Talk:Split, Croatia/Archive 2

The music section states that punk band Kinoklub hails from Split.

1. That may be so (I have no idea really) but Kinoklub page states they are from Zagreb.
2. Even if they are from Split, they would hardly merit a mention; we would have to mention roughly 4 559 other artists first.

This looks like self-promotional entry. Check please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SplitSpencer (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Croatia section includes a photo of the Yugoslav destroyer Split and a description of its shelling of the city in 1991. The ship's page, however, says that she was scrapped in 1986. There must be some mistake. Is it possible there were more than one ship named Split? Poliocretes (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That should be Yugoslav frigate Split then. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the 2001 census, split had approx 188,000 inhabitants. According to the 2011 census, it has approx 178,000 inhabitants. Such statistics collected by census figures are examples of city population. THESE numbers are to be reported in the "city" field in the infobox.

"total" and "City itself" are completely meaningless terms.

Urban populations are sometimes, quote "totally independent of the administrative subdivision of the country;" in Europe these are not typically compiled by the census bureau. in 2007 the Split police department deduced a population estimate for Split having approx 227,000 inhabitants; urban areas are not calculated in the same way as the census attains its information. The urban area calculation is different, quote "since the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. The 2007 Split police is a prime example of that. THIS 227,000 number should be the one reported in the "urban" field in the infobox.

While the metropolitan population claim is current unverified, as the definition of metro areas dictates that peripheral towns are also included in the methodology, depending on the outward reach from the city, the 400,000+ number is possible.

i've given you here links to various Wikipedia articles; I've also mentioned real numbers from real documents. These users who eagerly propagated only the 2011 census figures as the be-all-and-end-all of Split's population are WRONG, and persistent altering of the numbers back to their 165,000 claim, especially the extremely incorrect usage of meaningless terms such as total and city itself should be seen as vandalism, which they clearly are.
--OettingerCroat (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between the population of the city settlement (== city itself) and the total population of the city (== administrative area) is perfectly clear and legitimate. If you wish to rail against the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, go ahead, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Split, because they apply the same criteria on all settlements. All cities (gradovi) as well as municipalities (općine) are divided into settlements (naselja). Removing this offhand only from this article would in fact constitute vandalism.

Secondly, where is the source for the police estimating 227,000 and does the phrasing of this source say anything to the effect that this is in fact "urban population"? A reliable source would nicely dispel all the issues, otherwise it's hearsay versus the published official numbers - and we all know the Wikipedia policy of

verifiability

- it's non-negotiable.

I know how police numbers can differ from censa - a lot of people have their legal place of residence (prebivalište) recorded in another settlement, but actually live in Split (boravište) - to get a better income tax rate. But a census is actually supposed to be more accurate because there's only so much bullshit you can sell the census workers about people who are demonstrably missing from the location of a census interview. And for illegal tenants (podstanari) who wouldn't get interviewed - tough, neither the police nor the bureau of statistics can be accurate on that front if they're purposely avoiding being recorded by both.

I figure all is disappointment over "low" census numbers is really a disappointment over the simple fact that e.g. Solin and Podstrana are standalone city and a municipality, so they don't get counted like for example Sesvete gets counted under Zagreb. But that's how it is in the real-world and the encyclopedia article merely documents it. Such examples exist everywhere - for example the entire Zagreb County is separate from Zagreb and simply can't be counted together other than as a metro population, even if it's very closely entangled. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Great photos but "too many" in WWII section. Some can be moved to

) 09:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:VPB Destroyer (Razarac) Split.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk ) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In fiction

In fiction, the city was invaded and consumed in "Avengers" #2 (2012). Lots42 (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

*looks out the window* Seems fine to me... :) --

talk

) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Where in Avengers 2? I gotta see that scene xD PS Im new to Wikipedia. I don't know how to sign this post or anything, so sorry

-FinestFantasyVI — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinestFantasyVI (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've undertaken to significantly expand the History section. I've been doing research and much of the narrative needs correction. When I'm finished we may require a separate article, with some kind of synopsis here. --

I don't think Split was a part of Kingdom of Hungary. Several sentences are misleading. For instance: "For much of the High and Late Middle Ages, Split enjoyed autonomy as a free city, caught in the middle of a struggle between Venice and the king of Hungary for control over the Dalmatian cities" ; "After a long period of Hungarian rule, Venice eventually prevailed, as the Kingdom of Hungary was ravaged by Ottoman incursions."; "From this point onward Split and the cities of Dalmatia became the subject of a long and complex struggle between the Kings of Hungary and the Venetian Republic". See

There is no confusion, and there is no misleading. Split was, for about 200 years altogether, a vassal free city of the King of Hungary directly, as s part of his title as ruler of Dalmatia. There is no evidence that Split, or any of the Dalmatian cities (Zadar, Trogir, Dubrovnik..) were a part of the Croatian Kingdom. The "personal union" itself is actually very shaky and doubtful (the pacta conventa is a known, deliberate forgery), let alone the idea that the cities were ruled by the King as part of "Croatia" (in fact, the titles of Croatia and Dalmatia were seperate in this period). Be that as it may, Croatian and Hungarian lands were most certainly not "strictly divided". The current state of the relevant Croatian history articles on Wikipedia is highly slanted and essentially showcases the opinions of Crotian national historians (and not all of those at that). -- Director (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all. Personal union is not shaky and doubtful. Croatia has a long history in union with Hungary and its position in that union is very well known. Pacta conventa is not a proven forgery, however there are some doubts. That is anyway only one document. As I said, Croatian position in union with Hungary is well known. Split was not, not it had ever been a Hungarian city. That is way those sentences are confusing. They have the interpretation that Split was a Hungarian city. I suspect you have nationalistic agenda and it seems that discussion simply won't produce any result. Asdisis (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind what you and your friends think and/or what you've heard in your elementary school history class. This is a common misconception/myth in our country. There is no evidence for the existence of any actual personal unions. The pacta conventa is most certainly a forgery. For all we know there might have been a personal union, but equally there might not have been one. There is no question Croatian lands (without Slavonia and northern Croatia) were very autonomous for certain periods, but we do not know if there was a personal union, which is a very specific form of arrangement. This comes from long discussions and thorough research, so I suggest you accept it and move on. Its a bit shocking to find out that "Hrvatsko-Ugarska" is a fake country, I know, but that's how it is. Nobody calls it anything but "Hungary" outside Croatian public schools.. In short: history is a lot more complicated than you think. I won't repeat this point.

Split was a "Hungarian city" in the sense that it was a vassal of the Hungarian king. Who came to its doors with his Hungarian army and forced the city to submit to him. Several times. In that sense, it was a "part of Hungary". And before that it was Venetian, and before that Byzantine.. It wasn't part of the Croatian Kingdom when the latter submitted to Ladislaus and Coloman. The city wasn't populated by Hungarians, though; or many Croats for that matter (at the time it was mostly "Dalmatians", i.e. old Romans).

The Middle Ages were a different time, you must remember. States were built on personal allegiance. There were no nation states.

I agree that discussion isn't likely to produce a result that you like, because you're quite wrong on every point. As for "nationalistic agendas" - I'm a Croat. From Split. Currently living in Split. The only agenda is your own. -- Director (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, let go pacta conventa. It does not determine Croatian position within the Kingdom. Split had never been a Hungarian city and those sentences I referenced are misleading. Please do not try to give yourself some credit by stating your nationality. I've seen that tactics from you in earlier discussions. I frankly doubt your claim. But that isn't important. I stated the arguments upon which I based my allegation. I had not mentioned your nationality. If I would need to guess, I would say that you are a Serb living in Split. It's nothing wrong with that, however misrepresenting oneself is below every lever. I've seen several discussions where you were quite adamant to state your nationality. You seem to think that your alleged Croatian nationality erases your nationalistic agenda. No, one's nationalistic agenda is not determined by his nationality, but by his actions. Asdisis (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I must be Serbian if I don't agree with Croatian nationalist nonsense.. No Real Croat would do such a thing.. I obviously mentioned my (very Croatian!) nationality in order to discredit your claim of nationalist bias on my part. You can phrase it however you like, but Split was a vassal of the Hungarian king, and there's nothing misleading there at all: its sourced, from Thomas the Archdeacon through scholars quoting him. We're done here. You'll have to find someone else to offend. -- Director (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't have to be. That is just my guess. I stated that nothing is wrong with that and I do not base my allegation on your nationality. I explicitly stated that your national agenda can be seen trough your acts. You constantly mention your nationality, thinking you can overturn every allegation about nationalistic agenda with that claim. That is the first sign you may be lying. There are far better chances that you are not Croatian, since you have anti-Croatian nationalistic agenda, which goes hand in hand with Serbian propaganda. Second, and more important, even if it is true, that can't erase your nationalistic attitude. You can be Croatian and have strong anti-Croatian attitude. Nationality does not have anything to do with that, so please stop repeating your nationality. I started this discussions so other editors can participate and give their opinion. I know there is no point in discussion with you since you won't listed to reason, because you are led by nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The current lead sentence was here, basically in this form, for years on end. I disagree it is "confusing" in any way. "Croatia" is mentioned in the second sentence and can not be mentioned (and wikilinked) twice, nor can Dalmatia be deleted from the lead text altogether. Asdisis, I get you want to mention "Croatia!" as many times and as prominently as possible, but you need to consider style as well. I oppose and disagee with the recent change. -- Director (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is confusing to the readers who are unfamiliar with Croatian regions. Split is a city in Croatia firstly, and only then a city in Dalmatia. If you look any wiki page about any city, you will see that country is mentioned in the first sentence. If you also want to add Dalmatia into first sentence, that's ok, but Croatia can't be removed. That's opposed to clearly established practice on Wikipedia. I do not get your allegations and also I should note that your motives for such formulation are suspicious. In fact, your whole behavior on this page and in previous discussions I had with you is highly suspicious. Let's leave it at that. Dalmatia is mentioned right in the second sentence and I do not see why this discussion is needed. I do not see any reason, except nationalistic agenda, not to mention that Split is a Croatian city in the lead sentence, before the fact that it is located in Dalmatia. Here's a bunch of articles to disprove your nonsense about style: Šibenik,Dubrovnik,Zadar,Rijeka,Sinj,Omiš.You clearly go against established practice and your strong objections to my reasonable edit only show that you have some different agenda than concerns about style, that is anyway clearly different in every other article. Asdisis (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with your change per above post: "Croatia" can not be mentioned and wikilinked twice, nor can Dalmatia be deleted from the lead text altogether. It is quite common to describe a city's geographical position prior to its political allegiance, and is not confusing at all. -- Director (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Split is a Croatian city and that has to be mentioned before Dalmatia. I had not suggested to delete Dalmatia but to make the lead sentence more understandable to unfamiliar readers. If you want to state that Split is a city in Dalmatia in the lead sentence, than a further explanation must be added that Dalmatia is a Croatian region. This is too complicated. The lead should be according to my edit. Split is a city in Croatia, and in the second sentence Dalmatia is mentioned. I again express my suspicion towards your strong opposition to such a normal suggestion. This is not the first time I try to make a simple edit and you strongly oppose. I do not think I have seen a single source from you in the previous discussions we had. I will push this to the end. I do not want to waste my time discussing you, since you are lead by nationalistic agenda. I've had the pleasure to waste my time with you before. We won't resolve this matter, so I leave for you, as more experienced editor, to initialize next step to resolve this issue. Asdisis (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the country "must" be mentioned first, that's no more than your own opinion. Further, I don't have to do anything: its you who are pushing changes. If you have a different sentence in mind, propose it. If you want to "initiate" something or other, be my guest - but the change you are pushing currently is imo a step in the wrong direction, and I can't agree with it. -- Director (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the practice on all articles. It is unclear why you want to contradict that practice and introduce a formulation that would just confuse unfamiliar readers. No, it is you who are trying to introduce changes and you should lead the process. I reverted your edit and gave a good reason to do so. You on the other hand have unclear motives, as I explained. Asdisis (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is not the practice of all articles, but it is certainly customary to introduce the country in the first sentence. Anyway, I tried to formulate a compromise solution that mentions both.

No such user (talk

) 13:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As a Serbian nationalist, I don't see anything wrong with the edit :D. Thanks Nsu. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just stated that introducing Dalmatia before Croatia can be confusing to unfamiliar readers who had never heard of Dalmatia. Director, led by nationalistic agenda, made my very simple and reasonable suggestion more complicated than it is. He is the one trying to introduce changes so he should have purposed a compromise. I explicitly mentioned that any formulation that mentions Croatia before Dalmatia is acceptable. Discussing with him is worthless, since he does not discuss in good faith. Asdisis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think its the duty of others to do your bidding? I disagreed with your lead sentence, and noted my objections here. Instead of addressing the problems of your edit through proposing a different formulation (or at least addressing the other user's point in some way), you decided to post personal attacks and continued demanding that I do something about a problem you perceive. That's not my job. I just read your bigoted post in the thread above, and will report it at once. -- Director (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not my lead sentence. I only reverted your edit. Instead of addressing the problems of your edit through proposing a different formulation, you had tied to push the edit without consensus, and flip this discussion to my side. Like it is me who is trying to edit the article. I explicitly noted that any edit which mentions Croatia before Dalmatia is acceptable according to me, however you had not tried to purpose any other edit apart from that confusing formulation. Asdisis (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My revert, as I have pointed out, was to the years-long status quo, and is in accordance with basic MoS guidelines (such as to avoid duplicate wikilinks). Your revert restored a recent, non-consensus edit, that besides which goes against said guidelines. I am not pushing any edit, you are. Hence it is on you to revise your proposal if you wish (and yes it is "yours" after you restored it, unless you go around reverting to versions you disagree with).

The issue is moot, though. I say this to explain certain basic aspects of Wiki, under the assumption that you're a newcomer and are not, in fact, an (obvious) sock. -- Director (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any particular formulation. I just stated that mentioning Dalmatia before any statement that Dalmatia is Croatian region is confusing to unfamiliar readers. Your objections are unreasonable, since the practice on other articles is different. You can report, but refrain yourself from that kind of allegations on talk pages. This is the second time I'm warning you of that. No I'm not a sock puppet, and you haven't put any argument to support that allegation. Next time I will report you. Asdisis (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain your edits, Tzowu? Shall we start with the claim you inserted in the lead about Peter Kresimir? -- Director (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In the 1060's (most put the year on 1069) Split came under the rule of Croatian King Peter Krešimir IV. Yes, nominally it remained under Byzantine Empire, but it was like that since its early days all the way to the 12th century. In 1074 the Normans took over a part of Dalmatia while fighting with a Croatian king, but they were restored to Croatian rule with the crowning of Zvonimir by the Papal legate as "King of Croatia and Dalmatia". Following the death of Stephen II a civil war broke out, and Byzantium restored full power, which was later in 1096 granted to Venice. Of course, the Byzantines yet again retained nominal overlordship. There are numerous sources that confirm this, you know that also, just leave aside your must-disagree-with-everything-from-Croatian-history stance. Yes, I know, you are also from Croatia... so is Vedrana Rudan.

Can you explain why did you revert the rest 99% of the edits?

talk

) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lets get one thing straight right off the bat. Where am I from? What is my nationality and/or ethnicity? That's #1 none of your damn business, #2 doesn't matter at all anyway, and #3 I find the idea that you would presume to judge my "crotianness" - disgusting. I consider such posts insults and will respond appropriately. Suffice it for you that me and mine have been living in this city for veritable centuries.

For the third time. Where's your damn source stating that the city of Split was under the sovereign rule of Peter Kresimir? Of any kind. If he had been appointed some kind of "protector" by Michael VII, then that's what we'll say - not more, certainly none of your right-wing, 1990s, HDZ-esque historical fantasies. This is enWikipedia, not your teacher's primary school classroom. -- Director (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, after calling me numerous times a Croatian nationalist and justifing your edits (or repetitive rollbacks not bothering to check if there is something good in what someone added, more oftenly) with you being from Croatia, or an enlightened Croatian that found the courage to lift above the imaginary Croatian nationalism, suddenly its insulting if I repeat your number 1 justification for your POV pushing editing? Ok then, be offended and feel free to continue your Holy Crusade in degrading Croatian history and making the Yugoslav regime and its glorious beloved leaders look better. There are at least two[1][2] articles on which you failed to do so.

"As it was threatened by the Seljuqs from Asia Minor, the Normans from Italy and Venice on the Adriatic the empire was unable to maintain control over its Dalmatian theme. In 1069, it ceded control over its coastal towns (except Ragusa) to Krešimir IV but retained its nominal overlordship. He respected the autonomous status of the Byzantine towns and made Biograd, a Croatian town, his capital." David Luscombe, Jonathan Riley-Smith: The New Cambridge Medieval History IV, c.1024 - c.1198 part II, p. 272

"From 812 Split developed as a major Byzantine city. In 1105, after brief incursions by Venice (998) and Croatia (1069), the city acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of Hungary-Croatia and fought sporadically with its rival Trogir; from 1420 to 1797 it was held by Venice." [3]

There you go.

Its one thing to suggest one is overly-enthusiastic about his own country (a problem that is very common and severely plagues Wikipedia in general), and another to suggest one is not a "true" member of his own stated nationality based on some (imagined) ideological position. You are taking (what you think is) my ideology, and then presuming to evaluate my "worth" as a Croatian national. That is unacceptable, and you will cease if you hope to achieve anything in this dialogue short of an NPA report. You can call me a socialist or communist or whatever, if you really want to reciprocate and are as dumb as to think such claims accurate - but please refrain from presuming to judge me personally on such a stupid basis. To illustrate, it would be something like if I were to claim you are a football hooligan, based on your views about Peter Kresimir IV!

Now back to the issue. Yes I suspected Peter IV was granted suzerainty of some sort, but not full de jure sovereignty. Goodo. Then we shall say that, not clumsily insert a contrived statement about the city "drifting" into the "Croatian sphere"...

What sources do you have for the claim that the city of Split was in any way part of anything called "Croatia" while being a subject of the Hungarian king? The entity in question is referred to on this project as "Hungary", and the kings thereof ruled the cities as part of their title of "king of Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of using labels while in a post above ranting about HDZ, nationalism, right-wing, "historical fantasies"... and, yet again, primary schools. That is not dumb, right? Anyway, these are some very interesting interpretations of my posts, and I'm not even the one who is constantly mentioning your nationality, place of birth or place of residence, only you are doing that and using it as an additional argument in a way I already wrote in the previous post. And no, I don't think you are a less worthy not-true Croatian or communist, nor did I wrote that anywhere, nor do I know what an "NPA report" is, besides that it would certainly be a fail. Just a Yugoslav nationalist "overly-enthusiastic" about that former country and its leaders.

"Split became a

Petar Krešimir IV

." I don't see anything "contrived" and "clumsy" here, it's even downtoned compared to those two sources. There isn't much difference between those two periods. Why is this sentence problematic?

Furthermore, in 1105 (or 1103 or 1107) King Coloman secured his control over Split and several other coastal cities. Now I'm not going to repeat what was already proven that Croatia and Hungary formed a textbook example of a personal union, like hundreds of other medieval kingdoms. It's not even that important since Split became even more semi-autonomous after the crowning of Coloman. It elected its own governors and was a subject of the Hungarian king, but also the Croatian-Dalmatian Duke (in the earlier times) and the Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, especially from 1250 when the Ban was given the authority to choose the city governors. Sources for that:

• "As a consequence, beginning in 1250, deputies of the ban of Croatia ruled in the name of the king in Split and Trogir. Both cities had flourished throughout the entire period, despite much political and military unrest" Florin Curta - Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250, p. 398
• "Soon thereafter Bela IV came to the conclusion that to prevent further wars among the Dalmatian towns his Croatian-Dalmatian ban, rather than the towns themselves, should choose the governors of towns. In 1250 he implemented this policy in Trogir and Split and in the years that followed in his other Dalmatian towns." John Van Antwerp Fine: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, 1991, p. 151).

The ban certainly had more influence since the kings rarely even went south of Drava. Here are some more sources about Split and Croatia or Hungary-Croatia:

• "From 812 Split developed as a major Byzantine city. In 1105, after brief incursions by Venice (998) and Croatia (1069), the city acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of Hungary-Croatia and fought sporadically with its rival Trogir; from 1420 to 1797 it was held by Venice." [4]
• "From the second half of te thirtheenth century, Croatia had two bans, one for Croatia proper, the other for Slavonia. Under Charles Robert, Croatian judicial indepencence was reduced and Hungarian influence became stronheg, especially in Slavonia. On the other hand, Croatia proper, in particular the cities along the Dalmatian coast (Rijeka/Fiume, Zadar/Zara, Šibenik/Sebenico, Split/Spalato, Dubrovink/Ragusa), continued to retain their self-governing status whether they were ruled by Hungary-Croatia or its chief rival in the area - Venice." -text recognition: Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, section 8

As for primary sources we can take a look at the charters from Split or relating to Split, where there are many examples of the Croatian Ban residing in Split of confirming some conclusions of local courts, disputes between local nobles, electing the governors... Al-Idrisi can also be mentioned, who explicitly wrote that Dalmatia was a part of Croatia, including the city of Split. There's even a map of that. So I think it's perfectly correct to add both Hungary and Croatia, although if we are to be absolutely precise than it would be the Hungarian King and Croatian Ban. That is why a timeline like that can never be accurate enough for any part of the Balkans history, there is too much maybe's, few sources and years that are mostly impossible to connect acurately.

talk

) 22:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That sentence was meant to illustrate how Split, a Byzantine (Roman) city, gradually drifted into the sphere of another Byzantine city - Venice. Venice was also a part of the Empire, and eventually took over Imperial holdings in the Adriatic. For Peter Kresimir, we must go with something like "between x-x the Croatian King Peter Kresimir IV held de facto control over the city, which however remained a nominal part of the Empire"

It is easily demonstrable that a formal "personal union" is uncertain, disputed among historians, and without direct evidence [5]. But that's not the issue here, and you are free to indulge in wishful thinking and fantasy however much you like. The issue is that you've not shown that the city (or the Dalmatian cities in general) were in any way part of the Croatian title. It is highly misleading to refer to them as being part of Croatia, or to suggest that by exceptionally referring here to Hungary as "Hungary-Croatia". In fact, all you've done with your sources is demonstrate my point: when under the rule of the Hungarian kings, the cities were not included into "Croatia" under any sense.

Once again I find myself at grief with your lack of understanding of the politics of the Medieval period. You're misinterpreting the quote-mined statements. That you are unable to distinguish between the ban of Croatia sending his deputies to rule in the name of the King, from him governing the cities as part of his banovina - should not be my concern. Just as with your inability to grasp the difference between having a legal setup of a 'personal union' and merely being de facto independent. The problem is well illustrated by your comical statement that there were "hundreds" of Medieval kingdoms in personal unions...

Needless to say I reject your pro-

NDH editorializing on the topic of WWII. The edits expanding on the one month period before the Italian annexation are of course fine. -- Director (talk

) 15:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What's with the inhabitants nonsense? Where did the author of the article get the idea of something like that? It's misleading and offensive towards Split inhabitants. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelmatST (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean, did ANYBODY read the previous explication--if you can call it that--in its entirety? I sure didn't; I don't have that much stamina at age 60. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.235.3 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See for yourself - we ought to start

In my opinion the base name is completely warranted here. The article was moved to this title kind of quickly and sloppily, and it may be time to see whether the noun "split", as such, has any comparable contenders. Frankly there should be a "Split (disambiguation)" article, with the query itself leading here. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Previously the article contained this citation: Grga Novak: Prošlost Dalmacije; Knjiga prva - Od najstarijih vremena do Kandijskog rata, Split, Marjan tisak, 2004. p. 48-50

I have replaced it with the following:

It is used as a reference about Split in 11th century. However, pages 48-50 in the book are about the completely unrelated Illyrian wars. The citation is used four times in the article, twice in addition to others. I don't have access to the other sources, so I can't confirm or deny if they contain the information mentioned, but I added {{Failed verification}} to the two places where it's the only one. I'll leave it up if whoever added it wants to correct it, but I'll probably completely remove it after a while.

I'm fairly certain it's the same book - they were both published by Marjan Tisak in 2004. It should also be noted that the book shares an ISBN with an unrelated book by the same publisher. barakokula31 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)