Talk:Croatian Kingdom: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
KnezBorna2 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:::::Whatever. There is clearly no consensus for a broad-concept article (BCA). Personally, I see little use in it. There is certainly no connection between the pre-1918 state and that of 1941. Moreover, given that the period 925–1918 is almost the whole of Croatian history, a BCA is mostly redundant to [[History of Croatia]]. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC) |
:::::Whatever. There is clearly no consensus for a broad-concept article (BCA). Personally, I see little use in it. There is certainly no connection between the pre-1918 state and that of 1941. Moreover, given that the period 925–1918 is almost the whole of Croatian history, a BCA is mostly redundant to [[History of Croatia]]. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::'''ANSWER''' The same style applies to dozens of examples on the Wikipedia, the most similar is the one of the [[Kingdom of Hungary]], which state span is represented in as single article (1000–1918 and 1920–1946). Since the Croatian Kingdom is a single state entity which continuity is from 925 until 1918 (and shortly during WW2), such model should apply. Detail focused articles don't cover the whole span, nor have even the same detailed sources. It should be noticed that the same model is for the Croatian Rulers, so it should be as well as the for the state entity which had its unbroken statehood in the mentioned periods. On the case of the Second World war, the second official name of the Independent State of Croatia was ''Kingdom of Croatia'' (see Rome Contracts 1941), which was regulated by the Laws of Zvonimirs Crown (passed on 15th May 1941), making it a Kingdom. SY dr.sc.[[User:Ban kavalir|Ban kavalir]] ([[User talk:Ban kavalir|talk]]) 02:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC) |
::::::'''ANSWER''' The same style applies to dozens of examples on the Wikipedia, the most similar is the one of the [[Kingdom of Hungary]], which state span is represented in as single article (1000–1918 and 1920–1946). Since the Croatian Kingdom is a single state entity which continuity is from 925 until 1918 (and shortly during WW2), such model should apply. Detail focused articles don't cover the whole span, nor have even the same detailed sources. It should be noticed that the same model is for the Croatian Rulers, so it should be as well as the for the state entity which had its unbroken statehood in the mentioned periods. On the case of the Second World war, the second official name of the Independent State of Croatia was ''Kingdom of Croatia'' (see Rome Contracts 1941), which was regulated by the Laws of Zvonimirs Crown (passed on 15th May 1941), making it a Kingdom. SY dr.sc.[[User:Ban kavalir|Ban kavalir]] ([[User talk:Ban kavalir|talk]]) 02:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::'''Tacking the problem of vandalism''' According to the instructions of the Croatian Institute for History There needs to be unique article that emphasises on Croatian Kingdom as whole. And regarding Havsjös baseless claims and previous vandalism of article, it can only be described as chauvinism]] ([[User talk:KnezBorna2|talk]]) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:12, 8 April 2019
 | Croatia Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Former countries Redirect‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Middle Ages NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Total history and life span of the Croatian Kingdom (925-1918, 1941-43/45)
The user Havsjö has deleted the whole article with all its materials and sources. This article is similar like the one for the Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1918 and 1920–1946) which covers the whole span of the state entity (925-1918 1941-43/45) which is recognized in historic and state sources and records. As the same model applies for other countries and similar cases this one is made in the same fashion.
dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article COULD look like the Kingdom of Hungary article if it actually had similarly robust material. This one is a mostly useless parade of sections containing nothing but blue links, and the only useful material is in the lede at the top. If you wish to compare this to the Hungary article, then make it as good as that article. Which of the two does anything for the interested reader? As of now, I agree with the person who recently reverted the article to a previous state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a valid argument, since the task at hand is rather large and can not be done in a single day. The article is added with material, the history part itself is rather long and with most sources covering the whole span. The article will be added on with new texts backed up with sources. Since the Kingdom of Croatia was a state entity from 925 until 1918 (and shortly during WW2) it should have an article covering it, similar like the example with the Kingdom of Hungary which is a single entity article with existing subsections of special eras and state entities during the whole history. dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article right now is just a glorified disambiguation page, its just links to the different "iterations" of the Kingdom of Croatia like the actual disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia, which this article previously just linked too... The only thing this "article" now offers are obviously a biased presentation that the unrecognized and unrealized aspirations of the Triune Kingdom are presented as a realized and actual entity, including even a link to this page Triune Kingdom of Croatia (from 1848), which not even the Croatian Wikipedia claims existed... This article should just link to the Kingdom of Croatia --Havsjö (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The article is on the state continuation of a single entity which by all international documents as well even today Constitution is a single entity. The subjects are made on historic eras or significant historic periods. The article is made similar like the one of Hungary, since it is the similar case. Also this is present in other state entities covered by other articles. The present subject is part of the Croatian historiography since it is on the Kingdom of Croatia. All texts are supported by relevant sources and researchers on the subjects which are generally even on opposite schools of thought, which makes the article bias, more then similar ones in other subjects. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever. There is clearly no consensus for a broad-concept article (BCA). Personally, I see little use in it. There is certainly no connection between the pre-1918 state and that of 1941. Moreover, given that the period 925–1918 is almost the whole of Croatian history, a BCA is mostly redundant to History of Croatia. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- ANSWER The same style applies to dozens of examples on the Wikipedia, the most similar is the one of the Kingdom of Hungary, which state span is represented in as single article (1000–1918 and 1920–1946). Since the Croatian Kingdom is a single state entity which continuity is from 925 until 1918 (and shortly during WW2), such model should apply. Detail focused articles don't cover the whole span, nor have even the same detailed sources. It should be noticed that the same model is for the Croatian Rulers, so it should be as well as the for the state entity which had its unbroken statehood in the mentioned periods. On the case of the Second World war, the second official name of the Independent State of Croatia was Kingdom of Croatia (see Rome Contracts 1941), which was regulated by the Laws of Zvonimirs Crown (passed on 15th May 1941), making it a Kingdom. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Tacking the problem of vandalism According to the instructions of the Croatian Institute for History There needs to be unique article that emphasises on Croatian Kingdom as whole. And regarding Havsjös baseless claims and previous vandalism of article, it can only be described as chauvinism]] (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- ANSWER The same style applies to dozens of examples on the Wikipedia, the most similar is the one of the Kingdom of Hungary, which state span is represented in as single article (1000–1918 and 1920–1946). Since the Croatian Kingdom is a single state entity which continuity is from 925 until 1918 (and shortly during WW2), such model should apply. Detail focused articles don't cover the whole span, nor have even the same detailed sources. It should be noticed that the same model is for the Croatian Rulers, so it should be as well as the for the state entity which had its unbroken statehood in the mentioned periods. On the case of the Second World war, the second official name of the Independent State of Croatia was Kingdom of Croatia (see Rome Contracts 1941), which was regulated by the Laws of Zvonimirs Crown (passed on 15th May 1941), making it a Kingdom. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever. There is clearly no consensus for a broad-concept article (BCA). Personally, I see little use in it. There is certainly no connection between the pre-1918 state and that of 1941. Moreover, given that the period 925–1918 is almost the whole of Croatian history, a BCA is mostly redundant to History of Croatia. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The article is on the state continuation of a single entity which by all international documents as well even today Constitution is a single entity. The subjects are made on historic eras or significant historic periods. The article is made similar like the one of Hungary, since it is the similar case. Also this is present in other state entities covered by other articles. The present subject is part of the Croatian historiography since it is on the Kingdom of Croatia. All texts are supported by relevant sources and researchers on the subjects which are generally even on opposite schools of thought, which makes the article bias, more then similar ones in other subjects. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article right now is just a glorified disambiguation page, its just links to the different "iterations" of the Kingdom of Croatia like the actual disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia, which this article previously just linked too... The only thing this "article" now offers are obviously a biased presentation that the unrecognized and unrealized aspirations of the Triune Kingdom are presented as a realized and actual entity, including even a link to this page Triune Kingdom of Croatia (from 1848), which not even the Croatian Wikipedia claims existed... This article should just link to the Kingdom of Croatia --Havsjö (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a valid argument, since the task at hand is rather large and can not be done in a single day. The article is added with material, the history part itself is rather long and with most sources covering the whole span. The article will be added on with new texts backed up with sources. Since the Kingdom of Croatia was a state entity from 925 until 1918 (and shortly during WW2) it should have an article covering it, similar like the example with the Kingdom of Hungary which is a single entity article with existing subsections of special eras and state entities during the whole history. dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)