Jump to content

Talk:Central Croatia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge with Mountainous Croatia?

What is the region of Croatia? The historic region of Croatia is basically all that's left when you remove Dalmatia, Slavonia, and Istria. On purely geographic grounds, this region has been further unofficially subdivided into a "Central Croatia" and a "Mountainous Croatia", and only very recently has such a division been introduced. I propose we merge these two articles here into a "Croatia (region)" article (the exact title isn't pivotal). This way we can more efficiently organize the coverage of the three historical regions of Croatia (Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia). Thoughts? -- Director (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose because the article is not about historic regions but physical geography, and reliable sources say it is a distinct geographic region of Croatia. For the historic region see Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). "Croatia (region)" would be pure original research since no region in Croatia or elsewhere is called that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter how recently a division was made - if it is a statement of fact that it has been made and is reported in reliable sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well Tomboe you created the Mountainous Croatia article a couple months ago and are practically the only person who edited it. Its traffic is, to all intents and purposes - non-existent. I think you did an excellent job, don't get me wrong, but I also think there's a way to display your work in a manner that would be more efficient and approachable to the reader. I mean we already have the Lika and Gorski kotar articles which basically makes "Mountainous Croatia" a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as an article about the geographic area.
But if you think I'm just expressing my own opinion here, you're quite wrong. If you have a look at the sources [1] you'll find that "Croatia is composed of four historic provinces: Croatia proper (with Zagreb), Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Istria." This article used to be about the historic province or region of "Croatia". With the Mountainous Croatia REDUNDANTFORK you've confused the matter significantly, effectively splitting one article about a historic region into two articles about geographic regions... What we need are articles on the historic regions of 1) Croatia, 2) Dalmatia, 3) Slavonia, and 4) Istria. Its the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia", not the "Quadriune Kingdom of Central Croatia, Mountainous Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia".. (Istria, of course, is basically our WWII conquest so its missing there but you get the point). -- Director (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, you are confusing history and physical geography. When you inform us of what we need here you seem to forget that all those articles you mentioned exist. Mountainous Croatian as a geographic (macro)region of Croatia is supported by reliable sources and how exactly recently the distinction was made has zero impact on the fact that the distinction is made and accepted by reliable sources. Indeed geographic divisions changed over history and I have no doubt those will change many times more - therefore Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), Kingdom of Slavonia, Kingdom of Dalmatia, Austrian Littoral etc cover topics belonging to history and this article, Slavonia, Dalmatia etc cover physical geography. Finally, article infobox here, in the Mountainous Croatia, in Slavonia, Dalmatia, and elsewhere says explicitly "Geographic region of Croatia" right on top - not "Historical province of Croatia" or "What's left when Istria, Dalmatia and Slavonia are removed". Btw Istria is our "WWII conquest" as you put it as much as it is our "WWI" loss.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok first of all, I'm confusing nothing. Secondly, who's "us"? You have someone with you there?
  • As far as geographic divisions of Croatia are concerned - "Mountainous Croatia" is a textbook WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as its scope overlaps perfectly with that of the Lika and Gorski kotar articles. As a historic division - it doesn't exist. By rights it should be AfD-ed forthwith.
  • As far as historic divisions of Croatia are concerned, the country consists of four regions. This article basically used to be about one of those four regions. You've made it into just one of two articles about geographic regions. So, without any kind of consensus or discussion, you've 1) changed its scope into a geographic region, and 2) you've reduced its scope (split it in half).
  • As far as sources are concerned, they unquestionably confirm that Lika and Gorski kotar are both part of the same region of - Croatia. As such they can be grouped together as "Mountainous Croatia" (meaning "that part of the region of Croatia that is mountainous"), but it doesn't mean they should be covered in such a manner as separate from the rest of the region. There must be an article on the region of Croatia that includes these regions.
-- Director (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding confusion - please re-read above text.
Us means me and other readers of this talk page. I assume you expect others to read this too. Whether I have someone over here with me or not is none of your concerns.
Regarding overlapping of Mountainous Croatia with Gorski Kotar and Lika, yes the do overlap. The same is true for Slavonia vs Syrmia. Which one do you suggest we remove? The point is that the reliable sources used in the article define five macroregions of Croatia - Eastern Croatia, Central Croatia, Mountainous Croatia, Northern Croatian Littoral and Dalmatia/Southern Croatian Littoral. Obviously macroregions (in Croatia and elsewhere) will overlap with mesoregions (say Lika) and those will overlap with microregions (say Kosinj). All those macroregions are notable and supported by WP:RS. Why is this so problematic that a macroregion comprises further, smaller regions (Mountainous Croatia consists of Gorski Kotar and Lika mesoregions and Ogulin-Plaški Valley microregion)? Dalmatia contains diverse microregions with no problems apparently.
If an article on geography was actually on history only, doesn't that strike you as odd?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Confusion" again? Here's the confusion, Tomboe:

  • Croatia (as in the country, not the region) consists of three purely geographic regions
    • Primorska Hrvatska or Costal Croatia (not to be confused with Hrvatsko Primorje or Croatian Coastland);
    • Gorska Hrvatska or Mountainous Croatia (basically corresponding with Lika and Gorski kotar)
    • Nizinska Hrvatska or Lowland Croatia
  • Croatia consists of four historical regions

To all intents and purposes, you (and your maps) have deleted the article on the historic region of Croatia, and have confusingly inserted the "Mountainous Croatia" geographic region into the mix. Its absolute nonsense to have a series of maps where Mountainous Croatia and Slavonia are both somehow "regions" of this country. You're confusing historical, culturally-defined regions with geographic terms like "Mountainous Croatia". I feel like a wholesale rollback is in order here, so as to restore this article's scope, reduced without consensus. -- Director (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're talking nonsense. The contents of the two articles are fully supported by reliable sources. Further sources seem to draw the same distinction as here, here, here and here. If you are so adamant another article is needed why don't you write one for once?
The "wholesale rollback" that you "feel" is in order would restore a stub article which likewise says that the Central Croatia encompasses exactly the same territory as this article does - which magnificently demonstrates how poorly researched your argument really is. To spare other editors which may suffer reading this pain of digging up a past version of this article, here's a quote box containing the entire article (minus a map of the Kingdom of Croatia):

Central Croatia (Croatian: Središnja Hrvatska) or Croatia proper is a term that refers to the areas of the Republic of Croatia that were part of the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia which excluded Istria, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Central Croatia included the Croatian Littoral, the Croatian Dinaric Alps (Kordun, Lika, and Gorski kotar), the Croatian Highlands, and Međimurje.

Today the term is used in geography to refer to the region of Croatia that centers around Zagreb, with Varaždin in the north and Karlovac and Sisak in the south. It covers around a third of the country's territory and around a half of the country's population (2.16 million), with 110 people per square kilometer. This would by and large include the modern-day counties:


Your sources do not support your position, and are irrelevant as to my argument. I am not "confused" at all nor am I "talking nonsense". Please abide by WP:CIVIL, should it continue I will bring your unprovoked belligerent attitude here to the attention of the community. It is is unproductive, provocative, and disruptive - it will get us nowhere.

Mountainous Croatia is a geographic region of Croatia (the country). They teach you about "Nizinska", "Primorska", and "Gorska Hrvatska" in elementary school, for heaven's sake (you can revise the matter here). You are mixing it up with non-geographic regions. Slavonia is not a "geographic region" and neither is Dalmatia. Those are historic/cultural regions, defined by their historic borders and common history.

As far as I'm concerned, you can have your WP:REDUNDANTFORK article on the geographic region. What I care about is this article. This article used to be on the historic region of Croatia ("Croatia proper"). You've reduced its scope because you do not understand that "Mountainous Croatia" is a geographic region that does not belong in the same category as Dalmatia or Slavonia or Croatia proper at all. That will not fly. We must have an article on Croatia proper. -- Director (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Central Croatia and Mountainous Croatia are well known to be separate "regions". The historical "country" of "Croatia", AKA Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), encompassed parts of both of them, but today's "Central Croatia" does not equal Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). The proposed merge should not be done because the topics are orthogonal. A separate article that would clarify the historical meaning of "Croatia" would be redundant with History of Croatia.
For some reason, this reminds me about the triune nonsense:
The need to merge that content is much more pressing than this :)
Perhaps a Names of Croatia summary article would be best, although it in turn might be confusingly named with the article Name of Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, please differentiate between the geographic regions of Nizinska, Gorska, and Primorska/Jadranska Hrvatska - and the historical regions of Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, and Istria. Frankly I don't particularly care whether there are seperate articles on the three geographic regions, but lets not mix apples and oranges. This article was on the historical region of Central Croatia or Croatia proper, its scope has been altered and now we have no article on that region.
As for the Triune Kingdom, that's a completely separate, significantly more complex issue. I won't discuss that here, but I think our current system of disambig pages very effectively covers the actual historical states those terms can refer to - please do not alter it without previous discussion and consensus. -- Director (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The article was solely about the historical region three years ago, unreferenced. I fixed it somewhat then, and then Tomobe fixed it properly this year, with references.
Those three disambiguation pages are anything but effective. Well, they are effective at needlessly confusing readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, its the mixing of apples and oranges that bothers me. Geographically, "Central Croatia" (as described here) is a part of Lowland Croatia, along with Slavonia. -- Director (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've tried to read the above discussion, but I don't think I've understood it completely. As chance would have it, history is not my strong suit, and my geography is perhaps even weaker. Still, here are my thoughts:

  • When one describes the subdivisions of Croatia (administrative and otherwise), it is obviously impossible (and unnecessary) to avoid overlap of territory, while it is possible (and, to a reasonable degree, desirable) to avoid overlap of content.
  • A subdivision exists if the reliable sources say so.
  • That's why I don't fully understand what Director seems to propose here and the logic behind it. Merging the articles won't reduce the duplication between the two of them, because there's apparently none, the regions being almost completely non-overlapping. It also won't (at least not by itself) reduce the duplication between these two articles (separate or merged into one) and others. What is the purpose of it, then, particularly given the fact that the end result would be a nameless region? (Or perhaps something that was never a region at all, but rather a historic administrative division.)

Again, I may have misunderstood some points here. Note: I'm on vacation, with a slow Internet connection, so I'm not sure whether I would be able to get back to the discussion soon (or at all). GregorB (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is we simply can't have this mixed-up, misleading, and essentially unsourced(!) regionalization of Croatia. Its incredible that we have this well-written article that's fundamentally flawed and built on a basic misconception regarding the meaning of these terms. I mean, here's just one of the many (misunderstood) sources in this article: [2]

"The contribution considers the possibility and need for the standard regional structure of the Republic of Croatia divided into Pannonian, central (mountainous) and maritime part.."

Meaning Panonska/Nizinska Hrvatska, Gorska Hrvatska, and Primorska Hrvatska! Those are the purely geographic divisions of Croatia, and they, in my opinion, ought to be separate sections of the Geography of Croatia article and no more. But that's besides the point. The main concern is that we have a mixed-up organization here that combines cultural/historic regions like Slavonia and Dalmatia with the purely geographic terms like "Gorska Hrvatska".
The source of this confused approach appears to be the fact that the historical region of "Croatia proper" consists of one part that geographically falls under "Nizinska Hrvatska" (along with the entire historical region of Slavonia), and another that geographically falls under "Gorska Hrvatska". The key point is that the entire geographical region of "Gorska Hrvatska" falls squarely into the historical region of Croatia proper.. its an incredible mess.. -- Director (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Slavonia and Dalmatia are not geographic terms? That must be the most hilarious suggestion I have heard in years.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
And that's the most nonsensical straw man I've read for quite a while. Those are regions defined historically and culturally, not by their geographic properties (shore, mountains, lowlands, etc.). The fact that you don't appear to completely understand the difference caused this whole mess in the first place.
You've mixed up historic regions like Slavonia and Dalmatia with purely geographic regions like Mountainous Croatia and Lowland Croatia. Its a mistake, you've done excellent editing, but you made a fundamental organizational mistake. Turning this into a "pissing contest" (if you'll pardon the expression), will not help fix the error. Please don't get me wrong, your work should by no means be deleted (that goes without saying), but its should be merged, moved, reorganized, and/or slightly rewritten to cover one type of regions or the other. Not a confusing mix of the two. -- Director (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Any present-day region is ipso fact geographic. I don't care much for "p****** contest" there's no need to become rude, and I won't pardon the expression.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Right.. pardon me again, but you really do appear to be thoroughly confused on that question. Yes obviously the regions are "geographic" in that they exist on the planet Earth, but there's a difference between regions defined by a type of terrain and historical regions defined by their common culture and history. Obviously this is becoming personal and I say again: the current regionalization you've brought in yourself is manifestly erroneous, and once you look at it, actually completely unsourced. Lets cooperate in a civil manner and fix this. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several ways by which Croatia can be divided into purely geographic regions (basically defined by their terrain). A common division is one consisting of 1. Lowland Croatia (often subdivided into Central Croatia + Eastern Croatia), 2. Mountainous Croatia, and 3. Littoral Croatia (sometimes subdivided into Northern Littoral + Southern (Littoral) Croatia).

All those "Croatias" have absolutely nothing to do with the regions defined culturally and historically like Slavonia, Croatia proper (i.e. the region of Croatia), Dalmatia, and Istria. Tomboe has arbitrarily created his own "mix" of these two types of regions that fall into entirely different categories and are defined quite differently. This becomes obvious with the historic region of Croatia proper, which now no longer has an article on enWiki (because he's confused it with two geographic terms). There's no way that I can see for this entirely unsourced(!) subdivision he himself essentially invented can stand in its present form. Its a frightful mess. -- Director (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Central Croatia and Mountainous Croatia do not exist as regions and are original inventions? Because, if you do, the same articles exist in the Croatian Wikipedia - a coincidence? GregorB (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, of course not, see the first paragraph of my post above. They exist as geographic (terrain-defined) regions. The original invention here is Tomboe's regionalization on the whole. That is to say, he's mixed-up Mountainous Croatia and Central Croatia with Slavonia and Dalmatia and the region of Croatia (which is now gone entirely). -- Director (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the geographic regions do not meet WP:NOTE requirements for separate articles. They are based on the differences in climate and terrain and should be a part of the Geography of Croatia article. Regions like Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia are obviously notable, however. Quite simply, this article's old scope should be restored as focusing on the Croatia region (which of course includes Lika and Gk). Essentially that's a small rewriting and a merge with the Mountainous Croatia article. -- Director (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it now... But, is "Croatia (region)" actually a region (in particular: a region that still exists as a notion), or just a historical subdivision? Is it (or was it) a geographical entity, a political entity, or both? GregorB (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said, its a historical region. "Croatia proper" is how its usually referred to in sources, so as to avoid confusion, but if I'm not mistaken "Croatia (region)" is the title more in-line with naming conventions (I don't really mind either way though). "Croatia proper" is certainly a very widespread concept [3]. Not all sources apply, but here's the very first one off my list for example:
  • Frucht, Richard C. Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture; ABC-CLIO, 2004, p.413
"...Croatia is composed of four historic provinces: Croatia proper (with Zagreb), Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Istria. Croatia proper, which is composed of the areas known as Medimurje, Hrvatsko Zagorje, Moslavina, Banija, Kordun, Lika, and Gorski kotar.."
Senj, for example, is also a part of Croatia proper, that's why they call it the "Croatian Littoral" ("kroatischen Küstenland"; not to be confused with "Littoral Croatia") - its a sub-region thereof. "Central Croatia" here is is nowhere near the sea, and neither is "Mountainous Croatia" - because they're terrain-defined areas that are distinct in climate and terrain from coastlands, which are part of "Littoral Croatia" (Primorska Hrvatska or Jadranska Hrvatska [4]) -- Director (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Historical provinces are one thing geographic regions as supported and recognized by reliable sources are another. Croatian Littoral, including Senj is a distinct region. So is Kvarner, also containing Senj and overlapping considerably with the former. Moreover I don't think there is a single modern reliable source claiming Rijeka and Senj to be a part of Central Croatia (Središnja Hrvatska). Besides published reliable sources claim the Croatian Littoral to be a part of the Northern Croatian Littoral macroregion encompassing the Croatian Littoral and Istria. So is Mountainous Croatia. Geographic regions as recognized in the 18th or 19th century have little bearing on present-day situation. Back then Slavonia included Zemun. Now it does not. Rab was a part of kingodm of Dalmatia but now it is seldom considered to be a part of Dalmatia. Saying Senj is Central Croatia despite numerous sources in Croatian Littoral/Central Croatia articles and the way they define present-day geographic regions of Croatia is OR. By the way, Croatian Littoral got its name to distinguish it from Austrian Littroal and Hungarian Littoral, not because it is a part of present-day Central Croatia macroregion. Stop mixing history and present-day geography.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Adriatic Croatia is a NUTS-2 region of Croatia nothing more - defining it as a geographic region at present is also OR. Maybe it will be recognized as such in future, but that's out of bounds per WP:CRYSTAL.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for inventing of a convenient way to geographically divide Croatia as "defined by terrain" when reliable published sources specify otherwise.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
How do I even respond to that? Tomboe, are you reading my posts at all? You have "invented of a convenient way to geographically divide Croatia", one that is entirely without sources. "Mountainous Croatia" is a region defined by terrain (read the name dammit) and you're mixing it up with regions that are not.
@"Historical provinces are one thing geographic regions are another." - precisely. And you are mixing the two together in one cockamamie unsourced regionalization. But I wonder if you understand that a historical region is not one that no longer exists? (And lets not get bogged down in the sub-regions).
The bottom line is we can't have this mixed-up regionalization you've invented - Slavonia and Dalmatia cannot be alongside Mountainous Croatia. Am I still unclear? -- Director (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But why not have one's cake and eat it? These two articles describe the respective regions from the purely geographical perspective (landforms, climate, what have you), and I'd say that is perfectly legitimate. The third article, let's call it "Croatia (region)", would describe the historical region. No overlap between the three. One could merge everything into one article, and then discuss both history in geography in it, but that makes little sense to me, because the history is finished, while the geographical description extends to present day and is still meaningful. Three articles - why not? GregorB (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. But now there's a repeat of this with extensive addition of original research at Slavonia too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In that vein there's Burgundy (French region) and Burgundy (historical region), so maybe that should be "Croatia (historical region)".--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You mean "extensive" removal of your own OR? Though honestly I don't see what so "extensive" about anything I did there. -- Director (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@GregorB - the problem is that the two regionalizations overlap now. If we have a Mountainous Croatia article, we can't have a Slavonia or Dalmatia article as part of the same regionalization. And if we have Mountainous Croatia, we need Littoral Croatia and Lowland Croatia. I mean its such a frightful mix-up its hard even to discuss clearly (thank you, Tomboe..).

Further, the Mountainous Croatia, Littoral Croatia, and Lowland Croatia articles would need to be solely on the geographic aspects (terrain/climate) of the area (otherwise they're not articles on geographic regions and they'd overlap with the cultural regions). I think that's a bad idea, and I think we should cover the geography of Croatia in the Geography of Croatia article. But really, I don't care that much as long as this article's scope is restored, and Slavonia is also towed out the quagmire. The maps too, just like this whole thing, are brimming over with quality - but are essentially dead wrong in their original conception.

I guess maybe I'm to blame originally. I wrote the erroneous infobox on the Dalmatia article ages ago, calling Dalmatia a "geographic region" so as to please the Italian fellas who were complaining that it isn't an official subdivision. Then Tomboe got the wrong idea on the whole subject of a "geographic region", created these "geographic region articles" and copied over verbatim that bad infobox elsewhere, like Slavonia. -- Director (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's getting clearer now... Your main concern seems to be consistency in overall approach to regions. If I understand correctly, if one is entirely consistent, then one has to create an article on Lowland Croatia (a geographical region), and move into it stuff from Slavonia that would otherwise describe its geography. And why not? The only argument against it (that I can think of at the moment) is that Slavonia is both a historical and a geographical region. (I'd say the average Croat perceives it chiefly as a geographical region.) Consequently one would expect the article to cover both aspects. Standard solution: provide a summary style section on geography and point to Lowland Croatia as the main article.
I don't think that the coverage of geography solely in a single main article would be the best solution for a country as diverse as Croatia. What you perceive as a "mess" is not really a fundamental problem - it could disappear in a matter of days if there is an agreement on how to approach it organization-wise. GregorB (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Its not a huge problem, its just a somewhat "complicated" one to explain. The main problem is essentially the Mountainous Croatia article. Without it, all it would take would be to restore the scope here (not a big edit) and presto - problem gone. No need to create two other articles to justify MC's existence, no need to strip away content, etc.
I understand what you mean that people expect to read about the geography of, e.g. Slavonia and Dalmatia in their respective articles. Certainly so. Which is part of the reason why the regionalization should be based on them, with geography included, not on the terrain and geography. I do not think we need two sets of region articles, and with Mountainous Croatia gone that need would disappear. Cultural and historical regions of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, with their geography explained there, is I think the optimal solution. And, in fact, it was the solution that existed for quite a while until Mountainous Croatia was suddenly created as a separate article from this one. -- Director (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Blanking sourced material

Please do not blank or otherwise remove properly sourced material.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not restore challenged and opposed content without consensus. The sources in the article are misquoted and misunderstood, as has been explained more than once, and do not support your position. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
And your removal/blanking/vandalism is sourced, and based on consensus? C'mon. The material is perfectly sourced and you know it. If you want to challenge something go ahead, but challenge is made in the talk pages, maintenance tags etc not blanking and removal of sourced material en masse - thats vandalism.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you need a consensus for your changes. I don't need one to restore the scope of this article and the status quo that were fundamentally altered without consensus. And no, that quite plainly isn't "vandalism". -- Director (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No I don't need a consensus for my changes per WP:V - The article had zero references and now it does. Besides, what change do you refer to? Read the above quoted former article text and you will see that it contains the same information - that it encompasses the territory of the exact same eight counties as the article claims now (except now that claim is supported by references) or that there was a Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) - which is also claimed by the present article (also, referenced unlike previously).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Your sources do not support the change of scope you introduced, so no, you can't cite WP:V. And you need WP:CONSENSUS regardless of whether you (think you) have sources or not. -- Director (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the boldface type meant to impress? Uh I did not know your sayso overrides sourcing. Seriously now, if you find a source which does not support a claim it is used to support, tag it (properly).--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no sourcing to override. You can write 15,000 refs if you want - its irrelevant when they do not support your position. The boldface was meant to emphasize a point I have to keep repeating. "I have sources!", "yes but they do not support you", "you can't override my sources!", "there's no sources to override as they do not support you", "I have sources"... -- Director (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

anonymous comments in Croatian about geographic and historical regions

Sve pohvale za članke o hrvatskim geografskim regijama, dobro bi bilo kada bi se poboljšali i oni o bosanskohercegovačkim File:Regije BiH.svg

U članke o Dalmaciji i Slavoniji sam dodao da su to i povijesne i zemljopisne regije (pojam skovan u novije vrijeme u hrvatskom jeziku: povijesno-zemljopisna regija) jer one to kroz povijest uistinu jesu bile (Kraljevina Dalmacija, Kraljevina Slavonija), dok ih danas njihovi stanovnici i ostatka Hrvatske doživljavaju kao zemljopisne regije. Što se tiče središnje Hrvatske, pojam umjesto kojeg se u zadnje vrijeme dosta koristio Sjeverozapadna Hrvatska (kao jedna od NUTS-a EU-a, koja je nestala upravo ovih dana), mislim da će on polako nestajati iz hrvatskog svakodnevnog govora.

Središnja Hrvatska, koja ne obuhvaća planinsku Hrvatsku (Liku i Gorski kotar), je također bila povijesna regija, no taj se danas pojam jako malo koristi. Stanovnici te regije više koriste pojmove mikroregija unutar te regije. Vratite se malo u dalju prošlost pa ćete vidjeti da se prostor središnje Hrvatske naziva Panonijom, Kneževinom Panonijom, a stanovnici Slaveni. Tek će poslije niknuti naziv Panonska Hrvatska. Dalmatinsku Hrvatsku odnosno Primorsku Hrvatsku (kasniji nazivi) u izvorima zvanu nazivima Dalmacija, poslije Hrvatskom odnosno Dalmacijom i Hrvatskom smatramo kolijevkom hrvatskog naroda, tj. pravom Hrvatskom po Nadi Klaić se djelila na bansku i kraljevsku Hrvatsku te one sklavinije: Neretvansku kneževinu (Paganiju), Zahumlje i Travunju. Tomislav ujedinjuje obe Hrvatske u 10. stoljeću te se s vremenom (osmanskim osvajanjima itd.) taj pojam Hrvatska sa izvornog područja (Lika i sjeverna te dio srednje Dalmacija) seli na područje današnje središnje Hrvatske.

Taj naziv Kraljevina Hrvatska je vrijedio kao povijesni za područje središnje Hrvatske no nikako se danas ne može koristiti kao takav. Usporedio bih to sa hrvatskim grbom. Zašto danas hrvatski grb nije kao grb Trojednice, trodijelan? Iz jednostavnog razloga jer su Hrvati u međuvremenu hrvatski grb (šahovnicu) prihvatili kao grb čitavog naroda bez obzira na zemljopisno podrijetlo. To je jako dobro opisano u knjizi Marija Jareba Hrvatski nacionalni simboli. Tako da su Hrvati svugdje Hrvati, a po zemljopisnom podrijetlu Slavonci, Dalmatinci, Ličani itd. Oni u središnjoj nikako nisu središnji ili pravi Hrvati nego Turopoljci, Zagorci itd. Taj termin središnja ili sjeverozapadna Hrvatska nema takvo značenje kao Dalmacija ili Slavonija.

Guranje tog pojma središnja Hrvatska kao povijesnog se zapravo pokušava podijeliti jedan narod i jedna zemlja, koji je već tamo od Hrvatskog narodnog preporoda odlučio da nisu Slavonci i Dalmatinci (po narodnosti) nego Hrvati isto kao Hrvatska sa svojim povijesno-zemljopisnim regijama. Time se zapravo daje pravo Srbima da Krajina, koja i jeste bila povijesna i vojna, ali nikako zemljopisna regija da ju pretvore i u političku (barem na wikipediji). Isti primjer imamo sa Herceg-Bosnom, pojam skovan početkom XX. stoljeća umjesto Bosna i Hercegovina, a poslije primjenjen na Hrvatsku zajednicu poslije Hrvatsku Republiku Herceg-Bosna. Oba pojma (Krajina i Herceg-Bosna) danas se jako malo koriste, što znači da je njihovo povijesno značenje iskorišteno kada se za to pružila prilika, a potom opet nestale kao da ih nije ni bilo.

Još bih jednom to usporedio sa hrvatskim grbom, koji danas nije trodijelan, nego je to šahovnica. Također, hrvatski narod i država su jedinstveni, a dijele se na zemljopisno-povijesne regije: Dalmaciju i Slavoniju (možda su to Istra i Međimurje, koje su veličine županije, tako da ih ne smijemo gurati u isti koš sa Dalmacijom i Slavonijom) te na zemljopisne regije: središnju Hrvatsku, planinsku Hrvatsku i Sjeverno hrvatsko primorje. Središnja Hrvatska, koja nikad nije obuhvaćala planinsku Hrvatsku (nekad je planinska Hrvatska zapravo bila prava, središnja Hrvatska tek poslije osvajanjem dalmatinskih gradova postaje primorska, dalmatinska, kao što sam već gore naveo) danas nije povijesna regija i kao takvu ju ne smijemo označavati.

Lijep pozdrav! Mostarac --93.180.97.100 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see your point: the article clearly states that it is a geographical region. Are you saying that the history section is out of place? Also, without prejudice as to whether your argument is otherwise valid or not (I can't really say), I must note that decisions about content should not be based on activism (i.e. on what is deemed (un)desirable). (Dakle, "gurao" bih pojam i dao bih "pravo Srbima", ako mislim da je to ispravan enciklopedijski opis.) GregorB (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Da, kažem upravo to da središnja Hrvatska nije povijesna regija kao što su Dalmacija i Slavonija. Iz članaka Dalmacija i Slavonija sam uklonio one zastave jer se ne koriste od 1918. U Dalmaciji se danas koristi zastava sa ovim grbom i plavom podlogom i to neslužbeno. U Slavoniji, HDSSB (politička stranka) koristi grb Slavonije na crvenoj podlozi kao svoju zastavu. Treba znati jasnu razliku između bivših kraljevina Dalmacije i Slavonije i današnjih regija. I zašto za grbove ovih regija, ne koristiti one iz krune hrvatskog grba, koje je inače odobrio Hrvatski sabor?
These Dalmatia and Slavonia flags that you've removed - where do you think they should go? GregorB (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Regije Dalmacija i Slavonija, danas kada se izgovore imaju neku povijesnu težinu, Hrvatska pak nema. Hrvatska, to je jedan pojam transferiran iz Like, sjeverne i središnje Dalmacije u današnju središnju Hrvatsku. Poslije se taj pojam u jeku narodnog preporoda proširio sa tog skučenog prostora središnje Hrvatske na čitavu zemlju, koju su Hrvati naseljavali. Po nekima, taj pojam je označavao ili označava mnogo veći prostor od današnje Hrvatske no nepobitna je činjenica da se nikako (ni pod razno odnosno Croatia proper) ne može koristiti za današnju sredipnju Hrvatsku kao povijesnu regiju! --93.180.97.100 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kindly present sources for your claims, please use English at all times, and try to achieve a consensus efore you edit. -- Director (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not good, but truth knows no boundaries.

http://www.radiong.hr/phpThumb.php?src=pics/slika1887.jpg&w=572&aoe=1&q=90 Grb Slavonije na crvenoj podlozi kao simbol HDSSB pred izbore 2011. godine, koristi se i danas. Grb Dalmacije i bilo koja inačica zastave (ukrajinka ili plava podloga sa grbom) se nigdje ne koriste u Hrvatskoj. Dosta sam tražio po internetu, ali jednostavno ih nema.

Brojne promjene upravno-teritorijalnog ustroja Hrvatske od 1945. do 1990. nisu više obnavljale jedinstvenu Dalmaciju, iako je takva tendencija bila prisutna osnivanjem velikoga Kotara Split te konceptima regionalizacije koji su redom u prostoru Dalmacije forsirali splitsku makroregiju. Suvremena županijska podjela Republike Hrvatske dezintegrirala je prostor Južne Hrvatske na četiri županije, od kojih, bez svrhovitog i smislenog razloga, samo jedna nosi dalmatinsko ime (Splitsko-dalmatinska županija; analogno je s Požeško-slavonskom županijom). Suvremeni regionalni razvoj Južne Hrvatske ukazuje na zaključak kako Dalmacije zapravo više nema! Izvan je funkcionalnog utjecaja Splita, najvećeg gradskog središta u prostoru Dalmacije, osobito grad Zadar, koji gravitacijskim silnicama integrira zemljopisni profil otoci – Ravni kotari i Bukovica – Velebit – južna Lika. Centripetalni su učinci u odnosu na Split izraženi i u prostoru Dubrovnika (osim Donjoneretvanskog kraja). U svakom slučaju, Dalmacija je povijesno-zemljopisno činila dinamičnu odrednicu južnog dijela hrvatskoga nacionalnog prostora. Suvremena Hrvatska baštineći starovjekovnu, srednjovjekovnu i novovjekovnu Dalmaciju čini dio sredozemne europske uljudbe. U kulturnom i povijesnom smislu Dalmacija je kao pojam i zemljopisno ime neosporna i nezamjenjiva, ali s gospodarskoga i političkog aspekta ona sve manje funkcionira kao jedna cjelina.

Spomenuti je citat sa hrvatske wikipedije. Isti slučaj je sa Slavonijom, dakle u kulturnom i povijesnom smislu Dalmacija je kao pojam i zemljopisno ime neosporna i nezamjenjiva, ali s gospodarskoga i političkog aspekta ona sve manje funkcionira kao jedna cjelina.

Izvor za ove moje tvrdnje je knjiga Marija Jareba Hrvatski nacionalni simboli, koju sam pročitao. Prateći povijest razvoja hrvatskih grbova, dolazimo do zaključka da jedno vrijeme Hrvatska bila zastupana sa grbom Dalmacije, zatim dvojnim grbom dalmatinsko-hrvatskim, zatim slavonskim grbom (koji je Sabor čak izabrao za grb Hrvatske), potom na samom kraju dolazi grb Trojednice (šahovnica, grb Slavonije, grb Dalmacije), koji se koristio i u Državi SHS. Koristio se i u Kraljevini SHS, tamo negdje do 1924. godine kada su uvedene oblasti. Svi dotadašnji zemaljski grbovi su ukinuti i zamjenjeni grbom Kraljevine SHS. Tada na scenu stupa HSS, koji za svoj grb uzima već opće prihvaćeni hrvatski grb, dakle Dalmacija i Slavonija otpadaju do '90-ih, kada su našle mjeto u krunama.

Apeliram još jednom, Dalmacija i Slavonija u zemljopisnom i povijesnom smislu su neosporne, ali kao neke sastavnice hrvatske države (zajedno sa Središnjom Hrvatskom), kakvima ih ti praviš, jednostavno nisu. --93.180.100.214 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

JFTR I also disagree with it. I'm pretty sure that elementary school geography classes in Croatia do not define "Središnja Hrvatska" to include the mountainous Croatian regions. Ditto for equating Southern Croatia with Dalmatia etc. The whole "Croatia proper" notion is passe. It was trivial to find some references to the contrary:

Tako ukoliko karta prikazuje čitav il i veći dio Hrvatske, dobiva mjesnu odrednicu Hrvatska. Ako karta prikazuje samo njen manji dio, dobit će detaljniju odrednicu temeljenu na regionalnoj podjeli: Istočna Hrvatska, Središnja Hrvatska, Gorska Hrvatska, Sjeverno Hrvatsko primorje il i Južno Hrvatsko primorje.
U nekoliko slijedećih prijedloga razmatrane su istočna, središnja i jadranska Hrvatska pri čemu su pojedine rubne županije svrstavane čas u jednu, čas u drugu jedinicu. Kako se razdioba panonske Hrvatske na istočni i središnji dio činila suvislom isto je učinjeno i s jadranskom Hrvatskom pa je u slijedećim varijantama razmatrana podjela na istočnu, središnju, zapadnu i južnu Hrvatsku.
Usporedba pet glavnih sastavnica (makroregija) vodi do ovih činjenica: najnapučenija je Središnja Hrvatska (Zagrebačka makroregija,116,0 stan/km2, 1991. god.), a najrjeđe je naseljena Gorska Hrvatska (Lika i Gorski kotar, 18,1; Lika je i sredinom 19. stoljeća bila najslabije naseljena hrvatska regija). Sjeverno primorje (Istra i Kvarner, 84,5) Južno primorje (Dalmacija, 80,9) i Istočna Hrvatska (Slavonija, Baranja i zapadni Srijem, 80,4) približno su jednake gustoće naseljenosti (oko prosječnih vrijednosti). Prema tome omjer između najrjeđe i najgušće makroregije je 1:6,4.

I literally couldn't find any sources defining Central Croatia to include Mountainous Croatia, that is, any source where the largely lowland regions are joined together with the largely mountainous regions. In short, DIREKTOR, your editing has apparently produced a WP:V problem, and your reverting has been pretty disruptive. Kindly stop with that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The only point that is fair is that Eastern Croatia does not equal Slavonia - but the subtle notion of whether to split those two articles is a whole ball game away from demoting Slavonia to a historical region only, with no mention of it being an actual geographical region. The latter is WP:DISRUPTPOINT. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Joy, at least keep the veiled threats and wikilawyering down on a realistic level, please. All I can say is: take note of the original scope of this article [5] (altered without discussion or consensus), and please read my posts in full. We've lost an article for Croatia proper, the region of Croatia. We need it back. My proposal is that the article be renamed (over redirect!) to "Croatia proper" or "Croatia (region)", which would be more appropriate for its scope. The title "Central Croatia", as you've so aptly demonstrated above - is somewhat erroneous and misleading. I was in the process of putting forward my proposal when I got caught up with real-life work and needed to take a break: my apologies for that.
(The Croatian-speaking IP apparently does not understand what this is about and thinks someone is pushing Slavonia and Dalmatia as official regions of Croatia.) -- Director (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
We've "lost" the old article that was unreferenced. I can't believe you can accuse me of wikilawyering in the same breath as proposing we all revert to advocating an old text that was never apparently supported by actual facts! You insist on being perpetually disruptive. I'm getting tired of these flamewars devoid of any apparent encyclopedic value. If you feel threatened, I honestly can't be bothered to care - I am "threatening" to employ the full force of WP:V on this issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. This sort of editing reeks of POV and OR and completely goes against what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Denying that geography itself exists and maintaining that for instance Slavonia is not a present-day geographic designation but insisting it is a historical region (implicitly not existing anymore in geographic terms) is absurd and ignorant, not to mention unsupported by RS.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The only OR here is the completely contrived regionalization that's been pushed on this project. You want the 'five regions' regionalization, then how come you have Dalmatia and Slavonia there as well? I mean the current state of affairs is complete nonsense, and it was made such simply because this article was named erroneoulsy. This is often the problem on Wiki: problems compound on each other until one gets an incoherent mess.

1) Someone sees the Dalmatia and Slavonia articles, and creates a corresponding article about the region of Croatia, and names it "Central Croatia" (because he heard someone use that on the news I guess). 2) Then, some sensible person changes the scope of this article to actually correspond with its erroneous title "Central Croatia". 3) Next thing you know, someone obviously creates a "Mountainous Croatia" article because that's accurate in a regionalization that has a "Central Croatia" article. And now we have two areas defined historically, while the others are "macroregions". Dalmatia is not the same thing as "Jadranska Hrvatska" nor is Slavonia "Istocna Hrvatska", do you folks get that? We have two intertwined, completely different regionalizations. I'd really like to fix this error if you fellas will please let me... -- Director (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are apparently insisting on using a purely historical narrative and applying it to the present day, but without actual sources to support such a concept. The article on the historical land of "Croatia", the one that encompassed Modruš, Zagreb and Varaždin, actually already exists - several of them in fact - it's all at History of Croatia, Kingdom of Croatia, etc. But saying such a thing today is apparently anachronistic, again, unless there are sources to attest to the contrary. There is a modern-day region of "Central Croatia", and it is defined more as a geographic term, and that has been verified in various reliable sources.
In fact, let me throw in another historical narrative for you - in the early days of the medieval kingdom of Hungary, the title "Ban of Slavonia" referred to all of the Croatian Slavic lands between Sava and Drava, IOW it included much of Središnja Hrvatska of today. Can we put that information into the "Slavonia" article? Yes. Are we supposed to juxtapose it with the modern meaning of "Slavonia" at the said article title? No.
On the related point, I once again agree that "Slavonia" != "Eastern Croatia", as is verified in a few of the above sources, but splitting the two articles or pretending one of the meanings doesn't exist isn't warranted because the terms are very closely intertwined.
I agree that "Dalmatia" != "Croatian Littoral" - because the Northern Croatian Littoral is missing from the left side of that equation. However, for most practical intents and purposes, "Dalmatia" currently equals "Southern Croatia" and "Southern Croatian Littoral", and defining those terms in the same article is fair.
If you want to continue to be anal about this, I suggest you try actually creating separate articles for Eastern Croatia and Southern Croatian Littoral and copying the relevant content from the existing articles over there, and see how much duplication that creates. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll be back in about a week. I changed the offensive section title in accordance with civility guidelines. -- Director (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Croatia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon its review on September, 14, 2012, this good article nomination was quick-failed per criterion 3: it contains a cleanup banner that indicates an ongoing NPOV dispute. This article did not receive a thorough review, and may or may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy the neutrality issues (and any other present problems) and resubmit it for consideration. You might also consider seeing a peer review (WP:PR). Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Croatia/Archive_1&oldid=1256305760"