Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
These are attempt of comparison of Croatian and Hungarian historiography regarding certain matters.<br> |
These are attempt of comparison of Croatian and Hungarian historiography regarding certain matters.<br> |
||
*János Likó: ''Prikaz revolucije 1848./1849. u dva hrvatska i mađarska gimnazijska udžbenika'', Povijest u nastavi, Vol. IV No. 7 (1), 2006, . <br> |
*János Likó: ''Prikaz revolucije 1848./1849. u dva hrvatska i mađarska gimnazijska udžbenika'', Povijest u nastavi, Vol. IV No. 7 (1), 2006, . <br> |
||
(approximate translation: Revolution of 1848/49 in two Croatian and Hungarian gymnasium textbooks) [http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=39228].<br> |
(approximate translation: Revolution of 1848/49 in two Croatian and Hungarian gymnasium textbooks) [http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=39228] (full text not accessible).<br> |
||
* |
*Márta Font: ''Ugarsko Kraljevstvo i Hrvatska u srednjem vijeku'' , Povijesni prilozi, Vol. 28 No. 28, 2005 [http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=13778] (pdf) (here's the '''full text in Croatian, in *.pdf format''' [http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/13778]) (translation: '''Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middlea Ages'''). Márta Font was the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, [[University of Pécs]] [http://www.d-r-c.org/documents/pecs2004.doc] and later General Vice-rector of the University of Pécs [http://www.drc2007.idresearch.hu/htmls/diary_of_the_summer_school_2007.html].<br> |
||
The summary in English says: <br> |
The summary in English says: <br> |
||
"''Medieval Hungary and Croatia were, in terms of public international law, allied by |
"''Medieval Hungary and Croatia were, in terms of public international law, allied by |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
: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). [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 04:32, 27 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). [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk: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 [[Royal Society of Canada|Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada]] since 1996 [http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/magocsi.htm]. [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets|meat puppetry]]. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhr.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DRazgovor_sa_suradnikom%3AKubura%26diff%3Dprev%26oldid%3D1729501&sl=hr&tl=en&history_state0=] --[[User:Bizso|Bizso]] ([[User talk:Bizso|talk]]) 19:25, 27 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 [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets|meat puppetry]]. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhr.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DRazgovor_sa_suradnikom%3AKubura%26diff%3Dprev%26oldid%3D1729501&sl=hr&tl=en&history_state0=] --[[User:Bizso|Bizso]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ns1=1&ns3=1&ns5=1&search=kubara&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Advanced+search&fulltext=Advanced+search]. 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 much earlier us 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, [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] ([[User talk:Kubura|talk]]) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:13, 28 March 2009
![]() | Croatia Start‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Hungary Start‑class | |||||||||
|
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. [1] -- —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..." [2]
- 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)
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.[3] 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,[4] though shortly after, it was vandalized by Rjecina by mass removal of sources.[5] --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)
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 [6]--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) [7] (full text not accessible).
- Márta Font: Ugarsko Kraljevstvo i Hrvatska u srednjem vijeku , Povijesni prilozi, Vol. 28 No. 28, 2005 [8] (pdf) (here's the full text in Croatian, in *.pdf format [9]) (translation: Hungarian Kingdom and Croatia in the Middlea Ages). Márta Font was the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Pécs [10] and later General Vice-rector of the University of Pécs [11].
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 [12]. 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. [13] --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 [14]. 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 much earlier us 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)