Talk:Socialist Republic of Croatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Seal of the Federal State of Croatia

Stop insisting on something just because you found it on the Internet. The source has been successfully opposed here (at the insistance of an admin) User:Jarry1250. -- Imbris (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC?

There is currently a Third Opinion request open for this talk page...however, given that you have several areas that need a third opinion, and there are some issues that probably require expert assistance, I think one additional set of eyes isn't going to fix everything. I would recommend instead filing a Request for Comment. Also, please cool it with the incivility...as far as I can tell, this is a good-faith dispute and you're both taking it very personally. MirrorLockup (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course, this is a personal issue for User:Imbris, and its not a real "dispute" at all. That nationalist account has been following me around and reverting me because he thinks everything I do is "anti-Croatian". He continuously refused to answer any of my proposals for neutral mediation, but after I reported him he figured he's on thin ice so he started spamming WP:DR pages instead of constantly revert-warring as is his general "modus operandi". Of course as you can see, I'm not at all neutral with regard to this account - I've been harassed way to much. fyi User:Imbris has been recently blocked for nationalist disruption and placed on probation for inciting edit-wars like this on seven seperate articles. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IP edits

Dear DIREKTOR please can you stop spreading your pro Serbian propaganda and accept the facts

Croato-Serbian Language

Croato-Serbian Language

Croato-Serbian WAS oficial langauge in SR Croatia not Srebo Croatian as you constantly put back!

P.S. dont call me "nationalist" just becaus I corected your mistake and offerd you proof!
Prvi zdrug (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR You say that you are from Split it would be nice that you at least learn what language your parents were talking in SR Croatia it is not hard go to any library!! Shame, Shame on you to say that Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian belie or not it is possible to find even today some books form schools from that period go and see the difference I am alder than you so I know what I am talking about dear "medical student" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.28.2 (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors don't change the history facts THE language (official) in SR Croatia was Croato-Serbian not Serbo-Croatian!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.28.2 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr IP, whoever you are (Imbris/recruited by Imbris :), kindly cease making nonsense edits or I will request semi-protection for this page. Please read this carefully: The language you are referring to is most commonly known in English as "Serbo-Croatian". There are no two languages here. "Croato-Serbian" is simply a far less used alternative name for this single language. "Serbo-Croatian" has to be used per Wiki policy as the most common name for this language. Please stop. I won't waste my time arguing over this too much, rest assured action will be taked in you continue to edit-war over this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Language Croato-Serbian

DIREKTOR can you please stop change historical facts! I submitted a proof that you are wrong:

Croato-Serbian Language

Croato-Serbian Language

Your answer was that I am a nationalist (really mature)pleas can you submit me a valid proof that the language in the SR Croatia was Serbo-Croatian and not Croato-Serbian.

Your dialog bay labeling me as nationalist don work with me because I only tried to correct a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prvi zdrug (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IP edits #2

Ok, even though I'm 1000% sure you're just another Imbris recruit, I'm going to invest some effort in explaining why your edit is incorrect, instead of just reporting this matter as I should've done right away. Am I stupid for making an effort? We'll see. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:

• First of all, there are no two languages here. I hope you understand that already. There are no two languages where one would be called "Serbo-Croatian" and the other "Croato-Serbian". In short, "Serbo-Croatian" = "Croato-Serbian". These are two names for the same language.
• This language we are talking about has many names, "Croato-Serbian" is one of the names used for it. However, this is the English Wikipedia. By far the most common name used in the English-speaking world is "Serbo-Croatian language". Even the Croatian Wikipedia uses "Srpskohrvatski jezik" as it is most common in Croatian as well [1].
• Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONAME (which of course refers to article text as well as article titles) obligates us to use the MOST COMMON NAME. We can NOT use the name "Croato-Serbian" because it makes you feel better as a Croat.

Can I possibly be any clearer? Finally, please note: this is a matter for Wikipedia policy, not sources. (Should the User:Imbris account join here with his usual posts it will simply prove the IP is a recruit. It will also end the discussion, and will result in me simply requesting semi-protection.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Language Croato-Serbian 2

I will try to be polite and explain it as best as I can for you to understand. I we were talking about SFR Yugoslavia I would agree with you but the article is about SR Hrvatska or SR Croatia. By constitution in that time the language of SR Croatia was Croato-Serbina and I think that historical facts should be correct if we would like to take this as encyclopedia not as somebody’s personal blog.

I don’t know how old you are but I was born and went in school in that time. The school I intended was in SR Croatia the books where in Croatia-Serbian unlike may colleges in SR Serbia which had language books in Serbo-Croatian. I understand you confusion about the issue but I am trying to explain it again if we are talking about SFR Yugoslavia I would agree but the Article is about SR Croatia. The essayist way for you to check the differences is: GRADSKA KNJIŽNICA MARKA MARULIĆA, Ulica Slobode 2, 21000, Split. Please try to understand the language is similar but not the same. Serbo-Croatian (air): Vazduh Croato-Serbina (Air) Zrak

I agree that the differences are big but the fact is that the constitution and school education + dictionaries are separate not equal not same.

Also I did not want to change it in to Croatian Language even if I had grounds in SR Croatia Constitution. You know Croatian so I submit to you the constitution: Član 138. U Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski književni jezik - standardni oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski.

Nakon Deklaracije 1967. hrvatski je jezik ponovno počeo slijediti vlastiti smjer jezičnoga razvitka, a njegovi ga govornici od tada, gotovo isključivo, označuju nazivom hrvatski jezik, iako je ustavnim rješenjima iz 1970-ih (amandmani iz 1971. i Ustav iz 1974.) bio uveden kao službeni naziv »hrvatski književni jezik koji narod naziva hrvatski ili srpski jezik« (takvu je formulaciju bio potvrdio i Sabor SR Hrvatske u lipnju 1989.).

I expect your reply

Istina 09:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prvi zdrug (talk • contribs)

Official languahe SR Croatia

The official language of SR Croatia was Croato-Serbian as it is shown in dictionaries that I submitted in previous post!

I will fix the error and I hope that the Admin will stop DIRECTOR of changing it again!

Than you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prvi zdrug (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Predecessors/Successors

Concerning a problem with Predecessors/Successors in Infobox SFRY, I had an disagreement with DIREKTOR on RSK article. See here - [2]. If you guys want to discuss the problem, let this be a start. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Its fairly simple, the international diplomatic status of Croatia at the time of its declaration of independence was equal to that of the SAOs, which is to say, they were all legally unrecognized states. Therefore to favor one over the other because it "looks right" or because it makes someone feel better is POV.

I can see Ex13 is making an argument in his edit-summary that the SAOs did not exist ("occupied territory"). Let me just say everything I am prepared to say on that topic: the SAOs existed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we shall include Independent State of Croatia. NDH also existed, right? Also we need to include the flag of Banovina of Croatia, becuase SR of Croatia was federal unite, without international legal capacity, like Banovina, right? Direktor, with yours arguments you make me smile :) --Ex13 (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have already explained, the difference is that the international diplomatic status of Yugoslavia and the NDH is incomparable. That between Croatia and the SAOs is identical. If you guys think I'm some newb you can gang-up on and out-edit-war, think again. If this edit-warring continues I will report you for WP:MEAT, I think the evidence for a WikiClique here is compelling. Please try to understand I'm only doing my best to remain objective. I'm a Croat too, but as it seems I'm the only one trying to follow WP:NPOV.

Let me repeat: the international diplomatic status of Croatia at the time of its declaration of independence was equal to that of the SAOs, which is to say, they were all legally unrecognized states. Therefore to favor one over the other because it "looks right" or because it makes someone feel better is POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Croatia and Slovenia were formed in democratic procces as legal descendents of SR Cro and SR Slo; SAOs were created by violence and weapon. By pushing this POV, you actually kill legalty of '74 Yu constitution, which is very funny since you are a kind of Yu-fan. Zenanarh (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, i will include then the Flag of NDH. I don't like DIREKTORs POV pushing without any argument. His arguments are wiki policies. Well, you probably heard for Wikipedia:No original research or Wikilawyering--Ex13 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual total poetic nonsense from Zen and threats of edit-warring from the banned Suradnik.

• Zen, The United States of America were created "by violence and weapon". Half your post is completely and utterly irrelevant. The successors in the infobox always display the earliest state of affairs at the time of succession, hence the early Croatian flag. This is standard practice, and I invite you to seek out other former country infoboxes if you do not believe me.
• The earliest state of affairs as far as diplomatic recognition and legal international status is this: Croatia - unrecognized; SAOs - unrecognized. Why in the world should any objective, non-Croat observer favor one of these over the other?

What are we debating? Your nationalist sensibilities? (Suradnik, I recommend you do not start inserting fascist puppets in the WWII Yugoslav infoboxes. If you do, however, make sure you insert Nedić's Serbia, Italy, Germany, The Independent State of Montengro, etc... That kind of POV simply won't pass.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The earliest state of affairs as far as diplomatic recognition and legal international status is this: Croatia - unrecognized; SAOs - unrecognized. Why in the world should any objective, non-Croat observer favor one of these over the other?

Wrong. It's: Croatia - established in legal democratic procces (continuity on the earlier status of SR Cro) and then recognised by the other UN members in the next period; SAOs - established illegally and never recognized by UN. It's enough to say that no document of SAO Krajina has ever had any jurisdictional value. Instead of report threads and nationalism accusations, start working on your ego-based quazi-objectiveness to transform it into something really objective, then you will have no problem with other users in wiki. At moment, I can see, you argue with almost everyone everywhere. Zenanarh (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only repeat that Croatia was not recognized by the UN immediately upon its declaration of independence. I remember, I was there :). The earliest state of affairs as far as diplomatic recognition and legal international status is this: Croatia - unrecognized; SAOs - unrecognized.

It would appear you are simply unable to accept the fact that Croatia was unrecognized immediately upon its secession... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you are an expert in international law :) SAO never was a state. It was a group of people who did not accept the creation of the Republic of Croatia. Like NDH, we should'n include this in the infobox because is a POV pushing and totally incorrect--Ex13 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DIR you're really funny, by your logic I can say that my islander house is also a successor of SR Cro, just because I say so - it is unrecognised by UN, but maybe it will become soon. I can proclaim its autonomity although there's no any legacy, your logic gives me that right. If you keep on pushing your distorted POV I'm gonna create my own flag and edit it here. Zenanarh (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NO I am not an expert on international law, though you must be since you're talking about some of the most complicated issues international law has ever dealt with. You have no idea what you're getting into. By your logic the Republic of Kosovo is not a state, since its secession has just as much legal basis as the SAOs', the Republic of Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia should also be removed from all succession infoboxes since they are also "illegal" by your standards.

We are not here to debate the complex issue of state "legality" in the Yugoslav Wars. It is immensely complex and, as you said yourself, we are "not experts on international law", we're just two "funny" guys. We are here talking about international status. International recognition: Croatia - none; SAOs - none.

We are here to be NEUTRAL, and OBJECTIVE, and you actually mock me for promoting that(!). You only seem to agree with me only when I'm confronting other nationalist POV-pushers (Italians, Serbs, Hungarians), but when it comes to Croatia, you're a total crusader. You're completely blinded by the fact that you're a Croat, and obviously have no ability to assume a NPOV here. You're unable to rise above your place of birth and your nationality and view things from a different perspective. All I'm trying to do here is create objective non-fantasy Croatian history articles, and they are most certainly filled to the brim with "Tolkien-history". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in the article, it says that SR of Croatia is the predecessor of the modern-day Republic of Croatia. SAO Krajina never was the state. It was fully illegal. Like i said, if we put SAO Krajina in the infobox, then we need to put NDH as the predecessor. But thats the historical nonsens, like your SAO's. That what you say is not objectivity, but ignorance. Diplomatic recognition is only the act of another state. We can say then that the NDH was recognized, and it's predecessor of SR of Croatia.

But we agree that the NDH was not a legal predecessor of the SR Croatia, like the SAO Krajina was not a legal successor to the SR Croatia.--Ex13 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking about the NDH for some strange reason. I am unable to comprehend why in the world you would think this is a similar case in some way. That is World War II, these are the "roaring" 1990s, even international law was in its infancy back then. It is impossible to compare the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's international recognition to that of the NDH. But I won't waste my energy talking about it here, why don't you insert that nonsense in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article infobox then, see how long it lasts (stopwatch at the ready :). Perhaps someone would then explain this to you in detail instead of me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ex13 (a.k.a. User:Suradnik13), your behavior so far has been, in my personal view, intolerable. You have thus far instigated edit-wars on three articles, you've disregarded discussions and have decided to simply push your edits with revert-warring. You've disregarded all pleas to wait for the discussion results and some sort of consensus. You simply edit, and then if someone should have any objections you will revert-war until your version stands on top. Your modus operandi is that of a standard-issue nationalist POV-pusher, the kind we see all to often on these articles. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be great to discuss the problem without "you are a nationalist POV-pusher", from both sides. DIREKTOR, you said "why don't you insert that nonsense in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article infobox then, see how long it lasts". Your sentence can easily be applied here. That is way there is ongoing edit-war on this article. What I am trying to say is, if we are to be consistent on Wikipedia, you'll need a better explanation for puting successor to the SR Croatia, who is not a legal one. --Kebeta (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Language issue

WP:COMMONNAME. Using most common English name for the Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language. Flag issue at Talk:Banovina of Croatia --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Section tags

Since 5 out of the 6 sections which contain material are completely unsourced, it seems rather inadequate to only have 1 tag at the start of the article requesting additional citations for verification. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply: no. No, it is not. You've just proven that yourself. If a section is unsourced it requires that tag only if the rest of the article is sourced. If the majority of the article is unsourced, as you say, then a tag at each section is WP:OVERTAGGING. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm interested in your opinion on one issue, if I may. Since the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was formed with the Second Session of the AVNOJ, I wonder if you could tell me why, in your opinion, they called the country Democratic Federal Yugoslavia? What was the cause for such a name, do happen to you know? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

for Democratic Federal Yugoslavia being formed with the Second Session of the AVNOJ. The article also states in the Names section, "The Socialist Republic of Croatia was founded as the Federal State of Croatia (Croatian: Federalna Država Hrvatska, FD Hrvatska) on May 9, 1944 at the 3rd session of the ZAVNOH." A reliable source is obviously needed for the date of its establishment, whatever it may have been. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Republic of Croatia ended in 1990, not 1991.

SR Croatia was dissolved in 1990 upon multiparty elections being held - the entire apparatus of the republic was transformed in 1990. The "Republic of Croatia" as a multiparty democracy existed as a constituent republic within Yugoslavia from 1990 to 1991 when it then seceded from Yugoslavia.--R-41 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I still merged the latter article in here because it didn't make any real sense to have yet another tiny article describing practically the same set of events. The distinction between a federal and an independent state seems significantly larger than the distinction between two systems of government within a state. In other words, RoC becoming independent was the big deal, and while these previous changes were clearly notable, the reader will easily consider them simply as a part of a transition to that final state.

Alternatively, information about this period can be merged into a History of Croatia article. We used to have History of Croatia since 1995 that was in turn merged into the generic article - that could be revived and extended to "since 1990".

In fact, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure if all of these transitional decisions were recognized by all the relevant bodies of the federation at the time, so it might not have been a consensual state even? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You put it very eloquently Joy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

SR Croatia was succeded by Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wan't to promote this article to the GA status and I have found this problem.

I really can't say is the RoC (90-91) succesor of SRC or it's Croatia (present-day country). For me, the most logical thing is that RoC is succesor because of the Christmas Constitution, new positions (President and Prime Minister), democratic election, new flag, new CoA new name...

What other users think should we return the article about Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) or not?

--Wustenfuchs 16:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure whether I understand the question at all, I am surprised with the fact Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) redirects here instead of Croatia § Federal Yugoslavia and independence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article existed earlier, however it was leter edited, so now it redirects on this one. --Wustenfuchs 18:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is basically a rehash of the issue where to point Republic of Croatia (1990-1991). We had the discussion before, and we're not going to end it in any sort of conclusive manner until someone brings forward an array of reliable sources indicating one way or another - was it a notable state on its own, or was it a derivation of its predecessor or its successor. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please drop a link to the previous discussion? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted it is hard to point exactly where to point the Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) but as far as succession is concerned the socialist republic was renamed RoC through 1990 constitution, i.e. that is the succession of the state. The Republic declared in 1990 constitution is the same one dealt with in the Croatia article i.e. the 1990-1991 RoC article deals with the same country as the Croatia article - no other constitution was enacted after 1990 (amendments only). The 1991 threshold is applied (presumably) because of declaration of independence, i.e. RoC ceased to be a federal unit of Yugoslavia. Still this does not affect statehood in any way and the event is dealt with in some detail in the Croatia article, in appropriate context. In my opinion the Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) should redirect as Czarkoff suggested - nothing else is appropriate by any stretch of imagination.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with that. Effectively I wanted to read previous discussion to see any arguments in favor of redirecting it here (or wherever else), as I never heard of anybody claiming that RoC of 1990—1991 was something different from RoC afterwards. IMO this redirect would be better of completely unlinked and (depending on hit count):

• deleted or
• disambiguated between this article and Croatia.

See Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic as an example. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On a side note to Wustenfuchs - glad to see a new GA project. If you need any help with sourcing or something else, drop me a note.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that RH in 1990 was not an actually sovereign state. In the June 1990 decision, Sabor renamed SRH and asserted its sovereignty, but it was still part of Yugoslavia. The difference brought upon by the Christmas Constitution of December 1990 was democracy, not sovereignty or independence. The latter happened in June, which was then immediately postponed to October 1991, and then actually became real in the rest of the world only in January 1992. In the title "Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)", I'm not even sure if people want that 1990 to refer to June or December.

It can be reasonably argued that if the entire Croatian historiography thinks this series of assertions of sovereignty, democracy and independence were immediately more important than the final execution of independence, Wikipedia should follow suit. But, we have to base the discussion on an analysis of sources that state so, rather than a rather vague interpretation of historical events based on anecdotal evidence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that the Christmas Constitution of December 1990 was declared in the Sabor with a standalone decision rather than a standard diff-based decision. It's possible that this procedural difference can be a reason to treat the 1990 constitutional changes as more important than the 1991 declaration of independence. But what do the historians say? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted the period between 1990 constitution and declaration/recognition of independence marks the end of existence of the socialist republic and the events should be dealt with in the socialist republic article. The same should (and are) also presented in Croatia article along with other material, including the socialist republic (albeit briefly per summary style). Still, the object of this RfC being a redirect, I believe it should point to the country article's appropriate subsection, where the context is available as well as links to the socialist republic, the 1991 referendum and other related articles. Furthermore, besides user and talk pages, the redirect is used by only four other articles making me wonder if it is really needed at all.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this article were named "Croatia in Yugoslav federation" and considered in that context, the answer would be much more simple. it would cover everything until October 1991. If it were considered in context of "Communist/Socialist Croatia" its coverage should extend to 1990 only. But this does not affect any reasoning about the redirect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Risking making this a borderline rant, but... All but one present uses of the redirect actually use the 1990-1991 redirect to point to the situation of June-December 1990 (not called "socialist" any more, but no new constitution yet) through infobox flags only (ones left or right of the years span at the top). In that context it seems more appropriate to have the redirect point to Croatia article, and fourth and actually the only one using the redirect linked in the prose could and should be changed to point to Croatia article as well, rendering this RfC moot.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Effectively SRH, RH (1990 – 1991) and present day RH are the same state with period of 1990 – 1991 being the transitional point. Thus the very question of relations between respective articles is the question of content organization. I specifically linked the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to show that neither independence nor constitutional changes serve the basis of the content split, as the article covers the period between 1917 and 1993 (the timeframe when the entity under the name existed), while Soviet Union existed from 1922 to 1991 — effectively neither loss/acknowledgement of Independence, nor change of constitutions served the basis of splitting RSFSR article in parts. Applied to Croatia that means that all of the content related to the state after the name change belongs to the Croatia article. Thus the successor in the infobox of this article should be simply Republic of Croatia (with no dates), a redirect to Croatia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can legitimately assert that the name change trumps all because it's at least as equally as logical to assert that Croatia within Yugoslavia changed its name several times - 1944, 1945, 1963, 1990 - and we don't split those into four articles. Heck, that argument is at least as valid given that People's Republic of Croatia was so named for 18 years, which is significantly longer than the year or so between June 1990 and June 1991. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, what does allow one to assert the change of the country? Constitution? International acknowledgement of independence? It seems pretty obvious that it in 1990 one entity replaced another, and that the newer entity is the one existing today, isn't it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the larger point is that it's the same entity :) given that I see you started changing the redirects, I think the main issue now is that people wanted to link a specific historic period, whereas the country article only has a summary of historic periods. The historic articles in this case are this article and the war article, and 1990-1991 is right on the borderline between the two. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I kinda disagree with your reverts: IMO in none of the cases Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) is an appropriate target. Whatever way we put the split, this particular name is bogus. Eg. in case of Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars‎ the Independence of Croatia is a better target, while in case of SAO Krajina‎ the proper target is Socialist Republic of Croatia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

As the discussion above reveals some concerns over the usefulness of Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) redirect, I propose to:

1. Change all incoming links to point either to Croatia's or this article's relevant section.
2. Wait until the full month of clear hit count stats is available.
3. Get Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) to WP:RFD to decide upon its fate there.

!votes, please! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• The redirect receives about 80 hits per month (last two months at least). Considering the context where the links to the redirect are used, I'd point the redirect to Croatia#Federal_Yugoslavia_and_independence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please keep in mind, that some (if not all) of the hits are received from people following wikilinks. The external usage of the name is unknown, until we unlink the name from other articles. Given that the emerging consensus is in favor of identifying RoC of 1990 – 1991 with present-day Croatia, this redirect may be a good candidate for deletion. BTW, the name goes against WP:MOS, as it uses "-" in place of "–". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree to redirect it at Croatia#Federal_Yugoslavia_and_independence also, because I think that RoC (90-91) has more common things with present RoC then SRC (if we are talking about country's leadership, even flag, democratic election etc.) --Wustenfuchs 13:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this article were named "Croatia in Yugoslav federation" and considered in that context, the answer would be much more simple.

See, that's the root cause of the problem. We had History of Croatia, which was then split for readability into Croatia in the second Yugoslavia (among others), but then some annoying users came along and insisted that we renamed and transformed all of those history articles into former country articles. In retrospect, that change did more harm than good. I think we should restore the aforementioned name and then there will be no reason not to point pre-independence RH redirect to the section of this article. Meanwhile, pointing the redirect to a section of Croatia that doesn't actually describe what exactly we mean by the suffix 1990-1991 is a clear violation of WP:R#PLA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO the current naming scheme is preferable. If the connection between Republic of Croatia in 1990 — 1991 and Republic of Croatia afterwards is so difficult to see, the redirect may be used to point to Independence of Croatia, which covers the period in more details. Or at least should be doing so. See, apart from the Croatian history perspective the article covers Croatia from the Yugoslav history perspective, and the current name goes in line with both, while the former didn't. (added 11:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that Independence of Croatia currently redirects to the referendum article that doesn't currently talk in detail about this - which is another conflation of general history and specific history articles, to put it in the most generic manner. But I guess I see the way out - move the content from this article to Independence of Croatia as a new article which then bridges the gap between June 1990 and the war article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I like this solution. Alternatively, the war article's background section can be used as a target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There we go. We could move some of the war article background to there, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. --Wustenfuchs 13:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So, are we done here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seams so. --Wustenfuchs 17:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-consensus additions

• Wustenfuchs, Bleiburg and the other various WWII dirt on the Partisans and the Federal Government have absolutely nothing to do with the Socialist Republic of Croatia (or Federal State of Croatia, as it was known at that time). The addition of the Stepinac case I'm willing to agree to for now, since I'm not sure if his was a federal case, or if he was indicted by republic authorities (I think it was the latter, so fine). Bleiburg and the expulsion of the Volksdeutsche are just completely outside the scope. Please add only the prosecution instituted and/or conducted by this federal unit.
• Secondly, why is this the only federal unit of the SFRY that does not use the custom SFRY infobox? I'm not saying its necessarily a bad thing, but whoever removed the old infobox could have done the same for the rest of the articles. This way its just inconsistent.
• Thirdly, SR Croatia was not the successor of any banovina. Banovinas were mere provinces - this was a sovereign republic, hence it is on the level of sovereign countries as far as predecessors go. Finally, parts the Trst territory were added long after this country was founded. In fact the territory itself was created years after the foundation of FS Croatia. It is not a predecessor of this state.

Also, is Lijepa nasa sourced as the anthem? I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just not sure. Any ref? -- Director (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Lijepa naša was official anthem, I've added a source to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now for that, but the same info is available in full text of the 1974 constitution as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of persecutions, I think that information is relevant if sourced to the SR Croatia's political system, ruling figures or otherwise linked. However, I also think that the information in the section as it was could and should be condensed to a single subsection of the "politics and government" section, briefly mentioning all relevant info with substantial refs. The info is relevant because it significantly defines and qualifies the political system in the SR Croatia - Simply blanking that info looks like censorship. I propose to restore the section as it was and distill it to a compact version of itself, placed within the above section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of succession of the kingdom vs banovina, I would lean towards succession of the kingdom (with additions of Italy and FTT) - Banovina was not soveregin constituent of the kingdom of Yugoslavia (as a matter of fact it did not constitute fully before the WWII, say through election of Sabor), while DFJ was defined as federal state hence it shared (in varying degrees between 1943 and 1990s) its sovereignty with its constituent elements, in effect the kingdom was succeeded by the DFJ/FNRJ/SFRJ and the constituents, including SR Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now first of all I need to mention that there was no SR Croatia in 1943, there was only ZAVNOH, as representative of Croats in the Partisan Movement, when are the borders made DIREKTOR? And when did Partisans said - ok, now, we will have SR Croatia? It was at Yugoslav Constituent Session held on 29 November 1945 where they established all of the Yugoslav republic, so yes SR Croatia exists only from 1945, as all other SRs of Yugoslavia.

Now second, about the expulsion of Italians and Germans. Those persecutions occured on the territory of the SR Croatia, the great demographic change of one territory, or in this case a country, must be mentioned in the article. It's just so. The disappearance of some half million people is a bih thing I believe, don't you? Such things must be mentioned in this, and probably on other articles, I mean the article Yugoslav Partisans and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is the reason I didn't mentioned the persecutions occured in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Kosovo, as they are not linked to the SRC. Another thing, about Bleiburg, it was a massacre, you will agree, in which large number of people that were supposed to live on the territory of SRC was killed as they were members of the enemy army. Also very important to note, it doesn't requests a large section, but it needs to be mentioned.

The reason why I removed the SFRY infobox is very simple, only the SRs of Yugoslavia have this infobox which really doesn't include all necessary informations, for example an anthem. And moreover, I think that Wikipedia should treat all of the similiar articles in the same way, like Soviet Russia, Soviet Ukraine etc. I also replaced the infobox of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, later I will expand all other republics also.

Ok, we will agree on this one about Kingdom's banovinas, but the Free Territory of Trieste is a different story. Both were created nearly at the same time, and in 1954 I believe, Croatia gained smaller part of the Trieste's B zone, while the SR Slovenia gained its larger part, whilst A zone became Italy. So, yeah, this small B zone later became Croatia, and I think this must be added to infobox; it doesn't even matter if SR Croatia was created 50 yrs before the FT Trieste as later it included its parts. Same thing was done with the Greater German Reich, when created, didn't included the Memel region, however, in 1939 as I recall, the Germans sent them demand for that region which they gained in March that year, so now it is included as GGR's predecessor region, which really is. --Wustenfuchs 13:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was formally established in November 1943 at the second session of the AVNOJ, along with the six "federal states". Among them the Federal State of Croatia. I assure you the AVNOJ did not create a Democratic Federal Yugoslavia without actual federal states (why do you think they call them "AVNOJ borders"?) Unless you have a scholarly source that explicitly supports your claim that the Federal State of Croatia was established in 1945..

The expulsions occurred all throughout Yugoslavia (primarily in Serbia, actually), were ordered by the Yugoslav parliament, and carried out by the (federal) army. FS Croatia and its authorities were barely functioning and had nothing to do with that event. There is simply no way I can agree on those events being shoehorned into this article without a source explicitly stating Croatian authorities (as opposed to federal authorities, i.e. the army) were behind them in some way.

I don't necessarily oppose your replacing the infobox, but consistency is important on Wiki. I suggest you do so elsewhere as well, or else restore the infobox used by all the other federal units.

Ok, I'm fine with the FTT being included.

The Stepinac nonsense is one of the most incredibly biased and slanted paragraphs I ever read on this project. I've been keeping a strict "Stepinac-free" diet these past months, but if I start bringing in neutral sources on that fellow (and I did do my research), this business won't end until his main article is NPOV-ized as well. Lets not go there (hopefully you're not banking too much on a badly quoted Croatian(!) source). The whole matter reminds me of the Mihailovic thing too much, another national icon on his/her pedestal... -- Director (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, about Stepinac, I just quoted the source, you may check if you want, you have a page number also. So If you have your sources, that's just great. I don't think you will hurt me with neutral sources, if something is true it can not be bad, right? :) But also add to the talk page what you want to add and we will try to summarize the infos as much as possible. That is, if you want. --Wustenfuchs 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, about the AVNOJ and Croatia, then all republics are from 1943, and Serbia also I guess, not '44, even though it was taken by the partisans then... It is also possible I mixed up the numbers, but I'll check anyway. --Wustenfuchs 18:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the paragraph is unencyclopedic and slanted, source or no source. Lets just leave it in the abridged form, shall we?

Re the republics. 29 November 1945 is the date the People's Republic of Croatia was founded, or I should say when the Federal State of Croatia was reformed as PR Croatia. During the war (and briefly after its conclusion) the Federal State of Croatia was there, formally declared on 29 November 1943 alongside the other five states. If you're right about November 1945 being the founding date, then the Federal State of Croatia doesn't have any time :). -- Director (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Then all republics have same establishment day... I'll fix this in all republics. --Wustenfuchs 18:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The "Federal States" were wartime entities that were de jure proclaimed at the much-vaunted Second Session of the AVNOJ, and de facto existed within the (after mid-1944 rather substantial) territories held by the Partisans. -- Director (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Misquoted reference

Article 138. of the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia explicitly states:

"In the Socialist Republic of Croatia the Croatian literary language is in public use - the standard form of the national language of Croats and Serbs in Croatia, which is called Croatian or Serbian."

"U Socialistickoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski knjizevni jezik - standardni oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski."

What this means, in legal gibberish, is that the language called "Croatian or Serbian" is the Croatian literary language. The adjective "Croatian" there meaning that its used by Croats. The Serbo-Croatian language has a whole bunch of names, among them "Croatian or Serbian".

Additionally (on top of the above), the 1974 constitution only applies to the last 15 years of this state. Its grossly misleading and inaccurate to list "Croatian" up there. -- Director (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

The redirect that links Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) to the Independence of Croatia article is, like most compromises, a pretty bad solution. It equates the Croatian state with its independence. It has been agreed that this is the former country article covering that period, and accordingly the redirect ought to lead here. I want to be able to use that link properly in editing articles. -- Director (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be reading too much into this distinction. The readers don't really care for the precise delineation when a state changed its name (a question of form), they care about what actually happened (a question of content). The independence of Croatia article describes that historical period and does so clearly better than a cursory reference tacked at the end of SR Croatia's article would. That's what's important. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a BIG difference between a state and a period, and, correspondingly, there are big differences between a former country article and a period article. Someone looking for the state might be looking for the flag, a list of significant governing officials, its organization, subdivisions, data on the economy, demographics, foreign policy, contemporary military institutions, the culture of the period, or sports.. etc etc. In fact, I think its safe to say anyone looking for anything other than the history of the "Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)" will not be led to the 0proper place by this redirect. To add to this, the Independence of Croatia article isn't really a proper "period article" either. It has a much narrower scope, focusing really on a specific political process. No, I really can't see how this is a good idea. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What you just said are largely superficial characteristics of the state, and even so, some of them are already there - the flag, the officials, foreign policy, even sports are mentioned. I really don't think we should have a formal list of sport details in the article about a period of a year, when all the notable events were political and military history. Surely it's irrelevant whether the Druga HNL was played in May 1991 or how exactly it was called? If there is such notable information, there will be a way to include it without an infobox. There's more to the encyclopedia than infobox upon infobox. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Joy, the best solution is obviously not to inappropriately expand an article about the process towards independence - but to simply fix the bad redirect. And no none of those "characteristics" (information rather) are "superficial" or "irrelevant". They're relevant, significant data every reader might expect to find when going to "Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)". Some more than others (demographics, economics), but all qualify for inclusion in a former country article (and there's more, of course). And I can't imagine how it would be a good idea to transform the Independence of Croatia into some sort of a quasi-country article. -- Director (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do you define a former country article that isn't at the same time primarily a historical article? Can you please re-read that and realize how silly this argument sounds? First of all, nobody will google a technical name like "Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)", they will be linked here from a Wikipedia article. When they arrive, we have no proof that they don't want historical content, and what possible proof could we have that they would be confused by not seeing a classic country article? It's historical demographics and historical economics that you're talking about. You can trivially add both of those as a section in that article, either as a H2 or a H3 section under Background. You apparently haven't read the lead section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Structure which immediately warns against pigeonholing all articles about former countries. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Silly"? Are you starting again with the petty insults? I'm sure anyone can see that we cannot have a link called Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) leading to an article about a specific political process. Yes, its a history article, naturally - but its the completely wrong kind of history article. I'm not going to sit here and argue how it doesn't matter that the redirect is wrong because noone will ever search for it - in that case go ahead and delete it. There are no "classic" country articles, they're either country articles or they're not. Why don't you have a look at WP:REDIRECT, you might notice the bit about a Wikipedia redirect having to lead to the same thing (imagine that). A country and a political process are not the same thing. They're not covered in the same way.

I cannot believe I'm having this discussion. The redirect is blatantly wrong per guidelines and needs to be fixed. Please allow me to fix it. This is starting to look like a political issue. -- Director (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making a seemingly arbitrary distinction with the kinds of history articles that's not actually defined in either policies or the readers' expectations. When someone reads the topic "Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)", they will figure out from the mention of the period in the parenthesis that the redirect is a) about the Republic of Croatia in a specific time period b) about a relatively very short time period. Those two are a trivial indication that the article is primarily historic in nature. The third indication of that should be the simple fact that the non-time-specific redirect "Republic of Croatia" points elsewhere. It's insulting to our readers to assume that they would be missing half a brain in order to fail to infer the historical meaning of all of that.

I agree with following WP:R#PLA, but this is not such a clear-cut violation as you make it sound - the opening sentence of Independence of Croatia says "[...] changes in 1990 that transformed the Socialist Republic of Croatia into the Republic of Croatia, [...] 1991.". That's not an explicit mention of the redirect's name, IOW we don't have a bolded Republic of Croatia (1990-1991) anywhere, but it's not unclear, either. Not all of our articles observe the word-for-word bolding rule, because it's often unwieldy; sometimes there are literally dozens of incoming redirects. Indeed, the SR Croatia article had a problem with WP:R#PLA because there the lead section didn't accomodate all the bolded names, instead they're in the first section "Names", and they're separate with the actual description of the 1990-1991 period, making it at least as unclear as the current setup, and I'd argue it's significantly more unclear because we force the reader to scroll and search for the specific content, rather than to simply read the first sentence, which we expect them to do anyway.

There's nothing political about this - it's simply that all the content we have about this time period is primarily the political history. I certainly won't say that nothing of any relevance other than politics happened in the Republic of Croatia between Dec 1990 and 1991, but the political history is the primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing arbitrary in distinguishing between 1) country articles, 2) and articles that are not about countries. The Independence of Croatia article is an article about the history of Croatia, but its not an article on Croatia itself. Its not on the "Republic of Croatia". As such, the redirect is very obviously against guidelines. Can we not discuss what a reader will "figure out"? They won't figure out anything because they'll be too busy trying to figure out why they aren't reading an article on the "Republic of Croatia" after clicking on "Republic of Croatia".

So what now? You wanna go through DR? I tend to agree that "nobody will google a technical name like 'Republic of Croatia (1990-1991)'", how about just deleting it then? -- Director (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But they are reading the article about the Republic of Croatia after clicking that link. It's not screaming at them, but it's very clearly stated in the very first sentence that this article is about the transition of SR Croatia to - Republic of Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not. They're not reading an article on Croatia, they're reading an article on the independence of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You should ask the others for a third opinion, I've stated my argument as clearly as I could have. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

So have I. Your position on simply deleting the redirect noone will ever search for? -- Director (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, people have an affection for infobox predecessor/successor links, other users who previously edited on the matter should be asked about it because they're the most likely to re-create it even if it's deleted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

How about simply deleting the redirect, and then bothering other people on DR noticeboards with this only if its recreated? Imo it won't. -- Director (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well? -- Director (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Starting a WP:RFD discussion is fine by me. I'm nor going to delete it under WP:CSD#G6 for obvious reasons. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased Economy section

Croatia saw a massive increase in economic prosperity in this period. Not to speak of the transformation from an essentially-backward agrarian country to a modern industrial state. The overall very-much-successful eonomic expansion is glossed over in favor of a selective listing of the relative failures in this success story. Not until the mid-1980s was there a noticable slacking in the rapid growth of GDP. I'll rewrite the thing when I have the time. -- Director (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)