Talk:Croatia/Archive 4

This article
What the heck happened to this article? I could of sworn it was a lot longer then it is now.

MrBosnia (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tourist arrivals
Someone has changed the number of tourist arrivals, and put the numbers of 2004, while there are already official tourist arrival numbers for 2005 and 2006. Can someone explain why? 7.9 Million foreign tourists visited Croatia in 2004, 8.5 million in 2005, and 8.9 in 2006. The sources are: http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/ljetopis/2006/24-Binder.pdf

Don't revert to older facts!

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:32 (UTC)
 * whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
 * which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Dalmatia is on the Balkan
Really who cares, Balkans was geopolitical term - it is no longer relevant. sorry to barge in like this, but I do hate when ppl talk nonsense. has no relevance... Dalmatia is in Croatia, Croatia is in Europe, and Europe is a continent, one of 7 that forms surface of the planet earth, one of 8 main planets in Solar System, better knows as SOL.

Sol is part of regional cluster of stars in A quadrant of Milky way galaxy some 26 000 light years away from the center of the galaxy, which again forms cluster of galaxies, Our universe is 27.4 billion light years across or 13.7 billion years old, it is part of massive multiverse of many universes and in whole skim of things, no one cares where and what and when Balkans was is and whatever...


 * Kinda off-topic, but since you mentioned it: the universe is actually more like 156 billion light years across, not 27.4. It is a common misconception that you can simply double the age of the universe and get the diameter. Gopher65 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As Croatia is one of the most artificial and heterogenous countries in the world (same as former Yugoslavia), it consists of a few territories which don't have anything in common except the catholicism. For example, Dalmatia is a typically Balkan region with itsown mediteranean-balkan culture, and with its inhabitants being catolicized Serbs rather than Croats. Also the region of Krajina and 80% of Slavonia is inhabited with Serbs-catholics and orthodox. Real Croats can be found just in Zagorje and some of the islands in the Adriatic Sea. Histria is inhabited by Histrians, who would claim their south slavic national feeling rather than croatian. Knowing all this, it's natural for the author to put in his introductory line about Croatia that it's also a Balkan country as well as Mediteranean and Central European. By percentage Croatia would be probably: 40% Mediteranean, 40% Balkan and 20% Central European country. However, I like this country because of its diversity and mixture of cultures, and most of all - its beautiful serbocroatian ijekavian language. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Man, you are weird. There aren't any Serbs-catholics in Croatia. People in Croatia are CROATS!!!!!!!!!! -- MR.CRO95 26 March 2008, 22:14 —Preceding comment was added at 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * croatia is balkan country, everything else you said is wishfull thinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.176.233 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Wow, I haven't heard so much delusional Greater-Serbian propaganda since the last war... So Croats are not really Croats but catholicized Serbs? Thanks for clearing that up for us... --Dr.Gonzo 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's put it this way: There's no difference between Serbs and Croats who speak stokavian dialect of the serbo-croatian language, which is spoken in Dalmatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Slavonia, Montenegro and part of Histria. This means that whatever you call that people: Croats or Serbs or Slavs-IT'S SAME NATIONALIY! IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE! The only difference is that the ones on the west are catholics, and the ones on the east are orthodox. That's the trouth that support all normal scientists and the serious academics all over the world.

The term Croat or Serb are just political terms, and I chose to use Serbs-Catholics, because Serbs are much more likely to be originally stokavians, as they don't have the additional 2 dialects ( cakavian and kajkavian ), which in countrary, are spoken by a small part of Croatians. This means that Croats are speakers of the 3 dialects originally, and the Serbs only of stokavian. As stokavian is the literal language in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro, there's no need for further explanation of what I wrote above. As for Croatia being a Balkan country, YES, I AGREE TOTALLY with it! Cheers;


 * you mistaken race with nationality —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.175.95 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I am sorry but you are greatly delusional. There is a difference between Serbs and Croats who speak shtokavian and there is a difference between standard Serbian language and standard Croatian language. Also there is a distinct shtokavian dialect which was spoken exclusively by Croats. This is the shtokavian-ikavian, spoken in the past in whole Slavonia, Dalmatian hinterland, Dubrovnik and Bosnia and Herzegovina (predominantly western parts). Also you are confusing nationality (or ethnicity) with language. As I have just exlplained it to you, mutually intelligible languages don't mean these people are one nation, by such logic Danes, Norwegians and Swedes would all be one nation, Macedonians and Bulgarians, Slovaks and Czechs, Russians and Ukrainians, and so on, basically any people whose languages form some kind of diasystem or dialectal continuum. There are even examples of people even speaking the same language yet they were never the same people or will be (Irish, Scots and English). Do you realize now the absurdity of your claims? The term Serb and Croat are much older terms than you and me, these terms existed even before the arrival of these people to the region and even then people like Byzantine's or Franks knew the difference, and what is important they knew the difference. And in the end, no Serbs do not speak only shtokavian, Serbs also speak torlakian dialect as well. Claiming the Croats are "Serbs-catholics" is absurd and very much radical idea, one that only brainwashed Greater Serbia propagandists are using. Tar-Elenion 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but by what you wrote above, seems that YOU, and THOSE WHO SUPPORT YOUR IDEAS are the only ones who are BRAINWASHED! First, you CANNOT compare Norvegians and Swedes, neither Macedonians and Bulgarians to Serbs and Croats. The difference between danish, swedish and norvegian language is much greater than is the difference between the 2 standard dialects of SERBOCROATIAN LANGUAGE (i.e. Serbian and Croatian)!. Also, The difference between macedonian and bulgarian language is on the same level as is the difference between kajkavian and shtokavian dialect in serbocroatian language. It's an absurd to compare the other "your diasystems" mentioned above, because thet doesn't make any sense. Russian and Ukraninian are 2 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, Czech and Slovak are 2 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, but Serbian or Croatian is 1, SAME LANGUAGE! Capische? As for the terms Serbs and Croats in the past, the 2 terms are very often used by the historiographs to describe 1 same nation. Moreover, by the historians of the early middle age, the Serbs are the ones who live in Dalmatia, Travunia, Pagania (today's Herzegovina), and on the islands of Korcula, Mljet, Hvar and Vis. It doesn't make a sense what you're writing that "they knew the difference", there wasn't any other difference between them except their tribe's name(Serbs, Croats) and maybe their dialects they spoke. Many scientists also claim that the terms "Srb" and "Hrv" are actually of a same origin!!! I suppose you know all thes facts very well, it's just your (and those who think like you and spread hatrige throughout the wikipedia) spoiled minds that denies them. ( Sorry, but I had to say that. )

Have you ever thought about all the evil and distruction that people like you have brought to the people of Former Yugoslavia? Have you thought of what's the REAL REASON for all the wars in those regions? Well, I will tell you now publicly: - It is only the evil propaganda that you and your likely humanoids were spreading in ex-Yugoslavia during the early 90's.- It's the HATRIDGE and GOEBEL's PROPAGANDA that HDZ was spreading through the media between the peaceful people of Dalmatia, Slavonia, Histria, etc., making them blackmailed hostages of your spoiled manipulations, making them HATE everything that was Yugoslavian, everything that was built together for years with BROTHERLY LOVE and everything that was making Yugoslavia strong and proud! But you must also know that your time is OVER, forever! Today's Croatia and it's respected president Mesic are doing the right steps towards reestablishing all connections between the south slavic bratherly nations, and they WILL SUCCEED IN IT! THEY WILL SUCCEED BRINGING ALL SOUTH SLAVIC NATIONS TO THE NEW EUROPEAN HOME! GOOD WILL WIN OVER THE EVIL AGAIN! THE ONLY LOOSERS IN ALL THIS PROCESS OF REINTEGRATION WILL BE PEOPLE WHO THINK LIKE YOU AND HOPEFULLY YOU WILL ALL DISSAPPEAR WITH THE TIME PASSING, SOON AND FOREVER! AS FOR THE "TORLAKIAN" DIALECT, IT'S NOT USED ONLY BY THE SREBS, BUT ALSO BY THE CROATS-KARASHOVANS AS WELL, WHICH IS JUST ONE MORE FACT WHICH CONFIRMS THE SERBO-CROATIAN UNITY! CHEERS!

This is dumb... The languages WERE quite different, but in an attempt to create Yugoslavia, the languages have merged by a politicakl decision. The ethnicity, as such, is a personal choice, rather than biological definition, thus the claims shown here are simple biggatry. People have free will to call themselves whatever they want. Cultural differences between Croats and Serbs exist, but so do between a NewYorker and a Texan... However, the claims written here are unnecesary and have no place on Wikipedia, thus I urge for such claims to be left for the local pubs after a few pints. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.112.79 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why I am replying to you but here we go. First, yes I can compare Bulgarians and Macedonians because they too speak mutually intelligible languages just like Serbs and Croats and their languages as well forms a diasystem. The same with Danes, Swedes and Norwegians; Czechs and Slovaks; Russians and Ukrainians, and so on. I have a news for you - Serbian and Croatian languages are two different languages as well. And the name Serb and Croat was never used to designate the same people, it was always used to designate two separate nations and this is so to this day and it will remain so. Tar-Elenion 11:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha, you can only dream about it! The facts are different and you (and those with same ideas like yours) are either brain disabled or promoters of evil on this site! You can use your dying propaganda and write lies about the language of Serbs and Croats as much as you can, BUT nobody serious on this encylopedia will believe you! The world knows enough about the Balkan tribes and their languages already! The world knows that SERBOCROATIAN is ONE LANGUAGE, and it will remain one language forever, no mater what some imbeciles misinterprete about it. The trouth kills you all, doesn't it?! And at the end, for your BIG DISSAPOINTMENT, Bulgarian and Macedonian are languages that have very similar gramatical features, but they're still 2 languages, because the vocabulary difference between them is quite big. This will NEVER be the case with Serbian and Croatian, which have same grammar, same vocabulary and everything else same, that makes them SAME LANGUAGE! Moreover, a person from Belgrade will communicate much easier with a person from Dalmatia, than a person from Zagreb. It's because serbian dialect and dalmatian dialect are almost same, which is not the case with the northern croatian (Zagrebian) dialect and dalmatian dialect, which are quite different! As for the other (repeated) examples of languages, I won't comment again, as I already commented on them yesterday, and the comment would be the same as for the Macedonian and Bulgarian language. This is the final statement, and please don't continue with your trash!

Cheers;


 * I see Serb propaganda is strong as ever. I just wish you would build a wall around your country and leave the rest of us alone.;


 * Having read the previous postings and as somebody who worked in the translation/interpretation field, I feel sad when I see that reason and knowledge yet again have to battle the ignorance, which more often than not, claims superiority even when confronted with evidence and information. Let us also not forget that one of the big differences between the two languages, croatian and serbian, linguistically speaking is in their script, latin versus cyrillic.


 * Ha ha ha. I’m partly Dalmatian and partly Istrian and I feel I have more in common with Croats from Zagreb and Slavonia than with Serbs. I’m an atheist and religion is not that important to me. Also, Dalmatia is NOT a typical Balkan region. In fact, Dalmatia has more in common with Italy than with Balkan. I presume you’re a Serbian nationalist or extremist. --84.217.36.234 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, I am a Croat. Anyway, Serbian language and Croatian language are different, yes, extremely similiar, but different; that similarity can be attributed to their close borders. It also has to do with the artificial language of Serbo-Croatian that was very much approved by the goverment during Yugoslavia. And, no, Serbs and Croats were never the same people, they weren't even in the same country until the founding of Kingdom of SHS in 1918. (Just look up history; Croatia during king Tomislav consisted of today Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, never Serbia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.86.18 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that the languages are different is most definetley a nationalist, the "languages" are dialects of one and the same. To compare it to Swedish and Danish is the stupidest thing i have ever heard, i speak fluent swedish and i have extremley hard time with dealing with danish, i pretty much dont understand it at all, i have never faced this problem with any other speakers of serbocroatian. Even the croatian Linguist thinks its the same language the reason why we never had a common country was the fact that we never were a strong enough force to begin with, the region has always been ocupied by more advanced and stronger forces. And King Tomislavs croatia was never truly established with the correct and clear boarders, it is not even 100% clear that this individual existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.204.23 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone that claims that Croatian and Serbian is one language must be a Serbian nationalist or “Yugo-communist”. You must be living in northern Sweden where people have a different dialect or aren’t used to hear Danish. I speak Swedish and I have no problem understanding Danish. In fact, in southern Sweden people can watch Danish television and meets Danes on regularly basis. When Swedes and Danes meet in Sweden (at least in the southern parts) they speak their (common?) native language and not English. The differences between Swedish and Danish are slightly larger than between Croatian and Serbian, but if a person considers Danish, Swedish and also Norwegian to be separate languages, than Croatian must be considered to be a separate language as well. --84.217.47.194 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not advisable to claim that Croatian and Serbian are the same language because that can lead to faulty conclusions. Croatia and Serbian ARE different languages and have always been. I for one when listening to a Serbian politician or a journalist can not be sure that I understood everything that has been said. Being born in old Zagreb family I speak Zagreb Croatian flavoured with German and Latin words. It is hard for me to understand all the words and even sentences. Croatian language has evolved and is still evolving as all the languages tend to. It is not unsafe to claim that Croatian and Serbian will,in a hundred years, be even more different then today. Slovenian is closer to my ears than Serbian. And Zagreb with it´s metropolitan area has 1.200.000 people speaking predominantly KAJKAVSKI dialect and that is not a small population for a country of 4.5 million.

Kontrolleur Cro 01.00, 14 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is dumb... The languages WERE quite different, but in an attempt to create Yugoslavia, the languages have merged by a politicakl decision. The ethnicity, as such, is a personal choice, rather than biological definition, thus the claims shown here are simple biggatry. People have free will to call themselves whatever they want. Cultural differences between Croats and Serbs exist, but so do between a NewYorker and a Texan... However, the claims written here are unnecesary and have no place on Wikipedia, thus I urge for such claims to be left for the local pubs after a few pints. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.112.79 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

btw i can't seem to understand the motives behind this much vandalism and hatred... Live and let live

There is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigg difference between Croats and Serbs. Croats are from Iran while Serbs are Slavs, Ok? -- MR.CRO95 26 March 2008, 22:18 —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia with or without quotation marks
Until the fall of Italy (namely southern parts including Rome) Independent State of Croatia was de iure Kingdom of Croatia, and I do not see any reasons to call Independent State of Croatia (so called or placing its name under “Independent State of Croatia”. It was a State however quisling it may be, Croatian historians have placed its name under quotation marks in the past, but now all of them use the term as it was used in the orriginal time period. Imbris 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you explain who was the king? I think it would shed some light on the notion of "independency" or independency. Kreso 86.140.28.241 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Imbris meant "de facto" rather than "de jure" - ie "in fact" rather than "in law". At any rate the status of NDH was at best highly questionable. It was not recognised by the league of nations nor by a majority of the world's nations. Indeed the only states that did recognise NDH were the Axis powers and those countries under Axis powers occupation. It was not even recognised as a state by the Vatican (!!)which declined to send a nuncio to Zagreb and which maintained diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia throughout the war. Some state. Kirker 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

June 25, 1991
The reason I changed "caused JNA to attack..." is that this requires a source. Croatian sources all say that this was the case and Serbian sources state that they were attacked/provoked before they hit back. Either way, it is known that fighting had already occured in several incidents before June 25, 1991, but what is for sure is that from that day, the fighting did escalate; never before that date was it as bad as it would get. Nobody can say that before June 25, there was all-out war. As for the extremists. "Paramilitary" will suffice. Readers can make up their own minds what constitutes terrorists, freedom fighters, extremists and moderates. Obviously one who takes up arms cannot be classed as moderate, but it is a two-way enterprise, and we don't talk of our own "radical extremist terrorists of the 19th warring faction to restore an undemocratic system!". Evlekis 18:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm... sourcing that statement will be a problem, as you noticed. I will look into it though. As for the 'extremist' being POV, I agree. That got accidentally swept in while I was reinstating stuff Balkantropolis removed (it was there before). -- xompanthy 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatia-EU

 * It's gone again. That's fine. Speaking of sources, I as reading through the entire article rather than such the middlie section which I added to yesterday. There appears to be a sentence on the end of one paragraph which sais that Croatia is set to join EU in 2009 or 2010. Is there any evidence to this? I havn't heard anything officially, word on the street is unrelyable (some say one thing, some say another), I'm not following the news that much, so is there any truth in it? 212.24.91.2 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do follow the news, and the EU constantly says 2009 or 2010. From Angela Merkel to whoever. Croatian newspapers take every possible opportunity to ask any EU politician they can have an interview with when will Croatia join the Union. They all pretty much consistently say 2009/2010. It's fairly certain if things continue at the pace they are going now. -- xompanthy 18:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, I think I might alter that section a little, so its says "Croatia is expected to join in 2009 or 2010" rather than "they've been accepted". I scoured the web and would you believe that in 2003, it looked certain that they were likely to join as early as 2007 with "candidates" Bulgaria and Romania. 2007 came and I am getting older and older waiting! There are some internet journals which link Croatia joining the EU for 2008 but most do actually say 2009/2010. The only thing which struck me was this - before Bulgaria and Romania joined, the date for this "possible enlargement" was set for 1 January 2007. The question is "will they or won't they?". I can't imagine any country being accepted but no date set for their entrance ceremony. The other thing is that Croatia isn't a sole candidate. There are Turkey and Macedonia as well as far as I know, and the countries are "level-pegging" or so it seems. I am all right with Macedonian so I checked their web pages, it seems that they get even more excited than the Croats, if I believed everything their news networks were saying since the 2001 ceasefire, Macedonia would have been an EU member long before Bulgaria but they could also join as early as 2010. The English language sources of Macedonian origin echo this - the sources from outside Macedonia arn't so enthusiastic but they don't seem to know either: as for Turkey, I'm afraid I speak no Turkish so I depended on English/Croatian language sources, and they still seem a million miles away but they are believed to join 2008-2010. I don't think the EU have their own website with that kind of information either. Would you object to the alteration? Balkantropolis 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold. Feel free to change it. You've got my support if that counts for anything :) -- xompanthy 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll update Croatia and Eu when I have time, right now I don't, but some positive developments are happening and I'll also put latest news from Brussels and EU Parliament who just voted overwhelmingly to invite Croatia as a 28 member of EU. User: Mic of Orion

Medule inserting POV
Could you, for the love of God, leave this article alone and stop inserting your POV. This is not NPOV. Can you even grasp the concept of neutral point of view? If not, please stop editing Wikipedia. -- xompanthy 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That oroposed compromise I could not take as example of compromise, specially taking into account constitutional status of Serbs. It must be clear enough, since it was one of triggers for war.--Medule 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Croatian fascist killed hundreds of thousand people. It must be inside, and not like now "many..", since it does not says enough. --Medule 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly like PaxEquilibrium's compromise. But! The article can not say "hundreds of thousands" until that fact has been cited (see WP:NOR and WP:SOURCE). I disagree with that figure myself, but if you can find a credible source (and you know what I mean by that) to back it up, I will gladly agree. Truly I will. Until then, I must insist that the article continue to say "many" (yes, it vague, but it's the best we got). Facts are facts, and let's not play with words. "Hundreds of thousands" is pure POV until it's backed up. It's Medule's opinion, and only that, until we can see some proof. -- xompanthy 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "thousands" controversy has been sorted out. Leave it where it is... That being there, Pax's compromise works well. -- xompanthy 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Phonetics
Can someone please put in a IPA pronunciation of Croatia in its native tongue?

Darth Skynyrd 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

History section
What had happened to the history section? It seems to have been expanded overly. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it's very un-NPOV, especailly in the end 67.41.160.211 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But as I see the situation's back to normal now. Nice. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my idea. As the History section became overwhelmingly huge, ethnic and nationalist fights came out regarding the wars Croatia led in the past. This way the problem was removed. I support slowly increasing the article from now on and will be carefully watching it (warning for all those anons that were trolling this article). --PaxEquilibrium 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Past experience suggests that any anons willing to introduce their POV into the article will attempt it anyway, Pax. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthem
The anthem's name is Hrvatska Domovina (Croatian homeland), not lijepa nasa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.23.12 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


 * No, it isn't. --PaxEquilibrium 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternative hymn (a bit of humor :) ): "Slijepa naša domovino, oj ustaška zemljo mila, austrijska polovino, nacistička zemljo silna." :) Is it nice?
 * "Dok mu mrtve grobak krije" - hiding dark secrets regarding those Slavs who didn't want to betray Christianity by joining Rome.18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't make jokes from Croatian anthem.... -- MR.CRO95 15:51, 27 March 2008 (CET)


 * This travesty of the Croatian anthem is very offensive. I notified the anonymous user about WP:CIVIL. --Zmaj 09:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry. Please accept my deepest apologies. ...But, for the sake of hypothetical issues I must comment: ...I mean - hypothetically - let's analyze... Berlin wall fell - right - and all of the sudden there was war in one Slav country for separation of republics that have a relatively significant Germanic population (Slovenia and Croatia) under various excuses propagated. In the controversial subject here, there was a word 'blind' - explanation: because Slav Croatian people do not see what was really happening, but today there is even a hint regarding certain Germanic geopolitical intentions in various Alps-Danube-Adria organizations (even widespread Germanic banks which concentrate funds for such future operations); Croats followed Tüjmann's separatism politics blindly believing that it was a mere naive fight for freedom of Croatian people (under effect of anti-Serb propaganda), never stopping to think about what they were actually following. In reality, however, what actually happened is that Croatian Austrians separated Croatia so they could unite it in great Austria at some latter point in time against now still dominant Slav ('Hrvati') population of Croatia. There was a mention of "Ustashe" movement, as in deed separation of Croatia is motivated (actuated, moved, powered) by that Austrian movement in both WW2 and '90. events (when some individuals in Croatia even publicly displayed swastika and other Nazi symbols). I am sorry to make you feel offended, but someone must take actions to (try) open people's eyes, or even at least make some hints about that plot before it is too late (and then there's not much left to do). Now, about the second part about 'dark secrets' - let's analyze facts: Serbs of Croatia and Croats of Croatia (in terms of individuals) are pretty much same fellows - only difference being that Serbs are Christian and Croats in service of Rome. That was a reason enough for WW2 holocaust against Croatian Christians. 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Everybody, please don't encourage this IP user by starting a discussion with him/her. --Zmaj 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you don't see it now, but you will. Or maybe you won't because there is no need for great Austria when they already have even greater (and highly expansionistic) state called Europe conducting spectrum of political infiltrations ranging from yellow to red - threatening to (at least) economicaly occupy even Russia. State called Europe on one hand says that membership is volontary, yet blackmails certain Christian nation into submission by making conflicts in its own land - and actually exactly in regions known as traditionaly Christian - threatening to decapitate it off its state and paradoxicaly blaming that state at the same time. As for your comments regarding 'discussion': I don't see any reason for discussion whatsoever - there is none as everything is too crystal clear. 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tourism numbers
I've changed the original text (Croatia would have more then 10 million foreign visitors each year, and they would be 18th on the list of most popular tourist destination), and replaced it with something that can be verified (I've put the source in it as well). If somebody else got more recent numbers, than, of course, it can be changed again. --Robster1983 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Flat Tax
Can some one please tell what the flat tax debate in Croatia was all about and who supported it? --J intela 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that the president of this country is a big nooooooob --Marbus2 5 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Can someone please read constituting documents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Bosniak-Croat Federation, and see if Croats in Bosnia are minority, or constituting nation? Kreso 86.140.28.241 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? I mean - Serbs in Croatia were constitutive nation, and look what happend to them.

I disagree. It does matter since wikipedia as such is interested in the formal matter of any subject, as well as the informal one. Croats ARE one of the constituent nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina and they should be noted as such. If the situation "off the record" is different, it should be noted as well. Please, wikipedia should be independent and not a place which someone uses to spread lies. This last comment "Does it really matter? I mean - ..." only shows that Serbs will always find place, time and way to insult Croats, spread lies about them, and spread hatred against them. Wikipedia should not suffer because of "patients" like that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Map pf Croatia is so old
and does not present new croatian motor ways, there are 300% more of them today —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I agree....if only someone can find a recent map that is not copyrighted. --Jesuislafete 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 edits
According to Zmaj this article is untouchable without discussion, but I see no template or other health warning on it. Anyway Zmaj obviously feels free to put in POV wording without discussion. Zmaj suggests there has been much discussion about the matter in question but I see very little on this page. Zmaj's simple test for what he has put back in should be: "Could it give fair-minded Serbs any cause for objection?" In my view it could. I don't think it is reasonable for Zmaj to claim a decisive victory because there was no surrender. It is a fact however that the belligerents signed a peace agreement. Neither an extremist Serb nationalist nor an extremist Croatian nationalist could reasonably argue with that. Even if it was indeed a "decisive Croatian victory" would it be too much to ask Zmaj to refrain from gloating about it?

Joy, who was perfectly happy with text that put Croatia at "the heart" of the Balkans, objects to my removing fanciful rubbish about it being at some imagined crossroads. In what possible sense could any country be at a crossroads between the Mediterranean and anywhere else? It isn't even on the Mediterranean. Joy wants to say "maritime" just because it is valid, and regardless of whether it is necessary. Thank you for clearing it up Joy, but did you think that the border in the Adriatic might have been a land border? I notice Joy tagged "Adriatic Sea" in the intro, even though it is tagged twice in the body of the article. How many times does "Adriatic Sea" need to be tagged in one article? To my mind if there are too many tags the article starts to look cluttered. I would have thought once was enough - either the first reference or the first below the intro. But I must admit I have not looked up any Wikipedia guidance on this. Kirker 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agreed the phrase "decisive Croatian victory" should not be included because its POV. The view of most people outside Croatia is that the Dayton Peace agreement (and US and European involvement) had more to do with ending the war that "decisive" military battles. And considering the civilians that were displaced, its just in bad taste to mention "victory". --MarsRover 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The official end of hostilities was settled by the Dayton agreements, personally I would choose this event too in the interest of NPOV, though Dayton was mainly about Bosnia and Republika Srspka Krajina was no longer a player. -- Asterion talk 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the last version of history. Kirker has provided a good explanation, although his tone is a little too personal for my liking. --Zmaj 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * About the intro - first of all, I only stumbled upon the article again when I saw your edit. I didn't intentionally ignore the past vandalism on it - please remember Assume good faith. I literally have thousands of pages on my watchlist and I most definitely don't have time to check all of them all the time. Ocassionally I intervene on the last edit, and in this case you can see that I intervened on only the lead section part of a last edit, without touching the rest (even though I may have an opinion on that, too). Again - don't assume bad faith.
 * Regarding Mediterranean - it's really the Mediterranean Basin that is meant. For all practical intents and purpose, the Adriatic is part of the Mediterranean, and in a general, cultural sense, the reference is pretty much clear. If you've ever been at the Croatian littoral, you'll notice numerous similarities with analogous localities in Spain, Italy, Greece, etc.
 * I restored the word maritime because that's simple and relevant - the name of the sea explains which sea is involved, but countries can also have maritime borders that span several seas. I also linked the term because it's customary to link the first instance - if you think that the other links are superfluous, please feel free to review them, per Manual of Style (links). --Joy &#91;shallot] 09:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the crossroads reference is not fanciful rubbish, it's a neutral way of quickly explaining that the country has three major historical, cultural, political, economic, and all sorts of other influences, and these aren't explained sufficiently by a reference to the Balkan peninsula alone. If you disagree with the phrasing, please suggest another one, but I think that the reference to three regions should stay. --Joy &#91;shallot] 10:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) OK, sorry Zmaj. At first sight the substitution of the peace agreement with "decisive Croatian victory" looked like holding out for unreasonable POV. I can now see that the change was just caught up in a broader undo.


 * 2) Joy, I understand your point about Croatia's positioning and will take it on board if I go back to the intro, which I think is still not quite ideal. I'm not persuaded re "maritime" but won't hold out for one superfluous adjective. I mentioned the reference to "the heart of the Balkans" only because it was part of the text you were defending on the (not very sound) basis that it had been agreed years ago.


 * 3) I did these replies, or something like them, ages ago, but must have forgotten to press the "save" button. Since then AVM has had another go at the intro, but these are not changes I would support. Zmaj has deleted the Yugoslavia reference which is probably the best course, but if it goes back in again it should not go where it was before as that made it grammatically ambiguous. (It could have been read as a reference to the Balkans.) The revision in respect of the sea border is now not strictly accurate as Croatia does not end at its coast (or rather its coasts). It includes a substantial chunk of the Adriatic Sea. I'd rather have "maritime" back in than go with this version, LOL Kirker 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm
Ok, I will make this short.I am often on Wikipedia and I noticed that Croatia is one of the country articles that has least text written on it, which I think is a shame since you have so much to write...Maybe expand history articles and geography. ...Croat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.230.210 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is supposed to provide only the basic information about the country. Besides, additional details are often someone's POV, especially in the history chapter. At the beginning of every chapter, there is a link to a detailed article about the topic, so those who want to learn more can look it up. That's how we keep the article slim. --Zmaj 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I think there should be some more information on the main page, but that's just my opinion.Besides, I noticed that military/goverment and Croatian companies are fairly short compared to other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.230.210 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would love know the etymology of the word Croatia. I've looked everywhere, asked several Croats, none seem to know. Considering the word is similar in most (European) languages but differs greatly from the vernacular(Hrvatska), I thought it might be an interesting piece of trivia if someone could dig up the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.118.32 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is believed that name Hrvatska is of persian ( iranian ) origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.5.179 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No i think it is of Japanese origin because there is scientific evidence that croats are actually from Mars and have nothing to do with balkans or former jugoslavija. They crashlanded in Jugoslavia and were held captive by the evil Russians and their leader Saban Saulic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.204.23 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You finally admitted that you are all crazy as hell... Anyway for those who really want to know name Chorovatus was mentioned the first time (not sure is ir 4th or 3rd centaury BC) in the city of Tanais near Pontus Euxinus. On that stone written document Croatians pledged their loyalty to the Persian king along with few others... Cro Kontrolleur Cro 23:15 11 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontrolleur Cro (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Dayton Peace Agreement as end of war in Croatia?
AFAIK, Dayton Peace Agreement has nothing to do with Croatia, it was formal agreement regarding war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia is only one of external signing parties. The only agreement regarding war in Croatia I can remember is Erdut Agreement.--Plantago 13:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

wrong BDP
Please verify your numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.236.229 (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Grrr
Me again, its official, this is probably the slimmest country article in wiki, and I have a problem with that :P .It looks like there is not enaugh material for writing, and that is terrible wrong. Soo, get to work...Even states of USA have more text. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.199.6 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2007


 * Instead of complaining all the time, you could be bold and contribute yourself. :) My advice to you is also to register. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ur right,but i don't feel like registering for now. :P .Maybe some day ;) BTW - do u need an e-mail for it?


 * Yes, you do. But don't let that stop you from contributing to the article anonymously, the way you are posting messages here on this page. =Axlq (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say "Itchy Scrotum" just over the Croatian flag at the top of the article? I'm assuming that's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.226.211 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuna images removal and other edits
Can someone please explain these edits from 99.234.51.232. They are good-faith, but confusing. I'm tempted to revert them soon.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatian GDP for Sept.2007 is wrong
The Croatian GDP which is given for Sept.2007 is too optimistic. Besides, for the year 2008 it will be $ 16,758 per capita and you wrote over 18,817 for the year 2007. It's a typical vandalism and giving incorrect datas. In the given links, there's no data like you put in. Please fix it to the current data. And the Croatian GDP rank is not 50th but 54th, after Atigua & Barbuda and Poland. Please give real data, not a dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misiek889 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

what the?!
is it just me or was this article far more detailed and rich with informatioan a couple of months ago (maybe more). because what i see now is just sad, this is really scarce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.45.100 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) per capita is 18,817 USD??? SINCE WHEN ???
According to CIA Factbook and IMF Croatia has never reached 18,817 USD per capita GDP (PPP). I wonder how did it make up from 14,521(2006), to 18,817 in 2007?? Strange a bit.The data you've reached can't be found in the source you've given. Besides, it's the estimate it mean what will happen. Even the IMF estimates that Croatia won't reach such a big GDP before 2009!! Verify the data please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.239.191 (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Croatian GDP PPP
The GDP PPP per capita 18,817 USD is an estimate data for Lithuania for 2008 ! Not Croatia ! Croatia WILL HAVE in 2008 16,758 USD. Please fix it because it's rude to give incorrect data with no source! It's wrong. !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.235.41 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology should be included here as well. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GDP estimates, etc
So, when we are putting down GPD PPP and GPD PPP per Capita estimates, which source do we use? Is there a standard universal source that we're suppose to use on the wiki? Cause every source lists different numbers for the same years. I used the CIA factbook since it is one of the sources on the GPD by country page. Also, this page is surprisingly lacking in information. I have trouble believing that this is all the encyclipedic information that we can find find sources for. Hopefully some people who know more about Croatia than I do will take it up and make it a page to be proud of:).

Personally I think that the Country pages are some of the most important ones on Wikipedia, so I'm always disappointed to see one like this that has been sadly neglected. Gopher65 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Marko7 (talk), if you read this, would you please go and reference that "2008 population estimate" number that you changed? Cause it is listed as coming from the IMF Croatia information, and it doesn't. Gopher65 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe
Hello ! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
Would people mind, you know, actually referencing the stuff that they add to this article? If I went through and deleted everything without a reference (and I have half a mind to do so), the article would consist of a bare handful of lines. '''Don't add things that aren't referenced. If you are going to change or update an already referenced item, then update that reference.''' Honestly people, how hard is it to do that? Slap in the link you took the info from. That's all it takes.

And please put in an edit summary when you make a change to the article. It makes it easier to understand the reasoning behind your actions if you do so. Gopher65 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Demographics
The numbers in this article are completely wrong! (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=795) The number of Serbs according to the 1991 census figures are 12% of the population or 580 000. Furthermore "up to 20 000" killed in the Operation Storm is wrong. The maximum casualties are few hundred killed. This article should be removed as reference if wikipedia is to be accurate and not some propaganda style page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.152.107 (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining your reasoning:). If you want to remove that reference, go for it. *But* make sure to replace that reference (and the number killed) with a new one, from a reliable source. Also, when you make this change, make sure to include something in the "edit summary" box so that we know what you did. Just a short little blurb like "changed inaccurate numbers, included new reference".Gopher65 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That global research site is a propagandic site,which tries to connect Croatia with the Ustase nazi regime. I'm removing it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC) The number of killed Serbs is 677 people in the period of 3-4 months.Long after the Operation Storm.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the 677 killed civilians is a Croatian POV - which means that the number is higher than that. The Serbian POV goes almost even up to 2,500, which means that the actual number is lower that this one. And that includes both those killed in the Operation (e.g. that village near the river of Una which was burned) and directly afterwards (e.g. Varivode). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. In the source for 677 it says at least 677, which means that only that number can be confirmed, but is definitely higher. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

677 victims is a number given by Human Rights Watch,ICTY number of victims is lower.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The number of Serbs that left Croatia is accurate and properly sourced. I have reinserted the information. Also, the wider definition of fled includes the narrower definition of ethnically cleansed. There's no need for getting over specific. SWik78 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is solved. I really do not believe that it is possible to say that sourced added by me are POV, or that this version of article is POV ? --Rjecina (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Two map optional display
Hello Croatia!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Croatia, and another would be Croatia in a wider European context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.


 * IMHO, its better to have one clear map than two fuzzy ones. I guess I am giving myself away as never a fan of the map changeover. I could go into detail of why I don't care for new map style but the map only needed to show the location of the country (not ocean depth, EU boundaries, rivers, every single part of Europe, etc.) And why is infobox so wide? -MarsRover (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pics
I have a feeling that one might not get a normal impression of our Country based on this pics, it looks as if we are in the 19th century. Cant' we have some more diverse pics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddygee (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the article could do with expanding a lot. That would also give more space for images. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese characters
I happen to notice there are Japanese characters on the article. Instead of Contents [hide], it shows up as 目次 [非表示] and instead of [edit], it shows up as [編集].

Hope this can be rectified. 59.189.242.172 (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)