Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary/Archive 1

• Archive 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Archive 1 About non-existent Kingdom of Croatia

In order to get a good understanding of the Croatian history - here are very good references showing clearly that Kingdom of Croatia existed only 16 years and namely from 1075-1091!!!

   Kings, Bishops, Nobles, and Burghers in Medieval Hungary by Erik Fugedi, Janos M. Bak, Erik Feugedi Published 1986 by Variorum Reprints
   The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 By Pal Engel Published 2005 by I.B.Tauris

Nobility, land and service in medieval Hungary by Martyn Rady Published 2000 by Palgrave Macmillan

   A History of Hungary's Nationalities By Ernst Flachbarth Published 1944 by Society of the Hungarian Quarterly

p 708 Hungary in the late fifteenth century - a map showing Wallachia, Hungary and Turkey and Ragusa - no clue about 'Kingdom of Croatia'

   The Medieval World By Peter Linehan, Janet Laughland Nelson

p 80 Figure 5.1 Map of medieval Hungary showing areas of Cuman settlement (times of King Bela V (1235 - 1270) - no clue about 'Kingdom of Croatia' More interesting ...

   The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine - Published 1991 by University of Michigan Press

Page 248 Sources on Medieval Croatia Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old jingle: the more you study the less you know. When I was and undergraduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias. Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seveneenth- and eigteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but ciontain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge wheter their information came from reliable source or not.

   The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pál Engel - 2005 I.B.Tauris edition, Translated by Tamas Palosfalvi

Pages 33-34 One of Ladislaus's most significant achievements was the occupation of Hungary's southern neighbour, Croatia. ... The small kngdom, born in the tenth century, streched from the Kapela mountains to the Adriatic sea, its center being Biograd, located on the coast. ... King Demetrius Zvonimir, who, not being a member of the ruling dynasty, obtained his throne throug election, asked Pope Gregory VII fo a crown in 1075, and, in return, declared his kingdom as a papal fief. After his death, Ladislaus laid claim on his realm by the right of his sister, Zvonimir's widow, and had no difficulty in taking possession of Croatia in 1091. He bestowed the new kingdom, together with royal title, on his nephew, Almos, son of Geza I ... I further entertained myself reading yet another great discoveries of contemporary Croatian historians (soc.culture.yugoslavia) .... The exclusive revelation is the result of "scientific" research by Croatian historian Dragutin Pavlicevic, and found its place in history books. The Split newspaper "Feral Tribune" reveals that Pavlicevic authored a chapter entitled "Croatian Indians", included in the second grade history textbook, shedding new light on the history of native Americans and their ties with Croats, "one of the oldest nations in Europe". He affirms that in North Carolina "a tribe has been living for more than 4 centuries differing in the color of skin, hair and facial features from other tribes". According to the same historian this is not surprising because the members of these tribe "have the noble blood of ancient Croats from Dubrovnik in their veins". Mr. Pavlicevic also speaks about the Mateo Indians, named after their ancestor Mateo - a Croat named Mate. "In his work, Dragutin Pavlicevic stresses that he estimates that presently there are more than 2 million Croatian descendants throughout the United States", states the Split newspaper. ...and this one form soc.culture.europe Croats Sailed To New World Before Columbus And Vikings Andrija Zeljko Lovric bases his theory on recent archeological finds of Islamic coins and Glagolitic writings in Paraguay A theory that Croatian sailors, in the service of the Moorish caliphs, probably reached the coasts of the Americas not only before Columbus, but also before the Vikings themselves, may be corroborated by exceptional findings. One of the chief adherents of this theory is Andrija Zeljko Lovric. He presented his paper on the latest finds of Islamic coins and Glagolitic writing in Paraquay on the second day of the symposium called The Islamic World in the Twentieth Century, held in the Zagreb Islamic Center, in Croatia. The paper speaks of 61 plates with inscriptions written in the Glagolitic alphabet which have been found during the past decade on the cliffs of the Amambay massif in Paraguay, dating back to pre-Columbine times, from the seventh to fourteenth century. Previous explorers did not understand the script and believed it to be Viking runes. Lovric lists numerous data contributing to the theory that the traces lead to Croatian sailors. First of all, among all Slav peoples that used the Glagolitic alphabet, only the Croats were renowned as sailors and, technically speaking, were the only ones who could have reached America. In addition, the Glagolitic script was used the longest by Croats. Second, American anthropologists believe the writers of these plates to have participated in the construction of the first early American town of Taiwanaku, where the statues of Guarani rulers bearing Croatian coats of arms on their chests were found. --NovaNova 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask everyone that do not censor neither the article nor its talk page!! Adding back deleted comments. --Bizso (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungaro-Croatian reign

In order to response some historiographer who deny existence of Kingdom of Croatia I qupted some veryfieable sources

The time history of the world, 5th edition, ISBN:953-6510-62-6 pages 138,142,143, 145,147, 150-151, 186.Name Croatia is displayed on the maps.

The World book Encyclopedia volume 4, 1994 ISBN:0-7166-0094-3 Pages 1148b-1148c " In 1102, Kalman, the king of Hungary, also became king of Croatia, thus creating a political union between Croatia and Hungary that lasted for more than 800 years. Despite this Union, the Croats always kept their own parliament , called the Sabor "

Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom."

[u]Digital edition of Britannica 2007 Ultimate reference suite[/u]

"Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles. "

So, mr. GiorgioOrsini/NovaNova/Purger (or however you call yourself this time)and your companions (user:Giovanni Giove) I do not where have you picked those "historiographers" who deny the existent of Kingdom of Croatia. Are they experts like Arrigo Petacco  ???

Or you just fabricated your own quotes??? --Anto 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Croatia-Slavonia in the Kingdom of Hungary

Apart from the previously mentioned sources here are some more:

An encyclopedia of world history, ancient, medieval and modern, chronologically arranged By William Leonard Langer, Geoffrey Bruun Edition: revised Published by Houghton Mifflin Co., 1948 p.245

"In 1091, Ladislas conquered Croatia and Bosnia but left these regions self- government"

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica By Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Jacob E. Safra Edition: 15, illustrated Published by Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2002 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 21 Dec 2007 ISBN 0852297874, 9780852297872 p 93.

"Ladislas extended Hungary's frontier in Transylvania and occupied Croatia (1091) to protect the rights of his sister, the widow of Zvonimir"

Europe in the Middle Age By Oliver Joseph Thatcher, Ferdinand Schevill Published by John Murray, 1911 Original from Indiana University p 681.

"Croatia was added to Hungary (1091)"

Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom."

The Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information By Hugh Chisholm Edition: 11 Published by The Encyclopedia Britannica Co., 1910 p. 474

"Ladislaus I., king of Hungary- Ladislaus took possession of the country [Croatia] in 1091"

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911

"HUNGARY (Hungarian Magyarorszag), a country in the south-eastern pertion of central Europe, bounded E. by Austria (Bukovina) and Rumania; S. by Rumania, Servia, Bosnia and Austria (Dalmatia); W. by Austria (Istria, Carniola, Styria and Lower Austria); and N. by Austria (Moravia, Silesia and Galicia). It has an area of 125,402 sq. m.(=325.111kn²), being thus about 4000 sq. m. larger than Great Britain and Ireland."

"It is almost exclusively continental, having only a short extent of seaboard on the Adriatic"

"the terms Cisleithania and Transleithania, applied to Austria and Hungary respectively"

"General Division: The kingdom of Hungary in its widest extent, or the " Realm of the Crown of St Stephen," comprises Hungary proper (Magyarorszdg), with which is included the former grand principality of Transylvania, and the province of Croatia-Slavonia. This province enjoys to a large extent autonomy, granted by the so-called compromise of 1868. "

"CROATIA-SLAVONIA (Serbo-Croatian Hrvatska i Slavonija; Hung. Horvát-Szlavonország; Ger. Kroatien und Slawonien), a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy"

"The Croatian Kingdom: c. 910-1091"

"Hungarian Supremacy: 1091-c. 1526. - Amid the strife of rival claimants to the throne, Helena, the widow of Stephen,. appealed for aid to her brother Ladislaus I., king of Hungary.. Ladislaus took possession of the country in 1091. He founded the bishopric of Agram and introduced Hungarian law. His. death in 1095 was the signal for a nationalist insurrection, but after two years the rebels were crushed by his successor Coloman. This monarch reorganized the administration on a system which has been maintained, with modifications in detail, by almost all subsequent rulers. He respected the existing institutions of the conquered territory so far as to leave its autonomy in domestic affairs intact; but delegated his own sovereignty, and especially the control of foreign affairs and war, to a governor known as the ban (q.v.)"

The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pal Engel, Tamas Palosfalvi, Andrew Ayton - 2005 I.B.Tauris edition, Pages 33-34

"One of Ladislaus's most significant achievements was the occupation of Hungary's southern neighbour, Croatia. ... The small kingdom, born in the tenth century, streched from the Kapela mountains to the Adriatic sea, its center being Biograd, located on the coast"

The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John V. Fine, John V. A. Fine, Jr. Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493

"Hungarian intervention in Croatia in the 1090s

The Hungarian king quickly intervened to protect his sister's interest (a fine excuse for what were porbably his own ambitions) and occupied much of Croatia, including part of Dalmatia."

Britannica 2009[1].

"Hungary conquered Croatia in 1091."

Britannica actually mentions the fact that the document is disputed here [2].

Encyclopedia Encarta 2009

Croatia and Slavonia were formally part of Hungary, although a large portion of their territory remained under direct Austrian rule until the late 19th century as part of the Habsburg Military Frontier (Vojna krajina)

After the invasion of Hungary, the two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102.[3]

Ladislas subjugated Croatia, Bosnia, and part of Transylvania; his successor, Koloman, obtained part of Dalmatia

The treaty of Trianon stripped about two-thirds of Hungary’s territory, including Transylvania, Croatia, and Slovakia [4]

Although the status of Croatia in the Kingdom of Hungary is still disputed; according to all sources here: Whether you call it conquer, annexation, addition or union; the important thing is that

Hungary had control over Croatia, but gave her some extent of internal autonomy within the Kingdom of Hungary and in this relationship Hungary and Croatia were not equal parties. --Bizso (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Can someone summarize in a single sentence what in the world is the dispute? It looks like a dispute over the entire article itself, which is just pointless to try on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Britannica and Encarta

I really do not have time so .....

Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles - Britannica.com [5]

A disputed succession to the throne following the reigns of Kresimir IV (1058-1074) and Zvonimir (1075-1089) led to an invasion by Hungary. The two kingdoms united under the Hungarian king, either by the choice of the Croat nobility or by Hungarian force, in 1102. From then until 1918 kings of Hungary were also kings of Croatia, represented by a governor (ban), but Croatia kept its own parliament (Sabor) and considerable autonomy. - encarta.com [6]

Since Croatia and Slavonia have alike de jure and de facto belonged for centuries to the Crown of St. Stephen.... constitution of 1868

2 Books

[7] The Realm of St Stephen by Pal Engel, Tamas Palosfalvi, Andrew Ayton

[8] The Limits of Loyalty Napisao/la Laurence Cole, Daniel L. Unowsky

Every time when we are having "better" history article of Britannica and Encarta why I always think about POV ?

Conquest is out of question, but I do not have time for this...--Rjecina (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So I guess that's a no to my question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Unless your discussion on this talk page is about this article, and it better directly be about this article, any other sidetrack/edit war/general nonsense will result in a warning and then a long, long block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian-Croatian state

Result of personal union was Hungarian-Croatian state. [9] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.237 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a specific point? If that's a source, please cite it appropriate in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Personally I think the name is biased or at the very least confusing. A better name to Croatia in personal union with Hungary would be something like Croatian union with Hungary, but I want to get some other views first. Anyone else? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First we need to know what this article tries to cover. Is it trying to cover everything from the 11th to the 16th century? Is this a substitute for History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526? Or this article simply tries to present the debate about the nature of Historical relations between Hungary and Croatia? Squash Racket (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Croatia between 1102 and 1526--Rjecina (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or History of Croatia between 1091 and 1526. The Kingdom of Croatia article's end seems to be the succession crisis. The 1102 date would suggest the year of the alleged signature of the alleged Pacta Conventa as a reliable date, though most sources question that.
Further: I don't know whether we can use "history of Croatia". As far as I know it was a divided country (see Dalmatia, Slavonia) at the time. We'll get back to this. Squash Racket (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatian union with Hungary suggested by Ricky would probably be the best if the phrase "union" leaves space both for the real union and the personal union interpretations. Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we may rearrange the history of Croatia articles following Britannica's timeline:

• Croatia to the Ottoman conquests
• Ragusa and the Croat Renaissance in Dalmatia
• Croatian national revival
• Croatia in Austria-Hungary
• World War I and the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes
• Yugoslavia, 1918–41
• World War II
• Yugoslavia, 1945–91

Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really a question for History of Croatia which seems quiet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The original name of this article was Croatia in the union with Hungary--Bizso (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but that's grammatically a nightmare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy

I don't like Bellamy book. Why ? Even about events which can't be disputed like election of Ferdinand in 1527 he is speaking about claims and not if this event has even happened. His words are "According to the Croatian narative of historical statehood the Sabor decided...." Maybe I am too simple person but for me there is no claims, according or something 3rd. Question is very simple:Ferdinand is elected for King of Croatia in 01.01.1527 or he is not elected ?

This and other simple questions are clearly too much for Bellamy...

You'll need stronger arguments to discredit Bellamy. He provided probably the deepest analysis on the issue. Squash Racket (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy is out.

Page used in this article in Bellamy words:"does not attempt to provide a "history" of Croatia, its national identity, or a discussion of its national historiography. Instead it attampts only to identify a narrative of Croatian historical statehood..." [10]

For all interested he is speaking about his pages 32-65--Rjecina (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy is in.

We were only using his work to identify different viewpoints as you can see in the article. And for some reason you also removed the Library of Congress references which is even harder to understand. Squash Racket (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am really tired of POV pushing.

You have not been reading Bellamy introduction ????

Maybe other interesting words are :"I propose, I argue,....

Other interesting thing is Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. In this article you will find words which are like taken with copy/paste from wikipedia what my must avoid.

About feedback have you waited about feedback before changing article on 12 March ? I have reverted on version before my edit.

My problem is why I must wait for agreement on talk page if you and Bizso have not waited for agreement before changing article ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are tired of POV pushing? Is it me who is trying to remove every trace of the significant points of view or is it you who is doing just that?
You don't need concensus to add reliable, English sources, but you need concensus to remove them. Obviously. Squash Racket (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are declaring let say questionable book for reliable source and this is not enough so you are writing false claims which are not even in book even this book is not enough for POV pushing. Because you are now "surprised" by my claim can you please read what is writen in book about first statement in this article and what you have writen ?!--Rjecina (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then again in similar style you have "missed" other similar things. For example Bellamy (this is section about Bellamy) has writen that Hungarian claims of conquest are created only in 19 century (see Pacta Conventa). Another small mistake ???--Rjecina (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have not noticed but this article need to speak about 425 years of historical events in Croatia not about Pacta Conventa and interpretations of Union

Claim about 18 century Hungarians is from Bellamy and another source. I have add only Hungarian national awakening for better picture

It will be nice of you if you will now stop with this POV pushing and false claims and remove yourself from this discussion..--Rjecina (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I ask you to stop personal attacks especially after the complete removal of Oxford University Press, Manchester University Press, Cambridge University Press references and the country study of the Library of Congress. That was basically vandalism.
If you cite several sentences, you have to change the text a bit to avoid copyright violation. The first sentence always contains the title of the article which you have just removed. I don't think I changed the meaning of the sentence.
The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary -> The concept of <article title> That's the big deal? That's why you write false claims bolded after you have deleted most of the references?

With your third revert you removed these:

Croatian historians argue that the union was a personal one in the form of a shared king while Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered. The significance of the debate lies in the Croatian claim to an unbroken heritage of historical statehood which is clearly compromised by the other claim.

I found both of these sentences, so I don't know what you are talking about. You only removed the Hungarian and Serbian point of view, because you didn't like it.

The lead might be reworked and the analysis may be inserted in the text, but not through your usual deletions. Squash Racket (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My english is bad but not so much:

"events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary is a source of a major historical controversy" maybe it is my mistake but this statement is saying that union exist !

"concept of Croatia in personal union with Hungary is a source of a major historical controversy"- This statement is saying that existence of union is controversy.

Bellamy and another source are saying that Hungarians have started to dispute union only in 19 century (Serbia do not exist until 19 century). In 1 sources we are even having name of Hungarian historian which has started in 1841 conquest story.

If you are not having anything against I will start to play with article on tuesday

Be free to rewrite lead statement in line with Bellamy statement (union is not controversy !)--Rjecina (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He explains the Croatian and the Hungarian/Serbian views, so he doesn't take a stand on the issue at all.

You also forgot to add that the same can be said about the 14th century and the Croatians' claims. I didn't add any of those claims, you only added one of them. Squash Racket (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In Bellamy, the word "union" refers to the fact that Hungary and Croatia, priorly two separate states, became one state. Whether the union was achieved by a "personal union" or by "conquest", that's the controversy.--Bizso (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how sad is it that the Hungarian article puts it so succinctly here? "conquering Croatia in 1091.... An alternative history based on Pacta Conventa is that Croatia joined to Hungary by a personal union in 1102 after Coloman I assumed control over the territory. However, the validity of this document is still disputed among historians." Would anyone mind if I asked them about a possible title? Might as well work together on a sensible article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the line about Pacta Conventa wasn't there in the article. I added that info a couple of weeks ago.[11] An earlier wording was "subjugating Croatia in 1102". I also did so at the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages article the day before,[12] though shortly after, it was vandalized by Rjecina by mass removal of sources.[13] --Bizso (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Other sources

Curtis, Glenn E. (1992). "A Country Study: Yugoslavia (Former) - The Croats and Their Territories". Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2009-03-16 is clearly saying that Croatia is state: "In either case, Hungarian culture permeated Croatia, the Croatian-Hungarian border shifted often, and at times Hungary treated Croatia as a vassal state"

THE SOUTHERN SLAV QUESTION AND THE HABSBURG MONARCHY by R. W. SETON -WATSON: "It was not till six years later that the recognition of Charles Robert by the Hungarians restored the personal union between the two kingdoms

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815 of Charles W. Ingrao: Between the Drava river and the Adriatic lay the closely associated Croatian-speaking kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia that had been bound in personal union with Hungary.

Stephen R. Burant, ed. Hungary: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989:

"Croatia was never assimilated into Hungary; rather, it became an associate kingdom administered by a ban, or civil governor."

The Hungarians by Paul Lendvai, Ann Major:

"Coloman coronation as King of Croatia initiated union with Hungary which lasted for 800 years..."

This are all sources from all last discussions so links are not needed. From my knowledge all sources are saying that Croatia has been kingdom...--Rjecina (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking? What's the point? Squash Racket (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia existence--Rjecina (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some say it existed, some say not. You delivered Singleton 10 minutes ago, who says: Croats have always maintained that they were never legally part of Hungary. In their eyes Croatia was a separate state which happened to share a ruler with the Hungarians.
And you cited the Library of Congress quite selectively, I couldn't find that one: Croats have maintained for centuries that Croatia remained a sovereign state despite the voluntary union of the two crowns, but Hungarians claim that Hungary annexed Croatia outright in 1102.
You are trying to make a decision here? One of the POVs should win? Squash Racket (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not cited the Library of Congress !!!

Please can we have agreement between Squash Racket and Squash Racket [14]--Rjecina (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks.
The very first source you cite in this thread is the Library of Congress and you are citing it, but selectively. (Curtis, Glenn E. (1992). "A Country Study: Yugoslavia (Former) - The Croats and Their Territories". Library of Congress).
When I cited the Library of Congress, I cited all the viewpoints (as the diff shows). Squash Racket (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Create a separate section for each source that's in dispute and we can discuss its reliability. Its reliability is of course determined on the whole and not based on whether certain points are reliable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Some comparative sources

Here're some scientific works.
These are attempt of comparison of Croatian and Hungarian historiography regarding certain matters.

• János Likó: Prikaz revolucije 1848./1849. u dva hrvatska i mađarska gimnazijska udžbenika, Povijest u nastavi, Vol. IV No. 7 (1), 2006, .
  

(approximate translation: Revolution of 1848/49 in two Croatian and Hungarian gymnasium textbooks) [15] (full text not accessible).

• Márta Font: Ugarsko Kraljevstvo i Hrvatska u srednjem vijeku , Povijesni prilozi, Vol. 28 No. 28, 2005 [16] (pdf) (here's the full text in Croatian, in *.pdf format [17]) (translation: Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middlea Ages). Márta Font was the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Pécs [18] and later General Vice-rector of the University of Pécs [19].
  

The summary in English says:
"Medieval Hungary and Croatia were, in terms of public international law, allied by means of personal union created in the late 11th century. Although Hungarian-Croatian state existed until the beginning of the 20th century and only the Treaty of Trianon marked its final ending we can perceive the year 1526 as a divide. Mostly because the political situation after the battle of Mohács – the king’s death, two elected rulers, Turkish conquests and, consequently, the splitting of Hungary into three parts – changed the entire medieval relation system. This study plans to deal only with the conditions prior to 1526 and primarily wants to present an overview of positions of Hungarian historical science"
The text is in Croatian. The chapter "Nastanak personalne unije" (the emergence of personal union) is very interesting.
"Mađarska i hrvatska povijesna znanost između 1880. i 1910. nisu otvorile raspravu samo o prvotnoj pripadnosti Slavonije, nego i o okolnostima nastanka ugarsko-hrvatske personalne unije. Poznatiji sudionici rasprave s mađarske strane bili su Frigyes Pesty, Gyula Pauler i János Karácsonyi; a s hrvatske strane Vjekoslav Klaić, Izidor Kršnjavi i Rudolf Horvat (Klaić, 1883., Kršnjavi, 1902., Horvat, 1912., Pesty, 1885., Pauler, 1900., Karácsonyi, 1910.)"..
"Hungarian and Croatian historiography between 1880 and 1910 haven't just opened the discussion about the topic "whome belonged Slavonia first", but also the discussion about the circumstances of emergence of Hungarian-Croatian personal union, too. The most famous participants of discussion from Hungarian side were Frigyes Pesty, Gyula Pauler and János Karácsonyi; from Croatian side Vjekoslav Klaić, Izidor Kršnjavi and Rudolf Horvat (Klaić, 1883, Kršnjavi, 1902, Horvat, 1912, Pesty, 1885, Pauler, 1900, Karácsonyi, 1910)"..
This study is very helpful and is giving the attitudes of both sides.
Marta Font is scientist from Faculty of Humanities, University of Pécs, Hungary. Probably there's a same work in somewhere in Hungarian cyberspace.
I hope this might help. Kubura (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but as you can see we try to use English sources only. There is enough coverage, the viewpoints should be described in a neutral way. Squash Racket (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done!Have you ever concider the fact that using only English sources could missled you to write down wrong informations because that source is not relaible. I think that you should in this case concider alternative sources because of quantity that is given and there could be a information which will give you new conclusions.Dome. --78.0.179.172 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Anglosaxon sources aren't always good, unfortunately.
To avoid any misunderstandings: for Croatian point of view, Hungarian sources (especially from recent two decades) are more fair and correct and informative towards Croatian history, then English ones.
And that's also the case with many other nations from Central and Central Eastern Europe. English sources haven't covered that area properly.
But, here's one source in English that tried to cover that gap.
Paul Robert Magocsi and his work Historical Atlas of Central Europe, ISBN 0-500-28355-9.
There's a section on the p. 23, Chapter Hungary-Croatia and Venice, 14th-15th centuries.
"...Hungary was able, however, to retain Croatia-Slavonia, which since 1102 had accepted the Hungarian king as its ruler. Croatia had a special status and was never considered among Hungary's "conquered lands", but rather its "annexed lands". Hungarian rulers were also crowned king of "Croatia and Dalmatia", and were represented there by an officer known as the ban or by their own relatives (sons or brothers), whoe were called dukes. The dukes in particular often acted as independent rulers, appointing bans and bishops, minting their own money, and convoking diets. ...".
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point there are Oxford University Press, Manchester University Press, Cambridge University Press references and the country study of the Library of Congress in the article. Feel free to add further reliable, English sources (properly formatted please). Squash Racket (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Squash Racket. Here: Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, University of Washington Press/University of Toronto Press/Thames & Hudson, 2002, page 23, ISBN 0-500-28355-9. Are these Universities less worthy? Paul Robert Magocsi is a member of Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada since 1996 [20]. Kubura (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kubara, I see that you have added some pretty extensive paragraph. Could you please provide sources for your text? I also hope that you don't do any meat puppetry. [21] --Bizso (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Bizso. Why do you call me Kubara, instead of Kubura? Some other users called me that way [22]. Are you some puppet of LAz17 or GilliamJF? If you have any doubts about meat puppetry, see Special:Contributions/Kubura and hr:Special:Contributions/Kubura. Rjecina told us on hr.wiki that he was blocked. We told him that he should have told us much earlier about his "explanation war" about this topic. We would have helped him. So, I've reacted after his message. Now to sources. Have you read the beginning of my message? "But, here's one source in English ...There's a section on the p. 23, Chapter...". Now type Ctrl+F and you'll see where's that. I've completed one of my previous messages here, this can help. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it wasn't you, who added the paragraph. It was User:Kebeta. I'm noones sock puppet. I called you Kubara, because I read your name wrong.--Bizso (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

beginning of the article

Hi, Squash Racket!

• You can't begin article with: The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy. (what union, today's Croatia and Hungary, controversy..?) First sentence has to be definition of the title, not twenty rows of controversy.

• Kingdom of Croatia and Hungary was from 1102, a personal union of two kingdoms, Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary, united under the Hungarian king. If you don't think that this union existed, than you need to ask for deletion of this article. If you think that it is half-truth because you or some Hungarian historians think otherwise, thatis o.k. But, thats way we have section: Historical context, terms, controversies, where all opinions are noticed.

• You can't justify your reverts (placeing controversy in first sentence without definition of the article) by: secondary source definitely overwrites tertiary ones

• If two kingdoms didn't form a union, than there was no union at all, and therefore this article shouldn't exist at all. So long it exist, it has to have a definition (controversial or not).

Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kebeta, as you can see in a thread above the title of the article has already been questioned (presenting the Croatian POV as the only one), so I moved it to a more neutral one. We decide the title based on the content of the article, not vice versa.

BTW please cite Encarta correctly without changing its meaning and don't delete much more detailed analysis coming from reliable, English secondary sources.

See discussion on the article name above. Regards. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Squash Racket! Name Croatia in personal union with Hungary isn't Croatian POV, it is worlds POV, including Hungarian POV. You can put all detailed analysis that you can find, but do not delete definition of the article. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you delete English sources saying Croatia was incorporated into Hungary (another POV), then no wonder you believe this. Even a Croatian editor agreed in the above section that the article needed to be moved.

You are deleting material, not me. Squash Racket (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Kingdom of Croatia was incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary. The question is how, and in what year? I will not change your last version with this first sentence, just add slightly supplement. I hope you will agree. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)