Talk:Croatia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Section "Education" should be updated.

CHANGE THIS:

as well as scientists, such as Franciscus Patricius, Nikola Nalješković, Nikola Vitov Gučetić, Josip Franjo Domin, Marino Ghetaldi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Andrija Mohorovičić, Ivan Supek, Ivan Đikić, Miroslav Radman and Marin Soljačić.

INTO THIS:

as well as scientists, such as Franciscus Patricius, Nikola Nalješković, Nikola Vitov Gučetić, Josip Franjo Domin, Marino Ghetaldi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Andrija Mohorovičić, Ivan Supek, Ivan Đikić, Miroslav Radman, Marin Soljačić and Davor Solter. DoctaDicta (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Looking at Solter's article, I don't see a clear tie to Croatia. Based on the timeline, he emigrated from Yugoslavia. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, are you kidding me. Of course he emigrated from Yugoslavia, when Croatia was part of Yugoslavia till 1990. The man is clearly Croatian scientist! —VelikiMeshtar (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (CET)

Foundation of early medieval Croatia?

Wkipedia is usually based on reliable secondary sources. For resolving the issue when exactly Croatia was established during the middle ages we can use for example the prominent academic book: "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" with author John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., a professor of Balkan and Byzantine history at the University of Michigan. This book was published by the University of Michigan Press in 1991. As prof. Fine has stated there: Thought the Byzantines had lost control of most of the Balkans in the seventh century, the Slavs had formed no states as yet. They continued to live in small tribal units, independent of one another, etc. see: p. 65. The conclusion is clear: during the 7th century there were no Slavic state formations on the Balkans. Also check please: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). The source for Heraclius is not valid for many reasons. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In the article the dating is discussed in the section "Middle Ages", where it is stated that the claim about 7th century establishment is disputed. To put it as a fact in the infobox is therefore completely undue. De Administrando Imperio is not a WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I followed example from article of Serbia, (Principality of Serbia (early medieval) is also based on De Administrando Imperio and c. 780. Mikola22 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Apart from that, I did remove a 7th century claim from the Serbia article, too. As for the 780 claim, that is a bit different, since it seems to be sourced to secondary sources. In the Serbia article it is sourced to Sima M. Ćirković (which I cannot read, since I do not know the language). In the Principality of Serbia (early medieval) article, the same information is sourced to Đorđe Strizović (which I also cannot read) and to Samardžić & Duškov (eds.), where Miloš Blagojević explicitly mentions "around the year 780". --T*U (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Christians

Do you people agree to put all Christians under one total percentage, as seen on Serbia's infobox? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

minor NOTES edit

In the notes it states:

"The writing system of Croatia is legally protected by federal law. Efforts to recognise minority scripts, pursuant to international law, on a local level, has been met with protests."

It cannot be protected by federal law as there is no federal law. Croatia is not a federation, but a unitary republic.

93.138.161.134 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing....

Under Establishment in Croatia page is missing era from 1941-1945 also known as Independent State of Croatia. That was Nazi pupet State, with they own shere of Naci crimes during ww2. That era should be integrated in Establishment column in 'protected due wandalism' Croatia State page. Sanjammm (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The historical continuum is Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Banovina of Croatia as an autonomous part of it) -> SFR Yugoslavia (SR Croatia). Not Kingdom of Yugoslavia -> NDH -> SFR Yugoslavia. The relatively short Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, in which the NDH was established as an illegal act of the occupying powers, does not change that. Per Tomasevich "War and Revolution in Yugoslavia", p. 272:

• "Yugoslavia still legally existed and held sovereign rights over its territory; these rights were simply suspended because of belligerent occupation. Even if the resistance at home was disregarded, the Yugoslav state, as a member of the anti-Axis coalition and in the form of the government-in-exile, was legally still fully operative. Throughout the war, it contested all the claims to legal existence and sovereignty of the Croatian puppet state and regarded it as an agent of the aggressor powers."

and Hoare in "The Bosnian Muslims in the Second World War", p. 19:

• "The NDH’s ‘independence’ was at all times a sham: it was never recognised by any non-Axis country except Franco’s Spain and at the Nuremberg Trials it was declared to be merely an expression of the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia. In practice, it was treated like a colony by the Germans and Italians, its economic resources mercilessly exploited."

So not only does the NDH not belong in the infobox, we should also not treat every action of the NDH, such as some military/cleansing operation in eastern Bosnia which wasn't included in the Banovina of Croatia or later SR Croatia, as part of "history of Croatia". Tezwoo (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In a nutshell, you decided to go with the major changes to the article without getting any feedback in the first place?

Why did you remove the information about the Genocide of Serbs? I am looking for a really good explanation for that move. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• If a number was put in by the Serbian propagandist Sadko then the number of genocide of Croats by Chetniks in WW2 should be included and also put a redirect to chetniks war crimes , the Serbian page [[1]] on Chetnik crimes against Croats and Bosniaks should also be edited.93.138.64.112 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure buddy. Why don't you register with a username or your real name and then accuse people who work hard to find references and solution to disputes, rather than hounding us for months and months (the report is still very much active) from your IP range like some nj**er? Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

For a start for example to prove that you are not a Serbian propagandist, edit the page of Serbia [[2]] of chetniks crimes against Croats and Bosniaks , then you can make others smart, but you are a Serbian propagandist who only writes against Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Albanians, look at your edits,I'm surprised the admins haven't banned you yet.93.138.64.112 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would, of course, but the majority of those war crimes happened in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, some took place in Montenegro and some in Serbia. If you have no other constructive ideas, you can be excused or simply get back on the main topic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You made it up nicely, as a Serbian propagandist, of course you will not write these in Serbia or Montenegro just keep writing against it Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Albanians it's your job 93.138.64.112 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How much time do you have to IP hop and harass people? You will just be blocked again. Make an account as Sadko said and fix your behavior. If you want your concerns and input taken seriously. OyMosby (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Croatia, not the NDH, of whom Croatia is not a successor. I do not accept these attempts to equate the modern country of Croatia with the NDH, and have provided quotes by Hoare and Tomasevich to support my view.

I don't see why should the main article about Croatia, in a subsection intended for a very brief summary of that part of history, include anything other than the casualties of Croatia cited to Žerjavić and Kočović, whose estimates are accepted as reliable by a majority of scholars. Both Žerjavić and Kočović largely based their works on the modern borders of the former Yugoslav republics, and not the WW2 "states", so giving their estimates for the borders of Croatia is completely justified.

There are other articles about WW2 in Yugoslavia dedicated to the estimates of the numbers of victims of all ethnicities, all movements and armies, in all territories encompasing a particular entity in occupied Yugoslavia. Tezwoo (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your viewpoints. History of NDH took place on the territory of modern-day Croatia and it is a de facto and de jure part of Croatian history. It has nothing to do with Croatia being or not being a successor to ND. That is not the topic at all.

Note that you remove every mention of Genocide of Serbs in the history section. There is no word about camps for children. Nothing. That it is not acceptable in my view and it is 100% relevant and on-topic.

All the other pages on countries contain that type of information, check Germany for example, 1 FA. They also included Herero and Namaqua genocide. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Just on the topic of complete removal. Totals were removed for Chetniks as well. So the focus on the Ustase is strange. Also looking at Tezwoo’s edit, their edit specifically mentions the Ustase and their genocidal campaign agains Jews, Serbs and Romani. Also a link to concentration camps run by the Ustashe and Nazis. Nazi Germany essentially has the same borders as today’s and is a successor state. Regardless I think victim totals make sense in the section as Sadko restored. The entirety of that part of grotesque history isn’t removed by Tezwoo from what I can tell by the diffs. It is mention in condensed form. Is that the right form I don’t have n opinion on. OyMosby (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Germany is a succesor of Nazi Germany. Croatia is not a successor of the NDH, so I don't see a point in having the numbers of casualties of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia (eastern Syrmia) in a topic about Croatia, or even further from that such as the regions of Sandžak. With that logic we can include all the war-time casualties of Yugoslavia, including the post-war period. And that is without going into the fact that the figure you added is not supported by the established studies on the number of casualties by Žerjavić and Kočović. There are sources that mention a much higher number of Chetnik and Partisan victims as well, so where will we end up if we start adding all of that into the article? Tezwoo (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bulgaria is a featured article as well and doesn't mention any figures on casualties. Tezwoo (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No one's arguing the NDH was a legitimate country or that modern Croatia is its natural successor but you also can't treat it as something completely separate when it was based in modern Croatia and is a part of its history. When the article passed GA, it included both Serb and Croat casualty figures for the NDH, not just Croatia proper. But I don't see why we can't list Serb victims of the Ustaše and Croat/Muslim victims of the Chetniks and why we only have to use Žerjavić and Kočović for these figures. While reliable they are also imperfect. In the case of the Chetniks, the best source might be Žerjavić (per Geiger) but for the Ustaše a lot more bibliography exists and the general consensus from most reliable sources seems to be around 300,000. --Griboski (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This topic was started by equating Croatia and NDH. The GA version just gave the totals cited by Žerjavić and Kočović, and for some reason those totals were for entire Yugoslavia in an article about Croatia.

With the exception of Slovenia which did their own thorough research, the numbers of victims of the Ustaše, and likewise the Chetniks, and even the Partisans or post-war Yugoslavia, are highly disputed. The only thing that scholars agree upon are the totals provided by Žerjavić and Kočović, which are almost identical. There is no general consensus on anything else. I don't see how is it better to have huge paragraph(s) for all the major ethnic groups and a wide range of estimates of their deaths and who they died to (including BiH and even other republics), instead of a largely agreed total number of casualties of Croatia. Tezwoo (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles grow, as did this one since it got its GA status. That is no argument.

I am fully aware that there are debates and different conclusions about the number of victims but that does not justify complete removal of important information about this part of Croatian history. If there are other ideas for wording or how to move forward, you can bring them here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Croatia is not NDH

"The Ustaše regime murdered around 300,000 Serbs as part of the genocide campaign" and "An estimated 18,000–32,000 Croats and 29,000–33,000 Muslims perished at the hands of the Chetniks". information's are for main article about NDH. Croatia is not successor of NDH and 300,000 Serbs are not killed in Croatia but also in Bosnia and Herzegovina which was then part of the NDH not Croatia. Also in that NDH there were territories that were not under NDH power, such as Bihać Republic. Also part of NDH was and today Serbia. Also the Ustaše regime does not just present Croats but also and Muslims(Bosniaks). There are also Germans, Italians and Chetniks who killed Serbs in NDH, whether they're also under this Ustaše regime fact?

• If this information's are for this article then the same information's must be part of the article about Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition, the NPOV must be presented with information's about Croatian Partisans, Bosnian Partisans, free areas of NDH under Partisans, Partisan victims, killed Serbs by Germans, Italians and Chetniks etc. Mikola22 (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The "country" criteria doesn't stand as Croatia is not a successor of the NDH. The "ethnic" criteria doesn't stand as well, as a very large number of the Ustaše military force were not ethnic Croats. And then comes the issue of the various estimates of the number of victims which are disputed for all main sides of the war, appart from the research of Žerjavić and Kočović. Tezwoo (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Croatia is not a successor of NDH, which is why e.g. former NDH soldiers don't receive any pensions. GregorB (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The above was sarcasm, to be fully clear. That put aside, one should not conflate legal and historical aspects of the relation between NDH and present-day Croatia. History of the Independent State of Croatia is history of Croatia (as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina and, through Zemun, even Serbia). GregorB (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Parts of Croatia were included in Fascist Italy, Hungary, and later Nazi Germany (Operational Zone of the Adriatic Littoral, although the entire NDH was legally part of German occupation). About 12,438 square kilometers in 1941, or 22% of modern territory. The WW2 entities which they were part of included parts of modern-day Montenegro and Slovenia, yet Montenegro under Italian and Slovenia under German rule are hardly within the scope of this article.

For example, Jozo Tomasevich (2001 book, page 738) lists casualty statistics only for the modern-day borders of Croatia and other republics, instead of WW2 borders. Tezwoo (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, in the article "Serbia" do not exist information's about Chetniks in WWII and how many Croats and Bosniaks were killed by them in Bosnia or Croatia although they had the leadership in Serbia. This means that neutral information would be that part of Croatia and Croats in WWII were under NDH and Ustasha regime but without the number of victims or only for the territory of Croatia and with link to NDH. Otherwise the current information in the article seems as if Croatia is successor of the NDH, and as if 300,000 of Serbs had been killed in Croatia. But as I said if this information remains or with modifications, also it must be entered information's for NPOV. Croatia is also an anti-fascist country with a lot of Croatian citizens fighting and dying against Ustasha, German or Italian regime on Croatian teritory. Mikola22 (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Including the entire NDH would in fact more than double Croat and Bosniak losses no matter which estimate we use, so it's obviously not a "Croatian POV" to exclude it. The current wording implies that 300,000 Serbs were killed by the Ustaše in modern-day Croatia alone, and then later in the text it says that total losses of Serbs in Croatia of all causes were 125-137,000. Tezwoo (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Date format

I took the liberty of adding a dot on yyyy in the info template, but that's not the issue. Single-digit days and months are not preceded by a 0, meaning that the format is d and m instead of dd and mm respectively. How to add this bit concisely into the template? Splićanin (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox entry is meant to convey all the details, it's a descriptive format (which e.g. enables the reader not to fall into the trap of confusing the month-first and day-first formats). GregorB (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Two pictures from communists entering Zagreb in 1945

Someone is playing ideological propaganda. There is no need to put two pictures of Yugoslav communist partisans enetring Zagreb in 1945. in history section. Pp (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Featured article

@OyMosby:@Mikola22:@Tezwoo:@SerVasi:@Tuvixer:@Joy:@United Union:@Silverije:@Jesuislafete:@GregorB:@DerTorx:@Koreanovsky:@Daß Wölf:@Pjesnik21:@Director:

Hi, I am inviting you to work together on this article. It would be a great pleasure to work together and shift this already good article to the featured article. Each of you can help by updating information, adding independent, reliable sources, improving the neutral point of view, changing the structure of sentences to fit the encyclopedia, improving grammar, adding better images and so on. If someone uses Grammarly Premium, it would be great to use it to fix grammar. You are all experienced Wikipedia editors, and I believe that together we could improve this article in less than a week to make it a featured article by following criteria. That is just a request, I do not want to force anyone to participate, but I believe that together we are more efficient and can significantly improve the article quality that represents our country. Thank you. --Thebeon (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea, of course, even if my hunch is that this particular FA will prove to be very hard to do - but it doesn't matter really, let's call it an improvement drive if you will, and see where it takes us. I'd consider a timeline significantly longer than a couple of weeks, though.

I remember back in the day I did (or considered doing?) some work on updating various stats in the article, but it turned out to be larger effort than I expected. I might do some update/referencing work, currently I don't have time/mental resources for more than that. The article is on my watchlist now.

Also: pinging Tomobe03. GregorB (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh... this was a long time ago. I vaguely remember taking it through GAR, but it was quite a while ago. Not making any promises, but what needs be done? (I have also watchlisted the article now.) --Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with this article is outdated information. It is really hard to find reliable sources for some statements, some of which are from 2010 or earlier. There are statistical yearbooks, although they do not contain all the information needed for updating. Secondly, I'm trying to improve the grammar, even though I am not very good at English, but Grammarly helps a lot. I also requested a peer review for this article, as you can see at the top of the talk page, but nobody has responded since. The point is that we work more systematically and at least have a long-term goal of making it FA. --Thebeon (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviews are normally glacially slow IIRC - I wouldn't hold my breath for those. Perhaps you should make a bulleted list here in talk listing major issues first, adding minor issues as updates progress. That way, others could pitch in and strike out what's done and list what's missing/outdated. As regards grammar/style/flow of prose, I'd strongly suggest making a request for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/REQ indicating intention of submitting the article to FAR. There is a (about) month-long wait, so a request should be posted when uptade is reasonably near complete - i.e. not yet.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the major issue is outdated information. I marked, a bit lazily, every section that has outdated information to be updated. Our statistical information is scattered across the internet and thus very difficult to update most of the content. It would be great if we have all the statistics from 2020, but, some, the Croatian Bureau of Statistics did not update for years. This year should be the National Census, but as it usually goes in Croatia, we will wait for 2-3 years for most of the statistics to be published. Honestly, except outdated content, and grammar, I don't know what should be improved, so it meets criteria to become FA. That is why I need more of us to help me detect more issues. --Thebeon (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if it is justified to add tags if there are no actionable complaints, or if you are unsure if any issues exist regarding updates.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, among all FAs on countries, the country most similar to Croatia is Bulgaria. It's also a fairly recent one (Oct 2018), so it might serve as a yardstick. I suppose its FA nom is worth taking a look at too. GregorB (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It definitely has more citations, so that should also be a prirority. But the quality of the citations is more important, only independent, reliable sources should be used, and for some sensitive topics, third-party sources. --Thebeon (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Images are also of better quality and more attractive in Bulgaria article. Many images on Croatia article are dark, blurry, some are irrelevant to the sections. --Thebeon (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

At least 50 more new, reliable sources should be added to the article. There is some puffery in the article, and many sentences need to be more concise. Thebeon (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are basically all the new information needed for updating the article. This could be also used as a supplement, although it has older information. --Thebeon (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It'd be great to have the 2020 edition of the Statistical Yearbook, I checked days ago and it's still not out, but I suppose it should be published soon, release date is normally in December. Statistical Information looks very good too, that's also an option. GregorB (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why the last Statistical Yearbook is from 2018. That means it has information from 2017, or in some cases, earlier. There is no Statistical Yearbook from 2019, let alone 2020. Maybe they skipped 2019. Hope they will release 2020 soon. --Thebeon (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of 4 million people living in Croatia, many more abroad, and 15 pinged users, nobody wants to help? I know you have other things to do, but can we just one time cooperate and make something worthwhile, I beg you, I need your help. Updating old information is a priority. Thebeon (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I can help with updating old info and refs in general, but I can't promise a particular time frame. GregorB (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we split Arts from Literature and music section? There is nothing about music, although it is significant in Croatia, and part of a culture in every country. I think we should expand on music more. Also can be done for Education and science. There are no mentions of Croatian discoveries and inventions except necktie, and only a list of only a part of Croatian inventors and scientist. Thebeon (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the account "Thebeon" that had initiated this discussion has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an earlier user, per the WP:Sockpuppetry policy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the article is already very good - but a few sections like infrastructure or sports need to be updated. --Koreanovsky (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Croatia can not be described under the title Balkan country

Most Croats would not present themselves as Balkan, especially not in 2021. This is a heritage of the past when Croatia was not an independent country and I believe it should be corrected.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.68.26 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Croatia is Balkan country. Sanjammm (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Croatia is Central European and Mediterranean country. The term balkan should be used to describe influences only. Thank you. --NatKalC (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the comments expressed here, I can tell you that your endless desire to control how people are going to categorize your nation, and your insistence on "appearing" a particular way, is perceived by those of us who study your part of the world as an incredible character flaw, and a form of insecurity. In other words, all this has the affect of the very opposite of what you're attempting to achieve, which is a sort of perception by the world of Croatia being "modern" and "Western" and unlike those "Balkan" types who are associated with backwardness and primitivism. That is to say, your denial of your geographic categorization demonstrates to the people you're attempting to convince of the very thing you're attempting to convince them against. 198.217.119.218 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Could this be because Anglophone speakers, the globally dominant linguistic group, so casually use ethnic slurs such as wikt:Balkanization and reduce long, complex and nuanced history of Balkan to what's tantamount to 'bunch of savages who enjoy ethnic cleansing each other'? Eastern Mediterranean is the cradle of the Western civilisation so why is it such a problem to you for Croatia to want to consider themselves Western? Do you disagree that it is a form of most basic respect to recognise one's self-identification? Melmann 12:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Source of demographics table - which needs fixing

There is a table of the most populous cities in Croatia, rendering just below the "Demographics" section start. I have been looking at the source code to the page and I can't figure out how this table is being built. The links for Zagreb are wrong and need to be fixed. Could someone please educate me on how this can be fixed please? I know its a short step from there to actually fixing it, but would appreciate the information as well so that I learn. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried editing Template:Largest cities of Croatia, Marvin The Paranoid? The table is designed as a template, which is then displayed in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

Manjunathr1988 (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021 (2)

Please change from

to

Manjunathr1988 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done in revision 1032031855. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

leading to doubts over the authenticity of the claim.-- that has to be removed, because that doubts are risen only be serbian ultra-nationalists who says that in Srebernica there were no genocide, which is criminal act. 151.252.231.62 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. While I cannot read the Croatian source cited, it does appear to be a reliable source. Are you denying that the source says this? We cannot simply take your word that it has to be removed, you need to provide reliable sources to back up your assertion. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Err, no idea what this anonymous was about, but I looked up this sentence, and it's an interesting discussion about the 9th century. So our article uses a book to cite the sentence "The first attestation of the Latin term is attributed to a charter of Duke Trpimir I of Croatia from the year 852. The original is lost, and just a 1568 copy is preserved, leading to doubts over the authenticity of the claim." The linked source on page 27 says:

Nemogućnost da se jasno definira pojava najranijega hrvatskog identiteta, nedvojbeno svjedoči o socijalnom i regionalnom kontekstu stvaranja najranijega hrvatskog identiteta, čije se postojanje ne može sa sigurnošću potvrditi prije kasnog IX. stoljeća kroz raspoloživa vrela.[30]

Barford, cit. dj. (n. 15), str. 73-75. Nisam siguran da bi se “Trpimirova darovnica” trebala uzimati kao autentična. Vidi N. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku. Zagreb, 1990, str. 58 s bibliografijom, tako da bi Branimirova titula “dux cruatorum” bio najraniji dokument koji prezentira hrvatsko ime.

The book actually notes the gist of the authenticity issue on page 171:

O Trpimiru se do godine 1931/32. pisalo na temelju isprave nazvane Trpimirova darovnica, koja je sačuvana u najstarijem prijepisu iz 1568. godine. Prijepis te Trpimirove isprave iz XVI. stoljeća upućuje na mogućnost da indikcija može biti i pogrešno prepisana. Pod pretpostavkom da je indikcija točno navedena ne može se sa sigurnošću zaključiti na koju se godinu odnosi.[348] Povijesna jezgra ove isprave može se prihvatiti kao istinita.[349]

The book does go into a detailed historiographical incongruity about the exact dating, but explicitly confirms the basic historicity of the charter. So this is some weird sourcing, I'll try to amend it to be less so. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Under the Croatian War of Independence article it is written:

and hundreds of mainly elderly Serb civilians were killed in the aftermath of the military operation (citation 107).

It should be: more than hundred Serb civilians were killed in the aftermath of the military operation.

source is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Croatian_War_of_Independence

(147 is exact number)

(period: August 1995-Sepetember 1995; after Operation Storm) Igor2368 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Source 107 is [3] and it explicitly says "hundreds of mostly elderly Serb civilians were killed in the aftermath".  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ordinal numbers

45rd? Liberalus homo universalus (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

gdp per capita

GDP PER CAPITA 2022 ESTIMATE 37000 $ PPP and 19880 $ NOMINAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivani3107975 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

Croatia gdje per capita is 1800$ higher so correct iz. Why?because according to statistics terenu are 3,8 mil Croatian population according to January 14th. You can read more on Page lider-main economic resurse for croatia 89.172.9.45 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. hemantha (brief) 08:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I updated 2021 population estimate to that of preliminary results from the ongoing census. The IP editor wants to say GDP per capita is higher because of population decrease (Economy of Croatia). -Vipz (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A relevant map

Consider adding the following map specifying the extent of the borders of Croatia in the relevant period in the section titled Personal Union with Hungary (1102) and Habsburg Monarchy (1527). 46.31.118.94 (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Adriatic (1576)

Gdp per capita higher 1800$ per person

GDP PER CAPITA OF CROATIA IS 1800 $ HIGHER DUE TO LAST POPULATION SUTVEY WHICH FELL FROM 4.3 MILION PEOPLE TO 3.8 MILION. WHEN ITS CALCULATED INTO GDP PER CAPITA IS 1800$HIGHER THEN WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA. 93.136.31.226 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This would be original research. You would need to provide sources that explicitly say this, preferably the World Bank, IMF or Croatia's own government. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

EVERYTHINK YOU CAN FIND ON BEAUREAU OF STATISTICS OF CROATIA-

WWW.DZS.HR 78.3.34.61 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

1. POPULATION IS 3 888 927 INHEBITANTS 2.) GDP INCREASED OF CROATIA FOR 2021 IS 10,8% PLEASE CORRECT. CORRECT AS WELL AS GDP PER CAPITA PPP IS NOW 37200$ AND NOMINAL VALUE IS 19 890$ THANK YOU. 78.3.34.61 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

This sentence is false claim, it should be removed: "At the same time, the Yugoslav Royalist and Serbian nationalist Chetniks pursued a genocidal campaign against Croats and Muslims,[66][69] aided by Italy.[70] "

This was an attempt of Croatian revisionism to genocidal champagne of Ustashe authorities during ww2. Sources [66] [69][70] are ultra-nationalists propaganda, written in last few years for the purpose of denial of genocide against Serbs, Jews and Roma. 87.116.144.254 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. These appear to be sources published in reliable journals or by reliable presses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence/information

Something seems to be missing from the first paragraph in the "Croatian War of Independence" section. The 3rd sentence in that paragraph is incomplete. It says " In the meantime, tensions escalated into overt war when the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA)." When the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) did what? Were what are now the 3rd and 4th sentences meant to be one? That is, was it supposed to say "In the meantime, tensions escalated into overt war when the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and various Serb paramilitary groups attacked Croatia."? Or something else?

The last sentence of that paragraph is also confusing. It says "The Croatian Government sought to stop such occurrences and were not a part of the Government's policy." It's saying that the Croatian government "were not part of the Government's policy," which makes no sense. Was it intended to say "The Croatian government sought to stop such occurrences, which were not part of the government's policy." (or, perhaps, "The Croatian government sought to stop such occurrences, which were not part government policy")?

Katt Wilm (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Hello. Just want to mention that it would be nice to put on the main page more national minorities then just one, just like Wikipedia of every other European country. 2A05:4F46:514:2800:C13F:FFCC:D1B0:72B7 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Change in the Middle Ages section without valid arguments

Wikipedia user Miki Filigranski rejected my changes in the Middle Ages section based on the following claim: revert, good faith but badly edited with unreliable sources.

I disagree with that statement, I think my edits are good, based on credible sources, many of them in fact, and that I have posted accurate and historical information that has been verified and is widely known. I am asking the Wikipedia community to express their opinion and to reach a consensus on this issue. I believe that Croatian history in this period is incomplete and that a lot of historical facts are missing. If we want this Wikipedia article to be of high quality and provide detailed information to the readers, then we must add missing information about the history of Croatia that is important for understanding Croatian history.

Check this articles, for example: Hrvatska povijest (archive.org)

WWW.HR - Početna stranica Hrvatske

Hrvatski knezovi i kraljevi | Arhiv tekstova | Hrvatska Riječ (hrvatskarijec.rs)

HRVATSKI VLADARI I NJIHOVE VLADAVINE - Republika Hrvatska (google.com)

and many sources from the following WP article: Vjekoslav Klaić – Wikipedija (wikipedia.org)

DanielCro (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Before making major edits please read WP:RS and other related editing policies on citation style, editing style and so on. Most of these and possibly even all of them cannot be considered as reliable because exist more credible and reliable, actual, historiographical sources. Other articles from Wikipedia aren't sources for citation, while Croatian Wikipedia is known for having low-average quality. Anyway, this kind of articles should have only an abstract, basic and most relevant information in their section, while those which scope is only history must have more information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I have carefully studied the Wikipedia rules and I believe that I have not violated any Wikipedia rules, not even the rule about credible sources. In my article, I did not use sources from Wikipedia, but sources from official Croatian national websites. I'm not interested in your general opinion about the Croatian Wikipedia and I don't see what it has to do with this article on the English Wikipedia. I believe that you do not have enough arguments for the claim that I did not use credible sources of information in my article, and I believe that my information is important for the article because it brings credible and accurate information to the article, which is incomplete without them. It was a summary that brings new information.

In addition, I believe that you are violating Wikipedia rules because you removed my text without starting a discussion here and without seeking consensus with other editors, which is against Wikipedia rules.

I ask that you return my text or else I will have to ask for the intervention of the administrator. 141.136.207.180 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry admin, I forgot to log in. Can you delete duplicate reply?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I have carefully studied the Wikipedia rules and I believe that I have not violated any Wikipedia rules, not even the rule about credible sources. In my article, I did not use sources from Wikipedia, but sources from official Croatian national websites. I'm not interested in your general opinion about the Croatian Wikipedia and I don't see what it has to do with this article on the English Wikipedia. I believe that you do not have enough arguments for the claim that I did not use credible sources of information in my article, and I believe that my information is important for the article because it brings credible and accurate information to the article, which is incomplete without them. It was a summary that brings new information.

In addition, I believe that you are violating Wikipedia rules because you removed my text without starting a discussion here and without seeking consensus with other editors, which is against Wikipedia rules.

I ask that you return my text or else I will have to ask for the intervention of the administrator. DanielCro (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikipedia article about Vjekoslav Klaić, I think I was very clear in the initial post that I was not talking about the Wikipedia article itself about the famous Croatian historian, but about external sources of information in that article, which also provide a lot of information about Croatian history. DanielCro (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how your comments show any sign you're familiar enough with Wikipedia's editing policies. You don't need to start a discussion & reach a consensus to make a revert, it is actually the opposite per Wikipedia rules, when your edit gets reverted you're the one to start a discussion & reach consensus (see also WP:BRD). Also, reverts need to be substantiated which was the case, otherwise doesn't count much especially if are WP:POINT reverts. It is not good to ignore experienced editor's remarks and continue to push your reverted edit by borderline threatening by calling an admin. These are sings of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and not WP:GOODFAITH. However, admins don't intervene for such minor content disputes between editors. Vjekoslav Klaić article and external sources don't matter, and Klaić shouldn't be cited due to WP:AGEMATTERS. I will check again the content you edited and revalue whether it is suitable or not for the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

THank you for such quick answer, first time I had to wait much longer :)

Ok, so I think this time I did everything right, isn't it?

This is the first time I've had my work removed from Wikipedia, so I didn't know all the steps I had to take, but I think now we finally have a good and reasoned discussion about it, and thank you for that. This is a good learning process for me too for some similar situations in the future.

Thank you for all info.

I had the feeling that my opinion and arguments were being ignored because there was no answer to my query here for a long time and it was certainly not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings or doubt anyone's good faith.

Why do you think it's a threat if I ask the admins a question or send a comment request so that other members of the Wikipedia community or admins can give their opinion on our dispute?

It seems to me that this is a normal process in working on Wikipedia and not something that should be considered an attack or a threat.

If I don't agree with your opinion and you don't agree with mine, how else will we come to a conclusion?

I think the external sources from Kljajic are very important to this discussion and I ask you to reconsider them and put my text back in the article.

Check this links, please:

[4]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=15823

[5]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=37767

[6]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=62489

I think that these are very important rulers for Croatian history and that this source, the Croatian encyclopedia, is a very reliable source and that this information should be left in this article.

Can we agree on that? I apologize if I hurt your feelings or if you perceived some of my words as a threat, that was not my intention and it was misunderstood.

However, I think this discussion is very good and can help increase the quality of this Wikipedia article. DanielCro (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@DanielCro: None of these sources are reliable: 1) "Hrvatska povijest" (hupi.hr) is a self-published non-peer-reviewed website of a single author who most likely is not a historian, as I can't find any information on them elsewhere on the Internet. 2) WWW.HR mirrors content from now-dead website of "hr:Hrvatski informativni centar" (HIC), which seems to have been mainly a web portal and news aggregator, not a reliable source by itself. 3) "Hrvatska riječ" is a diaspora-orientied portal hosting synthesized texts composed from unknown sources, since they cite none. 4) Do I need to comment on this one at all? It's a poor-quality wiki hosted on Google Sites, you couldn't be further from reliable than this. 5) The linked article from Croatian Wikipedia has some interesting sources that might be reliable but need to be discussed separately. That said, I agree with @Miki Filigranski that this article on the whole country needs only the most relevant information, while additional information can be added to articles specifically about Croatian history (i.e. History of Croatia). -Vipz (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your opinion. What do you think about this sources?

[1]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=15823

[2]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=37767

[3]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=62489

I think that the Croatian encyclopedia, is a very reliable source, don't you think so?

Dukes Domagoj, Ljudevit Posavski and Trpimir are very important rulers in Croatian history and I think they should be included in an article about Croatian history, as very relevant and important. DanielCro (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think I've seen Croatian Encyclopedia being regarded as a reliable source, though I see you've opened a section about it on WP:RSN, so let's wait and see what others think about it. -Vipz (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, thank you. Let's Wikipedia community decide. I really feel that this content should be included in WP article about Croatia (because of relevance and importance) but sometimes is really difficult to find reliable source on Internet, as you probably understand. I'm tryng my best to improve quality of this article. THank you for your support DanielCro (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@DanielCro, here we are dealing with three separate issues. First is reliability of sources. Second is relevancy of information to the WP:SCOPE of the article. Third is style. This was your revision and the section had several separate issues:

1) Vipz and I already responded you about the lack of reliability of those sources. There's no need to cite Croatian Encyclopedia, will use instead Neven Budak's "Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100" (2018).

2) There was no "Pannonian Croatia", it is an outdated term abandoned in modern historiography. Will add a sentence or two about Lower Pannonia principality because strangely there's no mention of it in current revision so will re-edit that paragraph; individually, current revision needs to mention in addition Ljudevit Posavski, and Trpimir (also due to native dynasty), but don't see much general notoriety for others for this article.

3) As said, problem with style and copy-editing. In your revision three rulers, each with one sentence made a separate WP:PARAGRAPH. It is pointless to have separate paragraphs for this kind of content and general style of article. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. Honestly, I don't think there's really a need here for a big and endless debate over something that isn't really too complicated.

It seems to me that we agree on the basics, that this article is incomplete if information is not added about the first Croatian national rulers, dukes Ljudevit Posavski and Trpimir, and if you are ready to revise the article and add this information, regardless of the sources of information that will be use, that's fine with me and I think we can close this discussion.

Other details are less important at this point.

My wish is for this article to be of the highest quality and with as much relevant information as possible, and I am glad that through this discussion we have reached a common conclusion.

Since you are a more experienced Wikipedia contributor, I will leave it to you to edit the article as you think is best, because for ordinary Wikipedia readers, the most important thing is that they find the information they are looking for, and it is less important who added the information to the article, you or me.

I await your revision of the article.

As for the Croatian encyclopedia, let the question of the reliability of that source of information remain open and let the Wikipedia community decide. This decision will help future Wikipedia contributors in their work. DanielCro (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Replied at RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer DanielCro (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Currency

The currency changes to the Euro 77.161.105.18 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

Fix link

In the "First Yugoslavia (1918–1941)" section, you can fix the link to Alexander I of Yugoslavia. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:7C68:C306:48E8:409A (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, not sure when and why did that link get broken. Thanks. -Vipz (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing number

In a sentence under the economy heading it says "Real GDP growth in 2021 was per cent." but the sentence lacks the number (I suppose?) Sp1dey ^💬 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition of NDH (Independent state of Croatia) to events

NDH was a mostly recognized state, and you editors cannot simply state that it isn't just because it fits your agenda. Aside from the Axis, it was recognized by FIFA and even had a licensed football team, a currency whose eponymous descendant Croatia used recently, a flag and a coat of arms, derivations of which are also still used in Croatia as official emblems of the Republic. Not to mention that the exclusion of this state makes no sense because the editors put Croatia's years in Yugoslavia as events. Well from 1941-1945 Croatia was OFFICIALLY not part of Yugoslavia, and the way the infobox is written one would think that this was not the case. Correct me if I am wrong , but this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia site, not a biased media site. I am seeing a pattern here, with more and more misinformation about NDH and its existence discovered on every page referencing it, and by God I will not stop editing pages until every piece of information is correct down to the slightest detail. Charizardmatok (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with the aforementioned point, it should be included to be accurate in providing information.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The recognition status of NDH is an orthogonal matter of its statehood in relation to Croatian statehood. Since you start your argument by claiming other people have an 'agenda', I'm going to ignore all the flamebait, and let's get back to basics - show some sources that support your position. There's nothing to discuss otherwise. --Joy (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that I previously already warned this user at User talk:Charizardmatok about controversial editing in this topic area. --Joy (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I am going to do it again, as your warnings mean squat to me. You can't simply deny historical facts because you want to. It's ludicrous. Charizardmatok (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Big man closing the page to protect it from "vandalism". More like protecting the page from facts. This is exactly the reason Uni professors won't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a credible source in their students' papers. 31.217.0.79 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Truth! –Vipz (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Add at the establishment history the ascension to eurozone and to the schengen zone. Tudor.voie (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tudor.voie: Please see the edit summary I provided while once reverting such addition: Special:Diff/1133900640. –Vipz (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Adding to Geography section:

"The Point of Inaccessibility for Croatia (point furthest from its borders in any direction) lies at 45.7829°N, 016.4979°E which is in the village of Mostari around 55km East of Zagreb."

reference https://inaccessibility.net/croatia/ Raiders1977 (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also read WP:TRIVIA. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Croatia was ranked 4th in the Global Innovation Index in 2023.

Croatia was ranked 4th in the Global Innovation Index in 2023.I believe this is a typo, not 4th but rather 44th in Global Innovation Index ranking 99.252.149.32 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. –Vipz (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Location and a closer look at enciklopedija.hr

"It is located at the intersection of three natural entities: the Pannonian Lowlands (Lowland or Pannonian Croatia; about 55% of the territory), the Dinarides (Mountain or Dinaric Croatia; about 30%) and the Mediterranean (Coastal or Adriatic Croatia; about 15%). In the social and cultural sense, the Croatian area is influenced by three cultural-civilization circles with partly different and partly related religious, linguistic and ethnic characteristics: Mediterranean in the coastal part, Central European in the continental part and, to a lesser extent, Southeastern European (Balkan) in the Dinaric part. Depending on the prevailing natural, geopolitical, historical or cultural criteria, it is classified as a whole in Southern, Southeastern or Central Europe."

Central Europe is equally cultural as well as geographical term!

• Citing Croatian Wikipedia: "Croatia (official name: Republic of Croatia) is a European country, in the geopolitical sense a Central European and Mediterranean country."

• Citing Croatia.eu: "Croatia has been present on the contemporary international political stage since its independence from the Yugoslav Federation, i.e. for three decades, but is one of the oldest European countries in terms of history and culture. The present-day territory of Croatia and its borders were formed through a long period of history, during which the Croatian nation, whether independent or incorporated in various state communities, constantly displayed national and political subjectivity. The geopolitical situation of Croatia is determined, therefore, by the convergence and influence of different ethnic, religious, economic and political factors. With respect to the complex position of the country, Croatian authors usually define it as Central European and Mediterranean."

• Citing migracije.hr: "Croatia (officially the Republic of Croatia) is a European country, which is part of the Central and Eastern Europe in geopolitical sense and is geographically located in the southern part of Central Europe and in the northern part of the Mediterranean."

• Citing Britannica: "The territory of Croatia bridges the central European and Mediterranean worlds, and its history has been marked by this position as a borderland. It lay near the division between the two halves of the Roman Empire and between their Byzantine and Frankish successors."

We need agreement on this. Šaholjubac (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What you quoted from Croatian Encyclopedia describes various areas of social and cultural influence within Croatia, not its geographical location/placement/position/definition. Again, we are looking for the country's geographical position, not a political, social, cultural, ethnic, religious, economic, etc. one.

• User-generated sources including Wikipedia (Croatian or otherwise) are strictly unreliable; citing Wikipedia on Wikipedia falls under WP:CIRCULAR sourcing.
• Croatia.eu describes Croatia's "geopolitical situation"; with politics in play, this is not a purely geographical definition. Furthermore, the source's definition doesn't provide a broader viewpoint than that of Croatian authors, which do not carry any more WP:WEIGHT than authors from anywhere else in the world.
• Migracije.hr is dedicated to information about migration relevant to Croatians. General information on the country's location, whether geopolitical or geographical, is not within its area of expertise.
• Britannica's article on Croatia says Croatia, country located in the northwestern part of the Balkan Peninsula. Sadly, this seems to be all it has to say about the country's location.

I'm looking forward to consensus that the first sentence of the article should strictly pertain to geography. And I hope you realize that edit-warring is not the way forward, because you are essentially forcing your version without reaching any sort of consensus. –Vipz (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. Central Europe is a cultural as well as a geographical term.

I genuinely hope you (and majority of readers) are satisfied with the description. Croatia is really located at the crossroads of Central Europe and the Mediterranean, (purely) geographically located on the Balkan Peninsula (see the description of the geographical location of Greece).

Croatia's territory has an unusual appearance, which is why, a geographically small country, stretches on three sides of Europe: central (northern and central Croatia), Mediterranean (coastal Croatia) and Balkan (backland of Dalmatia). Slavonia belongs to both Central and Southeastern Europe (Balkan), which cannot be said for the rest of the country, and that is also the reason why it is ungrateful to describe the geographical location of Croatia in one (short) sentence, so I think that the opening sentence is completely appropriate and economical.

Once again, I hope you agree, as do our readers. Šaholjubac (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was already evident that in fact I don't agree, as don't several other editors you keep reverting when they restore the previous wording (@Andymxm, @Karaynn). My stances toward (against) "Mediterranean" and "Balkan" have not changed since we discussed them in the section above (§ Location within Europe). The opening sentence of the article is meant to be brief (MOS:LEADSENTENCE). Anything else about Croatia's geographical specifities can go to the section § Geography. Although I like the longer version ("at the crossroads of Southeast and Central Europe"), I'm also fine with "in Central and Southeast Europe" (as most recently put forward by @Wrehhn). –Vipz (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll start a WP:RfC soon to bring about wider and more thorough participation. –Vipz (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads or confluence

On the page about Switzerland it says that the country is "at the confluence of Western, Central and Southern Europe". I think the word "confluence" should replace the current word "crossroads", a somewhat inappropriate word for this need.

To my way of thinking, that word is more appropriate both geographically and geopolitically because it seems that Western, Southern and Central Europe are as much geographical as they are geopolitical terms. Šaholjubac (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Location within Europe

@Šaholjubac, please dispute the long-standing description ("at the crossroads of Southeast and Central Europe") here on the talk page and see whether there is consensus for your change ("at the crossroads of Central and Southern Europe"). What's not objective with "Southeast Europe"? Even the respected Croatian Encyclopedia uses it (article link):

Hrvatska (Republika Hrvatska), država u jugoistočnoj Europi [...] Ovisno o prevladavajuće prirodnim, geopolitičkim, povijesnim ili kulturnim kriterijima, u cijelosti ju se svrstava u Južnu, Jugoistočnu ili Srednju Europu. [...] Tranzitni prometni položaj proizlazi iz geografskoga položaja na dodiru jugoistočnoga, središnjeg i južnoga (mediteranskoga) dijela Europe [...]

Translation:

Croatia (Republic of Croatia), a country in Southeastern Europe [...] Depending on the predominant natural, geopolitical, historical or cultural criteria, it can be classified in its entirety as Southern, Southeastern or Central Europe. [...] The transit traffic position results from the geographical position at the junction of the southeastern, central and southern (Mediterranean) parts of Europe [...]

Ministry of Tourism and Sports (Croatia) says Croatia is part of Southeast Europe (article link):

Regija jugoistočne Europe sa šest zemalja, među kojima je i Hrvatska [...]

Translation:

Southeastern Europe region with six countries, including Croatia [...]

There are numerous articles that can be found on Google Scholar which confirm the SEE grouping of Croatia, amongst many that describe why is it contentious in the first place, of course. For example, original scientific article Balkan u hrvatskim udžbenicima povijesti za osnovnu školu ("The Balkans in Croatian history textbooks for elementary school") says this (article link):

O Balkanu se stoga često govorilo, a gotovo svaki njegov spomen izazivao je izrazito negativne asocijacije, budući da je označavao nešto civilizacijski drugačije i zaostalije. Kada je Hrvatska nakon 2000. godine zašla u razdoblje europskih integracija, a nova politička realnost počela zahtijevati regionalnu suradnju, pojmom »Jugoistočna Europa« htjelo se pokazati da je regija kojoj i Hrvatska pripada, dio Europe.

Translation:

The Balkans were therefore often talked about, and almost every mention of it evoked extremely negative associations, since it denoted something civilizationally different and more backward. When Croatia entered the period of European integration after 2000, and the new political reality began to demand regional cooperation, the term "Southeastern Europe" was used to show that the region to which Croatia also belongs is part of Europe.

For whom exactly is this location descriptor not objective? Why should we not use it? –Vipz (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

When reading up on this the sources generally referred to Crossroads as in cultural exchange.... problem now in the lead it sounds geographical. Should be mentioned in the culture section.Moxy- 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Culturally and politically, Croatia belongs to Western culture and Western World (what cannot be said about our eastern and southeastern neighbors), that is, to Central Europe. Moreover, its deep connection with Italy, the Vatican and Austria places it "more western" than, for example, Poland and Slovakia. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, Croatia belonged to the West. Croats accepted Christianity, later they opted for Catholicism. Croatia is a Mediterranean country, located in southern Central Europe. For God's sake, look how long we've been part of Italy! Šaholjubac (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Mediterranean country located at the crossroads of southern Central Europe and the Balkans."

I think this is a precise description and I hope you agree. The term "Southeast Europe" is very recent and vague. Šaholjubac (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposed description. "Mediterranean" is very vague, it just says "somewhere around the Mediterranean Sea". "Balkans" is being readily phased out in favor of "Southeast Europe" (SEE) all throughout reliable sources, being more formal, precise and on point. We're discussing how to describe location of the country, not where it 'belongs' culturally or politically. –Vipz (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that many sources are contradictory and you are well aware of that. Therefore, in order to meet halfway, we need to make a consensus here on Wikipedia. The term "Central Europe" is equally a geographical, cultural and political term, so it is not possible to state only the location of a country that, according to many sources, belongs to Central Europe, as well as the Mediterranean Europe and the Balkans. Šaholjubac (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, please refrain from applying your proposed changes beforehand. The old, long-standing description should stay until a consensus for a new description develops here. –Vipz (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia. –Vipz (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• I like the southern central and Balkans description, that matches most closely what sources say and common usage. I don't like this use of "crossroads" though. By definition a crossroads is something that pertains to roads, e.g. the east-west and the north-south highways, not to regions. I would simply say it's a state of southern central Europe and the Balkans, and leave it at that...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Even though "crossroads" is associated with intersections of actual roads, I think you get its meaning from the context. If there's a better word, please put it forward. "southern central Europe and the Balkans" is not in common usage in reliable sources, but please prove me wrong. –Vipz (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Šaholjubac:, the term Southeast/Southeastern Europe was already defined and used by the mid-19th century (Diana Mishkova - "Balkans/Southeastern Europe", in European Regions and Boundaries, 2017), while the term Balkans got popularized due to Ottoman period and Serbian academia influence. In the late 20th and especially from the beginning of the 21st century, the term Balkans is rapidly replaced by the term Southeastern Europe. Among other academic liteature, see The Routledge Handbook of Balkan and Southeast European History (2021) - a region that was previously known as the Balkans but is now better known as Southeastern Europe. If we're going to be accurate, Croatia is a Southeastern European country - because Southeastern Europe, in narrow and broad definition, is at a crossroad between Eastern, Central and Southern/Mediterranean Europe - or a Southeastern European country at a crossroad between Central and Southern/Mediterranean Europe. It never was or its regions completely part of Central or Southern/Mediterranean Europe. Croatian Encyclopedia's article about Croatia is completely accurate stating that Croatia is a Southeastern European country.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We need a stronger consensus — Croatia belongs to southern Central Europe

Why do you persistently place Croatia in Southeastern Europe, while Poland, Slovakia and Hungary are placed in Central Europe? These countries are geographically substantially further east than Croatia, and also culturally, Croatia belong to the Central European and Mediterranean cultural circle, while the three countries mentioned above have strong geopolitical and historical ties with Eastern European countries such as Belarus, Ukraine and Romania.

I think that geographically, Slovenia and Croatia should be placed in the same part of Europe. Moreover, they formed the southwest and the Adriatic geat of ​​the Habsburg Monarchy and later of Austria-Hungary. Šaholjubac (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

I have found the source for a missing citation. The text is in the second paragraph of the Healthcare section - "There are 119 emergency units in health centres, responding to more than a million calls.[citation needed]". This fact comes from page 535 of the Croatian 2013 statistical yearbook.

This is the full citation: Ostroški, Ljiljana, ed. (December 2013). Statistički ljetopis Republike Hrvatske 2013 [2013 Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia] (PDF). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia (in Croatian and English). Vol. 45. Zagreb: Croatian Bureau of Statistics. ISSN 1334-0638. Retrieved 28 February 2024. Bogbody05 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, I'll take your word for it that that's correct.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Croatia definitely not in Central Europe

Any strong source that classifies it in Central Europe? It is definitely in South-East Europe, Slovenia being the most southern Central Europe country. 77.77.216.179 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

text s/b Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor (not King Charles III)

Hello, newbie to editing here. Thanks, Annette (Amcarlson4)

In section: History: Personal union with Hungary (1102) and Habsburg Monarchy (1527)...

I noticed the text "King Charles III"... shouldn't this be "Emperor Charles VI"? as it is in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)#The_Enlightened_Absolutism_Period. (the link is correct to Emperor Charles VI)

(King Charles III was born in 1948, Emperor Charles VI was born in 1685)

OLD TEXT:

The Croatian Parliament supported King Charles III's Pragmatic Sanction and signed their own Pragmatic Sanction in 1712. Subsequently, the emperor pledged to respect all privileges and political rights of the Kingdom of Croatia, and Queen Maria Theresa made significant contributions to Croatian affairs, such as introducing compulsory education.

PROPOSED NEW TEXT:

The Croatian Parliament supported Emperor Charles VI's Pragmatic Sanction and signed their own Pragmatic Sanction in 1712. Subsequently, the emperor pledged to respect all privileges and political rights of the Kingdom of Croatia, and Queen Maria Theresa made significant contributions to Croatian affairs, such as introducing compulsory education. Amcarlson4 (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amcarlson4 I think it's the ordinal in context - this Charles was likely the third king of Croatia named that way. Perhaps we could use a topical redirect to make this clearer. --Joy (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joy,

Thanks for your reply. I "vote" to use the "Emperor Charles VI" as the text of the link to the wikipedia page titled "Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor"

Here's my reasoning:

1) This paragraph is about the Pragmatic Sanction... this was signed by Emperor Charles VI in 1712.

2) "Charles VI" was Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Austrian Habsburg monarchy from 1711 until his death in 1740. wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Charles_VI,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

3) There is mention (in the Charles_VI wiki page) of a King of Spain as Charles III in 1759. -- this is a different person, who has a different wikipedia page: wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Charles_III_of_Spain

4) There was a King of Bohemia, Charles III (Karel III.) 1916–1918 Grandnephew of Francis Joseph I. Also Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. -- This is also a different person. wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria

5) Using "Charles III" here will confuse the reader, because the current King of England, Charles III (2022 – present) is very well known to the public and he has been in the media ever since his birth in 1948 to Queen Elizabeth II. wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Charles_III. Amcarlson4 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

In relation to a description of a long past event of Croatian history, it's perfectly reasonable to use the nomenclature relevant in that context, but link to the precise person to help the reader understand who specifically is talked about. If we compare what e.g. the Croatian Encyclopedia does, their article about the monarch is at https://www.enciklopedija.hr/clanak/karlo-vi and they clearly use both Karlo VI. and Karlo III.. Ambiguity is a simple fact of life, and it can definitely lead to confusion, but there's no mention of the British or Bohemian monarchs in this context, and the link is correct, so it's hard to see where the confusion would arise. Likewise, changing the text to say "Charles VI" would also be visibly ambiguous with all the other monarchs refered to that way, so I'm not sure I see a big difference even if we went through with that change. --Joy (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

ok, I give up. Amcarlson4 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)