Talk:Croats/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Croats in Argentina

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

Croatian upper estimate

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)

Are you an idiot, or do you enjoy pissing people off? The number of Croatian citizens abroad are not counted twice. The number is estimated this large because it counts all people who have at least partial Croat ancestry (people such as myself since I am half Croat). - King Ivan 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking, as most blind nationalists don't. Look at what the source says. "4.5 million Croats live abroad." This does NOT mean that we can simply add 4.5 million to the population of the coutnry of Croatia and get a random number. In the 4.5 million abroad inclue literally hundreds of thousands of people who are simply working abroad and are counted TWICE in the population abroad and the Croatian census. Furthermore, the other source, is from an ethnologue report. I don't need to reiterate for the billionth time what that means. Horvat Den 08:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You really are a troll aren't you. This page is about an ethnic group, NOT people who are merely citizens of Croatia regardless of ethnicity, so you're argument about foreign workers is flawed since there are Croatian citizens who aren't Croats who live abroad. Also, you really need to learn how to speak English properly since it is hard to communicate with you. - King Ivan 08:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, please keep WP:CIVIL. I addressed the issue on my talk page once before. If one counts just the censuses and estimate numbers abroad (without Croatia and BiH), the figure is around 1.2 mil, which summed up gives 5.7 mil, roughly corresponding with Ethnologue's guesstimate of 6.2 for Croatian speakers. Like Ivan said, the remainder is attributed to persons of Croatian ancestry, chiefly in the New World—while many abroad workers in Western Europe tend to return to the country, those from New World practically always stay there.

The phenomenon of double counting, to which Den tries to attribute the number inflation, perhaps exists, but it's not so statistically significant. Take Austria (page 7) as example: counting together, there is total of 45,000 Burgenland- and "mainland"-Croats of Austrian citizenship but 105,000 Ausländer. However, I'm not sure if Croatian census takes those into account at all. There might be a "double counting" error of 100-300,000 but, taking into account fuzziness of the numbers, it hardly matters. The number of Croatian citizens residing outside of Europe is very small, so that the "double counting" hardly can contribute to the numbers.

I see that Croatian Emmigrant Adresary [1] have updated their site since the reference was added (ref 23 updated by myself), and addresses the issue "hitting the nail":

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.

I'm lazy to translate it at the moment, but I'm willing to if requested. Duja► 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Duja, I appreciate your input, but one must think about this for a moment. Where would the 4 million Croats be!? There's 300,000 or so in the USA and 500,000 in Germany and probably AT MOST 500,000 in Australia. That still leaves over 2 million! So the double counting (or the counting of nonethnic Croats) is definitely not negligible. Horvat Den 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Serb from Croatia living in Canada. I have been counted as a Croatian in the Canadian census because my passport states that i was born in Croatia. Thus, my "place of origin" is Croatia. Is there a way to remove people such as myself for being included as a Croatian? since we clearly are not Croatian, based on our different cultures. And also based on the divergence of Serbian and Croatian history in the last 18 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

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)

A Macek is even more controversial personality than Tudjman, considering he is not an ethnic Croat at all. --PaxEquilibrium 23:45, 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.

Afrika, like I said - Vladko Macek was a Croatian patriot/nationalist, regardless of the fact that he's not an "ethnic" Croat. His father was Slovene and mother Czech. --PaxEquilibrium 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Iranian theory

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)

Diaspora is not the correct word

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)

No, a diaspora does not just include people who have been forced to leave their homeland, but also people who have left by choice and the descendant of those who have left —KingIvan 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan, please read the definition of diaspora (see my quote from Wikipedia above). Osli73 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says "forced or induced" - meaning they don't have to be forced to leave, but were "induced" into leaving for economic reasons and so on. —KingIvan 08:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

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)

Well, I think he's a pretty good example of the Croat diaspora, but if you truly do believe he shouldn't be included, you could edit the image and replace him with someone else - it's a free image. (I pretty much added him to the image, because I thought it was a bit dull in all black and white, and he was one of the few I could find a free colour image for). —KingIvan 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We should place Nikola Tesla on the images.

I agree. Not only this but could someone tell me who is the person in the first picture? I don't recognize it. Also the 'King Tomislav' picture is of very bad quality, there are images of far better quality such as this http://www.croatianhistory.net/gif/krek24.jpg (painting of Kreković) or a better scan of current picture http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-3/1157859/tomislav.jpg

Anyway I think there are people who deserve to be up there far more, people like nobel prize winners Prelog and Ružička. People like Penkala, Gundulić, Bošković...

Also I looked on Google and I have found better quality images for Vrančić http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/Image/Bastina/Portreti%20autora/vrancic-portret(1).jpg http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/Image/Bastina/Portreti%20autora/vrancic-portret.jpg, Meštrović (portrait of his when he was younger) http://www.mdc.hr/mestrovic/grafika/fundacija/media/aktivnosti/izlozbena/04-ivan-mestrovic-gtdr.jpg

In the end I think the best composite should be made of: Jelačić, Gundulić, Bošković, Ružička, Prelog, Mohorvičić, Vrančić, Meštrović. I don't know about Klović, but maybe he could be squeezed in as well, maybe making a composite of ten people, like 5 upper and lower line instead of four with a bit smaller sized images. --Tar-Elenion 17:18, 14 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 we should put Goran Višnjić in place of Bana. In my opinion, we should stick to just Croats with ties to Croatia (i.e. more than just ethnicity.) Like Penkala is not an ethnic Croat, yet he represents Croatia more than Bana (who is seen as more Australian). And same with Tesla (who has more ties to Serbia than Croatia) so he shouldn't be there either. I don't know how to change the pictures, but if someone agrees with me, than please do. --Jesuislafete 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll replace Bana with Višnjić if you can provide a free/public domain image of him. I currently cannot find a free image of him, but if you can, please direct me to it and I'll add him. —KingIvan 06:59, 17 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)

Yeah, it probably should be cut down to no more than six. I think the following should stay:

• Ivan Gundulić
• King Tomislav
• Ivan Meštrović
• Miroslav Krleža
• Josip Jelačić
• Andrija Mohorovičić

If no one disagrees with this, I'll make the change. —KingIvan 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I also agree that we have too many people up there as it is. But I would suggest removing King Tomislav from your list and leaving Faust Vrančić. Tar-Elenion 11:02, 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)

Women

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)

Your conclusion of alleged "misoginy" is based on fallacious reasoning. It is not Croat, Eastern European or the rest of the world's problem that for every distinguished women in an arbitrary discipline of human creativity there are at least ten other men whose contribution is just outright more valuable. Just look at the m:f proportion at the list of Nobel prizes for scientific disciplines (i.e. non-political ones), winners of Turing award, Fields medal, H-index etc (even non-scientific disciplines like art, cooking, design..all dominated by men). Sorry but substituting e.g. plainly superior writers like Krleža or Gundulić with mediocre ones like I. B. Mažuranić or M. J. Zagorka just because they are female is not an option. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article on Serbs there is one woman in the picture (Nadežda Petrović). I guess You haven't noticed that. And I think there should be at last one woman in the Croatian picture, too. I propose Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić. The only problem is that there is no picture of her in Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and it doesn't invalidate what I wrote above in either way. Once again: dropping the greatest Slavic Baroque poet or the greatest Croatian writer of the 20th century in favour of some mediocre paganic storyteller for infants like I.B.M. just because there "appears to be lack of women" should not be an option. Unless, of course, there is some wikipedia policy for positive discrimination (which I doubt ^_^). It is not our fault that historically men outdo women in intellectual achievements of various kinds. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

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)

17.85% Croat

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)

Why is there...

... 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)

Twice

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)

Croats in France, why no mention?

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)

Number of Croats

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)

We must write this step by step. Number of Croats in Croatia is 3977171 [2] . Number of Croats outside Croatia and Bosnia is 4.5 milion [3]. Now I only need number of Croats in Bosnia and we will have final number.--Rjecina (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So, so far that is around 8.5 million? Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.70.74 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If we want to trust CIA site number of Croats is 14.4 % out of 4,590,310 [4] . This number is 656,414 Croats.

Croatia:3,977,171

Bosnia : 656,414

World :4,500,000

---

         9,133,585

We can write 9 millions and delete smaller number ?!--Rjecina (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah I agree to that. Although, I bet a million dollars that within a week, at least one nationalist vandal will come here and try to change that number even though it is sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.70.74 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed several problems with the population numbers in different countries. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:10, 4 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) 11:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Croat" and "Hrvati"

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)

Not easily, it needs separate article rather. There are a few theories, not possible to write it in a few sentences. Zenanarh (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

However, something is already mentioned here - Iranian theory, probably the most convincing one. There was an article about Croatian origins where this theory was presented almost in a whole. Unfortunatally that article was deleted, for a very stupid reason: some other theories were blanked first and not editted again, so someone deleted it all. Zenanarh (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely that's a slightly different issue, though? Badagnani is referring to the etymology of the word 'Croat', not the origins of Croats as a group (although they will obviously be linked). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I know what etymology is ;) Iranian theory is actually etymology in the most important part, isn't it?

SaRasVATi (Sanskrit, 3.750 BC), H(A)RahVAiTi - AuRVAT - HARVAT (Zend-Avestan), HuRaVAT (Aryan-Hurrian), ARaQuUTtu (Assyrian, spoken Arvat), ARroMATi - HaRrauMATiš - ARraoVATiš - H(A)RruMATiš (Elamite), H(A)RauVATiš - H(A)RauVATaiia - H(A)RahVATiš - H(A)RauVATiya - H(A)RauVATim - ARruVAuTti - H(A)RraoVATiš (Old-Persian), ARUhaATtu i ARrahUTti (Akkad-Babylonian, spoken H(A)RVAT and HRVAT), HRUhATti (Aramaic), HoRoHoAD (1st century from HoRohVAT), ARiVATes and ARViATes (Latin pre-forms, 1st century), HORoUAThos and HOROAThos (Tanais, 2nd/3th century) CHROATorum (document by king Trpimir I, 852), CRUATorum (Šopot, 9th century), HRoBAToi: read HrOVAToi (DAI), HARVAT - HORVAT - HRVAT (modern forms).

according to the Iranian theory (about name not about people!). Zenanarh (talk) 07:50, 26 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)

I thought that 'Croat' was a corruption of 'Hrvat' (think also cravat) but I don't have a reference for that. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This would seem highly likely. It should be addressed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This online etymology dictionary states:

Croat

see cravat.

cravat

1656, from Fr. cravate, from Cravate "Croatian," from Ger. Krabate, from Serbo-Croat Hrvat "a Croat," from O.Slav. Churvatinu "Croat," lit. "mountaineer, highlander," from churva "mountain" (cf. Rus. khrebet "mountain chain"). Cravats came into fashion 1650s in imitation of linen scarves worn by Croatian mercenaries in the French army in the Thirty Years War.

Cordless Larry (talk) 23:05, 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)

• I wrote an article on that: Name of Croatia, whose name fits in other "country name etymology" articles here on Wikipedia. Ethnicon is almost 100% of Iranian origin, for a thorough linguistic discussion on it see in the ==External links== section an excerpt from Gołąb's book posted on Cybalist by someone that deals specifically with this issue (and proposes some alt. explanations). That article needs more work though. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not link this Name of Croatia article more clearly in the Croatia and Croat articles? It's basic information that should be easily found in these articles. Badagnani (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've linked it from this article, feel free to add it to [[Croatia]]. Perhaps the template {main} would be more convenient. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:51, 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)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian British. Badagnani (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Famous Croats?

Why was picture of famous Croats removed?

It got deleted [5] so someone removed it from the infobox. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked an admin to restore the image so I could fix the fair use rationales. At the end I had to drop Vladimir Prelog and Ivan Meštrović because their photos lacked a source. Please find the source or find a new image with a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrija Mohorovičić and Miroslav Krleža have also been dropped because you can't use non-free images in a gallery. If someone can find some free image of them.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a public domain image of Andrija Mohorovičić.Frvernchanezzz (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added. Thank you very much. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

9 milion croats world wide?

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)

Check the sources used for calculation, and see the previous discussion on the subject - basically, there are around 4.5 million Croats in Croatia/Bosnia-Herzegovina, and 4.5 million elsewhere. Also, please understand, this is only an estimate, some of the census data is out of date, and not every country with Croat populations is listed there as reliable sources have currently not been found for those. 58.169.162.12 (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In reply to 94.189.236.166: using your numbers you probably get less than 7 million, but where did you get those numbers from? If there is an official census saying that there are 450.000 croats in a country, then you can't go and say that there are really only 250.000 without saying where the heck you got that 250k number, understood? Numbers don't appear from thin air, you didn't count them personally, you must be getting those numbers from somewhere. No more changes without giving a goddamned source. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers are from official census from various countries. You can't just "estemate" that there are 2 million croatians more. If you calculate numbers from official census from croatia, bosnia, USA, germany, australia, austria, switzerland, argentina, serbia, chile, france, slovenia... you get less then 7 million. Now besides those countries, there are NO other countries with high croatian population. You can't just "estimate" that there are 2 million more. I mean where do they live? In africa? On north pole? Where? Besides countries that I mentioned, there are no other countries with high croatian population. You can get maybe 100 000 from rest of the world, and that's about it. 2 million? HA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.236.166 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 March 2009

Then cited what damned official census that you are using, because in edits like this one I can see how the numbers are changed to numbers that are not on the official census cited in the sources (USA, Serbia and Montenegro), with some official census being removed at the same time as the numbers are changed (entries for Germany, Austria and Australia). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 18 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)

If you really want to change total number of Croats you need to look if Croatian World Congress is reliable source. If answer will be no, then total number will be changed.--Rjecina (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

9 million Croats or of partial Croatian descent? Does it go by ethnic Croats or from the nation of Croatia? I suppose the Croatian people have settled farther away from their homeland, the Burgenland Croats of Austria, Krashovans of Romania, Bay-of-Kotor (in Montenegro), Slavonia Croats (also in Hungary), Harvates of Slovakia, Czechian Croats, Carso Croats of Italy, and the Esterreichers (mainly Bosniaks, but may include Croatian-Bosnian) in the former German & Austrian empires. Croatian immigration has increased into Italy, Spain and Portugal in the 2000's, although more persons of Croatian descent are in France, Germany, Sweden and the UK from previous decades of emigration in the 1960's period. One famous Croatian or Serbian according to many biographers or authorities is Nikola Tesla, the electromagnetic scientist of the turn of the 20th century may either be Serbian or Croatian by nationality. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

He's back as 114.76.205.60 (talk · contribs). Any further changes of population numbers without a source should be reverted at sight, and the IPs blocked as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 9 June 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)

Nation and People

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.

Merriam Webster

Cambridge online

Brüder Grimm

Coldipa (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

From Archive page 1. Croatians of Russia?

<< 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 Krashovans of Wallachia, 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)

DNA results

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)

this edit looks like it's replacing content with text that is copy/pasted from a research paper (line breaks that result from copy/pasting and wordings like "Our latest study indicated" or "Based on (...) we suggest"). You have to summarize the conclusions in your own words instead of repeating what they say.

The studies that only use mainland DNA are making conclusions on who inhabitated the mainland, not on who inhabitated the islands. Please add a paragraph below them with your study[6] explaining what it concludes about the population, instead of removing the whole thing because it lacks one study. And explain what proportions the DNA has when the island's DNA are added. And try a non-controversial approach and wait a few days so other editors have the opportunity to integrate your study into the text, or to comment here. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 22 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)

I've reverted your edit to the introduction. Strictly speaking, "genetic origin" has very little to do with ethnicity. Ethnicity is about culture, religion, customs, cuisine, and language - so by this definition, Croats are South Slav no matter how you look at it.

I left you other edits in tact for now, but you really should add a reliable source for your additions. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 04:06, 18 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)

Actually, if you read those articles properly, Dutch and Austrians are mentioned as Germanic people - and this doesn't even have anything to do with this article anyway, because you cannot use the argument "but this other article is like this" on Wikipedia.

Language is the single most important definign characteristic of an ethnic group, but apart from this, you'd be hard pressed to find anything about Croat culture that is entirely different to anything from other South Slavic people. Same goes for cuisine, religion and customs - nothing entirely different to other South Slavs. This whole silly notion that Croats are not Slavs needs to stop. Croats are Slavs. Get over it. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:10, 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)

Hilarious that you call me "furious" - it's actually quite clear that you're just another in the long line of nationalist POV warriors who want to distance Croats from other Slavs in an attempt to make them seem "superior". Edits such as these will not stand. No credible person would ever say that Croats are not South Slavs, and you will not find any reliable sources to support your claims.

You say you just want to "emphasize that Croats are an ethnic group" - Well, maybe you didn't realise, but this is an "ethnic group" article, so yeah it's pretty obvious that Croats are an ethnic group. And apart from this obvious fact, the lead does state that Croats are an ethnic group - one of the South Slavic ethnic groups. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:23, 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)

You don't have any arguments here at all. I have explained to you that you cannot use the argument "X article is like this, so Y article has to be like this". It is a logical fallacy and is unacceptable on Wikipedia. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the introduction (by the way, it's called an introduction, not a prologue). It is 100% neutral, verified, and accurate. You wish to change it to a biased version that seeks to deceive readers into believing radical fringe theories.

Like I said, the current introduction is sufficient, neutral, and accurate, and your POV edits will not stand. I will not discuss this further, as the point has been made. Any more biased/dubious edits will be reverted on sight. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:38, 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)

User 78... is right about genetic researches, mainland results show distribution of HGs only for about 50-60% of Cro population. But it's wrong to say that Croats are not South Slavs, they are - they are speakers of South Slavic language - Croatian. A Slav means a speaker of Slavic language as well as a South Slav means a speaker of a South Slavic language, but nothing more. There's no some unique Slavic culture as well as there's no some unique South Slavic culture. It's known that all South Slavs are the mostly autocthonous population linguistically assimilated to become "Slavs", by a number of proto-Slavic speaking newcomers in the early Medieval who organized domestic populations into small political unions. So modern South Slavs truely are people with different roots, but also other Slavs are. Even back in those times proto-Slavic speakers coming from the north were not members of some recognized Slavic ethnos. Nothing similar ever existed. They were people of different ethnic roots who used the same lingua franca - proto-Slavic language - for easier mutual communication. Being a Slav says nothing about the roots, it's something about the language. And Croats ARE an ethnic group, what else they can be? Economical association? 78.0.130.50 (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be emphasized that only binding thing for all the modern-day self-styled Croats is the language (and the associated cultural traits). If you take "roots" (genetic inheritance) into account, there is a great deal of variation among various regions of present-day Croatia. Those ancient pre-Slavic people that were subsequently Slavicized eventually reinvented their own identity by means of linguistic self-identification (the word Slav itself originally means "that who speaks like we do", or našijenac in SC ;). There was no "Gothic" or "Iranian" cultural element present after the Slavicization of Illyricum. Romance-speaking enclaves followed the same footsteps, but at somewhat slower rate. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:36, 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.

Oh please for god's sake, give us a break! It's so obvious that you are the same person as the one for which you're saying that he "makes a good point". I mean, couldn't you change your writing-style, just a tiny bit?? --Wayfarer-Talk | July 27, 2009 | 03:10 GMT —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

he has very furious and frustrated style.you give impression of a decent person,at least on the main page of discussion:)

Tuone Udaina was the last speaker of Dalmatian and he died in 1898. However, these are isolated insular cases - large Romance-speaking cities like Dubrovnik, Zadar and Split (which became the point of confluence of Romanized population that escaped incoming waves of Slavicization) became basically completely Slavicized by the 14th-16th century, and their respective Dalmatian language dialect went extinct. At least according to the traditional doctrine ;) The important point to note is that the collective influence of Romance-language substratum onto the Croatian ethnogenesis is in practice infinitesimal. From the earliest written records Croats identified themselves with Slavs (even founded the Panslavism movement, not to mention its famous later incarnations like the Illyrian movement). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They were also mentioned as Goths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that no Gothic speaker ever called himself "Croat" --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:16, 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)

Please keep cool. Do not disrupt wikipedia with attacks and uncivilly. Thank you, ZooFari 07:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious that you have the audacity to label anyone else as "racist". You sir, are the biggest idiot I have ever come accross on Wikipedia; and believe me when i say I've seen a lot of them.

It is plain to see that Croats are South Slavic - this is an indisputable fact regardless of genetic origin. Do you dispute this? If you do, then please find a reliable source to support your ridiculous claims, and discuss it here. But do not continue to revert the article over and over. Can you not see that your edit will not stand? Can you not see that Croats are South Slavs? If not, then you should seriously reconsider being a part of this project.

And for the record, I am a Bosnian Croat, who is proud of my Slavic roots. You are just brainwashed by Nazi/Ustasa propaganda. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 07:32, 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.

Again, please cease mentioning other articles here - this discussion is about Croats and nothing else. You cannot use the argument "X article is like this, so Y article should be like this too". There is no reason not to include it, and it is relevant, accurate, verified, and adds to the content of the article - which clearly meets the goal of Wikipedia. To remove "South Slavs" from the lead sentence is to reduce the quality of the article, and defeat the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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. You are incorrect, sir. It is simple and logical to keep South Slavic there. Having it there is a simple way of giving the article a general overview of what the article is about. To remove it is detrimental for the article, is unnecessary, confusing, and illogical. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have told you time and time again, yet it's like talking to a brick wall - you cannot use the argument "X-article is like this, so Y-article should be like this too" - so stop saying "other articles don't have it" because that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Okay, just stop, and try to bring up a real argument.

Can you see how you're just causing trouble, and you're just diminishing the quality of the article? I'll put in simple terms, for a simpleton like yourself - what you are doing is removing information; the point of the Wikipedia project is to add information. Please just accept that the introduction will continue to have South Slavs in it, as it is verified, accurate, neutral, and improves the article. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, let's settle this. Do not modify the article again. You two have gone through a long violation in 3RR, so you are in risk of being blocked. I did some research and it appears that "South Slavic" is indeed relevant. Please explain to me, without attacks or being uncivil, why you want "ethnic group" instead... ZooFari 07:53, 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)

No one is confusing ethnicity with linguistic group. You, on the other hand, are confusing ethnicity with genetic roots - the two are related, but not mutually exchangeable. Please have a read through the article Ethnicity, and you'll learn that a person's ethnicity is determined by language and culture, not by genetic origin. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 08:06, 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)

I knew that you'd bring up this subject - you people always do, and you always fail. Let me tell you why you're so wrong. Number one, Americans are not an ethnic group and are not considered Germanic.

In a way, I'm glad you brought up the United States, as it helps me illustrate my point. Let's say for example, 250 years ago, a group of Irish people went to America. Over time, they adopted the customs, language, and culture of their new home. While they are still genetically Irish, the descendant of those settlers are seen as Americans, since they have been assimilated into another group, and now share their language, culture and customs.

This is the case with Croats. Goths, Illyrians, Slavs, Celts, and whole lot of different genetic groups became assimilated into the South Slavic people by adopting their culture and language. As I said, genetics are related, but they are not the most important factor. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 08:18, 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)

Perhaps you need to read this. South Slavs have genetic roots itself, which have nothing to do with the ethnicity in general. ZooFari 08:25, 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.

Look, I think your problem is you don't seem to have a very good understanding of English, therefore you misinterpret everything. The meaning of that sentence is that they are presumed to have a common heritage culturally, linguistically, or biologically, whether it is actually true or not. This means that ethnicity is decided on common factors going back generations including language, religion and biology - and all Slavs share a common cultural and linguistic heritage.

"Slavs" is a meta-ethnic group, meaning it's a large general term used to describe a set of related, but different people. "Croats" is the specific ethnic group, and "South Slavs" is the intermediary. For example-

in music - Rock music > Heavy metal music > Thrash metal

in language - Indo-European language > Germanic language > Swedish language

in geography - Country > State > City

It is like that with ethnic groups as well - there is a larger, all encompassing terms used to include smaller, more specific terms, i.e, Slavs > South Slavs > Croats. If you can't understand this concept, well, then you should learn a bit more before editing. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

After reading through all your responses, including this latest one, I conclude you are either one of two things:-

• You are a brilliant internet troll who is deliberately acting like an idiot in order to cause distress
• OR, you actually are a huge idiot. This has been explained to you over and over again BUT YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. I even used simple terms and example to help with your mental handicap, but you still post the same shit again, and again.

I will no longer discuss with you, and instead I will just revert any edit of yours on sight. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 08:46, 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.

No.

There is no Slavic ethnic group,only linguistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No.

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)

No.

Come on people your discussion is stupid. Actually 78.3... is right on a piece what should be written in the lead. Italians are an ethnic group, it's not neccessary to say it's Latin ethnic group, or that Englishmen are Anglo-Saxon ethnic group, or that Germans are Germanic ethnic group, etc. There are sections about culture, language, etc in every of these articles. BTW what makes an ethnic group is not just language or language family group. If every adjective describing what kind of ethnic group Croats are, there should be written that Croats are X, Y, Z, G, K, L, S, T ethnic group, which is absolutely stupid!!! That's exactly reason why the other ethnic groups in wikipedia are not described by language family group in the lead. It seems that in the Balkans everything must be politicized to the highest level, to the point of absurd and joke. If there will be an article about me in an encyclopedia, in the lead it should be written that I'm a human being, and not that I'm a human being with caries on tooth 6 down left, but later in the text it could be mentioned that there's bad smell coming from my mouth. 78.0.130.50 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No. He is wrong on all counts. Also, as had been said, do not bring other articles into the discussion over this article. His viewpoint is formed by neo-Nazi/Ustasa propaganda, and his racism will not be tolerated here. Also, you are clearly a sockpuppet of his - you share similar IPs, come from the same location, you just jumped straight into the argument with the exact same argument, typing the exact same horseshit that he is spouting. Be advised sockpuppetry is against Wikipedia policy and can lead to your banning. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 09:38, 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)

124.185... don't be silly. I'm 78.0. He's 78.3. We obviously both use the same provider T-com ADSL and probably live in the same region of Croatia. I was just following your discussion and noticed that you don't have capacity to understand simple and logical argument given by 78.3. But I don't agree with him/her about controversy of Croatian South Slavism. It's even more stupid than lack of healthy thinking from your side. And I don't like people who bring ustase and nationalism into discussion for no reason, using it just as tool to discredit the other side. That's real throlling behaviour. 78.0.144.35 (talk) 11:32, 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)

LOL What drugs are you using? Something chemical? Do you always use the same tactic to make a mess of some discussion, like with your comment previous to this mine. Instead of showing your knowledge of Wiki policies, try to use arguments in discussion to achieve something. And read your comments here, compare it to these policies. 78.0.144.35 (talk) 12:50, 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)

Croats and Goths

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.

No it didn't. You clearly lack any knowledge of genetics, sorry. The Balkan haplogroup , I2, arose over 15, 000 years ago. It was not brought in by the Goths. It had always been there since the very first colonization of Europe.

You're treatment of sources lacks basic education, and yes, they're certainly worth debating. Do you not know anything about appraisal of sources. And obviously you don;t know that the Chronicle of Priest of Doclea based his myths on the account of Thomas the ArchDeacon. So it's really one source. You can;t just take things at face value. Otherwise, we all really came from Adam and Eve.

I'm not saying that there weren't a few Goths around that were Slavicized, but to say that Croats are descended from Goths is far, far fetched. You just make yourself sound like a fool.

Hxseek (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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'?

An archaeological culture is an area whereby artefacts appear to share enough similarity that it might be reflective of common economic, social, cultural and religious traditions between the communities living within it. In the past it was simply equated with 'tribes', but the case is far more complex. In any case, the "Old Croat culture" is in Velebitia and northern Dalmatia where Curta believes is the archaeological reflection of the "Croats". Is he (as have other authors) claim that the Croats were a community of nobles (ie Branimir and his zhupans) who ruled over other 'Slavs', Latins, etc in the region, and consolidated into a country- "Croatia". This culture shows Carolingian, Avar and Byzantine influences, dated to c. 800 AD. [9]

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)

Iranian theory

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)

That is hardly a reliable source. The only 'hard evidence' is that the "Croat" ethnonym is proposed to be possibly Iranic. Yes, there was a smattering of Iranians in the Balkans, and mixed in with Avars and Slavs, and that somehow such an ethonym survived. But otherwise, there is no literary or archaeological evidence, confirming a direct Iranic-Croat relationship anything over and above the recognised early Iranic-Slavic contacts. The irony is, whilst this theory is presented in quite a few reliable sources, Croat nationalists have used it to differentiate themselves fromother SLavs, especially Serbs. But Serb is also proposed to be Iranic, and perhaps Croat and Serb are cognates Hxseek (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There might be some connections of Croats and Iranians, but it's very hard to prove. There could be some names containing H-O/U-R-A-T, but it's perfectly possible that they don't have anything with Croats. But there's another problem. What in culture and organization of the old Croatian state could be linked to Iran? Did Croats get anything but a name? What kind of origin is that?

The article (an interview with Mr. Ivan Biondić) you sent a link to says "Tako je nedvojbeno ustanovljeno spomenicima, materijalnom kulturom, vjerskim temeljnim zasadama, obicajima i rijecima, pa i graditeljstvom, da je hrvatski praiskon protoiranski" (therefore it is undoubtedly proven by means of monuments, material culture, basic religious foundations, customs and words, and even architecture, that the Croatian origin is a Protoiranian one" — but what are the proofs? If there are some, I would be glad to read about them. Please, list quotable literature here. dnik ► 12:36, 13 October 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)

Number of Croats in Bosnia

1.097.252 ???

217.23.205.120 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of Croats in Croatia

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)

Don't worry about that - a couple of IP vandals had been going around decreasing populations on certain ethnic groups while increasing population figures on the group they belong to. This sort of vandalism is common and is usually reverted quickly. 124.187.54.153 (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New Y-DNA study for Croats

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)

famous Croats

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)

The selection is not ideal IMO, certainly people from Category:High-importance Croatia articles might be the candidates, and also perhaps Josip Broz Tito. GregorB (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by eastern world and western world

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)

Emphasizing 'south Slavic'

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):

• "Austrians (German: Österreicher) are a nation[9] and an ethnic group[2] originating from the Republic of Austria and its historical predecessor states (March of Austria, Archduchy of Austria, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Republic of German Austria) who share a common Austrian culture and Austrian descent."
• The Dutch people (Dutch: Nederlanders (help·info)) are the dominant ethnic group of the Netherlands.
• Danish people are a nation and ethnic group native to Denmark, who speak Danish. This includes people with a Danish ancestral or ethnic identity, whether living in Denmark, emigrants, or the descendants of emigrants, eg: the Danish ethnic minority in Southern Schleswig, a former Danish province.
• The English (from Old English: Englisc) are a nation and ethnic group native to England, who speak English. The English identity as a people is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Anglecynn.
• The terms Finns and Finnish people (Finnish: suomalaiset, Swedish: finnar (ethnic Finns), finländare (citizens of Finland)) are used in English to mean "a native or inhabitant of Finland". They are also used to refer to the ethnic group historically associated with Finland or Fennoscandia, and they are only used in that sense here.
• The German people (German: Deutsche) are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common German culture, descent, and speaking the German language as a mother tongue.
• The Greeks (Greek: Έλληνες, IPA: [ˈe̞line̞s]), also known as Hellenes, are a nation and ethnic group native to Greece, Cyprus and neighbouring regions, who can also be found in diaspora communities around the world.
• Hungarians (in Hungarian: magyarok) are an ethnic group primarily associated with Hungary.
• The Italian people (Italian: italiani) are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common Italian culture, descent, and speaking the Italian language as a mother tongue.
• The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann, na hÉireannaigh, na Gaeil) are a Western European ethnic group who originate in Ireland, in north western Europe.
• The Russian people (русские, russkiye) are an ethnic group of the East Slavic peoples, primarily living in Russia and neighboring countries.
• Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a Scandinavian people, mostly inhabiting Sweden and the other Nordic countries, with descendants living in a number of countries.

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)

Uhm, Panslavism (de facto founded by Croats), Illyrian movement, Yugoslavia...? Slavism has been an essential part of Croatian cultural identity throughout the centuries, and neglecting it would be nothing short of perverting history. Slavic peoples have been historically much more "close" than other nations of Europe, speak very close languages/dialects (or the same languages, as is the case with Croats speaking Serbo-Croatian, also spoken by at least 3 other nations) and live on closely-compacted neighboring territory (or intermixed territory, e.g. Croats in B&H).

Also, not mentioning it could be interpreted as succumbing to nationalist FUDs that emerged during the NDH and 1990s, of Croats being Germanic or Iranian people, or that the identification of Croats with Slavs is on equal scale with the identification with some other ethnical groupings, which is hardly the case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:39, 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)