Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Add protection padlock template

Subject line says it all. If a bot is supposed to do this, it doesn't seem to be working. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• david, this is disruptive mess clogging up User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is very inappropriate. I've closed the request and added an appropriate list request on WP:RFPP#Missing protection padlocks. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Direktor, the current lead [1], presumably of your making, is way over the top. I don't have a particular beef in this dispute, but I know a POV when I see it, and this one has all the qualities: It skips all the whens, whats and whys and goes straight ahead to teach the controversy, spiced up by at least a dozen references which must prove the point that there is a controversy indeed. To tell you the truth, as a reader: I don't give a fuck about the controversy, I'm interested about what was happening in that period and before that. If the article can achieve that, then fine.

Yes, the previous version of the lead was of my making [2]. I'm not in love with it, feel free to edit it, but at least it narrates a timeline and summarizes the article. This one clearly shows one thing: OMG this article is under an edit war! No such user (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nsu, the title of the article is "Croatia in the union with Hungary". Don't you think the starting point for the history summary is the union itself? -- Director (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it kind of explains in half a sentence when the union occurred, and spends the next four explaining the controversy. No such user (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what an interesting quote I've just found! [3]: No such user (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

“ Indeed. Do we really have to go through the yearly morass of discussing all of this again, and again, and again? I quite agree with DeCausa that this obsessive insistence on something that most of the literature does in fact not stress in the same way has a feeling of "righting great wrongs" to it, and it certainly is an instance of WP:Lead fixation to have it monopolize all the first half of the lead paragraph like this. Last time we discussed this, the main outcome was that we wanted to free the lead section from this excess weight. I do actually like some of the wording Director suggested, but that's really for somewhere further down in the text. ” — Fut.Perf.

Look, I'm not going to debate with you over nothing, Nsu. If you'd like the lead to summarize more of the article, feel free to summarize more of the article. If you think it spends too much time on the union/lack of it - could you please modify it with that in mind? I certainly won't object to such changes, as long as the central ambiguity of the existence of a personal union is kept.

P.s. oh yes, nearly forgot about that Byzzie problem. Be right back there :) -- Director (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No such user do you really think he cares? Everything points to the fact he thinks this article is his own property. He is not interested in consensus or neutral point of view, he is interested in his view and his view only. He doesn't care what you, me or anyone else has to say in this matter....the DIREKTOR of the universe has decided. Hilarious. I'd like to start a mediation on this issue to finish this once and for all but I don't know the exact procedure for that. Shokatz (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you all agree if we just added the same sentences from britannica in the lead? I wouldn't even mind if the word "dynastic" was removed and the edit wars would end, at least for the lead section.Tzowu (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I doubt that would help since we have a user here enforcing some alleged ambiguity which seems to be non-existent in the sources. But sure, we can disregard all 19-20 sources (yes I am counting the ones mentioning the dispute as well since they also ALL mention personal union explicitly) and give in to his bullying, making a mockery of Wikipedia policies and especially of WP:Verifiability. But no, do you really think the current setup is unfair and one-sided? We have sources and statements in the lead mentioning the dispute, I've also put a note in the infobox mentioning it where it is clearly visible....I don't see what exactly is the problem or what else can I do, do you? We have one person here challenging almost two dozen sources and at least three other users here. That same person is or was recently involved in at least three other similar disputes (to put it mildly) on other articles (Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Kingdom of Dalmatia and Battle of Rorke's Drift) and exhibits clear example of ICANTHEARYOU. I've asked for assistance on WT:CRO and if he continues I will surely file for WP:DRN, unless we (other users participating in the discussion here) come up with the consensus. Either he stops with this blatant disruption or one of us files this for arbitration in which case that would be the only solution since the mentioned user clearly doesn't want to recognize other users (me and you included) and the present sources and sourced content. Shokatz (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy for the next couple days (dezurstvo). I shall return and certainly insist that we follow sources and ignore the WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH of Shokatz. He is not qualified to publish his syntheses of published material here, and his claim that the personal union is a dominant view is based on exactly that - WP:SYNTH. There isn't a single source that claims anything of the sort - in fact, all sources that evaluate the position of scholarship place the uncertain nature of Croatian status up front. @Shokatz I have to request you please stop posting successive personal attacks. If you have any comments on my conduct then limit them to the relevant noticeboards, or do not post them at all (that you are apparently WP:STALKING me makes me even more apprehensive). Please consider this a formal warning in that regard. I sincerely advise you to read and adhere to Wikipedia behavior policy from this point onward. As I said, I'm done playing around here. -- Director (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing WP:OR about it, we have 14-15 sources in affirmation of the personal union. And we also have 5 other sources which talk about the dispute mentioning it as well as most likely reality. Also there is nothing WP:SYNTH about the mere observation we have 19-20 sources all mentioning personal union making it, obviously, the dominant thesis. You should read WP:SYNTHNOT and WP:NOTOR. Also I find it hilarious you are claiming WP:HOUND when I am following two out of three of those articles and for the other one I merely looked at your most recent edits when I was reverting you...I did not nor do I intend to follow you around. Also the person who unprovoked calls others noobs, nationalists, POV-pushers and whatnot should not preach others on some alleged personal attacks or adhering to Wikipedia behavior policy. Shokatz (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there are sources that claim there was a personal union. We knew there were and there was never any question in that regard; you may not like to hear it, but your posting all these refs here was a completely pointless chore that changes nothing at all. The question is whether or not the personal union is the dominant view. And you are using your sources to claim that. You shouldn't, as that is WP:SYNTH: you yourself have concluded that the personal union is dominant based on your own impression from these sources. The sources themselves do not state that. And there are more than sufficient sources that discuss the question. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually wrong again. We have a sourced sentence in the article clearly stating: ...it has generally been accepted that 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, resembling the relationship of Scotland to England. Sourced and verified by two Hungarian notable historians Géza Jeszenszky and László Heka. Also I will repeat this once more, it is NOT WP:SYNTH if you do a standard summary of the sources, it is common practice....read WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary. Shokatz (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Having read material on this talk page and reviewed recent changes to the article, I must say I support Nsu and Shokatz's positions stated so far.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Shokatz. Could you please directly quote the relevant text from Heka here? Since the source seems to be shamelessly misquoted (no surprises there..). p.155 does not even discuss the issue. From what I've read of the paper, it can not even be used as a source that supports the personal union, let alone as one that claims it is predominant in scholarship. I wonder how many others are misquoted from that spammed pile. "Wrong again" he says...

The policy you quote of course directly opposes what you are doing, as you are by no means "summarizing" anything, since none of your sources say what you claim to have "summarized". "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources" - that is precisely what you are doing, namely combining the refs to produce the thesis that the personal union is the dominant view, and that others are "fringe". Against other sources (such as Neda Klaic) that state otherwise.

@Tomboe. Pardon me for not being shocked that another Croatian user is inclined to support the spurious narrative of the heroic historical independence of the Croatian state. I would imagine there will be more Croats flocking to "defend their country", given the fact that Shkoatz is WP:CANVASSING all round the project [4]. What exactly did Nsu say re the issue..? I've no objections to his position.. -- Director (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He says Heka is shamelessly misquoted....it is clearly stated on the page 155: Glede podrucja Hrvatske i Dalmacije, madjarski pravni povjesnicari drze da je njihov odnos sa Ugarskom u razdoblju do 1526 i pogiblje kralja Ludovika II. bio najslicniji onomu sto se naziva personalnom unijom, dakle da ih je povezivala osoba zajednickom kralja (Eng.: Regarding the area of Croatia and Dalmatia, Hungarian legal historians consider that their relations with Hungarian kingdom in the period until 1526 and death of King Louis II was most similar to what is called the personal union, therefore that they were connected in the person of king.). Now tell me what exactly is shamelessly misquoted? We also have Géza Jeszenszky source stating: From the 11th century until 1918 Croatia was in a dynastic personal union with Hungary, resembling the relationship of Scotland to England. Not only Jeszenszsky clearly states he considers there was personal dynastic union he also gives a clear example of Scotland and England. We also have a half a dozen Hungarian historians, among whom we also have Kristó Gyula f.e., who was one of most distinguished and foremost experts on Hungarian medieval history, clearly stating there was a personal union which begun with the crowning of Coloman as King of Croatia.

Now regarding the fringe theories or rather minority view you are trying to impose here, let's take a look at the sources which are provided here in affirmation of the alleged dispute.

• Alex J. Bellamy[5]: Eventually, in 1102, the nobles decided that Croatia should enter into a personal union with Hungary whereby the Hungarian king would be crowned separately as the King of Croatia. (page 36). Bellamy also states that the narrative telling us about the supposed voluntary union ...has a wide circle of support. (page 37). He also continues to elaborate on the page 38 on the nature of the dispute: However, there are a couple of points that need to be made about this thesis. Firstly, Magyar claims were not made until middle of nineteenth century and formed part of the Hungarian national reawakening under Kossuth (of course, much the same argument could also be leveled about the idea of a personal union first articulated in the fourteenth century). Second: [T]he idea that Koloman and his Magyars conquered Croatia by force rests upon the supposition that there was a counter king whom he had to overthrow to accomplish his ends. There is no real evidence that there was any organized opposition at all to his invasions, if it can be called that of the Croatian lands. It should be remembered that there probably was no fixed border between Hungary and Croatia in the eleventh century...when the House of Trpimir disappeared...the frontier disappeared too. He also makes it clear that he is not discussing the nature of the union at all: It is not the exact nature of the relationship between Croatia and Hungary from 1102 that is of interest to us here but the importance attached to defending the idea of a personal union that is central. And this statement is also very interesting: The actual nature of the relationship is probably most accurately described as being inexplicable in modern terms because it varied from time to time. Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. However, throughout this period, 'she [Croatia] retained a large degree of internal independence'.
• Ian Jeffries mentions the dispute and clearly states[6]: ...his successor Koloman (1095-1116) recaptured inland Dalmatia in 1097 (While Venice was preoccupied by the First Crusade) and was crowned King of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1102. He also elaborates on the matter of the dispute talking about Magyar nationalists and clearly states that it is the past tense: ...whereas many Magyar nationalists historians have preferred to see it as a form of annexation, incorporating Croatia (including Dalmatia and Slavonia) into a Greater Hungary and establishing permanent rights of Magyar overlordship in Croatia. Besides this Jeffries doesn't mention anything on the matter.
• Lorraine Murray has a similar narrative as it is present on Britannica, she states[7]: 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).
• George J. Prpić on page 22 states[8]: Thus after the extinction of the national dynasty, Croatia in 1102 joined Hungary in a personal union under the reign of Koloman of Arpad dynasty. This happened under terms which ever since have been a matter of dispute between Croatian and Hungarian historians. By the agreement of 1102 (Pacta Conventa), concluded between twelve Croatian tribes and the King of Hungary, Croatia obtained a common king with Hunary (personal union) but maintained it's distinct position as a state...
• Jean W. Sedlar on page 280 mentions the dispute as well but clearly states his position in affirmation of the personal union[9]: Croatia maintained a separate legal status throughout the many centuries of its union with Hungary, which had occurred more by agreement than by force after the death without heirs of King Zvonimir in 1089. Following a period of considerable anarchy, a section of the Croatian nobility offered the throne to the King of Hungary. Hungarian troops entered northern Croatia in 1091, but no armed struggle took place. As a formerly independent country which had not been conquered, Croatia retained considerable autonomy. The agreement known as the Pacta Conventa, probably concluded, between the two kingdoms in 1102, formally defined the conditions under which the Croat nobility accepted the king of Hungary as their sovereign. It's precise terms remain uncertain, since the document has survived only in a 14th-century version which may not be an exact copy of the original. 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. The king of Hungary managed only its foreign affairs and acted as commander-in-chief of its army. Croatia maintained its own Diet, or Sabor, although its decisions became law only after confirmation by the Hungarian king - presumably the same prerogative which the kings of independent Croatia had exercised.

Now as I have just shown you, even the the sources provided for the statement in the article (The precise terms of the relationship between the two realms have however been a matter of dispute since the 19th century.) clearly emphasize the autonomy and special status of the Croatian kingdom and talk about the personal (or dynastic) union as a most obvious reality. Even by looking at the these sources alone (disregarding 14-15 other sources) we can clearly conclude that personal or dynastic union is the dominant thesis. And BTW this is the second time today you have falsely accused me of something, first of WP:HOUND, which made no sense at all, and now for WP:CANVASSING when it is clearly stated on the page it is quite appropriate to post a message on Wiki projects and Wiki collaborations to draw a wider audience to achieve consensus. Obviously this article is of certain importance to WT:CRO so it seems natural to call people active there to take a peak and make their own contribution to this. Shokatz (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz you need sources that state that the personal union is the dominant view. The best we have is Bellamy stating that there are "two competing accounts" with "one emerging predominately from Croat historians and the other from Magyar and Serbian historians." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually we don't need the source explicitly stating that it is the dominant view since we can clearly conclude that only by a simply summary of all provided sources on the matter. Bellamy clearly states: Eventually, in 1102, the nobles decided that Croatia should enter into a personal union with Hungary whereby the Hungarian king would be crowned separately as the King of Croatia. He also tells us this view has a ...has a wide circle of support. He also makes it clear the dispute originates in 19th century nationalist awakening movements: ...Magyar claims were not made until middle of nineteenth century and formed part of the Hungarian national reawakening under Kossuth... which makes it clear that the dispute was politically and not factually motivated. In the end he states: Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. However, throughout this period, 'she [Croatia] retained a large degree of internal independence'. This last sentence clearly describes that Croatia was most certainly a separate legal entity and that at some points it acted as an independent agent (sovereign state) and at some times as a vassal. In either case Bellamy cannot be used as solely dispute affirmation source, but can also be used as a personal union affirmation source as well. Besides Bellamy we have 14-15 different sources I have found on this and other articles concerning this matter, that talk about personal or dynastic union as a political reality. I have also shown above that even the sources (Bellamy included) which are posted in affirmation of the dispute clearly lean into the personal union point of view. I would point out once more - WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary. Shokatz (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead of all of us bickering at each other, can we simply avoid the issue of committing ourselves to one view or another, which is probably not our business anyway? I admit I'm least versed in the issue here, but as an innocent reader I don't really care, and I don't want the whole article become a hostage of the controversy. Let us simply explain what happened in which period of history, and have a #Controversy section outlining differing views of relevant historians on the matter. It simply isn't black and white; from what I gathered, it was kind of union brought as a "offer that cannot be rejected", and Croatia only retained an appearance on autonomy thereon (although this varied through the period, which lasted the whole millennium after all). We should only explain what happened, and present most relevant views (without even counting them); readers should bring their own conclusions. Sources are meant to support facts, not be replacement for common sense.No such user (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We should only explain what happened, and present most relevant views (without even counting them); readers should bring their own conclusions. Exactly. This is what I am trying to say all this time. Shokatz (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep pushing Bellamy in the article? He has so many mistakes in his book on the same page where he deals with the alleged union controversy (like the origins of the term Triune Kingdom and the location of river Cetina), although he provides only one Serbian historian as the opposite view. John Antwerp Fine is a much better source. Furthermore, you are asking for a source that explicitly says "Personal union is the dominant view", but Isn't that already obvious? I mean, searching for a sentence like that is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Historians generally present their own views, they don't collect other ones and then count them to see which one is dominant. Anyway, is this lead fine? It has more info on the time period and it mentions the "dispute" (I hate that word) just like britannica does. Tzowu (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Instead of all of us bickering at each other, can we simply avoid the issue of committing ourselves to one view or another, which is probably not our business anyway?" - well that's exactly what I'm saying. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)