Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

I would like to ask everyone that do not censor neither the article nor its talk page!! Adding back deleted comments. --Bizso (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungaro-Croatian reign

In order to response some historiographer who deny existence of Kingdom of Croatia I qupted some veryfieable sources

The time history of the world, 5th edition, ISBN:953-6510-62-6 pages 138,142,143, 145,147, 150-151, 186.Name Croatia is displayed on the maps.


The World book Encyclopedia volume 4, 1994 ISBN:0-7166-0094-3 Pages 1148b-1148c " In 1102, Kalman, the king of Hungary, also became king of Croatia, thus creating a political union between Croatia and Hungary that lasted for more than 800 years. Despite this Union, the Croats always kept their own parliament , called the Sabor "


Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom."

[u]Digital edition of Britannica 2007 Ultimate reference suite[/u]

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

So, mr. GiorgioOrsini/NovaNova/Purger (or however you call yourself this time)and your companions (user:Giovanni Giove) I do not where have you picked those "historiographers" who deny the existent of Kingdom of Croatia. Are they experts like Arrigo Petacco  ???

Or you just fabricated your own quotes??? --Anto 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Croatia-Slavonia in the Kingdom of Hungary

Apart from the previously mentioned sources here are some more:

An encyclopedia of world history, ancient, medieval and modern, chronologically arranged By William Leonard Langer, Geoffrey Bruun Edition: revised Published by Houghton Mifflin Co., 1948 p.245

"In 1091, Ladislas conquered Croatia and Bosnia but left these regions self- government"


The New Encyclopaedia Britannica By Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Jacob E. Safra Edition: 15, illustrated Published by Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2002 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 21 Dec 2007 ISBN 0852297874, 9780852297872 p 93.

"Ladislas extended Hungary's frontier in Transylvania and occupied Croatia (1091) to protect the rights of his sister, the widow of Zvonimir"


Europe in the Middle Age By Oliver Joseph Thatcher, Ferdinand Schevill Published by John Murray, 1911 Original from Indiana University p 681.

"Croatia was added to Hungary (1091)"


Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom."

The Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information By Hugh Chisholm Edition: 11 Published by The Encyclopedia Britannica Co., 1910 p. 474

"Ladislaus I., king of Hungary- Ladislaus took possession of the country [Croatia] in 1091"

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911

"HUNGARY (Hungarian Magyarorszag), a country in the south-eastern pertion of central Europe, bounded E. by Austria (Bukovina) and Rumania; S. by Rumania, Servia, Bosnia and Austria (Dalmatia); W. by Austria (Istria, Carniola, Styria and Lower Austria); and N. by Austria (Moravia, Silesia and Galicia). It has an area of 125,402 sq. m.(=325.111kn2), being thus about 4000 sq. m. larger than Great Britain and Ireland."
"It is almost exclusively continental, having only a short extent of seaboard on the Adriatic"
"the terms Cisleithania and Transleithania, applied to Austria and Hungary respectively"
"General Division: The kingdom of Hungary in its widest extent, or the " Realm of the Crown of St Stephen," comprises Hungary proper (Magyarorszdg), with which is included the former grand principality of Transylvania, and the province of Croatia-Slavonia. This province enjoys to a large extent autonomy, granted by the so-called compromise of 1868. "
"CROATIA-SLAVONIA (Serbo-Croatian Hrvatska i Slavonija; Hung. Horvát-Szlavonország; Ger. Kroatien und Slawonien), a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy"
"The Croatian Kingdom: c. 910-1091"
"Hungarian Supremacy: 1091-c. 1526. - Amid the strife of rival claimants to the throne, Helena, the widow of Stephen,. appealed for aid to her brother Ladislaus I., king of Hungary.. Ladislaus took possession of the country in 1091. He founded the bishopric of Agram and introduced Hungarian law. His. death in 1095 was the signal for a nationalist insurrection, but after two years the rebels were crushed by his successor Coloman. This monarch reorganized the administration on a system which has been maintained, with modifications in detail, by almost all subsequent rulers. He respected the existing institutions of the conquered territory so far as to leave its autonomy in domestic affairs intact; but delegated his own sovereignty, and especially the control of foreign affairs and war, to a governor known as the ban (q.v.)"

The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pal Engel, Tamas Palosfalvi, Andrew Ayton - 2005 I.B.Tauris edition, Pages 33-34

"One of Ladislaus's most significant achievements was the occupation of Hungary's southern neighbour, Croatia. ... The small kingdom, born in the tenth century, streched from the Kapela mountains to the Adriatic sea, its center being Biograd, located on the coast"

The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John V. Fine, John V. A. Fine, Jr. Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493

"Hungarian intervention in Croatia in the 1090s
The Hungarian king quickly intervened to protect his sister's interest (a fine excuse for what were porbably his own ambitions) and occupied much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia."

Britannica 2009[1].

"Hungary conquered Croatia in 1091."

Britannica actually mentions the fact that the document is disputed here [2].

Encyclopedia Encarta 2009

Croatia and Slavonia were formally part of Hungary, although a large portion of their territory remained under direct Austrian rule until the late 19th century as part of the Habsburg Military Frontier (Vojna krajina)
After the invasion of Hungary, the two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102.[3]
Ladislas subjugated Croatia, Bosnia, and part of Transylvania; his successor, Koloman, obtained part of Dalmatia
The treaty of Trianon stripped about two-thirds of Hungary’s territory, including Transylvania, Croatia, and Slovakia [4]

Although the status of Croatia in the Kingdom of Hungary is still disputed; according to all sources here: Whether you call it conquer, annexation, addition or union; the important thing is that

Hungary had control over Croatia, but gave her some extent of internal autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary and in this relationship Hungary and Croatia were not equal parties. --Bizso (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Can someone summarize in a single sentence what in the world is the dispute? It looks like a dispute over the entire article itself, which is just pointless to try on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Britannica and Encarta

I really do not have time so .....

Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles - Britannica.com [5]

A disputed succession to the throne following the reigns of Kresimir IV (1058-1074) and Zvonimir (1075-1089) led to an invasion by Hungary. The two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102. From then until 1918 kings of Hungary were also kings of Croatia, represented by a governor (ban), but Croatia kept its own parliament (Sabor) and considerable autonomy. - encarta.com [6]

Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen.... constitution of 1868

2 Books

[7] The Realm of St Stephen by Pal Engel, Tamas Palosfalvi, Andrew Ayton

[8] The Limits of Loyalty Napisao/la Laurence Cole, Daniel L. Unowsky

Every time when we are having "better" history article of Britannica and Encarta why I always think about POV ?

Conquest is out of question, but I do not have time for this...--Rjecina (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So I guess that's a no to my question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Unless your discussion on this talk page is about this article, and it better directly be about this article, any other sidetrack/edit war/general nonsense will result in a warning and then a long, long block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian-Croatian state

Result of personal union was Hungarian-Croatian state. [9] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.237 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a specific point? If that's a source, please cite it appropriate in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Personally I think the name is biased or at the very least confusing. A better name to Croatia in personal union with Hungary would be something like Croatian union with Hungary, but I want to get some other views first. Anyone else? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First we need to know what this article tries to cover. Is it trying to cover everything from the 11th to the 16th century? Is this a substitute for History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526? Or this article simply tries to present the debate about the nature of Historical relations between Hungary and Croatia? Squash Racket (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526--Rjecina (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or History of Croatia between 1091 and 1526. The Kingdom of Croatia article's end seems to be the succession crisis. The 1102 date would suggest the year of the alleged signature of the alleged Pacta Conventa as a reliable date, though most sources question that.
Further: I don't know whether we can use "history of Croatia". As far as I know it was a divided country (see Dalmatia, Slavonia) at the time. We'll get back to this. Squash Racket (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatian union with Hungary suggested by Ricky would probably be the best if the phrase "union" leaves space both for the real union and the personal union interpretations. Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we may rearrange the history of Croatia articles following Britannica's timeline:

  • Croatia to the Ottoman conquests
  • Ragusa and the Croat Renaissance in Dalmatia
  • Croatian national revival
  • Croatia in Austria-Hungary
  • World War I and the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes
  • Yugoslavia, 1918–41
  • World War II
  • Yugoslavia, 1945–91

Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really a question for History of Croatia which seems quiet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The original name of this article was Croatia in the union with Hungary--Bizso (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but that's grammatically a nightmare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy

I don't like Bellamy book. Why ? Even about events which can't be disputed like election of Ferdinand in 1527 he is speaking about claims and not if this event has even happened. His words are "According to the Croatian narative of historical statehood the Sabor decided...." Maybe I am too simple person but for me there is no claims, according or something 3rd. Question is very simple:Ferdinand is elected for King of Croatia in 01.01.1527 or he is not elected ?

This and other simple questions are clearly too much for Bellamy...

You'll need stronger arguments to discredit Bellamy. He provided probably the deepest analysis on the issue. Squash Racket (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Bellamy is out.
Page used in this article in Bellamy words:"does not attempt to provide a "history" of Croatia, its national identity, or a discussion of its national historiography. Instead it attampts only to identify a narrative of Croatian historical statehood..." [10]
For all interested he is speaking about his pages 32-65--Rjecina (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Bellamy is in.
We were only using his work to identify different viewpoints as you can see in the article. And for some reason you also removed the Library of Congress references which is even harder to understand. Squash Racket (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am really tired of POV pushing.
You have not been reading Bellamy introduction ????
Maybe other interesting words are :"I propose, I argue,....
Other interesting thing is Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. In this article you will find words which are like taken with copy/paste from wikipedia what my must avoid.
About feedback have you waited about feedback before changing article on 12 March ? I have reverted on version before my edit.
My problem is why I must wait for agreement on talk page if you and Bizso have not waited for agreement before changing article ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are tired of POV pushing? Is it me who is trying to remove every trace of the significant points of view or is it you who is doing just that?
You don't need concensus to add reliable, English sources, but you need concensus to remove them. Obviously. Squash Racket (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are declaring let say questionable book for reliable source and this is not enough so you are writing false claims which are not even in book even this book is not enough for POV pushing. Because you are now "surprised" by my claim can you please read what is writen in book about first statement in this article and what you have writen ?!--Rjecina (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Then again in similar style you have "missed" other similar things. For example Bellamy (this is section about Bellamy) has writen that Hungarian claims of conquest are created only in 19 century (see Pacta Conventa). Another small mistake ???--Rjecina (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you have not noticed but this article need to speak about 425 years of historical events in Croatia not about Pacta Conventa and interpretations of Union
Claim about 18 century Hungarians is from Bellamy and another source. I have add only Hungarian national awakening for better picture
It will be nice of you if you will now stop with this POV pushing and false claims and remove yourself from this discussion..--Rjecina (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I ask you to stop personal attacks especially after the complete removal of Oxford University Press, Manchester University Press, Cambridge University Press references and the country study of the Library of Congress. That was basically vandalism.
If you cite several sentences, you have to change the text a bit to avoid copyright violation. The first sentence always contains the title of the article which you have just removed. I don't think I changed the meaning of the sentence.
The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary -> The concept of <article title> That's the big deal? That's why you write false claims bolded after you have deleted most of the references?

With your third revert you removed these:

Croatian historians argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king while Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered. The significance of the debate lies in the Croatian claim to an unbroken heritage of historical statehood which is clearly compromised by the other claim.

I found both of these sentences, so I don't know what you are talking about. You only removed the Hungarian and Serbian point of view, because you didn't like it.

The lead might be reworked and the analysis may be inserted in the text, but not through your usual deletions. Squash Racket (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My english is bad but not so much:
"events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary is a source of a major historical controversy" maybe it is my mistake but this statement is saying that union exist !
"concept of Croatia in personal union with Hungary is a source of a major historical controversy"- This statement is saying that existence of union is controversy.
Bellamy and another source are saying that Hungarians have started to dispute union only in 19 century (Serbia do not exist until 19 century). In 1 sources we are even having name of Hungarian historian which has started in 1841 conquest story.
If you are not having anything against I will start to play with article on tuesday
Be free to rewrite lead statement in line with Bellamy statement (union is not controversy !)--Rjecina (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
He explains the Croatian and the Hungarian/Serbian views, so he doesn't take a stand on the issue at all.
You also forgot to add that the same can be said about the 14th century and the Croatians' claims. I didn't add any of those claims, you only added one of them. Squash Racket (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In Bellamy, the word "union" refers to the fact that Hungary and Croatia, priorly two separate states, became one state. Whether the union was achieved by a "personal union" or by "conquest", that's the controversy.--Bizso (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how sad is it that the Hungarian article puts it so succinctly here? "conquering Croatia in 1091.... An alternative history based on Pacta Conventa is that Croatia joined to Hungary by a personal union in 1102 after Coloman I assumed control over the territory. However, the validity of this document is still disputed among historians." Would anyone mind if I asked them about a possible title? Might as well work together on a sensible article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the line about Pacta Conventa wasn't there in the article. I added that info a couple of weeks ago.[11] An earlier wording was "subjugating Croatia in 1102". I also did so at the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages article the day before,[12] though shortly after, it was vandalized by Rjecina by mass removal of sources.[13] --Bizso (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources

Curtis, Glenn E. (1992). "A Country Study: Yugoslavia (Former) - The Croats and Their Territories". Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2009-03-16 is clearly saying that Croatia is state: "In either case, Hungarian culture permeated Croatia, the Croatian-Hungarian border shifted often, and at times Hungary treated Croatia as a vassal state"

THE SOUTHERN SLAV QUESTION AND THE HABSBURG MONARCHY by R. W. SETON -WATSON: "It was not till six years later that the recognition of Charles Robert by the Hungarians restored the personal union between the two kingdoms

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815 of Charles W. Ingrao: Between the Drava river and the Adriatic lay the closely associated Croatian-speaking kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia that had been bound in personal union with Hungary.

Stephen R. Burant, ed. Hungary: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989:

"Croatia was never assimilated into Hungary; rather, it became an associate kingdom administered by a ban, or civil governor."

The Hungarians by Paul Lendvai, Ann Major:

"Coloman coronation as King of Croatia initiated union with Hungary which lasted for 800 years..."

This are all sources from all last discussions so links are not needed. From my knowledge all sources are saying that Croatia has been kingdom...--Rjecina (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking? What's the point? Squash Racket (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Kingdom of Croatia existence--Rjecina (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some say it existed, some say not. You delivered Singleton 10 minutes ago, who says: Croats have always maintained that they were never legally part of Hungary. In their eyes Croatia was a separate state which happened to share a ruler with the Hungarians.
And you cited the Library of Congress quite selectively, I couldn't find that one: Croats have maintained for centuries that Croatia remained a sovereign state despite the voluntary union of the two crowns, but Hungarians claim that Hungary annexed Croatia outright in 1102.
You are trying to make a decision here? One of the POVs should win? Squash Racket (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not cited the Library of Congress !!!
Please can we have agreement between Squash Racket and Squash Racket [14]--Rjecina (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks.
The very first source you cite in this thread is the Library of Congress and you are citing it, but selectively. (Curtis, Glenn E. (1992). "A Country Study: Yugoslavia (Former) - The Croats and Their Territories". Library of Congress).
When I cited the Library of Congress, I cited all the viewpoints (as the diff shows). Squash Racket (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Create a separate section for each source that's in dispute and we can discuss its reliability. Its reliability is of course determined on the whole and not based on whether certain points are reliable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Some comparative sources

Here're some scientific works.
These are attempt of comparison of Croatian and Hungarian historiography regarding certain matters.

  • János Likó: Prikaz revolucije 1848./1849. u dva hrvatska i mađarska gimnazijska udžbenika, Povijest u nastavi, Vol. IV No. 7 (1), 2006, .

(approximate translation: Revolution of 1848/49 in two Croatian and Hungarian gymnasium textbooks) [15] (full text not accessible).

  • Márta Font: Ugarsko Kraljevstvo i Hrvatska u srednjem vijeku , Povijesni prilozi, Vol. 28 No. 28, 2005 [16] (pdf) (here's the full text in Croatian, in *.pdf format [17]) (translation: Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middlea Ages). Márta Font was the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Pécs [18] and later General Vice-rector of the University of Pécs [19].

The summary in English says:
"Medieval Hungary and Croatia were, in terms of public international law, allied by means of personal union created in the late 11th century. Although Hungarian-Croatian state existed until the beginning of the 20th century and only the Treaty of Trianon marked its final ending we can perceive the year 1526 as a divide. Mostly because the political situation after the battle of Mohács – the king’s death, two elected rulers, Turkish conquests and, consequently, the splitting of Hungary into three parts – changed the entire medieval relation system. This study plans to deal only with the conditions prior to 1526 and primarily wants to present an overview of positions of Hungarian historical science"
 The text is in Croatian. The chapter "Nastanak personalne unije" (the emergence of personal union) is very interesting.
"Mađarska i hrvatska povijesna znanost između 1880. i 1910. nisu otvorile raspravu samo o prvotnoj pripadnosti Slavonije, nego i o okolnostima nastanka ugarsko-hrvatske personalne unije. Poznatiji sudionici rasprave s mađarske strane bili su Frigyes Pesty, Gyula Pauler i János Karácsonyi; a s hrvatske strane Vjekoslav Klaić, Izidor Kršnjavi i Rudolf Horvat (Klaić, 1883., Kršnjavi, 1902., Horvat, 1912., Pesty, 1885., Pauler, 1900., Karácsonyi, 1910.)"..
"Hungarian and Croatian historiography between 1880 and 1910 haven't just opened the discussion about the topic "whome belonged Slavonia first", but also the discussion about the circumstances of emergence of Hungarian-Croatian personal union, too. The most famous participants of discussion from Hungarian side were Frigyes Pesty, Gyula Pauler and János Karácsonyi; from Croatian side Vjekoslav Klaić, Izidor Kršnjavi and Rudolf Horvat (Klaić, 1883, Kršnjavi, 1902, Horvat, 1912, Pesty, 1885, Pauler, 1900, Karácsonyi, 1910)"..
 This study is very helpful and is giving the attitudes of both sides.
Marta Font is scientist from Faculty of Humanities, University of Pécs, Hungary. Probably there's a same work in somewhere in Hungarian cyberspace.
I hope this might help. Kubura (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but as you can see we try to use English sources only. There is enough coverage, the viewpoints should be described in a neutral way. Squash Racket (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well done!Have you ever concider the fact that using only English sources could missled you to write down wrong informations because that source is not relaible. I think that you should in this case concider alternative sources because of quantity that is given and there could be a information which will give you new conclusions.Dome. --78.0.179.172 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anglosaxon sources aren't always good, unfortunately.
To avoid any misunderstandings: for Croatian point of view, Hungarian sources (especially from recent two decades) are more fair and correct and informative towards Croatian history, then English ones.
And that's also the case with many other nations from Central and Central Eastern Europe. English sources haven't covered that area properly.
But, here's one source in English that tried to cover that gap.
Paul Robert Magocsi and his work Historical Atlas of Central Europe, ISBN 0-500-28355-9.
There's a section on the p. 23, Chapter Hungary-Croatia and Venice, 14th-15th centuries.
"...Hungary was able, however, to retain Croatia-Slavonia, which since 1102 had accepted the Hungarian king as its ruler. Croatia had a special status and was never considered among Hungary's "conquered lands", but rather its "annexed lands". Hungarian rulers were also crowned king of "Croatia and Dalmatia", and were represented there by an officer known as the ban or by their own relatives (sons or brothers), whoe were called dukes. The dukes in particular often acted as independent rulers, appointing bans and bishops, minting their own money, and convoking diets. ...".
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point there are Oxford University Press, Manchester University Press, Cambridge University Press references and the country study of the Library of Congress in the article. Feel free to add further reliable, English sources (properly formatted please). Squash Racket (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Squash Racket. Here: Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, University of Washington Press/University of Toronto Press/Thames & Hudson, 2002, page 23, ISBN 0-500-28355-9. Are these Universities less worthy? Paul Robert Magocsi is a member of Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada since 1996 [20]. Kubura (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kubara, I see that you have added some pretty extensive paragraph. Could you please provide sources for your text? I also hope that you don't do any meat puppetry. [21] --Bizso (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Bizso. Why do you call me Kubara, instead of Kubura? Some other users called me that way [22]. Are you some puppet of LAz17 or GilliamJF? If you have any doubts about meat puppetry, see Special:Contributions/Kubura and hr:Special:Contributions/Kubura. Rjecina told us on hr.wiki that he was blocked. We told him that he should have told us much earlier about his "explanation war" about this topic. We would have helped him. So, I've reacted after his message. Now to sources. Have you read the beginning of my message? "But, here's one source in English ...There's a section on the p. 23, Chapter...". Now type Ctrl+F and you'll see where's that. I've completed one of my previous messages here, this can help. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it wasn't you, who added the paragraph. It was User:Kebeta. I'm noones sock puppet. I called you Kubara, because I read your name wrong.--Bizso (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

beginning of the article

Hi, Squash Racket!

  • You can't begin article with: The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy. (what union, today's Croatia and Hungary, controversy..?) First sentence has to be definition of the title, not twenty rows of controversy.
  • Kingdom of Croatia and Hungary was from 1102, a personal union of two kingdoms, Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary, united under the Hungarian king. If you don't think that this union existed, than you need to ask for deletion of this article. If you think that it is half-truth because you or some Hungarian historians think otherwise, thatis o.k. But, thats way we have section: Historical context, terms, controversies, where all opinions are noticed.
  • You can't justify your reverts (placeing controversy in first sentence without definition of the article) by: secondary source definitely overwrites tertiary ones
  • If two kingdoms didn't form a union, than there was no union at all, and therefore this article shouldn't exist at all. So long it exist, it has to have a definition (controversial or not).

Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kebeta, as you can see in a thread above the title of the article has already been questioned (presenting the Croatian POV as the only one), so I moved it to a more neutral one. We decide the title based on the content of the article, not vice versa.
BTW please cite Encarta correctly without changing its meaning and don't delete much more detailed analysis coming from reliable, English secondary sources.
See discussion on the article name above. Regards. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Squash Racket! Name Croatia in personal union with Hungary isn't Croatian POV, it is worlds POV, including Hungarian POV. You can put all detailed analysis that you can find, but do not delete definition of the article. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you delete English sources saying Croatia was incorporated into Hungary (another POV), then no wonder you believe this. Even a Croatian editor agreed in the above section that the article needed to be moved.
You are deleting material, not me. Squash Racket (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right, Kingdom of Croatia was incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary. The question is how, and in what year? I will not change your last version with this first sentence, just add slightly supplement. I hope you will agree. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

title

Huh, this just occurred to me: does anyone care if I revert the apparently undiscussed 2008-08-11 move away from the original simple title "Croatia in the union with Hungary"? :) It looks like the outright classification as a 'personal union' trips up Hungarian nationalists, so why not avoid it in the title? The phrase is just as recognizable without it, or at least, both are equally recognizable, if we disregard the fact that the 1526-1918 period is split out into a separate article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody? :) Will do that now then. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Which Hungarian nationalists? On the Hungarian wikipedia it's also written that Croatia and Hungary were in a personal union :).
I. László (uralkodott 1077-1095) szigorú törvényeket hozott a belső rend megszilárdítására. 1091-ben perszonálunióval Magyarországhoz csatolta Horvátországot és elfoglalta Dalmácia egy részét. Utódja, Könyves Kálmán enyhített törvényein és meghódította egész Dalmáciát. [23]
Történelmi példák a perszonálunióra - Magyar Királyság és Horvátország között 1102-től egészen 1918-ig [24]
I wouldn't even say that the Was it a personal union or not is a Hungarian vs Croatian issue, it's just that some foreign historians base their writings on the works of 19th century historians.(Tzowu (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC))
Regardless, the distinction is meaningless as far as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
Also, I searched Google Books for these two:
  • Croatia union Hungary 1102 +"personal union" -wikipedia -"books, llc"
  • Croatia union Hungary 1102 -"personal union" -wikipedia -"books, llc"
The first got 108 results, the other 183. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind the name of the article, but I think that the first sentence is pointless when just below it its written how Croatia and Hungary were in fact in a personal union. Not to mention that it is also not true, since there are not just two theories (total occupation or willing union) about the events of 1091-1102, and the section Historical context, terms, controversies is more than enough for the (alleged) controversies. (Tzowu (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC))
The lead actually does fail to summarize the article properly - it summarizes the controversial bit, but hardly does justice to the entire four-century period. Go ahead and fix it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

merge/unmerge with the 925-1102 period article

Say wait a second.. didn't I merge this thing into the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) article? How is it back at all, and why? The whole conception of this article is really very stupid for a number of reasons (not to mention unnecessarily controversial), and I assume its likely a carryover from the horrible Croatian Wiki. -- Director (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked the history and saw that the merge was disputed (there was some revert warring a few years ago). Regardless of that, I disagree with the idea that the Croatian history series should cover everything between between 925 and 1526 in the same article, while at the same time having not one but two articles for the period between ~600 and 925. The union with Hungary at the turn of the 12th century, regardless of the whole controversy trivia, is universally recognized as a most significant event, and it's most reasonable to section the series at that point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree... but I don't see a good way to cover this. To name just one problem, even if we assume there was a "union", Croatia can be said to have technically been in said "union" until 1918, certainly not until 1526 or whatnot. To make things worse, from what I've read of this obscure part of an obscure segment of history, the (early medieval entity which is erroneously referred to by the a-historical name of) "Kingdom of Croatia" seems actually to have been destroyed in this period, if not by the "union" being an actual conquest, then certainly by the 15th century Turkish invasions and the Battle of Krbava Field... which was actually lost not by anyone called "Ban Emerik Derenčin", but by Imre Derencsényi - a Hungarian nobleman if there ever was one.
The waters here are very much muddied by Croatian nationalist ideology, by nostalgic Hungarian pretensions (to a lesser degree), and by the fact that no one neutral really cares - and even if they did, they'd be crazy to get bogged down in Balkans nonsense, etc. -- Director (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The distinctive feature of the native kingdom was that the center of political power was local. Between the 12th-16th century, it shifted towards Hungary (and afterwards to Austria). Even if we completely disregard the universally acknowledged peculiarities of the relationship of Croatia and Hungary throughout the period, the term "union with Hungary" is a concise description of what happened after the downfall of the native dynasty in the context of the Croatian history article series. What alternate suggestion would you have as the name of this period's article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The "relationship" had its peculiarities, as you say, but that is not a topic connected with the issue at hand. The dispute is precisely on whether there was a "union" or not. If I were to take up arms and conquer your parents' apartment, you wouldn't say we entered into a "union", would you? :) To be realistic and blunt: removing the adjective "personal" solves absolutely nothing in this regard.
Re suggestions.. I have none. Its hard to dream up an entity article for Croatia during a period when there really was no Croatia. This may be a case where we're forced to use a period article, e.g. of the "History of Croatia (XY-ZV)" type, where "Croatia" refers to the modern-day state and concept (which is really very, very recent). -- Director (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The dispute is not on whether there was a union or not, at least not for the Croatian and a majority of Hungarian historians (Kristó Gyula, Font Márta, László Heka, Lukács István, Bárány Attila, Kocsis Károly, Géza Pálffy...) who agree that there really was a union, specifically a personal union between Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia forged in 1102. The are disagreements, however, about the Croatian-Hungarian border prior to 1102, whether it was the Drava, the Sava, or the area was Terra nullius and, if we go further to history, the alleged wars between Croatia and Hungary in the 10th century. The events of 1102, as well as the personal union of Hungary and Poland, were both disputed mainly during Romanticism.
Coloman wore the title King of Hungary, Croatia and Dalmatia, while the Croatian kings had the title King of Croatia and Dalmatia. Despite the fact that the king was of a different royal house, there is no real difference between Croatia in 1050 and Croatia in 1150.
As for the apartment part, yes, we wouldn't call that a union, but if you and your neighboor kept fighting over a garage with limited success for several months, while at the same time other neighboors were robing your apartments while you were busy fighting each other, you'd propably at some point come to a conclusion that a peace treaty or, even better, a union would suit both sides :)(Tzowu (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC))
According to third-party sources summarizing the issue (as opposed to personal user estimates on the overall position of scholarship), which you can find in the Kingdom of Croatia article, there is certainly a controversial dispute on whether there was a personal union, or simply a conquest. There's no question that varying, vaguely-Croatia-looking territories within the Kingdom of Hungary enjoyed degrees of autonomy (which too varied through time) - but that does not impinge on the issue of the existence of a personal union. Here's a quote from the Library of Congress Country study:

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

The crowns of Croatia and Hungary were united, that doesn't mean there was a personal union, but rather suggests the opposite. What that means is that the King only needed to crown himself separately for the title of "King of Dalmatia" (which they did for a while).
But the point is that we do not need to define an article, dealing with the 1102-1526 period, through any possibly-non-existing "unions". As I said, that concept probably carries over from the Croatian Wikipedia (which is about as pathetic as it is a disgrace to the foundation as a whole), and more than likely originates in the Croatian public school system - which peddles the a-historical concept of a state called "Croatia-Hungary" ("Hrvatsko-Ugarska") for this period. So Croatian users must have thought that Croatia and Hungary were in a personal union (even assuming there was one) only during the time in question: 1102-1526 - and not throughout until 1918 (which is how long the hypothetical "personal union" lasted if there ever was one). -- Director (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I know whats written on the Library of Congress Country study, but thats simply not true when there are so many Hungarian historians who claim otherwise, even the Hungarian wikipedia.
Márta Font: "Medieval Hungary and Croatia were, in terms of public international law, allied by means of personal union created in the late 11th century." [25]
Kristó Gyula: "Coloman was crowned for Croatian king. From then until 1918. the holders of the Hungarian crown were also the Croatian kings, and between the two countries existed a personal union." from his work A magyar–horvát perszonálunió kialakulása (The formation of Croatian-Hungarian personal union) published on the 900th aniversary of the union in 2002 [26]
Géza Jeszenszky: "From the 11th century until 1918 Croatia was in a dynastic personal union with Hungary, resembling the relationship of Scotland to England." Hungary and the Break-up of Yugoslavia, A Documentary History, Part I.
Lukács István: "The establishment of Croatian-Hungarian personal union (1102) begins the several hundred years of existence in the same state, which had significant impact on the cultural development of the Croatian civilization." (A horvát-magyar perszonálunió létrejöttével (1102) kezdetét veszi a több évszázadig tartó államközösségi lét, amelynek jelentős kulturális hatása lesz a horvátság civilizációs fejlődésében.)
László Heka: "About the area of Croatia and Dalmatia, hungarian legal historians hold that their relationship with Hungary in the period till 1526 and the death of Louis II was most similar to what is a called personal union, so that they were connected by a common king." (Glede područja Hrvatske i Dalmacije, mađarski pravni povjesničari drže da je njihov odnos s Ugarskom u razdoblju do 1526. i pogibije kralja Ludovika II. bio najsličniji onomu što se naziva personalnom unijom, dakle da ih je povezivala osoba zajedničkoga kralja.)
Takács Zoltán (I can't find where he wrote about 1102 in particular, but this will do): "He belonged to the early Árpád age frontier borders, but after the formation of the Croatian-Hungarian personal union soon lost its importance." (A korai Árpád-korban határőrvidékek közé tartozott, a magyar-horvát perszonálunió kialakulása után azonban hamarosan jelentőségét vesztette.) (Magyar néprajzi lexikon (2006), 10. fejezet)
Sorry if I made any mistakes in translations :). Britannica and Larousse also mention that Hungary and Croatia were in a union (dynastic or personal), so there is pretty much a consensus that there was some kind of union from 1102, if we exclude the part where some foreign historians who wrote 5 sentences about Hungary and Croatia say that Croatians and Hungarians are in a dispute. (Tzowu (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC))
That's arguably WP:SYNTH. On the one hand we've got folks that review the issue on the whole, and on the other we have you summarizing the issue. Sure some Hungarian authors also may hold that there was a personal union, but to claim there is no dispute(!) you need a source saying so, not your own estimate with regard to the issue. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nope, Nada Klaić also wrote about it in 1975, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku p. 513 [27]: "In older historiography Coloman's coronation for the Croatian-Dalmatian King was a subject of dispute because Hungarian historians, for the sake of the political situation in the second half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, wanted to prove that Croatia was a conquered land. Although these kind of claims can sometimes be found even today, since the Croatian-Hungarian tensions are gone, the problem of his coronation is solved more objectivly. Therefore it has been accepted that Coloman crowned in Biograd for king." There are disagreements, of course, but not in that extent, even a Hungarian Gymnasium History book mentions specifically a "Perszonálunió". I'm not saying that the review of Library of Congress should be removed, I just wanted to show what's also written on the other side of the Drava River, the differences are smaller than most people think.(Tzowu (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC))
Well that's certainly a step in the right direction, but I see two problems. First, your quote seems to talk about the possible one-time coronation of Kalman in Biograd, not the existence of a personal union. I don't think the former is disputed. Second, when looking for sources talking about the dispute (or lack of it), we should be looking for third-party sources. I hope you can see how Klaic, even were she actually talking about the union, might not be the absolute best source for a claim like "there was a personal union, and there is no dispute over that". I'm just trying to be objective... -- Director (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Older historians used the coronation, or the non-existence of it as a proof that Croatia was conquered. Today it's (mostly) not disputed. Laszlo Heka also wrote about the position of legal historians in Hungary on that matter. About the third-party sources, there aren't many foreign historians who deal with Balkan/Central Europe history or the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia and those who do, like John Antwerp Fine, mostly relly on the works of domestic, i.e. Hungarian and Croatian historians and I really don't think that they can write a better/more objective history book. Again, there are surelly some disagreements, not everybody has the same stance, but not even close to other real... "disputes", to put it mildly, which we can regurally see between Croatian, Bosniak and Serbian historians, or even between local Croatian ones on some controversial issues, mostly World War II.(Tzowu (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC))

I think the issue of a possible one-time separate coronation is not one that we can assume carries with it inevitable conclusions, at least not such that we can allow ourselves to draw. What is required is a third-party source that says "there is no dispute" between the two parties. That is to say, a source discussing the dispute. And we can't very well use the actual supposed disputing parties as sources on that specific subject. Yes, there aren't many third-party sources, and that's why the country study is so valuable. Though you have impressed me with the list of Hungarian scholars (providing its accurate?), and of course, as a Croat I like to think we weren't as totally licked as all that. Rugged mountain-lords defeating steppe horsemen and all that :). I will see if I can't find something on this issue. -- Director (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Found it. Bellamy 2003, The Formation of Croatian National Identity, p.36 "the events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy. (...) Magyar [Hungarian] historians, however, claim Hungary conquered Croatia." [28]. -- Director (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
But that's already written in the article, although Bellamy has some odd conclusions in his book (on the same page): "However, the Byzantine chronicler, Porphyrogenitus argued that the Croatian state extended to the entire coastline from Istria to the River Cetina (in Montenegro – south of Dubrovnik)." OK, Cetina, Cetinje, at least he didn't confuse it with this municipality. How about we make a special article dealing just with the positions of various historians, scholars, online encyclopedias etc. on the issue?(Tzowu (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC))
Well...
  • First of all, the river Cetina is by no means located south of Dubrovnik. I should know, I've kayaked there a couple times. It flows into the Adriatic at the town of Omiš (about a 150km northwest along the coast from Dubrovnik, and 20km southeast from me). That's probably what the Emperor meant in terms of southern boundary.
  • Secondly, Dalmatia did include areas in modern-day Montenegro.
  • Third, you can't very well say Bellamy draws odd conclusions by citing his quote of someone else??
-- Director (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I know where's Cetina, Bellamy confused the river Cetina with Cetinje in Montenegro. Also, on the same page he wrote: "Krešimir reportedly consolidated the kingdom by unifying the lands into a single kingdom, calling it the Triune Kingdom (Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia)." Triune Kingdom is a 19th century term... (Tzowu (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
Right, I misunderstood you there - my apologies :) (I really shouldn't post from work). Either way, though, we can't dismiss sources ourselves. You need negative reviews by peers. -- Director (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: no consensus in 32 days, no messages in last 7 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Croatia in the union with Hungary → Kingdom of Croatia (1102–1526), per WP:NPOV, brought into line with titles of other Croatian history articles. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Its a step in the right direction. Though a question might be raised as to how this is NPOV? The view I assume we're trying to accommodate (i.e. that there was no "union") would entail that there was no "Kingdom of Croatia" at all in the period. If we assume there was such a thing, though, objections could be brought up with regard to the name of said entity, and whether "Croatia" is appropriate at all ("King of Dalmatia" was a title adopted by Coloman, etc.). I won't be raising any such concerns, though. -- Director (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I also requested move at Kingdom of Croatia (medieval). If these initiatives are successful, Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) will be the next step. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What prevents you from proposing a rename for that one? You can't argue for consistency while leaving that as is :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This proposal does make sense. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't mean this to say I'm opposed to the move, but how does History of Croatia (1102-1526) sound as a possible alternative? "Kingdom of Croatia" implies there was a "Kingdom of Croatia" thing during this period, which is the subject of a historical dispute. -- Director (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That is not in dispute. The Kings of Hungary explicitly crowned themselves as kings of Croatia, therefore the Kingdom of Croatia was no less disputed than e.g. Kingdom of Bohemia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's not true; Hungarian kings were never crowned as kings of Croatia after Coloman, it just part of the royal style used by Hungarian monarchs: like Dalmatia, Slavonia, Rama, Serbia, Lodomeria or Jerusalem. However there were no separate Kingdom of Dalmatia or Kingdom of Slavonia. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Who ever said it was separate? The phrase "kingdom of Croatia" is generic, it refers to Croatia as a kingdom, just like the royal style does so. Do you think the phrase implies separation, and to what extent? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Because Hungarian monarchs ruled Croatia as "king of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia". King of Croatia was only one of the lot of styles of the Hungarian king. There was no personal union, as they were never crowned as king of Croatia. In contemporary maps, a separate and independent Croatian kingdom was never shown. So this relationship was more than "personal union". --Norden1990 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, who is disputing that? Certainly not me, because I moved the article away from that title, dammit. Can we stop arguing over things that nobody is actually disputing? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@Joy, #1 Hungarian kings never separately crowned themselves as "King of Croatia" or any variation on that title. I think for a while the kings went down to Zadar (Jadera) and crowned themselves separately as "King of Dalmatia", but that's it, and it didn't last as a tradition. #2 Simply because a monarch adds the style "King of Croatia" (or whatever) to his numerous titles in no way indicates the existence of a personal union between two kingdoms. Austrian Emperors had about 50 such titles, e.g... Read the LoC quote above, you'll see it lists the merging of the Croatian crown with the Hungarian one as an argument against a personal union. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Croatia didn't lose its status of a kingdom and was called that way in official documents after 1102:
Nel nome di Christo l'anno dalla di lui incarnatione 1178. nel'indictione XI., al tempo di Emanuele magnifico et piissimo imperatore, (Rogerio) duce in Spalato et in tutto l'regno di Croatia et Dalmatia il filocale... 1178 (during the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos)
...dictum regnum Croatiae ad observandam nobis fidelitatem... 1251
...,cum ornature nostre corone et solennium liheralitatum regni nostri Hungarie prerogatiuis,... Eisdemque insuper castrum Zkrad in regno nostro Croatie habitum per defectum seminis ad maiestatem nostram nunc deuolutum,... 1263
...excellentis principis domini St[ephani] dei gracia tocius Slauonie et Croacie atque Dalmacie ducis,...condicionis et preeminencie hominibus in dicto regno Croacie existentibus publica proclamatione facta feria secunda proxima post festuro natiuitatis beate virginis,... 1353
Even foreigners of the time used the word kingdom, for example Conrad Grunenberg, who wrote that Dubrovnik was a part of Kingdom of Croatia (in 1358 Dubrovnik accepted the sovereignty of Louis I and was under the rule of Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia) [29] (1487), Bernard von Breydenbach, Richard Guylforde etc. So there is no reason to remove Kingdom from the article. (Tzowu (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC))
  • Comment What if we used a more neutral title as "Kingdom of Croatia joined with Hungary (1102-1526)"? No "union" word, Hungary mentioned, the term "kingdom" however retained, dates in brackets. It is just a suggestion I still support Norden1990's proposal.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer the current proposal over that one.. it doesn't really solve anything. -- Director (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Direktor noted, it is much easier to construe that the "Kingdom of Croatia" refers to a really independent country than the current "Union" title, which at least expresses some kind of relationship, and that very relationship defines that historical period. I understand the good intention, but the road to Hell... Yes, I realize that "union" is a suboptimal term, and that the nominator looked for something more vague than that, but this one just does not cut it for me. No such user (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What about another descriptive title, such as United kingdom of Croatia and Hungary or Joint kingdom of Croatia and Hungary? --BDD (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, was there any such kingdom? My personal preference would be History of Croatia (1102-1526), where "Croatia" would refer to the current state. -- Director (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
      • "History of Croatia" sounds a bit weird. We should be consistent. I mean we would have to use "History of Croatia" for the earlier and the latter periods as well if we preferred to use "history" word instead of the term "kingdom".Fakirbakir (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support I was struggling with this one because I'm not familiar with the subject. From the article, it seems clear that there was a joint kingdom. But from what I see at Personal union#Croatia (disputed), it appears there was a Kingdom of Croatia, whether it was ruled by the king of Hungary or illegal annexed by him. The current name, then, appears to be POV. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait, how does it appear to be POV based on reading the personal union discussion? Do you think there is a dispute about there having being a union? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, I'm sure you understand the situation better than I do, but in the section I linked to, I see two competing historical theories, both supported by sources, and a conclusion that we can't really say. But to me, at least, it appears that there was a kingdom of Croatia, and that the dispute is over how much autonomy that kingdom had. Am I mistaken? --BDD (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to what we think readers will understand after seeing the term "Kingdom of Croatia"... in any event, the current title, "Croatia in the union with Hungary", doesn't sound to me like it makes a value judgement. It doesn't imply that there was a personal union, nor does it imply that there was an occupation. It just says there was a union. This seems to be the modicum of consensus on the topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a language difference. When I hear "union," I think of a consensual joining, which wouldn't fit with the Hungarian occupation theory. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think your previous proposal is an excellent idea Joint kingdom of Croatia and Hungary (1102–1526) (I added dates to the title). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but the dates would be unnecessary disambiguation, even though they're informative. Lack of dates doesn't mean that a subject is contemporary. See, for example, Prussia, Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Aragon, and many others. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but in context, there's ample examples to the contrary, such as the earliest two Acts of Union that are clearly described as annexations. It's a reasonably generic word that doesn't necessarily have clearly positive implications to a preponderance of readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coat of arms

The current Coat of arms used in the article is not the most accurate one, although out of the coats of arms available on wikimedia it looks most similar to the one from Louis II's 1525 talir. The crown is, I think, from the Napoleon times.

1499 [30] [31] [32]

1503 [33]

1519 [34] [35]

1525 [36] [37] (Tzowu (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC))

Coat of arms of Croatia 1499.png until there's a better solution :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzowu (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Croatia in the union with Hungary → History of Croatia (1102–1526) – This title was suggested in a previous move discussion just closed above. It addresses the concerns of the proponents of that move proposal and avoids some of the objections of its opponents. —  AjaxSmack  21:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm all for a succession of historical country articles as the method of covering a historical narrative, I really am, but given the disputed and uncertain nature of this period I don't think we have much choice if we really want to be absolutely factual.
As a bit of a digression I will point out there will be a problem with regard to what coa we use for the successor here. Hungary or Croatia? -- Director (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, while we're at it, this desire to split history into per-country/state/whatever articles, as opposed to per-period articles, is largely unhelpful, because history usually doesn't lend itself to such finicky compartmentalization. I just noticed that in the next article of this series, it actually led to a copyright violation, [38] [39]. Can you please fix that according to WP:RIA? Also everywhere else you may have done the same. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
In theory, yes, but in practice imo the pros for the country succession outweigh the cons. Decisively. See, a country article can dispose of the need for a period article (with its usually-expansive history section). However, if some sort of polity/subdivision existed (which is more often than not), - the reverse is not the case. I.e. having a period article does not mean we don't need a country article as well. This is because country articles have a more diverse scope.
You are correct in pointing out that historical polities do not necessarily correspond well with periods, but having some (usually small and theoretical) discrepancy is imo preferable to creating a confusing collection of FORKS often overlapping in their coverage of the same subject. In essence the problem is: we still need country articles.
Ofc, I support the current move because of the uncertainty around the existence of a separate polity during this period. If there indisputably was such a polity or subdivision, I would support covering the period that way. -- Director (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The historical country articles tend to be those content forks, because they replicate historical narrative information reformatted into "country article" form, which is meaningless for medieval entities that have few clear characteristics of modern-day countries, and the weight of the individual characteristics isn't the same as today. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said, if you have a period article, and there was a historical polity in existence at that time - its perfectly justified to create an article about said polity. Its not a content fork, as there are numerous aspects of a state besides the historical narrative of its existence (e.g. economics, demographics, subdivisions, that sort of thing). The reverse is not the case: if a country articles covers the history of the period, then it probably is a content fork to create another article covering the history of the period. -- Director (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Who is disputing it? Can you give us some names? It seems that you are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, you have numerous examples of Hungarian historians claiming Croatia and Hungary were in a personal union or some other types of unions, primary sources in which Croatia is labeled as a Kingdom, and sources for the official coat of arms of Croatia, a checkerboard in the late 15th and early 16th century, before that the modern day Dalmatian coa was used for Croatia. We already saw that Bellamy doesn't even know were Cetina is and what Triune Kingdom means. If I added a source on the Tito article that defines him as a war criminal, yet on the same page he wrote that Ljubljana was the capital of SR Croatia and it was called that way in the 19th century, you'd probably shot me :S. So if today Hungarian and Croatian hitorians claim practically the same thing, where is the problem? (Tzowu (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC))
  • Support - impenetrable title into something clear and meaningful. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose this move, of course. Other online encyclopaedias also use a similar title to the one used on this article (Croatia in the union with Hungary), for example encyclopedia.com: Royal Union with Hungary and larousse.fr: L'union avec la Hongrie. As for the countries that formed the union (Croatia and Hungary), there is pretty much a consensus that it really was a union, whether a personal, political, dynastic et. one of Hungary and Croatia, reflected in numerous writings of various historians, whose views can be read in the article and on this talk page. As for other countries, there is a Kingdom of Bohemia article, cowering the timespane of 1198–1918, and Kingdom of Hungary article, covering the timespane of 1000–1918 and 1920–1946, although they were not always fully independent and the ruling dinasties were also the House of Anjou and Habsburgs. Btw, there's already a History of Croatia article. (Tzowu (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC))
The whole point is that this title would be accurate whether there was or was not a personal union. You do not get to dismiss published sources based on your personal estimates of their quality. The source states there is dispute on the issue. Do you have a source that says there is consensus on the issue? Because finding Hungarians that say there was a personal union indicates nothing at all, as we're trying to determine the position of the scientific community as a whole.
Here's another source that says there's a dispute [40]. Also the author (Sedlar) is likely of Croatian ancestry. George Prpic (also probably Croatian) says in The Croatian immigrants in America p.22 "this happened under terms which ever since have been a matter of dispute between the Croatian and Hungarian historians". I could easily find more. Can you find a source that indicates the existence of a consensus? -- Director (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"Do you have a source that says there is consensus on the issue" Yes, László Heka, it's in the article. What you found doesn't prove there is a dispute today on the existence of a certain type of union. The first one mentions only the 19th century historians (no one is denying that) and the Pacta Conventa (which is considered a later forgery by both Hungarians and Croatians today), while the second one (from 1971) deals with the exact terms of the union, of course that can't be accurately determined due to the lack of sources. So if we have a cca 10 to 1 ratio (I'll take into account that you'll probably find two Hungarian historians that deny the union ) in favour of an existence of a union (personal, dinastic, royal...), and considering that names of articles in the past were determined by their occurance on google books, like Principality of Dalmatian Croatia (this one is surely more controversial than the union with Hungary), and also considering that the number of "History of..." articles are very few, shouldn't it be wiser to leave the current article name? It had an even more "POV" name before this one for years. A union in the article name doesn't even necessarily mean a personal one of two equal kingdoms so every view is met in this way. (Tzowu (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC))
I'm afraid what I found does indeed "prove" there is a dispute, nothing better. You fail to realize that you need authors that say there isn't a dispute, that there is a consensus - not authors that simply say there was a personal union. They "don't count", as we're trying to evaluate the position of the scientific community as a whole, and that's not what they talk about. What does Heka say, exactly? -- Director (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't: "In the 19th century some Hungarian nationalist historians challenged Croatia's special status by claiming that the Pacta Conventa had never existed at all. However, medieval Croatia's autonomous position with respect to Hungary is undeniable." There is no historiography in which everyone has unanimous positions, history is not an exact science, the sole purpose of historians is to question the historical sources we have. That's were the dispute comes, from the exact terms and the conditions in which the union was created and what kind of union was it, whether it was created by military conquest, an agreement with the nobles, whether it was a personal union, a dynastic one, political etc. From the works of Hungarian historians it is clear that the vast majority of them don't call into question the existence of a union. Heka wrote: "Hungarian legal historians hold that their relationship with Hungary in the period till 1526 and the death of Louis II was most similar to what is a called personal union, so that they were connected by a common king." We are not discussing here about the 19th century position of historians, but the modern one, so if you think that the majority of the scientific community has a different position than you should be able to prove it. One or two exceptions "don't count" when they are outnumbered by the opposing views, just like Josip Jurčević's views don't count for the Tito article. (Tzowu (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC))
  • Comment why not "Hungarian-Croatian kingdom" (516 results) or "Croatian-Hungarian kingdom" (175 results)? --Երևանցի talk 03:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Those terms seem to refer to the whole of Croatia and Hungary in the period[41]. —  AjaxSmack  04:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. This article is about the Croatian half of the union. --Երևանցի talk 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Easy support. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is key. Red Slash 17:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Come to think of it, there is nothing wrong with the current title. It describes the nature of the polity termed "Croatia" as a subordinate to Hungarian king, and the proposed title just adds some years that look semi-arbitrary at first sight. The alleged inaccuracy of the word "union" has been refuted by in detail by Tzowu, above. Frankly, I don't quite understand the rationale for either this or the previous RM: the 2013 RM cites consistency with other articles about History of Croatia. However I see that as a rather artificial and misguided attempt to introduce consistency where it is neither necessary nor natural (to quote Joy: "history usually doesn't lend itself to such finicky compartmentalization"). No such user (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as avoiding objections goes, using the year 1102 in the article title would actually make it worse, because that specific year was a nationalist talking point. AS, you're just not thinking like a true POV pusher :D Arguably, we should not cater to them, to the contrary, but in any case it's always best to make sure we're all aware of all the ramifications of a choice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't really see how would that be an improvement over the current state. It's not really more recognizable, does not bring anything new and can create even more confusion than it already exists. We have gazillion different articles all dividing one large period of existence of Croatian monarchy which are barely connected with one another so that they are at times hard to follow even for people who actually know something about the history of Croatia and the region. Shokatz (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per standardization. I think my proposal would have been the best solution, however current title is even more appropriate than "History of Croatia (1102–1526)". --Norden1990 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Rearrangement proposal

I've been thinking about this, and here's what I propose:

  • Rename the Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) article into simply "Kingdom of Croatia". As I explain here the dates of that title are dubious - both of them. Alternatively, we could move the article to Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, which was pretty much its later official name. Either way, that frees-up the article's scope.
  • We rename this article per AS's proposal, but(!), since we obviously can't treat it as a historical country article under such a title - we instead use it as a sub-article of the Kingdom of Croatia article. We cover the post 1102 subject there in outline, and keep this article for the details.

Its a difficult problem to solve. But that would kind of settle most of the outstanding problems regarding dubious dating, clumsy date-filled titles, and whether or not there was any union... -- Director (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable; I agree with the first part, at least.
As for the second... Mu. As you noticed, neither Joy nor myself share your passion for "compartmentalization" of historical articles, so it is disputed whether there is (or should be) a substantial difference between a "historical country" and a "historical period" article. Also, is there such a thing as "sub-article"? No such user (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Jeez, Direktor, I've just now noticed that you already did it. You believe in WP:BOLD, don't you? No such user (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
How about there is one Kingdom of Croatia article covering basic periods from the alleged 925 all the way up to 1918 similar to Kingdom of Hungary article? Then you can have separate articles covering certain periods like the one from 925-1102, 1102-1526, 1526-1868, 1868-1918. The latter would be expanded versions of the basic outline present in the main Kingdom of Croatia article. This way various ridiculous disputes could be avoided like the one we just had on the Talk:Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. Shokatz (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand: 1526 or 1527 was a turning point in Croatian history according to these articles. But why? Ferdinand I and his successors were kings of Croatia, because they're crowned as king of Hungary. There was no separate coronation in Croatia. Most part of Croatia was, anyway, under Ottoman occupation. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Because the separate election of Ferdinand as king in Parliament on Cetin reaffirmed the Croatian statehood and is important from even today's point of view for the succession and legality of the Croatian state. It strengthens and reaffirms the fact Croatia remained a separate political and legal entity from the rest of the Archiregnum Hungariae regardless of the monarch being crowned separately or not. It also meant the end of direct suzerainty of Hungary over Croatia which was now under direct Imperial Austrian rule...whether at times directly or through the title of Archiregnum Hungariae. BTW the coronations were separate until at least late 13th century when they were joined for obvious practical reasons - the same as it is today with Great Britain (kingdom of England, Scotland and [North] Ireland). Also most of Hungary was under Ottoman occupation as well so I don't see what's that got do with anything. Now let's stick to the point, shall we? Shokatz (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nsu Best way to attract attention to an issue - bold editing ;)
  • @Shokatz... I've considered that possibility too. The problem is that such an arrangement presupposes a continuity in Croatian statehood which is explicitly denied by some reliable sources.
  • @Norden1990, you are quite right. The dubious "reaffirming" of Croatian statehood in 1527 is pretty much meaningless, though the tale is spun in Croatia as if the Croatian nobles were courted by all these powers and finally selected the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire(!) as their humble lord, etc :). But the date does mark the beginning of the history of Croatia as a province of the Austrian emperors... I don't know. Its difficult dreaming up these "watershed" events when you're talking about a rump semi-ethereal "kingdom" so tiny and utterly insignificant noone would give it a second thought. About a fifth of Croatian territory today..
  • @Shokac #2. The Cetin thing is also enmeshed in legends of the 19th century. The lords gathered there had no choice whatsoever and merely rubber-stamped what was already a done deal: Leopold would have exercised his authority over them either way. They had practically no power by that point, and were about to be finished off by the Turks.
A real historical watershed was the Battle of Krbava Field (1493), when the Turks effectively shattered once and for all the old Croatian kingdom - beyond repair (its core was always in Dalmatia and Lika). Its difficult to overemphasize its importance. It marks the end of the old realm in all but name, whether it was in personal union or not. -- Director (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect to you and Norden it is completely irrelevant what each of you think or what your opinions are....I have my own opinions as well but that is totally beside the point. Wikipedia is interested in sourced content only. Unsourced POV and OR do not count for nothing. Since this is quite the nonsensical issue and irrelevant to what we discuss here, we should concentrate on the matter at hand. Now regarding the Croatian statehood objection I don't see that this article (or any other similar article) presupposes anything even remotely similar, such article would be an article about a historical period...there is nothing in Wikipedia rules saying such article must be only and only about what we perceive today as fully sovereign entities. (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but obviously - its up to us how we organize our coverage of a subject.
To call this whole thing "Kingdom of Croatia"... I like the elegance of it, but its a very big stretch. Would you include Croatia-Slavonia into it? And if not, why not? If you already included the Hapsburg KoC... It raises more problems than it solves imo. It clearly implies a state continuity, unless we use a hopelessly confusing Kingdom of Greece format. This isn't like the Kingdom of Hungary, Shokatz. I think we need to try and fix this Hungarian problem first.
But I wasn't kidding. Krbava Field is the real watershed. At that point the Kingdom of Croatia (personally unionized or not) ceased to be a significant entity and effectively became a meaningless tiny province - all the way until the late 19th century. The Cetin thing is more-or-less rubber stamping.. I wonder if they had a guy there that said "duh!" when they declared for the Emperor (or a "d'oh!" in 1493 :)). -- Director (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's a very complicated issue as it is the entire status of Croatia throughout history. Unlike Hungary who had it's name stamped on a huge multi-ethnic Arch-kingdom, Croatia had a much more complicated status. I also agree that Battle of Krbava Field was indeed a monumental event in Croatian history, but I would not be so quick to dismiss the Cetin parliament just like that. It certainly had some importance and consequence...and not just for Croatia but for the entire Archkingdom of Hungary. For example what if they (the Croatian nobility at Cetin) rubber stamped John Zapolya's claim? Don't you think history would take quite a different turn? Because you should note that Croatia as insignificant, as you said, was still quite a significant part of the Kingdom of Hungary. The succession crisis in late 13th century showed just how much when the Croatian nobles who were THE ones who actually pushed for the Anjou kings and eventually even succeeded in putting them on the throne. Now, while I am willing to participate in this historical discussion of ours on what would or would not be, or expressing our opinions on the significance of these said events, Wikipedia is not really interested in our personal views. ;) Shokatz (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
From 1097 (1102) until 1918, the title "king of Croatia" (and also Dalmatia, Rama, Serbia, Bulgaria, Jerusalem etc., anyway) used by all the Kings of Hungary, it's completely irrelevant for the Croatian issue that Habsburg monarchs ruled Hungary (and as a result Croatia) after 1526. So, Croatia did not became a Habsburg "crown land". More simply: The Habsburg monarchs ruled Croatia as kings of Hungary and not because they were Holy Roman Emperors. 1526/7 is an unjustified turning point. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@"The Habsburg monarchs ruled Croatia as kings of Hungary and not because they were Holy Roman Emperors." Yes. Did I say something else? But to move the tunring point from that year, you will have to deal with Croatian 19th Century Nationalist Mythology (CCNM) about the Cetin Parliament. I.e. debunk its importance and/or existence. Its a pretty standard procedure :) -- Director (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The only substantive point of Parliament on Cetin was that Croats recognized Ferdinand as king and not John Zápolya. The entire article (Parliament on Cetin) is OR and POV. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I would really like to hear the arguments for this claim of yours. Do you even understand what WP:OR is? Shokatz (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And you understand WP:PA? --Norden1990 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you? Shokatz (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
...Habsburg monarchs ruled Croatia as kings of Hungary... Sorry but that is just not true. I am quite sure the Habsburg kings had the title King of Croatia and the fact it was not just a void title like Jerusalem or Rama is shown by the fact Croatia had a separate royally appointed Viceroy (Ban), it's own separate Parliament (Sabor) and completely separate legal framework. All facts accepted even by great majority of Hungarian historians. As for what you consider or not is unjustified turning point is completely irrelevant. Now, your point in all this is? Shokatz (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"I am quite sure" (your opinion is irrelevant), "All facts accepted even by great majority of Hungarian historians". Show me a reliable source. There was union between Hungary and Croatia until 1918. The other positions of the King of Hungary is not relevant in this relationship. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not an opinion, it's a fact - [42]. I'll give you two more reliable sources: [43] [44] Shokatz (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Kristó publication does not say about that Croatia would become part of the Habsburg realm. Anyway he mentioned Pacta conventa as fake document. Kristó also argued in favour of occupation and Hungary dominated this relationship. The other source is about the Croatian literature, I don't care. So, as I said: Habsburg monarchs ruled Croatia as kings of Hungary after 1526, too. The legal status has not changed between the two countries (if we accept Croatia was a separate kingdom and not only a Hungarian province, like Transylvania) after the Battle of Mohács. This is the fact. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The legal status has not changed between the two countries indeed. Croatia and Hungary were in personal union, separate kingdoms with separate legal framework and administration. Thank you for pointing that out. As for the links, you asked for them and I provided it - one states in it's opening paragraph: A horvát-magyar perszonálunió létrejöttével (1102) (eng: The Croatian-Hungarian personal union is established (1102)), the other one is even named Formation of the Hungarian-Croatian personal union. I also gave you a link listing all Hungarian-Croatian kings with their full titles. To discuss whether Habsburgs bore the title of King of Croatia is nonsensical issue...it's like asking whether the sky is blue? Interesting how you asked for sources and then just outright dismiss them. Fact is - Habsburgs ruled Croatia as Kings of Croatia, otherwise they wouldn't call themelves Kings of Croatia...simple as that. Shokatz (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't care this relation was personal or real union. I just wanted to emphasize that the situation didn't change after 1526. Croatia was a dependent territory of Hungary and not of the Habsburg Monarchy after 1526. For example Croatian magnates were members of the Natio Hungarica and they also sent envoys to the Hungarian Diet. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There was no need to emphasize anything. It is well known that Croatia was a dependency of Hungarian kingdom (Archiregnum). That is the whole point, Croatia was not Hungary, it was it's dependent territory. And Habsburg Monarchy is in fact a colloquial term used for all the lands and titles under the Habsburgs from 1526 to 1804, Croatia included. It's a term predating the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary. Shokatz (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there is an inconsistency in User:Norden1990 's version of of Croatia (Habsburg). The lifespan of Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) is 1527–1868, while the lifespan of Land of the Crown of St. Stephen is 1867–1918.
Also, in the article Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) we have the following passage: In 1781-82 Joseph issued a Patent of Toleration, followed by an Edict of Tolerance which granted Protestants and Orthodox Christians full civil rights and Jews freedom of worship. He decreed that German replace Latin as the empire's official language and granted the peasants the freedom to leave their holdings, to marry, and to place their children in trades. Hungary, Slavonia, Croatia, the Military Frontier and Transylvania became a single imperial territory under one administration, called the Kingdom of Hungary or "Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen" 86.127.30.76 (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Th point is that the lands were granted through the Hungarian crown. The entity described there is not the point. -- Director (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

End date

Am herewith seconding Nordren's proposal to shift the end date from 1527. Specifically I propose the year 1493 as the replacement, which is the date that ends any real autonomy of the Croatian regions from the Hungarian crown. It is after the devastating Battle of Krbava Field that the "kingdom", regardless of its debatable legal status, de facto becomes little more than a small province with no real autonomy, which is characteristic of the period covered in the succeeding Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) article. I submit that is what distinguishes the period of the medieval kingdom from what came afterwards. The battle is significant in numerous other ways as well, e.g. in shifting the center of the Croatian polity/region away from its Early-Medieval core around Zadar and the Dalmatian hinterland, away to the north and the (Hungarian-founded) town of Zagreb.

Further, the House of Habsburg first came to power in Hungary and Croatia in 1437 (almost a full century before 1527), and ruled until 1457. Is that "Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)" too? Then of course came the complex interchange of dynasties (Jagiellon-Hunyadi-Jagiellon-Zapolya), with the 1527 return of the Habsburgs coming only as the last in a long line of such dynastic squabbles. The event is not a major watershed for Croatia (or what little remained of it after 1943), and is blown out of all proportion in the Croatian historical narrative drawn from the 19th century. -- Director (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Completely disagree. There isn't one valid reason why it should be shifted from 1527 to 1493. We have no contemporary nor modern source which would validate the notion something significant happened in the relations to Croatian-Hungarian union. 1493 and Krbava Battle is important but for completely different reasons. 1526/1527 on the other hand effectively marked a new era both as officially ending the medieval period in Croatia (and Hungary) and beginning of a new period with a new dynasty, end of various dynastic struggles, legal reform and the struggle with the Ottomans. It is true some members of the Habsburg family were monarchs prior to 1526/7 but it was the mentioned year that they finally became legal and de facto perpetual monarchs. Furthermore I don't see why 1493, why not 1235 when Béla IV refused to be separately crowned in Croatia effectively changing the very nature of the union. Or say 1272 when Charles Martel was elected King of Croatia and Andrew III as King of Hungary. Ridiculous...are we going to rewrite history separately from modern Croatian (and Hungarian) historiography now? Shokatz (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Shokatz, talking to you is usually a matter of correcting your various misconceptions about history, or Wikipedia's functionings. And unsuccessfully, for the most part. In my opinion, your behavior is disruptive, and you should disengage from these articles. No offense, but to me you seem just the latest in a looong line of standard-issue Croatian nationalist POV-pushers. You're here to glorify Croatia and its history, and are damaging these articles by blocking users with real knowledge of history and editing experience from improving them.
None of what you wrote above has any relevance whatsoever with regard to anything that matters in determining the end date of a historical country article, and all of it has little contact with real history.
  • There is no such thing as "perpetual monarchs", every monarchy is proclaimed as "perpetual", that's just drivel. What is that even supposed to mean?? Nonsense...
  • If you knew anything of Croatian history you would know that the medieval Croatian kingdom in effect ended in 1493 at the Battle of Krbava Field. At best, it survived in a completely different and diminished form, in a completely different place.
  • The events of 1527 signify only the accession of yet another dynasty to the Hungarian throne. This one happened to last, but that's all - the year itself is almost insignificant. Nothing changed for Croatia that year except its dynasty. Again.
The point is to have significant turning points as the end and start dates. That is to say, years when something actually de facto changed for Croatia. -- Director (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh goddamnit... I thought I fixed these articles. This whole thing out to be re-merged into the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) article, as I'd originally intended - and problem solved. It just takes time for someone or other to mess up the organization. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to see you are so open to different opinions like that...I am guessing you find anyone who dares to have a different opinion than your majesty is simply disruptive and POV-pusher. But honestly I don't care what you think about me or your ad hominem offensive remarks since it's a logical fallacy and I am sure you know it yourself. Now on the subject, regarding your arguments:
  • By perpetual monarchs I was referring to Habsburgs becoming successive rulers, no longer having any real contenders to the throne. Whatever you are talking about is nothing but a straw-man argument.
  • As for your claim about post-1493 your claims are nothing but WP:OR, I'd like to see at least one valid reference which can confirm what you are saying.
  • The events of 1526/7 signify Croatian nobles choosing of their own free will, separately from Hungarian nobility, a King of Croatia. It marks a new era in several important aspects politically, legally and historically. Modern Croatian historiography tends to agree with me since I am drawing my conclusions directly from it, I am not sure where you get your ideas from though. Shokatz (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You know what Confucius said about "he who knows not, and knows not he knows not"? That category annoys me a bit, I admit.
  • And what do you mean by "successive" rulers? :) Were other rulers not "successive"? What is the difference, in your mind, between the kings prior to 1527, and the kings post-1527?
  • Please educate yourself a bit about Croatian history [45]. You may discover that the consequence of the Battle of Krbava was the wiping out of practically all of the Croatian nobility, the mass migration of Croats to the north, and the elimination of the "old nucleus of the Croatian state in the Dalmatian interior and the Dinaric mountains".
  • The events of 1527 are complex, but with little to no real relevance beyond the arrival of a new king. The Croatian Sabor did not choose a king because of any particular right they held, but merely chose which of the two contenders for the Hungarian throne to support - in the Hungarian Civil War. The Sabor of Slavonia also happened to choose a king "of their free will" - and chose John Zápolya, just like many other Hungarian nobles. They all "chose of their own free will" which king they want to support.
The whole "we chose you of our own free will oh glorious Habsburg Emperor" thing stems from the 19th century and the concurrent sycophancy to his imperial majesty, Francis Joseph. -- Director (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Successive rulers - as in kings in succession from one dynasty. I am not really good in drawing images but I can make you a drawing if you wish...
  • I know very well what was the significance of the Battle of Krbava, so you should stop with this "educate yourself" BS. The fact is the battle had absolutely no relevance to the Croatian-Hungarian relations. Unless you have valid sources which say otherwise, your argument is nothing but a void WP:OR claim.
  • 1527 has a much more relevance because it marked a new era in: 1. Croatian-Hungarian relations, 2. reformation and reorganization of the land, 3. had long-term consequences for Croatia which lasted until early 20th century, 4. marked the new era in Croatian struggle against the Ottomans. Your opinions on the importance of this even are irrelevant and unsupported by any sources or modern historiography...it's nothing but WP:OR if I've ever seen one... Shokatz (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So, are the Jagiellon kings "successive rulers" in your mind, or what? Yes, please, do draw me a picture.
  • So a kingdom can be half-destroyed (or more), but as long as that doesn't impinge on "Croatian-Hungarian relations", its not significant?
  • I'm sure you must have sources that support all that drivel. In particular, I'd be interested in seeing a source that states 1527 "marked a new era in Croatian-Hungarian relations". Do you have such a source?
Its more than a little amusing to see you play the part of the WP:OR champion. -- Director (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jagiellon kings were elected, since you are such a professional you should know that after the Anjou-branch died the entire Archiregnum basically turned into a type of elective monarchy. With Ferdinand I the realm effectively turned back into hereditary monarchy. Is that clear enough picture for you?
  • Yes, Krbava had absolutely no effect on the nature of Croatian-Hungarian relations. Period.
  • You should refer to Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and [46].
I find it even more amusing you playing the part of building straw-man arguments seeking word for word sources when you fail to provide sources which even remotely signify any notion of what you are claiming here. Shokatz (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
"Successive" does not mean "hereditary".
The source is from 1911, while Croatia was still actually ruled by the Habsburgs. You must be joking. And even so, it does not state that 1527 "marked a new era in Croatian-Hungarian relations" or anything of the sort. I don't insist on that exact wording of course, but any sourced, explicit(!) statement to the effect that the "relationship between Croatia and Hungary changed" will suffice. Without you drawing that conclusion yourself.
Please make it clear: do you or do you not have a source for that claim? I'm sure I don't have to tell you that your source must directly support you. -- Director (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For what purpose? Even if I provided you with a contemporary source stating what I stated drawing from the attitude of the contemporary Croatian (and Hungarian) historiography (which both consider 1526/7 to be a pivotal year) you would still outright dismiss it...since everything I write is irrelevant and OR. Let's get back to your proposal. Explain how is 1493 more relevant to Croatian-Hungarian relations than 1526/7 with the election of Habsburgs as hereditary rulers, civil war which ensued and the Ottoman conquest which threatened to annihilate entire Hungary and Croatia of the map. It is you who is proposing a change from the current setup, not me, thus the burden of proof is on you. Shokatz (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course I wouldn't dismiss it. That's the basic difference between you and I as Wikipedia users: I know how to source something, and I follow sources.
Ne izmotavaj se, molim te. You claim that 1527 is significant because it changed the "relationship between Hungary and Croatia", or something to that effect. Do you or don't you have a source? -- Director (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not claim anything, I am deriving my conclusions from the contemporary Croatian (and Hungarian) historiography and third party sources which all seem to be considering 1526/7 to be the pivotal year as opposed to 1493. Current setup on Wikipedia also follows this notion for some reason. Now you come along saying 1526/7 is not really that important, 1493 was...based on what? Where are the sources for such a statement, where are the books, essays, scientific elaborations? Anything? You personally stated: ...the year 1493...which is the date that ends any real autonomy of the Croatian regions from the Hungarian crown.... I am asking you once again - on what exactly are you basing this stuff? It's a simple question you refuse to answer by turning this into yet another quarrel about nothing...come on... Shokatz (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You are not supposed to "derive conclusions", that's not our job here. I conclude that there was no change in the relationship, until you provide a source that says there was.
Regardless of whether the ethereal "autonomy" disappeared at that point or earlier, 1493 is an extremely significant date because of the near-collapse of the medieval Croatian state. That is sourced, and that's obviously the main reason to move the date.
But its not just me who needs to justify 1493 - you also have to justify keeping 1527. Thus far, it seems that your reasons are based on fundamental misconceptions regarding changes in the position of the Kingdom. All that happened in 1527 is the Sabor of Croatia and Dalmatia (but not Slavonia!) chose to support one claimant in a civil war over another. Sabors and assemblies all over the kingdom did precisely the same thing. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You are not supposed to "derive conclusions" - and yet this is exactly what you are doing with the statements regarding the year 1493. My position is affirmation of the contemporary historiography, on what exactly are you basing your stance? I conclude that there was no change in the relationship, until you provide a source that says there was. - Excuse me? What are you even talking about? It is you who claims something, not me...my position is that indeed there was no change, Croatia and Hungary were in personal union and separately chose Ferdinand as king. I have half a dozen valid sources from reputed Hungarian historians in support of this.
1493 is an extremely significant date because of the near-collapse of the medieval Croatian state - so is 1526/7 and even more because the Turks threatened to completely annihilate both Hungary and Croatia off the map due to civil war. Ferdinand himself even thought everything was lost and fled to Bohemia. Shokatz (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, 1493 is significant as the year of the collapse of the old core of the Kingdom of Croatia, etc. This is directly sourced, I am "deriving no conclusions" (no such collapse occurred in 1527!). So far, you were unable to source any of your reasons for why 1527 is significant. Kindly present (sourced!) reasons for 1527. It is very much up to you as well to extol the merits of your preferred end date. -- Director (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's directly sourced then show me those sources. Show me the sources which say ...the year 1493...which is the date that ends any real autonomy of the Croatian regions from the Hungarian crown.... I am still waiting. Now you can spin this as much as you want, but it is you who is changing the status quo of the article, not me. Shokatz (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Its pathetic how you keep returning to that. I already told you the main reasons for the move. As I've already linked above(!), here's a source where you can read about the consequences of the Battle of Krbava [47]. The whole damn river and the field are named after the blood of that battle (Krbava rijeka = "Bloody River").
Now post your sources or shut up, please. -- Director (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Please point me where does it mentions Croatian-Hungarian relations at all? I don't see anything about: ...the year 1493...which is the date that ends any real autonomy of the Croatian regions from the Hungarian crown.... Not even a suggestion of anything similar. I am sure you'd like me to shut up, but it won't happen, sorry. Shokatz (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
As I have already said three times, the main reason for 1493 in the end date is not a specific change in the ethereal autonomy of the kingdom with regard to Hungary, but rather the destruction of its core and loss of most of its territory, etc. - and that is sourced. Stop clinging to that line like its for dear life. As I said, its kind of sad.
Now if you'll be so kind as to post your claims for 1527? -- Director (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Aha...let me quote you directly from an earlier reply: You are not supposed to "derive conclusions". Again for the Nth time I am asking you to show me a source which says anything about 1493 and Croatian-Hungarian relations. To quote you once again: Now post your sources or shut up, please. Shokatz (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
"Aha!"? How old are you, "Shokatz"? Because I feel like I'm talking to someone from high school?
Lets go through this pathetic display again, please read carefully: I retract that statement. The main reason for 1493 are the sourced consequences of the Battle of Krbava. What are the reasons behind 1527 that are not your own ideas and theories?
If you ask me the same thing again, after my repeatedly pointing out I do not insist on that statement, I will have to report you for talkpage disruption. -- Director (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
That is strange because I have the same feeling when I am talking to you. The reasons behind 1527 is that the contemporary Croatian and Hungarian historiographies count it as a pivotal year...I have stated that at least 50th times already at least...and please don't threaten me, we both know you are shooting blanks and that we are both going down if it boils down to that. Shokatz (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Which ones?? Who claims its a "pivotal year"?? Noone is "threatening" anybody, but I wouldn't be sure about any "blanks". arbmac being what it is and all. Its more that I hate wasting time on reports than anything else. -- Director (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Who claims its a "pivotal year"?? Do I really need to repeat myself once again? Really? Now if you are going to report me and be done with it, I am sure whoever handles it will be delighted at your conduct in this entire matter as well. Shokatz (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I am tired of these games. Present a source that states its a "pivotal year", or something to that effect. Author, year, page number. Don't give me that "derive conclusions from contemporary historiographies" drivel. -- Director (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are tired then what should I say... You claimed 1493 ...is the date that ends any real autonomy of the Croatian regions from the Hungarian crown... yet we know nothing changed (legally) in the political reality of the union between Hungary and Croatia. There are no sources that can confirm your ridiculous statement. Now as opposed to that we know that 1527 did in fact change the political aspect both internally and externally because both realms passed to a new hereditary dynasty and that as a result it had the consequence the formation of a new political reality called Habsburg Monarchy. Now unless you know something the rest of the world does not about 1493, and you can prove your assertions with valid verifiable sources you should stop with this charade. Shokatz (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Srednjovjekovna Ugarska i Hrvatska u državnopravnom smislu bile su povezane personalnom unijom od kraja 11. stoljeća. Iako je ugarsko-hrvatska državna zajednica postojala sve do početka 20. stoljeća i samo je Trianonski mirovni ugovor označio njezin službeni završetak, godinu 1526. ipak možemo držati razdjelnicom, prvenstveno zato, jer je politička situacija nakon Mohačke bitke - pogibija kralja, dvostruki izbor vladara, tursko osvajanje i zbog toga raspad Ugarske na tri dijela - promijenila cijeli srednjovjekovni sustav odnosa."

("Medieval Hungary and Croatia were, in terms of public international law, allied by means of personal union created in the late 11th century. Although Hungarian-Croatian state existed until the beginning of the 20th century and only the Treaty of Trianon marked its final ending we can perceive the year 1526 as a divide. Mostly because the political situation after the battle of Mohács – the king’s death, two elected rulers, Turkish conquests and, consequently, the splitting of Hungary into three parts – changed the entire medieval relation system.")

Márta Font: Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middlea Ages, Pécs, 2004


PDF text recognition: "Ni tim junackim djelom nije ipak bilo Hrvatima pomozeno. Stoga se oni na pocetku 1526. sastanu u KriZevcima na sabor, gdje su neki velikasi, na celu im Krsto Frankapan, odlucno zahtijevali da se Hrvatska otcijepi od kralja Ludovika, dakle od Ugarske, i da sebi potraZi drugoga gospodara (trovarsi altro signore) koji ce je braniti i stititi, a to da je Ferdinand Habsburski. Tom prilikom Krsto Frankapan izjavi da je spreman osvojiti Bosnu, a zatim da ce se Ferdinand proglasiti i kraljem Bosne "buduci da Bosna pripada Hrvatskoj" (appartenendo la Bossina a la Croatia) .107 Ali su neki velikasi bili za pokroviteljstvo Venecije, i tako se sabor razide ne stvorivsi pravog zakljucka o novom gospodaru.

U isto se vrijeme Ugarska nalazila na pragu gradanskog rata. Plemstvo je uspjelo zbaciti Stjepana Bathoryja, a nato je palatinom izabran populami Stjepan Verboczy, ali ga vec za kratko vrijeme i opet zamijeni Stjepan Bathory. U taj cas, ljeti 1526, spremi se sultan Sulejman s 200.000 momaka na odlucan boj protiv Ugarske, u kojoj nije bilo na okupu ni vojske ni novaca. U posljednji eas preuzme kalocki nadbiskup Pavao Tomory vrhovno zapovjednistvo nad vojskom od kakvih 30.000 momaka, u kojoj se nalazilo i nesto Hrvata s banom Franjom Bathyanyjem (1525-1531). Ne cekajuCi glavne hrvatske vojske pod Krstom Frankapanom, niti erdeljske pod Ivanom Zapoljskim, zametnu Ugri 29. augusta 1526. kod Mohaca bitku u kojoj su poslije kratkog boja ametom potuceni. NajveCi dio vojske, do 22.000 boraca, medu njima mnogo biskupa i velikasa, pa i sam Pavao Tomory, pokrise bojno polje, a mladi se kralj Ludovik II na bijegu utopi u nabujalom potoku Celeju. Na Mohackom je polju zakopana potpuna samostalnost ugarske drfave, a uz to ispra2njeno i ugarsko-hrvatsko prijestolje."

Ferdo Šišić - Povijest Hrvata, pregled povijesti hrvatskog naroda 600. - 1526. prvi dio, str. 248 Tzowu (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Start date and Bans of Croatia (or Slavonia)

I would like to draw your attention to some issues.

  • Why is 1102 the start date of the union between Hungary and Croatia? In 1197, King Coloman the Learned conquered Croatia and the Hungarian troops defeated Petar Svačić in the Battle of Gvozd Mountain. Anyway, formerly I read some publications which imply that Peter never existed, his person is a subsequent fabrication.
  • According to Attila Zsoldos' archontology (Zsoldos, Attila (2011). Magyarország világi archontológiája, 1000–1301 ("Secular Archontology of Hungary, 1000–1301"). História, MTA Történettudományi Intézete. Budapest. ISBN 978-9627-38-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum), there was Ban of Slavonia (Latin: banus totius Sclavonie) just after the union/conquest, however the office of Ban of Croatia was established only in 1275, when Hungarian nobles Nicholas Gutkeled (Croatia) and Ivan Kőszegi (Slavonia) divided the realm among themselves. After that Paul I Šubić of Bribir declared himself as Ban of Croatia since the 1270s. As I see it, the Croatian historiograpy provides totally different datas and there is huge confusion (see articles Ban of Croatia and Ban of Slavonia). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • An accurate observation. I was considering this myself, but decided to tackle it afterwards (as you can see, its very difficult to move an inch from Croatian preconceptions about these events). Petar Svacic, even if an actual historical figure, is essentially a rebelling noble with no claim to the throne. It always seemed to me that his name is of a very strange format the period, name + surname with diminutive ("Svačić"). Ladislaus was the king who took up the titles, in 1094, if I'm not mistaken.
  • There is no question that Croatian regions enjoyed a certain autonomy, regardless of whether they were in personal union or not, or whether they had a ban. The sources pretty much agree on that. In either case, you are definitely correct in pointing out to the confusion with the Slavonian Sabor and the Slavonian Ban. When was Slavonia even instituted as a separate "kingdom" somehow? I know very little about the Northern Wastelands :)
-- Director (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The Hungarian kings adopted tht title "King of Slavonia" only in the 1540s. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is 1102 the start date of the union between Hungary and Croatia? Because it is the year when Croatia was finally merged with Hungary in union. There were several conquests. 1094 Ladislaus managed to conquer northern parts (Slavonia) but his progress was halted and in 1095 he died. Coloman then in 1097 again comes with a large army to assert his rights and manages to take almost all of Croatia by 1099 but was forced to pull back to Hungary against Cumans and Ruthenians and the Dalmatian Croats again retake the area. He comes back in 1102, wins the battle at the Gvozd mountain and reasserts his rights once and for all...whether by force or by will of Croatian nobles it's irrelevant. So yes, 1102 is the start of the union. Shokatz (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
How can you make claims like that and completely ignore the fact that we do not know what the relationship was?
The point is that Svacic's rebellion is really a rebellion. Ladislaus assumed the titles in 1094. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
How can you make claims like that and completely ignore the fact that we do not know what the relationship was? - Really? Do you want to restart this all over again? Read these and stop pestering me already: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]
The point is it is irrelevant whether it was a rebellion or whatever, it relevant that Hungarian kings (Coloman and Ladislaus especially) failed to assert themselves until 1102. Shokatz (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
More nonsense. You know full well that the union claim is disputed. Some sources support it, some point out the view is disputed. The relationship simply isn't known - that's the bottom line. You should be careful that your statements don't reveal bias.
That is a legitimate point. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Again you with this...can you finally accept that we have different opinions on the matter? My view is that the union is real, I have numerous sources to go by and you calling it nonsense will not change it, plus it's rude. Both views are equally valid. Now stop with this nonsense already and let's focus on more important stuff... Shokatz (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't care less what our opionions are, that's what you don't understand - its not about our opinions. Its about the opinions of scholarship. -- Director (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You truly are a master of spinning it around. Mainstream historiography is what formed my opinion, it is the scholars who consider it as pivotal year as can be observed from numerous books and scientific elaborations on the subject. But you wouldn't know anything about it since if you can't find it on Google, it doesn't exists for you. Shokatz (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown in any way that the view you support is "mainstream". -- Director (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I have, and I have over dozen and a half sources to prove it. Shokatz (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually you have not. As I said, there are many sources that oppose your view as well. At least half that number have already been provided. This isn't a contest. You need a sources that say, in some way, that your view is the consensus view, or prevailing view, or at least something along those lines. The opposite position, i.e. that the issue is uncertain and disputed, has been sourced. -- Director (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I have. I am still waiting for the sources that you talk about that say there is an ongoing dispute at this moment. Even the sources you refer to clearly state the origin of the dispute is 19th century, largely discarded by modern historiography, and most of those same sources agree that there was some kind of union...personal or dynastic is irrelevant since it's basically the same thing. Shokatz (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You're still waiting for the sources that attest to the dispute? It is to laugh. They're in the article right now, and you have been pointed to them numerous times. Britannica also does not come down clearly on either side of the dispute, and makes it clear that the issue is disputed, your "interpretations" are not the concern of anyone here. As things are right now, there is no way this article or the other will state outright that there was a personal union, without clear qualifications re the fact that the matter is unknown and disputed. You can rest assured in that regard.
Its up to you to provide sources that explicitly show, without shameless SYNTH on your part, that weight needs to be placed on this view or that (just as the sources state the matter is disputed). There isn't much more to be said, I suppose. -- Director (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually it's not up to me anything, it's up to you. The same sources are in the article as there were in the previous status-quo version. What is different is - you changed it to represent the minority view as the dominant synthesis. And since you mentioned Britannica, it clearly states that whatever the dispute is that nonetheless there was a dynastic union. The source say what they say, not what you want them to say. I never had a problem with mentioning the dispute in the article at all, so don't act as if I had. I have a problem with you editing the article so that it represents a fringe theory as the dominant one. I really don't see what exactly is your problem, but whatever it is I suggest we take this to the mediation page and so there they can decide what the sources actually say...I am sure you would agree with that, no? Shokatz (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't much care to listen to your thoughts and opinions, and I don't have anything more to say to you. If you have any sources for a "minority view" or anything like that, I'll respond. I have some actual editing to do. I will request sanctions, though, if you start another pointless edit war pushing Croatian nationalist nonsense after this thing is unblocked. -- Director (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, I am not really interested in your opinions and your views. The sources are there in plain sight. You have no consensus for the changes you are pushing for, you have no sources that confirm your assertions and you certainly have no moral right to preach me on edit warring...or anything really since you have absolutely no competence to work on this article at all. You should also stop with the personal attacks and other BS, perhaps admins will tolerate your disgusting behavior but I will not. All your nonsense will be reverted in the future, you can count on that. Shokatz (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It must be fascinating to live in that parallel universe, where I've posted no sources, and where you have all the evidence in the world for "minority view". You really should read-up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and come to understand they do not bend to suit your textbooks. But, don't worry, I won't revert-war with you at all from now on, if that's what you thought. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Says a person who posts a quote directly from Britannica which undoubtedly says there was a dynastic union and then says the quote says it's contentious. Hilarious. You do the same with all the other sources...you know, I've actually read all those sources and searched in what context they are said. All the sources you refer to mention the dispute only marginally, affirming in text after the existence of some kind of union...personal or dynastic. To impose the 19th century discarded nationalist dispute as the dominant thesis is a minority view and fringe theory my friend - when you take something out of context and make it a dominant point. But I said before several times and I will repeat it again - I have absolutely no problem with the dispute being mentioned in the article, in fact I support it wholeheartedly, but again, not as a dominant thesis. I also supported your suggestion for merger of this article with the Kingdom of Croatia (925-1102), but after all this charade I don't really think you should suggest anything at all anymore as you lack the competence to even read the sources on the matter properly. Now also, I suggested a mediation on the sources and this whole issue and you said nothing...does that mean you don't want a mediation and settlement of this for good? Because although it was fun trying to discuss with you for a time, it's becoming quite boring and tiresome...and I'd sure want a close on this. Shokatz (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown that the personal union is the "dominant thesis". When/if you do, you can present it as such. -- Director (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No? We have only 14-15 various sources which stating there was a personal union. The sources which talk about the dispute also mention it clearly. It is obviously the dominant thesis. I wonder what happened with your statement I won't revert-war with you at all from now on...and yet again here you are. I've also suggested mediation, you said nothing. Shokatz (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not revert war, reverting once was merely as an indication that your new edit is disputed. Though if I feel it is necessary to counter your bullying, I shall have to do so.
You are claiming that the "14-15-17" sources (many of which are Croat or are just marginally covering the issue) indicate the personal union is the dominant view. That is your own WP:SYNTHESIS. Period. I claim the issue is unknown and disputed - because I have sources that explicitly state exactly that. You have no sources that evaluate the position of scholarship and claim that the personal union is more likely (or the dominant view, or whatever). In fact, you have no sources that evaluate the position of scholarship, period. And all sources I've yet seen that do discuss the question at hand place the disputed and unknown nature of the relationship in the forefront. -- Director (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice try to discredit over dozen and a half of sources. Out of all those sources we have at most 2 or 3 that can be considered Croatian sources. Most sources are reliable valid sources coming from third party authors and especially Hungarian historians...I have already referred to this fallacious claim of yours and proven it wrong. Second, there is nothing WP:SYNTH about observing the number of sources and coming with a clear and obvious conclusion that the personal union is the dominant thesis. Everything what I've re-introduced in the lead is actually already present in this and other articles concerning this matter and is heavily sourced. I have yet to see the source which talks about the supposed unknown nature of the relationship since they all mention personal union...even the ones talking about the dispute. I've already said before...what you are doing here is WP:FRINGE, trying to enforce a minority view as equal or dominant thesis...that is considered a disruptive editing. Shokatz (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not "discredit" them, in fact I propose to include their view and place some emphasis on it (as you well know). But I do not presume to claim the view they present is dominant based only on my own personal impression from my google search. and my firm belief in the historical independence of my nation. As I said, you have no indication whatsoever besides your own evaluations that the pu view is dominant, or that anything else is "fringe". None of your sources suggest that - its all you. That is not how Wikipedia works, we need explicit support for our conclusions. -- Director (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The emphasis is already there. The section about the dispute is still there...untouched, it is not the issue at all here....for you the issue is the fact I introduced a section talking about the Hungarian historians and view of the contemporary Hungarian, Croatian and third party (neutral) historiography, which are all sourced. Even the infobox is still stating the same thing only in a more appropriate and more aesthetic manner. My view has nothing to do with my personal convictions or any other insinuation of yours (which I am beginning to consider offensive) but by the apparent sources in the article itself. Shokatz (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There is too much emphasis with regard to the sources, in fact, we can't even speak of any "emphasis" here - you just state outright that "there was a personal union". All sources that review the position of historiography on this matter place the uncertainty of the "personal union" first and foremost, and make no definitive claims such as those you wrote. -- Director (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Please show me where in the article I outright stated there was personal union? Wasn't the section with the dispute still there? Didn't I add a specific note in the infobox saying there is a dispute? It is simply not true that the sources place this matter under some uncertainty since almost all sources mention personal or dynastic union and clearly emphasize that there was clear autonomy of Croatia during this period. If anything is clear, it is the fact there is one dominant thesis - the one of personal union. Shokatz (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatia_in_personal_union_with_Hungary/Archive_1&oldid=1190127646"