Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Director (talk | contribs) at 13:27, 10 February 2015 (→Speakers of parliament). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Croatia List‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yugoslavia List‑class High‑importance

List of presidents of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image copyright problem with File:Ante Marković.jpg

The image File:Ante Marković.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bizarre"?

What was so "bizarre" about my edit? The exist polls point towards a Josipović victory by a 30% margin if I remember the figure correctly. Last minute turn-around? The date may have been incorrect, but I would not say "bizarrely" incorrect. --DIREKTOR 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires a bit more certainty than exit polls. Especially when no one will assume the presidency for at least a week.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he might get struck by lightning, he is an agnostic after all. I trust you will revert yourself in due time? You've certainly demonstrated your promptness in making useless edits. --DIREKTOR 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is not a joke. Your attempt to turn this into some ideological battle all the time is quite unfortunate. I truly couldn't care less which of these two blokes is going to take office. While the outcome is apparently fairly clear, it is not certain.

When the election results are posted (in only three and a half hours) we will know who is president. Making predictions before then is somewhat useful, but cannot be used to make concrete pronouncements.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You can be sure I don't give a damn who wins these meaningless elections, and I am not trying to turn this into an "ideological battle". I was fixing these tables so I figured I get this done with during the weekend.

Like I asked before, you will revert yourself then? --DIREKTOR 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would revert if I could. I'm not on here all the time, and I seem to have missed the chance. :) --Thewanderer (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Party

The SKJ was a political party composed of six parts, not an "umbrella organization". We all know and acknowledge that these people were members of the SKH within SKJ, but the political party is always listed as SKJ. --DIREKTOR 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding File:Replace this image male.svg

Should we add the File:Replace this image male.svg image into the empty portrait slots in the list wikitable? I myself am unsure. The images would create uniformity in row width, but there would be a lot of them. Thoughts anyone? --DIREKTOR 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Nazor

Was never a member of the Communist Party. Prove the opposite.

http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/9078/1/ETHNIC-CROATIANS-KILLED-BY-NAZI-AND-FASCIST-FORCES---Introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.151.170 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Stipe Mesić

Never competed as "an independent candidate". Here is an official electoral website archive:

http://www.izbori.hr/2000Pred/Pred1Krug.htm http://www.izbori.hr/izbori/izboricm.nsf/VSviW/4C41015CA04649CFC1256F6B003CBC96/$File/lista_kandidata.pdf?OpenElement

Prove the opposite.

I do not have to prove the opposite. He was an independent candidate who received the support of all those parties - the point is he was not a member of any. --DIREKTOR 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you voted? HAve you seen what was on the list? The upper link is an official electoral website, where the information is the exact that was on the electoral list. I'll keep correcting you until you fucking give it up.

I'll try again:

• Mesić. The source does not list party affiliation. The party names there are references to those parties which granted him their support. He was not a member of all those political parties.
• Nazor. Nazor was a member of the KPJ. Whether he was really a communist or not is open to speculation by authors such as the one you quoted, but again, his party affiliation is not something to dispute.

In short, your sources are quite obviously falsely quoted. Please stop edit-warring and vandalizing the article. I assure you, it won't help you and Misplaced Pages does not work that way. --DIREKTOR 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have all my life in correcting this page. Stipe Mesić was until 2000 member of Croatian People's Party. On second term, i can agree he was not a party member, but there is a list of parties that supported his candidature. When it comes to Vladimir Nazor's party affiliation, I wont give up until you put a different "reference", that does not exist. He never become a member of KPJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.151.170 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to explain that Misplaced Pages does not function the way you think. Edit-warring "all your life" will not help you. Your sources are falsely quoted, as I explained. They neither of them state that which you are trying to use them for. Please find a source regarding the party affiliation of Stjepan Mesić and Vladimir Nazor. --DIREKTOR 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Formal party affiliation of presidents

There is a potential problem with party affiliation of Stjepan Mesić and Ivo Josipović:

• Mesić ran for the office for the 1st time on a HNS ticket (as its member) and left the party after assuming office on February 15, 2000. He ran for his second term as an independent candidate. At this time, the list indicates he was an independent candidate, but it is not an accurate claim for the 2000 campaign. On the other hand changing the party affiliation to HNS would not be accurate for his reelection. Any suggestions? Is there a way to indicate both, or should a double/split entry be there for Mesić?
• Similar to Mesić, Josipović ran for office on SDP ticket, but he is no longer a member of the SDP since January 17, 2010. His political party affiliation is currently indicated as SDP. Furthermore, Article 96 of the present Croatian constitution requires the president to terminate his political party membership, if any, so unless we plan to have all future presidents listed as independent candidates, we may opt to indicate party of affiliation with while being an official candidate. Which takes us back to Mesić problem, supporting decision that his HNS membership during 2000 campaign be indicated instead of "independent" status required. Furthermore, remember that implicitly Croatian constitution effectively prohibits any president seeking reelection doing this on a party ticket.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

conflation of SRH and RH data

This article suffers from a problem analogous to that described at Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia. I doubt anyone in the real world really considers Tuđman the seventeen president of Croatia, rather the first. --Joy (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the entry for Tuđman between May 30 and December 22 1990 is missing... --Joy (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure, this kind of interpretation contradicts President of Croatia, which is non-sensical in and of itself. It could hold water under President#Sub-national presidents, but that's both unreferenced and not necessarily applicable here. The primary meaning is clear - a head of state, and the SRH presidents were one step below that. --Joy (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. The "first President of Croatia" was indeed Tuđman since the office of president was collective up until then. You are right in your assertion, but I do not see your point since Tuđman is not listed as the "17th" president, but as the 1st. The article also clearly states that "President" was the title he held. There is no problem here. There is no contradiction. And the problem is in no way analogous to the PM article. --DIREKTOR 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he was listed as the 17th up until a few minutes ago when you fixed it :) The thing is, the article about the President does not describe the presidents of SR Croatia, only of R of Croatia. As it should, indeed, and as should this article (primarily at least). Going back into the past and conflating the leaders of those systems with the leaders of this system is a slippery slope that serves little practical purpose. --Joy (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there we go, error fixed. The artificial separation between "that system" and "this system" you're apparently trying to introduce, is one not shared in the Constitution of Croatia, which explicitly states the Republic of Croatia is a continuation of the Socialist Republic of Croatia. have you considered that the "President of Croatia" article should, perhaps, talk about the "Presidency of Croatia" (1974-90) in its history section? --DIREKTOR 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This talking past each other is starting to be really annoying. The Constitution is explicitly stating SRH to be one of the cornerstones of Croatian statehood - the context keyword of its sentence is "u uspostavi temelja državne suverenosti". So, yes, it implies that RH is a continuation of SRH but in terms that are not practically different than those used for earlier manifestations of Croatian statehood - "hrvatska državna samobitnost" and whatnot. If you think these separations are no more than "artificial" and base them off the historical foundations section of the Constitution, then we might as well conflate the list of bans and kings together with the presidents. Who cares about the details? :P --Joy (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So, if the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia had presidents, you would list them in a separate article? :) I direct you to have a look at the King of Croatia article and note how many incomparably more different Croatian states use the same article to list the Croatian monarch (they are only separated by dynasties (not states) for practical reasons). --DIREKTOR 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Speakers of parliament

The lede currently says that "Historically, the heads of state of Croatia as a constituent country of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were referred to as Presidents" and that "Prior to 1974, Croatia's head of state was the speaker of the Croatian parliament.". I tagged these statements as two thirds of the entire table are based on them, even though I have never seen a source saying that nor is it common practice in Croatia itself to refer to any of these as "Presidents" for the period up until 1974 - and even those between 1974 and 1990 were rarely referred to as "presidents" - they were "presidents of the presidency" and their function was far from that we commonly associate with heads of state (they did not represent Croatia abroad and they did not serve as commanders of the armed forces and they did not receive accreditations from ambassadors, etc.). Both statements in the lede have been tagged for citations since September 2013 and none have been produced so far. Is it time to adjust the list accordingly? Timbouctou (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timbouctou here. Reliable sources identify heads of state elected since 1990 as the president. The list in its present form conflates different offices (including speakers of the parliament). Present arrangement therefore lists speakers both here and in Speaker of the Croatian Parliament - the latter is perfectly understandable, but the former is not. I think it would be beneficial to readers to present the Presidents of the Presidium of the Parliament and the Presidents of the Presidency, i.e. non-elected holders of different functions in separate tables, located after the table containing the elected presidents (i.e. the topic a reader is most likely seeking when accessing this list) or alternatively located in a separate list (article) altogether. IMO, the separation of the four Presidium/Speaker/Presidency/(elected) President would bring benefits to readers and would not require disproportionate effort to achieve. How about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is best to leave the list as it is because since 1945/1943 Croatia was no longer a monarchy, and become a republic. First a Socialist Republic until 1990. After that we had the First Republic (semi-presidetial system) until 2000. and after that we have the Second Republic (parliamentary system). So the list should contain all Presidents from 1943, but the list containing presidents from 1943.-1990. should be listed in a separate section, and the list should have the option hide/show so that when you open the article only the Presidents since 1990. shown and the rest are hidden. But the list can be shown. De jure and de facto they were all Presidents of Croatia. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no First and Second republic - the Constitution is still the same.

Since none of the people listed in office prior to 1990s were actually a "President of Croatia" or a "President of the Republic", there should be reliable sources that those persons were indeed considered the "president of Croatia" or the "president of the republic". Otherwise this is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is quite clear that all of them discharged one function or another, but there has to be a reliable source equating those to the role/function of the elected presidents (in 1990s and onwards) per WP:V.

As a stopgap measure I would endorse the solution where the "presidents" table is shortened to include those actually elected presidents only, and the rest added in the following section below the "presidents table", topped by a brief explanation stating, for instance, that Croatia had no elected president at the time, even though it was a parliamentary republic, stating that a similar (preferably with a description how similar or dissimilar) office was discharged by which official (e.g. president of the presidium, speaker of the parliament etc) and then followed by a list of "presidents of the X", "president of Y" etc - except for the speakers of the parliament - those are already listed elsewhere and a wikilink should be included only. None of the tables need be collapsed initially, as long as the information readers are most likely seeking is actually presented first.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: None of the guys prior to 1990 were "presidents of Croatia" either de iure or de facto. The key fact you are missing is that Croatia was not a sovereign country up until 1991. Heads of state are possible only in sovereign countries (of which SR Croatia was part of), and Croatia's head of state from 1945 to 1980 was Yugoslavia's president Tito, both de iure and de facto, the same way Scotland's head of state is Elizabeth II, regardless of the fact the Scots refer to their land as a "country", regardless of their symbols and regardless of their devolved parliament and government. Nobody in their right mind would describe Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament as "President of Scotland" retroactively, which is exactly what we are doing here. But most importantly - the claim that speakers of parliament had been "referred to as presidents" or acted as "heads of state" has never been substantiated with a single piece of reference. This is WP:OR, pure and simple.

@Tomobe03: I could agree to that, but I don't think it's necessary. Let's keep in mind that this is a list of presidents. The definition is quite clear and stated in title, and there is a separate list for speakers of parliament - duplicating them here would make little sense. And again - we have no reference saying these guys were thought of as presidents, which is the only reason they are here in the first place. Timbouctou (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it yes, if there are no reliable sources that the persons listed here are indeed "presidents of Croatia" or "presidents of the republic", their inclusion is in violation of WP:V. There's no reason not to list them in a separate list article though linked through a "See also" though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is probably named wrong, it should be List of Heads of State of Croatia, I think. Would that be OK? You can not compare Yugoslavia to UK because Yugoslavia was a federation and UK is not a federation and Yugolsavia was not a monarchy. You understand now? The time between 1953 and 1974 should not have any person listed but instead a note that in this time interval the position of Head of State/President of Croatia was exercised by the Speaker of the Parliament, and in the note a link to the list of Speakers of the Parliament of Croatia. Read the Constitution of 1974. which clearly states that the Head of State of Croatia is/was the President of the Presidency. Also it is not weird that the Speaker of the Parliament was the Head of State in a Socialist Republic. It would be wrong not to include Presidents/Heads of State before 1990. because Croatia was a republic long before 1990. and the history of our Republic does not start in 1990 but in the 1940s. This is a link to the Constitution of 1974. : https://www.pravo.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Ustav_Socijalisticke_RH_1974.pdf --Tuvixer (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article were renamed "list of heads of state of Croatia" that would invite stuffing the list with Bans and kings and would create an article even less helpful to readers. In addition the "list of presidents" seems a widespread type of list for many countries - not that it means anything but a reader might be accustomed to such queries and would find it useful. Is there a particular problem with creating an additional list article for "presidents of the presidium" and another for "presidents of the presidency"? Those two lists could be easily referenced (and thus comply with WP:V) and linked from See Also (or a short paragraph explaining that the head of state at a particular period was X, and at another Y) over here and wherever appropriate. Finally, regardless of whether it is more "weird" to include or exclude people before 1990s, the fact remain that that portion of the list presently fails WP:V which is the most important wiki policy there is.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ideally there should be:

• List of Presidents of the Presidium of the Parliament of Croatia
• Speaker of the Croatian Parliament (already containing the appropriate list)
• List of Presidents of the Presidency of Croatia
• List of Presidents of Croatia minus the material moved to the above articles

The two new articles could explain the office in greater detail, list their powers, method of appointment/election, etc. and contain appropriate references to comply with WP:V along with appropriate links to related lists/articles - i.e. no information contained here would be lost, and wiki policies would be observed. Would you consider such an arrangement?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tomobe is right in that WP:V trumps opinions, so unless somebody produces a reference saying person X was president of Croatia, we can't have it in the list. As for "heads of state" idea - that would mean listing all monarchs who ruled Croatia (not viceroys since they were merely local governers who governed on behalf of monarchs). As for chronology - from 1945 to 1980 the "president of Croatia" was president of Yugoslavia, i.e. Tito. After 1980 the "head of state" of Yugoslavia was an office which was a collective body - which means we should list everyone from Koliševski to Mesić for the period from 1980 to 1990. And yeah, Yugoslavia was a federation all along, very much like UK is today. Claiming otherwise would create another conundrum - if all republics had their own "presidents", then what was "president of Yugoslavia" really president of? Which "state" was he "head" of if all republics were sovereign enough to have their own heads of state? Timbouctou (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided the Constitution of 1974. the President of Croatia was the President of the Presidency form 1974 until 1990. Read that Constitution and you will see the reference. Yes naming article Heads of State would make it even larger. UK is not a federation, and you can not compare them in that segment. It is just conflict in name and not in function, the President of the Presidency did not have the same powers as the President of Yugoslavia. He was the President of the Federation. You really need to read the Constitution to understand how SFRY really functioned, because you can not compare it to some other country and apply the same laws and forms of government to Yugoslavia. Vladimir Nazor was the President of SR Croatia as Franjo Tuđman was also the President of SR Croatia, later of Republic of Croatia. SR Croatia and Republic of Croatia are the same country just in different times in history and both are/were republics. Again read the Constitution of 1974. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you refer to articles 381 through 393, which cover the presidency, there is nothing to back up the claim. The relevant articles indeed list powers of the presidency (and the president of the presidency in article 389 alone) but the text does not explicitly back up that claim that the president of the presidency is referred to as the "president of the republic" or the "president of Croatia" - in effect making the claim a piece of original research (not permitted per WP:V and WP:OR) or a synthesis (see WP:SYNTH in that respect) at best. Indeed the powers of the presidency (not the president) make the presidency an equivalent of a present-day president in that respect alone, but that does not satisfy WP:V. I still think the presidents of the presidency deserve a separate list article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And what about presidents of presidency being "referred to as Presidents" or "speakers of parliament serving as heads of state", which our article merrily states in its lede? Is that also in the Constitution? It isn't? Well where is it then? Can it be found anywhere in the real world? Is there any list of presidents of Croatia published anywhere by anyone in any language at any point in time which looks like our list? Timbouctou (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not AFAICT unless it's a wiki mirror or a WP:SPS. But one should assume good faith and expect that a challenge for a reliable source to the contrary will be met in a reasonable period. Failing that, there's no justification to retain those unverifiable claims in this article. That is not to say that material should be deleted - just moved to appropriate (new) articles/lists.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If this article is to be considered only the list of modern day presidents then move the presidents before 1990 into separate article, but then a new section in this article should be created titled "After 1943 and before 1990." stating that in that time period there was no political position named especially President of Croatia and that the functions of modern day President of Croatia were exercised by positions of President of the Presidency, and so on. I can make that section after you make the necessary changes to this article and create the new articles. Users that spread hate because it has been pointed to them that UK is not a federation and that it can not be compared to Yugoslavia do no good to this discussion. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And what about the fact that: "List of Presidents of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks." ? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The move to the separate article(s) should not be problematic - but references should be provided there as well. An additional section explaining and linking prior arrangements/offices should be welcome and is feasible through the "see also" section - each link is allowed to be followed by a short description of relevance. (see WP:ALSO)

The tag re WikiProject Yugoslavia is not a statement of fact but a reflection of contents and whether they fit the project scope description (this applies to any article) - i.e. if the list were confined to post 1992 presidents WPYU tag would be moved to the other articles containing information fitting scope description of WP Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, comparisons of Croatia or Yugoslavia to the UK are not IMO helping or relevant to this discussion which hinges on WP:V. Also I would refrain from claiming that users "spread hate" or refuse to listen that quickly - people get frustrated and caught in emotional responses and one should assume good faith unless proven otherwise - preferably erring at a side of caution. The talk page is just that - talk.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

UGH. One word: oppose. Leave it as it is. Try not to ruin the concept of this article or create FORKS to satisfy your political POV - and please, oh, please - lets not pretend its anything else. -- Director (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Since your opposition does not seem to be based on any source or policy, while you clearly say you are assuming bad faith, I find it hard to give it any credence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this list is not based on any - really, any, actual source in existence is pretty much against every single policy in the book. How anyone can ignore that simple fact is beyond me. Timbouctou (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Red herrings and nonsense. You want policy? Ok. Determining the WP:SCOPE of an article is up to user WP:CONSENSUS. That's the policy.

If you want the obvious counter-argument spelled out for you, I can do that too: regardless of whether these gentlemen literally had the title of "president", they were "presidents" in the sense of "elected head of a republican state". On to the pathetic nitpicking: they were not "elected" in a multi-party system, but they were nonetheless "elected", as persons, by the Sabor - and they were heads of a republican state. This is not about literal titles.

The bottom line here, you two, is that this article lists presidents in the general sense (heads of a republican state) - and that what you're suggesting is the creation of tiny, non-WP:NOTABLE WP:POVFORKS (another couple policies for ya). Lets be frank here: you just want the newly-elected HDZ president to be on a nice neat list that only counts presidents since the HDZ first came to power. And that's all this is: political POV-pushing.

P.s: Don't try throwing AGF in my face either - its not like we first met here. -- Director (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

None of those trump WP:V, no consensus may override verifiability, and WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You appear well aware of wiki policies so you ought to know that too. It seems to me you are simply asserting ownership over the article - your opposition is mere rephrasing of "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all" example stated in WP:OWN.

Try googling books for "the first president of Croatia" or "the first president of the Republic of Croatia" no hits come back for Nazor, all of them refer to Tuđman. Replace "first" with "second" and all results point to Mesić. Use "third" instead and all results point to Josipović. None point to any other persons whatsoever. On the balance, reliable sources contradict the claim stated in the article while no backing to the contrary is available without resorting to WP:SYNTH.

I am amazed with your interpretation that the two of us (presumably me and Tim, I guess) are bending over backwards to make a "neat list" that would somehow push HDZ agenda. Really? Where did you get that from? What kind of POV-pushing would that be? Saying one set of people were called X and the others Y as supported by ample sources and not the other way around is POV-pushing? Has it even crossed your mind that an user might wish to align the article with verifiability requirements and improve it in the process? Having person A, B or C on top of the list does not make party X no better or worse than it is. How could it possibly do that? You are actually the one claiming ownership of an article, ignoring verifiability which cannot possibly be trumped by any personal opinion or in fact any other wiki policy. Since you blatantly ignore the cornerstone of wiki, I still assert your opinion stated above is not worth a second look.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not about "trumping" WP:V. WP:V doesn't apply at all - its a red herring. -- Director (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• List-Class Croatia articles
• High-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• List-Class Yugoslavia articles
• High-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles