Talk:2013 Croatian constitutional referendum

Just a thought
Hi, I wanted to mention the possibility of adding the Slovenian Family Code referendum, 2012 to the see also list and vice versa. Yes? No? Maybe? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is good idea. It show situation in region. Croatia is very small country so events in rest of region are relevant since they are similar and have impact on events here.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The question
I don't think that the question of the referendum is accurately translated in English. In Croatian: “Jeste li za to da se u Ustav RH unese odredba po kojoj je brak životna zajednica žene i muškarca?” surely doesn't mean: "Do you agree that marriage is matrimony between a man and a woman?" A more accurate translation would be: “Do you support introduction of a provision into the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia to the effect that marriage is a living union of a woman and a man?“

What do you think? --Emir234 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but BBC translated it as Do you agree that marriage is matrimony between a man and a woman? (BBC-Croatia to hold referendum on same-sex marriage ban) and also The Washington Post Do you agree that marriage is matrimony between a man and a woman? (Croatia to hold referendum on gay marriage; rights groups call vote unconstitutional).--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, now I see almost all English-language media have translated it in that way, but it surely isn't accurate. --Emir234 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not only inaccurate, it is also somewhat misleading, since a significant part of the controversy around the referendum is whether it constitutes a proper way to introduce changes directly into the Constitution or not. I see it has been "fixed" in the text, but still attributing the quote to the BBC, which is not right. GregorB (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
The section about political background appeared very biased against the Initiative. I removed/copyedited part of it. As it is now, it's mainly the last paragraph I am concerned about. The section seems to include a lot of smears against the Initiative and lacking more substantial coverage of the actual issue. Iselilja (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Markić's villa controversy has been widely reported in Croatia media, as well as the Opus Dei/HRAST connections. They must remain. Not mentioning it is a violation of neutrality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The initiative has been vilified in 99% of the media. Unless you raise specific objections (such as the missing POVs), I'll remove the template. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern was both the weight and the tone, and this still goes for the last paragraph. I will try to rewrite it slightly, re. the tone. Insert the part of Opus Dei/HRAST that you think are necessary, but beware of the tone and due weight; in addition statements from the Initiative in response. Part of this is a BLP issue, so neutral presentation is adamant. Otherwise, I think part of the problem is the organization of the article: The Political background section appears like a hit piece on the Initiative, while the campaign section has the more neutral stuff. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a neutrality tag to the Result section as it only has a statement from the losing side, and none from the winning side. Iselilja (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to add additional sources. But don't remove cited information from important sources such as the statement by the president. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Each editor is responsible for keeping the article neutral; i.e. give equal weight to both sides of an issues; you can not expect others to fix the neutrality issues; and excessive statements in favour of one side, without statements representing the other side will be removed. Iselilja (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the NPOV policy. It doesn't pertain to weighing both sides, it pertains to weighing major opinions. We don't care about extremists and minority opinions. If 99% of the sources are criticizing something, so should we (perhaps not 99% but still close!). You're of course free to add additional information, but pease cease removing important and cited statements just because you think it gives undue weight to one side or I'll report you. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the media's coverage really it's up to 99% criticism of one side (who turned out to represent 66% of the population) that hardly seems like neutral, reliable media. In most democratic societies, media is supposed to have a certain neutrality in ordinary article writing, even if it differs from their own editorial position. Iselilja (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not 66% but ≥22% of the population. The turnout was very low. Population of Croatia is 4,284,889 while only 942,665 people voted "For", which is 22% of the population. --188.252.131.1 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As the IP told you, it's not 66% of the population but of those who voted, which is 0.65*0.37 = 24% of the electorate, which constitutes about 10-15% of the population. In other words, apart from the Bible-thumping hillbillies who all voted yes and which represent immutable voting block of HDZ and other right-wing Church-affiliated parties, the referendum was largely ignored the general public because it's pointless and doesn't affect them in any conceivable manner. If anything, it's surprising that liberal groups have garnered even such support as they did. If you take a look at DIP's website where results are decomposed regionally, the less backwoods the electoral unit the more it was against the amendment. Unfortunately we don't have the data by age groups, but my guess is that old people overwhelmingly were in support, because they are by far the most religious and bigoted - younger people are far more tolerant but don't vote and don't care.
 * Regarding the reliability of sources - index.hr and TPortal are the two of the most visited Croatian news portals (and websites after FB) by Alexa ranks, and the rest are established dailies. Besides, for every single of those disputed statements gazillions of other sources can be added because those were reported by all of the media. And yes 99% of the media did bash the initiative - they are a laughing stock, but since you don't speak Serbo-Croatian and are unfamiliar with Croatian political landscape, you can't possibly assess that... If you don't trust me ask other Serbo-Croatian speaking editors here they will all confirm it.
 * Regarding neutrality - nice strawman. If you don't like how the issue is presented slap a template and complain on the missing POVs on the talkpage. But don't remove valuable, important and cited content. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress and it is expected that in many stages it gives undue weight to POVs as it evolves. Personally I don't think that much usable material can be extracted from the initiative's press releases and their public support figures, without it sounding like a delibarete sarcasm unto themselves but we'll see. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And BTW, the only reason why this succeed is because those fundamentalists exploited a legal loophole - until last year at lest 50% of turnout was required for any referendum to pass but it was lowered because of the EU membership referendum. No one thought it was necessary to reraise it again, until this embarrassment came. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You obviously have an axe to grind, and your contributions reflect a strong and persistent bias. Articles should be balanced, and a one-sided summary of everything said against only one side of the referendum is a blatant and insupportable affront to WP:NPOV. Frankly, it is hard to attribute to you a good faith attempt to achieve balance. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to balance the article yourself. The fact of the matter is, U ime obitelji has received its fair share of media lynch (as it deserves for it homophobic nationalist discriminatory right-wing Christian agenda) and we cannot ignore that. More controversies are missing in fact - how Željka Markić's company is importing birth control pills (so much for "protect the babies"), how the initiative's bank account is registered to a completely different organization Građani odlučuju (founded by HRAST members), and the general criticism by NGOs and LGBT activists which I hope will be dug by other editors. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why it had such low voter turn-out is because most people don't know about it due to censorship by the commie Croatian media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gluejanis (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User Ivan Štambuk is forcing his point-of-view. He assumed all voters in favor are conservative homophobic Christians. It's called predjuice. Some Christian theologs openly stated they're against hetero-only marriage, and on other hand some gays openly declared there's nothing discriminatory because they believe marriage is oblsolete. A paradoxical controversy indeed. First source described iniative as dangerious, clearly biased ad hominem. Stories of stolen logo is refuted absurd, it was claimed by activist not Jewish organization. Song by gay group wasn't even used by official organization but by some unknown activist, supporter or more likely hater who wanted to discredit organization. Great paradoxical controversy is claim about Iranian picture, it was free web photo and claim about misusage are refuted by both U ime obitelji group and local Iranian center. I didn't know Iranians are pro-gay, thanks for info anyway. The greatest paradoxical controversy above all is calling all yes-voters as talibans, mujahedin or Arabs, because they're also discriminated like gays. Constitutional change is homophobic, but not poligamyphobic or incestophobic? Laughable. Some Orwells pigs are always more valuable then others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpusDbk (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @OpusDbk:  How is calling the initiative dangerous an ad hominem? Do you even know what that phrase means? Obviously not.
 * Look, I'm sure all those little incidents are trivial in your humble opinion, but can we agree that they were widely reported in Croatian media, a matter of ridicule against the initiative, which makes them prominent enough to be encyclopedia-worthy?
 * Yes the change is homophobic, because it specifically targets one group, for no purpose whatsoever. The referendum was a waste of time and money, and it accomplished nothing in practical terms. The only ones who don't find it homophobic are Josip Bozanić and other Church officials, as well as politicians affiliated with far-right nationalists parties such as HDZ and HDSSB (their comments will also be added to the article). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know what does it mean. Dangerous Turks, dangerous Jews, dangerous Serbs, dangerous Christians. I don't know why they're dangerous, but I hate so much so they're dangerous - nothing has changed in Balkans in past few hundred years. Btw, claims about Opus Dei reminds me of conspiracy theory about freemasonry. Dangerous freemasonry, of course. Another analogy is calling other side as nazis/fascists, while in the same time others called you as communist. More ad hominems you can find in both Dnevno/Jutarnji defamation against Severina and Karamarko, both are marriage-killers. After all, there's no any difference between both side, and you can make one nice pamphlet by using sources from any side. Please keep it encyclopedic and avoid yellow journalism. You're free to add any quote from right-wind political group, but don't forget to add Jewish and Serbian groups who shared their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpusDbk (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @OpusDbk:  You haven't answered my questions. Can we agree that the scandals and controversies related to the initiative U ime obitelji, such as the Opus Dei/HRAST connections, unauthorized usage of images and songs, have been widely reported by the media, and are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion? I doesn't matter whether you interpret them as ad hominems or not - Wikipedia articles should represent even such opinions, by crediting them to their respective sources, if they are notable enough. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is that you didn't represent any of those informations as claims, but facts. You also avoided to mention any refuting of such claims which also can be sourced. In my opinion, all of such disputed inflammations are not much relevant for encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpusDbk (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I must disagree - they are relevant. The only ones who appear to be butthurt by the Church - U ime obitelji connection are, surprise surprise, Christian advocates here. Which is hardly surprising.
 * These are not "disputed inflammations" - they have been widely reported and a gazillion source could be added for every single one of them. To my knowledge - none of them were disputed by the initiative, who largely ignored the discovered copyright infringements. Željka Markić's is a public person now and all of her activities are a matter of media scrutiny. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? Only Christians? How about European rabbinical centre: http://www.vecernji.hr/za-i-protiv/rabinski-centar-europe-u-potpunosti-podrzavamo-u-ime-obitelji-906143 Informations about logo have been refuted: http://www.bitno.net/vijesti/hrvatska/logo-u-ime-obitelji-nije-ukraden-od-zidovskih-obitelji-niti-od-bilo-koga-drugoga/ Claims about song are refuted: http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/u-ime-obitelji-trazi-ispriku-benda-the-xx-nismo-vam-mi-ukrali-pjesmu/714085.aspx + http://www.muzika.hr/clanak/44172/vijesti/u-ime-obitelji-traze-javnu-ispriku-od-the-xx.aspx I'm not saying either one or other side have right, both claims could be true or false. But, since you clearly represented every single one them as undeniable fact, it clearly speaks about your intentions. Wikipedia shouln't be cat-and-mouse hunt that you write bias and wait someone to improve npov - if you can't not write neutral, don't write at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OpusDbk (talk • contribs) 05:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The rabbinical center statement is already in the article. Article on bitno.net (and unreliable third-party source BTW - Christian web site) doesn't really refute the accusations on the stolen logo - it merely points out that the origin of the logo has been explained back in May 14th, supposedly deriving from a "vector template on Shutterstock", the rest of the article being a speculation on how both supposedly derived from an unknown common source. Has there been an official, specific denial by the initiative? Regarding the video - it has apparently not been published on the initiative's official channel, yet has been widely speculated to originate from them. At any case, it should be mentioned, including the initiative's demand for an apology, because it generated enough controversy. No, Wikipedia really is cat and mouse game. You cannot censor what you don't like. I have no intention of browsing Catholic web sites and digging excuses for them - if you don't like the way something is presented, you're free to rectify it yourself. This way, by removing content, you only demonstrate that you're rather interested in censorship. And what about HRAST and Opus Dei connections that you also deleted. Shall we ignore that? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your dedication in pushing your viewpoint is impressive, but insulting and obnoxious to those who have to try to bring order to the bias. Frankly, your edits indicate a lack of a good faith attempt to adhere to WP:NPOV. This article continues to have significant undue weight given to minor controversies which (surprise, surprise) all are criticisms of the proponents of the referendum. The underlying theme of your edits has been an attempt to delegitimise the referendum proponents. You are POV pushing, an editing behaviour that is inimical to the values of Neutrality Wikipedia - and every editor - is supposed to pursue. Stop. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These minor controversies were widely reported and should be mentioned in the article. They are not result of "bias". Christian fundamentalists and nationalists are the one who are biased - all people are born atheist and tolerant, it is only later in life when they are taught to discriminate against others. You can see that in many of the comment mentioned in the articles by Bozanić and initiative's sympathizers. "We are not discriminating against anybody, we are only protecting ourselves". Yes the underlying theme is to delegitimate the referendum - because it is not a legitimate - it's a muscle-flexing move by the Church to support a political platform for Markić's party, founded on a legal loophole (the lowered threshold) whose intent was to rally the electorate of older and pious people, most of whom weren't even aware what they were voting against. Wikipedia's article should reflect the tone of public discourse. E.g. we do not give equal representation of the POVs by Nazis when covering World War II. You report yourself as Christian on your user page, and I think that it what is blinding you. It is natural that Wikipedia takes a more liberal position, as opposed to Conservapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article is much better now than it was. I am not necessarily against including some of the controversies around the Initative's campaign, but it should be presented more carefully and nuanced than in the original version. And there still seems to be neutrality issues here and there; for instance the "Aftermath" section says "politicians and political analysts have widely expressed disappointment with its results". Aren't there any politicans who have expressed satisfaction and shouldn't this also be mentioned? The media coverage seciont seems somewhat one-sided, as well. There is a focus on the Media's controversy with the Initiative, but not much on how they acutally covered the underlying issue. It's a bit sad we have this neutrality issue, cause there is much good in the article and it's an interesting story, so without the neutrality issues I would have liked to see it nomintaed for DYK. Iselilja (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are, but I don't see their opinion mentioned in the media. On the day of the referendum no media reported from the headquarters of U ime obitelji. It was a Pyrrhic victory on a definition a single word which changed absolutely nothing, because same-sex marriage will be legislated under another name. There is nothing to be satisfied about. Politicians that supported the initiative are from the far-right parties and HDZ, which will likely never ever going to win elections again because they bankrupted the country, and half of their former government is either in jail, or are being tried for corruption. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An observation
I've read the article and found the following: The above discussion is TLDR for me, sorry.
 * No major bias, but a number statements that are slightly off for one reason or the other
 * The "Aftermath" section is rather one-sided though, and is now tagged as such

I've removed the POV template from the article because it's too general - that's without prejudice against similar tags being added back, but I'd urge the editors to use more specific templates to tag offending statements or sections.

I might provide more comments or a second (third?) opinion if there's interest. GregorB (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do have major POV concerns here. I originally started adding POV tag to one section and later another, but when I also considered a third section to be pov, I thought the article would look cleaner if the article just had one pov tag at the top of the article. Now, I will add POV tag back to sections I am concerned about. Please note that the pov tag says "please not removed untill the conflict is resolved". And it's not for one or two editors alone to decide that there are no conflict left (especially if you don't have the time to read the talk discussion. One editor recently brought the article to ANI because of the ongoing conflict which means that he doesn't see the conflict as resolved either. We might eventually have to bring this to the NPOV noticeboard, or maybe Dispute Resolution Board. I think it might also be a solution to have one or more RfCs about disputed parts of the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I see there is one part of the "Political Background" section that goes out and in. Right now it is out, and I don't have so much concern for that section witout that part. Iselilja (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a POV-issues regarding to a single claim in a section, why not tag it specifically with POV statement inline rather than the whole section? Perhaps that would allow proper addressing of the section topic.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An underlying neutrality concern has been of the "undue weight" nature where mainly the anti-Initiative got their views properly represented, while the other side more have been vilified in the article. Then an undue tag for the whole section seems to address the concern best (or for the whole article if you feel it applies to the article at whole). But I feel that the article to some degree has gotten better since the start, and it may be time to focus more on specific sentences or paragraphs. But tagging a whole paragraph for neutrality (pink colour on the whole disputed paragraph) can make the article look messy for the reader too. Iselilja (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification: the top-of-the-page template is - along with a rather long and not entirely constructive talk page discussion (I'm not naming any names here) - a significant obstacle which prevents other editors from chipping in with their views. A single POV template in an article of this size is not conducive to outside analysis, unless the entire prose is problematic. So, my intention in removing the template was to direct the discussion towards concrete, well-defined issues, rather than to say the issues are non-existent. An RfC sounds like a good idea to me. GregorB (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In the beginning I did feel there was a very essential generalized pov problem. It's getting better, and than more particular tagging may be more appropriate as you say. Iselilja (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a favorable statement by the Hungarian party, can we remove the template now? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The lede has to change: It's now saying: "In the aftermath of the referendum, politicians and political analysts have widely expressed disappointment with its results." What do mean by policians here? Are you referring to international politicans, Croatians or both. This should be specified. In Croatia I would expect that the reaction is mixed, as international media is reporting that the referendum was polarizing; meaning there were strong opinions on both sides. It also seems somewhat strange to say that "polical analysts" have widely expressed disappointement. The job of an analyst is normally primarily to analyze what happened; not to approve or disapprove of it. Human rights advovates and so may of course have been disappointed. Has the leader of the Conservative Party made any statements? Iselilja (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless specifically stated otherwise, it does not exclusively pertain to either foreign or domestic politicians, as can be seen in the section itself which cites both. Polarization was with respect to the voting outcome, not the public discourse - you will have trouble finding sources that openly endorse both the referendum and its outcome. Analysts do have opinions of their own. Karamarko announced that he would vote yes but has apparently made no comments. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Results table
I think somenthing like this would be more noticeable. Should I replace it? --Emir234 (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks much better. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Background for the Initiative.
I tried to insert a bit about the background for the Initiative being raised in the first place, but don't think I got it all. What I have seen suggested in media as reasons are
 * A 2003 law gave same-sex couples some recognition, but not much in practice. The government proposed a law that would be more like what's typical called "same-sex partnership". Has this law proposal been approved/implemented?
 * The French law that legalized same-sex marriage played a role
 * The government proposed a new law/program about sex education
 * Should we include these three things in the background section? Are there other reasons that should be mentioned?
 * Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Correlation with education and literacy
removed it, claiming "yellow journalism by a tabloid (Index.hr) presenting sensationalist anecdotal evidence using skewed sample". But it's just attacking the messenger - it doesn't matters who presented the analysis, what matter is whether it merits inclusion or not. The sample was not skewed but represents both extremes of spectrum, with respect to the referendum question. I suggest that it's kept nevertheless because it provides an indication of broader trends and is important in understanding who voted for what option and where. The map, on the other hand, simply provides a binary indication of which electoral unit achieved majority, without going into details. It's not the same 99% for in some Dalmatian hinterland village, and 55% for in Zagreb. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Selective sampling is used which is terribly biased and ultimately provides a very anecdotal conclusion which is in no ways scientific. If this was a study of Croatian counties, or an exhaustive study of municipalities it would merit inclusion. As it stands it's a hodgepodge of random cities and (tiny) villages grouped together to match Index.hr's POV, and provides no real proof of a correlation.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it exactly selective sampling? They took extremes of those who voted for and against, and correlated it with the census results. The cities and villages were not chosen in random. They represent the opposites of referendum's outcome and that was clearly indicated in the paragraph you removed. I suggest that you reread the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read it correctly. It is a selection of a few extremes at Index.hr's discretion to match their POV: it has a few villages with low education and high for's and a few villages with higher education and higher against's. That is statistically meaningless without a higher sample. It is not even representative of the extremes on a large scale, never mind the population as a whole. Any conclusion can be drawn from mixing data in such oversimplified fashion. This is not verifiable encyclopedic info, and the fact that it's from a particularly partisan tabloid should raise some flags.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those villages were specifically chosen because they voted "for" with the highest percentage in the entire country. It is not meant to be representative - they were simply analyzing outliers. It is not meant to provide a statistically relevant sample to deduce a positive nationwide correlation of the lack of education and literacy with homophobia. The section didn't even mention or imply that - it simply stated that that correlation existed in specific areas.
 * Now, the second part of your complaint, that it doesn't constitute encyclopedic info is OK. I agree with that. However, newer statistical analyses are coming up that are based on scientifically more sounded approach. And Index.hr is not a "partisan tabloid" - please don't lie to discredit sources. It's a completely neutral media not affiliated with any political party, who heavily criticize both left- and right-wing politicians, including this government. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Rabbinical Center
It's mentioned in the article in two places - but does that largely irrelevant religious institution merit inclusion? Jews are a tiny fraction of Croatia's population. I have a feeling that their opinions are not encyclopedia-worthy, and that the only reason why they are being added is due to the lack of sources that could balance out other opinions. I suggest that their opinions be removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jews are a tiny faction of Croatia's population but still they have very influential members in the public life in Croatia (like Ivo and Slavko Goldstein, Slobodan Lang, Davor Štern).The RCE is a organisation that coordinates Rabbis together with the jewsih communities throughout Europe. That said, it is still relevant what the Center has to say.
 * The ones you listed are major intellectuals, but overall they are a still a tiny fraction of all Croatian public life intellectuals. RCE seems to be some kind of obscure orthodox Jewish organization that would obviously support any movements encroaching on rights of infidels. I mean, we might as well cite Saudi mullahs or Kim Jong-un (no gays in NK) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fake quotes
I have removed a fake quote from the article: ''According to initiative's spokesperson Željka Markić, the goal of the initiative is to prevent same-sex couples from ever achieving the same rights as heterosexual couples. "We want to cement that gay, lesbian, or whatever you want, couples never get the same opportunities as normal couples, and normal couples are men and women, of different sexes, as God wanted", claims Markić.''

The reference: cites tportal for the original quote. tportal removed the quote, and issued an apology found here for its sensationalism because Markić never said it.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't this telling? Gabrielthursday (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Telling of what? T-Portal's journalist apparently didn't even listen to the show, and simply reported someone's falsified transcript. Now the real question is: who falsified it and for what reason. Who would benefit from such self-victimization, and who laments themselves being "victims" of liberal propaganda? Hmm.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * T-Portal's journalist apparently didn't even listen to the show. Yet they reported on it? You must realize how problematic that statement is, since this quote was subsequently widely disseminated. That is much more concerning than a conspiracy theory on an elaborate setup. --Thewanderer (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Journalists are lazy. This was conveniently exploited by the right-wingers to make themselves look like victims. It was a mistake and I hope they learned a lesson out of it, bot T-Portal and others who reported their story without double checking it first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all a conspiracy. Give me a break. And I'm supposed to give deference to your edits? Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no conspiracy. T-Portal is a reliable source. They don't make up articles. The only plausible explanation is that they had a faulty source. Unfortunately this has neither been confirmed nor denied. However, judging by the gloating overtones read between the lines in UIO's reaction, it could've easily been a maliciously planted canard. Markić's supposed statement in an interview was so obviously discriminatory and too delicious a sound bite, that no body bothered to double check it (because one can expect such statements from such movements, though usually not that overtly). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Reaction" Section
This section gives every appearance of essentially being a forum for the repetition of every negative thing said about the referendum. How many of these sources are in fact significant? Which of these reactions will be of interest in a year's time, or in five years? Given the rest of the article, how expansive should this section be? Given the one-sidedness of the section, what can be done to create balance? These are some of the questions that need to be answered to make this section, and this article encyclopaedic in nature, rather than a mere concatenation of facts and references. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All of them are significant. You Christian fundamentalists just want to blindly delete any criticism to make the topic appear completely innocent and deprived of widespread denouncement that is the dominant discourse in the media and among the intelligentsia. The section should proportionally cover relevant reactions by the politicians, media, sociologists and so on, and not turn itself into an artificially "balanced" mixture of opinions that gives undue prominence to Church outlets, and cuts down the coverage of everyone not supportive of anti-gay agenda. -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not justify this with a response other than to say that no personal attacks are to be tolerated on Wikipedia.--Thewanderer (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where do you see personal attacks? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Referring to other editors as Christian fundamentalists is certainly personal and certainly an attack. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Thewanderer (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come one look at their edits in which they try to whitewash Markić and their little Opus Dei run "citizen initiative". It's all POV edits influenced by their religious views (look at the userbox at their userpage). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY
The section about aftermath mention only the boycott of homosexual and their supporter and affirm that the Croatia's economy is going to collaps (propaganda) and doesn't mention the tourist and economic influx that the supporter of the referendum would bring!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.99.4 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Supporters of referendum? You mean the economic powerhouses such as Serbia, Hungary and Afghanistan? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment is quite harsh, discriminatory and biased. Do you think only great powers can have own opinion? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Economic freedom is a prerequisite of personal freedom. Countries which implement policies supporting a liberal, free-market economy eventually grow a healthy middle class which demands more rights, is more politically aware, and which elects similar-minded politicians which legislate laws protecting freedom of speech, information, protection for minorities, secular society and so on. Look what happened to Chile, and what is happening in China now. Conversely, countries in which religion exerts a dominant influence on politics are almost always countries with a severe democratic deficit, electoral fraud running rampant, or outright monarchies/dictatorships run by the selected few. Their economies are usually run inefficiently in a "collectivist" manner because the elites want to control the population through stringent regulation and excessive taxation. The reason why "great" powers are so great is because their elites recognized long time ago that by empowering citizens they empower themselves. Positive correlation between economic and personal freedom, and consequently between economic prosperity and minority rights, is not an accident. There are no rich homophobic countries whose tourists will pour in making up for the billions of kunas of direct and indirect damage caused by this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Index.hr swastika scandal
This incident pertains only to that specific portal, and is completely unrelated to the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious? Index.hr is used a source in this article several times. Their placement of a Croatian flag defaced with Nazi symbolism for their election coverage is certainly relevant, as much as any of the other reactions. Can you please elaborate how it is not?--Thewanderer (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is a scandal relevant for index.hr, for the article Index.hr. It's not encyclopedia-worthy for the article on referendum. That index.hr is used a source for other facts, statements and so on is irrelevant.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You still have not stated why it would not be relevant. The role of the media is discussed several times in the article. A media outlet doing something so controversial is certainly relevant to the article. And editor Matija Babić's personal conduct in the aftermath of the referendum is not in line with "completely neutral media".--Thewanderer (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant because it's not related to the referendum per se. Web portal published an article with a controversial symbol (swastika is a symbol of good luck for hundreds of millions by the way), owner (Matija Babić) got called to police station to explain it, telling them to sod off when they asked him to remove it (they have no jurisdiction over cyberspace). It's not notable at all. Perhaps for the article Index.hr itself - but Index.hr has had many other, and much more prominent, controversies.
 * Index.hr is neutral in the sense "non partisan" (neither pro-HDZ, or pro-SDP). It is the only neutral major media outlet in Croatia. Individual people writing articles of course have their own opinions. There is nothing non-neutral in denouncing a homophobic fundamentalist Christian movement for what it is. What is non-neutral is your way as presenting the whole controversy as one-sided, without any context. Namely Babić's disgust with referendum's outcome, and the reason why swastika was chosen as an indication of growing fascisization of Croatian society. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Someone should make a map of results by Croatian counties, just as we have here in the case of EU membership referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Croatia_EU_referendum_results.svg --Emir234 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Has been created by User:Conquistador: File:Croatian constitutional referendum 2013-en.svg. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

TODO
Topics still missing: I'll add more material gradually others are welcome to expand as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * detailed section on Law on Civil partnership which legalizes gay marriage under a different name.
 * section on constitutional amendment which outlaws all referendums infringing on minority rights in the future (as well as other things)
 * more background on Croatian collective social psyche. This "citizen initiative" didn't appear out of the blue. There are many comments by sociologists and others (Šimunić incident etc.).
 * More detailed political and religious background of U ime obitelji. Many new sources have surfaced.
 * More detailed discussion of how the public debate went in a month or so prior to the referendum.

Negoslavci
Mentioning Negoslavci as the most tolerant place in Croatia or a place where "one minority group stands in solidarity with another" is quite misleading. The turnout was 3% (only 36 persons voted) and in the same time, the conservative initiative gathered more than 100 signatures in the same village. The story is even funnier when you see that some people told the media that they voted 'against' because they were against gay marriage. All these informations are mentioned in the same reference link in Croatian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir234 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's still statistically the most tolerant electoral unit, and the Serbian majority as the reason was how it was interpreted in the media   . Those who signed the homophobic initiative probably did so to be publicly seen as doing so (the list was probably later reviewed by the local priest), as opposed to casting a ballot which is done anonymously. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)