Jump to content

Talk:Zoran Milanović

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

New edits

[edit]

Timbouctou it is highly misleading to list "Agnosticism" as a religion or religious affiliation of any sort. By rights that entry should simply read "None" without unnecessary references to the man's philosophical convictions.

Also as a side note, I shall herewith point out that the above new edit you have posted is, once again, opposed. As you know full well, Wikipedia strongly recommends you do not start an edit war in order to force it into the article without discussion and consensus. I am making a point of this since you have, in fact, started an edit war in every single such situation in the past (in my experience). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are personalising the issue in your very first post. If you have something to say to me than you have my talk page to do it. The changes I did were in line with the way all other agnostic politicians' infoboxes are filled out on Wikipedia. I also fail to see how an edit that had been unopposed by anyone for 23 days is somehow "forced" nor do I see how your obvious lack of AGF is constructive here. I will be reporting you if this kind of WP:HOUND continues. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "personalizing" the discussion, that is your own perception. The above side-note is very much relevant to edits and content on this particular article, and you cannot convince me it isn't necessary as a preventive measure against edit-warring. I apologize for not assuming good faith, you criticism is accurate in that regard, however I have been insulted (and indeed WP:HOUNDED) by you so frequently it becomes hard to do so, I hope you understand. For the record, I did not follow or "hound" you here, as is obvious from your own post and the time span you mention, and in fact I do whole-heartily agree with the vast majority of your edits. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. How is Roberta's replacement of the image with the one released by his own party "malicious"?
2. Why have you piped links in his birth place in this edit, which is contrary to the established format used in virtually al other articles of Croatian politicians?
3. Agnosticism is listed as such in the "Religion" bracket in all other similar articles, which implies that there's a established convention for such people (see Matt Groening, Jawaharlal Nehru, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Heinz Fischer, Wim Kok, etc). What makes Milanović an exception? Timbouctou (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please let me explain:
1. Two reasons. #1 I have nothing against the older version as such, indeed the version Roberta is restoring was modified by myself, but by now it is quite dated indeed, as is visible on the person himself, and the newer one is up to date, with more appropriate infobox proportions and in higher res. (I do not see how it matters for Wikipedia who released the photo.) #2 Roberta and I have a history from Commons. I strongly suspect, though tbh I may be wrong here, that the old image is being restored for no other reason than personal grievances. What's wrong with this one?
2. There is really no need to disambiguate between "SR Croatia" and some other "Croatia" at the time, as there is no need to distinguish between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia at that time period. And if there is a "format" we're using for Croatian politicians, I did not receive the memo. Though, I must mention, the "format" you're referring to was probably written by a younger User:DIREKTOR :), since I wrote the infoboxes for quite a lot of Croatian politicians in the manner you describe. I only realized that it was kind of unnecessary later.
3. That is not quite true. As I said above, Agnosticism is often not listed at all, or the entry is not filled-in altogether - simply because it is not a religious affiliation and those people do not belong to any religion. Most social democrats refer to themselves as agnostic, yet only on a few articles will you find Agnosticism mentioned.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. You described Roberta's edit (in which she replace a cropped version of an image she created herself with an image released by his party) "malicious". How is an image used to illustrate his own party website malicious? And why wouldn't Roberta be free to replace one PD image with another, especially if she doe not seem to want her own creation to be used here? Besides, it was you who reverted her edit first time, second time and third time. NB, in that last one you reverted her addition of this image - which is just as recent and hi-res as the one you are arguing for. Care to explain that? (Btw she also left you a message at your talk which you promptly deleted as "trolling". How constructive.)
  • 2. There is a need to disambiguate between SR Croatia and Croatia, just as there is a need to distinguish between SFR Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This was raised many times because just putting in "Yugoslavia" attracts vandalism and putting in "Yugoslavia (now Croatia)" is misleading - Yugoslavia is not a former name for Croatia. The difference between the Kingdom and SFRJ is quite substantial - your view that it isn't is simply a minority view. The same format has spread to infoboxes on footballers, authors and the like - and if you want to change it you will need a much more wider consensus. The birthplace parameter must contain the name of the country at time of birth, whereas sub-national units are optional. The subnational unit in which Milanović was born was known as SR Croatia.
  • 3. Most articles at List of agnostics#Politics and law have infoboxes filled out in exactly the same way. You fail to argue that Milanović is an exception. If you want a project-wide change in the established consensus you must raise this elsewhere. The reason why "many social democrats" don't have this is probably because sources for that claim are missing. Timbouctou (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I answered that already. Roberta is edit-warring to push her own image over my own, which was there previously, because of a personal grudge from Commons. The other image she introduced to have my image removed is dated. In short, in my opinion it is malicious to try to remove another's work because of past grudges, just to have your own in place.
  • 2. The Republic of Croatia and SR Croatia are different, yes. Just as Croatia and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia are, or the SHS State, etc. The point is that in the historical period we are discussing there is only one "Croatia" and listing the official name seems redundant.
  • 3. There is an established consensus? Please provide a link.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Direktor, regarding your point #3: obviously you can't provide a link that proves there is an established consensus to the contrary, so what is the purpose of your question? We already had this discussion. The best way to settle this issue is definitely not to go through it all once again - this belongs in a centralized discussion (probably a matter for WP:WPBIO). GregorB (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listing agnosticism as a "religion" is a grave error, the more widespread the worse (there is no WP:CONSENSUS on the matter that I can find). One might as well list "Atheism", "Nihilism" or "Humanism" in such a way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm repeating myself but still: if the entry for "Religion" reads "None (agnostic)", then this explicitly says that agnosticism is not a religion, and is therefore not erroneous. To paraphrase a well-known joke, this is like "Hair color: None (bald)". GregorB (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. I agree. I do not mind that format. Though the analogy with hair is somewhat flawed: it suggests that the word in the brackets ("agnostic") has something to do with hair, while agnosticism has nothing at all to do with hair, hair colour, religion or religious affiliation - it is a completely different category. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Religion" parameter in the info box refers to person's beliefs, whatever they happen to be. In any case, DIREKTOR should take this up at WP:WPBIO or some other centralized discussion place. In the meantime there is no reason for this (or any other) article not to fill in the entry the way it is being used all over Wikipedia. Timbouctou (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timbouctou, the above assertion is your own claim. And it is plainly untrue. The parameter is not entitled "beliefs", but "religion". Religious beliefs are simply not the same thing as beliefs in general. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this discussion generates more heat than light, but I'll join in anyway... If it is a demonstratable common practice to include specification of agnosticism or otherwise in the religion slot of the infobox, it should be included by all means. To extend the hair color parallel, consider that

Hair color: brown (bald)

may also be an accurate description if the person in question shaves his/her head for instance which would otherwise be adorned by an unspecified patch of brown hair. Therefore

Religion: Roman Catholic (agnostic)

is also a perfectly plausible situation, since agnosticism is a philosophical stance that presence of a deity is unknowable, but religion is a matter of faith rather than knowing. One knows there is a wikipedia and saying that the same person believes wiki exists is nonsensical. In summation, I'd lean to keep the agnosticism as a modifier in round brackets where properly sourced and especially so if found elsewhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Direktor What you call "claim" others call "common sense", and judging by infoboxes at Clement Attlee, Helen Clark, Wim Kok, Willem Drees, Heinz Fischer, Esther Ouwehand, Bruno Kreisky, Ricardo Lagos, Lee Kuan Yew, Boris van der Ham, Jan Marijnissen, George Lincoln Rockwell, Gerdi Verbeet, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Gerrit Zalm and Jawaharlal Nehru I'm not the only one. Still, if you want to change something which appears to fall within the dictionary definition of "established convention" on this project than you should take it up someplace else. Timbouctou (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Tomboe. Apologies, Tomboe, everyone, the "heat" shall certainly be turned down :).
So once again: I agree. To take your example, if a person was a Roman Catholic and an agnostic (i.e. an form of an agnostic theist), I would not mind the format you suggest above. The essence of what I am saying is that agnosticism (or lack of it) is a different category than religion entirely. In the colloquial sense, the term "agnostic" (in the context of referring to a person's beliefs) means the person is not religious, and agrees with the tenets of agnosticism. Josipovic and Milanovic are not religious persons, and are agnostics by philosophical conviction.
In short, if it is common practice to mention agnosticism in the parameter, very well, but we must also mention that the person does not belong to any religion.
@Timbouctou, once again: please curb your belligerent tone. "Wikipedia is not a source" as you know, "everybody's doing it" is not an argument, and displaying the extent of a misleading error does not make it less of an error. I asked you several times to please point to a WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. I'm sorry, but I am not concerned with what you declare to be "common sense" or "established convention". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is common practice to mention agnosticism in the parameter, very well, but we must also mention that the person does not belong to any religion.
Why? To distinguish them from all those agnostics who belong to various religions? Lol.
"Wikipedia is not a source" as you know, "everybody's doing it" is not an argument, and displaying the extent of a misleading error does not make it less of an error. I asked you several times whether you can point to a WP:CONSENSUS on the issue.
I did not use Wikipedia as a source, did I? We are not discussing agnosticism as such but the way infoboxes should display it. I used examples above to illustrate the established convention. Ever heard of it? I also asked you several times to take this error-fixing crusade of yours to WP:WPBIO or some similar place, to no avail. And your request to prove consensus is pointless - can you point to a consensus that agnosticism should be listed in brackets after "None"? Timbouctou (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lol"? Please read the Agnostic theism article. You might, in addition, also want to learn about Christian agnosticism.
Yes, I have heard of WP:CONVENTIONS, i.e. the MoS, but I cannot find what you are claiming in it.
And once again, please, please curb your belligerent tone. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is not a discussion about agnosticism in general. Once again, you fail to respond to a friendly encouragement to take this someplace centralized because what your are arguing for is clearly against the project-wide established convention for info boxes. Once again, you are asking for some sort of proof that the established convention is written in stone (it isn't) while never providing anything similar for arguing the opposite. Oh and btw - I'm not the one who was accused for harrasment over this. Timbouctou (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out why exactly this talk page is the wrong venue for this discussion: the issue we are debating here has nothing to do with Zoran Milanović, just as it had nothing to do with Ivo Josipović when we discussed it earlier. On the other hand, it potentially affects many other biographies. That's why I strongly urge whomever might be interested in a constructive solution to take this issue to WP:WPBIO. GregorB (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on agnosticism in the infobox was started here (on 10:56, 4 November 2011) by User:Timbouctou. I am essentially only responding to the user's posts on the subject in pointing out that there is no WP:CONSENSUS and/or established WP:CONVENTION that we need to follow on this particular article. I certainly agree that in order to discuss the error in general, the matter should certainly be brought-up elsewhere (on WP:WPBIO most likely, yes).
@Timbouctou, I do not know why you keep pointing out that this discussion is not on agnosticism. I am also not asking you to show any piece of masonry, but only some Wikipedia convention or consensus, other than the one you've declared on this talkpage.
Timbouctou, your attitude towards myself not only manages to disallow any possibility of amicable agreement in any issue whatsoever, but also creates conflicts between us where they should not exist, and turns every discussion in general into a fruitless WP:BATTLEGROUND, distasteful to other Wikipedians. I would like to remind you, for the record, that you have been warned against such behavior, and recently, and that I have been instructed to report it immediately should it resurface. I will do so if your comments such as the above are to be the standard in this discourse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time - you failed to produce a convincing argument as to why an edit you inserted in the infobox, which is against the established convention used for such articles (evidenced by the virtue of 16 other articles on agnostic politicians linked above) should be used. Wikipedia has many methods to discuss these things, and you haven't used a single one - you never notified the relevant WikiProjects, and you still ignore what me and other editors have been telling you - to take this elsewhere. Because if this IS an error, it is in dozens of articles.
As for your rants about me personally, please observe WP:NPA. I believe you were instructed to do that as well. Timbouctou (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timbouctou, once again, the only thing I have been saying on this talkpage is that there is no "established convention" - and that in response to your claims that there is one. Simply because one format is used on more articles than another does not mean the former is somehow "automatically" a WP:CONVENTION. Unless the "First Church of Agnosticism" was founded somewhere that I am not aware of, it is an error to list a general belief as a religious belief. Now I suppose you would like to once more try and have an argument on a subject we both agree on? Namely that this subject (you brought up here) would be better discussed in a wider venue.
Heh. I am indeed observing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, whereas you continuously do not, even as you quote them ("rant"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time for this section to come to an end since it has deviated from the topic first mentioned. Anymore comments on whether agnosticism should be included in religious beliefs should be brought up with WP:WPBIO to get a consensus on all bios.--Jesuislafete (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic is perfectly acceptable vis a vis a person's views, especially if they have publicly expressed them. Depending on the context, such a statement could be even more important. Fascist Croatia was heavily reliant on the Catholic clergy in its promotion and delivery of an ultra nationalist and perverted version of Croatian identity which, among its genocide of Jews, Serbs and took the time to "bless" the Ustasha troops and take Serb children for forcible conversion to Roman Catholicism from Greek Orthodoxy. This is a state that believes a religion that condemns gay people but has 2 gay bathhouses in the small area of Vatican city should continue its monopoly on social and moral values in promoting bigotry and racism and prejudice. In THAT country, saying you're an Agnostic is an act of courage. Canlawtictoc (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

[edit]
#1: Milanovic.jpg
#2: Zoran Milanovic crop.jpg
#3: 16 obljetnica vojnoredarstvene operacije Oluja 04082011 Zoran Milanovic 38.jpg
#4: 16 obljetnica vojnoredarstvene operacije Oluja 04082011 Zoran Milanovic 5044-2.jpg
#5: 16 obljetnica vojnoredarstvene operacije Oluja 04082011 Zoran Milanovic 2c-2.jpg
#6: Zoran Milanovic predsjednik.jpg

In my opinion, neither the current nor the previous infobox images are quite up to par - one because the subject of the photo is looking away from the camera and the lower-left corner of the image contains a blurry object (probably sth in the background), and the other because it is cropped too tight (top of the head is missing). A cropped version of another commons image (16 obljetnica vojnoredarstvene operacije Oluja 04082011 Zoran Milanovic 5044-2.jpg) might be salvageable but even that's far from anything really good.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that's certainly true. I replaced the old one with this one since its really dated, tried my best... Hopefully they'll release a formal portrait in the coming months. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: for easier reference, I've added these three pics to this section.
No. 1 is a bit dated. Looks slightly out of focus too at native resolution. Aggressively cropped. Otherwise not bad.
No. 2 is not really good as a portrait because the subject looks down, giving him a somewhat sullen appearance.
No. 3 is technically good and works fine as a portrait. Arguably could use a better crop - I'm not really an expert.
Of these, No. 3 is the best IMO. It is still better than 90% of non-PR portraits here, so frankly I don't see where's the problem and in particular I can't comprehend that image changes are being described as "malicious", as if he is yawning, squinting, grimacing, picking his nose, or something of the sort. GregorB (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO no.3 is the best, perhaps with a somewhat different crop - see David Cameron for reference.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the third is the best picture as well. The first one is overly cropped, and the second one has the subjects face and eyes turned downward. None are horrible, but the third looks most flattering. I can't believe replacing images has become worthy of an edit-war; come on users-it's an image. Not worth it. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't believe someone just started removing my image repeatedly... and its not because No.3 was perceived as "better" - it was just to remove my image, as the user was edit-warring to introduce just about any other photo besides the one I recently introduced to replace the dated one.
As for which one is "best", well.. since we're going into aesthetics, I must confess that (even though it is my crop) No.2 in all objectivity seems to me far more flattering because it does not accentuate the (rather severe) acne vulgaris cicatrice on the person's face. No.3 really does an excellent job of doing just that, just have a look at it in larger scale. And imho the pensive, "deep" expression on No.2 is also a good thing appearances-wise. Though, of course, I shall submit to the will of the majority :). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of these images is "yours" in any way, shape or form. And no. 3 looks best, although the contrast could be better. Timbouctou (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timbouctou is here deliberately trying to start an argument (again), by suggesting that I claimed ownership of one of these images. Which is, of course, blatantly untrue (I only referred to the fact that image no.2 was cropped by myself into a portrait format). Once again, the user is inventing a conflict where none exists, and bringing his disruptive attitude into an entirely friendly discourse. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit skeptical that an infrequent user was edit warring with you here; I think you may have jumped too soon to that conclusion, since I saw no such intent going on with the user in the history. And although you may have had trouble with a user in the past, you still should have assumed good faith that they were trying to improve the article. Now I don't have a serious problem with number 2, I just think for a bio's main image, there are better ones in which the figure's face is more visible to see. And I think you have the idea wrong: we are not going into aesthetics, and I don't see a problem with the man's face–they are a part of who he is, there is no reason to hide it. I suppose it might seem better to find a picture that minimizes his facial scarring but well, he doesn't seem to have a problem with it (as he could have easily had it surgically fixed), so I don't see why we should. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to throw out there that I think picture number 6 would look good if the top of the head wasn't cropped out. The person's face is clearly shown and looks attentive and it seems fairly recent. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4 is OK, 5 is almost as good as 3 (better crop, but worse angle regarding his facial features). 6 looks slightly dated, like 1 (although, to be fair, that's really inconsequential - this is not meant to be a passport photo), and is heavily cropped. GregorB (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jesuislafete. Roberta was edit-warring, Jesuislafete. What's there to interpret? She kept replacing the previous image with ones she preferred, without discussion or even so much as an explanation, and in spite of being reverted. And we do have a history from Commons. Similar behavior on her part, she's probably a photographer of some sort I suppose, and thinks she should be the one doing the decision-making. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to mention that you had violated WP:3RR (1st, 2nd, 3rd). And since you mention WP:BRD, you might want to catch up on BRD-NOT - did you provide "a reason that is based on policies, guidelines or common sense" in any of your edit summaries? Timbouctou (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Direktor: Yes, Roberta is a major contributor to Commons - just look at her 2011 gallery (couldn't resist applying a few of these right away). By uploading her Croatia-related photos, she is also a great contributor to WikiProject Croatia in particular, and I don't think that this slight faux pas takes away much from that. We had a problem, we've solved it, let's move on. GregorB (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Croatian government

[edit]

The new government will be formed in December 2011, not January 2012. Ref (among others): http://hrsvijet.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18860:zoran-milanovi-dobio-mandat-za-sastavljanje-vlade&catid=1:politika&Itemid=9 --Wustenfuchs 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Write about it once it happens, not before. Timbouctou (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about that. Infobox mentions when he is going to take the office. --Wustenfuchs 17:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly about that. We don't know when he would take office - he has to receive a mandate from Josipović once the election results are official, then the Sabor has to convene and then they have to vote for the new government. It will happen either in late December or early January but nobody knows for sure when that would happen so instead of guesswork the infobox should say "To be determined". Oh and btw try finding a single source which considers him "10th" Prime Minister. Timbouctou (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

[edit]

Atheism is a "disbelief in the existence of deity". An atheist is a non-believer. In other words when someone is not a believer, it is hardly objectionable (or "WP:OR") to describe him as a non-believer. The fancy word the ancient Greeks had for it is the most popular, but you can translate it in any language you want ("nevjernik" e.g.). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in that all atheists are non-believers, but the opposite (that all non-believers are atheists) does not hold (because there are agnostics). The source says he is a non-believer, but does not say he's a an atheist. I'm introducing the "middle ground" version of the infobox entry that reflects these facts. GregorB (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! not that "agnostic" nonsense again... :) Quite simply, you either believe in a god or you do not. By the very nature of the terms themselves it is impossible to be something other than either a theist or an a-theist. Gnosticism or a-gnosticism is a different issue altogether. You either believe knowledge of a deity is knowable or you do not. You can be an agnostic in addition to an atheist, that is true, you can be an agnostic atheist, but you can also be an agnostic theist. This is such a common misconception there are apparently even videos on the internet about it :P, here's one. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zoran Milanović did not say he was an atheist. In fact he avoided replying positively to a direct question whether he was one, saying only that he was "not a believer". Your edit is in direct contradiction to the source provided. "Believers" is a term used for church-going individuals in Croatian, therefore all he said was that he does not go to church (even though he was "baptized and married" in one). Timbouctou (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While i know you like to use strong terms in describing me and my edits, an actual "direct contradiction" would be if he stated something like "I am a theist" or "I believe in god". "Atheism" is what is referred to as a negative term in that it is defined through negation ("a-theism"). A person who does not believe in (a) god is a an non-believer by definition, an atheist. It would be very hard to convince me that constitutes WP:OR, or even a leap of faith of some sort. What, on the other hand, very much does constitute WP:OR is your assertion that a "believer" (vjernik) is someone who goes to church. That may be your interpretation, but I would really like to hear someone else's opinion on the matter (and by "someone else" I mean a source, like a dictionary). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was asked directly "are you an atheist". There was no "yes" in his reply. Everything else is speculation. What you call "my assertion" is a known fact for any speaker of Croatian language. Perhaps your Croatian might not be perfect but you are welcome to ask for second opinions at WP:Croatia. Timbouctou (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His response to "are you an atheist?" was "I am not a believer". According to your above post, he didn't say the word "Yes." so you assert he really meant to say "I don't go to church"... What?
I am sure you will have no problem sourcing a "known fact"? Because I speak Croatian myself and do not "know it". Otherwise I would like you to please stop interpreting words as you see fit. I submit that
  • "vjernik" translates into "believer" quite well and unambiguously [1]
  • the primary meaning of "vjernik" in Croatian is "one who believes in a higher being, god, gods, one who is religious" (onaj koji vjeruje u više biće, Boga, bogove, onaj koji je religiozan); the secondary meaning is "one who belongs to a church or religious community" (onaj koji pripada kakvoj crkvi ili vjerskoj zajednici). That is all.
I do not understand how you can possibly claim that a "believer" in Croatian means "someone who goes to church", to quote your unsupported claim directly. In fact, to be perfectly frank, it seems that even after having been blocked for such behavior, you have once again followed me and joined a perfectly amiable discussion with a third party and started edit-warring, making threats [2], implying directly I do not know my own language [3], and in general disrupting discussion with hostile behavior (regardless of who's "right"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah, spare the usual rants.
When asked whether he was an atheist, Milanović responded: "I am not a believer. I do not know how to define that better. I am looking for meaning like any other man." On the issue of defining oneself as a "believer, agnostic or atheist" he responded by saying that "Those are issues that nobody should be asked to define or categorize. I understand people who want to talk about it, but [I also understand] people who don't." The article adds that Milanović pointed out that since one's beliefs are a personal matter, politicians should not appeal to voters by picking one option over another.
So if anything, Milanović chose not to define his beliefs clearly, he did it on purpose, and he specifically chose to skirt around a direct question in which he was asked to self-identify as an atheist. What you are doing is original research and has no place on Wikipedia. The man had ample opportunities to say that he was an atheist but chose not to use them. You have no source to claim otherwise and your personal musings on what constitutes atheism do not belong here.
Oh and btw your WP:OWN tendencies are starting to show again, you are inserting original research and edit-warring against consensus, plus you violated WP:3RR ([4], [5], [6], [7]). And you are doing it in the very same article in which you had violated WP:3RR over which image should be used in the infobox ([8], [9], [10]) two months ago and got away scot free. Looks like getting blocked eight times for edit-warring dd not teach you anything. Perhaps a ninth block might be in order. Timbouctou (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this position. In the context of a nation that has experienced countless wars with not only members of different religions, but even with Orthodox Christians, a statement by a leader of his atheism is a profound statement with significance. This was a nation that was at one point led into war by prompting of Catholic Clergy. The admission of one's atheism then could have importance sufficient to be specifically noted in wikipedia, IMHV. Historiaantiqua (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

[edit]

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
  • "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."
More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"
Extended content

METHODOLOGY:

Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.

First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space [11], grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:

I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.

To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)"[12] and "Religion: None (atheism)"[13] in article space and found five pages:

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.
In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon Is this what you were going for?
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace... --Tuvixer (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zoran Milanović. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Zoran Milanović. 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) 07:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service to Yugoslav Foreign Ministry missing

[edit]

It says in the opening paragraph that after law school he served in the Foreign Ministry, but it doesn't specify of what country. So that doesn't add up. Something is missing, and I believe he worked in the Yugoslav ministry before Croatia's secession.

Also, attached to the Croatian mission to NATO and the EU, the word "counselor" is used. In the English language, this has a confusing meaning in this context. Was he "legal counsel" in which case counselor should be changed to "counsel." If it is meant to say that he was a special advisor, then the word "advisor" should be used. Counselor in the English usually means a therapist; if he was part of a council, then the word councillor is used. Canlawtictoc (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of 93.138.105.159

[edit]

Please discuss here. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it necessary to include that electoral info in this article. Especially not in the lead. There is a balanced report in the article about elections already: "Furthermore, the number of votes received by Zoran Milanović, in regard to both the first (562,783) and the second (1,034,389) round of the election, is the lowest of any victorious presidential candidate to date. On the other hand, the number of votes (507,628) and the percentage of the vote (26.65%) acquired by Grabar-Kitarović in the first round is the lowest for any Croatian president." --Tuvixer (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is way too much internal politics in the article. Historiaantiqua (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo - president Milanović

[edit]

New photo of Milanović from presidents homepage. Please change photo.

https://www.predsjednik.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Zoran_Portret.png

Article is too long

[edit]

The article focuses on far too many banal comments, it reads like a competition of some kind, ie "first time inauguration was held at place x." These would be merely stylistic points not worth taking issue with were it not for the length of the article. An encyclopedic article on a living politician of a small country for the purposes of a global audience probably doesn't need to list so many specific dates - someone has added the exact dates ie DD MON YR of fairly banal points, which makes the article further bulky and disjointed to read.

There is also little criticism, and/or, it focuses on political bickering that may be appropriate for tabloid papers, but really is not important in the grand scheme of things, such as his decision to convert holdings from Swiss francs to euros, for example. Historiaantiqua (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoran_Milanović&oldid=1256541811"