Talk:Croatian Peasant Party

More contemporary information?
This page could use some more contemporary information about the HSS, particularly during the crucial 1990-2000 period. If I recall, the only city not ruled by the CDU was Osijek &mdash; it remained a Peasant Party stronghold under the mayoralship of Kramaric. I believe redistricting engineered by the CDU resulted in the CPP losing control over Osijek. Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Anyone? -- User:Alcarillo 20:00 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Kramari&#263; was actually from the Liberal Party, but he was the mayor of Osijek; the Osijek-Baranja &#382;upanija has been consistently ruled by the HDZ, IIRC. However, the HSS did get &#382;upans in several counties in the 2001 local election: Vukovar-Srijem, Dubrovnik-Neretva and Koprivnica-Krizevci I think. Much more can be written, yeah... --Shallot 19:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Unless the HSS really wasn't as much of a blip on the radar in the 1990s. I haven't followed the politics since 1998 or so, but I'm not surprised they had a strong showing in 2001 locally in formerly contested areas. User:Alcarillo sometime 13 Apr 04 (UTC)

history -> separate article?
How strong is the claim of continuity of the modern party, during SFRY? It might make sense to separate.

User:Timbouctou told me earlier: ''Considering that all parties were banned for almost 45 years between 1945 and 1990 perhaps splitting articles on modern parties which claim lineage to early 20th century parties should be in order (just like the People's Party (1841-1918) is currently split from the modern Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats). Likewise, the 1904 Croatian Peasant Party and the 1861 Croatian Party of Rights should probably have articles of their own.''

I think there is little reason to touch the Peasant Party because I don't recall any competition for its legacy - but if there's a non-non-notable party :) saying they descend from HSS, too, then we should have Croatian Peasant Party (1904-1929), and link that from all "children" parties.

Or just for the sake of accuracy and consistency.

See also hr:Hrvatska pučka seljačka stranka. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Croatian Peasant Party is the only one that maintained continuity. HSS joined the International Peasants' Union in 1947 led by Stanisław Mikołajczyk and this organization existed for at least a few decades. After Macek's death, the HSS was led by Krnjevic (who had been part of the government-in-exile) and he died in 1988. Suffice to say, this was a turbulent time in much of the world as well as in Croatia and no new leader was elected until the HSS was re-established within the country. The HSS was continually active within moderate elements of the diaspora from the 20's until the 90's (some of the Canadian branches still exist among others).


 * The re-established HSS within Croatia also declared Josip Torbar and Stjepan Radic, descendants of some of the most famous HSS members, honorary presidents of the party.--Thewanderer (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The continuity of the historical party and the present one is dubious. Years of "diaspora activity" (=inactivity) does not mean that the historical party and the present one are to be regarded one and the same. Split the historical party, and possibly retain a small summarization of it's history, if it is important for understanding the present party's ideology (which I doubt).--Z oupan 23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel that in this particular case, when deciding whether to split or not, the main criterion is not the matter of continuity, but rather: 1) content-wise, are these actually two topics, and 2) is the current article unwieldy because of its size or organization, i.e. would it benefit from a split in this respect. I'd say the answers are: 1) yes, and 2) no. So, while a split could be the way to go, it wouldn't be much of a problem if everything stayed the way it is. GregorB (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am strongly in favour of splitting the article. GregorB is correct, but I think the first criterion outweighs the second one. Would anyone oppose such a split, and if not, what should the new title be?  –&#65279;barakokula31  (talk)  16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for splitting the article, in my view. The modern day party says that it is the oldest Croatian party, the same party of Stjepan Radić that was in the first half of the last century. The party still exists today. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this discussion is active anymore, but here's my 2p anyway:
 * If one were to split off history from this article, I'm not sure anything would be left. The contents of this article seem virtually 100% history of the party. The article has little to say on the current affairs, functioning, structure, alliances whatnot. If one were to add the "current" information, i.e. non-history material, the article would seem quite awkward and there are two courses of development of the article:
 * One could either summarize the history by periods to the briefest paragraphs (for example: 1) in Austria-Hungary 2) in the Kingdom of SHS/Yugoslavia 3) in WW2 4) during communist Yugoslavia 5) since 1990) which could hardly present all relevant details (other than a summary) of the party's history.
 * Alternatively the article could present the history in greater detail and then the "current" information would be somehow tacked on and very much disconnected from the rest of the article.
 * If there is any appetite for presenting the party's current affairs (other than history), I think it would be far better to opt for the option 1 and split off an article covering the entire party history (including post 1990) as there is ample material and summarize this article's history as an article section to the very minimum needed to understand the modern party's current affairs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, splitting more detailed history from an "overview" article does not imply existence of a different political party now and in the past. Instead, such split would merely comply with Summary style and should not be deemed controversial.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this discussion ten years on, my opinion is that GregorB had summarized the issue well, we have two questions here - 1) content-wise, is the historical party and the modern-day party actually two topics, and 2) is the current article unwieldy because of its size or organization, i.e. would it benefit from a split in this respect. But I'd say yes on both counts:
 * 1. You can't really talk about any political party without explaining the wider political context it acted in, and the history of HSS before 1945 is something completely different than whatever else happened later (from 1945 to 1991 it was literally banned in its home country and its "active" branches among emigrant Croat communities abroad were little more than social clubs. From 1991 onwards the new re-established HSS claimed lineage to the pre-war era (like many other parties did at the time) but it never came anywhere close to replicating the popularity it had until the end of WW2. In addition, the ideology of the resurrected party is difficult to pin down. So these are two separate topics, whatever the modern party thinks about itself. This was true in 2010 and it is still true in 2021.
 * 2. Is the article unwieldy as it is? I'd say yes because it misses the point. Like Tomobe03 above me said, once you remove the pre-1945 stuff very little would be left, which means that the article isn't really about the modern HSS. As it is, the article verges on WP:COAT in that the history of the early party which ended 75 years ago has nearly nothing to do with the modern-day HSS and their platforms over the past 30 years. Just because they claim lineage to something doesn't mean that the claim is true or even relevant. Assuming that any modern-day reader looking for HSS today is interested in whatever HSS is doing nowadays, an article that spends 80 percent of its content talking about the period from the 1920s to 1945 is not very useful. It might be useful to someone wishing to learn more about that political period, but it's completely useless for understanding contemporary politics. What we have here is the exact opposite of WP:RECENT.
 * 3. The article in its present state lacks an awful lot of context and reads like something translated from Croatian wiki, itself known for chronic lack of context. How do you "realize statehood" by remaining part of a supra-national state like the Austro-Hungarian monarchy? How and why were Croats in a "bad position" within both the Austrian and Yugoslav monarchies? If HSS was banned in 1929 how did they contest elections in the 1930s? If the 1939 agreement on Banovina had presumably solved the issue they were obsessed with, why did its members then split to join both the Ustaše and Partisans during WW2 while party leadership did not support either, with HSS officials remaining part of government in exile? And what does it mean that for the next 46 years the party was "active abroad"? And what does any of that have to do with post-1991 party which spent its entire existence running in elections in an independent Croatia? How does an agrarian party even survive many decades after most Croatians ceased to work the land - is this a conservative party, is it a centre-left party, why are they associate members of the EPP (and not full members), why did they expel their MEP Marijana Petir, where is HSS today ideologically or politically? There must be answers to these questions somewhere, but Wikipedia is certainly not the place to find them.
 * With all this in mind, I'd opt for splitting off the (overwritten but still lacking) content on the party origins and its pre-1991 history into a separate thing, and keeping whatever (underwritten) content remains here in order to expand it. The last 30 years are covered with a grand total of 12 sentences, including only four dedicated to whatever has been happening over the last decade or so.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 16:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with the split as proposed by Timbouctou. I think that the "post 1991 HSS" (or whatever year is appropriate) article would still need the breifest possible summary of the early HSS history - something on the order of two short paragraphs - at the very least to put the claim on the lineage in context and be home to the link to the "pre-1990 HSS" article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought - if the hypothetical "pre-1991 HSS" article were topped off with the briefest paragraph outlining re-establishment of the party in Croatia and possible other information of similar magnitude which would not fall into the category of day-to-day politics (i.e. not requiring edits after fresh elections), the hypothetical article could be the History of the Croatian Peasant Party and the current article could retain its present name.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of all of the above, I added some info (not necessarily all) on pre-WW2 history. Basically I was writing a 200-word summary for another article, and it got out of hand. I thought to add the prose here rather than to keep it in a sandbox. IMO the article is shaping up as a history article with a bit of recent electoral results and party leadership changes tacked on or a modern party article with a disproportionate history section(s). In short, a separate History of the Croatian Peasant Party article seems more justified to me now than before.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)