Talk:List of presidents of Croatia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Speakers of parliament

The lede currently says that "Historically, the heads of state of Croatia as a constituent country of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were referred to as Presidents" and that "Prior to 1974, Croatia's head of state was the speaker of the Croatian parliament.". I tagged these statements as two thirds of the entire table are based on them, even though I have never seen a source saying that nor is it common practice in Croatia itself to refer to any of these as "Presidents" for the period up until 1974 - and even those between 1974 and 1990 were rarely referred to as "presidents" - they were "presidents of the presidency" and their function was far from that we commonly associate with heads of state (they did not represent Croatia abroad and they did not serve as commanders of the armed forces and they did not receive accreditations from ambassadors, etc.). Both statements in the lede have been tagged for citations since September 2013 and none have been produced so far. Is it time to adjust the list accordingly? Timbouctou (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timbouctou here. Reliable sources identify heads of state elected since 1990 as the president. The list in its present form conflates different offices (including speakers of the parliament). Present arrangement therefore lists speakers both here and in Speaker of the Croatian Parliament - the latter is perfectly understandable, but the former is not. I think it would be beneficial to readers to present the Presidents of the Presidium of the Parliament and the Presidents of the Presidency, i.e. non-elected holders of different functions in separate tables, located after the table containing the elected presidents (i.e. the topic a reader is most likely seeking when accessing this list) or alternatively located in a separate list (article) altogether. IMO, the separation of the four Presidium/Speaker/Presidency/(elected) President would bring benefits to readers and would not require disproportionate effort to achieve. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It is best to leave the list as it is because since 1945/1943 Croatia was no longer a monarchy, and become a republic. First a Socialist Republic until 1990. After that we had the First Republic (semi-presidetial system) until 2000. and after that we have the Second Republic (parliamentary system). So the list should contain all Presidents from 1943, but the list containing presidents from 1943.-1990. should be listed in a separate section, and the list should have the option hide/show so that when you open the article only the Presidents since 1990. shown and the rest are hidden. But the list can be shown. De jure and de facto they were all Presidents of Croatia. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK there is no First and Second republic - the Constitution is still the same.
Since none of the people listed in office prior to 1990s were actually a "President of Croatia" or a "President of the Republic", there should be reliable sources that those persons were indeed considered the "president of Croatia" or the "president of the republic". Otherwise this is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is quite clear that all of them discharged one function or another, but there has to be a reliable source equating those to the role/function of the elected presidents (in 1990s and onwards) per WP:V.
As a stopgap measure I would endorse the solution where the "presidents" table is shortened to include those actually elected presidents only, and the rest added in the following section below the "presidents table", topped by a brief explanation stating, for instance, that Croatia had no elected president at the time, even though it was a parliamentary republic, stating that a similar (preferably with a description how similar or dissimilar) office was discharged by which official (e.g. president of the presidium, speaker of the parliament etc) and then followed by a list of "presidents of the X", "president of Y" etc - except for the speakers of the parliament - those are already listed elsewhere and a wikilink should be included only. None of the tables need be collapsed initially, as long as the information readers are most likely seeking is actually presented first.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: None of the guys prior to 1990 were "presidents of Croatia" either de iure or de facto. The key fact you are missing is that Croatia was not a sovereign country up until 1991. Heads of state are possible only in sovereign countries (of which SR Croatia was part of), and Croatia's head of state from 1945 to 1980 was Yugoslavia's president Tito, both de iure and de facto, the same way Scotland's head of state is Elizabeth II, regardless of the fact the Scots refer to their land as a "country", regardless of their symbols and regardless of their devolved parliament and government. Nobody in their right mind would describe Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament as "President of Scotland" retroactively, which is exactly what we are doing here. But most importantly - the claim that speakers of parliament had been "referred to as presidents" or acted as "heads of state" has never been substantiated with a single piece of reference. This is WP:OR, pure and simple.
@Tomobe03: I could agree to that, but I don't think it's necessary. Let's keep in mind that this is a list of presidents. The definition is quite clear and stated in title, and there is a separate list for speakers of parliament - duplicating them here would make little sense. And again - we have no reference saying these guys were thought of as presidents, which is the only reason they are here in the first place. Timbouctou (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Come to think of it yes, if there are no reliable sources that the persons listed here are indeed "presidents of Croatia" or "presidents of the republic", their inclusion is in violation of WP:V. There's no reason not to list them in a separate list article though linked through a "See also" though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is probably named wrong, it should be List of Heads of State of Croatia, I think. Would that be OK? You can not compare Yugoslavia to UK because Yugoslavia was a federation and UK is not a federation and Yugolsavia was not a monarchy. You understand now? The time between 1953 and 1974 should not have any person listed but instead a note that in this time interval the position of Head of State/President of Croatia was exercised by the Speaker of the Parliament, and in the note a link to the list of Speakers of the Parliament of Croatia. Read the Constitution of 1974. which clearly states that the Head of State of Croatia is/was the President of the Presidency. Also it is not weird that the Speaker of the Parliament was the Head of State in a Socialist Republic. It would be wrong not to include Presidents/Heads of State before 1990. because Croatia was a republic long before 1990. and the history of our Republic does not start in 1990 but in the 1940s. This is a link to the Constitution of 1974. : https://www.pravo.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Ustav_Socijalisticke_RH_1974.pdf --Tuvixer (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If the article were renamed "list of heads of state of Croatia" that would invite stuffing the list with Bans and kings and would create an article even less helpful to readers. In addition the "list of presidents" seems a widespread type of list for many countries - not that it means anything but a reader might be accustomed to such queries and would find it useful. Is there a particular problem with creating an additional list article for "presidents of the presidium" and another for "presidents of the presidency"? Those two lists could be easily referenced (and thus comply with WP:V) and linked from See Also (or a short paragraph explaining that the head of state at a particular period was X, and at another Y) over here and wherever appropriate. Finally, regardless of whether it is more "weird" to include or exclude people before 1990s, the fact remain that that portion of the list presently fails WP:V which is the most important wiki policy there is.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Ideally there should be:
The two new articles could explain the office in greater detail, list their powers, method of appointment/election, etc. and contain appropriate references to comply with WP:V along with appropriate links to related lists/articles - i.e. no information contained here would be lost, and wiki policies would be observed. Would you consider such an arrangement?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Tomobe is right in that WP:V trumps opinions, so unless somebody produces a reference saying person X was president of Croatia, we can't have it in the list. As for "heads of state" idea - that would mean listing all monarchs who ruled Croatia (not viceroys since they were merely local governers who governed on behalf of monarchs). As for chronology - from 1945 to 1980 the "president of Croatia" was president of Yugoslavia, i.e. Tito. After 1980 the "head of state" of Yugoslavia was an office which was a collective body - which means we should list everyone from Koliševski to Mesić for the period from 1980 to 1990. And yeah, Yugoslavia was a federation all along, very much like UK is today. Claiming otherwise would create another conundrum - if all republics had their own "presidents", then what was "president of Yugoslavia" really president of? Which "state" was he "head" of if all republics were sovereign enough to have their own heads of state? Timbouctou (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I have provided the Constitution of 1974. the President of Croatia was the President of the Presidency form 1974 until 1990. Read that Constitution and you will see the reference. Yes naming article Heads of State would make it even larger. UK is not a federation, and you can not compare them in that segment. It is just conflict in name and not in function, the President of the Presidency did not have the same powers as the President of Yugoslavia. He was the President of the Federation. You really need to read the Constitution to understand how SFRY really functioned, because you can not compare it to some other country and apply the same laws and forms of government to Yugoslavia. Vladimir Nazor was the President of SR Croatia as Franjo Tuđman was also the President of SR Croatia, later of Republic of Croatia. SR Croatia and Republic of Croatia are the same country just in different times in history and both are/were republics. Again read the Constitution of 1974. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you refer to articles 381 through 393, which cover the presidency, there is nothing to back up the claim. The relevant articles indeed list powers of the presidency (and the president of the presidency in article 389 alone) but the text does not explicitly back up that claim that the president of the presidency is referred to as the "president of the republic" or the "president of Croatia" - in effect making the claim a piece of original research (not permitted per WP:V and WP:OR) or a synthesis (see WP:SYNTH in that respect) at best. Indeed the powers of the presidency (not the president) make the presidency an equivalent of a present-day president in that respect alone, but that does not satisfy WP:V. I still think the presidents of the presidency deserve a separate list article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And what about presidents of presidency being "referred to as Presidents" or "speakers of parliament serving as heads of state", which our article merrily states in its lede? Is that also in the Constitution? It isn't? Well where is it then? Can it be found anywhere in the real world? Is there any list of presidents of Croatia published anywhere by anyone in any language at any point in time which looks like our list? Timbouctou (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Not AFAICT unless it's a wiki mirror or a WP:SPS. But one should assume good faith and expect that a challenge for a reliable source to the contrary will be met in a reasonable period. Failing that, there's no justification to retain those unverifiable claims in this article. That is not to say that material should be deleted - just moved to appropriate (new) articles/lists.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If this article is to be considered only the list of modern day presidents then move the presidents before 1990 into separate article, but then a new section in this article should be created titled "After 1943 and before 1990." stating that in that time period there was no political position named especially President of Croatia and that the functions of modern day President of Croatia were exercised by positions of President of the Presidency, and so on. I can make that section after you make the necessary changes to this article and create the new articles. Users that spread hate because it has been pointed to them that UK is not a federation and that it can not be compared to Yugoslavia do no good to this discussion. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And what about the fact that: "List of Presidents of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks." ? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The move to the separate article(s) should not be problematic - but references should be provided there as well. An additional section explaining and linking prior arrangements/offices should be welcome and is feasible through the "see also" section - each link is allowed to be followed by a short description of relevance. (see WP:ALSO)
The tag re WikiProject Yugoslavia is not a statement of fact but a reflection of contents and whether they fit the project scope description (this applies to any article) - i.e. if the list were confined to post 1992 presidents WPYU tag would be moved to the other articles containing information fitting scope description of WP Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Finally, comparisons of Croatia or Yugoslavia to the UK are not IMO helping or relevant to this discussion which hinges on WP:V. Also I would refrain from claiming that users "spread hate" or refuse to listen that quickly - people get frustrated and caught in emotional responses and one should assume good faith unless proven otherwise - preferably erring at a side of caution. The talk page is just that - talk.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

UGH. One word: oppose. Leave it as it is. Try not to ruin the concept of this article or create FORKS to satisfy your political POV - and please, oh, please - lets not pretend its anything else. -- Director (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Since your opposition does not seem to be based on any source or policy, while you clearly say you are assuming bad faith, I find it hard to give it any credence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that this list is not based on any - really, any, actual source in existence is pretty much against every single policy in the book. How anyone can ignore that simple fact is beyond me. Timbouctou (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Red herrings and nonsense. You want policy? Ok. Determining the WP:SCOPE of an article is up to user WP:CONSENSUS. That's the policy.
If you want the obvious counter-argument spelled out for you, I can do that too: regardless of whether these gentlemen literally had the title of "president", they were "presidents" in the sense of "elected head of a republican state". On to the pathetic nitpicking: they were not "elected" in a multi-party system, but they were nonetheless "elected", as persons, by the Sabor - and they were heads of a republican state. This is not about literal titles.
The bottom line here, you two, is that this article lists presidents in the general sense (heads of a republican state) - and that what you're suggesting is the creation of tiny, non-WP:NOTABLE WP:POVFORKS (another couple policies for ya). Lets be frank here: you just want the newly-elected HDZ president to be on a nice neat list that only counts presidents since the HDZ first came to power. And that's all this is: political POV-pushing.
P.s: Don't try throwing AGF in my face either - its not like we first met here. -- Director (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
None of those trump WP:V, no consensus may override verifiability, and WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You appear well aware of wiki policies so you ought to know that too. It seems to me you are simply asserting ownership over the article - your opposition is mere rephrasing of "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all" example stated in WP:OWN.
Try googling books for "the first president of Croatia" or "the first president of the Republic of Croatia" no hits come back for Nazor, all of them refer to Tuđman. Replace "first" with "second" and all results point to Mesić. Use "third" instead and all results point to Josipović. None point to any other persons whatsoever. On the balance, reliable sources contradict the claim stated in the article while no backing to the contrary is available without resorting to WP:SYNTH.
I am amazed with your interpretation that the two of us (presumably me and Tim, I guess) are bending over backwards to make a "neat list" that would somehow push HDZ agenda. Really? Where did you get that from? What kind of POV-pushing would that be? Saying one set of people were called X and the others Y as supported by ample sources and not the other way around is POV-pushing? Has it even crossed your mind that an user might wish to align the article with verifiability requirements and improve it in the process? Having person A, B or C on top of the list does not make party X no better or worse than it is. How could it possibly do that? You are actually the one claiming ownership of an article, ignoring verifiability which cannot possibly be trumped by any personal opinion or in fact any other wiki policy. Since you blatantly ignore the cornerstone of wiki, I still assert your opinion stated above is not worth a second look.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)\
Its not about "trumping" WP:V. WP:V doesn't apply to this discussion at all - that's a red herring. The scope of this article is what we say it is. And Tudjman is listed as "1". -- Director (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


The scope of this article is what we say it is, and we say it is Presidents of Croatia. Period. Not "people who some thought were presidents", not "people who behaved as presidents", not "people my mom thinks should have been presidents", nor "people who held other offices but it's the same shit anyway" presidents. As for your invoking dictionary definitions - see our own article on Head of state, which says in lede that it is "highest-ranking constitutional position in a sovereign state" - which SR Croatia was not by any stretch of imagination. And still, no amount of ranting can get around the fact that the majority of this list fails WP:V. I could find a million sources referring to Tudjman as "first president of Croatia", and nobody can find a single one saying Pero Car was 13th or Marijan Cvetković was 10th. And sixteen out of twenty entries in this list depend on a definition that nobody outside Wikipedia ever used. This is WP:OR, pure and simple. Timbouctou (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Another red herring. De facto sovereignty has even less to do with this than WP:V...
Look, I really don't know why you feel the need to repeatedly share with us your discovery of what the word "sovereign" means. The point is that a "president" is, in general terms, a word for anybody heading a republican state. SR Croatia was a republican state. It wasn't a sovereign republic, it was a constituent republic - but it was still a "state". And to be a "head" of a "state", that state need not necessarily be sovereign. But even if you disregard that - feel free to refer to them as "heads of a state" rather than "heads of state", if that bothers you so much. I know it makes absolutely no difference with regard to splitting this tiny article article into even tinier POV fragments. That is just absurd.
As for Tudjman, one more time: he is listed as "1", which is in accordance with sources. So it'd be great if you stop talking about it. It also won't stop us from listing the prior heads of a Croatian republic. -- Director (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The term head of state refers to heads of sovereign countries. The term "President" is a subset of the term, used for countries which are not monarchies (i.e. republican ones - which the definition you linked to clearly states). Three quarters of the people on this list were not "Presidents of Croatia" either in name (they were not called that way) nor function (they were not the highest office in the country as the "country" was not Croatia but Yugoslavia; they had no part in foreign policy, defence policy, they did not accredit ambassadors, they did not issue medals, appoint generals, etc.). There is literally no source published anywhere by anyone at any time which chose to conflate pre-1990 persons with the modern-day office, and on the other hand there are a million sources, local and international, who referred to Tudjman as "first president", Mesić as "second president", and so on. One more time - no source in existence refers to Nazor as 1st president, Ivan Krajačić as 6th president, Pero Car as 13th president, and so on. It's not in any textbook, published before or after 1990, it's not in any newspaper article, it's not in any reference book, it's not in any dictionary, it's not in any legislation, and it's not in any lexicon. Three quarters of this list is WP:OR and therefore fails WP:V.
For comparison, similar articles on former Soviet republics (I suppose you would describe them as "constituent countries" even though the phrase is meaningless) have separate lists of presidents (such as President of Tajikistan, President of Georgia, and so on) and lists of pre-independence leaders (such as Leaders of Tajikistan, List of leaders of Georgia). It seems nowhere except here was this strange idea developed to simply claim that pre-independence leaders were in fact "presidents". Timbouctou (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. A constituent state may have a head of state just like any other: it depends exclusively as to whether he is defined as such in law [1]. In terms of international treatment, it is a vague area, generally treated on a case-to-case basis. Your line that a constituent "state" may absolutely not have a "head" simply because its constituent - is patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not a source.
But even in the mad parallel dimension where its not nonsense - it doesn't really matter. A president is simply the head of a republican state. If you think the term "head of state" doesn't apply - just call him "head" of a "state". Its pointless drivel.
Re Georgia etc - WP:OTHERSTUFF: Georgia is not Croatia, and the Soviet Union is not necessarily analogous to Yugoslavia. But if we must, let me point out that which is analogous to Yugoslavia - Yugoslavia: you will find that other constituent republics of the SFRY include the SFRY-era leaders.
Re numbering, this has been discussed previously. We're simply numbering the entries in the list (of republican heads of state). We don't need a source for that, its WP:BLUE. It also has nothing to do with breaking-up this article into unnecessary POVFORKS that fail NOTE (Red Herring #3). -- Director (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me say again, no amount of your ranting can get around the fact that three quarters of this list depend on a sentence you inserted in 2010 and which has gone unreferenced ever since. It can also not replace the fact that this sort of chronology is not accepted anywhere else outside Wikipedia. (And btw read the very first sentence of the link you provided. Was SR Croatia "independent"? No? Then what's the exception?) And yeah, it was raised before, and it will be raised many more times simply because the list fails WP:V. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF - it has nothing to do with this, as this is not an AfD discussion. Soviet republics are quite comparable to Yugoslav republics, and there's no reason to treat these lists differently, as if the political organisation of Yugoslavia was a unique case in the history of the world. Not really so. Timbouctou (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And let me repeat as well: no amount of your inane babble, convoluted word games, or obvious red herrings - will justify splitting this, already small article, into smaller, non-WP:NOTABLE fragments for the sake of your political POV. As for my link, you may want to move on beyond point "1" - to point "3", which actually addresses this issue.

Whether a person is entitled to be regarded as a Head of State is primarily a matter for the law of that State. (...) To be entitled to treatment as a Head of State the entity of which the person claims to be the Head must indeed be a State: such cases will turn on whether the entity is recognized as such. A Head of a State which is not fully independent (Non-Self-Governing Territories) may not be entitled as a matter of international law to the same treatment as Heads of independent States, although other States may accord that level of treatment as a matter of courtesy.

SR Croatia was - a state, and internationally recognized as such. That was the entire basis for the Croatian bid for independence. Its beyond dispute. And its a state that legally defined a head of state. At best its a debatable issue to be viewed on a case-to-case basis. Your contention that being constituent somehow automatically disqualifies the "state" from having a "head" - is your own personal theory, and nothing more.
Re WP:V, it has been explained to you that WP:V has absolutely nothing to do with this: the article covers "presidents" in the sense of republican heads of state, and that is its long-standing scope. I oppose your baseless motion to change said scope and split apart the article. Repeating your red herring over and over again, doesn't make it any less irrelevant. -- Director (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You does not seem to be able or willing to read other people's comments, so let me say it again: no amount of your ranting can get around the fact that three quarters of this list depend on a sentence you inserted in 2010 and which has gone unreferenced ever since. It can also not replace the fact that this sort of chronology is not accepted anywhere else outside Wikipedia. (And btw read the very first sentence of the link you provided. Was SR Croatia "independent"? No? Then what's the exception?) And yeah, it was raised before, and it will be raised many more times simply because the list fails WP:V. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF - it has nothing to do with this, as this is not an AfD discussion. Soviet republics are quite comparable to Yugoslav republics, and there's no reason to treat these lists differently, as if the political organisation of Yugoslavia was a unique case in the history of the world. Not really so. Timbouctou (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You're the one not reading. Sources and talkpage replies. So I'll just copy-paste them: "WP:V has absolutely nothing to do with this: the article covers 'presidents' in the sense of republican heads of state, and that is its long-standing scope. I oppose your baseless motion to change said scope and split apart the article."
If you oppose how this article was conceived back at the beginning of time - that's your prerogative. Its my prerogative to oppose your position as baseless, and point you to the English-language definition of the word "president". -- Director (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It was not really "conceived" at all, it came into existence as a copied list from rulers.org. You just added a note which is purely your invention in the lede that says speakers of Croatia's (regional, I guess) parliament were in fact "presidents of Croatia". You like to use the phrase "long-standing" but let me remind you it is meaningless. Just because something has been wrong for 6 years it does not need to continue to be that way. Timbouctou (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That must be the problem: you "guess" SR Croatia was a "region". Well - no. SR Croatia was not a "region". It was a state. Constitutionally defined as the same state you are living in right now. A state which, for a period, defined its head of state as being the speaker of parliament. This article, like every other ex-Yugoslav 'list of presidents' article - lists all heads of state of the republic, or - presidents. That is the scope. It has nothing to do with sources, or being "wrong" back in times immemorial. That's a red herring. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop it. Timbouctou, you have proven your knowledge on this topic when you said that UK is a federation, now you are saying that SR Croatia was a region and something about sovereign states, Croatia is today not a sovereign state, it is in the EU, NATO, WTO,... Please, it is obvious that you do not know anything about this matter and that you are only driven by your political and ideological views. Spreading hate is wrong, as is spreading ignorance. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yah.. The UK is a "federation", the Sabor was a "regional parliament", and "no constituent republic can have a head of state" - wonder what's next... -- Director (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You two don't seem to read comments, so let me say it again: no amount of your ranting can get around the fact that three quarters of this list depend on a sentence you inserted in 2010 and which has gone unreferenced ever since. It can also not replace the fact that this sort of chronology is not accepted anywhere else outside Wikipedia. (And btw read the very first sentence of the link you provided. Was SR Croatia "independent"? No? Then what's the exception?) And yeah, it was raised before, and it will be raised many more times simply because the list fails WP:V. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF - it has nothing to do with this, as this is not an AfD discussion. Soviet republics are quite comparable to Yugoslav republics, and there's no reason to treat these lists differently, as if the political organisation of Yugoslavia was a unique case in the history of the world. Not really so. And that's the "longstanding" opinion.
@Tuvixer: Is this the "inane babble" Direktor was referring to? You still think Yugoslavia was not a federation? That they just inserted the "F" in SFRY by accident?
In any case, I will start an RfC to gauge broader consensus on this. Because that's how we decide on how to "conceive" articles since, well, "time immemorial". Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Timbouctou: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I never said that Yugoslavia was not a federation, don't try to manipulate. You said that UK is a federation which is completely wrong, thous showing your knowledge or lack of. Yugoslavia was a Federation, a Socialist Federal Republic. You need to see when you don't know well enough about a subject to be able to participate in a constructive conversation or talk in this case. Stop embarrassing yourself and leave this article to users who know something about republicanism, federations, etc. Saying that UK is a federation, which you still are doing shows how little you know about this subject. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah so, this must be the "inane babble" Direktor was referring to. On a side note, read the description of "devolution" to see what the difference is. For our purposes, the distinction is pretty insignificant. Also, read the ledes of articles on federation and federated state (and pay close attention to the last two words of the first paragraph in the latter). Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Guess again. And like I said - its you who don't read. -- Director (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou or Tomobe03, please feel free to apply your reasoned conclusions to the article, as that is the apparent consensus among the group of editors who appear to understand Wikipedia policy, and it has been for years now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I find really disappointing to see two editors, namely User:Director and User:Timbouctou, to make over 50 reverts just in one day, and worste, their compatriot the admin User:Joy to protect them despite obviously seing this.
— FkpCascais — continues after insertion below
I actually didn't see the edit war, I just assumed that it would happen. It's beyond the pale, and I'm guessing someone's going to block them soon enough. Yet, if you think that I somehow am "protecting" them, esp. both of them, then I'm at a loss for words because that's just plain ridiculous. In a recent incident, I actually blocked Timbouctou for edit warring, and then was soon blocked myself because another admin thought I shouldn't be administering harsh sanctions in issues where I was tangentially involved and being needled by comments such as yours. This is in fact a rather schizophrenic situation, where if I don't do anything, I'm at fault, and if I do anything, I'm at fault. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, if you were involved I understand you cant, but ends up looking a bit like "this is our playground and here we will ignore rules and have impunity cause probably no one is watching and it is just us here." Rules are there for a reason, and I don't mean to punish, but to make editors discuss and edit in a proper way. I didn't meant to be mean, just to call the attention of all, 50 reverts in a couple of hours between all veteran editors, come on, we can all do much better than this. You should have spanked them for such behavior :D Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the content, may I ask why in this and other similar articles such as List of Presidents of Serbia, we have the presidents of the Yugoslav republics listed just as the presidents of the independent nations? Being president of one federal unit, or being president of one sovereign nation are absolutely two different things, and I think this articles are meant to be for presidents of sovereign nations. The list clearly has to have the two parts separated. FkpCascais (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for jumping in Fkp. You're countering my position? I shall try to contain my surprise :).
To reply - not if its the same exact country. The "federal unit" in both these cases - was a constituent republic, that became sovereign (not like, say, Kosovo). In both cases the countries are defined as being continuations of those republics (i.e. "the same thing"). In fact, in both cases the presidents of the federal units continued on themselves as presidents when the countries became sovereign (Tudman and Tadic). In short, its unjustified to list these heads of state separately, merely because there was a change of constitution. And its not just Serbia and Croatia - all ex-Yugoslav republics list the officeholders in the same way. And basically did since before time began.
Further, its just not viable from a Wiki perspective, I think that's pretty obvious. We just can't make four articles out of this thing, there aren't enough people, its silly, and makes for stupid coverage. To take your example, the "List Of Presidents Of Serbia Article!" - would hold Nikolic and Tadic. And nobody else. Completely without real justification.
Maybe we could just separate the two into sections?
P.s. Um.. you're criticizing others for edit-warring? Admirable. And you certainly have the moral high ground: I'm sure you would never ever edit war, and never did :). That said, you're absolutely right to criticize in this case.. -- Director (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You may not believe me Director, but I didn't read a single line of this enormous discussion so I have no clue who wants what. You know that we disagreed a lot in the past, but I often also agree with you, it really has nothing to do with editors. I just noticed all day long this article pumping up at top of my watchlist. I gave a look at it. Yes, separating the two sections would seem reasonable.
PS: Oh come on, I don't even remember the last time I edit-warred... probably it was with you like 4-5 years ago :D FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I know, I was joking around.. Re two sections, basically fine I guess, but that just stirs up the old, accompanying questions: as in, "what do we name them?", and "how do we do the analogous thing in the PM article?" Ugh... -- Director (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @FkpCascais: This seems to stem from Direktor's wholly original idea that the English-language phrase "head of state" may refer to just about any head of anything described formally or informally as a state, regardless of whether people in these posts actually were called presidents and whether the office they exercised was comparable in powers to actual modern-day presidents (the article was originally called "Heads of state" in its lede and the presidents part used to be a subsection thereof). Direktor gradually went on and merged everyone into a single list, deciding to call them all "presidents". And I assume it is the same thing in all five other ex-Yugoslav articles (I don't know, I never checked). In reality "heads of state" refers to highest political office in a sovereign country ("highest" meaning "with no one above it"), which was whoever presided over Yugoslavia. Period. But even regardless of that, this article is called "List of Presidents of Croatia". Not "people who an editor thinks were equivalent to present-day presidents." And even disregarding that - we still have the issue of WP:V, that is, we have tons of references referring to post-1990s presidents as "first", "second" and so forth, but absolutely no source, contemporary or otherwise, local or foreign, counting previous office holders as chronologically being part of the same thing. This was all discussed before, several people raised this issue, and each time it ended up drowned in Direktor's endless talk page walls of text. In spite of his recent edit-warring meltdown, he does not even know what I am proposing as I never proposed anything, I just asked for a reason to comply with WP:V. Regarding the subject, there is no reason not to treat this the same as ex Soviet republics such as President of Georgia vs. List of leaders of Georgia or President of Uzbekistan vs. List of leaders of Uzbekistan. In other cases, where there have been too few presidents to merit spinning off a "list of presidents", it is a redirect to "leaders of foo" (such as Presidents of Armenia or Presidents of Kazakhstan) because all presidents were leaders of their countries, but not all leaders were presidents. So what we have here is a unique perspective, retroactively describing an arbitrarily defined set of officeholders as "presidents" of something. And what we don't have here is any proof that anyone in the real world actually shares his beliefs. Timbouctou (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on that. For me, the equivalent of President of Croatia is President of Yugoslavia, simply because they are equivalent post regarding being presidents of a sovereign nation, something the presidents of the SRs werent. I support Director in incorporating the presidents of SR Croatia into this list, but I support you in making a clear cut between the two, making it easily visible for a reader which are the presidents of the now sovereign Croatia, heads-of-state. Then the same formula can be applied for all this related articles of former Yugoslav countries. FkpCascais (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


@Timbouctou. Here's all the individual problems with your reasoning. You can call it a "wall of text" if you like, I think I'll find that wonderfully ironic and amusing coming from you - Mr. Mason.

  • When you say "heads of state refers to highest political office in a sovereign country" - you are talking completely out of your arse. After all your talk of "sources!" - you seem to ignore those that contradict your opinions. Said opinion of yours appears to have been based entirely on the previous definition in our own head of state article, which presented no sources, and which was changed when I brought up the issue. As has been established, (quote) "whether a person is entitled to be regarded as a Head of State is primarily a matter for the law of that State". These are all most definitely heads of state. Kindly stop spreading misinformation. Tudman did not become head of state in 1991, but in 1990. (The only reason I can see for your calling your edit war a "meltdown", is perhaps projection? I assure you - I remained completely solid throughout, in every sense.)
  • When you say we need a source to number entries in our table - you are again expressing nothing but your own baseless opinion. We are free to number whatever we want on our project. That said, the entries respect sources, and list Tudman as "1" etc. Again it doesn't mean, however, that we are forbidden to number our entries from the start of the list. That requires no "source".
  • These people were not the "leaders" of Serbia, Croatia, etc. The "leaders" were prime ministers/executive council presidents, and republic party secretaries, respective to period. The single "leader" here is Tudman. None of the rest of them had any real power.
  • All the Yugoslav-era heads of state were formally titled "president" (-prezidija, -sabora, -predsjednistva). Further, in the English language the primary meaning of "president" is "elected head of a republican state" - as were all these people (that's another source you ignored entirely, both are from Oxford University incidentally). To nitpick over their exact title is just disruptive and unhelpful.
  • The country pre-1991 and post-1991 is explicitly defined constitutionally and legally - as being the same exact country. You ignore this blatant fact, you do not accept it. In fact, the same president simply continued on in the same capacity. It makes perfect sense to list in one place the heads of state of the same country.
Furthermore, the official sources you call upon do NOT list officials (presidents and pms) from Croatia's attainment of sovereignty in 1991 - but from her 1990 elections (while within Yugoslavia), and its Christmas Constitution. This is obvious from Stipe Mesic being listed as pm no.1. They do not follow your position.

Finally - this isn't my conspiracy, and you know that full well. All ex-Yugoslav republics do and did list the Yugoslav-era officials since their creation, presidents, pms, all of them. The only thing I did was introduce a table. This is nothing but post-presidential-elections HDZ zealotry, demanding that the universe begin with their party attaining power...

I can basically agree to splitting the lists - if that's the consensus. But I can NOT agree on an arbitrary "ban" on our numbering the entries in this list, both in here and in the footnotes of infoboxes that mention the order. So that's my position. The questions raised by introducing two sections are as follows: #1 Do we split in 1990 or 1991? As I said, Timbouctou talks of sovereignty (1991), whereas the official listing he invokes talks of the 1990 elections (i.e. do we list Tudman once, or in both sections? Or maybe twenty times just to be sure? xD). #2 Depending on where we split, what do we call the two sections? (The people above were not "leaders" under any definition of the word.) -- Director (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so this is actually the discussion I suspected it was all about, wether SR Croatia and nowadays Croatia are the same country or not (this also implies the case is the same with other former Yugoslav republics). One question, what makes you say Director that SR Croatia and nowadays Croatia are the same country? FkpCascais (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I will tell you what. The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia in its Preamble. Then secondly, international law, domestic law, etc. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Direktor: 1. What exactly was changed in the head of state article after your intervention? As for the definition, there is one you misquote constantly (from Oxford), but there are at least 10 others which prove you are wrong. I actually write about this sort of stuff for a living and the meaning of "head of state" is pretty WP:BLUE to any English language speaker. 2. No, we are not "free to number whatever we want on our project" - that's the very definition of WP:OR. I'm amazed you can even say that. The numbering scheme implies continuity, and that continuity is non-existent in the real world. You are inventing a parallel universe here, and you are using your own invention (by your own admission) to do so. 3. Who are you to define who "leaders" were? And how can you even imply you and only you can decide who had "real power". Does anyone know what the powers of "presidents of presidency" had? I didn't think so. 5. Virtually everyone in Yugoslavia, past or present, is referred to as "president" of something - from predsjednik općine to predsjednik vlade. We never translate any of them as "presidents". 6. The Oxford edition defines "election" as a defining feature of a "president". The very first presidential election in Croatia were in 1992. All the ones who came before were party appointed. Not even the Oxford dictionary you quote would agree with you. But if you like, I can quote seven other dictionaries which are explicitly opposed to you. But that wouldn't help, would it? 7. Oh yes, this has nothing to do with the real world, this is your own fringe left-wing zealotry. And after six years, after all the walls of text, after 4-5 assumptions needed to even justify the existence of this list, after this has been raised several times by several people, after you edit-warred incessantly, you are still unable to show a single piece of evidence the view you represent is shared by anyone but you. If this is not a textbook example of WP:OWN I have no idea what is. Timbouctou (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Suggestion

Hello everyone. I'm posting here today because I see a long discussion (as well as some serious edit-warring) which is ongoing over this article for a while now. I want to help ending that with a suggestion which, I hope, will be helpful. But before I put forward that suggestion, let me say this:

1) I'm definitely not a fan of extra long, never-ending talk page discussions, so I have no intention to jump into this one.
2) I was perfectly happy with the way this article looked so far (as well as all the other articles related to heads of state and heads of government of ex-Yugoslav republics).
3) I support what Director said during this discussion, I think he's right in the way he sees this article (and the other similar articles).

HOWEVER, if there is a consensus to somehow change the articles in question (list of Croatian officeholders, as well as others related to ex-Yugoslav republics), I have no problem to accept that. Wikipedia is built on consensus, after all.

So, here is my suggestion in attempt to end the current dispute:

If we want to somehow make a clear difference between pre-independence and post-independence officeholders (by splitting the list into two sections), we should look upon these articles related to ex-Yugoslav republics:

1) President of Slovenia
2) Prime Minister of Slovenia
3) President of the Republic of Macedonia
4) Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia

As you can see, in these articles we do have a clear separation of list into sections. Officeholders listed there are not part of the same list. But, all officeholders are part of the same article, without the need to create 2 fork-like articles for Speakers of the Presidium of Parliament and Presidents of the Presidency.

I really can't agree to the solution which would leave us with:

1) List of Presidents of the Presidium of the Parliament of Croatia
2) Speaker of the Croatian Parliament (already exist)
3) List of Presidents of the Presidency of Croatia
4) List of Presidents of Croatia (containing officeholders from Tudjman to this day)

Whatever you decide, please avoid that solution.

I hope my suggestion will be put to a good use. In the end, I want to say that I'm ready to help if you, guys, decide that articles related to heads of state and heads of government of ex-Yugoslav republics should be remodeled. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No. You are just starting the same discussion all over again. Read the discussion and you will see why it should remain as it is. There is no such thing as a model for ex-Yugoslav lists of heads of states. Every Republic had its own constitution, and in the end Serbia is 8/9 years old, and Croatia is 24/25 years old. Please, stop reviving this Frankenstein of a discussion. Tnx. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Believe me, my only intention was to help. I have no reason to start this Frankenstein of a discussion all over again. I just wanted to help by breaking the deadlock here. If you guys want to leave this (and other similar lists) as they are, I can't be more happy. As I said, that's my opinion too, I'm perfectly happy with their present look. I just wanted to prevent seeing this list split into 2 fork-like articles, that's all. If my suggestion isn't needed at this point, you have all the freedom to disregard it. --Sundostund (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, separating in sections like in the Slovenian article would be just fine, and even better than it is now in my opinion. It is visually great, and without unnecessary Notes column. I was just tired of reading new comments on this topic, I was wrong, so thanks for coming again and elaborating your case. Tnx for that. :) Seeing this guys or that one guy argue just because of his political views and ideology was really so annoying and unproductive. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I just suggested we might split it into sections up there, and I'm being unproductive? :)
As I said, I'm fine with taking the table, as it is, and splitting it into the two sections. I don't agree we can't number entries in this list article. And we're back to the two questions: the government counts officials since 1990, not since independence, so where do we cut off the first section? And what do we name the sections? Slovenia's article handled that part pretty poorly: i.e. neither names used for section headings actually apply to the whole of the periods they're slapped on to; also, such headings imply these were two states.
While we're "discovering warm water", as it were, lets remember why the two sections aren't there in the first place: its a clumsy solution, and an artificial break for what is a period of transition. And lets remember Slovenia's article was copied from ours (that's all my stuff over there.. I know I did Serbia.. did I do Slovenia? I don't think so.. :P).
So, ideally, even though I myself suggested splitting as an option, I'd leave things as they are. That's my preference. -- Director (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I already said that I support you on the split proposal. Something like President of Slovenia? FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "model" to be followed but the policy of verifiability. Leaving the list as is violates it. I have not yet seen any reliable sources which supports claims stated in the lead of the list and inclusion of speakers of parliament or presidents of presidency in the list. No moping that this is not addressed either in case of Slovenia or that another list, if the same policy were applied, would be very short will ever make the issue of verifiability go away. Saying "that is my stuff" is clearly out of place for a collaborative projects. Personal preferences and sense of ownership explicitly stated here do not trump verifiability. I find resorting to accusations of pushing some imaginary political agenda despite clearly pointing to a relevant policy and asking for sources clearly disruptive as editor after editor comes along and points to the same, unresolved issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No it does not violate WP:V! Scope is determined by consensus! This has been explained to you! Kindly stop repeating the same nonsense. -- Director (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, thanks for your response. I'm glad I managed to clear up my reasons for posting this suggestion, and you understood those reasons. Director, I'm very well aware of shortcomings in the Slovenian articles (honestly, which article on this project doesn't have shortcomings?), as well as issues you raised. I suggested using the example of Slovenian and Macedonian articles only in order to help finding some compromise here, and to avoid removal of Yugoslav-era officeholders from this list (and other similar lists). I didn't mean to suggest full copy-paste of Slovenian and Macedonian example (neither I want to see the removal of Notes column, I think it should stay), I just wanted to show how its possible to split this kind of lists into sections, without removal of data and creation of fork articles... As you said, Director - I'd leave things as they are. I'm of the same opinion (as you can see above), both in the case of lists of Croatian officeholders, as well as in the case of lists of officeholders of other ex-Yugoslav republics. Again, I only wanted to help here. If I did - great, if not - c'est la vie. I won't post further responses here, I'll just watch this page to see what you guys will do to resolve this issue. Cheers everyone! --Sundostund (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh.. then lets just leave it as it is. I'll clarify it a bit and lets stop zapping this frankenstein! Ping: Tuvixer, Fkp how do you stand on that?
Mind you if there's again no consensus for your point of view Timbouctou, I'll remove the goddamn tags and bloody-well report you if you push them again! -- Director (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Leave it as it is. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Imo we got a decent response, I hope we can consider the concerns to have at least been addressed, and can put it to rest for now? I don't think anyone could claim the proposed changes have consensus. -- Director (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of Presidents of Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Repair the list of Croatian presidents.

Hello, I believe that you obviously are not familiar enough in Croatian history. First of all, Croatia was independent since 1991, since then we have the Croatian president, not the Communists who had de facto role The president of the Socialist Republic of Croatian (which was part of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia became independent in 1991). I would ask all users of Wikipedia to correct these errors, also would like to ask you to put the list of Croatian President under Croatian features, and not under the communist Yugoslav and features. Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mica Maca Pipica (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI #2

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of Presidents of Croatia, again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OVERTAGGING

@Timbouctou: The tag templates are not there to serve as a consolation prize for not managing to push your personal political agenda. There is no ongoing dispute, the tag is unwarranted. -- Director (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's warranted alright. It has been warranted for years now and it seems it will continue to be that way until you find one more person on this planet who thinks counting "republican presidents" as heads of state is not WP:OR. Troll away now. Timbouctou (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me reiterate for the fifteenth time: NOBODY CARES what you think constitutes a "head of state". Got that? These people were heads of state by the constitution, the fact that they do not meet your own personal standards - which are based on nothing at all! - is completely irrelevant. Do you comprehend this? Do you comprehend that you are in fact directly contradicted by scholarly sources in that position? -- Director (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
He has found "one more person on this planet", and I agree with Director. --Tuvixer (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll find you don't count, Tuvixer. As Timbouctou will no doubt presently explain - you're not a person somehow (though as an agenda-driven POV-pusher, he may just ignore this instead). -- Director (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe Direktor's own answer to this would be WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Timbouctou (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I'm not quite that stupid, Timbouctou. Because in addition to having no support, you also have nothing resembling a coherent argument. You made a claim, you did not support it with sources, and a ref was provided explicitly contradicting you. You have nothing. Except that is, for Joy shifting the focus onto me whenever you should be on review for revert-warring against consensus, and your amazing ability to thug about in complete disregard of basic behavioral guidelines. -- Director (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You are asking for sources now? Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you don't need sources - why not laugh :). You can just PROCLAIM the fact that heads of state are only sovereign heads of state, and behold! - its a fact made manifest. And why not? If someone disagrees you'll just edit-war. And if someone reverts you - they'll get reported by your hrWiki pal.
Seriously, though, people are looking at this mess of yours now. Lets be clear - do you have a source or don't you for your claim regarding what makes a 'head of state' ("heads of state are possible only in sovereign countries") -- Director (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Timbouctou stop this. You are behaving like a bully. Please can someone report him. If you have a problem with the article present it here, but do not change the article, you need a consensus to change the article and you know that. You have been involved in this article for quite some time, so please stop this, you know the rules. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, after seeing the way you talk to other editors like you did at LGBT rights in Croatia, or Economy of Croatia or Privatization in Croatia or Social Democratic Party of Croatia or Ministry of Culture, it's getting tiresome reading you asking everyone who does not agree with you what is "wrong with them" and generally behaving as if you are 11, owning articles, calling others names and abandoning discussions started by yourself at your whim. I sure am tempted to report your trolling, I doubt the project would lose much. Timbouctou (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You just insulted my own mental health, and you're handing out comments on the conduct of others? Some self-awareness, please.. -- Director (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol, if I had a dime for every insult you spewed over the years I'd be buying Facebook right now. Timbouctou (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"LOL" Am I going around presuming to teach people civility? Perhaps you should stick to Facebook... -- Director (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I just find it infinitely amusing you are unable to resist having the last word so you always end up talking to yourself. Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you don't like to see people actually respond to your bullying, do you? "LOL" -- Director (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nah I just find your impulsivity, conduct disorders, lack of empathy and regular trolling for about 5-6 years now (which obviously stem from your proneness to boredom) indicative of your mental condition. I think you are a prime example of what an "open project that anyone can edit" ends up being - a collective composed solely of semi-literate imbeciles and delusional psychopaths with a sense of grandeur and an internet connection. You know, reaching points such as describing yourself as the "greatest nemesis of right-wing nationalism in our republic" is pretty indicative. What's next? Proclaiming yourself the emperor of Liberland? Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hahah - I said math, not me Timbouctou... I guess reading isn't far behind either. Whatever, its been fun, but I'm stopping this. -- Director (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol, I doubt you could stop even if you wanted to. Trolling is literally all you are capable of. Timbouctou (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_presidents_of_Croatia/Archive_2&oldid=1136259461"