Talk:Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

If this article is about a kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia then why does the coat of arms depicted include Dalmatia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalbest (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was official coat of arms, because Croatian diety/parliament had never renounced its the claim over Dalmatia. Walter9 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The image Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked-up the matter and merged the articles. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" by the Hungarian authorities because the Hungarians wanted to join Dalmatia into the Hungarian part of the dual state. I say "sometimes" because when the Croats, Slovenes and Serbs started talking about a third South Slavic subdivision within the monarchy, the Hungarians stopped supporting the union. The name of this subdivision, however, is undoubtedly "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". The confusion arises from Hungarian political claims and machinations. Without a shadow of a doubt. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, why did you deleted/merged this article? I belive that your views are biased. You can find more references... just if you want.

• "...When their own dynasty died out in 1102, the Croatian Diet or "Sabor" chose the Hungarian dynasty, trading away full independence for security, stability and internal autonomy. The "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" remained a legally distinct constitutional entity. After Mohacs, the "Sabor" (assembly) separately selected the Habsburg candidate as Croatia's king..."

(Michigan State University source: http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm )

• ( Aberystwyth University SAGE Journals; The National question in Europe in historical context, page 284: http://books.google.hr/books?id=Hu2SnETtV3kC&pg=PA284&dq=triune+kingdom#v=onepage&q=triune%20kingdom&f=false )

etc..--Dvatel (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

After quite a bit of research and work on Photoshop I've created, uploaded, and placed the proper official flag of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, as was used on the level of Austria-Hungary. I've also uploaded the CoA which now uses the exact colors of the Croatian tricolor. Note difference: before and after. Please do not alter the flags, they are as accurate as they'll ever be. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide the sources you used, it could be useful in preventing future disputes. Although Dalmatia was part of Austria, I suppose that didn't mean Dalmatia's symbols couldn't be part of Croatia-Slavonia's flag and COA as a way to represent their claim over Dalmatia. Spellcast (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats not true. The Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Slavonia and Croatia had its own flag and coat of arms, according to Nagodba, and CoA of Dalmatia was part of the CoA of Triune Kingdom. For example:

• 
  First page of the Nikola Tesla's passport
• 
  CoA on the Parliament building
• 
  CoA on the roof of St. Marks church in Zagreb (on the right is the Croatian Parliament, and on the left is the Government)
• 
  CoA on the Croatia State Archive (above "Hrvatski")
• 
  CoA of the fence of the Department of Theology and Education of the Land Government of the Kingdom

Flags for example:

• 
  See the flag behind the bans arms

Now, the sources:

• short history of the Croatian Flag (see the flag from 1867-1918)
• Flags Of The World website (Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918)): The flag is more detailed prescribed on 19 June 1876, and by the Croaian-Hungarian Agreement (of 1869) and an edict of 16 September 1876, the crown above the shield should be the St. Stephen's Crown. The edict of 20 December 1899 detemines inverted order of the Croatian and Dalmatioan coats of arms in reard to 1876 prescriptions (i.e. it prescribed that the wordl "left" and "right" in 1876 prescriptions should be understood in heraldic manner). In use: since 1867. Adopted: 1868. Abandoned: 29 December 1918
• Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (1867 - 1918) (and the page with sources [1] ) with Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems.

There is more sources in books.

Thank you--Ex13 (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ALL flags in Austria-Hungary were merely color stripes (landesfarben), only the Kingdom of Hungary and Austria itself sported coats of arms on their flags. Flags with coats of arms were used for the (two) main subdivisions of the Empire.

This issue is just another manifestation of the silly Croatian nationalist aims for a third subdivision of the Empire being a state called the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Thus the name that was often used for this country by its own internal authorities was "Triune Kingdom of...", and a flag was instituted by internal authorities of the subdivision as one with a coat of arms.

All this was, of course, total fantasy, as the name of this entity remained "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia", and its flag remained a featureless tricolor for everyone outside the country. In other words, the flag of this subdivision on the level of the entire (HUGE) state of Austria-Hungary was as presented before. I myself was under the misconception Ex13 is laboring under now.

The coat of arms is fine, but its proportions are incorrect, it has black borders between its sections, and everything except the copy-pasted crown from the Hungarian CoA is of inferior quality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some sources--Ex13 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also. please see the Coat of Arms of Kingdom of Hungary:

It can be seen CoA of Dalmatia (three leopard heads), Croatia, and Slavonia (also CoA of Fiume), etc.--Ex13 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this and these sites have a decree from ban Iván Skerlecz who wrote (with my emphasis in bold):

According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement and of decree of the Department of Interior of the Royal Country Government of November 16th, 1867, No. 18.307, red-white-blue tricolour is civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is official flag for usage in autonomic affairs. Above-mentioned civil flag may use everyone in appropriate way.

So it seems that File:Flag of Croatia (1868-1918).svg was the state flag and File:Flag of Croatia-Slavonia.png was the civil flag. The first site says the state flag was "valid only in Croatia and Slavonia, since Dalmatia was at that time in Austrian part", so although Dalmatia wasn't yet under Croatian control, that doesn't mean Croatia-Slavonia couldn't have the COA as part of their official flag. Croatia-Slavonia didn't have to have control over Dalmatia for it to have Dalmatia's symbols in their official flag. Direktor, if the state flag is removed, then surely the COA should be removed as well? I would add the civil flag to the infobox, but Template:Infobox former country (unlike Template:Infobox country) doesn't allow 3 symbols. Spellcast (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Now is OK. Thnks--Ex13 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as you can see, in the infobox for the Kingdom of Hungary is a state flag with CoA.--Ex13 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual meaning of the badly translated text above is not much more than a repeat of what I said before: the flag unilaterally established by local authorities was unrecognized on the level of Austria-Hungary - it did not exist. In other words, it was a flag decreed by the viceroy but was not officially instituted by the King. It was the "official flag for usage in autonomic affairs" only. I'm not making this stuff up, what do I have against the coat of arms in the flag?? As far as everyone outside the subdivision was concerned, the flag of Croatia-Slavonia was a red, white, and blue tricolor.

Thanks for fixing the CoA, Ex13, I'll say this again: I really appreciate your work, but lets try to iron-out the bugs? If you look back in the edit history you'll find that I myself introduced this same flag months ago, but having found the official flag for the subdivision I fixed my own error. This flag is more like an "unofficial version".

For the record, if my behavior seemed abrasive I sincerely apologize. I'm still on my Wikibreak and, since I don't have the time for long discussions, my manner was shall we say overly curt? I promise to be my old charming lovable self from now on ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can read it in the Art. 61. of Nagodba (sanctioned by the King himself): "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia can, within their own frontiers in their internal affairs, use their own combined colours and coat of arms, the latter, however, being surmounted by the Crown of St. Stephen." So the flag wasn't unilaterally established by local authorities. Croatia used the flag in accordance with Nagodba (with Hungary). Nagodba was sanctioned by the King as a fundamental law for Hungary and Croatia.

Also, this is an article about Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, not about Austria-Hungary, right? So we can put the flag of the Triune Kingdom.

And as you can see in the article: "The King's appointed steward was the Ban of Croatia and Slavonia." and the ban had the right to issue such decree which provides more detailed provisions in accordance with Nagodba.

Apology accepted. Thank you--Ex13 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The text quoted is in no way points to the right of the kingdom to unilaterally define its own flag, it merely states that the autonomous entity has the right to fly its own flag as opposed to that of the Kingdom of Hungary. What "rights" the ban had is a debateable issue, the point is that this flag with the coat of arms was an internal flag only. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong but perhaps acceptance of the flag outside Croatia-Slavonia (CS) wasn't a prerequisite for it to be an official flag. I can see how the Italians in Dalmatia (who opposed Dalmatia's unification with CS) would reject the flag in principle, but the official flag seems to be defined by the CS/Hungarian government regardless of whether Dalmatia accepted it or not. If the flag is removed on the basis that it wasn't accepted by those "outside the subdivision", then surely the COA should be removed as well by that justification? Maybe the caption can be changed to "State government flag" to show it was supported by the CS government only (as opposed to all of Austria-Hungary). Spellcast (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is an article about Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, not about Austro-Hungary, not about Kingdom of Dalmatia. In articles about counties, we use county flag and CoA, right? The same is with other articles about other (historical) subdivisions. I provided some (official) sources, also with photos. To continue this discussion would be useful to provide some other. --Ex13 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The flag is a Croatian nationalist invention unilaterally instituted to promote Croatian political aims (namely a third division of the monarchy, and unification with Dalmatia, and later Bosnia). It is illegal about as much as the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", also unilaterally instituted in some periods by the Croat nationalists (at times supported by Hungary). The only reason we're talking about this nonsense flag at all is that the Hungarians allowed such things as part of their policy aimed at getting their hands on the Austrian littoral (Dalmatia). As far as Austria-Hungary on the whole is concerned, its a joke. I don't mind it in the article, but it should not be made into more than it was. (The CoA is not disputed, and was recognized by the Empire. A flag containing it was not.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your personal opinions on the subject.--Ex13 (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing yours. Suggestion: you could do without the sarcastic "thank yous" after every post. From now on I'll just assume you're grateful, k? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The language was not Croatian, believe it or not. This discussion is long over and yet once again you waltz in, edit and start edit-warring to push your nationalist POV. When asked to discuss, you sneer at the suggestion. Simply providing two links does not mean the text is "sourced". You can forget about the Nagodba because 1) it cannot be used in demographic issues and 2) only states that Croatia-Slavonia will have the right on its own language. The other source links to the article... so I'd say they're both a joke.

The sources provided next to the "Croatian or Serbian" language entry are high-quality sources citing Austro-Hungarian census data. I'm afraid there is no question here and no discussion to be had. Austro-Hungarian official documents never, ever use "Croatian language" because no distinction existed at the time between Croatian and Serbian. The language is always listed as "Croatian or Serbian". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ex13 (a.k.a. User:Suradnik13), your behavior so far has been, in my personal view, intolerable. You have thus far instigated edit-wars on three articles, you've disregarded discussions and have decided to simply push your edits with revert-warring. You've disregarded all pleas to wait for the discussion results and some sort of consensus. You simply edit, and then if someone should have any objections you will revert-war until your version stands on top. Your modus operandi is that of a standard-issue nationalist POV-pusher, the kind we see all to often on these articles. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are five high-quality references (university publications, primary sources) that say "the sun is yellow", and you arrive with a source that says "the sun is blue", you cannot simply write "the sun is blue, yellow" and then cry "don't write against sources!" when someone removes that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your census data argument makes no sense. The 1910/1911 census data only recorded language. But we clearly have detailed, separate census figures for Croatian speakers and Serbian speakers. Therefore, it recorded the two as separate. Who cares if some cartographer specializing in the Americas thought that Croatian and Serbian are the same? That's not what the census data itself says, regardless of what some commentators said after the fact. All of the Croatian data can be seen on a single page here.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In the infobox I put the date about the language (Croatian)- [2] - referenced with two sources.

In Mark Biondich's book on page 9 it clearly stands "Croatian became the official language of administration, and it could be used by forty Croatian deputies assigned to the Hungarian parliament when Croatian matters were being discussed." In that book there is no mention of Croatian or Serbian language.

In the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement, that I also used as the source of information, in the Art. 56-59 it clearly stands: "In the whole territory of Croatia-Slavonia the Croatian language is the language alike of the Legislature, the Administration and the Judicature." No mention of Croatian or Serbian language.

Several times DIREKTOR revert that information, and at the end he makes this edit. Croatian or Serbian is referenced with Biondich's book, but that is not written in this book.

All I can say is that DIREKTOR violated several wiki-policies, inter alia Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

And then he makes personal attacks on me. Because i removed his POV from the text.--Ex13 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've attacked your edit-warring, not you personally, so do not make silly accusations just for the sake of it. Since all Austro-Hungarian official sources use "Croatian or Serbian", you'll have to keep your rabid ethnic hatred in check for now, I'm afraid. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And where is the source for that? As you now, William R. Shepherd is not an Austro-Hungarian offical. Secondly, that maps shows races, or ethnics. "Croats and Serbs" is something quite different from Croatian language and Serbian language, or so called Croato-Serbian. But these are some basic terms that you probably do not know or do not understand. So please, be so kind and put the Croatian back in the infobox.--Ex13 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some four or five sources in the article, yet you refuse to address them at all. In fact, you've been acting as if the university publications and Austro-Hungarian censi don't even exist. Perhaps I should find them in picture form so as to make it easier? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DIRECTOR in his edit correctly added/wrote whole source (full name of author, name of book, ISBN) instead of earlier partial, but he removed page number on which everybody can see that he is falsifying sources (writing Croatian or Serbian, when in source used on page 9 is clearly written: Croatian become official language...). Review/check of other sources is pending. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious the source was there completely by mistake, I was fixing Ex13's source entry and forgot to remove the whole thing when I rewrote the text. Please do check the sources. Ex13's offensive section titles are not something I am going to put-up with. If he changes them back, as I know he will, I'm going to the admins immediately. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Offensive section title? :) Well i dont like your infringements of verifiability policy. Please be so kind and return referenced edits, or i will go to the admins--Ex13 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Let me clarify my point once more: 1) both names were used in Croatia-Slavonia...

• Frucht, Richard; Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture; ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 1-57607-800-0
  • "In the early 1830s Zagreb became both the political and cultural center of the Croat lands. However, the Illyrianist awakeners first had to contend with the name of the spoken language. They initially referred to it as 'Illyrian' and later as 'Croatian or Serbian'. For the remainder of the 19th century the language was referred to as 'Croatian' or 'Croatian or Serbian'."

2) ...but on the whole all Austro-Hungarian institutions and official documents used the name "Croatian or Serbian", simply as there was no way to make out the difference between the two languages. See here for example an excerpt on Dalmatia:

• Roy Porter, Mikuláš Teich; The National question in Europe in historical context; Cambridge University Press, 1993 ISBN 0-52136-713-1
  • "In the twenty years from 1861 to 1882, Croatian or Serbian had become the public language of the educated classes, but the struggle to have it confirmed as the official language had to continue. (...) The situation changes with the progress of the national revival, and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883."

This is why we have what only seems as a contradiction of sources. The fact of the matter is that on an official level this Austro-Hungarian language is named "Croatian or Serbian". This language, however, was "decidedly more Croatian than Serbian, but the name remained a hybrid". (I could add these two sources to the article but it would be too many for the infobox.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"and the 'national Croatian or Serbian language' became official only in 1883" - Well the source is wrong, because Croatian language became official in 1868.--Ex13 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparent "contradiction"

As I have already said (before any of the sources were presented by Ex13 and Speedy): there is no contradiction, and all of these sources are high-quality and perfectly correct. I've explained the matter once more on Speedy's talkpage so I'll repeat it here again. "Croatian or Serbian" and "Croatian" in this context are two names for the same language. This is not about languages, but about language names.

One name, 1) "Croatian language" is used only within the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and within that kingdom we also have the usage of the name "Croatian or Serbian language". The name 2) "Croatian or Serbian language" is used within Croatia-Slavonia, but everywhere outside the kingdom (for example in the Kingdom of Dalmatia) we have exclusive usage of this name in all capacities.

Now, having established that we are faced with the question: which name do we use for this language? So far I've supported the use of the name "Croatian or Serbian". This is for one primary reason: because official Austro-Hungarian documents and censi use this name. However, if you are insistent on including the name "Croatian language" as well, I must insist that a note be made of two things: 1) that the name is only used internally within the Kingdom, and 2) that the name is used for one and the same langauge as the name "Croatian or Serbian", as we are certainly not talking about two languages here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No contradiction at all

This is article about kingdom which now doesn't exist, and arguing that something should be this or that when that kingdom is long gone is actually called revisionism. We should write (or describe it) as it was, as accurately as we can, and to sources you so arrogantly deleted (your sources are good, other are bad, isn't it?), I can add only this ...They (Sabor) also discussed what to call the standard language used in Croatia and Slavonia: of four proposals (vernacular, Croatian-Slavonian, Croatian or Serbian, Yugoslav) the name 'Yugoslav' was accepted by majority vote. The next year, the Croatian court chancellery annulled this decision and settled on the name 'Croatian' for the language. Ivo Goldstein, "Croatia: A History", C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1999, ISBN 1-85065-525-1, page 79 SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly subsection No.4 :)

You still did not read my post completely. Or at least, you are certainly not responding to what I wrote. Please, can you please read what I wrote above and on your talkpage more carefully. The sources are not in conflict. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Well that DIREKTOR's edit is not completely accurate. Its true that viceroy or ban issued the Decree. But that decree was issued only for the purpose of implementation of the Article 61 of the Nagodba. Please see once again Decree of the Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia Issued on November 21, 1914 No. 8378/Pr. Related with Usage of Flags and Emblems: "According to the § 61 article I from the year 1868 of Agreement"

Please put the state flag in the infobox, as it was --Ex13 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The text is crystal clear:

• 1) "The red-white-blue tricolour is the civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia," 2) "which with the united Coat-of-Arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of saint Stephen on the top is the official flag for usage in autonomic affairs."

The Nagodba text is a false source. Your interpretation is a stretch of the imagination.

• "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia can, within their own frontiers in their internal affairs, use their own combined colours and coat of arms, the latter, however, being surmounted by the Crown of St. Stephen."

It is plain that this text in no way states that the flag itself must have a coat of arms, it merely states that the coat of arms has to be surmounted by the Crown of St. Stephen. Shall we stop with your false sources? Can ya stop talking about the Nagodba for now?

P.S. I've separated the two discussions into their respective sections for practical reasons, shall we use these titles and discuss in a civil manner? Or shall we write massive/offensive titles every half an hour? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nagodba text is a false source? Nagodba is of constitutional importance, more relevant then decree. The Decree is just implementational legislation . Every lawyer knows that.

Secondly, as i said above. Please see the flag in the article about Kingdom of Hungary. There is flag with CoA, not civil flag. --Ex13 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for Lijepa Nasa being the anthem? -- Director (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't. The official anthem of the kingdom, as was for the entire Austria-Hungary (and Austrian Empire before that), was the Kaiserhymne, with Croatian lyrics. The first time Lijepa Naša was performed was in 1891. in some trade exhibit, but that was of course in unofficial manner. From that point on it was regularly performed in various manifestations as a unofficial anthem. [3] Shokatz (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Triune Kingdom article should be merged into this article. This article identifies the official name of the kingdom as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, unofficially also referred simply as Triune Kingdom" and since the term Triune Kingdom hardly applied to anything else besides the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (except perhaps when applied anachronistically. Does the community support the merger?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not. -- Director (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

No, even if you want to treat this as a term that described merely this kingdom's territorial pretense towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia, it was a political concept in its own right, not really an essential characteristic of this entity that can't have its own article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

But its a political concept of this Kingdom about this Kingdom.. -- Director (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It was more general - it's a Croatian nationalist concept that existed both before the 1868 Settlement and within Dalmatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You do have a point there.. still, if its not expanded I mildly favor a merge of the topic here. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If we talk about the term itself it refers only to one thing and that is the same subject of this article precisely. If we talk about the concept then it should be a part of currently non-existent Croatian National Revival article and it should be completely differently composed, toned and titled. The way the Triune Kingdom is written at this moment (including the title itself), it is appropriate only as a sub-section of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article and nothing else. Shokatz (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the composition and tone of the Triune Kingdom article as it is now? How is it not clear from it that it's a concept more general than this article? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101224643/http://miyeonjan.tripod.com/croatia_flags_e03.html to http://miyeonjan.tripod.com/croatia_flags_e03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The flag which the user Havsjö has put is not considered the official one, nor by law nor by historic sources of that period. Which can be seen in the Croatian history museum which keep all the period flags. The flag with the CoA is the official one, the tricolor without the CoA is not official. The civil flag used is also the one with the CoA which can be seen in photographs and most important sources, so the correct official flag is the one presented. The law only acknowledges three state flags:

• Official flag with heraldic crown variant (mostly used by the Royal Government and people)
• Official flag with St Stephans physical crown (mostly used by the Royal Domobran)
• Royal Bans Standard (used by the Ban)

Other flags are not official and each society had to register them, so the Government would give them permission. This is all ofc in the sources which were given to correct flags and which the user Havsjö has delted

On the case of the Map the user has deleted, there are two version one with the Kingdom being part of Austria-Hungary and the other with just the kingdom enlarged. Since both are made in the same standard as other such articles. They should be respected as such (see Hungary for example)

dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As can be read here: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/hr-h848.html#1867 The Vice-Roy of the Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia (and Dalmatia) reiterated in the Decree No. 8378 issued on 21 November 1914, which first point states:

1. According to ¤ 61 Article I from the 1868 Agreement and to Decree No. 18.307 of 16 November 1867 of the Department of the Interior of the Royal Country Government, the red-white-blue tricolor is the civil flag in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, which with the united coat of arms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with the crown of St. Stephen on top is the official flag for usage in autonomous affairs. The aforementioned civil flag may be used by everyone in an appropriate way.

This was issued after (as mentioned in the same decree) "a custom in the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia to use flags that are not adequate either in state-juridical or in political sense.", referring to the widespread use of the unofficial iteration of the CoA (not using St. Stephens crown) such as the examples here: https://imgur.com/a/V0YEiGR
So there you have it straight from the horses mouth (combined with previously given sources by me, which refer to the same decree or the original document the decree refers too). The legal situation and the widespread use of the "modified" flag has been explained in a neutral, factual way with sources by me. So I do not see why you need to revert it?
Regarding the map, you do not need to feel the need to compare these articles to Hungarian articles all the time, that is not relevant. These maps now show the region of Croatia-Slavonia within the country/empire it is a region of and then a more detailed map showing its border and "contested" territory. The caption of the closer map is also refers to Dalmatia as "claimed territory", because the "Triune Kingdom" did indeed claim it, but had no authority over it or recognition of its claims by Austria, the owner. Just because Croatia-Slavonia "official declares" it to be theirs, does not make theirs "de jure". It is simply "claimed", as they just wanted it but never got it. --Havsjö (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bans order which you cited refers to the flag with the CoA to be the only official one (which is stated), which only confirm the case stated before. The flag you implemented was not according to the same, nor was it officially used by the Royal Government. So the Government used the heraldic crown (represnts Stephans crown) while the Royal Domobran used the physical crown in historic practice. For further info see Borošak-Marijanović (Croatian history museum which keeps the flags) as source since it is explained in both English and Croatian in their material. With that discussion on the flags should be solved. On the case of the map Croatia-Slavonia is not a region, by Constitution it is a political nation with its own territory which together with Hungary forms the Lands of Stephans Crown (see Croatian-Hungarian settlement from 1868, Article 59). Dalmatia is recorded in light green as de jure but not de facto part of the Triune Kingdom which is mentioned in the text. Both the the Monarch (Franz Joseph in 1867 and 1868) and Karl (1916) and the Hungarian side acknowledged this which can be seen in this sources:

• Croatian-Hungarian settlement, Article 19
• Croatian Coronation Oath, 1916

Since the Constitution and coronation oath prove that the land was de jure recognized by the Monarch as well as other political entities, the matter should be resolved. SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read some of the talk sections above, sources (both first and second hand) clearly state the the tricolour is the civil flag and "which with the united CoA" is the flag for usage in autonomous affairs. Further, your edits to this article (and others related) are are joke and also very transparent Croatian "nationalism", trying to push the way to much credit to the idea of the Triune Kingdom. It is well established and you will see it mentioned on this article and in all other languages too, how the Kingdom used the formal title of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia and was pressing its claim on the Kingdom of Dalmatia, which was a Kronland within Cisleithania that the "Triune Kingdom" aspired to get. The articles was previously factual and informative in its information about the autonomous kingdom "Croatia-Slavonia" (as the article is named) and also included information about the term "Triune Kingdom" which included information about this irredentist claim. When Croatia and Slavnoia merged in 1868, there was no change in the status of Dalmatia, which remained under as a separate Austrian Kronland until the end of the empire. This article (and some others) have become quite skewed and you can openly read about Croatian nationalist party from the time pushing for recognition of the "Triune Kingdom" --Havsjö (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, according to WP:Primary you shouldn't just link to those original documents. A whole article (with sources) already explains the situation in a much more balanced way without this very biased pushing.--Havsjö (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

People stating their mind is not a source. A source is a published scientific work on that subject. The Wikipedia before the edit lacked not only these but other major components, which shows that the previous editors didn't use or know significant related sources and researchers. The term Triune Kingdom was coined in 1527 by the Habsburgs to make the title of the single Kingdom more grander, the reference which you deleted in a previous source is by a significant source (if you know the subject then you would know who he was).^[1] The term Croatia-Slavonia is only used in historic context since it was not the official name of the state entity. Also in matters of de facto and de jure, the sources still stand. Your personal opinion which can be seen in the example were you deleted a whole sourced section of a text (SEE HISTORY: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Triune_Kingdom) shows that you disregard a whole historiography and in earlier conversations and edits lack knowledge in this fields. For example since you claimed an incorrect flag variant with was never used in history as a default one (case of 1848 flag). SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a en empty title and not represting anything real, despite what 19th century croatian nationalist groups claim, since Dalmatia was never part of the "Triune Kingdom" and always remained part of Austria and never the crown lands of st. stephen or Croatia-Slavonia. What kind of wacky tobacky are you on if you also with a straight face claim that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was not a real entity(!!) In the same breath as you push forward the legitimacy of the Triune Kingdom no less... Citing 19th century Croatian authors member of the very nationalist groups which are cited as trying to push for the recognition of the "Triune Kingdom". Hardly a reliable source!!--Havsjö (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)