Talk:Croatia/Archive 6

Edited
Croatian Economy Article

Privatization and the drive toward a market economy had barely begun under the new Croatian Government when war broke out in 1991. As a result of the war, the economic infrastructure sustained massive damage, particularly the revenue-rich tourism industry. From 1989 to 1993, GDP fell 40.5%. With the end of the war in 1995, tourism and Croatia's economy recovered moderately. However, corruption, cronyism, and a general lack of transparency stymied meaningful economic reform, as well as much-needed foreign investment.

Croatia's economy turned the corner in 2000 as tourism rebounded. The economy expanded in 2002, stimulated by a credit boom led by newly privatized and foreign-capitalized banks, some capital investment, most importantly road construction, further growth in tourism, and gains by small and medium-sized private enterprises.

Croatia has a high-income market economy. International Monetary Fund data shows that Croatian nominal GDP stood at $69.357 billion, or $15,633 per capita. , at the same time in 2008 purchasing power parity GDP was $82.407 billion or $18,575 per capita. .

According to Eurostat data, Croatian PPS GDP per capita stood at 63.2 per cent of the EU average in 2008. Real GDP growth in 2007 was 6.0 per cent. and at the same time average gross salary of a Croatian worker during the first nine months of 2008 was 7,161 kuna (US$ 1,530) per month In 2007, the International Labour Organization-defined unemployment rate stood at 9.1 per cent, after falling steadily from 14.7 percent in 2002. The registered unemployment rate is higher, though, standing at 13.7 percent in December 2008.

In 2007, economic output was dominated by the service sector which accounted for 60.7 percent of GDP, followed by the industrial sector with 32.8%, agriculture accounted for 7.2% with the steady decline in importance of nation's economic life. service sector. According to 2004 data, 2.7 percent of the workforce were employed in agriculture, 32.8 percent by industry and 64.5 in services.

The industrial sector is dominated by shipbuilding, food processing, pharmaceuticals, information technology, biochemical and timber industry. Tourism is a notable source of income during the summer, with over 11 million foreign tourists in 2008 generating a revenue of €8 billion. Croatia is ranked as the 18th most popular tourist destination in the world. In 2008 Croatia exported goods to the value of $14.4 billion (FOB) ($26.4 billion including service exports).

The Croatian state still controls a significant part of the economy, with government expenditure accounting for as much as 40% of GDP. Some large, state-owned industries, such as the country's shipyards, continue to rely on government subsidies, crowding out investment in education and technology needed to ensure the economy's long-term competitiveness.

Of particular concern is the backlogged judiciary system, combined with inefficient public administration, especially issues of land ownership and corruption. Another main problem includes the large and growing national debt which has reached over 34 billion euro or 89.1 per cent of the nations gross domestic product. Because of these problems, studies show that the population of Croatia generally has negative expectations of the country's economic future.

Croatia has so far weathered the global financial crisis reasonably well, but faces significant challenges in 2010 largely due to Croatia's external imbalances and high foreign debt, large external trade imbalance and higher cost of borowing to cover current account defecit.

The country has been preparing for membership in the European Union, its most important trading partner. In February 2005, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU officially came into force and by the end of 2009 Croatia has closed 17 EU accessions chapters, with remaining 16 to be completed by the end of first half of 2010. Croatia is expected to join the EU sometimes in 2011 or January first 2012.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mic of orion (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 February 2010‎

Adding a foto of a necktie (cravat) under culture section
I propose that we add a picture of a cravat (necktie) and add a short description about Croatia being the homeland of this garment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.143.30 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for expansion
It would be plausible to create new sections for national parks in Croatia and for World heritage sites in Croatia in a table or so, with pictures and short info about the sights and parks. Also, small section about the media would be useful. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hymn LIJEPA NASA of Croatia should be added as music file! Mostly European's countries already have. So, please add it! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.125.64 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pohvale / Praise
Netko je vidim jako proširio članak o Hrvatskoj, jako se potrudio, stavio odlične fotografije (doduše mogla je koja manje iz primorja, koja ljepša Dubrovnika/Rovinja, i više iz Slavonije), napravio odličan članak o sportu, općenito jako dobro. Pohvale za sliku divne Une, ono je Štrbački buk koji dijelimo sa Bosnom što i dalje ne znači da se njime ne trebamo ponositi. Super.

Someone, I can tell, expanded article about Croatia, make really good job, put really great photos (tho, there could be some less from sea, or better photo of Dubrovnik or Rovinj, and some more from Slavonija), made great article about sport, generally very good. Praise for picture of Una, this is Štrbački buk, shared with Bosnia, which doesn't mean its not ours and we should't be proud of it. Super. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.102.209 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. I share your opinion regarding the lack of pictures from Slavonia. Unfortunately, could not find any representative and of good quality from the W. commons. I just plan to open a new section about biodiversity. Dalmatian dog, Brown bear, velebitska degenija, čovječja ribica, delfini, masline, ... you can join and help! Pozdrav!! Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

jes jes aha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.49.29 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Borders
Croatia does not BORDER Italy. It does only with sea, but not with land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.71.69 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true. This edit is clearly wrong and should be rollbacked.87.8.236.131 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Inependence 1918
When Croatia become "independent" in 1918. from Austria-Hungarian Croatia become 1918. part of State of Slovenians, Croatians and Serbs>>Kingdom of Serbs, Croats ans Slovenians>>Kingdom of Yugoslavia. That not write in shorte history in dates in table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.104.90 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lemonadehead, 21 May 2011
http://visitcroatia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=property&thread=6164&page=5#59781

Link to a forum discussing Croatian property law, specifically a pit fall for non nationals looking to buy property there, that i have fallen into unfortunately.

Lemonadehead (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your motive in wanting to protect your fellows but a forum is rarely a suitable link for an article.Fainites barley scribs 13:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. See these guidelines for more info. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

EU Accession date
I query the suggested EU accession dates in discussion and article; see the cited accession page. Today's newspaper expects an announcement of 2013-07-01. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To do list

 * History - Bulgaria's and Switzerland's history sections have 12,200 and 15,900 characters give or take, divided into 5-6 subsections. Germany (FA which passed FAR in June) has about 14,200. Generally speaking this type of articles should devote about 12-16 k characters of prose in 6-7 logical subsections at the most (including the etymology subsection) about history. At the moment this article has around 25,000 characters in 11 subsections under the History header, meaning it needs to be trimmed down by 30-40 percent, and the number of paragraphs needs to be cut down in half. I've pasted the History section into my sandbox here so we can work on making it more concise and up to the point. Contributions are welcome of course. Other thoughts:
 * Images - there seems to be too many of them. I counted 44 pics in the article (Bulgaria has 24, Switzerland 33, Belarus (most recently promoted country FA) and Germany both have about 20). So we need to cut the number of images by roughly half, with no more than 1-2 images per subsection (excluding maps, graphs and the like). Focus should be on quality, not quantity.
 * Sections - Geography section needs to be trimmed down drastically and 2-3 short subsections need to be added about Croatia's climate, wildlife, etc. Law needs to be merged into Politics, and the Military section needs to be written from scratch. The administrative divisions section also needs some prose text, and a useful map illustrating it would sure come in handy. Foreign relations section needs to be expanded significantly, wit more details about international memberships, border disputes, foreign trade balance, etc. Culture section is a mess and needs to be trimmed down and divided into meaningful subsections (the article has an entire paragraph about the neck-tie but does not mention a single Croatian writer). The Sports section is optional, and it is hugely overblown at the moment. It will need to be trimmed down by 50-60 percent at least and rewritten from scratch. Architecture needs to be merged into Culture - and new sections about Croatia's media and literature need to be added. The part about the language could be moved to a separate subsection titled "Languages of Croatia" or something along those lines, briefly outlining the issues surrounding Serbo-Croatian, as well as mentioning minority languages spoken in the country, possibly within the Demographics section.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 02:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Timbouctou/Croatia history has the problem in that we can't merge the article histories later and preserve attribution. (Technically we can, but the diffs would still become nonsensical while going between full and history-only versions of the article.) Please, just do those changes inline, nobody really cares :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to check with everyone else here - Should anything else be added to the Administrative divisions prose? I would not like to overdo it...--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The most important question that section needs to answer is what do counties actually do? :-) So a description of how they function (mentioning county assemblies and prefects, elected by whom to terms which are how long, who then decide about which things) is needed. The history of subdivisions does not need to be that detailed but should be more precise. We just need to say something about how historically Dalmatia, Croatia proper and/or Military frontier were autonomous areas within Austria-Hungary and that following the formation of SFRY and the establishment of post-WWII borders the country was divided into circa 100 municipalities (how many exactly and with what authority?), which was changed upon independence into 21 counties. Mentioning that there used to be a chamber of counties might be useful too. Btw I like the map, I was thinking making something akin to Template:German Federal States and combining it with a table like this one to produce something like the state subsection in the Germany article. We will also need a table listing 10 or 20 largest cities, using some layout like Template:Cities of Somalia or Template:Largest cities of Norway. You can work on that if you need something to do. Also, the economy and transport (infrastructure?) could be reduced a bit. These are well written but overly detailed.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 15:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit the map is a stopgap measure, and the German example is a much more elegant solution. As far as the Adm divisions are concerned, I thought that the part regarding the Austria-Hungary you just mentioned belongs to history rather than this section, but I completely agree with you about the assemblies, prefects and county delegated powers. As far as trimming down info is concerned, you might well be right, but I'd still like leave in everything that there is now at least until this part about assemblies and powers is in. Then any superfluous material can be moved to Counties of Croatia or elsewhere if there is need and/or consensus for that.


 * And, as suggested I'll look into the list of largest cities. Thanks for the feedback!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing about the map - the one used now can be easily transformed to a similar map to the ones used in Germany article: the red pushpin can be replaced with any image (say coat of arms of the county in particular) in each instance used on the map. The only problem now is that the commons do not contain all the arms of the counties...--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I'm not too fond of stuffing the map with county coats of arms - these are rarely used in Croatia anyway. The main issue with the map is whether to have numbers marking individual counties (with counties ordered by number in the table next to it) or cities which are county seats. I think the latter looks better although the caption needs to explain Zagreb County. Another option would be to use a map delineating the three statistical areas used by DZS and then order counties by geographical groups in the table.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 16:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since county seats are in the table, IMO the key linking the table/text and the map is there.
 * And the largest cities template is now created and included (modeled on German article/template).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Would the Economy section benefit from a table of top ten Croatian companies by turnover in 2010?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not. Just remember to source the data. Adding employee figures could be useful too.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There it is... The data came from Deloitte (as sourced) and pertain to 2010. Decrease/increase indicate change relative to 2009 where data is available. I did not add employee figures at the time, as I don't have them ready right now, but I intend to add and source them as soon as I get all ten.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to expand the Foreign relations section during this weekend...--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll see if I can write something about biodiversity and climate.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Foreign relations are expanded now. If it proves too large any excess material can be moved to the main article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias against Yugoslavia in history sections of Croatia in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (prior to it becoming a royal dictatorship in 1929)
The article currently depicts Croatia as merely being forced against it's will into Yugoslavia and that Croats did not want to be part of Yugoslavia because of authoritarian tactics by the Yugoslav government, this is historically inaccurate. It is true that political division between the Croats and Serbs was strong in the late 1910s and 1920s over whether a Yugoslav state should be centralized (as supported by Serbs) or decentralized (as supported by Croats). But upon the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes; there was popular support for a Yugoslav state, especially in ethnically-mixed Dalmatia, where many Yugoslav nationalist figures resided - such as Dalmatian Croat Ante Trumbić, the leader of the Yugoslav Committee during World War I and a leading Yugoslav politician in the early years of the kingdom. In Dalmatia substantial numbers of Croats and Serbs in the 1910s and early 1920s supported Yugoslavism rather than Croatian or Serbian nationalism. There was the Croat-Serb Coalition that vouched for the creation of Yugoslavia, and also, the social democratic parties in both Croatia and Slovenia supported the creation of Yugoslavia. Further the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs that included Croatia joined Yugoslavia on its own accord.--R-41 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there were Croats supporting and opposing pretty much everyone and everything throughout history but my first and foremost concern was trimming down the ridiculously overblown history section. This is not an article about Croatian history. Thus, my rationale for leaving in or out bits and details was whether events or persons have had a lasting impact on Croatia as it is today. I have no clue where did you get the impression that the article says Croatia was forced into Yugoslavia - it clearly says that Sabor declared independence in 1918, the Sabor decided to join SHS and that SHS joined Serbia. I don't know if the reaction to the 1921 constitution and 1922 provinces is described as a "public outcry" in sources but that's just a bit I've left from the earlier version. The committee might deserve a mention in the beginning of the section (to explain why Croatia joined SHS immediately after gaining independence) but nothing more than that. Fact is that as far as modern Croatians are concerned Trumbić does not register nearly as high on the historical importance scale as for example Radić or Tito do.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 02:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.103.219.152, 25 September 2011
In the beginning summary mentioning nation's surrounding Croatia, Bosnia is mentioned twice. This seems very unprofessional. Further, Croatia shares a sea border with Italy and this is not mentioned, again undermining the quality of the article.

76.103.219.152 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed it so that Bosnia is no longer mentioned twice in the lead. Croatia shares very little with Italy since for the most part Italian and Croatian territorial waters are separated by international waters. I trust the article seems professional now.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 17:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

City population size
Is it really okay have city articles saying that its population is X, when that particular number pertains not only to the settlement itself, rather to the city administration area (self-government unit)? What I mean to ask is whether it is a fair statement to say that for instance Đakovo is a city of 27,800 or a city of 19,500 - the difference is more than 40%... I am aware that the infobox settlement specifies the difference, but I am concerned about article lead sentences like Požega ... is a city ... with a population of 26,403 (census 2011). while the city itself has just 19,565 inhabitants. Similar applies to lists, like the one in Croatia article. The self-government unit population figures are in some cases equal (in case of Pula) or nearly equal (1% difference in case of Rijeka), but in others those are significantly exceeding the settlement population (by 103% in case of Velika Gorica) possibly misleading readers to conclude that one city is larger than another when contrary is true. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to replace the current template with the one imitating Template:Largest cities of Norway which features two sets of population stats.  Timbouctou  (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 16:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to list both in intros, esp. in cases of larger discrepancies. That's one of the reasons why I started adding lists of settlements in city articles. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that it's not incorrect to say that "the city" has a population of N because that is within the meaning of the word, the distinction between the city settlement and city as a whole is pretty subtle for most readers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Those all valid points, I was just wondering if I made a mistake making that template.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Norwegian template, I think it may be quite suitable, except I'll try to make it sortable as rankings are not the same according to the two criteria (urban/municipal population).--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The table is there now, thanks to Joy for rescuing it from my sandbox. The thing contains 20 entries as in case of Norway, but if another six are added it would include all settlements with population size of 15,000+. Would that be too long?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of subsection heading
I'd like to change "Transport" subsection heading to "Infrastructure" if nobody objects. This is needed to include energy-related material (mimicking Germany), since the two could be easily described as infrastructure and energy would hardly warrant a separate section. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 16:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports subsection
As this article is supposed to provide a summary, further detailed in linked articles, I feel that the sports section carries way too many details. IMO, it could be modeled on Germany or Switzerland (FA and GA respectively), moving the detailed information to Sport in Croatia - after all some of the sections of the latter are perfect place for present level of detail. Looking at the above posts discussing the article in general, I'd say the subsection might be better off rewritten from scratch, and I'm ready to chip in. Has anyone else another idea?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's a good idea. The section is useless in its current form. If you want to do it that would be great, just focus on the general overview of sports in Croatia, as in how many people are into sports, which sports are popular, events held in Croatia, sports infrastructure and things like that. I'd avoid mentioning any individual sportspeople as that is bound to encourage people to add more of them, which might result in what he have now - a section with lots of names and little substance. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed... I'll try to model that on Germany article sports subsection, and I don't expect I'll be adding any names of individuals, clubs, etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's done now. The subsection purposefully avoids listing any top-notch athletes as discussed as that situation invites listing more and is extremely hard to reference anyone being the best ever or another similar qualification. Instead the subsection focuses on a summary overview of sport in Croatia, major events hosted, number major achievements of Croatian athletes (Olympic Games and world championship gold medals) and the governing body (HOO) in the country. All previous contents were either included in this edit, or moved to Sport in Croatia as discussed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging Arts and Literature subsections
Would it be OK to merge Arts and Literature subsection into a single subsection (Arts and literature) since the latter is especially short now? If and when more material is added they could always be split up again?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. We don't need to slavishly emulate some other article's structure, each country has its own peculiarities. In retrospect, I'm not even sure if the cuisine section (which I wrote) is necessary. As for literature, what we have now looks OK to me, maybe a sentence or two mentioning whoever is deemed important in the 21st century could be added and a note telling readers which of these are available in English translation might be useful. I'll see about adding that. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 21:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually we should cover all the bases since that's going to be looked at in a future GA review. Arts and literature are somehow simple to merge, avoiding a short section. The cuisine is a short section, true, but there's IMO simply no reasonable place for it to go. Besides, short sections are ok, as long as there is not many (or majority) of them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Variety of English
Tomobe03 noticed that the article currently employs a mix of British and American English. We should choose one to fix this in view of the GAN which will be soon. Thoughts from the masses? <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also a variety of date formats, particularly the references. GregorB (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A recent copyedit and responses on comments made thereafter at Talk:A5 (Croatia) suggested day-month-year should be applied, so I proceeded to use that format. I'm not particularly keen on any in particular but it is true that all sorts are there right now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DD/MM/YYYY is preferred in BE and MM/DD/YYYY in AE. It makes no difference as long as it is consistent. As for me, I have a mild preference for British styles, but if others prefer AE that's fine too. Btw Battle of Vukovar uses BE spellings and dates and all articles about Croatian institutions we have (Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship) use BE translations (BE is preferred in official Croatian documents and in EU correspondence). <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 22:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then, since WP:ENGVAR says nothing specific on this situation, and the Battle of Vukovar (which is likely future FA) uses BE, and the date format leans to BE, let's make this article BE too. How does that grab you?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jolly good ;-) <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 22:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's settled then... I'll get those differences.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I got all (or at least most) of those now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Variant stem
I'm copyediting the history section, where it says: "The oldest preserved record of the Croatian ethnonym *xъrvatъ is of variant stem, attested in the Baška tablet". I have no idea what a variant stem refers to, according to Google it's a bicycle part. Can someone who speaks Croatian look at the reference and clarify the matter? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's supposed to be "variable stem". Stem is a synonym for "root word".--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the edit conflict though...--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I think it's fixed. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of sentences and a reference missing in the ethnogenesis paragraph (last) within the Prehistory and antiquity section. I'll paste them back if that's alright.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dalmatian cities
I'd like to remove the "Dalmatian cities" heading and merge the first and a half of the second paragraph (trimmed down a bit) with the "Middle Ages" and the remaining text (half a paragraph) with the following section. In the process, I would trim down the text a bit, especially in light of related information in the two adjacent sections. I want to do this because I believe the particular section serves no purpose really, as it spans from the Kingdom of Croatia (11th century, and already covered in the preceding section) to the 19th century (reaching nearly to the end of the period covered by the subsequent section). In short, that would tighten the article, particularly the long-ish history section and preserve chronology better. Any other ideas?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The History section deals with a chronological overview of the history of present-day Croatia and there's no real reason for Dalmatian cities to be exempt from that by having their own section. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 census
I see someone has already edited the 'total population' based on the preliminary data 2011 census published. However there is an issue here, the issue being that the 2011 census uses a different methodology than the 2001 census. If you look here http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/publication/2011/SI-1441.pdf you will see that the methodology used to describe the 'Total population' stub showing 4 290 612 is in fact the number of people who have or do reside in Croatia permanently for the last 12 months. There is another stub which shows 4 456 096 people having declared their permanent residence in Croatia under the stub 'Total number of enumerated persons'. However, the difference between the two stubs is in the fact that the 'Total number of enumerated persons' (4 456 096) and the 'Total population' (4 290 612) stubs in the census itself is the number of people who have their permanent residence declared in Croatia but were not in fact spending most of their last 12 months (within the census) in Croatia due to studying, work, business, etc. abroad.

So I believe we should add both numbers on the page with a link to this discussion or in some other way explaining the difference. Or in fact continue the previous practice by actually presenting the 'Total number of enumerated persons' as the 'total population' on the page as this follows the same methodology as the previously posted 1991 and 2001 census' data. Although I must say I am more inclined to my first suggestion. I would do it myself, however I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, I have edited some pages to a minor degree (corrections and so on) but I never properly registered and now that I have I have learned I cannot edit this page due to it being semi-protected. If someone reads this and is interested please join in the discussion and share your thoughts. (Shokatz (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC))


 * IIRC with the last census of 2001 we also had the total number of enumerated persons in the DZS tables and we did not use that, instead we used the number they marked total population in the second column of each table. So this doesn't seem like an issue - we'll keep using what DZS has marked "total population", regardless of the change in methodology - presumably it's a legitimate change rather than a random fluke if it's coming from a reliable source. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2001 census did not have the total number of enumerated persons, it only had the column marked total population. The enumerated persons column is a novelty in 2011 census just because of the change in methodology. The reason why I thought it would be perhaps useful to use it is to explain and show why the sudden "fall" in number of population while in reality it didn't happen. Plus the fact it would show continuity since all the previous census' were made so that the current 2011 census number of enumerated persons column was in fact marked as total population in all those previous census'.Shokatz (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2011 methodology renders the figure comparable to other EU countries as the methodology is standardized and aimed at recording residence of persons for the longest part of the year. Referenced document contains both figures and explains what they are so I'd say the current situation is the best. Introducing additional numbers with additional explanations may simply add to confusion. On the other hand such an explanation would be great in Demographics of Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, that sounds fine. I will see if I can come up with something to add such an explanation in Demographics of Croatia tomorrow if I get the time to do it. :) Shokatz (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of remarks - part 2
Regarding references:
 * Very good work in general.
 * Ndashes in page numbers look good now.
 * References should include publisher and work parameters where possible.
 * "History of Croatian parliament on Croatian" (sic - one possible translation would be simply "Parliamentary history") is actually a Croatian-language source
 * Bibliography section should use cite book throughout.
 * Vojska.net is probably not the best source on general demographics.
 * "Anchialine ecosystems: Reflection and prospects" PDF format, but no URL. GregorB (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. Now the three (history of..., vojska.net and anchialine ecosystems) references are fixed or replaced, just like the bibliography section which is now always using the cite book template and sorted alphabetically according to the primary author of each of the books, missing parameters (e.g. publisher) added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of remarks
After taking a quick look, here are some remarks about the article: The article is in much better shape, is definitely moving towards GA, but it still needs quite a bit of low-level and high-level work. Some copyediting will also be necessary. I'll be back with more comments after taking a closer look. GregorB (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * History section is too long.
 * Some of it is not well-summarized, hence the excessive length. Example: 'Milan Babić, Serbian leader and president of the RSK, was later to declare that he had been "strongly influenced and misled by Serbian propaganda"' - do we need this level of detail here?
 * Image selection and placement needs some work. E.g. "Memorial for the victims of the Homeland war" is not too illustrative, surely there are better ones given the subject of war.
 * Image captions also need work: "Maksimilijan Vrhovac, bishop of Zagreb" (why is he important?), "Stjepan Radić, Croatian political leader, opponent of the union with Serbs, killed in 1928 by Puniša Račić." (better, but could still be improved). Etc., you understand the principle.
 * County map gives a mouseover text "Croatia is located in Croatia".
 * I tried trimming down the History section some time ago and made some progress - but I agree, it's still too long and more tightening is required. As for Babić etc. the entire modern period (since 1945 onwards) needs rewriting. It's very confusing and looks like a hodgepodge of statements rather than a coherent piece of text. I also think etymology section should be cut by 30-50 percent and merged into the following section, renamed "Early history" (we don't need the level of detail which mentions liquid metathesis, variable stems and glagolitic text do we). <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 13:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would keep the etymology (intro), but true history should be summarized further. Right now there's too much detail there, but I'd still keep everything as is for now until everything is referenced. Once that's completed, the text should be trimmed and the detailed text moved to appropriate. Right now only two subsections still lack citations, so I expect to have that done in two or three days at the most. Notwithstanding, the Dalmatian cities section should be summarized and broken up per above - and I'll do that today.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite correct, 1945-present period is somewhat incoherent. That's what I meant with "high-level work" - unfortunately this could mean rewriting entire sections to use summary style. Sections other than history might have the same problem, but here it is immediately apparent. GregorB (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the image issues, and I'll look into that shortly. Right now, the body text (without the lead) contains approximately 59K characters and is roughly the same size as the same in Germany (53K there). I'm leaning towards keeping this volume until GA review when the reviewer may have his/her own suggestions about the issue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the mouseover is changed now. I'm not too keen on the current text, so if anyone has a smarter suggestion...--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the article is fully referenced now. The lead needs reworking though and I hope to have that completed by tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the lead is now in, summarizing the article - and it's just about the same size as Germany lead (2 extra lines I think) so I hope it's not too much... anyway if nobody objects, maybe we should look for an efficient copyeditor? I am aware bibliography needs more work and some citations need be rearranged (cite book templates to use bibliography perhaps) but there'll be plenty of time for that while in GA review queue.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say let's wait with the copyedit a bit until the content settles... As for the non-content-related stuff, you're quite right, this could be dealt with while waiting for GAR to begin. GregorB (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually posted a WP:GOCE request, but I don't expect a response for a while, maybe a month.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WWII victims
An explaination perhaps is in order: I have no problem with the source used by NeroN BG - Kočović (except that it's offline), however the source already used before to support the figures and claims regarding the WWII victims in NDH quotes the same source (Kočović) within the Cohen book which is available online - it specifically says so on top of page 110, and those figures are used in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and, even more importantly, Cohen source is in English while Kočović source is not. GregorB (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Establishment section of the infobox
After a closer look at the notes and the ifobox, I still have a dilemma: Should co-founding of the Kingdom SHS be in the infobox between State SHS and Yugoslav Republic? If so, the infobox template offers no further slots, so would it be OK to merge the two principality slots (after all the years are not very definite, especially the first one which may only be said to probably date to the 9th century) or the two 1991 events? I personally lean towards simply removing the first item in the "Establishment" section of the infobox, but I'm not quite sure. The period is well covered in the article itself and the lead so I don't feel a major loss would occur, esp. since the 840 independent principality is right there next to the entry.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and merged the first two principality related "establishment" items retaining all information, and moved the single remaining note related to the infobox to a separate "establishment" item, likewise retaining all information therein. In the process, the date was changed to the relevant National Council decision and referenced in the main text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would sooner have merged "decision of independence" and "declaration of independence", the former seems redundant. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since all information is still there, it boils down to choosing where to insert a line break, so this is largely moot.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Trogir and Trakošćan
Regarding a recent revert from Trogir image to Trakošćan - I understand that Trogir is a world heritage site, but there already are 3 such sites depicted in the article and the 4th one does not add much to the article. Furthermore the picture is more of a tourist brochure shot than a depiction of the reason that the fine city of Trogir is on the UNESCO list. Finally, Trakošćan was selected to depict all parts of Croatia as evenly as possible while maintaining standards of notability for the purposes of inclusion in an article on a specific country. --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * UNESCO sites are entirely unique, they do not "stack". We are talking about images on historic sites. If one part of the country is more notable in that respect, namely the ancient cities of the Mediterranean seaboard, then I see no reason to include a less notable image for the sake of regional pride. I shan't pursue the matter though. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the UNESCO WHSites are unique, but there's no need to include them all (and there are more than four in the country) but there is a specialized article listing all of the World Heritage Sites in Croatia, and this actually proved a useful reminder to include that WL in the article - in both instances in the main text and in the "See Also" section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Population of Zagreb
2011 census shows that population of the City of Zagreb is 792,875 and metro area of zagreb has the population of 1,110,517 so please remove the incorrect numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.162.218 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The former number is listed exactly like that. I'm thinking this has to do with the specific status of the City of Zagreb as a county, and the listing in Largest cities of Croatia. I noticed eaerlier that Sesvete was listed. But, the situation there is odd - it's a settlement (naselje) with 70,633 residents per this list, but also a district of Zagreb with 70,633 residents per this list. So it contributes to Zagreb's 792,875, but not to its 686,568 :) Furthermore, inline, the list is titled "Most populous urban areas of Croatia". Generally, that description works, but I don't see the source, and Sesvete is the only entry on the list that doesn't have the official status of a city (grad). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Sesvete case is odd indeed due to the fact it is a settlement within the City of Zagreb, but not a city proper itself. Since urban area and legal city area are not the same per 2011 census I don't think lack of the legal status of a city precludes Sesvete from list of urban areas. Page 15 of the census report used as the source for this list specifies Sesvete and Zagreb as distinct proper settlements of 54,494 and 686,568 residents respectively, hence both are included in this list - figures from page 15 are used for the purpose. District of Sesvete within the City of Zagreb has population of 70,633 (see page 160 of the sourced census report). This figure contributes to the population of the City of Zagreb (administrative unit functioning as a county and a city) of 792,875 (specified on page 14 of the report used as the source). The cited page numbers pertain to page numbers marked on pages of the report rather than pages of the PDF file. --Tomobe03 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just realized where the 1,110,517 figure comes from - that's population of the City of Zagreb and the Zagreb County combined. Could we label and source that as a metropolitan area? Naturally, the template of the largest settlements has no "metropolitan area" column simply because hardly any city in Croatia besides Zagreb would have a metropolitan area greater than its city limits.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

POV #2s
It should also noted that many contributors to en:wiki of the following articles: Croatia, History of Croatia, Dalmatia, Zadar, Zagreb, are the same of hr:wiki. "Astonishingly" that all these articles are starred in hr:wiki. Indeed it looks that when something is connected to Croatia gets instantaneously precious as gold, including the article "Dalmatia" on hr:wiki that is about 2 pages long (including 2 pictures!) and is awarded with a star. Perhaps one day some administrators will realise that Wikipedia has become "land of conquest" of people moved rather more by patriotism than neutrality. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the enWiki. Please bring forth constructive suggestions on improving the article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Many contributors are the same on both articles. Let's say that en:wiki gives a bigger return on investment if you want to do propaganda. However I see your point. I am trying to report constructive suggestions (see above) but even reporting exactly what is wrong there is someone trying to convince me that what I am reporting is not good enough (even when we speak of the same sources!). --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolulety POV
The all article looks to written by the Croatian Government. Some Croats have the right to believe their homeplace is the best place in the world. At the end of the day there is no place like home, but they cannot use Wikipedia for their propaganda. The all article is written as if Croatia is the paradise on Earth (I would question why in the last 10 years the country suffered such a large emigration and why population struggle to increase). However, let's come to the facts because Wikipedia is all about facts and sources not opinions.

1. Croatia is ranked 46th based on Human Development Index, with an index in 2011 at 0,796 just marginally higher than Romania that is 50th with an index at 0,781 and well after Poland, Lithuania and Hungary. In the article is written " Croatia has achieved a very high human development". This is false, the index should be at least 0,889 to make the country at "very high human development". Source: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/103106.html

2. The article states that in 2009 only 6 people died from AIDS and 13 were infected. It is a fact that Croatia is a country with low prevalence of AIDS, but what is written in the article is not a true fact. Indeed for casualties I have found according to the source figures between 100 and 1000 and all the time the trend in the last 5 years was incresing (while in the rest of Europe is stable). Concerning people infected the WHO report in 2006 a number of 66 and again the trend is increasing hence the quoted number of 13 for 2009 looks suspicious. On the other hand the WHO does not report the exact number of deaths (this gives an indication of the transparency of Croatian statistics) and quotes only <1000. Source: http://apps.who.int/globalatlas/predefinedReports/EFS2008/full/EFS2008_HR.pdf (page 9) Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=hr&v=37

3. The language used in the article if fare from wiki standard. It is propagandistic and not balanced. In the sections of History the present article present the Croats as victims of the Serbs and does not give a balanced (albeit short) view of what happened. Does not report more than 15 words about Venetian presence in Coastal Dalmatia (still it lasted something like 8 centuries) and does not report any information about the 200-250,000 italians forced to leave at the end of WWII.

4. Even the information about natural resources are pumped! I can be qualified of significant oil reserves of less than 15,000 barrels/day? In objective terms this is nothing. Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=hr&product=oil&graph=production

There's more on the table. I start with this and wait for your comments. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding #1 - wrong report was linked (2010 instead of 2011), thanks for pointing that out indirectly. The 2011 report ranks Croatia as the 46th and the report itself specifies that the countries ranked 1-47 are qualified as "very high human development".

Perhaps here someone is tired or needs new glasses. The source clearly states that "Very high human development" is when index is higher than 0.889 and includes 16 countries. "High human development is when the index is lower that 0.889 and higher than 0.741 and includes 43 countries. Croatia is ranked 46th at 0.796. Please check what you write.  Tomobe03 I understand you think that your country is the best place on earth but perhaps you want to report true facts on Wikipedia.
 * No need for name calling. Please look at the PDF report cited as a source. It explicitly specifies "very high" for Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What PDF? The source from the UNDP (http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/103106.html) reports for Croatia "High" and not "Very high". Perhaps a third person should check who is making a mistake here. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The PDF linked as a source - this one - i.e. UNDP 2011 report.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Again please give a look to this source: anf tell me what you read. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Silvio, your tenacity is admirable, but please do thorough research before lashing out like that. Please read the complete 2011 UNDP report and there you can see that Croatia is ranked as a country of very high HDI with the index value as indicated and referenced by the article. Read it carefully and you'll see that the value you are focusing on is weighted average HDI value of all countries classified as very high HDI countries. Yes, Croatia is below-average in that group, but it is within that group. The way you insist on this regardless of reliable published sources to the contrary comes off like strong POV pushing. Please make sure you understand what the numbers stand for before claiming this or that, OK?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not an issue of tenacity but of fairness. I understand your point but it is an interpretation. With your interpretation countries like Cuba or Romania (and I currently live in Romania) are on the hedge of being at "Very High HDI". Are you sure your interpretation is correct? And what about my other queries? Tomobe03, the issue I have with this article is that reports only what is convenient to a specific understanding of Croatia. Why not also quote the reports from "Freedom of the Press" and from "Transparency International" or what Amnesty International thinks of Croatia? However it's just a question of time, when I will be auto-certified I will propose the changes, of course with the due sources (and by the way I agree to protect pages, especially when they are target of vandalism). This page has been almost entirely made by Croatian users. Is it really POV to have a small doubt about the fact that could be presented in a non-neutral way?
 * It is not an interpretation, just read the report - it says so. If the UNDP says a country (it does not matter which) achieved a very high HDI and the article reports that the UNDP says so in a particular report, properly referencing the source there is no room for interpretations and specific understandings of Croatia. If you need a clarification of a point, just ask here on the talk page. If there are conflicting sources, post them here for discussion how to handle this. A fundamental principle of the wiki is WP:AGF - we are not all bent on propaganda and POV pushing and there is no need to assume otherwise.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The two links being discussed above are not in conflict. They are the same report presented different ways, from the same source. The data are organized into quartiles, as is appropriate for any statistical report. One unequivocally lists Croatia in the "Very high HDI" quartile. The other simply shows numbers, including values for each quartile. "Very high HDI" has a value of 0.889 in that report. There is no conceivable way this value could be interpreted as a threshold for inclusion in the top quartile (if it were, only 14 countries would qualify).
 * That said, I disagree that this article should parrot POV-laden qualifier words such as "very" just because a source uses the word. It should be sufficient simply to list the ranking: 46 of 179. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. I do not see what is wrong that only 14 countries make to "Very High HDI"; I find stranger that countries like Cuba and Romania are considered close to make it. The article is IMHO POV because gives a description of the country that is partial. Again I do not want to insist with this mantra (is it normal there is no single user participating to this page that is not Croat/of Croatian origin?). However, When I get autoconfirmed user I will propose such changes. I the meantime getting an answer to my current queries would be enough. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess majority of contributions come from those users who contribute edits backed with reliable published sources. As far as 14 countries or Cuba and Romania reaching this HDI or that it is not for us to interpret it but to report what the sources say, no matter what is logical or odd.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, a fact that something can be sourced does not mean that all sources have same dignity. However, let's focus on the point. Here we have the very same source saying two different things: 1) Here qualifies Croatia as "High" 2) Here  qualifies Croatia as "Very high" The source give two understanding of the same thing. Indeed if I had editing right I would put in the article the HDI of Croatia is "High" or "Very high" according to the source. Tomobe03, there is no reason that your interpretation is more sound than mine. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last time - please read the sources you offer thoroughly. The same report contains a guide to interpreting the data and it essentially confirms that there are 47 very high HDI countries and 47 high HDI countries each - those are simply categories used by UNDP for the purposes of the report.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Believe me I am also tired of this. I have read your argument but please read mine carefully. The issue with your interpretation of the HDI is that whatever are the level of development of the different countries in the world (going up or going down) there will be always a quarter of the total at "Very High HDI". Now it's not because some countries will get more developed that the other gets less developed. The HDI is a number calculated by independent measures and when the index is higher than 0.889 (benchmark set for 2011) then the country is considered at "Very High HDI". Theoretically as you present there will be always some "Low HDI" countries if other will be more and more developed... Go trough the method to calculate the HDI and you will not find this... --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the top quarter is classified as "very high HDI" by the UNDP regardless of actual numbers, as long as it is the top quarter. As HDI of a country improves it will overtake others, possibly moving to the top quarter, consequently pushing someone out of it. The 0.889 value is not a benchmark (the source does not say that) but quartile calculated HDI - the data is indeed classified in quartiles as explained here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomobe03, this is one of the two interpretation and I respect it. But this does not mean that the other is not also valid. You cannot negate that here : hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/103106.html, Croatia in ranked "High" and not "Very High". --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. The ranking at the address you just posted says what HDI and worldwide rank is assigned to Croatia and what HDI is assigned to the first quartile of the HDI dataset. On the contrary it does not say what HDIs are thresholds for each quartile - as that is not necessary. The first quartile includes the first one quarter of the dataset, the second quartile covers the second quarter etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please Tomobe03, make this for me. Enter on this page: hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/103106.html, and sort on 2011 by decreasing HDI and you will find that until position 16 is marked as "Very High HDI". Or it should be understood that untill position 69 is "Very High HDI" and 1-16 is "Very Very High HDI"... PS However the map in the appendix of the source shows Croatia as "Very High HDI". This is quite clear. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "very high HDI" row does not contain the minimum value for the class, but the 1st quartile value for the category. Because of that it is placed inside the very high HDI countries when the results are sorted by the HDI instead at the bottom. The same applies to "high HDI", "medium HDI" and "low HDI" rows as well and that is why there are countries placed below "low HDI" row when the table is sorted according to the HDI. There are only four categories of the HDI development (very high, high, medium and low) and not five.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Awkward. Like that, there are 68 countries ranked at "Very High HDI". --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There are 47 according to the report - the top 47 ranked, regardless of actual HDI score (no cutoff value set), simply because they are ranked within the top quarter of the list (per UNDP methodology).--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding #2 - the sources you have pointed to, well the first one (WHO) does not actually cite a figure, rather it says "less than 1000" and the second one misinterprets its source (as cited) - the CIA factbook, which also does not specify an exact number, but instead it says "less than 100". The source referenced by the article specifies exact numbers in agreement with ranges specified by your sources. Unless you have another source regarding the HIV/AIDS proliferation it seems like there is no problem here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WHO states an exact number for the people contracting the disease in 2006 and it is 66. WHO does not quote the exact number of deaths (this explain how transparent is Croatia administration). The other source states 100. Here I quote two indipendent sources quoting 100 and less than 1000 deaths and 66 infected in 2006. You quote a Croatian source that states only 6 deaths and 11 infected in 2009. I have no right to modificate the page right now. When I have I will put the change and ask for the consensus if common sense does not prevail before. Less than 1000 death is a clear statement of the excellent control Croatia have on AIDS, stating an exceedingly small number of 6 death (that I cannot find confirmed in any non-Croatian source) does not add anything serious to the article.
 * It is quite possible that there is more HIV positive people living in Croatia than 11, but the source merely specifies 11 contracted HIV in 2009. The source is bilingual (Croatian and English) and online so it should be simple to confirm--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is bilingual but it's Croatian. This does not mean that is not good, but the information from the WHO should be prevalent. Unless you do not have a reason to believe WHO is non-neutral. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to chose - the WHO source does specify a range only (less than 1000 means anything between 0 and 1000) and the cited source states a specific, exact number which falls in the range specified by the WHO. Why you chose to distrust this source (and the WP:GAR does not) is beyond me. You seem to think that anything written by a Croat or in Croatia is false or suspicious at best, that's POV pushing since you have no source quoting a specific number to back up your claim--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding #3 - I disagree for one. The article went through WP:GOCE copyedit precisely to remove any such wording, plus WP:GAR to verify that. The Venetian possession in Dalmatia is reported in a neutral way. True it is reported in few words, however two sections spanning eleven hundred years, and covering events in Dalmatia, Slavonia, Republic of Dubrovnik, Littoral and the Central Croatia contains only 900 words. Summary style dictates this - more detail should be there in History of Croatia, Dalmatia and History of Dalmatia progressively as well as in Republic of Venice and further articles linked there.

Do not concentrate on the facts concerning the Venetian Empire. It's the all article that is not balanced. It has by far a non-neutral language.
 * As I said, WP:GOCE copyedited the article (tag posted on this talk page) and WP:GAR specifically looks for POV and it found none.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding #4 - The "significant resources" was rephrased to clarify meaning of the expression, however this seems more awkward.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Croatia consume every day about 100,000 barrels of crude. On top of that there is the imported finished products. How can you qualify of significant 14,0000 barrels/day of production? Source : http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=hr&product=oil&graph=consumption --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The article now specifically says "Natural resources found in the country in quantities significant enough for production include..." Are you disputing that the oil is produced or claiming that its production is not economically feasible or that something else. The source cited specifically lists all those goods specified in the article as produced.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm... "Venetian Empire"? :) Tomboe, perhaps you should not be taking this so seriously.

I contest that can be qualified of significant a resource covering 14% of the internal consumption. Expecially when we speak of the 14% of an amount that is small in absolute terms (Croatia is in absolute terms a small consumer as the population is small). Italy produces 96.000 barrels/day and you will not find anywhere a source qualifying this of significant. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Silvio, this is starting to look look like an Italian nationalism-inspired protest. Croatia is a newly-independent country just recently out of a war, so a certain amount of undue praise is to be expected, but hardly anything to be concerned about with regard to policy. Kindly bring forth specific suggestions and support them with real sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait. Did some contribs reviewing: this is very likely another Brunodam sock. Brunodam, is that you? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what is a Brunodam sock, sorry. That people are proud of their country is quite a good thing, that they use Wikipedia to "broadcast" their pride is a different matter. DIREKTOR, this is not an Italian nationalism-inspired protest. If you knew me yoy would be suprised to know hom much critical I am concernig my country, its history and its role during the WWII. My concern is about an article that describe this country as it was perfect (may be in the chapter concerning the administration and politics it could be written something about the corruption of the public administration, but there is nothing. And it's a big issue in Croatia), uses sources of doubtful origin or that can be contested (look above the claim on the HDI and go to my source please) and qualify 14.000 barrels/day of crude as significant resource. And there are many other things. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism
DIREKTOR, do you think my skeptiscism about the neutrality of the contribution of the users is really exagerated? I took the time to go trough the profiles of the users that contributed to this page. Surprise, surprise, surprise: they are almost all Croat. I will not name it of course, but you can check (perhaps you know it already). Concerning the nationalism go on my user page, you will not find any Italian flag or any sign of nationalism. It cannot be said the same about the users contributing to this page. Should I insist that you do not find such a prevalence of Italian users in the article "Italy" on en:wiki or of French users in the article "France"? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy
The section "Health in Croatia" is the copy word by word of the main article "Health in Croatia". two possibilities: either we reduce the section "Health in Croatia" in the article "Croatia" or we delete the article 'Health in Croatia". The ideal would be to expand the article "Health in Croatia". Unless this is not done, this cannot stay like that. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Arts and Literature
I propose some small rephrasing. The previous chapter did not mention a single time the word "Venetian" to describe the architecture in Split, Zadar, Sibenik and Istria. This does not seems very accurate. It should not be necessary but if required I can add sources demonstrating were built when Dalmatia was ruled by the Republic of Venice. Concerning Juraj Dalmatinac and Nikola Firentinac, I have put the names corresponding to the titles used in the relevant articles in en:wiki. I don't want to enter in a discussion for that. It is just according a general principle that people should keep the name they born with, regardless of the change of borders that might occur centuries after they died. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A published reliable source is indeed required to reference that there is Venetian influence in those area and that it is "dominant".--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Give me an half day and I put the element together to source the historical center of Zadar, Split, Sebenik and of Coastal area mainly of Venetian architecture. By the way, the previous sentence said "Mediterranean architecture" but was not sourced either. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following source: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Italian_cultural_and_historic_presence_in_Dalmatia By the way I have changed "dominant" with "prevalent". It is more appropriate and milder. Please note that I do not speak of Italian influence in Dalmatia because does not make any sense. Dalmatia was a Venetian possession until XVIII century, never was part of the Italian Kingdom (except Zadar for only 25 years). I can also report sources from my books of art and architecture. But they are Italian so could be claimed as non-neutral. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source does not say "prevalent", rather it speaks of "influence" - changed to latter since the former is WP:OR. Since I'm not so sure that eNotes conform to WP:SOURCE, so I replaced that source with another that says the same.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

CPI
No reason to put a source. Users can click on the hyper-text and find on the corresponding page of en:wiki the information. By the way, what's wrong in writing Croatia is 62th together with Ghana and Macedonia? 62th is not great at all, but it is still better than Italy! --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually the citation is required per WP:CIRCULAR - you cannot use wiki article as source. If a reader on the other hand wishes to compare the ranking and see who's the 61st and the 63rd there is the article wikilinked as you pointed out. Those two or any other two examples are completely irrelevant to Croatia. By the way, do not blank the citation needed tag if you did not address it, and do not add unreferenced material (see WP:SOURCE).--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference added. For some reason the numeration does not get updated. There are three linkw with number 127. Have you got an idea why? Thank you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

history
The article is basically inundated with historical data to the level of being annoying. All this history spam needs to be made significantly more concise. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks almost as if someone copy-pasted History of Croatia into the article. I don't think the section is actually bad - it is just overly detailed. It should be summarized and trimmed down, and excessive detail should be moved to History of Croatia. Not an easy task though. GregorB (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gregor, that would be in line with WP:SUMMARY and it would add significantly to readability of the article as a whole, while retaining all the information in wikilinked articles. Let's try and define what need be done and I'll pitch in too, esp. with referencing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I found it - it was who started balooning up the history section in February 2009:          . Completely misplaced effort. Soon afterwards, things continue to spiral out of control with more edits like    etc.
 * Will anyone actually mind if I simply revert the History section to the last concise version? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, maybe that's too much. But a reduction to <50% of the current size is necessary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. I'll try trimming it down a bit myself and see where it gets me. Btw how about outlining some to do list do get this article in shape for a GAN? This is WP:Croatia's most important article after all. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I support that and would contribute! I suppose a simple section of this talk page would be sufficient - otherwise a PR is possible. Switzerland or Bulgaria (both GA) could be used as model articles to speed things up...--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is astonishing that the history section, albeit being that large in comparison with the size of the article, does not report anything about the place that had the Venetian Empire had in the actual territories of the Croatian Republic. Indeed someone could believe the intent of the contributors is to to make the history of Croatia the most Slavic is possible. Perhaps it should be remembered that Wikipedia is not a tool of nationalism propaganda. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should also... read the article? Republic of Venice in Dalmatia between 1400s and 1800s is clearly mentioned. We can argue about the nuances, but you first have to assume good faith. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I assume good faith for most of users, not for all the users. I read the article and I did read the articles "Croatia" and "History of Croatia", and the issue is the same. Things are actually written, but putting them in the "due" light, reporting them with the "due" length and enhancing the "due" facts. For example, the two articles report the Venetian presence in Dalmatia as a kind of invasion that took place on already established Croat civilization. The two articles also do not mention any Venetian presence in Dalmatia before 1400's and do not mention any ethnic cleansing to the damage of the italian minority in 1945's-1955's. I could modify the article with sourced facts but I will not try. My modifications would not resist (if the article is what it is, I am sure that other similar contributions have been already removed in the past) and I have no time and will to start an edit war. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I moved the 7th century paragraph down into the history section, and put it in chronologically where the 7th century part seemed to fit. But that paragraph jumps ahead past the Middle Ages, which is the next paragraph, so more work needs to be done on that paragraph. I stopped here, though, with this one edit, since I know you all are working on it, and I wanted to keep my contribution really simple. Entwhiz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is a part of the lead (per WP:LEAD and is a summary of the main text (or a portion thereof). Therefore all its contents are already present in the main text and there is no need to move it - on the contrary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Entwhiz your were very right in making this modification. There is a clear reason why some contributors (all of them Croats or of Croatian origins) insist in putting such paragraph in the lead section. The intention is to push as much as possible the concept that since the early Middle Age the Croats have populated the territories that lie within the borders of modern Croatia. Croatian historiography had been trying very hard for the last 100 years push this nationalistic concept, but with limited results. Now with en:wiki (that can be easily controlled with a dozen of well motivated contributors) they have achieved this result. This is regrettable, but I cannot blame them too much because the rest of the community had not the will (and the ability) to correct this project. Things might change (I hope) in the future. However, thank you to have tried.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Silvio1973 please refrain from trolling and keep in mind that this is not a forum. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 13:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow!
Since the fall of communism and the end of the war of independence, Croatia has achieved a very high human development and income equality, and ranks high among Central European nations in terms of education, health, quality of life and economic dynamism.

— I'm impressed! However, I suggest a slight elaboration, to wit: ''Since the fall of communism and the end of the war of independence, Croatia, the world's most beautiful country, has achieved ... et cetera.''

OK, now I'm going back to bed. Zzzzz. Sca (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the term "very high human development" looks like a peacock term - it comes from the phrasing of the HDI. It could probably be rephrased. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I used the explicit phrasing from the description of the Human Development Index. Do you like it now? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's getting better, though it still sounds a bit flag-wavish for an encyclopedia. Sca (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I am not the only one surprised by the language used in this article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)