Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. per WP:FORK Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia

[edit]
Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two articles have been created on the same Austro-Hungarian subdivision. This article has the exact same topic as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, except that the title of the latter is the official, proper, and most common name for it (per Google tests on Google [1] [2], Google Scholar [3] [4], and Google Books [5] [6]). "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
The confusion arises from the fact that Croatia-Slavonia claimed another nearby Austro-Hungarian subdivision, the Kingdom of Dalmatia and therefore used this long alternative name to bolster its claim during the periods when it hoped to annex the latter. It never did manage to do so, and some users have claimed on the talkpage that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" exsited as a super-subdivision uniting the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia. All sources that could be found to use the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", use it as an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It was conclusively shown that no such "super-subdivision" ever existed, and that this term is only another (less used and unofficial) name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.

As with too many Balkans issues, dealing with this straightforward matter has been delayed by nationalist views, this time from my own ethnic group - Croats. :) Croats mostly refer to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" and are therefore reluctant to see anything happen to this article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You're not reading my posts again... READ this link: [7] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I've already shown my arguments on the article's talk page, but the source-based facts are quite obvious: the "Triune Kingdom ..." was just an ideal for some 19th century nationalist circles in Croatia-Slavonia to recreate a medieval state. Considering that the "Triune ..." was sometimes officially used as the polity name by the authorities of Croatia-Slavonia, IMHO, the current article should become a redirect, with the ideal best described in a separate section in the article about the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Anonimu (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two articles have been created on the same Austro-Hungarian subdivision. This article has the exact same topic as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, except that the title of the latter is the official, proper, and most common name for it (per Google tests on Google [1] [2], Google Scholar [3] [4], and Google Books [5] [6]). "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. This is a false statement.
A fact recognized by all:
According to Croats (and others) who lived in Triune Kingdom:
According to Hungarians who lived in Hungary:
According to Austrians who lived in Austria:
Monarchy administration and Croatian assembly within Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia called officially thear country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with documents, emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage. Durin period of Ban Josip Jelačić two divisions (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia) were in real (de facto) a one state; Triune Kingdom under Josip Jelačić. On 19 April 1848 Jelačić proclaimed the union of Croatian provinces, and the separation from Kingdom of Hungary. At the same time, he proclaimed unconditional loyalty to the Habsburg house. Later that year in May, Jelačić established the Bansko Vijeće or the Council of Ban (in German: Rat des Banus). The scope of authority of the Council of Ban covered de facto ministerial tasks (Internal Affairs, Justice, School and Education, Religion, Financial, and Military resorts), so this council was acting as a governing body in Croatia. By August, Ban Jelačić proclaimed a decree for the Croatians, where he denied accusations of separating Croatia in the name of panslavism. According to the decree "being a son of (the Croatian) nation, being the supporter of liberty, and being subject to Austria.
It may be better if articles Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were merged in to aricle about Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --Kebeta (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, not one source. None of the stuff you wrote there is factual. Nothing. These are all your ideas unsupported by sources. There was no "Triune Kingdom", and nobody lived in it. I've asked you repeatedly to present a source that some kind of "united super-entity" existed. You provided none. On the contrary, every single source clearly points to the fact that the Kingdom of Dalmatia was never, ever de jure or de facto united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, or that it formed some "united entity" with it in Austria-Hungary. All sources use the name as a synonym for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Stop with the gigantic posts and start presenting references. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it wouldn't be appropriate to merge two real entities (Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia) into one that was just an ideal goal (this triune kingdom). Spellcast (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided you with sources here. It just that you can not accept them, because of your point of view. First, you tried to delete this article by force, without consensus at the talk page. Now, you are trying to push your agenda through community. If this subject is black and white as you claim, please answer me to these questions:
  • Was Ban Josip Jelačić in war with Hungary?
  • Did Jelačić on 19 April 1848 proclaimed the union of Croatian provinces, and the separation from Kingdom of Hungary?
  • Did Battle of Pákozd in 1848 ever happened?
  • If Jelačić was in war with Hungary, was that a civil war in Hungary, or Austrian instrument to suppress Hungary, or Croats defence against Magyarization of Croatia?
  • Was Jelačić Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia from 1848-1859?
  • Was Croatian–Hungarian Agreement in 1868 signed between Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia and Hungary?
  • Is this sentence: "Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity, alike towards the other territories under His Majesty's rule and towards other countries" a part of document called Croatian–Hungarian Agreement, and was it validate by Austro-Hungarian Empire?
  • Did monarchy administration and Croatian assembly called officially thear country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with documents, emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage?
Understand this, Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia is period of before, during and after the split into Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia divisions. It is just question how much success it had in certain period. Sometimes it was refered only to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and sometimes to both kingdoms (divisions). But the point is that people that lived there, embraced it, lived by its rules, wear its emblems and flags, signed documents, and so on, all under official name of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. You can not merge bigger box into smaller one properly. --Kebeta (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, not one source. ALL of the sources you've presented simply refer to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia by this alternative name. "Triune Kingdom" is an alternative name for the Croatian Kingdom, and it has been used for Kingdom of Croatia (medieval), Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It is an alternative name. The reason why "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is going to be redirected to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia is because the other two Croatian kingdoms were overwhelmingly referred to as "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia" (with "Dalmatia" first). However, "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" (with "Croatia" first) has been used for Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), but very rarely indeed, we can easily write-up a disambiguation page.
Can you please finally understand that sources merely using the phrase "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" do not count for much in this discussion. We all know that the phrase has been alternatively used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. All that means is that these sources use this particular alt. name. Can you understand that already, and save yourself a LOT of writing? :) You need sources that show this alternative name was a seperate state from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. If you don't have any such sources, I suggest you stop cluttering the page with nonsense about Jelačić and Pákozd.
P.S. Read WP:TLDR and write shorter posts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for longer post. I only did that, so you could understand the situation better. Yet, you completely misunderstand me. I was not talking about Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) (c. 925-1102). The change of name that happened in northern Croatia or Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (administrative division) was embraced in southern Croatia or Kingdom of Dalmatia (administrative division) did reflect a radical shift in the structural political-institutional framework of both states (divisions). All of this happened under Austro-Hungarian Empire. The change of name and official usage of documents, rules, emblems, flags and other did reflect in a movement transforming both states into a one-semi-independent entity in a dissolving Austro-Hungarian Empire, which occurred later in the altered shape of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. --Kebeta (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no sources... I completely understand the situation, and I may well know more about Croatian history than yourself. I did not "misunderstand" you, I understood that most of your post was about Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527–1868). You "misunderstood" my reply, which is to say, you did not read the whole of it. You just keep going on and on about imaginary states, I honestly don't know what to say to you anymore. The Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527–1868) had nothing to do with Dalmatia since the late 15th century. Dalmatia was a Venetian possession, and recognized by the entire world as such. Afterwards, when Austria annexed Venice, it was included in the Austrian Empire as a Kronland. Croatia was ignored.
At no point during its entire history in the Austro-Hungarian state (1815–1918), did the Kingdom of Dalmatia ever unite with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia under any name. Provide a source for that ridiculous Transleithania-Cisleithania fantasy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Having looked over the evidence, and based on my own (not profound) knowledge of Croatian history and Austro-Hungarian subdivisions, I have to say this article looks entirely concocted to address an imaginary construct like a political reality (in breach of WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE, you name it). Contrary to the absurd claim made in the article, Dalmatia and Croatia-Slavonia were divided by the sharpest political division existing within Austria-Hungary (that between Cisleithania and Transleithania). No ifs or buts here. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, I provided you with the sources. Anyway, you just have to walk through the centre of Zagreb, or some other city in Croatia, and you will see sources on the facade of the buildings. If Wikipedia will provide same standards (not double ones), than bunch of articles about Croatia in period from 1990-1995 would not existed. On 25 June 1991, Croatia declared independence and became a sovereign state, yet we have tens of articles about so-called entities such as SAO Krajina, SAO Western Slavonia, SAO of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srijem, SAO Kninska Krajina, Kninska Krajina or Republic of Serbian Krajina? --Kebeta (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I agree with Kebeta because that was the common name of the Croatian realm for centuries. One should bear in mind the following:
    • Venetian rule spread from XII to XIV century, Venetian Republic took city by city, not the hinterland, gained Knin as late as in 1699, etc.
    • 1358-1409 Dalmatia was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia (then and later under slightly different names)
    • End of medieval era roughly in 1492 (in Europe)
    • The Parliament in Cetin convened on 1527-01-01 and decided that the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia exist in a personal union under the Habsburg king
    • 1st Austrian rule over Dalmatia from 1797 to 1806
    • Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (Milan) rule over Dalmatia from 1806 to 1809
    • Illyrian provinces (»Slovinske države«) rule over Dalmatia from 1810 to 1813
    • Illyrian provinces subjected to Austrian rule and attached to the Austrian Empire in 1814; Dalmatia still part of those provinces
      • Napoleonic judiciary system existed up to 1820-01-31
    • Austrian Empire forms the Kingdom of Illyria in 1816, while Dalmatia was considered a separate Kingdom with no connection to Ljubljana
      • Dalmatia gained its own provincial (crown land) Parliament in 1861 in Zadar
      • Croatian language gained parliamentary status in 1867
      • Croatian language gained official status in 1883

The medieval Croatian kingdom was officially known as the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia and joined as such the Kingdom of Hungary in a personal union under the Crown of St. Stephen. Croatian State Archives possesses documents from all periods that speak of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia; the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia; the Kingdom Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

  • Privileges – Privilegia Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: date from 1377
  • Protocols – Protocolla Congregatio generalis Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: date from 1557
  • Minutes – Acta Congregationum Regni: date from 1562
  • Minutes – Transumpta documentorum iura Croatica tangentium: date from 1249

These archival funds and collections are available to everyone at the archives, they are published in the Codex Diplomaticus, by Nada Klaić, and other historians, jurists, literary scientist, political scientist, etc.

It is completely irrelevant what Mr. DIREKTOR wants you to believe that the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia never existed. It did exist and was united under the rule of Josip Jelacic from 1848 to 1850, whose governmental jurisdiction extended to all of modern Croatia except Istria. The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia were not just a project. That kingdom also severed links with the Habsburg Monarchy and the Kingdom of Hungary in 1918, and was part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

The article on the Triune Kingdom should not be deleted but rephrased to include the description of mainly internal and external self rule periods, the context of those periods, the history of the Croatian lands in different supranational entities, the streaming of Croatian politics that led to 1918, and much more that cannot be described under false names like the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) [which should be merged with this article, or renamed to Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia (Habsburg)], but still this article should remain to contain both periods of the Kingdom, its personal union with Hungary, its personal union with the Habsburgs, its rule over Dalmatia (1358-1409, 1848-1850, 1918-1918)

Imbris (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris, not one iota of the above addresses the point, and your faux citation of sources is a fancy form of WP:OR (or, more specifically, speculation from primary sources -presuming those sources existed or were published etc. etc.). Dahn (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Imbris is here WP:STALKing me, its what he does. His arguments don't make sense, they don't adress the issue, and they never do - the point is to try and hinder me in every way possible. His only "contributions" on Wiki are POV-pushing, edit-warring, and talkpage disputes that maim articles. He's a typical Croatian ultranationalist.
Dahn, a word of advice: do NOT under any circumstances actually start discussing with User:Imbris. As personal experience has taught users who dealt with his disruptions on previous occasions - he will not yield or change his opinion, ever, not even if you actually had a dozen university publications directly contradicting him will he consider the possibility of changing his position. Using reasonable arguments like "none of the above has anything to do with the issue" will not sway him, even if five users repeat them for six months (as actually happened on Talk:Hey, Slavs). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider my reply above a community service. That is to say, if the closing admin will somehow interpret a rant riddled with original research as a valid argument (at least because s/he may not have the patience of reading through it and noticing that it's built on sand), then at least s/he'll have these measly pointer that it's not. And if Imbris really is a problem editor, then the thing one does to begin with is present him with the policies/guidelines he still chooses to ignore and make sure they're inescapable to his attention. In that case, he'd have no excuse for ignoring them - you know, the Miranda rights thing. If what you say really is the case, then my message has arguably played a part in that. In any case, we should discontinue discussing Imbris' supposed habits on this page - and I will be glad to continue discussing his arguments if and when he actually substantiates them in some rational way. Dahn (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The simple fact is the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was part of Hungary and the Kingdom of Dalmatia was an Austrian province. It was the goal of Croatia-Slavonia officials to unite with Dalmatia, so these officials stylised themselves with titles containing the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" and made flags containing Dalmatian symbols. But the title, flags, and emblems were only valid in Croatia-Slavonia because Dalmatia was under Austria. The name of this triune kingdom was just a way to facilitate their claim over Dalmatia. It was a goal, not a separate entity. Just because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article doesn't have "Dalmatia" in the title doesn't mean it can't be explained there. Dalmatia was obviously important to the politics of Croatia-Slavonia and should be explained in that article (which it already is). The way forward is to improve the Croatia-Slavonia page, not create content forks by copying and pasting info from an existing page and having two almost identical articles. Spellcast (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Spellcast: The simmilarity of titles is confusing but the Kingdom of the name Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (with variations thereof) existed. This is common knowledge for any student of the history of the Croatian Statehood Law in Croatia. This list contains one of the books I used when listing the the clam to keep, that being the book by Ivan Beuc, Povijest institucija državne vlasti Kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije (Zagreb 1985). This translates to Ivan Beuc, History of Institutions of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. The book was published in 1985, when Croatia was still in Yugoslavia. The author is considered a major historian in the field of the History of Institutions, his book used by various faculties of the University of Zagreb. The article should be improved and not deleted. -- Imbris (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Have you ever read the texts in Croatian [8], or [9] or in Hungarian [10]? You must not mix these two terms. K. of Croatia-Slavonia was under Hungarian part, K. of Dalmatia under Austrian part. However, with Nagodba Triune Kingdom was in virtual union. However, the phrase "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" is older than that division of Croatian regions. Further, DIREKTOR, you have to discuss this thing on the talkpage, and not promptly put it on the AfD. You're skipping the steps! Kubura (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR, WP:PSTS, WP:FRINGE, WP:CFORK. And - in Direktor's defense - there's no requirement that potential AfDs need to be "discussed first", on the talk page or anywhere else. So far, no adequate reason was presented why wikipedia should tolerate a POVed content fork on some imaginary construct. More verbosity will not address that simple issue. Dahn (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I see Imbris still has no idea what this is about :) Kubura, ALL you have to do is prove that the Kingdom of Dalmatia was united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, or that it administratively belonged in something called "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". That is all. A lot of people know I am not a guy that supports the irredentist point of view on Dalmatian history. This is not "POV-pushing", I am being factual. Nobody is saying that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" did not exist per se, it just wasn't a seperate entity from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, it was another name for it. We cannot have two articles on the exact same country. It ruins the whole continuity of Croatian history articles on Wiki - all because many Croats are under the false impression regarding this.
Also, you can both probably stop listing sources that use "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", we've already established that it has been used - and that is NOT what this AfD is about. Alternative names are redirected. I did not "skip any steps" the issue was discussed on the talkpage at length. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura, the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement uses the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" as an alternate name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia to facilitate its claim over Dalmatia as I've explained in User:Ex13's comment below. (Also, you can't "vote" twice). Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. From speech of Stjepan Radić in Croatian parliament on November 24th 1918 (Govor Stjepana Radića u Saboru 24. studenog 1918.): I vi, gospodo, Srbi Vojvođani, i vi ste posve zaboravili na program i vapaj neumrloga svoga prvaka Svetozara Miletića: "Trojednica naša uzdanica", te i vi sad od ove Trojednice pravite dvojednicu i hoćete da načinite nijednicu. - my translation:

"And you, gentlemen, Serbians from Vojvodina, you also have forgotten ideas and cry of your undying leader Svetozar Miletić: "Triune our trust", and you are now making this Triune (kingdom) Dual and you want to make None."

Full text of speach is on Croatian Wikisource (in Croatian language): Govor Stjepana Radića u Saboru 24. studenog 1918. Or in todays words, Triune kingdom can not be swapped with Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, because that is Dual kingdom, not Triune. Above user Dahn mentions WP:OR. Well, go to library, and you will see with your own eyes that this article is not original research. Some users are too eager to mention Wikipedia rules and/or guidelines when some problems can be so easily solved just by checking (reliable) sources, but it is so much easier to resolve (read: delete) problems quoting rules, then searching in old books for real truth. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. To all users (and the closing Admin): sources denoting the usage of the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" are meaningless, and so are all "Strong keeps" based on a lack of understanding of this AfD's subject. We all KNOW the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" has indeed been used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We KNOW that. That is actually the very reason why this article is being merged with Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in the first place. Listing all the Googled instances where this term has been used is NOT RELEVANT. The issue is wether the Kingdom of Dalmatia was united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia into this "Triune Kingdom", thus warranting a seperate article.
    Can I make this any clearer? Could you guys stop cluttering the page with non-relevant links? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Oh, boy, somebody forgotten WP:CIVIL. To all users (and the closing Admin): sources denoting the usage of the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" are valid as any other source for any other subject. If such name is used in literature, then we can safely assume that it meant something, and that meaning should be described in appropriate article. Or authors of following books had no clue, and proposer of deletion knows better and we all should listen to him and forget what is written in our books?
  • I saw that proposer of deletion objected twice that there are no sources, above is just one from real political life of country in question, but here are more, to quench any possible objection that one source is like none:
  • Ivo Goldstein "Croatia, A History", Hurst & company, London, 1999, ISBN 1-85065-525-1, pages 68, 77 and 111
  • Marcus Tanner "Croatian, a nation forged in war", Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1997, ISBN 0-300-09125-7, pages 79, 86, 88 and 103
  • Joanna Rapacka "Leksykon tradycji chorwackich", Slawistyczny osrodek wydawniczy, Warszava, 1997, ISBN 83-86619-27-9, pages 26, 52, 77, 79, 80, 98, etc (8 more pages)
I hope proposer will not defy book published from Yale University Press, because recently I read how vigorously he (to be precise, IP user who signed his edits as DIR :-) defended university press in general, which is (according to him) unquestionable source, such that no error of any kind is not even remotely possible. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its like I keep talking but nobody's listening. READ THIS: We all KNOW the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" has indeed been used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We KNOW that. That is the very reason why this article is being merged with Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in the first place. PLEASE READ THE AfD. First understand what this is about, ffs
How can I explain this more cleraly to everyone? Please tell me. Do you or do you not have sources showing that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was a seperate entity from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, thus warranting a seperate article. Can you prove that the Kingdom of Dalmatia was united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia into a state called the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". DO NOT list links to (respectable) sources, if those sources do not show this article shouldn't be merged by showing these two states as seperate entities. Am I still unclear?? These sources are high quality, but they do not support the idea that these two are different states. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I apologize for calling anyone a "zealot". I haven't forgotten WP:CIVIL, its just that I've literally repeating the same argument over and over again for days - with nobody bothering to read and understand. What should've been a simple matter has turned into a farcical display. People: please stop listing irrelevant sources and arguments - read why this page is being redirected. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the simple use of the term is not enough to guarantee an article. The context is important: a source saying "the ban of Croata-Slavonia claimed to be the ban of the Triune Kingdom ..." is fundamentally different from "the Triune Kingdom was a division inside Austria-Hungary". The first type, of which we have a plenty, means that "Triune Kingdom..." should be just a redirect. The second type, of which I've seen none (i.e. excluding primary sources), means we should have a separate article. Remember: just because Myanmar and Burma are both verifiable terms found in reliable sources it doesn't mean we should have two articles with the same content.Anonimu (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • 1) On January 1, 1527 the Croatian nobles at Cetin unanimously elected Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria as their king, and confirmed the succession to him and his heirs. In return for the throne Archduke Ferdinand at Parliament on Cetin promised to respect the historic rights, freedoms, laws and customs the Croats had when united with the Hungarian kingdom and to defend Croatia from Ottoman Empire invasion.
  • 2) In 1848 Croatian Parliament under Ban Josip Jelačić proclaimed the union of Croatian provinces (Croatian-Slavonian Kingdom and Kingdom of Dalmatia), and the separation from Kingdom of Hungary. Furthermore, it issues a proclamation abolishing serfdom, full civil rights and affirmation of the equality of nations within Croatian provinces.
  • 3) In 1868 Croatian–Hungarian Agreement was signed by Croatia and Hungary. Croatia was represented under the name of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia ("Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity, alike towards the other territories under His Majesty's rule and towards other countries").
  • 4) Monarchy administration and Croatian assembly called officially thear country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with documents, emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage.

Croatia entered House of Habsburg in 1527 within its historic rights, and by its own will. Nobody is disputing administrative division of Empire, but Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were two parts of one entity. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was a semi-independent entity in a Austro-Hungarian Empire, not an administrative division. --Kebeta (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kebeta, if you post the same basic original research over and over again, it doesn't become a valid argument. "Nobody is disputing administrative division of Empire, but Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were two parts of one entity." - that is an absolute absurdity, since it it was not for those who claimed the kingdom existed to decide whether it existed; it was up to the empire, and as long as you admit the main internal border run straight through the supposed kingdom, there is really nothing more worth discussing here. The rest is just a nationalist counterfactual ambition to keep two articles on one topic separated - one article under a neutral title, the other under a unilateral and misleading title. Dahn (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The division on two parts of the Austro-Hungary happened with Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Not before, and the Croato-Hungarian Compromise in 1868 showed that even divided, the Hungarians counted the Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia together. Furthermore, king of Hungary was crowned with the Crown of St. Stephen, and both these compromises established that the king of Croatia-Dalmatia-Slavonia (under various times called this way) is crowned with the same crown as the king of Hungary. It was a personal union. Josip Jelacic also had Rijeka under his governorship in the same time he was the viceroy (ban). -- Imbris (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? Dahn (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot be merged with any other Croatian, Slavonian or Dalmatian related article from the monarhist period. The article can describe the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia which voted on independence in 1918, as it describes now. -- Imbris (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you keep saying that, but other than the same stuff about how you think incidental use (btw, even this irrelevant primary sourcing is so far only documented by your claim that it's documented, and you have so far cited nothing that would explicitly back your interpretation) should create a parallel reality, we have nothing. I'm getting the picture that you really don't want to familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works, and that may be the real problem behind the POV pushing here. Now, unless we talk something (preferably consistent) outside a bogus and convoluted claim that a state can exist by not existing, there really is no point to carry on this discussion. Dahn (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kebeta, Kubura and SpeedyGonsales do not have an argument. All their posts simply refer to the usage of the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". The incredible thing is that, since their posts actually prove the usage of the alternative name, their arguments actually support the merge. :) What we're looking for is evidence that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was something different than the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - i.e. a reason why the merge should not go through. If you think that vote-stacking will somehow count for the silly fact that your arguments are self-refuting - you're in for a surprise. Nobody here has shown that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is something other than another name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


For the record, between 1420 and 1918, Dalmatia was (unfortunately for Croats) never united in any kind of state with Croatia. Never. I don't "like" it, I'm just being factual. It was within the Venetian Republic (1420-1797), then came the Napoleonic period (1797-1814), and then the Kingdom of Dalmatia (1814-1918). All the gibberish above simply shows that the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527-1868) and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918) were sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom" by themselves and those elements of the Austro-Hungarian administration that supported the union of Dalmatia with Croatia. The reason why the Hungarians used the alternative name is because they wanted Dalmatia within the Hungarian part of the Dual Monarchy (like Croatia).
Now, you can list 50,000 instances of when the alternative name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was used, you're actually proving the usage of an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - you are actually supporting the move with your links. Its silly. :)
  • Was the Kingdom of Dalmatia united with Croatia in 1848 by Ban Joisp Jelačić? Can we get a source on that, please?
    I could be crazy, but Ban Jelačić was simply the viceroy of both the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and the Kingdom of Dalmatia (as well as commander of the Croatian Military Frontier). Just because he was the viceroy of both Kingdoms (for a short period) does not mean those kingdoms were actually united. Also, just because he proclaimed his intention of unifying them, does not mean they were actually united.
  • Was Dalmatia a part of any Croatian kingdom 1420-1918? Can we get a source on that, please?
Because if it wasn't, then the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is the same thing as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - another name for it, a name that is less frequently used. Does everybody understand this? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again for the record, all the "Keep" votes were cast by users who do not understand the issue, as is evident from the fact that they actually backed-up their "Keep" votes with arguments and links supporting the merge :P (as their links and arguments only prove that the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was used alternatively for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia). Not a single source was presented to prove that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was anything other than an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • strong keep according to Croatian–Hungarian Agreement (or Compromise, or Pact, Nagodba in Croatian), that arranged Croatia's political status in the Hungarian-ruled part of Austria-Hungary, and it was a constitutional act (king enforced it and sanctioned it) until the end of Monarchy. The full text of the Agreement you can read here. Also please read this: Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity (thats the translation from Nagodba)--Ex13 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the absurd posts. Does anyone READ anything here? The Nagodba is plainly a source that actually supports the merge and redirect of this article. READ the above post. The Nagodba is only a document that uses the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It is also a document that voices Hungarian support for the Croatian claim on the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia. This document in no way supports the idea that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is a seperate entity from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - it actually PROVES MY POINT. How many times will I have to write this up for you people?! :P
This is unbelievable... With the exception of the Hey, Slavs discussion, I've rarely had to deal with anything so irrational and absurd. Do you people even understand why this article is being merged in the first place. PLEASE do list some more links to sources using the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - you are proving my point. Does any of you "Keep" voters even understand this? Absolutely absurd, I feel like Alice in Wonderland... The irrational nationalist nonsense like this that makes croWiki a joke will not be allowed spread to enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "irrational" when I reffred to constitutional document? And what is absurd in that? Nagodba supports the idea of Triune Kingdom.
What is irrational and absurd on the following picutres
  • Glory to the Parliament of the Triune Kingdom (foto from the Zagreb City Museum)
    Glory to the Parliament of the Triune Kingdom (foto from the Zagreb City Museum)
  • CoA of Triune Kingdom on Croatian Parliament with CoA of Dalmatia inside
    CoA of Triune Kingdom on Croatian Parliament with CoA of Dalmatia inside
Also please read this [11] Its refered to Triune Kingdom--Ex13 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you still don't get it: there was only ONE Croatian kingdom in Austria-Hungary. This Kingdom was known as the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" OR "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Some documents used the name "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" (which is also the most common English name), while other authorities, those that supported the unification of Croatian lands, used the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Are you with me? This is why this page is being merged with the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" article on this same state. Ok?
RE:"Nagodba supports the idea of Triune Kingdom."
The Hungarians did indeed support the unification of the Kingdom of Dalmatia (part of Cisleithania) with Croatia (part of Transleithania), but the point is: SO WHAT? The two states did not actually unite. Hungarian and Croatian documents and insignia at the time used the title "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" for the Croatian Kingdom (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia), then why should we have TWO seperate articles on the exact same state just because two names were used for it??? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. As I explained on the talk page, when you read the Nagodba (or any other source presented in this AFD and the talk page), it's clear from the context that they repeatedly use the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" as a way to support the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia's claim over the Kingdom of Dalmatia. Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between irredentist fiction and political reality, as discussed by reliable, professional secondary-sources:
    • Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans: Twentieth century, 1999 edition, p.57, discussing the situation in the late 1800s and early 1900s: "The fundamental controversy at this time [in Dalmatia] was over the political future of the region. The Autonomist Party called for a separate provincial administration for Dalmatia. [...] The rival National Party wished to be united with Croatia to form a reconstituted Triune Kingdom." - this hopefully shows that the Triune Kingdom was not even considered a political reality by all Croatians. P. 66: "In Croatia-Slavonia the population consisted of 62.5 percent Croats and 24.6 percent Serbs. The ideal Croatian state for the nationalist would have included the lands of the Triune Kingdom with the addition of Bosnia-Hercegovina" - this hopefully clarifies that, while there was an ambition to unite three regions into one state, only two were governed together, the other being a matter of political fiction.
    • Jelavich, The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, 1986, p.256 (same context): "[The Croat nationalists] hoped in return for their stand to win Magyar support for the restoration of the Triune Kingdom." - the word "restoration" should further underline that there was no such reality in the modern age, as the article we're discussing would have you believe. Incidentally, this administrative situation did not change at all, for as long as Austria-Hungary existed, and, obviously, beyond.
    • Ignác Romsics, Béla K. Király, Geopolitics in the Danube Region, 1999. P.177: "The Hungarian-Croat Commonwealth originated in the Middle Ages and retained into modern times [its] feudal institutions [...] even though the Croat territory itself did not constitute a separate political and administrative unit [before 1848]. However, within the Habsburg Monarchy the Dalmatian-Croat-Slavonian Triune Kingdom implied a virtual Croat state and included at least four different territorial units. The authority of Croat feudal institutions was limited and affected only three counties of Croatia proper. Yet, this central area was separated from the three Slavonian counties by the Military Border which was under the auspices and directions of the Vienna Court War Council [...]. The Slavonian counties [...] were claimed by both Hungarians and Croats. Furthermore, Croat constitutional theory also claimed Dalmatia, an Austrian province (governed from Vienna), Fiume ([...] annexed in 1779 by the [Hungarian Crown]), and Turkish Croatia (belonging to the Ottoman Empire) to be part of the Triune Kingdom." - quite clear we are talking about wishful thinking, theoretical claims, and fictional senses rubbing on hard facts. P. 178, on the Croatian National Party's activities in the second half of the 19th century: "Their primary goal was to establish a united Croat political nation and to achieve equal political status for the Trune Kingdom." The discussion of how this goal was contrasted by the absence of any actual administrative reform continues over several pages, to conclude p.187-188: "Therefore dualist [that is, pro-Austrian and in power as overseers of Croatia-Slavonia] Hungarian liberals never did consider the recognition of the Triune Kingdom as a completely separate country between Austria and Hungary. The first Hungarian Prime Minister of Dualism, Gyula Andrássy, perceived a direct connection between the recognition of a politically separate Croat-Slavonian-Dalmatian Kingdom and the federalization of the [Habsburg] Monarchy." P.194: "the [Croat-Hungarian] compromise acknowledged Croat integrity relating to the area within the Habsburg Monarchy and acknowledged Croat the unity of Croatia proper, Slavonia, eleven border regiments, and Dalmatia, but did not change the status of Austrian Dalmatia. Hungary declared that it would promote the unification of Croatia and Dalmatia but did not put much dedication nor interest in the implementation of the pledge since annexation would have entailed conflicts between Hungary and its Austrian dualist partner." Clear enough, for those who claimed above that Hungary recognized the Croat-Dalmatian union?
    • Mikuláš Teich, Roy Porter, The National Question in Europe in Historical Context, 1993, p.284: "[In the Croat-Hungarian compromise,] the Triune Kingdom is declared to be a 'political nation', a term understood by the Croatians in the sense of 'nation-state'. This declaration of state-right in the compromise was by no means carried out in practice, but its ideological impact was immense. The Croatian version of the Compromise uses the expression 'Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia' whereas the Magyar texts avoids the term 'Kingdoms' and puts Croatia in the first place. [...] It is important to note that paragraph 65 of the Compromise states [...] that Dalmatia should be reincorporated and united with Croatia and Slavonia on the basis of 'the Holy Hungarian Crown', but that the option of Dalmatia must first be obtained. This declaration was in opposition to the Austrian 'December Constitution' of 1867 which included Dalmatia as one of the lands represented by the Reichsrat. At the beginning, the statement of a possible union was of no importance. Later, when the National Party of Dalmatia reached a majority in the Diet, this issue affected the very essence of the Dualist system. The Austrian and the Hungarian ministers even combined forces to prevent demands for union in the Croatian and Dalmatian Diets, and there were also objections raised in the Reichsrat."
    • Ivo Goldstein (who was misleadingly cited above) apparently only refers to the Triune Kingdom as a political project, not as a fact. This is the case in Goldstein & Nikolina Jovanović, Croatai: A History, 1999. P. 68: "[1848-9 demands formulated by Croatian representatives] demanded the unification of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia." P. 77: "[In 1848], representatives of Croatia and Slavonia submitted a request to the Emperor formulating the basic elements of Croatian state ideology. It assumed that the triune kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia was independent of any other, and demanded the unification of Dalmatia and parts of Istria with Croatia and Slavonia." See p.102-103 for the vain efforts of Croats in Dalmatia to unite with Coatia and Slavonia, in and around 1906 (with detail on the conflict this sparked between Dalmatian Croats and Dalmatian Italians).
    • Blunt statement in Hugh Seton-Watson, Nations and States. Part 32, 1977 (nb: from someone who supported the dissolution of Austria-Hungary). P. 133: "[Since 1867,] Dalmatia remained under the rule of Vienna: thus the former triune kingdom continued to be divided."
  • I could go on and on, but this should be enough to settle the matter. The core issue here is: the notion of "Triune Kingdom" is POVed, expressing a nationalist construct and a fictional reality; the subject is already covered in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, where it belongs, and which does address a political and juridical reality. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and let me add that no matter how many links, sources, and documents are quoted that contain the phrase "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", it still does not alter the fact that there was only ONE Croatian kingdom in Austria-Hungary. This ONE Kingdom was primarily known as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, but the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was also used at times when Croats (and, at times, Hungarians) were pushing for the unification with Dalmatia and/or Bosnia. The point is - you can quote stuff as much as you like, its still ONE state, and there is no way this ONE state will have two articles because two names were used for it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dahn, but you above mention irredentist fiction, and you obviously don't know what irredentism means: One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one's nation but now subject to a foreign government.. Todays Republic of Croatia covers territory which is mentioned in this article, and Croatian people lived at least last 10 centuries on mentioned territory. So if all other things you claim are true (which are not), firstly you are blatantly accusing all your opponents on matter of keeping or deleting this article on doing something, or using worst imaginable sources, and you don't have slightest clue what you are talking about. Or, you are rude, and forgot WP:CIVIL same as DIRECTOR above (apology accepted). If that areas weren't united (which is fact), that doesn't mean some other nationality lived there, or there is any kind of irredentism involved. Actually, Habsburg throne liked such situation, per divide and conquer. I strongly urge that in future you abstain from vilifying accusations, and stick to facts. Thanks.
Secondly, if anything, this discussion proved that term Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia exists. If term exist, so why to delete an article which describes that term? You (and your allies) claim that this term is fully covered in article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and I say it isn't. Wikipedia is known not to allow forks (which is mentioned somewhere above), but here is not such case, because Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom are not the same. And that difference should be described in this article, and separate article about Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can exist, to describe that closely related, but not identical political entity. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is my definition of the word "irredentist" what is being discussed here, Speedy? The rest of your post is either purely inflammatory or sophistical and frivolous, so I will ignore it as such. Dahn (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(And let me be very clear here: the term discussed was irredentist under any definition, including the one you cite, since Dalmatia was not part of either Croatia-Slavonia or even Transleithania. Trying to read the term as a personal attack - right before you produce your own personal attacks, no less - is so contrived and manipulative that I would demean myself to take it into consideration.) Dahn (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoL... You actually contradicted yourself again Speedy. First you list sources that support a view contrary to your vote, :P then you ever so kindly prove that this is indeed a matter of Croatian irredentism, as Dalmatia was exactly that - "a territory culturally or historically related to a nation but now subject to a foreign [direct Austrian] government", as opposed to that of the Croatian Kingdom. It would appear that you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Secondly, lets answer the nonsensical statement that "If term exist, so why to delete an article which describes that term?" We ALL KNOW the term exists. Nobody's actually "deleting the term" - we are redirecting (merging) it. The reason why every single term does not have its own article on Wikipedia is because they are synonyms (i.e. another name for something). The term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is another term for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, so unless you can provide a source that these were two different things - its getting redirected. ok? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote above why "Triune Kingdom" isn't the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and why this isn't a fork. Overlapping of content should be eliminated if it exists, articles should be different, as they should describe different terms, one should describe real entity, other should describe fight of people under foreign rule for unification of all Croatian lands in one state (at that time). SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible, someone actually read the AfD... Well then, you need an article called "Struggle for the unification of Croatian lands" (or a section in the Croatia in the Habsburg Empire article). As all you guys so intelligently and dilligently proved with all your links and sources, - this term ("Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia") is an alternative name used for a country, namely the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and it'll be redirected to that article. Using this article name for such purposes is against Wiki policy.
Now do you see what I mean when I say your sources actually support the merge? LoL :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a final comment. Firstly, I feel sorry for the closing admin who has to read through all this text. Don't let these long replies give the illusion that this is a complex issue or that there's a legitimate dispute. This really should be a simple, straightforward case. This triune kingdom was a Croatian unification goal and was a title that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia gave themselves to lay claim over the Kingdom of Dalmatia. Please read this source (page 2, fifth paragraph), which makes it perfectly clear that this was a goal, not a real entity. But those who sympathise with Croatian nationalistic ideals would like to think otherwise. This kind of POV-pushing is why ArbCom have issued sanctions on certain types of editors in Balkan articles. It's clear from the context of all the verifiable sources given that this triune kingdom was a title to facilitate Croatia-Slavonia's claim over Dalmatia. Because it duplicates virtually all the content on Croatia-Slavonia, it's undoubtedly a content fork and should be redirected as such. And finally, the map title is original research (or maybe a misunderstanding of the uploader) because it implies that these three entities were united as a division of Austria-Hungary (which someone previously brought up at File talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia (1868-1918).png). But that's for another time. Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention needed at Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. In addition, I'd like to request that an admin also takes a look at the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, as it has become a target after all this. User:Imbris, a Croatian nationalist account, is trying to turn it into a battleground by revert-warring over false tagging with {{disputed}} and {{POV}}. Sanctions and/or article protection may be a good idea. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Final comment to closing admin - Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia:

  • was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. (everybody approve)
  • was a territorial aspirations of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia. (everybody approve)
  • was a territorial aspirations of the Croats in Croatia-Slavonia for unified Croatia. (everybody approve)
  • was a territorial aspirations of the Croats in Dalmatia (less than Croats of Croatia-Slavonia) for unified Croatia. (everybody approve)
  • was a territorial aspirations of Hungary for all Croatia, not only for Croatia-Slavonia. (everybody approve)
  • was a balance of Austria between two threats: strong Hungary and strong South Slavs in the monarchy. (everybody approve)
  • was a Serbian question for their place in these territories (Triune Kingdom). (everybody approve)
  • was a historical reference to unified Croatia in a sense that Croat populated medieval kingdoms of Croatia proper, Dalmatia and Slavonia. (everybody approve)
  • was a popular name for one and for both administrative divisions of Austrian-Hungarian Empire in late 18th and during 19th century. (everybody approve)
  • was official name in Austria-Hungarian Empire. (everybody approve)
  • was not an administrative divisions in Austrian-Hungarian Empire. (everybody approve)
  • was by monarchy administration and by Croatian assembly called country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage. (everybody approve)
  • was a semi-independent entity in a Austro-Hungarian Empire. (some approve/some disapprove)

The question is: do we need an article about Triune Kingdom, or the subject can be described in other articles. I think that article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can not explain this matter, because we are not talking only about an administrative division, but of subject that is much bigger and far more important. I agree that the article needs huge rewriting, because its to similar with the Croatia-Slavonia article, but that is not a reason to delete it. --Kebeta (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, i'm against deletion of this article. But i agree with most of Kebeta's comments. I find on Commons foto of the first page of Nikola Tesla's passport.
As you can see in the name of the Land Government is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia--Ex13 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ex13, for once again confirming that "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is indeed an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the basis of the material in the article itself, it never actually existed, at least under this name. On the basis of the material quoted above, there were people who thought it ought to exist, that it was a "territorial aspiration." A paragraph explaining that should be inserted in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, with a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Triune_Kingdom_of_Croatia,_Slavonia,_and_Dalmatia&oldid=1078425803"