner. We could say that Hungarian kingdom is more than Hungarian-Croatian, after all it was a kingdom which royal intitulation included various other polities, peoples and entities.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: First you report me to the admins etc and if i don't get ban then I will answer. We must respect the system.Mikola22 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if that's how you perceiving how wikipedia works. Also, you have fought tooth and nail here on this AN for RS, in attempt to discredit John Fine completely, and now brazenly calling him "legitimate" and "your historian".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Report everything. I expect that from you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is truly getting out of hand. What a sad turn of events. Mikola, about every article you touch ends up in DR and edit wars. Mhare (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mikola22:, I have placed a warning message at your TP, but I would like to ask you if you would please revert your last edit, as you have no consensus on naming that entity in that manner?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, are you a moderator on en.wiki? What right have you to place such a message? You two enged in Edit-war with Mikola, and now you are warning him? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Every right.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Or none, obviously. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

John of Wildeshausen

Hello, I'm just a reader and have no experience editing wiki articles. I only noticed that there was a line in the article that is possibly mistaken: "John of Wildeshausen, then Master General of the Dominican Order and later declared a saint." I could not find confirmation of this bishop's canonization in the Catholic Church, and that is what the sentence appears to imply. He was thought saintly, but apparently he was not canonized (as far as I can see). The separate article on the bishop says as much, and after a cursory search I could not find other sources to indicate otherwise. Smolderingwick (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)