Talk:Croatian nobility

Copyright violation
Most of this article was copy-pasted from here. This is a copyright violation, and could potentially lead to legal problems for Wikipedia. See WP:COPYVIO. I have removed the copy-pasted material. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobility sources
, you made several good edits on the article, however, your edits are really going outside the WP:SCOPE of the article. It should have way less information on Croatian kingdom and kings, and much more on the Croatian nobility as a whole. For better sources check works by Tomislav Raukar, Seljak i plemić hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja (2002) and Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje (1997), and Damir Karbić Hrvatski plemićki rod i običajno pravo (1999) and Plemstvo – definicija, vrste, uloga (2006), I. Majnarić ''[http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=163183 »Plemstvo dvanaest plemena« Kraljevine Hrvatske u hrvatskoj enciklopedičkoj obradbi od kraja XIX. stoljeća]'' (2008), and so on.--Crovata (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay I will look at these sources. Splitboy1 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * from the section "History" should be removed almost all the information, it looks copied from other articles, and is focused solely on the kingdom and kings, yet it should not. The section should mention the kingdom and kings only sporadically, and focus on the development of the nobility, how it changed over the centuries (for example, the titles meaning and the nobility influence), and so on.--Crovata (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For example see Župan, both information and cited sources by Franjo Smiljanić (2007) and D. Karbić (2004).--Crovata (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh perfect! Will restructure section. Splitboy1 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't do minor-edits. Remove unrelated or diminish out of scope information, edit new information from new sources, and do it in two-three major edits. Read the sources and prepare the major edits these days. Don't edit by small steps neither rush it, take your time.--Crovata (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure I was just removing the over saturated parts about Kings. I will review the new sources. Thank you. Splitboy1 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Article sources and other issues
This article has multiple issues, with lots of original research. It is very thin in references while those included are based on pretty problematic, in some cases even self-published, sources of week reliability. Usage of weasel words and phrases, excessive editorializing, all quite apparent. Article is at times misleading and lacking both in NPOV, and sufficient context for those editors and readers unfamiliar with the subject. Lot of work need to be done, to improve this article quality.

I tried to contribute to that goal with edits which are within the scope of my interest and my own knowledge domain, the subject wise, however, User:Shokatz simply refuse any intervention with what he perceives should be how Wikipedia (editors) writes about history of Croatia and using (or not) ethno-national labeling of historical events, personalities, places, properties, etc. This leads to unsolvable, stand off position, which, more often than not leads to braking of 3RR and edit-wars. Too often edits on Balkan subjects and themes 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).

More specifically, User:Shokatz reverts of my edits today, here on "Croatian nobility" article, are unwarranted. My edits consisted of removal of few words and one name, whose inclusion is based on misleading original research, representing certain POV, and without any references, reliable or not. Of course, references whose source reliability could confirm included parts should be the only acceptable kind. I left the summary, explaining that this is an instance of failed verification, that there is nothing that confirms claim and validate inclusion of removed parts. User:Shokatz reverted it with rational that there is an article, whose existence confirm and validate included parts. I responded with another removal of these entries, and explained to User:Shokatz that editor can't use some one article to confirm something in another, and that constitute braking of WP:CIRC, and especially if that "sourced" article is even more heavily disputed and edit-warred, and as such can't serve as a reference or source on its own contested merit, even if such circular argumentation wasn't clearly prohibited based on WP:CIRC. I asked for reference that aren't self-published (in blogs and forums), but instead based on reliable sources, and got another revert with some demagoguery in summary.

There was three of these reverts (WP:3RR) in short period of time by User:Shokatz, before I decided to disengage, otherwise they would certainly persist endlessly, which is, in my own experience with this User, something they are quite susceptible of. Their pattern of behavior (from their logs) and edits suggest that User:Shokatz is very "experienced" in edit-warring and creating prolonged and disruptive disputes, which lead to edit-wars, numerous reporting, and so on. I can't find one positive resolution of uncountable disputes in which User:Shokatz played important part. I don't see any light at the end of this tunnel either, unless some outside party volunteer to take part. And since User.Shokatz already alarmed with presumptions and baseless accusations against me, so I am mentioning him as I truly believe that his and, say,,  presence (who ever decide to respond - also, part of the  same discussion here) could help in resolving any issue User:Shokatz has with my edits, here or elsewhere. Edit-warriors shouldn't be able to bully their way through editing.

Anyone wanting to alleviate some of the problematic issues can follow this list:
 * lacking in refs, using questionable, antagonistic for particular aspect of the article (WP:IRS);
 * some claims lean exclusively at other heavily contested Wikipedia article via wikilinks (WP:CIRC)
 * original research, original research, and original research (WP:OR);
 * lacking in sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject (WP:PCR);
 * exceptional claim (WP:EXCEPTIONAL);
 * misleading (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy, Wikipedia:Oversimplification / WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, WP:N, WP:WEIGHT);
 * article should be checked for copy/paste (WP:COPYPASTE);
 * stating opinions as facts and vice-verse (WP:YESPOV);
 * slanted toward one particular perspective (WP:RNPOV);
 * lacking in NPOV (WP:NPOV);
 * usage of weasel words and phrases (MOS:W2W > WP:AWW);
 * puffery (MOS:W2W > WP:PUFFERY)
 * excessive editorializing (MOS:W2W > WP:EDITORIAL).

I am raising issue by issue here and, although nothing compels User to go such long way and express it in such a clear way, I will talk on each point with anyone serious and willing to mend problematic parts. Anyone interested now have a thorough list of problems, together with appropriate tags to help editors to understand gudilines.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Your intention isn't improving this article at all, your intention and agenda is pushing your POV by removal of Hrvatinic family by which BTW you carried a previous dispute (not only with me but at least one other user there) from that article on this one. You failed there, now you carry it over here...shameful behavior. Improving articles isn't done by removal of content and sources without proper discussion, tagging, etc. And also I can see you are now doing it all over the place. Every time I come back I see you are edit warring on another article, this time here, Turkish Croatia, Donji Kraji...before that couple of articles as well. I bet if I go through your recent edits I would find at least half a dozen articles where you removed content and sources as this is what you do. You are right about one thing...edit-warriors (such as you) shouldn't be able to bully their way on Wikipedia and thus I expect you to be perma-banned if you continue this way. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time...I've seen people like you come and go i.e. banned. Good luck. Shokatz (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Shokatz should chill out, and tone-down their language a notch or three. User: Shokatz should answer contested points, which I presented in a clear and understandable manner, instead of making clear threats, and baseless speculations and accusations - I didn't came here to stand trail, although that would be better option because accuser would be compelled to present evidence as well not just empty words. I won't allow anyone to take on my engagement with the project into personalized abuse either. I am not here to quarrel with User:Shokatz and exchange threats, it seems that's something of tactics for them, but to talk over inclusion/removal of certain points in this articles which are unsupported by references, while being of contentious nature per WP:BALKANS. If User:Shokatz isn't able to respond to it for whatever reason, than they should restrain from reverts and edit-war, and certainly from loaded language and threats.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Santasa99 should stop telling others what they should or should not do. He should also stop edit-warring, trolling and abusing Wikipedia policies. As for the supposed "issues" you raised...I don't see how they are resolved by blatant removal of extremely specific information, content with which you have been proven to be biased and abusive in the past. You have been edit-warring for months now on these issues (and I am not the only one who noticed), carrying it over on yet another article... Shokatz (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If User:Shokatz can't focus on so many problematic issues, and is even unable to accept that unreferenced entries, especially when they are of particularly contentious nature, and than eventually contested with edits like my own and removed from the article, then we need to bring some WP:3O, or resort to some other among offered options and procedures. I just hope that there are some editors out there, willing to deal with this particular problem. Frankly, my dilemma isn't just which would be the best course of action in choosing method of moderation in resolving WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, but also would it be better to shift my focus on resolving WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, or both.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if something is contentious then you tag it, don't delete it because you will get reverted...as you were. This is exactly the reason why you are involved in so many edit-wars...you don't understand how Wikipedia works. I have nothing against improving this article (or any other) if that is your true intention, however looking at what specifically you edited and blatantly removed leads me to a somewhat different conclusion. Shokatz (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Manipulation with sources, page numeration, reliability and other issues concerning verifiability
Article Crotian nobility fails completely to pass Verifiability check !

Article includes 13 sources, used in 17 references, one of which is placed inline 15 times, four are used inline up to 2 times, and one is used inline 3 times, rest are used once each. List of bibliography exists on its own, but with several items listed multiple times, and some already included in references used as a sources.

Verifiability check as follows:


 * Zoran Lukić - Hrvatska Povijest (Archived 2019-07-19 [Date mismatch][Timestamp date invalid] at the Wayback Machine) - (in Croatian) is a user generated source WP:UGC, extremely WP:PARTISAN, a personal blog of some Croatian enthusiast named Zoran Lukič, or whoever. As reference it's used once.


 * Povijesni pabirci - hercegbosna.org - (in Croatian) is a user generated source WP:UGC, extremely WP:PARTISAN Croatian blog based in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As reference it's used once, but on extremely contentious statement (WP:REDFLAG).


 * "How Croatian Nobility Came to Be" Retrieved 29 May 2013 - is a user generated source WP:UGC, private genealogy blog, set up by one Lidija Sambunjak. As reference it's used once, but linked source page appears to be non-existent.


 * Kletva kralja Zvonimira nad hrvatskim narodom - (in Croatian) is a user generated source WP:UGC, obscure private website (claim to be consulting firm in online publishing?). As reference it's used once, but linked source page appears to be non-existent.


 * Durst, Robertson (2000). Croatian Royalty: the Essentials - without a link provided, in Google Search doesn't appears at all - neither author appears in Google Search as Durst, Robertson, nor his work Croatian Royalty: the Essentials. As reference it's used fifteen times.


 * Opća enciklopedija JLZ. Yugoslavian Lexicographical Institute. Zagreb. 1982. - (in Serbo-Croatian) is legitimate source, it is used twice inline but linked as WP:CIRC to its Wikipedia article. No other information is provided.


 * Neven Budak - Prva stoljeća Hrvatske, Zagreb, 1994., p. 22 / p.24-25 - (in Croatian) Neven Budak is one of the most prominent contemporary Croatian medievalists, and together with Gordan Ravančić makes essential readings on the subject of medieval Western Balkan, and is reliable source for referencing.
 * Budak's work is used twice as separate references, first referring to page 22 and than to pages 24-25. Link is provided and takes reader to Google Books edition where pages are unavailable for full page preview, instead only snippet previews are available.
 * P. 22. source confirms only paragraph's last sentence which is of no significance to the rest of the paragraph or broader article subject.
 * P.24-25 snippet previews are impossible to get without searchable term which isn't provided in reference.


 * Florin Curta: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 - as in case of referenced work of Neven Budak, Curta work is used once, with a link provided, and referenced page 196. appears to confirm again only paragraph's last sentence which is of no significance to the rest of the paragraph or broader article subject.


 * Ivo Goldstein: Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb, 1995, p. 274-275 / p. 302 / 314-315 - (in Croatian) is used in three separate references, with page numerals and a link provided, which takes readers to Google Books edition, but without any previews.


 * Ferdo Šišić, Povijest Hrvata; pregled povijesti hrvatskog naroda 600. - 1918 - (in Croatian) is used once, without a link provided.


 * Lampe, John (2000). Yugoslavia as History:Twice There Was a Country p. 15. - is used once, with a link provided, which takes readers to Google Books edition, p.15 full preview available. However, source is misleadingly interpreted and, instead of entire paragraph, source confirms only last sentence and only in part at that.

In short, article references doesn't verifies the text, which is based on original research WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYNTH.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution WP:CHALLENGE.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I could not find the book "Durst, Robertson (2000). Croatian Royalty: the Essentials" at all. The ref "Lampe, John (2000). Yugoslavia as History:Twice There Was a Country p. 15." was used in a completely improper manner.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What J.V.A. Fine say in "When ethnicity...": "Bani Croatorum" or "Croatieque regius viceregens"
What J.V.A. Fine say in "When ethnicity..." about Vukčić: "Bani Croatorum" or "Croatieque regius viceregens"?

Here's an example of Croatian ban title in charters in Latin: now here's Hrvoje Vukčić's title in Latin: when quoting Gordan Ravančić, deputy head of "Croatian Institute of History" than:
 * "Paulus banus Crovatorum et dominus Bosnae",
 * "Pauli bani Croatorum nec non Georgii et Maldini fratrum, comitum civitatum Dalmatiæ";
 * "Dux Spaleti, Dalmatie Croatieque regius viceregens ac Bosne supremus vojvoda" (most importantly, this one is used on money minted and charters issued in Split, 'after being appointed as "viceroy" by Ladislaus);
 * "Grand Duke of Bosnia, Knyaz of Donji Kraji, Duke of Split"

From Fine's seminal book "A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods", starting with the "Index": "Hrvatinić, Hrvoje Vukčić (Bosnian nobleman), 127–28, 288, 302"-- pp.636 "Further evidence that the term “Croat” was not used as commonly as is sometimes thought, even in parts of the northern coastal area, comes from documents regarding Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić. In the 1390s, after involving himself in a civil war over the Hungarian throne, this great Bosnian nobleman and lord of the Donji kraji took for himself a great chunk of Dalmatia stretching from Omiš and Split up to Zadar. His subjects were referred to by their individual city names and as “Dalmatians.” Out of the thirtytwo documents issued by or to Hrvoje that Stojanović published, if we exclude a reference to the Hungarian Ban of Croatia and another to some Croatians serving under the ban - which, of course, did not pertain to Hrvoje’s extensive Dalmatian holdings - we have only one reference to anything Croatian regarding Hrvoje’s lands and subjects. That reference comes in a letter to Hrvoje from Dubrovnik of 22 October 1406 and simply refers to “your [Hrvoje’s] Croatian towns.” In this case, the term “Croatian” is clearly referring to a territory or geographical region, separating these towns from those lying in his Bosnian (or Donji kraji) lands. Ladislav of Naples, who in the first years of the fifteenth century laid claim to the Hungarian throne, made Hrvoje his deputy for this Dalmatian territory, calling him his Vicar General for the regions of Slavonia (in partibus Sclavonie). Thus, like Venice, the Neapolitans still considered the region simply “Slavonia,” and Hrvoje seems to have had no objections to the nomenclature."-- pp. 127

In “Danica,” Palmotić refers to Hrvoje as Ban of the Croats (Od Hrvata ban Hrvoje) and to him ruling the Croatian lands; the real Hrvoje Vukčić was never Ban of Croatia. ... Palmotić, it may be noted, chose Bosnian (a variant of the Štokavian spoken in his native Dubrovnik) as the purest Slavic dialect. ... Also considering Bosnian as the purest Slavic dialect was Palmotić’s contemporary, the Italian Jesuit from Apulia (almost certainly from a family of refugees from Dalmatia) and linguist Jacob Mikalja (Micalia, Micaglia, ca.1600–1654). Having spent much time as a missionary in and around Dubrovnik, he called Bosnian the most beautiful of all the Illyrian dialects. He was one of the first to state explicitly that the languages (dialects) of Bosnia and Dubrovnik were for all practical purposes the same language. -- pp. 302

Gordan Ravančić, deputy head of "Croatian Institute of History", together with Neven Budak, is probably one of the most influential Croatian medievalist, and is expected to be taken seriously by English wikipedia community. Meanwhile, being serious scholar of international reputation, not a charlatan, Fine refers to Hrvoje Vukčić in this manner in all of his books and research, starting with his two-volume magnum opus, The Early Medieval Balkans and The Late Medieval Balkans. These couple of passages from this seminal work on ethnicity are really illustrative of misuse of historical sciences in the Balkans, which reflects in wikipedia to unbearable degree, unfortunately.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)