File talk:Austria Hungary ethnic.svg

I think that this map of the ethnic groups in 1910 is slightly superficial in the area where it depicts Croats, Serbs... Since Croats and Serbs are two separate ethnic groups i can't see any reason why should they be printed in the same colour on a map, since no other nation isn't.

Please can someone correct that oversight,

Thank you in advance!

Tecnically speaking, outside former Yugoslavia many scholars put the Serbs and Croats on the same South-Slavic/Yugoslav ethnicity, since both peoples speak the same language and the only relevant difference between them is the religious affiliations of their clans.

And by the time the ethnic map of Austria-Hungary was made, the Austrian and Western researches also considered Serbs, Croats (and Muslim Bosnians) people of the same ethnicity.--187.37.63.200 (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st.- In connection of serbian and croatian language it is not true that it is one tongue, and never was. Neither the stipulation that only relevant difference is religion affiliation is not true. There are (and long time ago was) also catholic Serbians, otrhodox or greek-catholic Croatians, and also muslim Croatians. In today Bosnia it is clear that croatian, serbian and bosnian are not one language nor in situation, when share common characters (latinica). In contemporary maps, as for Hungary statistics 1880-1910 Croatian and Serb was distinguished, so I could not take legitimity of its mixture based on sources.

2nd. - In this map all slovak areas in contemporary Hungary within Trianon borders are passed as "german" (Pilis, Bakony, south of Komarom-Estergom county and also south Nograd, Pest county and other) or are erased totally ( central Nograd, Heves, Bekes county, Nyiregyhaza and vicinity, Bukk area, Huta´s area) - in other maps of ethnic composition of Hungary this areas are noted as inhabited by Slovak community (in 1910 somewhat about half of milion people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.135 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for 1st.: You are absolutelly wrong about Croats and Serbs (i.e. Serbo-Croats, like they were called in Austro-Hungary). You and your totally DEFEATED cro-nationalistic propaganda can say any nonsense you want, but it is all worthless. The facts are that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians speak ONE and SAME language, which is called SERBO-CROATIAN, or lately known as BOSNIAN/CROATIAN/SERBIAN. Because of this fact and the widely accepted concept that peoples who speak SAME language logically belong to SAME NATION - everywhere in the world except in your isolated minds, is acepted the second fact - that Bosnians, Serbs and Croatians are also SAME people. So, please don't contaminate this popular pages of wikipedia with your miserable and dying propaganda, because it was, it is and it will forever be a senseless garbage. Lately wikipedia was cleaned form intoxicators like you, and it will stay that way. Your propaganda and all the last remaints of it will be out of every serious educator's system soon untill it's completely dead. Regards to the creators of this map and article. 207.216.132.157 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "Germans" in Austria are identified by language, not by the Austrian ethnic-nationality differing from that of Prussia or "Germany" and Bavaria at the time. About 24 other ethnic minorities were known to reside in the Austro-Hungarian empire in which was due to fail and disband after the first World War (1914). + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a minor problem with ethnic groups in Tyrol. The Ladin speaking areas were simply marked as an Italian speaking ones. Understandingly, as the Ladin language group is quite small, too small to mark it seperately in the map. I suggest you hachure the area in some way. Because of the complex history of the region it's just not okay when those areas are exclusively depicted as Italian ones. It's just a minor problem but the whole map could lead up to misunderstandings in correlation to the articles. Thank you! 80.180.27.221 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

id like to see a new version of the map[edit]

id like to see a version that shows present day national boundaries on this map. im not sugesting to change any ethnic groups or anything .i just want to see how each of the ethnic groups would fit in with present day boundaries for instance if the boundary of italy and austria were shown id know if italiens lived in what is now austria. 76.244.155.36 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

Is not the question of origin, simply sharing the same origin doesn't postulate that the groups must be of the same ethnicity. Hence, it is important to differentiate between ethnic origin and ethnic identity. In theory, when speaking of ethnicity one relates to the sense of common identity and feeling of unity among different populations. In this regard, Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, for example, cannot be forcibly lumped into the same ethnic group because "outsiders" perceive their origins as the same, when in fact their identities sharply differ. Thus they are different ethnic groups, and "genetics" are not a relevant factor when speaking of ethnicity. Not even the fact that they, virtually, speak the same language is of any relevance, since they attach fundamentally different identities and names to the language(s). For these reasons, the map is factually inaccurate and is based on the categorization of William R. Shepherd in 1911. While this might have been his, arbitrary, understanding of the region it was certainly not the situation on the ground. By the mid 19th century, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), Serbs, and Croats had definitely evolved into separate nations with their own political agendas, traditions, identities, and ambitions, and more often than not, rivaling as such. The map should be modified to better reflect the reality as in this Hungarian language map:[1]. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, it is quite disgraceful to see that someone who would in the 21st century go through the trouble of adapting the map by Shepherd from 1911 would still stoop to the substandard categorization carried out then. One was somewhere hoping that ethnographic efforts would have objectified in a century. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How dare this historical map be altered to make it contemporarily politically correct. By the way, just because the same colour was used for Croats and Serbs this is no implication for sameness of ethnicity, language or other. The geographic distribution, being somewhat interspersed at the time, was accordingly simplified. There is clearly a comma between listing Croats, Serbs. As for the insertion of 'Bosniaks' has the author no shame? Even with the later inception of Yugoslavia the constitution had no mention of a 'Bosniak nation.' Only in 1971 was there a census option for 'muslim by nationality' (but still no mention of 'Bosniaks'). Regardless of these points, the fact of the matter is that re-labelling data is historical fraud and it needs to be restored to the original source post-haste. PametUGlavu (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, PametUGlavu maybe you need to be reminded that Austia-Hungarian government took ethnicity in Balkans and Bosnia in particular very seriously and with great sensibility, and it's not true that this map corresponds to the geopolitical reality of the era ! Another false claim is that Bosniaks didn't existed before 90's ! Your assertion correspond with ethno-nationalistic claims and propaganda used by Milosevic's and Tudjman's regimes, in effort to justify and "explain" war in Bosnia, as well as genocide and ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks them self - I hoped that Wikipedia finally moved beyond these chauvinistic outpour of false claims and hate coming from users drowned in their nationalistic vision of history. Actually, for 40 years Austria-Hungarians (and especial guy called Benyamin Kállay if the name means anything to you !?) more less successfully empowered Bosniak identity and to some degree Bosnian identity (Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina).

All this means - if we want to show ethnicity within Austria-Hungarian Empire, well then, where is a better place to look then at maps made by Austria-Hungarians themselves, or we can also take maps from many western libraries and conclude that William R. Shepherd's 1911 atlas isn't the only one. Actually, it is the only one which shows Balkan ethnicities in such a superficial way ! (Links provided below)--Santasa99 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map doesn't correspond to ethnic reality among South Slavs ![edit]

There is at least dozen sets of maps form the era, and about the era, made by contemporaries, but more importantly by Austria-Hungarians themselves. W. Shepherd wasn't the only one, ! Besides, explanations like "Tecnically speaking, outside former Yugoslavia many scholars put the Serbs and Croats on the same South-Slavic/Yugoslav ethnicity, since both peoples speak the same language and the only relevant difference between them is the religious affiliations of their clans.", should be considered not as substantial, rather as completely inaccurate, but also insulting ! Actually, Austia-Hungarian authorities did exactly opposite - for 40 years they more less successfully empowered Bosniak identity and to some degree Bosnian identity, while with less success they tried to suppress insurgence of Croatian and Serbian assimilating influences over the Bosnian catholics (Croats) and Bosnian Orthodox (Serb) overflowing the Bosnian border, if nothing else then to prevent insurgence of two new nationalistic ideologies to endanger their rule in the country. That's how Austria-Hungarian authorities view ethnic situation.

On the other hand, western scholars of the era also perceived region with much more sensibility then William R. Shepherd in his atlas in 1911 !

This map should be revised, and if no one want to do the job maybe I will, and if no objections are raised by any of the editors within few days I will upload new map.

I must add few more words. All this debate on what is the ethnicity, what is the nationality, which language we speak, and what language should or should not define in our identity is absurd and unnecessary - MAP is wrong, and there are many more much accurate maps out there then this one made by Shepherd - that's all we need to know !--Santasa99 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have my strong support. We wouldn't use the word "negro" today just because it was used frequently in the 19th century, same goes for the skewed ethnographic representations of 19th century Europe. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ user Felisopus[edit]

I'll also post the change description here since it didn't fit into the summary: It doesn't matter what the original legend says since this is an adaptation; Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) have never identified as Serbs or Croats. The ethnographic map by William R. Sheperd reflects - in similarity with most ethnographic efforts of the time - the nationalist influences of the time; as such Serb and Croat nationalism was more influential than the Bosniak one (despite Austro-Hungarian endorsement). The bottom-line is, if we had a 19th century map where it says "negro" would we still use that terminology in a 21st century text book handed out to students? If anything such a map would be used as an example of the bigotry of that time and not as factual education. User Santasa99 has left a competent comment on this at the talk page. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 03:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]