Talk:Turkish Croatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Warning. This page is highly subjective.

I stumbled upon this page by accident and must say it's subjective and missing information. By constant edits and locking it's obvious there are some problems. Turkish Croatia is a well known term used for the occupied Croatian land after Ottoman invasion in most of Europe but half of the text is dedicated to 20th century movements(?!) and efforts to deminish the term. Strange. Also the term was used far into 19th century which is obvious by the maps made in that period. I recommend some other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.196.94 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Map and sources

Interesting colection of maps https://docplayer.org/72498198-Die-geostrategische-lage-des-bosnisch-herzegowinischen-raumes-im-suedosten-europas-gemaess-alten-geographischen-karten.html talking about Turkish Croatia. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{editwar}}

I have moved this from the top of the page and removed the misplaced editwar template. I have also asked the editor to state exactly what version of the article they suggest reverting back to. --T*U (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

As we are all aware, this version has a lot of mistakes, inconsistencies, POV and similiar problems which contradict wiki rules. So my suggestion is simple. We should return the article in a state before santasa edits. Before the edit war. That should be in accordance to wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the version before begining of the edit war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Croatia&oldid=832946658 Čeha (razgovor) 22:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I also don't have any problems with edits from this version https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Croatia&oldid=945790993 Čeha (razgovor) 22:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed, tweaks and more refs. will make this version better - and it is here to stay. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why there is no article dedicated to the territory of today's Croatia during the Ottoman period? This article itself has some sources of probably dubious quality, and work needs to done to improve it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree the present version is rather POV. Bihac was the capital of Croatia once. Obviously now it is an integral part of Bosnia but it is rather disingenuous to suggest someone has to be so far right they are beyond the Ustasha to discuss the fact that the area was once inhabited by Croats.--Calthinus (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I made some modifications to the lede. It might need more work though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

15th century distribution of Central South Slavic dialects. Turkish Croatia once spoke Chakavian, before demographic transformations which saw massive flight of the Catholic population into territories controlled by the Hapsburgs (and the massive flight of the Muslim population of Lika and Slavonia into Bosnia)

One fact that is not on this page -- from a linguistic standpoint. The demographic history of this territory is relevant to the linguistic history of the larger area. --Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ktrimi work is an excelent start. It's a history article, not a consiracy one... I would shorten 20th century part, expecialy part about greater croatian ideology. That parts should be transfered somwhere else. Also for Tvrtko realm I would refrase that. Southern and eastern part of Turkish Croatia was part of Hrvatinići Estates in Donji Kraji county under Tvrtko I realm? Čeha (razgovor) 20:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Tvrtko

The page says, without citation, that the area was part of Tvrtko's realm. I am not an expert on this area, but this does not seem to be the case. See picture.--Calthinus (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Medieval Bosnia at its greatest extent

@Calthinus:, if you are referring to the sentence in the lede, I wrote that based on source number 2. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The page is not accessible to me. What does it say? --Calthinus (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Just looking at the maps -- if we define it as bounded by the Vrbas and the Una, it appears a better way to describe it was "historically divided between Bosnia and Croatia". Because the Western -- Chakavian speaking -- part of the region appears to not have been ruled by pre-Ottoman Bosnia... ever. --Calthinus (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia is a name for the territory between the rivers Una and Vrbas which, until the Turkish conquest in the second half of the sixteenth century and its inclusion in the Bosnian pashalik, belonged to the medieval Croatian kingdom (but in large part also to medieval Bosnia under King Tvrtko I Kotromanic). Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed, info. about geopolitical term and neologism has been deelted. Why? Please discuss and try to come up with a solution with editors who have been engaged in the issue for a long time. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: but parts were also ruled by medieval Bosnia under King Tvrtko I. Same length, more precise (and people know who Tvrtko is). @Sadko: it cannot be a neologism if it was used by Austrians centuries ago. --Calthinus (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with calthinus. I would also put that the home to mighty medieval families, like Hrvatinići and Babonići, bans and rulers of large territories. Čeha (razgovor) 00:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a broader term than Bosnian krajina. It was a part of Croatia when the country was under Turkish rule. There even existed Vilayet Hrvat (Croatian vilayet) on the part of that area. On Wikipedia there should be no place for political propaganda from the 20th century. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, please, pretty please!

Pinging Ktrimi991, Sadko, Calthinus, Ceha. I'm rather euphoric that the disciussion here actually has started moving. However, I will revert the article back to the version that was there when I helped Ceha start this discussion, not because I support one version or another. My point with the revert is that every change to this article now has to be based on some sort of consensus. If not, we will return to the same pattern of edit warring that has been the reason for this article being blocked for editing six times in less than a year. Hope you all behave... I now feel free to leave this discussion. Hope I will not have to return. Good luck, and regards! --T*U (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

TU-nor, really, after so many years of Balkan editing, I do admire the tenacity of your optimism :). --Calthinus (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not tell anyone, but I actually do not believe it myself. I feel I have to keep up appearances, though. --T*U (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

T*U The pre-disoute version is that one [1]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I can only promise to monitor the situation for eventual irredentism being inserted and such. There is strong push lately regarding this, so yeah. Mhare (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cazin and Bihac are areas with a Croatian heritage. This is not "irredentist" any more than pointing out that parts of Dalmatia were at times part of Bosnia. I despise irredentist POV pushing on Wikipedia. This is not one. Instead the recent edits are a rapid move in the opposite direction, going so far to oppose irredentism that it ends up with a POV in the other direction wherein it becomes somehow criminal and far-right to recall basic historical facts, while a term that was used centuries ago is oddly called a neologism (is this just not knowing the English definition of that word, maybe?).--Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not say anything about any version. I just made promise to watch out for any dubious and unreferenced claims and et cetera. Mhare (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What edits do you think are "irredentism", @Mhare:? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• So, what source says that the term is a neologism? As far as I can see, none of the sources on the article says that. I might be wrong though and any relevant quote would be of help. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: and @Mikola22:, lets focus on this section at the moment. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I think it has to do with this informations from article "The term started reappearing in recent times, since 1990's, only in Croatian far-right nationalist political discourse", "In the first half of 20th century with a rise of nationalist fervor, up to the time and establishment of fascist NDH in 1940's, this term appeared sporadically again, concerning the resurrection of a Croatian statehood", "In more recent times, with a rise of Franjo Tuđman and establishment of the Republic of Croatia in the 1990's, the term was revived and was preferred Tuđman's and his close associates' argument in reference to their political and military aims in Bosnia and Herzegovina". Should see who put this informations in the article and that editor probably put and "neologism" fact in the article. We need to see and which sources specifically mentions "neologism". The thing is that this is originally about Croatia up to Vrbas (river) and someone probably puts that fact in a nationalist context. We have seen suggestions for merge this article to Bosanska Krajina article. This is probably about hiding some historical facts. In my opinion problem is not "Turkish" but Croatia in the title of the article and everything which this name implies. The truth is and that there is not much information about Turkish Croatia but no one has deal with this term and historical data in Yugoslav times. There is a book "Turska Hrvatska: Hrvati pod vlašću Osmanskoga Carstva do 1791" "Turkish Croatia: Croats under Ottoman rule until 1791" but this book is not publicly available and it may contain some historical information we don't yet know. Otherwise, if part of Croatia was under Turkish rule and Austrian sources or maps call that part Turkish Croatia I don't know what should be weird here, that's why I think that this is problem for someone from today's perspective. Mikola22 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with Mikola. It's historical article and the stuff from the nineties shouldn't be here, and expecialy not in this POV form. If someone wants to write about politics of Croatia, or it's first president, this should not be the place. More over, when Tuđman talks about Turkish Croatia he usualy talks just of Cazin krajina (where inter Bosniak/Muslim civil war happened and which was saved by croatian intervention), the small part in the north west, mostly west of Una river, not Vrbas (or Bosna).... Čeha (razgovor) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the word "neologism". Based on the rationale elaborated in several posts above, what do you propose as a first sentence in the lede? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would use previous chapter;

Turkish Croatia[1][2] or Ottoman Croatia (Croatian: Turska Hrvatska, German: Türkisch Kroatien, Italian: Croazia turca, French: Croatie turque, Dutch: Kroatië osmaanse) ) was a part of the territory[3] of the Croatian Kingdom occupied by the Ottoman Empire during the 15th and 16th century. In the 19th century, after it became clear that the Croatian population,[4]owing to that occupation, permanently perished or was displaced, the new name Bosanska Krajina(Bosnian Frontier) got through and replaced the old term of Turkish Croatia. It remained so until today.

Or maybe; Turkish Croatia[1][2] or Ottoman Croatia (Croatian: Turska Hrvatska, German: Türkisch Kroatien, Italian: Croazia turca, French: Croatie turque, Dutch: Kroatië osmaanse) ) was a part of the territory[3] of the Croatian Kingdom CONQUERED by the Ottoman Empire during the 15th and 16th century.

Simple definition. It was part of Croatian kingdom before the ottoman conquest....

What do you think? Čeha (razgovor) 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am for the second proposal.Mikola22 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This article should be part of the Bosnian Krajina article, with whole section about former use of term (by some) for a geographical area that is today known as Bosanska krajina, de jure and de facto. I don't see a need for separate article, as there is nothing to write, we are not writing about governing entity (like Donji Kraji) and such. This could, and should be part of Bosanska Krajina. Mhare (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Fully agreed with Mhare. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mare Unfortunately Bosanska Krajina merge proposal does not have support of majority editors. Considering that parts of today Bosnian Krajina was Croatia or under Croatian rule it is my opinion that Bosnian Krajina article could be the Bosnian view and we must respect that, but we also must respect and the Croatian view ie and Turkish Croatia article. There must be some compromise, I know it's hard for you to read that parts of Bosnia was under Croatian rule but trust me and to me is hard to read that Croatian royal city(capital) of Bihać is in today Bosnian Krajina article. I still don't know which historical data mention places in Bosnian Krajina that is, I do not know historical records which speak about geographical position of Bosnian Krajina, this is not stated in the article? Mikola22 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not understand what is encyclopedia, or "respect" for that matter as you like to drag that word around. Your "hard time" about Bihać being in Bosanska krajina is a reason you have block. I do not have "hard time" with any region being once part of Rome, Croatia, Serbia, Avar Khaganate, Yugoslavia or something else. Bosanska Krajina is today's name for a certain geographical region of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I do however have "hard times" with irredentism, falsification, revisionism. Four or five sentences about this matter is more than enough in my opinion, or for that matter, the entry in Croatian encyclopedia, and it should be inside the Bosanska Krajina article. Mhare (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Which encyclopedia? You have wikipedia article about Bosnian Krajina and you have no historical data in it nor RS which talks about the boundaries and places of that area based on historical documents. We didn't come here to sell fog, thus where is here encyclopedian content? Who created Bosnian Krajina term up to Bihać? Is that term created in Yugoslavia, is it an earlier replacement name for Turkish Croatia, etc? Have you read Bosnian Krajina article? As if that name had fallen from the sky, about geographical history no data exist whatsoever. And you would merge this article with Turkish Croatia article, let's do the opposite, let's merge Bosnian Krajina article in Turkish Croatia or new Croatian Krajina article when you the not have "hard time" with that. Therefore you have been here for years and you have not yet provided reliable sources which speak about the boundaries and places of that area. It's not good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Amazing. Yeah sure, when your block expires, you can merge Bosanska Krajina to Turkish Croatia. Mhare (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia is historical context, and Bosnian Krajina is geographical. Also Turkish Croatia is larger teritory, besides today Bosnian Krajina, it included, Lika, Banovina, northern Dalmatia, upper Vrbas... Bosnian Krajina is just the vestige, remaining of it. There is no iredentism in history. Čeha (razgovor) 00:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Valuable information

The castles of Bosnia and Croatia (before 1523) belonged to the ban of Croatia and Slavonia, who was responsible for the supply of Jajca defended by local bans, and the regular headquarters of his army was mainly Bihacs. Very valuable information regarding history of Bihac article and history of Jajce article. But this information is indirectly related and to article of Turkish Croatia and Bosanska Krajina, considering that this part of Bosnia or its fortress was also under Croatian rule, which says that this is a historical fact. Given that this name (Turkish Croatia) was not promoted in the Yugoslav historiography because of understandable reasons, this does not mean that promotion of this term in more recent post-Yugoslav era means some nationalist term. This part of Bosnia was historically also part of Croatia and we must respect that. Mikola22 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Croatian-Slavonian ban was personally in charge of the military and civil administration of Dalmatia, Old Croatia and the Slavonian counties of Zagrab, Varasd, Koros, Veroce, Dubica, Szana and Orbasz. (The medieval Old Croatia was situated south-west of the river Sava....extending as far as the river Vrbas(Vrbas (river) in the east. Mikola22 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References