Jump to content

Talk:Triune Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

It was under Hungarian rule

Croatia-Slavonia placed under the rule of Hungary...
 Under an 1868 agreement between Croatia and Hungary, known as the Nagodba, Croatian statehood was formally recognized, but Croatia was in fact stripped of all real control over its affairs
 When Hungarian, rather than Latin, was imposed as the official language in Hungary and Croatia, Croatian resistance took shape in the Illyrian movement of the 1830s and ’40s.
History of Croatia Britannica Encyclopedia 2009
Croatian Sabor (assembly), elected in a questionable manner, confirmed the subordination of Croatia to Hungary by accepting the Nagodba in September 1868 [1]
Yes you can call this nationalistic, yes you can call this provocative, yes you can call this dispurptive edit... but the truth is that some croatian nationalistic users especially attempt to push Croatian POV on Wikipedia. So I propose that if you call Britannica 1911 unreliable imperialistic toilet paper[2], then you should not do the same with Britannica 2009--Bizso (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is having constitution of personal union between Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary. Maybe is time to read constitution ?--Rjecina (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
the King of Hungary was not crowned separately as king of Croatia. He was king of the Croatian people as well as king of the Slovaks and king of the residents of Buda and so on. Croatia was governed by a ban at that time.
If you continue to remove Encyclopedia Britannica references, I'm going to the admin board again.--Bizso (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen, and since it is laid down in the Pragmatic Sanction also, that the lands of the Hungarian Crown are indivisible from one another: Hungary on the one hand, and Croatia and Slavonia on the other hand... ".
It will be pleasure to go again on admin board :)--Rjecina (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Those were the parties of Nagodba. See britannica references that you were removing for more information on it. --Bizso (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article subject

"Triune Kingdom" is not same as "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" and there should be separate articles about Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, and its two parts: Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia, since both parts had separate administration. PANONIAN 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a difficult subject. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia frequently referred to itself as the Triune Kingdom, that's why it used the three "regional" symbols as its coat of arms. For example, in the Nagodba of 1868, Croatia-Slavonia is referred to as the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia. The Kingdom of Dalmatia essentially had nothing to do with the project, as it lacked officials with a mandate to propose such ambitious projects (unlike in the north, which retained some government led by the ban). (P.S. Welcome back.)--Thewanderer (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can agree that it was same government for "Triune Kingdom" and for "Croatia-Slavonia", but we certainly have two different encyclopaedic subjects here. I think that we should have two articles, one of them describing "Triune Kingdom" (with description that this kingdom also claim that Dalmatia belong to it, but that Dalmatia is in fact under separate administration) and another one describing "Croatia-Slavonia" as an official region within Habsburg Monarchy. PANONIAN 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I propose we merge this article with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. I'm a Dalmatian, and however much I don't like it, the Kingdom of Dalmatia was a seperate, completely subdivision completely independent from Croatia-Slavonia, no matter what the governing bodies of the latter demanded. Dalmatia, in fact, was actually ruled by the Autonomist Party for much of the 19th century, a party which was opposed to a union with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.

What we have here is an article about a state that never really existed. We have an article about an unfulfilled territorial claim by some historical governments of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Yes, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia under some Bans liked to refer to itself as the "Triune Kingdom", but this was not its name, and this was not its territorial extent.

We should merge this with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, making note of the terriotrial demands (and the associated name change) of the KIngdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We should not play "pretend games" and create a whole new "former country" just because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, who's name I must emphasize was "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", liked to sometimes refer itself as the "Triune Kingdom of C, S, and D". Guys we've got two states that existed at the same time in the same place, one is wishful thinking, the other is not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Direktor you have some false informations.. The Autonomists (pro-Italian party) held their position as the parliamentary majority in the REGIONAL Dalmatian Sabor from its founding 1861 until 1870, when the People's Party (pro-Croatian party) won the parliamentary elections that year. Croatian became the official language of the parliament in 1883. And yes, Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was official name of Austria-Hungarian division.
There is difference between Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia and Kingdom (ruled by Ban) and Croatia-Slavonia or Dalmatia, Bohemia, etc... was ruled by kings. There should be separate articles about Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, and its two parts: Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia.
See The Hungaro-Croatian Compromise of 1868 Page 371 source: H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine or see previous discussion.
50. At the head of the Autonomous Provincial Government in Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia stands the Ban, who is responsible to the Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Diet.
' 51. The Ban of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia is appointed by His Imperial and Apostolic Royal Majesty, on the proposal and under the signature of the Royal Hungarian Joint Premier.
In the event of the Croatian-Slavonian Dalmatian-Sabor being dissolved in the interval, the deputies of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia remain members of the Joint Parliament until the newly summoned Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Sabor elects new deputies.
--93.138.123.13 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was an entity that included the Kingdom of Dalmatia and the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia? You're also saying that the Ban ruled the 'Kingdom of Dalmatia' in addition to the 'Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia'?

You're source is ok, but it looks to me like all it does is use the name "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" instead of "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia", which was not uncommon. First I hope you can provide a source that confirms the claim that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was, in fact, an official internal subdivision of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not just another name for the "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia". In other words, you should show that the Kingdom of Dalmatia (and the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia) were in fact a part of an entity known as "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia".
(I am not talking about a couple of honorary representatives from the Dalmatian Sabor in the Croatian-Slavonian Sabor, but about the existence of a whole former entity.)

What sounds suspicious is the idea that a "super-entity" existed which unified two constitutional lands from Cisleithania and Transleithania. I believe that the name "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply sometimes used for the "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia". Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)



I've looked-up the matter and merged the articles. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" by the Hungarian authorities because the Hungarians wanted to join Dalmatia into the Hungarian part of the dual state. I say "sometimes" because when the Croats, Slovenes and Serbs started talking about a third South Slavic subdivision within the monarchy, the Hungarians stopped supporting the union. The name of this subdivision, however, is undoubtedly "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". The rest are Hungarian political claims and machinations. Without a shadow of a doubt. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please stop reverting the merge. There are only 2 (two) reasons why an article with this title could possibly exist:
1) Either the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was actually named Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Which is simply not the case.
2) OR there existed a "super-state" that actually united two subdivisions from the two completely seperate parts of the dual Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
I'm going to need a proper source confirming exactly that Croatia-Slavonia from Transleithania, and the Kingdom of Dalmatia from Cisleithania were somehow "united into one state".I don't mean Dalmatian representatives in the Croatian-Slavionian Sabor, I mean an actual existing state. The "2)" option is so unbelievably unlikely and strange I imagine there must be a metric ton of evidence pointing towards the existence of such a "super-subdivision", if it did in fact exist that is. Please don't revert the merge unless you actually have the source stating something like that. Published historians please, preferably university publications.
The text of the Nagodba is actually referring to Croatia-Slavonia as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", as part of the contemporary Hungarian policy of claiming Dalmatia for Transleithania. That does not change the fact that ALL published works I've found refer to this state as "Croatia-Slavonia", with only a number of Croatian sources using the term "Triune Kingdom" as an alternative term for "Croatia-Slavonia" (not claiming the existence of a "super-subdivision"). NONE of them actually claimed that Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia were united into a state. The very idea of something like that is ludicrous to anyone that understands Austro-Hungarian politics. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
A quick overview of reputable English-language sources shows that this article is counterfactual. There was no such state in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It was the name by which the mediaeval Kingdom of Croatia was referred by Croatian historian in the 19th century, and such was used as an name for a future (but never accomplished) united state of these regions. Ass you can see here, here, here or here, the "triune kingdom..." was just a goal, so there's no reason for this article to exist. It should be redirected either to the medieval kingdom of Croatia or the Transleithanian Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Of course, whatever the article chosen, the latter article should mention the desire of some circles in Croatia-Slavonia to "revive" the supposed medieval state under this name, as the ideal seems quite notable.Anonimu (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The whole thing is nothing but a phantom, it really is Croatian nationalist propaganda left over from the 1990s. When I explained that fact I was called "biased". I already elaborated on this claim in the lead of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. I also explained that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was, at times referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" (with "Croatia" first) within the Hungarian part of the monarchy, as Hungarians wanted to expand Transleithania to include Dalmatia, but the name of this state (both properly and by WP:COMMONNAME) is "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia".
The article should be redirected to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, since the name of the medieval Croatian Kingdom was "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia" (with "Dalmatia" first). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Merged article

Dear Direktor, why did you deleted this article? I belive that your views are biased.

You can find more references... just if you want.

  • "...When their own dynasty died out in 1102, the Croatian Diet or "Sabor" chose the Hungarian dynasty, trading away full independence for security, stability and internal autonomy. The "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" remained a legally distinct constitutional entity. After Mohacs, the "Sabor" (assembly) separately selected the Habsburg candidate as Croatia's king..."

(Michigan State University source: http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm )

etc.. --Dvatel (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reminder for Direktor: Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, remember?)

Yes, thank you. I'll try to curb my wild anti-Croatian bias :P. Please do not patronize me, I am indeed assuming good faith. What you should probably do is familiarize yourself with the issue before reverting me. I am not some IP, and the edit is not vandalism. Your sources:
  • The first one is talking about the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) (also known as the "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia", with "Dalmatia" first up) in 1102, and I'm talking about Austria-Hungary in 1868. You're off by about 750 years.
  • I've read your second source a while back, and it actually proves my point. The National Question was one of the causes for the merge. The source explains how the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was actually another name sometimes used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
Since you're reverting me and at the same time proving my point on the talkpage, I'm assuming you don't know what this is all about. The issue here is whether or not the "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" was a super-entity combining the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia. Its not about the name of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, which we already know is - "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Director (hrv. Direktor) :) First, please read sources... Second, can you provide some reliable references, why did you deleted this article. Otherwise, i must assume that your views are biased (ref: [3]). --Dvatel (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dvatel, you're not making any sense. I read the sources, and I already responded to them. You've no idea what you're talking about, since you're actually presenting sources that support my edit. Did you even read what the issue is about? You actually provided a source yourself. The reason I'm losing my temper here is because you're reverting me without no basis whatsoever, and have no understanding of the matter you are editing. You are likely here only because there were too many red numbers in my edit.
Please either stop reverting me, or start discussing properly. "Otherwise, i must assume that your views are biased." Do you understand what you are discussing? Can you tell me why you're restoring an article when there's another article on the exact same state elsewhere? Can you provide sources about this being a seperate entity. Your sources so far either have nothing to do with the issue, or are proving exactly the opposite - that these are the same state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Dvatel

User:Dvatel, please explain your actions. Your quoting of those two sources is simply nonsensical, and actually supports the merge. Do you even know what this is about? Be advised that you are edit-warring without discussion.

Kindly explain why this article should remain seperate from an article on the exact same subject. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This is really starting to get ridiculous. You can't just waltz in and revert-war without a valid reason. What's worse, you don't even have enough understanding of the merge issue to possibly present one. User:Dvatel, I really hope you'll start properly discussing and present your excuse for the revert-warring. If you think this article is too insignificant for an effort beyond repeating the same answered point in one-sentence posts, then please stop hampering developments.
Again, kindly provide a reason for your revert and stop haughtily ignoring this discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question?

If Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was not a state (I am not saying it was or it wasn't), what sholuld we do with articles such as SAO Krajina, SAO Western Slavonia, SAO Kninska Krajina or Republic of Serbian Krajina? They were self-proclaimed Serbian-dominated entity within Croatia during the 1990s. Triune Kingdom was at least self-proclaimed Croatian-dominated entity within Austrian-Hungarian Empire if it was not a kingdom within Austrian-Hungarian Empire? --Kebeta (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... what? None of the above has any bearing on the matter. The "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was another name for Croatia-Slavonia, used sometimes in the Hungarian part of the monarchy (Transleithania). The SAOs were de facto existing political entities (though de jure they had no legality whatsoever). A union between the kingdoms of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia never existed, de jure or de facto. The Triune Kingdom is an idea, a claim, existing only as a rarely used name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Facts about that title are mentioned and explained fully.
Why are you turning this into a Croatian/Serbian thing? :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you are you turning this into a Croatian/Serbian. Just look at your contributions, history.. You're deleting this article... I didn't find any relevant infos of Triune Kingdom on Croatia-Slavonia article. Therefore, you are not merging this topic, you are deleting it.

If you cannot merge a page properly, or you think that the renaming may be opposed, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. --Dvatel (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, you should merge this Croatian–Hungarian Agreement also, or? --Dvatel (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Re:"No, you are you turning this into a Croatian/Serbian. Just look at your contributions, history.. You're deleting this article..."
Again with the nonsensical posts. What in the world are you talking about?? How am I turning this into a Croatian/Serbian thing?! I am a Croat, this edit may only be perceived as "anti-Croatian", if anything. I am being objective and merging two articles on the exact same thing. Your opinions on the quality of my edits do not concern me in the least. And since we're getting all personal: just look at your contributions: you're newbie. You have NO idea what this issue is about, and yet you are editing here.
Re:"I didn't find any relevant infos of Triune Kingdom on Croatia-Slavonia article. Therefore, you are not merging this topic, you are deleting it."
"Infos"? Then I recommend reading glasses. I am not "deleting the article". The second paragraph of the lead of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article is devoted entirely to the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Also, most of the text of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article has been copy/pasted there from this article. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Re:"If you cannot merge a page properly, or you think that the renaming may be opposed, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there."
Thank you for your copy/pasted nonsense. I repeat: these are two articles on the exact same state. I do not consider this merge opposed, since not a single reason has been presented as to why it is "opposed". Literally, you have presented no reason for your revert. I consider one User reverting my edits, with no basis whatsoever, a ridiculous provocation.
Re:"Then, you should merge this Croatian–Hungarian Agreement also, or?"
What utter nonsense, of course not. Once again you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
For the final time, I'll have to report you if you do not start discussing properly and stop commenting on my contribs to this Wikipedia. I am honestly starting to lose my temper. Present a reason, an explanation for your actions. Why are you reverting me? Start discussing. Are you having trouble with English?
I am getting sick and tired of spelling everything out and repeating myself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


RE: Also, kindly cease patronizing me, it is insulting when it comes from a User with far less experience on Wikipedia. Stop accusing me of bias "by default". I am not "biased", how could I possibly be "biased"? Direktor, Your posts are offensive! --Dvatel (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


I've read over this discussion and so far, the evidence brought forth suggests that the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was merely another name for Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Dvatel, you can't demand someone provide a reference to prove that this wasn't a separate entity. The burden of evidence is on those who claim this was a separate entity, not the other way around. The two sources you gave above have been refuted. Unless references are provided to prove your claim, this article will be redirected. Spellcast (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ok, but this new article should be improved. --Dvatel (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, it indeed should be improved. Spellcast (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Ban of Croatia referred to themselves at that point by title Ban of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia.
  • The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia frequently referred to itself as the Triune Kingdom, that's why it used the three "regional" symbols as its coat of arms.
  • In the Nagodba of 1868, Croatia-Slavonia is referred to as the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia.
  • Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was not another name for The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was an autonomous kingdom within Austro-Hungarian Empire, and The Kingdom of Dalmatia was an administrative division (kingdom) of the Habsburg Monarchy.
  • Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was official name of Austria-Hungarian division, but not an administrative division. It was an entity known as "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", that comprise of two administrative division within Austro-Hungarian Empire. --Kebeta (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Here we go again... Now you're not making any sense, you actually contradicted yourself. First you admitted that the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia frequently referred to itself as the Triune Kingdom", only to state again that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was not another name for The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". However, your last bold discussion point is at least an argument.
Re:"Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was official name of Austria-Hungarian division, but not an administrative division. It was an entity known as "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", that comprise of two administrative division within Austro-Hungarian Empire."
Sadly, no. This is the misconception that resulted in Wikipedia sporting two articles on the same former country. The above is completely incorrect. There was no such "super-subdivision" that united two other subdivisons, one from Cisleithania, the other from Transleithania. That is a myth. The term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was another name for the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", and the reason why its used in some documents like the Nagodba, is that the Hungarians were pushing for the annexation of Dalmatia into the Hungarian part of the dual monarchy. Read the second paragraph of the lead of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article.
Long story short: present a source for that claim. All publications I've encountered so far are contrary to it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
What is all this nonsense?? OMFG already! Stop cluttering the page. Will you please show me a source confirming that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia were united in this imaginary entity. All you're proving is that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" - which is why I merged the article sin the first place. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)



Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, 1867 – 1918 

 Flag [4]

In use: since 1867 Adopted: 1868 Abandoned: 29th December 1918 Source: Jelena Borošak-Marjanović: “Zastave kroz stoljeća, zbirka zastava i zastavnih vrpca Hrvatskog povjesnog muzeja”, Hrvatski povjesni muzej, Zagreb, 1996.

The flag of this design was mass produced (manufactured by printing on textile) in Zagreb around 1894. (a sample is preserved in HPM). The flag is more detailed prescribed on 19 June 1876, and by the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement (of 1869) and an edict of 16 September 1876, the crown above the shield should be the St. Stephen's Crown. The edict of 20 December 1899 determines inverted order of the Croatian and Dalmatian coats of arms in regard to 1876 prescriptions (i.e. it prescribed that the word "left" and "right" in 1876 prescriptions should be understood in heraldic manner).


Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems

Since during the time became a custom in Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia to use flags which are not adequate either in state-juridical or in political sense. So, because except of the decree of the Imperial and Royal High Command in Zagreb of April 8, 1885, No. 231/Pr., which was issued naturally only for the former military frontier, there are not general regulations for usage of flags, I order:

§ 1.

According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement and of decree of the Department of Interior of the Royal Country Government of November 16, 1867, No. 18.307, red-white-blue tricolour is civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is official flag for usage in autonomic affairs. Above-mentioned civil flag may use everyone in appropriate way.

§ 2.

Besides, as it was stated in mentioned decree of the Imperial and Royal High Command, it is allowed to everyone to use in proper way in public celebration occasions red-white-green Hungarian tricolour and black-yellow Austrian flag. Furthermore, at special occasions it is allowed usage by authorities recognised flags and Coat-of-Arms of county and town municipalities, free and royal towns, administrative and noble communities and some noble families.

§ 3.

Usage of flags of other countries and other civil or political flags is not allowed. Exceptionally, local authority may allow usage of flag of foreign sovereigns and countries in special occasions in honour of sovereign, member of ruling house or representative of foreign friendly country, or to that country itself. The same rules apply to every other usage of colours and emblems of foreign countries. This decree does not interfere in right of persons protected by international law to use flag of country, which they are representative.

§ 4.

Public corporations, civil societies and guilds and private societies must use only flags, which are approved by authority.

§ 5.

Police authorities must punish violations of this decree with fine of 2 to 200 K or with arrest from 6 hours to 14 days and confiscate unauthorised flag or emblem.

§ 6.

This decree is valid from the day of proclamation.

Zagreb, November 21, 1914.

Dr. Ivan baronet Skerlecz, pers. sign.

That means that ONLY the coat-of-arms of triune kingdom with the crown of st. Stephen was official emblem of the country. --Kebeta (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Map [5] of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, with the Triune coat of arms and marked border of the territory with which the Kingdom entered the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1919. --Kebeta (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The titles of the Ban have no relevance. Consider this: the King of Spain called himself, among others, "Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens and Neopatria" in the early 20th century, even if he hadn't ruled any of those territories in the previous century. Also, some ceremonial names of the state, that were used seldom and generally by romantic nationalists of the period had no effect on anything in real life. All the sources brought until now, safe the Nagodba, make it clear that the "Triune kingdom" is either a reference to early medieval state, or an aspired but not accomplished dream of some Croatian circles of the 19th century. So let's not take any romantic nationalist concept at its face value.Anonimu (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
What is all this nonsense?? OMFG already! Stop cluttering the page. Will you please show me a source confirming that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia were united in this imaginary entity. All you're proving is that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" - which is why I merged the articles in the first place. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


No, I am not saying this or that. I just don't agree with the merge proposal. If other editors claim that Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia wasn't a country or entity, than it should be an article about an idea of unifying all three parts of Croatia (like it was until 1102, and like it is today - since from 1102 Croats always chose their state; they could be a part of Ottoman Empire, but they weren't). Croats at that time in history embraced Triune Kingdom as a fact (you may called it romantic nationalist concept). Emblems, flags and maps from that period prove it. Moreover, lots of historians from that and today's period (foreign or domestic) talk about it (in one way or another), and you want to delete this article, and in the same time there are numerous less important articles on the wiki? --Kebeta (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Its the most straightforward merge in history of Wiki. "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. I'm going to redirect this page to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, ffs. You can write all about the territorial aspirations and "embraces" of that Austro-Hungarian subdivision in its article.
Enough with the silliness, pls. This state was ideal, it never existed. Kindly stop revert-warring. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


"Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was not another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It was an at least an idea if not entity that comprise of two administrative division within Austro-Hungarian Empire. Like I said before: Emblems, flags and maps from that period prove it. --Kebeta (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There are like twenty sources that CONFIRM that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was not another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. By "at least an idea" you mean "territorial claim of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia"? Please, do write all about the politics (and "ideas") of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. And stop with this nationalist nonsense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, this article is misleading to a reader not familiar with Balkan history. It gives the impression that it was an official kingdom of Austria-Hungary, but it was really a Croatian unification goal. If this is to be a separate page, it should make clear that this was a Croatian ideal. However, this article is pretty much an exact duplicate of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The only major thing that distinguishes this article from that one is a few sentences saying that the Croatian administration recognised an entity called "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". And that can easily be mentioned in the lead of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Spellcast (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This was all caused by the fact that the Hungarians and Croats used the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" when they wanted to claim Dalmatia for Transleithania. When the Croats started talking about a third unit in the monarchy, the Hungrians dissalowed the usage of the "expansionist name" and stopped supporting the unification of South Slavic lands. Fast-forward to the 1990s, and you've got a wartime nationalist Croatian government indoctrinating people with silly historical "ideas" designed to show the "continuity of Croatian statehood", and inventing states like "Croatia-Hungary" and presenting these two completely seperate Austro-Hungarian subdivisions as a single state, the glorious Triune Kingdom(!) "divided by the evil overlords" (which is contradictory in itself, of course). Now half of Croatia would sware that Croatia-Hungary existed, that the Triune Kingdom was not imaginary, just like half of Serbia would attack you if you tried to say the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Kebeta, you don't agree with either of us. We both said the article has to be merged. The article has to be merged, the "idea" as you call it, can be explained in the Croatia-Slavonia article. Please respond fully to posts.
As you can probably see Spellcast, when I say the Triune Kingdom never existed, I'm attacking an "enshrined belief" of sorts. There's a mass of people who find it highly uncomfortable to accept the "harsh" facts, and will thus irrationally oppose their affirmation to the bitter end - even if blatantly contradicted by sources. This opposition is particularly significant on "fringe" articles like this one, which stood like this for months, because objective, serious editors don't want to discuss with zealots for days about an insignificant article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, both of you, please stop editing the mainspace. Both of you are currently edit warring, and any admin could block you under official WP policies. Consider leaving a "wrong version" until a consensus arises. If edit warring continues I'll consider requesting protection until the talk page matters are settled.Anonimu (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose a separate article for pages like this. But the problem is that this is duplicating the same content as Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It's pointless to have two almost identical articles. If the only major thing this article has to offer is a few sentences about the Croatian administration recognising this entity, then I don't see why it shouldn't simply be merged. Spellcast (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The Croatian administration never actually recognized this entity, it was just an alternative name used to facilitate the territorial claim. In modern Croatia, it was also never "officially" recognized as having existed. The bit of info about the claims on Dalmatia can easily be included in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, in like two sentences. A whole article? LoL...
Anonimu, the wrong version is on, I'm not edit-warring. Its just that this nonsense has lasted for two days now and I'm really getting sick of dealing with irrational arguments. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with the merge, but WP has instituted a limit to prevent escalating edit wars. If there's only one user opposing a large group, and that user vehemently opposes the consensus, a third opinion may be needed to confirm consensus, and maybe even admin intervention. However, considering what went on in mainspace, I think an admin intervention is not the best strategy to pursue at the moment.Anonimu (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about WP:3RR. This dispute is so silly, and there really is no reason whatsoever why the merge shouldn't go forward, why bother more people? (Nobody is edit-warring.) Unless Kebeta can produce some kind of source on the imaginary state I really can't imagine how this dispute will proceed much longer. The silly proposition of creating a two sentence-long article about an unfullfilled territorial claim is not something to be seriously considered at all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the Croatian administration not recognising this entity. Here, it says the Croatian assembly ("diet") supported the idea of this triune kingdom. In either case, this article doesn't have much new things to offer than what's already said in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Kebeta, do you still support keeping this article separate if the only major difference is a few sentences that can easily be merged? Spellcast (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Misunderstanding, then. Yes, they supported the idea (at times, when they had Hungarian support), but they never claimed to have established such a state, i.e. the Croatian administration never "recognized" the actual existence of such a state (a union with Dalmatia). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Question

History

  • Kingdom of Croatia (Medieval) joined Kingdom of Hungary by choice in 1102.
  • In January 1, 1527 the Croatian nobles at Cetin unanimously elected Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria as their king.
  • In 1868 Croatian assembly supported the idea of triune kingdom and unification of all Croat lands within monarchy.
  • After long struggle and World War I, in 1918 they achieved in a way of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, and so on, and so on...
  • When(if) todays Croatia enter EU, after some 100 years, some people will say that Croatia was not independent because France and Germany were strongest and bigest nations in EU. Or that Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands were independent because they created European Economic Community, and the others were not fully independent because they joined later.

Triune Kingdom

Conclusion

  • So, I will repeat first sentence that I wrote in this talk page about was Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia a state: I am not saying it was or it wasn't. There are many sources either way (pro & contra).
  • And will add another: If it wasn't a state, that is no reason for deleting a part of Croatian history.
  • The aricle is just badly written, and similar to an article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. --Kebeta (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)



LoL, more 1990s fantasies. What nonsense. Kidly cease cluttering this page with irrelevant info - I know my country's history. Conclusion: You're confusing de jure ownership of territory with a territorial claim that is based on quite dubious medieval law. The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia did NOT de jure exist. Seriously, you need to read-up on your history from non-Balkans sources.

There is a difference from a government actually being in legal (de jure) ownership of a territory, and a government claiming that this territory belongs to it on the basis of very, very debatable medieval custom.

Now, either provide a source on this entity's existence or stop. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SOURCES please

This is unbelievable. Kebeta, we have a large number of reliable published sources that confirm that "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. You have nothing but nonsense claims. First you claimed this state actually existed, then you claimed it didn't exist but this article should be about a two-sentence territorial claim. Now you're saying the state "legally existed". Where are your published, neutral (non-Balkans) sources?

For the final time, your medieval legal theories are completely irrelevant in a discussion about Austria-Hungary. Dalmatia was legally, de jure a Kronland of the Austrian Empire. The state DID NOT exist de jure, because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia were never legally united. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia claimed Dalmatia on the basis of medieval custom, but that is NOT de jure ownership. I am not even going into how dubious and debatable Croatia-Slavonia's "legal rights" on Dalmatia actually are, 1990s propaganda aside.

Just answer straightforwardly: do you, or do you not have sources. Because I do. Tons of them. If you don't have sources this article will be merged. If you continue to edit contrary to sources I will have to report you an ask for admin intervention. This has gone on long enough. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Direktor what are you talking about? history or politics?

...The whole thing is nothing but a phantom, it really is Croatian nationalist propaganda left over from the 1990s... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
...Fast-forward to the 1990s, and you've got a wartime nationalist Croatian government...

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

...LoL, more 1990s fantasies. What nonsense. Kidly cease cluttering this page with irrelevant info... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that the User:Direktor has a certain bias.. I believe that he began to suffer after the horrible events (1990) in his country. I am realy sorry, but that is no reason to merge and delete this article.. Once more, read all sources. Best regards! :) --Dvatel (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is too rich! xD You've got to be kidding, right? Suffered after the horrible..??! I should read the sources??! If this wasn't so funny I'd report you for your offensive personal remarks. As I've already said literally seven times, your sources are a joke, and so are your posts. Of your two sources, one supports the merge, the other is off by 750 years. This is just getting freaky now... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There was more than two sources, like Michigan State University... :) I'd report you for your offensive personal remarks. Direktor, please, Make It So! btw.. (2nd time) Direktor, some of YOUR posts are offensive! --Dvatel (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All I can see up there are two links. Your whole post is frankly very disorganized. One of your "sources" is (embarrassingly) off by no less than 750 years, the other I've read a while back and it actually supports the move. Am I missing something? Is there a third source? Remember, you're supposed to be trying to prove that the Triune Kingdom was not the same thing as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
You have the makings of a real editor, you should just learn to discuss properly. I'm sure you will in time, for now: comment on content, not the contributor (WP:PA). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Dvatel, you should really stop citing people out of context and start to bring sources that support your editorial position. Until now I've seen none. You're really exhausting the community's patience now by your behaviour. If you really have sources that make it clear the "Triune kingdom" should be a stand-alone article rather than a redirect + section in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, please put them here. Otherwise you are bound to accept the consensus reached by editors. No matter how strong you feel about this, please understand that, in Wikipedia at least, the verifiability is much more important that "the truth". And your position is not currently verifiable.Anonimu (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Triune Kingdom

Google books

Foreign historians

  • Westenbergii, J.O.: Jcti et antecessoris principia juris, Wiennae, 1755.
  • Szegedi: Tripartitum juris Hungarici, Zagabriae, 1762.
  • Verböczy, S.: Extractus.. tripartiti juris, Pestini 1800.
  • Zeiler, Franz Edlen: Commentar über das allgemeine bürger. Gesetzbuch für die gesammten deutschen Erbländer der *Österreichishcne Monarchie. Wien-Triest, 1812.
  • Hupka, Kristophs: Sätze über das peinliche Recht nach der Theresianschen Halsgerichtsordnung mit angehängten Abweichungen vom *Karolinschen Rechte. Wien, 1874. (gotica)
  • Collectio benignarum normalium resolutionum caesareo-regiarum, Pestini, 1785.
  • Szlemenics, Paulo: Discussio opusculi, cui nomen: Ratio Jurisprudentie Hungaricae ad ductum institutionum kelemenianarum, Posonii, 1817.
  • Deglivellio, Antonio: Saggio d uno studio storico-critico …di Ragusa, Ragusa, 1873.
  • Pellegrini-Danielli, Cesare: Sulla colonia Dalmata, Zara, 1896.

Croatian historians

  • Kukuljević Sakcinski, Ivan: Privilegia Libertas Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae , Slavoniae, Zagreb, 1862.
  • Kukuljević Sakcinski, Ivan: Acta Croatica, Zagreb, 1863.
  • Šulek, Bogoslav: Naše pravice. Izbor zakonah, poveljah i spisah znamenitih za državno pravo Kraljevine dalmatinsko-hrvatsko-slavonske od 1202. do 1868., Zagreb, 1868,
  • Polić, Martin: Parlamentarna povijest Kraljevina Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije, Zagreb, 1899.
  • Tkalčić, Ivan: Povjestni spomenici slob. Kralj. grada Zagreba priestolnice kraljevine dalmatinsko-hrvatsko-slavonske, Zagreb, 1889.
  • Strohal, Ivan: Statuti primorskih gradova i općina, Zagreb, 1911.
  • Tomašić, Nikola: Temelji državnoga prava hrvatskoga kraljevstva , Zagreb, 1910.
  • Smičiklas, Tade: Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, Zagreb, 1910.
  • Šišić, Ferdo: Hrvatski saborski spisi, Zagreb, 1912.
  • Laszowski, Emilij: Habsburški spomenici kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, Zagreb, 1914.

Documents from period of Triune Kingdom

  • Dnevnik Sabora Trojedne kraljevine Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije 1861.-1887.
  • Stenografički zapisnici Sabora Kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije 1887-1918.
  • Sbornik zakona za Kraljevinu Hrvatsku i Slavoniju 1863.-1926.
  • Sbornik Ugarsko-hrvatskih skupnih zakonah 1871.-1917.
  • Zemaljsko-zakonski i vladni list za Krunovinu Horvatsku i Slavoniu 1850.-1859.
  • List zakonah i spisah vlade za Krunovinu Dalmaciu 1849.-1916.
  • Raccolta delle leggi ed ordinanze per la Dalmazia dell anno 1819-1848.

Others: documents,emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage....

  • [6] Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (1848 - 1867)
  • [7] Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (1867 - 1918))
  • [8] Antikviteti
  • [9] Hrvatski sabor
  • [10] Museum
  • [11] Vrhovni Sud
  • [12] Croatian coin catalog
  • [13] Decisions of the Virovitica County Assembly from 12 February and 11 March 1861
  • [14] Circulation of Hungarian coins in the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia
  • [15] Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 278, April 21 1849
  • [16] History of Croatia
  • [17] Nationalism in Hungary, 1848-1867

I am not saying that Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was state, only that it can be an article about it, which is now just badly written. --Kebeta (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read those online sources, but none of them have anything new to add than what's already said in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. As for the official flags and emblems, the source says it was "valid only in Croatia and Slavonia, since Dalmatia was at that time in Austrian part". I'm hoping the bottom line is this. In the Nagodba, Hungary supported the unification of this triune kingdom. Point 65 of the agreement says Hungary "will demand the reincorporation of Dalmatia... and will promote its union with Croatia. Regarding the conditions of this reincorporation, however, Dalmatia also is to be consulted." So it's clear from the context of the agreement that they repeatedly use the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" as a way to "promote" and show support for unification. But Dalmatia was an Austrian province and Austria at the time didn't relinquish its claim to Dalmatia. This article doesn't have anything else to say other than Croatia and Hungary supporting the territorial claim over Dalmatia. This info is already mentioned in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and it's not like any information is lost if this article is redirected. Spellcast (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly... I feel like I've been talking to myself all this time. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both of you in most of the statements, but believe it should be a separate article about it. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia embraced Triune Kingdom and in administrative act on it, Hungary embrace it firstly and than changed its opinion when realised the danger of such kingdom, Kingdom of Dalmatia did not embraced it firstly, but later changed its opinion, Austria embraced and rejected it, depending on political situations. I think that the subject is to complex to merge it with the article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and that it is a different encyclopaedic subject. Also, there is Serb question that hasen't been touched yet about this subject. --Kebeta (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No. No there shouldn't be a seperate article about an imaginary state. It was an alternative name used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It is going to be redirected to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. A union of Dalmatia and Croatia-Slavonia never existed, de jure or de facto, regardless of who "embraced" it. The fact that Croatia-Slavonia wanted to unite with Dalmatia is not for a seperate article. Information on Croatian-Slavonian politics can easily be included in the Croatia-Slavonia or Croatia in the Habsburg Empire articles.
Look, you can probably go on like this for weeks. You're just changing your argument as you go. I'll just ask you straightforwardly: do I need Admin intervention here? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
We do not need three seperate articles sporting the same two sentences of information just because you thought this state existed when it did not, and are now brainstorming desperately to think of excuses why this article shouldn't me merged. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I completely see your point of view. But, as I said before, I am not talking about existance of recognized state, and I am not changing mine arguments as I go. I was just illustrateing a complexity of the subject, and my first sentence was: I am not saying it was or it wasn't a state. I think that article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can not explain this matter, because we are not talking only about Croatia-Slavonia, but of Dalmatia, Austria and Hungary as well. It can not be explained in two sentence as you claim, but if you are willing to try, be my guest. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia:

  • was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
  • was a territorial aspirations of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia.
  • was a territorial aspirations of the Croats in Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia for unified Croatia.
  • was a territorial aspirations of Hungary for all Croatia, not only for Croatia-Slavonia.
  • was a balance of Austria between two threats: strong Hungary and strong South Slavs in the monarchy.
  • was a Serbian question for their place in these territories (Triune Kingdom).
  • was a historical reference to unified Croatia in a sense that Croat populated medieval kingdoms of Croatia proper, Dalmatia and Slavonia.
  • was a popular name for one and for both administrative divisions of Austrian-Hungarian Empire in late 18th and during 19th century.
  • was official name of Austria-Hungarian division.
  • was by monarchy administration and by Croatian assembly called country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage.
  • was by Croatian parliament abolished when it became part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

Historians written tons of books on the subject, and yet you can explain it all in just two sentence. I don't think so. So, I will answer to your question: Yes, you need Admin intervention here. --Kebeta (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Nagodba, Hungary supported the unification of this triune kingdom. Point 65 of the agreement says Hungary "will demand the reincorporation of Dalmatia... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Page 371 of The Nagodba also says:

  • 50. At the head of the Autonomous Provincial Government in Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia stands the Ban, who is responsible to the Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Diet.
  • 51. The Ban of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia is appointed by His Imperial and Apostolic Royal Majesty, on the proposal and under the signature of the Royal Hungarian Joint Premier.

Source: H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences, Seal of the Parliament, Cro. History Museum,

I agree, definitely must be an article about it. --Dvatel (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely there must be ignoring of posts by User:Dvatel. He sadly still hasn't a clue on what this dispute is about... For the record, this is not a question of name usage, "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" is by far the most used English name.
Dvatatel, let me spell it out for you again: you're supposed to provide sources that Triune Kingdom is not the same thing as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. I can write it again, if you like: you're supposed to provide sources that Triune Kingdom is not the same thing as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Am I getting through? If you're having trouble with the English, I'd be happy to help. Should I copy/paste the sentence for you again? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


Direktor, I have no more comments, but you should delete and merge more articles not just this one. According to you the goal of any encyclopedia is to have less informations and more ideologically-biased history.
Best regards!
--Dvatel (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There goes one funny guy... :) I think he didn't read a single post I've written. He still does not know what this is about :P. Next time learn a bit about what you're getting yourself into before such an embarrassing display. That's my honest advice, sadly you won't read it... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You Know What? I changed my mind. Btw. You are insulting less experienced user..

Citation: "Wikipedia's greatest advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest tojust a few peoples is justified." And this article is justified.

If you cannot merge a page properly, and you cannot, or you think that the renaming may be opposed, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there.
But there is alternative; improve Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, and then you can merge this article. Of course, please read all sources once more :)

Regards --Dvatel (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be better solution for Croatia-Slavonia article German Wikipedia on this article --Dvatel (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the Triune Kingdom?

Dvatel, you are either unable to understand me, or you are simply refusing to read my posts. What can I say? You really are embarrassing yourself as a Wikipedia editor with this "display" of obstinacy.

  • You've still not found out what it is you are trying to discuss.
  • You've presented sources that actually contradict your actions. When this was pointed out to you, you just kept on repeating that I "should read the sources".
  • You've completely ignored every attempt on my part to explain what you're discussing. You still do not know why this page was redirected.
  • You have based your reversions solely on some comical "analysis" of my personality you cooked-up, and have insulted me as a Wikipedia editor.

Now you're saying that there's "no consensus" for the move - even though you still don't have a clue what this is about. There is consensus for the move. You just don't know what a consensus is on Wikipedia. I recommend you read the WP:WHATISCONSENSUS guideline in order to learn something. "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to." If you think that "consensus" means you can just disagree without any argument at all, and claim "no consensus" - then you're very wrong.

I'll keep it simple for you. 1) You have no sources (and you don't even know what you need to prove with sources). 2) Sources support the merge. 3) These sources have caused a consensus to be formed on this issue. 4) Consensus is actually against you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

....and you're not reading my post again. LoL xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, calm down or else you could lose your temper. I think you have misunderstood me. Improve Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article (merge Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom article properely). That's all I'm asking. Regards :) --Dvatel (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I already did lose my temper. Yesterday. Luckily I've become more-or-less used to this sort of quasi-discussing with years on Wiki's Balkans articles. I'm assuming you'll actually read this post?
READ THIS: I merged the article properly. I transferred all the information. All of it. I wrote a seperate lead paragraph that incorporated all the information from this article's lead section. I then actually copy/pasted' this article (Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia) into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. Do you understand?
The articles are properly merged in accordance with Wiki policy. Here's the link. If you feel I've missed some sentence or piece of information in this article, please point it out for me - or transfer the information yourself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triune_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1137268270"