Talk:Ivo Sanader

Comments

The English in this needs to be changed by a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.109.158 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure anyone can see that the section I listed as "POV-check" was clearly written with a biased view of things. Although, I still want to hear what others have to say about the matter before actually changing it. xompanthy 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written the section trying to be as objective as I could. I tried to state only those things which are universally accepted as true and/or verifiable. EurowikiJ 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Definately an improvment, I must say. Now to rework the "early political career" a bit, since it contains a few POV phrasings. -- xompanthy 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and can anyone find and image of Dr. Ivo Sanader that falls under the GPL or sth simliar? I really believe this article needs a photo. -- xompanthy 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV remarks from the Political career section focusing on verifiable information. EurowikiJ 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I must say EurowikiJ, I like what you have done to the article. It really needed a good clean-up. xompanthy 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So glad to hear it. Thanks. EurowikiJ 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Raoul DMR' additions

FYI this article is an encyclopedia entry, not your personal blog or some tabloid. Therefore, please refrain from (re)inserting POV remarks. Besides, I particularly dislike that your additions have a strong and pervasive undercurrent of homophobia. The article is not about you (dis)liking this individual, but about a list of verifiable and indisputable facts about the person. EurowikiJ 12:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that mentioning someone's "large Catholic family" background qualifies as POV.

I admit that the use of the word "hardline" might sound too harsh, but labels like "hardliner", "moderate" and "liberal" represent a useful way to illustrate evolution of Sanader's views and rhetoric.

I did try to take some of POV complaints into account and use more neutral terms in my revision.

The article describing his mandate should also reflect the fact that Sanader, like any other democratically elected public official, divides the public into supporters and opponents. So, the praise for his accomplishments should be balanced by mentioning issues addressed by his critics.

--Raoul DMR 12:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone should be blamed for "strong and pervasive undercurrents of homophobia", it is the people who started circulating the rumours or the host of nationally televised show who tried to turn prime minister's sexuality into public issue.

Ignoring this event in Wikipedia article could be interpreted as censorship. And I don't think that mentioning the event itself represents smearing of someone's reputation. On the contrary, Sanader acted much more responsibly than most of his colleagues when put in such unpleasant situation. --Raoul DMR 13:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"a large Catholic family" hardly qualifies for an entry under "Political career". Adjectives "hardline" and "moderate" only illustrate your perception of Sanader's views and rhetoric not some "evolution". Remeber, that others might disagree. This article is not a forum for expressing our love or irritation with someone but rather a place to list indisputable and verifiable facts. In a nutshell, your version is a reflection of your political views. However, I remind you that this is not your blog, but an encyclopaedia entry.

Also refrain from using one's speculation about one's sexuality as a way of denouncing one's political views with which you obviously disagree. Also do not try to indirectly portray them to present the individual in a negative light. The fact that you use someone else's remarks doesn't absolve you of responsibility as, I remind you, you purport that your additions are NPOV.

You may consider allusion about someone's homosexuality "unpleasant", but that is considered to be bigotery and homophobic. Even so, in no case do the speculations belong to the article. EurowikiJ 13:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether I agree or disagree with prime minister's or anyone's views is not the point. The aim of my edits is greater objectivity and larger level of information in this article.

I recognise that such level of objectivity might be hard to achieve and that articles dealing with politicians currently in office often tend to cross the fine line that separates objective information from positive/negative propaganda.

The best way to avoid this is to find a middle ground by presenting both sides of certain issues. This should, in my opinion, prevent any unecessary edit wars or at least allow clear distinction between those who make constructive additions by offering different points of view and vandals. The last thing I want is to make this article or any similar articles into the domain of the latter.

Instead of calling different contributors names, I would prefer constructive dialogue on what constitutes "objectivity", "verifiable and undisputable facts" or "subjective perception". For example, does a sentence mentioning Sanader's tenure in Croatian National Theatre in Split - which was his first public office - represent POV? --Raoul DMR 14:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I inadvertently deleted the Croatian National Theatre remark. I have no objection to including it. I think you understand the points to which I object. This is an encyclopaedia article which should cite facts and not our or someone else's interpretations - a neutral article that lets the reader reach conclusions on their own. I don't want to redress the balance by describing Racan's cabinet as inefficient etc. because that would also be bias. Someone might rightly point out to the Association agreement that was concluded under his leadership. What I am trying to say is that this is not about party politics and PR for this or that party nor is it about your or mine convictions but about an article that consists of verifiable facts. EurowikiJ 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am an American who has been living in Croatia for the past year, and from experience with people of greatly differing political backgrounds, Ivo Sanader is not a liked man. This article, however, is very rosy- any controversies involving Sanader were pursued by 'tabloids' and ignores a number of Croatia mafia affiliations that have been tied to him. I would be very unsuprised if the people editing this page have ties with HDZ, Sanader's party. If possible, I would find more sources from current events (newspapers and magazines) that reflect a balanced opinion.

Edit article vandalism?

I've edited references to Ivo Sanader as "Ivo Srajnader" and some other unsourced statements such as "so Ivo's mother asked the rector of a Catholic school to accept him into his school as a daemon". I've also noticed on the part of the article to the right where is religion is stated as "Satanist". Has anyone noticed such editing?

I don't care how much the edit vandal(s) feel about the Croatian PM (or any other politician for that matter), Wikipedia should not be a place for such partisan political character assassinations, but rather should be as a source of reference. There are plenty of such sites out there where the edit vandals can vent their views. Just because the Sanader Government cracked down on a Facebook account critical of the PM, does not give the before mentioned vandals the 'right' to use Wikipedia as some sort of platform to ridicule, criticise or what-have-you.

High school

“The Sanader family could not afford high school study for all of their children, so Ivo's mother asked the rector of a Catholic high school to accept him into his school”. That´s bullshit. Schools and universities in Yugoslavia used to be free of charge.--Speidelj (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

US credit union connection?

A simple google search for random unrelated sources gives me practically nothing. It's true that this credit union failed but I don't see anyone other than an anonymous on Wikipedia mentioning Sanader. WP:BLP policy clearly applies... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Guilty!

Ivo Sanader has been found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison today! :D --93.136.113.166 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Judicial reforms

Quote:

Under Sanader, judicial reforms in Croatia stopped and the land registry issue was not resolved. Over 1.3 million court cases (in a country of 4.1 million people) were yet to be resolved in 2009.

Yet, according to this source, there were 795 thousand unresolved cases in 2009, down from 1.64 million in 2004 - on the face of it, that seems like a success story, rather than stagnation. I was tempted to simply change the figure (per source), but I think a more in-depth analysis is needed here. GregorB (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)