Talk:Tvrtko I of Bosnia

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


In the "King" section of this wiki the world "solt" is mentioned twice... i'm not sure if that's a typo (salt) orrr?? --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources[edit]

Some sources that imply that medieval bosnians were serbs are coming from a partial view. For example i checked out this writer from one source ″Povijest Bosne i Hercegovine: od najstarijih vremena do godine 1463″ and found this

Draganović was a controversial and mysterious figure, who is central to many allegations involving the Vatican Bank, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Nazi Party. Declassified CIA documents confirm that Draganović was a member of the Ustaše, a far-right Nazi-affiliated Croatian fascist organisation that was given control of Croatia by the Axis powers in 1941 which was responsible for the deaths of between 330,000 and 390,000 orthodox Serbs and about 32,000 Jews. Draganović has been accused of laundering the Ustaše's treasure of jewelry and other items stolen from war victims in Croatia.

I mean come on we cant just refer sources from anyone. I could claim that ancient aliens had built the ″pyramids″ in Bosnia and put a ridiculous source but it wouldnt be true of course.

And the two other sources are serbian ones that write the history how it fits them.Tarmet (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tarmet:, we've had this discussion before, and there was no clear consensus to remove Draganović en masse: Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia#Sources. Please bring it up at WP:RSN so that we can build a clearer consensus. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Small question on title[edit]

Hi Surtsicna,

firstly thank you for an extensive and knowledgeable contribution to the article! I have a small question, however. By what factuality is Tvrtko's use of the traditionally widespread honorific Stephen to be considered by definition a derivation from the Nemanjićs? Currently, there is the article Stephen (honorific) which is little else than a blatant Content/POV fork employed to hijack the honorific in a showcase of historiographical Serbian megalomania. As it stands, the honorific Stephen was used by members of the Kotromanić dynasty prior to Tvrtko I, namely by his paternal grandfather Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia. I would appreciate a proper explanation.

My other reflection would be the sentence wherein it is explained that Tvrtko I rejected the imperial style of title used by Dušan. Do you mean "Emperor and Autocrat of.."? In such case, I would suggest that you make clear the distinction by adding "Tvrtko decided to assume the royal title of his great-grandfather rather than continue Dušan's unpopular claim to imperial style of Emperor and Autocrat.

Once again, my compliments on the great work. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tvrtko is Bosniak[edit]

Tvrtko is Bosnian(Bošnjani)

"During the Ottoman era the preferred term for an inhabitant of Bosnia came to be Bošnjak, with the suffix "-iak" replacing the traditional "-anin".

So, he is Bošnjak(bosniak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickrsss (talkcontribs) 20:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


It`s not Stjepan but Stipan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If you’re talking about the name in the original inscriptions, it was variously written as стѣпань, стипань, and стефань, so either one is accurate. If you’re talking about the modern language, then it depends on which reflex of ѣ your dialect has, so once again either one is accurate. —Vorziblix (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tvrtko I of Bosnia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No DABs.
  • File:Seal of Tvrtko I of Bosnia.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Relikviář sv. Simeona detail.png needs a tag for country of origin (Germany or Austria?)
  • File:First Big Seal.PNG needs a source, and tags for country of origin and the US
  • File:Tvrtko and his brother Vuk.PNG needs a source, and tags for country of origin and the US
  • kings of Bosnia Capitalize kings
  • Link regent, deposition, magnate
  • with all religious communities all "the" religious
  • bringing lords of independent Serbian statelets under his control Awkward, rephrase
  • You have a bad habit of forgetting articles like "the". Please request a copyedit from the WP:Guild of Copyeditors while you fix the image issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I am going through the article once more to add the missing articles. I have fixed the rest, but I am unsure about capitalizing "kings" because MOS:JOBTITLES advises against that. Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. King by itself should not be capitalized; King (name) should be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's been my practice too. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • the elder son eldest
  • Bishop of Bosnia Peregrin Saxon comma after Bosnia
  • Tvrtko was forcing Vuk southwards forced
  • Lord of Zeta George I, comma after Zeta
  • Louis of Hungary, rose to protect the cities "rose" is awkward, rephrase
  • counter Nicholas.[20] His complete defeat The start of the latter sentence here is also awkward. Maybe "He was defeated during"...
  • Tvrtko and George of Zeta, since the latter seized coastal župas which Tvrtko had expected to annex. Explain how George managed to seize the zupas
  • plotted with Travunians the takeover of Trebinje, Konavli and Dračevica, finalizing his conquest of Serbian lands. Awkward, also missing a "the" in front of Serbian.
  • Down to coronation, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • making the throne effectively vacant rephrase
  • probably 26 October feast day of Saint Demetrius add a comma after October and then a "the" before "feast"
  • Link metropolitan, embargo
  • kings of Serbia fix this and any others like it.
  • Down to Hungarian succession crisis. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


I saw this list only after my extensive copy-editing just completed. I've gone back and addressed the usage issues raised here (those not already coincidentally addressed during my copy-edit), except for the the reference to Tvrtko as the "elder", not "eldest", of two brothers, which is correct in that context, and even slightly more informative. However, I can see how "eldest" might be preferred, as such usage in all contexts is more familiar to me as a native American. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi. This review is standing at 86 days old as I type this. Although there is some recent activity here and Sturmvogel 66 is a more than capable reviewer I am willing to offer my services as a second opinion on anything if it is needed to advance this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, I think the primary issue at the moment is that the nominator, Surtsicna, has not edited on Wikipedia for over five weeks now. (I've just marked a DYK nomination of Surtsicna's for closure that has been waiting for that long.) I would imagine that what this primarily needs is someone to address the issues raised in the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aircorn, BlueMoonset, and Surtsicna: Looks like Surtsicna is back, and Sturmvogel 66 is still out. Maybe best to release this back into the pool for a full review? Kees08 (Talk) 07:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if Surtsicna is ready to go to work and Aircorn is willing to take over the review, the review could just continue at this time. Otherwise, perhaps putting it back into the pool is best. Surtsicna, Aircorn, it's up to you what happens next. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll get right to it. I believe most of the issues have been addressed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Having gone through the article again, it seems that all the issues noted by Sturmvogel 66 have been fixed, largely thanks to Dhtwiki's superb copy-editing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In doing a cleanup of the abandoned reviews I noticed this one. Clearly Sturm's long gone at this point, and everything has been addressed. I don't see any further issues with the article, so I'm stepping in and passing it. Wizardman 21:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)