Talk:Croats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Croats is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yugoslavia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Croats is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Origins and Etyomology[edit]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, the above sections are very problematical. Rather than utilizing the nuanced and measured theories that are abundant nowadays, some editors keep insisting on passing off whimsical word-play etymologies as serious work, and even credible Croat scholars dismiss it. Way too much focus on the Tanais inscription, which in all likelihood has absolutely nothing to do with Croats. The Iranic and Gothic theories deserve nothing but passing mention, an interesting but unlikely possibility at most, and nationalistic pseudo-scholarship at worst. Where are the works of Klaic, Magetic, Dzino, etc ?? I plan to changIne this in the near future to make the introductory few segments of this article more credible Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The focus on Tanais inscription is there, but not definitive, it could be removed mention that is "the most widely-hely theory". Where are Iranic and Gothic theories mentioned? What part of work by Klaic, Magetic, Dzino etc. would be add?--Crovata (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot of dead-stupid nonsense up there about silly vaguely-"Croats"-sounding inscriptions as such, that's a fact.. -- Director (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the whole ethonym part can be condensed or removed; and only needs elaboration Theories on the origin of croats article.
The genetics section is suspect, and as someone was saying above earlier, many geneticists should be treated as 'primary sources' becuase their knowledge of general anthropology is cursory at best. If anything, it should be at the bottom of the article.
Lastly, the 'arrival of the Croats' section needs to be updated. Eg there is the thought now that the Croats did not arrive from anywhere. Yes, there were migrations during the "Dark Ages" of the 7th century, etc; however, Croat ethnicity only formed in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, hand-in-hand with the rise of "Croat" zhupani - as manifest by the wealthy 'warrior tombs' around Nin and Biograd na Moru, etc. Ie there was no separate Croat (or Serb) migration in the 610s. Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Slovenski Volk, agree with your initiative that "Theories on the origin of Croats" article must be be better written, and all theories elaborated. But as I was saying before, there nothing should be removed, neither genetics section. Because of one and only important reason, likely, you are all missing, and that is, there were widely held many theories, from scientific and political views and motives, and if we take only one side from which will write, would be wrong. We need to show the sources, everything what was found about the name Croat (Hrvat), everything what genetic investigations found. But, not the conclusions per se, which some are constantly forcing. There were many conclusions in the past, how Croats were Slavs, how were Goths, or Alans etc. The autochthonous theory is just one of them. The only right thing to do is write how migration did happened, some tribes with Croatian name did come here, how is "unclear whether the Alans (those tribes) contributed much more than a ruling caste or a class of warriors; the evidence on their contribution is mainly philological and etymological." - not known the exact number they came, and that the ethnogenesis did not finish until they settled, mixed with (probably more numbered) autochthonous people, organized a state, that state had a tribal name, and the name passed to all the people who lived in that area. We need to indicate this process, without removing information how other sources did mention White Croats, the historical lines of events concerning Croats etc. When we are talking about Croats it is more difficult task then some imagine. There is no official ethymological conclusion about the origin and meaning of the Croatian name. There is no official theory on the origin of Croats. There is nothing official, and removing information is not a solution, yet, contrary, write how the thesis on the Ethnonym of Croatian name changed over history etc. We need to take care about ourselves to not be taken away with any subjective thinking, only one theory, or contemporary scientific thinking which neglects previous, because in several years even that will change.--Crovata (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If I could recommend something like this for the early medieval part.. and just removed the etymology to the main article on Origins (and below contains some discussion of etymology, also)


The ethonym “Croat” is first attested during the 9th century CE[1], in the charter of Duke Trpimir; and indeed begins to be widely attested throughout central and eastern Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries. [2] Much uncertainty revolves around the exact circumstances of their appearance given the scarcity of literary sources during the 7th and 8th century “Dark Ages”.

Traditionally, scholarship has placed the arrival of the Croats in the 7th century, primarily on the basis of the De Administrando Imperio. As such, the arrival of the Croats was seen as a second wave of Slavic migrations, which liberated Dalmatia from Avar hegemony. However, as early as the 1970s, scholars questioned the reliability of Porphyrogenitus’ work, written as it was in the 10th century.[3] Rather than being an accurate historical account, the DAI more accurately reflects the political situation during the 10th century. It mainly served as Byzantine propaganda praising Emperor Heraclius for repopulating the Balkans (previously devastated by the Avars) with Croats (and Serbs), who were seen by the Byzantines as tributary peoples living on what had always been 'Roman land'.[4]

Scholars have often hypothesized the name Croat (Hrvat) to be Iranian, thus suggesting that the Croats were actually a Sarmatian tribe from the Pontic region who were part of a larger movement of Slavs toward the Adriatic. The major basis for this connection was the perceived similarity between Croat and inscriptions from the Tanais dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, mentioning the name Horouthos. However, "it is difficult, if not impossible to connect these names". Whether one accepts the etymological connection or not, anthropological theories suggest that ethnic groups are not static, ancient nations but are perpetually changing. This "seriously undermines any notion of an ‘Iranian component’ in the construction of early medieval Croat identity.” [5] Similar arguments have been made for an alleged Gothic-Croat link. Whilst there is indeed evidence of population continuity between Gothic and Croat times in parts of Dalmatia, the idea of a Gothic origin of Croats was more rooted in the political aspirations of the Croatian NDH party than historical reality.[6]

Contemporary scholarship views the rise of "Croats" as a local, Dalmatian response to the demise of the Avar khanate and the encroachment of Frankish and Byzantine Empires into northern Dalmatia.[7] They appear to have been based around Nin, down to the Cetina and south of Liburnia. Here, concentrations of the so-called "Old Croat culture' abound, marked by some very wealthy warrior burials dating to the 9th century CE.[8] Yet other, distinct polities also existed nearby, such as the Guduscans (based in Liburnia), the Narentines (around the Cetina and Neretva) and the Sorabi (Serbs) who ruled some other parts of “Dalmatia”.[9] Also prominent in the territory of future Croatia was the polity of Prince Liutevid, who ruled the territories between the Drava and Sava (“Pannonia Inferior”), centred from his fort at Sisak. Although Duke Liutevid and his people are commonly seen as a “Pannonian Croats”, “there is no evidence that they had a sense of Croat identity”. Rather, he is referred to as dux Pannoniae Inferioris, or simply a Slav, by contemporary sources.[10] However, soon, the Croats became the dominant local power in northern Dalmatia, absorbing Liburnia and expanding their name by conquest and prestige. Whilst always remaining independent, the Naretines at times came under the sway of later Croatian Kings. Although the the Chronicle of the Priest Duklja has been dismissed as an unreliable record, the mentioned "Red Croatia" suggests that Croatian clans and families might have settled as far south as Duklja/ Zeta.[11]

What happened in the 6th to 9th centuries, between the demise of Roman rule in Dalmatia and the appearance of new polities, is less clear. Archaeological evidence suggests population continuity in coastal Dalmatia and Istria. In contrast, much of the Dinaric hinterland appears to have been abandoned in the early 7th century. In much of the latter region, there is a hiatus of almost a century. The place of origin and timing of the re-colonization remains controversial, however, all available evidence points to the nearby Danubian and Carpathian regions rather than some distant "White Croat" homeland in Poland or Ukraine.[12]


Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


This does not look good. It looks like typical Yugoslav Pan-Slavism.
The ethnonym “Croat” is first attested during the 9th century CE[6], in the charter of Duke Trpimir; and indeed begins to be widely attested throughout central and eastern Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries. [7]
Untrue. The Croatian ethnonym is first attested during the 3rd century CE in the tablets of Tanais, in Greek forms Horoathos (noun) and Horoathon (adjective), precisely "archont Sandorz Horoathos" – 'Duke Sandorz Croat' (good old widely spread formula during Antiquity: title-name-ethnonym) and "synod Horoathon" – 'Croatian senate or Croatian union'. These Croats were the Sarmatian people ruling that city at the time. These records are important because they have shown that Croatian name was spelled completely identically by these Sarmatian Croats as it is by later and modern Croats. "–os" and "–on" are Greek suffixes for nouns and adjectives. Without suffixes this name is spelled Horoat, Horwat or Horvat, phonetic synonyms and 3 almost identical forms graphically. Greek and Latin alphabet were able to record phonetic group '–va-' only as graphic "–oa-" (gr. horoathos, lat. chroatorum, croati,…) or "–ua-" (lat. cruuati, chruathorum,...), only in the Byzantine Latin records phonetic 'v' got its letter: "b" (read like 'v' (Hrobates, Chrobates)). All these forms show that Croatian name was spelled very closely to modern Croatian form 'Hrvat', like Horvat or Harvat (Horoathos, Chorwat, Horvat, Harvat, Arvat) and like Hrovat or Hrvat (Croat, Chruathorum, Cruuati, Chrobates). We know that Horvat is Northern Croatian form of Croatian name, recorded in Ukraine (Chorwat), Poland (Bielochorwat) or modern surname in northern Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Sloavakia and Poland (Horvat).
Interestingly, Pan-Slavic attempt to ruin this etymologic research was partially successful (thanks to political pressure and not to an argument), unable to offer any reasonable criticism they have planted the idea that it was: personal names only similar to Croatian ethnic name, although it is undeniably opposite – they are identical ethnonyms (no study or analysis needed – just reading a record) and not just merely similar personal names.
Croatian ethnonym truly was widely attested throughout eastern Europe during the 9th and 10th century but not because some Croatian expansion in that time, it was because earlier Croatian expansion related to process of Slavicization in the period between the 4th and 7 century.
Much uncertainty revolves around the exact circumstances of their appearance given the scarcity of literary sources during the 7th and 8th century “Dark Ages”.
Of course. But a few sources mentioned Croats, while Yugoslav historiography made this into a circus. Now you are trying to report about the circus?
Traditionally, scholarship has placed the arrival of the Croats in the 7th century, primarily on the basis of the De Administrando Imperio. As such, the arrival of the Croats was seen as a second wave of Slavic migrations, which liberated Dalmatia from Avar hegemony.
Untrue. The arrival of the Croats was seen as a separate wave between 2 waves of Slavic migrations from the Avaric Khaganate. 1st Slavic wave started around 580 and lasted to the 30’s of the 7th century. Croats probably came during the 30’s to stop 1st wave, which they obviously did. However it’s been also proposed that one smaller group came a little bit earlier, during last decade of the 6th century, settled in Savia (Slavonia) for a short period and then pushed by Avaro-Slavic raids to the south, they escaped to Salona. Croatian arrival from White Croatia happened during the 30’s. The most common criticism was why Heraclius called them? Not some true criticism, bearing in mind that Byzantine emperors were always using that method, as well as Roman emperors before them. How had the Langobards come to Pannonia 100 years earlier? Byzant had called them against the Gepides. How had the Kutrigurs come 85 years earlier? Byzant had invited them against the Utrugurs who had been invited by the Gepides. How had the Avars and Ants come to the mouth of Danube 80 years ealier? Byzant had called them against the Gepides. Who was first defender of Byzantine forts at the eastern Danube against Avaro-Slavic breaks to Moesia provinces? Gepides. And we have this case, Byzant called Croats against Avaro-Slavs. Why? Because they were already in conflict with the Avars in the east and north of Pannonian Avaria.
There was no Avar hegemony in the Roman Dalmatia. There were periodical breaks and raids to the south. The southern border of 1st Avar Khaganate was at Drava river. 2nd Slavic wave from 2nd Avar Khaganate started during the 80’s of the 7th century and lasted during the 8th century. At the time the southern Avar border was at Sava river. Therefore the Avars didn’t rule with Dalamtia, but were continually attacking it. White Croats served as Byzantine federats in Dalmatia against the Avars. You can use phrase "Avar hegemony" only for Pannonia, around Danube river. There are no archaeological findings to prove any kind of Avar settlement or "hegemony" to the south of Sava, in Roman Dalmatia.
However, as early as the 1970s, scholars questioned the reliability of Porphyrogenitus’ work, written as it was in the 10th century.[8] Rather than being an accurate historical account, the DAI more accurately reflects the political situation during the 10th century. It mainly served as Byzantine propaganda praising Emperor Heraclius for repopulating the Balkans (previously devastated by the Avars) with Croats (and Serbs), who were seen by the Byzantines as tributary peoples living on what had always been 'Roman land'.[9]
True. But these criticism have nothing to do with studies of Croatian origin or name etymology. It is about ethnic distribution in the 9th and 10th century in the Western Balkans! And you can not use it here as an argument to discredit or hide real nature of Croatian ethnogenesis – its Ukrainian period.
Scholars have often hypothesized the name Croat (Hrvat) to be Iranian, thus suggesting that the Croats were actually a Sarmatian tribe from the Pontic region who were part of a larger movement of Slavs toward the Adriatic.
Untrue. All the earliest Slavic tribal names were of Indo-Iranian origin (not Iranian!), like Anti, Horwati, Sorabi (even Baltic Venedes had had Sarmatian culture in period directly before Germanic and Slavic migrations). However, this fact has never been used to suggest that the Sarmatians were part of a larger movement toward the Adriatic. Yugoslav nationalism and Pan-Slavism had got no any other argument than to imagine and fabricate such "suggestions". Indo-Iranian origin of some early Slavic tribal names means that the Sarmatians and the Scythians had participated in the process of Slavicization earlier (discovered and proposed by the Slavic archaeology 65 years ago). Sarmathic Croats were Slavicized in period 4th to 6th century in Ukraine (same way as their neighbors Ants, the Ants were more to the south-west, Croats more to the north-east). In other words, they were ruling with and giving name to some Proto-Slavs there, gradually becoming Slavs by language.
The major basis for this connection was the perceived similarity between Croat and inscriptions from the Tanais dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, mentioning the name Horouthos.
As alreaedy explained, Horoathos, Horoathon – ethnonym, not personal name. Not similarity, it is phonetic equality to the northern form of Croatian name – Horvat! Graphical difference since Greek alphabet has no other way to record phonetic group '–va-' other way than "-oa-". Or "-ua-" like in some Latin graphics.
However, "it is difficult, if not impossible to connect these names".
Untrue. Manipulation. In fact. It is difficult if not impossible not to connect it! It’s the same. It is like saying that Horvat is not Croatian ethnonym while Hrvat is. Crazy.
How come connection Langobardi – Lombardi works in the same time? It is much more different, both phonetically and graphically...
Whether one accepts the etymological connection or not, anthropological theories suggest that ethnic groups are not static, ancient nations but are perpetually changing.
Of course. Modern nations are nothing different, they are also not static and are perpetually changing. I don’t see reason to state something like this, like it is something new. But what makes me nervous is how can you or anyone criticize etymology this way? What it has to do with etymology? Are you suggesting that we must always use anachronistic approach? Sorry buddy, it is opposite to any kind of historiographic methodology. One who study etymology doesn't care about anthropology precisely because it is not directly related! How to criticize it with argument that it's not in direct relation? It is already understood and implied!
This "seriously undermines any notion of an ‘Iranian component’ in the construction of early medieval Croat identity.” [10]
Of course, because you presume that their identity was based on our modern scientific definitions. Can you imagine a Croat boy asking his father, 1500 years ago: daddy, are we Indo-Iranians or Indo-Europeans?
Another problem, you presume that, if Croats are of "Iranian" origin it means they had to have some "Iranian" anthropological component in Dalmatia. What is "Iran" in this story? Modern Iran? No. It is so-called "Iran Superior" – Great Scythia, Russian steppes in our time. Why "Iranian"? – because of Indo-Iranian linguistic macro-group. That is anthropolgy we can see here in the streets every day, especially in northern Croatia, nothing special. However Iranian theory goes with etymology more to the past and to the south from the steppes and points to some Aryans. This has been usually presented by post-WWII ex-Yugoslav authors as something very problematic. Why? No any direct implications to Medieval Dalmatian Croats as some Iranians, it concernes Pontic Croats (if they were Alanic tribe, it only means they came among the first Alans to the west, but the Eastern Europe was already full of other Sarmatians for a millennium at that moment). If we use ethnogentical formula pre-proto-proper they were pre-Croats, their anthropologic characteristics were spreading or bleaching in the Russian steppes. Anthropo-features of those who were proto-Croats in the steppes were spreading or bleaching in Galicia ("Megale" Chrobatia, Red Croatia as its southeastern subregion toward the Black Sea), Galician Croatian antropo-features were spreading or bleaching in Poland, Slovakia, Czech and eastern Germany (White Croats, Black Croats), What Iranian features can one expect in Dalmatia at the end? Iranian nose? Well, I can see all kind of noses here, Iranian, African, Baltic, Celtic, Dinaric, Himalayan, Plutonic... I have no problem with that. Thanks to God, human beings are completely mixed genetically (I don' mean those haplos as some macros, I mean those micro packages carried by DNA that define everything else about or bodies and personalities) and evolution can continue.
One more problem, Slavicization and origin of Slavs, origin of Croats as well, are studied by the Russians and Ukrainians, not by the Balkan authors. Croatian authors lost that opportunity by the end of the WWII, too pitty, it was a moment to implement modern synthesis and clean it from rubbish details... Read Russian and Ukrainian authors who were not burdened with Yugo-nationalist issues. Read Russian archaeologist Alexandr Mayorov (University of St. Petersburg), book "Great Croatia", 2005, about ethogenesis of first Slavic Croats in Ukraine, about their state in Ukraine (4th-6th century) recorded by DAI (Megale Chrobatia) and the Vikings (Hervari), about their culture (2nd and 3rd period of Chernyakov Culture, 1st period was Gothic), etc.
Similar arguments have been made for an alleged Gothic-Croat link. Whilst there is indeed evidence of population continuity between Gothic and Croat times in parts of Dalmatia, the idea of a Gothic origin of Croats was more rooted in the political aspirations of the Croatian NDH party than historical reality.[11]
Iranian theory is from the 18th century and Gothic from the first half of the 20th century, nothing to do with NDH. But after WWII communist regime made use of popularity of these theories in NDH publications during a few NDH years to discredit and discriminate its scientific value. Their political decision was to support Pan-Slavic theory. Politics again. And you seem to know every communist pamphlet. Do you know that Yugoslav regime killed 4 Croatian scholars who were studying links with Indo-Iranians?
Iranian theory is dealing with Croatian etymology and it can be implemented only to ethnogenesis of the Ukrainian Croats, not Dalmatian. White Croats were western extension of the Ukrainan Croats in the 6th and the 7th century caused by the Avar-Ant break in through the Carpathian basin to Pannonia.
Contemporary scholarship views the rise of "Croats" as a local, Dalmatian response to the demise of the Avar khanate and the encroachment of Frankish and Byzantine Empires into northern Dalmatia.[12]
Only when speaking about Medevial Dalmatian Croats. Now you must decide once who are you speaking about. Jumping from (geographically and culturally and ethnogenetically and historically) dislocated etymology of the name to Croatian etnogenesis in Dalmatia, well I don't know, I'm completely lost. And inconvenienced that anything is wrong with that etymology.
They appear to have been based around Nin, down to the Cetina and south of Liburnia.
Archaeology says from Kvarner to Albania in the south. Physically, not politically in that range. Probably not in masses, more likely mixed with the others, probably as an local elite among the others. Where this elite saved their mutual integration and connection, Croatian state was formed, under their name.
Here, concentrations of the so-called "Old Croat culture' abound, marked by some very wealthy warrior burials dating to the 9th century CE.[13]
Why so-called? It is scholar name for the culture of Medieval Croats. Do you hate Croats? If their material culture is so called, are Croats so-called Croats too?
Yet other, distinct polities also existed nearby, such as the Guduscans (based in Liburnia), the Narentines (around the Cetina and Neretva) and the Sorabi (Serbs) who ruled some other parts of “Dalmatia”.[13]
Gudusca (guduča) - Old-Slavic "wood". Guduča fort was near Krka river, undoubtly held by the Croats, all of settlements were held by the Croats there, it falls into narrow nucleus region of the Old Croatian Culture, Nin is just one location, the best known because of rich archaeological findings, regions to the east of Ravni Kotari were tornado tested during the Ottoman wars, later. Guduscans doesn't go into the same sentence with the Narentines and Sorabi. Guduscans are locality, local ethnonym (appellative: city, fort), the Narentians separate tribe named after a river, so location again and Sorabi another tribe with name given still in the Sarmatian form (attested earlier by Pliny the Elder) of unknown location in (what?) Dalmatia, all offered in two short sentences by the Frankish chronicler who never stepped out of France... If you want to be objective, inform about all of aspects of information, or don't inform at all. If you inform about controversy of DAI, you must inform about controversy of Frankish Annals too.
What happened in the 6th to 9th centuries, between the demise of Roman rule in Dalmatia and the appearance of new polities, is less clear. Archaeological evidence suggests population continuity in coastal Dalmatia and Istria. In contrast, much of the Dinaric hinterland appears to have been abandoned in the early 7th century. In much of the latter region, there is a hiatus of almost a century. The place of origin and timing of the re-colonization remains controversial, however, all available evidence points to the nearby Danubian and Carpathian regions rather than some distant "White Croat" homeland in Poland or Ukraine.[14]
Well, there is a map of toponyms found in Croatia and elsewhere in Europe, I was impressed how many completely identical toponyms is there all the way to the Baltic, in range from the Eastern Germany, Moravia, northern Slovakia, Poland to Ukraine. BTW, Ukrainians and Croats are the only "Ikavians" in the Slavic speaking world. And White Croatia with its parts in Slovakia and Moravia was nothing distant. It's even mentioned in that context. And Slavic archaeology have shown that the most of the Avaro-Slavs who settled in Illyricum had come from behind of the Carpathians. More or less same distance as White Croatia, or even longer. And Bulgarians came all the way from the western China, it's normal. It happens every day. And no controversy about it? Who is teaching you that everything must be controversial about the Croats, by default. Older history of any European people is already controversial enough because of an older age and poor remains, anyway I don't see so much insisting on controversy in other similar "ethnic" articles in Wikipedia.
Reading the article, your little discussion and your proposal for the article I have a feeling that I still live in Yugoslavia 40 years ago with final God's touch of confused Djino and philosopher Curta. Read Russians and Ukrainians. Start from the end, from A. Mayorov, use his references to find other supplies. They're in it for 60 years without interruption. Bye. 37.244.170.201 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you think. Can't you realize your OR speculations cannot stand against credible sources. These "yugoslav pan-slavist" theories you talk of came from the 21st century writers of Croat (Ancic, Dzino, Budek) and German decent (Wolfram, Pohl). Even older Croatian historians: Garasnin, Goldstein, Magetic do not support what you're rambling on about. So, then, neither the 'brainwashed" Yugoslav -era pan-Slavists support you nor do any credible 21st centrury ones (!) Clearly, in addition to cowering behind your annonymous IP, you're also apparently quite stupid.
You can speculate all you want about whether Gudusca means tree, Goth or Mars. I don't care. We're using Anglophone , respectable literature - not propaganda. Croats did not come from Iran, and Bulgarians did not come from "China". This is not "anti-Croat", but anti-BS. It doesn't matter who the article is about, but all Balkan articles are often full of nationalistic BS. So do yourself a favour, stop chest-thumping and go read some of the good recent literature (which will be duly presented on the article, shortly), not the nonsense you probably read on YouTube.Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply. Your answer gives a good insight into the characteristics of your personality and presence on this site.
It doesn't matter what you think.
I haven't written "My opinion is..."
Can't you realize your OR speculations cannot stand against credible sources.
What are OR speculations? ...I have checked, aha, original research. Well, there was not any kind of my original research here, there are sources, question is according to which criteria you chose reliability and pick sources? You who think you are encyclopedic reporter took up the position in relation to the scientific debate and decided to present one side of the debate by showing it as a real situation and the final conclusion. Who gave you the right to access the issue as its participant and judge the outcome of the debate when the debate has no such conclusion and no conclusion at all? I notice you've been already warned by other user to show the whole state without taking a personal position, and without a trial when there is no scientific consensus, and I'm about to explain why is that so, not what is right or not!
These "yugoslav pan-slavist" theories you talk of came from the 21st century writers of Croat (Ancic, Dzino, Budek) and German decent (Wolfram, Pohl). Even older Croatian historians: Garasnin, Goldstein, Magetic do not support what you're rambling on about.
No. Pan-Slavic theory is older, it's from the 19th century. But communist regime supported it, in a strange way. Scientists have been forced to adapt or lose their careers. Once politics intervene in science effects are long-lasting and it takes time to be cleared.
Garasnin - You mean Garašanin? Serbian publicist and politician from the 19th century, Greater Serbian ideologist and author of "Načertanije" - Greater Serbian political program? Very nice source to edit article "Croats". According to Načertanije Croats don't exist as well as many other Europan Slavs, all are Serbs. Goldstein is not particularly appreciated, his agenda is WWII, but he is an author of statement about "personal names on Tanais tombstones" -Tanais tombstones!!! He studied the matter so deeply that he did not even know that Tanais tablets were not tombstones, but public boards on buildings in Tanais! And you cite him: "it is difficult, if not impossible to connect these names". Škegro (2005) has destroyed Goldstein, but you don't know anything about it! As well as you know nothing on the matter at all.
Margetić for the most of time bounced around Proto-Bulgarian theory of Croatian origin (etymology Koubratos). Is Koubratos better and closer to Horvat than Horoathos? Younger are floating at the moment, there's 50 years long black hole of healthy synthesis. It makes problem because it needs new start form the past and not only fresh upgrade. In the same time Russians and Ukrainians study origin of the Croats in their countries since Croats played significant role there in the past. I'm pointing to these authors who really have something to say on the matter.
So, then, neither the 'brainwashed" Yugoslav -era pan-Slavists support you nor do any credible 21st centrury ones (!) Clearly, in addition to cowering behind your annonymous IP, you're also apparently quite stupid.
You are a very rude and ill-mannered person. The most of your answer is ad hominem. I'm not any kind of IP with OR, actually I'm some initials X.Y. with Dr. lecturer on university, department of archaeology. And you who ever you are not familiar with this issue to such an extent that you could decide which sources can be used to obtain drinkable content, at the same time informative enough and sufficiently objective.
No credible authors support me? Really? Garašanin and Goldstein are credible on the matter? What with Vinski who had to keep his mouth shut for 45 years not to avoid destiny of some of his coleagues? Now he speaks freely. And what with very good analysis of Ivan Supičić (Rano doba hrvatske kulture, 1997), what with the most prominent Croatian linguist R. Katičić: "the Iranian theory is the least amazing Croatian name etimology of of all existing" (Pitanje o podrijetlu Hrvata..., 1999) - do you need translation? Since stupid debate because of political interference during 45 years was not 'what is the most plausible theory, it was something like which theory is most unlikely when viewed from the position of a modern southern Slavs who must insist on its Slavism from Africa to the Universe, so it would not accidentally compromise the attempt to form a single artificial Yugoslav nation, Katičić must say (because of “claim - response” scientific method) what is the least amazing at the end, instead to say what is the most plausible which is the real meaning of his statement.
We're using Anglophone, respectable literature - not propaganda.
Why would Anglophone mean respectable? You have mentioned Djino. Have you ever read Djino? Do you know his thinking about the other Anglophone literature on the history of Croatian and neighboring regions? Anglophone literature was just repeating (and not discovering something new) what was alredy writen as acceptable middle stream in Yugoslavia and was critic on that scale, which means that there is a lot of literature that deals with completely the wrong side of the problem, no matter of author’s language.
Croats did not come from Iran, and Bulgarians did not come from "China".
It is your own decision - where did one come from? Russians know from where the Croats came from, it's their field of study. And Bulgarians... Have you ever heard about nomadic yellow sand cheramics in Pannonia in th 8th century (material from very specific location near the Yellow sea coast in China), related to the 2nd Avar Khaganate, linked to the Hazars, or Proto-Bulgarians, or... depending on author. Someone has crossed a huge way. Never mind, I don't expect fulfilled global insight into anything on the matter from you, after all.
So do yourself a favour, stop chest-thumping and go read some of the good recent literature (which will be duly presented on the article, shortly), not the nonsense you probably read on YouTube
Thank you for teaching me this way. I will copy/paste and print this debate to show my students what kind of people are editing wikipedia and why wikipedia is not reliable or desirable for any kind of use.
if someone has a brain here it would be nice to try to write an objective and informative text instead of this egocentric ignorant sputum. Bye people. 31.45.134.59 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good riddence ! According to you, credible, peer-reviewed sources are to be disregarded because they are all 'brain-washed', 'confused' and 'philosophers'; rather we should take you OR verbotenus. If you really are a 'lecturer", then I feel sorry for your students. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you wrote "Brain-washed" twice, not me. Nice to meet you, Brain-Washed. It's enough to see construcion of your text. You don't know what you're talking about, etimology, anthropologics, history, etnogenesis, time, place, context... scientific debate, who, when, what,... nothing. All taken out of context, out of age, out of place, out of date, out of debate... mixed into a salad and served as stinky fast junk food that even my dog wouldn’t have sniffed. you don't understand history as a process. Just filling wikipedia forms with no real knowledge of the content.
You've got it all wrong. I didn say I'm a Croat, I'm Polish. At the moment I'm working with my Croatian colleagues in Croatia, just finished some Iron Age escavations. Beatiful people, Croats. My 4th job here in last 30 years, not counting a few summers at the Adriatic. Beatiful country as well, been always impressed how snowy white knife sharp stone falls into the softest and the bluest sea in the world. Živjeli! Bog! :) And you Slovenski will be an example shown to my students in Poland. :)
I woudn't say that Croatian academy produced any radicals. It's always politics producing radical ideas and pushing selective proposals into the front, demonizing the other. Croatian academy is perhaps the most serious one in the region and Croatia doesn’t have such radicals like Serbia, Albania or even my country, Poland, sometimes. It's all bloated and exaggerated about Croats, you contribute to such an impression, and not presenting the real situation and knowledge.
I was directing you twice to Russian and Ukrainian authors, you have ignored me completely. There takes place the study of Croatian ethnogenesis for half a century, it is a few dozen authors. You must consider that European Croats possess several ethnogenesis in the post-Roman and early medieval times, Dalmatian was the last one. Every of its own formula. But transfer of name doesn’t go with trade, it goes with people. You cannot discard etymology of the name just because it is dislocated from Dalmatia. There is no controversy about "Iranian" etymology, we know about it for a long time. Dalmatian and Ukrainian Croats share the same etymology. And Vistulans in Poland, sure. :)
It doesn’t change the nature of Croatian ethnogenesis in Dalmatia in any way. You have presented Croatian etymology and ethnogenesis as a child play with glue and stuff around the house after a fight with mamma and daddy.
If you lie about the Slavic peoples and their academies, scholars, politics, history and culture, you shouldn't call yourself "Slavic" and even less a "wolf".
Nice tool "view history". 95.168.116.11 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum for you to go on ad nauseum, and i dont care about your personal attacks. Fact is, what I constructed and collected source wise is far better than you could ever do, with your biased and primitive knowledge. According to your thinking, the Germans are from Italy, because "Germani" is a Latin word.
To start with , read this, [1], then read Dzino's book, read Florin Curta's parts on Serbs and Croats [2]. You might even learn something. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This IP above is completely right. Instead of joining your "discussion", I'm offering a summary of A. Mayorov, Velikaya Horvatia (University of St. Petersburg, 2006):

"The permanent contacts with the Iranian-speaking peoples, mostly Sarmathians, were the important feature of the ethnogenesis and the early history of the Slavs in the region near the East Carpathians during the period of their coexistence for several cen­turies.

The appearance of the ancient tribal union of the Croats with the name of probably Iranian origin had become one of the results of ethnical and cultural synthesis of the Slavs and the Iranians. The Slavs of the Upper Dniester having become the part of the Croatian tribal group inhabited the new territories in Central Europe and the Balkans during the process of the Great Slavonic settlement.

De administrando imperio by Constantine the Porphyrogenitus is the first written test containing the information on the origin and the history of Croats’ settling, Great and White Croatias. Both the names, “Great” and “White Croatia”, correspond to the traditional geographical nomination known to the contemporary Science. Decoding of the symbols of the colour in the names of the peoples and the lands is based mostly on the analogies in the Sino-Tibetan, Iranian, Turkic and Mongolian languages, while the closest parallels for the names with the adjective great are found in the European toponymy. And still, the simultaneous use of several symbolical names to produce the ethni­cal and geographical names must be accepted as artificial one. The case of Constantine the Porphyrogenitus’ Great and White Croatia (“Great Croatia, called White...”) is explained by the intention to agree the contradiction between different, sometimes competitive, versions of the history of the Croats.

The name “Great Croatia” origins in the common Slavonic and European tradition connecting the meanings great and old to indicate the territory the people had lived before at, pre-motherland, sometimes having been already abandoned and kept only in memory.

Byzantine emperor’s information on the early Croatian history corresponds to and concerns the meaning of “Great Croatia” as the territory of pre-motherland of the Croatian people the following migrating resulted in new names, that of the land — “White Croatia”, and that of the people “White Croats”, took place from. The ideas of Great and White Croatia differ not only as the historical and typo- logical ones, they do not mean the same geographical place. This conclusion is based on the direct indications of Constantine himself compared with the other sources. If one can surely put White Croatia with its White Croats on the Upper Elbe and the Up­per Vistula, the land of Great Croatia, the historical pre-motherland for the Croats must be looked for to the East of the Carpathians and may be in Transcarpathia. The ancient Croats cannot be connected with tribes of the Ants’ group, representatives of the Penkovo archaeological culture only. The region the Croats lived in covers the Sclavenian area of the Prague-Corchak archaeological culture including the Smaller Poland. This testifies the Croatian union having formed in the epoch preceding the first reliable Slavonic archaeological cultures — in the Chemyachovo time.

The earliest written evidence of the name connected directly with the ethnonym “Croats” in the form of the anthroponym “Croat” is seen in the inscriptions dated back to the 1-2 c. found in the ancient Greek city of Tanais in the mouth of the Don. The anthroponym “Croat”, probably, belonged to the members of the Alanian-Sarmathian tribe living in this region. Their leaders had certain position in the town community of Tanais. The fact, that Croats belonged to the Sarmathian-speaking environment is shown by the morphological similarity of the names: Sarmatae and Croats (slav. horvatU, Lat. Chroates). Still there are no traces of the Croats living to the West of the Don river in the first centuries A. D. This situation could have changed only in the process of the Great Migration. The ethnonym Croates seems to be slavonized, as well as its first bearers, after the tremendous ethnic processes had taken place during the Huns’ invasion. In all probability, the Croats’ appearance in Central Europe and in the Balkans was connected with the Avars’ invasion. According to the archaeological and linguistic data the Croats had been already slavonized that time. It means that the Slavs had taken the name of Croats earlier. Since the greater part of the Alans who took part in the Huns’ conquest broke off and moved to the West together with the Goths and other German tribes in the beginning of the 5th c., the proposed contacts of the Alans and the Slavs of South-Westem Europe and the Carpathian region particularly could have taken place in the beginning of the Huns expansion only, therefore they could not be long.

The suggestion that the Slavs’ adoption of the Iranian name Croats (horvatU) resulted not from the process of the multiethnical synthesis but from the intensive political interaction having influenced strongly the Slavonic peoples in the turbulent epoch of the Great Migration seems the most probable.

The important role played by the Alans in the Slavic wars with the Goths and the overthrowing of their power resulted in the spreading of the name Croats among the Dniester Slavs. Having become the allies of the Huns, the Alans-Tanaites appeared the main force of their army acting against the Goths in the south of Eastern Europe. The decisive battle of the river Erax (localized in the basin of the Dniester) where the Goths were finally defeated by the joined Slavs and Alans acting as the part of the Huns’ army and forced out off Eastern Europe was undoubtedly the tuming-point in the ancient Slavic history.

It is naturally to propose the Slavic inhabitants of the Dniester-Carpathian region to be strongly influenced just the same as the Slavs of the Ants group by the Alans and be governed by the chiefs of the Alans who apparently represented the Huns’ authority. Just as the Ants — the union of the Alans and the Slavs — had formed on the ground of the prolonged ethnic synthesis of the Slavs and the Iranians so did the Croa­tian group form on the ground of the previous centuries-long interaction of the Slavs and the Sarmathians in the Dniester region.

The Alanian Croats must have ruled the Dniester Slavic lands for some time. They could have married some of the local Slavic chiefs to make their authority legal. The name Croats gained among the Slavs the sacral importance since it was connected with the victory over the Goths and their yoke shaken off.

The Upper Dniester region together with the nearby territories between the Dni­ester and the Pruth are considered to be the primary territory the ancient Slavic tribal formation appeared at. Afterwards it gradually extended and covered both sides of the Carpathians. For example the Croats inhabited the upper current of the Tyssa river behind the Carpathians. In the last quarter of the 4th — middle of the 5th cc. the Croats probably reached the Upper Vistula and settled in Smaller Poland (however, it could have happened later). Still the region of the Upper Vistula (unlike the territories to the East of the Carpathians) cannot be the initial territory of the Croatian ethnogenesis — the pre- motherland of the Croats, afterwards called “Great Croatia”. The Slavonic population of Smaller Poland identified themselves as White, i. e. West Croats. Only that very part of the Croatian ethnos that had appeared as a result of occupying new territories could bear such a name. The appearance of the tribal union of the ancient Slavs in the Carpathian region who took afterwards the name of Croats, could be dated back to the last quarter of the 4th — middle of the 5th cc.

This book is capital work about the early Croatian history, it is based on many studies in Russia and Ukraine, Mayorov is archaeologist but his synthesis is based on multidisciplinary works of many authors, including his own. Knowing how Wikipedia works, I doubt anyone will take it into consideration, whatever... 89.201.156.205 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The Iranian theory is mentioned in the article (!) its just that it is duly followed up by the fact that it is rejected by almost every mainstream historians, both inside and outside Croatia. And again, I highlight, the works referenced in the current version are mostly those of Croat and German scholars written in the past decade or so. So you cannot make claims of Communist Pan-Slav conspiracy and other such non-sense. Magetic, Ancic, Supicic [3], Dzino, etc etc all reject it.
I am sorry, Mr Zhena (the blast from the past), if this disagrees with your personal viewpoint. But wikipedia is not here to focus on nationalist-narratives, but to represent the currently emerging concensus opinions of reputable specialists. And whilst thanking you for bringing another source to the fore, I doubt any mainstream, peer-reviewed, Western journal would ever publish such a whimsical, uncritical piece. Although written in 2005, it reads like it was written in 1922. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Now let's see what a constructive, nuanced and critical approach to the question of "White Croatia" and the ethonym "Hrvat" suggests (for anyone interested):

  • I haven't read the entire discussion, but I'd like to point out that there is the article [[Name of Croatia]] which specifically deals with etymology of the Croatian ethnicon. However, ethnogenesis and etymology are two completely different issues, and I don't think it's wise to conflate them indiscriminately as the introductory section Croat ethnogenesis does at the moment. Modern nation-states were invented in the 19th century, and the 9th-century Croats have nothing to do with the 21st century Croats. Nationalists are obsessed with proving otherwise (on both Croatian and Serbian side, fueling each other's imagination into ever-deeper and prestigious "history"), constructing elaborate theories without a shred of evidence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
here, here. The above discussion ensued because I suggested the ad nauseum discussion on "hrvat" be drastically reduced and bit less of a folk-tale style narrative Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually I suggest the opposite - provide a comprehensive scholarly treatment so as to leave no space for nationalist propaganda. I must say that the summary of theories that you provided is actually quite good :) Two additional articles too keep an eye on are Names of the Serbs and Serbia and Origin_of_the_Serbs#Early_historical_records_of_the_Serb_name. As usual, bullshit Iranian theories are overemphasized. Which is funny because you can count the number of provable Iranian borrowing in Proto-Slavic on the finger of one hand. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ivan. I think the place for expansion is duly in the Origins of Croats article. I intend to also update the Serbs article too, and others. Its all a matter of time - as its time consuming and one has to deal with anonymous editors crying foul, whilst all Im doing is removing the nationalist BS and outdated hypotheses. The whole idea of Iranian theory of anyone (Croats, Serbs, Poles) is to artificially exagerate the antiquity of those respective nations to 7th century BC Persia, or other such nonsense. It appears some people are uncomfortable with the fact that the political ancestor of their modern nation did not exist until c. 800 AD; and they take it as a personal afront to even suggest it; despite the fact that's the reality.
Perhaps those people will be less hysterical if they realize that such is the story all European nations. The 'building blocks' of future Germans, Danes, French; only appeared c. 800s - 900s, and of course, even then they were naught but the personal possessions of various Dukes, Princes and kings. Nothing approaching nations existed until a century or so ago (when ethnic/ nation groups had to be 're-born' {ie re-invented}), and the average peasant (95% of the population) had no idea what a Croat or a "Sarmatian" actually were. This goes for even ""nations"" with a long -recorded history - Greeks and Persians. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Iranians and Slavs
I see no reason to call the "Iranian theories" summarily "bullshit". Of course, when nationalists operate with monolithic (or even "pure") ethnic groups in an essentialist fashion and present a simplistic notion of "ancient Iranian tribe takes over Proto-Slavic language, migrates towards Adriatic and wham! is the Croats", then that is bullshit, I agree completely. But the idea of some component of Iranian origin – whether a "tribal core", an upper class, or whatever – is hardly implausible. There are few unambiguous Iranian borrowings in Slavic, but there are a couple, and historic contacts are not only plausible in principle but also, I think, receive support from other evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert on Slavic-Iranian contacts, but the idea that Iranian tribes (Alani, Roxolani, Aorsi, Iazyges etc.) were partly absorbed into the Slavic ethnic pool strikes me as extremely plausible and seems to be favoured by scholars as well. In the early period (6th/7th century), it even appears to be difficult to distinguish between Slavs and Iranians. So there is every reason to suspect that (even very early on) Iranians, along with (largely Romanised and Hellenised) Ancient Balkanic, Celtic- and Germanic-speaking peoples, early Turkic-speaking groups and perhaps others, participated in the ethnogenesis of Croats, Serbs and other Slavic tribes in the early medieval period, even contributing some tribal names. I don't see any problem with this scenario, quite the opposite. It's the most plausible scenario I can think of. If the Slavs really emerged from where their origin is traditionally sought, the Iranian Sarmatians were even their neighbours. Currently, the article seems to be excessively negative towards the mere assumption of Iranian contribution, and it completely eludes me why (it's hard not to suspect Pan-Slavic ideology at work, indeed). That's why I requested clarification and pointed out contradictions with other articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Florian Blaschke: The problem is not the idea per se, but the lack of true evidence. What is the Iranian etymon of the Croatian ethnicon, i.e. Proto-Slavic *xruwāte? The only indication of Iranian origin is indirect - the initial /x/ - which has other equally plausible sources as well. The traditional theory goes that it irregularly reflects the supposed Iranian *xarvat- < *harvant- "that which posseses women; female", supposedly connected with matriarchy on Azov littoral (Gluhak 1990:270). But the problem is there is no attestation of an actual Iranian tribe carrying such name. It cold be indeed an Iranian equivalent of Indo-Aryan *sar-ma(n)t > Sarmatian - but such parallel would predate Indo-Iranian split and the change *s > *x (unless that operated synchronically? then it could simply be Iranianized form and it was not two peoples but one). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
True, but – whatever its etymology – as a personal name in Scythian/Sarmatian context, Horo(u)athos is well-attested, and it just so happens that early attestations of the name of the Croats are spelt the same way. And the Serboi are indeed attested as a tribal name, making for a striking (possible) precedent. And a few other observations. That's no more than circumstantial evidence, cumulative at best, but not that bad. (I don't see any way to plausibly derive *xruwāte from *sar-ma(n)t-, whatever its meaning – a name which has to be assumed is Iranian and not Indo-Aryan and reflects Iranian – perhaps even Scythian – sound laws, on the face of it. Clearly, *harwa(n)t- makes more sense phonetically. Though *harahwat- is also an attractive possibility; this could well be the origin of Horo(u)athos, and thus possibly also the ethnonym of the Croats. And *harahwatī – i. e., Arachosia – is indeed an unambiguously Iranian toponym, if not the origin of a derived ethnonym – which does not seem to be attested – as well!) And the fact remains that *xruwāte simply has no better etymology. I'm not against alternative etymological explanations, such as the Germanic one, but they have even less evidence going for them. So by your standard, they would be even more "bullshit". And that's what I was calling you out for. There's simply no argument in there to glibly dismiss the Iranian theory as nonsense. Similarly, Slovenski Volk roundly dismisses the Iranian and Gothic hypotheses as nationalist pseudo-scholarship (despite the support from certainly non-nationalist, serious German and other neutral, non-Croat scholars) without presenting a better alternative to account for the etymology. That's not just unfair or intellectually dishonest, that's wilfully deceptive, pure propaganda.
I note that there is no real Slavic etymology to be found anywhere. Which – by this standard of you guys – makes the Slavic hypothesis the most "bullshit" theory of them all. (I'm only talking about the name, of course – and applying your reasoning. Again, I'm not trying to imply that the Croats have no Slavic admixture at all and are pure Iranians or anything like that, of course!)
Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten. If there's a better explanation, I'm thrilled to hear it. As it stands, the Iranian theory is eminently plausible, if purely conjectural. But for all its defects, it's the best guess of what amounts to just not very many plausible attempts at explanation. In regione caecorum rex est luscus. Which appears to be precisely the reason why the Iranian hypothesis is still the most widely held. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: If we accept cultural assimilation, both Iranic and Slavic groups are related to each other. Is it possible that all Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, and the other Iranics extincted completely? Or they assimilated into other groups like Slavs? Both Iranic and Slavic are large ethno-linguistic groups, so close contacts and relations between some of them are possible. I don't say Iranian theory is strong, but there is no point to remove it or call it as BS. It's better to clarify it. I saw Theories on the origin of Croats and its talk page. It seems that Iranian theory have a considerable number of supporters/fans in Balkan (according to anonymous users' comments). So if WP doesn't provide clear and enough info about that theory, they will use other sources. A clear and detailed "Iranian theory" section is a good solution. --Zyma (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Do you plan to create such a section? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a section on another related article OR a new article is better. Their contacts (languages, culture, influences, nomadic peoples relations, archaeological studies, and other related stuff.). That new article/section needs expert editors and I'm not an experienced editor on those topics. Why you don't start it on your sandbox sub-page? It will be a good article if you have enough expert scholary sources. --Zyma (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have nearly enough relevant sources at home. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Google Books isn't helpful enough or the sources aren't available on GBs? --Zyma (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

USA and New Zealand figures are redicilous[edit]

I havent seen any ethnic group wiki article to point out pumped up higher estimations of peoples in a certain country in a case, this country has held a census in which people could declare their ethnicity or ethnic group origin

Here is the link from New Zealand census ethnic group results- tabelles for people who declared one of their European descents:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/european.aspx

And here is the direct link for how many people have declared their ethnic origin as being Croatian on the 2006 census.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/dalmatians/page-7

Its 2550 people and not 100,000.


-For the United States figures i dont even have to discuss... there was an option for people to opt for their ethnic origin.. around 411,000 ppl did so for Croatian origin. Putting up figures from third party unofficial sources is madness. For example Serbs article have already removed such figures.

Higher estimations or any kind of estimations that are unofficial should be used ONLY in a case - if a certain state didnt hold any censuses with an option to declare your ethnic background (For example Great Britian, Germany and France are such examples from Europe, then we have whole South America and alot of other states). .. (Правичност (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC))

Will you stop with the edit-warring already for gods sake...there is a clear distinction between the figures (now also provided with references to each number specifically), it is clearly emphasized what is official and what is estimated number. What you consider "ridiculous" is completely irrelevant. Census' don't cover everything...New Zealand is a prime example of this, their census actually counts only people who were either born or hold dual-citizenship as being anything other than "New Zealanders", everything else is grouped together into European group. Everything that is in the infobox has a valid reference otherwise it wouldn't be there. Now stop it... Shokatz (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The "estimate" seems to be merely one statement from a previous NZ prime minister. I have no problem with listing estimates alongside official census data, but such "estimates" really ought to be professional at least to some degree. Further, the statement is regarding "ancestry", not current ethnic identification. Meaning for example a person with one Croatian grandma would also be viewed as having "Croatian ancestry", but he wouldn't actually be "Croatian" would he? A person with, say, a Croatian father and a Ukrainian mother might and yet might not identify as "Croatian".. Even if we had a proper "estimate", it would not be right to list these people as "Croats" in the infobox. Shokatz, the entry does look silly.. "2,000-100,000"? Really?
The source for the US estimate is also not WP:V. Its just a text that says "it has been estimated that this many Croats live in the US". What estimate? The source should point to an actual estimate, or its pretty much a useless link (regardless of whether its an official RH site or not).
I get the feeling I better not go into these figures much deeper... -- Director (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
That is the whole point, none of these are actually really "Croats" in that specific definition of the term (unless they were born in Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina or if we expand it to first generation born abroad) but rather "of Croatian ancestry". If we would go by such interpretation none of these would or should be in the infobox in the first place...and that would also apply to all other ethnic groups on Wikipedia. From looking at the source for the much lower number it in fact stresses that those who did express Croatian identity were asked to indicate the ethnic group or groups with which they identified, not to indicate their specific ancestry. Most asked probably (I would say more than probably, rather most certainly) identified as New Zealanders, but no one asked the ones identified as "New Zealanders" of what extraction they are, only with what they identified themselves. If I was born in New Zealand I would also identify myself with it, but I would also be of Croatian or some other extraction...but if no one asked me then ofc it wouldn't be in the census. I don't see what is silly when we have one link provided for one figure and one for the other, clearly making a distinction between what is estimated and what is supposedly "official"....the truth is none of these are actually "official", since they aren't in the official census figures. Also the statement by Helen Clark, former PM of NZ, was not just a reported news, it was in fact an official NZ government (Ministry of Ethnic Affairs) press release [4] [5], so it's an "official" estimate as much as the other link. In end I would like to point out there is no policy or unwritten rule that "only official census figures should be included in the infobox", and I especially don't see an issue (pushed mainly by one person here for rather transparent reasons) when it's clearly marked what is an estimate and what is an official census figure with specific references to each. Shokatz (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Be that as it may, if we're going to list estimates, we need actual estimates. Not statements that make us believe there maybe are some estimates. In other words, we need actual sources, not links that make us believe there may be sources out there.
The NZ "estimate" is not explicitly endorsed as official by the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, which means the figure is meaningless. Its not even referred to as an "estimate". The press release merely quotes Helen Clark (the release provides no external backing for her statement either). The figure there can not be based just on some comment some official made. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's an official press release by the NZ Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, not just a statement of one official. We don't have a proper source for the other figure as well since this is not featured in the actual official census released for the public, thus both are equally valid no matter how "ridiculous" it may seem. Shokatz (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Again: the figure is not stated as an estimate by the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, but the Ministry merely quotes Clark in their press release. Its not them saying it, its Clark. I don't know how valid the other figure is, but this one is indeed ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Again: It's an official NZ government press release. If they quote her that means they, for some unknown ridiculous reason, agree with her. I find both figures to be ridiculous, and especially the lower one as at least 15-20k Croatians emigrated to New Zealand since the late 19th century, where they lived and married, had children, etc. Looking at that other number makes me think they either died out or were abducted by Aliens, maybe they disappeared in thin air like the Dwemer...who will know....these "discussions" really start to bore the hell out of me... Shokatz (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The NZ "estimate" is not explicitly endorsed as official by the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs - and yet they featured and endorsed it on their official website -> [6]. I feel like punching myself in the face now... :)) Shokatz (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz calm down :) ... I would like to thank Director for joining in this discussion. It is not true "all others are grouped into Europeans" in NZ statistics.. sure it is a grouping, but then you have more and more groupings .. European- British, Dutch etc... clearly 2500 people declared they are of Croatian origin.. ANd the ones you mentioned i doubt they died out or dissapeared or were abducted... they were probably assimilated into larger groups such as the English people etc.... Afterall.. it was their colony right? :) .. It would be also redicioulsy unlogical that in both large Australia and small new Zealand, over 100,000 Croats live in each of these lands.. no? ... on both U.S. and NZ censuses people had an actuall chance to opt for their ANCESTRY. Yes official figures dont cover everything, but what/ who do estimates cover? ... there is no such thing as official unofficial estimates... all estimates are unofficial if they werent based on actual scientific, demographic or what not study, survey etc... my point is... it is okay to keep estimations for countries where there was NO censuses available or no censuses where people could declare ethnically, religiously, linguistically, or by ancestry etc... - such examples are Germany, France, Austria, Great Britian and many many others... So many people are already counted into this ancestry, Shokatz mentioned.. as not all pure ethnic Croats identified as such, there were also such persons with Croatian background who cant even speak Croatian. You think alot of 414,000 declared Croatian Americans speak Croatian? .. not even 50% of them ... Perhaps around 10% of that number (when comparing to other groups in USA statistics).. also these estimations, might have already counted more Croats in certain lands than there really are... and yet, when we summ all figures from infobox and even if we add a lets say +50,000 population for all other lands which arent included in ifnobox (but it is surely not that much) ... the total figure ends up at 6,5 million at max. .. using these unofficial sources for NZ and the U.S., we get 7,4 million... and that is my whole point... total number of Croats are by 1,2 - 2,2 million lower than it is written in the infobox.. even adding pumped up unreliable sources .. it doesnt reach 8,5 million ... unless you would count some spacemen under Croats to get to that number. I read on some Croatian webpage about diaspora... that Croats outside of CRO, number another 1 million people elsewhere in Europe and another 1,5 million overseas (evetnough i doubt theres 250,000 ppl in Argentina and 400,000 in Chile who would feel or even be of Croatian ancestry). You can find this same quote on wikipedia about Croatian diaspora articles. And that would make the total figure around 6 - 7 million max. or lets say ~6 m. "real Croats" and up to 7 or 7,5 million of those who have Croatian ancestry, origin. Compared to for example ~10 m. "real Serbs" and another 11 million of those with Serbian ancestry, compared to ~2 mil. "real Slovenes" and another 2,5 mil. those with such ancestry... these such figures would also match historical demographics between these nations and also their each diaspora estimations.. if figures would all stand like these, i doubt there would be anymore edit warring, vandal attacks on figures of these articles from editors belonging to "any of these sides" ... Now these were just my own opinions ofcourse.. i was using these comparements and examples because i want us all to contribute to our articles together with sense and make a stop to vandal attacks, such as Sokac121 was involved in. Regards (Правичност (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

@Правичност. I don't want to get into this all that much.. Its a completely arbitrary bunch of figures, and I really have no opinion on how best to handle this. I mean first there's the question of the various terms used for Yugoslavs, then the issue of criteria.. do we go only with those who declare themselves "Croats" or do we include all those who are estimated to have Croat background, or whatever. Its really stupid. I just know the NZ estimate figure is not sourced with an estimate, and neither is the US figure. Probably others are dubious as well, but I'm afraid I just "can not be arsed" to fight over this.
@"If they quote her that means they agree with her." Nope. Not at all. I just quoted you, does that mean I agree with you? Its a press release, they're just reporting what she said. Please don't push this point, it really doesn't reflect well. Also Skyrim is boring, and has no story. So there. -- Director (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR: You as usual build a strawman argument. If you quote me, that doesn't mean anything. If an official state institution quotes a statement by the highest state official and publishes it on it's official website that means it has merit. And Skyrim rocks! Shokatz (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Правичност: Ok, I'll try to reply to this...most of it doesn't make sense but here we go...
  • First the figure of 414,714 Croats in the US is not an official census figure. It is an estimate made by the ACS (American Community Survey) which makes these estimates on a certain sample ratio and then extrapolates general results. If you actually look at the page here you will see that above the table it says, black on white: Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. So again - we talk about an estimate, not an official census where everyone, as you said "had an actuall chance to opt for their ANCESTRY" to quote you letter by letter.
  • Second, regarding New Zealand. Looking at the official census figures on this site you can see that the NZ census is actually quite general and in fact lists "ethnic groups" by "European", "Maori", "Pacific peoples" and "Asian", with also one other general "ethnic group" introduced in 2006 called "New Zealander". These "ethnic groups" are not actually real ethnic groups, but rather racial designations...similar to US census where you can opt for identifying yourself as "Caucasian", "Afro-American", "Asian" and "Native American". Now let's take a look at the next chapter. Here we see that almost 2,7 million people identified with the "European". We have some 35k people identifying as English, and so on. Now this is where I am going to reiterate what I stated previously (and several times): NZ census shows people other than "European" (New Zealanders of European extraction) only and only when they are either born in a different country (and emigrated to NZ) or when they hold a dual-citizenship. In fact over 200k people are recorded as being born in England yet only 35k identify as English and some 16k (if I am not mistaken) as British. This gives us a new perspective on the 2,550...something-ish who supposedly identified as Croats.
  • Third, the question of the general estimate is not in question at all. The general estimate is not based by summation of the entire infobox but by the four (read FOUR) different references stating there are as much Croats (or people of Croatian extraction) all over the world. That means 4 million Croats in Croatia (not counting Bosnia-Herzegovina) plus at least as much people of Croatian extraction in other countries. Croatia is BTW the country with by far the largest diaspora of all the former Yugoslavia countries (and in Europe in general per ratio of population of Croatia and its diaspora), including Serbia and especially Slovenia. So comparing these three countries makes no sense. And need I repeat that the articles about Croats, Serbs and Slovenes or whatever other nation are unrelated so you cannot make comparisons there either.
  • And fourth, there is no rule or Wiki policy which states only the official figures should be in the infobox, as I have just shown you both numbers for both NZ and US are in fact estimates. Shokatz (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Lets get this straight since its getting annoying. That is NOT a "straw man argument" under any definition, stop misusing that term. Even if you were right, it would still not be a "straw man argument". Figure that out. For something to be a "straw man argument", I need to manufacture some fake position of yours.
The press release has merit in terms of that it may indicate that somewhere an estimate may exist. Beyond that - its worthless. You can not write "100,000 people" based on nothing other than a statement by some person. You can not claim something is an "estimate" - when it is not. No matter how many terms you manage to cram the word "official" in a sentence..
Get this: that is not an "estimate". It is a press release that quotes an unsubstantiated statement by a politician, at a Croat event. It is meaningless, and you can't quote it as an "estimate", as that is blatantly dishonest. The word "estimate" isn't even mentioned. There is no way you can maintain this position, it makes no sense, its absurd. Every time you go into "irrational mode", you shift one notch away from "Serious Wikipedian" to "POV Pusher". Do not unlock perks on that skill tree, they are ultimately useless. And by the time I got to Alduin, I smacked him twice on the head and it was you win!... some game. Oblivion at least had a proper climax.. -- Director (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Talking about "irrational mode"...let's just agree that we disagree, ok? Now since this is obviously getting us nowhere, I will post an inquiry later at WP:RSN and we'll see what other uninvolved users have to say (if they have to say anything...) about these particular sources. Hopefully you don't disagree with that as well... :p Shokatz (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is such an issue form someone it would be good if we put that ethnic and declared Croats number 414 000(in Usa) and that 1.200.000 is of Croatian ancestry. I think it's the best solution.The link is not stupid or funny.It's for Croatian Diaspora.Same as the link for Serbs in Germany is from some page about Serbian comunnity in Germany.Not official census.I think 700 000 Serbs in Germany is even more strange than Croats in Usa.And about some people saying(I think of User:Правичност) that we should lower the number of Croats..There are numerous books in the sources provided where it is said that there is from 4 to 4.5 mil Croatians living outside Croatia..Declared and Ancestrial Croats. Scrosby85 (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Director, i agree... nobody cant make certain reliable exact figures on people of certain ethnic group or ancestry.. and how many is there of them and who is or can be trully counted as a Croat at all, someone who can speak Croatian, someone who is visiting Croatia often because his grandma is from there or someone who just declares as having croatian origin, just because he heard he has that origin but cant even find Croatia on map... its difficult and stupid, for any ethnic group... but what is more stupid is, convincing yourself into lies, making also others "believe" there are maaaanyyy of your fellow countrymen around the world eventough there arent, there is nothing more clear than a fact that it is a great question where you would find those additional ca. 2,5 million Croats, when the already existing figures in infobox - well some of them .. are already dubious... Shokatz... let me correct you, you are wrong; Croatia is not on first place in Europe when it comes to diaspora - counting per no. of population of coutnry as you said. That would be probably Ireland on first place (4,5 mil. pop. and over 30 million declaring as irish just in USA alone), Netherlands would be a similar case also, many others actually... but concerning Balkans as i am informed Albania would be on first place, because they have the smallest population of all mentioned above and many times more living outside of it in region and diaspora. Serbia and Croatia would share somewhere verry similar numbers- The only difference is Croats count more in overseas countries and Serbs count more in European countries (and while im at this ill answer to Scrosby that ther eis nothing weird about est. of 700,000 Serbs in GER, hence biggest Serb diaspora`s are located in Germany and the USA; Number of Serbs stood at something over 568,000 in Germany in 2006 ... every year ca. 21,000 ppl only from Serbia alone, leave for Germany.. some estimations also count up to 1 million Serbs in Germany (but i beleive between 600 and 700,000 is the most realistic figure - including those with Serbian ancestry... oh and one more thing Scrosby, i dont think that is a good idea for USA you stated... because 414,000 already includes ancestry - actually more ancestral Croats than real Croats, hence only lets say below 20% of these actually can speak Croatian (rare ones perfectly)); ..anyways ... both Minsitries for Diaspora on each side (Serbian and Croatian) claim verry similar or actually the same estimations/ calculations -that both diasporas count between 2 (2,5) million and 4 (4,5) million (Serbs/ Croats). Eventough its much more likely both of these figures are closer to the first number or perhaps something between at a maximum extend. . . now enough about comparisons and Serbs, since we are missing the subject partially... I dont believe these figures/ estimations are reliable enough, i agree with Director that the source mentioning 100,000 Croats among that one from census is not reliable and neither is the one for USA, since census exists and eventough the link i provided isnt showing exact 2010 census figures but they are still based on those (real figure was 411,000 i think from 2010 census) ... and btw Shokatz i must disagree with you when you said, that figure of 2500 Croats is based on ppl who were born in Croatia, because if you take a closer look on that page it clearly says how many people ARE exactly from Croatia as a country, and it clearly says how many ethnic Croats there are in NZ (that figure of 2500)... I also noticed you were "fighting" wheter Skyrim or Oblivion is better, i must dissapoint you and say, that i find Fallout 3 not only above both of these two, but above all games concerning story, game experience, action, size and details of world, the atmosphere... simply everything. Well, however we turn it, Bethesda rocks. (Правичност (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC))
Croats in New Zealand are specific, because they are associated with Māori [7]. They are known also as Tarara. Croats in New Zealand are similaras as well Dutch in South Africa. It is good that the article we have this information.--Šokac121 11:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done playing around with this. The "100,000" ref is essentially fraudulent, and very obviously so: #1 its not an "estimate" and is presented as such, and #2 its attributed to an NZ ministry that does not support it at all. I can not believe its actually defended, but honestly, I will report this nonsense if its actually edit-warred-over. Its going too far. -- Director (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

[8] It is believed that after the Irish, Croats numerically constitute the largest settler group. In the last 10-15 years in New Zealand had immigrated 10-thousand highly educated people from the Croatian. It is much more than in 2500 how one source said. Source National Institute for Croats writes about 60,000 thousand Croats in New Zealand--Šokac121 12:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Pls provide an actual, non-fraudulent source for the 100,000 figure or it can't go in.
hrvatiizvanrh.hr is also not a source if it doesn't provide references. Phrases like "it is believed" pretty much invalidate everything that comes after them, they're called WP:WEASEL WORDS. No figure should be introduced as an "estimate" if its not an actual estimate.
The "60,000" figure is also not properly sourced, as its ref does not lead anyone to a WP:VERIFIABLE source, but only to more weasel words ("these people say its true"). -- Director (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
If hrvatiizvanhr is not a good source, then it is not teara.govt.nz a good source, whole article we can delete either one source is not good:) We need to have the estimate of the number of Croats in New Zealand. --Šokac121 12:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
No. teara.govt.nz is just a place where you can find census data. Its not a silly text where some person wrote some things without any apparent backing. "These people say its true" is WP:WEASEL, and there is no estimate at all to be found on that site. When someone says "estimate", the reader assumes the figure is backed by some kind of actual professional or semi-professional demographic estimate, such as for example the estimates on the modern-day ethnic composition of Bosnia and Herzegovina. hrvatiizvanrh.hr is not a scholarly secondary source, but just a website. Yes, a website of the Croatian gov., but still just a website.
It needs references to actual estimates or the figures it sports can not be presented as "estimates". Ok? -- Director (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats right... "weasel sources" should be used only in worse case (maybe) if there are no better sources available, but if official statistics are available, they clearly show how many ppl had aneed to declare as Croatian or having Croatian origin, sure there may be more, but not much more, we ar eprobably talking about a minor minority. Same goes for USA.. 1,2 million Croats in USA? Please.. even Greeks for who we know number alot in USA dont actually count that much according to census. It would be funny that 1/3 of whoel Croatian population in Croatia live in USA.. and tlaking about moving from Dalmatia, not only Croats moved out and emigrated from Dalmatia, there used to be really significant n umbers of Serbs living there in those times, also some Italians and others.. not all immigrants from Dalmatia were Croats, supposebly 60-70% yes.. but not all.. so we cant meassure and base some people on a certain ethnic group by territory of emigration in this case. This is why censuses who have "ethnic declarement option" are the best source - (not the best and perfect, but better than any other available). (Правичност (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

As I said, hrvatiizvanrh.hr is not somehow a source in and of itself. If it doesn't point to actual research (i.e. "estimates"), its pretty much worthless. P.s. Shokac, I'm not stupid, I can tell you've probably been WP:CANVASSING Croatian users... -- Director (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Director,State office for Croats abroad is not somehow a source?Then we should also remove all that links from books which point out that there are 4 - 4.5 mil Croats outside of Croatia because they don't have sources.They just wrote it in a book.You think that State office for Croats abroad don't use information about Croatian Diaspora and that they are lying and inventing numbers?For what cause?414 000 people in Usa declared as ethnic Croats so i don't think that 1.200.00 is so unrealistic..About New Zealand census i'm not familiar.There is no need for fighting over this just because Правичност is throwing a bone..Director you didn't complain about this before.Sometimes you are so strange. Scrosby85 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if its the United Nations Office for Croatian Nonsense. Focus less on the name, and more on the substance. It is NOT as if the Office for Croats Abroad has published some kind of demographic research, census data, or professional estimates on their site - its just a block of text without even an author, filled with nice-sounding platitudinous drivel - and WP:WEASEL WORDS. They don't point to a single actual study, or census of any kind (theirs or otherwise).
We can't list these figures as an "estimate" - without there actually being an estimate. Its misleading, its fraudulent. -- Director (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill please....because this is getting so boring. But if you all really wish to pursue this non-issue further I think the best course of action would be to make a WP:RFC on this or maybe ask for an opinion on WP:RSN. I'd do it myself but I just cannot be arsed to do so....excuse my "French". I personally don't see any problem whatsoever in using both figures each with their own belonging reference, when there is a clear distinction... Shokatz (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting almost 3 times larger figure (USA) and 10 times larger figure (NZ) than the ones on official censuses, is simply creating propagandal figures, "estimating" optimistical figures.. "there might be, it is said there are" that many..? .. If not more than 410,000 people declared to have Croatian origin (by either one or several responses - since USA and such countries are melting pots for any groups), then this means these "others" (if they exist) either dont feel Croatian, or have forgot they are also of Croatian origin to have declared so.. or either they actually just simply arent Croats by origin or by many origins; same goes for New Zealand. Why put unofficial third party (non)estimates which clearly pump up numbers like any other national "so called estimators" would do; when official census data`s are available. Id understand if such census didnt have an option for people to declare their ancestry/origin/descent ... if they would for example only have an option to declare which citizenship you hold or "where you came from?" ... but these 2 countries clearly did have such censuses with such options, chances. I could use such sources as well, to make my self believe... but id know im liying to my self... let me remind you that linguistical researches estimate ca. 5,5 million NATIVE speakers of Croatian language... if there are 5,5 mil. native Croatian speakers worldwide (and not neccesarilly all of these are Croats because this figure includes 95% of whole Rep. of Croatia`s population)... now.. how can there be ca. 3 million more Croats with such Croatian awarness around the world who dont speak it? ... It is not normal for small nations such as Croatian to be in this situation. I just gave out an example.. dont bite it too much... but even this article on "hrvatski" says total population is 6-7 million. I guess english wikipedia serves more as a competition and showing off when it comes to such articles as these. I also find figures for Argentina and Chile bizzare, i mean 250,000 and 400,000 ??? I mean come on.. There are more Croats in some Chile and Argentina behind God`s back than in whole Bosnia and Herzegovina??? I didnt see any sign of them on any media`s or anything ... There is no proof there are so many.. Eventough i have been searching i only found few examples... These figures are just another piece of some "estimations" again... Id say both of these figures would be more close to 100,000 something - including ancestral Croats ofcourse... but thats my opinion... but ok i wont bite into that.. i`ll leave it since no censuses or nothing official exists for those destinations regarding ethnic groups or ancestries... But anyway... All im saying is if the most adequate sources are available, there is no need for optimistical unofficial sources, to iflame figures to maximum possible extent. And btw, Bethesda rocks! (Правичност (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC))
I don't want to sound rude but no one is really interested in your personal assertions and WP:OR. Shokatz (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Dont speak in the name of a mass, you are not their leader.. are you? :) ..jk ... anyways not everything i said were personal assertions, i clearly said when they were, wheter i expressed them. But i was mainly talking about importance of official and relaible sources. (Правичност (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC))
Правичност speaks of reliable and official sources!! You're the king unofficial, nationalistic and unreliable sources. Thank goodness that in article about the Croatians has no such sources like in article about the Serbs, but that will change :D--Šokac121 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to go into this User:Правичност issue. Just make me happy by scrapping estimates that don't have estimates in their refs... -- Director (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Some other ethnic groups in infoboxes have their ethnic and ancestry origins.And their ancestry origins sources are mostly books.So i don't see any issue with it.It did not been an issue until now.For one or two people.One of them is Serbian editor.I doesn't matter to me 700 000 Serbs in Germany and calling all Yugoslavs as Serbs.So don't make issue here Правичност. Scrosby85 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sokac121 do you know how will it change? Only if you canvass and hire up some more vandal`s to edit warre the article Serbs like you have been doing it whole year without success to make any changes, i suggest you to learn English properly first and then edit English wikipedia and dont take this as an insult, but rather as a helpfull suggestion. You have reported me .. what.. 5 times? .. and with all your arguments and claims, you didnt manage to block me, as that was your conspiracy plan. Your arguments are always a failure, so why should they be of any help here to this article? ... Scrosby let me remind you i was motivated to make this move because of Sokac121, he inspired me with his goals of "englightening" the "Serbs" article :) ... So i said "hey what the heck, why wouldnt we all also "enlighten" other articles of Balkan peoples". Because not only "Serbs" article has "no-good" sources and why would that article be the only and constant target for disputes when there are other articles with issues aswell, especially the "Croats" article which Sokac121 immediately edited- adding these 2 sources for USA and NZ to inflame number of Croats and all of this immediatly right after he witnessed his failure in his (at that time 4th attempt) to degrade number of Serbs using these same arguments he is saying right now (that i am a king of unreliable nationalist sources something..) .. but whatever... you should however know and check Serbs article better if you are already accusing somebody (supposebly me) of counting all Yugoslavs under Serbs and using unreliable sources or whatever... Because Serbs article uses only official census sources if those are available - for example for USA and Canada and Australia and many others.. there ar eno foolish inflamations on Serbs article, unofficial estimations are only used for countries where censuses werent held or werent held as also using the "ethnic group counting method" if you get what im saying (i anyways explained this many times). The Yugoslavians/Yugoslavs arent counted in no state, they are described and mentione din footnootes separatley beneath the countries infobox. Any available sources on web mention around 10 million Serbs as the lowest figure and up to 12 million as highest, 10 mil. + can be counted from infobox of Serbs article - that infobox doesnt include data for Kosovo (it`s figure is mentioned in footnotes) and then figures of some countries arent included on that whole article at all.. such as those whose Serb population counts below 5,000 population (for example Russia, Spain, Czech rep. etc.) .. because a concensus was reached that states with under 5,000 Serb population will be excluded from infobox. Then .. some state`s figures are missing from that infobox, since census sources links got dead or such data`s arent available on web (like Greece, South American countries etc.); anyways its ca. 10 million without including these things ive mentioned and that is same as much as some sources say... while on Croats article only 6,4 million can be counted from infobox comparing to sources which say 7,5 - 8,5 mil... thats the difference.. and then you have guys like Sokac121 who come up with an idea, that there are too many Serbs for him on Serbs article and tries to downgrade those figures, while he inflames figure of Croats in exchange, probably trying to (obviously) make it look like Croats number more people than Serbs, which is demographically not true ofcourse... I am saying all this, because you accuse me i brought the issue from "Serbs" article here.. so just wanted to remind you who brought the issues in general exactly... eventough the discussion i started here, has NOTHING to do with Serbs article, nothing.. you started mentioning that yourself and i just presented you my personal opinions and told you what was happening, that is all (since you start with accusements again, i must react to them ofc.) .. you mentioned one of the editors (besides -- Director (talk)) who disagree with some things on this article is Serbian - you could fairly colour that word also in black as i did like this, because that is the way you expressed it, showing you feel uncomfortable because of that.. is it unwelcome for one Serbian to dissagree with something on an article about something Croatian? Oh im terribly sorry, atleast i am using a proper way in showing my arguments and goals, but where were you when a "batallion" of some Croatian editors leaded by Sokac121 were dragged in edit-warring figures on Serbs articles months ago... with arguments such as "this is Serbian propaganda, Greater Serbian propaganda, Too many Serbs, too many Serbs - because we think so, because we say so!" .. (ofcourse i am majoribly imitating Sokac121`s riots himself)... and none of these ideas passed ofcourse. Simple frustration and rioting doesnt make changes, good arguments do ... it is not in my interest to cause problems or fights here... so please stop saying that, that is a bad way of defence. Lets stop with accusements and focus on the discussion now; i came here with serious arguments and i wanna know why you are defending unoffical sources and figures, when official figures for ETHNIC Croats or people of Croatian origin actually EXIST in both cases (USA and NZ)... is it because of that source for total number of Croats (7,5 - 8,5 mil.)? Trying to make the figures from infobox equal to that figure by using totally "unreal" sources? .. Well you managed to almost reach the first figure, but you still need to find/ create another 1,1 million Croats somewhere to fill that number up.. :) .. i mean come on... get real.. You know you are ignoring realistic and real official sources to replace them with the ones which state more Croats.. isnt it obvious? You just need to find a good argument why you are doing that and why is that good for this article to present martian figures to the readers and mislead them from reality? (And pls try to answer these questions without using words "Правичност" or "Serbs article" for an argument). Thanks (Правичност (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC))
Heh, "i suggest you to learn English properly" :)
These enormous tirades are useless, and all they do is make me think you should indeed be blocked. -- Director (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Whatever, i wont let my self be called names and accused whol time since i got to wikipedia, by same one and same persons. If you think i should be blocked, then try to block me like some 4 other Croatian editors have tried in an organized conspiracy, to loose off a person like me, so they can degrade number of Serbs in peace. :) ... Maybe you meet success, who knows.. i actually wouldnt care less, i have wikipedia over my head in last time.. seeing what internet warriors participate in "contributing to wikipedia". More and more people should realise wikipedia is not a place to check for relaible information about stuff - atleast not articles like this. (Правичност (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC))
If I do report you for the numerous personal attacks you've posted, I'll be sure to note your boasting that you can't be blocked..
Anyway, you're not being helpful. Your position is noted, please do not post any more pointless blocks of text. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Other editors should just read that block, that one is helpfull. (Правичност (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014[edit]

Under the See Also heading near the bottom of the page, please include the following link:

50.100.219.131 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014[edit]

Raul1235 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)