![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
I think this edit was in good faith, but I changed part of it back. The reasoning for the ~9 million estimate is because the sources state ~4.5 million Croats outside of Croatia and Bosnia, and figures for Croatia/Bosnia add up to ~4.5 million.
I think, however, there needs to be more scrutiny of sources here. There are two cited sources saying 4.5 million Croats exist outside of Croatia/Bosnia, however, all of those individual country figures added up do not come to this number. 58.169.190.110 ( talk) 04:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please answer this question; What is the total number of Croats ? 7 or 9 millions? I saw that it was 7 until some ip`s started to play with numbers but after checking the talk page I am confused. Can someone please clarify this? Thank you. Adrian ( talk) 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Accepted the fact that outside the Croatian borders in neighboring countries and throughout other European countries and the wide world, living as much as the Croats and within national borders. So, 4.5 million(bolded in the original) people of Croatian nationality or origin. This estimate greatly exaggerated, and since there are better options for determining the statistical, acceptable criteria to be considered Croat each person in the world that by law is entitled to Croatian citizenship. And such a person has over 1 million in Europe, more than 2 million in the United States and Canada, 500,000 in Latin America and 300,000 in Australia and New Zealand.(bolded in the original) Of these, about 25 percent speak or understand Croatian.
Croatia, therefore, not a state with the largest number of emigrants in relation to the National population, but certainly is among the countries in the proportion of lead. Today, it is important to estimate what percentage of these emigrants and their descendants held with the Croatian emotional, family and cultural connections, and what is the relationship between these Croats within foreign communities. Fortunately, in comparison with other countries and immigrant communities, we can conclude that it is really that great affinity between the Croats and their descendants created origin. There is a trust that give knowledge and sense of belonging (or a special relationship) with the Croatian.
Google translation of Croatian Emmigrant Adresary
The 9 million upper estimate has been established for a while now, but it seems lately a lot of editors are disputing the figure.
I also believe this figure is probably inaccurate, but we should reach a consensus before changing it. If you add up the figures in the infobox, you end up with a number of around 6.5 million. However, some regions with significant communities (notably the UK) are absent here, but without hard data it would be unprofessional to put an estimate of anything more than 7 million.
My view is that the infobox should give an estimate of 7 million - no lower/higher "range type" estimate like it currently has. And the second line in the article should be changed from this:
to this:
and cite those sources from the infobox at the end of this sentence.
Any thoughts? 58.166.186.39 ( talk) 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"It is estimated that 4.5 million Croatians live outside Croatia, although the notion of "abroad" has dramatically changed since Croatian independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. This expanded definition of Post-Yugoslav Croatian diaspora refers to those who migrated from territories emcompassed within the current political boundaries of the Croatian states from several geopolitical, historical, and administrative units - Italy, Austria-Hungary (pre-1918), Yugoslavia (1918-1991), and Croatia (since 1991)." (page 76)
"Croatia had a population of roughly 4.5 million (...) The current breakdown from the census is Croat 89.6% (...) About one million Croats live in the other states of former Yugoslavia (...) some 2.3 million ethnic Croats live abroad (...)" [2], pages 33-34, ( 4.500.000 * 89.6% = 4.032.000 inside Croatia + 1 million in former Yugoslavia + 2.3 million abroad = 7.323.000 )
Hate to bring this up again, but the despite many an edit war claiming otherwise... the "9 million" figure is actually unsourced. The reference urportedly claimed to suggest there are 9 million Croats worldwide merely mentions a diaspora of 4.5 million, not a total of 9 million. To add these figures together is a synthesis and thereby counts as original research on part of the editor. Furthermore, the reference actually doesn't specifically state that the 4.5 million abroad are not already counted, to some degree, in the Croatian census. Thereby, you all appear to be doubling your numbers. Until a source that explicitly states "9 million" is added, I will remove the number and continue to do so. Good day. Soundsboy ( talk) 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.186.39 ( talk)
Can someone explain why the 9 million figure is back up with a second source that ...still... doesn't say 9 million? Soundsboy ( talk) 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to side with him on this one, as per WP:SYNTH:-
We have a source saying A (i.e, 4 million inside Croatia), and a source saying B (i.e, 4.5 million outside Croatia), but we don't have one saying C (i.e, there are 8.5 million Croats worldwide). In order to keep the figure of 8.5 or 9 million up, I believe that a reliable source needs to be found explicitly quoting one of those figures.
If one cannot be found, that estimate needs to be removed. 58.166.186.39 ( talk) 09:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Guys i don't know where or what is the problem?You are removing number of 9 million.Why is that?The two links in first sentence is not good enough?Quote:"There are around 5 million Croats living in the southern Central Europe region, along the east bank of the Adriatic Sea and an estimated 4.5 million throughout the rest of the world.[22][23....Please look at the link 22 and 23...This two links are not good enough for you?Fore sure there is 4,4.5 or maybe even more people of Croatian descent in the world...But because of assimilation or other things they don't consider themselves Croatians...Just like 60 million Irish people in the world are not "pure" Irish...so number of 9 million is for people who are Croats,people who have croatian ancestry,and people of partial croatian ancestry...similar example as Irish...So please stop removing number of 9 million..Somebody mentioned estimated number of 7-9 million...Sounds reasonable to me..Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 ( talk
I have one more question.I saw that somebody put the link of some "writer" Jeanne Oliver and her book..By the way in her book about population she says next:That in Usa lives 1.5 MILLION Croats?!I'm confused now,which Croats?Ethnic or with croatian descent?If that link is the "proof" of population then put 1.5 million Croats in Usa instead of 420 000 which declared themselves Croats.Other then that she said 240 000 Croats in Australia,wiki link says 118 000.She says that 150 000 Croats lives in Argentina but Argentinian sources say 250 000.In her book there are no mention of Chilean Croats,Austrian Croats...What kind of link is that?And some guy told don't even try to delete this link.Lol i mean really...1.5 million Croats in Usa...I will delete the link...Or i will put 1.5 million Croats in Usa...Your choice.Bye Scrosby85 ( talk
The infobox here, one of the first things a reader sees, gives a rather bad first impression of Croats. There's not even one woman among the twelve famous Croats in the infobox, which of course will lead the reader to wonder whether the position of women in Croatian society is that bad? If there are famous Croatian women, and I am sure they are, I would strongly suggest making sure that at least 25% of the famous persons featured with pictures in the infobox are female. The current infobox leaves the reader wondering about how equal Croatian society is, and that is probably not what anyone wants the infobox to do. Jeppiz ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You added Tito Kebeta, a mass murder. He shouldn't be at the same place with honorble Croats as Meštrović, Jelačić, Zrinski and Frankopan. But, I'll make a new picture inclooding women. (Even though, it was very irelevant to notice this about women, and nobody will ask about women position in Croatia, Gott in Himmel!.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And, I forgot to mention, to make picture of famous Croats in world as quality picture, then you need to find pictures of those guys, but pics must be in public domain. That isn't very easy. So... And only two-three women deserve to be in this picture... Sorry, but that is how it is. You can call Helsinki Comitee for human rights now, but those are the facts. And, one more thing. Someone said that people outside of Croatia don't know who were Zrinski, Frankopan, Dmitar Zvonimir and Jelačić, but also, I'm very sure that Englishman or a Frenchman don't knows nothing about Zagorka, KOSOR! (wtf) and brlić mažuranić (and she wasn't so good writer after all) -- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, those are pictures we can use:
I think those are the best Croats in sports (ofc, with picture we can use).-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 22:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, for Germans (and Austrians), the most famous person is for sure Adolf Hitler, but they don't have him on their picture on infobox.
Famous, well try well known. More like infamous.
The most famous person for Georgians is for sure Stalin, but they also don't have him on their infobox picture. Same thing for Tito, I don't want anyone mention him anymore!-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
why not add a map similar in style to the one on the bosniack page.
Ok, you GregorB take a look a picture I made here. And if you see Pavelić and Rendulić here, then I don't know what's your problem. Second, It was a suggestion. And Rendulić nazi or not, was famous, same as Pavelić. Do you blame Tito for beeing communist? I would be first one to be insulted if we would have Tito together with other famous Croats. And after all, this communist muss-murder wasn't clean Croat too, not just becouse he was half Slovene, but he called him self Yugoslav, and he is on their infobox picture. He is famous Yugoslav, not Croat.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a shortage of maps, there should be at least one or two medievela map(maybe of whole Europe at the time of the Crusades and Frankish empire), and a few latter maps (say from Maria Theresia times and Croatian-hungarian union).
Also here is missing map of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are most numerous of all the Croats in neigbourhood countries. Someone would take impression looking on that page that there are no Croats in BiH, and that a Croat history is very short one (judging from the maps).
Čeha (
razgovor) 08:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
The article is swamped with images. Please read WP:Manual of Style and do NOT sandwich text between images. The article is in need of some serious repair. I'll do something about it myself in a week or so. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ther is a discussion about picture inethnic infobox. I put this subject becouse some of you could approve our new picture of the infobox. This new picture should please all of us, and remain in article Croats to represent the most famous Croats (in World). In this picture ther are few importaint Croatian persons: Dmitar Zvonimir, Zrinski, Frankopan, Josip Jelačić, Ivan Meštrović, Vlaho Bukovac, Tin Ujević, Faust Vrančić, Ruđer Bošković, Andrija Mohorovičić, Ivan Gundulić and Vladimir Prelog. Current picture is in public domain and it contains files that are also public domain. So, we need to make new picture wich will also contain files that are free to use.
After the sugesstion that we should put women to a picture, I added Janica Kostelić and Blanka Vlašić, and ther are also very importaint sportsman that should be added to "list of famous Croats". This suggestion was writen on Talk page of article "Croats". So, I added Davor Šuker and Ivano Balić. Picture of all of them are free to use, more correctly under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. You can see my picture here.
Now if most of you agree that this picture should be uploaded as it is now, then say so; if not, then bring sugesstions here, and we can make a new one.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 11:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The people wich are world famous, and I'dd like to add, also are:
-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 12:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
First it should be decided how many small images would contain a final image (Wustefuchs offered himself to make a final image - I am o.k with that). I suggest that the total number of the people in one final image should be at least 16 (now there are only 12 images). If 16, the images can be organized in 4 rows, each row with 4 images. Al least two new images should be of a women. Wustefuchs added Janica Kostelić and Blanka Vlašić (I am o.k with that too). Some questions that I have, are:
Well, it's a start... Kebeta ( talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll call other Croatian wikipedians to disscus. O. K. I'll remove Čilić and add Ivanišević. All this I'll do tomorow, I'm to tired now :) .-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This new picture I made is 5x5, that is 25 pics of famous Croats. I think this is an ideal number.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 12:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Ivanišević certainly tops Ančić. :)
There is also one more (thoroughly shocking and utterly blasphemous! :) suggestion I would like to throw in - the inclusion of
Josip Broz Tito. Two things: 1) as far as the sources are concerned, we can all rest easy that the vast majority of publications describe the person as an "(ethnic) Croat" (i.e. neither "Yugoslav", nor "multiethnic", nor "(ethnic) Croatian-Slovene"); 2) aside perhaps from Tesla (a Serb), we are talking about by far the most famous and internationally well-known historical person from Croatia.
In considering this issue, it is important to make the distinction between ethnicity and ancestry. Just a quick search should solve any objective arguments to the contrary.
...etc. etc. I could go on like this almost in perpetuity... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kostelić is alredy added, you can se picture in link above. You just say who should be added from Philosphy... from Art we have Klović, Meštrović and Bukovac, from Literature Gundulić, Ujević and Andrić, that isn't enoguh?-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
She's here. You just could read text above.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 12:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
So, you all agree that this picture be uploaded as infobox picture in article " Croats"?-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Vote with "No" if you don't want Tito in infobox picture, and "Yes" if you want Tito in infobox picture. You may vote now, and I'll be first if I may:
-- Las ta 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to include: Stjepan Radić, Vatroslav Lisinski, Faust Vrančić, Davor Šuker, Ante Starčević, Juraj Julije Klović, Nikola Šubić Zrinski, Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Leopold Ružička, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Tin Ujević, Ante Pavelić, Ivano Balić,....and many others. As for dispute about Josip Broz Tito - he was a Croat, and he is well known, the rest should be in the article about him. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Miroslav Krleža, there is a permission to use photographs of him on the Croatian Wikipedia, but I am not certain that it applies to Commons, although someone could re-check that. As for Ante Pavelić, he is completely unacceptable as per his historical role. Nikola Šubić Zrinski, along with Davor Šuker, could be some of the portrayed (also to add Vladimir Prelog, Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Vladko Maček) people, although I would as far as 12, and not more. It would be pretty crowded if we had 16, 18 or 20 people there... we wouldn't see anyone with such a vast number. Faust Vrančić and Ivan Gundulić could also be some of the portrayed ones, although I would not be so brave as to compare them to Ujević and Matoš. As for Ante Starčević and Alojzije Stepinac, their role (Stepinac) and political and personal views (Starčević) aren't the best ones to put then inside the gallery... and as for Franjo Tuđman, we should wait for the verdict of the ICTY and for a better photo to appear. -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Why Serbs don't have Dragoljub Mihailović? And he got's biger popularity in Serbian people in Serbia, then Tito in Croatian people in Croatia. He is also "Allied" guy, and also decorated by the USA. Politics out - you know half of Croats will not like Tito on the picture, why are you doing this? For fun? LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF THIS!!!-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Mihailović done less bad things then Tito, and Tito is biger war criminal then Mihailović, for more deatails see Bleiburg massacre, Goli otok and smaller crimes against humanty.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Relevans historiasns (such as Goldstein and Bilandžić) do not deny the fact that Tito knew about Bleiburg, but they also stress out the fact that he tried to stop the massacre, but it was out of his jurisdiction, hence implying it was a political decision made by the AVNOJ government lead by Hebrang and the others... As per Mihailović, there is no way you could state that he was a smaller war criminal than Tito... -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is stupid to disscus "What could he have done to the Heads of AVNOJ?", and "I can't remember Tito giving any direct orders for committing war crimes...". Here are simple answers - you can't know, becouse you were neider, not part of the AVNOJ or close friend of Tito, so, you can know nothing. Serbian author Pero Simić has found document wher Tito and his chief of Conter-Intelligence Department of OZNA, Jefto Šašić order the elimination of all Bleiburg prisoners, that is all prisoners of war of former Independent State of Croatia, caputed Chetniks etc. The source is - Simić, Pero. Tito fenomen stoljeća and another book wich (with all documents and secret archives as argument) writes something new about Tito, what was a big secret to all people in Yugoslavia, his life in Moscow, elimination of concurents in Moscow, big money he raised for him and his kids, he was free of tax etc., and the book is "Tito - strogo povjerljivo", Zagreb. 2010. ISBN: 978-953-7313-62-3, and the authors are Pero Simić and Zvonimir Despot. Now, you are probably "The Child of the Revolution", so you didn't know or don't whant to know about those things, but who cares. Tito was a criminal, user of people, egoist and Hochstapler.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I will not decide who's right, Goldstein or Simić, neither will you. I'm just a student of history, I'm not historian, and I think neither are you (as I got impression, correct me if I'm wrong). Primitive or not, that's not even importaint. This discussion about Tito can last for years, and that should not be disscused here. The real disscusion was should Tito have his picture alongside with other famous Croats. I think you and I have made a point - no! This "small" disscusion is very big argument for that.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And please, do read Simić's book, wher he shows his proofs for things he wrote, and those proofs are very credible, bealive me, you can read book your self and you will say the same thing. And if you achive to proof Simić is wrong, and documents he shows are forgery, then, my friend, do a scientific work and publish it, but until then, ther's nothing you can do about it.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 17:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
All I am telling you is that the circumstances surrounding Simić's book, the details, the time period and the book in general are a little.... fishy, so to say, but there is no dispute that historians such as Goldstein can't even be compares to Simić, as they are at least one level above such persona. I am also not discussing whether Tito is a positive or negative historical figure (but you are the one that dragged politics into this - " Children of the Revolution", division of Croats and such nonsense), I am just saying that his historical importance is vast and... important enough for him to be portrayed in the gallery of famous and significant Croats :-) -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, you are speaking stupid things. Dragoljub Mihailović also was on the Time magazin (is that condition for beeing on infobox picture?). And, my political wiew is really importaint? You say right-wing is less educated then advenced left-wing? You are speaking rubish. And, do not vory my Director, Croatian Hitler won't be included, but neither will be our version of Stalin. Regards.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So was Hitler, but the two mentioned (meaning Draža and Hitler) have only been there once mainly because the Americans were pretty naive when it came to such things. Putting a person 4 or 5 times on the cover of Time isn't a coincidence or a historical error, as it might have been with Hitler and Draža. Yes, your political views are extremely important here because they were your main thesis and arguments when opposing the selection of Tito for the gallery... alluding that some of us may be "advanced left-wingers" is again an example of primitivism that comes from the Balkans (as I myself am from Croatia)... each and every one who speaks positively of Tito is a left-winger and an enemy of the state, despite his own political and personal ideals and affiliations, but isn't that the same method Stalin used? You oppose me, or you speak positively of my enemies... you're done... it could be summarized like that, meaning you are practicing the same politics you oppose. And, by no means is Tito a Croatian version of Stalin, be realistic my dear colleague, as we both as students of History should know the fact that Stalin killed more than 20,000,000 people in the period between 1945 and 1953, which is a span of 8 years (and I am not mentioning the people "eliminated" from 1924 - 1945)... during Tito's reign (and I am implying here that he was not the "executioner" of all those "eliminations")... what was the number? It wasn't even 100,000... do divide and see the difference before you compare people like that. Regards -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion about the infobox image seems to have evolved into a debate about Tito's merits and we do not seem any closer to reaching a solution for the original problem (which was about having too few women in the infobox). I tried to summarize all the points and issues which came up during the discussion so that we can have a neat overview and hopefully reach a conclusion in the near future:
This regards the number of pictures which should be included in the infobox image. (for a idea what a certain number may look like you may want to take a look at the articles about Serbs (24 images, 6x4), French people (27 images, 9x3), Italian people (20 images, 4x5), Germans (25 images, 5x5)) or Basque people (28 images, 7x4). The current proposals are as follows:
Of course, these numbers are subject to change, and the issue of freely licensed images can also be expected to come into play and mess up our choice. Regardless, I ask you to vote once more below this comment and state your preference for either 16 or 20 pictures in the final image. On 10 November it will be three weeks since we started the voting process and I would like to wrap this up in the near future so we can get this matter off our to-do lists, so I'll set a date for Sunday, 14 November. This gives everyone five more days from now to revise your votes, invite friends, express your opinions, etc. Whatever is on the board on Sunday at midnight will be considered as the final result. Oh and btw I vote for 16 purely for practical reasons. Timbouctou 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously the most contrversial part. Several users said that the selection should be balanced (by era and by area) and that at least 1 or 2 women whould be included. Perhaps it would be best to first divide candidates by their area (e.g. the primary area by which they are famous). Since most numbers usually discussed can be divided by 4 or 5 I suggest grouping candidates in four major areas (arts, science, politics, sports), plus an extra 5th, and by voting we could easily get down to 3-4 candidates per group. If the number of images we decide on is 16 or 20 then we could use top 4-5 candidates from each area and scrap the 5th column altogether. If the number is more than 20, or if freely licensed images are unavailable to use for top-ranked choices, candidates from the 5th group would fill in the remaining spots.
As I said earlier, the only criteria required should be people's ethnicity, as the article deals with Croats (ethnic group). This excludes all Croatian people who are not ethnic Croats, but can include famous Croats from outside the borders of modern Croatia. Any debate on who is a Croat looks like a waste of time from the outset, so let us just limit the criteria to people who are considered Croats beyond reasonable doubt.
I've listed here all the people who are in the currently used image, plus everyone who was mentioned during the discussion. The ones which are currently used are listed in bold. For the time being the extra column is for people who don't fit into any of the 4 categories. Once the voting starts people who we decide should be included but fail to make top 3-4 in their respective areas will also go there.
I urge everyone to vote again for their favourites, bearing in mind the balanced nature of the list. Ideally, everyone should pick 3 or 4 people from each area plus 3 or 4 extra candidates from any field or era. When voting, do not edit the list - I will update the list as voting takes place below with numbers of votes shown in brackets next to candidates' names, and include new candidates mentioned during the voting. Please keep your answers as short as possible to make tallying practical.
Update: Since it seems that most people who wanted to do so have voted in the past 20 days or so since the voting started, I suggest we wrap this up by Sunday, 14 November, five days from now. I presume this gives everyone who hasn't voted by now enough time to make their voice heard. Whatever the standings are on Sunday, it will be accepted as the final vote. For what will happen after that, see section above. Best regards. Timbouctou 23:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Update 2: Below are the final results. Timbouctou 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Tally updated on 16 November after 15 editors (Timbouctou, Clockwork Orange, Wustefuchs, Thewanderer, Kebeta, Direktor, Dr. Vicodine, Ali Pasha, Vodomar, Croq, Čeha, Tomobe03, A-ciha, Kennechten and Tty29a) had voted. Previously included votes from an anonymous editor who has been indefinitely blocked for an unrelated matter were removed. Candidates with the same number of votes are listed in no particular order.
Science
|
Politics
|
Arts
|
Sports
|
Extras |
(Each voter should submit a minimum of 12 people (three each from Arts, Science, Politics and Sports). Additional names regardless of their background are also allowed, so long as the total number does not exceed 20.)
The voting ended ended on Sunday, 14 November, and below are the final results. We still haven't decided about the number of images but I assume 16 would be a good number (as it is the closest to the average of numbers thrown around). Using the system I proposed in the Quantity section the final composition would include top three voted candidates in each area plus the three most-voted persons across the board. In case of unavailable freely-licensed images the next available candidate wins a spot. Below are the final voting results, with a
symbol denoting a person with an image we could readily use and the
denoting a candidate whose image may have issues (I've removed all the candidates who received just a single vote or less). Persons in bold are the undisputed top 15 who should have precedence in the final selection.
Science
|
Politics
|
Arts
|
Sports
|
Extras |
You are invited to comment on the final selection below this paragraph. Volunteers willing to compose the final collage and/or resolve some of the image issues are wanted. Rants about Tito are not :-) Keep it civil and constructive. Cheers. Timbouctou 15:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am adding this subsection so that 'Voting area' want be scrambled by the new comments, like this one: Timbouctou, I fully support your concept of voting, which will end this discussion. But I was wondering why have you put only 15 names? Maybe 16 names + 4 extra (in case of 20 images) would be better? Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As per Zvonimir, he is a ruler that died in 1089 and there is no exact, historically accurate portrait of him... which is why I would exclude him. -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And Juan Vucetich is also one of the most famous Croats, he invented fingerprints, or how you call it... :/ So I voted for him also.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Croats2.jpg - this is my list of Croats. Now, with the new vote, we can change it. But please do notice I added Ivan Vučetić, chap born in Hvar, and lived in Argentina, invented fingerprints, and also others, like Julije Klović, a famous Croatian painter from 15th century.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Vuchetich? Is he even recognizable on a photograph? I alto think people should be able to recognize the people on the photographs... -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It is private problem if someone isn't recognized on the image, for that we got discription of image, like now. But Vučetić is very famous, also his invention is very importaint. For his picture, see the article.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, ther is a youn scientist who got famous for his invention - wirelles transfer of energy, a dream of Nikola Tesla. He is Marin Soljačić.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Number of chaps on the image
I think that 25 persons is good number. 5x5.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Twenty should be better... 25 is just too much, people won't be able to recognize all of them nor see them clearly... 20 max -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So where are Toni Kukoc,Dino Radja and Goran Ivanisevic?Somebody put Ancic and Cilic?Haha..what did they accomplish in their career?And also where is Miroslav Krleza?-- Scrosby85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Marko Marulic is off that list?-- Scrosby85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
I don't get it...Now on the pictures there are Balic,Kostelic,Ancic and Cilic but their names are not under the pictures?correct that or remove Ancic and Cilic..Thanks-- Scrosby85 ( talk) 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No to Tito. Same reasons why in "Germans" is no picture of Hitler, "Rusians" or "Georgians" is no picture of Stalin ...etc. -- Croq ( talk) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose to the idea of Tito in this "combination". This is pure
WP:OR. We as Wikipedians shouldn't decide on such matters. The image is completely unnecessary and unencyclopaedical. We should leave it up to broader view, and not decide without the consent of the hr:wiki Community. Wüstefuchs should have started this "debate" there, and would receive an adequate answer. No to Tito. This kind of practice at en:wiki is harmful towards the very idea of wiki, whereby Wikimedia's projects collaborate.
As for the number, two rows of four pictures (2×4) would suffice. --
Ali Pasha (
talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If you knew political orientation Nacional (and its readers) you would find it to be strange. Tito is not famous but infamous and as such is not acceptable.His role in Croatian history is more than enough controversial to be included here--
78.1.116.102 (
talk) 06:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ruđer Bošković,Faust Vrančić,
Demetrius Zvonimir,Nikola Šubić Zrinski,Josip Jelačić,Stjepan Radić, Ante Starčević,
Ivan Gundulić, Vlaho Bukovac,Ivo Andrić, Tin Ujević,Juraj Julije Klović,Ivan Mažuranić, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić,Antun Vrančić
Alojzije Stepinac,Josip Juraj Strossmayer,
Dražen Petrović, Blanka Vlašić,Ivano Balić
20 persons: 1 medieval king, 1 medieval hero, 3 heroes of new age (father of the nation amongs them), 8 artists, 2 scientists, 2 bishops (of which one is a candidate for a saint and another is and icon and patron of renovation period), and 3 sport masters :)
Strongly opose Tito, no nation on any wikipedia does not have anybody who is so contorversial, and thank good we have a lot of famous persons who could represent as. If english do not have Churchill should we put our dictator instead of some artist, scientist or sport master?
Čeha (
razgovor) 08:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a rule for no living people, therefore some of those mentioned would be ineligible. Also, I'm pretty sure Ivo Andric is a Serb, he's gone out and stated it in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukic12345 ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that has been pushed by all, including the historian community... and not just our, Croatian, but also international. Yes, and there are 5 explicitly for Tito, not because we're communists or something similar, but because we consider the fact that he was an important and relevant historical figure, more relevant than some of the mentioned. Regarding Zrinski, I haven't said that he wasn't a hero, I have just disputed your knowledge of history... --
Clockwork Orange (
talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
and you and your buddies are just here by accident??? You have proposed Tito also strictly following NPOV rules?? The one and only reason you have proposed Tito is that you are fan of his. Yes, he is notable . Ante Pavelić is notable as well but I doubt you˛& co would propose him.
You promote your political agenda while preaching to other to "stay away from politics". what a hypocrite!
Inclusion of Tito in this article is totally inappropriate because he was "Croat" as much as Michael Jackson was African American-- Kennechten ( talk) 18:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You can like or dislike it but for the rest of the (non-communist) world Tito was a (communist) dictator. And such personalities are not acceptable.He can be listed amoung the persons like Nicolae Ceauşescu & other company.
let me see some works about Tito . Search "Tito dictator" in google books.
“ | Tito was a dictator. | ” |
“ | he is Tito,dictator of Yugoslavia | ” |
Also
To conclude:in all serious books he is described as dictator.-- Kennechten ( talk) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to look at WP:POT-- Kennechten ( talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So, people, we had our vote? Is someone going to make the compilation or do we have to wait for something big to happen? :-S -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 22:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
How come? -- 93.142.143.191 ( talk) 11:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
I think this edit was in good faith, but I changed part of it back. The reasoning for the ~9 million estimate is because the sources state ~4.5 million Croats outside of Croatia and Bosnia, and figures for Croatia/Bosnia add up to ~4.5 million.
I think, however, there needs to be more scrutiny of sources here. There are two cited sources saying 4.5 million Croats exist outside of Croatia/Bosnia, however, all of those individual country figures added up do not come to this number. 58.169.190.110 ( talk) 04:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please answer this question; What is the total number of Croats ? 7 or 9 millions? I saw that it was 7 until some ip`s started to play with numbers but after checking the talk page I am confused. Can someone please clarify this? Thank you. Adrian ( talk) 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Accepted the fact that outside the Croatian borders in neighboring countries and throughout other European countries and the wide world, living as much as the Croats and within national borders. So, 4.5 million(bolded in the original) people of Croatian nationality or origin. This estimate greatly exaggerated, and since there are better options for determining the statistical, acceptable criteria to be considered Croat each person in the world that by law is entitled to Croatian citizenship. And such a person has over 1 million in Europe, more than 2 million in the United States and Canada, 500,000 in Latin America and 300,000 in Australia and New Zealand.(bolded in the original) Of these, about 25 percent speak or understand Croatian.
Croatia, therefore, not a state with the largest number of emigrants in relation to the National population, but certainly is among the countries in the proportion of lead. Today, it is important to estimate what percentage of these emigrants and their descendants held with the Croatian emotional, family and cultural connections, and what is the relationship between these Croats within foreign communities. Fortunately, in comparison with other countries and immigrant communities, we can conclude that it is really that great affinity between the Croats and their descendants created origin. There is a trust that give knowledge and sense of belonging (or a special relationship) with the Croatian.
Google translation of Croatian Emmigrant Adresary
The 9 million upper estimate has been established for a while now, but it seems lately a lot of editors are disputing the figure.
I also believe this figure is probably inaccurate, but we should reach a consensus before changing it. If you add up the figures in the infobox, you end up with a number of around 6.5 million. However, some regions with significant communities (notably the UK) are absent here, but without hard data it would be unprofessional to put an estimate of anything more than 7 million.
My view is that the infobox should give an estimate of 7 million - no lower/higher "range type" estimate like it currently has. And the second line in the article should be changed from this:
to this:
and cite those sources from the infobox at the end of this sentence.
Any thoughts? 58.166.186.39 ( talk) 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"It is estimated that 4.5 million Croatians live outside Croatia, although the notion of "abroad" has dramatically changed since Croatian independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. This expanded definition of Post-Yugoslav Croatian diaspora refers to those who migrated from territories emcompassed within the current political boundaries of the Croatian states from several geopolitical, historical, and administrative units - Italy, Austria-Hungary (pre-1918), Yugoslavia (1918-1991), and Croatia (since 1991)." (page 76)
"Croatia had a population of roughly 4.5 million (...) The current breakdown from the census is Croat 89.6% (...) About one million Croats live in the other states of former Yugoslavia (...) some 2.3 million ethnic Croats live abroad (...)" [2], pages 33-34, ( 4.500.000 * 89.6% = 4.032.000 inside Croatia + 1 million in former Yugoslavia + 2.3 million abroad = 7.323.000 )
Hate to bring this up again, but the despite many an edit war claiming otherwise... the "9 million" figure is actually unsourced. The reference urportedly claimed to suggest there are 9 million Croats worldwide merely mentions a diaspora of 4.5 million, not a total of 9 million. To add these figures together is a synthesis and thereby counts as original research on part of the editor. Furthermore, the reference actually doesn't specifically state that the 4.5 million abroad are not already counted, to some degree, in the Croatian census. Thereby, you all appear to be doubling your numbers. Until a source that explicitly states "9 million" is added, I will remove the number and continue to do so. Good day. Soundsboy ( talk) 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.186.39 ( talk)
Can someone explain why the 9 million figure is back up with a second source that ...still... doesn't say 9 million? Soundsboy ( talk) 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to side with him on this one, as per WP:SYNTH:-
We have a source saying A (i.e, 4 million inside Croatia), and a source saying B (i.e, 4.5 million outside Croatia), but we don't have one saying C (i.e, there are 8.5 million Croats worldwide). In order to keep the figure of 8.5 or 9 million up, I believe that a reliable source needs to be found explicitly quoting one of those figures.
If one cannot be found, that estimate needs to be removed. 58.166.186.39 ( talk) 09:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Guys i don't know where or what is the problem?You are removing number of 9 million.Why is that?The two links in first sentence is not good enough?Quote:"There are around 5 million Croats living in the southern Central Europe region, along the east bank of the Adriatic Sea and an estimated 4.5 million throughout the rest of the world.[22][23....Please look at the link 22 and 23...This two links are not good enough for you?Fore sure there is 4,4.5 or maybe even more people of Croatian descent in the world...But because of assimilation or other things they don't consider themselves Croatians...Just like 60 million Irish people in the world are not "pure" Irish...so number of 9 million is for people who are Croats,people who have croatian ancestry,and people of partial croatian ancestry...similar example as Irish...So please stop removing number of 9 million..Somebody mentioned estimated number of 7-9 million...Sounds reasonable to me..Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 ( talk
I have one more question.I saw that somebody put the link of some "writer" Jeanne Oliver and her book..By the way in her book about population she says next:That in Usa lives 1.5 MILLION Croats?!I'm confused now,which Croats?Ethnic or with croatian descent?If that link is the "proof" of population then put 1.5 million Croats in Usa instead of 420 000 which declared themselves Croats.Other then that she said 240 000 Croats in Australia,wiki link says 118 000.She says that 150 000 Croats lives in Argentina but Argentinian sources say 250 000.In her book there are no mention of Chilean Croats,Austrian Croats...What kind of link is that?And some guy told don't even try to delete this link.Lol i mean really...1.5 million Croats in Usa...I will delete the link...Or i will put 1.5 million Croats in Usa...Your choice.Bye Scrosby85 ( talk
The infobox here, one of the first things a reader sees, gives a rather bad first impression of Croats. There's not even one woman among the twelve famous Croats in the infobox, which of course will lead the reader to wonder whether the position of women in Croatian society is that bad? If there are famous Croatian women, and I am sure they are, I would strongly suggest making sure that at least 25% of the famous persons featured with pictures in the infobox are female. The current infobox leaves the reader wondering about how equal Croatian society is, and that is probably not what anyone wants the infobox to do. Jeppiz ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You added Tito Kebeta, a mass murder. He shouldn't be at the same place with honorble Croats as Meštrović, Jelačić, Zrinski and Frankopan. But, I'll make a new picture inclooding women. (Even though, it was very irelevant to notice this about women, and nobody will ask about women position in Croatia, Gott in Himmel!.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And, I forgot to mention, to make picture of famous Croats in world as quality picture, then you need to find pictures of those guys, but pics must be in public domain. That isn't very easy. So... And only two-three women deserve to be in this picture... Sorry, but that is how it is. You can call Helsinki Comitee for human rights now, but those are the facts. And, one more thing. Someone said that people outside of Croatia don't know who were Zrinski, Frankopan, Dmitar Zvonimir and Jelačić, but also, I'm very sure that Englishman or a Frenchman don't knows nothing about Zagorka, KOSOR! (wtf) and brlić mažuranić (and she wasn't so good writer after all) -- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, those are pictures we can use:
I think those are the best Croats in sports (ofc, with picture we can use).-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 22:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, for Germans (and Austrians), the most famous person is for sure Adolf Hitler, but they don't have him on their picture on infobox.
Famous, well try well known. More like infamous.
The most famous person for Georgians is for sure Stalin, but they also don't have him on their infobox picture. Same thing for Tito, I don't want anyone mention him anymore!-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
why not add a map similar in style to the one on the bosniack page.
Ok, you GregorB take a look a picture I made here. And if you see Pavelić and Rendulić here, then I don't know what's your problem. Second, It was a suggestion. And Rendulić nazi or not, was famous, same as Pavelić. Do you blame Tito for beeing communist? I would be first one to be insulted if we would have Tito together with other famous Croats. And after all, this communist muss-murder wasn't clean Croat too, not just becouse he was half Slovene, but he called him self Yugoslav, and he is on their infobox picture. He is famous Yugoslav, not Croat.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a shortage of maps, there should be at least one or two medievela map(maybe of whole Europe at the time of the Crusades and Frankish empire), and a few latter maps (say from Maria Theresia times and Croatian-hungarian union).
Also here is missing map of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are most numerous of all the Croats in neigbourhood countries. Someone would take impression looking on that page that there are no Croats in BiH, and that a Croat history is very short one (judging from the maps).
Čeha (
razgovor) 08:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
The article is swamped with images. Please read WP:Manual of Style and do NOT sandwich text between images. The article is in need of some serious repair. I'll do something about it myself in a week or so. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ther is a discussion about picture inethnic infobox. I put this subject becouse some of you could approve our new picture of the infobox. This new picture should please all of us, and remain in article Croats to represent the most famous Croats (in World). In this picture ther are few importaint Croatian persons: Dmitar Zvonimir, Zrinski, Frankopan, Josip Jelačić, Ivan Meštrović, Vlaho Bukovac, Tin Ujević, Faust Vrančić, Ruđer Bošković, Andrija Mohorovičić, Ivan Gundulić and Vladimir Prelog. Current picture is in public domain and it contains files that are also public domain. So, we need to make new picture wich will also contain files that are free to use.
After the sugesstion that we should put women to a picture, I added Janica Kostelić and Blanka Vlašić, and ther are also very importaint sportsman that should be added to "list of famous Croats". This suggestion was writen on Talk page of article "Croats". So, I added Davor Šuker and Ivano Balić. Picture of all of them are free to use, more correctly under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. You can see my picture here.
Now if most of you agree that this picture should be uploaded as it is now, then say so; if not, then bring sugesstions here, and we can make a new one.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 11:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The people wich are world famous, and I'dd like to add, also are:
-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 12:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
First it should be decided how many small images would contain a final image (Wustefuchs offered himself to make a final image - I am o.k with that). I suggest that the total number of the people in one final image should be at least 16 (now there are only 12 images). If 16, the images can be organized in 4 rows, each row with 4 images. Al least two new images should be of a women. Wustefuchs added Janica Kostelić and Blanka Vlašić (I am o.k with that too). Some questions that I have, are:
Well, it's a start... Kebeta ( talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll call other Croatian wikipedians to disscus. O. K. I'll remove Čilić and add Ivanišević. All this I'll do tomorow, I'm to tired now :) .-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This new picture I made is 5x5, that is 25 pics of famous Croats. I think this is an ideal number.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 12:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Ivanišević certainly tops Ančić. :)
There is also one more (thoroughly shocking and utterly blasphemous! :) suggestion I would like to throw in - the inclusion of
Josip Broz Tito. Two things: 1) as far as the sources are concerned, we can all rest easy that the vast majority of publications describe the person as an "(ethnic) Croat" (i.e. neither "Yugoslav", nor "multiethnic", nor "(ethnic) Croatian-Slovene"); 2) aside perhaps from Tesla (a Serb), we are talking about by far the most famous and internationally well-known historical person from Croatia.
In considering this issue, it is important to make the distinction between ethnicity and ancestry. Just a quick search should solve any objective arguments to the contrary.
...etc. etc. I could go on like this almost in perpetuity... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Kostelić is alredy added, you can se picture in link above. You just say who should be added from Philosphy... from Art we have Klović, Meštrović and Bukovac, from Literature Gundulić, Ujević and Andrić, that isn't enoguh?-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 21:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
She's here. You just could read text above.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 12:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
So, you all agree that this picture be uploaded as infobox picture in article " Croats"?-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Vote with "No" if you don't want Tito in infobox picture, and "Yes" if you want Tito in infobox picture. You may vote now, and I'll be first if I may:
-- Las ta 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to include: Stjepan Radić, Vatroslav Lisinski, Faust Vrančić, Davor Šuker, Ante Starčević, Juraj Julije Klović, Nikola Šubić Zrinski, Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Leopold Ružička, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Tin Ujević, Ante Pavelić, Ivano Balić,....and many others. As for dispute about Josip Broz Tito - he was a Croat, and he is well known, the rest should be in the article about him. Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Miroslav Krleža, there is a permission to use photographs of him on the Croatian Wikipedia, but I am not certain that it applies to Commons, although someone could re-check that. As for Ante Pavelić, he is completely unacceptable as per his historical role. Nikola Šubić Zrinski, along with Davor Šuker, could be some of the portrayed (also to add Vladimir Prelog, Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Vladko Maček) people, although I would as far as 12, and not more. It would be pretty crowded if we had 16, 18 or 20 people there... we wouldn't see anyone with such a vast number. Faust Vrančić and Ivan Gundulić could also be some of the portrayed ones, although I would not be so brave as to compare them to Ujević and Matoš. As for Ante Starčević and Alojzije Stepinac, their role (Stepinac) and political and personal views (Starčević) aren't the best ones to put then inside the gallery... and as for Franjo Tuđman, we should wait for the verdict of the ICTY and for a better photo to appear. -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Why Serbs don't have Dragoljub Mihailović? And he got's biger popularity in Serbian people in Serbia, then Tito in Croatian people in Croatia. He is also "Allied" guy, and also decorated by the USA. Politics out - you know half of Croats will not like Tito on the picture, why are you doing this? For fun? LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF THIS!!!-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Mihailović done less bad things then Tito, and Tito is biger war criminal then Mihailović, for more deatails see Bleiburg massacre, Goli otok and smaller crimes against humanty.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Relevans historiasns (such as Goldstein and Bilandžić) do not deny the fact that Tito knew about Bleiburg, but they also stress out the fact that he tried to stop the massacre, but it was out of his jurisdiction, hence implying it was a political decision made by the AVNOJ government lead by Hebrang and the others... As per Mihailović, there is no way you could state that he was a smaller war criminal than Tito... -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is stupid to disscus "What could he have done to the Heads of AVNOJ?", and "I can't remember Tito giving any direct orders for committing war crimes...". Here are simple answers - you can't know, becouse you were neider, not part of the AVNOJ or close friend of Tito, so, you can know nothing. Serbian author Pero Simić has found document wher Tito and his chief of Conter-Intelligence Department of OZNA, Jefto Šašić order the elimination of all Bleiburg prisoners, that is all prisoners of war of former Independent State of Croatia, caputed Chetniks etc. The source is - Simić, Pero. Tito fenomen stoljeća and another book wich (with all documents and secret archives as argument) writes something new about Tito, what was a big secret to all people in Yugoslavia, his life in Moscow, elimination of concurents in Moscow, big money he raised for him and his kids, he was free of tax etc., and the book is "Tito - strogo povjerljivo", Zagreb. 2010. ISBN: 978-953-7313-62-3, and the authors are Pero Simić and Zvonimir Despot. Now, you are probably "The Child of the Revolution", so you didn't know or don't whant to know about those things, but who cares. Tito was a criminal, user of people, egoist and Hochstapler.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I will not decide who's right, Goldstein or Simić, neither will you. I'm just a student of history, I'm not historian, and I think neither are you (as I got impression, correct me if I'm wrong). Primitive or not, that's not even importaint. This discussion about Tito can last for years, and that should not be disscused here. The real disscusion was should Tito have his picture alongside with other famous Croats. I think you and I have made a point - no! This "small" disscusion is very big argument for that.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And please, do read Simić's book, wher he shows his proofs for things he wrote, and those proofs are very credible, bealive me, you can read book your self and you will say the same thing. And if you achive to proof Simić is wrong, and documents he shows are forgery, then, my friend, do a scientific work and publish it, but until then, ther's nothing you can do about it.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 17:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
All I am telling you is that the circumstances surrounding Simić's book, the details, the time period and the book in general are a little.... fishy, so to say, but there is no dispute that historians such as Goldstein can't even be compares to Simić, as they are at least one level above such persona. I am also not discussing whether Tito is a positive or negative historical figure (but you are the one that dragged politics into this - " Children of the Revolution", division of Croats and such nonsense), I am just saying that his historical importance is vast and... important enough for him to be portrayed in the gallery of famous and significant Croats :-) -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Direktor, you are speaking stupid things. Dragoljub Mihailović also was on the Time magazin (is that condition for beeing on infobox picture?). And, my political wiew is really importaint? You say right-wing is less educated then advenced left-wing? You are speaking rubish. And, do not vory my Director, Croatian Hitler won't be included, but neither will be our version of Stalin. Regards.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So was Hitler, but the two mentioned (meaning Draža and Hitler) have only been there once mainly because the Americans were pretty naive when it came to such things. Putting a person 4 or 5 times on the cover of Time isn't a coincidence or a historical error, as it might have been with Hitler and Draža. Yes, your political views are extremely important here because they were your main thesis and arguments when opposing the selection of Tito for the gallery... alluding that some of us may be "advanced left-wingers" is again an example of primitivism that comes from the Balkans (as I myself am from Croatia)... each and every one who speaks positively of Tito is a left-winger and an enemy of the state, despite his own political and personal ideals and affiliations, but isn't that the same method Stalin used? You oppose me, or you speak positively of my enemies... you're done... it could be summarized like that, meaning you are practicing the same politics you oppose. And, by no means is Tito a Croatian version of Stalin, be realistic my dear colleague, as we both as students of History should know the fact that Stalin killed more than 20,000,000 people in the period between 1945 and 1953, which is a span of 8 years (and I am not mentioning the people "eliminated" from 1924 - 1945)... during Tito's reign (and I am implying here that he was not the "executioner" of all those "eliminations")... what was the number? It wasn't even 100,000... do divide and see the difference before you compare people like that. Regards -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion about the infobox image seems to have evolved into a debate about Tito's merits and we do not seem any closer to reaching a solution for the original problem (which was about having too few women in the infobox). I tried to summarize all the points and issues which came up during the discussion so that we can have a neat overview and hopefully reach a conclusion in the near future:
This regards the number of pictures which should be included in the infobox image. (for a idea what a certain number may look like you may want to take a look at the articles about Serbs (24 images, 6x4), French people (27 images, 9x3), Italian people (20 images, 4x5), Germans (25 images, 5x5)) or Basque people (28 images, 7x4). The current proposals are as follows:
Of course, these numbers are subject to change, and the issue of freely licensed images can also be expected to come into play and mess up our choice. Regardless, I ask you to vote once more below this comment and state your preference for either 16 or 20 pictures in the final image. On 10 November it will be three weeks since we started the voting process and I would like to wrap this up in the near future so we can get this matter off our to-do lists, so I'll set a date for Sunday, 14 November. This gives everyone five more days from now to revise your votes, invite friends, express your opinions, etc. Whatever is on the board on Sunday at midnight will be considered as the final result. Oh and btw I vote for 16 purely for practical reasons. Timbouctou 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is obviously the most contrversial part. Several users said that the selection should be balanced (by era and by area) and that at least 1 or 2 women whould be included. Perhaps it would be best to first divide candidates by their area (e.g. the primary area by which they are famous). Since most numbers usually discussed can be divided by 4 or 5 I suggest grouping candidates in four major areas (arts, science, politics, sports), plus an extra 5th, and by voting we could easily get down to 3-4 candidates per group. If the number of images we decide on is 16 or 20 then we could use top 4-5 candidates from each area and scrap the 5th column altogether. If the number is more than 20, or if freely licensed images are unavailable to use for top-ranked choices, candidates from the 5th group would fill in the remaining spots.
As I said earlier, the only criteria required should be people's ethnicity, as the article deals with Croats (ethnic group). This excludes all Croatian people who are not ethnic Croats, but can include famous Croats from outside the borders of modern Croatia. Any debate on who is a Croat looks like a waste of time from the outset, so let us just limit the criteria to people who are considered Croats beyond reasonable doubt.
I've listed here all the people who are in the currently used image, plus everyone who was mentioned during the discussion. The ones which are currently used are listed in bold. For the time being the extra column is for people who don't fit into any of the 4 categories. Once the voting starts people who we decide should be included but fail to make top 3-4 in their respective areas will also go there.
I urge everyone to vote again for their favourites, bearing in mind the balanced nature of the list. Ideally, everyone should pick 3 or 4 people from each area plus 3 or 4 extra candidates from any field or era. When voting, do not edit the list - I will update the list as voting takes place below with numbers of votes shown in brackets next to candidates' names, and include new candidates mentioned during the voting. Please keep your answers as short as possible to make tallying practical.
Update: Since it seems that most people who wanted to do so have voted in the past 20 days or so since the voting started, I suggest we wrap this up by Sunday, 14 November, five days from now. I presume this gives everyone who hasn't voted by now enough time to make their voice heard. Whatever the standings are on Sunday, it will be accepted as the final vote. For what will happen after that, see section above. Best regards. Timbouctou 23:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Update 2: Below are the final results. Timbouctou 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Tally updated on 16 November after 15 editors (Timbouctou, Clockwork Orange, Wustefuchs, Thewanderer, Kebeta, Direktor, Dr. Vicodine, Ali Pasha, Vodomar, Croq, Čeha, Tomobe03, A-ciha, Kennechten and Tty29a) had voted. Previously included votes from an anonymous editor who has been indefinitely blocked for an unrelated matter were removed. Candidates with the same number of votes are listed in no particular order.
Science
|
Politics
|
Arts
|
Sports
|
Extras |
(Each voter should submit a minimum of 12 people (three each from Arts, Science, Politics and Sports). Additional names regardless of their background are also allowed, so long as the total number does not exceed 20.)
The voting ended ended on Sunday, 14 November, and below are the final results. We still haven't decided about the number of images but I assume 16 would be a good number (as it is the closest to the average of numbers thrown around). Using the system I proposed in the Quantity section the final composition would include top three voted candidates in each area plus the three most-voted persons across the board. In case of unavailable freely-licensed images the next available candidate wins a spot. Below are the final voting results, with a
symbol denoting a person with an image we could readily use and the
denoting a candidate whose image may have issues (I've removed all the candidates who received just a single vote or less). Persons in bold are the undisputed top 15 who should have precedence in the final selection.
Science
|
Politics
|
Arts
|
Sports
|
Extras |
You are invited to comment on the final selection below this paragraph. Volunteers willing to compose the final collage and/or resolve some of the image issues are wanted. Rants about Tito are not :-) Keep it civil and constructive. Cheers. Timbouctou 15:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am adding this subsection so that 'Voting area' want be scrambled by the new comments, like this one: Timbouctou, I fully support your concept of voting, which will end this discussion. But I was wondering why have you put only 15 names? Maybe 16 names + 4 extra (in case of 20 images) would be better? Regards, Kebeta ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As per Zvonimir, he is a ruler that died in 1089 and there is no exact, historically accurate portrait of him... which is why I would exclude him. -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And Juan Vucetich is also one of the most famous Croats, he invented fingerprints, or how you call it... :/ So I voted for him also.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Croats2.jpg - this is my list of Croats. Now, with the new vote, we can change it. But please do notice I added Ivan Vučetić, chap born in Hvar, and lived in Argentina, invented fingerprints, and also others, like Julije Klović, a famous Croatian painter from 15th century.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Vuchetich? Is he even recognizable on a photograph? I alto think people should be able to recognize the people on the photographs... -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It is private problem if someone isn't recognized on the image, for that we got discription of image, like now. But Vučetić is very famous, also his invention is very importaint. For his picture, see the article.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, ther is a youn scientist who got famous for his invention - wirelles transfer of energy, a dream of Nikola Tesla. He is Marin Soljačić.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Number of chaps on the image
I think that 25 persons is good number. 5x5.-- Wustefuchs ( talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Twenty should be better... 25 is just too much, people won't be able to recognize all of them nor see them clearly... 20 max -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So where are Toni Kukoc,Dino Radja and Goran Ivanisevic?Somebody put Ancic and Cilic?Haha..what did they accomplish in their career?And also where is Miroslav Krleza?-- Scrosby85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Marko Marulic is off that list?-- Scrosby85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
I don't get it...Now on the pictures there are Balic,Kostelic,Ancic and Cilic but their names are not under the pictures?correct that or remove Ancic and Cilic..Thanks-- Scrosby85 ( talk) 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No to Tito. Same reasons why in "Germans" is no picture of Hitler, "Rusians" or "Georgians" is no picture of Stalin ...etc. -- Croq ( talk) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose to the idea of Tito in this "combination". This is pure
WP:OR. We as Wikipedians shouldn't decide on such matters. The image is completely unnecessary and unencyclopaedical. We should leave it up to broader view, and not decide without the consent of the hr:wiki Community. Wüstefuchs should have started this "debate" there, and would receive an adequate answer. No to Tito. This kind of practice at en:wiki is harmful towards the very idea of wiki, whereby Wikimedia's projects collaborate.
As for the number, two rows of four pictures (2×4) would suffice. --
Ali Pasha (
talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If you knew political orientation Nacional (and its readers) you would find it to be strange. Tito is not famous but infamous and as such is not acceptable.His role in Croatian history is more than enough controversial to be included here--
78.1.116.102 (
talk) 06:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ruđer Bošković,Faust Vrančić,
Demetrius Zvonimir,Nikola Šubić Zrinski,Josip Jelačić,Stjepan Radić, Ante Starčević,
Ivan Gundulić, Vlaho Bukovac,Ivo Andrić, Tin Ujević,Juraj Julije Klović,Ivan Mažuranić, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić,Antun Vrančić
Alojzije Stepinac,Josip Juraj Strossmayer,
Dražen Petrović, Blanka Vlašić,Ivano Balić
20 persons: 1 medieval king, 1 medieval hero, 3 heroes of new age (father of the nation amongs them), 8 artists, 2 scientists, 2 bishops (of which one is a candidate for a saint and another is and icon and patron of renovation period), and 3 sport masters :)
Strongly opose Tito, no nation on any wikipedia does not have anybody who is so contorversial, and thank good we have a lot of famous persons who could represent as. If english do not have Churchill should we put our dictator instead of some artist, scientist or sport master?
Čeha (
razgovor) 08:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a rule for no living people, therefore some of those mentioned would be ineligible. Also, I'm pretty sure Ivo Andric is a Serb, he's gone out and stated it in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukic12345 ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that has been pushed by all, including the historian community... and not just our, Croatian, but also international. Yes, and there are 5 explicitly for Tito, not because we're communists or something similar, but because we consider the fact that he was an important and relevant historical figure, more relevant than some of the mentioned. Regarding Zrinski, I haven't said that he wasn't a hero, I have just disputed your knowledge of history... --
Clockwork Orange (
talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
and you and your buddies are just here by accident??? You have proposed Tito also strictly following NPOV rules?? The one and only reason you have proposed Tito is that you are fan of his. Yes, he is notable . Ante Pavelić is notable as well but I doubt you˛& co would propose him.
You promote your political agenda while preaching to other to "stay away from politics". what a hypocrite!
Inclusion of Tito in this article is totally inappropriate because he was "Croat" as much as Michael Jackson was African American-- Kennechten ( talk) 18:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You can like or dislike it but for the rest of the (non-communist) world Tito was a (communist) dictator. And such personalities are not acceptable.He can be listed amoung the persons like Nicolae Ceauşescu & other company.
let me see some works about Tito . Search "Tito dictator" in google books.
“ | Tito was a dictator. | ” |
“ | he is Tito,dictator of Yugoslavia | ” |
Also
To conclude:in all serious books he is described as dictator.-- Kennechten ( talk) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to look at WP:POT-- Kennechten ( talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So, people, we had our vote? Is someone going to make the compilation or do we have to wait for something big to happen? :-S -- Clockwork Orange ( talk) 22:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
How come? -- 93.142.143.191 ( talk) 11:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)