Talk:Croats/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

What about Croatian nazi state during WWII ?

A major part in the History section is missing, about the genocidal "Independent state of Croatia", a puppet nazi state in which the most monstrous crimes against humanity were commited. Hunders of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Romas where slaughtered in concentration camps. There is NO! word about it in the history section !!

Did you actually read the history section? NDH is mentioned here:

"In the Second World War, the Axis forces created a puppet state - the Independent State of Croatia which inluded a lot of territories where Croats lived in the former Yugoslav Kingdom; but many littoral Croats remained outside that country. During and after the war, between 40,000 and 200,000 Croats lost their lives in genocides such as the Bleiburg massacre committed by the Yugoslav Partisans, as well as in many actions committed by chetniks. Many ended their lives in concentration camps such as Jasenovac." Mihovil 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

so, Mihovil, is there ANY sense of NDH article here? This is senseless, first because statement that 'many littoral Croats remained outside NDH' which is just without sense - we all know that NDH was oversized till moon, occupying much of what was not Croatia and not croatian at all. Second - about war crimes. Genocides by Yugoslav partisans - that's pure rethorics. Many actions commited by chetniks - that could be clarified more. "Many ended their lives in concentration camps such Jasenovac' - now this is a SHAME of humanity. Jasenovac wsa THIRD largest death camp in THE WORLD, estimated victims are (from all sources) between 370 and 700 thousand of victims, man, this MUST be said! NDH was NAZI country with pre-planned ideology of mass murdering of all non-Croats! Serbs were forming 31% of Croatian population before 1941, to be scaled to only 11 percent in 1945!! Not only to mention Jews and Roma! This MUST BE SAID, you dont have nothing in hiding this facts, this is something which MAN KIND should not forget, and we can't do anything about it now - genocide IS part of Croatian past.

So, Bleiburg was "just rhetoric?" I guess you're saying that the Partisans only committed "rhetoric," but the Croats are all crazed killers, right? Go ahead and add more if you want, but there are already separate pages for NDH and Jasenovac. Mihovil 22:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

wait, you're quoting me wrong. I said 'pure rethorics' because me and you know how posh became blaming Partisans for even genocides, in last decade or two, in order to distract view from the things one side or the other side doesn't want to show. That's rethorics. As well as every side in every war in any period of human kind, Partisans were contributing into war crimes. This Talk section is not about it, here we shall UNDERLINE bestial Nazi Croatian crimes in WW2, and your original post to this issue was obviously putting it into the third plan (making it minor topic to think about). That's how you wrote it. There are separate pages about NDH and Jasenovac, but what we are talking here is inpropriate mentioning of things which matter for the topic, in this page.

Ok, sorry for misinterpreting what you said, but I'm not sure that I really understand what you're trying to say. If you want to add to the WWII section of this article, go ahead. Mihovil 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mpetrovic 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)marko

Croats outside Croatia

I have made some changes to the numbers as i though the estimates were way down

eg in New Zealand most Croats call themselves Dalmatian and the number of them is extremly high. Probably the 4th highest migrant group. So the number in NZ estimated seems wrong. In Australia Croats are 12th highest (in 1988 they were 6th highest)..testimony to this would be the Australian soccer team which can have up 8 players at one time all of Croat background (Australia v Uruguay 2006) Argentia have 400,000 which i have dropped in. Even Maradona has some Croat blood hahhaah.

In Australia and New Zeland there is a great (maybe the biggest) Dalmatian community. People whom call themselves "Dalmati" are the Italian people living in Dalmatia. Most of them left Croatia afther the WWII and move to Italy, Australia, New Zeland. Also if they may have a croatian citizenship they have to be not counted as Croats.

On a more general note, I really think we need some verifiable sources about the numbers of Croats in different countries. For example, I think that the figure of 40 thousand Croats in the UK is greatly exaggerated. EurowikiJ 17:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds too much for UK. It might include Bosnian Croats who have left due to war in Bosnia Hercegovina, Iam not sure.... 400,000 + in Argentina is common knowledge and many South American countries like Chile and even Brazil have some sizable Croatian communities....i don't know why not list them. I don't why someone has the authority to delete that fact.

Croats in Bosnia

You've put the number of Croats in Bosnia to about 600,000 which is true, but you wrote that it represented 23% of the overall population which is way wrong!!!!! That would mean that Bosnia had 2,5 million residents and Bosnia has 4,1 million people! So I've corrected your percentage to 15%, which is the real number. Serbs consist another 1,5 million (37%) and Bosniaks about 2 million. Serbs and Croats together suprpass the number of Bosniaks in this country.

Genetics

As for the genetic makeup of Croats, this field of investigation is only at the beginning (more extensive research in the future etc.). Be as it may, here are relevant linx, one in English and other in Croatian:

http://grokhovs1.chat.ru/legacy.html

http://pub145.ezboard.com/fimotacaffefrm24.showMessage?topicID=68.topic Mir Harven 23:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah well, what I heard on TV wasn't too far off -- the table in the first document shows that it is indeed the Poles and Ukrainians (along with Macedonians which weren't mentioned) that have the E7 haplotype most often among the Slavs, other than the Croats. But yeah, it's probably not a particularly useful data point as the Saami and the Germans also seem to have it even more. --Shallot 00:09, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

the newest links

http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/news/bih/96205/index.do

I added a more extensive section on the genetic makeup - with current data, which is pretty solid by now. I've provided references both on this page and on the subsequent haplogroup pages. So I think everything should be in order. After my addition 72.144.139.21 reverted the whole thing, but without making a comment - so I don't know if there was some form of objection against the addition or if it is simply vandalism. --Denoir 02:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Genetics section discussion is currently being mediated in an attempt to come to agreement. Please see my comments on that page if you have a position on this debate. Eberhart 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Croats / Slavs

That is old propaganda that croats would be slavs. This is taken for granted just because they once happened to be part of the union called Yugoslavia. Recent studies start to show that croats are not indeed slavs. They settled in the area long before the slavs even came to the balkans. So the only thing slavic about the croats is their language. Please note that croats and serbs are not of the same origin. Anyone can see that the appearance of these two people are different with the serbs being a lot darker for example.

I refuse to see such lies being presented to the people when modern day scientists are certain croats are not of slav origin.

The nazis did not see the croats as slavs either, that is wrong information. My grandfather fought for the ustashe during ww2 and came in contact with high ranking germans and he rejects this information as being false.

Please provide a few references. (I trust we don't have to explain how "a relative of mine said so" doesn't say much.) --Joy [shallot] 23:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified whether by "origin of Croats" we are talking about genetic origin, linguistic, or what? From a purely linguistic/cultural viewpoint, Croats are 100% Slavic. When you take genetics into account, they are only partially Slavic. They did assimilate the pre-Slavic (Illyrian) poplation of the Balkans, who may have been even greater in number than the invading Croats. So from a genetic point of view, Croats are mostly Illyrian. Although this applies to Serbs as well, so it wouldn't differentiate Croats from the Serbs. As for Serbs being "darker" than Croats, there is no difference in pigmentation or hair color between Serbs and Croats (or Bosnian Muslims for that matter), as can be confirmed by anyone who has travelled the region. Individuals in the Balkans who appear darker have Gipsy (or possibly Vlach) ancestry.

As for Hitler, the fact that he did not consider the Croats Slavic means aboslutely nothing. Hitler simply said anything that he thought would get them on his side as cannon fodder. - Anonymous 16:57, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

it is pretty scary to find that some people still consider adolf hitler to be an authority on ethnicity. at least i am scared. as to croats being slavs/non-slavs - slavs are a linguitic community, which basically means that slavic nations are the nations that speak slavic languages. there is no "slavic race", the same as there is no "nordic race", that is nonsense concocted by nazis. as to the ethnic background of the present-day slavic-speakinig communities - like it or not, it is highly varied as the part of europe inhabited by slavs witnessed a huge number of invasions, migrations etc. so the genetic stock unavoidably got all mixed up, what the slavs share now is only their language. to sum up: croats are by all means slavic because their language is slavic. pseudo-scientists denying it simply support modern-day official croat propaganda which aims to present croats as radically different from (implicitly: superior to) the neighbouring slavs. (s.korchashko, undoubtedly slavic)

There is no such thing as a modern-day official croat propaganda which aims to present croats as radically different from (implicitly: superior to) the neighbouring slavs. --Joy [shallot] 20:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, this might have been far-fetched, but: there are people, also scientists, making efforts to prove that croats are different from slavs (and if you strive to prove that you are different from someone else this usually means you want to demonstrate your superiority - but that may be just me being paranoid :) ). judging from what my friends, students of the croatian language (and frequent visitors in croatia) tell me this view seems to be predominant in the academic circles. if they teach so at the universities it would seem to be the official line, wouldn't it? i do not mean to offend anyone, i spent some time this year in croatia myself and liked the country and the people a lot. just trying to get some facts straight. yours truly, s.korchashko

What academic circles are these exactly? I heard of no such thing (and I'm a student here in Croatia). There are currently some respected genetics statisticians examining the haplotypes (if you can read Croatian, hr:Hrvati has links to a nice discussion about it), but those studies are done as part of a pan-European project (with scientists from other countries examining other peoples too) and they never juxtaposed "Croats" and "Slavs" - they examined various national groups and found various percentages for differently aged haplotypes. Every explanation they present to the public about their work is riddled with disclaimers how it's never meant to be used for any sort of supremacism or anything like that. You may read all sorts of crap in the occasional sensationalist newspaper article, but the practical value or impact of that is nonexistent. --Joy [shallot] 00:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

ok then, my sources of information on the subject are the folks i mentioned earlier, students of croatian who go to croatia every now and then (to study there, to be more precise). arguably, they might not be the most reliable source of information one can imagine, but then most of the things i know about the world come from books, tv and the internet, which, come to think of it, are not very reliable either. going back to those friends of mine, some time ago i was upbraided by one of them for saying that croats are slavic. she told me that they had been taught at a university in croatia (don't ask me which university, i don't know that) that croats were not slavic, that they had nothing to do with the slavs except that they happened to speak a language nearly identical with the languages of their slavic neighbors. the others said the same thing, adding that this was the predominant view in croatia.

Well, I think that at this point it won't be too presumptuous for me to say that they're ignorant and that they apparently think that everyone else is are ignorant, too. Which sounds like a useful attitude for life in general, if you think about it :) --Joy [shallot]

it is possible that they just incidentally happened to find themselves at a school run by pseudo-scientists (or maybe just its linguistic department was run by lunatics) and therefore got their perceptions on the subject all screwed up (which in turn screwed up my perceptions). having done some research on the internet i am happy to find that serious croatian scientists reject this line of thinking as crap. i hope i did not hurt your feelings, it is just that i react rather emotionally when i see people quoting nazis as authorities on any subjects, and especially on subjects of race and ethnicity. yours truly, s.k.

Yeah. I recall my history classes in the elementary school and the high school, and never once has there been any serious question raised about the Croatian affiliation with the other Slavs. Sure, the teachers mentioned the theories that "we" came from Iran before that, but that was more of an intriguing side-note than anything else.

While the ignorance of those acquaintances of yours could be a worrying phenomenon, if you actually asked someone in the street in Croatia, even someone who didn't finish high school, by and large they will tell you that they have more in common with the Slovenes, Bosniaks and Serbs than with Magyars and Austrians. Even if they might express dissatisfaction with that fact - everyone wishes that they were more like the Swiss :) --Joy [shallot]

Accross the former Yugoslavia, there i something along the lines of 60% darker complexion and 40% lighter, but mostly hair colour, not much with skin. It is untrue that Croats are on average lighter than Serbs. Just as you get many light skinned fair haired Serbs, Bulgarians, Montenegrins and Macedonians, there is no shortage of dark haired Croats. I remember the 1998 FIFA world Cup in France. Apart from Robert Prosenecki (sounds a little non-Croat), the rest of the squad were dark haired. Ivanisevic and Mario Ancic are hardly Blonde either. It is said that on arrival to the Balkans and surrounding area, Slavs were blonder. Indeed there there dozens of pre-settled communities (Avars, Cumans, Bulgars etc) who would in time assimilate Slav culture but I don't put the darkening down to that. Since man is descended from one source yet looks different in Gambia, Norway, China and Sri Lanka - conditions certain affect future genertions in every way. Suffice it to say that over the last thousand years in the Balkans, their hair has darkened...meanwhile many Roma are lightening as it were...not all of them, but you now have enough people in Zagreb and Belgrade who pass for local Croats and Serbs only to later reveal that they are Gypsies. The other thing I wanted to mention was about Croats not being Slavs... I am sorry to say that it is too late for that. Very possibly, an early settlement using the name Croat dwelled somewhere in the region. Once Slavs invaded, and Croats in turn assimilated the Slavs, that was the end of pre-Slavic Croatia. For over a millennium, there has been not one celebration, one national holiday, one underground practice, or anything attributed to the Proto-Croatian race. And for anyone who still thinks "ah well, it's only language...", - before a community takes someone elses language, those more influential people have to be living among them, so they HAVE to mix somewhat, and even then, after they have changed language (and assimilated everything that comes with language), affiliation to who previously had roots in the old race is erased, even if the name has existed among the people. Because of the Serbianization of Orthodox followers and vice versa with Catholics running down regions where Serbs and Croats are traditionally settled, there appears to be a marker of identity, religion. But going the other way it is not the same - Where do Croats end and Slovenes begin? On the border? That would be absurd...if they are ethnicly different and they know that they are, then there is every certainty that the border towns would have mixed populations, and by this I don't mean people who have relocated this generation, I mean you'd have 35%-65% mixtures in some municipalities, 80%-20% in others...like you have between Macedonians and Albanians (Gostivar in Macedonia and Korche in Albania) both have both communities long settled - the only way they know each other apart is language. were not the Bulgarians originally non-Slavic? So why today is a Slavic language spoken there? This is why, the plight of the South-(eastern) Slavs crossed the entire region where present day Bulgaria is, dropping behind people who would settle permanently, and the Bulgars soon became allies with the Slavs AND assimilated them. If indeed changing language meant that they could keep their identity as Bulgars, then the phneomenon would have been reciprocal: you'd still have communitites or a nation of pure Slavs so to speak in Bulgaria, descended from the originals - whilst OUTSIDE Bulgaria, you'd have Bulgarians living in eastern parts of Serbia and Macedonia. More to the point, you'd have NO Bulgarians along the black sea because they were not there at that time - they'd all be Slavs/Serbian etc. but you'd have hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians living in a triangle with the points at Sofia, Skoplje and Beograd, because that is where the last Bulgar-Bulgarians were before assimilation. Today, you go to Pirot, and Serbianism ends, go to Vidin, Bulgarianism begins. Croatia's principles are the same, and even if it is true that many people in Croatia have a different genetic group from Serbs..rather than comparing Croats from Zagreb with Serbs from Nis, why not compare Croats from Knin with Serbs from Knin, or Vukovar, or Dubrovnik...and then why don't you tak tissue from people in every county from one region to the next, you'll see these changes change only gradually. No abrupt change anywhere, like Black and White South Africans. And one last thing - do not forget, that just because there were people many centuries ago called Croats (and Serbs), it doesn't mean that everyone today who calls herself one of the two would have done so the whole time. Many former names of Slavic people have been washed up by these two, and many new ones (Montenegrins) have at some time been created, like mine. The quest to go to the ex-Yugoslavia and pick out a load of pure Croats, descended from the proto-race with no mediation and a few Serbs is impossible. Any more quarrels, I'll show everyone a picture of me, and you can all have a guess, what am I? Serb? Croat? Montenegrin? Bosniak? Muslim? or what? you will decide. Bolcanic march 11 2006

Oh, dear not this discussion again. I just want to add a comment regarding the genetics, which is so misunderstood. There has never been any research showing a significant genetic difference between Croats and Serbs - or Egyptians and Eskimoes for that matter. It took them 5 years to just sequence one DNA molecule (HUGO project) - it's a bigass molecule. It is today not possible to do it on a scale where you would have statistically significant results for a population.

What we have is Y-DNA haplogroups which are determined by analyzing a very, very small part of the DNA. As Y-Chromosomes are inherited directly father to son, this can be used to determine male-line heritige. Very rarely mutations occur and these define the haplogroups. Now, Y-DNA only gives you information about one single line of genetic inheritence - about your father, your father's father, your father's father's father etc It says absolutely nothing about for instance your mother or your father's mother or any other line that isn't directly male-line. So it says nothing about the general genetic difference or similarities. What we know about through current DNA testing is about deep origins which is quite interesting for analyzing past human migrations. But that's it. As the results are only from the direct male-line ancestry, it is quite useless for distinguishing population groups on a genetic level. And moreover what we have learned through this DNA testing is that the ethnicity and race are very simplified models of population makeup - the picture is far more complex.

It does however leave us with one relevant metric - culture (language included). And from a cultural basis, there is no doubt that the Croats are a Slavic population. --Denoir 08:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on genetics so I will only address the point you made in the second paragraph. Croats indeed speak a Slavic language. But infering from this linguistic fact conclusions abot their culture is an entirely different matter. Especially in view of the fact that Croatian history is very complex. Furtermore, there is no Slavic culture. There is a number of nations who speak a Slavic language, but it would be very difficult, indeed impossible, to find a set of cultural patterns that would apply to Croatians, Czechs, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Ukrainians, Poles etc. Unfortunately, this is usually ignored by those weary of studying history and geography and anxious to lump all these nations together. In a nutshell, there is no Slavic "cultural basis". "Slavic" is merely a linguistic category. EurowikiJ 09:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, beyond language I suppose it is difficult to trace some form of "original" Slavic culture. I would however say that a common cultural basis has been established during the national romantic era (i.e Pan-Slavism) as well as in the last century with communism being a common denominator that has had great social and cultural impact. In addition, I'd say that language is a very strong cultural element, if not the primary one. --Denoir 10:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of answering in my own words, let me share a paragraph from Encyclopaedia Britannica which I think is very good and might shed some more light on the issue you raised:

"A faint kind of Slavic unity sometimes appeared. In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics. The various Slavic nationalities conducted their policies in accordance with what they regarded as their national interests, and these policies were as often bitterly hostile toward other Slavic peoples as they were friendly toward non-Slavs. Even political unions of the 20th century, such as that of Yugoslavia, were not always matched by feelings of ethnic or cultural accord; nor did the sharing of communism after World War II necessarily provide more than a high-level political and economic alliance."

Therefore, language coupled with a common historic experience can indeed serve as a very strong cultural binding point as it is the case with many Germanic nations (Scandinavians for example). However, with Slavic nations you have peoples belonging to various religions (Catholic, Orthodox as well as Protestant and Islamic to a lesser extent) and the resultant cultural rifts. Furthermore, Slavic nations share different historic experiences (Central-European "Slavs" from Poles in the north to Croats in the south whose societies went through Humanism, Renaissance, French Revolution etc.; Balkan Slavs whose societies were affected by the Ottoman occupation; Russians who have a distinct historic tradition etc.). All this has contributed to the development of a myriad of different nations whose languages may be similar, but linguistics is were those similarities start and end. This is contrary to the experience of much more homogenous "Germanic" or "Latin/Romance" nations which sometimes leads to incorrect generalizations about the "Slavic" nations. EurowikiJ 13:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the first time I've read someone refer to Germanic/Romanic people are more homogenous than Slavs. A single noun such as "Slav" has no equivalent to describe the big peoples of Europe. I won't go into it here but I can explain something else: it is correct that there is nothing more than language which links the Slavic people, however, there is nothing more than language to identify anyone at all, anywhere for any reason. Language, entire of itself, is more complex than most people realise. There is no neautral language, or group of dialects/languages. Each tells its own story of its past and presents world views in its own unqique way. Now, a so-called "nation" (Nation A) who today share scores of characteristics may tomorrow leave their homeland and settle in other parts of the world. One may go and live in a place where Nation B will subjugate the A-people. Many years from now, Nation A's people living under Nation-B's rule may have developed many characteristics influenced by Nation-B. The Nation-A affiliates on the other hand, who live in another region of the world under Nation-C, totally different from Nation-B may very probably assimilate aspects of Nation-C's culture, in their language, religion etc. Meanwhile, the third group from Nation-A could be said to have met another destiny. Living under Nation-D, those Nation-A people have decided to take Nation-D's language and make it theirs. Now in Nation-D territory, there is no more evidence that Nation-A once dwelled there except for the odd municipal name descending from their old language etc. I doubt anyone will disagree with this. As for the ethnic Nation-A people living under Nations B and C: they have NOT assimilated the language and can thus be still identified. Genetically they may have changed too, through mixing etc, HOWEVER, the fact that a child may be born to a Nation-A mother and a Nation-B father, even under Nation-B rule but still decides to identify as a Nation-A person even after two centuries - means that Nation-A's influence has come out on top; it has survived. Now when Nation A who lived under B and those who lived under C return to meet each other for the first time in centuries, things have changed drastically between them, but this can never be a reason for the two of them to consider each other different from the other: a now battered and bruised language on both their parts may be the only thing that can link them to a common ancestor BUT unlike their Nation-A affliliates who lived under Nation D - these people had their chances to become members of their overlord race, and their existance as Nation-A affiliates many years down the line reflects a decision to maintain their identity and reject becoming one of the overlords. Those living under Nation-D may have had the same choice but because they took the language of Nation-D, nothing more is attributable to Nation-A and it becomes impossible to go to a town which is 100% Nation-D language speaking, and say "this town is 75% D, and 25% A", in the way that you could if 'A' had maintained its language.

Accross Europe and the world there are many examples of these phenomena. Croatia, as a country, occupies a strategic position in the heart of the South Slavic linguistic and cultural community. Just as not all Slavic-speaking people of Croatia declare themsleves Croats, there are many people living outside of Croatia's borders who speak a Slavic language and DO call themselves Croat. If you draw a ring around a region which Croatian Nationalists consider Croatian land, and even go as far as to regard all people who speak a Slavic language in that zone as Croats - you now have a pure Croatian territory. Look inside it, and you will find as much cultural diversity as anywhere else. Croats are united in that they speak a Slavic language, one who does not speak a Slavic language but lives among Slavic-speaking Croatians is unlikely to call himself a Croat (and even less likely to be accepted by the masses). Now remove Croatia's standard language from the equation and take people for who they are by choice, and consider the rural speech of the people. Not only will you find diversity stretching east to west, south or north, north-east to south-west and back round again, in custom, costume, language usage, food and social attitude, you will ALSO find that all of this forms a part of a wider continuum which encompasses ALL OTHER South Slavic people. There is nothing that people living close to the Slovene border and speak Kajkavian (to take an example) can say to a Slovene accross the border to say "you see them people in Dubrovnik? we have more culturally in common with them than with you!", Likewise the people of Dubrovnik, call them ALL Croats if you will, will still have had more contact and cultural connection with people from near-by Trebine (where they identify as Serbs) and Kotor (where they are mostly Montenegrins) than with people from Istria or Vukovar. I have been ALL over Eastern Europe, on a few occasions too. All of this can be said about West/East Slavic too. Remove the borders, you don't know you're Poland from your Belarus, or your Ukraine from your Slovakia, there are no abrupt changes in people once you get to a town where people start to identify by the other name. Even if they are MIXED like in Vojvdodina, their presence for centuries speaking the same language has maintained similarity, but the tradition of calling yourself by another Slavic nation there ONLY indicates ceremonial differences, the odd celebration twice a year etc.

To end this long passage, these continua are found all over the world, in the Arab world, all through most of China, South America (natives disregarding European culture) etc. Closer to home, the Alpine borders between France and Italy host Occitan speaking people, denied their rights in both countries largely who may well have more in common with each other than with Normans and Sicilians. What do Piedmontese have in common with Sicilians asides a government? A related language and nothing else, and again, linked by a continuum with the two points at either end different from centuries of independent evolution. Nobody dares to call them different. Holland-Germany-Austria-Swiss Germany, the same... Nordic Scandinavia too, the list grows. So if anything apart from a goverment (or desire for a greater governent) unites ALL Croats in ANY WAY what so ever, in a way that excludes ALL OTHER people except one who is Croat, please tell me...I will apologose. Celtmist 21 Mar 2006

Absolutely, culture diffuses across borders. But that wasn't really the issue here. The question is if for instance the Russians and the Croats have a common cultural basis or not.

EurowikiJ, could you please give me an example or two of how German and English culture have more common grounds than Croatian and Polish? What exactly is 'culture' beyond language? I mean, first of all, the more advanced forms of culture (art, music..) have until relatively recently been restricted to royalty and nobility. The broad masses got their culture mainly from the church. In both those cases there has been a pan-European cultural basis spread through (a more or less) common church and relatively free movement of people and ideas across borders. The main differences we see are on a religious basis between the three main christian sects in Europe. The variation in traditional culture that exists is regional - not even national, and absolutely not covering a whole group of nations.

The Croats and the Polish do share something though that the Germans and English don't: a modern common social and political history. Both had communist governments for nearly 50 years. This made an immense cultural impact, ranging from what people were taught in school to the architectural design of buildings. And yes, the Pan-Slavism had its impact as well. Britannica is quite correct that it never was a popular movement, but cultural movements seldom are. --Denoir 09:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A single noun such as "Slav" indeed has no equivalent to describe "small" or "big" peoples of Western Europe. It is probably why so many "Slavs" feel they should not be referred to as "Slavs", but as Croats, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Bulgarians etc. I suppose one is taking away a great deal of our separate cultural identities when one indiscriminately lumps us together as Slavs. As for the South Slavic continuums. I agree that we may be talking about a linguistic one encompassing the countries from Croatia and Slovenia in the north-west to Bulgaria and Macedonia in the south-east. As for a cultural continuum, I have my doubts there. Especially in the light of the fact that such supposedly a cultural continuum was often abused in the past which had devastating consequences on every nation involved. I agree that you can mention Dubrovnik in conjunction with Kotor, though not with Trebinj. As for the former, try to establish a link between Kotor - a place in today's Montenegro which until 1918 was part of the Croatian territories - and the near-by Montenegrin capital Podgorica and you will have to come to a conclusion that those two places are very different indeed. Vojvodina is another good example. The Serbs who lived there for centuries (not the post-WWII colonizers) have little in common with the Serbs from Serbia proper. And the differences do not boil down to occasional celebration of a religious festivity. It is enought to cross the Danube and the Save into Serbia and you will feel you're on another planet. It is a cultural rift that is a result of complex historical realities that lasted for a thousand years. The same rift also separates Transilvania from the rest of Romania. Language and 50 years of a shared political/social system can only play a secondary role under such circumstances. Also (to answer Denoir) a German from Chemnitz and a German from Hamburg may have lived under different political/social circumstances, but despite the resultant differences a German from Chemnitz had not become more similar to a Pole in Krakow than to his fellow German from Hamburg. Also, a Pole from Krakow or, for that matter, a Ukrainian from Lvov are much more similar to an Austrian from Vienna than to a Slavic-speaking Russian from St.Petersburg. Why? It is a thousand years of distinct historic experiences which cannot be erased by a social/political system that lasted half a century or by the fact that respective languages are related. Peoples from outside Trieste to Vladivostok did learn from similar textbooks in schools or lived (some of them at least) in the same drab blocks of flats, but 50 years is not enough to make a substantial and a lasting change.

Do Croatians and, say, Poles have a common cultural basis or not? I think yes. Do Croatians and Russians or Croatians and their fellow South-Slavic Bulgarians and Serbs share a common cultural basis? The answer, in my opinion, is no. The re-introduction of a market economy to all Slavic speaking countries and the process of globalization will have important consequences on the cultures of the Slavic speaking countries, but in a century or so northern Croatia will still have much more in common with eastern Austria or Hungary than with neighbouring Serbian and Slavic speaking parts of Bosnia.

Perhaps another paragraph from the article in Britannica about the developments after the migrations in the 5th and 6th century will more clearly outline how diverse Slavic speaking countries/nations/regions are:

In the centuries that followed, there developed scarcely any unity among the various Slavic peoples. The cultural and political life of the west Slavs was integrated into the general European pattern. They were influenced largely by philosophical, political, and economic changes in the West, such as feudalism, Humanism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French and Industrial revolutions. As their lands were invaded by Mongols and Turks, however, the Russians and Balkan Slavs remained for centuries without any close contact with the European community; they evolved a system of bureaucratic autocracy and militarism that tended to retard the development of urban middle classes and to prolong the conditions of serfdom. The state's supremacy over the individual tended to become more firmly rooted.

In such a context I don't feel that the differences between the English and the Germans are greater than the differences between the Slovaks and the Bulgarians. EurowikiJ 12:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, EurowikiJ, that's all fine and well, those that were under Ottoman rule did have a different experience than those that were under Habsburg rule. But that still doesn't in any way explain how you mean that the Germanic ex-tribes have more of a common cultural basis than the Slavic ex-tribes. Could you give me an example - a practical example of a cultural domain where the English share a cultural domain with the Southern Germans (catholics) that for instance Croats and Russians don't share? For Croats and Serbs it's not too difficult to find similarities (music, food, ceremonies - yes there are significant differences, but compared to other non-neighbouring nations they have quite a few similar elements), but we can probably write off those as cultural diffusion due to proximity. --Denoir 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, the ancestors of todays Germanic speaking nations, unlike Slavs, did not even have a common name, and history is unsure even as to whether some tribes were originally unrelated, but who picked up linguistics features making them appear from a similar background. Be that as it may, when Britains native Celtic/Roman population was invaded by Saxons, Jutes and Angles (the latter of whom they would derive their eventul name), these barbarians were similar linguisticly but there was no evidence that any coherence had existed between them, each went about his business and only after crossing paths and some mixing did the term Angle emerge triumphant (and thus began to develop, English language). The same is of the Germanic Barbarians who devastated the rest of Rome from AD 490. Celt 22 Mar 06

Oh, come on Denoir. For that matter, it would be difficult to find similarities between southern and northern Germany. In any case, what are some of the uniquely Slavic things that Russians and Croats - or Slavs in general for that matter - share that others don't? Apart from similar languages? You also quote music, food and ceremonies which incidentally Croats and Serbs do NOT share. I know it isn't politically correct, but please don't start about cevapcici and burek which are as much Croatian as pizza and hamburger. Also, does the fact that many English eat curry and chutney makes you infer that there are striking similarities between the English and the Indians? Or should we draw conclusions from the fact that Sting uses chants from Northern Africa in his songs? I think that Celt probably expresses your point more clearly when he says that "the ancestors of todays Germanic speaking nations, unlike Slavs, did not even have a common name, and history is unsure even as to whether some tribes were originally unrelated, but who picked up linguistics features making them appear from a similar background" Well, let's see what Britannica says about the Slavs (BTW Celt, surely Slav(ic) is not and cannot be a nationality just like European, Germanic, Romanic etc. aren't nationalities!):

Prehistorically, the original habitat of the Slavs was Asia, from which they migrated in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC to populate parts of eastern Europe.

That's it! We don't really know whether these peoples belonged to some more or less uniform proto-Slavic group or not. Even the author is not sure when the migrations actually started. As for the origin of these people, it's Asia! I suppose it doesn't get any more precise than that. And the fact that the ancestors (and there are grave doubts as to the existence of these ancestors as some homogenous entity) are lumped together under the "Slav" heading doesn't really prove anything.

Evlekis, I take your point. What I'm merely trying to say that this relentless insistence on some linguistic term as an umbrella that would cover "Slavic" nations has no bearing on reality. The former Yugoslavia as a "land of South Slavs" where 95 per cent of the population didn't describe themselves as Yugoslavs is an excellent example. There isn't a common Slavic culture, history etc. All the essential elements of a unity between these nations are missing today just as they have in the past. EurowikiJ 11:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, and I dare not argue, that is the damn problem! That's why Yugoslavia failed, the people failed to embrace each other yet I still say our old country was no different to any other; it had the makings of a country. Where there are over 20 million people there will be cultural variation, where there is more, there will be more diversity. Many countries have history like our former republics, many were silenced during their early years and generations later, children grow up to accept their national name and see their cultural differences as cultural diversity. What we are doing is neither here nor there, we praise the cultural diversity practised in our tinpot republics and denounce association with those over the borders, dismissing them as different. In Macedonia it is even worse, they claim in Pelagonija to be the "purest" Macedonians, because in Western Macedonia they live among Albanians who are somehow supposed to contaminated them, whilst Northern Macedonia is "Serbianized" in language and culture, equally Eastern Macedonia is "Bulgarianized" and few of our so-called "Ponapredni luđe" (more advanced people) care to realise that this is systematic and very ordinary as people develop their cultures from breeding over these lands for years and years. Evlekis 24 March 2006

Oh, come on Denoir. For that matter, it would be difficult to find similarities between southern and northern Germany.

That's exactly my point. You claimed that unlike the Germanic and Romanic groups that the Slavic group is not a cultural one. So, I've asked you to provide me with examples of indicators of a common cultural basis for the Germanic people that didn't apply to the Slavic. As you haven’t provided even one example and given that last statement then I assume that you are agreeing with me that the Germanic and Romanic people have no more of a common cultural basis than the Slavic people do. OK?

As for commonalities between the Serbian and Croatian cultures, I very much stand by them - even though they are more a question of localized cultural diffusion rather than proof of a common basis. And yes, cevapcici and burek are a part of it - just like curry in England. That's merging of cultures (kind of the opposite of we're looking for here). So pointing out that a Serbian wedding ceremony and a Croatian wedding ceremony are more similar than a Serbian and a Swedish ceremony or a Croatian and Norwegian ceremony - is underlining a common cultural basis, albeit not necessarily a Slavic one. I don't think even you would go as far as to claim that Croatian and Serbian cultures are as different as the cultures of any two random European populations.

As for proto-Slavic group or not, that's mostly a question of what you like to call it and how you define being member of a group. If your father is Croatian and your mother Zulu, are you Croatian or Zulu? If your great-grandfather was Brazilian, are you Brazilian etc

We do know this for origins: In most modern "Slavic" populations today the dominant genetic paternal lineage is R1a. This group stems from an individual that enjoyed the steppes of Central Asia some 10,000 years ago. And "dominant" in this case is in the 20-50% range. The Croats are actually an exception, where what is believed to be the descendants of the original Croat tribe are actually in minority. In a similar fashion, but to an even larger degree - modern Hungarians are actually of indo-european origins rather than the uralic people that founded their language and culture. The same goes for the Finns whose culture was founded by an Uralic group but whose modern population stems mostly from indo-european lineages.

I think if anything, this shows that culture beyond language is a pretty shallow thing and that people adapt in a reasonable time frame. --Denoir 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

perhaps we've gone off the rails, all of us including me. Croats and Serbs have many similarites, they also have many differences. But then Croats from one end are very different from Croats up the other end, and Serbs vice versa. Plus you have Serbs and Croats having lived centuries in the vicinity of each other who have some things in common with each other than they both have different from others farther away, AND there is the controversial chapter of the 19th century when some people changed their names from Croat to Serb, or Serb to Croat according to relgion within Austro-Hungary... the nationalists from each side both claim that their people changed name but neither accept that the other assimilated THEM; some sources say that some of these people were Serb OR Croat but called themselves something else, either way, BY the mid 19th century, you definitely had Serbs AND Croats living in present day Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia who were EXACTLY the same as one another culturally except in national name. I am not arguing what makes a pure Serb, and who are the true Croats, that is for the locals. I am simply saying that NOBODY is united anywhere, the bigger the country, the greater the percentage of the first nation, the more division there will be in every way possible. The Kurds are the largest group to identify as a nation, their image outside their autochtonous territories are one of unity, a struggle for freedom against opression in five countries and a desire for a single state. So united yet they have caused bloodier conflicts in Iraq since becoming defacto independent once the No-Fly zones were implemented, not against the Arab of Iraq, but against the Kurd! DPK vs PUK to name but one... they have even created bloodbaths against their own folk in Turkey when they have held regions for periods of time. Apart from language, nothing unites Moroccoans with Lybians, with Syrians...but they are proud Arabs (whose governments are something like Balkan governments with each other). They're not all one religion and do not speak the same Arabic from one country to the next. Nobody is united anywhere, Germanic people are as different from each other as variant Slavic nations, neither are the countries created since the fall of Rome...I really cannot say any more. There IS such a thing as Slavic culture, and it can be studied in many universities around the world. Just because today some people stop the practice does not mean they lose their identity; only when they declare themselves by the name of a non-Slavic nation, and claim to actually BE descendants from that non-Slavic nation (ie. a former overlord or speakers of a distinct language) will they be accepted as non-Slavic, BUT two questions will be raised in every encyclopaedia, in every world factbook entry and in every census: 1) WHY do they speak this language? and HOW have they maintained ethnic purity when they don't know who around them is from the dissimilater nation and who is from their own! Celt (not a real Celt, just some fucker from Wales) 25 Mar 2006 (NB. it is not my intention to attack Serbs or Croats for their political aspirations)

Evlekis, I understand what you're saying. I would, however, disagree that Yugoslavia failed because people failed to embrace each other. It was doomed right from the word go because every nation that the country was comprised of had its own concept of how the country should be run. I feel that much of that has been contributed by our different cultures. Look at Scandinavians. Not only are their languages similar, but also they share history and cultural patterns. Yet, they had to separate a century ago. In fact, it is exactly that this separation which allowed them to pursue a number of joint projects, not least the creation of the Nordic council. In order for a community of countries to work there needs to be a common goal. European Union is another good example. I honestly doubt that an Irish feels anything special about a Greek, or a Spaniard for a Finn, but there is a common purpose which is the binding factor. In Yugoslavia there was never such a thing which also explains why the country was never a democracy. Also, the size of today's countries doesn't say anything about their viability. Zagreb alone of some 750 thousand people, for example, has a bigger GNP (in both relative and absolute terms) than the whole of Serbia and Montenegro whose population is of some 8-10 million.

As for Denoir's remarks, Serbian wedding is reminiscent of the Greek wedding not the Croatian. The funural ceremonies are even more distinct. Also, again there is no Slavic cultural basis. In fact, unlike Germanic and Latin nations who had - for the biggest part - a similar pattern of historic development going from the adoption of Roman law all through to the Reformation which marked the first major bifurcation. This, however, is nothing compared with what "Slavic" nations went through. I have written about it in more detail above so I shan't repeat myself. As for a Celt's point, I am sure that "Slavic" culture can be studied in universities round the world as a Slavic culture, but this is a simplification that usually has more to do with a lack of resources and often decreasing nubmers of prospective students than reality. These two factors hinder the creation of specialist departments. Often it amounts to nothing more than Russian, Ukranian or Polish (or any of the bigger nations/languages) being studied under the same Slavic heading whereas other cultural and national entities are left on the margins. As for your story about Serbs and Croats in Bosnia, I'm sorry to say that I have never heard of it. I did hear of the Vlachs who were assimilated by the Serbs. In the end, it doesn't really matter because they themselves know best who they are. Also, I am sure that there are Croats who have been assimilated by the Serbs and others but does it really matter? FYI nobody in Croatia wastes their time contemplating the destiny of such people. I mean, what would be the point? And, in the end, what can anyone do about it?

"only when they declare themselves by the name of a non-Slavic nation, and claim to actually BE descendants from that non-Slavic nation (ie. a former overlord or speakers of a distinct language) will they be accepted as non-Slavic,"

It may be so, but who cares? And, anyway, who is the one that they are to be accepted by? Who has this authority to decide what a particular nation should feel like and pronounce their judgement on the genuineness of their convictions?

BUT two questions will be raised in every encyclopaedia, in every world factbook entry and in every census: 1) WHY do they speak this language?

They speak the same languages because of the developments that took place thousands of years ago that we know little of. How much do they today have in common with their ancestors is a matter of speculation. We don't know who killed Kennedy but for some reason dare to explain with any amount of cerainty the events that took place thousands of years ago? I am merely against making assumptions about one nation's history, culture and general outlook because of the nation's language and - in the case of Croats and other nations that speak a South-Slavic language - some shallow political correctness usually based on some cliches and recent developments. Does a Finn have more in common with a Hungarian, Ingrian, Mari or any other group of people that speak a Finno-Ugric language or with a Germanic speaking Swedes and Norwegians? Does a Romanian have more in common with a Bulgarian or a Wallonian?

and HOW have they maintained ethnic purity when they don't know who around them is from the dissimilater nation and who is from their own!

Nobody claims that any nation has maintained ethnic purity, especially not over the span of thousands of years. In fact, there is no such thing as ethnic purity which - I should venture - is clearly demonstrated by the study in the Science magazine. EurowikiJ 10:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst in university doing a degree in Russian literature, I spent six months doing a course in Slavonic Culture and you'll be surprised just how much binds the people. If it were just a simplification, it wouldn't exist, that's why you don't get "Brazilian/Zambian studies". As for Poland and Ukraine, you hit the nail on the head with them, their image abroad may at times be one of unity, put them both under the microscope and you'll see division inside the countries greater than everything witnessed in the former Yugoslavia, historically and in the modern sense. The fact is that only today, in recent times, have people been deliberately switching away from things which unite them with others in order to create a seperate identity. I am glad you agree that no one is ethnicly pure though I don't know what you meant by what I am supposed to have said about Bosnia. However it came out, I only tried to say that before the 19th century, people DID adopt the names Serb and Croat with regards religion hence dimwittedly pushing potential allies for the future (as Serbs and Croats WERE politically united in the 19th C), Muslims, to create a seperate identity themselves, something which they have never quite done as Slav Muslims have so many different national names according to area.

The other thing is, about begging the question "if they are not Slavic, why do they speak it, the question arises" or whatever bollocks I wrote, well I was merely arguing with earlier statements in which many 21st century Croats reject theories of Slav ancestry whilst being sure to be something else on account of having a different appearance. On that principle, the question still stands "they live in Kenya, they call themslves Cantonese, but they speak Ilocanto! - how can they be Cantonese?", anyone would ask that in such a circumstance. All right, no Croat said "we are not Slav, we are Italo-Austrian or Hunga-German etc." but on a dozen or so talk pages, it is repeated "definitely no Slav affiliation" and that is all I was answering. Once a smart-arse says "Nope Croats are descended from the Nguma of South Africa", the question will arise, why the Slavic language and how have you kept your identity? If they havn't done - well, they'll have to accept being in the middle of a greater continuum, the same as everyone else. And nothing can be farther from the facts when denouncing Slavs as united whilst speaking of a unified Germanic or Roman ancestor. Whilst Romans dissimilated thousands of people on their crusade, they sustained an artificial existence by banishing all knowledge of anything foreign to them, learning new tricks in each new territory and passing it off as their own. Even the present day Roman states are based on older dictatorships where-by one small group will rule over hundreds of others who might otherwise be different nations: as I said earlier, Germanic-speaking people indeed you might say - they existed as barbarians whilst Slavs were civilized and never even knew that they were or may have been related, hence the reason we have no corresponding term to "Slav" to define ancestors of Dutch and Danes. As Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded the British Isles, they had no idea that they were related, it just happened whilst crossing paths they understood each other with slight difficulties (and believe it or not, it was enough to unite them). Any similarities between Danes and Norwegians are, you could say, artificially inseminated, as Norway was under the control of Copenhagen for centuries thus preventing by force a seperate culture from prospering succesfully in places like Tromso, far removed from even Southern Norway: I don't know if you know, Eurowikij, but Scandinavia with its three key states Sweden, Norway and Denmark are but a continuum of culture, ethnicity and language as you have in the Western Germanic world and the South Slavic zones of which we speak: however, once within the zone, great differences exist. Most of it you see, is down to Southern Sweden, Southern Norway, and Denmarks islands which are close (like Vojvodina and Slavonia) which can in turn stick two fingers up at Dalmatia and Dubrovnik, at Nis and Leskovac and at Sarajevo. The political picture in distant unregarded Scnadinavia is quite different from that of its capitals, even so, the Faroe Islands and Iceland both testify that even the Nordic peoples are far from united, but all share in the succesful political experience. You seem at the top of your report to attack Denoir for saying Yugoslavia was doomed from the word Go. That's what I would think if I believed the anti-Yugoslav propoganda of the later years, even from this country (UK), if the lines of nationality were so accurate and it was doomed from the word "Go", the word "Go" would not have been said, the idea of a unified Slav state in all its suggested forms (all Slavs, just South Slavs, or fewer still INCLUDING all people calling themselves Belarussians or Slovaks etc) are ALL born from within, in other words, the wishes of the people, call them peasants if you will - living in Austria-Hungary for example you could only jump out of being a peasant by accepting the Habsburgs and denouncing Slav roots - they was never a King Horvat of Gorna Slavonia in Austro-Hungary. When a country is created as the Kingdom of Slovenes/Croats was - there will always be a shaky start which will continue if not managed properly, and bad management was what kept hindering Yugoslav progress every so many years of good work for 70 odd years: constant childish bickering and hunger for power between Serbs and Croats, NO - NOT THE PEOPLE but the wretched authorities who would eventually manipulate their people on both sides to go against each other for reasons contrary to what their own ancestors believed in. Nothing was ever enough for either. In 1994, I wrote a 12,000 word hypothesis between the parallels between Italy and Yugoslavia. Several spring to mind within a fifth of a second but the list is actually endless, they too could have been and may yet be (I hope not) a Yugoslavia style casualty, but with all their "democratic" governments having the same thing in mind for decades, to brutally sustain Italy to the point that the nation knows no other life, it is fair to say it has worked. Only in 1979 did a survey reveal that over 50% of Italians speak standard Italian at home, the ONE Italian language accepted for any business even though Sicilian is further removed from Piedmontese than what Macedonian is from Slovenian (trust me, I know). Sometimes, a dictatorship can work, but the more you give one, the more he wants... if Zagreb now creates a never before existing state with Northern Dalmatia and a part of the hinterland placing the capital of this autonomous province in Karlovac, you just wait in 40 years time and you'll be reading history books, with manuscripts being "discovered" and revelations of previously forbidden knowledge that the "Karlovians" were always seperate from Croatia, how Karlovians were silenced in the grim brutality of Yugoslavia and how only Austria once gave Karlovians a small protectorate for seven weeks in the 18th century...nobody forced Croatian territories to join the 1918 kingdom, infact they fought to create it, what went wrong after that is history but nobody can say that "too many differences" made it impossible to run the state. Many countries have far bigger and greater cultural and historical differences and are succesful: by this I mean with REAL different nations, not split groups pretending to be different. Celt 4 May 2006

The Slav

People live together, they split, their culture develops independently, some under foreign rule, others under their own, life continues never the less. It is a fact, that we all have in us, a little something which we attribute to our former rulers. We all share similarities with non-Slavic nations in our vicinity; these are a sorry attempt for anybody to claim to be different from those who have inherited a similar language but live farther away. The language which we speak defines our struggle for identity if nothing else though centuries of opression, even if we developed new habits with each generation. But people will always have close ties with those living near them, and frontiers have never stopped people crossing borders for work, for trade, or even for relocating at the worst of times: Balkan history is littered with migration, westerners shift eastward in the 14th, northers go southward in the 16th, same northerners turn westward in the 17th and so on, they do this, and there then follows a process of levelling, where-by they exchange cultural influences with their neighbours and by the 20th century, it is as though they have been there since time began. Crossing the Sava from Vojvodina into S.Proper, to me is not a portal to another world. True, things are different, but not so different, not as different as they are in Leskovac and Novi Pazar, meanwhile, you can easily tell cultural differences within Vojvodina when going from Novi Sad to Subotica. I am not discussing the infrastructure, but Serbs/Croats in their everyday lives, how youngsters differ from their elders, how working class differ from middle class etc. If we listen to music, traditional acts from Smederevo who have performed in Macedonian cafes down the years have performed something much closer to the melodical tunes of Vojdodina's Serbian music, which in turn has much in common with Slavonia's music, a far cry from the largely rhythmn dominated sad tunes of Southern Serbia which use a totally different set of instruments too. I may say the same about Kotor and Podgorica. The towns look different, Kotor has preserved old architecture, much attributed to old rulers again, whilst Podgorica is largely characterised by post-World War II apartment blocks. People's differences are not so great however, well, just in case anyone things people are different between Podgorica and Kotor, just send the two of them to Mumbai, then you'll see what real cultural difference is (where Europeans all look the same to us). But all of this ONLY proves Celtmist's point which I wanted to disagree with: it is he who states that the republic's borders do not reflect cultural differences and by using Kotor/Podgorica and Vojvodina/Old Belgrade as examples, we have played this into his hands. But it's true, there are differences between people from Bulgaria and Slovenia, and right, it has to start somewhere, and right again, it isn't always (or ever for that matter) where SFRJ internal borders were inaugurated. The point is that none of this matters as all. A proposed nation need not share an exclusive language, dialect, religion, history, culture, or even comprise people of one skin tone. In fact, it is better when for a group of people not to implement prerequisites to determin "who is in our gang, and who isn't?", the only thing they need, is a desire for national unity, and that is something that 21st Century Croats have, irrespective of the bordering people's similarity with others. If people from two adjoining areas belonging to individual larger states wish to unite and seperate from their current states, it is up to them to promote themselves and foment revolution if the negotiations fail. But then, we open a new can of worms as people from their outer regions may feel the same about their counterparts over the border. Do we just create one giant state where this ethnic group dominates? Problems if you do, Slavs number over 250,000,000. No matter how democratic a country is, power only ever originates from one small place, and there can only be one elite, and that is sure to be based around the capital.

My message to Croatians is this: you fought for your independence, and twice in 50 years fought against Serbs. This should not dissuade any Croatian person from being Slavic, or having a Slav tag attached. Even at the birth of Modern Croatian nationalism in the 19th century, there was no quibble with being Slavic and most were happy to identify as Slavs hence the tricolor flag using red, white and blue. The term Slavic was not then a threat to Croathood and is not now either. It may just be language but it has good points: it ensured you maintained an identity though oppression from non-Slavic rulers, keeping, not so much links with Serbs and Russians, but think of it as having links with your own ancestors who had the misfortune to fall under someone else. Plus, by not turning into Venetians and Austrians and taking their language, you have succeeded to signalling to each other accross these non-Croat/Slavic frontiers. If you'd spoken Venetian and German, you could have kissed that one 'Goodbye!', and who knows? today, you might still have had a Habsburg rule with Venetian coastline, and you'd be key nationals, but not in the name of Croatia, and definitely not united. From a post-Yugoslavia perspective: Croatia as a state has maintained strong links with all of its former partners within the old federation including Montenegro, still inside and only just: relations with Serbia are improving (well, sometimes it looks like it); furthermore, the modern Croatian state has strong connections with the other Slavic states too, north of Hungary: most of them are not ashamed of having a Slavic past. Why alienate yourselves, insulting other Slavic nations by denouncing it as anything to do with you. And finally, Germans and Poles are not the same. Germans do differ from north to south, and in the south, their similarirty is closer to those of Austria and Switzerland: near-by Poles will have some things in common, but the different language will set their mentalities worlds apart, trust me. Evlekis 21 March 2006

you disagree with Celtmist Evleskis? You didn't understand me properly. All of what you said was just was I was trying to get out. Cultural changes are necessary to start somewhere and all I was pointing out was that it isn't always as designated borders where people from either side use another national name when in fact both are Slavic. And I was not having a pop at the modern Croatian nation, I believe in everyones choice of nationality too (the trouble is, some of the so-called nations VS old opressor can be hypocritical when they attempt to pose their own name upon individuals who choose otherwise). Celt 22 Mar 06

Not Slav, not Iranians, but Croat

This issue of "Slav" or "non-Slav" is irrelevant. Genetic science is leading to a strongly supported conclusion that Croats are largely indigenous to Croatia since the paleolithic period. (See "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective"). This would lead to a hypothesis that the original "Croat tribes" or whatever their name was were a small group that was assimilated into the larger indigenous population. Somehow this indiginous population was speaking or started speaking a Slavic language. The Celts of Gaul far outnumbered their Roman masters, yet they too succumbed to the Latin language, as did the Dacians of Romanian, Celtiberians of Spain, Dalmatians of Illyria, etc. Perhaps "Slavic" became a "lingua franca" for the region and the local population that probably spoke "Illyrian" and Latin started, over the years, to speak Slavic?

Take the Croatian province of Dalmatia. The, now extinct, Dalmatian langauge was still spoken by some Croats until as late as the late 1800's. There are many words still spoken that are based in Latin and "Illyrian". All the Dalmatian coastal cities spoke a Latin-based language. The OFFICIAL LANGUAGE of the Croatian Sabor was LATIN until 1847. Most educated people in Croatia spoke Latin until the late 1800's. No doubt the first and second Yugoslavia's had a "slavicizing" effect. Was Croatia a Slavic-speaking country in the 700's or 800's? Well, if the Paleolithic theory is true, then most likely it was not. There was likely a progression over the years where a Slavic language replaced Latin or "Illyrian" as the language of choice. For hundreds of years Croats called themselves Illyrians and their Slavic-based language was known as Illyrian. It was in 1843 the Habsburg Monarchy banned the name "Illyria" and "Illyrian" for fear that it would forment independence.

Does it matter? Not really. Croats are largely indiginous to Croatia. That means they have been thereabouts for around 25,000 years regardless of the language we speak. Also, as a side note, this theory of Iranian origins.... well, genetic science doesn't support it at all. If there was a "tribe" or "Croats" that came from Iran, they had little to do genetically with the current Croatian population except maybe lend a name, but even this is speculation. Croats are not Slavs or Iranians or anything else except..... Croats. Simple this way.

Pronunciation

It's pronounced 'Cro-at', right? -Litefantastic 16:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes...? Possibly 'Cro-ət', although the distinction seems trivial to me. --Joy [shallot] 17:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked like it was supposed to rhyme with 'boat'; I wasn't sure. -Litefantastic 19:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Croat' rhymes with 'boat'??? Nooo, it's more like 'cro-ət'. I am one. --Phraine

Croats in Russia

Autochthonous Croat minorities exist in [...] Russia.

Someone added this, but I don't see how it's true. Removing until verified. They may exist as a minority but are they really autochthonous? --Joy [shallot] 09:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Side-Bar Population Statistics

Can someone add a side-bar population statistics thing like in the Serbs and Slovenes articles?

I noticed some changes to the population stats; is there a source being used for these numbers or did 2 million Croats just drop off the face of the earth today? Peyna 19:40:34, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

Many of those numbers there have no source whatsoever and should probably be removed. An anonymous user has been calculating some exact numbers from CIA WFB population data estimates which is also utterly pointless. --Joy [shallot] 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Side-bar population statistics are incorrect. This is Serbian Propaganda, Worldwide >7.000.000 Croats, Argentina with about 400.000 immigrant Croats is not in the list etc. Tommy, 02.12.2006

four selected people

Currently they are (on the picture):

• Jakov Gotovac
• Nikola Zrinski
• Ivan Gundulić
• Ivan Meštrović

Now, undoubtedly they're all worthy people, but I think Gotovac and Zrinski (the great-grandson) aren't exactly among the most popular or influential Croats.

Gundulić is from old Dubrovnik, and those people weren't necessarily descended from Croats and weren't part of the Croatian nation at the time, so it's better to avoid such a moot point. Ruđer Bošković and Marin Držić would be such candidates if I was proposing them.

I would suggest replacements for the first three, partly ordered by relevance/age:

• Marko Marulić
• Nikola Šubić Zrinski
• Faust Vrančić
• Stjepan Radić
• Josip Juraj Strossmayer
• Josip Jelačić
• Ante Starčević

If we're talking in sets of four, then I'd say Marulić-ŠubićZrinski-Strossmayer-Meštrović would be a rather appropriate group. This would then include:

• a man of letters who is widely considered as very influential for Croatian literature and was also known in Europe in his time (15th/16th century)
• a man of arms who is remembered as undisputedly the biggest war hero and was the most important Croatian statesman of his time (16th century)
• a man of faith who was a statesman (Illyrian movement), benefactor, and known in Christian Europe because of the First Vatican Council (19th century)
• a man of arts who was known everywhere and gave much of his work to the people (20th century)

As far as regions are concerned, we'd have a Dalmatian, a continental Croatian, a Slavonian, and a Dalmatian who was born in Slavonia. That's pretty evenly matched too :)

Anyone have any thoughts? --Joy [shallot] 23:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think, the fact The Gondola familie, your origin was a Venetian city, age 1100, the next generation, since Ivan Gondola count of Konvale, marriage with Dziva Gradic, your son Franon Gondola, marriage in 1681 with MºGenovefa von Bemelberg, the descendent of this all were Austrian people, which Joseph Franz Graf (Count) Von Gondola who died in 1774, bishop. don´t forget than the nobles families marriage between them. --Ragusino 18:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

---

How is Gundulic not descended from Croats just because he's an old Dubroniker? I don't get it.

The article on Ivan Gundulić was repeatedly munged by people claiming he was not a "Croatian" poet. I don't know what he felt his nationality was; but since we know that the Slavic people in the old Dubrovnik weren't all from the Croat tribes, it's probably best to avoid including them as Croats before double-checking. --Joy [shallot]

Anyway, you're selections are good, I guess, but we can always switch the images later; anytime someone makes a new one.

Also, the person in the image is actually Faust Vrancic, not Nikola Zrinski; the label is wrong.

Ah, thanks. It is, however, indicative that they are so easily mixed up. I think that the Homo volans picture of Vrančić would be much more recognizable. --Joy [shallot] 00:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel like making a better picture. The one I made for Slovenes looks better. Can you point me to some good photos and/or individuals?

The new pictures sound OK, but why not add Franjo Tuđman? HolyRomanEmperor 12:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Genetics, again

I think that the Genetics section is, um, silly. Even if it's backed up with some (pseudo?-)scientific data, apart from being difficult to read for an average reader, I think it's counter-productive -- it more shows the level of national (not universally shared, I know) frustrations over "wannabe an Aryan". It would be better to expand a bit on History (giving a brief overview on History of Croatia) and add e.g. a Customs and Culture section, and move this part somewhere to Origin of Croats, where such theories are listed.

I live in Serbia and I think most readers from here will laugh on this paragraph (I don't care if Croats or Serbs originate from Martians by the way), and I'm affraid most people from elsewhere will get at least an eyebrow raised about it. But I want to assure you I'm saying this out of good faith; this part IMO gives the impression of national frustration rather than presenting a scientific proof of anything. Duja 08:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly not pseudo-scientific data - the sources are serious and reputable. As for relevance, it certainly isn't meant to be some form of racial politics/advocacy. On the contrary, if anything the data shows how silly and misguided nationalist theories of origin/racial theories are. And it certainly doesn't in any way differentiate all Croats from all Serbs or something similar. The R1a haplogroup is quite large in Croatia which is common for most Slavic countries. More importantly, the paternal lineage only tells you about deep ancestry - which is a minor fraction of an individual's genes. It does however say something very interesting about migration patterns - and hence the relevance. At the end of the last ice age Croatia was a refuge for people moving away from the cold that engulfed most of Europe 10,000 years ago. After the last glacial maximum most of them moved back north, but some stayed put and many thousand years later when the Croats came into the region, they merged with the existing population. That lineage of the ice-age refugees (Haplogroup I) can be found all across Europe, but in relatively small proportions - except for Croatia, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Does that mean that Croats are genetically more like Icelanders than Serbs? Absolutely not in any way. We're talking about just one little common strand of DNA that they both have in common from 10,000 years ago. And ultimately we all share a common ancestor. So I really can't see how it in any way could be politicized. What this is on the other hand is a part of the very interesting story of human migration.

This was the intention with that section. If it gave the impression of being something else, I apologize - it certainly wasn't my intent. Perhaps it's a question of expressing it the right way? Any help with that would be appreciated. If anything has come out of yDNA research it is that trying to divide and separate people genetically by race or nationality is plain nonsense. Human diversity is a far more complex thing than trivial nationalist categorizations. Nevertheless it is a very interesting field of research that has produced quite deep insight to pre-historic human migration. --Denoir 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to add: One pretty definitive result is that the "out of Persia" theory long favoured by Croatian nationalists (i.e We're not Slavs, we're Persians!) is rubbish. The percentage of Croats who could have originally come from Persia is small and much more likely to have come from neolithic farmers from the Mid East that brought agriculture to Europe. --Denoir 10:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I erroneously read "Persian" as synonymous with "proto-slavic" -- I wasn't very thorough reading it. Now that you say it, it makes sense.

I still dislike it, but now solely on aesthetic grounds, as it's too difficult to parse for an average reader (myself included); not that Wikipedia shouldn't dig into technically difficult matters, but IMO not in the same article. So, my suggestion is: leave it for now, but move it one day to a future article Origin of Croats or similar. Duja 15:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Infusing technical terms from genetics into a text on history isn't very pretty and it makes the text difficult to read. The problem is that this type of genetic historical analysis is a relatively new method. Traditional historical research on the other hand is very well established. Now while the genetic findings go hand in hand with archaeological and linguistic findings, there are areas where there is no archaeological evidence to speak of or linguistic pattern to see. In most of those areas there has still been plenty of theories (for instance the "out of Persia" theory for Croat origins). So when you with a new method overthrow an old theory or speculation, you need to be able to convince people that your theory is right. And that's where it gets a bit technical. Had I just written "Contrary to older theories it would seem that Croats are not descendants of the ancient Persians.", and pointed to a genetics reference, very few people would accept it. Although genetic evidence is far more definitive and far less open to speculation than archaeological evidence, most people don't understand it. So although is indeed not aesthetically pleasing to have technical lingo in a history text, it does serve two purposes. First of all the people who know the field a bit can verify that you are not making things up. Second, most importantly, people who refuse to give up the older theories, on nationalistic grounds or otherwise, will leave it alone as they don't understand it. --Denoir 20:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless a good reason is given why "Croatian cuisine" belongs here and not in Croatian Culture or why "Genetics" belongs here and not origin of Croats, I will move both shortly. Antidote 03:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, I find the article somewhat odd; as much as, erm, "brethren" Serbs and Bosniaks articles are oversized (and full of noise, chatter, wannabes and prejudices), this article lacks an overview of history, culture and links to other articles. At this point, it looks out that proto-Croats arrived in 7th century, and only ate since then ;-). Duja 08:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The obsession with establishing autochthonic-ness has led to this genetic info being included in Croats, Bosniaks, etc. We need a peer-review and a review by individuals with more knowledge about genetics and more knowledge about this specific genetic research that was conducted. Caution should be applied when including this kind of genetic research in these articles. Alexander 007 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Serbs article, AFAIS, doesn't include a discussion of this genetic research, and the article seems the better for it. Alexander 007 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason why the genetics are interesting is because the region has since prehistoric times in a focal point of migrations and a melting pot of cultures. Thus the issue is hotly debated in the region today doesn't make it less relevant -- on the contrary, it makes it more relevant for inclusion. As for the technical validity of the genetic research, references have been provided in this article. The primary source for genetic data in this article has been peer reviewed and published by the European Journal of Human Genetics. The second reference is from Science, also a well-respected scientific journal.

I think a potential source of problems is more on the behalf of the readers of the article, who may not understand what type of genetics this is. This is not about the genetic makeup of the populations, but about their origin. What Y-chromosome analysis gives you is a trace of ancestry along the male line. So it doesn't tell you how similar, genetically speaking, two persons or two populations are, but only when their most recent common ancestor lived. By analyzing the Y-chromosome onto this populations relative their geographical distribution, we can infer past migration routes. So this is not the question of how things are today, it's about the history of the region and the people. --Denoir 22:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Genetics (cont.) - Croatian is not a race!

I move to strike this whole section for a number of reasons:

1. It appears to still be unclear exactly how to interpret the genetic studies. For example, it does not mean that Serbs and Croats are different racial groups or of different origin. As there is no way of interpreting the studies (or of knowing how representative they are) I don't think they add any real information to the article.

2. The whole DNA/racial debate adds to the unfair characterization of modern day Croats as racists. Imagine if someone added a similar section to the article on Germans.

Croats, like Serbs, are Slavic by virtue of speaking a Slavic language. The etymology of their names are likely to be Iranian in origin, though this is not 100% certain. For example, Bulgarians are also Slavic, although their ancestors were a Turkic people.

No problems with your comments except that it is wrong to say that Bulgaria's ancestors were a Turkic people. Modern Bulgarians of the country of the same name identify with peoples from the former Yugoslavia and see themsleves as seperate from the ethnic Turks living within their boundries. One theory about the etymology of "Bulga" is that it is the Turkic for "mixed tribes", meaning Turkic+something else which here would be Slavs (as Slavs did cross the route where Bulgaria is). Those Turkic speaking people gave up their Turkic identity when totally outnumbered by Slavic tribes so it is now impossible to find a Bulgarian in Bulgaria without a single Slavic pedigree; if miraculously the Bulgarians since Slavisizing have maintained an ethnic identity, it would raise the question, where are the Slavs who lived among the Tatars causing them to change? If one were to say "ah, they mixed up and became Tatars", they would be wrong because it had been the Tatars who accepted Slav culture; (I know I am repeating what I said some weeks back about the Croat-Slav connection) - I just wanted to say that according to many history books, the final settlement of a Turkic Bulgarian nation was in a triangle between modern capitals Sofia, Skopje and Belgrade, suffice it to say that should people have never migrated, there is sure to be Tatar blood in all of Eastern Serbia's people with no Tatar blood at all in Bulgaria's Black Sea region. And even if Bulgaria's present day borders indicate where Turkic people once lived, I say again, there are no accurate borders - in Western Macedonia you know from language the Slavs from Albanians, and this goes into Albania too...it would be the same with Bulgaria with ethnic-Slavs dwelling on the Bulgarian side and ethnic Bulgarians trapped on the Macedonian/Serbian-Montenegrin side, able somehow to identify: as it happens, travelling into Bulgaria from Serbia, you are a Serb until you reach the border, then the people start calling themsleves Bulgarians, just like coming out of Austria into Germany (I mean those descended from time immemorial, not those who know their grandparents crossed the border). Celt 3 May 2006

Finally, if one is to have a discussion about race/DNA, then it should be noted that the Croat Slavs coming to the region in the 600s most certainly mixed with the existing peoples in the region. These people were not only the "Illyrians" but also Romans/Latins, Goths, Huns, Gepids, Alans, Avars, Sarmatians, to name a few. Add to this later population influences from Turkey, Italy and other surrounding coutries.

All in all it makes little sense to talk about Croatians in a genetic or racial sense. Croatian is a nationality and an ethnicity. It is definately not a race.Osli73 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the article and have two comments:

1. It's really only a study of populations on certain Dalmatian islands and thus says little about Croatians, the majority of whom don't live in the Dalmatian archipelago.

2. Even the authors themselves say that Croats are Slavs: "In conclusion, the investigated Croatian populations show the presence of Y chromosomal haplogroups specific to Western, Southern and Eastern Europe. Moreover, Croatian Y chromosomal lineages testify to different migrational movements carrying mostly Palaeolithic European ancestry, a minor Neolithic impact from the Near East, as well as a Slavic (Croatian) influence which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language which belongs to the Southern Slav linguistic group."

So, why not just take out the section alltogether?Osli73 22:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It should, I think, be put under something like "Ancestry". Clearly it has nothing to do with history-this genetic stuff is about someting that goes back more than 20 k years. Mir Harven 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirhaven,

I'd even say that it is totally irrelevant for the purposes of this article on Croats. It doesn't give the reader any further information on who the Croats are and maybe even makes them more confused. The study which the text refers to was obviously not intended to be a study of the origin of the Croat people or the inhabitants of Croatia, be they Catholic or Orthodox, Croat or Serb.

If there is to be anything on the ancestry/origin of the Croats, then I think it should mention the migration of the Slav tribes and the theory of the Iranian origin/etymology of the Croat name.Osli73 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the part on the Tanais (sp ?) is important, since it's the 1st mention of the Croatian name (as are other older historical sources, BC). As far as genetics goes, I'm still not sure: do other peoples (Irish, French, Japanese, Poles,..) have such stuff on their wiki pages ? If yes in any form (ancestry etc.)-keep. If not-delete.Mir Harven 23:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Osli73,

1) It is not at all unclear how to interpret the genetic studies. On the contrary, they are far more reliable and easy to interpret than most traditional historical sources. I do see from 2) that you do have difficulties to interpreting it, but that is hardly an excuse for removing it. Ok, I'll try to explain it to you.

First of all, it has nothing to do with race, but with ancestry. To give an example about 30% of today's African-Americans have European ancestry on the male line. It has nothing to do with language or cultural identity either, for instance nearly all >90% of Hungarians have Indo-European ancestry on the male line, while their language is not Indo-European, but Uralic.

There is definetly not a Croatian "race" and even the concept of "nationality" is pretty vague in the genetic sense, as it is not in any way a strict boundary. Your family also has a distinct genetic signature (Y-DNA on the male side and mtDNA on the female), but it doesn't make it a racial entity.

And it is not about how different genetically people are (the Y-DNA and mtDNA regions are very small compared to the rest of the DNA), but how related they are. And that coupled with geographical information gives a very valuable and exact tool for studying the migrations of populations.

The practical consequence of this information when it comes to the population we call "Croats" is the following:

1) Like in the case of the Hungarians who today for the most part do not stem from the Uralic founders of their culture, a majority of Croats do not stem from the tribe that originated in Central Asia and whose ancestors can be found in large percentages in modern slavic countries. This of course is not an absolute boundary in any way - in mainland Croatia about 35% do belong to that group. The interesting part comes from the 38% of haplogroup I (71% in Bosnian Croats (1) ), and the lack of any significant neolithic markers (the tribes that came from the mid-east some 10,000 years ago and introduced agriculture in Europe) - as it is different from other populations in the region. For instance, the Greek and the Italians both mostly lack HG I and have a significant percentage of HG J (neolithic).

What does this tell us? Given the gradient of the distribution of HG I, we can with certainty say that its origins are from the last ice age, when the region of modern-day Croatia and Bosnia served as a refuge for tribes escaping the cold. Most of these populations moved north after the ice age - they are the ancestors of a large portion of modern-day Scandinavians. Those that stayed behind were the ancestors of most likely the Celts, the Illyrians and certainly of a significant portion of modern-day Croats.

2) Traditionally, the "Iranian origin" theory has been one of the most popular. It is proved dead wrong by the genetic ancestry data. As a small percentage < 10% of Croats belong to the neolithic haplogroups, the closest relation to the modern day Persian Iranians is 30,000 years ago, which was before the Indo-European groups were formed as an independent lineage.

--Denoir 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you guys are interpreting the DNA analyses correctly or maybe you are making too sweeping conclusions from them.

For example, a 2004 article in the Croatian Geneology Newsletter [1] concludes that:

"The genetic evidence based on mitochondria DNA provides no support for a specific ancient Iranian origin for modern day Croatians. However, the lack of evidence does not necessary rule out such a connection. What is more certain is that the Croats have been in on the Croatian mainland, in Bosnia and on the Adriatic coast from the 7th century AD. They were a part of a larger, probably gradual migration that infiltrated the Balkans and included other southern Slavic populations: the Slovenes, Serbs, Macedonians, and Bulgars. Early on, more northern Slavic peoples, such as the Slovaks and Czech together with the southern Slavs, formed loose but contiguous population that spoke a commonly understood language stretching from Bohemia to Macedonia."

It goes on to say:

"Present day southern Slavic populations show little distinction between Slovenes, Croats and Bosnians, at least on the genetic level. Probably more mixing of Illyrian-Roman populations with the incoming Slavs occurred on the mainland and on the eastern Adriatic islands; where, over the millennium, there has been also partial mixing of the original Liburni and Slavic immigrants. Even in the last 500 years, there have been isolated pockets of Slavic peoples that remained on the Adriatic Islands and did not mix with incoming Slavic families from the mainland. Therefore, some of the people on the Adriatic Islands have maintained partial genetic isolation dating back to prehistoric times as attested by a high percentage of some rare European mitochondrial DNA groups. The high cancer rates among most of the Adriatic islands population, indicate that this isolation has been detrimental to their health."

Another article [2] concludes that:

"The most frequent Y chromosomal haplogroups in Croatians, I-P37 (41.7%) and R1a-SRY1532 (25%), as well as the observed structuring of Y chromosomal variance reveal a clearly evident Slavic component in the paternal gene pool of contemporary Croatian men."

It goes on to say:

"Increased incidence of mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal haplogroups on Eastern Adriatic islands is a consequence of the fact that these islands represent reproductive isolates of relatively small size, where genetic drift and founder effect have particularly significant role in shaping the observed genetic diversity."

So, in light of this, I think the conclusions of the genetics section should be rewritten.Osli73 08:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, as far as I can see nothing there contradict what is said in the current genetics section. On the contrary, it says the same thing. Halplogroup I which is the largest group is only found in those concentrations in Croatia and Bosnia (AFIK no larger survey has been made of Slovenia, but it is quite possible that it's the same there) and in the Scandinavian countries. R1a is the next largest and is the most common in other Slavic countries, with the highest concentration in Poland. The people belonging to that lineage are the ones that descend from the "original" Croatian tribe, that migrated into the region. The neolithic haplogroups are interestingly represented far less than in other Mediterranean regions (like Greece and Italy).

As far as statistically significant surveys there seem to be two, one made in Croatia and one in Bosnia, the latest being the latter [3], which compares the three ethnic groups. It finds that as far as for Haplogroup I, 71% of the Bosnian Croats carry it, 44% of the Bosniaks and 31% of the Serb. The neolithic groups are also represented in higher numbers than in mainland Croatia (9% Croats, 13% Bosniaks and 20% Serbs. The "proto-Slavic", R1a1 AKA M17 group is distributed equally among the three ethnic groups.

So anyway, the text you provided can certainly be integrated as an extension, but as I see it, it says basically the same thing and certainly doesn't contradict it.

There are three major points made in the genetics section 1) LGM migrations 2) Majority of the population stems from the original inhabitants of the region rather than from the "original" Croat tribe that migrated there 3) Lack of neolithic markers shows that the Iranian origin theory is at best very questionable if not impossible. --Denoir 02:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Folksy genetics

It would be, I think, good to explain why this genetic stuff at least. It's an ideological counterbalance to the pan-Slavic ideology which has been coined by romantic pan-Slavic nationalists (including many Croats-actually, a Croat, Juraj Križanić, was the founder of the pan-Slavic ideology). This ideology is, let's be frank-"racialist" (not racist). It lumps all Slavic langauges speaking peoples in a froup called "Slavs". OK, so far, so good. But, the language-phenotype-genotype mental association established by this ideology has caused annoyance to many Slavic peoples & individuals. An example ? Do Poles speak a Slavic language ? Yes. Hence, Poles are Slavs. Do African-Americans speak English language ? Yes. Is English a Germanic langauge ? Yes. So, African-Americans are "Germans" or "Teutons". This "racialist" implication, encoded in the langauge-genotype association, is, I guess, the source of certain aversion of not few "Slavic" peoples towards "Slavic ideology". It can be further elaborated on, but, I'm tired...Mir Harven 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Map of possible Ancient Iranic Croats is off

If we're talking about the Alans, then they came from the Caucasus and the Ossetians are their descendents and not the Persians who live further to the south. Tombseye 16:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

hr:Hrvati

To those who might be interested: please take a look at the Croatian Wikipedia counterpart of this article. It is abysmal... If you're willing and able (I might be able, but unfortunately I'm really not willing), try and spread some of the good stuff from here to there. GregorB 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

picture

Why not putting the picture of Josip Broz Tito, he was the most notorious Croat in the world, everyone knew who he was (founder of the non-alingment)--TheFEARgod 13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was most famous German. That doesn't mena we should make him represent his nation. --Ante Perkovic 13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The history section needs organisation and the genetics section needs proper referencing and removal of speculative and/or erroneous bits so original research is avoided. Genomist 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Added some more references and removed some dubious sections like the text taken from the "Croatian Genealogy Newsletter", which is not a peer-reviewed article. The primary problem with the inclusion however was not the source but the misinterpretation of its relevance by whoever included that section. MtDNA which is very low-res does not exclude an Iranian origin, but Y-DNA does (within a reasonable tolerance). It's rather elementary population genetics, really nothing controversial from a scientific point of view. --Denoir 06:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You removed all my sourced contributions and put back all the unsourced original research and opinion. I have reverted. If you feel strongly about your opinions, provide sources. And in case you hadn't noticed, the theory postulates "Iranian" origins, NOT "Persian" origins. Genomist 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no unsourced sections, there are references for each one, and accredited academic ones, not a web newsletter of a amateur genealogy newsletter. Reverting back. If you feel that your stuff should be included, you'll have to find solid references that support it. Do you understand that the "Croatian Genealogy Newsletter" falls under original research as it is not a peer reviewed article or book?

Regarding Persian/Iranian - fair enough, it should probably be "Iranian" or "Mid-Eastern" as these are geographic links, not ethnic. I'll change Persian to Iranian.

Before you do any more editing, I suggest you read up on the subject (as provided by the references), and I also suggest that you learn the difference between Mitochondrial DNA and |Y-chromosome DNA. --Denoir 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject here, Iranian doesn't necessarily equal Mideastern. In fact, the Iranian peoples actually originate outside of the Middle East, in Central Asia and move south into Iran, Afghanistan, Caucasus etc. later. The group pertaining to the Croats is most likely the Sarmatians who are attested to have lived in the Balkans (the Romans wrote about them and even stationed Sarmatian conscripts in Roman Britain). The Sarmatians are cousins of the Alans who also passed through, but didn't significantly settle in the region like the Sarmatians who were most likely assimilated by Slavic invaders. These people in fact speak languages that are Eastern Iranian and thus more like Pashto rather than Persian which is western Iranian. Since the Sarmatians didn't migrate south, they most likely have little to do with the Persians and are distantly related to other Iranian peoples through ancient connections (3,000 years at least). Tombseye 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point - we should probably incorporate that in some way. We do have a line saying that Modern-day Iranians have a significantly different haplogroup distribution, although millennia ago Persia may have been home to altogether different peoples., but perhaps it can be clarified.

Y-DNA genetic analysis only gives us an idea of the geographical distribution of the different genetic haplogroups as they are today. Usually in this context the Mid-East is treated as a single cluster centers (although there are some significant variations locally) for migration waves. There have been three major migrations to Europe from the Mid-East, one some 20k years ago (the initial population), one 15k years ago and the last some 10k years ago (neolithic farmers that brought agriculture to Europe). There are very clear traces from the last one in the form of a few haplogroups that are very common in the Mid-East (including Iran) today and occur in some percentages in southern European groups (Croats (and possibly other balkan Slavs) being an interesting exception with a relatively small neolithic contribution).

What we do know is the which three major groups that make up the Croat population (I,R1a1,R1b) and we have an idea of their origin. Except for R1a1, which exists in India as well, the two other groups are fairly restricted to Europe. Modern day Iranians for instance have a completely different set of groups. Now that doesn't necessarily exclude an Iranian origin, because populations move and the distriutions are statistical, not absolute. There is however very little support for a theory of Iranian origin, and we can almost certainly rule out a contribution associated with the major population moves (which have been mapped out by a number of researchers using a statistical technique called Principal Component Analysis) as explained by the references. --Denoir 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite true. The major waves of migration took place before the migrations of either Indo-Europeans (who mainly brought languages it would seem in most instances) or the Iranians into the Balkans. What's interesting is that the Sarmatians may have heavily settled in the area, but their genetic markers wouldn't necessarily be similar to that of Persians or Pashtuns since they remained largely in the north in Central Asia and the Russian steppes. As such they could just as easily be more akin genetically to Slavs and other Eurasian groups nearby (possibly Turkic groups in Central Asia). At any rate, the theory on most people in the world being descended from earliest settlers is becoming very prevalent and I personally think given the genetic evidence that it is quite possible that in many cases people are descendents of ancient migrants who adopted later languages brought by invaders. In the case of the Croats obviously this would be the Slavs. I agree though that there is really no proof of an Iranian origin, but I would say that a partial Sarmatian background may be possible, but difficult to prove at this time. They have been uncovering graves of the Sarmatians though (in Russia and Central Asia) and perhaps DNA from some remains might be matched with Balkan populations in the future, but this remains to be seen. Also, some genetic comparisons with the Ossetians might be in order as they are believed to be the sole direct descendents of the Alans who survived. Tombseye 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some research into the genetic makeup with the Ossetians (Ivan Nasidze et al., Genetic Evidence Concerning the Origins of South and North Ossetians). I haven't read the article myself, but a summary can be found here. Basically what they conclude is that the main haplogroup is J2 (associated with the neolithic migrations from the mid-east), but lack R1a1 (the most common in Slavic populations and is according to some theories associated with the Kurgan people). J2 is is rare in Croats (roughly 2%), but more common in Italian, Greek, Turkish and Albanian populations. It is the most common group in the Mid East (less in Iran than in the Arab countries, but still the most common). --Denoir 20:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Genomist, I'm not sure what your agenda is, but please understand that a newsletter does not qualify as a valid scientific article. It is original research as it has not been [[Peer review|peer reviewed]. In addition, the text you are trying to add is pointless. Saying that there is no support for the Iranian theory but that it doesn't exclude the possibility says nothing. There is nothing that supports the theory that Croats are in fact from Alaska, but you can't with 100% certainty rule out that either. You don't however see that written in the article. Besides, the section that you are so desperately trying to remove already implicitly states that: "Modern-day Iranians have a significantly different haplogroup distribution, although millennia ago Persia may have been home to altogether different peoples."

As for references, all the statements except yours are supported by provided references, and unlike your newsletter reference, these are peer reviewed and published article and books. The LGM theory and Croat haplogroup distributions are discussed in the Baric reference. The Iranian and Mid Eastern haplogroup distributions you can find in Cavalli-Sforza and Olson. The neolithic migrations you can find in Sforza, Olson and Semino - Olson. And finally, although it is mentioned implicitly by Baric, the Slavic migration to the Balkans is covered explicitly by Olson.

So I'm not sure what exactly is your problem. You are trying to remove a text with proper references that says that there is no support for the Iranian origin theory with a text with a dubious reference that says that there is no support for the Iranian origin theory. Please, before you do further editing, explain what exactly you are trying to accomplish and also please use peer reviewed references. --Denoir 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are removing proper sources (see WP:V) and replacing with false citations and error-filled information about Iranian genetics and your edits are WP:OR (original research) since you are not providing proper sources. You can't do that. As for sources I have included, see WP:V. You are not allowed to judge or remove, so stop it. Genomist 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And also stop removing tags. The article contains many other errors and is badly written and needs a cleanup. Genomist 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the WP:V, especially the sections written in bold like "that have already been published by reputable publishers" and of course Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your source is one text from an amateur newsletter. The sources that I've cited (four of them) are two well known books and two articles published in reputable scientific journals. Not only can I remove your non-reputable and unpublished source, but I'm supposed to do that.

As for false citations and error-filled information, please be more specific. Which source exactly have I cited incorrectly and what information is incorrect (provide proper sources to back your claims).

And as for the tags, unless you specify what other errors there are and what parts need a cleanup, it shouldn't be there. Perhaps you should try reading the text on the tag where it refers to the talk page where you are supposed do in detail specify what your objections are. Until you do that, the tags are useless. --Denoir 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained everything and all you have done is revert and ignore my responses. I don't know what your agenda is, but what you are doing is against policy and I will ensure that others are brought into this matter. Genomist 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. --Denoir 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request for mediation. You can see it here. --Denoir 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but you fail to mention that you consistently violate WP:V and remove sources while adding false citations and insert errors, again which I've explained. Your actions are unjustified and against policy. I've explained plenty, all you've done is revert. Genomist 08:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No Genomist, you are violating WP:V because you are inserting a non-reputable reference and removing references to peer-reviewed scientific articles and books. As for false citations and errors, I have repeatedly asked you to tell me what you think is wrong with the citations and what the errors are. You have explained exactly nothing, you are just replacing a sourced text by a quotation from a dubious reference that falls under the category of original research.

Let me ask you again - what are the errors and what are the incorrect citations?

And finally, what I really don't understand is why you would insist on replacing a text that references proper sources with one that doesn't when both texts say the same thing: That there's nothing that supports an Iranian origin theory. The original references are on Y-DNA (which is high-resolution, paternal line) while your talk about mtDNA (which is low-resolution, maternal line), but that's the only difference.

I am going to create a composite version of the article that contains both texts with an accuracy warning flag. I suggest we leave it that way until you either are ready to answer the questions I asked so that we can talk through them or until we get a mediator in here. --Denoir 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have opened this case for mediation. Please see my comments on that page. Eberhart 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Croat involvement in Southern Argentina

I hope you don't take this post as hateful. I have absolutely nothing against Croatia, Croat people or Croat culture. But I think there is something you should know. According to well documented sources, Croat immigrants had a hand in the extermination of some 5,000 indians in the island of Tierra del Fuego, which is now divided between Argentina and Chile. There is evidence indicating that death squads made up largely by Croat mercenaries hired by British immigrants were assigned to hunt down every indian in that island, no matter if they were man, woman or child, until there was virtually no indian left by the 1930s. I repeat, I have nothing against Croats. But I think this piece of information is worth posting, for the sake of reflection.

Marcelo, from Salta, Argentina.

croats are no slavs

if you speak croatian: http://www.croatia.ch/tjedan/041204_1.php --User:84.176.238.6 00:58, 9 July 2006

What a sad piece of misinformed nationalist propaganda.. The Y-Chromosomal haplogroups give an idea of genetic origins on the paternal line. Being Slavic or not has to do with language, not genetics. Furthermore the article shows a complete lack of understanding of the genetics behind it (not surprising as the author works in education sociology) . The haplogroups show lineages and these pre-date all ethnic or linguistic groupings we use today.

And finally if the article wants to claim that the Croats are not Slavic because of less than 40% of the R1a1 haplogroup, then it should at least be honest and say that the same goes for all the other nations in former Yugoslavia. These were originally tribes, speaking Slavic languages, that migrated from the northeast to the Balkans. There they mixed with the existing population to such degree that the descendants (on the male line) of the original tribes are now in minority. That is not unique to Croatia or former-Yugoslavia. It is rare in any European population to have > 40% of the people belonging to one haplogroup.

It's really sad how science gets twisted and abused for such primitive political uses. --Denoir 08:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

croat etymology

i have put the following etymology up twice on this site, only to have it removed by someone who apparently wants to censor information.

the etymology is: The word Croat comes from Serbian-Croatian Hrvat, from Old Church Slavonic Chǔrvatinǔ "Croat", literally "mountaineer, highlander", from churva "mountain".

the flimsy links with Iranians are mostly due to outdated scholarship riddled with holes. i'd go into more detail, but needless to say, the croats are slavs who are very closely related to the serbs.

genetics are not the basis of an ethnic group. read a sociology or anthropology book....

By all means, we would like much more detail. --Mihovil 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had to roll the versions back due to some disagreement about other content in the article (in the process of mediating a dispute). My intention was not to take out your additions and I had meant to put them back and leave a note on your user page explaining what happened, but I hadn't taken care of it yet. I should have done that sooner so that there would be no confusion. I also do not endorse the current version of this article or what it says about genetics or otherwise and I do realize it has faults on a number of levels. Eberhart 18:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

not iranian

i'm not sure what mihovil wanted me to expand on, so i'll assume he wanted me to expand on everything.

this message is centered around the silly iranian theory.

to begin with, the fact that the Serbo-Croatian language (there is no dispute by linguists that Serbian and Croatian are in fact the same language) is completely and utterly Slavic and that archaeology has unearthed artefacts (pottery, iron swords, metal decorations, glagolitic writing, etc.) that are undeniably slavic in their design, should lead no one to question the Slavic origin of the Croats. and yet...

the word Harauvatis was found in an inscription of King Darius I and was assumed by a small minority of overzealous pseudo-scholars to perhaps be connected to Croatian Hrvat. The transcription, however, was missing a middle h, HaraHuvatis, which is in fact the name of a holy river in the Avesta (Zoroastrian holy book), and appears in Sanskrit as Sarasvati. This word could not possibly refer to early Croats.

similarly, some have tried to explain the remnants of Slavic (pagan) religion found in Croatia that seems to express a certain dualism by attaching it to Zoroastrianism. of course, the two dualisms are nothing alike....

the legend about the five brothers who led the clans to their new homeland, and the colors selected to represent the cardinal directions (White Croatia, Red Croatia, etc.) is similar to the Scythian/Sarmatian customs of planting colored flags to deliniate the center and the four cardinal points when establishing a camp site or on the battlefield. of course, the same tradition is found among the Serbs and Bulgarians, and is very similar to Hungarian beliefs. this would indicate that the legend became popular and spread to the slavs BEFORE they invaded the Balkans. it does not indicate an Iranian origin at all.

in fact, there is not tangible evidence, cultural, linguistic, or otherwise which points to an Iranian origin. nothing about traditional or modern Croatian culture seems Iranian. absolutely nothing about the Croatian language is Iranian, unless you can suddenly understand Farsi, or Kurdish, or Pashto, etc.

what can you conclude except that the Croats are not Iranian.

Flibjib8 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In short, I think you are misreading the Iranic theory; no one (that I know of) has ever argued that the Croats came directly to the balkans from Persia. Nor do many (if any) scholars argue that the Croats retain any of the cultural characteristics of their Iranian past. When the Croats mixed with the slavs to the north of the Pripet marshes, they were wholly slavicised. That being said, there is some evidence, scanty as it may be, to sugest that there is a Persian stratum to the Croats' history prior to slavicisation; i.e. the Tanais inscription. Similar arguments have been been made about the Bulgars, who were originally a Turkic people. Do the Bulgarians today retain any traces of their Turkic past? Not really, because they were assimilated by the slavs over whom they ruled. But this does not change the fact that, although the Bulgarians are today considered to be slavic, their origin is completely non-slavic. That same can perhaps be said of the Croats, and, incidentally, of the Serbs. Some have suggested that the Serbs were originally of Scythian or Sarmatian origin, despite having retained none of the cultural elements of such an origin. --Mihovil 03:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

race and ethnicity

part 2 '

== THIS STUFF IS NOT TRUE!!! GO TO A DIFFERENT WEBSITE TO GET THE DESIRED INFORMATION YOU NEED!

PLEASE GO TO A DIFFERENT WEBSITE ANOTHER WEBSITE WILL BE MORE ACCURATE AND YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO FIND THE TRUE FACTS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!!!!

PLEASE TAKE THIS INTO GOOD PERCIPITANCE ==

Headline text

he trait almost assuredly exists in some other population.  in fact, usually, every biological trait or gene is represented somewhere else in the world.  european populations, which are notoriously variable like the middle eastern populations, cannot be distinguished genetically from each other except in the most relative way.  what is "original", or "traditional", or "better", or "purer", is generally determined by who ranks highest on the system of social inequality.  currently, that would be the serbs.

the croats can be proven to be culturally slavic and their physical traits do not differ noticably from neighboring slav populations. how then can we consider the serbs and croats trully separate? do you think a Chinese man or an African could tell the difference between a Serb and a Croat? Flibjib8 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way disputing the fact that the Croats are, and have been for more than fifteen hundred years, slavic, both linguistically, culturally, and otherwise...see my comment above. --Mihovil 03:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree with many things you say, it's not quite that simple. First of all, what we call 'culture' of an ethnic group is very much recent history. The Slavic ethnic groups that moved to the Balkans during the Slavic migrations (~1300 years ago) were very different from the Slavic ethnic groups today, both culturally and genetically. There is probably a significant link today to the original languages, but not much more. The genetic horizon on the other hand is on the order of magnitude of 30,000 years. It is way too ancient to be directly connected to a cultural history. It is however very interesting from the historical point of view, as DNA can tell us about the great migrations of the human race - of which we have no written account of and very few archaeological artifacts. The interesting thing about Croatia is that the genetic findings show that the region was probably used as a refuge during the heights of the last ice age. To a large degree it served as a staging area for repopulating Europe.

Ethnicity and race, on the micro-level (roughly continental) are social constructs. It is in general a very inaccurate and simplified term. It isn't however all wrong, just oversimplified. In modern population genetics you don't speak of race, you speak of lineage. A population in an ethnic group consists of a number of different lineages. Nearby ethnic groups most often share similar distributions of the lineages. The measure of this is the average genetic distance. It's a statistical measure by which you can for instance conclude that the British and the Dutch populations are on average more similar than the British and the French - while of course the British and the French are more similar than the British and the Japanese. Usually there are some links between these distributions and linguistic groups, but it is not that simple. You have different mobility of people in different geographical regions and you also have to take into account cultural diffusion.

Given that our traditional interpretation of nationality and race is at odds with the genetic reality, the worst possible thing one could do is to politicize the issue and in general to try to translate between the two systems.

The genetic findings are an important tool for learning about the pre-historic migrations of people. The traditional interpretation is important.. well, I don't know objectively why, but I suppose it goes well together with the nation state grouping. Mixing them however is a bad idea as the traditional view does not take into consideration the crucial complexities of the genetic data.

In this case, the concept of a Croatian people is an absurd oversimplification in terms of genetics. Did the Croats migrate to the Balkans in the last two millenia? Again, it depends on the definition of "Croats". If you are asking if the ancestors of the majority of today's people that live in the region of modern-day Croatia, the answer is very much no. If you are asking about the population influx in the region that most likely was the origins of the current language, then the answer is yes. Simply put 2/3 of the modern day Croatian population are not the descendants of the people that migrated into the region some 1300 years ago. That other third however (considered to be the Croat tribe) made a significant impact in terms of language and possibly wider culture.

What about Croats and Serbs? Well, there hasn't been any major studies done in Serbia, so it's difficult to tell. There have been some studies done in Bosnia that showed significant difference in distributions of some of the lineages [4]. For instance, the I haplogroup, which is considered as indigenous to the region, 71% of Croats belong to that lineage, 44% Bosniaks and 31% Serbs. On the other hand for instance the R1a group, which is the lineage of the Slavic tribes that migrated into the region is present in roughly equal proportion in all three groups. There are differences, but the picture is complex. One can also notice for instance that the Bosnian Croats have twice the frequency of haplogroup I than Croats living in Croatia. The differences indicate relatively poor mixing between the groups, going way back.

Conclusions? Very few. We know that a minority of the Croats are the descendants of the Slavic tribe that migrated into the region. We know that the I group is the largest group, something that can be found in the Scandinavian countries and believed to be from the people that stayed behind after the last ice age. The third large group R1b is common in western Europe (primarily Spain, France, but in much higher numbers). And finally, the 10,000 year old Mid-Eastern lineages are nearly non-existent (<10%), which is in stark contrast to for instance Italy or Greece. --Denoir 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

argue

oh, dear, mihovil, i had no idea you were so stubborn and entrenched in your views. it is clear that i need to compose an entire paper, not only about croats and serbs, but also about population genetics, history, ethnic studies, and common slavic cultural heritage in order to convince you of anything... assuming you were in any way remotely convinceable.

even if i did, i couldn't get the thing to you, and i also do not have the proper resources at my disposal. furthermore, i do not see the discussion area of wikipedia as an appropriate venue for such a long and drawn-out discussion. but now i'm absolutely intrigued!

i'm surprised you would give any credence to the iranian theory. there is no substantial proof, historical, linguistic, or cultural which would suggest a population of iranian (and this would have to be sarmatians or alanians from the eurasian steppe) ever crossed the danube. preposterous. in fact, the sarmatian and alanian populations had already been eclipsed by the hunnic peoples (who established Bulgaria and Hungary) and relegated to areas around the black sea (north of the danube). they were in no position to move south after about 250 AD, and no one broke through the Danube border except the Huns, Goths, and Slavs until the 7th century.

if there could ever be proven any lasting cultural influences on the croats or serbs, they would include illyrian influences which are somewhat extensive. they include the famous serbo-croatian kolo dances, panpipes, bread-making moulds, early stone-lined graves, tattooing, use of a lid (pekva) to bake bread in the fireplace, s^ubara hats, opanci shoes, the Balkan headscarf, and early worship of the goddess 'mother Jana' all point to Illyrian influence. why do we not find a similar amount of iranian influence, especially since they allegedly gave their tribal name to the Croats but do not appear to have ruled them or been a majority among them? how do croatian genetics compare to those of the iranian peoples?

as for the bulgars, the slavs first overran the area and then in the 7th century a group of Hunnic Bulgars crossed the Danube and quickly took control of the area. they gave their name to the region, but did not remain in control for very long. nor were they in a position to influence slavic society, being a small minority ruling class. hungary was established in a similar fashion.

your use of population genetics to establish so-called lineages smacks of ethnocentrism. it is not until that data is compared first to neighboring southern slavs, then to eastern and western slavs, and third to neighboring populations (hungarians, albanians, greeks, romanians), can one construct anything useful for tracing migrations or "lineages". besides, given the likely high genetic variation in the Balkans, archaeology is really the only reliable way of tracking ethnic groupings. once again, racial or biological distinctions between neighboring peoples are likely to reflect similar variation WITHIN those same peoples.

once i have done more research, i will be better able to respond to your specific questions.

Flibjib8 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. First of all, you need to be much less condescending if we are going to get anywhere. Second, I made no mention of population genetics; Denoir did. Third, I never said that I was completely convinced of the Iranic hypothesis! Sometimes it helps to play devil's advocate, right? Anyway, it seems to me that you are just as deeply entrenched in your anti-Iranic dogma as you assert that I am in a corresponding pro-Iranic stance. Your original refutation reads almost like a cut-and-paste of what Radoslav Katičić wrote for "Croatia in the Early Middle Ages." I'm not fully convinced of any theory of the Croats' origin, but I think it's very shortsighted to completely throw out the Iranic theory. --Mihovil 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mihovil: Not the Iranian theory is the only reasonable thing right now as there is absolutely no evidence for it, but plenty against it, genetically speaking. If you want to extend the time line to over 10,000 years and under 30,000 years, then sure, there's a connection, but that goes for nearly all Europeans and many Indians. Ultimately we all came through the Mid East from Africa. Of course, you can't rule out it completely as population genetics is a statistical tool - we're talking about probabilities - but with the data we have today, the probability is very small. --Denoir 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Flibjib8: > "it is not until that data is compared first to neighboring southern slavs, then to eastern and western slavs, and third to neighboring populations (hungarians, albanians, greeks, romanians), can one construct anything useful for tracing migrations or "lineages". besides, given the likely high genetic variation in the Balkans, archaeology is really the only reliable way of tracking ethnic groupings. once again, racial or biological distinctions between neighboring peoples are likely to reflect similar variation WITHIN those same peoples."

That one is very easy to answer: there is plenty of data for the southern Slavs (Serbia being the only exception, but there's data from Bosnia), and plenty of data for western and eastern Slavs as well as the neighbouring populations. For more details, check the references in the genetics section. And there's plenty of geospecific diversity that allows (in broad strokes) to track the major migrations of the lineages. This of course is more bound by geographic distribution than by the political borders of the nation states, but like it or not, ethnic groups are clear clusters in most cases. If you took a random group of 1000 Italians, 1000 Croats and 1000 Slovenes, you could by DNA testing tell the groups apart. If you on the other hand took 1000 people from say Zagreb and 1000 from Sisak, you wouldn't be able to differentiate between them. On the other hand if you took 1000 from say Krk and 1000 from Zagreb, you would (although the groups would be more similar than compared to an Italian or Slovenian group). The Slovenian and Croatian group would in the same way be more. The point being that there is a lower resolution limit to how you can statistically track population movements.

Saying that the same variations exist within the (current) ethnic groups or nations isn't exactly correct. You can find the same base lineages across all of Europe, but they exist in different proportions and we can deduce major population movements from then. Mind you though, that that the haplogroup resolution of lineages while definitive on roughly a 10,000 year scale in Europe, it is still very low resolution. There you can only track the major lineages and their relative proportions in a population. For a more detailed, high-resolution view of the lineages, you need to look at more markers as within these major haplogroup lineages there are of course more branches of lineages and so on. The limit is basically one generation, which constitutes a paternity test, to see if your father is really your father (that's obviously the highest possible resolution). A DNA comparison gives you a probability of the time to the most recent common ancestor. The more markers you have in common, the shorter the time to the most recent common ancestor. A haplogroup-resoltion test can for instance put it roughly in the 5,000-10,000 years ballpark (depending on the haplogroup) with 95% probability, while for instance a 12 marker test, which is popular today, can put it in a range of < 1,000 years with 95% probability. Since this technology is relatively new and relatively expensive the population studies tend to be relatively small (100 individuals is common), which only gives statistical significance on the low-res scale. As it gets cheaper, we can expect data with a far higher resolution and a shorter time scale. --Denoir 02:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag; coat of arms ?!

Wouldn't you agree that something very important is missing on the croatian page of Wikipedia? I'm talking about modern croatian flag and historical coat(s) of arms of croatian lands. Also, I think that croatian history and culture deserves at least twice more space than now presented here. Maybe instead of that dubious and uncivilised genetics section. Knowing that most of the stuff was written by our own people, what did we try to prove with that? Do we really think that someone in the World wants to know us for "our" chromosomes?

Or, what about that enormous wasting of space counting Croats around the World, resulting only in conclusion that unfortunately there's a nation which fled from it's native grounds. That once lived there, but now reading about it in New York, Berlin or Sydney. And please, don't only mention Byzantines, Venetians, Hungarians, Turks, Austrians, Serbs, communists or World globalisation to me.

Afrika paprika

Afrika paprika, I'm afraid you will have to back up your inflated numbers with a reliable source. Even the current number of 5.5-6 mil is unsourced, but at least it represents an approximate sum of sourced figures below (and plus some). "Estimates" do not include your own estimate and/or wishes. There are not many references available on web, but e.g. this one says 4.8 mil. I don't know where you find the 7-8 mil except if you have tools to remotely analyse Purely Croatian (TM) blood cells in every living person. Until you find a source (which I sincerely doubt), you will be reverted. "Tracing their origin back in Croatia" is too vague criteria, and, apparently, it will include every person whose (grand-)grandparents came from Croatia. If you want to count this way, then the total sum of all worlds ethnic groups would amount to some 20 billion. Duja 09:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the data given on the very page...you will easily come to the number over 6 million. As for the estimation of 8 million it is just that - an estimate. Croatia is one of the European countries with largest immigration....there are even estimates that most likely there are more Croats and people of Croatian descent abroad then in Croatia. This has nothing to do with "inflating" but with common sense and facts. Also for tracing their origin to Croatia you will find similar references on other articles as well...namely German, Scottish, Irish, etc....please check. And also stop putting the Turkic "theory" in this article. This "theory" is made by one man, a charlatan and no one even considers it as a possibility as there is absolutly no evidence unlike for example Iranic/Alan/Sarmatian or even Gothic theory and I don't see the latter mentioned in the article. Personally I don't see what is your problem with this....mind your own business. Afrika Paprika 21:18, 23 September 2066 (UTC)

I mind my business, and WP:RS is my business, among other things. "8 milion" does not match common sense and facts displayed, and the difference can only come from Mars; I'd still kindly ask you to provide those estimates by a reliable source. Scottish and Irish differences, for one, come from huge numbers of Irish Americans and Scottish Americans, and it's debatable whether the number of Croatian Americans is so huge.
Per the same criteria, the Turkic "theory" goes out; it was a collateral damage. Duja 21:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The number is not "huge" but realistic. The estimate is that there are as many Croats as in homeland and that makes the number 8 million. I am currently looking for a source on the net and soon as I find I will post it here. Bear in mind that this is an estimate, 6 milion is the lowest mark which can be confirmed(a bit over than - about 6.5 actually if you count the data on the sites and that one provided on the Croatian article version). As for your new Iranic theory not being confirmed by genetics claim I must say this is ridiculous sentence for couple of reasons: 1. We don't know what haplotypes was predominant in the early Iranic tribes, namely Sarmatians/Alans to which Croats are connected and 2. we cannot associate any haplotypes with any ethnic group since haplotypes are far older such groups even came into being. Ulitmately trying to prove genetic Y-chromosome markers for such a small group would be foolish and would should a fundamental lack of knowledge. The Iranic theory i purely historical (reference) and linguistic based. Afrika Paprika 23:58, 23 September 2066 (UTC)

Regarding the genetics, take a look at the references. The Ossetians who are believed to be the direct descendants of the Alans have J2 as a majority HG, almost completely lack R1a (common in all Slavic countries, including Croatia), and completely lack HG I, which is the largest HG in the Croat population. See Ivan Nasidze et al., Genetic Evidence Concerning the Origins of South and North Ossetians for more. Generally speaking (Sforza et al), Iranian tribes are all mainly J2, which is rare in the Croat population (consistent with neolithic migration contributions). That the 38% of HG I Croats have Alan ancestry can be completely ruled out. That the 35% HG R1a Croats have Alan ancestry is extremely unlikely and the same goes for the 16% HG R1b Croats. The 1.8% HG J could be of Alan ancestry, but more likely it is a contribution of the neolithic migration of farmers from the middle east of which there are traces in almost all European populations.

Haplogroups (not haplotypes, which are subsets of haplogroups) are older than any single modern ethnic group - and that's what makes it a workable tool - you don't need to be precise. We can say for certain that the HG J Ossetians have not had anything to do with the HG I Croats for at least the last 15,000 years.

Next time, before inserting theories and interpretations of your own into the article, please look at the references that have been provided. --Denoir 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again people you are confusing apples and pears. Iranic tribes were very much diverse and trying to find out what dominant marker their Y-chromosome they had is simply impossible. Understand that. Also you forget one important fact - the Sarmatian theory is based on the fact the Sarmatians/Iranic Croats ruled over proto-Slavic people as a rulling caste ultimately being absorbed and becoming one with them. The name remained as the only relic of this fact. The Croats when they came were fully 'slavicized' though it is possible they retained some customs as they were openly and expliclity mistaken for Goths. Now you ask yourself Goths? Yes you see the Alans(Sarmatian) had many alliances with Goths and fought with them...it is not a wonder they were mistaken for them if the now 'slavicized' Croats reteined the old customs of their Iranic caste. As I said genetics cannot confirm anything save for large human migrations. Afrika Paprika 00:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika - why don't you find sources, and then present your figures. If its true, then why does it hurt to show a little good faith and leave the old figure until you find sources? Where's the problem in there? --HolyRomanEmperor 11:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources are up. Funny how you now that I provided sources run back to Dijxtra disputing these figures. Hillarious... Afrika Paprika 13:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Again people you are confusing apples and pears. Iranic tribes were very much diverse and trying to find out what dominant marker their Y-chromosome they had is simply impossible."

Iranic tribes are not at all that diverse (see Sforza et al) genetically. And the dominant marker is quite simple: J2. Of course, you cannot rule out 100% that a member of the small minority R1a1 founded the Croat tribe, but the odds are very much against it.

Do you know how divrse they were...say 2000 years ago when they started moving into Europe? Do you know what dominant Y-chromosome marker they had? Afrika Paprika 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Sarmatian theory is based on the fact the Sarmatians/Iranic Croats ruled over proto-Slavic people as a rulling caste ultimately being absorbed and becoming one with them."

Um, not the fact - the completely unsubstantiated theory. And if that was the case the Sarmatian certainly didn't leave any genetic traces as the HG distribution of modern day Croats and modern day Ossetians (descendants of Sarmatians, Alans and Scythians) are completely disjunct.

Um, the fact. It is enough substantiated to be acceppted not only by most Croatian but World historians as well. Genetics have nothing to do with anything....understand that. Afrika Paprika 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"As I said genetics cannot confirm anything save for large human migrations."

Genetics can confirm up to the resolution of one generation. It can say if your father is really your father as well as determine the time when you and a tulip had a common ancestor. It all depends on the resolution of the data you are looking at. The time difference between haplogroups depends on which haplogroups you are comparing. For instance if you compare a J2 person and a R1a1 person, you can say that they had a recent common ancestor about 30,000 years ago. Now, what you seem to be using as an argument against (low-resolution), is in fact an argument for. The genetic data shows that there is such a vast distance (in time) since the most recent common ancestor, that there is no chance of the two groups being related in recent times.

Actually I am not using genetics as any argument. Don't know where did you come up with that. In fact I disagree greatly with certain statements in the part regarding genetics of the overall Croatian population. Afrika Paprika 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Had you asked "Do Croats have Polish origin?", it would have been difficult to answer using the genetic data we have. However the answer is quite simple for the Alan/Sarmatian case and it's: extremely unlikely. From genetic distance point of view Croats are about as likely to be of Native American origin as of Sarmatian.--Denoir 12:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have a problem with logic. It would be equally difficult (even more so) to determine wheter or not Croats have Sarmatian/Iranic roots by genetics as: 1. We cannot apply certain genetic y-chromosome markers to only one ethnic group and 2. we have historical sources which speak that even if we could do such a thing mentioned in the #1 we would not be able to do so again since the rulling Iranic caste absorbed itself into the Slavs they were rulling of leaving only their name as a legacy. And when you take into account that these Croats who came from Poland assimilated and absorbed great deal of autochtonous people (Vlachs-Illyrians-Latins) the talk about genetics proving anything is just and simply ridiculous. Afrika Paprika 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1)We can look at groups of ethnicities in a genetic context and there we can see that the Iranian people have had different y-chromosomal roots for at least the last 15k years. This puts us well behind the timeframe of possible mergings. It's really not that difficult to understand. Having said that, you can indeed look at y-chromosomes of a single ethnic group, or even a single family if you have the data. 2) If they absorbed themselves into the Slavs, there would be genetic evidence of it, which there is none. For a comparison you can look at the Finnish or the Hungarian who today in an absolute majority belong to indo-european haplogroups. There is however a clear genetic trace of the uralic group whose language they once took. In Croatia the only Middle East haplogroup is present in a small percentage (far smaller than in other mediterranean countries) which can be genetically dated to the neolithic migration of farmers about 10 kya. The merging with the natives of the region of today's Croatia is very well reflected in the genetics - the largest group, HG I is their mark. If you think that "talk about genetics proving anything is just and simply ridiculous", means that you lack the basic knowledge of the field, and would do best in avoiding any discussions on the topic as you waste people's time with your ignorance of the subject. If you wish to educate yourself, look at the references provided on the page. --Denoir 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry but we cannot. The Iranian people have mixed with other, assimilated other people or being assimilated by others. This is continuing process that is going even today. You just cannot prove someones ethnicity by finding out his y-chromosome merker. That is just ridiculous statment by someone who doesn't know anything about genetics. 2. What evidence would that be? The mentioned Hungarian and Finnish population certain markers which would could be considered traces but can one really claim that it is a leftover? What about migrations? What about these markers present in other non-Uralic speaking people such as Russians or Scandinavian populations? Then again by your logic Croats have it(this trace) too as well...so what are you talking about here? Let me ask you again....do you really think there would be any substantial trace left after thousands of years of migrations of Croatian people? First moving to present-day Poland and being absorbed by Slavs leaving only name...then these Slavs moving down to Adriatic and fusing with autochtonous populations? You are right in one thing though, just observe the references provided on the page Afrika Paprika 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Give me a group sample of 100 people from Krk and 100 from Zagreb, and I'll tell you which is which with 95% confidence. Give me 10 people from Iran and 10 from Croatia, and I can with the same confidence decide the ethnic groups. Each ethnic group (or on an even lower grouping) have a distinct haplogroup distribution. For instance, you can quite easily make a distinction between the three nations in Bosnia[5]. This HG spectrum is furthermore limited - you won't for instance find any statistically significant amounts of HG M (found in southeast Asia) in the Croat population. As for the haplogroups found in the Middle East, they exist, but in small numbers and genetically dated to 10 kya (neolithic migrations). If there ever was a contribution newer than that, then that branch did not have any descendants. This is extremely unlikely as everywhere else population mergings have left traces. Again, read up on the subject and you won't be wasting both of our time. I can recommend Sforza - a bit to chew through, but he is the most prominent geneticist when it comes to migration patterns.

You would never be able to tell by looking at y-chromosome markers which person is from Krk and which from Zagreb and thats one of the most ridiculous and ignorrant things I ever had the chance to read or hear...hillarious. :)) Each ethnic group does not have a distinct haplogroup because haplogroups or haplotypes are not explicitly distibuted in one ethnic group and thus cannot be asigned to any of the ethnic groups. If you told what you wrote here to any geneticist he would laugh his ass off. As for Bosnia there are diffrences between all three ethnic groups but they are in distribution of the haplogrups only...meaning you would never be able to tell if he is a Croat, Serb or Bosniak by looking at his y-chromosome marker. I think you should educate yourself a bit more on the matter because you are embarrassing yourself this way. Afrika Paprika 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "give me 1 person from Krk and 1 from Zagreb". I said "give me 100 from Krk and 100 from Zagreb". It is through the proportion of the major haplogroups that you can (with the resolution of data available) you can determine among other things ethnicity. The further away, the smaller sample you need. For instance differentiating between a native american and a Croat, you could do it on an individual level with roughly 95% confidence as the haplogroups found with native americans can't be found (in statistically significant amounts) in Croatia and vice versa. Next time read what I said. --Denoir 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people would you take...don't you get it? You cannot see from where one person is by looking at their genetic makeup? I mean what the hell?!?! You can see general overview which would be different...perhaps (though Krk is quite similar to Zagreb actually) but taking one person or two...or hundred would be in no way be helplful in determining their ethnicity or ethnic origin. You are mentioning Native Americans and Croats....well yes we are also talking about different races here....however you cannot compare and say you would see a difference between a Croatian and f.e. Hungarian...you just couldn't be able to tell. I really don't know what would it take for you to understand.... Afrika Paprika 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for 2), more relevant to the article, do you have any peer-reviewed references to support your claims? AFIK the only thing that exists are some highly questionable linguistic conjunctures and a set of very outdated theories which were revived for a short time under Tudjman. And those theories were mostly claiming a Persian connection. Having said that, while I do know the genetics part pretty well, my knowledge of the current historical/archeological research is somewhat limited. If you would please provide some credible references, I'm sure we can work out how to integrate them in the article, without contradicting other parts of it. --Denoir 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To you they may have be "highly quesntionable linguistic conjectures" for most valid and (what is important) valid and respected historian it is not. This theory has nothing to do with Tudjman neither did he ever had anything with it. The Iranic/Sarmatian theory is the oldest theory of Croatian ethno-genesis composed as early as in 19th century even before the discovery of the Tanais tablets at Azov Sea. The article is fine as it is and we do not need to incorporate anything....including your edits and that of your Serbian friends. Afrika Paprika 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

References, references, references, and perferably some recent one (post 2001). Claiming that it is the most supported theory is an extraordinary claim, which requires very solid evidence. And saying that the Croats are the descendants of the Alans is plain absurd as HG I is the dominant group in Croatia - and it is "native" to Europe reaching as far as 15 kya. The same goes for R1b. The only candidate (and most likely the descendants of the original Croat tribe) is R1a which is in minority. What the genetic evidence says is that modern day croats are at least to 60% native to Europe for the last 15k years.

The school books in Croatia mention it...I think thats a reference enough, don't you think? And Croats as the "descendants of Alans" must be looked from a perspective where the one who disscusses this matter knows what he is talking about. Observe the historical references on the page and then the genetic data...you will see that in fact it even fits "your theory". There are couple of objective facts we must take into consideration: 1. We cannot really know what was dominant haplogroup within ancient Sarmatians from which the ancient Croats descendent since we know Sarmatians were really a confederation of different tribes (as were all Iranic tribes really). 2. Even if we could it would be nearly impossible knowing that these ancient Croats assimilated and fused into Slavic people of Vistula region and then these proto-Croats coming down and fusing with autchtonous people of the Dinaric-Adriatic region. In short it cannot be proved by genetics. Period. Afrika Paprika 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the popularity of the Iranian theory, it has always been a fringe political theory, with the primary goal of saying "We're not Serbs" - hence it was (again) popular during Tudjman's era. The funny thing is that there is a nationalist Iranian movement that promotes the same theory, but with a rather different agenda (pan-Arabism). The ultimate irony is that while the genetics shows that Croats are neither Serbs nor Arabs, that they for the most part are descendants from the Illyrians - which was yet another old nationalist 19th century theory. Now as for the Iran theory - it may be worth mentioning, but you'll have to provide solid peer-reviewed references at least of the same caliber as the genetic references. As for my Serbian friends, well, I'm Croatian and I think that their edits are far more appropriate than yours. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your nationalist agenda. If the average user behaved like you wikipedia would be dead within hours. --Denoir 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No it had something to do with finding the real identity of Croatian people and their origins. The fact that Croats are not Serbs is rather easy to prove so we don't really need to make up theories. Natinalist Iranian movement is pan-Arabism?! ROFL!!! I think you would deeply offend any Iranian and especially a nationalist if you would call him pan-Arabist or any other connection of Iranians with Arabs. As for the genetics it cannot prove someones ethnic origin and as I alread addressed this I will not repeat myself. Afrika Paprika 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

9 million

9,000,000 seems like a gross overestimate. For instance, the 4,8 million is stated by primary sources (that's not a primary source that we have on it - the Croatian World Congress), and calculating up all that we have amassed so far we'll get to 6,000,000 tops. For isntance, the Serbian Unity Congress claims that up to 700,000 Americans are ethnic Serbs (and numerious other sources state 500,000), and all incinuating that 300,000 alone live in Chicago, the informal 3rd largest Serb city in the world. A similiar applies to the Serbian population in Germany. I don't see why we should accept the Croatian World Congress' statement that's even less likely possible here - it might trigger the (in)famous inflations on the Serbs article. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you think. We have official data that there are about 4 million Croats in Croatia and about 600.000 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That makes it more than 4.5 million....plus the 4.5 million abroad(sourced) makes it 9 million estimate. We have a source...you asked for it - you got it. Now deal with it. And please keep the talk about Serbs on the article concerning Serbian people. Afrika Paprika 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show a little more good faith. I was just trying to present some arguements. Please see WP:CIVIL and try to stay cool and most important, Don't be a dick. Also, take a look at WP:Reliable_source#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence - it's regarding exceptional claims such as this one. --HolyRomanEmperor 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That has to be mutual. Since you showed me no good faith at all, in fact being extremely rude and reporting me for minor and insignificant matters and also enforcing one sided and POV articles, I have no reason to show you any good faith at all. Afrika Paprika 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

One's bad faith doesn't justify you to maintain bad faith to him/her. Also, please show me the diffs where have I shown bad faith? I have reported you for major fellonies - it's Wikipedia's policy that you don't brake them, and I am oblieged as a Wikipedian to report you. Note that I warned you first, but you were angry so I reported you anyway. Additionally, you misunderstood the practical duty of every Wikipedian as shameful, considering it cowerdise that I reported you. Do you see what I am saying? --PaxEquilibrium 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. I follow the simple rule of conduct - treat others as they treat you. I believe one needs to look at Pagania, Zahumlje and other connected threads, including this one to find you bad behaviour and bad faith where you disrespect everything that does not come from you and what you don't approve. Also AFAIK breaking of 3RR rule is not "major fellony" as you describe it and you broke that rule yourself but unlike you I did not report you and whine to admins because I was too helpless to argue or come to an agreement. Afrika Paprika 04:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with HolyRomanEmperor. These numbers are complete nationalistic overestimates. 250,000 Croatians in Argentina is a ridiculous overestimate. Indeed, the 150,000 in Chile is just plain laughable. I think we need to find some very very very steadfast numbers and not just put whatever some guy's website says. Horvat Den 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we also need more than your doubt since these are exact data we are talking about. When you provide a better source please let us know...until then the data stays as it is. Afrika Paprika 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then, please be so prudent to leave the {{dubious}} tags. The sources you provided are Croatian emigration organizations, which hardly fall into WP:RS for the purpose. Very valid comments were raised here about their reliability. Duja 08:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no. There is nothing "dubious" about it. We have the source and there is nothing dubious about it. Afrika Paprika 15:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In truth, we have around 4,000,000 Croats in Croatia and 600,000 in BiH - and 100,000 Serbia (Vojvodina); 100,000 is the least imaginable figure for Croats living elsewhere (and is sourced by primary sources) that we can accept. Compare that to the Serbs - 6,250,000 Serbs in Serbia (of whom 1,350,000 live in Vojvodina and 150,000 live on Kosovo); there are 200,000 Serbs in Montenegro (although one might encircle this figure to 450,000); 1,700,000 Bosnian Serbs and 200,000 Serbs in Croatia; this doesn't even account up to 9,000,000. Croats and Serbs everywhere else is just inflating numbers. --PaxEquilibrium 11:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again comparison between Serbs and Croats...tell me on what basis do you compare these things? If you have problem with figures regarding Serbian people then go to the page of that article...this article has nothing to do with it. Afrika Paprika 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On the basis that these two articles are the ones that get most inflation on the Wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium 10:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

First you must prove that the estimate regarding Croat is "inflation" as you put it. Let me remind you again that it is well established that Croatia has one of the biggest emigration in the world....on level with countries such as Scotland, Ireland, Poland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, England....at some point there were whole villages disappearing overnight leaving for Austrialia, America, etc. The estimate that there are at least as much Croats as in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina together is a fair one. And once again please leave the issue with Serbs for the talk page regarding that article. I don't see you arguing there... Afrika Paprika 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Prove that it's an overestimate? Well, the World Cultures says that there's 4.8 million Croats. Also, Serbs and Albanians have more people living outside their homeland, so don't overemphesize it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The site you point at is unclear....it seems they are saying there are 4.8 million Croats in Croatia referring to the old 1991 census where there were about 4.8 million people living in Croatia. In short the source you cite is invalid. Afrika Paprika 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. The sources you presented are far from convincing: Croatian World Congress? Oh my. See WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence WP:RS#Check multiple sources. Duja 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the proof. Croatian World Congress(CWC) is the official pan-Croatian organization which brings together all Croatian diaspora communities with Croatia. They are far more credible than any other source. Afrika Paprika 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Afrika paprika has the upper hand on this one - but he must re-check the info and provide at least one more; this indeed is an exceptional claim (and it does not base on primary sources). --PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And then one more and one more and one more....sorry but no. The Wiki policy asks for a source...you asked for it. I provided the source. End of story. Afrika Paprika 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall some policy: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (or somesuch). Is the Craot World Congress such a source? --estavisti 12:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Source about Chile is a diary of certain Gaspar Glavich. Quote: 29 de enero 1999... El presidente Tudjman citó que en Chile viven unos 140.000 emigrantes croatas y que, por ejemplo, más de cien escritores chilenos son de origen croata.. Pardon my Spanish, but that says that "President Tudjman said that in Chile lives 140.000 Croatian emigrants and that there's, for example, several hundreds of Chilean writers of Croatian origin", right? Well, if El Presidente said it...Duja

Source about Argentina looks like a blog. My Spanish fails here, but looks like an interview with Croatian embassador in Argentina? Here's a fairly honest and comprehensive studyDuja 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We have sources on these data...it doesn't matter from where they come as long as we can confirm them. If you doubt them then find more appropriate and more valid ones. What you are doing though (putting dubious tag) can be then done with 95% of other sourced numbers as well just because you doubt them. It's you against 'el prezidente' and I am afraid I am going with 'el prezidente' as is the wiki policy. :) Afrika Paprika 15:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're totally misreading the policy. Here are few excerpts:

Look out for false claims of authority. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.
Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. ...
Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources? Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

I'm putting the dubious tag just because the "sources" you provided are far far away from what is required. Duja 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see these sites do not have "numerous footnotes". Also these estimates come from credible people who in fact are tied with academic and other institutions in Croatia. It is you who has bias...by your logic we could put dubious tag on all provided sources here. And stop reverting the valid estimate by Croatian World Congress. You will be reported if you continue as your goal is transparent here. Afrika Paprika 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, you were blocked last night by an uninvolved admin, and using the anon account to workaround the block can make things only worse for you. You're certainly welcome to report me wherever you find appropriate. Duja 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have very similar gross overestimates brewing on Poles. Anyone care to take a gander? Horvat Den 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Partly thanks to the edit war by now-banned User:Afrika paprika, I rewrote the article, stubbing the "Culture and traditions" section (moderate expansion welcome)—shouldn't this be mostly what the article is about?. "Genetic origins" is moved to Theories on the origin of Croats, which is now more or less a copy/paste of the "Origins" section here. I find the "genetics" too dense for an overview article like this one. Denoir et al, I hope you'll give the due weight to the appropriate theories (and "theories") in that article. Katičić's article at hercegbosna.org (thanks Mir (?)) offers a good overview on the subject.

As for the "number inflation", well, what the heck, I retained (and sourced) the 6-9 milion figure. While I myself consider the 9 milion a gross exaggeration (applicable only if one "counts blood cells" of many English-speaking Americans, Spanish-speaking Argentinians etc.), I hope the readers can conclude that the lower figures in such infoboxes are usually the more reliable ones. Duja 11:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been away now for a week on vacation - and the rewrite was a pleasant surprise. Great work, and I fully agree with moving the genetics section in an "origins" article rather than having such a technical section in the main one. Again, great work. --Denoir 19:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An important issue regarding Croats

I just want all real Croats (the ones with Slav* surnames**) to pay attention to the fact of severe importance that there is a serious organisation of Austrians in Croatia (organisation of those Austrians that remained in Croatia after break-up of Austro-hungarian empire) - influential INDIVIDUALS*** that wisdomfully claim (decieve) that they are Croats, but they are actually not - simply they are representatives of Austrian national minority that remained in the land of Croats after Austro-hungarian empire collapsed ("Oster reich" - the "Eastern Reich" (Eastern Germanic Empire of Roman-catholicism)).

(* I say 'Slav' implying that people which are today reffered to as 'Croats' are of Slavic cultural background (so, it is unrelated to what term 'Croat' refered to originaly (some other culture that has nothing to do with today's people)) - because the language of today's Croats is Slav, so regardless of how everything coincided (details, details, details...) the Slav character is nevertheless - obvious; this fact I will emphasize in this maner: "Croats(Slavs)"

** although there are some (probably intentionaly...) missleading surnames known to general public such as Suša (nothing personal; I just use this as the most suitable lexic example to demonstrate the concept), which sounds exactly like one term from Slav language (a word for English trerm 'Drought'), but it's actually just a non-related word of German origin: 'Süscha'

*** here I emphasize term 'individuals', because I don't want general people, simple, innocent people who have nothing to do with this perfidious organisation, to feel addressed)

It is obvious that destruction of the federation of south Slav people (known by name of 'Yugoslavia') was a revange of such organisation of Oster-Reichans (based on false reasons) against Slavs (Serbs, in particular, as the integrative factor (because the other two religions are actualy allien hegemonial influences)). Of course, everyone asks a question "Wasn't Yugoslavia starting to break-apart exacly when Germany united?" - and IT IS when it started to happen, that is not just a coincidence.

Volksdeutschers (Osterreichans (ex-Austrian empire's national minority in Crioatian lands)) would gladly proclaim that term 'Croat' implies simply one of the Germanic nations, but today it's too early for such an aditude; for now they just do not see the term "Croat" as a term that implies a 'specific definitive nation'*; instead, Osterreichians ("Volksdeutschers") consider word "Croat" in terms of citizenship (Croat can be anyone - a German in their case - it just depends on what poeple are majority on that land (and they intend to own it again (and slowly they are achieving it))) - their oppinion is that Croats(Slavs) are people stupid enough to believe them (because - they are Slavs - and thus Osterrechans (Austrians) keep silent about it yet of course consider them a lower race - slaves - naive people that can be bought thorough lies and perfidiousity - people who cannot see what they are doing to them because they are blinded with their sweetalks, traid-offs, falacies and simply - lies).

(* although they perfidiously flatter and adulate Croats(Slavs) to the contrary by allowing certain Slav cultural freedoms; it is a part of their cruel wisdom, so Croats(Slavs) would believe them and work for their allien interests (unsuspectingly), falsely considering themselves as a whole)

You see, long ago in XIII century (two centuries after Christianity finaly officialy failed to convert Rome to democracy) Romans sent legions to Jerusalem to provoke Islam (def. Islam: cultural (etc.) hegemony of Arabian group of people) and lure them bloodlustly enraged here on the (so-called) "Balkans" so they would do the dirty job instead of them - destruction of Christianity (def. Christianity: Jesus Christ's movement againt Roman hegemony; a movement for democracy of people (def.democracy: self-rule of people instread of hegemony over them and multitude of others (claiming that "there is only God above pople" (not human (such as Cesar or Pope)))); for which he was arrested, tortured and killed by Roman forces of order), and Rome almost achieved what it planed, but when Islam started weakening and withdrawing from "Balkans" ancient Roman organisation* ordered OsterReich to attack and occupy Bosnia, and subsequently Serbia (which then finaly got free after half of millenia of slavership under Islam which Romans brought on them). That (atack of German OsterReich on Serbia) caused World War 1. Justice won, and OsterReich empire decomposed giving freedom to multitude of nations (such as Croats among all the others).

(* then enbodied in Roman Catholic church (now seculary in (so-called) "European Union" (although if you look at the world map you will see that there is no such thing as "European** continent" nor it ever was (if you look at the estimates on how continental plates moved thoroughout the history of planet Earth (there is a formidable argument against this claim: brutal force; so we must accept "the truth" and shut-up or we find ourselves dead in the overwhelming power of "evidence" to the contrary))))

** "Europe" (by ancient Greeks who accepted the term from elswhere) means "Sunset" or simply "West")

NOW COMES THE IMPORTANT PART: Osterraichans (Austrians) disregarded the fact that their greed and evil* was responsible and guilty for decomposure of their precious empire, no - instead - they simply blamed Serbs... Needless to say, they planed revange (the result was 1:1, and they seeked 2:1 for them (notice that term 'revange' is illogical here)).

(* evil that has it's roots in ancient organisation of Rome - perfidious anti-Christs - hypocrits who through-out entire history base their points of view not on justice but on brutal force and power because that's the only way thay can be right)

Carying the OsterReichan racial ideology of Iliria and the Aryian race one Austrian came to Germany. Adolf Hitler. World War 2 folowed shortly.

Nazi Osterreichans of WW2 then commited genocide against Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia thorough so-called "Croat movement" of 'ustashe'. It is not a Croat movement, it is Austrian movement (hiding diabolicaly behind the name 'Croatian') - with them there were only massively naive Slav Croats that took words of those fascist quasi-croat's for truth (not filtering it throuh their minds - just blindly falling into hateriot and evil which Austrians were massively inducing in them against Serbs (in this case) (let's notice that Austrians were lead by Roman Catholic organisation which did practicaly nothing to stop the ever so obvious evil that was going on at that time in history (there is no excuse for it))).

Further more, Josip Broz (Tito) fought for Austro-hungarian army in WW1 and even achieved higher rank there; he then infected Serbs with communism and killed everyone who opposed it. (And after that - look - Serbs are the bad guys because they are communists and they have tickheaded dumb polititians! how convinient! (so then some bunch of "incredibly naive" ex-Vietnam veteran U.S. generals with metal plates in their heads ever-so against the "commies" help anyone claiming to be fighting against the ever so bad communism (never mind their lack of knowledge (their dumb ignorance) of history (having in mind that Catholics infected Serbs with communism (and look Churchil helped them (monarchy against the other monarchy? supporting communists in WW2???))))); so there is no just reason to atack Serbs - well, heck, we'll invent one! oh, look, Serbs think that it's injustice that hundreds of thousands of their close realtives were murdered in WW2 at-hock and in nazi concentration camps for no reason by us, quasi-Croats, (how it's convinient to hide behind other nation's name, isn't it, Austrians?).

Serbs sacrificed their oppinion for peace in the new country (Tito's communist SFRY) and for unity of people - the injustice was never rectified - victims were never properly burried, and now all of the sudden we* are destroying the federal state having it all in mind - YET - still Serbs are the ones that are bad. And then we* intentionaly OPENLY provocate the unsuspecting -them- to accordingly violent reactions using filthy perfidious ways in order to get them enraged so we could point our fingers at them saying "Look how agressive they are!" and blame them for everything in the eyes of the so-called "international public" using our sensless moneydriven and/or childeren-of-an-ex-nazi news reporters. Unsuspecting people don't have a clue (or don't give a damn) that their oppinions are being disgustingly maniupulated by western media. ...And Serbs can do nothing about it because - heck - we* controll media - what we say IS the truth - we say that truth is lie and that lie is truth, yet Serbs are evil - shame on them and their thicheaded commie governments (we first superimosed on them). About Tito (the Roman catholic pretending to be a comunist (and let's have in mind that he joined the comunist party when it supported separatism in Yugoslavia between the two world wars)): - he had forbidden Christianity to Serbs (on basis of being a communist - how convinient), he made Kosovo an autonomous province (although it never was before!), latter he induced absolutely disguistingly abnormal natality of Albanians in Kosovo (so Serbian government could be blamed for poor living conditions instead of the real rason - the abnormal overpopulation induced by Tito's government and who knows what else anti-Christian organisation), and finaly his government gave Kosovo even greater autonomy - so Albanian individuals in charge could provoke Serbs (regular citizens - ordinary people just wanting to lead their ordinary lives) in Kosovo (in Serbia - in their own country!) buy misusing their jurisdiction and creating social injustice, and so when Serbs finaly fell for that provocation and said "What's enouh is enough!" - we* then just TURN THE STORY AROUND: BECAUSE - SEE - SERBS DURING EXISTANCE OUR ROMAN-CATHOLIC AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE WERE ALWAYS NOTICING AND COMPLAINING HOW WE ARE TRYING TO SPREAD THE "GREAT AUSTRO-HANGARIAN HEGEMONY" AND MAKE IT EVEN GREATER - HAH - NOW WE'RE GONNA BE SARKASTIC - AND WE WILL SIMPLY SAY EXACTLY THAT FOR SERBS ALTHOUGH IT IS OBVIOUS (AND WE* ARE AWARE OF IT) THAT THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO SAVE THEIR COUNTRY WHICH IS A LOGICAL ENTITY BECAUSE IN IT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS THAT SPEAK ONE LANGUAGE (WHICH (ANYHOW YOU LOOK AT IT!) MEANS THAT THEY ARE ONE CULTURAL ENTITY) ARE FINALY UNITED AFTER SO MUCH CENTURIES OF SLAVEDOM UNDER ROMAN AND/OR ARABIAN HEGEMONY. AND WHEN SERBS START THEIR PERSONAL REVANGES FOR OUR* NAZI GENOCIDAL CRIMES, AND THE KILLING STARTS INTENTIONALY INDUCED BY OUR* SHAMELESS PROVOCATIONS TO NOTHING ELSE BUT VIOLENCE - THEN WE* WILL USE THAT SAME DIABOLICAL SARKASM, AND WE *WILL TURN THE STORY AROUND - WITH A DIFFERENCE THAT THEY SAID IT RIGHTFULY, BUT NEVERMIND - WE* WILL BE OBSCENE AND WE* WILL TURN IT ON THEM ANYWAY - AND SAY WHAT THEY SAID FOR US: "YOU ARE GENOCIDAL! LOOK AT ALL THOSE MASS GRAVES! SERB CONCENTRATION CAMPS! MASS MURDERS!"**. FIRSTLY: THEIR REVANGE AGAINST WHOM WE (OSTERREICHANS) MADE THEM BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE THEIR REAL ENEMIES (THEIR SLAV BROTHERS - CROATS); AND SECONDLY: A FIGHT FOR WHAT IS JUSTICE AND LOGIC (THAT UNION OF PEOPLE THAT SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE) - WE* WILL ALL OF IT SHAMELESSLY SIMPLY CALL "THE GREAT-SERBIAN HEGEMONIAL POLITICS" (the ever so popular sentence of diabolical sarkasm of all the DEMONS in these lands: "Velikosrpska hegemonija." (One man, obviously non-Serb at least according to his surname (Voyislav Sheshely), will be THE MAIN EVIDENCE of Serbian "violent nature" - which would make them (the naive Serbs who don't have a clue what this is all about) the bad guys and us* the victims - the climax of irony (no matter it is obvious that we* are the ones who need the BLOODY WAR - the bloodier the better - because that is the only way to deepen the gap between nations of this one people (Croats and Serbs, Bosnians and Serbs, Croats and Bosnians), and secure our (Roman-catholic/Oster-reich) victory against the inferior fools).)) - JUST LIKE WE WERE DOING IT CENTURIES AGO, WE WILL NOW MAKE THEM BURN ON STAKE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CLAIMING THE EARTH IS AROUND.

(* quasi-Croats and quasi-Slovenians (Osterreichans in fact)

** curriosity: the main person's name in tribunal in Haag is Karla del Ponte; Ponte - like the Pontius Pilat - the one who prosecuted "troublemakers" in the old Roman state, and now someone with practicaly the same name prosecuts "troublemakers" in this new Roman state - unintentional allusion or not, you decide... - The so-called "European Union" (that same European Union that performs politics of expansionism as we speak (using force, mind you, along with false reasons for it (e.g. Kosovo - it is so obviously Serb (Christian) theritory - yet it doesn't stop them to use force against Serbia (1999.), yet they (the whole "western world") seeks to amputate Christianity from Serbs to rip-away Kosovo, and they further more - LET the Albanians to burn, demolish - destroy their Christian churches and monasteries (...isn't it clear what's going on... ...Romans hated Christ since the moment he was born, because he tried to give world a chance for freedom and self-rule a chance for democracy... and now in the "New World" there is some new 'Senat' coming here to kill the Christ - again))), that same European Union which sends soldiers to suspicious wars in far-away countries - shamelessly lying and killing thousands of regular citizens as we speak (only we don't know about it now - jut like with nazi Germany - we will know the full extent of the consequences only after it is long over - and then it wouldn't matter at all - again), that same European Union that infiltrates the sarkasticaly called "Otpor" ("Resistance") organisation to free countries to make trouble there (talking about 'democracy'!? European Union is an obvious hegemony! then those countries out of it are actualy THE only countries left on this fictive continent of "Europe" that are really true democracies)) Tito's qusi-comunist Roman Catholics induced Albanian overpopulation in Kosovo - the means were not just - they used force and fraud and they cheated massively and they used deception against Serbs and their historical land - Kosovo - which means Chrisitanity for Serbs - which means Serbia for Serbs. Western countries are the ones who directly decide on our destenies - they decide on Kosovo's independence. Giving independence to Kosovo means World War 3. Make your voice count against new world war. Let us all live in peace and friendship.)

--- Pay special attention to all the low-minded (impartialy said) ways Osterreich is CONSTANTLY trying to convince Croats that they are not of Slav origin (all but not Slav - everything - no matter how stupid those quasi-claims sound (or intentionaly missliding (like the Iranian theory (those 'Iranoids' are not today's Croats - today's Croats speak Slav language ergo they are Slavs - FACT)))). Slavs didn't have a hugely advanced civilisations (heck - they didn't even have their own alphabet before IX century! and even then - it was invented - by a Greek!) - nor were they the ones who where conducting the enslaving (it was always the other way around - Slavs were always the ones which various hegemonies were acting against), yet these people still speak Slav languages - that's a fact - no matter how it coincided - that's a fact. Croats, Serbs and Bosnians speak the same language - one people divided only by actions and perfidious political needs of different hegemonies (Latin and Arabic (but, hey, we are Slavs, not Latins, not Arabians; Slavs (from the word 'Glory' ('Slava') - and what submitting yourself to someone else's dividing hegemony has to do with glory???))).