Talk:Bunjevci

Croats, Serbs? Why not just Bunjevci?

I have no idea how in the world has this discussion gone to a debate about the assimilation of the Bunjevci people, either to the Croatian or Serbian side. This disgusting spillage of local dirty politics has really no place on Wikipedia. Why on earth is this article a part of "a series of articles on Croats"? Vlahs, for example, are present both in Serbia, Romania and in a few other countries, and they're are most certainly not classified as Romanians. This too goes for Roma, Bosniaks, etc. The Bunjevci are an ethnic group, with their own dialect, their own cuisine and their own unique history. If, due to major year-long pressures from both Serbian and Croatian sides, should some of them choose to switch over to another ethnicity, that's their choice.

BureX (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not nearly as simple as you try to portray it. "Vlachs" are not present in Romania under that name, and they certainly are classified as Romanians at least by some. In both cases, we have large subgroups which moved from their original environment and "spun off", before their original group underwent the period of nationalism and building of a nation-state. Both Vlachs and Bunjevci (and Serb/Montenegrin Montenergrins) have the same problem where their primary ethnic affiliation is ambiguous or mixed, to different extents. You cannot just put large groups people in drawers: "Croats go here, Bunjevci go there". How come that there are about equal numbers of Croats and Bunjevci on Serbian census, when we know that most of these people are Bunjevci by origin? How come that Democratic Alliance of Croats in Vojvodina and its spinoffs operates in Subotica, heartland of Bunjevci?

As I said, however, we should somewhat limit the consideration about the ethnic identity, it ate the whole article. No such user (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's that politics talk again... most went the Croatian route due to the availability of a better passport, also most likely chasing hope in which their rights would get extended as much as the Hungarian minority's did in the recent years. Minorities who have an independent state behind them usually get a bigger slice of the cake. I'm not willing to decide which side does a Bunjevac choose... what I'm advocating here is that this should not be an article labelled "Part of a series of articles on Croats", that's it. BureX (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

They are a separate ethnic group which lives mainly in Serbia,where they are recognized as such.They are not Croats.The fact is nearly 17 000 people declared themselves as Bunjevci as a separate ethnic group,and that has to be respected.

94.189.197.200 (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe if you actually read the article carefully you will find (if it really interests you) that Bunjevci are considered both: a sub-group of Croats and there are also those who declare themselves as a separate Bunjevac identity, but still nevertheless closely related to Croats. Now what exactly is the problem you have with the categories you keep removing which were there for months and starting an "edit war" with a bunch of other users trying to maintain the quality and balance already established in this article? Wikipedia does not work in a way that you can enforce your POV on something, it's more-less part of a consensus made on a common sense logic and available facts. If you are really interested in contributing to Wikipedia compose yourself and stop this BS. Shokatz (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

All Montenegrins declared themseleves as Serbs before WW2,and even now 1/3 of them consider them Serbs,but now they are seen as a separate ethnic group,and nobody says they are a subgroup of Serbs.

24.135.66.10 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how is your comparison valid for any reason. We are dealing with the situation at hand not what it was before. If Serbs in Montenegro would declare themselves both as Montenegrins and Serbs you would have a point, but Serbs in Montenegro declare specifically as Serbs unlike great part of Bunjevci who declare themselves both as Bunjevci and part of the Croatian nation in broad and narrow sense. And btw. I am watching your edits very closely. You are deleting entire sections of various articles without any explanation or discussion. If you continue I believe you won't be able to edit articles for a very long time. It's up to you. Shokatz (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Poređenje je sasvim na mestu,više puta sam pisao o tome,samo kreten ne bi shvatio,pretnje blokiranjem su ti vrlo jadne, prvo ti se ne pitaš za to, drugo adrese za menjaju svakih par dana tako ne bi imalo efekta.The comparison is perfect some Montenegrins consider themselves Serbs,some consider themselves as Montenegrins and some consider themselves as Montenegrins as a subgroup of Serb people.How come you don't understand?Also very rude to threaten someone with blocking,it won't work.

24.135.66.10 (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is obviosly with strong Croatian Nationalism influence, which denies existing of Bunjevci identity, so I added the fact that only some of them declare themselves like croats, not everyone like Croatian Ultra-Nationalist writes.

Actually reading it helps, for the start:

Bunjevci who remained in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as those in modern Croatia, today [...] declare themselves as Croats.

Do you really dispute that? No such user (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbians put nationalistic pressure on Bunjevci to declare themselves as a separate entity from Croats. They are Croats and I am sure any cultural anthropologist would agree. Just like in Croatia, Serbs are often under pressure to deny their culture and identify as "Yugolavs", but the vast majority of them that identify themselves that way are Serbs. Both sides are equally as guilty of trying to diminish the other in this respect. 184.149.5.3 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing about Bunjevci is they weren't people of another ethnicity. They were named Bunjevci by Serbians from Vojvodina, just like Croatians and Bosnians called orthodox people Vlachs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.106.198 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bunjevci are Croats. Vlachs are Vlachs. They were brainwashed by Serbian ortodox church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.241.58 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bunjevci are originally Vlachs from Herzegovina. They were not Croats, nor Vlachs are Serbs. The ethnicity is a complex problem in the Balkan.--Crovata (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bunjevci are catholic Serbians

Please take a look at Austro-HUngarian census and map made in 1910. by Count Teleki https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Ethnographic_map_of_hungary_1910_by_teleki_carte_rouge.jpg They are strictly identified as Serb Catholics

Pixius (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of claims made on this page with no sources. Truthdelivery (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bunjevci. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917063438/http://www.bunjevci.com/ to http://www.bunjevci.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)