File talk:Serbo croatian languages2006.png

Municipal borders

Posted by User:Ceha on English Wikipedia: "Panonian, your map [6] is wrong! You used wrong municipality borders in case of Žepče and Vitez divided Mostar (if rule is that map shows majority of speakers by municipality, than this can not be an exception), and Brčko(which is doble wrong, because even postdayton war line is incorrect, arguing that logic Croatian would be spoken in that small packet near Orašje). Please return the map to this version [7] (you can change status of Brčko District if you have the data which language is spoken by majority there. You can not use incorect informations (Žepče and Vitez municipal borders), and divide municipalities (in that case you should have shown the map on settlment level, which would be very different with more small enclaves)."

Answer: Ok, there are several issues here:

• 1. Regarding borders of Žepče and Mostar municipalities, I used as a source an map named "SFRYugoslaviaetno" created by Varjačić Vladimir where these municipal borders were presented in this way. I now compared that with some other maps of BIH municipalities and in some of them borders are similar while in some other they are different. Since I am not sure to which source to trust, do you have link to some official source so that we can see how borders of these municipalities are presented there? PANONIAN (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2. Regarding Mostar and Brčko, I am aware of the fact that Mostar was officially united into one single municipality in 2004 and that Brčko was also officially united into one single administrative unit, but both these areas are somewhat special and they are still administratively divided in some ways. It is not possible to create an settlement-based linguistic map of this subject because linguistic data related to settlements was not published for 2002. census in Serbia while in BIH there was no even a census that could provide such linguistic data. So, municipality based data is the only one that we can use, but I made 3 exceptions from this. Besides Mostar and Brčko, I also made an exception regarding Kosovska Mitrovica since all 3 cities (or their municipal areas) are de facto divided and we would have more accurate map if we present such division, which is also presented in sources that I used and quoted. Map does not have intention to present administrative borders of municipalities but areas where these languages are spoken and these 3 exceptions are not my personal inventions but common knowledge from various sources about linguistic division of these 3 cities. So, this kind of linguistic presentation is accurate and there is no reason for changes in the map related to these 3 municipalities. Of course, if you think that different way of presentation of linguistic situation in these 3 municipalities is better (which does not mean more accurate as well), you can draw your own map related to this subject where Mostar, Brčko or Kosovska Mitrovica will not be presented as divided cities. PANONIAN (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• 3. Speaking about "small pocket near Orašje", map that I used as a source show Serb majority in that area. Do you imply that this source is wrong? PANONIAN (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

At this time I'm rather bussy, so I do not have enough time to be often on wiki, but;

• 1. Borders of Žepče municipality were changed and here [1] you've got correct borders. Varijačić map is incorret regarding Žepče's borders. There is no (to my knowledge) new official map of municipality, but in sourcing of that map is dissiscion which speaks which villages changed municipality, and they are clearly shown on map. Varijačić map shows 1991 borders of Žepče. Issue of Mostar is different since it is one municipality (more on that on 2. point).
• 2. Mostar and Brčko are one municipalities. If map shows municipal borders than it is of no use to show submunicipal borders on few municipalities (no matter of theirs status, Brčko is de facto 3.entity, and Mostar just has different election system than all other municipalities). Also Brčko and Mostar are not comparable with Mitrovica, for reasons that in them exist unified town gowerment which is not case with Mitrovica. That is also the main reason why they should be shown in one part. They are fully funcional municipalities.
• 3. In western part of Brčko Croatians are majority (ex-Federation and ex-RS part). Do you have some source claiming otherways? Northermost part of Brčko (prewar Serbian village) was held by HVO during the war.
• 4. You've got an error in Vitez municipality (I'think that you colored town in it the wrong color). See [2] or Varijačić for municipal borders.

194.152.217.129 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem in correction of some municipal borders, but there is problem with a question how Mostar and Brčko should be presented. I simply used same solution that was implemented in some other maps in Wikimedia Commons (for example this one or this one). Why you did not objected against accuracy of these maps on their talk pages? As, I already said, linguistic map does not have to respect administrative divisions, especially in the case when linguistic and administrative borders are not same. However, if we implement your principle to fully respect administrative borders, then Mostar would be presented as mainly Croatian linguistic area, but Brčko would be presented as mainly Serb, not as some kind of linguistic mix as was your first intent in your map changes. Basic idea of this map is to show main language in each area, no matter are speakers of that language in absolute or in relative majority. I will see to upload new map version in few days. PANONIAN (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see no problem in showing district Brčko as an arrea with majority of Serbian speakers. As for this map [3] or [4] those are old maps regarding past tense in which those municipalities were still begining to function as one unit(s). If you wish, I would gladly support you in discussion of municipal borders on theirs discussion pages. Principle with full respect administrative borders should be kept (don't forget to fix Žepče and Vitez borders). Cheers. Čeha (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

This map should be renamed into "Central South Slavic diasystem languages", or quadrisystem.
It's more fair than "Serbo-Croatian" and encompasses all languages, not just the two languages: Croatian and Serbian.
From Croatian side, the term was proposed by Dalibor Brozović and accepted, from Croatian side, e.g. by Radoslav Katičić, Josip Lisac and some others; from Bosniak side, e.g., by Dževad Jahić.
This term also faced opposition among eminent Croatian linguists. However, many agree that this term is more correct than politically compromised (and incomplete, since it doesn't include Montenegrin and Serbian languages) "Serbo-Croatian". Kubura (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What ever. I really do not care which name this file would use, but I fail to see that current name is wrong. Term "Serbo-Croatian" or "Serbo-Croatians" used for language and a people who speak it is in use since 19th century, and in case of this map, it only represent scientific and ethnographic view, not political view about separate ethnicities. If we follow pure science without any politics included, it would be most correct that we say that only scientific differences between modern Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are religion and politics. Ethnicity and language are same. PANONIAN (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Krešo Ćosić was a Mormone, but he still said "I'm a Croat.". Croats are mostly Roman Catholic, but there're minorities of Croats that are Greek Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish, Orthodox Christians, atheists, agnostics (president Josipović).

The term of "Serbo-Croatian" never existed before the political decision from 3. quarter of 19th century.

"...it would be most correct that we say that only scientific differences between modern Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are religion and politics. Ethnicity and language are same." PANONIAN, I don't understand you here. Where did you get the idea about "same ethnicity"? What do you want to say? That you're a Croat? Come on. Please. I'm not the same ethnicity as Serbs. Neither the millions of Croats that declare as Croats.

"same language". So why the Serbs don't speak the same language as Croats? Why were the Croats forced to use another language in JNA, if these are "the same language"? Ćebe, gas, pešadija, pešadinac, ašov, pasulj, vazduhoplovstvo, odbrana... are not Croatian language. Kubura (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic name or religion are not something that make an ethnographic difference. Ethnographycally, Serbs and Croats are same, no matter which name they use for themselves and in which church they go. I really do not understand your problem here - nobody deny your right that you should declare yourself as Croat, call your language Croatian, go to Catholic church or live in independent Croatia. But please, you do not try to deny that we can understand one another when we speak (and only lack of such understanding would be a proof that people speak different languages) or to deny that we have same surnames, same mentality, same folklore, same national culture, etc. You are obviously not able to heal yourself from war trauma and you probably think that we still live in 1991 and that evil Serb nationalists will invade Croatia aiming to create Greater Serbia. Sorry, to destroy your beliefs, but most Serbs do not want to be involved in any new war and most Serbs are not even having wish to invade Kosovo, not to mention Croatia. You should really try to be more friendly and to put that xenophobic attitude away. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The notion of "Central South Slavic diasystem" is a linguistic fabrication put forth by certain Croatian linguists (and other Croatian linguists openly disagree with them). It's an obscure term not having any support in the field of Slavic Studies, coined unilaterally simply as a politically more "correct" alternative to Serbo-Croatian. In English language there is no controversy as to the actual usage of this term, so there should be no renaming. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's so because I say so." Typical Štambuk's attitude. "obscure term" "other Croatian linguists openly disagree" "not any support". Typical for Štambuk. Some Croatian linguists support the term CSSD, some Croatian linguists are again any idea about the diasystem, since all Slavic languages can be grouped, depending on criteria, in various diasystems. Some support the term CSSD as better solution than politically compromised "Serbo-Croatian". CSSD recognises separate languages (4 languages in diasystem), while the term "Serbo-Croatian" obliterates the existence of those languages (violently merges all those languages, recognizing solely 1, phantomic Serbo-Croatian) and imposes the name of Croats and Serbs to Bosniaks and Montenegrins. Štambuk, go public, write for the scientific magazines. Feel the real world and the challenges of the true scientific community. Kubura (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not had intention of "imposing name of Croats and Serbs to Bosniaks and Montenegrins". In former Yugoslavia term Serbo-Croatian was used as a name of the language that was also spoken by Bosniaks and Montenegrins and is still used as a most common name for common language in scientific community. That is all. If some Bosniak or Montenegrin say that he consider this file name insulting then I would not have problem that it is renamed into something else. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Colors, etc

Regarding map version uploaded by user:Kwamikagami, I really do not see any reasonable reason for color changes in this map. It is matter of subjective personal approach and it is very bad idea that every user should upload new map version because he thinks that some other colors are better - today user:Kwamikagami thinks that his choice of colors is better, tomorrow someone else will think that some other colors are better, etc. That is simply not an valid reason for map changes. Speaking about some contextual changes made by user:Kwamikagami, "Federation of BiH" is certainly more accurate description than simply "Bosnia", while Montenegrin census clearly has a distinction between "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" (please check online source on map's page which contains results of Montenegrin census). PANONIAN (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the colors are subjectively better, but that they are objectively so. (1) Blue is the color of all of Serbo-Croat in the accompanying map. Using the same color for Croatian and Serbo-Croatian is undesirable; maps in a series should use colors for the same things. (2) Bosnian and Bosniak are not two different varieties of SC, no matter what the Montenegrin census says. Kwamikagami (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So what if blue color is used in another map? Choice of colors in one map is not related to choice of colors in another one, and each map has a legend which describe meaning of each color, so I do not see why there would be a problem that blue color is used in both maps. No matter how it look to you, these two maps are not part of a series and are not meant to be part of a series. Each of them is created as a representation of a specific subject and no matter that their subjects are similar, these maps are not and are not meant to be related one to another. So, please, try to approach to this map as to an unique file and try to judge its accuracy and aesthetics in that light. I still do not see any objective reason for any color change. As for Bosnian and Bosniak, this map is a reflection of official census results (wherever such results were available) and therefore results of Montenegrin census are more valuable than your personal opinion. If you want, you can draw your own map about this subject and you can upload your map as a new separate file, but not over this one, since you did not presented a single evidence that current accuracy or aesthetics in this map are wrong or bad. PANONIAN (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And just one more thing related to Bosniak/Bosnian question: perhaps you did not researched very well linguistic situation in former Yugoslavia, but there are 6 (not 4) ethno-political ways in which speakers of Serbo-Croatian declare their language in census: Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, Bosniak and Bunjevac. Of those, only Bunjevac is not spoken by the majority of people in some of municipalities, but Bosniak (bošnjački) is a legitimate term of linguistic expression recognized by at least two states - Serbia and Montenegro (not sure for Croatia and Bosnia). Therefore if majority of people in one Montenegrin municipality declared that their language is Bosniak and if Montenegrin state recognized that, who gave you right to deny their right to linguistic self-determination? Perhaps in the next census they will declare another language (Bosnian or Montenegrin), but in the last census they declared Bosniak and every other way of presentation of current linguistic situation in that municipality would be a forgery. PANONIAN (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I just checked Montenegrin 2003 census results again, according to which, there are more speakers of Bosniak (19.906) than Bosnian (14.172) in Montenegro. In similar way, in 2002 census in Vojvodina there was more Muslims by nationality (3.634) than Bosniaks (417). These things are much more complicated than you can read about them in simplistic articles in some western media. I suggest that you conduct some better research about census results and linguistic and ethnic self-determination in former Yugoslavia. PANONIAN (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke. This is supposed to be SC "languages". Bosnian and Bosniak are not separate "languages" in anyone's definition, they're different names for the same thing. We can solve the problem by using in-house Wikipedia images, where we can control for the nonsense.

Also, it may well underrepresent Bosnian: by counting the two names as a single language, Bosnian may have a plurality in municipalities currently assigned to Serbian. Likewise if Bunjevac were counted with Croatian: currently they're simply disregarded. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bosnian, Bosniak, Serbian, Croatian, etc are not separate languages but names used for Serbo-Croatian language and I fail to see how usage of term "Bosniak" is different from usage of other terms. If you have problem with that you can go to Montenegrin and Serbian statistical agencies to tell them your opinion and if you convince them to change census results then we should change them in this map as well. I worked for Serbian statistical agency during 2002 census and I can tell you how census results are presented: if census results listed some language or ethnicity then it is official recognition from a Statistical agency that such language or ethnicity are existing. There were some cases in which Statistical agency had a stance that some different ways of self-determination should be presented as a single language or ethnicity (the most notable example would be Roma language and Roma ethnicity in which case the Statistical agency listed as "Roma" or "Romany speakers" not only those who declared themselves as "Roma" or "Romany speakers", but also those who declared themselves as "Gypsy" or "Gypsy language speakers"). I told you already: you do not understand well self-determination issue in former Yugoslavia and you do not understand how statistical agencies are working. If statistical agency listed something as separate language then it is officially considered to be an separate language by that agency and "Bosniak" is clearly listed as such. Also, Bosnian and Bosniak or Croatian and Bunjevac counted together would not change demographic presentation in any municipality as far as I know - there are simply too many speakers of Serbian in such municipalities. The only questionable municipality here is a single Montenegrin municipality where majority of speakers declared "Bosniak" and we cannot represent this in another way simply because we have to respect those people and the way in which they described their language. Every other way of presentation would be a clear forgery and a clear insult for inhabitants of that municipality because we would send them a message that they are too stupid to know what language they speak. PANONIAN (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite your "outrage", thank you for answering the question. I was concerned about undercounting. Kwamikagami (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, such undercounting is not possible since in all Serbian-speaking municipalities in Sandžak speakers of Serbian are in absolute majority (more than 50%) and therefore all other languages counted together could not reach 50%, while in Subotica speakers of Serbian and Hungarian would together include some 85% of population, meaning that speakers of all other languages counted together would not reach more than 15%. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)