No edit summary |
|||
(13 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:::Concerning the poll. I do not claim that "my reasoning trumps the poll". Something else however, does trump the poll - objective research. Yes, you heard me right before, [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|Wikipedia is not a democracy]] ('''[[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]]'''), what you set up there was a vote, and is contrary to policy. And yes I'd say I do understand policy better than you, ''e.g.'' your [[WP:NPA|comments on the editor]] above, and the fact that you do not understand the difference between a "vote" and a "poll". Wikipedia content should not be influenced by the personal preferences of whatever random user/IP happens to ''waltz'' by this talkpage. We need an OBJECTIVE notability measurement, such as Google testing, and objective, impersonal criteria for inclusion. As opposed to "I like this guy! I vote for him! He's great..". Yes, User:Timbouctou, that is essentially your reasoning here, and yes, it is '''''blatantly''''' against '''[[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]]'''. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::Concerning the poll. I do not claim that "my reasoning trumps the poll". Something else however, does trump the poll - objective research. Yes, you heard me right before, [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|Wikipedia is not a democracy]] ('''[[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]]'''), what you set up there was a vote, and is contrary to policy. And yes I'd say I do understand policy better than you, ''e.g.'' your [[WP:NPA|comments on the editor]] above, and the fact that you do not understand the difference between a "vote" and a "poll". Wikipedia content should not be influenced by the personal preferences of whatever random user/IP happens to ''waltz'' by this talkpage. We need an OBJECTIVE notability measurement, such as Google testing, and objective, impersonal criteria for inclusion. As opposed to "I like this guy! I vote for him! He's great..". Yes, User:Timbouctou, that is essentially your reasoning here, and yes, it is '''''blatantly''''' against '''[[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]]'''. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::here's a chronological summary of what DIREKTOR thinks is consensus-building: |
|||
::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croats/Archive_3#Infobox_gives_a_bad_impression_of_Croats This post] from 29 September 2010 spurred the whole debate, claiming that the "infobox gives a bad impression of Croats" as there are no women among what was then 12 arbitrarily selected persons shown. |
|||
::::*On [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croats/Archive_3#Infobox_picture September 14] Wustenfuchs proposes a list of candidates, which of course, attracts DIREKTOR's attention and immediately degenerates into an idiotic (yes, I said it, sue me) debate over Tito, which lasted into November. |
|||
::::*On [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croats/Archive_3#Summary 20 October] I tried to start a poll in which all voters were invited to participate in and which was supposed to help us gain consensus (as per [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]], the policy you deliberately decide to misinterpret time and again). The candidates were divided into groups by areas of public life they were mostly associated with. This also spurred a discussion of course, but editors involved generally agreed with the voting rules and 15 of them (Timbouctou, Clockwork Orange, Wustefuchs, Thewanderer, Kebeta, Direktor, Dr. Vicodine, Ali Pasha, Vodomar, Croq, Čeha, Tomobe03, A-ciha, Kennechten and Tty29a) took the time to participate in it. After the discussion became stale in early November it was closed on 16 November. |
|||
::::*On 25 November, DIREKTOR, who actually voted in the poll and therefore I assume accepted its rules, decided to come by, and declare that "''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croats/Archive_3#3._Conclusion The final list seems pretty wrong. Voting is, in the end, not a very good method.] 16 is just too much, and can we really place Kostelić or Vlašić or Ivanišević over King Tomislav or N.Š. Zrinski? I would use the top 12, while replacing (temporarily popular) sportspeople with Kings and Bans.''". So we can only assume that he did not like the outcome so he resorted to another tactic - which boils down to scrapping the poll altogether. |
|||
::::*This was followed by a lengthy comment from me in which I tried to address problems pointed out, criticized DIREKTOR for thinking that his opinion alon trumps everyone else's and offered arguments for increasing the number of images to 16 - to which he offered a whole sentence saying "''Sorry everyone, we're not the English. Disagree with expanding.''" How civil and constructive of you. |
|||
::::*Since the debate and the poll had gone stale in the meantime, DIREKTOR simply chose to do as he pleases and then started making his own selection, replaced the images with whatever he decided was appropriate. I for one stopped following this discussion because I became annoyed with his arrogance and realised that there's no end to his stubborness. |
|||
::::*And here we are, in March 2011, with DIREKTOR blabbering on for the umpteenth time about [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]], a policy which does not even apply here as - and read the following words carefully - '''THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY OF DETERMINING WHO SHOULD BE IN THE PICTURE, NOR IS THERE A RELIABLE SOURCE WHICH DETERMINED IT FOR US'''. In other words, ther is no other way '''BUT''' a consensus to decide who should be featured in a picture which is itself nothing more than just an illustration. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY was designed to prevent polls trumping objectively proven facts - and the issue of selecting persons for inclusion in our little infobox is not it. I could go on listing various contradictions of DIREKTOR's dubious argument to he contrary (the most popular WP Croatia biography on Wikipedia is [[Mirko Filipović]] and yet no one bothered to vote for him, Hitler is probably the most notable Austrian by his "objective" Google standards and yet you don't see him featured in the [[Austrians]] article, the odd inclusion of Savka Dabčević but his deliberate ignoring of what he calls "temporarily popular" sportswomen such as Blanka Vlašić and Janica Kostelić and so on). |
|||
::::*In conclusion, not only is DIREKTOR misinterpreting policies, but he is also very arrogant about it, and in fact I have very good reason to believe that his whole thinking is determined by his own personal preferences (I suspect the only reason he opposed increasing the number of pictures - which would have solved a number of problems with the original selection - is that he was afraid that someone he does not like might get in the picture). This was also probably the only reason why he decided to replace [[:Template:Infobox ethnic group]] with [[:Template:Croats infobox]], probably to cement his own selection and make sure that his favourite persons of the century are in there by making it difficult for others to change images. And after all that, he adds insult to injury wit edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croats&diff=417802644&oldid=417776133 these] in which he himself hypocritically cites "NON-consensus" as the reason for the removal of another user's collage. In addition, I have yet to see a single argument as to why to we need any person shown in the infobox at all (and I've asked the knowledgeable DIREKTOR twice) - especially since the documentation at [[:Template:Infobox ethnic group]] does not say anything on the matter. You say you refuse to be bullied - well, DIREKTOR, I refuse to put up with your belittling remarks directed not only at me but other editors as well, and the way you choose to ignore consensus-building principles when editing just about any article you were ever involved in (at the moment you are taking part in yet another pointless edit war over the infobox at [[Ante Pavelić]] - fascinating stuff). I for one will not tolerate your stubbornness any longer - feel free to report whatever you feel needs reporting - but rest assured that I will do the same. |
|||
::::*With all that in mind, I will remove the image from the infobox, until a consensus on whether we need it and who should be in it is reached, as what we have now is - to use your words - "NON-consensus". See you soon. [[User:Timbouctou|''<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'><em>Timbouctou</em></span>]] 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[WP:TLDR]]. I had already told you several times that (imo) you have a serious problem with ''humongous'' posts. Nobody I've met so far writes posts this long so frequently. I'm sorry, but people cannot be expected to read and write enormous essays all day in trying to respond to your posts. This issue, and indeed most issues, are not nearly as complicated as that. Please try your best to express yourself in a concise and organized manner. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:26, 23 March 2011
Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Croatia B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Croats are Western Serbs?
The Catholic Encyclopedia, which is obviously a most reliable source as the Catholic church has been keeping records since the middle ages, states that some Hroats (Croats) are Western Serbs. I'm quite surprised because I thought that Catholic Encylopedia would do anything to suggest that Croats have always been their own ethnicity as opposed to merely one derived by Catholicism itself.
"While every other race in the Balkans, with the exception of the Western Serbs, called Hroats (Croats), went over to schism, the Roman Catholic faith ...."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01253b.htm - Look under religion. Lukic12345 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be brief: so what? No, the catholic church is not a reliable source. And we shall certainly not be including any of the nonsense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be even shorter. I do not believe that Catholic church is reliable source too, however, I do not belive that anything is quite reliable especially most commonly cited sources of Wikipedia. Actaully, how do you define reliable source. If you look some definitions in Wikipedia: CIA, Major Western Media, NATO, Goverments.... What makes them more reliable then Vatican. You see maybe you should not be so short but try to use your mind and give us definition of credibility and reliability. How would you explain that mantioned sources have changed mind so many time (e.g about Viethnam war, or Suharto regime in Indonesia) in last 30 years? If Encyclpedia of Vatican has some document, what makes this documents less reliable then document presented by CIA, or some Serbian or Croatian scollar that are also frequently cited. Both parties have stake in the game of (mis)information. Where do you get such an arrogance saying "So, what". Really amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.22.245 (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Dependso who wrote that. But, it is clearly Croats aren't Western Serbs. Wikipedia isn't about making articles controversal or anything like that, for that you have You Tube, blogs etc, so do you best.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus. How "clearly" this can be seen? Your anthem is composed by Serbian. Where do you see that? On their forheads? How are you so sure that you are not Serb, or God knows what, but Croatian. The only thing you know for certain is that being Croatian is your choice. Everything else is not certain. I understand emotion in day to day life. But here it is science. God knows who is who in Balkans after so many migrations. Even in rest of Europe every now and then we get surprised with new dicoveries so it gets more confusing, but you are so clear and ceratin, that even Vatican encyclopedia cannot shake you, nor document they have, even though as having Coratians as Catholics and Serbs as Orthodox they really appear as working against their own interests. For the irony to be bigger you sound more secure then big inqusitor.
Or could you simply state that there are such a claims based on this and that yet no significant volume of data is available to make this view preveiling. Maybe even Serbs are Croatians. Maybe there are docuemnts of that kind. Or maybe you are both the same. But you are so clear on that. Exactly! Well said! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.132.111 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) What about if you chose some political science rather then science like History should be??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.22.245 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
lol, I know I'm Croat... How do you know you are Serb? You sure you aren't serbianized Chinese? I wonder did you read new book by Šešelj - Rasrbljivanje Kineza...?--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
MISTAKE
It is really strange that DNA is used to describe who are Croatians today?
Here is why
This analysis, however accurately counted chromosomes, did not prove to be quite trusty source of determining group of nations that one nation belongs. To be more precise, we can observe clear comment that Slavic is significant minority in what is Croatian composition today.
Well how will we explain following?
1. Soon after Slavs arrived in what is today land mass called Croatia, they were subdued by Byzantium and Holy Roman Empire/Austrian Empire/Hungarian Empire.
2. If previous is the case, how Slavs managed to impose their language as MINORITY in situation when they did not have power over Illyrian population since power was with e.g. Germans or Hungarians. How come that Slavic language prevailed? Normans were Ruling England for few centuries and could not impose French, but it went so well for Slavic minority in Croatia.
3. There are numerous examples of quite opposite. Whenever local (already Romanized) population outnumbered newcomers neither Slavic nor Germanic languages prevailed (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania even France). How come that predominantly local population, Romanized through centuries of Roman rule, could not impose some Romanic language over Slavic one that is today widely spoken in Croatia.
4. Especially, if we consider that Slavs did not hold their ground for a long and that all ever Croatian Kings have clear Slavic names (Zvonimir, Trpimir, …). They lost it to many conquerors like, Byzantines, Avars, Germans, and Hungarians... Why on earth they would favorite Slavs over local Romanic population.
No one can deny that every nation is not one genome nation, but mixture of many components. Question is do we sometimes try to interpret genome through the eye of politician and see what we really want to see.
5. Looking physical characteristics of Croatians today, they are much more alike to Serbs and Checks then like Germans or Italians. What if Albanians are Illyrians, as they claim? Then someone must be wrong. Seams to me that Croats look much more alike Serbs, Checks or Slovaks then they look like Albanians
Please read from very same Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania
This cannot be serious scientific article if Albanians and Croats can be simultaneously predominantly Illyrians considering so many differences in same arguments that are used for Croatian’s genome proof. Their genome is so way apart.
SOMETHING HERE IS WRONG AND ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD CORRECT IT! ONE STAND SHOULD GIVE UP SINCE THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONFLICTED!
This is reference to article:
“And the third conclusion from the genetic evidence points to the fact Croats are genetically heterogeneous, pointing to a high degree of mixing of the newly arrived medieval migrant tribes (such as Slavs) with the indigenous populations that were already present in the region of the modern day Croatia.[41] Hence, most modern day Croats are descended from the original European population of the region and have lived in the territory by other names, such as Illyrians and their forebears. These original inhabitants also served an important role in re-populating Europe after the last ice age” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.22.245 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Total population
Judging from the previous discussion on the subject, there is evidence that the 9 million figure may be too high. In this case, an alternative lower figure, based on probably more reliable sources, should be used in order to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Kostja (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- link to previous discussion. The "7 million" figure is made by adding up all the numbers in the infobox. This is original research, but I suggested it as a compromise to end the endless edit wars. It hasn't worked :-( --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, routine calculations are not considered original research by Wikipedia: [1]. With that in mind, I don't really see why a sum of numbers derived from generally reliable sources should be excluded in favor of a figure whose derivation is at best unclear. At the very least, the sum should be included as an alternative. Kostja (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Josip Broz Tito
User:DIREKTOR, I'm very sorry I need to mention your name in this section, however, stop adding Marhal Tito on Infobox. While he has 7 votes ther, many of Users stated they are against Tito's image on infobox. Understand, ther wasn't poll as for or against Tito, but only a polle who whants Tito's image on infobox. It is clearly, his image is highly disputed, makes article unstable, and it's only purpose are your "propaganda ambition". Your activity about Tito in this article is NPOV.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It is also important to mention, 7 Users agreed to see Tito on the infobox, while 5 Users strongly opposed to Tito's image. We can count that as 7-5=2. Other people who were candidates don't have this problems, so they can pass. You see, from 12 votes made about Tito, seven voted yes while 5 voted no, wich means something. His adding to infobox will make article, as I sated, unstable and it serves only to some kind of political propaganda.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- This again? :) Nothing to be discussed here, the issue has been concluded by vote and a consensus established (your math is impeccable, by the way). We don't discuss the same issue over and over again, User:Wustenfuchs, because you did not have your way. Tito is the third most voted-for Croatian person in the politics category. It appears, however, that you feel the need talk about this until you can swing enough people to push your political views into the article. I'm sorry you cannot face the fact that Tito is (among) the most famous Croatian persons in history.
- I suggest you stick to your usual work expanding articles about the fascist Ustaše, the NDH, and Ante Pavelić. Perhaps we should follow your advice and, instead of Tito, add the Nazi Lothar Rendulic? :) I sincerely hope you shall not start yet another edit-war in the course of a few days. The uncompromising behaviour you've exhibited and your numerous edit-wars warrant a report. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles can't be fascist you know, and I'm not contributing just to this sort of articles. It seams you are active ther as my self because I see your activity on every "fascist" article. And maybe you should fallow my advice, since Rendulić is responsible for less murrders then Tito. Adding dictators on infoboxes about ethnic groups is not so great, you know, Hitler is far more famous (I'd say second person after Jesus :)), like Stalin too, but I won't say this two times. Like I said, 5 users were against, and we can make precedent about Tito. And if he remains on the infobox, then I need to congratulate you all chaps, because you made article unstable, and ther will be so much changes, so much talk at talk page, so many complains, but your way. I didn't made this section to promote my political attitudes (and as I can see you declared me a fascist, like I care), but to improve some articles at Wikipedia. About my activity at "fascist" articles, I can only say - I improved them grately. Before they looked like partisan propaganda 70 years old, now they really look like articles.
Reegards.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
And I forgot to mention you, how come Prelog (13 votes) is not included, while our beloved Comrade (7 votes) is? I hope you change this.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- As a non-Yugoslavian, I don't see why Tito shouldn't be listed in the infobox. He is a famous croat, after all. I assume that he had influence in the current shape of Croatia.
- (and, yes, Germans should list Hitler in the infobox, but it looks like his inclusion was blocked by the technicality t that he was born in Austria, see here). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The only reasons why DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) insists on Tito is that he is a communist and Yugonostalgic and atheist (which can be clearly seen from his contributions). The issue of magazine covers and notability are total crap. There are other communist junk that were on coversIncluding gadafi Idi Amin, MObutu Sese seko, Ceausescu etc. There is also another equally notable Croat from the same period :Ante Pavelić- who is definitely one of the most notable. DIREKTOR, however, will never support his inclusion. - - Rerding to the election of Greatest Croat-it is election of left-wing tabloid.
and reverting cesorship by DIREKTOR by which he proves democratic customs inheritated from communists. Its politics, Enric, politics. :) You would be well advised to completely ignore the ultra-right-wing nonsense posted above by User:Wustenfuchs. Every person is entitled to his personal feelings, thoughts, and opinions, but when he/she posts them as though they were "facts", it falls to others to point out that not a single solitary respectable source supports them :P.
It is also interesting to note how User:Wustenfuchs compares Hitler, or Stalin, with a person who was decorated with the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour for "preserving world peace" :). The idea that Tito is equivalent with Hitler, Pavelić, etc. can only be laughed at - not only by myself, but apparently by the majority of Croats as indicated by an actual professional study and poll. Such utterly absurd comparisons perhaps best illustrate the inherent agenda present in User:Wustenfuchs attempts, repeated over and over and over again, to get rid of a Croat he personally dislikes due to his own political views. Don't get me wrong, its ok to be "right-wing", nothing inherently "evil" about that, it is when someone wants to push politics into Wiki articles that one must oppose.
This person is not only the single Croatian person that affected world history more than any other, he is also one of the most important figures of Cold War history in general (the "leader of the Third World"). He is very likely the most internationally decorated and lauded person, not only among Croats, but in the world in general (119 awards and decorations from 60 countries). He is the only Croat ever to appear on the cover of LIFE or TIME, and he appeared seven times. He is the only Croat ever to receive the Legion of Honour, of any grade (he received the Grand Cross). He is by all accounts popular in Croatia as well, having won the 2003 "Greatest Croat" poll, and with a large square in the centre of the capital of Croatia (though of course, I cannot speak for Wustenfuchs and his pals :)). The funeral of Josip Broz Tito, at the time the largest state funeral in history by the number of attending state delegations, included four kings, 31 presidents, six princes, 22 prime ministers and 47 ministers of foreign affairs from 128 different countries. The WWII leader of Yugoslavia, upon his death the New York Times (and the western media in general) depicted him as the (quote) "last of the great WWII leaders". And he's a Croat. And we're actually disputing his inclusion? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Ignore Tito, how come Prelog has 13 votes (6 more then Tito) and he is not included?, and no, he is not the only Croat with Legion of Honor award.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As usual, I'll be objective and tell you that persons with the most votes should be included, and those are as fallows:
- Ruđer Bošković (14)
- Andrija Mohorovičić (14)
- Vladimir Prelog (13)
- Josip Jelaćić (12)
- Ivan Gundulić (12)
- Janica Kostelić (11)
- Stjepan Radić (9)
- Ivan Meštrović (9)
- Alojzije Stepinac (8)
- Goran Ivanišević (8)
- Josip Broz Tito (7)
- Vlaho Bukovac (7)
- Ivana Brlić Mažuranić (7)
- Blanka Vlašić (7)
- Dražen Petrović (7)
etc...
Another problem, some persons with large number of votes aren't included, you know witch. Our second problem, how did you get those images?
Ofcourse, historicly important persons like Tomislav should be included, no matter on number of votes, but what is with Prelog? What is with Meštrović? You know, you made another problem, maybe this old image was just ther for a shorter time and served as temporary solution. But we should fix this problem. And stop teling me about how succesfoul Tito was, I'm not stupid you know. Čiča Draža was also in Life magazine, he was very handsome ther :D
Are you, or we planing to repair this problem? I won't try to ask why you didn't included some persons, not my problem.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why is Tito included and not Prelog? Well maybe because
“ | Josip Broz Tito is not only the single Croatian person that affected world history more than any other, he is also one of the most important figures of Cold War history in general (the "leader of the Third World"). He is very likely the most internationally decorated and lauded person, not only among Croats, but in the world in general (119 awards and decorations from 60 countries). He is the only Croat ever to appear on the cover of LIFE or TIME, and he appeared seven times. He is the only Croat ever to receive the Legion of Honour, of any grade (he received the Grand Cross). He is by all accounts popular in Croatia as well, having won the 2003 "Greatest Croat" poll, and with a large square in the centre of the capital of Croatia (though of course, I cannot speak for Wustenfuchs and his pals :)). The funeral of Josip Broz Tito, at the time the largest state funeral in history by the number of attending state delegations, included four kings, 31 presidents, six princes, 22 prime ministers and 47 ministers of foreign affairs from 128 different countries. The WWII leader of Yugoslavia, upon his death the New York Times (and the western media in general) depicted him as the (quote) "last of the great WWII leaders". And he's a Croat. | ” |
- That said, we can probably include Prelog instead of Penkala since Penkala isn't a Croat.
- (P.S. Yes, he was the only Croat to receive the Legion of Honor. We do have the full list on Wikipedia you know.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - can we replace Slavoljub Eduard Penkala with Franjo Tuđman and conclude discussion? BTW, the whole story was about lack of female persons in the 'Croats infobox'...--Kebeta (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tuđman left politics (died) ten years ago. I oppose his introduction on grounds that he is a far too recent political figure. Shall we include Mesić too then? The first Croatian PM and 2nd President? Račan? Sanader? A twenty-year period is usually taken to be necessary for an objective historical perspective.
- Regarding women, we shall have to face the sad fact that until recently women were not very prominent in our patriarchal society. However, there is one woman that did have a significant impact on Croats as a whole: I'll replace Penkala with Savka Dabčević-Kučar, the first female prime minister in Europe.
P.S. I've removed the IP trolling, and shall immediately request a range-block and semi-protection should the offensive posts be restored. This is not hrWiki where one can just slander another openly whenever he wants. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is not communism where you can send UDBA ,KGB or somebody to remove what you dislike. --78.2.136.228 (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I must say, your main argument for adding Tito is number of votes... how people influenced the world is not your decision. Please, understand. If we want to be pure objective people, then we fallow this. I know you think I want to promote my "fascist" values and you maybe think my work here is something like 8th Enemy offensive, but bealive me, it's not so.
I'll tell you that scinetist are far more better to world then politicians. What one scientist done it remains forever, while it's not same for some politician. And I repeat, your argument was number of votes, if we want to remain rational, then we continue to fallow this.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Look Wustenfuchs, lets cut the nonsense. I don't think you're a "fascist" and I never said so, yet here you are again with that "8th offensive" gibberish, "your Comrade Tito" etc. etc. Cut it out now. I'm not buying the "polite" tone for one second.
- I'll be brief. The argument for Tito in the infobox, is that he is 1) very notable, in fact by far the most notable, and 2) a Croat - plain and simple. It has been from the start (see above discussion). You simply wish the person removed because of your political views and personal perceptions, thats all. I understand that there is no way you can "accept" the current state of affairs, and its not (yet) against Wiki policy to repeatedly clutter the talkpage with demands to have your way over and over and over again. However, people can simply refuse to humour your personal needs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Wustenfuchs. Hum, notability is not temporary, see WP:NTEMP.
From wher did Dabčević-Kučar comed from? What are you doing and why? And I don't demand nothing, I propose, you don't even need to remove Tito, I fallow discussion from talk page what we discussed earlier. 5 was against. I don't have nothing against "Comrade Tito", after all he is Comrade, isn't he? And he is dead. But his appirience will damage stability of the article as I stated, and I'll tell that for more 100 times.
I just wonder, Dabčević-Kučar now, Strossmayer... we didn't even vote for those people. Ignore the discussion above, just tell me, according to what you add Strossmayer and Dabčević-Kučar? And I need to tell you that I appriciate your politeness. That is the best why a man can discuss.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and entschuldigung if you insulted on Comrade Tito, it wasn't for you after all...--Wustenfuchs (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I've got wrong impression, but I kinde have a feeling like you won't add Ante Starčević, even though he is one of the foundings of modern Croatian state, and we Croats like to refer him as Father of the Nation, he is one of the most famous historical persons in our history. As I can see only sort of politicians we have on the infobox are... well, they are a bit lefty, arne't they... Again, don't insult on this one.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Entschuldigung angenommen, Herr Feldmarschall! :). Please see, WP:INDENT to facilitate further discussions.
- I find it strange that you put so much emphasis on "votes", its all you talk about. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if you had five times more votes, and you don't even have that, the image would still not be removed since it fits the requirements far more than any other one Croatian personage. He is: 1) notable, 2) a Croat. I mean, just fyi, you can mobilize all your pals from hrWiki and vote here it still would not matter much.
- I added Dabčević-Kučar because Kebeta requested we add a woman to the infobox. It was a good idea to fix three problems with one stone: she is a Croat (unlike Penkala), she is a woman and there were no women in the infobox, and she is immeasurably more notable than Penkala. I added Strossmayer because he founded the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, duh! And if you notice each row of the infobox is now part of an organized historical procession, who would you nominate for the spot alongside Mažuranić and Jelačić? Tesla? xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tesla was a nice chap, why not? :D I'd replace Mažuranić with Starčević. In Croatia Mažuranić is famous, yes, but in English-speaking world, not so much.
- About this Wiki is not democracy, I'm familiar with that, however, we made a sort of "compromise" ther. By fallowing this compromise we would have only one infobox image for years. And we changed three of those in one year, as I remember. And I'm affraid some people will also come to talk page with proposal to add more sport people... and so on...
- And thanks on this one WP:INDENT, wasn't familiar with it. --Wustenfuchs (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- (Ok, I moved your post to the right per WP:INDENT.) Starčević eh? Why am I not surprised at all, Herr Feldmarschall. :) Well I can agree on Starčević, but didn't you just say better scientists and artists than politicians? :) Starčević is a politician, Mažuranić is right up there with Gundulić as one of our best poets AND Bans. And you must realize none of these persons, aside from Tito, are even remotely known in the English speaking world. Starčević is likely about the same or even less famous than Gundulić, though they are both anonymous to a virtually equal degree.
All good now, you found good photo. It can even serve to Ante Starčević article, good job I must say. You may understand now that his image contributes also to stability of the image, you know why and how. Once again, good photo.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploaded new Starčević portrait. Removed fair-use images below. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a mistake on this page. Ivo Andric was not Croat. He was Serb from Bosnia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.74 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Andrić was a pure Croat although not so Croatian by his ideological and political wiews. Regarding Tito, I think that if he could somehow see himself under Croatian coat of arms he would die from shock and the man who put him there would be shot on sight. Literally. Godemir (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha ha ha ha! --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that last part by Godemir was too good not to chuckle at :) Meanwhile, I think there is plenty of room for another woman on there. Janica Kostelić is world famous and has earned the right of one of the greatest World skiers and Croatian sportsperson of all time. How is she not included already?
- The main issue with Andrić and Tito is that they rejected and did not identify themselves as Croats for the majority of their public lives. Andrić was born a Croat but became an ardent Yugoslav by choice; if he publicly rejected his ethnic heritage, then why should he be honoured under the Croat name? Same with Tito; ethnically half-Croatian, he rejected it completely by choice, and spent his career trying create a Yugoslav identity. Moreover, I feel like since they are already under the Yugoslavs page, it would be rather puzzling to have them two places. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. Vote for Janica!
- We already spent an obscene amount of time debating this, plus a month-long poll in which 15 editors voted. But this was immediately forgotten when DIREKTOR parachuted in and started blabbering something about WP:NOTDEMOCRACY (as if there's a reliable criterion for including people in any infobox of this sort). I suppose some editors derive a sort of perverse enjoyment in going in circles. Can anyone care to remind me why is it that we need an image at all? Is there a Wikipedia policy that articles about ethnicities have to have an illustration with a random selection of people in it? Because if there's not, I will remove the image altogether and happily ignore any forms of grievances which may come up on this talk page (because hey, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). DIREKTOR himself once argued against the possible expansion of the number of people by saying that "Sorry, we're not the English". Well, perhaps we are more like the Izhorians, the Udmurts, the Livonians or the Karelians. On an unrelated note - I have no clue what the article on Yugoslavs is about since it is not an ethnic group at all but a political concept, regardless what people in censuses decide to call themselves. It is akin to having an article on Europeans. On another note, this is probably the only article of this type on Wikipedia which not only has images of randomly selected people but also puts them beneath a coat of arms. We may not be English, but we sure have an inferiority complex the size of Britain. Timbouctou 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha ha ha ha! --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Andrić was a pure Croat although not so Croatian by his ideological and political wiews. Regarding Tito, I think that if he could somehow see himself under Croatian coat of arms he would die from shock and the man who put him there would be shot on sight. Literally. Godemir (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Tito under a checkerboard? Would die? :) Perhaps someone needs to enlighten the man to the fact that Croatia has a checkerboard coat of arms since 1939. And, I hate to be the one to say this, but you guys should all know that the only thing that matters here is whether the sources say Andrić or Tito were Croats, not whether we, or even they(!), felt themselves to be such.
The current infobox is very flexible, guys, that's why I chose it: it should be no problem to change any detail we don't like. The previous pic was non-consensus, where as for the new pic I (as much as I could) chose the folks we voted for above, though I was constrained by the lack of available photos (many even got deleted when I edited them). I also chose the format because it is obviously more complex and generally superior to a single-image collage, and the reason why I chose 4x4 is because that's how many images are usually used in this format, and I think anyone can see more would not look as good. Frankly I'm a little disappointed and annoyed - I had thought all my painstaking work to add a more detailed and complex improvement to the infobox might be appreciated, or at least not insulted and laughed at.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why Tito would hate being labeled as a Croat. Correct me if I'm wrong - and I assume most editors here at least wen to school in the former Yugoslavia - we were taught at elementary school about "narodi i narodnosti Jugoslavije" and I distinctly remember an illustration in a Priroda i društvo textbook in which people in different folk costumes danced together in a kolo. Yugoslav designation was never really intended to be a new ethnicity which would replace old ones - for example there was no effort whatsoever to melt ethnic folklore or customs specific to various regions into one - contrary to what happened with Serbo-Croatian language, which was exactly that. However, I don't think that taking what sources say could be our sole rule - there were people who thoroughly rejected their ethnic background (like Andrić) and cramming them into the infobox would be misleading. Btw I love the fact how DIREKTOR thinks that his reasoning somehow trumps the consensus gauged by a poll in which 15 editors voted and commented. I love it how he thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.) Timbouctou 13:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Look Timmy, I'm sorry you got these comical ideas about me in your head, but I will not be bullied and will not tolerate WP:TROLLING. In the future you shall be reported for personal attacks such as the above.
- I do not claim that "my reasoning trumps the vote", so do not stuff words in my mouth. I just saw this format, I liked it, and worked hard to introduce it in order to improve the article. I did NOT remove a (hypothetical) image agreed upon by the poll, but some other guy's own subjective image. I wonder why you did not complain when the previous collage was on? It was against "Tim's Pet Poll" as well. Or is it that it was introduced before the conclusion of your vote? It seems, in essence, that ALL you are pushing for here is that your "voting" freezes whatever image was in there forever, and that any changes are now impossible because of that silly, fruitless affair. Now, however, we can replace individual persons in the infobox at will without having to create an entire new collage - so if you do not like Andrić in there, replace him! etc.
- Concerning the poll. I do not claim that "my reasoning trumps the poll". Something else however, does trump the poll - objective research. Yes, you heard me right before, Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY), what you set up there was a vote, and is contrary to policy. And yes I'd say I do understand policy better than you, e.g. your comments on the editor above, and the fact that you do not understand the difference between a "vote" and a "poll". Wikipedia content should not be influenced by the personal preferences of whatever random user/IP happens to waltz by this talkpage. We need an OBJECTIVE notability measurement, such as Google testing, and objective, impersonal criteria for inclusion. As opposed to "I like this guy! I vote for him! He's great..". Yes, User:Timbouctou, that is essentially your reasoning here, and yes, it is blatantly against WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- here's a chronological summary of what DIREKTOR thinks is consensus-building:
- This post from 29 September 2010 spurred the whole debate, claiming that the "infobox gives a bad impression of Croats" as there are no women among what was then 12 arbitrarily selected persons shown.
- On September 14 Wustenfuchs proposes a list of candidates, which of course, attracts DIREKTOR's attention and immediately degenerates into an idiotic (yes, I said it, sue me) debate over Tito, which lasted into November.
- On 20 October I tried to start a poll in which all voters were invited to participate in and which was supposed to help us gain consensus (as per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the policy you deliberately decide to misinterpret time and again). The candidates were divided into groups by areas of public life they were mostly associated with. This also spurred a discussion of course, but editors involved generally agreed with the voting rules and 15 of them (Timbouctou, Clockwork Orange, Wustefuchs, Thewanderer, Kebeta, Direktor, Dr. Vicodine, Ali Pasha, Vodomar, Croq, Čeha, Tomobe03, A-ciha, Kennechten and Tty29a) took the time to participate in it. After the discussion became stale in early November it was closed on 16 November.
- On 25 November, DIREKTOR, who actually voted in the poll and therefore I assume accepted its rules, decided to come by, and declare that "The final list seems pretty wrong. Voting is, in the end, not a very good method. 16 is just too much, and can we really place Kostelić or Vlašić or Ivanišević over King Tomislav or N.Š. Zrinski? I would use the top 12, while replacing (temporarily popular) sportspeople with Kings and Bans.". So we can only assume that he did not like the outcome so he resorted to another tactic - which boils down to scrapping the poll altogether.
- This was followed by a lengthy comment from me in which I tried to address problems pointed out, criticized DIREKTOR for thinking that his opinion alon trumps everyone else's and offered arguments for increasing the number of images to 16 - to which he offered a whole sentence saying "Sorry everyone, we're not the English. Disagree with expanding." How civil and constructive of you.
- Since the debate and the poll had gone stale in the meantime, DIREKTOR simply chose to do as he pleases and then started making his own selection, replaced the images with whatever he decided was appropriate. I for one stopped following this discussion because I became annoyed with his arrogance and realised that there's no end to his stubborness.
- And here we are, in March 2011, with DIREKTOR blabbering on for the umpteenth time about WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, a policy which does not even apply here as - and read the following words carefully - THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY OF DETERMINING WHO SHOULD BE IN THE PICTURE, NOR IS THERE A RELIABLE SOURCE WHICH DETERMINED IT FOR US. In other words, ther is no other way BUT a consensus to decide who should be featured in a picture which is itself nothing more than just an illustration. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY was designed to prevent polls trumping objectively proven facts - and the issue of selecting persons for inclusion in our little infobox is not it. I could go on listing various contradictions of DIREKTOR's dubious argument to he contrary (the most popular WP Croatia biography on Wikipedia is Mirko Filipović and yet no one bothered to vote for him, Hitler is probably the most notable Austrian by his "objective" Google standards and yet you don't see him featured in the Austrians article, the odd inclusion of Savka Dabčević but his deliberate ignoring of what he calls "temporarily popular" sportswomen such as Blanka Vlašić and Janica Kostelić and so on).
- In conclusion, not only is DIREKTOR misinterpreting policies, but he is also very arrogant about it, and in fact I have very good reason to believe that his whole thinking is determined by his own personal preferences (I suspect the only reason he opposed increasing the number of pictures - which would have solved a number of problems with the original selection - is that he was afraid that someone he does not like might get in the picture). This was also probably the only reason why he decided to replace Template:Infobox ethnic group with Template:Croats infobox, probably to cement his own selection and make sure that his favourite persons of the century are in there by making it difficult for others to change images. And after all that, he adds insult to injury wit edits like these in which he himself hypocritically cites "NON-consensus" as the reason for the removal of another user's collage. In addition, I have yet to see a single argument as to why to we need any person shown in the infobox at all (and I've asked the knowledgeable DIREKTOR twice) - especially since the documentation at Template:Infobox ethnic group does not say anything on the matter. You say you refuse to be bullied - well, DIREKTOR, I refuse to put up with your belittling remarks directed not only at me but other editors as well, and the way you choose to ignore consensus-building principles when editing just about any article you were ever involved in (at the moment you are taking part in yet another pointless edit war over the infobox at Ante Pavelić - fascinating stuff). I for one will not tolerate your stubbornness any longer - feel free to report whatever you feel needs reporting - but rest assured that I will do the same.
- With all that in mind, I will remove the image from the infobox, until a consensus on whether we need it and who should be in it is reached, as what we have now is - to use your words - "NON-consensus". See you soon. Timbouctou 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TLDR. I had already told you several times that (imo) you have a serious problem with humongous posts. Nobody I've met so far writes posts this long so frequently. I'm sorry, but people cannot be expected to read and write enormous essays all day in trying to respond to your posts. This issue, and indeed most issues, are not nearly as complicated as that. Please try your best to express yourself in a concise and organized manner. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- here's a chronological summary of what DIREKTOR thinks is consensus-building: