Talk:Krashovani

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

Census[edit]

According to the 2002 Romanian census, only 206 persons declared themselves "caraşoveni" (and 22.500 "Serbians") Bogdan | Talk 18:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Identity[edit]

http://www.ihjj.hr/o-hr-jeziku.htm

...Hrvati u Gradišću (Austrija, Mađarska, Slovačka) služe se uglavnom dijalektima čakavskoga, rjeđe štokavskoga i kajkavskog narječja, Hrvati u talijanskoj pokrajini Molise štokavskim narječjem, a Hrvati Krašovani u Rumunjskoj služe se jednim torlačkim dijalektom.

http://www.tippnet.co.yu/Media/Miroljub/4.13/Mir01.html

Na žalost, ne događa se ovo prvi put u našoj dugoj povijesti boravka na ovim bačkim prostranstvima. Jedno je zapravo zanimljivo, da su nam svakako drugo ime lakše zapamtili nego ono pravo izvorno, da smo Hrvati. Bili smo Bunjevci, i Šokci, i Dalmatinci, i Bošnjaci, i Iliri, i katolički Raci, a oni u Rumunjskoj Krašovani ili Kraševci – samo ne Hrvati.

Pa to je upravo zato što Bunjevci, Šokci i Krašovani i nisu bili Hrvati, već su kroatizovani tokom 20 veka. Da su ti ljudi u prošlosti sebe smatrali Hrvatima, valjda bi se tako i izjašnjavali na starim austro-ugarskim popisima, što nije bio slučaj. Glupo je sada na silu nametati hrvatski identitet nekom ko ga nije imao. Dakle, uopšte se ne radi o tome da neko drugi nije te ljude nazivao i smatrao Hrvatima, već oni sami sebe nisu tako nazivali i smatrali. PANONIAN (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, BAS TAKO! Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nisu bili Hrvati???[edit]

Svi oni nisu Hrvati kad su u tim zemljama, a čim su se makli u inozemstvo, pisali su se Hrvatima. Nije prvi put da je netko iskrivljavao nečiju narodnu pripadnost. Koliko Macedonaca, Bugara, Albanaca, Turaka, Vlaha (Meglenskih, Kucovlaha itd.), Italijana je danas u Grčkoj prikazano kao "Grci"?

Krašovanski Hrvati su podrijetlom iz sjeverozapadne Hrvatske. Poprimili su torlačko narječje od okolnih Srba, zar je to nelogično?Kubura 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pa to je uprovo to change this? "Krashovans" it is not used something like this. It looks like transliteration from Romanian into english. Bonaparte talk 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought that you refer to name of the Caraşova town. So, what you suggest here, to change name of this article? I understand that this is Romania-related article, but since this article is about people, the best option for its name would be the name used by this people for themselves (that would be Krašovani, I think), or the proper English word, which in this case might be Krashovans. It is interesting that article about Magyars use the Hungarian name for themselves, not the one mostly used in English - the Hungarians. So, what you suggest that we should to do here? PANONIAN (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note here that previous discussion in Serbian/Croatian was not about name of the article, but about ethnic identity of Krashovani. PANONIAN (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian citizenship[edit]

The article claims that:

Since The Republic of Croatia's constitution allows dual citizenship and fairly liberally awards citizenship to anybody declaring themselves Croatian by nationality outside of her borders, an increasing number of Krashovani have recently opted for the Croatian nationality in the wake of Croatia's growing prosperity and constantly strengthening diplomatic ties with the USA and Western Europe.

Are there any sources for this? I think particularly the part "constantly strengthening diplomatic ties with the USA and Western Europe" is a bit questionable, considering that Romania has stronger ties with the rest of Europe, particularly in regards to EU accession (and nearly all Krashovani are Romanian citizens). Ronline ✉ 06:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..yes yes yes, it is true that Romania has strong ties with Western Europe, I fully understand and would never argue with that; so much so that I defend Romania, its people and culture to the top of the hill when ignorant people think of them as non-European easterners etc. Now the business about Croatia allowing dual citizenship is one which was already there beforehand (I revised it), I can't provide a source as such but I know that the country does this. You see, firstly, over 20% of Bosnia identifies as Croatian, and that is almost as many as there are Catholics (a correlation as it were), so the Zagreb based government is only too happy to accept this. But then there is the radical wing of Croatian politics, adherents to which recognise not only declared Croats as being Croats, but many who are not - to cut a long story short, people who migrated to other areas but trace their previous settlements as present-day Croatia; Slav descended inhabitants of Romania and Hungary indiginous to their present land but never became part of Yugoslavia, thus unable to join Croatia (cauition: these people may also be claimed by Slovenia, Serbia or Bulgaria if not all three depending who and where)...but back to the point: Krashovans are different from Romanians in that their Slavic language deflags a seperate identity to the Romanic display of the principle population. A Krashovan may indeed be entitled to Romanian citizenship which he might take, BUT he may (if allowed) choose a serbia-Montenegro passport, or indeed a Croatian one, and (I suppose) that Croatia's prosperity is certainly looking better than Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia-Montenegro... so I guess that this comment is down to analysis. Trim it if you wish Ronline, but please don't wipe it. Good luck on joining the EU in '07 (I mean that for the people, not the stinking government) Celtmist 28.01.2006

Thanks for the reply and for explaining that! So, as far as I understand, the Krashovani claim Croatian citizenship so that they can have, if you like, some sort of former Yugoslav citizenship (due to cultural and linguistic ties), and in this process, choose Croatia? A lot of them have dual citizenship, then. I've removed the "citation needed" template, and left the statement in there. It's valuable to have stuff like that in the article. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I can talk of one isolated example. My cousin studied in Timişoara until 2002 where he met a woman, who is now his wife. She was from the Krashovan peope of Romania - spoke a typical type of Serbo-Croat which we call Torlakian because her ancestors were disaffected by the linguistic events of Yugoslavia. Until the early 90s, like with Slavs living in Hungary and Austria who are affiliated to the people of the former Yugoslavia, they identified as ethnic-Yugoslavs from Romania (her parents in their 70s still do this). Naturally, they could not give consideration to calling themselves, Slovene, Serb, Montenegrin etc because these were entities from within Yugoslavia, and there was nothing inherent which pased down the generations to say "we are Serb", or "we are Croat". As Yugoslavia, at least as a state if not a nationality, has ceased to exist, younger Krashovans do go for a realistic option. After declaring themselves 'Romanian Yugoslavs' in the 90s, they received "invitations" from four exisiting states "officials", from Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Croatia (both the Zagreb state and the Bosnian Croat authorities), and Bulgaria, each inviting them to identify as who they are respectively, and offering them national and citizen rights. Her father is a Catholic and her mother, Orthodox, so you might say they were split between Yugoslav and Croatian. In the mid 90s, things might have looked better for Croatia than Yugoslavia or probably Romania then as EU talks hadn't begun and Romania was yet to join Nato and there was critisism over the Iliescu regime from some of the so-called "International Community", and so they chose to become Croats. Immediately they were offered a free house in Knin with local work... you see? It's all a load of bullshit. I am glad they rejected the offer, anyhow, in the new millennium they reverted back to calling themselves Krashovans, or just plain Slavs, and play on Romanian nationality more than any Slavic citizenships. Some people! Jordovan 30jan06

First of all, mister Celtmist (now Jordovan), stop changing your nicknames, we all know that it is you. Second, you now say that you spoke with one person from Timisoara, and you claim that you know everything about Serbs who live in that city only because of that one conversation. I do not dispute that few Krashovans live in that city, but most of the Serbs who live there are not Krashovans but Orthodox Serbs who do not speak Torlakian but Ekavian Vojvodina-Šumadija dialect. In the outset of the 18th century Orthodox Serbs even were majority in Timisoara. So, learn first something about history of this city, and learn something about geographical distribution of various ethnic groups before you start your stupid revert wars. If Orthodox Serbs do not live in Timisoara, then how can be that this city have a large Serbian Orthodox church, and how can be that Serbian national council was held in 1790 in this city? You should learn history and ethnology from the books, not from your cousin or his wife. PANONIAN (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jordovan is the same as Celtmist! Celtmist was from the UK. Jordovan is from Serbia. Additionally, Jordovan's edits to the article only concerned the addition of "Serbian-Montenegrin" in the context of people desiring Croatian citizenship instead of SCG citizenship. I don't know why this led to the whole thing about Timişoara and the Orthodox Serbs. Ronline ✉ 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is same as Celtmist, believe me. He have several more nicknames, and if you compare what edits and in what articles those "persons" made, the only logical conclusion is that it is one same person with several nicknames. What are his reasons for changing nicknames like this I do not know, and why he changing Serbs into Krashovans in Timisoara article I also do not know. PANONIAN (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronline, see this, it is interesting:

The first edit is made by Celtmist of course:

Then comes a new nickname (Srbovac) with similar edit (I have no doubt that it is also Celtmist):

This is the best part (He is now anonymous user, which he often like to be):

Finally, the last edit made by "Jordovan" (also Celtmist of course):

How nice for him, dont you agree? I would rather use the talk page on his place and provide a source that all Serbs from Timisoara are Krashovans. This is ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think the Krashovans edit was quite odd. The Timişoara ethnic data was taken from the census, and in the census those people declared themselves as Serbs. Krashovans live around Caraşova, and while a lot of them may have been Krashovans, they considered themselves Serb in the census, and that's what the article should state. I'm not 100% sure that Celtmist and Jordovan are the same - Celtmist made some very valuable edits to the Bucharest article, so he knows quite a lot about Romania, but his user page says he is from the UK, and he does speak good English. Jordovan on the other hand, writes in Serbian on his talk page, so they might be two different people. The coincidence is, as you pointed out, quite strange however. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronline, just ignore Pannonian's nonsense. I am not Serbian and my name is not Jordovan, you're quite right about that. My interests are in Romania and all countries. Pannonian thinks the world outside Vojvodina does not exist. Celtmist 06/02/05

Ronline Do not argue with the edits. Soon I will extend Croathood and you'll see why everything is real with the evidence too. User:Millenko

Will your expansion of the article be as amateurist and POV as what you already contributed to it and this article? Will your proofs take us to Iran? Really, the Serb POV on the Krashovari was annoying enough. Take a break, watch some tv. Dahn 15:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narodnost[edit]

I realise that our Slavic speaking ethnic affiliates deep within Romania have a slight crisis when choosing nationality. So this is partly the reason Serb and Croat nationalists claim an indigenous population in Romania!!! Often when Serbs and Croats speak of their own population in another country, it turns out to be the same population! However you look at it now, Krashovans are to their former flock in the former Yugoslavia exactly what Burgenland Croats and Slovenes, or maybe Molise Slavs are to their cousins in the distance: removed. The language is probably unrecognizable and the culture of the people has developed independently of distant relations. It is as well they consider themsleves as they are, Krashovans, without worrying too much about trying to be someone else (personally I'd opt for Romanian now they may well join the EU). Evlekis, 17:25, 26 March 2006 Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Connection between the Krashovani and part of the Banat Bulgarians?[edit]

Could there be any connection between those two groups? I noticed a lot of similarities, like they're both Roman Catholic and South Slavs, inhabit the Banat and come from very close parts of the Balkans as well — northwestern Bulgaria is at the opposite, east bank of the Timok River, and towns such as Chiprovtsi are in fact very close to the modern border with Serbia. Also, the Krashovani speak Torlakian, a vernacular that is also present in western (including northwestern) Bulgaria, albeit regarded as a western Bulgarian dialect.

Of course, not all Banat Bulgarians come from around Chiprovtsi and the northwest of present-day Bulgaria, these are only one of the groups that formed their population, but I'm particularly interested whether there could be any connection between this specific group and the Krashovani. Like another of those cases of people otherwise just part of the South Slavic continuum but divided by national borders (understand that a bit metaphorical in this case, i.e. Croats, Serbs, even Bulgarians "claiming" the Krashovani) in recent centuries.

What do you guys think? Also, is there any information on how the Krashovani accepted Roman Catholicism, because the people from Chiprovtsi and the region were converted by Saxon ore miners (they themselves adopting the Bulgarian language and becoming Bulgarian), and I know there are also copper ores just across the BG-SR border (like in Bor, Serbia), I even believe it's the same vein. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics[edit]

Dude, I've got it: a gallery at the bottom of the page. Tell me your thoughts. Dahn 02:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will not work since we should have at least 3 images for that (Gallery is ugly with only two images). But what is wrong with the current place of the images? PANONIAN (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dislike it profoundly. It leaves gaps in the text, and the images hang below the bottom-line of the text (plus, you've made the county map one unnecessarily hugemalongous). But, hey, it's a subjective opinion; I'm not going to dwell on it. My compulsive side tells me to take the six-hour ride by train to Caraş-Severin and get you pictures to post in a gallery (no, not really :) ). Dahn 03:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the solution for your problem: you should use Opera instead of Internet Explorer and you should change resolution on your computer to 800x600 and then you will see the article fine. :) Ok, no more joke, I think that we can adjust images on its current position that they do not make gaps in the text. I will try, give me second. PANONIAN (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok now? It look fine to me on the Internet Explorer too (but I still have 800x600 resolution). PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yea (although I had tried to make the datailed map bigger, and the schematic one its size). Now I won't need to go to Caraş-Severin. No but really, thanks for your patience. Dahn 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics again[edit]

Dahn, I know that we discussed this already, but the previous solution that we found was not the best one (the images were too small). I made some changes with the position and size of these images, and the article looks fine to me on both, Opera and IE. Please tell me your opinion about the current look of the article. Should we change something in the position and size of these images? PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not notice your reply before I had made the changes. I rarely see images as big as 300px on wikipedia: they tend to cram up text, and my settings leave two huge gaps in the middle of the text. I don't want to seem stuck on this: if you feel that my changes are wrong, then by all means revert me. It is very hard picturing what they might look like to other users, and I do not want to be the primadonna and have the changes happen just because of me. Dahn 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I saw your changes, they are ok, but can we change a size of the images from 200px to 250px or 230px at least? PANONIAN (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Dahn 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, my computer refuses to see them now... Dahn 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. They're back. Dahn 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did not saw them for a moment too, probably some mistake in Wiki software again. I think 250px is fine size, if not, you can move it back to 230px. PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are quite ok. Dahn 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2002 census results for the Caraşova commune[edit]

from http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=1832&judet_id=1909&localitate_id=1930

  • Croatian: 2,758 - 84.60 %
  • Other ethnicity (presumably Krashovan): 162 - 4.96 %
  • Roma/Gypsy: 146 - 4.47 %
  • Romanian: 144 - 4.41 %
  • Serbian: 16 - 0.49 %

bogdan 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? Didn't You just say 22,500 "Serbians" to the up? --PaxEquilibrium 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That figure is all across Romania it has nothing to do with Caraşova. I was wrong thinking that in Caraşova, they are "Serbians". bogdan 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People need to learn the difference between an ethnic group and a minority group[edit]

Bavarians are a subset of Germans - they like in Bavaria. A lot of the time Bavarians say they are "Bavarian" because that is the region they come from - it is different culturally from Northern Germany. Krashovani come from Caraşova - often they say they are Krashovani because it is an area that is culturally unique. However, you don't see an infobox in Bavarians stating they are a separate ethnic group from Germans. See my point? 65.10.55.131 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is an Internet Troll and there is no reason for response to his post. PANONIAN (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing argument. The infobox was re-removed for the same reasons above.

Look, if we have the infobox for Moldovans, Székely et al, we're gonna have it here as well. You also need to learn that, although IMO the only non-political difference between the Serb ethos and the Croat one, Roman Catholicism=/="Croathood". Dahn 18:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is too heated for Moldovans. This is completely different, Krashovani are defined purely be region. 72.144.114.25 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. It is exttremely contrived to present them as Croats "from the source", and they choice for Croatia, which is clearly being made, still allows them to be a different topic for debate (hence: infobox). Stop trolling. Dahn 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are they or are they not a distinct ethnic group? It doesn't say they are in the article. 72.144.191.155 06:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"are a South Slavic people indigenous to Caraşova" - yeah, I guess that means "Croatian"... Dahn 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krashovani is a name used for Croat population from around Caraşova. It's just a name for a local Croats, although there are other villages there where Croats live; Caraşova (Karaševo) is the biggest one.
We're getting into an unnecessary discussion. Soon will get into discussion if Newyorker is a designation for ethnic group or minority group. Kubura 09:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that Krashovani are Croats. I know people who live there and I know the full story. They have chosen the Croatian etnicity because economical interests and because of some local leaders (Mihai Radan). I don't say that they are serbs, croats, bulgarians or some other ethnic group... They are a mixture of all of them: they have bulgarian names, they speak a serbo-croatian dialect. The Krashovani's dialect is not Croatian or Serbian, it is a mixture but their dialect is more close to serbian then to Croatian. User:Roxus
No, it is not "just name for local Croats". They are separate Slavic ethnic group of Serb origin and they were Croatized. That is not same. They still have characteristics of ethnic group and some of them still declare themselves as Krashovani in census. PANONIAN (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Croatized? How? Maybe because it was a part of Croatia? Come on, be serious. We know those Serb stories about "separate Slavic groups of Serb origins that later Croatized". Kubura 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roxus, Krashovani speak Torlakian dialect, which is more closer to Bulgarian, than to Serbian. Second, small Slavic groups do get under influence of Slavic majority, and they take, as the time goes, the surrounding dialect or language, but not necessarily changing the nationality. Serbo-croatian dialect? There isn't thing such as "serbo-croatian dialect". Izdao si se, Roxuse. Whose sockpuppet are you? Kubura 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Kubura 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I don't deny the mixing of all those nationalities there. That happens every time everywhere. But that's not the issue here. Kubura 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Radan is a Croat surname. See the Croatian phonebook. Kubura 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...have Bulgarian names...". That doesn't mean anything. Among Croats, you'll find ones with Hungarian, German, Russian, Czech, Slovak, Italian names, depending which area they live. But they declare themselves as Croats. Kubura 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where to begin? See this: http://www.talmamedia.com/ There you have 1910 census results for Resiczabányai municipality of the Krassó-Szörény County to which Carasova belonged in that time. You can see there only 25 Croats and 8,687 others (presumably Krashovan). It is quite clear that they were Croatized in 1910-2002 period (The Croatian propaganda is probably guilty for this and the Catholic church also played a role I believe). Also, Torlakian dialect spoken by Krashovans is not more close to Bulgarian, it is what Bulgarian scientists claim, but Serbian scientists claim that it is more close to Serbian. And I do not know why you speak about name Radan, but it is also Serbian name. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I speak about Radan? Well, Roxus has mentioned local leader Mihai "Radan". Second, I've spoken about surname Radan, not name. Kubura 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krashovani are not "Croats"[edit]

I don´t understand why some people want to suggerate that the Krashovanis are Croats. They are all speaking an east-serbian dialect and so the serbian language, it is known that they are coming in the year 1370 to Romania (most of them from the TIMOK-region in Eastserbia and a other part from the territory of todays Croatia). And it is known that the Turks comes to Conquer South-Eastern Europe after the fight on the Kosovo field 1389, too. This are historic facts. And it is a fact, that the Krashovanis take the catholic confession then they arrived in romania because the Hungarys rules about this country. Only to make them "Croats" and gave the reason "they are catholics and all people who are speaking southslavic language with this confession are croats" it isn´t true, sorry! This is only a propaganda from the yugoslav communist party after 1945 and their big Boss, the Croat Tito. It exists many Serbs who ware catholic confession and they haven´t a problem with their nationality. 84.149.98.120 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see how you allow yourself to falsify census data. Dahn 07:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn´t falsifying because somebody write "Croats" in the statistic that can not be reality! Please took more informations about this people in Romania. And please, don´t forget, that they are speaking a serbian language (torlacian)!84.149.118.142 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that they are Serbs by origin, they declare themselves as Croats in census. See: http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=1832&judet_id=1909&localitate_id=1930 and http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=1832&judet_id=1909&localitate_id=1956 So, please do not change official census results, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's so unusual about that certain Slavic community took some language characteristics of the surrounding majority? Even Romanic population takes characteristics of neighbouring Slavs. And you expect that Slavic peoples, that have more in common, won't take something from neighbouring majority?
About south-slavic Catholics... Slovenians are also Catholics.
Unknown user said here ..."Only to make them "Croats" and gave the reason "they are catholics and all people who are speaking southslavic language with this confession are croats" it isn´t true, sorry! This is only a propaganda from the yugoslav communist party after 1945 and their big Boss, the Croat Tito. ".
Yeah, wright, communists cared a lot for Catholic church and Croats. Especially Ranković and all other Serbs in YU-police and secret service. Especially when they persecuted and killed thousands of catholic priests under the excuse of "killing the enemy of people". Especially when they killed tens of thousands of Croat civilians after 1945 in Bleiburg and many labour camps across former Yugoslavia.
You haven't asked yourself what happened to uniate churches during communist rule.
Pannonian, you've said " is quite clear that they were Croatized in 1910-2002 period (The Croatian propaganda is probably guilty for this and the Catholic church also played a role I believe). " Catholic church is not national church. Popes and cardinals were mostly Italians, not Croats. And Catholic church is a hierarchy, they obey to things that "those above" say. So there's no talk about influence of Catholic church. Orthodox churches are national churches. You haven't asked yourself how many Croats were serbized through Serb Orthodox church. Croatian propaganda? Which propaganda? Maybe Croats ruled over the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Maybe Karađorđevićs were Croats? Or maybe Croats had majority in YU-kingdom diplomacy, police, secret service, military? Kubura 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What's so unusual about that certain Slavic community took some language characteristics of the surrounding majority?" But, that is exactly the point. Orthodox Serbs that live (or lived) in Banat DO NOT SPEAK Torlakian dialect. Krashovans did not had from whom to took their dialect, thus the only logical conclusion is that this dialect is their native dialect. PANONIAN (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the role of Catholic church in Croatization of Krashovani, I did not refer to policy of the Catholic church in general, but to the policy of certain local priests that wanted to create certain national feeling within the community of their believers. And what Croats were Serbized through Serb Orthodox church? Never heard for such cases. Serb Orthodox religion was never imposed to Muslim or Catholic believers, only to another non-Serb Orthodox Christians. Regarding the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, you forgeting that its first name was Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Croats were one of the 3 recognized nations of the Kingdom, while smaller Catholic Slavic nations like Bunjevci and Šokci were not recognized as such, thus this opened a way for their Croatization. In the case of Krashovans, that way worked across border. So, yes, Croats did ruled over the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (together with Serbs and Slovenes), no matter what you read in "HDZ-censored new composed historical books in Croatia". PANONIAN (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, Panonian, and tables and chairs also ruled Yugoslavia, because they were in Yugoslav parliament from the beginning. Whome are you fooling?
Croats have ruled over Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Unfortunately, no. Whenever Croats opposed to ruling casta - Serbs, they got shot or inprisoned (Stjepan Radić case), or beaten to death (Milan Šufflay case Article in NY Times etc...
Smaller nations Bunjevci and Šokci? Bunjevci and Šokci are Croats. Don't push that Greater Serbian propaganda here. That was its method: denying the existence of particular nation in Serbia (inventing "new nations").
Serbization through Serb Orthodox church? Yes, there were the cases of organized giving of land to Croat population, if they turn to Serb Orthodoxy. Done during Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Kubura 23:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Bunjevci are Croats, then why leader of Bunjevac ethnic community in Serbia recently raised charges against ethnic Croatian politician from Vojvodina because of speech of hate against Bunjevac community. The issue will be soon solved in court. So, to repeat: it is Greater Croatian propagandists who denying the existence of Bunjevac nation because they want to assimilate them into Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krasovani are Serbs[edit]

Everybody knows that. 

Ice Cold 09:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krashovans? A distinct ethnic group?[edit]

Provide your sources here. 72.144.150.20 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided (see above). Please read this entire talk page and do not ask same question for a 1000 times. PANONIAN (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

New map needs additional work. The Croat-inhabited village (kajkavian dialect speakers) Keča in Romania is missing. Kubura 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the map myself, but I believe that the intention was that the common denominator be localities that have at least reached commune level. Dahn 18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The map was supposed to show only municipalities of Romania where South Slavs are majority. The village you mentioned is not a municipality. Of course, another map could be made showing settlements with Krashovan majority, but you should tell me the names of all these settlements and show me some detailed map that show location of these settlements, and then I could draw new detailed map. In which municipality is located Keča village anyway, because I have only map of municipalities. PANONIAN (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

I am going to ask the same qestion from the Gorani (Kosovo) - their ancestors were Serbian Orthodox Slavs that were adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church - what prevents us from using "Orthodox Serbs". --PaxEquilibrium 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all Christianity was once a branch of Judaism. What prevents us from adding Jewish to every instance where Christianity is mentioned? Dahn 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but problem is "Orthodox Serb" origin is nowhere mentioned in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not really clear what people were in the 1370s, and I wager it is not clear for how long they remained whatever kind of Orthodox they were after that (and, also, I think we should dislike saying for sure that they were something, when we do not know how many of them were not in fact that something - it is an annoying habit of Eastern European discourse to just link traits arguably prevalent today with realities of hundreds of years ago, as if fully certain). Furthermore, I think we both know that Serb=Orthodox for virtually all cases (this is why we are having this conversation, this is why the Croat ethnicity came about as an idea). Dahn 20:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we have a) a source calling them of Orthodox Serb origin and b) Their place of origin is populated by ethnic Serbs of Orthodox Serb faith. --PaxEquilibrium 22:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be as clear as possibly can: people have a religion, not a "religious origin". Dahn 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - I understand. It's just that the main definition of being a Serb (although not sole) - is the Serbian Orthodox Church; so "Orthodox Serb" is used for anyone/anything of the Serbian Orthodox Church, rather than simply "Serb". It's just the way that the issue is presented there. That's why Montenegrins are "Orthodox Serbs", and because of the dubious controversy of the Montenegrin ethnic group when refering to historical rulers, prominent people etc, we just place "Orthodox Serb" - as we cannot be wrong that way. --PaxEquilibrium 10:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HRE, this is not article about Montenegrins, so what is a point discussing that here. Regarding Krashovans, the current definition in this article about their origin is most accurate: "Krashovani themselves are mostly descendants of the Torlakian inhabitants of eastern Serbia". As I already pointed this, the Torlakian population mostly did not had Serb national consciousness in the time of the Krashovan migration. So, yes, they were Orthodox and they were Torlaks, but it is disputed whether they were Serbs. There is one interesting story about national consciousness of Torlaks: in the 19th century, one Turkish pasha came to the one Torlak village. He wanted to know what is a nationality of the villagers, so he asked them: "Are you Bulgarians?" and they said "No". He then asked them "Are you a Serbs?" and they said "No" again. He then asked them "Are you a Russians?" and they said "No" again. So, he finally asked them: "What are you then?" and they said this: "We are Slavs". PANONIAN (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, understood. --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the Krashovani[edit]

I wish to raise a small point. The language box needs to be revised because it currently states that the language is Torlakian but most declare Croatian language. I appreciate that this is a factor relating to the chosen ethnic affiliation of the Krashovan community which seems to be favourably Croat. Assuming, without wishing to offend anyone, that modern Krashovans (the Slavic-speaking people of Caraş-Severin) are ethnic Croats, can we not present the case in a slightly different way? An example may be that there is a diglossia: privately people use the traditional independently developed local Torlakian dialect, and officially, or atleast potentially : (because I don't know quite how the Romanian government stands with recognising Krashovani/Croats), Croatian language (the Dubrovnik-based stylised modern language representing all who identify as Croats whether they actually speak it or not). Another option might be to state that they speak The Torlakian dialect of the Croatian language. This might upset some Serbs but there is an upside: writers on Croatian speech discuss the different speech forms which make up Croatian, they speak of Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects, in which there are Ikavian and Ekavian variant accents, they also aim to cover the wider geographical distribution of Croats which is why local dialects of Bosnia and Serbia (and Romania) where there are Croats are classed as Dialects of the Croatian language. This does include Torlakian, atleast for the Janjevs of Kosovo if nobody else. Because of the South Slavic dialect continuum, every community forms a part of the linguistic matrix in every region. This means that Serbs living as far afield as Kajkavia and Chakavia who actively contribute to the local dialects may also be included fairly when it said that Kajkavian and Chakavian and the Ikavski accent are all forms of the Serbian language too. The current revision makes it look as though they speak Torlakian and call it Croatian, who are we as openminded people to tell anyone that although he claims to speak one language, he is actually speaking another!! Evlekis 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

To clarify the one aspect I can answer about: the Romanian government recognizes people as what they say they are. Dahn 15:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing. Do you know what the standing is regarding the Krashovans language in terms of being regionally official? I can imagine that the number of Krashovans might just be too small in which case it would not be the Romanian government's fault for not granting them special rights. Evlekis 15:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
I think the language they speak is a working and education language in those places where they form the relative majority. Apparently, in Caraşova, that language is defined as Croatian as at a semi-official level.[1] [2] Since Krashovans (or, rather, those Krashovans who say they are Croats) are represented by in Parliament and elsewhere by the Croatian-Romanians of the Union of Croats, the Romanian state takes this as its working basis (in fact, it never intervenes in supervising or recording such processes beyond face value). Of course, I couldn't possibly tell you if Krashovans who are supposed to speak Croatian speak Torlakian and call it "Croatian" or if they choose Croatian in official matters (it may even be that they freely switch from one to the other - after all, when it's 30 people involved per classroom or commune council, it shouldn't matter that much). Dahn 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have primary and secondary education in "Croatian". There is a "Bilingual Romanian-Croatian High School" in Caraşova. bogdan 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So it's rather like Switzerland with French and Italian leaving traditional Occitan and Romansch dialects in the cold. In time, the Torlakian will surely be lost and that's a pity because they have preserved it in a way that Southern Serbs and other Slavic Kosovars etc. simply havn't been able to. For the time being, is it all right to put for language: (Torlakian - privately; Croatian - officially)? Evlekis 10:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Torlakian Croatian language. :D --PaxEquilibrium 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krashovani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

The histiry section doesn't answer how they shifted to the Torlakian language. --95.24.69.191 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently reverted edits[edit]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Why did you revert my recent edits? It's established with sources within the article that the Krashovani speak Torlakian, and it's also well established that Croatian is a literary standard based on the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect of Shtokavian rather than a distinct language. I highly doubt the Krashovani speak a literary standard in everyday life. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass replacing references to Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin is extremely disruptive. They're all the same language from a linguistic point of view but there's also a political aspect. Rather than starting a campaign to change highly controversial ethnolinguistic terms in dozens of articles, start a discussion somewhere appropriate to determine if other editors agree with you on such a contentious topic.
And the reason why the Krashovani are said to speak Croatian is because of their Croatian identity. "Neo-Shtokavian" is not a language anyway but a dialect as the website you sourced says. The first element there referred to as a language is Serbo-Croatian(-Bosniak-Montenegrin). And Croats, who speak Serbo-Croatian, are referred to in Wikipedia as speaking Croatian, as evidenced by the article Croats. I have no opinion on this issue, but again you need to start a wider discussion somewhere rather than changing things by yourself. Super Ψ Dro 08:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krashovani&oldid=1208037517"