Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changes

As for the changes, OK, leave the question mark in the year. For the Sabor part read the Sabor article ("The Sabor, in its various forms, has represented the identity and opinions of Croats from the diets of the 9th century nobility to the modern parliament"), for the infobox names read the Habsburg Monarchy article. The "profusely sourced lead" is almost entirely already mentioned in the article in approximately the same way. The lead section shouldn't be yet another c/p of the "controversial" 1091-1102 events. It is more than enough to state that a union was created with Hungary and that the Arpad dynasty came to power. For individual historians OK, we can change that. A part of the "Library of Congress" section is also mentioned earlier, and there surelly should be a longer part for the Pacta conventa section. All your sources except I think one is incorporated into the article. Also, the coat of arms you added is wrong, it was newer used in that way before 1527. "without Istria or the Dalmatian cities", it's already mentioned that it compromised most of today's Croatia. Also, it actually did control a part of todays Istria and msot of today's Dalmatian cities. (Tzowu (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

• Wikipedia is not a source. The first Sabor we know about dates from 1351.
• The whole point of the WP:LEAD is to summarize the article, its silly (and likely biased) to remove whole paragraphs from it on the basis that the article covers the subject. Yes it does - in greater detail. The lead summarizes said coverage, whether it be of a historical controversy or not; It is biased to claim that a "union" was created when that is disputed and uncertain.
• No reason to exclude a very brief mention of which significant parts of modern-day Croatia. Our lead is embarrassingly brief and low-quality.
• The infobox native name parameter is not for extemporaneous translations. Its for contemporary names. The contemporary Croatian name, if any, is unknown. Translations are for the lead.
• I assume you're referring to the coa of Croatia? It is not wrong, it is based directly on the 1495 source. The pointed shape is not accurate. It is also a vector image, which is preferred to png.

-- Director (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

1. "Od prvih spomena narodnih zborova, preko Sabora kao staleške ustanove, do suvremenog predstavničkog tijela svega naroda, sabori su znak i očitovanje samosvojnosti hrvatskoga naroda. U dugom povijesnom tijeku oni su poprimali različita obilježja i bili stvarni pokazatelj političkog položaja Hrvatske već od 9. stoljeća." That's from the official page of our Sabor [1]. "The Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia" is not known in sources of the time, yet you still added it because you found it on google books.

2. The lead was fine before, a union was created and the Arpad dynasty came to throne. There is no need to add a c/p from the controvery section with the exact sentences found there. Before that it sumarized the article well enough, and I repeat that this is not an article just about the 1091-1102 events.

3. Whatever, the "periodically" part should be removed because it always had some part of BiH, at least the westernmost ones.

4. As you could see on the article I linked, it actually can have a later used name and a translation of it.

5. The coa of Croatia in 1495 was not the one you added. It doesn't even look like it. This is from 1499 [2], this is from 1495 [3]. I assume you'll notice the difference. (Tzowu (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

Actually the first known (recorded) Sabor was on April 19th, 1273 [4]. Also the 1495 CoA is this [5], this is the first known appearance of the chequy CoA as a symbol of Croatia. The original CoA used for Croatia is the one from which Dalmatian CoA derives and I really mean derives bcz the contemporary CoA of Dalmatia is different than the original one which was three silver (white) lion heads with golden crowns on red background, turned to left [6] [7] [8] [9]. Shokatz (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Croatia in 1495.

This is indeed a later version of the coa of Dalmatia, which has a much longer history than the coa of Croatia, but it is at least contemporary with the first Croatian coa - so that it makes sense to depict them next to each-other. Besides, we're supposed to look for the latest symbols for the entity.

That's the Sabor of Slavonia, which has nothing to do with the Sabor of Croatia and Dalmatia. Either way, post-1102.

• The lead was, and is, terrible. Its basic function is to summarize the history of the kingdom. It does not do that. The paragrpah that discusses the end of that history is a very relevant and beneficial addition.
• Agreed re "periodically".
• You mean Habsburg Monarchy? It shouldn't have extemporaneous names, and I don't think it does. If it does, I'll fix it. Either way, the parameter is not for modern-day translations of modern-day names, but for actual contemporary "native names".
• See the image pls. Its not a perfect facsimile, but at least it has the right general shape. Why do you think our current coat of arms isn't pointed?

-- Director (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

1. OK, fix it, but the part you added for the union creation is more suited for the Croatia in the union with Hungary article. It's silly that most of the article covers either the pre-kingdom period or the last few years.

3. Principality of Serbia (medieval)

4. Nevermind the current coat of arms, the older ones often had a different shape, like the pointed ones on the image I linked or the Fojnica Armorial. This one is just... wrong. Also the original 1499 coa looks pretier than the 1495 one.(Tzowu (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

• It just means that the rest of the article, and the lead, require expansion on that level and quality.
• You're now listing obscure articles that misuse their infobox parameters? All sorts of cooks with no understanding of infobox use edit this place. Feel free to remove any such inappropriate entries, I'll support your edits. This article used to have a completely ridiculous coat of arms 800 years out of place (thank you TRAJAN). That's been fixed. So have the names.
• What older ones? That thing on the right is the earliest image of a Croatian chequy that I know of. And please forget about the Fojnica Armorial... do you know when that dates from??

-- Director (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The coat of arms in 1495 is the earliest record, but we don't have to use only the earliest ones. Actually, I read on another talk page that the latest should be used. These are the coats of arms used until 1527, along the 1495 one:

1499 [10] [11] [12]

1503 [13]

1519 [14] [15]

1525 [16] [17]

As for the available coats on wikipedia, [this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Croatia_1499.png] looks most accurate to those listed. What we have currently is the modern Croatian coat of arms. I mentioned the Fojnica coa because it had a pointed end. About the infobox names, if that is true, then half of the wikipedia should be changed. Anyway, that means that we can add two latin coloquial names, namely "Regno di Croatia", from a charter from 1078, or even Regnum Croatie/Chroatorum... (Tzowu (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

This is what the CoA of Croatia should be until 1495/9 [18]. It predates 1396 at least. The image is an earlier version from Wappenwiki [19] Shokatz (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The generally non-pointed shape seems more common at the time, and is older. I think it ought to be preferred. Besides, as I pointed out, the image I uploaded is vectorized, which is preferred for heraldry. I would like to fix it up a bit, make it less wide, give it a crown (they all need crowns of the right type) but I'm afraid I'm no SVG expert, and its not as easy as it looks. You can request a pair of more accurate images [20], but it could take some time (if you do make sure to request both, please). In the meantime, I think we should be happy that we have an SVG medley of Croatian and Dalmatian coats of arms.

@Shokatz. That looks like an old coa of Dalmatia. Can you source it as the symbol of the pre-1102 kingdom? I would be very surprised if that's the case. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the shape of the shield is completely irrelevant, it bears no significance in heraldry. If you really wish to be pin-point exact pointed versions are actually earlier and historically more correct shapes since they mirror the medieval-type shields which the CoA's effectively are. And I have already posted the links, it's not the old CoA of Dalmatia but the old CoA of Croatia. [21], Dalmatian CoA derives from it. It became associated with Dalmatia during the Venetian period who used it for the territory today known as Dalmatia, which they controlled. Shokatz (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The shape is irrelevant, obviously - but we have to choose one, don't we? As I said the non-pointed version is older and appears to be more common in what little contemporary depictions there are.

What is your basis for claims re that coa? Sources pls. When was it adopted? -- Director (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have posted the sources already. Look at my previous replies, it predates 1396 year at least since it first appears in Gelre Armorial as part of Louis I CoA representing Croatian kingdom. Now since Louis I was king until 1382 it was obviously used even earlier.

BTW I have read several articles before (can't remember exactly where and by whom) where it is suggested that the lions on the CoA's of several Hungarian Arpady kings (Ladislaus III, Emeric, Andrew II) actually represented Croatia Shokatz (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any source thus far that indicates the early coat of arms of Dalmatia that you point to was used as the coat of arms of Croatia/Dalmatia before 1102. I know it is sourced as an early coat of arms of Dalmatia, but I am willing to believe that it could have originated somehow as the Croatian coa, or that the two are somehow connected. I do not insist on positive evidence and assertions from sources, and am willing myself to agree to its introduction even based on speculation by a proper source. But it can't be your speculation, and it needs to be a proper source of some sort.

So, to be clear, if some reliable source explicitly states the thing might've been used prior to 1102, I'll upload it and post it myself, in vector format. If its just your speculation, or some random website presenting no source... -- Director (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never stated that any CoA was used prior to 1102 because that would be impossible since feudal heraldry appeared some 150 years later...just lol. I was talking about the oldest Croatian CoA, and from the sources we have, the oldest Croatian CoA is a red shield with three crowned white/silver lion heads. We know this from several sources: 1. Constance Council Armorial (1486) by Konrad von Grüenberg [22], the page with Croatian (and Dalmatian) CoA's are presented here [23]. If you are unable to read what is says above them - Croatian is the one with the lions and Dalmatian the one with the sword. 2. Wernigerode Armorial, compiled between 1475-1492 again showing the same [24] 3. Gelre Armorial (pre 1396) showing on page 52 the CoA of King Louis I [25], his CoA is clockwise - Árpád-Capet impaled, Poland, Hungary, Croatia. Shokatz (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot this one [26], its from 1491. Vectorized or not, the current one is wrong. Why does it have to be vectorized anyway? I suggest the return of the old coat, we don't really need a crown since several other coats also didn't have a crown. A joint Croatian and modern Dalmatian one also aren't accurate, and by the beggining of the 16th century most of Dalmatia was either under Venice or the Ottomans. The Cetingrad Sabor also explicitly mentions the kingdom as "Kingdom of Croatia"[27] and use the checkerboard as a seal. This is for the union article. Tzowu (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the decision to move the title to the current one with years in brackets should have been preceeded with the conversion of other articles to date versions, which didn't happen, so it should be rolled back.Tzowu (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have rolled back the change myself if it were possible. But its not acceptable to revert an RM just with some random reasoning one happens to think up. You need another RM. My suggestion is moving this thing simply to Kingdom of Croatia or Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia.

• The current coa shape is more common than the pointed shape in contemporary sources, and is used earlier.
• Most had a crown (and a coa of a 'kingdom' is usually crowned).

So best case scenario we need a rounded, crowned, vectorized coa. The current one is at least rounded and vectorized. Disagree with restoring the very pointed, png version that you like. I don't see the reasoning.

• The coa of Dalmatia there isn't "modern". In fact its far older than the Croatian coa.
• Sure, most of Dalmatia was in Turkish hands after 1493, and I suppose the Cetingrad Sabor would have looked pretty silly if they declared they still have Croatia and Dalmatia - that's why I want to end that article at that point. However: you need a source that says that's the official name.

So in short, please don't change the properly-sourced official name and the sourced coats of arms for some random name you found through your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and a random coat of arms you happen to like. That's not how Wikipedia works.

May I please request a quote from Odnosi Petra Krešimira i pape prema korčulanskom kodeksu p.233-234? -- Director (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"its not acceptable to revert an RM just with some random reasoning one happens to think up" :D " 01:08, 14 January 2014 DIREKTOR moved page Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) to Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". About the coat of arms, I'll repeat what I already wrote, this one is not accurate, it doesn't matter whether it is vectorized or not. The one I chose could have a crown as well, but it is not necessary. And it was not changed because I "liked it", but because the coat used for the union article was from the Fojnica Armorial that is from a later time. As for the name, since you need a source for every word I or someone else writes or anything else that you found through your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH:

"Ime zemlje, kako ga nalazimo ubilježena u latinskim spomenicama toga vremena, u tijesnoj je vezi s narodnim i glasilo je isprva regnum Chroatorum (država Hrvata), prvi put 852., a dočnije regnum Chroatiae ili samo Chroatia (Hrvatska) prvi put 1066." Ferdo Šišić - Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, str. 651

"Diplomatično joj je ime bilo Hrvatska (Regnum Chroatiae) i Hrvatska i Dalmacija, dok se sam narod, koji je tvorio ovu državu, nazivao Hrvatima." Josip Horvat, Politička povijest Hrvatske, str 18

The Margetić qoute is in a post above. Also, I need a source for the shape of the coat of arms, not your original research.Tzowu (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but I didn't revert it back to a name that was rejected by an RM.
• For the final time: how is that coa "more accurate". Clearly it is not, as most sources use a rounded shape. Further, it is convenient because we can use two coats of arms from the same 1495 source. And finally, it is indeed preferable to have your symbols in vector format [28], noobs like you should probably trust me on that (no offense). And I could not possibly care less about the damn Fojnica Armorial, which is not an official source from the kingdom itself, and dates from at least 150 years after our period ends. k?
• Finally, we don't use official names from all periods in the infobox, but only one. Usually this is the latest one, or the one that was used for the longest period. Luckily here we have no contest in that regard. See Nazi Germany for example: it uses only "Großdeutsches Reich", because that was the last name, even though it was only used for two years (1943-45).

-- Director (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) was not rejected by a RM. The proposal was that all 3 articles dealing with the Kingdom of Croatia until 1868 would be renamed to contain years in brackets. This obviously didn't happen and was rejected in a RM. Why is it such a problem to return the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) article now? Surely no one will object.

Everyone was a noob at some time, I'm not offended by that :). However, "PNGs should not just be replaced en masse the instant an SVG replacement becomes available". Anyway, whatever shape we use, the union article can't have both Croatian and Dalmatian coat of arms. That is wrong and unsourced. At least return to the checkerboard only. Also, I'm thinking of adding a special Cat of arms section to that article.

The new source you added contradicts the previous ones. This one states that the name Croatia and Dalmatia came to use after 988, but the previous ones stated that it was in use after Petar Krešimir IV came to power. The problem with the name comes from the statements of Thomas the Archdeacon (which I already wrote about). He wrote that the kings after Stjepan Držislav bore the title kings of Croatia and Dalmatia, but that is not confirmed by other sources and it is not likely. Nada Klaić wrote about it and she rejected it (she was very critical about older Croatian historiography, for example a big amount of Fine's writings are references of her books): Nada Klaić: Povijest Hrvata p. 323. Despite the Nazi Germany article, there are other examples like the Byzantine Empire or Habsburg Monarchy that clearly don't use neither the latest name nor the most common one. The name in the infobox should be just Kingdom of Croatia and below Regnum Chroatie and Regnum Croatie et Dalmatie. That is both historically accurate, sourced and most common today.Tzowu (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rolled back. Will roll back the section as well. The personal union is sourced as disputed. -- Director (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is well sourced and supported by over a dozen sources. We also have several sources clearly stating the dispute originates from 19th century largely discarded view. Mainstream historiography of both Hungary and Croatia accept personal union as a reality. Furthermore what you just reverted is not contentious to the dispute and NPOV at all. Shokatz (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen a single source that directly indicates a consensus on the issue of a personal union, whereas many sources indicate the existence of a dispute. Your Croatian-nationalist POV will be reverted every time without fail (until you present sources that discuss the dispute and indicate a consensus or prevalence of the view you peddle).

You will not place undue weight on the Croatian view. This article has to be rescued from that sort of bias at some point, and this is it. If you feel you need to write some silly report or other, be my guest. -- Director (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure you haven't...except there are over a dozen sources (14 to be more exact) that talk about it, and at least half a dozen sources talking about how the so-called dispute is discarded in modern historiography and represents a minority view. These articles were just fine until you came acting as if you own this page, removing sources, sourced content, reverting/edit-warring without any explanation, refusing to make a consensus and acting at times in extremely uncivil manner, making personal attacks against me and Tzowu. Furthermore your refusal to accept the sources which are in direct contradiction with your own personal assertions are considered a disruption. So your wish, my command, I had enough of your temper tantrums. Shokatz (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You are free to publish your syntheses from published material somewhere else, but not on Wikipedia. Sources that discuss the issue do not place weight on either view, as has been demonstrated to you repeatedly. If you wish to write this article as if there is no dispute, I request that you please post at least one source that supports you directly.

I arrived on this article in September 2009. Much of the text here, and a goodly part of Croatian history on this project is, I'm proud do say, my contribution. You can call my resistance to the introduction of Croatian nationalist POV "OWN" if you like, but its interesting that you view the extreme nationalist nonsense version (with fictional coronations, fictional coats of arms, fictional dates, etc.) as being "just fine". -- Director (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are the one who will tell me what I can or cannot post on Wikipedia? I think you are way over your head here, acting as if this article is your own property. I couldn't care less when you arrived or what you think you contributed. I am interested in facts and sourced content. What you are doing here is certainly not in accordance with provided sources nor is it NPOV. It has been proven to you repeatedly by over a dozen sources that modern historiography does indeed puts weight on a specific view. Even the sources you call upon which talk about this dispute explain that it originates in the outdated Hungarian nationalist view which is today largely discarded by contemporary Hungarian historiography. But keep up with the WP:HEAR and WP:PA...I am sure it will do you good. Shokatz (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I have to be the one to tell you, since I'm the one faced with dealing with misconceptions on your part.

Shokatz, now that you brilliantly wrote a report in a sterling effort to get us both blocked, will you please listen? There is a dispute - that is a very well sourced fact, and you should come to terms with it. The sources you added are (mostly Croatian) refs that support a position in the dispute. That's fine. You finding them, however - does not mean you can write paragraphs of the article's lead pretending that there is no dispute. Does writing "then there was a personal union" followed by "we don't know whether there was a personal union" make sense to you?! And why did you edit war immediately with your large and complex new addition without waiting to have a word with others - especially when you know it will be opposed. -- Director (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh now you want to talk all of a sudden? What you are presenting here is a minority view - WP:FRINGE. The sources are clear, when talking about the dispute, we are talking about non-mainstream 19th century relic. However I have nothing against it being mentioned, quite the contrary, as you will notice I never removed it or anything similar (how did that happen if I am such a hardcore Croatian nationalist like you called me?), I even posted some sources in favor of it. But for that to be the prevailing position is simply unacceptable due to mentioned Wiki policies. The only NPOV and acceptable version would be that we have the personal union with all the sources for it, then we have the section with the dispute and then we have explanations on what, when and why there is a dispute, and the position of the modern contemporary historiography (Croatian and Hungarian) on this issue. You know the lead you were so zealously reverting earlier. Personally I find it ridiculous and unnecessary that this is in the article even though it doesn't even cover the historical period, but if it makes you that happy... Also I still cannot even fathom what exactly did you find controversial in my latest additions since everything I added is directly derived from this article and other connected articles on the subject some even clear copy-paste...yet for you it is article's lead pretending that there is no dispute despite the fact I have not removed one letter from the section talking about the dispute. Shokatz (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not support any particular interpretation of these events, but merely that the article should continue to refrain from unequivocally supporting one position or the other. The fact they didn't teach you in school is that we do not know whether there was a personal union or not. We do not know if there was a coronation in 925, we have no idea when the state even became a kingdom. We don't know for certain whether Tomislav was a "king" or not. We know very little or nothing about this state. As the sources cited in the article (and more can be provided easily) make clear, the personal union is an uncertainty. It cannot be treated as a certainty. I want this article to be a place where people can find out the hard sourced facts about this state, free of any nationalist slant, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, whatever. For example, "wait a second! not a single historian on the planet calls that country Croatia-Hungary like they did in my history class", etc...

There is no question that the end of this state needs to be covered here. Besides, I'm hoping to turn this article into a 925-1527 article, where the other one would be a sub-article. But you and our new arrival Tzowu squashed that very nicely...

Can you provide other sources (besides those in the article) that summarize the position of scholarship on the issue? -- Director (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

See this is the problem with you, you simply don't want to WP:HEAR. You want more sources than the 14 sources I have already provided?!? And after that you will want 14 more? And after that? The issue for me here is not the 925 or the coronation of Tomislav so don't try to change the subject (again), the issue is the personal union. You base your view on the minority view that originates in 19th century nationalist agenda, a fact that even the sources which talk about the dispute mention clearly. That fact should be mentioned in the article lead as well...don't you think so? Obviously not, for whatever reason... I really think we don't have anything to discuss anymore since you simply refuse to listen and accept that modern historiography of both Croatia and Hungary accept the fact there was a relationship most similar to the personal union...which is also sourced. Minority views and fringe theories are not to have the prominent role in the articles. Shokatz (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I hear - you don't understand. Your 14 sources are just googled Croatian authors who happen to say the words "personal union" - they're not sources that summarize the position of scholarship on the matter. They fall very neatly into the category of "some historians support the personal union interpretation". What you need is sources that say "the dominant view is personal union", or "personal union is the scholarly consensus" or "most scholars support the personal union interpretation", etc. Sources that discuss the matter at hand!

Here's an appropriate quote by Krleža, the man widely considered to be our no.1 literary figure of all time:

"From Frankish times forward, Croatia was never the Croat-centered entity imagined by our patriotic historians. It was always too small to form an independent political entity and too weak to resist foreign domination. Instead of acknowledging this past, the Croats have created a phantom past and imaginary rights originating in nine hundred years of defeats, domination and exploitation."

-- Director (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No offense but what you just wrote is nothing but pure ridiculous nonsense. They do not fall into the category of some but in the category of great majority, even though I never even stated that. Do these authors sound Croatian to you: David Luscombe, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Alain Finkielkraut, Imogen Bell, Piotr Stefan Wandycz, Adrian Webb, Charles W. Ingrao, Kristó Gyula, Lukács István, Hek László, Font Márta, Bárány Attila, Jeszenszky Géza - are these the Croatian authors you are talking about? Six of those are Hungarian! How many Hungarian historians can you name me in favor of the alleged dispute? One, two....none? And who cares what Krleza said, he was not a historian...for gods sake man, stop with this nonsense... Shokatz (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Old Krleza is just there as an appropriate quote, to show you what extremely intelligent people think on the subject.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your subjective personal interpretations of "great majority". That's what I meant when I said I said you can't publish syntheses. Do you have any sources that actually discuss the relevant historical question of personal union? -- Director (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, this again? It is clearly stated by Laszlo Heka in "Croatian-Hungarian relations from the middle ages to the compromise of 1868, with a special survey of the Slavonian issue", p. 155, and "Barna Mezey ured.: Magyar alkotmánytörténet. ELTE Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar. Magyar Állam- és Jogtörténeti Tanszék szerzõi munkaközössége. Budapest, 1995, 66." (Barna Mezey, Hungarian constitutional history, page 66) that the Hungarian legal historians hold that until 1526 the relationship of Croatia and Hungary was most similar to a personal union, connected through 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."). I hope that user "direktor", after a vast number of sources from various Hungarian historians, after quotes from their wikipedia and even highschool history books, doesn't anymore think that the Hungarian historiography has a different view than the extreme nationalist Croatian nonsense, at least on that particular "problem".Tzowu (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol...well you can hope, but I wouldn't put my money on it. There is no source, no scholarly book or scientific elaboration that can change his mind. I will never understand how this guy survived seven years on Wikipedia with such attitude. Shokatz (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Subjective? Let's see here [29], I see 14 (fourteen) sources which explicitly support the personal union, I see at least 3 other sources which talk about it indirectly. Even the sources which mention the dispute such as Bellamy, Sedlar, Jeffries, Prpic, Murray all only briefly mention the dispute while emphasizing that Croatia retained it's autonomy. Only by a glance one can see which position is in great majority and far more mainstream. Jeffries, Sedlar and Bellamy even go further by explaining the dispute originated in the nationalist 19th century historiography. Shokatz (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Lol"? :) Those "14 (fourteen)!!" refs do not support your claim that the personal union is the predominant view in scholarship, as none even discuss the possibility. All they do is show that it is a view in scholarship, which chimes wonderfully with what the sources covering the matter in depth tell us. Now do you understand this? Or will I have to repeat it a further dozen times? -- Director (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If we have 14-15 different sources, all stating there was a personal union and we have 5 only mentioning there is, or rather was, a dispute but stating clearly there was obvious autonomy of the Croatian side, then yes it actually is the predominant view in modern historiography. I find it amusing how you spin these facts around. Shokatz (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You've managed to push your POV into the protected version, "tzowu". Like the weird/biased listing of two official names from different periods alongside one another into the infobox. I'd just be happy and not insist on any more nonsense (though I certainly plan to revert these new additions of yours as soon as that is possible). You have a single source that may possibly contradict in part with a half-dozen others that describe the dispute - it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You'll need quite a bit more if you want to seriously show there exists some kind of consensus. Personally, I could not care less what "Croatian" or "Hungarian" authors think, I removed those qualifications myself. I'm interested in the dispute and the position of scholarship with regard to it.

I have done the research. And I will not, under any circumstances, consent to your slanting this article in favor of one view in this dispute. At least not without strong, conclusive, explicit evidence suggesting such an emphasis is in accordance with the position of scholarship. In addition to the fact that sources that do discuss the issue do not place any emphasis on one view or another, I present this as a WP:TERTIARY analysis by the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"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)."

This is my position exactly, and the position of all the sources I've yet seen that actually discuss the personal union issue in any depth: to come down on one side of this thing is NOT in accordance with scholarship. This also indicates that the current ref to the Encyclopaedia in the lead is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. -- Director (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is a sudden and unexpected change in your positions. You do realize that britannica states almost the same thing as the current article? Actually, this is even more of what you would call a "Croatian nationalist nonsense" (i.e. modern Croatian and Hungarian view on the 1102-1526 time period) than this wiki article. A dynastic union is basically the same thing as a personal union, if I added that you'd revert it instantly. As for the name, I already explained it and provided sources, the two names were reportedly both used in the same time period. I also linked the Byzantine and Habsburg articles which have a similar form of infobox names. The only thing that should be changed is the english version name to just Kingdom of Croatia (since it is way more common) and a swap between Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae and Regnum Chroatiae positions.Tzowu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Heh, nice try. My position is the same as it was throughout: "teach the controversy" (as they say in the American sticks). The point is that Britannica, just like all sources that go into the matter makes it clear that the existence of said dynastic union is disputed/unknown, and does not come down on one side of this. Neither should we. Look, I don't dispute there was autonomy, and I don't believe the Hungarian annexation POV is what we need to emphasize any more than the personal union.
• The sentence that you added is based on a ref in conflict with other sources, and can't be emphasized like that. Further, you removal of the crucial fragment that sets out the two possibilities is also not acceptable.
• Re the name, I am amazed that you still don't get it. We're not supposed to WP:BITE, but you're wearing me thin. Again: only the latest name is used in the 'native_name=' parameter. Sometimes its the longest-used name, not the latest exactly, but its always just one of the two. I.e. we do not list various names from different periods in the infobox. Just one. Do you understand this? Off the top of my head see the Soviet Union article, Nazi Germany, the SFRY, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Hungary, take your pick...

-- Director (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL! This is hilarious. Actually it doesn't say that. 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). It clearly states there was a dispute, but reaffirms the existence of the dynastic union.

Now what is the dynastic union? Dynastic union: A dynastic union is a kind of federation with only two different states that are governed by the same dynasty, while their boundaries, their laws and their interests remain distinct. It differs from a personal union in that a personal union is under a monarch, but not under a dynasty. You bury yourself deeper and deeper... Shokatz (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Polako ljudi, stanimo na loptu :D.

1. 2. Britannica says that the precise terms are disputed, and I agree with that, we can't know the exact way in which Coloman crowned himself as king. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is a dispute between (modern) Hungarian and Croatian historiography. We can have both "The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute" and "modern Croatian and Hungarian historiographies mostly view it as a form of a personal union" in the article, which is in fact true. All of it. Recently a certain Serbian historian wrote an article how we were not in a personal union, but a conquered nation who claim it was a personal union just to counter the Serbs [30]. So there certainly are historians who deny it.

3. For those countries it is clear what name was used, in the Croatian case it is not. That is why I added both names which were reported as beeing official in the same period, the late 11th century. We can't with 100% security say which one was used. Look at the Byzantine Empire article, no one called it that way during its existence. As a matter of fact we don't even have a charter or a foreign work of the time in which Croatia was reffered as "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae". That is why my stance is that both of them should be in latin versions in the infobox, and the english name the most common one. Tzowu (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything you wrote under #1. All I am trying to say here (and DIREKTOR refusing to accept it) is that the majority of historians i.e. mainstream Hungarian and Croatian historiography, view it from the personal union POV. There is no denial a dispute among some exists, but we need to have an explanation in the article detailing the reasons of such dispute and how it arose. Also you cannot have a minority view as the main pretense of the article, especially not in the infobox. The article needs to follow what is accepted by the mainstream, otherwise we have an article that relies on fringe theories. And I can say to the other person involved here that since he will not slide back any further that I don't intend to do so the same. I will not be bullied by a guy who calls others teens, noobs, POV-pushers, etc. just because something doesn't agrees with him. Shokatz (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond to the Teenage Terror up there with his "LOLZ!" and all that stuff. We may be able to work something out, I could accommodate through placing slight, slight(!) emphasis on the p.u. version. But that's it, I'm not sliding back any further. The primary statement has to be that describing the uncertainty and dispute regarding the relationship.

3. If you contend both names were used simultaneously - and at the end cca. 1102 - then pls present your refs for that. Refs that say they were used #1 at the same time, #2 at that time. As things are that's explicitly contrary to both your sources and mine (which state C&D became official/diplomatic at a certain point, superseding C), and doesn't make sense from the perspective of medieval legalisms. Therefore I strongly doubt that is the case.

-- Director (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to find more info regarding the exact name, there are a lot of different views about that which don't really go into detail, except for Lujo Margetić. Josip Horvat wrote that both were diploamtic names, we also have an example from 1078 in an Italian transcript calling the realm "Kingdom of Croatia"... All I wanted to point out since the start of these personal union debates is the modern Hungarian historiography view on the issue, which was incorrectly shown previously. And yes, that is important and does show a lot. I noticed that you changed the name of the Principality of Dalmatian Croatia article, since we usually call that state a kneževina I think a principality in the name would be more accurate. Tzowu (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, "knez" is a vague Slavic term for a lord, it doesn't necessarily correspond to "prince". In actual fact the term "knez" is used in this case as a modern Croatian translation of "duke", i.e. dux or doux, which is the only title we know of for these people. That is to say, as far as early Slavic is concerned, we don't really know if they were called "knez" or something else (or even if the word existed). For us to then translate that translation erroneously back into "prince", and refer to the duchy as a "principality", is I think a mistake.

In other words, the best Croatian translation of the Latin "Dux" is indeed "knez" in this case. And the best English translation of the Croatian "knez" is usually "prince" - but the best English term for the Latin "dux" is - "duke". It wouldn't be appropriate to render "dux" into English "prince" (which corresponds to "princeps") through this convoluted sequence of translations. To be clear, there is one instance where the duke is called "princeps", but its clear that, except for that, the title is "duke". -- Director (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the name of the kingdom (this relates to the infobox name also), here is what Lujo Margetić wrote, I'll put some quotes: "Nestankom Stjepana II. nestaje ujedno i bilo kakva vijest o regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae. Taj međunarodnopravni subjekt, nastao je uz vrlo aktivno sudjelovanje pape i označavao vrhunac ranosrednjovjekovne Hrvatske pod vladarima Petrom Krešimirom IV., Dmitrom Zvonimirom i Stjepanom II. Prije Petra Krešimira IV. nema u vrelima spomena o tom Kraljevstvu, isto tako kao što se ono više ne spominje nakon Stjepana II."

"Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae kao vazalna papina država stvorena je na inicijativu i uz priznanje reformnih papa oko 1060. god. i označava bez ikakve dvojbe vrhunac srednjovjekovne hrvatske državnosti. Na žalost Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae nije dugo trajao, jedva približno 30 godina. Stjepan II., kao zadnji kralj Kraljevstva Hrvatske i Dalmacije bio je dosad neopravdano zapostavljen kao navodno mlitav, bezvoljan i bolestan starac, koji nije bio na visini svojih prethodnika, Petra Krešimira IV. i Zvonimira. Ali, naše su raščlambe pokazale da je takvo gledanje na njega nepravedno."

His further explanation of the term: "stvarna vlast nad nekim područjem nije dovoljan pravni razlog da se to područje pravno ujedini pod međunarodno priznatom vlašću. Tako dugo dok se stvarna vlast međunarodno pravno ne legalizira, ona ima prizvuk nezakonitosti i zato svaki stvarni vladar nekog teritorija izvanredno uporno nastoji da mu se prizna ono što je stekao. Sama činjenica držanja Dalmacije bez međunarodnog priznanja ne bi davala nikakvo pravo Petru Krešimiru da nosi naslov ujedinjenog kraljevstva. Po našem je mišljenju Petar Krešimir vladao doduše nad Krkom, dakle imao je stvarnu vlast nad dijelom Dalmacije, ali daleko važnija od posjeda dijela Dalmacije bila je bar prešutna suglasnost pape na Krešimirov program osvajanja Dalmacije i njezinog inkorporiranja u Hrvatsku. Ipak, taj naslov kao simbol težnje ujedinjenja dalmatinskih gradova sa svojim zaleđem imao je izvanrednu budućnost. Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae kao politički pojam proizašao iz kombinacija ojačalog papinstva na široj svjetskoj pozornici i težnje hrvatskoga kralja da proširi svoj utjecaj na imućne obalne gradove, odgovarao je na dugotrajnom povijesnom planu narodnim geopolitičkim, ekonomskim i društvenim interesima i zato je nadživio tolike povijesne perturbacije."

So that name (if it wasn't just a way kings added titles for their realm) existed from 1060 to 1091.Tzowu (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

please read what was said previously on this issue. -- Director (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much clear what happened after 1091 with the name, some Dalmatian coastal cities were not, for a period of time, under Croatian rule and thus the name was not in use until the beginning of the 12th century. So the infobox name should be changed to just Kingdom of Croatia, as it was the last name used. Tzowu (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the name/claim. Stop edit-warring over this. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, we are supposed to use the latest known diplomatic (official) name of the kingdom in the infobox conventional_long_name section. The current one is never mentioned after 1091, while the only known name from 1091 until the coronation of Koloman is Regnum Chroatiae, we should have that historicaly accurate name in the infobox. Tzowu (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Union, Tomislav, name, and other issues

Singe the dispute ranges several topics, lets try to adopt a point-by-point format of discussion?

• Tomislav. There is no evidence for Tomislav's royal status besides the single letter, "the authenticity of which is disputed" (because only a transcript remained, from much later). As the sources say, so shall our article. The claims that he was king simply because he is referred to as "ruling" are laughable and pathetic nonsense from Croatian national historians. A baron "rules" his barony as much as a king his kingdom.

• Union.
  • The existence of a "union" is disputed. An annexation and incorporation is not a "union", neither "personal" nor any other kind. I'm sorry if this will affect your playthrough of Crusader Kings 2, Shokatz - but I'm afraid that is how the sources assess the overall position of scholarship. I am not opposed to giving more prominence to the union view, but the primary statement must be that of ambiguity.
  • Most importantly: you CAN NOT declare that your WP:SYNTHESIS from published material indicates anything. Unless you accept this you will encounter people telling you that again and again: you can't say "the consensus is the personal union" without a source that says "the consensus is the personal union". I really hope I'm finally getting through on this.
  • I will say again that there is no question the Croatian/Dalmatian lands enjoyed a large degree of de facto autonomy for significant periods - it is the de jure status that is in dispute. Other realms subordinate to the Hungarian crown also enjoyed autonomy and de facto independence! Remember that the crown ended up being elective. This is wwhy I have no problem with favoring the "union" view, but never to such a degree as to give it prominence.

• "Hrvatska zemlja". Unless the name "Hrvatska zemlja" is attested in #1 some kind of "official", #2 contemporary use - it should not be used in the infobox entry for official, contemporary names. Further: "Hrvatska zemlja" means "Croatian land", not "Croatian kingdom". There probably wasn't even a word for "Kingdom of Croatia" in the primitive jumble that was the Serbo-Croatian language of that time.

-- Director (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the other talk page, the Chronicle of Duklja calls him a king ("King Tomislav had sons and daughters and died in the 13th year of his kingship"), a letter from the Pope dated 925 calls him a king ("Tamisclao, regi Crouatorum, et Michaeli, excellentissimo duci Chulmorum"), a note preceding the conclusions of the Council calls him a king ("in prouintia Croatorum et Dalmatiarum finibus Tamisclao rege...dictus Croatorum rex"), and a "Croatian king" is mentioned in the conclusions of the Split council in 925 (rex et proceres Chroatorum). Your POV that he wasn't a king is just your POV, all evidences point out that he was a king, although there are no surviving sources on his coronation. And no, the existence of a union is not disputed. You and Serbian nationalists are disputing it, no one else. The personal union was disputed in the 19th century, but since there are no more Croatian-Hungarian tensions, there is no need for nationalist views over our common history. You should really read something despite writters who don't even know where river Cetina is. This has been discussed enough and there are dozens of Hungarian sources that explicitly call it a personal union and the position of Hungarian modern historians. "An annexation and incorporation is not a "union"" This is actually not true, first of all there was no annexation and there are is no evidence for that, but even if you read John Antwerp Fine who really calls the 1102 events an annexation, he calls the period between 1102 and 1526 not only a personal union, but even a Dual Monarchy. You don't need to accept their stance, you can allways agree with "historians" like Vladislav Sotirović, but you can't change historical facts because of your POV. Tzowu (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is from the 14th century at the earliest, and probably the 15th. That's six. hundred. years. later. Its like you today writing about the Priest of Duklja. Its not a contemporary source, and as such its damn near worthless. We have no idea when Tomislav died. As I said - what the secondary source says, so shall we.
• All sources yet produced that review the position of scholarship on the issue - say the existence of a union is disputed. You can write your thoughts and opinions all day if you like. Until you find one that says there's a consensus, or that the opposing view is fringe, your own WP:SYNTH about "10,000 sources" means little or nothing. Nor do I care about the nationality of the sources, so you can probably stop talking about that nonsense. The ones I trust best are neither Croatian, nor Hungarian, nor Serbian. Sources like Bellamy and Jeffries and Fine. Sources that directly contradict you. I'd be more than happy to reject all local sources, if that would make you happier. If not, stop talking about that.

And for the record, I'm as Croatian as you are - the difference is I've been working on this project for years, and I care for what is known and what isn't. I do not fill-in the enormous gaps in the historical record with Tolkien/Disney fantasies about how I think our history "must" have been. -- Director (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There were two (2) Councils in Split, one in 925 and one in 928. The Chronicle of Duklja is of course a later source, but not "worthless" if its contents are confirmed by other sources, like in this case. Lszlo Heka and Barna Mezey clearly say that the position of Hungarian historiography is that there was a personal union, and you keep removing that because you know that it would lead those who read the article to the conclusion that there really was a personal union. "Why would the Hungarians say it was a personal union if there was no personal union?" That's why you keep deleting that section, its pretty much obvious that it contradicts what Bellamy wrote (the same Bellamy who doesn't know where Cetina is and who is not actually a historian). Heck, even Bellamy wrote "in 1102, the nobles decided that Croatia should enter into a personal union with Hungary". You wont have it your way so half of the article content says it was a union, and half that it wasn't. Once Tito's article has a huge Controvery section and a mention in the lead that a lot of scholars view him as a war criminal then I'll maybe review what you have to say. Even if that would not suit the SF nonsense about a glorious resistance army that liberated us. Tzowu (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets go through the edits of user Director in detail

1. "Conquest of Pannonia" what conquest of Pannonia? What is the source for a so called conquest? Why would we add that when 90% of other historians call it an Elevation to kingdom in c. 925? And why should we have a question mark next to the year 925 when, again, most historians add a circa (c.) before it? The dispute is not whether Croatia became a kingdom or not, but when did it became a kingdom. The first mention of a Kingdom and a King are in 925.

2. "Tomislav is regarded as the first king due to being addressed as Rex (King) in a letter sent by Pope John X and the Council conclusions of Split in 925 AD. Circumstances and the date of his coronation are unknown.[1]" What is wrong with this footnote? Again the POV of user Director that Tomislav was not a king and that it should be more in favour of the "not a king" view.

3. The previous lead section mentioned both the dispute between Croatian and Hungarian historiography in the 19th century and the position of our modern historiographies. Now user Director added a c/p of what is already mentioned in the Unification section of the article, changed it a bit to his own POV, and he uses a book from a "Professor of International Security" as the main source for the lead section. Yes, you read it correctly, a "Professor of International Security".

4. Why is the name "Early Croatian states" better than "Background" and "Rise of Croats" (wtf, Rise of Nations anyone?) better than "Early Croatian states"?

5. "The prince who headed the Croats in the south at the time was called Višeslav." This what user Director reverted, which is funny coming from a user that is fighting against "Croatian POV". What "Prince Višeslav"? Who is that? There is NO evidence about his existence.

6. Line 101 [31], I think that he cant explain a single edit he made here. I'll assume that he reverted it cause he is not used to a user who doesn't need six (6) edits [32] just to make 20 bytes of text.

I'll edit this further on... Tzowu (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Look, understand my position. Yes, Tomislav was probably a king, that is indeed likely - but it isn't confirmed concretely. This is what secondary sources say, and that's what we should say. This uncertainty, presented in sources such as V.A. Fine et al., needs to come across in the text. Tomislav must not be affirmed as having been a king as a matter of fact. This is not known.

And pls present the source for your claim re the Synod of Spalato. Fine says that (quote p.196) "everything we know about both synods comes from the letters of Pope John X". I think it more than likely that your other source is as extemporaneous as Duklja.

• Taking authors out of context should be beneath you. Bellamy has been quoted verbatim and so have other sources that contradict you outright.

Please, do continue making your personal bias as obvious as possible. For your information, having a "Controversy" section is against WP:MoS. Reviewers for WP:GA status demanded several times that the section be dismantled into the rest of the text. Which is what I did. You're free to take your concerns there if you really have something to say about that. If not, I'll obviously have to view your comments as tantrums and little more. You are definitely someone's sockpuppet, by the way. -- Director (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not post in increments but post all at once, or else you'll cause WP:EDIT CONFLICT. Use proper WP:INDENT too, please. As regards your objections, I rolled back the article. If you introduced changes that do not pertain to the disputed matter, then feel free to re-introduce them. I can't be bothered to again and again weed out non-controversial edits from those you know are opposed on the talkpage.

1. As opposed to an entirely fictional "elevation to kingdom"? Do you know of some "elevation" I don't? How do you know there was one? The rulers might simply have been referred to as "rex" from then on without any "elevation". I tried to find a more appropriate term, but couldn't really. Any suggestions?
We have no idea whatsoever when the kingdom started to exist. We don't know if it was "circa" 925! It could have been ten years earlier for all we know. 925 is just the date of the papal letter, nothing more. It should be "early 10th century - 1102".

2. The footnote is missing the information you removed - that the authenticity of the (absolutely crucial) papal letter is questioned. That's from both Bellamy and Van Atwerp Fine.

3. The important issue is that the union is in dispute. That should be the first fact, followed by some emphasis on the union view. That's my position. A half-dozen different sources are brought forward for that.

4,5,6.. Next time I advise you to separate your opposed edits from those that are not. -- Director (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out number 2 once more, what is wrong with that one? You are using Fine only when it suits you and taking it out of context (like on page 297 Fine wrote "ca. 910- 28 Tomislav (king by 925)". A mix of Florin Curta and Fine is better than just one of them. As for the council, Fine, page 266: "Now let us turn to the controversial church affairs. The most discussed and supposedly best-known events of this period are the church councils held in Split in 925 and 928. The first, in particular, was a major affair attended by clerics and laity including Tomislav of Croatia and Michael of Zahumlje. It was under the chairmanship of a papal legate and attended by clerics from both Croatian and Byzantine Dalmatia. Yet, despite the importance of these councils, almost everything about them turns out to be uncertain." We also have Florin Curta who wrote: "As a consequence, the authenticity of the letters included in the "longer" version of the History (known as Historia Salonitana maior) has come under suspicion, but there can be little doubt about the synods themselves, the decisions of which were confirmed at later councils." Further on, "having a "Controversy" section is against WP:MoS" really? Yet we have a "Unification controversy" section here and a "Historical context, terms and controversies" section on the union article. Interesting, not to mention a "Controversies" section on the Franjo Tuđman article. Yes, the Croatian wikipedia really is controversial. Tzowu (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Its incredible that you would accuse me of taking Fine out of context - while you're taking him out of context. Quoting a snippet as oppose to the paragraphs where he actually deals with the question of Tomislav's royal status.

I have no idea what the point is of your quotes. You do realize they confirm what I've been saying?

Look I really don't care if you believe me, I'll be damned if I'll go searching for diffs on your account. Nor do I know why we can't have "historical criticism" sections about people. I just know that's what the WP:GA reviewer requested, and that the text was simply moved into the other sections - not deleted. Now shut up about Tito and Tudjman please. I think we have enough problems without the conflicts from your past sockpuppet incarnations. -- Director (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats exactly the problem, you keep reverting everything including edits that are not opposed by you (since there is no one other who has problems with these articles). Or beter to say, edits which you can't oppose. You should learn to use the "Show preview" button and add your prefered content through an edit, not a revert. The elevation to kingdom was added by you anyway, and now suddenly we have a fictional conquest of Pannonia (?). Anyway, most historians claim that Croatia became a kingdom c. 925, and that's what we had in the article. Where is a problem with that? Again, Fine page 297 "ca. 910- 28 Tomislav (king by 925)". One more pointless edit from your side. Fine is a nice source and if we followed him 99% of your edits would be turned down. And the Tito (and Tuđman etc.) articles are just a textbook example of a POV, what you are proposing here you deny on other articles.

"but there can be little doubt about the synods themselves, the decisions of which were confirmed at later councils" geez...

And don't move my answers. Btw if you looked really close at my earlier edits you would have noticed that I added brackets next to my signature. No, that was not because I thought it looked nice but because i thought it had to be done like that since it said "and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~ ~~)." I thought no one will notice such a noob fail. And if you googled my nickname you would also notice that I use this nick on index forum. [33] Tzowu (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I do. As I said, please, please keep the edits you know are currently and actively opposed on the talkpage - separate from those that or not. Or better yet - don't introduce opposed changes without some kind of consensus. And again, please do, by all means, re-introduce the unopposed changes that do not pertain to the union, Tomislav, and the other contentious issues. I can't be bothered to hang around on standby to weed-out your edits every time, so I will roll back. In fact, it would be best if you introduce the unopposed changes right now, so you're sure your work doesn't get lost.

Uh... yes. The synods definitely happened. So?? Am I right that your "conclusions" which mention "rex" are from "later councils" and thus also extemporaneous? -- Director (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I won't do that, if you have a problem with some edits then edit just that part. I made several edits in the time period that didn't even include the lead section or infobox which you (and only you) are opposing. You are used to make c. 20 edits for a few hundred bytes, I'm used to just one or two and a few minor edits for spelling issues if needed. As for the councils, the surviving transcripts are from later centuries, they surely couldn't have survived in original form for a 1000 years, we are fortunate that so much charters are preserved that would have vanished if not transcribed (like the Bulgarian ones)... but is it really necessary to add so much text in a little footnote? If yes then we can add this text as well:

Tomislav was the first Croatian ruler whom the Papal chancellery honoured with the title "king".[35] It is generally said that Tomislav was crowned in 925, however, this is not certain. It is not known when, where, or by whom he was crowned, or was he crowned at all.[1] Tomislav is mentioned as a king in two preserved documents published in the Historia Salonitana. First in a note preceding the text of the conclusions of the Council of Split in 925, where it is written that Tomislav is the "king" rulling "in the province of the Croats and in the Dalmatian regions" (in prouintia Croatorum et Dalmatiarum finibus Tamisclao rege),[36][37][38] while in the 12th canon of the Council conclusions the ruler of the Croats is called "king" (rex et proceres Chroatorum).[38] In a letter sent by the Pope John X Tomislav is named "King of the Croats" (Tamisclao, regi Crouatorum).[39][36] The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja titled Tomislav as a king and specified his rule at 13 years.[36] Although there are no inscriptions of Tomislav to confirm the title, later inscriptions and charters confirm that his 10th century successors called themselves "kings".[37] Tzowu (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is convey the tone of the source, as briefly as possible. I think this is important enough that it warrants a more in-depth note like that one, since we have 925 and Tomislav all over the infobox. Its nothing unusual, there are much larger notes in infoboxes of this type. -- Director (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tzowu: it doesn't matter what the primary sources say. It is forbidden to interpret primary sources by ourselves - only secondary sources matter. And if Tomislav's existence as a king is disputed by reliable, secondary sources due to the scant historical evidence, it should be presented at such in the article, and all of the articles where Tomislav is mentioned. Croatian-only sources are not the "truth", and in fact should be treated with suspicion simply due to the fact that native self-histories written by government-paid historians from the Balkans are usually glorified fairy tales. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• More than half of the entry on Tomislav's article in Croatian national encyclopedia is dedicated to the uncertainty of him being a king.[34]. So it's hardly a "historical fact" as User:Tzowu argues, even from the POV of Croatian scholarship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that him being a king is a universally accepted historical fact, but practically all historians call him exactly that way since all surviving evidences point out that he almost certainly was a king (although nothing is certain...). The uncertanity, or better to say, a further critical examination of available sources, was first raised precisely by Croatian historians like Nada Klaić or Ivo Goldstein later, even Neven Budak today (even in the TV series "Croatian Kings"), not foreign ones who still often write that Tomislav was crowned in 925. You can't find that in modern Croatian historiography, so questions about Tomislav are coming exclusively from the POV of Croatian scholarship. However, both Florin Curta and John Antwerp Fine call him a king in their books and later when listing the order of rulers and events, and the disputes risen by them are about his coronation (date, place...), not him being a king, and we already have all that in the articles. Tzowu (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag

MateoKatanaCRO, the flag you added to the article is not a contemporary flag of the Kingdom of Croatia in the 10th-11th centuries. The checkerboard came to use in the 15th century. See for example Coat of arms of Croatia#History or Croatia in union with Hungary#Coat of arms. Tzowu (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Out of scope

I removed a huge chunk of information which was out of scope of this article, which is supposed to cover the history of Croatia between 925 and 1102. I do not know where this information belongs and whether it is already there but I cannot see why it should be here when the scope is clearly delineated in the very title of the article. Here is the revision prior to the removal in case someone wants to move some bits elsewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)