Talk:List of presidents of Croatia/Archive 3

Splitting-off officeholders into separate articles is a terrible idea
And to add to all this, the Constitution of Croatia explicitly states, in its preamble, that it had not been founded in 1990 or '91 - but during WWII, i.e. this is the same state (that indeed has been, and still is, the sole basis of its legitimacy and recognition in terms of international law). To propose that the "President of the Presidency" is a completely different office from the "President" of the same damn country, and must therefore have a tiny little fragment article, should imo be patently ridiculous (and transparent as being founded on little more than political differences). -- Director  ( talk )  05:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this list is fully accurate in all the information it lays out - and is easily sourced as such for each of the officeholders. All these people served in these functions, exactly as described in the article, and that has not been challenged at any point. They're all heads of state of the same country. Claims that the "article is unsourced" are in fact - (misleadingly-worded) demands that we "source" our presenting these officeholders in a single article. That, however, is a matter of editorial discretion - not sourcing. I can't emphasize that enough: its up to us. Should we keep it that way, though?
 * Yes. To split apart this (already short) list into tiny fragments is just manifestly harmful to our coverage of the topic. Prime Minister of Croatia and Speaker both list Yugoslav-era officials. But more importantly: every single comparable list article on presidents, prime ministers, and speakers from all six ex-Yugoslav republics, which all had an identical political system - list their officeholders in this manner. And have done so for almost ten years now (but Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic had just been elected, and now this must be the exception I guess).
 * Finally, all these people served in exactly the same function. As heads of state of the Croatian republic - powerless figureheads all (with the exception of Tudjman). They were all called "President" ("of the Presidium of Croatia", "of the Presidency of Croatia", etc.), and they even fit the definition of a "president" in the OED. But nevertheless, while there may be some merit to claims that the title of the article isn't representative - in that case its the TITLE that should be under consideration, not the possibility of demolishing our project's coverage of this topic.


 * Yes, the history of our Republic begins in 1940s, not in 1990s, that is quite clear to anyone who knows the basics of modern Croatian history, or has at least read the Constitution of our Republic. Everyone knows that. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the history of the Republic begins in 1940s, but not in the respect that this fact obviates need for sourcing. It appears to me that you two are abusing this article to make a point. I realize that every discussion with Director will invariably end in endless blocks of text ad nauseam and I have no illusion that this one will be any different.
 * Nonetheless, let's assume for a moment that president of presidency is equated by a reliable source to the president in one form or another. In that case recommendation of the Utility essay might as well be applied: Readers will most likely be seeking information on the topic in the modern sense of the term. In that respect the order of the sections should be reversed after the introductory (lede) paragraph explanation of how sources link the various/variously named offices. Regardless of this, there is a separate list of speakers at Speaker of the Croatian Parliament and the info should not be relisted here - except to say (with sources) that in this and that period the office did not exist and the function was discharged by the speaker of parliament.
 * The numbers in the first column are confusing at best. Current president is not considered by reliable sources (or any other sources whatsoever) the 20th, but the 4th. Ivo Latin is indicated to be 16th something, yet no source can support that he was 16th anything except the 8th president of the presidency of Croatia - therefore the table should be broken up and numbering should be restarted for each table regardless if they are retained in the same article or not.
 * The coloring of the first column is decorative at best and completely pointless since there is a column clearly stating party affiliation. If the objective is to have a prettier table, that's fine, otherwise it's quite useless.
 * What is the use of the lifespan column? There could be other personal information present, but I trust the information would be better off in individual articles, assuming they meet GNG.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've been saying from the start: presenting these officeholders in a single article is a matter of editorial discretion, not sourcing. There is no need for any "equation": these people served as heads of state (that can easily be sourced and isn't challenged). If we want to list the heads of state here (as opposed to scattering them all over the project) - it is up to us . While I've absolutely no doubt sources will be requested over and over and over again, that's only because it sounds like an argument - even though it isn't. I've nothing more to say on that: you can claim "unsourced" and request sources 'til kingdom come - its just empty text as far as I myself am concerned.


 * The list should be in chronological order, from top to bottom, just like every single other officeholder list article in existence.


 * I'd maintain there's nothing confusing in the first column. We are numbering the entries in the table, and the order of the post-Yu officeholders is listed exactly as per sources.


 * The list of Speakers and this list should obviously remain separate, as the Speakers served different terms as heads of state. The repetition is warranted as they served a dual function, and for clarity's sake.


 * The coloring of the first column is standard for list templates of this sort, and uses party colour metatemplates. Its not "decorative" - its illustrative.


 * Again, the lifespan thing is standard. We want to have a good template, do we not? -- Director  ( talk )  14:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

democratic changes?
I am for removing "democratic changes" in the lead text "Since democratic changes in 1990 and the Christmas Constitution, the President of the Republic (Predsjednik) is directly elected to a five-year term and is limited to a maximum of two terms." First democratic changes were not in 1990 but in the 1989, and second, democratic changes did not have anything to do with the office of the President of the Republic. I think no one is going to be against this. Because now that sentence is incorrect. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We should be more specific, as in "first multi-party elections". -- Director  ( talk )  04:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

verifiability issue remains
It pains me to see no progress has been made since I last checked up on this issue. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884 resulted in sanctions against two editors, but nobody came in to actually fix this article's issues, heck, the problems even remained untagged for many months now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Time permitting, I'm going to run through https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=croatian+presidents+-wikipedia+-%22books%2C+llc%22&pws=0 to see if there's some readily available solutions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)