Talk:Croatian Parliament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleCroatian Parliament has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Reserved seats?[edit]

Are any seats reserved for minority groups? This claim is made (uncited) in Germans of Yugoslavia#Croatia. Purgatorio (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seats image in the infobox[edit]

Someone should correct the image in the infobox. SDP has 60 representatives, HNS 14... etc. See the list of MPs by party at Members of the 7th Sabor. Infos are updated now. --Wustenfuchs 20:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The SDP gained an additional seat and HNS lost one after deputy MPs took over for government ministers leaving the parliament. I assume that an additional independent is meant for Kregar, but do you have a source saying that he is still independent. Similarly HDZ gained an additional seat when Škare-Ožbolt was replaced by her deputy (and DC lost its only seat too).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I went reverting this and only then found this comment by Wustenfuchs in one of the pages:
Kolam is, as stated here, HNS member
That's actually "Kolman", and it looks like it's true, because the official index lists 14 HNS members. Sigh, so I have to click some more :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, only yesterday, the same page said he's SDP... never mind then. Just change seating numbers, and I'll change the infobox image as needed since I have a locally stored (on my computer) a script to make that SVG. There's no need to remove the file from the box, I'll rather update the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is on my watchlist so I'll be quick to see if any SVG updates are needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem again, SDP has 60 MPs (see here), and there are 6 independents (see here). It could be that Kregar makes the problem 'cause he was on SDP's list, but he acts as independent in Sabor. --Wustenfuchs 20:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove the image - it gets updated in the commons, nothing changes here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, regarding File:7th-Sabor-Seats.svg, can you flip it horizontally, so that it better matches the practice? Also, it would make sense not to place HNS and LP seats next to each other (in the bottom row) because the colors are very similar. Maybe move the three blue HSU seats closer and inbetween. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately exact position of each spot is up to the script over which there is very little control. I can only sequence the parties from left to right in a desired order, but boundaries are out of control really - hence the "independent" spots are not contiguous. If I understood your request, on the left to right we should have SDP and HNS, and HDZ on the right? Perhaps in that case HSU and IDS should be placed to the right of the HNS, Labour Party next to HDZ to separate the blues and oranges perhaps, and everything else in between?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I got to see what a SVG consists of... and created a contiguous fields there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It's much better now, thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Serial comma?[edit]

Hi. I'm currently copyediting the page, and have run across one problem with the punctuation. Most places, there is no "serial comma" (the last comma in a series, before the "and")... but it's present in a few places. Should it be there or not? (For instance, is it used in formal Croatian writing?) I haven't changed it in either case. Thanks! Allens (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard Croatian does not use such a comma, but I suppose that has nothing to do with English in the article, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose not necessarily - it depends on its likely degree of influence on people from Croatia writing in English (there's that thing about "linked to the subject of the article". The other way to decide such questions is by looking at the first major contributor's way of doing things; looks like Joy didn't use the serial comma in the initial version of the article, so I will accordingly remove them. Allens (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox capitalization[edit]

Is Sabor/sabor normally capitalized in Croatian? It is in the Croatian translation, but not in the infobox. Allens (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's capitalized when it's used standalone, but in the phrase "Hrvatski sabor" it's not. And just to confuse you a bit more, when that phrase is used descriptively in a sentence, it's possible to use "hrvatski Sabor" correctly. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, fascinating ;-} I have decapitalized (not sure if that's a neologism...) it in the initial translation... thanks! Allens (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Minorities clarification[edit]

In response to a "clarification needed" tag containing text: Are these actually reserved for members of these minorities, or are the minorities simply the only ones involved in voting for them? And, BTW, what about people with descent from more than one group? As it happens, I've known a Serbian-Bosnian couple, albeit in the United States:

Eight members of the parliament are elected by voters belonging to 22 recognized minorities in Croatia: the Serb minority elects three MPs, Hungarians and Italians elect one MP each, the Czech and Slovak minorities jointly elect one MP, and all other minorities elect the final two MPs. Voters are listed in the voter register which is in turn compiled from birth register data and other registrar office documents amending the birth register information. One item in the birth register is nationality - which need not be declared, or may be declared as unknown. During elections, a voter who has declared nationality as one of 22 recognized minorities in Croatia or as unknown/non-declared is offered a choice of voting for a minority list or a territorially appropriate (by constituency) general election list. For instance, an ethnic Italian who is a citizen of Croatia may vote either for an Italian minority representative MP or for a general list of candidates running for office in his/her specific constituency. An ethnic Croat citizen of Croatia and citizens of Croatia who are not Croats, and who have declared themselves to be of an ethnicity which is not one of the 22 recognized minorities in Croatia (e.g. Canadian), may vote for a general list of candidates only. Those citizens of Croatia who have declared their nationality as "non-declared" or "unknown" may opt, at the polling station, to vote for a general election list or any minority list.

The above is also found in Elections in Croatia and referenced there. I can add this to the article, but I'm not sure if this would add too much or not. Any suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... "minorities (including undeclared or unknown)" could be one modification. (Sounds like mixed-ethnicity children would generally be "undeclared" or "unknown", although I can imagine some constitutional legal fights over this...) The above doesn't quite answer the first question, regarding if only members of minorities can run on minority lists or whether it's simply that the minority voters are unlikely to vote for non-minority candidates. In other words, it's specifying about voters, not candidates. Allens (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh right: Article 17 of Members of Parliament Election Act says: "Pravo predlaganja kandidata za zastupnike nacionalnih manjina i njihovih zamjenika imaju političke stranke, birači i udruge nacionalnih manjina." which translates into: Right to nominate candidates for representatives of national minorities and their deputies is conferred to political parties, voters and associations of the national minorities. - which is quite ambiguous in Croatian as well as in English: It's clear that national associations (NGOs) of the national minorities may nominate a candidate, but it is unclear if any group of (100) voters may nominate a candidate or do they have to be voters of particular nationality - however the latter seems logical. As far as the parties are concerned - in practice those are largely national minority parties, but other parties are known to have nominated candidates and won seats in the constituency - e.g. a HNS seat in the current Sabor was gained in Czech/Slovak minority representative election. As far as mixed ethnicity is concerned - the thing is quite common in northern part of Croatia where a significant proportion of population has some Hungarian or German ancestors, but from my personal experience those people are largely declaring themselves as Croatian. Still, nearly 100,000 people did not declare their nationality or declared their ethnicity as "regional" - e.g. such a person living in Dalmatia might declare him/herself a Dalmatian as provided by Croatian legislation, but this type of declaration allows voting for a minority election list of choice. In addition, applicable legislation does not permit declaration of mixed ethnicity, but allows changing of that information at the registrar's office as many times as desired. Such non-restrictive provisions actually do not prohibit declaring anything as nationality, so arguably it is possible to indicate that one is "Serbian-Bosnian" or any other combination of nationalities. For instance, 2001 census recorded declarations of nationality including: various American Native Peoples (which they were not), hamsters and penguins (which they were definitely not). Still all those, including "Slavonians", "Istrians" etc are registered as undeclared/unknown and are allowed to choose any minority or general election list for which they may vote.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I am reminded of the Jedis in the UK. Thank you for the clarification; I hope how I've now modified it (including a footnote regarding the uncertainty about the minority candidates) to correctly but succinctly represent the situation. Allens (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify the above cumbersome clarification: It is unclear whether nominating voters need be members of a particular minority, but the legislation does not require the candidate they nominate to be of a specific ethnic group. For instance, Czechs and Slovaks elect a single representative and therefore some candidates will be Czechs and some will be Slovaks. It is even possible to nominate e.g. a Croat or Italian to stand in election for Czech/Slovak MP, but I don't think anyone will be nominated that way simply because it would be sort of hard to win that way - just imagine a Frenchmen standing in German presidential elections or vice versa.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! I've revised the note accordingly. (I asked partially because the US system does actually require that a modern-day president be a US citizen from birth - there's been some controversy over that at times from political nutcases... In contrast, most other offices have no such requirement; an Austrian-by-birth (Arnold Schwarzenegger) was governor of California for a while...) Allens (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seats won table clarification[edit]

The Seats won in 1990–2007 parliamentary elections by individual parties table lists exactly that - seats won in elections and does not account for any changes of party affiliations between elections, so if that's OK, I'd simply remove the clarification needed tag. Alternatively, I could add an appropriate note in the last row of the table spelling that out.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, definitely remove the clarification needed tag - the note sounds like a good idea. Thanks! Allens (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My copyediting is about finished[edit]

Once that note (mentioned above) gets put in and the other clarification tags are resolved, my copyediting will be done - whew! I'll ask for a more experienced member of the Guild to take a brief skim to make sure I didn't miss anything glaring. Very interesting article! I'll probably go to the Government of Croatia one next, if that's OK, since I'm now familiar with a lot of it. Allens (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate your copyediting and clarification requests - I'll tackle those right away, I'm just waiting to avoid edit conflicts. As for the Government of Croatia - please do so! I'll be delighted to see that done too in such a thorough manner.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite welcome, and thank you for your praise. I'll go work on a few other things (including here in "real life") until then... thanks for all your work on the clarifications, BTW! Allens (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Right then, I'll sort those clarifications out now. On one of them: limiting civil liberties in a state of war would require two-thirds majority vote by the parliament since those are defined by the constitution - and all matters defined directly by the constitution may be amended by two-third votes (as stated earlier in the article). Everything else is decided by simple majority vote. On a side note - state of war or state of emergency at a national level was never declared in Croatia during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Indeed state of war was neither declared in Yugoslavia itself nor in Slovenia during the Ten-Day war. Only Bosnia and Herzegovina declared state of war.
As far as Ban is concerned, I'd say that Viceroy is a better translation - Bans were appointed by Kings of Croatia, later by Kings of Hungary and later by Austrian emperors. Even in 1939, when Banovina of Croatia was established, Ban Ivan Šubašić (the last Ban of Croatia) was appointed by the King of Yugoslavia. I know that governors can be appointed, but may also be elected.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting on no state of war/emergency during the breakup (I have to wonder why not even a declaration of a state of emergency, although it's pleasant to hear no official limiting of civil liberties took place). In terms of Ban/ban, I was going off the Ban (title) article, in which medieval bans are described as Viceroys while the later ones are described as governors. Is that incorrect? Viceroy implies having the same powers as a monarch. (BTW, you're capitalizing Ban here, while it isn't capitalized in the Ban (title) article. Which is correct?) I'll be doing the last of the copyediting on this today, then mark it Done on the requests page and go on to doing the Government of Croatia article. Allens (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually bans (Croatian uses lowercase for titles of monarchs, except reigning ones) were appointed by the king/emperor to discharge official duties in his/her name. In that sense ban's authority was that of the monarch he represented.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1990 Elections[edit]

The clarification tag pertains to electoral system applied in the 1990 elections. That consisted of single-seat constituencies and all 80 seats in the Social-Political Council of Croatia, all 116 seats in the Municipalities Council of Croatia and all 160 seats in the Associated Labour Council of Croatia (since Parliament had three chambers at the time). A candidate receiving 50%+ votes in the 1st round won outright, if none did so, all candidates receiving 7%+ votes went to the runoff, and candidate winning plurality won the seat. This is explained in wikilinked Croatian parliamentary election, 1990 article, so I'm unsure about need to add much of this to this particular article beyond that there were two rounds of voting. Any suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The single-seat constituencies pertained to 50% of parliamentary seats - the other half was elected through election list nominated in a single constituency encompassing the entire country.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think what's in the article now is a fine level of detail - good job! I cleaned it up a bit, mainly working on shortening it, and I think it'll work fine. Allens (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parliament of Croatia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;  Pass
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  Pass
  • Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;  Pass
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;  Pass
(c) it contains no original research.  Pass
  • Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  Pass
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  Pass
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.  Pass
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  Pass
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  Pass

Nice job on the article, however, what about the lead, it is stated that Sabor didn't met from 1918 to 1945, however, reading the history of the Sabor I found statement that it met in 1942, truth to be said, as Parliament of the Independent State of Croatia. But I haven't found the information that Sabor met even in 1945. When we solve this, article will pass.

Overall: On hold  Pass

--Wustenfuchs 22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article. In respect of the lead issue concerned, I have expanded the final paragraph of the lead with a mention of the 1942 meeting of unelected Sabor as the matter is discussed at a greater length in the body text. Similarly, ZAVNOH assembly is considered a part of Sabor history and therefore it is also mentioned there, but in no more than a single sentence because the lead is still just a summary. I realize that the latter could use an additional reference in the body text - and that is added too now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then, that's it. It's promoted. --Wustenfuchs 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Next election link[edit]

There's an article on the next Croatian parliamentary election, which is directly relevant to this article. Therefore it can be a useful link to readers, and I don't see any way it harms being there, regardless of how far in the future the election is. It's just a link, so I'm not going to care much discussing this, but I don't see the disadvantage as opposed to its possible usefulness. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It should have been in there already. I'm thinking the editor who was reverting you thinks that the link is invoking early elections, but it does no such thing. The next election article always exists, because the schedule is known. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The schedule is not known. The President of the Republic sets the date of the next elections according to Constitution of the Republic. Today we know that there will be no early elections. The next election link should be later, maybe in the last year of the current mandate. So on the 4th December 2014. Tuvixer (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's known insofar as we're certain that there will definitely be a next Croatian parliamentary election, so there's no apparent benefit in avoiding to mention it when the article is there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The link being there does not imply at all that early election will be held. Depending on Croatia's electoral law, the article can be linked with "2016 or earlier" or "Next election" or similar. SPQRobin (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Both, "2016 or earlier" and "Next election", are ok. Maybe "Next election" is better. Tuvixer (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I added it with "Next election". SPQRobin (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


Now by my opinion, the listed parties should be changed. The names are to long. So should it be changed by Croatian Party of Pensioners to HSU and Croatian Democratic Union to HDZ, or Croatian Party of Pensioners to Party of Pensioners and Croatian Democratic Union to Democratic Union? --Tuvixer (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Political groups[edit]

User CentreLeftRight changed the block "Political groups" and showed there the results of election. But I am sure that it is needed to show current composition of groups. At first, the changes happen after election, MPs can switch groups. At second, let us show each party separately, but not in electoral coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olek Bokhan (talkcontribs) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Croatian Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Government/supporting the government/opposition[edit]

Can't we wait for 7 day that the issue is resolved and we see who supports the government when the Parliament votes on new minister? Changing everything now is just speculation, so please refrain from unproductive edits. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatian Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)