Talk:Pacta conventa (Croatia)

RFC

Dispute which has started in article Croatia is now great problem with many involved users and many articles. I have writen invitation to all users involved in discussion and there is hope that until now not inolved established users will help us solve this problem.--Rjecina (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please specify the problem. Exactly uninvolved editors won't understand anything. Squash Racket (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute is: personal union between Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary has existed between 1091/1102-1918 or Croatia has been province of Hungary ? --Rjecina (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what the article is ultimately about? In fact, isn't that what Croatia in personal union with Hungary is? I think it's pointless to argue about whether the alleged agreement exist, as that's just us here making a factual determination on our own. Couldn't we just go with "some people claim agreement, others disagree"? And I really think the exact quotations from Encarta and Britannica need to stop, both for being tertiary sources and for being copyright violations. We should be discussing sources and whether they are reliable, not which sources to accept generally and which ones to ignore, based on our views about what should be the "right" answer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for or against union

In words of Michigan state university libraries :"When their (Croatian) own dynasty died out in 1102, the Croatian Diet or "Sabor" chose the Hungarian dynasty, trading away full independence for security, stability and internal autonomy. The "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" remained a legally distinct constitutional entity" [1]

Britannica words are:"Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy)". [2]

Encarta words are:"The two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102. From then until 1918 kings of Hungary were also kings of Croatia, represented by a governor (ban), but Croatia kept its own parliament (Sabor) and considerable autonomy" [3]

Constitution of personal union between Croatia and Hungary is saying in introduction:"Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen, and since it is laid down in the Pragmatic Sanction also, that the Lands of the Hungarian Crown are indivisible from one another: Hungary on the one hand, and Croatia and Slavonia on the other hand have upon this basis concluded the following agreement" [4]

On other side there is agreement between users that after 12 century crowning of king in Croatia is abolished.

Similar to this there is agreement that Britannica and Encarta are using only title King of Hungary and not King of Hungary and King of Croatia when they are speaking about kings.

It is not disputed that name for Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia together has been Royal Hungary and Lands of Crown of St.Stephen--Rjecina (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Britannica and Encarta don't really count anymore as these are tertiary sources. Please learn to differentiate between secondary and tertiary sources. For example Columbia Encyclopedia, another tertiary source says:

internecine strife facilitated its [note: Croatia's] conquest in 1091 by King Ladislaus I of Hungary.

Encarta is simply presenting the debate anyway: "either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102".

The constitution is a primary source.
Please read my message on your talk page from about a week ago.
The lecture(?) by Steven W. Sowards doesn't go into an analysis regarding the question. You cited two sentences.

Here is a deeper analysis based on a reliable secondary source:

Croatia in personal union with Hungary is a source of a major historical controversy.[1] Croatian historians argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king while Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered.[2] The significance of the debate lies in the Croatian claim to an unbroken heritage of historical statehood which is clearly compromised by the other claim.[3] The actual nature of the relationship is inexplicable in modern terms because it varied from time to time.[4] Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary.[5] However, Croatia retained a large degree if internal independence.[6]

Source: Bellamy, Alex J. (2003), The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream, Manchester University Press, ISBN 9780719065026. From now on please provide only English, neutral secondary sources that compare to this one in quality and depth. Squash Racket (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, source 1 is a library. That's nice and all but we need something from a named author with some background. They are at best tertiary. Sources 2 and 3 are encyclopedias and again tertiary. Source 4 is from an anonymous online website which is very liberally quoting Seton-Watson, R.W. The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy. London: Constable and Co., 1911, so are you arguing that your best source is from 1911? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When we are having national dispute (or dispute between 2 states) on wikipedia for me it is always best to look other encyclopedia (Columbia, Britannica, Encarta,....) which are edited by professionals, because we all our having our POVs.

Definition on Columbia Encyclopedia is very similar to Britannica and Encarta because it is saying (your link):"In 1102 a pact between his successor and the Croatian tribal chiefs established a personal union of Croatia and Hungary under the Hungarian monarch...". For discussion about personal union it is not important way in which Ladislaus I has become king of Croatia (official title has been king of Slavonia).

This source from 1911 is constituion of Hungary-Croatia. It is called Nagodba or small compromise (greater compromise has been 1 year earlier between Austria and Hungary). I am now on short wiki break--Rjecina (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not "my link". I brought it as a wrong example (another tertiary source claiming something else than some other ones).
The constitution is still a primary source, you need to look for secondary sources discussing/analyzing it. Squash Racket (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again:[5]Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am wrong or you are wrong Squash Racket ? We can use primary sources, but we can't comment primary source (wikipedia rules). I (or anybody else) don't wan't to comment primary source only that with copy and paste add words from constitution in article. Saying that we can't use primary source is saying that we can't use census data !--Rjecina (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Few books:

The Early Medieval Balkans writen by John Van Antwerp Fine (page 286)

The institutions of advanced societies by Arnold Marshall Rose (page 277)

Hungary and its revolutions, with a memoir of L. Kossuth (page 29)

The Hungarians by Paul Lendvai, Ann Major.

In my thinking last book is having best comments about situation: "Coloman coronation as King of Croatia initiated union with Hungary which lasted for 800 years. To this day historians of both country argue in true Central European fashion, about the true character of these relationship".

I can add other books like for example: "East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 by Jean W. Sedlar (page 18)", but I do not see point.

From time to time Habsburg rules have writen on money title King of Croatia like for example Ferdinand I Habsburg Thaler of 1530, 1557 and 1573-76 [6].

My last thing today about this will be statement: Croatian parliament has elected Ferdinand I Habsburg for king in 1527 and on other side Hungarian parliament has elected János Szapolyai in 1526 which is by default evidence that Croatia has not been Hungarian province ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, I think in this case you are wrong:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

If there is any doubt about census results, we also need secondary sources about these.

Please add your comment in the talk page formula next time to see who said what. Squash Racket (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

These sources are acceptable to me. Van Antwerp Fine says: A summary of its [note: the Pacta Conventa] germane points is a fitting introduction to a discussion of Croatia under Hungarian rule. He also says there was no separate coronation in Croatia after 1235.

In Hungary and its revolutions, with a memoir of L. Kossuth: "After a lengthened discussion, the King consented to leave them their rights, privileges and freedom, on condition of their submitting to his rule and that of his successors".

The Hungarians: "To this day historians of both countries argue, in true Central European fashion, about the true character of these relations."

The problem I see with these sources is that these don't describe clearly the controversy between the Croatian historiography and the Hungarian and Serbian historiography as you can find in Bellamy's book. Squash Racket (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Let as leave Serbian historiography out of this. Depending of political situation Croatia historiography is having bias toward Serbia like Serbian historiography toward Croatia.--Rjecina (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources about Nagodba (1868 - 1918) Nagodba on Britannica , Stephen R. Burant, ed. Hungary: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989. Burant is not using word union, but it is speaking about emperor Franz Joseph's insistence that Hungary and Croatia are having agreement similar to that of Austria and Hungary and Croatian rights after agreement.--Rjecina (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And again in this Burant book you are having about 1102 (1103?) events:"Croatia was never assimilated into Hungary; rather, it became an associate kingdom administered by a ban, or civil governor." [7]--Rjecina (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And Slovenian historians too are biased? They say in their ABC-CLIO reference book that:

• the Pacta Conventa never existed
• the story about it was important to support the Croatian position in the Habsburg Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the Croats claimed their rights on the basis of the agreement
• although Croatia ceased to exist as an independent state, the Croatian nobility retained relatively strong powers.
  

There are many viewpoints on these times and feel free to add some of the sources you referred to, but one viewpoint doesn't nullify the other. (The Serbian point of view is mentioned by reliable English sources, so it's significant.) Some say there was an agreement, some say there wasn't, some say there was a personal union, some say Croatia was conquered and incorporated into Hungary with great autonomy.

To me a sentence of Nada Klaic rings true:

some sort of surrender occurred in 1102 by which the Croatians were given light terms

I think something like that happened and it happened on friendly terms. Croatia was in turmoil and in the middle of a succession crisis at the time, so I don't think there was serious armed resistance against the Hungarians in these years. Hungarians simply didn't want to crush the Croatians. Remember that these are the same Hungarians who invited German settlers to Transylvania in the 12th century.
Bottomline: all viewpoints should be added as long as they are referenced well, which means English, neutral, secondary sources. Squash Racket (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacta Conventa

If I do not make mistake your "demand" has been that croatian historians are not used like source. I have removed from my arguments all historians of Balkan nationality, but it seems that for you this is not possible.

For me in the end it is not important if Pacta Conventa is signed of not. We will never know this for sure.

Statements like like "story about it was important to support the Croatian position in the Habsburg Empire" are for me funny. My point about historians which are saying: Croats have in 14 century created Pacta Conventa forgery so that this can be used in 200-700 years latter ??? is that They really need to visit doctor.....

Because Hungary in 11 century is having complex tradition that underlies historical, unwritten constitution for me it is hard to believe that King has signed Pacta Conventa and with that created sort of constitution for Croatia. In my thinking this agreement has been unwritten constitution, but my thinking is by default original research.

Arguments of historians which are attacking pacta conventa (writen or unwriten) are having fatal mistake. "Forgery" is writen in 14 century during union existence. Tell me what will today happen with person from USA which will create forgery document about Alaska Purchase in which he will change word sell with word lease on 99 years ? Similar situation is with creator of 14 century pacta conventa "forgery".

Can you please tell me latin title of Hungarian kings in 11 century ? It is Rex Hungaroum or something similar ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My "demand" has been that we use English, reliable sources. If the English source is written by a Croatian, we can attribute it, so it is clear to everyone. If you refer to the Slovenians' view, their book is in English and published by ABC-CLIO, so it's clearly a reliable source.

The statement "story about it was important to support the Croatian position in the Habsburg Empire" is not funny at all, not one source mentions that the document became important only during the national awakening of the Croatians.

I don't understand all of your points, please clarify. Squash Racket (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Words about Hungary constitution are taken from wikipedia text about Hungary.

There is agreement between historians that "forgery" is writen 14 century on territory of Kingdom of Croatia which is part "Hungaro-Croatian Union". If text of forgery is false then writer is guilty of high treason and he will be killed.

I am historian of Roman state. Tell me who is last Western Roman Emperor and last Eastern Roman Emperor ? (you will understand latter question) --Rjecina (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources say that the Pacta Conventa is a 14th century forgery. One says: "While various items of the text seem anachronistic, historian say these could be reworkings of a text of an actual agreement". So we don't know to what extent the Pacta was valid.

Ricky removed that sentence:

We don't know for sure whether there really had been some sort of agreement in 1102, which produced the text we have or one (now lost) that was slightly or even greatly altered, or whether there merely was a tradition about some sort of agreement, which a forger from around the twelve most influential Croatian noble families exploited, or whether a Hungarian campaign had simply conquered Croatia.

Do you have the actual text of the Pacta Conventa? I've just read somewhere that it doesn't mention a personal union at all. We need to read the text of it. (So far you pointed to the Nagodba, but it's from the 19th century, not the 14th). Squash Racket (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

From before you are having very nice book: The Formation of Croatian National Identity of Alex J. Bellamy which is saying on page 37 Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered, but you have missed page 38 which is saying that Hungarian claims of conquest are created only in 19 century during reawakening ! This is creating small problem with conquest because on Croatian side we are having 500 years old "forgery", 1526 non disputed decision of Croatian parliament which has elected Ferdinand Habsburg for King of Croatia and historical evidence that Magyars did not forcibly impose themself on Croats.

I am having First part of Kingdom of Croatia diplomatic letters. It is ending in 1100. What was latin title of Hungarian kings in 11 century ? Rex ...... ?

Nagodba is not speaking about pacta conventa but it is saying that Croatia belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen (it has not belonged to Hungary)--Rjecina (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just stick out my neck and give a quotation:While explicitly stating that Croatia was a component part of the kingdom of Hungary, the Nagodba recognized the region as a distinct political unit with its own territory.Britannica: Nagodba

Earlier you said that kingdom of Hungary and Lands of St Stephen were two different states. Could you please explain the above statement?--Bizso (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy also says: "much the same argument could also be levelled about the idea of a personal union first articulated in the 14th century".

This is just a travel guide, I know. Does the Pacta Conventa at least mention personal union? Squash Racket (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but this "idea" of a personal union first articulated in the 14th century is from period of this union. It is not latter revisionism.

Pacta Conventa is starting with: "Qualiter et cum quo pacto dederunt se Chroates regi Hungariae" (translation) How and with which agreement Croats have surendered to Hungarian king"

This "forgery" is first time published like addition to books Historia Salonitana of Thomas Archidiaconus.

Then in 1666 pacta conventa is again published in book De regno Croatiae et Dalmatiae libri sex.

First historian which has attacked Pacta conventa is István Horváth in 1844.--Rjecina (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is revisionism in the sense that the document reflects 14th century realities while is dated to 1102. What is that if not revisionism?

You said "yes, it does contain the phrase personal union"?

You may use quotation marks, but the majority of reliable sources agree it's a forgery or at least says its content and its date is questionable.

Is the text of the Pacta available online somewhere? In English if possible... Squash Racket (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that I will find on english language. I can't find text even on Croatian. Maybe it will be Latin version (which is "original")--Rjecina (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Union

We are having 2 different problems I have created 2 subsections. Because all others encyclopedia are speaking that sort of union is created in 1102 for me union question is solved. Users which are thinking different need in my thinking read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Do you agree ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For about the 10th time: we don't use encyclopedias, see reasons above. Some secondary sources say it was a union, some say the land was incorporated into Hungary with Croatians having autonomy.

Every single secondary reference that — unlike encyclopedias — covers the topic in detail mentions the different significant viewpoints.

We can mention that the majority of sources suggests some form of union (adding some secondary sources).

I'm asking you here too. I've just searched for it and read somewhere that it doesn't say anything at all about a personal union. Instead of the 19th century Nagodba do we have the actual text of the Pacta Conventa? Squash Racket (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nada Klaić name drop

I've removed the random name dropping of Nada Klaić. Regardless of her views, if we really don't have anything more than "she's a proponent of the forgery theory", it's just not useful. What does she think and where does she say that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I added material with reference. Squash Racket (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First, is it really appropriate to go "Croatian historian" thinks this, "Serbian historian" thinks that? Why not just go straight names? We wouldn't "British historian thinks this, American historian thinks that", it's just insulting and prejudicial is a way. I'll go with both for now though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To me that's acceptable. Though frequently the cited English reference refers to groups of historians by nationality. Squash Racket (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy citation about the Croatian parliament

Ok, when the two users return, we can discuss this language fight. First, if there are alternate views based on reliable sources, then we can play the "According to" game. Until then, the language is fine as is. Second, even if there are alternative views, it is not appropriate to claim that Bellamy represents "all Croatian historians." Use his name, "According to Alex J. Bellamy, ...." (do NOT call him Croatian until you find a source where he self-identifies as Croatian). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the text of the Nagodba, a primary source, we need reliable secondary sources discussing the link between this 1868 text and the Pacta Conventa (if there is one). Squash Racket (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talkpage: Ricky81682, you obviously haven't read the cited source in question (Bellamy p. 39). I would advise you do that first and then comment on my edit...--Bizso (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice but it would be a lot better if you actually tried to explain what's your issue rather than edit warring until you find yourself blocked. Saying "Corrected Rjecina's edits according to the cited sources and removed speculation" is pretty vague and reverting to keep it isn't productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I think it's rather Rjecina who should explain what's his issue as he was the one who was plainly removing my edit after I had kept his.

"Croatian parliament took opportunity in 1526 to reassert its autonomy from Hungary with election of Ferdinand Habsburg for king and words:"...we joined the Holy Crown of Hungary by our own free will just as we do now, the rule of Your Majesty". Similar definition is used in 1868 by Croatian and Hungarian parliaments in introduction to constitution of Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia: "Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen...""

According to Croatian historians, the Sabor (wording used by source) (Croatian parliament) took the (grammatical error) opportunity in 1526 to reassert its autonomy from Hungary with the (grammatical error) election of Ferdinand Habsburg for king and reputedly declared (wording used by source): "...we joined the Holy Crown of Hungary by our own free will just as we do now, the rule of Your Majesty". In 1868, (removed unsourced speculation about a "constitution" between the "Kingdom of Hungary" and "Kingdom of Croatia" that was used by the "Croatian and Hungarian parliaments" for something) the pact that governed Croatia’s political status as a territory of Hungary until the end of World War I (added correctly sourced information from Britannica) and that explicitly stated that Croatia was a component part of the kingdom of Hungary (added correctly sourced information from Britannica) included that "Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen...". --Bizso (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizso you will be happy.

Bellamy is out.

Page used in this article in Bellamy words:"does not attempt to provide a "history" of Croatia, its national identity, or a discussion of its national historiography. Instead it attampts only to identify a narrative of Croatian historical statehood..." [8]

For all interested he is speaking about his pages 32-65--Rjecina (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a source

Rjecina, when you criticized the Slovenian and Serbian historians, I said all English, neutral, secondary sources are welcome. I didn't exactly speak about sources like the website you added. If a work of a Croatian author is published by a university press or a notable publishing house, feel free to add it. Now please clarify what is that website. Squash Racket (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom or province ?

Pacta Conventa is disputed even between historian and we can't solve this. In my thinking only important thing in this discussion is if Croatia has been Kingdom in union with Hungary or Hungarian province. Everything else will then by default be solved ?

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815 of Charles W. Ingrao :

.."Between the Drava river and the Adriatic lay the closely associated Croatian-speaking kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia that had been bound in personal union with Hungary..." page 12

"Finally the noble-dominated diets of both Hungary and Croatia enjoyed the right to elect their king..." page 13

"Meanhwhile what was left of Croatia-Slavonia was so weak that its diet reluctantly authorized Ferdinand to carve out military border zone" The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815 page 15

Ricky earlier you have commented constitution that it is old source. Sad truth is that if we want details we must look old history books. Thinking of modern historians is that modern readers are too stupid to understand details and they enjoy to explain everything. Editorial policy of 18-19 century writers is that readers are inteligent enough to understand full picture after reading details. I am saying this because of book THE SOUTHERN SLAV QUESTION AND THE HABSBURG MONARCHY by R. W. SETON -WATSON:

• Croatia contented herself with a separate diploma inaugurale ^ at each fresh accession, she had by no means renounced her ancient independence, and reasserted her free- dom of action on more than one important occasion. In 1490 the estates of Croatia declined to recognize Vladislaus II until he had taken oath to respect their liberties, and insisted upon his erasing from the diploma certain phrases which seemed to reduce Croatia to the rank of a mere province. original diploma ran:" Regnum Ungariae cum ceteris regnis et partibus subjectis." The final version, as accepted by the Croats in 1492 and inserted in the Corpus Juris Hungarici, ran as follows: "Regnum Ungariae cum caeteris regnis scilicet Dalmatiae Croatiae et Slavoniae et partibus Transylvanis ac provinciis sibi subjectis."'

• Croatian Diet sitting at Cetin on January i, 1527, unanimously elected Ferdinand of Austria as their king, and confirmed the succession to him and his heirs.' Thus while in Hungary the Crown remained elective till 1687
• Croatia has been without Hungarian interregnum (1301-308) because:"in 1301, on the extinction of the House of Arpad, the Croatians crowned the Angevin prince Charles Robert as their king in the Cathedral of Zagreb (Agram) , while Hungary elected first the King of Bohemia and then Otto of Bavaria"
• Then we are having Croatian Pragmatic Sanction on March 9, 1712. Hungary will see "light" only 11 years latter. Interesting words in Croatian Pragmatic Sanction are:"Neither force nor conquest united us to the Hungarians, but by our spontaneous and free desire we sub-mitted ourselves not to the kingdom [of Hungary] but to their king, so long as he be of the House of Austria. . . . We are freemen, not slaves"

Earlier we are having other books which are not changing situation. 1 of them is even speaking that Hungarian has started to dispute existence of union only in 19 century. On other side we are having great number of historical documents which are speaking about Kingdom of Croatia existence. My question is: After looking evidence we are having agreement that Kingdom of Croatia has existed ? If answer is no can somebody please explain reasons ?--Rjecina (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you slow down and break out your logic? Throwing a half dozen links out there and saying you want a ton of stuff isn't productive. If your argument is that the entire thing is disputed, I think everyone can agree on that. Since the agreement is disputed, it's clear that what the relationship between the nations was is also disputed. The reasonable thing is to find reliable sources than indicate all reasonable positions, which I assume would be fair (something like this edit). From the looks of it, a number of editors here have different views, which is great, because they can work on finding sources that support their side. Now, the reasonable thing to do is find sources that discuss the pacta conventa and see how they describe the relationship. Just pulling random sources that use different wording is possible, but I think ultimately useless and less appropriate. So I'm going to create subsections and we can discuss each source separately. The biggest headache is the fact that everyone wants to control the lede paragraph and the rest of the article looks like garbage. This version of the top paragraph is too damn long and basically could be summarized as "some argue it was unity, other argue it was conquered." Period. The rest belongs in a section on the documents validity and interpretations of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pacta Conventa is disputed even between historian and we can't solve this. In my thinking only important thing in this discussion is if Croatia has been Kingdom in union with Hungary or Hungarian province. Everything else will then by default be solved ?"

What do you want to "solve" here? Squash Racket (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You again try to come to conclusions on the 12th century based on "evidence" from a later time period:

Unlike Hungarian historians, Austrians never claimed they conquered Croatia by force and there appears to be little reason to doubt Croatian claims about the events of 1526.

Squash Racket (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My point about Pacta Conventa is:

we do not know if it is signed.

It has not been disputed until 19 century.

Now we are having sources which are speaking about separate crowning for King of Croatia (12-14 century) and evidence about crowning diploma in 15 century and election of Ferdinand in 16 century.

Point of user Bizso is that Croatia has been Hungarian province or in his words:"Lands of St. Stephen = Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary proper + Croatia Slavonia" [9]

In my thinking historical documents are saying Lands of St. Stephen = Kingdom of Hungary + Kingdom of Croatia.

This is original dispute. If we can solve this then everything will be OK--Rjecina (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pacta Conventa topic became important with the national awakening of Croats in the 19th century, so yes, nobody really cared about it until then.

Once again:

Unlike Hungarian historians, Austrians never claimed they conquered Croatia by force and there appears to be little reason to doubt Croatian claims about the events of 1526.

Which means this can't be used as an "evidence" for earlier events.
According to the Library of Congress material:

A faction of nobles contesting the succession after the death of Zvonimir offered the Croatian throne to King László I of Hungary. In 1091 Laszlo accepted, and in 1094 he founded the Zagreb bishopric, which later became the ecclestictical center of Croatia. Another Hungarian king, Kálmán, crushed opposition after the death of Laszlo and won the crown of Dalmatia and Croatia in 1102. The crowning of Kálmán forged a link between the Croatian and Hungarian crowns that lasted until the end of World War I. Croats have maintained for centuries that Croatia remained a sovereign state despite the voluntary union of the two crowns, but Hungarians claim that Hungary annexed Croatia outright in 1102. In either case, Hungarian culture permeated Croatia, the Croatian-Hungarian border shifted often, and at times Hungary treated Croatia as a vassal state. Croatia, however, had its own local governor, or ban; a privileged landowning nobility; and an assembly of nobles, the Sabor.
The joining of the Croatian and Hungarian crowns automatically made Hungary and Venice rivals for domination of Dalmatia.

I don't see that the Library of Congress material heavily supports either position.

The situation of Dalmatia and Slavonia further complicate the situation. Squash Racket (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For me best statement is:joining of the Croatian and Hungarian crowns automatically made Hungary..... I am hoping that there is no need to explain difference between words joining of crowns and annexation ?--Rjecina (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the Library of Congress mentions both.

And they talk about Hungary rivalling Venice not mentioning Croatia at all. Squash Racket (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please can we be without interpretations !?

In foreign policy Kingdom of Croatia is out of picture. Now we are having Archiregnum Hungaricum (which is name for Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia together)--Rjecina (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian, Serbian and some Slovenian historians state that Croatia was annexed. All of these are well-referenced viewpoints already presented in the article with details also on the Croatian point of view. English, reliable secondary sources were used. Squash Racket (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To tell you truth I am not having great problems with article Pacta Conventa. We need to add that last separate crowning has been in 1301 and afterward Croatia contented herself with a separate diploma inaugurale. In minimal 1 situation Croatian parliament has refused to sign diploma inaugurale recieved by king demanding erasing from the diploma certain phrases which seemed to reduce Croatia to the rank of a mere province. After this words are removed parliament has accepted diploma. Last of this interesting events is Pragmatic sanction of 1712. --Rjecina (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should be about the Pacta Conventa, not other documents, later events, etc. But if reliable, English secondary sources suggest a link to the Pacta C., they may be used. But I'm repeating mself. Squash Racket (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Habsburg Monarchy

[10]. As you quote, near the bottom of page 12, "To the southwest, ... lay the closely associated Croatian-speaking kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia that had been bound in personal union with Hungary...." Ok, that's what it says, it's a reliable source from what I can tell, and on page 13, [11] it further adds that the nobles in both Hungary and Croatia had the right to elect their king, which is fine. And on page 15, [12] it adds about how decentralized the king keep the system, etc. Seems ok to me, but I'm letting others view their opinions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

SOUTHERN SLAV QUESTION

I really don't recall every making a comment about the age of the Southern Slav Question as a source ([13]), but you may be right. Ok, I haven't thought about it too much, but it's probably reliable enough (I hate archive.org though but it constantly breaks up the wording in such weird ways). Instead of interpretations of what individual facts mean, since that's the crux of the dispute, we should state the facts that are cited (the Vladislaus II argument, the 1527, etc., etc.) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: I think those kinds of factual details belong in the "Circumstances of the agreement" section rather than as part of the validity fight. It's more of an indication of how the agreement was in fact done with its implications being secondary opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In my thinking we need to create 2 sections from section Interpretations of the agreement.

First will be "Political implications of agreement" and in this we will events confirmed by historical sourcers (election of Charles Robert, Vladislaus II, election of Ferdinand, pragmatic sanction,Nagodba... and Hungarian documents which are showing different story)

Another will be Scholar Interpretations of the agreement in which will will have interpretations of pacta conventa.

I do not say that this will be names, but I have only wanted to show my thinking.--Rjecina (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The first section sounds like original research. If you have reliable, English secondary sources suggesting a link between these events and the 12th century situation, then there's no problem. Squash Racket (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. First section is not original research because it will be writen by scholars (scholars intepretation of events). In second section will be political life in Croatia during "union"--Rjecina (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Above you referred to the first section as the "political implications", and now vice versa, please focus. Squash Racket (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First section will not be original research because it will have only events from this period confirmed by sources without any comments--Rjecina (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end I will like to see few old documents or old sources which are saying that Croatia is Hungarian province ?--Rjecina (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. So if you have reliable, English secondary sources suggesting a link between later events and the 12th century situation, then there's no problem.
That — the Kingdom/province question — is covered in the above thread, or shall we repeat it here too? Squash Racket (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion if Croatia has been kingdom or province will go article which is speaking about union.--Rjecina (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here we should focus on the Pacta Conventa, not other documents/events. Squash Racket (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Bit off topic: there was one dark spot in the Hungary-Croatia relations, that Khuen-Héderváry guy (of whom I only recently became aware). Though if there was no Magyarization, there would have been Germanization at the time, and that is especially apparent in Croatia, where as far as I know both happened. That was a major factor that led to Croatians' heavily emphasizing their distinct, constant statehood. I understand that motive to some extent, but still we base our research on what English, secondary sources say. (BTW I don't think that radical Serbian nationalists have less problems with Hungarians than Croatians. So the argument about Serbian historians' possible pro-Hungarian bias is quite ridiculous.)
But otherwise I think Croatia-Hungary relations were among the least problematic in Europe for centuries. And right now — unlike some — Hungary fully respects Croatians, Croatia's independent statehood and culture. Squash Racket (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not having pro-Hungarian, but anti-Croatian bias. We are more popular.

Yes Croatia-Hungary relations were among the least problematic in Europe.

Maybe you can find decision of Hungarian parliament where they have accepted decision of Croatian parliament with which union has ended ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just see the link above and decide for yourself whether you think they'd have a bias in a Hungary-Croatia question.

Even if it existed, it would be a primary source which we don't use. Squash Racket (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede

The lede paragraph is nightmarishly long. The details there need to be brought down. Generally, it is supposed to be general, minimal citations and an introduction to the topic. This version is a mess of arguments when it can clearly be summarized as two views. The fact that one is from ancient or modern or Croatian or Serbian belongs down in the validity section which nobody seems to touch. I've cut it out all the details from up top here and hope that people will actually work on the historical chronology so that the actual article makes some sense. People do realize that there is more to these things than just what's on top, right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead.

I think at least the Library of Congress source should be added in the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Library of Congress and not the rest then? You do realize once you start, everyone is going to edit war to get their version up in the lead once again. Either the lead becomes a way to argue every view or nothing more than basic context. I've removed Rjecina's "who" questions since that's the entire discussion right now. The entire "ancient versus modern historians" and "Croatian versus Serbian" crap looks like original research that people are pulling from their own interpretations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cited the wrong part:The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.
I only thought we should probably add a source in the lead too... Squash Racket (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You are having source which is clearly saying that Hungarians have not disputed validity of Pacta Conventa until middle of 19 century. This is reason for "modern historians"--Rjecina (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ana S. Trbovich:A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration

Let say that this book is having many interesting statements:

..."It was (Croatia) absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1097" (shorter version) ??? [14]

"Krayina is region established by Vienna in the 1520s as a Military Frontier..." (M.F. is created in 1553) then again "a decree issued by Ferdinand II in 1630, that placed Krayina under direct rule by Vienna" ??? [15] Decree is from 1630, but again Military Frontier is created in 1553 and it is from 1553 under Vienna control.

"In the 18 century Croatian representatives in the Hungarian parliament even requested the enactement of laws and regulations which will make life impossible for the Serbian people of Ortodox Church".. "Vienna rejected this demands" [16] ???????

I have shown only clear examples that this book is not reliable. It is possible to show many POV pushing examples, but this 3 are in my thinking clear enough--Rjecina (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the other events well, but I checked the first one and it's a mistake. I'd ask Ricky what to do, I mean it's an Oxford University Press reference. If there are mistakes in the sources that you seem to prefer, then we remove them too?

BTW if we remove it, not much changes, we do have at least another source about the Serbian historiography's position. Squash Racket (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is having many mistakes. To see my points number 2 and 3 which are speaking about Krayina you need to read wikipedia article Military Frontier.

For point 4 we need only logic. On demand of Croatian representatives in the Hungarian parliament in 18 century (Little weird for me is:"croatian members in Hungarian parliament in 18 century", but this can be true) Vienna has given veto !? Budapest need to give veto if demand is to Hungarian parliament--Rjecina (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First, figure out how people want to describe the history. I still can't piece together how it can both be said to be an agreement from 1102 and from the late 14th century. Wouldn't it being from the 14th century make it a medieval forgery? But I'd generally start with a background section, it's alleged contents and then information on how the two nations acted, but vaguely. Those details really belongs at Croatia in personal union with Hungary which is more historical than this is. Overall, if the source isn't reliable (because it's plain wrong), then don't cite it. Not every book is well-studied or accurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar to this Bellamy is out.

Because of earlier writen reasons he can only be used to show importance of Croatian thinking about Pacta Conventa (not about historical events)--Rjecina (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

something interesting for you :)
"The claims of the Hungarians that personal union of the crowns (in 1526) did not imply the loss of separate Hungarian sovereignty are similar to those which the Croats asserted and the Hungarians denied with respect to Croatia" [17] :)--Rjecina (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My answer: Royal Hungary was ruled by Austrians who had the title King of Hungary, the middle of the country was ruled by Turks. Library of Congress:

Royal Hungary became a small part of the Habsburg Empire and enjoyed little influence in Vienna. The Habsburg king directly controlled Royal Hungary's financial, military, and foreign affairs, and imperial troops guarded its borders. The Habsburgs avoided filling the office of palatine to prevent the holder's amassing too much power. In addition, the so-called Turkish question divided the Habsburgs and the Hungarians: Vienna wanted to maintain peace with the Turks; the Hungarians wanted the Ottomans ousted.

I just don't understand why you feel the need to add a smilie after a message like that...

He also says:

Croats have always maintained that they were never legally part of Hungary. In their eyes Croatia was a separate state which happened to share a ruler with the Hungarians.

(Bolding mine.) Squash Racket (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My point has been that it is possible to find sources for everything :)

I do not know if you have noticed, but I have ended with discussion about Pacta Conventa. This has never been RFC question, but existence of Kingdom of Croatia. I have added text/comments for kingdom on talk page Croatia in personal union with Hungary--Rjecina (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas the Archdeacon:Historia Salonitana

This is name of book where Pacta Conventa is first time published.

We are having this book which is secondary source together with historian comments about pacta conventa [18] . Around 5 pages are speaking about this...

• "On fol.121v is the text of so-called Pacta Conventa.There are also other latter notes on Codex margins writen in different hands between 14 and 17 century"
• "Kerugin Švegić in his book "Toma Splićanin državnik i pisac" published in 1927 on croatian and italian is saying that codex is original.
• "This thinking is opposed by Stjepan Gunjača in his book "Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji" (published in 1973) because notary Thomas have used Carolino-Gothic script and Codex (pacta conventa) is writen in Beneventan minuscule. Contrary to Gunjača Virginia Brown in book "Tommaso Arcidiacono, Historia Salonitana" from 2001 is saying based on her palaeographical analysis of Historia Salonitanorum that manuscript display general characteristic of the Beneventana where Thomas have lived and that is can be dated in Thomas lifetime"--Rjecina (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)