Jump to content

Talk:Šokci/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dialect

I am not sure that Šokci speak ikavian dialect. Bunjevci speak ikavian, but I think that Šokci speak ekavian and ijekavian, not ikavian. This should be checked. User:PANONIAN

  • Also not quite sure about this issue, but I think they use the Ikavian language with the Što-variant. Question is, do they speak:

- Ikavian-Štokavian (as Bunjevci do) or - Ikavian-Čakavian (as people in Dalmatia and the minority in Burgenland, Austria does) or - do they speak some kind of mixture, Ikavian and ekavian? --Neoneo13 15:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know whether Hungarians are also called Šokci or is it only an expression for Croats (or settlers from the Dinaric mountains) or is the last sentence in the article just wrong? --Neoneo13 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The "problem" is that Hunagarins usually have a rather inclusive approach to their national understanding, i.e. anyone who lives among Hungarians and speaks their language, appreciates Hungarian culture (music, food, perhaps dancing, historical solidarity, etc), Hungarians usually have no problem to consider him Hungarian.

In other words, beeing Hungarian and having a non-Hungarian mother tongue, has never been extraordinary. Thus, there are a lot of people in Hungary today saying that "my first language is Hungarian" (because they live in Hungary, they can manage speaking in the best way in Hungarian), but their mother-tongue would be German, Vend (Slovenian), Tot (Slovakian), Dalmatian, Bunjevac or Sokac (these usually consider themselves as Croats), etc. What is more, belonging to different religious denominations has never been a mesure of being or not Hungarian (quite the contrary to the national understanding of Greeks, Serbs, where beeing orthodox is an almost necessary condition). That's why, for example, beeing Jewish is hardly means more than having a distinctive religion, and there is not an ufficially recognized ethnic Jewish minority in Hungary, although Budapest has one of the largest Jewish community in Europe. Because of this way of understanding "being a Hungarian", there are many "Hungarian Jews" today, or Hungarian speaking Slovaks, or the opposit, Croatian speaking Hungarians. There are people who keep saying that Hngarian nationalism is a continuos "Magyarisation", and, I think, it is true, but it is an inclusive nationalism, which does not exclude also beeing Schwabian, Jew, Serb, Croat, Armenian, Greek, etc. in the same time.

    • The most of the Šokci in Hungary live in Mohacs and in its surroundings. It can well be that some of the Šokci in Hungary consider themselves Hungarian; on the other hand, it is often the case that they study Croatian language at schools, they belong to one of the Croatian cultural institutions, and they see themselves "also" as Croats. I have never heard that any Šokac would consider himself as Serb or speaking Serbian language. What is more, Šokci usually are quite aware that they are a distinct branch of those Croats living in other side of the Danube, in Baja. They are the Bunjevci. I do not understand much the differences between them, but once visiting South-Hungary I found people near the Drava river who said that they are Croats, and then I said, O.K., Šokci!; and they said, they are not Šokci, they are Hercegovians! I was quite puzzled, since Hercegovina is not even in Croatia, but the insisted that they are Croatians and Hercegovians, and spoke such a Hungarian language that I could not hear any particular accent in it. And they were enthusiastic Hercegovians, and I never heared it before that Hercegovians exist in Hungary at all. It was a Sunday afternoon and they invited me to go with them to the Church, and they had a Hungarian catholic priest there who read the mass in Croatian language without knowing what exactly he is reading, and the people was singing during the liturgy, they said: in "Hercegovian". And this situation is often the case also in those settlements in Hungary where one can find Šokci and Bunjevci, and I think this must be also the case for those Šokci and Bunjevci, who live in Vojvodina. I can hardly immagine that they would say that they are Hungarians there, but being Šokac and Croat in the same time seem to be very plausible. --Veermer-- 15:51, 20 January 2006

Ok, just not to be more confuse about this any more:

Serbo-Croatian language is divided into 4 main dialects:

  • 1. Chakavian
  • 2. Kaykavian
  • 3. Shtokavian
  • 4. Torlakian (or eastern Shtokavian)

Now, Shtokavian dialect is further divided into 3 subdialects:

  • 1. Ekavian
  • 2. Ijekavian
  • 3. Ikavian

So, those last 3 are a subdialects of Shtokavian and they have no connection with Chakavian or Kaykavian. Now, Chakavian and Kaykavian are spoken only in western Croatia, not elsewhere. As for Ikavian subdialect, it is spoken in Dalmatia and northern Vojvodina, and as far as I know, the only people of Vojvodina which speak Ikavian are Bunjevci. As for Šokci, I really do not think that they speak Ikavian, but Ekavian and Ijekavian, like most of declared Croats in Vojvodina do. So, I will change this in the article, and I will only write that they speak Shtokavian (Serbo-Croatian should be written here instead of Croatian, since most of Šokci, Bunjevci, and Croats of Vojvodina declared in the last census that their native language is Serbian, not Croatian).

As for the name Šokci it was never used to designate Hungarians or Bunjevci. It was only used to designate Šokci as a separate people (as they were regarded in the 19th century), and also to designate Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Neoneo13,

I am now sure that Šokci do not speak Ikavian, please see this map of Serbo-Croatian dialects from Serbian Wikipedia:

You can clearly see that in the area north of Sava and Danube rivers, the Ikavian dialect is spoken ONLY in the Bunjevci inhabited area, not in the area inhabited by Šokci. The dialects spoken in the Šokci area are: Slavonian (Ijekavian Shtokavian), Eastern Herzegovinian (Ijekavian Shtokavian), and Šumadija-Vojvodina dialect (Ekavian Shtokavian), not Ikavian. PANONIAN (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Could you please define more clearly what Šokci are exactly, since I do not have in-depth material and, as I see, you know the matter quite well. On the other hand: How do you know, where Šokci exactly live? Can they be categorized by an area or is it rather that they are classified by religion, language or something else? As we know, the area and minorities are heavily mixed up. Therefore, please specify in the text. And please add more information to the Bunjevci text. Thanks! --Neoneo13 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we would have problem with this definition what they are exactly. Are Šokci only those who today declare themselves as such (about 1,900 - 1,800 people), or those who declared themselves as such in the 19th century and now declare themselves as Croats, or those Croats of Slavonia who also consider themselves Šokci, but declare themselves as Croats, or all of this? Thus, the current definition that Šokci are "a small native South Slavic ethnic group" would be the best. They are native in the regions where they live, but only a smaller number of them consider and declare themselves as a separate people, while much more declare themselves as Croats. Thus, if we write that they are separate nation, then we would mention only those Šokci who declare themselves as such, also, if we mention them as subgroup of Croats, then we would not mention those who declare themselves as Šokci. There are also some ethnographers in Serbia who consider Šokci as a subgroup of Serbs. The best solution would be to mention them as a South Slavic ethnic group. So, if you ask how we should classify them, the Šokci would be all people who consider themselves as such, no matter if some of them consider themselves as separate people or as a subgroup of Croats. The reference to the area in Bačka where Šokci live, I founded in this book: "Mile Nedeljković, Leksikon naroda sveta, Beograd, 2001." This reference maybe apply only to those Šokci who declare themselves as such, and not to those who declare themselves as Croats. And what exactly you suggest that should be added more to the articles about Šokci and Bunjevci? PANONIAN (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, it would not yet be ok to mention them as a "nation". That's a very controversial issue, I know... However "South Slavic people" is ok. I believe that Sokci are quite a mixture of people with some croatian background and that we cannot even classify them by a certain language type (Bunjevci we can). That's actually what i intended, but I have to admit that that is currently impossile. It's tough to give a definition about these people. Though, I think the definition that Sokci are what Serbs use to say as "catholics of slavic backdrop" (magyars do not account for it i believe) is somehow best. Is religion a good criterion? Can we extend this criterion to other definite facts? I think it's good to focus on those "definite" facts. --Neoneo13 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just founded this on Croatian Wikipedia:

Read it, it is interesting. I did not know some of the things written there, like the one that that there are two groups of Šokci, one native to the region, and other which migrated from Bosnia. Now about definition of Šokci, they are catholics of Slavic background, but this name was used only for those Catholics who inhabit these regions. The name Šokci was never used to designate Bunjevci or Krashovani for example. The name maybe was first used to designate native Catholic Slavs from those regions, and later was expanded to other Catholic Slavs who migrated here from Bosnia. Of course, another possibility is that name was first used to designate those Catholics who migrated from Bosnia, as the Croatian Wikipedia claim. So, you try to write this definition what Šokci are in the article, and I will improve it if I think that it should be improved. Maybe you should translate into English some parts of this text from Croatian Wikipedia too. PANONIAN (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Language

"They speak one not two languages"

Actually, we should to respect the official census data here. Most of the Šokci who live in Croatia declared to speak Croatian, while not only most of the Šokci and Bunjevci, but also most of the Croats in Serbia declared to speak Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Luka Jačov

  • I would propose that User:Luka Jačov should stop changing all articles to serbo-croatian until there is any objective reason for this. as we all know, yugoslavia does not exist anymore. we should therefore find out, who these people really are and how they identify themselves. I am sure that most of them do not declare that they speak serbo-croatian. it's only a matter of time until they enjoy free speech and full minority rights. at least both language versions should be mentioned if wikipedia wants to be up-to-date. --Neoneo13 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


ZIV BIO LUKA JACOV! SAMO PRODUZI SA OTKRIVANJEM ISTINE! ZADOVOLJSTVO JE IMATI SVE VISE NORMALNIH LJUDI KAO TI NA WIKIPEDIJI, KOJI SE BORE PROTIV KRIVOTVORENJA ISTINE I SIRENJA MRZNJE NA NJENIM STRANICAMA! NASA MREZA POSTAJE SVE BROJNIJA I BORICEMO SE DO CELOSNE POBIJEDE NAD TIM ZLOM! SRDACAN POZDRAV I SVE NAJBOLJE OD JEDNOG OD TVOJIH SVE BROJNIJIH ISTOMISLJENIKA! CHEERS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 July 2007

I agree. I noticed that User:Luka Jačov even changed the language templates on the user pages of several users, and it is not a very decent behaviour. PANONIAN (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, somebody just wrote a very good article about Šokci on Croatian Wikipedia. You should check it. PANONIAN (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that as many people as possible should participate on voting to close down the serbocroatian Wikipedia. See: [1] and say yes. --Neoneo13 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will say no on this because I always respect what people say about themselves and their language in censuses, and on the last census in Serbia in 2002, there still were some people who declared their language as Serbo-Croatian. PANONIAN (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we should to respect the official census data here. Most of the Šokci who live in Croatia declared to speak Croatian, while not only most of the Šokci and Bunjevci, but also most of the Croats in Serbia declared to speak Serbian. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This only proves absurdity of language question. Analogicly to this most of Serbs in Croatia declared their language as Croatian. The think is Šokci no matter they live in Serbia, Croatia or Hungary speak same dialect. What u have written about it depends about in what country they live aludets they not only speak different dialects but that they speak different languages and none if that is true. Croatian and Serbian are standards not languages and Serbo-Croatian is a language when we speak about their speech it is about language. And argument that Yugoslavia is gone doesnt neccesaraly means that they suddenly start to speak different languages. Luka Jačov 19:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you did not notice, I did not write which language they SPEAK, but which language they DECLARE. It is simple statistical fact, and I do not see why we should to have a censorship about this fact. I agree with you that Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian are only three standard varieties of one same language, but people declare them as a separate languages in census, and that is a reality that should be noted on Wikipedia. Problem is that most of the present day Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks consider common name of the language as insulting for them, and most of them prefer to call their language only by the name of their own nation. Therefore, I regard all those (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin) as a different names of one language. Thus, I do not see why you insist that only name Serbo-Croatian should be used, and other names no. All of them should be used, but each in the proper place. As for the ikavian dialect, read the Šokci article on Croatian Wikipedia (and the talk page too), and you will see that Šokci do not speak ikavian any more. Formerly, they did spoke this dialect, but not now. PANONIAN (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And I wrote the langauge they SPEAK. Fact that some declares their langauge Serbian and some Croatian will only create confusion in reader that is not familiar with the subject. Who finds it offensive? Only mindless nationalist who ignore facts and are against every common sence. If reject this term It would mean that we capitutaleted and are defaeted by them. Term Serbo-Croatian is term recognised in international science community and saying that Croats, Serbs and others speak different language is like saying that sky is not blue but green. Luka Jačov 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to write this as a sort of compromise. Since we have dispute about what language they speak, I wrote only what language they declare, not what language they speak. As for your question who finds Serbo-Croatian name offensive, almost everybody. Even in SFRY, the Croats did not called this language Serbo-Croatian, but Croato-Serbian, and ask for example present day Bosniaks is any name of the language with reference to Serbs or Croats insulting for them or not. For them, the only name for the language they speak is Bosnian. In the last census in Montenegro in 2003, about 22% of the population declared to speak Montenegrin. In SFRY, Serbo-Croatian was officially regarded as a common language of 4 nations. Today, every of those 4 nations want to call this language with its own national name, and we must respect that in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia. I repeat, I am not saying that those are different languages, but different names of one language. Every of these names should be used in proper articles. If article is about Croats or Croatia, the name used there should be Croatian, if article is about Serbs or Serbia, name used there should be Serbian. In the case of Bosnia, all 3 official names (Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian) should be used, as well as 2 official names in Vojvodina (Serbian and Croatian). This is official, and if we change this, the articles would be nothing but POV. As for your claim that this will create a confusion in reader that is not familiar with the subject, it might be, but it is a price we must pay to have NPOV articles. Also, this reader always can to read articles about those languages, so he will be familiar with the subject then. PANONIAN (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Croatian and Serbian are one language Croats call Croatian and Serbs call Serbian others call it simply Serbo-Croatian. U c if we use terms Croatian and Serbian it would be against Wikipedia's NPOV. Luka Jačov 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that? The communist regime of the former Yugoslavia? Serbo-Croatian is an artificially-created language - by declaration and irrespective of the natural development of the regional languages of this area. This is NPOV. Just have a look and You'll see that there are really many different languages in this area and that standards have always varied, not to mention all the cultural differences between the languages. However, I think it would be better for you to learn present-day history before writing anything on Wikipedia. Some of your thoughts and writings are really out of date and wrong. Your nostalgia is nice, but not adequate for Wikipedia. --Neoneo13 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
"Croatian and Serbian are on language which Croats call Croatian and Serbs Serbian" - It was said by Miroslav Krleža. I think he is more comptent on the issue than you. Luka Jačov 01:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but when and under which circumstances? Miroslav Krleža was also a strong proponent of the Croatian language and wanted to protect it within the serbo-croatian framework (which was created by officials and NOT linguists). Political influence had a major impact on language during Yugoslavia, which is also why people fear (and still fear) to express their identity. Please discuss this in the languages section - there is also a section about differences. --Neoneo13 11:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Luka, this is wrong article to post your opinion about language. It is about Šokci, not about languages. We should stick here to what is official with those language names. PANONIAN (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Luka Jačov can't be described as a responsible Wikipedia user. Think it would be good for this vandal if he was excluded for some time. Whatever is posted by him is just gibberish and political nonsense... Does anybody have the courage to exclude him temporarily? Think it was already enough that he changed the user pages of many users... --Neoneo13 22:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets not mention language at all. Lets say if they are Croats it is obvious they speak Croatian or Serbo-Crotian, link to Shtokavian would do just fine. Information I gathered about they dialect is from Stjepan Babić - Jezik article about Shtokavian dialect from 1987. I hope this truce! Peace! Luka Jačov 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Though, it's not the topic of this article and you're writing here about completely different regions as Derventa that have nothing to do with Sokci... We should stick to the topic and be precise, not mumbling about philosophy... --Neoneo13 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"U Bosanskoj Posavini je postalo uvriježeno sve Hrvate koje žive u toj regiji nazivati Šokcima." This quote from Croatian wikipedia so obviously they also live in Bosnian Posavina. Luka Jačov 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User Luka Jačov. I do not know why you are constantly deleting the languages mentioned by other users. you are the only one that does not agree and who wants to put in serbo-croatian by force. please stop doing this all across wikipedia. Alright, now we have a linguistic exposee that does not tackle the real problem. I request that this article may be be re-edited, because the current version is only talking about this linguistic question instead of the people mentioned. however, Luka Jacov has reached what he wanted and probably won't ever interfere. requesting revert to version before Luka Jacov since he is already well-known to have edited other user pages without consent, etc. he has already been warned for multiply-occuring vandalism. --Neoneo13 11:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space:

  • Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.

So u c I havent done anything against the rules. If User doesnt like change I made he can easily revert it. Luka Jačov 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There are only 3 sentences about dialect. This version is updated than last one and does not open language question and confusion on this article. User pages is seperate issue. Luka Jačov 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article now say what dialect Šokci speak, but it does not say to which language that dialect belong, and it is ridiculous. I understand that you come here to prove your opinion about Serbo-Croatian language, but I will repeat: it is wrong place for this, because it have nothing to do with the people about whom this article speaks. PANONIAN (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if they are Croats it is logical that Shtokavian is dialect of Croatian/Serbo-Croatian language and as you said before every user can check by clicking the link. Luka Jačov 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Only one fact: You are ignoring the CULTURE of this people - all the time you've just been writing about the serbo-croatian language (which, according to some experts never existed) instead of showing at least minimal interest for the people concerned. of course it is difficult for them to declare exactly what language they speak since most of them live in Vojvodina (Serbia), still governed by scrupulous politicians and often hit by reoccuring aggression against minorities. however, what IS clear is that they have roman-catholic traditions and the roman-catholic tradition is seriously linked to croatian culture. user PANONIAN and me tried to explain the complexity, or at least tried understanding the matter and changed it according to recent facts. it is not proper that somebody is again patronizingly determining who and what these people are. you are just deflecting to philosophical points of views on language matters. it is a matter of Sokci to determine who they are and how they feel - i hope more people will show courage in the future and that identity matters will not be influenced by the opinion of the majority. we also have to accept the discrepancy between what is being DECLARED and what is TRUE. i guess, on serbian statistical fact sheets the croatian language is not even mentioned and that only serbo-croatian can be declared, but i might be wrong... it's all a matter of time and i somehow even think about leaving this topic for a while. somebody else might be more competent than me and i hope the political atmosphere in serbia will change too. --Neoneo13 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to say something about Serbian census: any language, any ethnicity and any religion could be declared in Serbian census, including Serbian, Croatian and Serbo-Croatian language. According to 2002 densus results 6,620,699 people in Serbia declared Serbian language, 134,749 declared Bosnian, and 27,588 declared Croatian (people who declared Serbo-Croatian are in this results listed among "others"). Also, there were 70,602 declared Croats and 20,012 declared Bunjevci (the number of Šokci was small, thus they are listed in the category other, but I have their number from 1991 census). Now, if we accept that those Bunjevci and Šokci who declared themselves as Croats are Croats and that those who declared themselves as Bunjevci and Šokci are separate ethnicities, we can see that majority of those who declared themselves as Bunjevci and Šokci also declared that their language is Serbian. That is simple statistical fact, no matter if anybody like it or not. PANONIAN (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

Ok, I've seen the edit war. The way I understand it, Šokci speak the same language, and even share the same unique sub-dialect (with some local variations, which is always expected). Now, saying that part of them speak Croatian and part of them speak Serbian makes it sound as they speak two different languages (e.g. for all that reader knows, part of them may speak Torlakian and part may speak Kajkavian). Even if we say that Croatian and Serbian are two different languages, those people still speak variation of both which come down to the same language. So, what they speak, should be named in such a way that there is no confusion on whether they are divided by language or not. As they apparently aren't, the best solution would be to call it a variation of Shtokavian dialect. BTW, regarding Serbo-Croatian - it was not invented by Communists (the term existed and was used way before 1945). Serbo-Croatian is in fact a linguistic term, which happened to be sanctioned by the post WW2 government; just like Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian were used for political purposes in 1990s. --dcabrilo 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah everything is mixed up. I won't add anything to the discussion about the serbo-croatian language here (no, it was not the communists). This is being discussed on the various language pages. However, as I began editing this article I asked some very crucial facts: Do they speak ikavian? bunjevci do speak ikavian and serbian culture does not know ikavian expressions (thats somehow clear and it has been put down that they use a shtokavian dialect). i think it has all been mixed up in the course of time so that we cannot exactly say what sokci really speak. it's mixed up too much, though they are roman catholics. since catholics are mainly classified as croatian language speakers (and there is an old tradition concerning croatian culture and language) i proposed to say that they speak croatian (what they originally used to and this is the basis of their language) mixed with other influences. however, luka is still mixing up everything more than necessary, calling it altogether a mixup of the shtokavian dialect (well, yes all languages of the balkans are somehow a mixup of shtokavian - whoever created that) without going into cultural matters, which we could - actually, i think cultural matters are always important if writing about people. i just want to be more detailed and transparent. just another point to add: from luka's version people could get the impression as if sokci speak a different language than others in the region, actually a very old language. this is creating still more discrepancy: if they speak a very old language it would be somehow free of other influences and somehow pure croatian (or bosnian-jekavian, not ekavian). however, and this is the current situation - they have adopted serbian phrases and ekavian expressions. I can somehow only see that it is catholic-croatian mixed with ekavian-shtokavian... --Neoneo13 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Im also outsieder. My sugestion is to say "they talk own language similar to ....". Namig somebody language my be a liple as steping too much on personality. Some people who speak kreolic languages can't distiguish importance of this note. I snap on this Shotokavian or sokci looking on sokoli the posible wariation of word skoli skolotoi mentioned by Herodotus as Scythian own name. Nasz 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Truth is only one, science is the only way to arrive to it, other ways are superstition or stupidity in general. Some people have their minds corrupt by the political system and moral to such a point that they cannot distinguish between what they are defending for interest (often different from the truth, but not necessary) and what they are defending because they think (scientifically) to be true. It seems to me that Neoneo13 is the kind of person so absorbed by his (right-wing?) political ideology that acts against the truth. I am not precisely the person that knows the most about the Balcans, but in my ignorance I could appreciate a similarity between the Serbo-Croatan case and the Catalan case, which is claimed to be outside of Valencia, where a particular "Valencian" language is spoken (along with Spanish, of course) only due to political interests. The other way round occurs too (Chinese comes to mind). Neoneo13 simply states that Serbo-Croatian as a language doesn't exist, and that the varieties spoken in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia have their own languages. Differences between these "varieties" seem to be SO small that considering them as separate languages _hardly_ (very rarely) could be held by a reasonable (scientific) mind, seems far more likely that they are defended by filthy nationalists. I only wanted to say that Neoneo13's position should be overlooked, as religion or other superstition is overlooked.

--GTubio 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, but listen my point: I claim that Serbo-Croatian is one single language, but that this common language name was now replaced with names Serbian, Croatian ,Bosnian and Montenegrin depend of that what people declare in census. I do not see a valid argument why we should not to write here what language people declare in census? Is that forbiden or what? PANONIAN (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Šokci speak a Serbian or Croatian language (second name for Serbo-Croatian language). It is one language, not two. So, you can not put in article that they are speak on two languages. That will be nonsense... I suggest that we put Serbo-Croatian. Everything what we put except this is against NPOV. --M. Pokrajac 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, original version of the article before Luka changed it did stated that they speak Serbian or Croatian. Since he did not like it, I wrote that they DECLARE Serbian and Croatian. No matter if we will write what language they speak, we should also to write what language they declare in census, because it is important information. PANONIAN (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What Bunjevci has to with anything now? First all you showed actually how weak your knowledge of Serbo-Croatian or Croatian if u want linguistics is. First of all ikavian, jekavian and ekavian are not dialects nor sub-dialects as Panonian refered before, they pronunciation of yat and Chakavian and Shtokavian have all pronunciations. Slavonian sub-dialect isnt mix of dialects it just has all 3 pronunciation and your claim that their language have been serbisized just cause some of them have ekavian pronunciation is patent nonsense. Old-Shtokavian is not talking about how old their dialect is but how Stokavian dialects are clasified (neo-shtokavian and old-shtokavian). I advise you to read this article: Shtokavian dialect. Also when u say that some language or dialect it doesnt mean that it must have few borrowed words but that it has archaic gramatical structures. Why should I also be obliged to write about culture if I wrote aboute language??!! Luka Jačov 08:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that all this lunguistic blabla won't help us further. Luka is again nitpicking on selected words that I have written in order to be understandable for everybody. We have to mention what they declare and how they want it to be and not change everything back to some roots. Then we could say they speak "Slavic". Who cares about the subialectal categorization - in the end, this has been created by linguists and not speakers. however, i think we won't ever be able to give some reasonable scientific explanation for the kind of language used by sokci. i would only like to stress that they have roman-catholic traditions and that originally they were catholics. whatever has or will follow is quite unpredictable. lets wait and see how they willl declare themselves in the future. i am already beginning to wonder whether Sokci could be categorized as a separate group of people - apart from their religion and CULTURE there's nothing that could tell the difference from other people in vojvodina, croatia or hungary. and as we see there culture might be in a process of decay - maybe influenced or forced up by linguistic and political influences. so it's up to them to say whether they are croats, serbs, something special or harley davidson fans, and what language they speak... though, we can't just say they are "people of this earth" as luka would say when classifying into serbo-croatian (which is actually, not even correct, since serbo-croatian is quite a modern thing and history again) etc. I think croatian linguistic standards (standard language) apply best to these people, but it's up to them. ;) --Neoneo13 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing here that they are catholics and that they are Croats. The think that they are catholics doesnt mean anything concerning language issue. Langauge is important charachteristic of every ethnic, tribal or regional so I dont c again nothing disputable in it. The thing that they declared offical languages of countries they live in as maternal only proves that Šokci think that they speak same language as they Serb neighbours which proves again that Serbian and Croatian are one language. Analogic to this majority of Serbs in Croatia declared their maternal toungue as Croatian with same reason as Šokci and Bunjevci in Serbia. And so what if Croats in Croatia declared Croatian and Serbs in Serbia declared it only proves that politics of these country rejected the term. The thing that Croatia is rejecting the term it doesnt mean it is not in use outside Croatia and ex-Yugoslavia. For example Britannica and Encarta have articles only about Serbo-Croatian and you can also type Serbo-Croatian in any of search engines and u ll see it is still scientific fact. Luka Jačov 12:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but these articles are not up-to-date and need modification. And don't forget that there are considerable differences between the languages. It's just up to the people what is better for them, but they are separate standard languages and you cannot write serbian in Croatia (or vice versa). Everybody would be quite perplexed... It is not possible any more - maybe it was possible during Yugoslavia, though texts always needed to be consistent, i.e. ekavian or jekavian NEVER mixed... Texts with mixed variations are considered bad style and grammatically wrong. I think no teacher would ever accept that. The use of words and cultural background is also very important. I only think that Sokci are not yet really aware of their situation or they need time. If they rather write Serbian, fine. Though, even if linguists say that it is all the same language, still people have got the choice between differen standard languages. They HAVE to choose (in writing not one language) and it's up to them. I think we need to mention this, therefore Serbian AND Croatian, AND NOT Shtokavian (that's somehow scientific-not getting to the point). And, as far as speech is concerned: we should not mention speech here, since spoken language is quite complex and varies from person to person. We're talking about standard written languages here. This should contribute towards solving complicated matters... --Neoneo13 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let start this again

Seems that we have 3 problems here:

  • 1. What language they speak?
  • 2. What language they declare in census?
  • 3. Are they a Croats?

No matter what is the answer to the first question, the answers to the second and the third questions are very clear in the census results. So, my answers to these 3 questions would be:

  • 1. They speak Croatian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, or call it here with any other name you like. I will discuss later what of these names should be used in the article. However, the second and the third questions are more important:
  • 2. They declare in census both languages, Croatian and Serbian
  • 3. They declare in census both nationalities, Croat and Šokci.

If we write about Šokci it is IMPORTANT to mention what THEY declare in census. No matter if anybody think that they are right or wrong in what they declare, WE SHOULD TO MENTION WHAT THEY DECLARE! And now Luka, stop your philosophic speeches and give me ONLY ONE GOOD REASON why we should not to mention what they declare in census? Why we have to perform a censorship in this question? PANONIAN (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, what they declare they speak, etc. is all relevant information and there is no reason to exclude it per se. However, there is no reason to exclude assesment of what they speak, what they believe, etc. if we have such information. --dcabrilo 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to give some easy and clear answers to this:
  • They are Roman Catholics, therefore we could generally consider them as Croats, though identity declaration in census is very complex. Therefore we will never know whether a declared Croat is not actually a Sokac... Both has to be considered. I guess there are many people who vary with declaring their identity.
  • They speak all kinds of dialects as we saw (some might still say it's only one language, ok). We would never be able to classify by spoken languages. However we focus on:
  • Writing. When writing, they have to choose, which standard language they want to use (mixing ekavian and jekavian is grammatically and stylistically incorrect).
    • Usually people prefer national standard languages, since the administration will not accept other standards than those of the residing country. Therefore, Sokci generally chose either between Serbian (the official language of Serbia) or Croatian (the official language of Croatia - probably not accepted in Belgrade - in Novi Sad yes, since Vojvodina accepts all minority languages).
    • However, here Sokci are in a dilemma, since, and I guess, they would rather prefer to write Croatian, since that is their mother tongue. However, in Serbia this is not always possible (even in Yugoslavia I guess they had to use the serbian standard - croatian was allowed in croatia - still, when declaring it was only one language: yugoslavian, resp. serbo-croatian , but this did never solve the real linguistic problem in yugoslavia)
    • Solution: I think it's best to mention Serbian AND Croatian (or whatever they declare: Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin so far no official standard language or maybe I'm wrong). But Serbo-Croatian is technically seen incorrect, though has to be accepted (until it does not vanish in censuses). Shtokavian is scientific classification to the next higher branch and does not represent a good solution.
    • I would even go further as to say, if we look on their cultural background, it would be quite logical to assume that they prefer to use the croatian standard language, since from a cultural point of view Sokci or Croats will not be able to express their identity or history within the serbian cultural and linguistic framework as adequately as they would in croatian. traditions and opinions are very much different between these cultures and i am sure that sokci often need a lot of time and nerves to explain cultural matters to other serbs. Cultural matters are very much fixed to a linguistic culture and in this case croatian is the most appropriate standard. their whole linguistical, historical and traditional background is linked with catholic traditions and therefore the croatian language. language is not only grammar, but to the largest degree culture and cultural expression. once they begin to forget about their own traditions and their religion, and start to use the serbian language and serbian traditions, sokci will gradually transform into serbs, since there's nothing else left that makes them different. i think this is, what certain language policies are all about and that makes me sad... if this was the case, we would write about them as history, as forgotten people... though, as we see, this is not the case :) (some people may already consider themselves as serbs, but i don't think so. after all, it's not serbian language they declare, but mostly still serbo-croatian. i think they either declare serbo-croatian in censuses because they fear repression or because it is a quite handy solution for day-to-day business. unclear and unproblematic in daily life and most people don't even want confrontation with this issue. they only want to lead a normal life. but somehow they will need to give clearer explanations, and in reality, i am sure, they are proud Sokci)

Hope, this will make the matter somehow clearer. After all, we need to be as precise and transparent as possible. And again, I would like to stress: The fact that people are able to chose between different standard languages does not mean that they are using one single language (they can be considered happy that they know several languages). Fact is, that Serbian and Croatian are very much comprehensible on both sides. This is, however, du to tendencies over adapting these languages and approaching them towards each other during the past 150 years. Cultural differences, however, have proven to be decisive and never led towards a fusion of the dialects/languages, neither did a common language of Southern Slavs in practice ever exist.  :) --Neoneo13 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. They are Croats and nobody is disputing that.

2. They declare language as Serbo-Croatian is called in respective countries they live. Saying what language they declare will only create confusion among the reader cause he ll get impression that they speak two languages while in fact they speak not only same language but same dialect on both sides of the border. When u read about articles about ethnic groups u can always read what language or dialect they SPEAK and not which on they DECLARE unless they speak more than one language which is not the case here. They SPEAK Serbo-Croatian, term that is widely recognised by internationaly as scientific fact and I really what is disputable here, everything else is nationalist propaganda.Luka Jačov 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I once again tell you: if we considered what they "speak" we could name hundreds of different versions, while regarding writing there are only 3 possible versions. serbo-croatian is no longer a valid standard language (it only officially existed during yugoslavia). And where do you see that official languages are categorized by spoken languages? then german would be split in at least 3 languages, oh no, many more... it is only by choice or ignorance on behalf of the people that serbo-croatian is mentioned (that was wrongly the case for quite some time - people rather tend to ignore cultural matters when declaring something up to this day under existing circumstances). And why do you suppose that mentioning all relevant declarations will create confusion? it is you, who is creating ever more confusion! if speaking about scientific facts then swedish and norwegian would form one single language. however, this is really not the case in no statistical fact sheet. i am only mentioning the status quo. therefore, let's mention the 2 relevant languages in this case: serbian and croatian. 2 official languages, 2 versions accepted by, let's say, teachers in school in vojvodina (resp. other countries as minority languages). --Neoneo13 23:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The premise that they are Catholics (or some of them, which should be made clear, because I bet many of them are atheists), does not lead to a conclusion that they are Croats.
  • We don't really have a good reason to look at prescribed language. E.g. I've been reading a book (Cirkus M) which uses no standard language at all, but rather the language spoken around Leskovac, Nis, etc. As the book is in fact a collection of jokes from that region, we can conclude that people who tell these jokes don't in fact exist, as they speak "grammatically and stylistically incorrect" language. That's, of course, silly.
  • Wikipedia has no burden of following any government decisions. If we conclude that what they speak is a distinct variation of any language, it should be included in the article as such. The fact is that in Serbia there are only so many languages you can learn in school as your primary (minority) language. So, even if Shokci study a certain language at school, that doesn't mean it's what they speak.
  • Again, we should not go out of our way to make information in this article plausable for either Croatian or Serbian, or Vojvodinian, or any other, government. --dcabrilo 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Though, on the other hand: How would you then perform a census? According to your wishes there would be millions of different options. That's nice of course, since I'm not against a pluralistic view of the whole matter. Though, saying it's all the same by stating it's serbo-croatian would be completely wrong according to your opinion. censuses are always a political matter (though i wouldn't like them to be political ones AND they are always a very difficult matter for minorities, not only ethnical minorities...). let's leave the linguistic background to other pages. however, there are some major cultural streams we could assume. and croatian could be said is the cultural stream for catholics, only generally of course (there are many many other categories of the croatian language which do not depend on religion). of course, the future will be different. religion is already losing importance. however, then we might not have sokci anymore... in your case, we could say your book is written in leskovac dialects, dialects of the serbian standard language. why say serbo-croatian, if we can almost clearly say its either serbian or croatian they use. speech is up to every individual person on this world. one major fact here is, that i am not talking of necessarily prescribed languages, but of standards set by respective cultures and not for many different cultures under the aegis of a larger construction. i think individual people can alone judge best about their language. serbo-croatian was fixed upon people and therefore did never really work. therefore it would from a natural point of view be better to see everything more varied. --Neoneo13 01:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"in your case, we could say your book is written in leskovac dialects, dialects of the serbian standard language."- this is oxymoron said by Nenoneo13. Standard language does not have dialects. Standard language is offical forme of one language used in offical purposes. Standard language has only one form. Serbo-Croatian is language consisted on three standards and four dialects. Everything u said lately only proves how much u lack a knowledge and competence in this matter.

And You think that you have the competence to judge for us all? Even for the people of Sokci? I don't think so. It is really no easy matter and you only deflect from the point and continue picking on some few words. Let Sokci declare what they want. --Neoneo13 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croatian should be written here instead of Croatian, since most of Šokci, Bunjevci, and Croats of Vojvodina declared in the last census that their native language is Serbian, not Croatian" - quote by Panonian. How come u changed your mind??!! Luka Jačov 09:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote by me? I do not remember writing this. Where and when I wrote that as you claim? PANONIAN (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC) - that message on this page. Luka Jačov 14:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did wrote that, ok. However, the original Šokci article was only about those Šokci who declare themselves as such, not about those who declare themselves as Croats, thus the original version of the article stated that they speak Serbian (as they declare in census). Later, the article was expanded to also include Šokci who declare themselves as Croats. Since we have this double definition of Šokci now, we also have two names for the language they speak: Serbian and Croatian. And yes I was the one who first wrote Serbo-Croatian language there, but now I think that it is better to use the names which people declare in census. In fact, we could write both here if you want: what they speak and what they declare. Therefor, I only insist that we write that Šokci DECLARE Croatian and Serbian in census, while I in fact do not care would we also write that they speak Serbo-Croatian or Serbian and Croatian. So, I will propose a fair voting to solve this problem. We will vote what to write about language they speak. PANONIAN (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I have nothing against voting but if we are gonna do it we should do it right. Read this: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Luka Jačov 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Voting

We should write that Šokci speak Croatian and (or) Serbian language

  1. PANONIAN (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes. That is clear and true. Everything else is just throwing minorities into one big kettle. --Neoneo13 15:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We should write that Šokci speak Serbo-Croatian language

  1. They speak ONE language not TWO Luka Jačov 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. The term Serbo-Croatian is better to my mind here, since they speak the same language although they are divided in zones with different standards. (By the way, I love how Neoneo13 enlightens us with his complex intellect) --GTubio 16:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. What is exactly a point of this vote? As you all know, Wikipedia is not a democracy - we need to come to an agreement by discussing this stuff. If we can't do it, than put it on mediation! This vote is utterly stupid. --dcabrilo 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. They speak ONE language. We must know that other names for Serbo-Croatian language are Croato-Serbian, Serbian or Croatian, and Croatian or Serbian. So, this vote is indeed stupid. Questions (proposes) are stupid... It is one language - Serbo-Croatian language! --M. Pokrajac 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. If they consider themselves to be a subgroup of Croats, then their language would reflect this as well. However, linguistically one should compare their dialect to both Serbian (spoken in Serbia) and Croatian (spoken in Croatia) and then conclude. This will obviously be nearly impossible as any ex-Yu will have certain bias in their comparison. --Hurricane Angel 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Futile

I think this article will never develop in a good way if some few people do not allow a critical reflection of the latest events and accept the natural developments of these languages. Even more, if they are not aware of the multiculturality of the region. This is a highly complex matter, which needs a lot of time until accepted. It seems as if some people constantly repeat one single parole and by the time even develop a kind of thinking, as if this, their shouting, is the ultimate truth - without even considering the obvious that is right before them. It is futile to say any more. Got better discussions, in which I could participate. --Neoneo13 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


This may help

The Sokci speak a language which is a dialect of Croatian. My father's family in Santovo (Hercegszánto)and relatives in Backi Breg in Serbia speak ikavian and so do the Sokci in the villages south of it. The dialects of the Sokci on the right of the Danube speak slightly differently but it is considered to be the same dialect. As for the Bunjevci in Backa, they also speak ikavian but it is somewhat different. --Adam300 03:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And Croatians speak Serbo-Croatian. We know all that so it didnt helped. Luka Jačov 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends who we ask. But if this is an argument about the serbo-croatian language, then we should discuss it at the serbo-croatian discussion page.--Adam300 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The situation here is clear

Who ever carefully observe the edits of Luka Jačov will see that his goal on Wikipedia is to remove mention of Serbian and Croatian language from various articles, not only from this one. So, it is not question what language Šokci speak, it is question that Luka just do not like to see names Serbian and Croatian written for this language anywhere. Since millions of people declare Serbian and Croatian in censuses, it is quite obvious that we deal here with the personal POV of one man, which is opposite to the opinion of the millions of people. PANONIAN (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you could compromise and put all three: Serbo-Croatian, Serbian and Croatian. Make a footnote explaining the issue briefly.

Definitely, I think the article should respect the views of the language-speakers, but it should be noted, and I note it for onlookers who find this discussion arcane, that each rendering clearly expresses a POV. Serbs tend to consider "Serbo-Croatian" to be the same as Serbian; Croats tend to argue that there are two different languages. PANONIAN, I think you're unfairly characterising Luka's views as his alone. Don't censuses generally have tickboxes for language? They do here. James James 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Censuses in Serbia (I am not sure for Croatia) have only one empty line where everybody could to write any language, any ethnicity, and any religion (even non-existing ones). Thus people about whom we talk here declared by their free will and choice to speak Serbian and Croatian, and that is what I wrote in the article. In the past they did declared to speak Serbo-Croatian and I wrote that too. I explained everything here, so please tell me what is wrong with this part, which I wrote as a sort of compromise:

  • "During the time of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Šokci declared that their language is Serbo-Croatian, while today they mostly declare Croatian, with some in Serbia and Montenegro, who also declare Serbian. It should be noted that most of the declared Croats in Serbia and Montenegro (many of them of Šokci origin) declared to speak Serbian language in 2002 census."

I do not see something wrong there. Those are facts 100% correct. I like that Luka and Pokrajac explain why they deleted that. PANONIAN (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a clear explanation why that is being deleted. It's clear we have two opposing POVs. We could either revert from now until doomsday or we could try a compromise. If Luka and Pokrajac don't like that, can they say why, and give an alternative?James James 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they did explained that. Their explanation is that they all the time repeat the phrase that "Šokci do not speak two languages, but one". Of course, I do not see what this phrase have to do with the mention of what Šokci declared in census. It is obvious that there are two points of view here, and I 100% agree that both points of view should be presented here in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia. However, seems that Luka and Pokrajac want only to present their POV and to ignore another, and I would also like to hear their explanation for this. PANONIAN (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, in both Croatia and Serbia people had complete freedom to decide which language they speak and the number of those who said "Serbo-Croatian" or something similar was negligible, about 7,000 out of the total of more then four million (in Croatia, I couldn't even find the data for Serbia, probably also negligible). Second-guessing what people say to census takers, not knowing the basics of sociolinguistics, justifying all that by "scientific claims" when in fact linguistics says exactly the opposite thing. I don't know... --Elephantus 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sokci probably declared Serbo-Croatian as their language because they do not feel that their ikavian language is like Serbian, and due to the disfavour of the Milosevic regime towards Croatia they could not say Croatian. Serbo-Croatian, still being politically correct and associated with Yugoslavia was a compromise. --adam300 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely true and it reflects what I have tried to explain. We could either mention "croatian", "croatian and serbian" (which would be a compromise), or "croatian, serbian and serbo-croatian" (which would be an even larger compromise). However, I don't know why we should compromise that much if it's not right... --Neoneo13 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should compromise that much. The outside world does not, so far as I can see, agree with you that Croatian and Serbian are particularly different. However, (most of) the speakers of "Serbo-Croatian" clearly do self-identify as speaking either "Croatian" or "Serbian". I see no harm in putting all three. Both POVs are clearly expressed and none is favoured. Okay, nobody gets exactly what they want but everyone gets some. Also, I don't see any good reason to delete the paragraph explaining how these people self-identify. It's illuminating because language is a key way that people define themselves. James James 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Panonian gives proof that that most Šokci in Serbia declare their mother tongue as Serbian. This is obvious for Croatians in Serbia cause percantage of people declared that their mother tongue is Croatian is much lower than declared Croatians. Could u give us some proofs about that.

Second, as virtually nobody declared himself as Šokac in Croatia we cannot say anything about anything.

Third, they speak Serbo-Croatian and what they declare is inrelevant as first cos we can prove what they declared, second they probably declare current offical name of Serbo-Croatian language in their respective countries which only proves that they also think language debate as unnecessary,third Britannica and Encarta which we all agree r good refernces mention only Serbo-Croatian and claim that croatian and serbian r only standard variants,fourth if we now what they speak then it is totally unnecessary to write what they "declare".Totally unnecassary and will only create confusion. Luka Jačov 11:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So, I guess Šokci are stupid and you are smart. I recommend reading Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache and some of the external links there and then re-reading what you wrote here and on the other pages about this issue. --Elephantus 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Luka, I have to disagree. Wikipedia is all about what people declare and not at all about our opinions on the things they declare about. You have not given good reason to oppose the compromise I've suggested, because "they are speaking Serbo-Croatian regardless what they think they're speaking" is not actually a good reason. Language speakers are generally taken to be speaking whatever they think they are speaking (see Flemish language). I think that PANONIAN's argument has merit. However, I also think yours does, because the description of "Croatian" and "Serbian" as languages is not, so far as I know, widely used or agreed outside the former Yugoslavia. So I think the compromise should be acceptable to all. I ask you not to revert from my version without giving good cause here. If you continue to do so, I will be requesting admin assistance. Continuously reverting to a preferred version while refusing to discuss compromise that satisfies all is not a good way to build an encyclopaedia and I ask you not to do it. This is not a war. Let's thrash it out here. James James 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the current version is really fair. Good to have Wikipedia and that everything here can be discussed on a fair level and with precise facts. :) --Neoneo13 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that if you want to see how many people declared themselves as Croats in Serbia, and how many declared to speak Croatian language, you can download here two PDF documents with official census results:

PANONIAN (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd like to invite Luka and others to read this excellent discussion of Norwegian as an Ausbau language. Trudgill discusses Serbo-Croatian in the context of Bosnia, but I think his general comments about the language or languages involved are instructive. James James 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

U c those datas r for Croats but not for Šokci. So we actually dont know what they declare. As in Croatia they dont exist as census category so we also cannot say what they declare. We know that they speak existing Serbo-Croatian. As for mentioning Serbo-Croatian on top of the article is pretty silly. I think only arbitration could help here and that is only way consensus can be made cause I c no compromise is possible to achieve with u. Luka Jačov 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the guy who's refusing to discuss a compromise and reverting away from a compromise that most here seem able to accept, arbitration would not likely be favourable for you. Saying something is "pretty silly" is just not a compelling argument.
I think we should fully resolve the issue of the languages before we attempt to discuss the census issue.James James 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They speak Serbo-Croatian language. Case solved. Luka Jačov 08:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mindlessly reverting to your point of view does not actually solve the case. It simply demonstrates you do not have one. Please think about taking a more constructive approach. James James 10:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As we said we cannot conform what they declared. Non-verifiable information. Luka Jačov 10:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Luka just showed that he is not able to accept compromise solutions. How nice... PANONIAN (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to give one answer to Luka: yes, the census in Croatia do not mention Šokci, because they declare themselves as Croats, like a most of those in Serbia. Since we know what language these Croats declared, we know also what Šokci declared (This article is about both, Šokci who declare themselves as Croats, and Šokci who declare themselves as Šokci). Thus, we know what language they declare. PANONIAN (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


U c there two "tribes" of Croats in Vojvodina Bunjevci and smaller one Šokci. So who knows maybe Šokci where those who declared Croatian. Maybe 1,902 declared Šokci declared Serbo-Croatian. U c your information is unverfiable and inrelevant. Luka Jačov 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We know because we have census data which excludes the possibility of Šokci declaring their language to be "Serbo-Croatian". If you have other sources which allow for such a possibility or even probability it's time to cite them here. Currently you have little save stubborness. --Elephantus 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
However, most linguists deem that "serbocroatian" is history (not only croats, but also serbs). so, we have to do the next logical step and not go backward into unnecessary argumentation. get ready for the 21. century! i am sure, the majority of committed sokci would now declare croatian. --Neoneo13 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If we have than gives the link! Luka Jačov 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Zmaj's proposal. That's what i was proposing before. Luka Jačov 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I think we should stick with a rendering that encompasses all views. James James 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Šokac villages in Bačka

Here is nice proof that they declared themselves as Croats in 2002:

The 3 areas marked as areas inhabited by Croats in this map are actually these 3 Šokac villages. I have also a book with 2002 census results, and I can see in this book the ethnic composition of every village in Serbia, thus according to this book most of the villagers of these 3 villages declared themselves as Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Joy, you made a good job with improving this article, but why you deleted this sentence: "The name Šokci was also used for one part of the Catholic population in Bosnia"? As far as I know, this sentence is correct, and that is an interesting information. PANONIAN (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything more specific than the parts that I *did* keep, such as the mention of the bishop of Slavonia *and Bosnia*, and that some of them originate from the south (I guess that should be explicated into Bosnia). Do you have any exact information about which people, and when, is this reference about? --Joy [shallot] 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not have any exact information, only general one. Ok, we do not have to write that sentence until we find more exact information. PANONIAN (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

infobox removal

Infoboxes are being thrown around too easily now. Their main purpose is to list the population of an ethnic group. In the case of Sokci, most declare themselves as Croats...therefore they are listed under the Croats infobox. By adding ANOTHER infobox onto this page, you're just gonna end up repeating numbers for a subgroup.


Also, Estavisti, it's "rv, stop denying them their identity, you frustated little kid."

Usually a comma is needed.

72.144.114.25 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read article, you would see that most of them did not declared themselves as Croats in the past, and there are still those that do not declare themselves as Croats. And this infobox does not repeat anything, it is only for Šokci ethnic group, and the one in the Croats article is for Croats in general. Would you suggest that we remove infobox from the article about Kovin municipality because this municipality is in Serbia and Serbia article already have its own infobox? The purpose of infobox is that readers can easy to find there certain information about subject of certain articles. By removing infobox, you make much harder for readers to find this information. PANONIAN (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut to the chase

I'm not really interested in reading it all due to the nature of debating over the internet. Whose political agenda is being served by trying to present Šokadija as anything other than an element of Croatian national corpus? Sure, they can be quite annoying at times but they're still as much Croatian as the rest of us.

And who say that article claim anything else instead that most of Šokci consider themselves Croats? PANONIAN (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had...

...rather good experiences with Bunyevs and Gorans. I myself am (sort of) a Bokelj/Bokez and have had very bad occasions with several Janyevs. I was always impressed by the Yugoslav micronations and rather dissappointed that they were assimilated into the Croatian national corpus in the Communist Yugoslav period. Whenever I spoke to one (mind several Croat nationalist Janyevs and Serb nationalist Janyevs, Bunyevs and Gorans) I noticed that they aren't really nationally "conscious" (I met only a single Sokac, on a Holiday in Hungary). For instance, the Bunyevs generally have a rather bad opinion on Croats - but that might be simply a product of Serbian propaganda (the same goes with Gorans towards Albanians). To my opinion, Sokci are Sokci and nothing else. They have felt Croat (and were Croat for a long time); throughout the Middle-to-Modern ages they have expressed Serbian national affilation (Birth of Nationalism), however that was typical for the Catholic Krashovans, Ragusians and Bokezi as well for that period. Do you remember that renowned Croat Shokac poet from Bosnia which spoke the Serbian laguage and refered to Bosnia as the Serbian homeland? I think that we should make a list of known Shokci and put him there. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Matija Antun Relkovic

Matija Antun Relkovic is a famous Shokac (the most famous?). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Šokci identity

Panonian, you deny that Šokci are a ethnic group of Croats? You said that that is disputed. Who disputes it? Vojislav Šešelj, that is now in Hague for expulsion and killings of Croats from Vojvodina? Or Slobodan Milošević? Or Milan Paroški, who said that "Croats should be slaughtered like dogs by the fence" That's just another Serbian policy of fictive nationalities. Nationalities, "invented", to make the number of "unwanted" ones smaller. Please, Panonian, you don't need that. Because of those things and pressures I left Vojvodina. You know, the things like "you're not a Croat, you're Catholic Serb, Bunjevac, Šokac" with brainwashing and worse following, when persisted on being Croat. Kamarad Walter 12:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny that Šokci are subgroup of Croats: they are both, separate ethnicity and subgroup of Croats. In the past, most Šokci considered themselves a separate ethnic group, but today most consider themselves Croats and article clearly say that, so you have no reason to delete mention of their traditional Šokac language listed in Austro-Hungarian censuses, as well as fact that most Šokci in Serbia (as well as most Croats in Serbia) declared Serbian as their native language in 2002 census. Also, I do not see what Šešelj or Milošević have with issue. If you see results of old Austro-Hungarian censuses you will see that Šokci did not had Croat identity. In another words, if Šokci are "invented" as you say, it were they who invented themselves and not anybody else (and remember: self consciousness is all what you need to be member of one ethnic group). As proof for what I said, you can see results of 1910 census for Bačka-Bodrog county, where you can see that in traditional Šokac-inhabited areas there were more declared Šokci than declared Croats: http://www.talmamedia.com/php/district/district.php?county=B%E1cs-Bodrog As example, in Bačka Palanka (Palánkai) municipality there were 47 Croats and 1,848 others (mostly Šokci and Gypsy), in Odžaci (Hódsági) municipality there were 41 Croats and 2,896 others (mostly Šokac and Gypsy), etc, etc. In whole county, there were only 1,279 Croats and 70,545 people listed as others (mostly Bunjevci, Šokci and Gypsy). PANONIAN 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ja sam iz Osijeka i ja sam Šokac! Well, we are actually originally from Brčko area. We are Croats first and foremost, we just identify as having a slightly different history and tradition. In fact, the only time being Šokci is even brought up is during folklore celebrations. For patriotism purposes, we are Croats! The only ones who seem to want to separate the two in any big way are Serbs. In areas of Serbia where Šokci avoided being labeled as Croats, it was done out of fear of persecution only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian?

Why Bosnian language? --PaxEquilibrium 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Šokadija

I've redirected that article back to here, because it doesn't make sense - it's mainly a historical term, and it doesn't serve the Šokci right for it to be applied in a strict geographical manner today. One might be able to say that some of the villages in Slavonia are more typical šokačka sela than some others, but I don't think that that would help delimit the term in a way that would allow for a separate article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sokci

I am a Sokica.. my Family are Sokci from eastern Slavonija.. reading this page .. i do not know if I want to laugh or cry at some of the nonsense.

First.. ask any Sokac what the word means.. it means old settler. "Staro Sjediovac"

Second.. we are Croatian first, Slavonici second, and finally Sokci.

Not every Slavonac can be a sokac. but every sokac is a Slavonac.

We are catholic.

And the dialect is for example the word to sit.. In one of my parents towns they will say it as sjedi, in the other sidi. same with the word to eat, jedi and jidi.

And all sokci in a town know who the sokacke families are, they all had what they call "stanove"... houses near/or on fields that they owned and tilled

and Sokci are farmers.

I hope that clears up the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokica (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That is how I feel too. Hrvat > Slavonac > Šokci. Like I mentioned above, the only time being Šokci is even brought up is during folklore celebrations. For patriotism purposes, we are Croats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

rekla etc

Just a thought - we should put up a few pictures of the traditional clothes as well as hairstyles. We need a volunteer to visit Vinkovačke jeseni or Đakovački vezovi and take a gazillion easy shots :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Šokci. 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:

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) 18:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Šokci/Archive_1&oldid=1248875932"