Talk:Croats of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serbian Croats

If there's article Croatian Serbs, than this must be Serbian Croats. Otherwise, rename Serbs of Croatia. Stop with double standards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.240.211 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bunjevci

Bunjevci themselves claim that they are not Croats. Just read this article where leader of Bunjevac community speak about this question: http://www.globus.com.hr/Clanak.aspx?BrojID=172&ClanakID=4593 Title of this article is: "Ne želimo biti Hrvati, mi smo Bunjevci" ("We do not want to be Croats, we are Bunjevci"), also read the article: "Bunjevački nacionalni savet, krovna institucija koja u Srbiji okuplja pripadnike te nacionalne manjine, prošli je tjedan kroz srpske medije u otvorenom pismu srpskom predsjedniku Borisu Tadiću i premijeru Vojislavu Koštunici javno prozvao hrvatskog premijera Ivu Sanadera, koji je nadavno posjetio Suboticu, da želi asimilirati Bunjevce, odnosno podvesti ih pod Hrvate." They also said: "Mi nemamo veze s Hrvatima i poručujem Sanaderu neka nas pusti na miru. Mi tvrdimo da se Bunjevci na području Subotice i Sombora dijele na Hrvate i Bunjevce", ističe za Globus predsjednik Bunjevačkog saveta Nikola Babić. Prema njegovim riječima, politički predstavnici Hrvata u Vojvodini, uz očitu pomoć Hrvatske, nasilno osporavaju Bunjevcima pravo na njihovu nacionalnu pripadnost te ih svrstavaju u pripadnike hrvatske nacionalne manjine. Mi smo autohtoni narod koji je bio priznat još 1918. prilikom osinivanja Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca u koju smo svjesno ušli. Kroz povijest, posebno za vrijeme vladavine Josipa Broza, naš je identitet došao u pitanje jer je Tito naredbom 1945. propisao da se svi Bunjevci moraju izjašnjavati kao Hrvati. Još od vremena Stjepana Radića pa sve do danas Hrvatska pokazuje teritorijalne pretenzije prema dijelu Vojvodine gdje mi živimo i zbog toga nas i danas hrvatske vlasti smatraju Hrvatima ili nas nazivaju bunjevačkim Hrvatima, premda takav termin mi ne prihvaćamo." PANONIAN 21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of your double standard. In article Bunjevci on which you have worked very much is writen that 20 000 persons declared themself like Bunjevci but real number is 80,000 approx because many declare as Croats, Yugoslavs, or Hungarians. For wise man I have say enough about that. ---Rjecina 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But link that I showed to you claim exactly that: "Mi tvrdimo da se Bunjevci na području Subotice i Sombora dijele na Hrvate i Bunjevce" ("We claim that Bunjevci in the area of Subotica and Sombor are divided into Croats and Bunjevci"). In another words, what they claim is not that Bunjevci are Croats, but that Croats are Bunjevci. Try to notice a difference. PANONIAN 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in playing with words. I have give you other links which are saying that Bunjevci are Croats and national definition of Bunjevac is created only for lowering Croats number in Serbia. You have deleted this links like greatest part of article.---Rjecina 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What playing with words? The link that I presented is in Croatian and I hope that you are able to read Croatian as you claim (if you are not able to read it, just ask, and I will translate it for you). I know that Croatian nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Croats but most important thing is what Bunjevci say about themselves and they say that they are not Croats. Also, national identification Bunjevac existed even during Austria-Hungary, so it is simply ridiculous to say that "it was created only for lowering Croats number in Serbia". Regarding links, I deleted them because they are not about Croats - they are about Bunjevci and Šokci and are already posted into relevant articles. There is no reason to post here links that are not related to article subject. PANONIAN 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

About Bunjevci I can only tell you look Bunjevci article where is clear writen that only 20 000 (or 25 %) of 80 000 people accept that they are Bunjevci. It is clear that majority of "Bunjevci" do not accept this artificial nationality. You are having about that another link in this article---Rjecina 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

80,000 people is just estimation but that number mostly refer to those Bunjevci that were magyarized and consider themselves Hungarians today. Anyway, since you have 20,000 people who consider themselves as Bunjevci you cannot claim that they are Croats (for those who declare themselves as Croats you can, but not for those who declare themselves as Bunjevci, Yugoslavs or Hungarians). PANONIAN 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You also cannot claim "Bunjevci declared they are not Croats" as you did above, you can only say one part (and I would dare to say minority) of them declared this. --No.13 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Term "Bunjevci" have two meanings: 1. Bunjevci who declare themselves as such in census and 2. Bunjevci by origin, no matter how they declare themselves in census. When I said that, I had in mind first meaning. PANONIAN 04:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavs

Regarding Yugoslavs, your claim that you "Returned Yugoslav nation because it is double standard to speak in article Serbs in Croatia about Yugoslav and not speak about them in this article" is simply ridiculous. If you have problem with article Serbs in Croatia then you should discuss about it on proper page of that article, not here. You simply cannot say that somebody who declared himself as Yugoslav is Croat because you by this violationg his basic human right to choose his ethnicity and nationality - it is part of his freedom of choice. PANONIAN 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Users like you from Serbia insist that in article Serbs in Croatia must be writen that greatest part of Yugoslavs has been of Serb nationality. I have not say something ridiculous like that but only that members of national minority (hungarians, romanians, croats...) are making greatest part of Yugoslav nation in Serbia. We can find another definition but Yugoslav nation will be in this article. ---Rjecina 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on subject, not on other users, I did not wrote article named "Serbs in Croatia" and I did not worked on it, so why you teling to me what some other users insist there? I told you that questions related to that article should not be discussed here - you have proper talk page for that. And your claim that "Yugoslav nation will be in this article" is really not in the spirit of cooperation and agreement here, is it? Tell me on what basys you want to writte about Yugoslav nation in this article? If somebody declared himself as Yugoslav it is obvious that he do not want to be Croat, so who are you to tell him that he is Croat? PANONIAN 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is something new that you ask for agreement. Point is that unknown part of Croats, Hungarians ... in Serbia has declared themself Yugoslavs. You can say what you want but wikipedia need to be neutral so we must write on Yugoslavs on both pages or we will not write about them. ---Rjecina 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to stop personal insults and false accusations against me, but seems that Balcanic primitivism is something that cannot be separated from you. Regarding Yugoslavs, they are recognized as separate ethnicity in Serbia and are listed as such in census results which mean that they cannot be Serbs, Croats or Hungarians - they are Yugoslavs and nothing else. And please stop talking about "both pages". Understand this: "I DO NOT CARE FOR OTHER PAGE", you have talk page there, so please go there and discuss what ever you want about it, but if you came to this talk page, please discuss about THIS ARTICLE. PANONIAN 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of Yugoslavs has falled very hard in last 10 years. In 2011 census there will not be anymore Yugoslavs (or number will be lower of 1000). What have until now become and what will become in future this persons ? Another interesting question is who has declared themself Yugoslav. Person from Serb, Croat, Hungarian, Romanian, Albanian or Bulgarian origin ? Question about what is mother and father nationality of this Yugoslavs. In the end maybe you are right. It is not possible for Croats to become Serbs in assimilation. Maybe they first become Yugoslavs :)) ---Rjecina 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Croats never become Serbs in assimilation because their Catholic religion do not make this possible. As for Yugoslavs they are officially recognized as separate nationality and therefore we cannot regard them in any other way. PANONIAN 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Assimilation

Regarding "assimilation of Croats", this is ridiculous. Only Orthodox nations that lived in Vojvodina (like Romanians, Greeks, Cincars, Roma, etc) were assimilated into Serbs, but Catholic nations like Croats, Hungarians or Germans were not assimilated into Serbs - their numbers declined because of two reasons: 1. they either left from region, or 2. either had very small birth rates, i.e. very low number of children. PANONIAN 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are saying now something like: Life of national minority in Serbia is so good that they escape homeland and person which do not leave do not know how to make baby ? Can I use this your words why is smaller number of minority in Serbia. It will be real pleasure. ---Rjecina 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I say that life in Serbia is so bad that very large number of Serbs left from it during these years and Serbs also do not have children because they have no jobs and money to feed that children. In another words much more members of Serb ethnicity than members of minorities left from this country since 1990, but the reason why number of Serbs did not dropped so much is because many Serb refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo came here. But point is, Catholic ethnic minorities were not assimilated into Serbs. PANONIAN 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can say what you want but point is that number of Croats is droped very hard and this need to be in article. ---Rjecina 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, their number dropped because of two reasons: 1. emigration, 2. low birth rates, but THEY WERE NOT ASSIMILATED INTO SERBS. So, what exactly you do not understand here? PANONIAN 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You will not believe but Croats can become Serbs and Serbs can become Croats with assimilation. I do not understand you position. Do you want to say that cattolic or muslim will never with assimilation become Serbs ? We can use other name (not assimilation) but your thinking that because of low birth rate has fallen number of Croats in Serbia is bad.---Rjecina 22:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do say that Catholics and Muslims do not become Serbs by assimilation. Only Orthodox peoples like Vlachs, Greeks, Romanians, Cincars, etc did became Serbs by assimilation. Therefore you have today Serbs with surnames with Vlach or Cincar roots, but you do not have Serbs with characteristic Croatian or Muslim surnames. Surnames always show whether assimilation existed or not. Regarding birth rates, if you see any demographic study you will see that Croats in Serbia indeed have low birth rates like most other ethnic groups in Serbia including Serbs. Number of Serbs in Serbia would also decrease if Serb refugees did not came here. PANONIAN 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The case of the Croats of Serbia is similar to other minorities in Central Europe. In these cases, there are usually three reasons for declining populations: 1) birth rates lower than the majority group, 2) emigration in higher rates than the majority group, and 3) assimilation. These three processes can be explained as follows:

1. Some ethnic groups tend to have lower total fertility rates (TFR) than others. Hungarians in Romania, for example, have a TFR lower than Romanians, while Roma have a higher TFR. Lower birth rates are an issue that only affects some minority groups. Because it is not self-evident, it needs to be sourced in this article. I am not convinced that this is a reason for the decline of Croatian populations in Serbia (but I'm also not denying it could be reason). Serbia's TFR is also quite low. Indeed, Croatia's TFR of 1.41 is lower than Serbia's 1.69, but we need a specific source that says that Croatians in Serbia have a low birth rate.
2. Emigration is higher among minority groups for two reasons. Firstly, discrimination, a lack of social integration and living in a "foreign" culture tends to act as a reason which encourages emigration in greater numbers. This phenomenon particularly involves migration to countries seen as the traditional homeland of the minority. So, in Romania, many Hungarians have migrated to Hungary, while I suppose many Croats from Serbia migrated to Croatia.
3. Assimilation tends to lower minority-group populations because, over time, minority groups tend to identify to a greater extent with the majority group. This process is accelerated by ethnic mixing and inter-ethnic marriage. So, for example, the child of a Croat father who marries a Serbian mother may adopt an exclusively Serbian cultural identity and thus assimilate. Or, children may not be taught their minority language at home or at school, and thus be more familiar with the majority language, to the extent where they assimilate into the majority culture.

But children from such mixed marriages cannot be seen as "Croats who were assimilated into Serbs". If such children have one Serb parent, they are at least 50% Serbs, not "non-Serbs who became Serbs". Regarding language, Croats speak exactly same language as Serbs but they were not assimilated into Serbs because of their Catholic religion. There is only one way that one Croat can became Serb and that way is to become Orthodox Christian. Problem is that we have no large number of Croats who became Orthodox which mean that we cannot speak about mass assimilation of Croats into Serbs. PANONIAN 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your mixed marriage example, I wasn't trying to say that. What I'm trying to say is that mixed marriage is one way in which minority populations can gradually decline in number, because their children tend to fully adopt the "majority" identity rather than a minority or even mixed identity. So, to give an extreme example: if all Croats were to marry Serbs, the generation which they produce would tend to identify as "Serbian" first on the census. When the Croat parents die, there will be a lot fewer people declaring themselves as "Croats" on the census, simply because there will be no pure Croats left. Of course, this type of assimilation can work in the reverse away. For example, a Croat can marry in a Serb in Serbia, and the child could possibly still identify primarily as Croatian if the Croatian culture is "dominant" in the family.

Regarding your religion point: I think it oversimplifies things a bit. Croats need not be Catholic and Serbs need not be Orthodox; an atheist Croat can, for example, adopt a Serbian ethnic identity. In any case, I'm not talking here about forced assimilation or mass assimilation here, but rather the natural, "intergenerational" form of assimilation that arises as each generation loses a bit more of their cultural identity and adopts the majority culture. This is a process that also happens in immigrant communities in the USA (where the children of Serbian immigrants may grow up speaking mixed English and Serbian, and the third generation down the line may speak exclusively English and identify primarily as "American"). Ronline ✉ 07:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Assimilation is as significant a process as the other two. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Panonian's statement, since the rate of assimilation depends both on pressures imposed by the majority group and resistance to assimilation by the minority group. So, if (hypothetically) Serbs place litle pressure on Croats to assimilate, and Croats are traditionally-resistant to assimilation and culturally-introverted, assimilation can be a negligible process. Sources would really be helpful for this. Ronline ✉ 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreement ?

Can we agree about few facts of article:

In 1961 there have been 196 409 Croats, in 1981 149 368, in 1991 97 344 and in 2001 Croats, Bunjevci and Štokci together is only 93 000. Fall from high number of 196 409 to only 93 000 need to be in article.

You cannot count as Croats those Bunjevci who declered themselves as Bunjevci. However, since results of all censuses are now presented as well as reasons why today number of Croats is smaller, I believe that everybody can see how and why number of Croats decreased. PANONIAN 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

About what has happen during Yugoslav wars we agree.

About Bunjevci and Štokci question I am really not interested. For me only interesting fact is that if we put them together with Croats number is only 93 000. You will say why together. My answer is because they have been together in all census until 2001 so if we want numbers to be OK (not POV) then we need to put them together. We can about that say that Serbia position is that they are nations, Croatian that they are Croats and majority of Bunjevci and Štokci say that they are Croats. OK ?

But you cannot put Bunjevci together with Croats: you will not find this number of 93,000 in any census results because that number is your original research that is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. And again: it is not position of Serbia: Serbia never tell to its citizens what is their nationality - it is position of 20,000 people who declare themselves as Bunjevci. Because of how they declare and what they think about themselves you cannot count them as Croats. And also majority of Bunjevci do not say that they are Croats: number of Bunjevci who declare themselves as Bunjevci, Yugoslavs and Hungarians counted together is larger than number of those who declare themselves as Croats, i.e. from 80,000 people of Bunjevac origin about 30,000 declare themselves as Hungarians, about 20,000 as Bunjevci, about 20,000 as Croats, and about 10,000 as Yugoslavs. PANONIAN 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

About Yugoslavs question we can agree that people of all nations have choosen this nationality but that majority is from Serbian minority and person from national mixed marriage. When they have choosen this nationality they have left birth nationality. .---Rjecina 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Most of Yugoslavs in Serbia were of Serb origin. It is confirmed when censuses from 1991 and 2002 were compared, which showed that in certain areas number of Serbs increased exactly the same as number of Yugoslavs decreased. PANONIAN 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Migration

"at the end of the 19th century, a small number of Croats from Croatia migrated to the region". Does someone has more about this?
I'll wait for a week and then remove this line.
If eventually the source appears later, I'll restore this line. Kamarad Walter (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

• Oppose to merge. Also there areSerbs of Vojvodina and Serbs. Serbs of Dubrovnik and Serbs of Zagreb is not merged in Serbs of Croatia. Serbs of Mostar and Serbs of Sarajevo is not merged in Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs of Kosovo is not merged in Serbs. Serbs of Hungary is not merged in Serbs of Hungary. Serbs of Toronto is not merged in Canadian Serbs. Romani people of Vojvodina and Roma in Serbia are separate articles. Montenegrins of Vojvodina and Montenegrins of Serbia are separate articles. Tnoucc (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

note that I merged two articles due to proposal of user:Joy. In my view, the merge was justified because most Serbian Croats are living in Vojvodina and because content of two articles was very similar. The existence of two separate articles for Croats in Serbia and Croats in Vojvodina would be justified if there is different content that could be placed in both articles. So, is there such content here or not? What would remain in the article Croats of Serbia if everything related to Vojvodina would be moved to Croats of Vojvodina? As for other articles which were presented here as examples, in my opinion, those articles where content is too similar should be merged as well, while those where is notable content difference should remain separate. PANONIAN 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose to merge. 14.056 Croats live in Central Serbia, (There is also a Republic of Kosovo Janjevci), We have an article Serbs of Zagreb and we have Croats in Vojvodina is ridiculous.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose to merge. Why user Zoupan merged article Croats of Vojvodina with article Croats of Serbia, although majority opposed the merging? User Tnoucc is right: if Serbs of Zagreb or Serbs of Dubrovnik are not merged with article Serbs of Croatia, why Croats of Vojvodina, which are more numerous than Serbs in Zagreb or Dubrovnik should not have special article? --Ivan OS 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the data is identical in Croats of Vojvodina and Croats of Serbia. If there is a need and has been added enough data to split the two, meaning that Croats of Serbia becomes the parent article, with Croats of Vojvodina concentrating on Vojvodina, we can have a standalone article. Compare Serbs of Dubrovnik which focuses on just that, and Serbs of Croatia which is a parent article - clear as water. Furthermore, I do think that Croats of Serbia can be expanded at least two-fold, and that should be the number one priority. After that, I would suggest that someone of you start a Userspace draft for a Croats of Vojvodina-article, only if the content is unidentical. As Panonian already said, identical content should be merged, in any case. --Zoupan 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sokac121 and IvanOS, this is indeed not a question whether there should be separate article about Croats in Vojvodina but a question whether we have any distinct info to include into such article (otherwise, we would only have two articles with exactly same content and different titles). The point is that most Croats of Serbia are concentrated in Vojvodina and, therefore, this is very different case from Serbs of Zagreb, Serbs of Dubrovnik, etc (most Serbs of Croatia do not live in Zagreb and Dubrovnik and therefore existence of separate articles for these Serbs make sense, as well as existence of separate article for Croats in Kosovo). But meaning of term "Croats of Vojvodina" is almost fully identical with term "Croats of Serbia". As for Croats in Central Serbia, they live mostly in some big cities like Belgrade and they are mostly population that settled there during the existence of former Yugoslavia - I do not see what we can write about Croats in Central Serbia? PANONIAN 05:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no "majority of users that opposed the merging" - merge is supported by users Joy, PANONIAN and Zoupan and opposed by users Sokac121 and IvanOS (I am not counting this suspicious newly created account here, of course). PANONIAN 05:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User Joy is not involved in this debate. If he supports merging of articles Croats of Vojvodina and Croats of Serbia he should tell that here but he is not directly involved in this debate. He only added template {{merge}} but that may not be his official attitude. --Ivan OS 17:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny statement. Why one would post merge tag if he does not support the merge? PANONIAN 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because It has been sugested..., which means that discussion was already underway. --Ivan OS 16:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to have a major article Croats of Serbia which will be part of the information Croats of Vojvodina, Croats in Central Serbia, Write that live mostly in some big cities like Belgrade, Zemun, and we can mention Croats in Republic of Kosovo--Sokac121 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And what you suggest that this article should contain? What you can say about Croats in Central Serbia? By the way, Central Serbia does not exist since 2010, when it was officially divided into 3 regions, so we would have to write 5 articles to cover the Croats in all these regions, which would be ridiculous. PANONIAN 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest only two articles Croats of Vojvodina and Croats of Serbia. --Sokac121 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You still did not stated what info we should include into each of them. PANONIAN 22:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose to merge.--Rovoobo Talk 12:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovoobo (talk • contribs)

• The articles are copies of eachother. As per scope, the Croats of Serbia article would be perfectly fine for housing information on the whole of the community of Croats in Serbia, of which a majority lives in Vojvodina, the rest being urban. The article would still have a focus on Vojvodina, since this is the region where they are traditionally found.--Zoupan 18:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croats of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311170041/http://www.mvpei.hr:80/hmiu/tekst.asp?q=hnm007 to http://www.mvpei.hr/hmiu/tekst.asp?q=hnm007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croats of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://creativecommons.hu/Language/Croatian/Crawl/Larbin2004/content/d00469/f01050
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824013008/http://www.nfcaonline.com/Vojvodina.htm to http://www.nfcaonline.com/Vojvodina.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712094401/http://sokacka-grana.hr/tko_su_sokci.htm to http://sokacka-grana.hr/tko_su_sokci.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Croats of Serbia

"Croats of Serbia" is a descriptive term. It is not the proper name of this national minority. Officially, as well as in common speech, they are just Croats. MOS:LEADSENTENCE is clear in stating that there should be no redundancy in the lead sentence and that an article title which is merely descriptive should not be the subject of the lead sentence. Defining Croats of Serbia as Croats in Serbia is simply ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous? Both ethnic groups have long history in their areas. That is not a good understanding of MOS:LEADSENTENCE because the term is official and should stay as such (gov. officials use the term, and Croats of Vojvodina even more). Plus, you pushed the new version without going to the TP first and now we are "discussing", it is just piss poor. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It is ridiculous because of the redundancy. Having long history has nothing to do with anything. I see no evidence that the term "Croats of Serbia" is an official, proper name for the national minority. The government website calls them simply Croats, as does every census so far. Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Census has nothing to with it. It does not make a big difference, but for future reference I will keep an eye and directly report cases of such radical changes based on one's views without prior discussion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

1) We have no sources for Spartak. 2) Djokovic, Mihajlovic and Dokic can't be included based on their maternal Croatian origin. Not to mention that Mihajlovic and Djokovic are Serb nationalists. Sources presented are not good enough to meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. 3) Josif Pancic is of Bunjevac origin, not Croatian. This was ignored, for some unknown reason. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you mean they can't be included based on ther maternal Croatian origin? What they should have paternal Croatian origin to be Croatians? What nationalists have to do with someone's Croatian mother? You have an article about Josif Pancic and put the latest scientific article or book which speaks about his Bunjevac or Serbian origin. I put information from scientific article(2014) that he is a Croat. Maybe someone ignored that he was of Croat origin? If sources are not WP:RS then we will leave mothers in their articles without origin, country of birth, city of birth. We will just write Novak Djokovic has a mother with name and surname. If this is your wish then you have different ways to resolve this issue, for now they are and Croats. Mikola22 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess you want that articles about them be written in this way. "Novak Djokovic was born on May 22, 1987, in Belgrade, Serbia. Father Srdjan and mother Dijana owned the company Family Sports".[1] That's fine but there are sources which offer more informations and I think we have to respect and this sources. Mikola22 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand. Please communicate. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

In the articles which talk about the origins of some famous persons, sportsmens etc exist sources which speak about the origin of the mother and father of this persons.. It is case and in the article of Novak Djokovic, etc. If in your opinion existing sources in this articles are WP:RS and WP:BLP and this is later confirmed by Wikipedia community then we no longer have any informations about the origin of the Novak Djoković mother because nothing exists specifically. We are left with what I have stated "Father Srdjan and mother Dijana". I guess that's your wish? You talk as if exist 100 sources which mention the origin of his mother and since these couple sources in the article are not good we will replace them with the other 90. Sources in the article are what we have for now. Mikola22 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but no - not good enough. Claiming Dokic and Mihajlovic to be Croats of Serbia is ludicrous: they lived for only a couple of years in Serbia and they are Serbs of Croatia with maternal Croatian roots, which was not that uncommon in Yugoslav era. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by “not that uncommon in Yugoslav times”? Do you mean mixed marriages or specifically Croat roots from the maternal side? Also how is it not belittling or insulting to women to deem the paternal roots relevant and maternal roots not? A Serb Croatia could have paternal or maternal Serb roots and still qualify as a Serb of Croatia. Unless there is some rule by Wikipedia that says otherwise? I understand your point about the few years in Serbia unless they were born there. As for Djokovic, he was a Serbian patriot but he himself says he is above nationalism. Here is a book about him that is a better RS about heritage than the news sites. [1] He states he put himself “above the nationalist conferva” and doesn’t care when people call him Croat or Serb as he sees them as the same. So to paint him as some nationalist doesn’t make sense. Of course he is still Serbian. OyMosby (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Siniša Mihajlović is a Serbian professional football manager and former footballer. How then is Siniša Mihajlović Serbian footballer when he lived in Serbia for a couple of years? Jelena Dokić lived in Serbia for several years and formally acquired right to be part of Croats of Serbia notable people section. Article "List of Serbs of Croatia: This is a list of notable Serbs of Croatia, ethnic Serbs who were born in, lived, or trace their origins to the territory that is present-day Croatia."[2] Jelena Dokić as ethnic Croatian lived in Serbia. Everything is clean. Mikola22 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 I agree with Sadko in that it is hard to follow what you are trying to make a point about exactly?OyMosby (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

They lived in Serbia. If someone as a Serb has acquired right to be on the List of Serbs of Croatia if he lived in Croatia then Jelena Dokić has the same right. She as ethic Croat lived in Serbia. Mikola22 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mixed marriages were common. I do not care for ideological notions which are popular in Postmodernism. Paternal origin remains the more important for European/Balkan nations, unless the person in question claims otherwise. It is the opposite for Jews. That is common knowledge.

Dokic lived only for a short period in Serbia, do not ignore these facts. Not to mention that her father is a notorious Chetnik activist. Mihajlovic is also a Serb patriot who has lived for a short period of time in Serbia and he had several chauvinistic statements about Croatia, Crotian kuna and etc. It makes very little sense. There is no real feedback or arguments offered @Mikola22. You can't include Djoker because of his maternal origin, but you can include Dražen Petrović as a Serbs of Croatia because his father was a Serb. There is a difference, regardless of personal opinions on the subject. Furthermore, new (contested) additions actually need a wider consensus. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You are actually saying that someone from Croatia is on the list of Croatian Serbs because someone father is a Serb from Croatia? But the article says and lived in Croatia. As long that fact exists in the article it must be applied everywhere equally. Novak Djokovic's mother is a Croatian who gave birth a son in Serbia, and he should be Croat from Serbia. Mikola22 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. We seem to be going in circles. As there is no consensus, I would suggest that @Mikola22 removes his recent edits. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Josif Pančić came to Serbia as an ethnic Croat and lived in Serbia, and he is a Croat from Serbia. Dijana Djoković mother of Novak Djokovic is born in Belgrade and she is Croatian, her son is of Croatian origin from Serbia ie Croat of Serbia. Jelena Dokić came to Serbia as an ethnic Croat and lived in Serbia, and she is a Croat from Serbia. Siniša Mihajlović came to Serbia as an ethnic Croat and lived in Serbia, and he is a Croat from Serbia. Jovan Petrović was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina and came to live in Croatia, his son Dražen Petrović is Serb from Croatia. An article about Serbs in Croatia says that someone is on the list if he lived in Croatia and have Serbian ethnic origin. Father of Dražen Petrović Jovan he also has the right to be on the list of Serbs from Croatia because he lived in Croatia, also Novak Djokovic's mother has the right to be on the list of Croats from Serbia because she lived and still lives in Serbia. Josip Pančić or Stjepan Filipović who were born in Croatia as Croats they lived in Serbia and they are on the list of Croats of Serbia. If their descendants were known and famous today, they would be on the list of Croats from Serbia. And as for maternal and paternal origin there is no difference, it's the same thing. Mikola22 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Try to read other user's comments, do not just ignore them. Stonewalling is not a good way to go and it will get us nowhere. No, it is not the same thing. I am challenging these latest additions, and I can conclude that we have no consensus, as there is no willingness to cooperate and no offer of some sort of middle solution was given. For the last time, please undo your latest additions, especially those which fall under WP:BLP. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Father of Dražen Petrović is Serb from Bosnia and Herzegovina, mother of Novak Djoković is Croat from Serbia. Dražen Petrović is Serb of Croatia because his father is a Serb who lived in Croatia and has Serb origin. Novak Djoković is Croat of Serbia because his mother is a Croat who lived or living in Serbia and has Croatian origin. Everything is clean if we apply the rules equally, the case of Novak Djoković cannot be unfounded and case of Dražen Petrović founded because it's about the same thing. WP:BLP, source for Novak Djoković exist in his article for ten years, if is stated there that his mother is Croatian we must respect this fact from his article as well as sources that talk about it. If this information is not accurate and the sources are not reliable then Reliable sources procedure must be initiated first and after this when that process is over we coming here and we make changes in accordance with conclusion of that process. Until then, we must respect the current situation. That is my opinion and you seek consensus for your actions. Mikola22 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22 I think it would be better during this conversation to remove the newly added person you included in the article. That way discussion can continue for the time being until an agreement or consensus is reached. OyMosby (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In order to reach a consensus you have to say your opinion, regarding Novak Djoković thing is clear. As for the rest state which persons are for reaching consensus and give a specific opinion about each one. You can also talk about everyone on this list. The consensus established here must be applied to all articles, so we in this discussion can give examples and from other articles. Let's say that Novak Djokovic has no consensus here, then we have to discuss the same case, ie Drazen Petrovic, as well as other peoples with a similar situation in this and other articles such as Croats of Slovenia, Serbs of Slovenia etc. It is important that rules are applied equally. Here are some examples Croats of Slovenia: Robert Kranjec ski-jumper born in Maribor to a Croat father, Jelko Kacin politician born in Celje to a Croat mother, Stipe Modrić former basketball player and coach born in Sinj to a Croat father etc. Serbs of Slovenia: Zoran Janković born in the village of Saraorci near the town of Smederevo in Serbia to a Serb father and a Slovene mother, Simona Škrabec Slovenian-Catalan author and translator (Serbian father), Goran Janus (Serbian father), Spomenka Hribar (born 25 January 1941) in Belgrade to a Serb father (Radenko Diklić) and a Slovene mother (Marija Jelica Mravlje), Slovenes of Croatia: Josip Broz Tito Slovene mother , Martina Majerle (born May 2, 1980 in Opatija, Croatia) mixed Croatian and Slovenian descent, Mira Furlan was born in Zagreb to a Croatian-Jewish mother and a father of Slovene-Croat heritage, Dubravko Šimenc was born in Zagreb to Slovene father etc etc. Mikola22 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic is a world-famous star who is in the media almost every day, there would certainly be a huge number of reliable sources in many languages ​​for any important information about him. Also: WP:CCC. When sources said that his mother is “Croatian origin”, we cannot know whether she may be from a Serb, Yugoslav, Slovene (Žagar is very common surname among them) or Jewish family in Croatia or from a so-called mixed marriage. Only a few Croatian sources speak in the context of ethnicity and use the same sentence over the years (they even seem to use sh. and hr. Wikipedia as a source), without explaining how they came to this information. Only Serbian sources who claim the same is the tabloid Kurir, which is definitely not RS. According to WP:BLP: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB if the source says that she is Croatian then she is Croatian, you would change something to be what she is not.

First, you need to sign your messages. Further, that is not the only argument. We do not have good reliable sources on ethnicity.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Go do an interview with her and ask her what it is when you are interested in it.

I don't think Novak Djokovic's family would be ashamed if Dijana Djokovic were of Serbian origin from Croatia or someone else’s origin. In Novak Djoković article on Wikipedia exist this information which we must respect "and maternal Croatian descent". If this information is not correct or sources which prove it are incorrect, a procedure must be started on that article to determine it or through Wikipedia possibilities. After it is established with a final decision then we can use that fact here. For now, we must respect Novak Djoković article and its information and use it as an indisputable fact. There must be some procedure and I guess you know what to do? Mikola22 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB I suggest you do an interview with her and change that there, and delete it here too. You should also ask his father if he is a Serb or a Montenegrin, some sources say that he is a Montenegrin, some that he is a Serb. Do an interview with them and let us know.

You need to sign messages, respect other users even if they don't agree with you and use a decent vocabulary and tone. Mikola22, the "maternal Croatian descent" formulation is Ok, but "maternal Croat descent" (including mention in an article about Croats in Serbia) is information that is not supported by reliable, neutral and up-to-date sources.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know sign messages. If it says he has maternal Croatian descent, then she is Croatian, because if it was Slovenian or otherwise, it would be written" maternal Croatian-Slovenian descent" or Slovenian or other, you have stupid questions you are still editing articles.Do an interview and let us know who is what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.138.245 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(is information that is not supported by reliable, neutral and up-to-date sources.) You know what to do in that case, start procedure to determine listed sources as not reliable sources. Once that process is complete we are returning here for edit. Mikola22 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's the signature. It's automatic. I didn't know it as well as you didn't. Maybe there will be a signature again now that I wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.138.245 (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sign your posts on talk pages: Here you have sign and after you finish answering, press that sign at the end of the sentence. Mikola22 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What we just had seems like a case of an IP which writes in the same way that you do. That's strange. Considering that 3 editors so far have stated that there is no consensus for these additions, I would once again kindly ask that you revert yourself. Read WP:BLP. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 08:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you used that IP without even knowing it yourself? It would be best that you report this so then we would know if you used that IP or someone else. Mikola22 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic's mother is Croatian

Mother of Novak Djoković is Croatian and source say that [3](kada joj je Srđanova majka rekla da sam Hrvatica, "when Srdjan's mother told her that I was a Croat"). Considering that Novak Djokovic's mother was born in Belgrade and lived in Serbia, the mention of being a Croat means that she is of Croatian origin. Source does not say that she is from Belgrade, from Serbia or from Croatia. She is Croatian ie Croat of Serbia and Belgrade. Mikola22 (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: While I disagree with a user labeling the inlcusion of Novak Djokovic as “Croatian Ultranationalist Propaganda” apparently being of Croat ethnicity is evil thing, we need better sources that are more concrete that say his mother is a Croat. Sources are scarce on that even though most likely she is. OyMosby (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby and Tezwoo: Obviously for the English Wikipedia we need better sources, so there is no point going into edit wars. When better quality sources come then we will edit the article. In any case, his mother is an ethnic Croat and there is no dilemma here. Mikola22 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The inclusion of Djokovic in the Croat-Serb rivalry had caused incidents covered in RS, eg [4]. Interested editors might write some relevant content somewhere. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• The situation is quite clear - we do not call Ante Starčević or Skanderbeg Serbs because their mother were Serb. Are you dudes suggesting that we make it a practice? That would be interesting. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Same way as one from Croatia with a Serb father and Croat mother can qualify as Serb of Croatia. It doesn’t delete their other half. That same person if from Serbia would qualify as a Croat of Serbia. They are both Serb and Croat. Obviously on this page, we are listening people who are of Croat heritage. They don’t have to be purely one ethnicity to qualify else all these lists need massive changes. Now that would be interesting. One ethnicity doesn't overwrite the other. Both sides are relevant. Anyway, fact is we have no solid RS describing what the mother’s ethnicity is so no point. This is what I am trying to explain to Mikola. OyMosby (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that's the case in USA and Canada, it's not in Europe and especially the Balkans. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it the case in Britain? OyMosby (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted that user because of his edit summary. IMHO, the inclusion of living people for whom we cannot establish their ethnic identity in this or similar articles (List of Serbs of Croatia, for example) is very controversial, particularly in cases where their parents are of different ethnicities. What caught my eye there is that, for some reason, Boško Balaban is listed as a notable Serb from Croatia, and that information is cited to Kurir. Tezwoo (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no controversy, because the proto-ustasha Starcevic is not listed as a Serb based on his mother's ethnicity. The obvious logical mistake aside, that would be controversial anywhere, and the same goes for Djokovic. Just because some editor wants to push his POV does not mean that it has any sort of merit. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The addition of any living person in such lists, whose ethnic self-identification is not clear, and especially if it is cited to yellow press, is controversial. Tezwoo (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Red herring aside, I do not see that stance applied on Djokovic here. Funny. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Starcevic and Djokovic are quite different subjects. So should Serbs of Croatia or list of Serbs only include 100% ethnic Serbs?OyMosby (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Only in the regard that we know 100% that the chauvinist's mother was a Serb (which is confimed by WP:RS) and we do not know about Djokovic's, we simply do not know and the sources are lacking. This we must respect.

Not really and that was not the main point. Modern-day identity politics and ideology aside, paternal heritage is primary when considering a person's heritage, unless the person in question has claimed otherwise. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not arguing to include Djokovic as I stated there are weak sources discussing his mother’s ethnic background. Also didn’t Starcevic die before the Ustashe formed and took back a lot of his toxic remarks about Serbs? Not trying to take away what he planted the seeds for just wonder if I recall reading this somewhere correctly. OyMosby (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear guideline for the inclusion of a person in an ethnic category/list on WP:EGRS:

"As to the inclusion of people in a category related to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources."

So if a person's ethnic self-identification is disputed or cited to unreliable sources, then that person should not be included in such ethnic lists. Therefore, no Đoković in a "list of Croats" and no Petrović or Balaban or Subašić in a "list of Serbs". Tezwoo (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)