Talk:Donji Kraji

}}

Lower Towns have just changed the name

Lower Towns have just changed the name. Nowhere did not get away! It is a significant part of the Bosnian medieval and modern history!

Yahadzija (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Which data?

"This article needs additional citations for verification". What & which, please?

Yahadzija (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Scope

This region was a medieval province. The information prior or after Middle Ages is unnecessary.--Zoupan 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Major WP:CFORK WP:SCOPE problems fixed.--Zoupan 14:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Map

• "Teritorija Bosanskih velmoza u XV stoljeca".
• "Krajevi Bosne".
• "Bosansko kraljevstvo u 14. stoljecu".
• "Bosna od XII.–XIV.st".

A new map should be created which shows the approximate extent of Donji Kraji.--Zoupan 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Issues concerning NPOV, MOS and WP:VERIFY

First thing first: User @Ceha: should learn their ways through Wikipedia terminology, at least to some degree, so that they can stop abusing label "vandalism", "vandalizing", "vandal" against me and my contribution ! I am not "vandal" and my contribution doesn't fall under "vandalism" (WP:VANDALISM) !
User:Ceha appeared on 2 July 2019‎ with an edit consisting of thorough albeit unwarranted removal of name "Bosnia" from text, with an explanation that they are balancing for the sake of neutrality. Is it not bizarre to expect discussion on removal of the name "Bosnia" from the article on historical Bosnian region.
I came on 14 July and contributed 2279 KB in several consecutive edits, whit User:Ceha appearing same day, following me from article where he also reverts all my contribution, and reverted everything in one sweep move with following edit-summary: "please stop vandalism, region of Donji Kraji was part of mulitiple medieval entities". User:Ceha should read through WP:FOLLOWING, since he relentlessly following me from one article to another and reverting my edits, as visible per History and dates of contribution.

Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't appreciate personal opinions of its editors, instead Wikipedia requires references on reliable sources from its editors.

This article has multiple issues, with lots of original research. Most troubling aspect are: original research (WP:OR), verifiability (WP:VERIFY), neutrality (WP:NPOV), and use of weasel words per (MOS:W2W). Already very thinly referenced, this article has a troubling issue with these included references being based on pretty problematic interpretation of its source. Article is riddled with such statements, whose referenced sources telling different story altogether - in other words article is riddled with misleadingly interpreted or deliberately misinterpreted sources - here's few examples:

• example 1:

• article statement:

"From the 13th century on, the region was more often called Donji kraji Slavonije than Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji Bosanski."

is misinterpreted from given source to mislead, which state:

• source statement:

"Od 13. stoljeća ne nazivaju se više Donji kraji Salvonije, nego Donji kraji Bosne ili Donji kraji bosanski."

(English: Since 13th century onward name "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, instead region is ever-since called "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji bosnaski.").

• example 2:

• article statement:

"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."

again, misinterpreting of given source to give a misleading notion - source doesn't place region of Donji Kraji "northwest of medieval Bosnia", instead source clearly says "they were somewhere in Northern Bosnia", and goes in full as follows:

• source statement:

"Pita se sada još, gdje su bili ti dolnji kraji ili Olfeld. Sudeć po listini od g. 1244. bili su negdje u sjevernoj Bosni na zapadu oblasti Usori. To nam potvrdjuje i dr. Jireček koji veli: »Dolnji kraj (das Unterland) lag im Nordwesten gegen Kroatien3 (Kotor ander Vrbanja, Jajce, Ključ an der Sana u. s. w.)«. Iz domaćih ćirilicom bosanskom pisanih spomenika znademo, da je u dolnjih krajih bilo mjesto Lušci*, ali to mjesto nije danas poznato."

(English: Now we are still asking, where were those Lower Ends or Olfeld. Judging by the document from 1244, they were somewhere in Northern Bosnia, west from Usora county. This is confirmed by Dr. Jireček who says: "The Lower Ends (das Unterland) lies in the northwestern toward Croatia (Kotor ander Vrbanja, Jajce, Ključ an der Sana u. S. W.)". From the local Cyrillic scripts of the Bosnian written monuments, we know that Lušci village was in the Lower Ends but this place is not known today.)

• example 3 - of contentious statement where two references exists but both sources remain unreachable for confirmation (also contains weasel words):

• article statement: "That area included several parishes: Pliva, Zemljička, Vrbanjska and Mrenska, ruled by the Trpimirović, with whose time some authors bind the name Donji Kraji (Lower Ends)."

These kind of deliberate misinterpretations and misleading statements is impossible to replace with the correct ones, simply because User:Ceha and few other IP with a same and complete disregard for reliable sources and other norms set by Wikipedia guidelines, revert in sweeping undo moves, without constructive explanation and/or suggestions.

This is concerning both, closely interrelated and possibly WP:COAT articles, this one and Turkish Croatia article. Every edit which I tried to make in last couple of days, with this goal in mind, including interrelated possibly WP:COAT article Turkish Croatia, was reverted with single bewildering rational "stop with this vandalism". User:Ceha simply refuse any intervention with what he perceives should be how Wikipedia (editors) writes about history of Bosnia and Croatia and using (or not) ethno-national labeling of historical events, personalities, places, properties, etc. This leads to unsolvable, stand off position, which slowly escalating into slow but persistent edit-war and now multiple braking of 3RR. At one point in his edit-summaries he supposedly expressed desire to resolve problems on Talk page, but he didn't notice that I alredy started Talk page discussion in multiple instances long time ago. And when he eventually appeared it turned out that all he wished is to quarrel and exchange baseless accusation, which is exactly what he left behind - a tirade of personal insinuations and accusations
(User:Ceha discussion initianation looks like this: Talk:Turkish_Croatia#Bosniak_nationalistic_version_and_vandalising_article).

Anyway, rest of this article is turned into ground for scent-marking by ethno-national POV, with User:Ceha unwarranted removal of any mention of Bosnia whose historical county this region was. Article is in its entirety populated with slanted WP:OR, weasel words and phrases ("some sources"), excessive editorializing, all quite apparent. Article is at times misleading and lacking both in NPOV, and sufficient context. This article require some outside influence, desirably someone with an advantage of having experience with the dynamic in Balkan scope of the project (administrative prerogatives wouldn't hurt either). Problematic issues as follows:

• original research, original research, and original research (WP:OR);
• exceptional claim (WP:EXCEPTIONAL);
• misleading (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy, Wikipedia:Oversimplification / WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, WP:N, WP:WEIGHT);
• lacking in refs, misleading interpretation of sources (WP:IRS);
• some claims lean exclusively at other heavily contested Wikipedia article via wikilinks (WP:CIRC)
• slanted toward one particular perspective (WP:RNPOV);
• lacking in NPOV (WP:NPOV);
• use of weasel words and phrases (MOS:W2W > WP:AWW);
• excessive editorializing (MOS:W2W > WP:EDITORIAL)
• lacking in sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject (WP:PCR);

I am raising issue by issue here and I will talk on each point with anyone serious and willing to mend problematic parts. Meanwhile I am restoring version prior to User:Ceha unwarranted revert.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you making nationalistic accusations? Point of wikipedia is NPOV, and N in it means neutral, not nationalistic.

Area was part of Croatian kingdom as Pliva parish, why are you traying to erase that?

--Čeha (razgovor) 00:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in editor's opinions, unless editor can provide reliable sources and placed them in appropriate manner in references, editor is advised not to disrupt article and other editors in their constructive contribution. In particular, editor should learn guidelines and how to establish discussion and conduct accordingly, while avoiding following from article to article and reverting (WP:HOUNDING), aggressive ad-hominem tone (WP:NPA), and loaded language (WP:IUC).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You are accusing others for your own acts. If there is something to discuss, this are the pages were it should be done. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Entire Talk page of listed issues is here since 17 July, so you either provide sources or walk away, it's a huge project. I am getting tired of nothing but petty ad-hominems, edit-summary abuse, and so on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, be serious and comment on the changes which you find lacking. Ad hominem will bring you nowhere. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion, round 2

Howdy hello! I recently closed an ANI thread about this page as a content dispute. I am thus pinging the editors involved, with the hope that they will use this page to discuss the issue in a civil fashion and come to a consensus. @Ceha: @Santasa99: @SportingFlyer:. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can start with my reproach on issues which I brought up in July (see above previous discussion)?!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, Can I get a short, 4 sentence, overview of the issue? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to include translations !

It's a very thinly referenced article, most troubling issue is with these included references being based on pretty problematic interpretation of its source. Article is riddled with such statements, whose referenced sources telling different story altogether - in other words article is riddled with misleadingly interpreted or deliberately misinterpreted sources - here's for starters:

• example 1:

• article statement:

"From the 13th century on, the region was more often called Donji kraji Slavonije than Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji Bosanski."

is misinterpreted from given source to mislead, which state:

• source statement:

"Od 13. stoljeća ne nazivaju se više Donji kraji Salvonije, nego Donji kraji Bosne ili Donji kraji bosanski."

(English: Since 13th century onward name "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, instead region is ever-since called "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji bosnaski.").

• example 2:

• article statement:

"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."

again, misinterpreting of given source to give a misleading notion - source doesn't place region of Donji Kraji "northwest of medieval Bosnia", instead source clearly says "they were somewhere in Northern Bosnia", and goes in full as follows:

• source statement:

"Pita se sada još, gdje su bili ti dolnji kraji ili Olfeld. Sudeć po listini od g. 1244. bili su negdje u sjevernoj Bosni na zapadu oblasti Usori. To nam potvrdjuje i dr. Jireček koji veli: »Dolnji kraj (das Unterland) lag im Nordwesten gegen Kroatien3 (Kotor ander Vrbanja, Jajce, Ključ an der Sana u. s. w.)«. Iz domaćih ćirilicom bosanskom pisanih spomenika znademo, da je u dolnjih krajih bilo mjesto Lušci*, ali to mjesto nije danas poznato."

(English: Now we are still asking, where were those Lower Ends or Olfeld. Judging by the document from 1244, they were somewhere in Northern Bosnia, west from Usora county. This is confirmed by Dr. Jireček who says: "The Lower Ends (das Unterland) lies in the northwestern toward Croatia (Kotor ander Vrbanja, Jajce, Ključ an der Sana u. S. W.)". From the local Bosnian Cyrillic scripts of the written monuments, we know that Lušci village was in the Lower Ends but this place is not known today.)

• example 3 - of contentious statement where two references exists but both sources remain unreachable for confirmation (also contains weasel words):

• article statement: "That area included several parishes: Pliva, Zemljička, Vrbanjska and Mrenska, ruled by the Trpimirović, with whose time some authors bind the name Donji Kraji (Lower Ends)."

Let's this conclude this day, and I will continue to bring point-by-point issues tomorrow?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I made mistake in writing, in previous (July) discussion - author says: "in local Bosnian Cyrillic scripts of the written monuments" and not "the local Cyrillic scripts of the Bosnian written monuments".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

example 3 - contains contentious statement where two references exists but both sources remain unreachable for confirmation (also contains weasel words). However, Marko Vego and Pavao Anđelić, two most prominent Yugoslav historians of Medieval Bosnia, both Bosnian Croats themselves, don't mention Trpimirović or that they ruled there, at least for the period from cca. 1150 onward, after the name and the polity of Donji Kraji was constituted, which makes those "some historian" even more inappropriate, especially since we have Vego's and Anđelić's account on the name etymology, derivation and appearance, and on area and rulers general history since 12th century ("some authors bind the name Donji Kraji" to Trpimirović has no basis in sources)---౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's a lot here to wade through.
• Example 1: I think this is an uncontroversial change that was originally added due to a mis-translation of the text back in 2015. I'll go ahead and make it and add the source I identified at ANI.
• Example 2: Is there a misunderstanding here as well? I need to check the reference in the current article, but the current revision of the article clearly states "in the northwest (of medieval Bosnia)" so there's really no difference between the two? I think northwest is more precise. My guess is you read the current text as "Donji Kraji was northwest of Medieval Bosnia" i.e. not in Bosnia? But that is not what is in the text.
• Example 3: I have something else to do but will take a look at this later. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you claim for Ex.2 what I think you claim, in that case I never heard of such clumsily sentence structure - in other words, there is no need for confusing readers with parenthesis, nor for the preposition in "xy area in northwestern Bosnia" - it's always "part of northern Croatia" never "part in north of Croatia"; it's always "eastern United Stats", "southern Adriatic Sea", "western coast", "that xy area is situated in northwestern Bosnia", and so on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"in the north of the country" is perfectly acceptable phrasing, I think the parentheses didn't help. I've edited both Example 1 and Example 2 into the text as I don't think these are at all controversial changes. Onto example 3... SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Marko Vego is a person who's work or views can not be described as pro Croatian. The names of his books also show strong political bias; "History of Zachlumia from the coming of Slavs to uniting with Bosnia in 1322".

As for Klaić phrase; "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.", it should be correct. Donji Kraji, as a region is west from Usora, and northwest from medival Bosnia, or Vrhbosna.

Words Bosnia in this phrase; ::"Pita se sada još, gdje su bili ti dolnji kraji ili Olfeld. Sudeć po listini od g. 1244. bili su negdje u sjevernoj Bosni' na zapadu oblasti Usori. To nam potvrdjuje i dr. Jireček koji veli: »Dolnji kraj (das Unterland) lag im Nordwesten gegen Kroatien3 (Kotor ander Vrbanja, Jajce, Ključ an der Sana u. s. w.)«. , refers to today's state Bosnia and Herzegovia, nod medieval one.

As for Trpimirović rule. That dynasty rules til 1097. It covers Croatia, Dalmatia, Panonia... And large parts of Bosnia. As for Donji Kraji... DAI (administrando di imperio) in that area speaks of Croat Parish of Pliva.

Later, that area is source of noble Croatian house of Hrvatinići, as vasals of Šubići family...

Slavonian magnates, house of Babonići, also held some territories in north of Donji Kraji, and part of it (they ruled all the way to river Bosnia).

In short. These are medieval times, not 21 century states. First sorces of history of that area (DAI) speaks of a parish Pliva in Croatian state ruled by Trpimirovići in middle of 10th. century. It is an area in Upper Vrbas, and Sana valleys, home area of house of Hrvatinići, and border area of mediaval banovinas of Slavonia, Primorje/Croatia and (Vrh)Bosnia. Hrvatinići where Šubić vasals, later they became vasals of Kotromanići, and northern parts of area also belonged to Slavonian nobles Babonići, feud of which was mostly between rivers of Bosnia (and beyond), Sava, Kupa and Kapela/Gvozd mountain.

After death of Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, most prominent noble of house of Hrvatinić, parts of Donji Kraji where transfered to the house of Kotromanić, which ruled as bans (and later kings) in Bosnia. Some towns, like Jajce or Ključ where "king's towns" at the time.

There are interesting maps, like this;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/e/ef/Hrvatska_Pavla_%C5%A0ubi%C4%87a.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/e/ee/%C5%A0ubi%C4%87evska_Hrvatska.jpg

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-sfera.hr%2Fdodatni-digitalni-sadrzaji%2Fc4916d48-08ae-435a-af5d-019a57ba2462%2Fassets%2Fimage%2Fkarta_velikaske_obitelji.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-sfera.hr%2Fdodatni-digitalni-sadrzaji%2Fc4916d48-08ae-435a-af5d-019a57ba2462%2F&docid=7O6VrgNEopnZnM&tbnid=CJQ82bvNGbSXNM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi7ltPU5fjlAhURJFAKHYhZBL4QMwhpKBwwHA..i&w=2210&h=2026&bih=969&biw=1920&q=baboni%C4%87i&ved=0ahUKEwi7ltPU5fjlAhURJFAKHYhZBL4QMwhpKBwwHA&iact=mrc&uact=8

https://www.e-sfera.hr/dodatni-digitalni-sadrzaji/c4916d48-08ae-435a-af5d-019a57ba2462/assets/image/karta_velikaske_obitelji.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Oligarchs_in_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary.png/880px-Oligarchs_in_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Realms_of_Hrvatini%C4%87i.png

--Čeha (razgovor) 12:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• The information above backs up the source I found here (page 18) and posted on the ANI thread.

@Ceha:, the article as it stands is rather unclear and perhaps that's the nature of the sourcing - "Sources judge around the year 1244 (Donji Kraji) was somewhere in northern Bosna to the west of Usori province" - if "northern Bosnia" here means modern-day Bosnia the article should be updated to reflect that?

In short, how should the sentence in example 2 read above?

Also Čeha what's the best source for the Trpimirović rule? We should mention their rule chronologically. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"in the north of the country" is perfectly acceptable - "north of Bosnia" is confusing - so, you did good to edit that bit, right?

Also @Ceha: and @SportingFlyer: I am not interested in opinionated comments, like Ceha's espoused above, on widely accepted and mainstream modern and contemporary Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav scholarship, and especially not interested in espousing, and/or creating article based upon, pro-Croatian views - @Ceha for pro-Croatian views you should open yourself a blog. I am not interested in questioning of widely accepted modern, post-modern and all contemporary mainstream scholarship without any evidence or evident ideological contamination - between Vjekoslav Klajić and Vego/Anđelić precedence falls at Vego and Anđelić per WP:AGEMATTERS.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha your "cuckoo's egg" which is "Medieval Bosnia = Vrhbosna" also won't pass, now that we have experienced editors involved.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Same is for "Croatian house of Hrvatinić" or hint that Hrvoje Vukčić was somehow a Croat - for this one you will need some really hard evidence in post-modern and contemporary scholarship. As for Trpimirović, in his lifetime "Donji Kraji didn't exist under that name nor as some kind of toponym or any kind of polity, geo entity, and so on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

When Ceha speaks of Trpimirovic, or any subject of (only Bosnian?) history, the name of the game is "anachronism", or both varieties of historical misplacement, temporal and spatial - these attempts to confuse need relentless scrutiny.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer Following sentence is strange: "From the 13th century on, the region lost its historic name(?) Donji kraji Slavonije and became to be known either(?) Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji.

First, "lost" its "historic" name - name can't be "lost"; and second, is the name "Donji kraji Slavonije" only worthy of being "historic" or is the name "Donji kraji (Bosne)" also worthy of being labeled "historic"? Not only that this in-article new version is confusing from the point of view of historiography, it's also extremely suggestive, leading readers to believe that previous name is somehow more "historic", and maybe even more legitimate, or at least that "new" one is imposed or less historical, and so on.

Why is my own construct so repulsive, despite being much more adequate regarding its source-text: "From 12th century onward names derivations "Lower Pannonia", "Lower Slavonia" or "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, and region is ever-since interchangeably called "Donji kraji Bosne" and/or "Donji kraji bosnaski"."; in this version there is no "lost" names, no suggestions, and it can be tweaked, if must, some more as long as it will correspond to its source.

As we can see, source doesn't mention "Donji kraji Slavonije" as the only name for that area during the same period, before area became known as "Donji kraji Bosne" and/or "Donji kraji bosnaski", region was called by at least three different derivations "Donja Panonija"/"Lower Pannonia", "Donja Slavonija"/"Lower Slavonia", "Donji kraji Slavonije" - but even more importantly, region has even older derivations of the same name, going back to the Roman times. So, which one is "historic" is POV.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"From 12th century onward names derivations "Lower Pannonia", "Lower Slavonia" or "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, and region is ever-since interchangeably called "Donji kraji Bosne" and/or "Donji kraji bosnaski"."; in this version there is no "lost" names, no suggestions, and it can be tweaked, if must, some more as long as it will correspond to its source. CHARTER OF KING STEFAN DABIŠA TO HIS DAUGHTER STANA, The Charter was created on 26th of April 1395 in Sutjeska. "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, amin. We, Stefan Dabisha, by the mercy of Lord God, the king of Serbs, Bosnia, Primorje, Zachlumia, Donje Kraje, Zapadne strane, Usore, Soli and Podrinje," Original historical document from beginning of the 15th century mentione Bosnia and Donje Kraje separated as two entities or area. Mikola22 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is and this historical document as well: Charter was created on 12th of August of 1434 in Potkreševo. In the first half of XV century. "In name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We, voyevoda Đurađ, by grace of God voyevoda od Donjih Kraja, nephew of famous and highly respected memory lord herzog Hrvoje, son of knyaz Voislav, with my sons, with knyaz Petar and knyaz Đurađ" Mikola22 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mikola22:, first, if you really want to contribute to this discussion (and the article) constructively, please see WP:BOTTOMPOST and WP:TPL. Regarding your arguments, please learn about following essential English language Wikipedia policies WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY, and especially WP:AGEMATTERS. You should read and always keep in mind that Balkan scope is covered by WP:ARBMAC.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you claim something "and region is ever-since interchangeably called "Donji kraji Bosne" and/or "Donji kraji bosnaski" and if that clame is denied with original documents then as an editor and in good faith you should find historians and books that speak about Donji Kraji in the 14th and 15th century, no, you stick to some book which is legitimate but not in good faith. My historical data belong to the original research which is not allowed but that not mean that they not exist, it just says that your source is not completely accurate. Mikola22 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

So, correct me if I am wrong: you want us to reject academic historiography and proper historians' interpretation of primary source in favor of your own ?

Again, please learn the Talk page layout guidelines. I can't and i don't want to fix your posts every time you comment here.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find any information about "Donji kraji Bosne" where to find this information? I only know about mention of Donji Kraji. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you, please, first stop playing with copy/pasting only portion of colon punctuation marks (:), and learn how to properly post in TP, and then I will give you source text which you asked. Here, let me offer you a hand: you carefully highlight and copy/paste entire row of colons from previous comment and add one more by typing (:), rest you can learn here → WP:BOTTOMPOST and WP:TPL.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Give me information that talks about "Donji kraji Bosne". Where are they? Mikola22 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's go one by one.

1. Best source of Croatian rule in Pliva is DAI https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_upravljanju_carstvom , https://hr.wikisource.org/wiki/O_upravljanju_carstvom/Gl._XXX._Pri%C4%8Da_o_provinciji_Dalmaciji ;

Njihova je zemlja bila podijeljena u 11 županija a to su: Hlebiana, Tzenzena, Emota, Pleba, Pesenta, Parathalassia, Brebere, Nona, Tnena, Sidraga, Nina, a njihov ban (boanos) ima (u vlasti) Kribasan, Litzan, Goutzeska. . In Byzantine Greek, laters b is pronunced v, so Pleba in Greek is translated as Pliva, which is name of local river which goes in river Vrbas in town of Jajce. There is also idea that part's of (future ) Donji Kraji where part of Imota parish https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/226788

https://books.google.hr/books?id=YIAYMNOOe0YC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=king+michael+kresimir&source=bl&ots=l_5qFRqu0D&sig=v39V3R7Mk3N0YXzNCuPFB58RDs8&hl=hr&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pliva&f=false The district perfects mentioned in charters and inscriptions during the ninth century had by now mulitplied, especialy in the regions in the interior, such as Pset, Pliva and Livno (all in western Bosnia), which had recently fallen under the rule of Croatian dukes, western Bosnia mentioned here is todays state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not medieval one.

2. sentence should be like this: "Sources judge around the year 1244 (Donji Kraji) was somewhere north of Vrhbosna and west of Usora province, towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana."" I think it's neutral, and is basicly giving geographical location of the county.

3. @Santasa, you mentioned Vego, I mentioned his crediability.

4. Medieval Bosnian core is Vrhbosna. Banate in medieval Bosnia included few little provinces which changed hands often, such as Usora (with Soli), Vrhbosna, Donji Kraji...

5. Hrvatinići were a family from Pliva, were subjects of Croatian bans of Šubići, and they had possesions in Croatia, which makes them qualified as "Croatian" house. It's surname is basicly translated as "Little Croats". They were also subjects of Bosnian bans, latter they were proclaimed as "vice-kings" of Bosnia, and last christian king in Bosnia (as Turkish vasal in Lašva) was from their family, so there is a little bit of duality between two states.

6. Trpimirović are a dynasty, not a person. Trpimir who begun that dynasty was a person. Pliva parish is the area from which Donji Kraji originate, posibly with parts from neighbourhoud parishes...

7. I also never heard that Donji Kraji were called Donji Kraji of Slavonia, or Donji Kraji of Bosne. In most of the charters, Donji Kraji and Bosnia (and Usora) are treated in same way. Can you give source of mentioning of Donji Kraji as Donji Kraji of Slavonia/Bosnia? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

1. DAI is WP:PRIMARY and is deconstructed and dismanteled by historiography thoroughly - so, it's NOT BEST source for much of anything except for proper historians to give us their interpretation;

But whatever DIA is or isn't is irrelevant for this article, which deals with Donji Kraji, and not with fabled Croatian kingdom from 9th to 10th century, when Donji Kraji didn't exist under that name;

2. sentence you are suggesting is unacceptabley because it is based on your misinterpretation of sourced text and is basically WP:OR (it's also horrible Google translation of the source-text, which you than mixed with some of your inventions);

3. you have other avenues (AN for contesting reliability of sources) to dispute Marko Vego's credibility as one of the most respectable Yugoslav medievalist, and acceptable source for history of Medieval Bosnia, and this is not the one;

4. what is "core" of medieval Bosnia is irrelevant - everything else you talk about is your opinion and I personally like to rely on proper historiography for information regarding history and on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources;

5. Hrvatinić, whose most prominent member was titled "Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Donji Kraji, Duke of Split", also referred that way in scholarship and works by medievalist Gordan Ravančić, PhD. Assistant director of Croatian Institute of History, and most prominent contemporary Croatian medievalist Neven Budak, were family which served Bosnian bans and kings for the majority of times in which family had its reign, and their reign is decently documented so it shouldn't be great problem for you, or anyone else for that matter, to prove what they were or were not;

your deliberation on the family name etymology is your own invention and just another fallacy which isn't grounded in reality - Hrvatin, from which family name Hrvatinić is derived is all-Slavic name, not just Croatian, and doesn't takes root in ethnonym Hrvat (Croat) or as you claim "little Croat", or whatever - not to mention that you don't have source for your etymological games - prominent Serbs of that time were also named Hrvatin, so Serbian lord Hrvatin held Rudine near Gacko while his brother of Vojin held Gacko (1327) - (Tomović 2011, pp. 357, 361.)

6 and 7 are some discernible mingling of your usual anachronistically bungled people, places and eras.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Prominent Serbs of that time were also named Hrvatin that Serb is originally Croatian if is named as Hrvatin, or his ancestor was Croat. "The personal names Hrvatin (since 1301), Hrvajin (since 1475), Hrvo (since 1475), Hrvoje(Croat) (since 1475) and Hrvat(Croat) (since 1475) are also found throughout eastern Herzegovina in the Middle Ages" so they are not Serbs they are Croats. How did you think determine someone's origins in medieval times? It is one of the indicators of personal origin. Mikola22 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic questions in middle ages are comlex matter. Have you read the article? Those names mostly show Croatian conection, but not alway, yes. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Let's get back on tracks w/o talking in circles

My three sentences are both removed few days ago by Ceha without explanation, and I am not sure why. SportingFlyer made some, I will put it mildly, harsh comments on my entire version, but basically not being NPOV - so let's try again:

• Marko Vego derives the name of Donji Kraji from the name of Roman province Lower Pannonia, or later Lower Slavonia, (Hadžijahić - Povijest Bosne u IX i X stoljeću (2004) and Vego - Postanak (1982)) while Pavao Anđelić deduce that the name Donji Kraji (Lower Ends) "also has a certain relation to the rest of (Upper) Bosnia", where the terms "Lower" and "End" refers to a border area that is below from the geographical point of view, and in terms of altitude and terrain configuration, in relation to the rest of Bosnia.(Hadžijahić; Anđelić - Studije (1982) pg 10-11) From 12th century onward names derivations "Lower Pannonia", "Lower Slavonia" or "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, and region is ever-since interchangeably called "Donji kraji Bosne" and/or "Donji kraji bosnaski".(Vukičić-Gošić (1985)) During the reign of Hrvatinić family, since the beginning of 13th century, the territory of Donji Kraji included areas and parishes around Sana river, Glaž, to Grmeč mountain on the west and to the middle course of the Vrbas river on the east, thus covering entire region of Sanica, and later included Uskoplje, Pliva, Luka, Vrbas, Zemljanik (Resnik), Vrbanja, Tribava (Trijebovo), Mel, Lušci and Banjica, and on occasions Dubica.
  

(I copy-pasted references via article history page previews so not all of them are here and they are not whole. These below are references of another editor from discussion above, who left them with RefList template)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Santasa99:
• I'm not sure those sentences were in and of themselves problematic - the whole change was about 5,000 bytes so substantial and did introduce some NPOV, so we can go back in and add back the good changes (as has already occurred.) There are parts of the article that could definitely be improved. Most importantly, I don't see much actual conflict here, just misunderstandings, so if everyone involved could do your best to support what you're trying to add with sources and not comment on the opinions of others that would go a lot further to improving the article. I personally have no POV in this and am doing my best to read the sources and determine what facts we should add to the article and what sentences need to be reworded.
• I'm going to have to check the sources to see if they support what's said there which I will do later - not saying this is right or wrong yet, so please do not take this the wrong way
• The source doesn't support "never again mentioned" or "ever-since" as these words imply it's been known as such for eight centuries. It also doesn't mention "Lower Pannonia". Perhaps we should just remove the sentence from the article?
• I'm not sure what's wrong with the sentence "Sources judge around the year 1244 (Donji Kraji) was somewhere north of Vrhbosna and west of Usora province, towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana." Santasa99, how would you write the sentence? The only change I would make is to identify at least one of the sources.
• The sentence I proposed was awkward and I fixed it, the current sentence in the article is "From the 13th century on, texts stopped referring to Donji Kraji as Donji kraji Slavonije, instead calling it Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji Bosanski." which I think is accurate. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully I will reply in shortest possible way - your post is quite OK, don't worry too much:

• Source:"Sudeć po" as "Source judge" is clumsy and bad translation - sources don't judge, historians do, so it should be "Judging from the sources/documents"
• "Vrhbosna" is not mentioned in any of the source texts ! Not in any context, way, shape and form, and I am absolutely certain that you won't find any which mention it in this context, that's just another of Ceha's "cuckoo's egg" in attempt to promote his deep feeling that Bosnia should be reduced to some small parish within the medieval state, and we shouldn't insist in putting it in the article - "Vrhbosna" is very specific entity and is just one of the small parishes of Medieval Bosnian state.
• Just a small tweak and mostly as you already suggested upon of my initial post, and I already agreed with you in the beginning of "Round 2" discussion (I am not sure why you changed it again, practically reverting yourself) - here's sentence which corresponds to its source-text: "From primary sources, around the year 1244, (Donji Kraji) was somewhere north in Bosnia, west of Usora province and towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana."

NOTE 1: This is rephrased sentence from translated source-text, but note that the source is more than 100 years old and even if take it in its entirety as literally translated we wouldn't need to fear of copy rights infringement.

NOTE 2: If your mentioning of "Vrhbosna" originate from my article edit which Ceha reverted, than what happened is just a misunderstanding - I have mentioned "Upper Bosnia" but not in context of location (like in this sentence which describes its geo location), instead I mentioned it in context of etymology as it is discussed by historian Anđelić (and later mentioned in Hadžijaić's) very specifically in that regard in his own deliberation on name origin, so he found that it could be some relation between "Donji" (lower) and "Gornji" (upper) in terms of usual Balkan's topographical orientation (rivers have Upper course and Lower course - Donja i Gornja Bosna, Drina, Sava, etc; villages, plateaus and plains also have "Gornji Milanovac", "Donji Milanovac", etc)

• This last point is perfect. (I hope that I covered it all and in correct order, if I made some lapses in understanding or explanations, you will ask me tomorrow)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And, however, I missed one point:

• You are referring to this:

-"Od 13. stoljeća ne nazivaju se više Donji kraji Salvonije, nego Donji kraji Bosne ili Donji kraji bosanski."

-and my literal translation and closest rephrasing was (English): "Since 13th century onward name "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, instead region is ever-since called "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji bosnaski".

And you are right, the source doesn't says "never again mentioned" or "ever-since", but that doesn't mean exactly not supporting it, because source says "ne nazivaju se više" - literally "they called no more" - only lapse is "onward" and "ever-since", and you are really absolutely correct, that could imply all this time, from 12th c till present day.

There is no possible reason to remove it and deprive readers of the info, especially since you gave us an excellent version in: "From the 13th century on, texts stopped referring to Donji Kraji as Donji kraji Slavonije, instead calling it Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji Bosanski.", just scratch "on", change "Donji Kraji" with "it"/"region"/"area"/"territory", and add all three derivations "Donja Panonija", "Donja Slavonija" (you asked which source says Donja Panonija and Donja Slavonija - Anđelić and Hadžijahić, former or both, not sure now), and "Donji kraji Slavonije", because source says were used (there is, really, no possible reason to deprive readers of the info on all name derivations), and you have perfect and informative sentence - "From the 13th century, texts stopped referring to it/region/area as "Donja Panonija", "Donja Slavonija", "Donji kraji Slavonije", instead calling it "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji Bosanski".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If you can't find Anđelić, you can download it here to check it.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa, why are you commenting me instead of the article? That's not going to rase "good faith".

Vrhbosna is core of Banate in medieval Bosnia.

Marko Vego derives, that is his personal opinion. The same did Pavo Anđelić. There are no primary sources on that. Could you, please, find a chapter where the region is called Donji Kraji Bosne or Donji Kraji Bosanski, or mention of them as Donji Kraji Slavonije?

If not, I think that that sentence is a surplus. If sources egist, that phrase "From the 13th century on, texts stopped referring to Donji Kraji as Donji kraji Slavonije, instead calling it Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji Bosanski. is ok.

As for sentence From primary sources, around the year 1244, (Donji Kraji) was somewhere north of upper Bosnia, west of Usora province and towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana. could be also good translation. Vrhbosna litteraly means upper Bosnia, where Vrh equals mountain top. Sentence is basicly geolocation.

As for your deleted sentences, I didn't have anything to do with it, nor I can't find it anywhere in history changes? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Vrhbosna is not Upper Bosna. Vrhbosna is located in geographical Upper Bosna (area from Vrhbosna to Vranduk, roughly, if you want to find more detailed information, check Google Books), and is one of many župa's in the region of Bosna. Vrhbosna literally means "the peak of Bosnia". Mhare (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare: exactly my point, "Upper Bosna" is geographical term just like "Upper Drina", "Upper Una", "Upper Mississippi", "Upper Columbia", "Upper Danube", and so on - geographical areas around the significant rivers are always named upon directionality and rivers' course stage, so we have Upper and Lower Neretva. On the other hand we have name of the parish "Vrhbosna" which is organizational, that is political and ecclesiastical term. Upper Bosna isn't Vrhbosna, that's another fallacy.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha: three points:

1. if source-text say one thing, we can rephrase that to avoid copy-right infringement, but we won't tell something else, we will tell exactly what the source-text says - that's the general rule of the project, English wikipedia;
2. your evaluation of the source authors' validity is your own, and isn't relevant at all, unless you have a some friggin' hard evidence to prove that they are unfit for use in English wikipedia (as I explained to you in previous section, you have avenues to explore that, I am referring you to AN for sources); I really do understand that you strongly feel that Bosnian and Croatian topics should only use, as you said it above in previous discussion section, "pro-Croatian" sources and authors, but that's your problem not of this community.
3. regarding your rhetorical gymnastics with names: you need to understand that "Vrhbosna" isn't "Upper Bosna", Vrhbosna is the name of the organizational unit, at the time both political and ecclesiastical, while Upper Bosna is geographical place, a toponym! It's completely another matter that Vrhbosna name etymology probably find the name root in geographical terminology, that is, when the inhabitants of the area decided to organize themselves politically, they probably chose Upper Bosna toponym as their reference point for naming their new parish. Don't confuse these two things, and don't confuse etymology with the political unit.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha, I can't say anymore if you are doing this in "good faith" or not, but I will give you information on organizational affairs of medieval Bosnian state (both banat and kingdom) in political term, so that we can end this debate on "Vrhbosna is core of Medieval Bosnia" which is fallacious claim - like all medieval states Bosnia too was comprised of several smaller organizational units called in Bosnia of that time "oblasti"/"zemlje" (counties/lands). The following list were "oblast"/"zemlje" of both banat (later phase) and kingdom: Ban's/King's Land, Donji Kraji, Usora, Soli, and Hum. That's it, threr are no other "oblast"/"zemlja", and there are no Vrhbosna because Vrhbosna was only a parish, just one of many parishes within Ban'/King's land!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's go one by one, again.

@Mhare, yes, and not. Upper Bosnia can be geographical term, but in medieval times, that kind of names can be (and in particular example is) province names. On this map Vrhbosna is in yellow (borders could be debated), as "core" Bosnia; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/b/bd/Bosna.jpg that's upper range of river Bosnia, right?

In this map it's light green http://cro-eu.com/galerija-fotografija/albums/userpics/10001/Sl_%202_%20Zupe%20Lika%2C%20Gacka%20i%20Krbava%20u%20srednjem%20vijeku.jpg

And in this https://docplayer.net/docs-images/87/97423771/images/164-0.jpg it's small area around today's Sarajevo, the area which before Turks had the name Vrhbosna, again parts around upper stream of river Bosnia.

Vrhbosna is coined from two words, vrh and bosna, where vrh means mountain top, or sorce or upper stream, and Bosna refers to the river. Basicly, Vrhbosna is upper Bosnia, and in that area exists parish with the same name....

@Ceha, I think you lost yourself in those maps. Basically, Vrhbosna is not upper Bosna, and they are not synonymous. Please, check literature. You are mixing a lot of the stuff. That in "yellow" is not Vrhbosna. Stick to well established sources, Santasa has provided really good ones and very authoritative for medieval Bosnia. Mhare (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare, I'm sorry, but you are wrong :D That yellow is Vrhbosna, original core of Banate in Bosnia, later mostly ban's land, with probable exclusion of Lašva and Brod Parishes. I realy don't see what should be of the issue. Vrhbosna is one of the provinces in banate, such as Usora (ok, Usora was some times in 13th and 14th century part of Mačva Banate, and in some times independent of Banate in Bosnia, but...). I offered synonim, as for geolocation. What is the name of that yellow area if not Vrhbosna or Upper Bosnia, which would be aprouvable? Ban's land? Bosnian core? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't even try to find the information. You clearly don't do well in these matters. Vrhbosna is territory that covers today's Sarajevo. That what you refer as Vrhbosna is Upper Bosna, just one of many parts of whole region of Bosna. Vrhbosna is župa centered in confluences of rivers Miljacka and Željeznica and it's territory is marked by mountains Romanija, Jahorina, Trevebić, Bjelašnica and Igman. There is a long way and many other župa's to Vranduk, and one of the first one is Vogošća. Now, open one of your many maps and see where is Vogošća, and where is Vranduk. I won't discuss it anymore about this matter. Mhare (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare, province/land and Parish can have same name. Look at this map; https://docplayer.net/docs-images/87/97423771/images/164-0.jpg

Map in lower left angle, called Župe najstarije Bosanske države u X. st. There is a parish called Bosna around Visoko. Vrhbosna was larger area than today's Sarajevo canton, altough medieval name for Sarajevo was Vrhbosna. Again, I don't have any problem in calling the area of cca today's Zenica and Sarajevo cantons as Upper Bosnia. What is the name of ban/king's land in medieval Bosnia? Upper Bosnia, Vrhbosna, or? --Čeha (razgovor) 17:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

ps. there is a cute map showing medieval territories in territory of todays BiH; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Historical_regions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/250px-Historical_regions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png look at the names in gray. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa, 1. that's the point, yes.

2. I said that Marko Vego work is not historicly correct, is biased, and as such should be further confirmed. What's the problem with that?

3. There exists differences between Upper Bosnia and Vrhbosna, but those differences are pretty small and two words can be treated basicly as synonimes. In upper sentence we are trying to geolocate territories of Donji Kraji, right? What's the point of that sentence?

4. As for your last sentence, Vrhbosna/Upper Bosnia is Ban's/King's land, core territory... It's the name for that kind of territory (borders aside) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vrhbosna , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia (look at the map and Vrhbosna Parish)

Sources - check it, rephrase it, don't change its content & context

Three or four sentences, 3-4 days, enormous discussion and we still don't have finite results, which adequately carries informations from the source text !? Here's sources crucial in this debate:

• Pavao Anđelić - Studije o teritorijalno-političkoj organizaciji srednjevjekovne Bosne - pg. 11 (Donji Kraji) and pg. 238 (Donji Kraji)
• Vego - Postanak srednjevjekovne bosanske države - pg 38-42 (Donji Kraji)
• Hadžijahić - Povjest Bosne u 9. i 10. stoljeću (Hadžijahić just reiterating Anđelić and Vego, per his footnotes) - pg 133 (Donji Kraji)

with those of Jiričik who cited Klajić, which we already discussed both its translation and phrasing, and we have all the necessary ingredients for decent prose which corresponds to these sources, without changing its context and meaning, and without inventing some stuff or skipping to include other.

@SportingFlyer, based on these sources, we should at least be capable of agreeing on these two, it seemed that we were really close in above discussions:
- "From primary sources, around the year 1244, (Donji Kraji) was somewhere north in Bosnia, west of Usora province and towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana."
- "From the 13th century, texts stopped referring to it/region/area/territory as "Donja Panonija", "Donja Slavonija", "Donji kraji Slavonije", instead calling it "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji Bosanski."

Let's check it, properly translate it, rephrase it if it's properly translated and properly rephrased (unless they are free from copy-right infringement), and use it without changing its content & context, and let's wrap this one up.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you scan those pages and put tem on imgur or something like that? I would realy like to see primary sources of that, as for lines;

- "From primary sources, around the year 1244, (Donji Kraji) was somewhere north of upper Bosnia, west of Usora province and towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana."

- "From the 13th century, texts stopped referring to it/region/area/territory as "Donja Panonija", "Donja Slavonija", "Donji kraji Slavonije", instead calling it "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji Bosanski."- this line is basicly wrong. Firstly, Donji Kraji where part of Roman province of Dalmatia, not Panonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia#/media/File:Pannonia03_en.png , and Donja (Lower) Slavonija is that one by the Danube, noth that one in Upper stream of Vrbas (and Sana). Is there any mention of area before 13th century as Dolnji Kraji? To my knowledge, first mention of them is in 1244 with Usora and Soli, as one of elemental parts of Banate in Bosnia, in charter of king Bella IV to Bosnian Bishop (dominican Ponsa) has the rights of collecting church taxes in Usora, Soli and lower parts. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/317236 page 29. And in that chapter, there is name Olfed, which comes from hungarian name Alföld, which means lowlands. No mention of Panonia, or Slavonia at all... I would put the line "From the 13th century, texts started referring to it/region/area/territory as Olfeld, which comes from hungarian name Alföld, which means lowlands, and from which low parts-Donji Kraji are derived" --Čeha (razgovor) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Enough time has passed since my last discussion, and since you are making demands that are not sensible, I am now including these two lines into the article this TP. Since you can't make sensible objection (not to mention that you are asking me to infringe author/publisher's copy-rights), and since those two objections directed specifically at these two sentences are insensible:

- first, demand that the word "upper" be included, although it doesn't exists in source text, while it has no other clear reason beside some kind of your personal preference which subtly changes context and push POV;

- and second is your own opinion, your own interpretation of what's in some maps, or more precisely your WP:OR, in which I am not required to be even interested - I am using these proper historians (from listed sources) for proper interpretation of history and its primary sources.

You have your opinion, and you are free to act as you please.

After all these months of mistrust and mistreatment, and after you just expressed further mistrust in my literal reading and translation of these sources, you are now making such an incredible demanding requests, exceeding all that English wikipedia guidelines advise. But here's my advice to you - if you can't find some online version of these texts to inform yourself on its content, and since you don't trust me, you can find these authors in your first next-door library in Croatia (even if you are residing in small town) easily because these are highly regarded academics in all former-Yugoslavia countries as well as internationally. But I also advise you to acquire or get acquainted with those authors works, because I intend to use it throughout of this article, of xcourse with some additional authors if such need arise.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I am wrapping this one up, and intend to archive it in several hours form now, to clear TP space for further edit-discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You are doing that without consensus. Lower Panonia is qouted only by Vego, that territory was not part of Roman Panonia, and you are declining to give, quote or scan any other sources which would back up that.

As for first qoute, you changed it. Article speaks of Usora Province, and for you it is disputable to speak of Vrhbosna province? Ok, than original translation should stay. I was hopping for compromise, I was traying to find synonims, but you clearly don't wont to cooperate.

In every normal discusion there is a rule that someone who is making the claims must prove them, not the other way round. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please respect TP

@Ceha, please respect discussion - editors SportingFlyer and Mhare both accepted, sources and my arguments, (Mhare in his last written post, and Flyer had not object on my last proposition for a long enough time) - that's consensus. Now you continue to sabotage TP discussion with this relentless circumlocution. You have no sources to confirm what you are arguing - you are expressing just your own opinion, and what you think historians' credential in discussion are, and you are basically asking that we drop their (legit historians') proper interpretation of history (and primary sources) in favor of your own interpretation !? Your arguments boils down to what you like and what you don't like.
Regarding "Upper Bosna" inclusion - you are relentlessly trying to include that word despite the fact that word is not mentioned in the source text in that particular context. When I tried, before this discussion, to include mention of "Upper Bosna" in source proper context, you originally reverted it more than 3 times without any discussion, and now you are cherry-picking that topological term from my previous edits, and after I pointed at it in the source, and you want to use it completely out of context - sorry, fellow editor, just like your insistence on Hungarian language to label Donji Kraji as "Oldfeld", this too is just yet another way to distract and confuse, in attempt to distance medieval Bosnian state as far as possible from Donji Kraji without any reasonable and sourced argument.
Please respect TP and restrain from reverting thees few sentences, without reason and after 3-4 days of painstaking discussion over sources, because it seem as if you are trying to sabotage any further work on this article by making it impossible, for starters, to even go through these 2 or 3 lines of text.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa, the point of talk pages is not to bring persons with the same opinion, and than claim quantitave majority, this is not a vote, but to find a compromise. There are two issues:

1. that Donji Kraji are north from Bosnian core (upper Bosnia, Vrhbosna, or whatever you want to call it), and that you are rephrasing the whole sentence by replacing preposition of with preposition in. The sentence is clear. It's about geopositioning Donji Kraji. It's the lands towards Croatia (core), west of Usora, and north of Bosnia (core), or Vrhbosna, UpperBosnia, in any way you like to call the province. Otherways there would be no need to mention Usora province, or towns which are in it. It is in todays north Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Bosnian Krajina. Sentence should be clear.

2. It's very simple, that statment is not correct. You can't quote anybody. Is there any need to qoute osman historical Aali; https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aali who calls Bosnians Croats? Donji Kraji weren't ever part of roman Panonia, nor were called that. Parts around Jajce were recorded in DAI as part of Pliva parish, not something else. Glaž, Sana, Vrbas (and even Dubica) where part of medieval Slavonia (and Zagreb diocese), but they were not part of original Donji Kraji province, nor they had anything with it's name...

I gave you map from ex yugoslav atlas which clearly shows Donji Kraji province https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/e/ef/Hrvatska_Pavla_%C5%A0ubi%C4%87a.jpg where is the problem?--Čeha (razgovor) 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This insinuations and claims are part of the philosophy that I warned about on TP of Turkish Croatia. I was just waiting for the sentence "Bosnians are Croats". Čeha on several occasions showed he doesn't respect the literature, and quite frankly, has said some things that showed he does not understand the matter. As this is encyclopedia, we are not here to publish our own views or thinking. Instead, we should use best available sources. And I am so sorry, that does not include internet portals, hosted images and so on. Mhare (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ad hominem, when you are out of arguments? :)

I gave you maps from yugoslav atlas, and a bunch of references... I'm realy sorry that you can't have normal discussion, without repeating a few authors as a Holly letter... --Čeha (razgovor) 15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No Ceha, User:Mhare did not resort to ad-hominem against you, he is focused and up exact up to on point, describing your engagemts by citing WP policies and guidelines. Your behavior is well documented as disruptive, and described as such not only by other neutral editors but admins as well - in this very thread you carelessly and overbearingly accused me of "bring(ing) persons with the same opinion" without a shred of evidence, which is in breach of WP:ARBMAC as WP:Casting aspersions, and that alone should be enough for some kind of sanction - I guess you referring to Mhare but maybe also to SportingFlyer, which is in line with your habitual dispersion of conspiracy, which you and Silveri(j)e claim exist between various admins and myself, and against entire Croatian nation. Up until this point you may have been encouraged by my failure to put together a good AN, but I am getting better, while you are continuously showing disrespect for policies and guidelines of this project. You are sabotaging Talk page, and you are practically blackmailing editors into accepting your interpretations and opinions or else, you are ready to drag them into edit-war.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I realy do not know what to say to this reapeating acusations. Wikipedia should be NPOV, so I'd like to (again) call you to put aside your POV, and stop producing toxic atmosphere. For example, you wanted to include name reference to Lower Pannonia (your post of 20th November), but when I gave you map which clearly shows that Donji Kraji were not part of Roman Panonia, you didn't appologise, you didn't even say that you are sorry or thanks, you just changed your oponinon and quoted Jelena Mrgic. You are constantly calling me names, but you do not have arguments to respond to my questions or suggestions. Could you please stop? Your behavior is... unWikipeadian to say the least. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat again, you did told wrong facts about names of regions and clearly had misconceptions about Vrhbosna and Upper Bosna and the whole subject. I am sorry if you interpreted that as an attack, maybe I should used different wording. I've told you where are you making errors, and you ignored that, and just continued throwing maps at us, and speculating (!) about how to name things. I won't engage in that kind of discussion, and your actions can be interpreted as sabotaging, for sure. Mhare (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a disscusion, I was giving you arguments, and am trying to be NPOV and reach a consensus. I am realy sorry for your lack of good faith. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji mediation

@CaptainEek: please, Sir, would you now be able to make some review of Donji Kraji TP (from section which you initiated: Talk:Donji_Kraji#Discussion,_round_2) so that you can give us some inputs from your perspective - editor Ceha sabotaging all that we discussed for three long days, in which editors Mhare, editor Flyer, editor Ceha and myself all participated to various degree. Editor Ceha simply has no regards for any arguments evident in sources, and employs variety of circumlocutory rhetorical tactics, which now uses as an excuse for "round 2" of reverts and with obvious intent to edit-war if we do not comply with his requests and personal opinions, based on what they believe TP and things discussed there (authors-historians and sources) should be interpreted. Now editor even accuses me of "bring persons with the same opinion" to the TP, which is blatant breach of WP:Casting aspersions since editor was, of course, unable to produce any evidence. I hope you will be able to pars through the necessary information and find out what exactly is going on and what is the right/best way to resolve this stall. Since, discussion is certainly long you may have some questions - I will wait for your response, thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, As I see it, the debate concerns one line of text From the 13th century, texts stopped referring to it as "Donja Panonija", "Donja Slavonija", "Donji kraji Slavonije", instead calling it "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji Bosanski. You are using this 1985 set of papers as a reference. Can you provide the exact paper that discusses that? It would probably clear things up quicker. @Ceha: disagrees with the sentence, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me, perhaps they could explain in 3 sentences or less?

As a general note, "primary sources" has been tossed around a bunch. In this context, a primary source would be something like a letter from the 13th century. That of course isn't allowed, we need modern scholarship. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I understand that for uninvolved editor it must be painful to see this TP, but it's this or AN with editors who bring strong personal feelings into editing Wikipedia.

It concerns more than just that one line - it concerns refusal to accept historians without any evident reason, it concerns insistence on changing context with inclusion of unmentioned terms, places displaced geographically and temporally, with circumlocutory avoidance to accept obvious info presented in sources, playing games with prepositions to change context, interpretation of what amount to consensus, presentation of personal preferences, interpretation and opinion as condition to avoid edit-war.

The sentence you are asking for is contextual sources description: post-modern historian Marko Vego (who is Croat like our fellow editor Ceha, who reject him on grounds of not being "pro-Croatian"(!?) discuss the name and location in his book from 1982. pp38-42, more specifically at pp.38, where he states how that territory is known in primary sources from earlier times as Donja Panonija and Donja Slavonija, later Donji Kraji Slavonije. In link you provided above (which serves as ref in article), Vukičić and Gošić state on, pp.75 (available in snippet preview here, that : "Od 13. stoljeća ne nazivaju se više Donji kraji Salvonije, nego Donji kraji Bosne ili Donji kraji bosanski." (English: "Since 13th century name "Donji kraji Slavonije" was never again mentioned, instead region was called "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji bosnaski."). So, instead of using two sentences I used one sentence with contextual usage of two references (and to phrase it in a way to avoid copy-right infringement) - if I placed Vego into reference at the end of the paragraph than we can move it behind this statement, however statement is good and shouldn't be problematic in any conceivable way, not the least as WP:OR for instance, as we are still in solid ground when using context in proper manner.

Meanwhile, I have not yet come to the point where I am going to use the work of historian Jelena Mrgic, and her 2002. book titled ""Donji Kraji, which is entirely devoted to this medieval county - at pp.27 and pp.28 she reject existence of "Donji Kraji Slavonije" altogether, and reject previous etymological discussions among historians, such as Klajić, Jiriček and even Vego, and derives it from geography (altutude and topography) and political demarcation as a product of solely local Bosnian origin (Mrgić is Serbian and pretty immersed into "pro-Serbian" interpretation of Balkan history, so if she is willing to give some credit to medieval Bosnians and their state in this regard, we should listen).

But editor Ceha's denial of that line is just distraction, editor reject sources whenever that source goes against what he think should be included into prose - in this case he reject Marko Vego, without any reasonable argument or evidence whatsoever, and even goes s far to claim that Vego is unacceptable because he is not "pro-Croatian" (I think in his first post at the beginning under "Round 2"), meanwhile Vego was, and his work still is, one of the most prominent medievalist recognized for his work bot domestically and internationally. Editor Ceha also tries to change context with some of his own interpretations, little inventions and deliberate confusions with geography and etymology, which is behavior we can discuses, if you are interested, in follow-up to this one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (The last edit was my 10 thousandth --౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC))

It's very simple. Area was border in medieval and frequently changed hands. Province had it's name, and it wasn't anytime called Donji Kraji Bosanski, or Donji Kraji Slavonije. Vego (nationality irrelevant) was a member of communist party, and his works had ideological background. There is no primary source, which would confirm his conclusions.

As for Mrgić, I agree that the name (Donji Kraji) comes from the valleys between the hills. I'm just against any additional label, because we do not have proof for it.

As for Klaić, it's also very simple. He wrote geolocation of the territory, and the same thing goes for others...

@Captain Eek Did you catch my point? --Čeha (razgovor) 16:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Ceha, what you like and dislike is irrelevant, as well as your opinion. On the other hand your behavior is quite relevant as well as your condescending tone and WP:OWNERSHIP attitude.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sanatasa, you are constantly discussing me, and this page should be about the arguments and Donji Kraji. Have you read this and this? It's your link, which describes your behaviour, not mine. Please, can we talk about the topic, and not wikipedia editors? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, Please stop attacking Ceha. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not mention Ceha's conduct again, unless they do something egregious which would warrant a trip to ANI. But I don't think that is likely. We're here to iron out a linguistic and historical dispute, not throw punches.

I would opt to not use Vego, and instead use the more modern scholarship of Mrgic. So what does that mean for content? Do we add anything? Or keep it the way it is? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am, after all, too tired and too friggin' distraught after being endlessly drilled for 4 days (have you even read whole thing, one can only take so much) and lead by the nose by one editor who, I strongly believe, has no intention of discussing and/or accepting any of the arguments for which two other editors and myself worked and tried to "iron-out" 3-4 sentences for four days, so that I am now keeping my eye balls in one and half of a brain in the other jar.

I am not going to address editor at all anymore, just like smart cookie editor User:Mhare who decided to refuse of being dragged into endless loop of senseless request (like one in which editor requests scanned pages of my books uploaded somewhere for proof! how about that for "good faith") and rejections. However, since you are a mediator, the best way to continue discussion would be if you are willing to take over arguing, and I will only suggest bits of source text form authors whose credential are indisputable, unless some evident flaw can be presented - we can argue between two of us on such and similar issues. This way we are going to avoid any interaction, let alone trowing punches.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Vego 1982 is not modern enough, you want Mrgić - here's Mrgić:

• Rodonačelnik vlasteoske bosanske porodice Hrvatinića, knez Hrvatin Stjepanić, nosio je 1299. godine titulu "kneza Donjih Kraja bosanske zemlje" (comes partium provinciarum inferiorum terre Bosnensis; comes de inferioribus confiniis Bosne). Stoga, porijeklo ovog termina ne može da se veže za Ugarsku i "Donje karjeve Slavonije", kako je mislio Vego, več je u pitanju domaći naziv za dio bosanske države. Epitet Donji oslikava nadmorsku visinu ove oblasti, dok ime Kraji svakako označava pogranične oblasti (Lat. confinii) bosanske države. - Mrgić, 2002, pp.28

Now, we can translate this bit and rephrase it, if you can argue for its inclusion into prose. But before we get to work over this one, shouldn't you check editor's most recent edits in the article history, where they removed everything that was agreed upon between Flyer, Mhare and myself, and included additional unsupported claims and weasel words.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek:, history isn't exact science. No doubt that WP:AGEMATTERS when we shovel through historiography in search for the best sources to put in reference, but all historians' research is important, and in this case, all authors from mid-19th century Klajić, all the way to 2002 Mrgić, including Anđelić 1960'-70', Vego 1970'-80', Hadžijahić 1980'-00', worked their way through their historical searches by relying on those before them, and they all used to correct each other, attempting to upgrade on the works of their predecessor, and improve picture of the pasts. However, they all also making mistakes of their own, all the time.

So, in essence, there is no ultimate truth in historical researches, there is only sometimes blurred, sometime sharp and focused picture but which is always just a patchwork made of bits and pieces of all these authors findings through time.

The only difference between, say, Klajić's research and Mrgić research is in evolution and advancement of methodology and and evermore interdisciplinary approach. However contemporary post-modern historian like Mrgić will never even think of rejecting Klajić, as the first modern Croatian historian, who worked in second half of the 19th century, just because she may think that he became irrelevant.

For our article Mrgić's book "Donji Kraji" (2002) is a great source, the best which I can think of, but if we want to develop this article properly we need all of them, from Klajić to Anđelić, to Vego and Hadžijahić, and everyone else who researched this subject and is credible, mainstream historian with good credential.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate in following issues:

1. Is there a mention of Donji Kraji before 1244 charter? If not, the sentance how were they called before that lacks any meaning.

2. Are addional labels realy necessary? Name of the province is Donji Kraji, possesive form is not recorded, and as such it should be not used.

3. If there is consensus in 1 and 2, than phrase From the 13th century, texts started referring to the territories as "Donji kraji", in the meaning of lower parts, valleys between the mountains. should be enough.

4. As for From primary sources, around the year 1244, Vjekoslav Klaić citing Konstantin Josef Jireček placed the territory somewhere north of medieval Bosnian core, west of Usora county and towards Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana. bold part is opened for discusion? I think that the phrase should be good, would anyone like to phrase it better?

@Santasa, history must rely on some sources, it's shouldn't be part of todays politics... --Čeha (razgovor) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I simply refuse to discuss unwarranted contextual interference into materials provided by literature, except rephrasing to avoid copy-rights infringements, any other removal of important and informative bits of text, or invention of terms, names, phrases and context unsupported by literature is sheer POV pushing.

When editor User:Ceha was cautioned for his tactics here on TP, they successfully incited User:CaptainEek into accusing me of attacking editor Ceha, while requesting me to stop with the suggestion that ANI (which Captain already removed once) is unlikely. Meanwhile, editor Ceha, who complains about my discussion of his tactics, himself in his postings here expressed some of his views and insinuations of my motives and behavior:

Santasa, history must rely on some sources, it's shouldn't be part of todays politics; and earlier on achieved level of consensus between Flyer, Mhare and myself: Santasa, the point of talk pages is not to bring persons with the same opinion, and than claim quantitave majority,...; implying all kind of stuff, most notably in first example that my insistence on literature and proper reading of it is somehow politically driven, and in second example that I have solicited other editors to agree with me or that I invited other two participants in discussion through canvasing; similar pattern appeared in exchange with User:Mhare who warned on editor Ceha ideological POV pushing, after editor Ceha argued: 2. It's very simple, that statment is not correct. You can't quote anybody. Is there any need to qoute osman historical Aali who calls Bosnians Croats? to which editor Mhare replied: This insinuations (editor Mhare refers to editor Ceha insinuation that his agreement with me is solicited, and continues in his reply) and claims are part of the philosophy that I warned about on TP of Turkish Croatia. I was just waiting for the sentence "Bosnians are Croats". Čeha on several occasions showed he doesn't respect the literature,.., to which editor Ceha again replies: Ad hominem, when you are out of arguments? :) I gave you maps from yugoslav atlas, and a bunch of references... (they didn't, really - and continues) I'm realy sorry that you can't have normal discussion, without repeating a few authors as a Holly letter....

From this it's quite apparent that editor Ceha stubborn rejection of literature, and constant request in changing context given in these sources is sheer ideologically driven standpoint, and can't be resolved in TP.

Meanwhile, since Captain didn't respond on my previous post in last 24 hours, I removed undiscussed edits, while TP discussion is in full swing, in which editor Ceha removed everything that was agreed between Flyer, Mhare & myself, and included additional undiscussed and unsupported claims, words and phrases w/t weasel words ("powerful", "temporary", "briefly"), which can't be found in source text let alone interpreted, changing context throughout.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

౪ Santa ౪ you obviously follow politics of Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic and that's your right but not in good faith. Proving that Serbs are from the time of Porphyrogenitus in Bosnia makes no sense(it is enough to look at historical data on the strong Vlach colonization in the Turkish era). You pressing term "Bosnia" which supposedly would originally be related to the Serbs but it is not history. We have to keep those data and sources that exist and which are not politics, also here must be and consensus which you do not have. Mikola22 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

While, authors Vjekoslav Klajić, Ferdo Šišić and Mladen Ančić, as well as editor Ceha, all think that in Bosnia, since "7th century", only ethnic Croats live - however, these authors' works, just like Mrgić's, can not and will not be disqualified on that grounds, because we can carefully go around such ideological background, if one is too evident or can be identified at all. Anyway, what is your own opinion on who are the people who settled and live in Bosnia? And don't imply what I'm trying to "press" with the country name "Bosnia" in an article on history of Bosnia, and what not. This is an article on the history of the medieval Bosnian state, and a county that is one of its constituent parts in the Meddle Ages, not about Serbs and Croats, nor Serbia or Croatia.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about Donji Kraji, regarding of peoples who settled and live in Bosnia probably for Serbs here originally came Serbs for Croats came Croats and for Bosniaks came Bosniaks. Who is right I wouldn't know. Genetics will say that in the future and then we will be smarter and more concrete. Mikola22 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa, you are still commenting me, and not the article. Please stop.

I will return to last good version. If you have any comment why something is wrong, talk pages are place to discuss it. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ceha has problematic views on medieval sources for Balkans, I am afraid. This is a big red flag, and we should consider it going forward. Mhare (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong in LJPD? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It states that upper Bosnia was part of the Croatia during Krešimir II. It was also part of Croatia later during Pavao Šubić and his son. What's wrong with that, those are historical facts? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I am with Mhare in his conclusion, and as I said few paragraphs above, it's quite apparent that editor Ceha stubborn rejection of literature, and constant request in changing context given in these sources, and constant reiteration of supposed willingness to discuss, which is nothing more than attempt to game the system by locking this article TP in endless loop of neverending restarts and repetitions - this situation can't be explained as "content dispute" anymore - it is what it is - ideologically driven disruption, and can't be resolved in TP. From this enormous discussion can also be seen that on my part I really did not spare on time and effort to resolve this issue - I have found reliable literature from credible mainstream historians (two Croatians, one Serbian, and one Bosnian - I have accepted one which was already included in refs, namely 19th century Croatian historian), I insisted on truthful reading of these source-texts. All this took me nowhere - the discussion often revolved around editor Ceha's back-and-forth from misreading and misinterpretation of suggested literature to outright rejection of authors on unacceptable grounds of pure ideological standpoint and personal preference (author is rejected because his views can not be described as pro Croatian, author was a member of communist party, referring to all of these scholars editor rejected them because editor Mhare was repeating a few authors as a Holly letter). TP was practically locked in almost endless loop from the beginning. I hope that Mhare, CaptainEek, or someone else will be able to find and suggest approach how to resolve this setback. That would really be great, and I would appreciate it, because I have invested too much of a time and effort on this article and discussion, only to find myself at the whim of editor who is willing to discuss everything line-by-line until we all go blind, while editor continue to edit page regardless.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Mrgić's book "Donji Kraji" (2002) as a source?

Here is a review of Mrgić's book."It is not clear to her or she cannot at least accept that medieval term Donji Kraji has nothing to do with today's name of Bosnian Krajina." page 96. "Thus, it seems that to Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic "the epithet Donji" (in the name Donji Kraji) indicates altitude of this area, anyone who looks at the geographical map of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be convinced that this area is extremely mountainous (whether it is necessary to spend words at all on introduce the concept of "altitude mindset in the Middle Ages) page 97. "The consequence however is to focus on the unprovable proof of Srpstvo(Serbian origin), lack of time and space to reflect on real historical problems, and thus such texts appear to be ordinarily silly and meaningless" page 97. "The simplicity of the claim that all places where Serbs live today are from the beginning Serbian" page 98. etc.. Mikola22 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the problem with some authors which confuse history with politics...

Thank you for pointing this critique--Čeha (razgovor) 21:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

So, guy, Mladen Ančić, who hangs with the Croatian ardent ultra-nationalists from Croatian Party of Rights (mostly its Bosnian branch), spewing Islamophobic rhetoric about Bosnian Muslim, writing apologias in Croatian media about Ustasha salute "Za Dom Spremni" as it's being revived and used by the Croatian Neo-Nazis and the members of the very same party with whose leadership Ančić befriended, is somehow relevant to give us assessment of Mrgić book - he dismisses Mrgić's arguments as "unprovable proofs" for Serbdom of Bosnaska Krajina history by introducing arguments and "unprovable proofs" for the Croatian nature and origins on the same area of Bosnia? Well, we can all rejoice, we have interpreters of ideological bias in academia and scholarship, which means less troubles in choosing only those carrying only truth and nothing but the truth.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

? http://www.unizd.hr/povijest/nastavnici/prof-dr-sc-mladen-ancic https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mladen_An%C4%8Di%C4%87

What are you talking about?

By the way, Croatian Party of Rights (mostly its Bosnian branch) is not islamophobic, they see Bosniaks as "islamic Croats", but it's marginal and extreme right party, in most of it's views.

Why are you showing bias to Croatian history in today's BiH? Anybody else is good, but Croat's not?

If I am not mistaken, you even declined that Bihać was a meeting place of Croatian Parliament, on the discussion of Turkish Croatia, right? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Weasel words

What are weasel words in this changes?
What is disputable https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donji_Kraji&oldid=prev&diff=928221214 .
We can go phrase by phrase. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid we are way past talking. This should be addressed by person of authority. You know very well what are the weasel words, and you (I hope) know that Original research is not permitted, yet it is in the revision. I don't really need to comment adding Seminar papers as a source. Also, your newest blunder is calling John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. book as an unreliable source, while claiming that Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is valid source. Regarding this I will not do anything, but I am surely going to find somebody who will and put an end to this. I fully support Santasa version, as he cited well known authors like Marko Vego, Vjekoslav Klaić and Jelena Mrgić, and finally several authors from papers of Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is totally unacademic what you are doing by including these kind of sources, and calling Fine an unreliable source. We've exhausted talking. Mhare (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I gave you historical critisism from Neven Budak about the Fine. I am sorry that we can not speak and that you and Santasa are mixing politics with history. History is based on sources, and not on the politics. Vjekoslav Klaić is a good historian, Marko Vego is unfortinuly a biast one. User Mikula provided us with critisism about Jelena Mrgić, also. If you think that history should be determined by politicians, and not sources, than we realy do not have anything to talk about. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resoloution

To everyone involved in this talkpage, please comment on content, not the contributor. However, at this point I think it is time to engage in formal dispute resolution via the dispute resolution noticeboard. I will go ahead and open a dispute resolution case. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Version of Article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As no admin has yet decided to tackle this discussion and a close has been requested for nearly two months and as an experienced editor who has not been involved in these issues, I am undertaking a non-administrator close. Of the now 80 RfC's I've closed, this is easily the messiest and least focused. There is in the comments below a consistent and deep-seated misconception that RfC's are somehow votes. They are not. Closers of RfC's are specifically instructed not to merely count noses: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. After reading through this discussion, a large majority of the text qualifies under one or (usually) more of those rejection criteria. Complicating this evaluation is that, as the RfC progressed, it strayed further and further from the RfC question as presented and became a free-form discussion of sources, historical philosophies, and aspersions towards other editors. It also became unclear what the supposed alternative texts were due to an edit war on the article and a continued revision of the suggested text. What is clear is that the suggested text has not gained a consensus among the participants here. Going forward, there are two recommended options that would address the shortcomings of this discussion: 1) Break down the contentious issues into smaller, more focused RfC's that address each issue separately and introduce each RfC with a concise, neutral, and specific statement of what the RfC should accomplish. Good advice on such statements can be found here. 2) Create a pair of clearly-defined alternative versions in the Draft namespace and request comments on the two drafts. If such is pursued then I further recommend that each proposer should limit themselves to one statement of why they think their proposed text is preferable and not engage in back-and-forth bickering as seen below. I hope these recommendations help. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Request for Comments

The purpose of this RFC is to decide whether to replace the existing article Donji Kraji in its entirety. Please review the two versions of the article:

A. This is the version that is protected until December 14. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donji_Kraji&oldid=928638356

B. This is the version that I have moved to user space from the sandbox of Ceha: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji&oldid=929430815

Which version should be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You may also provide your own version, but please do not comment or complain at length about what you do not want without saying what you want. (There has been too much generalized complaining already.)

State your support for version A or version B in the Survey, but do not reply to each other. You may engage in extended discussion in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey

• Version B. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Both versions still need significant work (cleanup and additional sources.) I'm not sure I have a specific preference. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Both versions are in need of additional sources. Version A will is better candidate for further work. We have quintessential sources for medieval župa's and counties in Bosnia that should be included - Marko Vego and especially Pavao Anđelić. I will try to muster strength, as I am currently mildly sick, and take that version into my sandbox and add those sources. Santasa provided excellent lead section in noticeboard. Mhare (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I only have slight reservations with the Santasa99 prose on the noticeboard, but these can be remedied fairly easily, mostly "placed the territory of Donji Kraji in northern Bosnia, west from Usora county." - it's very unclear whether this means present-day Bosnia or medieval Bosnia, and if it means medieval Bosnia, I'd have to look at the reference, as other scholars (Fine) do a very good job of discussing how the region evolved over the years: For the rest of the fourteenth century, except for the early years of Tvrtko I immediately after Kotromanić's death in 1353, the Donji Kraji was to be nominally part of Bosnia, though in fact it was a more-or-less autonomous principality under the Hrvatinić family. (The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century..., Fine, page 278) though Fine also refers to the area as being in Bosnia near the 12th century on another page of the book. There are a couple other tense issues which should be uncontroversial. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I have started the sandbox version. I inserted Santas text, and will not begin with the rest of the article. Mhare (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare Is anyone able to edit this? I can make some necessary edits. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe you can? Mhare (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

interjecting out of timelineSportingFlyer, Agreed. Fine should be used definitely, as it is a rare English source for this article. Anđelić did a lot of work defining the counties and parishes in medieval Bosnia, as I remember it had a lot of information about Donji Kraji. We should probably find more information there, and better define the borders of this region, but I will ask for some more time as I am really under weather. Mhare (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It also needs to include a reference to what became Donji Kraji (Ključ/the Pliva župa). But that text is generally okay. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Neither version - both need additional prose and references:

I have provided prose and references for "Lede" section and "Name and geography" section, and I explained my opposition for "History"→"Early history" (subsection) in the B version, and agreement for this same sub-section in A version.

Another point: I hope that this Fine's expression "independent principality" won't become another point of contention, because Fine is no fool, and his description is quite clear when read and interpreted in the context of his entire postulate in that book section on Bosnia, as well as his other works on Bosnia. As in every feudal state of medieval Europe and the Balkans, in Bosnia too, each county or "zemlja" ("land") was an autonomous realm under the rule of the local count/prince, but these local lords all together made up of what was the Bosnian ruling elite, that was under the rule of the Bosnian sovereign (ban and/or king), they all attended Bosnian parliament known as Stanak, and more specifically in case of Donji Kraji, head of its ruling family at its peak held the position of "Grand Duke of Bosnia". Every single county, starting with the "King's Land", had its lord: Hum, and Soli/Usora, and Podrinje/Borač, and Donji Kraji/Zapadne Strane; but of all "zemlje" listed in Bosnian rulers intitulation, the following four were most stable "zemlje" (counties) of the medieval Bosnian state organization: Ban's/King's "zemlja" under direct rule of the state sovereign, Humska "zemlja" under Vukčić-Kosača, "zemlja" Donji Kraji under Vukčić-Hrvatinić, and "zemlja" Podrinje/Borač under Pavlović family; Usorska "zemlja" (or Usora) and "zemlja" Soli were hard to defend so that every time Hungarians attacked the realm, rule over these two counties was disrupted. (For this discussion you can also consult those 7 references, which I listed in DRN, but most of the info is available in [1], [2], [5], [6]).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

interjecting out of timeline This can't be copied/pasted into the article because it's not written encyclopaedically, but I really like this summary and I hope we can include it in the article, sourced, in some form. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Inserted statement Of course not, this passage is just an overview of territorial-political organization of that medieval state, so that you and Mhare could work with it in case that you are unable to fully access Anđelić's study. (I have book in my hands, as the matter of fact, all four of them, but some pirated version probably exists online.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, why? I gave my comments listed bellow. The same process which happen in Medieval Bosnia was happening in Donji Kraji (and Burgundy, and Portugal, and Austria, Prussia...), just with different endings. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So when we speak of "de facto" independent (upper) Bosnia in the lands of Hungarian crown, than we can loose the "de facto".

When we speak of "de facto" independent Donji Kraji, than we can loose independent?

Donji Kraji, Usora, and Hum were not always the same category.

Hum became conected with Bosnia in 14th century, and in 15th century was "de facto" independent, as Herzegovina.

Donji Kraji were "de facto" independent till it's 15th century when the widow of the previous ruler married the king. After that they are (practicly) the center of the state in many things, till the fall of Bosnia, when they became different croato-hungarian banate.

Usora was for most of the thime conected with (upper) Bosnia, although there were for most of the history anti-bans, the ones which were more "pro-hungarian". Except when Šubići ruled the Bosnia, then they became independent Banate (under the administration of ex-Serbian king).

Medieval states are feudal, not national.

Bosnia itself is one of them, the only difference is that it lasted longer (for about 3 centuries), and it's ruler managed to get a crown. Similar historical proces are shown in case of Portugal, Austria, Burgundy, Prussia...--Čeha (razgovor) 20:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention debating on your personal opinion and interpretation of cherry-picked bits of text, which serves your subtle POV pushing, and on your inability to grasp the most elementary things - from reading in the middle of the text to interpretation of context of postulate in book. The rest, I am unable to parse through the rest, except, maybe, that your whole idea this entire time is to somehow detach that one county from the rest of medieval state, and I alredy told you - you have darn hard yob of proving that idea of yours with contextual sources, not with misinterpretation of that one sentence form the middle of 665 pages book, from scholar whom you consider unreliable, hence unacceptable, who have written volumes on medieval Bosnian state. Not to mention that just yesterday, or day before, you opened RSN on Fine arguing that he should be considered as "unreliable source", and you have just been there few hours ago, arguing that position again, and now Fine is suddenly good for you - how about that, how about your intrinsic desire to "improve" article in "good faith").--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Support for the version of user Ceha. It's more coreherent, contains clearer chronology, has more practical maps and makes more sense. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Now we've got 2 votes for version B, and 3 votes for more work on both versions?

@Santa, again you missed the point. I've oppened the discussion about reliability of Fine's book. You claim that he is reliable, and you don't accept his qoutes when they go against your POV? Will you then reject his book as a valid sorce? You can't have it both ways, you know that? :)

A little honesty goes a long way ;) --Čeha (razgovor) 14:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You got your explanation on your WP:Cherry-picking from text by author you consider unreliable, there is no "votes", so you have nothing except your (1RR) 1 revert per week on Balkan-related articles indefinitely, per your WP:ARBMAC/EE (Balkan and East Europe topic) restriction, so you need to cool off and also watch on your WP:BAITING of editors with these kind of misleading statements and condescending tone with inserted emojis, because WP:ARBMAC restrictions cover wide array of things.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No, Santasa. This is survey section, not a place where you can write your opinion of me. There are two possiblities and this is voting section. For now, my version is on lead. 2:0--Čeha (razgovor) 18:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, "leading" is not the point of Wikipedia. Mhare (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is cooperation. If someone shows lack of it, then there are votes. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Version B. Ceha you really made a good and quality article with whom everyone can be satisfied. Mikola22 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Version B. Kubura (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

result

Version B, should be official version of the article. However, Santasa99 reverted it. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, I am so sorry, I wanted to incorporate parts of your article, but sometimes your English is really bad, I don't even know what you tried to tell. Also, wiki formatting is terrible, you use underscore, etc. I want to ask you what parts of the article in my version that is so well referenced you find problematic, and what aspects of Donji Kraji history you want me to expand it? Mhare (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, I gave you a list of all the things were wrong in your version. The list only grew. Your version is no good. You've systematicly skiped mention of earlier Croat parishes in that area, you didn't write much about Babonić Banate in Slavonia which included northern parts of Donji Kraji, you've used wrong version of Hrvatinić Coat of Arms, you did not explain how did Kotromanić family (and Bosnian banate/kingdom) got estates in Donji Kraji...

Most of your quotes are without a lot of value. They don't tell much, some are basicly useless (for example Vego and Lower Panonia of which Donji Kraji were never part). There is a constant repetion of Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, even if the area was borderline, changed hands often, some qoutes are wrong (for example in NW Bosnia, and not NW of (central/upper) Bosnia), etc. Your version is not NPOW and it should not be there according to DR.

I don't have problem that some of your qoutes be included in my version of article, but that should be NPOW. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, if you can add what's missing in a properly formatted form with references, please do it. I don't have much on Babonići, but I may have look tomorrow in Fine's book. Their rule was short, hence the lack of text. Hrvoje Vukčić was notable for Donji Kraji, and other Hrvatinići. I am not sure how Kotromanić's got estates, I may have a look tomorrow and add it accordingly.

It may be harsh, but please, once again look at the sentences you used in your article. It needs a lot more of copyediting than mine. Let alone those links with underscores... and you have 9 references, and 2 of them are some seminar papers of some students...

I must remind you that article that stands has infobox, 35 references (I plan on adding more) that include Mrgić-Radojčić, Klaić, Vego, Anđelić, Fine, Čirković, Hadžijalić, Šišić, and others. Mhare (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

And a lot of those references are a surplus. For example, you quoted Vego about lower Panonia, yet Donji Kraji where never part of Pannonia. Look at just part of the name of the area. 5 references about what?

I added some of your references to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji , although I have complains about some of the authors, and parts of your text in my version, mostly to part of the growth of Hrvatinići family.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, Mikola22, buddies, I am ready to add what you think is missing. For real, the version you are propagating is full of grammatical errors, poor wiki formating, serious lack of references. Mhare (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare,That is the version which is voted (according to DR) to be the main version of the article. Again, I am trying to compromise. I added some of your references, and tryed to wraped it out everything in single article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji

Your version is lacking (besides votes), meaning of some quotes (I gave you example with Vego and Lower Panonia), and bigger picture. Some of the quotes lack sense, and some do not bellong there.

Grammar is the least of the error, and it can be fixed easily.

Try to read my version (the one which got majority of the votes:), and look what I've done.

Look how much that version is more informative than yours....

If it would help you, we can go line by line. If we want to do something as should be done, that is sometimes the only way.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare You correct these grammar mistakes and return article from Ceha(if you need any help tell me that), that's why you're here(editor) but you have to respect Ceha article because majority voted for that article, everything else is vandalism and not in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Be careful with those "majority" votes, as it may sting you back very badly. No, I won't correct grammar mistakes, as we have version of the article that is properly formatted, and referenced accordingly. Mhare (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, be honest, difference between the versions is sky and the ground. I added some of your references in new version, which I'm puting as a main article, according to DR.

If you wish, we can discuss further changes.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare"Be careful with those "majority" votes, as it may sting you back very badly." Which wars are you in? We have been debating for a month and most editors voted for article B. Let's just respect that, correct any grammatical errors and restore article to its original(B) state. Mikola22 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare showered you with rare expression of patience and wikipedia-cultured politeness since this RfC started (and in previous DRN), and your only response is to abuse it with personal opinion remarks on content issue level and some vague insinuations. I really think that you should stick to community principles as hard as you can, and try not to disrupt other peoples' hard work, because you stated your position in quite clear terms on several TP's in last two-three days.

Another point, order of precedence on inclusion of reliable sources is tied to the year of the source research and publishing - this means that contemporary research, like say Mrgić, Vego, Anđelić, has precedence over 19th century Klaić, or early 20th century Šišić. Thais is a policy and is not negotiable.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As stated before, I have complains about those writers. What's wrong with Ančić? He is also 20th century writer. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with Ancic or Dzino, why are you asking, do you believe that Ancic-historian has something to say which is considerably different from Mrgic-historian, Vego, Andjelic, Fine, Hadzijahic, Sulejmanagic, Lovrenovic - apart from the fact that both Ancic and Mrgic are both obviously ideologically engaged, only on the opposite sides, which is unfortunate but surpassable obstacle when we read them?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey comments

@SportingFlyer:, what's wrong with my version? How can it be improved?
I removed wording such as powerfull, to which Santasa had objections. Those wording were mostly from this version of article, but none the less. As for temporarly and briefly, the first (Sana parish) is some 10 years under the Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, and the second (Dubica parish) is few years (the same ruler). Would it be better that I wrote that in years, or? --Čeha (razgovor) 19:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

For now we've got 3 votes for version B, and none of the votes for version A. How can a version B be improved?

I also found interesting note. http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=56610 U kasnom srednjem vijeku razlikovala se Gornja i Donja Slavonija; u sastavu Donje bili su dijelovi koji leže južno od Save, a napose spomenute tri županije oko donjega toka Une, Vrbasa i Sane (danas pretežno u sjeverozapadnoj Bosni). / In the late Middle Ages, Upper and Lower Slavonia differed; The Lower part consisted of parts lying south of the Sava River, and in particular the three counties mentioned above the lower reaches of the Una, Vrbas and Sana (today mostly in northwestern Bosnia).

But that should be later than the charter of 1244, and is S(c)lavonia inferior, not de inferioribus S(c)lavonia confinibus. Also, majority of that area was only for than 10 years under Hrvatinić rule, although they were later included in Jajce Banate (and most of them (with exception of Dubica) fall with it. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare:, I read your version of article, and it's far from good.

1. to qoute Santasa, there is a lot of words like powerfull in it

2. You quoted Vego and Mrgić, althouth those are critisised, and unlogical. Area where Donji Kraji are were never part of roman Panonia (it were part of Dalmatia), and Slavonia as seperate banate exist only from 1242., so there is to little time to became something. Sana, Vrbas (and Glaž) and Dubica were Upper Slavonia, but those are north from Donji Kraji. Donji Kraji are Pliva parish (and Usora).

3. Upper Vrbas (where Donji Kraji are, together with Sana) are of similar altitude with upper Bosnia, Lower ends can not be expresed out of that.

4. There is no mention of Pliva parish in DAI, and it's preceding DK name.

5. Bosnia in geolocation should be today.

6. There is just one sentence which mentiones Šubić goverment

7. The parts with Hrvatići are from 13.th, not 14.th century. 14th century part has a lot of data about Bosnian Banate and local geopolitics, which doesn't have to much connection with Donji Kraji. For example Bela and forming of Usora Banate.

8. The same goes for the 15.th century, Turks and kings, with little connection with Donji Kraji. And important parts are left over, for example marriage of Jelena Nelipić, widow of Hrvoje Hrvatinić, which marrige to king Ostoja brought central rule in Donji Kraji.

9. No mention of the Jajce banate, wrong fate of Uskoplje (it was under Kosača family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jajce ) etc...

Have you read my version of the article? Together with maps. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

As I commented in the DR, version A is a mess. A lot of things written "without the head", and not clearly shown. Article is missing frame (for example, it lax any mention of previous history of the area, it looks like that some editors regard the word Croat as a dirty word), and it should not have repeating of the same word in every possible context.--Čeha (razgovor) 09:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC) I am open to the editing of version B, changes in style, etc. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Ceha: Yours needs to be better referenced, most sentences aren't properly referenced and I can't follow the links to, for instance, Šisić. It's really important here since the sources are the conflict. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've took most of the links from this article. I'll check the references. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer:Šišić reference is the same in both versions... If there is something wrong with it, I'll fix it. --Čeha (razgovor) 11:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha: It could be formatted better, and I don't see it in the bibliography, though maybe I did not see it? Anyways the Šišić reference isn't the main issue. I can add tags where I think there needs to be a citation, would that help? May take me a couple days. SportingFlyer T·C 13:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be great, tnx :) --Čeha (razgovor) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon:, @SportingFlyer:, @Ceha: - @Mhare: putting together nearly perfect version of prose on this topic - Mhare in his version is firmly grounded in post-modern and contemporary(!) literature on the subject, narrative is focused, all the references are interpreted properly without misleading and cherrypicked bits that would change context, it stays both temporally and specialty focused (epoch time-line, geographic distribution of the county), there are no false balancing with some insertion of information on people and events from another era that have no place in this article. So, I am looking forward to hear objections, because it will be interesting to hear which trajectory will these objections take.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer:, @Santasa99:, @Robert McClenon: - I have made further improvements in my sandbox, but it is far from ideal (Wikipedia:WIP). I tried somehow to capture notable information of the whole timeline of Donji Kraji while it lasted in medieval times. There will be probably some events missing, I have been overwhelmed at moments as I found a lot more information in Nada Klaić book. Be free to chip in, or correct some mistakes. Almost every paragraph is referenced, but I also added some new references from Nada Klaić into Santasa's lead section. Mhare (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare:, I hope that other concerned won't choose to rush things up, all of a sudden, because I will be able to offer you much more help tomorrow. It looks really good at this point, but of course, everything can get better and more extensive, especially with additional prose and new references. I have some obligations in the next several hours, probably more, so I am taken until tomorrow, when I will be free to commit my time to your effort.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare: you didn't use my coments. Further more this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donji_Kraji_map.png is not including Uskoplje. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare.. In all variants of the so-called Illyrian coat of arms, Hrvoje's coat of arms is a red shield with a golden hair, with red lilies and one silver cross above and below. Ljudevit Thallóczy states that coat of arms II. Hrvoje used sicut supremus voivoda regni Bosniae ac vicarius generalis regis Vladislai and received it as a vassal from his own senior Ladislaus of Naples. Your coat of arms in the article is different? Mikola22 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I am no expert, but it was suggested to me that his CoA is correct one. Mhare (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon:, I think I have more or less completed my initial version for the article once its unprotected. Objectively speaking its much more referenced and properly formatted. As per usual, suddenly we have appearance of phantom voters on the article, but thats all previously seen. I think my version could easily become a Good Article nomination with further edits from other editors and some expanding. Mhare (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• User:Mhare - You refer to phantom voters. I infer that those are either unregistered editors from IP addresses or pop-up single-purpose accounts created to vote. The closer will normally be an experienced editor (often but not always an administrator) who is able to tell whether editors are established or single-purpose; if necessary, please leave a note for the closer about any such voters. (I do not intend to close this RFC because I opened it.) If you have reason to think that there is sockpuppetry (which unfortunately is not unusual on contentious RFCs), you may report it, with evidence, at sockpuppet investigations. (The limitation of reporting sockpuppetry is that you have to identify the senior account or puppet-master.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, well not sockpuppetry, but as Čeha had pointed out that "he is leading" as neither I or Santasa voted for any of A or B, as they were both bad. So we have some users voting on here that haven't been in all these talks.

Instead, I have created what I believe is a superior version to both with almost every sentence referenced. The protection will end up soon, I wanted only clarification for what is next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhare (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I disagree with @Mhare: in every possible way.

DR ended when I created new version of the article. There was a voting (as seen above) about which version should be puted on the article, and my version is in lead. I think that according to DR, my version should be puted as the new version of the article. It can me edited and altered later, but it's more NPOV, so it should be there.

I gave my comments to User:Mhare, he didn't discused them. More over his version is very nationalistic. For example this coat of arms, which is documented with colors https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Coat_of_Arms_of_Hrvatini%C4%87.svg is changed for this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Hrvoje_vukcic_misal_CoA.png , although such colors were not anywhere recorded. There is a work concerning this https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=216467 , but it fails in category of original research at best.

Than this sentence After Hrvoje death Jajce has passed back to the royal domain.. Has passed? Hrvoje's widow, Jelena Nelipić, sister of Croatian ban maried Bosnian ruler (king/ban). It's used in passive mode, just to skip mention of Croats. And there are numerous examples like that. There is no talk of Pliva parish, which is predacesor of Donji Kraji, because it was mentioned as a Croat parish.

What would be apropriate action here? We have obvious DR, one version which is backed up with majority of votes, and this.

I'm not against incorporating parts of Mhare's version, but it should be objective, not nationalistic POV. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, hey man, don't you talk about nationalistic POV. You are the guy who wrote about Bosnia on CW, right? Tvrtko II was Croatian noble? Bosnia was east-Croatian banate? 10 or more blocks here? Restriction to Balkan themes? Come on, easy now. Let's focus on quality.

As of CoA, if it determined to be not correct, sure, replace it. Man, you don't even try to format your wikilinks correctly, there are some parts of broken English, references are very rare. That's an interesting fact about Jelena Nelipić, the source I was referencing didn't mention it. As of Pliva parish, again, my 3 sources (Klaić, Vego, Anđelić) didn't mention it, they were only dealing with Donji Kraji from their first mention in medieval times. Mhare (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare:It didn't mention it, because it's a bit nationalistic. Again, you didn't respond to any of my critics, nor did you try to found anything about the area before 13th century. And you read DAI, right?

My version is more objective, that's probable why it got more votes. And it should be puted as active article version. If you have any recomendation how to improve it, I'm open to them.

@Robert McClenon:, @Mhare:, entire string of articles regarding medieval, pre-modern and modern history of Bosnia and Herzegovina is troubled with canvasing at Croatian language Wikipedia, and it is my intention to explore all possibilities surrounding this issue. Just for your information, you can visit my sandbox report with evidences here.

As for colleague Mhare's version, it's actually a proper wikipedia article, which already in this shape and form can be used as a steppingstone for "Good article" nomination, that's how good his considerable effort on the subject has been. As for any objections, Ceha's or anyone else's, I expect proper arguments, not personal one-liner opinion and personal preferences, without any sensable argumentation.

Finally, why not ask for opinion, per WP:3O, I already suggested User:Surtsicna as highly versed in Balkan's medieval history.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha:, actually, regarding Coat of Arms, everything you just said is other-way-around in reality! Red and gold coloration is nowhere to be found, except in those 17th, 18th and 19th century fraudulent armorials, described in articles on group of Illyrian Armorials. You obviously have no idea what "Original research" in scholarship is, just like your cluelessness on WP:RS (primary, secondary and tertiary) here, until few days ago - the research paper is part of the contemporary research on armorials among Bosnian and Serbian medieval nobility, and this particular research is peer-reviewed and published in a number of academic publications from Bosnia to Serbia to Croatia. And now you are comparing falsified 17th to 19th century armorials to this contemporary academic research by distinguished scholar!? For your, or anybody interested, information: this version of CoA and this coloration (which is White, Blue and Golden) is depicted in most important "primary source" on this family history - Hrvoje's Missal. So, this research isn't simply some "original research" it's a proper academic study based on other studies (which is visible from its numerous footnotes), and most importantly, its based on primary source or original document, where this particular Coat of Arms is depicted in color!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Do you have any proof of your claims? A photo from missal? Would that original research be necesary if there was a primary source? What did @Shokatz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hrvatini%C4%87 told you here? Is there a reason why are you comming in conflict with any Croat editor an this wikipedia.

This is a picture of Hrvoje with his coat of arms in that missal http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?ID=26530 . Why are you trying to prove something else, when there are evidence of contrary? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You are, again, casting WP:Aspersions, with your presumptuous statements! I am following wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so it is obvious that anyone who doesn't will stand on the opposite side, creating an appearance of "conflict" - whether he or she is being a Croat, Serb, Bosnian or whoever, is irrelevant to anyone who respect this project - which in your mind probably appears as a personal or even ethnic conflict. But I am sick and tired of your assumptions and your accusations of other good editors for presumed "nationalism", which is rather among more timid of yours accusations.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, please take note on editor Ceha's attempt to solicit support from editor who is uninvolved, and whose only relation to this issue is that he was in hard dispute with me over another article on topic of medieval history of Bosnia a year ago, and which is obviously intended, beside gaining possibly like-minded editor's support, to make this months-long resolution process even more uncomfortable and implausible.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ceha, User:Santasa99, User:Mhare - I am not an administrator, and am no longer mediating this dispute. The subject area is still subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the Balkan arbitration case. ArbCom discretionary sanctions are used in areas of battleground editing, often in areas that have been historical battlegrounds, and World War One started as a Balkan War. Report disruptive editing at Arbitration Enforcement. Then maybe the survivors can let this RFC run to completion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, ok what should we do? Is DR that we should change this version of article with that in my sandbox? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am really sorry that you have to choose that course of action, but we should probably listen to your advice and seek ultimate resolution, since we already made the most of all other procedural options. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, sorry, but you are realy transparent. From the way you rewrote historical article about Turkish_Croatia to this pages. I realy hope that this will end here. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: This coat of arms is your work? Where is the source for blue color. Give me concrete information. Mikola22 (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha:, your last edit was disturbingly erratic, and bordered to vandalism, which points to the fact that you are not here to build wikipedia and you don't deserve all the patience User:Mhare showed with you.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Again? Is it possible that you stop ad hominem behaviour? Wikipedia is a place to discuss, not to argue. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hold your horses

Mhare, Ceha, Santasa99, Mikola22: The protection of the article expired some days ago, but that does not mean that you should go back to the edit warring that was the reason for the protection. There is an RfC going on; it has been running for 13 days, and it will continue to run, normally for 30 days. By the way, the argument about "version X has most votes" is completely invalid. Consensus is not reached by counting votes, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --T*U (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you give us the link to the RfC? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

??? What do you mean??? This one. Here! Titled Version of Article. --T*U (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Christ help us - this is "RfC", and you are writing on its page.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor"State your support for version A or version B in the Survey, but do not reply to each other. You may engage in extended discussion in the Threaded Discussion section." When this voting ends? If the votes don't matter then why vote? Mikola22 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read about how a "Request for Comments" works at WP:RfC. There is no "voting", but editors express their view with arguments. When some time has elapsed (usually 30 days), and if it is not obvious that there is a consensus, an earlier uninvolved editor will close the discussion. S/he will not count votes, but will evaluate the arguments and determine if there is a consensus. The "votes" matter, but not by being counted, but by being evaluated in view of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --T*U (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor, tnx for explanation. Unfortunately it seems we will have the same state as before. Even if I tried to include all of Mhare suggestions in my version, he will not discuss it, and his version lacks styling to be understandable to readers. Unfortunately some things (as for example, who was Jelena Nelipić, or whose parish was Pliva parish) are intentionaly skipped over, as if the word Croat is a dirty word. I will not comment of an ad hominem behavior of some users, that realy speaks about them, above anything else. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in these articles. After 30 days we will be in the same position. I do not believe them, as I have read (and intend to document) what Čeha has done on CW, which was totally unscientific and unacademic work. This is just "English translation". Also, Canvassing was documented for Turkish Croatia, and Čeha participated. Furthermore, he's on a 1R limit, has about 10 blocks on here... I know about good faith and all principles, and I tried. I really did. Mhare (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

In this year I have one block. Very probbable the same goes for the previous 10 years. Is there a reason why are you trying to comment me?

After 30 days the position may well be the same, but trying to force a decision after only half the normal time has elapsed will only lead to an unresolved conflict, and then nothing has been gained. I appreciate that you so far have been extremely patient. Please do not ruin that, but have faith in your own arguments. The mills of God, you know (or rather the mills of Wikipedia) ... --T*U (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare on Bosnian wikipedia "Mrgić 2002" does not exist as a source even though you are the editor there but you entered it here as evidence for entire article. It says that you are not editing in good faith and that's why you keep mentioning other editors. Mikola22 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC) .

Mikola22: Could you please keep Bosnian Wikipedia out of this discussion about procedure. And please stop casting aspersions at other editors. --T*U (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor I've been listening about editor Ceha for two weeks that it was blocked, Croatian wikipedia, etc. Can these editors be warned not to do it again because it is a provocation? Mikola22 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22: Sorry, you lost me there. I am trying to consentrate on procedure and how an RfC works. --T*U (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but their mention of private things about editor Ceha annoying me, I don't care about how many times he is blocked. It can be seen that there is no good faith here, and I wanted to ask if that could be stopped. Mikola22 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, OK, I will stop, sure. I will just document it first. These are just highlights, the best of the best. Mhare (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor, time has past, what is the deal? Version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji is obviously a better one. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Better only to reaffirm your unique POV of, what you already claimed, that Bosnia was some kind of Croatian land, all the way through 1463. That will not really fly, as it goes against modern scholarly, especially if its neutral and respected in academic circles. Having said that, if you really wanted to contribute to the article, you can, but try to add the facts you think are missing, and are notable for the article. Mhare (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Look at the survey and what is the question. What's wrong with my version of the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji Don't go ad hominem again.

Area was part of medieval Croatia, do you have something against Džino? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ceha, hey buddy, sure, Croatian rulers may have ruled at some point in time (who is even questioning that?). Don't play naive, your "argument" is not that, it's your belief that Bosnia was some Croatian banate in the east (do I really need to bring up again those changes you made on CW?). A lot of it is, in my view, wrong - sentences, quoting, general lack of quality (if you want for me to be honest?).

How can you not see all those errors? I think mine has a lot of work to do, some native English speaker to look at it, but you are so oblivious and only interested in one fact, the fact you openly demonstrated on CW: You think of medieval Bosnia as some east Croatian banate. You have changed every goddamn medieval article on CW and just changed Bosnian to Croatian, going against all reasonable, respected, accepted histography. Even notable Croatian medievalists don't use your unaccepted definitions and views.

This is not a direct attack against you, as you and I all know too well what's the deal here. This is just my statement what I believe you are in the wrong here, and a message to neutral and uninvolved editors. What is your, I believe, intention here, and what you already have done on Croatian Wikipedia (that documented fact has led me to believe you want to do the same here) is dangerously close to intentional skewing of history widely accepted by authoritative historians regarding Balkans and Bosnia. --Mhare (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read my version of the article? What's wrong with it? Argument, it's author, is not valid.

{u|TU-nor} when is 30 days?--Čeha (razgovor) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: The RfC was opened at 23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC), so 30 days will have elapsed 4 January at 23:30 UTC. Not much will then happen automatically, but the RfC template at the top of the discussion will be removed by a Bot shortly after. In this case, I think it will be necessary with a formal closure. You can read about that at WP:CLOSE. A request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion can be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

I have explained this to you before, but since you again have referred to the version with more votes, I have to repeat this: There is no "voting" involved. The closing editor will not count votes, but will evaluate the arguments and determine if there is a consensus. The "votes" matter, but not by being counted, but by being evaluated in view of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --T*U (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Tnx. By now, my version is without critisism, unlike MHare's one... --Čeha (razgovor) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Versioning

And again. @Mhare:, why do you think that your version is better? You removed N references, without any real reason. Did you even read my version, and how much is better than this?
And your best critique is grammar? :rofl:
Do return that version, is NPOV, unlike yours. You even deleted cathegory that the are was part of Croatian kingdom :facepalm: --Čeha (razgovor) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, grammar, poor formatting, long block quotes, you name it. If you would add categories for every kingdom that ruled these territories, it would be a mess. We are talking about medieval county of Donji Kraji that is known only from 1250's and onwards. Correct category could be Kingdom of Hungary actually, but that's for others editors to do. I did my part to bring the article to acceptable level. Yours is not. Using emoticons that do not work is actually childish. Mhare (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you alergic to Croat name? Pliva Parish was part of Croatia Kingdom. Not Hungarian one. There is a difference. Or you think that medieval Croats are baiscly Hungarians?

Unfortunately, your level is POV, as can be seen :/

As for emoticons, unfortunately they are the best way to describe your behavior. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Mhare, Ceha: It is unfortunate that the RfC still has not been closed, despite no less than two requests posted at WP:AN/RFC. I know it may be hard, but since the RfC was about what version to use as a basis for continued editing, I would advice you to avoid editing the article any further and preferably restore the earlier version temporarily until closure. I am afraid that continued editing will make the RfC even more difficult to close, thereby making it even more difficult to find an editor who is willing to undertake the closing. This is not meant as critisism against any of you, it is just my reflections about how this stalemate can be ended. --T*U (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I really tried to add stuff that he has in his version in a appropriate manner so to brake stalemate and offer our readers a decent article. Its the same article really, I just added two-three sentences that deal with Croatian part that Čeha sorely think is missing. I can undo the revision, sure. I am afraid the closure may never come, and I actually tried to incorporate some of the things from his version- of course claims that have reasonable references while fixing long block quotes, and so many mistakes in formatting. Mhare (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I fully understand that it is easy to become impatient waiting for something that you do not quite know when (or even if) will happen. I am glad that you nevertheless have decided to wait a bit more. I think that the formulation of the RfC was a bit disastrous, since the question was which version that should be the basis for further development, and none of these versions exist anymore, since they both have developed further. Anyway, let us hope that someone can close the RfC soon. --T*U (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not the version before all of the edits. It involves a number of disputable edits, for example Santasa version of Hrvatinići Coat of Arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donji_Kraji&oldid=921687676 this is the version which existed before the discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 04:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, Ceha, but that is just nonsense. The version you link to, is your preferred version in the middle of a slow-moving edit war that later became a full-scale edit war. There are more than 50 edits to the article after that version up till the time the RfC was started.--T*U (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

And are all more or less part of that war. The version Mhare put is just his preffered version, it containtes most of his work after the begining of RFC. While I made my edits in my sandbox, he made his here. After all, look at the differences https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donji_Kraji&type=revision&diff=938694874&oldid=938463497 . They are marginal. And look the differences to my version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donji_Kraji&type=revision&diff=938694874&oldid=938237165 ...

My is the version before the excalation, and it shouldn't count for less just because I played by the rules, unlike the others. --Čeha (razgovor) 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My role here has been to try to avoid the edit war from blowing up again by insisting on waiting for the closure of the RfC. I have no intention of getting involved in a discussion about edits and versions months before the RfC was started. --T*U (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

With this kind of editing, there is a lot of wasted energy and our own resources. All this nonsense with this medieval county article was started by you Čeha with this edit. From that point on, its just a nightmare. I am so sorry for every user from outside of Balkans, to have to put up with this. At least you don't get to call others vandals anymore, but its a shame we didn't know you were on 1RR restriction exactly on this kinds of articles. Mhare (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

So, I've made some improvements in the article, Santasa came and begun edit war, but I'm guilty for it?

Interesting POV.

As for vandalism, deleting referenced sources just because they don't follow your POV is vandalism.

And deleting mention of Croats in this area is highly nationalistic POV.

1RR is ten years old, in reality it shouldn't be here any more. --Čeha (razgovor) 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Reality it is, and there is a good reason it still stands. Mhare (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

And this is ad hominem, again. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Basicly, conclusions from RFC were ignored.
It was concluded that my version should be accepted, or the old one should remain. There was a voting. My version won majority of the votes. @Mhare: had a problem with that, and continued to edit old version, while nobody stoped him.
I even included some of his edits in my version, I tried to find a compromise solution, but to no avail. T*U why has this happened? Why does Mhare's version has presidence over mine?
I am open to further concensus. I would suggest one of the two possible solutions;
1. Do as RFC ordered. Put the mine version as the official one, while we can discuss any further changes on it. I already included some of the Mhare quotes in it, the point is to make a good and NPOV article.
2. Return it to that version before Santasa started an edit war and wait for the conclusion. Although it would be a pitty that all of the work goes for nothing.
This is not fair at all, and blunt ignoration of RFC goes against wikipedia rules. Mhare rejected any work on my version, although it got majority of the votes, and it was deemed as one of the solutions in the RFC. Is policy of wikipedia to give power to some users to complitly ignore work of others and wikipedia rules? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor version of editor Ceha article "Donji Kraji" is very good and there is no reason that same version not to be new article. I do not know why there is so much waiting. The editor put his effort into the article and we should respect the will of the majority. Mikola22 (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ugh... It is sickening to listen to this mantra. Just how far your both of you don't understand this Wikipedia thing is scary. Mhare (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that's scary is your blant breaking the rules, and RFC wordict. You didn't like the version which got majority of the votes, and you still refuse it, you are not giving an inch, and you were and are allowed to change the main paige without any sanctions. -Čeha (razgovor) 20:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.39.222 (talk)

And again, @Mhare: is showing comleate lack of adherence to wiki rules, and is starting a new edit war. @TU-nor: --Čeha (razgovor) 11:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You reverted to your version, when you (as usual) changed 'wording'. You are lying when you said you reverted to a version before edit war, as that particular edit started all this nonsense. Mhare (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And again, @Mhare:, quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi? That is the edit before the edit war. I'm perfectly willing to put my sandbox version, as it was voted in the RFC, if this bothers you. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor:, could you help? Why shouldn't the version in my sandbox (which got majority of the votes) be here, before the final rulling comes out? As Mhare is allowed to do as he wishes, this more and more looks like a traversty... --Čeha (razgovor) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Version is exactly the one before the all edit wars. Mhare (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My only interest here has been trying to avoid edit war breaking out. I have no interest in the versions; I have not even read the different versions. I think the logical thing would have been to let the article stay at the version as it was when the RfC was opened, but I will not get involved a discussion about which version to go back to. Now I only hope the closure of the RfC comes soon, so that I can leave Donji Kraji behind me for good. --T*U (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor:, but unfortunately the slow edit war is still going on. If I made some work, which included parts of Mhare work, and took my time to make something, the least what could be done is to put it as the current version.

You have a version which got more votes (for a thousand time), which tried to include majority of all the sources, which was suggested as the solution on the RFC (and again whigh got the more votes), and which is persistently ignored, and for what?

Mhare's version which was not part of the RFC?

How long is this going on?

How long should we wait?

And why does the one side (Mhare's work which was not part of the RFC) has such privilegies? Why is his to say that he will not work on my version (and without any logical explanation)?

I also said (and shown) that I'm ready to compromise. Yet we have an author which is persistently avoiding the compromise.

What's the point of that?

I think that if we will not be a closure in about one week's time (how long have wait, 3 months already?), that we should put the version which had the most votes, and if Mhare has some ideas's with that, he is free to argument them. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I have not studied the versions at all, but the version currently in the article is not "Mhare's version", but the version that stood in the article for almost two months unchallenged from 20 August.

Regarding the RfC: If you look at the list of requests for closure, you will at the top find another closure that I have asked for. It was started almost a month before this one and has now been open for 102 days. I find it annoying that it has not been closed yet, but I would not dream of trying to force a solution; there are no deadlines in Wikipedia. However, what you choose to do, is of course entirely up to you. --T*U (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

And a version before that lasted almost a month from 22 July.... It is "Mhare's version"...--Čeha (razgovor) 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, how can it be "quicken", it took a lot of time already? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not answer inside my comment: I have moved your first comment to after my signature.

I wonder: How can the 20 August version be "Mhare's version" when Mhare made their first edit to this page on 27 November? Anyway, I find this discussion about finding an old, stable version rather ridiculous, but if you insist on discussing old versions... ah, yes the 22 July version... which was the result of an edit war, so maybe we need to go back further... let's see, perhaps the 3 November 2018 version that stood for 8 months? Or do we need to go even further bak? 6 June 2017‎? 30 October 2016‎?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote: I think the logical thing would have been to let the article stay at the version as it was when the RfC was opened, but I will not get involved a discussion about which version to go back to. I seem to have broken that pledge, but from now on I will not comment any more on old versions. I am fed up with old versions. I have not even read them.

As to how it can be "quickened": It cannot! All this noice around the closure will only make it more difficult to find someone willing to walk into the lion's den and try to close this. If it helps, I can tell you that the other closure I was waiting for, was finally done after 104 days. Not that I was especially happy with the result, but that's life.

If you will excuse me, I will now try to use my time on more important matters, mostly in real life. --T*U (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

So, this could go forever? Not good, at all. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 and Donji Kraji. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What now? (RfC post-closure discussion)

@Ceha: I have moved the comments from inside the closed RfC discussion. As the closing remark says: No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion about "What now?" should start here as a new discussion. --T*U (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am more prone to second option.

I already did the draft (version in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji ), and tried to expand my version with data from the Mhare version. I think it's well rounded, has the clear structure (definition, name, history; early, conection with BB, rise of Hrvatinići, Ottoman conquest, aftermath...) and NPOV version (mhare version lacks early history and is tries to minimize Croatian conections in the area)... --Čeha (razgovor) 04:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't like to repeat previous discusion, it would be best that there are some ground rules from the begining. --Čeha (razgovor) 04:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Article of editor Ceha is very good and it is the best candidate for improved version of the article. If we need vote and second time I am for article of editor Ceha.Mikola22 (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Discussing (again) on the basis of two (or more) "Draft" version would probably create a similar situation as last time, what the closer called easily the messiest and least focused RfC they had ever closed. What should an editor do if they agree with parts of one version and another part of another? Much better to discuss piecemal, starting with the first sentence, continuing with the rest of the lede. etc. etc., using dispute resolution if necessary. It will take time, but in my opinion, that is the only way forward that can create a stable consensus version. --T*U (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I have energy discussing it. Article should be left alone, as far as I am concerned. I can't volunteer to discuss with a editor that promotes fringe theories, unaccepted historiography, and has derogatory hate speech on his talk page on Croatian Wikipedia. Yeah, that one that is far-right biased and has wonderful subsections in regular articles. Mhare (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am with Mhare on this one. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: I have again moved your comment from inside the closed RfC discussion. As the closing remark says: No further edits should be made to this discussion. This has also been explained to you in your talk page by User:Eggishorn. I have assumed that your intention was to comment in this discussion, so I have moved it here. My apologies if I have misunderstood. --T*U (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, the version I made should be good. It's NPOV, and it clearly satisfies all the rules of wikipedia. It "worst" critisism is "bad grammar" and majority of objections are ad hominem, from persons with strong POVs in the issue. Čeha (razgovor) 06:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Ceha seems to prefer option 2 of the proposed procedures presented in the closure remarks from Eggishorn: Create a pair of clearly-defined alternative versions in the Draft namespace and request comments on the two drafts. As I have stated above, I am not sure that is the best choice. I am afraid that it will end in a similar stalemate situation as the former RfC, and that it may also take just as long to wait for a closure. However, since no-one has given any support to option 1, I would be willing to help setting up a RfC according to option 2, provided I get positive answers to a couple of questions:

• Ceha, would you be willing to follow Eggishorn's recommendation and limit yourself to one statement about why you think your proposed text is preferable and not engage in the discussion beyond that?
• Mhare, I appreciate that you are rather reluctant about continuing this discussion at all, but I am afraid it does not go away... Would you be willing to 1) host the most recent version of your preferred text (I guess that would be this version) at User:Mhare/Donji Kraji, and 2) make one statement about why you think your proposed text is preferable and not engage in the discussion beyond that?

If both of you give positive answers, I will proceed to set up the RfC. If not, I will consider leaving this article for good. --T*U (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I am not going to operate as a mediator on a future RfC (if one occurs) unless explicitly asked by those concerned here. That said, I would like to also make two further suggestions: 1) The two versions should be fixed. That is, once the RfC opens, the text of each alternative should remain the same until the RfC closes. That way, everybody can comment on the same text. If an editor commenting feels that one test is preferable but would like to see some changes to it, then they should feel free to propose those changes separately to the alternative texts. A supplemental section of the alternative perhaps. No editor should be editing the alternatives as the discussion progresses because it will change what people think and that means early opinions might not still be valid at the end of the discussion. 2) Keep comments to the texts. This dispute will never be clarified if every discussion of what the article should say is sidetracked as badly as the previous one. If an editor thinks one version is better because it uses better sourcing, then by all means they should state that. Arguing over individual sources or historiographical preferences of policy interpretations inside the RfC should be highly discouraged. I hope these suggestions help and everyone can agree that they are good ground rules for a new RfC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: For the third time I have moved your comment from inside the closed RfC discussion. You have had this explained several times, and I have recently asked you to fix it yourself. I have now placed it where it belongs in the timeline. --T*U (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets try it. I hope we will not be going in circles again... Čeha (razgovor) 13:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope there's less dispute now following some of my recent additions to the article. I'll look on adding more soon. Tzowu (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My last attempt

I stated above that I would be willing to start a RfC about which version to continue from, along the lines suggested by Eggishorn in his option 2 in the closure of the former RfC, provided I got positive answers from Ceha and Mhare to some questions. Ceha gave an affirmative answer, for which I am thankful. Mhare has not answered my question. Given some earlier comments, I take this to mean that they are not willing to use more time on this article. I find that regrettable, although highly understandable. I have been tempted to do the same myself.

The situation has since then been complicated further. One of the preconditions of the suggested RfC would be that the article was kept in a pre-edit war condition while the suggested versions were discussed. But then Santasa99 – and I am sure it was in good faith – reverted the article back to what they call "TU-nor version". That version actually was just one of my attempts to stop the edit war that was about to break out again while we were waiting for closure of the last RfC. Since then the article has been brought back to a much earlier version in anticipation of a new RfC. I had planned to ask Santasa99 to self revert their good faith edit and also ask them if they would be willing to take over the role of Mhare as "host" for the version to "compete with" Ceha's version.

But then came a new development, when Tzowu made a number of edits to the current version of the article. As I have explained, I do not have any stake in the article (I have not even read it), so I have no idea whether these edits will be seen as an improvement by all, by some or by none of the participating editors. I am sure, however, that the intention is to improve the article. But in the current situation it is a complication that will create a need for more thinking. I see one possible way of going further, if it can get support:

• Santasa99 takes on the role I had intended for Mhare by 1) hosting the most recent version of your preferred text at User:Santasa99/Donji Kraji and 2) making one statement about why you think your proposed text is preferable and not engage in the discussion beyond that. This leaves us with the problem of what to do with Tzowu's edits. Perhaps Tzowu will accept that Ceha and Santasa99 could update their versions with whatever they find valuable in Tzowu's additions, but that any edits that are not taken up in those two versions, will have to wait until the version discussion is over.

One condition would be that the article is kept at the pre-edit war version for the duration of the RfC. If not, we would end up with exactly the same chaos as after the last RfC. As the closer said then: Of the now 80 RfC's I've closed, this is easily the messiest and least focused. Could we do better this time?

I will await reactions to this before I do anything more. --T*U (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Tzowu made good edits. The article should be left alone in this condition as is. There is absolutely nothing more to add to the enylopedic article about medieval county Donji Kraji. The article really looks solid now, of course, further copyediting is always welcomed. Tu-nor, I am so sorry you had to endure all the nonsense. Mhare (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cehas version is better. It receives more information and structure. Subsequent changes can be integrated into them. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Were you involved in prior discussion about the article? Did you compare the structure and "information" on either one? Do you have objections to Tzowu edits? Can you elaborate, as there is no voting present here? Mhare (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Version of editor Ceha is the best. It can be seen that he worked hard on the article to satisfy all sides and I think that after so much time we end this council. Mikola22 (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If that is the best version, after Tzowu edits its the bestest. Sigh. Mhare (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I started editing because there was no page protection and no new activity on the talk page. I looked at Ceha's sandbox version, the 31 January version of the article, and the 14 April (before my edits) version, and compared them. I noticed that the main difference was in the early period of history of Donji Kraji, so I added more content on the pre-1230 (first mention of the county) events, the Šubići era, and on the holdings of the Babonići. So much of Ceha's content is now in the article for that period.

Of the remaining differences, which I couldn't address a few days ago because of sudden incidents on other articles, there is the map in the infobox. I don't know what is the source for the current map in the article, because those are not the borders according to Mrgić [1]. Ceha's infobox map is closer to Mrgić's map.

There is a map of the War of succession in Ceha's sandbox, and I think that would be a good addition. The CoA of the Hrvatinić family is different, the one on the article is blue, and the one in Ceha's sandbox is red. Mrgić in her book showed the Fojnica Armorial version [2], which is the (svg edition) one from Ceha's sandbox. I always thought that their CoA was red?

There's some other smaller differences, such as the mentioning of the Hrvatinić family in the lead, or the full title of Paul I Šubić ("Lord of all of Bosnia"), which shouldn't be a big issue. If these things are solved, then we are largely left with the final years and the Ottoman wars to take a closer look at. The rest seems minor, I don't think there is a need for another RfC. Tzowu (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

According to some order we need to return version of the article which is the best, so far the best suggestion is proposed article from the editor Ceha. When this article be finally official then it can be edited. Your @Tzowu: edit so far has no weight. First we need to put version of the article from editor Ceha and then editing starts. There is no point in editing the article when we have been discussing for a year which article should be official version. Most opted for the version of editor Ceha but something is still waiting but I don't know what. Mikola22 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But the two versions are very similar already, and if what I wrote above is done, then they are virtually identical. My edits would have been the same if Ceha's sandbox was in place here, anyway. After all, I used a source he listed (Brković 2005). Tzowu (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but this debate has been around for a long time and nothing has changed. Out of decency toward editors we should wait for the final version of the article. That's my opinion and doesn't mean I'm right. Mikola22 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with reverting to a previous revision, I can always add the content back once there is a final version and do some copyediting. Tzowu (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Tzowu, some of your edits are great, but some lack meaning. For example the quote of the flight of the last king from Jajce to Donji Kraji... Jajce is in Donji Kraji. Also there is a bunch of small changes which were discused here for a long, long time... Look at the list of differences; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/938237165...951900299

As you can see there is a lot of differences. From the map of Donji Kraji, early history of the area (mentioning as Croatian county of Pliva..) to its end.

If everbody agrees, I suggest a compromise. Lets take my version of the article (as was suggested at the end of the rfc) as base, than lets go through your aditions one by one, would that be ok? Čeha (razgovor) 19:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. New editors are coming who do not know what was discussed here, to make it easier for them and us with this proposal everyone could be satisfied.Mikola22 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't need revert edits, when article of editor Ceha be official I think your edit will be deleted. Then you must to re-edit the article, that is, restore the information you are entering now. This is the only problem. Mikola22 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: I am not sure what you are waiting for. The original RfC was closed on 8 March with no clear consensus, see #Version of article above. What we are discussing now, is how to proceed. The closer suggested two different options. Option 1 is to discuss the article piecemal, if necessary with several smaller RfCs. Ceha has declared that they prefer option 2, which is a new RfC with two different versions. Personally, I am not so sure that is wise, but since no-one suggested anything else, I promised to try setting up such a RfC. To Mikola22 and Mateo K 01 I have to repeat: This is not a discussion about what version to use, but a discussion about how to proceed. --T*U (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was all over. I do not know how to proceed, what this consensus must be? If the votes are not counted or will of the majority is not considered then it would be best to restore the article to its original state before editing of Santasa99. Then it all started. Mikola22 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Tzowu really made good edits, and that is all I can say. If this duo wants RfC, then they can go with it, but it is a waste of resources. I try to limit my words when engaging both Čeha and Mikola (sorry). Tzowu made good point that versions are really similar, and they are. Tzowu improved the prose significitanly in the additions I've made, and added the missing stuff. At this point the article really looks solid, but if the duo wants their RfC, sure, yeah. I am 100% with Tzowu on this one: I don't think there is a need for another RfC. Mhare (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If they are extreamly similar, there is no problem in backing my version, and then going trough Tzowu edits, is it?Čeha (razgovor) 02:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Extremely similar is not same as really similar. I don't support further reverting. Mhare (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No reverting - we have exhausted all given resolution options throughout entire 2019, and I am not going to repeat whole process over and over again to satisfy certain fixations such as Turkish Croatia, which as an article is probably main motive for infusing certain POV's in this one! This article, as relatively obscure topic, is discussed in TP and numerous AN unsuccessfully for more than a year, just as Turkish Croatia is, with nearly 5 thousand words used just in this TP, that's more than 12 pages of text, and that's without numerous AN's. Not to mention that same group of editors disputing and disrupting entire string of related articles on history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that all of these disputes are of the same nature, that they were discussed in a similar manner and to the same extent as this one. In 2020 we are left with just one last option, the last resort, one which I tried real hard to avoid - ArbCom for canvasing and meatpuppetry.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tzowu is correct about the map - someone should process Mrgić's map, the one used in the source on page between pg. 262/263. Further, I also think that Tzowu edits are solid, and since their approach seem serious, and they as an editor seem interested in improving article, I have few points to make: first usage of Milko Brković as a source is really unfortunate (he is unethical, to say the least, in research of medieval Bosnia - on that see Recenzija rukopisa: "Isprave bosanskih vladara izdane na Bobovcu i u Kraljevoj Sutjesci" by Esad Kurtović for Zaklada Kulturno-povijesni institut Bosne Srebrene); second, the best sources for this article are Mrgić (she wrote two books just on this very narrow topic), Pavo živković who spent his career researching northern and western Bosnia, Marko Vego and Pavo Anđelić; as for the subject of CoA the best source on this subject is Amer Sulejmanagić who dedicated himself and his work in this particular field of research (he investigate and write+s on nobility, their titles, coa, money, possessions, relations, etc.), also Kurtović and Filipović.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Map is now fixed per User:Tzowu suggestion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that there are no major objections to my edits. Ceha, I didn't edit that part of the article you mentioned about Jajce. As for Brković that Santasa raised, I didn't look at that yet, but he is used only in four refs, all of which I think can be backed by other sources.

In my opinion, a faster way to solve this is to just go through these remaining differences (which are now smaller than a week ago) than another lengthy RfC that will end the same way as the last one.Tzowu (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am always good when we use recognized literature regarding medieval history of Bosnia (or any other period). If we had this kind of editing from the beginning we could maybe avoid 5 thousand words on one simple matter that is history of one medieval county. Mhare (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I disagree. The diferences are still numerous.

For example, first map claims it shows the position of Donji Kraji in Bosnian Banate and later kingdom, which is false. Borders of Donji Kraji fluctuated, I made a map showing that... There are a lot of "small" differences, for example it's position. They are situated in the NW of todays BiH, but they were not always in medieval Bosnia. Pavao Šubić was Lord of Bosnia, not a mere ban, and in North, Usora was some periods under Babonići, and some under ex-Serbian king, Dragutin...

I would rather like that we slip this version with that of my sandbox (as was suggested in the rfc), and then go through all of this changes, to have it documented. So, please; 1) put my sandbox version here 2) repeat your changes on it

I think it will be much easier to work in that way.... Čeha (razgovor) 01:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: You have twice again suggested to use your version as base, referring to the former RfC: my version of the article (as was suggested at the end of the rfc) as base and slip this version with that of my sandbox (as was suggested in the rfc) [my emphasis]. Could you explain where and by whom this was suggested. As far as I can see, the RfC was closed without any such recommendation. On the contrary, it was recommended either to make a new RfC about which version to use as a base, or break up the decisions into several RfCs in order to work piecemal. --T*U (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And what was conclusion of a survey in Version of article? People voted there, should the begining version of the article stay, or shold it be replaced by my sanbox version.

Majority of the people voted yes, but there existed loud oposition. The final conclusion was to eather repeat the proces, or to brake it up in the smaller parts, yes you have a point there.

As Mhare stated now "that both versions are equally similar" (I don't know why we lost that amouth of time discussing it then), I realy don't see why should all my hard work come to nothing, expecially as we have a new member here, with lot of great quotes.

How would you solve it? Ignore the surrvey, and let everything I made here to be erased?

What kind of compromise would be that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I have indented the posting for easier reading. --T*U (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of your changes made into the article, but properly formatted and without so many mistakes you make in your edits. So, all good! Mhare (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceha: I wish you would stop arguing about the former RfC. It is closed, finished, and nobody "won", end of story! You need to look forward, and the closing editor suggested two possible ways. You have stated that you prefer to try the "two versions" method once again. I have been willing to help you setting up a new RfC following that track. There has, however, been absolutely no support from anyone else for this solution, and no-one has been willing to stand as a "counterpart". That makes it highly improbable (read: impossible) that this method will ever give a more robust consensus than the former RfC. In my opinion, the only option left is to follow the other track suggested: Break down the contentious issues into smaller, more focused RfC's. My advice is then: Do not try to do too many thing at the same time, but start with the things you find to be most important. --T*U (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No one is against? Good, case settled. Again, I do not really see what is the isue. Tzwu is willing to make some changes, I just want them to be done onto my version. Ex-oposition exclaimed, that the versions are similar, so... Why would that be an issue? Just take my version, and than lets ho through tzwu changes, one by one.Čeha (razgovor) 01:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been willing to help going forward from the closure of the RfC; I could help with either of the two options suggested there. But if you insist on implementing your version before discussing details, you have lost me. No-one can stop you from starting an RfC about reinstating your version, but that will have to be without my help. I am finished here; I probably never should have interfered. --T*U (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I am very sorry that your edits were not helpfull as they should have been, and that you ignored majority of my suggestions without proper explanations. Best regards. Čeha (razgovor) 12:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• It seems that there are multiple disputes on this article. @Ceha: I suggest as the best way to proceed discussing the issues one by one. Discussing several in the same time is a bit confusing. Which is the issue you find more important? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Differences are numerous, I counted 17 of them. The most important points are 5th and 15th (at least according to me).

5th Donji Kraji were semiauthonomus feudal border county. Its wrong to project todays nation or nationalistic points of view in medieval time.

15th Article should have a clear structure, as I stated in my version for history part;

-early history

-connection with Bosnian banate and de facto independance (late 12th and 13th century)

-rise of Hrvatinić family (14th century)

-arrival of Otomans and the fall of medieval Bosnia

-aftermath

Simple and with sense, easy to read

the rest points are about clarifications and my contributions, for map forward...Čeha (razgovor) 03:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Diferences

Regarding the diferences between Tzowu version and mine I've highlaten them here (the version is in Croatian, but I think everebody understands them, and that we can continue this conversation in english); https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/935011663...953878661

1. Nasljednik (bar do neke mjere) je Jajačka banovina
2. Tu su 2 karte, župe Donjih Kraja i fluktuacija granica, koje bih volio upotrijebiti, karta od Mrgić je loša ne prikazuje gore spomenute detalje
3. Nation je isto li-la. Banovi, a kasnije i kraljevi Bosne su bili vazali h-u kralja, možda dodati i kingdom of hungary tu?
4. Vego griješi (uopće bi ga izbjegavao kao povjesničara, čovjek je upleo dosta politike u svoje radove), Donja Panonija nikad nije obuhvaćala područje Donjih kraja. Donja Slavonija je obuhvaćala 3 prekosavske županije (Dubicu, Vrbas i Sanu) Slavonije (od 6 sveukupno), no opet Donja Slavonija nije nikad obuhvaćala Plivu i jug, gdje su Donji kraji i nastali, a županije Donje Slavonije su relativno kratko bile povezane s Donjim Krajima (par godina, Hrvojev maximum)...
5. U nekim kontekstima bi izbjegavao i Mrgić, pogotovo kada naglašava politiku. U članku bi trebalo biti jasno da su granice Donjih krajeva varirale, kao i lojalnost njihovih gospodara, riječ je o feudalnoj tvorevini 
6. Oni se nalaze na sz, današnje BiH, citat od Klaića se ne odnosi na srednjovjekovnu Bosnu
7. Postoji DAI, postoji citat od Džina, postoje sigurni izvori koji pokazuju da je područje Plive bilo dio Hrvatskog kraljevstva.... povijest tu ne počinje od sredine 13. stoljeća...
8. Postoji problem sa grbom, koristio bi grbovnik, a ne ideje Amera Suljagića
9. Bilo bi dobro i vidjeti od kuda Vego citira donje kraje Bosanske, čovjek u tim stvarima nije bio objektivan, potrebno je provjeriti. Mrgić i ostali citiraju njega
10. Ne vidim zašto se ne bi spominjala Hrvojeva uloga u ugarsko-hrvatskom građanskom ratu, pogotovo zato jer se tu mijenjala veličina Donjih Kraja (županija Sana npr)
11. Trebalo bi tu naglasiti i utjecaj Hrvojevih suparnika , Sandalja Hranića/Kosača, npr.jer je riječ o srednjem vijeku, ne nacionalnom sučeljavanju Mađara i Bošnjana/Bosanaca. 
12. Tu je dobro da naglasiti, tko je nasljednik Hrvoja, njegov rođak Juraj Vojsalić i kasniji nasljednik Petar. Dobro je spomenuti tu i vezu s papom. Hrvojev sin je umro skoro kada i Hrvoje...
13. Jajce i ostali krajevi nisu vraćeni pod vlast bosanskog kralja/bana. Vladar ih je dobio ženidbom s Hrvojevom udovicom. Prije toga ban/kralj nije imao tamo izravne posjede, samo (poprilično neovisne) vazale kojima je znao preraspoređivati zemlju. Ovo je jako bitno u slučaju Jajca, jer ono je izgradio Hrvoje. Bitan je i dio s "kraljevskim gradovima", jer oni daju novu perspektivu razvitka područja
14. Ne spominje se Nikola Iločki, a i on je bitan
15. Samu povijest bi podijelio na: ranu povijest; veza s bosanskom banovinom i de facto nezavisnost (kasno 12. i 13.st); uzdizanje Hrvatinića (14.st); dolazak Osmanlija i pad srednjovjekovne Bosne; posljedice i naknadna zbivanja (aftermath) - Sviđa mi se ideja lako pamtjive strukture, a ne nečeg nabacanog "zbrda zdola"
16. Ima još gomila citata koje sam koristio i koji bi isto trebali ostati u upotrebi
17. U kategorijama bi trebalo ostati i hrvatsko kraljevstvo - Čeha (razgovor) 03:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't start a discussion in Croatian language on english wikipedia. Maybe few of us understand, but understand this is an open project to all English speakers, its unfair to exclude them by talking in some sort of secret language. Nobody here have anything against Džino, but the problem is not him, but your original ideas about east-croatian banovina's and numerous other stuff where you almost never offer any references, but merely give us "lectures" about history in somewhat loaded language attacking recognized historians Vego and Mrgić. You know, this is not a forum, maybe you forget that from time to time? Mhare (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes @Ceha: it is better if those two most important points are translated into English so any confusion might be avoided. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll help with setting the points so far, correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Should the successor also be Jajce Banate? (comment: I included the Jajce Banate in my edits, so this is checked?)

2. Should the maps used by Ceha with the development of Donji Kraji borders be included?

3. Should the Kingdom of Hungary be included in the infobox?

4. Is it correct, cited by Vego, that Lower Pannonia covered the area of Donji Kraji (except for a few years under Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić)?

5. Should it be more clearly stated that the borders of Donji Kraji fluctuated, as did the loyalty of their Counts?

6. A quote by Klaić about "northwest", whether it is related to medieval Bosnia or modern Bosnia and Herzegovina?

7. Expand the history part with the time when the area of Pliva was a part of the Croatian Kingdom.

8. The CoA of Hrvoje, which one should be used, the one by Amer Suljagić or the one from the Fojnica Armorial?

9. Fact check of Vego and his quotes about Donji Kraji

10. More on Hrvoje's role in the Anti-court movement, because this is the time when the borders of Donji Kraji changed.

11. More on Sandalj Hranić and his role.

12. More on Hrvoje's successor, his connections to the Pope, his son...

13. More on how the Jajce area came back under the rule of Bosnian King/Ban (through marriage with Hrvoje's widow), and about royal towns.

14. Add content about Nicholas of Ilok.

15. Restructure the history to:

Early history

Connection with the Banate of Bosnia and de facto independence (late 12th and 13th centuries)

The rise of Hrvatinić (14th century)

The arrival of the Ottomans and the fall of medieval Bosnia

Consequences and aftermath

16. Add more quotes that Ceha used.

17. Should the Croatian Kingdom be included among the categories? Tezwoo (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much:) As for succesor in point one, I tought that should be included in info-box. It would be great if the article had "head and tail". 02:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Should the successor also be Jajce Banate? (comment: I included the Jajce Banate in my edits, so this is checked?) - I am not sure, because the county stooped to exist under that name, but more importantly county was split between two "banovine", maybe even all three.

2. Should the maps used by Ceha with the development of Donji Kraji borders be included?- No, at least not those I checked last time.

3. Should the Kingdom of Hungary be included in the infobox? - No! UNDUE

4. Is it correct, cited by Vego, that Lower Pannonia covered the area of Donji Kraji (except for a few years under Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić)? - Minutiae such as these, found in juxtaposing two or more different scholars views, should be resolved by taking the one which seem to agree with most other views or noting both in appropriate paraphrasing. But I doubt that there is any problem here, because we already witnessed editors misreading or misunderstanding of source text, or cherry-picking in semantics of said in the text, supposing that something else is meant when it isn't.

5. Should it be more clearly stated that the borders of Donji Kraji fluctuated, as did the loyalty of their Counts? - No, it's UNDUE - not least because loyalties never changed that dramatically and no scholars describing it that way, so, OR !

6. A quote by Klaić about "northwest", whether it is related to medieval Bosnia or modern Bosnia and Herzegovina? - we dealt with Klajić extensively in thousands of words before, so everything is clear there.

7. Expand the history part with the time when the area of Pliva was a part of the Croatian Kingdom. - Of course not, there was no county before 12th century.

8. The CoA of Hrvoje, which one should be used, the one by Amer Suljagić or the one from the Fojnica Armorial? - one which is confirmed by scientific research, by genuine and trained scholar in the field, which is Amer Sulejmanagić, not Amer Suljagić.

9. Fact check of Vego and his quotes about Donji Kraji - Questioning Vego here, no way!

10. More on Hrvoje's role in the Anti-court movement, because this is the time when the borders of Donji Kraji changed. - I don't know what "Anti-court movement" is, so, avoid for now.

11. More on Sandalj Hranić and his role. - of course ! Sandalj's role in county's politics is important.

12. More on Hrvoje's successor, his connections to the Pope, his son... - yes, his sons are important players in county's politics / no, I can't see how is Hrvoje's connection with Pope important for county.

13. More on how the Jajce area came back under the rule of Bosnian King/Ban (through marriage with Hrvoje's widow), and about royal towns. - It was always under King's rule, just like entire kingdom, it was "repossessed" as demesne after the Hrvatinić demise.

14. Add content about Nicholas of Ilok. - Nothing of importance for the article, you can include sentence or two, if you wish, otherwise UNDUE.

15. Restructure the history to: - No, see below.

Early history - "Early history" exists, although I think that there is no need for "early history" here, and that that sub-title should be changed into more appropriate "formation"/"formative years/decades", "emergence", ...

Connection with the Banate of Bosnia and de facto independence (late 12th and 13th centuries) - this is completely out of order - there are no "connections" with "Banate of Bosnia and de facto independence", this is OR and fabricated construct, no historian takes on issue in that way and certainly non of the medievalists used here !

The rise of Hrvatinić (14th century) - not the place, there is already enough info on that.

Consequences and aftermath - what kind of "consequences and aftermath", that article does not cover already?

16. Add more quotes that Ceha used. - we need more ?! I don't think so, but everything useful is welcomed.

17. Should the Croatian Kingdom be included among the categories? Tezwoo" - No, it shouldn't - Croatian Kingdom disappeared from history few centuries before county as polity is established, and has nothing with subject of this article.

Mhare gave very eloquent overview of the problem with this whole affair surrounding editors preferences in editing in the scope of medieval Bosnian history, and I wholeheartedly agree. It is a case almost unprecedented even for Balkan scope and pressure exerted by one or two editors with the same taste for editing on medieval Bosnia became unbearable already. Thanks, and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My take, no comment yet for the other points:

1. Regarding the Banate of Jajce, Mrgić wrote: "Тhе result of our research is that the whole of the "land" of Donji Kraji, except only Župa Uskoplje, was the ground on which Banat was formed." I would leave the current "succeeded by" list in the infobox.

3. I would probably leave Hungary out of the infobox.

5. Any "loyalty switch" can be covered in a corresponding section anyway.

7. There's not much to add other than what's already in the article, which sums up the important information.

9. I'm not saying Marko Vego is wrong, but his book is an old source now. Modern sources should have an advantage, if they are contradicting each other.

10. Its "Protudvorski pokret", or revolt against Queen Mary, Sigismund...

11. Agreed.

12. He probably meant Juraj and Petar Vojsalić's connection with the Pope

14. A mention of him in a sentence or two is probably enough.

17. The Croatian Kingdom did not "disappear", but I would leave it out of the categories because the County of Donji Kraji did not exist while its territory was a part of Croatia. Tezwoo (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)