Talk:Bunjevci/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sub-group Bunjevci ethnic Croats

• Croats sub group of Vojvodina; (bunjevci and šokci).
• Population census Vojvodina 1953.-2002. and serbian chauvinisim http://www.hrz.hr/aktualno/zivic.htm
• Real Croats sub-group bunjevci; http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.172.39 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From 1910 to 1918 Vojvodina was part of Hungarian Kingdom (Austro-Hungary Empire).

From 1918 to 1941 Vojvodina was part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia (also of the Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia), at some point there was a gallantly assigned Croat Banovina which included Croatia, also some parts of Vojvodina and Bosnia.

From 1941 to 1944 Vojvodina was divided between Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia and pro-Axis Hungary. During the WW II, the Serbian population suffered mass killings in Croat controlled territories, based on religious grounds.

Most ethnic Germans run out of Vojvodina as the Red Army was approaching. The Red Army entered Yugoslavia from the east to liberate Belgrade then parted north to Hungary.

From 1945 to 1980 Josip Broz Tito regime had the "weak Serbia - strong Yugoslavia" policy. Broz himself was a Croat. During the period some people was resettled from Bosnia to Vojvodina. Also, the Bunjevci were not allowed to declare themselves as such. Nowdays they declare themselves as Bunjevci, not as Croats.

Lies. First of all, Tito may have been of Croat and Sloven origin, but he was burried in Belgrade where he belongs. Don't fool yourself, Serbia benefited from being in Yugoslavia more than any of the other republiks. If you didn't notice, it was Croatia that had been trying to get out of the union and Serbia trying to keep them in it. Secondly, I personally know many Bunjevci back home who consider themselves Croats first but only declare Bunjevci nationality to avoid Serb aggression. If you took away the option of Bunjevci from the census, I guarenteed you that most would identify as Croats and the rest as maybe "other" (certainly not Serbs). All Serbia is doing by keeping the option on the census is trying to erase Croatian roots and history from Serbia (don't forget, Croatia once reached as far as Belgrade).207.236.177.82 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

From 1980 to 1990 was a relatively peaceful time.

In 1990 there were constitutional changes in Vojvodina where the Serbs are around 65% of the population.

In 1991, the Yugoslav Army tried to prevent the break up of the country as it was bond by the constitution. Eastern Slavonia, now Croatia, borders with Vojvodina.

From 1991 to today, some Serbs expelled from Croatia (1995) and Kosovo and Metohija (1999-) resettled in Vojvodina.

Since 1992, Yugoslavia was under economic blockade. That fact with other factors seriously damaged the economic situation. It's not impossible that some ethnic Croats have taken the decision to emigrate.

Finally, the 1910 map is probably sourced from the Austro-Hungary empire and the article is from Croatia. That countries had/have, easy to prove, anti-Serb agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.95.23 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic map region Vojvodina 1910. and 2002.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ethnic_1910_V.png
• http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4-gfZD_UncM/R6SOy9BHYNI/AAAAAAAAAEw/qpDBNVPL13I/Vojvodinaetn.png
• http://mondediplo.com/IMG/jpg/voivodine.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.172.39 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

petition

My grandfather was a Bunjevac. He was from Lika region in what is today Croatia. All his family are Serbs of Orthodox faith. Since I positively think my grandfather would have considered unappropiate to be considered Catholic or Croat, I would ask to be possible to correct the article, to express too that some Bunjevci are Orthodox Serbs.

Thanks in advance,

Igor Sotelo Bunjevac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.92.32 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 29 July 2008

I'm sorry, but we cannot work this way. Anybody can post messages like this one above and say "my grandgrandfather was Bunjevac, all his family were Tatars or Buddhist faith, he was from Lika". That's not an argument. Wikipedia is not a forum. Sincerely, Kamarad Walter (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User Kamarad Walter, check my second last name in the previous post. The methodology used to write the article, has conducted to not completely express the reality. Therefore, I would suggest to re-check the methodology and sources.

Best Regards,

ISB.

You are right, anyone can write this message that his or her grandfather was... But please, take the census. Bunjevac people consider themselves as Serbs or just Bunjevac as well. Please, remove that it is consider or equal with Croats. If they wished to be Croats they would consider that way in the 21st cen. Some of them consider themselves as Orthodox Serbs pushed by Croats to get Roman Catholic religion. So, it is not black or white! Change it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.102.135 (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

old talk

I really don't know why I bother any more. Igor has again changed this page to favour some fictional Bunjevci that consider themselves Serbs, at the same time posting how more of them consider themselves Croats. I have listened to the leaders of both factions in an interview and the leader of the faction other than the Croat one states very clearly that they are their own ethnic group, neither Croat nor Serb. So, whatever. --Shallot 09:55, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am just staying true to the facts, no such documents refer to the Bunjevci as Croats but simply as 'Catholic Serbs' in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (German and Hungarian). Today, only a few of the Bunjevci consider themselves as Serbs, the number is unkown because they cannot be differentiated the the ORthodox Serbs in Backa. Anyways, I think the page is pretty clear and points out both sides claims while only retaining those arguments that can be supported by factual evidence not just hearsay and nationalist claims. --Igor 20:39, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Like I said, whatever, it's nonsense that they're only referred to as Catholic Serbs. I googled and read tens of definitions of where the Bunjevci came from, tens of definitions of what their origin was (Vlachs and Illyrians, too!), written both by Bunjevac common people, Bunjevac historians and by other people, from the period of 1700 until the present day. You claim to be staying true to the facts, and yet blithely remove the fact that that the Bunjevac ethnicity isn't explicated anywhere except in Vojvodina where the Serbs (mis)treat them as Catholic Serbs, or how they actually began restoring their link with the Croats ever since the latter started organizing back in the 19th century (before they also often used toponymic names, not unlike the name Bunjevac).

Accuse me of being a nationalist all you want, but at least I don't try to subtly skew the truth while pompously boasting "staying true to the facts". Pfft. I am entirely unimpressed. --Shallot 19:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Bunjevci are Croats...

It is crazy to talk about Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs just because Austro-Hungarians cald them like that. They were watching from the outside so it is quite reasonable that they would think of Bunjevci as Serbs, because it simplifies the thing. But now that Milosevic is gone Serbia should let go the talk of Bunjevci as a separate nation. I mean, most of them do think of themselfs as Croats, which is normal. There is still a large number of those that said they were Bunjevci because after so many years of living beside other nations here and away from the homeland many people are just or ashamed or scared to say that they are Croats... Just look at the language those people speak, and you will see that it is a dialect of Croatian language. And people that represent the Bunjevci nation idea are really funny. They never accepted to confront their ideas with the Croatian side. Enough said And of course... Isn't it a little bit weird that only in Vojvodina Bunjevci call themselves like that? In Croatia and Hungary there is not any similar problem with the Bunjevci group... They all do know that they are like Zagorci, Dalmatians and Istrian all part of the Croatian national body..

• Hungarians never called Bunjevci catholic Serbs; what they sometimes said is that Bunjevci and Sokci are Catholic rácok, which is not the same as saying that Bunjevci ara Catholic Serbs. Rácok was the general denomination for all subgroups of South Slavic peoples living in Hungary. Later, the term rácok became increasingly used for the Serbs. In contemporary Hungarian language, to say to anyone "you are like a rác!, it is almost insulting. It has the connotation of beeing wild, always in opposition, full of himself. The old word 'rácok' certainly had not these coonotations, since the South Slavic peoples whom the Hungarians used to call rácok, were quite well established in the country, and they often were in a higher social level than the "genuin" Hungarians themselves. Consequently, there are a lot of places in Hungary, which have in their name the word 'rác'. It meant that it is a prosperous place, and this does not always mean that the history of these settlements has anything to do with Serbs. Of course, there were many Serbs in post-Mohács Hungary, and it is higly possible that most of the places were called 'rác-something', because there were Serbs. But 'rácok' were called also other mercantile peoples, the Greeks, the Armenians, the Bulgarians, for example, and also other South Slavic peoples, including the various brances of Croats. The orthodox church in Eger, in Miskolc, or in Hódmezővásárhely, for instance, is called 'rác templom', but was not built by Serbs, but by the local Greek community, the members of which came to Hungary once for the very similar reason as the Serbs did. --Veermer-- 16:30, 29 January 2006

"Rácok was the general denomination for all subgroups of South Slavic peoples living in Hungary." This is incorrect. Rácok is Hungarian for Serbs, derived from the name of the state of Rascia, Serbia Proper. The original Serbs of the south of Hungarian Kingdom (Vojvodina, Belgrade, Macva) were Rascians, and only later the name expanded to describe all Serbs, not only from Rascia, but from Zeta (Montenegro), Bosnia, Dalmatia. Hence the German term Ratzen for Serbs. It was not a common name for all South Slavs, since the term Horvat for Croats was very well known - since 1102 Hungarians have ruled Croatia. Croats were never called Rascians. Marechiel 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• To call one Croat it was almost impossible in Habsburg Hungary, since there was practically no Croatia (the Habsburgs did not care about the rights of Croatian nation in the personalunion with Hungary), and, what is more, the Croatians started to call themselves Illirains. Now, how could have a Bunjevac possibly said that he would be a Croat, when it was not clear what is Croatia, what does it means beeing a Croat? It would have been a nonsense. But, with the establishment of national identity of the Croats, also the Bunjevci and Sokci peoples started to see towards West and South-West, rather than towards Sumadija and the mythical Kosovo. Why would have they looked towards Serbia? Furthermore, the idea of the so-called "Croatisation" of Bunjevci by the Catholic clergy does not explain this phenomenon completely. For instance, it would be an interesting research why did Bunjevci and Sokci people in the Socialistic Yugoslavia went for studies rather to the university of the Croatian capital, than to Belgrade, when Novi Sad was not an option. They lived in Serbian Republik, they spoke Serbo-Croatian, practically Serbian language, those times the Catholic Church had not a saying in this issues, Belgrade was closer, larger, perhaps also cheaper. The official belief was the complete communist brotherhood. And what was usually the case? The Bunjevac intelligentia instinctively prefered Croatia. ? This was also clear in 1971, when "cleansings" took place also in Subotica, and again, a lot of Serbian burocrats came to dirigate the local peoples. As to the present Bunjevci/Croats debate, what I see as an outsider is that many of the Bunjevci people left the Vojvodina region during the last wartimes, especially those ones who were educated, and now the Serbs offer to the traditionaly quite simple minded and benevolent Bunjevci to be "Catholic Serbs", or just Bunjevci, or Sokci. Is it a wonder that immediately after the Big-Serbian monomania these people are hesitating to call themselves what they are? What seems to be important from the Serbian point of view is that Bunjevci do not think that they are possible Croats. I wonder why? --Veermer-- 16:07, 29 January 2006

In the time you are referring to, the state of Rascia was even less known to Hungarians. Still, they persisted in calling both Catholic and Orthodox Serbs Rascians, and Croats Horvats. Marechiel 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

////////

http://www.hr/darko/etf/bunjevci.html

Dear, Panonian... Read this, and then stop telling LIES about Bunjevci, let them decide who they are... And just now the majority say that they are CROATIAN, and in 10 years time, even more will realize this obvious thruth..

Have a nice day.

Actually, you should stop reading suspicious web sites like that one. Besides that, you should see results from 2002 census in Serbia and you will see what they said they are. It is you who do not let them to decide who they are. I will remind you: in 2002 census, 20,012 citizens of Serbia declared themselves as Bunjevci. You cannot now to speculate that they are branch of somebody else, because it is not what they declared. Have a nice day you too. PANONIAN (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC1)

And what do you think than Panion, who were all the CROATS from that year census??? Maybe fallen from Mars, or actually they were BUNJEVCI, at least the Croats from the North Vojvodina?????!?!?!?!?! You cannot ignore even larger number of Bunjevci, that feal like CROATIAN!!!

The feel of that part of Bunjevci that declared themselves as Croats is already mentioned in the proper place in this article. Try to read it all, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can show you that majority of Bunjevci do not declare themselves as Croats. See Subotica article (Demographics section). In the Subotica municipality there are 16,688 declared Croats, 16,254 declared Bunjevci and 8,562 declared Yugoslavs. When you count together those Bunjevci that declare themselves as Bunjevci and Yugoslavs their number is larger than the number of those that declare themselves as Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that Bunjevci live only in Subotica????

Don't you think that there are maybe Bunjevci also in Croatia and Hungary, and what do they think they are?? So, the number of BUNJEVCI is definitely HIGHER than 20.000 in Serbia, because those who tell for themselves that are CROATIAN are also BUNJEVCI!!!

Bunjevci live mostly in the Subotica municipality and some neighbouring places. Declared Croats in other parts of Vojvodina are rather Šokci than Bunjevci. PANONIAN (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Actually, in Serbia, all 3 nationalities: Serbs, Croats and Bunjevci are recognized as a separate ethnic groups. If we have this in mind, we can say that name Bunjevci can refer to two things:

• 1. ethnic Bunjevci
• 2. a sub-group of ethnic Croats

If we talk about Bunjevci who consider themselves to be a separate nationality, they are very proud to be Bunjevci (not Croats or Serbs). In fact, maybe we can have 2 articles about Bunjevci: one about ethnic Bunjevci, and another about Croatian Bunjevci (a sub-group of Croats). User:PANONIAN

---

I inserted the Template:Ethnic Group here; the data should be worked on and at the moment it's kind of stub. By inserting the template, I do not wish to take either position. As we all know, the ethnic classification is not exact science and it's my opinion that the template is applicable event to "sub-groups" if one regards Bunjevci as such.Duja 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about 2 articles on Bunjevci; they clearly are one people and it's the issue of classification and self-determination whether they are a Croatian tribe or a separate ethnicity. There are similar uncertainties about Montenegrins and even more Vlachs of Serbia; the article mentions that in mostly NPOV manner. Duja 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, Duja, in all these cases about Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs of Serbia, the one have only to listen what Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs think about themselves. The opinions of Croatian, Serbian and Romanian nationalists who want to assimilate these peoples is irrelevant. I very well know that all these peoples claim that they are separate distinct nations, and thus we should regard them as such. The ethnicity is nothing more than a national consciousness. If somebody believe that he is Chinese, he is Chinese, if somebody believe that he is German, he is German, etc. Same thing is with Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs. If they believe that they are separate nations, that is what they are. PANONIAN (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't think the issue is entirely about self-determination. The problem comes when the group (Bunjevci, Montenegrins and Vlachs are all fine examples) does refer to themselves by a name, but they cannot decide collectively (and there are roughly equal splits in all three above-mentioned) whether the name consists a "separate ethnic group" or "a subgroup of another nation". From aside, we can pretty clearly tell whether someone is Bunjevac (in everyday sense of the word) by their name, religion, speech and lore, but what if (s)he ethnically declares as a Croat? IMO that does not make him/her less of a Bunjevac than the one who declares as ethnic Bunjevac, nor such situation would require separate articles for two groups that share pretty much everything except common self-determination.

My proposal for resolving such situation is to have one article, clearly mention the dispute in a NPOV manner and count'em all in in the Ethnic Group template, but providing separate numbers for both ethnic declarations within the template (if available). Duja 10:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

"but what if (s)he ethnically declares as a Croat?"

Well, problem is that besides declaring themselves as Bunjevci, they do not also declare themselves ONLY as Croats, but also as Yugoslavs, Magyars, Serbs, etc. The view that they declare themselves only as Bunjevci and Croats is simply not correct. If some of them declare themselves as Croats, Serbs or Yugoslavs that does not mean that ALL OF THEM are Croats, Serbs or Yugoslavs. The reason why we have this article at all is because there are people who consider themselves and declare themselves only as Bunjevci, not as Croats, Serbs, etc. But, if you want to refer to "all Bunjevci", not only those who declare themselves as such, you should see an example about population of Subotica: Hungarians (38.5%), Serbs (24.1%), Croats (11.2%), Bunjevci (11.1%), Yugoslavs (6%), Montenegrins (1%), etc. Do you think that this can show "real" number of Bunjevci? Some people argue that city population is actually composed of 60-70% Bunjevci and 25-30% Serbs, since most of these Hungarians (if not all) could be a Hungarized Bunjevci, as well as most of declared Croats and Yugoslavs are actually ethnic Bunjevci. By the 1868 data, the city population was composed of 50,000 Bunjevci, 6,000 Hungarians, 3,500 Serbs, 1,300 Jews, etc. In old Austro-Hungarians censuses, Bunjevci as well as Šokci mostly declared themselves as such, not as Croats, Serbs, Hungarians, etc. The Croat nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Croats because they speak the same ikavian dialect as Croats from Dalmatia. The Serb nationalists claim that Bunjevci are Serbs because old historical sources refered to them as a "Catholic Rascians" (Catholic Serbs). But despite all of this, fact is that Bunjevci are an distinctive nation and those Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats are exactly that (Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats), while Bunjevci are not Croats who declare themselves as Bunjevci. PANONIAN (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not even sure we disagree. I'd just make two corrections:

Well, problem is that besides declaring themselves as Bunjevci, they do not also declare themselves ONLY as Croats, but also as Yugoslavs, Magyars, Serbs, etc.

But (as far as I know), most of those who don't declare themselves as Bunjevci declare as Croats, at least in Serbia. There certainly are those who declare as Yugoslav, Magyars, Serbs but I think they're in significant minority. I stand open-minded on this until I see some relevant figures though.

But despite all of this, fact is that Bunjevci are an distinctive nation

I'd use a weaker wording here and say that Bunjevci are a distinctive group. I don't oppose your position that one should use (mostly) self-determination to distinguish a group; thus, the figure of 50,000 is probably OK, as it counts in both Bunjevci who declare as Bunjevci ethnically, and Bunjevci who feel as Bunjevci in regional/traditional sense but declare that they're ethnically something else. Those who state that they have anything to do with "Bunjevci" should not be counted in. Whether Bunjevci are a distinct ethnic group is under dispute among Bunjevci themselves -- THAT makes a difference. If it weren't so, Croatian and Serbian nationalist views could be neglected (and only mentioned as a side note in the article). Certainly, the position of the ones who do declare as ethnical Bunjevci must be respected and "separate ethnic group" right assigned; however, the position of the other group must be mentioned as well. Duja 09:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. If you refer to the figures I inserted in the template, feel free to change them as you see fit. Thus, I propose the count for Serbia should be something like (50,000 est. [20,000 declare as Bunjevci], [20,000 as Croats]). But I don't have actual figures, especially for Hungary. Duja 09:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

What I mainly object here is listing Bunjevci as a subgroup of Croats. You are right that this issue is not entirely about self-determination, but the ethnic origin of Bunjevci is also part of the problem. It is not certain whether ancestors of Bunjevci were ethnic Croats or Serbs. I have a book "Bunjevci" (Novi Sad - Sombor, 1998), written by Alba M. Kuntić, who was Bunjevac himself. According to his research, Bunjevci are descendants of Orthodox Serbs who converted to Catholic religion (The Hungarian sources also mention Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs). Also, according to some Croats, Bunjevci are descendants of Croats from Dalmatia. Since their origin is disputed, we simply cannot claim that Bunjevci are a subgroup of Croats or a subgroup of Serbs. The proper scientific manner is to treat them as a separate people, as many of them think about themselves. Despite their origin (Serb or Croat), in the Austro-Hungarian censuses they always declared themselves as Bunjevci, not as Croats or Serbs. The Vojvodinian assembly, which voted to join Vojvodina to Serbia in 1918 was officially named "the assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and other Slavs of Banat, Bačka and Baranja". So, only Serbs and Bunjevci are individually mentioned here as a nations, not Croats, who were here classified as "other Slavs", together with Slovaks, Rusins, etc. Only in Yugoslavia Bunjevci started to declare themselves as Croats. During the Socialist Federal Yugoslavia, it was forbiden for Bunjevci to declare themselves as such, and who ever declared himself as Bunjevac, was simply listed as "Croat" in census results. So, it was the policy of communist party leadership to Croatize this people (As one can see this policy was partially successful, but not entirely). As for the manner how Bunjevci declare themselves in census, it is correct that not many of them declare themselves as Serbs or Magyars, but many of them declare themselves as Yugoslavs. Also, not all Croats in Vojvodina are of Bunjevci origin. It would not be correct to simply join the numbers of declared Bunjevci and declared Croats and claim that this is a number of Bunjevci. Many Croats in Vojvodina are descendants of Šokci (and Šokci and Bunjevci are two clearly separated groups). So, the "real" number of Bunjevci might include: declared Bunjevci, Bunjevci who declare themselves as Croats (which is not same with the number of Croats in Vojvodina), and Bunjevci who declare themselves as Yugoslavs, with some who declare themselves as Serbs and Magyars. I do not know is this "real" number as high as 50,000. It is better to write official number of declared Bunjevci from 2002 census, and then to put some note that this number is higher since many of them declare themselves as Croats or Yugoslavs. From where you get this 50,000 number anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

50,000 was my roughly estimated sum of 20,000 declared Bunjevci in Vojvodina + a portion of declared Croats in Vojvodina + unknown number of Bunjevci in Hungary. I admit I got this number from nowhere, as I noted in the talk page when I created it. Otherwise, I agree with you. Duja 15:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of you seem to have forgotten the unknown number of Bunjevci in Croatia, which could well be comparable to their number in Vojvodina. --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

All right, the number could stay until the more correct one is listed. Just one interesting illustration, which can show how many Bunjevci declare themselves as Yugoslavs. Here is the quote from the article: "The historically Bunjevac village of Donji Tavankut had 989 Bunjevci, 877 Croats, and 600 Yugoslavs". It is very large number of Bunjevci who declare themselves as Yugoslavs, dont you agree? PANONIAN (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do note that that number is from the 1991 census, so it's obsolete for the purposes of a current head count (ugh). --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Language

We should to respect the official census data here. Not only most of the Bunjevci and Šokci, but also most of the Croats in Serbia declared to speak Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

We should not respect the official census data here. Serbia is well known to neighbouring nations, as state that is forgering the history and current data as a mean to have casus beli when convinient. Just ask any Slovene, Bosnian, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Macedonian, Bulgarian or Hungarian (or me - Croat).

Ha, ha, that's happening only into your rotten croato-nationalistic brain. Stop with your crap. The history, the true linguistic and true national facts are forged and falsified AT THE MOST in your quazi-state Croatia. Bunjevci ARE and WILL BE Bunjevci, NOT Croats. When The Catholicized Serbs (or like they call themsevles 'Dalmatians') can consider themselves as a part of Croatians, then Bunjevci will consider themselves as BUNJEVCI, and NEVER CROATIANS. Long live ALL UNITED SerboCroats. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.181.95 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 January 2006

Ha, ha, that's happening only into your rotten croato-nationalistic brain. Stop with your crap. The history, the true linguistic and true national facts are forged and falsified AT THE MOST in your quazi-state Croatia. Bunjevci ARE and WILL BE Bunjevci, NOT Croats. When The Catholicized Serbs (or like they call themsevles-'Dalmatians') can consider themselves as a part of Croatians, then Bunjevci can consider themselves as BUNJEVCI, and NEVER CROATIANS. Long live ALL UNITED SerboCroats. Cheers!24.86.110.10 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

---

That is ridiculous. Serbia have the largest number of ethnic minorities in the region. In Serbia, ALL ethnic groups and their languages are recognized, while some of the neighbouring countries you mentioned do not treat its minorities in such manner. And please, stop this old Croatian nationalistic story that Bunjevci do not exist as a nation. It is well known that Croatian nationalists who want to assimilate Bunjevci into Croats claim that Bunjevci are not a nation. Serbian authorities does not have intention to assimilate them, thus they are recognized in Serbia in the manner how they want to be recognized and how they declare themselves in census. They declare themselves as Bunjevci and declare their language as Serbian and that is simple statistical fact. Those Buunjevci who declare themselves as Croats and their language as Croatian are also recognized in the manner how they want to be. It is a right of CHOICE for somebody to declare himself as Bunjevac. You cannot deny this right to people. PANONIAN (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Both Serbs, Croats and all the inhabitants of Bosnia-Herzegovina speak one and the same language - Serbo-Croatian. It is totally absurd to discuss the language of Bunjevci in this situation. The Croats of Vojvodina (and with them many who have Bunjevci roots) all speak ekavian ot ikavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. On the other hand they demand that they should have "Croatian" language (i.e. ijekavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian) in schools. This means that they demand that as their mother language they should learn a dialect that they never use! This is a classical nationalistic and political abuse of logic or linguistics. Thus, all discussion on the subject of Bunjevci speaking Croatian or Serbian is highly absurd. --Dultz 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already explained nicely in the article and I see little reason to rant about this at this talk page.

Yet, I cannot escape the impression that it's really a case of pot calling the kettle black if you think it's abusive and illogical for people to want their children to learn ijekavian as well as ikavian. Why shouldn't they want to do so? They apparently do so because they think it will help them interact with what they perceive as the rest of their nation. The state allows them to declare their nationality freely, but it shouldn't allow them to learn whatever languages they want? Aren't you actually ranting against the whole concept of nations here? Maybe the concept of self-determination is the target? --Joy [shallot] 22:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

references to the Bunjevci in Hungary

In response to the reference of Bunjevci in Hungary:

1. Due to the aggressive process of Magyarization that started in the 19th Century and its intensification in the Horthy and Communist regimes, almost all of them assimilated into Hungarians.

2. Some individual families still stick to the language but these are very few in number.

3. Most people born since 1920's still speak the language but because they are not active users, the level of speech is not that high and this generation is dying out. Mixed marriages, especially after WWII contributed to this.

4. Some people claim to be Bunjevac (bunyevác), but they do not speak a word of the language.

5. Cultural groups exist in some villages.

6. The names remain, but everything else is Hungarian.

--adam300 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Name

I added some more information on the namo of Bunjevci. I propose that it becomes a separate passage. --Dultz 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

comment from 82.232.35.48

What about Bunjevci that actually KNOW THEIR ORIGINS and say that they are CROATIAN... They are not among this group?? And what about Bunjevci in CROATIA?? Did you know that this ethnic group exists there also, and everyone by some miracle knows that they are CROATIAN..

Come to Subotica and ask some intelectual about the origin of Bunjevci, or ask some Bunjevac in the street of what nation is he... And let's see what he will tell you..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.35.48 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 June 2006

No, they do not KNOW their origin, but they BELIEVE in their origin. Try to notice the difference. However, there are also many of them who believe that they are not Croats. Besides that, both opinions about that are already mentioned in the article: the opinion that Bunjevci are separate nation, and opinion that Bunjevci are Croats. What you want more? PANONIAN (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I want the thruth... Not everyone is SERBIAN, you know. And this process of de-croatization of Bunjevci should definitely stop;.. But time will tell, not this encyclopedia... And you will see that there will be always only less of those who call themselves only Bunjevci. They are ridicolous!!!

And I can declare my self as CHINESE if I want, but that doesn'y change the fact that Bunjevci culturaly are a member of a wider gropu, that's called the CROATIAN NATION... And what about Panonian's hypocracy... He says one thing on Serbian wikipedia, and he's ok with the things on english one... i don't understand that. If Bunjevci are a nation, then tomorrow I am gonna found a new nation of MOTOKULTIVATORI... and you will se how many of us are gonna be on the next census.

There is no such thing as de-croatization of Bunjevci process. On the contrary, the opposite process of their croatization is an issue for almost a century. Large part of Bunjevci rejected these attempts of Croatian nationalists to croatize them, and they see themselves in the same manner as their ancestors saw themselves in the past - as a separate Bunjevci people. You should not say that people are ridiculous because they call themselves with the same name as their ancestors did. In 1850s, there was in Vojvodina 62,936 Bunjevci and Šokci and only 2,860 Croats. You can judge for yourself were they croatized or de-croatized. As for my "hypocracy", what you have in mind exactly? What I said on Serbian Wikipedia? PANONIAN (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, I suggest you actually read the article whose lead section you wish to modify. --Joy [shallot] 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One more link I have to add... From one of the respectable croatian catholic newspapers in vojvodina.. http://www.zvonik.org.yu/871/ZV03.html

so see what are the people like Tamas Korhez, Andrija Kopilovic and others saying about Bunjevci, and about the problems of INTEGRATION into the Croatian corpus till now...

Please do not mention word "corpus" any more. When we start to use words like "national corpus", "homeland war", etc, we already know where that lead. For the point of view of the part of Bunjevci that do not consider themselves Croats, only relevant thing is what they say about themselves, not what Tamas Korhez or anybody else think. I read the interview with the leader of Bunjevac national community in Serbia and he said that Bunjevci are not Croats and that Croats trying to assimilate them for decades. PANONIAN (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I think you should also read something from the leaders of Croatian national council... And then maybe make a comparison between the two views, and see what is more likely... However, it's doesn't matter at all. In some 10-20-30 years from today, the notion of BUNJEVAC as a national identity will not exist any more, because people will understand some things more as years go on...

Do not worry, I did read what those from Croatian national council say, and the comparison of the two views would be like this: one man have name Pera and his neighbour constantly trying to convince him that his name is not Pera but Đoka. :)) Regarding what will be after 20-30 years, we have to wait to see census results from that time period and then I could give you answer to your comment. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Croatdom of Bunyevs

The official site of Bunyevs gives a lot of information about them - they actually consider that they've been assimilated into Croats and they share a pro-Serbian POV at many places. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, assimilated. As if Batscherland was in Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, as if Danube Banovina had Croat administration only (and as if it later became part of Banovina of Croatia), as if Karageorgevichs, Nikola Pašić, Miklos Horthy and Aleksandar Ranković were hardline Croatian nationalists. Kamarad Walter (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And even more important, it is clearly and factualy shown that after WWII they were prohibited calling themselves Bunjevci and had to be noted down as Croats. --Dultz 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dultz, all leaders of Bunjevacs have expressed before WWII that Bunjevci are Croats (and repeated it many times). Kamarad Walter (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The link about Bunjevs above explains the whole situation. BUNJEVCI ARE NOT CROATS! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 July 2007

Interesting, since the mentioned website is run by a Serbian student and doesn't reflect the whole situation objectively.

If you by word "Serbian" consider a "citizen of Serbia of Bunjevac ethnicity" then why he would not spoke objectively about his people? There is certainly no logic in that. PANONIAN (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I expressed myself clearly enough so that there shouldn't be any room left for your deliberate interpretations. The mentioned website is as objective as your stance on the whole issue.

But the mentioned web site is made by Bunjevci themselves. So, you want to say that Bunjevci do not speak objectively about themselves? PANONIAN 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part of my previous posts didn't you understand? Maybe it's because you edited them and removed the part which included the term "Greater Serbian propaganda"? I'm sorry to tell you, but you Sir, are a hypocrite. Any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

This exactly was my point: usage of words like "Greater Serbian propaganda" (in the case when you speak about things INSIDE Serbia???!!!) and "hypocrite" are examples of non-civilized behaviour that damage the image about this web site. PANONIAN 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this article

I have come upon this article while looking at some videos at YouTube, what I found annyoing in this article is that concentrates heavily on Bunjevci community living in Vojvodina and Hungary. Bunjevci don't live just in those places but in Croatia also, in fact we can say most Bunjevci actually live in Croatia (Lika, Dalmatia, Slavonia) and some even in Herzegovina. The main issue as the article says, they don't register as a separate ethnic or sub-ethnic group. Now I have modified this text to state these things, I have no problem with Bunjevci who declare as separate ethnic group in Vojvodina but this article is about all Bunjevci not just about them. Majority of Bunjevci delcare as Croats, including those living in Vojvodina and Hungary. --No.13 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do not have data about exact number of Bunjevci who live in Croatia. And also, the fact that they declare themselves as Croats today does not mean that they are of Croatian origin. For example, Alba Kuntić (he himself an Bunjevac) in his book named "Bunjevci" (Sombor, 1998) claim that Bunjevci are descendants of Orthodox Serbs from Kosovo who later moved from Kosovo to Dalmatia and Lika where they were converted to Catholic Christianity. PANONIAN 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I couldn't care less what someone claims, I am sick of that "Catholic Serbs" crap about Croats. We know for a fact most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats, wheter it is Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary. Even in Serbia (Vojvodina) we could say most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats. This article should reflect that. If you want to create a separate article or section about those who consider themselves separate ethnic group you are welcome to do so. --No.13 09:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not speak here about Croats, but about Bunjevci and I just told you what an Bunjevac said about it - he is certainly more relevant to say something about his origin than you. Also, we do not know that "most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats" because we do not have exact data how many Bunjevci live in Croatia. Claim that "most Bunjevci in Croatia consider themselves Croats" would be possibly correct and acceptable, but you cannot say that for all Bunjevci if you do not have exact data about their number. For example, in Serbia, most of them do not consider themselves Croats because there is larger number of those who declare themselves as Bunjevci/Yugoslavs/Hungarians than number of those who declare themselves as Croats. Also in Hungary, Bunjevci were magyarized and it is likely that most of them declare themselves as Hungarians. So, the claim that "most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats" is correct only in the case of Croatia. PANONIAN 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When we speak about Bunjevci we are speaking also about a sub-ethnic group of Croats. A person who declares himself an ethnic Bunjevac doesn't have a monopoly on say who or what Bunjevci are. And please read ore carefully, most people who consider themselves Croats in Hungary are in fact Bunjevci and in minor part Šokci. All Bunjevci in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia consider themselves Croats. This leads us to a logical conclusion - most Bunjevci are Croats. Those who declare as separate ethnic Bunjevci or even those who live in Vojvodina don't have the monopoly on the issue of Bunjevci. Clearer? Bunjevci live in other places too besides Vojvodina and there they almost 100% declare as Croats. This is not an article about Bunjevci in Vojvodina, this article is about Bunjevci in general. --No.13 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that most people who consider themselves Croats in Hungary are Bunjevci - Bunjevci mostly live in Hungarian part of Bačka, but in Hungarian part of Baranja there is mostly Šokac population (You also forgeting those Bunjevci in Hungarian part of Bačka who today consider themselves Hungarians - in fact we would be much more correct if we say that most Bunjevci today consider themselves Hungarians because very large number of them was magyarized and they still have their characteristic Slavic surnames. Also, where is data that show how many Bunjevci live in Croatia or Bosnia? For Serbia we have more or less exact data about Bunjevac population in Subotica and from this data we cannot conclude that "most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotica#Ethnic_groups_in_the_municipality PANONIAN 10:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also may I ask what is the base for the claim Goran Bunjevčević is Bunjevac? AFAIK he is Serb from Croatia, possibly even from a mixed Serbian-Croatian marriage. Despite his name which might suggest his origin I doubt this man declares as Bunjevac at any level, there are many Horvat(h)'s in Slovenia and Hungary yet they can hardly be called Croats. --No.13 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Panonian's rationale

You say: 1. we do not know that "most declare as Croats" since we do not have exact data about their number in Croatia and Hungary, and 2. there are Bunjevci who consider themselves Serbs

1. Do have the exact numbers of Bunjevci in Serbia (Vojvodina) as well? The answer is no. Following a logical deduction if most (or absolutly all) Bunjevci in Croatia, Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina declare as Croats and at least 50% of them declare as Croats in Vojvodina, Serbia (though I am ready to argue the percentage is higher than that), we come to the conclusion most Bunjevci declare as Croats. 2. Where are those Bunjevci who consider themselves Serbs? Please show me one. --No.13 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We have more-less exact data about Bunjevac populations in Serbia for region in which they live. For example in Subotica municipality, we have 16,688 Croats, 16,254 Bunjevci, 8,562 Yugoslavs, and 57,092 Hungarians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotica#Ethnic_groups_in_the_municipality If you count together all these Bunjevci that declared themselves as Bunjevci/Yugoslavs/Hungarians, you can see that their number is larger than number of those who declare themselves as Croats. Also, if you look data from 1910 census about Subotica municipality, you will see that only 39 people in this municipality declared Croatian language as opposed to about 33,390 who declared Bunjevac or 55,587 who declared Hungarian: http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=B%E1cs-Bodrog Also, as I said, in Hungary, most of Bunjevci were magyarized and they rather declare themselves as Hungarians than as Croats or Bunjevci. Also, regarding one Bunjevac who consider himself Serb (you asked for one, right?), I will mention again Alba Kuntić, who in his book named "Bunjevci" claims that Bunjevci are subgroup of Serbs. PANONIAN 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On what exactly do you base your argumentation that all those who live in Subotica muncipality are in fact of Bunjeac descent? IMO your claim is in the domain of science fiction as you have absolutly nothing to base it on. I don't care about their origin or how the state administration numbered them, I am interested only in contemporary factual state. Now, we know for a fact that all Bunjevci who live in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are Croats, we know that huge majority of those who declare as Croats in Hungary are also Bunjevci (those who are Hungarians of Bunjevac descent have assimilated long ago and have no awarness of their origins) and we have almost 60,000 Croats in Vojvodina of whom at least one third are of Bunjevac origin (an estimate of mine). The conclusion is obvious to anyone - most Bunjevci are Croats. Now I repeat, if you wish to start an article about the separate ethnic group Bunjevci or about Bunjevci of Vojvodina in general start another article or make a separate section about them, do not monopolize this article. Oh and please tell me more about this Alba Kuntić? How do you know he declares a "Serb Bunjevac"? And please show me where he does it. --No.13 10:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your question - for whom exactly in Subotica municipality you claim that he is not of Bunjevac descent? I do not say that all Hungarians or Yugoslavs there are of Bunjevac descent, but if (for example) 1,000 Hungarians and 1,000 Yugoslavs are of Bunjevac descent (and there are lot more than this), their number together with number of declared Bunjevci is larger than number of declared Croats. It is you who insist that Bunjevac is not only who declare himself as such, but everybody who is of Bunjevac descent, and in that case we simply have to count these Yugoslavs and Hungarians of Bunjevac descent. Regarding base for my claim, it is enough that somebody look telephone directory of Subotica where he will find numerous Hungarians with Bunjevac surnames. And the fact that you "do not care for something" is irrelevant because if you want to edit this article, you will have to care. Also, we do not know for "a fact that all Bunjevci who live in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are Croats" because we do not have any data about it (you cannot prove that nobody of them do not declare as "Yugoslav" or "Bosnian"). Also, the claim that "those Bunjevci who are Hungarians of Bunjevac descent have assimilated long ago and have no awarness of their origins" could be also used in the case of Croats in this form: "those Bunjevci who are Croats of Bunjevac descent have assimilated long ago and have no awarness of their origins". In another words, if you use "descent issue" in the case of Croats of Bunjevac origin you have to use it in the case of Hungarians of Bunjevac origin as well. Also, "one third of Vojvodina Croats of Bunjevac origin" is still not larger than number of Bunjevci in Vojvodina who do not declare themselves as Croats in census (besides Bunjevci/Yugoslavs/Hungarians I forgot to mention those that declared themselves as Vojvodinians or that did not declared their nationality at all). In another words, knowing these facts, we cannot conclude that most Bunjevci consider themselves Croats. Regarding separate article issue, the question whether such separate article would exist is not related to the question what should be written in this article and claim that "most Bunjevci declare themselves as Croats" cannot be proved or confirmed and not only that, but in the case of Serbian census from 2002 and Hungarian census from 1910 such claim is largelly disapproved. Regarding Alba Kuntić, since he claim in his book that Bunjevci are subgroup of Serbs, it is logical that we assume that he consider himself Serb. And what exactly you want to know about him? PANONIAN 10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that you are right, your rationale only works for Vojvodina, it doesn't work for Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary. Also the fact no one declares as separate Bunjevac ethnic in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina means they all consider themselves Croats, in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Bunjevci are only ethnic sub-group. Anyway Bunjevac who are Croats are not assimilated, they are both Bunjevac and Croats. Look for examples in Montenegro where there are Serbs who are at the same time both Montenegrins and Serbs. Bunjevci who are Croats don't have to and didn't have to assimilate into anything. I repeat to you in hope you will actually read it this time, Bunjevci don't live just in Vojvodina but in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Hungary where they almost by consensus are Croats. Only Vojvodina has a specific case where a certain group consider itself separate group. Now since we both agree that their numbers are unknown as in Vojvodina so in general as well we must take from another point of view and that is generalization. From such point of view we look where it is all where Bunjevci live and we look at how they declare, since all Bunjevci in Croaia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declare as Croats and since huge majority of them in Hungary declare as Croats and since in Vojvodina at least 33% to above 50% declare as Croats we come to a conclusion - most Bunjevci are Croats. Also your example with the phonebook is humorous. And regarding this Mr.Kuntić, you'll have to a lot better than that. --No.13 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why you repeat "most Bunjevci are Croats" like a parrot? This is not Croatian parliament or Dinamo football match but place where you have to prove your statements, not just to repeat them to death. And did you proved it? No, you did not. You did not presented any data about Bunjevac populations in Croatia and Bosnia and since we do not have this data we cannot conclude anything about "most Bunjevci". The only way in which we can say something about "all Bunjevci" would be to have exact data about their populations in all 4 countries from which we would see how many of them declare themselves as Croats, Bunjevci, Hungarians, etc, etc. At the present momment, we have only partial data about Bunjevac populations in different countries and from this data we can say something only about Bunjevac populations within each country, without saying anything about "all Bunjevci". Of course, it would be correct that most Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia declare themselves as Croats, but for Serbia and for Hungary that would not be the case. Also, the fact that Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia do not declare themselves as Bunjevci does not mean that "they all consider themselves Croats" because there are people in these countries who consider themselves Yugoslavs and Bosnians and some of these Bunjevci could declare themselves as such (as I said, most of those in Croatia and Bosnia might consider themselves Croats, but not "all"). Also Bunjevci who are Croats ARE assimilated because historical data from Austro-Hungarian censuses show that Bunjevci in the past did not considered themselves Croats, thus for them, the adoption of Croat identity was same as assimilation. Also, the fact that only in Vojvodina Bunjevci managed to keep their identity just show the fact that they were not exposed to such agressive croatization such was the case in Croatia or Bosnia. And I do not see connection with Montenegro because Montengrins are descendants of Serbs who gained separate ethnic identity, while Bunjevci are group that originally had separate ethnic identity, but some members of this group were assimilated into Croats. Regarding phone book, why it would be humorous? - it can very well show how many people of Bunjevac origin today really live in Subotica. And what exactly you do not understand about Alba Kuntić? PANONIAN 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be offensive, I have not offended you so all I ask is the same attitude from you. I have already presented you why the statements "most Bunjevci are Croats" is true. Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina consider themselves Croats, Bunjevci in Hungary mostly consider themselves Croats and great part of Bunjevci in Vojvodina consider themselves Croats. Thus the statement is true. Bunjevci are not assimilated into Croats, it is their natural designation, Bunjevci come from the region where Croats are to this day absolute majority (almost 100%) and from the areas which are today part of Croatia and are traditional stronghold of Croatian identity. They are people who are descendants of Croats who migrated from Herzegovina and Dalmatia to northern Croatia, Vojvodina and Hungary and to that degree they are similar to Montenegrins. Some of them today have separate ethnic identity. Aggresive croatization in Austria-Hungary? How would that be when Austria-Hungary opposed Croats and sought to break them in smaller pieces to control and assimilate them better, the same what was later done by Serbian goverment in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. If anything they would be put under agressive anti-croatization. I have also answered you why the phonebook example is ridiculous, you can't judge people by their surnames only by their awarness and conviction. Regarding Mr.Kuntić you didn't answer my question, show me where did he declare himself as a Serb.--No.13 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not insulting you - I am not guilty because you behave like parrot and repeat "most Bunjevci are Croats" over and over (you repeated that in your previous post as well). And you did not showed that this stetement is true because you did not presented data about number of Bunjevci who live in Croatia and Bosnia. Regarding "natural designation" issue, all ethnic designations are artificial, i.e. they exist only in minds of people. The point is if Bunjevci in the past had in their minds only idea that they are Bunjevci and today some of them have idea that they are Croats that mean that they were assimilated into idea of Croatism. Regarding area from where Bunjevci came, do not forget the fact that some historical sources claim that all South Slavic Catholics that live in the east of rivers Vrbas and Cetina are Serbs by origin, thus the fact that they today consider themselves Croats do not say anything about their origin. Croat identity was introduced to this population relativelly recently. Regarding aggressive Croatization of Bunjevci, it did not occured during Austria-Hungary, but during Yugoslavia (in the last Austro-Hungarian census from 1910 you can see that number of Bunjevci who considered themselves Croats was negligible). And there was no "Serbian goverment in Kingdom of Yugoslavia" because Serbia did not existed in this time. Regarding phonebook, I am sorry, but if we do not speak about all people of Bunjevac origin, then we would conclude that only those who declared themselves as Bunjevci in census are really Bunjevci. You insist that we say that Croats of Bunjevac origin are also Bunjevci, so I do not see why we cannot say that for Yugoslavs or Hungarians of Bunjevac origin. As for Kuntić, I did not saw his census list, but the fact that he said in his book that Bunjevci are subgroup of Serbs means that he consider himself Serb. PANONIAN 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Panonian I didn't say you were guilty, please just calm down. I am saying that if Bunjevci in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina consider themselves Croats, and if those in southern Hungary (great part of them) consider themselves Croats and if those in Serbia also consider themselves Croats then we can safely assume the majority of Bunjevci (or most of them) declare as Croats. We don't have the exact numbers and that is why we must assume this position. Also I have yet to see historical sources which claim they were "Catholic Serbs", honestly that sounds like something that come out straight out from the Serbian Radical Party workshop. Croatization in Kingdom of Yugoslavia? You mean Croatiazion was promoted in a state-dictaroship controled by Serbs? Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a dictatorship especially brutal and oppressive for the Croats and you claim they were promoting Croatization?! Thats one big joke, right? As for Mr.Kuntić you have again failed to prove your statement. That is your personal opinion Panonian.

Also I made it clear I am satisfied with the changes introduced so why continue this? You don't have to prove to me anything. I have my opinion, you have yours, why not leave it at that? --No.13 09:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are talking is a complete trash. Bunjevac people are Bunjevac, and they are NOT Croats. I know many Bunjevac persons, who are offended to be called 'Croats'. Ha, ha, It's killing you, but that's a fact. Panonian does a good work on wikipedia and no intrudors like you can make him different in his noble work here. Long live Panonian and the true facts on wikipedia. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To Panonian

I am content with the minor changes introduced. The article is now more neutral and doesn't concentrates itself exclusively on Bunjevci from Vojvodina. This discussion is over as far as I see it. --No.13 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Antonović

Who's Ivan Antonović? Google gives no results [1]. The first "Ivan Antonović", that has something with Bunjevci, is from your edit, Panonian, on the article from English Wikipedia. Kamarad Walter 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw man, he studied the Bunyevs! See The Croatian Bunjevci over at Croatian History. --PaxEquilibrium 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Serbian politics asimilation Croats sub-group bunjevac and šokac of region Vojvodina

Štokawian-ikavian dialects are exclusively specificity ethnic Crosts. Štokawian ikavian dialects: slavonian dialect, western ikavian dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.172.39 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Distinguished Bunjevci

• After a query, nobody has provided any further evidence that Goran Bunjevčević is in fact a Bunjevac. As he was not born in Bačka or declared himself to be Bunjevac, and I haven't found any other references to this fact, I think it is best to remove this claim until further evidence. --Nylad 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Antun Gustav Matoš was not a Bunjevac, he was a Šokac from Syrmia, where he was born in the village of Tovarnik. Matoš is also a Bunjevac surname, but it is also found in among Šokci in Syrmia - you can look it up e.g. in Serbian 'White Pages' [2]. --Nylad 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Matoš told for himself that he's Bunjevac by origin (""Bunjevac porijeklom, Srijemac rodom, a Zagrepčanin odgojem""). His father was a teacher, that came from Bunjevac family from village of Plavna (in Bačka), and his mother is from city of Našice in Croatia. By birth, Matoš is from Syrmia (born in Tovarnik). Later he lived in Zagreb etc. Kamarad Walter (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The only support I have found for the claim that Josif Pančić was a Bunjevac is that his surname might be derived from Pandžić, that surname then is supposed to have come from a single villagein Bosnia or Herzegovina, which in turn is hypothesised to be the region from which Bunjevci hail. Pančić and Pandžić is not the same thing, even if it were, the fact that Pandžić is a derivation of pandža -- an ordinary word for claw or paw -- and a surname in various different regions, makes the claim that all people with the surname share the same origins less probable. Pančić was born in Vinodol, a Chakavian dialect region, not Ikavian Shtokavian like Bačka Bunjevci dialect and dialects of all other regions historically supposed to be inhabited by Bunjevci. Also I didn't find a reference that Pančić ever identified himself as Bunjevac. So I think it is best to remove this claim until further evidence. --Nylad 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Amen to that. Thanks for fact-checking and cleanup. Duja► 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Croatian sub-ethnic group

Bunjevci are Croats. Ho is stupid enoguh to say they are catholic Serbs?! When they comed in Vojvodina from Croatia all of their newspapers, artists and others said they are Croats (Ivan Antunović, A. G. Matoš). Bunjevci and Špkci revival was about their croatian roots. Magaizine called Neven was one of the revival papers and Neven was writen in croatian language and supporting croatian origine of Bunjevci and Šokci. Very simple! --Wustefuchs (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is what article says:

Musician Zvonko Bogdan (a singer) is the best known Bunjevac, and his songs (composed or traditional) have popularized Bunjevac culture and tradition across Serbia and the rest of former Yugoslavia. Blaško Rajić was a Croat patriot from the late 19th century and first half of 20th century, that participated on the Paris peace conference after WWI [8]. Other famous Bunjevci include aviation pioneer and athlete Ivan Sarić, cousin of Croatian writer Zvonko Sarić.

Famous scientists

• Gaja Alaga (1924-1988), Croatian theoretical physicist
• Mirko Vidaković (1924-2002), Croatian academist and botanist

Famous writers Famous writers coming from Bunjevci:

• Ivan Antunović
• Aleksa Kokić
• Ante Evetović-Miroljub
• Matija Poljaković
• Ivan Kujundžić
• Ive Prćić
• Antun Gustav Matoš
• Mijo Mandić (1857-1945)
• Josip Buljovčić
• Balint Vujkov
• Petar Šarčević (1935-2001)
• Petko Vojnić Purčar
• Ante Sekulić
• Vojislav Sekelj
• Tomislav Žigmanov

Famous politicians

• Ivan Antunović
• Ambrozije Šarčević
• Pajo Kujundžić
• Blaško Rajić
• Josip Andrić
• Josip Đido Vuković

All of them were croatian writers, patriots, politicans etc. They said that, history says that, everone says that, except serbian nationalists. --Wustefuchs (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above. Šokci and Bunjevci are Croats. The person that posted on here that their grandfather was a "Catholic Serb" because of some obscure reference to a Hungarian source... you are mistaken. They were simply referring to Catholics living in Serbia and therefore called them "Serbs". 154.5.223.29 (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

All one has to do is a simple internet search engine query to see that the vast majority of information regarding Bunjevci reference them as Croats. Even some Serb sites call them a sub-group of Croatians. It's amaizing (and offensive) that a few Serb extremists can hijack Wikipedia to try and revise history to how they would like it to be. Almost every topic on Wikipedia about anything Croatian has the same pro-Serbian people trying to angle towards something that should be accredited to Serbia or Serbia history. Give it up already.207.236.177.82 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, friends, the most famous Bunjevac for sure is Poglavnik of the Independent State of Croatia Ante Pavelić... if he was Serb, then, Hitler was for sure a Jew.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić was born in northern Herzegovina. He is a Bunjevac as much as David Beckham is an Australian. Your attempt to put his image to anybody's infobox is... disgusting. No such user (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Don't criticize what you can't understand."

• (Bob Dylan)

--Wustenfuchs 11:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

ETHNIC AND LANGUAGE VOJVODINA

• Croats group in Vojvodina (srymac, bunjevac and šokac)

• popis iz 1948

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 841,246 50.6 Mađari 428,932 25.8 Hrvati 134,232 8.1 Slovaci 72,032 4.3 Rumuni 59,263 3.6 Nemci 31,821 1.9 Crnogorci 30,589 1.9 Rusini i Ukrajinci 22,083 1.3 Makedonci 9,090 0.5 Romi 7,585 0.4 Slovenci 7,223 0.4 Rusi 5,148 0.3 Česi 3,976 0.3 Bugari 3,501 0.2 Jugosloveni 1,050 0.1 ostali 5,441 0.3

• popis iz 1953

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 865,538 50.9 Mađari 435,179 25.6 Hrvati 127,027 7.5 Slovaci 71,153 4.2 Rumuni 57,218 3.4 Crnogorci 30,516 1.8 Rusini 23,038 1.4 Makedonci 11,622 0.7 ostali 78,254 4.6

• popis iz 1961

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 1,017,713 54.9 Mađari 442,560 23.9 Hrvati 145,341 7.8 Slovaci 73,830 4 Rumuni 57,259 3.1 Crnogorci 34,782 1.9 Rusini 23,038 1.4 Makedonci 11,622 0.7 ostali 83,480 4.4

• popis iz 1971

ukupno 1,952,533 100 Srbi 1,089,132 55.8 Mađari 423,866 21.7 Hrvati 138,561 7.1 Slovaci 72,795 3.7 Rumuni 52,987 2.7 Crnogorci 36,416 1.9 Rusini 20,109 1 Makedonci 16,527 0.8 Nemci 7,243 0.4 ostali 94,897 4.9

• popis iz 1981

narodnost; broj; % Srbi 1,107,375 54.4 Mađari 385,356 18.9 Hrvati 119,157 5.9 Slovaci 69,549 3.4 Rumuni 47,289 2.3 Crnogorci 43,304 2.1 Rusini i Ukrajinci 24,306 1.2 Nemci 3,808 0.2 ostali 234,628 11.6

• popis iz 1991

ukupno 2,012,517 100 Srbi 1,151,353 57.2 Mađari 340,946 16.9 Jugosloveni 168,859 8.4 Hrvati 74,226 3.7 Slovaci 63,941 3.2 Crnogorci 44,721 2.2 Rumuni 38,832 1.9 Romi 24,895 1.2 Bunjevci 21,552 1.1 Rusini 17,889 0.9 Makedonci 16,641 0.8 Muslimani 6,079 0.3 Albanci 2,959 0.2 Slovenci 2,563 0.1 Ukrajinci 2,057 0.1 Šokci 1,866 0.1 ostali 33,140 1.7

• popis iz 2002

ukupno 2,031,992 100 Srbi 1,321,807 65.05 Mađari 290,207 14.28 Slovaci 56,637 2.79 Hrvati 56,546 2.78 Jugosloveni 49,881 2.45 Crnogorci 35,513 1.75 Rumuni 30,419 1.5 Romi 29,057 1.43 Bunjevci 19,766 0.97 Rusini 15,626 0.77 Makedonci 11,785 0.58 Ukrajinci 4,635 0.23 Muslimani (u smislu narodnosti) 3,634 0.18 Nemci 3,154 0.16 Slovenci 2,005 0.1 Albanci 1,695 0.08 Bugari 1,658 0.08 Česi 1,648 0.08 Rusi 940 0.05 Goranci 606 0.03 Bošnjaci 417 0.02 Vlasi 101 0 ostali 5,311 0.26 regionalni identitet 10,154 0.5 neizjašnjen 55,016 2.71 nepoznato 23,774 1.17

Hrvati(Croat in Vojvodine):#Croat-sryma, #Croat-bunjevac, #Croat-šokac Languages in Vojvodine 1910. Ethnic map Vojvodine 1910.

Famous Bunjevci

Ante Pavelić, Starčević and others are Bunjevci. You can read names of Bunjevci "tribes", and another thing, Pavelić's origin is from Bunjevac Village Krivi Put in Lika region. Rukavina is also from one of the Bunjevac "tribes", you can see his involvement in Bunjevci question after World War II. Etc.

P. S.

Removal of sourced information is not good idea. (POV, vandalism). --Wustenfuchs 11:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And how you define "Bunjevci tribes"? Under the common definition, adopted in this article, Bunjevci are people from northern Bačka region, whose origins are somewhere in ikavian-speaking areas of Herzegovina and Lika. People who still live in those areas (and that is a fairly wide and ill-defined region) are not called Bunjevci.

As for "removal of sourced information", you are just abusing a source. Everybody agrees that Bunjevci originate from area which is now Croatian (in either ethnic or territorial sense) and a majority of Bunjevci maintains a Croatian ethnic identity, however, a significant minority does not. That situation calls for more nuanced approach, so calling them "Croatian" without a caveat is not neutral. I cannot expect from someone who wants to put Pavelić in anybody's infobox, even if he were born in Tavankut, a nuanced approach, so my supply of WP:AGF towards you is rather short.. No such user (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You think it's NPOV to add Pavelić's image to the infobox, why is that? I hate Bogdan's songs, but fine for me if he goes to infobox, because he is notable. I explained my point many times, you can check talk pages in Croats article, and ealse (can't remember all of them). Bunjevci are, as stated in the source, Croatian people, a subgroup of Croats, who emigrated to Vojvodina, some stayed, others left. Bunjevci in Lika are not less Bunjevci then those in Vojvodina. According to your oppinion, all those Bunjevci, living in Vojvodina, who declare them selfs as Croats, aren't Bunjevci, they are Croats? :) Well, it's not like that, Bunjevci are Croats. We won't change facts because minority doesn't feel like Croats, but we will leave facts as they are because of majority of Bunjevci who say they are Croats. Maybe in your village minority makes rules, but in rest of World, it's not like that.

Go try adding Adolf Hitler to Austrian people or Ratko Mladić to Bosnian Serbs. If you fail to see the parallel, then I'm sorry for you. We don't put images of war criminals to illustrate ethnic groups. Matter of taste, I think.

No, people from Lika and Herzegovina do not call themselves "Bunjevci", and nobody else calls them like that, and therefore they are less Bunjevci than those in Vojvodina.

So you put a source not available online, out of hundreds of papers devoted to Bunjevac anthropology, to back up the imprecise claim of yours, to say the least. The WP:LEAD does not have to have sources, it needs to summarize article contents. According to the article, and sources therein, Bunjevci are split towards Croatian identity. I didn't remove the mentioning of Croatian, I just stated it in more accurate terms. No such user (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say another thing, adding Dulić, arguments he is Bunjevac are...? NPOV from your side.--Wustenfuchs 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about Dulić? He is of Bunjevac (the Bačka one) descent. [3]. Get me a source that says that Pavelić is one. No such user (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dulić plays minor role here. It would be very kind of you if you would tell me in wich page I can read this? Ante Pavelić was born in Bunjevac village, obviously Bunjevac, and accepted thought. But we can skip Pavelić, and still this won't chagne your removal of sourced information and vandalism you are doing. We can find nice replacement for Pavelić, but we don't need to, since he is fine Bunjevac.--Wustenfuchs 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And you can always check official page of Pavelić's village, that is his both parent's village, Krivi Put - http://www.krivi-put.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=161, ther is his biography, it seams they have sympathies for him, why, I can't tell.--Wustenfuchs 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck what www.krivi-kurac.com says about Pavelić. It is not our business to put their (and apparently your) sympathies here. 12:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse we won't I just wanted you to see that. Calm down, no bad words are needed. Don't talk about my sympathies, you don't know what I like and what I don't like. I'm neutral here. However a person bad is, it is not less notable because of that.--Wustenfuchs 12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it more bluntly then: 1) do you have a better proof that he is a Bunjevac other than name of football club of a village where his parents were born 2) are you aware that we do not put images of war criminals, murderers and like as illustration of respective ethnic groups, as a matter of taste and common courtesy? No such user (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with No such user. It is unacceptable that images of war criminals are used in ethnic group infoboxes. No matter if Pavelić was an Bunjevac or not, he was an war criminal and therefore he has no place in any infobox. Same apply to racist Ante Starčević who said that "Serbs are pigs which will turn into real dogs after beating" or that "Serbs are not humans but animals ready for axe" ("zreli za sjekiru" !!!). I do not understand how somebody can consider that these two nationalists/racists/genocide supporters are examples of people that should be model for others? And infoboxes are containing exactly that: images of notable or famous members of ethnic group that done something notable in their life and that should serve as a model for other members of the community. What Starčević and Pavelić done notable in their life instead advocating genocide and committing it? I am sorry, but their "notability" is not something that should serve as a model to others. Wikipedia should not support racism and genocide. As for sources, mister Wustenfuchs, I also agree with No such user that you abused source that you used. Bunjevci are an issue which is differently described in different sources and your attempt to use one single source that claim one thing and to ignore all other sources that claiming opposite things cannot be more POV. If we follow your logic here, we can use a single source that claims that "Bunjevci are not Croats" and we can completely ignore fact that some of them are declaring themselves as Croats. If we use data from all available sources, we can have only one conclusion: some Bunjevci are Croats and some are not - that would be the only accurate description. Otherwise, if we deny right of the people to declare their ethnicity and if we start using "ethnic origin" as a basis for modern ethnicity, we might conclude that all Štokavian Croats are in fact Catholic Serbs or that Kajkavian Croats are in fact Slovenians. I am sure that such formulations would be insulting for you as much as your formulation that all Bunjevci are Croats is insulting for many members of Bunjevci community. PANONIAN 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@PANONIAN: I share the sentiment and agree wholeheartedly. The thing is Wustenfuchs had developed a revisionist pattern which involved trying to squeeze in Pavelić and other questionable characters wherever he could. He had already dragged us into this sort of crap over at Talk:Croats some months ago (unsuccessfully) so this here at Bunjevci was maybe a 3rd or 4th identical discussion he had been involved in to my knowledge. But he has been blocked indefinitely following NSU's report so that's that. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN with his ideas of destroying all the articles which are related to the Croats. It's a shame he does.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sokac121, what the #$!#"$ you talk about? I spent lot of my time to clean Croatia-related articles from foreign nationalist POV (including Italian, German, Hungarian and Serbian variants of anti-Croatia POV). In this case, I am only trying to clean article about Bunjevci ethnic group from any anti-Bunjevac POV. I have absolutely same approach to any subject: 0% tolerance towards "greater nationalist POV" of any kind. PANONIAN 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bunjevac are not Croats.

Bunjevac people is separate than Croats. They speak ikavian Shtokavian language (basis of Serbo-Croatian). There's NO croatian language, but it is just one of the versions of Shtokavian language (Central South Slavic), which is official in Croatia. Big majority of Bunjevac are only Bunjevac, not Croats. The most famous Bunjevac in the world is Boris Malagurski, who directed a few movies depicting the truth about the split of Yugoslavia. Regards; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ofc they aren't, they are from Mars. However, majority of them stated that they speak Croatian, and so they speak Ikavian Croatian. --Wustenfuchs 18:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not correct. Even most of declared ethnic Croats in Serbia declared that their language is Serbian, not Croatian. PANONIAN 20:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Names in the lead

Re Panonian's: "back to my version - it is most NPOV, native language of this people is most important - it could be mentioned either as bunjevac or as serbo-croatian. croatian and serbian name are both of lower importance":

I find it quite unnecessary to clutter the lead with listing several languages (or "languages") to achieve some kind of political correctness. The lead currently reads:

Bunjevci (Bunjevac dialect: Bunjevci, pronounced Croatian pronunciation: [ˈbŭɲɛʋtsi]; Croatian: Bunjevci; [Буњевци / Bunjevci] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help))

We repeat 6 times that the people name is "Bunjevci", using 6 different names for the Language Formerly Known as Serbo-Croatian. Is it not utterly ridiculous? It is clear from the outset that "Bunjevci" is not an English transliteration, but the original name in whichever the original language is. Is it not simpler just to avoid naming that language, than to enumerate all names applicable? We are not helping the reader at all. Just get rid of all that noise, and we'll be fine; nuances are explained latter in the text. A better solution to resolving a complex political issue is not to raise the issue at all, at least not in the first sentence.

I think that you operate under, IMO mistaken, premise that it is our duty to enumerate all the relevant languages in the very lead. No. Those names are just there to help English readers know what are synonyms possibly encountered in the literature. Bunjevci and Bunjevci and Bunjevci (and Буњевци, for that matter) are fairly obviously synonymous.

@Wustenfuchs: I sort of agree that ethno-cultural link of Bunjevci with Croats should be given more prominence in the lead, in the sense that Bunjevci are often considered a sub-group/related group of Croats. That does not mean that I agree with direct statement that "Bunjevci are Croats." Some nuancing would be best.

By the way, I think the article devotes too much space to the question of duality Croatian/Bunjevci identity. Yes, it's an important issue, but now it has hijacked most of the article. It would be better if we could focus the issue into one section and be done with it. No such user (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not see why "political correctness" is wrong in comparison with "political POV". Anyway, I think that English readers should see the info how this name is used in our common language. Sure, we have a problem how to name that language, but it would be better that we find some NPOV and neutral name for the language instead not to name language at all. Perhaps this version would be more acceptable for you: (Shtokavian Latin: Bunjevci, pronounced Croatian pronunciation: [ˈbŭɲɛʋtsi];; Shtokavian Cyrillic: Буњевци)? PANONIAN 06:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything No Such User said. "Shtokavian Latin"? Really? Timbouctou (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Croats, Serbs? Why not just Bunjevci?

I have no idea how in the world has this discussion gone to a debate about the assimilation of the Bunjevci people, either to the Croatian or Serbian side. This disgusting spillage of local dirty politics has really no place on Wikipedia. Why on earth is this article a part of "a series of articles on Croats"? Vlahs, for example, are present both in Serbia, Romania and in a few other countries, and they're are most certainly not classified as Romanians. This too goes for Roma, Bosniaks, etc. The Bunjevci are an ethnic group, with their own dialect, their own cuisine and their own unique history. If, due to major year-long pressures from both Serbian and Croatian sides, should some of them choose to switch over to another ethnicity, that's their choice.

BureX (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not nearly as simple as you try to portray it. "Vlachs" are not present in Romania under that name, and they certainly are classified as Romanians at least by some. In both cases, we have large subgroups which moved from their original environment and "spun off", before their original group underwent the period of nationalism and building of a nation-state. Both Vlachs and Bunjevci (and Serb/Montenegrin Montenergrins) have the same problem where their primary ethnic affiliation is ambiguous or mixed, to different extents. You cannot just put large groups people in drawers: "Croats go here, Bunjevci go there". How come that there are about equal numbers of Croats and Bunjevci on Serbian census, when we know that most of these people are Bunjevci by origin? How come that Democratic Alliance of Croats in Vojvodina and its spinoffs operates in Subotica, heartland of Bunjevci?

As I said, however, we should somewhat limit the consideration about the ethnic identity, it ate the whole article. No such user (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's that politics talk again... most went the Croatian route due to the availability of a better passport, also most likely chasing hope in which their rights would get extended as much as the Hungarian minority's did in the recent years. Minorities who have an independent state behind them usually get a bigger slice of the cake. I'm not willing to decide which side does a Bunjevac choose... what I'm advocating here is that this should not be an article labelled "Part of a series of articles on Croats", that's it. BureX (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

They are a separate ethnic group which lives mainly in Serbia,where they are recognized as such.They are not Croats.The fact is nearly 17 000 people declared themselves as Bunjevci as a separate ethnic group,and that has to be respected.

94.189.197.200 (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe if you actually read the article carefully you will find (if it really interests you) that Bunjevci are considered both: a sub-group of Croats and there are also those who declare themselves as a separate Bunjevac identity, but still nevertheless closely related to Croats. Now what exactly is the problem you have with the categories you keep removing which were there for months and starting an "edit war" with a bunch of other users trying to maintain the quality and balance already established in this article? Wikipedia does not work in a way that you can enforce your POV on something, it's more-less part of a consensus made on a common sense logic and available facts. If you are really interested in contributing to Wikipedia compose yourself and stop this BS. Shokatz (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

All Montenegrins declared themseleves as Serbs before WW2,and even now 1/3 of them consider them Serbs,but now they are seen as a separate ethnic group,and nobody says they are a subgroup of Serbs.

24.135.66.10 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how is your comparison valid for any reason. We are dealing with the situation at hand not what it was before. If Serbs in Montenegro would declare themselves both as Montenegrins and Serbs you would have a point, but Serbs in Montenegro declare specifically as Serbs unlike great part of Bunjevci who declare themselves both as Bunjevci and part of the Croatian nation in broad and narrow sense. And btw. I am watching your edits very closely. You are deleting entire sections of various articles without any explanation or discussion. If you continue I believe you won't be able to edit articles for a very long time. It's up to you. Shokatz (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Poređenje je sasvim na mestu,više puta sam pisao o tome,samo kreten ne bi shvatio,pretnje blokiranjem su ti vrlo jadne, prvo ti se ne pitaš za to, drugo adrese za menjaju svakih par dana tako ne bi imalo efekta.The comparison is perfect some Montenegrins consider themselves Serbs,some consider themselves as Montenegrins and some consider themselves as Montenegrins as a subgroup of Serb people.How come you don't understand?Also very rude to threaten someone with blocking,it won't work.

24.135.66.10 (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is obviosly with strong Croatian Nationalism influence, which denies existing of Bunjevci identity, so I added the fact that only some of them declare themselves like croats, not everyone like Croatian Ultra-Nationalist writes.

Actually reading it helps, for the start:

Bunjevci who remained in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as those in modern Croatia, today [...] declare themselves as Croats.

Do you really dispute that? No such user (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbians put nationalistic pressure on Bunjevci to declare themselves as a separate entity from Croats. They are Croats and I am sure any cultural anthropologist would agree. Just like in Croatia, Serbs are often under pressure to deny their culture and identify as "Yugolavs", but the vast majority of them that identify themselves that way are Serbs. Both sides are equally as guilty of trying to diminish the other in this respect. 184.149.5.3 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing about Bunjevci is they weren't people of another ethnicity. They were named Bunjevci by Serbians from Vojvodina, just like Croatians and Bosnians called orthodox people Vlachs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.106.198 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bunjevci are Croats. Vlachs are Vlachs. They were brainwashed by Serbian ortodox church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.241.58 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bunjevci are originally Vlachs from Herzegovina. They were not Croats, nor Vlachs are Serbs. The ethnicity is a complex problem in the Balkan.--Crovata (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bunjevci are catholic Serbians

Please take a look at Austro-HUngarian census and map made in 1910. by Count Teleki https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Ethnographic_map_of_hungary_1910_by_teleki_carte_rouge.jpg They are strictly identified as Serb Catholics

Pixius (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of claims made on this page with no sources. Truthdelivery (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bunjevci. 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/20090917063438/http://www.bunjevci.com/ to http://www.bunjevci.com/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Language

Bunjevci are ethnic Croats that fled from Herzegovina. As such their native language is Croatian. Living in another country or switching nationality due to political reasons doesn't affect native language as a whole. (It does only on personal level and doesn't reflect on the whole group.) SerVasi (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Croatian is only one standardized form of Serbo-Croatian. It is unquestionable that Bunjevac dialect is a subset of Serbo-Croatian linguistic spectrum. It is questionable whether Bunjevac is a subset of Croatian, which is a sociolingiuistic construct. No such user (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@No such user: Its not even remotely questionable.Its a fact accepted by the whole world.(except 1 country) SerVasi (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not spin please. Bunjevci mostly live in Serbia - therefore the opinion of scholars and government of that country is of high relevance. The majority of Bunjevci do not speak Croatian as far as we know. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have an opinion that "Croatian" is somehow discernible from "Serbo-Croatian". Let's check out some neutral sources, e.g.

• Geert-Hinrich Ahrens (6 March 2007). Diplomacy on the Edge: Containment of Ethnic Conflict and the Minorities Working Group of the Conferences on Yugoslavia. Woodrow Wilson Center Press. pp. 247–. ISBN 978-0-8018-8557-0.

The 1991 census and its predecessor contained three categories of Roman Catholic, Serbo-Croatian speaking Slavs: Croats, Bunjevci and Šokci. The differences between them were difficult to understand, because besides the identity of their religion, their Serbo-Croatian also showed characteristics of the Croatian variant. Croats, therefore, claimed "Croatian-ness" (Hrvatstvo) of the Bunjevci and Šokci, whereas Serbs, but also some Bunjevci, pretended that they were from old Balkan stock[...] The problem was not theoretical but political, because the split lowered the percentage of the Vojvodina Croats, who accused Belgrade of a divide et impera policy

So, the things are not so simple as you'd like to present, and, since, the fact accepted by the whole world (except 1 country) is that Croatian and Serbian make up one genetic language, that we refer to "Serbo-Croatian" we should go with the broadest, neutral, definition. No such user (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You cant say dont try to spin this and do the same. Almost all of bunjevic live in serbia because in other countries like romania,hungary,switzerland etc. They are reffered to as croats. Again this is not the case only in *one* country. SerVasi (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand. :) If that's some sort of hate speech, it's not okay. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I will assume that was a joke sadko. Anyways, @No such user: why arent you keeping the same energy on these articles then: Bosniaks,Croats,Serbs,Montenegrins.I dont see serbo-croatian listed there SerVasi (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@No such user: SerVasi (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@No such user: ye folding your argument or? SerVasi (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

SerVasi: Nope. I would gladly keep the same energy on those articles as well, but I have limited time and resources. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Technically, Croats do speak "Croatian" and Serbs "Serbian" etc, as those are the names they use for the language they speak so it's not strictly "wrong", although it should be mentioned that those are mere variations of "Serbo-Croatian". However, I'm not aware that a majority of Bunjevci call their language "Croatian" so as to unambiguously use such formulation in this article. No such user (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@No such user:An overwhelming majority of bunjevci identify as croats yet they dont consider their language croatian. Thats certaintly an interesting take on the situation. SerVasi (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

SerVasi "Overwhelming"?! "2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in The Republic of Serbia: Ethnicity - Data by municipalities and cities" (PDF). Statistical Office of Republic Of Serbia, Belgrade. 2012. ISBN 978-86-6161-023-3.

• Subotica (grad): Bunjevci 13,553; Hrvati 14,151
• Sombor: Bunjevci 2,058; Hrvati 7,070

There are more Croats elsewhere in Vojvodina, but they are not of Bunjevci stock. No such user (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@No such user: SerVasi (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@No such user: Yes, overwhelming. For some reason you are operating on a false pretense that bunjevci only live in vojvodina. They are present in croatia,hungary,romania,bosnia and even a decent number in switzerland. In all of those countries they almost exclusively identify as croats. This is not the case only in serbia because of political reasons. SerVasi (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no sources for the claim and it is not general knowledge and not all of them in Serbia self-identify as Croats, with or without alleged political influence. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is chiefly about Bunjevci in Bačka. By now, those other Bunjevci have lost virtually all of their identity, lore and dialect so much it's debatable whether the label still applies to them.
But frankly, I'm rather tired of this chat by now. Is the statement that Bunjevci speak a dialect of Serbo-Croatian somehow wrong? Is it not neutral? What's the particular reason you insist on "Croatian" formulation? No such user (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@No such user: The title is only bunjevci and thats what the artice should be about. If you find it necessary feel free to make a seperate article called bunjevci in backa. Saying they speak a dialect of croatian isnt wrong either and its not as vague as saying serbo-croatian. Its more concise and informative. Thats what wikipedia is all about. Cheers. SerVasi (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

@Soundwaweserb: @Ничим неизазван: @SerVasi: I suggest you all use the talk page instead of edit warring, please. If anyone can explain how describing the Bunjevci as Croats and adding the flag of the Croatian National Council isn't WP:UNDUE and WP:POV, I suggest they do it here. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Esteemed editor SerVasi was pushing his nationalistic POV which was in my opinion very disruptive and badl for the general state and neutrality of Wikipedia. Not to mention his street slurs and labels. That's all folks. My bruh @Amanuensis Balkanicus:, please, help me, help us. Greetings to the diligent editors. God bless. † Ничим неизазван (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@SerVasi: Further changes to the article should be discussed here first according to WP:BRD. Your edits have been reverted multiple times, and you haven't yet discussed the edits on the talk pages. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting choice of words painting me as the perpetrator in all of this. Assembling biased editors and fake IPs doesn't make one side of the argument right against widely accepted facts. Previous discussions with these kinds of consortiums have proved to be rather futile in the past so why bother. I am also wary of engaging in discussions with fellow editor Amanuensis Balkanicus who is acting in bad faith because for some reason believes i am a sock of another editor (whose name i don't recall atm) even after SPI checks. SerVasi (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)