Talk:Croats/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Images

You put images of Soljačić and Balić, and you don't put pictures of Krleža and many others more notable people. Unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.0.243 (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The choice of images is debatable, but there's apparently no suitable photo of Miroslav Krleža, as evidenced by his article. GregorB (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2010 (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)

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)

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:

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
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.
I suggest this: we move Bošković to the second row and replace Petar Zrinski with him. We have two Zrinski family members. Then we add Starčević instead of Bošković to the third row. I'll even find a good photo of Starčević and fix it up, ok? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 sooner or later you will have to face the fact that people cannot be expected to read and write enormous essays all day in trying to respond to your posts. That is a terrible way to discuss: bigger is NOT "better". Indeed, reading through your discussions your posts of this kind are half the time not responded to properly (if they're even read). This issue, and indeed most issues, are not nearly as complicated as that. Please try your best to express yourself in a more concise and organized manner like most people. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning. I hope this is clear and concise enough for you. Cheers. Timbouctou 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that right now? No warning? How terrifying.. :) So you're staring an edit-war to introduce a non-consensus blank infobox? In opposition to my replacing one non-consensus image with an obviously higher-quality non-consensus image? This should be interesting.
You will not bully me with your personal attacks into letting you maim the article. Especially since you did virtually no actual work in the infobox, but still have the gall to assume the mantle of "Lord Protector" here and butcher the work of others (WP:OWN). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
When we both get blocked be sure I will, in your words, "sue you" for the above repeated slander and personal attacks (in spite of warnings). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Your work would be much more appreciated if it had been the result of any kind of cooperation with other editors. If there is anyone here claiming to own the article it is you. If there is a bully around here, it is you, and if there's a troll here - guess what - it is you. Timbouctou 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In other words you're basically offended I did not check with you first before editing Wikipedia? :) Well forgive me, but, aside from the fact I do not consider you my boss, I was also not at all impressed by the above charade. And, forgive me again, but to all appearances the whole thing failed miserably by the time I finally decided to fix the infobox up. Tresla se brda, rodio se miš. The article stayed exactly the same. It seems it takes some actual work to improve articles, instead of MASSIVE posts - who would have thought?
You're staring an edit-war to introduce a non-consensus blank infobox, in opposition to my replacing one non-consensus image with an (obviously more complex and higher-quality) non-consensus image. I suggest we stop this and leave the infobox in the state it has been in for the past weeks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any non-consensus here as it is only YOU opposing the removal of a template which YOU created based on whatever YOU thought was appropriate featuring images of 12 people selected by YOU. Oh yes - we had a lenghty discussion about the matter earlier - which you happily ignored and did whatever YOU thought was appropriate. I don't see a single reason to let you massacre articles (in fact, infoboxes, to be more precise) the way you have been doing any longer. Timbouctou 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no consensus here. You have no consensus. You are simply "staring an edit-war to introduce a non-consensus blank infobox, in opposition to my replacing one non-consensus image with an (obviously more complex and higher-quality) non-consensus image." And all you're going to do is get us both blocked. :)
And please stop repeating "12 people" and such, I'm not impressed with your "vote" above. If you like, I can get 13 college buddies here, would you then change your mind? Apparently that's all it takes, a few random IPs and users and their personal favourites. I suppose its a good thing the Neven Ciganović fan club is not active here, or else we would have him in the infobox as well it seems. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me. And who is the measure of common sense here? You? You will decide who is "temporarily famous" and does not deserve inclusion in the image? You have "objective ways" of determining who out of 4.5 million Croats in Croatia needs to be in the infobox? Sure thing. Until you manage to convince others of the reasoning for your template, it will not be part of this article. Simple as that. Otherwise I might create a template featuring Ciganović and then repeat your entire selection of arguments back to you. Timbouctou 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I added the famous historical personages of our nation in the infobox's original draft (Starčević, Mažuranić, Gundulić, Tomislav I, Jelačić, Šubić Zrinski, Bošković, Petar Krešimir IV the Great) is because their notability is, objectively(!), HUGE. Adding sportsmen is.. ok, I guess, but I basically decided to leave it to other folks. The infobox can be easily edited - edit it!

Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars? --DIREKTOR (TALK)

Well I make that 8 reverts by DIREKTOR and 8 reverts by Timbouctou. Further more, this is a matter of hours after I protected Ante Pavelic for edit warring over an info box by you DIREKTOR. Any good reason why both of you should not be blocked because currently I can't think of one? Fainites barleyscribs 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

None whatsoever :). Quite the rush actually. This may sound kinda sad but I feel like I've just been skydiving or something.. xD
Wait why did you protect the AP article? Wustenfuchs and I seemed to have resolved the matter quite amicably on my talk? Am I missing something? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sheer joie de vivre and untrammelled admin abuse. Though actually I protected it about 4 hours before you and WF resolved your issue whereupon I unprotected back to it's previous status (which protects it from IPs). 24 hours for both of you. Fainites barleyscribs 21:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not going to take sides here, but if all other nations have images in Infobox, Croats should have also one. I don't fully agree with DIREKTOR's Infobox, but better something than nothing. --Kebeta (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree about the box but people can't agree which images. Tito is certainly the best known Croat outside Yugoslavia but then people don't want him for the same reason they don't want other recent communist/facist heads of state. I note the Mongols have Ghengis Khan though.Fainites barleyscribs 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Info Box Part II

Is everyone agreed that a box with lots of photos of Croats in it is a good idea? If so - how many people in the box are editors in dispute over? Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • If you are referring to the back and forth reverting session a few days ago, it was not a matter of dispute over particular people in it, it was a matter of me disagreeing with the way Direktor ignored earlier discussions on the subject. We originally started fiddling with the infobox some 4-5 months ago to address the problem that there had been too few women in it. During discussions other issues were raised as well, as there were also no sportspeople represented, some felt that there were too few scientists and artists, etc. Long story short, we came up with a list of 16 people (out of whom Ruđer Bošković, Andrija Mohorovičić, Vladimir Prelog, Josip Jelačić, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivan Gundulić, Ivan Meštrović, Vlaho Bukovac, Janica Kostelić, Goran Ivanišević, Blanka Vlašić and Alojzije Stepinac all have copyright-free images on wikipedia, plus Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić whose image is probably free but not yet tagged as such). By that time discussion went stale and Direktor proceeded to design a new info box (via a dedicated template:Croats infobox) ignoring the list and making his own selection, in which 11 out of 16 are politicians or statesmen, there is only one woman (Savka Dabčević-Kučar), no sportspeople, and only one scientist (Bošković). His template obviously did not solve any of the original problems, it makes us run around in circles as these issues will probably be raised again, and in addition he threw in some people who did not even make the consensus-based shortlist.
  • My proposal is to include the 13 people mentioned above, plus Brlić-Mažuranić, and any two out of the following five - Dražen Petrović, Ivo Andrić, Davor Šuker, King Tomislav and Marko Marulić, depending on image availability. Compared to Direktor's current template this means adding Mohorovičić, Prelog, Meštrović, Bukovac, J. Kostelić, Ivanišević, Vlašić and Stepinac, and removing Petar Krešimir IV, Zvonimir, Nikola Š. Zrinski, Fran Frankopan, Ivan Mažuranić, Strossmayer, Starčević and Dabčević-Kučar. Timbouctou 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. So your proposal is Ruđer Bošković, Andrija Mohorovičić, Vladimir Prelog, Josip Jelačić, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivan Gundulić, Ivan Meštrović, Vlaho Bukovac, Janica Kostelić, Goran Ivanišević, Blanka Vlašić, Alojzije Stepinac and hopefully, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić (love the hat) plus two more. Fainites barleyscribs 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to throw this out there although some may disagree, but maybe it will be easier to limit it to 12 people? Sometimes, a huge list can look overwhelming and I'd rather it have a good repertoire of people and look orderly. Just a suggestion. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, Jesuislafete. Indeed anything is better than teh random list Timbouctou is suggesting for some strange reason. I will not replace Ante Starčević, "the Father of the Nation", the guy who wrote the national anthem(!) - with Davor Šuker (soccer player). Or Peter Kreshimir IV the Great, our most famous and successful monarch, with Janica Kostelić (skiing). Or Nikola Šubić Zrinski, our most famous nobleman and hero of the Siege of Szigetvár, with Goran Ivanišević (tennis) etc. ANd you are actually suggesting replacing Ivan Mažuranić, our Ban (viceroy) and probably No.1 Croatian author of the 19th century, a literary artist, with his daughter (Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić) who wrote children's tales? And why? because some random 12 people who happened to be here at the time "voted" for them months ago. Wikipedia is not a democracy, objective arguments and judgement overrule "mob sentiment": "This guy is my favorite, oooh I love football, lets have him!" As I said before, we're lucky the Neven Ciganović Fan Club was not here at the time or the votes, which are Timboctou's "argument"(!), would be supporting his inclusion. There's a reason why we don't allow voting to determine article content.
This is just nonsense. The infobox Timbouctou removed was a carefully thought-out and arranged historical procession, with each row representing a distinct period of our history. The people included are those who's significance could not possibly be challenged (or compared to any soccer player). I mean I could imagine replacing one or two people, but this butchering is to me completely unacceptable. And for what? because that ridiculous "voting" affair from months ago turned out to be a useless farce, and User:Timbouctou wants to make sure all his futile efforts therein were not in vain. That's essentially what this nonsense is about. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Look - some people just think sportsmen are as important, if not more important than old kings. Also - given that until very recently women have never been allowed to do anything and even if they did , got written out of history, it's difficult to find famous women other than the odd queen or recent celeb. We've got 12 spaces. How many can you guys agree on? if we can get an agreed list and then we can discuss candidates for the other spaces. (Does anybody know how to set up a random rotation system?) Fainites barleyscribs 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
@Direktor: Your arrogance only makes me want to insist more on not having anyone at all. Since you said yourself that you were incapable of reading posts longer than two sentences let me break this down for other editors who may wish to be enlightened:
  • 1. The list I am suggesting is neither random nor am I suggesting it for some strange reason. The selection above was designed to be carefully balanced and to accommodate the issues which the earlier info box had (lack of women, sportspeople, scientist, etc). Anyone interested in the process which led to the selectio is invited to take a look at the archived discussion. An if somebody disagrees then a new discussion would be in order.
  • 2. The anthem "Lijepa naša domovino" was written by Antun Mihanović and composed by Josip Runjanin. Which anthem Starčvić wrote beats me. True, his nickname is "father of the nation", but so is Franjo Tuđman's in some circles. Besides, is Starčević known to anyone outside Croatia?
  • 3. Davor Šuker was the top goalscorer of the 1998 FIFA World Cup and for years his name was synonymous with Croatia in many parts of the world. Almost no person you chose except perhaps Tito is recognizable to anyone outside Croatia, which defeats the fucking purpose of the info box.
  • 4. Janica Kostelić is one of the most successful women skiers of all time, a six-time Olympic medalist and a household name in any place where skiing is popular. Petar Krešimir, Zvonimir and company are little more than just obscure characters to most people living on this planet.
  • 5. Goran Ivanišević is the only man in the history of Wimbledon who won it via a wild card late in his career and whose picture was pasted on front pages throughout the English-speaking world.
  • 6. I studied comparative literature and I can assure you that Ivan Mažuranić is NOT the "No.1 Croatian author of the 19th century" Not even close. His daughter Ivana Brlić on the other hand - who you describe as an author of "children's tales", was nominated for the Nobel prize four (4) times, her works were published in English in the 1920s and her work was one of the influences which inspired the globally popular Tolkien's series of books which came out 30 years later.
  • 7. people who voted were NOT "random 12 people who happened to be here at the time". The poll was open for almost a month, invitations for people to take part in it were pasted in several places on Wikipedia, including WP:Croatia, and most of the 15 editors who cast their votes were longstanding editors of Croatia-related topics (including you). You are insulting each and every one of them by ignoring what they already said about the topic, especially since all these points were discussed at great length earlier. You are making us all run in circles purely and solely because of your arrogance. I will not tolerate this.
  • 8. "Wikipedia is not a democracy, objective arguments and judgment overrule "mob sentiment"" - Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either and you don't own this article. Plus, there are no way to determine "objectively" who should be in the info box, which is precisely the reason why we can only rely on discussions and consensus when it comes to issues like this one.
  • 9. "As I said before, we're lucky the Neven Ciganović Fan Club was not here at the time or the votes, which are Timboctou's "argument"(!), would be supporting his inclusion. There's a reason why we don't allow voting to determine article content." - yes, the reason is to avoid random polls trumping objectively proven information, such as 100 creationist editors voting about whether the Earth is indeed flat or 7 days old. The infobox is just an illustration of an article about an ethnic group. It is not a monument to anything or anyone and it is not an overview of historical events. It's merely a picture intended to remind people who come across the article about Croats who our readers may have heard of. Nothing more and nothing less. This is exactly why it has to contain people from most walks of life as some readers may be familiar with Ivanišević (a tennis player) but others with Meštrović (a world-renowned sculptor). I doubt anyone will feel enlightened by an image of Zvonimir.
  • 10. "The info box Timbouctou removed was a carefully thought-out and arranged historical procession, with each row representing a distinct period of our history." - See above. Also, define "carefully thought-out" lol. I have no reason to believe that people in it were chosen for any reason but Direktor's personal preferences - indicated by the fact that he obviously thinks that politicians/noblemen are the only "objectively" important people in the history of Croats. This is just plain wrong. And let me remind you again that your "carefully thought-out" selection failed to address any of the problems which were pointed put during discussions which went on for months earlier.
  • 11. "I mean I could imagine replacing one or two people, but this butchering is to me completely unacceptable. And for what? because that ridiculous "voting" affair from months ago turned out to be a useless farce, and User:Timbouctou wants to make sure all his futile efforts therein were not in vain. That's essentially what this nonsense is about." - Even though Direktor is not reading this anymore as his famously short attention span does not allow him to read posts longer than a twitter post, let me repeat this for the umpteenth time - the only thing that made the consensus-based selection a "farce" was that Direktor ignored it and simply decided to butcher things his way. I personally could not give a flying fuck who is in the picture and how many persons are in it - but I will not put up with this sort of arrogance any longer. It is insulting not only to me but to everyone who took the time to discuss the matter earlier. He also completely misses the point on the purpose of the info box and refuses to discuss matters with just about anyone about anything (he was cajoled into participating in this discussion only because the reverting session a few days ago attracted attention from an admin). In a nutshell, Direktor is behaving like a 12-year-old, which is fine since they are allowed on Wikipedia, but it also means that I will treat him as one. And last but not least - I have yet to see a single persuasive argument as to why we need the info box at all. If people (and by "people" I mean "Direktor") are having such a hard time selecting or agreeing to select persons to include, maybe we would all be better off without an image at all. Timbouctou 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said several times before: WP:TLDR. I'm not gonna reply to posts of this size. I have to finish school at some point. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Must be quite a school if they teach about the anthem Starčević wrote :-) Timbouctou 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't replace notable writers and politicians with contemporary sportsmen. That just makes wikipedia look like a compendium of popular contemporary culture. We are supposed to cover cultural stuff. Leave sportsman for topical articles like, for example, Croats in sport, or Sports in Crotia. If you want, pick one sportsman (Janica Kostelić looks quite good and she is also a woman) and see which one of the current people in the infobox can be replaced. --~~


Right Mihanović, who cares.. Close enough, he's an "Antun" too. They don't exactly teach that stuff in med school you know xD --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Info Box Take 3

Here is Timbouctou's list, compiled from an older list on which there was voting. Ruđer Bošković, Andrija Mohorovičić, Vladimir Prelog, Josip Jelačić, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivan Gundulić, Ivan Meštrović, Vlaho Bukovac, Janica Kostelić, Goran Ivanišević, Blanka Vlašić, Alojzije Stepinac, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić. Plus two of Dražen Petrović, Ivo Andrić, Davor Šuker, King Tomislav and Marko Marulić.

Here is DIREKTORs list taken from the infobox he put together. Tomislav, Peter Krešimir IV, Zvonimir, Marko Marulić, Nikola Š. Zrinski, Ivan Gundulić, Fran Frankopan, Ruđer Bošković, Josip Jelačić, Ivan Mažuranić, J. J. Strossmayer, Ante Starčević, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivo Andrić, Dabčević-Kučar.

There appears to be agreement on Ruđer Bošković, Josip Jelačić, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivan Gundulić, King Tomislav and Ivo Andrić. That's seven made up of 4 leader types and 3 scholar types, (1 scientist, 1 poet, 1 writer). No women. No sportspeople. That means we need to agree on either 5 or 9 more out of the following;

Science
Arts
Sport
leaders
Religion

I will remove any more posts which grossly personalise the issue like yours did above DIREKTOR. Fainites barleyscribs 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is no way to solve the issue, it'll just devolve into voting again. That is not only a bad way to get the best folks in, but is also impractical. What should we use as universal, objective criteria for inclusion?
For the record:
  • I'm for Prelog over Mohorovićić. Nobel Prize just steals the issue.
  • I don't think we need more than one sportsperson. I would be fine with Ivanišević and/or Petrović.. Kostelić is just too recent.
  • J.J. Strossmayer is the founder of our National Academy, the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and headed the Croatian national movement for decades. What exactly did Stepinac do? (Besides pray constantly for the heavens to guide (quote) "our illustrious Fuhrer Ante Pavelić" and get locked up for it for 5 years?)
  • Marko Marulić is actually the first writer in the Croatian language. Ever. He's unavoidable, he's on the money for goodness' sake. Ivan Mažuranić tops his daughter Ivana Brlić Mažuranić any day, so if we're gonna include one of the two it should be the dad.
Let me just add that I hope we can keep the old organization: 1st row Middle Ages. 2nd row Early Modern. 3rd row Late Modern. 4th row Contemporary. If we're going for "votes over quality" lets at least try to salvage some of the concept. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We are going for consensus DIREKTOR. Looks as if Vladimir Prelog and Goran Ivanišević can be agreed. What do you say about Strossmeyer, Mazuranic and Marulic, Timbouctou? If we have 16, should we have father and daughter? Fainites barleyscribs 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

May I speak? :) My oppinion is that Noble Prize winners should be included... or you can go like this, see how often some articles are viewed, like JBT, that is Josip Broz Tito (stand for j*** te in Croatian :D ) has probably the most views, second is, I don't know, I'm guessing, Ivo Andrić... those, the most popular person in English-speaking world should be included. But exception for very, very, very important historical figures of Croatia, like king Tomislav...
I'm against Stepinac, he wasn't also very good Croat after all... I'm speaking as a Croat now, he was supported by Alexander I, he was his house friend, he participated and volunteerd in Serbian Army at Solun, during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia he was fine with anti-Croatian policy ther, he never spoked about it, during the NDH he was a saviour of Serbs, Jews and others, I'm not saying this is bad, not at all, but as a Croat, he wasn't very the best...
Regards,
Meine Hoheit, --Wustenfuchs 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer Mohorovičić over Prelog but either one is fine by me.
  • I can agree to only one sportsperson. I'd like to avoid having people in the info box for whom no portraits are available I'd drop Dražen Petrović, and since this is the only walk of like with prominent women candidates I'd rather have Janica Kostelić or Blanka Vlašić. The "it's far too recent" argument is nonsense - Janica stopped skiing in 2006 and Vlašić is still active (for comparison see infoboxes in articles on the Greeks (Pyrros Dimas), French people (Zinedine Zidane), English people (David Beckham), Spanish people (Rafael Nadal), Portuguese people (Tiago Monteiro), Swedes (Annika Sörenstam), Norwegians (Ole Gunnar Solskjær), etc)
  • I'm pretty indifferent towards both Strossmayer and Stepinac. Strossmayer was a staunch supporter of the Yugoslav movement (in fact what he founded was the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences) because of which he was not as popular since the 1990s lik he used to be before then in Croatia, while Stepinac, in spite of some controversies, is rergaded as a positive figure by most Croats and likely to be beatified soon by the current Pope. In the 2003 Greatest Croatian poll Strossmayer came in 16th and Stepinac 21st, which can show some indication of their significance as perceived by the general public. I'd rather have Strossmayer out of these two but I could live without either one of them.
  • I'm also indifferent towards Ivan Mažuranić but his daughter Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić must be included. The Croatian National Bank had issued a series of three silver coins in 2000 called "Famous Croatian Women" with images of Slava Raškaj, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić and Katarina Zrinska. At least one of these three must be included.
  • I'm also indifferent to Marko Marulić. However, we don't have his portrait and info boxes tend to avoid having pictures of sculptures in them due to copyright concerns (a 2D representation of a 3D work of art is considered derivative work regardless if the image was released free of license and as such is not appropriate for collage images which all info boxes use). I don't pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia's copyright policies but it certainly seems that no other article uses photos of sculptures. In any case, Ivan Meštrović should definitely be in there. As for "leaders" I couldn't care less about any of them. What exactly did Petar Krešimir, Zvonimir, Starčević, Nikola Zrinski and Dabčević-Kučar do for our history and what is their legacy today? Is any of them in the least bit known outside Croatia?
  • There are also two issues with Direktor's arguments: the chronological ordering may be appropriate for nations (by definition "politically organized peoples") who existed as such since the middle ages to the present. However, Croatian identity as we know it today is something that has largely been constructed in the 19th century (good example are Nikola Zrinski and Fran Krsto Frankopan who are regarded today as some of the greatest Croats in history but who were largely ignored in these parts until 1893 when a mediocre author and politician Eugen Kumičić published a historical novel containing an embellished account of their failed plot). There are very few notable Croats in the earliest periods (usually a handful of kings, noblemen and writers is all we can muster - and even their importance was construed decades or centuries after their time) as opposed to great many from the 18th century onwards, and especially since the 19th century. Insisting that there were four notable Croats in the middle ages and pairing them with other four in the 20th century is simply skewing history. That is, if you want to pretend to be "objective" about it.
  • The other and probably most important issue which Direktor fails to realise is that the infobox is not a lasting monument to anything or anyone and it is not an overview of historical events. It cannot be any of these things and it does not purport to be it. It is merely a picture intended to remind people who come across this article about Croats who our readers may have heard of. Nothing more and nothing less. If similar articles are anything to go by the criterion should be how notable the persons are in the English-speaking world, and not how notable are they as perceived by Croats. This is exactly why it has to contain people from most walks of life as some readers may be familiar with Goran Ivanišević (a tennis player) but others with Ivan Meštrović (a world-renowned sculptor). I doubt that anyone reading this will feel enlightened by an image of Zvonimir. If Direktor wanted to be constructive he would take a look at other ethnic group articles in which pop singers, active sportspeople, actresses and even current office holders are all depicted in info boxes. And yes - this means that even Severina Vučković or Rene Bitorajac should qualify over various Zvonimirs, Branimirs, Mutimirs, heads of failed local political movements, and so on. But hey, WP:TLDR and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY are his answers to all of life's questions. Timbouctou 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. So thats Ruđer Bošković, Josip Jelačić, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivan Gundulić, King Tomislav, Ivo Andrić, Vladimir Prelog, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Ivan Meštrović, Blanka Vlašić, J. J. Strossmayer. If everybody is prepared to accept that they can't have all their favourites in, does this represent a fair consensus for 12? If we have 16 there is more leeway.Fainites barleyscribs 13:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Why not 16? Its really not much different, and another row might allow for a more organized list.
  • Ivan Meštrović is probably our No.1 author of the 19th century (sad, but likely true, he isn't very good in general terms :). He is also the first non-aristocrat to rule Croatia as its viceroy ("Ban"). Comparing him to his daughter, Ivana Brlić Mažuranić, is like comparing Yeats with an author of children's tales. Outside Croatia they are both relatively anonymous, but she is virtually non-existent. If any one of the two is to be included it should be the dad, no contest.
  • Concerning women in the infobox. The first female prime minister in Europe should certainly qualify. No Fainites, it isn't old Thatcher :), its Savka Dabčević-Kučar, Prime Minister of Croatia (1967-69) and leader of the 1970's Croatian nationalist movement (MASPOK). She is both notable in her role in 20th century Croatian history, being the only well known Croatian head-of-state or head-of-government in the 20th century up to the 1990s, and she's a woman. Convenient, no?
Those are basically all my complaints. How about we agree so I can get to work fixing-up all the photos of these folks? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know it's Savka. If we have 16 there is room for Savka and Mestrovic and two more. Any more suggestions anyone? How about your Mohorovičić Timbouctou?Fainites barleyscribs 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I recommend Marko Marulić and Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Marulić is just too famous and is the father of Croatian literature. He's on the money.. And if the image gets deleted we can easily replace it with another. Ante Starčević is also right there, and he's also on the money. I take in Wustenfuchs might prefer if we include him for balance with Tito, and, surprisingly enough, I agree (he's a very significant 19th century right-wing politician). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Direktor was talking about Ivan Mažuranić up there (the writer and Ban), not Ivan Meštrović (the sculptor). He seems prone to mix-ups like that. Anyway, I'd support Meštrović as he was known all over the world for his work. The case for Mažuranić on the other hand is not very strong (see below). As for Andrija Mohorovičić - yes, he should definitely be included if there's room left, as his discovery formed the basis of modern seismology.
  • 2. Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić non-existent outside Croatia? One of her books has been turned into an animated feature film which was "translated into all of Europe's major languages, as well as in Esperanto, Japanese, Vietnamese, Persian and Bengali", and her Croatian Tales of Long Ago was published in English as early as 1922, with a number of new translations coming out to this day (the latest foreign edition was published in Japanese in 2010). In addition, she was nominated for the Nobel Prize four times (1931, 1935, 1937, 1938) by the very same Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts that Strossmayer had founded and she wore cool hats. Ivan Mažuranić on the other hand is known for a single epic poem and for being the first non-noble Ban. Wow.
  • 3. As for Savka, let me just clarify that she was PM of SR Croatia, at the time one of six federal units of Yugoslavia. Milka Planinc and probably others trump her many times over. Let me also add that neither Savka nor Milka received any votes in "my little poll" (as Direktor calls it) and that Savka came in 50th in the Greatest Croatian poll, below both Janica Kostelić and Ivana Brlić. It seems Savka's career is considered universally illustrious only in Direktor's head.
  • 4. Direktor should be lighter on "right on the money" descriptions. FYI the two most important Croatian writers in history are widely believed to be Miroslav Krleža and Marin Držić, both of whom are virtually unknown outside Croatia and have been kept out of discussion so far. I'm personally indifferent towards Marulić, N.Š. Zrinski and Starčević but they do have something of a fan following. And btw, the issue of Marulić's image being non-free does not mean that it will get deleted but that it is inappropriate for this use, just like putting a picture of a banknote with his portrait would be - non-free fair-use images require a rationale for every article in which they are to be used and are for this reason not accepted for use in templates or list articles per WP policy. Also, non-free images cannot be transformed into derivative works such as collage images. In any case, Zrinski is arguably the least important of these three and Starčević is just your massively overrated 19th century garden variety right-winger. Marulić's merits are fine, but I doubt our readers care who of these three will end up in the info box as their pictures are unlikely to enlighten anyone. Also, to offset future comments by anons about Tito, can Direktor find an image of JBT without the partisan cap? There must be thousands floating around. Thanks. Timbouctou 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. Lapsus calami, they happen when yur stressed out. You know what I meant.
  • 2. I did not know she was nominated for the Nobel prize(!). Ok, I agree.
  • 3. Um... Croatia was a "unit"? Interesting choice of words. Neitehr Savka nor Milka (she's not nearly as popular, why did you bring her up?) were voted for in your little poll because neither Savka nor Milka were nominated. And they weren't nominated because we weren't looking for women in particular. But, again, I'll agree. Because I'm really a very nice guy at heart.. ;)
  • 4. Why exactly should I be "lighter". If a person is on a country's MONEY, that means he has been selected for this honour among many as one of the most notable persons in that country's history. I don't particularly care about Starčević and I agree he's grossly overrated (just like Stepinac), but I'm not budging on Marulić. I draw the line at Marko Marulić of Split :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Tito. I think people know he was a partisan, Tim. Whether he wears a cap or no. And unfortunately some of his best portraits have recently been deleted for no good reason. I don't think anyone who does not like him tehre is about to say "well ok, at least he's not wearing a uniform..". Can I get to work now? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Re:3 Every editor was invited to nominate whoever they wanted and cast votes for up to 20 people. After 15 editors voted Savka ended up with a single vote, cast by User:Ali Pasha. Nobody even bothered to nominate Milka. But I mentioned Milka because she at least was a Prime Minister of a sovereign country, en par with Thatcher et al., while Savka was not. In any case, Savka is less remembered for being PM and much more for her involvement in the Croatian Spring movement.
  • Re:4 Sorry, I failed to realise you were using the phrase in the literal sense. Regardless, you still need to find a suitable image for Marulić, the current one can only be a temporary solution. As for Tito, I don't care either way but we are far more likely to get griping anon comments if Tito is presented in a uniform. If Tuđman was in there, would it be the same if he was pictured in his parade uniform or in a suit? Probably not. In any case, if his good pictures were deleted for no reason, then it should be no problem to upload them again and tag them properly, no?
  • As for you "getting to work" I'd rather wait for an uninvolved editor like Fainites to draw up the final list, set it in writing and conclude this once and for all. Regards. Timbouctou 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say, I'm against Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, she's unknown in English-speaking world, and she wasn't some writer either... And I agree on 16 persons on infobox. I don't know are those persons mentioned, but I'd include them: Ivan Meštrović, John Malkovich (ethnic Croat, no doubt about it, and more famous then JBT) --Wustenfuchs 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No doubt about it? Only Malkovich's father was a Croat. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't bealive I hear this from you, what about Tito? He is also, only by his father side, a Croat, isn't he? :D But Malkovich is popular to English-speaking world, and when they see his last name I'm sure they won't see him as French. Ok, now, can someone, briefly, tell me wher we stand, 'cause I'm confused from all this discussion above.--Wustenfuchs 17:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying there is "doubt about it".. What do the sources say? What does he say? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Malkovich has been discussed earlier on this article's talk page and at WP:Croatia. Other than being of Croatian ancestry and appearing in a music video in the early 1990s in which he recited Lijepa naša verses, he has virtually nothing to do with Croatia. A better choice would be Goran Višnjić (star of ER) or Rene Bitorajac (played one of the main roles in an Oscar-winning film). But we don't have free images of neither one. Timbouctou 19:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What he needs to say? Sources say he was a Croat, you know that, by his ancestry, as stated in few. Why should he have something with Croatia? It doen't make him less Croat, is it? Our lefty politicians love to say it is a civic state, not a nation-state as stated in Croatian Constitution :). But my point is, he is famous chap to Americans, Brits and other English-speaking people, like they give a damn about his connection with Croatia. Like with Nikola Tesla, what the heck has he do with Serbia, but still he is on the Serbs infobox. His (Malkovich's) connection to Croatia is irrelevant.--Wustenfuchs 19:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla happens to be an ethnic Serb from Croatia, which probably has something to do with his picture in the article on ethnic Serbs. As for Malkovich your are not saying anything original here as the matter had been discussed earlier. The article on Malkovich states in the very first sentence that he is an "American actor" and the issue whether he should be covered by WP:Croatia at all was discussed here in February (in short, the WP:CRO tag was removed from his article as a result). As for the sources, there are four used in the article on Malkovich referring to his ancestry:
  • an article in Nacional which describes him as an "American actor of Croatian descent";
  • an article in The Times which states that "the Hollywood actor is a big fan of Croatia: hardly surprising, since his family originated there"
  • an article on Croatian History.net which states that "John Malkovich, a famous American actor, has Croatian roots.";
  • an interview with Malkovich by Nicholas Kralev which states that "Even though of Croatian and Scottish descent, Malkovich had a relatively typical Midwestern upbringing in the small Illinois town of Benton"
So none of the sources actually refer to him as an ethnic Croat which obviously means that he shouldn't be considered for inclusion in the article on ethnic Croats. And anyway, if the issue whether people depicted in the info box are recognizable to an average English-speaking person is a priority then Marko Marulić, Josip Jelačić, King Tomislav, Ante Starčević and J.J. Strossmayer don't stand a chance in hell compared to Davor Šuker, Luka Modrić, Goran Višnjić, Jadranka Kosor, Mirko Filipović, Severina Vučković or even Marko Perković (and yes, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić too). So be more careful what you wish for in the future. In any case, this particular info box is for "famous Croats", not "famous people whose grandparents were Croats" and Malkovich is already included in the Croatian American article as such. Cheers. Timbouctou 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we check List of Croats and see wich of those persons has the most views, we can solve the problem, like:

Lothar Rendulic, proposed (in the first discussion) by User:Wustenfuchs

Now, here, people who are famous, no matter what they did or for who they did it, should be in the infobox. Georgians now have Stalin, he wasn't a saint (even though ther was a try to make him one), but he is famous, small kids know who Stalin was. Germans also wanted include Hitler, but Austrians were a bit angry about it... Etc. Now I think that, all persons wich were proposed above are here on this list, so we can now see who will be included, people with highest vote, that is first 16, or 12 or 8 persons, what ever, should be included, I hope you agree?--Wustenfuchs 10:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just too much. I see you squeezed some "not at all fascist" idols in there, and wrote incredibly political and offensive comments on the side. While I'm sure you think its all very clever and funny, please remove the offensive comments alongside people's names, most of them are just nonsense. "Clean Croats"? Josipović a Serb? Maybe in Herzegovina only xD, or did you mix him up with Jadranka? Jewish people are not Croats, not "clean Croats"? Omg.. You did not need this, Wustenfuchs.
As I said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a source. And the day I see Severina Vučković added here is the day I turn in my grave, because - yes, I'll be dead first. :) Next thing you know we'll have Perković or Turbo-folk "stars" in there..


Back to serious business. I'll start fixing-up the images, I think we have a good enough consensus here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Goran Ivanišević, and Marin Držić if we can crop the image satisfactorily, and Šubić Zrinski if we can't? Then we can stick in the result and see if it gets any sensible suggestions from people who aren't just trying to wind everybody up (Wustenfuchs).That's Ruđer Bošković, Josip Jelačić, Stjepan Radić, Josip Broz Tito, Ivan Gundulić, King Tomislav, Ivo Andrić, Vladimir Prelog, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Ivan Meštrović, Blanka Vlašić, J. J. Strossmayer, Andrija Mohorovičić, Marko Marulić(if pic. found), Goran Ivanišević, and Marin Držić (if cropped), or Nikola Zrinski. Fainites barleyscribs 11:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, who is offensive you or me? Josipović's mother is Serb, he is half Serb. That's maths, I don't know but I'm geting an impression you don't like maths. People from Herzegovina lol, like Dalmatinians are advenced... I won't comment this. I'm against few people you named ther Fainites, look with Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, who is she? Why she is good, are we listing her just because of her female organs? See that even Ivo Sanader is more famous then her. People with the most views should be considered as those who are worthy to be on the infobox. 'Cause if you mention Ivana Brlić-Something to some Brit or American he won't have idea who the heck is that. This is my oppinion, and I think it should be considered.
Mile Budak, as a writer and politician, has more results at Google Books then Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić. I'm not saying we need to list him, but I just couldn't remember nobody ealse at the moment. She heas 4.100 results, while he has 6.710 results. I hope she is not listed just because she is a women, because if so, we need some Intersexuals too, they could be insulted you know.--Wustenfuchs 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


There's that fascist stuff again, Wustenfuchs.. As I said, you really don't need this. Quote: [2]

(P.S. Wüstenfuchs of course means "Desert Fox" = Erwin Rommel, der Führer's "favourite general") --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We should probably not forget you beloved rot Führer, your 100 kg weightweiß Violett. This of course is a joke about him. For which somebody was in prison. And we can free say to him this
DIREKTOR, I won't even try to reply on this. Fascist stuff hahaha OMFG :D .
Finites, what do you say about we replace Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić with someone ealse?--Wustenfuchs 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
What's to reply? You just proposed an Ustaše minister, the actual author of the "kill a third and ethnically cleanse a third" policy, for the Croats infobox. You also listed Jure Francetić, one of the greatest fascist massacre-artists of WWII, up there as if for our consideration. I don't think that's a fact you "reply" to, its something you ignore to make it go away. But that's not the intriguing part. What puzzles me is how can someone propose replacing a three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee with a fascist Ustaše minister yelling "kill the Serbs!" off the top of his lungs?
To get back to constructive suggestions, what does everyone think of Louis Cukela? Two-time recipient of the American Medal of Honour? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. He earned them in service of a foreign army and is virtually unknown in Croatia. I can't believe that anyone would take Wustenfuchs' suggestions seriously. The guy has a 19th century view of ethnicity as being genetically encoded. Timbouctou 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I suggest that unless we replace the whole thing with elecron microscope pictures of genes and haplo-groups we stick with the list we have. They are all famous Croats. Once it is up there is nothing to stop people suggesting the occasional changes from time to time of the odd one or two but there is a limit to how long these discussions should hold up article improvement. Fainites barleyscribs 22:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Re Cukela - he left Croatia at aged 24. Is being a USA war hero such a big deal? All respect to him but there must be heaps of war heroes of Croatian descent. The West has certainly had enough wars to create heaps of heroes. As for Ivana, we're listing her, Wustenfuchs, because she's got the best hat. Oh - and being a four time Nobel nominee and translated into Europe's major languages, Esperanto, Japanese, Vietnamese, Persian and Bengali and still apparently published today. Her stories have been made into films and an interactive animated project which has won awards. As for various people not being well known in the English speaking world - this is an encyclopaedia whose purpose is to inform. Now's their chance to click on the links and download those i-Pad apps based on Ivana's tales.Fainites barleyscribs 22:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Re Cukela - it was just a suggestion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My messages are completely ingonred, and I think I need to make an explanation of all this. I added this list to make you easy who will be added - fine. Those people weren't my proposal, I just went to statistics of the article and saw who has the most views at List of Croats. Second "clean" Croats means that both their parents are Croats, since their ethnicity could be disputed as they are Croatian Americans. And I think Ivana b.m. should be replaced since ther are so many persons wich deserve to be on this list. Third, you can say I'm a fascist an all, but look at Georgians, they have Stalin listed, god damn, stalin, and you call me a fascist, what are they? KGB? My oppinion is, if person killed half of his country he is famous, should be listed, people know the guy. But, I'll agree if you don't. My oppinion is just that we should replace Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić.

Second, why not to add Cukela, he served a god damn foreign army?! So if he didn't served for Croatia he isn't Croat. Cukela is better then whole High Command of Croatia during our Independence War, why not to list him?!--Wustenfuchs 09:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Timbocu, if you read more about Cukela, you will learn that he didn't speak English so good, wher do you find "ethnic" American who deosn't speak his mother tounge? He spoke like a Taliban. And what does your "advenced" oppinion says about what is ethnicity, enlighte me, since I still live in 1874.--Wustenfuchs 09:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. It's a consensus building exercise. Not everybody can have every person they want put in, or have every person they don't want removed. Your views have not been ignored. You spoke against including Stepinac and in favour of Nobel prize winners, Prelog, Ante Starčević and Ivo Andrić. You will note that others mostly agreed. You took part in the earlier discussion about the voting and those people were included in Timbouctous list and my joint list. You say on my talk page that "I" only want Ivana B-M because of her "genital organs". I know nothing of her genital organs. "I" don't want or not want anybody. Other editors have been able to agree on Ivana B-M and others in a process of discussion about 16 available spaces. There is no particular reason why your wish to remove Ivana B-M should prevail. Fainites barleyscribs 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "genital" but "female organs". That's a difference. I just say ther are far more notable and famous persons then Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, but as you wish. No, I didn't mention Starčević, I did in earlier discussion with DIREKTOR, when we agreed on that, him and me. You probably ment Lavoslav Ružička, what ever. And, if I may, suggest to other editors that they consider that ther are far more "famous" perosns then her. I know they will try to ignore this, since I'm a "fascist collaborator" who plans an "8th offensive" against our people, but still, examples, Giulio Clovio, a Croat, italianized from Julije Klović, far more famous and notable in whole world. Example, he has 17.800 results at Google Books, while Ivana B-M has 4.080 results. It is clearly who, of those two, deserves to be on the Croats infobox. I'm sorry for noticing such important difference. And I mean, Clovio was painted by El Greco, that's far more better then translation of books...--Wustenfuchs 13:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to earlier discussions as well as the most recent. Look - some people would like a lot more contemporary sports people and singers. Some more historically minded editors want more important historical politicians that no-one else has heard of. There's only 16 spaces. Eeverybody has had some input. The point I am making is that whether or not you are right about Ivana B-M, the current suggested list is the product of discussion, compromise and consensus. We need to stick something in. There's nothing to stop you or any one else making a case for an alteration in the future but the point of trying to reach a degree of consensus is to avoid ongoing edit-warring.Fainites barleyscribs 14:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But can we wait until DIREKTOR and Timbocu see this, so we will consider it? If they refuse to do so, then I agree on temporary solution you made, no problem.--Wustenfuchs 17:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No doubt they will express an opinion soon. I can see the attraction of Clovio. Fainites barleyscribs 21:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a morality contest so why is Pavelić being dismissed so quickly? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a popularity or notoriety contest either. Quislings are 10 a penny. All countries have them if circumstances dictate. Fainites barleyscribs 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Who better to represent Croats than our Führer? :) PRODUCER, what's your angle here? "Croats are Ustaše", what? I for one can't believe the bombshell you just dropped tehre. Moving on.. Klović should be listed under his most common English name, which appears to be Clovio (though someone should check). I don't think I want "Giulio Clovio" sitting right there on the top of on the Croats article.
Fellas, if I'm going to fix these images up and insert them, I have to do it tonight. We have a consensus, now we're just chit-chatting. I'll insert the new images. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool! Our Quisling went into clink for the duration but he'd've been up there with the best given half a chance.Fainites barleyscribs 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh I love Mosely, he's not so bad! All he wanted was scientists in the government instead of politicians, under him I might have had a shot at the Big chair over in Blighty. Heheh, I love the way the bugger got locked up even when he didn't really do anything. Its like "Unhand me you ruffians! Do you know who I am!? Don't make me call the Duke of Hamilton! I demand to know the charg.. *smack on the head*  :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
He got to live in a house in the grounds of Holloway prison and then later under house arrest. Interned.Fainites barleyscribs 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"Croats are Ustaše" lol imaginative mind. So quick to jump to conclusions DIREKTOR. It doesn't hurt to be the devil's advocate.
Fainites, what exactly are the requirements for inclusion into this infobox? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus.Fainites barleyscribs 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm asking what warrants one person to be in the infobox over another? I fail to see a consistent criteria used for these people. Depending on the person we are judging we are either accepting them based on both their accomplishments and popularity or just their accomplishments or just their popularity. Pavelic, according to Wiki views and Google Book hits, is just as well known in the English speaking world as Andric but has had more of an impact than him. Yet he is being immediately dismissed for his political views. Also, why are we including Tito who is half Croat and half Slovene? Side note, we're apparently also including some token women just to be politically correct. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The curent list is basically a consensus between Director's own choice of what he thinks are 16 notable Croats and the list which was the result of a previous poll. I don't exactly know what Director's criteria were or if there were any, but it seems that his best idea is putting in the info box as many people as possible who are also on Croatia's banknotes. Yes, yes, we heard it all before - Tito is half-Croat just like Malkovich, Pavelić is super-famous, IBM wrote crappy children literature and Blanka is merely a small dot on the illustrious radar of Croatia's history, blah blah blah.
  • When the ignored poll was launched the first thing discussed was the criteria for inclusion and the consensus was that a) the only criteria required is people's ethnicity, as the article deals with Croats, the ethnic group (excluding all Croatian people who are not ethnic Croats, but can include famous Croats from outside the borders of modern Croatia) and b) debates on whether someone is a Croat is a waste of time so only people who are considered Croats beyond reasonable doubt should be included.
  • For the Wustenfuchs-introduced and Producer-supported 19th-century ideas about ethnicity as defined purely by genes, please consult our article on ethnicity. According to that logic Tito is just as Croatian as Malkovich. But obviously we all know that they are not the same. Why are they not the same? That fantastic article holds all the answers. Go read some of it. Timbouctou 12:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • My point is if you want to go ahead with the collage then set some criteria and apply it, stop cherry picking "good guys" or what you believe makes the nation look best, and stop with the female "quota". For the record I think that your suggestion of removing the collage all together is the best.
  • Andric and Tito failed at point B and were voted in regardless.
  • It's misleading to add Tito, a man of mixed ethnicity and proponent of the Yugoslav identity, as simply a Croat. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm still a 19 Century chap, nice, Timbocu, please tech me, what is ethnicity, can I tell you, or qoute...? "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy." Here in 1874 we think the same as you in 29 Century, event though you are 1000 years beyond us, we don't mind. And yes, Malkovich is ethnic Croat as Tito, you know what we Croats like to say "Krv nije voda" :D But we ended with Malkovich. As for "famous" perosns, I'm firm with this, even somebody killed half of his country, was a traitor greater then that Norwege Quisling, murrder his family at sleep, but famous, even though he is a Canibal, should be listed in the infobox. About his ideology nobody cares, but the point why we add some persons to English article infoboxes about ethnicity is that when some American or Brit goes to article "Devils" (think it's an ethnic group) and nitices Lucifer at the infobox he can say like "Oh, look, I know Lucifer, he is a Devil (by ethnicity)". Capito? And like I said, if you all agree that we bann some people because of political reasons, fine for me, I'll agree on a temporary solution. Now, excuse me, I need to start my steam engine.--Wustenfuchs 13:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • @Wustenfuchs: Regarding Malkovich, which part of the definition of ethnicity do you think applies to Malkovich here?:
    • "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other" (do you think randomly polled Croats would consider Malkovich a Croat - yes or no?);
    • "through a common heritage" (do you think your heritage is the same as Malkovich's, whose mother was of Scottish, French and whatnot descent - yes or no?);
    • "often consisting of a common language" (do you think you and Malkovich share a common language - yes or no?)
    • "a common culture (often including a shared religion)" (do you think you share a common culture with an American-born, American-raised American actor? yes or no? and if not, do you at least share the same religion since Malkovich is an atheist? yes or no?)
  • Only the fifth of the five criteria applies to Malkovich ("[members of a group that share] an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy"), but only barely as Malkovich probably thinks of himself as equally French as Croatian - and American more than either one. So his ideology is not exactly the same as yours - your outdated view consists of clinging to just the last criterion and talking about his parents' origins, which is a very 19th-century way of looking at ethnicity, the view which gave rise to eugenics, racism, fascism and a whole lot of other things I'd rather not get into. His view is an American one, which by definition does not stresses his parents' origins nearly as much as yours since he is a product of a multi-cultural society. In comparison, your opinion was formed by reading political authors of the past whose main concern was the purity of Croatian ethnicity and absolute rejection of anything "non-Croatian". So let me clarify the last criterion for you - NO, you two do not even share the same ideology as they wildly differ in their stress on common ancestry. This makes it zero out of the five criteria.
  • Regarding Pavelić et al: you should really consult an English language dictionary and notice the difference between the adjectives "famous" and "infamous". And since the general understanding is that the info box is for "famous Croats" then infamous ones are to be excluded. Perhaps Georgians see it differently, perhaps they think of Stalin as a good guy - I don't know and it is beside the point. There are virtually hundreds of others widely known mass murderers, criminals and dictators, who are considered infamous by the general consensus, but I don't expect to see Ceausescu in the article about Romanians, Pol Pot in the article about Cambodians, Quisling in the one about Norwegians, Milošević in the article about Serbs, Idi Amin in the one about Ugandans, and so on. So yes - of course the decision as who to include must involve some sort of passing judgment on these individuals. And anyway if you want to pretend to be objective and adopt the "how many people heard of person X" as our only guiding principle it will then easily lead to replacing half of the people in the current lineup with footballers. And I'd be alright with that - but would you?
  • @Producer:
  • The criteria were agreed in previous discussions, just like the need to include more women was also agreed, as well as the need for the infobox to present a variety of persons with regard to their walk of life. The only reason why we are discussing it again is that Direktor was simply being Direktor - he ignored everything, took WP:BOLD to the extreme and then defended his privately cherry-picked selection with citing WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
  • Regarding Andrić and Tito - they too were discussed at length previously. They are both debatable but Tito much less so than Andrić - and whether you think there's an issue with them depends on whether you regard Yugoslavs as a proper ethnicity or not, and whether you think that it is even possible for someone to ignore the fact that he/she shares the same heritage, language, religion and ancestry with a group of people and then choose to belong to some other group. I for one do not see it as a separate ethnicity as "Yugoslavs" fail most of the criteria needed to define it as such (and indeed the WP article defines it as a "national designation"), just like the same thing goes for being "British" or "Soviet". Was Winston Churchill British or English? Was Stalin Georgian or Soviet? I think most people would agree that each one was both.
  • In case of Tito the case is pretty straightforward - he might have been a proponent of this or that but he was born in Croatia, raised in Croatia, shared the same language with other Croats, was of Croatian ancestry, is considered a Croat in virtually all ex-Yugoslav countries and is described as such in all the sources dedicated to his life and times (I believe Direktor can supply you with an astonishing amount of quotes about his ethnicity). That is good enough for me. As for Andrić - he was born in what would be called today a Bosnian Croat family and spent large part of his career in Serbia so you've got three different peoples claiming him, while he himsef claimed to be a Yugoslav. I'm personally on the fence with Andrić as he should probably belong to the Bosnian Croat article, but since the criterion set in earlier discussions was that Bosnian Croats were allowed, he received enough votes for inclusion by consensus.Timbouctou 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Look at the size of that thing.. And Timbouctou is simply being Timbouctou apparently. I am seriously starting to think you have a secretary who writes these things for you. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask for Malkovich with those questions, I'll answer you:

Other Croats do see him as Croat, even he stated that he is of Croatian ancestry, and he has common heritage by his father line, common culture? well, ofcourse. Our culture is so americanized that it is almost same :D and religion is not a question, not at all. I was a former Catholic though. Atheists arent Croats? But, we agreed Malkovich won't get in, so why you care?

Anyways, footbalers are temporary famous persons, we can check Google Books, wich is more reliable. You know, and even in this way, I think that Pavelić would beat half of those you are proposing, isn't it?

Let's just see some results at Google Books, Josip Broz Tito - 46.200 results, very good; Ante Pavelić 21.200 results; Giulio Clovio 17.600 results, Dario Srna 121 results. We sort out this very easly :)--Wustenfuchs 12:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR when are you going to put the info box up? Wustenfuchs has agreed to it going up in it's consensus form. There is nothing to stop him continuing to argue for the inclusion of various infamous fascists in the meantime. Just so long as any further changes are made by consensus and not by edit war.Fainites barleyscribs 13:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, I'm on it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Brlić-Mažuranić is out. No available image, the one out there is non-free. It'll just get deleted if used in this way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn. Does it matter? Isn't it fair use or something? Otherwise, how about Clovio people? Fainites barleyscribs 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You're the admin man, can fair use stretch this far? (No Clovios please, I can think of a dozen better guys.)
When I read all that stuff I understand it but as soon as I stop reading it, it slides off my mind like Teflon.Fainites barleyscribs 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also Prelog will look like he had a tremendous HEAD. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So what do I do? To crop, or not to crop? I'll just let her dad hold a spot for her, for the time being. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Prelog is Bosnian, ofcurse he has a big head :D Since you have alot "better" people then Clovio, who will replace Ivana B-M...? Just wonder...--Wustenfuchs 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Second, you can just resize it, don't crop it...--Wustenfuchs 17:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I had to crop it since it was too large, but it makes no difference, he'd still look like an egghead. Well, just for now I added B-M's non-Nobel dad in there to hold her spot. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm done. Do you think Tito will mind sitting next to Ivanišević? I mean, the man smokes pot... (yeah, you heard me, Ivanišević used dope - probably during Wimbledon too xD)

That said, how about adding Dražen Petrović? It seems he's pretty well known in the US (well, in Miami at least ;)). I mean, Blanka Vlašić goes out in the same pub I do, it seems kinda weird to have her up there alongside Tito and Jelačić and freakin' King Tomislav.. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good DIREKTOR. Shame about the famouse Ivana.Fainites barleyscribs 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, to be breif, it's just great. About Dražen Petrović, I don't think he can pass, his father was Montenegrin or Serb, not sure... And two sportspeople are good.--Wustenfuchs 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • IBM's image is definitely free (unknown author, image published some 80 years ago). I will upload it to commons myself and expect her to be included per the consensus list. Stop playing dumb Direktor. I wish I could say the same to Wustenfuchs. Timbouctou 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "Playing dumb"? Timbouctou, I am sick and tired of your goddamn nagging. I don't know when it was published, and I do not care when it was published, I just look at the licensing. And I was perfectly clear that I. Mažuranić was there only temporarily. I wrote-up the first infobox, it was not good enough for you so you started this entire useless mess over your ego, overtly insulting me all the way. Now I essentially agree to all your nonsense changes and do all the work, and I'm "playing dumb"?? Not only that, but you "expect" some image of yours to be included?? Why the hell don't you do some actual editing yourself once in a while, as opposed to writing your memoirs on Wikipedia talkpages?! Please do your absolute best to stay far, far away from me on this project, if I want to read I can rent Tostoy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Wow people, you choosed Ivanišević and Vlašić from sportspeople. I supose the Kostelić family will seek revenge. I wouldn´t go skiing for a while if I were some of you. :) FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Skiing is a non-existent sport where Direktor comes from. On the other hand, he hangs in the "same pub as Blanka" so there you go :-) Timbouctou 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There are like 3 pubs for normal people in Split, so what do you expect? Btw I will not add any Ivana to the infobox, if that's what you are hanging about for. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Who said you had to? Timbouctou 22:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But of course! I was a fool to assume you would do absolutely no editing whatsoever... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But, who wants to go to a "pub for normal people"? Those sound borring... FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh they are. But I find them quite invigorating after a long day of reading over-long talkpage posts. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hang on a minute. We agreed Ivana B-M. If there's no problem with the image she should go in. Fainites barleyscribs 23:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I wonder if the image is indeed public domain as Tim says. Its possible, I mean that hat certainly seems turn of the century or earlier, but we wonders, yes we wonders.
Second of all, if the image is indeed pd, I agree it should go in - but I shall certainly not be the one that downloads, crops, repairs, uploads, and writes-in the image. Mostly out of pure spite, yes, but also as part of a research project. You see, I wish to record for science and posterity the instance of User:Timbouctou actually doing some work here (after 2 or 3 months of discussion). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to track down dates of publication of this image and this 1912 image (the former's date of creation is unknown, probably 1910s-1920s, and the latter might belong to a privately owned archive). It might take a few days. Timbouctou (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well looks like we're done here. If you find the image is PD, please feel free to insert it as far as I'm concerned. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just good this way, no need for changes. Even though, I would add some persons you wouldn't but, fine for me, I agree on this solution, temporary or not.
P. S.
I just wonder, why DIREKTOR, a chap from Split, added two sporspeople, who are also from Split :D, never mind. We all know Herzegovina produced the best sportsmans :P --Wustenfuchs 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
In your dreams, Herzegovina-boy :D. Boris said it best ;)
Well Ivanišević certainly is one of our best sportsmen, and if you recall I was opposed to Vlašić, but added her essentially "on-demand". I would support her replacement, but only with someone like Dražen Petrović.. I mean we have statues to the guy in front of our sports halls :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croats/Archive_4&oldid=1188848636"