Talk:History of Croatia

Middle Ages and the Habsburg era
Hi! I'd like to merge "Medieval Croatian states (until 925)" and "Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)" sections which are very short into new "Middle Ages" section. Furthermore, I'd like to split the "Personal union with Hungary (1102–1918)" in two, with the cutoff point at the point of the Battle of Mohacs. The period preceding the battle would then be merged with the newly created "Middle Ages" section as there is little information there for the period. The remainder would be titled "Habsburg era" and it would cover the period between the Battle of Mohacs and the end of the World War I.

I consider this as giving due weight to the Habsburg empire/Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary which substantially defined present-day Croatian culture and society. I would reference the sections in the process, of course. Is there any reason not to proceed with the outlined changes?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism
When I read a page like this I realise how much Wikipedia has become ground to promote Nationalism. Moderate contributors cannot spend their nights fighting on each word. Indeed, extremists can. The consequence is that today this page has become a propagandist tool to demonstrate that Croatia has been Croat since the end of the Roman Empire. I don't know if add a banner of neutrality on the article or very simplistically end contributing to this ugly mess that has become Wikipedia. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing how you give no examples, cite no sources, throw around vague words, and have a sketchy history of only about a dozen edits, forgive me for not holding much stock in the alluding above. Use facts to back up your declarations. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have much more than a dozen edits on it:wiki (feel free to give a look, I have around 300 edits). However, I see your point. I will propose within the next days some factual and sourced modifications. Unfortunately I doubt that those (sourced) modifications will please the ones that have made of Wikipedia the tool of their propaganda. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at your edit history before you came here and you had 14 edits; if you have over 300 somewhere else, I did not see them. Do not be discouraged in presenting sources or concerns on discussion pages; that is what it is for. If you can present some evidence on your concerns, users can look over them and discuss any issues. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Jesuislafete. I have just posted some comments on the article "Croatia" because many source/affirmations are false (I report the sources by the way) with the clear intent to make propaganda. Indeed the all article is written with a propagandistic  approach (help yourself, read it to get convinced) and when you go trough the origins of the contributors there is no surprise, most of them are Croats. I wait to see the reaction to my comment but I have no doubt, nothing will happen (worse, they could block my account). On top of that they have protected the page so only them can make changes. This is perhaps the weak (unavoidable) weak point of Wikipedia. It's based on free, participative contribution. If 10-15 people decide to build from scrap the history of their country and consacrate 100% of their time to this, they can get to the target. This is sad. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What a hypocrisy! This guy Silvio is pushing fascistic and irredentistic Italian bias in the articles. Is there any serious wikipedian who can check it? 78.0.152.65 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This unlogged user has already verbally assaulted me several times. I cannot be qualified of being fascist and irrendentist just because I have some doubts about the neutrality of some articles that have been written 100% from users of a certain country. Untill now I have supported all my changes with sources. We can discuss about the sources, their pertinency and appopriatess. We can discuss about everything. Said that, my doubt is confirmed by the edit war that some users (not the most of the users) have started since I have modified the articles in questions. I am open to every discussion, I am not open to be qualified of being fascist and irredentist. Simplistically because I am not. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Language
I have rounded the tones. Writing that "civilians supported Ustaše because motivated by Partisans' atrocitiesé is somehow awkward. Crimes of Ustaše and their sympathisers started well before resistence started and qualifying the reaction of the Partisans of "atrocities" is somehow awful when we go trough the crimes committed by the Ustaše. They did quite a job to the Serbs/Jews/Gypsies in such small amount of time. No surprise the Partisans reacted. From there to qualifying the acts of Ustaše of "crimes" and those of the Partisans of "atrocities" there is a distance. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "They did quite a job to the Serbs/Jews/Gypsies/anti-fascist Croats/ in such small amount of time. It is important to be neutral, regardless of opinions. This is not a place to grind axes. We are not here to morally rebalance and excuse crimes. Also please provide sources for claiming that motivation to join the Ustase was not at all related to Partisans atrocities. As far as I know, atrocities did boost enrollment. Statement does not say it was the sole reason. Ustasa crimes were more violent and initiated the Partisan resistance, though Axis invasion in general did as well. Partisans, as well as Chetniks (Towards Ustase and Partisans) did however, also engage in brutal acts, that would push more Croats towards sympathizing with the Ustase and push more Serbs towards Chetniks. This being since Ustase were not strongly active in all parts of Croatian territory, so many were not aware of Ustase crimes, only what was happening to them. Nothing is Black & White. Thank you. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful
In the "Kosor government (2009)" section, the claim is made that "the Constitutional Court ultimately declared the referendum issue moot." "Moot" means "debatable." Is "moot" the right adjective here? Do we want to say that the referendum issue was declared debatable?Lestrade (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
 * The text is correct, see mootness. GregorB (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this context, it means "without legal relevance" - see mootness for definition and effect on judiciary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Venetian ruling
Only 3 lines in the whole article are for the Venetian ruling over Dalmatia? Is is serious? The thing is that if I try to expand and create a section after I will have to fight a fierce opposition from Croatian users. Sad, very sad. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Silvio, how many times have you been told to assume good faith, esp. in this topic area? Why would you insist on muddying the water before you've even started editing? Heck, I see you've made an edit here in 2011. What possible purpose does this line of discussion serve, then? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Joy, why do you of good faith? I do not accuse anyone. I thinl it's not serious to give such a marginal space to Venice in this article. What do you think? Silvio1973 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So why not simply fix it (as opposed to ranting about unnamed enemies beforehand)? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Joy, you are right. This is the right attitude. I will and with pleasure. And of course with adequate sourcing. I just hope this won't generate too much of disagreement. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as you bring sources to the table, the "fierce opposition" will have no ground to stand on. Observing your comments among the different Croatian pages, I hope you have noting but best (neutral) intentions. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

New section titles
Can you discuss as to why you think these section titles are an improvement? I believe that "World War II" is a better title, as the country was not under complete control of Pavelić's government during a large part of that time. Also, "Early Medieval Croatia", "Independent Croatia", etc. are redundant per MOS:SECTIONHEADING. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?sec=404
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916030858/http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449 to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121090429/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR64/002/2005/en/46184632-d4c3-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/eur640022005en.html to http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR64/002/2005/en/46184632-d4c3-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/eur640022005en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005195007/http://www.isp.hr/index.php?lang=en to http://www.isp.hr/index.php?lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203102549/http://hismus.hr/english/main.htm to http://www.hismus.hr/english/main.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212010304/http://croatia.aventin.hr/croatia/history.htm to http://croatia.aventin.hr/croatia/history.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/tegetthoff66/vukovar/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia
Turkish Croatia is a separate article. Maybe it would be better to Change Ottoman Croatia to Turkish Croatia. Jingiby (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Turkish Croatia is part of Bosnia, has nothing to do with Croatia which was together with the Habsburg Monarch who defended himself from the Ottomans.93.138.140.121 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting.Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes this is geopolitical term like as someone calls it "balkan" today.93.138.140.121 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Title
Cemsentin1,

please stop altering the title and discuss here and gain consensus first. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

Do istrage naše ili vaše
Google translate cannot give you the accurate translation of this title, because in contemporary language word istraga means investigation. In language of period in which this was written, word istraga meant destruction or extermination. Here is a link to a dictionary, check istraga II (hist.). Franjo Tahy (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue with animated map of Croatian borders
I would like to discuss this, which I find misleading. Its segments showing borders from 925 and 1230 are not in line with what modern historians say. In case of 925 borders, we have Croatian counties mentioned in De Administrando Imperio v (written approximately in same period) and these counties give us the impression of where Croatian borders were in that period of history. This kind of map is also displayed in Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments. No serious historian will nowadays tell you that Croatian borders from that time reached Drava river.

Same goes for 1230 map, which doesn't even distinct medieval Croatia from medieval Slavonia. Croatia from that time was south of Petrova Gora. Slavonia at a time was its own entity with its own parliament.

As for the 9th century map, the place back then wasn't called Croatia, it was called Dalmatia and Pannonia, after the old Roman provinces.

I believe these things should be fixed, before using the map in the article. I would also appreciate to hear the opinion of other editors. Franjo Tahy (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)