Talk:Croatia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Material about Croatian Wikipedia

Regarding this reinstatement of material by Tuvixer, I'm not sure that this belongs in the Croatia article. Firstly, the Croatian-language Wikipedia is likely edited by people from many different countries, not just Croatia. Croatian isn't only spoken in Croatia. Second, does the material belong in a media section? Wikipedia isn't a news source, but an encyclopedia. Thirdly, is this really notable enough for a relatively detailed paragraph in a country article? I think it belongs at Croatian Wikipedia for sure, but not here. The material is also quite poorly written and formatted for a GA-status article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a medium. It has been overflown by right-wing fanatics, and it is really maybe a unique situation where they control the whole Wikipedia of on language, in this case Croatian. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay: I deleted the entire section about CW with the following edit summary:

CW is marginally important for the topic; the article should not be used as a platform for unrelated criticism (see WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:COATRACK).

I feel that there are two issues here: 1) CW is fairly unimportant in this context (one would be hard pressed to find a country article that mentions the corresponding Wikipedia edition), and 2) a topic of marginal relevance seems to be introduced in order to make a point - that's WP:COATRACK.

I need not say that Wikipedia is not the place for activism. When the CW affair is concerned, I'm far from a neutral party as a matter of public record. (I won't go into details right now, but I'll explain if anyone wants to know.) I guess one could say that I am an activist, which - I'd argue - lends me a bit of credibility when I say that activism is unwanted here. GregorB (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It may well be a unique situation, as Tuvixer puts it, but are the actions of a few hundred Croatian Wikipedia editors worthy of coverage in this article, when compared to all of the other events in Croatian history, politics, sport, culture, etc.? I think that including a paragraph on this (or indeed anything) is out of proportion, just as coverage of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowdon or any other number of controversies would be undue in the main United States article. The material properly belongs at Croatian Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it is important, because the English Wikipedia is the mostly used Wikipedia and it shows that English Wikipedia is aware of this problem. Also it really is a unique problem and shows that it will not go unnoticed. I am not for this in the article because I want to shame Croatia or something like that. It is important that it remains in the article because it is symptomatic to Croatian society. A survey from a couple days ago show that 3/4 high school graduates think that the so called "NDH" was not a fascist state, which is horrible. What a smart man i sahamed of... fool is proud of. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that states that the Wikipedia controversy is symptomatic of wider social attitudes, otherwise it would be synthesis and original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem - if the mention of CW is not meant to make a point about the CW itself, but rather about the Far right in Croatia, then:

• What makes the Croatian far right unique or notable so that it needs to be discussed here?
• Why not illustrate the supposed far right issue with a more pertinent example? Is a wiki hijacked by a handful of people the worst problem out there?

Also, Tuvixer, I'm still slightly upset about your suggesting that my edit was contrary to a previous consensus,[1] and then refusing to provide details about it after being asked.[2][3] GregorB (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer, if it is symptomatic to the society, then we should add a source stating so, not beat around the bush with examples. If we're going to "paint a picture", we should not try to trick the reader along the way. This problem is, in my opinion, in fact a situation of WP:UNDUE weight. Croatian Wikipedia is nowhere near famous enough in Croatia or in the world to warrant a mention in this article; it is just us who are faced with this problem as we're Wikipedia editors. Daß Wölf (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A good point: indeed, if you walked the streets of Zagreb and asked random people about it, I suppose it would turn out that most are completely unaware of its existence. Apart from that, it is an independent entity, not connected to government or any other organization, and is effectively run by perhaps a dozen people. I fail to see how the CW affair is important, notable, or indicative of anything meaningful aside from CW itself. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a big issue in Croatia, and all the media in Croatia did write about that, here is an example, an article on the biggest newspaper in Croatia: NEZAVISNA WIKIPEDIJA HRVATSKA . So please do not act like it's nothing. Those who are active on Croatian Wikipedia are trying to hide this. It is a unique situation and it is, as it should be, mentioned in the article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a rather minor issue in Croatia, as compared to many others. For example, our former PM is in prison. This could legitimately be called a big issue - it is 20x bigger to say the least. It is also not quite commonplace. Yet, this is not mentioned in this article (and rightfully so). Why then - to repeat the same question again - we should specifically mention CW? GregorB (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If former PM Sanader is not mentioned in the article, or the fact that he is in prison and awaiting another trial, then it should for sure also be mentioned. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I would rather keep it in History of Croatia and perhaps Politics of Croatia, seeing as Richard Nixon and Watergate, the biggest American scandal of the 20th century, are not mentioned on the page United States, whereas no government has been without controversy in Croatia thus far. In ten-years' time, I don't think Sanader is going to still be in anyone's mind. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And Neither is Margaret Thatcher mentioned in the United Kingdom article, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

He is because we will, in the next 30 years, still feel the consequences of the criminal behavior of HDZ and its leadership, that has destroyed the countries economy and has stolen from the budget countless millions. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're not conveying a fact, you are making a point - precisely what an article should not do. GregorB (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence of consensus for the inclusion of this material - quite the opposite, in fact - so I am going to remove it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removing the material. I can find users that approve of that material in the article, just as the other user who has started all this has done for his side. He is trying to hide facts, and that is his motive. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"I can find users that approve of that material in the article". Well, they haven't posted here so far, and you also need to be wary of WP:CANVASS. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Tuvixer, I think that's enough. I'm going to ask you for the third time: in your edit summary, you said that "there was a debate about this section and it stayed in the article". When this debate took place and could you point us to its outcome? I'm suspecting that said debate does not exist. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, if you are going to claim that there is no consensus to remove this material, you need to do as GregorB requests and provide evidence of this because as far as I can see, you are the only editor supporting its inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems the material was first added by User:Anamink on 2 July ([4]). It was removed twice by User:Tzowu ([5][6]) and reinstated both times by User:Tuvixer ([7][8]) with the edit summary of "please stop warring and go to the talk page", which I presume relates to #Tozwu's edit war. That was a discussion only between Tzowu and Tuvixer, where no agreement or consensus appears to have been reached in favor of keeping the text in the first place. Since we have discussed this here at a much greater length, I would say the consensus has actually been formed in favor of removing this material, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Daß Wölf. Tuvixer, please note that it is not edit warring to revert a bold edit. If anyone needed to bring the issue to the talk page, it was you, instead of reinstating the boldly inserted material. See WP:BRD. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, reverting a bold edit is fine - still, using a fabrication to justify it (a supposed "debate" that took place) is definitely not OK. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

County of Istria

The county of Istria though in the table of counties does not seem to appear on the handy map accompanying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C101:8E55:DC77:EDA4:EB2F:B03C (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, all counties are displayed in the map. As for Istria County, just look for Pazin. GregorB (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016

I want to add the official motto in the infobox.

Orsagh (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is? AFAIK, Croatia does not have an official motto. GregorB (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, there is no official motto, but as you can check, there are unofficial mottos in the infoboxes of many countries and what I wanted to add is unofficial. Change in a "change X to Y" format would be a "change from nothing to mottos added, I guess. Orsagh (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I be granted that permission? Orsagh (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Which motto would you like to add and what's the source for it? GregorB (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111007184122/http://www.mfa.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1467 to http://www.mfa.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1467
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008011534/http://www.eph.hr/eng/products_and_services/index.html to http://www.eph.hr/eng/products_and_services/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Checks OK. Param set.— DennisDallas (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

How about number of ethnic minorities in Croatia??

It is a shame that Croats do not have accurate numbers of its minorities such as Albanians Serbs Italians Bosnian??

It would be nice to see numbers of Serbs before and After ethnic cleansing of 1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C2:102:4FD0:5583:F0E2:7A31:E008 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The only ethnic cleansing occurred in 1991 when the serbs forced out 200,000 Croats from areas that serbs wanted to annex. In 1995, serbs willingly left Croatia at the urging of their own military and political leaders during Croatia's legitimate military operation to recapture its territory after 4 years under occupation.71.246.61.188 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Satnik

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110921110603/http://www.styria.com:80/en/konzernunternehmen/kategorie.php?&cat=1 to http://www.styria.com/en/konzernunternehmen/kategorie.php?&cat=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Largest city

http://www.poslovni.hr/after5/ovo-sigurno-niste-znali-najveci-grad-hrvatske-nije-zagreb-307810

Zagreb is not the "largest city" in Croatia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.17.211 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting fact worth mentioning. I've added it to Gospic article. Maybe I make an edit request here as well when i catch time to see where this should fit in this article. 141.136.216.129 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130828162010/http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1992_12_90_2333.html to http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1992_12_90_2333.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org:80/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721100545/http://www.hrvatske-ceste.hr/WEB%20-%20Legislativa/brojenje-prometa/CroDig2009.pdf to http://www.hrvatske-ceste.hr/WEB%20-%20Legislativa/brojenje-prometa/CroDig2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127220818/http://predsjednik.hr/29062010 to http://www.predsjednik.hr/29062010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124050702/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Language

Linguists have reached a consensus at Croatian language and Serbo-Croatian about the linguistic facts of Croatian. I have brought the paragraph here on "languages" into line with that linguistic consensus. --Taivo (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

2011 census is still the most recent information on detailed demographics, still quite outdated for an estimated of the current population. Other information (namely the graph with the evolution of population) start to be too outdated for a good article. Should we keep them? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the graph. Bold move it might be argued, but it is outdated and unclear. The distinction between enumerated and permanent population is not clear and what counts the most it's not sourced. Also, it is somehow inappropriate to compare the population of Croatia today with the population in 1851 without any clarification about the multiple border changes since that date. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

In the section Economy the following text should be updated: In 2011 the country has been ranked 66th by Transparency International with a Corruption Perceptions Index of 4.0.[144]

Update 1: In 2015 the country has been ranked 51st by Transparency International with a Corruption Perceptions Score of 51.[144].

Update 2: The link (i.e. [144]) should consequently be changed to the actual Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2015 Ivekbeg5 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the original source (another Wikipedia article can't be used as a source), it should be joint 50th. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Updated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hkd.at/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=102&lang=hr
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?art=27859&sec=2867
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?art=20091&sec=2462
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924132153/http://predsjednik.hr/PRESIDENT to http://www.predsjednik.hr/PRESIDENT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326105744/http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/?lang=en&content=62 to http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/?lang=en&content=62
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319094842/http://www.morh.hr/hr/smos-broj-pripadnika-osrh-u-mirovnim-misijama-un-a.html to http://www.morh.hr/hr/smos-broj-pripadnika-osrh-u-mirovnim-misijama-un-a.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=12C86DFB-1818-459C-B8E6-687AFABF57A2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996%2C39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=STRIND_ECOBAC&root=STRIND_ECOBAC%2Fecobac%2Feb012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527221958/http://m.state.gov/md3166.htm to http://m.state.gov/md3166.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=D37B6CB1-C728-44FE-94C7-8C80B4EA582F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430010646/http://www.eurotestmobility.com/news.php?item=25&PHPSESSID=a7d9b4decd981bb3cdc3494656b0104d to http://www.eurotestmobility.com/news.php?item=25&PHPSESSID=a7d9b4decd981bb3cdc3494656b0104d
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=B93764C8-6505-4A87-BDDF-B22148331E6E
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715203314/http://www.agencija-zolpp.hr/Brodskelinije/tabid/1267/Default.aspx to http://www.agencija-zolpp.hr/Brodskelinije/tabid/1267/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807082335/http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-povijest-1.html to http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-povijest-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326060402/http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?sec=2246 to http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?sec=2246
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606084626/http://info.hazu.hr/foundation_of_academy to http://info.hazu.hr/foundation_of_academy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=B02A10F4-BFE5-4EC0-B0E5-BFCAFE8F2062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016185426/http://croatia.hr/en-GB/Discover-Croatia/Culture-and-History to http://croatia.hr/en-GB/Discover-Croatia/Culture-and-History
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721100230/http://www.hart.hr/uploads/documents/354.pdf to http://www.hart.hr/uploads/documents/354.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217062534/http://www.lzmk.hr/hr/vijesti-zavoda/iz-medija/524-hrvatska-knjizevnost-u-270000-redaka-vjesnik to http://www.lzmk.hr/hr/vijesti-zavoda/iz-medija/524-hrvatska-knjizevnost-u-270000-redaka-vjesnik
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805051812/http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/europe-central-asia/croatia to http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/europe-central-asia/croatia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111153124/http://www.liderpress.hr/Default.aspx?sid=11836 to http://www.liderpress.hr/Default.aspx?sid=11836
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=4D920144-9B74-462C-82CF-ED90611927CA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=7C537DEE-B4AE-4879-9F79-7C68D6294510
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121013401/http://www.hoo.hr/en/olimpijske_popis.aspx to http://www.hoo.hr/en/olimpijske_popis.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704233649/http://www.hoo.hr/en/hoo.aspx to http://www.hoo.hr/en/hoo.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2017

Please change in the about section: Croatia is a republic governed under a parliamentary system. The International Monetary Fund classified Croatia as an emerging and developing economy, and the World Bank identified it as a high-income economy. to Croatia is a republic governed under a parliamentary system and a high-income developed economy with a very high Human Development Index. because the information is old and incorrect.

Please change in the Economy section: Croatia has an upper-middle income economy. to Croatia is a high-income developed economy. because the information is old and incorrect.

Sources are as stated below: 1. Developed and high-income economy: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf 2. Very high human development index: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf Pandrej01 (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You've changed the summary in the article introduction, SparklingPessimist, but not the material in the body of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You've changed the text but retained the same source, SparklingPessimist. That source states that Croatia is an upper middle income country, so it needs to be changed. Can you please take a little more care when responding to edit requests? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Yeah, yeah. Changed ref. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to reflect the fact that the UN and World Bank disagree, and used a 2017 source rather than a 2014 one. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69QmExEdP?url=http://www.jutarnji.hr/heroina-hrvatskog-proljeca/305499/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/heroina-hrvatskog-proljeca/305499/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604052735/http://www.vlada.hr/en/naslovnica/o_vladi_rh/clanovi_vlade to http://www.vlada.hr/en/naslovnica/o_vladi_rh/clanovi_vlade
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928000722/http://www.mfa.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1614 to http://www.mfa.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1614
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123185048/http://europa.eu/news/external-relations/2011/03/20110302_en.htm to http://europa.eu/news/external-relations/2011/03/20110302_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625234316/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-19062013-BP/EN/2-19062013-BP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-19062013-BP/EN/2-19062013-BP-EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111202124844/http://www.blueflag.org/Menu/Awarded+sites/2011/Northern+Hemisphere/Croatia to http://www.blueflag.org/Menu/Awarded+sites/2011/Northern+Hemisphere/Croatia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910050655/http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom07_3_en.pdf to http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom07_3_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115220041/http://www.javno.com/en/croatia/clanak.php?id=38990 to http://www.javno.com/en/croatia/clanak.php?id=38990
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226031754/http://www.worldheritagesite.org/countries/croatia.html to http://www.worldheritagesite.org/countries/croatia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509002650/http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/?lang=en&content=1869 to http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/?lang=en&content=1869
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126125752/http://www.jutarnji.hr/ministarstvo-financira-rekordan-broj-filmova/154303/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/ministarstvo-financira-rekordan-broj-filmova/154303/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=134
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011031419/http://websrv2.hina.hr/hina/web/view.action?view=hina to http://websrv2.hina.hr/hina/web/view.action?view=hina

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224034343/http://www.euro-poi.com/croatian-highlights-croatia-278.html to http://www.euro-poi.com/croatian-highlights-croatia-278.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905115052/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/croatia.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/croatia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New data

Can someone find independent, reliable sources for 2018 population estimate, as well as 2018 HDI for Croatia. Thank you. --Sheldonium (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

91.220.150.12 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

Croatia (/kroʊˈeɪʃə/ (About this sound listen) kroh-AY-shə; Croatian: Hrvatska [xř̩ʋaːtskaː]), officially the Republic of Croatia (Croatian: Republika Hrvatska, About this sound listen (help·info)), is an European country situated on the Meditereneian Sea, at the crossroads of Central and Southeast Europe, on the Adriatic Sea. 150.148.14.162 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Union with Slavonia (?)

One of the crucial moments in Croatian history is not mentioned in the timeline (or in the main text at all): the union with Slavonia. Here I quote the Croatian Encyclopaedia:

Sužavanje slobodnoga teritorija Kraljevine Slavonije i, u još mnogo većoj mjeri, Hrvatske dovelo je do prijelomnog unutrašnjopolitičkoga događaja: zajedničkim održavanjem Slavonskoga i Hrvatskoga sabora u Zagrebu 1. IX. 1558., dva su sabora bila trajno ujedinjena u jedinstveni Sabor Hrvatske i Slavonije.

source: [9]

Before that, Zagreb was not in Croatia, but in Slavonia. Gradually, the Croatian name has prevailed over the more generic 'Slavonia', but even in early 20th century, the official name included Slavonia besides Croatia. Later, and now, the name Slavonia has been reserved for more eastern regions, but it wasn't so in the middle ages.

dnik ► 09:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Article issues

I realize that sometimes things can just "creep in" but would someone look at the "External links" section for possible trimming or using as sourcing? I have seen a lot of "Good" articles with none or one but three seems normal. I have seen four and sometimes five on longer articles but fourteen is excessive for even a "Start-class" article. Otr500 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

There's a typo in the section on Greek and Roman rule: "empiror" should be "emperor". -24.130.161.127 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done: this edit. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

I suggest adding additional resource under

External links

Croatia beach guide Josipiv (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:ELNO. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

Introduction falsely states that Croatia borders The Republic of Macedonia, and does not mention border with Montenegro. 178.209.7.59 (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Croatia's geographical position

Did I miss something, when was Croatia in central europe? That's not even close to what I have been taught and when just checked sources it's not in central europe. Please delete that phony sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.172.78.204 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Climate

Köppen climate types of Croatia

This map is completely wrong. According to Köppen climate classification, mainland Croatia has Humid continental climate, while coastal Croatia has Hot-summer Mediterranean climate. Therefore I think that it should be replaced with correct one or if there is no better solution, removed from the page. Vater-96 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

Change "The largest and busiest is Franjo Tuđman Airport."

To "The largest and busiest is Franjo Tuđman Airport, located in Zagreb."

This makes it apparent where the airport is located, which is especially helpful after listing the locations of Croatia's international airports. Mperic1 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 17:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Racial laws

The article does not mention the Serbs as targeted by the racial laws of NDH even though they constitute the vast majority of the victims of such laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.27.158 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Done – [10] -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies about victims of Croatian crimes during the 1991-1995 war.

Article is not accurate in saying the 100,000 Serbs voluntary left because they were worried about being charged for "crimes" they committed. Over 200,000 Croatian Serbs were EXPELLED they did NOT leave voluntarily.

https://www.unhcr.org/42f38b084.html

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2018&mm=08&dd=03&nav_id=104784 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobesmithers (talk • contribs) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019

Change "During the final days of the war in 1995, about 150,000−200,000 Serbs in Croatia fled before the arrival of Croatian forces during the Operation Storm"

TO During, the final days of the war in 1995, 200,000-250,000 Serbs were expelled from their native land in Croatia bringing the total of expelled Serbs from Croatia to 610,000."

Sources: https://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2018&mm=08&dd=03&nav_id=104784 Jobesmithers (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

Change "During the final days of the war in 1995, about 150,000−200,000 Serbs in Croatia fled before the arrival of Croatian forces during the Operation Storm"

TO During, the final days of the war in 1995, 200,000-250,000 Serbs were expelled from their native land in Croatia bringing the total of expelled Serbs from Croatia to 610,000."

Sources: https://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2018&mm=08&dd=03&nav_id=104784 Jobesmithers (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Such edit is likely to be strongly contested. Melmann (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: You've made no effort that I am aware of to establish consensus on this likely-to-be contentious edit. Reopening or reposting the edit requests is not gonna change that. Please attempt to engage the community to reach some sort of agreement on the appropriateness of your proposed edit. Melmann (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Melmann, you are correct. I'm a Croatian citizen and this edit request tries to bring Croatia's and Serbia's long ongoing issue here on Wikipedia. I strongly oppose Jobesmithers proposal. There are hundreds of completed court proceedings which state the exact opposite of what this edit request wants. The information on this article is correct from a legal perspective. LukeA1 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

-expelled from their native land in Croatia-? Wivescoals (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wivescoals, were you referring to the text in the provided source? If so, that source is a Serbian news agency so clearly they tend to lean to Serbia's point of view. LukeA1 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s what I thought. Serbs expelled from their native(?) land in Croatia sounds awks.Wivescoals (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a Serb minority in Croatia. "Native" is perhaps the wrong term, but neither are they migrants (for the most part). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Country in the balkans subtitle.

The statement of the 'country in the Balkans' is not precise since around 1/2 of if is covered in the official outlines of Balkan, and the other half is positioned in the central Europe, both culturally and geographically. Using a more precise political term as:
-'country in Europe'
-'country in the European Union'
-'country in central and southeastern Europe'.
For example, The Netherlands has a subtitle 'country in Europe' so I guess you could consider making this change for Croatia and Slovenia too.
Thank you. DavidK-01 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong information on the history block

At the beginning of the block about Croatian history there is a line saying that the Diocletian period was at 9 century AD, but a bit later it's saying that Dioclecian retired at Split in 305 AD. Also in the Diocletian page says he governed the roman empire during the 4 century AD, so I guess this 9 century information is wrong, isn't it? Henriquepalazzo (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ustashe regime's crimes

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Citation overkill, and if Žerjavić (or Kočović) is used for calculating Croat war losses in the previous sentence, then he should be used for other ones as well". I think it is relevant and should be included.

In the same time, antifascist Croats were targeted by the regime as well. The number of Croats killed in the NDH is estimated to be approximately 200,000, either by Ustaše, as members of the resistance movement, or as Axis collaborators. Furthermore, it is estimated that Ustashe regime systematically murdered somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 Serbs during genocide.

Previous version:

Furthermore, it is estimated that Ustashe regime systematically murdered somewhere between 200,000 and 340,000 Serbs.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020

Change "President - Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović" to "President - Zoran Milanović" Saltdispenser (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: inauguration has not happened yet. Majavah ^(t/c) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Croatia. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio

@Tuvixer:According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia in the early 7th century after they defeated the Avars According to sources which I enter and De Administrando Imperio Croats are coming to Dalmatia while part of the Croats settled Illyricum and Pannonia. I don't know what should be strange here. Dalmatia is at that time Roman Dalmatia not today's Dalmatia and Illyricum and Pannonia. If information(from De Administrando Imperio) exist in the article then it must be said what that source speaks. I stated two RS which talk about that. Question? Mikola22 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Strange is that Illyricum was a Roman province, and it got split up in two provinces, Dalmatia and Pannonia, so your added text states the following: "...the Croats had arrived to Dalmatia while part of the Croats settled Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and Pannonia..." That is what is strange. Please provide the pages of the two RS which You used where You found that info and used it for citation. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: U vezu s dolaskom Hrvata stavlja 30. glava i odlazak dijela Hrvata u Ilirik i Panoniju. In connection with the arrival of the Croats, Chapter 30 puts and departure of part of the Croats to Illyricum and Pannonia. Taj odlazak zbiva u vrijeme neposredno nakon dolaska Hrvata u Dalmaciju. This departure occurred immediately after the arrival of Croats to Dalmatia. Lujo Margetić, page 26. And Stjepan Pantelić page 300-301, Jedan dio Hrvata koji su došli u Dalmaciju odijelio i zavladao Ilirikom i Panonijom. One part of the Croats who came to Dalmatia separated and took the rule of Illyricum and Pannonia.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably more accurate is this Illyricum "Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum" Mikola22 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That Prefecture of Illyricum is most definitely not more accurate. It is very confusing. The source states that by Illyricum and Pannonia the author means the land between Sava and Drava, what is today Slavonia and in neighboring Bosnian lands. I think that it is best to leave it as it is now, what I mean is that "what is today Croatia" is the best wording, clear and undisputed. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is information from De Administrando Imperio and RS and this must be respected. Where was Illyricum etc it is not up to us to investigate. If we have information from De Administrando Imperio in the article then it must be consistent with De Administrando Imperio and RS. Croats also come to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, Slavs(today's Croats) also exist in the Pannonia so we must respect and that too. This is about Croats who not only come to present-day Croatia, nor does the RS say that. I return the edit according to RS. Mikola22 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again Mikola22 has engaged in an edit war, this is very disruptive and unproductive. Please first learn and educate Yourself how Wikipedia works, please, and then try to build a consensus here on the talk page without Your unproductive edits that lead into edit war. Thanks. What You are here trying to do is quoting the source as You like, cherry-picking the parts that somehow and that eludes me why, are by Your liking. It is making the article confusing and unclear. Now You have added the Prefecture of Illyricum?? What sense does that make? If You really are making this edits in good faith than You would change the article in a way that it does not create confusion. Do You dispute that Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia cover the territory of modern day Croatia? --Tuvixer (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, DAI is a primary source, and often has contradictions. Even though it is a valuable source, it needs trained historians to interpret it. We need to start using reliable secondary sources from mainstream authors, preferably peer-reviewed and such. But then again, he calls every source he founds an RS. I am not sure how to reach to him, as this is a pattern of behavior that may escalate, or worse, discourage other editors from engaging. He was involved in a noticeboard that tried to discredit an authoritative source in this field, John A. Fine. That was for me very ugly and dangerous. Mhare (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mhare:He was involved in a noticeboard that tried to discredit an authoritative source in this field, John A. Fine. Yes and, what is the problem? Like I killed someone. I said my comment because it was requested. As if I had committed the most serious crime.Mikola22 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:No,present-day Hungary and Romania etc. did not exist that time. Please specify always with contemporary descriptions. An explanation from some edit. First this is about Croats and that time. They don't come to Croatia they arrived to Dalmatia (Roman province) while part of the Croats settled Illyricum and Pannonia. That's where the Croats come according to De Administrando Imperio and sources(RS,historians) who talk about it. If we have information in the article from De Administrando Imperio then we cannot state that Croats coming to Croatia or present-day Croatia because Croatia does not exist then and Croats don't just come to Croatia or present-day Croatia. "Please specify always with contemporary descriptions". We must respect the original record, RS and fact that Croatia did not exist that time. Therefore we cannot have data from De Administrando Imperio and in the article mention of present-day Croatia. According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia. De Administrando Imperio does not mention Croatia.

• Najranije pokušaje pokrštavanja Hrvata Porfirogenet smješta u vrijeme cara Heraklija(610–641), dakle odmah po njihovu doseljenju u Dalmaciju. Porfirogenet's earliest attempts for baptizing Croats were placed during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610–641), therefore, immediately upon their arrival to Dalmatia.
• Odijelio od ostatka naroda te došao u Dalmaciju gdje je zatekao Avare koji su držali tu zemlju. Od tog doba ovladaše tom zemljom Hrvati, Podložne različitim interpretacijama i osporavanjima Porfirogenetove su vijesti, u svojoj osnovi, ipak prihvaćene kao vjerodostojne zbog čega se seoba Hrvata u historiografiji općenito i stavlja u vrijeme spomenutog cara, negdje između 626. i 641. godine. Separated from the rest of the people and came to Dalmatia, where they found the Avars who held the land. Since that time, Croats ruled of that land, Subject to different interpretations and disputes, Porfirogenet's news are accepted as credible, which is why the migration of Croats in historiography is generally placed at the time of the emperor, somewhere between 626 and 641.
• Podrijetlo Hrvata obično se izvodi iz doseljenja Slavena u rimske provincije Panoniju i Dalmaciju te iz njihova zauzeća zemlje u njima. To je model koji je uvela i prihvatila povijesna znanost. The origin of the Croats is usually derived from the settlement of the Slavs in the Roman provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia and their occupation of the land there. This is the model that she introduced and accepted by historical science.Mikola22 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: This is a talk page so it would be nice that you say something. According to sources, the Croats coming to Roman Dalmatia so we must respect these sources as well.Mikola22 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am all for changes in a way that do not not make the article/sentence confusing. The fact is that the source states that Croats migrated to the territories of Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia (I am not sure if at that time these provinces ceased to exist) We need to check that. Is that kind of wording ok with You? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:I edit information to article according to the source. If Illyric and Pannonia look confusing(I don't know what that should mean, it's historical data) then we have to put what most sources mention and that is the Roman province of Dalmatia. This is consistent with the historical source and with reliable sources.Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Disruptive edits/edit warring by user Mikola22

Mikola 22, please stop edit warring. It is very disruptive and this is not the first nor the second article that You engage, without any reason in edit warring, even when Your edits have been reverted by multiple users. Please explain Your behavior, stop edit warring and discuss it here. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I must revert that, this information is not verified in the source. If we started putting data without a source, we are entering in anarchy. We need to have more sources that say this. You have to understand that Croats are Vlachs, part of the Croats also convert to Orthodoxy. Therefore Croats are not of Serbian origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. That must be the basis for your conclusion. You must have books and scientific papers talking about it. You have to respect the fact that not only Serbian people live in the Balkans. Here live and Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Croats, Montenegrins, Vlachs, Bosnians etc. And they are fleeing from the Turks and they are in Vlach's name. Vlachs lived in every country and before the Turks arrived to the Balkans. You have to respect and other nations. Therefore we must not play with these things without more concrete sources. Mikola22 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22 the point is that You need to stop edit warring. Is that clear? After that we can talk and discuss like civilized people do. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: You can't put data without a source, it is a rule which must be followed. The whole Dalmatia is Vlachian-Morlacian, Bunjevci(Croatians) are Vlachs, northwestern Croatia records information on Croatian peasants(serfs) who become Vlachs, many Croatian villages in Dalmatia have a mention of the Vlachs population that migrates to that today Croatian populated villages, in Croatian Burgenland(Croatian emigration) are mentioned Vlachs who are Croats now, in western Croatia for many villages and settlements inhabited by today Croats in the sources they are referred as Vlachs settlements, in Croatia live and Ćići (Vlachs), many Croatian Vlachs had assimilated into the Croats before the Turks arrived. Therefore, do not promote some theses without resources, Croats are not of Serbian origin because they are assimilated a large number of Vlachs throughout history. Let's not promote Serbian historians. As the archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić(Serbian historian), retelling archival writings, simply where writes Vlach read a Serb. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings on the Vlachs of the Catholics, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. " He often uses the word Serbian in front of the text of the document, while none of it is mentioned in the document itself. It is easy to see that the adjective "Serbian" was put in the place where it was written: Vlach, Morlak, schismatic, Greek, Orthodox, or simply added, inserted. This practice is not created by Jačov(Serbian historian), but continues. This already wrote Aleksa Ivic, Nikodim Milas, Jovan Radonoc, etc.(Serbian historians) The following is a description of the war in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and here, as well as throughout the book, it is noticeable separate terms of Morlacs as equal(=) to Serbs, which attributes most of the war's merits to Morlacs, that is, according to Marko Jačov(Serbian historian) interpretation exclusively to Serbs. In the introductory section of the book, Marko Jačov claims that all Morlacs are Serbs. Morlacs: Venetian sources from 17th and 18th century make no distinction between Orthodox and Catholics, they call all Christians as Morlacs. Once again, please the not do this edit without a source, because Vlachs are today Croats. Therefore Croats are not of Serb origin. I must revert that.Mikola22 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

El_С banned me (both with Mikola22) from editing this article immediately after Mikola22 made another revert to push his fringe POV. But now anyone can return the deleted phrase. To clear conscience, one can put a link, for example, to this book [11] (page 25 and further).--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ferenc VÉGH University of Pécs Institute of History, Doprinos mađarske historiografije istraživanju "Vojne krajine" u ranom novom vijeku (16.-17. stoljeće) [The Contribution of the Hungarian Historiography to the Research on the "Military Frontier" in the Early Modern Period (16th-17th Centuries) ] 2017.Habsburška vlast je na taj način došla do relativno jeftine vojne sile koristeći južneslavenske(hrvatske, vlaške, srpske) graničare. The Habsburg government in this way came to relatively cheap military force using the South Slavic (Croatian, Vlach, Serbian) grencers.
• Mirko Marković Croatian academician: Vlach population(16th and 17th century, Slavonia) needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come here in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia.
• Croatian hussars were irregular light horsemen characteristic of the Habsburg-Ottoman border area. Croatian units were not inevitably referred to as "Croats" but it was the most commonly used name. In the Thirty Years' War other designations used were Wallachen, Uskocken, Raitzen, Granitscharen, Insulaner, Wenden, Polen, Türken i Zigeuner. Amongst the Croatian hussars could be found other ethno-political groups, such as Hungarians, Serbs, Albanians, Romanians, Poles, Vlachs and Cossacks.
• Mile Bogović: Records of that time referred entire population along the Turkish-Venetian border in Dalmatia as Morlachs. Many historians mostly Serbian used name Morlak and simply translate as Serb. Almost the only difference between the Morlachs was their religious affiliation: Catholics and Orthodox.
• In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule much of the Vlachs (Vlach, Valach) arrived in the area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time) and a part of them continued their journey across the Drava to Hungary.
• However, it is important to mention that military border created in the 15th–19th century by Hungarians, Habsburgs, Venetians and Turks contributed greatly to the strengthening of the Vlach-Slavic ethnic relations. “Vlachs” of military borderlands were of various ethnic backgrounds, many of them were one hundred percent Slavs, but on the other hand, Vlach highlanders were settled there next to the Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian peasants
• Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves. Vlachs settled in Croatia in the 16th century, fundamentally Slavicized and Christianised, were potential Serbs as much as the potential Croats were Vlachs of Dinara(Dalmatia) and Istria as well as immigrants who have received the Catholic faith.
• Orthodox Slavs and Vlachs fled from the Ottomans into Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, or farther northward across the Danube. They were strategically resettled in the area of the military frontier. Many people retreated to the mountains of Albania, Greece, and Montenegro, where, as migratory shepherds, they remained largely untouched by Ottoman rule
• About early period of Vlachs there are hardly any reliable information, it can be said with great certainty that they were once Romanized groups. The emerging Balkan states tried to integrate these Vlachs, but they only partially succeeded. Nevertheless the gradual Slavicization of Vlachs began with parallel integration into Greek Orthodox Church
• In 1555, all taxpayers in Srijem and Slavonia are called "Vlachs", which includes not only indigenous Croatian population but also and Hungarians.

Mikola22 (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Another useless bunch of fragmentary quotes. You do not need to look in the sources for the crumbs that match your POV, you should write in neutral manner, observing the wp:weight.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Which crumbs, the claims of academics, historians? Therefore, the source does not say "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" Do you not see that sources which I quote speaks of Vlachs and Serbs, Vlachs which the Serbs consider different from themselves etc. Then how can Vlachs be (term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)? Sources which are in article as proof for that claim talk about Vlachs who become Serbianized(source does not specify when) and who formed Serbian population in western Bosnia and south Croatia. Various Orthodox peoples whether Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Macedo-Rumuns or Walachians came under Serbian influences. Hence they became Serbianized (source does not specify when). We cannot have information in the article "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" which have no proof in the source which don't talk about that, sources speak about Vlachs who become Serbianized(we don't know when). We do not have original historical records to prove it factually. Serbs(larger groups) from western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area have been mentioned in few main documents. On the river Cetina(Dalmatia) together with Croats and Vlachs, Žumberak(area on the border with Slovenia) together with Vlachs and Una area(border with Bosnia) together with Vlachs ( mentioned in the migration to Žumberak). Tenth and hundreds of other documents mention Vlachs who are mentioned in Dalmatia and wider are as Morlachs(Vlachs) which are Orthodox or Catholic. Croats(former Vlachs in large numbers) from Dalmatia are not Serbs. We cannot and must not interpret historical facts from today's position, history cannot be changed. Interpreting something without a source ie "that Vlachs are mostly Serbs" and by promoting this thesis we are actually bringing the fact that Vlachs are actually Serbs which means that most of the Croats etc are Serbian origin but Vlachs are not originally Serbs, Croats etc. Mikola22 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We cannot and must not interpret historical facts from today's position -- You are wrong. It's you who cannot and must not interpret historical facts here in Wikipedia, but for historians this is an normal job. And your job here is to retell the established views in neutral manner, observing the wp:weight, and remembering wp:verifiability. And you, instead, for some reason decided to convince all the world that "Vlachs are Croats!", as you have said earlier.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Vlachs are and today Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Kosovars, Albanians, Bulgarians etc but Vlachs in Croatia are not mainly Serbs, the entire Catholic Dalmatia is referred as Vlachians(Morlachs) but these Croats are not Serbs because Vlachs are not Serbs. Vlachs, Serbs and others coming to Croatia. If Vlachs are mainly Serbs then who are the Rascians(Serbs) which are mentioned in Croatia? We cannot make Serbs out of the Vlachs because they are not Serbs. The Vlachs were assimilated into the Croats even before the arrival of the Turks and Croats are not of Serb origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves. Large groups of Rascians arrive in eastern Slavonia, Vojvodina etc but they are not Vlachs they are Rascians. To Žumberak Vlachs and Serbs are coming, on river Cetina are mentioned Croats, Vlachs and Serbs. The Vlachs are not Serbs. We the not have information about mass migration of someone to Croatia except for the large Serb migrations heading towards Vojvodina. What we have more specifically are migrations from Bosnia but Vlachs are also mentioned here. Whether these Vlachs came to Bosnia from southeast of the Balkans or are they local pre-Turkish population from Bosnia we do not know. But and Bosnians live in that Bosnia and we must respect and that. We cannot make the historical facts that only Serbs flee and migrate all over the Balkans because and others flee, Serbs are not the only inhabitants of the Balkans. This is neutral historical point of view and realistic history. Otherwise, we must understand that Serbs and Turks are allies in the beginning of war and they have no reason for mass migration. Secondly, the Turks colonize their conquered areas but the Serbs fleeing from the Turks and cannot be colonized. Therefore, we cannot create a new history from today's perspective of the peoples who live here. We must keep article in that time of period and historical context because if we start from Vlachs create "mostly Serbs fact" we change history because there is no historical data for that. The sources in the article don't talk about it, they talk about Serbization of Vlachs(when and where it happened we do not know). Mikola22 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, and I say maybe, I am staring to understand the problem here. :Mikola22 no one is saying that Croats that are today called by some or refereed to as Vlachs (Croatian: Vlaji, Vlasi,...) - which is most of the time used as a derogatory term - Serbs. No one is saying that. Or do You think it is otherwise? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) Have you read and understand this quote? I wrote two pages of facts, claims of historians, reliable sources etc who say that Vlachs are different from Serbs, that they are mentioned together with Croats, Serbs etc, that a good part of the Croatian population was named in the sources as Vlachs not to mention that every Balkan country has its Vlachs. These are historical facts and reliable sources talk about that. Vlach are not mainly Serbs because we have no information about that nor sources in the article confirm this. Why some Serbian historians forge that part of history if Vlachs are mainly Serbs? Because we have no historical sources to make such a claim. As the archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić(Serbian historian), retelling archival writings, simply where writes Vlach read a Serb. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings on the Vlachs of the Catholics, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith etc etc. Article fact "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" has no confirmation in reliable sources. Why? Because of all information I cite earlier. The only thing we can found in sources from article is that Vlachs are Serbianized and this information from RS just proves the fact that Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs. Or to simplify, these sources(for that clame) which exist in article refute that clame. This means that article has a fact which the source itself refutes. This shows that someone put this information in the article with some intention bypassing information from the sources so he did not edit article in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 do you live in the 21th century or are you still stuck in the 16th or 17th century? Vlachs, as far as I know practically do not exist today (only 29 citizens of Croatia declared as Vlachs in the last census) so saying that "Vlachs are" is false,, "Vlachs were" is the precise term, for those in Croatia at least. So as far as I know and have read, Vlachs in Croatia were Catholics or Orthodox, more were Orthodox than Catholics and when the era of nation-states came they started to declare or identify themselves as Croats (those of Catholic faith) or as Serbs (those of Orthodox faith). I don't know or I don't think that anyone asked them before the 19th century if they were Vlachs or Croats or Serbs. Strong national identities only rose in the last two centuries. So we can't use the views and definitions of the 21st century to describe something or someone in the 16th or 17th century. It is like when a nationalist asks someone in Belfast: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" and the person replies: "I am an atheist.", then the nationalist asks him again: "But are you Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?". --Tuvixer (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 I have reverted you because of your disruptive behavior. Do you now at least understand that you can not engage in an edit war and that when someone reverts you that you need to go to the talk page and start a discussion? It would be really nice of you if you could give me an answer. Thanks :) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Also I see that user Sheldonium has removed the part in question. Sheldonium please join the discussion and do not remove or change that part of the article until the discussion is over. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer do you live in the 21th century or are you still stuck in the 16th or 17th century? Vlachs, as far as I know practically do not exist today (only 29 citizens of Croatia declared as Vlachs in the last census) so saying that "Vlachs are" is false "Vlachs were" is the precise term, for those in Croatia at least. What this have to do with quote "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" time of (14,15,16,17th century), Habsburg Monarchy and Austria-Hungary? This is about Vlachs for which sources in the article do not speak that they are mainly Serbs because Vlachs are not Serbs. So as far as I know and have read, Vlachs in Croatia were Catholics or Orthodox, more were Orthodox than Catholics and when the era of nation-states came they started to declare or identify themselves as Croats (those of Catholic faith) or as Serbs (those of Orthodox faith). But Vlachs from that time are not mainly Serbs because today Croats, etc would be of Serbian origin. That is why we must not interpret history from today's position. I don't know or I don't think that anyone asked them before the 19th century if they were Vlachs or Croats or Orthodox. "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" Do you now understand what this is about? You said the answer yourself, no one asked them anything so how are they mainly Serbs? Strong national identities only rose in the last two centuries. So we can't use the views and definitions of the 21st century to describe something or someone in the 16th or 17th century. But Vlachs are not Serbs, they are mentioned together with Serbs, Croats etc. When and which assimilations were happening, what time, area etc, who should know that? It's a job for 5,6 academics from around the world to all together make conclusion. It is like when a nationalist asks someone in Belfast: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" and the person replies: "I am an atheist.", then the nationalist asks him again: "But are you Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?" Then we will facts from the 20th, 21th century on Wikipedia start to use for facts concerning articles and history of the 15th, 16th century. That is why I mentioned that we should not accept anarchy in articles. I have reverted you because of your disruptive behavior. But I have to remove information from the article because has no proof in the sources, it was your duty and not mine. We need to edit articles in good faith. This article information is not good faith, it's someone's thinking without reliable sources which prove that. When I first read this I knew immediately that it had no proof in the sources and this is later proved to be correct. It is a big claim that requires more independent sources written by academics or historians dealing with these issues. It would be really nice of you if you could give me an answer. "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" This rings alarm bells, The whole Dalmatia is Vlachian(not to talk about Vlachs in other countries), we must not promote such information without proof. My intention was good faith as well as respect to Wikipedia rules( Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,)

• To summarize. "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" This information has no evidence in the sources which exist in the article. On the contrary sources refute that information because they talk about Serbianisation of Vlachs(we do not know where, when, in what area, etc.) Thus if someone is Serbianisate then it can be assumed he wasn't a Serb before that. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered Therefore all important informations has been left out from the sources, and only what did not appear in the sources was put into the article. I think we need to get down to earth and start following Wikipedia rule. Everything else is anarchy. Mikola22 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

To add on my comment above, Mikola22 do you really think that Vlachs so outnumbered Croats and Serbs in the refugee population that fled before the Ottoman expansion so that it is not even worth mentioning that the refugees were also Croats and Serbs or is the word "Vlach" used as a category to describe all those who fled to Croatia or Vojna Krajina (Military Frontier) and settled there, weather they were Catholics or Orthodox. What was their language? They did not speak Croatian or Serbian? Was "Vlach", in that time, a term used for sheepherders and farmers? Or is "Vlach" more a micro-regional identity rather than a national one. Maybe it is better to remove that whole sentence or remove the word "Vlachs" and replace it with something else because it is very confusing and it might resolve this dispute. Also I have quickly gone through the source text and did not find that the source mentions "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs". On what page of the source is that mentioned? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

do you really think that Vlachs so outnumbered Croats and Serbs in the refugee population that fled before the Ottoman expansion so that it is not even worth mentioning that the refugees were also Croats and Serbs or is the word "Vlach" used as a category to describe all those who fled to Croatia or Vojna Krajina (Military Frontier) and settled there, weather they were Catholics or Orthodox. Do you really think that only Serbs flee from the Ottomans? We have massive migrations of Serbs(Rascians) towards Vojvodina and southeastern Hungary. If the Serbs flee in large numbers in 17th and 18th century then probably did not flee in large numbers earlier towards Croatia. Do you really think that the Serbs as allies of Ottomans(in the beginnings) flee from Ottomans or that Ottomans settling Serbs who running away from them to Ottoman teritory. It is as if the Croats fleeing from the Ottomans and massively settled area around of Istanbul. What was their language? They did not speak Croatian or Serbian? It is a matter of Slavic assimilation, Serbianisation, Croatisation etc.(Why, when, where etc, who would know exactly) Was "Vlach", in that time, a term used for sheepherders and farmers? That doesn't tell us much about the origin of anyone. The whole Dinaric area is mostly sheepherder, all the way to Greece. Or is "Vlach" more a micro-regional identity rather than a national one. There are different opinions for this so I don't want to get into it. Maybe it is better to remove that whole sentence or remove the word "Vlachs" and replace it with something else because it is very confusing and it might resolve this dispute. Croatian historigraphy speaks of assimilated Vlachs and this is a historical fact of that time and a very valuable piece of information which should be part of the article. This is history of Croatia and that time. But we must not cite present clame because it has no evidence in the sources. There were Orthodox and Catholic Vlachs in Croatia and that is very valuable information and this information should be part of the article. I have nothing against it. Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs I would not know.Mikola22 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 it is sad to see that even after you got a ban from Wikipedia that you still think that you did nothing wrong. Edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. You are paranoid that someone is going to think, when he reads that Orthodox Vlachs is/was a term used for Serbian refugees that fled from Bosnia to Croatia during the Ottoman expansion, that all Croats are decedents from Serbs????????? Only two minds who can think of such nonsense are the discussing mind of Vojisalv Šešelj and it seems also the mind of user Mikola22. It seems to me that it would be best to remove the whole sentence from the article. Is that ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer that Orthodox Vlachs is/was a term used for Serbian refugees that fled from Bosnia to Croatia during the Ottoman expansion, that all Croats are decedents from Serbs? Vlachs are and part of Croats etc and this is something basic which people should know, why write fairy tales(Orthodox Vlachs ie Serbs) when Wikipedia is not place for this. Only two minds who can think of such nonsense are the discussing mind of Vojisalv Šešelj and it seems also the mind of user Mikola22. You could find a bigger war criminal to compare me to. It seems to me that it would be best to remove the whole sentence from the article. Is that ok? They blocked me for removing some part of quotes from the article and now you would remove all sentence? How do you think that's possible(remov ), it is very valuable information about which speaks almost every book dealing with this period. We will not mention controversial part and we will leave the first part in the article. This is history of Croatia at that time. To replace the fleeing population, the Habsburgs encouraged the Christian populations of Bosnia to provide military service in the Military Frontier. Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs This is OK to me, we could mentioned Vlachs, Serbs and others or Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs. We have a source for this. There are also Bosnians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, there are probably and some Croats here etc who migrate so perhaps the most neutral would be Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs. Mikola22 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 it is amazing how you still don't understand that you were banned, not because of the nature of your edit but because you engaged in an edit war. Please educate yourself how Wikipedia works. Now I will ask again; On what page of the source is mentioned that "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs"? If I don't get the answer I will remove the whole sentence. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer Do you understand what we are discussing? On what page of the source is mentioned that "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs"? I didn't put this information in the article, I deleted (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) because this information has no evidence in RS and violates Wikipedia rule. I engaged in edit war because you and other two editors who kept that information in an article which has no evidence in sources, and you know that. Now when it failed to preserve that clame in the article now you would delete whole sentence? Why you did not do it before my block? Obviously you have not worked in good faith or checked sources, and that's how you probably worked for years. Therefore when my block expires I will enter Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs that is I enter information which have most sources. This is historical information for most of Croatian history and we must respect that part of history. I am not ashamed that part of Croats has and Vlachs origin and this should be clearly presented to the public. Then we'll see what you say.Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to dignify your trolling with a response. If I don't get the answer to my question above I will remove the whole sentence. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim in brackets is completely irrelevant for the article because it is not an article about Vlachs, nor Croats, let alone Serbs. All three sources explicitly say that Orthodox Vlachs are not, in fact, Serbs, as I extracted and mentioned in edit summary: "All sets of textbooks agree that the Serbs from Krajina are Serbianised Orthodox Vlachs", "They were descendants of a mixture of ancient Roman colonists and Romanized natives.". So opposite than the controversial text in brackets. Without unbiased, reliable sources that claim should not remain in the article. Thus I will remove it because it is unsourced and irrelevant for the topic. --Sheldonium (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

Infobox footnote:

less present–minority languages > less-present minority languages 174.22.218.84 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - QuadColour (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason 'Croat' is not listed as a demonym?

Not only is it used in several places within the article, but 'Croatian', the only demonym given, links to a page titled 'Croats'. If it's just an oversight could someone with sufficient privileges add it, please?

Antagony1960 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Faulthy archive search form

Just a FYI, the search form at the top of this Talk does not appear to search within archives. -Mardus /talk 11:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Serb Ustashe casualties

There seems to be an issue with my edit adding that 300,000 Serbs killed in the Ustashe genocide. It's straight forward, the paragraph lists the NDH and its Jewish casualties, then the Chetniks and their Muslim and Croat casualties as given by historians. Then total Croat losses in Yugoslavia and then Serb losses in the NDH as calculated by two researchers. All I did was add a general estimate on the number of Serbs killed by the Ustashe (their biggest victims) right after the sentence that talks about their racial policies and before the Jewish casualties. It doesn't make sense to not give the general estimate for Serbs killed by the Ustashe as listed in historiography but list others. While Kočović and Žerjavić's research is valuable, they are not the be all end all. I don't see what is so controversial about having that estimate in addition to the estimates by the researchers, especially as it is a moderate one that is generally agreed upon by historians of the region. See the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. --Griboski (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I made my most recent edits to the page before seeing this on the talk page. I think it adress the historiography issue. I never personally had issue with the 300,000 stat which is absolutely valid. My edits show very simply that I was placing both the 300,000 stat and 217,000 stat together as they are related to the same topic. Various estimates are usually listed one after the other in the same section of a paragraph to show the difference estimates from various sources. I was never for removal outright of the 300,000. I don’t see the major issue here or controversy. Also all the info on 320,000 to 370,000 deaths and other stats about the NDH should be in the same section not at the end. Otherwise it just seems all over the place. I noticed this proofreading the whole section. I agree that the order was out or whack. So that is addressed already in my most recent edit on the page. I did not see at first the syntax. My issue was isolated to then out of context stats. OyMosby (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be attributed to Tottens. It's a common estimate. It should also be the first listed as the others specify and categorize casualties. --Griboski (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

When mentioning the number killed specifically by Ustaše, that should be together so mentioning the 217,000 and then the 300,000 makes sense. As these are two figures given for Serbs directly killed by the Ustaše. 320,000-370,000 by other authors is the total including military and variouse perps carrying out the killings. As you said due to the categorization of casualties. It makes sense to discuss overall deaths of up to 370,000 and then the sub category of civilians killed by Ustaše. So current order seems to make the most sense. However, 300,000 is stated as the specific number of victims of the Ustaše genocide by multiple sources? I know that 320,000-350,000 is the common overall total of both civilians and military killed by multiple perpetrators. I think the author stating 300,000 should be mentioned. Again unless multiple sources state 300,000 specifically. OyMosby (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski there was no agreement about that change you made on the page. Where is the consensus about 300,000 exactly? If there are other sources stating this figure we should include them. Professor John R Lampe is directly sourced for the figure by Totten so I included his name instead. OyMosby (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking further into the book, I see that Totten and Lampe make for at least two supporters so that checks out. Next time if there is talk going on about the subject or section don’t just make an edit to the article untill there is some sort of agreement. Else why bother with coming to the talk page? Regardless if of frustration over the other person not agreeing at first. Have a good day. OyMosby (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Totten is misquoted because he did not explicitly say that the Ustaše murdered 300,000 Serbs. He cited Lampe 2000, and Lampe in turn cited Žerjavić and Kočović for his figure (page 443). Lampe also didn't say that the Ustaše murdered 300,000 Serbs, but that the number of Serb deaths on the territory of NDH was more than 300,000 (page 211). That is in line with Žerjavić and Kočović.

Even if we put aside the dubious citing, there is an academic consensus that Žerjavić's and Kočović's studies are the most reliable ones regarding casualties of World War II in Yugoslavia. Their figures are used for the number of fatalities for all other ethnic groups mentioned under that section (Croats, Bosniaks, Jews, and Roma), although there are many sources that would claim a much higher death toll than that, at least in the case of Croats and Bosniaks.

The GA version of the article also cited Žerjavić and Kočović, and not random figures from random authors. [12] Tezwoo (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The current version also has newly added and restructured info that wasn't there before. The problem with solely using Žerjavić's analysis for Serbs is that he cites 217,000 as victims of terror by the Axis in the NDH, implying much less than 200,000 were killed in the Ustashe genocide but very few if any historians use that number for their genocide casualties, even when citing him. His research is imperfect and some of his categorizations leave room for interpretations, which is probably why there's varying estimates from historians. It's been debated at length on the Genocide of Serbs page but the majority of the scholars listed there give 300,000 or 350,000 deaths, hence my addition was not merely random but designed to give a relatively moderate estimate that reflects that. And I'd rather it be one than overciting. So I don't see a problem with having both figures there. --Griboski (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Roger Cohen says 100,000 fatalities [13], Despalatovic also 100,000 [14], Benjamin A. Valentino says 125,000 [15], Norman M. Naimark and Holly Case say 200,000 [16], Goldstein cites Žerjavić and 217,000 victims of Nazi terror [17], Philip J. Cohen also cites Žerjavić, but goes into detail on their structure [18]... there, six sources that mention a lower death toll than that "majority of sources", and there are a ton of other sources that cite Žerjavić such as Tomasevich 2001, Dulić, Hoare, Ramet in her later works, etc. As can be seen in the case of Lampe, some of the sources are misquoted, and Totten directly cites Lampe 2000. Totten is also not correctly cited.

The GA version of the article was much more in line with the academic consensus, which are the studies Žerjavić and Kočović. Or else we could also add that according to Rudolph Rummel the Partisans killed 500,000 from July 1944, [19], or that estimates of the number of Croats killed by the Chetniks go up to 500,000 [20] Tezwoo (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:, as you were also involved in the discussions regarding the number of WW2 casualties, what do you think how should we present those numbers (and which ones) in the body of this article? Tezwoo (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Roger Cohen is a reporter for the New York Times, not a historian. He is just relaying, what is frankly an absurdly low number, without a footnote but it is also a minimum and for civilians (genocide doesn't necessarily only take into account civilian casualties anyway). As pointed out by Peacemaker in the other talk page, Despalatovic appears to be misquoting Žerjavić. Philip J. Cohen is problematic to use as an authority for matters like this given his Croatian ties and anti-Serbia bias but that's a moot point anyway since he is just presenting Žerjavić's categorizations. I'm not disputing there are lower numbers, but there are also improbable figures of 500,000 or even 600,000. My point is ~300K seems like a happy medium between the unlikely high and low ends. We have Ramet, Pavlowitch, Hoare and others giving around that. Seems like we're just re-hashing the convo from the other article talk page. All this over essentially one sentence that I don't think is controversial. --Griboski (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

About ten relevant historians and genocide scholars (Yeomans, Charny, Kallis, Kostash, Avramov, Bartrop, Hockenos, Niewyk, Nicosia...), as well as Yad Vashem with own research center, claim that the number of victims of genocide can be up to 500,000. We should to wait for a consensus in the main article on genocide for sentence with the range in the lead, so we can include the same sentence here. This is not a place to discuss the death toll. On the other hand, the number of victims doesn't have to be mentioned in this article. It is enough to write that genocide took place and that is proportionately one of the deadliest in the 20th century.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it written here in the article about Croatia about the genocide of Serbs in ww2, and in the article about Serbia there is nothing about Chetniks genocide against Croats and Bosnians in ww2, someone needs to change that there. Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.138.104 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, sign your comments. The genocide death toll is described too extensively and in too much detail for this article, all based on one source. I’ve worked a lot on that topic, but I don’t think there’s a need to be so dubious here. I think one sentence with a range is enough, it can be 300 000 - 350 000 or 200 000 - 500 000. It would be best to wait for a consensus to be reached in the main article on genocide. Furthermore, the Chetniks are rarely mentioned in relevant sources about Croatia. (WP:UNDUE) There is a tendency for a group of editors, in addition to reducing the number of victims of the NDH genocide, to make some kind of countermeasure by creating or expanding the articles that they perceived as parallel events and to add information about Chetnik crimes everywhere. That is all an example WP:CFORK and WP:POVPUSH. Writing about Ustaše and Chetnik atrocities in the same way in the same article is strongly UNDUE, as well as POV. The Chetniks didn't have a state apparatus and were a heterogeneous group, not an unique organization. On the other hand, the Ustaše established a regime in the country. All racial and genocidal policies are carried out systematically, in harmony with laws, institutions, armed forces, propaganda, etc. It is also one of the deadliest and most barbaric genocides in modern history. This must always be clearly and unambiguously emphasized. Equating with other crimes is, in the first place, relativization and denial of genocide, and in our case, violation of many of Wikipedia's policies. Finally, many of the victims mentioned in the article have nothing to do with the Croatian state today, or with any Croatian state within any borders in history.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You belong to that group of editors WP: CFORK and WP: POVPUSH. You described yourself, look at your arrangements, you just put about Ustasha crimes everywhere. Why is it unnecessary to write about Chetnik crimes WebDub ((Redacted)) , do you want to hide crimes ? If it is written here about Ustasha crimes, then you should also write about Chetnik crimes in the article Serbia in the section WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.124.186 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, sign your comments and stop with labeling other editors and posting derogatory messages (WP:AVOIDABUSE). Assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. No other crime must be put on the same level as the Ustasha terror. This is not an article about Serbia and we should not discuss it.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong it is a your POV, a crime is a crime. Someone else can tell you the same. No other crime must be put on the same level as the Chetniks terror. So stop hiding crimes and write first on the article in Serbia, before someone writes about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)