Talk:Croatia in the union with Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Croatia in the union with Hungary is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Add protection padlock template[edit]

Subject line says it all. If a bot is supposed to do this, it doesn't seem to be working. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

Direktor, the current lead [1], presumably of your making, is way over the top. I don't have a particular beef in this dispute, but I know a POV when I see it, and this one has all the qualities: It skips all the whens, whats and whys and goes straight ahead to teach the controversy, spiced up by at least a dozen references which must prove the point that there is a controversy indeed. To tell you the truth, as a reader: I don't give a fuck about the controversy, I'm interested about what was happening in that period and before that. If the article can achieve that, then fine.

Yes, the previous version of the lead was of my making [2]. I'm not in love with it, feel free to edit it, but at least it narrates a timeline and summarizes the article. This one clearly shows one thing: OMG this article is under an edit war! No such user (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nsu, the title of the article is "Croatia in the union with Hungary". Don't you think the starting point for the history summary is the union itself? -- Director (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it kind of explains in half a sentence when the union occurred, and spends the next four explaining the controversy. No such user (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, what an interesting quote I've just found! [3]: No such user (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to debate with you over nothing, Nsu. If you'd like the lead to summarize more of the article, feel free to summarize more of the article. If you think it spends too much time on the union/lack of it - could you please modify it with that in mind? I certainly won't object to such changes, as long as the central ambiguity of the existence of a personal union is kept.
P.s. oh yes, nearly forgot about that Byzzie problem. Be right back there :) -- Director (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No such user do you really think he cares? Everything points to the fact he thinks this article is his own property. He is not interested in consensus or neutral point of view, he is interested in his view and his view only. He doesn't care what you, me or anyone else has to say in this matter....the DIREKTOR of the universe has decided. Hilarious. I'd like to start a mediation on this issue to finish this once and for all but I don't know the exact procedure for that. Shokatz (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you all agree if we just added the same sentences from britannica in the lead? I wouldn't even mind if the word "dynastic" was removed and the edit wars would end, at least for the lead section.Tzowu (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I doubt that would help since we have a user here enforcing some alleged ambiguity which seems to be non-existent in the sources. But sure, we can disregard all 19-20 sources (yes I am counting the ones mentioning the dispute as well since they also ALL mention personal union explicitly) and give in to his bullying, making a mockery of Wikipedia policies and especially of WP:Verifiability. But no, do you really think the current setup is unfair and one-sided? We have sources and statements in the lead mentioning the dispute, I've also put a note in the infobox mentioning it where it is clearly visible....I don't see what exactly is the problem or what else can I do, do you? We have one person here challenging almost two dozen sources and at least three other users here. That same person is or was recently involved in at least three other similar disputes (to put it mildly) on other articles (Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Kingdom of Dalmatia and Battle of Rorke's Drift) and exhibits clear example of ICANTHEARYOU. I've asked for assistance on WT:CRO and if he continues I will surely file for WP:DRN, unless we (other users participating in the discussion here) come up with the consensus. Either he stops with this blatant disruption or one of us files this for arbitration in which case that would be the only solution since the mentioned user clearly doesn't want to recognize other users (me and you included) and the present sources and sourced content. Shokatz (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm busy for the next couple days (dezurstvo). I shall return and certainly insist that we follow sources and ignore the WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH of Shokatz. He is not qualified to publish his syntheses of published material here, and his claim that the personal union is a dominant view is based on exactly that - WP:SYNTH. There isn't a single source that claims anything of the sort - in fact, all sources that evaluate the position of scholarship place the uncertain nature of Croatian status up front. @Shokatz I have to request you please stop posting successive personal attacks. If you have any comments on my conduct then limit them to the relevant noticeboards, or do not post them at all (that you are apparently WP:STALKING me makes me even more apprehensive). Please consider this a formal warning in that regard. I sincerely advise you to read and adhere to Wikipedia behavior policy from this point onward. As I said, I'm done playing around here. -- Director (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing WP:OR about it, we have 14-15 sources in affirmation of the personal union. And we also have 5 other sources which talk about the dispute mentioning it as well as most likely reality. Also there is nothing WP:SYNTH about the mere observation we have 19-20 sources all mentioning personal union making it, obviously, the dominant thesis. You should read WP:SYNTHNOT and WP:NOTOR. Also I find it hilarious you are claiming WP:HOUND when I am following two out of three of those articles and for the other one I merely looked at your most recent edits when I was reverting you...I did not nor do I intend to follow you around. Also the person who unprovoked calls others noobs, nationalists, POV-pushers and whatnot should not preach others on some alleged personal attacks or adhering to Wikipedia behavior policy. Shokatz (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not whether there are sources that claim there was a personal union. We knew there were and there was never any question in that regard; you may not like to hear it, but your posting all these refs here was a completely pointless chore that changes nothing at all. The question is whether or not the personal union is the dominant view. And you are using your sources to claim that. You shouldn't, as that is WP:SYNTH: you yourself have concluded that the personal union is dominant based on your own impression from these sources. The sources themselves do not state that. And there are more than sufficient sources that discuss the question. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually wrong again. We have a sourced sentence in the article clearly stating: ...it has generally been accepted that that the relationship of Hungary with the area of Croatia and Dalmatia in the period till 1526 and the death of Louis II was most similar to a personal union, resembling the relationship of Scotland to England. Sourced and verified by two Hungarian notable historians Géza Jeszenszky and László Heka. Also I will repeat this once more, it is NOT WP:SYNTH if you do a standard summary of the sources, it is common practice....read WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary. Shokatz (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Having read material on this talk page and reviewed recent changes to the article, I must say I support Nsu and Shokatz's positions stated so far.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Shokatz. Could you please directly quote the relevant text from Heka here? Since the source seems to be shamelessly misquoted (no surprises there..). p.155 does not even discuss the issue. From what I've read of the paper, it can not even be used as a source that supports the personal union, let alone as one that claims it is predominant in scholarship. I wonder how many others are misquoted from that spammed pile. "Wrong again" he says...
The policy you quote of course directly opposes what you are doing, as you are by no means "summarizing" anything, since none of your sources say what you claim to have "summarized". "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources" - that is precisely what you are doing, namely combining the refs to produce the thesis that the personal union is the dominant view, and that others are "fringe". Against other sources (such as Neda Klaic) that state otherwise.
@Tomboe. Pardon me for not being shocked that another Croatian user is inclined to support the spurious narrative of the heroic historical independence of the Croatian state. I would imagine there will be more Croats flocking to "defend their country", given the fact that Shkoatz is WP:CANVASSING all round the project [4]. What exactly did Nsu say re the issue..? I've no objections to his position.. -- Director (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
He says Heka is shamelessly misquoted....it is clearly stated on the page 155: Glede podrucja Hrvatske i Dalmacije, madjarski pravni povjesnicari drze da je njihov odnos sa Ugarskom u razdoblju do 1526 i pogiblje kralja Ludovika II. bio najslicniji onomu sto se naziva personalnom unijom, dakle da ih je povezivala osoba zajednickom kralja (Eng.: Regarding the area of Croatia and Dalmatia, Hungarian legal historians consider that their relations with Hungarian kingdom in the period until 1526 and death of King Louis II was most similar to what is called the personal union, therefore that they were connected in the person of king.). Now tell me what exactly is shamelessly misquoted? We also have Géza Jeszenszky source stating: From the 11th century until 1918 Croatia was in a dynastic personal union with Hungary, resembling the relationship of Scotland to England. Not only Jeszenszsky clearly states he considers there was personal dynastic union he also gives a clear example of Scotland and England. We also have a half a dozen Hungarian historians, among whom we also have Kristó Gyula f.e., who was one of most distinguished and foremost experts on Hungarian medieval history, clearly stating there was a personal union which begun with the crowning of Coloman as King of Croatia.
Now regarding the fringe theories or rather minority view you are trying to impose here, let's take a look at the sources which are provided here in affirmation of the alleged dispute.
  • Alex J. Bellamy[5]: Eventually, in 1102, the nobles decided that Croatia should enter into a personal union with Hungary whereby the Hungarian king would be crowned separately as the King of Croatia. (page 36). Bellamy also states that the narrative telling us about the supposed voluntary union ...has a wide circle of support. (page 37). He also continues to elaborate on the page 38 on the nature of the dispute: However, there are a couple of points that need to be made about this thesis. Firstly, Magyar claims were not made until middle of nineteenth century and formed part of the Hungarian national reawakening under Kossuth (of course, much the same argument could also be leveled about the idea of a personal union first articulated in the fourteenth century). Second: [T]he idea that Koloman and his Magyars conquered Croatia by force rests upon the supposition that there was a counter king whom he had to overthrow to accomplish his ends. There is no real evidence that there was any organized opposition at all to his invasions, if it can be called that of the Croatian lands. It should be remembered that there probably was no fixed border between Hungary and Croatia in the eleventh century...when the House of Trpimir disappeared...the frontier disappeared too. He also makes it clear that he is not discussing the nature of the union at all: It is not the exact nature of the relationship between Croatia and Hungary from 1102 that is of interest to us here but the importance attached to defending the idea of a personal union that is central. And this statement is also very interesting: The actual nature of the relationship is probably most accurately described as being inexplicable in modern terms because it varied from time to time. Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. However, throughout this period, 'she [Croatia] retained a large degree of internal independence'.
  • Ian Jeffries mentions the dispute and clearly states[6]: ...his successor Koloman (1095-1116) recaptured inland Dalmatia in 1097 (While Venice was preoccupied by the First Crusade) and was crowned King of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1102. He also elaborates on the matter of the dispute talking about Magyar nationalists and clearly states that it is the past tense: ...whereas many Magyar nationalists historians have preferred to see it as a form of annexation, incorporating Croatia (including Dalmatia and Slavonia) into a Greater Hungary and establishing permanent rights of Magyar overlordship in Croatia. Besides this Jeffries doesn't mention anything on the matter.
  • Lorraine Murray has a similar narrative as it is present on Britannica, she states[7]: Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute. Nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy).
  • George J. Prpić on page 22 states[8]: Thus after the extinction of the national dynasty, Croatia in 1102 joined Hungary in a personal union under the reign of Koloman of Arpad dynasty. This happened under terms which ever since have been a matter of dispute between Croatian and Hungarian historians. By the agreement of 1102 (Pacta Conventa), concluded between twelve Croatian tribes and the King of Hungary, Croatia obtained a common king with Hunary (personal union) but maintained it's distinct position as a state...
  • Jean W. Sedlar on page 280 mentions the dispute as well but clearly states his position in affirmation of the personal union[9]: Croatia maintained a separate legal status throughout the many centuries of its union with Hungary, which had occurred more by agreement than by force after the death without heirs of King Zvonimir in 1089. Following a period of considerable anarchy, a section of the Croatian nobility offered the throne to the King of Hungary. Hungarian troops entered northern Croatia in 1091, but no armed struggle took place. As a formerly independent country which had not been conquered, Croatia retained considerable autonomy. The agreement known as the Pacta Conventa, probably concluded, between the two kingdoms in 1102, formally defined the conditions under which the Croat nobility accepted the king of Hungary as their sovereign. It's precise terms remain uncertain, since the document has survived only in a 14th-century version which may not be an exact copy of the original. In the 19th century some Hungarian nationalist historians challenged Croatia's special status by claiming that the Pacta Conventa had never existed at all. However, medieval Croatia's autonomous position with respect to Hungary is undeniable. The king of Hungary managed only its foreign affairs and acted as commander-in-chief of its army. Croatia maintained its own Diet, or Sabor, although its decisions became law only after confirmation by the Hungarian king - presumably the same prerogative which the kings of independent Croatia had exercised.
Now as I have just shown you, even the the sources provided for the statement in the article (The precise terms of the relationship between the two realms have however been a matter of dispute since the 19th century.) clearly emphasize the autonomy and special status of the Croatian kingdom and talk about the personal (or dynastic) union as a most obvious reality. Even by looking at the these sources alone (disregarding 14-15 other sources) we can clearly conclude that personal or dynastic union is the dominant thesis. And BTW this is the second time today you have falsely accused me of something, first of WP:HOUND, which made no sense at all, and now for WP:CANVASSING when it is clearly stated on the page it is quite appropriate to post a message on Wiki projects and Wiki collaborations to draw a wider audience to achieve consensus. Obviously this article is of certain importance to WT:CRO so it seems natural to call people active there to take a peak and make their own contribution to this. Shokatz (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Shokatz you need sources that state that the personal union is the dominant view. The best we have is Bellamy stating that there are "two competing accounts" with "one emerging predominately from Croat historians and the other from Magyar and Serbian historians." --PRODUCER (TALK) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually we don't need the source explicitly stating that it is the dominant view since we can clearly conclude that only by a simply summary of all provided sources on the matter. Bellamy clearly states: Eventually, in 1102, the nobles decided that Croatia should enter into a personal union with Hungary whereby the Hungarian king would be crowned separately as the King of Croatia. He also tells us this view has a ...has a wide circle of support. He also makes it clear the dispute originates in 19th century nationalist awakening movements: ...Magyar claims were not made until middle of nineteenth century and formed part of the Hungarian national reawakening under Kossuth... which makes it clear that the dispute was politically and not factually motivated. In the end he states: Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. However, throughout this period, 'she [Croatia] retained a large degree of internal independence'. This last sentence clearly describes that Croatia was most certainly a separate legal entity and that at some points it acted as an independent agent (sovereign state) and at some times as a vassal. In either case Bellamy cannot be used as solely dispute affirmation source, but can also be used as a personal union affirmation source as well. Besides Bellamy we have 14-15 different sources I have found on this and other articles concerning this matter, that talk about personal or dynastic union as a political reality. I have also shown above that even the sources (Bellamy included) which are posted in affirmation of the dispute clearly lean into the personal union point of view. I would point out once more - WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary. Shokatz (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Instead of all of us bickering at each other, can we simply avoid the issue of committing ourselves to one view or another, which is probably not our business anyway? I admit I'm least versed in the issue here, but as an innocent reader I don't really care, and I don't want the whole article become a hostage of the controversy. Let us simply explain what happened in which period of history, and have a #Controversy section outlining differing views of relevant historians on the matter. It simply isn't black and white; from what I gathered, it was kind of union brought as a "offer that cannot be rejected", and Croatia only retained an appearance on autonomy thereon (although this varied through the period, which lasted the whole millennium after all). We should only explain what happened, and present most relevant views (without even counting them); readers should bring their own conclusions. Sources are meant to support facts, not be replacement for common sense.No such user (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
We should only explain what happened, and present most relevant views (without even counting them); readers should bring their own conclusions. Exactly. This is what I am trying to say all this time. Shokatz (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Why do you guys keep pushing Bellamy in the article? He has so many mistakes in his book on the same page where he deals with the alleged union controversy (like the origins of the term Triune Kingdom and the location of river Cetina), although he provides only one Serbian historian as the opposite view. John Antwerp Fine is a much better source. Furthermore, you are asking for a source that explicitly says "Personal union is the dominant view", but Isn't that already obvious? I mean, searching for a sentence like that is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Historians generally present their own views, they don't collect other ones and then count them to see which one is dominant. Anyway, is this lead fine? It has more info on the time period and it mentions the "dispute" (I hate that word) just like britannica does. Tzowu (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Instead of all of us bickering at each other, can we simply avoid the issue of committing ourselves to one view or another, which is probably not our business anyway?" - well that's exactly what I'm saying. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts[edit]

1. Conventional long name - The last used name for the kingdom was just Kingdom of Croatia, thus the conventional_long_name should be only that, as in the Nazi Germany article for example.

2. Native name - The name in Croatian language of that time would be "Hrvatsko kralevstvo" (with or without the '). The form which was surely used was "hrvatska zemlja" (Croatian land), as found on the Bužim glagolitic tablet from 1495 (Hungary is called Ugarska zemlja), while the translation for kingdom was "kralevstvo".

3. Status - The status of the kingdom is already given in the name of the article, verified by a vast majority of historians. I don't care if a few of them allegedly say it was a part of Hungary. There are hundreds of those who call Tito a criminal and a dictator, yet I don't see their views represented in the article, or a mention that there were half a million Germans missing from Yugoslavia in 1948.

4. Predecessor - The name of the predecessor article is Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102), there's no need for redirects.

5. Symbol type - "Contemporary coats of arms of Croatia" there is only one image and one coat of arms, not several coatS.

6. Names - If we are using english forms of names, shouldn't it be Demetrius, and not Dmitar?

7. A certain user added a "disambiguation needed" template for union. I mean, if the Tito article can name him a "benevolent dictator" (lmao) because a few writers called him that way...

8. Zvonimir "began as a ban of Slavonia in the service of Stjepan I of Croatia" how could have he been in the service of a king who died in 1058?

9. "for his successor Petar Krešimir IV" Peter Krešimir was not his successor, but predeccessor.

10. "Márta Font - Ugarsko Kraljevstvo i Hrvatska u srednjem vijeku (Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middlea Ages)", p. 8-9 - added the page numbers for the reference.

11. "In 1389 Tvrtko I, the founder of the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (958–1463)|Bosnian Kingdom", there is an article for the Kingdom of Bosnia.

12. "ang|hr|Vojna Krajina" this has a malfunction in its code

Tzowu (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most, it seems Direktor just reverted you without even bothering what you've corrected etc. However I would touch two specific issues here. Regarding the conventional name. What you are talking about is the name of the article in general, however in the infobox it is the official name of the entity that is used. As you can observe from the Nazi Germany in the infobox you can clearly see it says Greater German Reich. If you go to the article that preceded the Nazi Germany you go to the state conventionally known as Weimar Republic, but if you look at the infobox it again gives the official name of that entity German Reich. For example if you go to the Republic of Venice page you will see that the infobox says Most Serene Republic of Venice (Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia) which was it's official name and how they referred to themselves in official documents. So considering all that, the infobox should have it's official name used in each respective language variant. I agree with you though that we should use the Croatian variant as well, at least somewhere in the article if not in the infobox.
Regarding the status I have now linked the union directly to the List of personal unions#Croatia (disputed) which directly leads anyone to the point directly. Hopefully this will end this ridiculous dispute on what word should be used to describe the relationship.
Last thing I wanted to point out (which is unrelated to you Tzowu) is that I think the map and the current CoA are both inadequate for this article. I have found a better map which shows the inner divisions of the Archiregnum Hungariae from 12th century (during King Bela III.) and I think we could and should use this for the map. Also the current CoA is wrong, the chequy was not in use at least until 1495 when it first appeared and in 1526 when it was for the first time officially used as the symbol of the kingdom. The arms of Croatia should be this. Shokatz (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Re the Croatian name. I am not particularly interested in what it "would" be. It needs to be attested in some way in contemporary use.
As regards the coa, we also most often use the latest version. You mentioned the Weimar Republic, well this was the coa of the Weimar Republic for most of its existence (not the one used in the article, which is the latest version).
Further, as I said previously elsewhere, I will hopefully soon introduce an SVG model of the 1495 Croatian and Dalmatian arms.
Most importantly, however, we need sources for the coa business. So far as I am aware, that's the coa of Dalmatia.. For the record, I'm actually the guy who originally moved the article to "Demetrius Zvonimir" [10] (you noobs! :)), but we can use both, it makes no difference. -- Director (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Shokatz, the infobox should have the official name, and the last used official name of the kingdom before 1526 was Kingdom of Croatia, as well as in the other article. the last used official name was Kingdom of Croatia until 1102, not the K. of Croatia and Dalmatia. I agree with the map part, here is a bigger version of the one you found [11], and here are the subdivisions at the time of Pavao Šubić [12]. However, there was no "Kingdom of Rama", that is well explained in the article King of Rama, while Slavonia at the time of Pavao Šubić extended to the Drava river [13] (this one is before Pavao Šubić became Lord of all of Bosnia) Tzowu (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Further edit-warring against consensus will be reported. And I will add your knowledge of enWiki editing is not consistent with your supposed brief involvement here, i.e. that you are likely a sockpuppeteer. -- Director (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't care what will you do, you are reverting edits without any reason, like the one at the begining of this section where you had to acknowledge your error and accept all of them except the infobox name, for which you keep evading the fact that it was the last name used in both articles. Tzowu (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
As I have told you - you have NOT shown that the name of the realm was changed back at any point. Before 1102 we know the name was changed when the Dalmatian cities were incorporated, and even though de facto control over the cities was indeed lost, you have not shown that the name was changed back. In fact, it seems clear it carries on into the Hungarian realm as well. Here too, I've not seen any source that supports your contention that "Kingdom of Croatia" was the last name. In fact, its seems clear that C&D is the name used in the Hungarian realm.
You will not have your way, and will have to come to terms with the fact that you don't have consensus for your edits. -- Director (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The term "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia" existed between the years 1060 (some point to the year 1059) and 1091, or the death of Stephen II. If Croatia doesn't control the Dalmatian coastal cities and it also doesn't have papal recognition it can't be a Regnum Croatiae and Dalmatiae. All three kings (Peter Krešimir, Zvonimir and Stephen II) needed that to call themselves kings of Croatia and Dalmatia, or their realm Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia ("Naime, regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae bio je, kao sto znamo, papino vazalno kraljevstvo. Samo je papa, kao senior, nakon Zvonimirove smrti, mogao i smio odrediti vladara toga kraljevstva. Dok to papa nije ucinio, Stjepan II. je samo rex Croatiae, ali jos nije rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae."). So after 1091, although the kingdom didn't cease to exist, both control over and papal recognition are absent. ("Nestankom Stjepana II. nestaje ujedno i bilo kakva vijest o regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae. Taj međunarodnopravni subjekt, nastao je uz vrlo aktivno sudjelovanje pape i označavao vrhunac ranosrednjovjekovne Hrvatske pod vladarima Petrom Krešimirom IV., Dmitrom Zvonimirom i Stjepanom II. Prije Petra Krešimira IV. nema u vrelima spomena o tom Kraljevstvu, isto tako kao što se ono više ne spominje nakon Stjepana II."; Lujo Margetić: Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae u doba Stjepana II, p. 16) This is a charter from Zadar after the death of Stephen II where it is called just Kingdom of Croatia: "kyri Alexio Constantinopoleos imperante, tempore quo Vladislav, Pannoniorum rex, Chroatiae invadens regnum, dominum Almum, suum nepotem, in illo statuit regem". Coloman was crowned only in 1102, but he didn't yet have control over coastal cities and had to return them to the realm. So between 1091 and 1102 and the coronation of Coloman there is no Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, just Kingdom of Croatia. As for the union article it is even more clear, between the years 1102 and 1359 (Lujo Margetić: Hrvatska i Crkva u srednjem vijeku, Pravnopovijesne i povijesne studije, Rijeka, 2000, p. 91, Ferdo Šišić: Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, p. 523) it was Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, and after that just Kingdom of Croatia, although the Croatian ban ruled both of them.Tzowu (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. When Coloman succeeded to the title (a mere ten years later!) he became "King of Croatia and Dalmatia". "..nestaje ujedno i bilo kakva vijest o regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" - does not indicate that the kingdom changed its name. It just means we don't "hear" about it - until ten years later when we do hear about it, at the coronation of Coloman. The titles were not disassociated, and the source does not actually say that. Coloman invaded Dalmatia explicitly on the pretext of it being a part of his new royal title.
You've been pushing for the wrong name well before this, and are just trying to change it by "interpreting" a source in accordance with your own POV. Even if you're right, and you're not - its still just a meaningless technicality. -- Director (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Coloman was crowned as Ego Colomannus dei rex gratia Hungarie, Croatie atque Dalmatie. [14]. This was continued until 1235 or rather 1241 when King Bela IV was the first to use title of Croatia and Dalmatia separately, not as kingdom (regno) but as kingdoms (regni) which also corresponds with the fact Bela IV was the first king not to be crowned separately in Biograd. This was also the first time Slavonia was mentioned as a kingdom/crown land (referring to the land between Gvozd Mountain and Drava) being separated nominally from Croatia-Dalmatia, having it's own Ban and diet of nobles. Until that time Slavonia was in fact ethnographic term used synonymously with the entity known as "Croatia and Dalmatia". However after that and even until 1526 and the Habsburgs the term Dalmatia and Croatia or Croatia and Dalmatia were synonymous with Slavonia (Tocis Sclauonie = all of Slavonia = Croatia and Dalmatia) meaning they all referred to the same entity we colloquially know as Kingdom of Croatia. I stated before and I'll state again - it is one thing what we colloquially refer to as Kingdom of Croatia (which applies to article titles alone) and totally another matter what was the exact diplomatic name of the entity which was Croatia and Dalmatia (which applies to infobox). Shokatz (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Lujo Margetić clearly said that the name "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" existed only until the death of Stephen II (a mere thirty years!). Stating that there are is no mention of it after 1091 (or before 1060/1059) is just an additional proof for his thesis. Even Coloman had to ask for the pope's aproval for his rule over Dalmatian coastal cities although he crowned himself in 1102. Zvonimir had to seek papal approval before becoming King of Croatia and Dalmatia, Stephen II also ("Stjepan je hrvatski kralj, on je nazočan pri vijećanju pred nadbiskupom, dakle, nadbiskup priznaje da Stjepan nije nikakav uzurpator, ali ga pravno još ne može titulirati rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae jer to još papa nije odobrio." So if we are to strictly follow the rule that the infobox name is the last one used (which I read on this or Kingdom of Croatia talk page) it should be just Kingdom of Croatia. Anyway, do we at least agree on the infobox name of this article (Croatia in the union with Hungary)?Tzowu (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And yet we have several distinguished historians such as Franjo Racki, Nada Klaic, Ivan Bojnicic and others who disagree. It is simply not true there is no mention of it until 1091. From what I can see Margetic does not talk about the title, he talks about the sovereign entity which is obvious since from 1091 Croatia was in deep anarchy caused by the succession crisis and the subsequent claim by the Hungarian Arpad dynasty. And I actually read what Margetic says and he clearly states Stjepan was in fact recognized by the Pope and styled himself King of Croatia and Dalmatia. Following the end of succession crisis and the victory of Arpad's Coloman continues in same fashion and styles himself rex Croatie atque Dalmatie. You seem to have confused the name of the article with the infobox use of official titles/names. Those are two different things. The only proper name for use in infobox is Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia (Regno Croatiae et Dalmatiae). Article title was never in question here which is Croatia in the union with Hungary. Shokatz (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Lujo Margetić is one of the rare historians who dealt with the name with more than a few sentences. He said there is no mention of it after 1091, not until 1091, and before 1102. Stephen was eventually recognised by the Pope as the King of Croatia and Dalmatia. After 1091 and the death of Stephen II there was a succession crisis and Croatia lost the control over Dalmatian coastal cities like Zadar for example, thus the Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae ceased to exist, confirmed by a charter from Zadar where the kingdom is called Regnum Chroatiae. And no, I'm not talking about the article name, but the infobox one. The last used official name of Croatia during the personal union with Hungary is just "Regnum Croatiae", which was also the name used in the Sabor of Cetin. However, the titles of bans were still "Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia" (later they added Slavonia). Is this the only disputed thing in my edits? And what about the map, this one is wrong anyway, like most of the old maps. Tzowu (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
That is because obviously between 1091 and 1102 there is no "rightful" king (only pretenders in the form of Ladislaus, Coloman and the alleged Petar Svacic) of that kingdom and thus no kingdom as such. The land was in anarchy and in the middle of succession crisis mixed with dissension between nobles over whether they would support or resist the claim by Arpad's...namely Ladislaus and Coloman. After 1102 when the succession crisis is over and the order restored the title is again there and thus with it the kingdom. And need I remind you that this article in fact deals with the period between 1102-1526, not pre-1102...that is another article. And also, Cetin election was in December 31st 1526, and since that was the end of one period (with which this article deals with) and the beginning of another (which is Habsburg Croatia), it is more than clear the title was used until that point. It was only with the Habsburgs and the Ottoman invasion that these titles became ultimately separated (since core of Croatian kingdom moved northwards away from its medieval Dalmatian core) not only into Croatia and Dalmatia, but also in a separate Slavonia....which were all by that time (until 1526) synonymous. And yes, for me the only contentious issue is the name used in the infobox. You cannot have a section saying official name was Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia and then something totally different in the infobox. I've already stated the map is inadequate and quite general...it does not show internal divisions of Archiregnum Hungariae. Shokatz (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course that is the consequence of the succession crisis, civil war and ultimately the war with king Ladislaus. However, the kingdom didn't cease to exist officially, it was stil referred to as a kingdom (Kingdom of Croatia). In 1102 Coloman crowned himself King of Croatia and Dalmatia and restored it, received papal recognition and in the following years control over the coastal cities. I tried discussing it on the Kingdom of Croatia article, but discussion shifted here so I am writing about both articles, which are connected anyway. The name Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia was in use until 1359, not until 1526, the Cetin Sabor is just another confirmation of the used name. For example, here is a charter from 1442 where the Ban is titled as Ban of the Kingdoms of Croatia and Dalmatia, while Croatia is later mentioned as a single kingdom. [15] So the infobox name of this article should definitely be just Kingdom of Croatia. The name section mentions that the official name was "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia" until 1359. As for the map, are there any legal obstacles for uploading that map? [16] Tzowu (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It was referred as "Land" not as kingdom, because there was no king. The term for both in Latin is Regnum or Regno. So it seems only logical that when the last king died and there was no king, only pretenders, that there is no longer mention of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia only Land of Croatia, until 1102 and Coloman finally being crowned in Biograd. The point is all monarchs since 1060 were crowned Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae...and that is a fact. Second, I've already elaborated on the use of titles (and their nominal and de facto state) after 1235 or rather 1241 and Bela IV who started using Regni (kingdoms) instead of Regno (kingdom), and Bojnicic also mentions this with reference to Juraj Krizanic who also wrote about it that it was introduced to increase the prestige of the monarch...however he clearly affirms the fact (which you also mention here) that Croatia and Dalmatia were still one single entity represented by it's Ban-Viceroy (separate from the Slavonian one) and its own Diet (Parliament) of nobles. It was only in 1526 that Dalmatia was officially (de facto) separated from Croatia, with Croatia moving northwards and Dalmatia (core of Croatian kingdom) being conquered by the Ottomans and subsequently taken by the Venetians after that. Shokatz (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
That is true, regnum could also mean a land, but then again if we are to strictly follow the rules, the infobox name should be just that. There was one more king in the meantime who most certainly didn't rule Dalmatian coastal cities. Unfortunately, there are no preserved charters from his time. The Ban ruled Croatia and Dalmatia and de facto that was a single entity, but de jure there was just a Kingdom of Croatia, not a Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae which probably wasn't even mentioned afterwards. I'll make a parallel with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, it was in Croatia known as a Triune Kingdom (Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia), the Triune Kingdom coat of arms was used, in documents issued by its Sabor it was called that way, but officialy those were 2 separate kingdoms, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia, not a single one. This is also reflected in the infobox name of the article which is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. I don't see how could we have a name in the infobox that wasn't used for more than a 150 years. Even before 1359 there are examples where there is only Kingdom of Croatia mentioned and Dalmatia as a mere part of it. Tzowu (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
And what king would that be? Petar Svacic maybe? We don't even know if he existed and even if he did he certainly was never crowned as king at all....he was pretender at best. Btw there are no rules, the specific issue is referred to by WP:MoS. And the common practice (from what I've seen) is to use official names in the infobox rather than colloquial terms that are used for those entities in later and modern-day contemporary historiography. Of course there are exceptions. By that fact Croatia-Slavonia is not a good example since it doesn't use the official name used by the governing bodies of that entity, but that is a complicated issue since both of those (Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom were used at the same time within the same state that was Austria-Hungary). I already gave several examples before. Shokatz (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that his existence is unknown, I wrote that there are no charters from his time, but someone did expel Almos and it was most probably him, although his last name is not certain.
Good, the official name varried through time, both before 1102 (including the Duchy of Croatia) and after it until 1526. But in the 15th and 16th century there is no Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae as an official or diplomatic name. For the Kingdom of Croatia until 1102 it is a bit more complicated, my first intention was to add both names and place its time span in brackets in the infobox, but I didn't find a simillar example on other articles so I abandoned that idea.Tzowu (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the Croatian form of the name, here are some sources:

"U XII. i XIII. stoljeću upotrebljava se forma riječi hrvatska zemlja iz koje su državu koju su nastanjivali Hrvati nazvali Hrvatskom." (Dragomir Džoić: Federalističke teorije i hrvatska država, p. 75

"Hrvatski se jamačno kazalo „hrvatska zemlja“." Vienac, volume 26

"Ta grad sazidal iz fudumenta izibrani knez Juraj Mikuličić. U nu vrime va vsei hrvatskoj zemlji boljega čovika ne biše, zač u kralja Matijaša u veliki počtenji biše, zač ot cara turskoga Ugarskoj zemlji mir našal biše. I car rimski, ta ga dobrim čovikom zoviše. I vsaki od tih poglavit dar dal mu biše. A Hrvati ga za nenavist hercegom Ivanišem pogubiše. Ki li se oće takim čovikom zvati, neka takov grad iz fundamenta ima izzidati, tere sebi tako..." Bužim glagolitic tablet from 1495 http://buziminfo.ba/live/turizam-i-nacionalni-spomenici/132-stari-grad-buzim Tzowu (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The infobox entry there is for the official name(s) used at the time. It supposed to be a place where people can see the official name of the state. Croatian was the language of the peasantry, regarded as a "base" language. If I recall correctly, it was in fact expressly forbidden for official use, e.g. as in assemblies. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Croatian or glagolitic alphabet was used by the Church in Croatia and often by local nobles or bans, like the one from Bužim with the inscription of Juraj Mikuličić. More can be found here [17], but without a transcription to latin script. Although the assemblies used Latin, Croatian was also an "official" language. Tzowu (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm. The Synod of Split (or rather, Spalatum) banned the use of any languages besides Latin and Greek in services ("noone should presume to celebrate the divine mysteries in the Slavonic language, but only in Latin and Greek, and no one of that tongue should be advanced to the holy orders"). That was during the reign of Tomislav, I think, or his immediate successor. I'd like to see a source?
Also re Tomislav. The letter is the only evidence of his being a "rex". A duke can be said to have "ruled" as well. -- Director (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
But in the 13th century the Pope granted the right for use of glagolitic alphabet for the Church in Croatia. For example Misal po zakonu rimskog dvora and Hrvojev Misal are written in glagolitic. As for Tomislav, we have the Chronicle of Duklja that calls him a king, a letter from the Popem a note preceding the conclusions of the Council and the mention of a king (rex) in the conclusions. Tzowu (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The alphabet perhaps, but certainly not the language I think. -- Director (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Probably both Old Church Slavonic and Croatian were used in liturgy... Anyway, in official documents and correspondences between local nobles or bans and on inscriptions or tablets it was used together with Latin. Latin was to be the official language of the Sabor (and the Hungarian assembly) until the 19th century. Tzowu (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Source your claim of the Croatian name being in any way "official", or something to that effect. Do not alter the status. -- Director (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? There are more than enough sources for the use of that form of Croatian name. If you have a source that says it wasn't used as a "native_name" than feel free to add it. There was no official language in a modern sense at that time. The status section should not be someone's POV, but the actual status of the kingdom. That's why the name of the article is "Croatia in the union with Hungary". Tzowu (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Direktor there are sources with the Croatian name on various charters. The question was should it be used in the infobox or not, I say if we go with a contemporary name in general than a Croatian variant should be used. And you should stop with this don't change the status rhetoric. You pushing the "union/part" nonsense was never a consensus...not even close. Shokatz (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt that was the contemporary Croatian name - however, we need a source that shows it was "official" at least in some way. If there are royal or Ban charters from that period in Croatian, or even some documents in Croatian by the Subic house - I'm fine. I'm asking to see sources. All I got thus far were vague, highly dubious claims that Croatian was used in liturgy, which, even if true (doubtful), doesn't mean much.
And do not start that stuff. I already explained you're not qualified to proclaim scholarly consensus on your own, other people have also told you that line of argument is not valid on Wikipedia. You need sources that say there's a consensus. So trust me when I say - you can't make such claims. The only sources I've yet seen that discuss the position of scholarship as such state the issue is disputed. Do you understand my position here, should I clarify further? -- Director (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't need anything of the sort, we know the language was spoken. I would point out to the Republic of Ragusa which also had Latin language as official and yet it has its name in Croatian in the infobox, thus at the same time not having it on Croatian kingdom itself would be ridiculous. Now stop with that.
And second, you never had "consensus" for anything, I've decided to back down, but now seeing you being stubborn as you are, I will not back down anymore. All the sources say Croatia was not a part of Hungary but it's associate state, a vassal or independent agent. Furthermore I have tried several times, as did Tzowu here, to make a compromise with you which you again and again refuse. Tzowu's change to the status clearly points to the discussion on the status, makes not mention of the personal union per se and so I don't see what exactly do you find contentious there anymore...except reverting just out of spite. Not to mention that in union and being part of are not two terms in conflict with each other. Now I am telling you that I have stopped playing and if you keep edit-warring I will report you to WP:ARBMAC. I had enough of this game... Shokatz (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course "the language was spoken", that's not the point. I need sources that the name was used as "official" in any capacity whatsoever. The Republic lasted until practically the 19th century, its an entirely different matter - these are the damn Middle Ages.
When I say "consensus", I of course mean consensus in sources. Read what I say: consensus in scholarship. Which you can not declare yourself. As Ivan told you as well - you need to stop living in a parallel Wikipedia where you are allowed to declare what is or is not accepted by consensus in sources. Stop making such claims. Further, nobody disputes that Croatia/Dalmatia (though not Slavonia) enjoyed a degree of de facto independence - so stop repeating that over and over again. Its nothing special, feudal entities, duchies, counties, etc. were very often de facto independent from their legal ruler - that does not automatically mean they were in a personal union. The legal, de jure status of this entity is disputed. This is sourced. Acknowledge, please. -- Director (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok explain to me how the Ragusa example is entirely different matter? Croatian wasn't official language there either so I would really like to hear a really good reason why should it not be used besides these are the damn Middle Ages. In any case Tzowu already gave you at least three sources that the name was used in vernacular. Also please point to me where exactly is the personal union mentioned in the status as it is right now. Either I am blind or you see things that aren't there... Shokatz (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"If there are royal or Ban charters from that period in Croatian, or even some documents in Croatian by the Subic house - I'm fine." hm...
"More can be found here [18], but without a transcription to latin script." Tzowu (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
On the above link there are hundreds of mostly glagolitic charters from the time period until 1526 (and after of course), like the charters of the Frankopan family, for example from Ban Nikola Frankopan (or Mikula Frankapan) on page 56 [19]: Mi knez Mikula de Frankapan, krčki, senjski, modruški, i pročaja knez, i ban dalmacie i hrvacki..., or charters from Ban Andrija Bot on pages 193 and 194. Most of them are from the Frankopans and their nobles. So Croatian was not just a spoken language. Tzowu (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Technically the name itself (Hrvatska zemlja) needs to be mentioned in an "official" capacity, but ok, I won't insist. (Yes, yes, Ragusa too should be scrubbed, but I really don't want to go messing with that consensus right now. Ok?!)
The status is something else though. Btw, if its a "vassal" its not in a personal union.. -- Director (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Personal union isn't mentioned at all anywhere in the status and even in the lead itself. Shokatz (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with glagolitic script so I can't check it, but others like Ferdo Šišić did and they specified the use of "Hrvatska zemlja" since the 12th century. Croatia wasn't a vassal, the only thing that changed in 1102 was the ruling dynasty. Instead of the House of Trpimirović the Arpads came to power (after them Anjou etc.) and that's it, nothing strange for the Middle ages, the ruling dynasties changed often. Tzowu (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's not go there again...we have acknowledged the fact it may be contentious for some and it is more than appropriate as it is now, especially with it pointing to the section about the matter itself, which I think was a really nice touch. As for the language we know Latin was official for various reasons, so at least you be reasonable and accept some minor compromise. Shokatz (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
These articles will not be written like "there was a union (but some loons think there wasn't lol, here, we're mentioning them)". Unless you can show a source, or rather, at least several sources, that explicitly SAY the union is the prevailing view - the primary statement will be that indicating a dispute. Just like all those other sources explicitly state there is a dispute.
I don't want spammed sources that just mention a personal union - I want sources that assess the view of scholarship in general, and explicitly state your view is preferred. Just like all those other sources that assess the position of scholarship in general, and explicitly state there is a dispute. Please tell me if you gentlemen understand this?
Usually its the user trying to show there is a dispute that's at a disadvantage, not the guy who only has to provide a few sources that indicate one view is prevalent. Yet, clearly, scholarship has not come down on any side of this. -- Director (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
And there you go again... First, as for the whole personal union charade I've already addressed on that issue more than enough. We actually do have a source which clearly and explicitly says the position of Hungarian legal historians (and thus Hungarian mainstream historiography) is that Croatia and Hungary were in fact in personal union, mostly resembling the personal union between Scotland and England until 1707. This is clearly stated in the paper by Hungarian Laszlo Heka [20] citing directly from the book by Mezey Barna Magyar alkotmánytörténet, page 66 published back in 1995. We also have Geza Jeszensky and two other Hungarian historians M.Banai and B.Lukacs explicitly comparing it to the Scotland and England. I have also extensively dissected the sources you gave in supposed affirmation of the alleged ambiguity and dispute on February 4th, 19:34. On all of these accounts you have either refused to answer or simply ignored them.
Second, I haven't the slightest clue what the hell are you talking about here in first place anyway. Even despite the overwhelming majority of source in favor of personal or dynastic union we have decided to take you up for it and remove it completely from the lead and in the status. The article is written in a perfectly neutral manner, the status itself does not makes a single mention of a personal union but in fact uses ambiguous in union with a link leading down to the section dealing with the whole shebang. Now what exactly is your problem here? The word union itself or the fact it leads to the section discussing it which obviously is not according to your desires? Or you simply don't understand the difference between the word union and the legal term personal union? Which is it? I am really fed up with your temper tantrums, you do not WP:OWN this article, ok? Shokatz (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not have temper tantrums. Nor do I think I own anything here. I am annoyed, not because I think I own this thing, but because I have to repeat myself so often.
Ok, let me explain again why that's not enough to change the position of the article. At least a half-dozen sources talk about a dispute existing in scholarship on this issue. You quote one guy saying that Hungarian historians think there was a personal union. Well, #1 that guy (Mezey Barna) is contradicted by a lot more people talking about the dispute. Not a past dispute that's now over, but a dispute. #2 Even if he were not contradicted, and even if I were to grant that claim as fact: how are Hungarian authors the supreme authority here? Your source talks only about Hungarian scholars - that doesn't mean the dispute doesn't exist in the historical community in general - as the other sources state. That's why I can't accept those sources as having overruled all those others.
Re your second point. I don't want to remove the personal union from the lead. It should be stated that "there is dispute on the nature of the relationship, but it was probably a personal union, and anyway Croatia had de facto independence". That's my position: the reader should first know that the issue is uncertain and disputed, and then be gently nudged towards the personal union as a more prominent possibility, with the addendum of de facto independence (though Slavonia was not de facto independent, and nobody was "de facto independent" from Matthias Corvin, etc.). -- Director (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There's not a "one guy", both Mezey Barna and Laszlo Heka specifically point out the Hungarian historiography view on the "issue". That is really rare, to specify a position of the entire scholarly, and they are surely more familiar with the Hungarian historiography than a professor of International Security or you, and are confirmed by numerous other Hungarian historians. Currently only Serbian nationalists deny the existence of a personal union and only them, no one else. Others who claim there is a dispute base their claim on older historiographies, not modern ones, and even that is mentioned in the lead already to satisfy various infidels. I can't believe that you can be so stuborn and contend the personal union existence based on no evidence, just because Croatian historians say that and you must be on the opposite side no matter what. A "dispute" between Hungarians and Croatians in which both of them claim the same thing, I don't think there is a similar example anywhere else. Tzowu (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Do not presume to psychoanalyze me please. I have no problem defending the Croatian position if its backed by sources - as I very often do. Even beyond the point of sourcing. This is too much though.
Two guys, one guy, what's the difference? Did you notice I listed a half dozen for the dispute? There are more, but I don't spam links, as I know that's discouraged. Want another? Ok. See William Chambers 1973 p.258 ("...the relationship was much disputed these past 800 years. Hungarian extremists equated it with simple annexation and Croat extremists with a purely personal union").
@"Currently only Serbian nationalists deny the existence of a personal union and only them, no one else." Sure, in your own nationalist world where Serbs are satan. If you want others to believe such claims - give me a source.
@"Others who claim there is a dispute base their claim on older historiographies, not modern ones". Ok. Source? Or are you really expecting me to disregard sources that you pick through declaring they are "based on older historiographies". If you want to discredit a source, you need another source. Not constant talking. -- Director (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats from 19th century when it really was disputed, 1973 is just a new edition with the same contents from the original Chambers's Encyclopaedia. User Shokatz already gave sources in the "Lead section" section. I have yet to see a historian who tried to deny te existence of a (personal) union, we currently have only one who was already mentioned (Sotirović), and he is obviously a Serbian nationalist. So feel free to find one who will in detail explain what was different in Croatia A.D. 1080 and Croatia A.D. 1180. Or you can try it yourself, since you think it was just an autonomous province or whatever. Hungarian view is sourced in detailed details without a place for misinterpretations. In the meantime you can read what John Antwerp Fine wrote: Tzowu (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


Although the text probably includes some questionable historical events and various later features, much of its contents does depict the situation that actually was created in 1102. A summary of its germane points, therefore, is a fitting introduction to a discussion of Croatia under Hungarian rule. The document stipulates that the two kingdoms were not to be merged; they were to remain separate kingdoms with a common king. Thus Croatia was still an independent state; however, the Hungarian dynasty had succeeded the Croatian kings. Each Hungarian king would have to come to Croatia for a separate coronation. The separate coronation in Croatia lasted until it was dispensed with in 1235. Latin was made the official language of state. This basic situation was to last from 1102 (with an interruption for much of Croatia by the Ottoman period) to 1918.
The Croatian nobles (i.e., the hereditary provincial leaders and landlords) were thus recognized in their positions by the Hungarian king and they in turn recognized him as king of Croatia (by a separate coronation) . These nobles were probably relatively content since they had just escaped from an attack by the Croatian rulers (particularly Zvonimir) on their positions and privileges. Thus they were allowed to remain as basically independent lords on their lands and as local leaders. They were to continue in this position throughout the medieval period up to the Ottoman conquest of most of Croatia.
By owing loyalty to a Hungarian king who was also crowned king of Croatia they sacrificed little: (1) Foreign affairs were in the hands of the king of Hungary. (2) The king was the commander-in-chief of the army and the nobles owed him military service when summoned (but this had been owed earlier to the Croatian ruler); however, if they had to cross the Drava, the Hungarian king had to pay. And the king had the mutual obligation to defend Croatia from attack. (3) The Hungarian king appointed a ban of Croatia; but it seems that other than being a military leader for campaigns this ban interfered little in local affairs. Later, some of these local bans would be Croatian noblemen. General Croatian matters were to be discussed at the Croatian diet (whenever this section of the treaty appeared, be it originally or later). The king did have to confirm decisions of the diet before they became law. But if the diet did exist prior to 1102, the Croatian ruler presumably would have had to confirm its decisions too. And the Hungarian king confirmed these decisions as king of Croatia .
Other than these few items everything else was left in the hands of the nobles: internal administration, judicial matters, land policy, and the like. There was no integration of the Croatian state with the Hungarian. Except for the ban, no Hungarians were sent to administer in · Croatia. In fact , there was very little integration in Croatia at all. Power remained basically on a county level under local nobles, which was how matters had been until then. Though the king seems to have received some taxes and customs duties in Croatia, it seems that the nobles owed no tax to the king. They rendered him only military service. The king, however, did receive for his personal use the estates of the extinct Croatian royal family.
Occasionally later, individual nobles were to try to break away from Hungary. For example, some of those near Bosnia later accepted the suzerainty of the king of Bosnia instead of the Hungarian king. Some succeeded for a while, and at times the Hungarian kings had to send troops thither to reassert their authority. At times there also were civil wars over the Hungarian throne. On these occasions the Croatian nobles often split, some for each rival, and civil wars were then fought throughout Croatia. There also were to be cases of civil wars within Croatian families or between different Croatian families for local power. Thus despite the longlasting system established by the Hungarians, there often was anything but tranquility in Croatia. But despite these stormy events, Croatia remained a region in the hands of its nobles, not integrated into the Hungarian state.
Just as almost no Hungarians came to Croatia-excluding Slavonia few Croatians went to Hungary. In the following centuries a few Croatians, along with members of other nationalities, could be found at the Hungarian court; but it is necessary to emphasize again that Hungary was constructed like other medieval empires (e.g., like Byzantium), having multinational populations united around a common religion (in this case Roman Catholicism). Though the largest element at the Hungarian court was Hungarian, all the nationalities of the kingdom could be found there; and little favoritism along national lines existed.
A second unifying factor was Latin, which was dominant in the whole kingdom as the official church and court language. Almost all documents (including nearly all the medieval royal letters) in Hungary until the middle of the nineteenth century were to be in Latin. (Clearly vernacular dominated among the people, and presumably even at court among Hungarians; but Latin did give members of the different nationalities at court a common language in which to communicate.) In addition almost all Croatian documents, charters, and land grants were in Latin. Whether the nobility all spoke Latin well may be doubted, though presumably those resident at the Hungarian court did-but there existed a large number of scribes (many of whom were priests) to draw up documents.
Thus was established a dual monarchy with the king of Hungary monarch for two states originally with two coronations. At home in Croatia the local nobles retained their local independence, caring more about their own privileges and local power than about maintaining an independent Croatian state. This "contract" of 1102-regardless of whether it actually took place as claimed- became the legal basis not only for the Hungarian king's rule in the Middle Ages, but also for the Hungarian claim-which was allowed-that Croatia be in the Hungarian part of the Habsburg Dual Monarchy in 1867.
The verdict given in the previous paragraph, which is seen in most Croatian works, is seriously criticized by N. Klaic. She believes that the events of 1102 did not consist of a loss of Croatian independence. Since the Croatian nobles kept their autonomy, Croatians continued to rule Croatians in the counties. The peasants remained under Croatian nobles. Feudalism was a tie to a dynasty and not to a nation. The change in 1102 was one of dynasties-accepting the Hungarian- and of capitals. But the nation remained. The aim of the nobility had been to keep the ruler weak, and it was unimportant what language he spoke. Why should a nobleman or any other Croatian have supported a dynasty just because it originated from his own region and its representative had a common language with him? The nobles after 1102 were able to keep their autonomy and life remained unchanged for their villagers, who knew neither dynasty. Thus, Klaic concludes, there was a change of dynasty but not the end of the Croatian nation. One should not, as many later historians have, see 1102 as a national collapse or the end of the state. The Croatian nation survived throughout the Hungarian period, as did the ethnic consciousness of its people. (John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press, 1991, pages 286 - 288)


That's about enough backsliding on my part. I tried to show some good faith and flexibility, but clearly there is no easy way to deal with nationalist zealotry. A lesson I should have learned by now, I suppose. I'm taking this to a new thread on the main article. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tzowu, please specify when this file was published. -- Director (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again, user Director is once more trying to push his nationalist POV in the articles. This is probably the only one where he is pushing the "truth is somewhere in the middle" stance, since he already made the Tito article a balant example of a Yugoslav POV, although there are 100 times more sources for at least a Controversy section of 9000 bytes. Its funny that people who accuse Croatian wikipedia for POV (sometimes with justification) are doing the same thing here. Hypocrisy anyone? User Director still can't point out one single reason why he thinks Croatia was not in a personal union, except his opinion that everything in Croatian history is nationalist. Now he is again spamming the lead section which was more than fine until now, accepted by other users who were writting here, and changed it to be more like "Croatian nationalists think there was a union, but everyone else doesn't, so it wasn't really a union". If, after dozens of Hungarian primary sources (why the hell would they teach their students that Croatia was in a personal union with Hungary if there is a dispute between Croatia and Hungary?), he still thinks that this is just a Croatian nationalist POV, then obviously his task here is not to improve the Croatian articles, but to degrade them, at least in his view. One more proof that there is no difference between left and right extremism. Tzowu (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Before you try to copy other users' arguments to childishly throw them back, at least see if they make sense. "Nationalist POV"? Who's "national POV" am I supposed to be pushing? Best we forget about that nonsense jab.. I've posted a new thread over in the main article. best we discuss in one place than in two talkpages simultaneously. -- Director (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"Croatia was neither in a personal union nor a conquered part of Hungary" is a nationalist POV, just like saying for example that Nazi Germany was neither a good guy nor a bad guy in WW2 would be a nationalist POV. A Croatian POV would be to call the entity Croatia-Hungary, not this. Older Croatian historians actually viewed the 1102 events as a disaster and the loss of Croatian independence (Ivo Goldstein, Rani hrvatski srednji vijek, 447-449). I really doubt that Ivo Goldstein (or Nada Klaić before him) are Croatian nationalists [21] [22]. Tzowu (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not claim that Croatia was "neither of the two", I claim we do not know, as we do not - and support that claim with sources explicitly stating it. There is a marked difference. But even if I were claiming such a thing - it would not be "nationalist POV", nor would claiming "Nazi Germany was neither a good guy nor a bad guy" be "nationalist POV" as such. You just seem to have discovered that phrase and like it a bit too much. Your position, however, could conceivably represent "nationalist POV" in that you are a Croatian person pushing a pro-Croatian point of view. I am ofc Croatian as well, very much so. To claim that by rejecting a pro-Croatian point of view I am espousing "nationalist POV" is ridiculous. What "nation"!?
My position is simply to represent the varied scholarly positions on this matter. Preferably, since this is the English Wikipedia - from English-language sources, with as little local sources as we can manage. And to do away with as much incorrect romantic nonsense as we can find. The English Wikipedia should at the very least be a place where people can read something that resembles serious history. -- Director (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well that was a quick reply. Seriously, after everything that was mentioned on this talk page you still think that we don't know was it a personal union or not? Anyone can find sources for anything on wikipedia. A personal union was nothing uncommon during the Middle ages. Look, even Norwegians (or Norwegian nationalist view) had one: "Upon the death of Haakon VI, in 1379, his son, Olaf IV, was only 10 years old. Olaf had already been elected to the throne of Denmark on 3 May 1376. Thus, upon Olaf's accession to the throne of Norway, Denmark and Norway entered personal union." That was very often the only way for kings to establish their rule, a total occupation would mean constant rebellions, a vassalisation would make local nobles discontent, while a personal union was favorable for both the nobles of those countries, since they had a huge autonomy, and for the king who added yet another title next to his name. That is why there were so many examples of that kind of union.
Various actions of the Croatian nobles (and the kings) show that they acted independently, first of them is the Golden Bull of 1222 issued by King Andrew II, that related only to Hungary. The second one is the Pacta Conventa. OK, you'll say that Pacta Conventa is a forgery, but what is important for the Pacta Conventa is the stance of the Croatian nobles of the 14th century, when it was created. So in the 14th century Croatian leaders considered that the only thing that connected them with Hungary is the possition of the king, and the king didn't contest it. The content of Pacta Conventa has not been questioned until the 19th century. The next important decision was the 1527 election of Ferdinand. Yes, he could have as well easily taken Croatia by force, but the Croatian nobles clearly stated that they were not a part of Hungary, and Ferdinand accepted their separate election. On the other hand, the Hungarian nobles that elected John Zapolya never claimed during the succession crisis that this decision was in a way "illegal". Also, the Croatian charters were never issued in the name of "Regnum Hungariae". Now lets look at the situation in Croatia for those 400+ years, the Croatian nobles never went to wars that the Arpad/Anjou/Jagiello kings fought outside Croatia, they had an exemption from taxes, the Hungarian laws didn't apply to Croatia... the only connection with Hungary was really the king.
The idea of Croatia (and Poland as well) beeing a part of Hungary was a 19th century Hungarian nationalist view that is completely rejected in modern days. Today that view is only accepted by Serbian and, to a lesser extent, Bosniak nationalists in everyday quarrels to prove that Croatia never existed. Recently I came across a discussion on the Tesla talk page. The most discussed issue regarding Tesla is his birthplace and his nationality (like many other scientists from this area), so it was also the case here. Although a certain user posted a huge amount of sources that he was born in Croatia and in various earlier discussions that he was a Croat, the majority of users refuted those proposals because most of the reliable sources state that he was a Serb from the Austrian Empire. Not all of them. Now about this "issue", the vast majority of reliable sources (history books, especially from Hungarian historians, which can be found on this talk page) state that Croatia was in a union/personal union with Hungary, even the ones that mention the dispute from the 19th century. As I was keen to allow a certain level of uncertainty for the union case in the article a few months ago, after seeing other examples where a totally diferent criteria was used (not just the Tesla article, which I don't mind remaining as it is now), I can't do that anymore. Since this will probably lead to another revert war, then some kind of vote/rfc, if possible, would probably be the best option.
And why do you keep adding the coat of arms of Dalmatia? The last used coa was only the checkerboard, if we consider the battle of Mohacs as the last day that is covered by this article.Tzowu (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Lets not debate history, that's not our task here. The essential difference is that the Croatian point of view proposes a positive claim: that there existed a very specific form of relationship, a personal union. The burden of support lies there, not on the simple denial.
There are several sources cited here that approach this issue through first pointing out the lack of evidence, and the uncertainty of the personal union. That is, in my view, the correct approach: #1 state the uncertainty and dispute - #2 then propose the personal union as the most likely possibility. That's how Britannica does it. To state outright that "Croatia was in a personal union" is wrong, as it does not reflect the position of scholarship. Everywhere you look the dispute and uncertainty are mentioned and made prominent in any serious, scholarly, historiographical treatment of this issue.
In essence, I maintain that it is misleading and erroneous to claim as a matter of fact that Croatia and Hungary were in any sort of "union", without qualifying that statement. This uncertain union should, least of all, be in the title of this article. Qualify this claim. Do not censor sources that treat the uncertainty, and give due prominence to it.
Specific changes: proposing #1 that the question should be treated in depth in the article's text; #2 the lead should also state the uncertainty first, then bring emphasis on the union; #3 this article should be merged into the rest of Medieval Croatia, or its title should be altered to exclude the word "union" ('Croatia in the High and Late Middle Ages', e.g).
I still think that the best succession would be Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia (925-1527) -> Kingdom of Croatia (1527-1867) -> Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia (1867-1918) -> SHS etc. This is an elegant and accurate organization that would solve a few problems from the outset: the personal union issue is dealt with in an acceptable way, and the need for disambiguation is removed. Our goal should be to make this topic approachable and understandable to people who never heard of Croatia (i.e. about 99% of the world), as well as free of romantic conceptions from the age of nationalism, both Croatian and certainly Hungarian. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The Croatian view is also the Hungarian view. Britannica states that "later it became a matter of dispute", that is, in the 19th century, which is already in the article lead. Larousse mentions only a personal union without the dispute thing, Worldmark Encyclopedia also, and there's even no mention of "personal union" in the lead here, the sentence dealing with it is almost entirely a copy/paste from Britannica. I can't accept that a couple of sources, mostly books not dealing specifically with Croatian or Hungarian history, or even with Southern/Central Europe history, have the same value as the ones that do. My proposal would be to change the title to Kingdom of Croatia (1102-1526) (the union covers a much bigger timeline), leave the rest as it was before the revert, and add the possitions of modern Hungarian and Croatian scholarships at the end of the lead. Maybe, if it is such a problem, rephrase the first sentence, although I don't know how at this moment. I don't think that a single article dealing with the time from 925 to 1526 would be a good move, it would be very misleading, and not really accurate. If we did that then we could easily merge it with the Habsburg Croatia as well.Tzowu (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As was pointed out: sources state there is a dispute (again, Britannica included). Your claim that Hungarians agree is without direct support and constitutes your own appraisal of the situation (synthesis). Finally, both the Hungarian and Croatian points of view are secondary to non-local, third-party sources.
  • Yes indeed, all these entities sort of transform slowly into each-other. 1102 is not such a big year, the nobility simply got a new king (whether Croatia as such remained separate is a different issue, but the autonomy of the nobles is not disputed). The only real turning point here is 1493, with the Krbava battle essentially destroying the core of what was the kingdom of the Croats, along with its most prominent nobility. If I had it my way entirely, we would have one article up to that point (1493), and another for the rest up to 1867.
    It was in 1493 that the kingdom fundamentally changed and its nobility moved into what is today the core of Croatia. Up to that point, the area was largely not even part of the Kingdom [23]; Zagreb was regarded as being in Slavonia, which had its own separate Sabor (Zagreb, of course, was founded by the Hungarians). The whole Kingdom moved! The importance of the battle, and its consequences (i.e. the Ottoman conquest!) cannot be overstated. The next change of dynasties in 1527 is significant, but not imo as much as the Ottoman conquest itself.
I know you're against "Croatia and Dalmatia", but I like it because its a way to remove disambiguation and descriptive titles. As was previously discussed, that was the name for most of the time, and reflects the kingdom's highest extent. We could use it perfectly legitimately if we so wanted. The Sabor, for example (the first one we know), was known as the "Sabor of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I gave every source asked about the Hungarian stance, and the majority of sources favor at least the current lead. Zagreb is, if I recall, first mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum as conquered during a raid south of Drava in the 10th century. It was probably founded by the Duchy of Pannonia and it served as a defence fort against Hungarians. The Hungarians established a diocese there. Krbava... well, I made some changes to that article about the battle of Krbava. It was not really such a significant defeat, its just that older historians overexaggerated the loss. There were many battles to follow, Croatia still held the most important forts, like Klis, Knin, Prozor or Jajce (by the Banate of Jajce). The only two important nobles killed there were Ivan Frankopan Cetinski and Petar Zrinski. Ban Emerik Derenčin was one of the worst Bans we ever had, he was the one who made the decision to fight in an open battle, so his loss is not that big of a deal (RIP in any case). Bernardin Frankopan survived, and Franjo Berislavić (later Ban of Jajce) also survived. The next big battle was in 1513 at Dubica and Croatia won. I'd say that the loss of Knin in 1522 and Klis in 1537 were bigger disasters. But the Ottomans did expand steadily, and the population (and the nobles) moved to the coast and to the north.
The movement of the "official" Croatian borders to the north coincided with the final merge of the Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia and the one of Slavonia, somewhere in the 15th century. It was probably managed as a single entity every time a single Ban governed both even before. I can't say when that happened because borders changed often, for instance we don't know what were the exact borders of "Dalmatia" until Venice took control of it.
Anyway, I'm gonna stay with the Kingdom of Croatia (1102-1526) proposal. I can agree, if that move passes and the rest of the content remains, on rephrasing the first sentence with something like this: "The Kingdom of Croatia (Latin: Regnum Croatiae; Croatian: Hrvatsko kraljevstvo or Kraljevina Hrvatska), after a period of rule of kings from the Trpimirović and Svetoslavić dynasties, experienced a succession crisis and a decade of conflicts for the throne.". What about the coat of arms? The current Dalmatian was in fact the Croatian one until the checkerboard came to use. I don't see why both are necessary in the infobox. I added the Dalmatian one anyway down at the Coat of arms section. Tzowu (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Calling the entity in this period "Kingdom of Croatia" also implies a personal union, as I believe you are well aware. It is also unacceptable, indeed more so than the current title... I suggest again a merge with the 925-1102 article, that way I could accept the inclusion of this period under a state name. -- Director (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily, a kingdom can also be, for example, a vassal of another kingdom. Look at the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia, it was definitely not in a personal union with the Habsburg Monarchy. Or the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, it was officialy "Politički narod sa zasebnim teritorijem", as specified in the Croatian-Hungarian settlement. If renaming this article to Kingdom of Croatia would endorse the personal union, then a merge with the KoC (925-1102) would do the same. Its not that I'm totally against such a move, the Kingdom of Hungary (although they have special articles for various periods of it) and Kingdom of Bohemia did the same thing, but all the way to 1918. However, Kingdom of Poland has only separate articles. Bulgaria has two articles about the Bulgarian Empire, and one stub article about both of them. Tzowu (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not look at it that way, you do have a point. But then I must doubly insist that the statement of uncertainty be placed first in the lead paragraph covering the issue of personal union, as in Britannica. The de facto autonomy for most of the period is, of course, not in question. Re Krbavsko polje, it is true that the conquest was not instantaneous at that point, but with that the core of the old Kingdom was certainly eliminated. Jajce was more a defense to Slavonia, than the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
But we already have the same lead as Britannica, just more in detail. Britannica doesn't emphasise the "uncertainty" of a personal union in that way, it just states that in a certain time period it became a matter of dispute, but also points out that it was a dynastic union. That's what I'm saying all the time, that in the 19th century during the worst relationship between Hungary and Croatia, it was disputed. I gave a suggestion for the first sentence that is completely neutral and that would suit your proposal, the first mention of a union is the "dispute", but then I insist on returning the previous infobox wording, that is, "in personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary (see historical context)", what the majority of sources tend to. Tzowu (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pacta conventa is suspected to be forgery by some experts. However, that is not certain as director is trying to represent. Even if it is forgery, Directors interpretation is wrong. As I have understood, his claim is that pacta conventa is a forgery, thus Croatia was never in a personal union with Hungary. That interpretation is certainly wrong. Pacta conventa is just one document. History, spending several centuries can't be determined by one document that is suspected to be a forgery. Much like it is wrong to conclude that Croatia was in personal union with Hungary solely on this document, it is wrong to conclude that is was not in personal union with Hungary solely on this document. Also, it seems like Director is trying to push Dalmatia as a separate "thing" from Croatia more than it is.Asdisis (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work the way you think it works, Asdisis. WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is prohibited, and I am not doing any research of my own. I am merely pointing to the fact that scholars, not me personally(!), prominently mention the uncertainty of a personal union. This includes such high quality tertiary sources as Britannica, but others as well. And I am pointing out that to ignore this point and pretend the issue is a certainty - is the wrong way to go.
As regards you yourself, you seem to be missing crucial bits of information and have serious holes in understanding. You're that guy that's received his grounding in Croatian elementary schools, and takes every word therefrom as absolute truth, when in fact they are worthless. Things are far more complex than you think. "Dalmatia" is a term that can have several meanings, for a while it was a term that denoted the whole of Croatia (as Tzowu points out), but then again it can mean just the islands and cities. Was it a "separate thing", though? In general, most certainly so. You need to get a feel for how medieval history works. This is a difficult and confusing subject, and obscure to the extreme.
So, as far as I can see, you neither completely get how this project works, you do not have a grasp of Medieval historical circumstances in general, nor do you have a complete picture of the Medieval history of this region. Please do not WP:DISRUPT the discussion with pointless posts. This is not a debating club, nor a place where you can argue with people. We're here to discuss specific changes and support them with quality sources. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any sources from you. That is why i criticized your claims as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I went trough the discussion once again. I haven't seen you present any source to support your claims. You presented several primary sources and made your interpretation. That would be called WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Also I participated in a discussion much like this one where. I presented several dozen sources to change Tesla's birthplace. You had strong objections, although you had not present a single source. Instead you focused on accusing me I do not know what I'm talking about. That is very disruptive, since you made me spend too much time researching in vane. I think this discussion can only be resolved by presenting valid sources. Also, stop shifting the burden of proof. Asdisis (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tzowu, the lead sentence states outright that Croatia "entered a union" with the Kingdom of Hungary in 1102, without qualification. That does not seem to correspond with the coverage of the issue in professional sources. If we are to tackle this in the first sentence, the matter-of-fact statement needs qualification, else it is misleading. -- Director (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of them go even further, stating explicitly that it was a personal union. Anyway, what I suggested for the lead and the first sentence (so just the mention of a succession crisis and the crown passing to the Arpad dynasty etc.) is the same as in Britannica, just a bit more detailed, but then the infobox should be reverted to its previous form. After that, if necessary, we can discuss the name of the article. Tzowu (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The infobox has been "reverted to its previous form", what you're suggesting is the reitroduction of your edit. The infobox status entry must not state outright that the state was in a "union", just as the lead.
Most scholarly sources of value that deal with the matter in depth mention the uncertainty. Can you write up here your above mentioned lead proposal? -- Director (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Name the sources and supply the quotes, or point to the place of interest. Asdisis (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I already did. Read the discussions before you join, please. -- Director (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I red the discussion. I apologize if I missed something. Could you point to the sources you presented. I see only primary sources and your personal interpretations. Asdisis (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
And the previous form was done by you reverting an edit of me or Shokatz. The infobox must state that it was a union, since the vast majority of reliable sources claim that.
"Most scholarly sources of value that deal with the matter in depth mention the uncertainty" how did you get this impression? That's not the case in the sources I added here or in the article (at least c. 20 of them), and its not even the case in sources from the other side on this talk page. They also don't mention the dispute or something like that first in their works. Bellamy first mentions a personal union, Ian Jeffries goes with the crowning in Biograd first (although we can in a way put him on the "uncertainty" side, but he explains that the annexation view was a Hungarian nationalist one), Britannica also goes with the crown passing to the Arpad dynasty first and ultimately specifies it as a dynastic union, George J. Prpić goes first with the personal union statement, and Jean W. Sedlar first mentions a union. John Antwerp Fine, who made one of the most extensive modern studies of the medieval history of the Balkans, didn't mention an "uncertainty" at all. No, most sources definitely don't "mention the uncertainty". Apparently a RfC or something like that will be needed. Tzowu (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Open the RfC and present your sources. Just don't let him lead you into pointless argument again. Asdisis (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I still hope that maybe a consensus can be reached, but I can't back down anymore. The current lead for example is a result of that, if it was my way it most certainly wouldn't look like this. It seems that director doesn't watch Pawn Stars. Tzowu (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought you agreed with the Britannica formulation? -- Director (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but if the infobox status would be "in personal union with Kingdom of Hungary (see historical context)". Tzowu (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
How does that reflect the ambiguity of the issue? -- Director (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Such a thing does not exist, those few modern historians that mention a dispute are either referring to the 19th century or didn't make enough research so they assumed its the same situation nowadays. The infobox should be as concrete as possible and state what the majority of sources say. In the article it can be explained more in detail and present other views on the issue. That is how other articles were done, doing something else here would be contrary to the common practice and an example of double standards. Tzowu (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ugh.. such a thing does exist. If the world's foremost tertiary publication says it does, pardon me if I do not trust your own personal assessment, which is no doubt based on superficial sources cherry-picked for their shallow treatment of the issue. The infobox should be no more "concrete" than the sources are concrete. And no, other articles do not follow the practice your describe. If there is a clear scholarly consensus, then that's what we follow. If there isn't - we do not pretend there is one. -- Director (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The "world's foremost tertiary publication" without a glimpse of doubt states that it was a dynastic union, what you are doing here is a really bad attempt of false presentation of the article on Britannica and one ambiguous sentence. It is indeed very unclear how can someone after reading the specified article conclude that there is an ambiguity over Croatia's status from 1102 to 1526.
If you look really closely you'll see that, except perhaps for the malicious interpretation of Britannica , everything you wrote here is your personal opinion, and those few links you provided a few months ago when you lost the discussion are a textbook example of cherry-picked sources, which was clearly shown by user Shokatz. That is what happens when there aren't more than a dozen books that mention a dispute, and even those that do actually indicate that it was a personal/dynastic union.
Unfortunately, here on Wikipedia everything from article names to infobox statuses is based upon the number of google search results, since anyone can find anything on google, and the "personal union" option is the most frequent one in every combination used for this issue. The three most popular encyclopedias, Britannica, Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations and Larousse, also go with the personal/dynastic union theory in their articles. Sorry, at most 10 sources that say Croatia was a part of Hungary since 1102 or a few doubtful sources that for some reason claim there is a dispute in modern days will not be treated equally to at least 10 times more numerous sources that specifically say it was a personal union. That was not the case in the aforementioned Nikola Tesla article, and also not in the Kingdom of Hanover [24] or Union of Hungary and Poland articles. Tzowu (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Director has not presented anything useful and I personally doubt he has good intentions. He just repeats his personal opinion over and over. I had dealt with him before and I gave you my advice. Start a RfC and present your sources. Do not argue with him because that will only prove that there is some ambiguity in the presented sources. I asked Director again to point to his sources in this discussion. He had not answered me, and that shows he does not discuss in good faith. Do not waste your time because he is leading you on a futile chase. Asdisis (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop[edit]

Hammertime. And by saying that, I'm not merely making a silly pop reference, I'm actually threatening to put down the hammer on this wall-of-text thread that I refuse to waste time on reading. Ferchrissake, this discussion appears to have started over six months ago and has accumulated 86k of text, during which time the article grew from 38k to 56k. Please, anyone who still wishes to discuss something, present a <= 5 sentence summary of what is still the problem with the article, and enumerate all individual issues in a <= 5 sentence summary each, and then let's discuss each particular issue in a separate section. All the while keeping a focus on consensus building -- and not on throwing more text at the problem. What you've been doing so far is clearly not working. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested a short and concise RfC during which all sources will be presented and we will have a clear idea what the sources tell. This discussion is pointless and as I can see, many claims are not backed up by secondary sources. There is also a great deal of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and self interpretations of primary sources. Asdisis (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently its the infobox status of the kingdom, whether it will be "In personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary", or "in a union/part of Kingdom of Hungary", a continuation of a previous discussion about the same thing. Tzowu (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
In a sentence, Joy, the issue revolves around whether we should fundamentally deal with the personal union as a certainty, or an uncertainty. There's lots of publications that simply and briefly mirror the official Croatian stance that there was personal union, whereas I maintain that serious historiographic publications, that actually deal with the subject in any kind of depth, invariably make note of the fundamental uncertainty of the personal union claim. I brought up several sources to that effect.. -- Director (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox status of the kingdom "In personal union with" or "in a union/part of"[edit]

I'm advocating for the first one (with "see historical context" under it as a sort of compromise) since the majority of sources label it that way, while the ones that mention that there is a dispute over its status, obviously referring to a dispute between Croatian and Hungarian historiographies, or that it was a part of Hungary are in significantly smaller numbers and sometimes of dubious value. On this talk page a lot of content written by leading Hungarian historians was presented, who are also sharing the view of a personal union, with some dealing directly to the position of their modern historiography as a whole. Since there actually was a dispute in the 19th century, I don't have a problem for mentioning it in the lead and in the rest of the article, and the opposite theories like vassalisation or incorporation into Hungary. Tzowu (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't post a separate section... Joy already introduced an arbitrary break above. -- Director (talk)
I requested a separate section, and indeed implemented it. The break isn't arbitrary, we can't really expect volunteers to suffer through everything else up there as an intro. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)