Talk:Croatia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Clean

As an impartial western observer who just stopped by here to get some general information, I have to say this page looks pretty good and free of bias. Very few pages relating to current countries focusing on specific controversial historical events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macey0813 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 March 2006

Missing Independence Referendum Fact

In the paragraph on history of Croatia I terribly miss mention of the referendum on independence, held on May 19 1990 among all citizens (including the, later, rebel territories populated with predominant Serbs), which is the basis of Declaration of independence. The results are: 83.56% of all registerd voted, and 94.17% were for the independece - which should be mentioned - means that at least half of the ethnic Serb population on compact territories voted FOR the independence. This fact, held AFTER the Borovo Selo Massacre and Bloody Easter on Plitvice, means that AT LEAST referendum, which is mentioned in paragraphs about never recognised Republika Srpska Krajina, and their leaders (now prosecuted or convicted at ICTY court in Hague, f.e. Milan Babić, Milan Martić and others) at least is not fair post which doesn't help reader to at least compare same level of facts.

Links:

http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2002/2145.htm

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDZ#1990.

http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/tudjman/povijest.html

--Mak13

It is a very interesting fact, but I think it's on the level of detail unappropriate for the "History" section here. I suggest you put it in the History of Croatia article. --Zmaj 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Is this why the article became locked? --HolyRomanEmperor 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

ADD link

Please add this link to the bottom of the Croatia page: http://www.Croatia.org

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvatska (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 March 2006

Hell's Islands

Hell's Islands (in a caption under the image) is wrong translation to English. Correct one would be Islands of Resin, or something like that. The Croatian name is also wrong: it isn’t “Pakleni otoci”, but “Paklinski otoci”! Word “paklina” means “pine resin”. Even many Croats aren’t aware of that fact. There’s nothing hellish about those beautiful islands. Actually, that whole area is real paradise. (Zoran)

Several important issues

On the top of this talk page it says:

1. That the necessary revert still hasn't been dealt with

2. That this page very strangely lacks sources :-D

Could anyone see to these issues? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fixed now. :) --Joy [shallot]

History - Factual inaccuracies

"...finally the remainder of Yugoslavia was compelled to recognise the newly independent states, and as such, the Yugoslav security forces withdrew..."

It wasn't until 1996 that the rump-Yugoslavia recognised Croatia. Secondly, the Serbs didn't rebel after Croatia and Slovenia were recognized. The rebellion started in 1991. Also, Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia in December 1991. EurowikiJ 16:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That bit of the history section had been rewritten needlessly - I mostly rewrote it again which more or less restored it to the previous version. --Joy [shallot]

ups

i got carried away ... my appologies if this is considered rude (and i can see how it would be) i edited interesting facts to include necktie (just thought it would be fun thing to know about a commonplace item) wasnt logged in srry

feel free to slap my fingers

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney.tearspell (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 March 2006

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! Bitola | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

He is not Croat. It is simle to verify.--Medule 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He was a Serb born and raised in Croatia. He lived in Croatia until adulthood, attended Croatian schools, and frequently declared himself as a Croatian of Serbian ancestry. Infact, a direct quote is "I'm proud of my Serbian ancestry and my Croatian homeland". That pretty much qualifies him to be listed here. He may not be Croat but he was certainly Croatian. I have no objections if you want to list him under famous Serbs also. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He never told "I'm proud of my Serbian ancestry and my Croatian homeland". That is fantasy first done by Macek. He was born in something what is now Croatia, but he is not Croat. You have list of Croats. How you are adding then Andric there. He is born in Bosnia, or Jelacic, born in Serbia.--Medule 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight Medule. I know you're a vandal and you are just gonna revert no matter what I say here. If this is your feeble attempt at gaining credibility it's not working. "Discussion" is not a monologue, and that's exactly what you have been doing in every "discussion" I ever started with you. So, please, keep living in your own twisted world of absolutes, but let us, the real Wikipedians, do our job without you reverting all our hard work. It's malicious and hostile and serves no purpose, since no one in the right mind will let you insert your twisted views here. This revert war will just drag on and on, so save us all a lot of trouble and just go away. --Dr.Gonzo 12:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Tesla is not a Croat, but in the modern sence of the boundries he is a CroatIAN... --HolyRomanEmperor 11:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

People section

Let me reiterate reasons against having this here:

• It doesn't fit into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries template.
• It can never be neutral, because a selection of people needs a cutoff value and that's practically impossible to quantify. And even if it was quantified, the other 50% of people would probably disagree with the criteria.
• (Mostly because of the former reason...) It's almost a sure flamebait.
• It basically duplicates List of Croatians. On both content and the susceptibility to conflict.

Let's just save the whole thing for that article. --Joy [shallot] 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to put in evidence,in Istria and Dalmatia region the presence of an italian community of 40000 inhabitants (on wiki only 15.000 is reported). Any way these two regions, also during austrian domincance period, the population was for more the 96% italian because originally venetian or Friulan. (same for the slovenian part of Istria) That's why italian is widely spoken in Abbazia, Pula, Fiume, etc (Michele Jurkovic from Capodistria)

The shape in the header

I'm not sure the shape information belongs in the header, and if it does, it's clear that it should be either C-shaped or crescent-shaped (as it was until now), not U shaped (which is not the shape seen on most north-oriented maps today, maybe it would be on old Chinese east-oriented ones?) --Elephantus 08:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing a country's shape with anything is degrading for that country and isn't useful at all (we have maps, don't we?). Therefore, there should be no shape comparisons of any kind. --Zmaj 09:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one have no problem with saying that my country has the shape of a crescent. It just plain old does, and it's no more degrading if it's spelled out than it is when it's not spelled out. Heck, at least it's an interesting shape, unlike some countries. --Joy [shallot] 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Geography issues

I added the following to the geography section and it was removed, so perhaps I should have proposed it here first.

There is much debate over whether the country is considered part of the Balkans or not.

I think it's worth mentioning since a lot of the discourse around Croatia's EU membership has been to do with defining the country as 'Central European', whereas most people in Western Europe consider it part of the Balkans. So surely flagging up the issue is worthwhile. It's not like I'm taking sides and arguing in favour of one position or the other... Cordless Larry 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You say most people in Western Europe consider it part of the Balkans. In articles about specific countries, the opinions of people in other countries matter only if they have material consequences for that country. For example, the opinion of Greeks about the name of Macedonia is important because it actually resulted in changing the international name of Macedonia. Since the issue of whether Croatia is in the Balkans does not affect the country in any material way, it is irrelevant for such a general article. The first sentence says: The Republic of Croatia is a country in Europe bordering the Mediterranean, Central Europe and the Balkans. IMO, this is more than enough. --Zmaj 11:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you're right, but that raises another question - if it borders the Mediterranean, Central Europe and the Balkans, that suggests it's not actually in any of those regions, so where exactly is it? Cordless Larry 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Twilight Zone, of course :) --Zmaj 12:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "bordering" was used probably by myself as a simple compromise. The listed geographic regions are not mutually exclusive, and indeed Croatia is, not least because of its peculiar shape, at the same time part of all three of those regions. How would you phrase that? --Joy [shallot] 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not use the definition from the French wikipedia (which is a modified version of the one from the Tourism office)?

"Croatia is a country in Europe that extends from the furthest eastern edges of the Alps in the north-west to the Pannonian lowlands and the banks of the Danube in the east. Its central region is covered by the Dinara mountain range, and its southern parts extend to the coast of the Adriatic Sea. It borders..."

This is a very precise definition which at the same time quite elegantly eliminates the need to deal with a highly contentious issue of classifying Croatia in any of the above regions. EurowikiJ 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As the article stands at the moment, it sounds like it's nowhere. Cordless Larry 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we wait for a couple of Croatian wikipedians to express their view on the suggestion. If they also agree, we can replace the current definition. After all, it is the lead section. EurowikiJ 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in using such a detailed geographical definition in the lead section, that's what the geography section is for. --Joy [shallot] 22:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the solution is pretty simple. Since the word "bordering" is confusing, let's replace it with: ...is a country in Europe at the crossroads of the Mediterranean, Central Europe and the Balkans. --Zmaj 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that. However, I feel the amended solution for all its merits might also eventually be called into question. Having that in mind, let me just state my reasons now for any future reference. As far as I can tell, there are 3 options (4 if we decide on the status quo or we opt for Zmaj's amended version):

• the current definition is re-phrased to say basically that Croatia is part of all of the three regions which many might find objectionable for all the known reasons (with or without the Southeastern Europe as euphemism for the Balkans).

Exactly which are these reasons? Who exactly disputes that Croatia, at least in parts, is part of either of the three regions, and why? Let's not beat around the bush. --Joy [shallot] 12:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• we use a simpler definition such as "Croatia is a country in southern Europe that borders Slovenia...". The advantage is obvious: you can't get it simpler than that. The negative side is: there is bound to be those who will reject this definition and use this as pretext to start an edit war basically revolving around the solution one i.e. how much of Croatia "belongs" to any of the above three regions (see the German language version - there is a revert war in process).
• the above "detailed" suggestion which may be fairly complicated but has its merits such as absolute precision. After all, the shape of Croatia is unique - to say the least - its historical and cultural heritage complicated. Plus, there is an added bonus: none of the above larger geographical units play any role + it really is a geographical definition. It may not ideally fit the "lead section" standards, but I feel that the positive sides outweigh the negative.

I disagree, the rules for the lead section apply here just fine. --Joy [shallot] 12:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me also stress that I am fine with Zmaj's suggestion. I can also live with the current definition (for all its flaws) but Cordless Larry has a point. In a nutshell, I am the proponent of the third solution because I'd rather have a fairly benign compromise with Wikipedia's "lead section" standards, than ending up with a definition which is - why not be blunt about it - a political compromise (and any definition citing all or some of the three regions is political and, hence, bound to be controversial). EurowikiJ 07:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the current sentence, but if someone could come up with a good replacement for "bordering" that would also mean "is partly in" and would be elegant enough, that would be great. --Elephantus 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

GDP

GDP of Croatia is not $55,638 million but $55,638 billion.--BorgDrone 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You've made a mistake, but I can guess why. Comma (,) is the decimal point in Croatian, but it is the thousand mark in English. The above figure means "fifty-five thousand million", not "fifty-five million". In other words, the statement "$55,638 million" means 55 billion dollars. I hope I've made it clear. --Zmaj 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Then since all other GDP's of countries are written with a decimal point not a comma it may be prudent to do the same with Croatia.--BorgDrone 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got a point :) --Zmaj 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

HOW it is possible that GDP of Croatia this year is more than 20% bigger than the last year? Yeah, I wonder.

Serbia and Montenegro

Can people hold off changing Serbia and Montenegro to Serbia, Montenegro in the neighbouring countries part of the geography section until they are actually separate countries, because although the referedum has passed, Montenegro's secession isn't complete just yet. Cordless Larry 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had written the Serbian part of Serbia and Montenegro, [...], the Montenegrin part of Serbia and Montenegro in the article previously, and the rationale is explained in /Archive 1#border with SCG. But anyway, it should all be simplified in just a few months time. --Joy [shallot] 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The union has now officially been disolved, so now we can have Serbia, Montenegro, which I see Helmandsare has already done. Cordless Larry 10:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

War crimes indictments

At the end of the "History" section, someone added: War crimes indictments have been issued for alleged ethnic cleansing which took place during these offensives. I propose the deletion of that sentence on the grounds of its irrelevance in the context of described general historical events. In fact, if we included it, the principle of NPOV would demand to include that the leadership of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and various leaders of military forces opposed to Croatian government were also indicted for war crimes, which would unduly burden the section. Anyone care to comment on this? If not, I will delete the sentence in a couple of days. --Zmaj 08:25, 3 June 2006

(UTC)

A little soft on the history

I'm not here with an axe to grind, I am neither Serbian nor Croatian (American of Italian and Irish extraction), but I think the lack of mentioning the compliance of the fascist Independent State of Croatia and its role in Serbian and Jewish genocide on Croatian soil is a very large oversight. I mean this in just the pure sense of making this a true reflection of a nation's history, it would be like writing an article about Germany and going from Hindenburg to Adenhauer and totally skipping Adolf. Also the lack of mentioning Tito and his Croatian origins, makes me think that this article has a level of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerjohn111 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 June 2006

As for the massacres, see my post above (under "Massacres"). If we start including atrocities, there will be no end to it. Secondly, we decided not to mention any individuals in this general history - that is why neither Tito nor anybody else is mentioned. There has already been much fine-tuning in the "History" section of this article, so there should be no hasty judgments on its content. --Zmaj 06:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, someone fucked it up inbetween. I think I missed this edit because I read the diff which wasn't making it obvious - people were moving around images as well as text.

Diggerjohn111, please see the current phrasing, and notice how all the important things are linked for further reading. --Joy [shallot] 11:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found it! It was this anonymous edit (69.158.118.77, 19:41, 25 March 2006). --Joy [shallot]

I also think that the genocidal nature of the NDH is better left for its article (and the flurry of articles that are linked from there). It's not the same as current .hr and an explanation of its characteristics would contribute to the notion that the current Croatia is somehow based on that, which it is not. This is not to say that these historical facts are not relevant to the history, they very well are, but in the summary they will likely serve more as a flamebait than as anything else. --Joy [shallot] 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed that edit too. I definitely support the inclusion of the phrase about the fascist nature of that state, which Joy just did. Sorry, Diggerjohn, I thought it was already there. As for the genocides, I agree with Joy, of course. By the way, Joy, I guess you made a typo in the first sentence above. You meant to say that you DO think that the genocidal nature of the NDH is better left for its article, right? --Zmaj 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(Yup, fixed.) --Joy [shallot]

Origin of "Croatia"

"Croatia is the Latinized version of the native name of the country: Hrvatska"

How on earth do you get "Croatia" from "Hrvatska"? This sentence needs expansion. --88.109.73.156 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  How do you get "Greece" from "Hellas"? ;-) MislavK 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you call this history ?

Nowadays country/space IS called Croatia. But Croatian territory has a long, long history of witch we learn literaly NOTHING in this article. What about prehistoric period, what about Illirians, what about Celts, what about Greek colonies, what about Roman provinces? Why do our cities call upon their morethousands long historical herittage, culture, beauty? Do they have any reason for it? Where are the crusaders? Roman Emperors? Great battles with Turks? Heroes? Small people?

Are you people blind? Why do you write this stuff if your knowledge is so little? Who do you represent? I SUGGEST YOU TO READ SOME OTHER NATIONS PAGES!!! USE THE SPACE!! PEOPLE READ THIS AND THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!

Calm down. there are no special paragraphs about Celts or Indians in history of Great Britain and United States, why should be in Croatia main article? There is history article, there is Balkans, Dalmatia, Pannonia etc. And BTW, your name is? --€ro 18:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika

User:Afrika paprika is on a campaign of reverting anything I edit. He has thus (besides expressing heavy Croatian POV), rv the version of this article to a Serbian POV. I am reporting that here. --PaxEquilibrium 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

over 5 000 000

This is new to me, there is no indication that Croatia exceedes the number of five milion citizens, or I might be wrong...

Forewall of Christianity

I was wondering if there is any verifiable source or historical precedent for using forewall as translation of antemurale (not necessarily related to Croatia). I understand this follows from the literal translation of the Latin word and Google produces some uses of the word in the context of fortification, but I haven't been able to locate "forewall" in any English dictionary (including Merriam-Webster Online). Damir 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already changed it once from "Forewall of Christianity" to "Bulwark of Christianity", but someone changed it back. I have never heard of the "forewall" and I have heard Croatia being referred to as a "Bulwark of Christianity" many times, particularly during the Zrinskis.

I've seen "Rampart of Christendom" in a book once. However, I have no idea what the most popular translation is. --Thewanderer 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Croatians

This section is not appropriate at context of Croatia as country and it doesn't fulfill Wiki standards. First of all, it doesn't speak about Croatia at all. Second, it is much longer than the article it references to, and it is not part of it, but original research (Theories on the origin of Croats). It cites no relevant sources.
I vote for deletion of this section. --€ro 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The sources are scholarly and are listed in the reference area.

However I do understand your point about it not being in the context of "Croatia as country". Maybe it should somehow be accomodated under the history section, as the origin of croats is indeed what defines the coming into existence of Croatia as a country (history). I do not think that this section should be deleted.

PS: Please note that "Iranian Origin of Croats" is a PROVEN theory and you can find many publications regarding this matter written by Croat and Non-Croat scientists. Also keep in mind that Iranic peoples include many differnt races including Armenian, Persian, Kurd, Turkic and etc.. Nov 17 2006

To Anonymous: I don't have any problem with this or any other theory, but it is the fact that main Wiki principles are to keep to the main subject and reference to main theories according to their relevance and acceptance. Iranian theory is not the most accepted one, and it doesn't belong here. Compare to articles Austria, United Kingdom or Russia, there is no German or Slavic origin theories on referenced page.

However, by referencing one Iranian source you didn't prove the theory. Please cite relevant Croatian sources (HAZU, Institut za povijest) or other relevant sources.

Moreover, I don't find anonymous users as a relevant sources of information and article editors. I will again put this section in question, and please move it to the appropriate place,name relevant sources, or I'll ask administrator to do move or deletion.--€ro 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is nonsense. I'm going to delete it. - Francis Tyers · 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agree, but our dear anon will revert for sure.--€ro 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Talk:Theories on the origin of Croats. He can discuss it there. If he readds it, we can just revert. - Francis Tyers · 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To €ro: You seem like a rational person, unlike you friend Francis. If you are looking for more sources and proofs, I suggest you read one of my cited references: CROATS AND SERBS: TWO OLD AND DIFFERENT NATIONS by Dr. O. Dominik Mandic at http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/introductioncroats&serbs.htm. Along with Dr Mandic's work you can find literally tens of references by Croatian, Serbian, German, Polish and Russian scientists and writers.

However Mr Tyers, deleting a section without any rationality and calling it "non-sense" is not the work of an engineer, nor a programmer! Anyways, as I said before, I did not have a problem accomodating the article elsewhere, and I am not going to readd it to "croatia". You can view the page at "Theories on the origin of Croats". I appreciate your concerns. Nov 18 2006

Thanks, that page is much more appropriate. - Francis Tyers · 10:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Patron saint

Joseph is not patron of Croatia as a country, but Croatians as people. Please see Catholic Online: Patron Saints. --€ro 12:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Surname transliterated as "Belicic"

Can someone knowledgeable about Croatian surnames evaluate my changes to Bill Belichick? (discussion.) TIA, PhilipR 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You were close. Most probable spelling would be Beličić (last letter is Ć, not Č).

Proper name is ch, the second choice, that's how yugos pronounce the names.

Independence

What is the correct day of Croatian independence? I spent 2 years as a student in Zagreb (had to take some courses for the history major) and I am very much interested in Balkan states, I am still lost, I do know the language (I am a little bit croatian, but i was not born there), and I don't speak it that well. I suggest, this article expands, talks more about the main reason for croatian independence, I know politics and economy is always the reason, but land was additional reason, tudjman (i was in hospital, the same hospital when he died and it was december 9th, just before midnight, it was announced after 1am december 10th, even findagrave says he died dec 9 www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7942) for example wanted greater croatia, this article needs more details why croatia wanted independence and why others did not agree with it and the reasons for war.

Town Infobox

Created a new infobox for Croatian Towns. Please see Virovitica (and Template:Infobox Croatian Town) and tell me if this would be ok. It would be necessary to agree on parameters the infobox uses (population, car_registration, etc.). Could modify it according to your wishes. Also created some other infoboxes on German Wikipedia for islands, counties, etc. So please compare... --Maestral 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that this infobox should be posted into all articles about Croatian municipalities (like it was done with Serbia). PANONIAN (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Think so too. But beforehand we should have a better look on the template, whether parameter names are correctly used, whether somebody would like to add parameters, etc. I should also translate the description page too. As far as the outlook is concerned - it is very easy to change it at any time. We should only think about a standardized version and what should be included. --Maestral 13:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil war and independence

I left this message here some time ago, somebody reversed it....

What is the correct day of Croatian independence? I spent 2 years as a student in Zagreb (had to take some courses for the history major) and I am very much interested in Balkan states, I am still lost, I do know the language (i am from indiana, originally), and I don't speak it that well. But I understand. I suggest, this article expands, talks more about the main reason for croatian independence, I know politics and economy is always the reason, but land was additional reason, tudjman (i was in hospital, the same hospital when he died and it was december 9th, just before midnight, it was announced after 1am december 10th, even findagrave says he died dec 9 www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7942) for example wanted greater croatia, this article needs more details why croatia wanted independence and why others did not agree with it and the reasons for war.

I am very muchinterested in civil war, what are the claims to those? I know slavic people are independent, but why separate?

Do we have correct number of deaths in the 1991-1995 war for each warring side?

Please use Wikipedia for this purpose, don't just ask. See Croatian War of Independence for instance. BR, Plantago 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I gave you a great explanation to your question on this page, but someone has erased it. As you can see, the war between civilized people who write the truth, and the national-faschisoid brainless outsiders is continuing. Nothing unusual, it's natural as for the first ones representing the GOOD, versus the second ones representing the EVIL. Just it's quite sure that the GOOD always WINS at the end! Let's winn again! Cheers!

The flag

Here [1] it is said that the actual flag of Croatia is the flag of the Ustashi. Is this true?

Austerlitz 88.72.14.248 12:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Please read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustashi#Symbols

Also, you can read more about the flag and coat of arms of Croatia here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Croatia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_Arms_of_Croatia

That web site you listed (srpska-mreza = Serbian Network) is only good for spreading Serbian political propaganda, so I would ignore it.

Milejerkovic 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Motto

To people who know nothing about Croatia, that is actually the historical motto. Sources for it include http://www.anthropologymatters.com/journal/2006-1/schauble_2006_imagined.htm, http://www.bosnia.org.uk/about/bi_books/long_reviews.cfm?book=9687, http://www.inyourpocket.com/croatia/en/category?cid=2994. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.231.16.114 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

What can I say, nowhere it is said in the first source (the other two can be discounted per WP:CITE) that the Republic of Croatia had ever an official motto. Now, please somebody else revert that nationalist crap, I have to rummage through Serbia which is in an equally dire state. Fossa_?! 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I also would suggest you revert my two sourced statements (the edit prior to the removal of the motto). Fossa_?! 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Croatia is direct inheritor of the Croatian Kingdom whose motto is on the page. The same logical pattern is also present and favoured on several country pages (f.e. Hungary) so please do not remove it. --89.172.204.75 11:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's bollocks. The Republic of Croatia is a new state and its predecessor is the SFR Croatia. Fossa_?! 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And predecessor of SR Croatia is Kingdom of Croatia. Your point?

How can that be croatian historical motto? That's not even motto, more like insult. that's how pope Leo X 1519 called croatia, and some other countries, afaik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.170.178 (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Insult? You must be kidding me...that was the highest possible compliment a Pope could give to someone.

yeah but who lived in antemurale(predziđe)? gypsys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.168.220 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).