Talk:Croats/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Ivan Meštrović

Why is Ivan Meštrović not included into the infobox picture mosaic? Why is one of world wide known sculputors and the most famous sculpturor in ex-Yugoslavia ignored? (Правичност (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

This has already discussed, see the discussion up--Sokac121 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian Croats from Herzegovina

Highest frequency of the haplogroup is found in Bosnian-Croats from Herzegovina...I would like to extend my congratulations to whomever came up with this sentence. You are a genius, a GENIUS I say. I'd also like to thank DIREKTOR and Timbouctou for protecting hilarious statements such as these....they surely raise the quality of this article. I am sure all this is a part of the consensus they reached 25 years ago. Well done. Shokatz (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Bosnian Croats" is the term used in English for - and I suggest you read the following words very carefully - "Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina". Because unlike in the Croatian language, the adjective "Bosnian" when used in English does not refer to Bosnia (region) but to Bosnia and Herzegovina (country). A simple Google search will yield thousand of results proving this, including for example the Croatian government website, New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, Reuters, etc. Timbouctou (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Used by the mass media to be correct, I am not disputing that. However Wikipedia is supposed to be a online encyclopedia and should be a bit more specific and defining. We are referring to the entire Croatian population of Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically not in some colloquial manner. That is the very reason why the article Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina was renamed from an earlier version named Bosnian Croats. This article should also reflect that fact. How can one have a problem with that is beyond me... Shokatz (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"Mass media" or not, all listed are reliable sources. And again - your disagreement does not negate that the adjective "Bosnian" in English means "of Bosnia and Herzegovina" rather than "of Bosnia (region)", purely for practical reasons. Even Wikipedia recognizes this as "Bosnia" redirects to the article on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition, see examples like "Bosnian parliament", "Bosnian national team", "Bosnian Prime Minister", etc. So per WP:COMMONNAME both Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be renamed to Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. Timbouctou (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

All those are mass media links, whether you call them reliable or not they do not have any value except to show the adjective Bosnian is used in such a manner, a fact I did not negate or dispute....you should start reading with understanding for once at least. Also Wikipedia seems to disagree with you on Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina since both those article were renamed exactly from those titles relatively recently. I have yet to see an argument from you why is it unacceptable that instead of Bosnian Croats it says Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've used the latter since it's a bit more specific and gives range to someone who doesn't know much about the region or the matter, probably the main reason why those articles were renamed to their current titles in first place. So how is it that the first is superior to the latter in your opinion? I'd really like to hear it. And don't say WP:COMMONNAME since I've just disputed that via Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina articles. Shokatz (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Care to point me to relevant move discussions involving those two articles? And btw, using your logic Bosniaks should also be moved to Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition, nothing you said negates application of WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources are reliable sources, be it "mass media" or not. I think a simple Google search proves that Bosnian Croats is way more commonly used than any other form. You did not prove otherwise. Timbouctou (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually they shouldn't since Bosniaks only native country is Bosnia and Herzegovina while Croats and Serbs have Croatia and Serbia and at the same time are constitutional nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore of Bosnia and Herzegovina is added to make a clear distinction. Following your logic we should rename Bosnia and Herzegovina to Bosnia. You should get the word to relevant political institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina to petition it's name change while you're at it. Also you didn't answer my question. Shokatz (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well Bosnia already points to Bosnia and Herzegovina on English Wikipedia, so that's taken care of already. And I did not notice there was ever any move discussion on any of the articles you mention. I also did not notice any policy-based argument from you in any of your last four posts on this topic. Why do you think WP:COMMONNAME magically does not apply here? (Btw, Bosnian Croats was created and was turned into a redirect pointing to Croats in 2005. The article Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina never had that title, i.e. there was never any moving and no move discussion ever took place. Likewise, Bosnian Serbs was moved in 2006 to Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, simply to align it with the Croat article. Again, no discussion took place.) Timbouctou (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So if you claim WP:COMMONNAME applies here (the question is really: what is the common name) explain to me why the main articles do not support your argument? Is it perhaps you are wrong? Also it's one thing to have a redirect page and totally another the official name of the article. Again, explain to me why isn't Bosnia and Herzegovina simply renamed Bosnia? Is it, again, that perhaps you are wrong? Also you still haven't answered my original question. Shokatz (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Shokac, put a sock in it please. "Bosnian Croats", like "Bosnian Serbs", refers to all Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not just the barely-notable part thereof that live outside Herzegovina. -- Director (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, put a sock on it....that's a great argument.... Is that why the articles are named Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Why don't you follow your own example and put a sock on it, you do not WP:OWN this article. Shokatz (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK those article titles were never reached through discussion, they were merely titled that way to keep them in line with other "ethnicity X of country Y" articles. There's no other reasoning behind that and you continuously avoid proving otherwise. Timbouctou (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So if they were named to keep them in line with other "ethnicity X of country Y" articles doesn't that prove you are wrong? I mean it's interesting to read your escapades and how you spin around this discussion, it is even funny at times....but getting so low to request a move of one article so you can satisfy your POV-pushing agenda on anther article is a complete embarrassment. Shokatz (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they were named that way in direct ignorance/contradiction of WP:COMMONNAME which trumps other naming criteria. Do you have anything to add here or are you here for personal attacks only? Timbouctou (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So you say, your personal opinion is not a policy of Wikipedia nor it is a component of WP:COMMONNAME. As far as I can see those articles are completely in line with naming criteria if such thing even exists, we only have you saying otherwise. Also if you think these are personal attacks then feel free to report me...if not, stop your whining about something you brought upon yourself. It's not me trying to change a name of one article so it can suit my agenda on the other, that is what you are doing. Shokatz (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, you will be reported if you continue in this fashion, this is your last warning. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do. I am very keen to see what will the moderator in question say about your escapades here and on Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Requesting a name change so it can suit your POV-pushing agenda, you are shameless... Shokatz (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My "POV" is described at WP:COMMONNAME and seems to be shared by the overwhelming majority of English-language media and sources. Yours on the other hand isn't. Which is why you haven't provided a single policy-based argument or link supporting your ideas. All we got from you are paranoid rants. Do you really think that these will support your case? Timbouctou (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to provide anything as the article about Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is already confirming my view. You know the one you are currently trying to rename so it can suit your ridiculous rants about WP:COMMONNAME which BTW are not even applicable in this case...and these are not my words but of another user. Your argumentation is fundamentally flawed because the term Bosnian Croats stems from the fact Bosnia and Herzegovina is simply called Bosnia in most English-language media. So as I said several times before, if you insist on this ridiculous WP:COMMONNAME argumentation, then you should also request Bosnia and Herzegovina to be renamed simply to Bosnia. I wish you luck with that. Shokatz (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it stems from the fact that the English language adjective "Bosnian" refers to anything related to the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just like "American" as widely used refers to anything related to United States (as opposed to Americas). I am sorry you cannot seem to understand this. As for the country article, its official name is "Bosnia and Herzegovina" and that is how it appears in international organisations and English-language media. On the other hand there is no official name for Croats (or Serbs) living in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina calls them just "Croats" (and "Serbs") and English language media calls them "Bosnian Croats" (or "Bosnian Serbs") to distinguish them from Croats living in Croatia/Serbs living in Serbia. This is all pretty clear and easily evidenced. Why you think your rants about me personally will somehow prove you are right is beyond me. Timbouctou (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Read your first sentence and then read what I wrote. It's the same thing! English language media are referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina simply as Bosnia, anything from Bosnia and Herzegovina is referred thus as Bosnian. Same with United States of America and American. It is used for practical reasons to avoid extraordinarily long titles, ok? Croats are Croats (Serbs too) whether they live in Croatia (or Serbia) or in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Distinction is made by adding Bosne i Hercegovine (English: of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Wikipedia is aspiring to be an encyclopedia, it should avoid practical naming patterns in mass media and use it as it is used by the domicile population itself as it does with any other country/nation. Now do you understand that? Shokatz (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not according to this encyclopedia's rules. As WP:COMMONNAME states: In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. Besides, the domicile population calls itself simply "Croats". So the current title satisfies neither criteria. Timbouctou (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That is quite a bold statement since you have only shown its use in mass media outlets. I have yet to see a source from quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. Shokatz (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well it's pretty rich asking me to provide even more sources whereas you so far produced zero. Can you name a scientific journal that does not use the term "Bosnian Croats" when talking about Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina? How about a major scientific body? Actually how about any single English-language source that does not use this term? Timbouctou (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you see, it is you who claims the view opposite to the current situation thus my friend the burden of proof is not on me, but on you. Requesting name change for the articles that do not suit your agenda does not count, nor does edit-warring. Shokatz (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Šokac, since this is Talk:Croats, and you're advocating a change here - the burden is squarely on your shoulders. Timbouctou is of course right that the article title over there merely conforms to the standard format, but the issue is completely besides the point: Wikipedia is not a source (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). So! lets see your sources :)

And P.S., quite frankly, when two old editors who never agree on anything, and who together have about sixteen times more experience on this project than you, oppose a change on grounds of policy and customary practice - you should imo seriously consider whether you're the one who might be wrong on such an issue. And whether or not its a good idea to waste everyone's time and energy on such petty nonsense. -- Director (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha...so I see, it can be applied as argument when requesting a name change on Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina but it cannot be used as an argument here when I pointed out the main article is named that way and thus links here should follow suit. That is so swell...is that also a part of your sixteen time more experience that you can twist and spin the rules as they suit you? Call upon consensus' some 5 years ago trumping half a dozen users and the entire discussion? Or do you think that your sixteen times more experience gives you the right to enforce POV without any discussion at all and just enforce the issue as you see fit? And I thought Wikipedia is an open community...guess I was wrong. Shokatz (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I probably could twist the rules as they suited me - but luckily I don't need to: your argument makes no sense, so all I have to do is point that out. On Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina the argument for the move is not some other Wikipedia article, but WP:COMMONNAME policy and common usage in sources. On the contrary, your argument here is based on other Wikipedia articles (i.e. on WP:OTHERSTUFF). In short: your analogy is risible. So, do you have any sources or don't you? -- Director (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Shokatz: Why should links here follow suit if the article body of the main article doesn't? Why should the article that talks about Bosnian Croats and mentions "Bosnian Croats" explicitly 26 times not be titled - Bosnian Croats? And how come it was never bizarre to you to read that phrase over there in article body (26 times), but it bothers you terribly to see it typed in here. And yeah - this is an open community, but it has rules. Telling people they are "low", "shameless" and "POV-pushing" and "whining" is not the type of "open" Wikipedia means to be. Timbouctou (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back to the example you gave me - United Kingdom, what was it that you said...oh yes: it doesn't matter what it says in the article but how it is named. That is a very interesting statement. Why don't you answer me, why do you find Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina offensive and/or unusable while Bosnian Croats is OK? I don't have a problem with either...I don't know how many times I need to repeat it, I stated my intention from the start. What I have a problem with is your arrogant and disruptive behavior. Who starts a name change of one article to reach a consensus on another as you stated at WP:AN3? Who starts an edit-war on a third article to reach a consensus? I find that shameful...you wouldn't? Why don't you take a step back, a little introspection maybe? And if you find that offensive, well I am sorry. I already said everything I had to say... Shokatz (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No no, don't change the subject with talk about WP:OTHERSTUFF, just provide sources please. -- Director (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetics

This was all added with this edit. I've removed material from an amateur as well as material discussing obsolete racial classifications - this material seemed to misrepresent the source.[1] Given that I'm not sure that the other sources are represented accurately. I'd love to know what term "You also added exceptional claims without any references such as how the term is exclusively connected with the Croats. All this in combination makes it hard to assume good faith." on the editor's talk page[2] refers to. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph should go. First, it includes racial (not racist) comments that are not supported by the source. Second, it's all about craniometry, generally no longer considered scientifically valid, and it's very difficult to see what the source could add to the article even if all of its facts were correct and agreed on. Third, the given source mentions that its specific findings are not generally agreed by other craniometric studies; it clearly doesn't report any academic consensus even within craniometry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

At this diff I have removed the first paragraph. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You do understand that by making such a strong claim as WP:OR you should do better than this? Especially if quite a substantial part is actually sourced. First, for us who are not experts on this (personally I know almost nothing about the subject, except what I just read through on the subject) you should definitely elaborate...I want to know more. The only reason I reverted you is that your rationale is just pure and simple - wrong. It looks as if you are deleting something "because [you say] it's wrong". I agree with you on one point though - it definitely does not belong into genetics. But the sourced material can still be used and it can have some use. From my experience on Wikipedia if you are going to delete something (fully or partially sourced) you should first tag, then you should elaborate and discuss it on the talk page and then and only then you can delete it. Also the claim of WP:OR from a quick glance is quite a doubtful one, if you claimed use of obsolete terminology then you would perhaps be much more point on. Shokatz (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is a clear policy - there is nothing at all in the source about these sub-races, so the source is being clearly misrepresented. Shokatz, I can assure you that it is ok to remove material where the source is being misrepresented. You don't have to tag it first if it is as obvious as this is. There are other issues, eg obsolete terminology used by the editor who originally added it (which is the original research, as it isn't in the article it is an interpretation added by the editor) - but none of these are as important as misrepresenting a source. And I will add that if we used this source for anything we would have to make it clear that "Remarkable differences may be noted when our results for head and face indices are compared with the findings of other authors. It is difficult to explain the reasons for these differences." - which is probably another reason not to use the source. I notice that Direktor has twice restored this, the 2nd time mentioning talk page consensus (which doesn't apply in this case as policy can't be overridden at a talk page) but he hasn't taken part in this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Shokatz, I'm not sure who you are addressing nor quite what you're trying to say. The first paragraph is absolutely unsuitable for all the reasons given above by myself and Dougweller. The rest of the new Genetics section should also have been discussed and consensus obtained before it was inserted. Some of it is acceptable, but it includes long detailed accounts of the frequencies of one haplogroup among various groups of Croats, much of it based on a study (Battaglia et al) that wasn't designed, powered, or analyzed to say anything useful about that particular subject, and none of it placed into appropriate context to make it comprehensible to an encyclopedic reader. This is a classic example of the misuse of primary sources. The detailed reporting of the results of Barac et al suffers from similar problems and its present version is also unsupportable for an encyclopedia, though I draft below a version that does extract some defensible encyclopedic content:

"Croatian Y chromosomal lineages testify to mostly Palaeolithic European ancestry. A majority (>85%) of Croats from Croatia belong to one of the three major European Y-DNA haplogroups - I (38%-45%), R1a (27%-34%) and R1b (13%-15%), while a minority (>15%) mostly belongs to haplogroup E (9%), and others to haplogroups J (4.4%), N (2%), and G (1%).

Haplogroup I, one of the few haplogroups of Palaeolithic European origin, present in Croatians in the highest frequency noticed in Europe so far, could potentially classify this area as a birth place of this mutation as well as a source of its post-LGM spread in Europe. Haplogroup I among Croatians from Croatia is divided in two major subdivisions - subclade I2 (35%), typical for the populations of eastern Adriatic and the Balkans, and I1 (9%), in contrast to other South Slavs, typical for north-western Europeans. From the I2 subclade, former I2a2a in the Y2010 tree, I2a1b1 is the most prevalent, and is typical of the South Slavic populations of south-eastern Europe, being highest in Bosnia-Herzegovina (>50%)."

Personally I'd prefer a shorter version, but the above seems at least defensible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to stay true to the investigation, objective, ie., transmit the information on what was found, help spreading the information which later will be used by scientists to write conclusions. Your sentence that is "present in Croatians in the highest frequency noticed in Europe so far" is partially true, actually, a subjective sentence. If we want to stay objective on the subject, we must not write this simplefied conclusions as the percentage may vary upon investigation sample size. So far only a lot of research is being done, and there are no "official" conclusions. Don't prefer anything about the genetics in the section to be changed.--Crovata (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not my conclusion, nor did I write that particular sentence. The conclusion of the source (Barac) is "Haplogroup I, defined by M170, is the prevailing Y chromosome group through Croatian mainland and islands with the highest frequency (49% on average) reported in Europe so far."

You are entirely wrong about the appropriate use of primary sources in an encyclopedia. Our role is to present a story suitable for a general reader. The primary literature is where the scientists produce their primary information. Here, we present a careful selection of their considered conclusions.

The inappropriate use of primary sources needs to be removed from the present Genetics section. Unless someone comes up with any cogent, policy-based objections I will do that in the next day or two. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In contrary, the general reader sees the percentages of haplogroups, and if we consider that a general reader lacks basical knowledge about haplogroups, he will read about that in the specific haplogroup article. And the conclusion by Barac is based upon his investigation, there is no "objective literature" out there, and investigation, not conclusion, is the critical point here.--Crovata (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, and I apologize for saying this, your reasoning appears to be thoroughly wrong. We are not here to present un-interpreted details of haplogroup frequency (normally the Results section of a primary source), we are here to present the conclusions of reliable sources.

I really don't know what your second sentence has to do with an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia:No original research might help you. Apologies again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We all have individual opinions, apologize from my side either. Currently am not interested in this article, but would like that the current information on percentages remains saved somewhere because it gives an interesting insight how and where haplogroups are spread. Hope you guys will find a solution, and decide for the best.--Crovata (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The haplogroup information will remain in the primary literature of course, and it may be useful to keep references to it in this article. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, Doug, for pointing out someone completely fabricated the "Nordic race" crap, but that's no reason to remove the craniometric info from the source unless you can show some real reason to omit. Further, WP:PRIMARY clearly allows the use of primary sources - as long as the info is merely quoted without secondary interpretation... all that is not to say most of that whole section isn't "covertly" dedicated to establishing Croats as separate from other ex-Yugoslav nations, and somehow implying we are really Goths or Swedes or whatnot, but that's modern Croatian "scholarship" for you. The silly Afghan inscriptions are also a real gem. -- Director (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't the measurements that they say are different from those of other researchers the ones they use to claim dolichocephaly - and they can't explain the difference? So the article now states as fact something that is based on measurements not found by other researchers? Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A NPOV presentation of craniometry in this article would require a much more thorough review of the craniometric literature on Croatia and beyond - the authors quoted say that their findings are different to those of others. Such a presentation here could only be justified if it had something really interesting to say about Croats, and craniometry doesn't. Shorn of its strong association with pseudoscientific racism, craniometry is a failed scientific attempt to trace human migrations, something that modern genetics does much better. I can't think of a single excuse to include it in this article. On the other hand the haplogroup information does provide conclusions that can defensibly be used here. Carefully and briefly, and without pandering to the silly ideas that Direktor mentions. I have no association with Croatia or anywhere near it, but even I think it's interesting that modern Croats generally seem to be descended from the first agriculturalists along the Adriatic coast. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At this diff I have removed the craniometry and the hair colour stuff, and abbreviated the haplogroup information in close accordance with what the sources actually say. I have also used ethnic terminology as the sources do. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look here: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#I2a Why in the Wikipedia map there is not Sardinia, where the same haplogroup is present at the same % of Dalmatia and western Bosnia? At the same, Albania is wrongly reported. --Grifter72 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because this article is about Croats, not about Albania, Sardinia, any haplogroup, etc? Anyway, if you can find a reliable source (probably not Eupedia) for improving the map, that would be a really good thing to do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking to this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M170 it seems that the Dalmatia and Bosnia Haplogroup is the I-M423 while the Haplogroup of Sardinia is the I-M26. Both are variants of the I2a2 --Grifter72 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And Shockats , your knowledge / sourcing is outdated. Of all the "85%" of "Palaeolithic" haplogroups, only actually I is likely to be palaeolithic. The rest are now thought to be neolithic, or evem Chalcolithic. And no serious western Scholar entertains the utility of craniometry. Its use should remain to bar -room jokes - ie that we're all box-heads with a flat back of the head ! Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy sources, populations in countries and total population

I beleive using more accurate and reliable sources, such as censuses for countries that have them available is alot more reliable than using estimation sources, estimation sources might be used only for countries that havent had ethnic censuses. The previous number of total population was also way over estimated and it seemed more like propaganda rather than serious figures as the summation of all countries in infobox; where more than 95% of the Croatian population lives is something over 6,27 million and adding a meer + for rest of the world estimation, we can maximumly come up with a circle figure of 6,3 million; which is about 1 to even 2 million lesser than the previous pumped up estimation; this only shows how serious and far from reality last figures were. From my experience of editing on several articles of ethnic groups i was given an amazing idea from croatian editors who edited "Serbs" article on how to look upon these figures from a new perspective and make more reliable estimations; but also making the infobox more "comfortable" for viewers of such articles, as the countries/flags and their figures are now sorted and summed into groups for a more transparent view. (Правичност (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

Hello Правичност..First of all with who did you talk about reverting this article?Do you know that you edited almost half of the countries population?You are a Serbs and you are editing Croats and you say that it is propaganda that there are 7.5 mil Croats in the world?Who are you to say that?But you don't mind when in "Serbs" infobox there is 700 000 Serbs in Germany?Right?And source is some article from some newspaper.That is a source?How come you didn't remove that?Because you are a Serbs and you don't revert Serbian infobox because you like it.But you have problems with this infobox so you have revert it.This will not go so easy.I will need to rollback this as it was because you made up a mess.Revert it by yourself or i will.Cheers Scrosby85 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Hello Scrosby, first of all i am not a Serbs, i am a Serb. Then for the rest... The reason why i edited this article is croatian editors editing "Serbs" article, their ideas on "Serbs" article, have inspired me with joy to make both articles look equal and not pumped up. I only edited 2 or 3 countries - from which i have removed unofficial datas, as i explained. If official datas from censuses exist, then there is no need to add "other estimations". Same goes for Serbs article; i bet the 700,000 number of Serbs in Germany bothers you only because you dont like Serbs and because you arent informed about Serbian diaspora. The source is no ordinary newspaper as you anmed it, its the official councils website of Serbs in Germany, since ethnical census wasnt aprooved in the last German census. As uninformed as you are, i see you have no idea that Ministry of Serbian Diaspora puts number of Serbs in Germany even around 800,000 and up to 1 million; maybe you would preffer those numbers rather than 700,000. But it doesnt matter what you preffer anways; what im trying to say is that largest of all Serbian Diaspora countries is Germany, where even today, over 21,000 people from Serbia leave fr Germany every year, not to mention how many left or ar eleaving from other Balkan countries; also back in the 90s and all the way back to the 60s. This however isnt the theme of our discussion. Our discussion is Croats; you are claiming that numbers that show over 2 million people more than there are in reality (by censuses and estimation figures available for each country in the infobox, while the infobox inculdes countries where certainly atleast 95% of total Croatian population live)? I wouldnt agree that i have made a mess, i think i have rather contibuted to make this article look more serious and closer to reality. Greetings (Правичност (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC))

Dear Правичност of course there are not 700 000 Serbs in Germany.The link should be from official census of Germany not from Serbs in Germany.Croats from Argentina few years ago claimed tha there are around 450-500 000 Croats in Argentina but census showed 250 000.You removed that Croatian site about Croats abroad that said there is 1.2 million Croats in Usa but you didn't remove 700 000 Serbs in Germany.I'm not reverting anything on Serbian infobox and i would urge that some Croats don't also.Just some minor changes.This would likely go to edit war and somebody woulld get their account blocked.I would not want that so in friendly manner i removed 1.2 million Croats in Usa and i lowered the number of Croats in Infobox to 6.5-7.5 instead of 8.5 no matter that there are book which clearly state that there are around 4 mil Croats outside of Croatia.That's why there is that est. sentence which means that is just estimation.Croatian ministry for Croats abroad said that there are 3.5 million Croats outside so that would mean around 7 or 7-7.5 million.I'm not reverting anything about that 700 000 and other stuff in your infobox and neither should you here.I have links which prrof that there are Serbs too much smaller number in some countries but i will not do that.Cheers and be well Scrosby85 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Dear Scrosby, you have my asnwer on the "Serbs" talk page about Serbs in Germany, ofc. there might be many more than even that. Germany didnt have ethnical census... anyways read about it on Serbs talk page. I must inform you that changes have been made on Serbs article aswell... (for example 1,8 million Serbs in U.S. as a higher estimation was removed and also some others. We agreed that we will input estimations only for countries that dont/didnt hold ethnical censuses, therefore estimations are used for such countries and ofc. as much as reliable as they can be; not using any "cheap sources". Otherwise only census datas are used if they are available and if they were also based on ethnic delcaration. I agree there shoudlnt be any edit wars, there is no point in pumping up figures to make things look "more, better, higher etc." between the 2 articles, confronting the reality situation. This is my first such edit on croats article... Some croatian editors were downgrading numbers of Serbs and removing even some reliable sources and higher estimations using no good arguments for such causes and urged to that there are ca. 10 million Serbs that can be counted from the infobox; no matter what sources for total population said. All of this isnt needed and i think we should make a concensus about the figures of both ethnic groups - this is anway wikipedia and anybody can contribute. I suggest we use lower and higher estimations for total populations of two ethnic groups on both articles; *1. lower estimation as from as how much we can count from the countries in infobox and make a "circle number" for it - this would be ca. 6,3 or 6,5 million for Croats as you have inputted and ca. 10 million for Serbs. *2. higher estimation (for lets say people of serbian or croatian descent) as from using a certain reliable source close to reality. Which would be ca. est. 7,5 million for Croats as you have inputted per sources. And ca. est. 11,5 or 12 million for Serbs per sources. While for countries in infobox, we should use same methods like on any other articles, using estimations for countries that have no available ethnical census datas and simply using census datas for countries that have such available censuses (based on ethnicity). What you think? Best regards! (Правичност (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC))

I agree that it would be good thing.Like Scottish people article for example?But only for nations with big diaspora that is the case.Irish article,Germans,Scotts and so on...It says Scottish 6-8 million,Ancestral Diaspora 28-40 million.Serbs and Croats doesn't have that big of Diaspora so i don't know if it would be a good thing--Scrosby85 15:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Also i saw that you reverted the Serbs article to 10-12 million after i because of you so we don't argue so much lowered the number of Croats in infobox.I think that is not fair --Scrosby85 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)

Scrosby, did you even read what i wrote you? I meant that - the second estimation (a higher one) may probably include people of distant ancestral diasporas; Like for example you said Scots number 6-8 million- lets say that we ignore the (28-40 million diaspora) and lets imagine that the number 8 million is mentioned only as a higher estimation and an explanation for this may be that it includes all people of scottish decent. .. but this doesnt matter anyway. I suggested firs tnumber would be composed of calculations from countries in infobox; while the higher estimation would be based on some source. I did the same thing on Serbs article.

Why do you think its not fair? Shokac has reverted every single edit i made for better infobox and he reverted everything, this is why i had to revert back. But anyways... 10 million is the summ of all figures from Serbs infobox and therefor eit can be used as a lower but a closer to reality estimation. The 12 million figure is a higher estimation, based on sources. And that is the same princip as you did on Croats article; after summing of all figures from Croats infobox, you get about 6,3 million - and OK you have putted 6,5 million - that is fine, coz we anyway make circulate figures. The 6,5 mil. is a figure closer to reality but also a lower estimation - thus for a higher estimation you used 7,5 million, according to sources. . . So both Serbs and Croats articles are based on same principals for total population, you undertsand? Hope you do. Pozdrav. (Правичност (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC))

USA and New Zealand figures are redicilous

I havent seen any ethnic group wiki article to point out pumped up higher estimations of peoples in a certain country in a case, this country has held a census in which people could declare their ethnicity or ethnic group origin

Here is the link from New Zealand census ethnic group results- tabelles for people who declared one of their European descents:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/european.aspx

And here is the direct link for how many people have declared their ethnic origin as being Croatian on the 2006 census.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/dalmatians/page-7

Its 2550 people and not 100,000.

-For the United States figures i dont even have to discuss... there was an option for people to opt for their ethnic origin.. around 411,000 ppl did so for Croatian origin. Putting up figures from third party unofficial sources is madness. For example Serbs article have already removed such figures.

Higher estimations or any kind of estimations that are unofficial should be used ONLY in a case - if a certain state didnt hold any censuses with an option to declare your ethnic background (For example Great Britian, Germany and France are such examples from Europe, then we have whole South America and alot of other states). .. (Правичност (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC))

Will you stop with the edit-warring already for gods sake...there is a clear distinction between the figures (now also provided with references to each number specifically), it is clearly emphasized what is official and what is estimated number. What you consider "ridiculous" is completely irrelevant. Census' don't cover everything...New Zealand is a prime example of this, their census actually counts only people who were either born or hold dual-citizenship as being anything other than "New Zealanders", everything else is grouped together into European group. Everything that is in the infobox has a valid reference otherwise it wouldn't be there. Now stop it... Shokatz (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The "estimate" seems to be merely one statement from a previous NZ prime minister. I have no problem with listing estimates alongside official census data, but such "estimates" really ought to be professional at least to some degree. Further, the statement is regarding "ancestry", not current ethnic identification. Meaning for example a person with one Croatian grandma would also be viewed as having "Croatian ancestry", but he wouldn't actually be "Croatian" would he? A person with, say, a Croatian father and a Ukrainian mother might and yet might not identify as "Croatian".. Even if we had a proper "estimate", it would not be right to list these people as "Croats" in the infobox. Shokatz, the entry does look silly.. "2,000-100,000"? Really?

The source for the US estimate is also not WP:V. Its just a text that says "it has been estimated that this many Croats live in the US". What estimate? The source should point to an actual estimate, or its pretty much a useless link (regardless of whether its an official RH site or not).

I get the feeling I better not go into these figures much deeper... -- Director (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the whole point, none of these are actually really "Croats" in that specific definition of the term (unless they were born in Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina or if we expand it to first generation born abroad) but rather "of Croatian ancestry". If we would go by such interpretation none of these would or should be in the infobox in the first place...and that would also apply to all other ethnic groups on Wikipedia. From looking at the source for the much lower number it in fact stresses that those who did express Croatian identity were asked to indicate the ethnic group or groups with which they identified, not to indicate their specific ancestry. Most asked probably (I would say more than probably, rather most certainly) identified as New Zealanders, but no one asked the ones identified as "New Zealanders" of what extraction they are, only with what they identified themselves. If I was born in New Zealand I would also identify myself with it, but I would also be of Croatian or some other extraction...but if no one asked me then ofc it wouldn't be in the census. I don't see what is silly when we have one link provided for one figure and one for the other, clearly making a distinction between what is estimated and what is supposedly "official"....the truth is none of these are actually "official", since they aren't in the official census figures. Also the statement by Helen Clark, former PM of NZ, was not just a reported news, it was in fact an official NZ government (Ministry of Ethnic Affairs) press release [3] [4], so it's an "official" estimate as much as the other link. In end I would like to point out there is no policy or unwritten rule that "only official census figures should be included in the infobox", and I especially don't see an issue (pushed mainly by one person here for rather transparent reasons) when it's clearly marked what is an estimate and what is an official census figure with specific references to each. Shokatz (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, if we're going to list estimates, we need actual estimates. Not statements that make us believe there maybe are some estimates. In other words, we need actual sources, not links that make us believe there may be sources out there.

The NZ "estimate" is not explicitly endorsed as official by the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, which means the figure is meaningless. Its not even referred to as an "estimate". The press release merely quotes Helen Clark (the release provides no external backing for her statement either). The figure there can not be based just on some comment some official made. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's an official press release by the NZ Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, not just a statement of one official. We don't have a proper source for the other figure as well since this is not featured in the actual official census released for the public, thus both are equally valid no matter how "ridiculous" it may seem. Shokatz (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Again: the figure is not stated as an estimate by the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, but the Ministry merely quotes Clark in their press release. Its not them saying it, its Clark. I don't know how valid the other figure is, but this one is indeed ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Again: It's an official NZ government press release. If they quote her that means they, for some unknown ridiculous reason, agree with her. I find both figures to be ridiculous, and especially the lower one as at least 15-20k Croatians emigrated to New Zealand since the late 19th century, where they lived and married, had children, etc. Looking at that other number makes me think they either died out or were abducted by Aliens, maybe they disappeared in thin air like the Dwemer...who will know....these "discussions" really start to bore the hell out of me... Shokatz (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The NZ "estimate" is not explicitly endorsed as official by the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs - and yet they featured and endorsed it on their official website -> [5]. I feel like punching myself in the face now... :)) Shokatz (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz calm down :) ... I would like to thank Director for joining in this discussion. It is not true "all others are grouped into Europeans" in NZ statistics.. sure it is a grouping, but then you have more and more groupings .. European- British, Dutch etc... clearly 2500 people declared they are of Croatian origin.. ANd the ones you mentioned i doubt they died out or dissapeared or were abducted... they were probably assimilated into larger groups such as the English people etc.... Afterall.. it was their colony right? :) .. It would be also redicioulsy unlogical that in both large Australia and small new Zealand, over 100,000 Croats live in each of these lands.. no? ... on both U.S. and NZ censuses people had an actuall chance to opt for their ANCESTRY. Yes official figures dont cover everything, but what/ who do estimates cover? ... there is no such thing as official unofficial estimates... all estimates are unofficial if they werent based on actual scientific, demographic or what not study, survey etc... my point is... it is okay to keep estimations for countries where there was NO censuses available or no censuses where people could declare ethnically, religiously, linguistically, or by ancestry etc... - such examples are Germany, France, Austria, Great Britian and many many others... So many people are already counted into this ancestry, Shokatz mentioned.. as not all pure ethnic Croats identified as such, there were also such persons with Croatian background who cant even speak Croatian. You think alot of 414,000 declared Croatian Americans speak Croatian? .. not even 50% of them ... Perhaps around 10% of that number (when comparing to other groups in USA statistics).. also these estimations, might have already counted more Croats in certain lands than there really are... and yet, when we summ all figures from infobox and even if we add a lets say +50,000 population for all other lands which arent included in ifnobox (but it is surely not that much) ... the total figure ends up at 6,5 million at max. .. using these unofficial sources for NZ and the U.S., we get 7,4 million... and that is my whole point... total number of Croats are by 1,2 - 2,2 million lower than it is written in the infobox.. even adding pumped up unreliable sources .. it doesnt reach 8,5 million ... unless you would count some spacemen under Croats to get to that number. I read on some Croatian webpage about diaspora... that Croats outside of CRO, number another 1 million people elsewhere in Europe and another 1,5 million overseas (evetnough i doubt theres 250,000 ppl in Argentina and 400,000 in Chile who would feel or even be of Croatian ancestry). You can find this same quote on wikipedia about Croatian diaspora articles. And that would make the total figure around 6 - 7 million max. or lets say ~6 m. "real Croats" and up to 7 or 7,5 million of those who have Croatian ancestry, origin. Compared to for example ~10 m. "real Serbs" and another 11 million of those with Serbian ancestry, compared to ~2 mil. "real Slovenes" and another 2,5 mil. those with such ancestry... these such figures would also match historical demographics between these nations and also their each diaspora estimations.. if figures would all stand like these, i doubt there would be anymore edit warring, vandal attacks on figures of these articles from editors belonging to "any of these sides" ... Now these were just my own opinions ofcourse.. i was using these comparements and examples because i want us all to contribute to our articles together with sense and make a stop to vandal attacks, such as Sokac121 was involved in. Regards (Правичност (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

@Правичност. I don't want to get into this all that much.. Its a completely arbitrary bunch of figures, and I really have no opinion on how best to handle this. I mean first there's the question of the various terms used for Yugoslavs, then the issue of criteria.. do we go only with those who declare themselves "Croats" or do we include all those who are estimated to have Croat background, or whatever. Its really stupid. I just know the NZ estimate figure is not sourced with an estimate, and neither is the US figure. Probably others are dubious as well, but I'm afraid I just "can not be arsed" to fight over this.

@"If they quote her that means they agree with her." Nope. Not at all. I just quoted you, does that mean I agree with you? Its a press release, they're just reporting what she said. Please don't push this point, it really doesn't reflect well. Also Skyrim is boring, and has no story. So there. -- Director (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: You as usual build a strawman argument. If you quote me, that doesn't mean anything. If an official state institution quotes a statement by the highest state official and publishes it on it's official website that means it has merit. And Skyrim rocks! Shokatz (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Правичност: Ok, I'll try to reply to this...most of it doesn't make sense but here we go...

• First the figure of 414,714 Croats in the US is not an official census figure. It is an estimate made by the ACS (American Community Survey) which makes these estimates on a certain sample ratio and then extrapolates general results. If you actually look at the page here you will see that above the table it says, black on white: Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. So again - we talk about an estimate, not an official census where everyone, as you said "had an actuall chance to opt for their ANCESTRY" to quote you letter by letter.
• Second, regarding New Zealand. Looking at the official census figures on this site you can see that the NZ census is actually quite general and in fact lists "ethnic groups" by "European", "Maori", "Pacific peoples" and "Asian", with also one other general "ethnic group" introduced in 2006 called "New Zealander". These "ethnic groups" are not actually real ethnic groups, but rather racial designations...similar to US census where you can opt for identifying yourself as "Caucasian", "Afro-American", "Asian" and "Native American". Now let's take a look at the next chapter. Here we see that almost 2,7 million people identified with the "European". We have some 35k people identifying as English, and so on. Now this is where I am going to reiterate what I stated previously (and several times): NZ census shows people other than "European" (New Zealanders of European extraction) only and only when they are either born in a different country (and emigrated to NZ) or when they hold a dual-citizenship. In fact over 200k people are recorded as being born in England yet only 35k identify as English and some 16k (if I am not mistaken) as British. This gives us a new perspective on the 2,550...something-ish who supposedly identified as Croats.
• Third, the question of the general estimate is not in question at all. The general estimate is not based by summation of the entire infobox but by the four (read FOUR) different references stating there are as much Croats (or people of Croatian extraction) all over the world. That means 4 million Croats in Croatia (not counting Bosnia-Herzegovina) plus at least as much people of Croatian extraction in other countries. Croatia is BTW the country with by far the largest diaspora of all the former Yugoslavia countries (and in Europe in general per ratio of population of Croatia and its diaspora), including Serbia and especially Slovenia. So comparing these three countries makes no sense. And need I repeat that the articles about Croats, Serbs and Slovenes or whatever other nation are unrelated so you cannot make comparisons there either.
• And fourth, there is no rule or Wiki policy which states only the official figures should be in the infobox, as I have just shown you both numbers for both NZ and US are in fact estimates. Shokatz (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets get this straight since its getting annoying. That is NOT a "straw man argument" under any definition, stop misusing that term. Even if you were right, it would still not be a "straw man argument". Figure that out. For something to be a "straw man argument", I need to manufacture some fake position of yours.

The press release has merit in terms of that it may indicate that somewhere an estimate may exist. Beyond that - its worthless. You can not write "100,000 people" based on nothing other than a statement by some person. You can not claim something is an "estimate" - when it is not. No matter how many terms you manage to cram the word "official" in a sentence..

Get this: that is not an "estimate". It is a press release that quotes an unsubstantiated statement by a politician, at a Croat event. It is meaningless, and you can't quote it as an "estimate", as that is blatantly dishonest. The word "estimate" isn't even mentioned. There is no way you can maintain this position, it makes no sense, its absurd. Every time you go into "irrational mode", you shift one notch away from "Serious Wikipedian" to "POV Pusher". Do not unlock perks on that skill tree, they are ultimately useless. And by the time I got to Alduin, I smacked him twice on the head and it was you win!... some game. Oblivion at least had a proper climax.. -- Director (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talking about "irrational mode"...let's just agree that we disagree, ok? Now since this is obviously getting us nowhere, I will post an inquiry later at WP:RSN and we'll see what other uninvolved users have to say (if they have to say anything...) about these particular sources. Hopefully you don't disagree with that as well... :p Shokatz (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is such an issue form someone it would be good if we put that ethnic and declared Croats number 414 000(in Usa) and that 1.200.000 is of Croatian ancestry. I think it's the best solution.The link is not stupid or funny.It's for Croatian Diaspora.Same as the link for Serbs in Germany is from some page about Serbian comunnity in Germany.Not official census.I think 700 000 Serbs in Germany is even more strange than Croats in Usa.And about some people saying(I think of User:Правичност) that we should lower the number of Croats..There are numerous books in the sources provided where it is said that there is from 4 to 4.5 mil Croatians living outside Croatia..Declared and Ancestrial Croats. Scrosby85 (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Director, i agree... nobody cant make certain reliable exact figures on people of certain ethnic group or ancestry.. and how many is there of them and who is or can be trully counted as a Croat at all, someone who can speak Croatian, someone who is visiting Croatia often because his grandma is from there or someone who just declares as having croatian origin, just because he heard he has that origin but cant even find Croatia on map... its difficult and stupid, for any ethnic group... but what is more stupid is, convincing yourself into lies, making also others "believe" there are maaaanyyy of your fellow countrymen around the world eventough there arent, there is nothing more clear than a fact that it is a great question where you would find those additional ca. 2,5 million Croats, when the already existing figures in infobox - well some of them .. are already dubious... Shokatz... let me correct you, you are wrong; Croatia is not on first place in Europe when it comes to diaspora - counting per no. of population of coutnry as you said. That would be probably Ireland on first place (4,5 mil. pop. and over 30 million declaring as irish just in USA alone), Netherlands would be a similar case also, many others actually... but concerning Balkans as i am informed Albania would be on first place, because they have the smallest population of all mentioned above and many times more living outside of it in region and diaspora. Serbia and Croatia would share somewhere verry similar numbers- The only difference is Croats count more in overseas countries and Serbs count more in European countries (and while im at this ill answer to Scrosby that ther eis nothing weird about est. of 700,000 Serbs in GER, hence biggest Serb diaspora`s are located in Germany and the USA; Number of Serbs stood at something over 568,000 in Germany in 2006 ... every year ca. 21,000 ppl only from Serbia alone, leave for Germany.. some estimations also count up to 1 million Serbs in Germany (but i beleive between 600 and 700,000 is the most realistic figure - including those with Serbian ancestry... oh and one more thing Scrosby, i dont think that is a good idea for USA you stated... because 414,000 already includes ancestry - actually more ancestral Croats than real Croats, hence only lets say below 20% of these actually can speak Croatian (rare ones perfectly)); ..anyways ... both Minsitries for Diaspora on each side (Serbian and Croatian) claim verry similar or actually the same estimations/ calculations -that both diasporas count between 2 (2,5) million and 4 (4,5) million (Serbs/ Croats). Eventough its much more likely both of these figures are closer to the first number or perhaps something between at a maximum extend. . . now enough about comparisons and Serbs, since we are missing the subject partially... I dont believe these figures/ estimations are reliable enough, i agree with Director that the source mentioning 100,000 Croats among that one from census is not reliable and neither is the one for USA, since census exists and eventough the link i provided isnt showing exact 2010 census figures but they are still based on those (real figure was 411,000 i think from 2010 census) ... and btw Shokatz i must disagree with you when you said, that figure of 2500 Croats is based on ppl who were born in Croatia, because if you take a closer look on that page it clearly says how many people ARE exactly from Croatia as a country, and it clearly says how many ethnic Croats there are in NZ (that figure of 2500)... I also noticed you were "fighting" wheter Skyrim or Oblivion is better, i must dissapoint you and say, that i find Fallout 3 not only above both of these two, but above all games concerning story, game experience, action, size and details of world, the atmosphere... simply everything. Well, however we turn it, Bethesda rocks. (Правичност (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

Croats in New Zealand are specific, because they are associated with Māori [6]. They are known also as Tarara. Croats in New Zealand are similaras as well Dutch in South Africa. It is good that the article we have this information.--Šokac121 ℗ 11:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done playing around with this. The "100,000" ref is essentially fraudulent, and very obviously so: #1 its not an "estimate" and is presented as such, and #2 its attributed to an NZ ministry that does not support it at all. I can not believe its actually defended, but honestly, I will report this nonsense if its actually edit-warred-over. Its going too far. -- Director (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

[7] It is believed that after the Irish, Croats numerically constitute the largest settler group. In the last 10-15 years in New Zealand had immigrated 10-thousand highly educated people from the Croatian. It is much more than in 2500 how one source said. Source National Institute for Croats writes about 60,000 thousand Croats in New Zealand--Šokac121 ℗ 12:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pls provide an actual, non-fraudulent source for the 100,000 figure or it can't go in.

hrvatiizvanrh.hr is also not a source if it doesn't provide references. Phrases like "it is believed" pretty much invalidate everything that comes after them, they're called WP:WEASEL WORDS. No figure should be introduced as an "estimate" if its not an actual estimate.

The "60,000" figure is also not properly sourced, as its ref does not lead anyone to a WP:VERIFIABLE source, but only to more weasel words ("these people say its true"). -- Director (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If hrvatiizvanhr is not a good source, then it is not teara.govt.nz a good source, whole article we can delete either one source is not good:) We need to have the estimate of the number of Croats in New Zealand. --Šokac121 ℗ 12:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No. teara.govt.nz is just a place where you can find census data. Its not a silly text where some person wrote some things without any apparent backing. "These people say its true" is WP:WEASEL, and there is no estimate at all to be found on that site. When someone says "estimate", the reader assumes the figure is backed by some kind of actual professional or semi-professional demographic estimate, such as for example the estimates on the modern-day ethnic composition of Bosnia and Herzegovina. hrvatiizvanrh.hr is not a scholarly secondary source, but just a website. Yes, a website of the Croatian gov., but still just a website.

It needs references to actual estimates or the figures it sports can not be presented as "estimates". Ok? -- Director (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats right... "weasel sources" should be used only in worse case (maybe) if there are no better sources available, but if official statistics are available, they clearly show how many ppl had aneed to declare as Croatian or having Croatian origin, sure there may be more, but not much more, we ar eprobably talking about a minor minority. Same goes for USA.. 1,2 million Croats in USA? Please.. even Greeks for who we know number alot in USA dont actually count that much according to census. It would be funny that 1/3 of whoel Croatian population in Croatia live in USA.. and tlaking about moving from Dalmatia, not only Croats moved out and emigrated from Dalmatia, there used to be really significant n umbers of Serbs living there in those times, also some Italians and others.. not all immigrants from Dalmatia were Croats, supposebly 60-70% yes.. but not all.. so we cant meassure and base some people on a certain ethnic group by territory of emigration in this case. This is why censuses who have "ethnic declarement option" are the best source - (not the best and perfect, but better than any other available). (Правичност (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

As I said, hrvatiizvanrh.hr is not somehow a source in and of itself. If it doesn't point to actual research (i.e. "estimates"), its pretty much worthless. P.s. Shokac, I'm not stupid, I can tell you've probably been WP:CANVASSING Croatian users... -- Director (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Director,State office for Croats abroad is not somehow a source?Then we should also remove all that links from books which point out that there are 4 - 4.5 mil Croats outside of Croatia because they don't have sources.They just wrote it in a book.You think that State office for Croats abroad don't use information about Croatian Diaspora and that they are lying and inventing numbers?For what cause?414 000 people in Usa declared as ethnic Croats so i don't think that 1.200.00 is so unrealistic..About New Zealand census i'm not familiar.There is no need for fighting over this just because Правичност is throwing a bone..Director you didn't complain about this before.Sometimes you are so strange. Scrosby85 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if its the United Nations Office for Croatian Nonsense. Focus less on the name, and more on the substance. It is NOT as if the Office for Croats Abroad has published some kind of demographic research, census data, or professional estimates on their site - its just a block of text without even an author, filled with nice-sounding platitudinous drivel - and WP:WEASEL WORDS. They don't point to a single actual study, or census of any kind (theirs or otherwise).

We can't list these figures as an "estimate" - without there actually being an estimate. Its misleading, its fraudulent. -- Director (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill please....because this is getting so boring. But if you all really wish to pursue this non-issue further I think the best course of action would be to make a WP:RFC on this or maybe ask for an opinion on WP:RSN. I'd do it myself but I just cannot be arsed to do so....excuse my "French". I personally don't see any problem whatsoever in using both figures each with their own belonging reference, when there is a clear distinction... Shokatz (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting almost 3 times larger figure (USA) and 10 times larger figure (NZ) than the ones on official censuses, is simply creating propagandal figures, "estimating" optimistical figures.. "there might be, it is said there are" that many..? .. If not more than 410,000 people declared to have Croatian origin (by either one or several responses - since USA and such countries are melting pots for any groups), then this means these "others" (if they exist) either dont feel Croatian, or have forgot they are also of Croatian origin to have declared so.. or either they actually just simply arent Croats by origin or by many origins; same goes for New Zealand. Why put unofficial third party (non)estimates which clearly pump up numbers like any other national "so called estimators" would do; when official census data`s are available. Id understand if such census didnt have an option for people to declare their ancestry/origin/descent ... if they would for example only have an option to declare which citizenship you hold or "where you came from?" ... but these 2 countries clearly did have such censuses with such options, chances. I could use such sources as well, to make my self believe... but id know im liying to my self... let me remind you that linguistical researches estimate ca. 5,5 million NATIVE speakers of Croatian language... if there are 5,5 mil. native Croatian speakers worldwide (and not neccesarilly all of these are Croats because this figure includes 95% of whole Rep. of Croatia`s population)... now.. how can there be ca. 3 million more Croats with such Croatian awarness around the world who dont speak it? ... It is not normal for small nations such as Croatian to be in this situation. I just gave out an example.. dont bite it too much... but even this article on "hrvatski" says total population is 6-7 million. I guess english wikipedia serves more as a competition and showing off when it comes to such articles as these. I also find figures for Argentina and Chile bizzare, i mean 250,000 and 400,000 ??? I mean come on.. There are more Croats in some Chile and Argentina behind God`s back than in whole Bosnia and Herzegovina??? I didnt see any sign of them on any media`s or anything ... There is no proof there are so many.. Eventough i have been searching i only found few examples... These figures are just another piece of some "estimations" again... Id say both of these figures would be more close to 100,000 something - including ancestral Croats ofcourse... but thats my opinion... but ok i wont bite into that.. i`ll leave it since no censuses or nothing official exists for those destinations regarding ethnic groups or ancestries... But anyway... All im saying is if the most adequate sources are available, there is no need for optimistical unofficial sources, to iflame figures to maximum possible extent. And btw, Bethesda rocks! (Правичност (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

I don't want to sound rude but no one is really interested in your personal assertions and WP:OR. Shokatz (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dont speak in the name of a mass, you are not their leader.. are you? :) ..jk ... anyways not everything i said were personal assertions, i clearly said when they were, wheter i expressed them. But i was mainly talking about importance of official and relaible sources. (Правичност (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

Правичност speaks of reliable and official sources!! You're the king unofficial, nationalistic and unreliable sources. Thank goodness that in article about the Croatians has no such sources like in article about the Serbs, but that will change :D--Šokac121 ℗ 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to go into this User:Правичност issue. Just make me happy by scrapping estimates that don't have estimates in their refs... -- Director (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Some other ethnic groups in infoboxes have their ethnic and ancestry origins.And their ancestry origins sources are mostly books.So i don't see any issue with it.It did not been an issue until now.For one or two people.One of them is Serbian editor.I doesn't matter to me 700 000 Serbs in Germany and calling all Yugoslavs as Serbs.So don't make issue here Правичност. Scrosby85 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sokac121 do you know how will it change? Only if you canvass and hire up some more vandal`s to edit warre the article Serbs like you have been doing it whole year without success to make any changes, i suggest you to learn English properly first and then edit English wikipedia and dont take this as an insult, but rather as a helpfull suggestion. You have reported me .. what.. 5 times? .. and with all your arguments and claims, you didnt manage to block me, as that was your conspiracy plan. Your arguments are always a failure, so why should they be of any help here to this article? ... Scrosby let me remind you i was motivated to make this move because of Sokac121, he inspired me with his goals of "englightening" the "Serbs" article :) ... So i said "hey what the heck, why wouldnt we all also "enlighten" other articles of Balkan peoples". Because not only "Serbs" article has "no-good" sources and why would that article be the only and constant target for disputes when there are other articles with issues aswell, especially the "Croats" article which Sokac121 immediately edited- adding these 2 sources for USA and NZ to inflame number of Croats and all of this immediatly right after he witnessed his failure in his (at that time 4th attempt) to degrade number of Serbs using these same arguments he is saying right now (that i am a king of unreliable nationalist sources something..) .. but whatever... you should however know and check Serbs article better if you are already accusing somebody (supposebly me) of counting all Yugoslavs under Serbs and using unreliable sources or whatever... Because Serbs article uses only official census sources if those are available - for example for USA and Canada and Australia and many others.. there ar eno foolish inflamations on Serbs article, unofficial estimations are only used for countries where censuses werent held or werent held as also using the "ethnic group counting method" if you get what im saying (i anyways explained this many times). The Yugoslavians/Yugoslavs arent counted in no state, they are described and mentione din footnootes separatley beneath the countries infobox. Any available sources on web mention around 10 million Serbs as the lowest figure and up to 12 million as highest, 10 mil. + can be counted from infobox of Serbs article - that infobox doesnt include data for Kosovo (it`s figure is mentioned in footnotes) and then figures of some countries arent included on that whole article at all.. such as those whose Serb population counts below 5,000 population (for example Russia, Spain, Czech rep. etc.) .. because a concensus was reached that states with under 5,000 Serb population will be excluded from infobox. Then .. some state`s figures are missing from that infobox, since census sources links got dead or such data`s arent available on web (like Greece, South American countries etc.); anyways its ca. 10 million without including these things ive mentioned and that is same as much as some sources say... while on Croats article only 6,4 million can be counted from infobox comparing to sources which say 7,5 - 8,5 mil... thats the difference.. and then you have guys like Sokac121 who come up with an idea, that there are too many Serbs for him on Serbs article and tries to downgrade those figures, while he inflames figure of Croats in exchange, probably trying to (obviously) make it look like Croats number more people than Serbs, which is demographically not true ofcourse... I am saying all this, because you accuse me i brought the issue from "Serbs" article here.. so just wanted to remind you who brought the issues in general exactly... eventough the discussion i started here, has NOTHING to do with Serbs article, nothing.. you started mentioning that yourself and i just presented you my personal opinions and told you what was happening, that is all (since you start with accusements again, i must react to them ofc.) .. you mentioned one of the editors (besides -- Director (talk)) who disagree with some things on this article is Serbian - you could fairly colour that word also in black as i did like this, because that is the way you expressed it, showing you feel uncomfortable because of that.. is it unwelcome for one Serbian to dissagree with something on an article about something Croatian? Oh im terribly sorry, atleast i am using a proper way in showing my arguments and goals, but where were you when a "batallion" of some Croatian editors leaded by Sokac121 were dragged in edit-warring figures on Serbs articles months ago... with arguments such as "this is Serbian propaganda, Greater Serbian propaganda, Too many Serbs, too many Serbs - because we think so, because we say so!" .. (ofcourse i am majoribly imitating Sokac121`s riots himself)... and none of these ideas passed ofcourse. Simple frustration and rioting doesnt make changes, good arguments do ... it is not in my interest to cause problems or fights here... so please stop saying that, that is a bad way of defence. Lets stop with accusements and focus on the discussion now; i came here with serious arguments and i wanna know why you are defending unoffical sources and figures, when official figures for ETHNIC Croats or people of Croatian origin actually EXIST in both cases (USA and NZ)... is it because of that source for total number of Croats (7,5 - 8,5 mil.)? Trying to make the figures from infobox equal to that figure by using totally "unreal" sources? .. Well you managed to almost reach the first figure, but you still need to find/ create another 1,1 million Croats somewhere to fill that number up.. :) .. i mean come on... get real.. You know you are ignoring realistic and real official sources to replace them with the ones which state more Croats.. isnt it obvious? You just need to find a good argument why you are doing that and why is that good for this article to present martian figures to the readers and mislead them from reality? (And pls try to answer these questions without using words "Правичност" or "Serbs article" for an argument). Thanks (Правичност (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

Heh, "i suggest you to learn English properly" :)

These enormous tirades are useless, and all they do is make me think you should indeed be blocked. -- Director (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, i wont let my self be called names and accused whol time since i got to wikipedia, by same one and same persons. If you think i should be blocked, then try to block me like some 4 other Croatian editors have tried in an organized conspiracy, to loose off a person like me, so they can degrade number of Serbs in peace. :) ... Maybe you meet success, who knows.. i actually wouldnt care less, i have wikipedia over my head in last time.. seeing what internet warriors participate in "contributing to wikipedia". More and more people should realise wikipedia is not a place to check for relaible information about stuff - atleast not articles like this. (Правичност (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

If I do report you for the numerous personal attacks you've posted, I'll be sure to note your boasting that you can't be blocked..

Anyway, you're not being helpful. Your position is noted, please do not post any more pointless blocks of text. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Other editors should just read that block, that one is helpfull. (Правичност (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014

Under the See Also heading near the bottom of the page, please include the following link:

• List of Croats

50.100.219.131 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Raul1235 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)