Talk:Military Frontier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disparity between old and new[edit]

The border areas were separated from their crownlands into the Military Frontier in 1553 and 1578, which was divided into the following districts

  • How that can be when the Ottomans ruled the area in that time?


The emperor of the Habsburg Monarchy established the institution of MF on those dates, and alloted land from the crownlands. The borders shifted over time. --Joy [shallot] 23:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Joy, just one note here: you wrote that Military Frontier was reincorporated into Croatia in 1881, but I just checked some historical maps, and I can see there that parts of Military Frontier in eastern Srem never belonged to Croatia before 1881. So, these parts of MF were not reincorporated but incorporated. User:PANONIAN

In retrospect, the whole text is biased towards the original Krajina, the one in the far west. This is just collateral damage from that basic issue. --Joy [shallot] 21:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I addressed this problem now. Please verify. --Joy [shallot] 09:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Also, "It will be larger in the future. Give it a chance" is not valid rationale to keep duplicate stubs around. Once this new content arises, it can be split off, but right now the reader is better served if they see the complete article instead. --Joy [shallot] 21:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just added more text to the articles about Banat and Slavonian Krajina (I will draw a map of Slavonian Krajina too). There is nothing wrong with the idea to have complete article here, but the 3 sections of Military Frontier deserve to have its own articles, especially if we know that all counties of the Kingdom of Hungary and crownland Croatia-Slavonia have their own articles, and these sections of the Military Frontier were larger than most of that counties. User:PANONIAN

Deleted operation Flash in part of the article about civilian casulties, in it they were not any? To my knowledge there are not any accusations of war crimes in operation Flash. Also changed part of text that is reffering to operation Storm. Haggues accusations aren't about the time period of operation Storm (it lasted only 4 days) but after it. Also word bruttaly is delited (accusations are not made correct, yet) I don't know from were you get the census:) As I know in 1868 46% percent of population were Croats, while 42% were Serbs.... Regarding territorial expansion, if you count state of Ugrin Čak as Slavonia, that is not a new expansion:) That's all Ceha

The book: "Istorija Mađara" (Belgrade, 2002), state that according to 1790 data there were 42,4% Serbs, 35,5% Croats, 9,7% Romanians, 7,5% Hungarians and 4,8% Germans in the Military Frontier. This have nothing to do with 1868 data (many things changed until then). Also, state of Ugrin Čak was counted as "Syrmia", not as "Slavonia" and certainly not as "Croatia". This is a territorial expansion of Croatia we speak about. See the map>

PANONIAN (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that book. Could you give me a percantage of population in the other parts of Croatia? I had informations about Slavonia(but that was aproximation from bishop of Djakovo). He said that in whole of Slavonia(and Syrmia) were aproximatly one third of ortodox population (letter was daiting from the begining of 18th century). Could you give me more sources from where did the authors get thir data? I would like to try to find conformation for that data... I know that in 12th century Syrmium town of Mitrovica was part of Croatia('vidi onaj bivši jugoslavenski atlas;)', and that name of the whole region comes from that town(a little bit streched but:). As for Ugrin Čak... Do you have more data about him? In meaning what happend with end of his state... In most Croatian atlases Syrmium is shown as part of Slavonia in 15th and begining of the 16th century. All of banovinas (Jajačka, Srebrenička, Mačvanska) are shown as Croato-Hungarian, but whole Syrmium is shown as part of Slavonian Kingdom. Perhaps it has to do something with which nobles have sent their representatives in Slavonian parlament? Don't know exactly. Correct me in which I'm wrong:) Ceha 14:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know about that book. Could you give me a percantage of population in the other parts of Croatia?"

Here you are (1790 data):

  • 1. Military Frontier (the entire one, not only Croatian or Slavonian): 42,4% Serbs, 35,5% Croats, 9,7% Romanians, 7,5% Hungarians, 4,8% Germans
  • 2. Civil Croatia: 98% Croats, 1% Serbs
  • 3. Civil Slavonia: 46,8% Serbs, 45,7% Croats, 6,8% Hungarians
  • 4. There is also data for Hungary Proper and Transylvania, but I do not think that you are interested in this data.
Civil Slavonia was northern part of today's Slavonia, in wich Serbs lived at western frontier (araund Pakrac) and in eastern frontier (in Syrmia) in both of this areas they were mixed with Croats (or at least there was some Croatian minority in the area). Croatians had majority in Djakovo(if Serbian minority existed there, it was very small) and Pozega(I'm pretty certain of that:) and most of Podravina was also had a Croatian majority. Area around Pakrac was sparsly settled(many hills;) I don't see were 43% of that region population then lived?:) (northern Syrmia could not have had 43% of population of entire region...)

"Could you give me more sources from where did the authors get thir data?"

They have large literature, and they do not say from which source that information is, but they say this: "Ove tabele prikazuju, na osnovu crkvenih popisa, popisa neplemićkog stanovništva i drugih onovremenih popisa, procenjenu etničku i versku strukturu stanovništva Mađarske".

Yes, that is trouble with it. See that is just one book, whith no clear source of census. I tried to find something of that census on the net, but unfortunetly they can't be found there:( Which was state around Pečuh according to that book? I'm curious, I think that that town had only 20% of Hungarians at that time.

"I know that in 12th century Syrmium town of Mitrovica was part of Croatia('vidi onaj bivši jugoslavenski atlas;)'"

Yes, I have that atlas, and for the year 1300, Mitrovica is there drawn as part of "Croatia and Slavonia". However, what we will then do with these Hungarian maps which show that Mitrovica was part of Proper Hungary and that Croatia and Slavonia were two separate banovinas?

I think that few years before 14th century Slavonia was introduced as separate banovina than Croatia. As for maps which shows Mitrovica as part of Hungaria proper, that is the same map as in 1100 and 1000? Isn't it a little bit odd, that nothing happened at that border?:) (Borders of all županija's fluctuated)

"As for Ugrin Čak... Do you have more data about him? In meaning what happend with end of his state"

Yes (From the same book "Istorija Mađara"): "Oblasni gospodari su imali svoje privatne vojske, upravu i sudstvo i prisvojili su regalna prava. Oni su bili na putu da postignu potpunu nezavisnost od kraljevske (centralne) vlasti. U tome ih je sprečavala jedino okolnost što su se, pored slabih predstavnika centralne vlasti borili i jedni protiv drugih". And this: "Posle smrti Ugrina Čaka 1311 godine, Karlo (mađarski kralj) je njegovu oblast odmah priključio kraljevskoj teritoriji".

"n most Croatian atlases Syrmium is shown as part of Slavonia in 15th and begining of the 16th century."

Yes, but it is obvious that borders of Slavonia fluctuated, thus the city in one time periods was part of proper Hungary, and in other time periods part of Slavonia. PANONIAN (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'totally agree with you. Because of that I think that it would be smart to put in the article that some parts of Syrmia fluctuated between proper Hungary and banovina (or kingdom) of Slavonia

Ceha 11:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now about sentence from the text[edit]

The words "returned" or "restored" in the case when we talk about some territories are always POV. The usage of such words tend to imply that only the state or government to which that territory was "returned" or "restored" have "legal right" to rule over that territory, while the previous governments were not "legal" or even "rightfull". I do not see why we should to use such POV here. It is enough to mention to whom ever territory belonged in each time period, but we should not judge who was "rightfull" owner and who was not. Here is one example: what if we use Ottoman POV for the 16th century events and if we write something like this: "The glorious Ottoman armies liberated Hungary and Croatia from infidels". For the concrete case, it is quite enough for us to write that "Croatian and Slavonian Frontiers were incorporated into Croatian-Slavonian crownland" and not to write this POV that this "meant restoration of Croatian authority over the lands that were mostly part of Croatia and Slavonia prior to the Ottoman invasion". The purpose of this sentence is to show that this "restoration" was "rightfull" act, thus, it is POV. PANONIAN (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You got a point, but this way of writing (as we wrote of terra nihilis, no-man's land) does not hold all of informations. Perhaps if we use reincorporated? Cause incorporation would mean that was for the first time:)

Ceha11:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will not accept such POV constructions that any part of present-day Vojvodina was "returned", "restored" or "reincorporated" into any country or province which is not Vojvodina or Serbia, because such constructions imply the "rightfull" nature of such acts. The proper NPOV words here would be incorporated, included, joined, etc. And word incorporated does not mean that it was incorporated for first time, but that it was incorporated in that time about which we speak. Nothing more, nothing less. PANONIAN (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, read the sentence carefully: "The decree in which the rest of Croatian and Slavonian Frontiers were incorporated into Croatian-Slavonian crownland". So, it say that the "Frontiers" were incorporated into Croatian-Slavonian crownland, thus this did happen first time in history, since there was no any other Frontier in history which was incorporated into Croatian-Slavonian crownland. PANONIAN (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you talk about territory in wich Frontier was, most of that territory (south-eastern Syrmia is a posible exclusion) was part of Croatia-Slavonia. If you talk about gouverment in that area, in 1848. ban Josip Jelačić was comanding oficeer of Croatia-Slavonia frontiers (and also ban of Croatia-Slavonia, gouvernor of Dalmatia). So to my opinion reincorporation would be suitable word. If somebody had said that after 1527 (death of Jovan Nenad) Hungarians briefly reincorporated territories of today's Vojvodina, would that be a POV? Before that Vojvodina was part of Hungary... See I think that we differ in the meaning of the word. I'm stressing that RE part which means that once upon a time that territory was part of that contry which has conquered it again. I don't see any naturallity in that:) Words conquered and freed are bias. This one is not. It only stands for durability of something... Incorporation means that that territory became part of something else. That is its meaning. I'd like that the sentence states that that territory was also before that part of that thing (or at least most of that territory). Military frontier was created from territories in Croatia and Slavonia which were under jurisdiction of Croatian ban (although it was smaller than). In the end of its existence it was reincorporated in Croatia-Slavonia. That's not POV:) If you find a better word change it. And it seems to me that you are alergic on atitudes about historical rights:) No one is speaking about that. And Vojvodina's borders fluctuated. Baja triangle was once a part of it. Now is part of Hungary. You cannot use words reincorporeted just in case of Vojvodina... (again I'm not saying that borders will change, Vojvodina is Serbian, and will be in future, but there were times were it was not like that, don't see where is the problem in that. It's just history...) Ceha

I will give the short answer about concrete case: the sentence that area was "reincorporated" into Croatian-Slavonian crownland is not correct because this crownland was formed in 1868 and did not existed before this year. All other similar political creations were only political predecessors of that crownland, but not crownland itself. PANONIAN (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Crownland Croatia-Slavonia was formed in 1868? Noup:) crownland of Croatia-Slavonia existed long before that. Nobles from Slavonia have participated in work of Croatian parlament (and also directly in work of Hungarian parlament till 1848, when ban Jelačić proclaimed they aren't allowed to do so). Between 1850-1867 was period of Viena's neoapsolutism ('Bahov apsolutizam') when monarhy was centralised, but I don't know that crownland of Croatia-Slavonia was abolished in that period?

Never the less, crownland Croatia-Slavonia is succesor of it's previous crownlands (this sounds funny:) that is Croatia and Slavonia wich existed before that date. But I think that I founded a compromis in forma. It should be NPOV. Ceha

Croatia-Slavonia was formed in 1868. The former political creations were Kingdom of Slavonia and Kingdom of Croatia. Kingdom of Slavonia was thus part of the Kingdom of Croatia not part of one joint crownland. So, it was not same. PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No:) See my upper post. And kingdom (or Crownland) was always known as tripartite kingdom of Croatia, Slavoinia and Dalmatia (although there were not Dalmatian representatives at the parlament). There is no diference between that kingdom(s) (in 1848 Jelačić was also gouvernor of the Frontiers). Different name (and only for 'outer' usage:) It would be as Lajos talked to Vojvodina's Serbs that they are Razi, and not Serb?

Croatian and Slavonian frontiers were made from territories (not all of territory, but in the begining, the name tels it all:) of Croatia and Slavonia. Of wich any succesor territory (you could have paralell with 5th French republic if you wish:) though the previous one as it's sucesor... New lands didn't apeared from nowhere, just from the fishes of Austrian (and also Croatian:) emperor. Don't see what in formulation bugs you. Habsburg rulers had done most of their things (and most of it wich lasted:) as Croatian (and Slavonian, etc...) kings. They ruled Vojvodina as Serbian dukes. What is the problem with it?:) Try to think of the right formulation (if this is a wrong one:). Frontiers were (in the begining) made from Croato-Slavonian territory and Austrian emperor has done that as Croatian king (he couldn't do that if that was not the case). Latter that territory (maybe inlarged in Syrmia, but ultimetly inlarged by territories wich were priviously held by Otomans) was reincorporated in Croatia(or territory which is seen as sucessor to previous state (in Croatian names of the kingdoms didn't change, in deutsch name of the crownland was enlarged)). Explain me were do trouble lies?:)


First of all, the point of this article is not to "establish Croatian historical rights to land", but to write about Habsburg Military Frontier. And of course that I am alergic on atitudes about "historical rights", since "historical rights" are never used in historical but always in POLITICAL content, and since this is not political but historical article I do not see why we should to use this political concept. I do not understand why you insist to write here that Croatia had "historical right" to this land. It is not only POV but also irrelevant for this article, since the purpose of that sentence was only to show what happened with the territory of the Frontier after its abolishment, not to tell as fable stories about "Croatian historical rights", because such stories belong only in the Croatian nationalism article (This nationalism is largelly based on the "historical rights" concept). Second this is, as I already said, that crownland Croatia-Slavonia was formed in 1868 and did not existed before as such. The claim that the Kingdom was "always" known as tripartite kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia is only the expression of wishes of Croatian nationalists during the history, but not something what always was based on the real events. It is only that Croatian nationalists always wanted to have one "unified" country, and even when that country was not unified, they claimed that according to "their historical right" it is still legally unified and still legally Croatian, no matter what were the REAL political statuses of these lands. That is the whole story about "Croatian historical rights" here. Now other things, if Jelačić was also gouvernor of the Frontiers that does not mean that Frontiers were part of Croatia (the man simply had two jobs at the time). Slavonian Frontier was created from OTTOMAN territories, and the entire Slavonia region was part of the Military Frontier until northern part was not excluded from the Frontier and turned into land known as the Kingdom of Slavonia, which was made a part of the Kingdom of Croatia. In 1849, Kingdom of Slavonia was separated from Croatia, and both, Slavonia and Croatia were completelly separate crownlands until 1868 when they were joined into NEW crownland known as Croatia-Slavonia. Thus, if we could agree that previous kingdoms, banovinas or crownlands were predecessors of Croatia-Slavonia from 1868, I could not agree that they were SAME, because it is obvious that they were not. PANONIAN (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between Croatia-Slavonia before 1868 and after it? Deputies from Slavonia were in parlament of it before that. (If I'm mistaken please warn me, I'm just talking acording the informations I have). After 1867. Habsburg Empire became Austro-Hungaria. There were some changes in status of crownlands, but I don't see why Galicia before 1867. is not the same as Galicia after it. Republics in France didn't had the same territories, yet they were all still France.

Slavonia's frontier was created from territories around Cazma, Krizevci and Koprivnica (that was Slavonia at the time) but later changed the name. Territories in southern Slavonia were previously Ottoman, and before that Slavonian, and before that...:) As for Jelačić, emperor has promisted to join that two jobs in one, but later broke his word. De facto:) Croatia, Slavonia and its frontiers were united under his banate. As for concept of historical rights I think you are mixing two different things (perhaps I'm wrong) . First thing is legitimate right of peoples in one region to chose their destiny, and second is to denied that right to somebody other. Second one is nationalistic, first one is not. Also second one is assosieted with making of new borders, illegall imigration and similar things... It is a rather complex issue regarding rights of somebody to be in some place, and is generally considered very negative. As for Croatian claims on Bosnia, most of them were made on population censuses(opinions that Croats and Bosniaks were the same people), geografy(Bosnian position in the belly of Croatia) and then after that on history rights (this was mostly on territories of Bosnian Krajina, as historicaly it was longest part of Croatia). Military frontier begun as Croatian (and Slavonian) entity, and Habsburg rulers had their gouverment on that territories, only according to theirs titles as Croatian (and Slavonian) kings. Most of that is said in the article? No one didn't spoke of somebody's historical rights. Only that one territory that was once a part of one state (or its predecesor, but to my opinion analogy to predacesors would be Galia-France, large change of population and way of life) and became that once again. Actuly this version of article is not bad, but I think that previous one is be better. Ceha

"What is the difference between Croatia-Slavonia before 1868 and after it?"

Difference is that it did not existed before 1868.

"Deputies from Slavonia were in parlament of it before that."

Not of "it". Deputies of Slavonia were in the parliament of CROATIA, not of Croatia-Slavonia (it is not same). Also, I do not know much about histories of France or Galicia, but I will give you example with Serbia and Kosovo. Since 1945, Kosovo was included into Republic of Serbia. In this case it also would not be correct to write that it was "again" included into republic of Serbia, because Republic of Serbia did not existed before 1945. Its political predecessors to whom Kosovo belonged in history were Kingdom of Serbia, Serbian Despotate, etc, but Kosovo simply never belonged to the REPUBLIC OF SERBIA, as well as Military Frontier never belonged to the CROWNLAND CROATIA-SLAVONIA (as it was in 1868). As for the "historical right" concept about which I speak, I speak about claimed "historical rights" of states to rule "again" over lands which belonged to them in history, no matter what people who live in these lands think about that. The point is that we should to mention in these articles who ever ruled over every land, but if for example, both, Croats and Ottomans ruled over one land in history, we should not to write that only Croats had "right" to rule there, but not the Ottomans, because there was no basic difference between the two. PANONIAN (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't help notice the discussion over the word reincorporate and incorporate. I would have to agree with Ceha that the word incorporate has no sense of continuity. But in this case there is continuity albeit by an entity that was initially whole (kingdom of Croatia), then split into two Banovinas, then finally with those two Banovinas being combined. Thus, my solution was to mention from which territories the Croatian and Slavonian military forntiers were formed and linked to the relevant articles. This provides the link between the past and newer state structures whilst leaving the word 'incorporate' in place. iruka 11:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The "continuity issue" is a false nationalistic Greater Croatian POV which serve only to justify Greater Croatian territorial claims towards Vojvodina. The Slavonian Military Frontier was initially formed from Ottoman territory that was conquered by Habsburgs and has nothing to do with Croatian or Slavonian crownlands. The eastern parts of Slavonian Military Frontier never belonged to any Croatian state in the past and hence were not "reincorporated" into Croatia-Slavonia. PANONIAN (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, the Croatia-Slavonia was completelly new political entity that was formed after Austro-Hungarian compromise in 1867, thus it is ridiculous to claim that anything belonged in the past to an entity that was formed after 1867. PANONIAN (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Added information regarding territorial differences between the Republic of Serb Krajina and the Military Frontier. The reason for this is the previous statement as it stood, implied a successor relationship, when such a successor relationship equally applies to the Republic of Croatia in terms of both population and territory. The revised text provides a more adequate context for the link between the Serb entities name and the military frontier. iruka 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Croatian/Slavonian/Banat/Transylvanian "Krajina" -> "Military Frontier"[edit]

For the sake of correctness: There has never been an area, which had the official title "Slavonian Krajina". If you look at the German expression, please see that it has officially always been called "Slawonische Militärgrenze", therefore "Slavonian Military Frontier". See Verfassungen der Militärgrenze. Please change adequately to official title. --Maestral 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


The name "Srebrenicka banovina" refers to the town of Srebrenik, not Srebrenica. MarkoSlavenski 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Foundation Details[edit]

First troops arrived on border at Nándorfehévár in 1522 - sent by Ferdinand I in late 1521 to aid his brother in law in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Austrian vs local control[edit]

This enters in total contradiction with the reliable sources saying Austrians took total control of the MF in 1627. We even have one source expliicitely saying Austrians removed the control from the local (Croatian and Slavonian) authorities, like Paul Robert Magocsi in page 34 saying "...came under direct control of the central government in Vienna, not the local authorities". FkpCascais (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. The user FkpCascais had removed my sourced edit and I wish of you (Zoupan, Tzowu,Natuur12, Keith_D ) who had seen it (or at least participate in the editing since I posted it) to share your opinion on this subject. Also he said I removed a reference which is not correct. That was done by Zoupan who did not remove it but moved it from introduction. My removed edit is :
It was reviewed by Zoupan who corrected some mistakes and accepted it. So, since 2 persons had seen the edit and accepted it and FkpCascais seem to only have objections what it was stated in the lead since he had not removed it from the bottom section, I will put it back to the article. It can be discussed here. Also that sentence is present in the bottom section so there's no reason to remove it from the lead. At least not with the reasoning stated by FkpCascais.
Also I noticed here that FkpCascais had removed the word "Croatian". He had already tried to introduce that edit earlier but he was reverted by Tzowu (see here). I do not thing a second attempt on that is needed without discussing it and establishing a consensus or providing a source. Especially after Tzowu stated this "Not true, the name was exactly "Croatisches General-Commando" (as stated in the source, I'll add more)". Maybe Tzowu can point to that source so we establish a consensus regarding that. Detoner (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I reverted you. Your edit enters in contradiction with other reliable sources. I already asked you to bring if possible English-language sources for that claim. Is it possible for you to find them, please? Military Frontier is widely discussed subject, if what you claim is truth, it must be found in some English-language source for sure. In a different discussion I provided a few sources clearly contradicting that, I will later on bring them here. Here is one I am already using in the article, and it is quite clear about what it says, see here. I beleave the entire first paragraph explains it quite well, and the rest of the page is usefull for our article here too. FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Which sources are in contradiction with my source and my edit? The source I used is reliable as it is provided in this very own article. Yes, if it is possible to find more sources to confirm my edit that would be great, however this reliable source is enough to introduce an edit. The above mentioned editors saw it and had not reverted me. This means a consensus has been established. Please state the sources that contradict mine so everyone here can review them and establish a consensus. This source you provided is not in contradiction with my source. It speaks of administrative aspect while my source speaks both of administrative and formal aspect. This source collaborates mine in the administrative aspect while it doesn't share anything about formal aspect. So no, this sources are not in contradiction. Please quote the part that contradicts the formal aspect explained by my source. Detoner (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, lets pretend we haven't been trough this already at Nikola Tesla talk-page and you just don't remember the sources I already posted there which indicated there was no legal, formal, military, administrative, name it how ever you want, Croatian control over MF after 1627. I will start listing the sources here (I have more than the ones I showed you there). By the way, do you have any others backing your claim, preferably scholar ones in English? PS: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in general, and see Wikipedia:Consensus for this particular case, cause I noticed you evoking it here and other discussions but without you knowing its real meaning. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's leave it for the other editors to share their opinion on the posted sources and formal/administrative aspect of Military Frontier. And please, you can share your opinion, but do not be hostile like in this comment. Thank you. This is a simple request to include a quote from the source that is stated on this article under sources. Detoner (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. Now regarding your source (page 157), are you aware that it is not really a source for what you pretend here, but it is just Rudolf Horvat citing verbatim a decision from the Sabor? Was that decision acepted by the Austrians? Did that decision came into effect? You need a secondary source confirming that. We already saw secondary sources which told us how Croatian Sabor claimed Military Frontier, but Austrians rejected that. FkpCascais (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This is nowhere to be found in the source, so it is not surprising you failed to provide a quote. In fact, the source directly disproves your assertion. First of all, this is a secondary source. The primary source, as it is stated in this secondary source, is the "kings decision from 7th of April 1850. which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers". Also the very quote starts with: "For Military Frontier, the king decided...", so the subject is very well stated. Please provide a quote to collaborate your assertion, as there is nothing to discuss here without a quote to verify your assertion. Detoner (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't you understand what this is? Read the first paragraph of that page. It says "3. Kra¬jina i Dalmacija neka se pripoje Hrvatskoj;" (translation: "Krajina and Dalmatiaa to be united with Croatia). FkpCascais (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all you failed to provide a quote to sustain your above comment. You now jumped from the page 157 of the source to the page 93. Let's not do this. Please provide a quote for your earlier post.
Now, if I understood correctly, you now claim the source is in contradiction with itself? This is a quote from the page 93 while I provided a quote from the page 157. I doubt the same source is contradicting itself. This quote speaks of administrative aspect, and this time we do not have to guess that since both quotes come from the same source. If the source stated later that "Military Frontier along with Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." and that "Varazdin county demanded...Military Frontier and Dalmatia to be united with Croatia", then the context of the vague term "to unite" is self-evident. The context of the word "unite" refers to the administrative aspect. The important thing to note here, is that the both quotes come from the same source, and not the different sources. Thank you for the quote. And I will use it as an argument that the source you provided earlier is not in contradiction with this source. Detoner (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't even understand what your source is... That is just a proposal from the Sabor, not a fact. All you can do with this source is say that the Sabor then claimed Krajina, just that. FkpCascais (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is one source:
From: A Short History of Yugoslavia from Early Times to 1966 by Stephen Clissold, Henry Clifford Darby CUP Archive, 1968, Page 37: The official language of the state was recognized as Serbo-Croat. Hungary, moreover, promised to help Croatia to obtain both Dalmatia and Military Frontier Province, still under Austrian control. The latter territory, after many delays, was incorporated in Croatia in 1881, but Dalmatia remained Austrian until 1918. FkpCascais (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, the assertion "That is just a proposal from the Sabor, not a fact." can not be found nowhere in the source, opposed to what you claim. I again plea for the third time to provide to the quote you are supposedly referencing with this assertion, although I already reviewed the source and I know that you are making a false claim. Even the quote I provided explicitly names the king as the subject, not the Sabor.
Thank you for the new source. It is speaking of the "control". Like I explained earlier, that term can be only attributed to the administrative aspect. My source already states that Military Frontier is not under the "control" of Croatian authorities but that it has disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation. It is not in conflict with my suggestion and we both have a consensus regarding administrative aspect, so please concentrate your effort to the formal aspect. Also, could you provide the link so I can review the source? Thank you. Detoner (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
My source you can confirm here: A Short History of Yugoslavia from Early Times to 1966 page 37.
Regarding your source, simple grammar knolledge is enough to see that Rudolf Horvat in that entire chapter is just putting in everything that was ageed in the Sabor, that is why your "sourced citation" is in quotation marks. That is why it is primary source, and all you can do with it is just say Croatian Sabor claimed that. If you read the first paragraph of the chapter, you will see Rudolf Horvat saying those were the demands of the Varaždinska županija (Varaždin city council?). "Varaždinska županija zahtijeva: 1. ...; 3. Kra¬jina i Dalmacija neka se pripoje Hrvatskoj; napokon 4..." which in translation means: "Varaždinska županija demans: 1. ...; 3. Krajina and Dalmatia to be joined to Croatia; 4..." That initial part of the chapter you can use, as that is secondary source, but you need to say what actuall says there, that those were the demands of the Varaždinska županija.
These are all Croatian demands/resolutions which you want to induce us to beleave that are facts, but are just demands, which, by the way, seems clear that were ignored regarding the Krajina Military Frontier. FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
So after I asked 3 times to provide a quotation, you now claim a "simple grammar knowledge is needed", but you fail to provide a quotation to which to apply that grammar knowledge? This is really enough. I had been patient enough to ask 3 times for you to provide a quote, although I have read the source and I knew your assertion is false. Hereby I dismiss your assertion as false. I'm sorry I have to say it, but this case of making an assertion that the source says something followed by the refusal to provide a quote can only be a sign of bad faith, especially since the source is not on English. Not only that you failed to provide a quote, but the very assertion itself is false, as I will show. If you continue to repeat that claim without providing a quote, I have to warn you that I will make a case of POV pushing against you. The source clearly states that it relays on the "kings decision from 7th of April 1850. which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers".
No, this is not a primary source. The primary source would be the kings decision from 1850.
The demands of Varazdin county are on the page 93 of the book while my quote is on the page 157. The book is written in chronological order and the year for the demand of the Varazdin county is clearly stated, 1847. The year of the kings decision belongs to the 1850. Please stop linking two quotes from the page 93 and the page 157 that are referring to the events 3 years apart.
You are right that Croatian Sabor had stated its demands. That is clearly stated in the very same paragraph I drew my quote from. The paragraph states: "The king has not yet addressed the conclusions of the Croatian Sabor from 1848. After many pleas by Jelacic on the 7th of April the kings proclamation was released". For the rest of the paragraph the source continues to speak of the proclamation and its contents. Among the kings decisions from the proclamation, on the page 157, my quote is stated. To repeat it: "For Military Frontier, the king decided that "it will remain within its present territory". However, it will "with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation."". I have marked the key word given by this secondary source, and I marked the quotation marks from the source. I rest my case on your false assertion. I also rest my case on the assertion that this is a primary source. Detoner (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My friend, you cannot make fools here, those were the Croatian demands, now you have to find a source that will comfirm the demands were accepted and that Military Frontier actually became part of Croatia. We have several English language reliable sources saying otherwise, and that the Military Frontier was only incorporated into Croatia in 1881. If you don't understand your own source (or pretend not to understand) that is your own problem, just don't make editor loose time here with you. Please find sources. And feel free to report me, since you have no sources saying what you want them to say... FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop repeating that disproved assertion. After you refused 3 times to provide a quote and after you made me plea for 3 times for the quote you reference and after I spent time making a post that disproves this false claim, your constant repeating of the very same claim could be interpreted as POV pushing. I warned you once before I will make a case if you keep repeating your claim without providing a source. Much like I plead 3 times, I will warn you 3 times before making a claim. This is your second warning. I think it is time to stop now and let other editors share their opinion. I think we said all we had to say. Please do not answer unless you have another source to post. Let other editors share their opinion. Detoner (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have all the sources I need. You just keep on playing your game with that one source you are trying to fool everyone with. What quote are you asking me if the text is clear they are just demands and resolutions of Croatian sabor? You seem not to understand that Croatian claims over MF meant nothing without Austrian approval. Get a source that it was accepted and Military Frontier became part of Croatia, or otherwise just get out of here. Clear and simple. FkpCascais (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Please, I asked you which text 3 times and you are again speaking of it, but fail to provide it here. I know it doesn't exist and that's why I'm asking to see it. I had proved it in my previous comment it doesn't exist and I rest my case at that. If you are satisfied with your case then I really suggest we put a break so other editors can share their opinion, since I'm also pleased with my case. I said I will warn you 3 times about repeating that claim, but you were to hasty. I can't make a POV pushing case if there is no other editors participating here. I will wait for their opinion first and see if you try to impose that claim on them. Detoner (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zoupan, yes, I agree with your message to me regarding the sources... but don't forget this article contains some facts in the lede which are being disputed by one user (possibly more in future), so sometimes it is good to have the fundamental statements with sources. Also, in some discussion some time ago (I think it was at Jimbo talk-page) it was noticed how referenced facts in the lede are less prone to be vandalized. Basically, in theory, you are doing it right, but in practice it demands constant watch of the article then. But OK, lets see if the lede can stayed without being vandalized. FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the source A Short History of Yugoslavia from Early Times to 1966. There was already posted the following quote from the source: "Hungary, moreover, promised to help Croatia to obtain both Dalmatia and Military Frontier Province, still under Austrian control.". I asserted the word "control" is talking about administrative aspect. Here's a quote from the very same source: "Croatian diet (and that of Hungary too) greatly resented these limitations of territorial sovereignty imposed by Austria and repeatedly demanded the incorporation of the Frontier within the civilian administration of Croatia" (page 30). This quote from the same source is pretty self explanatory. Although in the formal aspect Military Frontier was a part of Croatia , the administration was not under Croatian "control". Detoner (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding these sources that speak of the formal aspect:

The borderland in Croatia was the oldest and most western part of this extensive defense system. Of all Croatian lands under Habsburg rule, 65.5 % belonged to the Military Frontier and only 34.5 % to Civil Croatia. [1]

Serbian historian Vasilije Krestic on Military Frontier: "Regarding the birthplace of Nikola Tesla, the facts are the following: he was born in 1856. in Smiljan , Lika, which were in located in the Military zone. Military zone in administrative sense did not belong to Croatia neither Hungary, nor Austria, but was regarded as a separate entity which was under the direct control of the emperor and military command in Vienna. However in formal-legal sense Military zone belonged to Croatia" [2] Detoner (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • If someone is calling upon 'formal-legal sense' then it must be clear which law is applicable to that 'sense'. The only ruling law was the law of Austrian Empire by which Militärgrenz was a part of Austrian Empire and represented in/ruled by Reichsrat (i.e. Imperial Council). The sentence 'However in formal-legal sense ..' above, makes no sense no matter where it comes from.-- (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense at all. Tzowu I invite you to state your opinion here, regarding the quote from Horvat, so we can settle this. FkpCascais is repeating an obvious lie and no editors are joining to resolve this. If you agree, I think we can proceed with the edit. I will add the quote from Horvat both in this article in the below sections and in Croatian Military Frontier and Slavonian Military Frontier in the lead, since this is pretty important info, because it explains why Croatia had over many years asked for Military Frontier to be put back under civil administration. Detoner (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I already added it in the text here. What are you proposing for the lead of those two articles? Tzowu (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the edit...Nowhere is stated that Military Frontier was formally Croatia. Yes, that info is regarding Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontiers, and I will add the info to that articles. Also, since one user is disagreeing we should establish a consensus here. Detoner (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu, I haven't seen the edit up to now. I think we agree about administrative and formal aspect and I've edited a section so that is better explained. Tell me what you think. Also, since appropriate time has passed since you introduced the edit, I think we reached the consensus. I will restate it again so people can speak if they disagree: After 1850 Croatia and Slavonia, along with Military Froniter constituted a single land with separated administration. Croatia and Slavonia had provincial administration while Military Froniter was under military administration. I would like to hear if you agree with that, because I'm being reverted by a person who claims a source says something but refuses to provide a quote. Detoner (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop misusing Horvat as you did here. All you can say with Horvat is that Croatian Sabor claimed that, however we have secondar sources confirming Austrians didn't gave control to Croatia till 1881, so by no means your edit is correct, and you are abusing and being disruptive by misinterpreting Horvat and by edit-waring. FkpCascais (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
To avoid further edit warring I suggest a RfC, but I will first wait for the opinion of Tzowu since he is the editor who introduced the edit. He had done the edit that states: "...the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land...". You haven't objected and thus we have a consensus. Now you again claim something contrary to that edit by Tzowu. With this edit I haven't added any new information since Tzowu is the editor who introduced the claim to which you now object. Please address him. I just added a better explanation of the formal and administrative aspect, that was already stated in the article. Let's please wait for Tzowu so we could decide if we need a RfC. Detoner (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You don't have a consensus for that neither support on behalve of no one, so in the meantime please refrain yourself from adding disputed unsourced content. Also, please stop misinterpreting Horvat, he is just mentioning the decitions of the Sabor, and those ones you refer here were actually not accepted by Vienna, so you can never ever add them here as a fact. Feel free to ask for RfC. FkpCascais (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Tzowu, would you please address this, since you also stated in your edit that the king is the subject of that, and not the Sabor. This user has been repeating this false claim for some time now, and when I asked for a quote to sustain it, he refuses to provide it. He thinks he can establish it as true by constantly repeating it. Detoner (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a reliable source (often a group of reliable sources) for ever single word I added in the article. While the case with you is opposite, all you have is one source, Horvat, and you are misinterpreting the content there. Tzowu, you know Croatian, can you please explain to this user how he cant use Horvat for the edit he pretends but all he can do is just to say that Sabor claimed that. Horvat writes about the decisions of the Sabor, most of that part of the text are actually direct citations of the sabor, and he puts them with citation marks, and this user wants to add them as facts to the article. Exemple, the Sabor claimed it was all part of Croatia, but we have numerous reliable secondary sources clearly saying Vienna did not accepted them all the way until 1881. FkpCascais (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you realize that you are denying the very same edit you are adding to the article? I haven't added any new info to the article. The article in its present state also states that "...the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land...", and yet you keep denying that. Not only that you are denying that, but you claim the source states Sabor as the subject which is completely false. The source does not state that and your are refusing to provide a quote you claim exists. I already addressed that in depth in my previous posts. Also you do not have a single source that speaks of the formal aspect of the Military Frontier. You have sources that speak of the "control" and I already addressed that. Detoner (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What Emperor said that? In which source? FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What? We already went trough that. The emperor of Austrian Empire. I already posted a quote to answer that. Here, again :"kings decision from 7th of April 1850. which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers". The source is Horvat. You haven't even read my post, nor the source which has a 2 pages long passage that we are discussing this whole time, have you? Detoner (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That is Croatian king which is mentioned there, not Austrian emperor. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It's an address from the Emperor on 7 April 1850, I found the original here (Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des kroatisch-slavonischen Landtages und der nationalen Bewegung vom Jahre 1848 [3]) from page 229-233. "Kaiserliches Patent vom 7.April 1850" The part about the Military Frontier is on page 232, it says:
"Das Institut der Militärgrenze ist innerhalb einer dermaligen territorialen Ausdehnungdurch die Reichsverfaffung aufrecht erhalten, und Wir behalten Uns vor, dasselbe nach Maßgabe des §.75 der Reichsverfaffung und Unteres Handschreibens vom 31.März 1849 durch ein besonderes Statut demnächst in der Artzu regeln, daß das kroatisch-slavonische Militär-Grenzgebiet wie bisher im Verbande mit seinem Stammlande Kroatien und Slavonien zu bleiben und vereint. Ein Territorialgebiet, jedoch mit gesonderter Provinzial- und Militärver waltung und mit gesonderter Vertretungzu bilden habe."
Now I'm bad at German, but if I'm correct, "Verbande mit seinem Stammlande Kroatien und Slavonien zu bleiben und vereint. Ein Territorialgebiet, jedoch mit gesonderter Provinzial- und Militärver waltung und mit gesonderter Vertretungzu bilden habe" means exactly "sa svojom materom zemljom Hrvatskom i Slavonijom činiti jednu zemlju, no s razlučenom provincijalnom i vojničkom upravom, te s razlučenim zastupanjem". So Horvat was correct. Of course, it's not for the whole Military Frontier, but for the Croatian-Slavonian one.
Anyway, I think that the original content that I added is fine enough. If anything is to be added then it should be the status of the eastern part of the Military Frontier, the Serbian Vojvodina apparently had a claim on it during the Revolution, but I don't know how did it work out in practice.
What I don't understand are changes that were made by the IP, he thinks that the migration of Vlachs (both Orthodox and Catholic) is dubious and says Tanner is not a good source, although he doesn't present sources that contradict him. Tzowu (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the issue is settled now. Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier was formally Croatian land while it was administratively separated from the rest, civil Croatia. Do you agree with that? Detoner (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, for Serbian Vojvodina also see Horvat. The page is 156, at the bottom: "Za srpsku vojvodinu kaže kralj, da je „patentom od 18. studenoga 1849. uredjena privremeno, i to u suglasju s § 72. državnog ustava", dočim će se „konačno uredjenje i konačna odluka o sjedinjenju ove zemlje sa drugom kojom krunovinom(2) riješiti ustavnim putem"
2 Srpska bi se vojvodina po želji hrv. sabora od god. 1848. imala sjediniti s Hrvatskom i Slavonijom." Maybe this can be mentioned in the article, and we can research to see how that played out. This is also stated in the proclamation from 1850. Also see page 120: "Još 14. travnja održaše Srbi u Karlovcima prvu narodnu skupštinu svoju. Skupština zatraži, neka se osnuje „srpska vojvodina", u koju će spadati Bačka, Banat, Baranja i Srijem. Ova će vojvodina biti najuže spojena s tro jednom kraljevinom Hrvatskom, jer Srbi traže „savez s jednokrvnom i jednoplemenom braćom Hrvatima". Vojvodinom će uprav¬ljati srpski vojvoda, koga ima birati državni sabor u Zagrebu." Also the source states this "Na sabor je 15. travnja 1861. došlo 135 zastupnika i vi-rilista. Banskomu se pozivu ne odazvaše 54 velikaša i 3 prelata. Srijem je poslao 2 kolektivna zastupnika mjesto 15 redo¬vitih, jer županija srijemska još nije bila upravno pripojena Slavoniji, premda se već (na zahtjev Magjara) ukinula srpska vojvodina." I hope this helps you. Detoner (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Well not just that, in my opinion the Croatian military frontier belonged to Croatia without the "formally" adjective, but that wouldn't be a WP:NPOV. What we need is the statust of the Banat military frontier during the 1848 Revolution, who ruled it during that time. Tzowu (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the NPOV claim, could you elaborate? Detoner (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Better references needed[edit]

Marcus Tanner is not a historian. We need a better reference than his book.

I'd like to propose reading and understanding this book:

Militär-Schematismus des österreichischen Kaiserthumes K.K. Hof- u. Staats-Dr., 1857

Page 743 and after

B. Deutsche Schulen
a) Unterschulen
1. In der Carlstädter Militär-Grenze
2. In der Warasdiner Militär-Grenze
3. In der banal-Slavonischen Militär-Grenze
4. In der banatisch-Serbischen Militär-Grenze

I see no place for 'Kroatische' Militär-Grenze -- (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tanner is a good source, he's a writer and journalist that deals with Eastern Europe and the Balkans. As for that book, on page 887 it says "croatischen Militär-Grenze". Karlovac, Varaždin and Banal (Banska) Military Frontiers were parts of it. Tzowu (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2015


  • False claims are a worst kind of uncivilty. Moreover, the German spelling is 'kroatischen' not 'croatischen'. The 887 page starts 'Admiralität' subchapter where is not possible to see anything like "croatischen".
  • Tanner is not a historian. Period.-- (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Croatischen" was used in older German language works, whereas "Kroatischen" is the modern term. This is page 887, see the underlined text [4]. The whole sentence is "Zur jährlichen Betheilung eines braven Kriegers aus der banatischen oder croatischen Militär-Grenze, der die Feldzüge 1848-1849 mitgemacht hat." As for Tanner, what exactly do you find contentious in that reference? Why is it "dubious" that the first refugees to the early Military Frontier were Croat refugees from Dalmatia and parts of Bosnia? Here's more sources:
"The ramparts of Christendom being little more than a series of castles manned by German mercenaries and Croatian refugees from Bosnia, the Habsburgs encouraged Vlachs from the Serbian Orthodox Church to move into the area, a minor policy decision that was to have major political repercussions." Christopher Merrill: Only the Nails Remain: Scenes from the Balkan Wars, p. 122
"The frontier was essentially a series of forts, garrisoned by German mercenaries and Croats, then by Orthodox (and some Catholic) Vlachs or Morlachs who were eventually freed from serfdom by the Hapsburgs in exchange for military service." Tony Fabijančić: Croatia: Travels in Undiscovered Country, p. 149
Now stop adding the dubious template without a justified reason. Tzowu (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This is what happens when you're not careful and don't look enough. My page is from the version of the book posted on [5], while on Google Books that same page is actually page 911.[6] "Storytellers" :D, how yes no. Tzowu (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as a big concern, Croats were obviously part of the population, no big deal neither reason for adding a dubious tag. Regarding the name, I already read at some places that the Croatian Military Frontier had some other names, possibly different names in different periods, we must see reliable sources for it, but Croatian Military Frontier seems to have been the commonname for that section anyway. We can add the official names of the sections if we have RS for them. FkpCascais (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
There probably were other names used for various divisions of the Military Frontier, we can add them in the "Divisions" section under notes. Tzowu (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tanner is a reliable published source. Special:Contributions/ has already been blocked from Serbian Wikipedia and he/she is demonstrating the same behavior here. He has been using multiple ip addresses and one registered account. I already counted 3-4 editors complaining about his behavior. Also, over the other ip, he had demonstrated a clear vandalism by changing a signature of another editor. More here Detoner (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Now I have to cope with two spammers, eh? The phrase "croatischen Militär-Grenze" is completely colloquial in that book. There is nowhere in the book anything saying that the Carlstädter Militär-Grenze, the Warasdiner Militär-Grenze, and the banal-Slavonischen Militär-Grenze are "croatischen". The 'banal' term is fully elaborated by K. Kaser in his book 'Freier Bauer und Soldat: die Militarisierung der agrarischen Gesellschaft and der kroatisch-slowanischen Militärgrenze (1535-1881)' under the 'Der Ausnahmefall: Die Banal-Grenze' title where is visible the scope of military service the Croatian Banus was obliged to provide (300 infantry and 50 cavalry men) to the military Frontiers. The strip of land where these soldiers were allocated was marked as 'banal'. That land was not represented in Croatian Sabor, not a part of any Croatia, and was under full military and civil rule of the Austrian Emperor. This Tzowu reads sentence containing word "croatischen" then draws conclusion from nowhere and nothing.-- (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The part regarding the removal of the control from the Sabor seems to have been clarified already (not sure if there is still some editor challenging that, or not, but seems all clear regarding that). But I seem not to be fully understanding what are you saying regarding the naming part. FkpCascais (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The title of this section is Better references needed. isn't it? I am for complete removal of Tanner, especially this section:

In 1553 the borderland was reformed for the first time as a string of forts, under the commander Ivan Lenković. The frontier was split into the Croatian Military Frontier (Krabatische Gränitz) and the Upper Slavonian Military Frontier (Windische, Oberslawonische Gränitz). The border with the Ottoman Empire on the line Senj-Otočac-Slunj-Glina-Hrastovica-Sisak-Ivanić-Križevci-Đurđevac was fortified with several smaller and larger forts. New captaincies were formed in the larger forts: Ogulin, Hrastovica, Žumberak, Koprivnica, Križevci and Ivanić. Smaller forts were manned by German infantry and Croatian light infantry. The larger forts were manned by German heavy cavalry and Croatian light cavalry. At first, most of the local troops were Croat refugees who fled from Ottoman-held Dalmatia and inner Bosnia.[1]

for it's false. Tanner is not a historian, nor I see his statement verified by real historians.
Further, this sentence makes no sense

Over time, the population of the Frontier (as it was then) became mixed between the autochthonous Croats and Croatian serfs who had fled the Ottoman territories, and the numerous minority of Serb and Vlach (who were later assimilated into Croats and Serbs)[citation needed][dubious – discuss] refugees who strove to expand their rights as a major contributor in the defense of the land.

History of the Turkish and Austrian-Hungary Empires have no recorded any migration of Vlachs (actually Wallachians) nor their presence in Bosnia. We have to eliminate narratives from this article.-- (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 1[edit]

This is my change proposal. I beleave the current wording is too vague and my edit will help unfamiliarised readers understand better who removed control from who. Also, we have several reliable sources indicating 1881 as the final date of Military Frontier abolition. FkpCascais (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you give the source(s) that indicate the dates (both 1600s & 1800s) of the Military Frontier's change of power from group X to group Y? --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The dates are not the issue here. Detoner (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I will start listing them here. Here is the first
PS: The IP is right, the dates are not the issue, but the issue is that one editor is challenging the fact that MF was taken out from Croatian control and does his best to change the wording in order to avoid that being clear in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That was me, I signed now. Yes, I'm right. The dates are not the issue. You had now posted a quote that you had reverted. This is getting absurd. No, I simply restored the original quote you had manipulated. The quote you are now posting here. Detoner (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Historical Atlas of Central Europe by Paul Robert Magocsi, at page 34, explains it all quite well. FkpCascais (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
However, the Habsburg rulers continued to exercise direct control over the area of the "Military Frontier" because of its strategic significance. The separate military government for the "Military Frontier" was not finally abolished until 1881. at Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2015-2016, by Wayne C. Thompson, page 19. I will bring more sources, just give me time. FkpCascais (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) called Military Frontier... which was placed under direct rule from Austria and organized along military lines. ... The Military Frontier was abolished in 1881, but... at Croatia, by Jonathan Bousfield, page 118. FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The Habsburgs built a so-called military frontier, or vojna krajina, governed from Vienna in which the inhabitants... In effect, until its abolition in 1881, the military frontier was... at Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course and Consequences, by Christopher Bennett, page 20. FkpCascais (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, here is one interesting, a book about Tesla explaining also the Military Frontier: For what matters here, The Military Frontier was abolished in 1881. at Tesla: A Portrait with Masks: A Novel by Vladimir Pistalo, page 13. FkpCascais (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps inevitably, the Hungarian diet and Croatian nobles were displeased with the removal of the frontier from their authority and tried from time to time to whittle down the Frontiers autonomy. But the Gretzer (frontiersman) knew that if the were incorporated into civil Croatia , they would be reduced to the status of ordinary peasants, thereby suffering a clear loss of status and prerogative. ... its civil detachment from civil Croatia. ... Under the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), the Ottomans ceded Lika, Krbava, Bačka, and parts of Slavonia, Srem and Banat to the Habsburgs; these new acquisitions were incorporated into the Military Frontier,... As Wayne Vucinich notes, "The eighteenth century witnessed many other administrative reforms that gave the Military Frontier...a more unified organization." ... Indeed, Ausgleich-era Austria-Hungary was witness to increasing currents of cooperation between Serbs and Croats, both before and after the 1881 administrative abolition of the Military Frontier. at Whose Democracy? by Sabrina P. Ramet, pages 83 and 84. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe how far you had taken this. You went to edit warring for nothing. I simply put the original quote from the source back in the article since you changed it. I've done little to no change to the meaning and you had yourself posted the very same quote here. Now I'm being accused of edit warring, along with you. I don't need this. Do as you wish. I'm returning to my section above. Dealing with you is exhausting and you as an experienced editor know very well how to push your POV. Look at where we finished. After your edit warring the page is blocked with your last edit, and you managed to dragged me in the edit warring, and also went to further discredit me with false accusations on the report page. I'm leaving this issue since I find your disruptive behavior too much to deal with. Detoner (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This here is my edit proposal. Is there anything you disagree with it, and why? PS: Make your edit proposal in a separate section please. FkpCascais (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you can not change the original quotes, and the sources do not support your change. Firstly, you added a vague subject "Austrians" to the sentence, that is not present in the original quote. Secondly, you changed the year from 1870s to 1881 and that is changing the whole context. The source is right. The abolition was a gradual process and it was done during 1870. In 1881 the formal abolition was pronounced, however the context of the sentence is "complete civilian and military authority". Your change of the date to 1881 is changing the meaning of the original quote. No, the military did not have the full "civilian and military authority" all the way up to 1881. Furthermore, I can't believe you went to edit warring because I brought back the original quote from the source which context you had changed. So no, the original quote will remain in the article. Also, about your other revert, we now have a consensus that Horvat is speaking of the kings decision and we have a consensus that Croatian-Slavonian Military Froniter was formally Croatian land, but with separate, military, administration. Detoner (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't take me wrong but I will be totally ignoring your answers because you are totally unfamiliarised with Wikipedia principles and rules and you are a single-purpose account making unfounded objections. Also, please learn what WP:Consensus is. Btw, yes, the lede is a summary of what most reliable sources say, so the quotes can be changed.
  • The sources I provided clearly indicate that the MF was ruled directly by Austrians till 1881 so my edit proposal is clearly backed by the majority of sources. I can present more sources if needed. My entire point is to put it clear in the lede who ruled the Military Frontier, so that way we avoid providing fertile land for POV-pushers claiming some other entity but not Austria ruled MF. Does anyone object and has sources contradicting mines? If not, this is a simple straight-forward edit. FkpCascais (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe it. You yourself went to edit warring with the claim that Military Frontier was put "under direct rule of the Habsburg military, which would have complete civilian and military authority over it until its abolition". Now you claim that Austria had ruled over Military Frontier. Am I the only one seeing you contradict yourself? No, the Military Frontier was not ruled by Austrians but the military, and the sources you yourself posted assert that very clearly. You can change the quotes but you can't change the context and you can't add your vague claims in. Detoner (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The diff shows that FkpCascais' revision is the most clear. By "Austrians", one can only understand it as the Austrian government.--Zoupan 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is just that and adding the year 1881 in the end of the sentence (...abolition in 1881). FkpCascais (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. Another editor clearly stated that the subject "Austrians" is vague. Yes, by "Austrians" one would assume exactly that, the Austrian government, and that would be wrong. This is not only vague but wrong and not supported by any source. Austrian government had no such authority to do that but the common government could do that. See this. We have no source that speaks of the subject and we can't change the original quotes and add vague and unsourced info to them. The abolition was proclaimed in 1881, but happened during 1870s. The problem is in the reduced knowledge about the subject. I pointed to the context of the quote and the context is not "abolition" so the year 1881 is not stated, but the administrative abolition is stated that happened during 1870s. Detoner (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

From the 8th of June 1871 the administrative abolition had starter. The quote:"Od 8. lipnja 1871. počelo je administrativno inkorporiranje Vojne granice u Hrvatsku. ". Source: is here, the page is 17. Detoner (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Austria ruled it directly until 1881. That is what matters. Sourced, straight and simple. FkpCascais (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, this is enough, you are pushing a certain stand and you haven't even explained what exactly you mean by "Austrians". I can't believe you are pushing your stand so strongly that you were even willing to go to edit warring. You don't have a consensus for the change. Detoner (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Why "Austrians"? I think that "Habsburgs" would be way more appropriate. Tzowu (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Because it was Austria wasn't it? Same way as you mention here "Ban of Croatia" to make it clear, why not making it clear regarding Austria? Also, the point is not to allow POV-pushers to continue the crusade of deniying MF was taken out of Croatian control. FkpCascais (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You Tzowu made this edit in which you removed the statement that the MF was removed from Croatian control. Would you mind if we restore that wording and add the year 1881 as it is clearly backed by the vast majority of sources as the final year of Austrian direct domination of MF? FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Or Habsburg Monarchy? The Habsburgs changed the administration of the Military Frontier, "Austrians" is too vague. Yes, I mentioned "Ban of Croatia" and "Croatian Sabor", not "Croats", since not every ban was a Croat nor was everyone in the Sabor a Croat.
"When created in the 16th century by Ferdinand I, it was divided into two districts under special military administration: the Croatian Military Frontier and the Slavonian Military Frontier, initially under jurisdiction of the Croatian Sabor and ban. In 1627, the Military Frontier was removed from the control of the Croatian Sabor and placed under direct rule of the Habsburg military, which would have complete civilian and military authority over it until its abolition in 1881." This? Tzowu (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. FkpCascais (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this case of Habsburgs/Austrians is basically a matter of choice, just like saying Nazis/Germans invaded Poland or Ottomans/Turks conquered Balkans, etc. In my view, for the readers totally unfamiliarised with the issue, having the word Austria/Austrians would seem helpful and would not change anything, but if you oppose I don't mind reaching this as compromise. FkpCascais (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
On the other side, the Habsburgs were the Austrian royal house and ruled MF from Vienna, saying Habsburgs or Austria ends up being the same, so I would prefer Austria in the lede because: a) it makes it imediatelly clear for an average Joe worldwide which exact country took direct control of it, and b) makes it more difficult for the POV-pushers to try in this game of words to present MF as part of Croatia. The lede should be informative, concise and direct, and my proposal I think helps to archeve that. FkpCascais (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now I think it is very clear that the term is vague. The editor you yourself invited to help had given a different interpretation of the same term. There is no need to introduce vague info to the article and I don't think it is much important to exactly name the body that had done that. Most probably that was the common government or the emperor himself. If you wish to add a subject to that sentence, please provide sources. Also you brought another question that has to be dealt with. Sources are speaking of the different dates of abolition and administrative abolition. Those are not mistakes and the article should explain that more elaborately. The year 1881 was the formal abolition while the administrative abolition was done during the 1870s. Also the whole article is written in a too simplistic way. Too much things are missing. For instance if someone reads this and the article he will see how simplistic the article is. The formal and the administrative aspect of Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier is one example that the article doesn't explain. The dates are the other thing and lastly, I'm seeing Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier mentioned in some sources while Wikipedia has 2 separate articles without explaining the relation between those to sections. The relation is that those two sections are Croatian territory. This article needs to be improved according to the sources and not with personal opinions that are very wrong. For example you said that the "king" mentioned in one source is the king of Croatia and not the king of Austrian Empire. I can't even describe how wrong is that. Detoner (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Tzowu do you see now after the comment of this user why do I want the words in the lede to be clear? FkpCascais (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The Emperor in 1627 was Ferdinand II and his primary title was Holy Roman Emperor ("Nos Ferdinandus secundus, Dei gratia electus Romanorum imperator,"... etc). Austria was then the Archduchy of Austria. Since 1627 the Frontier was governed by a commander appointed by the Emperor, the Archduchy of Austria had nothing to do with it. As for Detoners comment, the name Croatian-Slavonian frontier was often used and that can be mentioned in their articles, in this one it is mentioned in the population section as in 1857 the census used that name. Regarding the abolishment of the Frontier, I'm perfectly fine with using all proposals, 1881, 1870s or not using any year at all as it is now. Btw, why is the year 1882 in the infobox?Tzowu (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No idea, I didn't edited the infobox recently, but should be changed as the majority of sources seem to indicate 1881 as the year. Regarding Detoner, I was just referring to the fact that his entire point here is that MF was part of Croatia, so he will endlessly object all proposals that make it clear the other way. So, Habsburgs and 1881 (the sentence you wrote in your last comment), OK so we can move on? FkpCascais (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Tzowu, I saw the year 1882 appearing in at least one source. I will try to find it again. I don't think it is a mistake, but the matter is too complex for this simplistic way this article is written. The most notable sources about Military Frontier are hardly used. I'm not suggesting one year to enter the article, but to make more elaborate explanation according to the sources. The article is poorly written and it needs to be improved. For instance the other user is constantly putting Austria to the top place, when in fact Hungary is equally important entity and the Military Frontier was in the lands of Hungarian crown, not Austrian. It was governed by the ministry of war. The emperor had also the direct control over military. Also, I think the formal and administrative aspect should be described more carefully. That much is obvious from the fact that the other user had not objected when you entered Horvat to the article, but had objected only when I made the formal aspect more explicit. Otherwise the readers will be confused, how all of the sudden Croatia is requesting Military Frontier to be incorporated into Croatia, when it is something completely unrelated to Croatia. Yes, Croatia did not have the "control" or administration over Military Frontier, but it had always remained formally Croatian territory under temporary military administration. Towards the end, in the other half of the 19th century, from 1850 to 1881 the Military Frontier was considered to be Croatian and people living there demanded to be incorporated into civil Croatia because of the military duties they had to obey although there was no Ottoman threat any more. Detoner (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I ask you to please provide some scholar English sources for your claims? Yes, Wikipedia can also use sources in other languages, but it is really hard to believe you are pushing for months now a POV which is not found not even in one English-abguage source. Military Frontier is an historical matter fairly covered in English language regarding the main aspects, so by now your long comments are useless unless you provide reliable sources. FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I will when I will suggest the edit, now I'm just being helpful in stating what I have seen trough various sources. I don't have them by me and I can't remember where exactly I read certain things, but I'm not suggesting anything enters the article without being sources. Detoner (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

So I believe that we can work out easily a practical solution for our lede section here. My wording proposal was supported by Zoupan and IP, but, if I read correctly, the version stating Habsburgs instead of Austrians is preferred by Tzowu, and I think Zoupan doesn't oppose that version, but I am not sure. So where do we stand regarding Habsburgs/Austrians removed the control from Croatia, and lasted until 1881? 1881 seems definitel to be the date indicated by majority od reliable sources. While regarding the other aspect, there are some sources saying Habsburgs some saying Austria. I still think that the lede could be improved and still is unbalanced with the mention of Croatia/Croats 6 times and Austria just 2, when in fact MF was a province of the Austrian empire. That was a balance I was trying to archive with my proposal, besides fighting the Detoner insistence that MF belonged to Croatia. So, can I ask again just everyone to confirm the lede wording they support the most? Tzowu, Zoupan and IP(s) present at the discussions? FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: User:Tzowu, you made this edit summary, can you please tell me what is going on here? From what I know, there had been present some IPs in both sides of the dispute. Detoner had been pushing the idea that one of the IPs was my sock, however, in my already long experience here on en.wp I have always used my account and I had never ever edited as IP ever since I created this account of mine in 2009. Also, I had already been present in numerous long important disputes, and I am a big supporter of the weight of RS and arguments vs number of votes. That is why I often even engaged alone a dispute without any problems against a group of editors, if I feel that I am well "armed" with sources. So I would never use socks or IPs, and Detoner accused me of sockpoppetry either because he doesn't know me, or to make more attacks on me, but he also missed one fundamental aspect, which is that the IP has brought German sources and seems familiarized with German, a language I don't speak at all besides guten tag and scheise. Regarding the IP, he has defended some proposals I have been making, but he has also made some other edits which I am not familiarized yet and I don't support them or oppose them. Also, he has been accusing Michael Cambridge and Detoner often at times and in a tone which didn't coincide with mine. So, I don't know to what sockpuppetry you meant there, but I reall hope now that the Asdisis/Detoner case is over that we will progress and focus in editing and improving the articles. I also already suggested and I sugest again in case I was not heard, that all IPs create an account and become registered editors. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you, this user is using IP's to distrupt Wikipedia. He states something with one IP and then comes back with another to express support for himself. I'm not even gonna waste time to discuss with him again, especially after this edit [7]. This page should be protected and made available to edits only by autoconfirmed users. For more than 2 years there was no edit by an IP here that was useful and that wasn't reverted in a few hours. Do you agree with that? (same protection as for the Nikola Tesla article)
As for the lead, my first proposal for the lead had 5 mentions of Croatia, your proposal had 6 as you wanted to explicitly mention that control was removed from the Croatian Sabor. And yes, the Military Frontier was a part of the Austrian empire, but so was Croatia. We are wasting waaaay too much time on this. Here, this is my proposal:
The Military Frontier was a province straddling the southern borderland of the Habsburg Monarchy, later the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, which acted as the cordon sanitaire against incursions from the Ottoman Empire. When created in the 16th century by Ferdinand I, it was divided into two districts under special military administration: the Croatian Military Frontier and the Slavonian Military Frontier, initially under jurisdiction of the Croatian Sabor and ban. In 1627, the Military Frontier was removed from the control of the Sabor and placed under direct rule of the Habsburg military, which would have complete civilian and military authority over it until its abolition in 1881. During the 17th century its territory was expanded towards the East and new sections were created. By then, it stretched from Croatia proper in the west to eastern Transylvania in the east and included parts of present-day Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Hungary. The area was settled primarily with Croatian, Serbian and German colonists, grenzer, who served in the military and defended the Monarchy in return for land grants. Tzowu (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this. There you go, not every IP is disturbing. I would only change the sentence "The area was settled primarily with Croatian, Serbian and German colonists," to "The area was settled primarily with German,Serbian and Croatian colonists" because that's the order of importance. If others don't agree I'm fine with this as you suggested, however the other edit done by a POV pusher will need a consensus so please establish it since there are 3 votes against and since POV pusher was blocked only you continue to support his POV pushing. (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure. (WP:GHBH). So the smallest ethnic group in the Frontier should be mentioned first? In ethnic sense, the majority of the Frontier were Croats, followed by Serbs, and then Romanians. After them came Germans/Volksdeutsche. Tzowu (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I said by importance and Serbs were the biggest group. Records only state Catolic and orthodox and at least half of that catolics are Serbs. Croatia had for full century making Croats of them and killing them over 1000 000 in NDH. Still they were the biggest group even in 1991 when they created their own republic which is currently occupied by Croatia. Croats were a minority in Croatia up to 1941 when they started to kill Serbs. [8] This is a source from Jasenovac Research Institute president which is investigating genocide in Croatia, and it was brought before FIFA after Croatian player publicly supported nazis. They accepted it so don't call it irrelevant. You are Croatian so you are trying to shooth those crimes. We will see what others think but I agree with this edit so there is no need to attack me . (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we leave it by saying "removed control from Croatia"? I see it as important to be as clear as possible there. The rest is agreed.

Regarding the other issue Tzowu, semi-protecting the article, yes, I support it. IP, it would really be important if you could become a registered editor. It is really simple to do it. FkpCascais (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu, I restored your edit (the second part) since it is perfectly balanced and sourced, also, can we make this edit consensus regarding both issues found in it? FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Tzowu (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Then I also agree. I'm glad we got that settled. (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

19th century wording[edit]

I support Tzowu edit, this one. What I objected was Detoners further additions which were clearly unsourced and tendentious. I noticed an IP doesn't support the inclusion of Marcus Tanner as reliable source by the logic that he is not an historian. From what I see, Tzowu made a correct non tendentious use of him at this edit, so I don't see a major problem, cause Tanner seems to explain neutraly what happened. But, I may be missing something regarding the events or Tanner, so the IP should explain the exact reasons here of his opposition. FkpCascais (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree Tanner is a good source and the article is pretty much well done, except for some mistakes by mentioning Croatia too many times for something it had nothing to do with. (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, looking at that section, I will also like to point out about the use of the wording "Croatian General Command" in Zagreb in the previous section. From what I am understanding, the General Command was in Zagreb, but it was Austrian military command headquarters, isn't it? FkpCascais (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Croatian General Command" wasn't for the entire Frontier. Tzowu (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The command was in Zagreb but it was not Croatian. It was Austrian because that was Austrian Empire. (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The command in Zagreb was called "Croatian General Command". Send your complaints about its name to Karl von Habsburg. He lives in Anif and is the current Head of the Habsburg family. Tzowu (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Where is the source? (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In the article, there are 3 sources. Tzowu (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
And how do we know that the sources actually say that and that this was not yet another lie like the one that Horovat source says about king's decision when it obviously just puts the quotes around Croatian nonsense demands that MF was Croatia. There are no content from the source in the references. (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's all a lie. See FkpCascais? This is shows exactly why the article should be protected. Tzowu (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be protected. Croatian editors will always come and push their POV and the article is good as it is now, without sock's edits. If FkpCascais agrees, we can protect it. (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Croatia was a province and it did not have its own army. Yes, there should be an edit "the General command in Zagreb" and not "Croatian" (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some searching and I couldn't found the wording "Croatian General Command" and it is not possible for me to confirm if the 3 sources added there say "Croatian General Command" or "General Command in Zagreb". Not sure yet... FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Eventually, in 1783 all the military districts were to be joined into one command designated as the Croatian (Croatisches) General Command." It wasn't for the entire Frontier, for example the Banat one wasn't under it and had it's own one. Tzowu (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Still, it sounds wrong, since Croatia did not exist for the next few centuries, but ok then if the source really says so. (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2[edit]

This two sentences are completely false

Over time, the population of the Frontier (as it was then) became mixed between the autochthonous Croats and Croatian serfs who had fled the Ottoman territories, and the numerous minority of Serb and Vlach (who were later assimilated into Croats and Serbs)[citation needed][dubious – discuss] refugees who strove to expand their rights as a major contributor in the defense of the land.

When created in the 16th century by Ferdinand I, it was divided into two districts under special military administration: the Croatian Military Frontier and the Slavonian Military Frontier, initially under jurisdiction of the Croatian Sabor and ban.

Minority were Croats if there were any. Moreover, the idea of Croatism in Bosnia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia did not exist that time. See, for example,

When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods by John V. A. Fine, University of Michigan Press, Feb 5, 2010

I'd like to see them removed.-- (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources. I've read some sources on this and this source says that by the number of orthodox people in 1857 in Croatian-Slavonian Military Froniter lived 272 755 Serbs and 402 322 Croats. I now see that is already present in the article and confirmed with another source. Anyways, by the sheer logic, it is hard to believe that the Croats were a minority in Croatia, even though people had moved because of the ottoman expansion. Detoner (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Please, do not respond to this troll called Asdisis, Michale Cambridge, and now Detoner. His spamming technique is the same: pointing at irrelevant sources, ignoring already supplied ones.-- (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia... FkpCascais (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

For other users who see this discussion, Detoner was blocked because he is a sock and a POV pushed. Every one of his comments should be disregarded. (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing socks edits[edit]

Now when the sock is banned there is no longer a "consensus" for his edits. Tzowu thinks that someone else agrees with that edits, when this isn't true. FkpCascais and please state, should we remove sock's edits? The consensus is invalid and there was never a consensus, but only one POV pusher who managed to manipulate one editor. There are numerous sources stating that Austria had control over MF and that the sock was POV pushing what the sources do not support. He only managed to manipulate one editor and I think that this editor should admit that. (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone should archive this discussions since they are closed and completely irrelevant and full of POV pushing done by the sock. (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

And here we have one more sockpuppet to report, IP,, and Tzowu (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Can the IPs please create an account and become editors? I am lost regarding all this sock story and I do not intend to participate in this environment. Btw, whos socks are these mentioned here? FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't need an account to state the obvious that no one agrees with that edit. Tzowu, establish the consensus here before the edit. You are free to report me but I will provide you a boomerang because you are continuing to push Detoner's edits although he wa blocked for POV pushing.You will finish like him who made the report and ended up being indefinitely banned if you don't stop. (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it would help a lot if you did have an account because as it stands you appear to be multiple users when you are in fact one. Also regarding your threats of indefinite banning, I don't think it is reasonable to compare Tzowu with Detoner. Tzowu is an active contributor in several topics and is not a single purpose account. I suggest you consider that rather than boomerang the stick might just fly right at you. Chillum 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, maybe I will create, but not just to prove the obvious that the consensus is invalid because a proven POV pusher was a part of it. The obvious thing is that nobody agrees with the edit and that Tzowu was manipulated. That wouldn't happen if you had blocked him when he was on Nikola Tesla talk page pushing his stand along with Michael Cambrige. I'm not the other IP who is involved for a long time here. Also I do not need Croatian nationalists attack me like Detoner/Asdisis did to FkpCascais. (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Detoner was blocked for their behaviour, we have not banned the point of view. We have no way of knowing if you are the other IP, or which IPs are you. Don't expect a sense of identity if you keep shifting IPs. Making an account certainly does not expose you, in fact it hides your IP. Chillum 17:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
He was banner because of POV pushing and those edits that he managed to push against the sources should be reverted. I have a bridge connection so my ip changes frequently while the other IP has his IP for months. That is a significant difference. Anyways it is not about me but about the sources, and my remark is obvious. Nobody agrees with the edit pushed by a POV pusher and it should be removed until we establish a new consensus. I'm not banning Tzowu to do that edit but he will need a consensus established in this discussion. I think that is reasonable. What do you think? (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

IP, why are you doing this? By now I am starting to believe you may even be a sock of Asdisis and you are being totally unnecessary aggressive and disruptive now, something which would not be a normal behavior at this point for someone allegedly opposing Asdisis. I am fully supporting semi-protection, and IPs need to create an account if wanting to participate. FkpCascais (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the protection, so we can procede. I'm not going to participate. I only removed POV pushing claims of the sock from the article. I'm not disruptive, now when you agree with Horvat source I have no more objections. I just wanted to establish a new consensus since the ban. I thought you didn't agree with the Horvat source since you criticized Detoner and that there isn't a consensus because of that. MF was not a part of Croatia not in any aspect or whatever. It bared no connections at all, except that it had been Croatia centuries ago. (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
But you cant change comments at talk-pages, and it is unnecessary to continue to invest in a war against Asdisis/Detoner if they are not here anymore. Regarding Horvat, he is a historian, it is a RS, the only thing I didn't agreed was the misinterpretation Detoner was making from the text, and Tzowu added in the article the correct way that Horvat can be used. Lets from now on forget about Asdisis/Detoner and from now on try to edit constructively. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

POV, no sources given[edit]

  • 1. The sentence "After 1526 the Croatian Parliament elected the Austrian Habsburgs as kings of Croatia ..." makes no sense to me for there is no source ever found supporting it. Moreover, we have a written document showing the nature of this 'election':

Jednim glasim

In a 1526 note to a Venetian diplomat, Ban Frankopan informs him that all Slavonia speaks with one voice. Everyone, nobles and commoners, will submit to the Turk before they will accept German rule.

Jednim glasim govore sva gospoda, plemstvo i puk, da ce prije pokoriti Turcinu, negoli biti pod Nijemaca (29 September 1526)

The following year Frankopan is killed in battle with Habsburg forces at Varazdin.[1]

  • 2. Wikipedia's articles handling history of the territory of today's Croatia follows historical narratives which are detailed and elaborated in A. Bellamy's book The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-Old Dream? by Alex J. Bellamy, Manchester University Press, Dec 4, 2003. One of the book reviewers wrote:

This volume assesses the formation of Croatian national identity in the 1990s. It develops a novel framework, calling into question both primordial and modernist approaches to nationalism and national identity, before applying that framework to Croatia. In doing so it provides a new way of thinking about how national identity is formed and why it is so important. An explanation is given of how Croatian national identity was formed in the abstract, via a historical narrative that traces centuries of yearning for a national state. The book shows how the government, opposition parties, dissident intellectuals and diaspora groups offered alternative accounts of this narrative in order to legitimize contemporary political programmes based on different versions of national identity. It then looks at how these debates were manifested in social activities as diverse as football, religion, economics and language. This volume attempts to make an important contribution to both the way we study nationalism and national identity, and our understanding of post-Yugoslav politics and society.

On the reliability of Croatian sources warned another historian, J.V.A. Fine in his book: The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine - Published 1991 by University of Michigan Press, page 248:

Sources on Medieval Croatia Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old jingle: the more you study the less you know. When I was and undergraduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias. Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seventeenth- and eighteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but contain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge whether their information came from reliable source or not.

Proposal. In order to build credibility of Wikipedia as a free encyclopaedia, we shall start rewriting articles by gradually eliminating historical narratives, politics, and nationalism from the articles content. -- (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


  • SUPPORTAfter Croatian nationalists were banned and after there is a mechanism to deal with them, it is time to gradually eliminate their POV from the Croatian articles. Not just this one, but all of them. The Nikola Tesla article is a good example where Croatians for years obstructed it, and they were defeated and they can't touch the article any more. POV pushers have been banned, and if they appear as socks, they have a separate talk page and they can write their POV there, so the main talk page is not disturbed. That template should be used in all similar articles where Croatian nationalists are present. I support this and I ask of you to make an account since you have done a great job so far. (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • These are two separate questions. Support removal of unsourced information, especially if it is challenged. Partial support of more general proposal. We do not need a deletion campaign to remove material that cites sources. We clearly do need an article-by-article review of what sources are used for what facts, keeping in mind WP:TRUTH: We are not in a position, per WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, to re-judge all sourcing and all conclusions reached by the sources we cite. It's up to the real world to published corrected histories of Croatia, and it is WP's job to rely on the most-accepted, secondary-source views, even if (per and within the limits of WP:DUE) we also note sometimes where there are substantial, non-fringe minority alternative views. But we also clearly have a responsibility not to treat sources as reliable and repeat what they say if the real world is telling us they are not reliable. The issue I see here is that centuries-old "secondary" sources are not in fact treated as secondary sources, but as primary. They are obsolete, were written at a time when how to do research and source it properly had not been established, and they are too close to the events on which they are reporting, even aside from any neutrality issues stemming from alleged propagandistic motives behind the authorship of some of them. Particularly when we have modern reliable sources strongly questioning their veracity, we cannot use such works as sources for WP:AEIS claims (analytical, evaluative, interpretive, or synthesizing).

    The probable way to proceed is to attribute them as primary sources, e.g. "According to [name of 19th-century work being cited] ...". Then, where we have modern sources questioning the claim, note this as well, and who is doing the questioning, on what grounds, e.g. "But, according to [university name] researcher [Firstname Lastname]'s [year] study, this claim may reflect [political interests of the time], and it may be more likely that [whatever], based on [evidence]." In a case like this, it's actually encyclopedically helpful to let readers know about the real-world dispute over the facts, not just robotically regurgitate the revisionist claims of the newest materials. Revisions to our articles on these topics will have to be made periodically has better modern sources become available, in whatever language.

    PS: If anyone doesn't understand the point about older sources that were once secondary or quasi-secondary but which are now regarded as primary, just exaggerate the proportions slightly by making the source older, and you'll see it: Should we treat the Historia Regum Britanniae (a then-secondary work based on synthesis of older works like the Historia Brittonum) as a reliable secondary source comparable to a modern history of Britain published by a reputable publisher like Oxford University Press? Of course not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish. A blocked POV pusher managed to push a source from 1903 with a claim that is absolutely contested by newer sources. Should it be removed? For more see the discussion Austrian vs local control. (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Who included it isn't relevant. Other editors' motives and motivations are invisible to us, and someone blocked for something doesn't have all their work undone because they were blocked. It sounds like a WP:FRINGE analysis needs to be done, though. If modern sources say the old source is nonsense, and consistently take this position it should probably be removed. If modern sources conflict, both views should probably be included and the conflicting views explained. This topic isn't any different in this regard than any other.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The term "historical narratives" of this proposal includes quality reliable secondary sources. See the discussion that I had with this proposal's author in the comments section below, beginning with my message of 11:12, 26 July 2015 and ending with my message of 16:48, 26 July 2015. In that discussion, this proposal's author wanted to reject as an "historical narrative", a reliable secondary source by a notable historian, Gunther E. Rothenberg, that was published by the University of Illinois Press. The editor thought that a self-published source by Vuksevich that purportedly agreed with his position on some material for the article should be used instead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: pretty much exactly what SMcCandlish stated above. This needs to be carefully researched and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ CROATIA 2: LUDWIG VON GAJ OPPOSES CROATIA’S HUNGARIAN HERITAGE by Ivo Vukcevich. Xlibris Corporation, Jul 18, 2013, page 104


  • Comment - RfCs are supposed to be very short and neutrally written. This RfC is very long, I can't make heads or tails of what it's really asking, and it seems there's a lot of pro-Croation or anti-Croation excitement on all sides, including in the RfC itself. I wouldn't be surprised if Croatian wikipedia articles, like our articles for every other nationality, are rife with nationalistic nonsense. However, this is a bad RfC and should be withdrawn and re-written. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this RfC has problems ... big problems. The statement of the proposal begins with an argument for supporting the proposal before the proposal is stated. Then the proposal itself is not just for this article but for all of Wikipedia where there are "historical narratives, politics, and nationalism" involved in the sourcing and editing of an article. No result of an RfC on an article talk page has that kind of authority over the editing of other articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to read it that way; proponents do not get to predetermine how to interpret proposals. We already have procedures for the issue central to the RfC: The case that's being made is that modern RS are telling us that 17th to early 20th century, secondary-looking sources are not reliable secondary sources but are really propagandistic primary sources. So, we review them in this light, mindful of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That isn't anything new, no sweeping proposal, just standard operating procedure. There is a lot of undue weight being given to various Central and Eastern European sources on various articles. Due to the multi-ethnic nature of the entire region, and terrible conflicts that have been going on there for hundreds of years, especial care must be taken to not auto-trust one set of old sources that reflect the biases of one particular time period under one particular hegemony.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - You're probably going to want to reword this RFC. RFC's on article talk pages should be neutrally worded and present the issue/question clearly and concisely as possible. This one does not seem neutral, and the "proposal" seems to be directed at a change in policy rather than establishing consensus on a specific issue with this article. More info here and here. I'd suggest re-wording this as a much more specific question, which focuses narrowly on the specific disagreement that the RFC is meant to settle. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix. My approach is neutral in academic sense which is in full accordance with the Wikipedia NPOV. seems to be directed at a change in policy -- means what? Whose policy?-- (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
While the whole topic area, across many articles, is rife with PoV pushing, this RfC itself is neutrally worded. Much of the ensuing discussion is not, but the RfC is clear enough to comment on, and raises valid issues (lack of sourcing in the first question, and reliable sources questioning the reliability of a certain class of older material, which some have been citing here as if they are reliable secondary sources). It is not required that material from an RS that is quoted in support of a premise in an RFC be itself neutrally worded – Wikipedians have no say over how a source phrased something.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I congratulate you and FkpCascais and other editors for defending Nikola Tesla article from Croatian nationalists and for banning of Croatian POV pushers. I don't think we will see them again as you and other edits have established a practice to deal with them. They should be banned on first sight and not let to make this we can see from Detoner. I give my support to you to correct this article from Croatian POV. You gave very good sources, just please form the request a bit clearer. It would be of help if you made an account we need more people like you and FkpCascais to watch and edit Croatian articles, because Croatians will always push their POV. Regards. Croatian sources must be removed, and English sources should be used.

Here is my purposal. Change "After 1526 the Croatian Parliament elected the Austrian Habsburgs as kings of Croatia." to "After 1526 the Austrian Habsburgs became the kings of Croatia". Do you agree with this? (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, yet another epic fail RfC by the IP sock. Even Alex not a historian Bellamy says on page 39 "the Austrians never claimed that they conquered Croatia by force and there appears to be little reason to doubt Croatian claims about the events of 1526." John Antwerp Fine in his book "The Late Medieval Balkans - A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest" on page 595 says "On 31 December 1526, however, an assembly held by the Frankapans at their town of Cetin elected Ferdinand King of Croatia." Good luck with the rewriting. Tzowu (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the accusations. You are becoming more and more like other Croatian nationalists that got banned. Watch yourself. (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tzowu. a meat sockpuppet of Asdisis: After 1526 the Croatian Parliament elected the Austrian Habsburgs as kings of Croatia is not equal to On 31 December 1526, however, an assembly held by the Frankapans at their town of Cetin elected Ferdinand King of Croatia. Moreover, Ivo Vukcevich documented that The following year Frankopan is killed in battle with Habsburg forces at Varazdin. Alex Bellamy is a historian, while Marcus Tanner is not! When quoting Bellamy, please do not cut what you do not like. The quote on page 35, starts with "Unlike Magyar Historians,". Further, Bellamy makes a clear distance from Croatian historians: "Again, the Croatian historical narratives insists that the decision to join the Habsburg Empire was the result of a free choice made by the Sabor". Then, the most important from Belammy: "As a result, the lands of the medieval kingdom became even more divided in this period, Slavonia was separated from Croatia proper, while what was left of Croatia was separated into the Military Frontier (Vojna Krajina), which was administered directly bu the Emperor, and Civil Coratia administered by the Sabor."-- (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Well of course it's not equal, we can't write the exact sentence that Fine used. Two sources that you mentioned prove you wrong, and the third one is some crazy conspiracy theorist obsessed with Croatia. The "Frankopan that died in a battle" was not one of those that elected Ferdinand, but Christoph Frankopan that stood on the side of John Zapolya. I'll now request a semi-protection for the page. Tzowu (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tzowu. Please, stop distorting the references. Fine does not state anywhere which Frankopan it was, nor he provides a primary source to support his statement.-- (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And no, Bellamy is not a historian and in that little book of his he has a huge amount of mistakes, for example he said that Cetina River was in Montenegro. However, even he refutes you, even Bellamy, not to mention how Fine explicitly says that they elected Ferdinand. Tzowu (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What the river name and its location has to do with current issue? Fine uses the plural "Frankapans" (misspelled) not the singular "Frankopan". Shall we call it a huge mistake?-- (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • From the book, Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture. Volume 2, p.422,[9]
"On 1 January 1527, the Croation Landed Estates, meeting at Cetingrad, elected Ferdinand I of the House of Habsburg as King of Croatia in return for his pledge of support in defending the kingdom against further Ottoman incursions."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
A document, a primary source, please! No historical narratives, please! Ivo Vukcevic provided document stating the opposite: after which Ban Frankopan was killed in the battle with Habsburgs in 1527 at Varazdin.-- (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia policy section WP:PSTS, which says,
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
Add to the previous reliable, published secondary source another one, which is the book, The Austrian military border in Croatia, 1522-1747 by Gunther Erich Rothenberg. On p. 21 is the following,[10]
"In Croatia, however, Ferdinand's preparations were rewarded. The estates of Croatia asserted their right to act independently of Hungary and, after Ferdinand's envoys had given them explicit assurances that adequate forces would be maintained in the country against the Turks,39 the estates elected him King of Croatia on January 1, 1527.40"
--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob K31416, stop meddling. (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Yes, on my side, everything is in full accordance to the WP:PSTS. There is a primary document (letter to a Venetian diplomat), and the secondary source - Ivo Vukcevich. Do you really understand the WP:PSTS? The second reference you provided does not have a primary source (document) behind its statement. Recycled narratives cannot became reliable no matter how many times they were recycled.-- (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The book by Gunther E. Rothenberg, The Austrian military border in Croatia, 1522-1747 was published by the University of Illinois Press and is thus a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy section WP:SOURCE.
Your recommendation for a source, the book by Vukcevich, CROATIA 3: NEW LANGUAGE, NEW NATIONALITY, AND NEW STATE, does not appear to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy section WP:SPS, because it is self-published. The author used the company Xlibris for self-publishing his book. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The charter from Cetingrad preserved in the Austrian State Archives in Vienna.

Now this is getting embarrassing, IP. The Frankopan that was killed in 1527, Christoph Frankopan, didn't participate in the election of Ferdinand and was on the other side supporting Zapolya. The Frankopans that did participate in the election were Juraj (or George) III Frankopan and Vuk Frankopan. Do you understand that? John Antwerp Fine made no mistake as "Frankapan" is also a correct version of the name. So now we have 4 secondary sources that contradict your request and 0 that support it. And here's the primary one. Tzowu (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

    • The 'document' copy is completely unintelligible, no proof that it came fro the Austrian state archive, it comes from a Croatian government blog. Neither of the references aimed to support 'election' does refer to the 'document'. There is discrepancy among the references: one says (Fine) that Frankopans elected Ferdinand I, other that Croatian Sabor (existed that time?) elected Ferdinand I. Ferdinand I was just an Austrian duke who held the Czech king title too. The Frankopans that did participate in the election were Juraj (or George) III Frankopan and Vuk Frankopan is not something that Fine mentioned at all, therefore nothing to understand. By 'electing' Ferdinand I, the remnants of the Croatia became just an Austrian province, kingdom in the name and duchy in the reality.
    • The author used the company Xlibris for self-publishing his book makes no sense. Every Xlibris book has its own editorial board, as any other publishing company. Wikipedia, or academia, by no means, disqualifies Xlibris as a reliable source.-- (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have to agree with Darouet, Bob K31416 above. "RfCs are supposed to be very short and neutrally written. This RfC is very long, I can't make heads or tails of what it's really asking, and it seems there's a lot of pro-Croation or anti-Croation excitement on all sides, including in the RfC itself." -BoogaLouie (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC) ( volunteer from "feedback request service")