Talk:Pacta conventa (Croatia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Forgery Claim
Medule, the forgery claim is just that - a claim. As is the statement that such a document existed - the difference being that the existence of Croatia as a crown land, autonomy to the city states & the retention of the Sabor are tangible elements that represent such an agreement. The controversial part represents this particular view of Nada Klaic as it is not the mainstream among Croatian historical circles - hence the controversy.
The article as it stands captures this controversy among Croatian historian circles, as well as it's acceptance among Hungarians. YOur edits took out this pertinent information, and replaced it with the notion that is was a forgery as though it is accepted fact, when the converse is more likely to be an accurate depiction of historical events. Hence I have reverted your edits. iruka 10:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the "all historians" phrase is not precise enough, but the general opinion (at least in Hungary) that the points of the forged document are not later inventions, they suits to the actual non-written agreement of king Kálmán and the Croatian lords. Deleting this section suggests that the content of the document is also a complete forgery, while this is not the general opinion. So I prefer rewording to deleting. Bye, László —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.210.173 (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
