Jump to content

Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 151.21.250.180 (talk) at 14:55, 5 December 2009 (→Questioning the sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Title

Surely it's rather inappropriate to use the title "Tomislav II of Croatia"? This person never really was anything like an actual monarch of Croatia, and for anyone who respects the legend of the first king Tomislav it's pretty offensive to have such an imposter exploit the name. --Shallot 23:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the page accordingly. --Shallot 11:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no real complaint, but his grandfather Amadeus I of Spain was nothing like a real monarch of Spain either - but they still get listed as kings. Are any 21st century kings and queens (apart perhaps from Monaco and Lichtenstein) real monachs? --Henrygb 20:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The point is, at least they have some recognition, maybe even some actual power over some matters. On the other hand, this person was a real puppet, not much unlike the state he was supposed to state to rule over, and there it was the Ustase paramilitary that had the upper hand. I don't remember him getting even a single mention in the history classes over here in Croatia, and we covered the local WWII events in considerable detail. --Shallot 21:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe Tomislav II. should be listed here as king.

Yes, although it may have been as a puppet and all, it was still his highest ranking and most important title. I've compromised on the title, so it is a bit strange. Yanksta x 054:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksta, I understand you had good intentions, but the current title is the worst possible variant. "Tomislav II of Croatia, Duke of Aosta" -- to me, this implies that a certain Tomislav of the Croatian royal family was named Duke of Aosta, and that there was a Tomislav I, Duke of Aosta before him. It's so silly. Either "Tomislav II of Croatia", either "Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta". But preferably the latter: please note that Tomislav was only designated King, with the official title of 'Prince' (i.e. ruling prince). Unlike Amédée of Spain, he was never sworn in, nor crowned. Aimone didn't even set foot in Croatia during his so-called reign! --SáT 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this title is insulting, not to mention inaccurate. I'm requsting a move to "Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta". --Dr.Gonzo 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist?

Does anyone have any detail about his fascist leaning? Wright123 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is not mentioned in the article, just "German/Italian". He did die in Peron's Buenos Aires.--Wetman 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, 2007

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 move. DrKiernan 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a move due to the title being inaccurate, and POV, this person was never de facto ruler of Croatia, besides, the country he allegedly ruled was a fascist puppet state so this claim has no legitimacy at all. Also, he never even accepted the crown so I think the case is pretty clear here. And on top of it all the title as it is now is highly insulting since it insinuates this Italian sockpuppet had anything in common with Croatian kings of old, like Tomislav. --Dr.Gonzo 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a move to Tomislav II of Croatia, because this is probably what he is most known as, even if the title wasn't really legitimate and he never took on the crown. -Ulla Sweden 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken. He is FAR better known as Aimone, Duke of Aosta, with the whole "Tomislav II" thing just a footnote in his biography. I think his reaction to it says it all, he thought it was a practical joke, see the article. --Dr.Gonzo 22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wouldn't really know. Do Italian dukes really have numbers like British dukes, or would not Aimone, Duke of Aosta be a better title? -Ulla Sweden 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say, but I'm not trying to change that convention here, just the name of this article. It seems that many other Italian dukes also have numbers in their titles, so unless someone wants to argue against it I think we should leave it as is. --Dr.Gonzo 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I oppose this move. According to this & this, Tomislav II of Croatia pulls up over 230,000 hits, versus 2,500 for Aimone, Duke of Aosta. Remember this guy was a king so we should follow the typical naming conventions for Kings. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, he wasn't a king, he never accepted the crown, he never even set foot in Croatia. After Italy lost in WW2 he officially abdicated and neither he nor his offspring ever made any claims to the crown, probably because they knew the whole thing was a sham from the start, it was like Hitler giving the crown of France to his cousin just because he occupied it by force. You get my point. Of course, the article should mention his connection with the name, but to name the article "Tomislav II, king of Croatia" is insulting not only to Croatians today, but to the memory of the original bearer of the name - Tomislav, the first king of Croatia, who is to this day an important national icon and a source of great pride among Croatian people. Also, I object to your Google search methods since "Tomislav II" gives only 513 results [1]. "Aimone" +"Duke of Aosta" gives 1640 [2]. Btw, I'm simply proposing moving this article to Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, and we can keep a redirect at "Tomislav II of Croatia". --Dr.Gonzo 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Tomislav from House of Trpimirović, was known in Croatian historiography (as well as in former Yugoslav schoolbooks) as "kralj Tomislav", "king Tomislav". No "Tomislav I". So, we should move that article to Tomislav.
Second, regarding that Italian duke, we should move to Aimone, Duke of Aosta. That's his proper name. The name "Tomislav II" doesn't work. Think better. It's an invalid contract. The "crown" was given to him by a person that wasn't legally elected. Second, Aimone never accepted the crown. Ulla, RAndom Editor, how do you imagine things? E.g. person A steals the car of person B, and wants to give it to person C, but person C refuses to take it. And you want to call the car of person B, person C's car, although that car was stolen (illegal possession) and target giftaccepter didn't want to take it? No legal ownership, no transfer of ownership happened at all. Kubura 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any other consideration than to try to imagine what he is most known as, regardless of legitimacy or other claims. There are many state leaders who have come to power in dubious ways, so wether he was a legitimate king or not should not be an issue, I think, and neither should the assumption that this name and title might be insulting to some, because there are lots of that in the history of the world too and the 1940s Kingdom of Croatia as created by the Italians is still a historical fact (I hope I am not insulting anyone by stating this...). – So, if we should name the article according to his original Italian name and title rather than his given Croatian name and title, it is because he never accepted the new name and crown himself and thus never acctually wore them. That's fine by me. A redirect from "Tomislav II of Croatia" should be in place anyway. -Ulla Sweden 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I believe he is most well known for being the King of Croatia. Mindaugas II of Lithuania is similar situation to this one I personally think the title should just be at Tomislav II of Croatia so as to follow naming conventions. - dwc lr 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any similarity with Mindaugas II of Lithuania. Mindaugas was elected by representatives of Lithuanian government, Aimone wasn't. The most that can be said about him is that for a very short time he was "appointed" a king of a state that was independent in name only, he accepted reluctantly, never set foot in it, and, as soon as the conditions were right (fall of fascism in Italy) he renounced the throne he never truly accepted in the first place. --Dr.Gonzo 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is that he was the king of croatia for two years and I believe that he is most notable for being so as opposed to being Duke of Aosta.-dwc lr 12:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what people are trying to say is that he wasn't even a pretender - a pretender claims a throne or office of a ruler, but in this case the said throne or office *did not exist*. The said throne wasn't really even abolished (as is the case with modern-day pretenders), it was practically non-existant since 1102. Yes, that's right, almost nine centuries. For all practical intents and purposes, this person's claim to be a king is completely devoid of reason; and the Croatian people find it insulting. So why perpetuate it in the article title? --Joy [shallot] 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know he wasn't a pretender, he was actually the king of croatia from 18 May 1941 until he abdicated on 31 July 1943 and believe he is most well known for being so and I think that the article title should reflect that. - dwc lr 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you don't seem to be listening. The claim that he was a "king" is not supported by any actual evidence. There were proclamations and abdications, sure, but no actual kingdom. If you get your cousin to proclaim you the king of Babylon, is the rest of the world supposed to reference you as such? --Joy [shallot] 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If my cousin happens to have physical and unopposed control of Babylon, and an army to back it up, and he declares me King of Babylon, then de facto, I am King of Babylon. It's no different than the petty kingdoms that Napoleon set up in places he conquered. We may snicker at Jerome Bonaparte's Kingdom of Westphalia, Joachim Murat's Kingdom of Naples and Joseph Bonaparte's Kingdom of Spain (among others), but the fact of the matter is that those people really were kings for a while. Just be glad the Axis side lost and "Tomislav II" didn't get to stay King for very long. 65.13.220.212 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was proclaimed king by his cousin who had been asked by the Ante Pavelić to name a member of the Italian Royal Family. He may have reluctantly accepted the crown but he accepted it none the less so that makes him a king. The kingdom was the Independent State of Croatia. Are you saying that he was never king of Croatia? - dwc lr 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Anyway, I guess I'm not going to convince you that this is a perversion, so I'll stop here. Someone can fight the windmills. --Joy [shallot] 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rule #7 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. Royal titles don't have to be "democratically" conferred to be acknowledged in history: a number of sons of Holy Roman Emperors were made German Kings, and the newborn son of Emperor Napoleon I was declared King of Rome despite the fact that the people of those territories did not confer, may not have accepted, and were not ruled by the titleholders. Indeed, the 19th century kings of Holland, Westphalia, and Naples were all Napoleonic puppets whose realms were brief and establshed entirely by the sword, yet history acknowledges their long-gone titles. Wiki exists to record history -- not re-write it. If the kingship of Croatia was not only nominal, but ignored by Croatians then and resented by them now, the article should say so -- to the extent reliable sources can be cited. Nor did the King of Italy need the legal permission of a junior prince of his dynasty to confer a new title upon him. If the above-cited Naming Convention needs changing, such changes are discussed and voted upon on its talk page. Also, many of the Google hits cited for "Aimone Duke of Aosta" refer to his grandson, who has been much in the news lately because he is considered a new, rival contender for the Italian throne by monarchists. Lethiere 02:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting rule #6 from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned." This person obviously hasn't reigned, so the rules are clear. --Dr.Gonzo 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move, 2008

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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta → Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta — Its like Dr.Gonzo says, the man never really ruled the Independent State of Croatia due to his misgivings with the Ustaše leadership (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles). He was also never crowned and he thought the title itself was a joke. Finally, even if we choose to ignore the above, the NDH never really de jure existed, and one can hardly be a monarch of a non-existent state. —--DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strong support. As per reasons stated above. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until evidence on what the subject is actually called is presented. We are not in the business of deciding whether the NDH was a legal state or not; especially since this would involve which Government was the legal government of Yugoslavia in 1943. If Churchill didn't care, neither should we. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not, of course, that's a play on words. The argument is that the Duke never de facto the country, making him a pretender. There isn't a single event throughout the two years of his supposed reign, that would suggest he ruled Croatia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because the current title is a hideous pastiche; Italian Wikipedia lists him only under his ducal title; its article says he objected to the appointment; at Independent State of Croatia it's noted that he declined to visit or actively reign pending ratification by the Croatian parliament -- which never came; and that Joachim I of Naples is a re-direct to Joachim Murat, the name by which that "king" is best known to history. FactStraight (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the legitimate monarch until the legal dissolution of the 1st Yugoslavia in November 1945 being Peter II of Yugoslavia. Unless you want to declare all of the exiled governments and monarchies littering the restaurants of London during the war as illegitimate. As an incidental point, the Wiki article (nothing close to an RS, I know) on the Independent State of Croatia says he declared he would enter Croatia only after the departure of German and Italian troops. Ho ho ho. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Dr.Gonzo (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose even the Croatian wikipedia list under Tomislav II and there is plenty of evidence that he received the Crown of Zvonimir. The colaborationist govt. of ISC had issued a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir where is listed that rights came with the crown. As did with the crown of St. Stephen of Hungary. -- Imbris (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets be clear on this fact: the "crown of Zvonimir" of WW2 is a peace of metal made by the Ustaše to give some legitimacy to their puppet-government, not an actual heirloom of Croatian kings. The real Crown of Zvonimir is lost in history and had little or no resemblance to the fabricated version. It has nothing to do with the Holy Crown of Hungary, which is a real royal heirloom
    • Furthermore, there is no dispute as to whether the Duke was invited to be the Croatian King, but the fact remains that he never ruled the country, which makes him an Axis pretender. There cannot be two kings of Croatia, one must be a pretender. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per other support reasons. Charles 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I will write reasons on talk page. --Rjecina (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose he was offered and accepted the throne took a regnal name when his son was born he given as one of his names Zvonimir he granted noble titles and then he abdicated in 1943. This suggests he was a reigning monarch and his highest title is his Croatian one. Personally I think the article should be at just Tomislav II of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His son could have been named "Weeny, 76th King of the Ayleids" it makes no difference. The argument is that the man did not de facto rule Croatia, which makes him a pretender. This is supported by Wiki policy, what evidence can you show that the man actually ruled. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Otto von Habsburg is a pretender I think people are getting confused over Tomislav II because he wasn't an absolute monarch a dictator. Naming conventions support using the monarchical title. Most monarchies are constitutional monarchies he was the head of state a figurehead while the country is run by politicians. His cousin Victor Emmanuel III didn't exactly rule Italy while Mussolini was around. Queen Elizabeth II has governor generals who represent her in the countries she is head of state of she is still the monarch though. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Aimone has never accepted the title (when and where he accepted the title, references please???), and, on the other hand, the crown was offered to him by a person (Pavelić) that had no such rights (who was he to give/offer him that title?). It'd be the same if, e.g., Milan Martić had offered the crown of Croatia to Radovan Karadžić. So, Aimone's just a duke. Kubura (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He accepted the title and took a regnal name Tomislav II he could of refused. The crown Montenegro was offered to two royals both of whom refused. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not know why you are in coherence with this RfD (Kubura) because that RfD has been started with a premise that Petar II is a legal king and Petar II has not been confirmed (constitution in the Kingodom of Yug was a shame, manipulated with electoral laws and produced a kingdom without the support of majority of peoples he "ruled". -- Imbris (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There's no royal legacy in Croatia for centuries, also this title was never officialized. Maybe it was offered to a guy, maybe he accepted it, but it was never officialized. Actually this "title" was just a part of a big game of the imperialistic forces concerning potential new European order, during WWII. BTW NDH was anti-royal political unit. This case is like unexisting marriage: X and Y were affianced, but X and Y were not married. You don't become a king just because somebody ask you: will you? and you say: I will. Official proclamation of a king never happened and NDH was not a Kingdom! Zenanarh (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He was best known in history for that title and as I have pointed out not all kings have to crowned nor for the matter of fact have a crown. The title of the article is important for finding it and for the proper description of what is the content of the article. The article is clearly not about his ducal title but instead of well sourced facts that he once hold the title. -- Imbris (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if he is more known as the "King of Croatia", a claim I'd like to see sources for, it does not matter in accordance with Wiki policy (see WP:NCNT). You appear not to have read my full description of the move argument. I have clearly pointed out on several occasions that notoriety is second to the rules on monarchical names ("...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem"), and rule six states: "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender,..." i.e., someone who has not ruled. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tomislav II was king of Croatia what would he (or any monarch) have to do to rule in your opinion. The NDH was a kingdom he was it's King (head of state) the country was governed by Ante Pavelić as Prime Minister (or what ever his title was) this is how most monarchies are run. I think a lot of people have a medieval view of kings. - dwc lr (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL, LOL and LOL! NDH was a kingdom? Please show me one single source that NDH was a kingdom or monarchy! Where? When? How? Also we need some relevant proof that a guy was officially proclaimed a king of that "monarchy"! This discussion becomes totally unserious. It reminds me of one another "King": Elvis Presley. Since he was a "King" we should conclude that USA is monarchy or kingdom. Zenanarh (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the NDH a republic then?
  • Axis Forces in Yugoslavia, 1941-45 by Nigel Thomas p 12 "Croatia technically a kingdom under the absentee King Tomislav II"
  • "Ante Pavelić who led a delegation of Croats asked King Victor Emmanuel III to name a member of the House of Savoy, King of Croatia. Aimone was then officially named King by his cousin Victor Emmanuel III" this is sourced from the article.
What was he exactly, was he a "pretender" as some people keep saying, what utter garbage that is. What do you think he did, just one day decide to declare himself the King of Croatia. NDH was created he was appointed king by the head of the government he abdicated. A man who was king of Croatia for two years a de facto country reminds you of Elvis Pressely now your just being silly. - dwc lr (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looking through the whole page again, I've decided to change my opinion. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why what's changed your mind. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia did not exist de facto. As Counter-revolutionary says its not our job judge the nature of his rule de facto he was king with some international recognition. You cannot possibly deny that. - dwc lr (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work as he is only known as Tomislav in relation to his kingship of Croatia. Naming conventions saying former kings should be listed under their regnal titles. 4th should not be used. It's too late to change now we will have to see if it gets moved to an incorrect title per Naming conventions. - dwc lr (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Kingdom of Croatia 1941-43' wasn't recognized by the internationl community. Therefore (IMHO), he wasn't a King. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Axis powers recognised it. I thought you considered him a puppet king do you accept he was a de facto a king. - dwc lr (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article Kingdom of Yugoslavia; there was never offically a Kingdom of Croatia during 1941-43. The Duke of Aosta, didn't have a kingdom to be King of. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Officially in the eyes of the Allies no. - dwc lr (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was recognized by but a minor part of the world, like today Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, North Cyprus or Taiwan. Next to that, under previously established international norms, aggression and destruction of a country like that (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) is against the Hague Convention of 1907, therefore we cannot consider any of those entities like that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hague Conventions were aplicable to the states parties of those Conventions. You haven't cited the precise text and we shouldn't trust simply your memory. Also those conventions stipulate only humanitarian law (also concerning the acts of war) but these conventions do not state anything about fixed borders. Yugoslavia was not a party of the League of Nations (1941-44) and it is dubious whether Yugoslavia were party of these Conventions since "leaving" the international association (League of Nations). -- Imbris (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry dwc, but I'm sticking to supporting a 'page move'. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ican't believe I forgot that, of course, that's why such states are considered non-existant in the first place! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • We are not qualified to determine de jure sovereignity; whose law applies? is an essentially POV question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we're not, but official history does obviously not consider the NDH to have legally been in existence. The Yugoslav state, though changed dramatically by the war, is not considered to have dissolved. The legal title of the monarch of Croatia would be in the hands of Peter II of Yugoslavia in London, "Tomislav"/Aimone is an Axis pretender. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask (and preferably answer) the question that is central to our naming conventions, and I may well support; there is no particular reason to promote the claims of Axis puppet states, and it may well be more common and clearer to call him Aimone, Duke of Aosta. But this proposal is not what we care about. We don't do legality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't want anyone to consider the (non-existent) legality of the NDH, the real point here is that he was a mere Axis pretender, not a "true" monarch of Croatia. There is nothing in the man's history of involvement with the NDH that suggests he was a Croatian monarch. De jure, he is not the King of Croatia (Peter II is), de facto, he never actually ruled the country. In short I can't see how he's not a pretender.
"6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender," --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter II is King of Croatia. This gets us into deeper waters than DIREKTOR may recognize.
  • Was he ever King of Croatia? His father and grandfather had been Kings of the Croats.
  • Was he still King of the Croats in 1943? Was Charles II King of England in 1649, or is that a legal fiction? In order to argue he was, you must take a strong Legitimist position, which no subsequent Government in Zagreb has ever recognized.
  • But the Legitimist claimant should be Otto, jure sanguinis King of Hungary and Croatia.
Aimone/Tomislav was de facto king in Croatia itself.
This is why we go by what other anglophones call him. Evidence, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First; he was not de facto king of Croatia, he never set foot in it, never actually performed functions of state, was never crowned, and was never ratified by the Sabor of the Independent State of Croatia. How can he be a de facto ruler? (the references are in the article)
  • Second; yes, Peter II was the de facto ruler in the state for a short period before the German invasion, the title "King of Yugoslavia" is the same as "King of Serbs Croats and Slovenes". A change in name is not a change in substance, this is the one and the same title.
  • Third; the title "King of Croatia" (and Slavonia) was merged (after the abdication of King Charles I) with the Kingdom of Serbia to create the title "King of Serbs Croats and Slovenes", later renamed to "King of Yugoslavia". However, regardless of whether we accept Peter II was the King, the other alternative is not Aimone, but Otto von Habsburg. I can't see how this makes him less of a pretender.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Peter was de facto King in Croatia in the spring of 1941, before he was driven out by conquest. This is why I have consistently discussed 1943.
    • the title "King of Croatia" (and Slavonia) was merged (after the abdication of King Charles I) with the Kingdom of Serbia I thought we should come to this. This is why we don't argue legitimacy; the question of whether that merger was legitimate is not neutrally answerable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis. Peter II ran (flew) away from Yugoslavia in spring of 1941. He had a choice, he could have stayed. Hitler's intervention was against Simović's coup d'etat government, not against King Peter II Karađorđević - his regularly chosen government (of Milan Stojadinović) signed joining of K. of YU to Axis. So, untill 1943, Peter II was internationally recognized ruler. Afterwards, you cannot treat Karađorđević as King, because Allies 've recognized Tito's government and AVNOJ (that functioned as parliament) as true representatives. Otherwise, it might seem that you recognize decisions of an imposed puppet-dictator (Pavelić) (offering of Croatian crown), and on the other hand, it might seem that you don't recognize democratical decisions of AVNOJ from 1943 (deposing of Peter II). Kubura (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss 1943? I misunderstood because you mentioned that Alexander and Peter I were kings of Croatia, but Peter II wasn't. I merely pointed out that all three were at one point de facto kings of the Croats. Peter II was not the de facto ruler of Croatia in 1943, yes, but neither was Aimone.
If we consider, for the sake of argument, that the "merger" of the titles was illegitimate, then Otto von Habsburg is the legitimate ruler, either way its not Aimone so we don't really have to answer. Frankly I don't see where you're going with this, I have more claim to the Croatian throne then Aimone ;). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where am I going with this? I am merely showing you the maze in which you are wandering; my comments on Peter said three separate things, which I can rephrase if necessary. The thread of Ariadne is: what do English sources actually call Aimone? Please look it up; I have other interests than the conflicts of the Western Balkans in 1943. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you doubtless have more rational claim to the throne of Albania than William of Wied; but we list him under William of Albania nonetheless. The proverb is Let him be king who has the power; let him keep who can. and the Great Powers have given many irrelevant younger sons kingdoms to which they have no connexion whatsoever. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the history of my own country, and I would not say it presents a "maze". The difference between William of Albania and Aimone is that he actually ruled. Aimone did not.
Here's my point: the guy didn't actually rule (or get crowned, or perform functions of state, or set foot in his "kingdom", or get recognized by the parliament, or the UN, or anybody), so he's a pretender. And Wiki policy states: Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender.
Furthermore, he is more commonly known by his title as Duke of Aosta (and Spoleto) than as the 2 year "King" of a non-existent Nazi puppet state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • he is more commonly known by his title as Duke of Aosta (and Spoleto) than as the 2 year "King" of a non-existent Nazi puppet state. This is the only claim that matters. Provide evidence for it, and I will support the move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that he was a pretender is irrelevant? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unable to grasp what logical POV supports his "kingship" here. There isn't even an excuse to call him a "real" king. In any conceivable sense of the word, the man didn't rule Croatia. There is ample evidence in the article and elsewhere that the "King" had virtually nothing to do with Croatia, and he has no legitimate claim to the throne. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCNT says "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." They do: in relation to pretenders' articles rule number 6 (that I've quoted rather frequently) is the main reason I've proposed this move. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But to apply that you must provide evidence that it is consenus that he is a pretender; this is intended for cases, like Bonnie Prince Charlie and Henry V of France, where there is consensus that there was a Government in being which excluded the pretender, because, for them, name and numeral are minority usage. In 1943, most of Croatia was under Italian occupation, and Aimone was invited by the defacto Croatian government. Enough; WP:NCNT was never intended for the purpose to which you are putting it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, if I may, recent edits fall down because they are discussing the content of the article ("All of this belongs, with sources, in the article"). The discussion you are having is about the content of the article, where it should remain focussed on its title. By all means the article content can mention and indeed discuss at length the title and legitimacy or otherwise, but the thorny topic in hand is only the title of this page. A point well concluded in this edit [3]. Next point, there's been lots of erroneous talk about 1943. The guy "abdicated" his "throne" in 1943. Get a grip people. We need to be discussing 1941 and whether those that offered him a throne had a throne to offer.

And while I'm on, I'll point out that I'm a republican who believes that all monarchs should be sent to the salt mines. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2

Here's the reason for the move, fully explained:

  • According to WP:NCNT we must "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem".
  • There is a rule listed in WP:NCNT that concerns this matter: "6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender,..."
  • Aimone, the Duke of Aosta, is a pretender to the Croatian throne supported by the Axis. He never actually ruled. These are the well known facts that illustrate this:
    • The King of Croatia during the 1941-1943 period is Peter II of Yugoslavia (or Otto von Habsburg, if we do not consider Charles I to have abdicated), certainly not Aimone. The Yugoslav state is not considered by historians to have dissolved during WW2. If we consider the situation on the ground, then the Yugoslav Partisans actually control most of the Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia (his supposed "kingdom").[4]
    • Aimone never set foot in the Independent State of Croatia (and actually thought the whole matter was a joke).[1]
    • Aimone was never crowned.
    • Aimone never performed any functions of state.
    • Aimone's rule was never ratified by the Parliament of Croatia (the Sabor).

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Aimone was invited by the "de facto" Croatian government (though that may be disputed due to the situation in the guerrilla war), that does not amount to regal rule. Despite his invitation, he did not actually rule, any more than Peter II during his 1941-1943 exile in London, while the latter at least has legitimacy and international recognition. What evidence do you, Septentrionalis, have to show that he did rule (i.e., that he was not a pretender) despite these arguments? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Kings of Serbia after 1882 were not crowned. Peter II of Yugoslavia took only an owth of aleigance. Crowning was not an issue in some cases where tradition has not established crowning procedures.
  • Many kings and emperors did not preform and duties, Pu Ji is an example, but he is nevertheless historical tzar
  • The Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir did not stipulate any crowning or for the matter of fact no ratification. The ISC was a corporate state whose legal system correspond with Franco Spain and Portugal (during some years). This was a completely different legal system - different to any existing or previously existing legal system.
Imbris (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What's your point, noone is denying he was invited?
I ask again: what arguments would you provide to show this guy actually RULED the country? It is illogical to ask for someone to prove a negative (i.e. the non-existence of his rule). You're actually the one that has to show that he did de-facto rule that Nazi puppet state.
P.S., your analogy with Puyi is completely wrong, he most certainly was the last emperor of China (1908-1924) and was not a "Tsar" at all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is just a rename case, we have to prove to an admin what should be better _title_wise_ and not argue about such minute details. Aimone ruled de jure and de facto promoted some nobles into the peerage of Croatia, this has been documented in the literature listed in the article. And your disregard to the facts, like that Law decree and the legal system of that colaborating state is a clear proof that you want to push your POV in the en.wiki when the hr.wiki states Tomislav II. Tzar/Emperor - one the same Tzar is more slavic. -- Imbris (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly, and the way to prove that "Tomislav II" is better is to show that he was not a pretender. This is, of course, impossible as the man had almost nothing to do with the country. It looks to me that your active WP:CANVASSING is more endemic of POV-pushing, but lets keep this civil, no "accusations".
  • De jure, the ruler of Croatia is Peter II, not Aimone. Perhaps you have trouble accepting this?
  • De facto, he never set foot in Croatia, was never crowned, was never ratified by the Sabor, was given a fabricated peace of metal, and the only thing he ever did that had anything to do with the puppet state is giving a person peerage? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Not true. We have nowdays Kosovo, we have had Taiwan. ISC was a state nevertheless of influences from Third Reich and Kingdom of Italy. Council of Europe condemned practices of state-genocide in communist states (and you would say that those communist states - did not exist).
Yugoslavia did not exist (de facto). Yugoslavia signed that Pact and left the League of Nations (latter rejoined under discutable circumstances).
Peter II was not the ruler of Croatia, not since he fled Yugoslavia and took the gold. Not after he trusted the colaborationist Chetnicks. His state simply ceased to exist. Peters ancestors have never been approved by the Croatian Parliament, the Constitution was a shame because of Election law
His authority does not come from steping onto the Croatian soil. He received the Crown, the Law decree stipulated what comes with the crown (and this is it). The Law decree has not provided for any ratification, ratification was not a part of the receiving the crown. The metal and the design of the crown play no part.
Also you should be more detached when speaking about this and try not to be biased towards every detail (every bit) of the history of ISC. I do not support any historical revisionism and what you are doing is just that. You are not a judge and a jury. Aimone was a king, however the governmental aparatus was criminal and corrupt.
Imbris (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


omg. I think you just made it clear why you oppose this. Please, I do not intend to patronize you in any way, but:
1) Yugoslavia is not considered to have dissolved by (non-Axis) historians. The country way occupied, yes, but not destroyed; there is a difference, you see. Any state creations by the Nazis during WW2 (including Mengjiang, the ISC, and the General Government), did not de jure exist in accordance with international law. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Axis, as far as the international community is concerned, the Nazi's could have made 263 various states and named them "The United States of Strawberry Yogurt" 1 through 263 :)
2) The government that has legitimacy is the Yugoslav government in London, which later merged with the AVNOJ (the Tito-Šubašić agreement). The Yugoslav membership in the Tripartite pact was clearly rendered void when it was attacked by its "allies", as you call them. You may totally ignore the NDH in any legal considerations, whatsoever. I am sure you are not doing this intentionally, but you appear to be trying to legitimize a Nazi puppet state.
3) The only acceptable argument towards "Tomislav II" is the claim that he de facto ruled the ISC. This is contrary to many arguments brought up during the discussion, do you have proof of his de facto reign in the ISC?

Please stop accusing me of various mental defficiencies in this matter, that is not the way towards proper discussion. I can assure you that I have no personal agenda or POV here, and that I know a great deal about the period we're talking about (if I do say so myself). Your canvassing and "calls for help" are hardly "NPOV" behaviour.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not refered to my comments at all, instead you tryed to interpret international law of that time. Everyone knows that international law of that time was virtually non-existent. There was humanitarian law in its beginings but not an international law comparable with what we have today. It was easy for states to just leave the League of Nations (like Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and continue what ever agression you wanted. So stop this constant badgering with unsourced statements. We need paragraphs, citations, treaties.
Your constant claims of some historians who will do anything to prolong the existance of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (in history - not in this time and age) to at least 31.1.1946. is an ill concieved attempt which will fail. Stop stating such dubious qualifications like non-Axis historians.
Clearly void - this doesn't mean anything.
This is a serious allegation no matter it was said in gloves. I am just stating facts. If Rjecina agrees and I know his expertise in the topic I agree that Tomislav II of the Independent State of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta is a good title.
Stop this puppet state as this was proof for your claims. Yes it was a colaborationist state with a marionet government and a criminal regime in charge but not a puppet-state. We must bear in mind that states are not created nor destroyed as somebody said. I interpret this statement like this. Nations have states so calling something a puppet state is being biased towards the people. But I am not offended if somebody insists of being rude and not-objective towards the WWII. There should pass more time to people get objective.
Your hearding of the flock of deletionists is also not a good way - because you haven't called the other involved parties to the discussion. It seems to me that you wanted this to go quiet.
Imbris (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, this is fast degrading into a meaningless squabble, you appear to be emotionally involved here. I did not "try to interpret international law of that time", I interpreted international law of the present. We live in the year 2008, and I assure you that the General Governement, Mengjiang, and the ISC did not de jure exist in accordance with international law. Furthermore, there is no legality whatsoever in Aimone's ascension to the throne. He was installed by a "government" whose existence and legality is not recognized by any state or country on this planet.
My evil plan will succeed, bwaahahahahahaaaa! as Peter II was the de jure King of Yugoslavia until he was deposed via referendum, in accordance with the Tito-Šubašić agreement and the merged AVNOJ/Skupština assembly. Yugoslavia as a state, kingdom or not, did not dissolve during WW2.
Yes, I only invited one person to the discussion before you started canvassing, and when you were finished, someone had to (neutrally) invite the remainder of the involved persons. "Funny" how you left out all those that voted otherwise than you'd want them.

In order to bring down tensions and normalize the discussion, let me make my personal opinion of the period clear: I do not support the Serb hegemonism of the Yugoslav kingdom in any way, I do not support the unitarianism of the Yugoslav throne, and I have no illusions about the conditions of that period. However, as a Croat, I believe that calling Aimone a "King of Croatia" is not only incorrect both de jure and de facto, but is also an insult to the memory of the real Croatian Kings, as well as to the very people of Croatia, whose national legacy is in danger of being tainted by an altogether cheap fascist attempt at legitimizing their failing rule.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Finally, I hope we can end this bickering and return to argumentative discussion. You went to a lot of trouble writing essays here, but you did not bring forth any argument or source that shows the Duke de facto ruled Croatia (de jure we have Peter II).
mind, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply sadened that you think of my contributions as meaningless. They are not what you like to claim it. Your recalling the International law shows that you are not a historian - and not objective. We cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. We can stress out the oppinion of the present but what happened in the past cannot change that. Your campaign to vote with emotion is what is meaningless and blocks this discussion into a hault. Emotions is stating that Croatian kings would be smirged by the very mentioning of the Tomislav II is false and your illusions that Petar II was legitimate is null and void according to the Historical foundations in the Constitution of Croatia. Petar II was illegitimate ruler whose constitution was passed without the will of the people. The majority of the people wanted a republic in those days but electoral fraud which led to underrepresentation of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Vojvodina lead to forming of a illegitimate kingdom. This is known to every primary 8-grader in Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The majority of the people in Croatia wanted a republic. I am sorry, but there is no source that will say Peter II was an illegitimate ruler. Again, I do not support that state, nor do I think it was good for the people, I am just being objective. Furthermore, for all its failings, I certainly do consider the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to have been a far better country than the NDH. I'm sure we'll both agree on that point. ffs, the Serbs at least did not slaughter us en masse keep us in concentration camps, we have to give them that.
I did not asses your contributions as "meaningless", do not play with words, what I said was that you did not refute the main argument for the move: that the man did not rule.
Look, lets 'get to work here. The argument for the move is still unrefuted.
De jure, Peter II is the monarch. His country was terrible, the rise to power of his father murky, their rule corrupt and hegemonistic and dictatorial, but he was a legal monarch.
De facto, the Duke of Aosta did not rule the country due top his personal disagreements with various involved states and powers. Wether he wanted to is not relevant, the fact remains he was never ratified by the Sabor or assumed his position and rank in Zagreb.
Everything you wrote, far from "meaningless", is known and accepted, but does not refute these arguments. Do you have new evidence or sources that can counter the fact that he did not rule that puppet state?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes he is illegitimate because the Constitution of the land was illegitimate but this has no role to play because he was silently accepted. He was deposed in every historical regions other than Serbia (in WWII). You have not named any source or fact to support that Peter II is de jure (he is the uzurpator of the throne of the state that during 1941-43 has not been part of the League of Nations. On the other hand every opposer to this move has named usefull evidence that you deliberately ommit discussing about.
De facto Peter II ruled only few days of 1941, illegitimatelly considered of age for ascending on the throne but not crowned because not any Yugoslavian king was crowned. They just received the rights of having the crown (which, and for this I am not so sure, were kept in the National Museum at the time). In any case first crowning of a Serbian king occured 1904-09-09, but as I recall after that crowning there were not crowned since. I do not recall and this can be found out easily that the pretender on the throne of Yugoslavia never granted noble titles (this was the practice of Serbian kings, princes from the time of vozd Karadjordje.
De jure Peter II ruled only over Serbia (Kosovo parts of Metohija and Macedonia included).
De facto - Aimone received the crown under the auspices of the Law decree. He granted noble titles.
De jure - There exist records from the Croatian State Parliament of that time so it should be easy to locate whether the Parliament discussed the Accords of Rome, The Parliament had no authority to make laws so it did not have the authority to ratify that agreement (under the law system of that time).
Imbris (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Look, I don't know HOW to explain this to you: Peter II is a legitimate ruler of all of Yugoslavia, saying otherwise is simply untrue. I suggest we leave it at that. You appear not to know much about the period. If I may suggest that you ignore the elementary school lessons in Croatia, they are quite biased and generally of poor quality.
De jure, despite our mutual dislike of the fact, Peter II is the monarch. The Duke's granting of one or two noble titles is in itself completely meaningless if he did not rule, i.e. if he was a pretender.
De facto, Aimone refused to take up office until he was ratified by the Sabor, which never happened. He refused to rule the country due to the unresolved Dalmatian question (see text). (The "crown of Zvonimir" is a meaningless peace of metal forged by the Ustaše fascists.)
I ask you again, what evidence can you bring that he de facto ruled the country? His legal (de jure) standing is clear, he is a pretender to a title held by Peter II.
There is no need to discuss the "legality" of his position, it is widely affirmed that Peter II is the legitimate King, not the Italian. Again: please concentrate on the de facto rule that you say he exercised. This is the only point of interest. While at that, please keep in mind that titles he may or may not have granted are meaningless unless he de facto ruled. I can't understand why you refuse to even consider you may be wrong here...? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 3

Is this matter concluded? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. And I will invite Rjecina to this discussion. -- Imbris (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'm looking forward to his opinion on the matter. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina as a historian has definatelly right oppinion and I think that his position will be that the current title (headline) is most correct and NPOV. -- Imbris (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave that to Rjecina, shall we? I know the man and do not need your personal description of his opinion. I'm sure he knows I'm not moving this page because of some "POV pushing". I also do not like the implication that I'm "anti-Croatian". (You appear to know nothing about my previous edits.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is historical and legal question.
If we want to write NPOV truth then in my thinking we need to move this article on position Tomislav II of Independent State of Croatia because this has been state right name.
Few days ago in article Independent State of Croatia I have writen all my knowledge about this king [5] . Who knows this information will maybe help somebody to make decision ?
Facts which are not under question: Ante Pavelić has signed Rome agreements in which Duke of Aosta has become Croatian king. Croatian parliament (Sabor) has confirmed this agreement in 1942 (I am not 100 % sure). Ante Pavelić has been prime minister during Tomislav II reign. He has become head of state only after end of monarchy (It is writen in article Independent State of Croatia )
Only question is if he has been de jure or de facto and de jure king. If he has been only de jure we need to move article to name/title Duke of Aosta but if he has de facto ruled then ..
Legal question is if his meetings with Ante Pavelić, change in Ante Pavelić state position after end of "monarchy", creation of many duke and barons is enough to use like evidence that he has been king ?
Many (in Croatia) question his wish to rule, but answer has become clear in 1943 when he has given to first born son name Zvonimir.
Maybe I am mistaking but final reason for my vote has been personal thinking. In Croatia right wing supporters are speaking how Ustaše has not been so bad and they hate Tomislav II. I am socialist and I am against Ustaše. For me Tomislav II is example how right wing politicians will sell everything and everybody in name of National interest. I am saying this because like 90 % of Croatian population I am not neutral in this question .--Rjecina (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we are not disputing that the guy was invited to be the "king" of that occupational tool. However, according to international law, the de jure King of Croatia is Peter II, while de facto Aimone did not reign in the country. Wether or not Aimone wanted to be a King is not the question. The arguments for the move have been brought forth with these facts in mind. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter II was the illegitimate prince regent of Yugoslavia, he was never King of Yugoslavia. He was no king of Croatia because the title was not granted to him. He only could have succeded the throne of Serbia and considered to be a pretender to the throne of Yugoslavia. Tomislav II was a king, the most of Wikipedias in the world acknowledge that fact and if as you say non-existent kingdom never was then there never was the ISC or what you are saying? When Zapolja was king, Ferdinand was also a king. -- Imbris (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC

Seriously man, you don't know a lot about WW2. Read the sources in the article entitled KING PETER II OF YUGOSLAVIA if you do not believe me. "Prince Regent"? I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. He was a LEGAL KING. Its like no matter anyone says or does, you'll keep repeating that the world is flat... "Tomislav II" is in dispute, Peter II is NOT. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Legal king is a POV issue as has been pointed out there were two sides you know. - dwc lr (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have been saying it is ease to solve this problem. Article can be moved to Tomislav II of Independent State of Croatia. We all agree that he has been king of Independent State of Croatia !--Rjecina (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must still disagree with that rename, even though it would be faaar more acceptable. The fact remains that he did not rule. (Also, the title would be incorrect, as "King of Croatia" was his supposed "title"; but this is acceptable as far as I'm concerned.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs are not required to rule; if they were, we would not have an article on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh please, the man is the King of Sweden ffs. The analogy is completely wrong for obvious reasons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything do to with this issue. And your obvious reasons are not coherent enought to state them. -- Imbris (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris, you are totaly biased and would say anything not to get this move done. Carl Gustaf is the legal King of Sweden, he does indeed rule that country as a constitutional monarch. If you are implying that the monarchs of constitutional monarchies do not actually rule their countries than we have traversed beyond rational discussion. That would mean, for example, that Queen Elizabeth II does not rule the Commonwealth, which is absurd. Obvious enough for you? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She does not rule the Commonwealth; she reigns over it. Her powers are extremely limited (and she is bound by convention not to use them); Carl Gustav does not have even such powers as Elizabeth does. I regret that this discussion has descended to the assertion of patent unfact - or conceivably to utter ignorance of English history and the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you, Pmanderson, for your wonderful insight on my linguistic capabilities. Let us hope your regrets of the discussion's "descent" shall not descend it further. As for your analogy, I can only say that comparing Queen Elizabeth II and/or Carl XVI Gustaf with Aimone in both legality and de facto status is utterly absurd. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me then, which is it?

You're question is offensive in itself, I refuse to answer. You tread on the very border of a personal attack. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your phrasing answers for you. Please consider making arguments on Wikipedias in whose languages you are fluent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I lack eloquence to engage in this discussion, but it would appear that intelligence is needed more urgently on the other side. Tell me, are you trying to provoke me, or are you simply unable to converse in an unoffensive manner? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need eloquence. What you need is data, which show what English usage is; not what you think it ought to be. That would still convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, there Director, calm down, you offend people more harshlly and with such language. You are not a Saint to run to the admins as if they were your mummy. -- Imbris (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, let's please stop with this nonsense, I assure you Imbris I'm not upset. My mommy will make sure you don't go around campaigning on Wikipedia. The most amusing thing in your post is that you accuse me of insulting people, and then proceed to insult me yourself. What's the matter with you, anyway? What's with all this childish nonsense, would it be inappropriate if I asked you how old you are?
Pmanderson, you're running in circles: we have already established that the English usage is irrelevant here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have? Where? and Who's this "we" who have established our naming conventions are irrelevant? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. again: "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". They do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. They don't. I wrote part of WP;NCNT; it is not intended to act in this way.
  2. WP:NCNT only modifies our general principle where it says it does.
  3. We consists of Direk and tor. I thought so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It's not intended to act in this way? Then what way is it intended to act?! In plain text we have:

  • "...use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem".
  • "6. Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender,..." which is to say, someone who has not ruled.

Now the logic I, and several other editors, have decided to follow is this: If he did not rule, then he is a pretender. If he is a pretender, then we should not "apply an ordinal in the article name".
I guess what I want you to know is how, pray tell, can directly contradicting Wiki policy be in accordance with that same policy? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources say he is a pretender or it just the conclusion you have come to because he wasn't an Absolute monarch? - dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pretender is someone who has not ruled. Read the above discussion and you'll find arguments aplenty to that effect. Instead of asking us to prove a negative, what sources say that he did rule Croatia (not that he was invited by the Ustaše, we all know that)? Remember we are talking about someone who refused to assume the position due to serious disagreements with both Rome and Zagreb, who did not get ratified by the Sabor, and did not even set foot in the country. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhutanese king just gave up his power, the Nepalese king tried to rule and is about to lose his throne. Croatia was ruled by his prime minister not all kings are absolute monarchs. You are abusing the pretender policy that is to prevent Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou being at Louis XX of France, Leka, Crown Prince of Albania being at Leka I of Albania take your pick (Pretender). That applies to someone who has never even remotely been a monarch of a country. Tomislav II was clearly a monarch NDH de facto existed presumably de jure in the eyes of the Axis. All former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death. The naming conventions are clear and the proposed title is not even supported by the NC anyway. NC Other royals:
  • 2. If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". Examples: Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Numerals are not used. Example: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not "Prince Richard, 2nd Duke of Gloucester". - dwc lr (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow Wiki policy, then a man that did not rule should not be named by the title he did not hold. In Aimone's case specificly, he neither ruled nor reigned. All the people you listed have had a stronger position on their respective thrones than the Duke. I am aware of all the examples you have brought forth, but still I cannot think of a supposed "monarch" that was less of a monarch than Aimone. Objectively speaking, he really had little or nothing to do with that "country". I hope this is agreed upon by everyone. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said a dozen he was not an Absolute monarch. Yes your right he did not rule the country his Prime Minster, Ante Pavelić ruled the country. Pmanderson has tried to explain the difference to you between reigning and ruling not all monarchs do both he was a king in the twentieth century not the tenth. Yes other than accepting the Crown of Zvonimir and doing the things constitutional monarchs do (create noble titles) and ultimately abdicate from his position he had little to do with the country so? He was quite capable of reigning from Florence. Elizabeth II manages being Queen of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis just fine living in England. Then their are the other counties she formally reigned over Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, South Africa, The Gambia, Rhodesia, Pakistan, Ceylon, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Malta and Fiji. Your criteria for accepting people as monarchs would effectively rule out every European Sovereign because they don't rule they reign! - dwc lr (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ffs, you're repeating known facts again. 1) He refused to take up office due to major disagreements with his masters in Rome and Zagreb. 2) The legal title is in the hands of King Peter II, who is accepted as the King in the 1941-1943 period. There cannot be two Kings of Croatia at the same time, one must be a pretender. 3) He did not reign or rule because of stated reasons. In effect, he refused to reign until he was ratified by the parliament and Dalmatia was returned to Croatia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you now accept that not all monarchs rule. He accepted the office the head of the Croatian government begged Victor Emmanuel III to name a member of the Savoy dynasty king of Croatia he choose the Duke of Spoleto who accepted the crown and became Tomislav II. WTF is he supposed to do when he is deprived of his powers and reduced to a figurehead by the Ustaše government this what it is like for most monarchs. Whose pov are you looking at the legal question from the Allies they recognised Peter II as King of Yugoslavia. As Pmanderson has said in the first post of the discussion whose laws to apply is a POV question. With regards to the Axis powers he is de facto and de jure king. With regards to the allied powers he is de facto king but Peter II is the de jure king of Yugoslavia which was occupied and partitioned by the Axis powers. So there you go Peter II was effectively a pretender just like other monarchs who get deposed James II of England, Miguel of Portugal etc. - dwc lr (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omg, you're not listening: he refused to reign (he did not rule) because of disagreements with the Axis powers, de facto he did not rule, de jure Peter II is the King. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd you persist in saying he never reigned (yes we all accept he did not rule). Facts would suggest differently i.e. choosing a Regnal name, abdicating, which look suspiciously like the actions of and options available to a reigning monarch. Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia and Prince Michael of Montenegro both refused rule, reign or have anything to do with the Independent State of Montenegro. The Duke of Spoleto could of refused if he wanted but he accepted it, grudgingly perhaps. He never took up residence because his safety could not be guaranteed so he reigned from the safety of Italy which he was quite capable of doing. These people are listed as monarchs that is why we have Mindaugas II of Lithuania not William, Duke of Urach and Tomislav II not Aimone, Duke of Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the meaningless word games already, its really a stupid way to prove any point. We are talking about a person who was de facto not a King of Croatia, and was de jure a pretender to a throne held by Peter II of Yugoslavia. I'm getting seriously tired of repeating myself. To keep it simple, please answer me this: how can both Peter II and the Duke of Spoleto occupy the same throne at the same time, without one being identified as a pretender. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is simply not referred to as a pretender that is your opinion. Published sources call him Tomislav II and King of Croatia not a pretender. It's regrettable you fancy changing how he is referred to simply by making things up to push your own pov and change how he is historically referred to in published works. Very unfortunate that your trying to re write history. Peter II was a king in exile while Tomislav II was king same as Zog and Haile Selassie who where king's in exile while Victor Emmanuel III occupied their thrones - dwc lr (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the consistency of my edits won't win you any arguments. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complete lack of reliable sources referring to him as a pretender etc. will though. The support for the move is based on peoples own personal opinions and does reflect published works which acknowledge his status. - dwc lr (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Rjecina, you didn't tell me you're a historian! :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much :)
Anyway, we can't go forth with Rjecina's proposal as in either case the Duke did not bear the title "King of the Independent State of Croatia". I still don't understand the problem, its painfully obvious that the man did not rule in any sense of the word. That being said, I hope Pax or Rjecina might change their stance or at least abstain from the poll. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the Duke of Aosta was (at best) titular King of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At best, agreed. This meaningless "function" does not warrant inclusion in the title of the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very frustrating & confusing. Take the Confederate States of America and related articles for example. The USA claimed it (the CSA) legally didn't exist; yet after their Civil War, the former Confederate states were treated as former US states (being reduced to military occupied districts). I suppose one could argue, was Jefferson Davis President of the CSA? or merely a former US Senator from Mississippi? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Question to Imbris

Imbris, I've followed this discussion and read all your posts. Can you perhaps give us an example of a similar situation in another country where a "monarch" has not been crowned, has never visited "his territory" and yet still been recognised as the rightful king? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Imbris but who is granting the recognition did no country recognise Tomislav II as king of Croatia? In Lithuania Mindaugas II (Wilhelm, Duke of Urach) was elected and deposed after a couple of months in 1918 without ever visiting. - dwc lr (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To AlasdairGreen27. This is of no importance, the main objective is that the content of the article is well sourced and the content of the article describes in majority Aimone as the King of ISC. His ducal heritage is a minute detail of the article. Aimone will be in history recorded according his greates achievement (I am not speaking with awe about it but simply making a point). Monarch are in all cases listed under the highest noble title they have had. -- Imbris (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, but the man was elected and ratified. His legality is beyond question and there is no other monarch that de jure ruled his country at the same time as he? I think the point here is that you'd be hard pressed to find any supposed "monarch" that was less of a monarch than Aimone. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pu Yi was less then a monarch in his three time in office'. Also your point in finding other proofs of de facto is meaningless (because it is enough that he granted noble titles which Peter II did not) -- Imbris (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania was under German Occupation members of the Council of Lithuania left in protest. As soon as the Germany (who apparently didn't recognise him as king) surrendered he was deposed. I see Lithuania as the same as this case this is what these people are best known for being kings this is why we have articles on them. Tomislav II was offered the Crown by the de facto head of the Croatian government he accepted. - dwc lr (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the the 1st Yugoslavia was recognised as a proper state and that Peter II was its legitimate monarch at the time of the Axis invasion. See, for example, League of Nations members. There is also no example in World War II of any recognition whatsoever being granted to a government established by the Axis powers following their invasion or annexation of the territory concerned. So, therefore, end of story, this Italian Duke had no claim to Peter's throne. Can't have had.

Let me give you an analogy. I offer to sell you a Ferrari over the phone, even though I don't have one to offer you. That's basically the deal on the table for the Duke. We agree that you'll buy my non-existant Ferrari. You go to the pub and tell everyone that you've got a Ferrari. Nobody believes you. Q.E.D.. -- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a person who does not approve monarchial system of government you are very keen to the idea that because Peter II ruled (illegitimely because of the Constitution being passed with electoral fraud and because nobody asked peoples of Yugoslavia whether they wanted a republic or a kingdom under the House of Karadjordjevich. Yugoslavia was recognized and the ISC was recognized. Yugoslavia was a part of the axis as the ISC was part of the axis. Peter II reigned for a few days over the entire Yugoslavia, then there were ISC (Kingdom of Croatia), Kingdom of Montenegro, Kingdom of Albania, certain Macedonian-Greek duchy and the occupation of former Slovenia, Medjimurje, Baranja, Backa. Serbia had a puppet state under direct control of the Greater German Reich and Banat as a part of Serbia was internally rulled by the Vojvodinian Germans.
Yugoslavia left the League of Nations and during that time Tomislav II reigned over ISC (Kingdom of Croatia). After his abdication (a regnal act) in favour of his son Zvonimir II - that son of his became a heir to the throne of Croatia with the title of Crown Prince until his coming of age. Nowdays Zvonimir II is involved in dinastic strugles for the head place in the House of Savoy, he doesn't even list one of his birth names (Zvonimir). He has a son, but his son has no sons nor daughters.
Yugoslavia rejoined the League of Nations in 1944 but this rejoining is dubious because there has been not one General Assembly during the WWII. States are recognized and not Governments.
Imbris (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we're all just pretending to deceive you, Imbris. We're all actually rabid supporters of Serbs hegemony, and will stop at nothing to discredit your fascist king in an eevil manner. Enough with your utterly ridiculous attempts at diminishing the legality of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. For the last time: the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is LEGAL, Peter II is a LEGAL monarch. There can be NO discussion there as it is plain fact.
You keep writing long speeches without acknowledging even the plainest, simplest facts and points of discussion. But then, such illogical behavior is endemic for people with a profound nationalist POV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumptions are offensive and discredit only you. Your hastely manner can be seen [6]. What is your source that Tomislav II was a fashist (e. g. member of the ruling party of the Kingdom of Italy). For that matter Ustashe had simmilar corporative and anti-communist ideology with the Italian fascism and German national-socialism but this was a separate ideology like phalangism, militarism and greater Serb anti-semitism. Legality of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia has been shreded with the joining to Axis and with the practice of the Chetnik Army in the fatherland. Kingdom of Yugoslavia left the League of Nations and rejoined under very suspicious circumstances (Britain and France helped out its illegitimate child). Peter II was not the legal monarch because he was not of age to reign and because Croatian Parliament not approved the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (which is written in the Constitution). Banovina of Croatia was an interlude and was created with the will of Prince Paul and not with the will of the dinasty. It was created with the suspension of the National Assembly and riged with manipulating the Constitution with an ordinary decree of the Government with the approval of Proxies for the young King. So do not deceive yourself with such attempts to discredit my person with such attacks on my dignity. -- Imbris (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do not know whether Aimone was a fascist, personally I do not think so. However, he was a fascist-supported political entity. I agree that this does not make him automatically a fascist. The matter is far more complicated than you may think, please read the following to prevent any further misunderstandings:
Regent Prince Paul Karađorđević was the leading member of the dynasty, his actions represented the will of the ruling monarchy. He gave Croatia considerable autonomy (so he's a good guy), but he also joined the Axis (so he's a bad guy).
This move however, does NOT obviously destroy the "legitimacy" of the state or dynasty in any way. If joining the Axis destroys the legitimacy the state and its dynasty that joined then Aimone's House of Savoy is equally illegitimate as Italy joined the Axis in 1940.
King Peter II of Yugoslavia was 17 years old and very bad at politics. He was essentially a bystander in these events. General Simović actually led the coup that brought him to power, and was supported by Churchill. In essence, it was Churchill that brought the anti-Axis clique into power. King Peter was the figurehead for the anti-Axis coup. This coup was opposed by the ruling pro-Axis dynasty headed by Regent Paul. However, Hitler didn't restore Regent Paul to power when he occupied Yugoslavia, so all support was shifted to King Peter. In a few months, he also became legally of age and the King of Yugoslavia.
Peter was a figurehead for this coup that only managed to destroy Yugoslavia and start the incredibly bloody civil war (so he's a bad guy), but he was also anti-Axis and Churchill's man (so he's a good guy).
Do not be fooled into thinking a 17-year old was the one truly in control. It was Churchill and Simović that brought Peter II to power. I won't repeat this again as I too will start to become comical: the legality of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia or its ruling dynasty is not disputed, ANYWHERE.
But again these polemics are meaningless, none of this alters the fact that Aimone did not rule (or reign ;) in Croatia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Aimone

47 is a relatively young age to die without a cause being discussed in the article. Does anyone know what caused his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter II of Yugoslavia also died with 47. -- Imbris (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 years and 6.7 months - Peter II when "crowned" without a crown placed on his head.
  • Peter II died at 47 years and 1.9 months
  • Tomislav II died at 47 years and 10.7 months
Imbris (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here comes the defender of Karageorgjevich dinasty :) -- Imbris (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LoL, here comes the defender of the Ustaše (and other fascists, apparently). P.S. What in heaven's name is the "Karageorgjevich dinasty"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong in being monarchist and pledge towards the Karageorgjevich dinasty but what you wrote for me is unsupstantiated and uncivil. But I will not march towards ANI and shout and cry like a little baby (which you did) and complain to the admins. They have better things to do than to teach you manners. With this approach you will find someone with no better things to do - who - will shout and call in admin support. For that matter - in former Yugoslavia, especially Croatia it is popular among revisionist group (in the far-right political spectrum to speak badly about Tomislav II). This is well known to Rjecina and look I am not implying that you are among them. -- Imbris (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am being uncivil? I merely replied in kind to your very similar presumption, I also take offense at being called that (no matter what you may think). Answer me this: how can you presume to call me a supporter of the hegemonic, corrupt, unitarianist Karađorđević dynasty and then complain when I reply?
Furthermore, I stated several times that I am anything but a supporter of the Karađorđević dynasty, while you have not denounced the Ustaše in any way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Yes it was a colaborationist state with a marionet government and a criminal regime in charge ..." and this discussion is not about Ustashe but about Tomislav II of Croatia. And I said defender, not supporter + you said that Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1941) was better than Kingdom of Croatia (1941-1943). So you are the one with malicious attempt of implying support of something that is not the topic of this discussion. -- Imbris (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Independent State of Croatia is the name, and I think you mixed 1943 with 1945. Also, I think that his statement comes from sanity and greatly regret if you are one of the few that doesn't share it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. DIREKTOR is one the very few neutral Balkan users on the Wikipedia, and this incivility on Imbris' part is not the first. He was very uncivil to me as well. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop All of you. This is the talk page to discuss this article, not to yell at each other. You should all take a break from this article and each other, or at the very least take your fight to the entry at WP:WQA. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King of Croatia?

I thought Peter II was King of Yugoslavia from 1934 to 1945 (Croatia being a part of Yugoslavia). GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely correct. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the Allies presumably. Yugoslavia was split up Croatia de facto existed de jure to the Axis powers Tomislav II was offered and accepted the crown becoming a king. He was in the same boat as the President's of Kosovo or the Republic of China are today, recognised by some but not others. - dwc lr (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy, at best was a pretender. Croatia wasn't independant from 1941 to 1943. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have said someone else on this page what sources call this man a pretender. You can read in books news articles about him being named king of Croatia a de facto country. He was a de facto king of a de facto country (Italian protectorate/puppet state perhaps) with recognition from some states but not others. Kosovo, Republic of China etc. to give present day examples - dwc lr (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least say Puppet King? GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A puppet king is a still a king. We do say King of a Nazi-puppet state in the lead though. - dwc lr (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Puppet. I'm thinking of removing Peter II from that succession box, as he never held the title King of Croatia; he's title was always King of Yugoslavia. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Peter II. It was like saying, Elizabeth II was Queen of Scotland or Juan Carlos I was King of Castile etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to add puppet in the succ box his title was King of Croatia the text makes out the country was a puppet state. - dwc lr (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned though. By having him as King of Croatia? We'd have to make adjustments at Peter II of Yugoslavia. For example: 1941-43 Peter as King of Yugoslavia 'minus' Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I not sure on the status of King Zog after 1939 but his succ box ends his reign in 1939 I think he was officially (Allies view?) deposed in 1945. - dwc lr (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Zog's case he was supposedly replaced as King of the entire Kingdom. Where's Peter was supposedly replaced as King in part of his Kingdom. It's all very confusing, of course. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia was split up, annexed to other countries, new one's created. The crown of Montenegro was offered to a couple of Princes (both of whom refused). For Peter II he was de facto (legally is obviously a pov issue) succeeded by numerous people such as Tomislav II. - dwc lr (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia was broken up during World War II? I'm afraid I'm over my head here. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not over your head GoodDay. Yugoslavia was not broken up, and nor was any recognition extended to the 'Independent' State of Croatia, which was as 'independent' as the German 'Democratic' Republic was 'democratic'. In a nutshell: the creations of warring parties have no legal status until peace breaks out. That's been the position in international law forever. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that Yugoslavia existed is irrelevant because no such fact exist. And for your interpretations about the international law are as dubious as ones claimed by Director. Also there were countries with coup 'd etat throught history but nobody claimed they did not exist. It is as void as claims of reign by Peter II. He did not reign the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which were broken up (some of these pieces were states, protectorates, duchies, kingdoms, provinces and self-ruled by minorities (Banat). Peter II has been burried in USA with the explitic wish he never return to Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm correct then. There never was a 1941-43 Kingdom of Croatia, thus never a King Tomislav II of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the case, yes. It's not as complicated as some people might have you believe. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do published sources refer to him as, King of Croatia and Tomislav II is the answer but why should we pay any attention to them. - dwc lr (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we should pay attention to, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, is whether or not this guy was king of the country of Croatia. I'd say there are indeed arguments aplenty contradicting this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes wikipedia policy like reliable published sources. I can see plenty of arguments contradicting it but they are based on users own opinions like he was a "pretender" and are not supported by a single source. - dwc lr (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to show I'm not inventing all this, here's a source that briefly describes his status as a "Titular King of Croatia (designated, but never reigned, as King Tomislav II of Croatia 1941-1943)": [7] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say self published sources like some blokes personal website. - dwc lr (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succession Box

If we're gonna keep the 'King of Croatia' succession box? It should be as Titular King of Croaita. Any thought, people? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this so posted at you talk but I'll post here as well. Titular is not needed as that descriptor is used for monarchs when their deposed and their heirs. eg William II, German Emperor, William, German Crown Prince. - dwc lr (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Yugoslavia was divided during World War II? Then so was France; and believe me, that's another sticky situation. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Vichy, German occupied areas and then you have Free French in exile and controlling parts of the Empire. I believe Free French were recognised by the Allies (I may be mistaken). So they are the "de jure" government looking at it from one pov. All these are basically legal questions and as the first post in the RM discussion says "whose law applies". - dwc lr (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy France is a completely different matter than the ISC or Mengjiang or the General Government. Vichy France was not created by the Axis, L'État Français is the same state as the French Republic under a different system of rule and a different name. Much like Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany. If Free France was recognized by the Allies, that is completely irrelevant to this matter. In other words, whether that was contrary to international law is not the question here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with your international law mentioning because you yourself stated that you reffer not to the international law of the time (not even with the internal law of the time) but with modern international law - which is irrelevant and WP:OR of the worst kind. -- Imbris (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with your mentioning of my international law mentioning. Believe it or not, there were international laws in effect before and during WW2. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose changing this article. Ante Pavelic and the NDH may not be liked by certain individuals, but his government was a legally recognized government, with the power to invite foreign princes to occupy their throne. As John Gunther pointed out in Inside Asia, the same legal governments recognized Croatia along with Manchukuo, including the Republic of China, Italy, Germany, Finland, Vichy France, the Vatican, Hungary,Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand, Japan, Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Three of the above mentioned states were Allies, and the Vatican was neutral. The Allies may have been victorious in the war, but they never claimed that the Axis regimes were illegal or illegitimate. Since Aimone was recognized as the legal (not necessarily legitimate- Legitimacy is debatable, for even Jacobites do not recognize Elizabeth II as "legitimate" Queen of England, although the legal one) monarch should validate his title at least in the eyes of history. The fact that sovereign regimes viewed his government and received his ministers should be sufficient to proof he was a legal head of state, with claim (however dubious) to such rights and titles as was conferred and legitimized by legal, sovereign entities. Until such time as the Savoy-Aosta family renounces claim, they are, by right of history and de facto legality, claimants to the throne of Croatia, unless legally proven otherwise. Therefore the title Tomislav II would only be appropriate to recognize his historical position as King of Croatia. Another thing I should mention is that Francesco II of Two Sicilies still claimed his throne, even though Vittorio Emmanuele II proclaimed himself "King of Italy" and thereby of the Two Sicilies. History recognizes both as legitimate monarchs, even though they ruled over the same area and VE was only "approved" by much bloodshed and a doubtful "plebiscite", and Francesco II never renounced his legitimate claim. It should also be pointed out that Eric of Pomerania reigned in Sweden although he never visited it, was given the crown by Margrethe, and no legal act of union giving him legal recognition ever occured due to legal disputes, but he is still recognized today as a king of Sweden. He was given homage by the nobles, but then again Tomislav received the homage of Croatian leaders as well. Titular may be a better title to use.Enchantedeve (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article is messy

I see from above, this is an exhausted discussion. But, the current title does look awful. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should just be Tomislav II of Croatia as that reflects what he is best known for and his highest title which should be used according to naming conventions. Are you going to comment in the survey on the request move? - dwc lr (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as I'm not certain about Yugoslavia's status during World War II. PS- I've added my opinon at the 'request move'. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Aimone of Savoy a King of Croatia is like calling Hans Frank a Polish head-of-state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:11, 27 April 2008 (U
He certainly did style himself King Tomislav II of Croatia, but the article title should be simply Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta. After all, Duke of Aosta is his highest undisputed title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be at Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta regardless of whether or not he was ever "King Tomislav II of Croatia". Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse is at that title even though he was King Väinö I of Finland in 1918; Louis Bonaparte is at that title even though he was King Lodjewik I of Holland from 1806 to 1810; Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord is at that title even though he was Sovereign Prince of Benevento from 1806 to 1815, etc etc. The present title is an unsightly mishmash of both his styles and needs to change. Opera hat (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the above comments and would also note that Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta is the title that accords with WP:NCNT, which is the convention that we should abide by. However, perhaps it should also be borne in mind that this has come up before, and, for the sake of balance, I'd suggest reading Talk:Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta to see a few counter arguments before we go any further. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The title of the article is downright ridiculous for one reason: it lists a subsidiary title along with a regnal one. That's tantamount to having an article entitled "Juan Carlos I of Spain, Count of Barcelona" or "Charles I of Austria-Hungary, Duke of Styria" or "Nicholas II of Russia, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp". This article's title is even more problematic in that it lists a title of pretence (at best) with an actual and valid title of peerage. As a student of history, I am simply aghast at its silliness. Besides, as someone had already mentioned, what the current title means is that a certain Tomislav (given name) of the non-existent Croatian royal family, an agnatic descendant (due to the fact that he is "of Croatia", and doesn't have a last name) of a non-existent predecessor King of Croatia was the fourth Duke of Aosta, the second to bear the name. We all know that was not the case. As for the renaming of the article, I'm with Opera hat and AlasdairGreen27. What was Aimone king of? The non-monarchical Nazi-puppet dictatorship that was the "Independent" State of Croatia? I mean really, "King of the Independent State of Croatia"? Ridiculous. --193.198.130.110 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It seems to me there is one thing not in dispute. The guys name was Aimone Roberto Margherita Maria Giuseppe Torino di Savoia. For the love of God why not just use that? Ok so he was duke of wherever and (maybe) king of somewhere else, but until the correct form can be found for puppet leaders, surely his name is as good as anything? Jcuk (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two words

Your edit has been reverted. I don't see why you are trying to push it through by edit-warring. Especially if it is supported only by your own personal opinion. And especially if it is based on an argument that is completely unfounded.
Notice: You do not contest their inclusion. The idea that two words add "too much" to the lead is absurd. The idea that they are "insignificant" is also absurd. They undoubtedly hold immense importance as to the nature of his title.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to your opinion that the term is "unnecessary in the lead". Your edit is clearly motivated by your POV, and has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the article. I cannot help but wonder why are you trying to stir-up trouble again? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav II of Croatia was not a member of the National Fascist Party but of the Royal and Imperial House of Savoy. He was not a member of the Ustaša - Croatian Revolutionary Movement. His title was not King of the Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia. I suggest that King of the Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany is a far better way of phrasing.
Imbris (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all, by the rules of English grammar the current version of the article in no way imaginable states that this person was a fascist/Nazi. The term "Nazi-puppet" clearly and obviously refers only to the Independent State of Croatia. It is also absolutely impossible for anyone to assume that the words "Nazi-puppet" were somehow a part of the name of the Independent State of Croatia. I just have to say I'm baffled at how you could have drawn any such conclusion(s).
That said, I must of course agree that "Nazi-puppet" is a very short description and not fully accurate. Your version is indeed a "far better way of phrasing". Of course, I also must remain adamant in my position that this information is crucial to understanding this person's role in history, and that it must remain in the lead. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Croatia" ≠ Independent State of Croatia

During World War II, Yugoslavia did not surrender to the fascist powers and was never dissolved. Formally, Croatia during WWII was first an integral part of the Yugoslav state, and then an autonomous state within it (once the Federal State of Croatia was formed). During WWII, "Croatia" is absolutely NOT the short term for the Independent State of Croatia. When used in the context of WWII, the term "Croatia" is short for the the Federal State of Croatia. In short, WWII "Croatia" is NOT the Independent State of Croatia ("Croatia" ≠ Independent State of Croatia).
Therefore, it is blatantly counterproductive for the factual accuracy of this article to describe his position here on Wikipedia with the use of the phrase "King of Croatia" during WWII (1941-1943), as that phrase would in fact mean he was supposedly the King of the Federal State of Croatia (which is absurd). I suggest we simply use the full name of the state he was the monarch of, avoiding any conflicts and misunderstandings from the start.

Are you banging your head against the wall, again? :)
The Federal State of Croatia was formed in 1944-05-09 at the 3rd session of ZAVNOH.
The new Yugoslavia was in the process of creation, and was formed at the 2nd conference of AVNOJ in 1943-11-29.
Tomislav II of Croatia reigned from 1941-05-18 to 1943-07-31
Yugoslavia did capitulate and a military coup d'état installed the illegitimate military led government under a king who was an [[Adolescent psychology|adolescent] at the time.
Please put down the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
Naturally nobody should equalize a general term Croatia with any aspect of its history, but the sad story is that the general term was in use (by the media of that time). Only those who do notAGF will claim such nonsense that using the general term Croatia in the context of this article creates some bad impression on today's Croatia.
All this yapping about ISC being illegitimate, how it did not exist, etc. sounds like you would like this part of the History of Croatia had not existed. I agree, but the sad "truth" is that it did exist and all those stories of puppetry are diminishing the sad "truth".
If you want to compromise on the fact that he was King of the Independent State of Croatia, this would be OK, but you seem not willing to compromise on the articles name. Aimone was King of Croatia in the Accords (Contracts) of Rome, and this was his regnal title, not the King of the Independent State of Croatia.
Compromises should go both ways.
And the Kingdom of Yugoslavia left the League of Nations in 1941-04-17; apparently rejoined October 1944).
Imbris (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. The Yugoslav army capitulated, not the state. No treaty was signed. The government-in-exile led by King Peter II was recognized internationally by the Allies, and the King soon came of age. Its laughable to suggest it was somehow "illegitimate". In any case that's a whole different matter (state ≠ government). I'm talking here about states created during wartime - completely illegal according to contemporary international law.

The term "Croatia" in the context of WWII is either the currently occupied Banovina of Croatia or the FS Croatia, whichever you prefer (I suppose its the Banovina, then). It is absolutely NOT the so-called "Independent State of Croatia" (Croatian media refer to it as "so-called"). All else is POV supportive of a nazi state formed during wartime.
Remember, I'm not saying we should not make it clear what his official title was ("King of Croatia"). I'm just saying that we should not use it as a section heading because it may be misleading. His title ought to be clearly listed, but in the text where the above is clearly outlined.
I'd be ok if we used "King" or "King of the Independent State of Croatia".

Don't push me. The move was not rejected, it was "no consensus", and the majority supported it. I may just go for it again. You've reminded me of this silly article title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don’t see how the heading “King of Croatia” would be misleading as this was his title. Imo “king” is too short and “King of the IDSC” is too long. I genuinely don’t see a problem using the title he was given. - dwc lr (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but as I said above, he was the King of the Independent State of Croatia. "Croatia", in the context of WWII, does not mean "Independent State of Croatia", but Banovina of Croatia or FS Croatia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death at age 47 is uncommon...

...is there no information regarding the cause of death? Accident, disease? - Tournesol (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

I see we're still stuck on this... it's a bit bizarre that nobody seems to have noticed how the title as well as much of the content of this article is a horrible violation of WP:UNDUE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is another marvelous example of User:Imbris' work. He's managed to make a joke of another article through sheer persistence. Had I known his "methods" earlier, I would've simply ignored his posts and worked only with serious editors. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article, still messed up

It should be Tomislav II of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It should be Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta. The article title and the lead is a joke. Believe me you don't want to start all that again... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either title would be better. Was he or wasn't he 'King of Croatia', the current title is confusing. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cat and mouse games played by Mr. DIREKTOR. This is what is in place. GoodDay, was always against the usage of the title of King. The admins should look into that "sittuation". It is fairly easy to see, by ordinary CTRL+F, that on this very page GoodDay always insisted on the title being only Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta.
Then that account, in pretence, started a completely different tune. :)
Imbris (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another "conspiracy", Imbris? I'm sure its all being "looked into" even as we speak. I expect GoodDay will soon be banned for his dangerous views... ("Cat an mouse games"...? Err... what?) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an irrelevant theory. Peter II was 'King of Yugoslavia' from 1934 to 1945 (that Kingdom included 'Croatia'). GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2009

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta → Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta — The name of this article is, in the words of Duke Aimone, "a bad joke". A bad joke originating from nationalist POV-pushers through the efforts of whom the illusion of a false controversy or serious debate was created. (Please don't refer to the article for information, the part concerning this matter is highly POV.) The tally on the last move proposal was 9 "Support" vs. 5 "Oppose", and with not a single valid reason presented why this title should refer to this person as a "monarch of Croatia". Yet somehow, through the efforts of User:Imbris, the discussion was sidetracked and devolved into a meaningless squabble. The idea that this person was "king" is completely baseless. Easily the best source explaining the situation concerning the Duke and Croatia is the scholarly work by Dr. Davide Rodogno, who specialized (among other subjects) in World War II history. I also brought forth a number of other sources concerning this (rather obscure) subject, that very clearly depict the comical nature of the whole "King of Croatia" idea:

  • Rodogno, Davide; Fascism's European empire: Italian occupation during the Second World War; p.95; Cambridge University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-521-84515-7
    • Now in an endeavor to make up the ground lost to the Germans in the race for control of Croatia [Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia], The Italians attempted to carry through their plan for personal union: Aimone, Duke of Spoleto [he was not the Duke of Aosta yet], was to be proclaimed king by the Sabor (Assembly) and crowned "Tomislav II" at Dunansko Polje (Duvno) in Bosnia. The project soon foundered, because of the Dalmatian question, and Aimone-Tomislav passed into history as the "king that never was". Devoid of political experience and ignorant of the Italian government's exact intentions, he refused to leave for Croatia, saying so in letters to Victor Emmanuel and Mussolini, in which he told them that the question of Dalmatia, "a land that could never be Italianized", was an obstacle against any reconciliation with the Croats. Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy.
  • Petacco, Arrigo; A tragedy revealed: the story of the Italian population of Istria, Dalmatia, and Venezia Giulia, 1943-1956; p.26; University of Toronto Press, 2005 ISBN 0-802-03921-9
    • When he [the Duke Aimone] learned that he had been named "king of Croatia" he confided to some of his most trusted colleagues that he thought this nomination was a bad joke by his Savoy cousin (...) swearing to his men he would never set foot in Zagreb. And so he did not.
  • The Rulers, Brill Archive 183?
    • And we may read in Count Ciano's diary that Aimone of Savoy, named "king of Croatia", steadfastly refused to go to his capital; he got the most of what there was to get into a Roman restaurant. There, to the merriment of diners and waiters, he donned what might be termed regal attire by crowning his head with a table napkin.
  • Raphael Lemkin, Samantha Power; Axis rule in occupied Europe: laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress; p.253; The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005 ISBN 1-584-77576-9
    • ...and in Rome the latter [the Duke Aimone] was proclaimed "king" in the presence of Pavelić and the Croatian delegates [he was not present, and was most likely at La Spezia at the time]. However, he never assumed his functions.

I could go on like this, but the simple fact is that he never assumed the throne, never even set foot in Croatia (or any other part of Yugoslavia), he was never crowned, never confirmed by the "Sabor" (not even by the fake Croatian assembly the Ustaše set up) - nor did he personally intend or want to do any of those things ("I don't want to be king of Croatia"). After less that 2 years Italy capitulated and the issue was moot.

Now I must emphasize that all the above still ignores the fact that the title "King of Croatia" was at the time incorporated into the Yugoslav crown, which was actually held by King Peter II (which makes Aimone a pretender - "do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender" per WP:NCROY). It is also well to remember that the Independent State of Croatia itself is an illegal wartime creation (Hague conventions), created on the territory of an occupied country. "King of Croatia"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Move discussion

Either the man was 'King of Croatia' or he wasn't. It's apparent that he wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Septentrionalis. Not really, the point is whether he was the king or not (sources). I'm fully aware of WP:COMMONAME, and I anticipated you'd reiterate this same faulty argument. Titles of nobility articles have their own specific naming conventions (WP:NCROY), and are not subject strictly to English language usage. You can't title an article as if a person were a king if he wasn't a king. An example that comes to mind is that "Elizabeth II of England" is more common than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" (Google, Google Books, Google Scholar). Furthermore, it is impossible to settle this issue conclusively with the use of the Google test, you know that.
Wait a second, is there any issue as to whether "Aimone" or "Aimone of Savoy" is more frequent than "Tomislav II" in sources? Not a single source I've read that discusses the person's life referred to him as "Tomislav" in general. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomislav II is way more frequent (9 times more frequent to be precise) than Aimone of Savoy. Whether it's correct or incorrect is another issue. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoL... Like I said, the Google test is known to be useless here. This person is referred to as "Aimone of Savoy" only sometimes. Besides "Aimone of Savoy", he is called "Duke Aimone", "Aimone, Duke of Spoleto", "Aimone, Duke of Aosta", "Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta" (with or without the comma), "Aimone of Aosta", Aimone of Spoleto", etc. but by far the most commonly used name is simply "Aimone". How are we supposed to check all that? We can't just arbitrarily pick one "name" and use its English usage as a measure, can we? Furthermore, a quick look at the sources will plainly show that he is almost never referred to as "Tomislav" outside the context of mentioning his nomination for "kingship" in 1941. This is only natural, of course, considering how negligible the whole matter obviously was. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, a Google Book Search test can't resolve this kind of issue because many sources just say that he would have been known as Tomislav II, but otherwise call him Aimone. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also, "Aimone Duke of Spoleto" is way more frequent than "Tomislav II (2 times more frequent to be precise :), and that's only one of the many names using his proper name ("Aimone") and referring to his title as Duke. You can easily add that up to the hits for "Aimone of Savoy" and you wouldn't be making any mistake. I think we can conclude that as far as the common English name is concerned, there is no competition between "Aimone" and "Tomislav". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick (incomplete) Google test is sufficient to resolve the issue of English language usage:
Note: all of the names ("Aimone of Spoleto", "Aimone of Aosta", "Aimone Duke of Aosta", etc.) can only refer to this person. i.e. he was the only person named "Aimone" that held the title of Duke of Aosta or Duke of Spoleto. Its an unusual name of German origin meaning "fatherland", apparently. The only other "Duke Aimone" is Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia, his grandson (none of the five hits in the last search refer to him, however). Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta's grandfather (1st Duke), brother (3rd Duke), and son (5th Duke), were all named "Amedeo", while his father (2nd Duke) was named "Emanuele Filiberto".
Incidentally, "Tomislav's" son, Amedeo, 5th Duke of Aosta is also apparently the current head of the House of Savoy ("King of Italy", if you will :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King Peter II of Yugoslavia reigned from 1934 to 1945. That fact 'erases' the duke's monarchical position. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I think WP:NCROY requires us to use ", 4th Duke of Aosta", seeing as how the articles on his entire family use that formulation (with the exception of one King and one disputed Prince). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Results that Mr. DIREKTOR provided are not correct, namely because his title was Tomislav II of Croatia (in english). This gives (-wikipedia and -commons):
Tomislav II of Croatia 27800 hits
Aimone of Aosta 10900 hits
Aimone of Spoleto 4180 hits
Aimone Duke of Aosta 11300 hits
Imbris (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4th Duke of Aosta 33,200 hits --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The preffered title on Italian Wikipedia Aimone of Savoy-Aosta gives 7690 hits (incl. the current Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among the results). -- Imbris (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different wikipedias
@Grifter72 (Apr 14, 2009), the sittuation at the Italian Wikipedia is the result of republicanism (which ideology forbade Royal and noble ranks in Italy, simmilar to Austria). 3 other wikipedias use the Italian model (ca, de, and sv), while 12 wikipedias use Tomislav II in their language (including Serbo-Croat version, da, es, fr, hr, hu, nl, ja, pl, ru, sh, fi, zh). -- Imbris (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Imbris. Situation at it:wiki is the result of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names and related it:Aiuto:Convenzioni di nomenclatura. See title of it:Umberto II d'Italia or it:Pietro II di Jugoslavia... --Retaggio (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't concern myself overmuch with User:Imbris' quite standard republican/communist "conspiracy theories", Retaggio. Virtually all other Wikipedias copy the English Wikipedia in such matters, so we can easily assume that they'll change eventually to whatever title enWiki has (Wikipedia is not a source), particularly with such obscure articles as this one.
People assume enWiki gets it right. Little did they know Imbris was on the job in this article... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Retaggio (see: User talk:Retaggio) The preffered title on Italian Wikipedia Aimone of Savoy-Aosta gives 7690 hits (incl. the current Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among the results). -- Imbris (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Imbris. If you are speaking of it:wiki preferred title, well... search in italian language... :-D
Aimone di Savoia-Aosta - 20,200 hits
Tomislav II di Croazia - 2 hits (1/10,000...)
:-) Bye. --Retaggio (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Italian anti-monarchist notation plays no part here. We use the English most notable name. And btw. the Italian term is Tomislavo II. -- Imbris (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, right, italian is: Tomislavo II di Croazia - 4 hits.... Now, we can discuss of english name... :-) --Retaggio (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets conclude this notability issue with a full Google test on Google itself according to User:Imbris' his personal preferences:
Now let me remind everyone to consider two other important facts: 1) not a single published professional source (that I've encountered) refers to him as "Tomislav" outside the context of mentioning his nomination for "kingship". He is always referred to, even between 1941-1943 as "Aimone". 2) Most sources that mention him very often refer to him simply as "Aimone", however we are unable to add these results to the tally of Google test hits, as it is just a name (a weird name, but still a name :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic flaw of Mr. DIREKTOR. He thinks that nobody would see that he summed up only two instance variables of Tomislav II and six of Aimone. This naturally lead to the before mentioned logic flaw. -- Imbris (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (Seems someone de-bold my text. And changed its placement. -- Imbris (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The preffered title on Italian Wikipedia Aimone of Savoy-Aosta gives 7690 hits (incl. the current Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among the results). -- Imbris (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoL... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke was never 'King of Croatia'. During that time period, Peter II was King of Yugoslavia (which Croatia was a part of). GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was not confirmed by the Croatian Parliament, aslo his eldest son George, Crown Prince of Serbia was the legitimate successor, and not Alexander, Crown Prince of Serbia (father of Peter II). Furthermore the House of Obrenović is the legitimate royal house of Serbia. When Alexander I of Serbia (Obrenović) was murdered, Prince Mirko of Montenegro was the legitimate ruler, and the current headship of the House of Obrenović belongs to Nicholas II of Montenegro. -- Imbris (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter II was King of Yugoslavia from 1934 to 1945. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris you do NOT refactor other people's talk page comments, as you did above. Do you want to be blocked again? People are tiring of your ultra-nationalism. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay made a remark not related to the figures (hits on Google). Also GoodDay made a remark that needs to be addressed properly, I thank him for that. GoodDay did not protest of my action and Crotchety Old Man is effectively WP:STALKing since he never edited on Tomislav II of Croatia, nor any monarch for that matter and simply followed me here. -- Imbris (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Address the topic at hand. Do you understand that you don't mess with other people's talk page comments? Or do you need to be reported again? Answer the question, bearing in mind you are fresh off a 3-day block. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not mess with other people's talk page comments. I see that my actions could have caused a refactor. I still cannot see why are you following me around? -- Imbris (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that Imbris' silly argument matters or anything, but the Croatian-Slavonian Sabor (Parliament) did not exist when Yugoslavia was formed - and neither did Croatia-Slavonia. It was merged into the People's Assembly of the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. The statement Imbris makes, while also irrelevant to this whole issue, is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda - a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia? That's the exact excuse the Ustaše used.
This person's motivation on this talkpage is the promotion of the legitimacy of the Axis satellite, the Independent State of Croatia. That much is now perfectly obvious to a person knowledgeable in Balkans history and Imbris' edits.
Also, your continued desperate attempts to devalue the Google test results are among the most ridiculous posts you've made yet - and that's saying something. rofl The Google test, as well as sources usage, is very conclusively in favor of "Aimone", and his title as Duke. That's all from me, I'm sure you've got another 10 farcical conspiracy theories and ridiculous excuses - you can write them over and over again from now on as much as you like. In fact, I look forward to more entertainment of that form. A blind man can see through them, anyway. Besides, not in my wildest dreams did I expect you to actually acknowledge the results of the Google test. You're the kind of person that would deny the sky is blue for his ultranationalist convictions. Write on... Crotchety, do you have an opinion on this move proposal? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yugoslavia was a Kingdom from 1929 to 1945, then a Communist republic from 1945 until the 1990's. Throughout that time, Croatia was never independant. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, but as I said, all this is irrelevant... the many university sources sources and comprehensive Google tests are surely enough for anyone. In either case everyone can see this silly title can't stay. Don't let User:Imbris sidetrack the discussion and transform it into a meaningless squabble, facilitating a repeat of the crazy outcome of the previous proposed move. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ya'll. I don't know how the move proposal will end, but please let's not keep the current title, please? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be Tomislav II of Croatia or Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta not the current or proposed ones. - dwc lr (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is the result of several compromises, one from the year 2007, one from the year 2008 and therefore is the best option. Naturally, Tomislav II of Croatia would be the WP:NPOV way to go, but this has been stopped by users who do not comply with WP:NCROY and the fact that Tomislavo II (in Italian) and Tomislav II of Croatia (in English) is what is most notable about that king.
It is sad to see that his title is considered false among both ultra-right and ultra-left spectrum of society, everywhere. People would rather claim that the ISC never existed, do not get me wrong, I would also that the ISC never existed, but it did exist and wishful thinking cannot change that fact.
The entire ordeal is pure revisionism, since in 1939 the Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (which was a fascist dictatorship, Alexander I was compared to Mussolini, as the Yugoslavian Duce), etc. That constitution was promulgated by one person, the King, who proclaimed himself the dictator.
In 1939 the Constitution was suspended to allow the Banate of Croatia being formed.
In 1941 the Constitution was not in effect any more, nobody did apply it, Beuc wrote that the AVNOJ and state' antifascist councils did not use any Yugoslav laws passed by the former Kingdom, they had their own laws.
So to conclude, Peter II was a minor, the military coup brought him to "power", the country surrendered, capitulated, the previously suspended Constitution was not in effect, and was proclaimed invalid by all concerned parties, and you still advocate as if Peter II ruled up to 1945.
Not.
Peter II fled the country, as the Communist insisted, so anyone who claims otherwise is a revisionist?
SFRY existed in the United Nations up to 1 Nov 2000, some claim, is it legal fiction? SFRY had an ambassador in the United Nations up to 1999. CIA Factbook claims: the Embassy of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased operations 25 March 1999.
Imbris (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is fact? then why haven't you proposed such changes at Peter II of Yugoslavia (concerning his reign)? GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@dwc lr: I cannot see how you can oppose the move "per sources". The sources more than clearly explain the situation: he was named "king", but he never assumed the throne. He was not "king". ("The project soon foundered, because of the Dalmatian question, and Aimone-Tomislav passed into history as the 'king that never was'") This farcical article title is frankly insulting both to Croatian monarchical history, to the House of Savoy (Tomislav?), and to the majesty of kings and monarchs at large. I've tried to see your point of view, honestly I have, but I cannot understand it. This person was always the Duke Aimone. (I would not mind "Aimone Duke of Aosta" as the title) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal House of Italy (Prince of Naples branch at least) talks of the current Duke of Aosta being a Royal Highness (instead of Serene Highness) as he was briefly Crown Prince of Croatia.[8] So his father’s status still has an impact today. - dwc lr (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, to my knowledge the current Prince Aimone is styled "Royal Highness" by the Naples branch because he claims to be the successor to the headship of the royal House of Savoy, not because he claims the (to my knowledge non-existent) title of "Prince of Croatia" (what's that? lol :). In any case this is trivia, we're discussing the Duke's status are we not. How do you adress the fact that very reliable sources confirm he "never assumed the throne"? I did not list all the sources, as this is a way too long rationale as it is (I got notified to that effect [9]), but there's more.
For another example, Stevan K. Pavlowitch (published by Columbia University Press) refers to this person as "Aimone di Savoia-Aosta Duke of Spoleto, 'king-designate of Croatia'" (note the inverted commas, I imagine even that much is disputable). You are more knowledgeable in matters of royalty than I, I admit, but I do know somewhat about this as this is Yugoslavia (my "turf", as it were :). I am honestly asking you to explain the rationale behind your vote. I'm curious as to whether or not there's a flaw in my reasoning... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, according to the Peter II of Yugoslavia article, Peter reigned as King from 1934 to 1945. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hoping dwc might agree with Dr. Rodogno and Prof. Pavlowitch. After all, the latter is an Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (published here by Columbia University Press). Perhaps we can agree on referring to him as "King-Designate of Croatia" (named as king, but never actually assuming the throne)? I'm even considering contacting him personally (if possible!) in case dwc regards his terminology as faulty in this respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If things continue as a stalemate, there are better compromises (then the current title). Example = have title as Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta & then in the Infobox 'Tomislav II of Croatia (disputed)'. That's how it's done for the disputed Louis XIX of France & Henry V of France articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand how one can say he is the “king that never was”. He was offered a crown, accepted it (reluctantly maybe), took a regnal name (Tomislav II) and then renounced his position. He held the position longer than Edward VIII or his own cousin Humbert II of Italy. I just believe highest ranking position should be used as is stated in WP:NCROY, but if it is moved it should be to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that he "never assumed his crown", hence he never held this (higher) position. He was named as king by his royal cousin and sovereign, but steadfastly refused to assume that position - in effect remaining "King-Designate of Croatia"?
P.S. I have no problem with either alternative title you suggested, you probably know what you're talking about. If you could just explain why "Prince" (his brother, father, and son are all nubered "Dukes of Aosta")? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We both fundemantly disagree on this issue and have disscused this numerous times, so we will just have to agree to disagree :-) though the article will probaly get moved this time. There was a discsson here about using Prince and the consenses was use "Prince Name, Title of Place". - dwc lr (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well all right, though I was sincerely hoping the quotes from sources might incline you towards reaching a consensus. :)
Concerning "Prince", I'm still unclear as to why you're proposing it? If he's a prince, fine, but how is he a Prince? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All members of the House of Savoy are princes. In this case he was a Prince of Savoy-Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we should move the other articles on all his relatives (father, son, brother)... are they really all titled incorrectly :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still sceptical... are you sure all of these "Dukes" are supposed to be "Princes"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the previous & future Dukes of Aosta, also 'princes'? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


@FactStraight: Another flawed argument. What you're saying is that "everything is irrelevant", and that we're somehow supposed to find out whether Aimone of Savoy was referred to as "King Tomislav" between 1941-1943??
Here's what I don't get: you oppose the move - do you have evidence that suggests he was called "Tomislav" or whatever during that period? Because if you do not, as I'm pretty sure is the case, the only thing you've got to go by is the Google test which clearly points towards "Aimone" (especially in sources usage). So your own criteria of "contemporary notability", which by the way is something I'm hearing about as a Wikipedia title guideline for the first time, should incline you towards actually supporting the move. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I don't buy an argument which is based exclusively on the contention that he is predominantly called "Aimone" now: After his abdication and now, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom is predominantly known as Duke of Windsor but that isn't where his article is located because that wasn't his highest title. For me the persuasive argument is "NCROY says: 'Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.'" But such a rule does cover this problem: NCROY's Other royals #6 says, "Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage." In this case, that's "King of Croatia". FactStraight (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third move proposal, and people are mostly aware of WP:NCROY. The point I tried to demonstrate in the move argument is that a significant number of sources have so far confirmed that Aimone "never assumed the throne", a "king that never was". He was named as king by his royal cousin and sovereign, but steadfastly refused to assume that position - in effect remaining "King-Designate of Croatia" (Stevan K. Pavlowitch). Had he been crowned, he would've accepted the crown in the name of "Tomislav II", but he "steadfastly refused" to be crowned or even to go to Croatia (in fact he is recorded to have sworn not to do so in his life).
Another important point is that no, sources do not refer to him as "King Tomislav". I've not yet seen any mention of that name in published scholarly works in any capacity other than a description of what his regal name would've been after he was crowned. In other words, the person is called "Duke Aimone", and it is mentioned that his name as king was Tomislav II - but when referring to him in any context unrelated to an elaboration on his kingship - they simply refer to him as (Duke) Aimone of Savoy (yes even in a description of the 1941-1943 period).
Frankly its hard to find a source that calls this person anything other than "Aimone" between 1941-1943 in any context unrelated to his nomination for kingship. Even if we did find a reference of that sort, it would be vastly outnumbered by those sources that use "Aimone" (which is natural considering how marginal the whole affair was). In addition, even if we did find such a source, I am still not convinced this is any kind of criteria dictated by WP:NCROY? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, Tomislav II of Croatia accepted the Crown of Zvonimir, and the coronation is a completely different topic. Peter I Karađorđević started his reign on 11 June 1903, and was the only modern Serbian king that had a crown placed on his head on 15 July 1903. The ceremony of coronation has no bearing on the fact that he was the Serbian king, or the fact that his reign started on 11 June 1903. -- Imbris (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Imbris, you think something or other from the above is "not true", noted. Now can I pls have a serious conversation for once without you talking about unrelated nonsense, please? You like the idea of the Ustaše monarchy, we get it... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your provocations will not work. You use only those sources that support your POV and claim that there are no opposition. The facts are completely different. For example: Edward VIII of the United Kingdom "is one of the shortest-reigning monarchs in British and Commonwealth history, and was never crowned". Please stop with attacks on fellow users, discuss facts and figures, do not put "words into ones mouth" and stop your defamation campaign. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stupid enough to discuss with you, not anymore I'm afraid. There's no point. For example, I am not even claiming the fact he was not crowned is any kind of argument. As always, what you are talking about I will never know. Now please: stop addressing me, I'm trying to have a proper discussion on this issue for once. Take your nonsense "arguments" to someone else, aren't you happy you ruined the conversation in the last move proposal? Start another CANVASSING campaign or something... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To FactStraight - how exactly do you define "received", and how does this story fit into that definition? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ever read the mid-19th century diaries of conversations between Wilhelm I, German Emperor and his son, the Crown Prince, in which the latter keeps referring to his mother as "the Empress", while his father keeps referring to her as "the Queen"? Bismarck bullied him into accepting a "crown from the gutter" for the sake of a unified Germany, while to those around him he declined the "honour". Nor is he the only one: Peter I, Grand Duke of Oldenburg's article is under that title, even though he "refused" to use it for the same reason Wilhelm did. In such circumstances, the question is whether or not the prince was in a position to refuse. I doubt a cadet prince, such as Aimone was, had the authority to refuse a victory title from his king (howsoever sincere may have been his private reservations) any more than a soldier may decline an odious assignment from his commander-in-chief -- and I think it likely that Victor Emmanuel III was playing Wilhelm I to Mussolin's Bismarck. The fact that among the names Aimone gave his only son was the historic Croation name of "Zvonimir" is an argument in support of his acquiescence I had heard years before I'd heard of Wikipedia: it suggests that Aimone's posture may have been complicated, as I'd expect during such times. Nor do I think that a "king" must "reign" or visit his "realm" in order for history to recognize that such a title was conferred upon him. I remain unconvinced that this is about whether the title was inexistent rather than about anachronistic notions of the international protocol necessary for such a title to be accorded in the past -- seems to me that people think he ought not be recognized as a king more than that the title was granted in an unprecedented way: history records as titular monarchs men who had slimmer claim to the title than Aimone. But I gather that this is all moot anyway, since the article is being revised to reflect one side's point of view before this discussion has concluded or consensus has been reached. Basta! FactStraight (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy." It seems pretty clear that this person was nominated to receive the title, but "steadfastly refused" to become anything more than "King-Designate". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeating myself) We must keep ironing this whole thing out, folks. The current article title is unacceptable. It should be either Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta or Tomislav II of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the current title should stay because it is a result of several years of compromises (2007, 2008). Also Wikipedia:Consensus as a rule should be applied because the survey included users that have no opinion on the matter, contribute nothing new, but rather insist on defining who is the pretender. -- Imbris (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The request move made by DIREKTOR

Is full of NPOV, unsourced, defamatory and simmilar information. He laughs on the editing of all previous editors, the two previous moves were not successful and many editors opposed the move from the current title. The request for a move is not academic, not written in neutral terms, favours DIREKTORs POV, etc.

DIREKTOR cherry picked the sources he presented, and it is not the matter of sources but of notability. If a person is a footballer, and makes his carrear under some different name, we use the most notable name.

Imbris (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DIREKTORs removal of allowed tags [10] speaks volumes of the biased and not neutral way in which he has approached the request on the move. -- Imbris (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He removed the tags that you placed on his talk page comments, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Not that I expect you to understand. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, good old Imbris, you always do the same things. I keep repeating, don't let him sidetrack the discussion. Anyone can see his edits are malicious and against Wiki policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced of any of these charges, as IMHO, they're irrelevant to the topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please simply participate in the actual relevant discussion and refrain from engaging in further personal attacks, because they simply cannot help. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is lead about the request and the request is not NPOV. Contain biased phrasing and WP:OR (like the Hague conventions mentioning by Mr. DIREKTOR), those are not personal attacks but pointing out the fallacies of the request. The request should be changed, DIREKTOR was warned by one user that the request is too long, but the request is not just too long, it is badly phrased and not neutral. -- Imbris (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is not written in neutral language and contradict Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Contested_requests which clearly warrant listing (1) a brief proposal, (2) under the Other proposals section, and not under the date when the request was made. -- Imbris (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should note

That:

Imbris (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant as to wheither an editor has or hasn't edited this article before. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is, GoodDay, don't waste your energy on this stuff... Wikipedia is not a democracy, votes should have valid rationale behind them. Let's review:
  • User:Pmanderson ("the title is determined by what sources in English call him"). His reason for opposing is completely baseless for a number of reasons: 1) WP:NCROY determines nobility article titles, not notability; 2) even if it were notability that determined this matter, "Aimone" is cca. four times more frequent than "Tomislav"; and 3) Scholarly sources use "Aimone" at all times. The vote should definitely be removed or changed.
  • User:Imbris. :) His vote "argument", even if it (hypothetically) were to make any sense, only addresses a very, very tiny part of the move rationale.
  • User:DWC LR's vote argument is (with all due respect) mostly contradicted by scholarly sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the users that Mr. DIREKTOR listed contributed to the article, and explained their opinion with policies and facts. On the other hand, the users I listed had not contributed to the concensus (they did not discuss their vote) and insist on one sided POV.
The title of the article is the result of two years of compromises, involving many users, which were all slandered in the rationale.
User:AniMate also did not edit this article, nor participated in the discussion (just gave a vote in the survey) like User:Grifter72 and User:Ivan Štambuk
We all know what WP:Concensus says about such contributions.
Imbris (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that their arguments are blatantly flawed (esp. Pmanderson's and yours) is irrelevant? Are you accusing me of canvassing? Funny how you are the one making these silly accusations. Funny because you, unlike myself, are a known "canvass-specialist", who not only recruits meatpuppets on this Wiki, but also invites POV-pushers from other Wikipedias to join in. This is all well known and links can be provided in 5 secs. Your episodes during the previous move proposal can be found easily enough.
Your behavior during this move proposal was imho appalling. Not only were you unable to contribute to the discussion with a single meaningful argument, you also 1) unbelievably edited and sabotaged the move rationale I wrote, 2) tried to get me blocked, 3) tried to force me to remove source quotes, 4) accused no less than five users of meatpuppeteering and canvassing with absolutely NO basis whatsoever, 5) called people sockpuppets (again with no basis whatsoever), 6) placed all sorts of reports trying to get this move proposal scrapped over utterly irrelevant technicalities. (Only you can seriously believe a move proposal will suddenly be canceled because the rationale is a paragraph too long. :)
And now you continue to attack me and accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, actually believing that votes will be scrapped because of your fantastic conspiracy theories. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The fact is that the named users regularly agree with you on many different issues, and consider you as being right is contrary to WP regarding editing with reliable sources, and impartially. Nobody accused you of any such deeds. On the case of me contacting some other wikiproject to merely question on the validity of such enterprises as sockpuppet investigations, cannot be considered canvassing, because no sockpuppet investigation was launched. To close the (1)st point I must say that this talk page is not dedicated to personal grudges you have with me. Discuss edits and not the editor.
(2) My behaviour is restrained comparing to what were your actions. (2a) I have contributed plenty and will continue to do just that, your arguments on the coronation and the pretender were successfully opposed, as your Google tests which are inconclusive. The summation you made will be characterized as a logic flaw by everybody.
(3) - on rationale It is written in the fashion that is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V
(4) - on blocking Pls, you abused WP:AGF and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and haven't apologized (yet). You constantly attack users with planned defamation schemes, to alienate the fellow users. This tactic will not work.
(5) - on sources You provided a preety picture, sourcing only your side of the medal, and more importantly you have sourced only a small portion of your rationale.
(6) - canvassing Nobody said anything of a sort, the named users have not edited on the issues, nor monarchism in general, not contributed anything in the discussion, all of them regard your personal opinion as right without sources and contrary to WP:V and WP:RS.
(7) - reports Nobody made any report that is not usually made, Wikipedia talk:RM is just the appropriate place, two users told you to shorten, I noted the fact that it should be placed in the section Other proposals
(8) - accusations Nobody accused you of anything, but you admitted to WP:STALKing and Talk:Maltese (dog). It is just very strange that users who agree with you elsewhere and in the same time disagree with me elsewhere now do the same on this talk page but with votes.
(9) WP:Concensus is very clear about that and the users you defend - still - had not edited in monarchism, not participated in the discussion and provided no insight into WP concerning this case.
(10) Rationale is against WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:DUE and most importantly WP:NCROY.
Imbris (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re: FactStraight

I remain unconvinced that this is about whether the title was inexistent rather than about anachronistic notions of the international protocol necessary for such a title to be accorded in the past -- seems to me that people think he ought not be recognized as a king more than that the title was granted in an unprecedented way: history records as titular monarchs men who had slimmer claim to the title than Aimone.
(in the move discussion above)
I agree that it could be argued that the point of view of classical historiography is paramount when deciding how to form an encyclopedia article. However, I don't believe that an encyclopedia needs to be completely constrained by historiographic principles. It describes all human knowledge, and if our knowledge is such that it makes this whole idea moot to say the least (and outright bizarre and offensive if you ask me), then it's fair for the encyclopedia to take that knowledge into account. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In which case, it would have been appropriate to explain in the article why Aimone was "King of Croatia", rather than to retroactively deny him a title that is historically defensible (however surreal) and compelled by compliance to Wikipedia's naming convention ("Use the highest title") -- however objectionable. We have just re-written history through this article's name and POV content, whereas Wikipedia's charge is merely to record history. FactStraight (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I gather that this is all moot anyway, since the article is being revised to reflect one side's point of view before this discussion has concluded or consensus has been reached. Basta!
(in the move discussion above)
The move discussion was about the article title, not about the content, and the changes to content did not invalidate the old title, they actually simply made it clear why it was such - they clarified right in the lead section why two different names were used side by side in the title. Now that there are no longer two names in the title, the text can remain, because it stands on its own merit - it explains this article's notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen by the ongoing edit war -- defended on the grounds that the content is being changed to conflict with the article's new title -- changing the content while a related naming discussion and poll were underway was provocative. Courtesy in editing called for ascertainment of consensus and of the participants' interpretation of the "kingship" issue so that the "take" on the title would be accurately reflected in the article. Instead, the argument continues, simply changing venues from the article name to its content, because some felt disrespected by a premature action to alter as much about the article as could be done in favor of the interpretation of one side in an ongoing debate. Thus disagreement escalates, consensus retreats, and good editing suffers. FactStraight (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

DWC, you opposed the move, and now that it went through, you're trying to undo that by removing sources and rewriting the article as you see fit. This matter was discussed very thoroughly in the move proposal, and users achieved a consensus. (The consensus was achieved as part of a move proposal, and I hope you don't think that's some kind of loophole that makes it "not a consensus".) Just because you were opposed (disregarding the scholarly sources and Google tests) does not mean you can edit as if nothing happened. This "revanchist" behavior of yours is completely uncalled for.

Please discuss these aggressive edits, particularly your removal of several high-quality sources. In light of the consensus and the references presented, please do not edit-war to push your edit. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what content specifically do you object to? I don’t see any justification for censoring that he held the title King of Croatia. I changed King-Designate to nominal king and restored the succession box, category and succession in the infobox - dwc lr (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, if he was "king", then he was a "nominal king". Saying he was a "nominal king" is the same thing as saying he was a "king". I know you never agreed, but the whole discussion above obviously established that he was not, in fact, the king of Croatia. I understand that is not your opinion, but I also hope you will not disrespect the efforts of others and the long discussion above by simply pretending a (relatively) broad consensus had not been reached on the question. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping nominal king would be acceptable as he was king in name but obviously had little to do with affairs in the country hence nominal king. Yes he was king-designate from the moment he was named to when he accepted the post. King-designate is wrong and misleading with all do respect show me a source saying he refused the nomination or he never replied to it. At the moment the lead says “He formally accepted the nomination on May 18 1941”. So he became king, or did he reject it? hmm - dwc lr (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy." The sources listing him as "king-designate" obviously do not refer to him only in the short period from the moment he was named to when he accepted the nomination. Perhaps that sentence is misleading, as you say. What is meant is that he agreed to accept his uncle's nomination, but "never assumed the kingship".
I have to say, it seems to me like you're reaching for loopholes with these word games.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a shame he didn't follow through on his words. If he rejected his cousins VE III nomination please insert this in the article and we can call him King-Designate who declined the position. If not the article must be changed to reflect historical facts that he accepted the nomination and was Croatia's nominal head until he abdicated. These are genuine facts and can be sourced no problem. So did he reject the nomination or will the artcile have to be changed? - dwc lr (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll say this again: he did not reject VE III's nomination (by which he was designated as king), but he also did not assume the kingship - remaining king-designate. This, I believe is the root of the misunderstanding: you seem to think the two are somehow mutually exclusive. Seeing as how he was the NDH king-designate, I agree that it can easily be said he was the NDH's "nominal head", he was not however, a king in any capacity having refused to actually become one.
(Btw, referring to the NDH as "Croatia" without clarification is rather taboo and legally incorrect, as "Croatia" at the time was the Federal State of Croatia, or the Banovina of Croatia if you're referring to the 1941-1943 period. The full name or its very common abbreviation, "NDH", are usually used.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He did not refuse to become a king, he could have done but he did not. Where is a reference saying he refused to be King of Croatia you have admitted he accepted the post. He may not have been happy to accept but he did though. He was informed of Croatian affairs through the office he set up in Rome which I added to the article today. He was nominal head of NDH as King of Croatia. Please don’t try to rewrite history by suppressing verifiable historical facts. - dwc lr (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly. What word games are we playing here? Accepting a nomination to become king ≠ becoming a king. This much is plainly obvious, what are we talking about? Stop trying to have your way in spite of editor consensus and sources by inventing word games and "loopholes".
I can only repeat: he did not reject VE III's nomination (by which he was designated as king), but he also did not assume the kingship - remaining king-designate. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the consensus for King-Designate. Sources say he was King of Croatia how do you explain that. Why are you trying to prevent that being shown in the article? How does one actually assume kingship? - dwc lr (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is no consensus for "king-designate" specifically, so we should probably remove that and replace it with "king of Croatia", right? I'm starting to get annoyed. Is this the same logic you used to conclude that "nominal king" is ok since those exact words were not used above? "King-designate" is in the article because a large number of high-quality sources describe this person that way (an even larger number simply calling him "Duke Aimone" without even mentioning him as a "king").
How does one assume kingship? Well, by not "steadfastly refusing to assume kingship", for a start. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no consensus but yet you change a large potion of the article content. So the previous version, prior to your changes is the consensus version. If an article or book is talking about him in relation to something other than being king of Croatia then no doubt he will be referred to as “Duke Aimone”.
The evidence is overwhelmingly clear.- dwc lr (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoL so if a source at all mentioned the position he was "king-designate" for, i.e. "king of Croatia", then it supports him as a "king of Croatia"? Look these Google test prove little or nothing for many, many obvious reasons. I researched the matter, I found what his position was when described in more detail, and it was "king-designate of Croatia". I did my best. Call him whatever you like, just don't call him "Tomislav II, (nominal) King of Croatia", that issue has been settled by broad user consensus, high-quality sources, and numerous Google tests.
Please do not edit-war to push this. 3RR applies. This "sore loser" stuff is going too far. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not concerned about the title of this article I have no agenda to push. My only purpose is the removal of misleading information as you are incapable of showing he refused the appointment. You could say Michael, Prince of Montenegro was King Designate of Montenegro as he refused the offer. Aimone became King and abdicated these can be sourced so you won’t be allowed to get away with your fantasy revisionist agenda as the view from news articles from the time, and books is overwhelmingly against you sorry to break it to you. - dwc lr (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I don't mind having the 'King of Croatia' stuff there, as long as 'disputed' is placed next to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dwc, if you disagree with "king-designate", despite the sources, that's fine with me. What I will not agree to in a million years, is you ignoring the editor consensus. In other words, I perceive your edits here as a desperate "revanchist" move. Where you couldn't prove your point above to anyone's satisfaction, you will now try to edit the article. You know like "screw him and his move discussion and editor consensus, I'll just rewrite the article text as if the guy was a king and no harm done".

Google books is not "against me", that is your flawed perception where any source mentioning "king of Croatia" and "Aimone" supports your fantasies about this person. There is no way you will present this person as "king" in spite of sources and editor consensus. The only sources describing his status in detail are clear enough:
  • Aimone was nominated as king of Croatia by his uncle, becoming "king-designate" according to some sources.
  • He refused to assume the kingship ("Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy.") because of the Dalmatian question.
In short: call him what you want, just don't call him "King of Croatia". Do not mask you POV-pushing behind removing the phrase "king-designate". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think my idea was workable, see Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme & Henri, comte de Chambord. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have effectively restored the article to its previous form. Let me be clear I am not concerned if this article is called Tomislav II of Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta I am concerned about content. I respect that some people believe he is better known by Aimone rather than Tomislav I’m not particularly desperate for the article to be moved back I think currently it should be moved to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta but that’s neither here nor there. The majority of sources refer to him as King of Croatia that’s just how it is I’m sorry you are offended by that but you need to be rational. He said that he would not agree to be king "of a nation amputated from Italy." But he also said he was proud to be named King of Croatia and as we know ultimately accepted the appointment. He could of rejected it like Micheal, Prince of Montenegro but didn’t. So I see you've removed King Designate which is a start. I do find it amusing that you accuse me of pov pushing, really you should question yourself as to why you are so against using King of Croatia its just a title this person held. - dwc lr (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree King of Croatia (even if disputed tag) should be in the infobox etc I don’t think its comparable to Charles X of France’s son and grandson but sadly a Yugoslav nationalist is so against it he is forcing Wikipedia to adopt his view. - dwc lr (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd opted for the 'King of Croatia (disputed)' version (including the disputed reign). Seems a fair trade off, for having the article title corrected. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why “King of Croatia” is a forbidden word in the article this is the title and position he accepted. The sole reason for its removal is push ones POV it should be resorted to the article and the succession box even with (disputed). - dwc lr (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things will work out. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm a "nationalist" today, nice to add a brand new label to my collection (communist, fascist, Ustaše, etc). (If you knew anything at all about Balkans history you would know that "Yugoslav nationalist" is an oxymoron, something of a joke in fact.) Luckily I'm not alone, there's a team of my nationalist buddies here to help me out: Prof. H. James Burgwyn, Dr. Rodogno, Prof. Pavlowitch, Richard G. Massock, etc. Looks like these Yugoslav nationalist academics and noted historians specializing in Balkans and WWII history are successfully "forcing" Wikipedia to adopt our view. All that's missing is "won't anyone please help me" :)
GoodDay, the difference between the two versions is essential, and not at all small or trivial (look more carefully). What dwc is doing is presenting this person as King of Croatia. What that means is that the title is "wrong". Of course, that's just his (probably royalist) POV, but the point is that he's rewriting the article so that the title looks silly and wrong. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll return 'tommorow', gotta watch the World Series. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to watch the big show every year, Phillies and Yanks this time right? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not at all surprised you have been labelled numerous things. He was nominated for and accepted the kingship, took the name Tomislav II (he didn’t have a coronation, big deal. He didn’t need a coronation to take a regnal name), he abdicated after his cousin told him to. These are all verifiable and the introduction must reflect that. The consensus is for King of Croatia (disputed) to be in the infobox so be a good fellow will you. - dwc lr (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yep, it's the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies. As for the content of this article? I've no problems with the usage of 'King of Croatia' or 'Tomislav II'. As for the Infobox & Navboxes, all I request is that '(disputed)' be placed next to 'King of Croatia', as assuredly it is a disputed title. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the introduction has a few inaccuracies and repetition: VE III was not his uncle, he did not refuse to assume the kingship and it mentions he was from the House of Savoy twice to give some examples. Imo the introduction should say something along the lines of:
Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, Duke of Aosta (given names: Aimone Roberto Margherita Maria Giuseppe Torino; 9 March 1900 – 29 January 1948) was an Italian prince from the House of Savoy and a Naval officer. From 18 May 1941 to 31 July 1943, he was the nominal head of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (a World War II puppet state of Nazi Germany) under the name Tomislav II (after the medieval Croatian King Tomislav) after being chosen for the post by his cousin King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. A planned coronation never took place, Aimone having sworn before his men that he would never set foot in Croatia. He was known by the title Duke of Spoleto from 22 September 1904 until 3 March 1942 when he succeeded to the title Duke of Aosta.
I hope this is acceptable, King of Croatia and the reign can legitimately be mentioned in the infobox and succession box with GoodDay's suggestion of (disputed), censorship is totally unacceptable. - dwc lr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed introduction, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move adjustment

No kidding (honest). Perhaps we should consider a page move to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta, in order to bring it in line with the articles of the Dukes of Aosta. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea as the other Duke of Aosta articles have been moved to comply with WP:NCROY. This one was moved in violation of the WP:NCROY so should also be brought in line with it. I don't believe moving to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta would be a controversial step would it? - dwc lr (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial step? not at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, well I'll wait and see if anyone comments if not I'll move it. - dwc lr (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be controversial because he was King of Croatia by the bilaterall agreement of two states, despite how we can characterize that period of time. Crown Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta would be the only title on which WP:NCROY would agree. -- Imbris (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of Crown Prince. He was a Prince of Savoy-Aosta and a King of Croatia he never held the title Crown Prince of anywhere. His son could arguably be called Crown Prince of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot of pages here on wikipedia that use the Crown Prince title for a monarch which is no longer reigning. Even if usually a King is King until his death, despite being deposed, etc. Why is the sentence about his alleged never setting foot (the promise to his fellows) listed so high in the article and without explanation, Tomislav II said that because of personal security in the time of War, and because of unsetlled issues, of housing, of the Dalmatian question, etc. -- Imbris (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should really be at Tomislav II of Croatia, I'm not aware of title Crown Prince being attributed to him so we should not use it. Indeed there are numerous verifiable reasons why he did not go to Croatia and they should also be mentioned in the lead as they are mentioned in the article itself. - dwc lr (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Aimone was never Crown Prince of anything, the title doesn't fit. That title is used for heirs-apparent of throne or defunct thrones (after the heir-apparent was born). Examples of the latter are Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia & Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back in a couple of days to discuss the lead. "Crown Prince"? "Caliph", perhaps? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it alright to move the article title to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there was no objections, I've moved the article. Now it matches the other Duke of Aosta (except for the Spanish King, of course). GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised an objection on 31 Oct 2009 under this very section. You had no place in moving the article, without the WP:RM. -- Imbris (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you object on those grounds, then revert. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Abdication

This isn't an overly contentious issue with me, but I like to nail this one down. When was the 1943 abdication, July 31 or October 12? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the whole thing is a joke. Some sources use "abdication" in loo of a more appropriate and elegant term, but to use that as some sort of argument "proving" royal status is a very, very hollow argument. Its not much more than word games. And since I expect to see a lot more of that, be forewarned I intend to call it what it is regardless of how many times I have to repeat myself. Word games are word games. Using "head" instead of "king" is another example. More on that story later... ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, one can't abdicate (i.e. resign) something that arguably never existed. But we still need a date if the 'reign' stuff is kept. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it existed this is not some work of fiction or a fantasy. The Duke of Spoleto being King of Croatia is well documented historical information. I mmean really this is not some sort of myth or hoax. - dwc lr (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King and head is how he is referred to in verifiable sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A significant number of very high-profile historians who specialized in this area blatantly disagree with this assessment in detailed considerations on this person's real political status - published by university publishing houses. You removed these sources from the article completely. A broad consensus, based on very strong professional sources disagrees with the above as well. Yet apparently I'm the one that "censors The TruthTM " or whatever... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article falls under the who won/lost the war. We must allow that Aimone was 'arguably' King (at least backed by the Fascist). Consider the article Jefferson Davis as an example, was he truly President of 'anything'? the Confederate States was 'never' given international recogniton. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He without a shadow of doubt held the title ‘King of Croatia’ I don’t see how any one can dispute that. Just as Jefferson Davis held the title ‘President of the CSA’ both of these are verifiable historical facts. I think you should add (disputed) in the Jefferson Davis article and see how that goes down. These historical states existed we can talk about international recognition or Allies not recognising them or whatever the facts are they existed and in this case we can cite the King of Croatia title very very easily. Discuss legality in the articles for the states involved. - dwc lr (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who says he refused the kingship is lying. You know full well he was the head of the NDH as 'King Tomislav II of Croatia' from his acceptance until he abdicated/renounced/resigned whatever and this can be easily verified that is the majority view. - dwc lr (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its "all lies" then, is it? Those damn liars at Cambridge... Anyway I've got a test tomorrow and the only reason I'm writing these posts is that these crappy Croatian translators didn't translate Harvard Med textbooks and I have to use Wikipedia as a source of info... pretty sad actually. Lets leave this for a few more days. :( --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout this: King of the Independent State of Croatia? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could correctly say that to refer to him as king of the country instead of just by the title held by the King of country ie 'King of Croatia'. - dwc lr (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having that in the Infobox (without the 'dispute' tag) is acceptable. We gotta balance this article out, as best we can. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I think it should be just 'King of Croatia' but I would not have a massive problem with your suggestion. Its encouraging to see progress being made. - dwc lr (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it takes time to iron these things out. With little steps at a time, this article can be acceptable to all. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always I admire your optimism GoodDay, but making any article acceptable to all is mission impossible. I imagine it'd be even more difficult with one party temporarily absent from discussions. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One must never give up on the spirit of compromise. PS: Do we have a consensus to change the article title to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the change indeed I think it is necessary but I think Imbris does not agree [11]. - dwc lr (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My attempts to collaborate with the editor-in-question, were rejected. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured, the core of the disputes is the Independent State of Croatia itself. Thus I've no problem with 'King of the IS of Croatia', as it wasn't the Kingdom of Croatia. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think dwc also knows this: the name of the state is not the question, its the fact that that wasn't his title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existance of the state (not its name) is in question. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afterall, it's more accurate then 'King of Croatia'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"King of Croatia, Prince of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Voivode of Dalmatia, Tuzla and Knin" was his full title. - dwc lr (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it's more accurate, concerning the state-in-question's name. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even DIREKTOR agrees he was King of IS of Croatia so we can call him that I assume but mention the full title elsewhere in the article. - dwc lr (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for the record "even DIREKTOR" agrees that Croatia ≠ Independent State of Croatia, but that the point in this discussion, of course, is that he was not "king" of anything. If any title should appear its "King of Croatia", the title he was nominated for. I have no problem with the move, but the infobox and lead are, in their current state, not acceptable with respect to the historic situation in 1941-1943. I am looking forward, so to speak, to a thorough discussion on these issues that will finally bring this article to terms with sources, i.e. reality.

I also do not like this "even DIREKTOR" stuff. It depicts me as the "troublemaker" when practically all I do is cite sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is never a wrong course. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now if you'll excuse me for today, I have to see exactly why we live past thirty... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it as well as the current state of the lead is water-tight and perfectly reflects the reality of the situation. - dwc lr (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading concerning the 1940's-in-general

I hope ya'll agree: Independant State of Croatia is less disputable then Tomislav II or World War II. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since I've organized the section to include up to 1945, World War II is more acceptable as a section header. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A heading that reflects the content of the section (Period after being named King of Croatia) is needed. "Capitulation and aftermath" includes information from 1942 presumably that will have to be moved up a section which is exclusively about Croatia. I don't see what DIRKETOR's problem is with having IS of Croatia or something actually related the content in the heading. What does that section whole "World War II section discuss? Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be content with using Independant State of Croatia as a section heading. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that, as long as the heading reflects what the section is actually about I' m content. - dwc lr (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revertd back to 'Independant State of Croatia' as a section heading (note: it's my only revert). GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent State of Croatia" suggests to the reader that he spent the time there (as such headings in the context of a biography always do). Seeing as how he never even saw Croatia from afar it is woefully misleading. "Tomislav II" or "King of Croatia" are unacceptable and unnecessarily POV, as the text can easily be covered by a perfectly neutral, NPOV heading. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something like “Named/Appointed King of Croatia” would be better imo and is a perfectly neutral way of covering that period of his life. There is a consensus for IS of Croatia at present so it’s unfortunate that you are trying to impose your own POV on the article as per usual and overriding an established consensus. World War II is woefully misleading as one would assume it covers a range of war activities instead of just one event that happened during that period. - dwc lr (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all DWC, nice try with the edit-summary, but I think we all know two people agreeing isn't an "established consensus". Secondly, the period of this persons life described in that section is 1941-1943. During that period he was a naval officer in the Regia Marina, fighting the Second World War against the Allies. The fact that he was named to become King of the NDH played the smallest possible role in his life during that period (he made sure he was informed of the situation on the war in the NDH from time to time, but that's pretty much it, not much more than reading the paper). I am struggling to comprehend why a perfectly neutral title like "World War II" would be a problem for you, and the only answer I've come-up with so far is that you're once again trying desperately to make this man into the "King of Croatia" on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its more of a consensus than you have. What exactly is wrong with something like “Appointed King of Croatia”. That perfectly covers the period and whole content of the section and no one could say that it’s a pov title as that heading reflects what happened. You can think what you like about me but I can tell you are wrong, just like you’ve been wrong in a lot of what you’ve said before on this article. I’ve explained why I don’t think “World War II” is correct the way you inserted it, but as I’m always willing to compromise if you like we can have “Appointed King of Croatia” as a subheading to go with the other subheading and have “World War II” as the main one. - dwc lr (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 3 of us are frequently here (as far as I can tell, there's no others), we'll have to come up with a section-heading, that's agreeable to us all. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good way to do this? give some proposals:
Proposal #1: The War Years. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind having “World War II” then subheadings:
  1. Subheading relevant to him being appointed King of Croatia.
  2. Subheading relating to succession to Duke of Aosta title and activities after the Italian capitulation. - dwc lr (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's certain acceptable. Well DIREKTOR, what's your views? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the troublesome DIREKTOR is summoned to express his views. :) I can only stand in awe of your continued devotion to compromise and good will, GoodDay, I applaud your determination. I don't mind "War Years", in fact it sounds better than "World War II" in a biographical context. However I do not see why we need subheadings for such a short piece of text? How about two distinct paragraphs? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A trade off: Have the heading World War II per your preference, with the sub-headings per DWC's preferences. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That but transfers the problem: what would the subheadings be? "King of Croatia" or any variation on the phrasing invented to slip it past is not something I'm likely to agree to, for obvious reasons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His cousin named him “King of Croatia” so I don’t see a problem with a heading “Named King of Croatia”. - dwc lr (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puppet King of Croatia is another possiblity. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His cousin named him King... how about "Nomination for kingship" or simply "Nomination" if that seems overly cumbersome? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King-nominee, won't do. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked things a little, to show my proposal #2 (if disagree? revert). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting there, gents. Now, for Dwc's views. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "King of Croatia" and variations thereof are in my view POV-pushing in light of the lack of a necessity for the usage of any such "designation" in the (sub)section headings. "Independent State of Croatia" obviously suggests, in a biographical context, that the person lived there during the period described by the section text. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no prob with using King of the Independant State of Croatia (as we have in the infobox), for the reason that we have President of the CSA in the Jefferson Davis article. Would reign be an acceptable 'sub-section heading'? GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the heading “Nomination for Kingship” as the section discusses activities after his accepting of the nomination. I also have no problem with “King of the Independent State of Croatia”. - dwc lr (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming we've a consensus for War years as the section heading. Howabout reign for a sub-section heading? GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is for “World War II” and I prefer King of IS Croatia over Reign. - dwc lr (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Nominal King of Croatia"? - dwc lr (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Nominal King of Croatia' is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I'm sure you've concluded from my previous posts, that is unacceptable. DWC, must you always try to smuggle in "King of Croatia"? It seems DWC wants that phrase inserted into the section heading, while I on the other hand find it completely POV. How about "Nominated for kingship"? That phrasing does not suggest the text has to cover the nomination only, and thus sets aside your stated objection to the previous proposal? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear oh dear DIREKTOR what title was he given? King of Croatia was it? How you can say (apparently seriously) that it’s POV truly bewilders me. He was not just nominated but also accepted the post as we discussed before so I think “Absentee King of Croatia” or if your national pride takes such a battering by it to the extent that you want to try and impose censorship just “Absentee king” or “Nominal king”. - dwc lr (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout Titular King of Croatia? GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem but DIREKTOR is wholly opposed to any use of "King of Croatia" for some peculiar reason but hopefully he will accept it could be used. - dwc lr (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too, consider Peter II of Yugoslavia as being King 'over' Croatia (it being a part of Yugoslavia). However, we've got President of the Confederate States of America, another position that never got wide international recognition. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed President of Rhodesia would be another example. These posts existed international recognition or not/whether people like it or not. We can't change history. - dwc lr (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt, there is absolutely no way I'd agree to any section title including the phrase "King of Croatia". The whole point of all this is that there is absolutely no need, whatsoever to include any disputed title into the section heading. Why should we do so? I'm sure even DWC will at least grant that the matter is controversial. It is unnecessary, and therefore it is also POV. (DWC, cut the "censorship" nonsense. If that's your definition then everybody's "censoring" everybody on Wikipedia.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section didn’t include the phrase “King of Croatia” and it’s ludicrous to say its POV that was his title believe it or not. He was not only nominated but also held the post so that will need changing. The only person who seems to think using the title king is controversial is you its acceptable to both me and GoodDay. The censorship comment is not nonsense anyone can see what is going on here at this article you are censoring the title that he held as head this historical Croat state. Your actions are completely unjustified and are presumably driven by national pride. I don’t see what you problem is. - dwc lr (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout for the sub-heading, we use King of Croatia (disputed)? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring sources

User:DIREKTOR returns to the Prince Aimone article. ;)

I'm officially back from my Wikibreak and, as promised, I have returned. ;) For a start, here are a few fundamental facts I am absolutely not willing to repeat fifty times as before:
Firstly, this person, though he accepted the nomination, never assumed the title of King of Croatia, effectively remaining "king-designate". Not only are there very many, very high-quality professional, university sources confirming this as indisputable fact, but these sources (and Google tests) are the basis of a valid user consensus established by the participation of some twenty users.
Secondly, my recent revision constitutes a revert of User:DWC LR's edit. I'd like to plead with DWC once again, asking him to refrain from trying to once again restore his edit via edit-warring (see WP:EA).

My edits are as follows:

  • 1) Lead. I've repaired the lead which was the victim of "censorship", as one may put it. The (high-quality) sources that were removed for no valid reason were restored, along with the text they support.
  • 2) Infobox. Attempts to avoid the results of the user consensus by still pushing the label "King of Croatia" into the article by various means, such as "King of (the Independent State of) Croatia", "(Nominal) King of Croatia", "(Titular) King of Croatia", etc., are not going to work. I've also added the title Duke of Spoleto to the infobox, while I am fully aware the title was not hereditary, there is no requirement that says only hereditary titles can be included. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me highlight a few points for you. Duke of Spoleto was not a hereditary title putting it in the succession is utterly pointless you don't get succession boxes for UK life peers. What has being the second son of the Duke of Aosta got to do with being given the Spoleto title. If I want a history of the Aosta ducal title I will read that article I don’t need it in the lead it’s irrelevant. Certain supports in the move discussion were for the perceived common name nothing to do this his status as King of Croatia. He did not refuse to assume the kingship (majority of sources support this stance) he took an active interest and established an office in Rome and received documents relating to his “kingdom” as it was unsafe for him to go yet you shamefully remove this reason from the introduction. - dwc lr (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having King of the Independant State of Croatia deleted from the infobox, is a step back IMHO. I've given up hope on this article, will be removing it from my watchlist after today. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to your efforts, and with full understanding as to how vexing this all must seem, that is just nonsense. Even if I agreed that the man was a "king" that is "King of the Independent State of Croatia" not a title he ever held. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting this article to its 'correct' name, was an accomplishment for us all. I'll let others work on the article content & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE DWC. "He did not refuse to assume the kingship (majority of sources support this stance)." That is your damn opinion, and one that I've heard repeated too many times. The Google test is against that, as are specific sources listed. When the matter is looked at in detail it is obvious the man refused to be king. This is why we had a long, detailed discussion with a large number of users and we agreed that the man was not King.
I am sick of your incapability to accept the fact that you are absolutely NOT going to present this person as a king of Croatia against sources and against editor consensus. That is absolutely NOT going to happen, no matter how many times you start edit-warring to push this nonsense into the article. (If you want the Duke of Spoleto bit removed that much, feel free then.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left your version largely and have added a few bits but I must remind you of NPOV so don’t push your own POV on this article add “disputed” etc if you like to the King of Croatia succession fields do not even contemplate removing completely. - dwc lr (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ps well done on getting a consensus on his common name. - dwc lr (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. It would appear its also the most common name in publications as well as professional works.
I must congratulate you on copy-pasting so many meaningless details into the lead. You've turned my concise article lead into an entire section with POV sentences designed once more to circumvent the sources. Congratulations again, your text actually succeeds in stating that the person "refused to be king" while "exercising power" from abroad. Amazing...
The infobox you're thinking to push is the most blatant and telling depiction of your POV. I am not even prepared to debate on your insertion of "King of Croatia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you liked detail in the lead? You seem keen to give us a history of the title Duke of Aosta (His father died in 1931 and his brother became Duke, as fascinating as that is what is its relevance?). You like to to give us information on the status of the NDH (great people can’t click on articles?)
It’s amazing that sources disagree with you yet you accuse me of pushing a pov. So please do explain why you are insisting on only presenting one view and showing a complete disregard for NPOV. That is completely unacceptable a NPOV must be presented. And now I see you are removing cited material and doctoring what sources say this is truly getting farcical you are stooping to very low levels. I’m sorry but your actions are unacceptable you’re the biggest pov pusher I have ever come across. Put a disputed label in the infobx if you like. - dwc lr (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing someone's text is not "censoring", and your opinion is not an NPOV, please understand that. The sources, the Google tests, and user consensus have all shown that this person was not "king of Croatia". Hence your edit by which you present him as one shall be removed. I will ask you again to please stop edit-warring to push this edit of yours. Please stop removing university-published sources (and their text) from the article because they do not conform to your fixed idea of NPOV.
I'm sorry, but I think that at some point you'll simply have to accept that the source, the Google tests, and the user consensus (based on the former) are all against you. You may have to accept the simple fact that this person was not "king of Croatia". I don't know what else to tell you... how do you talk to a person who in spite of all this is still in some form of denial? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not my opinion its the opinion of published works. “Google test” does not support you. - dwc lr (talk)
Its your opinion. Quote mining and sentence searching aside, the very high quality sources (Pavlowitch, Rodogno) are against you. Not to mention that you are vastly outnumbered in the Google tests.
User:DWC LR, what are you doing? What are you doing, dwc? We've successfully established the FACTS in this dispute. We've established the FACT that the man refused, nay, actually SWORE not to assume this kingship and throne. Yet here you are adding "King of Croatia" to the infobox? Here you are, going against the majority sources, the Google tests, and (yes, I'll say it again) the user consensus.
Be advised, I've removed a redundant tag. I will most certainly not let you mar this article with twenty tags because of your bitterness. Those tags are eventually coming down, since there really is no dispute. Its just you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be clear I have a vast number of sources and later I will insert these into the article and be in no doubt they are very "high quality" when really all I need is something to meet WP:V and you are screwed. He accepted as can be seen from news reports from the time and in writings after even if he was basically forced to. He never went to Croatia that is a fact yes. I've been looking through google and I'm seeing him refered to as King of Croatia. Oh dear are you worried.....? - dwc lr (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just believe that people should be aware of the present biased nature of this article but you are quite right I'm certain they will be down soon as I am more than confident that this article can reflect all viewpoints. - dwc lr (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not so sure people should be aware that you think the present nature of this article is "biased". And yes, I'm sure you'll be back to start edit-warring once again sooner or later. Probably once you finally manage to find an actual "source". Let me nevertheless try and dispel your fantasies about some "magic source" that will allow you to revert-war your version into the article somehow. As I've already said, the facts on this matter are clear as day. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you will refuse to acknowledge sources that disagree with your position, you are living in a fantasy if you think you will be able to get away forcing your pov on this article. You are forcing an undue weight upon this article. I have always been unbiased and have added a range of facts to this article. I have no interest in edit warring I can see from this article and your block log you are a fan though...... - dwc lr (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're "checking me out" and since we're talking about contributions, you should probably compare our edit-counts. I have not at all ventured to "explore your personality" by looking at Wikipedia edits.
I am here to try and keep the sources in the article, and to prevent it being butchered by a user who's edit-warring to remove them. I am here to make sure you do not disregard these sources and the editor consensus based on them. Because of this, User:DWC LR has accused me of "censoring" the truth, has called me a "bandit", and has most recently attempted to slander me as a Wikipedia editor. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t worry your sources will be left in shame you don’t afford others the same courtesy. Its good job I have checked on your “personality” as I see your edit warring here is not a one off and must assume you are an aggressive serial pov pusher. I think removing verifiable sourced information just because of some fantasy view that it’s all wrong and only sources used to push ones own pov is censoring and very sad. - dwc lr (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand a word you're saying :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well as long as you understand changes will have to be made to achieve a NPOV. :-) dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the millionth time, what you may or may not consider an "NPOV" is not really something I care to hear repeated over and over again. I edit according to professional, verifiable, university sources. Nothing more, nothing less. (The grammar above is appalling, if you don't mind me saying so. Barely legible.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don’t mind, I respect your right to have and express an opinion. And yes of course we all edit according to Wikipedia’s required standards. So when I edit this article I hope you remember that. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I imagine we're busy quote-mining, are we? There's really no point, dwc, you can forget right here and now of proclaiming this person "King of Croatia". The Google tests and user consensus are all against you no matter what crackpot source you manage to dig-up. And frankly I can't imagine you you are about to to "shame"
...and more (yes, more ;). In the way of quantity there's no debate about the Google tests, and in the way of quality it is impossible to trump these sources. So I'll repeat, don't waste time and effort - the FACTS have been conclusively established. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“but refused to assume the kingship in opposition to the Italian annexation of the Croat-populated Yugoslav region of Dalmatia.” Pavlowitch does not say this. I highly suspect Burgwyn does not support that can you provide a quote? Again I can’t see “Enemy Countries, Axis-Controlled Europe” saying this, quote? Massock does not support that. What nonsense have you added to this article? Thanks for the advice I didn’t need to “waste my time” at all it was right under my nose the whole time. If only I’d checked this earlier. :-( - dwc lr (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've been waiting for some cheap shot like this. You know full well that these sources oppose your edits yet here you are inventing cute excuses. My good fellow, you're pushing to present this person as an actual "King of Croatia", and lets not kid ourselves, every single one of these sources opposes you and supports the fact that this person actually SWORE not to assume the kingship. And this is a fact that you're cleverly trying to dodge with your word games, practically presenting some nomination ceremony as an "inauguration". Well no dice. You may take for certain fact that whatever you may or may not dig up you will NOT succeed in destroying the neutrality of this article.
To be even clearer, regardless of any scheme you may be cooking-up at this time, any presentation of this person as some kind of "Croatian monarch" will be reverted on sight. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I hope for your sake then you were looking for some more sources (and you found some!) if you were expecting this. Quotes from the sources that supposedly support that he swore not to assume the kingship please? I do find it amusing that one of your sources talks about the minutes after being appointed king and you believe it supports him refusing to accept the throne. Indeed most of your refer to him as “king-designate” which I supposedly true for a certain period till he accepted. Bit by bit we are establishing the truth. I take great amusement from the fact that the majority of your sources oppose your own statement. Highly comical is how best to describe. - dwc lr (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're all having fun here. :) I, on the other hand, "take great amusement" in your little word games such as "king-designate was true for 10 minutes so that's why they called him that". Its ok to have fun, dwc, just make sure you don't try to impose your own farcical "interpretations" of scientific works on the rest of us. Now I know its confusing to you, but "king-designate", despite deceptively using the word "king", actually means he was not king :). Believe it or not. If an author refers to this person as "king designate", he naturally opposes your edit by which you call him "king". Need I really spell this out for you? Perhaps I should've drawn you a picture back up there.
I think we have all established this a long time ago so I'll take these comments in the context of your jovial mood. But on a more serious note, I thought you might want to know that your fellow POV-pusher User:Imbris has been banned from enWiki due to his "fascistoid" POV-pushing in many articles including this one. This might help you grasp what kind of extreme POV you are advocating, though I personally doubt it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so your sources don’t say that he refused to assume the kingship because of Dalmatia. Why insert information if you cannot support it with citations? Well at least that clears that up. But this also means the text will have to be altered. Sorry. But please don't engage in edit warring as your position is very weak. - dwc lr (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, completely weak. I'm stopping this meaningless exchange. I leave you to your pointless quote mining. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoL quote mining galore! xD Looks like you know how to use Google. Sources that only superficially touch on the matter of the Croatian head-of-state naturally can be forgiven for not explaining his status in detail. We fortunately have more thorough works on this matter that have already explained this common misconception. Nice try there, dwc, but no dice. I warned you against wasting effort on this... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They all meet WP:V and discuss NDH in good detail revert would be very foolish of you. Yeah I love the fact that all your sources are almost enterily devoted to Aimone. - dwc lr (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not on the NDH, dwc. And it looks like I'm a "fool" now, a "foolish bandit" apparently...
Nota bene: This is your new edit. It has been reverted. Please discuss and please do not try to re-insert it into the article by means of edit-warring over it. Your edit is contrary to high-quality sources that explain the person's status in detail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you again where in all your sources does it say he refused to assume the kingship because of Dalmaita? (Bold to make sure you see the request) Perhaps this time you can direct me to the correct place. My pov? I'm just saying what the sources say I don't need to find a source that says something completely different and pretend it supports a statement I've inserted. It appear to be your good self that has to resort to that . Erm higy quality sources? Google the authors of the texts I inserted. - dwc lr (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how one can make the mistake you are making, but after all this time one assumes you would've researched the matter in detail instead of just edit-warring because this obscure matter is merely touched-upon by most authors. All the sources are in the article, dwc, [12] I look forward to an explanation as to just how its all worthless. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. You have one source then? Thank you for clearing that up. But why lie and mislead and use the others as well then? They say no such thing. - dwc lr (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source (WP:PSTS), a letter to the King of Italy, in which we have him explicitly declaring he would "never agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy" because Dalmatia was a "land that could never be Italianized". This was well after the ceremony in the Quirinale (May 18), as the Rome contracts by which Dalmatia was annexed took place afterward. So according to you, this person became king of Croatia on May 18, but then afterward declared he would (quote) "never agree to be king of Croatia"? LoL... I do NOT "lie", and I do not appreciate your slanderous insinuations. If anyone here is being dishonest, its you. I've read through your sources xD, and I can see that you're still in a jovial mood. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly disagreement about his status so the lead can reflect the different points of view (a npov) of the various sources. On the subject of primary sources I’ll add a primary source in the lead of him being “proud” to have been named “King of Croatia” I think it would be of use to be mentioned there do you agree?. Also sorry, maybe you made an honest mistake and didn’t intentionally mislead people into thinking all those sources supported that statement. But at least you have seen the error of your ways and corrected the statement. - dwc lr (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. It was indeed an honest mistake. I expected you would remember what fact each source supports. I was mistaken.
There is no "disagreement". The (primary) sources are clear, as is the user consensus based on them (I'll keep repeating that for as long as you like). The fact that you have amassed a million quotes from texts that even more marginally address the matter does not suddenly create an "academic dispute" on the issue. Sorry, but I have warned you against the futility of such an effort. In addition, many of those sources do not at all support your position ("Pavelić agreed to his state becoming a kingdom", yes, but the king-designate refused the throne; etc). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say he refused and remained King-Designate others say he accepted and became Tomislav II. That is roughly the gist of what I fully intend to see this article eventually say. NPOV all substantial view points presented. You simply have no grounds to not accept something like this as you musr adhere to a NPOV as much as me. - dwc lr (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dwc, this is a marginal issue of a marginal subject. This is, in fact, the source of this entire problem. Very few authors talking about WWII Yugoslavia or, even less, Italy actually care to go into the details of this person's complex status. This is a fact. I have however, succeeded in finding find a few that do actually reference to primary sources and go into the matter in a some detail (though admittedly this is again marginal, but the others far more so). This is what I've been trying to tell you. The actual facts are that this person swore a solemn oath before his men never to assume his throne and "become Tomislav II". He actually declared he would (quote) "never become king" after some of the superficial sources say he "became king". This is a lack of accuracy and detail on their part, a common misconception you have unfortunately fallen pray to (though admittedly innocent of blame), and the source of this whole discussion. It in no way constitutes an academic dispute on the issue, and it cannot be depicted as such. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he had actually refused then this case would be a lot clearer and I would accept that. But that is simply not the case in certain sources (books/newspapers from the period). A formal ceremony took place where he was named King of Croatia. He accepted (the "nomination" as you even accept) and after two years his cousin the King of Italy told him to abdicate and thisn covered in press reports from the period. There are two viewpoints which can be verified and they will have to be referred to in this article. You are well aware every Wikipedia editor must adhere to a NPOV you are no exception, so I’ll ask you to please respect Wikipedia’s policies and do not start an utterly pointless edit war. There is really nothing more to say and all that is left to do is present a NPOV. - dwc lr (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR? No I wasn’t joking and you are now vandalising this article. You like to play up to your pov pusher tag don’t you as I see from ANI I’m not the only one who has noticed. Oh wait your one of the “good guys” aren’t you? So what exactly was wrong with the article why did you revert, or rather restore your pov version but conveniently not restore the pov and accuracy tags. - dwc lr (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the sources

I don't want to push things further, so i will limitate my intervention to this comment. I think it would have been really strange if Aimone would have the courage to oppose Mussolini as he was a no-one politically speaking: so i doubt the legitimacy of the claim that he "refused to assume the kingship in opposition to the Italian annexation of the Croat-populated Yugoslav region of Dalmatia". Particularly, this seems strange to me as Italian irredentism and nationalism were very strong back then and Dalmatia was therefore considered an Italian territory. In fact it isn't true, as it is stated in the article, that Dalmatia was only "Croat-populated": surely yugoslavians were a majority but there was an historical italian minority, especially in Zara (Zadar), Traù, Sebenico, Cattaro, Arbe and Veglia (Krk). The related source for this statement(Rodogno, Davide; Fascism's European empire: Italian occupation during the Second World War; p.95; Cambridge University Press) seems to be not consultable on the web, so i'll have to ask you if someone could search it and verify if this claim is true. I would have to ask the same about this source (Petacco, Arrigo; A tragedy revealed: the story of the Italian population of Istria, Dalmatia, and Venezia Giulia, 1943-1956; p.26; University of Toronto Press, 2005) as it seems very strange to me that "the Prince refused to be crowned and swore never to set foot in Croatia" as it seems strange to me that Aimone would have the courage to oppose Mussolini (and Hitler) so directly, refusing what could be consider only as an honor. I'm writing this because I know the topic and in every historical book i read I never read that Aimone refused to be crowned because he supported croatian irredentism. It seems i'm not the only one questioning these unveryficable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Your_POV_is_not_NPOV. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You always need to thoroughly check the sources used by DIREKTOR. I found out he cites sources to support a statement even when they say something completely different to what he alleges it supports. He has one source (for this quite frankly exceptional claim) that says Aimone refused to “to assume the kingship” in opposition to annexation of Dalmatia. The sole text can be found in Google Books. There are also other cited reasons as to why he didn’t go to Croatia (ongoing insurgency, safety could not be guaranteed) but DIREKTOR only allows his reason why Aimone never went. Aimone was “proud to be named King of Croatia” as he told Count Ciano. Really DIREKTOR should provide sources to support the exceptional claim that Aimone refused to the kingship in opposition to Dalmatia as it’s a very obscure view. Thank you for the interesting points you have raised. - dwc lr (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I own the original edition of the Rodogno's book (Il nuovo ordine mediterraneo. Le politiche di occupazione dell'Italia fascista in Europa (1940-1943), Bollati Boringhieri 2003): "Nel tentativo di recuperare le posizioni perse contro i tedeschi nella corsa al controllo della Croazia, gli italiani provarono a concretizzare il progetto di unione personale secondo il quale Aimone di Savoia (fratello di Amedeo), duca di Spoleto, avrebbe dovuto essere proclamato re dal Sabor e incoronato, col nome di Tomislao II, a Duvansko Polje (Duvno) in Bosnia (come Tomislav, primo re croato nel 925 d.C.). Il progetto naufragò rapidamente proprio a causa della questione dalmata e Aimone-Tomislao passò alla storia come "il re che non fu mai". Non avendo esperienza politica e non essendo a conoscenza dei piani esatti del governo italiano, rifiutò di partire per la Croazia; lo scrisse chiaramente in una lettera indirizzata a Mussolini, nella quale asserì che la risoluzione territoriale dalmata, "terra che non si sarebbe mai potuta italianizzare", era un ostacolo a qualsiasi riconciliazione con i croati. Aimone non accettò di diventare re di una nazione amputata dall'Italia!" (pp. 126-127). So, Aimone had the courage to oppose Mussolini.--151.21.255.107 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you insert a link to the source in order for us to control it? --AndreaFox (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here: [13].--151.21.250.180 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Petacco, Arrigo (2005). A Tragedy Revealed: The Story of the Italian Population of Istria, Dalmatia, and Venezia Giulia. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26, 27. ISBN 0802039219.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Aimone,_Duke_of_Aosta&oldid=329877402"