Talk:Croatia

Active discussions

Croatia has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
A version of this article was copy edited by Folklore1, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 25, 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.


Wrong information on the history blockEdit

At the beginning of the block about Croatian history there is a line saying that the Diocletian period was at 9 century AD, but a bit later it's saying that Dioclecian retired at Split in 305 AD. Also in the Diocletian page says he governed the roman empire during the 4 century AD, so I guess this 9 century information is wrong, isn't it? Henriquepalazzo (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ustashe regime's crimesEdit

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Citation overkill, and if Žerjavić (or Kočović) is used for calculating Croat war losses in the previous sentence, then he should be used for other ones as well". I think it is relevant and should be included.

In the same time, antifascist Croats were targeted by the regime as well. The number of Croats killed in the NDH is estimated to be approximately 200,000, either by Ustaše, as members of the resistance movement, or as Axis collaborators.[1][2] Furthermore, it is estimated that Ustashe regime systematically murdered somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 Serbs during genocide.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Previous version:

Furthermore, it is estimated that Ustashe regime systematically murdered somewhere between 200,000 and 340,000 Serbs.[13][14][15]

References

  1. ^ Bogoljub Kočović (2005). Sahrana jednog mita: žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji [Burial of a Myth: World War II Victims in Yugoslavia] (in Serbian). Otkrovenje. ISBN 978-86-83353-39-2. Retrieved 18 October 2011.
  2. ^ Philip J. Cohen; David Riesman (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 106–111. ISBN 978-0-89096-760-7. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  3. ^ Yeomans, Rory (2015). The Utopia of Terror: Life and Death in Wartime Croatia. Boydell & Brewer. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-58046-545-8.
  4. ^ Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and Research Center, Yad Vashem. "Independent State of Croatia" (PDF). Yad Vashem.
  5. ^ Lemkin, Raphael (2008). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange. pp. 259–264. ISBN 9781584779018.
  6. ^ "Genocide of the Serbs". The Combat Genocide Association.
  7. ^ "Ustasa" (PDF). yadvashem.org. Retrieved 25 June 2018.
  8. ^ Levy, Michele Frucht (2009). "The Last Bullet for the Last Serb":The Ustaša Genocide against Serbs: 1941–1945". Nationalities Papers. 37 (6): 807–837. doi:10.1080/00905990903239174.
  9. ^ MacDonald, David Bruce (2002). Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia (1.udg. ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. p. 261. ISBN 978-0-7190-6467-8.
  10. ^ McCormick, Robert B. (2014). Croatia Under Ante Pavelić: America, the Ustaše and Croatian Genocide. London-New York: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 9781780767123.
  11. ^ Ivo Goldstein. "Uspon i pad NDH". Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. Archived from the original on 17 July 2011. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  12. ^ Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons (1997). Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts. p. 430. ISBN 0-203-89043-4. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
  13. ^ Yeomans, Rory (2015). The Utopia of Terror: Life and Death in Wartime Croatia. Boydell & Brewer. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-58046-545-8.
  14. ^ Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. New York: Indiana University Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-253-34656-8.
  15. ^ US Holocaust Museum, USHMM. "Jasenovac". US Holocaust Museum.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020Edit

Change "President - Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović" to "President - Zoran Milanović" Saltdispenser (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: inauguration has not happened yet. Majavah (t/c) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territoriesEdit

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Croatia. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando ImperioEdit

@Tuvixer:According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia in the early 7th century after they defeated the Avars According to sources which I enter and De Administrando Imperio Croats are coming to Dalmatia while part of the Croats settled Illyricum and Pannonia. I don't know what should be strange here. Dalmatia is at that time Roman Dalmatia not today's Dalmatia and Illyricum and Pannonia. If information(from De Administrando Imperio) exist in the article then it must be said what that source speaks. I stated two RS which talk about that. Question? Mikola22 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Strange is that Illyricum was a Roman province, and it got split up in two provinces, Dalmatia and Pannonia, so your added text states the following: "...the Croats had arrived to Dalmatia while part of the Croats settled Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and Pannonia..." That is what is strange. Please provide the pages of the two RS which You used where You found that info and used it for citation. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: U vezu s dolaskom Hrvata stavlja 30. glava i odlazak dijela Hrvata u Ilirik i Panoniju. In connection with the arrival of the Croats, Chapter 30 puts and departure of part of the Croats to Illyricum and Pannonia. Taj odlazak zbiva u vrijeme neposredno nakon dolaska Hrvata u Dalmaciju. This departure occurred immediately after the arrival of Croats to Dalmatia. Lujo Margetić, page 26. And Stjepan Pantelić page 300-301, Jedan dio Hrvata koji su došli u Dalmaciju odijelio i zavladao Ilirikom i Panonijom. One part of the Croats who came to Dalmatia separated and took the rule of Illyricum and Pannonia.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably more accurate is this Illyricum "Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum"[1][2] Mikola22 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
That Prefecture of Illyricum is most definitely not more accurate. It is very confusing. The source states that by Illyricum and Pannonia the author means the land between Sava and Drava, what is today Slavonia and in neighboring Bosnian lands. I think that it is best to leave it as it is now, what I mean is that "what is today Croatia" is the best wording, clear and undisputed. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This is information from De Administrando Imperio and RS and this must be respected. Where was Illyricum etc it is not up to us to investigate. If we have information from De Administrando Imperio in the article then it must be consistent with De Administrando Imperio and RS. Croats also come to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, Slavs(today's Croats) also exist in the Pannonia so we must respect and that too. This is about Croats who not only come to present-day Croatia, nor does the RS say that. I return the edit according to RS. Mikola22 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Once again Mikola22 has engaged in an edit war, this is very disruptive and unproductive. Please first learn and educate Yourself how Wikipedia works, please, and then try to build a consensus here on the talk page without Your unproductive edits that lead into edit war. Thanks. What You are here trying to do is quoting the source as You like, cherry-picking the parts that somehow and that eludes me why, are by Your liking. It is making the article confusing and unclear. Now You have added the Prefecture of Illyricum?? What sense does that make? If You really are making this edits in good faith than You would change the article in a way that it does not create confusion. Do You dispute that Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia cover the territory of modern day Croatia? --Tuvixer (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, DAI is a primary source, and often has contradictions. Even though it is a valuable source, it needs trained historians to interpret it. We need to start using reliable secondary sources from mainstream authors, preferably peer-reviewed and such. But then again, he calls every source he founds an RS. I am not sure how to reach to him, as this is a pattern of behavior that may escalate, or worse, discourage other editors from engaging. He was involved in a noticeboard that tried to discredit an authoritative source in this field, John A. Fine. That was for me very ugly and dangerous. Mhare (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mhare:He was involved in a noticeboard that tried to discredit an authoritative source in this field, John A. Fine. Yes and, what is the problem? Like I killed someone. I said my comment because it was requested. As if I had committed the most serious crime.Mikola22 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer:No,present-day Hungary and Romania etc. did not exist that time. Please specify always with contemporary descriptions. An explanation from some edit. First this is about Croats and that time. They don't come to Croatia they arrived to Dalmatia (Roman province) while part of the Croats settled Illyricum and Pannonia. That's where the Croats come according to De Administrando Imperio and sources(RS,historians) who talk about it. If we have information in the article from De Administrando Imperio then we cannot state that Croats coming to Croatia or present-day Croatia because Croatia does not exist then and Croats don't just come to Croatia or present-day Croatia. "Please specify always with contemporary descriptions". We must respect the original record, RS and fact that Croatia did not exist that time. Therefore we cannot have data from De Administrando Imperio and in the article mention of present-day Croatia. According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia. De Administrando Imperio does not mention Croatia.
  • Najranije pokušaje pokrštavanja Hrvata Porfirogenet smješta u vrijeme cara Heraklija(610–641), dakle odmah po njihovu doseljenju u Dalmaciju. Porfirogenet's earliest attempts for baptizing Croats were placed during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610–641), therefore, immediately upon their arrival to Dalmatia.[3]
  • Odijelio od ostatka naroda te došao u Dalmaciju gdje je zatekao Avare koji su držali tu zemlju. Od tog doba ovladaše tom zemljom Hrvati, Podložne različitim interpretacijama i osporavanjima Porfirogenetove su vijesti, u svojoj osnovi, ipak prihvaćene kao vjerodostojne zbog čega se seoba Hrvata u historiografiji općenito i stavlja u vrijeme spomenutog cara, negdje između 626. i 641. godine. Separated from the rest of the people and came to Dalmatia, where they found the Avars who held the land. Since that time, Croats ruled of that land, Subject to different interpretations and disputes, Porfirogenet's news are accepted as credible, which is why the migration of Croats in historiography is generally placed at the time of the emperor, somewhere between 626 and 641.[4]
  • Podrijetlo Hrvata obično se izvodi iz doseljenja Slavena u rimske provincije Panoniju i Dalmaciju te iz njihova zauzeća zemlje u njima. To je model koji je uvela i prihvatila povijesna znanost. The origin of the Croats is usually derived from the settlement of the Slavs in the Roman provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia and their occupation of the land there. This is the model that she introduced and accepted by historical science.[5]Mikola22 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: This is a talk page so it would be nice that you say something. According to sources, the Croats coming to Roman Dalmatia so we must respect these sources as well.Mikola22 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am all for changes in a way that do not not make the article/sentence confusing. The fact is that the source states that Croats migrated to the territories of Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia (I am not sure if at that time these provinces ceased to exist) We need to check that. Is that kind of wording ok with You? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer:I edit information to article according to the source. If Illyric and Pannonia look confusing(I don't know what that should mean, it's historical data) then we have to put what most sources mention and that is the Roman province of Dalmatia. This is consistent with the historical source and with reliable sources.Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits/edit warring by user Mikola22Edit

Mikola 22, please stop edit warring. It is very disruptive and this is not the first nor the second article that You engage, without any reason in edit warring, even when Your edits have been reverted by multiple users. Please explain Your behavior, stop edit warring and discuss it here. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I must revert that, this information is not verified in the source. If we started putting data without a source, we are entering in anarchy. We need to have more sources that say this. You have to understand that Croats are Vlachs, part of the Croats also convert to Orthodoxy. Therefore Croats are not of Serbian origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. That must be the basis for your conclusion. You must have books and scientific papers talking about it. You have to respect the fact that not only Serbian people live in the Balkans. Here live and Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Croats, Montenegrins, Vlachs, Bosnians etc. And they are fleeing from the Turks and they are in Vlach's name. Vlachs lived in every country and before the Turks arrived to the Balkans. You have to respect and other nations. Therefore we must not play with these things without more concrete sources. Mikola22 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mikola22 the point is that You need to stop edit warring. Is that clear? After that we can talk and discuss like civilized people do. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tuvixer: You can't put data without a source, it is a rule which must be followed. The whole Dalmatia is Vlachian-Morlacian, Bunjevci(Croatians) are Vlachs, northwestern Croatia records information on Croatian peasants(serfs) who become Vlachs, many Croatian villages in Dalmatia have a mention of the Vlachs population that migrates to that today Croatian populated villages, in Croatian Burgenland(Croatian emigration) are mentioned Vlachs who are Croats now, in western Croatia for many villages and settlements inhabited by today Croats in the sources they are referred as Vlachs settlements, in Croatia live and Ćići (Vlachs), many Croatian Vlachs had assimilated into the Croats before the Turks arrived. Therefore, do not promote some theses without resources, Croats are not of Serbian origin because they are assimilated a large number of Vlachs throughout history. Let's not promote Serbian historians. As the archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić(Serbian historian), retelling archival writings, simply where writes Vlach read a Serb. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings on the Vlachs of the Catholics, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. "[6] He often uses the word Serbian in front of the text of the document, while none of it is mentioned in the document itself. It is easy to see that the adjective "Serbian" was put in the place where it was written: Vlach, Morlak, schismatic, Greek, Orthodox, or simply added, inserted. This practice is not created by Jačov(Serbian historian), but continues. This already wrote Aleksa Ivic, Nikodim Milas, Jovan Radonoc, etc.(Serbian historians)[7] The following is a description of the war in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and here, as well as throughout the book, it is noticeable separate terms of Morlacs as equal(=) to Serbs, which attributes most of the war's merits to Morlacs, that is, according to Marko Jačov(Serbian historian) interpretation exclusively to Serbs. In the introductory section of the book, Marko Jačov claims that all Morlacs are Serbs.[8] Morlacs: Venetian sources from 17th and 18th century make no distinction between Orthodox and Catholics, they call all Christians as Morlacs. Once again, please the not do this edit without a source, because Vlachs are today Croats. Therefore Croats are not of Serb origin. I must revert that.Mikola22 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

El_С banned me (both with Mikola22) from editing this article immediately after Mikola22 made another revert to push his fringe POV. But now anyone can return the deleted phrase. To clear conscience, one can put a link, for example, to this book [1] (page 25 and further).--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Ferenc VÉGH University of Pécs Institute of History, Doprinos mađarske historiografije istraživanju "Vojne krajine" u ranom novom vijeku (16.-17. stoljeće) [The Contribution of the Hungarian Historiography to the Research on the "Military Frontier" in the Early Modern Period (16th-17th Centuries) ] 2017.[9]Habsburška vlast je na taj način došla do relativno jeftine vojne sile koristeći južneslavenske(hrvatske, vlaške, srpske) graničare. The Habsburg government in this way came to relatively cheap military force using the South Slavic (Croatian, Vlach, Serbian) grencers.
  • Mirko Marković Croatian academician: Vlach population(16th and 17th century, Slavonia) needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come here in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia.[10]
  • Croatian hussars were irregular light horsemen characteristic of the Habsburg-Ottoman border area. Croatian units were not inevitably referred to as "Croats" but it was the most commonly used name. In the Thirty Years' War other designations used were Wallachen, Uskocken, Raitzen, Granitscharen, Insulaner, Wenden, Polen, Türken i Zigeuner. Amongst the Croatian hussars could be found other ethno-political groups, such as Hungarians, Serbs, Albanians, Romanians, Poles, Vlachs and Cossacks.[11]
  • Mile Bogović: Records of that time referred entire population along the Turkish-Venetian border in Dalmatia as Morlachs. Many historians mostly Serbian used name Morlak and simply translate as Serb. Almost the only difference between the Morlachs was their religious affiliation: Catholics and Orthodox.[12]
  • In the 15th century after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire under the Sultan's rule much of the Vlachs (Vlach, Valach) arrived in the area between Drava and Sava (Slavonia of that time) and a part of them continued their journey across the Drava to Hungary.[13]
  • However, it is important to mention that military border created in the 15th–19th century by Hungarians, Habsburgs, Venetians and Turks contributed greatly to the strengthening of the Vlach-Slavic ethnic relations. “Vlachs” of military borderlands were of various ethnic backgrounds, many of them were one hundred percent Slavs, but on the other hand, Vlach highlanders were settled there next to the Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian peasants[14]
  • Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves. Vlachs settled in Croatia in the 16th century, fundamentally Slavicized and Christianised, were potential Serbs as much as the potential Croats were Vlachs of Dinara(Dalmatia) and Istria as well as immigrants who have received the Catholic faith.[15]
  • Orthodox Slavs and Vlachs fled from the Ottomans into Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, or farther northward across the Danube. They were strategically resettled in the area of the military frontier. Many people retreated to the mountains of Albania, Greece, and Montenegro, where, as migratory shepherds, they remained largely untouched by Ottoman rule[16]
  • About early period of Vlachs there are hardly any reliable information, it can be said with great certainty that they were once Romanized groups. The emerging Balkan states tried to integrate these Vlachs, but they only partially succeeded. Nevertheless the gradual Slavicization of Vlachs began with parallel integration into Greek Orthodox Church[17]
  • In 1555, all taxpayers in Srijem and Slavonia are called "Vlachs", which includes not only indigenous Croatian population but also and Hungarians.[18]

Mikola22 (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Another useless bunch of fragmentary quotes. You do not need to look in the sources for the crumbs that match your POV, you should write in neutral manner, observing the wp:weight.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Which crumbs, the claims of academics, historians? Therefore, the source does not say "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" Do you not see that sources which I quote speaks of Vlachs and Serbs, Vlachs which the Serbs consider different from themselves etc. Then how can Vlachs be (term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)? Sources which are in article as proof for that claim talk about Vlachs who become Serbianized(source does not specify when) and who formed Serbian population in western Bosnia and south Croatia. [19] Various Orthodox peoples whether Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Macedo-Rumuns or Walachians came under Serbian influences. Hence they became Serbianized (source does not specify when).[20] We cannot have information in the article "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" which have no proof in the source which don't talk about that, sources speak about Vlachs who become Serbianized(we don't know when). We do not have original historical records to prove it factually. Serbs(larger groups) from western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area have been mentioned in few main documents. On the river Cetina(Dalmatia) together with Croats and Vlachs, Žumberak(area on the border with Slovenia) together with Vlachs and Una area(border with Bosnia) together with Vlachs ( mentioned in the migration to Žumberak). Tenth and hundreds of other documents mention Vlachs who are mentioned in Dalmatia and wider are as Morlachs(Vlachs) which are Orthodox or Catholic. Croats(former Vlachs in large numbers) from Dalmatia are not Serbs. We cannot and must not interpret historical facts from today's position, history cannot be changed. Interpreting something without a source ie "that Vlachs are mostly Serbs" and by promoting this thesis we are actually bringing the fact that Vlachs are actually Serbs which means that most of the Croats etc are Serbian origin but Vlachs are not originally Serbs, Croats etc. Mikola22 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
We cannot and must not interpret historical facts from today's position -- You are wrong. It's you who cannot and must not interpret historical facts here in Wikipedia, but for historians this is an normal job. And your job here is to retell the established views in neutral manner, observing the wp:weight, and remembering wp:verifiability. And you, instead, for some reason decided to convince all the world that "Vlachs are Croats!", as you have said earlier.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
"Vlachs are and today Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Kosovars, Albanians, Bulgarians etc but Vlachs in Croatia are not mainly Serbs, the entire Catholic Dalmatia is referred as Vlachians(Morlachs) but these Croats are not Serbs because Vlachs are not Serbs. Vlachs, Serbs and others coming to Croatia. If Vlachs are mainly Serbs then who are the Rascians(Serbs) which are mentioned in Croatia? We cannot make Serbs out of the Vlachs because they are not Serbs. The Vlachs were assimilated into the Croats even before the arrival of the Turks and Croats are not of Serb origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves. Large groups of Rascians arrive in eastern Slavonia, Vojvodina etc but they are not Vlachs they are Rascians. To Žumberak Vlachs and Serbs are coming, on river Cetina are mentioned Croats, Vlachs and Serbs. The Vlachs are not Serbs. We the not have information about mass migration of someone to Croatia except for the large Serb migrations heading towards Vojvodina. What we have more specifically are migrations from Bosnia but Vlachs are also mentioned here. Whether these Vlachs came to Bosnia from southeast of the Balkans or are they local pre-Turkish population from Bosnia we do not know. But and Bosnians live in that Bosnia and we must respect and that. We cannot make the historical facts that only Serbs flee and migrate all over the Balkans because and others flee, Serbs are not the only inhabitants of the Balkans. This is neutral historical point of view and realistic history. Otherwise, we must understand that Serbs and Turks are allies in the beginning of war and they have no reason for mass migration. Secondly, the Turks colonize their conquered areas but the Serbs fleeing from the Turks and cannot be colonized. Therefore, we cannot create a new history from today's perspective of the peoples who live here. We must keep article in that time of period and historical context because if we start from Vlachs create "mostly Serbs fact" we change history because there is no historical data for that. The sources in the article don't talk about it, they talk about Serbization of Vlachs(when and where it happened we do not know). Mikola22 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, and I say maybe, I am staring to understand the problem here. :Mikola22 no one is saying that Croats that are today called by some or refereed to as Vlachs (Croatian: Vlaji, Vlasi,...) - which is most of the time used as a derogatory term - Serbs. No one is saying that. Or do You think it is otherwise? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Tuvixer Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) Have you read and understand this quote? I wrote two pages of facts, claims of historians, reliable sources etc who say that Vlachs are different from Serbs, that they are mentioned together with Croats, Serbs etc, that a good part of the Croatian population was named in the sources as Vlachs not to mention that every Balkan country has its Vlachs. These are historical facts and reliable sources talk about that. Vlach are not mainly Serbs because we have no information about that nor sources in the article confirm this. Why some Serbian historians forge that part of history if Vlachs are mainly Serbs? Because we have no historical sources to make such a claim. As the archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić(Serbian historian), retelling archival writings, simply where writes Vlach read a Serb. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings on the Vlachs of the Catholics, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith etc etc. Article fact "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" has no confirmation in reliable sources. Why? Because of all information I cite earlier. The only thing we can found in sources from article is that Vlachs are Serbianized and this information from RS just proves the fact that Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs. Or to simplify, these sources(for that clame) which exist in article refute that clame. This means that article has a fact which the source itself refutes. This shows that someone put this information in the article with some intention bypassing information from the sources so he did not edit article in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22 do you live in the 21th century or are you still stuck in the 16th or 17th century? Vlachs, as far as I know practically do not exist today (only 29 citizens of Croatia declared as Vlachs in the last census) so saying that "Vlachs are" is false,, "Vlachs were" is the precise term, for those in Croatia at least. So as far as I know and have read, Vlachs in Croatia were Catholics or Orthodox, more were Orthodox than Catholics and when the era of nation-states came they started to declare or identify themselves as Croats (those of Catholic faith) or as Serbs (those of Orthodox faith). I don't know or I don't think that anyone asked them before the 19th century if they were Vlachs or Croats or Serbs. Strong national identities only rose in the last two centuries. So we can't use the views and definitions of the 21st century to describe something or someone in the 16th or 17th century. It is like when a nationalist asks someone in Belfast: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" and the person replies: "I am an atheist.", then the nationalist asks him again: "But are you Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?". --Tuvixer (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22 I have reverted you because of your disruptive behavior. Do you now at least understand that you can not engage in an edit war and that when someone reverts you that you need to go to the talk page and start a discussion? It would be really nice of you if you could give me an answer. Thanks :) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Also I see that user Sheldonium has removed the part in question. Sheldonium please join the discussion and do not remove or change that part of the article until the discussion is over. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Tuvixer do you live in the 21th century or are you still stuck in the 16th or 17th century? Vlachs, as far as I know practically do not exist today (only 29 citizens of Croatia declared as Vlachs in the last census) so saying that "Vlachs are" is false "Vlachs were" is the precise term, for those in Croatia at least. What this have to do with quote "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" time of (14,15,16,17th century), Habsburg Monarchy and Austria-Hungary? This is about Vlachs for which sources in the article do not speak that they are mainly Serbs because Vlachs are not Serbs. So as far as I know and have read, Vlachs in Croatia were Catholics or Orthodox, more were Orthodox than Catholics and when the era of nation-states came they started to declare or identify themselves as Croats (those of Catholic faith) or as Serbs (those of Orthodox faith). But Vlachs from that time are not mainly Serbs because today Croats, etc would be of Serbian origin. That is why we must not interpret history from today's position. I don't know or I don't think that anyone asked them before the 19th century if they were Vlachs or Croats or Orthodox. "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" Do you now understand what this is about? You said the answer yourself, no one asked them anything so how are they mainly Serbs? Strong national identities only rose in the last two centuries. So we can't use the views and definitions of the 21st century to describe something or someone in the 16th or 17th century. But Vlachs are not Serbs, they are mentioned together with Serbs, Croats etc. When and which assimilations were happening, what time, area etc, who should know that? It's a job for 5,6 academics from around the world to all together make conclusion. It is like when a nationalist asks someone in Belfast: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" and the person replies: "I am an atheist.", then the nationalist asks him again: "But are you Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?" Then we will facts from the 20th, 21th century on Wikipedia start to use for facts concerning articles and history of the 15th, 16th century. That is why I mentioned that we should not accept anarchy in articles. I have reverted you because of your disruptive behavior. But I have to remove information from the article because has no proof in the sources, it was your duty and not mine. We need to edit articles in good faith. This article information is not good faith, it's someone's thinking without reliable sources which prove that. When I first read this I knew immediately that it had no proof in the sources and this is later proved to be correct. It is a big claim that requires more independent sources written by academics or historians dealing with these issues. It would be really nice of you if you could give me an answer. "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" This rings alarm bells, The whole Dalmatia is Vlachian(not to talk about Vlachs in other countries), we must not promote such information without proof. My intention was good faith as well as respect to Wikipedia rules( Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,)
  • To summarize. "Orthodox Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs)" This information has no evidence in the sources which exist in the article. On the contrary sources refute that information because they talk about Serbianisation of Vlachs(we do not know where, when, in what area, etc.) Thus if someone is Serbianisate then it can be assumed he wasn't a Serb before that. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered Therefore all important informations has been left out from the sources, and only what did not appear in the sources was put into the article. I think we need to get down to earth and start following Wikipedia rule. Everything else is anarchy. Mikola22 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
To add on my comment above, Mikola22 do you really think that Vlachs so outnumbered Croats and Serbs in the refugee population that fled before the Ottoman expansion so that it is not even worth mentioning that the refugees were also Croats and Serbs or is the word "Vlach" used as a category to describe all those who fled to Croatia or Vojna Krajina (Military Frontier) and settled there, weather they were Catholics or Orthodox. What was their language? They did not speak Croatian or Serbian? Was "Vlach", in that time, a term used for sheepherders and farmers? Or is "Vlach" more a micro-regional identity rather than a national one. Maybe it is better to remove that whole sentence or remove the word "Vlachs" and replace it with something else because it is very confusing and it might resolve this dispute. Also I have quickly gone through the source text and did not find that the source mentions "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs". On what page of the source is that mentioned? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
do you really think that Vlachs so outnumbered Croats and Serbs in the refugee population that fled before the Ottoman expansion so that it is not even worth mentioning that the refugees were also Croats and Serbs or is the word "Vlach" used as a category to describe all those who fled to Croatia or Vojna Krajina (Military Frontier) and settled there, weather they were Catholics or Orthodox. Do you really think that only Serbs flee from the Ottomans? We have massive migrations of Serbs(Rascians) towards Vojvodina and southeastern Hungary. If the Serbs flee in large numbers in 17th and 18th century then probably did not flee in large numbers earlier towards Croatia. Do you really think that the Serbs as allies of Ottomans(in the beginnings) flee from Ottomans or that Ottomans settling Serbs who running away from them to Ottoman teritory. It is as if the Croats fleeing from the Ottomans and massively settled area around of Istanbul. What was their language? They did not speak Croatian or Serbian? It is a matter of Slavic assimilation, Serbianisation, Croatisation etc.(Why, when, where etc, who would know exactly) Was "Vlach", in that time, a term used for sheepherders and farmers? That doesn't tell us much about the origin of anyone. The whole Dinaric area is mostly sheepherder, all the way to Greece. Or is "Vlach" more a micro-regional identity rather than a national one. There are different opinions for this so I don't want to get into it. Maybe it is better to remove that whole sentence or remove the word "Vlachs" and replace it with something else because it is very confusing and it might resolve this dispute. Croatian historigraphy speaks of assimilated Vlachs and this is a historical fact of that time and a very valuable piece of information which should be part of the article. This is history of Croatia and that time. But we must not cite present clame because it has no evidence in the sources. There were Orthodox and Catholic Vlachs in Croatia and that is very valuable information and this information should be part of the article. I have nothing against it. Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs I would not know.Mikola22 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 it is sad to see that even after you got a ban from Wikipedia that you still think that you did nothing wrong. Edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. You are paranoid that someone is going to think, when he reads that Orthodox Vlachs is/was a term used for Serbian refugees that fled from Bosnia to Croatia during the Ottoman expansion, that all Croats are decedents from Serbs????????? Only two minds who can think of such nonsense are the discussing mind of Vojisalv Šešelj and it seems also the mind of user Mikola22. It seems to me that it would be best to remove the whole sentence from the article. Is that ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer that Orthodox Vlachs is/was a term used for Serbian refugees that fled from Bosnia to Croatia during the Ottoman expansion, that all Croats are decedents from Serbs? Vlachs are and part of Croats etc and this is something basic which people should know, why write fairy tales(Orthodox Vlachs ie Serbs) when Wikipedia is not place for this. Only two minds who can think of such nonsense are the discussing mind of Vojisalv Šešelj and it seems also the mind of user Mikola22. You could find a bigger war criminal to compare me to. It seems to me that it would be best to remove the whole sentence from the article. Is that ok? They blocked me for removing some part of quotes from the article and now you would remove all sentence? How do you think that's possible(remov ), it is very valuable information about which speaks almost every book dealing with this period. We will not mention controversial part and we will leave the first part in the article. This is history of Croatia at that time. To replace the fleeing population, the Habsburgs encouraged the Christian populations of Bosnia to provide military service in the Military Frontier. Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs This is OK to me, we could mentioned Vlachs, Serbs and others or Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs. We have a source for this. There are also Bosnians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, there are probably and some Croats here etc who migrate so perhaps the most neutral would be Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs.[21] Mikola22 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Mikola22 it is amazing how you still don't understand that you were banned, not because of the nature of your edit but because you engaged in an edit war. Please educate yourself how Wikipedia works. Now I will ask again; On what page of the source is mentioned that "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs"? If I don't get the answer I will remove the whole sentence. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Tuvixer Do you understand what we are discussing? On what page of the source is mentioned that "Most of the transferred population were Orthodox Vlachs"? I didn't put this information in the article, I deleted (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) because this information has no evidence in RS and violates Wikipedia rule. I engaged in edit war because you and other two editors who kept that information in an article which has no evidence in sources, and you know that. Now when it failed to preserve that clame in the article now you would delete whole sentence? Why you did not do it before my block? Obviously you have not worked in good faith or checked sources, and that's how you probably worked for years. Therefore when my block expires I will enter Vlachs and Orthodox Slavs that is I enter information which have most sources. This is historical information for most of Croatian history and we must respect that part of history. I am not ashamed that part of Croats has and Vlachs origin and this should be clearly presented to the public. Then we'll see what you say.Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to dignify your trolling with a response. If I don't get the answer to my question above I will remove the whole sentence. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The claim in brackets is completely irrelevant for the article because it is not an article about Vlachs, nor Croats, let alone Serbs. All three sources explicitly say that Orthodox Vlachs are not, in fact, Serbs, as I extracted and mentioned in edit summary: "All sets of textbooks agree that the Serbs from Krajina are Serbianised Orthodox Vlachs", "They were descendants of a mixture of ancient Roman colonists and Romanized natives.". So opposite than the controversial text in brackets. Without unbiased, reliable sources that claim should not remain in the article. Thus I will remove it because it is unsourced and irrelevant for the topic. --Sheldonium (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Illyricum#/media/File:Prefecture_of_Illyricum_map.png
  3. ^ Trpimir Vedriš, http://www.matica.hr/media/knjige/nova-zraka-u-europskom-svjetlu-1135/pdf/opci-pregled-ulomak-pokrstavanje-i-rana-kristijanizacija-hrvata-trpimir-vedris.pdf (page 178)
  4. ^ Ante Birin, Pregled političke povijesti Hrvata u ranome srednjem vijeku,https://www.academia.edu/30936317/Pregled_politi%C4%8Dke_povijesti_Hrvata_u_ranome_srednjem_vijeku page 40
  5. ^ Radoslav Katičić, 1989, IVAN MUŽIĆ O PODRIJETLU HRVATA, https://hrcak.srce.hr/95425 #page=247
  6. ^ Mirko Valentić
  7. ^ Mile Bogović
  8. ^ Lovorka Čoralić
  9. ^ https://www.academia.edu/32797364/Doprinos_ma%C4%91arske_historiografije_istra%C5%BEivanju_Vojne_krajine_u_ranom_novom_vijeku_16.-17._stolje%C4%87e_The_Contribution_of_the_Hungarian_Historiography_to_the_Research_on_the_Military_Frontier_in_the_Early_Modern_Period_16th-17th_Centuries_
  10. ^ Mirko Marković,2002, Slavonia, settlement history and origin of population, http://library.foi.hr/lib/knjiga.php?sqlid=31&H=&E=&lok=&zbi=&sqlx=43014 #page=559-560
  11. ^ FILIP HREN(master's thesis), 2017, .HRVATSKI STALEŽI I VOJNA KRAJINA U TRIDESETOGODIŠNJEM RATU http://darhiv.ffzg.unizg.hr/id/eprint/9870/1/KOM_Hren%20Filip_Hrvatski%20stale%C5%BEi%20i%20Vojna%20krajina%20u%20Tridesetogodi%C5%A1njem%20ratu.pdf#page56-60
  12. ^ Mile Bogović, Katolička crkva i pravoslavlje u dalmaciji za vrijeme mletačke vladavine, 1993. (The Catholic Church and Orthodoxy in Dalmatia during the Venetian rule) https://docplayer.it/68017892-Katolicka-crkva-i-pravoslavlje.html #page= 4-5
  13. ^ Ladislav Heka, 2019, The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands, https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=325892 #page=31
  14. ^ Ilona Czamańska (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) DOI: 10.17951/rh.2016.41.1.11 Vlachs and Slavs in the Middle Ages and Modern Era, http://dlibra.umcs.lublin.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=26230 #page=21
  15. ^ Sima M. Ćirković, SRBI MEĐU EUROPSKIM NARODIMA,(Serbs) 2008. http://www.mo-vrebac-pavlovac.hr/attachments/article/451/Sima%20%C4%86irkovi%C4%87%20SRBI%20ME%C4%90U%20EVROPSKIM%20NARODIMA.pdf #page=5-6
  16. ^ Marie-Janine Calic, 2019, THE GREAT CAULDRON History of Southeastern Europe, https://books.google.hr/books/about/The_Great_Cauldron.html?id=cHSPDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y #page=79
  17. ^ Karl Kaser,1997, Slobodan seljak i vojnik: Rana krajiška društva, (1545-1754) https://www.google.com/search?q=karl+kaser+slobodan+seljak+i+vojnik&rlz=1C1CHBD_enHR866HR866&sxsrf=ACYBGNS9zy9dYQOdHZPGbe1l8lImqG62Qg:1581586311409&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0o5eSnM7nAhVKs4sKHdNoAfgQ_AUoAHoECAsQBw&biw=836&bih=422 #page=92
  18. ^ Nenad Moačanin, 2003, Požega i Požeština u sklopu Osmanlijskoga carstva : (1537.-1691.), http://baza.gskos.hr/cgi-bin/unilib.cgi?form=D1430506006 #page=35,40,80
  19. ^ Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide, https://books.google.hr/booksid=CWMVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=serbianized+vlachs+in+croatia&redir_esc=y&hl=hr#v=onepage&q=serbianized%20vlachs%20in%20croatia&f=false #page=43
  20. ^ The Croatian-Slavonian Kingdom: 1526–1792, https://books.google.hr/books?id=5lFbDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=serbianized+vlachs+in+croatia&redir_esc=y&hl=hr#v=onepage&q=serbianized%20vlachs%20in%20croatia&f=false #page=72
  21. ^ Marie-Janine Calic, 2019, THE GREAT CAULDRON History of Southeastern Europe,{Orthodox Slavs and Vlachs fled from the Ottomans into Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, or farther northward across the Danube. They were strategically resettled in the area of the military frontier.} https://books.google.hr/books/about/The_Great_Cauldron.html?id=cHSPDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y #page=79
  22. Return to "Croatia" page.