Talk:1102

.hr/.hu issue
Hi. Coloman wasn't crowned as King of Croatia. I don't want to harm anybody, but the story about the coronation and the personal union is not true. Toroko (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Kingdom of Croatia and Hungary was from 1102, a personal union of two kingdoms, Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary, united under the Hungarian king. At first, they were united under Arpad dinasty, and after its extinction, under Anjou dinasty. The last common king, came from Jagiello dinasty. The act of unions was dealed in Pacta conventa.--Kebeta (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They didn't it is only a nationalistic fairy tale, Pacta Conventa is a shabby forgery, if you don't know anything about that, don't edit anything about that. Toroko (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, |encyclopedia=Encarta Encyclopedia Encarta is a fairy tale only to you. --Kebeta (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Toroko, is it really necessary to have this entire diatribe here, when we *already* have a whole article about it? This year should not be in any meaningful dispute - both Croatian and Hungarian sources agree that after 1102, Coloman was the ruler of Croatia. They disagree about what was the status in the ten years before, and they disagree about whether there was a formal document, but there doesn't appear to be any substantial disagreement on Coloman's basic rule 1102 and beyond. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Toroko, honestly, I don't really care about who joined or occupied whom, but having this whole debate in an article about a calendar year is downright ridiculous. Such articles are not even supposed to have references, because they should contain things of more or less common knowledge. As Joy said, there's whole article Pacta conventa (Croatia), where the dispute (if there is indeed one) should be described, so I don't find your name in the contribution list there. In this article, only a brief neutral formulation about the event should be placed, and I attempted to avoid even mentioning the disputed term personal union. Please propose another formulation if you like, but this article is not the place to solve that issue. No such user (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not about Pacta Conventa, it is about conquest or personal union. Truly it was a conquest, but there were some unreliable sources, written mostly by Croatians, which stated this ridiculous Croatian POV. You simply deleted the much more reliable sources, Britannica Encyclopedia, books of Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, and wrote this union theory as a fact. It is not a fact at all. You can't formulate this theory as a fact. The long explanation will remain or we simply delete this nationalist nonsense theory. If you want brief formulation, then i delete this. Toroko (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The language that you reverted said that X and Y were "united under". That verb in that sentence did not imply "personal union" nor did it preclude "conquest". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "United under" means it was a union, despite it wasn't. There is difference between union and conquest, but you still write this "union" and "joined" nonsense theory. I said earlier, don't add this idea to the article as a fact. You didn't change anything, still added this theory as a fact. Stop with this nonsense. Toroko (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this is an article about a calendar year, and we just need to be brief and neutral. If you have alternate wording, please propose it instead of bickering and removing the whole entry. "United under" means that they ended up in an union, ruled by the Hungarian king. I will add a compromise formulation once more, but my assumption of good faith on your part runs short. No such user (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Toroko reverts saying don't write this "joined" ridiculous theory as a fact, the longer explanation will remain or there is no mention of this false theory


 * OK, with that nonsensical comment you've successfully lost any assumption of good faith. Why are you trying to be destructive? How does it offend your sensibilities to state that Croatia lost independence and became part of Coloman's Hungary as of that year? You don't accept any other explanation other than "conquest", and it's your way or the highway? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)