Talk:House of Berislavić

Mess
Ok, lets go. This article is mess. This article really needs attention of experts from Wikiproject Royalty and nobility. --Yopie (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Was the House really deposed so many times? I bet, that this happens only one time. Or Tito really say in 1945 "Lets overthrow Berislavić!"?
 * Regent of Hungary was not hereditary and Elisabeth was not regent because was born in this house, but due her maternity of the King.
 * "oldest royal family in Bosnia" - what about Stephen, Duke of Bosnia and previous rulers?
 * Unreliable sources:
 * self-published website, against WP:SELFPUB
 * self-published social site
 * book from 1766 (too old, before critic method of scholar work)
 * two articles, from some web news with unknown reliability.

Thanks for starting the discussion here. Well, the "article" was a mess to begin with because it wasn't really an article at all; it was a stub! Now it contains more bulleted data than before, which I picked from around Wikipedia but not without citing sources, for the most part at least. It's an expanded stub now.
 * Of course it wasn't deposed so many times, but you have to list all the usurpers since king Tomašević's regicide because they did change, and without a demonstrated continuation of illegal act of deposition, the House would be considered extinct. Since we know it has a live claimant, the House isn't extinct now is it. So the list of all usurpers is given for consistency if anything.
 * The Elizabeth's article says she was a regent. According to definition of regency, it means sovereign power. I wasn't aware that the list of nobility titles in the box had to reflect only the hereditary titles, and that it must omit sovereign but non-hereditary titles? Isn't a sovereign title the title amongst all others?
 * You're right there of course. Perhaps, "oldest non-extinct royal family" is more accurate. I changed it in that sense.
 * No information from their royal family's website was used, so how can you scrutinize that link so to take it as a source of anything? Their website is listed under "Other", as is the case with many other royal families like the House of hanover article which has that House's website listed under "External links". Besides, the Bosnian Royal Family's site seems legit, with national domain names of both international (English) and domestic (Bosnian) versions. Their postal address P.O. Box 1 in the nation's capital seems like their diplomatic right as a deposed royal family too. For instance, the country's Council of Ministers and the Parliament are located at 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina Square, also in the nation's capital. And so on...
 * Same as above, it's just a non-referenced, related link under "Other", and it belongs to the claimant. Many claimants have their personal sites linked too, and I included this one because the claimant is a scientist which makes it that more interesting.
 * It's not a book that's of interest here, it's a collection of documents within the book, or rather one specific document. Historic documents such as contracts, testimonies, affidavits and so on are not subject to critical review in historical science. So those documents are regarded by historians as primary historic sources and are always taken on as is basis, meaning no interpretation allowed. Historic books and research papers on the other hand are normally considered secondary historic sources and those can and are regularly questioned for interpretation. Finally, the heraldry information is categorized as tertiary sources.
 * Internet news portals are considered worthy sources throughout Wikipedia. You agree that not every news source can be CNN or NBC, especially for small countries like Bosnia. However, there are ways to establish reliability of an Internet news source, even for small countries. For instance, the Alexa Top 500 rating for Bosnia puts www.bljesak.info at a high 26th place, and www.source.ba at a high 30th place. I say high because they actually come 2nd and 3rd of all news portals in Bosnia! Only one Bosnian news portal (apart from a few from Serbia and Croatia that are in top 25 due to language similarity) is ranked better than those two that I used as sources. So those two do seem reliable according to Alexa, otherwise they wouldn't have such extremely loyal readership and be amongst Top 3 news portals in Bosnia, wouldn't you agree?

Not sure what you meant by "attention of experts." As I said, this isn't an article, it's just an expanded stub. You know how those bottom tags invite users to "please help expand this stub"? Well, that's what I was doing. But thanks for your input, it's more than welcome. Reaubilya (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Women and title - in mediaeval times women married to her man´s house, so she lost her paternal house. --Yopie (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Croatian nationalists attack
The page is under heavy attack by Croatian nationalists. They keep disruptive editing, claiming that "consensus" has been reached on something although this Talk page or any other contains no voting procedure to establish a consensus whatsoever. A claimant to Bosnian throne is a fact. Sources for that are amongst Top 3 news outlets according to Alexa. Croatian and Serb nationalists (and their Catholic/Orthodox sponsors) on Wikipedia are well advised to stay away from this and other Bosnia articles. Especially when those articles report newsworthy information such as this page. Ideabeach (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support you completely. Croat nationalism in Balkan states is deeply rooted in Catholic Church wishing to dominate over Bosnia first and foremost, and Bosnian rich natural resources. Croatia is just flatlands and swamps and some coast that's mostly crap with a few exceptions. Without Bosnia, Catholicism is doomed in the Balkans. That's why you see so many Catholics from Mexico, S.America, USA, Croatia and so on ganging-up on this stub's author, as you noticed it correctly. It's done through Opus Dei, where every member of that global menace has an account on Wikipedia, this I learned from a reliable source who's former Catholic priest. Catholics are an unnoticed and permanent danger. They somehow squeeze by most of the time though, thanks to that sweet talking that they are versed in. But you are the real winner here, believe me, as they keep staying away from the Talk pages like devil from the cross. That exposes them for who they really are: a gang. Treat them as such! 165.254.183.4 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting case, and IP editor who knows how Wikipedia works. Also, Ideabeach uses the not that common "gang-up" phrase just as you. We don't need to check the IPs of Idea to know you are the same person, or are related somehow. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do seem to like each other's choice of words, so we repeat it to the letter. If we were the same person, do you really think we would be that stupid to use exact same phrases? Speaking of which, as I already mentioned to you in my Talk page, you, as a Mexican Catholic (thinking logically here) should have no interest whatsoever in a Bosnian-Croat nationalist fight. Yet, you are here. Strange indeed. Furthermore, your choice of words, calling me a "vandal", and Joy's calling me a "crusader", does suggest you two are either a same person, or a strangely speaking group of people - likely Catholic students from a seminary, or even priests. Hmm, are you? I mean, come on, who uses such vintage vocabulary these days? Ideabeach (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And because I'm Mexican I'm, by default, a Catholic person? Do you think I find necessary to follow a corrupt religion that sells me a vengative but lovely God? If Bosnia and Croatia have a national fight, this is not a website to continue the fight. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This rant is entirely off base, because this fringe claim about a modern Bosnian kingdom has absolutely nothing to do with any other country other than Bosnia. The news outlet claim is ridiculous - web site reprints of a fringe press release do not in any way constitute a reliable source. The rest is a clear WP:OWN and WP:ARBMAC violation, utterly unprovoked. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who's ranting except you?! And who wanted to discuss things in Talk? Judging from the above discussions, Reaubilya did. His contribution was very valuable but you managed to hush him away from Wikipedia with your yelling and insults for good, it seems. Are you trying the same trick on me? LOL Ideabeach (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion without reliable sources is meaningless. AFAICT you're continuing to be disruptive. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was busy updating Ban Borić article; added many new and reliable references. It should be obvious now that he, having been an illegitimate son of a Hungarian king, was also the first Viceroy of the then-newly created Banate of Bosnia, where he ruled as autonomous sovereign. Since he's the first first, then he is considered the founder of the House as well. The House is sometimes referred to as Boričević but this is probably just to honor him, because I've never heard of a one-man royal house? So I say we stick with Borić as the founder of the House of Berislavić (meaning House in historic/legal sense of course, or as royalty if you wish.) Ideabeach (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ready to Discuss?
Seriously Joy, or whichever member of Opus Dei is on duty call today, are you ready to discuss this stub or not? Because I intend to turn it into a comprehensive article now that Reaubilya provided such a nice basis (and was hushed away for it.) Of course, I'll be careful not to piss off any of you, oh the greatest amongst the great TPTB. Ideabeach (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the second statement from you that has no meaningful content aimed at improving this article, rather it's another bit of using Wikipedia as a soapbox.
 * Your latest edit is not really helpful - there's no edit summary indicating the source has been verified, and the new source is improperly formatted, without indication of whether this is a published book or what.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can consult this research paper for more details on the Imamović and other references. For instance, read what the dynasts were saying about the dynasty being "ancient", or look at what King Tvrtko I wrote in his letters, about the dynasty "having reigned Bosnia ever since Bosnia was founded"... We know Borić (of Berislavićs of Grabarje) was the first Viceroy of Bosnia and the ruler of the then newly founded Banate of Bosnia. Go to the Ban Borić article, I updated it. Please try not to be rude. Ideabeach (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That article doesn't seem to have an ISSN attached for us to see what journal it was published in, and it says almost nothing about Imamović, failing to list any ISBNs of his books or similar. I'm not being rude, I'm trying to make sure the article is verifiable. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ISBN is not the only way to verify a reference. For instance, references I used in Ban Borić article are recent scans by Google Scanning project of most notable Hungarian historian researchers of Hungary's royalty. Sorry they didn't have ISBN system invented 16th-19th century. You have just demonstrated how rude you are by reverting my edits of Ban Borić article while the editing was still in progress. You also did it (again, as in here for the House of Berislavić) without bothering to discuss it in Talk. If you are the owner of Wikimedia Foundation please let me know so that I don't bother any more. Ideabeach (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, please don't claim consensus has been reached on giving this article a total makeover. I don't see any voting let alone consensus reached (or not) to change things. Ideabeach (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some policies for considering:
 * About consensus seeking, please read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Did you see any voting? Or reverting war?
 * Read WP:HISTRS. Historical scholarship is generally not journalism or any primary source (you use only some primary sources and news articles), and sorry, Alexa ranking is not ranking of reliability (tabloids are above scholar journals in numbers of readers, but not in reliability).--Yopie (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mixing apples and oranges: historical scholarship is not required for Wikipedia to add information, say, on a claim to the Bosnian throne. (Sorry no one has claimed the Croatia's yet). To add that information to the list of many other claimants around the world does not require approval from the pope, but it does reqire that the claimant has (A) in fact made the claim, and that (B) news sources reported on it that are considered respectable in that country. Since the news source we're talking about here are online, Alexa is the criterion for their as any other online ranking of news portals because their high position in Alexa means high readership. In the news business, this is how you measure success. The sources that reported on the claim are not tabloids but conventional news portals, as anyone can see: www.source.ba, www.bljesak.info, etc. Please be respectful, others have brains and eyes too and stop the edit war. Ideabeach (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diagram. If you look at it closely, you'll realize you're not even attempting to compromise, meaning you're the one not following WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Instead, you keep making total reverts canceling entire edits (which took hours of someone's valuable time) without ever discussing it in Talk. By being so obviously rude, you also remove dozens of reliable references such as in Ban Borić article where your remove all history ebooks from the Google Scanning project with a single hit of a button. Never heard of a rule saying that Google Scanning project is bogus and banned from Wikipedia. That's malicious editing, plain and simple. Please stop edit war. Or to use your Catholic vocabulary - please stop the crusade. Ideabeach (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The disconnect here is huge. There is no Bosnian throne. It hasn't existed since 1463. Anything that is predicated on the premise that it can be re-created by wishful thinking, without reliable sources, is useless in an encyclopedia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Croatian nationalist!!! It's me, your Bosnian nationalist nightmare, the guy with IP 165xxx you banned, remember? I created account to bother Vatican agents on Wikipedia. Let me teach you: "throne" is just a name for the right (learn it on www.royalfamily.ba) so lesson 2: our king's claim = Bosnian throne. You don't know basics of law. And royal family website is correct too that Israel was recreated after 2000 years! And what's 2013-1463= 1/4 of that! Also, what reliable sources did Jews have??? They never found a temple of Israel, and they still diging, 60 years after. Bosnia is full of castle remains and old forts and other great proves we were kingdom and we can be again. I know you can't sleep now because Bosnia has kings claim and you "civilized" people must make up "old Croatian kings" that never existed. I'm in hurry and I have no much time to write nice and long now, but tomorrow I'll write to you all you want to prove. Like 1463 means anything ha ha ha... How did Britain a few weeks ago reminded Spain that Gibraltar is British? They used a 350 years old paper! Years means nothing. You just jealous. Admit it, come on say it, we Croats are jealous... HA HA Tothon (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note Both Tothon and Ideabeach are indef blocked. And we have same problem before, see WP:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family--Yopie (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Three articles
Berislavić, a disambiguation page directing to the three Berislavić families. Izabrani književni i politički spisi: "Berislavici, prezime vise hrvatskih plemickih obitelji ...". These are not branches of one and the same family. --Z oupan 14:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only one House of Berislavić in historical and legal sense. House branches are normally subsections of like articles, unless there's a lot to say about each branch separately. But how many notable historic events can you relate to all the Berislavićs altogether? We're not talking the Hapsburgs here. Ideabeach (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I googled a bit and very soon found a work by the same Marija Karbić that you referenced earlier, Hrvatsko plemstvo u borbi protiv Osmanlija. Primjer obitelji Berislavića Grabarskih iz Slavonije, that clearly uses the Grabarski suffix to distinguish that family; and Rodoslov Berislavića Vrhričkih i Malomlačkih (od 15. do 18. stoljeća) which clearly uses the other two suffixes to distinguish those two. The first one says the rodonačelnik was Ban Borić, while the second one says they were od plemenitoga roda Čubranića (de genere Ciprianorum). What source do we have that it's the same family, as opposed to several families each named a Berislav? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created Berislavić (disambiguation);


 * Berislavići Grabarski (also Doborski), Croatian noble family
 * Berislavići Trogirski, Croatian noble family
 * Berislavići Vrhrički (also Malomlački), Croatian noble family

Feel free to expand these. This article should be deleted.--Z oupan 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)