Talk:Croatia/Archive 7

Biokovo
No, it's not highest moutain range in Dalmatia. Dinara would be correct. Also, i would prefer better pictures in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.116.204 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatian invention
How fare do the contributors of this page want to go? The last edit (I am referring about this knife to kill people...) demonstrates that some of the contributors of this page need serious medical specialist help. I think amongst Croatian administrators there is a student of medicine. Ivan, may be you can suggest which kind of treatment those users should follow? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The offensive edits have been removed and I've warned the user, let's not pontificate too much over it. People do stupid things all the time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some administrators should be concerned about the language (please refer to WP:PEACOCK) used in this page. Despite some added corrections, the language used in this article is still inappropriate. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While you should be quite a bit more careful with your opinions about various nations, you do have a point. However, if you're here trying to combat Balkans nationalism, you have a tough fight ahead of you :).


 * Croatia is a new state just out of a nationalism-infused war. Its to be expected that there will be quite a bit of over-embellishment. That, however, should be countered to an extent. -- Director  ( talk ) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Editing style is not an administrative issue here - all autoconfirmed users can edit this article to make such changes, as can you. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I will never give a judgement about Balkan nationalism. A few years ago I was in a bar in Zagreb and in the middle of a discussion I said something like "Certainly the Socialism in Yougoslavia was somehow a sad period, but it was also a period of stability amongst different cultures and religions...". Five muntes later, I found myself out of the bar laying on the pavement. So, clearly I do not want to get involved in any issue around Balkan nationalism. All my apologies if I gave this impression. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * People in Zagreb would never kick you out because of that, people in Osijek, probably. Maybe they just didn't liked you. Shit happens. --Wusten fuchs 17:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Slivio1973, I have to be frank, I don't believe someone actually kicked you out of a bar and to the ground because you said that. :)
 * @Wustenfuchs, I would refrain from such generalizations. Are you saying Zagreb is somehow excessively right-wing? :P Certainly not. Split.. maybe, but in general people from the countryside and the hinterland are more right-wing, whereas people from the city are more.. shall we say liberal? I believe our beloved ;) mayor called the latter "Urban Yugoslavs" . (Silvio1973, I'm talking about Željko Kerum, the current Mayor of Split, who hails from the hinterland and is not from Split.) -- Director  ( talk ) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gents, it was not my intention to trigger any discussion about such items. And however I will continue to visit the Balkans. @Direktor, I am telling the truth. Perhaps I was also quite drunk, but not more than every saturday in the years 1994-2007. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No DIREKTOR, you haven't understand. My point was, people of Zagreb wouldn't kick him for that reason, because majority of them are liberal or just don't give a damn about it, while in Osijek, for example, he would be treated very bad. Their ideologies arent good or bad, but the temper of the people is different, no matter wich ideology the have. This is a bit of topic, but, whatever. And Kerum was epic there on stage singing "Srijem, Banat i Bačka, tri srca junačka" :D He was partly right abt calling them urban Yugoslavs, some people in Split realy are. --Wusten fuchs 22:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, and others, much as it's hard not to sympathize with anyone who was denied freedom of speech, Wikipedia articles and talk pages don't function by way of anecdotal evidence, so please move along. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So what is this thread about anyway? Slivio1973, I did request in the past that you be more specific with your propositions. -- Director  ( talk ) 13:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IT means Yes. I agree with Joy's comment to move along. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DENYING GENOCIDE
It is really ridiculous how NDH part of Craotian history is described here. It appears as NDH was state where Serbs and Croats are suffering same way.

NDH (Independent state of Croatia) state was Nazi Croatian state that fully participated in WWII on side of Axis powers and Pavelic government had wide support among Croatian population. There are vast records in forms of video materials, printed press and public rallies. This state set a goal of physical elimination of Serbian population and perpetrated horrifying crimes against Serbs. That there was some resistance among Croatian population is not deniable but it is known fact that partizan movement till 1945 was so insignificant in numbers comparing to Ustashe armies that fought even in SSSR along side with other Nazi units.

Look what is written in your article: "...Furthermore 320,000 Serbs were killed in the territory of present-day Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina—roughly corresponding to NDH territory. This was either by the regime, as members of armed resistance, or as Axis collaborators. In total there were 537,000 Serb casualties throughout Yugoslavia in the war.[49] At the same time, more than 200,000 Croats were killed in the NDH, likewise in various roles.[48][49]"

It appears as Croatian state was fighting Croats equally as Serbs and Serbs where "collaborating" with "Nazi" in state they had not control over in the first place??? This is ridiculous. How can Serbs collabore with Nazi against Pavelic (Croatian Nazi state) who himself in first place came to power overthrowing authority of Belgrade (Yugoslavian/Serbian King) government that just lost war with Hitler in which Pavelic was Hitler's aid, confidant, can we say THE MAN!... This is utterly stupid. So Nazi collaborated with some Serbs helping them fight the very man (Pavelic and his Croatian Nazi government) whom they saw as ALLY. This is so against logic that is ridiculing concept of encyclopedia.

Looking article it appears more as some civil war then real act of carefully planned and executed systematic genocide of Pavelic regime fully supported by Axis forces and majority of Croatian population at a time. Please, once more, refer to various documented movie shots showing crowed welcoming Nazi arrival to Zagreb on 1941 all documentation on crimes committed in Nazi camps in NDH. Maybe you should put similar formulation for Jews so that someone can read that some died killed either by regime as members of armed resistance or as Axis Collaborators. Because in idiocy of this article even Jews would be able to collaborate with Hitler against his Croatian THE MAN PAVELIC and his CROATIAN GANG (government).

Way higher number of Serbs was killed in concentration camps or in their homes as civilians in sequence of massacres then those killed either as resistance or "Nazi collaborators against Nazi Croatian government ???" but this cannot be seen in this article. This is so disgusting and it is direct denial of Jasonavac, Stara Gradiska and genocide that happen in NDH (ISH) that someone should immediatelly CRY CRIME!

THIS IS REALLY COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IDIOTIC!!! But WIKIPEDIA knows no shame anyhow, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed that "200.000 Croats" error. I suppose it was accidental... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 13:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have hard time to believe it was accidental. There are many theories trying to make it look that way. Thx for fast fix. Please keep this text (critics) here in talk page for some time since I fear there would be some more attempts of making it look the shameful way you have just deleted/corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please revert the removed material because it was directly supported by Cohen (tables and text on pages 106-111) and Bogoljub Kočović (who is cited by Cohen in those same pages - specifically on top of page 110) sources. I can't possibly see how Kočović and Cohen might have conspired to manufacture those numbers. Besides, Kočović was the principal Yugoslav expert determining number of WWII victims. NDH regime killed Croats not because of their nationality but because of political affiliation. This was no exception to other parts of Nazi occupied Europe in WWII - significant number of Germans were killed by Nazis, and none of that can possibly detract from holocaust or concentration camps or the fact that Nazi regime or their puppets (NDH included) committed horrible crimes - if 200,000 people are killed that is in itself notable, whether you like it or not. It is not possible to take position "they killed this many Serbs, so others don't matter". All of them do.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NO, NO  200000 killed are all together and Nazi and non Nazi Craotians. Pls show the refernce that shows 200000 Germans were killed by Nazi. Not to mentioned that at that time as today Germans where 20 times more in numbers then Craotians so killing 200000 Craotians is something like Hitler killed 4 milion Germans proportionally to numbers. You mix few thousand Craotian partizans with majority of those killed fighting with Nazi in Russia and Balkans. And this is somehting that is extremely shameful. Indeed more then 4 milion Germans died in WWII but vast majority of whom fouhgt for Nazi cause similarly as 200000 dead Croatians in vast majority faught for the same cause. Many of these missing 200000 with aid of Vatican emigrated to Latin American and US. Till today they have been chased by Mosad (e.g. Andria Artukovic or Dinko Sakic). Of course everyone matters so I mentioned Jews and Romas. But puting few thousand of croatina partizans with 98% of nazi in same group and claiming them all together as 200000 killed Craotians by NDH is LIE! Similarly you can say that 6 million Germans that died in WWII are killed by Hitler??? Who was killing them then? It is alligning murderors with Victims. Yes 6 milion Germans died in WWII and 6 milion of Jews died too. So following your logic not only Jews matter, they are "equally victims" ???? If you see no problme with that statment than I am very worried what is going to come out of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.222.194 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, just find me that source to see, i cannot find that data in reference... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference says pp. 106–111, and linked Google Books preview says has a table #11 at page 110 that lists "total 207 [thousands] Croats", and right below that it says "some 320,000 Serbian losses ...". So I'm reverting your edits as they seem to be unfounded in fact. However, the same page discusses Kočović's and Žerjavić's numbers, which differ in scope and precision, as the former lists BiH and Croatia separately (209+125 K Serb losses), and the latter says the number of Croat casualties was 197,000 on the whole Yugoslav territory, which means both numbers are a fair bit out of scope here and have to be reproduced with clear indication of what territory is talked about, particularly because of the sensitivity of the context. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also there should be caution because I've seen Kočović+Žerjavić disputed before - demographic loss analysis is not the end-all method of historiography, so there could be problems with those sources. This belongs to History of Croatia, anyway, and I see we use the approx. 330K Serbs number there, so this seems to mostly fit. And I'll take a sourced bit of info over an anonymous Talk rant any day. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anonymus talk rant????? How can someone collaborate with Nazi against Nazi ally Ante Pavelic. And this is what you call rant? You clearly claim that some Serbs colaborated with Nazi against Pavelic that himself was true reliable and fully comitted ally of Axis powers. How many of those 200000 Croatins died on Russian front fighting with Nazi and how many died as Ustashe after Russians marced in Europe and Nazi retreated. How many of thsoe 200000 actually left to South America and US.... Writing article this way makes victims equal to that nazi. Most of Croatians died as nazi, most of Serbs dies as civilians. What are you? ...general Franco digging one grave for all. Parizans in total never counted for more the several tens of thousands, according to overly inflated comunist figures. Seams of all Europe only Yugoslavs decided to fight Hitler in such a number and all purly ideologicallu :-) . What a joke, especially when we talk about one of most illiterate and poorest countries in Europe at the time. But mythomanic revolutionarry inteligencia named killed Serb civilians as fighting communist inteligencia (people who were pratically illiterate) and you call my point above "rant" but have yourself no issue with this nonsense. Or you demonstate your Craotian patriotism and humiliate victims of genocide the known way like it is today done in memoria center of Jasenovac??? One of your refernces is Croat the other is passionate Yugoslav (half Serb half French) revolutionary mythoman. There are zillion of other references including Simon Wiesenthal. But you are not interested in those, are you? Having Craot comparing victim count in a war Croatians where part looks little bit inapproproate possibly biased with doubt of real conflict of interest. Not to mention that history of postwar Yugoslavia has been written with idea of "unifying brother nations" and "glorification of partizan communist idea beyond nationalism where those brother nations kuningly seen through false ideology of Western capitalism and Nazism" thus presenting their heroic strugle agaisnt reactionary forces and documenting it with corpses of dead Serb farmers killed for no other "intelligencia" but being Serbs as Jews and Romas where killed for being Jews and Romas and nothing more then that. There is overwelming documentation of comunnist Mythomania that claimed those inosent people for "greater cause". Does it really need that much of iteligence not to know it and have suspicions about it? Can it really be POSSIBLE that in Independent State of Craotia Serbs were dying of Croatina hand as colaborators of Nazi when that Craotian State was Nazi ally itself??? What can I only say is that NAZI SHOULD BE FORBIDEN TO WRITE ECYCLOPEDIA IN THE FIRST PLACE if not for anythingn but RESPECT FOR VICTIMS OF THIS MONSTRUOUS IDEA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.222.194 (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear anonymous IP, there's a lot in your edits. There are fair concerns but they are mixed-up with (by far) too many injustified attacks. No-one is forbidden to write on Wikipedia as long the edit complies with applicable policies. If it is your concern to give adequate room to the responsabilities of the people ruling (directly and indirectly) the NDH you are welcome. But you will have to do so respecting Wikipedia policied and using adequate sources. This requires a lot of patience because almost by definition there are part of history where consensus is difficult to reach. Said that, I would higly recommand you to log with a valid user ID. This is good practice and almost paramount when dealing with topics of such sensitivity and importance. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Silvio. I will put facts as sipmly as they are: 1. NDH was partenr of Nazi Germany. Pavelic its leader was sharing ideas similar of Hitler's one way eralier then 1941. 2. Saying that Croatins fought NDH is equal to notion of Germans fighting Hitler Germany. No one denies there was resistance and opposition to it to certain extent. No one says that majority of people have not been aware of extent of horror. No one say they did went all along those ideas. But is is clearly disgenuine practive saying that Serbs where daying almsot the same as Croats in NDH, some being against it or simply Serbs, some "collaborating with NAZI???". 3. Would you ask Jewish guy as you ask me to document you that Jews were not dying almost the same as Germans in Germany, a bit just for being Jews a bit collaborating with Nazi. Please read article yourself and you will see what I clearly quoted above on my first article. 4. There is historical evidence on Myths of partizan movements (please check under Veljko Bulajic in wikipedia and his partizan mithomania) in Yugoslavia and its imporatnce in war against Hitler. Serbs and Croats participating on Wikipedia know that very well about 6,7 or 8 Yugoslav "ofanzivas"(offensives) which ended in partizan running away from Ustashe and Germnas (most of war they were on hit and run) leaving population to be slaughtered, used as perfect excuse by Ustashe to termiante Serbs (because Partizans were mostly hidding in Serb inhabitated territories)... but communist glorified it dearly to the point of idiotism. In one of those "herroic hit and run parizan moves" in moutines of Kozara my gardnother family (and when I say family I mean few hundred of people carrying same last name living in one village) where killed in front of their homes or taken to Jasenovac (the largest concetration camp). She was the only survivor. She herself was saved by Craotian practiotioner working as doctor in Jasenovac who took her as maid and thus she survived. Communist after war told them that they are nation heros, bright proleters who faught against nazism and for world proleteriat. They got nothing, except missery of life and idotic movies of heroic partizan fight agaist ugly Germans with idiot Velimir Bata Zivojinovic killing 4 Germans with 1 bulit + bring down Stuka airplain. She had 4 grades of primary school. She was not hero, nor partizan, nor she had "ideas" apart to survive. Similarly was the case with her family. The only reason they were killed was nationality, was "Serbian question in Croatia". To listen this nonsense if very painful and to find you evidence is pleing to your common sense and comparison with simple Jewish case. Cases like one of my grandmother were many. Yougoslavs are in no way brighter then anyone in Europe. Thus it is inpossible that we lost so many people fighting against "Hitler" comapring e.g to Nethrlands, Norway or Grece just because we were si advances in understanding global nazism at its dangers. It much more look like Jewsih quesiton, like extermioantion of Russians (where Craotian armies also played its part). The most prominent Jews claim the same. You asked for references, please check Simon Wishental, check cases of Dinko Sakic and Adrija Artukovic. Check shamefull case of UN secretary general Kurt Waldheim and where he did his crimes then check his intro section on Wikipedia and see what award he has there (Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir - gues who would give them that one).


 * How could all those crimianls "disappear" in 1945 and become even top officials of UN. How come it took 40 years to have Artukovic and Sakic arested and brought to justice. Then you can understand how could many in those 200000 disappear in Americas and then be claimed as victims of NDH? Perpetrators of NDH are claimed in victim count. Do you really find this normal to say ah among these 200000 some where here some where there... Please more then anything how can you want me to prove absurdity of claim that Serbs were killed in NDH as collaborators of NAZI. NDH was NAZI state so why they would be killed as collaborators of Nazism. How could they collaborated with Nazi who put them in Jasenovac, Stara Gradiska and other camps. Could Jews be colaborators of Nazi in Germany? Would you asked them to prove you evidence that kind of cooperation would not be possible to hgiher extent worth of mentioning. How can be possible that Pavelic after all horror done was living picefully in Argentian and after in Spain till he was shot by Yugoslav secret service. No extradiction requests from UN, USA, UK and othere ever concerned about human rights, war crimes. Not only that but now you write in these pages on our missery in stile of "little bit of this and little bit of that.... little bit of Monica.... lite bit of Erica by mi side..."


 * What you want me to prove you.... Go to Jasenovac and check what kind of circus they made of Serbian victims. Serbs have no say in how Jasenovac memorial works. I assume Jews have some say in Mathausen memorial. It is so unjustful but it is so clear no one cares. CNN had its own circus with Dinko Sakic, chect that one pls, its all over the internet... or check this out from your Wikipedia: "Waldheim's name appears on the Wehrmacht's "honor list" of those responsible for the militarily successful operation. The Independent State of Croatia awarded Waldheim the Medal of the Crown of King Zvonimir in silver with an oak branches cluster.[9] Later, during the lobbying for his election as U.N. Secretary General, Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito awarded Waldheim one of the highest Yugoslav orders.[10] ...." One medal given by Ustashe (NDH Craotian Nazi) the other by TITO (heroic Craotian Partizan) who gave my grandmother notion of heroism via radio vawes so stinky pesants prioximity do not offend his nobel senses...  It makes me laugh in horror of tiers ... it is the dark humor of absolute dark... And if you do not get it Silvio, what shell I do... Not to mentioned he never denanunced those.....  Tell me this is shame, because it must be without me having to prove it, right?


 * Let me know what more... what proofs I am to present...?  Maybe this from Wikipedia:  "...Stanić left Yugoslavia in 1966. After living in France and Germany, he settled in Spain. He worked at General Vjekoslav Luburić’s press in Carcaixent until April 20, 1969. That day, Luburić was assassinated and Stanić escaped. Since then, the Interpol has searched for him, but never caught him..." Interestingly Interpol had no problem that Max Luburic horrible war criminal enjoyed his life in Spain, had his own press, but they had problem with him being murdered... West has no shame to hide Nazi and then persecute their killers, does it? Silvio read it yourself, its in Wikipedia. Why Max Luburic lived in Spain 24 years after WWII and interpol had no issues with that till he was assasinated? Then they chased his assasin? Mate check what this montstrum was doing, its written on Wiki pages? ..... RANTING ....ME....?!   Sakic, Pavelic, Luburic, Artukovic ... none brought to justice till 1985. What "the honest" world was waiting for 40 years? They did not know. Tito did not know?! Did TITO ever asked for their extradiction? No written traces he did, no written traces he carred, please prove me wrong! US released docs 20 years ago stating they knew, they blody KNEW IT, but did nothing to bring them to justice! But today even when we know all these we read this nonsesry "little bit like this little bit like that" ....


 * Dear IP, I have sympathy with many issues you raise but you need to change method or the only result you will get is to have sooner or later you IP address blocked or even worse(and I start to have the doubt that this might have happened in the past). Personally, I am not even going to answer to your arguments if you do not log in with a valid account. The subjects your raise are very sensitive. I need to know with whom I am talking. This is a basic, unavoidable condition. --Silvio1973 (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot stop you for blocking my IP not from deleting everything. I quoted and bolded sources, I quoted and bolded statments. Will try to log in so you would know whom you are talking to, later today.

08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol.. Will someone put a stop to this already? @Silvio1973, WP:NOTFORUM. -- Director  ( talk ) 06:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd enforce WP:NOTAFORUM here now against the anonymous rant-machine, but I'm actually not bored enough to start reading through the diatribes to find if there's by any chance anything of any non-forum value to avoid deleting. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :) -- Director  ( talk ) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Direktor, I don't understand why you remind me that this is not a forum. I replied only to the IP user that it is preferable to log with a valid account, expecially if starting a discussion that will be certainly very long. Said that, this unlogged user raises some good points because there are facts that are presented with biased tones in the history section of this article. This is a general issue of this article and in a few occasions I already highlighted (I brought sources in support to explain that the situation of Media, Freedom of Speech and Corruption in Croatia were not those described in the article). I want, however, remain at the border of the discussion - that I hope - might start, because I do not want to look anti-Croatian. Nevertheles, before qualifying those edits of forum, I think you should go trough his/her edits because there are some valuable comments.
 * --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to cause any offense, but the massive political rants are obviously 100% unproductive, and encouraging their continuation (albeit unintentionally) is also rather unhelpful. There are plenty of places online where one may discuss issues such as the above. -- Director  ( talk ) 08:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The tallest mountain range?
In the geography section, it states that Biokovo is the tallest mountain range in Dalmatia, but isn't the Dinara considered the tallest mountain range in Dalmatia (Zagora is still a part of Dalmatia)? --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the problem lies with inaccurately defined borders of geographical regions. Still, I agree with you, so I'll change the caption in question to a more neutral wording.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the section was overcrowded already, so I just removed the image containing the caption.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro inaccuracies
The intro states: "Croatia today has a comparatively very high life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living and income equality". This is based on what? On the HDI that ranks Croatia no 46 in the "very high human development" list of countries? If so, then we must be accurate and state this. And only this. Bear in mind that having a "very high HDI" doesnt necessarily mean that a country has a "very high life expectancy AND a literacy rate AND education AND standards of living". It merely means exactly what the HDI is supposed to be. And whoever doesnt know what the HDI stands for, he/she can read it in the related article.Nochoje (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see the flag-waving accusations above. Also, this doesn't explain why you removed "and it ranks high among Central European nations in terms of education, health, quality of life and economic dynamism." -- is that part untrue or? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Joy, what is true or untrue is perhaps unrelevant here. What is relevant is what can be sourced. You know that this page has been already the target of multiple criticism about the emphasis used in the article. A number of issues have been solved, but there is still a lot to do. The modifications proposed from Nochoje are well grounded. By the way Croatia has an average life expectancy of 75.7 years, 52th in the world so very clearly this cannot be qualified as very high. Indeed, a sentence such as "economic dynamism" does not mean anything except being one of the many peacock exercises of this article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
Recently, two completely unsourced stubby sections were added with the following text:

(starting quote)

Industry
Industry is is in the process of recovery, because the war damaged industrial production. Principal industries of Croatia are: chemical, machine tools, metal fabrication, electronics, aluminium fabrication, forestry, construction materials, textiles, shipbuilding, oil, food and beverages. Industry occupies 32.8% labor force, and 27.1% GDP.

Agriculture
Agriculture occupies 2.7% of labor force. Croatian agriculture is dominated by small farms, located in the country side. Croatia's climate diversity lead to different patterns of agricultural regions. In north are grown wheat, corn and sunflower crops. In the coastal region the cultivation of grapes for wine, fruit-growing, and olive-farming are popular with pasture land common in the mountainous areas. Most agricultural land is privately owned, because the large cooperatives, created during the communist era, was privatized and restructured. Croatia's principal agriculture products are: wheat, corn, sugar beets, sunflower seed, barley, alfalfa, clover, olives, citrus, grapes, soybeans, potatoes, livestock and dairy products.

(ending quote)

Please provide references to reliable sources prior to addition of material. Besides, the sections written like so appear to be a wiki-link farm rather than information of any use. Also, please observe BE tag on the talk page and use that form of English per consensus reached. Finally, agriculture, if it really employs mere 2.7% of labour force does not really warrant inclusion in the top-level article on the country.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Physiology
How come there is no section on physiology of the Croats (a rather very tall people), or for that matter, on any other old, well established nations? For example, the average height of each nation is usually calculated by the information that appears on their drivers license. Eight years ago, USA stopped being in average the tallest nation in the world, being replaced by the Netherlands. The "shrinkage" of the American average is directly attributable by the massive immigration of far shorter people from central and Latin America.

It would be nice to add a section on physiology to Croatia--and all other nations as well. An encyclopedia needs to contain all fields of knowledge.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.203.61 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2012


 * We'd need some reliable sources. I could be mistaken, but I recall that the Croats as a whole didn't have a reputation for being particularly tall; rather, it was the people inhabiting the Istria part of Croatia who were tall. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides, this would not be the article to write about that. This one is about the country, perhaps in Croats article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing of Cohen source
Recent revert of referenced material was performed per Talk:Croatia/Archive_6.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia to congratulate Croatian athletes
Tomobe03, are you going to continue using Wikipedia to congratulate each single Croatian athlete winning a medal at the current Olympics? Fortunately you are not Chinese or you would have to do this ten times a day. --Silvio1973 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this a problem?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Wikipedia is not there for such purposes.

I made a brief research on about 20 countries and I could not find any other editor using Wikipedia to congratulate the national athletes. However, such edits are organic to the undue nationalism of some editors using Wikipedia to glorify the majesty of Croatia and its history (of course, the history of Croatia according to Croatian views). --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're reading way too much into this. This is the summary country article. It has a sports section. Olympics are the pinnacle of most sports. Recording the level of involvement of a country in the Olympics is fair game. You can argue about the extent and the details, but it's not an inherently nationalist thing. United States also records their number of medals, for example; Japan mentions when they hosted them; conversely, I find the omission of a single mention of the Olympics at Italy quite strange given three hostings and hundreds of medals. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You might find quite strange the omission of the results at the Olympics at Italy, but this is also the case at United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, Brazil... I stopped checking after 10 comparisons. All these articles have exactly the same structure of Italy in presenting the section Sports. Indeed Croatia it's the exception. United States shows the total count without getting in any deeper description. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. The United Kingdom article currently mentions Olympics in several sentences, as do France and Germany. I didn't check everything else, but can you please verify that you're seeing what I'm seeing in these three articles? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

However Joy, the issue is not in the edit itself, but in the attached comments and details. Such comments show a state of mind and a very precise intentions. The intention to present Croatia almost like a perfect place. I could not find a single other article presenting a country as much as perfect (to impossible levels such as presenting on the basis of a national source that a country with more than 4 millions inhabitants and about 10 million tourists each year had in 2009 had only 6 casualties from HIV). Before my modifications some well-known Croatian issues, such as the Freedom of Speech and the corruption in the business were not described at all. I tried to moderate the tone of the article but I had to stop because some editors started to believe I had something personal against Croatia. Indeed, I have nothing personal against Croatia but I have everything against the editors using Wikipedia for propagandistic and nationalist purposes. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good articles don't write themselves, they require work, both to add the positive and the negative aspects of a topic, and then to balance them out. I don't believe we should censure editors who concentrate on positive aspects because we have to assume good faith. Advocacy is indeed prohibited, but that principle is meant to counter the behavior of editors who have lost the assumption of good faith, not to be used as a stick against people acting in good faith. Has Tomobe03 perhaps reverted your edit that would have removed the excessive Olympics statistics? If not, there is no need to escalate this problem, instead we can simply fix it. I suggest you edit the article to make it more neutral. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Joy, if you go trough the archive you will see how much effort took in order to balance the content of this article. The issue is that Croatian editors take very seriously anything that touch to their supreme and wonderful country. And any tentative to put some balance is seen as a potential threat to their nation.
 * The article Dalmatia it's an example. As it is today it's a true mess. The article is an excellent exercise of pushing the POV that Dalmatia correspond exclusively to Croatian territory. But it's impossible to change it due to the fierce oppostion of Croatian editors. About good faith, I think it's the other way round. Many Croatian editors doubt of my good faith (and in many occasion I have shown it being in opposition to extremist Italian editors), so you should perhap address such question to them.

At the end of the day, think what you want but the article Croatia as it is today is not neutral. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you so terribly concerned about some "fierce opposition"? No opposition can be fierce enough to stand in the way of legitimate changes, that would be against policy. I really find it hard to talk in such general terms - make a change and then if it gets unreasonably reverted, report it at WP:DRN or WP:AE or similar. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Joy, I appreciate your comment. You are right and indeed I almost always managed to have my edits approved in the end (sometime requesting 3rd opinions) but everytime it took an exproportionate and undue amount of time, patience and work. This is not the way it should be. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually appreciate that sentiment, but again, I don't quite see the problem when I see only one edit of yours at Dalmatia, and it was not reverted. We're having a discussion at Talk:Dalmatia where you're facing opposition from the "Croatian" side, but the said opposition is based on WP:V, not anyone's POV. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Home Sweet Home
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Although Croatia is in a deep economic crisis, is not a member of the European Union, is much poorer than its members, as many as 92 percent of Croats living in their own apartments. For comparison, in the most developed European country, Germany, only 46 percent of the population has a home of our own. Source: Goran Milic, the only journalist in the world who interviewed two American presidents and led central tv news in three different states (Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia), now Director of News Al Jazeera Balkans, Sarajevo, was published in the best Croatian daily Vecernji list, Zagreb. Croatian Home Sweet Home! 78.2.117.95 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a cultural thing. In Italy it's the same. I think it's a Southern thing to be owner of your flat/house. Also it's a sign that people move less ans spend their life in their home place. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Roman cuisine
@Tomobe03, you are anti-Italian to such a point that your edits are at the same time sloppy and hilarious. You have replaced "Italian" with "Roman" in the following sentence: "The coastal regions draw upon culinary influences of Greek, Italian and other Mediterranean cuisines which prominently feature various seafood, cooked vegetables and pasta, as well as condiments such as olive oil and garlic.", and in order to sustain your modification and for the benefit of the reader (your words) you have linked to "Roman cuisine". Well, I have been to Dalmatia around a dozen of time and I do not remember the food had any proximity with the Roman cuisine, that is indeed the food from the city of Rome! However, if really typical Roman dishes such as Coda alla vaccinara, Carciofi alla giudia, Supplì and Saltimbocca are typical of the Croatian food landscape you are free to restore your edit but you will have to source it. Indeed, yes Croatian costal food has been influenced by Italian cuisine (useless to say, this can be easily sourced but may be one day we will find on Wikipedia that it was the other way round. Indeed, the usual rubbish. Nothing really new. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cuisine
Its silly to remove Italian cuisine as an influence in the coastal regions, and replace it with Greek and Ancient Roman(!) cuisine of all things. I'm no culinary expert, but I've never heard of Greek cuisine having a particular impact on Croatian coastal regions (except as part of a general "Mediterranean" influence), and Ancient Roman cuisine is never used. Anywhere. Have you tried some of their stuff - its mostly horrible. How about a nice sow uterus? :) Down here its Italy as far as cuisine is concerned (at least where it isn't Turkey ;)).. manistra is the basic staple. -- Director  ( talk ) 11:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot eat food from Rome, very simplistically it's too heavy. I mean the cholesterol molecules are so big that you can almost see them a naked eye. Well, I had that "Turkish" stuff during a vacation spent trekking in Bosnia. Not bad at all, but only after passing at least 10 hours outside at less than 5 degC! --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Originally-Turkish, Bosnian food is very common in Dalmatia too. Ćevapi or sarma, for example. Its all part of the general trend of, shall we say "continentalization" of Dalmatia. Though "coastal Dalmatians" or "Dalmatians proper" still very much prefer Italian (particularly Venetian) cuisine on a daily basis. Manistra sa šalšom is a very basic staple :). -- Director  ( talk ) 12:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sarmale cu mamaliga. My mother-in-law insists in welcoming me with a dozen of this Romanian delicatessen everytime we pay her a visit. Honestly when in Dalmatia I prefere to get better food, such as sea-bass or octopus salad. If possible with a glass of chilled dry white wine. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Talking about cuisine, fritule are typical of Istria and the Quarner region too, not only Dalmatia. Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.6.42 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GDP distribution
2010 figures from the IMF differs significantly from those reported previously. Also the change between 2004 and 2010 looks suspicious. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:VNT. 78.2.77.207 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic structure
Tomobe03 does not like that I write that Croatia is the country of the six of former Yugoslavia with the most homogeneous ethnic structure. Well this is a fact and not that trivial. If a different wording is desidered we can discuss about it, but I do not see why the reader should not know about this specificity. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

not true! That is Kosovo! Anyway, why in the world is important this comparison with other ex-yu countries? Some countries (i.e. Italy, France, Greece ) do not recognize such things as national minorities. Therefore population Italy, France and Greece are 100% ethnically homogeneous.

Article size and structure
Dear users, this article has become too large. At 175 Kbyte it is larger than Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria and only marginally smaller than United States of America. Now, I do not want to write or say that the size of an article is a mere fonction of its population, its size or political influence but there are rules about the size of articles. Clearly here there are some issues:
 * 1) There are paragraphs of the article that link to articles being EXACTLY the same, e.g. Healthare in Croatia. Now there is too much information in the main article or the secondary article is redundant. I leave to the people leading the project the choice.
 * 2) In the main article there are too many informations. For example, the section history is too long and should be shortened and detailed information should be given in History of Croatia.
 * 3) There are images for everything (and more than one image) for each paragraph (including for Fritule...).

It is worth to remind that Wikipedia servers does not belong to a country more than another and that the sense of responsability should prevail on other considerations (including the national pride). And by the way, writing that Croatia produced "Nobel Price winners" is misleading. Only two Croatians are credited for this award, so please write Two Nobel Price winners instead of an undefined number of winners. And please link to a source in English, because this is en:wiki.--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013
Please add "Croatia - land and people"(www.croatia.eu | www.croatie.eu) among the External links. This new website in English, French and Croatian was launched on 11 July 2013, on the occasion of Croatia's accession to the EU. It has been produced by the Institute of Lexicography Miroslav Krleža, with the support of the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.

194.152.198.100 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The site appears to meet the guideline. I have added a link to the English version. Rivertorch (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Joined the EU what year?
From the "Foreign relations" section: "Croatia joined the European Union on 1 July marking..." - the year 2013 should be added here. (I don't have permission.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnstein (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Shokatz (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Establishment
Under establishment, between Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Republic please add Independent State Of Croatia (Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska) croatian nazi state. I'm sorry but that is the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkuri 80 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See ZAVNOH. If you want to claim that there's continuity of sovereignty between NDH and RH despite the RH Constitution, cite a source that says so. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see France article referring to the Vichy France for example. Occupation by a foreign power in a time of war is not a crucial sovereignty event. I am sorry but that is the fact. Shokatz (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that there is continuity but it was establishment for sure on 10 April 1941, with king and goverment.

Occupation? Please see documentary video of german forces entrance in non-bombed city of Zagreb and compare with entrance of german forces in Paris, Warshawa, Belgrade or any other realy occupied city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkuri 80 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please refer to German-occupied Europe and Puppet state before you make such blatant remarks. There was no establishment of anything, it was a puppet state under foreign occupation. Legally elected govt. was in exile. Any discussion beyond that is a charade. Shokatz (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Indepedent state of Croatia for establishment. Puppet state of course, occupied like Poland,Serbia,Chechoslovakia etc. for sure not. I'm not sure that for one wounded german soldier to kill 100 citizen was the police in Indepedent State of Croatia. How many puppet states, with softwer version of course, we have today? Try to ignore their establishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkuri 80 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Independent State of Croatia was a puppet state but it was not under foreign occupation? Opening lead from the puppet state: "A puppet state (also known as puppet government or marionette government) is a nominally sovereign state effectively controlled by a foreign power." The opening paragraph of the Independent State of Croatia: "The Independent State of Croatia ... was a World War II puppet state of Nazi Germany. Your statement is in direct confrontation and contradiction with itself. Also, while you are free to discuss whatever you want and express your opinion on talk pages the articles do not fall under that category and need to be verified, sourced and part of the WP:CON. Also check WP:NOT and WP:NOTFORUM. Shokatz (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please check this Axis powers "On 10 April 1941, the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, or NDH) was declared to be a member of the Axis, co-signing the Tripartite Pact. The NDH remained a member of the Axis until the end of Second World War, its forces fighting for Germany even after NDH had been overrun by Yugoslav Partisans. On 16 April 1941, Ante Pavelić, a Croatian nationalist and one of the founders of the Ustaša – Croatian Liberation Movement, was proclaimed Poglavnik (leader) of the new regime."
 * We can discuss this endlessly because, if I may say, you are ignoring the fact THAT INDEPEDENT STATE OF CROATIA WAS ESTABLISHED ON 10 APRIL 1941 AND THAT WAS CROATIAN NAZI OR BETTER SAY FASCIST STATE.
 * I think I'm On TALK PAGE right now.Shkuri 80 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)02 August 2013


 * And I already pointed it out to you that the supposed establishment of the puppet states are not and should not be in the list of sovereignty changing events because: 1. Not one state today is a direct legal successor of a Nazi puppet states existing during WW2; and 2. the very notion and definition of a puppet state is that it is in effective control by an occupying foreign force. This may be a talk page but the article itself is not and your request is based on your personal opinion which BTW definitely deviates from the information found on Wikipedia and in historiography in general. Shokatz (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Information found on Wikipedia? My God....That is the point of this discussion to change or better say add more information on Wikipedia itself based on facts. In history everything is based on personal opinions with contribution of facts. I'm giving you facts as this last one that INDEPEDENT STATE OF CROATIA was full time member of axis powers like Italy, Bulgaria etc.Shkuri 80 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)02 August 2013
 * This is not a forum. Please provide a reliable source arguing for the continuity of sovereignty from NDH to RH before continuing this discussion. Thank you. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I already done that, but I can see that this article is made and protected by personal which are writing only what they like and what is in their interest, I'm out no more comments from me. I'm sorry that i spent so much time on this. Truth will come on light sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkuri 80 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian language?
This article was in Category:Serbo-Croatian-speaking countries and territories until a couple of days ago. Someone removed it from that category with the comment that it's not true; the language is not used in the country. I realize that there are people with strong feelings that there should not be talk of a "Serbo-Croatian language," but that Serbian and Croatian are two different languages. But in that case, there should not be the category at all.

There is an article in Wikipedia on the Serbo-Croatian language. It says that it is a language with four mutually intelligible standard forms, for four different national identities; two of them are Serbia and Croatia. And there is also the category. If we should remove Croatia from the category on the theory that they speak Croatian, and not a variety of something called Serbo-Croatian, then it seems we should also remove Serbia, and everything else in that category. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Serbo-croatian is a defunct language. In Serbia and Croatia it's officialy called Serbian and Croatian language. --> Gggh  talk/contribs 15:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer the issue. There IS the article here; there IS the category. And other relevant countries ARE in the category.  And while what you say about Serbia and Croatia might be true (and I don't doubt you), remember that there are likely political, nationalistic, and possibly chauvinistic motivations for that.  Beyond that, we have your say-so that Serbo-Croatian is a "defunct language."  I'm going to put this back into the category.  Either all relevant countries should be in the category, or none of them should; in that case, the category should be empty, and probably shouldn't exist.  Uporządnicki (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the category shouldn't exist. Yes, Serbo-Croatian language is linguistically described as a pluricentric language with different standardised forms, but it is not socially or politically perceived as such in any country or territory where it is spoken, unlike say German or English. So although I'm not the one to deny the fact that Croatian and Serbian are very closely related linguistically speaking, I see no helpful reason to invent categories which do not exist in the real world in the sociopolitical sense. Otherwise we might as well create Category:West Germanic language-speaking countries and territories and tag everything from Antigua and Barbuda to Jewish Autonomous Oblast. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been taken out again. As I said, I have not strong feelings about whether Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are four distinct languages or four standardized variants on one language called Serbo-Croatian. But as I also said, if there is to be a category covering areas speaking any of the languages/variants, then the category should include all of them or none of them.

I've just started a discussion on a page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia. I hope we can get a definitive decision without getting into a revert war here. If someone knows of a page where I might post the question more usefully, please let me know. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Noticed this at WT:YU, but let's note it here for the record: it's been subcategorized now, which will hopefully prevent flamewars in the future. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent solution. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 05:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't press the issue, but I disagree with the subcategorization. The language matter is sufficiently Balkanized as it is for us to place more hurdles in the way of the reader's understanding. It would be good to remind everyone that "Croatian" isn't actually a "language". <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 07:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of categorization is neither to promote Balkanization nor to advocate a dislike for standard languages. It's a navigational aid to help find articles defined by some defining characteristic. If you look at Category:Serbo-Croatian-speaking countries and territories now, that's actually an informative view on the subject matter in and of itself. In the specific case of Croatia, the insistence on specifically Croatian (as opposed to generally Serbo-Croatian) is actually a clearly defining characteristic because that insistence is commonly and consistently seen in the real world, regardless of genetic linguistics. You could say that categorization Balkanization there is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but hey, that's what an encyclopedia does - it describes, it does not prescribe. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bordering Countries
Why aren't the borders mentioned in the first paragraph like in most other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.88.193 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Croat independence?
I think that the title of section "Croat independence" is probably wrong and should be renamed to Independence of Croatia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Hrvatska (službeni naziv: Republika Hrvatska) je europska država, zemljopisno smještena na prijelazu iz Srednje u Jugoistočnu Europu. Graniči na sjeveru sa Slovenijom i Mađarskom, na istoku sa Srbijom, na jugu i istoku s Bosnom i Hercegovinom i Crnom Gorom. S Italijom ima morsku granicu. Tijekom hrvatske povijesti najznačajniji kulturološki utjecaji dolazili su iz srednjoeuropskog i sredozemnog kulturnog kruga.

Prema popisu iz 2011. godine Hrvatska ima 4.284.889 stanovnika.[1] Hrvati čine 90,42% stanovništva, a najznačajnija nacionalna manjina su Srbi koji čine 4,36% stanovništva, dok svaka od ostalih nacionalnih manjina čini manje od 1% stanovništva.[1] Kopnena površina iznosi 56.542 km², a površina teritorijalnog mora 31.067 km² što Hrvatsku svrstava među srednjevelike europske zemlje. Glavni grad je Zagreb koji je gospodarsko, kulturno i političko središte zemlje.

Prema političkom ustroju Hrvatska je parlamentarna demokracija. Članica je Ujedinjenih naroda od 22. svibnja 1992.[2][3] Hrvatska je članica Vijeća Europe, Svjetske trgovinske organizacije, Organizacije za europsku sigurnost i suradnju, Organizacije Sjevernoatlanskog ugovora, Europske unije (od 2004. je bila kandidat za ulazak u Europsku uniju, a proces pristupanja zemlje Uniji priveden je kraju 1. srpnja 2013. godine).

95.178.250.87 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please use English on the English Wikipedia. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Immigration and tolerance towards homosexuality
Self-esteem of Croatians is notorious, although perhaps Wikipedia should not be the vector for this. However, here the issue is about sources. Missing or allegedly cited. Allegedly there was a source stating the country is tolerant towards homosexuality. Now, the issue is that the source did not state anything in that sense (indeed there are plenty of sources affirming the opposite) and the recent referendum about civil unions is clearly a demonstration of that opposite. Also there is claim that the Immigration to Croatia is generally viewed as necessary and beneficial to its economic development. Well we need a source here, because my experience in Croatia is exactly the opposite and again I can provide sources stating the opposite. Let's be clear: the way Croatians want their country to be it's not my problem. My problem is the puffery and misrepresentation of facts in this article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken in taking this post seriously, but ok. Provide your sources that #1 Croatia is (quote) "intolerant" of homosexuals, and #2 that Croatia opposes immigration. And spare us all your offensive opinions and generalizations, or you will be reported. Also, "self-esteem" is not the word you're looking for..


 * Since from previous experience I know you tend to ignore WP:OR, I'll emphasize that if you want to claim Croatia is "intolerant", you need a source that says "intolerant". Ok? Similarly you need a source that explicitly says that Croatia is against immigration. I'll ignore any posts that appear without such sources. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 12:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Direktor, take your time to firstly check what is in the article instead of lecturing the others.
 * You should really comment about the edits and not the editors. In the last six months of discussions with you I have noticed you promptly react to what others' edits but you never contribute bringing sources. Strange, for an user of your experience. The issue is that you have shown being so confrontational that sometime you discuss before even checking the materiality of others' affirmations.
 * However, mine or yours opinion do not matter, what matter are sources. But this article did not quote sources in support of some affirmations or pretended to quote them. For this reason I have tagged with a cn (mind well, not removed) the sentence in question. Stating that a country is tolerant or not towards immigration is a main fact and must be sourced and I think you agree on this.
 * However, if you do not like it feel free to modify putting sources. And please keep in mind that what you think about me (or others users) is irrelevant. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Timbouctu. Glad to see that you also share the necessity to report that the majority of Croatians recently voted to set in the constitution that a marriage can be exclusively between people of different sex. Let's also say the full story and write why they did it trough a referendum (i.e. to make sure than only a qualified majority in the parliament (2/3) could change this. And please let's not put too much politics in it. With this referendum Croatia aligned itself with the most intolerant country in Eastern Europe. This was a free choice of the country and must be respected. And should be reported in the article exactly as it is. No reason to round the spikes.
 * Please understand that writing that immigration is seen as beneficial is a strong affirmation. You need to back it with a source in English.
 * I have nothing against your country, but I have everything against when on Wikipedia facts are not reported with sources. Indeed, please understand you need to back your edits with English sources. especially when they claim relevant facts. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Silvio you have no idea what you are talking about. What went into constitution was a dictionary definition of the word "marriage". Unlike popular belief it did not affect gay rights in any way, it merely prevented same-sex unions to be called "marriage" (and even that is highly debatable), and a law granting them full marriage rights, with the exception of adoption and the right to the name "marriage" is currently in the procedure of being passed. Granted, "immigration is beneficial" is a pretty meaningless statement, but it is the gist of what the source says. The source is a Croatian-language article reporting what the Croatian Chamber of Commerce said about immigration and its effect on the economy (that basically Croatia needs more immigrants). The source does NOT need to be in English, and let me remind you that you do not own this article. Seek consensus before making changes to article or I will not hesitate to report you in the future. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, change the tone of your answer because I am not your brother or your sister. Secondly, I am not taking any position. I reported in the article things as they are, ie a referendum had place and the result it's what I wrote (I copied verbatim from the source). And consult a legal in right of the family to understand that the implications of marriage are other than the mere adoption (and even just this would make a major difference). Thirdly, if the Chamber of Commerce believe more migrants are needed this is fine and report it as it is (I would do it if I understood the source). From that to write that "Croatia is tolerant towards immigration and see immigration as beneficial" there is a long shot. And now report me, I really want to read what an administrator thinks about this.213.87.131.5 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The clause that Croatia is "legally tolerant towards homosexuals" remains true. Yes, there are clear gaps in legal coverage, but compared to the average world country, that is a valid assessment. It should be restored with a reference. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Joy, I live in Russia so I understand very well what you mean. And indeed I tend to agree with you. But statements need to be sourced. Said that, your approach although valid has limits. Surely Croatia when compared to the rest of the world is a tolerant country, but would you think the same when yoy compare it to the others of the EU? The last referendum does not suggest so. However find a reliable source and the issue is solved. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody here cares whether you think something "suggests" this or that. Gibberish questions like "do you think the Mezzogiorno is a tolerant place compared to the rest of the EU?" have no place around here. If you feel the need to discuss issues with other people, there are innumerable forums on the internet.
 * Stop altering sourced information, the source says "in the coming weeks".
 * The entire paragraph is thoroughly referenced. What is it exactly that you want sourced?? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 16:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Direktor, read (and understand) the exchange between Joy and myself and you will understand the sentence in need of a source. Of course now it is not in the text, for this reason was removed. Do you know that your arguments would have more gripe if sustained with sources rather than with comments about other users (but don't worry we like your volcanic way to discuss). Indeed, if you want to sustain with sources the claim that the South of Italy is not tolerant towards immigration I welcome you to do so. The article Italy needs attention from experienced users like you. Last - but not least - here no-one wants to modify any source but the source will say "in the coming weeks" even in 10 years. This is WP not Wikinews, "in the coming weeks" are no-sense words in an Encyclopedia. However, I will not revert your edit because I understand how much this is important for you. In a month I will remove "in the coming weeks" if nothing happens. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. "Volcanic" way to discuss, I think I like that too. After this, I don't think you should expect much else.
 * So you're ok with "Croatia has established a high level of gender equality" (which is sourced), but are opposed to the WP:BLUE statement that "Croatia is legally tolerant towards homosexuals", which directly follows (to be "legally intolerant" of homosexuality means its illegal). Classic Silvio. You're just here to troll and generally discuss the "self-confidence" of Croats. I'd call that the mudslide way to discuss, and I can't say I think anyone likes it. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am just fine with the edits that are sourced. The statement that "Croatia is legally tolerant towards homosexuals" is not per se clear like "the sky is blue". It is just what Joy and I think Croatia is. But none of us is a source, so whoever wants to reinstates the sentence needs to find a source first. Concerning the general tone of the article, yes it is not balanced. If you go in the archives you will find more users sharing the same view.Silvio1973 (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What view? That "self-esteem of Croatians in notorious"? We normally call such "users" trolls. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 14:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Useless provocation. No, I agree that "Croatia is legally tolerant towards homosexuals" but a source is needed to reinstate the statement. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

AIDS in Croatia
In spite of Timbouctou's opinion my objective here is not to troll but to make some of you think more on the content of this article. It looks for someone the objective of this article is to present Croatia as a perfect place rather than informing on real facts. Another one: AIDS rate in Crotia.
 * 1. Reporting 2009 data is not good enough for a "good article".
 * 2. The actual numbers are strange. Yes there is a Croatian source stating 6 casualties in 2009. Do I have the right of being suspicious without being considered a troll? A country with over 4 million people and with so many tourists? At the end of the day how can be sure a death for pneumonia is not a death for AIDS? Please note that the WHO figure for the same period is less than 100. And for 2012 is less than 1000.

However I am not going to modify the article (altough I would like to) because I am sick of being offended, but perhaps you might want to think about this. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia or newspaper ?
Dear users, the intention is not to be orthodox but you cannot report a declaration of a government as a fact expecially when it looks that it's not taking "weeks" as stated in the article to pass this law. When the law is passed (and if it is the case I believe Croatian should question how much their country is a democracy because it looks referendums in Croatia are valid only when they are to the taste of the Government) you will edit accordingly to sources. Please consider that as it is written today the source is used to present a fact as stronger than it is (classic situation of WP:UNDUE). If we start considering declarations NOR intentions from politician as facts, we transform Wikipedia in a newspaper. Perhapas Wikinews would be the right place for this. This does not mean news from newspapers cannot be reported. But you all know under which conditions. This is not the case. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

other wiki portals
can someone put the Portals "Europe" and "European Union" that should be listed besides portals "Croatia" and "Austria-Hungary", at the end of the article. I don't have an account, therefore not entitled to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.230.189 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Shokatz (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect map
Is the map of Croatia correct? I tried to use it to see if the islands near Dubrovnik belong to Croatia or not. However, when zoomed in, the map doesn't even show the region of Dubrovnik as part of Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.16.88 (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the map is wrong, that part should be green. And not just Croatia, Kosovo also has totally wrong borders here. Tzowu (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The map wasn't wrong, it just wasn't detailed enough. Fixed. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 14:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing, the highlighted country in the upper left corner is Germany. Tzowu (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I used the German file.. Fixed. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 12:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Something is still wrong, the new file is 7.38 MB but the previous one was only 2.03 MB. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course, this one is more detailed. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 17:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Err, no it's not? It's almost identical? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Its more detailed, as requested.. Compare, if you will (before after). I too think we do need to go with the more detailed version (used by Germany), because of Croatia's size. Even in this version you can barely make out the Adriatic islands and Dubrovnik County, whereas in the the earlier version they weren't there at all. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Exports treemap
I noticed this image and wanted to verify it, and after some clicking on the upstream website, managed to produce the same image. However, the numbers are off. OEC says the numbers are USD 4 B net and USD 20 B gross, but the Croatian Bureau of Statistics says it was USD 11.8 billion. This is all for 2010. How do we reconcile these? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The lookup at http://comtrade.un.org/data/ says: 2010	Export	Croatia	World	TOTAL	$11,810,676,241. What gives? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I did some research and it looks that this treemap reports a wrong value for the exports. The information from the CBOS seems correct. Also -unless I have not understood how to read it- it looks the percentages and area proportions in this map are wrong. This map should be removed/replaced. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Joy, I do not dare to change a single word in this article because I do not want to disturb the "posse" owning this article. Clearly, for a good article one cannot notice how inappropriate are some claims. Also a lot of informations are getting old. "Significant" portion of energy is produced (what, how much?), "significant" export industry of military equipment (less than 1% of the exports), "significant" source of income from turism (probably the only true claim, but how much?). Just two lines in the article about the Venetian part in the history of Croatia. The thing is that if I - or someone else - tries to make the smallest modification, the "posse" considers this action like an aggression to their country. However, clearly without proper maintenance the very same "posse" cannot pretend to keep the current status of the article for  life. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Only 52 images in the article?
I'm disappointed. For a photogenic country such as Croatia, I'm guessing 100 should be the minimum. Let's go crazy. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 18:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree completely, the article is crammed with images contrary to MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG and is starting to resemble an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. There is a Commons category quite capable of serving as a gallery.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also agree. Let´s go crazy! Silvio1973 (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-counted images again, there are 57 now (including one 5-image mosaic), excluding charts and maps. So only 43 to go! I suggest including a picture of this dog and this car. Also, we can never go wrong with politicians. People love seeing pictures of politicians in articles about countries. Let's add at least 5-6 more. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 10:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On a somewhat more serious note: not only there's too many images, but the captions also leave quite a bit to be desired.

A very good one: "Ante Starčević, Croatian politician who laid the foundations for Croatian nationalism and is referred to as "Father of the Homeland"" (explains both who he was and why is he important).

A solid one: "Ljudevit Gaj, one of the central figures of the Illyrian movement" (halfway there).

A bad one: "Korčula" (what about it?).

The "captionability" is a good criterion for inclusion: if it's not possible to explain who or what it is and why it's important (or at least relevant or interesting), the image probably shouldn't be there. GregorB (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at the article history shows that the majority of images were inserted by United Union. There must be nearly fifty contributions without a single edit description. As there seems to be wide agreement here that the images are unhelpful, I'm going to go ahead and remove the whole lot. --HazhkTalk 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove EVERY image that I added? I think it is not fair thing to do considering the effort put into it and also quality of most images. There were complaints that the page has very few pictures that are of poor quality. I do agree that some images should have been removed but not all of them. Also, you removed table with brand new data on the companies with the highest profit. I think that we sholud return images that I have set and remove couple of them, I still think that this last edit was wery disrespectful act. I would like to hear opinion of other editors also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by United Union (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are limits as to how many images a quality article can have, as excessive visual clutter makes the article difficult to navigate. As for others' opinion - you already have five opinions above your comment. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 16:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Croatia suddenly not a Balkan nation?
Noticed there is no mention of the word Balkans, why is that? The Balkans article and all independent sources include Croatia as a Balkan nation. Reaper7 (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Partially yes, partially no... <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The current borders have quite a long history 80.43.213.122 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Croats tend to dislike to be described as a "Balkan" nation as they have built centuries of nationalist thought around the idea that they have much more in common with central European nations rather than their eastern neighbours. The term was so loaded with negative connotations that in the 1990s a gradual move towards what was seen as a more moderate term "region" (regija) in public discourse happened, used to refer to ex-Yugoslav countries with which Croatians share much of their language, culture, history and even economy. However, by the late 2000s and early 2010s even that term began to be seen as derogatory in an increasingly large proportion of the media, so much so that nowadays they tend to use the Serbian version of the same word (region) in a sarcastic fashion, implying that it is just a synonym for some new form of Yugoslavia (a particularly obsessive talking point of the Croatian right wingers). As a result, Croatians have effectively lost the ability to describe their part of the world in any neutral term, which then gave rise to the intentionally vague term ovi prostori (lit. "these spaces" or more loosely "areas around here"). Nobody really knows what "these areas" are (and nobody is really keen on defining what it means), but this is the most commonly accepted phrase in public parlance when referring to the region (or parts of it) as a cultural, historical and economical grouping. So much common in fact, that a popular punk rock band called Hladno pivo (lit. "Cold Beer") recorded a hit song titled "Na ovim prostorima" (lit. "in these spaces" ), mocking the vagueness of the term while delivering a critique of the positive and negative aspects of all post-Yugoslav societies, scarred by wars, economic meltdowns and nationalist rhetoric. So in essence, we could perfectly logically call Croatia a (western) Balkan nation, but then the phrasing itself would become a troll magnet for Croatian anons. And nobody wants to deal with that crap. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 18:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect president
On the 15th of febuary 2015. Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović has assumed office as the President of Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.179.132 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

✔️ Someone else has already added her as President. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected for a week
To stop the edit war, which could have led to editors begin blocked, I have protected the article for a week. Please discuss the matter on this talk page. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if you do not provide a source for a week the date will be reverted, ok? I don't know why you have started to edit war, all I was saying is that you have to provide a citation, because that is how Wikipedia works, ok? Have a pleasant day. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Cause this was already resolved, as it is impossible to provide an exact date due to the extreme lack of contemporary sources, we added just 8th century. Look at the Duchy of Croatia article. And... teh source: "The first primitive form of the Croatian state started to take shape at the beginning of the 8th century." (, p. 431) Tzowu (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation?--Tuvixer (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Prior administration / Jugoslavia history
In defunct countries like Kingdom of Libya You can see in their infobox the prior and following countries. I think we should trace this back through Croatian/Jugoslavian history. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * It's not a clear cut case, so that would simply become a troll magnet. Croatians themselves can't seem to agree what historic entity the present-day country stems from. This is comparable to former Soviet states such as Uzbekistan or Georgia - and in those articles the issue is skirted around in the infobox (which does not mean it does not merit discussion in article body). <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 16:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tozwu's edit war
Please Tozwu, explain your behavior here and stop edit waring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tozwu's edit war" :D, when will you learn the correct spelling of my nickname? Anyway, as I wrote already, this content is unnecessary, badly refferenced and added by a user that is angry for getting banned there. What's your reason, Tvixiuer, for keeping it? Tzowu (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is badly referenced?? Unnecessary? What a smart man is ashamed of, a fool is proud of. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's badly referenced, it has grammar mistakes, it's unnecessary (no other country article mentions the wikipedia in their language), it's not WP:NPOV,... Tzowu (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you banned on the Croatian Wikipedia? No other country has a right-wing fascist Wikipedia editors who ban everyone who is not a right-wing revisionist. ;) --Tuvixer (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not banned and I also don't like a lot of things on the Croatian Wikipedia, which is why I rarely edit it, but every "national" Wikipedia is like that. They just don't make an issue of it. This should just be mentioned on the Croatian Wikipedia article, not every incident needs it's place on the most popular Croatian page. Tzowu (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a "incident", it is a diagnosis. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Call it that way if you want to, but its place is, in my opinion, on the Croatian Wikipedia article. Tzowu (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There and here. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ultra Music Festival
Why is there nothing about UMF which takes place in Split? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punokrokodila (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

September 2015 edit request
I believe one of the introductory paragraphs (the second) is unbiased. Namely, I propose that after the sentence: "A fascist Croatian puppet state existed during World War II", a sentence such as the following needs to be added: "At the same time, Croatia was a leading region of the pre-war Kingdom of Yugoslavia or post-war socialist Yugoslavia in terms of numbers of anti-fascist fighters (known as Partisans), who, ultimately, autonomously defeated the German-Italian occupation forces and the puppet Croatian fascist regime, to join the allied forces of Europe and the USA as victorious nations of the WW2." Incidentally, both of my grandparents fought as partisans in the WW2; nevertheless the above statement is a historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsa978 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)