Talk:Croatia

Template:V0.5

Slovenia

Croats and Slovenes hate each other. They have many disputes. I think that the article should incorporate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CefurPanda (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no? I mean, do they hate Slovenes more than they hate Serbs? Besides, how on earth is that encyclopedic?--Baka toroi (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC) . The above comment is false. While there are several disputes, (borders, etc.) there is no "hatred" between croats and slovenes. Historicaly croats and slovenes have never been at war with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.0.131 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Slovenia-Croatia border (on land and sea) is yet undetermined and subject to negotiations. Until final borders are set, the article should not read "[Croatia] shares a sea border with Italy in the Gulf of Trieste." and thus predetermine the border and close the slovenian exit to international waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedekmraz (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because Slovenes don't like the borders doesn't make them "undetermined and subject to negotiations". The current borders are Croatia's internationally accepted boundaries. Thousands of Croats didn't die just so those borders could be signed over to Slovenes. The day the international community gives the green light for those borders to be changed is the day they give the green light for other border changes (Bosnia) and open the door to another war. We won't see that day because pandering to Slovene spite, jealousy and greed isn't worth the price of widespread slaughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadoma (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Serbian nationalists ride again...

Demography... Some liar wrote that 400.000-500.000 left Croatia during the war and then provided a BBC link that says that 200.000 Serbs fled because of the Operation Storm. I'm getting so fed up with these liars.What can wiki do about those people who deliberatly lie and are trying to include inaccurate info in the articles.

And Serb nationalists don't care about the timeline of events. Croats were expelled in 1991.In 1992 about 500.000 Croats fled their homes but they have returned because Croatia won the war. Serbs fled in august of 1995.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Amnesty international link also mentions 200.000 Serbs and not half a million like some Serbian liars say.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is just Operation Storm exclusively. And if we see the difference btw 600,000 and 150,000, 200k is obviously not the figure for the whole war. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Serbs left the so-called Krajina region in 1993-1994 because the unemployment rate was 92%.

Croatian pre-war population census from 1991 counts 585.000 Serbs.Today there are 250.000 Serbs in Croatia. But the thing that pisses me off is that user Swiki78 wants to erease a historical fact of Croats being expelled from their homes first simply because they returned 'cause Croatia won the war it didn't start in the first place.So Serbs would love to forget the first 4 years of the war and move on to a single military operation Storm where they finaly got their ass kicked.I'm sure in a few years the article Croatian war of independence will start like this...

Ustashi Croats launched the Operation Storm in 1995 to expell Serbs and that's why the Serbs started the war in 1991. LoL.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that GriffinSB's edit about Croats being expelled has been reverted, for the understandable reason that the BBC reference does not provide any evidence for it. If you could find a reference, Griffin, it would probably help. I've found this, this and this, which might be helpful. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thx Larry. The HRW link mentions 80.000 Croats cleansed just from that one area of Eastern Slavonia.I'll detail the section later.

I was just pissed when SWiki78 said that the Croats didn't leave their country so they shouldn't be mentioned.A cheap attempt to hide the course of war and to misinform the casual reader who hasn't got a clue about the war with intent to portrey the Serbs as victims of the war.

It would be something like saying the Germans are the victims of WW2,because of the reprisals on the eastern front for example or the allied bombing of the cities.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC) --(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That the expelled Croats didn't leave the country is significant in as much as it means that it didn't have an impact on the overall population, but demography isn't just about total population - it can cover internal population distribution too, so I think you'd be OK to mention it, provided it's referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That 's whay i said on SWiki78's talkpage. Croats didn't just stay in Croatia they also fled to Western Europe because their hokmes were destroyed.Demography includes migration,emigration and imigration.The demographic picture of croatia is totaly changed because the people live all across croatia but in different area's. So offcourse is should be mentioned 'cause the demography of Croatia is 100% different then it was in 1991.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is late to enter this discussion but this is very good statement:" 300,000 Serbs have fled the republic and that another 100,000 are ready to depart" This are 1992 words of Krajina minister Zdravko Zecevic [1] --Rjecina (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've rearanged the section.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is mildly amusing to see in the Demographics section that X # of Croats were "ethnically cleansed" and that X # of Serbs "fled". It feels as though its sub-Wikipedia standards to have such blatant presentation of POV. It is of little consequence as to how we word it as anyone mildly familiar with the topic can understand this all the same. That said, it is unfortunate that this biased account of events is the tolerated version. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it's stated like that is because the Serbian warcrimes and ethnic cleansing campaigns have been tried in numerous coutrs mostly by ICTY. The trial about the aftermath of the Operation Storm is still going on and there isn't any evidence that says that Serbs were expelled by any kind of force.They fled the approaching Croatian army.You can't convict someone of something that might have happened if ....Serbian nationalists are throwing all weight to Operation Strom in an attempt to somehow in a sick way equalize their 4 years of terror and the liberation by the Croatian army.....--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Red, white, and blue

Flag of the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia.

Flag of the Habsburg Kingdom of Slavonia.

Flag of Dalmatia.

I just want to clear this up, and I'm hoping someone knows for sure: the Croatian colors, red white, and blue, are they for

• A) just a unique Croatian combination of the Pan-Slavic colors,
• B) are they a merge of the flags of the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), and the Kingdom of Slavonia due to the unification of the two (see Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia),
• C) are they representing Croatia with the red and white, and Dalmatia with the blue.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Red white blue was a flag of Ban Jelačić in 1848 for "Slavonia-Croatia-Dalmatia United Kingdom", since Medieval Croatian Kingdom had similar name in administration. So obviously both B) and C). Zenanarh (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The original flag used by Jelacic was to represent all Croatian regions. I read somewhere that they wanted to have red-white flag only as in Croatian CoA but it was too much like the Polish flag so they decided to add one more color and since blue was predominant in both Slavonian and Dalmatian CoA they used it. Apparently Hungarian flag was used as a model as well. The fact these colors were also pan-slavic colors was only a welcome coincidence --Raguseo (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Growth Rate

The natural growth rate of the population is currently negative with the demographic transition completed half a century ago?? I do not get this,sounds offending to the Croats.--Taulant23 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Population growth rate for 2008 is -0.043% [2]--Rjecina (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what offensive about it. Maybe you could explain further? You might want to take a look at the demographic transition article for an explanation of the concept. According to this article, demographic transition was completed in the 1970s, which is 30 years, not 50, so that should be changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

completed half a century ago,it sounds that the Croats never got controled of their growth population data,that's all.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how saying that the demographic transition is complete makes it sound at if there's a problem with the population growth data. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Completed half a century ago, to me it sounds that Croats are backward or something.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be the case, but at least we have a reference now, which is the most important thing. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Map Needs Updating

The map of Europe showing the location of Croatia does not show Kosovo. 79.77.27.67 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody recognizes Kosovo. The map will not change until at least 2/3rd of all UN members recognize Kosovo. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Change borders

Croatia currently has a silly "butterfly" shape, which makes travel and governance really difficult. Why don't they swap territories with the serbs and slovenians to make Croatia a more roundish shape? Weird shaped countries usually fall apart quick owing to their many geographical problems. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you propose new wars in the Balkans? :) Don't worry it won't fall apart just like that, especially if you bear in mind that there was a kingdom of the same name in the same place 1.000 years ago. How many modern European countries have the ancestors of the same name and in the same place 1.000 years ago? Zenanarh (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "weird shapes", maybe the U.S. should just give Alaska to Canada? absurd, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.131.81 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's clear this topic once and for all

Croatia is not a sucsessor of Independant State of Croatia but of the Socialist Republic of Croatia established on AVNOJ in 1943.It was established by the Croatian antifascist partisan movement(Tito and the most leaders of his communist gang were Croatian)and not the Ustashi regime.Some people deliberatly want to attach this Independent State of Croatia image to Croatia's today's image. Second some moron rewrote the history paragraph in very bad English(which i corrected) and with no refferences.Total Serbian nationalist side of the story is left out the part that Serbs started the war in Croatia and comitted numerous crimes against Croatian civilians.It fails to mention all the ICTY findings and the guilt Serbian nationalists carry for the beginning and the course of the war.How long is wiki going to allow idiots to rape articles when they want to?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Croatian British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbian nationalists ride again for who-knows-which time

The article "In 1941-1945, during World War II,.......,the bulk of this Serb population left en mass." - I haven't heard so much wonderful mix of Serbian propaganda and diplomatic approach for many years. Seems like they never quit when it comes to rewriting history. Please, do something about this. It gives wikipedia a bad name. Slavuj (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This requires a little correction...

"In 1941-1945, during World War II, an Axis puppet state known as the Independent State of Croatia existed. During that period, NDH authorities killed between 330,000 and 380,000 Serbs within what is today territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia"

If we mention the NDH than the crimes committed by Ustashe regime should also be including the other nationalities Roma, Jews etc. Because then, it would show how big the atrocities of this regime which all Croats are ashamed of were. This way it implicitly portraits Serbs as victims in a place which is not appropriate. There is a separate article which talks about relations between Croats and Serbs, so I propose we change it into:

"In 1941-1945, during World War II, an Axis puppet state known as the Independent State of Croatia existed. During that period, NDH authorities killed between 330,000 and 380,000 Serbs, Jews, Roma and political opponents within what is today territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia"

This is more historically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.22.208 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Estimates by Holocaust institutions

The Yad Vashem center claims that over 500,000 Serbs were killed in the Independent State of Croatia, including those who were killed at Jasenovac, where approximately 600,000 victims of all ethnicities were killed. [64] Some Croatian commentators and holocaust revisionists have criticized these victim counts as exaggerated. [65][66]. The same figures are concluded by the Simon-Wiesentall center. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, also citated in quote by the Jewish virtual library, the victim figures are as follows: ...The Croat authorities murdered between 330,000 and 390,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia during the period of Ustaša rule; more than 30,000 Croatian Jews were killed either in Croatia or at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[67]

source: | Jasenovac@Wikipedia

So, you see, most conservative estimation is: ~330,000 to 380,000 killed Serbs + ~30,000 jews + ~20,000 romas +~15,000 croats and others, which NOT equals (≠) 330,000 to 380,000 serbs + jews + romas + croats + others killed by Independent State of Croatia. Do the math.

By the way, why´s www.holocaustresearchproject/.org on a blacklist? 94.189.231.6 (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP data

I changed estimate GDP data (year 2008) to factual GDP data (year 2007) and used newly published IMF database (updated in April 2008.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gggh (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, I wanted to do that, as well, I corrected 2008 data, but than I thought I should just put 2007 data,anyways, glad someone else did,.Mic of orion (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone put an estimation GDP data again. I'll edit that, AGAIN. Gggh (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I want the person who stated that Operation Strom was a campaign of Croatian ethnic cleansing banned.The prossecution at the ICTY trial in The Hague said it themselfs that Operation storm is not on trial but the trial is about some crimes that happened in the aftermath.Calling the Operation Storm an campaign of ethnic cleansing is very POV and untrue.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be this edit of Bg007 (talk · contribs). Ironically, in the same edit he removes cited fact that ethnic cleansing was organised by the Serbs [who wanted to "remain in Yugoslavia"]. Judging by other edits of this user, such as this where Montenegrins are erased as an ethnicity [treacherous Serbs, they are! ^_^], he's just another instance of pan-Serb nationalist whose edit should be expressly undone without wasting time on arguing of obvious POV vandalism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire demographics section is laughable. I check up on it every 4 months or so to see what revision is in favour at present. Some residents decided to emigrate while others ran for their lives as cannibalistic soldiers approached... Please. Even within the section itself there are contradictions regardless of the POV wording. I am not going to bother dealing with it, but I would hope that someone with administrative rights decides to block those editors that are perverting the article. Just trying to spread some common sense. XJeanLuc (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Now is OK ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Moderate Serbs

“ Even moderate Serbs were killed by Serb forces. ”

I assume this means "Serbs having sympathy for Croats," right? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the original source for some reason. Moderate in this context and from my experience would suggest those who primarily did not believe in using warfare regardless of their stance on ideal territorial distributions should be. Its not a matter of having sympathy for one ethnic group or another, but rather its about having sympathy for all those afflicted by the break-up of SFRY. Disclaimer: I am not able to view the original document and am trying to answer your question based on logic stemming from personal experience with the region. XJeanLuc (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving history

"In 1102, Croatia entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary. This did not include the Dalmatian coast which was under the control of the Republic of Venice until the 18th century."

This is not true. In current form it implies that Dalmatia is not in fact Croatian land but Italian in character. Closer to the truth is that Venice and Hungary-Croatia were in almost constant struggle over control of Dalmatian coastal cities, changing ownership constantly. Besides that, Dalmatia in 12th century was consisted of coastal cities only, and in 18th century Dalmatia is more or less the same as now. I propose to remove second sentence which mentions Dalmatian coast.

"In 1941-1945, during World War II, an Axis puppet state known as the Independent State of Croatia existed. After the victory of Tito's People's Liberation Movement and the Allies, Croatia became a constitutive federal republic of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

This two sentences are ambiguous. In current form it seems that all Croatians were on Axis side. It should be clarified that part of Croatians supported Axis puppet state, and part supported Tito's partisans (People's Liberation Movement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.146 (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

listen to me now. what the heck man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.230.190 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoever changed the history section...

...concerning the issues of personal union with Hungary?

The article was nicely written, coherent and consistent until someone rewrote it. The section is poorly written, with facts exploding all around from unconfirmed resources.

"After all, the are two different statements, historians can't agree."

What the hell is this?

And this...

"Franz Josef I of Austria also only wore the title of King of Galicia, Lodomeria, etc. , although there were not separate Kingdoms named Kingdom of Galicia or Lodomeria, he was "Kaiser von Österreich und König von Ungarn" in "Österreich-Ungarn" [21] [22], not "Kaiser von Österreich und König von Ungarn und Kroatien" in "Österreich-Ungarn-Kroatien"."

Now, all of a sudden, the article is filled with a lot uber-detailed crap making it look totally uneven and impossible to read for average readers.

Why is it that so many non-Croatian people want to change Croatia's history section and burden it with unnecessary information? There should be a separate article for the personal union where this topic can be discussed. It, however has no place here and must be immidiately removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.120.193 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You deleted the truth. You didn't care about the sources, there were only 11 about the conquer of Croatia, but you deleted it. Soon you will be beaten by Serbia or some other countries, but i already see the newspaper : "Croatia entered a personal union with another country". It is so interesting, that there was nobody, who could lead them for more than 800 years. According to Croats, they simply chose Hungarian and Austrian leader at their own will. Wow, if it's true, they were extremely kind! Toroko (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This earlier comment of a Hungarian editor got removed, adding it back:

Both Kristó and Karácsonyi call it a personal union (though they do claim that the Pacta conventa document is fake and the personal union was forced on the Croatian nobles by military force), so I see no problem with the current text. This debate relates to Pacta conventa (Croatia) and possibly Croatia in personal union with Hungary and History of Croatia rather than this article. --Tgr (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Squash Racket (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are king people. If you do not believe that then it will be good idea to read Encarta [3] or maybe Britannica which is saying:"This state grew into a powerful military force under King Tomislav (reigned c. 910–928). 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). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles." about that.

Hungarian nobles also retained their lands and rights, but that doesn't mean they formed a seperate kingdom inside the Kingdom of Hungary. Yes, Croatia had some seperate institutions and statehood in terms of the real union. That's called a principality.--Bizso (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is encyclopedia like Encarta or Britannica and we must have similar versions of history in all 3 encyclopedia--Rjecina (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Political relations between Hungary and Croatia were best seen in their church organizations. According to the 12th century document with all dioceses in Europe under the Roman Pope protection, 19 Croatian and Dalmatian cities had dioceses subgrade to the 20th one - main diocese of Kaptol. These 19 were all in "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" list. Only Kaptol diocese was on the Hungarian list to symbolize "Pacta conventa", union of 2 kingdoms in person of 1 king. Many other documents were written separately, ie Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae for Croatia and Codex diplomaticus Hungariae for Hungary in 12th century. Zenanarh (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Karácsonyi never spoke about personal union, Kristó did, but he mentioned some problems about this theory. Toroko (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me see what others are saying: Highest Croatian court, Council of Europe, history files. Sources which I have used on another place are not shown on this talk page.

In the end you are having pope words "Reliquiae reliquiarum olim inclyti Regni Croatiae" about Kingdom of Croatia situation in 16 century--Rjecina (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me see what others are saying: Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Croatia Britannica Elementary Croatia UK EU Presidency. There was never a personal union between Hungary and Croatia, because Hungary conquered it 1091. Tell me something. Why do you fake history? Because you fake it. Hungary helped you against the turks, Hungary helped you against the serbs and bosnians, and in spite of that, you try to steal Hungary's achievments. Why? Do you know the word: thanks? Try to be honest, not nationalist. Otherwise, can you show me an original map, where it is written: Hungary-Croatia? No. Why? Try to think about it. Toroko (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I tell you why they fake history. Because anyone can write anything they want here. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It's a collection of personal reflections and assertions. The last thing that matters here are the FACTS and HISTORY itself. --Bizso (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offend you, but I must notice that you're quite good at demonstrating these problems. Please back your claims be reliable sources and properly cite them if you're intent on including them. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help against Turks, Serbs (?)and Bosnians (?). We do not want this help anymore because Croatia has lost great parts of territory in 15 and 16 century.

Your source is clearly saying that Croatia-Slavonia is kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy [4]. It is not province there is very great difference between kingdom of greater monarchy and province.

About map my advice is to look www.euroatlas.com and for example map of Europe in 1500 AD, or maybe 1200 AD, or maybe 1300 AD , or maybe to read modern Britannica about History of Croatia, or maybe to read 1868 agreement between Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia [5], or maybe ...... --Rjecina (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Official document of Hungarian government from XIX century is clearly saying:

"Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen, and since it is laid down in the Pragmatic Sanction also, that the lands of the Hungarian Crown are indivisible from one another...."

Croatia has been part of Crown of St. Stephen or you can call it lands of the Hungarian Crown, but Croatia has not been part of Hungary--Rjecina (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand it. Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was the part of Hungary. In the Kingdom of Hungary there was and administratical Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia but "it forms one and the same state complexity". [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroko (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And here is the normal map. [7] [8] [9] Toroko (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In Austria - Hungary, there were a lot of administrarical kingdoms (Galicia, Lodomeria, etc), but truly they were not kingdoms, but part of whether Austria or Hungary. Toroko (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to make difference between title and truth, for example Louis I of Hungary was never the king of Jerusalem or Sicily, it was just a title, like Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroko (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And you showed me 3 maps, but from the same idiot site. I show you from 3 different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroko (talk • contribs) 18:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So you can say anything, but Croatia was the part of Hungary between 1091 and 1918, whether you accept it or not. It had always serious autonomy, so it was not nothing, it was Croatia, i have no problem with Croatian people, but try to accept it, that it was not a separate kingdom, but an autonomous part. Toroko (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am making mistake but you have wanted official document and we now have official document confirmed by Croatian and Hungarian parliament.

This official document is clearly saying "Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen" (this is about history 1091-1868) and latter in 1 point of agreement (for period 1868-1918) "Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity" and in point 2 of agreement "King of Hungary and of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia is crowned with one and the same Crown and with one and the same Coronation ceremony, and that for all territories under the Crown of St. Stephen a joint Coronation Diploma is drawn up and published in the joint Parliament of these territories" and "Coronation diploma, meanwhile, is in addition to the Magyar text to be drawn up in the Croat language also, and in it also the integrity and provincial constitution of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia are to be guaranteed"

My point is that document is always speaking about Croatia on 1 side and Hungary on another. Document is never saying Croatia is part of Hungary, but only that Croatia has belonged to Crown of St. Stephen (for period 1091-1868) and that Hungary and Croatia will create one and the same state complexity. If 2 states create 1 state complexity they are not any of this states.

My question is: Do you understand difference between lands of Crown of St. Stephen and Hungary ?--Rjecina (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The kingdom of Hungary in its widest extent, or the " Realm of the Crown of St Stephen," comprises Hungary proper (Magyarorszdg), with which is included the former grand principality of Transylvania, and the province of Croatia-Slavonia.Encyclopedia Britannica--Bizso (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Toroko, you are mixing Medieval with later ages, concerning Cro-Hung political relation. During the Medieval "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" was not a part of Hungary - it's clear from the documents. Obviously you don't know but in 16th century Croatia lost its nobility - it was destroyed by the Austrians, so in following centuries there was Austria-Hungary and name of Croatia disappeared from the political map of Europe and ressurected not earlier than in 19th century again, as name of the province. Anyhow, it's impossible to reflect Hungarian-Croatian relations from 18th or 19th century to the Medieval and age of Pacta Conventa. BTW there are no papers, documents or anything else to prover that "Cro, Sla & Dalm" was Hungary before 16th cent. In many documents and writings from that period you can find only that the Croats accepted a Hungarian king for a ruler and nothing else. You can't find any Dalmatian or Croatian city reffered as the Hungarian city. However Hungarian kings were called simply Hungarian kings because they were coming from Hungarian royal families. And previous Croatian Kingdom had lost its own kings because the last Cro king had no descendent. It seems that the Hungarian historians opposing Pacta Conventa are a little bit romantic and biased about the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom. All the best in 2009! Zenanarh (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that you are a bit romantic. At least historians do attempt to dissolve the ambiguity and do it on an academic level not on an internet forum...

btw, following this logic Hungary was not ruled by the Habsburgs at all. They just accepted the emperors of Austria as their kings, and that only meant that now the kings of Hungarian Kingdom were just coming from the Habsburg dynasty and nothing more. So Hungary was an entirely independent state, right?

Lands of St. Stephen = Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary proper + Croatia Slavonia[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

"croatian state and personal union"

This section is very poorly written and I hope someone will fix it.

"croatian state and personal union"

This section is very poorly written and I hope someone will fix it. 75.15.158.219 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

lol, funny - Union with Hungary

I have just finished reading through the history part. This is funny, because it is not even mentioned that after the battle of Mohacs, which legally did not end the union with Hungary, the union was again reestablished until 1918. THIS WHOLE SECTION IS MISSING. About 1526-1918 period nothing is mentioned in the article apart from some insignificant events till 1800. Also, it was more than an union. Croatia was ruled by the Hungarian dynasty and had wide autonomy inside the Hungarian Kingdom.

Selective History?? B-Class article??? --Bizso (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica 1911:

CROATIA-SLAVONIA (Serbo-Croatian Hrvatska i Slavonija; Hung. Horvát-Szlavonország; Ger. Kroatien und Slawonien), a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy;

The city and territories of Fiume, the sole important harbour on this coast, are included in Hungary proper, and controlled by the Budapest government.

By the fundamental law of the 21st of December 1867 Austria-Hungary was divided, for purposes of internal government, into Cisleithania, or the Austrian empire, and Transleithania, or the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia. In theory the viceroy, or ban of CroatiaSlavonia is nominated by the crown, and enjoys almost unlimited authority over local affairs; in practice the consent of the crown is purely formal, and the ban is appointed by the Hungarian premier, who can dismiss him at any moment. The provincial government is subject to the ban, and comprises three ministries - the interior, justice, and religion and education, - for whose working the ban is responsible to the Hungarian premier(...)

Lands of St. Stephen= Kingdom of Hungary = Hungarian proper + Croatia-Slavonia principality = one state

HUNGARY (Hungarian Magyarorszag), a country in the south-eastern pertion of central Europe, bounded E. by Austria (Bukovina) and Rumania; S. by Rumania, Servia, Bosnia and Austria (Dalmatia); W. by Austria (Istria, Carniola, Styria and Lower Austria); and N. by Austria (Moravia, Silesia and Galicia). It has an area of 125,402 sq. m. (=325,111km²), being thus about 4000 sq. m. larger than Great Britain and Ireland.

Geography And Statistics The kingdom of Hungary (Magyarbiradolorn) is one of the two states which constitute the monarchy of Austria-Hungary, and occupies 51.8% of the total area of the monarchy. Hungary, unlike Austria, presents a remarkable geographical unity. It is almost exclusively continental, having only a short extent of seaboard on the Adriatic (a little less than loo m.). Its land-frontiers are for the most part well defined by natural boundaries: on the N.W., N., E. and S.E. the Carpathian mountains; on the S. the Danube, Save and Unna. On the W. they are not so clearly marked, being formed partly by low ranges of mountains and partly by the rivers March and Leitha. From the last-mentioned river are derived the terms Cisleithania and Transleithania, applied to Austria and Hungary respectively.

[11]--Bizso (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some sources that are not completely obsolete? I mean, coast of Adriatic belonging to Hungary? LOL. Perhaps in your perverse Magyar dreams. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you get more reliable sources than the 1911 edition of Enciclopedia Britannica??

I didn't say it was Hungarian. I'm saying that it was in real union with Hungary until 1918 and the state was called the Kingdom of Hungary and this is the truth. The kingdom of Croatia was a principlaity in the Kingdom of Hungary and had wide autonomy. Where do people get the idea that after the Battle of Mohacs the union with Hungary ceased? I have seen this assertion at several places and there is not a single reference anywhere. After 1526, the kingdom of Hungary (with the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia) was in part concurred by the Ottaman empire, and the western part, called Royal Hungary became part of the Habsburg Monarchy. Why do Croatians want to change their history? You can't accept the notion the Croatia was in real union with Hungary for 9 centuries? So insted you change your history at least on Wikipedia? Pls, explain it to me.--Bizso (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, which part of "what other non-obsolete.." did you not understand? 1911 is widely criticised as piece of imperialistic-British toilet paper. I mean, for Ivan Gundulić it says "Servian writer", lol. These are not facts, but the particular PoV of the person the British hired to write the article (i.e. fabricate history to please their colonial world-view). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

in 16 9 0. Ivan Gundulic and the brilliant group of poets that gathered round him at Ragusa in the early 17th century, reflected in their writings the little Slav Republic's intimate connexion with its kinsmen of Serbia and Bosnia. The first advocate of the Pan-Slav idea in Russia itself was Krizanic, a Croat Catholic priest from Dalmatia, and early writers in favour of Slavonic racial and literary unity were the Slovene schoolmaster Bohoricz (1584) and the Dalmatian Croat Orbini, who wrote in Italian (Il regno degli Slavi 1601). The Franciscan friar Kacic, who did so much for the revival of popular poetry in Bosnia and Dalmatia in the mid-18th century, shows similar traces of Serbophil feeling, and the achievements of Dusan and other Serbian Tsars have bulked almost as largely in the modern literature of the Croats as of the Serbs themselves. .

Where does it say that he was a "Servian writer"?

You see? You are imagining things that aren't really there! It seems that you Croatian people suffer from some kind of periodic delirium. :)

Anyway, I wouldn't throw out Encylopedia Britannica so out of hand...--Bizso (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It mentions it at the very lead [12] (known also as Giovanni Gondola, Servian poet..). Of course, modern EB discards such Serb propaganda, but back in those days... :) See also User talk:Mzajac/Britannica on Eastern Slavs - "little Russians" and craniometry business. The state of British scholarship was doubtless very poor back then, biased with supremacismm, Christianity (e.g. de-valuation of Old Indic literature) and whatever propaganda (Serb, Russian, Magyar etc.) reached the authors they hired to write the articles. I wouldn't throw it away all either, just most parts of it :)

Anyhow, I left a note on the talkpage of the editor who wrote the history section in this article (just recently, about a week ago, I fixed some grammar of it), so you can discuss with him was Croatia-as-a-part-of-Kingdom-of-Hungary really just "de iure" or "de facto" ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I please ask croatian users to not enter trap of disruptive, provocation account. User in question is knowing very good what is writen in Britannica 1911, but he is forgeting few things. Even Bizso is accepting that Croatia was kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy, but in his words "Lands of St. Stephen= Kingdom of Hungary = Hungarian proper + Croatia-Slavonia principality = one state" [13]--Rjecina (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's right. But what you are implying is Lands of St Stephen = Kingdom of Hungary + Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary proper, and that Kingdom of Croatia was equally independent as the Kingdom of Hungary, which is not the case. Kingdom of Croatia was not independent, but had wide autonomy while being under the rul of Kingdom of Hungary. This might sound provocative to you, but that's the truth. Even you sources admit this, and the ones that you forcibly censored. I also mentioned this in my previous comment that you have deleted form the Talk page of Croatia in the Union with Hungary[14]

Although the status of Croatia in the Kingdom of Hungary is still disputed; according to all sources here: Whether you call it conquer, annexation, addition or union; the important thing is that Hungary had control over Croatia, but gave her some extent of internal autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary and in this relationship Hungary and Croatia were not equal parties.--Bizso (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Pacta Conventa

I readded the deleted section on the dispute among historians on Pacta Conventa and included a sentence with a link to the article and its talk page per WP:NPOV.--Bizso (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina

Rjecina! Please explaint it to me why you removed the information on the dispute about the pacta conventa? Please explain it to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2 reasons:

• 1) massive article rewriting of 1 user with clear mission is out of question.
• 2) We can question if pacta conventa is signed, but not if it is honoured by Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia. Because of that it is not important (for this article) if it is signed in 1102 or not.

I can write other reasons, but in reality they are not so important. Now only important things are good relationship between Croatian and Hungarian users. user:Toroko has not destroyed this and I am sure that other SPA accounts will fail--Rjecina (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Don't you see? This article is not about relations between Croatians and Hungarian users!

This article is about history!

And what you have done is you removed reference to this Dispute (validity of Pacta Conventa and terms of Hungarian and Croatia states) form the article and from other relevant articles on Wikipedia.

• You removed a single sentence that mentioned the dispute and gave a link to the relevant discussion page.
• You deleted the TALK PAGE of Pacta Conventa, so that only the viewpoint that you support reamains still there!
• You also deleted the additional information about the debate on the Pacta Conventa article itself!

What you are doing is artifically hiding one viewpoint so that the other competing viewpoint stands that you personally support. This is a discussion on academic levels and you are removing not only the comments, and edits, but also sourced varifiable, reliable, english, neutral academic level references! You have removoved at least 12 during your last edit. You are violating NPOV#Balance and Do Not Hide The Facts!
And I am not Torokko, so stop threatening me to block or accusing me of someone else just because I draw attention to this very serious issue of censorship ...--Bizso (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are not Toroko and you do not understand hungarian language. Wikipedia is not forum, place for writing spam and similar stuff.--Rjecina (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Are academic level sources Spam for you??--Bizso (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What is happenning here?

What is happening here is that this is a highly sensitive issue. It concerns whether the Croatian people were independent for 9 centuries or were part of the Kingdom of Hungary as a province. Understandably, the Croatian people and editors on Wikpedia support the formal view and include it in every possible article on Wikipedia. However, this fact is still disputed among historians today so it is undecided even on academic levels, whether Croatians were independent or not for 9 centuries. Therefore what they do is omit the competing viewpoint and mention the "independent" version everywhere. If someone, like me and other previous users for example user:Torokko, attempt to draw attention to the fact that the validity of the document that defined the Hungarian-Croatian relations as "equal" is disputed, the Croatian editors and admins simply remove it and discard it. Even if there are references to relaible, verifiable, english sources, they delete them. They are effectively censoring Wikipedia on this matter due to patriotic feelings for their recently independent country. This is what is happening.--Bizso (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am really interested to hear which part of sentence "During next 4 centuries of personal union Kingdom of Croatia will be ruled by bans appointed by Hungarian king" and "....in 1293 and 1403 [1] Croatia has chosen different kings, but both in cases the Kingdom of Hungary has declared war and personal union was again established" is for you hard to understand. Maybe I can help you ? Because you are from USA I am sure that we are not having english language problem :)--Rjecina (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The debate discuesses not only the next 4 centuries but until 1918. You removed the "Citation needed" tag that the "personal union" ended at 1526. This statment is disputed! You removed references to the pacta conventa dispute. It is not mentioned in the article that what happened from 1526-1918? I added facts for this period, and you removed them! Croatia was not an autonomous kingdom in Austria Hungary. It wasn't the third part. You are making every sentece intentionally even more vague instead of clarifying them!--Bizso (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We are having 1 political situation between 1091 and 1526 and other political situation between 1526 and 1918. You do not agree with this ?

In reality I am not interested in "Hungarian" POV pushing. In 1526 Kingdom of Hungary (majority of nobles) has elected János Szapolyai (this is writen in Hungarian article) and Kingdom of Croatia has elected Habsburg. Part of article about time period after Ottoman wars is not writen until now. --Rjecina (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arther 1526, Croatia which was still in union or part of Royal Hungary, went under Habsburg Rule.--Bizso (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No part of Croatia was in Hungary until 1867 and even then Hungary wasn't a sovereign country; it was not even a country, just a state in the dual monarchy. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatia was part of the Lands of St. Stephen which is the official name for the Kingdom of Hungary. What is so hard to understand about this?--Bizso (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lands of St. Stephen is not a name for the Kingdom of Hungary, it was the name for the personal union. That's the way I learned it in school. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if Hungary and Croatia were two independent kingdoms, how come I hear everywhere about the "Magyarization" state policy of Hungary and the opression a Croatia culture in the 19th century but never of the Croationization of Hungary or Croatian state policy to opress the Hungarian culture? Or when it comes to this, then Croatia was now part of the Kingdom of Hungary?--Bizso (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Croatia wasn't part of the Hungarian part of Austro-Hungary after 1867 and that Hungary wasn't more influential in the Habsburg Monarchy prior to the compromise. However, that is not a matter of dispute here at all. Please, avoid accidental straw man arguments and familiarize yourself with the issue here before proceeding. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rjecina,
What you do is censor Wikipedia just to suit your patriotic/nationalistic feelings. You change history, you remove reliable, verifiable, thrid party english references, and you refuse to be corrected. You patrol pages, so that it is not even remotely possible to correct the false historical facts that you have introduced! When there is indeed a debate, you supress the other viewpoint. I bet that you are going to censor this statement, too. If this makes you feel good, then you are a sad man. For other editors, see Edits of Rjecina--Bizso (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard of English

Oh dear! In many sections of this article the standard of written English is poor, making it at awkward to understand, or irritatingly amateur - not what we expect of encyclopaedic content. Please could someone with a knowledge of the subject matter review the English. I would like to make an attempt at this myself, but because I would have to do it with the greatest care not to change the meaning intended, I feel it is best left to someone with more knowledge of the subject. See examples in the sections "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" and "Ottoman Wars" where the writer appears to be struggling with the English to an extent more than the occasional typo. There is a sentence in the "Ottoman Wars" section: "On place of escaping Croats Habsburgs have called Orthodox population of Bosnia and Serbia which will need to give military service in Croatian and Slavonian Krajina." What does it mean? And it goes on like that. I can't guess how to correct it. Is this the result of feeding text to a bad translation engine?

You may know a lot about Croatia, but if you can't translate properly, please get some help! P0mbal (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The history section is pretty bad because we have ongoing edit disputes there and these often escalate into edit wars. I'll try to fix the article over the following days if I find time. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That will be good. 82.43.177.219 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

+copyedit

I think it's time for this tag. Hopefully someone with good enough Croatian (mine is terrible) will take notice and compare wherever this was Babelfish-translated from: hr.wikipedia.org[15]?

--Carbon Rodney 16:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No it is not Babelfish-translated from hr.wikipedia.org--Rjecina (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

hi,
I see Rjecina has changed everything back the way it was.
I have the following questions:

1. Why isn't it mentioned in the artcle that the existence of Pacta Conventa is disputed?

2. In the Pacta Conventa dispute, many historians believe that Croatia was conquered by Hungary in 1091. Why isn't this mentioned in the article?

3. Where is reference that the so-called personal union with Hungary was over in 1526; and why has been the "Citation needed" tag removed? According to several other sources the personal union lasted until 1918.

thx --Bizso (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1)Because it is not important if pacta conventa is signed. Only important is that personal union deal between Hungarian king and Croatian nobles is honoured.

2)They are free to believe what they want, but other encyclopedia like for example Britannica or Encarta are saying different story. Maybe is time to read wikipedia rules about Fringe theory ?

3) Where is writen that personal union has ended in 1526 ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Serbian nationalist pestilant rats should be banned from editing this article

They are constantly rewriting the demographic section in order to play victims trough propaganda.We already arranged that section long time ago,but serbian fascists are constantly rewriting it in order to suit their nationalistic propagandic agenda.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)