Talk:List of presidents of Croatia/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with File:Ante Marković.jpg
The image File:Ante Marković.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bizarre"?
What was so "bizarre" about my edit? The exist polls point towards a Josipović victory by a 30% margin if I remember the figure correctly. Last minute turn-around? The date may have been incorrect, but I would not say "bizarrely" incorrect. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires a bit more certainty than exit polls. Especially when no one will assume the presidency for at least a week.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he might get struck by lightning, he is an agnostic after all. I trust you will revert yourself in due time? You've certainly demonstrated your promptness in making useless edits. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Verifiability is not a joke. Your attempt to turn this into some ideological battle all the time is quite unfortunate. I truly couldn't care less which of these two blokes is going to take office. While the outcome is apparently fairly clear, it is not certain.
 * When the election results are posted (in only three and a half hours) we will know who is president. Making predictions before then is somewhat useful, but cannot be used to make concrete pronouncements.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can be sure I don't give a damn who wins these meaningless elections, and I am not trying to turn this into an "ideological battle". I was fixing these tables so I figured I get this done with during the weekend.
 * Like I asked before, you will revert yourself then? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would revert if I could. I'm not on here all the time, and I seem to have missed the chance. :) --Thewanderer (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Party
The SKJ was a political party composed of six parts, not an "umbrella organization". We all know and acknowledge that these people were members of the SKH within SKJ, but the political party is always listed as SKJ. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding File:Replace this image male.svg
Should we add the File:Replace this image male.svg image into the empty portrait slots in the list wikitable? I myself am unsure. The images would create uniformity in row width, but there would be a lot of them. Thoughts anyone? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Nazor
Was never a member of the Communist Party. Prove the opposite.

http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/9078/1/ETHNIC-CROATIANS-KILLED-BY-NAZI-AND-FASCIST-FORCES---Introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.151.170 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Stipe Mesić
Never competed as "an independent candidate". Here is an official electoral website archive:

http://www.izbori.hr/2000Pred/Pred1Krug.htm http://www.izbori.hr/izbori/izboricm.nsf/VSviW/4C41015CA04649CFC1256F6B003CBC96/$File/lista_kandidata.pdf?OpenElement

Prove the opposite.


 * I do not have to prove the opposite. He was an independent candidate who received the support of all those parties - the point is he was not a member of any. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you voted? HAve you seen what was on the list? The upper link is an official electoral website, where the information is the exact that was on the electoral list. I'll keep correcting you until you fucking give it up.
 * I'll try again:
 * Mesić. The source does not list party affiliation. The party names there are references to those parties which granted him their support. He was not a member of all those political parties.
 * Nazor. Nazor was a member of the KPJ. Whether he was really a communist or not is open to speculation by authors such as the one you quoted, but again, his party affiliation is not something to dispute.
 * In short, your sources are quite obviously falsely quoted. Please stop edit-warring and vandalizing the article. I assure you, it won't help you and Wikipedia does not work that way. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have all my life in correcting this page. Stipe Mesić was until 2000 member of Croatian People's Party. On second term, i can agree he was not a party member, but there is a list of parties that supported his candidature. When it comes to Vladimir Nazor's party affiliation, I wont give up until you put a different "reference", that does not exist. He never become a member of KPJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.151.170 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain that Wikipedia does not function the way you think. Edit-warring "all your life" will not help you. Your sources are falsely quoted, as I explained. They neither of them state that which you are trying to use them for. Please find a source regarding the party affiliation of Stjepan Mesić and Vladimir Nazor. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Formal party affiliation of presidents
There is a potential problem with party affiliation of Stjepan Mesić and Ivo Josipović:
 * Mesić ran for the office for the 1st time on a HNS ticket (as its member) and left the party after assuming office on February 15, 2000. He ran for his second term as an independent candidate. At this time, the list indicates he was an independent candidate, but it is not an accurate claim for the 2000 campaign. On the other hand changing the party affiliation to HNS would not be accurate for his reelection. Any suggestions? Is there a way to indicate both, or should a double/split entry be there for Mesić?
 * Similar to Mesić, Josipović ran for office on SDP ticket, but he is no longer a member of the SDP since January 17, 2010. His political party affiliation is currently indicated as SDP. Furthermore, Article 96 of the present Croatian constitution requires the president to terminate his political party membership, if any, so unless we plan to have all future presidents listed as independent candidates, we may opt to indicate party of affiliation with while being an official candidate. Which takes us back to Mesić problem, supporting decision that his HNS membership during 2000 campaign be indicated instead of "independent" status required. Furthermore, remember that implicitly Croatian constitution effectively prohibits any president seeking reelection doing this on a party ticket.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

conflation of SRH and RH data
This article suffers from a problem analogous to that described at Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia. I doubt anyone in the real world really considers Tuđman the seventeen president of Croatia, rather the first. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the entry for Tuđman between May 30 and December 22 1990 is missing... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure, this kind of interpretation contradicts President of Croatia, which is non-sensical in and of itself. It could hold water under President, but that's both unreferenced and not necessarily applicable here. The primary meaning is clear - a head of state, and the SRH presidents were one step below that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The "first President of Croatia" was indeed Tuđman since the office of president was collective up until then. You are right in your assertion, but I do not see your point since Tuđman is not listed as the "17th" president, but as the 1st. The article also clearly states that "President" was the title he held. There is no problem here. There is no contradiction. And the problem is in no way analogous to the PM article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he was listed as the 17th up until a few minutes ago when you fixed it :) The thing is, the article about the President does not describe the presidents of SR Croatia, only of R of Croatia. As it should, indeed, and as should this article (primarily at least). Going back into the past and conflating the leaders of those systems with the leaders of this system is a slippery slope that serves little practical purpose. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there we go, error fixed. The artificial separation between "that system" and "this system" you're apparently trying to introduce, is one not shared in the Constitution of Croatia, which explicitly states the Republic of Croatia is a continuation of the Socialist Republic of Croatia. have you considered that the "President of Croatia" article should, perhaps, talk about the "Presidency of Croatia" (1974-90) in its history section? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This talking past each other is starting to be really annoying. The Constitution is explicitly stating SRH to be one of the cornerstones of Croatian statehood - the context keyword of its sentence is "u uspostavi temelja državne suverenosti". So, yes, it implies that RH is a continuation of SRH but in terms that are not practically different than those used for earlier manifestations of Croatian statehood - "hrvatska državna samobitnost" and whatnot. If you think these separations are no more than "artificial" and base them off the historical foundations section of the Constitution, then we might as well conflate the list of bans and kings together with the presidents. Who cares about the details? :P --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, if the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia had presidents, you would list them in a separate article? :) I direct you to have a look at the King of Croatia article and note how many incomparably more different Croatian states use the same article to list the Croatian monarch (they are only separated by dynasties (not states) for practical reasons). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)