Talk:Croatia Records

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Record Labels

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

CRMP was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 1 November 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Croatia Records. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Thompson, Bulic, Skoro

Don't lie about people, Thompson and Bulic are no longer by Croatia records, ans Mister Skoro is not a nationalist. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia not a propaganda site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KroatieHR (talk • contribs) 18 January 2006

What do you mean by "Thompson and Bulic are no longer by Croatia Records"? Do you mean they no longer use the record label? Where can this information be verified? Even if they don't use the record label anymore, it is still notable to mention them in the article as there was a time when they used it, and no matter what happens in the future, nothing will change that.

I'm sorry to say, but Miroslav Skoro is a nationalist. Looking up the definition of nationalist on dictionary.com returned the following results:

Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

... now by reading through those definitions, can you honestly say Miroslav Skoro does not promote such things in his music? Holding such views is called right-wing, therefore that is what is stated in the article. I don't see what the problem is?

Thank you for resorting to the proper procedures to settle your concerns. –220.245.178.133 09:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is singing about his homeland he is a nationalist, strange because then there are a lot of nationalists on the world. And one of Miroslav Skoro best friend is a serb strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KroatieHR (talk • contribs) 22 January 2006

defamation

I am astonished by this "article", better to say defamation. This is not an article on Jugoton or Croatia Records, just someone taking their frustrations out. There are no relevant data on the company nor music, just 3rd grade tabloid press accusations and smalltalk. PLEASE WRITE THE REAL ARTICE OR DELETE THIS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.173.167 (talk • contribs) 23 March 2006

Feel free to improve this article. --Dijxtra 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stulic royalties claims

I've removed that passage about Stulic's recompensation claims again. The whole of it was poorly sourced; the notability of that whole issue was never demonstrated (a single interview where some newspaper gave the guy the opportunity to express his claims? It's not even gone before a court?), and even if it was borderline notable, there'd be hardly grounds for more than a single sentence. Moreover, the passage was poorly written. If people must have the issue covered, a simple, single sentence is sufficient: "Croatia Records has been the object of a controversy raised by singer X over royalty rights to songs by band Y from the 1980s. X has named a sum of Z Euros which he claims the company owes him." Why treat this more deeply at all? But I'd say it should only be covered if it has been the subject of widespread media coverage, with independent analyses published by reliable media outlets (not just an interview in which on of the parties expresses his own claims, as the present source seems to be.) Disclaimer: I can't read sources in Croatian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not only sourced, it is well known by almost every single person in Croatia and former Yugoslavia. I can dig up 100 interviews if you would like showing this exact information. Hell, Croatia Records will even tell you what they pay him and that they believe they have rights to his work. I would think the actual author would know what rights he sold rather than a for profit corporation. --64.46.2.216 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can write links and I will translate :)--Rjecina (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jugoton vs Croatia Rec article

Although User:Thewanderer is right when he says that Croatia Records is a continuation of Jugoton regardless of the name change, still things are not so simple: Jugoton was a SR Croatian-based company, thats true, but it was relevant to the music scene of all the 6 Yugoslav constituent countries. After all, its very name is a portmanteau word of JUGOslavija (Yugoslavia) and TONe. With no intentions to insult todays independent Croatia, and with no intentions to advocate any Yugosnostalgia, I strongly insist that Jugoton deserves a separate article. It was a company relevant for the whole former Yugoslav market of around 20 milions of people (Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians etc...). Under the name "Jugoton" (not Croatia records) the company existed for almost half a century since its beginnings in 1947 till the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, sold milions of records by numerous domestic and internationaly acclaimed artists and marked the popular culture of Yugoslavia, and was even credited in Poland with Yugoton. To put all those successes under Croatia Records label is not what I consider completely fair. Sorry, I will need to interveene here. --Goni86 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fairness of the issue is a totally subjective concept, the specifics of which I will not bother to discuss. It is not the place of Wikipedia to "correct injustices" (in this case the "injustice" of the largest record company in Yugoslavia being based in Croatia after Yugoslavia's dissolution). Regardless of how fair or unfair you believe the situation to be, Jugoton is simply an old name for Croatia Records and anything else is simply Yugonostalgism.

Jugoton is a part of Croatia Records' history and as such should be fully elaborated on in this article. However, it should not and cannot a separate article just because it has a different name and allegedly "represents a different idea" despite the fact that it is one and the same company. Serbia's Zastava was an even larger company in Yugoslavia, but that does not mean we split it apart into two separate articles based on era.--Thewanderer (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thewanderer, you are wrong.

See: Columbia Masterworks Records. Formed in 1927, renamed to CBS Masterworks Records in 1980, later again renamed to Sony Classical Records in 1990. All the respective "eras" have their own separate articles (thats 3 of them!).
See GoldStar which was renamed to LG in 1995. Again, two separate articles.
See National (brand) which had to be renamed to Panasonic for the US market. Two articles.
See early 60s venture of CBS Records and its 2006 revival CBS Records (2006). Two separate articles.

Is that also "yugonostalgia"? Im sure there are plenty of other and maybe better examples, but I will not bother to look for them cause Im afraid that your edits are politicaly motivated anyway. --Dajtemuzika (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatia Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatia Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]