Talk:Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries / Austria-Hungary  (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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Austria-Hungary task force.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia 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 Austria (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated C-class, Low-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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Coat of Arms[edit]

If this article is about a kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia then why does the coat of arms depicted include Dalmatia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalbest (talkcontribs) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif[edit]

The image Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I've looked-up the matter and merged the articles. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" by the Hungarian authorities because the Hungarians wanted to join Dalmatia into the Hungarian part of the dual state. I say "sometimes" because when the Croats, Slovenes and Serbs started talking about a third South Slavic subdivision within the monarchy, the Hungarians stopped supporting the union. The name of this subdivision, however, is undoubtedly "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". The confusion arises from Hungarian political claims and machinations. Without a shadow of a doubt. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Dear Direktor, why did you deleted/merged this article? I belive that your views are biased. You can find more references... just if you want.

  • "...When their own dynasty died out in 1102, the Croatian Diet or "Sabor" chose the Hungarian dynasty, trading away full independence for security, stability and internal autonomy. The "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" remained a legally distinct constitutional entity. After Mohacs, the "Sabor" (assembly) separately selected the Habsburg candidate as Croatia's king..."

(Michigan State University source: http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm )

etc.. --Dvatel (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag and CoA[edit]

After quite a bit of research and work on Photoshop I've created, uploaded, and placed the proper official flag of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, as was used on the level of Austria-Hungary. I've also uploaded the CoA which now uses the exact colors of the Croatian tricolor. Note difference: before and after. Please do not alter the flags, they are as accurate as they'll ever be. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide the sources you used, it could be useful in preventing future disputes. Although Dalmatia was part of Austria, I suppose that didn't mean Dalmatia's symbols couldn't be part of Croatia-Slavonia's flag and COA as a way to represent their claim over Dalmatia. Spellcast (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats not true. The Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Slavonia and Croatia had its own flag and coat of arms, according to Nagodba, and CoA of Dalmatia was part of the CoA of Triune Kingdom. For example:

Flags for example:


Now, the sources:

  • short history of the Croatian Flag (see the flag from 1867-1918)
  • Flags Of The World website (Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918)): The flag is more detailed prescribed on 19 June 1876, and by the Croaian-Hungarian Agreement (of 1869) and an edict of 16 September 1876, the crown above the shield should be the St. Stephen's Crown. The edict of 20 December 1899 detemines inverted order of the Croatian and Dalmatioan coats of arms in reard to 1876 prescriptions (i.e. it prescribed that the wordl "left" and "right" in 1876 prescriptions should be understood in heraldic manner). In use: since 1867. Adopted: 1868. Abandoned: 29 December 1918
  • Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (1867 - 1918) (and the page with sources [1] ) with Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems.

There is more sources in books.

Thank you--Ex13 (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ALL flags in Austria-Hungary were merely color stripes (landesfarben), only the Kingdom of Hungary and Austria itself sported coats of arms on their flags. Flags with coats of arms were used for the (two) main subdivisions of the Empire.
This issue is just another manifestation of the silly Croatian nationalist aims for a third subdivision of the Empire being a state called the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Thus the name that was often used for this country by its own internal authorities was "Triune Kingdom of...", and a flag was instituted by internal authorities of the subdivision as one with a coat of arms.
All this was, of course, total fantasy, as the name of this entity remained "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", and its flag remained a featureless tricolor for everyone outside the country. In other words, the flag of this subdivision on the level of the entire (HUGE) state of Austria-Hungary was as presented before. I myself was under the misconception Ex13 is laboring under now.
The coat of arms is fine, but its proportions are incorrect, it has black borders between its sections, and everything except the copy-pasted crown from the Hungarian CoA is of inferior quality. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Please provide some sources--Ex13 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also. please see the Coat of Arms of Kingdom of Hungary:

Coa Hungary Country History med (1915).svg

It can be seen CoA of Dalmatia (three leopard heads), Croatia, and Slavonia (also CoA of Fiume), etc.--Ex13 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)









I've looked into this and these sites have a decree from ban Iván Skerlecz who wrote (with my emphasis in bold):

According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement and of decree of the Department of Interior of the Royal Country Government of November 16th, 1867, No. 18.307, red-white-blue tricolour is civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is official flag for usage in autonomic affairs. Above-mentioned civil flag may use everyone in appropriate way.

So it seems that File:Flag of Croatia (1868-1918).svg was the state flag and File:Flag of Croatia-Slavonia.png was the civil flag. The first site says the state flag was "valid only in Croatia and Slavonia, since Dalmatia was at that time in Austrian part", so although Dalmatia wasn't yet under Croatian control, that doesn't mean Croatia-Slavonia couldn't have the COA as part of their official flag. Croatia-Slavonia didn't have to have control over Dalmatia for it to have Dalmatia's symbols in their official flag. Direktor, if the state flag is removed, then surely the COA should be removed as well? I would add the civil flag to the infobox, but Template:Infobox former country (unlike Template:Infobox country) doesn't allow 3 symbols. Spellcast (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now is OK. Thnks--Ex13 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, as you can see, in the infobox for the Kingdom of Hungary is a state flag with CoA.--Ex13 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The actual meaning of the badly translated text above is not much more than a repeat of what I said before: the flag unilaterally established by local authorities was unrecognized on the level of Austria-Hungary - it did not exist. In other words, it was a flag decreed by the viceroy but was not officially instituted by the King. It was the "official flag for usage in autonomic affairs" only. I'm not making this stuff up, what do I have against the coat of arms in the flag?? As far as everyone outside the subdivision was concerned, the flag of Croatia-Slavonia was a red, white, and blue tricolor.
Thanks for fixing the CoA, Ex13, I'll say this again: I really appreciate your work, but lets try to iron-out the bugs? If you look back in the edit history you'll find that I myself introduced this same flag months ago, but having found the official flag for the subdivision I fixed my own error. This flag is more like an "unofficial version".
For the record, if my behavior seemed abrasive I sincerely apologize. I'm still on my Wikibreak and, since I don't have the time for long discussions, my manner was shall we say overly curt? I promise to be my old charming lovable self from now on ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


As you can read it in the Art. 61. of Nagodba (sanctioned by the King himself): "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia can, within their own frontiers in their internal affairs, use their own combined colours and coat of arms, the latter, however, being surmounted by the Crown of St. Stephen." So the flag wasn't unilaterally established by local authorities. Croatia used the flag in accordance with Nagodba (with Hungary). Nagodba was sanctioned by the King as a fundamental law for Hungary and Croatia.

Also, this is an article about Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, not about Austria-Hungary, right? So we can put the flag of the Triune Kingdom.

And as you can see in the article: "The King's appointed steward was the Ban of Croatia and Slavonia." and the ban had the right to issue such decree which provides more detailed provisions in accordance with Nagodba.

Apology accepted. Thank you--Ex13 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The text quoted is in no way points to the right of the kingdom to unilaterally define its own flag, it merely states that the autonomous entity has the right to fly its own flag as opposed to that of the Kingdom of Hungary. What "rights" the ban had is a debateable issue, the point is that this flag with the coat of arms was an internal flag only. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I could be wrong but perhaps acceptance of the flag outside Croatia-Slavonia (CS) wasn't a prerequisite for it to be an official flag. I can see how the Italians in Dalmatia (who opposed Dalmatia's unification with CS) would reject the flag in principle, but the official flag seems to be defined by the CS/Hungarian government regardless of whether Dalmatia accepted it or not. If the flag is removed on the basis that it wasn't accepted by those "outside the subdivision", then surely the COA should be removed as well by that justification? Maybe the caption can be changed to "State government flag" to show it was supported by the CS government only (as opposed to all of Austria-Hungary). Spellcast (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is an article about Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, not about Austro-Hungary, not about Kingdom of Dalmatia. In articles about counties, we use county flag and CoA, right? The same is with other articles about other (historical) subdivisions. I provided some (official) sources, also with photos. To continue this discussion would be useful to provide some other. --Ex13 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The flag is a Croatian nationalist invention unilaterally instituted to promote Croatian political aims (namely a third division of the monarchy, and unification with Dalmatia, and later Bosnia). It is illegal about as much as the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", also unilaterally instituted in some periods by the Croat nationalists (at times supported by Hungary). The only reason we're talking about this nonsense flag at all is that the Hungarians allowed such things as part of their policy aimed at getting their hands on the Austrian littoral (Dalmatia). As far as Austria-Hungary on the whole is concerned, its a joke. I don't mind it in the article, but it should not be made into more than it was. (The CoA is not disputed, and was recognized by the Empire. A flag containing it was not.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your personal opinions on the subject.--Ex13 (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing yours. Suggestion: you could do without the sarcastic "thank yous" after every post. From now on I'll just assume you're grateful, k? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Language (again)[edit]

"Distribution of Races in Austria-Hungary" from the Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1911, based on Austro-Hungarian census data which only recorded language

The language was not Croatian, believe it or not. This discussion is long over and yet once again you waltz in, edit and start edit-warring to push your nationalist POV. When asked to discuss, you sneer at the suggestion. Simply providing two links does not mean the text is "sourced". You can forget about the Nagodba because 1) it cannot be used in demographic issues and 2) only states that Croatia-Slavonia will have the right on its own language. The other source links to the article... so I'd say they're both a joke.

The sources provided next to the "Croatian or Serbian" language entry are high-quality sources citing Austro-Hungarian census data. I'm afraid there is no question here and no discussion to be had. Austro-Hungarian official documents never, ever use "Croatian language" because no distinction existed at the time between Croatian and Serbian. The language is always listed as "Croatian or Serbian". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ex13 (a.k.a. User:Suradnik13), your behavior so far has been, in my personal view, intolerable. You have thus far instigated edit-wars on three articles, you've disregarded discussions and have decided to simply push your edits with revert-warring. You've disregarded all pleas to wait for the discussion results and some sort of consensus. You simply edit, and then if someone should have any objections you will revert-war until your version stands on top. Your modus operandi is that of a standard-issue nationalist POV-pusher, the kind we see all to often on these articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If there are five high-quality references (university publications, primary sources) that say "the sun is yellow", and you arrive with a source that says "the sun is blue", you cannot simply write "the sun is blue, yellow" and then cry "don't write against sources!" when someone removes that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Your census data argument makes no sense. The 1910/1911 census data only recorded language. But we clearly have detailed, separate census figures for Croatian speakers and Serbian speakers. Therefore, it recorded the two as separate. Who cares if some cartographer specializing in the Americas thought that Croatian and Serbian are the same? That's not what the census data itself says, regardless of what some commentators said after the fact. All of the Croatian data can be seen on a single page here.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged violations of verifiability[edit]

In the infobox I put the date about the language (Croatian)- [2] - referenced with two sources.

In Mark Biondich's book on page 9 it clearly stands "Croatian became the official language of administration, and it could be used by forty Croatian deputies assigned to the Hungarian parliament when Croatian matters were being discussed." In that book there is no mention of Croatian or Serbian language.

In the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement, that I also used as the source of information, in the Art. 56-59 it clearly stands: "In the whole territory of Croatia-Slavonia the Croatian language is the language alike of the Legislature, the Administration and the Judicature." No mention of Croatian or Serbian language.

Several times DIREKTOR revert that information, and at the end he makes this edit. Croatian or Serbian is referenced with Biondich's book, but that is not written in this book.


All I can say is that DIREKTOR violated several wiki-policies, inter alia Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

And then he makes personal attacks on me. Because i removed his POV from the text.--Ex13 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


I've attacked your edit-warring, not you personally, so do not make silly accusations just for the sake of it. Since all Austro-Hungarian official sources use "Croatian or Serbian", you'll have to keep your rabid ethnic hatred in check for now, I'm afraid. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And where is the source for that? As you now, William R. Shepherd is not an Austro-Hungarian offical. Secondly, that maps shows races, or ethnics. "Croats and Serbs" is something quite different from Croatian language and Serbian language, or so called Croato-Serbian. But these are some basic terms that you probably do not know or do not understand. So please, be so kind and put the Croatian back in the infobox.--Ex13 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some four or five sources in the article, yet you refuse to address them at all. In fact, you've been acting as if the university publications and Austro-Hungarian censi don't even exist. Perhaps I should find them in picture form so as to make it easier? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DIRECTOR in his edit correctly added/wrote whole source (full name of author, name of book, ISBN) instead of earlier partial, but he removed page number on which everybody can see that he is falsifying sources (writing Croatian or Serbian, when in source used on page 9 is clearly written: Croatian become official language...). Review/check of other sources is pending. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Language issue[edit]

It is pretty obvious the source was there completely by mistake, I was fixing Ex13's source entry and forgot to remove the whole thing when I rewrote the text. Please do check the sources. Ex13's offensive section titles are not something I am going to put-up with. If he changes them back, as I know he will, I'm going to the admins immediately. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Offensive section title? :) Well i dont like your infringements of verifiability policy. Please be so kind and return referenced edits, or i will go to the admins--Ex13 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Let me clarify my point once more: 1) both names were used in Croatia-Slavonia...

  • Frucht, Richard; Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture; ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 1-57607-800-0
    • "In the early 1830s Zagreb became both the political and cultural center of the Croat lands. However, the Illyrianist awakeners first had to contend with the name of the spoken language. They initially referred to it as 'Illyrian' and later as 'Croatian or Serbian'. For the remainder of the 19th century the language was referred to as 'Croatian' or 'Croatian or Serbian'."

2) ...but on the whole all Austro-Hungarian institutions and official documents used the name "Croatian or Serbian", simply as there was no way to make out the difference between the two languages. See here for example an excerpt on Dalmatia:

  • Roy Porter, Mikuláš Teich; The National question in Europe in historical context; Cambridge University Press, 1993 ISBN 0-52136-713-1
    • "In the twenty years from 1861 to 1882, Croatian or Serbian had become the public language of the educated classes, but the struggle to have it confirmed as the official language had to continue. (...) The situation changes with the progress of the national revival, and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883."

This is why we have what only seems as a contradiction of sources. The fact of the matter is that on an official level this Austro-Hungarian language is named "Croatian or Serbian". This language, however, was "decidedly more Croatian than Serbian, but the name remained a hybrid". (I could add these two sources to the article but it would be too many for the infobox.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883" - Well the source is wrong, because Croatian language became official in 1868.--Ex13 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparent "contradiction"[edit]

As I have already said (before any of the sources were presented by Ex13 and Speedy): there is no contradiction, and all of these sources are high-quality and perfectly correct. I've explained the matter once more on Speedy's talkpage so I'll repeat it here again. "Croatian or Serbian" and "Croatian" in this context are two names for the same language. This is not about languages, but about language names.

One name, 1) "Croatian language" is used only within the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and within that kingdom we also have the usage of the name "Croatian or Serbian language". The name 2) "Croatian or Serbian language" is used within Croatia-Slavonia, but everywhere outside the kingdom (for example in the Kingdom of Dalmatia) we have exclusive usage of this name in all capacities.

Now, having established that we are faced with the question: which name do we use for this language? So far I've supported the use of the name "Croatian or Serbian". This is for one primary reason: because official Austro-Hungarian documents and censi use this name. However, if you are insistent on including the name "Croatian language" as well, I must insist that a note be made of two things: 1) that the name is only used internally within the Kingdom, and 2) that the name is used for one and the same langauge as the name "Croatian or Serbian", as we are certainly not talking about two languages here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No contradiction at all[edit]

This is article about kingdom which now doesn't exist, and arguing that something should be this or that when that kingdom is long gone is actually called revisionism. We should write (or describe it) as it was, as accurately as we can, and to sources you so arrogantly deleted (your sources are good, other are bad, isn't it?), I can add only this ...They (Sabor) also discussed what to call the standard language used in Croatia and Slavonia: of four proposals (vernacular, Croatian-Slavonian, Croatian or Serbian, Yugoslav) the name 'Yugoslav' was accepted by majority vote. The next year, the Croatian court chancellery annulled this decision and settled on the name 'Croatian' for the language. Ivo Goldstein, "Croatia: A History", C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1999, ISBN 1-85065-525-1, page 79 SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly subsection No.4 :)[edit]

You still did not read my post completely. Or at least, you are certainly not responding to what I wrote. Please, can you please read what I wrote above and on your talkpage more carefully. The sources are not in conflict. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sensing anger? Is there anything I can do to quell that temper? :) Speedy, please oh please read my post! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag issue[edit]

Well that DIREKTOR's edit is not completely accurate. Its true that viceroy or ban issued the Decree. But that decree was issued only for the purpose of implementation of the Article 61 of the Nagodba. Please see once again Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems: "According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement"

Please put the state flag in the infobox, as it was --Ex13 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


The text is crystal clear:
  • 1) "The red-white-blue tricolour is the civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia," 2) "which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is the official flag for usage in autonomic affairs."
The Nagodba text is a false source. Your interpretation is a stretch of the imagination.
  • "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia can, within their own frontiers in their internal affairs, use their own combined colours and coat of arms, the latter, however, being surmounted by the Crown of St. Stephen."
It is plain that this text in no way states that the flag itself must have a coat of arms, it merely states that the coat of arms has to be surmounted by the Crown of St. Stephen. Shall we stop with your false sources? Can ya stop talking about the Nagodba for now?
P.S. I've separated the two discussions into their respective sections for practical reasons, shall we use these titles and discuss in a civil manner? Or shall we write massive/offensive titles every half an hour? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nagodba text is a false source? Nagodba is of constitutional importance, more relevant then decree. The Decree is just implementational legislation . Every lawyer knows that.

Secondly, as i said above. Please see the flag in the article about Kingdom of Hungary. There is flag with CoA, not civil flag. --Ex13 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthem[edit]

Does anyone have a source for Lijepa Nasa being the anthem? -- Director (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't. The official anthem of the kingdom, as was for the entire Austria-Hungary (and Austrian Empire before that), was the Kaiserhymne, with Croatian lyrics. The first time Lijepa Naša was performed was in 1891. in some trade exhibit, but that was of course in unofficial manner. From that point on it was regularly performed in various manifestations as a unofficial anthem. [3] Shokatz (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal (September 2013)[edit]

I think the Triune Kingdom article should be merged into this article. This article identifies the official name of the kingdom as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, unofficially also referred simply as Triune Kingdom" and since the term Triune Kingdom hardly applied to anything else besides the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (except perhaps when applied anachronistically. Does the community support the merger?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not. -- Director (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I support this. This entire article can easily be incorporated into the said article...including the historical background for the term and it's use. If anything it will increase the depth of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. Shokatz (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No, even if you want to treat this as a term that described merely this kingdom's territorial pretense towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia, it was a political concept in its own right, not really an essential characteristic of this entity that can't have its own article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
But its a political concept of this Kingdom about this Kingdom.. -- Director (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It was more general - it's a Croatian nationalist concept that existed both before the 1868 Settlement and within Dalmatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You do have a point there.. still, if its not expanded I mildly favor a merge of the topic here. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If we talk about the term itself it refers only to one thing and that is the same subject of this article precisely. If we talk about the concept then it should be a part of currently non-existent Croatian National Revival article and it should be completely differently composed, toned and titled. The way the Triune Kingdom is written at this moment (including the title itself), it is appropriate only as a sub-section of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article and nothing else. Shokatz (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with the composition and tone of the Triune Kingdom article as it is now? How is it not clear from it that it's a concept more general than this article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)