![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page could use some more contemporary information about the HSS, particularly during the crucial 1990-2000 period. If I recall, the only city not ruled by the CDU was Osijek — it remained a Peasant Party stronghold under the mayoralship of Kramaric. I believe redistricting engineered by the CDU resulted in the CPP losing control over Osijek. Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Anyone? -- User:Alcarillo 20:00 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How strong is the claim of continuity of the modern party, during SFRY? It might make sense to separate.
User:Timbouctou told me earlier: Considering that all parties were banned for almost 45 years between 1945 and 1990 perhaps splitting articles on modern parties which claim lineage to early 20th century parties should be in order (just like the People's Party (1841-1918) is currently split from the modern Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats). Likewise, the 1904 Croatian Peasant Party and the 1861 Croatian Party of Rights should probably have articles of their own.
I think there is little reason to touch the Peasant Party because I don't recall any competition for its legacy - but if there's a non-non-notable party :) saying they descend from HSS, too, then we should have Croatian Peasant Party (1904-1929), and link that from all "children" parties.
Or just for the sake of accuracy and consistency.
See also hr:Hrvatska pučka seljačka stranka. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 17:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The continuity of the historical party and the present one is dubious. Years of "diaspora activity" (=inactivity) does not mean that the historical party and the present one are to be regarded one and the same. Split the historical party, and possibly retain a small summarization of it's history, if it is important for understanding the present party's ideology (which I doubt).-- Zoupan 23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel that in this particular case, when deciding whether to split or not, the main criterion is not the matter of continuity, but rather: 1) content-wise, are these actually two topics, and 2) is the current article unwieldy because of its size or organization, i.e. would it benefit from a split in this respect. I'd say the answers are: 1) yes, and 2) no. So, while a split could be the way to go, it wouldn't be much of a problem if everything stayed the way it is. GregorB ( talk) 09:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly in favour of splitting the article. GregorB is correct, but I think the first criterion outweighs the second one. Would anyone oppose such a split, and if not, what should the new title be? –barakokula31 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason for splitting the article, in my view. The modern day party says that it is the oldest Croatian party, the same party of Stjepan Radić that was in the first half of the last century. The party still exists today. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of all of the above, I added some info (not necessarily all) on pre-WW2 history. Basically I was writing a 200-word summary for another article, and it got out of hand. I thought to add the prose here rather than to keep it in a sandbox. IMO the article is shaping up as a history article with a bit of recent electoral results and party leadership changes tacked on or a modern party article with a disproportionate history section(s). In short, a separate History of the Croatian Peasant Party article seems more justified to me now than before.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page could use some more contemporary information about the HSS, particularly during the crucial 1990-2000 period. If I recall, the only city not ruled by the CDU was Osijek — it remained a Peasant Party stronghold under the mayoralship of Kramaric. I believe redistricting engineered by the CDU resulted in the CPP losing control over Osijek. Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Anyone? -- User:Alcarillo 20:00 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How strong is the claim of continuity of the modern party, during SFRY? It might make sense to separate.
User:Timbouctou told me earlier: Considering that all parties were banned for almost 45 years between 1945 and 1990 perhaps splitting articles on modern parties which claim lineage to early 20th century parties should be in order (just like the People's Party (1841-1918) is currently split from the modern Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats). Likewise, the 1904 Croatian Peasant Party and the 1861 Croatian Party of Rights should probably have articles of their own.
I think there is little reason to touch the Peasant Party because I don't recall any competition for its legacy - but if there's a non-non-notable party :) saying they descend from HSS, too, then we should have Croatian Peasant Party (1904-1929), and link that from all "children" parties.
Or just for the sake of accuracy and consistency.
See also hr:Hrvatska pučka seljačka stranka. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 17:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The continuity of the historical party and the present one is dubious. Years of "diaspora activity" (=inactivity) does not mean that the historical party and the present one are to be regarded one and the same. Split the historical party, and possibly retain a small summarization of it's history, if it is important for understanding the present party's ideology (which I doubt).-- Zoupan 23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel that in this particular case, when deciding whether to split or not, the main criterion is not the matter of continuity, but rather: 1) content-wise, are these actually two topics, and 2) is the current article unwieldy because of its size or organization, i.e. would it benefit from a split in this respect. I'd say the answers are: 1) yes, and 2) no. So, while a split could be the way to go, it wouldn't be much of a problem if everything stayed the way it is. GregorB ( talk) 09:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly in favour of splitting the article. GregorB is correct, but I think the first criterion outweighs the second one. Would anyone oppose such a split, and if not, what should the new title be? –barakokula31 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason for splitting the article, in my view. The modern day party says that it is the oldest Croatian party, the same party of Stjepan Radić that was in the first half of the last century. The party still exists today. -- Tuvixer ( talk) 11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of all of the above, I added some info (not necessarily all) on pre-WW2 history. Basically I was writing a 200-word summary for another article, and it got out of hand. I thought to add the prose here rather than to keep it in a sandbox. IMO the article is shaping up as a history article with a bit of recent electoral results and party leadership changes tacked on or a modern party article with a disproportionate history section(s). In short, a separate History of the Croatian Peasant Party article seems more justified to me now than before.-- Tomobe03 ( talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)