Talk:Slavs/Archive 2
62.47.28.215 let us clearify a bit a term Macedonian. I am Slovene and also I am a Slovene citizen. In Slovenia there are no other Slovenes. We can't talk about Slovene or non-Slovene Slavs. In this country there are just other nationalities. So what nationality you are? I know just for a nation, called Macedonians. You might be Greek, Albanian, Serb or whatever. If you insist on the term Macedonian Slavs, so let it be. Are there any other nations which are Macedonians but are not Slavs? I think not. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 09:30 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
The Macedonians are Greek people ! See Alexander the Great and "Vergina sun" ! Macedonian,Greek 25.04.2003
- So in my point of view you're Greek or at least Macedonian Greek. Probably you talk and write Greek. According to one snub German I'll be Slovene Slav, which do not exist. --XJamRastafire 09:47 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Listing Bunjevci and Šokci under Serbs and Istrians under Croats is another shining example of Milošević-like logic.
First of all -- Istrians -- a fraction of people in the Istria county of Croatia declared their ethnicity (local word "narodnost", rather ambiguous but fairly well translated as ethnicity) as regional. I've never heard of that group asking for any separate ethnic minority rights, while I've often heard of (self-proclaimed) Croats in Istria demanding regional autonomy, so while it's plausible to consider the Istrians distinct, it's pretty hard to imagine why they should be listed as a separate _ethnicity_.
As for Bunjevci and Šokci, ever since the census of 1981, their number in Serbia (Vojvodina really) rose as the number of Croats fell (and the number of Yugoslavs also rose). Bunjevci are the more vocal group of those, and there is a faction among them that claims they're neither Serbs nor Croats, just plain Bunjevci. Another faction thinks they're Croats. The Šokci on the other hand, spread through both Slavonia and Vojvodina. In Slavonia they hardly register as a blip on the ethnic radar, whereas in Vojvodina they show up, together with the undeclared and other regional affiliations, almost always in places where there are/were significant Croat minorities.
I don't know, maybe it's all due to Tito's and Ranković's and whoever's discriminatory policies against the people who actually wanted to be part of smaller ethnic groups. Or maybe it's due to the fact they're a small Catholic minority among the Orthodox Serbs, looking to get out of sight at a time when Serb nationalism is looking very unfavourably at the "enemy". (Needless to mention, Croats, Albanians and Bosniaks were all painted that way during the Milosevic-led jingoist upheaval.) Declaring one's self a member of one of those groups, that isn't simply Croat and has ways of getting by as Serb, was a reasonably simple way out. I don't blame them, really. But wartime opportunism is one thing; continued flawed ethnic appropriation is another, and that's what the current article perpetuates.
The sad thing here is that I'm arguing the same basic point as the Croat nationalists and that I'm likely going to be accused of siding with them by the Serb nationalists. *sigh*
--Shallot 11:42, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The nonsense about "Bunjevci" "people" deleted. This is simply a regional Croatian subgroup that was in past 10-20 years manipulated and pressured by Serbian fascist regime of Slobodan Milošević and Vojislav Šešelj (the ICTY Hague tenants)to distance from Croatdom- for very obvious reasons for which they are currently at trial. There are no separate Bunjevac press, books, dialect or folklore. Every Bunjevac, from father of modern Croatian nationalism Ante Starčević, to popular folklore singer Zvonko Bogdan- knew and know where they belong. As for censa- any census that is conducted in the climate of fear is of no consequence. "Ethnic" Bunjevci are as "real" as "ethnic" Yugoslavs, as real as angular circle or square triangle.
M H
I removed the second "sentence" from the article because try as I might, I could make no sense of it:
- The Germanic and Rumanian population will be effect of language changes after conquest. Characteristic genetic Y mark HG3 (M17).
Who does it refer to? What does it mean? Where does it come from? Could whoever added this, or someone familiar with the theory, rewrite this as a real sentence and reinsert it into the appropriate paragraph? Thanks. --MIRV 21:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Slavs in the Vistula 500 BC?
The article alleges that Celts and Germans passed through the Vistula area "without displacing" local slavs. Is there a confusion with Illyrians and Thrakians? What evidence is there that Slavs lived there before the 6th century?
Also, who is the editor? The articles often seem written by unreconstructed Polish nationalists.
Bunjevci, Gorani, etc
The anonymous user from 193.198.x.y (cmu.carnet.hr, a dialup block from Croatia) apparently seems to have an anti-Serbian agenda... I just noticed after this recent commit here that they have been continuously reverting the Bunjevci article to some blatant copy&paste and have also now changed the Gorani article to make the Macedonians, though Google shows that they're more like the Bosniaks. Mass-revert, and/or ban? It'll be non-trivial to ban them without banning the whole dialup range... --Shallot 00:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Gradisce, Molise, etc
The anonymous user from 24.70.95.203 (something in Canada IIRC) apparently has a pan-Serbian agenda... they included notes about Molise and Gradisce/Burgenland in here and in Serbo-Croatian language, and marked them as Serbs, whereas those are Croats AFAIK. They also don't seem to grasp the fact Burgenland == Gradišće, and their user contribution page shows some other deficiencies... --Shallot 00:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anon edit
Can someone please check the anon edits made in the last few minutes? Thanks! Mark Richards 22:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)