Talk:Peter Krešimir IV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problems[edit]

There were some problems which I encountered while cleaning up this page. The page was full of redundancies, some bad English, and could have used some tightening. Some information was added, some was probably lost. Here's why:

  1. Merania lost in 1060 — This is what the page originally said; that Merania, which I take to be basically synonymous with Dalmatia, or northern Dalmatia, was lost due to the introduction of the Roman rite in 1060. This does not makes sense in light of everything else we know, so what was trying to be said?
  2. Chronology of Amico's invasion — The invasion began November 1075, but the siege of Rab was taking place April &ndash May? This doesn't make sense! Or is the invasion a reference to the mainland action which didn't take place until long after the siege? What is the source for Amico? To what extant was the cession of Belgrade to the Normans ever realised? If Kresimir died in early 1075 at the latest, how could he have been captured post-siege in May of that year at the earliest and subsequently ransomed?

I hope somebody has the answers, and a good set of sources for this figure. Srnec 05:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed quite confusing as there are many confusing and conflicting informations, which had led some to speculate that it was not Patar who was captured, but instead an obscure ruler called Stephen II. It has been sugested that Dmitar Zvonimir did not take any actions against the normans, because he used the plot together with them, to dethrone Stephen. When Zvonimir died, he was succeded by Stephen who was unable to rule properly due to numerous mutilations that he recieved during his torturous imprisonment. So, Peter may not have been captured at all!Egyptzo (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the article in the following few days. I believe I know enough about Petar Krešimir to make this have sense. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's about irrelevant sentence found in 1 Venetian document about how Duke Contanero had conquered Zadar, which rebellion encouraged by Hungarian King Salamon. It's considered incorrect since Hungarian and Venetian rule were not recorded in any document in Zadar or anywhere else. Zadar was strongly in the hands of patrician Madi family from 30's, also after 1069 there were no records of the Byzantine administrators in Zadar anymore. This record came from Dandolo, an author whose bias and decoration with virtual accidents is proven. Also it considers only Zadar, not the rest of Dalmatia.
  2. In 70's of 11th century Dalmatian communes brought the Normans (Byzantine enemies) to strengthen their resistance to the Empire. Of course, it immediately meant reaction of Byzant, Venetian duke Dominico Silvio (a vassal to Byzant) received task from Byzantine Emperor to admonish Dalmatians because of their alliance to the enemies of the Empire. So the priors of Split, Trogir, Biograd and Zadar had to make new pact with Venetian Duke. Venetian fleet came to Dalmatia to sign agreement called "foedus" - Dalmatian obey not to collaborate with the Normans again. After signing Venetians immediately went back to Venice. But autonomic Dalmatian communes didn't change their politics, actually they didn't care about the Empire interests anymore, alliance with the Normans was not stopped.
From 1035 to 1058 all Dalmatia was under authority of Croatian king Stjepan I. Another Croatian king Petar Krešimir IV annexed Dalmatia to Croatia by agreement with Byzantine Emperor in 1069. Petar Krešimir IV died in 1074 and instead of his nephew Stjepan, the court was given to nobleman Slavić from Omiš (Croatian family of Kačić). Dalmatian communes were not happy about him, since he was proclaimed a king by will of Croatian people and not by royal legacy, so that was 1st reason why they invited the Normans.
It was Norman voivod Amico de Giovenazzo who came with a big army from Apulia. In the same year (1074) King Slavić was captured by them and taken away. There were no records about him anymore.
Story which escaped from some (Italian?) sources and found place in international historiography goes like this: "The Normans struck first against northern Dalmatia in 1074... But within the next three years the Venetians sent a fleet... and drove them out. The doge of Venice again took the title of dux of Dalmatia..."
Well, the Normans sieged Rab but didn't touch it. In 14th April 1075 the island of Rab was surrounded by a huge Norman fleet. Citizens were desperate so they decided to ask some help from their patron-saint St. Kristofor, made a solemn ceremony and put his skull on the top of the city walls, begging God and St. Kristofor for a help. It worked. The Normans simply disappeared over the night in 9th of May. The city was untouched. It was a miracle! 9th of May became Dies Victoriae fete-day, celebrated until nowadays. There was no Venetian fleet, they were not allowed to cruise in the Croatian sea in the north. Actually Venetian Duke was not allowed officially to send his fleet to any part of Dalmatia without permission of B. Emperor. All northern Adriatic was strongly Croatian until the beginning of the 12th century. Venetian dominance on Adriatic occurred in the next centuries, but not in 11th.
Orseolo's title "dux of Dalmatia" in 998, recorded only in his own memoirs, and Duke Dominico Silvio's alleged one in 107? didn't happen in the Dalmatian cities. These V. Dukes were using these imaginary titles only to gain some political points in Venice.
Pieces from N. Klaić, I. Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409., Filozofski fakultet Zadar, 1976. Zenanarh (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and family[edit]

The article should be referenced completely. Anyone who can arse himself to do some research (books) to back up all the claims in this WikiText, should present the results here. Er-vet-en (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources that indicate his family, one, from Sisic who mentions Hicela as Kresimir mother and Stjepan I (from Kresimirovic), the other one implies that "Stjepan" (Stjepan Svetoslavić), son of Suronja married Hicela, which opens up a allegation that Hicela is Zvonimir's mother. Paradox. I'm letting someone else to clear this up since I'm tired of constantly reverting myself... Er-vet-en (say) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something's not right...[edit]

In this article, first it says:

‘In November 1075., the Norman Count Amico invaded Croatia... he allegedly did manage to capture the Croatian king himself’

then it says:

Zvonimir deposed him and he died in a Norman prison during the first half of 1074.[12]

There are two things that are not right here:

  1. the Normans invaded in 1075, captured the king, and then the king dies in captivity in 1074
  2. the Normans allegedly managed to capture the kind... but then we know he died in captivity. So how is it allegedly?

Someone needs to seriously clean up this article, I can only guess what other horrible mistakes it carries... --Gcsaba2 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2023[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no clear consensus for the proposal, as the arguments for and against are both strong and valid, and the votes are evenly split. The policy and guideline support for the proposal is countered by the convention and consistency arguments against it. The common name and concision arguments for the proposal are countered by the recognisability and navigation arguments against it. The discussion also shows that some participants are unaware or dissatisfied with the RfC that changed the WP:NCROY guideline, and that some participants are concerned about the other Croatian rulers who are not part of the proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– These are unique names. There is no need for disambiguation. Per WP:NCROY: "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." This is in line with WP:Article titles policy, specifically WP:CONCISE. Compare with uniquely named rulers of Serbia (e.g. Stefan Dušan), Poland (e.g. Mieszko II Lambert), Byzantium (e.g. Constantine VIII), etc.

We will need to come up with something different for Domagoj, Branimir, Tomislav, etc, because just adding "of Croatia" does not do anything for disambiguation; nearly every man bearing those names is from Croatia. But we will leave that for a separate discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. Titles for rulers of Croatia should maintain "Name # Country". Walrasiad (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no argument at all. Impressive. Surtsicna (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the title of a movie series, no indication is a person or sovereign. It is not helpful, reduces recognizability and thus a disserve to our readers. Is that argument enough? Walrasiad (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about "Trpimir II of Croatia" indicates that he was a sovereign either. John VIII of Constantinople was not a sovereign. If the goal is to clearly define the subject in the article title, we should have it titled "Trpimir II, king of Croatia". But it is not the job of the article title to define the subject. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not about people learning from the title who the subject was. It is about people familiar with Trpimir II recognizing that the article titled Trpimir II is about Trpimir II. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, with the exception of Muncimir who probably doesn't qualify for WP:SINGLENAME, and Trpimir I who arguably comes under point 5 of WP:SOVEREIGN (monarchs whose rank is below that of king). Rosbif73 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rosbif73, please note that point 5 of WP:SOVEREIGN says "whose rank is below that of king and whose plain common name is ambiguous". Trpimir I is unambiguous. Muncimir is the only person in history to be called Muncimir, so arguably nobody qualifies for WP:SINGLENAME better than him :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I misread point 5. I've struck my opposition for Trpimir I, though I do think that, procedurally speaking, it would have been better to consider Muncimir separately given his absence of ordinal and the need to assert SINGLENAME as well as SOVEREIGN. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - my position on these RMs has been established before. Talk:Edward I of England et al. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose shorthand jargon, even if very common in court circulars. Either use “King …” or “… of Croatia”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed names are not shorthand for anything. They are the unambiguous, guideline-supported common names. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The shortened titles under discussion here are aligned with policy – they're demonstrably more WP:CONCISE, and because disambiguation isn't necessary, adding "...of Croatia" would be WP:OVERPRECISION. Further, after the recent RfC consensus at NCROY, that guideline explicitly instructs us to omit territorial designations except when we need disambiguation; it's not the RfC result I would have personally liked to see, but trying to make an end run around it here would go against the policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unnecessary shortening that hampers navigation.No such user (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody looking for Peter Krešimir IV will be hampered if the article about him is called Peter Krešimir IV. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If can add, it is really annoying constantly to have edit out the "of Croatia" (or else) when making wikilinks in text, and there's no hampering of navigation when in the search can be seen short description (which editors sometimes forget to edit or make it more concise for faster navigation).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per explanation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Not going to be confused with anyone else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to these moves in principle, but I don't like leaving the other Croatian rulers for a separate discussion. To me, there is no net gain in lopping off "of Croatia" from some titles and not others. It only results in a confusing mess. There is nothing wrong with "Trpimir II of Croatia", it only happens to be against our policy (which we are allowed to ignore). I do not understand the zeal for concision at the expense of consistency. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the sentiment, Srnec. I proposed having a separate discussion about the titles of articles about the other Croatian rulers because I believe they should be moved but am not quite sure where. Tomislav of Croatia is actually a far worse title than Trpimir II of Croatia because the former may equally refer to any other Tomislav from Croatia. That is why we no longer have titles such as John of England. To sum up, "of Croatia" should be loped off from all of the titles, but in a few cases it needs to be replaced with something else, something actually disambiguatory. Interestingly enough, the concision vs consistency debate is addressed at WP:CONSISTENT itself. Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: First and final relist, as the “supporters” of the move have provided reasonable arguments for why it should be moved, while the “opposers” have not provided reasonable arguments for why it should not be moved. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Croatia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous discussions. @Vanderwaalforces: The reasons to not move it are that the new NCROY naming guidelines cited are disputed and do not necessarily convey the consensus of the community. There was a long-held, powerful default convention that "Foo of Country" is the default, and there needs to be a reason to change away from that (e.g. COMMONNAME). SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That "Foo of Country" convention was always in contravention of the WP:AT policy, which is why it was constantly challenged and eventually changed after a two-month-long RfC. The RfC closer found "a strong consensus" for the change, and to imply otherwise now is hardly fair play. The proposed moves are in line not just with what WP:NCROY says but also what WP:AT policy says. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think you or anyone else in that RFC did anything "wrong", nor do I fault the closer of that RFC. You're absolutely correct that the current version of NCROY supports the move, and at the end of the day naming conventions are just that - conventions, either style is ultimately valid. But the fact remains I don't agree with the outcome and didn't know about that RFC at the time. Just as the guideline changed in 2023, it could potentially change again, and if another RFC were held, I'd support a revision. SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire I didn't know about the RFC either and am also appalled at the outcome I would definitely support a revision. Walrasiad (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Krešimir_IV&oldid=1208544012"