Jump to content

Talk:Ivo Josipović

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beliefs

[edit]

The weird issue with agnosticism rises up again. To be an agnostic does not mean one is not a theist (i.e. a believer in god). You can be the most devout believer in (a) god and still remain an agnostic, believing that his ways/he himself is unknowable. The term "agnostic" is often misused in this context. It is a noted phenomenon that people who can not or choose not to be "branded" with the (rather politically damaging) term "atheist" use it, quite incorrectly, as a label denoting some imaginary "softer form of atheism."
My point is that Ivo Josipović is an atheist. Agnosticism is not religious belief or disbelief. Such simple word games are fine in the world of politics and media, but an encyclopedia cannot so grossly misuse a term. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. There are more varieties of agnosticism, but they are all IMO either: a) equivalent to atheism, or b) logically absurd. Sometimes it's both: for example, if one says: "Existence of God can never be proved nor disproved, and that's why I'm an agnostic", that doesn't make sense to me, because the same holds for Invisible Pink Unicorn, yet I've never heard that someone is agnostic with respect to the existence of invisible pink unicorns. What would make sense is: "Existence of God can never be proved nor disproved, and that's why I'm an atheist".
Anyway, back on topic... It is simple, really: we cannot reinterpret what is self-reported, at least not in the absence of contravening facts. GregorB (talk)
In one of the debates last night Josipović said that he was not "praktični vjernik" - a practical believer/worshipper - and stated that he has a Bible in his office. To state that he is an "atheist", at least according to the primary English dictionary meaning, would imply that he actually denies the existence of god. Since that is something he does not do, using that term would be incorrect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In fact, strictly speaking, what he said in the debate is compatible with him being either a theist, agnostic or an atheist. The only usable information we have is his quote in the SD article, and it's pretty unambiguous. GregorB (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, one is either a theist or atheist. There is no middle ground ("I partially believe in god"?) as the terms are completely opposite. Its always a pain with politicians as they're very careful not to offend anyone. You have the same "wordplay for morons" with Mesić. All I am saying is that having "agnostic" under Religious belief is nonsense. Agnosticism has nothing to say about one's religious views, or lack of them for that matter. It is obvious he does not follow any one religion, so I'd just leave "None", sans the "agnostic" nonsense. That phrasing would not necessarily state the person is an atheist (one can, of course, believe in god without belonging to any religion), but it would not make list utter nonsense either ("wordplay for morons" :).
This is not true. One does not have to be an atheist or theist. There are such things as non-theist religion. for example, Buddhism is considered to be a non-theist religion. Most Buddhists do not believe in a supreme diety but do have strong spiritual beliefs that involve supernatural things atheists would not adhere to. I consider myself to be Agnostic because I have no idea what the nature of our being is outside of this existence, but I believe it quite possible and even likely that there is one. I do not follow any type of orgnaized religon though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is little doubt the man is indeed an atheist (or perhaps a deist at worst), but is using this old ploy to avoid antagonizing the voters... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His choice of words in the debate ("I'm not a practicing believer") does support your assumption that he is attempting to avoid antagonizing the voters - but what of it, even if he does? In fact, this is in itself something that indeed does distinguish atheists and agnostics, as the latter won't ever say "God does not exist", while the former will. I suppose we don't have agnosticism and Category:Agnostics for nothing. GregorB (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I did not suggest agnosticism, and of course by extension, agnostics do not exist or anything. I am merely making a statement of fact: agnosticism is not a religious belief. Being an agnostic means little or nothing in the way of describing one's position on religion. Its a meaningless word game. Either way we cannot have "agnostic" listed where it is... Well, I'm off to the party :D --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using "none" is appropriate, but I take issue with your mathematical stance on these issues. When an attribute has two meanings, you should not apply it when you know that one of the meanings is explicitly avoided by the subject. Matters of politics and religion simply do not follow Boolean logic and it would be disingenuous to pretend they do for the sole purpose of filling out optional fields in infoboxes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I basically concur, philosophical quandaries aside. :) I'm not here to push any "atheist POV", but to correct a common (and rather annoying) error. I would not mind even if the whole entry was removed since we obviously lack clear information because of political necessities. Do we agree on removing "agnostic" from the infobox? What about President Mesić? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at other agnostics with a officeholder infobox, not only there are no infoboxes with an entry of just "None" - the word "None" isn't even mentioned (except for Croatian politicians - my recent change!). Many even seem to directly suggest that agnosticism is a some kind of religion. If agnosticism and agnostics exist, and if saying that someone is an agnostic actually imparts some information (and I contend that it does, despite my reservations described above), then I'd say that "None (agnostic)" is exactly correct. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it imparts some information, except that the information is irrelevant with regard to the person's "Religion". Regardless of what other erroneous infoboxes suggest, agnosticism is simply not a religion. Neither does the fact that its a common misconception (as I said before), excuse its inclusion as a "religion" of any sort. The information should be added in the article, of course, don't get me wrong, but how can we possibly perpetuate this nonsense? There's even an article on Agnostic theism, with Christian agnostic beliefs explained (keep in mind Josipović did not state he's an agnostic theist). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but what troubles me here is that are no less than three ways one could earn a "None" entry: 1) by being an atheist, 2) by being an agnostic, and 3) by being unaffiliated (i.e. by believing in God, but not belonging to any religion/denomination). Sure, one could say just "None" and be done with it, but these three cases are not really the same, and a distinction between them is warranted. GregorB (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one way a person can have "None" as the entry under "Religion" in the infobox: by being unaffiliated. He can be a theist or an atheist, it does not matter ("Way 1)"). I disagree with "way 2)" above as well. One cannot earn a "None" entry simply by stating he's an agnostic (there are Christian agnostics, just for example).
To get back on subject, the statement that he is an "agnostic" was meant in the context of his "religious" beliefs. Therefore one of three possibilities is left to us:
  • "Religion: None (Agnostic atheist)" - he does not belong to any religion, but this is a completely arbitrary interpretation
  • "Religion: None (Agnostic theist)" - he does not belong to any religion, but this is a completely arbitrary interpretation
  • "Religion: None" - he does not belong to any religion.
  • "None (Agnostic)"? No. Agnosticism has little or nothing to do with religion on its own.
I leave you with a wikiquote: :)

If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist.

— Robert Flint
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I replaced "None" with "Agnostic" and only then checked out this talk page. Now I see you already discussed this issue and decided that agnosticism is not religion. So be it. But, please note that Josipović himself stated the following: "It's true, I'm declared agnostic." (Croatian: "Točno je, deklarirani sam agnostik."[1]) So, in my opinion, Ivo deserves to have his religion listed as "agnostic" since that's the way he himself puts it. Cheerz, 91.212.199.130 (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC) (BTW: List of agnostics and Zoran Milanović)[reply]
...which brings us back to his self-reported status, i.e. what a person says when being asked this question. There is a census in Croatia every 10 years, and IIRC "agnostic" and "atheist" are all acceptable answers on the question of religious affiliation, it's not just "none". I still think that "None (agnostic)" is the closest to mainstream expectation of what this infobox field is about. GregorB (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone asked me about my religious beliefs, and I said I'm a "capitalist", then we'd have my religious beliefs as "None (capitalist)" in this infobox?
No, because you would be the first to use it that way. There is no broad (mis)conception that capitalism is a form of religion. There is one for agnosticism.
I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of listing agnosticism as a religious belief. It sounds like it has something to do with religion, yes, but it does not. I know people expect to see agnostic, but dispelling such common misconceptions is one of the things Wikipedia is about. Its an encyclopedia, ffs... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but encyclopedia which upholds (what you label as) the common misconception! I think you are fighting your battle on at the wrong talk page. There is no broad consensus that agnosticism cannot qualify as a religious affiliation. It is just your POV that it cannot. I think you should fight your battle at Talk:List of agnostics first and then when/if you win come back here and enforce the rule. Wouldn't that be fair? Cheerz, 188.129.69.12 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not going to argue with you. I suggest you read the Agnosticism article before you start talking about "consensus". Agnosticism cannot be listed as a religious affiliation/belief, simply because it has nothing to do with religious affiliation belief. Either that, or we should list the fellow as an atheist and be done with it ("demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you have to decide. If agnosticism has nothing to do with religion, why is it listed in the same category as atheist and/or non-religious people? You are confusing me. Could you please decide first do you agree with yourself and then come here? Cheerz, 188.129.65.176 (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pls find out what agnosticism is prior to coming here. What the above means, obviously, is that people declaring themselves "agnostics in a religious sense" are listed as "atheists or non-religious people".
Saying you are an agnostic does not give me a clue as to your beliefs, however. You could be a christian agnostic, an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, etc. I am not suggesting we label the fellow an atheist, but to list agnosticism as a religion. lol, it just means that you think that truth value is unknowable. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Direktor, you're having trouble finding anyone who agrees with you in this. Regardless of what is "true", I don't think you have the consensus to revert anymore. (Personally I find it unimportant and I won't interfere.) GregorB (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two IPs is hardly a consensus, no offense to anyone, especially when the claims contradicts the most basic facts available to anyone. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, I have to log in then to becone relevant? OK then, then I'll go and find my password and log in. But, before I do that, let me ask you this: if I log in and it turns out that I'm administrator with over 4 years of experience on Wikipedia, will you then decide that you are wrong and Gregor and me are right? Cheerz, 91.212.199.130 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Direktor, first of all, you broke WP:3RR. Don't do that again, please. That rule is there for a reason. Second, I'd say that here we have Gregor and me against you. That's two people against one. I think you should think hard about who is supposed to give up here. Cheerz, 91.212.199.130 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfortunate wording - no one here is against anybody, I hope - it's just that when there's a disagreement, editing should be based on at least some kind of rough consensus, preferably reached through discussion. This should perhaps be moved to Talk:Agnosticism, there's a wider audience there. GregorB (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There, I started an conversation there. Until this matter is resolved I will put his religion as None/Agnostic. Cheerz, 188.129.65.176 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could leave it in the state you found it in before the WP:EDIT WAR was started by the IPs. Agnosticism has nothing to do with religious belief, and I certainly won't allow you good fellows to list it as such all common sense to the contrary. Let me repeat my statement from above:
You can be the most devout believer in (a) god and still remain an agnostic, believing that "his ways"/he himself is unknowable (agnostic theist). You can also be the most fanatical agnostic atheist. Listing "agnosticism" as a religious affiliation is complete and utter nonsense, perpetuated by those who have little or no idea what agnosticism actually is. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR dude chill out, List_of_agnostics. Also the definition of religion here on wikipedia is "A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Agnostics BELIEVE that they do not know the true nature of the universe, hence leaving the option of a higher being open. Also if you disagree with that they you have to know the other option is that Agnostic stands for no religion, so it should not be Religion: none (none) twice, but instead Religion: Agnostic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriatic HR (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: in no case can anyone write up "Religion: agnostic" in the infobox. Agnosticism is not religion, to have the infobox state something to that effect would be a travesty, something like "Religion: atheist". At best you can have "Religion: None (agnostic)". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elected

[edit]

He was elected as the 3rd president, as officially confirmed on the Croatian Television (I) at midnight 11/10th Jan. The information may now be changed. Er-vet-en (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC have the story as well. Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Espenson "Hands" lookalike

[edit]

On the some Croatian message boards it has been said that Josipovic is spitting image of an American movie and TV actor Christian Clemenson, best known as attorney Jerry Espenson/"Hands" in the ABC TV series "Boston Legal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.235.2 (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country of birth

[edit]

Embellisher, I do not see how you can "forbid" someone to mention the federal subunit of the country a person was born in. I'm also having trouble understanding how you can claim to have established some sort of "standard" of yours. Firstly, that is not true, people who were born in SFR Yugoslavia often have their federal republic's name mentioned in the infobox of the article. In general, subunits of countries are very often mentioned in the infobox (see Stalin, for example). Secondly, even if it were true, so what? This is not some sort of consensus or guideline to be followed. Finally, since there was more than one "Yugoslavia", it is important to disambiguate between them and mention the prefix abbreviations in the article text. For example, "FPR Yugoslavia" is a long way off from "FR Yugoslavia", which is in turn something completely different from the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", etc. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than one Germany too (and I mean before the East-West split), yet "Germany" is usually sufficient. The difference between FPRY and SFRY is in the name only. Personally, I don't care about the mention of former federal republics, but Yugoslavia was a federal state after all, so it's not as if it doesn't make any sense. GregorB (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to [[Nazi Germany|Germany]], then I must remind you that "Nazi Germany" was not the official name of the state. "German Empire" is often used instead of simply "Germany" [2] so its not really that simple. I agree of course that the difference between the FPRY and the SFRY is the name only, but I'm primarily referring to the difference between FR Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and SFR/FPR Yugoslavia (even though I acknowledge that the FRY was not "really Yugoslavia" and that its name was unrecognized by many countries such as the US). I see no reason whatsoever why "PR Croatia" should be omitted from mention. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Ivo Josipović is often criticized by some of the Croatian media and some right-centre parties to be connected with the totalitarian communist government in his younger days and during Croatian War of Independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.82.0 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. A major flaw of this article - and the main reason why I downgraded its rating from B to C - is the fact that his political views are described in very general terms, and there's zero information on his presidential mandate - seven months after assuming office. Some of his presidential controversies, including those related to trips to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia should be covered here. GregorB (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go, I filled some of it in based on information already on en:. I should note that there is actually very little controversy here, because averaging 80% approval is usually called a consensus support. Describing these events in a negative light would be giving the minority opinion undue weight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's objections are ridiculous. No serious organization, political or media, is "criticizing" this president for being "connected with the totalitarian communist government in his younger days". In fact, all three Croatian presidents to date were members of the communist party before the 1990s, i.e. "in their younger days", along with a very large portion of both the right-wing and the left-wing political elite.
As for this person's political views they are social democrat, plain and simple. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that criticism of Josipović predominantly comes from the far right, some of it makes way into mainstream media. E.g. regarding trip to Serbia: Sa Srbijom se mora razgovarati, ali zar se mora pognute glave (in Croatian); regarding his "background": Josipović pao povijest (in Croatian). For the record, I find this kind of criticism of Josipović to be 90% crap (in Dujmović's case, even more than 90%), but it's there. Still, 80% approval is a remarkable fact, so criticism/controversy must be put into perspective. Hopefully this will be achieved once the presidency section is fully fleshed out. GregorB (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not saying he isn't criticized, I'm saying nobody is criticizing him for being a member of the SKJ "in his younger days" as was the IP's claim. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the second article linked above: "Ni njegova prošlost, njegovo članstvo u Savezu komunista, ni prošlost njegove obitelji, kao ni njegova ideološka opredjeljenja, ne bi mu smjela biti brana." This is fairly mild, but he is still faulted there because of his "background". Also this, note the montage that illustrates the text, and its opening sentence: "Iako je od pada Berlinskoga zida i raspada SFRJ prošlo dvadeset godina, Hrvatska će 10. siječnja birati između dvojice kandidata s komunističkom prošlošću.". Surely more explicit examples could be found, especially in various nasty reactions to his visit to Srb. Again, it's not that prominent, but it's there. GregorB (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, his 84% popularity is highly suspicious, and, even if the early popularity is not staged, he doesn't have so high popularity anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.45.209 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are clear. This is not a forum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our esteemed IP is most likely from rural areas where Josipović is disliked, or is a member of the Croatian diaspora and "speaks from experience" with right-wing proponents back home. I too was surprised at how Josipović seems to be generally popular, but also generally loathed in certain rural regions (for some strange reason). I've come into contact with individuals who were, from contact with their own friends and family, absolutely convinced this person was "despised by everyone". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not a forum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was not treating it as such, (unsupported) doubts were voiced as to the veracity of sources included in the article. Regardless, it seems I might've... will stop promptly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am from Rijeka, the city in which Josipović has the highest popularity (except maybe Pula). Say whatever you want, but the 84% is so obviously staged it hurts. You should also know that Croatian media is not 100% free and that it is used as a propagand machine for EU and some politicians (for example, our "right"-centre prime minister Kosor had a huge popularity during her transitional period, but her popukarity is very low right know. The same thing happened with Josipović, who has no more than 55-60% of popularity. And, you should take some polls with a pinch of salt, as they were well known in the past to say completely false statements (they said that SDP would easily win elections in 2007, but they had lost it by a narrow margin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.118.28 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: I don't want to chat anymore, because, as you said, this is not a forum. I just wrote the post to reply on false claims by DIREKTOR that I'm from rural region. I'll try to find references and post them then (in future, far or near). But you should visit web pages of HSP, HČSP, A-HSP and simmilar right-centre to right wing parties or even the only far right party HOP. It's hard to find good references because major media is either under jewish control (Nova TV, technically even RTL), or are ruled by the state, so they don't want to critique the president as he has very good relationship with Israel (no offense to Israel intended). The main portal (Index.hr) is far?-left ruled and radio stations are hardy a good reference, because they have very low popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.48.39 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some references: http://cro.time.mk/read/8c9c2701e1/521628964b/index.html , http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/78596/puls-javnosti-josipovic-popularniji-od-mesica-vlada-i-hdz-sve-popularniji . His popularity is 44% in February and 40% in September. That are good results (Chavez had the same when he won this year's election), but not so high as one poll claims (they claim 85,2% for September, which is very close to Kim Jong-Il). Even the ultra-left NovaTV released the poll where he has 40% popularity. http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/jesmo-li-dotaknuli-vrhunac-pesimizma.html# "Ivo Josipović i dalje predvodi listu najpopularnijih političara te o njemu uglavnom pozitivan dojam ima 40 posto građana." "Ivo Josipović is still the politician with the highest popularity, and around 40% of the citizens has "more good than bad" or "generally positive" opinion."
This looks like a simple matter of a different poll methodology, i.e. not all polls are necessarily comparable. The media don't usually report properly about polls, because they don't relay the exact questions asked, let alone the weighting process used to deduce the final percentages. So for example these questions might get vastly different answers: "do you like Some Person", "name your most favorite politician", "from the following list, pick those you like", "do you support the President Some Person", "do you like the President Some Person", ... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://videoteka.novatv.hr/multimedia/srb.html, he stated: "partisan caps are nice caps", the video is edited, as he also added "they are a message of love and peace", as seen in this article: http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/110870/Default.aspx . Just to inform you, partisans were pseudo-anti-fascist which fought for the communists, and partisan caps are in fact caps with red stars on them (they were also worn after the WW2): [3]

His statements are contrary to this declaration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Declaration_on_European_Conscience_and_Communism . In the declaration, it is stated: "ensuring the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination of victims of all the totalitarian regimes". As he openly promotes totalitarian communists which killed more people than Axis Powers in Croatia, it should be mentioned on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.72.252 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please rename this into "Controversy", because just "Critisism" for his communist beliefes, despite they're completely totalitarian, is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.94.127 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More criticism, written by the respectable social-democrat/ex-communist Zdravko Tomac: http://www.hrvatski-fokus.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1263%3Aivo-josipovi-je-u-sto-dana-svoje-vladavine-napravio-vie-tete-nego-stipe-mesi-u-deset-godina-svoga-mandata&catid=2%3Aunutarnja-politika&Itemid=20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.67.34 (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no not again... Another "Criticism" section for nationalist hatemongering. I do not think we will be including your fantasies about our "communist president", the Partisans were the only Allied resistance forces of Yugoslavia (which by 1943 consisted of a majority of Croats). How is the Croatian President supposed to not support the Croatian/Yugoslav Allied forces of WWII? What's more every single president up 'til now did the same. I think your own deduction that this makes him a "communist" is not something we will be including in an encyclopaedia. In short, you'll not be entering paranoid political propaganda here.
Gents this guy is, according to Ipsos (one of the largest market research companies in Europe), the most popular major Croatian politician since Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991 (and these sort of polls were conducted). Now we've got Croatian nationalists scouring the internet for any nut anywhere that said anything negative about the guy - at all. Cherry-picking, classic WP:NPOV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's Zdravko Tomac, so this could be relevant per se, unfortunately he has been marginalized, and this Hrvatski Fokus weekly is not necessarily a reliable source. And that's completely putting aside the simple fact that any newspaper where Mladen Schwartz publishes articles is biased towards anything with "anti-fascist" in its description. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.kastelanska-panorama.com/news.php?readmore=828 He also wrote articles for many other web-sites. And a simple fact that fascist like Schwartz also wrote for one of them, means nothing. Dr. Tomac is marginalized, so he must express himself in the underground magazines like that one. ¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadlessMaster (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't look it up, but I imagined something of the sort was afoot. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I skimmed both articles, and I see a clear pattern - Tomac dislikes Josipović on ideological grounds. He disliked him intensely on those grounds in the presidential campaign, and he does that in his analysis of the first 100 days of Josipović as president. Tomac makes various political assessments about what Josipović said or did, but including each of them would be pointless. It's not just that many of Tomac's assessments do not correspond to the Croatian political mainstream, whether left or right, it's just a matter of article readability - it would be as pointless as listing each idea that the HČSP supports in its article, and then saying the SRP intensely disagrees them on practically all of them.
So please feel free to summarize Tomac's opposition in the article, just characterize it accurately - as a wholesale opposition on ideological grounds, without giving undue weight to Tomac's individual opinions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not think we will be eliminating Ipsos as an "unreliable source" based on some IP's comparisons with Hugo Chavez and North Korea(!) or whatever (which I seriously doubt actually conducts opinion polls on its dictators xD). I would not be supprised at all if the radical Chavez did in fact have a lot smaller approval rating than Ivo "Imagine-All-the-People" Josipović :). IpsosPuls (the Croatian branch of Ipsos), is the largest and highly professional market research company in Croatia. These people do not alter their findings. The bottom line is that any allegations that Ipsos or NovaTV somehow faked or misrepresented straightforward approval ratings will require something more than talkpage accusations.
Also, since when did we declare NovaTV to be "ultra-left", lol :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Maybe since the day it started to exist. Or at least since it is Jewish owned (this is their owner - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Lauder). Look, every normal person would turn his media into a left wing direction if he has it in a foreign country. I just wrote ultra-left since you and the people like you like to call everything ultra- , like calling HSP and HČSP far-right, even if the only far-right party in Croatia is a very weak HOP (around 500 members). Also, everything you are writting here can be descibed in the following sentence: "If I have something to say, it's freedom of speech, if somebody other has something to say - it's a nonsense." Why is a criticism section a nonsense? HSP doesn't support Josipović and they have around 40,000 members - certainly not a small number of people. According to the newest polls, they are 4th biggest party in Croatia (http://www.napravi-stranicu.com/podstrana/iz-hrvatske-i-svijeta/vladu-ne-podupire-cak-71-posto-gradana.php). I would add further evidence that one other left wing party do not support Josipović, but I promised to their president that I'll keep it secret because he will have problems with his coalition partners if I said that. All in all, the criticism exist and it should not be removed. Furthermore, Zdravko Tomac is a former COMMUNIST, and his party is called Croatian SOCIALDEMOCRATS, and he was a member of SDP. What is left wing if not that, maybe only Kim Jong-Il and, possibly, Castro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadlessMaster (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish-owned so its ultraleft?! :) This is what I mean... What this is is "Josipović is turning out too popular, we have to do something, anything!".
@User:HeadlessMaster. Wikipedia is not about "free speech", its about neutrality, notability, and verifiability - and your edits fail on all three counts. Also, it is becoming increasingly obvious from your statements you are here on a political agenda seeking to add cherry-picked irrelevant nonsense from any and all nuts you could find on the web (the Tomac source is suspicious and unverifiable). Every politician out there has his supporters and detractors, and they all make statements of all sorts. This does not mean we will be concentrating everything negative any guy out there said into one totally biased section. Please read WP:NPOV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I called it ultra-left because you called me ultra-right, it's simple. In fact, neither me or NovaTv are actually ultra. Why is criticism section a fail in the terms of neutrality, notability, and verifiability? If the article wants to be neutral, it must include the toughts from the both sides. Furthermore, you don't know what nationalism is, it is only a belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood (and I think it is true, as president Wilson stated in 1917). And you call me a far-right nationalist. For your information, I was called up to play for ethnic minority club in Rijeka (although I refused for lack of time) and my best neighbour is a Serb. So, why do you call me a nationalist for hating communism? Also, you are equalizing western anti-fascism with Croatian "anti-fascism". Western anti-fascism was in support of democracy, freedom of speech and human rights, while the Croatian pseudo-anti-fascism was simply the replacement of one criminal totalitarian ideology (Ustaše) with another one, which was at least as bad, if not even worse (Tito's communism). So, I DO support western anti-fascism, but I can't support evil communism which was as bad as fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadlessMaster (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LoL. I think we've all heard enough here... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why "lol"? Please tell. Everything I wrote is a FACT. I regret calling NovaTv ultra-left, but everything other than that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadlessMaster (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still no reply? Once again, why "lol"? You only know to reply without any respect. If you hadn't realize, I treat you with respect, not with ridicule. So, you should threat me with respect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadlessMaster (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće also often criticize Josipović. This is their page: http://hakave.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=93 Look at their members. They have at least 3 "akademiks" in their leadership (and there are only 160 akademiks in Croatia - http://info.hazu.hr/clanovi_akademije) and most of their members have some kind of national civil award (including the highest cultural medals). So, they surely can't be described as a bunch of rednecks. Most of their texts criticize Jopsipović: http://hakave.org/index.php?searchword=josipovi%C4%87&ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&Itemid=13&option=com_search&limitstart=20 HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read WP:UNDUE about due and undue weight given to differing viewpoints. The policy's opening paragraph explicitly states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." From what I can tell HKV is little more than an exotic fringe group and including their views in the article simply would NOT be encyclopedic. Timbouctou 15:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had read every rule before I registered. The rule you wrote is completely correct, but these people in HKV are not non-significant. The organisation is not frequently apearing in the media, but their members are pretty well-known: Hrvoje Hitrec, Slaven Barišić, Mile Bogović, Ljerka Mintas Hodak, Ivan Aralica. So, we have criticism from: right wing parties (HSP, HČSP, A-HSP), far-right (HOP), socialdemocrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Social_Democrats and their founder Zdravko Tomac), some intelectuals (HKV), some journalists (Ivkošić, who has regular column in one respectable newspapers), some independent historians and scientists (Jurčević and Miroslav Tuđman). They may not be a majority, but not at least mentioning (no need for new section) any of the criticism is incorrect. HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had "read every rule" you should be familiar with WP:INHERIT which states that "Notability is not inherited "up" - not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." If Aralica happened to join the Croatian Britney Spears Fan Club this would not make the club itself notable by extension, and the same goes for HKV. As stated by WP:UNDUE for us even to include HKV, HOP and similar organizations' views we would need to establish that their opinions are a) significant and b) published in a reliable source. I assume that in order for their views to be described as "significant," the organizations themselves should be notable per WP:ORG, which, among other thing, explicitly states that "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." You would be hard pressed to find any evidence that anybody actually noticed HKV's or HOP's existence, and even if you did, you would only be able to pull out quotes which describe them as little more than bizarre fringe groups. And when was the last time you saw mainstream media asking Aralica or Mintas-Hodak or Hitrec to comment on current affairs? Furthermore, HČSP and A-HSP are even more marginal than HKV and HOP and both of them are light years away from even coming close to winning a seat in the parliament. This leaves HSP, Tomac and Ivkošić. Tomac is a rather marginal figure too (something he has proven several times himself via his epic election failures) and can hardly be described as a "social-democrat" (yes, he founded the party but what is today the main social-democrat party (SDP) has nothing to do with him just like Ankica Tuđman today has very little to do with present-day HDZ, which is something you can read about very often in articles published by HOP, HKV and the like). As far as HSP and Ivkošić are concerned, their views would qualify for inclusion, but from what I can tell HSP's criticisms are based on them being bothered by the mere fact that he used to be a communist. Ivkošić is the Croatian version of Rush Limbaugh and, however crazy he might be, he does publish a regular column in a mainstream newspaper and is notable enough for his opinions to be worth mentioning. However, per WP:UNDUE, it is still debatable how much space should be given to him or to any of the people/groups mentioned for that matter. IMO not a single one of them is capable of influencing public opinion (except Ivkošić perhaps to a lesser extent); for each and every one of them I could easily find reliable sources describing them as has-beens and/or crackpots; and last but not least - not a single one of these "criticisms" never resulted in any noteworthy public protest. Not a single person you named is a political office holder, not a single one of them is close to any political party which is currently represented in the parliament (except HSP which is represented by a grand total of 1 (one) seat). Miroslav Tuđman and Zdravko Tomac have proven how marginal they are by achieving less than impressive results in various elections, and the same could be said for Jurčević's presidential bid (and btw his academic credentials also leave much to be desired). Having said that, perhaps some criticism could be included in the article (maybe Ivkošić's or war veteran's criticisms concerning Josipović's recent meetings with Tadić) but almost everyone else you mentioned is completely ignored by the Croatian media - which means they should be ignored by us too. Timbouctou 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wrote is 100% correct and within the boundaries of the rules, but if we have things such as this included: - "In April 2010 he announced on his Facebook status that he will open another account, "Ivo Josipović A" so he can accept around 10 000 friends who were waiting to become his Facebook friends. He has continued to comment political issues on his Facebook status." and "Josipović also has a fan page on Facebook that counts around 41.337 fans." - , we can also include everything I wrote (or delete some parts "Trivia", it doesn't matter).HeadlessMaster (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections including random bits of information are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. I've thus removed it altogether, keeping only the part about the idea to create a composition dedicated to John Lennon (moved to the "Music" section). I think we can do without the Facebook-related nonsense. Timbouctou 04:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I hope you understand that it was contradictional and that Facebook-nonsense would actually mean that we can include every such thing. So, with that removed, I'll wait for the real criticism versus him (on national level TV or radio or newspapers) and then report it. Thanks! P.S. Please take note that I hadn't wanted to be rude in any part of this conversation (not only with you, but also with others, including DIREKTOR, and that I take every argument with respect, although some people just write "lol"-thing without explanation. And you (Timbouctou) explained everything very well and you seem to be neutral enough. Honest congratulations on that. HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This could possibly deserve a mention in futur, when some things become clearer (I wouldn't put it into consideration for now, I'm just mentioning it for possible significance in future): http://www.seebiz.eu/hr/komentari/sinisa-malus/josipovic-i-jezic-predsjednik-reagirao-pogresno-i-prekasno,100757.html Also, this could be interesting: "Ipak, ovo je još jedan od primjera nespretnih predsjednikovih reakcija kojima svako malo pokaže kako se baš pretjerano i ne razlikuje od ostatka političke scene, koliko god (mnogi) šutjeli o tome." - "This is one more example of president's awkward reactions which show that he is not different from the rest of the political scene, despite (many) peaople don't talk about that."HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing of possible future significance, DON'T add it right now: http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/josipovicev-stav-vodi-nas-blizu-politike-tudzman-milosevic.html HeadlessMaster (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think we'll likely be able to resist the temptation. In fact I don't think we'll add it ever. :) This is not a depository for cherry-picked "anti-Josipović" fringe internet articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything fringe about the Ježić affair. To be fair the consequences of the issue should be the criteria for inclusion (e.g. if the issue does not develop into a notable scandal and if the guy gets released than it could be ignored) but this is hadly cherry-picking. The fact that a rich guy who owns a large company and one of the leading newspapers was later investigated for corruption charges after contributing to three of the presidential candidates' campaigns, including Josipović's, is hardly an "anti-Josipović fringe internet article". If Ježić actually gets convicted Hebrang's, Josipović's and Prmorac's article should all include the fact (as well as their subsequent reactions as Primorac and Josipović announced that they would return the money if allegations eventually prove to be true). Timbouctou 17:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(December 9th 2012) wow. there's still no controversy/criticism subsection, regardless of the fact that Josipović made at least several major gaffes and controversial decisions or was involved in suspicious actions (prior to and during his mandate) - in no particular order: 1) Dejan Jović as his political analyst 2) Vukovar vs Paulin Dvor 3) Partisan caps 4) Ivana Simić Bodrožić 5) Documenta decoration 6) downplaying Serbian aggression to "a series of bad policies" 7) his speech in the Knesset 8) ZAMP issue 9) savings bank Zlatica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.71.164 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counselors

[edit]

First off do not "proclaim" things as "scandals". POV wording. Secondly, the councilors:

  • Saša Perković. Perković was never indicted of any criminal activities. The allegations that he was "protecting Josipović of criminal intelligence" is unfounded speculation.
  • The fact that Zrinka Vrabec-Mojzeš badly ran Radio 101 is... completely irrelevant and unrelated.
  • Mato Mlinarić never even actually served as the President's counselor.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.novilist.hr/2010/02/20/sasa-perkovic-zlouporabio-tajne-.aspx

"Ivo Josipović, predsjednik čiji je lajt motiv kampanje bila pravna država i vladavina prava, na samom početku svog petogodišnjeg mandata izazvao je ozbiljan skandal priznanjem da se u vrijeme predsjedničke kampanje, uz pomoć tadašnjeg predsjednika Stjepana Mesića i njegovog savjetnika za nacionalnu sigurnost Saše Perkovića, okoristio uslugama hrvatskih obavještajnih službi. I to po svemu sudeći – mimo propisa." , according to that, he eventually confessed everything. He had also choosen a counselor who was proven to be incompetent by leading Radio 101 into bankrupcy. Mato Mlinar was appointed as a counselor, but later removed (before inauguration), so you are right abou him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.58.124 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting desperate. No. The President did not admit to illegal activities. "Po svemu sudeći"??
User:Kennechten, please do not edit war to push these edits as they really are very, very POV and a transparent and obvious attempt to enter political propaganda. The President of Croatia did not engage in illegal activities. And if he did, you shall require a lot more sources to that effect before you can actually go through with this sort of political attacks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring and start discussing. When reverted, please stop restoring your edit and begin a discussion, see WP:BRD. Should this continue your disruptive attitude will be brought to the attention of the admins. Though in the end, your attempt to enter nonsense about Croatian President Ivo Josipović being engaged in illegal activities won't fly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Zrinka Vrabec Mojzeš bit će savjetnica novog predsjednika Ive Josipovića za društvene djelatnosti"

--Kennechten (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saša Perković discussions with Vladimir Zagorac were labeled as Illegal.
  • Nominating Zrinka Vrabec-Mojzeš has also been a certain scandal. Her role in Radio 101 ,precisely
  • Mato Mlinarić had problems with tax, Josipović probably did not know that but his installation was a mistake.--Kennechten (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zrinka Vrabec-Mojzeš's bad management skills are not the subject of this article. They have nothing to do with Ivo Josipović - at all.
  • Saša Perković was not and is not even indicted of any illegal activities, let alone convicted of any. This is an encyclopedia. One does not indiscriminately list everything the media speculates on. What is the problem here? I cannot believe you are defending that edit :P
  • Milnarić is ok, I guess. but the entry needs to be reworded into encyclopedic wording (a basic statement of fact).
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, "presidential advisers" is probably a better word for these people. Secondly, I would be all for including well-referenced bits about potentially controversial appointments if there were any to include. Vrabec-Mojzeš's appointment can hardly be considered controversial (besides the fact that her role in the bankruptcy or Radio 101 is equal to the role of dozens of her colleagues who were station's co-owners, it has got nothing to do with her current post) and if it has to be mentioned anywhere it's the Radio 101 article, as the fact that their senior editor joined the president's staff could be a useful illustration of the station's purported political neutrality. However, it is not really relevant to the said president's term in office. Allegations connected to Saša Perković are nothing but the usual day-to-day mudslinging and the Novi list article reads more like a collection of rumors and hearsay than a "scandal" worthy of inclusion here. Until this case results in any legal action it falls in the scope of "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and is as such unacceptable. Although Mato Mlinarić was appointed to the post of agriculture adviser, the decision was rescinded only a few hours later. This could be included in the article but I don't see how it would improve it (mention of non-notable person whose only spell of notability lasted a few hours hardly has anything to do with a president's four-year term in office and sounds like trivia to me). On the other hand I'm surprised nobody mentioned the only adviser who actually was in the center of a minor scandal. I'm talking about the journalist Drago Pilsel, a controversial guy in his own right - to say the least - who was basically fired some 3 weeks after his appointment because he published a vulgar opinion piece. IMO that's the only case which potentially could be included here (although it would probably be better suited in an article on him if we had it). Grouping all these cases together and giving them a subsection is a clear case of WP:SYNTH and is precisely what the BLP header on top of this talk page warns about. Timbouctou 08:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


      • Actually... yes. Saša Perković and Zrinka Vrabec-Mojzeš... their cases might not be (much) relevant for this article.Although that was considered to be scandalous....But, case of Mato Mlinarić is very relevant! A case that president adviser/counselor has unpayed tax is top scandal everywhere.Josipović probably did not check him very well but it is still of his concern.

Plus removal of criticism [4] is also against WP:NPOV

--Kennechten (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only criteria for inclusion of such "scandals" in Josipović's article should be whether or not the incidents had any political consequences for him and his term in office. If you could provide any credible references which say that they did (for example polls which showed that his popularity fell because of them or perhaps articles by mainstream commentators who claimed that these were damaging to Josipović's presidency in their opinion pieces) we might have a reason to include them. The mere fact that there were some problems with his staff members does not have to have any bearing for his lasting legacy and unless you can prove otherwise these mini scandals should be ignored. All a random reader might conclude by reading about Mlinarić is that Josipović's team failed to do a background check on a future member of his staff (which is every bit as boring and irrelevant as it sounds). As for the removal of criticism part - be sure to avoid WP:WORDS if you want that sort of stuff to stick. The removed section you linked to is not supported by a single reference and has constructions such as "He has been criticized by various people and political parties." (Which people? Which parties? Criticized for which issues/statements/actions? What makes them various? Are they coming from different ends of the political spectrum?) and "Most of the criticism is coming from the right wing (right-centre (formerly pure right) HSP, right wing HČSP and A-HSP, and far-right HOP)." (Says who? Again, what are they criticising him for? And if they are all right-wing parties, what makes them "various"? Did he piss off any lefties too?) The crucial thing here is that not only the reader has no clue if the statement is true - he also has no clue what these criticisms refer to, and most importantly - if these criticisms have had any effect on his image and mainstream popularity. For all an average reader knows, HOP might be the biggest political party in Croatia and perhaps HČSP is planning a huge protest which might attract 500,000 people in Zagreb. Of course, we who live in Croatia know that these are all marginal groups with seriously limited influence and that makings such a statement makes as much sense as saying that "Obama is often criticised by the Ku Klux Klan". I'm personally pretty indifferent to Josipović and see him as a bit of a lame and boring guy, but I actually think that having some criticism in the article could do good to its overall credibility because otherwise it might end up looking like his fan page. However, if you want to add critical opinions beware of weasel words, be sure to cite references (direct quotes would be awesome) and make sure to state what his critics are blaming him for. I'm sure one could find one of Ivan Miklenić's rants for that kind of thing (which are no small matter as he practically presents himself as the Catholic church's spokesman and often gets invited to programs like HRT's Otvoreno), or maybe one could quote some public figure who was for some reason unhappy with the recent Josipović-Tadić meetings in Vukovar and Zagreb (Milan Ivkošić's columns in Večernji list come to mind). In any case, keep in mind that this article is about an active politician in office, which means that the threshold for shenanigans is set very low Timbouctou 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article

[edit]

In tried fixing some of the glaring issues and copyedited it a bit, but there are still multiple issues with the present state of the article. I'm not really sure if I will have the time to fix these myself in the following days, so I thought I should list a few obvious ones here, should anyone interested in actually improving the article come by:

  • Third para of lede delves too much into details of his 2010 election. This should be dealt with in the body.
  • Fourth para of lede sounds like taken verbatim from his campaign pamphlets. This should be tightened and explained for readers - what exactly did he mean by "New Justice" (which is btw referred to as "Justice for Croatia" later in the article), etc.
  • Fifth para also seems like a collection of dates and percentages better suited elsewhere.
  • Biography section actually mixes biography and personal facts - the latter belong into a dedicated subsection at the end (by this I mean things like "he was a promising football player", who he is married to, how many children he has, what languages he speaks, etc). The Ante Josipović thing needs to be supported by reliable sources (Narod.hr is not one) or scrapped.
  • The Politics section reads like a list of offices and posts he held, without really saying what he did or saying anything about his role in the wider political context.
  • The President of Croatia looks like a random list of his visits and mini-scandals which daily media feed on (i.e. remnants of WP:RECENT). It is not really a good representation of his five years in office, especially now that there are many overviews available in the media. (For example, the "scandals" with counselors are pretty miniscule to be mentioned at all in perspective.)
  • The Standing in Opinion Polls section also looks like a collection of statistics, with no explanation as to why his popularity rose or fell. There's plenty of analysts in mainstream media who could be quoted for interpretations of his time in office and his standings in polls.
  • Some links seem to be dead, others inappropriate (like his official campaign resume quotes 9 times in article body) or plain unreliable (like hrsvijet.net)
  • Assuming a section on his time in office and the positive things he did gets written, another section on criticism could be added summarizing what he was criticised for by the media and opponents. After all, he lost his last election, a reader should have some idea as to why.
  • The Opinion polls table also gives poor explanations of specific dates ("Apologizes in Croatia's name" - for what? to whom? who knows?)

Just my 2 cents. Timbouctou (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making changes to this article that are making it messy. Today is the first day he is no longer the President and for 5 year you did not find time to change this article, and now you are working overtime to add unnecessary data and change the whole article. You can not change history so please do not make any changes before you put them on talk. To many citations are unnecessary and just make the article look like a joke. So please stop making unnecessary changes, allready other users don't agree with what you do, so please stop making changes to this article. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its good work, Tuvixer... The dates are unnecessary imo, as they're inconsistent with standard infobox use, there's a sentence that's been removed for no reason, and I don't see why a cn tag was introuduced in the lede... but otherwise I can't find anything wrong here - and I hate Timbouctou's guts! :D
Anyway, if you have objections be more specific. -- Director (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Timbouctou will you stop reverting? And leave it as it is? Also i think that considering member of Sabor, there should be only one section, from 2003 to 2010. So if it is ok, i will change that, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he really starts edit-warring again over this bull, report him on ANI. -- Director (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Direktor: how is this citation tag "silly". I was not referring to the stats but to the beginning of the sentence, claiming Josipović was "almost unknown to the general public". I somehow doubt that he was and nothing in his biography implies he was anonymous at all. Timbouctou (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvixer, you have to be more specific I'm afraid and you do need to look for some policy-based arguments. Timbouctou (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then bloody-well tag the first part of the sentence... Please. That's not how the template is supposed to be used. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is supposed to refer to the entireity of the sentence. I thought that much was clear. Timbouctou (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the entirety of the sentence doesn't need a citation, does it?
And are you seriously edit-warring over those dates? Its just not done. As far as I can remember, they're sometimes added if there are a lot of officials in the parameter, but even then very rarely or not at all. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not done? Is there any policy-based argument or is Tuvixer just edit-warring over petty shit because he feels like it? The only reason why the guy reverted two dates ten times for Chrissakes is that he never saw that before. Dear God. Timbouctou (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policy here is WP:CONSENSUS, and you (should) know that. But beyond that I guess people are trying to keep infoboxes as tidy as possible - you can just click on the pm and see when he was in office, that's what wwikilinks are for. And besides, this is supposed to be about him, directly... I did see it before, but I don't think its warranted here.
And you reverted him too, goddamnit! What about WP:BRD?! You seem to think whenever you edit-war its only the other guy who reverts. -- Director (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. I just thought it would be informative to know that out of five years in office, four were in parallel with Milanovic and only one with Kosor. But I guess not. The article has much more glaring issues than that anyway. As for Tuvixer, he just reverts everything without thinking. He reverted correct office dates, then when the source was supplied he left the dates but removed the reference, saying it was "not necessary". Not to mention the "he is not a jurist" thing, which didn't even stop after a Reuters source was added. I guess he never saw that word before either. Perhaps our policy should allow only edits Tuvixer can understand/agree with. I'm too scared to imagine what articles would look like. Timbouctou (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is a law professor, and you can't change facts Timbouctou. ;) I have reverted dates because there was no citations. And when I saw citations I changes false dates on other articles. Jurist is a different term than law professor, not used in Croatian high education system and not even in the Croatian language. So no, he is not a jurist. ;) And yes he is a law professor. ;) Jurist is an archaic term. Modern day term is pravnik=lawyer or profesor prava=law professor, or best criminal law profesor. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so Croatian people working for Reuters in Croatia and reporting about Croatia for the past 20+ years are idiots, and you, an anonymous account on Wikipedia, are right? Jurist is a term in wide usage in English (especially British English), and the reason it is used widely is to distinguish laywers (people applying law in practice) from the ones researching law and the theory of law (i.e. jurists). A "law professor" is just somebody who teaches law to future lawyers. I find it incomprehensible you can argue with a rock solid source staring you in the face. We don't have an equivalent for that in Croatian, but that does not mean it does not exist - just like we don't have a word for jurisprudence - the study of law. You are just dumbing down the article. And your constant rants about "changing history" and the assorted political paranoia are becoming really, really, really, annoying and tiresome. Timbouctou (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please again, do not discuss about things you do not understand. Are you a lawyer? I happen to know for a fact that we have a word in Croatian language for jurisprudence, it is "jurisprudencija" and it is often used in literature and common talk between lawyers when discussing such topics. Are those who work for Reuters lawyers, no they are not and they, like you, do not understand the difference. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are nothing but an anyonymous editor who is forced to rely on references and citations. Are you literate? Read the policies. If not, go get a different type of hobby. Fight for "history" someplace else. Timbouctou (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source from 2007., time when he was not President. http://www.tax-fin-lex.hr/StaticContent/Events/izjava_IvoJosipovic.pdf So again, he is a law professor and a lawyer.
http://www.ivojosipovic.com/pravna.php?lang=hr Here again, law professor --Tuvixer (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and here is the title of the article reporting about his 2010 election win: "Jurist Josipovic wins Croatia presidential election" (Reuters U.S. edition) Reuters consistently calls him a "jurist", and other media outlets report it as well - Yahoo News, Voice of America, Wall Street Journal, Tanjug, Business Insider, etc. But I guess they are all idiots. And I guess you're implying Josipovic is an idiot too since he never bothered to correct the media during his five years in office. There's also Daily Telegraph (via AFP: "Critics say he [is] colourless and failed to shake his "boring image of a jurist and a professor""). Timbouctou (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what a "source" is. Go consult WP:RS. Timbouctou (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided two from Croatia, and they are many more confirming that President Ivo Josipović is a law professor and a lawyer. You have provided all sources from America, go and ask a friend of yours who is a lawyer, if you live in Croatia, and he will tell you that President Josipović is a law profesor and not a jurist.
Again more sources all from Croatia: http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/biografija-predsjednicki-kandidat-ivo-josipovic---365304.html , http://josipovic.hr/biography/ , http://predsjednik.hr/Zivotopis --Tuvixer (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, but this is not the Croatian Wikipedia. No reason to use them if we have even better sources in English. And we already discussed why the term is barely used in Croatian. Timbouctou (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term is not used at all. What is wrong with you? Why don't you leave me alone? Is it so hard to accept and confess you were wrong? There is no better source then one from Croatia talking about Croatian President, and there is no better source than his own biography. Do you live in Croatia? --Tuvixer (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor of law" isn't really a profession, its more an occupation, a job. "Jurist" makes more sense to describe him as a person, in that its more indicative of a profession. And the Reuters citation is a good source for an intro sentence (short of perhaps, an encyclopedia of some sort). Further, as far as I know, he is not currently a professor of law. If he's not actually, currently employed in that capacity, or perhaps holding an honorary professorship of some sort(?), he is not a "professor" right now. "Professor" is (usually) not a title, like "doctor".. its a job. That said, it definitely should be made clear he was a professor of law - i.e. a jurist of sufficient standing to have been a professor in the field.

And that's why I restored the sentence that points out he had been a professor during a period - its right there, in the lede. So I don't see the point of all this now? -- Director (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has the title of Professor. But ok, if you think this is ok, how it is then ok. Just to clarify. It is annoying to see Timbouctou argue again after so many errors he made and he did not even apologized. But he does not have to, it is all in the past. I mean he was so passionate about dates next to PMs, and he even knows he was wrong, this is so annoying. I don't know, Timbouctou, if you are a right wing fanatic, why are you editing articles of leftist persons? I have never edited a article about the criminal organization hdz, and their members. So why are you obsessed with Josipović, and most funny you make edits on the first day he is out of office. For 5 years you did not find content of this article flawed. You are obviously politically biased and have multiple profiles. If it talks like a troll, if it... I am primary here because of only one article that I am editing for a long period now and I have never made a edit that has favored one political party or position. This can not be said for you. Think about that, Timbouctou. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Professor" isn't usually a "title", not really.. its a teaching job (his academic "title" is Doctor of Philosophy, I assume). That's basically the issue here. He isn't currently a professor if he isn't working in that capacity, or has an honorary tenure (which I'm not sure if he does, does he?). -- Director (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In his case it is a title and profession and job, because in academic community they have after the doctorate, I don't know how this titles are in English so I will write them in Croatian, after the doctorate they have "docentura" and gain the title Doc. dr. sc., after that "profesura" and the title Prof. dr. sc. And Josipović is Prof. dr. sc., so that is his academic title. He has again activated his job on the University and you can say that he is not a composer because he did not compose for last 4 years, but he is a composer because you can not make such assessments. So the profession is Law Professor, and his title is Prof. dr. sc. I hope I was clear. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:LEDE (and stop with your insults or you will be reported and blocked in a heartbeat). The opening sentence must mention what the person is most notable for, not the title as written on his university diploma. This is how it works in the English-speaking world. Croatians seem to think that once somebody graduated from university he is forever called "professor" or that the degree somehow defines them permanently. We recently had an equally inept editor of the same political persuasion insisting Vesna Pusić is a "sociologist and philosopher" in the lede. Not really. A "professor of law" is somebody teaching law. A "composer" is somebody known for composing music. A "jurist" is someone who studies and teaches jurisprudence. If anything, "law professor" is included in the meaning of the word since you can't "teach jurisprudence" anywhere other than at an university. Hence, all jurists are or were "professors of law" but not all professors of law are jurists. For Christ sake. Timbouctou (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done here, then? Great.. -- Director (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19th president of Croatia?

[edit]

Also, in modern day Croatia presidents are counted since the independence of the nation, so Ivo is indeed the 3rd president. Even if you count the presidents from 1945 (which again there is no reason for that) it is doubtfull that he is the 19th since SR Croatia had a collective leadership and prior 1945 there were other state posts that were equivalent to the modern day president (like the Ban). There is also no source that confirms that he is the 19th head of state. That is why I will remove this footnote. EDIT. The web site of the office of the President of Croatia names only three head of states http://predsjednik.hr/BivsiPredsjednici01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.229.161 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ivo Josipović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ivo Josipović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivo Josipović. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ivo Josipović. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivo_Josipović&oldid=1210098210"