Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject European history (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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 Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) 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.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Personal union & the Pacta conventa controversy[edit]

There are two issues that I think need to be dealt with for good.

  • "Croatian historians argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king, while Hungarian historians insist that Croatia was conquered."
    • Yes but what does the majority say? What do the non-Croatian and non-Hungarian international scholars have to say on the issue?
    • Similarly, what of the Pacta conventa? Is it, or is it not, a "forgery"? What do the majority of (non-local) historians have to say?

-- Director (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The need to vet local sources with non-local historians is silly. Having been exposed to several North American universities, I can tell you with certainty than nobody gives a f***. Foreign historians simply have not studied these issues independently. They rely on local historians either directly or indirectly (they essentially piggy-back on whatever local research has already been done - no one is conducting primary research into these issues). The only means to resolve such disputes is to rectify the local accounts imho.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Noone? Really? -- Director (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but not a huge one. My main qualm is with the idea that domestic sources are inferior. How many foreign historians could we find that have an exhaustive knowledge of the history of Croatia? Very few. There's a reason we consistently rely on people like Tomasevich, Ramet and Tanner (one of them being a Croat no less). There simply aren't too many experts on the subject at any foreign university. The Hungarian situation is likely a bit better, but I doubt by much. In the preceding discussion (Pacta Conventa - forgery) there's a few citations from various books, but they each entail only a few sentences. None of them make a particularly compelling case - in fact, none of these citations give any rationale for why it is or isn't a fake ("it is because I/they say so").
It is infinitely better to incorporate more exhaustive domestic sources (prijatelju, it's the year 2012 - forget this lame "nationalism" argument) than foreign sources which give the topic only a cursory mention. If no concensus can be gathered from the domestic sources, then that's what should be presented. Anything else is original research.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Common sense, Wanderer. Both of them can't possibly be right, which means one of these groups of local sources is definitely "inferior". And the nationality of these historians is what defines them as a group ("Hungarian historians"). This means that either all Croatian local sources or all Hungarian local sources are pursuing the exact same respective POV due to their nationality. Think on that for a moment: an entire nation's worth of historians, publishing information that's dead wrong - because they're local. This case is in excellent example of why local sources can sometimes be inferior. Or are you suggesting that, in either Croatia or Hungary, all scholars are making the same honest mistake? -- Director (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Things aren't so simple - historical "truth" isn't always so objective that there can't exist uncertainty (especially during this particular period of European historian). I haven't looked at the sources, so I can't say that every Croatian historian is saying one thing, and every Hungarian is saying another. I'm positive that you haven't looked at very many of them either, but are making simplified assumptions. Regardless, the idea that entire nations are operating in bad faith is preposterous. If there is a lack of consensus, that's what should be presented and why. If the issue hasn't been resolved by historians (and it certainly hasn't, whether domestic or foreign) then Wikipedia users should not have the arrogance to think they can do it themselves.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, the fact that two groups of local authors, defined by their nationality, hold differing views virtually without exception, must be caused by some deep epistemological reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they coincidentally all belong to the same respective nation... Come now Wanderer. -- Director (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

territorial extent of Tomislav's realm[edit]

In an effort to preempt another revert war with DIREKTOR... I wrote much of the "blanked content" over at the relevant article. Anonymous user copied and pasted it over here, and did it in the wrong section - in the Decline and fall section, meaning the 1000s, whereas the discussion of Tomislav means 925, and is mentioned in the "Establishment" section. The anonymous user was even sloppy enough to forget amending the sentence "Tomislav's state extended from the Adriatic Sea to the Drava river, and from the Raša river to the Drina river". That essentially made this article a hodgepodge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And, the whole discussion is not particularly pertinent here, because the extent of the kingdom changed significantly at least once inbetween - with Petar Krešimir IV, it was supposedly even larger. This article should present a complete picture about the matter of changing territorial borders, rather than a series of incongruous paragraphs slapped together via Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Its a very interesting piece of text, great work. Could you put together a slightly shorter version for this article? It's definitely relevant, as it concerns the original extent of the Kingdom, and any text that properly treats Croatian history of this period is worth it's weight in gold, so to speak (as opposed to another national myth out of touch with reality). It should be included in a significant way.
As regards the section title - that text specifically deals with the historical unification controversy as such, describing various views. I'm afraid I can't agree to your new title, as it is inappropriate with regard to the subject. -- Director (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It's actually not that comprehensive, because the gist of it would be assessment by a lot of authors found on Google Books, who aren't necessarily the end-all authorities on the topic, so I'm wary of summarizing this set of opinions over here, which might make it seem like that's a comprehensive summary. Giving a lot of weight to the discussion of the 1993 map seems undue - with the benefit of hindsight. I'd be much happier to be able to cite a set of secondary sources that discusses the exact matter in modern context. For example, an actual discussion of Raukar's latest work, rather than this vague sentence about it that we have there now.
The new section title is okay, my aim was merely to prevent a repeat of the anonymous editor's mistake - at the time the section was called just "Controversies", which is too generic for its own good. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 18:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102), it would be more accurate title, because the text contains the history of Croatia until 1102 (the union with Hungary), however the medieval period lasted longer (c. 1526). --Norden1990 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Er-vet-en (say) 11:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Is "Kingdom of the Croats" more common? Are the two dates (925 and 1102) widely accepted? --Երևանցի talk 02:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I think "Kingdom of Croatia" is more common (here). José Luiz talk 09:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There are several Kingdoms of Croatia: Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. What I meant is if "Kingdom of the Croats" was the best or most common name of this particular kingdom, which according to the article lasted from 925 to 1102. --Երևանցի talk 19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just read the above[edit]

Agh, damn it! I can't be everywhere at once.. Fellas, Yerevantsi was correct: nobody knows when this kingdom was founded. Some say its "925", but the only reason that date is used is because there's a letter of dubious authenticity(!), allegedly(!) from that year, referring to Tomislav as "king" (rex). That is all. Nobody really knows when he was crowned, where, by whom, or even if he was crowned at all. The kingdom did eventually come into existence, but its not really known when exactly, or who was the first "king". The first ruler we definitely know was cronwned was Stephen Drzislav, but I suppose this was kinda suppressed in the historical mythos of the 19th century nationalists - since he was crowned by the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor. Nobody agrees on whether the country ceased to exist in 1102 either, or entered a personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary. These dates are misleading and dubious. The idea behind "(Medieval)" was that this article was to cover the whole of the period up until 1527, but now even the separate Croatia in union with Hungary article was recreated..

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)Kingdom of Croatia – Proposing we simply move this article to "Kingdom of Croatia" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and keep Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) under disambig with a note atop the article - while explaining the dubious continuity after 1102. We can then include the Hungarian period into its scope (with Croatia in union with Hungary either deleted or kept as a sub-article). The current title, as I said, contains dubious dating: nobody really knows when the Kingdom started, or whether it ended in 1102.

Alternatively, we could rename it into Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, which was its latest known official name. Either options are fine with me (pls state which option you support/oppose). -- Director (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I support it. In fact this WAS the official name of the kingdom at that time as there are quite a few documents referring to Croatia-Dalmatia as a single unit. However I would disagree on linking directly from this page to Kingdom of Hungary as a successive state after 1102 for the reasons I mentioned in the edit summary. Croatia maintained a separate identity and a form of autonomy from Hungary which is confirmed by several factors: most important being that Croatia separately made a choice of choosing Habsburgs as kings in 1526/1527, choosing separate kings (Angevins) in the succession crisis after the last Árpád dynasty kings, different coronation ceremonies until at least 14th century and last but not least the fact Croatia had native magnates like Subic and Babonic (Blagai/Blagaj) families who were also at the same time some of the most powerful magnates in the entire Archiregnum Hungariae. Both the Croatian and Hungarian historiography recognizes the fact Croatia maintained it's separate identity and autonomy and was not just a provincial part of Kingdom of Hungary. As for making definitive statements about the letter mentioning Tomislav as king, I have read and heard this quite a few times - how this letter is questioned and supposedly dubious. Questioned by whom? Dubious why? As far as I know the letter is today kept in the official Vatican archives and bears a Papal insignia. Vatican considers it a valid historical document, so why shouldn't we? Now I agree we don't know when he was crowned, but the fact remains, Pope John X by all accounts does refer to him as Rex (eng: King) in a letter to him. Shokatz (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Public Schools Historical Atlas - Europe 13th century.jpg
  • Personal union. Let's not get into WP:OR here. Take your pick from the Croatian, Hungarian, third-party sources that state plainly that there is a dispute about the existence of a personal union [1]. I have not seen one source deny this and claim consensus on the issue exists. But either way, the post-1102 state overall is called the Kingdom of Hungary in 99.9% of existing sources. The Kingdom of Hungary was the post-1102 sovereign authority that succeeded here, and sovereign entities are listed as successors to sovereign entities, not subdivisions. Its time to acknowledge the fact that, to all intents and purposes, and no matter which side is right - Croatia did effectively become a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Did you know, for example, that the Coat of arms of Dubrovnik comes from the Arpad coa?
  • Tomislav. Again, we don't need OR stuff. The Tomislavgrad coronation nonsense is a fairy tale, and I'm not about to question university-published scholarly sources on this. If he says its a spurious letter - then that's what he says (the link is in the article). And it fits very nicely with the "we know absolutely nothing" theme that surrounds Tomislav and the early Croatian state in general. -- Director (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing WP:OR in what I pointed out. This what it stands in the Kingdom of Hungary article about the relationship: The provinces of Croatia and Slavonia, and after 1868 the autonomous province of Croatia-Slavonia had autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary from 1091–1918.[1][2][3][4][5] Also, one of the greatest Hungarian jurists and statesmen of the 16th century, István Werbőczy in his work Tripartitum treats Croatia as a kingdom separate to Hungary. It is accepted by both Croatian and Hungarian historiography that it is a fact Croatia was a separate entity in all legal matters from the rest of the kingdom. There is no dispute about this. As for Tomislav, I again repeat that the mentioned letter is undisputed despite it's allegedly "dubious" and "questioned" nature. I am not talking when and where was he crowned...I am talking about the letter which clearly says he WAS a king, at least the Pope refers to him as such. And BTW I actually do know where the Dubrovnik CoA originates from. I was the one who actually provided this information to Wikipedia on both the Coat of arms of Croatia and Coat of arms of Dubrovnik....remember? Stop being so condescending for once...
But let's say I agree (as do the Croatian and Hungarian historiographers) Croatia did become a part of a larger entity which we call Kingdom of least leave the link pointing out to Croatia in the union with Hungary. The set of these links is there to establish a line of succession. Shokatz (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
#1 We're supposed to incorporate the period here, and #2 that article is supposed to be a period article, not a historical entity article. Regarding Tomislav, I say again: the source states the authenticity of the letter is disputed - I'm not going to question the source. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not on analyzing primary ones. That's a job for historians. But if we are going there, a single solitary address in a letter, even if authentic, is a very weak source to claim the existence of an entire kingdom at that time. People flattered each-other in letters. As for the date: We're basing the start date of this state on the date a letter, which may not even be authentic, addressed the guy as "king". For all we know, even if the letter is fine - he may have been king for years at that point. -- Director (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
See this is where I can also write that the sources provided do not agree with that statement of yours. I have just quoted you the entire paragraph from Kingdom of Hungary which: a.) states it was a separate entity and b.) that it was a political entity with different legal system. I agree that 925 is a dubious date but the fact that Pope John X does mention him as a King is accepted as a you can see these are two different things. The same can be said about Pacta Conventa f.e. where the preserved document itself is dubious but the actual state of the matter is accepted as a fact by both Croatian and Hungarian historiography. Shokatz (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source that states its accepted? But even if you do, there's still no reason to exclude the opposing view... -- Director (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact modern Croatian historiography commonly accepts him as the first king which extends to other historiographies shows it is in fact accepted. The only one who disputed it was in fact Fine who is provided as a source here at Wikipedia. Fine disputes the authenticity of the letter solely on the fact that it's not the original but the fact that it is a transcription. However Fine fails to disapprove the authenticity and to even give a valid explanation how and why would the Vatican and Papacy falsify such a thing and even include it into their official archives. BTW the letter is included in the Patrologia Latina volume 132, among huge number of other historical correspondence and official documents. Now again I repeat, it is not the question whether he was mentioned as a king, what IS disputed is: when did this supposed coronation happen, what were the circumstances and if indeed it even happened; and whether Pope John X referred to him as king only out of courtesy or as a shrewd diplomatic move in some grand scheme of his...however we do NOT know, we only know John X did refer to him as such. Shokatz (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't give a fig about the Vatican or "modern Croatian historiography", its their fabrications I'm struggling to work around. Even if you had some source that supports your claims about their position, which you do not - all I see is WP:SYNTH. Do you or do you not have some sources that affirm a consensus of some sort on the question? Or that defend the authenticity of the letter? Or discuss the subject of its accuracy at all?
And incidentally, the fact that we have no idea what the original of the letter stated invalidates it in many respects. -- Director (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't give a fig about you not giving a fig, ok? You are the one claiming something, not me, thus the burden of proof is on you. Modern historiography accepts it as a fact. This means it is a consensus among historians. Now it is not my problem but your problem and your problem alone that you cannot distinguish between whether something said is dubious and the document itself on which it was stated being dubious. These are two different things. You need to start reading with understanding. Shokatz (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And I couldn't give a half a fig about you not giving a fig about me not giving a fig. get it? :)
No, look - my position is sourced: the letter is a transcript of dubious authenticity. Can you provide any other sources that discuss the letter's authenticity? -- Director (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol...ok let me sum this up: 1. You stated the year of 925 is dubious - I agreed with you (even added a footnote which is now again removed), 2. you stated we don't know when, where, why and even if he was crowned - I agreed with you. Now since it's obvious we agree almost completely, except on the label of John X referring to him as Tamislao, rege Chroatorum as dubious (which is dubious by itself but also more importantly completely irrelevant and minor issue here), I am not completely sure what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this ridiculous exchange. I tried to explain it to you, but you seem to be steadfast in your stubbornness to argue just to argue. If you wish to discuss real issues I am here. Shokatz (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
All I'm saying is you can't post syntheses. If a very reliable, high-quality, third-party, university source says the thing is a transcript and of disputed authenticity - then to counter that you need a source that at least discusses the latter's authenticity (and preferably comes to the opposing conclusion). That's my point... you can't vaguely quote "Croatian scholarship" and say it supports you - you need a source that says so. And even if you had one - it could be argued its better to keep to non-Croatian sources (WP:THIRDPARTY). -- Director (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The KoCroatia seems to have been an effective Byzantine dependency (an emperor is a sovereign to a king) until 1076. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, according to who? Is this widely accepted? As I recall, that view certainly isn't widely present in both domestic and foreign literature, and seems to stem from your own interpretations, motivation or (at best) very selective reliance on subjective research. Prove me wrong, please do cite all the contemporary bibliography in significant quantity that consistently state that Croatia was a "effectively dependent until 1076", from all the most relevant sources used. Could you define dependency and "vassalage"? Until that time, that statement is void. Revert.
Fair enough. -- Director (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No, i don't think this is enough by a long shot. You cited a (outdated) source from 1848, written by a person who is neither an expert on Balkan history, nor a relevant historian for the subject at hand; John Gardner Wilkinson What we're looking for here are contemporary historians, whose work is proficient and expertised at the subject at matter (Florin Curta, Šišić, Klaić, Neven Budak, Fine, Raukar, Margetić etc.), while you cited a book published in 1848 that deals with the accounts of the person's travel. I also don't see how something like this is necessary to put in the infobox, the county's status can vary drastically from one point to another, such can be inferred from the text itself. since I already explained above, no need to reiterate further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Er-vet-en (talkcontribs)

Yes, in official documents it was entitled as "Croatiae et Dalmatiae", but that was just the way the kings added titles for their realm. For example Bela IV had: "Bela Dei gratia Hungarie, Croachie, Dalmatie, Rame, Seruie, Galitie, Lodomerie Cumanieque rex", Tvrtko had (in latin) "Stephanus Tuertcho dei gratia rex Rascie, Bosne Maritimeque etc."... We can't really call an article that way. (Tzowu (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

Agreed. Besides, the title "King of Croatia and Dalmatia" wasn't present throughout the whole lifespan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Er-vet-en (talkcontribs)
The title need not be accurate for the whole lifespan, and the name of this entity changed continuously. In actual fact, the last name of the historical entity is often the one selected.
While a king may add kingdom titles to his name, a kingdom itself is not referred to by all his titles.
All that said, I'm fine with just "Kingdom of Croatia" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. How do you folks view that possibility? Either way these dates are spurious. There is no evidence whatsoever that the state started in 925: for all we know it could have been years earlier or decades later. And the 1102 date is disputed as the end date as well. Plus, it would allow for a more flexible scope. -- Director (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved back to Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)[edit]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't have any opinion one way or another, but as Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) was the name chosen through a requested move, it shouldn't be moved unless another discussion finds a different consensus. It appears we don't have any consensus here, so I've restored the article. If you think another name is better, feel free to start up a new RM.--Cúchullain t/c 14:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

With due respect, I think you're unnecessarily introducing a layer of WP:BURO here. An organic, informal consensus about different scope of this article (among editors with quite different POVs) has been starting to emerge, and I don't see why you don't let it end up one way or another. User:DIREKTOR made a WP:BOLD move, and he hasn't been reverted by at least three users watching this page (Shokatz, Er-vet-en and Tzowu, who all edited the article and talk page in the meantime). I don't see the basis for your statement that "we don't have any consensus here" -- there is a lot of debate about a lot of issues, but the article scope doesn't seem to be one. There is no rule set in stone that "something moved by a RM may only be moved further by a RM", and "you don't have consensus for this" should not be used as reason for a revert. No such user (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not going to be the one to do anything that could be construed as a move war.. :) -- Director (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Letting it end up one way or another" is fine, however, in this case, DIREKTOR moved the article before anyone else had a chance to weigh in, and certainly before consensus had emerged. Certainly not a big deal, but I definitely don't see that a consensus has emerged (yet) from the above discussion - in fact editors are still vigorously discussing two alternate titles. When a substantial change has been instituted following a consensus of editors, especially this recently, their views should be respected enough that it's not just undone without a new consensus emerging. This doesn't have to be through a new RM, necessarily, but it would definitely be useful in getting a wider audience, and allow the discussion to be closed by a neutral party.--Cúchullain t/c 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I admit the things are rolling up too fast for me (and many others) to follow. Ahh, just standard Direktor's MO: "Look, we had whole 6 hours of debate, reached a consensus, moved 6 articles around, merged three, removed 40 kB of text and added 70 kB elsewhere? You disagree? Too bad..." OK, what's done is done, if we ultimately find a consensus, we can move it ourselves. No such user (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Nsu, one only needs an RM if a move is "controversial". I wanted to see if its controversial. When I moved the thing I said "good-faith move, feel free to revert". What's the damn problem? -- Director (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not say there was a problem with your move, on the contrary, I objected to Cuchullain's move back. I'm just saying that the amount of editing and number of debated topics here and on Talk:Croatia in the union with Hungary is a bit too much for my feeble mind to consume. My reference to your MO was only half-serious (in particular, recalling how Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia... OMG, I typed it right in first attempt!... got its currrent title) No such user (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

'Kingdom of Croatia' or 'Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia'?[edit]

I want to post an RM, and I'm pretty much ambivalent about this, but which is most preferred the alternative title? -- Director (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Look Shokatz, I know what you do around here and how you do it. Be aware that only a user with no understanding of policy or what it means would randomly quote WP:V as you did [2]. It raises some strange questions. I have already explained that the sources clearly indicate an uncertainly over the existence of a "personal union" established in 1102. And that I have not seen a single solitary source that in any way indicates a consensus on the matter exists. In either case, we do not list subdivisions as successors in the relevant infobox parameters. Much less uncertain, semi-ethereal subdivisions. The entity post-1102 is universally known as the Kingdom of Hungary. Sources can and have been found by the wagon-load for all of this

I have fixed the ridiculous lead of this article and brought it in accordance with its own section on the subject. I've brought in additional sources explaining the disputed nature of the personal union, and can easily provide more. I will say again that post-1102 - the country here is known as the Kingdom of Hungary. -- Director (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what WP:V means. Unless you are able to provide "wagon-load" of sources which clearly and undoubtedly prove that Croatia completely ceased to exist i.e. was outright annexed and treated as a mere province of Kingdom of Hungary proper, then you would have a case. Unfortunately, there are none. The sources you call upon clearly state that it is the nature of the union that is the case of the dispute not that the union itself. Whatever that union might have been. Shokatz (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You have no idea what WP:V is about, and are just randomly quoting it. All sources in the article are verifiable and reliable.
Nobody is claiming Croatia "ceased to exist i.e. was outright annexed and treated as a mere province of Kingdom of Hungary proper". That's a straw man argument. So of course there are none.
"Union" does not mean "personal union", you misunderstand the source. A personal union is a very specific kind of union where its only the person of the king that is the same for two countries. Noone disputes there was some kind of "union".
Either way, as I said, the sovereign entity that comes out of the events of 1102 is known as the Kingdom of Hungary. You agreed to this. Stop revert-warring. -- Director (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention going into a discussion about semantics. WP:V is clearly stating: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The sources you provided and all sources available on the subject clearly state Croatia was NOT incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary but became it's associate state or territory. Now unless you have, as you said, a "wagon-load" of sources which can prove your claim directly, you should refrain from editing. Shokatz (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ugghhh this is just embarrassing.. Stop quoting WP:V. All sources quoted here are verifiable per policy. You need to educate yourself with regard to WP policy if you're going to discuss or edit here. You also should read up on what exactly constitutes a straw man argument.
According to one view of the events, Croatia was indeed "incorporated" into Hungary. This is stated clearly by about six sources quoted here, whether you pretend otherwise or not. Nobody claims it was declared a "province". Either way - the sovereign entity that comes out of the events of 1102 is known as the Kingdom of Hungary. Acknowledge the sources and stop edit-warring. -- Director (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
First you should stop telling me what to read and your entire condescending act. I know exactly what I am quoting and why. What you are trying to push here is not verifiable by any source, in fact quite the opposite. There is not one or the other view of the events, the issue here is not the nature of how the union came to be or it's nature, but whether it existed or not which is acknowledged fact by all sources present. Shokatz (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No you do not know what you're quoting. The policy you're quoting is entirely immaterial to this argument. You are simply using the word "verifiable" without any understanding of what it indicates either here or in general.
It is NOT "acknowledged by all sources" that a PERSONAL union existed. That is an outright lie and fabrication on your part. A childish refusal to accept what is sourced. A "union" is not the same thing as a "personal union". The sources discuss the nature of the "union" and whether or not it was "personal". If you're having trouble with the professional English in the relevant publications, I'd be happy to provide a direct translation. -- Director (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining me what I know. I will repeat this once more - we are not discussing the nature of the union (whether personal or not), nor how did such a union came to be (by conquest or willingly), the issue here is that Kingdom of Croatia did not cease to exist i.e. was outright incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary proper. This is acknowledge fact by all sources present. I am still waiting for the wagon-load of sources which prove otherwise. Shokatz (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. For some reason you still quote WP:V, though. Is that what you do? Pick a random policy and obstinately claim an edit "violates" it, then edit war until you "win"? I'm sure that works for you on obscure Balkans articles. No dice this time, though.
The Kingdom of Croatia did cease to exist as a sovereign entity. Do you understand that? A king having a title "king of Croatia" does not mean there was a country by that name in existence.
The sources are in the article. They clearly state that the existence of a personal union is disputed. What kind of silly sources are you waiting for?? Ones that claim Croatia was deleted off the map or some such nonsense? No it wasn't. There certainly remained a title of "king of Croatia", and the region enjoyed some autonomy. Noone disputes this. But it was not a sovereign entity from that point onward. The successor sovereign entity is the Kingdom of Hungary. -- Director (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And yet the article clearly states Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. which clearly shows Kingdom of Croatia did not completely cease to exist as a sovereign entity. To quote your favorite saying it is disputed. And please do not project on me. I had enough of your bullying and your scare-tactics...if you think that you will impose your POV by edit-warring and reverting without any verifiable sources claiming a consensus was reached when it was not...then you are gravely mistaken. Shokatz (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Please.. "independent agent" does not indicate it was a separate state, that's more of your OR. Either way the entity as a whole was known as Kingdom of Hungary. I've posted on your talk, lets try to resolve this. As a professional, I can assure you I did not "project" on you in any way. And.. I'm not sure you're using the term appropriately. -- Director (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The term independent agent refers to junior partner in the Personal union terminology. Junior partners and even vassals retain certain sovereign rights which means they do not completely cease to exist as such [sovereign entities]. Also the issue is also that Hungary does not refer only to Hungary proper (the early medieval Kingdom) but also to it's associate states such as Croatia and Transylvania, the use of the name has different application in medieval terminology. There is Hungary as Archiregnum (Arch-Kingdom) or Lands of the Hungarian (St.Stephen) Crown, and then there is Hungary as a Hungary proper. In any case I now consider the issue to be resolved...I only wish this was resolved in a more civilized manner. Shokatz (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"The term independent agent refers to junior partner in the Personal union terminology." Really, says you? :) Of course it doesn't. That's just a random claim on your part, and you probably know it yourself. The sources clearly state the personal union is a matter of dispute.
Croatia did not "cease to exist" it wasn't "annihilated", Još Hrvatska ni propala, blah blah etc... yes we all agree Croatia wasn't "annihilated", that doesn't make it sovereign. And you can probably stop posting such nonsense from now on, please. Its an annoyingly repetitive straw man, and nothing more.
The issue is not resolved, since the Kingdom of Croatia did not, in fact, split into two parts, one independent and another controlled by the Kingdom of Hungary. And that's what is indicated by our current infobox.
You could, if you wished, stop with these random historical claims of your own devising. Hungary is one thing, Transylvania another, etc. But the entity that united them all in the post-1102 period - including Croatia and Dalmatia - is called the Kingdom of Hungary in historiography.
The most blatant issue here is that Croatia in union with Hungary isn't a historical country article, but merely a period article. And can not be presented as a "successor state". I.e. even if there was a personal union, that article would be inappropriate. -- Director (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So explain to us, oh you great professional, what does the independent agent means exactly? I would really like to hear it. Does it means Croatia went rogue according to you? I mean if it was incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary, how could it act as an independent agent or even just as a mere vassal?!? And you still fail to understand that Archiregnum Hungariae is today translated in English (due to limited nature of English language) as Kingdom of Hungary. The meaning is much wider, it refers to the lands under Arpady dynasty, not Hungary proper. The term was later defined as Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. I have even found at least half a dozen mainstream sources from respected Hungarian historians who all agree personal union was real. All you have is bunch of third party sources which all claim there is some sort of dispute about it, not mentioning who, why and how are they disputing it.
Mainstream Hungarian and Croatian historiography both agree Croatia and Hungary had separate coronation ceremonies until at least mid-13th century, different laws and legal framework, Croatian nobility kept their lands, there was a special royally appointed Ban (Viceroy) who was the face and voice of the king in Croatia, there was never any significant settlement (colonization) of Magyars (Hungarians) anywhere in Croatia, Croatia and Hungary had even separate kings at one point (see Charles Martel of Anjou and Charles I of Hungary), Parliament on Cetin who, as you said, rubber-stamped their own autonomous decision to support Ferdinand as King of Croatia, etc., etc.... These all prove Croatia and Hungary were separate entities and Kingdom of Hungary article (as it is now) cannot be described as a successor state in its current state, ever.
Now I would accept Archiregnum Hungariae as successor state since that would be 100% historically correct, but I cannot accept the current article Kingdom of Hungary as a successor state because it is focused solely on Hungary proper and encompasses periods when Croatia was not even affiliated with Hungary, plus there is nothing in that article which discuss this union or anything about Croatia and the relations between these two entities. Croatia was not part of Hungary, it was part of Hungarian Crown, two different things. Shokatz (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A part of the Kingdom of Croatia was incorporated in the Kingdom of Hungary, specificaly Northern Croatia and Slavonia so the successor part is now good. Of course, not for the reasons mentioned above.(Tzowu (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC))

That's just you posting your "theories" again. How can any respectable source claim that parts of the Kingdom of Croatia were "incorporated into Hungary" when it isn't even known whether these two were somehow separate? Can you source your claim? It seems to be based entirely on a confused reading of the rather complex historical narrative (i.e. Ladislaus taking Pannonian regions much earlier).
There was no "partition", and the infobox is highly misleading in that regard. The point, which I keep repeating, is that "Kingdom of Hungary" is the name for this state overall from 1102 onward. Hopefully, though, we can circumvent this problem through the below move proposal. -- Director (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, and seriously, cut it with the personal attacks. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia – The move is proposed as part of a plan to solve the problematic coverage of the history of these regions from 1102 to 1527. Further steps would include expanding the scope of the article up to 1527, tying it in with the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) article as the successor state - however with a caveat that will explain the disputed nature of the claim of continued sovereignty post 1102 (see infobox example right). And finally, the Croatia in union with Hungary article would be renamed per AS's proposal, though this is more of an issue for that talkpage.

I'll attempt to address some previously-raised concerns. The proposed title is, of course, not accurate for the entire span, but no single title is. In fact, no title can be said to be accurate in this regard, since this state did not have an official name in modern terms (or in any terms). In so far as this kingdom had some kind of "official name", it would be Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae, though admittedly this is only from later in the span. We in fact know very little about the Croatian kingdom, in particular the early periods. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia
Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae  (Latin)
Coats of arms of None.svg
Coats of arms of None.svg
925(?)–1102 (1527) Coa Croatia Country History (Fojnica Armorial).svg
Capital Not specified
Government Not specified
 -  Established 925
 -  Disestablished 1527
"Yes, in official documents it was entitled as "Croatiae et Dalmatiae", but that was just the way the kings added titles for their realm. For example Bela IV had: "Bela Dei gratia Hungarie, Croachie, Dalmatie, Rame, Seruie, Galitie, Lodomerie Cumanieque rex", Tvrtko had (in latin) "Stephanus Tuertcho dei gratia rex Rascie, Bosne Maritimeque etc."... We can't really call an article that way. (Tzowu (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC))" + in Bašćanska ploča Zvonimir is named as KRALЪ HRЪVATЪSKЪÏ (Croatian king), not King of Croatia and Dalmatia. (Tzowu (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
I explained this to you before, and above again quite clearly. There are no official names for this polity, or really any polity existing in its time. These were not concepts that existed in that period. By that logic we should have a blank space for a title. We do however have "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" attested as a historical name, and not as part of some list, but separately from other titles as designating a polity (supicic p.206). While it is not to be regarded as an official name, its about as close as we can get.
+ Peter Krešimir IV the Great was titled "rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae". Whatever one particular king might've been called (and we have no idea what their titles were) - we're trying to name the realm. Further, the titles were clearly linked by 1102, when Coloman crowned himself "King of Croatia and Dalmatia" (qua Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae coronandus aut negotia regni cum illis...). And, as I said, this is the historically attested name. And remember - we also get rid of the brackets and free-up the article's scope. -- Director (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No, you didn't. The official names of medieval countries were as I wrote above, a list of lands the kings ruled. The same goes for "Croatia and Dalmatia", that was the full name of the kings lands which they used, but the kings also used just "King of Croatia" in their documents. You really like changing stuff :P.
",remota in orientem quasi passos CCtos, quam nos cum consensu Cresimiri, regis Chroatorum, suorumque nobilium in pristino restituimus loco." 1067
"regi Chroatorum Suinimiri, nec non Valizze priors" 1080 (Tzowu (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
Yes I did. Obviously I have to repeat myself again: royal titles are one thing, realms another. A list of royal titles is not the name of a realm. Realms had no (official) names. "Regnum Chroatiae et Dalmatiae" is the only known historical name for this realm. The titles its rulers carried are usually unknown, what little is known varies. And it seems you're the one who likes to "change stuff :P", the titles there are not "King of Croatia", but "King of the Croats", which indicates even less with regard to the name of the realm itself (if any). -- Director (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course they didn't have an official name in modern terms, but what you added is also just a list of titles (Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae). I'm looking through the Codex Diplomaticus and can't seem to find a mention of "Regnum Croatie et Dalmatie", only as a title, but there is this: "Nel nome di Christo. Io Stefano, giä nobile duca di Crouati, oppresso da graue infirmitä ho fatto chiamare i uenerabili sacerdoti del regno di Croatia per ritrouar remedio de miei peccati,..." 1078 (Tzowu (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
And what's that supposed to indicate? Not that I don't trust your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, but isn't that a non-contemporary source? Transcribed over and over again? I get my information from secondary sources (Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source). No offense, but those are people who, for one thing, can actually read Latin and understand the difference between "Chroatorum" and "Croatiae". E.g: "the official name of the Croatian kingdom after the peace treaty of 1102 still was the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia" (Knežević 1987); "the title of the Croatian state became 'Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia.'" (Omrčanin 1972). And I said, Supičić is also very clear on this, etc.. Are you now going to change-up your argument again? How about we just write you off as "opposed" and move on? :) Clearly you're not going to alter your position. -- Director (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
A vast majority of sources from the middle ages are preserved in rewrites, not just the Croatian ones. As for "Chroatorum" and "Croatiae" the kings used both so it's not a big difference, you can quit the smart talk :P. In contemporary sources we can find both Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of the Croats. What you quoted relates to the post 1102 period, so a proposed move to this title could apply only if it was merged (again) with the Croatia in the union with Hungary article. However, in those circumstances it also wouldn't be valid because it was not used often in that time period, for example the Cetingrad sabor in 1527 uses only Kingdom of Croatia. Also, I didn't change my argument, the occurance of the regnum or regni words in the charters of Croatian kings is very low so historians were derivating the realm name from their titles. Thus they named the realm of Petar Krešimir IV "Regnum Croatie et Dalmatie" because his title was King of Croatia and Dalmatia, although it is not mentioned in his charters as a kingdom name. I oppose any move dealing with the articles Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), Croatia in the union with Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. As for this one, the only move I would support is the restoring of the name Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) or placing just Kingdom of Croatia. I'd maybe support a move of the Principality of Dalmatian Croatia article to Principality of Croatia.(Tzowu (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
Thank you for your secondary analysis. When you publish these findings I'll be sure to include you as a source (Tzowu 2014). Up until then, however, I don't think there's any question as to the historical name of this state, before 1102 and afterwards ("the official name of the Croatian kingdom after the peace treaty of 1102 still was the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia"), the name dates from at least the reign of Peter Kresimir IV, if not earlier. Re merging this article with Croatia in the union with Hungary, this won't be necessary if the article is kept as a sub-article of this one. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of your posts are clear examples of WP:GooglingUntilIFindSomethingWhichIActuallyKnowNothingAbout, but obviously you didn't google it enough. You also have a lot of contradictions in your posts, for example first you wrote "There are no official names for this polity" and then add a source stating that there was an official name. Then you state that "Regnum Chroatiae et Dalmatiae" is the only known historical name for this realm. yet it only (maybe) came to use during the rule of Petar Krešimir IV, before that it was Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Croats or just Croatia (like in DAI). This is probably not on google books so you may not take in into account, but I'll put it anyway. "Lujo Margetić ističe da je naziv Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae ostao u znanosti do danas neriješen problem. On navodi da su predložena ova tri temeljna rješenja: “1. Ujedinjenje Hrvatske i Dalmacije u jedno kraljevstvo pod nazivom Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae sproveo je Petar Krešimir koji je stvarno vladao nad Dalmacijom i kojem je Bizant tu vlast međunarodno-pravno priznao... 2. Petar Krešimir je imao stvarnu vlast nad Dalmacijom te je zbog toga uzeo titulu kralja Hrvatske i Dalmacije bez obzira na priznanje i suglasnost Bizanta... 3. Petar Krešimir nije imao ni stvarnu ni pravnu vlast nad Dalmacijom. On se zapravo samo kitio naslovom kralja Hrvatske i Dalmacije”" (L. Margetić, Odnosi Petra Krešimira i pape prema korčulanskom kodeksu. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, god. LXXIV, Split, 1980., str. 233-234.)(Tzowu (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

I agree with Tzowu. If this was to be done, then the best way to name the article is Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) since it indeed covers mostly medieval period or just simply Kingdom of Croatia. Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia was solely Latin inscription in certain documents. However this is minor issue since there are bunch of pages which already redirect here with all those names and plus, the official name does not have to be the same as the name of the article, articles on English Wikipedia are mostly named for their most common appearance in English. As for the native contemporary name we have Baska Tablet with a contemporary name of the title (and thus the name of the kingdom) by Dmitar Zvonimir. Shokatz (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... the title of the king is not the name of the kingdom. And we don't even know those are his "titles", he's just being addressed as "king of the Croats". Other kings were being addressed as "King of Croatia and Dalmatia".. To derive the supposed name of the realm from the nonsense tablet or whatever is nothing but silly original research by users who don't know any better. Particularly when its in contrast with actual published historians stating explicitly that the official name of the kingdom is "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia".
If we're going strictly by Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME), the thing ought to be renamed to just Kingdom of Croatia over disambig. I was hoping we could avoid the need for disambiguation altogether by using what is undoubtedly the official name of this kingdom. Hopefully there will be some additional input on the matter. -- Director (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the Baska tablet refers to him as a Croatian king. And no, it's not just a silly's a charter written in stone and contains the earliest known official mention of the kingdom and the king. Calling someone a Croatian king obviously implies there is also a Croatian kingdom or in modern-day denomination Kingdom of Croatia. How can you call that WP:OR is beyond me, honestly... How many kingdoms can say they have their mention written in stone? Now, I also find your argument rather interesting since you earlier made a comment how certain Croatian king (namely Peter Kresimir if I am not mistaken) was referred as Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae, which I am fairly certain are his titles, not references to his kingdom per se. We don't have contemporary mention of the kingdom itself by that name, but rather they stem from references in later periods...12-13th century. And even if it is so, in modern contemporary historiography the common name is simply Kingdom of Croatia...especially in English. We already have a bunch of disambiguation pages so I don't see how would this help in any way, especially if observed from a NPOV. In the end I would like to point out that Croatia is not an isolated case regarding this, f.e. it was common practice in early medieval periods for kings to refer to themselves or be referred by others as King of Franks/Frankish King or King of Danes/Danish King, etc. Shokatz (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrong on so many separate levels. Let me count the ways:
  • Level #1. If someone is referred-to somewhere as the "Danish king" or "King of the Danes", that by no means indicates his title is "King of Denmark". The "King of France" is not the "King of the French", such as Napoleon was "Emperor of the French". History is complicated like that.
  • Level #2. Even if one king or two were actually called "King of Denmark" (which is not the case for "Croatia") that still wouldn't mean we know what the titles of these kings were in general. The titles of Croatian kings are generally unknown, and what little is known varies over time.
  • Level #3. Even if were absolutely 100% certain that all Croatian kings were referred to as "King of Croatia" (and we don't have a single such instance) that still would not indicate that the name of the kingdom is necessarily "Croatia".
  • Level #4. The very attempt to derive any conclusions from the titles of monarchs - in the first place(!) - is blatant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and very bad original research at that (since clearly you don't really get this sort of stuff).
Each one of these points alone invalidates your argument. Pick whichever one you like.
The only reference to the kingdom is "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". Sources know this. Sources explicitly state that this was its full name. But here you are, User:Shokatz, still talking away like you know something scholars don't. -- Director (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC) let me see if I understood this...if one person was called Danish King or King of Danes that can mean he is actually a King of Zanzibar? Brilliant analogy...brilliant I say! BTW there is this called WP:COMMONNAME...just thought I remind you. Shokatz (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You should get your facts straight dajrektr, the sole name "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" is derived from the titles of the Croatian kings, it's not something we are claiming, and it's not from a contemporary source that mentions the realm as "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae". However, Thomas the Archdeacon does mention that the kings after Stjepan Držislav were the kings of Croatia and Dalmatia, but his work is from a later time period when the official name really was "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". He also uses "Kingdom of Croatia" as the name of the realm, those are synonims for him, together with Sclauonia (© Kerubin Šegvić). (Tzowu (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
You people really don't get how this project functions. Keep your theorizing to yourself. This is not a place where you can publish your amateur "research". -- Director (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you get it either. You do not WP:OWN this page and there should be a WP:CON. And please stop projecting. Before you start accusing and making WP:PA towards others, you should take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. Shokatz (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Ugh... whatever. Just move this thing away from this absurd title, defined by both start and end dates that are arguably wrong. The above RM is a prime example of what happens when people who don't know anything about the subject try to edit. -- Director (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep up with WP:PA, it will get you really far... Shokatz (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Really? You should have said so earlier. -- Director (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


As for the changes, OK, leave the question mark in the year. For the Sabor part read the Sabor article ("The Sabor, in its various forms, has represented the identity and opinions of Croats from the diets of the 9th century nobility to the modern parliament"), for the infobox names read the Habsburg Monarchy article. The "profusely sourced lead" is almost entirely already mentioned in the article in approximately the same way. The lead section shouldn't be yet another c/p of the "controversial" 1091-1102 events. It is more than enough to state that a union was created with Hungary and that the Arpad dynasty came to power. For individual historians OK, we can change that. A part of the "Library of Congress" section is also mentioned earlier, and there surelly should be a longer part for the Pacta conventa section. All your sources except I think one is incorporated into the article. Also, the coat of arms you added is wrong, it was newer used in that way before 1527. "without Istria or the Dalmatian cities", it's already mentioned that it compromised most of today's Croatia. Also, it actually did control a part of todays Istria and msot of today's Dalmatian cities. (Tzowu (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

  • Wikipedia is not a source. The first Sabor we know about dates from 1351.
  • The whole point of the WP:LEAD is to summarize the article, its silly (and likely biased) to remove whole paragraphs from it on the basis that the article covers the subject. Yes it does - in greater detail. The lead summarizes said coverage, whether it be of a historical controversy or not; It is biased to claim that a "union" was created when that is disputed and uncertain.
  • No reason to exclude a very brief mention of which significant parts of modern-day Croatia. Our lead is embarrassingly brief and low-quality.
  • The infobox native name parameter is not for extemporaneous translations. Its for contemporary names. The contemporary Croatian name, if any, is unknown. Translations are for the lead.
  • I assume you're referring to the coa of Croatia? It is not wrong, it is based directly on the 1495 source. The pointed shape is not accurate. It is also a vector image, which is preferred to png.
-- Director (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
1. "Od prvih spomena narodnih zborova, preko Sabora kao staleške ustanove, do suvremenog predstavničkog tijela svega naroda, sabori su znak i očitovanje samosvojnosti hrvatskoga naroda. U dugom povijesnom tijeku oni su poprimali različita obilježja i bili stvarni pokazatelj političkog položaja Hrvatske već od 9. stoljeća." That's from the official page of our Sabor [3]. "The Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia" is not known in sources of the time, yet you still added it because you found it on google books.
2. The lead was fine before, a union was created and the Arpad dynasty came to throne. There is no need to add a c/p from the controvery section with the exact sentences found there. Before that it sumarized the article well enough, and I repeat that this is not an article just about the 1091-1102 events.
3. Whatever, the "periodically" part should be removed because it always had some part of BiH, at least the westernmost ones.
4. As you could see on the article I linked, it actually can have a later used name and a translation of it.
5. The coa of Croatia in 1495 was not the one you added. It doesn't even look like it. This is from 1499 [4], this is from 1495 [5]. I assume you'll notice the difference. (Tzowu (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
Actually the first known (recorded) Sabor was on April 19th, 1273 [6]. Also the 1495 CoA is this [7], this is the first known appearance of the chequy CoA as a symbol of Croatia. The original CoA used for Croatia is the one from which Dalmatian CoA derives and I really mean derives bcz the contemporary CoA of Dalmatia is different than the original one which was three silver (white) lion heads with golden crowns on red background, turned to left [8] [9] [10] [11]. Shokatz (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Coat of arms of Croatia in 1495.
This is indeed a later version of the coa of Dalmatia, which has a much longer history than the coa of Croatia, but it is at least contemporary with the first Croatian coa - so that it makes sense to depict them next to each-other. Besides, we're supposed to look for the latest symbols for the entity.
That's the Sabor of Slavonia, which has nothing to do with the Sabor of Croatia and Dalmatia. Either way, post-1102.
  • The lead was, and is, terrible. Its basic function is to summarize the history of the kingdom. It does not do that. The paragrpah that discusses the end of that history is a very relevant and beneficial addition.
  • Agreed re "periodically".
  • You mean Habsburg Monarchy? It shouldn't have extemporaneous names, and I don't think it does. If it does, I'll fix it. Either way, the parameter is not for modern-day translations of modern-day names, but for actual contemporary "native names".
  • See the image pls. Its not a perfect facsimile, but at least it has the right general shape. Why do you think our current coat of arms isn't pointed?
-- Director (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
1. OK, fix it, but the part you added for the union creation is more suited for the Croatia in the union with Hungary article. It's silly that most of the article covers either the pre-kingdom period or the last few years.
3. Principality of Serbia (medieval)
4. Nevermind the current coat of arms, the older ones often had a different shape, like the pointed ones on the image I linked or the Fojnica Armorial. This one is just... wrong. Also the original 1499 coa looks pretier than the 1495 one.(Tzowu (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
  • It just means that the rest of the article, and the lead, require expansion on that level and quality.
  • You're now listing obscure articles that misuse their infobox parameters? All sorts of cooks with no understanding of infobox use edit this place. Feel free to remove any such inappropriate entries, I'll support your edits. This article used to have a completely ridiculous coat of arms 800 years out of place (thank you TRAJAN). That's been fixed. So have the names.
  • What older ones? That thing on the right is the earliest image of a Croatian chequy that I know of. And please forget about the Fojnica Armorial... do you know when that dates from??
-- Director (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The coat of arms in 1495 is the earliest record, but we don't have to use only the earliest ones. Actually, I read on another talk page that the latest should be used. These are the coats of arms used until 1527, along the 1495 one:
1499 [12] [13] [14]
1503 [15]
1519 [16] [17]
1525 [18] [19]
As for the available coats on wikipedia, [this one] looks most accurate to those listed. What we have currently is the modern Croatian coat of arms. I mentioned the Fojnica coa because it had a pointed end. About the infobox names, if that is true, then half of the wikipedia should be changed. Anyway, that means that we can add two latin coloquial names, namely "Regno di Croatia", from a charter from 1078, or even Regnum Croatie/Chroatorum... (Tzowu (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
This is what the CoA of Croatia should be until 1495/9 [20]. It predates 1396 at least. The image is an earlier version from Wappenwiki [21] Shokatz (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The generally non-pointed shape seems more common at the time, and is older. I think it ought to be preferred. Besides, as I pointed out, the image I uploaded is vectorized, which is preferred for heraldry. I would like to fix it up a bit, make it less wide, give it a crown (they all need crowns of the right type) but I'm afraid I'm no SVG expert, and its not as easy as it looks. You can request a pair of more accurate images [22], but it could take some time (if you do make sure to request both, please). In the meantime, I think we should be happy that we have an SVG medley of Croatian and Dalmatian coats of arms.
@Shokatz. That looks like an old coa of Dalmatia. Can you source it as the symbol of the pre-1102 kingdom? I would be very surprised if that's the case. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the shape of the shield is completely irrelevant, it bears no significance in heraldry. If you really wish to be pin-point exact pointed versions are actually earlier and historically more correct shapes since they mirror the medieval-type shields which the CoA's effectively are. And I have already posted the links, it's not the old CoA of Dalmatia but the old CoA of Croatia. [23], Dalmatian CoA derives from it. It became associated with Dalmatia during the Venetian period who used it for the territory today known as Dalmatia, which they controlled. Shokatz (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The shape is irrelevant, obviously - but we have to choose one, don't we? As I said the non-pointed version is older and appears to be more common in what little contemporary depictions there are.
What is your basis for claims re that coa? Sources pls. When was it adopted? -- Director (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have posted the sources already. Look at my previous replies, it predates 1396 year at least since it first appears in Gelre Armorial as part of Louis I CoA representing Croatian kingdom. Now since Louis I was king until 1382 it was obviously used even earlier.
BTW I have read several articles before (can't remember exactly where and by whom) where it is suggested that the lions on the CoA's of several Hungarian Arpady kings (Ladislaus III, Emeric, Andrew II) actually represented Croatia Shokatz (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen any source thus far that indicates the early coat of arms of Dalmatia that you point to was used as the coat of arms of Croatia/Dalmatia before 1102. I know it is sourced as an early coat of arms of Dalmatia, but I am willing to believe that it could have originated somehow as the Croatian coa, or that the two are somehow connected. I do not insist on positive evidence and assertions from sources, and am willing myself to agree to its introduction even based on speculation by a proper source. But it can't be your speculation, and it needs to be a proper source of some sort.
So, to be clear, if some reliable source explicitly states the thing might've been used prior to 1102, I'll upload it and post it myself, in vector format. If its just your speculation, or some random website presenting no source... -- Director (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have never stated that any CoA was used prior to 1102 because that would be impossible since feudal heraldry appeared some 150 years later...just lol. I was talking about the oldest Croatian CoA, and from the sources we have, the oldest Croatian CoA is a red shield with three crowned white/silver lion heads. We know this from several sources: 1. Constance Council Armorial (1486) by Konrad von Grüenberg [24], the page with Croatian (and Dalmatian) CoA's are presented here [25]. If you are unable to read what is says above them - Croatian is the one with the lions and Dalmatian the one with the sword. 2. Wernigerode Armorial, compiled between 1475-1492 again showing the same [26] 3. Gelre Armorial (pre 1396) showing on page 52 the CoA of King Louis I [27], his CoA is clockwise - Árpád-Capet impaled, Poland, Hungary, Croatia. Shokatz (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I forgot this one [28], its from 1491. Vectorized or not, the current one is wrong. Why does it have to be vectorized anyway? I suggest the return of the old coat, we don't really need a crown since several other coats also didn't have a crown. A joint Croatian and modern Dalmatian one also aren't accurate, and by the beggining of the 16th century most of Dalmatia was either under Venice or the Ottomans. The Cetingrad Sabor also explicitly mentions the kingdom as "Kingdom of Croatia"[29] and use the checkerboard as a seal. This is for the union article. Tzowu (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the decision to move the title to the current one with years in brackets should have been preceeded with the conversion of other articles to date versions, which didn't happen, so it should be rolled back.Tzowu (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have rolled back the change myself if it were possible. But its not acceptable to revert an RM just with some random reasoning one happens to think up. You need another RM. My suggestion is moving this thing simply to Kingdom of Croatia or Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia.
  • The current coa shape is more common than the pointed shape in contemporary sources, and is used earlier.
  • Most had a crown (and a coa of a 'kingdom' is usually crowned).
So best case scenario we need a rounded, crowned, vectorized coa. The current one is at least rounded and vectorized. Disagree with restoring the very pointed, png version that you like. I don't see the reasoning.
  • The coa of Dalmatia there isn't "modern". In fact its far older than the Croatian coa.
  • Sure, most of Dalmatia was in Turkish hands after 1493, and I suppose the Cetingrad Sabor would have looked pretty silly if they declared they still have Croatia and Dalmatia - that's why I want to end that article at that point. However: you need a source that says that's the official name.
So in short, please don't change the properly-sourced official name and the sourced coats of arms for some random name you found through your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and a random coat of arms you happen to like. That's not how Wikipedia works.
May I please request a quote from Odnosi Petra Krešimira i pape prema korčulanskom kodeksu p.233-234? -- Director (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
"its not acceptable to revert an RM just with some random reasoning one happens to think up" :D " 01:08, 14 January 2014 DIREKTOR moved page Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) to Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". About the coat of arms, I'll repeat what I already wrote, this one is not accurate, it doesn't matter whether it is vectorized or not. The one I chose could have a crown as well, but it is not necessary. And it was not changed because I "liked it", but because the coat used for the union article was from the Fojnica Armorial that is from a later time. As for the name, since you need a source for every word I or someone else writes or anything else that you found through your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH:
"Ime zemlje, kako ga nalazimo ubilježena u latinskim spomenicama toga vremena, u tijesnoj je vezi s narodnim i glasilo je isprva regnum Chroatorum (država Hrvata), prvi put 852., a dočnije regnum Chroatiae ili samo Chroatia (Hrvatska) prvi put 1066." Ferdo Šišić - Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, str. 651
"Diplomatično joj je ime bilo Hrvatska (Regnum Chroatiae) i Hrvatska i Dalmacija, dok se sam narod, koji je tvorio ovu državu, nazivao Hrvatima." Josip Horvat, Politička povijest Hrvatske, str 18
The Margetić qoute is in a post above. Also, I need a source for the shape of the coat of arms, not your original research.Tzowu (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I didn't revert it back to a name that was rejected by an RM.
  • For the final time: how is that coa "more accurate". Clearly it is not, as most sources use a rounded shape. Further, it is convenient because we can use two coats of arms from the same 1495 source. And finally, it is indeed preferable to have your symbols in vector format [30], noobs like you should probably trust me on that (no offense). And I could not possibly care less about the damn Fojnica Armorial, which is not an official source from the kingdom itself, and dates from at least 150 years after our period ends. k?
  • Finally, we don't use official names from all periods in the infobox, but only one. Usually this is the latest one, or the one that was used for the longest period. Luckily here we have no contest in that regard. See Nazi Germany for example: it uses only "Großdeutsches Reich", because that was the last name, even though it was only used for two years (1943-45).
-- Director (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) was not rejected by a RM. The proposal was that all 3 articles dealing with the Kingdom of Croatia until 1868 would be renamed to contain years in brackets. This obviously didn't happen and was rejected in a RM. Why is it such a problem to return the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) article now? Surely no one will object.
Everyone was a noob at some time, I'm not offended by that :). However, "PNGs should not just be replaced en masse the instant an SVG replacement becomes available". Anyway, whatever shape we use, the union article can't have both Croatian and Dalmatian coat of arms. That is wrong and unsourced. At least return to the checkerboard only. Also, I'm thinking of adding a special Cat of arms section to that article.
The new source you added contradicts the previous ones. This one states that the name Croatia and Dalmatia came to use after 988, but the previous ones stated that it was in use after Petar Krešimir IV came to power. The problem with the name comes from the statements of Thomas the Archdeacon (which I already wrote about). He wrote that the kings after Stjepan Držislav bore the title kings of Croatia and Dalmatia, but that is not confirmed by other sources and it is not likely. Nada Klaić wrote about it and she rejected it (she was very critical about older Croatian historiography, for example a big amount of Fine's writings are references of her books): Nada Klaić: Povijest Hrvata p. 323. Despite the Nazi Germany article, there are other examples like the Byzantine Empire or Habsburg Monarchy that clearly don't use neither the latest name nor the most common one. The name in the infobox should be just Kingdom of Croatia and below Regnum Chroatie and Regnum Croatie et Dalmatie. That is both historically accurate, sourced and most common today.Tzowu (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rolled back. Will roll back the section as well. The personal union is sourced as disputed. -- Director (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is well sourced and supported by over a dozen sources. We also have several sources clearly stating the dispute originates from 19th century largely discarded view. Mainstream historiography of both Hungary and Croatia accept personal union as a reality. Furthermore what you just reverted is not contentious to the dispute and NPOV at all. Shokatz (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I've not seen a single source that directly indicates a consensus on the issue of a personal union, whereas many sources indicate the existence of a dispute. Your Croatian-nationalist POV will be reverted every time without fail (until you present sources that discuss the dispute and indicate a consensus or prevalence of the view you peddle).
You will not place undue weight on the Croatian view. This article has to be rescued from that sort of bias at some point, and this is it. If you feel you need to write some silly report or other, be my guest. -- Director (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure you haven't...except there are over a dozen sources (14 to be more exact) that talk about it, and at least half a dozen sources talking about how the so-called dispute is discarded in modern historiography and represents a minority view. These articles were just fine until you came acting as if you own this page, removing sources, sourced content, reverting/edit-warring without any explanation, refusing to make a consensus and acting at times in extremely uncivil manner, making personal attacks against me and Tzowu. Furthermore your refusal to accept the sources which are in direct contradiction with your own personal assertions are considered a disruption. So your wish, my command, I had enough of your temper tantrums. Shokatz (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You are free to publish your syntheses from published material somewhere else, but not on Wikipedia. Sources that discuss the issue do not place weight on either view, as has been demonstrated to you repeatedly. If you wish to write this article as if there is no dispute, I request that you please post at least one source that supports you directly.
I arrived on this article in September 2009. Much of the text here, and a goodly part of Croatian history on this project is, I'm proud do say, my contribution. You can call my resistance to the introduction of Croatian nationalist POV "OWN" if you like, but its interesting that you view the extreme nationalist nonsense version (with fictional coronations, fictional coats of arms, fictional dates, etc.) as being "just fine". -- Director (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
And you are the one who will tell me what I can or cannot post on Wikipedia? I think you are way over your head here, acting as if this article is your own property. I couldn't care less when you arrived or what you think you contributed. I am interested in facts and sourced content. What you are doing here is certainly not in accordance with provided sources nor is it NPOV. It has been proven to you repeatedly by over a dozen sources that modern historiography does indeed puts weight on a specific view. Even the sources you call upon which talk about this dispute explain that it originates in the outdated Hungarian nationalist view which is today largely discarded by contemporary Hungarian historiography. But keep up with the WP:HEAR and WP:PA...I am sure it will do you good. Shokatz (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I have to be the one to tell you, since I'm the one faced with dealing with misconceptions on your part.
Shokatz, now that you brilliantly wrote a report in a sterling effort to get us both blocked, will you please listen? There is a dispute - that is a very well sourced fact, and you should come to terms with it. The sources you added are (mostly Croatian) refs that support a position in the dispute. That's fine. You finding them, however - does not mean you can write paragraphs of the article's lead pretending that there is no dispute. Does writing "then there was a personal union" followed by "we don't know whether there was a personal union" make sense to you?! And why did you edit war immediately with your large and complex new addition without waiting to have a word with others - especially when you know it will be opposed. -- Director (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh now you want to talk all of a sudden? What you are presenting here is a minority view - WP:FRINGE. The sources are clear, when talking about the dispute, we are talking about non-mainstream 19th century relic. However I have nothing against it being mentioned, quite the contrary, as you will notice I never removed it or anything similar (how did that happen if I am such a hardcore Croatian nationalist like you called me?), I even posted some sources in favor of it. But for that to be the prevailing position is simply unacceptable due to mentioned Wiki policies. The only NPOV and acceptable version would be that we have the personal union with all the sources for it, then we have the section with the dispute and then we have explanations on what, when and why there is a dispute, and the position of the modern contemporary historiography (Croatian and Hungarian) on this issue. You know the lead you were so zealously reverting earlier. Personally I find it ridiculous and unnecessary that this is in the article even though it doesn't even cover the historical period, but if it makes you that happy... Also I still cannot even fathom what exactly did you find controversial in my latest additions since everything I added is directly derived from this article and other connected articles on the subject some even clear copy-paste...yet for you it is article's lead pretending that there is no dispute despite the fact I have not removed one letter from the section talking about the dispute. Shokatz (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not support any particular interpretation of these events, but merely that the article should continue to refrain from unequivocally supporting one position or the other. The fact they didn't teach you in school is that we do not know whether there was a personal union or not. We do not know if there was a coronation in 925, we have no idea when the state even became a kingdom. We don't know for certain whether Tomislav was a "king" or not. We know very little or nothing about this state. As the sources cited in the article (and more can be provided easily) make clear, the personal union is an uncertainty. It cannot be treated as a certainty. I want this article to be a place where people can find out the hard sourced facts about this state, free of any nationalist slant, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, whatever. For example, "wait a second! not a single historian on the planet calls that country Croatia-Hungary like they did in my history class", etc...
There is no question that the end of this state needs to be covered here. Besides, I'm hoping to turn this article into a 925-1527 article, where the other one would be a sub-article. But you and our new arrival Tzowu squashed that very nicely...
Can you provide other sources (besides those in the article) that summarize the position of scholarship on the issue? -- Director (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
See this is the problem with you, you simply don't want to WP:HEAR. You want more sources than the 14 sources I have already provided?!? And after that you will want 14 more? And after that? The issue for me here is not the 925 or the coronation of Tomislav so don't try to change the subject (again), the issue is the personal union. You base your view on the minority view that originates in 19th century nationalist agenda, a fact that even the sources which talk about the dispute mention clearly. That fact should be mentioned in the article lead as well...don't you think so? Obviously not, for whatever reason... I really think we don't have anything to discuss anymore since you simply refuse to listen and accept that modern historiography of both Croatia and Hungary accept the fact there was a relationship most similar to the personal union...which is also sourced. Minority views and fringe theories are not to have the prominent role in the articles. Shokatz (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course I hear - you don't understand. Your 14 sources are just googled Croatian authors who happen to say the words "personal union" - they're not sources that summarize the position of scholarship on the matter. They fall very neatly into the category of "some historians support the personal union interpretation". What you need is sources that say "the dominant view is personal union", or "personal union is the scholarly consensus" or "most scholars support the personal union interpretation", etc. Sources that discuss the matter at hand!
Here's an appropriate quote by Krleža, the man widely considered to be our no.1 literary figure of all time:

"From Frankish times forward, Croatia was never the Croat-centered entity imagined by our patriotic historians. It was always too small to form an independent political entity and too weak to resist foreign domination. Instead of acknowledging this past, the Croats have created a phantom past and imaginary rights originating in nine hundred years of defeats, domination and exploitation."

-- Director (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No offense but what you just wrote is nothing but pure ridiculous nonsense. They do not fall into the category of some but in the category of great majority, even though I never even stated that. Do these authors sound Croatian to you: David Luscombe, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Alain Finkielkraut, Imogen Bell, Piotr Stefan Wandycz, Adrian Webb, Charles W. Ingrao, Kristó Gyula, Lukács István, Hek László, Font Márta, Bárány Attila, Jeszenszky Géza - are these the Croatian authors you are talking about? Six of those are Hungarian! How many Hungarian historians can you name me in favor of the alleged dispute? One, two....none? And who cares what Krleza said, he was not a historian...for gods sake man, stop with this nonsense... Shokatz (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Old Krleza is just there as an appropriate quote, to show you what extremely intelligent people think on the subject.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your subjective personal interpretations of "great majority". That's what I meant when I said I said you can't publish syntheses. Do you have any sources that actually discuss the relevant historical question of personal union? -- Director (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Really, this again? It is clearly stated by Laszlo Heka in "Croatian-Hungarian relations from the middle ages to the compromise of 1868, with a special survey of the Slavonian issue", p. 155, and "Barna Mezey ured.: Magyar alkotmánytörténet. ELTE Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar. Magyar Állam- és Jogtörténeti Tanszék szerzõi munkaközössége. Budapest, 1995, 66." (Barna Mezey, Hungarian constitutional history, page 66) that the Hungarian legal historians hold that until 1526 the relationship of Croatia and Hungary was most similar to a personal union, connected through a common king ("Glede područja Hrvatske i Dalmacije, mađarski pravni povjesničari drže da je njihov odnos s Ugarskom u razdoblju do 1526. i pogibije kralja Ludovika II. bio najsličniji onomu što se naziva personalnom unijom, dakle da ih je povezivala osoba zajedničkoga kralja."). I hope that user "direktor", after a vast number of sources from various Hungarian historians, after quotes from their wikipedia and even highschool history books, doesn't anymore think that the Hungarian historiography has a different view than the extreme nationalist Croatian nonsense, at least on that particular "problem".Tzowu (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol...well you can hope, but I wouldn't put my money on it. There is no source, no scholarly book or scientific elaboration that can change his mind. I will never understand how this guy survived seven years on Wikipedia with such attitude. Shokatz (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Subjective? Let's see here [31], I see 14 (fourteen) sources which explicitly support the personal union, I see at least 3 other sources which talk about it indirectly. Even the sources which mention the dispute such as Bellamy, Sedlar, Jeffries, Prpic, Murray all only briefly mention the dispute while emphasizing that Croatia retained it's autonomy. Only by a glance one can see which position is in great majority and far more mainstream. Jeffries, Sedlar and Bellamy even go further by explaining the dispute originated in the nationalist 19th century historiography. Shokatz (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Lol"? :) Those "14 (fourteen)!!" refs do not support your claim that the personal union is the predominant view in scholarship, as none even discuss the possibility. All they do is show that it is a view in scholarship, which chimes wonderfully with what the sources covering the matter in depth tell us. Now do you understand this? Or will I have to repeat it a further dozen times? -- Director (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
If we have 14-15 different sources, all stating there was a personal union and we have 5 only mentioning there is, or rather was, a dispute but stating clearly there was obvious autonomy of the Croatian side, then yes it actually is the predominant view in modern historiography. I find it amusing how you spin these facts around. Shokatz (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You've managed to push your POV into the protected version, "tzowu". Like the weird/biased listing of two official names from different periods alongside one another into the infobox. I'd just be happy and not insist on any more nonsense (though I certainly plan to revert these new additions of yours as soon as that is possible). You have a single source that may possibly contradict in part with a half-dozen others that describe the dispute - it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You'll need quite a bit more if you want to seriously show there exists some kind of consensus. Personally, I could not care less what "Croatian" or "Hungarian" authors think, I removed those qualifications myself. I'm interested in the dispute and the position of scholarship with regard to it.

I have done the research. And I will not, under any circumstances, consent to your slanting this article in favor of one view in this dispute. At least not without strong, conclusive, explicit evidence suggesting such an emphasis is in accordance with the position of scholarship. In addition to the fact that sources that do discuss the issue do not place any emphasis on one view or another, I present this as a WP:TERTIARY analysis by the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"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)."

This is my position exactly, and the position of all the sources I've yet seen that actually discuss the personal union issue in any depth: to come down on one side of this thing is NOT in accordance with scholarship. This also indicates that the current ref to the Encyclopaedia in the lead is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. -- Director (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is a sudden and unexpected change in your positions. You do realize that britannica states almost the same thing as the current article? Actually, this is even more of what you would call a "Croatian nationalist nonsense" (i.e. modern Croatian and Hungarian view on the 1102-1526 time period) than this wiki article. A dynastic union is basically the same thing as a personal union, if I added that you'd revert it instantly. As for the name, I already explained it and provided sources, the two names were reportedly both used in the same time period. I also linked the Byzantine and Habsburg articles which have a similar form of infobox names. The only thing that should be changed is the english version name to just Kingdom of Croatia (since it is way more common) and a swap between Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae and Regnum Chroatiae positions.Tzowu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Heh, nice try. My position is the same as it was throughout: "teach the controversy" (as they say in the American sticks). The point is that Britannica, just like all sources that go into the matter makes it clear that the existence of said dynastic union is disputed/unknown, and does not come down on one side of this. Neither should we. Look, I don't dispute there was autonomy, and I don't believe the Hungarian annexation POV is what we need to emphasize any more than the personal union.
  • The sentence that you added is based on a ref in conflict with other sources, and can't be emphasized like that. Further, you removal of the crucial fragment that sets out the two possibilities is also not acceptable.
  • Re the name, I am amazed that you still don't get it. We're not supposed to WP:BITE, but you're wearing me thin. Again: only the latest name is used in the 'native_name=' parameter. Sometimes its the longest-used name, not the latest exactly, but its always just one of the two. I.e. we do not list various names from different periods in the infobox. Just one. Do you understand this? Off the top of my head see the Soviet Union article, Nazi Germany, the SFRY, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Hungary, take your pick...
-- Director (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL! This is hilarious. Actually it doesn't say that. 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). It clearly states there was a dispute, but reaffirms the existence of the dynastic union.
Now what is the dynastic union? Dynastic union: A dynastic union is a kind of federation with only two different states that are governed by the same dynasty, while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct. It differs from a personal union in that a personal union is under a monarch, but not under a dynasty. You bury yourself deeper and deeper... Shokatz (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Polako ljudi, stanimo na loptu :D.
1. 2. Britannica says that the precise terms are disputed, and I agree with that, we can't know the exact way in which Coloman crowned himself as king. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a dispute between (modern) Hungarian and Croatian historiography. We can have both "The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute" and "modern Croatian and Hungarian historiographies mostly view it as a form of a personal union" in the article, which is in fact true. All of it. Recently a certain Serbian historian wrote an article how we were not in a personal union, but a conquered nation who claim it was a personal union just to counter the Serbs [32]. So there certainly are historians who deny it.
3. For those countries it is clear what name was used, in the Croatian case it is not. That is why I added both names which were reported as beeing official in the same period, the late 11th century. We can't with 100% security say which one was used. Look at the Byzantine Empire article, no one called it that way during its existence. As a matter of fact we don't even have a charter or a foreign work of the time in which Croatia was reffered as "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae". That is why my stance is that both of them should be in latin versions in the infobox, and the english name the most common one. Tzowu (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely with everything you wrote under #1. All I am trying to say here (and DIREKTOR refusing to accept it) is that the majority of historians i.e. mainstream Hungarian and Croatian historiography, view it from the personal union POV. There is no denial a dispute among some exists, but we need to have an explanation in the article detailing the reasons of such dispute and how it arose. Also you cannot have a minority view as the main pretense of the article, especially not in the infobox. The article needs to follow what is accepted by the mainstream, otherwise we have an article that relies on fringe theories. And I can say to the other person involved here that since he will not slide back any further that I don't intend to do so the same. I will not be bullied by a guy who calls others teens, noobs, POV-pushers, etc. just because something doesn't agrees with him. Shokatz (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even going to respond to the Teenage Terror up there with his "LOLZ!" and all that stuff. We may be able to work something out, I could accommodate through placing slight, slight(!) emphasis on the p.u. version. But that's it, I'm not sliding back any further. The primary statement has to be that describing the uncertainty and dispute regarding the relationship.
3. If you contend both names were used simultaneously - and at the end cca. 1102 - then pls present your refs for that. Refs that say they were used #1 at the same time, #2 at that time. As things are that's explicitly contrary to both your sources and mine (which state C&D became official/diplomatic at a certain point, superseding C), and doesn't make sense from the perspective of medieval legalisms. Therefore I strongly doubt that is the case.
-- Director (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to find more info regarding the exact name, there are a lot of different views about that which don't really go into detail, except for Lujo Margetić. Josip Horvat wrote that both were diploamtic names, we also have an example from 1078 in an Italian transcript calling the realm "Kingdom of Croatia"... All I wanted to point out since the start of these personal union debates is the modern Hungarian historiography view on the issue, which was incorrectly shown previously. And yes, that is important and does show a lot. I noticed that you changed the name of the Principality of Dalmatian Croatia article, since we usually call that state a kneževina I think a principality in the name would be more accurate. Tzowu (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, "knez" is a vague Slavic term for a lord, it doesn't necessarily correspond to "prince". In actual fact the term "knez" is used in this case as a modern Croatian translation of "duke", i.e. dux or doux, which is the only title we know of for these people. That is to say, as far as early Slavic is concerned, we don't really know if they were called "knez" or something else (or even if the word existed). For us to then translate that translation erroneously back into "prince", and refer to the duchy as a "principality", is I think a mistake.
In other words, the best Croatian translation of the Latin "Dux" is indeed "knez" in this case. And the best English translation of the Croatian "knez" is usually "prince" - but the best English term for the Latin "dux" is - "duke". It wouldn't be appropriate to render "dux" into English "prince" (which corresponds to "princeps") through this convoluted sequence of translations. To be clear, there is one instance where the duke is called "princeps", but its clear that, except for that, the title is "duke". -- Director (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As for the name of the kingdom (this relates to the infobox name also), here is what Lujo Margetić wrote, I'll put some quotes: "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."
"Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae kao vazalna papina država stvorena je na inicijativu i uz priznanje reformnih papa oko 1060. god. i označava bez ikakve dvojbe vrhunac srednjovjekovne hrvatske državnosti. Na žalost Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae nije dugo trajao, jedva približno 30 godina. Stjepan II., kao zadnji kralj Kraljevstva Hrvatske i Dalmacije bio je dosad neopravdano zapostavljen kao navodno mlitav, bezvoljan i bolestan starac, koji nije bio na visini svojih prethodnika, Petra Krešimira IV. i Zvonimira. Ali, naše su raščlambe pokazale da je takvo gledanje na njega nepravedno."
His further explanation of the term: "stvarna vlast nad nekim područjem nije dovoljan pravni razlog da se to područje pravno ujedini pod međunarodno priznatom vlašću. Tako dugo dok se stvarna vlast međunarodno pravno ne legalizira, ona ima prizvuk nezakonitosti i zato svaki stvarni vladar nekog teritorija izvanredno uporno nastoji da mu se prizna ono što je stekao. Sama činjenica držanja Dalmacije bez međunarodnog priznanja ne bi davala nikakvo pravo Petru Krešimiru da nosi naslov ujedinjenog kraljevstva. Po našem je mišljenju Petar Krešimir vladao doduše nad Krkom, dakle imao je stvarnu vlast nad dijelom Dalmacije, ali daleko važnija od posjeda dijela Dalmacije bila je bar prešutna suglasnost pape na Krešimirov program osvajanja Dalmacije i njezinog inkorporiranja u Hrvatsku. Ipak, taj naslov kao simbol težnje ujedinjenja dalmatinskih gradova sa svojim zaleđem imao je izvanrednu budućnost. Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae kao politički pojam proizašao iz kombinacija ojačalog papinstva na široj svjetskoj pozornici i težnje hrvatskoga kralja da proširi svoj utjecaj na imućne obalne gradove, odgovarao je na dugotrajnom povijesnom planu narodnim geopolitičkim, ekonomskim i društvenim interesima i zato je nadživio tolike povijesne perturbacije."
So that name (if it wasn't just a way kings added titles for their realm) existed from 1060 to 1091.Tzowu (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
please read what was said previously on this issue. -- Director (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty much clear what happened after 1091 with the name, some Dalmatian coastal cities were not, for a period of time, under Croatian rule and thus the name was not in use until the beginning of the 12th century. So the infobox name should be changed to just Kingdom of Croatia, as it was the last name used. Tzowu (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the name/claim. Stop edit-warring over this. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, we are supposed to use the latest known diplomatic (official) name of the kingdom in the infobox conventional_long_name section. The current one is never mentioned after 1091, while the only known name from 1091 until the coronation of Koloman is Regnum Chroatiae, we should have that historicaly accurate name in the infobox. Tzowu (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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) 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


I was looking around Wikipedia and I came upon the article Monarchy of Ireland, which I believe would be a really good model for how we could reorganize the current setup with the Croatian monarchy through history and resolve the current unsatisfactory status quo and the ridiculous dispute in general. My main concern, first and foremost, was and is the (in)adequate representation of Croatia through history in succession. If we would have a similar article about Croatian monarchy I would be quite content to accept all the changes (mostly related to the infobox successor states issues, etc.) that DIREKTOR suggested...namely showing Hungary as a successor state after 1102, etc. Such article would also be a chance for us to fix the redundancy in some articles (f.e. this article has a section referring to period post-1526, then it also lists it as a successor state...) and also bring all these various entities under one major article without it representing some fictional continuous sovereign entity that never actually existed. It would also give us a chance to explore some other things, like for example what DIREKTOR also mentioned regarding the period after 1493 and the Battle of Krbava which basically displaced and moved the core of the Croatian kingdom and the entire kingdom in general to the northwest. So anyway, I am interested what some of you involved here think about this a good idea or should we just leave this article (and others) in this unsatisfactory state? Shokatz (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its a good idea. Historical state format is the one I prefer, for numerous reasons I outlined earlier.
Now, my preferred format would be this succession: Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia -> Kingdom of Croatia -> Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. This article would cover the Hungarian period as well. Ideally I would delete the 1102-1527 article and move what interesting stuff it has here. That's what I did ages ago, but turn your back for one minute... -- Director (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
So if I understand this correctly the K.of Croatia-Dalmatia would cover the period until 1102, then K.of Croatia would cover the period from 1102-1868? If that is the case I find that to be reasonable and interesting concept. Now regarding the suggested "pan-article", I would point out that it would not be an article about a "historical state" (just like Monarchy of Ireland isn't one either) but rather it would be a sort of expanded disambiguation article with various sections linking to the main articles (f.e. K.of Croatia-Dalmatia, K.of Croatia [in union with Hungary], etc.) on each period. I thought that might be an interesting concept as well, something like a portal on Croatian monarchy...what I suggested is not contentious with what you suggested, it would complement each other. Shokatz (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No, Croatia-Dalmatia would cover the period up to 1527. -- Director (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine anyway. I would support it...anything is better than the current state which is just poorly conceived...Shokatz (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you support a rename to Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia? Do you support a merge of the Hungarian period article over into here? -- Director (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure why not. I think we actually already discussed it before and I said I would be fine with that...until it all went "bonkers". :) Shokatz (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As much as it's wonderful to see the two of you edit-warriors agree on something :P I explained why this kind of sectioning is useful at Talk:Croatia in the union with Hungary#merge/unmerge with the 925-1102 period article. I seem to get the impression that one or more of you think that the perpetual union/conquest flamewar will somehow go away if we don't split the Croatian history series at the turn of the 12th century - I have seen no reason to believe that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest I don't really care how we section these periods...whether it will stay like this or we merge them...whatever. I am mostly interested into linking these articles together in some fashion so someone who reads it for the first time f.e. can follow the entire history of the monarchy to the modern times. Which is why I made this suggestion in first place. But ok, if you guys think it's a lousy suggestion, then by all means let's continue with this "wonderful" setup with dozens of redirect pages on each article, articles having other period articles as sections, various infobox paradoxes and controversies, etc., etc. :) Shokatz (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Where is the disconnect? The History of Croatia article links them all in succession, as does {{History of Croatia}}. The only leftover fuzzy redirect is the one that says "(medieval)". That can be fixed by disambiguation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be the first to point out that it may be POV in favor of a personal union view. However, there is a reasoning by which it would be ok, namely we include the thing here - hence avoiding the problems brought on by a separate article - but we do not explicitly make any claim re the continuation of this state beyond 1102. We include the Hungarian period as as separate section, making the problems clear. That was my initial plan when organizing this period of history. Trust me, the wording would be so clear noone would think about proposing some kind of bias was behind the merge. The problem would be solved, I am confident (in fact, that's why I'm pushing this).
The separate article is just ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
What actual problems are brought on by a separate article? You don't see the implicit continuation of the state through describing those centuries in the article about it? There's only so far you can push an 'aftermath' section before WP:UNDUE kicks in. When the starting position may be POV in favor of a view, the very notion of a foolproof wording becomes pure naivete.
Please take a step back to realize how WP:OWN-ish this sounds, and stop beating this dead horse. It's just not productive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
What dead horse?? The horse was already dead - then someone revived it. Pardon me if I wish to beat it back to dead status again. And, um, don't you at least need more people that agree with you before claiming the horse is dead and the two of us are beating it?
The obvious problem of the new article is that it solidifies in place problems that can be much more easily resolved if they were handled in an article section - not an entire article. Frankly I look forward to restoring the more easily-amenable form this issue will take when its back in its intended section format.
As I said before: a separate article is bad from the "no personal union!" perspective since its title is suggestive of some kind of consensus which not attested in sources at all. And its bad from the "personal union!!!" perspective since it suggests this state, the one covered in this article, disappeared in 1102. Both views are left unsatisfied.
Conversely a merge is good for the "no-personal" view since the possibility of a personal union isn't enshrined in an entire new article, and the "personal" view likes it because it extends this state further. Not to mention that it gives this useless hulk of an article some meaning, and at least allows us to post a coa and a Sabor reference fgs... Its only editors from that diseased corpse that is hrWiki that might mind this, since it doesn't correspond to their elementary-school-derived organization on that cesspool of a project (pls pardon the spot-on-accurate imagery). -- Director (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Union, Tomislav, name, and other issues[edit]

Singe the dispute ranges several topics, lets try to adopt a point-by-point format of discussion?

  • Tomislav. There is no evidence for Tomislav's royal status besides the single letter, "the authenticity of which is disputed" (because only a transcript remained, from much later). As the sources say, so shall our article. The claims that he was king simply because he is referred to as "ruling" are laughable and pathetic nonsense from Croatian national historians. A baron "rules" his barony as much as a king his kingdom.
  • Union.
    • The existence of a "union" is disputed. An annexation and incorporation is not a "union", neither "personal" nor any other kind. I'm sorry if this will affect your playthrough of Crusader Kings 2, Shokatz - but I'm afraid that is how the sources assess the overall position of scholarship. I am not opposed to giving more prominence to the union view, but the primary statement must be that of ambiguity.
    • Most importantly: you CAN NOT declare that your WP:SYNTHESIS from published material indicates anything. Unless you accept this you will encounter people telling you that again and again: you can't say "the consensus is the personal union" without a source that says "the consensus is the personal union". I really hope I'm finally getting through on this.
    • I will say again that there is no question the Croatian/Dalmatian lands enjoyed a large degree of de facto autonomy for significant periods - it is the de jure status that is in dispute. Other realms subordinate to the Hungarian crown also enjoyed autonomy and de facto independence! Remember that the crown ended up being elective. This is wwhy I have no problem with favoring the "union" view, but never to such a degree as to give it prominence.
  • "Hrvatska zemlja". Unless the name "Hrvatska zemlja" is attested in #1 some kind of "official", #2 contemporary use - it should not be used in the infobox entry for official, contemporary names. Further: "Hrvatska zemlja" means "Croatian land", not "Croatian kingdom". There probably wasn't even a word for "Kingdom of Croatia" in the primitive jumble that was the Serbo-Croatian language of that time.

-- Director (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the other talk page, the Chronicle of Duklja calls him a king ("King Tomislav had sons and daughters and died in the 13th year of his kingship"), a letter from the Pope dated 925 calls him a king ("Tamisclao, regi Crouatorum, et Michaeli, excellentissimo duci Chulmorum"), a note preceding the conclusions of the Council calls him a king ("in prouintia Croatorum et Dalmatiarum finibus Tamisclao rege...dictus Croatorum rex"), and a "Croatian king" is mentioned in the conclusions of the Split council in 925 (rex et proceres Chroatorum). Your POV that he wasn't a king is just your POV, all evidences point out that he was a king, although there are no surviving sources on his coronation. And no, the existence of a union is not disputed. You and Serbian nationalists are disputing it, no one else. The personal union was disputed in the 19th century, but since there are no more Croatian-Hungarian tensions, there is no need for nationalist views over our common history. You should really read something despite writters who don't even know where river Cetina is. This has been discussed enough and there are dozens of Hungarian sources that explicitly call it a personal union and the position of Hungarian modern historians. "An annexation and incorporation is not a "union"" This is actually not true, first of all there was no annexation and there are is no evidence for that, but even if you read John Antwerp Fine who really calls the 1102 events an annexation, he calls the period between 1102 and 1526 not only a personal union, but even a Dual Monarchy. You don't need to accept their stance, you can allways agree with "historians" like Vladislav Sotirović, but you can't change historical facts because of your POV. Tzowu (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is from the 14th century at the earliest, and probably the 15th. That's six. hundred. years. later. Its like you today writing about the Priest of Duklja. Its not a contemporary source, and as such its damn near worthless. We have no idea when Tomislav died. As I said - what the secondary source says, so shall we.
  • All sources yet produced that review the position of scholarship on the issue - say the existence of a union is disputed. You can write your thoughts and opinions all day if you like. Until you find one that says there's a consensus, or that the opposing view is fringe, your own WP:SYNTH about "10,000 sources" means little or nothing. Nor do I care about the nationality of the sources, so you can probably stop talking about that nonsense. The ones I trust best are neither Croatian, nor Hungarian, nor Serbian. Sources like Bellamy and Jeffries and Fine. Sources that directly contradict you. I'd be more than happy to reject all local sources, if that would make you happier. If not, stop talking about that.
And for the record, I'm as Croatian as you are - the difference is I've been working on this project for years, and I care for what is known and what isn't. I do not fill-in the enormous gaps in the historical record with Tolkien/Disney fantasies about how I think our history "must" have been. -- Director (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There were two (2) Councils in Split, one in 925 and one in 928. The Chronicle of Duklja is of course a later source, but not "worthless" if its contents are confirmed by other sources, like in this case. Lszlo Heka and Barna Mezey clearly say that the position of Hungarian historiography is that there was a personal union, and you keep removing that because you know that it would lead those who read the article to the conclusion that there really was a personal union. "Why would the Hungarians say it was a personal union if there was no personal union?" That's why you keep deleting that section, its pretty much obvious that it contradicts what Bellamy wrote (the same Bellamy who doesn't know where Cetina is and who is not actually a historian). Heck, even Bellamy wrote "in 1102, the nobles decided that Croatia should enter into a personal union with Hungary". You wont have it your way so half of the article content says it was a union, and half that it wasn't. Once Tito's article has a huge Controvery section and a mention in the lead that a lot of scholars view him as a war criminal then I'll maybe review what you have to say. Even if that would not suit the SF nonsense about a glorious resistance army that liberated us. Tzowu (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets go through the edits of user Director in detail

1. "Conquest of Pannonia" what conquest of Pannonia? What is the source for a so called conquest? Why would we add that when 90% of other historians call it an Elevation to kingdom in c. 925? And why should we have a question mark next to the year 925 when, again, most historians add a circa (c.) before it? The dispute is not whether Croatia became a kingdom or not, but when did it became a kingdom. The first mention of a Kingdom and a King are in 925.

2. "Tomislav is regarded as the first king due to being addressed as Rex (King) in a letter sent by Pope John X and the Council conclusions of Split in 925 AD. Circumstances and the date of his coronation are unknown.[1]" What is wrong with this footnote? Again the POV of user Director that Tomislav was not a king and that it should be more in favour of the "not a king" view.

3. The previous lead section mentioned both the dispute between Croatian and Hungarian historiography in the 19th century and the position of our modern historiographies. Now user Director added a c/p of what is already mentioned in the Unification section of the article, changed it a bit to his own POV, and he uses a book from a "Professor of International Security" as the main source for the lead section. Yes, you read it correctly, a "Professor of International Security".

4. Why is the name "Early Croatian states" better than "Background" and "Rise of Croats" (wtf, Rise of Nations anyone?) better than "Early Croatian states"?

5. "The prince who headed the Croats in the south at the time was called Višeslav." This what user Director reverted, which is funny coming from a user that is fighting against "Croatian POV". What "Prince Višeslav"? Who is that? There is NO evidence about his existence.

6. Line 101 [33], I think that he cant explain a single edit he made here. I'll assume that he reverted it cause he is not used to a user who doesn't need six (6) edits [34] just to make 20 bytes of text.

I'll edit this further on... Tzowu (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Look, understand my position. Yes, Tomislav was probably a king, that is indeed likely - but it isn't confirmed concretely. This is what secondary sources say, and that's what we should say. This uncertainty, presented in sources such as V.A. Fine et al., needs to come across in the text. Tomislav must not be affirmed as having been a king as a matter of fact. This is not known.
And pls present the source for your claim re the Synod of Spalato. Fine says that (quote p.196) "everything we know about both synods comes from the letters of Pope John X". I think it more than likely that your other source is as extemporaneous as Duklja.
  • Taking authors out of context should be beneath you. Bellamy has been quoted verbatim and so have other sources that contradict you outright.
Please, do continue making your personal bias as obvious as possible. For your information, having a "Controversy" section is against WP:MoS. Reviewers for WP:GA status demanded several times that the section be dismantled into the rest of the text. Which is what I did. You're free to take your concerns there if you really have something to say about that. If not, I'll obviously have to view your comments as tantrums and little more. You are definitely someone's sockpuppet, by the way. -- Director (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not post in increments but post all at once, or else you'll cause WP:EDIT CONFLICT. Use proper WP:INDENT too, please. As regards your objections, I rolled back the article. If you introduced changes that do not pertain to the disputed matter, then feel free to re-introduce them. I can't be bothered to again and again weed out non-controversial edits from those you know are opposed on the talkpage.

1. As opposed to an entirely fictional "elevation to kingdom"? Do you know of some "elevation" I don't? How do you know there was one? The rulers might simply have been referred to as "rex" from then on without any "elevation". I tried to find a more appropriate term, but couldn't really. Any suggestions?
We have no idea whatsoever when the kingdom started to exist. We don't know if it was "circa" 925! It could have been ten years earlier for all we know. 925 is just the date of the papal letter, nothing more. It should be "early 10th century - 1102".

2. The footnote is missing the information you removed - that the authenticity of the (absolutely crucial) papal letter is questioned. That's from both Bellamy and Van Atwerp Fine.

3. The important issue is that the union is in dispute. That should be the first fact, followed by some emphasis on the union view. That's my position. A half-dozen different sources are brought forward for that.

4,5,6.. Next time I advise you to separate your opposed edits from those that are not. -- Director (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out number 2 once more, what is wrong with that one? You are using Fine only when it suits you and taking it out of context (like on page 297 Fine wrote "ca. 910- 28 Tomislav (king by 925)". A mix of Florin Curta and Fine is better than just one of them. As for the council, Fine, page 266: "Now let us turn to the controversial church affairs. The most discussed and supposedly best-known events of this period are the church councils held in Split in 925 and 928. The first, in particular, was a major affair attended by clerics and laity including Tomislav of Croatia and Michael of Zahumlje. It was under the chairmanship of a papal legate and attended by clerics from both Croatian and Byzantine Dalmatia. Yet, despite the importance of these councils, almost everything about them turns out to be uncertain." We also have Florin Curta who wrote: "As a consequence, the authenticity of the letters included in the "longer" version of the History (known as Historia Salonitana maior) has come under suspicion, but there can be little doubt about the synods themselves, the decisions of which were confirmed at later councils." Further on, "having a "Controversy" section is against WP:MoS" really? Yet we have a "Unification controversy" section here and a "Historical context, terms and controversies" section on the union article. Interesting, not to mention a "Controversies" section on the Franjo Tuđman article. Yes, the Croatian wikipedia really is controversial. Tzowu (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Its incredible that you would accuse me of taking Fine out of context - while you're taking him out of context. Quoting a snippet as oppose to the paragraphs where he actually deals with the question of Tomislav's royal status.
I have no idea what the point is of your quotes. You do realize they confirm what I've been saying?
Look I really don't care if you believe me, I'll be damned if I'll go searching for diffs on your account. Nor do I know why we can't have "historical criticism" sections about people. I just know that's what the WP:GA reviewer requested, and that the text was simply moved into the other sections - not deleted. Now shut up about Tito and Tudjman please. I think we have enough problems without the conflicts from your past sockpuppet incarnations. -- Director (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats exactly the problem, you keep reverting everything including edits that are not opposed by you (since there is no one other who has problems with these articles). Or beter to say, edits which you can't oppose. You should learn to use the "Show preview" button and add your prefered content through an edit, not a revert. The elevation to kingdom was added by you anyway, and now suddenly we have a fictional conquest of Pannonia (?). Anyway, most historians claim that Croatia became a kingdom c. 925, and that's what we had in the article. Where is a problem with that? Again, Fine page 297 "ca. 910- 28 Tomislav (king by 925)". One more pointless edit from your side. Fine is a nice source and if we followed him 99% of your edits would be turned down. And the Tito (and Tuđman etc.) articles are just a textbook example of a POV, what you are proposing here you deny on other articles.
"but there can be little doubt about the synods themselves, the decisions of which were confirmed at later councils" geez...
And don't move my answers. Btw if you looked really close at my earlier edits you would have noticed that I added brackets next to my signature. No, that was not because I thought it looked nice but because i thought it had to be done like that since it said "and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~ ~~)." I thought no one will notice such a noob fail. And if you googled my nickname you would also notice that I use this nick on index forum. [35] Tzowu (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I do. As I said, please, please keep the edits you know are currently and actively opposed on the talkpage - separate from those that or not. Or better yet - don't introduce opposed changes without some kind of consensus. And again, please do, by all means, re-introduce the unopposed changes that do not pertain to the union, Tomislav, and the other contentious issues. I can't be bothered to hang around on standby to weed-out your edits every time, so I will roll back. In fact, it would be best if you introduce the unopposed changes right now, so you're sure your work doesn't get lost.
Uh... yes. The synods definitely happened. So?? Am I right that your "conclusions" which mention "rex" are from "later councils" and thus also extemporaneous? -- Director (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I won't do that, if you have a problem with some edits then edit just that part. I made several edits in the time period that didn't even include the lead section or infobox which you (and only you) are opposing. You are used to make c. 20 edits for a few hundred bytes, I'm used to just one or two and a few minor edits for spelling issues if needed. As for the councils, the surviving transcripts are from later centuries, they surely couldn't have survived in original form for a 1000 years, we are fortunate that so much charters are preserved that would have vanished if not transcribed (like the Bulgarian ones)... but is it really necessary to add so much text in a little footnote? If yes then we can add this text as well:
Tomislav was the first Croatian ruler whom the Papal chancellery honoured with the title "king".[35] It is generally said that Tomislav was crowned in 925, however, this is not certain. It is not known when, where, or by whom he was crowned, or was he crowned at all.[1] Tomislav is mentioned as a king in two preserved documents published in the Historia Salonitana. First in a note preceding the text of the conclusions of the Council of Split in 925, where it is written that Tomislav is the "king" rulling "in the province of the Croats and in the Dalmatian regions" (in prouintia Croatorum et Dalmatiarum finibus Tamisclao rege),[36][37][38] while in the 12th canon of the Council conclusions the ruler of the Croats is called "king" (rex et proceres Chroatorum).[38] In a letter sent by the Pope John X Tomislav is named "King of the Croats" (Tamisclao, regi Crouatorum).[39][36] The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja titled Tomislav as a king and specified his rule at 13 years.[36] Although there are no inscriptions of Tomislav to confirm the title, later inscriptions and charters confirm that his 10th century successors called themselves "kings".[37] Tzowu (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
All I'm trying to do is convey the tone of the source, as briefly as possible. I think this is important enough that it warrants a more in-depth note like that one, since we have 925 and Tomislav all over the infobox. Its nothing unusual, there are much larger notes in infoboxes of this type. -- Director (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tzowu: it doesn't matter what the primary sources say. It is forbidden to interpret primary sources by ourselves - only secondary sources matter. And if Tomislav's existence as a king is disputed by reliable, secondary sources due to the scant historical evidence, it should be presented at such in the article, and all of the articles where Tomislav is mentioned. Croatian-only sources are not the "truth", and in fact should be treated with suspicion simply due to the fact that native self-histories written by government-paid historians from the Balkans are usually glorified fairy tales. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • More than half of the entry on Tomislav's article in Croatian national encyclopedia is dedicated to the uncertainty of him being a king.[36]. So it's hardly a "historical fact" as User:Tzowu argues, even from the POV of Croatian scholarship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that him being a king is a universally accepted historical fact, but practically all historians call him exactly that way since all surviving evidences point out that he almost certainly was a king (although nothing is certain...). The uncertanity, or better to say, a further critical examination of available sources, was first raised precisely by Croatian historians like Nada Klaić or Ivo Goldstein later, even Neven Budak today (even in the TV series "Croatian Kings"), not foreign ones who still often write that Tomislav was crowned in 925. You can't find that in modern Croatian historiography, so questions about Tomislav are coming exclusively from the POV of Croatian scholarship. However, both Florin Curta and John Antwerp Fine call him a king in their books and later when listing the order of rulers and events, and the disputes risen by them are about his coronation (date, place...), not him being a king, and we already have all that in the articles. Tzowu (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)