Talk:House of Berislavić

message: Ok, lets go. This article is mess. 
*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.
This article really needs attention of experts from Wikiproject Royalty and nobility.
--Yopie (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

text: 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 [shallot] (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Discussion without reliable sources is meaningless. AFAICT you're continuing to be disruptive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Croatian nationalists attack 

message: 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. --Zoupan 14:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 [shallot] (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Zoupan 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three articles