Talk:Kačić family

History

In the third paragraph of History, the sentence beginning "From the half of 14th and in 15th" is incomplete. I would like to do a GOCE review, but first I need a little more information to understand what the sentence is about. Folklore1 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is about the family being documented from the half of 14 and in 15th century, with estates in listed settlements, "and wider area around those villages" being "Donje polje" and "Gornje polje" and micro toponyms "Plase" and "Krušćica".--Crovata (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also in the third paragraph, see 'where is mentioned "dominum Caçigh".' Does this mean that something is mentioned in "dominum Cacigh" or that "dominum Cacigh" is mentioned? Folklore1 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That "dominum Cacigh" is mentioned there.--Crovata (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Omiš branch

In the sentence beginning "Knez Nikola was enough", it is unclear who executed the archbishop. The sentence is awfully long and complicated. Folklore1 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Knez Nikola's power and independence at the time was so strong that along the previous Šibenik iupanus (župan), then of islands Brač and Hvar (the note of being also the župan of Šibenik is notable as was a prominent city, indicating family political influence), with joint forces they managed (and dared) to execute the archbishop.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence beginning with "The Split army" is unclear. What did the army do? What did the two brothers do? Folklore1 (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When In Omiš during the same year, knez Nikola and his relatives made peace between Zachlumia and Split, while Malduš nephew Toljen ravaged Split inland (first half of 1239), was agreed compensation for his Toljen ravage, but it was unpaid and thus lead to conflict. In the first half of 1240, during the time of Split potestas Gargano,(!) and Malduč sons Pribislav and Osor on Hvar and Brač (ie. not Split potestas), after an unsucessful attack on Omiš fort, the Split army managed to establish temporary control over Brač. The conflict over Brač and Šolta continued until the peace agreement by which the brothers of Osor (who along others was captured by the Split army) left the ships to Split and renounced looting. There's a document from May 1240 by which the citizens of Brač swear allegiance to Split.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See also, "In March of 1245, knez Nikola of Hodimir, with hundred Omiš citizens". Should that be "a hundred Omiš citizens" or "hundreds of Omiš citizens"? Folklore1 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be "a hundred Omiš citizens".--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Was Juraj married to the daughter of Stefan? Or was Stefan married to the daughter of Juraj? Folklore1 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Juraj was married to the daughter of King Stefan.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What did Béla IV and Stjepan do about the dispute between Osor and the city of Trogir? Folklore1 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In the source is just mentioned that existed a dispute between Omiš knez Osor with the municipality of Trogir about the property in Bijaći, resolved by the King Bela IV. and Ban Stjepan.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See the sentence beginning "In the 1261–62 document". This is an awfully confusing sentence. I can't figure it out. Also, what "document" does it refer to? Folklore1 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There's certain document where was mentioned knez Radoš (whose name the source cited as the content probably wasn't important), which supplements the document from 1262 where are mentioned knezes Radoš and Juraj (supplementing in the sense of record of family knezes of Omiš), in which we find that Dubrovnik paid blood feud to the relatives of murdered Omišani (citizens of Omiš), and that the citizens of Omiš promised not to cause any harm to the Dubrovnik residents (due to the accident).

"In 1271, the pirates looted the ship by Archbishop of Trani, and in 1273, two pirates Stanoj and Saracen looted bishop Kefalinije Henrik.[clarification needed]", this is simple (?) two separate loots of eminent Church figures.

Does "ship by Archbishop of Trani" mean a "ship owned by the Archbishop of Trani"? Folklore1 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Did Stanoj and Saracen loot a ship owned by Kefalinije Henrik? Folklore1 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually good that you asked those questions, although they both are positive. In 1267-1268 the citizens of Split were warned for helping Omiš pirates, and they (probably joined or influenced by Omiš pirates) in 1271 looted the ship on which Archbishop of Trani traveled to Dubrovnik, while in 1273 in a similar case the ship of Kefalinije Henrik was looted by Omiš pirates of whom Stanoj and Saracen were commanders. --Crovata (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"In June and September of 1274, Charles I of Naples signed an alliance with Split and Šibenik against Omiš pirates, and they[who?]" They - Omiš pirates/citizens ruled/lead by knezes from Kačić family.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See "In 1275 started the conflict". Who or what started the conflict? Who were the combatants in this conflict? Folklore1 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The answer lies in previous sentences - the piracy (ie. self-will, independence and disobedience of main political authorities) which was less and less tolerated. Charles I of Naples, the King of Sicily Kingdom, by 1272 conquered and proclaimed himself also as the King of Albania, managing to control both sides of Southern Adriatic coast and routes. So that in 1270s on the Eastern Adriatic, between Albania and Dalmatian cities under the sovereignty of Venice, were Omiš pirates led by Kačić family whose activity and political existence wasn't anymore approved by main political authorities.--Crovata (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

See "the Venetians wrote to Dubrovnik residents to pay compensation as did not armed ship against them." Who was paying, or expected to pay compensation? Why? Folklore1 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Dubrovnik authorities because they did no send the ship against Omiš pirates (probably because of some previous mutual agreements with Omiš pirates, and being neighboring Slavs).--Crovata (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian branch

See "The said Simon some related with Šimun Kačić". What does this mean? Folklore1 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Scholars consideration of relation between Hungarian and Omiš Kačićs, identification primarily being Šimun Kačić mentioned in 1178 document (with father Nikola and brother Jakov), and 1190 document (with brothers Borislav, Bogdan etc.) with Simon Kacsics.--Crovata (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kačić noble family/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

• Another prominent branch of the family was part of the Hungarian nobility. → I don't think this is very clear
• Pacta conventa, → Shouldn't be italicised
• 1102 (or later) according → Comma after the closing bracket
• Supetar Cartulary, → Shouldn't be italicised
• mid-14th into 15th century, → mid-14th to 15th century,
• for some Zadar, → For some what?
• in the early times → Informal
• The fourth paragraph of History doesn't seem to be in chronological order as the previous para talks about the 15th century?
• principality undoubtedly was → Sounds bias
• making it sometimes hard to reliably identify members of the genus. → Bit informal and doesn't quite make sense
• Nikola of Hodimir and Pribislav of Malduč claimed bail in May of 1239 for the Omišani who murdered Dubrovnik nobleman Grubeša and looted his ship. They also agreed to pay compensation for personal property that had been looted. In Omiš during the same year, knez Nikola and his relatives made peace between Zachlumia and Split, agreeing to pay for damage earlier in the year when Malduš nephew Toljen ravaged Split. However, compensation for the ravages of Toljen was not paid, leading to conflict in the following year. After an unsuccessful attack on Omiš, the Split army captured Brač in the first half of 1240. The conflict continued until the peace agreement by which the brothers of Osor left the ships to Split and renounced looting. This was also the time period of the Split potestas Gargano, and Malduč sons Pribislav and Osor in Hvar and Brač.[5] → Is this entire paragraph attributed to citation 5?
• in war with → in the war with
• seeking compensation—Dubrovnik → Why have you used a dash?
• The first two notable members need sources
• According the geneaology, → There's a missing word here
• Given the length and detail of the article, there lead is insufficient and needs expanding. It should be two, perhaps even three, paragraphs long.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Outcome

On hold for 7 days.  — Calvin999 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Done copy editing, a couple of points remained:

1* Another prominent branch of the family was part of the Hungarian nobility. → I don't think this is very clear

I would like to better understand your POV what is unclear, it would certainly help to understand the common reader perspective.

Well, it doesn't make sense when I read it. So I don't understand what you're trying to say in order to tell you what's wrong with it. So was the Kacic noble family apart of two branches from two countries?  — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thing is that I don't know what is unclear to you. The situation about the family is this, their origin is in the Zadar hinterland (Nadin). In the 11th century, the family has branched on the original Nadin (which didn't became prominent as others), and new Omiš branch (most known in Croatia). In the 13th century, probably from the Omiš and not Nadin branch, emerged the Hungarian branch (from which later emerged other notable Hungarian noble families). Finally, in the 15th century from the Omiš branch emerged the Makarska branch of the family. The order of sections (first Croatian branches, and as the last the Hungarian branch) seems more logical and understandable, at least from my point of view.--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

6* for some Zadar, → For some what? and 8* The fourth paragraph of History doesn't seem to be in chronological order as the previous para talks about the 15th century?

The "History" section is kind of intro-general section, but now see that could be misleading if not read carefully. It could be fixed by reorder of paragraphs. The first paragraph is kind of an intro. The second (previously fourth) "The first mention...". In the third (previously second) moved last sentence as the first sentence, which now (according to a meaningful order of paragraphs) explain their area of origin and simultaneity of Omiš branch. The fourth (previously third) is about the "original" Zadar Kačićs estates and toponyms (6* for some members was Zadar, Nin or possibly Pag the center, ie. residence). The fifth is the same about Nadin (Zadar hinterland) Kačićs family, and follows the section chronology.

You need to make it chronological because it's a bit sloppy to go back several centuries half way through.  — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

[1] was the edit on 27 June satisfactory?--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

9* principality undoubtedly was → Sounds bias

There's no doubt and need for word "undoubtedly", it's a common fact. Removed word.

Good. 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

10* making it sometimes hard to reliably identify members of the genus. → Bit informal and doesn't quite make sense

It's scholar observation. The Kačićs family imposed itself as the comes or rulers of the area, and their center was in Omiš. In the historical sources the Kačić family wasn't always directly mentioned. The documents often mention Omiš, residents of Omiš (Omišani), pirate activity, in which were listed an array of noblemen, but not also their second name, so the Kačićs were only able to be identified thanks to genealogy or other aspects (like "groups" in the list, "brothers", "son of", "father of"). Perhaps the sentence is not that important to common reader as to scholars (which mostly managed to identify them, so we're kind of speaking about past tense fact), but still not that irrelevant.

I think you should use 'harder' or 'more difficult'  — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Will use 'more difficult'.--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

11* → Is this entire paragraph attributed to citation 5?

Yes

16* Given the length and detail of the article, there lead is insufficient and needs expanding. It should be two, perhaps even three, paragraphs long.

Done.

GA review 2. C. "No original research" - there's no OR, all claims are from sources. In previous revision almost each sentence had ref-note, but the editor Folklore1, who done GOCE review and copy editing, reduced the number of ref-note repetition in the same paragraph (it is mostly the case of "Majnarić (HBL) 2005").--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't put a fail sign, I put a question mark, due to that paragraph most notably only having one citation. I'm a believer that every sentence should have a citation at the end of it, it just makes it so much easier to verify and quickly access that source in particular.  — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw and know the sign, and share the same view on the matter. Not just that, it confirms the authenticity and value of the claim (especially if is considered by a scholar). That's why in the previous revision (before the GOCE review) almost all (don't remember exactly, but think every sentence did) had citation. Editor Folklore1 considered it redudant as an entire paragraph is supported by same reference. Should I return the citations? Perhaps it's redudant for GOCE review, but not for GAN review? If you stay positive I will.--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more helpful to cite each sentence, yes.  — Calvin999 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Crovata (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Okay, well I feel like I can pass this now. Thanks for explaining some things as well as addressing. Passing.  — Calvin999 16:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split

Kacsics was merged here. Why? The article says: Several scholars considered that Hungarian Kacsics may have been descendants of Omiš Kačićs (Majnaric 2005, 2009). May.--Zoupan 00:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

In Croatian Encyclopedia the Hungarian branch is mentioned in the respective article without doubt, and in the source from 2009 such a connection is more profoundly explained. There existed original Nadin branch (from Zadar-Biograd hinterland), Omiš branch and Hungarian branch simultaneously, however, Nadin branch was not politically relevant as the Omiš branch. The absence of history of the Hungarian branch, the sudden appearance of Simon and Michael Kacsics (only known genus of such not-so-wide name was the noble family from Croatia), their most probable relation with political events around Andrew II of Hungary (Andrew forced his elder brother, King Emeric of Hungary, to cede Croatia and Dalmatia as an appanage to him in 1197), high office for which at that time implied noble origin, among other indicates relation with the Omiš branch of Kačić family. The previous article was small in text (smaller than the current section, without any image), it did not take into account modern historiography, and thought such an article is better understood and gives more value as a section in the related article.--Crovata (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Kersic

@Rkersic12: is there a reliable source which confirms that the surname Kersic is related to Kačić family as well as royal title of prince being held by the same family members? For any such claim, especially article rated GA-class, you need to provide a WP:RS. Please provide a link here to a RS to be checked. If there aren't any, then edits including the same information without any RS will be reverted.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)