Talk:Catherine of Bosnia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


She is not BOSNIAN, becase there has never been and there is no ethnicity called Bosnian! She is either Croatian or Serbian, Its up to you people to prove by facts and do not use new books whre Bosniaks try to chanfe the history, look at historical documents or encyklopedia britannica —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. She was a Bosnian Queen, yet she was not Bosnian. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actualy, she was Bosnian, but Bosnian Croat, not Bosniac. --Josinj (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The memory of Queen Katarina, who was beatified after her death, is still alive in Central Bosnia, where Catholics traditionally mark October 25 with a mass in Bobovac 'at the altar of the homeland', and Muslims give their prayers for the Queen on the last Friday in August.

I didn't know Muslims also have tradition of celebrating Catherine's day. I don't believe it's a true information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I would know something about that because I am Bosniak. I've never heard of that. 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you're a Bosniak (and so am I), it doesn't mean you know everything. Obviously, you don't know your own local traditions. This is a tradition in the Kraljeva Sutjeska area. And I would recommend that you check it and put that information back in. Thank you. (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosniak does pay tribute to Queen Katharina ![edit]

I am also Bosniak and I visit Kraljeva Sutjeska and Bobovac often. I also visiting place on every Oct.25 or last Friday in August, when and as frequently as I am able, to honor Queen Catherine - it is simply a question of personal sensibility toward our homeland Bosnia and our ancestries.

As for this moron from Bijeljina, who falsely represents himself as a Bosniak (and he was not registered or log in), he should know that this web site will leave traces in the form of an IP address (and his as we can see). But well, it's OK, at least he is not from Loznica or Šabac. (To other people, please don't ask why I assume (know!) that he is not Bosniak, just because he is from Bjeljina.) Bjeljinska morončina!--Umagli (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mentioned, I don't go there just recently, but for many years, and I know many other Bosniaks, locals and from Zenica, Sarajevo, Krivaja vally, and other places who attend traditional pageant, which is held there every year. --Umagli (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who said: "I think I would know something about that [Muslims giving their prayers for the Queen on the last Friday in August] because I am Bosniak. I've never heard of that." I wasn't registered back then and I honestly didn't know about that tradition. Anyway, you should think twice before calling someone a "a moron from Bijeljina" because a moron from Bijeljina probably wouldn't revert nationalistic edits this often and advise other users to fight vandals. I am not offended because you obviously thought that I am somebody other than a Bosniak from Mostar (how did you come up with Bijeljina anyway?). However, I would like you to think twice before repeating this. Pozdrav! Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, do you have any references for your claim? English-language sources are preferred, but reliable Bosnian-language ones would be good too. Surtsicna (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

she is hottttttttttttttt —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Well, suffice it to say that this is an odd title. Her father was the "Herzog of St. Sava", but Kosača seems to have been his and her last name. I looked at how the move came about:

  • 17:11, 25 April 2009 Surtsicna (talk · contribs) m (9,054 bytes) (moved Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić to Katarina Kosača over redirect: she is better known in English as Katarina Kosača)
  • 18:16, 18 January 2010 Surtsicna (talk · contribs) m (9,876 bytes) (moved Katarina Kosača to Catherine of St Sava: The only English language source that refers to her by her full name uses this name.)

Yet, that revision didn't seem to actually include that source, or at least I don't see it. It doesn't seem to be in the current article either. There's one book that seems to be English, and I looked for it at Google Books and found this:,+Mehmed+the+Conqueror+and+His+Time&hl=en&ei=gFpcTdOED4Kl8QPl5b2VAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=catherine%20sava&f=false

That doesn't seem to include any reference to "Catherine of St Sava" either, or at least it's not showing up on that simple search for "catherine" and "sava". So where exactly is this title coming from? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This book search for the title, sans copies of Wikipedia: gives me exactly one hit, but only in an index, and I didn't figure out how to go to page 113 :)

A somewhat refined search: produces two more hits, none of which use the actual phrase.

A different search, for versions of the old name: produces a few more hits.

So it's still pretty unclear to me how the new title is preferable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW That last search brings up the Babinger book, and the phrase on page 224 is "the Bosnian queen mother Katharina, widow of King Stjepan Tomaš and daughter of Duke Stjepan Vukčić". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for taking interest in this article. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), we should pick an unambigious name that is used by English language sources. The only English language source that refers to her by a full, unambigious name is The medieval Manichee: a study of the Christian dualist heresy by Steven Runciman. The other sources refer to her simply as Catherine (or variations of the name).
Like I said before, it's a sole index entry pointing to a different name. IOW it's not the designation the book uses for this person, it's just included in that index for completeness, apparently. If there was anything resembling an abundance of sources referring to her using this name, I'd leave it alone, but as it stands this is no better than a sole footnote. That's simply not a legitimate basis for invoking the common name policy. If the common name is ambiguous, then we just have to disambiguate it - using her commonly used native surname. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
While we're at the topic of policy, the most pertinent rules seem to be at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Consorts of sovereigns and AFAICT the current title does not qualify under any of those guidelines. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
To Anglophones (for whom this encyclopaedia is being written), "Catherine of St Sava" won't sound odd at all. It may sound odd to those who are used to reading about "Katarina Kosača" but that name isn't used in English[1]; not to mention that the č would puzzle an Anglophone much more than the perfectly understandable "Catherine of St Sava". Her father being a Duke of St Sava, the name of the article is as logical as the name of the article about (for example) Isabeau of Bavaria, the daughter of a Duke of Bavaria. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Any Anglophones who read about medieval Bosnia shouldn't be expected to run away screaming when they see a small diacritical mark. They are consistently used in all related articles, so this is a non-issue. And indeed while it may be literally understandable, it may not be historically understandable if they never actually heard of St. Sava being mentioned in the context of a surname like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The examples are not analogous because the designation "of St. Sava" did not refer to a well-known noble title or a territory, but apparently a consecration of the territory (we all know as Herzegovina) to Saint Sava. So it's House of Kosača and not "House of Saint Sava". This point of view that emphasizes this consecration in titles seems very much off-base to me. It's not used even in the Serbian wikipedia, where one might expect it, given that it's their patron saint. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that the title Catherine of Bosnia was available. There is some ambiguity in it, and I made it clear for the time being. Her eponymous daughter could be added to the list, too. Nevertheless, this would seem to be a more appropriate title for this article, or a disambiguated variation thereof. She became the queen consort to the king of Bosnia at the age of 21, and carried the title for the following 32 years, so that seems eminently sensible as her primary designation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Anglophones shouldn't be surprised by the letter č. However, it is obvious that they would find "Catherine of St Sava" much more understandable than "Katarina Kosača". After all, the former name was used by a historian quite known for his works on the Eastern countries in the Middle Ages, while the latter is not used by any English-speaking historian. Saints are frequently mentioned in the names of places and no Anglophone can be confused by such a common thing.
"Of St Sava" refers to the Duchy of St Sava of which her father was duke. It's not for us to approve or disapprove of the name he used for his territory. The fact is that territory was known as the Duchy of Saint Sava regardless of his religious views. As I said, Isabeau of Bavaria is just one of many examples of people known by their father's territorial designation and not by the name of their house (the House of Wittelsbach, in Queen Isabeau's case). There is no reason to expect Catherine to be called Katarina od Svetog Save by the, as she is never referred to as such by Serbian language sources. She is, however, referred to as Catherine of St Sava by the only English language source that uses an unambigious name to refer to her.
"Catherine of Bosnia" is indeed ambigious because it may refer to at least 4 women: the daughter of Stephen I, the Countess of Cilli, the penultimate Queen and the penultimate Queen's own daughter. Even Queen Catherine's sister-in-law, the wife of anti-king Radivoj, was named Catherine. Besides, queens consort are, by convention, known by their premarital names. Just check Category:French queens consort, Category:English royal consorts, etc. Furthermore, we would then have to name her stepdaughter-in-law Maria of Bosnia (another ambigious name, considering the existence of the Countess of Helfenstein). But if that's where you really want to go... Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There's numerous English sources using "Catherine of Bosnia" to refer to this person, because apparently she's the most notable holder. Google Books link. Among those, I couldn't find a single reference where I would think it was a reference to another person, though some are a bit vague, but all talk of it in the context of mid-15th century and none seem to hint at anyone other than the queen dowager.
I think it's pretty safe to conclude that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. A disambiguation link will remain at the top of the page, of course.
I agree that "Maria of Serbia, Queen of Bosnia" is a strange title, too, if anything because it's long - but I haven't looked it up. If "Maria of Bosnia" is more often used as a reference to her, then yes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) reverted my move by saying "Reverting the move that's been done without discussion." -- if I may direct everyone's attention the very discussion above, that I explicitly listed in the move explanation. Vanjagenije, if you revert this move once again, I'll consider it an explicitly disruptive action. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Joy [shallot], if an article is to be moved to a new name, a discussion and consensus is needed (see: WP:CONS). That means that if you propose some new name for the article, other editors should agree with that name before the article is moved. I see that you proposed a name "Catherine of Bosnia", but I don't see that anybody else agree with your proposition. You may not move the article before other editors give their agreement, i.e before the consensus is reached. If you just write "I'm gonna move the page to a new name because I think it's better" on the talk page, and nobody else agree with you, that can hardly be called a consensus. If you still think the article should be moved, you are free to make a move request (see: WP:RM). Before the consensus on a new name is reached, the article's title should remain "Catherine of St Sava" because that is the last stable title. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Surtsicna effectively okayed it with his last post (he said he doesn't want to go into ambiguous names, but did not actually object to my reasoning for it), and apparently did not otherwise object to any of my other policy-based arguments. He had previously moved it without seeking consensus - at least I don't see it on this talk page - and he did that twice. I didn't see any objection to any of these moves with the same rationale (probably because it's not really a rationale), and I actually don't find this kind of objection from you without stating a single policy-based reason reasonable at all. If you want to build a consensus for the title "Catherine of St. Sava" - I implore you, do that! If you missed that part of WP:RM, let me paste it for you:
If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not necessary) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article.
Instead of reverting Surtsicna's moves, I initiated a discussion and apparently proved my points, and then you accused me of not having a discussion and not respecting a consensus, where there was none to begin with. This is completely disingenuous and a complete waste of my time. I am reporting this incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for an uninvolved administrator to intervene, especially because I really don't want be accused of breaking 3RR and/or abusing my privileges in the next iteration of this bad-faith behavior :( --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

None of you broke the 3RR rule, so you should both discuss the name for this article. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I already elaborated my choice of the name of this article above. I fail to see what else I need to discuss with people who have consistently failed to present any actual relevant input, just reverts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Joy [shallot], You are trying to justify your article move with a quotation from WP:RM, but I think You haven't read it carefully. It says "If the page has recently been moved...", and this page was moved to "Catherine of St Sava" more than a year ago, which can hardly be called recently. You also say that You "apparently proved your points", but there is nothing apparently at all to me. You just stated your reasons, and then moved the page few minutes later without giving anybody else a chance to either agree or disagree with You. I'm afraid this is not the right way to prove your point. You should at least give the other side a chance to speak. You are accusing me of being disruptive, but I just follow the Wikipedia rules (namely WP:RM). I reverted your move that's been done without discussion, just like that policy says: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move." You moved the page without discussion (discussion needs at list two people), and You've done it recently. I didn't brake any rule, but on the other hand, You did. The policy WP:MOVE calls for potentially controversial moves to be carried out using WP:RM, but You didn't do that. The policy WP:CON calls for any editorial decision to be made by reaching consensus, but you didn't even wait for consensus to be reached before You moved the page to a new title. If You think the article deserves a new name, use WP:RM, and if You think I broke some Wikipedia rule, please state which one. Thank You. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No. It is obvious above that I said Catherine of Bosnia was available on the 21st. I moved it only after hearing Surtsicna's mild objections, and responding to them listing information that satisfies verifiability and disambiguation policies, in addition to previous policies (naming conventions for royalty) I mentioned earlier. If you want to dispute any of my points, THEN START DISPUTING THEM ALREADY. Everything else is peripheral. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

After I read through the previously linked sources, I found that her father had actually disowned her (cut her out of her will). So the whole idea that she should be named not after her regnal title, or after either of her nobility titles, or even after his father's last name, but after the consecration of his choosing, appears to be downright preposterous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Article name divergency[edit]

Come on guys, this is going way out of hand. FkpCascais (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when a user invokes Wikipedia:Consensus without actually reading the said policy. Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" is featured prominently, yet ignored. Oh well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I was reading the discussion and I am still trying to sumarise it all and understand the main reasons why each one of you defend its version. FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Let me just get some facts: She was the Queen consort of Bosnia and by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Consorts_of_sovereigns the country she ruled is included in the title. Saying this, she should be named Catherine of Bosnia, however, she was also a soveraign of the Duchy of St. Sava. We need to find other similar cases and see how they deal with the issue. For the naming discussion I must say I tend to agree with Joy because it follows the naming policy for consorts of soveraigns.
On the other hand, Joy made a RM that found oposition soon after and it was reverted. The article should stay on the last stable version which was the one before Joy´s move.
Resumingly, by now, the article title should return to the last stable version, and Vanjagenije and Surtsicna should better expose their arguements because Joy did it already and has some strong ones in his favour. FkpCascais (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The last version was not stable because two users had tried to move it already before me, on January 24 (reverted the same day) and on February 11 (reverted the same day). Regardless of the merits of their arguments, which I'm unimpressed with just as the next person, it does indicate that there was no real consensus in the first place. In fact I only noticed this article the other day because of the strange number of moves.
So, long story short, it appears this was part of yet another boring turf war - the Orthodox love their patron saint, and the Catholic love their beatified person. But none of that really matters, because simply naming the queen after her realm is very well grounded in article title policy.
As for sovereignty over the territory ruled by Herzog of St. Sava, I'm not really sure about that - if her father was the ruling Herzog, and they were both banished from both territories at the same time, and she moved to Rome as soon as he had died, when exactly did she have actual sovereignty over Herzegovina? For Bosnia, at least there's the 15-year period between marriage and husband's death. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. FkpCascais (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


@Alessandro57:, I did not notice that it was you who added those sources (and information). I assumed it was a pre-expansion leftover. Anyway, the information you added directly contradicts the information I added, i.e. the biographies of the Queen. They state that she lived in Pigna (in a house near San Marco Evangelista al Campidoglio) until her death. Neither of yours is a biography, and I doubt they mention the Queen more than in passing. One of them was published 90 years ago. That said, I don't think they add much quality to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ciao @Surtsicna:, and thanks for answering. No, your sources are wrong: all the Italian topographical sources about Rome agree that Catherine lived first near San Marco and then, after her return to Rome, spent the last 2 years of her life in this house in Piazza Scossacavalli in Borgo (the house, possibly a palazzetto, was property of the Zon, a patrician family from Venice), and was her domicile when she died. This is surely notable in a biography, that's why I added it to the article 3 months ago, and re-added now. This fact is mentioned on many other Italian sources: I could add another couple of very authoritative books confirming it (BTW, the fact that a source is 90 years old has nothing to do with its reliability :-)). This is also particularly noteworthy because after her death the same house was rented to another queen also in exile, Charlotte of Cyprus, who lived there for sure after 1481 (first contract of location) and after 1484 (second contract of location), and most probably died also there. BTW, this house does not exist anymore, since the whole quarter was destroyed in 1937 by Benito Mussolini for the erection of Via della Conciliazione. A last question: for which reason should the house near San Marco be notable and that in Borgo (where she most probably died) not? Alex2006 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Then we have a significant disharmony between sources. The biographies of Catherine, from 1979 and 2010 respectively, and that of her husband, from 1991, state that she lived first at the house of the Roman citizen "Jakob Mentebona". They all claim that she lived there until 1469, when she moved to Pigna, into a house near San Marco and possibly owned by Saint Jerome's, where she lived until her death. None of them mention Borgo or a third residence for that matter. You seem certain that "your" books on Rome are more authoritative than "my" books on Catherine, but I am not. Of course, a book from 1926 is not inherently unreliable, but it can be presumed that it has been superseded. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The reason why I think that my :-) sources are "better" (only in this respect, of course) is simple: these books are about the topography of Rome: this means that they deal with the buildings of the city, their history, their inhabitants. These authors had (and have) access to the archives of the city and of the Vatican, and the fact that I have 6 books (from 1926 until 2001) stating the same fact should mean that this is well established. On the other side, I find also strange that your sources do not mention it at all. Do the authors know Italian? If someone has found that the info about her last residence is wrong, you should find a note in one of these books stating it. BTW, doing some OR, :-)at that time Borgo was the most fashionable "new" quarter of the city, near the Pope, while the neighborhood near the Capitol was quite dilapidated, so I am not surprised that a queen could decide to live near the Vatican, and not in the old centre. Alex2006 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand the merits of the books concerning Rome and its buildings, but people who researched Catherine and wrote extensively about her should also be expected to know where she lived and died. Those are the most basic information. The first of her biographers cited here, Bazilije Pandžić, worked for 40 years as the chief archivist of the Franciscan Order in Rome. So yes, he does know Italian (and Latin, I believe it's safe to assume). Pandžić describes the places where she lived in Rome: (1) the name of the owner of the first house ("Jakov Mentebono"), the monthly rent she paid (20 ducats), the date she started paying it (29 October 1467), the date when the papacy decided to pay the rent for her (23 March 1468), and the date she left the house (1 October 1469); (2) the location of the second house (Pigna, near San Marco), possible owner (Saint Jerome's) and the names of the courtiers who attended her there. He says she made her will in this second house. This, in fact, is evident from the will itself: "...illustrissima domina Catherina quondam ducis Stephani filia, regina Bosne, nunc in alma Urbe in regione Pinee in domo sue solite habitationis prope ecclesiam sancti Marci de Urbe..." Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think that her will cut the bull's head, as we say in Italy. :-) I removed the info, and thanks a lot for taking time to show that my sources were wrong (unless she lived in two houses in Rome during this period, but assuming this would be really OR): possibly none of the Italian writers knew about her will, otherwise they would have seen the incongruence. Greetings from the Tiber, :-) and my compliments for the article! Alex2006 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thank you for taking an interest! I wish we had a photograph of her tombstone from Ara Coeli; lots are availabe online, but they are not free. Would you be able to provide one? Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This is telepathy! :-) Just yesterday I was thinking that it wouldn't be bad to go to the Ara Coeli and take a picture of her tomb...I could also go with a good fellow of mine who is specialized (among others) in taking pictures of Rome for Wikipedia. Last month (I was in Zürich then) I asked her to take a picture of another tomb in S. Maria dell'Anima (for this article that is right now on DYK), and I got it in a couple of hours...power of wiki! As soon as I will have the picture, I will let you know. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
That would be splendid! A Flickr user who owns an image responded to my message today, but he apparently does not speak Italian (and, as far as I could gather, does not seem interested in sharing the image). I thought of asking you to message him, but this sounds miles better! Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Alex2006, would it be possible to take an image of the entire scene, such as here? That would leave room for the 1677 reproduction in the infobox, i.e. it would not become redundant. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the friars of AraCoeli are pretty liberals concerning the pictures which one takes in their church, so no problem, hoping that my camera manages to do it... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Shoutout to Alex2006! Thank you once again for this beautiful photograph. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Year of publishing of Mandic's and Regan's work[edit]

Links to Mandic's and Regan's work don't work because years of publishing differ in the source section and citation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)