Talk:Triune Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Content fork of "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"

Ex13, once again you seem to think I'm some kind of idiot that makes random edits for no good reason. And once again you display your lack of knowledge on the subject. The name was only forced after 1868. Dalmatia was always listed first before the 19th century.

Additionally, please stop removing the See also section because you don't think it should be there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, its the same. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia, or Slavonia, or Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia or just Triune Kingdom or in croatian "Trojednica". That's the classical content forking and original research. We discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia --Ex13 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its the same to you. Sorry, but there's a very notable difference as far as historiography is concerned. "Dalmatia first" is the historic medieval name, "Croatia first" is the name forced on by Hungary in 1868 against Croatian demands. It was a historical point of contention. It may look the same, but the difference is there.

Original research? Learn a thing or two for once, and for goodness' sake STOP EDIT-WARRING when you are reverted.

• Mikuláš Teich, Roy Porter; The National question in Europe in historical context; Cambridge University Press, 1993; p. 284 ISBN 0-52136-713-1 [1] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As i see on that page, they talking about the same thing, but with different aproach. So, as i said, its the content forking--Ex13 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Croatia first is 19th century, the rest is before. Don't redirect the page. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia"

Is this a looooooping pov redirection? LOL --Theirrulez (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol are you start following my contributions history again??? --Theirrulez (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) This is a looping redirect page, you know what it means? --Theirrulez (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "following", I don't follow people around. I have 25,000 edits on enWiki - I created this page. [2] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You can have as many edits as you want but this redirect seems to be, by the way, a non-sense. -- Theirrulez (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the recent edits

Hello, it seems we need to have a discussion. I really don't understand why the reverts. The lead is supposedly supported by a source, and I'm looking at the source and I can't find the lead supported anywhere on the supposed place. Then I went to literally translate the first sentence which reads: Hrvatski je etnidki prostor uprvoj polovini 19. stoljeia bio podijeljen na nekoliko politickih i upravnih cjelina, medusobno potpuno razdvojenih, iako formalno okupljen pod nazivom Trojedna kraljevina (Kraljevina Dalmacija, Hrvatska i Slavonija). This is the place the present reference points, page 273 of the source and this is the sentence which defines what Triune Kingdom is. I really don't understand the reverts, so could you please explain. 178.137.69.223 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Glossing over the second part of the sentence like that makes it hard to take you seriously. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If I translated something wrongly, maybe you can help, but I really can't see anything similar to the sentence you are putting back. What's your translation of this sentence? 94.253.23.60 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Joy [shallot], are you here? I'm trying to translate this sentence and I could use some help. I see "formalno okupljen" which says "formally gathered". It follows "under the name of Triune Kingdom". So Triune kingdom is something (that's the first part of the sentece) that is formally gathered. The question is into what. I called that an entity which is pretty much a wide therm, so to have a clear answer to what it is. I can't answer a question to what it is with "formally gathered". If it's formally gathered than it is a some kind of an entity, and I called it a formal entity. In the first part of the sentence it says that Croatian ethnic are was divided into several political and administrative entities. On the rest of the page it explains which entities those are. I think my translation is very much correct. If not at least let's resolve this because I can't see anywhere in the source the sentence that Triune Kingdom was a "notion". Triune Kingdom was not only a notion, it was a formal thing. For instance you can see "Kraljevina Hrvatska-Slavonia-Dalmacija" stated on official documents, so it for sure isn't only a notion. I knew that, and that's why I was surprised when seeing this article. I went to see the source and I was surprised it stated very accurately what Triune Kingom is, but that the sentence in the lead which is supposedly a reference from the source is nowhere to be found in that source. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Joy [shallot], I would really like to settle this. I'm reverting you to get your attention. I just want to include a sentence from the source that explains what Triune Kingdom is. If I translated incorrectly, you can help, but I can't find the current lead in the that source, nowhere. Triune Kingdom was not just a notion. It was a formal thing. The example is the coat of arms on the article page. It was used on official level. Also the official documents were issued on the behalf of Triune Kingdom, so the source is right in my opinion and I don't know where the present lead comes from. I would like to resolve this by discussion, but you just reverted me and left me hanging, although I have a point and I provided a direct quote from the source. Page 273 of the source does not contain the lead sentence. I'm sorry I had to revert you, but you ignored me. I would just like to translate the first sentence from the source (from the same page, 273), which explains what a Triune Kingdom is. It is a formal entity, but in reality, Croatian areas were divided, on Kingdom of Croatia, Military Froniters, Kingdom of Slavonia, Kingdom of Dalamatia. All that is explained in the source. 78.236.237.65 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a formal... notion :) This article is the result of my rescuing factoids from a long-forgotten flamewar, yet that flamewar was based on misconceptions just like those that you're advocating for here. This particular source certainly does juxtapose the formal notion with the lack of practicality, and it doesn't give that much weight to the latter. But other sources listed in the article do not necessarily do the same. Indeed, the conclusion of that earlier flamewar was that the preponderance of sources made it possible to move the the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article away from this kind of a title. You should really examine all of the sources, and see how they treat this topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but a notion is does bring kind of a different meaning. I think we agree it remained only on the declarative level, but that declarative level was an official one. I remember I was reading some official documents a while ago and I was seing documents issued by the Triune Kingdom. The coat of arms is also an official symbol. The reality is what the source says, although it was a formal "thing" it was really composed of completaly distinct political and administrative entities. Austro-Hungary simply worked in that strange way. There are more examples like this where on one hand one side in the empire says this, and the other side says that, and they are simply accepting both things. It was a very diverse empire and it allowed much more cases like this to slide and exist. I don't think that the formal circels in Vienna were referring to the Triune Kingdom. I still think that the source explained it better than the lead which someone referenced to the source , that can't be found anywhere in the source. I don't know much about the history of this article. I agree with the source, the Triune Kingdom only formally exited while in reality the entities it was composed from were completely disctinct. I think we both agree with that, but I have a problem with this word "notion" and the lack of support for the lead on the referenced page of the source. 212.15.179.41 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, describing formalities but without properly explaining that they were formalities contradicts the basic tenet of an encyclopedia - it describes, it does not prescribe. If a concept had the real-world impact of affecting mainly political discussions, as opposed to affecting the practical functioning of a country, it should be described primarily as a political issue, and not as a country.

The lead section shouldn't really quote or refer to any single source, per WP:LEAD - it should instead summarize the article and its sources. It was always a mistake to have the first paragraph function as a lead section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article is describing a country. I translated that sentence to a "formal entity". It really was a formal entity, and other subjects in the empire had acknowledged that. A notion does bear a different meaning. The article can, and does expand on the things you are speaking of. I agree that it existed on a declarative level, but that was an official one. The article can explain all in detail. I agree with that sentence. It's a sentece from the secondary source that explains what the Triune Kingdom is, and the lead should contain just such sentence, that explains what Triune Kingdom was. I see no problem that the rest of the article explain the rest of the things from the source. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's inherently describing a country because the term uses the common English word for a type of a country, so clarification is required in the lead section, this is a basic incongruity that can't wait for elaboration later, otherwise we risk leaving the readers confused.

But I do implore you to address my original point and just go have a look at the other sources. For example, the Korunić references consistently describes the Trojedna kraljevina as something that was to be formed, implying it did not exist, at least it did not exist in a manner sufficiently trivial for it to not elaborate on. --Joy [shallot] (talk)

I was reading this: [3]. It says that Triune Kingdom was an official name for Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and I agree based on my previous knowledge on the subject. It says:"Iako su Hrvatska i Slavonija fizički bile odvojene od Dalmacije, koja je bila u austrijskom dijelu Monarhije, Dalmacija je Nagodbom priznata kao sastavni dio Trojedne Kraljevine, što je krunidbenom prisegom jamčio i kralj,[5] te ju je zato i nosila u svom imenu, naslovu bana i grbu.". I'll try to look at that source listed under number 5 more carefully. I also found out that the king's official title was, among others, King of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, which is the other name for the Triune Kingdom. Austro-Hungary was really strange in that regard. It allowed certain parts of empire to exist in such a dual way. For instance Military Frontier was separated from Croatia for a long time, however the king had also stated that it was legally a part of Croatia. I certainly agree it's not a country , but it's more than a notion and I point out that we have to note the dual nature of it. I was thinking of editing the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article to incorporate explanation from the Croatian side, but I haven't had much time lately to gather sources. I think that explanation is of better quality. It says that 2 Croatian kingdoms, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were separate, however it notes that Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was officially called the Triune Kingdom (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia) and that the king himself had legally put Dalmatia to be a part of the Triune Kingdom. I know it sounds complicated, but that's how Austro-Hungary as a multicultural empire had functioned. It allowed such dual forms of existence and it didn't suppress it as we are often used to see in that kind of situations in the case of other countries (even today). 89.164.236.170 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the source you spoke of. I see it has 35 pages so I gave it just a glance. I would like to note that Triune Kingdom was aiming to became a full and established unified kingdom. I agree with that. I would also like to correct one mistake. Triune Kingdom was not an official name, it was an unofficial name for Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. Croatian article has the correct name and notes the unofficial one in the lead. I was also looking for the official documents bearing the official name. I couldn't find them, but I found one notable document bearing the official name of the kingdom. [4]. It says in the top left corner: "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia". 89.164.236.170 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You should really read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's pretty extensive. I took a look and I saw Director claiming that's another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. I agree with that, as I said earlier now. I'm just afraid that this will be presented as a simplistic form of the real case. 89.164.236.170 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I browsed trough the discussions and trough some sources. I'll do it more thoroughly when I get some time. However this is what I get from the sources. Triune Kingdom is just an unofficial name for Kingdom of Croatian-Slavonia-Dalmatia which is the official name of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia along with Dalmatia. I find the article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia is written in a bit simplistic way. It neglects to point the de-facto and de-jure aspects. This user summed it pretty much according to what I get from the sources. KoCSD had existed in the formal sense (de-jure) and the Croatian article says that the king had recognized it. In the de-facto sense Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia functioned separately. since the official name of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia I would vote for changing the article title of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article and to better explain the two aspects in the name section and the other name, that is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Both names kind were an official names, but Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia was an official name that this entity had used which makes it "more official"...Hungarian side often used it and Austrian side used 2 variants. Kingdom of Dalmatia-Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The first name had Dalmatia in the front to emphasis the Austrian claim on it. This separate article is not needed, because it speaks of the same entity that already has an article- Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The name terminology can be explained there as well as the de-jure and de-facto aspects. I don't think I stand a chance of doing this as an IP so I won't bother. Maybe when I study sources and can verify everything I said trough them along with quotes. One thing is sure. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article has some confusing things stated. The coat of arms of Croatia-Slavonia is the coat of army of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. The explanation that this is the case because Croatia-Slavonia expressed it claims to Dalmatia in such a way is way to wrong. There's much more than expressing claims. It used that coat of army on the official level and that "claims" were not actually claims but recognized state of affairs. In the de-jure sense the Kingdom of Dalmatia was a part of the Triune kingdom.

Lastly I would like to reflect on the following section from the article Kingdom of Croatai-Slavonia: "The kingdom used the formal title of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, thereby pressing its claim on the Kingdom of Dalmatia, but Dalmatia was a Kronland within the imperial Austrian part of Austria-Hungary (also known as Cisleithania). The claim was, for most of the time, supported by the Hungarian government, which backed Croatia-Slavonia in an effort to increase its share of the dual state. The union between the two primarily Croatian lands of Austria-Hungary never took place, however.[7] According to the Article 53 of the Croatian–Hungarian Agreement, governing Croatia's political status in the Hungarian-ruled part of Austria-Hungary, the ban's official title was "Ban of Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia".[8][9] The laws passed in Croatia-Slavonia used the phrase "Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia".[10]"

Firstly, as I said, it is correctly stated that the official name was Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. This is very strange. If that is the official name then that should be the article name...Furthermore it is stated that the Dalmatia is included in the name to stress the "claim" which is also somewhat incorrect. There was much more than a claim. On the de-jure level Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia existed a such. Then the sentence goes "but Dalmatia was a Kronland within the imperial Austrian" by stressing the de-facto aspect, while neglecting de-jure. It correctly states that Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia is recognized by other parts of the empire, like Hungary and Austria. Then it says that Dalmatia was sometimes put in the front of the name without explaining the reason, that is the Austrian claim on it. I find this paragraph poorly written, and although it doesn't state incorrect claims per say the overall image it presents is much far from the real case. 141.138.56.128 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so WP:Consensus can change, but I just don't see it in this instance. Over the last six years the article has been either fairly stable as non-existent (deleted), or fairly stable with a balanced description. I don't see any new sources presented that would make me believe scholarly or Wikipedia consensus has changed in the meantime in a way that would allow us to give more weight to these de jure claims. Please cite reliable sources that directly support your edits, and/or start a WP:RFC to re-examine consensus if you wish to pursue this further. --Joy [shallot] (talk)

Yeah, I would need some good quotes from the sources and the support of others to start such RfC so let it be for now. However, I do think that the article doesn't explain de jure and de facto aspects in the proper way the Croatian article does. De jure is neglected, while in my opinion it's very important because it shows the tendency. The tendency of the de facto situation was towards unification 212.15.177.226 (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Triune Kingdom [of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia]" was a historical concept, not an actuality. But it was used in formal documents and as an official name for the Kingdom of Croatia–Slavonia even before the incorporation of the Miltiary Frontier in 1881. Nonetheless, the three kingdoms were not united under the Habsburgs prior to 1918. Can somebody confirm if I've got this right? The three "kingdoms" all belonged to the medieval Croatian state for a time, but it is unclear to me if the term "triune kingdom" was in use before the 19th century. Srnec (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Srnec. It was a legal actuality, so you are wrong there. The kingdoms of Croatia-Slavonia and Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia are 2 separate legal entities. Also Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia were incorporated into Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia 1868, although even before Kingdom of Slavonia was just a legal entity subordinate to Kingdom of Croatia. Dalmatia was legally a part of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, but due to WW1 and other reasons prior to the war it never got administratively incorporated into Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. Yes, in the past all those 3 kingdoms were a part of Croatian Kingdom. The term Triune kingdom originates in the 19th century. Lastly, just to show you an example of de-jure and de-facto difference. Military frontier was always a part of Croatia, however it was under military administration from Vienna. In 1881 administration was returned to Croatian parliament. Some people are having a wrong impression of what had happened in 1881. Military Frontier was not united with Croatia because it always was a part of Croatia legally. I think the article is written to simplistic. 89.164.161.219 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First usage of the term Triune Kingdom

The first usage can be traced to high medieval era, before that the term was Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia. Before the creation of Slavonia, the name was Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia (also Dalmatia and Croatia). The first time the exact term Triune Kingdom was used is since 1527 by the Habsburgs, to make the title more grander. This title was present during that period until 1918, which an be seen in the text of Jurj Križanić (17th century) who explains that these are three names for a single kingdom: Dalmatia, Croatia et Slavonia sunt tria nomina et scribuntur quasi essent tria Eegna, verum haec tria nomina unam rem significant et nemo potest ostendere coníinia, quando istae regiones aliquando aut nunc distinguerentur dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This irrelevant fact comes from a literal member of the group cited in the articles itself to have its primary goal as pushing the legitimacy of the "Triune Kingdom", very non-neutral source. It is already included in the articles that the Habsburgs introduced and started using the term "Triune Kingdom" already, anyway. So this is not omitted, anyway.--Havsjö (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

dr Ivan Bojničić pl Kninski is a historian, lawyer and heraldist. He was the director of the Royal Archives, One of the official KuK Heraldists (see Der Adel von Kroatien und Slavonien), as well as head of the Royal Sabor Nobility and Titles table. He is in regards of research of historical sources and materials (especially Latin and Hungarian sources) one of the main relevant researchers for both Croatia and Hungary, present in most of today's research. In the end it doesn't change the fact of the historical research, since he has translated Latin, German and Hungarian sources. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Fabricated text!

User Havsjö keeps on reverting a text in which he has used terms such as Nationalists by sourcing them (see HISTORY). The source in question, cites pages 12-13. Which when opened don't mention Nationalist (nor any similar term), but delegates of the Sabor and reformers. This is a practices of the user to make the article more bias, which the user is all ready doing in similar articles such as; Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom of Croatia. The fabrication is even more ridiculous since the founder of Croatian nationalism is Ante Starčević who started his political movement in 1861, while this text is referenced to 1848. This once again only proves that the user Havsjö is by manipulation and fabrication of texts, deletion of relevant sources, trying to make the article more bias. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote itself is from a book called the Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume II under the chapter Croatian Nationalism. The cited quote is that the nationalist Illyrian group supported the creation of the Triune Kingdom during the revolution, exactly what was added to the article --Havsjö (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

SECOND FABRICATION FOUND! The user Havsjö claims the second source; Encyclopedia of Nationalism, page 105 to be related to Nationalists in 1848, the same source states that Nationalis are formed by two political parties, first the founder of Nationalism is Ante Starčević in 1861. The text doesn't claim nor state that the Illyrian movement is Nationalist (also the Illyrian movement ended in 1843), nor could it be since not only is it in pre-Nationalist era, but also it is an international movement (South Slav). Second time the user has cited sources which don't correlate with the written text, which is considered open fabrication. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but in the Book: Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume II, Chapter: Croatian Nationalism, page 104-105 "The first stage of Croatian nationalism is associated with the Illyrianist movement (1836-1848) [...] During the revolutions of 1848 the Illyrianists sought to achieve Croatian political autonomy within a federalized Habsburg monarchy.". So why did you lie? --Havsjö (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It also say that Starcevic's movement in 1861 spawned from the Illyrians, not that it was the first nationalist movement. So I guess you "fabricated" that :^) --Havsjö (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

First fabricated source is an scientific article which makes it relevant, but it doesn't mention any Nationalists, but the Sabor and Delegates. Which proves you openly fabricated the texts citing sources which don't correlate. Th second source states that Nationalism started in 1860s with two parties. The text states that ...is associated with the Illyrianist movement (1836-1848) It doesn't mention the Movement is nationalist nor its members are nationalist (since they all are Pan-Slavists). The same source is not relevant dues to many errors. First one being that the Illyrian movement exists in 1848 which can't be since the movement was banned in 1843. Also the second major error which only confirms the article being badly sourced is that it claims Matica Hrvatska was established in 1842, which doesn't correlate with historic facts since in 1842 Matica ilirska was established, Matica Hrvatska was established in 1874. Other relevant sources such as the first scientific article you mentioned and fabricated confirm that Nationalism began with Starčević, who is held as the founder of Croatian Nationalism. Also the third error of the article, is that the Party of Rights was created from the Illyrian movement which is another error. The Peoples Party (or National Party) was the successor of the Illyrian movement and it was the largest party in 1848. Starčević's party created in 1861 was strictly against Illyrian concepts since it was the first Nationalist party. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, the first source is a source on the Sabor promoting autonomy etc (which the text states), the other source is for the "nationalist" claim, which the text states. Both sources related to the same "topic" of these proposals and are linked to the same collective sentence regarding these proposals. If you acctually had any reading comprehension you would have easily red that indeed the first stage of Croatian nationalism is associated with the Illyrianist movement (1836-1848), i.e. the earliest nationalists, which then (as it says in page 105) "Illyrianism spawned two political movements. the first was Ante Starcevics party of...". I.e. it was the first of the two movements the Illyrianism spawned, not the first nationalists. Further, even if they "organisation" of the Illyrianists itself was cracked down upon, doesnt mean its followers or ideology instantly dissapear. The wiki page for the movement even states how it faces aforementioned setbacks/struggles/crackdowns (and finally "'practically ceased to exist" after the revolutions), but also prominent members still advocated its cause years after 1843.
Regaring Matica hrvatska, both english and Croatian wiki seems to speak against you...
Matica hrvatska
"Matica hrvatska is the oldest independent, non-profit and non-governmental Croatian national institution. It was founded on February 2, 1842 by the Croatian Count Janko Drašković"
Janko Drašković
"In 1842, [Janko Drašković] became the first chairperson of the Matica Hrvatska, the Croatian cultural and publishing society."
It says that Illyrianism SPAWNED two parties, the first of which mentioned being the party of Starcevic, not that the members of the movement created it... Learn to read before coming to english wikipedia --Havsjö (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ANSWER! I will put the truly unacademic principals of putting texts with not related sources aside. Since you are not familiar with Croatian historiography, so we will pretend that didn't happen from your side. So we will go step by step on this subject.

• First source which is in Croatian doesn't mention Nationalists in 1848 in any kind of form. The article doesn't even primarily talk on the subject of Nationalism, which you can see by its name: National Programme and Social Changes during the Revolutions in 1848-1849 and summary. Second in the cited pages 12 and 13 doesn't mention in a single word Nationalism. In contrary it mentions liberal and pluralist ideas, as well as the main ideology of Austro-Slavism, it mentions the Sabor and Reformers, in no way associated with nationalism. So the source claims that the movements of 1848 are Austro-Slavist (and not Nationalists) which is in correlation with most relevant sources and researchers (have in mind Ban Jelačić who is the political leader of that era). So the source can not be put in the same sentence with Nationalism since it disproves any Nationalist theory (which in the end is a source that you put, and as it is a scientific one has dominance over others)
• Second source, since we all ready established that the first source is an scientific article which disproves any claims on Nationalists in 1848. The second source which is not relevant due that it is not a scientific article, but a book written with errors. Before we start with the errors which make the source irrelevant compared to scientific articles. It doesn't mention Illyrians as Nationalists which is portrayed in the text, it only associates origins of nationalism; ...is associated with the Illyrianist movement (1836-1848). But now lets get to the errors! The source it self has no source in it, nor is it made as a scientific article. This are the major errors regarding the main subject:
  • Illyrian movement existed in 1848, this is cited in the text but it is a falsification, since the Illyrian movement was banned in 1843.
  • Claim that the Party of Rights was created out of the Illyrian movement, which is incorrect due to two major facts. First one being that the Party of Rights was a Liberal and Nationalist party which opposed the ideas of Illyrism and its successors. Second most important when the movement was banned and ended in 1843, its successor was the Peoples Party (created in 1843) Both relevant sources and facts prove that this is a major error of the mentioned source. Also since in 1843 the Movement ended and the Peoples part was established by its members only shows that the movement couldn't exist after 1843. Both founders of the Party of Rights, Starčević and Kvaternik were never members of the Illyrian movement, and in their work attacked them for not being nationalist, but pan-salvist and austro-slavist (so once again a claim with no historic reference) which can be seen in their political proclamations. Another thing is that Nationalist didn't advocate the Triune Kingdom, since it only partially represented Croatian Crown Lands, they opted for unification of all Crown Lads which include Bosnia-Herzegovina as well (see Trialist movement). So in all cases representing a medieval term as a nationalist one doesn't historically stand up, since Nationalists would advocate unification of all lands and not 3 out of 5 (which can be seen in the program of the Party of Rights as an example).
  • Matica Ilirska, well since I'm a member of Matica Hrvatska I should know about my institution the best. So here are some sources. The oldest cultural institution was established in 1842 as Matica Ilriska (not Hrvatska/Croatia). which creation was promoted by the Sabor of the Triune Kingdom since 1836. In 1874 it was created as Matica Hrvatska which name remains until today. This was voted on the general assembly of 1873.

Before answering such an insult from your side; Learn to read before coming to english wikipedia, should I answer the same way, like; READ CROATIAN SOURCES and HISTORY BOOKS before you edit them? Please be civil, especially since you have put texts which are not supported by claimed sources. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Im not trying to insult, but clearly do not have a very good grasp of English (or a very free interpretation of the language...). Since the first source does indeed not mention nationalism, nor do I have claimed that does. That is simply another source related to the sentence relating to the nationalists and sabor pushing for autonomy during the revolutions, so that is irrelevent to your point. Secondly, the second source (for the "nationalist" claim) quite clearly states they are Illyrianists are considered "the first stage of Croatian nationalism", again,

The Book: Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume II, Chapter: Croatian Nationalism, page 104-105 "The first stage of Croatian nationalism is associated with the Illyrianist movement (1836-1848) [...] During the revolutions of 1848 the Illyrianists sought to achieve Croatian political autonomy within a federalized Habsburg monarchy.".

"Illyrianists", i.e. followers/reforms of that "ideology" can exist after the movement is cracked down upon or banned, as leading figures from it are the ones pushing for it just a few years later in 1848 (as mentioned in the second source), it refers to "Illyrianists", not the official organisation itself. And you clearly do not understand what it means when something is "spawned" from something else (in this case "Illyrianism"), it doesnt not mean it was the successor or even has to be created by the same people. So there is nothing wrong with the sources other than you being angry since it goes against the narrative of the "Triune Kingdom" that the articles mentions certain groups (and certain people today...) are trying to push as legitimate.
As for "Matica Hrvatska", since both English and Croatian wikipedia (including the pages for Jank Draskovic) refer to it being opened in 1842 (even with a specific day), I will assume that it changed names later and that you are just trying to desperately poke holes in a perfectly good source since it goes against your POV pushing. Especially since you in the same swoop as this remove the "biased source?" tag for, and I repeat this again, a literal member of the very group mentioned in the articles as trying to push for the recognition and legitimacy of the Triune Kingdom...--Havsjö (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Major problem

OK, there has been someone, most of us I believe know who, who has been adding the link to Triune Kingdom all around Wikipedia as if it existed and was a real country. Here is one exemple. The worste is that the source says nothing even near what he wrote, and makes no mention of Triune Kingdom.

So, would you agree and help me to remove this links from the articles where is wrongly added? Of course, we must be carefull not to remove it from articles where the issue is really the Triune Kingdom, however, it is the cases in which this user often using varius IPs and accounts added the link either totally nonsensically and made up (as in Subotica case), or added it replacing Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) or Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia with it. He created also several redirects and even went into templates replacing Croatia with Triune Kingdom as participant.

He fundamentally does this because he made an interpretation of his own of a primary source, Nagodba, where he claims it is said it was all Croatia, including Slavonia, Dalmatia, Military Frntier, etc. He still claims Tesla is Croatian, so...

By comming here I guess most responses will be from Croatian editors, to which I wish to allow me the freedom and honesty to say that I believe you have been too permissive with him possibly believing his passion for Croatia will not do much harm, but I believe you are wrong. He is changing Croatian history and replacing it with a fairy-tale version of his dreams, which distorts articles bringing them to nonsense. His megalomania is doing nothing but harm to Croatian history. Croatian politics were very much focused for decades in the strugle of making either Budapest, who controled Croatia and Slavonia, either Vienna, who controled Dalmatia and Military Frontier, to allow them to unite all this lands. Triune Kingdom is the main focus and goal which gathers Croats from a variety of spectrums, while simultaneously keeps Austrians and Hungarians in agreement to, in a cruel way, keep it as a promise, as hope, but never really wanting to allow it, as they never did. That clash molded the dinamics of the politics in the region more than a century before, but also, long after, the end of A-H empire. Ironically, it would be under Serbian dinasty that Triune Kingdom materialised, as Banovina, but that is not what matters, what matters is that this childish disruptive editing as of a child that wants to see its wishes realised at any cost, as if Triune Kingdom having existed would make him look better or something, is ruining the veracity of the articles and failing then to represent exactly that important dinamic which the fight for the Triune Kingdom created within A-H politics. As much as it would have been great if Triune Kingdom reaslised, the fact is that it didn´t, and that changes a lot the facts, created number of tensions, inter-ethnic alliances, animosities, negociations, parallel projects, and all in all, affects events in future. I hope to count with your help in cleaning this mess up and restoring the correct links, and from now on keeping an eye on this problem. FkpCascais (@Ermenrich:) 03:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, involve @Havsjö:, he seemed to handle very professional this issue. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC))

Well, @KIENGIR: or @Havsjö:, either one of you would be appreciated if you came and explained to one user at bottom of this discussion that Triune Kingdom never got to exist as such. Became only me clarifiying that there ends looking as if I am opposing just because of ethnic rivalry, and not because of real historic facts. FkpCascais (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I kindly ask Havsjö to help you in this case, he proved to have a more thorough knowledge on this particular subject than me.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

Yes, you did, I thank you a lot, and I am sorry, I admit, I used you now, it´s like those cases you recomend a super hot girl friend of yours, but she doesn´t even gave me a look, and then I use you again to try to get close to her again :D FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

:-), I've noticed more times [[User:Username|Username]] not generating a notice, and very rarely by {{ping|username}} also...have you considered to leave a message on his talk page? (that notice seem always to arrive, or if linked by-email also there.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

I think people in the linked discussion are referring to the "Triune Kingdom" in the sense that Croatia-Slavonia officially called itself that internally (despite Dalmatia being separate), so in sense the Triune Kingdom did "exist", even though this was not the reality. I dont know anything about Croatia-Slavonia aka the "Triune Kingdom" issuing passports to Tesla though! I can ofc look out and change aforementioned links to this page to Croatia-Slavonia! --Havsjö (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That editor is clearly convinced that a Triune Kingdom with Austrian and Hungarian green-light existed, consisting of Croatia, Slavonia, Military Fronier (until its end) and Dalmatia. He fails to understand that Croatia-Slavoania were under Hungary, and Dalmatia under Austria, all way till 1918, so no "united" Croatian kingdom ever got to exist. The very passport is dubious regarding its authenticity. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

He basis his claims on this Croatian Wikisource: "Prelom s Ugarskom" autor Robert Horvat ("Agreement with Hungary" by Robert Horvat), citing page 157. If we ignore his ultraexagerated claim that the source claims Triune Kingdom existed as representing Croatia from 1850 on as if including Dalmatia, and focus just on the Military Frontier, the source says the decalration included this statement. The source by itself is a mixture of original transcripts mixed with authors interpratations, so it desperatelly screams independent confirmation of whatever claim is found inside. The sentence itself its so vague and open to interpretations that seems as if it was made as such intentionally so both sides could claim victory, Hungarians claiming it all remains the same and will collect taxes from all those lands alltogether now, while Croats can claim they got a document recognising all 3 lands were one.

The problem comes later in practice. Not only we lack reliable sources confirming Croatia, Slavonia and Military Frontier (which sections by the way, cause certainly not entire MF which reached as far as Central Romania was to become part of Croatia?) became a "single land", but also we have reliable sources confirming MF remain existing all way until 1881, 31 years later.

Now, relating this to Tesla, we have him born in Smiljan in 1956, in the Military Frontier, we have him moving to Karlovac in 1870 to attend highschool where we have his grades clearly all written in German only, with German being the main language, and screaming Militargrentze all over, with no mention of Croatia, Slavonia, or any other authority other than Military Frontier. In 1875 Tesla moves to Graz on Military Frontier scholarship, meaning, by then MF was still very much active. So the source claiming MF and Croatia all became "one land" Croatia, seems obviously wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont really understand what you want me or other editors to do other than to keep an eye out for overt "Triune Kingdom" pushing on different articles. The Tesla page has a large RfC-consensus regarding his Serbian ethnicity and edits to make him a Croat are all reverted quickly it seems. --Havsjö (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, indeed, it is just to keep an eye. I ust mentioned Tesla page because it is an exemple where the user simply ignores and refuses to stick to consensus and believes some Triune major Croatia existed despite all evidence against. Once I noteced he has been around pushing it into other articles, I thought it was worth letting the community know about the problem. I was surprised it went trough some quite important historical articles where it would have been expected to be reverted right away quite quickly, but it didn´t. FkpCascais (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you are mentioning me I'll post this. All I said that it is really interesting that Tesla's passport was issued by "unexistent" Triune Kingdom. Everyone can see the passport for himself. If you can explain how a Trinue Kingdom can issue passports if it doesn't exist I would gladly hear. But please use sources to back up your claims. BDW, I see you have removed the source that was long standing here which described Trinue kingdom as a "formal entity" withing AH empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.246.236 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Tesla's passport is not dubious, nor it is the only document issued by the Trinue Kingdom. I just mentioned that one since for some reason you have an aversion towards Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.246.236 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Fkp, you don't want to understand relationships withing AH on a deeper level. Trinue Kingdom did exist , but only as a formal entity, which is obvious from the fact that it had issued a passport to no other than Tesla. Yes, Dalmatia was de-facto separated. MF had separate administration , but from 1850 had de-jure constituted a single land with Croatia and Slavonia. Separate administration was gradually abolished until 1881. Why are you pushing so hard to disprove claims from secondary sources without providing any source of your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.246.236 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Triune Kingdom did exist as a "formal entity" since Croatia-Slavonia called itself that (and the article mentions this), but it did not "really" exist as Dalmatia was totally separate from it during its entire existence. Here is a (Croatian) source on the matter http://enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=62423. Info about the "formal existence" of it due to Croatia-Slavonia calling itself that is not removed.--Havsjö (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. It existed as a formal entity. It was not "an idea" as some are suggesting. It was a formal entity in the empire which existed in it's own unusual way as it often functioned in AH. An in that own unusual way it has indeed issued a passport to Tesla. What's the point of denying that? So why have you changed the article so that the lead sentence is saying "was the concept—advocated by the leaders of the 19th-century". That's very much different from the previous lead sentence which was backed by a secondary source saying it was a "formal entity". How can a concept issue official documents? Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article has a very much different intro saying exactly that "Kingodm of Croatia Slavonia was internally officially referred to as the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. That makes it very much different from what is suggested by some editors that it simply "didn't exist", or that it was only an idea. 141.136.246.236 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The article introduction says it was a concept of a united kingdom advocated by politicians in 18th century Croatia, the same introduction then explains that after the unification of Croatia-Slavonia, the name became official, but that Dalmatia was still separate despite this. It was not a "formal entity" before Croatia-Slavonia, but its time as a, lets say, "de jure" existing entity is also explained and included, and not omitted or removed from the article --Havsjö (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's correct to mention that it became official later, but it is strange to put emphasis on the "concept" which existed before it was realised. Something was in most cases started as a concept, but if the concept was realised, we should put relevance to the realised matter and later mention that it had existed as a concept much earlier. In ma opinion the lead should be rewritten having in mind those remarks. In this way we can say on Israel article that it was a concept which later became official, as I see it. What is your opinion?141.136.246.236 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Triune Kingdom was never really "realized" later on either, as Dalmatia was always missing and the political movements continued the same struggle of a realized Triune Kingdom after Croatia and Slavonia merged too. Its as if 1/3rd of Israel would still be under full British control but the 2/3rds "State of Isra" still called itself "Israel" and claimed that the "el"-region was part of it, while having no control and still having the same movements as before still struggling to see "Israel" realized. Obviously not a perfect analogy, since all these regions were within Austria-Hungary, but they were still separate in Austria and Hungary etc etc. A true Triune Kingdom, of a united Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia simply did not exist until after the fall of the Habsburgs --Havsjö (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Btw, the source of the to the "formal entity-section" from before merely states that "The Croatian ethnic space was divided into several political and administrative units, completely separated from one another, although formally gathered under the name Triune Kingdom (Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia)." Which I would say that the article conveys already --Havsjö (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It was formally realized as the source that was removed indicated. I agree about everything you say. The situation on the ground was such that Dalmatia was completely separated in reality, and I agree that the article conveys that, however some are misinterpreting it because in the leas the first sentence is saying "a concept" hence it didn't "exist". We all know that the first sentence in the lead is the most read and leaving someone on that is itself a little misleading , although the article late explains it. I'm just pointing that the Triune Kingdom existed as such in the formal way that it's de-jure existence wasn't contested withing the empire as such. It's very important since it would eventually lead to de-facto state of the matter as it did with MF which was also under separate administration but a part of Croatia. It's misleading to put emphasis on the de-facto and to leave behind "de-jure" state of the matter. The sentence that existed in the article described it in great detail. 1. several political entities, 2. completely separated 3. but formally "de-jure" united. I don't see why it was changed to say in the first sentence that it was a "concept" and leave a good number of editors on that while we can be more precise and have the mentioned sentece which describes the state of the matter in greater detail. It does mention that the entities are completely separated, but it also mentioned that those are fomrally united. Both de-facto and de-jure and without any vague claims like that it was a "concept".141.136.246.236 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Even the introduction (as opposed to just the main body of the article) does mention how the Triune Kingdom became a formal reality in regards to the name of Croatia-Slavonia. It was prior to that just a concept for a long time (and even after 1868 really, as I mentioned) and article intros cannot really be formatted based on the assumption that a user would only read the first word of it. The de-jure situation of the formal name of the region is indeed mentioned, but can more than this really be included? This is after all not a country, but a "mere" region of a country, and since the country did not support this "concept" (obviously, since Dalmatia remained separate despite lobbying from Croatian intelligentsia), should further emphasis on the "formal reality" really extended past the already included information regarding this title? Consider this article to be about the "concept of the Triune Kingdom" through history, which was still advocated post 1868, and the article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia to be about the region also bearing "Triune Kingdom" as its formal name. Both also include information about the official/formal use of this term, as well as the reality of the situation --Havsjö (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with everything you said. Here's a quote from Horvat source which is referencing primary sources from 1861: "Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontier the king recognizes as a „constituent part of the Triune Kingdom"; but it still can't be administratively conjoined „to its mother kingdom", because military system in the Military frontier is necessary "in the viewpoint of the strength of the whole state". Union of Dalmatia with Croatia and Slavonia will be done with a free agreement. The quotes in the text are quotes from the primary source, so the king is using the term "Triune Kingdom". I will include this quote in the article and we don't have to change the lead. This is the info I think is relevant. I expect Fkp will protest since his this quote goes against his unsourced theories so I'll ask for your opinion before I include it into the article. 141.136.246.236 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess such a section could be added. You are suggesting that the article show how the King recognized the (Croatian and Slavonian) Military Frontier to be formally part of the "Triune Kingdom" (since 1861 or before?) before they were de-facto incorporated into Croatia and Slavonia, respectively, in 1881? I dont really want to get involved in the Tesla discussion, but I would like to point out the fact that Horvats book is a Croatian book from the time of peak Triune Kingdom-lobbying/championing, which I think could impact its neutrality and/or objectivity in regards to that. But I guess you can feel free to add a section with this information to the article --Havsjö (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I will say that I feel this is (as I feel the discussion surrounding the Triune Kingdom usually are) a bit too obsessive with formal details. You can point to official/formal titles and say that Victor Emmanuel III of Italy was King of Jerusalem, but does this really "matter" despite officially being part of his title? If you can read a 1930's source that the Sava, Littoral, Zeta, Danube and Drina Banovinas constitute parts of "Croatia", that would be true (as this is Croatian lands), but is a person born in one of these Banovinas really born in the Banovina of Croatia because they merged into aforementioned "Croatia" later on? Are those separated regions together prior to the merge really "Croatia", despite no actual connection to eachother? The Croatian and Slavonian MF's were "part of Croatia" in the same way, but how much does this actually "matter" since they were not actually united until 1881? Of course this "formal fact" would be loudly and proudly displayed by advocates of the Triune Kingdom, but are there modern sources more "uncoloured" by that debate which have anything to say about such details and their significance? I might be rambling a bit here, but I hope you see what im getting at --Havsjö (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting to include what the source is saying. Let's not get too much into analogies because we seem to have no disagreements. The sentence I have provided is a quote from a secondary source which directly quotes primary sources and mentions in a concise way both formal and de-facto aspect. Both aspects can be mentioned in the same sentence in the way this source does it and then we don't need to have a discussion which aspect is more relevant. 89.164.199.174 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course a secondary source has author's interpretations. That's exactly why we use secondary sources on Wikipedia. Horvat furthermore provides primary sources which makes it a great material although it's a quite an old piece. Nothing in the source is vague. You may like it or not, but that's the source so if you think something is wrong you can post sources of your own. However, I can be pretty sure you won't be able to find the source to contest Horvat since Horvat has provided a direct references to the primary sources and explained the state of the matter in great detail and directly disproves your claim that separate administration means MF was a separate entity from Croatia. No, it was the same land de-jure with a temporary separated administration. You may like it or not, but that's what the secondary source says and that's what was proclaimed by the king in 1850. You may try to find a source which says that in 1851 that was reverted, but Horvat is not mentioning it was revered or anything similar . Again, this is exactly why we are using seconary sources since we can assume that the secondary source wouldn't mention one event and miss to mention another which completely changes the account of the first one. That is why I'm sure that you won't be able to find a source like that, since I have provided a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.246.236 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I take a minor break and meantime in Triune Kingdom industrialization is on full power! I read the lot and it is just as I expected. Havsjö, it is an honor to meet you. Recomended by my dear colleague from other battles, his majesty, king KIENGIR, you can only be the finnest editor. My earlier conversation may have appeared weird, but I knew we were meeting here again, exactly like this.

So what is the problem here? Many. The first is that this is not an innocent IP wanting to improve Wikipedia, but an indef-banned user whose glorious name was Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was banned because of his total inability to accept consensus and disengage. It´s hilarious to see he used with you the same trick which annoyed so many users, which is to continuously respond by saying so nicelly how he agrees, and then right next he ignores totally what was said and just reinforces his POV. "We agree (you said the sky is blue) you are totally right and I see your point. So, we will add in the lede that the sky is brown. FKP will probably come and oppose me with his unsourced claims (ignores 15 neutral Google books I brought earlier), you support me, OK?" So here, this is all of somehow getting instead of "sky is brown", he needs "Tesla was born in Croatia". He firmly believes there was a Great Croatia rulling A-H. To him, 1867, total loss of authonomy, never happened. "What 1867? 1867? No. Yo no habla 1867. Yo 65, 66, 68 directo. No speak 1867, OK? Great we agree." So yeah, it´s hard to work with him. He will not change his mind not even an inch despite whatever you say and evidence you present him. But he will trick you over and over again, how he agrees with you while just thinking the next way to convince you to his goal. It´s sad because I firmly believe than knowing and accepting the truth is allways the best, and falling into believing desires actually just brings unfortune. That is why I decided I will mostly edit football. Not because I play it, I can´t even remember last time I went to a stadium, but because I love its social impact, its history, its geopolitical connection, its statistics, etc. Editing history all time would be impossible, because each time one ends up facing some editors and having to destroy their dreams of greatness. In a decade, even editing history or politics sporadically, I faced so many POV pushers, from Balkans certainly all, including my own, Serbs. No, you were not rulling that region, no, you were not independent at that time, no, you did not had a medieval kingdom, etc. The worst is that they will play victims and accuse you of being nationalist of their enemy. Well, I guess you know it well how it works around. Anyway, this time, against this user, I had to oppose his dreams of Triune Kingdom. He finds nothing wrong in adding Triune Kingdom as having existed really all around, as if believing it strongly and spreading it as much as possible, will make it truth. I think it is sad because he is missing the essence of what was Croatian reality in this entire era, which was very important for nation identity building. The way Croats actually fought in such unfavorable conditions, their persistance troughout time despite having been tricked almost allways within A-H, it is fascinating. Their strenght and character came from actually not having had the Triune Kingdom. But how to explain it to this user? FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontier the king recognizes as a „constituent part of the Triune Kingdom". What's wrong to point out this quote from a secondary source? The secondary source is itself quoting a primary source. 89.164.199.174 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it ended up not happening :( Sorry, I am really sorry, but for much putovnica´s, stamps, banknotes, Zagreb issued with simbols and claims of Triune Kingdom, it never realised. If it did, you would not have to make an effort searching evidence, history books would have it in numbers. You are letting your emotions speak way much louder then should, I understand you found sources that could create that reality, but real historic ones don´t agree. Croatia and Croats went to really tough times there, it was not at all a happy unified kingdom, but its closer to fight for survival, the Austrians and Hungarians were really bad ass adversaries, and they had the upper position. They even brought Serbs to MF intentionally, to make a balance and have a player more against Croats. This is all actually really complex and fascinating. I am not a bad person towards you, I don´t want to eliminate you, if you notece I actually bring you into discussion. But MF was really a reality of its own, Austrians took it by force (not only from Croatia, see the extent of it, MF was way larger then just Croat part) and they played the cards as it suit them. By all I read about it, and I don´t claim to be the holder of anything, I may know just a bit, but MF was not Croatian until 1881. And only a section of it became Croatian in 1881. FkpCascais (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I provided a quote from a secondary source in the full context. I did not cherry picked a sentence. The next sentence after my quote doesn't say "but it ended not happening :(". You can like it or not, but since the Triune Kingdom formally existed, the documents were bearing its stamp, including the passport of none other than the great Tesla. You are free to find sources which rely to formal-legal aspect to disprove mine. But please stop posting sources which speak nothing about formal-legal aspect and misinterpreting them. 89.164.199.174 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you find modern historical sources, preferably in English and with an author not being someone from the region, that would describe what you claim? Because, it is not some remote obscure history we are talking here, it´s central Europe, Austro-Hungary, where most history of that time was written. You can´t have the article reflecting some idea which is not found in one single other source. FkpCascais (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I posted the source I intent to include, I don't need to find further sources since this one directly references primary sources which is always a better option then finding a source which provided no footnote nor deals with the matter itself (as some sources you posted which only briefly describe MF on one page). I actually prefer primary sources, but we can't include those on Wikipedia without secondary sources. This one is thus a very good source and I'm satisfied enough. 89.164.199.174 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

God, I spent the weekend away, and the moment I return and respond here you are... Don´t you ever take a break? Life doesn´t depend on Triune kingdom, you know? FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "I don´t need no more sources" means you don´t have any. So no, the article should not reflect a different reality than the one modern history books reflect about it. That is why no other editor agrees with you. This is clearly a red light to your intended changes. FkpCascais (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This source is in no contradiction to any of the other sources. It perfectly goes along those sources but also mentions the formal-legal part additionally. As I see , you are the only one disagreeing in this discussion. Anyways, the article already mentions the formal-legal part as it is. I don't intend to change anything , but just provide this source as an addition to the ones already in the article. 89.164.199.174 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If you include it you should probably mention "X in his book from 1906 says.." or some-such since that secondary source is still from the time of Triune Kingdom and the period of Triune lobbying the article talks about --Havsjö (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. However Horvat is himself citing primary sources so I would like if that can be visible. The whole quote I provided is itself a quote from the primary sources without authors interpretations which in my opinion gives more credibility to the matter. 89.164.199.174 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: I made an edit to the article per our discussion. Do you agree with the text and the placement? 141.136.235.51 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You should probably settle what seems to be possible ban evasion before continuing this matter --Havsjö (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)