WikiProject iconCroatia Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Why I removed Origin of Croats and Migration of Croats from the template[edit]

Yeah, it'd be nice to have Origin of Croats and Migration of Croats in History of Croatia series, but the articles do not exist at the moment, so there's no sence in putting the red links to the Template. When the articles get written, then put them in the template. --Dijxtra 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New parameters boxclass, boxwidth, marginleft[edit]

09-Dec-2008: To allow the infobox "Template:History_of_Croatia" to be stacked on to the related infobox "Template:History_of_Hungary", then traits of the infobox must be changed by passing parameters. New parameters are:

  • boxclass=infobox - the CSS class of table (default: infobox)
  • boxwidth=220px - the width of the box table (default: 205px)
  • marginleft=0.1em - the width of the margin outside the left edge of the box (default: 1.0em).

Other parameters might be needed for further use of the infobox in more articles. The above parameters are used when stacking along with other infoboxes. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent History"[edit]

(1) It is State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Then it was Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. You deliberately put:

in order not to show that state

as it should be shown.

(2) Legitimacy. I am not going to debate with a person who is biased towards any form of Yugoslavia, not because Yugoslavia is something bad per se, but because this person (Mr. DIREKTOR) apply modern laws, the United Nations to a historical state. This is pure Yugoslav revisionism and fabrication.

(3) History has a time flow.

(4) Mr. DIREKTOR is not familiar with the terms: novija povijest, najnovija povijest. Modern History, Latest (Contemporary) History.

(5) The heading he is proposing is not neutral and bias because the Croatian Parliament never ratified the inclusion of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

Imbris (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I stop reverting your rubbish to avoid an edit-war, being aware that you are too juvenile to do so. What happens? You get bored and think the matter is over. This is not over, must I make this "interesting" for you? Discuss. Or do you only discuss when there's an edit-war? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not discuss but drop little "bombs" like the third point. You omitt discussion about the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in hopes that when someone comes along (an admin) that your statement, about the Kingdom of SHS being exactly the same as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, would prevail. Croatia was not always in Yugoslavia and the Modern History is a good enough term to use.
In other history templates we do not have your approach of listing the federations to which one country was part of. Serbian history template lists the Principality of Serbia as part of its Modern History.
They even omitt the fact that the Principality was for the major part of its existence under the Ottoman Empire (independent from 1878 to 1882, when it became a kingdom).
You should also stop making original research claims of something "would have been declared illegitimate" if United Nations were arround.
I have asked you many times to list exactly where it is written that by the Hague conventions states formed during war are illegitimate (exact wording, paragraphs, years, pages — please). Also you should know that ISC signed the Geneva Conventions on January 20, 1943.
Let me make it clear, your accusations are null and void when it comes to my person. I am not mislead by any ideology. On the other hand some users claim that they are Croatian, but write Slav on their user page and do that knowing that some nations consider Croats as Skjavi, Ribeli i razni drugi maladeti
Imbris (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I just drop bombs you just repeat yourself and your ridiculous paranoid theories about my "schemes" over and over again. The comical part is that you must think yourself very "clever" whenever you uncover a "scheme" of mine that you imagine. Countless times all you talk about is my "plan". If I had an elaborate "plan", you sir would most likely not be able to comprehend it, least of all predict it. Therefore you should probably assume all your "ideas" on my intentions are blatantly wrong. At least, I hope you will do me the courtesy of sparing me from having to read gibberish every time I see your post. Rest assured that the Admins you keep addressing do not care about your "theories" anymore than my imagined "plans", and that you live in a fantasy world where people actually read what two conflicting persons think about each-other. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now to business:
  • I repeat the crucial question again, as it has stupidly gone unanswered in your large posts full of rubbish descriptions of my imaginary "schemes": Why exactly does "recent history" or "modern history" not include events that took place after 1991? You quoted Template:History of Serbia, but that template uses "modern history" for the entire period up to the present, which is naturally the meaning of the terms "modern history" and "recent history". If you want to use that method, that would be sensible. The current section title is not.
  • The Kingdom SHS was renamed into "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". These are not two states. What we have here is mindless nitpicking on your part, as usual. Wikipedia treats them as one state, see the articles on Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This is in accordance with all the sources listed to that effect in the article(s). You get me a source about the Kingdom SHS being seperate before you mangle this template by listing the same country twice. Hell, you get me any historian that properly states he considers them seperate and I will concede this point.
  • The ISC signed the Geneva conventions?? I did not know that LoL... what a joke that was, that's like Pol Pot joining the Red Cross. Anyway, the Geneva conventions do not interest me. Rather the Hague Conventions of 1907 of which Yugoslavia was a signatory and Germany a founding state (regardless of whether or not it was a member of the League of Nations). The annexation and destruction of a state like Yugoslavia in such a manner is an illegal act per contemporary international law. Thereby rendering any and all "states" formed by sheer force on its illegally occupied sovereign territory - illegal (non-existent). These documents state:
    • "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war. Hague III, Art. 1." No such declaration of war preceded the invasion of Yugoslavia. Aggression and destruction of a sovereign state in such a manner is illegal by international law at the time.
    • Furthermore, if you just skim through Hague IV, you will find that nearly all of its Section III is blatantly violated by the formation of another state on the territory of an occupied hostile state (Yugoslavia). Occupied territory of one state remains the territory of that state and no other until the war ends.
(The reason I hadn't looked for the exact text earlier is because I know you will not change your position regardless of the overwhelming amount of evidence in your face.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/outdent/

Imbris (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imbris, what is this? Concentrate on the three points of this discussion, each referring to the specific change in the article: write up a shorter answer. It is impossible to lead a discussion with each post being one page long, can you get that?? Half that stuff you wrote up there doesn't even have anything to do with the question at hand... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know how to skim read?! Please stop patronising with talk of brevity or legibility. You know very well that your three topics are null and void. The Modern History is a good enough term + most exact, not because I say so – but because (1) historians acknowledge the division on Modern and Contemporary (novija & najnovija). (2a) Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is not exactly the same as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia because the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a un-Constitutional move of a dictator Alexander Karageorgevitch, he suspended the previous Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, installed martial law, reigned unlawfully, dissolved the Parliament, etc. But I do not claim that the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes should be included in the list. (2b) You deliberately construed the 2a because I noted and insist that the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was independent before December 1, 1918 and this independence continued de facto up to the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. (3) The talk about Hague Conventions of 1907 has nothing to do with this template, you forced it in. -- Imbris (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Skim read? LoL...
  • No, historians absolutely do not recognize the division of history into "Modern" and "Contemporary" the way you imagined it (in 1991). Stop repeating that nonsense. There's "Modern" history, and the "Postmodern" era. Modern history lats up to circa 1973, after which comes the Postmodern era. "Contemporary period" is such an incredible piece of made-up nonsense it really shows your desperation in avoiding the term "Yugoslav". Why do you believe, and what source can you use to verify your claim that the Modern period lasts up to 1991??
    • Furthermore, your postulate that Croatian inclusion in Yugoslavia is somehow "illegal" because the Croatian parliament never "ratified" that is a joke, only quoted by the worst kind of right-wing ultranationalists. There was no Sabor at the time to ratify it! The Sabor was essentially a provincial parliament of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and naturally ceased to exist along with it. Ever heard of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs?
  • Technically, the King had every right to disband the parliament because of the shootings that took place (Radić killed, etc..). You and I both know its a political move, but technically and legally he had every right to assume the powers that he did (the sneaky bstrd). You do not insist on the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? Can we at least get that behind us?
  • Very well, just so you know: the occupation of Yugoslavia was from the start an illegal act. This was recognized by every single Allied state. Both Yugoslavia and Germany were "signatory powers" of the 1907 Hague Conventions - Germany violated them (as she did many times before). This point is then closed as well? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The Contemporary Croatia was not inserted by me, but I think it is perfectly suited for the period after the independence. I have added a note besides the Contemporary Croatia heading, that it could be called The Republic of Croatia instead.
(2) Technically, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes did not gain 2/3 of the members of parliament, the elections were rigged, the election law was not democratic, etc.
(3) Stop inserting your blatant POV into this discussion, it is not the topic. You insist on this discussion as a way of testing ground for your expedition in the article about Yugoslav partisans. Please stop. Did you read about EUREKA, you deliberately quote certain aspects of the Hague Conventions in a misleading way. Yugoslavia was re-constituted after the WWII with approval of all Allies. Up to 1943 the Allies had different views. States cannot be illegal; but some acts (documents), some actions, some symbols. Why we do not have anything written about the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Croatia, the Croatian antifacist partisan movement.
(4) We should have an article about Croatia in the WWII — which would be placed in this template — instead of the Independent State of Croatia and the Federal State of Croatia. This would provide that we re-name the heading Contemporary Croatia to Independent Croatia
(5) Stop the nonsense about what Modern History means in different Historiographies. Modern History can include everything up to this moment. The Contemporary History is part of Modern History but highligthed to show that Croatia gained independence which is of top importance in any History.
Imbris (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask you again: why should "Modern history" mean "1918 - 1991"? That's your definition I've never heard of before??? There are many definitions, some say "modern" refers to the period "1800 - present", others "18th century - 1973". Why in the world should this template use your own little definition?? (other than to avoid the term "Yugoslavia", of course...). This is beyond silly, you can forget about this introduction of your own arbitrary categories and ages deliberately designed to avoid the use of the word "Yugoslavia".
  • I am also not backing down on the usage of the "Yugoslav Front" redirect for the "World War II" entry. You can forget about this kind of POV. Too many Croats died fighting the occupation of their homes for me to allow this kind of blatant avoidance of the simple fact that Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia during World War II. This is not open for debate. The Yugoslav Front article directly refers to the fighting on Croatian soil during WWII, there is no reason to use the general article on World War II on a template about Croatia.
  • Another point is placing the almost-irrelevant 1939 entity of Banovina of Croatia above the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which was the entity Croatia was directly a part of for nearly 21 years. How does this reflect the flow of history? How is this "objective"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imbris (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

For what purpose is this example? The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was not within any Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ammount of <hr> can help with your vision that it is not Modern History. It is by the previously held conversation. -- Imbris (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. DIREKTOR is using this talk page as a sand playing ground. This is proposterous. He deleted the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs from the template to further his yugoslav POV. -- Imbris (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat you're not about to agree to anything I do - I got the message... Please don't edit any of my talkpage posts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should realize that POV-pushing Croatia within Yugoslavia will not work. Did you read the latest at Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have started edit-waring knowing that your Yugoslav Front cannot be part of this template. Did you read what User:GregorB wrote here? -- Imbris (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All your arguments are excuses so that you can have your way in spite of all sense and reason. Discussion with you is absolutely and utterly pointless, since you do not budge no matter the evidence, no matter the meditation. The comical display at Talk:Independent State of Croatia proves my point: not even if I had university publications explicitly supporting my view would you acknowledge that you are WRONG. What am I supposed to do on articles and templates where there is no way to support either way with sources? There's no chance of ending the discussion, unless I don't start banging my head against the wall at how much energy I've wasted writing all this - and give-up.

Your efforts have destroyed this template. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't any section about Ottoman Empire in History of Croatia page despite existence of her was lasted 3 hundred years ?[edit]

I added 'existence of Ottoman Empire in Croatia (1492-1791)' section in this pace. But, it was deleted unfairly. Existence of Republic of Venice in Croatia was limited in western Istria and Dalmatia. Before taking remnant of Hungarian Croatia in 1527, one of Habsburg Monarcy in was limited in eastern Istria. But, they had sections in this page. Existence of Ottoman Empire in Croatia was lasted three hundred years and sometime most of it was part of her. But, she hadn't any section in this page. Why ? As if there was an Anti-Turk sentiment on it. Please, you finish this sentiment and add an Ottoman Empire section in this page, please. Yours sincerely Cemsentin1 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories