Talk:2009–10 Croatian presidential election

2009–10 Croatian presidential election was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Croatia Mid‑importance

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

Politics B‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Battle of Vukovar#The battle: part I|Branko Borković alias Mladi Jastreb]] The anchor (#The battle: part I) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Damir Kajin's political orientation

Damir Kajin is center-left because 24 sata said so? He is a left-wing populist because knows the date of birth of a "communistic" dictator and doesn't know when the autocratic nationalist was born? He said that he would tell Milanovic to first loose the Peasants and the Pensioners, because they ask for too much. Yeah, he's really socially sensitive. His party is mainly oriented towards regionalism and anti-nationalism, and is a member of ELDR. He is only left on social issues, his economic positions are kinda rightist. Sure, I'd call him a liberal, socially progressive, anti-nationalist and regionalist, maybe even a populist, but newer a leftist. 89.164.154.166 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political orientation

Croatian politicians are valued only by their looks towards social issues. So, if someone is called a "leftist" in Croatia, it means that he is for good relations with Serbs, for in vitro fertilisation for unmarried couples, gay rights, etc. HNS's and IDS's social views may be leftist, but their economic politics are rightist, they are in the ELDR, an organization of European liberals (European liberals=American libertarians). They shouldn't be caractarised as "leftists" here. 89.164.188.139 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally untrue. And there are no sources of this statements. Being a "leftist" has no connections "with good relations with Serbs". Center-right parties established many Croatian-Serb institutions! Please do try to give a credible source. Croatian politics has center right, center left and liberal center in the Parliament. The differences on social and economical issues are so small that the parties could all be considered centrist and this small differences make them only - right of center, or left of center. Including in vitro and gay rights - right of center (HDZ and HSS) consider gay rights as human righst; both parties introduced anti-discrimination bills, they do include the gay rights in state reports to international institutions as Human Rights Watch. There is no ideological problem with in vitro for HDZ. They are not against abortion. Croatia has maybe two "leftist" or "far left" parties (plus various of green parties who are also considered "left" or "far left") - outside of the Parliament, and various of right wing, and far right parties out of Parliament as well. Maybe HSP can be considered a "right wing" party as the only party in the Parliament outside of "center sphere". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.147.34 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2009

Like I said, their "leftism" is manifested only by social progressivism. Want some credible sources? Read HNS's programme and look for "liberalization of the work market". Croatia has no real left, only small and unimportant revolutionary socialists, maybe some real social democrats or democratic socialists in the third way SDP or in the titoist SRP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.172.184 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrija Hebrang

Someone is constantly removing "right wing (de facto" from his political orientation. Andrija Hebrang is the HDZ's whip in the parliament and leader of right wing fraction. And has been so since 90s. There are references put in the text, so I dont see the point of someone censoring here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.147.34 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2009

Dear anonymous user, your militant interest in pushing quasi labels by incorporating tabloids as "references" is as asinine as blog postings that someone (quite possibly yourself) had referenced before. Moreover, your use of false sources as reference proves nothing more than POV pushing. Your wishes for "de facto" as a label proves it further, in addition for your inability to distinguish the political spectrum. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instant runoff voting (IRV)

Source? As far as I know, the 2010 election will be held under the same electoral law as the previous one - i.e. with a runoff between the top placed candidates two weeks after the first round. --20% (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian presidential election, 2010?

Maybe we should reconsider the title now the first round is set for Dec 2009, and theoretically everything can be over before 2010. GregorB (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Croatian presidential election, 2009–2010" is still an unfortunate title. GregorB (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it just be 2009, since as you said, everything could be over by 2009. --Jesuislafete (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but all realistic projections (at least in local media) say that there will be a runoff. The polls are pretty indicative - none of them are even close to hitting the 50% mark. Short of *several* major candidates backing out right now, I can't imagine a scenario where someone would win >50% in the first round. Anyway I don't see a problem with keeping it where it is. It's a neutral title and we have incoming redirects from all variations. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll clarification

The latest poll explicitly differentiates between the entire population, and the population of likely voters. They have undecideds in *both* categories, but obviously the numbers are different. Do we include the former or the latter in the table? I had included the former, but I see now that it might be a deviation. I'll include the latter now, if only for reference, if it's wrong it can be undone. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, or maybe not. The article is really unclear. It has different numbers for the first two candidates, it mentions just one number for most others, and for a couple of them it just says that "only a third of their voters are likely". Trying to use exact math from this is impossible. I wonder if anyone has a copy of the article as it went in print, maybe that one is less vague. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"opiniometar" polls

I heard about these Totus Opiniometar polls on Dnevnik HRT today, but our references to them were removed in this unexplained edit. Their web site is here. What's the reason for their removal? I found one blog post about it, but little else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totus Opiniometar's polls were just recently removed with the following explanation:

Totus Opinionmetar is a scam polling agency. It works is benefit for certain candidates and its' polls shouldn't be listed.

However, an edit comment by an IP user doesn't make it so, therefore this is not a valid rationale for removal. The best one can do is to keep it in, and note all doubts regarding its authenticity, using a reliable source. The blog doesn't cut it IMO. GregorB (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we need a decent rationale, not near-vandalism. If anything, the "Promocija plus" polls also stand out from the crowd - they don't even list most candidates. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Totus Opiniometar isn't a complete outlier - there's one GfK poll that is similar. We might be looking at a systematic problem such as some polls using only 'likely voters' and these using 'possible voters', or something like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, there is a more general problem regarding actual poll figures. When John Doe gets "10%", what does it mean? Is it: a) 10% of all people who have picked their candidate, 2) 10% of all people who said they are going to vote (i.e. including those who are still undecided), 3) 10% of all people who participated in the poll (i.e. including those who declined to answer or hung up the phone). Someone recently changed the rightmost column from "Other/none" to "Undecided/none", apparently without full understanding of these issues. GregorB (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And we also use the same table for the pre-nomination period, where "others" actually included others, and for the post-nomination period, where there aren't any (= void ballot). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We just had another minor scuffle now with Totus numbers which aren't comparable. I'm hoping it blows over... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

The endorsements section is a mess:

Pusić's and Kajin's endorsements should not be listed separately from the parties they represent.
Who exactly is Plinio Cuccurin? And why should we care about his endorsement?

He is just the most influential businessman in Istria and a second round competitor for Župan of Istria. If you dont know who he is, just educate jourself, google, or shut the fuck up.

The Autochthonous Croatian Peasant Party has 121 party members in all of Croatia. They are not relevant.
Only select regional HVIDRA branches have endorsed Bandić.

Also, the first and second rounds need to be better split, as the article appears confusing at the moment. "Analysis" and "Election night" sections relating to the first round would be better served preceding the second round campaign section. Chronological ordering of sections is easiest to follow.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of candidate vs. party I agree, have intervened, but have been reverted back. Feel free to change it again.

On the matter of Ladonja and AHSS - they are both local political organizations so they should be judged on the same criteria. If we consider them problematic (non-notable) for political endorsements, we should apply the same standard of notability to all those individuals that are unrelated to politics. But it's a slippery slope, for example, I've never heard Vlado Šola or Venio Losert talking politics, but on the other hand Thompson and TBF lyrics are often political. Which ones do we keep and which ones we don't?

Regarding HVIDRA endorsement, the linked article says Zagreb branch so that simply needs fixing, go ahead.

As for the round split, it's just a leftover really, let's just go ahead and demarcate it better now that we certainly have both rounds. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Catholic Church: "true, they haven't actually endorsed anyone, but...", etc. This is a slippery slope to a speculative and even messier section. The stance of the CC is better discussed elsewhere. GregorB (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

At the moment, the article uses both DMY and MDY formats. Per WP:DATES we should pick one of these formats and use it throughout. WP:DATES does not say which one, and personally I don't have any preferences... GregorB (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length and detail

We're at 103 KB now, so it's clearly overdone :) I'm not sure if it makes more sense to single out some particular topic into a separate article, or just to start trimming excess details. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as bad as Austrian legislative election, 2008, but going in that direction. :-) Some trimming will probably be needed, but I'd wait until after the election, when things settle down a bit.

On a related note, I've been thinking about converting the first-round candidates gallery into a (sortable?) table. All kinds of things about them can then be presented in a clear (and somewhat more compact) way, from number of signatures to campaign expenses (the latter is currently a separate table). GregorB (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the gallery makes no sense. I've converted the initial list into a table. Not sure if there's enough room for other data, though... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junk poll reporting

I'm confused again. The news reports about the latest poll say that there is a 55.2:44.8 split in votes, but also say that there are 12.7 "neodlučnih" (undecided). WTF? So are we really looking at:

(100-12.7)*0.458 = 39.983%
(100-12.7)*0.552 = 48.189%

Or are these 12.7% undecided about the turnout alone? If not, how come *everyone* else has made up their mind?! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the poll is junk also because it predicts a 59% turnout - based on the historical trend that's near-impossible. Most of the first-round polls had a similar problem, noted by TV commentators at least a few times, and we should document that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of polls

The majority of polls (if not all of them) are limited to Croatia itself. However, there are 400,000 eligible voters outside of Croatia (9% of the electorate), out of which 60,000 participated in the first round (3% of first-round votes). There should probably be some mention of this, either in the polling section or elsewhere. I noticed this issue after seeing this Slobodna Dalmacija article.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The turnout for the diaspora vote in the 2005 presidential race was 101,425 or 26.19% in the second round and 77,578 or 19.39% in the first round. It's hard to say how much the turnout will grow between rounds this time - five years ago there was no hyped "commie" vs. "our guy" race, but there also was no Sanader/HDZ fiasco either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have the answer now, almost completely. Currently 112,222 or 28.46% in the second round. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates' images

Incredibly (or not), only 4 out of 12 first-round candidates have images. Of those that are missing an image, something can be done quickly only for Škare-Ožbolt, because her web site has a Commons-compatible license (Sadržaji s ovih stranica mogu se prenositi bez dozvole uz navođenje izvora.). Others apparently require WP:PERMISSION. GregorB (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By eliminating the gallery format, this becomes less important. It was never a particularly good idea anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. GregorB (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

number of voters

The early turnout data says there is a total of 4.088.798 voters. I figure that's the national number, and the rest is outside the borders. It did not change from the first round early turnout data. Can we assume that nothing will change in the expected voter numbers, or can something still move around? People who died or turned 18 in those two weeks? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the exact figure can't stay the same. It will presumably be reported by DIP along with the election results, so whatever they say will be official. GregorB (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Jurčević

By what means is he far right? There is no far-right in Croatia like there is in EU (Jobbik, BNP, NPD, FPO, BZO,...). He is something like British UKIP, but without racist connections with are sometimes associated with UKIP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.100.142 (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Croatian presidential election, 2009–10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Croatian presidential election, 2009–10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Croatian presidential election, 2009–10. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/52789/bitka-za-predsjednika-u-trolistu-sanader-cacic-jurcic
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/44700/bandic-and-milanovic-fighting-it-out-for-zagreb
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080629115541/http://www.usud.hr:80/default.aspx?Show=ustav_republike_hrvatske&Lang=en to http://www.usud.hr/default.aspx?Show=ustav_republike_hrvatske&Lang=en
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/71475/vidosevic-predao-dip-u-kandidaturu-za-predsjednika-republike-s-31000-potpisa
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/71835/covjek-iz-naroda-bandic-uvjeren-da-ce-pobijediti-vec-u-prvom-krugu
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/74672/josipovic-sdp-ovom-pobjedom-cemo-zacrveniti-cijelu-hrvatsku
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/75031/bandic-nikada-ne-bi-postupio-kao-sanader-josipovic-povratak-zbog-bandica
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/55298/zivot-bez-boga-i-vraga-u-katolickoj-hrvatskoj
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/74499/razocarana-premijerka-hdz-u-drugom-krugu-nece-podrzati-nikoga
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/74503/prisavska-posla-htv-pokrao-izlazne-ankete-novoj-tv-i-rtl-u

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) 17:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Croatian presidential election, 2009–10. 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) 18:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]