Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia/Archive 1

PM count
The position of head of government existed before May 30 1990, Wanderer, the only change was in the name of the office. If I recall, "President of the Executive Council" became "President of the Government" (we've simply translated the latter to "Prime Minister", even though "Prvi Ministar" was never used).

The issue is this: if we count the prime ministers of Croatia seperately (for some reason), do we count them as seperate from Croatia's secession and institution as an independent state, or do we count them "from within" Yugoslavia as well? Frankly, I don't understand why they're counted as seperate in the first place, but if there must be a seperate count "for the sake of the greatness of the Croatian nation" or whatnot, doesn't it make more sense to count from the institution of independent Croatia rather than from the point when the name of the office was altered?

I'll add that it also seems as if we're now counting the PMs with regard to when the HDZ won the elections, rather than when Croatia became a seperate country. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The key change here is the end of single-party Communist rule and beginning of democracy. The executive council was a communist committee, while the subsequent government is a democratic institution. See this official government website for the list of Croatian governments. The first was led by Stjepan Mesić. I'm not making it up.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's pure POV there. We are not here to judge which government was more "democratic". Definitions do differ, left or right-wing points of view often conflict on this, and accusations of authoritarian rule were often and repeatedly levelled at Tuđman and the HDZ government, particularly in the early 90s.


 * That debate is not the issue here. The point is that currently in this Wikipedia article, a person is called the "1st" prime minister of Croatia based on subjective and debateable perceptions of "democraticality". In fact it seems that party politics have found their way into this article. More specifically, it seems that the first HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union) prime minister is hailed as the "1st Prime Minister of Croatia" without a basis in any change in Croatia's international status.
 * To draw a parallel, Dr. Tuđman can be called the "first president of Croatia", since he was indeed the first president of an independent Croatian state. Mesić, on the other hand, was prime minister of the Yugoslav republic of Croatia, 13th in line.


 * (The source, of course, refers to governments, and lists those governments elected by general elections. It does not refer to persons, nor does it proclaim any person as the "1st Prime Minister of Croatia".) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1990 is universally recognized as the start of democracy in Croatia, and the end of one-party committee rule. It is laughable to even debate such a thing.
 * The source does refer to people. The first government of Croatia was led by the president of the government Stjepan Mesić, which makes him the first president of the government both in title and in authority. Also, I have never seen mention of any communist officials, committees, ranks, etc. on any Croatian government website.--Thewanderer (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In spite of my cautioning, Wanderer again turns every conversation into a "fight for democracy". No doubt you feel the need to defend "democracy" from communism, but again: this is not the issue. We are not here to debate the "democraticality" of the 90s HDZ government. The issue is international law vs party politics. Croatia did not exist as a seperate state prior to 1991, yet we have a person being styled as the "first prime minister of Croatia", based only on his party affiliation (and your thughts and opinions regarding the "democraticness" of said party).


 * The link talks about governments, not people, Wanderer. What more can I say? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stipe Mesić was the first Prime Minister. Plain and simple:
 * First to hold the title of Prime Minister.
 * First head of government to be democratically elected.
 * Head of the first government of Croatia, already established by HIDRA. This is also confirmed by the Government of Croatia website. Croatia's first government was therefore in place when Croatia was still a part of Yugoslavia. This first government did not come into place after Croatian independence.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR, you're being bold, but you're going to get reverted :) http://hidran.hidra.hr/hidrarad/rh/rh61.htm clearly states that the 1990 government was the first (number "1"), and so on, hence you can't conflate the lists. Even if we disregard the change in political system, we can't disregard official sources. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I see what may be causing the confusion - the list split wasn't done particularly neatly, it still implies an equality in function, just different circumstances. This is misleading, it's not an equivalent function in practice. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Um.. yes it is. The constitution was different, yes, but we're talking about the same function in the same country. The source lists governments since the 1990 constitution, and if were were to count here from that point, then the number would indeed be inaccurate. The difference between the two lists is that this one on Wiki lists all Croatian heads of government. Too much stock is being placed on a list that only naturally places the number "1" on its 1st entry. Its just nonsense to use two different sets of numbers here. Particularly since the first list ends and the second begins, not with Croatia becoming an independent country, but simply with another in a long line of changes in the constitution. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that you can't compare functions, at least not without proper sources. What is apparent from the very article content is that one type of government was called "Executive Council of SR of Croatia", and the other is "Government of the R of Croatia". These are not magically equivalent just because they are successive. As for comments on "version was on for months", I'll just recommend that you read Silence and consensus. Just because there wasn't anyone here to correct a problem that doesn't imply that there could have been none. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same office. The office is prime minister, head-of-government (n.b. "Predsjednik izvršnog vijeća" can also be translated "Prime Minister", just like "Predsjednik vlade"). Are you saying there was no prime minister before the 1990 constitution?


 * Yes. I don't believe we're talking about the same term "prime minister". See that article. It makes no mention of the case of SR Croatia. Probably because one would be hard-pressed to find native English speakers referring to Bakarić etc as prime ministers - they held a non-head-of-state position in a non-democratic system. The term is simply not used in that context. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets now deal with the straw man. Nobody is claiming the governments were "equivalent": a new constitution was drafted, a different government convened. Does this mean Croatia had its first government in 1990? Or are we going to go by Wanderer's fine example and just "pretend" that a dozen previous governments of Croatia did not exist because we dislike communism?
 * Because only if that was the case does this thread make sense.
 * "Predsjednik izvršnog vijeća" and "Predsjednik vlade" can both be translated to "Prime Minister". Executive council = government, its a meaningless name change from 1953. It was "vlada" 1945-1953.
 * In any case the exact name is irrelevant, we are talking about the same office: prime minister (head-of-government).


 * Please see a 5-second, fleeting Google Books search for "Bakarić prime minister" . "Hard-pressed"? You may also notice Dabčević-Kučar being referred to as "the first woman Prime Minister in Europe". I'm interested to hear what you would call Bakarić's position? I don't think it was "Non-Head-of-State Office in Non-Democratic System". I think it was "Predsjednik vlade". ..and waiting for the shift in argument... --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not impressed with that search - only some of the usages are unambiguous (i.e. without a SR qualifier), and then only some of those are from non-local authors. There are quite a few references to Savka because of the distinction of being the first woman in such a position, but otherwise it still doesn't strike me as a particularly common usage. It would be useful to have some native speakers assess the matter. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm not impressed by your impression. What was Bakarić's position then? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as it states in the article - not the same as the President of the Government of the Republic of Croatia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm dissapointed. I did not expect evasion of this sort. I really must provoke antagonism for someone to actually claim, essentially out of spite, that Vladimir Bakarić was not "Predsjednik vlade". Because, you see, that exactly was his formal title for eight years (until 1953). Look my question was rhetorical, the man was a prime minister in every sense of the term, and so were all the subsequent PMs that were Executive Council presidents. Its not really up for debate.. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What more can I say - I've already told you to read the prime minister article and you've ignored me :) If Bakarić was also predsjednik vlade and minister for Croatia and whatnot, why should all of this be conflated into a single prime-ministerial function? If they made the conscious decision to rename these functions and titles, why isn't this a sufficient indication that they felt it was sufficiently different to warrant being treated as a different function? Even if we give it the benefit of the doubt as far as the function goes, I still see no sense in numbering everything equally given different status of the country. It could have been theoretically equal in domestic matters, but in foreign affairs, statehood is a significant difference. And, once again, there's the issue of sources. If there's some other source that lists Croatian prime ministers like this, that would dispel the apparent WP:SYNTH concern. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm not understanding you. You seem not to be familiar with Bakarić's function. He was, quite simply and straightforwardly, the Prime Minister of Croatia from 1945 to 1953 ("Predsjednik vlade"), and then, having ended his term, served as President of the Presidency of Croatia. He did not hold several offices simultaneously. He was simply the prime minister (which then, as now, was the top office in the country).


 * @"If they made the conscious decision to rename these functions and titles, why isn't this a sufficient indication that they felt it was sufficiently different to warrant being treated as a different function?"
 * You mean when they changed the name of the government from "vlada" to "izvršno vijeće"? :) Surely you're kidding? The difference between the two is non-existent, it was merely communist wordplay to create a more socialist-friendly name (they just reduced its powers negligibly). As I said earlier, the English-language term for the function is "Prime Minister". Its probably my fault for using "President of the Executive Council" in the article. Its the same thing as using "President of the Government" instead of "Prime Minister" - a more direct translation
 * Anyway as I said, the name is irrelevant, its the function we are talking about. It was the government, and its head was the prime minister.


 * The different "status" of the country, is the shift in argument I was expecting (they were all prime ministers, what are we talking about??). However as I said in my first post: we're talking about the same function in the same country. The only difference is that the Yugoslav federal unit of Croatia now has a new constitution. Thats it. This same constitution explicitly states that the country is a continuation of SR Croatia ("anti-fascist roots" and all that jazz). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this, you seem to think this is Usenet... we're not going to agree on the nomenclatorial part so I'll just stop rehashing that argument. But I'm not willing to waive the second argument - the country remained the same, but the sovereign state was different. That is not an insignificant difference by any stretch of imagination. It's a difference wars are waged about, in fact we had one in this very example. It just cannot be dismissed out of hand. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Repeat" what? I've answered every word in your post, and I resent your increasingly rude manner. You seem to think Bakarić was something other than "Predsjednik vlade" (contrary to about half-dozen "hard-pressed" sources found in literally 5 seconds), yet I'm still waiting to hear what that "something" is? What's it going to be Joy, please oh please tell me what was Bakarić's function in Croatia between 1945-53?


 * Now then:
 * First of all, Croatia was by definition since 1945 a sovereign republic (that freely entered a federation and had the right to leave it). Croatia's de iure sovereignty was achieved in 1945, by definition. A good example of a "non-sovereign" state of affairs would be the Banovina of Croatia. You're repeating nonsense '90s propaganda phrases ("nezavisna suverena Hrvatska")


 * Second of all, and more importantly, to my understanding you are not suggesting separating the 7 prime ministers since the secession ("the sovereign state was different"). You are suggesting we separate the 9 prime ministers after the implementation of the 1990 constitution. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have again made an assertion that is contrary to what happened in practice. The sovereignty of SRH was not in practical existence during SFRY in a level significantly higher than it was during previous half a dozen governments/jurisdictions. Until the '90s we did not actually exercise our sovereignty to its full extent, and that is a critical difference. That difference makes the difference between Predsjednik vlade Narodne republike Hrvatske and Predsjednik vlade Republike Hrvatske significantly more than a single adjective. As for the December 1990-January 1992 period, that's another matter of interpretation. If this was March of 1991, saying the new head of government was significantly different than the old one would indeed be on shaky ground. But with hindsight, it's now apparent that the Christmas Constitution is a genuine cutoff point for a chain of events in the history of the state (and country) that were all but insignificant. And the reason I'm coming off as rude is that this argument is taking a lot more time than I would have thought was necessary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not here discuss such vague subjects as the personal interpretations of the de facto sovereignty of a Yugoslav republic. Suffices to say your subjective assessment is easily countered - the level of independence of the Yugoslav republics was simply HUGE (after the 1960s and culminating with the 1974 constitution). The simple fact is that the Republic of Croatia was de iure (and after the mid-1960s de facto) a sovereign republic within a federation. No weasel words, pls.


 * Look I will say this again: Same office. Same country. The 1990 constitution was a significant even in the history of this same country, however your clever use of words like "cut-off point" does not mean that this event created a new country that hereto did not exist. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

@Thewanderer. As usual: wrong on all counts. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Vladimir Bakarić was the "first to hold title of Prime Minister". That said. Concerning the name of the office: "Predsjednik izvršnog vijeća" and "Predsjednik vlade" can both be translated to "Prime Minister". It was just our choice here on Wikipedia (or I should say my choice) to directly translate the former but not the latter. In other words, there is no difference between translating "president of the government" into "prime minister", and "president of the executive council" into "prime minister".
 * Mesić was not "democratically elected" (whatever that means). He was appointed by Tuđman.
 * If we exclude the illegal NDH government, the first government of Croatia was formed in 1945, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Bakarić, and was subsequently recognized by the UN as such. This is a fact. You are deliberately misrepresenting a source.

A common error
The first prime minister of an independent Croatian state was Franjo Gregurić. The text states Croatia had 9 prime ministers since its independence. Not true, it had seven. Croatia had "9 prime ministers" since a new constitution was drafted in 1990. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Virtually all local sources consider Mesić the first PM and, by extension, Kosor the ninth (see hidra.hr and vlada.hr). It is not our job to debate the merits of the officially accepted chronology. It is merely to report it. If anyone thinks that there are issues or inconsistencies with the official chronology then a note explaining the details would suffice. But merely stating that Gregurić is 1st and Kosor 7th is WP:OR, plain and simple. I also think that the table should be split into the 1945-1990 and 1990-present periods. In case of the 1945-90 officeholders the office was entirely different from the present-day PM, both in title and authority. The way the article is laid out at the moment presents a higher degree of continuity than it is usually perceived in Croatia (for example I'd really like to see a Croatian-language source claiming that Manolić was Croatia's 14th prime minister) and could be considered misleading as virtually no one checking for facts is likely to find a table confirming what we are saying here. Cheers. '' Timbouctou 21:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I challenge the claim that the list applies to the entire history of the modern Croatia (which is the scope of this article). The list is, of course, perfectly correct as long as we (like the website) are talking about the period since the implementation of the 1990 constitution. It does not justify absurd edits such as listing functionaries in the same office of the same country in two separate columns based on which party got to appoint the prime minister.. I challenge you to find me any comparable office article.


 * Another common error: the Prime Minister of Croatia when the multi-party system was introduced was Antun Milović, not Stjepan Mesić. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the same country but it's not the same state. The whole argument boils down to that simple distinction, which is universally recognized. Compare: federated state, sovereign state. Yet you seem to think that the morphing of SRH into RH did not affect its statehood enough to warrant even a separation of leader lists. Well, that's just extreme. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Bakarić held the office of "Prime Minister" ("Predsjednik vlade"). There were no "executive councils" in Yugoslavia before the 1953 reforms.

Also the title of the second section ("Transition from Yugoslavia to Croatia") is misleading. It literally implies the Republic of Croatia was in transition transition into Croatia. I also cannot think of a good alternative title.. the only thing that really distinguishes the country from the earlier period is a new constitution, and there were a lot of new constitutions in the SFRY. The one-party system was terminated and a proper elections system instituted (by the SKH/SDP themselves) well before the HDZ replaced the communists, in fact that's how they replaced them.


 * I agree with your change to remove the "to Croatia" suffix, it was a bit clumsy when I had another look at it. Note also, we could use the phrase "President of the Government (Predsjednik vlade)" inside the tables. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The three sections division is a legitimate concept, but imho unnecessary. Seriously, what was wrong with the old one? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It helps verifiability of the article to use the new-style chronology and explain it, because that's what's verifiable in the linked sources. The encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO there should only be two lists and the "transition from Yugoslavia" should be merged with "since independence" list. If one wants to nitpick this is what should be done to follow the principle of verifiability as our own invented label for PMs from Mesić to Gregurić is hardly encyclopedic. Fact of the matter is that all official sources begin with Mesić and consider him the first. The fact that the country was not independent yet during Mesić and Manolić and in the early days of Gregurić's tenure could be explained in more detail in the accompanying prose text.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 07:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we actually invented new labels for them by sectioning them, I kept them in the same primary chronology (1-3, 4-onwards). The distinction between a prime minister of a federated state and a prime minister of a sovereign state is quite notable. I can't say I don't sympathise with making the first multi-party elections the single cutoff point, but that's a pretty, well, democracy-centric POV :) Also it's a different perspective for a domestic reader and for a foreign reader - for the latter, the country becoming independent is a milestone of at least as much of importance as is the change to a significantly more democratic process. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Joy, the terms are not mutually exclusive. SR Croatia was both a sovereign, and a federated state, with the explicit right to secede. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Prime minister count, take 2
There's no way around it: the current count with Stipe Mesic as the "first" prime minister is based solely on the assumption of power of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ): The only thing that actually distinguishes the appointed prime minister, Stipe Mesic, from his appointed predecessor (who had already instituted a multi-party system) was that the former was the first prime minister from the Croatian Democratic Union. I do not dispute that the HDZ government had apparently managed to institute their first government as somehow the "first overall" in Croatian state records (they ruled the country almost continuously since 1990), and managed to somehow "equate" their assumption of power with Croatian national independence. Even the Croatian media are now constantly hailing the newly-elected Zoran Milanovic as the "10th prime minister since independence", which is plainly untrue: he is the 8th since independence, and only the "10th" since the HDZ took power for the first time.
 * it is not based on the 1990 constitutional changes, since those occurred after 30 May 1990 under Mesic's successor Josip Manolic, on 22 December 1990 (Manolic would then be the "1st", and Stipe Mesic would then have to be listed in the above section)
 * it is not based on the institution of the multi-party system, since that reform was undertaken before 30 May 1990 under Ivo Latin (who would then be the "1st")
 * it is not based on the democratic election of the prime minister, since until 2000 the prime minister was still a post acquired by direct appointment
 * and it is obviously not based on Croatian secession from Yugoslavia, since that occurred a year or more after Mesic left office

The question, however, is whether the perpetuation of this misconception, the presentation of which strongly favors a single political party, is in accordance with Wikipedia policy on neutrality. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Even the Croatian media are now constantly hailing the newly-elected Zoran Milanovic as the "10th prime minister since independence", which is plainly untrue: he is the 8th since independence, and only the "10th" since the HDZ took power for the first time." I suggest you read the first paragraph of WP:NOTTRUTH.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 20:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop beating a dead horse. WP:N is a guideline. WP:V is a policy. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for random discussion of article topics, another piece of policy. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP:VNT, however that is not a decree banning the use of the word "true" on Wikipedia. If it'll make you feel better, you may imagine I said "factual". The point of the matter is that Milanovic is the 8th person to hold the office of prime minister since independence.


 * Um Joy.. WP:N is a guideline, yes, but WP:NPOV is policy. I don't know why you're linking to WP:N. And I am here discussing article changes, so I am just as equally puzzled as to why you're citing WP:NOTFORUM. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV kicks in when you have two sources saying conflicting things, and then we have to balance them. Currently you seem to have zero sources supporting your thesis, so your only valid argument is that the numbering scheme is non-notable. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (WP:NPOV kicks in all the time.) I have no specific thesis, I am merely pointing out that the current state of affairs favors a particular political party and is thus against WP:NPOV. Its a problem that we should address. And we must keep things in perspective: the only thing that is sourced is that the current count is supported by the Croatian state - which was/is controlled for decades by the same political party said count favors. That does not obligate us to use it as well. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain entirely unconvinced by the same argument. Call an rfc if you want another opinion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very stupid to call my edits NPOV, it seams some users just stick this word "NPOV" when ever they want, like it's a toy. As we know, office of the prime minister of SR Croatia was called "President of the Executive Council", however with "Christmas Constitution" from 22 December 1990 Croatia distinguished her self from this office with a new one - President of Government of the Republic of Croatia. (Christmas Constitution)

So according to this - Mesić was first President of the Executive Council from HDZ, Manolić was seconda, and also first PM of Croatia.

The problem with DIREKTOR's edits is that Milanović is 22nd Prime Minister of Croatia, but Croatia got independence in 1991, how is this possible? It is not the same office as in SR Croatia, and most clearly, not the same state (succesor - yes, but same state - no). --Wusten fuchs 13:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. No. Just... no. You're wrong on all counts, Wustenfuchs. No, the table makes it clear that Mesic's title was "prime minister". No, those are not my edits, this article listed all Croatian prime ministers since it was written. No, Croatia was recognized as a sovereign country for the first time in 1945, and these are all prime ministers of Croatia (the current Croatian state is constitutionally a continuation of the pre-1991 state, otherwise, incidentally, it would never have been recognized in the first place). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Croatia was recognized as a sovereign country for the first time in 1945." That's WP:FRINGE. Provide a source, preferably with page numbers, for that claim please.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * *sigh*... Hello Timbaktu. I'm not going to argue with you for argument's sake. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to take posts which are void of any content as a sign of constructive discussion. What you are arguing for is a fringe view, non-existent in any source that I know of. If you have anything you can base your personal opinion on when Croatia's sovereignity began, provide a source with page number. Not your opinions, not your rants, not your personal attacks, not your remarks, not your essays. Source + page number will suffice. Thanks.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pressed for time, but I'll refute some of these silly arguments:
 * it is not based on the 1990 constitutional changes, since those occurred after 30 May 1990 under Mesic's successor Josip Manolic, on 22 December 1990 (Manolic would then be the "1st", and Stipe Mesic would then have to be listed in the above section)
 * Constitutional changes occurred immediately as stop-gap amendments were applied to the Socialist Republic of Croatia's constitution over the summer of 1990 by the democratically elected officials. These amendments (LXIV to LXXV) established the current offices on July 25, making Mesic the first Prime Minister of Croatia (President of the Government of Croatia).
 * *it is not based on the institution of the multi-party system, since that reform was undertaken before 30 May 1990 under Ivo Latin (who would then be the "1st")
 * Constitutional amendments LIV to LXIII by communist functionaries introduced the multi-party system officially on February 14, with elections being called shortly thereafter. The date of these reforms being constitutionally enacted is altogether irrelevant, as the reforms are meaningless until an actual democratically-elected government was put in place.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unimpressive, Wanderer. Yes of course there were constitutional amendments in July but those occurred all the time in the previous 45 years, they are hardly a relevant turning point of some sort. When I mentioned constitutional changes I was referring yo the new constitution, which might be taken as a relevant date. And no, the office of prime minister was not "established" in the summer of 1990, it was merely renamed, or I should say the government was renamed, the only change instituted with the amendments was that the "President of the Executive Council" now became the "President of the Government".
 * That is purely your own judgement. The point of the matter is that democratic amendments were instituted by the Sabor ("communist functionaries") before Mesic came to power. And that his position was not elective, but appointed - by Tudjman moreover (an entirely non-autocratic ruler as we all know).
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sundostund's article split
Sundostund, your article splits are non-consensus, and are completely unnecessary. Achieve consensus. -- Director  ( talk ) 11:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not unnecessary, its a norm on WP to separate list of officeholders from articles about their office. Just look for example at President of Croatia and List of Presidents of Croatia (and countless more lists of officeholders and articles about their offices). I thought this edits aren't disputable, so I decided to apply the rule WP:BOLD in this case. --Sundostund (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging from your edits - its a norm you yourself are introducing. I rather believe articles like President of Croatia and List of Presidents of Croatia should be merged - rather than serving as some sort of example. Why two articles when we need just one? Why sideline the lists when they're so informative and obviously related to teh subject matter? Here there isn't much to write on the office of prime minister itself, and it does not require a separate article. -- Director  ( talk ) 12:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not "a norm I myself introduce". I didn't separated List of Croatian presidents from article about that office, I just support that and I try to implement that on other articles. That example already exist on literary countless lists of Presidents and Prime Ministers, which are separated from articles about their offices (just to mention List of Presidents of the United States and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Its obvious that I disagree with your oppinion - we need two articles: One for office, one for officeholders. --Sundostund (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that both formats are widespread. Usually, when there's a large prime minister main article, and the list itself is also large, its sensible to split. Neither are the case here. In a thousand years the Prime Minister of Croatia article still won't be comparable to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article. Its all about the size of the main article, Sundostund - not indiscriminately applying some uniform format to all articles. -- Director  ( talk ) 12:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and you're fully entitled to it, but I (and many other editors) think otherwise. Article about office should be separated from list of officeholders, and I prefer that format (as in case of President of Russia and List of presidents of Russia). Should I list here more similar examples? Maybe Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Chairmen of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (By the way, you said: When there's a large prime minister main article, and the list itself is also large, its sensible to split. Although you said that, you reverted my edits at Prime Minister of Serbia; if that list isn't too long, then I don't know which list is too long...) The bottom line is this: There's no matter whether a article's size is big or not, and whether a list of officeholders is too long or too short, it just should be separated from article about its office. --Sundostund (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were acting in accordance with a WP:CONSENSUS to split all articles of this type on enWikipedia. Can I trouble you to provide a link, please? -- Director  ( talk ) 15:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm acting according to WP:BOLD, with belief that I improve articles by separating data about a office from a list of its officeholders. I prefer that style, and I'll continue to prefer it. As you can see, I'm not engaged in some stupid edit war, I want to find a best solution for this issue. --Sundostund (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're "acting according to WP:BOLD", then kindly see WP:BOLD REVERT DISCUSS. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 19:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I'm acting according to WP:BOLD, because I fully understand I should stop with my bold edits if they are opposed. I'm not engaged in any form of edit war over disputed articles, I want to settle this issue with a discussion. --Sundostund (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All right then. The only that matters here is WP:SPLIT. Everywhere such articles are split as size splits. Here that isn't warranted. That's pretty much the gist of what I'm saying. There just isn't a justification. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles can be split even if their size isn't too big, and even if a list of officeholders isn't too long (as in the case of President of Russia and List of presidents of Russia). So, splits are stylistic preferences of whether the list overwhelms/unbalances the articles, and I firmly believe it does and that this type of articles should be split. --Sundostund (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would really appreciate it if you stopped listing "precedents" here. What matters is: "is a WP:SPLIT justified here?" Articles simply cannot be split due to "stylistic preferences". That is a subjective criteria, and its nowhere to be found on WP:SPLIT. If the subject is different, its a content split (and here that most certainly not the case) - if its too big, we have a size split. No splits based on your "stylistic preferences", please. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 12:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Article split
I propose we split the list in a new article. The reason for this is because the list takes more then 60% of the article about the institution (office) of a prime minister. That is wrong, as I think. List won't say anything to a reader, but it will take more then half of the article.

As examples, I would take those articles:
 * List of Presidents of the United States
 * List of Prime Ministers of France
 * List of Chancellors of Germany

The conclusion is next, all those lists that have a lot of PMs or Presidents are in a separate article. Croatia has a lot of PMs due to PMs from the former SR Croatia, but even in the independent Croatia there's enough PMs to list them in this new article.

I noticed that there was already an article that showed the list, and I think it should be restored due to reasons mentioned above.

--<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 21:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Imo unnecessary at this point. Per WP:SPLIT: if the subject is different, its a content split - if its too big, we have a size split. Neither criteria apply in my opinion. What you're proposing is a size split. Imo there isn't enough text to justify a separate article just for the office. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">--  Director  ( talk ) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Aesthetic split - In all honesty, that list looks completely out of place in an article like this. And veteran Wiki users are used to searching for "list of" articles.  Put a link in the lead and in the see also section, and anywhere else to direct attention to it.  Articles don't have to be huge to justify a split.  They'll grow over time, regardless.  Wikipedia ain't goin anywhere. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a purely subjective criteria, I don't see that way at all. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that's true. It is subjective.  Formatting usually is.  For such trivialities, WP:CONSENSUS is important.  I'm not going to edit the page or do the work to split the article because I don't care enough.  The RFC asked for my opinion, and I gave it. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is simply to short to justify a split. Also, the lists and text are mutually informative and both would suffer through splitting them. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no observable benefit in splitting the detailed list. If someone wants to expand the rest of the article, simply go ahead, there's plenty of room - it's only 11K of prose in less than 2K words (counted liberally). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Split the article but not before there's enough material to have:
 * a standalone article on the office
 * a comprehensive list of holders of the office
 * Splitting before that is done would not be really justified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: from the reader's point of view the list of people occupying the office is something one expects to find in the article about the office, so splitting the list out (with appropriate links) would be a minor drawback for the topic coverage. From editor's point of view, splitting the list out would misinform potential editors about the coverage balance (and completeness of coverage to lesser extent). These points are quite weak, so I base my opinion on them solely due to the lack of real arguments in favor of any particular action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the information currently available on the page, I'd say it doesn't seem thorough enough to merit the split. It reads fine now and everything makes sense, which should be the key factor. I think of the current state as almost a stub of sorts when we are talking about an article as significant as this. Dreambeaver  (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Executives
I think its unnecessarily confusing to refer to Presidents of the Government (such as Bakaric and post-1990) as "Prime Ministers", while Presidents of the Executive Council are referred to by their full title. I may actually have been the one who introduced that misleading terminology in my first work-over of this article and the prime minister succession in general. If noone objects I'd like to correct myself there and refer to both as "Prime Ministers". Neither really have that title ("Prvi Ministar"), but as we're compelled to use that term per commonname there's no reasoning I can see not to refer to both by it. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 20:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New table
What arbitrary split?? I have made a much better table so please stop reverting the changes. I have not changed any data or information it is all the same, just added some pictures and made a different table, that is all. If you don't live in Croatia and don't know that period from 1990 to 2000 is called the Tuđman era, and after that the Democratic era, that is your problem. But ok, if you don't like that then I will remove the era part. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The images are no good, they need to be public domain. There's really no reason to split the list. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 23:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at the list of Prime Ministers of Sweden, they have the list split. So you think that the lists (1990-2000) and (2000-present) should be merged? Ok? I can do that. So should I remove also the pictures? --Tuvixer (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think there's any need to split the thing at all. The Swedish pm list is #1 much longer, #2 in a dedicated list article, and #3 the separate section deals with pms from a state union. But this really isn't about how things are done on other articles.


 * "Tudman era", "Democratic era", etc. need a source. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Then ok, I will merge all, ok? Will that be ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Its already merged fine... but if you have corrections and additions to the data in the table - by all means. Please don't change the headings without consensus, though. As regards the images: they will be deleted very quickly, because they are not public domain. When they do, the space will just be empty instead of having a placeholder, and someone has to restore it. For this reason if nothing else, please do not introduce portraits without a proper license. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I will put it here. So you will see how it looks and because of the 3RR I can not edit this article so you can just change the old table whit the now, ok? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the table:


 * The numbers ought to be bolded and in white, so they can be seen. What did you change exactly? Honestly, we have one table type in all lists, why have a different ordering here? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 00:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Because now it looks much better and it looks more like the list of other European countries. Before it did not have cabinets, elections, duration, now it has all. Ok, I will ad bold and white. I really don't know why would anyone be against this new table that I have created. --Tuvixer (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. For my part, I like the new table :). (Sorry I didn't respond yesterday, it was getting rather late.) <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 10:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. xD So can you now put it in the article instead of the old one? I can't because of the 3RR. :/ --Tuvixer (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh just edit it in, I'm sure there's no problem. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 11:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. If something happens to my account you will be my lawyer. xD --Tuvixer (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

--Tuvixer (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Most powerful"
Whose idea was it to describe PM as the "de facto most powerful officeholder" in the country? He either is or isn't (no need for de facto), and as in most European countries, he only heads the executive branch - I'm sure heads of the legislative and judiciary branches would disagree with author's assessment. (NB, if the office described as "most powerful in the country" is unable to actually pass any laws, than that would by pure logic make Croatia a non-sovereign state - which it isn't :-). Also, the footnote saying that "Croatia moved from semi-presidential to parliamentary system" implies progress, which is pretty POV-ish. Let's keep it neutral, shall we, and simply refrain to reporting that the change occurred. The same goes to Tuvixer's interesting periodisation efforts, with phrases such as "Tuđman's era" and "Democratic era". That sort of crap is what blogs are for. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 16:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The PM is by law the third highest official in the state, whereas he is by far the most "powerful". But, as he is such both in practice and in law, I would agree that "de facto" is unnecessary (probably my mistake, can't honestly remember).


 * However, "moving" does not imply progress. Quite fundamentally, one can "move" forward or backward, or to the side. It does, in fact, merely report on the change. As I said above, eras need to be sourced at the very least. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 04:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)