This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Croatia-Slavonia placed under the rule of Hungary...
Under an 1868 agreement between Croatia and Hungary, known as the Nagodba, Croatian statehood was formally recognized, but Croatia was in fact stripped of all real control over its affairs
When Hungarian, rather than Latin, was imposed as the official language in Hungary and Croatia, Croatian resistance took shape in the Illyrian movement of the 1830s and ’40s.
History of Croatia Britannica Encyclopedia 2009
Croatian Sabor (assembly), elected in a questionable manner, confirmed the subordination of Croatia to Hungary by accepting the Nagodba in September 1868
[1]
Yes you can call this nationalistic, yes you can call this provocative, yes you can call this dispurptive edit... but the truth is that some croatian nationalistic users especially attempt to push Croatian POV on Wikipedia. So I propose that if you call Britannica 1911 unreliable imperialistic toilet paper
[2], then you should not do the same with Britannica 2009--
Bizso (
talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"Triune Kingdom" is not same as "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" and there should be separate articles about Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, and its two parts: Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia, since both parts had separate administration. PANONIAN 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose we merge this article with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. I'm a Dalmatian, and however much I don't like it, the Kingdom of Dalmatia was a seperate, completely subdivision completely independent from Croatia-Slavonia, no matter what the governing bodies of the latter demanded. Dalmatia, in fact, was actually ruled by the Autonomist Party for much of the 19th century, a party which was opposed to a union with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
What we have here is an article about a state that never really existed. We have an article about an unfulfilled territorial claim by some historical governments of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Yes, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia under some Bans liked to refer to itself as the "Triune Kingdom", but this was not its name, and this was not its territorial extent.
We should merge this with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, making note of the terriotrial demands (and the associated name change) of the KIngdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We should not play "pretend games" and create a whole new "former country" just because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, who's name I must emphasize was "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", liked to sometimes refer itself as the "Triune Kingdom of C, S, and D". Guys we've got two states that existed at the same time in the same place, one is wishful thinking, the other is not. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so you're saying that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was an entity that included the Kingdom of Dalmatia and the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia? You're also saying that the Ban ruled the 'Kingdom of Dalmatia' in addition to the 'Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia'?
You're source is ok, but it looks to me like all it does is use the name "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" instead of "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia", which was not uncommon. First I hope you can provide a source that confirms the claim that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was, in fact, an official internal subdivision of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not just another name for the "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia". In other words, you should show that the
Kingdom of Dalmatia (and the
Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia) were in fact a part of an entity known as "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia".
(I am not talking about a couple of honorary representatives from the Dalmatian Sabor in the Croatian-Slavonian Sabor, but about the existence of a whole former entity.)
What sounds suspicious is the idea that a "super-entity" existed which unified two constitutional lands from Cisleithania and Transleithania. I believe that the name "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply sometimes used for the "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia". Regards -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've looked-up the matter and merged the articles. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" by the Hungarian authorities because the Hungarians wanted to join Dalmatia into the Hungarian part of the dual state. I say "sometimes" because when the Croats, Slovenes and Serbs started talking about a third South Slavic subdivision within the monarchy, the Hungarians stopped supporting the union. The name of this subdivision, however, is undoubtedly "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". The rest are Hungarian political claims and machinations. Without a shadow of a doubt. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 09:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Direktor, why did you deleted this article? I belive that your views are biased.
You can find more references... just if you want.
(Michigan State University source: http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm )
etc.. -- Dvatel ( talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(Reminder for Direktor: Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, remember?)
Dear Director (hrv. Direktor) :) First, please read sources... Second, can you provide some reliable references, why did you deleted this article. Otherwise, i must assume that your views are biased (ref: [3]). -- Dvatel ( talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Dvatel, please explain your actions. Your quoting of those two sources is simply nonsensical, and actually supports the merge. Do you even know what this is about? Be advised that you are edit-warring without discussion.
Kindly explain why this article should remain seperate from an article on the exact same subject. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was not a state (I am not saying it was or it wasn't), what sholuld we do with articles such as SAO Krajina, SAO Western Slavonia, SAO Kninska Krajina or Republic of Serbian Krajina? They were self-proclaimed Serbian-dominated entity within Croatia during the 1990s. Triune Kingdom was at least self-proclaimed Croatian-dominated entity within Austrian-Hungarian Empire if it was not a kingdom within Austrian-Hungarian Empire? -- Kebeta ( talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you are you turning this into a Croatian/Serbian. Just look at your contributions, history.. You're deleting this article... I didn't find any relevant infos of Triune Kingdom on Croatia-Slavonia article. Therefore, you are not merging this topic, you are deleting it.
If you cannot merge a page properly, or you think that the renaming may be opposed, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. -- Dvatel ( talk) 09:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Then, you should merge this Croatian–Hungarian Agreement also, or? -- Dvatel ( talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RE:
Also, kindly cease patronizing me, it is insulting when it comes from a User with far less experience on Wikipedia. Stop accusing me of bias "by default". I am not "biased", how could I possibly be "biased"? Direktor, Your posts are offensive!
--
Dvatel (
talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read over this discussion and so far, the evidence brought forth suggests that the
Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was merely another name for
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Dvatel, you can't demand someone provide a reference to prove that this wasn't a separate entity. The
burden of evidence is on those who claim this was a separate entity, not the other way around. The two sources you gave above have been refuted. Unless references are provided to prove your claim, this article will be redirected.
Spellcast (
talk) 10:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RE: Ok, but this new article should be improved. -- Dvatel ( talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, 1867 – 1918
Flag [4]
In use: since 1867 Adopted: 1868 Abandoned: 29th December 1918 Source: Jelena Borošak-Marjanović: “Zastave kroz stoljeća, zbirka zastava i zastavnih vrpca Hrvatskog povjesnog muzeja”, Hrvatski povjesni muzej, Zagreb, 1996.
The flag of this design was mass produced (manufactured by printing on textile) in Zagreb around 1894. (a sample is preserved in HPM). The flag is more detailed prescribed on 19 June 1876, and by the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement (of 1869) and an edict of 16 September 1876, the crown above the shield should be the St. Stephen's Crown. The edict of 20 December 1899 determines inverted order of the Croatian and Dalmatian coats of arms in regard to 1876 prescriptions (i.e. it prescribed that the word "left" and "right" in 1876 prescriptions should be understood in heraldic manner).
Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems
Since during the time became a custom in Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia to use flags which are not adequate either in state-juridical or in political sense. So, because except of the decree of the Imperial and Royal High Command in Zagreb of April 8, 1885, No. 231/Pr., which was issued naturally only for the former military frontier, there are not general regulations for usage of flags, I order:
§ 1.
According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement and of decree of the Department of Interior of the Royal Country Government of November 16, 1867, No. 18.307, red-white-blue tricolour is civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is official flag for usage in autonomic affairs. Above-mentioned civil flag may use everyone in appropriate way.
§ 2.
Besides, as it was stated in mentioned decree of the Imperial and Royal High Command, it is allowed to everyone to use in proper way in public celebration occasions red-white-green Hungarian tricolour and black-yellow Austrian flag. Furthermore, at special occasions it is allowed usage by authorities recognised flags and Coat-of-Arms of county and town municipalities, free and royal towns, administrative and noble communities and some noble families.
§ 3.
Usage of flags of other countries and other civil or political flags is not allowed. Exceptionally, local authority may allow usage of flag of foreign sovereigns and countries in special occasions in honour of sovereign, member of ruling house or representative of foreign friendly country, or to that country itself. The same rules apply to every other usage of colours and emblems of foreign countries. This decree does not interfere in right of persons protected by international law to use flag of country, which they are representative.
§ 4.
Public corporations, civil societies and guilds and private societies must use only flags, which are approved by authority.
§ 5.
Police authorities must punish violations of this decree with fine of 2 to 200 K or with arrest from 6 hours to 14 days and confiscate unauthorised flag or emblem.
§ 6.
This decree is valid from the day of proclamation.
Zagreb, November 21, 1914.
Dr. Ivan baronet Skerlecz, pers. sign.
That means that ONLY the coat-of-arms of triune kingdom with the crown of st. Stephen was official emblem of the country. -- Kebeta ( talk) 12:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Map [5] of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, with the Triune coat of arms and marked border of the territory with which the Kingdom entered the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1919. -- Kebeta ( talk) 12:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not saying this or that. I just don't agree with the merge proposal. If other editors claim that Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia wasn't a country or entity, than it should be an article about an idea of unifying all three parts of Croatia (like it was until 1102, and like it is today - since from 1102 Croats always chose their state; they could be a part of Ottoman Empire, but they weren't). Croats at that time in history embraced Triune Kingdom as a fact (you may called it romantic nationalist concept). Emblems, flags and maps from that period prove it. Moreover, lots of historians from that and today's period (foreign or domestic) talk about it (in one way or another), and you want to delete this article, and in the same time there are numerous less important articles on the wiki? --
Kebeta (
talk) 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, this article is misleading to a reader not familiar with Balkan history. It gives the impression that it was an official kingdom of Austria-Hungary, but it was really a Croatian unification goal. If this is to be a separate page, it should make clear that this was a Croatian ideal. However, this article is pretty much an exact duplicate of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The only major thing that distinguishes this article from that one is a few sentences saying that the Croatian administration recognised an entity called "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". And that can easily be mentioned in the lead of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Spellcast ( talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know all about WP:3RR. This dispute is so silly, and there really is no reason whatsoever why the merge shouldn't go forward, why bother more people? (Nobody is edit-warring.) Unless Kebeta can produce some kind of source on the imaginary state I really can't imagine how this dispute will proceed much longer. The silly proposition of creating a two sentence-long article about an unfullfilled territorial claim is not something to be seriously considered at all. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
LoL, more 1990s fantasies. What nonsense. Kidly cease cluttering this page with irrelevant info - I know my country's history. Conclusion: You're confusing de jure ownership of territory with a territorial claim that is based on quite dubious medieval law. The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia did NOT de jure exist. Seriously, you need to read-up on your history from non-Balkans sources.
There is a difference from a government actually being in legal (de jure) ownership of a territory, and a government claiming that this territory belongs to it on the basis of very, very debatable medieval custom.
Now, either provide a source on this entity's existence or stop. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This is unbelievable. Kebeta, we have a large number of reliable published sources that confirm that "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. You have nothing but nonsense claims. First you claimed this state actually existed, then you claimed it didn't exist but this article should be about a two-sentence territorial claim. Now you're saying the state "legally existed". Where are your published, neutral (non-Balkans) sources?
For the final time, your medieval legal theories are completely irrelevant in a discussion about Austria-Hungary. Dalmatia was legally, de jure a Kronland of the Austrian Empire. The state DID NOT exist de jure, because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia were never legally united. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia claimed Dalmatia on the basis of medieval custom, but that is NOT de jure ownership. I am not even going into how dubious and debatable Croatia-Slavonia's "legal rights" on Dalmatia actually are, 1990s propaganda aside.
Just answer straightforwardly: do you, or do you not have sources. Because I do. Tons of them. If you don't have sources this article will be merged. If you continue to edit contrary to sources I will have to report you an ask for admin intervention. This has gone on long enough. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Direktor what are you talking about? history or politics?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that the User:Direktor has a certain bias.. I believe that he began to suffer after the horrible events (1990) in his country. I am realy sorry, but that is no reason to merge and delete this article.. Once more, read all sources. Best regards! :) -- Dvatel ( talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There was more than two sources, like Michigan State University... :) I'd report you for your offensive personal remarks. Direktor, please, Make It So! btw.. (2nd time) Direktor, some of YOUR posts are offensive! -- Dvatel ( talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Google books
Foreign historians
Croatian historians
Documents from period of Triune Kingdom
Others: documents,emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage....
I am not saying that Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was state, only that it can be an article about it, which is now just badly written. -- Kebeta ( talk) 11:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I completely see your point of view. But, as I said before, I am not talking about existance of recognized state, and I am not changing mine arguments as I go. I was just illustrateing a complexity of the subject, and my first sentence was: I am not saying it was or it wasn't a state. I think that article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can not explain this matter, because we are not talking only about Croatia-Slavonia, but of Dalmatia, Austria and Hungary as well. It can not be explained in two sentence as you claim, but if you are willing to try, be my guest. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia:
Historians written tons of books on the subject, and yet you can explain it all in just two sentence. I don't think so. So, I will answer to your question: Yes, you need Admin intervention here. -- Kebeta ( talk) 18:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Page 371 of The Nagodba also says:
Source: H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences, Seal of the Parliament, Cro. History Museum,
I agree, definitely must be an article about it. -- Dvatel ( talk) 13:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You Know What? I changed my mind. Btw. You are insulting less experienced user..
Citation: "Wikipedia's greatest advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest tojust a few peoples is justified." And this article is justified.
Regards -- Dvatel ( talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This could be better solution for Croatia-Slavonia article German Wikipedia on this article -- Dvatel ( talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Dvatel, you are either unable to understand me, or you are simply refusing to read my posts. What can I say? You really are embarrassing yourself as a Wikipedia editor with this "display" of obstinacy.
Now you're saying that there's "no consensus" for the move - even though you still don't have a clue what this is about. There is consensus for the move. You just don't know what a consensus is on Wikipedia. I recommend you read the WP:WHATISCONSENSUS guideline in order to learn something. "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to." If you think that "consensus" means you can just disagree without any argument at all, and claim "no consensus" - then you're very wrong.
I'll keep it simple for you. 1) You have no sources (and you don't even know what you need to prove with sources). 2) Sources support the merge. 3) These sources have caused a consensus to be formed on this issue. 4) Consensus is actually against you. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Direktor, calm down or else you could lose your temper. I think you have misunderstood me. Improve Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article (merge Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom article properely). That's all I'm asking. Regards :) -- Dvatel ( talk) 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Croatia-Slavonia placed under the rule of Hungary...
Under an 1868 agreement between Croatia and Hungary, known as the Nagodba, Croatian statehood was formally recognized, but Croatia was in fact stripped of all real control over its affairs
When Hungarian, rather than Latin, was imposed as the official language in Hungary and Croatia, Croatian resistance took shape in the Illyrian movement of the 1830s and ’40s.
History of Croatia Britannica Encyclopedia 2009
Croatian Sabor (assembly), elected in a questionable manner, confirmed the subordination of Croatia to Hungary by accepting the Nagodba in September 1868
[1]
Yes you can call this nationalistic, yes you can call this provocative, yes you can call this dispurptive edit... but the truth is that some croatian nationalistic users especially attempt to push Croatian POV on Wikipedia. So I propose that if you call Britannica 1911 unreliable imperialistic toilet paper
[2], then you should not do the same with Britannica 2009--
Bizso (
talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"Triune Kingdom" is not same as "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" and there should be separate articles about Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, and its two parts: Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia, since both parts had separate administration. PANONIAN 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose we merge this article with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. I'm a Dalmatian, and however much I don't like it, the Kingdom of Dalmatia was a seperate, completely subdivision completely independent from Croatia-Slavonia, no matter what the governing bodies of the latter demanded. Dalmatia, in fact, was actually ruled by the Autonomist Party for much of the 19th century, a party which was opposed to a union with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
What we have here is an article about a state that never really existed. We have an article about an unfulfilled territorial claim by some historical governments of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Yes, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia under some Bans liked to refer to itself as the "Triune Kingdom", but this was not its name, and this was not its territorial extent.
We should merge this with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, making note of the terriotrial demands (and the associated name change) of the KIngdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We should not play "pretend games" and create a whole new "former country" just because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, who's name I must emphasize was "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", liked to sometimes refer itself as the "Triune Kingdom of C, S, and D". Guys we've got two states that existed at the same time in the same place, one is wishful thinking, the other is not. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so you're saying that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was an entity that included the Kingdom of Dalmatia and the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia? You're also saying that the Ban ruled the 'Kingdom of Dalmatia' in addition to the 'Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia'?
You're source is ok, but it looks to me like all it does is use the name "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" instead of "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia", which was not uncommon. First I hope you can provide a source that confirms the claim that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was, in fact, an official internal subdivision of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not just another name for the "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia". In other words, you should show that the
Kingdom of Dalmatia (and the
Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia) were in fact a part of an entity known as "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia".
(I am not talking about a couple of honorary representatives from the Dalmatian Sabor in the Croatian-Slavonian Sabor, but about the existence of a whole former entity.)
What sounds suspicious is the idea that a "super-entity" existed which unified two constitutional lands from Cisleithania and Transleithania. I believe that the name "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply sometimes used for the "Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia". Regards -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've looked-up the matter and merged the articles. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" by the Hungarian authorities because the Hungarians wanted to join Dalmatia into the Hungarian part of the dual state. I say "sometimes" because when the Croats, Slovenes and Serbs started talking about a third South Slavic subdivision within the monarchy, the Hungarians stopped supporting the union. The name of this subdivision, however, is undoubtedly "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". The rest are Hungarian political claims and machinations. Without a shadow of a doubt. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 09:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Direktor, why did you deleted this article? I belive that your views are biased.
You can find more references... just if you want.
(Michigan State University source: http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm )
etc.. -- Dvatel ( talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(Reminder for Direktor: Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, remember?)
Dear Director (hrv. Direktor) :) First, please read sources... Second, can you provide some reliable references, why did you deleted this article. Otherwise, i must assume that your views are biased (ref: [3]). -- Dvatel ( talk) 14:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Dvatel, please explain your actions. Your quoting of those two sources is simply nonsensical, and actually supports the merge. Do you even know what this is about? Be advised that you are edit-warring without discussion.
Kindly explain why this article should remain seperate from an article on the exact same subject. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was not a state (I am not saying it was or it wasn't), what sholuld we do with articles such as SAO Krajina, SAO Western Slavonia, SAO Kninska Krajina or Republic of Serbian Krajina? They were self-proclaimed Serbian-dominated entity within Croatia during the 1990s. Triune Kingdom was at least self-proclaimed Croatian-dominated entity within Austrian-Hungarian Empire if it was not a kingdom within Austrian-Hungarian Empire? -- Kebeta ( talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you are you turning this into a Croatian/Serbian. Just look at your contributions, history.. You're deleting this article... I didn't find any relevant infos of Triune Kingdom on Croatia-Slavonia article. Therefore, you are not merging this topic, you are deleting it.
If you cannot merge a page properly, or you think that the renaming may be opposed, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there. -- Dvatel ( talk) 09:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Then, you should merge this Croatian–Hungarian Agreement also, or? -- Dvatel ( talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RE:
Also, kindly cease patronizing me, it is insulting when it comes from a User with far less experience on Wikipedia. Stop accusing me of bias "by default". I am not "biased", how could I possibly be "biased"? Direktor, Your posts are offensive!
--
Dvatel (
talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read over this discussion and so far, the evidence brought forth suggests that the
Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was merely another name for
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Dvatel, you can't demand someone provide a reference to prove that this wasn't a separate entity. The
burden of evidence is on those who claim this was a separate entity, not the other way around. The two sources you gave above have been refuted. Unless references are provided to prove your claim, this article will be redirected.
Spellcast (
talk) 10:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RE: Ok, but this new article should be improved. -- Dvatel ( talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, 1867 – 1918
Flag [4]
In use: since 1867 Adopted: 1868 Abandoned: 29th December 1918 Source: Jelena Borošak-Marjanović: “Zastave kroz stoljeća, zbirka zastava i zastavnih vrpca Hrvatskog povjesnog muzeja”, Hrvatski povjesni muzej, Zagreb, 1996.
The flag of this design was mass produced (manufactured by printing on textile) in Zagreb around 1894. (a sample is preserved in HPM). The flag is more detailed prescribed on 19 June 1876, and by the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement (of 1869) and an edict of 16 September 1876, the crown above the shield should be the St. Stephen's Crown. The edict of 20 December 1899 determines inverted order of the Croatian and Dalmatian coats of arms in regard to 1876 prescriptions (i.e. it prescribed that the word "left" and "right" in 1876 prescriptions should be understood in heraldic manner).
Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems
Since during the time became a custom in Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia to use flags which are not adequate either in state-juridical or in political sense. So, because except of the decree of the Imperial and Royal High Command in Zagreb of April 8, 1885, No. 231/Pr., which was issued naturally only for the former military frontier, there are not general regulations for usage of flags, I order:
§ 1.
According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement and of decree of the Department of Interior of the Royal Country Government of November 16, 1867, No. 18.307, red-white-blue tricolour is civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is official flag for usage in autonomic affairs. Above-mentioned civil flag may use everyone in appropriate way.
§ 2.
Besides, as it was stated in mentioned decree of the Imperial and Royal High Command, it is allowed to everyone to use in proper way in public celebration occasions red-white-green Hungarian tricolour and black-yellow Austrian flag. Furthermore, at special occasions it is allowed usage by authorities recognised flags and Coat-of-Arms of county and town municipalities, free and royal towns, administrative and noble communities and some noble families.
§ 3.
Usage of flags of other countries and other civil or political flags is not allowed. Exceptionally, local authority may allow usage of flag of foreign sovereigns and countries in special occasions in honour of sovereign, member of ruling house or representative of foreign friendly country, or to that country itself. The same rules apply to every other usage of colours and emblems of foreign countries. This decree does not interfere in right of persons protected by international law to use flag of country, which they are representative.
§ 4.
Public corporations, civil societies and guilds and private societies must use only flags, which are approved by authority.
§ 5.
Police authorities must punish violations of this decree with fine of 2 to 200 K or with arrest from 6 hours to 14 days and confiscate unauthorised flag or emblem.
§ 6.
This decree is valid from the day of proclamation.
Zagreb, November 21, 1914.
Dr. Ivan baronet Skerlecz, pers. sign.
That means that ONLY the coat-of-arms of triune kingdom with the crown of st. Stephen was official emblem of the country. -- Kebeta ( talk) 12:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Map [5] of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, with the Triune coat of arms and marked border of the territory with which the Kingdom entered the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1919. -- Kebeta ( talk) 12:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not saying this or that. I just don't agree with the merge proposal. If other editors claim that Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia wasn't a country or entity, than it should be an article about an idea of unifying all three parts of Croatia (like it was until 1102, and like it is today - since from 1102 Croats always chose their state; they could be a part of Ottoman Empire, but they weren't). Croats at that time in history embraced Triune Kingdom as a fact (you may called it romantic nationalist concept). Emblems, flags and maps from that period prove it. Moreover, lots of historians from that and today's period (foreign or domestic) talk about it (in one way or another), and you want to delete this article, and in the same time there are numerous less important articles on the wiki? --
Kebeta (
talk) 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently, this article is misleading to a reader not familiar with Balkan history. It gives the impression that it was an official kingdom of Austria-Hungary, but it was really a Croatian unification goal. If this is to be a separate page, it should make clear that this was a Croatian ideal. However, this article is pretty much an exact duplicate of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The only major thing that distinguishes this article from that one is a few sentences saying that the Croatian administration recognised an entity called "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". And that can easily be mentioned in the lead of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Spellcast ( talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know all about WP:3RR. This dispute is so silly, and there really is no reason whatsoever why the merge shouldn't go forward, why bother more people? (Nobody is edit-warring.) Unless Kebeta can produce some kind of source on the imaginary state I really can't imagine how this dispute will proceed much longer. The silly proposition of creating a two sentence-long article about an unfullfilled territorial claim is not something to be seriously considered at all. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
LoL, more 1990s fantasies. What nonsense. Kidly cease cluttering this page with irrelevant info - I know my country's history. Conclusion: You're confusing de jure ownership of territory with a territorial claim that is based on quite dubious medieval law. The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia did NOT de jure exist. Seriously, you need to read-up on your history from non-Balkans sources.
There is a difference from a government actually being in legal (de jure) ownership of a territory, and a government claiming that this territory belongs to it on the basis of very, very debatable medieval custom.
Now, either provide a source on this entity's existence or stop. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This is unbelievable. Kebeta, we have a large number of reliable published sources that confirm that "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. You have nothing but nonsense claims. First you claimed this state actually existed, then you claimed it didn't exist but this article should be about a two-sentence territorial claim. Now you're saying the state "legally existed". Where are your published, neutral (non-Balkans) sources?
For the final time, your medieval legal theories are completely irrelevant in a discussion about Austria-Hungary. Dalmatia was legally, de jure a Kronland of the Austrian Empire. The state DID NOT exist de jure, because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia were never legally united. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia claimed Dalmatia on the basis of medieval custom, but that is NOT de jure ownership. I am not even going into how dubious and debatable Croatia-Slavonia's "legal rights" on Dalmatia actually are, 1990s propaganda aside.
Just answer straightforwardly: do you, or do you not have sources. Because I do. Tons of them. If you don't have sources this article will be merged. If you continue to edit contrary to sources I will have to report you an ask for admin intervention. This has gone on long enough. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Direktor what are you talking about? history or politics?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that the User:Direktor has a certain bias.. I believe that he began to suffer after the horrible events (1990) in his country. I am realy sorry, but that is no reason to merge and delete this article.. Once more, read all sources. Best regards! :) -- Dvatel ( talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There was more than two sources, like Michigan State University... :) I'd report you for your offensive personal remarks. Direktor, please, Make It So! btw.. (2nd time) Direktor, some of YOUR posts are offensive! -- Dvatel ( talk) 22:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Google books
Foreign historians
Croatian historians
Documents from period of Triune Kingdom
Others: documents,emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage....
I am not saying that Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was state, only that it can be an article about it, which is now just badly written. -- Kebeta ( talk) 11:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I completely see your point of view. But, as I said before, I am not talking about existance of recognized state, and I am not changing mine arguments as I go. I was just illustrateing a complexity of the subject, and my first sentence was: I am not saying it was or it wasn't a state. I think that article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can not explain this matter, because we are not talking only about Croatia-Slavonia, but of Dalmatia, Austria and Hungary as well. It can not be explained in two sentence as you claim, but if you are willing to try, be my guest. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia:
Historians written tons of books on the subject, and yet you can explain it all in just two sentence. I don't think so. So, I will answer to your question: Yes, you need Admin intervention here. -- Kebeta ( talk) 18:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Page 371 of The Nagodba also says:
Source: H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences, Seal of the Parliament, Cro. History Museum,
I agree, definitely must be an article about it. -- Dvatel ( talk) 13:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You Know What? I changed my mind. Btw. You are insulting less experienced user..
Citation: "Wikipedia's greatest advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest tojust a few peoples is justified." And this article is justified.
Regards -- Dvatel ( talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This could be better solution for Croatia-Slavonia article German Wikipedia on this article -- Dvatel ( talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Dvatel, you are either unable to understand me, or you are simply refusing to read my posts. What can I say? You really are embarrassing yourself as a Wikipedia editor with this "display" of obstinacy.
Now you're saying that there's "no consensus" for the move - even though you still don't have a clue what this is about. There is consensus for the move. You just don't know what a consensus is on Wikipedia. I recommend you read the WP:WHATISCONSENSUS guideline in order to learn something. "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to." If you think that "consensus" means you can just disagree without any argument at all, and claim "no consensus" - then you're very wrong.
I'll keep it simple for you. 1) You have no sources (and you don't even know what you need to prove with sources). 2) Sources support the merge. 3) These sources have caused a consensus to be formed on this issue. 4) Consensus is actually against you. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Direktor, calm down or else you could lose your temper. I think you have misunderstood me. Improve Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article (merge Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom article properely). That's all I'm asking. Regards :) -- Dvatel ( talk) 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)