Talk:Tourism in Croatia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katherine.albiston. Peer reviewers: Khawks91.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV
This looks like a puff piece. NPOV is sorely needed. JesseW 00:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

safety issues

 * As for Tourism in Croatia, as I already said, the mines are not in tourist areas. If we put the link on that article, we should put it on all Croatian pages, which is absurd.


 * That is not true. Why there are warnings at australian goverment site, SPECIFICALLY FOR TOURISTS, otherwise? It is vandalism to remove this.


 * There are mines in Croatia, but not in the tourist areas. The Australians made a mistake by being too cautious. Or would you claim that the Australian government is better informed about mines in Croatia than the Croatian government? --Zmaj 12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Do you define tourist destinations as those which do not have minefields. It is malicious to hide this relevant information. Australian goverment clearly wants to warn its citizens, and wikipedia readers SHOULD NOT BE DENIED the warning! Mostssa 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: quoting POV does not make it NPOV. True, but I'm quoting something. You only have your biased opinion. So my version stays until you come up with some proof for what you're saying. --Zmaj 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was quoting the warning of australiant goverment in fact. if you want I will add a quote from that source too. Also, other security issues should be mentioned. - you removed them Mostssa 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Lonely Planet guides are generally considered very reliable sources, so try to find something on that level. --Zmaj 08:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * certainly a comercial guide. goverment warning is more neutral. Mostssa 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on busses
Here some of the attacks to regular busses: -- 00:54 August 23 | B92 BELGRADE -- Monday – The Croatian police did not receive a report of the attacks made on two Serbian buses in the Rijeka region this Saturday.

While one bus of the Lasta company was attacked just outside of Rijeka, a second bus was attacked in Rijeka by two groups of hooligans. The wipers of the bus were ripped off as was the license plate, according to Croatian Ministry o Internal Affairs Official, Igor Stefanac. He added that these two incidents should not have a drastic effect on the safety of Serbian buses traveling through Croatia.

Mostssa 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously they had asked for protection, but had not discussed at all recently.Attacks on buses is really good fact.--Medule 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent trends section
I have removed this section, which is little more than propaganda, which has no place in wikipedia:

"Recent trends

United States Tour Operators Association (USTOA) has declared Croatia as the hottest new tourist destination for 2006. Earlier National Geographic Adventure had also awarded Croatia as The Best Destination. In 2005 the country was proclaimed No. 1 destination by the Lonely Planet.

Ethical Tourist, a non-governmental group from Berkeley, California, ranked Croatia among 13 countries in the world best suitable for the so-called «ethical tourism», saying that it deserves to be visited for its natural beauties, but also for its treatment of environment and its level of social development.

According to the German Autoclub ADAC which annually conducts more than 800 inspections testing the quality of the sea, Croatian Adriatic Sea is the cleanest sea in the Mediterranean and its ecological conditions have been constantly improving."

It is also mistitled (what kind of "trends" it represents). Someone also seems not to gasp what NPOV means. Just because some media are advertising some aspects of Croatia tourism industry is no excuse to place such comments here, in this form at least. Also, a sequence of quotes does not constitute a good writting. So, I am removing this. Some people should understand that wikipedia article on tourism in Croatia should not be written as an advertisment from Croatian POV, but should discuss relevant issues concerning the topic from NPOV. Mostssa 03:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're the one who haven't grasped what NPOV is or what a Wikipedia article should actually look like. FYI there is nothing NPOV about expressing your hatred through every single phrase you wish to include in the article. Just because you're unable to overcome your Serbian chauvinism doesn't make the results of the ADAC tests propaganda nor are the findings of the USTOA an advertisment. I understand that you don't want to see it here because you are intent on mutilating the article to the point where it becomes a mere reflection of your hatred towards Croatia, but Wikipedia doesn't operate like that. EurowikiJ 12:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When you lack arguments, you resort to personal attacks, about someone you in fact dont know anything about. There is nothing hateful in the edits I make. Indeed, your removal of Jasenovac monument from the list of sites of interest in Croatia only reveals your Croatian chauvinism and hatred of Serbs, who you probably consider sub-human and unworthy to visit the monument devoted to the genocide they have endured in Croatia (and indeed how do you think "warning" for Serbs to fear for their safety looks like). Try editing Mecca out of sites of interest in Saudi Arabia or Aushwitz from sites of interest for Jews in Poland. As for your highly POV section, if you want it included, then rephrase it and put a proper title for it. Representing selective quotings as "trends" is completely absurd. Make a decent section and reference it, just as I have done in order to expose Croatian coverup, which is quite blatant! The articles in wikipedia do not work the way you think - just because it is article about Tourism in Croatia does not mean that Croatians are to have their biased POV here. The minefield informations and informations about attacks are clearly relevant, as they are a REALITY that you want to hide. That is against wikipedia policies! You seem to conflict your "good faith" edits with NPOV, and clearly you have to realise that you have a biased POV and that the way others see Croatian issues is not the way you want them to be seen (and FYI not only by Serbs). Live with that! Mostssa 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will refrain from answering the slanderous comment you have just made. It speaks volumes about your NPOV" attitude towards this article. I shall, however, use this opportunity to warn you not to transgress the 3 revert rule and force me to take action. EurowikiJ 16:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR does not hold for vandalism. Your refusal to engage on talk page speaks about your lack of arguments. You are trying to force your opinion by hiding things that you dont like, and you refuse to discuss them - that is prohibited here! Mostssa 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostssa
Mostssa, there is a note of mine regarding 3RR on your discussion page. EurowikiJ 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for the warning but it would be more useful if you discussed the changes instead. Mostssa 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss!
...over here before continuing this nonsensical Edit War. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I hereby announce that I've filed a request to protect this article here. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of issues of concern
I have repeatedly, above, put arguments for the edits that I make. The other side (editors from Croatia, who obviously want these facts excluded for reasons that I think are bad faith, given the circumstances - refusal to discuss etc). has not responded. For convenience, I will start a discussion on each separate issue. Refusal to respond will be understood as lack of arguments.

Jasenovac
Jasenovac monument was a site which has been visited by most Serbian people, compared to any other site in Croatia. Virtually every school excursion in former Yugoslavia, for Serbian schools, in 70s and 80s at least, which passed through Croatia, has visited this monumental site. Jasenovac is deeply in psyche of most Serbs, to the degree few Croatians seem to understand. Henious atrocities commited there make this site a sacred place for Serbs. Excluding it from list of sites of interest is deeply insultive to Serbs, and therefore, I dont see a reason to exclude it. If USA were to rule Saudi Arabia, how would you think excluding Mecca from sites of interest would look like? Mostssa 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more appropriate to insert that data on the Jasenovac page itself. After the whole museum was looted by retreating Serb rebel forces in 1995 most of the exhibits were lost and are only now being slowly returned. The museum is closed, and will probably open in some time. When it does open, it might draw many or few visitors, but right now, its significance for Tourism in Croatia is zero. --Elephantus 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an article about the monument. There is no reason to insert the information in the article about the concentration camp. Secondly, what you say about monument being closed might be true, but does it change Jasenovac monument's signifficance. What is Tourism in Croatia supposed to discuss - I dont think it should discuss based only on relevancy for Croatian industry money making at the present time. Of course, that is what it is from Croatian POV but that does not define the article. Suppose we were discussing tourism of some exotic island, hit by a tsunami. The relevancy of this island as a tourist destination, to be discussed as say part of article tourism in Indonesia, does not dissapear by the fact that the island is closed and will be closed for next couple of years. The article should tackle tourism also from historical perspective (indeed, until very recent tsunami, the island was very popular with, say, Budhists, because of its temple) - so I think in such a case the island should be mentioned even though it is closed at the moment, and the reason that local population hates Budhists should play no part in this. This article should tackle tourist's point of view, not only Croatian money-making point of view! Mostssa 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the monument and the museum turn out to be a popular tourist destination, among the Serbs or anyone else, remains to be seen. It might be important to you, but it may not be as important to other people from Serbia. The fact that it was an obligatory stop for school trips during communism does not, by itself, warrant an inclusion in this article. --Elephantus 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is also that it WAS a popular destination, indeed one of the most visited monuments in Yugoslavia. Does it mean that it should be included in the article? What "warrants an inclusion in this article" - is there a NPOV answer to this question at all? Or, better to ask, what warrants EXCLUSION from this article. If a place was the most visited monument (or among the most visited monuments) in ex-Yu, that gives it some legitimacy. If I were to put Tito's house in Kumrovec on the list, some might object to it, other might support it. There are many destinations of interest, and probably a list of relavant ones can be much longer. There is no rule here, and generally, any significant site is worthy of attention. Mostssa 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about the present state of tourism in Croatia, not obligatory shrines of Communism which are empty today. --Elephantus 11:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The monument is not a shrine of Communism, but of Serbian suffering. Ortodox church, as well as people from RS have interest there. Paddy Ashdown has visited the site himself. Your other point, that the article is about only present moment, is something I dispute. The article can discuss development of tourism at some place and other aspects, just like for instance article Croatia talks about the state from many aspects. Article Tourism in Nepal might include data about first mission to Mnt Everest, for instance. It is, in my opinion, about Tourism at given place as a phenomenon, with all relevant aspects. It is not a report on present state, and it is certainly not supposed to be a pamphlet serving Tourism industry of the country. Mostssa 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This guy is saying absurdities. According to his logic, Srebrenica would also be a popular tourist site. Oh yes, I forgot Ovčara. Mostssa, got any other massacre sites to include in your tourist itinerary? I'm sure you'll find something. --Zmaj 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are getting my logic wrong. Certainly, Srebrenica might be a site of interest for Muslim pilgrims. I doubt Ovcara could, but anything can happen. Is there even a monument in Srebrenica? Were there pilgrims at any time, like for Jasenovac? I think, at least once a year, the widows of those killed there come to Srebrenica, but I dont know if there are wider class of visitors. Although the scale of killings in Srebrenica is many times, perhaps 100 times, smaller than that in Jasenovac, the symbolic resonance that it has in psyche of Bosnian Muslims is great. I would not be against inclusion of Srebrenica in the list of pilgrim sites in Bosnia, if it indeed is a pilgrim site even if at smaller size than Jasenovac was for decades. But, as I said, I do not know that much about Srebrenica monument (if there is such a thing), or about its status as a frequently visited site, though it is very probable that it will have such a status in future, as Jasenovac. Mostssa 13:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said below, I consider this article to be mainly about the present state of tourism in Croatia, not history or politics. And at present Jasenovac is not a tourist attraction in Croatia. You may not agree with this, but I suggest looking up other similar articles. --Elephantus 16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Politics has nothing to do with it indeed. Historical aspects of tourism have, but indeed it is true that they are not the main issue in the mostly short article. But one can imagine expanding the article with story how the tourism developed etc. Though this is a bit off the topic. So, your question is if Jasenovac NOW is a tourist attraction. You are right in saying that Jasenovac is not visited by a lot of people nowadays, but that is not the same thing as being a tourist attraction. The tourist atraction is something which is interesting to visitors/tourists/pilgrims; it is in this sense that Jasenovac is a tourist attraction to Serbs. That they are presently not in position to visit it is not so relevant. Jasenovac is a site of considerable interest to Sebs, which was the reason for its inclusion on the list. Mostssa 17:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: From the webster dictionary: attraction - something that attracts or is intended to attract people by appealing to their desires and tastes. Do you dispute that many Serb have desire to pay respect to their dead at Jasenovac? They have been doing this in the past, up untill breakup of Yugoslavia.


 * Mostssa says: The fact is also that it WAS a popular destination, indeed one of the most visited monuments in Yugoslavia. Mostssa is ignoring the fact that most of those "visitors" were FORCED to go there by the communist regime. Therefore, this has nothing to do with the ridiculous tsunami example provided by Mostssa, because it can be safely assumed that Jasenovac will be not nearly as "popular" in the future, unless another dictatorship is reinstated (let's hope not). If the number of visitors rises to a respectable figure, Jasenovac will be included in the article. --Zmaj 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the visitors were on school excursions, at least that is what I know. So, ideed they were following the choice of their teachers, but to say they were FORCED is going too far. The decision where to go is in fact never fully free - one is restricted with what one knows, and indeed the Tourist industries are well aware of the importance of advertising. Given the recent conflict and the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, the awareness of the Ustasha crimes and Jasenovac only increased, and RS, with its border with Croatia very close to Jasenovac historical site, and emotions related to Serbian suffering running high (and are much more so related to the Ustasha crimes than say in Serbia, as many people there have relatives who died in Holocaust, or who were victims of recent wars) will provide a certain source of pilgrims, given the opportunity. In fact, Croatian government, which is nowadays trying hard to present itself as tolerant and symphatetic to Serbian victims (contrary to popular feelings, as far as I know) in order to be addmited to EU, is restoring the site, bouldozered by Tudjman, and reopening the museum in the recent future. So, the popularity of Jasenovac has little to do with Communist (or any other) dictatorship, but with legitimate feelings of Serbs, which are maintained by educational system (in RS in particular), Ortodox Church, and general sentiment. These are much stronger forces than tourist advertisments for other attractions. So, while you might dispute the degree to which it is a tourist attraction, I dont think you can deny that it is a tourist attraction (in fact monuments and historical places are always interesting to people, and Kumrovec house for instance will always be a tourist attraction, even if much less popular than during Tito's dictatorship; Jasenovac, because of recent violence, didnt lose on its relevance however, quite the contrary). Mostssa 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just disovered that Auschwitz is a UN world heritage site. In the light of this, I find denying Jasenovac, the third most "productive" death camp of the Holocaust, its place on the list of tourist sites in Croatia, very upsetting indeed. Mostssa 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are proposing to include Jasenovac because of your CONJECTURES on the POSSIBILITY that it will be visited IN THE FUTURE. And yes, we were FORCED to go there as schoolchildren, because if a pupil declined, his parents automatically became suspicious as "fascists". As for world heritage sites, UN doesn't create them to attract tourists, so it's irrelevant. --Zmaj 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know what was the procedure in Croatia, but in other parts of SFRY a child did not have to go to excursion. Noone would put fascist claims against those who refused. Perhaps Croatians felt forced in a way Serbs didn't, Im even surprised that Croats would have to go there. But for Serbs, little has changed - they do not associate Jasenovac with communism the way Croats might. So, your perspective is not universal - since, I assume, you are not of Serbian origin, and might have different feelings about Jasenovac, in which Croats mostly killed Serbs. Also, I am not advocating inclusion of Jasenovac based on what you say (conjectures about the future), but based on relevancy of Jasenovac for SERBIAN visitors, and I have supported this by various reasons, some related to past popularity, some related to recent Croatian crimes, some related to the Serbian sentiment. Last, do you dispute that Auschwitz is a tourist site in Poland? And why are UNESCO heritage sites included in the article about Tourism of Croatia (indeed there is whole section) if they are not relevant as sites of interest to potential visitors. Is world heritage, consisting of sites marked for protection because of their value and importance, irrelevant for visitors? Mostssa 20:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mostssa, now mostly nobody visits Jasenovac, so it's wrong to say Serbs mostly visit it. Actually, politicians mostly visit the Memorial area, in order to present themselfs in the media. Also, I believe it is as wrong to mention Serbs who were visiting/once will visit the Memorial area, just as it is wrong to say that mostly Jews visit other concentration camps. Any sane person would visit the monument and pay respect to the people killed there, regardless of their origin. Your edit does not have an encyclopedic value in this article. You obiously do not have a NPOV. I belieive I have, so I've edited the disputed section. I believe that the interested intelligent reader will follow the link to Jasenovac concentration camp and find out what the Memorial area is all about. not registered 05:17, 21 Sep 2006 (CET)


 * Jasenovac claimed between 45,000-80,000 people (best estimates)...that does not make it 3rd most productive. And questions the facts that shaped the Serbian psyche about the camp over the last decades, when the number was 600,000 minimum. If you are going to use arguments, refer to only how many people have visited the site recently, and don't use bull shit facts...

Minefields
First, I dont see a reason to use quotes, in fact TWO quotes, for the purpose of explaining the problem. Second, the hiding of the mine problem is referenced. Please state your reasons and objections if they are indeed good faith, and not a tourist-propaganda driven coverup! Mostssa 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem of course is that "the mine problem" is, according to statistics, practically non-existent for tourists in Croatia, far below the "getting run over by a speedboat while diving" problem or the "fall off the cliff while drunk" problem. The space devoted to it in this article is a POV violation but it was all at a certain user's (or one of his sockpuppets/buddies) request. --Elephantus 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you did not discuss the difference between the two versions. One of my objections to the other version is that it is in awkward form. As for what you say, the number of causalities in the last year might indeed be low, but the issue of minefields is there, and that it is a concern is evidenced by it being mentioned in all those tourist guides, government warnings (Australian and British circulated here) etc. It is your POV to present it in terms that minimise this danger. However, wikipedia NPOV policy is to present the issues, not to give estimates and judgements. Ask any visitor from Germany, I bet they are concerned about mines. You might also say that flying in aeroplane is the safest way to travel (this is something I would indeed agree), etc. but that is not a reason not to discuss safety issues and aircraft accidents. Indeed, they are a huge concern for many fliers, and companies put great effort in improving safety, although probability of a life loss is negligible. Next time you fly, try disregarding the passinger safety instructions on the basis of your statistics, and observe the reaction of the stewards. I mean, what is relevant is that the issue exists, and it has to be mentioned. Another question might be how much space you devote to it and how you write about it - that is a subtle question of NPOV. It is a fact, which has been referenced in the article, that the fear of loss of tourists prompted removal of bilboards at ports and border crossings (interestingly, such a concern does not exist in the case of bilboards about Ante Gotovina, which indeed wilfully serve the purpose to repell certain class of undesirable tourists). This is something which is relevant as it clearly relates to concerns of tourists and of tourist industry (who have a bad image problem). The NPOV stance would be to report about these things, NOT to reassure tourists (which is what, obviously, Croatian editors are doing - as if their tourist industry depended on this obsucre article) or indeed to talk to them at all, but to REPORT from the neutral, disinterested, point of view. Mostssa 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The passages quoted were from reliable, reputable sources. They presented this objectively and fairly. Your version contains accusations and implies a major coverup, something not supported by these sources. --Elephantus 11:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute (at least for the British embassy) that the passages are reputable (other passage, with words "lightning speed" is from a comercial guide). There was third passage, from Australian government. But that does not mean that it is the best way to present it - why use 2 passages, for instance. On the other side, they do not discuss the coverup, and the fact that they do not talk about it does not mean that there is no coverup. Have you read the link provided, which supports the claims? Do you dispute its accuracy, perhaps? I would be surprised if you honestly doubt that information. I can imagine that you think that there is to much emphasis on this problem, and that can be fixed so that information is presented in way that you think better, but information cannot be just excluded. The minefield problem, and tourist perception of this problem, is an issue for both tourists and tourist industry, and they should be discussed in NPOV way. Tourist guides are not written to report on all aspects of the problem, but article discussing the subject in wikipedia is not a tourist guide. Mostssa 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Lonely planet is a commercial guide with a reputation to keep. It's not financed by advertisements and can be considered reliable in this case (and in fact other sources confirm this). If it were found out that it was seriously misreporting something, it might risk losing business. The mine issue is a negligible one for an average tourist and even the space and coverage it has now is excessive. --Elephantus 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do we need TWO passages (or three, for that matter), saying essentially the same thing, and in a POV way, when what is really needed is a NPOV statement that there is a mine problem, and NPOV assesment of the problem. It is a consequence of edit warring that passages were included, and I think they are not to be quoted in article at all. Quoting makes sense when one disucsses the quote itself, or when it gives something of value related to the quote or the one who is quoting. But here, quote was used simply as means of POV pushing. Such quotes might be relevant for talk page discussions, but are NOT the right solution for the article itself. Mostssa 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't really read entire discussion, and i just want to say this. I agree with consensus version od Minefields in Croatia in part related to tourism, and I see that most (or all) of that text has been copied here. While I agree with the text, I think that copying entire text might be a little bit of giving undue weight to it. So, i recomend writting just a few sentences, and puting a link to Minefields in Croatia. This "lonely planet" text can be linked under "links" on Minefields in Croatia article. --Ante Perkovic 15:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with what you say. I object to putting lonely planet guide text, as unobjective and unencyclopedic ("lightning speed" is hardly an encyclopedic term). Second, all main points need to be mentioned. If you can do that in fewer words, thats OK, I dont object to shortening if it is done in a reasonable way which says that minefield problem exists, and that tourist industry has been at odds with the awareness campagn. Then we can link to appropriate section/article. This current text is actually shorter than the one in alternative version (with two quotes). Also note that originally I just posted a link to the minefields article but that was reverted. The information should not be hiden/deleted. Mostssa 07:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't intent to hide anyting, don't worry. If You don't trust me, You can shorten it yourself. After You helped reach compromise on other "mined" article, I believe you can do it here the rigt way too. --Ante Perkovic 08:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggested that things be talked as I did here too. Unfortunately, some people do not want to discuss and just keep deleting material here. The person who has helped with minefield was ChrisO, not me, and I have asked him to help here too. After putting my arguments here in vain I am pretty disilusioned, I hope that other will be more patient and deletion will stop. Mostssa 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jasenovac claimed between 45,000-80,000 people (best estimates)...that does not make it 3rd most productive. And questions the facts that shaped the Serbian psyche about the camp over the last decades, when the number was 600,000 minimum.  If you are going to use arguments, refer to only how many people have visited the site recently, and don't use bull shit facts...

Attacks on tourists from former Yugoslavia
It is a major safety issue, and indeed many people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro hesitate to visit Croatia because of this problem. The discriminative nature of Croatian tourist industry is certainly relevant to the article discussing the tourist industry of Croatia. I dont see a valid reason to exclude it, except to present the industry in more favourable light. That is certainly POV, and excluding valid information is considered vandalism. Please discuss your point and reason for constantly reverting this info, if you have it. Mostssa 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, pure speculation. The tourist industry in Croatia discriminates in no way between tourists. Show your Euros and you're good. In 2005 the number of tourist visits from Bosnia and Herzegovina grew by 11 percent compared to the previous year, and from Serbia & Montenegro by a whopping 39%! Now would all those people be coming in droves if Croatia had a problematic rap in their countries? --Elephantus 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not speculation. Above, I have provided some of the evidence from recent news - busses attacked in Istria, one of the most tollerant parts of Croatia, last August. The fact that there is more tourists from former Yugoslavia indeed gives more opportunities for such incidents, and they do happen. What do you think a provocative bilboard "This is homeland of Ante Gotovina" looks like - whatever the true guilt of Gotovina is, he is percieved by Serbs as the leader of ethnic cleansing in 1995, and whoever posted such bilboards knows that, and this is exactly why the bilboards are put there. And doing such a thing must be organized. Tourist industry are not only hotels but also ordinary people with private accomodation, and it is not secret that they are making sure that unwanted tourists do not come. It is something very relevant to this article from the point of view of such tourists. Many potential tourists are concerned about this problem. You again forget that this article is not just about money-making of Croatian tourist industry, but also about issues of concern for tourists, and problems of tourists from ex-Yu are as relevant as any other (in fact, in past they were large part of total visitors), no matter how unwanted they might be. If you were writting about tourism in Israel, then discrimination of Arabs (I think that they have to use separate roads) would be relevant for Arab visitors, etc. (if, for instance, there are in fact some problems related to race, that say black visitor to china might have to be aware of, then this issue should be discussed in Tourism of China article - they, for instance, might want to know that they might not be served in some restaurants - I am speaking hypotetically, as this is (I hope) not true). Mostssa 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, people are coming in ever larger numbers. Would they be doing that if they were harassed significantly in any way? I don't think the tourists from Serbia and Montenegro are masochists and putting this as an example of large-scale problems is a distortion and misrepresentation. Gotovina posters have absolutely nothing to do with Serbian tourists and everything to do with internal political struggles in Croatia itself. Try to find some more mainstream reports about Serbian tourists in Croatia and include them here, not simply reports of incidents which are not representative of the general trend which is overwhelmingly positive. --Elephantus 11:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you define "significantly"? The perception of harrasment is real and widespread. Given that the number of tourists was virtually zero until recently from some parts of YU and given that visas are not required since recently, it is not surprising that people have start coming. It is not claimed in the article that every tourist is beaten up, but that there are incidents (and people know about them, perhaps not in Croatia). More subtle forms of discrimination are not even mentioned, and most people who I know that have visited Croatia report unpleasant situations. This is perhaps inevitable, but attacks on busses and billboards with Gotovina show that situation is not really calm at the moment. In short, attacks on people from former YU do not contradict what you are saying at all. It is only logical that, once people start coming because visas are lifted, and the relationship between Balkan states thaws, that extremists will be inclined to react to this development with violence. Those less extreme, but hating such tourists, probably react in less violent ways, like posting provocative billboards. Mostssa 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about adding this paragraph: Warnings to all tourists from Serbia and Montenegro: (1) DANGEROUS BILLBOARDS. If you don't like Ante Gotovina, be warned: your feelings might be hurt by seeing his image, and there have even been reports on cases of sudden blindness, coming from trustworthy sources from central Serbia. (2) CROATIAN INSIGNIA. This may be fatal to many tourists who fondly remember Yugoslavia: Croatian flags and coats of arms are shamelessly exhibited in every city. Many locals will not refrain from such aggressive behavior as saying they are Croats and they live in Croatia. They show inexplicable hostility towards anyone trying to make them understand that Dalmatia is actually Serbia. How about it, Mostssa? Do you like it? --Zmaj 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal is cynical, but assuming good faith, these are my objections:

1. Use of word warning. This IS NOT a tourist guide. The article is supposed to REPORT, not guide, warn, threat or whatever. Moreover, even if it were a tourist guide, the use of word warning and the whole construction sounds like a racist rant.

2. Not only tourists from Serbia and Montenegro are concerned.

3. Dangerous billboards: Bilboards are certainly not dangerous, just insultive, and calculated to make certain class of people feel undesirable.

4. It would be more accurate to say the following: If you have been expelled from Croatia, your house has been conficated, or some of your elder relatives that were left behind have been massacred in actions under directions of Ante Gotovina, your feelings might be hurt. If some relative of yours was killed by Ustashas in WWII, you might feel unconfortable and threatened. If you are of Serb origin, you migh interpret these bilboards as unvelcoming and provocative, even if you think that Gotovina was in fact a honourable soldier not responsible for the crimes of his subordinates, that you might associate with such a provocative display.

5. Trusthworthy sources from central Serbia sounds ironic. It sounds as if someone from Croatia, with close-to-racist prejudices about people from central Serbia, is trying to mock the feelings of Serbs in general. It is well known that some Croatians feed their hate towards Serbs with prejudices about peasants from central Serbia. It sounds like it was meant as an insult.

6.The Croatian Insignia were never mentioned, and have nothing to do with the discussed topic. The passage seems ironic, and in fact it seems manipulative to put legitimate feelings of Croats, that are not insultive by themself, in the same ground with overtly provocative billboards, posted close to border crossings. The billboard with indicted war criminal posted on the enterance to Croatia is NOT the same thing as Croatian flag. Mostssa 13:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're on the right track, Sherlock... If you just make a little more mental effort, you'll understand that my post does not only seem ironic, but that it is ironic. How dare you, how DARE you, the hater of Croatia and everything Croatian, accuse anyone else of racism? How DARE you throw mud on a nation and mention Ustashas and WWII when talking about our tourism? You spit poison in every sentence you utter, but don't think that smooth talk can hide what you're trying to do here. You can report me to any admin you like, but that won't prevent me from saying the truth: you're a malicious and evil influence on the Croatian articles and your only purpose is to harm the Croatian country and people as much as you can. There. Don't expect any more replies from me, but you can definitely expect me to change your croatophobic edits. --Zmaj 13:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Mostssa for this post above. --Zmaj 08:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That I am assuming good faith and ignorig your insults does not mean I am blind. You could use the same approach, and assume good faith (it is an attitude to be taken WHATEVER you in fact think, since you might be wrong after all, as you in fact are). If you read my last reply carefully, I have not accused you or anyone else of being racist, just said how it SEEMS. As for the Ustashas, it was not me who has put Gotovina billboards on the enterance to Croatia, close to tourist destinations. And Gotovina DOES have associations to Ustashas to many Serbs, justly or not. And not all of Serbs hate Croats. I for one, despite what you might think, do not. Since you are keen on mental exercisses, you might consider figuring out what else might motivate people to expose those like yourself. Mostssa 14:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I checked your edit history and you seem to be concerned chiefly with malicious slander of many things Croatian. Most editors are prepared to talk and discuss with other reasonable editors whose main goal they perceive to be the betterment of Wikipedia. I'm certain that they assumed good faith with you initially, but as your edits, backed by, to say the least, strange manner of argumentation and referencing, grew more numerous, those editors seem to be showing less and less patience and good faith. I suggest you to look through the other "Tourism in CountryX" articles and see for yourself what I mean when I say that this article is less about history or presenting imagined cover-ups and more about the present state of tourism in Croatia as a cultural and economic phenomenon. --Elephantus 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not correct - most of my edits concern this article, which is reverted by some Croatian POV pushers, who refuse to discuss the issue and in fact throw insults at me. Check their revert histories and you will see that they are edit warriors (borderline on vandalism as they rarely discuss the edits), with similar behavior in many edit wars, and I have ended reverting occasionally some of their POV edits later on. It is easy to see that it was quite the opposite from them ever assuming good faith - they have called me at the very beginning vandal and troll, and threw insults. When I presented arguments, they backed off from talk pages and just kept revert warring. I dont see anything wrong with my argumentation; I have provided references and links too. What is really your objection to "strange argumenting" and "referencing"? One should talk about issues, not indulge in personal attacks etc. - as per wiki policies. I always answer ARGUMENTS, and rarely respond to personal attacks, which were quite numerous. If I am stubborn in not letting abuse go just like that, and stand and discuss my arguments, that does not give others right to call me vandal, nor does it justify uncivil behavior towards me by those who disagree with me. Mostssa 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now what what you say about Tourism articles. The Croatia, as a country which has a recent violent past, has issues related to tourism that other countries do not. They have to be mentioned, perhaps with less words than presently, since emphasis indeed shouldt be on that, but that needs constructive proposals, not reverting and excluding and not discussing the problems. Reverting with no discussion (and I have referenced and discussed my edits) is against wiki policies. So, if you are indeed concerned with betterment of wikipedia, give constructive proposal and discuss the issues, instead discussing the nature of the heated revert warring between Balkan (or whatever) sides (and surely, there is lot more of that on wikipedia, than just this article) Mostssa 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that many people's assumption of good faith was seriously eroded by your edit here, and even before, under a similar username, here. On the merits of this discussion, even with your recent edits to the article Tourist attraction, I think you're a) wrong on all your claims, and b) pushing malicious POV here. --Elephantus 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep adressing the edit war history issues instead of this article itself. As for the edits you are pointing out, the only thing which could be explained by them is that Croatian users might have disliked the edits, but they are not valid basis to assume bad faith or anything. In fact, these were some of my first edits, and as there was no link to newly created article related to Croatia, it was linked from that page. You can see that, since the links were in fact more related to Croatian history, which had no section see also, they were transfered there, while some users kept deleting them. Finally, the section see also was indeed established with a compromise choice of relevant links (that do not annoy Croatians with too much of bad stuff that they probably want to hide) and that was it. If anything, this edit history shows that I am a reasonable user and a novice willing to learn how wikipedia works. You cannot refuse to cooperate with people who have other point of view and whose edits you dislike, or annoy you - content dispute is not an excuse for calling someone vandal, troll, malicious or whatever - no matter how the other side of the story annoys you. It is exactly for such situations that rules of civility, of not attacking newcomers included, are set forward. So, instead of concentrating on ad hominem aspects of this thing, please discuss the issues relevant to this particular dispute.Mostssa 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You say you think Im wrong on "all claims". I have made a lot of claims, I do not understand what you mean (if not that you just dismiss my arguments in general, on the basis on your implicit ad hominem dismissal and do not consider it necessary to go into any details). Do you dispute, for instance, that Croatia had violent past - if so, what are your arguments. That minefield issue poses an image problem for the industry. Etc. I dont see any serious discussion here or disputing of what I said except in the Jasenovac issue, where you presented an argument that Jasenovac is not a tourist attraction. I have added monuments to tourist attraction site, I dont think that can be seriously disputed. So far, I can only agree that the degree to which Jasenovac site is a tourist attraction can be debated, but not the fact that it is a tourist attraction (as are most monuments, historical sites and museums) - note that Auschwitz is not only a tourist attraction, but a UN world heritage site. Also, keep in mind that the fact that someone is presenting side of the issue that you deny or are annoyed with does not imply that it is "malicious POV" even though you might feel that way. You have probably heard that only a few days ago two Serbian journalists (sport reporters) have been beaten up in Dubrovnik by a hooligan mob . Now, do you really believe that pointing to the safety concerns of the potential visitors from ex-Yu is a malicious POV? Mostssa 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Hi everyone. Here are some changes that I have made to this article and the explanations. 1. "Theminefields issue has posed a serious image problem for the tourism industry in Croatia, even though..." I really don't know who wrote this, but it is a false and assumed (even fictional). This has not been an issue at all for the tourism industry, since there really have not been any causalties for tourists, and the minefield are not in the tourist areas. And if anything it has not been, how you say, a "serious image problem", since tourists don't even express their concern about the mines as they are not on vacation in or even in the vicinity of the minefields.

2."The problem of dealing with landmines has led to some tension between the tourism industry and the deminers. Zdenko Mičić, Croatia's minister of tourism, has vowed to remove mine warning billboards currently placed even in places where there are no mines, like ports, before the 2006 summer tourist season. Such billboards are often displayed far from actual minefields as a means of raising public awareness of the problem. However, Mičić said that, despite the humanitarian nature of the campagn, it is counterproductive for the tourist industry and that billboards should be removed." This, on the other hand, is completely out of place, and has also some incorrect facts. Zdenko Mičić is NOT the croatian minister of tourism, he is the secretary of tourism. Bozidar Kalmeta is the Minister of the Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development. Mičiċ can be seen as the advisor for tourism to Bozidar Kalmeta.

3. "There have been instances of hooligans in Croatia attacking cars and tourist visitors, particularly from Bosnia and Herzegovina..." Again, incorrect. There have been instances of hooligans attacking cars and tourist visitors from Serbia, and NOT from Bosnia and Hercegovina! Tourists from Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia are safe in Croatia. This is so ridiculous to say since most tourists from Bosnia and Hercegovina are indeed Croatians and Bosniaks, and based on the registration table you cannot say which natioality someone from Bosnia and Hercegovina has, or which city he comes from. And even if, quotation is needed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.207.111 (talk • contribs)

The Dutch tourist
There was a Dutch tourist who was killed by a mine on Vis. I knew somebody would put that guy in this article sooner or later. Well, he does not qualify. Why? For a simple reason: it was his fault. For example, if a tourist went into the core of a nuclear power plant in the USA, would you write that American nuclear power stations are a danger for tourists? No, you would obviously think there was something wrong with the guy. This Dutch tourist is the same case. The Ministry of Tourism and the Croatian Army expressed their condolences, but clearly stated they were not responsible for what happened. Let me quote a Vjesnik editorial from that time:


 * ...a curious tourist went into the forbidden area and activated a remaining mine. They say he was a paragliding enthusiast and that he was looking for a good starting location. But he did not care about the signs that warned him early enough that he must not advance any further. Maybe that young tourist from the Netherlands was charmed by the beauty of the view that can be seen only from the tallest peak of the island of Vis (the Hum peak), overlooking both sides of the Adriatic, but the warning signs are so big that he simply could not have missed them. It is impossible not to see them!
 * He clearly saw that only the Croatian Army was allowed to advance beyond that point, he saw the signs of forbidden access on both sides of the road, but instead of turning back, the unfortunate tourist parked his car and advanced at his own responsibility. (Vjesnik, July 23/24, 2005)

As a confirmation of this text, you can see here the picture of the warning signs in question, which are written in five languages:.

I think this is more than enough to prove my point. --Zmaj 06:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, i think this is a logical fallacy. Sure the guys (operators/designers) at Chernobyl did something they weren't supposed to do, but that's still no reason to say that nobody has ever fallen victim to accidents with nuclear power plants. Moreover, your statement above is also factually incorrect. The dutch person didn't get killed, but he lost his leg. I'll be reverting your changes. Warning signs present there or not, somebody DID lose his leg on a mine, and stating that no one has fallen victim is thereby factually incorrect. RoguePat 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: i just saw that Joy updated the page and i think it's a fair middle ground between our initial statements, agreed? I will not revert the changes but motion to accept Joy's version :) RoguePat 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Case closed. --Zmaj 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-croatain propaganda - another season begins >:-(
Not again...

What's wrong with you people? Do you so patologicaly hate Croatia that you must spread your lies here again and again...

1. Dutch tourist was beaten because he was taking picture of kids on teh beach. It was in the days of heavy anti-pedofile paranoia in Croatia after some guy is found to be a pedofile. These days, people in Croatia were bombarded by news and discussions on pedofilia. This guy realy chose a bad time to take pictutes of naked kids on the beach. So, he got beaten. This is not related to nationality of the tourist at all! This is just a pure anti-croatian paranoia. "Giving undue weight" perfectly explains this.

Now, after something like 3 months of "truce" on this page, we have two new users:
 * - first edit in 01:09, 13 August 2006, then gone to Aug. 23, writes only on this article
 * - first edit in 00:11, 24 August 2006 - interested only in this article.

Just look at the history of this page!

Now, this are not sock-puppets, right?

What's more interesting is that 3 months ago we had big number of people vandalising this page. Many of them were also obsesses solely with this article.

Am i the only here who sees some pattern?

2. The story with british gay coupe is still unresolved. They might even started the fight in the first place! Right now, there is something like 100 gay pairs on Hvar and nobody is getting beaten. Also, i find this sentence indicating: They said that they suspect the motive was racism, since one of them was black.. Does this deserves its place in the article? The suspect?! And what if they were left-handed? Could you say that people in Croatia beat people who are left-handed??? --Ante Perkovic 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is a travesty
I think it is pointless to reason with the user who is inserting this into the article. Just from reading the article you can tell that it is a travesty already. Should we then start inserting positive testimonies of the rest of some 10 million tourists who visit Croatia annualy? Besides, why not broaden this approach to include pages on tourism in other countries? How about inserting the story about Jean Charles de Menezes into an article about Tourism in England? The page has no encyclopaedic value. It is apparently here to serve as a forum for Serbian ultra-nationalist frustrations. I think the best thing is to request a comment or attempt some other mediation. I am placing totally disputed and weasel tags as two sections of this article are well below the standards and a perfect example of undue weight. Noneedforthis 09:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC) User DACA-ENDA, pls stop using wikipedia as your own soapbox for whatever feelings you have against croatia. the hilarious posts you put is nothing but your own personal opinion supported by isolated, small incidences. I suggest you look at the following pages: Tourism in Italy, Tourism in England, Tourism in the Netherlands, Tourism in Germany, Tourism in Greece, Tourism in Bulgaria, Tourism in Spain, Tourism in France, and even Tourism in Serbia for some inspiration on what tourism pages are really supposed to be about. Almost all of those countries listed have worse problems with tourist incidences and safety than croatia, but you don't see 5 pages of rantings about why they are bad tourist places.

NOTE: Minefields and attacks are issues discussed on this page. A lot of editors struggled to get a consensus. You cannot remove information, which is documented, discussed and relevant. Also note Tourism in Israel page DACA-ENDA 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what is important in these pages, did you look at any of the links I showed you? If Israel is the only country you can come up with, then haha. Israel is a war zone, with terrorists and immense danger. Croatia is a safe country by European standards. Why don't you go to Serbia's tourist page and add to that? There are a lot more problems there then in Croatia. From what I see, you just like to put anything against Croatia that you can find. You don't care about landmines.

Look at the page history, and how many people were involved. You cannot just remove relevant data.

The "relevent data" you are talking about has been deleted by various other uses in the page history; the only people that advocated what you put up were a user with a name suspiciously like yours (daco), another one with a history suspiciously like yours (berane) who only focused on this article, and another user who's edits have been constantly reverted, which resulted in the page being protected and the user getting a warning. --Jesuislafete 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

pure lies from Serbians who hate Croatia
the section on attacks on tourists is full of lies and should be removed as it talks only about an attack on a guy who was taking pics of naked kids on the beach, attack on a drunk guy flirting with a girl who was not single and atack on a supporter of an opposite sports club, which has nothing to do with tourism.

Let us Croatians start writing such articles about London, Berlin, Paris, New York and every single article on wikipedia as that happens everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.107.172 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Attacks on tourists
You do not have to be worried that you will be attacked in Croatia only becaue you are a tourist. Just look at the text above and you will see that Croatians welcome more than 10 millions tourists each year. Tourism has been the most important industry for Croatia for decades and millions of Croats make a living working in travel sector and renting the rooms out. Croatia is not Mexico nor Kongo where you could find attacks on foreigners by mobs. Somebody, most probably a Serbian who hates Croatia and Croatians wrote this section trying to present Croatia as unsafe travel destination. Have you wondered if what he wrote here is truth? Have you read such nonsense anywhere else? No. YOu will always read how everything is beautiful in Croatia and people are warm and welcome. Well, at least you must accept one reason for that - they are making their living out of foreign tourists. Most of what that person mentioned actually did happen. However, itis very mean, dishonest and disputable to list several attacks and make a statement that Croatia is an unsafe travel destination and you will probably be beaten up if you come over. Read the number of tourists in Croatia again: over 10 million. Of course you will hear of a tourist being beaten up sometimes. Out of 10 million people, isn't that normal? Would you say that London, Paris, Berlin, New York or any otherbig city is not a safe place for tourists because 5 tourists were beaten up in such a big city some day? No, you wouldnt. So why making such a statement here? Becaues that is how that person who wrote that can make Croatia and Croatians look really bad. That person should stop using Wikipedia as a mean of revenging to Croats for having an independent state, he has lost the war 15 years ago. Obviously a politically motivated attack. So, let us explain these allegations. First of all, the whole section is talking only about 3, yes THREE attacks, and only two of them were on tourists. How can you say such allegations then, based on 3 incidents? Attacks on tourists by natives in Croatia are a concern, as they are sometimes very violent The cited the articles about the same attack on two British tourists, Ricky Donnelly and Alan Kirby in summer of 2006. All the links to texts about the very singly attack. Motives for violent attacks range from racism, homophobia and chauvinism, to anything like flirting with local girls  or misunderstandings and minor issues like a completely innocous photographing of people on the regular beach that gets interpreted as peadophilia. Western tourists as well as tourists from former Yugoslavia are targeted. Ohoho... lets explain this!

There have been instances of hooligans in Croatia attacking cars and tourist visitors, particularly from former Yugoslavia. Train passengers were targeted - no support for this, a pure lie, how could anyone attack a train???

train passengers (passengers inside trains) were attacked based of their ethnicity.

- while busses have been attacked by mobs - he talks about the incident with supporters of sports clubs, hooligans,... that is not an attack on tourists!!!.

this is not the case - look at discussion on these pages - tourist busses in rijeka were attacked, for instance,

- this incident has nothing to do with tourists, they are politically motivated incidents against Serbs and that belongs to the era 10 years behind us. Mostly they are targeted on Serbian refugees coming back in Croatia, especially if they are war criminals walking safely around.

"war criminals" - old ladies in busses in rijeka, or busses from montenegro which were stoned out of malicious serb-hate; refugees are indeed attacked, but that is separate issue.

That has nothing to do with tourism in Croatia. For God's sake, itis a report from United Nations High Commission for refugees! Nobody mentions any tourists in the report. - again an article about the same attack of local hooligans, supporters of Jug waterpolo club who attacked the supporter of the Partizan waterpolo club. It happens every day anywhere in the world between hooligans and "footbal fans"... shall we call England unsafe travel destination because Man UTD and Roma fans had fights? No. That has nothing to do with tourism neither. Near the border crossings from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro there are billboards carrying message: "This is homeland of Ante Gotovina". Some tourists from former Yugoslavia find such display an overt provocation. For God's sake, what does that have to do with tourism? -

-it is a clear message to certain tourists that they are NOT welcome, something everyone in balkans knows

That man is not convicted for anything and frankly, there is no tourists from Serbia in Croatia, and that person keeps presenting Serbians as "tourists from former Yugoslavia"... SLovenians, Bosinans and all the others are welcome and they do enjoy their stay here like anyone else. The reputation of Croatia as a safe tourist destination for people from former Yugoslavia was further damaged by a beating of Serbian sport journalists by hooligans in a narrow street in the centre of Dubrovnik before a sports match in early 2006. , - Here, he says the truth about that incident but what does that have to do with tourism again? Nothing. It belogns to footbal fans hooliganism section, if you want, not into tourism section. - Tourists from Slovenia, that are not Serbs or Montenegrins that live in Slovenia, are however not targeted, and Croatia is still the most popular destination for Slovenes. - Finally one honest statement.

There have also been attacks on tourists from other regions. In summer 2006 Ad van Denderen, a famous 62 year old Duch photographer on vacation in Croatia has been badly beaten by a mob of Croats, because he was photographing people on the beach, who accused him of being a peadophile. When he complained to the local police he was arrested and his cameras and film were confiscated, although he had done nothing illegal. In response to this treatment, EU parlamentarian Max van den Berg has called for a review of Croatia’s process for entry into the EU, saying that such barbarity shows that the country may not be an acceptable part of the EU. - That guy was taking photos on the beach in the summer, the beach was full of children, some of them were naked. So an old guy is taking lots of photos of the beach full of naked or half naked children... what is your first guess? So some of the locals attacked him. Did they make a mistake? of course, they should have called the police. But what would you do if you were a father of one of those children and old guy is taking photos of the whole day? Why mentioning this in the context of tourism in Croatia? It really does belong in the context of paedophilia.

Also, in summer 2006 two British tourists, Ricky Donnelly and Alan Kirby have been badly beaten by local Croatian mob who bite off half of an ear of one of the British victims, who also got his finger paralyzed and nose broken, after which he has undergone extensive plastic surgery. , He said he suspects the motive was racism, sice he was black. The incident occured after a drunk Croatian girl flirted with them in front of her boyfriend, even though men were openly gay. Because of the slow response of the police, they threatened to sue Croatian state. - What can you expect if you are flirting with a girl who is not single?

she was flirting with them. they were GAY!

Were they beaten up? Yes, and that is terrible. But such things happen every day everywhere in the world. Drunk people get in the fights in the bars. Can you say Croatia is an unsafe travel destination because a few drunk guys got in a fight? Silly. -- There was also an attack on gays on the island of Hvar, which is a destinaton for gay tourist colony in 2006. This incident may be connected with homophobia and anger that naked males walking on the island provoked. . The gay tourists said that they will ask protection from the French embassy. -- Here... and what happend to those gay tourists when tehy arrived ? Nothing.They stayed here the whole week, they enjoyed themselves, nobody attacked them, and they went home happily.

So, why is all of this? A person who hates Croatia, most probably motivated only politically as he is a Serbian, is trying to present Croatia as unsafe travel destination. This is based on only 2 incidents with tourists involved out of 10 million tourists who come to Croatia each year. Come on! If you think this section should stay here, maybe its time we start writing such a section for every country and every city in teh world. Because, hey, if you get drunk and start flirting with local girls who are not single, you might be beaten up by her boyfriend. If you start openly supporting Chelsea in front of drunk Man UTD fans you will be beaten up, if you start taking pics of nude kids on the beach, you will be beaten up.

The whole section should be removed as it is not true, but only a politicaly motivated vandalism against the truth. And I thought wikipedia is trying to be precise and true.

the section was present here until someone removed it a couple of months ago. there was a concensus reached almost a year ago, or more on this article. you cannot remove sections on which many people worked (medule, zmaj, mostasa, ahrvojic etc - both croatian and other editors) (comments to discussion page)

let me add my 2 cents:

These two opinions are obviously very opposite to each other and it is obvious that a measure must be found when talking about attacks on tourist in Croatia, or in any other country. You cannot have a general statement that attacks on tourist are a big concern or anything based on only a few incidents. It is simply not NPOV. Fights in bars happen everywhere for numerous reasons, its not something that has to do anything with tourism. Those people were all drunk,.. why they started a fight, not even them know. I travel very frequently by bus and train and I never witnessed any attacks on Serbs in trains. You cannot make such general statements based on a few incidents that might have happened. And if you compare 3 or 4 attacks with 10 millions tourists, it is obvious that what is written in this section is not well said. I am telling you, I was in London and I almost was beaten up by one black male for no reason in Soho. He was drunk. Should I say now that London is a dangerous place for tourists, especially if you are white? Concerning the old guy taking photos of naked kids, I agree with this guy... what else can you expect to happen, if there is an old guy taking photos of nude kids? I would kick his butt myself! And the reaction of Croatian police was adequate. How can he calim that he was not taking photos of nude kids? How can you be so sure of that? He came to the police hours later with his camera... It is not truth that a consensus was made on this article more than a year ago since it describes happenings of 2006. Pictures of some guy do not show any message to any tourists as there were placed there for a completely different reason. The whole section was written with a purpose of making a bad picture of Croatia based on some little stories. Such stories are a regular thing everywhere around the world. Do such sections exist on sites on tourism on other countries? No. SO the question is, why having it here? And it is obvious that it was written by biased Serbians as nobody would mention poor Serbians so many times.

You just cannot be so biased here. I am not being biased. Just realistic. Anyone living here can see that. It would be interesting to know the nationalities of the editors of this section, since that is mentioned. Not where they live, but their nationalities.


 * My nationality is completely non-Balkan and I don't live in Europe but from the above, it sounds like Croatia is a crummy place to visit and probably more has happened since 2006 that isn't listed here. I didn't write anything above, nor have I ever edited this article and anything that mentions Serbs being attacked is almost certainly a lie. But that mob who attacked the Dutch photographer should be shot for he was doing nothing more than taking pictures on a beach. And if you'd even think about doing the same than you're as bad as they are. Then the obviously corrupt police make it worse by arresting him instead of the bastards who tried to hurt him. And he's not that old. Maybe he could kick those scums' asses individually. Only then would the police have anything on him. Who would have their kids run around naked on a beach anyway? They are the ones that should be beat up but those stupid Croatians couldn't figure that out. And only worthless commie nations require you to register with the police, not supposedly pro-Western free ones. It's none of their business where I am or what I am doing. And that is even more true since they screwed up the Dutch guy's case. At least get rid of that relic regulation so that all you have to worry about is an idiot mob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.166.253 (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An offended Croat

I would rather see the entire tourism section removed for Croatia than have this artical. It indeed makes it sound like a crummy place to visit which is so not the case. I am a bit envious of Serbia's tourism page which I don't suggest should be tampered with - I enjoy looking at the highlights of what any country has to offer and it looks like there are nice things to see and do. However, my country is a tourism hotspot particularly famous with celebrities, royalties and the lonely planet. Surely it deserves more than alluding to having nothing much of interest especially in the interior. I have travelled through Croatia and it is one of the most beautiful countries (nature and towns) that Europe has to offer. Come on more detail about Dalmatia (and the islands) Dubrovnik, Hvar, Istria, hrvatsko Zagorje, Lika, Slavonia and Gorski Kotar. I also don't mind if you do include Jesenovac if it is important for people to pay homage - as long as it isn't the only destination mentioned. If you are really concerned about going then seek travel advice from sites such as Smart Traveller (Australian Govt Web advice). Ante —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.53.226.17 (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A happier Croat

Thank you for adding the tourism regions so quickly after I added my comments - Ante —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.53.226.17 (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistics by Year
The link referencing the number of tourists is not working--so I am going to remove it if I cannot find other sources to back up the numbers. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Commercial
This reads like one huge slimy Balkans tourism commercial. It really ought to use more encyclopedic wording.. -- Director  ( talk )  07:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I just went through the article and removed 5 kilobytes of flowery adjectives, puffery, and irrelevant details, as well as re-wrote some text for a more neutral point of view. Now it's more neutral and informative rather than promotional, although reading it over again, it still has some flavor of a commercial. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kudos, good sir. -- Director  ( talk )  12:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)