Talk:Bihać
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bihać article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Why isn't Saša Matić included under Notable people? — B.Sc-bound (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the history section has been completely removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.164.212 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bihać. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515215832/http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x= to http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&des=wg&geo=-27&srt=npan&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=&srt=pnan
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Capital of what; proper source?
[edit]The city has never had such a status, regardless of the period and political entity to which it belonged. Kreševljaković's statement is baseless, the article outdated (see: WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:HISTRH, WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and without footnotes (he does not say what is his source or base for such a claim), but most importantly he was not medievalist and is way out of his comfort zone on topics from the field. Another even more important thing is that no other medievalist, contemporary to Kreševljaković, before him or after, has ever made such a claim, but if editor can provide a proper reference for claim which I am about to remove from the article, I am going to revert myself momentarily. Sources which I included in a bit of prose which I just wrote, include medievalists such as well-known Mladen Ančić and younger and less known Damir Stanić - Stančić's doctoral thesis was "Bihać kao sjedište Bihaćke kapetanije i slobodni kraljevski grad" and together with Ančić's "Bihaćki kraj od 1262. do početka XV stoljeća" makes proper scholarly foundation for subsection on medieval history of Bihać, and quite expectedly neither authors mention that town was a capital of any entity at any point in time during its long history - it should be inconceivable that two distinguished medievalist would omit something of that importance, and they are not the only Croatian medievalists who never made such a claim. But, as I said, if any editor can provide a proper reference for problematic claim I am going to revert myself.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)