Jump to content

Talk:Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović/Archive 1

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

Languages, Serbian or Serbo-Croatian?

Grabar Kitarovic was born in 1968 during Yugoslavia. Surely she speaks and understands a working level of Serbian and Serbo-Croatian or at the very least has a basic understanding of that language. Politis (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

While mutual intelligibility is not really questionable, I still would not list languages beyond what is supported by the sources. GregorB (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

KGK

Some media refer to her by her initials KGK (for example):

--46.35.145.226 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Some media" is not relevant enough to warrant an inclusion in the lede I think. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Independent"?

Two problems with this edit:

  • WP:CRYSTAL, of course
  • I don't think she is going to actually leave the party - if I understand correctly, her membership will be "frozen" (whatever that means, cf. Ivo Josipović)

So removing the future stuff for the time being. GregorB (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

She Will leave the party and she will not be president on 15.02. she will be president on 19.02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.74.72 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note

As our country is constitutionally a continuation of its existence in Yugoslavia, it is useful to indicate in a footnote that our numbering counts officials since the 1990 parliamentary elections and the Christmas constitution. Added as additional information, WP:BLUE for anyone who can count, is the order which the person holds in the overall tally of officials in that position (i.e. head of state in this case). I didn't add the footnote here, but I agree with its introduction, as consistent with our other articles.

I can not understand how anyone could tag the note, requesting "sources". Timbouctou, go to the list, and count the republican heads of state of Croatia. Their precise title is not really relevant, and grabbing onto that looks like seeking excuses to disrupt the article. -- Director (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at Talk:List of Presidents of Croatia. It seems you invented this interpretation all by yourself, it has never been employed by anyone IN or OUTSIDE Croatia, and it represents WP:OR. Providing a single source would solve the problem. But I guess you don't have one. Until you do, this numbering scheme is unacceptable. Timbouctou (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
These "interpretations" exist only in your mind, nothing is being "interpreted" here. This is not a "numbering scheme", either. This is merely a footnote stating a plain, obvious bit of info. This is the twentieth republican head of state of Croatia, in all history. Do you contest this?
Your ideas (expressed previously) that heads of state of constituent republics are not "heads of state" are just that - your ideas. And with this, you're imposing your political views in that respect on our readership. -- Director (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There is nobody - virtually nobody - on this planet who ever mentioned "republican heads of state" or listed them in that fashion. Let me repeat again, since you haven't heard for the last 74 times - provide a source. Provide a source for the phrase "republican head of state", provide a source saying Kolinda is the "20th head of state", provide a source, any source, in any language. Provide any evidence this is not a figment of your imagination. Also, "my idea" is what the consensus is on the article Head of state, which you tried to change at Talk:Head of state ([1]) to fit your fantasy. Unsuccessfully, I might add. Timbouctou (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody claims that is her official position in order, and its not presented as such anywhere. It is not necessary to provide a source that she is the twentieth head of a Croatian republic. That's WP:BLUE. You're demanding sources for a basic piece of information that can be acquired by counting to twenty. That isn't editing, its political activism (yes folks, this is political).
Yes I noticed our lead sentence at the Head of state article confused you, so we talked about it and we changed it. Now it specifies our article only discusses heads of state of sovereign countries (which is what confused you), not all heads of state. -- Director (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not WP:BLUE and proving otherwise should be simple by simply finding a quote by someone saying so, for any of the 20 "republican heads of state" you seem to think were "presidents of Croatia". Oh it's political alright, since it's one of your favourite axes to grind. And for the 75th time - get a source. Political. Non-political. In Braille. I don't care. And post it at Talk:List of Presidents of Croatia, so that "folks" can get a good grasp of your incivility and WP:OWN inclinations. As for "head of state" - the English-language phrase refers to heads of sovereign countries exclusively and you will have to search loooong and hard to find someone believing otherwise. Timbouctou (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, this was introduced years ago and yet its "me" here "grinding an axe" just after the presidential election. Of course.
Once more: nothing that can be verified by counting to twenty requires a source on this project. -- Director (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's be precise shall we. It was introduced six years ago by you yourself when this was made into this, which evolved over time into this. You are that article's top editor with 154 edits. It seems to me you are the one with a political axe to grind. And for the 76th time - do you have a source? No? How so? You had six years to find one. Timbouctou (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh and btw this is WP:CANVASS. And how come you don't want to take this to Talk:List of Presidents of Croatia, a place where "folks" can see the full extent of your ownership and incivility? Timbouctou (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes: the "List of Croatian presidents" article always included all Croatian presidents (in the sense of "republican heads of state"), all I did was painstakingly introduce an up-to-date table that's up to standard with the best officeholder list articles on the project. It included them (before anything I did) - because the modern Croatian state is constitutionally defined as a continuation of the Yugoslav republic, as the basis of its sovereignty. The Yugoslav state was communist, you're right-wing, you don't like that its a continuation, hence this campaign of disruption. Whereas for me, it was (and is) about raising the quality of Croatian articles on the project. About posting the best table I can find, and writing the most informative infoboxes I can.
And again, therefore: nothing that can be verified by counting to twenty requires a source on this project. You can pretend it does 'til kingdom come, but I personally think you're doing it out of political activism more than anything else. -- Director (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI the list in its original form was titled "List of leaders of Croatia", and it is purely your invention to describe them all as "presidents". And for the 79th time - is there anything anywhere written by anyone confirming this ordering scheme is not a figment of your imagination? No? And how is it my "activism"? It is you who had made 150+ edits to the list, it is you who huffed and puffed every time somebody raised this issue at Talk:List of Presidents of Croatia over several years, and it is you who is currently edit-warring on several articles to keep your WP:OR included. Timbouctou (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This is like somebody demanding a source for someone's age, if we knew his birth date.. "He's 50 years old? Can you present a source for your 'numbering scheme'". Truly ridiculous.
That's not WP:CANVASS, either. Obviously. -- Director (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the definition of the phrase "head of state", hence the numbering you use is off. All I am asking is that you provide a source by somebody other than you who agrees with your ordering scheme. And you seem to be unable to provide one. Hence we have no reason to believe this idea is anything but a figment of your imagination. And for the 80th time - do you have a source? Timbouctou (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Since I at least know you can be a head of state of a non-sovereign state, I may well have a better understanding of the term than you. Who seem to have derived all your conclusions from enWiki.. Oh and re the original state of the list article, it was originally titled "List of Presidents", never "leaders". Don't know why you lied in that respect.
You can indeed demand sources 381 times for something too simple to be sourced, you still won't get them. I can copy-paste too: nothing that can be verified by counting to twenty requires a source on this project. -- Director (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry buit it seems nobody who ever printed any sort of book on "Presidents of Croatia" agrees with your chronology. I know you like to drown any discerning opinions in trollfests, like you already did several times at Talk:List of Presidents of Croatia, but the fact remains that you don't really have a source for your original research, do you? Timbouctou (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This argument is reductive. The Republic of Croatia as it exits today was formed in 1990/1991. Grabar-Kitarović will be the fourth head of state of the republic. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not according to its constitution.. which states unequivocally that the country's "foundations of state sovereignty" were established by the ZAVNOH declaration in 1943, and that the constitution of 1990 merely represents a "rejection of the communist system". And where is, in your view, the point when Croatia was "created"? Is it 1990? Or 1991? There is no such year as "1990/1991". The fact is, this is the same country, one that elected a new government in 1990 and established a constitution later that year, and left a federation in 1991.
Mind you, though - I am in no way contesting that Kolinda ought to be listed as "4th", there are good reasons for that. I am merely opposing the tagging of the footnote informing the reader she's the 20th person to be a (non-royal) Croatian head of state. Its just useful information, and its completely BLUE. -- Director (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I hear you and am not contesting the legality of the constitution. . . I'm just wondering if such a footnote is really so vital to the infobox. Looking at the page of other presidents such as François Hollande, there is no such mention of which republic he is president of. I am not invested especially in a certain way, but I do want to create uniformity with other Wiki pages. --Jesuislafete (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying its "vital".. its a footnote. Re Hollande, I'm not sure it would be unjustifiable to post a footnote like this over there. Note: he is numbered as the 24th president of France at List of Presidents of France. -- Director (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture (during inauguration ceremony) seems rather inadequate-too much going on in the background so the portrait of the person seems lost. Is there a better image that is more appropriate? --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has several portraits better suited for our use. Timbouctou (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
None of them are really as good as the 2006 formal portrait... which is of course a bit old (too many people, in affect, poor lighting/behind some guy..). I'd say lets wait a while, hopefully she'll publish a formal portrait. -- Director (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Added a crop from the inauguration photo. Its a bit low-res, but its the best I can think of at this point (also fixed image layout). -- Director (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tried looking as well, but there are not enough photographs to choose from. I guess we'll make do with what there is. Thank you for looking. --Jesuislafete (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that all photos uploaded to Commons by Queenregioncroatia seem to be rather blatant copyright violations. GregorB (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that.. but kept quiet for some reason. What about File:Dragan Čović and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović.jpg and File:Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović Lisinski 2014.jpg? Did SpeedyGonsales really take that photo? -- Director (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy is an amateur photographer who often visits local events, so I don't find anything suspicious about that. GregorB (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I wouldn't find it strange myself if he was there.. Anyway, what about File:Dragan Čović and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović.jpg? -- Director (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, a user who has uploaded several photographs of local events. Nothing really suspicious, even if there is one photograph among them that looks like a newspaper scan. GregorB (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

20th president of Croatia?

Also, in modern day Croatia presidents are counted since the independence of the nation, so Kolinda is indeed the 4th president. Even if you count the presidents from 1945 (which again there is no reason for that) it is doubtfull that she is the 20th since SR Croatia had a collective leadership and prior 1945 there were other state posts that were equivalent to the modern day president (like the Ban). That is why I will remove this footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.203.92 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, "20th president" is pure OR. I'm removing it again. GregorB (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BLUE

@Timbouctou: Are you, or are you not, crazy enough to actually challenge the WP:BLUE fact that this is historically the twentieth person to hold the position of head of state in the Croatian republic? If so, it'll please you to COUNT them. If not, what exactly do you challenge? If you challenge the presidents of the presidium served the function of heads of state in the Yugoslav political system (or any other fact that should be basic knowledge for someone discussing Yugoslav history), please refer to Clements' Encyclopedia of World Governments, 1984, Yugoslavia section. If you don't really challenge anything and are just trolling out of political POV, by disagreeing that 2+2=4 – I'll have to die of shock that being so uncharacteristic (but I will probably manage to report you beforehand.. this is what, the fifth edit-war you started in the past week or so?).

I remind you we've established your personal ideas about only a de facto sovereign head of state "really" being a head of state - to be both unsourced (based on nothing but the previous state of Wikipedia's own Head of state article), and in actual contradiction to posted scholarly sources. -- Director (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? My "personal ideas" just happen to be what every dictionary on the planet says, and you have been pushing this crap for years now without a single shred of reference to support your peculiar ideas on officeholder chronology. Get a source. Any source. Published anywhere by anyone at any time in any language in any format that agrees with you before even starting yet another flood of paranoid TLDR rants. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
So you're actually requesting a source that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=20. You are in fact trolling. And what are you babbling about? There is no dictionary on this planet that supports you... In fact, as I said, sources have been presented that make rubbish of your ideas. -- Director (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Director is right. It is obvious. Director, why don't you report him? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol, you two should get a room. Timbouctou (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, when you and Joy leave it. -- Director (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OWN maybe? Timbouctou (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of disrupting paradise. -- Director (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Is that a rationalisation of your WP:OWN issues? Timbouctou (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. But obviously I can't speak about the nature of your relationship, you'd probably know best whether its analogous with my commitment to particular articles.
Is there something else you wanted to say regarding OWN? Or would you care to try and explain why you're actually edit-warring to tag "19+1=20"? That could be fun. Alternatively, I can just chalk it up to basic math always having been the greatest nemesis of right-wing nationalism in our glorious republic. -- Director (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol you have a very weird picture of yourself you know. You should get that checked out. Timbouctou (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
To judge the quality of someone's picture, one must be familiar with that someone. I wouldn't presume to know you, and you shouldn't presume to know me. As regards checkouts, I'm the one that gives them, not the one that gets them. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Says the "greatest nemesis of right-wing nationalism". Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's math, not me... -- Director (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, dude, your super-importance is just a matter of objective measurement and anyone who does not realise that must be Adolf Hitler incarnated. Must be fun living within your head. Lol. Timbouctou (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
And there we go, Godwin's Law! I actually thought you might prefer going for Pol Pot, or Stalin, or whomever. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Says the "greatest nemesis of right-wing nationalism", according to "math". Your therapist surely agrees lol. Timbouctou (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a request for comments that is likely of interest to this article at Talk:Rajka_Baković#Request for comments. --- Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Devout Catholic?

I disagree with this wording, she might like to be seen like that, but she is a dissident of the Roman Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life, supporting abortion rights, which might earn her the denial of communion by her country's church. To simply state that she is a "devout Catholic" is admiting a POV, which is very arguable and has more to do about the way she likes to percieved as, than with her real devotion and commitment to the Catholic faith.128.65.236.100 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I`m curious to know and I would like to ask to Croatian wikipedians, what is the position of the Catholic Church in view of her pro-abortion stance? Was she ever denied communion, like it already happened to similar politicians in the United States?128.65.236.100 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. 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) 05:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

@Tzowu: Let us see what seems to be the problem and which solution can we find together. Sadko (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Criticism: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." And in this case: "Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a POV-section or criticism-section to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material."

As for the content under this section, there is nothing controversial in a "buy Croatian products" campaign promoted by the president. Even if we say that the "chocolates" thing is notable, and incorporate it into the article, it certainly can't be in a form that implies that it is something controversial and wrong. That the topic of Matija Zmajević's ethnicity was "met with heavy criticism in both Serbia and Montenegro" is not sourced with reliable sources. Just because a few portals no one ever heard off label something as controversial, doesn't mean that it caused "heavy criticism". I didn't find a single English language source dealing with the subject.

The Argentina trip is already in the article, as well as Thompson. Further on, the whole sentence about "historic revisionism" is sourced with an opinion editorial (and a translation of the same article) and an interview with Milorad Dodik, while the Hrvoje Klasić's article (also an opinion editorial, he is a commentator on the portal) doesn't mention revisionism. It is incorrect in saying that Grabar-Kitarović initially accepted the ZDS salute, as that is not what the cited source says (it's about whether the ZDS salute was used before the NDH era, in neither case did she say that ZDS was acceptable). Lastly, the "relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina with terrorist organisations" alleged statement was denied by Grabar-Kitarović [2] [3] and the Jerusalem Post, which wrote that initially, quickly made an update of their article and deleted the alleged statement. [4] Tzowu (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources.
1) It is well covered with sources. 2) NPOV has been taken mind. Quotes by the person in question and the answers are given in the text. 3) Thompson controversy is not presented in the same manner. 4) It is absolutely correct that KGK accepted the local equivalent of Nazi HH salute at one point. She stated it herself.[1] 4) That statement (BiH and terrorism) was never removed or declared incorrect. That is misleding. No apology was given to BiH officials or people. 5) The rice choclate case was quite a scandal in most of Croatia. I followed it. You said that it was not and a number of medias and sources repoting about it (for days) is telling a different story. It is notable. 6) You are not understanting Wikipedia:Criticism quite well. The rule clearly says that Controversy section are hard and could be manipulated and therefore all sides should be accounted for. 7) Your removal of sourced content with ongoing discussion clearly shows that you have no intention of wanting helthy discussion and showing good faith. 8) The Zmajević case was presented in all the medias in Serbia and attracted a lot of attention. I could add more refs. but that would be a citation overkill. We could make some fiferent formulations and add more refs, if you are willing to cooperate with other editors. I have no extra time for edit warring, but I could fine some for a report or two because no bully like behaviour is okay. Sadko (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
A "specific controversy", so something like Trump–Ukraine controversy, not a general "Controversy" section where one adds anything he can find that can be interpreted negatively. And that should be "broadly covered in reliable sources", not single sourced, often with an opinion editorial.
"Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections."
Again, it is not true that she ever "accepted" the ZDS salute, she said on 4 September 2017 that "Moj stav o pozdravu 'Za dom spremni' je jasan. On je stari hrvatski pozdrav, no nažalost kompromitiran je u vrijeme ustaških dana." [5] And on 10 September 2017 that "Pozdrav Za dom spremni je kompromitiran i kao takav neprihvatljiv" [6]. The correction she later gave was regarding the part that the salute predated the Ustaše. She never said that ZDS is an acceptable salute.
The chocolates thing was reported, of course, because everything regarding the president is widely reported in the media, from her cloth to her statements and travels. The question is whether that makes it notable enough to be in a relatively short biography of a politician. Regarding the BiH and terrorism allegations, it is clearly written in the AlJazeera article [7]:
"Novinarka The Jerusalem Posta, Greer Fay Cashman koja je navedena kao autorica spornog članka u kojem je hrvatska predsjednica Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović navodno kazala kako su "vlasti u BiH povezane s Iranom i nekim terorističkim organizacijama", dan kasnije tvrdi da Grabar-Kitarović nije govorila o vlastima Bosne i Hercegovine.
"Nije spomenula vlasti Bosne i Hercegovine, a njena primjedba koja se odnosila na veze s Iranom i teroristima odnosila se SAMO na neke migrante koji su se našli u Bosni i Hercegovini", napisala je novinarka u pisanom odgovoru, dostavljenom Al Jazeeri."
Regarding Matija Zmajević, there is not a single English language source that reported on that alleged issue. The mainstream media in Serbia also didn't report on it, and neither did the Croatian media. Your claim about "heavy criticism" is not based on reliable sources. How come no official from Serbia and Montenegro commented on that?
Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons too: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" Tzowu (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no English language source about the Zmajević affair beause it is about complex local history which was not that interesting or notable for medias outside the Balkans. The mainstream medias did report about it in Serbia - a lot. I disagree with the idea that if it is not published in English it should not exist way of thinking.
I could split the paragraph to smaller, more specific controversies. That is possible. The version which you deleted in a pushy way (!) was with refs and NPOV in mind, that should be noted. I agree that some statements do need more refs, but that is something which can be worked on. The real question: are you willing to work on it or it is your wish for the whole section to disappear altogether, for this reason or another... I shall double check the whole Jerusalem Post controversy. Sadko (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I have trouble finding any reliable source (English, Serbian, Montenegrin or Croatian) that Zmajević's ethnicity caused a controversy in Serbia and Montenegro, other than a few obscure websites. I also have trouble finding a reliable source regarding his "true" ethnicity, other than a few Serbian websites that call him a Serb and a few Croatian websites that call him a Croat. For some reason, his wiki page only takes into account the former. Considering the lack of sources regarding the issue and the lack of sources on his "true" ethnicity, I would definitely leave that out of the article.
As for the rest, we can incorporate some of it in the body (and some of it already is there).Tzowu (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Grabar-Kitarović: Pogrešila sam u vezi pozdrava „Za dom spremni"". Politika Online. Retrieved 2019-10-06.

Article fully protected for a week

The edit-warring on this article is becoming absurd. If you two can't work it out on this talk page, proceed with the steps listed in WP:Dispute resolution! Favonian (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article, so I edited out those parts that were not referenced. It was according to the rules. Nevertheless, @Serolos: reverted the changes. Any suggestions Serolos for me? Thanks. 188.252.199.220 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP / Balance and style

Per WP:BLPBALANCE: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Criticism of her statement is already mentioned: "Since a number of Ustasha officials fled to Argentina after WWII, her statement was interpreted by some as support for them." So why should there be a citation of one of those critics in the article that basically repeats the same thing and what new information does it give to the reader? Tzowu (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why is it "a very biased critic"? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The reason why it doesn't belong in the article is written above: it is basically a repetition of that sentence. If Efraim Zuroff, a Bosnian genocide denier, is so important, it can be mentioned that he is among those critics ("her statement was interpreted by some as support for them, including by Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center"). Tzowu (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Zuroff is also a Nazi hunter and an expert on Nazi war criminals from possibly the most prominent Jewish human rights organization. I'm fine with putting him before Kitarović's statement, though I think his should also be included as it provides context. Fact is, those who fled Yugoslavia to Argentina after 1945 were Ustashe or Ustashe sympathizers. --Griboski (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kolinda_Grabar-Kitarović/Archive_1&oldid=1136264362"