Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 1 May 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality of "Access to IVF for same-sex couples"

This section makes some significant claims with regard to the Croatian Democratic Union, none of which are mentioned in the article on that party. The section also alleges that the Catholic Church is cooperating with this party and that the Church is influencing the law. These claims, as they are, appear to be simple speculation and have no reliable sources to back them up. I am not Croatian, and don't have much knowledge of this matter, but I think the section needs to be reworded significantly. If I have time I may reword it with the information that's present there, but I would prefer someone else with more knowledge fix it. Jargon777 Leave a message 17:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

These issues have been resolved since, for anyone reading this talk page. Jargon777 Leave a message 17:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made changes in the introduction. I have been working on this article for some time now, and am trying to keep it up to date. As many other articles on wikipedia use a brief history of the event, or events dealt with in the article as an introduction, I thought this would be a really good thing to do as the reader will get the general picture of LGBT rights in Croatia before going into details in the rest of the article. As you can see all this is based on facts, and I have provided links of the official documents published that deal with this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo of a document proving a man had been sentenced to death for being a homosexual

Is this photograph really necessary? By all means, do mention that in the article, but by putting that photo you are drawing so much attention on it, which is not really positive as Croatia is making some great progress on LGBT rights. Also, this is in Croatian, and for those who don't understand should know that he was primarily sentenced for using his position to sleep with other men, so the verdict was not solely based on his homosexuality. So I propose we remove it. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional definition of a marriage

Croatian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is not banned. Constitution does not say "same-sex marriage is banned." I see that some people have difficulties understanding that. All the countries that don't have same-sex marriage legal limit marriage to opposite-sex couples through a family code, or a constitution. Of course, in that situation it is not possible to have same-sex marriage, but that is de facto. De iure same-sex marriage is not banned. Please stick to what the law says. We are not here for personal interpretation, especially from people who don't understand the law. Countries like Finland, Italy etc. all have marriages defined as a union between a man and a woman in their family codes, but you wouldn't say those countries banned same-sex marriage simply because they haven't. The only difference between a constitution and a family code is that constitution is more difficult to change. The rest is the same. 11raccoon1 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition effectively bans same-sex marriage, like in the other 13 countries it is banned. – Plarem 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from that, the definition is interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage in the media too: , , , , . The article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013, in the lead says: "The proposed amendment to the constitution would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, which would create a constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage." Therefore, I would like to ask everyone to stop reverting my edit about the constitutional ban, and just simply get over it. – Plarem 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

History

Can you please keep this article accurate and stop duplicating paragraphs? History of LGBT movement in Croatia has been well explained. The bit where the referendum is explained already exists in the article, and it is so unnecessary to have it at the beginning of the article, plus what PM and the Church might have thought. That was all explained already. You cannot have thorough explanations and analysis at the beginning, and then again later in the article. Additionally, Life Partnership Act was not passed in 2013. Some people obviously do not understand Croatian law-making process. The Government accepted and created the law in 2013, but when that happens Sabor ( Croatian Parliament ) is the next step. Government and Parliament are two different things like in most countries. Government is an executive body which creates laws, and it is up to the parliament whether to pass the law or not. Until that happens no law exists or has been passed in a way it would make any difference because MPs have the right to ask for amendments etc. Can you please learn the difference between an executive body and a legislative body?

Another thing as well. It is fairly obvious the Church was one of the main forces behind the referendum, but there is no specific evidence of that. It is easy to come to conclusion about many things, but as far as we are concerned here the referendum was a result of an initiative group called "In the name of the Family." Catholic Church obviously did offer their support, but any other conspiracy theories should be left for discussions outside Misplaced Pages. If you wish to add anything about the referendum there is a paragraph called "Politics and Public opinion" and please add everything you think it's relevant about the referendum, but has not been mentioned, there.

I work really hard on this article and appreciate every contribution, but can we please keep this accurate and consistent? I personally know exactly how Croatian law-making process works, and try to keep everything very accurate without speculations and personal interpretations of the law.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave my paragraph about the role of the Catholic church and the constitutional change in the history section. Thanks. The material is supported by sources and I think the constitutional change gets lost in the section at the back on public opinion. In fact, the whole article is quite difficult to read and could do with a bit of improvement. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then create a separate heading in the public opinion bit, and referendum will be properly emphasised if that's what you want. Or even better, do another separate paragraph. I honestly don't see how this article is hard to read. It gives a nice brief look on history, and then it's divided into sections as it should be. Have you actually been through all the other articles on LGBT rights? This article is one of the most sorted out. It has a separate paragraph for every issue LGBT community deals with, and gives links to main articles on certain issues and topics. I always accept constructive criticism and am more than happy to improve, but I strongly disagree that this article is a mess, because unlike most other articles it is supported by sources, and it is one of the most informative articles on LGBT rights. Having an article that has a sentence serving as a paragraph like in others is not a good article. Easy to read maybe, but far from being informative. Contents table is there for a reason.

It's not about what you wrote, but where it is. History is there to give a brief look at major happenings in 2010s or any other decade, and then the rest of the article deals with all the changes in more detail. My problem was that history bit deals with the referendum so much, and then in the public opinion bit you have more-less the same, plus everything else on it. Following that, we could write all about Life Partnership Act, 2003 law on same-sex unions etc. in the history bit, but we don't cause there is no point. It is all explained later in the article where it should be. I will not modify what you've done anymore, but I strongly suggest you create a separate paragraph on referendum, and move things you wrote, plus everything else on referendum in public opinion. It cannot get more emphasised than that, if you believe it got lost in the section. 11raccoon1 (talk)

I'm happy to be constructive but I think the history section should act as an overview covering the key points. The constitutional change is part of that. It's too important to bury in public opinion - and isn't really related to public opinion in the broadest sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor's renewed reinsertion of material that two other editors have deleted as a duplicate, first on 16 July and again on 23 July, requires an explanation. Is it not a duplicate? Esoglou (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, we agree on the fact that history section should act as an overview, and it clearly says that referendum was one of the major happenings in 2010s, and it explains what the referendum was. You cannot get better than that. If you're going to start writing what the bishops said, PM said etc. you might as well put everything about the referendum in the history bit, which would be unnecessary. And in the Politics and Public opinion referendum has a special paragraph. If the referendum is not part of politics than I don't know what is. 11raccoon1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're happy 11raccoon1 We can agree then to leave the paragraph as it is and avoid expanding it further. Esoglou - perhaps you might want to take a look at the rest of my contributions list to see whether you can find anything else that I've edited concerning the Catholic church so that you can make your usual changes? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to see that agreement has been reached to keep the paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias

Upon reading the section 'LGBT pride', which I changed to a more neutral 'Public promotion of LGBT issues', I came to a conclusion that the section is biased. I have found these statements as the most biased:

• "Public support is growing and number of participants is also increasing rapidly year after year, but they have experienced violent public opposition." No figures, no references, no back-up.
• "LGBT issues activists criticized the government for the lack of punishment of the offenders and called this a violation of human rights." No references.
• " countries where the sociopolitical climate is not ripe for the organization of Pride events " Not ripe? I suggest the word 'pride be replaced with 'Public promotion of LGBT issues', because the word 'Pride' gives it a liberal bias.
• "2011 is considered to be a turning point in a Pride's history as it was held a week after the first unsuccessful Split Pride, and it was emphatically supported by the media and politicians" No references, 'Pride' as per above, 'emphatically', in my opinion is a redundant word here.
• "Around 4,000 people marched while many of the bystanders loudly supported the LGBT community" No references, 'loudly supported the LGBT community' gives it a liberal bias.
• "It was also reported that number of policemen securing pride was lower than previous years." No references, 'Pride' as per above.
• "Pride held in 2013 was the biggest one so far, with record-breaking 15,000 participants" 'Record-breaking' is redundant, 'Pride' as per above.
• "First LGBT pride in Split took place on 11 June 2011. The pride was not successful as the security was not strong enough so the pride had to be cancelled" 'Pride' as per above, 'Successful' introduces bias.
• "Pride in 2012 was successful, and enjoyed major support from the Croatian media, celebrities, and politicians" 'Pride' as per above, 'successful' as per above, no reference.
• "Five ministers from the government participated " No references.
• "Many bystanders showed support for the pride, while opponents were unable to approach the participants." No references, 'Pride' as per above.

Furthermore, the section is one-sided, it includes no opposition to the promotion. Thank you, – Plarem 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Although it is nice you try to improve this article, your references about Catholic Church and conservatism should not be part of this article. Croatia is a secular country where Church is not creating laws. So this is based on your views and hearsay. I will delete that. Government is the one who creates the laws, and that is the only thing we care about here as we talk about facts. Secondly, access to IVF and what lesbian couples along with doctors would do should not be part of an article. That is pure speculation.

IVF law in Croatia is dealing with infertility, and everyone who has a problem with that has an access to it. That law does not deal with lesbian couples what so ever. You haven't read the law and are not familiar to it. Thirdly, you are also not familiar with the Life Partnership Act. LGBT adoption is NOT legal ok? Constitution does not BAN same-sex marriage. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There are people who worked hard on this article, and you change it to speculation and personal interpretation of the laws, and we cannot and won't have it. Why did you delete LGBT from LGBT adoption? Article deals with LGBT adoption, not adoption as itself.

Public opinion comes last after we deal with legal issues, but you put it before other things that are far more important. That chart is also unnecessary. That poll was not a big poll and it does not need a chart. Are we going to have charts for every minor research? Also, in English language there is no dot after the year. For example, you wrote (2012.,). That is incorrect. Attitude of politicians? Really? What is that all about? Why do you have to change grammatically correct headlines and paragraphs that are perfectly acceptable? There are some people working hard on this article, and everything that has happened in Croatia so far has been noted, so what were you trying to do?

I am sorry if I'm being rude, it is not my intention, but if you are going to change bits regarding laws would you mind discussing it with people who work on this constantly? And why change it? What was the main drive behind it? You change accurate description of the law into personal interpretation, and then write things that are not true. Public promotions??? What? Gay pride is a pride! It is a march. Zagreb Pride and Split Pride are official names of this events!!! Record-breaking is not redundant because there was no pride bigger than that yet!

Have you read any of these laws, do you speak Croatian?

If you do something like that again unfortunately I will have to start a dispute. You cannot just change the whole article and put personal interpretations in it. Do you know how much research has gone into it? And after all that and how you talk about personal interpretations you write that same-sex marriage in Croatia is not legal due to the pressure from Catholic Church. What? Same-sex marriage is not legal because there is not enough support for it in the Parliament. That's the whole logic of the story.

You have also deleted things that were supported with references, but you obviously missed it. I am very sad to see somebody doing this. What happens in Poland where you are from is one thing, but this is an article about LGBT rights in Croatia, and we don't need homophobic comments that underrate LGBT prides and call them "promotion!, and we don't need opposition, because this article talks about who and why is against LGBT rights.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost: You, or NOBODY owns this article. See Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Everyone is welcome to edit this article, and by doing so they agree for anyone to change it. My "references about Catholic Church and conservatism", which, according to you, should not be part of this article, actually should be part of it, because of WP:NPOV.

You say that "Government is the one who creates the laws, and that is the only thing we care about here as we talk about facts.". False. We do not only talk about laws, we also talk about LGBT propaganda, I noticed a section on LGBT tourism... Therefore, to have a neutral point of view, we need to have opposition, which you are so afraid of.

I didn't add the IVF part, and from what you're telling me, I would actually agree with you.

The adoption under the 'Life Partnership Act' is guardian-partnership, which gets a Y/N mark.

The constitution DOES ban same-sex marriage, please see two sections up and all the other LGBT rights in x where same-sex marriage is banned. Take Poland for example, whose Constitution states: "Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland." The Minister for Justice, in 2013, said that this effectively bans all same-sex unions. It is not speculation and personal interpretation of the law.

The article deals with LGBT "rights", therefore the LGBT is redundant in that subheading.

I added a chart for the latest opinion poll on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption for some LGBT rights in x articles, with all of them in my plan. It does not matter whether the study is big or small.

Public opinion is one of the most important aspects of this article, because in a democratic society it is the people who, in the end, decide on matters. I would insist that it be as comprehensive as the one in LGBT rights in Poland#Social attitudes and public opinion.

The year part is just being a prick. You know very well that that was a typo.

I changed the headings and paragraphs because they are NOT acceptable. They are biased. They have a liberal bias, which I removed. I will not stand queer propagnda.

Give examples of "personal interpretations".

There is no rule that says that I have to consult edits with editors. (WP:BE BOLD)

"Gay pride" is liberal bias. Get over it. "Queer propaganda" is conservative bias. "Public promotion of LGBT issues" is neutral.

I removed that sentence from LGBT tourism because IT WAS NOT RELEVANT to the article.

This article DOES need opposition, because of WP:NPOV.

Thank you, – Plarem 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK let's start again. Croatian Constitution says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman", and as long as the Constitution says that it will say that in this article as well. We do not need your personal interpretation of the law because you are not a barrister. When you find where the Constitution says "same-sex marriage is banned" then change it. Until then it stays the way it is! I am not interested in what some Polish minister had to say about it. I am asking you again: HAVE YOU READ CROATIAN CONSTITUTION? Just YES or NO would be enough.

Zagreb Pride is an official name of the march, and it is also an official name of the organisation behind it. And as long as that is official name IT WILL STAY THAT WAY. Before you change things you could at least read about it. http://www.zagreb-pride.net/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=78&lang=hr This is the link to an official Zagreb Pride web site.

I never said this is my article, but I have contributed the most. People often edit things I write, and most of the times I am grateful because it is constructive. What you are doing here is anything but constructive. What opposition do you want? Misplaced Pages is not a parliament or a newspaper. Almost every paragraph in this article talks about who is against LGBT rights. And it is not in Misplaced Pages's interest for people to write things they know nothing about. Nobody benefits from it.

You are also asking for citations under living conditions. Well, have you actually checked all the references at the end of that paragraph? I f you could be bothered to do that you will find that there is an official LGBT guide for the city of Zagreb, together with the rest.

Commenting on your English is not being a prick. This is an English version of Misplaced Pages, and it should be edited by people who have great understanding of English language. You don't. "Public promotion" is not something that can be used when we talk about human rights. You publicly promote a product, a service etc. You cannot promote fight for human rights. It just sounds wrong. And I will change it to what it was because official names of these prides are Zagreb Pride and Split Pride. I suggest you stop changing it because it will take us nowhere.

And in that pie chart you also use words that make no sense. You cannot say "extremely against" or "extremely for." There is a big difference between the word "extremely," and "strongly." Strongly is the word that should be used here because anything else makes no sense. You also wouldn't say "mainly against." You say "mostly against." Your English makes no sense.

I can see that you are very homophobic, but Misplaced Pages is not the place for your personal frustration. And stop using homophobic language. There is no propaganda in this article what so ever. And when you say "queer propaganda" that is actually very offensive to gay people, and I wouldn't be surprised if somebody reported you for it. But it could be your lack of understanding what certain words mean. The problem you have is that you "literally" translate things from you native tongue Polish into English, and you cannot do that as they are very different languages.

I will change this article back to what it was. If you want to delete certain sentences fine, but first check all the references, because you clearly haven't done so. And before you change anything else you read Croatian Constitution, and Life Partnership Act. Once you can prove that the Constitution banns same-sex marriage change it. But until then it will stay just as the law says. And if you feel you need to fight against gay people find another place, because you will not win this. What the law says is what is says in the article. Your personal views of Catholic Church, of what the law might say are not needed. And READ everything before you edit it. READ the references, read the Constitution, and read other laws. Then we can progress. What is you problem with LGBT rights in Croatia? Are you trying this with other articles as well? And why write something you know nothing about? 11raccoon1 — Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As I have said: "The definition effectively bans same-sex marriage, like in the other 13 countries it is banned. – Plarem 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from that, the definition is interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage in the media too: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24873498, http://www.smh.com.au/world/croatians-vote-to-outlaw-gay-marriage-20131202-2ym69.html, http://world.time.com/2013/12/01/croatians-vote-in-favor-of-banning-same-sex-marriage/, http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/europe/celebrations-croatia-bans-gay-marriage, http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/131201-croatia-votes-on-move-to-ban-gay-marriage. The article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013, in the lead says: "The proposed amendment to the constitution would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, which would create a constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage." Therefore, I would like to ask everyone to stop reverting my edit about the constitutional ban, and just simply get over it. – Plarem 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)"

I don't understand your opposition to me removing the liberal term 'Pride' from Zagreb and Split, because the section doesn't have to talk just about that one event.

WP:NPOV says: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." In order to have that, you need to have opposition. How do you not understand that?

You claim I do not have a great understanding of English. I do. I grew up in Ireland. You can publicly promote an ideology (Propaganda). Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights#Article 12 - marriage states that marriage between a man and a woman is a human right, not between two people of the same sex. I suggest we both actually stop editing this article for the time of this dispute.

In the pie chart, I used the words in the reference, which were the terms used in the study.

I am not putting my personal frustration on Misplaced Pages. I see that this article is liberally biased, so I changed it to more neutral wording, which you challenged.

Why would a lecture of the Constitution, and of that law be necessary for editing this article? I am not interested in that, I am interested in the liberal bias in this article!

The views of the Catholic Church ARE needed in this article, because the Catholic Church is the biggest opposition group to same-sex marriage, along with over 60% of the Croatian population. I suggest you create a section called 'LGBT issues opposition' or something like that to put more weight onto the other side. – Plarem 11:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Words used in the research are not "extremely" or "mainly", but "strongly" and "mostly". Do you speak Croatian? No you don't, so stop translating from a language that you don't speak. You grew up in Ireland? Well, you should have worked better on your English then. The fact that the Constitution DE FACTO prevents something is not the same as DE JURE, or what is actually written there.

And again you are admitting you haven't actually read the Constitution. But you want to change this article. That is just fantastic isn't it! You even ask the question why is it necessary to know the Constitution before changing this? Are you for real??? So you write something you know nothing about. LOL

Pride is the OFFICIAL NAME OF THE EVENT, and there are two in Croatia at the moment. How long does it take you to understand that??? You don't even believe in what you read! Catholic Church is mentioned several times in this article and its opposition to LGBT rights so what is your problem? Your problem is homophobia, and the fact you hate the word pride. You want to describe LGBT rights as propaganda because you personally oppose to them. This article will say exactly what is written, whether you like it or not. And I will change it over and over again. Besize, if you have a problem you shouldn't have changed it in the first place, and should have start a conversation about what your problem is exactly. Living conditions section has references so would you care to read them???

LGBT rights are not a propaganda, but civil protests etc. You take your homophobia somewhere else. You're in the wrong place. And don't think we will allow that here. This article is not a promotion of anything, but a factual work of LGBT rights in Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I took that as a personal attack, one more and I will be taking action. I will apply for a resolution to this dispute at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. – Plarem 14:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias and input your side of the story. – Plarem 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This article talks about opposition from the outset and throughout. So stop adding bits you have no references of. Read the article first. The Church and other opposition have been mentioned many times. And I don't appreciate when users ask their friends to add bits to make us think like it's someone else. They are exactly the same grammar mistakes as you made ok?

I want you to take this further, and then see how your homophobia, and classification of LGBT rights as propaganda will end up. Please take this further. I am all ready! Are you editing other articles as well? I will check that out, and then we will see what other people think about it as well. I am looking forward to it. Good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Except I didn't ask anyone to add anything. – Plarem 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to reply on everything I say. You change Zagreb Pride, eve though that is the official name of the march and organisation. So who do you think is gonna win this? Someone who writes the official stuff, or someone who dislikes LGBT people? As I said, take this further. I am looking forward to it. 11raccoon1 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop attacking other editors! You have attacked me and United Union (talk · contribs). Firstly, I didn't translate anything, the reference is in English. Well then add it in that de jure the Constitution defines marriage but de facto it bans it. I am pretty sure most of the editors editing LGBT rights in x articles have not read the Constitution of the country they are editing. It is redundant, as Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not a legal forum. Secondly, you may sit quietly about grammar because you make twice as much grammar mistakes as me and United Union (talk · contribs) taken together. The level 3 subheading is 'LGBT prides and other marches', therefore the 'Pride' in Zagreb and Split level 4 subheadings are redundant. You cannot WP:EDIT WAR, you are expected to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on edits. I will not respond to the rest as it is a personal attack on me. – Plarem 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You will not respond to other things because you stand no case. You open the debate and then you don't want to respond to things concerning the debate lol. You have just admitted changing what the constitution says without reading it.

Misplaced Pages is about accuracy. People who did not read the constitutions should not write about them. Reading the constitution is the base. How can you write about something you know nothing about? That is the problem with Misplaced Pages. I do not edit scientific articles because I know nothing about and I am not a scientist. Same as others should not edit articles they know nothing about. Your poor understanding of all this is the result of not understanding what de iure means. I am not interested in other articles. I am interested in this one. De facto is not the same as de iure. Grammar is not my weak point as yours because I actually do understand the difference between singular and plural for the start. You are free to correct my grammar mistakes. Please do. And if you are so particular about references you should notice that your mate created a paragraph based on his or her personal view, not supported by anything.11raccoon1 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not about accuracy, Misplaced Pages is about verifiablity. The constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source, "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them..." It seems clear that 11raccoon1 is relying too much on primary sources and should be using more secondary sources. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, CombatWombat. As for 11raccoon1, he needs to take a break and actually see what de jure and de facto means, because, upon reading the relevant articles, I used them correctly. I also think he should go back to school, do an English language course, or just shut up. Everything in the Constitution regarding this subject has been described in reliable secondary sources as a constitutional ban. (BBC, Al Jazzera, etc.) In my opinion, I do not need to answer to insults, which 11raccoon1 wanted me to. Regarding his stance on scientific articles: People who edit scientific articles on Misplaced Pages are not scientists, for the most part. They reference their work with both primary and secondary sources to have a better and simpler understanding of the topic. No one is making you edit Misplaced Pages. If you think that that is a problem, you can leave or live with it! The article is written from a liberal viewpoint, I suggest we add more conservative viewpoints. But, 11raccoon1, if I don't stand a case, then why didn't you answer to what I wrote? – Plarem 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A Polish high school guy is teaching me English. LOL...are you taking the piss or what? It is not my problem you got offended, and I told you, this article is not a place for conservative Catholics to give their point of view. For that you have other articles that deal with the issue. I don't know what you are playing at, but it is a very bad play. And yes I can leave it or live with it. I have chosen to live with it, so you will have me as your obstacle as long as it takes. And I will change this article again. You cannot stop it.

I will quote one sentence from this new paragraph: "Although same-sex marriage is not legal in Croatia registered partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal since 2014, and those partnerships have most of the rights and responsibilities that marriage offers also." Now, this is grammatically so wrong it almost offends anybody who can speak decent English. Can you tell me what the mistakes are in this sentences? Let us see how good your English really is. And remember, I'm from the UK. The rest of the paragraph is so badly written it is unreal. So t is obvious that you have a team who are backing you here. Trust me, it is very obvious.

You also added a bit about the referendum in paragraph that talks about legal status of same-sex relationships, even though there is a separate paragraph focusing solely on a referendum. And now we have 4 paragraphs referring to the referendum. Why? You are vandalising this article. 11raccoon1 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Plarem above has written: "I will not stand queer propagnda." (sic) I find this comment deeply offensive and homophobic. Plarem you have no business editing an article like this with such disgraceful opinions. Either address your POV or move on. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifics of a poll in the WP:LEAD

This: "Croatians are opposed to the introduction of same-sex marriages. In a 2014 opinion poll, 60.9% of Croats were against the introduction of those marriages, with only 17% being for. In a 2013 referendum, Croatians approved an amendment which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 65.87% were for the proposed amendment, 33.51% were against it. Turnout was 37.9%." was just added to the WP:LEAD it seems like it belongs (sourced of course) in the body as it is incredibly specific. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)o

Ok, I will shorten it down. – Plarem 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Source citations

Rather than pouring all your energies into bickering over the "facts", how about cleaning up source citations and discussing which ones are reliable. It would help if in the process you made use of the |trans_title= parameter so that non-Croatian readers will be able to glean something of them. Both sides here seem very confused about policies on this Misplaced Pages. We treat secondary sources as at least potentially more objective than primary ones. Authors almost always regard their own opinions as correct and important, which is the main reason we distrust primary sources. (Judicial decisions are a possible exception, as in most places judges are selected for their ability to demonstrate impartiality.) Our normal way of working, especially in controversial topic areas, is to focus on identifying high quality, secondary, independently-published sources, then select relevant parts of those sources to paraphrase in our articles. Both of you seem to be proceeding in the opposite fashion, seeking sources that support your idea of the "truth". That does not and cannot work on Misplaced Pages because it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which mostly includes anonymous editors. Readers should not be expected to trust someone they cannot know, so sourcing is critical to generating credibility. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes and resolving issues

In the light of recent conflicts and questioning about article's neutrality I would like to make few changes that I hope will satisfy everybody. The changes are as follows:

1. In the introduction I am going to make few slight changes, and will mention who the main proponents, and opponents to LGBT rights are. I will remove the sentence that says majority of Croats are against same-sex marriage. There will be dozens of polls including few hundreds or a thousand people, and I think we should just stick to the referendum which indeed showed majority of people do think marriage should be define as a union between a man and a woman. Polls are mentioned later in the paragraph.

2. I will remove the bit about the referendum from "Recognition of same-sex relationships" because the referendum is already mentioned in 3 different part of his article, and has a paragraph on its own. There is no need to write about something in every single paragraph. It's pointless.

3. I will remove few sentences from "Living conditions." Indeed there are some sentences that are not supported by adequate references. Even though people in Croatia are becoming more gay friendly, first sentence could be seen as somebody's personal view. Second sentence can be removed as well, despite the fact gay scene is indeed concentrated in biggest cities. Same goes for the third sentence. The rest should stay as it is supported by references. Zagreb is by far the largest city in Croatia with 800 000 inhabitants (metropolitan 1 200 000), and population of Croatia is only 4.3 million. An official guide for LGBT community for the city of Zagreb has been released, and indeed it showed most of the LGBT scene in Croatia is concentrated in Zagreb.

4. In the "politics and public opinion" paragraph there is a pie chart which I think really doesn't belong here. As mentioned before, there will be dozens of polls, and if we are going to have a chart for each and everyone we will end up with a mess. The results are mentioned in detail in the paragraph.

5. And the last change is about same-sex marriage. I do understand people like to think of the definition of a marriage in the Constitution as a ban, but de iure it is not. The only thing that happened as a result of the referendum is that the definition of a marriage has been copied from the family law. It is not a ban. Indeed, for the same-sex marriage to be legal the Constitution will have to be changed, but that's exactly the point. Nothing is set in stone, and nothing is banned. Constitution is a subject to change just as any other law is.

Most countries that have not legalized same-sex marriage have a definition of a marriage as a union between a man and a woman in their family laws, but we never say those countries banned same-sex marriage, even though it is exactly the same situation as it is in Croatia and some other countries. Otherwise same-sex marriage would be possible. 11raccoon1 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

While primary source (i.e constitution itself) does not say literally same-sex marriage is banned, the amendment is interpreted in this way by reliable secondary sources. According to Misplaced Pages policies, the articles should not be based solely on primary sources, reliable secondary sources also should be taken into account. You can't just to ignore that, because you don't like it or something...Ron 1987 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As you can see I am really trying to make this article as it should be. It has nothing to do with me liking something or not, but I see your point because media often interpret laws as they please, so I will not change that bit in the article anymore. And btw, if you go back you will see that I did not start edit war. Just for the record. Cheers 11raccoon1 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in LGBT rights in Croatia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT rights in Croatia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc":

• From Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013: Croatians back same-sex marriage ban in referendum BBC. 1 December 2012Retrieved 2 December 2012
• From Sexual orientation and military service: UK Gays win military legal battle BBC News, 27 September 1999
• From LGBT rights in Russia: "Gay parades banned in Moscow for 100 years". BBC. 17 August 2012. Retrieved 7 November 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

History

The "sourced" text was not sourced at all. A source was not even about the text and the other was so it stayed in the article, but the text in the article did not correspond with the text in the source so I changed that. Also removed some really incorrect material that was not sourced. You have reverted my edits that have corrected the grammar. Are you again stalking me and reverting everything I do? --Tuvixer (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it's a coincidence that you suddenly started changing content that was added by me right after you reported me. Everything is sourced.

"U zapisima visokopozicioniranog komunističkog funkcionera i člana NOB-a Milovana Đilasa navodi se i negativan stav o postojanju “homoseksualaca” u Narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi, kao i odluka da im se posve onemogući članstvo u :Komunističkoj partiji." This was removed by you.

"no na području tzv. Nezavisne Države Hrvatske dosad nisu pronađeni izvori o oblicima organiziranog progona." again, removed

"Partizanski kapetan Mardešić '44. strijeljan je zbog homoseksualizma" sourced, removed by you.

Btw, criticised is not a spelling mistake. Tzowu (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No that was not sourced. And you did not make those changes. Stop lying please, that is horrible. What kind of person are you? Of course homosexuals were prosecuted in ndh. I can not believe you are saying it was otherwise. Please stop this. It is not sourced, you are just making things up.--Tuvixer (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

How am I lying? Look at the edit history in late 2013 and early 2014. If you didn't look at the sources in text just put those sentences in Google and you'll find them quickly. I didn't say that homosexuals were not prosecuted in NDH, just that there was no legislation aimed specifically against them. That was a special thing that the communists implemented. Never in the history of Croatia was there a law banning homosexuality before them. Tzowu (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Omg, you are so wrong. I am holding, right now, in my hand, a copy of a ndh era law that was enacted, and aimed on prosecuting homosexuals. Also homosexuals were prosecuted by the chatolic church in Croatia for centuries. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well what are you waiting for? Quote that law. And why are you attacking me when I quoted "Čitanka LGBT ljudskih prava, drugo dopunjeno izdanje, Sarajevski otvoreni centar, 2012."? Tzowu (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? LOL. How far are you going to go with your lies? How do I qoute the law. Can I just translate the articles?--Tuvixer (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• Mid-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages