Talk:Hrvatinić noble family

message: Sorry, but this family is of Croatian origin since the family's name comes from the word Croat (Hrvat) and some members have purely Croatian names (e.g. Hrvoje).
Tough luck revisionists. Marko Brkljača (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity 

message: Infobox serves to present a summary of "some unifying aspect that the articles share" and "to improve navigation", not for repetitive elaboration with long references H:IB. "Croatia" as an entity in the times of Subic wasn't formally a state, and if we are to avoid "Croatia in union with Hungary", which is just another way of saying "Hungary" anyway, than "Hungary" in Infobox does the job more appropriately. But in any case, vassalage to Subic on the part of the family's early days was short-lived from historical perspective, so it's really beyond point to edit-war over inclusion of one entity over another in Infobox. In body issue is taken cared with early members vassalage to Subic described in second paragraph, so there is no need to have it also in only other paragraph, which is the lead paragraph. If this sounds reasonable, that it's unnecessary to have IP editor reverting article three times just to have it his way.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox and reverts on Subic and Croatia 

message: Coat of Arms file used in this article infobox is the only CoA elaborated in sourced scholarship as a family blazon earned by 15th century prominent member, and from that point used by his adherents for not more than following couple of decades up to 100 years. Additional file include by User:Shokatz, one with a red shield aand additional decoration, is provided on basis of editor's misinterpretation of that same reference. Indeed it is mentioned in the introduction of that research paper but with clear explanation that red CoA is a forgery that was created between 16th and 17th century, to be primarily used by certain Ragusan Ohumčević, who ordered its creation for the purpose of defrauding Spanish court (explanation can be found in the reference or in the set of articles on Illyrian armorials here on Wikipedia), sometime in 16th century. later it was included in various version of so-called Illyrian armorials whose nature was purely ideological (nationalistic). In any case, inclusion of file with another version of CoA of such background, and without any significance for start-class article that already has one, and without any meaningful purpose besides transposition of its ideological value, is completely unwarranted.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no. When we are speaking of "forgeries" (and the source mentions it explicitly) we are speaking of the armorial itself which does not imply the coat of arms contained within it are also forgeries...which they are not, they are simply variants or attributed arms...something that was clearly emphasized in the text below the image you removed. For example the today generally accepted variant of the coat of arms of Kotromanic family in fact also stems directly from that Ohmucevic armorial and later Korjenic-Neoric copy i.e. the azure (blue) variant...so by your "logic" this CoA would also be "a forgery". Second, the mentioned coat of arms granted to Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic was not used by any other family member except him as this was purely personal/honorific coat of arms granted to him by Ladislaus of Naples as a claimant to the throne of Hungary and Croatia...and that arms was directly derived from his own (Ladislaus') paternal coat of arms since the times of Charles II - see here. The coat of arms in question was awarded to Hrvoje as Viceroy (Regent) of Croatia and Dalmatia which he later discarded and used another coat of arms which in fact combined the charge of Hrvoje's actual paternal arms and the elements from Sigismund of Luxembourg's own personal coat of arms. In other words the Hrvatinic family in fact used coat of arms with a armored hand holding a sword which is also visible on their seals, the later arms of Hrvoje combined this element with two lines (derived from arms of Arpad dynasty) and a red double tailed lion which is derived from the red lion of Luxembourg and double-tailed lion of Bohemia (Premyslid family). Now before you start talking about heraldry (of which you obviously know absolutely nothing) perhaps you should first start with actually reading sources...properly and preferably with understanding. Shokatz (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We have trubble with CoA again. Why is Santasa disputing Hrvojev Misal? On account of political Original work? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of unsourced content and files with dubious nature 

message: Here's an example of Croatian ban title in charters in Latin: 
*"Paulus banus Crovatorum et dominus Bosnae", 
*"Pauli bani Croatorum nec non Georgii et Maldini fratrum, comitum civitatum Dalmatiæ";
now here's Hrvoje Vukčić's title in Latin: 
*"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);
when quoting Gordan Ravančić, deputy head of "Croatian Institute of History" than: 
*"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 ౪99° 13:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What J.V.A. Fine say in "When ethnicity...". "Bani Croatorum" or "Croatieque regius viceregens"