Talk:Croatia/Archive 1

Communist/Socialist
It was said a comunist state which is not true, It was a socialistic state! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.18.135.136 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:20, 18 September 2002.


 * Cf. Talk:Croatian linguistic purism. --Shallot

Shallot, it IS a communist state. What is then USSR, a socialist state? It's name says the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And what was the name of the party governing The Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia? The Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ). Sargeras 16:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (copying from Sargeras' talk page) The stuff about "socialist" and "communist" adjectives for states is a matter of English language style. Over here we would not hesitate to brand the Yugoslav system as "socijalizam" and be a bit more wary of using "komunizam", but socialism and communism have a slightly different undertone in English so it's a problem for non-native speakers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know that.
 * Sargeras 12:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you reed Karl Marx book called "The early works" you would see that Croatia, SSSR, or any other "communist" states aren`t communist but rather SOCIALIST because communism is the final product of process of socialism (and communist were aware that they didn`t yet achive it). The party was called communist because they wanted to express their final goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.18.47 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 October 2005

The term socialism has been used in most of the Eastern block countries, while in the West these countries were called communist. I think it's alright to use the term "socijalizam" in Croatian but for someone used to English historical terms "socialism" can be misleading, as it traditionally denotes the Scandinavian-type welfare-states. I think what Marx thought of the relation of socialism and communism is highly irrelevant here. Cukor 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian
Dubravko, currently the language is called Serbo-Croatian in Wikipedia. Notice that the official language was listed as Croatian - please see the pages on Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. If you have problems with this, please discuss it on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language before changing all references to local names in Croatia from Serbo-Croatian to Croatian. Zocky 12:47 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I fixed the link which now points to correct page Croatian_language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubravko (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 May 2003

As said, this is not about the link, it's rather about consistency within this encyclopaedia - the language in the sense of a set of grammatical rules and words is called Serbo-Croatian (in wikipedia and throughout universities and literature in the world), whereas written standards and official languages are called Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian etc.

It's an issue that has nothing to do with Croatia per se, so if you have problems with this defacto policy, please discuss it on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language before changing it again. Zocky 13:01 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Speaking of consistency, please check out what is stated under Croatian language about Serbo-Croatian language. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubravko (talk &bull; contribs) 15:08, 27 May 2003.


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Please people, let's not stoop to the low levels of Greek geeks vandalizing every article on anything Macedonian. This is an encyclopaedia, not a third-rate political tabloid. Zocky 13:14 27 May 2003 (UTC)

An Zocky: Was soll dieser Schwachsinn über Griechenland sein ? Macedon,Thessaloniki 27.05.2003

Victim numbers
It was said that are 300 000 Serbs had gone in 1995. That is not correct number. Much less- 100 000. Jasenovac wasn't 3rd camp in WW2. The number of victoms was glorified by Serbs. You should check better that numbers. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.198.140.195 (talk &bull; contribs) 21:51, 1 June 2003.


 * Cf. Talk:Independent State of Croatia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Most of Serbs didn't leave Croatia in 1995. Their exodus started 1991 with proclamation of Independent state of Croatia. Please check census in Croatia from 1974. There was more than 700000 Serbs and Yugoslavians(mostly Serbs) in Republic of Croatia and today less than 100000 Serbs live in this country. More than 300000 Serbs escaped from Krajina teritory under pressure of Ustasa forces in 1995 but same number of Serbs left this country under pressure of Croatian nationalists immediately after proclamation of independent Croatian state in 1991.

Balkans
Someone anonymous seems to insist that Croatia is not located on the Balkan. Can anyone dig out any proof for this claim, or other way round proof to convice the anonymous? -- andy 13:31, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the country does have three distinct geographical, historical and cultural influences, so I've updated the opening paragraph to include all three of them, not just one (and one that is the most negative at that). --Shallot 12:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

CIA reference
Following reference moved from article: olivier 11:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Much of the material in these articles comes from the CIA World Factbook 2000 and the 2003 U.S. Department of State website.

POV
I am looking at things that I know intimately to try and gauge the worth of this enciklopedia. Gathering from this page about Croatia I must say that if the rest of it is like this, then it's on the verge of useless crap written by people who's only purpose is to further their POV... full of crap... &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.236.52.93 (talk &bull; contribs) 13:17, 14 August 2003.


 * Then why don't you step forward and list the points which who think are POV, so we can discuss them? Or change them directly if you are sure it will be more neutral afterwards. This site lives by constructive criticism, not from complaining. -- andy 11:32, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ustasa state
Rubbish about "Usta&#353;a state" (1941-1945 period) deleted. It would be as stupid as to call Nazi Germany "SS" state or Fascist Italy "camice nere" state. Btw- the entire page on Usta&#353;a movement is little more than an example of Serbian morbid Weltanschauung & will be significantly altered in near future.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net) 20:10, 24 September 2003

As Nazi Germany and fascist Italy had destructive ideology Croatia between (1941-1945) had ideology that lead this state to massacre of Jews, Serbs, Roma minorities. Just in Jasenovac concentration camp million Serbs were killed. This ideology is known as Ustas ideology so this state should be called Ustas state. Today Croatia kept same name, flag and policy toward minorities as Ustas state. 500 000 Serbs became refugies under pressure of Ustas nationalist movement in today Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.147.168.215 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 March 2006

It should be called the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), and it was an Ustase state. I noticed how you compared it to calling Nazi Germany an "SS" state. But notice how you called fascist Germany "Nazi" Germany. The Ustase as a group were more the equivalent of that of the Nazis than the SS, which was simply a Nazi institution. The Ustase was the NDH--the Ustase 'U' was even on its flag. Calling it a Ustase state is just like calling WWII Germany a Nazi state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.252.149 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 March 2006

Boskovic, Tesla
Listing Bo&#353;kovi&#263; and Tesla is not misappropriation, dammit. Bo&#353;kovi&#263; was from the Dubrovnik Republic, which is part of Croatian heritage in just about every way imaginable,


 * You are kidding me right? The Ragusan Republic was an Italic state, just like the Venetian Republic, it has absolutely nothing to do with Croatia except for the fact that Croatia's present-day borders encompass the former state. On that basis, the Vinca copper-age culture is Serbian because it is located within Serbia's present-day borders? --Igor 0:48 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This attempt at trolling is so feeble it's hardly worth a response. Anyone with even a remote handle on facts will see that this "simple logic" is just pretext for the rest of your demagoguery. --Shallot 13:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Igor, this just shows you haven't got a clue about Croatian history. The Republic of    Dubrovnik was at its time the cradle of Croatian culture since it was the only part of Croatia that remained independent while the rest of Croatia was divided between Austria, Venetian Republic and Ottoman Empire. Croatian literature (mind you, in the Croatian language based on the štokavian dialect, this denies the fact claimed by Vuk Karadžić that all speakers of the štokavian dialect are Serbs)flourished in the free republic. Are you aware of the fact that the republic even gave a small portion of its territory to the Ottoman Empire (the area around Neum in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina) because it didn't want to share a border with the Venetian Republic, whom it regarded as the biggest threat to Croatian freedom and independence? So much for your theory that it was an Italic state.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.68.36 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 January 2006

and Tesla was the man who himself said "I am proud of my Croatian homeland" ("and Serbian descent, long live Yugoslavia!"). --Shallot 13:39, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Could not have mentionned any Croatian homeland as he died before 1991. --Igor 0:48 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. Whatever. --Shallot


 * Uh to Shallot, he wasn't born in Croatia (the Croatian crownland however you wanna say it) as he was born in the Lika crownland.


 * Lika wasn't a crownland (ever, AFAIR), when Tesla's was a child it was part of the Military Frontier. This part of the Frontier was created by carving out the eastern border of the Croatian crownland, and after the said military entity was abolished, it was returned to the Croatian crownland. Attempting to completely disassociate Tesla's birthplace from Croatia is pretty much pointless. I don't know how many more times will basic historic facts have to be repeated... --Shallot 11:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Shallot is right. Not listing Boskovic and Tesla under Croatia is like listing Danilo Kis and Branislav Nusic under Israel instead under Serbia. Ridiculous.


 * Danilo Kis is half Hungarian (Jewish or gentile I have no idea?), half Serbian, born in 1935 in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Nusic was born in Belgrade but spent most of his childhood in Smederevo. What are their respective connections to Israel? --Igor 0:48 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Tesla was born in what was then and is now Croatia, and whatever you think of Dubrovnik, it has passed through history from the independent republic through austria to Croatia. Just the way it is. Zocky 14:55, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Tesla was born in what was then Austria-Hungary, what it is now is relevant as Tesla died in 1943. He certainly has no connections with the modern state of Croatia, furthermore to associate him with it would be perverted in the outmost of ways as that very state has partaken in the collective ethnic cleansing and genocide against his Serb conationals, particularly in his native area of Gospic (massacre of Serbs in 1991, Medak pocket massacre in 1993 and additional pillaging and murders in 1995). Boskovic was not born in Croatia nor had anything to do with it. Italy has mor claim to him than Croatia yet Croats take great efforts not only to hide his Serb but Italian heritage as well. --Igor 0:48 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You're lying, insinuating and misinterpreting, all in the same paragraph. Frankly I'm uncertain how you still expect to get taken seriously. --Shallot 13:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Igor's commit log Tesla born in Austria-HUngary, Boskovic in Ragusan Republic,


 * Just for the record, I don't think that's particularly relevant, or that it somehow overrules the explanation above. --Shallot 02:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Vuk Karadzic was born in the Ottoman Empire, not Serbia. Serbia did not exist at the time. Now Igor: would you list him under Turkey, or is this just hypocrisy on your part? 17:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see your problem, people. Tesla was born in the autonomous Croatia and Slavonia region of Transleithania of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. He died later, while it was the Independant State of Croatia. Vuk K. was born in the Ottoman Empire, just as he was bron in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. (Serbia was autonoumous too) as for Boskovic, I must agree with Igor. Sargeras 19:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Everyone keeps saying that Croatia didn't exist before 1991. That is not true. Croatia was a independent Croatian Kingdom since the year 925 AD, and when it joined Austria-Hungary, it did so freely after Croatian Noblemen decided that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Li-mu-bai (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 October 2005

The point is that Nikola Tesla was a Serb. His father was a Serbian Orthodox priest. So much about Tesla's ethnicity. The fact that Nikola Tesla was born in a region conquered by Croats 150 years after he was born has nothing to do with his ethnicity neither gives Croats the right to claim him being a Croat. Nonsens per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.89.65 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 March 2006


 * Tesla often said he was "Proud of his Serb ancestry and of his Croatian homeland". So there you go, what more do you need. Let's not forget, the Serb - Croat animosity is the product of the last 80 or so years, and there is really no reason why he wouldn't have been proud of being both Serb and Croatian. --Dr.Gonzo 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity
Del'ed stuff about "Catholic" Croats, "Orthodox" Serbs and "Muslims". Dated and inaccurate.

Mir Harven


 * Actually, the mappings are almost exact, how is it inaccurate? I assume the dated comment refers to Bosniaks vs. Muslims, which is okay. --Shallot 19:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * There are many Croats who are not Catholics: atheists, Baptists, Jehovah witnesses, Muslims,....For instance, Dimitrija Demetar was Orthodox, as well as Stjepan Mileti&#263; or Svetozar Borojevi&#263;. Wont even bother to mention Muslims (Ba&#353;agi&#263;, &#262;azim &#262;ati&#263;, Kiki&#263;, Dizdar, Omer Mujadži&#263;, ...) Or atheists like Krleža or Jews like Schwartz. No- the equation Croats=Catholics doesnt hold water. In fact- it never did.


 * M H


 * That's all fine and well, but it doesn't make it unreasonable to note that Croats are generally Catholic etc. I guess we can let the main page contain only ethnicities and not religions, but there's not much point in removing them based on not being phrased precisely enough; instead, it should just be rephrased. --Shallot 01:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * In the article on Croatia, one should only mention Croats etc. when referring to nations/peoples. Religion is a separate entry. However, on the page on Croats (not Croatia)- it's OK to describe influence of Catholicism etc.


 * M H

County numbers
Jiang, the numbers are like that because that's the official numbering. E.g. my home county is Vukovarsko-srijemska, but it's also the sixteenth county; if we sorted the list some other way, it'd still be the sixteenth county. BTW, thanks for fixing those extra \ns in the history section, I was wondering myself why that didn't work but I forgot that I copied and pasted that from my text editor and that that brought in the linebreaks. --Shallot 18:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's worth adding a line in the article indicating that these numbers are "official". --Jiang

Fritillaria
User from 67.39.198.184 wrote: National, endemic flower is kockavica, (Fritillaria meleagris), whose checkered surface is part of the national symbol.


 * Where is the proof of such a connection? At least I never heard of the flower being the reason for the &#353;ahovnica. --Shallot 02:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Schwartz airplane
Also, who is Ivan Schwarz and what exactly do they have with the invention of the airplane? Google can't find me any answer on this whatsoever... --Shallot 15:58, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After a tip from Mir Harven, I found that it was actually a person called David Schwarz and that they built an airship in 1896 It's all moot now since we no longer have names on this page, anyway. --Shallot

"small"
I've removed the adjective "small" from the first sentence because it is too relative to be of any value. You'll notice that Slovenia, Slovakia or Bosnia don't have the adjective. Even Luxembourg doesn't have it! That said, I think this is a good page and I'm going to use it for the Croatian version. -- Zmaj 13:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * IMHO that's only a reason to fix the .si, .sk, .ba and .lu pages, but hey, if no one else complains... --Shallot 14:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Italy as neighbour
Note that I've listed Italy not just because it's accross the sea but because the territorial waters touch off the Istrian coast. (This is regardless of how the border is drawn in the bay of Piran, too.) --Shallot 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The territorial waters "touching" is part of the border dispute (Slovenia claiming access to international waters) so I added disputed in brackets. edolen1 14:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget that name Dalmatia was Latin name and that Dalmatian cities had never become part of Croatian kingdom. Italian citizens lived in Dalmatian cities till 1945 when Croatian communists made worst ethnic cleansing in this century. Half milion Italians were forced to leave their homes in Croatia. This fact Wikipedia should note!


 * It's noted in the appropriate place, History of Dalmatia, which has three sentences about it. It's too short, of course, but you can add the information you have. There are many more details in the Istria article, which has eight sentences - a whole paragraph. So you see, Wikipedia has noted that fact. Maybe you could even start the Esuli article. --Zmaj 07:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Croats
"Croats are a Slavic people probably with origins in ancient Persia, who migrated from areas of what is today's Galicia and settled in present-day Croatia during the 7th century".


 * Do you have any source? And does this refers only to the Croatian people or also to whole South-Slavic people in the former Yugoslavia? Meursault2004 11:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * De Administrando Imperio, Dioclean priest's chronicle, some Frankish records... Google, you'll find this everywhere. It refers to Croats, and I believe very similarly for Serbs (who settled in a somewhat different territory). It doesn't include Slovenes or proto-Bulgarians I don't think, though they probably migrated similarly. --Shallot 15:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, the Persian connection is not unlike what happened to the Bulgarians: some Persian tribes probably conquered some Slavic tribes before the migration and then got assimilated and practicaly dissapeared from history, leaving only their names (or in the case of Serbs, possibly their pronounciation of Slav). Has anybody read any sane literature on this? Zocky 10:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, as it happens, I've since added a fair bit of stuff about this to the beginning of the article about the medieval Croatian state and the linked articles about the two books. There isn't much detail, but the above is the right explanation. The main traces of these peoples are in the etymology of the names and occasional words.
 * In any event, we've removed this stuff from this article because it's too minor to note ("largely Slavic" is correct and sufficient), so it's beside the point. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why must we classify Croats as "Slavic People". Would not "Slavic-speaking people" be more appropriate? Do we classify the French and Spanish as Latin people? Or the English and Swedish as Germanic people? I think the racial term has fallen out of use. The Croats are as Slavic as the French and Romanians are Latin and the English are German. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steppewarrior (talk &bull; contribs) 14:13, 26 October 2005.

kroatiehrvatska link
Marco V, would you please explain what makes this link of yours more worthy of listing than other such pages? The official such page (the one from the tourist board) should suffice. I was not under the impression that Wikipedia was a link repository. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is very easy if you send a question to this web site you always get an answer, the tourist board from Croatia never send you an answer. This is on this way a better promoter for Croatia. --Marco V 09:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

border with SCG
Someone has tried to remove the distinction between the two borders between HR and SCG on two occasions now. Please don't do that, there's no reason to do this. It's clearly stated that it's the same country, but the borderlines are clearly distinct (500km apart) and it's perfectly sane to list them one after the other. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the distinction, but the edit made sense to me. Now, with the distinction, the sentence just sounds strange.  As written, it looks like a list of neighbors, not borders, so Why list the same country twice?
 * If the reason for the distinction is about interesting geography, make it more clear: list Serbia and Montenegro once, and add something like the the following
 * The border with Serbia and Montenegro is discontinuous. In the north, Croatia borders the Serbian region, in the south the Montenegren region.  They are separated by the 500km border with Bosnia and Hercegovina.  Also, the coastline is discontinous, the southern tip of Croatia is separated from the rest of the country by 23 miles of coastline belonging to Bosnia and Hercegovina, around the town of Neum.


 * or, If the reason for the distinction is political, then just list Serbia and Montenegro seperately.
 * Key45 18:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a bit of both. The border is undoubtedly geographically diverse, but it's also politically diverse, because the border in the north is still overseen by the SCG army, while the border in the south is overseen by the SCG police (due to Prevlaka discussions and agreements). Also, S&M aren't "regions", they're "republics", though this has little to do with their international standing -- as far as their neighbour countries are concerned, they are one and the same. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

early .yu mention
anon wrote in commit log: Before Yugoslavia it was a Part of Austria-Hungary, 1000 Yars ago a part of Rome...;-) It´s not importand what it was before.


 * Perhaps not, but this is recent history and it's a standard for former Yugoslav republics on Wikipedia for this to be mentioned in the lead section. I will rephrase it a bit, though. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   08:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

demographics data
Neutrality, that data is rather obsolete, it doesn't account for the last census that was held in 2001 (!).

On a more general note, there's little need for that much expansion in here... perhaps I'm trying to simplify, but the exact percentages are in the Demographics of Croatia article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

official language thing
Okay, Cantus, what part of my log message did you fail to understand?

Your version says:
 * Official languages | Croatian; Italian also spoken in Istria county

And, no, that's not the meaning, Italian is not only spoken but a co-official language there. Languages aren't official because they're spoken, they're official because they're made official by law. Many other languages are spoken elsewhere in Croatia, but they're not official.

The previous version: This avoids the extra verbiage and makes it obvious that Italian is additionally official in that county. And that's all it needs to say.
 * Official languages | Croatian (with Italian in Istria county)

And, by the way, it would help if you read the WP Countries page. Namely those parts that say "Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way", and "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   03:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Itallian is not an official language in Istria; bilinguality is present in Istria which means that only the names of the streets and government and state institutions plaques/signs are in both Croatian and Itallian. There is only one official language in the Republic of Croatia - Croatian which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia article 12 section 1:

"U Republici Hrvatskoj u službenoj je uporabi hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo. U pojedinim lokalnim jedinicama uz hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo u službenu se uporabu može uvesti i drugi jezik te ćirilično ili koje drugo pismo pod uvjetima propisanima zakonom."

Translated: "The Croatian language and the Latin script shall be in official use in the Republic of Croatia.

In individual local units, another language and the Cyrillic or some other script may be introduced into official use along with the Croatian language and the Latin script under conditions specified by law."

The 2nd section states that a second official language can be introduced, however, this is not the case in Istria - Itallian is not official but in the best case co-official as stated before.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.82.164 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 January 2006

Gotovina & EU Membership
Just finished a paper on the current situation re: Croatia's EU application; updated the History section to reflect the current freeze on negotiations. When and if Gotovina pops up, will update again. May go into more detail on the Gotovina page later today.

-Sky, 7:03 AM, May 23 2005 (EST)

Edit: This was me. Hadn't created the account yet. Sorry for any confusion.

--Sky 11:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

OH, OH
I am a victim of the evil Ustashi war plans in 1991-1995. I don't know why you don't mention any of the ethnic cleansing activities that Croatia did to the Serb Borderlander population. You only mentioned "four years of bitter fighting against the Serbs" and "rebel territories". I lost my sister and several other siblings in the war, as well as my home and ALL material ownership. I am now forced to live in Serbia and Montenegro, struggling to survive (since I have no apartment, but have to rent a private one). A stranger now lives in my apartment, my two houses were ruthlessly burned to the ground and my estates destroyed. My grandfather's sheep were used as practise targets; and the area spanning my mother's parents, the place where my close family lived and my father's parents is huge, meaning that those actions were forced all over Croatia. I can't return to my homeland, since there is no more a place to return to. When we payed a visit to the man living in our apartmant, it was VERY rough... he threatened to call the police if we would ever return. You MUST add at least something more about it. I hate to see that unjustice will rule EVERYWHERE.


 * I see it only fitting that you put something in the article or AT LEAST, respond to me. (P. S. I have been waiting for quitte a long while)

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.91.1.41 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2005.


 * I'll skip over a few of the issues I've already responded to in your comment at Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina - 'evil Ustashi war plans' and such.
 * Four years of bitter fighting and rebel territories is a summary. If you click through to History of Croatia, and then on to History of modern Croatia, you can see much more information, including the 550K/300K refugees during the early stages of the war, and the 140K at the end.
 * If you click through to Demographics of Croatia, there's a discussion of population movements and a fairly long description and history of issues facing the refugees from Croatia.
 * We can't afford to get into the gory details of various important events because that would likely evolve into a point-of-view-related flamewar. Instead, country articles summarize, and rely on the readers to click on the links to read more.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Empire
OK, the article History has some unnacurate info, for Austro-Hungary had existed from 1868/1867 (depends how you look upon the events) until it was dissolved in 1918, after the First World War! Who wrote that info?


 * See: Austria-Hungary. Also, new comments go on the bottom. El_C 12:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've read it, and it still doesn't fit with the info in Croatia, clearly stating: "Istria, Dalmatia and Dubrovnik all eventually passed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1797 and 1815." P. S. Thanks for the help, I'll register soon Emperor 00:33 15th July 2005


 * No problem. You can still sign your name with four tildes without being registered (though registring is better; has advantages). Now, as per your claims, you should submitt a scholarly source in support of these. At the event, 1867–1918 is noted in the Austria-Hungary article. El_C 22:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks again. Emperor, 1:13, 15th July 2005 147.91.1.43 23:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

History
Who keeps deleting the History info on Croatia? It's really annoying, so just say what's wrong in the discussion page. That's what it's for, after all!

Me, and others (you could tell who by the page's history), and not the history, just your changes to it. Briefly: 1. As I already said above, new comments go on the bottom. 2. Please sign your name at the end of comments (by typing ~ . 3. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies. 4. Please try to copyedit your changes prior to inserting them into the article space. 5. Please make judicious use of edit summaries. Thanks, El_C 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do my best, and I did read them, but I hope that you stop deleting useful info now. 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Emperor 00:37, 15th July 2005


 * That was a fast read(!) Please adhere to these policies and I will cease deleting info (arguments of usefulness or lack thereof notwithstanding). You may find it instructive to submit your changes on the talk page first. El_C 22:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've implicitly approved of El C's rollbacks because anonymous' additions are not necessary or appropriate in here. This is talked about at History of Bosnia and Herzegovina and perhaps some more can be added to History of modern Croatia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree in complete about the History part, but the Army of Croatia was involved in the fighting against the moslem Bosniaks. Should I delete the info about the last offensive against the Bosnian Serbs too? ('cause that too was fighting on the soil of Bosnia and Herzegovina) Emperor, 1:06, 15th July 2005 147.91.1.43 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true, but all the intricate details still belong to the history article, we can't stuff everything into the summary text. I've added much of this text over there now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Thanks forever, Joy, I think that wikipedia should be proud to have a user like you. You are, by far, the smartest and most truthful person that I have ever seen on this discussion page. Emperor 147.91.1.43 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why thank you :) While I'm at it, could I interest you in picking a username and logging in? That way you'd still be anonymous, but would have some uniform name (you currently use two IP addresses so we can't really address you like that either). There are other benefits too, such as having a watchlist etc, and all it costs is a couple of web cookies. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I kept the short bit about old Dubrovnik Republic. It's also Croatian heritage. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

continuing from Srpska Krajina, to Joy
Excellent, I only hope that you're not saying this just to make me feel better (without actually believing me) because I want to prove it to you that I am a very open person, and that I really care of other peoples' opinions, whether it be Serbs', Croats', Slovenes', Americans', Dutch or Azerbeijani. I will confirm tht there WAS that organisation, in fact (Jesenje Kiše) but I must say that I really don't know wh is Tomislav M. ; the organistaion DID work for the government, but only to a certain point (most Croatian politicians didn't even know abut it's existence; but as for Tusjman, I don't know if he was involved in it) I must tell you that, from my side of view, sources of corruption and evil in former Yugoslavia; because I blame them not only for the things that happenned to me; but also for the entire civil war of Yugoslavia. Surely you have heard of their strategy of "re-aranged Yugoslav borders" including "a greater Serbia and a greater Croatia" (later they also betreyed each other) Sargeras 11:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You know of the Second Triumvirate of Rome? The three Roman leaders were known as "the three devils". When I look at the Dayton Agreement, seeing those three, I don't see a truce, but three devils lying to each other. P. S. I am sorry if you support Tudjman (if I insulted you), I just wanted to express my point of view, my friend. Sargeras 11:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, this is a widely shared opinion in Croatia as well. Tuđman is credited by almost all Croatians for his certainly large role in the nation-building process, but few appreciate his policies towards the ethnic minorities or his government's actions in widening the rift in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any rational man, in Croatia and elsewhere, can understand the apparent necessity to have a secret service, even the desire to have someone to do dirty work of catching members of fifth column; but fewer and fewer people think that national security was an adequate reason to ever target civilians, or to pursue policies that ultimately harmed the civilian population (and occasionally benefitted tycoons and/or organized crime at that). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Republic of Ragusa
Hm, can you please re-define, "croatian heritage"? (look at Dubrovnik Republic), for one my ancestors was in the "small senate" as it was called back then, and if you approached him and told him that he was a Serb or a Croat, he would sue you in the court demanding the highest punishment possible for the "international offense against the Ragusian Republic".


 * I forgot to ask before - do you have any references for this kind of a thing? This would seem to be in contradiction with Mir Harven's claims that several of the writers of Dubrovnik said that they were Croatian at the time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. I know of those writers. (what do you think that I am, just another pro-serbist) but then again, they where a minority, and it's the later stages of Dubrovnik, I am concerning about the early stages of the city.


 * He wrote "as early as mid 1500s and 1600s", so that doesn't sound particularly late. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

As it was purely independant and promoted his own culture until Napoleo Bonaparte resplaced it with th Illyrian provinces. Due to the distinct similarity between Serbian and Croatian (I see none, and for me ti's still one language) you have to mention Serbo-Croatian, since it was until recently that way.


 * The fact that Dubrovnik was independent is wholly acknowledged. As is the link between Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Serbian - just one click away are pages whose introductory paragraphs state so. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you already DO intend to seperate it (which is entirely impossible due to the non-existence of difference in Dubrovnik), you should say Serbian, since the Republic was engulphed into Serbian lands, and later majorly populated by Serbs (in the Kingdom) until the exodus during the civil war of Yugoslavia. So you should rephrase the sentence with, for example: "The Ragusian Republic was not Croatian, until the territory was assimilated into "Hrvatska banovina" autonomous region of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. P. S. I had just remember of it, and it is not mentioned at all; don't you think we should add it? Sargeras 11:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've not been able to get people who previously claimed that the population of Dubrovnik in the 19th and 20th century was Serbian to provide for any statistics that would state so - do you have any? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but only in the material form, I'll do my best to find some;


 * BTW that would also do nicely, if you quote a book title/author/publisher and relevant verses, then others can verify it in a local library or something like that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

but you still haven't answered my previous question regarding should we add the "Hrvatska banovina"? After all, Croatia ceised to exist when it was incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; but was re-established as an autonomous region out of Sava, Coastline and a piece of Zeta regions. And, still, what say you about the re=ohrasing of the Dubrovnik-related sentence (I see that you didn't give me a clear answer) Sargeras 18:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't notice that bit. The formation of Banovina Hrvatska in 1939 could be mentioned, but it has no separate article of its own so it would be a link-less sentence. It's described partly in Croatia in the first Yugoslavia and in Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
 * I don't think that "The Republic of Dubrovnik was independent." needs rephrasing or disclaimers - I do not believe that the very link is biased. Even if you treat the area of Dubrovnik as just another piece of land that now forms a part of Croatia, such a mention is warranted because we say what was happenning to other such pieces of land, too.
 * (And after all, I've seen Serbian histories make much more explicit and more hyperbolic links, saying that the Slavonic Catholic population of Dubrovnik were Serbs like all others, etc.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there all kinds of fools that write idiotish stuff. But, for instance, my family draws its lineage from the Serbs that have fled into the Kingdom of Croatia with Prince Časlav during his short visit, i think that was during the Bulgarian occupation of his realm), so we've been in Croatia for 1000 years. So I call myself a Serb, but also a Croatian (differ: Croat) We (as my ancestors) WERE orthodox back then (just recently christianised by the Romeian (Byzantine) missionaries. Although, my family was then regiously-mixed (some Catholic, some orthodox), but we became majorily Catholic when (from my mother's side) we inhabitted Ragusian Republic (that's what I mentioned earlier) and (from my father's side) The bordering Holy Roman territories; and by mixing with Croats and Slovenes. Orthodoxity was returned in the numerious fights against the Ottoman Empire, but Catholisism prevailed when The Austrian (Holy Roman) Empire camo to banish the Ottomans from the Balkans. Later, one of my ancestors fought against Napoleon in Northern Italy side-by-side with Archduke Charles, but he was killed by a French soldier at that big battle in Moravia, so his brother volunteered into the Prussian army to fight at Waterloo in 1815 out of revenge. It was the rule of primogeniture (if the father is Catholic, so shall be the kids too) All of my ancestors became purely Orthodox in the Second World War during the Independant State of Croatia and it's reign of terror (you know why).
 * Sargeras 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's quite a detailed lineage you have there :) But we're gone way past the point - the question is whether Dubrovnik and Croatia have a historic relation - I believe they do. The area of the DR was not 'awarded' to Croatia or 'taken' by war or other means - I don't ever recall seeing any records of the people of Dubrovnik protesting against being grouped with the rest of Dalmatia into Croatia, or Dubrovnik having a majority population declaring as Serbs in the recent times (WWI onwards). I think I've seen one anonymous on Wikipedia talk pages ramble something about the Ustaše having killed most Serbs from Dubrovnik, but I could not verify this information via google. I doubt they all converted back then, either, because we know that any Ustasha forceful conversions were reversed as soon as their reign of terror ended. We know that the Republic of Dubrovnik used to force Catholicism on immigrants, but that policy was eliminated by early 19th century as was the Republic (and as was the Venetian Republic, which reportedly also did the same). So all in all, I can't see any forceful element in there that would invalidate the relation of the people of Dubrovnik with other people in the lands that are today Croatia and who declare themselves Croats. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have discovered that MOST maps of the pre-modern times era, paint the territories inhabitted with "Serbs and Croats" with the same color (it proves something I mentioned above). I have just uploaded an ethnic map of Austria-Hungary to it's page, check it out and tell me what you think. Sargeras 18:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. That's because most foreign map writers couldn't bother to discern, much like the better part of the population :) Our historical overview is inherently biased because we focus on a national history, because it's simply a national article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And as for evidence... here, although I don't think you'll like it... from your point of view it might seem pro-Serbian. I have searched some websites (including a Croatian), and  and I don't see anywhere stating that it is Croatian legacy. Sargeras 18:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That document from the Rastko Project is basically neutral, it says "During that period it was as much a Serbian as it was a Croatian town." - hence regardless of the first part that adds a Serbian character, it does not exclude its Croatian character. The nationmaster.com link is a copy of the Wikipedia article on Dubrovnik. The first sentence on the third page says "The today's name of Dubrovnik is derived from the Croatian word Dubrava" - notice the adjective :) They apparently do not feel any need to gloat over that - nor should they. It's not really considered an issue in Croatia. The bits about the language that I've pasted you in that other discussion are indicative of the Croatian attitude. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   19:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, do you say that I need to scry for a more concrete proof that Serbs lived there?
 * Sargeras 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, either I missed your point or you missed mine. We're talking here about whether to link Republic of Dubrovnik under Croatia#History. Why would having Serbs living there preclude the link? If they were Serbs who denounced having anything to do with the rest of Dalmatia, sure, that would make some sense, but that never happened, to my knowledge. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What? No! Keep the link by all means (after all it IS a city of Croatia), it just doesn't belong in the place/way you put it. It seems that way that the Republic of Dubrovnik was another Croatian country that was independant until it was UNITED into Croatia (that's what everyone would think when they saw it) After all, remember my analogy with Serbia and Voivodina? :).


 * Okay, let's disregard that this is the way everyone sees it over here.
 * What does it mean "another Croatian country that was independent"? Which other Croatian "countries" were independent before being united into Croatia? They were all under foreign authority. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's my point. There WERE no, and when I read that part containig Durbovnik, the first thing that I thought was that it was a Croatian country (other than the Kingdom of Croatia)


 * Well, you could make the same argument about Slavonia, Istria, Lika, Primorje, Dalmatia, Baranja, and God knows what else, but it's still offtopic - I said already that this is a history of a country and it cannot be considered illogical to have all of its current parts listed in the history. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, about Slavonia, hm, it WAS joined during the Imperial Wars against the Ottomans (by the way, my descendents fought there near Budim and and in occupied Serbis), so listing the history of Slavonia would make sense. But lisitng Istria? Istria became a part of Croatia in after World War II, when Tito and his lackeys decided where to put newly-acquired territories.


 * And yet it didn't become so purely by chance or on a whim of "Tito and his lackeys", but because most of its (remaining) population preferred ties with Croatia rather than Slovenia or something third. (The Italians were mistreated as a reprisal for the war, so Italy wasn't a viable option to begin with.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait, I am starting to understand why are mentioning that. In Croatia, you learn about every piece of the current all the time, right? Hm... I never seen that elsewhere. In here we start learning Kosovo as a psrt only since Stephan Nemanja's, Milutin's, Dragutin's and Stephan Dushan's conquests. Same suits for Voivodina. I mean, we lears Bosnia and Voivodina (medieval) but only when describing the Serbian people, Bosnia has long sceded from Serbia and even fought wars with it; while Voivodina's acquisition is irrelevent to the country's history. I mean, I know that Croation poet and realist that was born in Dalmatia; but he shouldn't be mentioned in the country's history, as he didn't live there; but in the peoples', yes. And why do you say that about Lika? Lika was Croatian to the Ottoman conquests and then the Frontier, only to be insurged into Croatia again when the Frontier was cancelled.t would be until recently, in 1991-1995 that Lika would go-under a self-determinational (separatist) movement to scede from independant Croatia.
 * Sargeras 09:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point of view, I guess. However, another common point of view is to consider nation-states integral with nations, and I suppose that this is the approach favoured by Croatian historians. I'm not really an expert in historiography, but it looks like this difference in approach is the source of difficulty. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

OK, out hee all reasons you claim WHY is Dubrovnik Croatian heritage MORE than Serbian. (By the way, the origin of the name deriving from the region of Dubrava? Dubrava was majorly populated by Serbs untilthe XVI or XVII century or so.... I'll see your theory THEN express mine (full version, please, I hate going online so many times) Sargeras 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, linking Dubrovnik from the article with the history of Croatia does not imply that Dubrovnik is more Croatian heritage than Serbian - it just implies that it is Croatian heritage, it does not preclude anything else.
 * As far as the whole argument with origin goes - I don't think it's too relevant. Nationality is a subjective concept, and if someone wishes to trace their lineage without having the genetical meaning be primary, they should be free to do so. Certainly it sounds as if the people who nowadays live in Dubrovnik decided to associate themselves with Croatia and all that it entails, regardless of from what old tribe they might have come from. Let's say we accept the (stretched) theory that De Administrando Imperio was entirely accurate in those chapters that said Serb tribes inhabited the littoral from Cetina southeastwards and entirely inaccurate in those chapters that said the Croat tribes inhabited Dalmatia as it then was. Then there would be no chance that the Slavic population of Ragusa/Dubrovnik was ever Croat, and instead they would need to all have been Serbs. How do we get from that to 3.26% of Serbs and 88.39% of Croats in Dubrovnik in 2001? Yes, it's ten centuries, but still, I didn't see any pogroms that would somehow have destroyed the vast majority of Serbian population in the city, or an overwhelming immigration of Croats that would marginalize all the native inhabitants. In this scenario, I can't escape the impression that these people chose on their own accord to associate themselves with the Croatian nation rather than the Serbian nation. Which is their prerogative.
 * It may be worth pointing out that most of the Vlachs who had moved to the Military Frontier assimilated into either Croats or Serbs, mostly the latter: there would be no point in characterizing them as 'lesser' Serbs just because they aren't genetically the same as those in the 7th century; if they joined the Serb Orthodox Church and stuck with it for five centuries, it would be unfair to deprive them of their nationality. I could probably dish out several other analogous examples :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually ment that the Serbs populated that area majorly UNTIL WWI not AFTER. The region was marginaly Cratinised during Hrvatska banovina and especially during the Independant State of Croatia. If you consider it ONLY because it is presently a part of Croatia, Voivodina isn't mentioned as "it was held by the Avars" or "it was a part of Hungary" (although the second one would be more correct, since there actually were Serbian principalities in Voivodina with their little Council in Novi Sad) After all, In pre-Yugoslav History, Dubrovnik was majorly either completly surrounded or bordering with the Serbian country/ies and not with Croatia. It was even a part of a Serbian country in the XI century before the Venetians took it. I see mostly proofs that it is of "serbian heritage". Sargeras 10:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What does "marginally Croatinised" mean? I don't quite understand.
 * I also don't see the relevance of the mention of Vojvodina? Vojvodina is not a part of Croatia today (just like Herzegovina or Boka Kotorska or Gradišće or ... aren't either), so it would be too tangential and probably insinuative to write about them in a summary of Croatian history.
 * Dubrovnik always had Serb Orthodox population in the hinterland, but it was a Dalmatian city-state similar to all others, including Kotor which is even further southeast. The occasions when it was controlled by Serbian states were rare just like the occasions when it came to contact with the Croatian state (which was in turn overtaken by the Kingdom of Hungary much before) - it was mostly suzerain or in conflict over self-rule with the Ottoman Empire and with the Venetian Republic. The Serbian political influence on it was meager at best.
 * As far as other influence is concerned, it certainly traded with the hinterland and had many people from the hinterland move into the city, but with regard to similarities in the culture, local government and foreign relations, as well as the religion, it had much more in common with other Dalmatian city-states like Zadar, Split, Hvar, ...
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I only meant to use it as an analogy (i. e. Voivodnia is not mentioned as "It was a part of Hungary" or "it ws inhabited by the Avars" in the history of Serbiq, while it is said: "The Republik of Dubrovnik was independant." in the history of Croatia)


 * But a history of Serbia can and should include references to what was happenning to Vojvodina prior to it becoming a part of Serbia. Not only is it a current part of Serbia, but Serbs also lived there before it was a part of Serbia (both those that were from the Migrations Period, and those that had immigrated over time).


 * No. It clearly states that it is the history of SERBIA and not the SERBIAN PEOPLE; so you can't mention Voivodina in the Serbian history before the council in Novi Sad decided to join with the Kingdom in late 1918. Even in the history of the Serbs it should not be mentioned before, say the XIII, XIV century or so; as it would be rather insultive, not only to Hungarians, but to Avars and Langobards, also; and also would be a false info. Therefore, that sentence in the History of Croatia section at the beginning is just as insultive to the Ragusian people. Sargeras 16:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I don't think that this rationale makes much sense. One cannot completely ignore previous history of an area just because there are new political entities now. Heck, I'd even venture to say that it's doing a disservice to those old peoples if we didn't mention them at all. Also, in the specific case of Dubrovnik this completely ignores the plain fact that the current population is actually descended from the old one. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't you mention Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is now surely an independant political identity, but it was a part of it; and how about of Werstern Srem? Then also, we should learn the history (inside the history of Serbia) of almost all of Greece, since it was a part (thereby, in a rude way, concidering it always theirs, e. g. in this matter Croatian, and Serbian) Sargeras 09:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that the link to BiH is missing, I've corrected that now. Not sure what you mean about western Srem? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the current population of Dubrovnik has the same connection to the Ragusians as the Iraqi Arabs with the Assyrians.


 * Do you have any proof for that? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Of what? that was just an analogy???


 * The population was assimilated into the Slavic population. It adopted a Croatian identity in the Hrvatska banovina. It was made 100% Croatian in the Independant State of Croatia. When the Yugoslav forces shelled the city, Croatian nationalism rised again as a result. Go ahead and read one guy's statement that the Bulgarians are descendents of the Moesians from Roman times.


 * Okay, so this Croatian nationalism arose. From what? Either option defeats your argument:
 * if they had not previously been Croats, they must have been either
 * the old Roman population - which is even less likely than anything else if we both agree that population changed a lot since that time - or
 * Serbs - in which case why are we arguing, if they're Serbs who all switched to Croatdom, how do they suddenly have no link to Croatia?
 * if they had previously been Croats, then I don't understand your point


 * Cratian nationalism arose in the fact that if you aren't a Croat or a collaborator, you're going to be executed in WWII and the fact that the Peoples' Army of Yugoslavia shelled the city. Descendents of the old Romeii population, well that sounds reasonable; assimilated into Croats, ofcourse. Sargeras 12:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, if it was being afraid in WWII, what happened after the war? Surely all those people would not have succumbed to such treatment after the threat was gone? This is too stretched. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Why do you think it's correct to deprive all of those people of Dubrovnik of their descendance just because they are no longer in the same state? That's how they'll interpret what you're saying. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that claiming that Dubrovnik has anything to do with the Rebublic of Dubrovnik are some very old buildings and a geographical location and some old trees, perhaps. I could then claim that the current population of Belgrade actually descended from the old Celts that first built the settlement; or from the Thracian and illyrian peoples living there; or even of Greek Romeii or of Hunagarians. There is nothing Serbian in Belgrade's history back in those times except of the location. The present citizens are, Serbs and Muslims, mostly and other national minorities. I mean, did you read my family heritage, I could easily claim that I am a descendent to a noble House of Austrians holding lands of all over the Empire. But I won't. I am just an Orthodox Serb. Just that way Dubrovnik has nothing Croatian in that time's history. Sargeras 17:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But you're stretching your anti-analogy too far: we have established that there exists a linguistic, cultural and ethnic continuity between the old people of Dubrovnik and the present ones. How could you possibly relegate that to the Celtic connection?! There is a lack of national continuity (because the Croatian and Serbian nation didn't exist then the way they do now; and because the old state of Dubrovnik no longer exists as such today), but that is not an issue here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As for orthodox, that was later, the coastline Serbs (from which now descend Montenegrin) were marginally Catholic. The founder of the dynasty of Nemanjići, Stefan Nemanja was born as a Catholic (though he later turned to orthodoxity since most of his country was Orthodox).


 * Well, that's a fine point - how do you know that the Catholicism of the people of Duklja etc was "marginal"? Nemanja later became a devout believer together with Rastko, who later established the autocephalous Serb Orthodox Church as we know it today. With such strong leadership, it's no wonder that the people eventually switched over to Orthodoxy. But had they not done so, don't you think that today we would be paying much more attention to what the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja said about them being "Red Croats"? If you start checking into ambiguities, you have to go all the way... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies, friend, but my English isn't perfect. I wanted to say LARGELY Catholic: The Bishopy of Ulcinj, th Archbishopy of Bar, the Catholic strongpoint of Kotor, the Archbishopy of Dubrovnik, the farthest pro-orthodox strongpoint were Pas (St. Petar) which was later incorporated into the Kingdom, but, nevertheless was CONTINENTUAL, Lipljan, Prizren and Skopje. The Patriarch's missionaries left as far as Carantania (Slovenes) across the lands of Croatia, yet Orthodoxity failed there. The Pope's missionaries concentrated their work on the coastline (that is why today there is still a minority of Catholic Christian population). Can you give me a clue or two more about the Red Croats (honestly, I really don't know about it)


 * The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (you may also know it as "Ljetopis popa Dukljanina" or as "Barski rodoslov") uses that term: it calls the northern areas of Dalmatia at the time (amounting to much of the Adriatic northwest of today) "White Croatia", and the southern areas of Dalmatia at the time "Red Croatia". It's another old chronicle, like DAI... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * On related note, another editor contributed an article about Red Croatia in the meantime, it's reasonably good reading, I suggest you take a look. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * P. S. I just found another fact from Dubrovnik a History of Robin Harris: Dubrovnik was Roman Catholic eren though he was in the Greco-Orthodox sphere only because of the harsh fanaticism of the local population; he says that the Ragusians always enforced Catholicism on the local Orthodox Slavic population and that of their arbitrary seizure of ALL of orthodox property (kindah reminds me on what HDZ did to me)It was not until benevolant Stephan Dushan, who sold the city of Ston together with the peninsula of Pelješac (by the way, today there is still an Orthodox Church on Pelješac that survived the Civil War) and made numerious investments in the city, that only then did Orthodoxity breached into the actual city. Sargeras 12:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, Dubrovnik seems to have been a staunch supporter of Catholicism and opponent of Orthodoxy. Given how much opposition to the Roman Catholic Church there is today in the Serbian national conscience, you can understand why it's strange for us outsiders to see that they would at the same time associate themselves with this kind of place. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As for the other matter, you are completly right! That's what I am trying to prove. The Croatian infulence was the same - meager at best. And the fact that it was sorrounded by Serbian lands (though later, hanged between Serbia and Bosnia) still doesn't explain why should Croatian be put as the official language od Dubrovnik, if South Slavonik langages DID penetrate, more obviously would it be Serbian (although, the usage of both names for those languages is unnappropriate, since it was more like of a common... staroslavenski. Sargeras 15:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't staroslavenski (in English that's Old Church Slavonic), it was a shtokavian dialect. I've pasted you the previous rationale for listing "Croatian" over at Talk:Republic of Ragusa. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

ping / De Administrando Imperio / Dubrovnik
Hm, Joy, it's been a long time since you've posted anything on this site. Are you there? I want to ask you why do you find it hard to believe that De Administrando Imperia isn't correct. Sargeras 13:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean why I find it hard to believe it? Simply because I've read the transcript (and several analyses, including that at our article De Administrando Imperio). It has two sections talking about the arrival of the Serbs and the Croats to Dalmatia, making it fairly inconsistent with itself. While it includes some relatively exact information about Serb tribes and locations, it mostly goes on about the de jure Byzantine possessions, the city-states, and its description of the hinterland don't give the impression of clarity (you'll notice a lengthy discussion at Image talk:Cpw10ct.gif where I was trying to make heads from tails in some images, but failed, really). Finally, it was not written contemporaneously with many of the events it describes so it suffers from a fair bit of oral tradition.
 * Many of these things are non-fatal when it's interpreted normally... sadly, on Wikipedia and the Internet in general we have been witnessing an alarming trend of distorting its statements into pure nonsense, so it has been scrutinized more than what might be usual. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, hear me out.
 * A 1000 years had passed! Do you know the population of Voivodina back then - almost 100% Hungarians, and now, the Serbs make 60-80% of it.


 * Actually, there's a theory that much of the Pannonian population was Slavic, with the Severans and the Balaton Principality, but that the Magyars overwhelmed them by means of power rather than numbers and assimilated them. Recent genetic analyses also show that the modern-day Hungarians have a fair bit of Slavic blood, just like their Slavic neighbours. Just a thought :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * And there, the range was ONLY HALF a millenium (from the Great Serbian Movement to present-day). Present-day Serbia-only most western territories as you can see on the De Administrando Imperia map. There were prettey much 100% Serbs on Kosovo, when Albanians now make around 90% of it. Istria had mostly Italians, later also Germans, and now it is inhabited by mostly Croats. NATIONS MOVE!!! So it is very likely possible (by my opinion, utmost correctly) that the regions from Cetina to Drim (excluding several pro-Romeian cities, Bar, Ulcinj, Kotor, Dubrovnik; the cities had no territories around them, it was only the ACTUAL cities, 4, respectivly, that were Romeian completly sorrounded by Serbian lands) were inhabitted totally by a Serb population in the IX and X centuries. Dubrovnik came under the protection of Travunija and Zahumlje (later also Serbia) by the order of the Romeiian emperor of the East, Basil I in 828. It was then a part of Docleia (present-day Montenegro) dring it's highest peak of power when it included all of Bosnia and Serbia as well as all of those coastal lands except Paganija (Neretva region) in the second half of the XI century. Later it changed many rulers, Venetian, Byzantine, Norman, even Saracen, but during the rulership of the FOUNDER of the Serbian dinasty, Stefan Nemanja in the end of the XII century, it was still completly engulphed by a UNIFIED Serbia. Stefan Nemanja wanted to make a large, unified Serbian country, but only The Republic of Ragusa eluded him, for his navy was defeated by the Ragusian Fleet, and he captured the city with ground forces, but was not able to keep it (the citizens rebelled and also, later, with the help of the Normans, formallised the Republic of Dubrovnik again) Dubrovnik was still sorrounded by Serbia in the XIII and XIV centuries. King Uroš (1282-1321) tried to succeede where Stefan failed and besieged the city twice, both times unsuccessfully. It would be not until in 1333 King Stefan Dušan (the greatest Serbian ruler) lost Travunija and Paganija (look at the picture of Constantine VII Porfirogenet's claims of Serbian lands in De Administrando Imperio - it is obvious that the lands were inhabited by Serbs now, isn't it?) to Bosnia and sold the peninsula Pelješac and the city of Ston to Dubrovnik for a handsome amount of money.
 * In the Zadar peace between Hungary and Venetia, Dubrovnik passed into Hungarian vassalage, but Hungary (thereby, Croatia also) never got completly near Dubrovnik, the closest was during the XV century, when they aquired pretty much all of Bosnia-Herzegovinian coastline, but its territory was lost again to the Venetian Republic. Then there was the Great Movement of Serbs (from the Ottomans) in which Serbs moved, among to other locations, to Dubrovnik. In 1526, Dubrovnik became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. The Republic was finally destroyed by Napoleon I Bonaparte in 1808. Dubrovnik then became a part of the Austrian province of Dalmatia (later also Austro-Hungarian). On 16. 8. 1915. during The Great War, Serbia was promised (among Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srem, Baranja and Slavonia) 2/3 (eastern) Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik), the British insisted that they should aquire all territories inhabited by Serbian population (even when there were gaps with Croats or others) because they said thet if they create a multi-ethnic country again, they would share the fate of Austro-Hungary. But they didn't listen, claiming that "there is no multi-ethnicity amongst Croats and Serbs". Dubrovnik, according to the ethnic map of the Kingdom of SHS and of Yugoslavia was then majorly Croatian-populated. Then Hrvatska banovina, then the Independant State of Croatia (in which I think that the region of Dalmatia became purely Croatian, you know why); SFRJ and finally, now, independant (this time really) Croatia.
 * Sargeras 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So you've established a pattern - in the Middle Ages, Dubrovnik was never quite willing to become part of the same state as its hinterland. A similar thing was happenning with the other old Dalmatian city-states in the north - Zadar, Trogir, Split, Omiš and several others - however, they didn't have the same background, because the medieval Croatian became part of the Hungarian crown rather soon. Eventually, however, they all became mostly Slavic and decided that they are better off sharing the fate with the other Croatian lands. The people of Dubrovnik followed suit, despite the fact they had several opportunities to do differently, and today do the same still. If their old tribe was only Serbian as the old book says, and given that they were a bastion of science, arts and knowledge, isn't it a bit strange that they chose to link with these northwesterners from far away, with whom they had no other relation than common religion, and ignored their kinsmen nearby? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about Joy? No one mentioned of a Serb tribe in Dubrovnik in what I just wrote? Did you even read it?


 * Please re-read that sentence. I proposed that their old tribe *was* only Serbian, and drew conclusions from that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Hm, a misunderstanding... I know that, just I didn't mention of any sort of a Serbian tribe.


 * And how about the fact that it took the Albanians and Serbs to take Kosovo and Vojvodina for such short time with your "i know a thousand years had passed, but..." you didn't comment on that?


 * But where did all these Croats come from over those thousand years into Dubrovnik? Why would so many of those northwestern Slavs &mdash; of whom we have no doubt that they were Croats &mdash; travel there, instead of simply moving to the closer city-states? And after the Republic of Dubrovnik, there was no other government that would settle them there en masse - the French, the Austrians, Yugoslav kingdom - I don't recall any of these countries supporting any major immigration into Dubrovnik. And only in 1939 did Dubrovnik become part of a Croatia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * MIGRATION and ASSIMILATION, ofcourse. I already discussed about the sunject recently. Sargeras 19:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like some more discussion/proof of this. I know that in recent times some Croats migrated to Dubrovnik, probably even the current mayor Dubravka Šuica (that's a surname from Herzegovina), but I couldn't find references to earlier migrations. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And Ragusa never decided to join with Croatia NOR Serbia (although, as you see, Serbia was much closer to getting it, but it constantly kept eluding Serbia). The Croats are Catholic, and I already mentioned that the Ragusians were fanatical Catholics, that gives it more than enough reason to join with the Spanish or the French.It is to my belief that Dubrovnik also went that way during Austrian Dalmatia, as you see, the neighbouring Serbian lands offered decaying and cultural backwarding under harsh Ottoman domination, and on the other hand, the western advanced uber-powerful imperialism of Wienna (where the Slovenes and Croats reside) looks like heaven compared to Istanbul's forcful MOSLEM rule (fanatical Catholics, remember?)
 * Sargeras 21:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's also one valid rationale. But again, they decided on this on their own accord, and in the 19th century (long before any Croatian country arose). And the same can apply to all other Dalmatians. Why do you think it's valid to oppose their choice of Croatia? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Who decided? I thought you agreed that they didn't decide anything, but that they were just assimilated into the Croatian nationality (both peacefully and through Nazi and recent propagande) and together with the Croats that moved-in (a lot larger number than the original Dubrovians) making today's Dubrovnik population. There was no choice.


 * This again depends on the premise being accurate. Please provide some numbers or perhaps indicative testimonies. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * The Croatian autonomous government in Zargeb came to an agreement with the Yugoslav king that Dubrovnik (because of it large Croatian population) should be placed into Hrvatska banovina. The deal was to engulph the entire Croatian opulation, no matter of any gaps of Serb and Moslem minorities living there, which could be seen on the ethnic map of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; which explains why there were so many minorities in the autonomous region. It is that autonomous Croatia that became a base of the communist Croatia in SFRJ, and now, of present-day Croatia. What choice do you mention? P. S. my ancesters, I believ I already mentioned were famous traders in Dalmatia in the service of both Dubrovnik and Venetia, they were Catholic, but as the situation stands, they called themselves Dalmatians, and they were a lot closer to the Serbs rather than Croats. Sargeras 19:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sargeras asked me to comment here, but I'm way out of my depth. I will add what little I can.


 * Braudel says that in the 16th century, Ragusa conducted business, government, and commerce in Italian, but people spoke Slavic languages in the private realm; the city was clearly Roman Catholic (I presume that is not in dispute). As for other aspects of ethnicity, though, I couldn't say. In particular, I am not at all sure that the line between a Croat and a Serb was particularly firmly drawn in this time and place, and I have some suspicion that efforts to draw such a line are efforts to write history backward. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll note here that I basically approve the change Sargeras made to the article. I've shortened it a bit in the interest of clarity of the summary, but it should be fine. Guys? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as the issue of how and when Dubrovnik passed into Croatian possession is concerned, in my recent visit to the city I noticed an interesting tablet and took a picture of it:



The inscription says:

 (also converted Roman numerals) 

It is located in the eastern-central part of the old city, orthogonal to Stradun/Placa and next to the Gradska Kavana ("city coffeehouse"). To understand the context a bit better, in the year 1925 Dubrovnik was part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia whose political life was marked by conflict between the Croats and the Serbs. I suppose it's possible that it was just a Croatian nationalist faction that put up this tablet, and that everybody else disagreed with them. But somehow it remained on the wall right there in the center of the city, so I doubt that this was accidental. --Joy &#91;shallot] 15:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments from 161.53.162.224
I can't belive my eyes!? I read so many stuff and nonsences here! How someone can said for example "Dubrovnik was firstly Byzantine (Roman) and then Serbian and Venetian metropolis", put this in V.W. and call all thet shit Enciklopedia?????

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.53.162.224 (talk &bull; contribs) 09:45, 3 August 2005.

Croatia.org
Croatia.org is not spam, it is a HUGE Croatian website. It gets more hits than probably all of the websites in the extrnal links section. It is a non-Conformist webpage about croatian news, history and people. It is like a croatian encyclopedia except not publically edited. It has over 4,000 articles in the 2 years that it has been open. I understand that you don't want spam on the croatia page and i respect that, but this is certainly not spam; it is quite the oposite of spam. We try to limit any advirtising at all on our website, and it is great interesting news, not like the tabloids.

I would also like to ask people to not just delete things that people spent time on, it is very easy to delete, harder to create. So deleteing and then just telling me to argue my case here should not be the procedure in my opinion. It should be people arguing why something should not be put there. For maybe a link such as mine it is not hard to put back, but for other things please be sympathetic. So tell me what you think, and if you have any reasons why this external link should not be there... take a look at the website yourselves and evaluate it.


 * Croatia.org

OK, Joy
Ok, we settled these facts (I find kindah releived, we have been arguing for weeks). And I think that there should be a link to Serbia and Montenegro due to the fact that two countries' connection in the history. And, do you know how we learn medieval History in here? 1. the Serbian Principalities (Raška, Bosna, Zeta (Duklja), Travunija sa Konavlima, Paganija (Neretljanska zemlja) and Zahumlje (Hum) 2. the History of the Macedonian Samuilo's Empire 3. the first Bulgarian Empire 4. the History of Grand Moravia 5. the History of Carinthia 6. the History of Croatia 7. the Byzantine History 8. the History of England and France 9. the Holy Roman history 10. the History of Hungary 11. the Spanish Reqonquista 12. the Crusade Wars 13. the History of Dubrovnik 14. the Russian Principalities 15. the Normans 16. Second Bulgarian Tsarinate 17. Serbia from Stephen Nemanja to it's fall to the Ottomans 18. New Byzantine Empire 19. Ottoman History As you can see, we engulph ALL of the peoples on our lands (not undermining the uniqueness of the Ragusians) and YET keeping the History of our COUNTRIES as they REALLY ARE. In fact, seperating Dubrovnik from the History of Croatia (as well as other cases) show more RESPECT to those peoples. Emperor


 * But how relevant are all those suzerainties and vassalages to the history of Dubrovnik? You really feel a need to stuff all that into this summary? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Absolutly not, just the factions in which Ragusion (Dubrovnik) was originally their part (i. e. Byzantium (Rome), Duklja (Serbia) and Venetia)) And yes, I concider the articls about Croatia too small. It reffers to the recent war ages like it is entire Croatian history, barely even mentioning the great Kings Zvonimir, Tomislav.... etc. the articles are far too short. And also, a link to Serbia, and if possible, Montenegro, is needed. HolyRomanEmperor 16:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm. Apparently I mistook you for User:Sargeras, and left a message at User talk:Sargeras. Please see there first. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have discovered by the way, that you had mentioned that much less than 100,000 Serbs left Croatia. Have you got any proof of those claims?


 * Where did I mention that? It depends on context. Overall, many more did. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

And I am considered unregistered again? 212.62.33.4 09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just log in at Special:Userlogin. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments from 203.111.75.195
Croats came to the Balkans when the first wave of Slavs came...they lead the way The origin of Croats is traced in Poland and Ukraine and prior to that somewhere in Iran\ This is known and can be traced..... The origin of Serbs is unknown, so can they be Croats too who came later to the Balkans under a new name..... This view is backed by the simple fact many common surnames such as Markovic, Pavlovic, Petkovic etc... can be found in both countries in large numbers.

Both speak almost the same language.

Both took on religion much later after settlement in the Balkans.

The hatred between the two only started when two brothers Radic of Croatain origin were shot in Belgrade ..before this the two were very close.....this stareted teh whole tit for tat eye for an eye hatred

Bosnia was first settled by Croats, when the Turks came they converted the large number of Croats into Muslims (now called Bosnians)...some Croats fled to Dalamatia while vacated house were occupied by Serbians....all 3 can live together and did for many years.

Croats have a large number of people who left Croatia to live in eg USA, Australia etc... names surnames got changed hence numbers are never 100% correct...What is know that behind the Irish Croats are 2nd most migrated people in the world and can be found in almost any country in the world. Eg New Zealand have the Croats as 2nd highest migrant group.

The link between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians is often hidden because of ethnic hatred of late esp 100 years or so.... There is proof that they are the same poeople and are very mixed over many years DNA test would prove this..who is game to try after all both sides dont like the theory of ONE PEOPLE nor would they welcome any concrete proof

In WW2 only a small number of Croats called Ustasi backed the Nazis...in fact most Croats were with Tito (also a Croat himself) and fought against the Nazis. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.75.195 (talk &bull; contribs) 05:55, 31 August 2005.


 * I don't think so, my friend. The Serbian lineage is well-known.
 * Tito was half-Croat and half-Slovenian HolyRomanEmperor 18:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Serbian
I am filing a request here that the Serbian language should be added next to the Italian in the list of regionally-spoken languages in Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 18:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the list doesn't include regionally-spoken, but only official languages. In other words, neither Serbian nor Czech nor Hungarian nor any other language can be included because they're not official in any counties, like Italian is. I agree that it makes Italian stand out, but that's how things are. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cricisims
Sorry, but I'm removing this part as it has no significance to the main article, and whoever wrote this part is obviously quite sick. But it did make me laugh. h3llbent

motto
This needs to be spelled out - Croatia has no official national motto. Unofficial sayings don't count. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

flag and coat
Neoneo13, please convert Image:Croatian_Flag.jpg and Image:Croatia_coat.jpg into PNG format and upload them named Image:Croatia_flag_large.png and Image:Croatia_coat_small.png, respectively. That way, history is preserved, link from templates use the new images too, and the format isn't ludicrous (using a lossy compression format for a largely vector graphic is gratuitous). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the flag needs to have a used ratio (the new one is too narrow), and the coat image should have a transparent background. Also see discussion in existing image pages about the exact shade of red and blue used. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Done! And thanks for the hints. Will use PNG format instead of JPG in the future :) --Neoneo13 23:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahm, Dubrovnik was Doclean (Serbian, if you will) before it became a Venetian city. Venetia god it from Doclea. HolyRomanEmperor 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That monument was raised in 1925 by King Alexander, who wanted to celebrate the 1000 of the first Serbo-Croato-Slovenian recognized state. Monuments like that were put along the entire coastline. From Istra Ulcinj. Unfortunatly (communism and other things I suppose) have left only that in Dubrovnik and several other still standing... HolyRomanEmperor 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That monument was raised in 1925 by King Alexander, who wanted to celebrate the 1000 of the first Serbo-Croato-Slovenian recognized state. Monuments like that were put along the entire coastline. From Istra Ulcinj. Unfortunatly (communism and other things I suppose) have left only that in Dubrovnik and several other still standing... HolyRomanEmperor 15:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing nationalist in there. King Alexander wanted to celebrate and withdraw as much as he could from all three portions, so that he had proven enough that his later construction of a Yugoslav nation was a good-willing and noble deed. The citizens of Dubrovnik were Croats then, so it is also reasonable. HolyRomanEmperor 15:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)