Talk:Croats/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Infobox - what about a composer?

To split off from the "I don't want to claim him" vs. "he was evil but extremely influential" political debates above, what about adding Jakov Gotovac? Now, admittedly, Croatians have not shook the world in the music department, but from what I'm able to find, Gotovac is the most notable of "classical" composers of Croat nationality. (let's set the Josef Haydn debate to the side - roots, sure probably, but he was an Austrian) HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Marco Polo

I think that Marco Polo is definitely most known Croat. I think that he deserves to be in InfoBox... I would also add John Malkovich, and Branko Lustig... And Joe Sakic!!! One of the world best sportsman ever!!! Mario Andretti could also be candidate.. Istrian born World F1 world Champion.. This article should not be about croats from croatia, but about croats all over the world!!! --VelikiMeshtar (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The case of Marco Polo is very debatable and most scholars consider him Venetian. His parents were Italian, he spent his entire life living in Venice and we don't have a shred of evidence he spoke anything other Italian. John Malkovich was discussed earlier and it was concluded that he would be better described as a Croatian American (while he does have Croatian ancestry he is not exactly a textbook example of a Croat). Branko Lustig is a Croatian national but his ethnicity is Jewish. Joe Sakic is a Croatian Canadian. Mario Andretti is actually Italian - his family is originally from Motovun in Istria and left the country in the Istrian exodus after WWII. Timbouctou (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue at great length, researched it quite a bit, and engaged in a lot of "warfare" with Italian users regarding Marco Polo.. The birthplace and ethnic origins of Marco Polo are simply unknown. We do not know what the ethnicity of his parents was, and we do not know where he was born. So we are dealing almost exclusively with speculation there. The vast majority of scholars, however, speculate that he was born in Venice. We really can't list him as a Croat.

P.S. Meštre, please do not alter the infobox without a consensus. We've worked a lot to achieve a consensus on the infobox, so please try to achieve an understanding before introducing new changes. I also must say that, though I cannot speak for others, in my opinion the infobox should not be expanded any further, its already rather imposing.

P.P.S. I've introduced Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić in the infobox, per consensus. The photo is clearly turn-of-the-century based on Ivana's age in the photo and her attire. She is certainly not 60, and the image is cca. 110 years old. Its PD beyond any kind of reasonable doubt. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Marco, I though at least his parents' ethnicity was known but I might have been mistaken. In any case, there's so much speculation about his origin that suggestions to put him in cannot be take seriously. Regarding Ivana, thanks a lot for tagging the pic, I had spent some time looking for more details about that particular photo and although it is widely used and re-used I couldn't find a single source detailing its date. Timbouctou (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We know the name of his father, but his ethnicity is still unknown, and theories on the Korčula origin are still.. lets say viable.

Regarding the photo.. well if you are (reasonably) sure the author is anonymous, then it is most certainly public domain in Croatia. The only way for it to be copyright would be if the photo, obviously taken around 1900-1910, was taken by someone who claimed copy rights and lived another 60-70 years.. Also, the photo was almost certainly hers, as a portrait she ordered - also PD. I'd say lets leave it and if someone seriously wants to contest it we can see then. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Significant populations

What does this phrase exactly mean? I'm asking because the (rather lengthy) list of countries in the info box looks like it had no inclusion criteria and listing countries such as Norway (890 Croats) and Belgium (810) seems pointless. So perhaps some cut-off number could be agreed here? Like 5,000? Or 10,000? Thoughts? Timbouctou (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Tesla was born in Croatia, and grew up in Croatia, but ethnically he was Serbian. So, does he count as a Croatian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.40.120 (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

WRONG

Tesla was born in Hungary, grew up in Hungary (as part of Austro-Hungarian Empire), but ethnically he was Serbian. So, does he count as a Croatian?

State boundaries change, especially in the Balkans, one can change 5 different states in course of 100 years, without even leaving the house. Does it mean that one changes his ethnicity everytime a new army comes by, of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.77.141 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessarily

[1] This is unnecessary.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? The whole history section avoids adequately discussing important topics such as that one. (Why no mention of the Croatian Spring? or Croat activity in the Bosnian War?) -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Independent State of Croatia was approximately 6,285,000 of which 3,300,000 were Croats, 1,925,000 were Serbs, 700,000 were Muslims, 150,000 Germans, 65,000 Czechs and Slovaks, 40,000 Jews, and 30,000 Slovenes. The Ustaše carried out genocidal policy against the Serbs and Jews in the territory of the Independent State of Croatia with 307,000 Serb deaths and 35-36,000 deaths of Jews. The Chetniks carried out massacres against the Croat and Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak in accordance with implementing Draža Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941 to ethnically cleanse non-Serb elements."

right place for this is Demographics of Croatia, NDH Demographics NDH.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER might consider the fact that the article on Germans offers zero (0) sentences about Germans' involvement in WWII, the article on Japanese people mentions it briefly with regards to Japanese colonialism between 1895 to 1945, the article on Italian people has no mention of fascism at all and mentions WWII only in passing when talking about migrations and colonial settlements in Eritrea, Somalia and Libya. This article merely describes an ethnic group. It is not a place for history lessons and sections cataloguing who was massacred by whom and when. Sokac121 is right - it belongs to Demographics of Croatia or Serbs of Croatia or a number of other articles which "adequately discuss important topics such as that one". Timbouctou (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of information regarding WWII in those ethnic group articles is hardly justification for removal. How is this not a place for "history lessons" when the information is under the history section? Clearly the information belongs in the article as it is part of the history of Croats. Why you wish to remove this information and move it some other article is beyond me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"History" here refers to the history of Croats - not history of Croatia, not history of Yugoslavia, not history of Chetniks, not history of massacres, not history in general, not history of WWII, not history of Jasenovac, not history of the Ustaše, not history of the Partisans, not history of Bosnia, not history of HDZ or history of just about anything somebody perceives as an universally important topic worthy of talking about across about several dozen articles on Wikipedia. In addition, you clearly do not have consensus for such additions. Until consensus is reached that "genocidal policies", numbers of people killed in WWII and/or directives issued by Draža Mihajlović are somehow relevant for the history of the ethnic group we call Croats I'm removing that section.

In fact, the Art and Symbols sections could safely be reduced to a few paragraphs as well. This article is bloated with forked content which is better dealt with in standalone articles. Somebody had lost sense of direction here and mistook "Croats" to be identical with "Croatia". Timbouctou (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why were you fine with having the information in another ethnic group article but not this one? (referring to Serbs of Croatia). This information is a part of the history of Croats. It is difficult to explain the history of Croats in the Second War without mentioning Croatia, Yugoslavia, etc. Why do you feel it's necessary to remove the WWII Croat activity that occurred or the Croat activity in the Bosnian war? You're removing referenced information simply for the sake of whitewashing the article and removing any information you may find unpleasant. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia is an article about an ethnic group which was persecuted during WWII (because they were an undesirable ethnic group) and then considerably reduced in number in the mid-1990s following Operation Storm when a large proportion of them left the country as refugees. It would be quite difficult to talk about Serbs of Croatia without mentioning it, just as it would be difficult to talk about Jews in Serbia without mentioning the small detail that they had been exterminated there in WWII. That is why.

Removing paragraphs which are nothing but useless POV additions in here hardly qualifies as "whitewashing". There are literally dozens of articles where you can write entire essays about NDH, Draža Mihalović and the like (and indeed, you do) for those who want to read about it. The "unpleasantness" one may feel seeing it here has nothing to do with the section's content but the fact that some editors obviously have difficulties determining what the article they are editing is supposed to be about. That is an unpleasant realisation indeed.

I suppose according to your logic the article on Americans should dedicate a section to the genocide which the Native Americans in the United States were subject to and/or internment camps for Japanese Americans (suprise, surprise - their respective articles mention these issues but the Americans article does not). Likewise, Jews of Italy mentions WWII - but the article on Italians does not mention fascists at all. You are mixing up history of Croatia with the history of Croats. The article on Germans gives a brief mention of Nazis and Hitler - and only in reference to their program of uniting all German peoples in one state, avoiding the subject of Holocaust altogether. This is exactly how this article should treat WWII.

If you fail to see the logic of it and why articles on ethnic groups avoid talking about persecutions which were committed in their name as opposed to against them then you should limit yourself to editing WWII-related articles and bringing the "unpleasant" truths to the masses in way more appropriate places. Timbouctou (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That history should relate to the history of Croats and Croatian do not they get the other articles.--Sokac121 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are not "POV additions".

"You are mixing up history of Croatia with the history of Croats." There is no Croatia without the Croats. Croats and the ethnic groups you mentioned played various roles in World War II. Those roles are notable and should obviously be in the article.

"The article on Germans gives a brief mention of Nazis and Hitler - and only in reference to their program of uniting all German peoples in one state, avoiding the subject of Holocaust altogether. This is exactly how this article should treat WWII." How is ignoring something such as the Holocaust or genocide the way an article should "treat WWII" or any other conflict for that matter?

You're willingly omitting information that is directly related to the article is in. Look at the articles of the Hutu and the Tutsi. On both articles, regardless of whether the persecutions were "committed in their name" or "against them", the history of the ethnic groups during the Rwanda conflict are discussed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may suggest a compromise. There is really no question about whether the NDH should be ommited from the article. See for example the elaboration on Nazi Germany in the Germans article. A paragraph on the history of the NDH is unaviodable, but I do agree with Timbouctou that the current paragraph is indeed "bloated". What I suggest is a brief paragraph that would also explain that hundreds of thousands of Croats fought against the NDH - providing for a far more neutral coverage that would also be a lot more appropriate for an ethnic group article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this suddenly a problem? The history section should feature highlights of important events and surrounding the Croat people, not a personal vendetta. A short paragraph detailing what happened to the Croat people during the World Wars should suffice. This is not a history article; people can click on links to find out more information. That is what they are for.

May I also point out that the "Serbs" page has absolutely nothing regarding Serbian crimes in Croatia. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the compromise? NDH Demographics\ This is a copy.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I will reiterate that user Producer has not responded to any of user Timbouctou's examples of other ethnic group pages other than saying that his edits should remain in here. He and other Serb users have reversed to his new addition knowing that there is obvious conflict regarding it. --Jesuislafete (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I already responded to Timbuctou and even gave counter examples. I took DIREKTOR's suggestion of elaborating on the part of Croats fighting against the NDH. If you support a short paragraph on the war then why do you revert to the version that dedicates only one sentence to the entire Second World War? (FYI the "Serbs page" is next.)

Yes Sokac121, it is a copy as I was the one who put the original there. If you think it's too much and wish to remove the NDH demographics part then go ahead. I thought it would give the reader insight into the state proclaimed and the ethnic reality.

This is getting really ridiculous. It's already gotten to the point where my edit must be a "personal vendetta" or that I must be a Serb. Please assume good faith Jesuislafete. Is it really that difficult to believe that I wanted to improve the article with reliable sources as I did earlier with the Bosniaks article? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have assumed goodfaith Producer, if you had done anything with the "Serbs" page rather than just the "Croats." Not to mention the fact that other pages (e.g. "Germans", "Japanese", "Han Chinese") do not have such excessive additions. Could you see why that would raise a red flag? And I looked at the additions you added to the "Serbs" page, and in my opinion, I think it is really unnecessary and too long for a non history-related page. If people wanted to read about Chetniks, Partizan numbers and so on, they can click on the links. While the histories of the peoples are important, remember the page is about the ethnic community. People would then ask "well why wasn't X added" or "if you are going to talk about event Y, then I am definitely adding event Z." Could you see the potential problem? If numbers are deemed important, we should compact them within the paragraph, (NDH's targets, Partizans, Bleiburg.) --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

First, you appear to think that the Croats article is getting treated unfairly which is not the case. It is not my duty to go on each and every ethnic groups' article and improve their history section. The Germans article, which you and Tim seem hell bent on mentioning at every turn, does not mention the second world war at all (makes the one sentence that the Croats article has look generous) and is not a page that should be looked up to. Second, I think that a paragraph is a fair enough amount of text to dedicate to the second world war and can hardly be considered "excessive". Look at the art section, 4-5 times the size of my addition, and tell me which is "unnecessary and too long". This is an ethnic group article which has a history section and my inserted information is clearly relevant to this ethnic group's history. The information is fairly general and does not bring up too many specifics and is just enough to give the reader a rough idea of what occurred at that point of the ethnic group's history. Third, this not a front to flaunt an ethnic group's prestige as some appear to think. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• It is not my duty to go on each and every ethnic groups' article and improve their history section. - In case you forgot, it IS your duty to observe the consensus applied to all other articles of this type. We do not invent sections, we do not arbitrarily determine article scopes and we do not add overly detailed paragraphs about stuff which is marginally related to the subject matter because an editor seems to be obsessed with a particular massacre or a conflict. Dozens of articles are already bloated with NDH and WWII related content (one example is Croatisation, which I pointed out earlier but in which you also intervened because you fail to see the difference between genocide and cultural assimilation).
• The Germans article, which you and Tim seem hell bent on mentioning at every turn... - and the Japanese, and the Italians, and the Americans. Do you need more?
• does not mention the second world war at all and is not a page that should be looked up to. - Says who? You? Dreadfully sorry mate but this won't work. You don't have consensus. It's as simple as that. I for one think the articles mentioned treat the topic adequately because they are ABOUT AN ETHNIC GROUP and there are GOOD REASONS why they avoid squeezing in history lessons.
• I think that a paragraph is a fair enough amount of text to dedicate to the second world war and can hardly be considered "excessive". How does that paragraph contribute to readers' understanding of the Croats? How does enumerating the figures of Serbs or Jews killed in WW2 shed light on Croats, the ethnic group? We are telling you that this is the wrong place for that and your defense is "hey, I could write a 17-page essay so you should be happy with this". Sorry, I'm not.
• Look at the art section, 4-5 times the size of my addition, and tell me which is "unnecessary and too long". - Yeah, the art section and probably (most of) culture should be deleted as well. So? You cannot justify one bloated addition with another one.
• This is an ethnic group article which has a history section and my inserted information is clearly relevant to this ethnic group's history. The information is fairly general and does not bring up too many specifics and is just enough to give the reader a rough idea of what occurred at that point of the ethnic group's history. - Does not bring up too many specifics? It mentions Draža Mihailović and his directive, (why?) it lists numbers of people killed by ethnicty (why?), it gives an estimate how many partisans were Croats (why? does the article on French people mention how many of them were members of the resistance and how many people were killed by the Vichy regime?). No it does not. Does the article on Russians mentions deportations, gulag and the like?
• The only difference between Croats vs. Germans, Japanese, Americans, the French or Russians articles is that they don't have to deal with such a narrow-minded editor who thinks NDH and the Partisans is something every other article in any way related to Croatia should mention them. According to you every other article is deficient but this one is just great because hey - YOU somehow decided that whatever works for all other ethnic groups on Wikipedia somehow does not work for Croats. Timbouctou (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty difficult to get a consensus when discussing the Second World War with numerous Croat editors on the Croats article. (I can't imagine why! :P) I added a similar paragraph to the Serbs article and have yet to receive a complaint. You're justifying the removal of information based on the absence of similar information on other ethnic group articles. Anyone can find a worse off article and use it as justification to remove information from another: "it isn't on that article so it shouldn't be on this one!" I will tell you again to look at the articles of the Hutu and the Tutsi and the presence of similar information regardless of who was the perpetrator or victim. Regarding my "narrow mindedness" might I remind everyone that it was you who earlier suggested that the willful ignorance of the Holocaust and genocide is a good thing when it comes to these articles. God forbid that a reader might learn "too much" from an article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on your editing history I doubt you care much about what readers "will learn". All you care aout is squeezing paragraphs about the ONLY TOPIC YOU WERE EVER INTERESTED IN in just about ANY ARTICLE YOU CAN THINK OF. Why don't you spread your obsession to articles on Germans, Japanese, Italians, the French, Russians and the like? I doubt that many editors would agree that all of them are somehow "worse" because they haven't had the pleasure of being edited by you. And you still have the nerve to accuse me of bad faith, even after you somehow "forgot" to add a single word on the Bleiburg massacre, which - if you really edited in good faith - would have to be worthy of inclusion here. Yeah, I'm a Croat, lived in Croatia all my life, and educated in both the Yugoslav and Croatian systems. I couldn't give a fuck about Draža Mihajlović and if I want to find out how many Jews were killed in WW2 I'd go to articles dealing with that. If you fail to understand why I doubt you are competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Timbouctou (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I provide information that is backed by university published sources and readers will mostly certainly learn from that information. Obsession? Bit harsh of an assessment. This era of history is an interest of mine. The articles are not worse off because of my lack of participation, but because no one bothered to expand them. Your education and life story are absolutely irrelevant to discussion and something I do not care about. As for the Bleiburg massacre, if you want that in the article I will include it myself as a gesture of good faith despite your personal attacks. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• "I provide information that is backed by university published sources and readers will mostly certainly learn from that information." - The issue is not whether the information is true but whether it belongs here. The readers will certainly learn what exactly? That Partisans were 61 percent Croats and that Draža killed non-Serbs?
• "The articles are not worse off because of my lack of participation, but because no one bothered to expand them." - The only two articles you use for comparison are Hutu and Tutsi - both of which are far worse in quality than any of the ones mentioned by me of Jesuislafete. Both of which spend roughly half their body talking about their genocide, probably because that's the only thing to talk about when one thinks of Hutus or Tutsis and the only part of their history which has been covered in secondary sources. Without the genocide the Hutus and Tutsis barely existed in scholarly sources. Using them as sme sort of a benchmark for articles on European ethnic groups like Croats, Italians, Germans or Russians is ludicrous.
• "Your education and life story are absolutely irrelevant to discussion and something I do not care about." - Do you read your own sentences? In your previous post you said "it's pretty difficult to get a consensus when discussing the Second World War with numerous Croat editors on the Croats article.", thus implying bad faith. Clearly you are very much interested in where I'm from and you clearly attempted to derail the discussion to bad faith assumptions based on your own prejudice.
• "As for the Bleiburg massacre, if you want that in the article I will include it myself as a gesture of good faith despite your personal attacks." - No I do not want it in the article for the same reason I do not want any of your additions. They are ALL irrelevant for this particular article. Timbouctou (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Using them as sme sort of a benchmark for articles on European ethnic groups like Croats, Italians, Germans or Russians is ludicrous." I see that ethnocentrism is still strong in the minds of some. "No I do not want it in the article for the same reason I do not want any of your additions." First you complain about some information not being included in the article, but then state you don't want it in the article. Decide what the hell you want. The information is absolutely relevant to the article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• What ethnocentrism are you talking about? My point was that the articles on Hutus and Tutsis are products of WP:BIAS. If there was no Rwanda genocide there would be practically nothing to talk about in those articles. Comparing those articles to any other ethnic group which had been copiously covered in Western sources (e.g. every European one) is nonsensical and you are pushing that comparison only to justify your soapboxing.
• I did not "complain" about Bleiburg massacre missing - I used it to illustrate how your own logic isn't really all that logical since on the one hand overly detailed summary of massacres committed by people you don't like constitute essential information to you, from which "readers will learn", while at the same time you conveniently forget to mention a massacre committed by the people you apparently like (judging by your editing history). I on the other hand think that none of it belongs in this article and I'm rather convinced that you have no clue what you are doing here. Perhaps you should stick with articles which deal with your "area of interest" because Croats is not one of them. Timbouctou (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a better term would have been Eurocentrism.
• "I did not "complain" about Bleiburg massacre missing" Yes, you did.
• "while at the same time you conveniently forget to mention a massacre committed by the people you apparently like, judging by your editing history." Did I not just offer to put it in the article myself despite your ad hominem attacks?
• "Perhaps you should stick with articles which deal with your "area of interest" because Croats is not one of them." I'm growing sick of your condescending attitude. You aren't entitled to edit this article anymore than me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• "I did not "complain" about Bleiburg massacre missing" Yes, you did. - No I didn't and I explained why. If you have difficulties understanding English you might want to pick some other Wikipedia to edit.
• Did I not just offer to put it in the article myself despite your ad hominem attacks? Did I not explain how unrelated crap in the article is not going to be corrected by adding more unrelated crap? And let's not forget that it was you who started with ad hominem remarks when you somehow decided that being Croat disqualifies one from editing the article on Croats. Who was condescending back then?
• You aren't entitled to edit this article any more than me. - True. But I am entitled to react when I see an editor editing against consensus or established practices, which is around here defined as "what similar articles look like". Also, notice that I haven't edited your additions yet. Timbouctou (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• "If you have difficulties understanding English you might want to pick some other Wikipedia to edit." Again with the attitude.
• "when you somehow decided that being Croat disqualifies one from editing the article on Croats." I didn't say it "disqualified" anyone. I just pointed out the obvious conflict of interest. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted to the position before the edit war on the issues discussed above. There is plainly no consensus here as yet for what you wish to add PRODUCER. I suggest you seek a wider range of views to see if consensus can be reached. Try the Croat project, WP:3PO or a content WP:RFC. If the edit war continues I shall protect the page.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do something about Timbouctou's ad hominem attacks. This is not a productive atmosphere. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, ladies, please! Producer accused Timbouctou of "whitewashing". Jesuislafitte accused Producer of vendetta. Timbouctou called Producer narrow-minded. Producer impled lack of good faith as Timbouctou is a Croat and accused him of "ethnocentrism". Enough already. You are right - this is not a productive atmosphere. Take 5 and start again.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm sorry to say that I've declined the request for a third opinion, because there are more than two editors involved already. If you are unable to find a compromise here, might I suggest leaving a post at WP:DRN? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I hadn't realised the "3" in "3PO" was taken so literally.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

People, I'll repeat my proposal: add a small, brief paragraph on the NDH. Two or three simple sentences at the most, adding also a sentence or two explaining that hundreds of thousands of Croats also fought against the NDH (just under half-a-million, a forgotten fact nowadays). I really can't see the problem here, why would anyone object to a simple edit of that sort? Mentioning WWII in the context of the history section of a nation article is certainly justified, but posting a HUGE paragraph does seem too much and provocative. Balance and brevity fellas. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER entries unnecessary data, which is a place in other articles:)--Sokac121 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Compelling argument Sokac. /s

DIREKTOR, could you please write up this "small brief paragraph" that you've suggested? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

longest written tradition of all South Slavic languages?

It is not true that Croatian language has the longest written tradition of all South Slavic languages, because the Freising Manuscripts (Slovene: Brižinski spomeniki) were created between 972 and 1039, most likely before 1000 and are the oldest Latin-script text in a Slavic language and the oldest document in Slovene. So we should correct this statemant about Croatian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.113.75 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Freising manuscripts are indeed Slavic, but are attributed to the Slovene language primarily by Slovene national scholars. Contrary to popular opinion and "national myth" in Slovenia, the connection between the manuscripts and an undefined proto-Slovene language are debateable, disputed, and very unclear. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources please people. The article here at Freising manuscripts is woefully short of them . Anyway - isn't this a bit pointless? Just because it's the oldest surviving manuscript doesn't mean it was the first. Probably better if the article just says the Croatian language has a long written tradition rather than the longest? Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Genetics wrongly stated

Genetically, on the Y chromosome line, a majority (>85%) of Croats belong to one of the three major European Y-DNA haplogroups - Haplogroup I (45%), Haplogroup R1a (27%) and Haplogroup R1b (13%).[36]

According to the reference in the article - Croats Haplogroups: I (33%), R1a (27%), R1b (12%)

I would ask for correction according to the reference.

"It can be said that the Croats are "the most European people", as no other people have such a high share of this major (and probably the only) Paleolithic European haplogroup."

What does "most European" mean, if we look by genetics and cultural heritage, the Greeks are the "most" European, cause their culture and tradition is the fundament of European culture, as a matter of fact they even coined the terminus "Europe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.77.141 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the infobox

Fellas the current state of the infobox was agreed-upon by a hard-won consensus. If you wish to change the consensus I hope you will discuss here first. Imo the addition of all those pics is way too much. There are 4,000,000 Croats, and drowning some in a sea of others negates the whole purpose of the infobox. -- Director (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Before changing he population, please consider checking this discussion and also this other discussion, thanks. They explain how the population was calculated. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask is it possible to add 3 or 4 more faces in infobox?Like Ivan Mestrovic,Miroslav Krleža,Tin Ujevic or Faust Vrancic?..Because they are very important figures in Croatian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Most times I have heard the word spoken it has two syllables, so I assume this is correct. I have occasionally heard it pronounced rhyming with "boats." A short pronunciation guide at the top wouldn't hurt. Hellbus (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

doesn't this fall under "opinion"? where is the cite for majority or artistic critical opinion?

" At the Millennium Exhibition in Budapest they overshadowed all other artistic traditions of Austro-Hungary. " ?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. If that isn't sourced, we should get rid of it. -- Director (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-consensus switch

Penkala was a Polish Jew, whereas Andric was a Bosnian Croat by birth. To put it in one way, he is no more a Serb than Penkala is a Croat. One must note in these sort of discussions that there are folks in Serbia nowadays who strongly believe all Croats are Serbs to begin with, and only need "convincing" of it ("da ih ubedimo da su Srbi.."). In short, Andric was included based on his ethnic background: I'll thank you not to remove him again without consensus. -- Director (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

new zealand

There are two sources for New Zealand

• declaration of the prime minister during the celebration of the 150th anniversary of Croatian settlement in New Zealand: "Over 100,000 New Zealanders have Croatian heritage" [2]

• census office: 2,070 residents born in Croatia, 2,550 residents identified as Croatians [3]

The declarations of a politician in a public act can't be trusted because he can be twisting facts to get voters, or to get political support. "Croatian heritage" is a very vague wording, it could mean anything, it could include people who had one Croatian ancestor a century and a half ago. and it doesn't look like "Croatian heritage" was measured by any official organism, it looks like a personal estimation. It seems that it includes people who have Croatian surnames but no longer feel like Croats. I wouldn't include such a number until a reliable source measures it and explains how it was measured. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The census in New Zealand records people by their place of birth or by the citizenship(s) they hold. So the the 2500 something people registered as "Croatian" are people who were either born in Croatia (and currently live in New Zealand) or currently hold the dual-citizenship. The census itself does not deal with ancestry and origin of people (like f.e. in USA or Canada, etc.) and thus is irrelevant and faulty when trying to determine the real size of the NZ's Croatian expatriate community...which is what the infobox on this article is trying to do. Also to me it does not sound like a "personal estimation" but rather like an official estimation of the NZ government (since she was speaking in the role of NZ's PM) and they (NZ govt.) should know who lives in their country or not, and the heritage of their people. Shokatz (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Enric Naval i respect your opinion..But there is clearly 100 000(more or less) New Zealanders with Croatian ancestry there..There are sections on other ethnic groups where it is stated for example "Norwegians by ethnic" and "Norwegians by ancestry"...But here there isn't section "by ancestry" but there is "(est.)" which means estimated..like it is said for Bosnian census...and it means estimation not exact number.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Croats in New Zealand are associated with Maori. They even have a special name Tarara Croats. More about Tarara Croats see to Google. :)

Tarara Day celebrates the union of the Maori and Croatian cultures in New Zealand. This year 14500 people attended the event. Croatian-Maori descendants have the opportunity to celebrate their cultures and learn more about their heritage.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(reply to several people) the census says that only 2,550 people identified themselves as belonging to the Croatian ethnic group, including people who identified with multiple groups.

I don't know if the infobox measures "ethnic identification", "ethnic self-identification" or "heritage". (that would be a separate discussion).

The problem is that "heritage" includes having a Croatian surname when 90% of your ancestry is non-Croat (one Croat married into a non-Croat family, and their descendants married with non-Croat), people who don't feel Croatian even if they had some Croatian grand grand grandfathers, etc. I'm not sure if we should count people who had one or two Croat ancestors 4 or 5 generations ago. The Census office doesn't count them, and that's enough for me. If the PM thinks that New Zealand has 100,000 Croats living there, he should speak with the Census office and tell them to correct their figures. Until then, the Census office is usually considered the most reliable source for population stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such problem whatsoever as it is completely irrelevant. The infobox does not deal in issues you talk of. We have an official of the state (a PM even) clamming it in her official role and we have the link for it and that is what it is. I do agree it would be desirable perhaps to add both figures though but since that seems to go against the agreed policy I don't see how could we do that. Shokatz (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What did Tito do for Croats?

What did Tito do for Croats to deserve a place in infobox? He is guilty for more than 100 thousand dead souls in Bleiburg. For Christ's sake, he is on the list of greatest mass murderers of 20th century! http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this make him a non-Croat? This is an illustrated article about an ethnic group and not its paean, you can have here even a photo of a drunkard as long as he is a Croat and the photo is clear enough to see distinct facial features. Stop vandalising this article at last please. kashmiri ^TALK 23:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox individuals

Could you people stop with these silly argument and discuss changes here instead of edit-warring?!? Whoever made the recent infobox (I am referring to the people featured in it) has went way overboard. IMO there are too many people up there and quite a few are unknown to a neutral observer. People featured up there should be those who are instantly identified with Croatian people and Croatia not obscure individuals such as Croatian kings about whom 99.9% know nothing about outside of Croatia, the region and the related professions. When one says Drazen Petrovic or Ivan Mestrovic they immediately know of who we are speaking about there...I am talking of my personal experience travelling around the Europe and the World. Also the way it is made - each person featured separately - is a disaster waiting to happen (as we can see from these recent edits) for these silly arguments and even more ridiculous edit wars. I am seriously thinking about making a composite of people like it is featured on Germans or the French to put an end to this as it is becoming very annoying.

I am inviting everyone to join the discussion here so we can actually reach a consensus who should be featured and why. It's time we stop with this silliness... Shokatz (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I might be alone but to me, a near-perfect people infobox is under People of Nepal: it gives a cross-section of the society both in ancient times and now. Only complaint is that both genders should be represented more or less equally.

Here we are coming to what information the infobox is to convey. In my understanding, it is not thought to be a "gallery of most-famous people"; it is not for showing off the names that the given nation/tribe is most proud of. Considering that this is an encyclopaedia and the subject is a particular tribe/nation/ethnos, the infobox should rather present the reader with an idea how a typical Croat/Englishman/Nepali/Turkmen/etc. looks like.

So, to me, the gallery should present a cross-section of the society - the rich and the poor, women and men - so as to expose the most typical facial appearances of a given nation/tribe. Definitely, not "famous XXXs", definitely not "XXX kings and politicians", and definitely be gender-balanced. kashmiri ^TALK 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO the people featured should be those who contributed something to the world that transcends and goes beyond the ordinary national and/or ethnic context, someone and something that is recognizable internationally. Like for example Andrija Mohorovicic or Rudjer Boskovic who made significant contributions to modern-day world science or Drazen Petrovic who is remembered as one of the greats in history of basketball and world sport. I am not sure about the typical look you mentioned as there is no such thing as typical Croat look. Croats are a diverse nation with a long and complex ethnogenesis. Even culturally Croats are a diverse bunch with different regions having different customs based on complex history and various regional and cultural influences that developed over the centuries. That is what makes the Croats and Croatia so unique...it's a very small country but with a large diversity compared to some much bigger nations such as f.e. Germans or the French. Shokatz (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But what makes Tito a Croat? Tito was a conscious Yugoslav, not a Croat. We are talking about the people who actually represent something for Croatian people. No one recognizes Tito as a Croat, but as a Yugoslav. Tito's father was a catholic from Zagorje, but that doesn't mean he was a Croat, or of Croatian descent. In my opinion, Franjo Tuđman should have priority over Tito because he was the first president of independent Republic of Croatia.

Following your logic, Stalin was Советский человек and not Georgian/Ossetian. Get real please. Moreover, the question was not about what faces should be on the list. Read the question again and for f*ck's sake stop fighting, or someone will have to make a new Yugoslavia. kashmiri ^TALK 20:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Tito was most definitely a Croat, but he was also a Yugoslav. Those two are not mutually exclusive. And Tito is most certainly recognized as both in the world. Shokatz (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić was born to Croatian parents and he declared as a Croat in his youth, but later he declares as a Serb, and we have his personal document to prove that. In my opinion, such a person should not represent Croats.

Ok, I don't know who we're going to have, but twenty-eight people is way, waay too much if we're to use this format.. Talk about getting carried away, restored old consensus version. -- Director (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As an impartial editor, I also don't care who will be there, as long as both genders are represented. Currently, someone just removed the only woman. Now it feels as if "Croats" was a term for "men" only. Talk about male chauvinism here... kashmiri ^TALK 20:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I find that demand rather sexist :). Are you saying we should exclude more-notable men to make room for less-notable women - merely because they're women? It so happens that the vast majority of notable Croats were men (I shall not speculate in which measure that might be a reflection on the patriarchal nature of our society, or an accurate reflection on the comparative capabilities of Croatian men and women). Even now, in order to improve the male/female ratio, Drazen Petrovic has yielded his place to Blanka Vlasic, and Miroslav Krleža to Ivana Brlic-Mazuranic. Both Krleza and Petrovic are undoubtedly superior and more notable authors/sportsmen. And no, in case that's what you're thinking, we can't include both: not only would it be pointless in that it would actually increase the male/female ratio in favor of men, but it would also overcrowd our template. As long as we use this format, with captioned portraits, we really cannot go beyond 16 people: the whole thing just turns ridiculous. Its over-large even now.. we should probably have kept it at a modest 12. -- Director (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read my comments above you will see that I insist this place is not for "notable people" but for representative images of the nation/ethnic group. In other words, ethnic group infobox is not a "hall of fame" but an information box. I want information on how a "Croat" man and woman looks like: white, black, yellow, blond, dark, square-jawed, etc., etc. I am not interested to see local ruling dynasty or a gallery of football-kickers: these are presented in other articles.

That said, I have observed that the smaller the nation, the more they fight to promote their "famous men" across Wikipedia. Which does a disservice to other readers kashmiri ^TALK 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be so in bare theory, but in standard practice these infoboxes represent notable men and women from the ethnic group in question. Need I submit examples? These infoboxes are NOT there to show you "what Croats look like", as in that case Wikipedians would be posting collages of ordinary men and women in modern times (people and nations change in appearance over the centuries). I submit they are manifestly there to show you some notable members of the ethnic group - or else everyone on Wiki has got it wrong.

All that said, I am not opposed to including some women in there, but am opposed to forcing in women in the place of really-notable men simply because we supposedly must acquiesce to some gender-biased ratio demand.

The real national self-aggrandizement here is the insistence on so many people being included in the infobox. That I oppose. 16 is what we agreed before, and already its too much in this format. I agree many notable men have been excluded, but that does not mean we can butcher the infobox out of all proportion. We can discuss replacements, imo, but not additions. -- Director (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I agree that 28 people is way too much.But we agreed about a year ago that krleza,mestrovic,mazuranic and matos should at least be on this list...20 is not too much at all...why didn't you revert this article way before?Why now?You didn't see?:)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Scrosby85's edits

Scrosby85, please take into consideration the fact that many users came together a couple years ago, and arrived at the 16-member infobox you see in the article now. Consensuses are not set in stone, of course, but as this is an entirely arbitrary, "voting" matter - please respect the opinions of your fellow users. If you would like to alter the infobox in accordance with your own personal ideas, kindly discuss that here and do not presume to supersede everyone else through edit-warring.

My own opinion, as I've said, is that (in this format!) 16 is too much as it is - but just acceptable. We're a small nation and we don't really have that many globally-notable individuals to parade, but if we had 170 people up there - still we'd hear "how dare you neglect Great Croat No.171!!!!". I would like to avoid this article appearing as some kind of pathetic self-aggrandizement poster. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement "[Amazing Croat XY] is so Amazing he must go in there" is no argument, as it is entirely separate from the unrelated issue of "how many people can we reasonably post here to keep the infobox tasteful?". If you think "Awesome ÜberCroat XY" should be included - then tell me: who do we replace?

Based on the perceived "Awesomeness" of various persons, we could conceivably have several hundred people stuffed in there - and we have seen the number rise to 28 people already!, but the idea is to balance that out with concerns over infobox size and proportions, as well as noticeability of individual persons in the throng. -- Director (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR It doesn't matter if some of this Croats on the list are globally known or not...They are very valuable to Croatia and to their history...Miroslav Krleza id widely know as one of the greatest writers in Yuglslavia..Ivan Mestrovic one of the greatest sculptors also...Why should they be removed from this list?Because you say 16 is too much?Why is too much?Faust Vrancic for example is not on this list...Ivo Andric should not be on this list because he identified himself as a Serb...And one more thing...Croats have some 7-8 million people worldwide and they should be reduced to 16 people and Serbs who number approximately 10.5 million people can have 30 Serbs in infobox?:) 30?!And Croats can't have 20?Also Slovenians or Slovenes who have 2.5 million people worldwide have 16 people in infobox!

I alsodon't want to fight with you over this matter or with anybody else..But read my las sentence above and make logic...Serbs have 30 people and Slovenes have 16 people same as Croats who are bigger then Slovenes...So i am proposing if this List should be 20 with people who are precious to Croatia?Because this list of 20 was here for almost one year and nobody complained...I also came here and tried to reduced number of 28 to 20 because 28 is too much...

You don't understand me. I agree with you: those are all fantastic people - but there are very many such people besides, and we can only reasonably introduce so many people into the infobox. Not only would it make the infobox look silly, it would also make the article (and perhaps Croats in general!) look pathetic and self-aggrandizing. I don't really care that much who is in there, just as long as its 16 or less, more is too much in my personal opinion (have a look at Swedes or the Swiss).

If you really think someone or other ought to be in here, then please tell me who of the sixteen do you think they should replace? -- Director (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Again...Can i repeat myself?Why are you pointing out Swedes and Swiss people?Why didn't you tell me something about Serbs and Slovenians..I would like to hear your opinion on that..Serbs whose overall population is around 10.5-11 mil have 30 people in infobox.30 PEOPLE!And Slovenes who have 2.5 million people overall have 16 people same as Croats who have around 7 - 7.5 million..Where is the logic my dear friend.Please tell me?You are acting like a god here..Why didn't you remove this 20 people article long before..Do u know for how long this infobox have 20 people?Nobody complained...This 16 people article is way too old and pictures are old and everything..You didn't do a good job reverting those 28 people which i already told is too much because people like svacic,nikola zrinski,ivan vucetic and so on are not for that list.Somebody put this 28 people probably because Croatia joined EU i think...So please tell me why should Croats have 16 people same as Slovenians and Serbs for example have 30 people and nobody complains? -Scrosby85 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So who do you want to emulate? Serbs or the Swiss? :) I say again: in this format 20 people is too much in my opinion, therefore I oppose the increase. There isn't much more to say, really. You should seek consensus for increasing the number of people. -- Director (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In what format??Plaese explain to me this about Serbs and SSlovenians..This is talk page and i want discuss this with you because i will not let off these 20 people...Consesnus was here long before you came about 20 people?Where were for 6 months and why didn't you revert this article to 16 if u care too much for it?I ask you once more Slovenians who is smaller nation then Croats have 16 people and Croats can't have 20 because in your opinion it looks funny?That is your explanation?Serbs can have 30 people even more than Germans but Croats can't have 20? Scrosby85 17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what a "format" is? I'm referring to this infobox arrangement. Not much more to add. Oppose modifying consensus infobox in this regard: it will bloat the infobox and generally make it "in your face". 16 is already too much imo. -- Director (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree about the 16 number..And i think a lot people here don't..So what do we do now?I would propose 20 people and maybe that infobox be one picture for all not individual pictures..Like at the Serbs. Scrosby85 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If not 20 can we agree on 18?At least that Krleza and Mestrovic be included and Mazuranic and Matos excluded? −−Scrosby85 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think we should have more than 12 people. A lot of smaller respectable ethnic groups have 12 people (Swiss, Chezchs etc.). We should have only the most notable personas not to make our infobox look childish and pathetic. Anon7mous (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon7mous If Serbs can have 30 people in Infobox then Croats should have 12?Are you serious?:))) Croats should have 12 and Slovenians 16?:))) Scrosby85 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not some little kid who doesn't understand things..I know that some people don't have to be on this list...But Ivan Mestrovic for example should be included because he is widely known sculptor...And Miroslav Krleza is widely known in Literature of this part of Europe...So if 20 is too much i'm proposing if we can just include Mestrovic and Krleza and that's it..I will not insist on Mazuranic and Matos.Also it would be logic to replace Andric with Ruzicka because Andric was more Yugoslav(Yes he was born to Croatian parents) but he identified with Serbia later in life..Also it would be good to replace Blanka Vlasic with Janica Kostelic who is sporting icon in Croatia and is multiple Olympic gold medalist. Scrosby85 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of people on Serbian article is significant to article about Croats. Your logic suggests that ethnic group with bigger infobox is somehow superior to ethnic group with smaller one. This is not a competition. Article about Japanese people has only 12 people and Japan is quite a populous country with a lot of important people who influenced worldly events. In my opinion infobox should contain people who did great things in their field of work, otherwise it just looks immature.

It doesn't matter how widely known some people are because you can probably find a lot more and we can't put everyone. I think 16 people is too much but I might settle with it. Current infobox was a product of consensus and in my opinion we should keep it for the time being. Anon7mous (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon7mous I'm very suspicios of you..I think that you are in some kind of alliance with DIREKTOR or his friend because you write same as him..I ask you once more!Why can's Croats have 20 people in infobox?Because overall population of Croats is estimated at 7.5 mil.And Slovenians have 16 people in infobox and their total population is 2,5-3 mil..Where is the logic?Do u understand what 'm talking about?Or article about Serbs...Their population is estmated at 11 mil and they have 30 people...I mean where is the sense of logic? here?Where are we going with this?Article with 20 people was here more then 6 months and everyone agreed to it...And DIREKTOR didn't even know about this...And now he came here and he is acting like a god and saying it should be 16 like it was and son..Where was he all this time when this article had 20 people and nobody complained about? Scrosby85 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody unsigned said that people who were great in their field of work should be on this list..So Krleza and Mestrovi were not good in their work?I'm proposing that these two justbe included on this list and that's all...I'm not asking that for example pavelic mustbe on this list or some man or women which nobody heard of...Think about what i'm saying..Everyone are complaining that 16(or 20) is too much..I'm asking why is it too much??why?i didn't get an answer... Scrosby85 19:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I just looked in the archive and I just cannot believe how many times was subject discussed over the years. And the funny part is: most of the arguments are constantly repeating itself. Who, why, how many people should be up there...etc, etc. I have stated in my previous reply that I believe the ones who should be featured are/were those who did something extraordinary and those who are recognized beyond Croatia, region and ethnic context. Now it's completely irrelevant how many people we have up there as long as it looks normal and does not mess up the entire visual appearance of the article. Yes we can probably have more than 16 people up there...hell we can probably have 30 people up there....it can even look normal if we make a composite picture. Actually I am more and more convinced we should go ahead and introduce a composite picture and put an end to these ridiculous debates and reappearing edit-wars. Shokatz (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Shokatz You also share the opinion that Ivo Andric should be removed right?He lived and worked in Serbia later in life and said he is Serbian writer..So Andric should be replaced with Ivan Mestrovic in my opinion because he he is one of the most popular people from that period in Croatia...Or with Lavoslav Ruzicka...So can we at least discuss or have some kind of consensus about 20 people?DIRKETOR invited me here so we can discuss this and he just told me 16 it will be and there is no more discussion and he left..What kind of discussion is that? Scrosby85 20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with DIREKTOR because I read what he said and I agree. I came to this article because I'm interested in what Wikipedia has to say about Croats now that Croatia entered EU. Let me make 2 points. 1st point - I don't care how many people Serbs have because this is not an article about Serbs. With your logic if Serbs and Slovenes had 100 people we should also have at least 100 or even more? 2nd point - What does population have to do with anything? Nigeria has ~160-170 million people and that doesn't mean they have more extraordinary people than France. I will say it again, this is not an international pissing contest, this is an encyclopedia. Simply I disagree with you and I would reduce the number of people or keep it the way it is.

In reply to Shokatz. I don't have anything against composite picture but I would keep the number of people at maximum 16. French have 28 people, Italians have 30, Germans have 30... Smaller nations such as the Slovaks, Czechs, Swiss have 12. Shouldn't we keep it tasteful and subdued, show only our best who are truly notable instead of drowning them in a bunch of comparatively irrelevant figures only to stroke our ego. Anon7mous (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon7mous,Again you...Do i have to repeat myself all over again?Slovenes who are almost 3 times smaller nation than Croats have 16 people in Infobox?And i bet 99% of the people don't know 15 people from that list of Slovenes.Now somebody will write again what does Slovenes have to do with Croats article...It does.Why would Croats have 16 same as Slovenes?And nobody says that Slovene article is funny because they have 16 people in infobox..or like Serbs have 30 people in infobox more than Germans..But it is funny when Croats have 20?I mean come on.. Scrosby85 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not like i am proposing that some anonymous character be on the list..I'm proposing that at least Krleza and Mestrovic must be on the list. Scrosby85 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Then feel free to suggest their insertion in replacement of someone or other. As I said, the issue of "who has to be in?" is entirely independent from the issue of "how many people can we have?". -- Director (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I don't know hot to speak with you..It's like speaking with a wall or something..Why would we replace somebody?...Why not insert just Mestrovic and for example Ruzicka instead of Andric...Just Mestrovic if not Krleza...that is 17...And Janica Kostelic instead of Vlasic..I think this is fair? Scrosby85 13:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I would rather spend time trying to figure out who to remove so we can have 12 people or maybe think about replacement of someone. I don't agree we should enlarge our infobox. Anon7mous (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anon7mous Yeah we should have just 6 people in infobox...I think that would make you happy...I think you would like that Croats would look like people without history and without known people...You would be the happiest man on the planet Scrosby85 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And if nobody agrees that this should be enlarged then i think it would be good if Andric is replaced with Mestrovic because Andric is already in "Serbs" infobox..And to replace Vlasic with Janica Kostelic? Scrosby85 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the archives. Many many users discussed for a very long time in great detail to arrive at consensus. Please do not change that consensus by yourself and please respect the work of others. I would ask you kindly to stop mentioning the Serbs article because it's completely unimportant here. Anon7mous (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That "consensus" was about 4 years ago and i bet you haven't been part of it.Secondly Ivo Andric is also on "Serbs" article..and yes it is important...If he is on Serbs infobox and he declared himself a Serb how can he be on Croats infobox?Also what does Blanka Vlasic do in infobox?What has she achieved..Janica Kosltelic is a legend in her home country and she should be on that list.DIREKTOR said that changing is an option but not adding the people in infobox..So i'm changing it not adding...So stop with this nonsense Scrosby85 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes DIREKTOR said we can change consensus but as always, only if we agree. I disagree with your changing things here only because Serbs article has this or that. Ivo Andric like everyone else was discussed in detail before: He is an ethnic Bosnian Croat and he considered himself a Yugoslav (not a Serb). Serbs article incorrectly lists him as Serbian, but who cares? It is true his work is considered a part of Serbian literature but that makes him no less of an ethnic Croat. He is a Nobel prize winner and deserves to be in there. Vlasic is another person who was agreed upon by a lot of people, not 4 years ago, but 2 years ago and what difference does it make how long ago it was?? I respect consensus, you just undo. If you continue with your opposed edits, I will request a moderator have a look at your behavior. Please accept that people disagree with you. Anon7mous (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as i can see only you "disagree" with me...Consensus was "made" three years ago and in the meantime infobox was changed 4 or 5 times (not by me) and nobody complained..where was you when article with 20 people in infobox was?Where?On vacation for almost a year?Ivo Andric considered himself a part of Serbian literature and he is listed in Serbian infobox..it's a little stupid and confusing not to say funny to have andric both in croatian and serbian infobox isn't it?And you say it is funny when 20 people are in infobox?And this Andric thing is not?Also Lavoslav Ruzicka was a Nobel Prize winner and he was Croatian and he don't have a place here.Do u think anything will happen if u replace Andric with Mestrovic?Nobody cares..Obviously it concerns only you.I don't see nobody except you arguing about infobox.Because i see DIREKTOR is on vacation again like he was year ago when he finally discovered article about Croats and 20 people in it.Also Ivan Mestrovic was in the top of votings for the infobox so it's legitimate to put him in infobox instead of Andric who considered himself part of Serbian literature and considered himself a Serbian in his later years.Mestrovic was a Croat and he was patriotic of Croatia. Scrosby85 19:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with you. The Serbs article infobox is kind of ridiculous, and to attempt to emulate it and/or enter into a competition of Balkans nationalist self-aggrandizement is the last thing we should do. Even if we do use a collage instead of this format, I recommend we again use no more than 16 people, and that these be agreed-upon in consensus.

As regards replacements: what I said is that imo that's something we can constructively discuss - not that I necessarily agree with every replacement you think of, Scrosby.

Mestrovic is certainly a Croat of great note, but in my opinion not to be entered at the price of Andric (whether or not the Serbs article uses him is entirely irrelevant). Ivo Andric did not consider himself a Serb nor did he consider his work a part of Serbian literature - he was an ethnic Croat that considered himself a "Yugoslav".

In short, I do not want to open this bag of worms. I support the old consensus and will revert to it. -- Director (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking (because I am quite curious), what is it with Andric so much? His legacy is mainly in Serbian language and his contribution to the history of Croatian literature is completely insignificant. Now I am aware he won a Nobel prize...but so did Ruzicka in a much more distinguished category of chemistry (as opposed to literature prize) and yet we don't see him in the article. Why is Ruzicka omitted and Andric pushed on the list all this time? I don't understand it. Shokatz (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Andric's literature really isn't "Serbian" or "Croatian", but rather "Serbo-Croatian", or "Yugoslav" if you will. Plus, on Wikipedia, you will note than neither "Croatian" nor "Serbian" are considered separate languages but standardized forms of Serbo-Croatian: with that the distinction by which he is supposed to be "Serbian" is rather blurry. What he certainly is, is a person of Croatian ethnicity, and a nobel prize winner of some note. Leopold Ruzicka, on the other hand, is a person (at least in part) of Czech ethnicity if I'm not mistaken. Either way he was not brought forward with much support when users were polled. -- Director (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your little essay there but you can be sure I already knew all that. My question, which remained unanswered, was directed at the fact he contributed nothing significant to the Croatian literature. His books are a complete enigma at Croatian schools and studies...that is how much he is significant for Croatia. Not to mention the Nobel prize for literature is an obscure award when compared to some others...f.e. the one for achievements in Chemistry. As for Ruzicka, interesting how you emphasize his Czech origins (his great grandfather was of Czech extraction) but you seem to ignore the fact Andric himself was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina (not in Croatia) and that he considered and declared himself a Serb when he moved to Serbia and lived there for most of his life. Now even if we do take the fact there is some significance that you can be of certain origins nationality/ethnicity by birth alone (by that standard Ruzicka certainly qualifies as of his eight great grandparents five of them were Croats) it is actually a completely subjective matter on what you are and how you experience yourself in that sense. Oh and isn't it time we reach a new consensus? Shokatz (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I am really getting sick of discussing Serbs, Serbia, and the Serbs article here on Talk:Croats. I find it disturbing that many of us are so insecure in our nationality that we must obsess over supposed "differences" real and imagined.

Šokac, that's not a group of people who contributed to Croatian literature, but rather a group of famous and notable Croats. Andric the Croat could have contributed to English, Russian, or Finnish literature for all I care, if he won the freaking nobel prize. That's #1. #2, as I already explained, Wikipedia does not distinguish between Croatian and Serbian languages. #3 He certainly has contributed to Croatian literature, even by the standards of the politicized HAZU, and is indeed taught in Croatian schools; although granted its only his weak early work. I wouldn't presume to imagine where it is you went to school, but in my gymnasium we had to study the full course of Croatian.

The political censorship of the amazing & nobel prize-winning Na Drini ćuprija, probably the best work of literature written in our language, is one of the more overt maimings of our educational system in the past years. Don't worry, though, Mate Balota will stay with us.. :P -- Director (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing Serbs, Serbia or Serbs article, I was discussing Andric who declared and considered himself a Serb, quite a significant fact don't you think? If that frustrates you I can't help it. Ruzicka also won the freaking nobel prize and yet we don't find him in the list, which makes me wonder what exactly was the criteria when some of you were making this consensus decision. Also, as far as I know Wikipedia certainly distinguishes between Croatian and Serbian language/idiom. As you probably know they are part of the same genetic language (or a diasystem/dialectal continuum if you will) but each is a separate standard easily recognizable by native speakers....and by Andric himself BTW. In my time when I went to school there was no Andric there as a required reading. He was mentioned, some minor biographical stuff and that is it. Anyway, I don't really care about this subject anymore...I was simply asking questions. As it seems that it bothers you or you find it provocative I will restrain myself from now on. I already lost the will to read all this ridiculous banter some time ago anyway... Shokatz (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In principle I don't mind including Ruzicka, but I do mind the idea that he should replace Andric. What the guy "considered himself" is ultimately irrelevant, it seems that for a while he subscribed to the crackpot theory that "Serbs" is what all Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians should be called. Its the idea that "Serbs" is the real term for "Yugoslavs" or "Illyrians". He didn't consider himself a "Serb" in the modern sense, but rather in the "Šešelj sense".. he's essentially a Croat who later adopted Serbian nationalist ideology. But what does that matter? Many notable people perceived as "Croats" didn't consider themselves such. Gundulic, Marulic, Strossmayer, Tito, to name just a few in our infobox. Likely old "Miklós Zrínyi" as well (if I wasn't on vacation I'd certainly pay that article a visit..), or people like "Fausto Veranzio" (tried & failed); the two kings least of all since no such concept existed then (nor will exist for centuries).

Ruzicka didn't get much support, though, so I am opposed to him based on that. As for criteria, there wasn't any. We just kinda voted, if my memory serves). -- Director (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

population in the infobox

The IP 24.x has been replacing the sourced estimate of "7.5 - 8.5 million (est.)" with a new figure of "~5 million (est.) (up to 4 million Croatian descendants abroad)"

• The third source in Croats explicitly mentions both 4 million national Croats and 4.5 million abroad Croats.
• You can reach a similar number by adding up the number of other reliable sources.
• The alternative proposed by 24.x is not based on any source, it's just a number that feels right to him.
• 24.x said that "There's no evidence part of the "4 million Croatians" abroad are not already included in this census"[4], but national census only count people living in the country, they don't count people living abroad.

24.x thinks that the 7.5 - 8.5 mill estimate is WP:SYNTHESIS. But one source says that there are 4 mill inside Croatia and 4.5 mill outside, and other sources give similar numbers. I don't think it's synthesis to add them up. In a previous discussions someone said that this falled under WP:NOR#Routine_calculations. On and older discussion an admin reverted back to a similar version because the alternative versions were unsourced....

What do other people think? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not fall under WP:SYNTHESIS because it is not original research nor does it lead anyone reading, to a wrong conclusion to those stated in the sources. The entire purpose of the Total population line is to show the summary of all provided figures. The figure is well sourced and supported. Shokatz (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Total population line is to show the summary of all provided figures

If that's the purpose of the "total population line" then why are you inflating it with 3 million unaccounted for Croats? As you well know, the summation of all the provided figures barely hits under 6 million. Adding +4 million Croats abroad to the already summated figures in the population box is original research. Find a source that says there are a total of 7.5-8.5 mil Croats total, otherwise I'll have no choice but to make an account and continually revert back to DIRECTLY what the sources you provide say "4 million Croats abroad" NOT " 7.5-8.5 Croats total". Thank you. 24.184.49.238 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You already have sources provided in the article....right there besides the total population number but here they are again: [5] [6] [7]. Now this falls under WP:Routine_calculations and is definitely not WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS as we obviously have sources and what stands in the article certainly does not twist them. As for your threats I can only say Wikipedia has certain rules and you should do well to read them all. Shokatz (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The alternative proposed by 24.x is not based on any source, it's just a number that feels right to him.

Incorrect. The ~5 mil is a rough summation of the numbers provided in the box. IF you want to be more specific, you can get the exact number which would probably be along the lines of 5.4 or 5.5 mil. 24.184.49.238 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

~5 mill? I get 6,357,459 as lowest estimate and 6,403,688 as highest. That's much nearer to ~6.4 mill.

Anyways, there is some duplication going on. The sources say 4,5 million Croats living in Croatia, but the census says 4,25 mill inhabitants, with only 3.87 mill Croats. So, the higher estimate is too high by 0.75 mill.

It should be 3.87 mill inside Croatia + 4.5 mill outside Croatia = 8,37 mill (~8.4 mill?) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually when most statisticians are talking about the native Croatian population they are talking about Croatia AND Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Croats are one of the three "constitutive nations" along with Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) and the Serbs. So taking that into consideration there are around 400-500k Croats in Bosnia and then the figure is much closer to the 4.5 million mentioned living at home. Shokatz (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That would give ~4.35 mill at home, and ~5.9 mill abroad. That gives a total of 10.25 mill! --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how you come up with those numbers but let's say there are 4,35 at home and with those estimated (and sourced) 4-4,5 million abroad we come up at around 8,5 million (more-less) so the current figure of 7,5-8,5 is a fair one. ;) Shokatz (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2013

I'd like to change map DemoBiH2006a.png to more precise DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png.png --Čeha (razgovor) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Čeha (razgovor) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's a great map. I wonder whether you'd be able to upload it in a vector format (i.e., SVG file)? Thanks, kashmiri ^TALK 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why people here are like dictators, that only things are done as the way they want? A source for first hand is better than one from second hand. But no, if you said that a turtle is a bird then is a bird. I’m done with this cheat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.90 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Verifiability. Second, your edits have completely disrupted the infobox and the existing sources which are mostly official census figures from various countries and are in direct contradiction with the source you were pushing and which talks in terms of estimates. And third, also check WP:BRD while you're at it. Before you start edit-warring and yelling how you are right and everyone else is wrong there are talk pages like this where you can actually discuss...something you continually refused. And also, although not necessary, you should at least have a decency to register so we actually know who we are addressing. Shokatz (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Croats in the US

In general, it is best to be very careful with diaspora literature as a source for the number of ethnic groups. They tend to inflate the numbers, sometimes grossly so. In the case of this particular source for the numbers of Croats in the US, it is a bit confusing. The first part, counting diaspora Croats in different parts of the world, seems quite good, giving the total number as 4,5 millions, which is consistent with other sources. The number of Croats in US and Canada is given as 2 millions. In a rather blog-like text further down, however, the number in US is given as 3 millions. Needless to say, the last info looks rather dubious, since it is contradicted by more presise info in the same article. I suggest we forget the 3 millions altogether unless a more reliable source is found.

The number 2 millions may be admissible in the article, even if it had been better to have a more neutral source. The problem with this number is that it covers Croats both in the US and Canada. As can be seen from the official data sources, the number of Croats in Canada is far from negligible. A significant part of the 2 millions will be in Canada, possibly as many as half a million, maybe less, maybe even more. We can, therefore, not use this number in the infobox table. It will, however, fit well into the "Diaspora" section. I suggest something like: "The total number of Croatian descendants in the United States and Canada is estimated to 2 millions." Regards! --T*U (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is clearly stated: In the U.S., Croats and the descendants of Croats, there are around 3 million. TU-nor you did not complained when are the Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, Bosnians, Eskimos... enrolled with as Serbs:). This source is clear, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Eskimos are not mentioned.--Sokac121 (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not questioning that the numbers refer to Croats and Croats only. I am questioning the quality of the source. The source contradicts itself by also stating that there are 2 million Croats in the US and Canada together. I find that number much more credible, since that matches the quoted total number of diaspora Croats (4.5 million) -- a number that is consistent with other sources. Regards! T*U (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I any case, claiming that there are 3 million Croats in the U.S. is simply not supported by any source given. According to official census datathe number is 411 thousand. The other source given is something called "Hrvatski iseljenicki adresar" (Croatian Diaspora Directory). Despite the fact that it is unclear what makes it a reliable source and where it got its figures from, it states that there are "more than 2 million Croats" in the United States, whereby a "Croat" is defined as "any person entitled to Croatian citizenship". This seems pretty vague. Timbouctou (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have already stated before I also agree that the source is way too general. At best it can be used as a source for the general figure of Croatian diaspora but as a source for the individual countries (namely the US) it is faulty and misleading. Shokatz (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Timbouctou For all nations used official census, and used some other source, Serbs in the official census has only 187,000 but User:Pravičnost and User:TU-nor they put the source in the United States has 1.800.000 Serbs :P. They increase the number of Serbs, and reduce the number of Croats and other South Slavs. It is not right. I think it's a good source just needs read in its entirety.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing Serbs and/or Croats. It is about sources. (For the record, I was against quoting the number 850,000 for Serbs in the US, but in favour of using the number 1.8 millions, because it was well sourced.) If we read the source in its entirety, as Sokac wants us to, then we can conclude that there are 3 mill. Croats in the US and 2 mill. in the US and Canada together, giving us minus 1 mill. in Canada. I will not enter into an edit war on this, but am strongly in favour of removing the 3 million claim from the infobox. On the other hand, I will go ahead and follow my own suggestion in my first posting to this tread and introduce the number of 2 millions to the "Diaspora" section. Regards! T*U (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TU-nor. The source on Serbs is well sourced, just like the source on Greeks article etc... and this here is nothing more but a propagandal source which gives double-figured numbers. I doubt the goal of this edit is aimed as contributing to the article... its more like a flame game of one editor.. who found none more arguments after his edit wars and arguments with tens of other editors on Serbs article (eventough he was denieng reliable sources).... and is now trying to "loosen up" anger from his "lost battles" from there; to this page, by inflating the number of Croats in return, thus using an unreliable source (almost whole croatian population of croatia lives in the U.S.?). Present a more reliable source for a higher estimation if you are willing to have one. Regards. (Правичност (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC))

@Правичност It is, of course, nice to have someone agree with you. I would, however, have been more pleased if you had not used the same comment to attack other editors. I am far from happy with being associated with personal attaks. Please concentrate on edits, not editors. Regards! T*U (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:TU-nor and User:Правичност agree in all opinions, Croats, Serbs, Kosovo very suspiciously to me this. I added another source.--Sokac121 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This new source is not any better than the last one. It is from an "interested party" and has no credibility as a reliable source. And may I remind you that you are the only one to insist on using the first 3 million claim as a source. Please establish a consensus before adding a higher number. As for now. the consensus is against you. Regards! T*U (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:TU-nor you find the source on the number of Croats in the U.S.. If you do not find I have to returned my source.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The number 411,427 given is well sourced. In addition I have added the number 2 million in US and Canada to the Diaspora section. I have to repeat that you have no support for using your unreliable sources. If you want to add a higher number, you have to find a reliable source, preferably a neutral one. Regards! T*U (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)