Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia

message: 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)
replies: text: These issues have been resolved since, for anyone reading this talk page. Jargon777  Leave a message 17:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of "Access to IVF for same-sex couples" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo of a document proving a man had been sentenced to death for being a homosexual 

message: 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)
replies: text: The definition effectively bans same-sex marriage, like in the other 13 countries it is banned. – Plarem (User talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (User talk) 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional definition of a marriage

message: 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 Wikipedia. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I will shorten it down. – Plarem (User talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifics of a poll in the [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: 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  parameter so that non-Croatian readers will be able to glean something of them. Both sides here seem very confused about policies on this Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Source citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Changes and resolving issues 

message: 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: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:LGBT rights in Croatia]] 

message: Considering issues on this site have been resolved I decided to remove the introduction box to this article. It has been there for a long time, but problems that emerged then have been dealt with. 11raccoon1 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues resolved 

message: Wikipedia's image relevance policy states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be SIGNIFICANTLY AND DIRECTLY related to the article's topic.". I have read the article and the government minister whose photograph is prominently featured in the article is neither significant nor directly related to the topic. Actually, it looks more like a desperate attempt by her PR people to boost her relevance in Wikipedia. Especially as there appears to be a list of numerous other politicians in the text (with apparently equal (in)significance to the topic). I wonder therefore if at some point we will see their PR teams introducing photographs of other Croatian VIPs? 213.211.143.223 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Her picture was on the article before she was a minister in the government. I really don't see why her picture should be in the article, maybe someone will object to that, we should wait a week and then if no one objects I can remove the picture, ok? :) Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

text: A fact is that she is very vocative in the defense of the LGBT rights, maybe that was the point, and she attended a lot of Prides and is a public image that supports them and human rights. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is she the only notable person to attend gay prides? Because that is not what is said in the article. I started counting the names mentioned in that part of the article, and beside her there are at least thirty other politicians/notable persons there (I stopped counting at some point). I have been reading and re-reading the article but I still don't see what warrants that her picture be one of five photographs in the whole article. After all, no one is arguing that any mention of her be removed. If anyone wishes to see what she looks like, they can click on the hyperlink. But let's wait for a week, and see indeed if anyone can come up with a valid argument to keep the photo.213.211.143.223 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As, quite unsurprisingly, no valid argument's been put forward over the last week as to why the lady's picture deserved to be included into the article, I deleted it. Those with fervent desire to see how she looks will continue to have an option to click on the link leading to her dedicated page. Another reminder I guess of how tempting Wikipedia is as a PR instrument. 213.219.143.139 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of a Croatian government minister 

message: From some reason the introduction to this article has been changed. Why? Here are the changes:
 
A sentence telling us about the referendum has been removed from the bit talking about the current situation, and left on its own. Why?
The introduction also mentions the first case of partner-guardianship. Why? That is to be described in the part about LGBT parenting. It is so out of place here. Worsened by the term "girlfriend." She is her life partner, not a girlfriend.
In the past, the sentence describing Life Partnership Act also said the law recognises an institution called partner-guardianship. That sentence has been broken dow into two parts, and the second part now tells us that the Act created an institution called partner-guardianship. How can a law create something? The law can recognise something, and is created by the lawmaker. Can we please bring back to where it was as there was nothing wrong with it?11raccoon1 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the events in chronological order, and the referendum was put out on its own because you had problems with the referendum and the current situation being in the same paragraph. The law created the institution because it was not there before. Now, please stop nitpicking and find something better to work on. – Sdino (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction to the article

message: Hello, this edit request is minor and targets the euphemisms "passed away" and "passes away", which the Wikipedia manual of style explicitly warns editors against using. I understand that this request's being minor may not lead to its implementation quickly or even at all. The two requested edits are in the same sentence under the section Partner-guardianship and parental responsibilities, which is a sub-section of Public laws. I struck through the euphemisms, and I placed the edits in parentheses and set their type face as bold, as follows:
"Such a relationship between the non-parent life partner and the child may be established if the parent-partner passes away(dies), under the condition that the other parent has also passed away(died), is considered unknown or has lost their parental responsibilities due to child abuse."
fdsTalk 04:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:Passed away, so  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 22 July 2015 

message: As per the new consensus and the open RfC proposal, same-sex marriage is the normal term to be used on Wikipedia, unless one can prove, using sources that any other term. You argue that the march in the picture is a "March for the marriage equality". I corrected both the grammar in that and the consensus-related matter. So, do you have any reliable sources that would prove that that term can be used? – Sdino (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: You have undone some of my changes, saying they were not justifiable. But I shall argue that now. Firstly, if we are going to have the exact number on life partnerships taken place, then use the correct source, which I have done. The article that had been used here before does not even give the exact number, and it even states that some of them have been planned. Now, we do not work on plans do we? There is an article that tells you the exact number of partnerships taken within the first year. So can you explain how do speculations come before facts? Furthermore, you state that there were 85 partnerships, and then you account for around 60-70. Doesn't make much sense does it?
Secondly, you cannot say a "successful" referendum. It might have been successful for one side, but not for the other. Few users have been banned from editing this article as they were using it as a tool for their campaign and different views. And here, we try to be neutral. So even if you disagree with LGBT rights, Wikipedia is not a place for the anti-LGBT right campaign. Please do not edit this bit again as I will report it. 
Thirdly, changing the bit about tourism is beyond me. It was translated in a very poor way, and here we try to help each other. I did not change anything apart from the grammar and structure, and now you want it back. Why would you want back something that sounds so silly in English? As we mentioned before, a very good command of both languages is required for good translation. And based on your small comment you left when undoing changes tells me your knowledge of English is very basic. I do apologize, but if you are going to deal with grammar and structure you need to have at least some form of knowledge. 
11raccoon1 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You got it all wrong, I support LGBT rights. You can't say that it was a referendum on marriage, it was on banning same-sex marriage. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

text: That was not the question on the referendum so please if you don't know that basic thing stop editing this article. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

text: If you do not understand the Croatian language then you should be very careful with your edits regarding topics that are related to Croatia. I am from Croatia and I live in Croatia. So please stop edit warring. You are introducing changes to the article and I have reverted them because you do not have a consensus. So please show some good faith and stop editing the article and use the talk page to work on a consensus. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

text: 11raccoon1 - while you are correct that strictly speaking the wording was designed to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. We must also accept that the only reason it did this was specifically in order to excluse same sex couples from marriage. There was no other reason. So the effect is to rule out same sex marriage in Croatia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I understand your concerns and the point you make. But at the same time I think it would be misleading to suggest that the constitutional change was just a house keeping exercise to define marriage. It wasn't. It was directly done to deny same sex couples the right to marry. No other reason than that. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. It seems right then not to use the word ban. I suppose you could argue that it reinforces the prohibition on marriage between people of the same sex. But you can't ban, of course, what is already not permitted. Seems to me the purpose of the referendum was a political one - to send a high level message that the progression of LGBT rights will have limits. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh now you understand that the referendum was not about the definition of marriage, but about the introduction of that definition in the Constitution. Its sole purpose was to ban, yes B-A-N, same-sex marriage, because in Croatia we have a significant percent of the population that is easily boiled up and mobilized when it comes to hate and discrimination, so the church and right-wing parties used that primitive material to spread hate and even more divide the citizens of Croatia, just because if there were no divisions and if in the political sphere we would talk about economy and things that are really essential to the development of the country, the right-wing would have no chance in gaining power and wining elections. So I, who live in Croatia, have seen the debates and statements before the referendum, and the "ZA" side (those who wanted the referendum to pass) were saying that "Europe is dangerous and the center-left government will introduce gay marriage so we have to prevent that" and so on, but all in the sense that they have to prevent marriage equality, of course they don't call that marriage equality but they say "gay marriages" of even worse "fag marriages". There is no doubt, even if the "hidden" intention was to mobilize the primitive right-wing, the result was a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. --Tuvixer (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Why is it necessary to have two separate sections in the article describing the 2013 referendum? Why is covering it once not sufficient? Why is it necessary to go into such detail on the referendum beyond a few paragraphs rather than referring the reader to the main article which is very comprehensive? Answers please before restoring any material. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove the content from the article before discussing it. There is no duplication and the referendum was a major event or development regarding LGBT rights in Croatia. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have discussed it. As you can see above. It is evident that the same material is duplicated under the section dealing with historical context and then the section under politics. No one denies it was a significant occurance (up to a point) but it seems to be that message is got across adequately. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me please, what is duplicated. Please, because I can't find what is duplicated. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Under the post-communist section it says: "More recently, the establishment of a lobby group, "In the Name of the Family", led the call to change the Croatian national constitution so that marriage can only be defined as a union between a man and a woman. The Roman Catholic Church played a prominent role in this political campaign, and Cardinal Josip Bozanić of Zagreb issued a letter to be read in churches reminding people that "Marriage is the only union enabling procreation". Subsequently a national referendum was held on 1 December 2013 where voters approved the change. Franko Dota, a gay rights activist, criticised the results, arguing that it was intended "to humiliate the gay population, and to strike against the progress of the past decades". Stephen Bartulica, a proponent of the referendum and a professor at the Catholic University of Croatia, countered that "the vote was an attempt to show that there is strong opposition" to "gay marriage and adoption by gays". The Prime Minister, Zoran Milanovic, was unhappy that the referendum had taken place at all, saying, "I think it did not make us any better, smarter or prettier."" What is missing from this that requires another 6 or 7 paras further down under the politics section? Bearing in mind there is a whole article on the issue that someone will be able to read. We have a duty to make the article as user friendly as possible. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: 11raccoon1 that sounds a fair suggestion. If people think there are important bits that we should keep somewhere then happy to consider that. My real motivation was to avoid the article becoming too long and unwieldy and repeating the same point in several places - as that isn't helping for someone reading it. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make sure that the content you have removed and is not mentioned anywhere else is mentioned, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reassured that it all of it is mentioned in the main article on the referendum. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referendum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on LGBT rights in Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080611102621/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2007/10/30/europe/EU-GEN-Croatia-Hate-Crime.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/30/europe/EU-GEN-Croatia-Hate-Crime.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110701133316/http://oneworldsee.org:80/Successful-and-Peaceful-10-th-Zagreb-Pride to http://oneworldsee.org/Successful-and-Peaceful-10-th-Zagreb-Pride
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on LGBT rights in Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720122836/http://www.zagreb-pride.net/j/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=27 to http://www.zagreb-pride.net/j/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=27
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614020712/http://lori.hr:80/olori.php to http://www.lori.hr/olori.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the sentence in the section that talks about proponents of LGBT rights saying how HDZ and HDSSB have supported the Life Partnership Act since the 2016 elections, because it is simply not true, nor were there any sources that would confirm that. Both parties unanimously voted against the Act in 2014, and haven't officially changed their stance on it. It is true that the president of HDSSB Dragan Vulin has expressed his support in making same-sex couples equal to married couples (which they are anyway apart from adoption), and highlighted that he does not believe they should be equal when it comes to adoption rights. Now, Life Partnership Act does recognise an institution called partner-guardian, which is a step-child adoption under a different name. Does that mean he would want to change the Act? We just don't know. Hence why it would be wrong to say he supports it to the letter. We should just write down what he said. No more, no less. 
When it comes to HDZ it is quite clear. The party has never ever supported anything but some form of protection against discrimination. It is true that some of the members said they will not try to mess with the Act, and will leave it be. In a debate during the 2016 elections campaign current PM Andrej Plenkovic said how he is open to everybody, but knows what a marriage is, and what a life partnership is. That is not a support for anything. It is clear that HDZ will not try to play with the law, and are aware how there is little they can do about it. But that is not a support in any shape or form. Most members have been quite vocal in criticising the previous government for creating the Life Partnership Act (and still are), and the party has not officially changed its stance on LGBT rights. So it is very wrong to say how HDZ supported the Act when the evidence available tells us something very different. I have been following this election very thoroughly and know exactly who said what. As I said, provide us with the evidence how HDZ as a party changed its stance on LGBT rights. 11raccoon1 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDZ and HDSSB and their support for Life Partnership Act 

message: Hi, I think this article should be nominated for a good article. As per WP:GAN/I, it is preferable that the nominator has significantly contributed to the article being nominated. Since I did just a few minor edits and don't have a lot of time to respond to the reviewer's suggestions, is there anyone who has relatively significantly contributed to this article who'd like to nominate it? For instructions on how to nominate an article, visit WP:GAN/I#Nominating. --Hmxhmx 18:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no contributor who significantly contributed to this article nominated it for a good article, I decided to do it. I wasn't really sure what subtopic to choose so I chose Politics and government as the article mostly deals with the laws, politics and initiatives regarding LGBT rights in Croatia. Hmxhmx 18:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article nomination 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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.vjesnik.hr/Article.aspx?ID=6FCE627C-7B1F-41A3-B3CE-71354ECB5F16
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102094706/http://www.gay.hr/magazin/7926 to http://www.gay.hr/magazin/7926
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://oneworldsee.org/Successful-and-Peaceful-10-th-Zagreb-Pride
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in Croatia. 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69PBdhelq?url=http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/94181/biti-gay-u-hrvatskoj-vojsci to http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/94181/biti-gay-u-hrvatskoj-vojsci
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103151209/http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html to http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The law is not like that please can u  provide a reliable source i looked but didnt find it.
the partnership guardianship doesnt even make step child adoption and it doesnt even equal parenting plus the ivf yes doesnt mean equal recognition of the two females as mothers believe me many countries that legalised same sex marriage still doesnt even give that to lesbian moms like france or germany Ireland just dud in 2019 after 4 years of passing same szx marriage belguium did so in 2014 11 years after, and many others. This needs a specefic legislation to amend parenting laws 
the law is not like that please can u  provide a reliable source i looked but didnt find it.
Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Parenthood for lesbian couples 

message: Hi there I stumble upon a contradiction with what is written in LGBT history in Yugoslavia concerning the persecution of homosexuals during the second world war under oustachi rule. 
While this article states : "During World War II, homosexual persons were prosecuted under various fascist regimes, but there is no record of organized persecution of homosexuals in the fascist Independent State of Croatia, whose laws did not explicitly contain a regulation directed against them.[13] The communist Yugoslav Partisans, however, issued several death sentences during the war against partisans whose homosexuality was revealed."
the article LGBT history in Yugoslavia.
"In the Nazi Germany puppet state Independent State of Croatia, homosexuals were persecuted and sent to concentration camps, such as Jasenovac. Croatian author Ilija Jakovljević in his text Konclogor na Savi (English: Concentration Camp on Sava) mentioned that in prison on Square N16 in Zagreb (modern day Square of the Victims of Fascism) he met a "lover of the male body".
I see this issue has allready been discussed in the above 2015 section "History". 
What can we do about this and has anyone an idea of the correct version ?Nattes à chat (talk)  10:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting views concerning perscution of homosexuals during and after second WW in Croatia