Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New article title and content proposal

The fact is: Croatia was conquered by Hungarians in 1102 and remained as a Hungarian province until 1918 (Turkish rule over Hungary included).

Proposal of the new article title: Croatia under Hungarian and Turkish rule, or Croatia 1096-1526

Proposal of complete rework: As we see from the works of John V. A. Fine and of Alex J. Bellamy, the whole medieval history of of the region of today's Croatia is poorly sourced, based on (seventeenth- and eighteenth-century) narrative histories. Hungarian and Serbian historians are firm in their stance: Croatia was subdued by Hungarians by the arms. The much advertised 'Pacta Conventa' turned to be a fourteen-century fake. The article as written follows the nationalistic bias and the narrative histories. All together, heavily biased current text of this article shall be shortened and replaced by the new one that show, at least, the two opposing views evenhandedly.

From the article:

Croatia had its own local governor, or Ban; a privileged landowning nobility; and an assembly of nobles, the Sabor.[32]

From serious academic sources:

The Millennium of Hungary and Its People edited by József Jekelfalussy Pesti könyvnyomda-részvénytársaság, 1897

Page 230: However it is only the affairs of Religious service and Public instruction which in their fullest extent belong to the province of territorial autonomy whereas in the province of home affairs with regard to questions of association, of passports, of police supervision over foreigners, of the rights of citizenship, and of naturalization, the executive only belongs to the autonomy; while the legislation on these subjects is a common one. For this reason there is also no separate Croatian citizenship.

Pages 234-235: The organization of the Croatia-Slavonian-Dalmatian National Assembly is on the basis of the one chamber system and the principle of indirect votes for the great part:

...

Deputies are chosen according to districts, i.e. every district chooses a deputy. The conditions for the possession of a vote are (a) Hungarian citizenship; (b) the fact of belonging to a Croatian-Slavonian community ...

Catholic World, Volume 109, Paulist Fathers, 1919

Pages 349-350: Hungarian writers assert that Croatia was reduced by force of arms. She lost entirely autonomous life and was incorporated as a conquered province in the Hungarian kingdom. "An independent Croatia is an historical absurdity," writes C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen. "Croatian citizeship is a myth. The king of Hungary is at the same time the king of Croatia". "From a political point of view,' writes Jellinck, "Croatia and Slavonia are nothing than fully equipped provinces of Hungary"

The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation, Volume 2 by Cecil Marcus Knatchbull-Hugessen Brabourne (4th Baron) National Review Office, 1908

Pages 312-313: The Habsburg who is crowned King of Hungary, ipso facto becomes King of Croatia - an indivisible part of the realms of the Sacred Crown, so expressed by the laws of 1723 and 1868. The Ban does not come in direct contact with the King, as he would necessarily do if he were the chief official of an independent State, but communicates with the Crown through the Croatian member of the Hungarian Ministry, who is responsible to the Hungarian Parliament, whose countersignature is necessary to give validity to the countersignature of the Ban of official nominations and other royal acts. Further the Ban himself is nominated by the Magyar Prime Minister, who countersigns the royal appointment made in pursuance of such nomination. There are no Croatian or Hungaro-Croatian Ministers or Parliament within the realms of St. Stephen. Parliament is Hungarian, and the Ministers are Hungarians servants of an indivisible State of which Croatia-Slavonia forms an integral part. There is no Croatian citizenship or nationality. As a member of the Sacred Crown Croatia was affected by the results of the Compromise of 1867, and as such member would have no power of independent action should the law of that year be abrogated or modified, save in so far as it is entitled and enabled to make its voice heard through its delegates to the Hungarian Parliament should a revision of Compromise affect its local or common interest, or necessitate an alteration of financial relations with Hungary on whom Croatia's insolvent autonomy lays a considerable burden.

The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine - Published 1991 by University of Michigan Press

Page 248 Sources on Medieval Croatia Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old jingle: the more you study the less you know. When I was and undergraduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias. Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seventeenth- and eighteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but contain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge whether their information came from reliable source or not.

The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pál Engel - 2005 I.B.Tauris edition, Translated by Tamas Palosfalvi

Pages 33-34 One of Ladislaus's most significant achievements was the occupation of Hungary's southern neighbour, Croatia. ... The small kngdom, born in the tenth century, stretched from the Kapela mountains to the Adriatic sea, its center being Biograd, located on the coast. ... King Demetrius Zvonimir, who, not being a member of the ruling dynasty, obtained his throne through election, asked Pope Gregory VII fo a crown in 1075, and, in return, declared his kingdom as a papal fief. After his death, Ladislaus laid claim on his realm by the right of his sister, Zvonimir's widow, and had no difficulty in taking possession of Croatia in 1091. He bestowed the new kingdom, together with royal title, on his nephew, Almos, son of Geza I

A Short History of Yugoslavia from Early Times to 1966 by Stephen Clissold, Henry Clifford Darby CUP Archive, 1968

Page 37: The official language of the state was recognized as Serbo-Croat. Hungary, moreover, promised to help Croatia to obtain both Dalmatia and Military Frontier Province, still under Austrian control. The latter territory, after many delays, was incorporated in Croatia in 1881, but Dalmatia remained Austrian until 1918.

Despite this 'Home Rule', the Croats never felt they had achieved adequate self-government. Their Ban was appointed by the Crown (but on the nomination of Hungarian prime minister) and he was responsible to a Hungarian Minister of Sate in the Hungarian cabinet. The Croat Sabor was represented in the Hungarian Parliament by forty members in the Lower House (out of a total of about 453), and by only three members in the Upper House (out of a total of about 400)

The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest by John V. A. Fine, John Van Antwerp Fine University of Michigan Press, 1994

Page 551: Hungary and Croatia after Varna

The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream by Alex J. Bellamy Manchester University Press, 2003

The Croatian Historical Statehood Narative

Page 37. It is argued that in 1102 the Croatian nobles signed an agreement - the Pacta Conventa - with Coloman, King of Hungary. The agreement confirmed the legitimacy of Koloman's succession to the Croatian throne in return for which Koloman agreed to respect the laws and customs of Croatia. The exact nature of the agreement, and even its existence, is impossible to determine as historians believe that a transcript of the Pacta Conventa preserved in the city of Trogir is actually a fourteen-century fake. There are two competing accounts of the nature of the union, one emerging predominantly from Croat historians and the other from Magyar and Serbian historians. The Croats argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king, while the Magyars and Serbs insist that Croatia was conquered.

The next 'signpost' of the Croatian historical statehood narrative is 1526 and the defeat of Hungary by the Ottoman Turks, which prompted Croatia's entry into the Habsburg empire. Again, the Croatian historical narrative insists that the decision to join the Habsburg empire was the result of a free choice made by Sabor.

POV

Point 1. The existing text does not discriminate opinions and history narratives and documented history in the sense done by Van Antwerp Fine and Bellamy.

Point 2: 'Some of the terms of Coloman's coronation and the later status of the Croatian nobles are detailed in the Pacta Conventa, a document preserved only in transcript from the 14th century.' - this sentence cannot be in the introductory for knowing that 'Pacta Conventa' was a fourteen-century fake

Point 3: Section Name is supported exclusively by Croatian history narratives (Margetic , Sisic, Dzoic) seen only as narratives by Bellamy and Fine

Point 4 'Croatian historians hold that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king, a view also accepted by a number of Hungarian historians,[11][15][21][22][23][24] while Serbian and Hungarian nationalist historians preferred to see it as a form of annexation.[19][25][26]' Who marked or disqualified those 'Serbian and Hungarian nationalist historians'? This is a Wikipedia user point of view. See Bellamy who is exclusive in claiming two sides: Croatian and Hungarian and Serbian where the first ones (Croatian) are marked as nationalistic and non-scholar by Fine.Kristo Gyula was falsely linked to supporters of non-existent union. His article actually refutes that idea (reference [21]) Marta Font is a Croatian author (reference[22]).

Point 5: Croatia as actually a duchy not as a kingdom: Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, page 22: From the late 1190s Croatia and Slavonia were under the Duke of Croatia. The office was usually filled by a son or brother oh the Hungarian king The dukes coined their own money and, as the king deputies, ran their duchy (which was also still known as the Kingdom of Croatia) like kings, presiding over a court and entourage modelled on the Hungarian royal court. Under the duke stood a ban or governor.

Point 6 Today, Hungarian legal historians hold that the relationship of Hungary with the area of Croatia and Dalmatia in the period till 1526 and the death of Louis II was most similar to a personal union,[24][28] resembling the relationship of Scotland to England.[29][30] makes no sense for being refuted by many other Hungarian historians. The 'resembling the relationship of Scotland to England' is completely false for today's Scotland is not a feudal duchy to England, does not have viceroy subordinated to an English royal family member. We see that disobedient Croatian nobles were military crushed by Hungarians and their lands taken over by Hungarian nobles.

Point 6: Language Slavic vs. forged 'Croatian': from When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods by John V. A. Fine Jr. University of Michigan Press, Mar 2, 200 page 150

Thus clearly by the early sixteenth century no feeling of commonality had developed among the Slavonian nobles for Croatia

What language did people speak in Dalmatia and 'Velebitia' 1102-1500?

We have already seen that there the language was called "Slavic" without exception throughout the Middle Ages. Pope Alexander III visited Zadar in 1177 an the crowd that awaited him sang/chanted for hi in their Slavic language

For some reas0o Klaic's translation renders it "Croatian language' but she supplies the phrase (which I quote) in the Latin original which says "Slavic language"

A Venetian document from 1346 also refers to the people of Zadar speaking Slavic (lingua sclavonica)

--72.66.12.17 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've always wondered why are Serbian nationalists so interested in the history of Croatia in the Middle Ages, especially because this time period has basically nothing to do with Serbs or Serbia. Anyway, you are again moving other users comments and changing your original ones. Your request for comments was met by 3 users, two from WikiProject Croatia and one from WikiProject Hungary, and all 3 said no to your proposals and issues you raised. It's apparent that you have no idea about what sources say, whether primary ones or secondary ones like John Antwerp Fine, and that you don't know much about the events from 1102 to 1526.

As for your "points", first of all, Bellamy is not a historian, but a professor of peace and conflict studies at the University of Queensland. John Antwerp Fine does not even question the existence of a union/Dual Monarchy.

It is not known that Pacta Conventa is a forgery, but that's not important as even if it is a forgery, it's contents correspond to the reality of rule in Croatia. That's why it should be in the lead, there aren't many sources from 1102 and this one is most known. Fine mentions it also in The Early Medieval Balkans, p. 286. ("Although the text probably includes some questionable historical events and various later features, much of its contents does depict the situation that actually was created in 1102.")

Yes, the "Name" section is supported by Croatian sources. Not everything can be found in foreign ones. Is there anything contentious in the text in that section?

Ian Jeffries, p. 195 explicitly says: "whereas many Magyar nationalists historians have preferred to see it as a form of annexation", as well as Jean W. Sedlar, p. 280; "In the 19th century some Hungarian nationalist historians challenged Croatia's special status". Actually, today only Serbian ultranationalists question the existence of a union, not Hungarian ones. Fine doesn't mark the "union stance" as nationalistic. Kristo Gyula's work is called "The formation of Croatian-Hungarian personal union", and he wrote: "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". How is that "falsely linked"? And another example of your lack of knowledge, Márta Font is a Hungarian historian.

"Croatia as actually a duchy not as a kingdom" Wow, first you say that it was a province, and now that it was a duchy? Even the quotation that you provided refutes you "which was also still known as the Kingdom of Croatia".

In "Point" 6, you wrote "today's Scotland is not a feudal duchy to England", but that text does not refer to todays Scotland in the United Kingdom, but the personal union between them in the 17th century, the Union of the Crowns. The whole sentence is supported by 5 (five) Hungarian historians, Barna Mezey, László Heka, Géza Jeszenszky, Banai Miklós and Lukács Béla. Now how come that it "makes no sense for being refuted by many other Hungarian historians", who are those Hungarian historians?

Further on, you wrote "We see that disobedient Croatian nobles were military crushed by Hungarians and their lands taken over by Hungarian nobles." Yet Fine tells the exact opposite on page 286, Early Medieval Balkans: "The Croatian nobles (i.e., the hereditary provincial leaders and landlords) were thus recognized in their positions by the Hungarian king and they in turn recognized him as king of Croatia (by a separate coronation). These nobles were probably relatively content since they had just escaped from an attack by the Croatian rulers (particularly Zvonimir) on their positions and privileges. Thus they were allowed to remain as basically independent lords on their lands and as local leaders. They were to continue in this position throughout the medieval period up to the Ottoman conquest of most of Croatia."

As for the language, Fine is referring to the way foreign sources called the language of the region. Sometimes it was "Slavic", sometimes "Croatian". Local sources written in Croatian language called it "Croatian". Now I'll remove the RfC tag as it was answered already. There is also no reason for the POV tag in the article, "I don't like the content of the article" is not a legitimate reason for the tag. And don't move my comments again. Tzowu (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, avoid personal attacks ('Serbian nationalists'). I'm not a Serbian nor a Serbian nationalist. Fine, when talking about Dual Monarchy talks not about Croatia and Hungary. Further, read more what Fine says not just excerpts proving nothing. There is the 'Hungary and Croatia after Varna' section in the 'Late Medieval Balkans' where you can read who rebelled against Hungarians and what happened to his lands and his brothers. You'll learn that the same Croatian asked for help Venice in order to get Krk isle back from Hungarians. Read references, try understand what you are reading ('resembling the relationship of Scotland to England', Jezsenzsky, 'in an English-Scottish style personal union between 1091 and 1918', Banai, Lukasz ) for they were talking both nonsense. Scottish-English relations have recorded history, not history narratives. Géza Jeszenszky is a politician primarily. Banai and Lukasz are physicists, not historians eventhough after writing such article. Alex Bellamy is a historian, too. Ask Bellamy for the historians who are Hungarians and not politicians. Fine does not 'referring to the way foreign sources called the language of the region'. He warns against forgeries made by Croatians while translating original documents. Please do not remove the POV tag for you do not own this article--72.66.12.17 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, it's a fact than only Serbian nationalists are interested in denying the existence of the Croatian-Hungarian union. Fine explicitly says that Croatia and Hungary entered a Dual Monarchy in 1102. In the "Hungary and Croatia after Varna" section he is talking about yet another civil war, which were common in the Middle Ages. That was not a Hungarians vs Croatians conflict, the Frankopans were dissatisfied with king Matthias Corvinus and his lack of help dealing with Ottoman raids and they turned towards Venice. John Frankopan temporarily gave Krk island to Venice to prevent it from becoming a royal estate. Now what does that have to do with anything?

No one is talking nonsense, the union between Croatia and Hungary is most similar to that of Scotland and England, although there were hundreds of personal/dynastic unions in Europe. Géza Jeszenszky is a historian and a professor. Banai Miklós and Lukács Béla, although physicists, write often about history and economy. And, this is Alex Bellamy: education - Masters in International Relations, Bachelor of Arts, Doctor of Philosophy. Tzowu (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • This user continues with personal attacks by claiming that attacks are not attacks. The archives are showing that Norden1990, AjaxSmack, and Bizso requested the article rewrite showing clearly that Croatia was conquered by Hungarians. Based on their interests they are apparently Hungarians. Now more to educate this Tzowu and his sock called Shokatz.

• History: From the Dawn of Civilization to the Present Day by Adam Hart-Davis Penguin, Mar 20, 2012 page 538

The assasination of King Demetrius Zvonimir leads to anarchy. Croatia is conquered by Hungary. Zvonimir's widow being the sister of the Hungarain king, in 1102 Croatia unites with Hungary although it maintains some measure of autonomy

• Britannica Student Encyclopedia (A-Z Set), Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Jan 1, 2012 page 219

In the 900s, Croatia became an independent kingdom, but in 1091 Hungary conquered Croatia.

• The revolutions of Europe: being an historical view of the European nations from the subversion of the Roman empire in the west to the abdication of Napoleon by Christophe Koch, Maximillian Samson Friedrich Schoell Whittaker and co., 1839 page 80

Ladislaus took from the Greeks the duchy of Sirmium (1080) comprising lower part of Sclavinia. This same prince extended his conquests into Croatia, a country which was governed for several ages by the Slavian princes, ...

• World Monarchies and Dynasties by John Middleton Routledge, Jun 1, 2015 page 217

However, internal struggles soon weakened the kingdom, allowing it to be conquered by Hungary between 1097 and 1102.

• Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations: Europe Gale Group, 2001 page 65

Peter, the last independent King of Croatia, was killed in battle in 1096 by King Koloman of Hungary, who then conquered Croatia.

• A History of Byzantium by Timothy E. Gregory John Wiley & Sons, Aug 26, 2011 page 376

... helped Bela ascend the throne of Hungary, and after Manuel's death in 1080 Bella conquered Croatia, Dalmatia, Belgrade, and the Morava Valley

• Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Volume 1 Europa Publications Limited Europa Publications, Apr 1, 1992

1187: The Emperor in Constantinople acknowledged Hungarian conquests in Croatia and Bosnia, Serbian independence and the establishment of the second Bulgarian Empire

• Modern Hungarian Society in the Making: The Unfinished Experience by András Gero Central European University Press, 1995 page 226

Conquered Croatia. Declared a Saint in 1129

• A system of universal geography: or A description of all the parts of the world, on a new plan, according to the great natural divisions of the globe by Conrad Malte-Brun, Jean-Jacques-Nicolas Huot S. Walker, 1834 page 473

One of them, perhaps the most illustrious, was Ladislaus the holy, who conquered Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

• • Enjoy reading!--72.66.12.17 (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy reading how clueless you are.

• History: From the Dawn of Civilization to the Present Day by Adam Hart-Davis Penguin, Mar 20, 2012 page 538 talks about the conquest of Ladislaus of Hungary in 1091 and actually says that "'in 1102 Croatia unites with Hungary".
• Britannica Student Encyclopedia (A-Z Set), Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Jan 1, 2012 page 219 also talks about the 1091 campaign of Ladislaus.
• The revolutions of Europe: being an historical view of the European nations from the subversion of the Roman empire in the west to the abdication of Napoleon by Christophe Koch, Maximillian Samson Friedrich Schoell Whittaker and co., 1839 page 80 also talks about the 1091 campaign.
• World Monarchies and Dynasties by John Middleton Routledge, Jun 1, 2015 page 217 doesn't end with that sentence. It continues with "In 1102, Croatia and Hungary officially united under a single monarch"
• Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations: Europe Gale Group, 2001 page 65 continues after that with a special section called "Royal Union with Hungary". "In 1102, Koloman regrouped and attacked Croatia. He stopped at the Drava River, however, where he invited the nobles representing the twelve Croatian tribes to a conference. They worked out the so-called Pacta Conventa, an agreement on a personal royal union between Hungary and Croatia (including Slavonia and Dalmatia). The overall administration of the state would be by a "ban" (viceroy) appointed by the king, while regional and local administration were to stay in the hands of the Croatian nobles. This legal arrangement, with some practical modifications, remained the basis of the Hungarian-Croatian personal royal union and relationship until 1918."
• A History of Byzantium by Timothy E. Gregory John Wiley & Sons, Aug 26, 2011 page 376 talks about the conquest of Byzantine held Croatia and Dalmatia in 1180 (mistakenly entered as 1080, obviously as Bela III ruled in the late 12th century).
• Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Volume 1 Europa Publications Limited Europa Publications, Apr 1, 1992 also talks about the Byzantine losses in Croatia and Dalmatia. Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos called himself the ruler of Dalmatia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary.
• Modern Hungarian Society in the Making: The Unfinished Experience by András Gero Central European University Press, 1995 page 226 is about the campaign of Ladislaus.
• A system of universal geography: or A description of all the parts of the world, on a new plan, according to the great natural divisions of the globe by Conrad Malte-Brun, Jean-Jacques-Nicolas Huot S. Walker, 1834 page 473, also about the campaign of Ladislaus.Tzowu (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• The response above is nothing more than a spam. The bottom line of the referenced quotes is: Croatia was conquered by Ladislaus, turned into a Hungarian province, and given to his nephew, Almos, son of Geza I as a duchy. Neither were known or given clear ideas what was Croatia and what was its territory nor Croatia under Hungarians was ever a kingdom, rather a province ruled by a duke (earlier) or by a minister (later, 19 century). The claims about (nonexistent) kingdom of Croatia are coming from the history narratives written by Croatians in 17 and 18 centuries. The bans were nominated or even appointed by Hungarian duke or minister. I provided 11 references agreeing to this fact, and three other Hungarians/users pointed to the same fact earlier supporting with it with even more references.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

(The next comment below is about the first three references)

None of these "academic sources" from the 19th and early 20th century say anything about the time period that covers this article (1102-1526). Tzowu (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• You did not read the academic sources (definitely not "academic sources"). They are not just about 19 and 20. centuries. Come back after reading them in full. --72.66.12.17 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, how does this c/p stuff that you are posting here deny the existence of the union with Hungary? Do you even know what this article is about? Do you know the difference between the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Croatia until 1526? Do you understand the difference between Ladislaus's campaign and the one of Coloman? Tzowu (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your question is answered by John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. above: but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias. Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seventeenth- and eighteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but contain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge whether their information came from reliable source or not.'--72.66.12.17 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My answer to your "difference between the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Croatia " - not much difference, just two names for a Hungarian province.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, John Antwerp Fine answered my question when he wrote "Thus was established a dual monarchy with the king of Hungary monarch for two states originally with two coronations. At home in Croatia the local nobles retained their local independence, caring more about their own privileges and local power than about maintaining an independent Croatian state. This "contract" of 1102-regardless of whether it actually took place as claimed- became the legal basis not only for the Hungarian king's rule in the Middle Ages, but also for the Hungarian claim-which was allowed-that Croatia be in the Hungarian part of the Habsburg Dual Monarchy in 1867." Now stop trolling. Tzowu (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, really? Which source and page number, please! And do not remove my text from my request for comment.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. John Van Antwerp Fine - The Early Medieval Balkans, page 288. I didn't remove your text, I moved my first comment back where it was supposed to be. I would never put quotation marks on academic sources for John A. Fine or Pal Engel. You just threw a bunch of copy-paste materials that have nothing to do with the period of 1102-1526. Fine says in his book the complete opposite of your "request" and so does Pal Engel ("Croatia was henceforth to be ruled by the kings of Hungary, but it was given an associate status and was not incorporated into Hungary. Although, with the exception of Coloman, none of the kings was crowned in Croatia, its separate status as a kingdom (regnum) was expressed in the royal title (rex Croatiae). Moreover, Croatia was not governed by counts (ispánok), as in Hungary proper, but by a governor who exercised viceregal authority and bore the special title of ban (banus)." - Pal Engel - Realm of St. Stephen A History of Medieval Hungary 895-1526, p. 35-36. There's no need for a special "comments" section. Anyway, if you just don't like the fact that Croatia was not a part of Hungary then I can't do much about it. Tzowu (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And you just broke the WP:3RR rule. Tzowu (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing like that on page 288 of the Fine's book. Too bad that I have that book in front of me!--72.66.12.17 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in his book "The Early Medieval Balkans", not the Late Medieval Balkans, but in that second book he wrote almost the same thing on page 21.

"The two sides negotiated a settlement, by which a dual monarchy was created. The King of Hungary also became King of Croatia, for which he needed a second coronation in Croatia. The Croatian nobles kept their local power, retaining their lands plus local administrative and judicial authority, and were freed of taxes. They lost independence in foreign affairs and owed the King of Hungary military service. But if they had to cross the Drava (into Hungary), they were paid for it. Moreover, the king assumed the obligation to defend Croatia. Thus the Kingdom of Croatia continued to exist. And despite the new Hungarian dynasty, it was to be little altered, for matters continued more or less as they had prior to 1102, with the same noble families on top and the peasantry, with unchanged obligations, still subjected to them." Tzowu (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Show us photocopy of the page 288. I'll immediately respond by true photocopy of the same page. About the last qoute: where John Van Antwerp Fine ever mentioned 'personal union'? --72.66.12.17 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

:D [1] No, he doesn't mention a personal union, but a Dual Monarchy. Do you know what a Dual Monarchy is? Tzowu (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I do know what is the Dual Monarchy. Do you? How a political move in 19th century described by Fine could ever explain what happened six centuries earlier if there is no recorded history? I've intentionally asked you to show the page copy for not understanding why you are taking the excerpt out of the book/section/page context? Don't you see that the "contract" is quoted?--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What "political move in 19th century"? What happened 6 centuries earlier? I suggest you read once more what Fine wrote: "Although the text probably includes some questionable historical events and various later features, much of its contents does depict the situation that actually was created in 1102". Or Hungarian historians Attila Bárány and Pál Engel. Tzowu (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the article and the sources given. The point of view you are presenting is an outdated one from the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century (era of nationalism), today most (if not all) Hungarian historians and legalists (not counting the right wing radicals) consider the union to be most similar to that of Scotland under England within the UK. Now, this has already been discussed and this is a complete non-issue. Do not put the tag again unless you actually have a case. Coming here and saying, "no, it was this way" when we have surplus of evidence in the article refuting you does not constitute evidence itself...it is OR. Shokatz (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Misunderstanding of modern sources. For instance, Pál Engel: "Croatia was ... to be ruled by the kings of Hungary, but it was given an associate status and was not incorporated into Hungary" (Engel 2001, p. 35.) Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

to be ruled and being conquered are two different things I am afraid. Changing the name of the article to the OP suggestion would be the true obstruction of neutral POV. Try again. Shokatz (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Shokatz, I suggest that you should read before commenting. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And I suggest you learn some English for better understanding what you are actually quoting. Shokatz (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Shokatz. Yes, it's always a good idea to read more. I did read more and presented evidence. Did you read anything after advising me? "...today most (if not all) Hungarian historians and legalists (not counting the right wing radicals) consider the union to be most similar to that of Scotland under England within the UK."!! C'mon!--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt you even read this article...otherwise you wouldn't make drama about this non-issue. And yes, that is an actual sourced statement from the article itself. I suggest you read it few more times...carefully and with understanding. Shokatz (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to label an entire article as disputed you need to make sure you emphasize a blatant and serious flaw in the article. Not only have you failed to do so, you openly admitted that the only reason you labeled it was, for you, a "disputed title". Next time you put the tag I will report you for WP:3RR and edit warring. Good luck. Shokatz (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete article and write a new one As written, this article is a blog. The bloggers follow a hard nationalistic line by excluding historians those who oppose this line as nationalists (Hungarian, Serbian) or even not mentioning others (A. Bellamy), treating forgeries and nationalistic bias as something admitted and correct. The infamous 'pacta conventa' is mentioned as a transcript of a document then later, in the same article, as a forgery. J.V.A. Fine, who is taken out of context, incompletely referenced or even misinterpreted in this blog, is a most profound critic of the nationalistic line in the Balkans historiography. He tracks forgeries and biases made by Croatians (Klaic, for replacing word Slavic by Croatian in a document translation, marks Gaj as very nationalistic, etc) but he is still referenced in this article in a supportive manner. The discussion is burdened by users behaving like the blocked now Asidis who are attacking the IP who proposed the article rewrite as Serbian nationalist or troll.--65.220.39.79 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Any other IP address you can post from? You know, changing IP address or posting from a different computer does not make you immune to Wikipedia policies. You can still get reported and perma banned...which at this moment looks inevitable with your trolling, edit warring, 3RR violations and not to mention personal attacks (calling other people "idiots"). Furthermore this article falls under WP:ARBMAC...I suggest you go and visit that page. Shokatz (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please, stop talking nonsense. Practicing a primitive way, like this one, to disqualify anonymous users leads us nowhere.--65.220.39.79 (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus about Ilirian crest

Please establish a consensus here about the Ilirian crest. It has been a long time since that was in the article and it can't just be removed without any source. 89.255.92.42 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess nobody is dealing with this. I made some changes, so we can discuss them here if someone disputes them. Relichal1 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will repeat here, User:ScrapIronIV. Why exactly do I need a source for something that's already in the article that I haven't touched? I removed "Illian" from the article and left the "oldest Croatian symbol" in the article. I have nothing to do with that edit, I just agreed with the previous people who said that Illirian movement came in the 19th century while the crest is much older. I felt it is understandable that isn't Illirian crest. I also live in Croatia and I know that that crest in included in the state coat of arms as the oldest known Croatian symbol. I don't really have time to go to the constitution, and I feel I don't have to since that was already in the article. If you feel it shouldn't be in the article, remove it from there. Relichal1 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A notable movemeent which used it as its crest (even if it is older than the movement itself) is reasonably mentioned in the description of the image. There is no need to remove it. As for your personal knowledge of it being absolutely the oldest known symbol, your knowledge does not meet WP:RS or WP:V. If you find a source to make that absolute statement, then cite it. Scr★pIron^IV 20:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to defend what's already in the article. If you feel it shouldn't be you are free to remove it or change it according to sources you provide. I removed "Illirian" from the article because that crest is in the coat of army as the oldest Croatian symbol, and not because Illirian movement used it. If you feel the Illirian should state that you should provide the source. As someone said before. The "Illirian" does not belong to this time period. I have plenty of sources stating that, both in this article and in Illirian movement article. It's as simple as that. To repeat, the term "Illirian" does not belong to the time period covered by this article.Relichal1 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what you need to "defend" are your edits. The common reference for that crest is "Illirian" as it was adopted by that movement. To remove a WP:COMMONNAME (and the link to why it holds that name) you do need to provide a source to justify the change. Or we could, of course, remove it entirely - if CONSENSUS says that this crest does not belong in the article. So, without either: a) A reliable source (not your personal knowledge) has to refute the WP:COMMONNAME (and you have to provide it, since you wish to make the change) ; or b) You need to generate a new consensus that shows that the image should be removed. It's as simple as that. Scr★pIron^IV 21:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV you are talking here with indef-blocked User:Asdisis who made that edit earlier and is now saying he is agreeing with himself. He edited the article using a sock User:Detoner. Just for you to know and not waste your time. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the information. If you believe this to be so, then I would highly recommend that you open up an SPI; otherwise, I think you know how these things can be taken. Given that the Asdisis block was in August ago, time is of the essence for CU verfication. Scr★pIron^IV 21:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV, when I wrote it the process was already under way and he is blocked. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)