"

Keep on playing cat and mouse for as long as you like. Wikipedia articles on the Ottoman conquest were too based on SECONDARY SOURCES that were based on PRIMARY SOURCES (the Ottoman military records). Your references are also SECONDARY sources but you are cherry-picking their TERTIARY analyses, estimates and cultural sentiment of an occupied people (""And thus Bosnia fell to the whisper""  oh, mine).  Which group of secondary sources should we trust? Western historians (unaffected by the Ottoman conquest) will without exception trust the former. Are you done, finally? (As for the insults, you just added word ""idiot"" to your vocabulary).   "