Talk:Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

message: If this article is about a kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia then why does the coat of arms depicted include Dalmatia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalbest (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was official coat of arms, because Croatian diety/parliament had never renounced its the claim over Dalmatia. Walter9 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: The image :Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif

message: 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 confusion arises from Hungarian political claims and machinations. Without a shadow of a doubt. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The language was not Croatian, believe it or not. This discussion is long over and yet once again you waltz in, edit and start edit-warring to push your nationalist POV. When asked to discuss, you sneer at the suggestion. Simply providing two links does not mean the text is "sourced". You can forget about the Nagodba because 1) it cannot be used in demographic issues and 2) only states that Croatia-Slavonia will have the right on its own language. The other source links to the article... so I'd say they're both a joke.
The sources provided next to the "Croatian or Serbian" language entry are high-quality sources citing Austro-Hungarian census data. I'm afraid there is no question here and no discussion to be had. Austro-Hungarian official documents never, ever use "Croatian language" because no distinction existed at the time between Croatian and Serbian. The language is always listed as "Croatian or Serbian". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ex13 (a.k.a. User:Suradnik13), your behavior so far has been, in my personal view, intolerable. You have thus far instigated edit-wars on three articles, you've disregarded discussions and have decided to simply push your edits with revert-warring. You've disregarded all pleas to wait for the discussion results and some sort of consensus. You simply edit, and then if someone should have any objections you will revert-war until your version stands on top. Your modus operandi is that of a standard-issue nationalist POV-pusher, the kind we see all to often on these articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are five high-quality references (university publications, primary sources) that say "the sun is yellow", and you arrive with a source that says "the sun is blue", you cannot simply write "the sun is blue, yellow" and then cry "don't write against sources!" when someone removes that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your census data argument makes no sense. The 1910/1911 census data only recorded language. But we clearly have detailed, separate census figures for Croatian speakers and Serbian speakers. Therefore, it recorded the two as separate. Who cares if some cartographer specializing in the Americas thought that Croatian and Serbian are the same? That's not what the census data itself says, regardless of what some commentators said after the fact. All of the Croatian data can be seen on a single page here.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language (again) 

message: In the infobox I put the date about the language (Croatian)-  - referenced with two sources.
In Mark Biondich's book on page 9 it clearly stands "Croatian became the official language of administration, and it could be used by forty Croatian deputies assigned to the Hungarian parliament when Croatian matters were being discussed." In that book there is no mention of Croatian or Serbian language.
In the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement, that I also used as the source of information, in the Art. 56-59 it clearly stands: "In the whole territory of Croatia-Slavonia the Croatian language is the language alike of the Legislature, the Administration and the Judicature." No mention of Croatian or Serbian language.
Several times DIREKTOR revert that information, and at the end he makes this edit. Croatian or Serbian is referenced with Biondich's book, but that is not written in this book.
All I can say is that DIREKTOR violated several wiki-policies, inter alia Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."
And then he makes personal attacks on me. Because i removed his POV from the text.--Ex13 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attacked your edit-warring, not you personally, so do not make silly accusations just for the sake of it. Since all Austro-Hungarian official sources use "Croatian or Serbian", you'll have to keep your rabid ethnic hatred in check for now, I'm afraid. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And where is the source for that? As you now, William R. Shepherd is not an Austro-Hungarian offical. Secondly, that maps shows races, or ethnics. "Croats and Serbs" is something quite different from Croatian language and Serbian language, or so called Croato-Serbian. But these are some basic terms that you probably do not know or do not understand. So please, be so kind and put the Croatian back in the infobox.--Ex13 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some four or five sources in the article, yet you refuse to address them at all. In fact, you've been acting as if the university publications and Austro-Hungarian censi don't even exist. Perhaps I should find them in picture form so as to make it easier? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged violations of verifiability 

message: It is pretty obvious the source was there completely by mistake, I was fixing Ex13's source entry and forgot to remove the whole thing when I rewrote the text. Please do check the sources. Ex13's offensive section titles are not something I am going to put-up with. If he changes them back, as I know he will, I'm going to the admins immediately. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Offensive section title? :) Well i dont like your infringements of verifiability policy. Please be so kind and return referenced edits, or i will go to the admins--Ex13 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883"  - Well the source is wrong, because Croatian language became official in 1868.--Ex13 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm sensing anger? Is there anything I can do to quell that temper? :) Speedy, please oh please read my post! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language issue 

message: Let me clarify my point once more: 1) both names were used in Croatia-Slavonia...
* Frucht, Richard; Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture; ABC-CLIO, 2005 
** "In the early 1830s Zagreb became both the political and cultural center of the Croat lands. However, the Illyrianist awakeners first had to contend with the name of the spoken language. They initially referred to it as 'Illyrian' and later as 'Croatian or Serbian'. For the remainder of the 19th century the language was referred to as 'Croatian' or 'Croatian or Serbian'."
2) ...but on the whole all Austro-Hungarian institutions and official documents used the name "Croatian or Serbian", simply as there was no way to make out the difference between the two languages. See here for example an excerpt on Dalmatia:
* Roy Porter, Mikuláš Teich; The National question in Europe in historical context; Cambridge University Press, 1993 
** "In the twenty years from 1861 to 1882, Croatian or Serbian had become the public language of the educated classes, but the struggle to have it confirmed as the official language had to continue. (...) The situation changes with the progress of the national revival, and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883."
This is why we have what only seems as a contradiction of sources. The fact of the matter is that on an official level this Austro-Hungarian language is named "Croatian or Serbian". This language, however, was "decidedly more Croatian than Serbian, but the name remained a hybrid". (I could add these two sources to the article but it would be too many for the infobox.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883"  - Well the source is wrong, because Croatian language became official in 1868.--Ex13 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: As I have already said (before any of the sources were presented by Ex13 and Speedy): there is no contradiction, and all of these sources are high-quality and perfectly correct. I've explained the matter once more on Speedy's talkpage so I'll repeat it here again. "Croatian or Serbian" and "Croatian" in this context are two names for the same language. This is not about languages, but about language names.
One name, 1) "Croatian language" is used only within the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and within that kingdom we also have the usage of the name "Croatian or Serbian language". The name 2) "Croatian or Serbian language" is used within Croatia-Slavonia, but everywhere outside the kingdom (for example in the Kingdom of Dalmatia) we have exclusive usage of this name in all capacities.
Now, having established that we are faced with the question: which name do we use for this language? So far I've supported the use of the name "Croatian or Serbian". This is for one primary reason: because official Austro-Hungarian documents and censi use this name. However, if you are insistent on including the name "Croatian language" as well, I must insist that a note be made of two things: 1) that the name is only used internally within the Kingdom, and 2) that the name is used for one and the same langauge as the name "Croatian or Serbian", as we are certainly not talking about two languages here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent "contradiction" 

message: This is article about kingdom which now doesn't exist, and arguing that something should be this or that when that kingdom is long gone is actually called revisionism. We should write (or describe it) as it was, as accurately as we can, and to sources you so arrogantly deleted (your sources are good, other are bad, isn't it?), I can add only this ...They (Sabor) also discussed what to call the standard language used in Croatia and Slavonia: of four proposals (vernacular, Croatian-Slavonian, Croatian or Serbian, Yugoslav) the name 'Yugoslav' was accepted by majority vote. The next year, the Croatian court chancellery annulled this decision and settled on the name 'Croatian' for the language. Ivo Goldstein, "Croatia: A History", C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1999, , page 79 SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No contradiction at all 

message: You still did not read my post completely. Or at least, you are certainly not responding to what I wrote. Please, can you please read what I wrote above and on your talkpage more carefully. The sources are not in conflict. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sensing anger? Is there anything I can do to quell that temper? :) Speedy, please oh please read my post! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly subsection No.4 :) 

message: Does anyone have a source for Lijepa Nasa being the anthem? -- Director (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't. The official anthem of the kingdom, as was for the entire Austria-Hungary (and Austrian Empire before that), was the Kaiserhymne, with Croatian lyrics. The first time Lijepa Naša was performed was in 1891. in some trade exhibit, but that was of course in unofficial manner. From that point on it was regularly performed in various manifestations as a unofficial anthem.  Shokatz (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthem 

message: I think the Triune Kingdom article should be merged into this article. This article identifies the official name of the kingdom as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, unofficially also referred simply as Triune Kingdom" and since the term Triune Kingdom hardly applied to anything else besides the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (except perhaps when applied anachronistically. Does the community support the merger?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not. -- Director (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I support this. This entire article can easily be incorporated into the said article...including the historical background for the term and it's use. If anything it will increase the depth of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. Shokatz (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: No, even if you want to treat this as a term that described merely this kingdom's territorial pretense towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia, it was a political concept in its own right, not really an essential characteristic of this entity that can't have its own article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But its a political concept of this Kingdom about this Kingdom.. -- Director (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was more general - it's a Croatian nationalist concept that existed both before the 1868 Settlement and within Dalmatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do have a point there.. still, if its not expanded I mildly favor a merge of the topic here. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

text: If we talk about the term itself it refers only to one thing and that is the same subject of this article precisely. If we talk about the concept then it should be a part of currently non-existent Croatian National Revival article and it should be completely differently composed, toned and titled. The way the Triune Kingdom is written at this moment (including the title itself), it is appropriate only as a sub-section of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article and nothing else. Shokatz (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly is wrong with the composition and tone of the Triune Kingdom article as it is now? How is it not clear from it that it's a concept more general than this article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal (September 2013) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101224643/http://miyeonjan.tripod.com/croatia_flags_e03.html to http://miyeonjan.tripod.com/croatia_flags_e03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified