Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia

Neutrality of "Access to IVF for same-sex couples"

This section makes some significant claims with regard to the Croatian Democratic Union, none of which are mentioned in the article on that party. The section also alleges that the Catholic Church is cooperating with this party and that the Church is influencing the law. These claims, as they are, appear to be simple speculation and have no reliable sources to back them up. I am not Croatian, and don't have much knowledge of this matter, but I think the section needs to be reworded significantly. If I have time I may reword it with the information that's present there, but I would prefer someone else with more knowledge fix it. Jargon777 Leave a message 17:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved since, for anyone reading this talk page. Jargon777 Leave a message 17:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made changes in the introduction. I have been working on this article for some time now, and am trying to keep it up to date. As many other articles on wikipedia use a brief history of the event, or events dealt with in the article as an introduction, I thought this would be a really good thing to do as the reader will get the general picture of LGBT rights in Croatia before going into details in the rest of the article. As you can see all this is based on facts, and I have provided links of the official documents published that deal with this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo of a document proving a man had been sentenced to death for being a homosexual

Is this photograph really necessary? By all means, do mention that in the article, but by putting that photo you are drawing so much attention on it, which is not really positive as Croatia is making some great progress on LGBT rights. Also, this is in Croatian, and for those who don't understand should know that he was primarily sentenced for using his position to sleep with other men, so the verdict was not solely based on his homosexuality. So I propose we remove it. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional definition of a marriage

Croatian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is not banned. Constitution does not say "same-sex marriage is banned." I see that some people have difficulties understanding that. All the countries that don't have same-sex marriage legal limit marriage to opposite-sex couples through a family code, or a constitution. Of course, in that situation it is not possible to have same-sex marriage, but that is de facto. De iure same-sex marriage is not banned. Please stick to what the law says. We are not here for personal interpretation, especially from people who don't understand the law. Countries like Finland, Italy etc. all have marriages defined as a union between a man and a woman in their family codes, but you wouldn't say those countries banned same-sex marriage simply because they haven't. The only difference between a constitution and a family code is that constitution is more difficult to change. The rest is the same. 11raccoon1 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition effectively bans same-sex marriage, like in the other 13 countries it is banned. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from that, the definition is interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage in the media too: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013, in the lead says: "The proposed amendment to the constitution would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, which would create a constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage." Therefore, I would like to ask everyone to stop reverting my edit about the constitutional ban, and just simply get over it. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

History

Can you please keep this article accurate and stop duplicating paragraphs? History of LGBT movement in Croatia has been well explained. The bit where the referendum is explained already exists in the article, and it is so unnecessary to have it at the beginning of the article, plus what PM and the Church might have thought. That was all explained already. You cannot have thorough explanations and analysis at the beginning, and then again later in the article. Additionally, Life Partnership Act was not passed in 2013. Some people obviously do not understand Croatian law-making process. The Government accepted and created the law in 2013, but when that happens Sabor ( Croatian Parliament ) is the next step. Government and Parliament are two different things like in most countries. Government is an executive body which creates laws, and it is up to the parliament whether to pass the law or not. Until that happens no law exists or has been passed in a way it would make any difference because MPs have the right to ask for amendments etc. Can you please learn the difference between an executive body and a legislative body?

Another thing as well. It is fairly obvious the Church was one of the main forces behind the referendum, but there is no specific evidence of that. It is easy to come to conclusion about many things, but as far as we are concerned here the referendum was a result of an initiative group called "In the name of the Family." Catholic Church obviously did offer their support, but any other conspiracy theories should be left for discussions outside Wikipedia. If you wish to add anything about the referendum there is a paragraph called "Politics and Public opinion" and please add everything you think it's relevant about the referendum, but has not been mentioned, there.

I work really hard on this article and appreciate every contribution, but can we please keep this accurate and consistent? I personally know exactly how Croatian law-making process works, and try to keep everything very accurate without speculations and personal interpretations of the law.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave my paragraph about the role of the Catholic church and the constitutional change in the history section. Thanks. The material is supported by sources and I think the constitutional change gets lost in the section at the back on public opinion. In fact, the whole article is quite difficult to read and could do with a bit of improvement. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then create a separate heading in the public opinion bit, and referendum will be properly emphasised if that's what you want. Or even better, do another separate paragraph. I honestly don't see how this article is hard to read. It gives a nice brief look on history, and then it's divided into sections as it should be. Have you actually been through all the other articles on LGBT rights? This article is one of the most sorted out. It has a separate paragraph for every issue LGBT community deals with, and gives links to main articles on certain issues and topics. I always accept constructive criticism and am more than happy to improve, but I strongly disagree that this article is a mess, because unlike most other articles it is supported by sources, and it is one of the most informative articles on LGBT rights. Having an article that has a sentence serving as a paragraph like in others is not a good article. Easy to read maybe, but far from being informative. Contents table is there for a reason.

It's not about what you wrote, but where it is. History is there to give a brief look at major happenings in 2010s or any other decade, and then the rest of the article deals with all the changes in more detail. My problem was that history bit deals with the referendum so much, and then in the public opinion bit you have more-less the same, plus everything else on it. Following that, we could write all about Life Partnership Act, 2003 law on same-sex unions etc. in the history bit, but we don't cause there is no point. It is all explained later in the article where it should be. I will not modify what you've done anymore, but I strongly suggest you create a separate paragraph on referendum, and move things you wrote, plus everything else on referendum in public opinion. It cannot get more emphasised than that, if you believe it got lost in the section. 11raccoon1 (talk)

I'm happy to be constructive but I think the history section should act as an overview covering the key points. The constitutional change is part of that. It's too important to bury in public opinion - and isn't really related to public opinion in the broadest sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor's renewed reinsertion of material that two other editors have deleted as a duplicate, first on 16 July and again on 23 July, requires an explanation. Is it not a duplicate? Esoglou (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, we agree on the fact that history section should act as an overview, and it clearly says that referendum was one of the major happenings in 2010s, and it explains what the referendum was. You cannot get better than that. If you're going to start writing what the bishops said, PM said etc. you might as well put everything about the referendum in the history bit, which would be unnecessary. And in the Politics and Public opinion referendum has a special paragraph. If the referendum is not part of politics than I don't know what is. 11raccoon1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're happy 11raccoon1 We can agree then to leave the paragraph as it is and avoid expanding it further. Esoglou - perhaps you might want to take a look at the rest of my contributions list to see whether you can find anything else that I've edited concerning the Catholic church so that you can make your usual changes? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to see that agreement has been reached to keep the paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias

Upon reading the section 'LGBT pride', which I changed to a more neutral 'Public promotion of LGBT issues', I came to a conclusion that the section is biased. I have found these statements as the most biased:

• "Public support is growing and number of participants is also increasing rapidly year after year, but they have experienced violent public opposition." No figures, no references, no back-up.
• "LGBT issues activists criticized the government for the lack of punishment of the offenders and called this a violation of human rights." No references.
• "[...] countries where the sociopolitical climate is not ripe for the organization of Pride events [...]" Not ripe? I suggest the word 'pride be replaced with 'Public promotion of LGBT issues', because the word 'Pride' gives it a liberal bias.
• "2011 is considered to be a turning point in a Pride's history as it was held a week after the first unsuccessful Split Pride, and it was emphatically supported by the media and politicians" No references, 'Pride' as per above, 'emphatically', in my opinion is a redundant word here.
• "Around 4,000 people marched while many of the bystanders loudly supported the LGBT community" No references, 'loudly supported the LGBT community' gives it a liberal bias.
• "It was also reported that number of policemen securing pride was lower than previous years." No references, 'Pride' as per above.
• "Pride held in 2013 was the biggest one so far, with record-breaking 15,000 participants" 'Record-breaking' is redundant, 'Pride' as per above.
• "First LGBT pride in Split took place on 11 June 2011. The pride was not successful as the security was not strong enough [...] so the pride had to be cancelled" 'Pride' as per above, 'Successful' introduces bias.
• "Pride in 2012 was successful, and enjoyed major support from the Croatian media, celebrities, and politicians" 'Pride' as per above, 'successful' as per above, no reference.
• "Five ministers from the government participated [...]" No references.
• "Many bystanders showed support for the pride, while opponents were unable to approach the participants." No references, 'Pride' as per above.

Furthermore, the section is one-sided, it includes no opposition to the promotion. Thank you, – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Although it is nice you try to improve this article, your references about Catholic Church and conservatism should not be part of this article. Croatia is a secular country where Church is not creating laws. So this is based on your views and hearsay. I will delete that. Government is the one who creates the laws, and that is the only thing we care about here as we talk about facts. Secondly, access to IVF and what lesbian couples along with doctors would do should not be part of an article. That is pure speculation.

IVF law in Croatia is dealing with infertility, and everyone who has a problem with that has an access to it. That law does not deal with lesbian couples what so ever. You haven't read the law and are not familiar to it. Thirdly, you are also not familiar with the Life Partnership Act. LGBT adoption is NOT legal ok? Constitution does not BAN same-sex marriage. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There are people who worked hard on this article, and you change it to speculation and personal interpretation of the laws, and we cannot and won't have it. Why did you delete LGBT from LGBT adoption? Article deals with LGBT adoption, not adoption as itself.

Public opinion comes last after we deal with legal issues, but you put it before other things that are far more important. That chart is also unnecessary. That poll was not a big poll and it does not need a chart. Are we going to have charts for every minor research? Also, in English language there is no dot after the year. For example, you wrote (2012.,). That is incorrect. Attitude of politicians? Really? What is that all about? Why do you have to change grammatically correct headlines and paragraphs that are perfectly acceptable? There are some people working hard on this article, and everything that has happened in Croatia so far has been noted, so what were you trying to do?

I am sorry if I'm being rude, it is not my intention, but if you are going to change bits regarding laws would you mind discussing it with people who work on this constantly? And why change it? What was the main drive behind it? You change accurate description of the law into personal interpretation, and then write things that are not true. Public promotions??? What? Gay pride is a pride! It is a march. Zagreb Pride and Split Pride are official names of this events!!! Record-breaking is not redundant because there was no pride bigger than that yet!

Have you read any of these laws, do you speak Croatian?

If you do something like that again unfortunately I will have to start a dispute. You cannot just change the whole article and put personal interpretations in it. Do you know how much research has gone into it? And after all that and how you talk about personal interpretations you write that same-sex marriage in Croatia is not legal due to the pressure from Catholic Church. What? Same-sex marriage is not legal because there is not enough support for it in the Parliament. That's the whole logic of the story.

You have also deleted things that were supported with references, but you obviously missed it. I am very sad to see somebody doing this. What happens in Poland where you are from is one thing, but this is an article about LGBT rights in Croatia, and we don't need homophobic comments that underrate LGBT prides and call them "promotion!, and we don't need opposition, because this article talks about who and why is against LGBT rights.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost: You, or NOBODY owns this article. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Everyone is welcome to edit this article, and by doing so they agree for anyone to change it. My "references about Catholic Church and conservatism", which, according to you, should not be part of this article, actually should be part of it, because of WP:NPOV.

You say that "Government is the one who creates the laws, and that is the only thing we care about here as we talk about facts.". False. We do not only talk about laws, we also talk about LGBT propaganda, I noticed a section on LGBT tourism... Therefore, to have a neutral point of view, we need to have opposition, which you are so afraid of.

I didn't add the IVF part, and from what you're telling me, I would actually agree with you.

The adoption under the 'Life Partnership Act' is guardian-partnership, which gets a Y/N mark.

The constitution DOES ban same-sex marriage, please see two sections up and all the other LGBT rights in x where same-sex marriage is banned. Take Poland for example, whose Constitution states: "Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland." The Minister for Justice, in 2013, said that this effectively bans all same-sex unions. It is not speculation and personal interpretation of the law.

The article deals with LGBT "rights", therefore the LGBT is redundant in that subheading.

I added a chart for the latest opinion poll on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption for some LGBT rights in x articles, with all of them in my plan. It does not matter whether the study is big or small.

Public opinion is one of the most important aspects of this article, because in a democratic society it is the people who, in the end, decide on matters. I would insist that it be as comprehensive as the one in LGBT rights in Poland#Social attitudes and public opinion.

The year part is just being a prick. You know very well that that was a typo.

I changed the headings and paragraphs because they are NOT acceptable. They are biased. They have a liberal bias, which I removed. I will not stand queer propagnda.

Give examples of "personal interpretations".

There is no rule that says that I have to consult edits with editors. (WP:BE BOLD)

"Gay pride" is liberal bias. Get over it. "Queer propaganda" is conservative bias. "Public promotion of LGBT issues" is neutral.

I removed that sentence from LGBT tourism because IT WAS NOT RELEVANT to the article.

This article DOES need opposition, because of WP:NPOV.

Thank you, – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK let's start again. Croatian Constitution says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman", and as long as the Constitution says that it will say that in this article as well. We do not need your personal interpretation of the law because you are not a barrister. When you find where the Constitution says "same-sex marriage is banned" then change it. Until then it stays the way it is! I am not interested in what some Polish minister had to say about it. I am asking you again: HAVE YOU READ CROATIAN CONSTITUTION? Just YES or NO would be enough.

Zagreb Pride is an official name of the march, and it is also an official name of the organisation behind it. And as long as that is official name IT WILL STAY THAT WAY. Before you change things you could at least read about it. http://www.zagreb-pride.net/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=78&lang=hr This is the link to an official Zagreb Pride web site.

I never said this is my article, but I have contributed the most. People often edit things I write, and most of the times I am grateful because it is constructive. What you are doing here is anything but constructive. What opposition do you want? Wikipedia is not a parliament or a newspaper. Almost every paragraph in this article talks about who is against LGBT rights. And it is not in Wikipedia's interest for people to write things they know nothing about. Nobody benefits from it.

You are also asking for citations under living conditions. Well, have you actually checked all the references at the end of that paragraph? I f you could be bothered to do that you will find that there is an official LGBT guide for the city of Zagreb, together with the rest.

Commenting on your English is not being a prick. This is an English version of Wikipedia, and it should be edited by people who have great understanding of English language. You don't. "Public promotion" is not something that can be used when we talk about human rights. You publicly promote a product, a service etc. You cannot promote fight for human rights. It just sounds wrong. And I will change it to what it was because official names of these prides are Zagreb Pride and Split Pride. I suggest you stop changing it because it will take us nowhere.

And in that pie chart you also use words that make no sense. You cannot say "extremely against" or "extremely for." There is a big difference between the word "extremely," and "strongly." Strongly is the word that should be used here because anything else makes no sense. You also wouldn't say "mainly against." You say "mostly against." Your English makes no sense.

I can see that you are very homophobic, but Wikipedia is not the place for your personal frustration. And stop using homophobic language. There is no propaganda in this article what so ever. And when you say "queer propaganda" that is actually very offensive to gay people, and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody reported you for it. But it could be your lack of understanding what certain words mean. The problem you have is that you "literally" translate things from you native tongue Polish into English, and you cannot do that as they are very different languages.

I will change this article back to what it was. If you want to delete certain sentences fine, but first check all the references, because you clearly haven't done so. And before you change anything else you read Croatian Constitution, and Life Partnership Act. Once you can prove that the Constitution banns same-sex marriage change it. But until then it will stay just as the law says. And if you feel you need to fight against gay people find another place, because you will not win this. What the law says is what is says in the article. Your personal views of Catholic Church, of what the law might say are not needed. And READ everything before you edit it. READ the references, read the Constitution, and read other laws. Then we can progress. What is you problem with LGBT rights in Croatia? Are you trying this with other articles as well? And why write something you know nothing about? 11raccoon1 — Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As I have said: "The definition effectively bans same-sex marriage, like in the other 13 countries it is banned. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from that, the definition is interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage in the media too: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24873498, http://www.smh.com.au/world/croatians-vote-to-outlaw-gay-marriage-20131202-2ym69.html, http://world.time.com/2013/12/01/croatians-vote-in-favor-of-banning-same-sex-marriage/, http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/europe/celebrations-croatia-bans-gay-marriage, http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/131201-croatia-votes-on-move-to-ban-gay-marriage. The article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013, in the lead says: "The proposed amendment to the constitution would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, which would create a constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage." Therefore, I would like to ask everyone to stop reverting my edit about the constitutional ban, and just simply get over it. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)"

I don't understand your opposition to me removing the liberal term 'Pride' from Zagreb and Split, because the section doesn't have to talk just about that one event.

WP:NPOV says: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." In order to have that, you need to have opposition. How do you not understand that?

You claim I do not have a great understanding of English. I do. I grew up in Ireland. You can publicly promote an ideology (Propaganda). Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights#Article 12 - marriage states that marriage between a man and a woman is a human right, not between two people of the same sex. I suggest we both actually stop editing this article for the time of this dispute.

In the pie chart, I used the words in the reference, which were the terms used in the study.

I am not putting my personal frustration on Wikipedia. I see that this article is liberally biased, so I changed it to more neutral wording, which you challenged.

Why would a lecture of the Constitution, and of that law be necessary for editing this article? I am not interested in that, I am interested in the liberal bias in this article!

The views of the Catholic Church ARE needed in this article, because the Catholic Church is the biggest opposition group to same-sex marriage, along with over 60% of the Croatian population. I suggest you create a section called 'LGBT issues opposition' or something like that to put more weight onto the other side. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 11:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Words used in the research are not "extremely" or "mainly", but "strongly" and "mostly". Do you speak Croatian? No you don't, so stop translating from a language that you don't speak. You grew up in Ireland? Well, you should have worked better on your English then. The fact that the Constitution DE FACTO prevents something is not the same as DE JURE, or what is actually written there.

And again you are admitting you haven't actually read the Constitution. But you want to change this article. That is just fantastic isn't it! You even ask the question why is it necessary to know the Constitution before changing this? Are you for real??? So you write something you know nothing about. LOL

Pride is the OFFICIAL NAME OF THE EVENT, and there are two in Croatia at the moment. How long does it take you to understand that??? You don't even believe in what you read! Catholic Church is mentioned several times in this article and its opposition to LGBT rights so what is your problem? Your problem is homophobia, and the fact you hate the word pride. You want to describe LGBT rights as propaganda because you personally oppose to them. This article will say exactly what is written, whether you like it or not. And I will change it over and over again. Besize, if you have a problem you shouldn't have changed it in the first place, and should have start a conversation about what your problem is exactly. Living conditions section has references so would you care to read them???

LGBT rights are not a propaganda, but civil protests etc. You take your homophobia somewhere else. You're in the wrong place. And don't think we will allow that here. This article is not a promotion of anything, but a factual work of LGBT rights in Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I took that as a personal attack, one more and I will be taking action. I will apply for a resolution to this dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias and input your side of the story. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This article talks about opposition from the outset and throughout. So stop adding bits you have no references of. Read the article first. The Church and other opposition have been mentioned many times. And I don't appreciate when users ask their friends to add bits to make us think like it's someone else. They are exactly the same grammar mistakes as you made ok?

I want you to take this further, and then see how your homophobia, and classification of LGBT rights as propaganda will end up. Please take this further. I am all ready! Are you editing other articles as well? I will check that out, and then we will see what other people think about it as well. I am looking forward to it. Good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Except I didn't ask anyone to add anything. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to reply on everything I say. You change Zagreb Pride, eve though that is the official name of the march and organisation. So who do you think is gonna win this? Someone who writes the official stuff, or someone who dislikes LGBT people? As I said, take this further. I am looking forward to it. 11raccoon1 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop attacking other editors! You have attacked me and United Union (talk · contribs). Firstly, I didn't translate anything, the reference is in English. Well then add it in that de jure the Constitution defines marriage but de facto it bans it. I am pretty sure most of the editors editing LGBT rights in x articles have not read the Constitution of the country they are editing. It is redundant, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not a legal forum. Secondly, you may sit quietly about grammar because you make twice as much grammar mistakes as me and United Union (talk · contribs) taken together. The level 3 subheading is 'LGBT prides and other marches', therefore the 'Pride' in Zagreb and Split level 4 subheadings are redundant. You cannot WP:EDIT WAR, you are expected to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on edits. I will not respond to the rest as it is a personal attack on me. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You will not respond to other things because you stand no case. You open the debate and then you don't want to respond to things concerning the debate lol. You have just admitted changing what the constitution says without reading it.

Wikipedia is about accuracy. People who did not read the constitutions should not write about them. Reading the constitution is the base. How can you write about something you know nothing about? That is the problem with Wikipedia. I do not edit scientific articles because I know nothing about and I am not a scientist. Same as others should not edit articles they know nothing about. Your poor understanding of all this is the result of not understanding what de iure means. I am not interested in other articles. I am interested in this one. De facto is not the same as de iure. Grammar is not my weak point as yours because I actually do understand the difference between singular and plural for the start. You are free to correct my grammar mistakes. Please do. And if you are so particular about references you should notice that your mate created a paragraph based on his or her personal view, not supported by anything.11raccoon1 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about accuracy, Wikipedia is about verifiablity. The constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source, "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them..." It seems clear that 11raccoon1 is relying too much on primary sources and should be using more secondary sources. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, CombatWombat. As for 11raccoon1, he needs to take a break and actually see what de jure and de facto means, because, upon reading the relevant articles, I used them correctly. I also think he should go back to school, do an English language course, or just shut up. Everything in the Constitution regarding this subject has been described in reliable secondary sources as a constitutional ban. (BBC, Al Jazzera, etc.) In my opinion, I do not need to answer to insults, which 11raccoon1 wanted me to. Regarding his stance on scientific articles: People who edit scientific articles on Wikipedia are not scientists, for the most part. They reference their work with both primary and secondary sources to have a better and simpler understanding of the topic. No one is making you edit Wikipedia. If you think that that is a problem, you can leave or live with it! The article is written from a liberal viewpoint, I suggest we add more conservative viewpoints. But, 11raccoon1, if I don't stand a case, then why didn't you answer to what I wrote? – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A Polish high school guy is teaching me English. LOL...are you taking the piss or what? It is not my problem you got offended, and I told you, this article is not a place for conservative Catholics to give their point of view. For that you have other articles that deal with the issue. I don't know what you are playing at, but it is a very bad play. And yes I can leave it or live with it. I have chosen to live with it, so you will have me as your obstacle as long as it takes. And I will change this article again. You cannot stop it.

I will quote one sentence from this new paragraph: "Although same-sex marriage is not legal in Croatia registered partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal since 2014, and those partnerships have most of the rights and responsibilities that marriage offers also." Now, this is grammatically so wrong it almost offends anybody who can speak decent English. Can you tell me what the mistakes are in this sentences? Let us see how good your English really is. And remember, I'm from the UK. The rest of the paragraph is so badly written it is unreal. So t is obvious that you have a team who are backing you here. Trust me, it is very obvious.

You also added a bit about the referendum in paragraph that talks about legal status of same-sex relationships, even though there is a separate paragraph focusing solely on a referendum. And now we have 4 paragraphs referring to the referendum. Why? You are vandalising this article. 11raccoon1 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Plarem above has written: "I will not stand queer propagnda." (sic) I find this comment deeply offensive and homophobic. Plarem you have no business editing an article like this with such disgraceful opinions. Either address your POV or move on. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifics of a poll in the WP:LEAD

This: "Croatians are opposed to the introduction of same-sex marriages. In a 2014 opinion poll, 60.9% of Croats were against the introduction of those marriages, with only 17% being for. In a 2013 referendum, Croatians approved an amendment which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 65.87% were for the proposed amendment, 33.51% were against it. Turnout was 37.9%." was just added to the WP:LEAD it seems like it belongs (sourced of course) in the body as it is incredibly specific. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)o

Ok, I will shorten it down. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Source citations

Rather than pouring all your energies into bickering over the "facts", how about cleaning up source citations and discussing which ones are reliable. It would help if in the process you made use of the |trans_title= parameter so that non-Croatian readers will be able to glean something of them. Both sides here seem very confused about policies on this Wikipedia. We treat secondary sources as at least potentially more objective than primary ones. Authors almost always regard their own opinions as correct and important, which is the main reason we distrust primary sources. (Judicial decisions are a possible exception, as in most places judges are selected for their ability to demonstrate impartiality.) Our normal way of working, especially in controversial topic areas, is to focus on identifying high quality, secondary, independently-published sources, then select relevant parts of those sources to paraphrase in our articles. Both of you seem to be proceeding in the opposite fashion, seeking sources that support your idea of the "truth". That does not and cannot work on Wikipedia because it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which mostly includes anonymous editors. Readers should not be expected to trust someone they cannot know, so sourcing is critical to generating credibility. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes and resolving issues

In the light of recent conflicts and questioning about article's neutrality I would like to make few changes that I hope will satisfy everybody. The changes are as follows:

1. In the introduction I am going to make few slight changes, and will mention who the main proponents, and opponents to LGBT rights are. I will remove the sentence that says majority of Croats are against same-sex marriage. There will be dozens of polls including few hundreds or a thousand people, and I think we should just stick to the referendum which indeed showed majority of people do think marriage should be define as a union between a man and a woman. Polls are mentioned later in the paragraph.

2. I will remove the bit about the referendum from "Recognition of same-sex relationships" because the referendum is already mentioned in 3 different part of his article, and has a paragraph on its own. There is no need to write about something in every single paragraph. It's pointless.

3. I will remove few sentences from "Living conditions." Indeed there are some sentences that are not supported by adequate references. Even though people in Croatia are becoming more gay friendly, first sentence could be seen as somebody's personal view. Second sentence can be removed as well, despite the fact gay scene is indeed concentrated in biggest cities. Same goes for the third sentence. The rest should stay as it is supported by references. Zagreb is by far the largest city in Croatia with 800 000 inhabitants (metropolitan 1 200 000), and population of Croatia is only 4.3 million. An official guide for LGBT community for the city of Zagreb has been released, and indeed it showed most of the LGBT scene in Croatia is concentrated in Zagreb.

4. In the "politics and public opinion" paragraph there is a pie chart which I think really doesn't belong here. As mentioned before, there will be dozens of polls, and if we are going to have a chart for each and everyone we will end up with a mess. The results are mentioned in detail in the paragraph.

5. And the last change is about same-sex marriage. I do understand people like to think of the definition of a marriage in the Constitution as a ban, but de iure it is not. The only thing that happened as a result of the referendum is that the definition of a marriage has been copied from the family law. It is not a ban. Indeed, for the same-sex marriage to be legal the Constitution will have to be changed, but that's exactly the point. Nothing is set in stone, and nothing is banned. Constitution is a subject to change just as any other law is.

Most countries that have not legalized same-sex marriage have a definition of a marriage as a union between a man and a woman in their family laws, but we never say those countries banned same-sex marriage, even though it is exactly the same situation as it is in Croatia and some other countries. Otherwise same-sex marriage would be possible. 11raccoon1 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

While primary source (i.e constitution itself) does not say literally same-sex marriage is banned, the amendment is interpreted in this way by reliable secondary sources. According to Wikipedia policies, the articles should not be based solely on primary sources, reliable secondary sources also should be taken into account. You can't just to ignore that, because you don't like it or something...Ron 1987 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As you can see I am really trying to make this article as it should be. It has nothing to do with me liking something or not, but I see your point because media often interpret laws as they please, so I will not change that bit in the article anymore. And btw, if you go back you will see that I did not start edit war. Just for the record. Cheers 11raccoon1 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in LGBT rights in Croatia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT rights in Croatia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc":

• From Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013: Croatians back same-sex marriage ban in referendum BBC. 1 December 2012Retrieved 2 December 2012
• From Sexual orientation and military service: UK Gays win military legal battle BBC News, 27 September 1999
• From LGBT rights in Russia: "Gay parades banned in Moscow for 100 years". BBC. 17 August 2012. Retrieved 7 November 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

History

The "sourced" text was not sourced at all. A source was not even about the text and the other was so it stayed in the article, but the text in the article did not correspond with the text in the source so I changed that. Also removed some really incorrect material that was not sourced. You have reverted my edits that have corrected the grammar. Are you again stalking me and reverting everything I do? --Tuvixer (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it's a coincidence that you suddenly started changing content that was added by me right after you reported me. Everything is sourced.

"U zapisima visokopozicioniranog komunističkog funkcionera i člana NOB-a Milovana Đilasa navodi se i negativan stav o postojanju “homoseksualaca” u Narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi, kao i odluka da im se posve onemogući članstvo u :Komunističkoj partiji." This was removed by you.

"no na području tzv. Nezavisne Države Hrvatske dosad nisu pronađeni izvori o oblicima organiziranog progona." again, removed

"Partizanski kapetan Mardešić '44. strijeljan je zbog homoseksualizma" sourced, removed by you.

Btw, criticised is not a spelling mistake. Tzowu (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No that was not sourced. And you did not make those changes. Stop lying please, that is horrible. What kind of person are you? Of course homosexuals were prosecuted in ndh. I can not believe you are saying it was otherwise. Please stop this. It is not sourced, you are just making things up.--Tuvixer (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

How am I lying? Look at the edit history in late 2013 and early 2014. If you didn't look at the sources in text just put those sentences in Google and you'll find them quickly. I didn't say that homosexuals were not prosecuted in NDH, just that there was no legislation aimed specifically against them. That was a special thing that the communists implemented. Never in the history of Croatia was there a law banning homosexuality before them. Tzowu (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Omg, you are so wrong. I am holding, right now, in my hand, a copy of a ndh era law that was enacted, and aimed on prosecuting homosexuals. Also homosexuals were prosecuted by the chatolic church in Croatia for centuries. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well what are you waiting for? Quote that law. And why are you attacking me when I quoted "Čitanka LGBT ljudskih prava, drugo dopunjeno izdanje, Sarajevski otvoreni centar, 2012."? Tzowu (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? LOL. How far are you going to go with your lies? How do I qoute the law. Can I just translate the articles?--Tuvixer (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand you, why are you saying that I'm lying? "Čitanka LGBT ljudskih prava" wrote that about NDH and I searched some newspapers from that time that are available online and there was no mention of homosexuals there. I also never read anything about a law aimed specifically against homosexuals. Where do you see a lie here? If you have sources that claim otherwise then great. You can add a Croatian version of it or take a picture, or just write the number of the law. Anything. Tzowu (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues resolved

Considering issues on this site have been resolved I decided to remove the introduction box to this article. It has been there for a long time, but problems that emerged then have been dealt with. 11raccoon1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Photograph of a Croatian government minister

Wikipedia's image relevance policy states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be SIGNIFICANTLY AND DIRECTLY related to the article's topic.". I have read the article and the government minister whose photograph is prominently featured in the article is neither significant nor directly related to the topic. Actually, it looks more like a desperate attempt by her PR people to boost her relevance in Wikipedia. Especially as there appears to be a list of numerous other politicians in the text (with apparently equal (in)significance to the topic). I wonder therefore if at some point we will see their PR teams introducing photographs of other Croatian VIPs? 213.211.143.223 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Her picture was on the article before she was a minister in the government. I really don't see why her picture should be in the article, maybe someone will object to that, we should wait a week and then if no one objects I can remove the picture, ok? :) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A fact is that she is very vocative in the defense of the LGBT rights, maybe that was the point, and she attended a lot of Prides and is a public image that supports them and human rights. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is she the only notable person to attend gay prides? Because that is not what is said in the article. I started counting the names mentioned in that part of the article, and beside her there are at least thirty other politicians/notable persons there (I stopped counting at some point). I have been reading and re-reading the article but I still don't see what warrants that her picture be one of five photographs in the whole article. After all, no one is arguing that any mention of her be removed. If anyone wishes to see what she looks like, they can click on the hyperlink. But let's wait for a week, and see indeed if anyone can come up with a valid argument to keep the photo.213.211.143.223 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As, quite unsurprisingly, no valid argument's been put forward over the last week as to why the lady's picture deserved to be included into the article, I deleted it. Those with fervent desire to see how she looks will continue to have an option to click on the link leading to her dedicated page. Another reminder I guess of how tempting Wikipedia is as a PR instrument. 213.219.143.139 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The government photograph has once again been removed as it doesn't abide by Wikipedia's image relevance policy. Anyone not happy with it should really put forward arguments here to the contrary and not revert. Cronedgar (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please Sdino, explain your changes. the article and you made some good changes but the last one, on the referendum was very bad. Leave is as it is. Tnx :) --Tuvixer (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: No, because the section had grammatical errors, was slightly biased towards the 'against' side. Apart from that, you don't own the article and I can change it. Please give me reasons why my edit was incorrect. Sdino (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if you show some good faith. Please now present with the section and we can discuss it here, and maybe also see what other people have to say on that. You do not own this article so if you make a bad edit you are not allowed to push it. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:I would like to inform you that you are up against WP:3RR for edit warring on this article. As for your edit summary here, ("please do not ignore the talk page, tnx, and please show some good faith and stop edit waring, tnx") you are the one ignoring the talk page. Please give reasons why my edit is wrong, so we can come to a compromise. Sdino (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It is up to you to present the changes here on the talk page and then we can discuss them. Please feel free to present them here. I must first see what do you think is wrong with the original version of that section and then we can discuss it. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I already presented them, three times as a matter of fact, in the article. You can go into the article's history and see the changes there if you wish. Please tell me what, in your opinion, was wrong with my edits to the article. Sdino (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You just changed the order of the sentences and added information for some counties that is completely unnecessary because on the right there is a map showing how the countries voted "For". --Tuvixer (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And what is wrong with that? There was information on how some counties voted, but it was biased. It only gave the counties that voted against, not the ones that voted for. I changed that to the counties that gave the most and least support and the results of a few of the biggest cities in Croatia, as given on the Croatia article. I also removed a few dead links that could not be retrieved on [web.archive.org], I corrected grammar errors and I also broke up the large paragraphs in order to make them easier to read. Sdino (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What was biased? It is a interesting information because only two counties out of 21 voted Against. It should be in the article. I am ok with some changes but do not add any other information about how counties voted. Is that ok?

The referendum took place on 1 December 2013. Turnout was 37,9%. 65,87% voted in favour of a constitutional change, and 33,51% voted against. Not all counties voted in favour of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only. Two westernmost counties, Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against with 58,23% and 53,30% respectively. When it comes to larger cities Rijeka voted against with 59,27%, and Pula voted against with 63,64%. Most cities in these two counties voted against, with Labin being the leader with 70,97%. When it comes to cities outside these two counties Varaždin and Čakovec also voted against with 56,94% and 58,95% respectively. Zagreb voted 55,9% in favour, and 43,50% against.[130]

Leave this section as it is, ok? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It was biased because it doesn't give both sides of the argument. It only talks about the ones that voted against. I propose these changes:

The referendum took place on 1 December 2013. Turnout was 37,9%. 65,87% voted in favour of the^(grammar) constitutional change, and 33,51% voted against. A majority of counties voted in favour. of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only^(redundant).Vukovar-Srijem County had the highest percentage of votes for the amendment, at 80.79%, while Istria County had the highest percentage of votes against, at 58.23%. ^{(This is unbiased, as it gives both the highest and the lowest support for the amendment.)} The City of Zadar voted for, with a majority of 55.9%. Split and Osijek voted for with 68.13% and 62.86% of votes for, repectively. Rijeka and Pula voted against with 59.27% and 63.64% of votes, respectively. (This is unbiased as it gives the result in the capital city, two large cities that votes for and two large cities that voted against.)

Do you propose any more changes? Sdino (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The referendum took place on 1 December 2013. Turnout was 37.9%. 65.87% voted in favour of the constitutional change, and 33,51% voted against. Not all counties voted in favour of the proposition. Two westernmost counties, Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against with 58.23% and 53.30% respectively. When it comes to larger cities Rijeka voted against with 59.27%, and Pula voted against with 63.64%. Most cities in these two counties voted against, with Labin being the leader with 70.97%. When it comes to cities outside these two counties Varaždin and Čakovec also voted against with 56.,94% and 58.95% respectively. Zagreb voted 55.9% in favour, and 43.50% against.

Is this ok? Croatia is not a federation but a unitary republic if you did not know that. So it is not important if the majority of counties voted in For. It is just a interesting fact that only two counties voted Against, ans some cities. That is all. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a fair representation of the vote. Yes, I am aware of the political system in Croatia, which is very similar to the other European ones. How about:

The referendum took place on 1 December 2013. Turnout was 37.9%.¹ 65.87% voted in favour of the constitutional change, and 33.51% voted against. A majority of counties voted in favour, but not all counties voted in favour ².

The two³ westernmost counties, Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against with 58.23% and 53.30% respectively. Vukovar-Srijem County and Brod-Posavina County had the highest levels of support for the amendment, with 80.79% and 79.8% of voters voting in favour.⁴

Most cities in Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against, with Labin having the largest opposition to the proposals at 70.97%. When it comes to cities outside these two counties Varaždin and Čakovec also voted against with 56.94% and 58.95%, respectively.

When it comes to larger cities, the capital, Zagreb voted 55.9% in favour, and 43.50% against. Rijeka and Pula voted against with 59.27%, and 63.64% of votes against, respectively. Split and Osijek voted for with 68.13% and 62.86% of votes for, repectively.⁴

(Numbers correspond to those in the text)

1. In English, you use the full stop as a decimal point, not the comma, like in mainland Europe.
2. "limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only" is redundant here, because the whole section is about it, and you're overstating what the referendum is about.
3. Grammar
4. This sentence would introduce balance into the paragraph, because it gives both sides of the argument.

Is this ok? Sdino (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The referendum was about, if the word "Marriage" should be defined in the Constitution or not. That is want the Constitutional court said.

The referendum took place on 1 December 2013. Turnout was 37.9%. 65.87% voted in favour of the constitutional change, and 33,51% voted against. Not all counties voted in favour of the proposition. Two westernmost counties, Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against with 58.23% and 53.30% respectively. When it comes to larger cities Rijeka voted against with 59.27%, and Pula voted against with 63.64%. Most cities in these two counties voted against, with Labin being the leader with 70.97%. When it comes to cities outside these two counties Varaždin and Čakovec also voted against with 56.,94% and 58.95% respectively. Zagreb voted 55.9% in favour, and 43.50% against.

Leave it as above, and down add just how the two counties with the biggest percentage voted, and how Gospić, Zadar, Split and Osijek voted, ok? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Then the final draft:

The referendum took place on 1 December 2013. Turnout was 37.9%. 65.87% voted in favour of the constitutional change, and 33,51% voted against. Not all counties voted in favour of the proposition. The two westernmost counties, Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against with 58.23% and 53.30% respectively. Vukovar-Srijem County and Brod-Posavina County had the highest levels of support for the amendment, with 80.79% and 79.8% of voters voting in favour.

Most cities in Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar voted against, with Labin being the leader at 70.97%. When it comes to cities outside these two counties Varaždin and Čakovec also voted against with 56.,94% and 58.95% respectively.

When it comes to larger cities, Rijeka and Pula voted against with 59.27% and 63.64%, respectively. Zagreb voted 55.9% in favour, and 43.50% against. Split and Osijek voted for with 68.13% and 62.86% of votes for, repectively.

That is just a reorganisation, adding the 'for' areas and minor grammar changes. Is this ok with you? Sdino (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, just add [[]] to the Istria and Primorje-Gorski Kotar like on others. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, happy to reach a consensus with you. ;) Sdino (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Me too. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pie chart (same-sex marriage support), surveys + Jadranka Kosor

This has been a problem in the past, and I am sad to see it happening again. While most recent changes to this article have been good, I still can't see the reason for this chart. There have been, and will be dozens of polls, and some of them have been included in this article already, so why have a pie chart specially for this particular survey? It emphasises this survey for no reason. Who is to say this poll is more important than the one saying over half of the population do support current LGBT rights? Should we have a pie chart for every single survey? That's the issue here. Where do we stop? Isn't it enough to have everything explained in the paragraph?

There was a problem with a person who had issues with LGBT rights in the past, and that was when this pie chart appeared (note: it says "extremely against", whereas the proper translation would be "strongly against").

Also, Jadranka Kosor's views on LGBT rights have been removed for no reason, and not placed in the appropriate section. If you do these changes can you please not delete things that are relevant?

And what does a survey abour businesses providing services to same-sex partners have to do with partner-guardianship? Can we make changes that actually make sense? 11raccoon1 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.139.165 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As per LGBT rights in Europe, Poland, Sweden, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Malta, I made a specific section on public opinion, with surveys on what people think of same-sex unions etc.

The pie chart illustrated the section, by giving a visual representation for one survey, not "for every single survey". I think that this survey should have its own pie chart, because it is the most recent one that asks the public about something specific. Asking the public about whether "the future president should support the current level of LGBT rights in Croatia" is vague, and that is the only survey that is more recent than the Pilar Barometer.

It says extremely against because that's what the reference states. When dealing with opinion polls and raw information, it is good to use the terms used in the reference, not the ones one thinks are better.

From reading your comments, I got the impression that you think you own the article. Please do not assume ownership of the article, as it is against Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Jadranka Kosor's views on homosexual rights have not been removed, as far as I know... If they have been removed, they must have been removed by accident, while summarising the sections.

As well as that, in the lead, events are preferred in chronological order, and "Life Partnership Act" is not the title of the article, hence, does not merit bold font. – Sdino (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a valid argument in the first input to this section. Please Sidno stop edit waring and wait for other to reply to your entry. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: And I put out a valid response for the inclusion of the chart, which you obviously ignored, and hasn't been responded to. – Sdino (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Read again. It makes no sens to include a chart of one poll and not to include the chart of another poll. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Then include both – Sdino (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are more than two polls, please stop edit waring and show some good faith and revert your edit. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That is why I only included one opinion poll, instead of two. – Sdino (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have the same problem as in the past. Homophobic people are trying to play with this article, and I will report it again. From what I can see @SDINO you claim to be against same-sex marriage. Now, I don't care about your personal views, but the purpose of this article is to give a reader good quality reading based on facts. Firstly, the word "iznimno" or "snazno" in Croatian is literally translated as "strongly." The word "ekstremno" in Croatian is translated as "extremely", so if you don't stop with this I will report it. Just because somebody else translates things wrongly doesn't mean you have to copy it.

People in the past have been reported, and have been sanctioned. You are only pushing for this pie chart because you want to create an impression that people in Croatia are "extremely" homophobic. And I have given a good argument on why it is silly to have one chart for one survey, and ignore all the others, which brings us to the argument that it is simply silly to have dozens of pie charts, and the best thing is not to create one at all.

I do not think I own this article at all, but I am interested for it to be as good as it can be, without any pro or con campaigns. I also do recognize some users who have tried to ruin other people's hard work here, and I really do not think it's fair. Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigns.11raccoon1 (talk)

@11raccoon1:Well, if you look at [6], the reference, the question is "Are you for or against same-sex marriages?", and the answers are: "I'm extremely against", "I'm mainly against", "I'm not for or against", "I'm mainly for" and "I'm extremely for". The Croatian version is relevant on the Croatian wikipedia, not here. Here, we are citing the English version of the reference, and those are the terms used, so whether you like it or not, that is the correct terminology to be used in the article. It is not a "political campaign", as you called it.

Secondly, the word used in the Croatian version of the reference does not state strongly, the article uses the word "izrazito". After looking up a few Croatian-English dictionaries, I found this:

• Google Translate: pronouncedly, meaningly, extremely, highly, markedly
• Bing: extremely
• dict.com: considerably, markedly
• Glosbe: acutely, decisively, distinctively, distinctly, emphatically, exceptional, extremely, markedly, pronouncedly, racily
• EUdict: acutely, decidedly, distinctively, distinctly, emphatically, exceptional, extremely, markedly, pronouncedly, racily
• Lingvozone: meaningly, pronouncedly
• English to Croatian and Croatian to English dictionary: acutely, decidedly, distinctively, distinctly, emphatically, exceptional, extremely, markedly, pronouncedly, racily
• Rjecnik.com: distinctively

Hence, you have broken the original research rule with your edit.

Thirdly, the pie chart merits inclusion not because I "want to create an impression that people in Croatia are "extremely" homophobic.", as you stated, but to illustrate the article. That survey was chosen because, as I have said already, it is the most recent one that asks the public about something specific. Asking the public about whether "the future president should support the current level of LGBT rights in Croatia" is vague, and that is the only survey that is more recent than the Pilar Barometer. I would like you to address this before going on about how you "have given a good argument on why it is silly to have one chart for one survey, and ignore all the others".

Furthermore, do not continue to break the talk page guidelines with you threatening reporting me to the admins ("if you don't stop with this I will report it."; "People in the past have been reported, and have been sanctioned.") The guidelines state one should not "threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.". – Sdino (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

English is my first language and I'm afraid that "extremely against" is nonsensical. It would never be used. Strongly against is the norm. I note that "extremely" is the language used in the source - but that is clearly someone's (poor) translation of a question originally asked in Croatian. If the article wants to reference the results then a more mainstream description should be used. On the issue of the pie chart itself I am with 11racoon. It seems odd to single out one poll - it does not represent a vote. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it odd to single out the most recent poll that asks for something specific? But those are the terms that are there, and they are understandable. – Sdino (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Because there are likely to be many polls with various questions on this theme. If you start creating pie charts for all of these then the article will become unreadable. Why is it insufficient to have the numbers simply cited in the article? What are you hoping to achieve by having the chart? Perhaps if you explained the point then perhaps others might understand the advantage for its inclusion. At the moment both I and 11racoon are against. Perhaps there are other editors who might support your approach - in which case the balance might be in your favour. Regarding the point about using the word "extremely", it is simply bad English and makes the article look amateurish. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And that is the point. What I am trying to explain to @Sdino: is the fact translating requires not just technical knowledge of a certain language, but the appropriate usage of terms. And that's where the secret of proper translation lies, which is why we help each other in achieving the best possible here. Croatian is a Slavic language, and English Germanic, meaning they do not have much in common. Croatian word "izrazito" does not in fact exist in English per se, which is why the most appropriate translation is strongly, as that in English creates the same impression and meaning as "izrazito" in Croatian. Yes, some on line dictionaries might give you translation as "extremely", but that is because they are not accurate as people who understand languages are. On line translating tools automatically give you what they "think" is the closest term in case there isn't one, which here is the case. I can find you dozens of examples that prove it. If you translate the English word "extreme" to Croatian, you will find the same translation, and it will be "ekstremno" as that actually is the word both lanugages do have in common.

Furthermore, before contacting the administrators I have specifically said I will report this issue, and I am reporting it because it is the second time this is happening, and the problem is identical. Telling you I am not happy with something resulting in my wish to report it is not a threat, and mentioning that other people have been sanctioned is just an observation of a factual situation that has (presumingly) nothing to with you. Add the fact you (@Sdino:) are another user from Poland (and I am only saying that because the first problem had been caused by a user from Poland who is also against same-sex marriage, and a declared opponent of LGBT rights), does just seem way to suspicious to be accidental. As I said, your personal views are not important as long as there is no pattern, but there is. You can try to create an impression I am attacking you, but that is simply not true, and everybody can see it.

What was your motive in creating this chart? You said it was the most recent survey. Well it wasn't. The most recent survey was conducted during a presidential campaign, and 50.4% of people said that the future president should support the current level of LGBT right. How is that vague please? People are well aware of Life Partnership Act, and do seem to accept it far better than same-sex marriage. So why was your immediate focus on a survey conducted before this one? I would perhaps be willing to understand your views if every survey conducted was in fact about same-sex marriage, but this is the only one amongst others that have been based around completely different questions. So creating a pie chart for it is a matter of picking and choosing, which is not going to make this article look professional. You want to emphasise something. The most accurate survey on same-sex marriage was in fact the referendum, and this article contains results, and even includes two maps. That is of course fine as you do not have a referendum every month, and can be taken as relevant enough to create and include charts/maps etc. Surveys conducted by media ie press, tv etc. are a frequent occurrence, and my main argument was that creating charts for any of those is just causing a mess, making any article difficult to read, and filled with dozens of charts. Even worse considering this article is very specific about results of surveys. Another problem of course is that from some reason big chunks of certain paragraphs have been removed without any explanation. Why? To finish this off, I will use proper channels to deal with this issue. 11raccoon1 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)11raccoon111raccoon1 (talk)

Yes - why do you want to highlight this particular poll with a pie chart Sdino? Why is it so important, while others are not? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture on languages @11raccoon1:. Seeing as you and @Contaldo80: have gone overboard regarding one word and two pie charts, I presume getting consensus here will be like getting blood from a stone, so I just won't bother. 11raccoon1, I would like you to read LGBT rights in Poland#Social attitudes and public opinion, and come to the conclusion that lots of Polish people are against, what you call, "LGBT rights". – Sdino (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sdino I think you are being inconsistent and I therefore question your motives. You've edited the article on LGBT rights in Slovenia and yet have not produced a pie-chart there. Could that be because we see a larger number of citizens in that country in favour of gay marriage rather than against? Does that spoil your narrative? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Introduction to the article

From some reason the introduction to this article has been changed. Why? Here are the changes:

A sentence telling us about the referendum has been removed from the bit talking about the current situation, and left on its own. Why?

The introduction also mentions the first case of partner-guardianship. Why? That is to be described in the part about LGBT parenting. It is so out of place here. Worsened by the term "girlfriend." She is her life partner, not a girlfriend.

In the past, the sentence describing Life Partnership Act also said the law recognises an institution called partner-guardianship. That sentence has been broken dow into two parts, and the second part now tells us that the Act created an institution called partner-guardianship. How can a law create something? The law can recognise something, and is created by the lawmaker. Can we please bring back to where it was as there was nothing wrong with it?11raccoon1 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)11raccoon111raccoon1 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@11raccoon1: I put the events in chronological order, and the referendum was put out on its own because you had problems with the referendum and the current situation being in the same paragraph. The law created the institution because it was not there before. Now, please stop nitpicking and find something better to work on. – Sdino (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The bit about first partner-guardianship does not belong here because introduction is a brief description of what you are about to read. And the description needs to tell you that there is an option of a partner-guardianship. So I will bring it back to where it was, and put the rest where it belongs. The law does not create anything. Your knowledge of English is tested again here. Lawmakers create something. Not the law itself. Perhaps a lack of understanding here is the problem. Also, Croatia's government recognized same-sex couples long before the referendum. I will not stop anything, and you will not win this battle as I will use proper channels to stop this abuse of a good article. And btw, I will report you again for changing translations to be more suitable for your views. Good day 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2015

Hello, this edit request is minor and targets the euphemisms "passed away" and "passes away", which the Wikipedia manual of style explicitly warns editors against using. I understand that this request's being minor may not lead to its implementation quickly or even at all. The two requested edits are in the same sentence under the section Partner-guardianship and parental responsibilities, which is a sub-section of Public laws. I struck through the euphemisms, and I placed the edits in parentheses and set their type face as bold, as follows:

"Such a relationship between the non-parent life partner and the child may be established if the parent-partner passes away(dies), under the condition that the other parent has also passed away(died), is considered unknown or has lost their parental responsibilities due to child abuse."

fds^Talk 04:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Passed away, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture

@United Union: As per the new consensus and the open RfC proposal, same-sex marriage is the normal term to be used on Wikipedia, unless one can prove, using sources that any other term. You argue that the march in the picture is a "March for the marriage equality". I corrected both the grammar in that and the consensus-related matter. So, do you have any reliable sources that would prove that that term can be used? – Sdino (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sdino:Official name of this event was "Marš za bračnu jednakost". You can not change the original title of event. The most accurate translation into english is-March for marriage equality. Maybe this would be better text: 1.500 participants marched in support of same-sex marriage in "March for marriage equality" that was organised on May 27, 2013 in Zagreb. United Union (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@United Union:That would be better, but I think a reference is needed in that case as well. – Sdino (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please not that Sdino has been blocked from further editing due to sock-puppetry. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I had to report him again, and only after that did I see this message, so thank you. 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Tuvixer:

You have undone some of my changes, saying they were not justifiable. But I shall argue that now. Firstly, if we are going to have the exact number on life partnerships taken place, then use the correct source, which I have done. The article that had been used here before does not even give the exact number, and it even states that some of them have been planned. Now, we do not work on plans do we? There is an article that tells you the exact number of partnerships taken within the first year. So can you explain how do speculations come before facts? Furthermore, you state that there were 85 partnerships, and then you account for around 60-70. Doesn't make much sense does it?

Secondly, you cannot say a "successful" referendum. It might have been successful for one side, but not for the other. Few users have been banned from editing this article as they were using it as a tool for their campaign and different views. And here, we try to be neutral. So even if you disagree with LGBT rights, Wikipedia is not a place for the anti-LGBT right campaign. Please do not edit this bit again as I will report it.

Thirdly, changing the bit about tourism is beyond me. It was translated in a very poor way, and here we try to help each other. I did not change anything apart from the grammar and structure, and now you want it back. Why would you want back something that sounds so silly in English? As we mentioned before, a very good command of both languages is required for good translation. And based on your small comment you left when undoing changes tells me your knowledge of English is very basic. I do apologize, but if you are going to deal with grammar and structure you need to have at least some form of knowledge.

11raccoon1 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You got it all wrong, I support LGBT rights. You can't say that it was a referendum on marriage, it was on banning same-sex marriage. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I think you misunderstood what I said. You cannot use the word "successful", because if you do it gives an impression you support one side, and that is the side that has organized the referendum. What is important here is to stay neutral. Yes, the referendum was successful for those who wanted it, but it was not successful for LGBT community. And we avoid using any of the terms in order to stay neutral. That's the issue here. I can accept we might have a problem with communication, but can you justify changes you made here? 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: A referendum was to define marriage, not ban same-sex marriage. Yes, as a consequence it did happen that same-sex marriages are not possible at the moment, but the question on a referendum was clear: do you want a marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman?"...and that's it. I did tell you not to use this page for campaigning. I will put it back to what I believe it should be, and if you change it again I will report you as I see no other solution to this matter. 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That was not the question on the referendum so please if you don't know that basic thing stop editing this article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you do not understand the Croatian language then you should be very careful with your edits regarding topics that are related to Croatia. I am from Croatia and I live in Croatia. So please stop edit warring. You are introducing changes to the article and I have reverted them because you do not have a consensus. So please show some good faith and stop editing the article and use the talk page to work on a consensus. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

11raccoon1 - while you are correct that strictly speaking the wording was designed to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. We must also accept that the only reason it did this was specifically in order to excluse same sex couples from marriage. There was no other reason. So the effect is to rule out same sex marriage in Croatia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: My understanding of Croatian is very very good considering I am bilingual. And as a result of that I have commented on your translations that have been questionable. Morat ces se nauciti engleski malo bolje jer su ti prijevodi katastrofalni.

@Contaldo80: If we are going to accept it that way that's fine, but wording when it comes to laws, and other political issues regarding LGBT rights has become an area where certain groups do find their space to show it in a slightly different way. And I am saying that because I do recognize certain users that have been part of an anti-LGBT campaign here, and some of them have been prevented from editing this article as you are well aware. If we were in court, this wouldn't stand, because Croatian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It does not say it bans same-sex marriage, even though the definition itself prevents it. I know most people do not see or cannot understand the difference, but if we are going to talk about laws and constitutions, then wording does play crucial difference. It's acceptable to say that the referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman has prevented same-sex marriages as a consequence, or that marriage has been limited to heterosexual couples. It is not me being pedantic about it, it is just the way it is. And in the eyes of the law it is very important. But hey-ho. If it is to be kept as it is fine.

Another thing, can someone explain to me why is it acceptable to have two sentences that say exactly the same thing (that 80 life partnerships took place within a year) in the Recognition of same-sex relationships paragraph, and why me leaving just one is not acceptable? Is this a new thing now? To repeat sentences, or what? If someone makes changes it would be nice if they actually bothered to see what the problem was. 11raccoon1 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and the point you make. But at the same time I think it would be misleading to suggest that the constitutional change was just a house keeping exercise to define marriage. It wasn't. It was directly done to deny same sex couples the right to marry. No other reason than that. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Contaldo80:

Indeed, and I was never trying to ignore the fact that referendum had the purpose of making legalization of same-sex marriages more difficult. But what bothers me is that some users use wording as a weapon for personal campaign. And another problem is double standards, plus not understanding deeper issues concerning LGBT rights. You see, this referendum changed very little in Croatia, because the Family Code defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman since ever. They have just managed to copy/paste this definition to the Constitution to make it more difficult to change. That's all. So using words like BAN is very inappropriate, because it is sending a message that countries that have introduced this sort of a definition of a marriage to the Constitution are "BAD", and the rest are just "BETTER." Whereas in fact Croatia had always defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Using strong words is creating an impression that situation regarding same-sex marriages was somewhat different before the referendum, and it wasn't at all. Countries that did not yet expand the right to marry to same-sex couples in most cases have exactly the same definition in their family codes, without having it in their constitutions.

You don't have to look far. Take an example from our country. Northern Ireland's family code defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but from some reason it is not shown red on the map. Why not? What's the difference? The only difference is that constitutions tend to be more difficult to change as quite often 2/3 of MPs are needed to do so, but everything else is the same. Northern Ireland, according to standards based on this article, BANS same-sex marriages. And every other country that did not legalize same-sex marriages does exactly the same, whether is through the constitution or the family code. This is where we have double standards.

It is appropriate to say that Croatia's constitution makes it impossible to conduct same-sex marriages, it is also appropriate to use words like LIMITS, PREVENTS, etc., but to use the word BAN is just wrong in the context of history of LGBT rights. Especially when it comes from users that have been party involved in an open anti-LGBT campaign that you are aware of just as I am. I have warned twice in the past that when people start using this sort of wording it usually leads to something worse, and I have been proven right twice already, and I suspect I will be proven right again 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It seems right then not to use the word ban. I suppose you could argue that it reinforces the prohibition on marriage between people of the same sex. But you can't ban, of course, what is already not permitted. Seems to me the purpose of the referendum was a political one - to send a high level message that the progression of LGBT rights will have limits. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@11raccoon1:

Oh now you understand that the referendum was not about the definition of marriage, but about the introduction of that definition in the Constitution. Its sole purpose was to ban, yes B-A-N, same-sex marriage, because in Croatia we have a significant percent of the population that is easily boiled up and mobilized when it comes to hate and discrimination, so the church and right-wing parties used that primitive material to spread hate and even more divide the citizens of Croatia, just because if there were no divisions and if in the political sphere we would talk about economy and things that are really essential to the development of the country, the right-wing would have no chance in gaining power and wining elections. So I, who live in Croatia, have seen the debates and statements before the referendum, and the "ZA" side (those who wanted the referendum to pass) were saying that "Europe is dangerous and the center-left government will introduce gay marriage so we have to prevent that" and so on, but all in the sense that they have to prevent marriage equality, of course they don't call that marriage equality but they say "gay marriages" of even worse "fag marriages". There is no doubt, even if the "hidden" intention was to mobilize the primitive right-wing, the result was a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:

You obviously haven't ready what I wrote in the paragraph above. So next time you reply can you please focus on what I said? I have made it quite clear why the word BAN is inappropriate, or did you not understand the case I was making? It purpose was to make legalization more difficult by LIMITING marriage to heterosexual couples in the constitution, and that limitation has been part of the Family Code since ever. Hence why the word BAN is completely wrong. I am very much familiar with the campaign and reasons behind it, and I have made that quite clear. I am talking about what the law, and the Constitution says. The point of the referendum was to make marriage for same-sex couples more difficult to legalize as it will take 2/3 of all MPs to change it in the future. The Constitution does not say BAN, but its definition of marriage makes it limited to heterosexual couples. I am talking about wording here, not the reasons. I am well aware that people in Croatia, like in ANY OTHER country are more likely to respond and act whne it comes to issues like that, rather then economic issues or anything similar. But what I also know from the personal experience is that most Croats couldn't care less about gay marriage, and most Croats are not hostile or bothered about gay people in general. And it is a country that has made a fantastic progress in the past decade when it comes to LGBT rghts. Life partnerships made same-sex couple more-less equal to married couples, and that just shows you how this referendum was silly as it made the definition change more difficult, but not the content.11raccoon1 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Contaldo80:

Exactly, the referendum had a political purpose of promoting extreme right wing and individuals who aspire to get in the Parliament, and promote their new political parties as in the past they have never had any success. And as I said, nothing much changed really. Even more with the fact same-sex couples in Croatia enjoy very high standard of protection and rights. 11raccoon1 (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Referendum

Why is it necessary to have two separate sections in the article describing the 2013 referendum? Why is covering it once not sufficient? Why is it necessary to go into such detail on the referendum beyond a few paragraphs rather than referring the reader to the main article which is very comprehensive? Answers please before restoring any material. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the content from the article before discussing it. There is no duplication and the referendum was a major event or development regarding LGBT rights in Croatia. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed it. As you can see above. It is evident that the same material is duplicated under the section dealing with historical context and then the section under politics. No one denies it was a significant occurance (up to a point) but it seems to be that message is got across adequately. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tell me please, what is duplicated. Please, because I can't find what is duplicated. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the post-communist section it says: "More recently, the establishment of a lobby group, "In the Name of the Family", led the call to change the Croatian national constitution so that marriage can only be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The Roman Catholic Church played a prominent role in this political campaign, and Cardinal Josip Bozanić of Zagreb issued a letter to be read in churches reminding people that "Marriage is the only union enabling procreation". Subsequently a national referendum was held on 1 December 2013 where voters approved the change. Franko Dota, a gay rights activist, criticised the results, arguing that it was intended "to humiliate the gay population, and to strike against the progress of the past decades". Stephen Bartulica, a proponent of the referendum and a professor at the Catholic University of Croatia, countered that "the vote was an attempt to show that there is strong opposition" to "gay marriage and adoption by gays". The Prime Minister, Zoran Milanovic, was unhappy that the referendum had taken place at all, saying, "I think it did not make us any better, smarter or prettier."" What is missing from this that requires another 6 or 7 paras further down under the politics section? Bearing in mind there is a whole article on the issue that someone will be able to read. We have a duty to make the article as user friendly as possible. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Contaldo80: here. It is not necessary to have a special paragraph about the referendum here, as the main article is very good, and the referendum is mentioned quite clearly here. Nevertheless, this was a significant event when it comes to LGBT rights, so what we could as a compromise I guess is to take some sentences from the paragraph that has been removed, and the ones that will not be a pure duplicate can be spread in the politics bit among proponents and opponents. For example, in the proponents bit we can mention media and newspapers that have actively supported LGBT rights. That will put few new sentences in, but not repeat the whole paragraph. Just a thought...although the way it looks now is very good in my opinion. 11raccoon1 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

11raccoon1 that sounds a fair suggestion. If people think there are important bits that we should keep somewhere then happy to consider that. My real motivation was to avoid the article becoming too long and unwieldy and repeating the same point in several places - as that isn't helping for someone reading it. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just make sure that the content you have removed and is not mentioned anywhere else is mentioned, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am reassured that it all of it is mentioned in the main article on the referendum. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080611102621/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2007/10/30/europe/EU-GEN-Croatia-Hate-Crime.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/30/europe/EU-GEN-Croatia-Hate-Crime.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110701133316/http://oneworldsee.org:80/Successful-and-Peaceful-10-th-Zagreb-Pride to http://oneworldsee.org/Successful-and-Peaceful-10-th-Zagreb-Pride

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720122836/http://www.zagreb-pride.net/j/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=27 to http://www.zagreb-pride.net/j/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=27

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614020712/http://lori.hr:80/olori.php to http://www.lori.hr/olori.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

HDZ and HDSSB and their support for Life Partnership Act

I have removed the sentence in the section that talks about proponents of LGBT rights saying how HDZ and HDSSB have supported the Life Partnership Act since the 2016 elections, because it is simply not true, nor were there any sources that would confirm that. Both parties unanimously voted against the Act in 2014, and haven't officially changed their stance on it. It is true that the president of HDSSB Dragan Vulin has expressed his support in making same-sex couples equal to married couples (which they are anyway apart from adoption), and highlighted that he does not believe they should be equal when it comes to adoption rights. Now, Life Partnership Act does recognise an institution called partner-guardian, which is a step-child adoption under a different name. Does that mean he would want to change the Act? We just don't know. Hence why it would be wrong to say he supports it to the letter. We should just write down what he said. No more, no less.

When it comes to HDZ it is quite clear. The party has never ever supported anything but some form of protection against discrimination. It is true that some of the members said they will not try to mess with the Act, and will leave it be. In a debate during the 2016 elections campaign current PM Andrej Plenkovic said how he is open to everybody, but knows what a marriage is, and what a life partnership is. That is not a support for anything. It is clear that HDZ will not try to play with the law, and are aware how there is little they can do about it. But that is not a support in any shape or form. Most members have been quite vocal in criticising the previous government for creating the Life Partnership Act (and still are), and the party has not officially changed its stance on LGBT rights. So it is very wrong to say how HDZ supported the Act when the evidence available tells us something very different. I have been following this election very thoroughly and know exactly who said what. As I said, provide us with the evidence how HDZ as a party changed its stance on LGBT rights. 11raccoon1 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

Hi, I think this article should be nominated for a good article. As per WP:GAN/I, it is preferable that the nominator has significantly contributed to the article being nominated. Since I did just a few minor edits and don't have a lot of time to respond to the reviewer's suggestions, is there anyone who has relatively significantly contributed to this article who'd like to nominate it? For instructions on how to nominate an article, visit WP:GAN/I#Nominating. --Hmxhmx 18:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since no contributor who significantly contributed to this article nominated it for a good article, I decided to do it. I wasn't really sure what subtopic to choose so I chose Politics and government as the article mostly deals with the laws, politics and initiatives regarding LGBT rights in Croatia. Hmxhmx 18:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=6FCE627C-7B1F-41A3-B3CE-71354ECB5F16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102094706/http://www.gay.hr/magazin/7926 to http://www.gay.hr/magazin/7926
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://oneworldsee.org/Successful-and-Peaceful-10-th-Zagreb-Pride

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69PBdhelq?url=http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/94181/biti-gay-u-hrvatskoj-vojsci to http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/94181/biti-gay-u-hrvatskoj-vojsci
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103151209/http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html to http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 13:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this. It might take me a few days to complete the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert as needed if I make mistakes.

• See this tool; there are some dead links.
• The citations in the lead are unnecessary if the information is in the body (and cited there); you don't have to remove them, but many editors prefer to.
• The lead doesn't include any of the information about the history of LGBT rights in Croatia; a sentence or two wouldn't hurt.
• There are quite a few "However"s in the article; these can often be cut. I'll cut them if appropriate if I copyedit before you get to them.
• Just a suggestion, but you might consider getting rid of the first three subheadings in the "History" section. The material flows reasonably well, and the first two sections in particular are short and don't benefit much from the headings.
• There are several uncited sentences -- three in the "Communist era" section, and several more further down, including a couple of paragraphs in the adoption section, and several in the "Public opinion" section.
• The 1980s brought change towards the visibility of LGBT people: a bit clumsy. Do you mean it made LGBT people more visible or that there was a change in attitude to them?
• The first lesbian association (Lila initiative) in Croatia: I'm not clear what this means. Was the "Lila initiative" a lesbian association? If so I think you need to do more than name it without explanation.
• The situation effectively stagnated until the 2000 when... the rest of the sentence doesn't make it clear why the new coalition ended the period of stagnation. The next paragraph talks about this a bit, but makes no mention of whether the change in government was relevant.
• When you mention LIGMA, LORI, and ISKORAK, I think a couple of words indicating what each one is would be good, and a link would be nice too if one is available.

  Still no context for ISKORAK, but the other two are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  Struck, just realized you do introduce them earlier in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Post-communist era" says that the slowdown in progression was caused by the breakup of Yugoslavia, which siphoned off activists, but then says that the socio-political climate was hostile. Which is it? Or is it both?
• The equalization of the age of consent is an interesting milestone; can we say more about how it happened to include homosexual activity, in a hostile political environment?
• Do any of the sources give information, or even speculation, on what caused the shift in public attitudes that appears to have occurred at the end of the century? Outlawing discrimination surely indicates a less hostile environment. Since you say "return of the centre-left coalition" in 2011 after eight years, presumably that was the coalition in power when the laws were changed?
• More recently, the establishment of a lobby group, "In the Name of the Family", led the call to change the Croatian national constitution: the establishment of the group didn't lead the call; the group itself did (I assume). And I wouldn't use "More recently"; give dates -- this article may be read in ten or twenty years time, and it shouldn't require yearly updates to be readable.
• The NYT article on the referendum mentions that some Gay Pride marchers were beaten in 2002; that seems like it would be worth mentioning in the article, particularly as the writer contrasts it with later marches with no violence.
• There is a close-in-age exemption of three years: what does this mean? I can guess, but I think it needs to be spelled out precisely.
• In 2003, one year after the first LGBT pride in Croatia: presumably this should be "LGBT pride march".
• I think the article is confused as to where to place the historical information. The "Recognition of same-sex relationships" section talks about when the rights were gained, as well as what the rights are. Would it be better to start with the rights themselves, as they stand now, with no reference to the history, and then put the history section at the end? The history is not the primary topic here, after all.
• The change in the law was proposed by the ruling coalition while they were in opposition: a very confusing way to say it. If they're in opposition, don't refer to them as the ruling coalition. If you mean they're in power at the time of writing, that's not a good way to do it since that will change over time.
• the modernisation of the IVF law would be one of its first priorities: as far as I can tell you don't say exactly what this law did, which also makes it hard to tell why some people "wanted lesbian couples to be included in the legal change"; what was it that they did not gain from this law?
• The bullet list of laws is not very useful -- it's not clear when they were passed, or exactly what changes they wrought.

Given that I've suggested you restructure the article somewhat, I'm going to pause there until you have a chance to respond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hmxhmx: just checking in; are you still working on this? If you are, that's fine; just wanted to touch base. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Yes, I'm still working on this. I have a few questions/concernes regarding some points:

• Just a suggestion, but you might consider getting rid of the first three subheadings in the "History" section. The material flows reasonably well, and the first two sections in particular are short and don't benefit much from the headings.

  - I am not sure what the title of the subheading should be after I combine the first three subheadings. Or is there no need for a subheading at all?

  No subheading would be OK, I think; or perhaps "Pre-communist and communist era"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• The equalization of the age of consent is an interesting milestone; can we say more about how it happened to include homosexual activity, in a hostile political environment?

  - I couldn't find any more information on this, just that it was equalized.

  OK, no problem in that case; just thought I'd ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think the article is confused as to where to place the historical information. The "Recognition of same-sex relationships" section talks about when the rights were gained, as well as what the rights are. Would it be better to start with the rights themselves, as they stand now, with no reference to the history, and then put the history section at the end? The history is not the primary topic here, after all.

  - Should I move the historical information from Recognition of same-sex relationships to the appropirate place in the History section? I would then move the History section below LGBT tourism or Public laws. Or do you recommend another place? --Hmxhmx 14:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  Hard to be sure without seeing the result, but I think moving all the historical information to the "History" section is the best approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmxhmx: Just checking in again -- are you still planning on working on this? It's been a week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the delays. I've been busy for the past couple of weeks with something. --Hmxhmx 17:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie: I think I went through all of the suggested improvements. Do you have any further suggestions? --Hmxhmx 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll read through again and post more comments shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reading through again.

• There's still some historical information in the "Public laws" section, though it's now only recent history. For example, the IVF discussion gives the background prior to 2012. I'm not going to hold up GA for this, but I think it would be much better to compress the public laws section to only state the current situation with minimal reference to how we got there. Consider a reader who is reading the article to find out if they have a right to IVF; they want to see "Same-sex couples have the right to..." or something like that. They don't care how it got that way. As I said, this is OK for GA, but fixing it would improve the article. Similarly, much of the "Anti-Discrimination Laws" section should be in "History".
• The list of laws under "Anti-Discrimination Laws" isn't very useful. Is this just a list of laws that include an LGBT-related antidiscrimination component? Without some information about exactly what each law did I don't think the reader gets much of value from this list.
• There's an uncited sentence in the "Pre-communist and communist era" section, and more in the "Post-communist era" section.
• The "Public opinion" section is just a long list of opinion poll results. There's no way for a reader to get an overall sense of public opinion in Croatia other than by reading every line of this and mentally summing it up. We should do that work for them; we can't make summary statements such as "all polls" or "most polls" say unless we have confidence that we're looking at almost all the polls, but we should be giving this information at least partly in narrative form. Are some of these polls more significant than others? Do some of them show trends over time? Is there any commentary in the sources on how public opinion has changed? The section needs to be rewritten to narrate the information for the reader. You can include one or more tables, and a short bullet list of some key information is OK, but currently this section is not prose, it's just a list.
• The 2013 event was the biggest one so far: if this is still true, add "As of 2018" so the reader knows it has not gone out of date.
• The "Split Pride" section makes me curious about the media; the article gives no information on media that were or are opposed to LGBT rights. Is this an accurate reflection of the state of affairs? Have no major media channels come out with editorial positions in opposition to LGBT rights? All the opposition quotes in the article are given in terms of individual statements, or else political parties or the church. Has the media really been uniformly supportive?
• I would move the note on the Rijeka march up to the Split Pride section, since that's what it relates to, and then combine the two Zagreb marches into a single paragraph. As it stands it reads like a list rather than prose.
• I think you should remove names from the list in the third paragraph of "Proponents of LGBT rights" that are not blue-linked and have no context. There's no point mentioning Drago Pilsel if there's no way to know who he is. It's a long list, and it should be kept to significant names.
• Why is E.N.I. mentioned in the "Politics" section?
• and subsequently voted "homophobe of the year" in 2010: who voted for this? Is the source for this independent of the people who voted for it? If not, we shouldn't include it.
• their support for the authorities in preventing and sanctioning behavior endangering equality and fundamental rights and freedoms of Croatian citizens effectively and responsibly: I can't figure out what this means; can you rephrase it?
• How about moving the summary table at the end up to the end of the first section, "Public laws"?
• There are still some dead links with no archive links. Footnotes 5, 21, 43, 70, 71, 79, 80, 90, 102, 103, 109, and 111. Most of these are CroL.hr links.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find an archived version of reference #21, but I fixed the other ones. --Hmxhmx 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmxhmx: are you still planning on working on this? Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on it on a separate page and will apply the changes periodically.--Hmxhmx 17:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, just checking; no problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmxhmx: This review has been open for nearly eight weeks. Unless you think you can complete the changes above in the next few days, I think it would be better to fail this and work on improving the article outside the GA process, which is meant to review articles, not primarily for improvement work. I'd be happy to re-review it for GA once the work is complete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I am okay with that, I'm not sure if I'll be able to complete it within the next few days. --Hmxhmx 11:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and fail it. If you'd like my input as you work on the article, just let me know and I'll try to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Automatic Parenthood for lesbian couples

@Tantan1212: The law is not like that please can u provide a reliable source i looked but didnt find it. the partnership guardianship doesnt even make step child adoption and it doesnt even equal parenting plus the ivf yes doesnt mean equal recognition of the two females as mothers believe me many countries that legalised same sex marriage still doesnt even give that to lesbian moms like france or germany Ireland just dud in 2019 after 4 years of passing same szx marriage belguium did so in 2014 11 years after, and many others. This needs a specefic legislation to amend parenting laws the law is not like that please can u provide a reliable source i looked but didnt find it. Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Contradicting views concerning perscution of homosexuals during and after second WW in Croatia

Hi there I stumble upon a contradiction with what is written in LGBT history in Yugoslavia concerning the persecution of homosexuals during the second world war under oustachi rule. While this article states : "During World War II, homosexual persons were prosecuted under various fascist regimes, but there is no record of organized persecution of homosexuals in the fascist Independent State of Croatia, whose laws did not explicitly contain a regulation directed against them.[13] The communist Yugoslav Partisans, however, issued several death sentences during the war against partisans whose homosexuality was revealed." the article LGBT history in Yugoslavia. "In the Nazi Germany puppet state Independent State of Croatia, homosexuals were persecuted and sent to concentration camps, such as Jasenovac. Croatian author Ilija Jakovljević in his text Konclogor na Savi (English: Concentration Camp on Sava) mentioned that in prison on Square N16 in Zagreb (modern day Square of the Victims of Fascism) he met a "lover of the male body". I see this issue has allready been discussed in the above 2015 section "History". What can we do about this and has anyone an idea of the correct version ?Nattes à chat (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)