![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
To split off from the "I don't want to claim him" vs. "he was evil but extremely influential" political debates above, what about adding Jakov Gotovac? Now, admittedly, Croatians have not shook the world in the music department, but from what I'm able to find, Gotovac is the most notable of "classical" composers of Croat nationality. (let's set the Josef Haydn debate to the side - roots, sure probably, but he was an Austrian) HammerFilmFan ( talk) 23:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
I think that Marco Polo is definitely most known Croat. I think that he deserves to be in InfoBox... I would also add John Malkovich, and Branko Lustig... And Joe Sakic!!! One of the world best sportsman ever!!! Mario Andretti could also be candidate.. Istrian born World F1 world Champion.. This article should not be about croats from croatia, but about croats all over the world!!! -- VelikiMeshtar ( talk) 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What does this phrase exactly mean? I'm asking because the (rather lengthy) list of countries in the info box looks like it had no inclusion criteria and listing countries such as Norway (890 Croats) and Belgium (810) seems pointless. So perhaps some cut-off number could be agreed here? Like 5,000? Or 10,000? Thoughts? Timbouctou ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Tesla was born in Croatia, and grew up in Croatia, but ethnically he was Serbian. So, does he count as a Croatian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.40.120 ( talk) 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
WRONG
Tesla was born in Hungary, grew up in Hungary (as part of Austro-Hungarian Empire), but ethnically he was Serbian. So, does he count as a Croatian?
State boundaries change, especially in the Balkans, one can change 5 different states in course of 100 years, without even leaving the house. Does it mean that one changes his ethnicity everytime a new army comes by, of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.77.141 ( talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
[1] This is unnecessary.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
"Independent State of Croatia was approximately 6,285,000 of which 3,300,000 were Croats, 1,925,000 were Serbs, 700,000 were Muslims, 150,000 Germans, 65,000 Czechs and Slovaks, 40,000 Jews, and 30,000 Slovenes. The Ustaše carried out genocidal policy against the Serbs and Jews in the territory of the Independent State of Croatia with 307,000 Serb deaths and 35-36,000 deaths of Jews. The Chetniks carried out massacres against the Croat and Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak in accordance with implementing Draža Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941 to ethnically cleanse non-Serb elements."
If I may suggest a compromise. There is really no question about whether the NDH should be ommited from the article. See for example the elaboration on Nazi Germany in the Germans article. A paragraph on the history of the NDH is unaviodable, but I do agree with Timbouctou that the current paragraph is indeed "bloated". What I suggest is a brief paragraph that would also explain that hundreds of thousands of Croats fought against the NDH - providing for a far more neutral coverage that would also be a lot more appropriate for an ethnic group article. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted to the position before the edit war on the issues discussed above. There is plainly no consensus here as yet for what you wish to add PRODUCER. I suggest you seek a wider range of views to see if consensus can be reached. Try the Croat project, WP:3PO or a content WP:RFC. If the edit war continues I shall protect the page. Fainites barley scribs 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm sorry to say that I've declined the request for a third opinion, because there are more than two editors involved already. If you are unable to find a compromise here, might I suggest leaving a post at WP:DRN? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
People, I'll repeat my proposal: add a small, brief paragraph on the NDH. Two or three simple sentences at the most, adding also a sentence or two explaining that hundreds of thousands of Croats also fought against the NDH (just under half-a-million, a forgotten fact nowadays). I really can't see the problem here, why would anyone object to a simple edit of that sort? Mentioning WWII in the context of the history section of a nation article is certainly justified, but posting a HUGE paragraph does seem too much and provocative. Balance and brevity fellas. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
PRODUCER entries unnecessary data, which is a place in other articles:)-- Sokac121 ( talk) 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not true that Croatian language has the longest written tradition of all South Slavic languages, because the Freising Manuscripts (Slovene: Brižinski spomeniki) were created between 972 and 1039, most likely before 1000 and are the oldest Latin-script text in a Slavic language and the oldest document in Slovene. So we should correct this statemant about Croatian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.113.75 ( talk) 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the reference in the article - Croats Haplogroups: I (33%), R1a (27%), R1b (12%)
I would ask for correction according to the reference.
What does "most European" mean, if we look by genetics and cultural heritage, the Greeks are the "most" European, cause their culture and tradition is the fundament of European culture, as a matter of fact they even coined the terminus "Europe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.77.141 ( talk) 22:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Fellas the current state of the infobox was agreed-upon by a hard-won consensus. If you wish to change the consensus I hope you will discuss here first. Imo the addition of all those pics is way too much. There are 4,000,000 Croats, and drowning some in a sea of others negates the whole purpose of the infobox. -- Director ( talk) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask is it possible to add 3 or 4 more faces in infobox?Like Ivan Mestrovic,Miroslav Krleža,Tin Ujevic or Faust Vrancic?..Because they are very important figures in Croatian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Most times I have heard the word spoken it has two syllables, so I assume this is correct. I have occasionally heard it pronounced rhyming with "boats." A short pronunciation guide at the top wouldn't hurt. Hellbus ( talk) 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
" At the Millennium Exhibition in Budapest they overshadowed all other artistic traditions of Austro-Hungary. " ?? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Penkala was a Polish Jew, whereas Andric was a Bosnian Croat by birth. To put it in one way, he is no more a Serb than Penkala is a Croat. One must note in these sort of discussions that there are folks in Serbia nowadays who strongly believe all Croats are Serbs to begin with, and only need "convincing" of it (" da ih ubedimo da su Srbi.."). In short, Andric was included based on his ethnic background: I'll thank you not to remove him again without consensus. -- Director ( talk) 06:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two sources for New Zealand
The declarations of a politician in a public act can't be trusted because he can be twisting facts to get voters, or to get political support. "Croatian heritage" is a very vague wording, it could mean anything, it could include people who had one Croatian ancestor a century and a half ago. and it doesn't look like "Croatian heritage" was measured by any official organism, it looks like a personal estimation. It seems that it includes people who have Croatian surnames but no longer feel like Croats. I wouldn't include such a number until a reliable source measures it and explains how it was measured. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Enric Naval i respect your opinion..But there is clearly 100 000(more or less) New Zealanders with Croatian ancestry there..There are sections on other ethnic groups where it is stated for example "Norwegians by ethnic" and "Norwegians by ancestry"...But here there isn't section "by ancestry" but there is "(est.)" which means estimated..like it is said for Bosnian census...and it means estimation not exact number.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Croats in New Zealand are associated with Maori. They even have a special name Tarara Croats. More about Tarara Croats see to Google. :)
Tarara Day celebrates the union of the Maori and Croatian cultures in New Zealand. This year 14500 people attended the event. Croatian-Maori descendants have the opportunity to celebrate their cultures and learn more about their heritage.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 10:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
What did Tito do for Croats to deserve a place in infobox? He is guilty for more than 100 thousand dead souls in Bleiburg. For Christ's sake, he is on the list of greatest mass murderers of 20th century! http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you people stop with these silly argument and discuss changes here instead of edit-warring?!? Whoever made the recent infobox (I am referring to the people featured in it) has went way overboard. IMO there are too many people up there and quite a few are unknown to a neutral observer. People featured up there should be those who are instantly identified with Croatian people and Croatia not obscure individuals such as Croatian kings about whom 99.9% know nothing about outside of Croatia, the region and the related professions. When one says Drazen Petrovic or Ivan Mestrovic they immediately know of who we are speaking about there...I am talking of my personal experience travelling around the Europe and the World. Also the way it is made - each person featured separately - is a disaster waiting to happen (as we can see from these recent edits) for these silly arguments and even more ridiculous edit wars. I am seriously thinking about making a composite of people like it is featured on Germans or the French to put an end to this as it is becoming very annoying.
I am inviting everyone to join the discussion here so we can actually reach a consensus who should be featured and why. It's time we stop with this silliness... Shokatz ( talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ivo Andrić was born to Croatian parents and he declared as a Croat in his youth, but later he declares as a Serb, and we have his personal document to prove that. In my opinion, such a person should not represent Croats.
Ok, I don't know who we're going to have, but twenty-eight people is way, waay too much if we're to use this format.. Talk about getting carried away, restored old consensus version. -- Director ( talk) 14:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
DIREKTOR I agree that 28 people is way too much.But we agreed about a year ago that krleza,mestrovic,mazuranic and matos should at least be on this list...20 is not too much at all...why didn't you revert this article way before?Why now?You didn't see?:)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Scrosby85, please take into consideration the fact that many users came together a couple years ago, and arrived at the 16-member infobox you see in the article now. Consensuses are not set in stone, of course, but as this is an entirely arbitrary, "voting" matter - please respect the opinions of your fellow users. If you would like to alter the infobox in accordance with your own personal ideas, kindly discuss that here and do not presume to supersede everyone else through edit-warring.
My own opinion, as I've said, is that (in this format!) 16 is too much as it is - but just acceptable. We're a small nation and we don't really have that many globally-notable individuals to parade, but if we had 170 people up there - still we'd hear "how dare you neglect Great Croat No.171!!!!". I would like to avoid this article appearing as some kind of pathetic self-aggrandizement poster. -- Director ( talk) 16:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
DIREKTOR It doesn't matter if some of this Croats on the list are globally known or not...They are very valuable to Croatia and to their history...Miroslav Krleza id widely know as one of the greatest writers in Yuglslavia..Ivan Mestrovic one of the greatest sculptors also...Why should they be removed from this list?Because you say 16 is too much?Why is too much?Faust Vrancic for example is not on this list...Ivo Andric should not be on this list because he identified himself as a Serb...And one more thing...Croats have some 7-8 million people worldwide and they should be reduced to 16 people and Serbs who number approximately 10.5 million people can have 30 Serbs in infobox?:) 30?!And Croats can't have 20?Also Slovenians or Slovenes who have 2.5 million people worldwide have 16 people in infobox!
I alsodon't want to fight with you over this matter or with anybody else..But read my las sentence above and make logic...Serbs have 30 people and Slovenes have 16 people same as Croats who are bigger then Slovenes...So i am proposing if this List should be 20 with people who are precious to Croatia?Because this list of 20 was here for almost one year and nobody complained...I also came here and tried to reduced number of 28 to 20 because 28 is too much...
Again...Can i repeat myself?Why are you pointing out Swedes and Swiss people?Why didn't you tell me something about Serbs and Slovenians..I would like to hear your opinion on that..Serbs whose overall population is around 10.5-11 mil have 30 people in infobox.30 PEOPLE!And Slovenes who have 2.5 million people overall have 16 people same as Croats who have around 7 - 7.5 million..Where is the logic my dear friend.Please tell me?You are acting like a god here..Why didn't you remove this 20 people article long before..Do u know for how long this infobox have 20 people?Nobody complained...This 16 people article is way too old and pictures are old and everything..You didn't do a good job reverting those 28 people which i already told is too much because people like svacic,nikola zrinski,ivan vucetic and so on are not for that list.Somebody put this 28 people probably because Croatia joined EU i think...So please tell me why should Croats have 16 people same as Slovenians and Serbs for example have 30 people and nobody complains? -Scrosby85 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In what format??Plaese explain to me this about Serbs and SSlovenians..This is talk page and i want discuss this with you because i will not let off these 20 people...Consesnus was here long before you came about 20 people?Where were for 6 months and why didn't you revert this article to 16 if u care too much for it?I ask you once more Slovenians who is smaller nation then Croats have 16 people and Croats can't have 20 because in your opinion it looks funny?That is your explanation?Serbs can have 30 people even more than Germans but Croats can't have 20? Scrosby85 17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree about the 16 number..And i think a lot people here don't..So what do we do now?I would propose 20 people and maybe that infobox be one picture for all not individual pictures..Like at the Serbs. Scrosby85 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
If not 20 can we agree on 18?At least that Krleza and Mestrovic be included and Mazuranic and Matos excluded? −−Scrosby85 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous If Serbs can have 30 people in Infobox then Croats should have 12?Are you serious?:))) Croats should have 12 and Slovenians 16?:))) Scrosby85 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not some little kid who doesn't understand things..I know that some people don't have to be on this list...But Ivan Mestrovic for example should be included because he is widely known sculptor...And Miroslav Krleza is widely known in Literature of this part of Europe...So if 20 is too much i'm proposing if we can just include Mestrovic and Krleza and that's it..I will not insist on Mazuranic and Matos.Also it would be logic to replace Andric with Ruzicka because Andric was more Yugoslav(Yes he was born to Croatian parents) but he identified with Serbia later in life..Also it would be good to replace Blanka Vlasic with Janica Kostelic who is sporting icon in Croatia and is multiple Olympic gold medalist. Scrosby85 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how widely known some people are because you can probably find a lot more and we can't put everyone. I think 16 people is too much but I might settle with it. Current infobox was a product of consensus and in my opinion we should keep it for the time being. Anon7mous ( talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous I'm very suspicios of you..I think that you are in some kind of alliance with DIREKTOR or his friend because you write same as him..I ask you once more!Why can's Croats have 20 people in infobox?Because overall population of Croats is estimated at 7.5 mil.And Slovenians have 16 people in infobox and their total population is 2,5-3 mil..Where is the logic?Do u understand what 'm talking about?Or article about Serbs...Their population is estmated at 11 mil and they have 30 people...I mean where is the sense of logic? here?Where are we going with this?Article with 20 people was here more then 6 months and everyone agreed to it...And DIREKTOR didn't even know about this...And now he came here and he is acting like a god and saying it should be 16 like it was and son..Where was he all this time when this article had 20 people and nobody complained about? Scrosby85 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Somebody unsigned said that people who were great in their field of work should be on this list..So Krleza and Mestrovi were not good in their work?I'm proposing that these two justbe included on this list and that's all...I'm not asking that for example pavelic mustbe on this list or some man or women which nobody heard of...Think about what i'm saying..Everyone are complaining that 16(or 20) is too much..I'm asking why is it too much??why?i didn't get an answer... Scrosby85 19:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I just looked in the archive and I just cannot believe how many times was subject discussed over the years. And the funny part is: most of the arguments are constantly repeating itself. Who, why, how many people should be up there...etc, etc. I have stated in my previous reply that I believe the ones who should be featured are/were those who did something extraordinary and those who are recognized beyond Croatia, region and ethnic context. Now it's completely irrelevant how many people we have up there as long as it looks normal and does not mess up the entire visual appearance of the article. Yes we can probably have more than 16 people up there...hell we can probably have 30 people up there....it can even look normal if we make a composite picture. Actually I am more and more convinced we should go ahead and introduce a composite picture and put an end to these ridiculous debates and reappearing edit-wars. Shokatz ( talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Shokatz You also share the opinion that Ivo Andric should be removed right?He lived and worked in Serbia later in life and said he is Serbian writer..So Andric should be replaced with Ivan Mestrovic in my opinion because he he is one of the most popular people from that period in Croatia...Or with Lavoslav Ruzicka...So can we at least discuss or have some kind of consensus about 20 people?DIRKETOR invited me here so we can discuss this and he just told me 16 it will be and there is no more discussion and he left..What kind of discussion is that? Scrosby85 20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous,Again you...Do i have to repeat myself all over again?Slovenes who are almost 3 times smaller nation than Croats have 16 people in Infobox?And i bet 99% of the people don't know 15 people from that list of Slovenes.Now somebody will write again what does Slovenes have to do with Croats article...It does.Why would Croats have 16 same as Slovenes?And nobody says that Slovene article is funny because they have 16 people in infobox..or like Serbs have 30 people in infobox more than Germans..But it is funny when Croats have 20?I mean come on.. Scrosby85 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not like i am proposing that some anonymous character be on the list..I'm proposing that at least Krleza and Mestrovic must be on the list. Scrosby85 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
DIREKTOR I don't know hot to speak with you..It's like speaking with a wall or something..Why would we replace somebody?...Why not insert just Mestrovic and for example Ruzicka instead of Andric...Just Mestrovic if not Krleza...that is 17...And Janica Kostelic instead of Vlasic..I think this is fair? Scrosby85 13:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous Yeah we should have just 6 people in infobox...I think that would make you happy...I think you would like that Croats would look like people without history and without known people...You would be the happiest man on the planet Scrosby85 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
And if nobody agrees that this should be enlarged then i think it would be good if Andric is replaced with Mestrovic because Andric is already in "Serbs" infobox..And to replace Vlasic with Janica Kostelic? Scrosby85 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the archives. Many many users discussed for a very long time in great detail to arrive at consensus. Please do not change that consensus by yourself and please respect the work of others. I would ask you kindly to stop mentioning the Serbs article because it's completely unimportant here. Anon7mous ( talk) 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That "consensus" was about 4 years ago and i bet you haven't been part of it.Secondly Ivo Andric is also on "Serbs" article..and yes it is important...If he is on Serbs infobox and he declared himself a Serb how can he be on Croats infobox?Also what does Blanka Vlasic do in infobox?What has she achieved..Janica Kosltelic is a legend in her home country and she should be on that list.DIREKTOR said that changing is an option but not adding the people in infobox..So i'm changing it not adding...So stop with this nonsense Scrosby85 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes DIREKTOR said we can change consensus but as always, only if we agree. I disagree with your changing things here only because Serbs article has this or that. Ivo Andric like everyone else was discussed in detail before: He is an ethnic Bosnian Croat and he considered himself a Yugoslav (not a Serb). Serbs article incorrectly lists him as Serbian, but who cares? It is true his work is considered a part of Serbian literature but that makes him no less of an ethnic Croat. He is a Nobel prize winner and deserves to be in there. Vlasic is another person who was agreed upon by a lot of people, not 4 years ago, but 2 years ago and what difference does it make how long ago it was?? I respect consensus, you just undo. If you continue with your opposed edits, I will request a moderator have a look at your behavior. Please accept that people disagree with you. Anon7mous ( talk) 16:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as i can see only you "disagree" with me...Consensus was "made" three years ago and in the meantime infobox was changed 4 or 5 times (not by me) and nobody complained..where was you when article with 20 people in infobox was?Where?On vacation for almost a year?Ivo Andric considered himself a part of Serbian literature and he is listed in Serbian infobox..it's a little stupid and confusing not to say funny to have andric both in croatian and serbian infobox isn't it?And you say it is funny when 20 people are in infobox?And this Andric thing is not?Also Lavoslav Ruzicka was a Nobel Prize winner and he was Croatian and he don't have a place here.Do u think anything will happen if u replace Andric with Mestrovic?Nobody cares..Obviously it concerns only you.I don't see nobody except you arguing about infobox.Because i see DIREKTOR is on vacation again like he was year ago when he finally discovered article about Croats and 20 people in it.Also Ivan Mestrovic was in the top of votings for the infobox so it's legitimate to put him in infobox instead of Andric who considered himself part of Serbian literature and considered himself a Serbian in his later years.Mestrovic was a Croat and he was patriotic of Croatia. Scrosby85 19:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In principle I don't mind including Ruzicka, but I do mind the idea that he should replace Andric. What the guy "considered himself" is ultimately irrelevant, it seems that for a while he subscribed to the crackpot theory that "Serbs" is what all Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians should be called. Its the idea that "Serbs" is the real term for "Yugoslavs" or "Illyrians". He didn't consider himself a "Serb" in the modern sense, but rather in the "Šešelj sense".. he's essentially a Croat who later adopted Serbian nationalist ideology. But what does that matter? Many notable people perceived as "Croats" didn't consider themselves such. Gundulic, Marulic, Strossmayer, Tito, to name just a few in our infobox. Likely old " Miklós Zrínyi" as well (if I wasn't on vacation I'd certainly pay that article a visit..), or people like " Fausto Veranzio" (tried & failed); the two kings least of all since no such concept existed then (nor will exist for centuries).
Ruzicka didn't get much support, though, so I am opposed to him based on that. As for criteria, there wasn't any. We just kinda voted, if my memory serves). -- Director ( talk) 22:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The IP 24.x has been replacing the sourced estimate of "7.5 - 8.5 million (est.)" with a new figure of "~5 million (est.) (up to 4 million Croatian descendants abroad)"
24.x thinks that the 7.5 - 8.5 mill estimate is WP:SYNTHESIS. But one source says that there are 4 mill inside Croatia and 4.5 mill outside, and other sources give similar numbers. I don't think it's synthesis to add them up. In a previous discussions someone said that this falled under WP:NOR#Routine_calculations. On and older discussion an admin reverted back to a similar version because the alternative versions were unsourced....
What do other people think? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to change map DemoBiH2006a.png to more precise DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png.png -- Čeha ( razgovor) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Čeha ( razgovor) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Why people here are like dictators, that only things are done as the way they want? A source for first hand is better than one from second hand. But no, if you said that a turtle is a bird then is a bird. I’m done with this cheat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.90 ( talk) 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
In general, it is best to be very careful with diaspora literature as a source for the number of ethnic groups. They tend to inflate the numbers, sometimes grossly so. In the case of this particular source for the numbers of Croats in the US, it is a bit confusing. The first part, counting diaspora Croats in different parts of the world, seems quite good, giving the total number as 4,5 millions, which is consistent with other sources. The number of Croats in US and Canada is given as 2 millions. In a rather blog-like text further down, however, the number in US is given as 3 millions. Needless to say, the last info looks rather dubious, since it is contradicted by more presise info in the same article. I suggest we forget the 3 millions altogether unless a more reliable source is found.
The number 2 millions may be admissible in the article, even if it had been better to have a more neutral source. The problem with this number is that it covers Croats both in the US and Canada. As can be seen from the official data sources, the number of Croats in Canada is far from negligible. A significant part of the 2 millions will be in Canada, possibly as many as half a million, maybe less, maybe even more. We can, therefore, not use this number in the infobox table. It will, however, fit well into the "Diaspora" section. I suggest something like: "The total number of Croatian descendants in the United States and Canada is estimated to 2 millions." Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
To split off from the "I don't want to claim him" vs. "he was evil but extremely influential" political debates above, what about adding Jakov Gotovac? Now, admittedly, Croatians have not shook the world in the music department, but from what I'm able to find, Gotovac is the most notable of "classical" composers of Croat nationality. (let's set the Josef Haydn debate to the side - roots, sure probably, but he was an Austrian) HammerFilmFan ( talk) 23:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
I think that Marco Polo is definitely most known Croat. I think that he deserves to be in InfoBox... I would also add John Malkovich, and Branko Lustig... And Joe Sakic!!! One of the world best sportsman ever!!! Mario Andretti could also be candidate.. Istrian born World F1 world Champion.. This article should not be about croats from croatia, but about croats all over the world!!! -- VelikiMeshtar ( talk) 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What does this phrase exactly mean? I'm asking because the (rather lengthy) list of countries in the info box looks like it had no inclusion criteria and listing countries such as Norway (890 Croats) and Belgium (810) seems pointless. So perhaps some cut-off number could be agreed here? Like 5,000? Or 10,000? Thoughts? Timbouctou ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Tesla was born in Croatia, and grew up in Croatia, but ethnically he was Serbian. So, does he count as a Croatian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.40.120 ( talk) 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
WRONG
Tesla was born in Hungary, grew up in Hungary (as part of Austro-Hungarian Empire), but ethnically he was Serbian. So, does he count as a Croatian?
State boundaries change, especially in the Balkans, one can change 5 different states in course of 100 years, without even leaving the house. Does it mean that one changes his ethnicity everytime a new army comes by, of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.77.141 ( talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
[1] This is unnecessary.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
"Independent State of Croatia was approximately 6,285,000 of which 3,300,000 were Croats, 1,925,000 were Serbs, 700,000 were Muslims, 150,000 Germans, 65,000 Czechs and Slovaks, 40,000 Jews, and 30,000 Slovenes. The Ustaše carried out genocidal policy against the Serbs and Jews in the territory of the Independent State of Croatia with 307,000 Serb deaths and 35-36,000 deaths of Jews. The Chetniks carried out massacres against the Croat and Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak in accordance with implementing Draža Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941 to ethnically cleanse non-Serb elements."
If I may suggest a compromise. There is really no question about whether the NDH should be ommited from the article. See for example the elaboration on Nazi Germany in the Germans article. A paragraph on the history of the NDH is unaviodable, but I do agree with Timbouctou that the current paragraph is indeed "bloated". What I suggest is a brief paragraph that would also explain that hundreds of thousands of Croats fought against the NDH - providing for a far more neutral coverage that would also be a lot more appropriate for an ethnic group article. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted to the position before the edit war on the issues discussed above. There is plainly no consensus here as yet for what you wish to add PRODUCER. I suggest you seek a wider range of views to see if consensus can be reached. Try the Croat project, WP:3PO or a content WP:RFC. If the edit war continues I shall protect the page. Fainites barley scribs 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm sorry to say that I've declined the request for a third opinion, because there are more than two editors involved already. If you are unable to find a compromise here, might I suggest leaving a post at WP:DRN? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
People, I'll repeat my proposal: add a small, brief paragraph on the NDH. Two or three simple sentences at the most, adding also a sentence or two explaining that hundreds of thousands of Croats also fought against the NDH (just under half-a-million, a forgotten fact nowadays). I really can't see the problem here, why would anyone object to a simple edit of that sort? Mentioning WWII in the context of the history section of a nation article is certainly justified, but posting a HUGE paragraph does seem too much and provocative. Balance and brevity fellas. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
PRODUCER entries unnecessary data, which is a place in other articles:)-- Sokac121 ( talk) 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not true that Croatian language has the longest written tradition of all South Slavic languages, because the Freising Manuscripts (Slovene: Brižinski spomeniki) were created between 972 and 1039, most likely before 1000 and are the oldest Latin-script text in a Slavic language and the oldest document in Slovene. So we should correct this statemant about Croatian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.113.75 ( talk) 21:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the reference in the article - Croats Haplogroups: I (33%), R1a (27%), R1b (12%)
I would ask for correction according to the reference.
What does "most European" mean, if we look by genetics and cultural heritage, the Greeks are the "most" European, cause their culture and tradition is the fundament of European culture, as a matter of fact they even coined the terminus "Europe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.77.141 ( talk) 22:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Fellas the current state of the infobox was agreed-upon by a hard-won consensus. If you wish to change the consensus I hope you will discuss here first. Imo the addition of all those pics is way too much. There are 4,000,000 Croats, and drowning some in a sea of others negates the whole purpose of the infobox. -- Director ( talk) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask is it possible to add 3 or 4 more faces in infobox?Like Ivan Mestrovic,Miroslav Krleža,Tin Ujevic or Faust Vrancic?..Because they are very important figures in Croatian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Most times I have heard the word spoken it has two syllables, so I assume this is correct. I have occasionally heard it pronounced rhyming with "boats." A short pronunciation guide at the top wouldn't hurt. Hellbus ( talk) 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
" At the Millennium Exhibition in Budapest they overshadowed all other artistic traditions of Austro-Hungary. " ?? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Penkala was a Polish Jew, whereas Andric was a Bosnian Croat by birth. To put it in one way, he is no more a Serb than Penkala is a Croat. One must note in these sort of discussions that there are folks in Serbia nowadays who strongly believe all Croats are Serbs to begin with, and only need "convincing" of it (" da ih ubedimo da su Srbi.."). In short, Andric was included based on his ethnic background: I'll thank you not to remove him again without consensus. -- Director ( talk) 06:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two sources for New Zealand
The declarations of a politician in a public act can't be trusted because he can be twisting facts to get voters, or to get political support. "Croatian heritage" is a very vague wording, it could mean anything, it could include people who had one Croatian ancestor a century and a half ago. and it doesn't look like "Croatian heritage" was measured by any official organism, it looks like a personal estimation. It seems that it includes people who have Croatian surnames but no longer feel like Croats. I wouldn't include such a number until a reliable source measures it and explains how it was measured. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Enric Naval i respect your opinion..But there is clearly 100 000(more or less) New Zealanders with Croatian ancestry there..There are sections on other ethnic groups where it is stated for example "Norwegians by ethnic" and "Norwegians by ancestry"...But here there isn't section "by ancestry" but there is "(est.)" which means estimated..like it is said for Bosnian census...and it means estimation not exact number.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Croats in New Zealand are associated with Maori. They even have a special name Tarara Croats. More about Tarara Croats see to Google. :)
Tarara Day celebrates the union of the Maori and Croatian cultures in New Zealand. This year 14500 people attended the event. Croatian-Maori descendants have the opportunity to celebrate their cultures and learn more about their heritage.-- Sokac121 ( talk) 10:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
What did Tito do for Croats to deserve a place in infobox? He is guilty for more than 100 thousand dead souls in Bleiburg. For Christ's sake, he is on the list of greatest mass murderers of 20th century! http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you people stop with these silly argument and discuss changes here instead of edit-warring?!? Whoever made the recent infobox (I am referring to the people featured in it) has went way overboard. IMO there are too many people up there and quite a few are unknown to a neutral observer. People featured up there should be those who are instantly identified with Croatian people and Croatia not obscure individuals such as Croatian kings about whom 99.9% know nothing about outside of Croatia, the region and the related professions. When one says Drazen Petrovic or Ivan Mestrovic they immediately know of who we are speaking about there...I am talking of my personal experience travelling around the Europe and the World. Also the way it is made - each person featured separately - is a disaster waiting to happen (as we can see from these recent edits) for these silly arguments and even more ridiculous edit wars. I am seriously thinking about making a composite of people like it is featured on Germans or the French to put an end to this as it is becoming very annoying.
I am inviting everyone to join the discussion here so we can actually reach a consensus who should be featured and why. It's time we stop with this silliness... Shokatz ( talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ivo Andrić was born to Croatian parents and he declared as a Croat in his youth, but later he declares as a Serb, and we have his personal document to prove that. In my opinion, such a person should not represent Croats.
Ok, I don't know who we're going to have, but twenty-eight people is way, waay too much if we're to use this format.. Talk about getting carried away, restored old consensus version. -- Director ( talk) 14:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
DIREKTOR I agree that 28 people is way too much.But we agreed about a year ago that krleza,mestrovic,mazuranic and matos should at least be on this list...20 is not too much at all...why didn't you revert this article way before?Why now?You didn't see?:)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Scrosby85, please take into consideration the fact that many users came together a couple years ago, and arrived at the 16-member infobox you see in the article now. Consensuses are not set in stone, of course, but as this is an entirely arbitrary, "voting" matter - please respect the opinions of your fellow users. If you would like to alter the infobox in accordance with your own personal ideas, kindly discuss that here and do not presume to supersede everyone else through edit-warring.
My own opinion, as I've said, is that (in this format!) 16 is too much as it is - but just acceptable. We're a small nation and we don't really have that many globally-notable individuals to parade, but if we had 170 people up there - still we'd hear "how dare you neglect Great Croat No.171!!!!". I would like to avoid this article appearing as some kind of pathetic self-aggrandizement poster. -- Director ( talk) 16:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
DIREKTOR It doesn't matter if some of this Croats on the list are globally known or not...They are very valuable to Croatia and to their history...Miroslav Krleza id widely know as one of the greatest writers in Yuglslavia..Ivan Mestrovic one of the greatest sculptors also...Why should they be removed from this list?Because you say 16 is too much?Why is too much?Faust Vrancic for example is not on this list...Ivo Andric should not be on this list because he identified himself as a Serb...And one more thing...Croats have some 7-8 million people worldwide and they should be reduced to 16 people and Serbs who number approximately 10.5 million people can have 30 Serbs in infobox?:) 30?!And Croats can't have 20?Also Slovenians or Slovenes who have 2.5 million people worldwide have 16 people in infobox!
I alsodon't want to fight with you over this matter or with anybody else..But read my las sentence above and make logic...Serbs have 30 people and Slovenes have 16 people same as Croats who are bigger then Slovenes...So i am proposing if this List should be 20 with people who are precious to Croatia?Because this list of 20 was here for almost one year and nobody complained...I also came here and tried to reduced number of 28 to 20 because 28 is too much...
Again...Can i repeat myself?Why are you pointing out Swedes and Swiss people?Why didn't you tell me something about Serbs and Slovenians..I would like to hear your opinion on that..Serbs whose overall population is around 10.5-11 mil have 30 people in infobox.30 PEOPLE!And Slovenes who have 2.5 million people overall have 16 people same as Croats who have around 7 - 7.5 million..Where is the logic my dear friend.Please tell me?You are acting like a god here..Why didn't you remove this 20 people article long before..Do u know for how long this infobox have 20 people?Nobody complained...This 16 people article is way too old and pictures are old and everything..You didn't do a good job reverting those 28 people which i already told is too much because people like svacic,nikola zrinski,ivan vucetic and so on are not for that list.Somebody put this 28 people probably because Croatia joined EU i think...So please tell me why should Croats have 16 people same as Slovenians and Serbs for example have 30 people and nobody complains? -Scrosby85 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In what format??Plaese explain to me this about Serbs and SSlovenians..This is talk page and i want discuss this with you because i will not let off these 20 people...Consesnus was here long before you came about 20 people?Where were for 6 months and why didn't you revert this article to 16 if u care too much for it?I ask you once more Slovenians who is smaller nation then Croats have 16 people and Croats can't have 20 because in your opinion it looks funny?That is your explanation?Serbs can have 30 people even more than Germans but Croats can't have 20? Scrosby85 17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree about the 16 number..And i think a lot people here don't..So what do we do now?I would propose 20 people and maybe that infobox be one picture for all not individual pictures..Like at the Serbs. Scrosby85 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
If not 20 can we agree on 18?At least that Krleza and Mestrovic be included and Mazuranic and Matos excluded? −−Scrosby85 17:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous If Serbs can have 30 people in Infobox then Croats should have 12?Are you serious?:))) Croats should have 12 and Slovenians 16?:))) Scrosby85 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not some little kid who doesn't understand things..I know that some people don't have to be on this list...But Ivan Mestrovic for example should be included because he is widely known sculptor...And Miroslav Krleza is widely known in Literature of this part of Europe...So if 20 is too much i'm proposing if we can just include Mestrovic and Krleza and that's it..I will not insist on Mazuranic and Matos.Also it would be logic to replace Andric with Ruzicka because Andric was more Yugoslav(Yes he was born to Croatian parents) but he identified with Serbia later in life..Also it would be good to replace Blanka Vlasic with Janica Kostelic who is sporting icon in Croatia and is multiple Olympic gold medalist. Scrosby85 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how widely known some people are because you can probably find a lot more and we can't put everyone. I think 16 people is too much but I might settle with it. Current infobox was a product of consensus and in my opinion we should keep it for the time being. Anon7mous ( talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous I'm very suspicios of you..I think that you are in some kind of alliance with DIREKTOR or his friend because you write same as him..I ask you once more!Why can's Croats have 20 people in infobox?Because overall population of Croats is estimated at 7.5 mil.And Slovenians have 16 people in infobox and their total population is 2,5-3 mil..Where is the logic?Do u understand what 'm talking about?Or article about Serbs...Their population is estmated at 11 mil and they have 30 people...I mean where is the sense of logic? here?Where are we going with this?Article with 20 people was here more then 6 months and everyone agreed to it...And DIREKTOR didn't even know about this...And now he came here and he is acting like a god and saying it should be 16 like it was and son..Where was he all this time when this article had 20 people and nobody complained about? Scrosby85 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Somebody unsigned said that people who were great in their field of work should be on this list..So Krleza and Mestrovi were not good in their work?I'm proposing that these two justbe included on this list and that's all...I'm not asking that for example pavelic mustbe on this list or some man or women which nobody heard of...Think about what i'm saying..Everyone are complaining that 16(or 20) is too much..I'm asking why is it too much??why?i didn't get an answer... Scrosby85 19:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I just looked in the archive and I just cannot believe how many times was subject discussed over the years. And the funny part is: most of the arguments are constantly repeating itself. Who, why, how many people should be up there...etc, etc. I have stated in my previous reply that I believe the ones who should be featured are/were those who did something extraordinary and those who are recognized beyond Croatia, region and ethnic context. Now it's completely irrelevant how many people we have up there as long as it looks normal and does not mess up the entire visual appearance of the article. Yes we can probably have more than 16 people up there...hell we can probably have 30 people up there....it can even look normal if we make a composite picture. Actually I am more and more convinced we should go ahead and introduce a composite picture and put an end to these ridiculous debates and reappearing edit-wars. Shokatz ( talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Shokatz You also share the opinion that Ivo Andric should be removed right?He lived and worked in Serbia later in life and said he is Serbian writer..So Andric should be replaced with Ivan Mestrovic in my opinion because he he is one of the most popular people from that period in Croatia...Or with Lavoslav Ruzicka...So can we at least discuss or have some kind of consensus about 20 people?DIRKETOR invited me here so we can discuss this and he just told me 16 it will be and there is no more discussion and he left..What kind of discussion is that? Scrosby85 20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous,Again you...Do i have to repeat myself all over again?Slovenes who are almost 3 times smaller nation than Croats have 16 people in Infobox?And i bet 99% of the people don't know 15 people from that list of Slovenes.Now somebody will write again what does Slovenes have to do with Croats article...It does.Why would Croats have 16 same as Slovenes?And nobody says that Slovene article is funny because they have 16 people in infobox..or like Serbs have 30 people in infobox more than Germans..But it is funny when Croats have 20?I mean come on.. Scrosby85 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not like i am proposing that some anonymous character be on the list..I'm proposing that at least Krleza and Mestrovic must be on the list. Scrosby85 21:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
DIREKTOR I don't know hot to speak with you..It's like speaking with a wall or something..Why would we replace somebody?...Why not insert just Mestrovic and for example Ruzicka instead of Andric...Just Mestrovic if not Krleza...that is 17...And Janica Kostelic instead of Vlasic..I think this is fair? Scrosby85 13:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Anon7mous Yeah we should have just 6 people in infobox...I think that would make you happy...I think you would like that Croats would look like people without history and without known people...You would be the happiest man on the planet Scrosby85 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
And if nobody agrees that this should be enlarged then i think it would be good if Andric is replaced with Mestrovic because Andric is already in "Serbs" infobox..And to replace Vlasic with Janica Kostelic? Scrosby85 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the archives. Many many users discussed for a very long time in great detail to arrive at consensus. Please do not change that consensus by yourself and please respect the work of others. I would ask you kindly to stop mentioning the Serbs article because it's completely unimportant here. Anon7mous ( talk) 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That "consensus" was about 4 years ago and i bet you haven't been part of it.Secondly Ivo Andric is also on "Serbs" article..and yes it is important...If he is on Serbs infobox and he declared himself a Serb how can he be on Croats infobox?Also what does Blanka Vlasic do in infobox?What has she achieved..Janica Kosltelic is a legend in her home country and she should be on that list.DIREKTOR said that changing is an option but not adding the people in infobox..So i'm changing it not adding...So stop with this nonsense Scrosby85 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes DIREKTOR said we can change consensus but as always, only if we agree. I disagree with your changing things here only because Serbs article has this or that. Ivo Andric like everyone else was discussed in detail before: He is an ethnic Bosnian Croat and he considered himself a Yugoslav (not a Serb). Serbs article incorrectly lists him as Serbian, but who cares? It is true his work is considered a part of Serbian literature but that makes him no less of an ethnic Croat. He is a Nobel prize winner and deserves to be in there. Vlasic is another person who was agreed upon by a lot of people, not 4 years ago, but 2 years ago and what difference does it make how long ago it was?? I respect consensus, you just undo. If you continue with your opposed edits, I will request a moderator have a look at your behavior. Please accept that people disagree with you. Anon7mous ( talk) 16:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as i can see only you "disagree" with me...Consensus was "made" three years ago and in the meantime infobox was changed 4 or 5 times (not by me) and nobody complained..where was you when article with 20 people in infobox was?Where?On vacation for almost a year?Ivo Andric considered himself a part of Serbian literature and he is listed in Serbian infobox..it's a little stupid and confusing not to say funny to have andric both in croatian and serbian infobox isn't it?And you say it is funny when 20 people are in infobox?And this Andric thing is not?Also Lavoslav Ruzicka was a Nobel Prize winner and he was Croatian and he don't have a place here.Do u think anything will happen if u replace Andric with Mestrovic?Nobody cares..Obviously it concerns only you.I don't see nobody except you arguing about infobox.Because i see DIREKTOR is on vacation again like he was year ago when he finally discovered article about Croats and 20 people in it.Also Ivan Mestrovic was in the top of votings for the infobox so it's legitimate to put him in infobox instead of Andric who considered himself part of Serbian literature and considered himself a Serbian in his later years.Mestrovic was a Croat and he was patriotic of Croatia. Scrosby85 19:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In principle I don't mind including Ruzicka, but I do mind the idea that he should replace Andric. What the guy "considered himself" is ultimately irrelevant, it seems that for a while he subscribed to the crackpot theory that "Serbs" is what all Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians should be called. Its the idea that "Serbs" is the real term for "Yugoslavs" or "Illyrians". He didn't consider himself a "Serb" in the modern sense, but rather in the "Šešelj sense".. he's essentially a Croat who later adopted Serbian nationalist ideology. But what does that matter? Many notable people perceived as "Croats" didn't consider themselves such. Gundulic, Marulic, Strossmayer, Tito, to name just a few in our infobox. Likely old " Miklós Zrínyi" as well (if I wasn't on vacation I'd certainly pay that article a visit..), or people like " Fausto Veranzio" (tried & failed); the two kings least of all since no such concept existed then (nor will exist for centuries).
Ruzicka didn't get much support, though, so I am opposed to him based on that. As for criteria, there wasn't any. We just kinda voted, if my memory serves). -- Director ( talk) 22:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The IP 24.x has been replacing the sourced estimate of "7.5 - 8.5 million (est.)" with a new figure of "~5 million (est.) (up to 4 million Croatian descendants abroad)"
24.x thinks that the 7.5 - 8.5 mill estimate is WP:SYNTHESIS. But one source says that there are 4 mill inside Croatia and 4.5 mill outside, and other sources give similar numbers. I don't think it's synthesis to add them up. In a previous discussions someone said that this falled under WP:NOR#Routine_calculations. On and older discussion an admin reverted back to a similar version because the alternative versions were unsourced....
What do other people think? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to change map DemoBiH2006a.png to more precise DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png.png -- Čeha ( razgovor) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Čeha ( razgovor) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Why people here are like dictators, that only things are done as the way they want? A source for first hand is better than one from second hand. But no, if you said that a turtle is a bird then is a bird. I’m done with this cheat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.90 ( talk) 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
In general, it is best to be very careful with diaspora literature as a source for the number of ethnic groups. They tend to inflate the numbers, sometimes grossly so. In the case of this particular source for the numbers of Croats in the US, it is a bit confusing. The first part, counting diaspora Croats in different parts of the world, seems quite good, giving the total number as 4,5 millions, which is consistent with other sources. The number of Croats in US and Canada is given as 2 millions. In a rather blog-like text further down, however, the number in US is given as 3 millions. Needless to say, the last info looks rather dubious, since it is contradicted by more presise info in the same article. I suggest we forget the 3 millions altogether unless a more reliable source is found.
The number 2 millions may be admissible in the article, even if it had been better to have a more neutral source. The problem with this number is that it covers Croats both in the US and Canada. As can be seen from the official data sources, the number of Croats in Canada is far from negligible. A significant part of the 2 millions will be in Canada, possibly as many as half a million, maybe less, maybe even more. We can, therefore, not use this number in the infobox table. It will, however, fit well into the "Diaspora" section. I suggest something like: "The total number of Croatian descendants in the United States and Canada is estimated to 2 millions." Regards! -- T*U ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)