Talk:Croats of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serbian Croats

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

Bunjevci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yugoslavs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assimilation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement ?

Can we agree about few facts of article:

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

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

About what has happen during Yugoslav wars we agree.

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

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

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

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

Migration

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

Merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Croats of Serbia

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

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

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

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