Talk:Janko Drašković

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janko Drašković. 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/20090214101504/http://mdc.hr/trakoscan/eng/2-2povijest.html to http://www.mdc.hr/trakoscan/eng/2-2povijest.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) 07:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal union
The article contains a PoV statement: "Like Croatia, Hungary was one of the Habsburg realms, but the two lands were in a personal union since 1102." The note explains that this is a PoV statement by referring to a reliable source (Bideleux & Jeffreys) but does not explain why the editor chose one of the two possible alternatives "personal union" or "union of crowns". The choice is especially surprising because the cited source mentions the "union of crowns" as the first alternative: "Croat historians have tended to portray this link as a limited 'union of crowns' or 'personal union' between the separate kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia". Furthermore, the same source does not explicitly accept any of the two terms, and refers to "Hungarian domination of Croatia" (which is, according to my opinion, as much a simplicistic description as the term "personal union"). The note also contains the following statement: "Modern Hungarian sources also refer to the relationship as a 'personal union'". This contains original research because it refers to a single source using this term, and the source was written by an economist who is specialised in regional politics and urbanisation, not in the history of Croatia or Hungary. Finally, the linked article "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" is not helpful for our readers because it covers the period between 1102 and 1526 whereas Draskovic was born in 1770. I think the sentence should be rewritten based on specialised literature summarising the relationship between the two countries in the late 18th century without using ambigious and non-neutral terms. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits seem disruptive because they have inserted "failed verification" inline tag next to the Bideleux & Jeffries cite explicitly saying the thing "Croat historians have tended to portray this link as a limited "union of crowns" or "personal union between the separate kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia (like the ones between Poland and Lithuania from 1386 to 1569 or between England and Scotland from 1604 to 1707), whereas many Magyar nationalist historians have preferred to see it as a Greater Hungary and establishing permanent rights of Magyar overlordship in Croatia."


 * Your recent edits adding "better source needed" next to the Rácz cite seem odd. The cite is meant to support the claim that modern Hungarian sources also refer to the relationship as a "personal union" and the source explicitly says "The maintenance of the historically rooted relations - eight centuries of personal union, a rare example of a millennium of peaceful coexistence in Central Eastern Europe is more or less visible." Are you disputing that Rácz is a Hungarian source or that he is using the term "personal union"? I assume him being associated with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences means he is reasonably well informed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * For avoidance of doubt, I have added two more sources, so there are English, Polish and Hungarian sources using "personal union" and Bideleux & Jeffries explicitly saying Croatian sources also use the term and that "Magyar nationalist historians" avoid the term at all costs. Hope this helps.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As usual, you have not addressed my concerns listed above. Borsoka (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you take the issues concerning the Croatia in personal union with Hungary article to that article's talk page? That article is missing a lot of relevant information - as you noted literally everything from the 16th century onwards. That article seems like a great place to explain everything in detail per summary style, giving due weight to every interpretation and view of the term (and the relationship).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have already added to the article information noting there are some sources (described explicitly by the source offered as Hungarian nationalist sources) that say there was no "personal union". Likewise, I have added information who's using the term "personal union" - all backed by sources. Since it is everyone except "Hungarian nationalist historians" who use the term you object to, it would appear the nationalists hold a fringe view, i.e. are themselves POV-pushing since others seem to be okay with the term. It appears that the you would like to discuss the material belonging to the Croatia in personal union with Hungary in this article for fear readers seeking information on Janko Drašković would not understand (presumably) the topic of the article. Granted, the article simplifies the relationship between Croatia and Hungary because average readers (presumably) are here to get information on Janko Drašković and may click a wikilink to relevant linked articles for more details. Similarly, a greatly simplified biography of Ljudevit Gaj is sufficient in this article even though Drašković and Gaj were associates and even though the article on Ljudevit Gaj needs improvements. Otherwise, it is (equally unreasonably) possible to seek explanation of relation of Hungary and Austria for fear readers might miss the fact that Hungary was not an independent polity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the sole source explaining the terms about the relationship between the two countries although it was provided by you, Bideleux & Jeffries. It uses four terms to describe the relationship: "union of crowns", "personal union" (Croatian PoVs), "annexation" (nationalist Hungarian PoV), and "Hungarian domination" (the author's PoV). From the sources, I cited above (Magaš) I can add a fifth term "union". I have never wanted to discuss this issue in this article. I propose that the facts about the relationship between the two countries in the period should be presented neutrally. The unclear terminology could be mentioned in a footnote. Borsoka (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"Personal union" is attributed to Croatian sources as documetned by the sources offered in the article, but it is also used by British, Polish, and Hungarian sources as demonstrated by the same sources offered in the article. This demonstrably makes the term non-POV unless the British, Polish and (at least a part of) Hungarian authors conspired to push Croatian POV. There already is a referenced footnote explaining varied terminology, and there is an article (Croatia in personal union with Hungary) where the relationship could and should be presented - the prevailing view and fringe views giving each due weight - and wikilinked from this and other articles. I am aware of your position is against mentioning of the "personal union" and since that is completely in line with what reliable sources explicity identify as Hungarian nationalist POV, it appears that your postion (demanding not mentioning "personal union") is non-neutral.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think Bideleux & Jeffreys are Hungarian PoV pushers when they first mention the term "union of crowns" when summarizing Croatian PoVs? Do you really think Branka Magaš is a Hungarian PoV pusher when she writes of "union"? Please also take into account that the article you are pushing (Croatia in personal union with Hungary) is not helpful because it covers the period between 1102 and 1526. Could you quote the text from reliable sources that "explicitly identify" my proposal "as Hungarian nationalist POV"? Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bideleux & Jeffreys are reporting how sources label the relationship. There's nothing POV about it.
 * Branka Magaš indeed writes of "union" without specifying either she means short for "personal union" or "personal union was abolished" or "another type of union". It is not up to you to interpret what she means by it. I assume she wanted to avoid going into the issue, but cannot claim that off the top of my head. I assume if she meant to say "there was no personal union" she would have said it.
 * I'm not pushing any article. The article title says Croatia in personal union with Hungary and per Wikipedia policy WP:TITLE the title reflects the topic of the title. This policy is not elective. I agree that Hungarian nationalist POV against mentioning "personal union" means that Hungarian nationalist might perceive this title and article topic as unpalatable.
 * I can quote the text you requested. It is found in Bideleux & Jeffreys: "Croat historians have tended to portray this link as a limited 'union of crowns' or 'personal union' between the separate kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia ...., whereas many Magyar nationalist historians have preferred to see it as a form of annexation .... Either way, however, Hungarian domination of Croatia was to continue on and off for another eight centuries." You should know this because you have quoted this passage yourself (and this here is your quote copypasted) from this edit .--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) So both Bideleux & Jeffreys and Magaš confirm that there are several terms that can be used. (2) For the time being, the article "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" provides no information for the period when Draskovic lived. (3) Could you quote text from me suggesting that I want to write in the article that Croatia was annexed? I have never proposed such wording. Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

1. While Bideleux & Jeffreys and Magaš point to serveral names that could be used, the "personal union" seems to be WP:COMMONNAME and the Croatia in personal union with Hungary should use it in compliancewith non-elective Wikipedia policy. I have provided ample sources supporting that conclusion. 2. Croatia in personal union with Hungary could and should be improved, on-topic information added and off-topic information split. It's not the first nor the last Wikipedia article requiring work. Yes, it appears to be missing information past 16th centrury. 3. The quoted passage says "a form of annexation".--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a bold edit:. The term "personal union" is mentioned in a footnote as one of the two main terms describing the relationship. That only two Croatian terms are mentioned is a little bit arbitrary, but we do not need to fully discuss terminology in this article. Otherwise, the article provides our readers with a detailed but short "Background" section, enabling them to understand Draskovic's family background and the main features of Croatian-Hungarian relationship in the period. Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)