Talk:Croatia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Origin of people living in the area known as Croatia

I would like to put in evidence,in Istria and Dalmatia region the presence of an italian community of 40000 inhabitants (on wiki only 15.000 is reported). Any way these two regions, also during austrian domincance period, the population was for more the 96% italian because originally venetian or Friulan. (same for the slovenian part of Istria) That's why italian is widely spoken in Abbazia, Pula, Fiume, etc (Michele Jurkovic from Capodistria)

there are 14.284 italians in Istria county and 19.636 total in croatia acording to 2001 census http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/censuses/Census2001/Popis/H01_03_10/H01_03_10.html, Italian in Fiume is spoken by some old people on west side of city (only when they talk to eachother).

On this web page, they say italian speaking are 70.000 whose 30.000 italians and the other former italians. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=HR Can you suggest me where to find more info about Istria ethnic history? thanks

I was just going through the Croatia page, and noticed there was no mention of croats' Persian origin. To me, this was a well-known fact based on the studies I've had read before, genetics, historical artifacts, geographical evidence and etc. Just to refresh my memory, I googled it and seems like a well-known universal thing. http://www.geocities.com/irnationalsocialism/croatia.html

Is there a particular reason why this is sensored? --LogiPhi 16:35,-- 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Persian origin of the Croatian ethnic name is indeed a well-known fact. As for genetic studies there are only few and rather speculative. Historical, archeological and geographical (?) evidences are not at all known to me.--domnius

The origin of the Croats is irrelevant for this article. It's explained in detail in the Croats article (see the History and Genetics sections there). --Zmaj 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Croats are of Slavic history and before that of the Illyrians, just as the rest of the former Yugoslavian countries. They have no Persian in them whatsoever. End of ridiculous discussion. --Burning Exile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burning Exile (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[quote]A tribe of Croats came to the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia in the seventh century and was ultimately assimilated into the larger native Illyro-Roman and recently arrived Slavic population which took the same name.[/quote]

croat tribe _is_ that slavic population, if not what is the origin of croat tribe, and who were the slavs that took croatian name? Why would they took it if they were dominant?(slavic people assimilated others the proof is today's language and culture in croatia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.162.109 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually the Croats came to Illyria in the early 7th century. There was already a Slavic population living there that had arrived perhaps 100 years previous that was already assimilating with the native Illyro-Romans. The Croats were a dominating power during that time because of the power vacuum that the collapse of Rome left. The Croats were probably Slavic-speaking, but perhaps not. Whatever the case, like the Bulgars in Bulgaria, left their name to the land that would eventually become Croatia. The modern Croats are mainly descended (population wise) from the Illyro-Romans, Slavs and Croats, in that order.

Croats are not of Persian origin

Never say "well known fact". Recent genetic studies (see Croats and take the references from there) indicate that the MODERN Croatian peoples do not have many genetic similarities to middle-eastern peoples. In fact, quite the opposite, genetic studies indicate that the MODERN Croatian peoples are mainly descended from the indigenous population of what is today Croatia. These people have been in Europe for 20,000 - 30,000 years. Sure, a tribe of "Croats" likely came to the Roman Province of Illyria in the 7th century and this tribe may have been from the middle east, but their imprint on modern Croatian genetic lineage is negligible. If you are a modern Croat, your paternal bloodlines likely go back to 20,000 B.C. in Europe.

In fact, genetic science show that modern Croats are among the MOST indiginous peoples in Europe. What does this mean? It means that is you are a Croat, you ancestry in the land goes back well before a wayward tribe of "Croats" appeared in the 7th century. Your lineage in the region goes back to before the time of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Illyrians, Emperor Diocletian, etc...

Just as the French derive their name from the Franks which are a Germanic tribe, most of the modern French are descended form the indigenous people of Gaul, the Celts and subsequent Roman colonists with probably very little Germanic in them. The modern French are as "Frank" as the modern Croats are "Croat".

All this talk about the "ancient Persian origins of the Croats" is ridiculous. The Croats are Croats that are native to modern Croatia. I'm sure we got our name from this wayward tribe of Croats, but we've been there a lot longer than they have.

History sometimes plays tricks. Long before the common use of the "Croatian" language the people of the Former Roman Province of Illyria (FRPI) referred to themselves and their language as "Illyrian". A political movement occured in Croatia called the "Illyrian Movement" that promoted the establishments of an Illyrian Kingdom within the Hapsburg Monarchy. So much of a threat was this that Vienna banned the use of "Illyrian" and was replaced with "Croatian".

Also, Latin was the official language in use in the Croatian Sabor and when Croatian representatives used it in the Hungarian court, it was banned and Hungarian introduced as the official language in Croatia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppekurgan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2006

MODERN Croatian peoples do not have many genetic similarities to middle-eastern peoples

.

?!??"#¤#()¤??? middle eastern what????? I am just reacting to that deluded affirmation above. First and foremost there is no such thing as “Middle eastern” peoples, simply because the middle east is neither a geographical nor a cultural term , but rather political. Sure Croatians have nothing to do with the Middle East in that case. But in the so called Middle East, you have different races and ethnicities. Iranic people (including Persians) do not have Middle Eastern heritage simply because Iranic people have settled in Mesopotamia quite Caspian Sea and archeological findings can prove that (domestication of the horse for example). As for the genetical evidence is concerned, well I hate to prove you wrong, but actually Iranian (including Persians) are not only linguistically akin to European but also genetically closer to “European peoples” than for instance their Arabs or Turkish neighbors (other natives of the so called “middle east”). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalli-Sforza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavallisforzageneclusters.jpg

According to Cavalli Sforza (and many other scholars), Iranians are genetically close to Italians, Danes and Britts etc. Now, how could there be a “middle eastern” peoples/race, when there is a clear differentiation between Turks, Arabs and Iranians/Persians, and that Iranians/Persians are classified together with Europeans whilst Turks and Arabs aren’t? Well that’s because European peoples might perfectly be related to Iranians/Persians. And there is no such thing as a “middle eastern race” or “middle eastern people” or “middle eastern language”.

Massacres

Although I just added Bleiburg, I sincerely believe that neither fascist nor communist massacres should be included in such a short and general history of Croatia. Still, I do not want to offend anyone, so I want to hear your opinions. If you agree with me, I will remove the parts about massacres. --Zmaj 09:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is their importance that matters. If the massacres were huge (like NDH, actually haveing the third largest Concentrational Camp in the world, and executing quitte a mass of the populace); they should remain in the short historic summary. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I even asked - since I wrote the above message, there's been an orgy of unreasonably large additions regarding the massacres. It would be silly to keep such details in the general page on Croatia. Therefore, I will remove all of it. There are separate articles on massacres anyway, which are already included in the article History of Croatia. --Zmaj 09:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely a brief, dispassionate mention of alleged massacres (one short sentence) is all right, especially as perceptions of Croatia are still affected by it.Kuifjeenbobbie 09:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One sentence is definitely OK, but with some really proven numbers or ranges of numbers, or no numbers at all. "More than a million" is just another POV. According to Wiki's own data (Ustaše#Victims):

"Exact numbers of victims are not known, only estimates exist. The number of murdered Jews is fairly reliable: around 32,000 Jews were killed during WWII on NDH territory. Gypsies (Yugoslav Roma) numbered around 40,000 fewer after the war. The numbers of murdered Serbs are much larger, and estimates tend to vary between at least 300,000 and 700,000.

...

According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (citing the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust):

"Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs, expelled 250,000 and forced 250,000 to convert to Catholicism. They murdered thousands of Jews and Gypsies."

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says:

"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac."
--€ro 07:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed History section according to these figures (up to 700,000 victims)--€ro 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

These numbers are all unsourced and cannot be taken up for granted, in short they are not serious. The official data by Yugoslav goverment said that there were about 300,000 dead in Croatia, both casualties soldiers and those who died in concentration camps. It is highly doubtful that Ustashe who themselves numbers 76,000 at their peak could killed so many people especially when we know they weren't able to hold the territory they proclaimed to be under their control. Anyway the ambiguous "many were killed" is IMO far better and far less POV than stating some number which cannot be sourced and proved beyond any reasonable doubt least numbers who cannot even satisfy the lowest standards of proper research. --Factanista 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as I remember the official estimate was 600,000-700,000 dead (and that estimate the Serbian government inherited). If memory serves me well, Tito's suggestion of erecting a monument to the victims would've included 660,000 lives and a citation of a famous Yugoslav poet... but it was never raised due to his death and the Croatian movement for independence. --PaxEquilibrium 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK these numbers you speak were cut down later as they were found to be blown out of proportions. The goal of Tito and his government was at first to number as much victims they could as they wanted to get a better position for much of war reparations from Germany as they could get. Later official research and data published by various Yugoslav institutions all cited the figure of one million dead in whole ex-Yugoslavia...which then of course makes these claims, that Ustashe killed 600-700,000 people, unrealistic and laughable. --Factanista 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

THE TRUTH

The Serbs are a little more guilty than the rest of us in the Former Yugoslavia. They should be the last ones accussing anyone of anything///Evergreen Montenegro1 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Evergreen Montenegro1 22:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC) TO JOY ..The old comments here before were mine, I choose to delete them as i was on Rakija when i said them. I have nothing againts anyone. Iam registerd now and Iam cleaning up my old comments ok which are out of line. Evergreen Montenegro1 22:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rage is pointless. Some of those things you are talking about are never discused. In wikipedia's documents you can find that bosnians are a nationalety formed that was formed in the 15th century, which is really silly. Bosnians as a nationalety where given that name by Tito. And it's not only muslims that are confused crotas, it's many of the people of ortodox fait. As it is known Croatia was the gretest ally of Bysanitum before the split of the chatolic church. When Bysantium priests came to convert Croatia, one fo the worlds greates roman chatolic countries(did you know cratian was the only next to latin and greek language that allowed preaching of masses? in the midevil ages) refused it, but some people still converted. After the Turks came there was a law, muslims had to pay no taxes, roman chatolics extra taxes and ortodox chatolics mild taxes, this is a little known fact. That's when a lot, I mean a really big nuber of Croats converted in to muslims and ortodox chatolics. During the first yugoslavia, Croats where smuthered because the Serbs, who where chosen to lead never had such a great and epic history that Croatia had, many ortodox chatolic Croats in Bosnia started wieving themselfs as Serbs. During WWII Croatia was maid in to a country that all normal Croats renounce as their country(I think that was not Croatia!!). Croatia, before that day never waiged a offensive war, but then we where froced to attack other countries, but so where other Naci pupet states, such as Hungary, France, Italy... During the second world war the spirit of Croatian people didn't break, was it manifested itslef in the first and strongest anti-nazi resistance, Hitler lost more solders to the Croatian(Yugoslavian) resistance then in all his bettles in Africa(vs the UK). Tito, dispite his glory in the second world war, did some very bad things to the croatian people. He made the broders of Croatia that it's like today, although Croats are a majorety in many parts of Bosnia, Vojvodina and Monte Negro. He made a lot of mistakes, and hurt the Croatian people in many ways and other people of Yugoslavia, but the worst was migratins many Serbs in to ortodox Coratian parts, where they made everyone in to serbs, and creting the etnicety of Bosnians(No entnicety can be foremed in the midle of the 20th century, that's just silly). I think it's his fault that the Homeland war started... and many will agree. Todays pciture is this, Bosina is torn by hate, in easter parts, where croats once lived in a great majorety the land is empty, Serbs from serbia chased them away. The so called Serbs of other places revolted as well, and chased away Crotas and muslims.The east side of Bosnia has it's own Serbian tv, curency, nespaper, language(difernt from the nativs). Crotia did fight in Bosnia, individuals did do many crimes(for which they should burn) but it was no means a offensive war, it was a try to retake the heartlands. Serbs fough a ocupational war in bosina, and won! No mather what the UN says, they won, they can freely scream this is Serbia, and nothing will happen to them. The Croats that lived there, no more then 20 years ago, are not scatered across the wrold... and doomed to soon forget their ancesty. Serbs did terrible crimes in Bosina, Slavonia, Gorski Kotar and Dubrovink. If this isn't sad enough, our goverment is now starting to give up on Bosnia, which makes me sad. Muslims and Chatolics always had good relations, until muslim extremisam started to show (as it happens in many other muslim societies). Today in Serbia they consider themselfs as having two anti-nazi movemts, the fact is the other one(non-partisan one) was a nazi army, and this followers glorfy the things that they did during the second world war, blah... and the weirdest thing is only Milosevices party voted against it in palament. Now you tell me who is insane in Serbia? The Serbs got it in to their heads that they are somthering big when they where allowed to rule during Yugoslavian times, that's when the Croat spirit was crushed, and it allowed them to do the things listed above. I will end with this, what is what is Irland without Northen Irland? what is Israel without the west bank? what is China without Hong Kong? what is Baskia without a country? That is Croatia without Bosina, our ancastors foged thier souls in to those rocky fields... and we are starting to forget them, no mather their religion, ther are Croats, and always will be. As for Serbs, i frown at the hatred that sparks with our two people, in the big slavic family no one is more closer to us then then Serbs, why can't we be friends?

I would like to add a note to the writers of the text about Croatia, Croats won the war in what is today knowed as Croatia, i don't see that writen anywhere.

And i would also like to add that Hasburgs came to power in Croatia when Croats decided to crown thier king as our king, making it a personal union. Just like ther one with Hungary before. Which was in both cases done freely. There was no submision, in both personal unions(more in the Hungary one) Croats had a big say in who gets to rule.

sorry for my bad english and the typos.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.124.81 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 6 January 2006

Gallery

I suggest putting the pictures into the new Gallery section (nije pregledno). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Croat rule over Serbia and Bosnia in 900s

My old commnet, please keep deleted. I need to study the history a little more and give some sources. I was told thast Croats did have rule over Serbia...when ?? Iam not sure. If someone knows they can add to it. Intersting note Dalmatian terrotory was all of former Yugoslavia once, although this was before the arrival of Slavs...still intersting note. Evergreen Montenegro1 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil war?

The war in Croatia was not a civil one, it was, by wikipedias own clasification , a war for liberation. . .

A War of Liberation is a conflict which is primarily intended to bring freedom or independence to a nation or group. Examples might include a war to overthrow a colonial power, or to remove a dictator from power. Such wars are often unconventional.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.79.58 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 January 2006

That is a bit POV view, mate. From thy point-of-view, the Serbian Army was trying to "liberate" Sarajevo in 1991-1995 and "free" the ethnic Bosnian Moslem soil in Eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

La Francophonie

I can't see why Croatia's partnership with La Francophonie should occupy any space in the introduction. Observer status is the lowest status a country may have in that organisation. This data is very insignificant compared to the other pieces of info there (former republic in SFRY, independence, EU candidate). Croatia's observer status in the Non-Aligned movement or its cooperation with the International Olympic Committee could be also mentioned by the same principle. (Posted by User:Cukor in Revision as of 16:49, February 21, 2006)

• It struck me as odd, too. Really how many people actually parlez Français in Croatia, any way? MJCdetroit 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised, mon ami detroitien. But you're right, it's irrelevant. I'll remove it. --Zmaj 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you think a reference to the observer status in La Francophonie is controversial. If you just take a look at Slovenia page for a moment you will find that the country "...is also a member of the Council of Europe, NATO, and has observer status in La Francophonie". No one seems to be bothered by that reference there! Why is then this reference on Croatia page such a big problem? EurowikiJ 10:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not controversial, it's irrelevant for the lead section. Kindly RTFM. --Joy [shallot] 12:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue had actually been resolved a month ago and I decided that it is not worth pursuing it. But to avoid any further comments I am withdrawing it. EurowikiJ 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Native Name

It would great if someone could put in an audiofile correctly pronouncing the native name of Croatia. I'm very interested in hearing this "seemingly impossible to pronounce" name. --Ttownfeen 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command ;) --Dr.Gonzo 00:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I don't think that that pronunciation is the most typical! :) The recording has a stress on the first syllable the same way the kajkavian speakers say it, but the stress continues a bit onto the second syllable the way shtokavian speakers do. Then again, it would probably be confusing if we had several files for such an essential word. Perhaps if we found one of HRT's old school speakers to say it, that would be best :) --Joy [shallot] 12:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you can get someone like that to record it, please do... Maybe if we just cut it out of some tv or radio broadcast and ask for permission to put it up? Anyways, I tried to pronounce it as neutral as possible, but being a Zagreb native it may sound a little bit regional... You're welcome to try and improve upon it though ;) --Dr.Gonzo 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way, thanks for putting it in! --Ttownfeen 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. I was wondering do you find the "unpronouncable" statement true now that you've heard it? --Dr.Gonzo 23:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

history stuff

Who wants always to delete first historical evidence of nations in Croatia. According to the Frankish historian Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals, Serbs controlled the greater part of Dalmatia in 822. The first mentioning of Croats in Dalmatia is 30 years later. All other historical documents are done by somebody 130 years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.187.51 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 March 2006

Put it in the article "Dalmatia in the early middle ages" or something like that. Don't disrupt this article with irrelevant data. --Zmaj 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant text because it describes first nations in Croatia.It is first historical document written at time of these events. It is much more irrelevant mentioning of White Croats as founders of Dalmatia. That statement about white Croats is questionable since it is done by documents written 250 years later. Same applies to Croatian princes before Branimir. In Einchardt chronicles for example Borna(Guduscan prince) is mentioned at least 10 times, but never as Croatian prince, although in Document they mentioned regularly nations.

It seems you're confusing "relevant" with "important". I don't deny it's an important piece of data. It should definitely be added, but not to this article. You see, in the History chapter of this article, we cover whole centuries in a single sentence. We never mention any sources. We are trying to make it as short as possible. Is that so hard to understand?

As for founding Dalmatia, you're right, it wasn't founded by Croats, but by Romans. It's bad wording and I'll change it.--Zmaj 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo started to delete that Croats and Serbs have come to Croatia. It is maybe better to say Slavic tribes, but to say Croats historically is not true. This is article about croatia, not aboot Croats. According to the Frankish historian Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals, Serbs controlled the greater part of Dalmatia in 822. The first mentioning of Croats in Dalmatia is 30 years later. Therefore sentence should be "Croats ans Serbs..." or "Slavic tribes.."

Please read up on Wikipedia Policies and guidelines before editing anything else. I have been deleting your edits because this is an article about modern date country of Croatia. It's not about it's history or politics or anything else. It is essentialy a brief about the country, and your edits DO NOT BELONG HERE. I invite you to take those edits to the History of Croatia, or better yet History of Serbia and Serbs article because the information is PERTINENT there. I repeat, it DOES NOT belong on this page, and if you continue vandalizing it page I will be forced to contact an administrator to sort this out. By the way, you may consider REGISTERING. --Dr.Gonzo 19:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That what you are doing is simly not truth. This is article about Croatia, not aboot Croats We should write "Croats and Serbs" or "Slavs". There are no historic ground to write only "Croats". Reason you could find in 2 documents. We take 2 main and only early documents about Slav settlements: 1. Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals written in 823 states that Serbs controlled the greater part of Dalmatia in 822. No mentioning of Croats at all although Einchardt met Ljudevit and Borna many times. The first mentioning of Croats in Dalmatia is 30 years later. 2.De Administrando Imperio Documment is written in 950 by by Byzantine emperor Constantine VII. it describes the arrival of the Serbs and Croats to the Balkans in the 7th century.

I do not wish to enter an argument about the validity of those documents, but for example - Constantine Porphyrogenitos "De Administrando Imperio" is a HIGHLY controversial document, to the point that many today belive it is part prose, and not fact (like so many ancient documents). Some other "facts" in it certainly do not add up, like king Tomislav having 100.000 men, 60.000 horsemen and almost 200 ships at his disposal, so why take anything else in it at face value? In any case, it can be mentioned as a footnote in the History of Croatia article an not in the brief in the Croatia article. Nobody is arguing that the South slavs didn't migrate to the Balkans colectively, or even that Serbs didn't at one time inhabit Dalmatian coast en masse, what is argued is that this article is about the Croat nation-state of Croatia, and if anything needs to be included in the early history brief it's when and how CROATS arived to present day Croatia. Keep it brief and concise and elaborate on appropriate pages. I wonder how serbian wikipedians would react if i tried to edit the Serbia article by including references to Croats and Croatia in every other paragraph... --Dr.Gonzo 00:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1.We should write "Croats and Serbs" or "Slavs". There are no historic ground to write only "Croats". 2.It is not article about Croats. It is about Croatia(teritory of Croatia) Therefore we should write what is correct. If you say that document 2.De Administrando Imperio is not correct, then you must find that document 1(Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals ) clearly says that Serbs control great part of Dalmatia. Nobody mentioned Croats at that time, although Frankish Army was in contact with Borna and Ljudevit.

It's NOT a f****** article about the territory of Croatia! MAY I QUOTE THE HEADER - "The REPUBLIC OF CROATIA is a crescent-shaped country in Europe bordering the Mediterranean to the South, Central Europe to the North and the Balkans to the Southeast."

And I don't want to hear another word about Royal Frankish Annals, it is a HIGHLY contested document and cannot be accepted as reliable historical evidence!

Secondly, stop hiding behind your anonimity. Register, then edit and stand behind your contributions. I will continue deleting your posts until then, no questions asked. EOD. --Dr.Gonzo 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, Gonzo. It's a malicious user. The guy's not interested in the article itself, just in his own miserable world. Don't even discuss with him, it's pointless. --Zmaj 07:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Gladly, but its not the Wikipedia way. All disputes must try to be resolved, no matter how stupid they may seem. However, this user certainly seems to act out of malice, so if we cannot resolve it here i will have to resort to asking for freezing the article until such time this can be resolved. --Dr.Gonzo 13:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Only malicious user could say that Royal Frankish Annals is unreliable document. It is most reliable and only document we have from that period. It is reliable since it is not written after 150 years like other documents. It is written during all these events. If you say "Croats come to Dalmatia ", it is simply not true. You could say South Slavs come or Croats and Serbs come. Why? Serbs have been probably first in Dalmatia or at same time with Croats. Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals 822. clearly says that Serbs control great part of Dalmatia. Nobody mentioned Croats at that time, although Frankish Army was in contact with Borna and Ljudevit.

May I quote the "Royal Frankish Annals" article in this very encyclopedia? - "Croat and Bosniak historians do not accept the document as valid evidence, claiming that it sounds implausible on the grounds that Avars and Pechenegs are confused for Slavs, although it appearently referred to more than just Slavs." It is, infact, at least on this point, a contested document. It means it cannot be taken at face value, and your continued insistance on editing the article to include details from it may be interpreted as Greater Serbian propaganda. It does not conform to NPOV and Verifiability policies and should not be included! --Dr.Gonzo 13:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You dont have valid evidence that Croats have come to Dalmatia before Serbs. It is not verifiable too. Therefore neutral policy is Slavs or Croats and Serbs. Serbian propaganda will be if I say Serbs come to Dalmatia before Croats, what is maybe true.

Do you not understand English? It is not NPOV because this is not an article about History of Croatia, it is a summary included in the article about the Republic of Croatia. WTF do I have to do to demonstrate this? Take your comments to appropriate articles, NOT HERE. One more edit and I'll have to invoke the help of an administrator to freeze the page and then everyone loses. --Dr.Gonzo 14:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To state only Croats it is far from neutral. It is biased point of view contrary to historic arguments and historic data. To be most neutral it should be written " The Slavs "

That's it. I've asked for administrator page protection. If we can't settle this without rv war we won't settle at all. Btw, register. --Dr.Gonzo 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not done according to NPOV. It is biased version. There are 2 major historical sources: Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals and De Administrando Imperio and both of them support Croats come with Serbs or Serbs come first. I tried to take neutral view like : A) Slavs b) Croats and Serbs c) Slavs (Croats and Serbs) but biased view was protected by rv war and by administrative protection. You are simly not right. You dont have proof that Croats have come alone in 7th century. It is far from being truth.

I requested protection because you don't respect official Wikipedia policies. In particular the Three-revert rule and NPOV. Wikipedia is not your playground, you can't do whatever the fvck you want. Many members contributed to this article and obviously, many do not share your views, at least 3 other members besides me reverted your edits. It means your additions are DISPUTED. On Wikipedia disputes are resolved through discussion and compromise. You do not respect either. Your posting from multiple anonymous IP adresses is also considered rude. If you want the protection lifted and your additions seriously considered please explain your views on why it is imperative that they be included in the article and let's try and reach a compromise. I also call on other members to post their opinions. --Dr.Gonzo 00:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What proof you have that Croats have come alone in Croatia? What proof you have that Croats have come before Serbs? We have only 2 valid historic documents. One from 820-825 and other ftom 950, and both of them are against that disputed sentence.--Medule 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It works both ways you know. What proof do you have that Croats haven't come to Croatia alone? What proof do you have that Serbs have come before Croats? Precisely because we have only two semi-trustworthy historic documents we cannot make broad statements. But that's not even the point. I was arguing that it is superfluos to state that "Croats and Serbs" or "Slavs" came to Croatia in the 8th century since in that part of the article (historical summary) we should be concerned only with how and when CROATS arrived into their future homeland since this is, after all, an article about Croat nation-state of Croatia. Any further elaborations can be added in the appropriate articles elsewhere. (Jesus, I'm having a nasty feeling of Deja-Vu) Well, anyway, just to let you know - you can put ":","::",":::" etc. infront of your reply to make cascading comments, like so:

- See? --Dr.Gonzo 01:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is Ok that you recognize that we have 2 historic documents, and we know that one of them is more trustworthy than other. One document(from 820-825) is from Einchardt being present to events and in that document we see Serbs exist and no Croats at all. Another document (from 950) writes about Serbs and Croats, but it is less trustworthy than first, since it is written much later. So you should recognize at least partial truth, that Croats and Serbs arrived together.

Second, this is not article about Croats, it is about Croatia. In article about Croatia it should be written truth correctly. Otherwise there will be feeling that only Croats arrived in Croatia during settlement, what is far from truth.

--Medule 11:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, that's precisely why your comment is biased and not NPOV. What arguments do you have that Royal Frankish Annals are MORE trustworhy than De Administrando Imperio? The second document WAS written almost 150 years afterwards so it can be assumed it had more sources to draw from, right? On the other hand, Royal Frankish Annals are contemporary but describe events outside of Frankish sphere of influence (or at least at the periphery), while in De Administrando Imperio Constantine VII describes conditions very much INSIDE his sphere of influnce (since we know for a fact that Bysantium still had administrative and every other type of control over dalmatian cities).

But let's analyse the sentences that are causing you so much grief: "Croats came to Dalmatia and Pannonia in the 7th century. Ruled by various Croatian Princes, Dukes since 852, Dalmatia eventually absorbed Pannonia and after periods of nominal Eastern Roman and then Frankish Imperial rule, Croatia eventually became a strong independent Kingdom in 924."

Do you see how it is cleverly written to avoid explicitly asserting WHO ruled Croatia before 852? Do you notice how, since there is so little room to work with, it just mentions the essential, like the fact that Croats migrated in the 7th century? Do you notice how entire centuries are covered in 2 sentences? Do you notice the link above the section that points to History of Croatia article that anyone who wants to know more can click on and go there instantly? --Dr.Gonzo 14:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So you have 2 historic documents. I see you are trying to say that Royal Frankish Annals are not trustworthy, because there are no Croats at all in them in Croatia. Second ,De Administrando Imperio , although you say more trustworthy writtes that Croats and Serbs come to today Croatia.--Medule 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Our friend Medule is accusing us of writing something we never wrote. Let me quote him (see above): What proof you have that Croats have come alone in Croatia? Alone? Medule, where did we write that they came "alone"? Where do you see the word "alone"? But let's go on. Medule's next post claims: Otherwise there will be feeling that only Croats arrived in Croatia during settlement, what is far from truth. Only Croats? Did we write that "only Croats" came? Where is the word "only"? I seriously doubt that any kind of sensible discussion can be had with a person who is making such false accusations. --Zmaj 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for any compromise like "Croats and Serbs.." or "Slavs ", which is as you could agree more based on truth and on historical documents.--Medule 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj, I am not making false accusations. There is no word "only" in text if you say "Croats came" , but it is implicitly there if you dont mention Serbs at same time. From 2 historic documents for that period one of them had only Serbs, but other had Serbs and Croats or Slavs. Therefore you have no ground to say "Croats come".--Medule 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not implicitly there! There's no reason to mention the Serbs or Slavs in this context, and since no one is claiming that the Croats migrated alone, it is a non-issue. Anyone who wants to know more will click the blue link "History of Croatia" above the segment and learn anything you intended for them to read here. There's no point in cluttering the article with irrelevant data, and in this context Serbs migrating along Croats is IRRELEVANT. I think you made it your mission to clutter articles relating to Croatia with the typical Serb propaganda bullshit and are now pissed cause we're opposed. Well boo-hoo. I'm usualy not an unreasonable man, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable now, but your incessant whining and disregarding other peoples opinions is really getting annoying. Isn't it indicative that almost 100% of the articles you edited since registering have somehow been about inserting Serb (biased) views into croatian articles? Get a life. Sorry if I'm being too harsh. Peace. --Dr.Gonzo 23:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've officially requested the unprotection of the article. Such minor issues should not be the reason to protect such an important article. --Zmaj 07:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Such minor issues" also should not result in the kind of edit warring you helped foment. Protection will remain for now. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

According to history "Croats come " is not true. I dont insist that you mention Serbs, but if you mention Croats historically you have much more reason to mention Serbs. I suggest you fot example to write 1. Croats and Serbs 2. Slavs (That is more neutral) 3. Present population of Croatia 4. Slavs(Croats and Serbs) You will see also that in article about Serbia there is no "Serbs come.."--Medule 21:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing more to say. We've told you our reasons. You're just repeating the same thing over and over again. --Zmaj 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj you see that there are 4 different ways how to improve it, but you insist on something what is not true. You and others admitted that Croats have not come without Serbs. What is problem then?

For how long you want to block that article to have more neutral description inside. By admitting that Croats have together with Serbs you dont have real reason to block that article but to change "Croats come " to something more reasonable. That is not article about Croats. It is about Croatia.--Medule 23:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(I've written this on Talk:History of Croatia, but I think it's relevant for this discussion, so I'm posting it here too, with some additions:)

I won't revert anything if it has some useful part in it. But the proposal to include Serbs in the early medieval history of Croatia is wholly misdirected because they did nothing relevant for the history of the country in that period. Many different peoples passed through the region in the great migrations of the 7th century, but the Croats founded the Dalmatian and Pannonian duchies that would later merge in the kingdom of Croatia.

Of course, Medule, that is not to say that another people cannot be mentioned in the history of Croatia. In fact, the Serbs played a significant role in the country's history later, when they came to the Military Frontier, stayed there for three centuries and eventually tried to create their own state. But that is duly mentioned in the article History of Croatia. --Zmaj 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Serbs come at same time with Croats

2. In Pagania Serbs they formed long lived entities and made big influence

3. First naming of Croats is from 850s and Serbs from 822 in region. In 822 Serbs saved Ljudevit.

4. There are more historical documents naming Serbs than hist. documents naming Croats in that very early period

5. Even existence of Croats in that region until 850 was disputable. It is not sure that Croats even arrived until 850.--Medule 13:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Early and best Croatian historians

Medule, you're off topic. I explained why Croats and not Serbs are relevant for medieval Croatia and you start talking about Pagania. I mean, come on! This is ridiculous. --Zmaj 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why "Croats come" is not correct.Serbs had been relevant.

The southern sections of inland Dalmatia were fragmented, with the dukedoms of Pagania (Narenta), Zahumlje (Hum), Travunia .These dukedoms had been in Serbs control for long period of time. Second in frankish wars Serbs are recognized as nation, while there are no mentioning of Croats at all.--Medule 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I come from a fairly neutral POV, as I've no related heritage, and merely am trying to learn about Croatia. I've read thru the issues above, and wonder if part of the issue is a difference in the use of the word 'Croat'. I believe one perspective is that a Croat is a specific racial group, the other is that a Croat is either someone who lives in Croatia, or was someone who migrated to Croatia to become an ancestor thereof. Could "Dalmatia and Pannonia were settled in the 7th century." be an acceptable substitute line?--207.58.192.150 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the word Croat in this context refers to a member of a specific south slavic tribe, the Croats. The situation with south slavs is somewhat different than with other european nations since they their names haven't changed for almost 1500 years. Croats have always been called Croats, Serbs have always been called Serbs, and there has always existed some sense of distinction, no matter what the Greater-serb propagandists want you to think. Infact their rhetoric is intended to obfuscate the truth. They want you to think there is no difference in calling one Slav or Croat, or that the correct phrasing should always be "Serbs and Croats", but it serves the Greater Serbian cause, since they claim Croats don't even exist as a nationality, that they are just "catholicized" Serbs. Which is of course not true, since the Croat name can be traced back at least to 852., and possibly even further back.

I would suggest, however, that you don't take everything written here at face value because the Balkans is, and always has been a big can of worms, and you really can't get to the bottom of the matter no matter how hard you try because the suspicion, rivalry, and outright hatred is so deeply rooted you are almost certain to read entirely conflicting views on the same matter no matter how trivial it may seem. --Dr.Gonzo 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)