This article is written in British English which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, realise, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Croatia has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Croatia, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
On the 15th of febuary 2015. Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović has assumed office as the President of Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.179.132 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Already done Someone else has already added her as President. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvixer and Tzowu: To stop the edit war, which could have led to editors begin blocked, I have protected the article for a week. Please discuss the matter on this talk page. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So @Tzowu:, if you do not provide a source for a week the date will be reverted, ok? I don't know why you have started to edit war, all I was saying is that you have to provide a citation, because that is how Wikipedia works, ok? Have a pleasant day. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Cause this was already resolved, as it is impossible to provide an exact date due to the extreme lack of contemporary sources, we added just 8th century. Look at the Duchy of Croatia article. And... teh source: "The first primitive form of the Croatian state started to take shape at the beginning of the 8th century." ([1], p. 431) Tzowu (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a citation?--Tuvixer (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In defunct countries like Kingdom of Libya You can see in their infobox the prior and following countries. I think we should trace this back through Croatian/Jugoslavian history. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not a clear cut case, so that would simply become a troll magnet. Croatians themselves can't seem to agree what historic entity the present-day country stems from. This is comparable to former Soviet states such as Uzbekistan or Georgia - and in those articles the issue is skirted around in the infobox (which does not mean it does not merit discussion in article body). Timbouctou (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Please Tozwu, explain your behavior here and stop edit waring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"Tozwu's edit war" :D, when will you learn the correct spelling of my nickname? Anyway, as I wrote already, this content is unnecessary, badly refferenced and added by a user that is angry for getting banned there. What's your reason, Tvixiuer, for keeping it? Tzowu (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
What is badly referenced?? Unnecessary? What a smart man is ashamed of, a fool is proud of. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's badly referenced, it has grammar mistakes, it's unnecessary (no other country article mentions the wikipedia in their language), it's not WP:NPOV,... Tzowu (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you banned on the Croatian Wikipedia? No other country has a right-wing fascist Wikipedia editors who ban everyone who is not a right-wing revisionist. ;) --Tuvixer (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not banned and I also don't like a lot of things on the Croatian Wikipedia, which is why I rarely edit it, but every "national" Wikipedia is like that. They just don't make an issue of it. This should just be mentioned on the Croatian Wikipedia article, not every incident needs it's place on the most popular Croatian page. Tzowu (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not a "incident", it is a diagnosis. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Call it that way if you want to, but its place is, in my opinion, on the Croatian Wikipedia article. Tzowu (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There and here. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is there nothing about UMF which takes place in Split? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punokrokodila (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
==
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
==
I believe one of the introductory paragraphs (the second) is unbiased. Namely, I propose that after the sentence: "A fascist Croatian puppet state existed during World War II", a sentence such as the following needs to be added: "At the same time, Croatia was a leading region of the pre-war Kingdom of Yugoslavia or post-war socialist Yugoslavia in terms of numbers of anti-fascist fighters (known as Partisans), who, ultimately, autonomously defeated the German-Italian occupation forces and the puppet Croatian fascist regime, to join the allied forces of Europe and the USA as victorious nations of the WW2." Incidentally, both of my grandparents fought as partisans in the WW2; nevertheless the above statement is a historical fact.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this reinstatement of material by Tuvixer, I'm not sure that this belongs in the Croatia article. Firstly, the Croatian-language Wikipedia is likely edited by people from many different countries, not just Croatia. Croatian isn't only spoken in Croatia. Second, does the material belong in a media section? Wikipedia isn't a news source, but an encyclopedia. Thirdly, is this really notable enough for a relatively detailed paragraph in a country article? I think it belongs at Croatian Wikipedia for sure, but not here. The material is also quite poorly written and formatted for a GA-status article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a medium. It has been overflown by right-wing fanatics, and it is really maybe a unique situation where they control the whole Wikipedia of on language, in this case Croatian. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
CW is marginally important for the topic; the article should not be used as a platform for unrelated criticism (see WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:COATRACK).
I feel that there are two issues here: 1) CW is fairly unimportant in this context (one would be hard pressed to find a country article that mentions the corresponding Wikipedia edition), and 2) a topic of marginal relevance seems to be introduced in order to make a point - that's WP:COATRACK.
I need not say that Wikipedia is not the place for activism. When the CW affair is concerned, I'm far from a neutral party as a matter of public record. (I won't go into details right now, but I'll explain if anyone wants to know.) I guess one could say that I am an activist, which - I'd argue - lends me a bit of credibility when I say that activism is unwanted here. GregorB (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It may well be a unique situation, as Tuvixer puts it, but are the actions of a few hundred Croatian Wikipedia editors worthy of coverage in this article, when compared to all of the other events in Croatian history, politics, sport, culture, etc.? I think that including a paragraph on this (or indeed anything) is out of proportion, just as coverage of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowdon or any other number of controversies would be undue in the main United States article. The material properly belongs at Croatian Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Well it is important, because the English Wikipedia is the mostly used Wikipedia and it shows that English Wikipedia is aware of this problem. Also it really is a unique problem and shows that it will not go unnoticed. I am not for this in the article because I want to shame Croatia or something like that. It is important that it remains in the article because it is symptomatic to Croatian society. A survey from a couple days ago show that 3/4 high school graduates think that the so called "NDH" was not a fascist state, which is horrible. What a smart man i sahamed of... fool is proud of. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
We would need a reliable source that states that the Wikipedia controversy is symptomatic of wider social attitudes, otherwise it would be synthesis and original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
And herein lies the problem - if the mention of CW is not meant to make a point about the CW itself, but rather about the Far right in Croatia, then:
What makes the Croatian far right unique or notable so that it needs to be discussed here?
Why not illustrate the supposed far right issue with a more pertinent example? Is a wiki hijacked by a handful of people the worst problem out there?
Also, Tuvixer, I'm still slightly upset about your suggesting that my edit was contrary to a previous consensus,[2] and then refusing to provide details about it after being asked.[3][4]GregorB (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvixer, if it is symptomatic to the society, then we should add a source stating so, not beat around the bush with examples. If we're going to "paint a picture", we should not try to trick the reader along the way. This problem is, in my opinion, in fact a situation of WP:UNDUE weight. Croatian Wikipedia is nowhere near famous enough in Croatia or in the world to warrant a mention in this article; it is just us who are faced with this problem as we're Wikipedia editors. Daß Wölf (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
A good point: indeed, if you walked the streets of Zagreb and asked random people about it, I suppose it would turn out that most are completely unaware of its existence. Apart from that, it is an independent entity, not connected to government or any other organization, and is effectively run by perhaps a dozen people. I fail to see how the CW affair is important, notable, or indicative of anything meaningful aside from CW itself. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a big issue in Croatia, and all the media in Croatia did write about that, here is an example, an article on the biggest newspaper in Croatia: NEZAVISNA WIKIPEDIJA HRVATSKA . So please do not act like it's nothing. Those who are active on Croatian Wikipedia are trying to hide this. It is a unique situation and it is, as it should be, mentioned in the article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It is a rather minor issue in Croatia, as compared to many others. For example, our former PM is in prison. This could legitimately be called a big issue - it is 20x bigger to say the least. It is also not quite commonplace. Yet, this is not mentioned in this article (and rightfully so). Why then - to repeat the same question again - we should specifically mention CW? GregorB (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If former PM Sanader is not mentioned in the article, or the fact that he is in prison and awaiting another trial, then it should for sure also be mentioned. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I would rather keep it in History of Croatia and perhaps Politics of Croatia, seeing as Richard Nixon and Watergate, the biggest American scandal of the 20th century, are not mentioned on the page United States, whereas no government has been without controversy in Croatia thus far. In ten-years' time, I don't think Sanader is going to still be in anyone's mind. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
He is because we will, in the next 30 years, still feel the consequences of the criminal behavior of HDZ and its leadership, that has destroyed the countries economy and has stolen from the budget countless millions. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You're not conveying a fact, you are making a point - precisely what an article should not do. GregorB (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see much evidence of consensus for the inclusion of this material - quite the opposite, in fact - so I am going to remove it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus for removing the material. I can find users that approve of that material in the article, just as the other user who has started all this has done for his side. He is trying to hide facts, and that is his motive. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
"I can find users that approve of that material in the article". Well, they haven't posted here so far, and you also need to be wary of WP:CANVASS. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, Tuvixer, I think that's enough. I'm going to ask you for the third time: in your edit summary, you said that "there was a debate about this section and it stayed in the article". When this debate took place and could you point us to its outcome? I'm suspecting that said debate does not exist. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Tuvixer, if you are going to claim that there is no consensus to remove this material, you need to do as GregorB requests and provide evidence of this because as far as I can see, you are the only editor supporting its inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It seems the material was first added by User:Anamink on 2 July ([5]). It was removed twice by User:Tzowu ([6][7]) and reinstated both times by User:Tuvixer ([8][9]) with the edit summary of "please stop warring and go to the talk page", which I presume relates to #Tozwu's edit war. That was a discussion only between Tzowu and Tuvixer, where no agreement or consensus appears to have been reached in favor of keeping the text in the first place. Since we have discussed this here at a much greater length, I would say the consensus has actually been formed in favor of removing this material, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Daß Wölf. Tuvixer, please note that it is not edit warring to revert a bold edit. If anyone needed to bring the issue to the talk page, it was you, instead of reinstating the boldly inserted material. See WP:BRD. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Indeed, reverting a bold edit is fine - still, using a fabrication to justify it (a supposed "debate" that took place) is definitely not OK. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)