Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)/Archive 2

Personal union & the Pacta conventa controversy
There are two issues that I think need to be dealt with for good. -- Director  ( talk )  12:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Croatian historians argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king, while Hungarian historians insist that Croatia was conquered."
 * Yes but what does the majority say? What do the non-Croatian and non-Hungarian international scholars have to say on the issue?
 * Similarly, what of the Pacta conventa? Is it, or is it not, a "forgery"? What do the majority of (non-local) historians have to say?


 * The need to vet local sources with non-local historians is silly. Having been exposed to several North American universities, I can tell you with certainty than nobody gives a f***. Foreign historians simply have not studied these issues independently. They rely on local historians either directly or indirectly (they essentially piggy-back on whatever local research has already been done - no one is conducting primary research into these issues). The only means to resolve such disputes is to rectify the local accounts imho.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noone? Really? -- Director  ( talk )  19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but not a huge one. My main qualm is with the idea that domestic sources are inferior. How many foreign historians could we find that have an exhaustive knowledge of the history of Croatia? Very few. There's a reason we consistently rely on people like Tomasevich, Ramet and Tanner (one of them being a Croat no less). There simply aren't too many experts on the subject at any foreign university. The Hungarian situation is likely a bit better, but I doubt by much. In the preceding discussion (Pacta Conventa - forgery) there's a few citations from various books, but they each entail only a few sentences. None of them make a particularly compelling case - in fact, none of these citations give any rationale for why it is or isn't a fake ("it is because I/they say so").


 * It is infinitely better to incorporate more exhaustive domestic sources (prijatelju, it's the year 2012 - forget this lame "nationalism" argument) than foreign sources which give the topic only a cursory mention. If no concensus can be gathered from the domestic sources, then that's what should be presented. Anything else is original research.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense, Wanderer. Both of them can't possibly be right, which means one of these groups of local sources is definitely "inferior". And the nationality of these historians is what defines them as a group ("Hungarian historians"). This means that either all Croatian local sources or all Hungarian local sources are pursuing the exact same respective POV due to their nationality. Think on that for a moment: an entire nation's worth of historians, publishing information that's dead wrong - because they're local. This case is in excellent example of why local sources can sometimes be inferior. Or are you suggesting that, in either Croatia or Hungary, all scholars are making the same honest mistake? -- Director  ( talk )  23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Things aren't so simple - historical "truth" isn't always so objective that there can't exist uncertainty (especially during this particular period of European historian). I haven't looked at the sources, so I can't say that every Croatian historian is saying one thing, and every Hungarian is saying another. I'm positive that you haven't looked at very many of them either, but are making simplified assumptions. Regardless, the idea that entire nations are operating in bad faith is preposterous. If there is a lack of consensus, that's what should be presented and why. If the issue hasn't been resolved by historians (and it certainly hasn't, whether domestic or foreign) then Wikipedia users should not have the arrogance to think they can do it themselves.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, the fact that two groups of local authors, defined by their nationality, hold differing views virtually without exception, must be caused by some deep epistemological reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they coincidentally all belong to the same respective nation... Come now Wanderer. -- Director  ( talk )  00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

territorial extent of Tomislav's realm
In an effort to preempt another revert war with DIREKTOR... I wrote much of the "blanked content" over at the relevant article. Anonymous user copied and pasted it over here, and did it in the wrong section - in the Decline and fall section, meaning the 1000s, whereas the discussion of Tomislav means 925, and is mentioned in the "Establishment" section. The anonymous user was even sloppy enough to forget amending the sentence "Tomislav's state extended from the Adriatic Sea to the Drava river, and from the Raša river to the Drina river". That essentially made this article a hodgepodge. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And, the whole discussion is not particularly pertinent here, because the extent of the kingdom changed significantly at least once inbetween - with Petar Krešimir IV, it was supposedly even larger. This article should present a complete picture about the matter of changing territorial borders, rather than a series of incongruous paragraphs slapped together via Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a very interesting piece of text, great work. Could you put together a slightly shorter version for this article? It's definitely relevant, as it concerns the original extent of the Kingdom, and any text that properly treats Croatian history of this period is worth it's weight in gold, so to speak (as opposed to another national myth out of touch with reality). It should be included in a significant way.


 * As regards the section title - that text specifically deals with the historical unification controversy as such, describing various views. I'm afraid I can't agree to your new title, as it is inappropriate with regard to the subject. -- Director  ( talk )  12:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's actually not that comprehensive, because the gist of it would be assessment by a lot of authors found on Google Books, who aren't necessarily the end-all authorities on the topic, so I'm wary of summarizing this set of opinions over here, which might make it seem like that's a comprehensive summary. Giving a lot of weight to the discussion of the 1993 map seems undue - with the benefit of hindsight. I'd be much happier to be able to cite a set of secondary sources that discusses the exact matter in modern context. For example, an actual discussion of Raukar's latest work, rather than this vague sentence about it that we have there now.
 * The new section title is okay, my aim was merely to prevent a repeat of the anonymous editor's mistake - at the time the section was called just "Controversies", which is too generic for its own good. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 18:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) → Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102), it would be more accurate title, because the text contains the history of Croatia until 1102 (the union with Hungary), however the medieval period lasted longer (c. 1526). --Norden1990 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A very good idea indeed! Fakirbakir (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support José Luiz talk 21:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support  Er-vet-en  ( say ) 11:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Is "Kingdom of the Croats" more common? Are the two dates (925 and 1102) widely accepted? -- Ե րևանցի talk  02:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "Kingdom of Croatia" is more common (here). José Luiz talk 09:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several Kingdoms of Croatia: Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. What I meant is if "Kingdom of the Croats" was the best or most common name of this particular kingdom, which according to the article lasted from 925 to 1102. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just read the above
Agh, damn it! I can't be everywhere at once.. Fellas, Yerevantsi was correct: nobody knows when this kingdom was founded. Some say its "925", but the only reason that date is used is because there's a letter of dubious authenticity(!), allegedly(!) from that year, referring to Tomislav as "king" (rex). That is all. Nobody really knows when he was crowned, where, by whom, or even if he was crowned at all. The kingdom did eventually come into existence, but its not really known when exactly, or who was the first "king". The first ruler we definitely know was cronwned was Stephen Drzislav, but I suppose this was kinda suppressed in the historical mythos of the 19th century nationalists - since he was crowned by the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor. Nobody agrees on whether the country ceased to exist in 1102 either, or entered a personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary. These dates are misleading and dubious. The idea behind "(Medieval)" was that this article was to cover the whole of the period up until 1527, but now even the separate Croatia in union with Hungary article was recreated..

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) → Kingdom of Croatia – Proposing we simply move this article to "Kingdom of Croatia" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and keep Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) under disambig with a note atop the article - while explaining the dubious continuity after 1102. We can then include the Hungarian period into its scope (with Croatia in union with Hungary either deleted or kept as a sub-article). The current title, as I said, contains dubious dating: nobody really knows when the Kingdom started, or whether it ended in 1102.

Alternatively, we could rename it into Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, which was its latest known official name. Either options are fine with me (pls state which option you support/oppose). -- Director  ( talk )  00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I support it. In fact this WAS the official name of the kingdom at that time as there are quite a few documents referring to Croatia-Dalmatia as a single unit. However I would disagree on linking directly from this page to Kingdom of Hungary as a successive state after 1102 for the reasons I mentioned in the edit summary. Croatia maintained a separate identity and a form of autonomy from Hungary which is confirmed by several factors: most important being that Croatia separately made a choice of choosing Habsburgs as kings in 1526/1527, choosing separate kings (Angevins) in the succession crisis after the last Árpád dynasty kings, different coronation ceremonies until at least 14th century and last but not least the fact Croatia had native magnates like Subic and Babonic (Blagai/Blagaj) families who were also at the same time some of the most powerful magnates in the entire Archiregnum Hungariae. Both the Croatian and Hungarian historiography recognizes the fact Croatia maintained it's separate identity and autonomy and was not just a provincial part of Kingdom of Hungary. As for making definitive statements about the letter mentioning Tomislav as king, I have read and heard this quite a few times - how this letter is questioned and supposedly dubious. Questioned by whom? Dubious why? As far as I know the letter is today kept in the official Vatican archives and bears a Papal insignia. Vatican considers it a valid historical document, so why shouldn't we? Now I agree we don't know when he was crowned, but the fact remains, Pope John X by all accounts does refer to him as Rex (eng: King) in a letter to him. Shokatz (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal union. Let's not get into WP:OR here. Take your pick from the Croatian, Hungarian, third-party sources that state plainly that there is a dispute about the existence of a personal union . I have not seen one source deny this and claim consensus on the issue exists. But either way, the post-1102 state overall is called the Kingdom of Hungary in 99.9% of existing sources. The Kingdom of Hungary was the post-1102 sovereign authority that succeeded here, and sovereign entities are listed as successors to sovereign entities, not subdivisions. Its time to acknowledge the fact that, to all intents and purposes, and no matter which side is right - Croatia did effectively become a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Did you know, for example, that the Coat of arms of Dubrovnik comes from the Arpad coa?
 * Tomislav. Again, we don't need OR stuff. The Tomislavgrad coronation nonsense is a fairy tale, and I'm not about to question university-published scholarly sources on this. If he says its a spurious letter - then that's what he says (the link is in the article). And it fits very nicely with the "we know absolutely nothing" theme that surrounds Tomislav and the early Croatian state in general. -- Director  ( talk )  08:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing WP:OR in what I pointed out. This what it stands in the Kingdom of Hungary article about the relationship: The provinces of Croatia and Slavonia, and after 1868 the autonomous province of Croatia-Slavonia had autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary from 1091–1918.   Also, one of the greatest Hungarian jurists and statesmen of the 16th century, István Werbőczy in his work Tripartitum treats Croatia as a kingdom separate to Hungary. It is accepted by both Croatian and Hungarian historiography that it is a fact Croatia was a separate entity in all legal matters from the rest of the kingdom. There is no dispute about this. As for Tomislav, I again repeat that the mentioned letter is undisputed despite it's allegedly "dubious" and "questioned" nature. I am not talking when and where was he crowned...I am talking about the letter which clearly says he WAS a king, at least the Pope refers to him as such. And BTW I actually do know where the Dubrovnik CoA originates from. I was the one who actually provided this information to Wikipedia on both the Coat of arms of Croatia and Coat of arms of Dubrovnik....remember? Stop being so condescending for once...
 * But let's say I agree (as do the Croatian and Hungarian historiographers) Croatia did become a part of a larger entity which we call Kingdom of Hungary...at least leave the link pointing out to Croatia in the union with Hungary. The set of these links is there to establish a line of succession. Shokatz (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * #1 We're supposed to incorporate the period here, and #2 that article is supposed to be a period article, not a historical entity article. Regarding Tomislav, I say again: the source states the authenticity of the letter is disputed - I'm not going to question the source. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not on analyzing primary ones. That's a job for historians. But if we are going there, a single solitary address in a letter, even if authentic, is a very weak source to claim the existence of an entire kingdom at that time. People flattered each-other in letters. As for the date: We're basing the start date of this state on the date a letter, which may not even be authentic, addressed the guy as "king". For all we know, even if the letter is fine - he may have been king for years at that point. -- Director  ( talk )  09:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See this is where I can also write that the sources provided do not agree with that statement of yours. I have just quoted you the entire paragraph from Kingdom of Hungary which: a.) states it was a separate entity and b.) that it was a political entity with different legal system. I agree that 925 is a dubious date but the fact that Pope John X does mention him as a King is accepted as a fact....as you can see these are two different things. The same can be said about Pacta Conventa f.e. where the preserved document itself is dubious but the actual state of the matter is accepted as a fact by both Croatian and Hungarian historiography. Shokatz (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that states its accepted? But even if you do, there's still no reason to exclude the opposing view... -- Director  ( talk )  11:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact modern Croatian historiography commonly accepts him as the first king which extends to other historiographies shows it is in fact accepted. The only one who disputed it was in fact Fine who is provided as a source here at Wikipedia. Fine disputes the authenticity of the letter solely on the fact that it's not the original but the fact that it is a transcription. However Fine fails to disapprove the authenticity and to even give a valid explanation how and why would the Vatican and Papacy falsify such a thing and even include it into their official archives. BTW the letter is included in the Patrologia Latina volume 132, among huge number of other historical correspondence and official documents. Now again I repeat, it is not the question whether he was mentioned as a king, what IS disputed is: when did this supposed coronation happen, what were the circumstances and if indeed it even happened; and whether Pope John X referred to him as king only out of courtesy or as a shrewd diplomatic move in some grand scheme of his...however we do NOT know, we only know John X did refer to him as such. Shokatz (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't give a fig about the Vatican or "modern Croatian historiography", its their fabrications I'm struggling to work around. Even if you had some source that supports your claims about their position, which you do not - all I see is WP:SYNTH. Do you or do you not have some sources that affirm a consensus of some sort on the question? Or that defend the authenticity of the letter? Or discuss the subject of its accuracy at all?
 * And incidentally, the fact that we have no idea what the original of the letter stated invalidates it in many respects. -- Director  ( talk )  12:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a fig about you not giving a fig, ok? You are the one claiming something, not me, thus the burden of proof is on you. Modern historiography accepts it as a fact. This means it is a consensus among historians. Now it is not my problem but your problem and your problem alone that you cannot distinguish between whether something said is dubious and the document itself on which it was stated being dubious. These are two different things. You need to start reading with understanding. Shokatz (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I couldn't give a half a fig about you not giving a fig about me not giving a fig. get it? :)
 * No, look - my position is sourced: the letter is a transcript of dubious authenticity. Can you provide any other sources that discuss the letter's authenticity? -- Director  ( talk )  14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol...ok let me sum this up: 1. You stated the year of 925 is dubious - I agreed with you (even added a footnote which is now again removed), 2. you stated we don't know when, where, why and even if he was crowned - I agreed with you. Now since it's obvious we agree almost completely, except on the label of John X referring to him as Tamislao, rege Chroatorum as dubious (which is dubious by itself but also more importantly completely irrelevant and minor issue here), I am not completely sure what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this ridiculous exchange. I tried to explain it to you, but you seem to be steadfast in your stubbornness to argue just to argue. If you wish to discuss real issues I am here. Shokatz (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is you can't post syntheses. If a very reliable, high-quality, third-party, university source says the thing is a transcript and of disputed authenticity - then to counter that you need a source that at least discusses the latter's authenticity (and preferably comes to the opposing conclusion). That's my point... you can't vaguely quote "Croatian scholarship" and say it supports you - you need a source that says so. And even if you had one - it could be argued its better to keep to non-Croatian sources (WP:THIRDPARTY). -- Director  ( talk )  15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The KoCroatia seems to have been an effective Byzantine dependency (an emperor is a sovereign to a king) until 1076. -- Director  ( talk )  11:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to who? Is this widely accepted? As I recall, that view certainly isn't widely present in both domestic and foreign literature, and seems to stem from your own interpretations, motivation or (at best) very selective reliance on subjective research. Prove me wrong, please do cite all the contemporary bibliography in significant quantity that consistently state that Croatia was a "effectively dependent until 1076", from all the most relevant sources used. Could you define dependency and "vassalage"? Until that time, that statement is void. Revert.
 * Fair enough. -- Director  ( talk )  12:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, i don't think this is enough by a long shot. You cited a (outdated) source from 1848, written by a person who is neither an expert on Balkan history, nor a relevant historian for the subject at hand; John Gardner Wilkinson What we're looking for here are contemporary historians, whose work is proficient and expertised at the subject at matter (Florin Curta, Šišić, Klaić, Neven Budak, Fine, Raukar, Margetić etc.), while you cited a book published in 1848 that deals with the accounts of the person's travel. I also don't see how something like this is necessary to put in the infobox, the county's status can vary drastically from one point to another, such can be inferred from the text itself. since I already explained above, no need to reiterate further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Er-vet-en (talk • contribs)

Yes, in official documents it was entitled as "Croatiae et Dalmatiae", but that was just the way the kings added titles for their realm. For example Bela IV had: "Bela Dei gratia Hungarie, Croachie, Dalmatie, Rame, Seruie, Galitie, Lodomerie Cumanieque rex", Tvrtko had (in latin) "Stephanus Tuertcho dei gratia rex Rascie, Bosne Maritimeque etc."... We can't really call an article that way. (Tzowu (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC))
 * Agreed. Besides, the title "King of Croatia and Dalmatia" wasn't present throughout the whole lifespan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Er-vet-en (talk • contribs)
 * The title need not be accurate for the whole lifespan, and the name of this entity changed continuously. In actual fact, the last name of the historical entity is often the one selected.
 * While a king may add kingdom titles to his name, a kingdom itself is not referred to by all his titles.


 * All that said, I'm fine with just "Kingdom of Croatia" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. How do you folks view that possibility? Either way these dates are spurious. There is no evidence whatsoever that the state started in 925: for all we know it could have been years earlier or decades later. And the 1102 date is disputed as the end date as well. Plus, it would allow for a more flexible scope. -- Director  ( talk )  14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved back to Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)
I don't have any opinion one way or another, but as Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) was the name chosen through a requested move, it shouldn't be moved unless another discussion finds a different consensus. It appears we don't have any consensus here, so I've restored the article. If you think another name is better, feel free to start up a new RM.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I think you're unnecessarily introducing a layer of WP:BURO here. An organic, informal consensus about different scope of this article (among editors with quite different POVs) has been starting to emerge, and I don't see why you don't let it end up one way or another. User:DIREKTOR made a WP:BOLD move, and he hasn't been reverted by at least three users watching this page (Shokatz, Er-vet-en and Tzowu, who all edited the article and talk page in the meantime). I don't see the basis for your statement that "we don't have any consensus here" -- there is a lot of debate about a lot of issues, but the article scope doesn't seem to be one. There is no rule set in stone that "something moved by a RM may only be moved further by a RM", and "you don't have consensus for this" should not be used as reason for a revert. No such user (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'm certainly not going to be the one to do anything that could be construed as a move war.. :) -- Director  ( talk )  15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Letting it end up one way or another" is fine, however, in this case, DIREKTOR moved the article before anyone else had a chance to weigh in, and certainly before consensus had emerged. Certainly not a big deal, but I definitely don't see that a consensus has emerged (yet) from the above discussion - in fact editors are still vigorously discussing two alternate titles. When a substantial change has been instituted following a consensus of editors, especially this recently, their views should be respected enough that it's not just undone without a new consensus emerging. This doesn't have to be through a new RM, necessarily, but it would definitely be useful in getting a wider audience, and allow the discussion to be closed by a neutral party.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit the things are rolling up too fast for me (and many others) to follow. Ahh, just standard Direktor's MO: "Look, we had whole 6 hours of debate, reached a consensus, moved 6 articles around, merged three, removed 40 kB of text and added 70 kB elsewhere? You disagree? Too bad..." OK, what's done is done, if we ultimately find a consensus, we can move it ourselves. No such user (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nsu, one only needs an RM if a move is "controversial". I wanted to see if its controversial. When I moved the thing I said "good-faith move, feel free to revert". What's the damn problem? -- Director  ( talk )  02:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not say there was a problem with your move, on the contrary, I objected to Cuchullain's move back. I'm just saying that the amount of editing and number of debated topics here and on Talk:Croatia in the union with Hungary is a bit too much for my feeble mind to consume. My reference to your MO was only half-serious (in particular, recalling how Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia... OMG, I typed it right in first attempt!... got its currrent title) No such user (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

'Kingdom of Croatia' or 'Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia'?
I want to post an RM, and I'm pretty much ambivalent about this, but which is most preferred the alternative title? -- Director  ( talk )  23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Successor
Look Shokatz, I know what you do around here and how you do it. Be aware that only a user with no understanding of policy or what it means would randomly quote WP:V as you did. It raises some strange questions. I have already explained that the sources clearly indicate an uncertainly over the existence of a "personal union" established in 1102. And that I have not seen a single solitary source that in any way indicates a consensus on the matter exists. In either case, we do not list subdivisions as successors in the relevant infobox parameters. Much less uncertain, semi-ethereal subdivisions. The entity post-1102 is universally known as the Kingdom of Hungary. Sources can and have been found by the wagon-load for all of this

I have fixed the ridiculous lead of this article and brought it in accordance with its own section on the subject. I've brought in additional sources explaining the disputed nature of the personal union, and can easily provide more. I will say again that post-1102 - the country here is known as the Kingdom of Hungary. -- Director  ( talk )  07:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what WP:V means. Unless you are able to provide "wagon-load" of sources which clearly and undoubtedly prove that Croatia completely ceased to exist i.e. was outright annexed and treated as a mere province of Kingdom of Hungary proper, then you would have a case. Unfortunately, there are none. The sources you call upon clearly state that it is the nature of the union that is the case of the dispute not that the union itself. Whatever that union might have been. Shokatz (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what WP:V is about, and are just randomly quoting it. All sources in the article are verifiable and reliable.
 * Nobody is claiming Croatia "ceased to exist i.e. was outright annexed and treated as a mere province of Kingdom of Hungary proper". That's a straw man argument. So of course there are none.
 * "Union" does not mean "personal union", you misunderstand the source. A personal union is a very specific kind of union where its only the person of the king that is the same for two countries. Noone disputes there was some kind of "union".


 * Either way, as I said, the sovereign entity that comes out of the events of 1102 is known as the Kingdom of Hungary . You agreed to this. Stop revert-warring. -- Director  ( talk )  08:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no intention going into a discussion about semantics. WP:V is clearly stating: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The sources you provided and all sources available on the subject clearly state Croatia was NOT incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary but became it's associate state or territory. Now unless you have, as you said, a "wagon-load" of sources which can prove your claim directly, you should refrain from editing. Shokatz (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugghhh this is just embarrassing.. Stop quoting WP:V. All sources quoted here are verifiable per policy. You need to educate yourself with regard to WP policy if you're going to discuss or edit here. You also should read up on what exactly constitutes a straw man argument.


 * According to one view of the events, Croatia was indeed "incorporated" into Hungary. This is stated clearly by about six sources quoted here, whether you pretend otherwise or not. Nobody claims it was declared a "province". Either way - the sovereign entity that comes out of the events of 1102 is known as the Kingdom of Hungary . Acknowledge the sources and stop edit-warring . -- Director  ( talk )  09:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First you should stop telling me what to read and your entire condescending act. I know exactly what I am quoting and why. What you are trying to push here is not verifiable by any source, in fact quite the opposite. There is not one or the other view of the events, the issue here is not the nature of how the union came to be or it's nature, but whether it existed or not which is acknowledged fact by all sources present. Shokatz (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No you do not know what you're quoting. The policy you're quoting is entirely immaterial to this argument. You are simply using the word "verifiable" without any understanding of what it indicates either here or in general.


 * It is NOT "acknowledged by all sources" that a PERSONAL union existed. That is an outright lie and fabrication on your part. A childish refusal to accept what is sourced. A "union" is not the same thing as a "personal union". The sources discuss the nature of the "union" and whether or not it was "personal". If you're having trouble with the professional English in the relevant publications, I'd be happy to provide a direct translation. -- Director  ( talk )  09:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining me what I know. I will repeat this once more - we are not discussing the nature of the union (whether personal or not), nor how did such a union came to be (by conquest or willingly), the issue here is that Kingdom of Croatia did not cease to exist i.e. was outright incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary proper. This is acknowledge fact by all sources present. I am still waiting for the wagon-load of sources which prove otherwise. Shokatz (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. For some reason you still quote WP:V, though. Is that what you do? Pick a random policy and obstinately claim an edit "violates" it, then edit war until you "win"? I'm sure that works for you on obscure Balkans articles. No dice this time, though.


 * The Kingdom of Croatia did cease to exist as a sovereign entity. Do you understand that? A king having a title "king of Croatia" does not mean there was a country by that name in existence.
 * The sources are in the article. They clearly state that the existence of a personal union is disputed. What kind of silly sources are you waiting for?? Ones that claim Croatia was deleted off the map or some such nonsense? No it wasn't. There certainly remained a title of "king of Croatia", and the region enjoyed some autonomy. Noone disputes this. But it was not a sovereign entity from that point onward. The successor sovereign entity is the Kingdom of Hungary. -- Director  ( talk )  09:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet the article clearly states Sometimes Croatia acted as an independent agent and at other times as a vassal of Hungary. which clearly shows Kingdom of Croatia did not completely cease to exist as a sovereign entity. To quote your favorite saying it is disputed. And please do not project on me. I had enough of your bullying and your scare-tactics...if you think that you will impose your POV by edit-warring and reverting without any verifiable sources claiming a consensus was reached when it was not...then you are gravely mistaken. Shokatz (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please.. "independent agent" does not indicate it was a separate state, that's more of your OR. Either way the entity as a whole was known as Kingdom of Hungary. I've posted on your talk, lets try to resolve this. As a professional, I can assure you I did not "project" on you in any way. And.. I'm not sure you're using the term appropriately. -- Director  ( talk )  09:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The term independent agent refers to junior partner in the Personal union terminology. Junior partners and even vassals retain certain sovereign rights which means they do not completely cease to exist as such [sovereign entities]. Also the issue is also that Hungary does not refer only to Hungary proper (the early medieval Kingdom) but also to it's associate states such as Croatia and Transylvania, the use of the name has different application in medieval terminology. There is Hungary as Archiregnum (Arch-Kingdom) or Lands of the Hungarian (St.Stephen) Crown, and then there is Hungary as a Hungary proper. In any case I now consider the issue to be resolved...I only wish this was resolved in a more civilized manner. Shokatz (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The term independent agent refers to junior partner in the Personal union terminology." Really, says you? :) Of course it doesn't. That's just a random claim on your part, and you probably know it yourself. The sources clearly state the personal union is a matter of dispute.
 * Croatia did not "cease to exist" it wasn't "annihilated", Još Hrvatska ni propala, blah blah etc... yes we all agree Croatia wasn't "annihilated", that doesn't make it sovereign. And you can probably stop posting such nonsense from now on, please. Its an annoyingly repetitive straw man, and nothing more.


 * The issue is not resolved, since the Kingdom of Croatia did not, in fact, split into two parts, one independent and another controlled by the Kingdom of Hungary. And that's what is indicated by our current infobox.


 * You could, if you wished, stop with these random historical claims of your own devising. Hungary is one thing, Transylvania another, etc. But the entity that united them all in the post-1102 period - including Croatia and Dalmatia - is called the Kingdom of Hungary in historiography.


 * The most blatant issue here is that Croatia in union with Hungary isn't a historical country article, but merely a period article. And can not be presented as a "successor state". I.e. even if there was a personal union, that article would be inappropriate. -- Director  ( talk )  19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So explain to us, oh you great professional, what does the independent agent means exactly? I would really like to hear it. Does it means Croatia went rogue according to you? I mean if it was incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary, how could it act as an independent agent or even just as a mere vassal?!? And you still fail to understand that Archiregnum Hungariae is today translated in English (due to limited nature of English language) as Kingdom of Hungary. The meaning is much wider, it refers to the lands under Arpady dynasty, not Hungary proper. The term was later defined as Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. I have even found at least half a dozen mainstream sources from respected Hungarian historians who all agree personal union was real. All you have is bunch of third party sources which all claim there is some sort of dispute about it, not mentioning who, why and how are they disputing it.


 * Mainstream Hungarian and Croatian historiography both agree Croatia and Hungary had separate coronation ceremonies until at least mid-13th century, different laws and legal framework, Croatian nobility kept their lands, there was a special royally appointed Ban (Viceroy) who was the face and voice of the king in Croatia, there was never any significant settlement (colonization) of Magyars (Hungarians) anywhere in Croatia, Croatia and Hungary had even separate kings at one point (see Charles Martel of Anjou and Charles I of Hungary), Parliament on Cetin who, as you said, ''rubber-stamped their own autonomous decision to support Ferdinand as King of Croatia, etc., etc.... These all prove Croatia and Hungary were separate entities and Kingdom of Hungary article (as it is now) cannot be described as a successor state in its current state, ever.


 * Now I would accept Archiregnum Hungariae as successor state since that would be 100% historically correct, but I cannot accept the current article Kingdom of Hungary as a successor state because it is focused solely on Hungary proper and encompasses periods when Croatia was not even affiliated with Hungary, plus there is nothing in that article which discuss this union or anything about Croatia and the relations between these two entities. Croatia was not part of Hungary, it was part of Hungarian Crown, two different things. Shokatz (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A part of the Kingdom of Croatia was incorporated in the Kingdom of Hungary, specificaly Northern Croatia and Slavonia so the successor part is now good. Of course, not for the reasons mentioned above.(Tzowu (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
 * That's just you posting your "theories" again. How can any respectable source claim that parts of the Kingdom of Croatia were "incorporated into Hungary" when it isn't even known whether these two were somehow separate? Can you source your claim? It seems to be based entirely on a confused reading of the rather complex historical narrative (i.e. Ladislaus taking Pannonian regions much earlier).


 * There was no "partition", and the infobox is highly misleading in that regard. The point, which I keep repeating, is that "Kingdom of Hungary" is the name for this state overall from 1102 onward. Hopefully, though, we can circumvent this problem through the below move proposal. -- Director  ( talk )  05:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Requested move 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus, and seriously, cut it with the personal attacks. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) → Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia – The move is proposed as part of a plan to solve the problematic coverage of the history of these regions from 1102 to 1527. Further steps would include expanding the scope of the article up to 1527, tying it in with the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) article as the successor state - however with a caveat that will explain the disputed nature of the claim of continued sovereignty post 1102 (see infobox example right). And finally, the Croatia in union with Hungary article would be renamed per AS's proposal, though this is more of an issue for that talkpage.

I'll attempt to address some previously-raised concerns. The proposed title is, of course, not accurate for the entire span, but no single title is. In fact, no title can be said to be accurate in this regard, since this state did not have an official name in modern terms (or in any terms). In so far as this kingdom had some kind of "official name", it would be Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae, though admittedly this is only from later in the span. We in fact know very little about the Croatian kingdom, in particular the early periods. -- Director  ( talk )  16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Yes, in official documents it was entitled as "Croatiae et Dalmatiae", but that was just the way the kings added titles for their realm. For example Bela IV had: "Bela Dei gratia Hungarie, Croachie, Dalmatie, Rame, Seruie, Galitie, Lodomerie Cumanieque rex", Tvrtko had (in latin) "Stephanus Tuertcho dei gratia rex Rascie, Bosne Maritimeque etc."... We can't really call an article that way. (Tzowu (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC))" + in Bašćanska ploča Zvonimir is named as KRALЪ HRЪVATЪSKЪÏ (Croatian king), not King of Croatia and Dalmatia. (Tzowu (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
 * I explained this to you before, and above again quite clearly. There are no official names for this polity, or really any polity existing in its time. These were not concepts that existed in that period. By that logic we should have a blank space for a title. We do however have "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" attested as a historical name, and not as part of some list, but separately from other titles as designating a polity (supicic p.206). While it is not to be regarded as an official name, its about as close as we can get.


 * + Peter Krešimir IV the Great was titled "rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae". Whatever one particular king might've been called (and we have no idea what their titles were) - we're trying to name the realm. Further, the titles were clearly linked by 1102, when Coloman crowned himself "King of Croatia and Dalmatia" (qua Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae coronandus aut negotia regni cum illis...). And, as I said, this is the historically attested name. And remember - we also get rid of the brackets and free-up the article's scope. --  Director  ( talk )  19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't. The official names of medieval countries were as I wrote above, a list of lands the kings ruled. The same goes for "Croatia and Dalmatia", that was the full name of the kings lands which they used, but the kings also used just "King of Croatia" in their documents. You really like changing stuff :P.


 * ",remota in orientem quasi passos CCtos, quam nos cum consensu Cresimiri, regis Chroatorum, suorumque nobilium in pristino restituimus loco." 1067


 * "regi Chroatorum Suinimiri, nec non Valizze priors" 1080 (Tzowu (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
 * Yes I did. Obviously I have to repeat myself again: royal titles are one thing, realms another. A list of royal titles is not the name of a realm. Realms had no (official) names. " Regnum Chroatiae et Dalmatiae" is the only known historical name for this realm . The titles its rulers carried are usually unknown, what little is known varies. And it seems you're the one who likes to "change stuff :P", the titles there are not "King of Croatia", but "King of the Croats", which indicates even less with regard to the name of the realm itself (if any). -- Director  ( talk )  20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course they didn't have an official name in modern terms, but what you added is also just a list of titles (Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae). I'm looking through the Codex Diplomaticus and can't seem to find a mention of "Regnum Croatie et Dalmatie", only as a title, but there is this: "Nel nome di Christo. Io Stefano, giä nobile duca di Crouati, oppresso da graue infirmitä ho fatto chiamare i uenerabili sacerdoti del regno di Croatia per ritrouar remedio de miei peccati,..." 1078 (Tzowu (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
 * And what's that supposed to indicate? Not that I don't trust your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, but isn't that a non-contemporary source? Transcribed over and over again? I get my information from secondary sources (Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source). No offense, but those are people who, for one thing, can actually read Latin and understand the difference between "Chroatorum" and "Croatiae". E.g: "the official name of the Croatian kingdom after the peace treaty of 1102 still was the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia" (Knežević 1987); "the title of the Croatian state became 'Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia.'" (Omrčanin 1972). And I said, Supičić is also very clear on this, etc.. Are you now going to change-up your argument again? How about we just write you off as "opposed" and move on? :) Clearly you're not going to alter your position. -- Director  ( talk )  21:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A vast majority of sources from the middle ages are preserved in rewrites, not just the Croatian ones. As for "Chroatorum" and "Croatiae" the kings used both so it's not a big difference, you can quit the smart talk :P. In contemporary sources we can find both Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of the Croats. What you quoted relates to the post 1102 period, so a proposed move to this title could apply only if it was merged (again) with the Croatia in the union with Hungary article. However, in those circumstances it also wouldn't be valid because it was not used often in that time period, for example the Cetingrad sabor in 1527 uses only Kingdom of Croatia. Also, I didn't change my argument, the occurance of the regnum or regni words in the charters of Croatian kings is very low so historians were derivating the realm name from their titles. Thus they named the realm of Petar Krešimir IV "Regnum Croatie et Dalmatie" because his title was King of Croatia and Dalmatia, although it is not mentioned in his charters as a kingdom name. I oppose any move dealing with the articles Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), Croatia in the union with Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. As for this one, the only move I would support is the restoring of the name Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) or placing just Kingdom of Croatia. I'd maybe support a move of the Principality of Dalmatian Croatia article to Principality of Croatia.(Tzowu (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your secondary analysis. When you publish these findings I'll be sure to include you as a source (Tzowu 2014). Up until then, however, I don't think there's any question as to the historical name of this state, before 1102 and afterwards ("the official name of the Croatian kingdom after the peace treaty of 1102 still was the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia"), the name dates from at least the reign of Peter Kresimir IV, if not earlier. Re merging this article with Croatia in the union with Hungary, this won't be necessary if the article is kept as a sub-article of this one. -- Director  ( talk )  04:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of your posts are clear examples of WP:GooglingUntilIFindSomethingWhichIActuallyKnowNothingAbout, but obviously you didn't google it enough. You also have a lot of contradictions in your posts, for example first you wrote "There are no official names for this polity" and then add a source stating that there was an official name. Then you state that " Regnum Chroatiae et Dalmatiae" is the only known historical name for this realm . yet it only (maybe) came to use during the rule of Petar Krešimir IV, before that it was Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Croats or just Croatia (like in DAI). This is probably not on google books so you may not take in into account, but I'll put it anyway. "Lujo Margetić ističe da je naziv Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae ostao u znanosti do danas neriješen problem. On navodi da su predložena ova tri temeljna rješenja: “1. Ujedinjenje Hrvatske i Dalmacije u jedno kraljevstvo pod nazivom Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae sproveo je Petar Krešimir koji je stvarno vladao nad Dalmacijom i kojem je Bizant tu vlast međunarodno-pravno priznao... 2. Petar Krešimir je imao stvarnu vlast nad Dalmacijom te je zbog toga uzeo titulu kralja Hrvatske i Dalmacije bez obzira na priznanje i suglasnost Bizanta... 3. Petar Krešimir nije imao ni stvarnu ni pravnu vlast nad Dalmacijom. On se zapravo samo kitio naslovom kralja Hrvatske i Dalmacije”" (L. Margetić, Odnosi Petra Krešimira i pape prema korčulanskom kodeksu. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, god. LXXIV, Split, 1980., str. 233-234.)(Tzowu (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC))

I agree with Tzowu. If this was to be done, then the best way to name the article is Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) since it indeed covers mostly medieval period or just simply Kingdom of Croatia. Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia was solely Latin inscription in certain documents. However this is minor issue since there are bunch of pages which already redirect here with all those names and plus, the official name does not have to be the same as the name of the article, articles on English Wikipedia are mostly named for their most common appearance in English. As for the native contemporary name we have Baska Tablet with a contemporary name of the title (and thus the name of the kingdom) by Dmitar Zvonimir. Shokatz (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh... the title of the king is not the name of the kingdom. And we don't even know those are his "titles", he's just being addressed as "king of the Croats". Other kings were being addressed as "King of Croatia and Dalmatia".. To derive the supposed name of the realm from the nonsense tablet or whatever is nothing but silly original research by users who don't know any better. Particularly when its in contrast with actual published historians stating explicitly that the official name of the kingdom is "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia".


 * If we're going strictly by Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:COMMONNAME), the thing ought to be renamed to just Kingdom of Croatia over disambig. I was hoping we could avoid the need for disambiguation altogether by using what is undoubtedly the official name of this kingdom. Hopefully there will be some additional input on the matter. -- Director  ( talk )  13:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the Baska tablet refers to him as a Croatian king. And no, it's not just a silly tablet...it's a charter written in stone and contains the earliest known official mention of the kingdom and the king. Calling someone a Croatian king obviously implies there is also a Croatian kingdom or in modern-day denomination Kingdom of Croatia. How can you call that WP:OR is beyond me, honestly... How many kingdoms can say they have their mention written in stone? Now, I also find your argument rather interesting since you earlier made a comment how certain Croatian king (namely Peter Kresimir if I am not mistaken) was referred as Rex Croatiae et Dalmatiae, which I am fairly certain are his titles, not references to his kingdom per se. We don't have contemporary mention of the kingdom itself by that name, but rather they stem from references in later periods...12-13th century. And even if it is so, in modern contemporary historiography the common name is simply Kingdom of Croatia...especially in English. We already have a bunch of disambiguation pages so I don't see how would this help in any way, especially if observed from a NPOV. In the end I would like to point out that Croatia is not an isolated case regarding this, f.e. it was common practice in early medieval periods for kings to refer to themselves or be referred by others as King of Franks/Frankish King or King of Danes/Danish King, etc. Shokatz (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong on so many separate levels. Let me count the ways:
 * Level #1. If someone is referred-to somewhere as the "Danish king" or "King of the Danes", that by no means indicates his title is "King of Denmark". The "King of France" is not the "King of the French", such as Napoleon was "Emperor of the French". History is complicated like that.
 * Level #2. Even if one king or two were actually called "King of Denmark" (which is not the case for "Croatia") that still wouldn't mean we know what the titles of these kings were in general. The titles of Croatian kings are generally unknown, and what little is known varies over time.
 * Level #3. Even if were absolutely 100% certain that all Croatian kings were referred to as "King of Croatia" (and we don't have a single such instance) that still would not indicate that the name of the kingdom is necessarily "Croatia".
 * Level #4. The very attempt to derive any conclusions from the titles of monarchs - in the first place(!) - is blatant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and very bad original research at that (since clearly you don't really get this sort of stuff).
 * Each one of these points alone invalidates your argument. Pick whichever one you like.
 * The only reference to the kingdom is "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". Sources know this. Sources explicitly state that this was its full name. But here you are, User:Shokatz, still talking away like you know something scholars don't. -- Director  ( talk )  14:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha...so let me see if I understood this...if one person was called Danish King or King of Danes that can mean he is actually a King of Zanzibar? Brilliant analogy...brilliant I say! BTW there is this called WP:COMMONNAME...just thought I remind you. Shokatz (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You should get your facts straight dajrektr, the sole name "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" is derived from the titles of the Croatian kings, it's not something we are claiming, and it's not from a contemporary source that mentions the realm as "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae". However, Thomas the Archdeacon does mention that the kings after Stjepan Držislav were the kings of Croatia and Dalmatia, but his work is from a later time period when the official name really was "Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia". He also uses "Kingdom of Croatia" as the name of the realm, those are synonims for him, together with Sclauonia (© Kerubin Šegvić). (Tzowu (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC))
 * You people really don't get how this project functions. Keep your theorizing to yourself. This is not a place where you can publish your amateur "research". -- Director  ( talk )  15:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get it either. You do not WP:OWN this page and there should be a WP:CON. And please stop projecting. Before you start accusing and making WP:PA towards others, you should take a good long look at yourself in the mirror. Shokatz (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh... whatever. Just move this thing away from this absurd title, defined by both start and end dates that are arguably wrong. The above RM is a prime example of what happens when people who don't know anything about the subject try to edit. -- Director  ( talk )  13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep up with WP:PA, it will get you really far... Shokatz (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? You should have said so earlier. -- Director  ( talk )  14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion
I was looking around Wikipedia and I came upon the article Monarchy of Ireland, which I believe would be a really good model for how we could reorganize the current setup with the Croatian monarchy through history and resolve the current unsatisfactory status quo and the ridiculous dispute in general. My main concern, first and foremost, was and is the (in)adequate representation of Croatia through history in succession. If we would have a similar article about Croatian monarchy I would be quite content to accept all the changes (mostly related to the infobox successor states issues, etc.) that DIREKTOR suggested...namely showing Hungary as a successor state after 1102, etc. Such article would also be a chance for us to fix the redundancy in some articles (f.e. this article has a section referring to period post-1526, then it also lists it as a successor state...) and also bring all these various entities under one major article without it representing some fictional continuous sovereign entity that never actually existed. It would also give us a chance to explore some other things, like for example what DIREKTOR also mentioned regarding the period after 1493 and the Battle of Krbava which basically displaced and moved the core of the Croatian kingdom and the entire kingdom in general to the northwest. So anyway, I am interested what some of you involved here think about this...is this a good idea or should we just leave this article (and others) in this unsatisfactory state? Shokatz (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think its a good idea. Historical state format is the one I prefer, for numerous reasons I outlined earlier.


 * Now, my preferred format would be this succession: Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia -> Kingdom of Croatia -> Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. This article would cover the Hungarian period as well. Ideally I would delete the 1102-1527 article and move what interesting stuff it has here. That's what I did ages ago, but turn your back for one minute... -- Director  ( talk )  09:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So if I understand this correctly the K.of Croatia-Dalmatia would cover the period until 1102, then K.of Croatia would cover the period from 1102-1868? If that is the case I find that to be reasonable and interesting concept. Now regarding the suggested "pan-article", I would point out that it would not be an article about a "historical state" (just like Monarchy of Ireland isn't one either) but rather it would be a sort of expanded disambiguation article with various sections linking to the main articles (f.e. K.of Croatia-Dalmatia, K.of Croatia [in union with Hungary], etc.) on each period. I thought that might be an interesting concept as well, something like a portal on Croatian monarchy...what I suggested is not contentious with what you suggested, it would complement each other. Shokatz (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Croatia-Dalmatia would cover the period up to 1527. -- Director  ( talk )  09:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine anyway. I would support it...anything is better than the current state which is just poorly conceived...Shokatz (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you support a rename to Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia? Do you support a merge of the Hungarian period article over into here? -- Director  ( talk )  10:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure why not. I think we actually already discussed it before and I said I would be fine with that...until it all went "bonkers". :) Shokatz (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As much as it's wonderful to see the two of you edit-warriors agree on something :P I explained why this kind of sectioning is useful at Talk:Croatia in the union with Hungary. I seem to get the impression that one or more of you think that the perpetual union/conquest flamewar will somehow go away if we don't split the Croatian history series at the turn of the 12th century - I have seen no reason to believe that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest I don't really care how we section these periods...whether it will stay like this or we merge them...whatever. I am mostly interested into linking these articles together in some fashion so someone who reads it for the first time f.e. can follow the entire history of the monarchy to the modern times. Which is why I made this suggestion in first place. But ok, if you guys think it's a lousy suggestion, then by all means let's continue with this "wonderful" setup with dozens of redirect pages on each article, articles having other period articles as sections, various infobox paradoxes and controversies, etc., etc. :) Shokatz (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the disconnect? The History of Croatia article links them all in succession, as does History of Croatia. The only leftover fuzzy redirect is the one that says "(medieval)". That can be fixed by disambiguation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be the first to point out that it may be POV in favor of a personal union view. However, there is a reasoning by which it would be ok, namely we include the thing here - hence avoiding the problems brought on by a separate article - but we do not explicitly make any claim re the continuation of this state beyond 1102. We include the Hungarian period as as separate section, making the problems clear. That was my initial plan when organizing this period of history. Trust me, the wording would be so clear noone would think about proposing some kind of bias was behind the merge. The problem would be solved, I am confident (in fact, that's why I'm pushing this).


 * The separate article is just ridiculous. -- Director  ( talk )  23:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What actual problems are brought on by a separate article? You don't see the implicit continuation of the state through describing those centuries in the article about it? There's only so far you can push an 'aftermath' section before WP:UNDUE kicks in. When the starting position may be POV in favor of a view, the very notion of a foolproof wording becomes pure naivete.
 * Please take a step back to realize how WP:OWN-ish this sounds, and stop beating this dead horse. It's just not productive. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What dead horse?? The horse was already dead - then someone revived it. Pardon me if I wish to beat it back to dead status again. And, um, don't you at least need more people that agree with you before claiming the horse is dead and the two of us are beating it?


 * The obvious problem of the new article is that it solidifies in place problems that can be much more easily resolved if they were handled in an article section - not an entire article. Frankly I look forward to restoring the more easily-amenable form this issue will take when its back in its intended section format.


 * As I said before: a separate article is bad from the "no personal union!" perspective since its title is suggestive of some kind of consensus which not attested in sources at all. And its bad from the "personal union!!!" perspective since it suggests this state, the one covered in this article, disappeared in 1102. Both views are left unsatisfied.


 * Conversely a merge is good for the "no-personal" view since the possibility of a personal union isn't enshrined in an entire new article, and the "personal" view likes it because it extends this state further. Not to mention that it gives this useless hulk of an article some meaning, and at least allows us to post a coa and a Sabor reference fgs... Its only editors from that diseased corpse that is hrWiki that might mind this, since it doesn't correspond to their elementary-school-derived organization on that cesspool of a project (pls pardon the spot-on-accurate imagery). -- Director  ( talk )  01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)