Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Royal Family

[edit]
Bosnian Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is ridiculous. Why?

  1. Its title is invented and has nothing to do with its subject. The whole article is a joke and the following points will prove it. If it shouldn't be deleted, the article should be moved to House of Kotromanić article, as that is the only Bosnian family that can be considered royal.
  2. For the love of God, why is the Template:Infobox Former Country used here? Why is the text "Royal Family" (unneccessarily capitalized) put instead of the country's name? Is the author perhaps suggesting that there was a state called Royal Family? I wouldn't be surprised, as he has made several much more silly claims.
  3. There is no such thing as agnatic monarchy. Bosnia was an elective monarchy in which the new king or queen regnant was elected by the powerful nobility. If Bosnia had been a hereditary monarchy, Jelena Gruba would have never been able to succeed her husband, which she undisputably did. Which hereditary monarchy allows the illegitimate cousin of the first king to succeed when the monarch has legitimate and illegitimate sons and then allows the widow of that ilegitimate cousin to succeed and then asigns the crown to the illegitimate (not the legitimate) son of the first king and then (after several depositions) asigns the crown to that ruler's legitimate son and then to the first ruler's legitimate son and that to the younger (not the elder) illegitmate son of the illegitimate son of the first monarch and so on? None. The claim that Bosnia was a hereditary monarchy is here to prepare the unsuspecting audience for the next claim - that Bosnia still has a royal family. How emotional, sentimental and romantic, isn't it?
  4. The user who created it has already lied about sources. This is the first time I have ever accused a Wikipedia user of lying and I have restrained myself from doing that even when talking about User:Bosnipedian or his sockpuppet User:Regionlegion, but there is no other word to describe his behaviour (he said much worse things to me anyway). He claimed that the source he used referred to Stjepan Berislavić as Crown Prince of Bosnia. That source can be found here. After I pointed out that he contradicts his own source, he offered an unsourced explanation. Since he obviously lied about this unimportant detail, I am sure that few (if any) of the sources cited here support his claims.
  5. This ridiculous article refers to a Princedom of Bosnia, a never-existing state mentioned by no English language sources and by no no Bosnian language sources. In this discussion, he ignored over 50 sources (and I can find over 100 sources if neccessary). He says that "science is not done by consensus" and that "it takes one person to knock down what thousands were saying before that", therefore acknowledging that this entire article is a product of his OR and POV.
  6. The article refers to "Dobor Massacre". What is that? Reliable sources mention no such event. They mention Battle of Dobor and Battle at Dobor. But Bosnipedian/Regionlegion doesn't care about that because he prefers Dobor Massacre.
  7. This would make Omerbašićs the only pretender royal family for Bosnia in Bosnia, thus mitigating the problem of succession crises. What?! Can I guess: you are an Omerbašić, right? That is absurd. I cannot even bring myself to properly describe such a claim. Do I have to say that no sources whatsoever in any language? This type of OR is gross.
  8. Between 30-50 could arithmetically be said to be dynasts in the Line of Succession - in line of succession to what? To an elective monarchy abolished in 1463? To monarchs whose descendants are unknown since the 15th century?
  9. Their heir to the throne of Bosnia could be the heir to the throne of Serbia (and possibly the throne of Croatia as well) since outranking the current claims for Serbia in terms of age, taking precedence over the opponent claims made by the deposed House of Obrenović and the deposed House of Karađorđević. More OR that makes no sense! Could the non-existing "heir to the throne of Bosnia" also be the heir to the throne of Montenegro and Albania and other former monarchies that are geographically close to Bosnia because it outranks the claims made by their dynasties in terms of age? Could the non-existing "heir to the throne of Bosnia" also be the heir to the UK, Norway, Sweden and other monarchies whose ruling dynasties are "younger" than the "House of Omerbašić" or whatever?
  10. As already noted, the relatively most prosperous period for Mideaval Bosnia occurred during the House of Kotromanić. This House started from Berislavićs because its founder Ban Prijezda I was a Slavonian Berislavić. Oh, really? So, all the historians who have been researching the ancestry of Prijezda I are wrong because you say so?
  11. After the erradication of the Kotromanić line, the pretender right returned to the Berislavić family. So let me get this right. After the last generation of the Kotromanić family converted to Islam and thus (according to you) forfeited their non-existing rights to the Bosnian throne, the succession passed to their c. 10th cousins many times removed. That family converted to Islam and became the Omerbašić family, who are the present Bosnian Royal Family. How, for the love of God, did the Berislavić family retain its succession rights after their conversion to Islam when the descendants of the last King's heir male (his brother Sigismund) lost theirs? Not to mention that none of these claims is sourced. Even a forged source would be better for such silly claims.
  12. Finally, this editor thinks he has the right to refer to the laws of the United Kingdom as violation of human rights as if it were a fact. He thinks that he can say that England occupied Scotland as if it were a fact. He thinks that he can claim that England is a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's what he has written in the article I listed for deletion. That is just unbelieveable. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator is saying that this article is WP:SYNTHESIS. Article was written entirely by one person, and nominated for deletion one hour after being moved to mainspace. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, that's one of the things I am saying. Thank you for helping me express myself! But there are other points too. The article was written by one person and moved to the mainspace even though I strongly opposed what was written in it, citing over 50 sources that contradict that article. I respected the author's wishes and avoided editing it while it was a user subpage but the author still believes he owns the article, as evidenced by his repetitive removing the AfD message and telling me that I should not reinsert it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He claims that these England-related claims are "all well too referenced and documented". This makes me doubt all his other references; if his references support the England-related claims, they are obviously extremely biased and the other references are therefore very likely to be biased as well. On the other hand, this user has already said that a source says what the source doesn't say; therefore, it is possible that he is doing it again. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
discussion about how User:Regionlegion, sock puppet of Bosnipedian, was confusing PROD with AFD.
  • Object Under the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion, step#2: "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the prod tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." My reasons were clear and according to the rules: this person seems like ambushing people who even touch on Bosnia topics. He seems a nationalist, as others have noted. The article written by Bosnipedian is new, well resourced, well written, and to the point. Please obey the regulations and remove the tag, or I will. No need to wait for 7 days. Thanks. Regionlegion (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so. Regionlegion (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I followed developing of this article by Bosnipedian and I find it very useful from beginning. It is now exciting to read. Obviously author put lot of work. It follows Bosnia during Middle Ages through the ruling bloodline. Now how many articles do we have in Wikipedia that are made form that perspective? Very few, mostly about large monarchies, like England and Russia. So the article deserves praise for that alone, why is it bad to have such perspective for a small country too? And by the way there are many more references in this article than this person who objects talks about. Also I don't think that his and Bosnipedian's references are in conflict. It's just that Bosnipedian uses newer ones which present new discoveries about Bosnia, such as recently discovered coat of arms of its first ban. Historians that are referenced in this article believe that all Bosnian monarchs were discendants from first Ban Borić, and it's referenced, most can be found on internet as I could find sure this rude person can too. Article has many quality references, by historians who research profesionally the noble families of Bosnia and Croatia. This person who objects behaves unreasonably, he is insulting, insinuating, reporting and editing without any regards for others or for truth. He is so mixedup in his head he even doesn't see that this article is about Bloodline through different eras, not about kingdom only (which he so protects). He now began using ad hominem attacks. That's plain ugly. He started at first attacking me when I propposed that year of "fall" of Bosnia and articles that mention it should be moved from 1463 to 1527 or 1535 because Wikipedia's list of Ottoman provinces says that first Bosnian province in Ottoman Empire was Eyalet Bosnia created in 1527, not 1463. There can be no gap, as the author says too. Then this person attacked me immediately as if ambushing or something. Does he edit full-time for Wikipedia, 24 hours a day? Amazing. Then Bosnipedian supported me (as others did too) but then this person accused that we are all the same person. Should I now accuse Abductive that he is the same person as this guy? Of course not. So I don't think he has good intentions because he keeps attacking and reacting like there is no tomorrow, and insinuating. He keeps editing his posts many times in 5 minutes, very nervously, so you can't even respond, always creates edit conflicts, several people had this problem and we called plain for what it is -- agenda. I find it disturbing that persons like this are allowed to cause such distress, how can he be allowed to go to everyone's nerves like this? So people stopped going into endless discussions with him. He has loop-logics, whatever you tell him he turns to "references say". He was told to find reference to cover the gap, and everything will be fine. But he can't because Wikipedia page on Ottoman Empire that was checked many times would have such reference long time ago. Just imagine: instead of suggesting many possible objections, such as redirecting, questioning notability, questioning specific references or specific points, what he does? He immediately wants everything deleted?? Isn't that alone very strange, since article obviously has more references than anything he mentiones or writes (he keeps talking about 40 references as at the marketplace, well this article has 60, but so what, are they potatoes. Well if they were than we should keep this article and delete all of his ones, right?! Also, within 5 minutes he attacks you no matter what you say and on what page as long as it's a topic about Bosnia. Is he the owner of that country? Perhaps Bosnipedian should include this person in the Bloodline, he sure fights for "his" version of Bosnia mercelesly, like he is the crusador from the article :) But truth is not one sided. Regionlegion (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
collapsed personal attacks
  • Comment Well you have just been debunked as a Serb (as your page says "Yugoslav" meaning Serb with nostalgia for Yugoslavia or "Greater Serbia"), so surtsicna is probably a Serb also. We answered that question now too, that is we know now that he is a Serb nationalist. Now we understand better his eagerness to freak-control every piece written about Bosnia on Wikipedia. Your Serb nationalism agenda will not be tolerated, make no mistake. Regionlegion (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I followed developing of this article by Bosnipedian and I find it very useful from beginning. It is now exciting to read." Fiction has always been more exciting to read than history.
  • "It follows Bosnia during Middle Ages through the ruling bloodline." We already have enough articles about the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina (eg. Kingdom of Bosnia and History of Bosnia and Herzegovina). It follows Bosnia during Middle Ages through the rulling bloodline only until 1463, when historians lose track of the ruling bloodline. From then on, it talks about hypothetical pretenders who never openly claimed the throne of Bosnia and it finishes with the family of Omerbašić who are, surprinsigly, the current Bosnian Royal Family. Referring back to my first sentence, this seems somewhat similar to The Da Vinci code.
  • "Now how many articles do we have in Wikipedia that are made form that perspective? Very few" Have you even wondered why there are so little (actually none) articles similar to the one you wrote? Because they get deleted. That's what happens to articles that represent one person's POV as if it were a fact (eg. England having a big conspiracy against the Catholics, etc).
  • "And by the way there are many more references in this article than this person who objects talks about." As has been said many times so far, Bosnipedian lied about one of his sources. He said that one of his sources said what it didn't say. He has never attempted to explain this lie. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Bosnipedian has lied about his other sources.
  • "It's just that Bosnipedian uses newer ones which present new discoveries about Bosnia, such as recently discovered coat of arms of its first ban. Historians that are referenced in this article believe that all Bosnian monarchs were discendants from first Ban Borić, and it's referenced." I have never disputed that. Can you find that argument among the points I raised above? No.
  • "This person who objects behaves unreasonably, he is insulting, insinuating, reporting and editing without any regards for others or for truth. He is so mixedup in his head... He now began using ad hominem attacks. That's plain ugly... He started at first attacking me when I propposed that year of "fall" of Bosnia... Then this person attacked me immediately as if ambushing or something..." This comes from the person who called me ignorant the first time he said anything to me. Why did he say that? Because he felt that I talk too "authoritatively". Yet he has no shame. He says that I insulted him first even though everyone can see that I didn't. Such a person does not deserve community trust.
  • "Then Bosnipedian supported me (as others did too)" Note that he is referring to an account which is suspected (by me and others) to be his sock master and to a user who said that they don't care anymore about the discussion (i.e. that they no longer support nor oppose).
  • This person has the nerves to accuse me of being a nationalist. This clearly and unambigiously nationalistic comment regarding a user who opposed him shows who is the nationalist. He is making fun of the user's username and nationality, as well as being very interested in my own nationality (as if it had anything to do with this issue). This is the second time he attacks a person the first time he writes anything to them. This has to be sanctioned.
  • "He keeps editing his posts many times in 5 minutes, very nervously, so you can't even respond, always creates edit conflicts, several people had this problem and we called plain for what it is -- agenda." It's not my fault that addressing all of your sill arguments is so hard. They are just so easy to miss! Anyway, "several people" and "we" again refers to him and the account I (and others) believe is his sock master.
  • "I find it disturbing that persons like this are allowed to cause such distress, how can he be allowed to go to everyone's nerves like this? ... So people stopped going into endless discussions with him." Again, "everyone" and "people" refers only to him and the account I (and others) believe is his sock master. I am causing distress only to you and I am only going to your nerves. I wonder why.
  • "He has loop-logics, whatever you tell him he turns to "references say"." Naturally, I am more prone to trust a historian than your logics. In fact, right now, I would trust Pinocchio more than I would trust you. But that is irrelevant.
  • "He was told to find reference to cover the gap, and everything will be fine." Wikipedia:No original research. Over 50 historians unambigiously state that the Kingdom ended in 1463. I don't need to find references for anything else. Wikipedia is not concerned with your imagination.
  • "Isn't that alone very strange, since article obviously has more references than anything he mentiones or writes" Unlike you, I have provided links to my references and, unlike you, I have never lied about a reference.
  • "(he keeps talking about 40 references as at the marketplace, well this article has 60, but so what, are they potatoes" You know very well that I am talking about more than 50 references, as I have said various time after I noticed that you keep lowering the number. Only statements that belong to common knowledge (such as the penultimate queen's children being taken to Istanbul to be raised as Muslims) have been covered by sources. The extremely dubious and bizarre claims regarding the present Bosnian Royal Family are not covered by any references. Again, he lied about one of his sources; he may have lied about all the others as well.
  • "Perhaps Bosnipedian should include this person in the Bloodline" Perhaps he should. Other living people mentioned have as much right to be included as I do = none.

Finally, it is interesting to point out that you ignore all my objections regarding the article itself. You concentrate on my personality. That is very telling. Surtsicna (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is open for new articles. Or is your word final?
  • England's conspiracy against Catholicism is as real as any other. Keep on not reading refs.
  • I can speak for myself, you keep accusing others of lying when it's you who's lying all the time.
  • You don't want to read, that's your and your countrymans problem. As Serb supreme academician Dobrica Cosic said We Serbs lie with passion, we lie inventively, we lie as no other people can.
  • The "others" who support your lunacy on socketpuppets is, oh what a wonder, your Serb buddy PRODUCER, or should I say, your other "I".
  • I'm glad you find my and Bosnipedian's arguments hard to argue against. That speaks volumes.
  • You trust only selected historians, that's what Serbian nationalist agenda is all about, for 2 centuries now.
  • NONE of your references define what they mean by a "fall". Yet the Ottomans who lived at that time knew very well when they could anounce the fall.
  • References about the consistency of the Bosnian Royal Family through Middle Ages are in the article. But you seem disturbed that they are not by the Serbian Academy of Science, but by other Academies. ts, ts, ts.
  • The only one who is concentrating on personality and seing pink elephants is you. Keep up discrediting the Serbian "school of thought".
  • KEYWORDS: FILL THE GAP! CODE: 1463-1527 (1535) Regionlegion (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would the long-winded participants above please consider that brevity is a virtue in these discussions, and that no-one is going to count your words and decide on that basis? As to the Succession Acts, yes, they do bar Roman Catholics and people marrying RCs from the succession. It does not debar the children of such marriages - so long as the children are brought up as Anglicans (or at least non RC). This is for historical reasons which are nothing whatever to do with Bosnia. I would think that the majority of the people involved in drafting and passing the Acts had never even heard of Bosnia, and if they had, wouldn't have given a fig for the place. I am not Bosnian - I've had some Bosnian friends who were refugees in England - and I'm not Serbian, Croation or Slovene, Kossovan or former whatsit Macedonian. I'm not Turkish, either. (I am a mix of English and Scottish with something further east than Bosnia.) I consider the part of the article about England oppressing Bosnia (or so I read it) as total cobblers. England and later the UK have probably oppressed and have definitely occupied many places (even Batum!), but we had enough to bother about without Bosnia - until the chaos in the 90s. The first part of the article looked interesting - but way too long (rather like this discussion...) - but when I skimmed through to the end, well... I might have another look tomorrow if I'm feeling better than I am at the moment. Apologies for the length of my contribution. Peridon (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to high posts, the Earl Marshall comes from a staunchly Roman Catholic family, and this is a hereditary post. There are bars on the monarchy, and fairly obviously on the hierarchy of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, but all other non-religious posts are open to any faith, and discrimination on grounds of race or faith is not lawful. Peridon (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points. Not sure though whether the Lords have Catholics also? In any case, I recommend you read ref.62 by a British historian Simms, about the Britain's involvement in 1992-1995 Bosnia, and ref.63 by a US International Law Professor Boyle and his testimony on how the Bosnian President fired him and took his Bosnian passport under duress by the British, after he represented Bosnia in the Bosnia v. Serbia case and wanted to expand the lawsuit to Britain as complicit in genocide for the arms embargo imposed on barehanded Bosnians. Boyle wrote the 1992 lawsuit that resulted in indicting Serbia for genocide, the first-time such indictment ever; but the case was dragged on for decade+ until after Milošević died in Hague, and ruled to have been a "limited genocide" (as if that made any sense) to Srebrenica only. Most of 1000+ mass graves 1992-1995 describe the today’s border of Republika Srpska. An Englishwoman presided over that court; a coincidence?. You are mistaken if you think that Bosnia was not interesting to London before 1992 either: how about Disraeli switching Bosnia over from the Ottomans to the Hapsburgs in 1878? Or, again, in newer times: the outlandish and stubborn support for a genocide-made Republika Srpska. (Imagine Hitler tried for war crimes, but his Nazi Germany left intact). And another example from recent times: bowing of British/EU diplomacy to the will of Serbia these days under excuse of a strong Russia, but supporting that same Serbia under Milošević in the 1990-ies when Russia was on her knees. And so on... Still I hope you enjoyed parts of the article as you say. I'm sure I did, it was real refreshment for me. Regionlegion (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are or have been peers sitting in the Lords from the following backgrounds: Jewish, Moslem (including one who is openly gay!), Parsi, Nigerian, Iraqi, West Indian, Hindu and Chinese, apart from Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Church of Scotland and atheist. I may have missed some out - this is based on the current composition. Disraeli operated a long time after the Acts of Succession in a time when the area of political interest was vastly expanded from what it had been when James II left. In those days, Bosnia was part of the Ottoman Empire, and would have been considered (if indeed it was at all) as being in Turkey. Only when the Greek independence movement was gaining notice (with the involvement of Lord Byron, whose exploits and death gained much publicity for it, and also the involvement of Sir Edward Codrington) did attention get paid to the Balkans. By this time, the UK had a growing empire elsewhere. (We ended up with Cyprus more or less by accident, having tried to give it to Greece.) Peridon (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be an illustration of synthesis and original research, along with a lack of demonstration of notability. Blathering along at excessive length is not that convincing either way.Edison (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, again. But I think also off the topic of this article, do you agree? Bosnipedian (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems that you cannot read most of the references in the article for lack of language skills, yet you claim lack of notability? From what I read, most references are notable, written by historians (sorry they're not Serb or English, oh wait there are English ones too such as Professor Simms'). Your vote is biased, at best. By the way, what does it mean "...of synthesis and original research". Did you mean to say "synthesis of original research"? I think you have no idea what you wanted to say. Regionlegion (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I meant exactly what I said. See the Wikipedia policies WP:synthesis and WP:original research. The article violates both. To be kept, an article needs WP:notability and WP:verifiability demonstrated by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This article does not appear to satisfy that requirement. There are reliable sources which do not provide significant coverage, and nonreliable sources with significant coverage. The article appears to provide WP:undue weight to a particular point of view. I judge deletion arguments by their strength and not by the number of keystrokes devoted to endless repetitions of the same arguments, refighting centuries of Balkan wars. Edison (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peridon, I am sorry my comments are too long. At this page I will no longer respond to personal attacks from Bosnipedian/Regionlegion but it is difficult to ignore them. His comments (and therefore my responses to his comments) are irrelevant for the discussion so feel free to remove them or hide them. I will just say that a Serbian nationalist does not revert edits like these. That's my final response to Regionlegion/Bosnipedian's personal attacks here. Now, regarding the article, the rest of it is as bad as is the section about England being a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it invents a royal family in Bosnia. A clear hoax. You may have wondered why is England a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Because Catholicism [hated by England] is the absolutely closest to Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a revert of a one-word vandalism by an IP user. So it makes you an anti-Serb-nationalists because you reversed something off hand? Don't make me laugh. And keep on soliciting people all over the net as if there is no tomorrow. Just don't (you or your solicited supporters) answer the only question I posed: explain the GAP BETWEEN 1463-1527(1535)Regionlegion (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am an under-cover Serbian nationalist who is fighting other Serbian nationalist just to look like someone who is not a Serbian nationalist so that he can unsuspectedly promote Serbian nationalism? Isn't that an interesting conspiracy theory? I notified persons according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Notifying interested people: in a neutral manner. Interestingly enough, I've notified neither of two persons that believe that the article should be deleted. Anyway, I don't have to explain anything to you; you are the one who should explain the 12 points I've raised above. Why did you not allow me or other people to edit your subpage before you moved it to mainspace? The reason: WP:SYNTHESIS. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regard to England occupying Scotland, yes they did several times - and the Scots occupied northern England several times. However, after the death of Elizabeth I of England, the English crown passed to James VI King of Scots. He promptly moved to London as James VI and I, or I and VI depending on your point of view. The two kingdoms remained separate entities until an Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain, whereupon the Scottish Parliament dissolved and members were sent from Scotland to the United Kingdom Parliament in London. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. You could as well add it to the article! I for one tried to keep it neutral from the beginning to the end. If you read the article, you will say that I do not hold sides either to London or Rome. I simply find it ridiculous that a country should exist on a border of civilizations, and be everyone's foot rug for a millennium. "Collateral damage" comes to mind. But again, please do enter that info on Scots occupying English, I had no idea. Bosnipedian (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just seen the sentence: "England's rulers have enabled distruction which creates permanent instability in the region as well as continental Europe overall..." So now the Queen is responsible for all the evil in Europe. Wonderful. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article mention any specific ruler of England? Daydreaming? Bosnipedian (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a person writes about "English monarchs", "English rulers" an "English monarchy" in Simple Present Tense, stressing out "today as in the past", everyone can conclude that the person is referring to the present monarch and all of their predecessors. Thus, the article clearly violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read what you wrote: "everyone can conclude"? "stressing out"? "clearly violates"? Kid, you have logics of a 10-year old. 78.46.117.146 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request To the deleters and keepers: Can we call a truce (and stay in touch) and stop the personal attacks altogether? AfD depends on informed discussion and not on 'yah boo, yer mother's ugly!'. I would like to see the discussion concentrate on the facts of the case - which is somewhat difficult for those of us with no access to the works referenced. I do possess a Serbo-Croat/English dictionary (of uncertain vintage), but have little to no knowledge of the language(s) (yes, I do know that there are differences between Serb and Croat beyond the alphabet used, and that Bosnian can be regarded as a third member of the group). I and others whose main languages are more to the west are therefore dependent on those with this knowledge, and with access to the books - even to the extent of confirming their existence. I have found articles that were apparently well-referenced until I checked on the works cited - and found them to be imaginary... Peridon (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of fact is, this discussion has ended just like the one at Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1463–1878). So I agree. Only a malicious person would motion to delete a huge and well resources page based on many new references, hastily 10 minutes after the article was up. The term "barbarian" comes to mind. Bosnipedian (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the sort of comment I was referring to. It does your case no good whatever. Peridon (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did not call him a barbarian. If I wanted to, I would have. I agreed with your proposal, did I not? The other side is yet to be heard from. Cheers Bosnipedian (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Name calling and personal attacks violate the policy WP:Civility and usually do not result in the AFD outcome desired by the attacker, since it makes them sound desperate. Address the article, and not the suspected shortcomings or motivations of the other editors. Edison (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You took side of the original attacker, the one who first called others names, liars etc. Now you joined the discussion although I did not call this person a barbarian, all I said was that the term "barbarian" came to mind (see the quotation marks?). Do you understand the difference and semantics? It seems you do not, just as you made that blunder above when mixing "of synthesis" and "synthesis of"... Now you offer no logical reasoning in the above besides regulations which say nothing you want to say. In other words you are hiding behind regulations that have multiple interpretations. Probably because you can not comprehend most of the references in the article as they are in languages foreign to you (while the Simms and Boyle references probably aggravated you, which I am sorry if they did). Therefore please stay away from the stuff you do not understand. Your contribution so far has been that from a position of authority, nothing else. Speaking of which, I don't know of any regulation that allows you to act from that position, without previously gaining knowledge on the subject being discussed. Also, if you are trying to provoke me, you are wasting your time. Cheers Bosnipedian (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Comment To Surstricna: The matter of fact is, you cited regulations only partially, leaving out the regulation that warns about bias. It says (interpreted) that all authors and all sources are by definition biased, until filtered through neutrality checks and balances. So stop raising references alone to the pedestal of all--mightiness. They alone are insufficient to establish that there is no bias (in them and otherwise). They must have an outside check. In historical science the check is called primary historical document and it supersedes all references ever written on history. In this case it is the Ottoman military records, used to create List_of_Ottoman_sieges_and_landings#Growth_.281453.E2.80.931683.29 and Eyalet#Eyalets_in_1609. Learn to distinguish primary and secondary historic sources. References in historical sciences are secondary sources and when they off-hand wild guess such as "Bosnia fell in xxxx" they are called tertiary sources. Man, do I have to teach you the basics here? Bosnipedian (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JUST TO CLOSE MY ARGUMENT: 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). Bosnipedian (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Could an admin or someone experienced in these things separate the real arguments out from the ranting, or is that not allowed? Peridon (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentWe do not edit the comments of others, even if they are rambling repetitions, or if they are rants. Sometime long off-topic sections are collapsed so it takes a click to view them, but whether something is off topic or a valid part of the deletion discussion is a judgment call. Far too much of the arguments above are ad hominem attacks on the nationality or motivations of other editors. Such tactics rarely end up with the outcome the ranter desires. In due time, typically after 7 days, an admin will close this one way or the other based on the strength rather than the length of the arguments. Edison (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads badly when an admin threatens to delete an article just like that. No arguments, no discussion, nothing. Only a one-sentence verdict before trial, an ad hominem dismissal of an author based on prejudice. It's obvious to me that the author of this article has caught Wikipedia being inconsistent with its own regulations, and an inconsistency amongst its own articles where secondary sources based on primary historic sources are not allowed to override the tertiary mumblings from other secondary sources. Yet you won't admit it. You will rather sack the author and delete the article. But we saw that on Wikipedia many times, and we see it again. CIA controlling the contents -- scandal, the Climategate and an admin who edited 5000+ articles to fit global warming agenda -- scandal, the list goes on... God knows how many things we are not aware of. But it can be approximately guessed, though. Why do you think there are so few French, German, Chinese, Italian... admins and editors on the English Wikipedia? Not because you can't find any English speakers amongst them. It's because they simply ran away from English Wikipedia, years ago. Now you have a few control-freaks who edit 24h a day, but most do it in 8hr shifts, there was an article about it, of course you won't find it on English Wikipedia. Then posting of ugliest photographs you can find of persons who have critical minds and are not afraid to speak up. And so on. With such an attitude, you will do harm to no one else but those who you represent and work for. After this what you have just said above, don't tell me that English Wikipedia is "open for everyone" and an "encyclopedia which everyone can edit". This is simply not true, and it has been proven over and over again. English Wikipedia is a symbiotic brother of Google and Yahoo. Together they control the Cyberspace. He who owns the information, owns the world, said a smart guy once. Whenever you do a search in Google regardless of its interface (false) language, you always get results from the English Wikipedia placed on top, you don't get the results from sources in the language of your Google engine's (false) language interface. That's called world control my dear admin. You think you are a face, a figure, an almighty wizard?! Comical. Well my friend that's all too pathetic, in my humble opinion of course. The way how you people hide behind millions of regulations you yourselves don't understand, and which in many cases contradict each other so much so that you can use whatever regulation you want at a given time to push whatever agenda you are in charge of pushing... There, and you thought that that in the above was ranting, now you actually have real ranting. Get the difference? (I'm sure you don't have any sense of humor as you wouldn't be saying what you have been saying on this page). Regionlegion (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


collapsed one !vote with personal attacks
  • Strongly support Seems like a case of good-old-boys on a lynching rampage. The page is probably the best page on history of the Balkans I ever came across on wikipedea (not that I like visiting it often due to its bad reputation with intellectuals). Makes you wonder what founding fathers would say of this monstrous system of information control. Do yourselves a favor and unblock people. You are a shame to democracy. And you wonder why you all are laughing stock for intellectuals worldwide. You keep bringing it on yourselves. As for England, the YUCKest nation that ever inhabited the Universe, your English editors said it all. The guy above was a 100% right. NOW you know why everyone hates us. Poor Obama, what he got himself into. --38.99.65.107 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Wikipedia is known among "certain" circles as the largest concentration of frustrated Jew nerds in the world. Apparently, a "source" confirmed it that it employs fulltime staff, mostly from MOSSAD and MI6, though CIA has been known to jump in from time to time as the wikipedea owner said (before he became the CNN's 30-seconds expesrt. What a laughing stock, featured on CNN! bwha--38.99.65.107 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incoherent. Delete the FAC nom as G8. I do know that Tvrtko Kotromanic declared himself King of Bosnia in the 1350s but the state he founded collapsed shortly after his death. This article attempts to connect unrelated facts to construct a novel interpretation by synthesis, but it is a virtually unreadable house of cards. Too much of its content is unverifiable and original. Too many of its paragraphs are incomprehensible. DrKiernan (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true Neither did Bosnia "collapse soon after his death" (unless he was a Galapagos turtle who lived for over a century) nor was it him who started Bosnia. Bosnia was started two centuries before him, by Ban Boric. My God, you are judging an article you didn't even read!! What are you Doctor of, Horticulture? Ha ha, this is growing beyond hilarious. 78.46.117.146 (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Reward All that Anglos and Jews here saying is rant. Their alliance is tearing apart. Funny thing is they don't know that practically NOTHING is known about Middle Ages Bosnia, because Turks destroyed everything they found. ANYTHING one says about Bosnia old history is a SPECULATION. It’s clear to me as a historian that Anglos and Jews support the Serb version as Serbs are their old-timer allies in the Balkans. It’s nauseating nonetheless. And good actually, for we can use any chance we have to unmask those people for what they really are. Love the blazon by the way, great artwork, amazingly resembling the original. Hope to see this page on the internet (real free-for-all servers!) when you Anglos and Jews delete it. In the meantime I'm spreading the word about this page. You are in for some serious responses. So hurry up, delete it. What an amusement hoard, as someone noticed. Wikigate! Ha! 209.51.155.18 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Edison (above) spoke too soon... We are ready for serious responses. So far we're not getting anything except abuse. That may be impressive in certain places, but it isn't here. I can't check out the book references for obvious reasons, but the attacks on England are simply ridiculous. There isn't even an English Government, and hasn't been for about 300 years. I can't see any real point in the article, on re-reading it, except possibly plugging the cause of a possible pretender to a currently non-existent throne. If Bosnia did by some unlikely chance decide to become a monarchy, I think they'd do best to invite in some minor royal from elsewhere. This might have the effect of uniting the country - but I wouldn't fancy the position. I'm giving up my attempt to calm down - and in the process probably help - certain people here. Especially as things have gone as far as 'Ha!', which is only used by Victorian style novelists and by inarticulate teenagers. Peridon (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to keep What do you mean by "it isn't here"? By that, do you mean "here where everyone is allowed to edit"? Oh I see, you mean "here where only the few of us initiated know how to be responsible about editing what's only being advertised as free for everyone to edit". What a bunch oh coo-coo wannabe lawyers (regulation this, regulation that... LOL). And as the previous poster said: all your pages about Bosnian history are guesses at best. So you take sides. We get that. Concerning your remarks, here I'll repeat it: Ha! Can I now, as an inarticulate teenager (grant you, not a novelist here) be a Bosnian King? Please please please... I know I wasn't raised anywhere near the English court (thanks God, no Pharaoh-Jewish bloodline where I am), but hey you can't have everything roll down your way, can you. Can you? 78.46.117.146 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional support to keep I just noticed what this guy above was saying. Is it possible? Wikipedia is now taking secondary sources that are based on tertiary sources, over secondary sources that are based on primary sources (and which Wikipedia itself lists on its pages on Ottoman conquest of Europe)??? Did I understand this correctly, how can this be? Oh mine, this is really sweet. A primer. Wikigate has just got a new spin! Wait until I pass this one around. Ha! 78.46.117.146 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally support this page The opponent starts with "The title is made up"! Really? One would think that all titles were, hence the name. If you don't come up with a title in your term paper you end up with one or two grades lower, or even flunk. 'Counts as a lack of creativity, as they say it these days. (Oh sorry, didn't realize Wikipedia allowed articles WITHOUT titles). As an editor myself, I loved the article, it meets technically all the requirements of a good read, plus is extremely well structured, not to mention references and yes I can read them I speak five languages. Secret services controlling our minds have just gone overboard. As Ron Paul said a few days ago "We need to bring down the CIA!" As an American working in a REAL democracy (the US will be a democracy again, you can bet on it!) I say: Hell yeah! Wikipedia IS the C.I.A.! It IS going down the way it's set up, you can bet on that too. 93.104.215.164 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP AS IS This mob attack on someone who wrote one awesome article that made me and others think big picture when looking at something as small as Bosnia, is the reason Wikipedia will be ashamed of for a long time. You can mark my words. The guy who is hunting witches here admitted in the above that the articles that talk about "England versus Catholics" type of politics get deleted. That's a quote, actually. Just like that, get deleted. Now, I find that disturbing and troublesome. I recommend he reads this piece on Ted Kennedy's lifetime devotion to fight against England, which he continued down from his father a former US ambassador to London who had a first-hand chance to learn who the English really are: [1] Note how hatred fits an Englishman (that piece writer), just as saying hello fits an average Joe, just as a good glove fits on a hand. There's nothing wrong with the Bosnia article, from my point of view and with this level of knowledge I got. As someone noted above, the "open for all to edit" encyclopedia seems more and more a private subsidiary of CIA and MI6, something of a digital Halliburton. Protecting political agenda at any cost won't bring any good to Wikipedia. The intelligence community which oversees all this knows that very well. But they couldn't care less, as they have a mission to accomplish and they'll spare nothing and no one in doing just that. It's up to the wikipedia community (unless every "admin" is actually an agent, which I find easy to believe) to deal with a growing animosity from the general public, and especially the intellectuals who left the sinking Wikipedia a long time ago. I am not aware of a single friend of mine who actually contributes to Wikipedia which ranks #1 on all searches in the #1 search engine (Google). They tell me they learned it long ago to stay away from the "red coats", as Wikipedia is colloquially known at cocktail parties. Now I can see why, watching live as the English and the Serbs erase all logics of the world just so to keep Rome encircled by all sorts of misery and most stupid lies one could think of. An unaccounted-for gap from 1463-1527, now that would be a good one, if it only wasn’t so sad. 173.212.236.30 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article is very good. I like it. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that someone on Wiki has finally tackled the London-Rome rivalry subject (I am going to add in the article the above reference on Kennedy fighting England). I didn't expect it had anything to do with Bosnia though! This just proves that you learn something new every day. I found particularly interesting the part on how Bosnia became. It just blew my mind. A blockbuster screenplay plot no doubt. 99.198.121.199 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas it's impossible to add any references because someone seem to have hacked the page so instead of 50 or something now there are just 7 references plus many red error tags all over. And now the "needs more references" label comes. LOL Also, the deletion rampage is over, the tag on top when you try editing it says “Decision: keep”. So why is no one removing the deletion tag? Way to go Wiki! 99.198.121.199 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 99.198.121.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi, I just tried fixing someone's scrambling of East European characters, as that seemed to be the problem so that the citations with special characters didn't get displayed correctly. It didn't work. I must say that in my 15 years of programmer experience I've never seen anything like this. My guess is that CIA or MI6 have broken directly into the Wikipedia servers (or oversee those anyway) and are trying to make this specific article look poor and bad. I add a KEEP vote, unless as you say the vote is over and its been decided to keep anyway? Just in case... 64.120.229.34 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I appreciate it. Thanks for the vote. They are quite something aren't they? Somehow I think they'll label you too (they added a label after my signature, see above. So if I remove it 3 times they ban me. But of course I cannot know that because the label says I never been to Wikipedia let alone contributed to it. Welcome to Obamaland.) 99.198.121.199 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start an account if you don't want to be labeled an spa. And please leave the AFD tag on the entry and please don't lie in edit summaries. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you insulting me? Everyone who follows that link can see that the tag I removed said: "For administrator use only: " So who is the liar, actually? 99.198.121.199 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason it says "administrator use only" is because it's not obvious how to use the tags. ALL AFD tags end with pagename/date/"keep", the closing admin is supposed to replace "keep" with the AFD result. The page you are reading now is the AFD, anyone with eyes can see that this has not been closed. Please stop messing with the tags, this isn't the first time you've removed it. Hairhorn (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"anyone with eyes" is the second insult. I bet it's easier to insult than explain. Ah, what five minutes of virtual-reality power can do to a man, huh? By the way: I thought this page was about deleting versus keeping an article, and that Result of the discussion meant decision. Ah, how silly of me, having no eyes AND no brains. I better register a user name, in order to secure a right to own a brain and a pair of eyes. 99.198.121.199 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read comments that something was wrong with the page? Well I can see it fine, except for two characters at the very top of the page? I think you fixed it, just maybe you want to have a look at those remaining? 38.99.65.107 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THE ARTICLE This is an excellent piece on history of the Balkans, and a great compilation of both recent and old literature. As a student of history I shall be recommending this article. It adds a lot to generally little known-about era and region. Thanks to the authors and contributors! I'll try to contribute something myself, time permit. (I removed the warning tag on this not being a voting as this is an open encyclopedia, don't insult our brains. This is not an article on a porn star, as someone already noticed, but a piece that requires a certain intellectual level to understand. I don't think teenager will read this page, so the warning was an insult. By the way isn't debate on deletion over as someone noticed? Why is this page still running?) 38.99.65.107 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 38.99.65.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Someone thinks that amending my signature with absurd labels entirely unrelated to the discussion, shall somehow diminish the value of my contribution, demonstrate my inability to grasp logical concepts, or even my ability to write and read. That reminds of Stalinism quite a bit. Of course, an option that you might not care about creating a zillion user names for each of the zillion Web sites, AND be on a dynamic IP address, is tough on their grey cells. Welcome to Obamaland indeed, now please take off your shoes, your underpants, and go through that hot steaming machine over there. 38.99.65.107 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as possible hoax. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- PROOF OF SERB VANDALISM IconicBigBen is a single-purpose account created today, and a sockpuppet of User:Surtsicna/Elizabeth_of_Serbia who is also a single-purpose account who only created one page, about alleged "Serbian" Prince of Bosnia: Stephen_I,_Ban_of_Bosnia, and for which he used only this literature: Ćorović, Vladimir (2005). ИЛУСТРОВАНА ИСТОРИЈА СРБА, Book II, Politika. (ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF SERBS); Veselinović, Andrija & Ljušić, Radoš (2001). Српске династије, Platoneum. (SERBIAN DYNASTIES). So this is obviously a hoaxter and Serb nationalist. He somehow had blanked Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family, and keeps reporting everyone as sockpuppets of the creator of the article, whom he also had reported in bad faith and thus had him/her banned (all of us opposing this Serb chauvinism are on three different continents, actually). He also keeps posting Speedy Deletion tag, contrary to regulations as this is a well written and well resourced article. He is largely supported by Serb friends such as PRODUCER and Greek friends like the above. 173.212.236.30 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADMIN NOTE. Every IP in this debate is an open proxy, and has now been blocked. I hear there may also be one or two sockpuppet accounts. Accordingly I've semi-protected this debate so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. Any non-sock legit anon comments can go on the talk page for now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite its title, this seems to be more of an individual writer's view of Bosnian history than a clear article about the Bosnian royal family. In fact, after reading this article, I still don't see that Bosnia actually has a royal family, in the way that I understand that term. Wikipedia already has an article about Bosnia that covers its history with less synthesis and better sources. I'd say that any useful information from this article should be merged there, if there is any useful information here that isn't already in our existing articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad mixture of original research, soap boxing and conspiracy theory. Favonian (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is horridly written, contains a lot of useless stuff. This is all a matter for the article talk page, not here. What we are left with is the apparently uncontroverted fact that Bosnia had heridatary rulers from different families, which meets the normal definition of "royal family." As such, notability is reasonably assumed, hence Keep. And edit all the material which is not simple facts out. Collect (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact is that we already have an article about the only royal family who ruled Bosnia: the House of Kotromanić. This article is trying to invent a new royal family who, at present, allegedly has some right to the Bosnian throne. No such family exists because no strict rule of succession ever existed in Bosnia; people were not excluded on the basis of legitimacy of their birth, their religion or their sex. Bosnia was thus an elective monarchy. The article is a badly done original research; its references do not support the disputed information. They only support information such as the surname Omerbašić (the surname of the so-called present Bosnian Royal Family) being coined from Omer and Basha - we can all see that, can we? Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations The section "Ancient Distress and Role of England" is the single dumbest piece of conspiracy-mongering I think I've read on Wikipedia, although the competition is fierce. That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote delete. Violates pretty much every policy regarding encyclopaedic accuracy and our anti-soapboxing legislation. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it clear to everyone that all the IPs who opposed the deletion are the same person (User:Bosnipedian, who has already had one blocked sockpuppet, User:Regionlegion)? Or do I need to request an investigation so that we can ignore those comments? Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure the closing admin checks the IPs and discovers that they have all been blocked as open proxies. Shenanigans like these are regrettably not uncommon in AfD. Favonian (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have little doubt they're the same person, but apart from proving they are open proxies,[2][3][4][5] it is not provable 100% that they're the same person. According to one confession from a related user using an open proxy, they are not using open proxies but mostly meatpuppets.[6] No doubt the closing admin will look at their policy-based arguments with this in mind, and give them due weight. It's also worth pointing out that User:IconicBigBen who favoured speedy deletion[7] has also been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this really isn't worthy to be a Wikipedia article. Perhaps recreate as a redirect to House of Kotromanić after deletion; but we really don't need all of this irrelevant information in the redirect history. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is such a thing as a "Bosnian royal family", then an article on that topic has a place in Wikipedia. This page, however, is worthless as a starting point for such an article. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like there's some kind of self-confessed meat puppet campaign going on [8], assuming that's not just another sock of Bosnipedian. --Folantin (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin If this is closed as a hoax then please delete also File:CoatoOfArms_BoricevicBerislavic_noframe.jpg as part of the same hoax. I can't comment on the value of File:Boricevic_dynasts_Bosnia_sm.jpg. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Enric Naval. File:Boricevic_dynasts_Bosnia_sm.jpg is also a part of the hoax. It refers to irrelevant people as crown princes of Bosnia (a non-existing title), it is factually incorrect regarding the names of actual monarchs and the name of the medieval Bosnian state and it somehow illustrates how the Omerbašić family is a descendant of the royal house of Bosnia. There are more reasons (such as grammar and inaccurate description of each monarch's foreign policy simply as being either pro-Byzantine or counter-Byzantine). Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:CoatoOfArms BoricevicBerislavic noframe.jpg
Am I the only one who sees a clearly misplaced rodent in this picture? Can it be more clear that this so-called "coat of arms" is, just like the entire article, a hoax? Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coat of arms is an obvious hoax. The family tree admits it is compiled from information on wikipedia, which we know to be unreliable. They should definitely be deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as now protected has must of the irelevant stuff excised, and is likely to be utile. Collect (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arms The rodent looks somewhat odd to me. I'm no expert in Eastern European heraldry, but the rat is a strange choice. Even if it is a beaver, which I doubt, that would also be rare and only usually found in puns on names. Besides which, the heraldic beaver as a charge is really a sort of lion with a paddle tail. This looks like a cut and paste job. Far too realistic to be heraldic. The maces are odd as 'supporters', too. In actual battle, the mace tended to be used by bishops as being more in line with their holy profession. Ah, the good old days.... But those would be blunt maces, not spiked ones. Apart from the bishops and King John of Bohemia (who was blind and had to be pointed into the battle, whereafter all his side kept well clear as he just hit anything that came near), maces and flails were more lower order weapons. Swords were rather expensive, but anyone could rustle up a mace or a flail. Also odd is the presence of a bend sinister - the bar across the middle. This is most often - but not exclusively - taken to refer to some dishonour. Its presence on a shield charged with a rat is definitely unusual. As to the helm, I quote from Helmet (heraldry): "Open-visored or barred helmets are typically reserved to the highest ranks of nobility, while untitled nobility and burghers typically assume closed helms." Looks closed to me. I can't comment on the mullets (stars) being six pointed - in England they are more commonly five pointed but this is not fixed, and while in Germany six points are more usual, I have no idea on Bosnia's usage. I'm not setting myself up as an expert - but I have previously done some research into both the weapons and blazoning of the medieval period. I am open to being proved wrong. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosnian_Royal_Family&oldid=1137640597"