![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Sorry but 440,000 Croats in Argentina is WAY TOO MUCH. I'm an argentine of croatian background and that numbers triples the usual estimate of about 135,000-140,000. By the way, the source cited for the 440,000 figure is dated in 1971! Ivok85 - 7 February 2008
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reference does not state there is a total of 9 million Croats in the world. Somebody simply added the reference's statement of 4 million Croats living abroad to the 4 million census population of Croatia. Do not return this number unless the source says, specifically, that 9 million Croats live in the world. Horvat Den 08:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Prihvaćen je podatak da izvan granica Republike Hrvatske, u susjednim državama i diljem ostalih europskih zemalja i širokog svijeta, živi isto toliko Hrvata koliko i unutar državnih granica. Dakle, 4,5 milijuna ljudi hrvatske narodnosti ili podrijetla. Ta je procjena uvelike pretjerana, a pošto ne postoje bolje mogućnosti statističkog određivanja, prihvatljiv je kriterij da se smatra Hrvatom svaku osobu u svijetu koja po zakonu ima pravo na hrvatsko državljanstvo. A takovih osoba ima preko 1 milijun u Europi, više od 2 milijuna u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama i Kanadi, 500.000 u Južnoj Americi te 300.000 u Australiji i Novom Zelandu. Od njih oko 25 posto govori ili razumije hrvatski.
According to the picture in the infobox, all distinguished Croats are bearded and all Croats are male. Well, it should be more representative, if you know what I mean... For example, Tito wasn't bearded, and he is very known. And if you don't like Tito, you have Pavelić, Tuđman, Maček - all without beard. Also Krleža, Ujević and Ivo Andrić, who was not Serb, but Croat.
Pavelic? I noticed Adolf is not on the Germans article, nor Benito on Italians. Is there the need to make an exception here? Macek and Tudjman might be good examples, despite their controversial characters... but Tito and Andric simply do not belong there. --PaxEquilibrium 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
About those pictures, there could be more, Croats gave many famous people to the world.
I disagree. Macek was a Croat. It is a Croatian name. Andric maybe not, with the fact he was raised by a Bosnian Serb family, but Tito was Croatian. Unfortunately, but he was. Josip is a name common to only one nation, Broz a last name common to only that nation as well.
btw. I know why you write these things. And I think Croats themselves are a better judge who is Croatian and who isn't.
PaxEquilibrium: I don;t think Tito should be compared to Musolini and Hitler. Totally different characters
If I'm not wrong, the article is about Croats, NOT about good Croats. Wikipedia is about good and bad things alike, you know. And all those who think Tito is not among the most famous Croats (or half-Croats) in the history, they should educate themself better. NB. Hitler emerged on the Austrians page. I would also suggest Marko Marulić, Matija Vlačić and Antun Vrančić. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.8.211 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The Origins section of the article currently reads "The "Iranian" theory suggests that the Croats are descendants of ancient Persia (cf. Alans), this theory is based purely on linguistic correlation and development of the Croatian name." However, to my knowledge, the Iranian theory doesn't say that the Croats are descendants of an Iranian tribe, only that the name is of Iranian origin, because the Slavic tribe which settled modern day Croatia putatively had a Iranian ruling caste, which lent its name to the entire tribe/people. So, the text should be changed. Cheers Osli73 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That is true but the croatian name is also used in ukraine. btw that "iranian" theory was just an excuse made up by the ustasha regime so the germans would back them up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.97.213 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
To refer to people of Croatian ancestry outside of Croatia as a "diaspora" is incorrect. Diaspora is used to refer to peoples who have been forced to leave their homelands. Wikipedia defines diaspora "to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands". To say that people of Croatian descent living abroad have been forced to leave their country is POV and should be changed. Better to use something neutral like "Croats around the world" or other. Please don't take offence, I'm only trying to avoid an incorrect and POV use of words. Regards Osli73 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ivan, please read the definition of diaspora (see my quote from Wikipedia above). Osli73 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Eric Bana is a legitimate representative of the Croat people. He's Australian and only half Croat ethnically. Horvat Den 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, if you can find good quality, free images of people whom you consider notable enough to be in the picture, then add them to it. I still think all of the current ones should remain, and if you can find some free images of the people mentioned above, then add them to the pic. (P.S, I also have no idea who the first person is, but he was there when I added more people, and I felt uncomfortable removing someone that someone else considers worthy to be on the main picture.) —KingIvan 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the image is far too overloading. Do you see any other ethic group-related article with so many images? With all due respect to Klovic's life achievements, I don't think that he can even closely be compared to King Tomislav, Miroslav Krleza, Andrija Mohorovicic, Ivan Mestrovic, Josip Jelacic and Ante Starcevic.
I also suggest removing Ante Starcevic from the pics. I think that we should take as positive as possible people and put there. We'll end up nowhere putting highly controversial figures. --PaxEquilibrium 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If no one disagrees with this, I'll make the change. —KingIvan 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla was Serb born in region what today is Croatia.
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Who the f**k said anything about Tesla check the Serbs page there you will find Tesla. P.S. you are a Serb nationalist, I have seen your comment on how Bosniak muslims should be noted as Serbs by origin. You are blind because of your nationalism I don't say that Bosniak muslims are Croats only but also Serbs. It's stupid to say that someone is something (let's say Serb) if he thinks he isn't.
Let's get back to the page I think you should put Starčević in the picture of famous Croats because he isn't the father of the nation for nothing. You should put out king Tomislav who we know very little of or Jelačić who was very unpopular in Croatia during his lifetime because of his stupid loss of 40 000 Croat lives in fighting against the Hungarian revolution and because of the thing that his economical reformations were pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carib canibal (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A user has made a request that some famous women be added to the picture, however, the way it was worded was heavily biased, and condescending.
However, the point about women needs to be addressed. A lot of the ethnic group articles, especially ones about Eastern European/South-East European peoples, have pictures that only include males. Why is this? Do people in Eastern Europe hate women or something? Surely not everyone is a misogynist?
Some examples of these articles are Croats, Serbs, Ukrainians, Bosniaks, Poles, and Hungarian people.
We need to add notable women to all articles such as this, otherwise, the rest of the world will view us Eastern Europeans as women-hating or backwards looking. As it is right now, they are heavily biased towards men. 124.186.135.244 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What's this about being 'half Croat'. It means someone should be a 100% Croat to actually be a Croat? I suppose there are people like that but then we would create a national body of a few hundred thousand Croats, maybe even less. Take for example Robert De Niro. He is like more Irish than Italian by antcestry but we would still describe him as a man of Italian roots. And he is Italian by origin, not Irish.
You are right even some ˝100%˝ Croats aren't Croats. As an example Krsto Novoselić the bassist of Nirvana who is a 100% croat, during the war in Croatia in 1992, (if he even knew about it) he was protesting about some Erotic music law crap. would you call that a Croat? same with Malkovich although he's only half-cro it's the same thing. I don't think these ˝Croats˝ even know of their ancestry. A good example of croatodom is an amer. football player who is Croat by his mother and his father is dutch german ancestry, He always says that he's a Croat+ he's a Catholic + He has a tatoo of šahovnica on his right shoulder. So you're right you don't have to be a Croat( by blood) at all to be a Croat you only need to think yourself that you're a croat. Carib canibal (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
... a large space left between the intro and rest of the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.197.146 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
All three groups migrated to Europe during the upper paleolithic around 30,000-20,000 BC. Later, neolithic lineages, originating in the Middle East and that brought agriculture to Europe, are present in surprisingly low numbers. - This excerpt occurs twice in Croats#OriginsNorgy (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In the listing of Croats living in other countries around the world, France for some reason was left out or unmentioned. Yugoslavian peoples had long migrated and lived in France. I would love for edits and further inclusion on the number of ethnic Croats living in France. Croatians came to France during WWI, the 1920's/30's, WWII and the 1950's/60s for political (anti-Fascist or anti-Communist) asylum and economic reasons (guest worker program by the French government) to produced Croatian French descendants.
I entered a reference to the Illyrian Provinces of Napoleonic France, which was the name of Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia in the early 19th century (1805 to 1821) in Napoleon I's failed attempt to create and establish his idealistic "United Italy empire", as there are Latin (Roman-Greek-Adriatic) influences in Croatian culture which was well enriched by German- Austrian-Hungarian cultural influences. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I am deleting source http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hrv and number which is supported with this source. Reason for deleting is that this source is speaking about language usage and not about number of Croats. --Rjecina (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Remove it then. However, be advised that changing figures without a new source is against the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.148.41 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
9,133,585
We can write 9 millions and delete smaller number ?!--Rjecina (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up for you guys. An IP has been vandalising the population figures lately. 91.150.103.172 has been lowering figures on this page and inflating figures on the Serbs page - the same type of Serb nationalist population vandalism we've seen over and over again.
Another editor - C filev - has been vandalising population figures as well. His editing pattern seems to be to reduce population figures for every Balkan ethnic group, except for Bulgarians, which he inflates.
Anyway, be on the lookout. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anywhere in this article where it explains the etymology of the terms "Croat" and "Hrvati." Can it be added? Badagnani (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to the origin of the words "Croat" and "Hrvatski." I see now that there's some discussion of the etymology of "Hrvatski," but don't see where the English "Croat" comes from. Badagnani (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This would seem highly likely. It should be addressed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe "Croat" could be simply derived from Medieval graphic forms in Latin (documents written in Latin) - Chroatorum, Cruatorum, or Catalogus ducum et regum Dalmatiae et Croatiae (825),..., probably via Old French to French and then to English, rather than cravate or corruption of Hrvat, just my little POV :). Zenanarh (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The 'c' in the Latin Croatiae is an approximation of the Croatian 'h' (IPA x). It is a guttural fricative which Latin and English do not have. If it was spelled Chroatorum with 'ch', that would also indicate the Croatian pronunciation. The v is pronounced weakly in modern Croatian and may have even weaker then. The Latin had to have come from Croatian. As for the Iranian origin, I also believe that theory. But to be honest, a handful of very vague writings viewed through millennia of thick fog do not constitute proof. Croatian has some Persian words of ancient origin, bog (god), hvala (praise), div (a magical being), and raj (paradise), that show Persians having importance, at least in religion. These huravati, or however you want to call them, may have been the source of these Slavic words. Coldipa (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why was picture of famous Croats removed?
Here is a public domain image of Andrija Mohorovičić.Frvernchanezzz (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How can there be 9 milion croats world wide, when if you combine all croatian populations from croatia, bosnia, usa, chile, austria, germany, australia, argentina, serbia etc.., you get less then 7 milion? How did you calculate 9 milion for gods sake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.236.166 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(To 94.189.236.166) The reliable source clearly states there are 4.5 million Croats living outside of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This, in addition to the 4.5 million that do live in Croatia/Bosnia, is where the 9 million figure comes from. This is all that is needed for worldwide figures; figures for specific countries/regions requires a separate source - usually, but not always, census data.
Apart from this, you have failed to bring in any reliable sources of your own; rather, you just use hearsay, conjecture, and various other original research to "prove" that there can't be 9 million. You have no idea how high the populations of Croats are in countries that aren't sourced. You have no idea if there are no other countries with high Croat population concentrations.
We get lot's of Serb nationalists like yourself in here "discussing" the same thing. Most of them just randomly lower the figure here, and artificially inflate the numbers over there.
The figure on all of these ethnic group infoboxes, whether it be for Irish, Russian, German people, are only estimates, and you need to understand this. If you can't/won't accept the figure which is properly cited by numerous reliable sources, then you should just leave your prejudice at the door, and get out. 58.169.162.12 (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up for you guys. An IP has been vandalising the population figures lately. 91.150.103.172 has been lowering figures on this page and inflating figures on the Serbs page - the same type of Serb nationalist population vandalism we've seen over and over again.
Another editor - C filev - has been vandalising population figures as well. His editing pattern seems to be to reduce population figures for every Balkan ethnic group, except for Bulgarians, which he inflates.
Anyway, be on the lookout. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed two instances of 'nation' to 'people'. I use the word in the countable sense. In English, 'nation' almost always means a state along with its people, territory, institutions, and nature, unless when referring to an Indian trive. In Croatian, the word 'nacija' is rarely used so, and most people in Croatia are not aware that a non-ethnic meaning exists. This change reflects the fact that this article seems to be more about Croats as an ethnic group than a political entity. I offer three links to online dictionaries in the US, UK, and one in German from the Grimm dictionary.
Coldipa (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
<< Autochthonous Croat minorities exist in [...] Russia. >> Is there any evidence on Croats living in the former USSR? Or any link to the New Serbia colony of the Ukraine in the 17th/18th century? The Russian Empire sponsored a steady wave of Serbian settlement when the Serbians are at war with the Ottoman Turks, but managed to invite some Croatians into the mixture? The farthest eastern settlement area of native (Autochthnous) Croats are the KrashovansofWallachia, Romania at the time it was under Hungarian or Turkish rule of the 18th century. The majority of Krashovans are Roman Catholic or in the Eastern Rite branch of Catholicism, perhaps some Krashovans joined Orthodox Christianity when they lived in the then-Russian ruled province of Moldavia. If there's further evidence on the "New Serbia"/Slavo-Serbia Croatians in the Ukraine, let us know. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are on this page only results of DNA researsches for Croatian mainland? I think it would be fair if all of Croatia would be included. That means 45% I2a and 29% R1a... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.255.146 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Again,someone puts results for Croatian mainland.Croatian mainlad ISN'T whole Croatia,it only includes continental part,and not all(Delnice,Pazin,Zabok,Osijek,Miholjac+Dubrovnik). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.235.156 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK,I will try to summarize in my own words when I find time.Also,i've deleted the prologue sentence'Croats are South Slavic people',and put just 'Croats are people from etc.',because there are also other theories,and Slavic is lynguistiical criteria,and also,I don't see the Dutch reffering as Germanic people,or English as Germanic people,although it is clear they belong to the group,and don't have really other theories,while concerning Croats it's still disputable question.I think it would be better to say in prologue Croats are just a group of people living in South-Eastern Europe,to emphasize their specifical origin and name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.230.13 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
anyone reading my explanation,hello?Croats-ethnic group,or 'group of people',not South Slavic people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.244.65 (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes,added Gothic theory of Croatian origin,and added explanation for current Y-DNA research,which i find controversial,but let it be,until I make new text based on more reliable information. Also,I've changed in the prologue of Croats from 'South Slavic' to 'ethnic group',because Slavic origin is uncertain,and there also other plausible theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.252.236 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well,language yes,but religion,cuisine?customs and culture are also not all the same. Concerning language,why aren't then Dutch or Austrians mentioned as Germanic people?i don't see some strict demands on that.for example,spanish speak latin language,but i don't think they consider themselves descendants of Italians.I still would like to put just 'ethnic group' definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.128 (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are you so furious?Like you have something personal about it.Yes,Austrians,Dutch are mentioned as Germanic people,but not in the prologue.So i would like to emphasize in the prologue that Croats are an ethnic group.What is wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.128 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want Croats superior,but i don't see why some nations are mentioned in the prologue as ethnic groups,which emphasizes their particularity.you still haven't answered me to that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.128 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
well-that is simple and logical-how others are mentioned just as ethnic group,and some don't have righ to it?and you claim Croats must have that,and Autrians for example,don't.Croats can't be mentioned just as an ethnic group because of your personal opinion and furiosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.128 (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
8.0.130.50,you make a good point.but it's hard when you have some trolls moderating,obviously frustrated with their personal life and maybe also with their descent,so they become furious and point out that Croats want to be 'special'. @Štambuk - there was Romance speakers in Croatia up to end of 19th century,and through centuries was widely spoken in Dalmatia and Herzegovina,especially among the Vlachs.
@Štambuk-when i mentioned 'troll',i didn't mean you but that guy before that edited.
he has very furious and frustrated style.you give impression of a decent person,at least on the main page of discussion:)
They were also mentioned as Goths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(To the pathetic troll) - As you can see, nobody agrees with your heavily biased/racist point of view. Please cease vandalising the article. Croats are South Slavs, and everybody (bar you) agrees and accepts this. Please don't be ashamed of your roots, and please don't force your racist views on everybody else.
Please stop talking about genetics - it has been explained to you a hundred times genetics has nothing to do with ethnicity. Every ethnic group that exists everywhere are a genetic mixture, and Croats are no different. Ethnic groups are divided into similar groupings based on language and culture. Therefore Croats are South Slavic. As I said before, your racist point of view will not be tolerated124.185.196.182 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
we don't know that,because there is a very few sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
my racist point of view?the only one who is racist here is you.therefore,you may be classified as slanderer.you are the one who started to depict me as nationalist and 'trying to make croats' special.also,you continue with your 'classy' vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not denying Croats are Slavic,but i don't see why Croats shouldn't just be mentioned as an 'ethnic group' in the prologue,like other countries. Slavicism is mentioned in tables beside the main text.
it is simple and logical.it is the same like you say 'if someone works in exactly the same company at the exactly same place like you,and has 2 times bigger salary,you don't have the right to claim same conditions as him just because he has 2 times bigger salary'. are you maybe 'kuroishijin' from forum.hr?
no,it is not logcal,because other countries don't have such statements in the prologue,so i don't know why Croats shouldn't also have that right.you still haven't answered me to that,rather you repeat the same old formula. besides,Slavs are not ethnic,but a linguistic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
it doesn't really matter anymore to me,this is just a kind of silent protest. well,the thing why I want the 'ethnic group' thing,is to emphasize Croats particularity,and their particular ethnicity,not Slavic linguistical group to be confused with ethnic.also,it says on this very article,that origins are uncertain. so,what i'm asking,not to deny that Croats are South Slavic,but since that is written on the table behind the main text,it doesn't need to mentioned in the prologue because of thing i've said before,to make a certain compromise and emphasize a certain and specific origin.also,i really don't see why other nations are not mentioned in the prologue as belonging to the certain group of people,even if their origin is not generally disptable.so,more or less,that would be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
So,people in USA who originate from Africa belong to the Germanic ethnic group,because they speak English?no,i don't buy this.not to mention numerous former colonies which consist throughout the world nad have been forced to speak latin or germanic group of languages,while ethnically they are not germanic/latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
what does say wikipedia on ethnicity:'An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.' so,it is real or presumed.and it can be defined by any strict factors. therefore,slavic is only a linguistic group,because there are real scientific classifications,but with ethnicity it's not the same thing,it can also be presumed. in the national census Croats didn't declare themselves as Slavs,but as Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
yes,ethnicity is primarily an identification of people,how people feel,based mostly on presumed origin,because we can't exactly know the origins of all people which constitute a nation.
Only particular ethnicity for which we know is that stated at the national census. Slavs are a linguistic group,and nothing more.By your methods,we can go further and claim an indo-european ethnicity.but, the only particular ethnicity we know for,is that stated on national census.and rock-heavy metal is not ethnicity,but music instruments groups,a very bad example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well,it seems than we can't make a civilized discussion in here. Only ethnicity in Croatia is Croatian.In USA,for example you have 'white' ethnicity. you can't claim ethnicities if you don't have concrete sources,simple as that. Croats belong to the Slavic linguistical group of people,but not to Slavic ethnicity-there is only Croatian ethnicity.
There is no Slavic ethnic group,only linguistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well,it really seems than we can't make a civilized discussion in here anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
So,there is no reason to put Croats as Slavic ethnic group,because that is very controversial,only clear ethnicity is stated in the census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please edit using your real account. It is 100% clear that you are the same user - your spelling errors, your illogical arguments, your poor understanding of English, your promotion of neo-Nazi points of view, your inability to comprehend simple logic and reason. You cannot understand Wikipedia policy, and you cannot differentiate between ethnicity, biology, and linguistics. You are in violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, WP:TALK, WP:TROLL, WP:SOCK, WP:NPOV, and countless other policies. Please cease editing until you can understand these basic concepts. Thanks. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if your "friend" (who is actually YOU) wasn't such a retard, he would already realise that I've put forward many arguments, and clearly defeated his lame attempts at creating a biased article, but he's too stupid to realise it, so he just keeps repeating the same shit over and over again - much like discussing with a brick wall. The discussion is over. Croats are a South Slavic people, and a "couple" of neo-Nazis aren't going to change that fact. Deal with it. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I've used only one 'account' in this discussion,so please,stop with your silly accusations.To be sure who-i'm the guy started this Slavic 'ethnicity' thing,this morning:) And i can see you are accusing me of being Nazi Ustasha.Are there any admins here?? It seems that you have great problems with your character,you are very furious and take evrything personal,i don't know how to characterize your silly accusations towards us,two people who are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT,and our arguments. the same way you say that I'm Nazi Ustasha,i could say you are a communist pan-Slavist. It seems it is very important to you to have mention of Croatia as 'Slavic ethnicity'. Only ethnicity here is Croatian,for which we fought hardly and with lot of lost lives,and now we can't express our Croatian ethnicity?please.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The presence of haplogroup I in Scandinavia and western Europe is due to presence of several hundreds of thousands of Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and other slavic refugees there since 1990s as a consecuence of the yougoslavian civil wars, not due to immigration in the ice ages as mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.92.6 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The anonymous user who insists using the haplogroup I arguement clearly know very little about genetic anthropology. Notwithstanding that, as eg Ivan has outlined, that ethnicity is a subjective phenomenon based on cultural similarities , language, religions, etc (real or subjective), the haplogroup common in Croats, and all other South Slavs as well, is Haplogroup I2. This is 'native' to the western balkans, according to current scholarship. The I haplogroup in northern Europe, or 'Germanic' one (in lay terms), is haplogroup I1. These have completely different origins and demographic histories. So either way, I;m afraid you're wrong.
Furthermore, your knowledge of histriography is incorrect. Thomas the Archdeacon, it has been argued, referred to Croats as Goths because he was a Latin. His use of 'Goth' was meant to be a derogatory label, ie barbarian. I am not sure he was referring to specific genealogy. Yes, Goths did settle northern Dalmatia. Gothic cemetarties have been found around Split, Knin, etc, meaning that there was some settlement of Goths. But this is nothing unique. Goths also settled Thrace and Macedonia, even earlier. Even if Goths were still around after their defeat by Zeno in 550s, there is a huge chronological gap between then and the first arcaehological evidence for the emergence of the "Old Croat Culture" in late 700s, early 800s ! The Germaniic influences here were not Gothic (which was long gone from central-eastern Europe), but Carolongian - seen e.g. by swords in the burial goods of elites.
Hxseek (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Still,as Ostrogoths were an eastern branch of Goths,maybe there is possibility they carry different subclade of I haplogroup. Germanic people don't have any state in the Balkans and eastern Europe,so we can't know what really happened to for example Balkan Goths,and which subclade they carried.I will put in the text then that modern day Croats share a distant origin with Scandinavians,but it is hardly possible to link it with Goths/Germanics because mutation of I subclade probably happened earlier than let's say 1700 years ago when Goths were on Balkans. Thomas Archdeacon clearly mentions Croats as Goths,and there is no point of discussing that.Some people claim that Goths means 'barbarians' but that is very brave and farfetched statement,as Croats are clearly mentioned as Goths. Not to mention that Priest Doclean says the same thing,and it is hard to expect that is a coincidence.
We can't know exactly from whom Croats descended,so I'm afraid you sound like a fool.Every possible theory of Croatian origin which is recognized and debated among historians should be mentioned. And Balkan 'Dinaric' haplogroup is not I2,it is I2a2,and I2a1 is Sardinian,so please get your facts straight. also,i've read that Balkan haplogroup arose 3-4 thousand years ago,rather than 15000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.241.245 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC) It would be the best to stay this way,it is not necassary to mention the haplogroup I in the part of Gothic origin,but Gothic theory should be mentioned. Btw,Priest Doclean is a recognized historical book,nothing better and nothing worse then other books from that time. To say he writes myths is little too farfetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.241.245 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) And please be civilized,you can use your argumentation without calling me 'fool'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.241.245 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thomas the ArchDeacon considered that Goths in the Roman province of Dalmatia were Slavic people. His writing and Priest Doclean's one were ridiculoued only by Serbian nationalists and myth writers and blind pan-Slavists who, by the way, never really checked what Gothic theory was all about. Gothic theory was not about Germanic roots of Croats. Relation between Goths and Croats is impossible to ignore in the early Croatian history. Even modern autochtonuous theory takes Thomas and Goths in consideration seriously.
I2a2 was a marker for Sardinian, I2a1 for Dinaric group, just a few moths ago, now it's changed, it's opposite. You haven't read that Dinaric group arose 3-4.000 years ago instead of 15.000 years ago, it was about Sardinian group. Dinaric has been evaluated to be 20.000 years old. Some amateurs are propagating that I1a was carried by the Goths to the south of Europe, but it's impossible to prove something like that. Cheers. 78.0.134.80 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
And what about autochtonous theory?fo you think it is plausible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.239.143 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"Autochthonous theory" is fully derived from the known facts by means of modern science, so the older would appear to be archaic by used methodologies. It's not only plausible, it's the only way how to write Croatian history, if you live in the 21st century. Read here [7] for quick overview, and you can use it for building this article. You can find more overviews like this one in the net. Ivan Mužić:『Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća』is marvelleous work of newer Croatian historiography. You can download his works here [8] 78.3.48.27 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC) If you read it you will find that this book throws completely new light on the early Croatian history, and what is the most interesting of all, it completely changes history of Slavic languages in general and in the Balkans. Discoveries presented there make wiki Slavic-related articles look like "over-upgraded" archaic views, precombinated ones. 78.3.48.27 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you,that is surely worth of paying attention.I hope it will be soon wider accepted among historians.
Seriously, create a username so it's easy to know who I;m responding to. You need to drop the connection between haplogroup I and Goths. They have an entirely different history with millenia of gap. Ethnogenesis is a process of cultural and political consolidation, not selection of gnetically similar breeding partners.
I am not doubting that Goths had a part in Croatian history, but the so-called Gothic theory is an over-exageration. Firstly, the Goths occupied only the areas around Split to Vardar (no Goths in Slavonia or Istra). Secondly, they occupied this area from sometime after the Hun collapse (c. 450s) to their defeat by Zeno (c. 550), ie less than 1 century. Despite what the myths might state, archaeologists only see the evidence of an emergence of a "Croat" polity in the late 700s, early 800s (and this is not some bias against Croat, but same case for Serbs, Travunians, Neretvians, etc). So Given that Goths (or other ethnic groups) were not discrete biological groups, but groups who merely self-identified as such, and that the Gothic kingdom ended in mid 6th century, there can be no significant Gothic-Croat continuity: even if people who were once called Goths remained in Velebitia and contributed to the later Croat ethnos, because by then their 'Gothic' identity was essntially non-existant. Most importantly, the material culture identified in the so-called "Old Croat Culture" and the "Vijelo Brdo culture" shows no "Gothic" elements. Hxseek (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
what do you assume by 'old Croat culture'?
Hxseek (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Few cents from me. You people mix things. First, So-called "Gothic theory" initially said that Croats were the Goths. But views were different, ranging from Germanic people to Slavic people hidden under political name of the Goths. There were no too many problems with this theory, I would rather say that conservative Slavist school made a huge problem of it and it was additionally pumped up by the Serbian nationalists who stated that Croats wanted to present themselves distinctive to the Serbs. Let's make a step over it. A fact is that there are some evidences that some Slavic speakers came to the soil of Croatia in the 2nd half of the 6th century - under name of Goths and it continued in the 1st half of the 7th under name of Sclaveni.
Hxseek you wrote: Firstly, the Goths occupied only the areas around Split to Vardar (no Goths in Slavonia or Istra). Not correct. The Goths occuppied almost all Illyricum, they surely occupied all of Dalmatia. Their state in the western Balkans was "Dalmatiae et Saviae" - which means all territory of Roman Dalmatia (to the west of Drina, to central Bosnia in the north and all Classical Liburnia in the waest) plus Savia which is identical territory to Slavonia. They were also in Istria, they lost it in 634 AD I think, when the Byzantines conquered it. Zenanarh (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the supremacist crap that was added by 83.131.252.236 (talk · contribs) on July 17th. It's simply amazing that that nonsense actually managed pass through unnoticed. People, it's embarrassing to have claims such as "the word Croat is from 3750 BC" ! (not even Sumerian - the first written language, was written at that time). The so-called "Iranian theory" is so fringy that it hardly deserves mentioning, but granted how popular it became in Croatian nationalist circles, it might as well be mentioned. The only problem I have with it is there is no serious scholarly debate around it: it's only the pro side that is giving arguments. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not fringe. You words are sick! You present pro-Slavic school and that's the only thing you do here - censorship. Shame on you. Read this: [10] Every theory deserves an article, no matter how accurate or not it may be. That's what theories are all about. You are not a judge. Don't act like one. You shouln't edit Croatian articles at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.66.94 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
All supposition with little hard data. Hxseek (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Iranian theory is theory about origin of the name and origin of the proto-Croats, those who had given their name to an ethnic group that became known as Croats in Europe. Honestly, there are other much more unstabile theories around for other peoples but not such controversy hunting pressure on it and noone ask questions. There is enough material for writing an article but it must be done objectively, which means that an article should inform about theory, present evidences, but also inform about speculative side of it and a lack of hard evidence. Zenanarh (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
1.097.252 ???
217.23.205.120 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Number of Croats in Croatia is not 3,677,171, as it is written in total population box but 3.977.171 according to 2001 census, someone check this out. And it should be around 660 000 Croats in Bosnia, not 499 000, because there is 4 650 000 people in Bosnia, and 14.3 % of that number are Croats.
Hal (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add the latest Y-DNA study for Croats: http://www.unipv.eu/on-line/Home/AreaStampa/documento2986.html It is better than current because it makes analysis for whole Croatia,while the current concenrates only on northern Croatian mainland. It is nothing significantly different from the current actually,a little bit more Haplogroup I and less R1a&R1b,so i would leave the rest of the text(about Neolith haplogroups,Iranian theory,Ice age) untouched,maybe with some minor adjustments. Also,the current graph should be removed because the numbers in this one are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.167.86 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll do some little technical updates also,like numbers of haplogroup I for Croats in Bosnia etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.233.64 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added the 'Genetics' section,I think that is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.234.251 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems that by new understandings haplogroups J,E and T(not G) are Neolithic.So i'll make the corresponding changes,along the few other technical ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.247.191 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I am just suggest that in box where are famous Croats you put Blanka Vlašić, Goran Ivanišević, Janica Kostelić, Dražen Petrović, Goran Višnjić, Maksim Mrvica, Davor Šuker, Branko Lustig or some other of many famous living or recent dead Croats. Sure King Tomislav is well known to 99% Croats just like Andrija Mohorovičić or Ban Jelačić but still look at artice about Finns, Swedes or even Estonians who putted 20 people and 99.9% people out of Estonia doesn't know 3 of 20 of them. Well there are very famous Croats and we should be proud of them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.28.212 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That is quite a redundancy. All the cultures in the world are influenced by eastern ones and western ones. The question is to which culture (obviously western) Croatia and Croats belong to and belonged to. On the other hand, these concepts themselves are much to vague to be used. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article emphasizes that Croats are a "South Slavic ethnic group". However, such qualifications are rare in articles about other ethnic groups in Europe (I quote the first sentence):
Only in articles about ethnic groups speaking Slavic languages it's emphasized that they are a "Slavic people". But why is it so? It would be meaningful if there was significant interaction among those ethnic groups and some sense of a common heritage, and if there was something special about "Slavic people". But it's not really so, much less than Irish consider themselves Celtic.
dnik ► 12:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Still,that ain't a reason to specially consider Slavic speaking people as 'Slavic ethnic group'. Actually,South Slavs are probably the most mixed people in Europe,due to their geographical position and historical movements. To label a nation with such comlicated ethnical history like Croats are just as 'South Slavs' is patchy to say the least. Same goes for other South Slavs,but here we're talking about Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.225.113 (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You're clearly confused. Nobody says Slavs are physically or genetically homogeneous. But they do have (even after all the turmoils of 1990s) a feeling of ethnic commonality largely linked to linguistic similarity and belief in common origin. That's what ethnicity is - a subjective feeling of solidarity for some reason or another Hxseek (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)