Wikipedia

Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta/Archive 2

< Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta
Latest comment: 14 years ago by DIREKTOR in topic Questioning the sources

Death at age 47 is uncommon...

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...is there no information regarding the cause of death? Accident, disease? - Tournesol (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see we're still stuck on this... it's a bit bizarre that nobody seems to have noticed how the title as well as much of the content of this article is a horrible violation of WP:UNDUE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another marvelous example of User:Imbris' work. He's managed to make a joke of another article through sheer persistence. Had I known his "methods" earlier, I would've simply ignored his posts and worked only with serious editors. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Title of article, still messed up

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

It should be Tomislav II of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. It should be Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta. The article title and the lead is a joke. Believe me you don't want to start all that again... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Either title would be better. Was he or wasn't he 'King of Croatia', the current title is confusing. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Cat and mouse games played by Mr. DIREKTOR. This is what is in place. GoodDay, was always against the usage of the title of King. The admins should look into that "sittuation". It is fairly easy to see, by ordinary CTRL+F, that on this very page GoodDay always insisted on the title being only Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta.
Then that account, in pretence, started a completely different tune. :)
Imbris (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Another "conspiracy", Imbris? I'm sure its all being "looked into" even as we speak. I expect GoodDay will soon be banned for his dangerous views... ("Cat an mouse games"...? Err... what?) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant theory. Peter II was 'King of Yugoslavia' from 1934 to 1945 (that Kingdom included 'Croatia'). GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago92 comments15 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta → Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta — The name of this article is, in the words of Duke Aimone, "a bad joke". A bad joke originating from nationalist POV-pushers through the efforts of whom the illusion of a false controversy or serious debate was created. (Please don't refer to the article for information, the part concerning this matter is highly POV.) The tally on the last move proposal was 9 "Support" vs. 5 "Oppose", and with not a single valid reason presented why this title should refer to this person as a "monarch of Croatia". Yet somehow, through the efforts of User:Imbris, the discussion was sidetracked and devolved into a meaningless squabble. The idea that this person was "king" is completely baseless. Easily the best source explaining the situation concerning the Duke and Croatia is the scholarly work by Dr. Davide Rodogno, who specialized (among other subjects) in World War II history. I also brought forth a number of other sources concerning this (rather obscure) subject, that very clearly depict the comical nature of the whole "King of Croatia" idea:

  • Rodogno, Davide; Fascism's European empire: Italian occupation during the Second World War; p.95; Cambridge University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-521-84515-7
    • Now in an endeavor to make up the ground lost to the Germans in the race for control of Croatia [Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia], The Italians attempted to carry through their plan for personal union: Aimone, Duke of Spoleto [he was not the Duke of Aosta yet], was to be proclaimed king by the Sabor (Assembly) and crowned "Tomislav II" at Dunansko Polje (Duvno) in Bosnia. The project soon foundered, because of the Dalmatian question, and Aimone-Tomislav passed into history as the "king that never was". Devoid of political experience and ignorant of the Italian government's exact intentions, he refused to leave for Croatia, saying so in letters to Victor Emmanuel and Mussolini, in which he told them that the question of Dalmatia, "a land that could never be Italianized", was an obstacle against any reconciliation with the Croats. Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy.
  • Petacco, Arrigo; A tragedy revealed: the story of the Italian population of Istria, Dalmatia, and Venezia Giulia, 1943-1956; p.26; University of Toronto Press, 2005 ISBN 0-802-03921-9
    • When he [the Duke Aimone] learned that he had been named "king of Croatia" he confided to some of his most trusted colleagues that he thought this nomination was a bad joke by his Savoy cousin (...) swearing to his men he would never set foot in Zagreb. And so he did not.
  • The Rulers, Brill Archive 183?
    • And we may read in Count Ciano's diary that Aimone of Savoy, named "king of Croatia", steadfastly refused to go to his capital; he got the most of what there was to get into a Roman restaurant. There, to the merriment of diners and waiters, he donned what might be termed regal attire by crowning his head with a table napkin.
  • Raphael Lemkin, Samantha Power; Axis rule in occupied Europe: laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress; p.253; The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005 ISBN 1-584-77576-9
    • ...and in Rome the latter [the Duke Aimone] was proclaimed "king" in the presence of Pavelić and the Croatian delegates [he was not present, and was most likely at La Spezia at the time]. However, he never assumed his functions.

I could go on like this, but the simple fact is that he never assumed the throne, never even set foot in Croatia (or any other part of Yugoslavia), he was never crowned, never confirmed by the "Sabor" (not even by the fake Croatian assembly the Ustaše set up) - nor did he personally intend or want to do any of those things ("I don't want to be king of Croatia"). After less that 2 years Italy capitulated and the issue was moot.

Now I must emphasize that all the above still ignores the fact that the title "King of Croatia" was at the time incorporated into the Yugoslav crown, which was actually held by King Peter II (which makes Aimone a pretender - "do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender" per WP:NCROY). It is also well to remember that the Independent State of Croatia itself is an illegal wartime creation (Hague conventions), created on the territory of an occupied country. "King of Croatia"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support, per sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per sources. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. What the sources cited support is that he did not reign in Croatia, which is not under dispute; the Roman restaurant really belongs in the article. But neither this nor his status under international law determine the title of the article - that is determined by what sources in English call him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per sources and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names. He was called Aimone when was born, when he went to Karakorum, when married, when he had secret negotiations with anglo-americans in 1942 (Giulio Vignoli, Il Sovrano Sconosciuto, Milan, Mursia Editore, 2006. ISBN 88-425-3583-4), when was in Italian Co-Belligerent Navy and when he exiled in Argentina. He was Tomislav only for two years (for Axis "internal" geopolitics), but noone never called him "Tomislav", cause he never went to Croatia (neither he wanted to go...) --Retaggio (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, should be renamed in "Aimone of Savoy-Aosta" as in Italian wiki http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimone_di_Savoia-Aosta_(1900-1948) --Grifter72 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose, We are not here to judge on who was the pretender. Tomislav II was the King of Croatia by the letter of the then state of affairs. Peter I of Serbia was proclaimed as the "Popular monarchy" of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. That proclamation was never regarded legal by the Parliament of Croatia, latter Alexander I was proclaimed King of Yugoslavia, not of Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per sources. Pretty obvious. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCROY and sources. WP:NCROY states the highest title one held should be used, the title of the article should be Tomislav II of Croatia. (King outranks Duke) Even if he had not been named and accepted the title King of Croatia the correct name of the article would not be Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta according to naming conventions. I have also not seen a reference to support the view that he was a pretender. The sources cited in favour of the move mention him being named king. - dwc lr (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I took 12 years of Croatian history at school and have never heard of this "king" until now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - like I've said several times before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be the most common name and arguments against are not convincing. AniMatedraw 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whether the kingly title was borne de jure, de facto, or not at all is not decisive; was it used, and is it used now to refer to a notable person during some period in his life? King Humbert II of Italy was arguably never so de jure because his father's unilateral abdication was unconstitutional. Even so, all of his life Umberto was the "Prince of Piedmont" or the former King of Italy except for 33 days in between. Napoleon I's son was "King of Rome" and the heir apparent of many Holy Roman Emperors was officially King of the Romans or German King without ever reigning under those titles, nor always with the consent of the inhabitants. Conquerors conferred victory titles, including kingships, which history and scholars do not ignore. NCROY says "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." But such a rule does cover this problem: NCROY's Other royals #6 says, "Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage." In this case, that's "King of Croatia". FactStraight (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)"
  • Support, per sources and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names. Flamarande (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion

Either the man was 'King of Croatia' or he wasn't. It's apparent that he wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
@Septentrionalis. Not really, the point is whether he was the king or not (sources). I'm fully aware of WP:COMMONAME, and I anticipated you'd reiterate this same faulty argument. Titles of nobility articles have their own specific naming conventions (WP:NCROY), and are not subject strictly to English language usage. You can't title an article as if a person were a king if he wasn't a king. An example that comes to mind is that "Elizabeth II of England" is more common than "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" (Google, Google Books, Google Scholar). Furthermore, it is impossible to settle this issue conclusively with the use of the Google test, you know that.
Wait a second, is there any issue as to whether "Aimone" or "Aimone of Savoy" is more frequent than "Tomislav II" in sources? Not a single source I've read that discusses the person's life referred to him as "Tomislav" in general. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Tomislav II is way more frequent (9 times more frequent to be precise) than Aimone of Savoy. Whether it's correct or incorrect is another issue. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
LoL... Like I said, the Google test is known to be useless here. This person is referred to as "Aimone of Savoy" only sometimes. Besides "Aimone of Savoy", he is called "Duke Aimone", "Aimone, Duke of Spoleto", "Aimone, Duke of Aosta", "Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta" (with or without the comma), "Aimone of Aosta", Aimone of Spoleto", etc. but by far the most commonly used name is simply "Aimone". How are we supposed to check all that? We can't just arbitrarily pick one "name" and use its English usage as a measure, can we? Furthermore, a quick look at the sources will plainly show that he is almost never referred to as "Tomislav" outside the context of mentioning his nomination for "kingship" in 1941. This is only natural, of course, considering how negligible the whole matter obviously was. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
True, a Google Book Search test can't resolve this kind of issue because many sources just say that he would have been known as Tomislav II, but otherwise call him Aimone. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, "Aimone Duke of Spoleto" is way more frequent than "Tomislav II (2 times more frequent to be precise :), and that's only one of the many names using his proper name ("Aimone") and referring to his title as Duke. You can easily add that up to the hits for "Aimone of Savoy" and you wouldn't be making any mistake. I think we can conclude that as far as the common English name is concerned, there is no competition between "Aimone" and "Tomislav". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A quick (incomplete) Google test is sufficient to resolve the issue of English language usage:
Note: all of the names ("Aimone of Spoleto", "Aimone of Aosta", "Aimone Duke of Aosta", etc.) can only refer to this person. i.e. he was the only person named "Aimone" that held the title of Duke of Aosta or Duke of Spoleto. Its an unusual name of German origin meaning "fatherland", apparently. The only other "Duke Aimone" is Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia, his grandson (none of the five hits in the last search refer to him, however). Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta's grandfather (1st Duke), brother (3rd Duke), and son (5th Duke), were all named "Amedeo", while his father (2nd Duke) was named "Emanuele Filiberto".
Incidentally, "Tomislav's" son, Amedeo, 5th Duke of Aosta is also apparently the current head of the House of Savoy ("King of Italy", if you will :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
King Peter II of Yugoslavia reigned from 1934 to 1945. That fact 'erases' the duke's monarchical position. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think WP:NCROY requires us to use ", 4th Duke of Aosta", seeing as how the articles on his entire family use that formulation (with the exception of one King and one disputed Prince). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Results that Mr. DIREKTOR provided are not correct, namely because his title was Tomislav II of Croatia (in english). This gives (-wikipedia and -commons):
Tomislav II of Croatia 27800 hits
Aimone of Aosta 10900 hits
Aimone of Spoleto 4180 hits
Aimone Duke of Aosta 11300 hits
Imbris (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
4th Duke of Aosta 33,200 hits --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The preffered title on Italian Wikipedia Aimone of Savoy-Aosta gives 7690 hits (incl. the current Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among the results). -- Imbris (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Different wikipedias
@Grifter72 (Apr 14, 2009), the sittuation at the Italian Wikipedia is the result of republicanism (which ideology forbade Royal and noble ranks in Italy, simmilar to Austria). 3 other wikipedias use the Italian model (ca, de, and sv), while 12 wikipedias use Tomislav II in their language (including Serbo-Croat version, da, es, fr, hr, hu, nl, ja, pl, ru, sh, fi, zh). -- Imbris (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Imbris. Situation at it:wiki is the result of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names and related it:Aiuto:Convenzioni di nomenclatura. See title of it:Umberto II d'Italia or it:Pietro II di Jugoslavia... --Retaggio (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't concern myself overmuch with User:Imbris' quite standard republican/communist "conspiracy theories", Retaggio. Virtually all other Wikipedias copy the English Wikipedia in such matters, so we can easily assume that they'll change eventually to whatever title enWiki has (Wikipedia is not a source), particularly with such obscure articles as this one.
People assume enWiki gets it right. Little did they know Imbris was on the job in this article... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
@Retaggio (see: User talk:Retaggio) The preffered title on Italian Wikipedia Aimone of Savoy-Aosta gives 7690 hits (incl. the current Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among the results). -- Imbris (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
@Imbris. If you are speaking of it:wiki preferred title, well... search in italian language... :-D
Aimone di Savoia-Aosta - 20,200 hits
Tomislav II di Croazia - 2 hits (1/10,000...)
:-) Bye. --Retaggio (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Italian anti-monarchist notation plays no part here. We use the English most notable name. And btw. the Italian term is Tomislavo II. -- Imbris (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, right, italian is: Tomislavo II di Croazia - 4 hits.... Now, we can discuss of english name... :-) --Retaggio (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Lets conclude this notability issue with a full Google test on Google itself according to User:Imbris' his personal preferences:
Now let me remind everyone to consider two other important facts: 1) not a single published professional source (that I've encountered) refers to him as "Tomislav" outside the context of mentioning his nomination for "kingship". He is always referred to, even between 1941-1943 as "Aimone". 2) Most sources that mention him very often refer to him simply as "Aimone", however we are unable to add these results to the tally of Google test hits, as it is just a name (a weird name, but still a name :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Logic flaw of Mr. DIREKTOR. He thinks that nobody would see that he summed up only two instance variables of Tomislav II and six of Aimone. This naturally lead to the before mentioned logic flaw. -- Imbris (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (Seems someone de-bold my text. And changed its placement. -- Imbris (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The preffered title on Italian Wikipedia Aimone of Savoy-Aosta gives 7690 hits (incl. the current Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, among the results). -- Imbris (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
LoL... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Duke was never 'King of Croatia'. During that time period, Peter II was King of Yugoslavia (which Croatia was a part of). GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was not confirmed by the Croatian Parliament, aslo his eldest son George, Crown Prince of Serbia was the legitimate successor, and not Alexander, Crown Prince of Serbia (father of Peter II). Furthermore the House of Obrenović is the legitimate royal house of Serbia. When Alexander I of Serbia (Obrenović) was murdered, Prince Mirko of Montenegro was the legitimate ruler, and the current headship of the House of Obrenović belongs to Nicholas II of Montenegro. -- Imbris (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter II was King of Yugoslavia from 1934 to 1945. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Imbris you do NOT refactor other people's talk page comments, as you did above. Do you want to be blocked again? People are tiring of your ultra-nationalism. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay made a remark not related to the figures (hits on Google). Also GoodDay made a remark that needs to be addressed properly, I thank him for that. GoodDay did not protest of my action and Crotchety Old Man is effectively WP:STALKing since he never edited on Tomislav II of Croatia, nor any monarch for that matter and simply followed me here. -- Imbris (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Address the topic at hand. Do you understand that you don't mess with other people's talk page comments? Or do you need to be reported again? Answer the question, bearing in mind you are fresh off a 3-day block. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I will not mess with other people's talk page comments. I see that my actions could have caused a refactor. I still cannot see why are you following me around? -- Imbris (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Not that Imbris' silly argument matters or anything, but the Croatian-Slavonian Sabor (Parliament) did not exist when Yugoslavia was formed - and neither did Croatia-Slavonia. It was merged into the People's Assembly of the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. The statement Imbris makes, while also irrelevant to this whole issue, is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda - a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia? That's the exact excuse the Ustaše used.
This person's motivation on this talkpage is the promotion of the legitimacy of the Axis satellite, the Independent State of Croatia. That much is now perfectly obvious to a person knowledgeable in Balkans history and Imbris' edits.
Also, your continued desperate attempts to devalue the Google test results are among the most ridiculous posts you've made yet - and that's saying something. rofl The Google test, as well as sources usage, is very conclusively in favor of "Aimone", and his title as Duke. That's all from me, I'm sure you've got another 10 farcical conspiracy theories and ridiculous excuses - you can write them over and over again from now on as much as you like. In fact, I look forward to more entertainment of that form. A blind man can see through them, anyway. Besides, not in my wildest dreams did I expect you to actually acknowledge the results of the Google test. You're the kind of person that would deny the sky is blue for his ultranationalist convictions. Write on... Crotchety, do you have an opinion on this move proposal? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Yugoslavia was a Kingdom from 1929 to 1945, then a Communist republic from 1945 until the 1990's. Throughout that time, Croatia was never independant. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but as I said, all this is irrelevant... the many university sources sources and comprehensive Google tests are surely enough for anyone. In either case everyone can see this silly title can't stay. Don't let User:Imbris sidetrack the discussion and transform it into a meaningless squabble, facilitating a repeat of the crazy outcome of the previous proposed move. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey ya'll. I don't know how the move proposal will end, but please let's not keep the current title, please? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The title should be Tomislav II of Croatia or Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta not the current or proposed ones. - dwc lr (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The current title is the result of several compromises, one from the year 2007, one from the year 2008 and therefore is the best option. Naturally, Tomislav II of Croatia would be the WP:NPOV way to go, but this has been stopped by users who do not comply with WP:NCROY and the fact that Tomislavo II (in Italian) and Tomislav II of Croatia (in English) is what is most notable about that king.
It is sad to see that his title is considered false among both ultra-right and ultra-left spectrum of society, everywhere. People would rather claim that the ISC never existed, do not get me wrong, I would also that the ISC never existed, but it did exist and wishful thinking cannot change that fact.
The entire ordeal is pure revisionism, since in 1939 the Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (which was a fascist dictatorship, Alexander I was compared to Mussolini, as the Yugoslavian Duce), etc. That constitution was promulgated by one person, the King, who proclaimed himself the dictator.
In 1939 the Constitution was suspended to allow the Banate of Croatia being formed.
In 1941 the Constitution was not in effect any more, nobody did apply it, Beuc wrote that the AVNOJ and state' antifascist councils did not use any Yugoslav laws passed by the former Kingdom, they had their own laws.
So to conclude, Peter II was a minor, the military coup brought him to "power", the country surrendered, capitulated, the previously suspended Constitution was not in effect, and was proclaimed invalid by all concerned parties, and you still advocate as if Peter II ruled up to 1945.
Not.
Peter II fled the country, as the Communist insisted, so anyone who claims otherwise is a revisionist?
SFRY existed in the United Nations up to 1 Nov 2000, some claim, is it legal fiction? SFRY had an ambassador in the United Nations up to 1999. CIA Factbook claims: the Embassy of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased operations 25 March 1999.
Imbris (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If what you say is fact? then why haven't you proposed such changes at Peter II of Yugoslavia (concerning his reign)? GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

@dwc lr: I cannot see how you can oppose the move "per sources". The sources more than clearly explain the situation: he was named "king", but he never assumed the throne. He was not "king". ("The project soon foundered, because of the Dalmatian question, and Aimone-Tomislav passed into history as the 'king that never was'") This farcical article title is frankly insulting both to Croatian monarchical history, to the House of Savoy (Tomislav?), and to the majesty of kings and monarchs at large. I've tried to see your point of view, honestly I have, but I cannot understand it. This person was always the Duke Aimone. (I would not mind "Aimone Duke of Aosta" as the title) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Royal House of Italy (Prince of Naples branch at least) talks of the current Duke of Aosta being a Royal Highness (instead of Serene Highness) as he was briefly Crown Prince of Croatia.[1] So his father’s status still has an impact today. - dwc lr (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, to my knowledge the current Prince Aimone is styled "Royal Highness" by the Naples branch because he claims to be the successor to the headship of the royal House of Savoy, not because he claims the (to my knowledge non-existent) title of "Prince of Croatia" (what's that? lol :). In any case this is trivia, we're discussing the Duke's status are we not. How do you adress the fact that very reliable sources confirm he "never assumed the throne"? I did not list all the sources, as this is a way too long rationale as it is (I got notified to that effect [2]), but there's more.
For another example, Stevan K. Pavlowitch (published by Columbia University Press) refers to this person as "Aimone di Savoia-Aosta Duke of Spoleto, 'king-designate of Croatia'" (note the inverted commas, I imagine even that much is disputable). You are more knowledgeable in matters of royalty than I, I admit, but I do know somewhat about this as this is Yugoslavia (my "turf", as it were :). I am honestly asking you to explain the rationale behind your vote. I'm curious as to whether or not there's a flaw in my reasoning... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, according to the Peter II of Yugoslavia article, Peter reigned as King from 1934 to 1945. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm still hoping dwc might agree with Dr. Rodogno and Prof. Pavlowitch. After all, the latter is an Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (published here by Columbia University Press). Perhaps we can agree on referring to him as "King-Designate of Croatia" (named as king, but never actually assuming the throne)? I'm even considering contacting him personally (if possible!) in case dwc regards his terminology as faulty in this respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If things continue as a stalemate, there are better compromises (then the current title). Example = have title as Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta & then in the Infobox 'Tomislav II of Croatia (disputed)'. That's how it's done for the disputed Louis XIX of France & Henry V of France articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don’t understand how one can say he is the “king that never was”. He was offered a crown, accepted it (reluctantly maybe), took a regnal name (Tomislav II) and then renounced his position. He held the position longer than Edward VIII or his own cousin Humbert II of Italy. I just believe highest ranking position should be used as is stated in WP:NCROY, but if it is moved it should be to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is that he "never assumed his crown", hence he never held this (higher) position. He was named as king by his royal cousin and sovereign, but steadfastly refused to assume that position - in effect remaining "King-Designate of Croatia"?
P.S. I have no problem with either alternative title you suggested, you probably know what you're talking about. If you could just explain why "Prince" (his brother, father, and son are all nubered "Dukes of Aosta")? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We both fundemantly disagree on this issue and have disscused this numerous times, so we will just have to agree to disagree :-) though the article will probaly get moved this time. There was a discsson here about using Prince and the consenses was use "Prince Name, Title of Place". - dwc lr (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well all right, though I was sincerely hoping the quotes from sources might incline you towards reaching a consensus. :)
Concerning "Prince", I'm still unclear as to why you're proposing it? If he's a prince, fine, but how is he a Prince? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
All members of the House of Savoy are princes. In this case he was a Prince of Savoy-Aosta. - dwc lr (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then we should move the other articles on all his relatives (father, son, brother)... are they really all titled incorrectly :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm still sceptical... are you sure all of these "Dukes" are supposed to be "Princes"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the previous & future Dukes of Aosta, also 'princes'? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


@FactStraight: Another flawed argument. What you're saying is that "everything is irrelevant", and that we're somehow supposed to find out whether Aimone of Savoy was referred to as "King Tomislav" between 1941-1943??
Here's what I don't get: you oppose the move - do you have evidence that suggests he was called "Tomislav" or whatever during that period? Because if you do not, as I'm pretty sure is the case, the only thing you've got to go by is the Google test which clearly points towards "Aimone" (especially in sources usage). So your own criteria of "contemporary notability", which by the way is something I'm hearing about as a Wikipedia title guideline for the first time, should incline you towards actually supporting the move. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't buy an argument which is based exclusively on the contention that he is predominantly called "Aimone" now: After his abdication and now, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom is predominantly known as Duke of Windsor but that isn't where his article is located because that wasn't his highest title. For me the persuasive argument is "NCROY says: 'Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.'" But such a rule does cover this problem: NCROY's Other royals #6 says, "Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage." In this case, that's "King of Croatia". FactStraight (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the third move proposal, and people are mostly aware of WP:NCROY. The point I tried to demonstrate in the move argument is that a significant number of sources have so far confirmed that Aimone "never assumed the throne", a "king that never was". He was named as king by his royal cousin and sovereign, but steadfastly refused to assume that position - in effect remaining "King-Designate of Croatia" (Stevan K. Pavlowitch). Had he been crowned, he would've accepted the crown in the name of "Tomislav II", but he "steadfastly refused" to be crowned or even to go to Croatia (in fact he is recorded to have sworn not to do so in his life).
Another important point is that no, sources do not refer to him as "King Tomislav". I've not yet seen any mention of that name in published scholarly works in any capacity other than a description of what his regal name would've been after he was crowned. In other words, the person is called "Duke Aimone", and it is mentioned that his name as king was Tomislav II - but when referring to him in any context unrelated to an elaboration on his kingship - they simply refer to him as (Duke) Aimone of Savoy (yes even in a description of the 1941-1943 period).
Frankly its hard to find a source that calls this person anything other than "Aimone" between 1941-1943 in any context unrelated to his nomination for kingship. Even if we did find a reference of that sort, it would be vastly outnumbered by those sources that use "Aimone" (which is natural considering how marginal the whole affair was). In addition, even if we did find such a source, I am still not convinced this is any kind of criteria dictated by WP:NCROY? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Not true, Tomislav II of Croatia accepted the Crown of Zvonimir, and the coronation is a completely different topic. Peter I Karađorđević started his reign on 11 June 1903, and was the only modern Serbian king that had a crown placed on his head on 15 July 1903. The ceremony of coronation has no bearing on the fact that he was the Serbian king, or the fact that his reign started on 11 June 1903. -- Imbris (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok Imbris, you think something or other from the above is "not true", noted. Now can I pls have a serious conversation for once without you talking about unrelated nonsense, please? You like the idea of the Ustaše monarchy, we get it... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Your provocations will not work. You use only those sources that support your POV and claim that there are no opposition. The facts are completely different. For example: Edward VIII of the United Kingdom "is one of the shortest-reigning monarchs in British and Commonwealth history, and was never crowned". Please stop with attacks on fellow users, discuss facts and figures, do not put "words into ones mouth" and stop your defamation campaign. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not stupid enough to discuss with you, not anymore I'm afraid. There's no point. For example, I am not even claiming the fact he was not crowned is any kind of argument. As always, what you are talking about I will never know. Now please: stop addressing me, I'm trying to have a proper discussion on this issue for once. Take your nonsense "arguments" to someone else, aren't you happy you ruined the conversation in the last move proposal? Start another CANVASSING campaign or something... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
To FactStraight - how exactly do you define "received", and how does this story fit into that definition? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ever read the mid-19th century diaries of conversations between Wilhelm I, German Emperor and his son, the Crown Prince, in which the latter keeps referring to his mother as "the Empress", while his father keeps referring to her as "the Queen"? Bismarck bullied him into accepting a "crown from the gutter" for the sake of a unified Germany, while to those around him he declined the "honour". Nor is he the only one: Peter I, Grand Duke of Oldenburg's article is under that title, even though he "refused" to use it for the same reason Wilhelm did. In such circumstances, the question is whether or not the prince was in a position to refuse. I doubt a cadet prince, such as Aimone was, had the authority to refuse a victory title from his king (howsoever sincere may have been his private reservations) any more than a soldier may decline an odious assignment from his commander-in-chief -- and I think it likely that Victor Emmanuel III was playing Wilhelm I to Mussolin's Bismarck. The fact that among the names Aimone gave his only son was the historic Croation name of "Zvonimir" is an argument in support of his acquiescence I had heard years before I'd heard of Wikipedia: it suggests that Aimone's posture may have been complicated, as I'd expect during such times. Nor do I think that a "king" must "reign" or visit his "realm" in order for history to recognize that such a title was conferred upon him. I remain unconvinced that this is about whether the title was inexistent rather than about anachronistic notions of the international protocol necessary for such a title to be accorded in the past -- seems to me that people think he ought not be recognized as a king more than that the title was granted in an unprecedented way: history records as titular monarchs men who had slimmer claim to the title than Aimone. But I gather that this is all moot anyway, since the article is being revised to reflect one side's point of view before this discussion has concluded or consensus has been reached. Basta! FactStraight (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy." It seems pretty clear that this person was nominated to receive the title, but "steadfastly refused" to become anything more than "King-Designate". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Repeating myself) We must keep ironing this whole thing out, folks. The current article title is unacceptable. It should be either Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta or Tomislav II of Croatia. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the current title should stay because it is a result of several years of compromises (2007, 2008). Also Wikipedia:Consensus as a rule should be applied because the survey included users that have no opinion on the matter, contribute nothing new, but rather insist on defining who is the pretender. -- Imbris (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The request move made by DIREKTOR

Is full of NPOV, unsourced, defamatory and simmilar information. He laughs on the editing of all previous editors, the two previous moves were not successful and many editors opposed the move from the current title. The request for a move is not academic, not written in neutral terms, favours DIREKTORs POV, etc.

DIREKTOR cherry picked the sources he presented, and it is not the matter of sources but of notability. If a person is a footballer, and makes his carrear under some different name, we use the most notable name.

Imbris (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The DIREKTORs removal of allowed tags [3] speaks volumes of the biased and not neutral way in which he has approached the request on the move. -- Imbris (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He removed the tags that you placed on his talk page comments, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Not that I expect you to understand. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, good old Imbris, you always do the same things. I keep repeating, don't let him sidetrack the discussion. Anyone can see his edits are malicious and against Wiki policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of any of these charges, as IMHO, they're irrelevant to the topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please simply participate in the actual relevant discussion and refrain from engaging in further personal attacks, because they simply cannot help. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is lead about the request and the request is not NPOV. Contain biased phrasing and WP:OR (like the Hague conventions mentioning by Mr. DIREKTOR), those are not personal attacks but pointing out the fallacies of the request. The request should be changed, DIREKTOR was warned by one user that the request is too long, but the request is not just too long, it is badly phrased and not neutral. -- Imbris (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The rationale is not written in neutral language and contradict Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Contested_requests which clearly warrant listing (1) a brief proposal, (2) under the Other proposals section, and not under the date when the request was made. -- Imbris (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin should note

That:

Imbris (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's irrelevant as to wheither an editor has or hasn't edited this article before. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is, GoodDay, don't waste your energy on this stuff... Wikipedia is not a democracy, votes should have valid rationale behind them. Let's review:
  • User:Pmanderson ("the title is determined by what sources in English call him"). His reason for opposing is completely baseless for a number of reasons: 1) WP:NCROY determines nobility article titles, not notability; 2) even if it were notability that determined this matter, "Aimone" is cca. four times more frequent than "Tomislav"; and 3) Scholarly sources use "Aimone" at all times. The vote should definitely be removed or changed.
  • User:Imbris. :) His vote "argument", even if it (hypothetically) were to make any sense, only addresses a very, very tiny part of the move rationale.
  • User:DWC LR's vote argument is (with all due respect) mostly contradicted by scholarly sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
All the users that Mr. DIREKTOR listed contributed to the article, and explained their opinion with policies and facts. On the other hand, the users I listed had not contributed to the concensus (they did not discuss their vote) and insist on one sided POV.
The title of the article is the result of two years of compromises, involving many users, which were all slandered in the rationale.
User:AniMate also did not edit this article, nor participated in the discussion (just gave a vote in the survey) like User:Grifter72 and User:Ivan Štambuk
We all know what WP:Concensus says about such contributions.
Imbris (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
So the fact that their arguments are blatantly flawed (esp. Pmanderson's and yours) is irrelevant? Are you accusing me of canvassing? Funny how you are the one making these silly accusations. Funny because you, unlike myself, are a known "canvass-specialist", who not only recruits meatpuppets on this Wiki, but also invites POV-pushers from other Wikipedias to join in. This is all well known and links can be provided in 5 secs. Your episodes during the previous move proposal can be found easily enough.
Your behavior during this move proposal was imho appalling. Not only were you unable to contribute to the discussion with a single meaningful argument, you also 1) unbelievably edited and sabotaged the move rationale I wrote, 2) tried to get me blocked, 3) tried to force me to remove source quotes, 4) accused no less than five users of meatpuppeteering and canvassing with absolutely NO basis whatsoever, 5) called people sockpuppets (again with no basis whatsoever), 6) placed all sorts of reports trying to get this move proposal scrapped over utterly irrelevant technicalities. (Only you can seriously believe a move proposal will suddenly be canceled because the rationale is a paragraph too long. :)
And now you continue to attack me and accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, actually believing that votes will be scrapped because of your fantastic conspiracy theories. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) The fact is that the named users regularly agree with you on many different issues, and consider you as being right is contrary to WP regarding editing with reliable sources, and impartially. Nobody accused you of any such deeds. On the case of me contacting some other wikiproject to merely question on the validity of such enterprises as sockpuppet investigations, cannot be considered canvassing, because no sockpuppet investigation was launched. To close the (1)st point I must say that this talk page is not dedicated to personal grudges you have with me. Discuss edits and not the editor.
(2) My behaviour is restrained comparing to what were your actions. (2a) I have contributed plenty and will continue to do just that, your arguments on the coronation and the pretender were successfully opposed, as your Google tests which are inconclusive. The summation you made will be characterized as a logic flaw by everybody.
(3) - on rationale It is written in the fashion that is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V
(4) - on blocking Pls, you abused WP:AGF and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and haven't apologized (yet). You constantly attack users with planned defamation schemes, to alienate the fellow users. This tactic will not work.
(5) - on sources You provided a preety picture, sourcing only your side of the medal, and more importantly you have sourced only a small portion of your rationale.
(6) - canvassing Nobody said anything of a sort, the named users have not edited on the issues, nor monarchism in general, not contributed anything in the discussion, all of them regard your personal opinion as right without sources and contrary to WP:V and WP:RS.
(7) - reports Nobody made any report that is not usually made, Wikipedia talk:RM is just the appropriate place, two users told you to shorten, I noted the fact that it should be placed in the section Other proposals
(8) - accusations Nobody accused you of anything, but you admitted to WP:STALKing and Talk:Maltese (dog). It is just very strange that users who agree with you elsewhere and in the same time disagree with me elsewhere now do the same on this talk page but with votes.
(9) WP:Concensus is very clear about that and the users you defend - still - had not edited in monarchism, not participated in the discussion and provided no insight into WP concerning this case.
(10) Rationale is against WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:DUE and most importantly WP:NCROY.
Imbris (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re: FactStraight

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I remain unconvinced that this is about whether the title was inexistent rather than about anachronistic notions of the international protocol necessary for such a title to be accorded in the past -- seems to me that people think he ought not be recognized as a king more than that the title was granted in an unprecedented way: history records as titular monarchs men who had slimmer claim to the title than Aimone.
(in the move discussion above)
I agree that it could be argued that the point of view of classical historiography is paramount when deciding how to form an encyclopedia article. However, I don't believe that an encyclopedia needs to be completely constrained by historiographic principles. It describes all human knowledge, and if our knowledge is such that it makes this whole idea moot to say the least (and outright bizarre and offensive if you ask me), then it's fair for the encyclopedia to take that knowledge into account. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In which case, it would have been appropriate to explain in the article why Aimone was "King of Croatia", rather than to retroactively deny him a title that is historically defensible (however surreal) and compelled by compliance to Wikipedia's naming convention ("Use the highest title") -- however objectionable. We have just re-written history through this article's name and POV content, whereas Wikipedia's charge is merely to record history. FactStraight (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
But I gather that this is all moot anyway, since the article is being revised to reflect one side's point of view before this discussion has concluded or consensus has been reached. Basta!
(in the move discussion above)
The move discussion was about the article title, not about the content, and the changes to content did not invalidate the old title, they actually simply made it clear why it was such - they clarified right in the lead section why two different names were used side by side in the title. Now that there are no longer two names in the title, the text can remain, because it stands on its own merit - it explains this article's notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen by the ongoing edit war -- defended on the grounds that the content is being changed to conflict with the article's new title -- changing the content while a related naming discussion and poll were underway was provocative. Courtesy in editing called for ascertainment of consensus and of the participants' interpretation of the "kingship" issue so that the "take" on the title would be accurately reflected in the article. Instead, the argument continues, simply changing venues from the article name to its content, because some felt disrespected by a premature action to alter as much about the article as could be done in favor of the interpretation of one side in an ongoing debate. Thus disagreement escalates, consensus retreats, and good editing suffers. FactStraight (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 14 years ago29 comments3 people in discussion

DWC, you opposed the move, and now that it went through, you're trying to undo that by removing sources and rewriting the article as you see fit. This matter was discussed very thoroughly in the move proposal, and users achieved a consensus. (The consensus was achieved as part of a move proposal, and I hope you don't think that's some kind of loophole that makes it "not a consensus".) Just because you were opposed (disregarding the scholarly sources and Google tests) does not mean you can edit as if nothing happened. This "revanchist" behavior of yours is completely uncalled for.

Please discuss these aggressive edits, particularly your removal of several high-quality sources. In light of the consensus and the references presented, please do not edit-war to push your edit. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry what content specifically do you object to? I don’t see any justification for censoring that he held the title King of Croatia. I changed King-Designate to nominal king and restored the succession box, category and succession in the infobox - dwc lr (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm, if he was "king", then he was a "nominal king". Saying he was a "nominal king" is the same thing as saying he was a "king". I know you never agreed, but the whole discussion above obviously established that he was not, in fact, the king of Croatia. I understand that is not your opinion, but I also hope you will not disrespect the efforts of others and the long discussion above by simply pretending a (relatively) broad consensus had not been reached on the question. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping nominal king would be acceptable as he was king in name but obviously had little to do with affairs in the country hence nominal king. Yes he was king-designate from the moment he was named to when he accepted the post. King-designate is wrong and misleading with all do respect show me a source saying he refused the nomination or he never replied to it. At the moment the lead says “He formally accepted the nomination on May 18 1941”. So he became king, or did he reject it? hmm - dwc lr (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy." The sources listing him as "king-designate" obviously do not refer to him only in the short period from the moment he was named to when he accepted the nomination. Perhaps that sentence is misleading, as you say. What is meant is that he agreed to accept his uncle's nomination, but "never assumed the kingship".
I have to say, it seems to me like you're reaching for loopholes with these word games.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It’s a shame he didn't follow through on his words. If he rejected his cousins VE III nomination please insert this in the article and we can call him King-Designate who declined the position. If not the article must be changed to reflect historical facts that he accepted the nomination and was Croatia's nominal head until he abdicated. These are genuine facts and can be sourced no problem. So did he reject the nomination or will the artcile have to be changed? - dwc lr (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll say this again: he did not reject VE III's nomination (by which he was designated as king), but he also did not assume the kingship - remaining king-designate. This, I believe is the root of the misunderstanding: you seem to think the two are somehow mutually exclusive. Seeing as how he was the NDH king-designate, I agree that it can easily be said he was the NDH's "nominal head", he was not however, a king in any capacity having refused to actually become one.
(Btw, referring to the NDH as "Croatia" without clarification is rather taboo and legally incorrect, as "Croatia" at the time was the Federal State of Croatia, or the Banovina of Croatia if you're referring to the 1941-1943 period. The full name or its very common abbreviation, "NDH", are usually used.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
He did not refuse to become a king, he could have done but he did not. Where is a reference saying he refused to be King of Croatia you have admitted he accepted the post. He may not have been happy to accept but he did though. He was informed of Croatian affairs through the office he set up in Rome which I added to the article today. He was nominal head of NDH as King of Croatia. Please don’t try to rewrite history by suppressing verifiable historical facts. - dwc lr (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This is getting silly. What word games are we playing here? Accepting a nomination to become king ≠ becoming a king. This much is plainly obvious, what are we talking about? Stop trying to have your way in spite of editor consensus and sources by inventing word games and "loopholes".
I can only repeat: he did not reject VE III's nomination (by which he was designated as king), but he also did not assume the kingship - remaining king-designate. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for King-Designate. Sources say he was King of Croatia how do you explain that. Why are you trying to prevent that being shown in the article? How does one actually assume kingship? - dwc lr (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, there is no consensus for "king-designate" specifically, so we should probably remove that and replace it with "king of Croatia", right? I'm starting to get annoyed. Is this the same logic you used to conclude that "nominal king" is ok since those exact words were not used above? "King-designate" is in the article because a large number of high-quality sources describe this person that way (an even larger number simply calling him "Duke Aimone" without even mentioning him as a "king").
How does one assume kingship? Well, by not "steadfastly refusing to assume kingship", for a start. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So you have no consensus but yet you change a large potion of the article content. So the previous version, prior to your changes is the consensus version. If an article or book is talking about him in relation to something other than being king of Croatia then no doubt he will be referred to as “Duke Aimone”.
The evidence is overwhelmingly clear.- dwc lr (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
LoL so if a source at all mentioned the position he was "king-designate" for, i.e. "king of Croatia", then it supports him as a "king of Croatia"? Look these Google test prove little or nothing for many, many obvious reasons. I researched the matter, I found what his position was when described in more detail, and it was "king-designate of Croatia". I did my best. Call him whatever you like, just don't call him "Tomislav II, (nominal) King of Croatia", that issue has been settled by broad user consensus, high-quality sources, and numerous Google tests.
Please do not edit-war to push this. 3RR applies. This "sore loser" stuff is going too far. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I’m not concerned about the title of this article I have no agenda to push. My only purpose is the removal of misleading information as you are incapable of showing he refused the appointment. You could say Michael, Prince of Montenegro was King Designate of Montenegro as he refused the offer. Aimone became King and abdicated these can be sourced so you won’t be allowed to get away with your fantasy revisionist agenda as the view from news articles from the time, and books is overwhelmingly against you sorry to break it to you. - dwc lr (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't mind having the 'King of Croatia' stuff there, as long as 'disputed' is placed next to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

dwc, if you disagree with "king-designate", despite the sources, that's fine with me. What I will not agree to in a million years, is you ignoring the editor consensus. In other words, I perceive your edits here as a desperate "revanchist" move. Where you couldn't prove your point above to anyone's satisfaction, you will now try to edit the article. You know like "screw him and his move discussion and editor consensus, I'll just rewrite the article text as if the guy was a king and no harm done".

Google books is not "against me", that is your flawed perception where any source mentioning "king of Croatia" and "Aimone" supports your fantasies about this person. There is no way you will present this person as "king" in spite of sources and editor consensus. The only sources describing his status in detail are clear enough:
  • Aimone was nominated as king of Croatia by his uncle, becoming "king-designate" according to some sources.
  • He refused to assume the kingship ("Never, he declared, would he agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy.") because of the Dalmatian question.
In short: call him what you want, just don't call him "King of Croatia". Do not mask you POV-pushing behind removing the phrase "king-designate". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I still think my idea was workable, see Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme & Henri, comte de Chambord. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have effectively restored the article to its previous form. Let me be clear I am not concerned if this article is called Tomislav II of Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta I am concerned about content. I respect that some people believe he is better known by Aimone rather than Tomislav I’m not particularly desperate for the article to be moved back I think currently it should be moved to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta but that’s neither here nor there. The majority of sources refer to him as King of Croatia that’s just how it is I’m sorry you are offended by that but you need to be rational. He said that he would not agree to be king "of a nation amputated from Italy." But he also said he was proud to be named King of Croatia and as we know ultimately accepted the appointment. He could of rejected it like Micheal, Prince of Montenegro but didn’t. So I see you've removed King Designate which is a start. I do find it amusing that you accuse me of pov pushing, really you should question yourself as to why you are so against using King of Croatia its just a title this person held. - dwc lr (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree King of Croatia (even if disputed tag) should be in the infobox etc I don’t think its comparable to Charles X of France’s son and grandson but sadly a Yugoslav nationalist is so against it he is forcing Wikipedia to adopt his view. - dwc lr (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd opted for the 'King of Croatia (disputed)' version (including the disputed reign). Seems a fair trade off, for having the article title corrected. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why “King of Croatia” is a forbidden word in the article this is the title and position he accepted. The sole reason for its removal is push ones POV it should be resorted to the article and the succession box even with (disputed). - dwc lr (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Things will work out. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I'm a "nationalist" today, nice to add a brand new label to my collection (communist, fascist, Ustaše, etc). (If you knew anything at all about Balkans history you would know that "Yugoslav nationalist" is an oxymoron, something of a joke in fact.) Luckily I'm not alone, there's a team of my nationalist buddies here to help me out: Prof. H. James Burgwyn, Dr. Rodogno, Prof. Pavlowitch, Richard G. Massock, etc. Looks like these Yugoslav nationalist academics and noted historians specializing in Balkans and WWII history are successfully "forcing" Wikipedia to adopt our view. All that's missing is "won't anyone please help me" :)
GoodDay, the difference between the two versions is essential, and not at all small or trivial (look more carefully). What dwc is doing is presenting this person as King of Croatia. What that means is that the title is "wrong". Of course, that's just his (probably royalist) POV, but the point is that he's rewriting the article so that the title looks silly and wrong. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll return 'tommorow', gotta watch the World Series. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I used to watch the big show every year, Phillies and Yanks this time right? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I’m not at all surprised you have been labelled numerous things. He was nominated for and accepted the kingship, took the name Tomislav II (he didn’t have a coronation, big deal. He didn’t need a coronation to take a regnal name), he abdicated after his cousin told him to. These are all verifiable and the introduction must reflect that. The consensus is for King of Croatia (disputed) to be in the infobox so be a good fellow will you. - dwc lr (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yep, it's the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies. As for the content of this article? I've no problems with the usage of 'King of Croatia' or 'Tomislav II'. As for the Infobox & Navboxes, all I request is that '(disputed)' be placed next to 'King of Croatia', as assuredly it is a disputed title. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently the introduction has a few inaccuracies and repetition: VE III was not his uncle, he did not refuse to assume the kingship and it mentions he was from the House of Savoy twice to give some examples. Imo the introduction should say something along the lines of:
Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, Duke of Aosta (given names: Aimone Roberto Margherita Maria Giuseppe Torino; 9 March 1900 – 29 January 1948) was an Italian prince from the House of Savoy and a Naval officer. From 18 May 1941 to 31 July 1943, he was the nominal head of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (a World War II puppet state of Nazi Germany) under the name Tomislav II (after the medieval Croatian King Tomislav) after being chosen for the post by his cousin King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. A planned coronation never took place, Aimone having sworn before his men that he would never set foot in Croatia. He was known by the title Duke of Spoleto from 22 September 1904 until 3 March 1942 when he succeeded to the title Duke of Aosta.
I hope this is acceptable, King of Croatia and the reign can legitimately be mentioned in the infobox and succession box with GoodDay's suggestion of (disputed), censorship is totally unacceptable. - dwc lr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The proposed introduction, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Page move adjustment

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

No kidding (honest). Perhaps we should consider a page move to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta, in order to bring it in line with the articles of the Dukes of Aosta. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea as the other Duke of Aosta articles have been moved to comply with WP:NCROY. This one was moved in violation of the WP:NCROY so should also be brought in line with it. I don't believe moving to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta would be a controversial step would it? - dwc lr (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversial step? not at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool, well I'll wait and see if anyone comments if not I'll move it. - dwc lr (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be controversial because he was King of Croatia by the bilaterall agreement of two states, despite how we can characterize that period of time. Crown Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta would be the only title on which WP:NCROY would agree. -- Imbris (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of Crown Prince. He was a Prince of Savoy-Aosta and a King of Croatia he never held the title Crown Prince of anywhere. His son could arguably be called Crown Prince of Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a lot of pages here on wikipedia that use the Crown Prince title for a monarch which is no longer reigning. Even if usually a King is King until his death, despite being deposed, etc. Why is the sentence about his alleged never setting foot (the promise to his fellows) listed so high in the article and without explanation, Tomislav II said that because of personal security in the time of War, and because of unsetlled issues, of housing, of the Dalmatian question, etc. -- Imbris (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The article should really be at Tomislav II of Croatia, I'm not aware of title Crown Prince being attributed to him so we should not use it. Indeed there are numerous verifiable reasons why he did not go to Croatia and they should also be mentioned in the lead as they are mentioned in the article itself. - dwc lr (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as Aimone was never Crown Prince of anything, the title doesn't fit. That title is used for heirs-apparent of throne or defunct thrones (after the heir-apparent was born). Examples of the latter are Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia & Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back in a couple of days to discuss the lead. "Crown Prince"? "Caliph", perhaps? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it alright to move the article title to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta? GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
As there was no objections, I've moved the article. Now it matches the other Duke of Aosta (except for the Spanish King, of course). GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have raised an objection on 31 Oct 2009 under this very section. You had no place in moving the article, without the WP:RM. -- Imbris (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If you object on those grounds, then revert. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Abdication

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments3 people in discussion

This isn't an overly contentious issue with me, but I like to nail this one down. When was the 1943 abdication, July 31 or October 12? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the whole thing is a joke. Some sources use "abdication" in loo of a more appropriate and elegant term, but to use that as some sort of argument "proving" royal status is a very, very hollow argument. Its not much more than word games. And since I expect to see a lot more of that, be forewarned I intend to call it what it is regardless of how many times I have to repeat myself. Word games are word games. Using "head" instead of "king" is another example. More on that story later... ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose, one can't abdicate (i.e. resign) something that arguably never existed. But we still need a date if the 'reign' stuff is kept. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course it existed this is not some work of fiction or a fantasy. The Duke of Spoleto being King of Croatia is well documented historical information. I mmean really this is not some sort of myth or hoax. - dwc lr (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
King and head is how he is referred to in verifiable sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A significant number of very high-profile historians who specialized in this area blatantly disagree with this assessment in detailed considerations on this person's real political status - published by university publishing houses. You removed these sources from the article completely. A broad consensus, based on very strong professional sources disagrees with the above as well. Yet apparently I'm the one that "censors The TruthTM " or whatever... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This article falls under the who won/lost the war. We must allow that Aimone was 'arguably' King (at least backed by the Fascist). Consider the article Jefferson Davis as an example, was he truly President of 'anything'? the Confederate States was 'never' given international recogniton. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
He without a shadow of doubt held the title ‘King of Croatia’ I don’t see how any one can dispute that. Just as Jefferson Davis held the title ‘President of the CSA’ both of these are verifiable historical facts. I think you should add (disputed) in the Jefferson Davis article and see how that goes down. These historical states existed we can talk about international recognition or Allies not recognising them or whatever the facts are they existed and in this case we can cite the King of Croatia title very very easily. Discuss legality in the articles for the states involved. - dwc lr (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who says he refused the kingship is lying. You know full well he was the head of the NDH as 'King Tomislav II of Croatia' from his acceptance until he abdicated/renounced/resigned whatever and this can be easily verified that is the majority view. - dwc lr (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Its "all lies" then, is it? Those damn liars at Cambridge... Anyway I've got a test tomorrow and the only reason I'm writing these posts is that these crappy Croatian translators didn't translate Harvard Med textbooks and I have to use Wikipedia as a source of info... pretty sad actually. Lets leave this for a few more days. :( --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Howabout this: King of the Independent State of Croatia? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you could correctly say that to refer to him as king of the country instead of just by the title held by the King of country ie 'King of Croatia'. - dwc lr (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Having that in the Infobox (without the 'dispute' tag) is acceptable. We gotta balance this article out, as best we can. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ideally I think it should be just 'King of Croatia' but I would not have a massive problem with your suggestion. Its encouraging to see progress being made. - dwc lr (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it takes time to iron these things out. With little steps at a time, this article can be acceptable to all. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
As always I admire your optimism GoodDay, but making any article acceptable to all is mission impossible. I imagine it'd be even more difficult with one party temporarily absent from discussions. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
One must never give up on the spirit of compromise. PS: Do we have a consensus to change the article title to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the change indeed I think it is necessary but I think Imbris does not agree [4]. - dwc lr (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
My attempts to collaborate with the editor-in-question, were rejected. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I just figured, the core of the disputes is the Independent State of Croatia itself. Thus I've no problem with 'King of the IS of Croatia', as it wasn't the Kingdom of Croatia. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think dwc also knows this: the name of the state is not the question, its the fact that that wasn't his title. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The existance of the state (not its name) is in question. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Afterall, it's more accurate then 'King of Croatia'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"King of Croatia, Prince of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Voivode of Dalmatia, Tuzla and Knin" was his full title. - dwc lr (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant it's more accurate, concerning the state-in-question's name. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Even DIREKTOR agrees he was King of IS of Croatia so we can call him that I assume but mention the full title elsewhere in the article. - dwc lr (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for the record "even DIREKTOR" agrees that Croatia ≠ Independent State of Croatia, but that the point in this discussion, of course, is that he was not "king" of anything. If any title should appear its "King of Croatia", the title he was nominated for. I have no problem with the move, but the infobox and lead are, in their current state, not acceptable with respect to the historic situation in 1941-1943. I am looking forward, so to speak, to a thorough discussion on these issues that will finally bring this article to terms with sources, i.e. reality.

I also do not like this "even DIREKTOR" stuff. It depicts me as the "troublemaker" when practically all I do is cite sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is never a wrong course. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Now if you'll excuse me for today, I have to see exactly why we live past thirty... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to it as well as the current state of the lead is water-tight and perfectly reflects the reality of the situation. - dwc lr (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The section heading concerning the 1940's-in-general

Latest comment: 14 years ago39 comments3 people in discussion

I hope ya'll agree: Independant State of Croatia is less disputable then Tomislav II or World War II. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since I've organized the section to include up to 1945, World War II is more acceptable as a section header. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A heading that reflects the content of the section (Period after being named King of Croatia) is needed. "Capitulation and aftermath" includes information from 1942 presumably that will have to be moved up a section which is exclusively about Croatia. I don't see what DIRKETOR's problem is with having IS of Croatia or something actually related the content in the heading. What does that section whole "World War II section discuss? Croatia. - dwc lr (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be content with using Independant State of Croatia as a section heading. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, as long as the heading reflects what the section is actually about I' m content. - dwc lr (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've revertd back to 'Independant State of Croatia' as a section heading (note: it's my only revert). GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Independent State of Croatia" suggests to the reader that he spent the time there (as such headings in the context of a biography always do). Seeing as how he never even saw Croatia from afar it is woefully misleading. "Tomislav II" or "King of Croatia" are unacceptable and unnecessarily POV, as the text can easily be covered by a perfectly neutral, NPOV heading. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Something like “Named/Appointed King of Croatia” would be better imo and is a perfectly neutral way of covering that period of his life. There is a consensus for IS of Croatia at present so it’s unfortunate that you are trying to impose your own POV on the article as per usual and overriding an established consensus. World War II is woefully misleading as one would assume it covers a range of war activities instead of just one event that happened during that period. - dwc lr (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all DWC, nice try with the edit-summary, but I think we all know two people agreeing isn't an "established consensus". Secondly, the period of this persons life described in that section is 1941-1943. During that period he was a naval officer in the Regia Marina, fighting the Second World War against the Allies. The fact that he was named to become King of the NDH played the smallest possible role in his life during that period (he made sure he was informed of the situation on the war in the NDH from time to time, but that's pretty much it, not much more than reading the paper). I am struggling to comprehend why a perfectly neutral title like "World War II" would be a problem for you, and the only answer I've come-up with so far is that you're once again trying desperately to make this man into the "King of Croatia" on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Its more of a consensus than you have. What exactly is wrong with something like “Appointed King of Croatia”. That perfectly covers the period and whole content of the section and no one could say that it’s a pov title as that heading reflects what happened. You can think what you like about me but I can tell you are wrong, just like you’ve been wrong in a lot of what you’ve said before on this article. I’ve explained why I don’t think “World War II” is correct the way you inserted it, but as I’m always willing to compromise if you like we can have “Appointed King of Croatia” as a subheading to go with the other subheading and have “World War II” as the main one. - dwc lr (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the 3 of us are frequently here (as far as I can tell, there's no others), we'll have to come up with a section-heading, that's agreeable to us all. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • A good way to do this? give some proposals:
Proposal #1: The War Years. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don’t mind having “World War II” then subheadings:
  1. Subheading relevant to him being appointed King of Croatia.
  2. Subheading relating to succession to Duke of Aosta title and activities after the Italian capitulation. - dwc lr (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That's certain acceptable. Well DIREKTOR, what's your views? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah the troublesome DIREKTOR is summoned to express his views. :) I can only stand in awe of your continued devotion to compromise and good will, GoodDay, I applaud your determination. I don't mind "War Years", in fact it sounds better than "World War II" in a biographical context. However I do not see why we need subheadings for such a short piece of text? How about two distinct paragraphs? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A trade off: Have the heading World War II per your preference, with the sub-headings per DWC's preferences. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That but transfers the problem: what would the subheadings be? "King of Croatia" or any variation on the phrasing invented to slip it past is not something I'm likely to agree to, for obvious reasons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
His cousin named him “King of Croatia” so I don’t see a problem with a heading “Named King of Croatia”. - dwc lr (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Puppet King of Croatia is another possiblity. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
His cousin named him King... how about "Nomination for kingship" or simply "Nomination" if that seems overly cumbersome? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
King-nominee, won't do. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked things a little, to show my proposal #2 (if disagree? revert). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We're getting there, gents. Now, for Dwc's views. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, "King of Croatia" and variations thereof are in my view POV-pushing in light of the lack of a necessity for the usage of any such "designation" in the (sub)section headings. "Independent State of Croatia" obviously suggests, in a biographical context, that the person lived there during the period described by the section text. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've no prob with using King of the Independant State of Croatia (as we have in the infobox), for the reason that we have President of the CSA in the Jefferson Davis article. Would reign be an acceptable 'sub-section heading'? GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the heading “Nomination for Kingship” as the section discusses activities after his accepting of the nomination. I also have no problem with “King of the Independent State of Croatia”. - dwc lr (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Assuming we've a consensus for War years as the section heading. Howabout reign for a sub-section heading? GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
My personal preference is for “World War II” and I prefer King of IS Croatia over Reign. - dwc lr (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
How is "Nominal King of Croatia"? - dwc lr (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
'Nominal King of Croatia' is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I'm sure you've concluded from my previous posts, that is unacceptable. DWC, must you always try to smuggle in "King of Croatia"? It seems DWC wants that phrase inserted into the section heading, while I on the other hand find it completely POV. How about "Nominated for kingship"? That phrasing does not suggest the text has to cover the nomination only, and thus sets aside your stated objection to the previous proposal? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear oh dear DIREKTOR what title was he given? King of Croatia was it? How you can say (apparently seriously) that it’s POV truly bewilders me. He was not just nominated but also accepted the post as we discussed before so I think “Absentee King of Croatia” or if your national pride takes such a battering by it to the extent that you want to try and impose censorship just “Absentee king” or “Nominal king”. - dwc lr (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Howabout Titular King of Croatia? GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem but DIREKTOR is wholly opposed to any use of "King of Croatia" for some peculiar reason but hopefully he will accept it could be used. - dwc lr (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I too, consider Peter II of Yugoslavia as being King 'over' Croatia (it being a part of Yugoslavia). However, we've got President of the Confederate States of America, another position that never got wide international recognition. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed President of Rhodesia would be another example. These posts existed international recognition or not/whether people like it or not. We can't change history. - dwc lr (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be blunt, there is absolutely no way I'd agree to any section title including the phrase "King of Croatia". The whole point of all this is that there is absolutely no need, whatsoever to include any disputed title into the section heading. Why should we do so? I'm sure even DWC will at least grant that the matter is controversial. It is unnecessary, and therefore it is also POV. (DWC, cut the "censorship" nonsense. If that's your definition then everybody's "censoring" everybody on Wikipedia.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The section didn’t include the phrase “King of Croatia” and it’s ludicrous to say its POV that was his title believe it or not. He was not only nominated but also held the post so that will need changing. The only person who seems to think using the title king is controversial is you its acceptable to both me and GoodDay. The censorship comment is not nonsense anyone can see what is going on here at this article you are censoring the title that he held as head this historical Croat state. Your actions are completely unjustified and are presumably driven by national pride. I don’t see what you problem is. - dwc lr (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Howabout for the sub-heading, we use King of Croatia (disputed)? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Restoring sources

Latest comment: 14 years ago42 comments3 people in discussion
 
User:DIREKTOR returns to the Prince Aimone article. ;)

I'm officially back from my Wikibreak and, as promised, I have returned. ;) For a start, here are a few fundamental facts I am absolutely not willing to repeat fifty times as before:
Firstly, this person, though he accepted the nomination, never assumed the title of King of Croatia, effectively remaining "king-designate". Not only are there very many, very high-quality professional, university sources confirming this as indisputable fact, but these sources (and Google tests) are the basis of a valid user consensus established by the participation of some twenty users.
Secondly, my recent revision constitutes a revert of User:DWC LR's edit. I'd like to plead with DWC once again, asking him to refrain from trying to once again restore his edit via edit-warring (see WP:EA).

My edits are as follows:

  • 1) Lead. I've repaired the lead which was the victim of "censorship", as one may put it. The (high-quality) sources that were removed for no valid reason were restored, along with the text they support.
  • 2) Infobox. Attempts to avoid the results of the user consensus by still pushing the label "King of Croatia" into the article by various means, such as "King of (the Independent State of) Croatia", "(Nominal) King of Croatia", "(Titular) King of Croatia", etc., are not going to work. I've also added the title Duke of Spoleto to the infobox, while I am fully aware the title was not hereditary, there is no requirement that says only hereditary titles can be included. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me highlight a few points for you. Duke of Spoleto was not a hereditary title putting it in the succession is utterly pointless you don't get succession boxes for UK life peers. What has being the second son of the Duke of Aosta got to do with being given the Spoleto title. If I want a history of the Aosta ducal title I will read that article I don’t need it in the lead it’s irrelevant. Certain supports in the move discussion were for the perceived common name nothing to do this his status as King of Croatia. He did not refuse to assume the kingship (majority of sources support this stance) he took an active interest and established an office in Rome and received documents relating to his “kingdom” as it was unsafe for him to go yet you shamefully remove this reason from the introduction. - dwc lr (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Having King of the Independant State of Croatia deleted from the infobox, is a step back IMHO. I've given up hope on this article, will be removing it from my watchlist after today. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to your efforts, and with full understanding as to how vexing this all must seem, that is just nonsense. Even if I agreed that the man was a "king" that is "King of the Independent State of Croatia" not a title he ever held. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Getting this article to its 'correct' name, was an accomplishment for us all. I'll let others work on the article content & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
RE DWC. "He did not refuse to assume the kingship (majority of sources support this stance)." That is your damn opinion, and one that I've heard repeated too many times. The Google test is against that, as are specific sources listed. When the matter is looked at in detail it is obvious the man refused to be king. This is why we had a long, detailed discussion with a large number of users and we agreed that the man was not King.
I am sick of your incapability to accept the fact that you are absolutely NOT going to present this person as a king of Croatia against sources and against editor consensus. That is absolutely NOT going to happen, no matter how many times you start edit-warring to push this nonsense into the article. (If you want the Duke of Spoleto bit removed that much, feel free then.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I have left your version largely and have added a few bits but I must remind you of NPOV so don’t push your own POV on this article add “disputed” etc if you like to the King of Croatia succession fields do not even contemplate removing completely. - dwc lr (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ps well done on getting a consensus on his common name. - dwc lr (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much. It would appear its also the most common name in publications as well as professional works.
I must congratulate you on copy-pasting so many meaningless details into the lead. You've turned my concise article lead into an entire section with POV sentences designed once more to circumvent the sources. Congratulations again, your text actually succeeds in stating that the person "refused to be king" while "exercising power" from abroad. Amazing...
The infobox you're thinking to push is the most blatant and telling depiction of your POV. I am not even prepared to debate on your insertion of "King of Croatia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought you liked detail in the lead? You seem keen to give us a history of the title Duke of Aosta (His father died in 1931 and his brother became Duke, as fascinating as that is what is its relevance?). You like to to give us information on the status of the NDH (great people can’t click on articles?)
It’s amazing that sources disagree with you yet you accuse me of pushing a pov. So please do explain why you are insisting on only presenting one view and showing a complete disregard for NPOV. That is completely unacceptable a NPOV must be presented. And now I see you are removing cited material and doctoring what sources say this is truly getting farcical you are stooping to very low levels. I’m sorry but your actions are unacceptable you’re the biggest pov pusher I have ever come across. Put a disputed label in the infobx if you like. - dwc lr (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Editing someone's text is not "censoring", and your opinion is not an NPOV, please understand that. The sources, the Google tests, and user consensus have all shown that this person was not "king of Croatia". Hence your edit by which you present him as one shall be removed. I will ask you again to please stop edit-warring to push this edit of yours. Please stop removing university-published sources (and their text) from the article because they do not conform to your fixed idea of NPOV.
I'm sorry, but I think that at some point you'll simply have to accept that the source, the Google tests, and the user consensus (based on the former) are all against you. You may have to accept the simple fact that this person was not "king of Croatia". I don't know what else to tell you... how do you talk to a person who in spite of all this is still in some form of denial? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It’s not my opinion its the opinion of published works. “Google test” does not support you. - dwc lr (talk)
Its your opinion. Quote mining and sentence searching aside, the very high quality sources (Pavlowitch, Rodogno) are against you. Not to mention that you are vastly outnumbered in the Google tests.
User:DWC LR, what are you doing? What are you doing, dwc? We've successfully established the FACTS in this dispute. We've established the FACT that the man refused, nay, actually SWORE not to assume this kingship and throne. Yet here you are adding "King of Croatia" to the infobox? Here you are, going against the majority sources, the Google tests, and (yes, I'll say it again) the user consensus.
Be advised, I've removed a redundant tag. I will most certainly not let you mar this article with twenty tags because of your bitterness. Those tags are eventually coming down, since there really is no dispute. Its just you. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Lets be clear I have a vast number of sources and later I will insert these into the article and be in no doubt they are very "high quality" when really all I need is something to meet WP:V and you are screwed. He accepted as can be seen from news reports from the time and in writings after even if he was basically forced to. He never went to Croatia that is a fact yes. I've been looking through google and I'm seeing him refered to as King of Croatia. Oh dear are you worried.....? - dwc lr (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I just believe that people should be aware of the present biased nature of this article but you are quite right I'm certain they will be down soon as I am more than confident that this article can reflect all viewpoints. - dwc lr (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm just not so sure people should be aware that you think the present nature of this article is "biased". And yes, I'm sure you'll be back to start edit-warring once again sooner or later. Probably once you finally manage to find an actual "source". Let me nevertheless try and dispel your fantasies about some "magic source" that will allow you to revert-war your version into the article somehow. As I've already said, the facts on this matter are clear as day. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you will refuse to acknowledge sources that disagree with your position, you are living in a fantasy if you think you will be able to get away forcing your pov on this article. You are forcing an undue weight upon this article. I have always been unbiased and have added a range of facts to this article. I have no interest in edit warring I can see from this article and your block log you are a fan though...... - dwc lr (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you're "checking me out" and since we're talking about contributions, you should probably compare our edit-counts. I have not at all ventured to "explore your personality" by looking at Wikipedia edits.
I am here to try and keep the sources in the article, and to prevent it being butchered by a user who's edit-warring to remove them. I am here to make sure you do not disregard these sources and the editor consensus based on them. Because of this, User:DWC LR has accused me of "censoring" the truth, has called me a "bandit", and has most recently attempted to slander me as a Wikipedia editor. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Don’t worry your sources will be left in shame you don’t afford others the same courtesy. Its good job I have checked on your “personality” as I see your edit warring here is not a one off and must assume you are an aggressive serial pov pusher. I think removing verifiable sourced information just because of some fantasy view that it’s all wrong and only sources used to push ones own pov is censoring and very sad. - dwc lr (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand a word you're saying :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh well as long as you understand changes will have to be made to achieve a NPOV. :-) dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
For the millionth time, what you may or may not consider an "NPOV" is not really something I care to hear repeated over and over again. I edit according to professional, verifiable, university sources. Nothing more, nothing less. (The grammar above is appalling, if you don't mind me saying so. Barely legible.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No I don’t mind, I respect your right to have and express an opinion. And yes of course we all edit according to Wikipedia’s required standards. So when I edit this article I hope you remember that. - dwc lr (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I imagine we're busy quote-mining, are we? There's really no point, dwc, you can forget right here and now of proclaiming this person "King of Croatia". The Google tests and user consensus are all against you no matter what crackpot source you manage to dig-up. And frankly I can't imagine you you are about to to "shame"
...and more (yes, more ;). In the way of quantity there's no debate about the Google tests, and in the way of quality it is impossible to trump these sources. So I'll repeat, don't waste time and effort - the FACTS have been conclusively established. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
“but refused to assume the kingship in opposition to the Italian annexation of the Croat-populated Yugoslav region of Dalmatia.” Pavlowitch does not say this. I highly suspect Burgwyn does not support that can you provide a quote? Again I can’t see “Enemy Countries, Axis-Controlled Europe” saying this, quote? Massock does not support that. What nonsense have you added to this article? Thanks for the advice I didn’t need to “waste my time” at all it was right under my nose the whole time. If only I’d checked this earlier. :-( - dwc lr (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I've been waiting for some cheap shot like this. You know full well that these sources oppose your edits yet here you are inventing cute excuses. My good fellow, you're pushing to present this person as an actual "King of Croatia", and lets not kid ourselves, every single one of these sources opposes you and supports the fact that this person actually SWORE not to assume the kingship. And this is a fact that you're cleverly trying to dodge with your word games, practically presenting some nomination ceremony as an "inauguration". Well no dice. You may take for certain fact that whatever you may or may not dig up you will NOT succeed in destroying the neutrality of this article.
To be even clearer, regardless of any scheme you may be cooking-up at this time, any presentation of this person as some kind of "Croatian monarch" will be reverted on sight. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I hope for your sake then you were looking for some more sources (and you found some!) if you were expecting this. Quotes from the sources that supposedly support that he swore not to assume the kingship please? I do find it amusing that one of your sources talks about the minutes after being appointed king and you believe it supports him refusing to accept the throne. Indeed most of your refer to him as “king-designate” which I supposedly true for a certain period till he accepted. Bit by bit we are establishing the truth. I take great amusement from the fact that the majority of your sources oppose your own statement. Highly comical is how best to describe. - dwc lr (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we're all having fun here. :) I, on the other hand, "take great amusement" in your little word games such as "king-designate was true for 10 minutes so that's why they called him that". Its ok to have fun, dwc, just make sure you don't try to impose your own farcical "interpretations" of scientific works on the rest of us. Now I know its confusing to you, but "king-designate", despite deceptively using the word "king", actually means he was not king :). Believe it or not. If an author refers to this person as "king designate", he naturally opposes your edit by which you call him "king". Need I really spell this out for you? Perhaps I should've drawn you a picture back up there.
I think we have all established this a long time ago so I'll take these comments in the context of your jovial mood. But on a more serious note, I thought you might want to know that your fellow POV-pusher User:Imbris has been banned from enWiki due to his "fascistoid" POV-pushing in many articles including this one. This might help you grasp what kind of extreme POV you are advocating, though I personally doubt it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh so your sources don’t say that he refused to assume the kingship because of Dalmatia. Why insert information if you cannot support it with citations? Well at least that clears that up. But this also means the text will have to be altered. Sorry. But please don't engage in edit warring as your position is very weak. - dwc lr (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, completely weak. I'm stopping this meaningless exchange. I leave you to your pointless quote mining. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
LoL quote mining galore! xD Looks like you know how to use Google. Sources that only superficially touch on the matter of the Croatian head-of-state naturally can be forgiven for not explaining his status in detail. We fortunately have more thorough works on this matter that have already explained this common misconception. Nice try there, dwc, but no dice. I warned you against wasting effort on this... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
They all meet WP:V and discuss NDH in good detail revert would be very foolish of you. Yeah I love the fact that all your sources are almost enterily devoted to Aimone. - dwc lr (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is not on the NDH, dwc. And it looks like I'm a "fool" now, a "foolish bandit" apparently...
Nota bene: This is your new edit. It has been reverted. Please discuss and please do not try to re-insert it into the article by means of edit-warring over it. Your edit is contrary to high-quality sources that explain the person's status in detail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me ask you again where in all your sources does it say he refused to assume the kingship because of Dalmaita? (Bold to make sure you see the request) Perhaps this time you can direct me to the correct place. My pov? I'm just saying what the sources say I don't need to find a source that says something completely different and pretend it supports a statement I've inserted. It appear to be your good self that has to resort to that . Erm higy quality sources? Google the authors of the texts I inserted. - dwc lr (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see how one can make the mistake you are making, but after all this time one assumes you would've researched the matter in detail instead of just edit-warring because this obscure matter is merely touched-upon by most authors. All the sources are in the article, dwc, [5] I look forward to an explanation as to just how its all worthless. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh right. You have one source then? Thank you for clearing that up. But why lie and mislead and use the others as well then? They say no such thing. - dwc lr (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A primary source (WP:PSTS), a letter to the King of Italy, in which we have him explicitly declaring he would "never agree to be a king of a nation amputated from Italy" because Dalmatia was a "land that could never be Italianized". This was well after the ceremony in the Quirinale (May 18), as the Rome contracts by which Dalmatia was annexed took place afterward. So according to you, this person became king of Croatia on May 18, but then afterward declared he would (quote) "never agree to be king of Croatia"? LoL... I do NOT "lie", and I do not appreciate your slanderous insinuations. If anyone here is being dishonest, its you. I've read through your sources xD, and I can see that you're still in a jovial mood. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly disagreement about his status so the lead can reflect the different points of view (a npov) of the various sources. On the subject of primary sources I’ll add a primary source in the lead of him being “proud” to have been named “King of Croatia” I think it would be of use to be mentioned there do you agree?. Also sorry, maybe you made an honest mistake and didn’t intentionally mislead people into thinking all those sources supported that statement. But at least you have seen the error of your ways and corrected the statement. - dwc lr (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted. It was indeed an honest mistake. I expected you would remember what fact each source supports. I was mistaken.
There is no "disagreement". The (primary) sources are clear, as is the user consensus based on them (I'll keep repeating that for as long as you like). The fact that you have amassed a million quotes from texts that even more marginally address the matter does not suddenly create an "academic dispute" on the issue. Sorry, but I have warned you against the futility of such an effort. In addition, many of those sources do not at all support your position ("Pavelić agreed to his state becoming a kingdom", yes, but the king-designate refused the throne; etc). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Some sources say he refused and remained King-Designate others say he accepted and became Tomislav II. That is roughly the gist of what I fully intend to see this article eventually say. NPOV all substantial view points presented. You simply have no grounds to not accept something like this as you musr adhere to a NPOV as much as me. - dwc lr (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

dwc, this is a marginal issue of a marginal subject. This is, in fact, the source of this entire problem. Very few authors talking about WWII Yugoslavia or, even less, Italy actually care to go into the details of this person's complex status. This is a fact. I have however, succeeded in finding find a few that do actually reference to primary sources and go into the matter in a some detail (though admittedly this is again marginal, but the others far more so). This is what I've been trying to tell you. The actual facts are that this person swore a solemn oath before his men never to assume his throne and "become Tomislav II". He actually declared he would (quote) "never become king" after some of the superficial sources say he "became king". This is a lack of accuracy and detail on their part, a common misconception you have unfortunately fallen pray to (though admittedly innocent of blame), and the source of this whole discussion. It in no way constitutes an academic dispute on the issue, and it cannot be depicted as such. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If he had actually refused then this case would be a lot clearer and I would accept that. But that is simply not the case in certain sources (books/newspapers from the period). A formal ceremony took place where he was named King of Croatia. He accepted (the "nomination" as you even accept) and after two years his cousin the King of Italy told him to abdicate and thisn covered in press reports from the period. There are two viewpoints which can be verified and they will have to be referred to in this article. You are well aware every Wikipedia editor must adhere to a NPOV you are no exception, so I’ll ask you to please respect Wikipedia’s policies and do not start an utterly pointless edit war. There is really nothing more to say and all that is left to do is present a NPOV. - dwc lr (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR? No I wasn’t joking and you are now vandalising this article. You like to play up to your pov pusher tag don’t you as I see from ANI I’m not the only one who has noticed. Oh wait your one of the “good guys” aren’t you? So what exactly was wrong with the article why did you revert, or rather restore your pov version but conveniently not restore the pov and accuracy tags. - dwc lr (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Questioning the sources

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I don't want to push things further, so i will limitate my intervention to this comment. I think it would have been really strange if Aimone would have the courage to oppose Mussolini as he was a no-one politically speaking: so i doubt the legitimacy of the claim that he "refused to assume the kingship in opposition to the Italian annexation of the Croat-populated Yugoslav region of Dalmatia". Particularly, this seems strange to me as Italian irredentism and nationalism were very strong back then and Dalmatia was therefore considered an Italian territory. In fact it isn't true, as it is stated in the article, that Dalmatia was only "Croat-populated": surely yugoslavians were a majority but there was an historical italian minority, especially in Zara (Zadar), Traù, Sebenico, Cattaro, Arbe and Veglia (Krk). The related source for this statement(Rodogno, Davide; Fascism's European empire: Italian occupation during the Second World War; p.95; Cambridge University Press) seems to be not consultable on the web, so i'll have to ask you if someone could search it and verify if this claim is true. I would have to ask the same about this source (Petacco, Arrigo; A tragedy revealed: the story of the Italian population of Istria, Dalmatia, and Venezia Giulia, 1943-1956; p.26; University of Toronto Press, 2005) as it seems very strange to me that "the Prince refused to be crowned and swore never to set foot in Croatia" as it seems strange to me that Aimone would have the courage to oppose Mussolini (and Hitler) so directly, refusing what could be consider only as an honor. I'm writing this because I know the topic and in every historical book i read I never read that Aimone refused to be crowned because he supported croatian irredentism. It seems i'm not the only one questioning these unveryficable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Your_POV_is_not_NPOV. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You always need to thoroughly check the sources used by DIREKTOR. I found out he cites sources to support a statement even when they say something completely different to what he alleges it supports. He has one source (for this quite frankly exceptional claim) that says Aimone refused to “to assume the kingship” in opposition to annexation of Dalmatia. The sole text can be found in Google Books. There are also other cited reasons as to why he didn’t go to Croatia (ongoing insurgency, safety could not be guaranteed) but DIREKTOR only allows his reason why Aimone never went. Aimone was “proud to be named King of Croatia” as he told Count Ciano. Really DIREKTOR should provide sources to support the exceptional claim that Aimone refused to the kingship in opposition to Dalmatia as it’s a very obscure view. Thank you for the interesting points you have raised. - dwc lr (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I own the original edition of the Rodogno's book (Il nuovo ordine mediterraneo. Le politiche di occupazione dell'Italia fascista in Europa (1940-1943), Bollati Boringhieri 2003): "Nel tentativo di recuperare le posizioni perse contro i tedeschi nella corsa al controllo della Croazia, gli italiani provarono a concretizzare il progetto di unione personale secondo il quale Aimone di Savoia (fratello di Amedeo), duca di Spoleto, avrebbe dovuto essere proclamato re dal Sabor e incoronato, col nome di Tomislao II, a Duvansko Polje (Duvno) in Bosnia (come Tomislav, primo re croato nel 925 d.C.). Il progetto naufragò rapidamente proprio a causa della questione dalmata e Aimone-Tomislao passò alla storia come "il re che non fu mai". Non avendo esperienza politica e non essendo a conoscenza dei piani esatti del governo italiano, rifiutò di partire per la Croazia; lo scrisse chiaramente in una lettera indirizzata a Mussolini, nella quale asserì che la risoluzione territoriale dalmata, "terra che non si sarebbe mai potuta italianizzare", era un ostacolo a qualsiasi riconciliazione con i croati. Aimone non accettò di diventare re di una nazione amputata dall'Italia!" (pp. 126-127). So, Aimone had the courage to oppose Mussolini.--151.21.255.107 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you insert a link to the source in order for us to control it? --AndreaFox (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is here: [6].--151.21.250.180 (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So, those passages can remain with those related sources. I think the solution adopted by dwc lr is a good compromise between valuable sources that claim different things. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my temporary absence. I'll be back here soon enough so we can end this matter once and for all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Aimone,_Duke_of_Aosta/Archive_2&oldid=1142326388"