Jump to content

Talk:Slavonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSlavonia has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed

medieval scope

[edit]

In high medieval Slavonian borders were Sutla, Drava, Sava and Dunav (I don't know if the syrmian border was only nominal, or not). Karlovac was latter center of Croatian fronier, as it was part of central Croatia, and not Slavonian one. I added part about Hungarians heirs and creation of Banovina of Slavonia. Also some parts of northern Bosnia have been part of it (parts of Soli end Usora), as first bosnian borders were very much in the southern mountins:) Added part how Habsurgs came to power. Changed some parts about recent history (hope I wan't been flamed about this:) Ceha

I already showed to you historical maps of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary where the province of Slavonia included only the western part of what is now Slavonia. I do not understand what is a problem here? If that were borders of Slavonia in that time, that should be mentioned in the article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not see the relevance of writting about Croatia under Habsburgs if Croatia in that time did not included this region. The history should be either about the region of present-day Slavonia either about the medieval province of Slavonia (but only until it was called by that name). PANONIAN (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this:

  • "In the 12th century there was a practice that succesor of the trone first became Herzeg of Croatia (like the oldest British prince is prince of Wales), and there were some power grabs since in many cases son waged war against father, trying to establish and confirm its power base."

I really do not see why this is relevant for this article, it is like we have a task to write about dog, but we write about cat instead, does it? PANONIAN (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs are not majority in Slavonia now, neither in 1790

[edit]

The 1790 Austrian population census for the Kingdom of Slavonia recorded 131,000 (46.8%) Serbs 128,000 (45.7%) Croats, 19,000 (6.8%) Hungarians, and 2,000 (0.7%) Germans. The Kingdom of Slavonia in this time also included northern parts of eastern Syrmia mainly inhabited by Serbs, hence the number of Serbs in the Kingdom was larger than the number of Croats. - It was written by some of those serbian guys. This article hasn't any references and it is half-truth. I suggest that admins put on it {{Template:Neutral}} or reference missing -- Croat 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was written by 4 Hungarian historians in "Istorija Mađara" (Beograd, 2002) - I only translated this info. I can post this reference into article if you want? PANONIAN 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok post that reference into article (ali i ja i ti znamo da srbi nikad nisu bili većina u slavoniji). -- Croat 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will post the source but this data do not show population of what is today considered Slavonia, but of former Kingdom of Slavonia that also included Serbian part of Syrmia. PANONIAN 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windischland -> Slavonia, or Slovenia?

[edit]

Hmm? Wasn't Slavonia traditionally called Windischland by the Germans? Since when does Windisch mean Croat or Serb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.218.98.194 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Windisch = Ursprünglicher deutscher Begriff für slawisch („wendisch“) = old German word for Slavic". It means that "Windischland" is direct translation of "Slavonia" ("Land of Slavs"). --Plantago 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sory mate, Windisch in German means this: [1]. Croats are called Kroaten and Serbs are called Serben in German, not Winden/Windische. 218.137.104.169 10:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right so, to quote linked page: " Windische Sprache als historischer Begriff: Das in Österreich gebräuchliche Wort Windisch ist, ebenso wie das in Nord- und Ostdeutschland übliche wendisch, eine ursprüngliche deutsche Bezeichnung für Slawen, analog zu dem für Romanen gebräuchlichen Ausdruck Welsche. In Südösterreich wurde der Begriff für die Slowenen gebräuchlich. Diese Volksgruppe zählt heute zu den Minderheiten in Österreich. Als in Tübingen im sechzehnten Jahrhundert von Primož Trubar das erste slowenische Druckwerk der Geschichte erschien, trug es den deutschen Titel Catechismus in der windischen Sprach." (end quote) So, if you understand German, you can see confirmation of my statement. Only later this word got meaning Slovenian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantago (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although my German is indeed a little bit rusty, I nevertheless understand the meaning of: Als Windisch werden die in Südkärnten gesprochenen Varietäten der slowenische Sprache bezeichnet. As well as of: Windische Bühel ist die deutsche Bezeichnung für einen heute zum größten Teil in Slowenien liegenden Hügelzug in der ehemaligen Untersteiermark (slowenisch: Slovenske Gorice). The article also says: Windische Mark ist die historische Bezeichnung zur Zeit der Donaumonarchie für eine Gegend in Unterkrain (heute Slowenien).
In the Windische Mark article [2] it is said: Die Windische Mark (Slovenska krajina, Slovenska marka) ist ein historisches Gebiet im Mittelalter auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Slowenien. And further on: Das Territorium wurde nach den "windischen" Stämmen, den Vorfahren der heutigen Slowenen, benannt. As well as: Schon 631 wird in der Fredegar-Chronik erstmals eine "marcha Winedorum", eine windische Mark, genannt, die sich damals allerdings auf Gesamt-Karantanien bezog. So the name was used for predecessors of modern Slovenes in the year 631 already.
See where this link [3] redirects. Also, the city of Windischgrätz – does it mean ‘Slavic’ Gradec or does it mean Slovenj Gradec [4]? How about Windisch-Feistritz? Is it called Slovenska Bistrica [5] or ‘Slavic’ Bistrica? Similarly, the Austrian city of Matrei [6] was called Windisch-Matrei until the 20th century. Does it mean Slavic-Matrei? When one thus eliminates Slovenes from history and geography, a question inevitably arises – who were these Slavs from Slavic-Matrei. Were they Alpine Croats or were they Alpine Serbs or maybe Alpine Ukrainians?
Perhaps you should check the talk page in Pannonian Croatia article [7]. Some anonymous user provided a translation there of a few quotes from a book written by Antol Vramec in 1587. There Vramec, who was writing in Slavonian dialect of the time, wrote (line 1455) the Slavonian name for themselves – Szlouenczi. Does Szlouenczi also mean Slavs? As far as I know Szlouenczi means Slovenes in Slovene and Croat languages. Therefore, in the name Windischland the term Windisch means exactly the same as in the historical name Windische Mark and in such toponyms as Windisch-Feistritz. 125.14.156.206 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your contribution is WP:OR. I don't know your background, but I see your are Anon, and AFAIK contribution in Talk:Pannonian_Croatia is also yours. Your argumentation comes from ignorance, not knowledge. In a few words: different Slavic nations call/called themselves "Slovenci". Nowadays, Slovenians and Slovakians, two different nations, are calling themselves the same name. Earlier, inhabitants of Slavonia also also called themselves "Slovenians", and later "Slavonians". Now for name "Slovenci" versus "Croats": nations in modern sense are product of 18/19th century. Before that differentiation was by language, religion and state (country). As semi-independent kingdom was called Kingdom of Slavonia, I see no contradiction. At the time before Hungarians came to Pannonia there was great Moravian kingdom, part of which become todays Slovakia. It had bordered Slavonia. Does it mean that inhabitants of Slavonia or even Slovenia are maybe Slovaks? I have never ever said anything about Slovenj Gradec or any other place, so you are just putting words in my mouth trying to proclaim me as greater something (Croat?, Serb?, whatever). Quite opposite, you made claims regarding Slavonia, so please, if you have ANY relevant source claiming that people from Slavonia were Slovenes in any time feel free to cite it, otherwise let's stop this ridiculous discussion.--Plantago 10:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

I've removed the infobox, because that's infobox for a country, not for a region. Slavonia is just a region.
Tuscany has infobox "Region of Italy", Asturia has infobox "autonomous community". Yorkshire has none. Hrvatsko zagorje has none. Lesser Poland also has no infobox. None of them had inbobox "country". Kubura (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced map

[edit]

I removed an unsourced map of cities in Slavonia because it is problematic in several ways:

  1. The map introduces otherwise inexistent geographical region of "Slavonia proper"
  2. The western border of Slavonia depicted on the map appears to be WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH as it apparently corresponds to the western border of the Kingdom of Slavonia - which is not the same as the geographical region of Slavonia. (If the western border of the kingdom is authoritative, why not the eastern?)
  3. Depicting no geographical features other than cities, the map carries very little value - it seems a bit disorienting to me having no reference for location of the cities.

Looking at existing GAs, I think a topographic map may be better suited to the geographic region article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I don't believe the border between Slavonia and Syrmia runs along the county line, rather roughly along the line Vukovar-Vinkovci-Županja. --Joy [shallot] (talk)
Me neither - at any rate western boundary of Syrmia is as poorly defined as Slavonia's western border. That is hardly surprising - geographical regions within a single country tend to partially overlap rather than having neat, well-detailed borders.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are simply various views about exact borders of these regions and I do not see that views presented in my map are undoubtedly wrong in comparison to other views. Practically, my map depicts Slavonia in exactly same borders as your own map, Tomobe03: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavonia.svg So, if you claim that western border is wrong then you should first to correct it in your own map, right? As for description "Slavonia proper", I can replace that with "main part of Slavonia" (or something similar). As for exact border between Syrmia and Slavonia, I am aware of other sources that providing different view about it, but view that county border represents a border of Syrmia region is valid as well. Also, I never saw any source that saying that eastern part of Syrmia within Serbia is part of Slavonia - in all Serbian sources Slavonia is region outside of Serbian borders. As for references for my map, I listed my references on map's page. However, I do not see that page of this map contains any reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavonia.svg PANONIAN 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"My" map clearly indicates the area variously defined as Slavonia or otherwise and that is fully backed up in the article text by several sources. If we were to define a "main part of Slavonia", we could as easily carve out Podunavlje, Posavina, Podravina, Požega Valley and end up with nothing left, except that no specific boundaries exist between those. Vukovar-Syrmia County border cannot be interpreted as Syrmia region border (maybe it is, maybe not) nor can Brod-Posavina County be interpreted as synonymous with Posavina region, Virovitica-Podravina County with Podravina region etc. Your interpretation of county lines matching regions would put Osijek in Baranya and that's surely not the case, is it? That's boundary of a county, nothing else. Views that this makes or does not make region's border are anecdotal rather than properly sourced.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the map I removed is of hardly any use since it depicts no any geographic features (except cities location and Vukovar-Syrmia County line), and it does not provide any reference for location of the region within Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Slavonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should learn a bit about Croatia. I'll see what I can learn reviewing this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I am confident the article quality will improve as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • That sentence is meant to say that definition of borders of the geographical region varies - it is presently generally identified with five counties in the east of Croatia, but one of those counties includes Croatian part of Baranya (region). Some sources, including Croatian Bureau of Statistics do not distinguish the area from Slavonia when reporting GDP, harvested crops or population, etc. sometimes applying term of Eastern Croatia to the five counties as well. Slavonia as a region is generally considered to contain further microregions, including transborder ones, such as Syrmia, and no statistics are normally published for such microregions. A similar situation exists in the west of the region, where exact extent of Slavonia varies and for instance cities of Novska and Daruvar are sometimes considered a part of Slavonia mainly because they were a part of the Kingdom of Slavonia in the 18th and the 19th centuries. Conversely Pakrac is sometimes though of as a part of Central Croatia - but nowadays most sources in Croatia treat the macroregion of Slavonia as corresponding with the five counties.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, that information was not in the article - I added that now to one of the sections. Since those are not that surprising, i.e. mostly Croatian language is used, would it be better to leave out of the lead (and not add more to it) or would it still be preferable to include it there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have to read the article and understand the socio-political importance of these percentages. You present them towards the end of paragraphs suggesting they are not an important thing for this region of the world. In some regions ethnic or theological composition is extremely important to an understanding of the region. Here it might not be.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • I changed it a bit more, indeed there was a confusing bit I overlooked before. The em dash ahead of South Slavs living in the area of the former Illyricum is intended to set off the quoted bit from the rest of the sentence as a summary of descriptive phrase ahead of the em dash.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prehistory and antiquity
Middle Ages
  • "Tomislav was the first ruler of Croatia who was styled a king in a letter from Pope John X, dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925." Do you mean
  1. Tomislav was the first ruler of Croatia that was styled a king in a letter from Pope John X. The letter thus dates the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
  2. Tomislav, the first ruler of Croatia, was styled a king in a letter from Pope John X—dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
  3. Tomislav was the first ruler of Croatia. He was styled a king due to a 925 letter from Pope John X—dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
  4. Tomislav, the first ruler of Croatia. He was styled a king in a 925 letter from Pope John X, thus dating the kingdom of Croatia to 925.
As it is, I am having a bit of trouble determining the facts of the sentence. Are you pointing out he was the first ruler, the first ruler style a King, the first ruler styled a King by a Pope. I assume the letter was dated 925.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to clarify the sentence. Tomislav was not the first ruler of Croatia, but he was the first to be styled a king (earlier on they were styled dukes). The document of use of the title, and the date, is a letter from Pope John X.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Yugoslavia and World War II
  • Hm, parameters seem to be properly formatted, and the template documentation says that Firefox should display that. I'll check that out furthermore, and if it proves to be a dealbreaker here, I can always revert that to plain text version.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it a bit to remove need for the abbreviation - besides the regime did not really distinguish between inhabitants of the state and inhabitants of other territories in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Federal Yugoslavia and the independence of Croatia
Political geography
  • Actually, the article does mention (in "Kingdom of Yugoslavia and World War II" section) that the counties were abolished soon after 1918, but it does not deal with their re-establishment in 1992.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The whole of Slavonia is a part of Central and Eastern (Pannonian) Croatia NUTS-2 statistical unit of Croatia, together with further areas of Central Croatia." seems to fall short of being helpful. Maybe rather than "a part" say something like it is "the eastern half" or "the easternmost part".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opted for "the eastern half" - to tell the truth, Slavonia (i.e. the five counties) represent 53.9% of the particular NUTS region, which, i believe, is close enough to be translated into "half". The other proposed solution, in my opinion, suggests that Slavonia is a relatively small part of the NUTS region, which would make it misleading.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topography
Hydrography and climate
  • This is very far from my area of expertise, but there are two things I wonder about when reading this section:
    1. What happens to the mountain runoff in terms of flowing into rivers.? E.G. in the US, we have two well-known north-south continental divides.
    2. How do the mountains affect the climate. I.E. are they tall enough that on one side of them is desert since the water is sort of scraped out of the atmosphere as clouds cross them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding 1 - there is a catchment divide in the region, running west to east along Papuk Mt. and then along a low ridge from Papuk towards Fruška Gora. North of that line watercourses drain to the Drava and those south of the line to the Sava. An exception to the situation is Vuka - located north of the line - but draining to the Danube, as does the Drava itself. I'll add a bit on this shortly.
  • Regarding 2 - The mountains are not that high - especially considering that the highest peaks specified for the mountains are far from average height of the mountains. At any rate climate on either side of the mountains is the same.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics
  • Either add a table with the county populations or add the numbers to the prose here: "The largest portion of the total population lives in Osijek-Baranja county, followed by Vukovar-Syrmia county. Požega-Slavonia county is the least populous county of Slavonia."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economy and transport
  • "largely based on processing industry and trade" - Should we know what they process and trade more specifically.
  • "contributions to total turnover" - is there a link for turnover as you use it. I am not sure if explains the rest of the sentence and whether it relates to my question above. I have degrees in economics and finance and am a bit confused. I imagine things could be clearer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what was I thinking when I typed that. I meant to say that besides wholesale/retail business, processing industry, civil engineering and transport services account for most economy (in terms of income) of the region. I reworded that bit now, hopefully making it clearer.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 72,4% is s typo.
  • That's now in as well.
Thank you very much for taking time and effort to review this article. Your input really makes a difference and the article benefited from the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helper

[edit]

I just wanted to say that I will help out in any way I can in order to get Slavonia into a GA. I will hopefully be an asset to this effort, and can be a big help. I am passionate about geography, and love to see geography get passed as GAs. Oakley77 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering. Every bit of help is appreciated!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Can anyone add Syrmia on the map? It seems to me that such map will be more accurate since Baranya is marked with special color. This map can be useful File:Slavonia region cities map.png.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syrmia is a part of Slavonia, Baranya is not hence the difference. The map in use shows where Slavonia is located in Croatia, and where Eastern Croatia (Slavonia+Croatian part of Baranya) is in Croatia). The map you refer to is a case of WP:OR at least in terms of the western extent of Syrmia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there is a separate map in the article showing location of Vukovar-Syrmia County in the Eastern Croatia/Slavonia and a separate geographic map in the article with far more detail and context in the article, so there's absolutely no justification to change anything in this respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the text doesn't correspond with the map. The text reads, "Taking up the east of the country..." but the map very clearly shows that Slavonia occupies the *northern* part of "the country" which I suppose must mean the country of Croatia--or the whole passage doesn't make sense. I'm not changing the text yet because I'm not completely sure whether this is just a typo or what; let those who have been involved with the article do what's needed or clarify here. Poihths (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Slavonia as a region

[edit]

There is no official flag of Slavonia, nor is any "flag of Slavonia" in unofficial use. Please do not revert maintenance tags unless they are resolved.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in the edit summary of the edit introducing the flag as "unofficial flag alongside unofficial arms" is false and the editor who made it must be completely misinformed about the subject matter - the coat of arms is as official as it gets. It is described by Croatia Flag and Coat of Arms Act (http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/253505.html source) as the coat of arms of Slavonia in article 7 of the act and its use is described in the same article and in article 23. The same act does not provide for any flag of Slavonia, hence this flag is OR and should not be in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official coat of arms of Slavonia either, and I wonder how anyone could possibly source "unofficial use" or lack thereof. That's the unofficial flag of Slavonia, and we have a flag entry in the infobox. It makes perfect sense to have the unofficial flag up alongside the unofficial coat of arms. The source you quote describes a segment in the coat of arms of Croatia, and makes no mention of a separate coat of arms for Slavonia. The coa you're using is about as unofficial as it gets.
And I will keep reverting any misplaced {{cn}} tags that mess up the infobox. Place them properly please. All in all this is turning into a pretty classic display of WP:OWN you've got going there. -- Director (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it an unofficial flag? Your sayso? Regarding the coat of arms, you either did not read the source offered or you lie deliberately and knowingly. Let me quote that here from article 7: "Slavonski grb sadrži u štitu na plavom polju dvije popreène bijele (srebrne) grede, a izmeðu greda je crveno polje po kojem lagano stupa kuna na lijevo. U gornjem plavom polju je žuta (zlatna) šesterokraka zvijezda. Grb je obrubljen crvenom crtom." which translates to Coat of arms of Slavonia consists of blue blazon with two horizontal white (silver) bars and between the a red fess with a marten courant to the left. In the upper blue field is a yellow (golden) six-pointed star. The coat of arms is trimmed with a red line."--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now you produce a similar for the flag or remove it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an out-of-context quote, Tomboe :).

"Grb Republike Hrvatske je povijesni hrvatski grb u obliku štita dvostruko podijeljen vodoravno i okomito u dvadesetpet crvenih i bijelih (srebrnih) polja. tako da je prvo polje u gornjem lijevom kutu štita crvene boje. Iznad štita se nalazi kruna sa pet šiljaka koja se u blagom luku spaja sa lijevim i desnim gornjim dijelom štita. U krunu je smješteno pet manjih štitova s povijesnim hrvatskim grbovima koji su poredani od lijeve na desnu stranu štita u ovom redu: najstariji poznati grb Hrvatske, grbovi Dubrovacke Republike, Dalmacije, Istre i Slavonije."

"The coat of arms of the Republic of Croatia is the historic Croatian coat of arms in the form of a shield doubly divided horizontally and vertically into twenty-five red and white (silver) fields. So that the first field in the upper left corner of the shield is red. Above the shield there is a crown with five points that connects the left and right upper corners of the shield in an arch. In the crown there are inserted five smaller shields with historical Croatian coats of arms aligned from left to right in the following order: the oldest known coat of arms of Croatia, the coats of arms of the Republic of Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Istria and Slavonia..."

The text describes a segment of the coat of arms of Croatia, not an imaginary separate "official" coat of arms for Slavonia. Heraldry is a very detailed science, Tomboe. And there is a difference between a tiny segment of an official coat of arms - and an entirely separate coat of arms. The coat of arms you have up there is entirely unofficial. -- Director (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it begin with "Coat of arms of Slavonia is..."? Is it in an official act of the parliament?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its an official act of parliament, but it does not institute an "official" coat of arms for Slavonia. -- Director (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that you can't see words "Coat of arms of Slavonia is..." or that it doesn't matter what the parliament enacts if you don't append your personal seal of approval to it as a self-appointed arbiter of what the parliament meant or did not mean to say?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see the words "out-of-context"? I could equally argue you're appointing yourself the "arbiter". Particularly since the document makes no mention of a separate official coat of arms for Slavonia. What that text describes is the crown on the coat of arms of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... "Coat of arms of Slavonia consists of blue blazon with two horizontal white (silver) bars and between the a red fess with a marten courant to the left. In the upper blue field is a yellow (golden) six-pointed star. The coat of arms is trimmed with a red line." amounts to nothing? The act does specify that these arms are a part of the crown but those are still arms whether you like it or not. Can you provide at least something like that for the flag or is it your original research?

Re the shade of blue on the coa.. Honestly I think Šutej just used the lighter shade of blue for every other segment of the crown so as to avoid having them all mesh together (there's no border between them). I've done a little digging and it looks like baby blue isn't the proper shade for the Slavonian coat of arms. It was more along the lines of this version on Jelacic's banner [8]. I.e. the only reason we here have baby blue is because Šutej in 1990 found it more convenient in order to differentiate from the Istrian coat of arms. And take Dalmatia.. noone would dream of using his baby blue for the Dalmatian coat of arms. -- Director (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what is dreamt or preferred those colours are defined here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the absolute final time: that is not the coat of arms of Slavonia. That is the coat of arms of the Republic of Croatia. Croatian law does not define the coat of arms of Slavonia. They define a segment of the coat of arms of Croatia. There is no "official" coat of arms of Slavonia in existence today, nor are its colors at all defined anywhere. Ok this is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU now, and classic WP:OWN. Forgive me, but you've made some errors, and now its time to please let others edit this article as well... -- Director (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virovitica, Pakrac

[edit]

Please see Talk:Croatia proper#Virovitica, Pakrac. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slavonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Slavonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing by user Mikola22?

[edit]

Mikola22, first of all please do not engage in another edit war, please. Now please explain why have you removed sourced content from the article. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean? The Ottoman wars instigated great demographic changes. Croats migrated towards Austria and the present-day Burgenland Croats are direct descendants of these settlers. My edit: During the 16th century Croats from area of western and northern Bosnia, Lika, Krbava, area between the rivers of Una and Kupa and especially from western Slavonia migrated towards Austria and the present-day Burgenland Croats are direct descendants of these settlers. And with regard to the history period above that quote I set up information from source ( In the 15th century after the fall of the..) Instead of deleting data from Croatia article which do not have evidence in the source you delete my information that has evidence in the sources. I did not delete anything, I just replaced the place of two quotes, if the problem is with that tell me to get it back or do it yourself. You do not need because of that move all valuable data from article. POV pushing?? Explained.Mikola22 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22, I see some serious problems with your edit. Fist of all, you fraudulently changed the meaning of the phrase about relocation of Croats from Slavonia to Burgenland. Instead, for some reason you are talking about Lika, Krbava and so on. Then, I see problems with your sources. Can someone check the book "Slavonija : povijest naselja i podrijetlo stanovništva"? Is there an e-book somewhere? It's not Croatian Wikipedia, it's an international project, remember wp:verifiability. The author of the article "The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands" (in Croatian) is hr:Ladislav Heka. He is not a historian (he is a lawyer), but, instead, he "is an active member of the Croatian community". Perhaps, for this reason, he sets forth completely fringe views that they did not move to Slavonia from Serbia, but from Bulgaria. There are similar problems with your other sources (difficult to verify, a possible POV). And I do not understand that they add value to the old text. It seems to me that he says about the same thing, only more briefly and without unnecessary details.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC) And one thing more. Mikola22, please pay more attention to spaces and phrases. I will not undertake to edit the text for you (my English is also very poor, and I do not know what you really meant), but even I see some errors.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22 please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. This kind of behavior where you engage in an edit war is unacceptable. It is very disturbing and unproductive. Please, are you going to stop edit warring here and on other articles? Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tuvixer Which edit war? I did not delete anything, I put data concerning Slavonia. Then I will put data without moving old quotes from one place to another. Mikola22 (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I'm afraid you still need to explain to Mikola that the edit warring is not good.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Mikola22: I do not read BCMS, and I also do not have access to all your sources. Nevertheless, I have tried to take a look at your recent additions to Slovenia. I have been able to access the text by Ladislav Heka, and with the help of some creative searching and Google translate I have managed to find the text you quote. What I then see, is that your text is a more or less exact verbatim translation of the original, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation, see WP:CLOP. I will remove the copyvio text. I have no way to check on your other two additions, but if they are made in the same way, they will also have to be removed immediately until they can be replaced by a summary in your own words. The exact quote may be given in the reference, preferably with the original foreign language text and a translation into English. --T*U (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: I corrected this edit, I'll check the other quotes. Mikola22 (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola22, Please discuss the recent edits here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a official Good Article and it would be a shame to see it obliterated with poor writing, styling and dubious sources. Mhare (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Vlachs in Slavonia

[edit]

Turks to deserted area of Slavonia (Požega Valley) settled Orthodox Vlachs from Bosnia.[1] This information was disputed because of wp:burden, wp:verifiability and now I am adding the same book with new link to check data. After verifying this information, please return this information into article. New source link [2] Mikola22 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mirko Marković, 2002, Slavonia, settlement history and origin of population, http://library.foi.hr/lib/knjiga.php?sqlid=31&H=&E=&lok=&zbi=&sqlx=43014 #page=421
  2. ^ https://www.scribd.com/document/44987478/Mirko-Markovic-Slavonija-Povijest-Naselja-i-Podrijetlo-Stanovnistva
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavonia&oldid=1207805080"