This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is an archive of Talk:Slavic peoples: July 2006 - Oct 2009.
The article enumerates all petty nations in Yugoslavia, four of which share the same language and three of which are a result of political bargaining rather than of historical development (nobody mentioned them before 1945), but forgets the Western Slavic Polabians and Pomorians. The latter of the two are almost fully extinct, but the Polabians are still there and speak their language and have their culture, newspapers, legal rights, etc., in Eastern Germany (former DDR). And, again Yugoslavia, aaarghhhh, there are Bunjevci, and Sokci, and Hercegovci, and Jugosloveni, and Gorani, and Muslimani, and Bosanci, and Bosnjaci, an endless number of entities, cantons and republics! A plenty of material for an eternal quarrelling! This is the result when nationality becomes a primary political issue. However, there is not a word about the Kaszubians and Slovinci, who at least should be mentioned as the last surviving groups speaking dialects of the Pomorian language. Somebody hasn't learnt their lessons. 85.11.148.60 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, every village its own military, that's how it goes. And god forbid if they don't mention us! But based on this wiki-debate site not only the South Slavs are so passionate at quarrelling, there is hardly any science or at least encyclopedic debate present on this site! Come on guys get a grip, life is not all that serious, and so is not ethnicity! No wonder the "Westerners" don't take us seriously at all and Germans make no distinction between Slavs and Gypsies! ; ) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.210.165 ( talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when are Slavs some massive ethnic group?
Italic textBold textISLAM AND SLAVDOM There is a lack of emphasis on importance of islam for slavs, big populations of muslims slavs bosniaks , gorani also pomaks etc
Actually Europeans are the most similar people of all (ie compared to asians and black). This is because 80% of Euro's make up comes from the original (paleolithic, or pre-indo-european) hunter gatherers that inhabited europe before 'migrations'. The rest comes from the IEs plus a few asiatic influences
Hxseek 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have putted new map of language distribution,it is more has more precise part "South Slavic" languages, because Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin (4 languages in 1945 - 1991 period called Serbo-Croat language) are not determined by borders.. We have Serbian in northern and eastern parts of Bosnia, Bosnian in southern parts of Serbia and Kosovo, even Slovak language in small parts of Serbia, Croatian in southern parts of Bosnia etc. --
Nedimm 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the language map belongs on the Slavic languages page, and we have a map of geographic distribution of "Slavs" in this article. Also, a key distinction about ethnic groups is unity, and the one thing all eastern europeans are unified about is their hatred of one another, so I agree with anon that the infobox should stay out.-- tufkaa 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe and hope that Wikipedia isn't dominated by the Russian secret service and isn't trying to promote that Most of Europe is actually Russian as they apparently speak Slavic. Case in point... Bosniaks are genetically less Asian than Germans/Austrians... Just because Yugo SLAVIA dominated Bosniaks for a short while and forced the Slavic languages on them... doesn't make them Slavic. Also the map doesn't take into account that Kosovo seperated and they don't even speak Slavic language. Also many Bosniaks speak German, Italian and Turkish too, does that make them Turkish, Roman and Austrian and Slav? Surely Language isn't enough for the Russian conquest of Europe.. 77.78.196.142 ( talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hy, i have put this paragraph on the wiki page:
Since September 16, 2008 there is a new hypothesis on the origin of the term Slav. The author's argument is that the word "Slav" comes from the word "Splav" (raft) or simply the word "plav" (blue). (The complete hypothesis can be seen at http://www.hlada.com)
but it seems that it keeps getting taken down. Can someone tell me why? Is it because of the link in the end? Writ to me at: info@hlada.com Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlada ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Slavic people call themselves Słowianie, Slovani - note that there the first vowel is "o", not an "a" as in Greek and Latin. The name is pronounced Slavjanie only in those languanges where the not-stressed o is pronounced as a, like in Russian. The core is still slovanie.
Look at the origin from the Slavic people point of view. This name has much more in common with slovo - the word than with slava - the glory. The slovanie would mean people of the words, people that can speak, express themselves in contrary to the neighbours (speaking foreign languages) who don't speak any comprehesible language of slavic family hence are mute, not able to speak. Note, that for the Slavic people coming from the east the first people they've met that spoke totally different and uncomprehesible language were Germans. Note also that in all slavic languages, german language (and often Germany itself) is called: niemiecki, nemčina, Немецкий -niemieckyi = mute (Germany - Niemcy, Nemecko = Mute People).
Even today, the german language sounds in the Slav's ears like the murmuring and tongue-chewing rather with the words hardly distinguishable while within the slavic family people can still communicate (more or less efficiently).
The hypothesis that the term Slav origins from the words slava - glory has not such a strong support after closer studies. Merewyn 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And I agree with the User who wrote "Slovan" part of this talk page: "other explanations in section 'Origin of the term Slav' seem ridiculous or misguiding... (Why do you think that we would name us Slovans with ethymological roots in Greek or Latin languages, that are completelly (linguistically) foreign?)" Merewyn 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
However most linguists and historians believe that Slowianie does not mean "people of the word". I was surprised that no serious historian I know about backs this theory, and usually they are calling it "folk ethymology" (Earlier recordings of the name are consequently using "k" between S and L, to sklobenoi, sklovene etc Szopen 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless you provide other examples of the same usage of 'kl' (preferrably with references), I am inclined to believe that this is your brilliant theory created on the spot right here. Mukadderat 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you quite sure that "slovo" means "the word"? Doesn't it acctually mean "the letter"?
"Slovo" means letter, yes. -- 70.119.155.196 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Slovo" actually means the word, whilst "písmeno" (slovak, czech) means the letter.
Just because somebody speaks Turkish and German, that person isn't going to be called Turk/German, so the term Slavic needs to have genetic heritage added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.197.74 ( talk) 11:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To anybody else apart from JdeJ: Speaking Slavic cannot by definition make you a Slav under any circumstances, you may be a German born in Ukraine, and that makes you a German, not a Slav.
I've marely removed unsourced content, and there is more. Like where it says that Muslims alone are Slavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.197.74 ( talk) 11:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Lies and warped logic is not in Wikipedia's interest: for example the slogan "Kosovo is Serbia" is a good example of Lies and warped logic as even Serb historians admit that Kosovo was rulled by Serbs for 250 years only via force.
Frankly I've never read any account which identified Vandals with Venedes; what's more, the fact that Venedes as Slavs is quite undisputed amongst Polish historians. They usually point that ancient writers did not use word "German" as ethnic, but rather as cultural desisgnation (e.g. one of author, can't remember his name - Tacitus - wrote something like he don't know whether call Venedes Germans or Sarmatians, because they move on foot like Germans, but have other cultural traits as Sarmatians...) Szopen 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nazi Germany, whose proponents claimed a racial superiority for the Germanic people, particularly over Semitic and Slavic peoples, plotted an enslavement of the Slavic peoples, and the reduction of their numbers by killing the majority of the population. As a result, a large number of people considered by the Nazis to have Slavic origins were slain during World War II."
Citation?
Give me a break with this crap. While its true there was anti-Slav propaganda in National Socialist Germany, there was no plan for the mass enslavement of the "Slavic peoples", which I suppose to include the Poles and the Croats, among others. The National Socialists organized the Croats to fight the Serbs; they tried, very hard, to create an ethnically Polish occupation government in Poland during the war, though it didn't work and was blocked by several elements (it was in furtherance of this that the Germans brought world attention to the Katyn Forest massacre of Poles by the Soviets). As to "killing the majority of the population", the only "civilians" systematically killed by the German during the war were the "civilian" soviet commissars, most of whom were Jewish, and most of whom committed crimes against humanity.
The statement has been deleted until someone can write something Non-POV.
-- Bill White (neo-Nazi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
Who supports this theory that the Slavs have always roamed Galacia, Silesia, etc. since the dinosaurs? No seriously. If this is actually true, then there would be no common bond of any sort amongst "Slavs". I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I do know that someone came from the direction of Russia and was headed westward around 500 and then there was another wave around 700. How can Slavs already be somewhere that Slavs haven't migrated to yet? Baffled. -- 155.247.166.29 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Somewhere I read about Slavic Runes - or Vlesovitsa - somewhere. Is there anything known about them except that they possibly were (I know they are noted in one or two cases - by a German monk, for example)? I did a Google search - and found nothing more than sites mirroring Wikipedia and an article discussing old Slavic beliefs. The Wikipedia article does not provide so much information on the topic. Is there any new results in research? It is really in my interest. -- Cserlajos (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the last edits, it just reintroduce halftrue, false or fuzzy data. Nasz 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually there was falsification in XIX century, when some Polish pseudoarcheologists (badacz starozytnosci) presented something he claimed was Slavic runes. When it was proved to be falsification, no serious scientist in Poland would claim that Slavic runes existed. I was told by someone interested in the subject that he found plethora of archeological samples with different signs, which are outhand rejected because they are either considered ownership marks, falsification or something else - anything but runes. Szopen 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wander wether the Poles really Slavic? They seemed for me rather of Germanic or Baltic origin.-- Ghuter 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Czechs and Poles ARE both classes as western slavs, therefore similar. Southern slavs are NOT called czechs. Pleas do not make up things or let any personal feeling get into the way of facts
Although some sugggests that Czechs are more South Slavic than western Hxseek ( talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
|If you want to talk genetics, Poles are a nice example of the genetic differences between Slavs. A little more than half of the population is of the appearance of Northern Slavs, and are quite similar to Balts, Scandinavians (the whole blond hair/ "Nordic" look). The rest are of a more Mediterranean looking appearance, especially Gorales who have Italic roots, and are more similar to the Central European Czechs.
Latin sclavus cannot be borrowed from Turkish because it existed long before Turkish invasion.-- Planemo 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Which Turkish word should be the base for sclavus anyway?
In this section there's a part that, in my opinion, is not clear:
I have tried to correct it but I don't really know what it exactly wants to mean. Is it that this school "wants us to believe" that stuff? In that case, it would be an opinion, rather than a fact! I leave it to someone who knows more than me on this subject. Archael Tzaraath 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Somebody put Southern Slavic people like Czechs together with Lechs. Czechs belong with other Czechs. Not Lechs. Lechs are only Western Slavic people and they never included any of Czech people from south in Bulgaria up to north in Czechs, Slovakia and Southern Lusatia. What I do to notify this clear case of vandalism? Pan Piotr Glownia 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavic languages because all Slavic peoples used more or less the same Slavic language 1000 years ago and were already partitioned into these western, southern and eastern groups. We Slavic peoples call these ethnic partitions amongst us Slavic peoples for " Lechs" (ethnic Western Slavic peoples), " Czechs" (ethnic Southern Slavic peoples) and " Rusins" (ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples) for a good reason. Common sense tells one that if even Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Pan Piotr Glownia 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavs as it seems and Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples are not equal with South Slavs. Slavic languages 1000 years ago were still quite similiar to eachother and not like it is today. However even from earlier times Slavic peoples had these ethnic partitions amongst Slavic peoples. " Lechs" stand for Ethnic Western Slavic peoples, " Czechs" stand for Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples and " Rusins" stand for Ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples. This is major partition amongst Slavic peoples and it is not based on language, but on ethnicity. Even if Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Czechs during entire written history never were ethnic Lechs like Poles. Every historical source is certain on this issue. It is possible that this ethnic partition is even older then any possible differentiation of Proto-Slavic language. I direct you to " Lech, Czech and Rus", which is part of Slavic spoken history as well as historical and traditional ethnic partition on Lechs, Czechs and Rusins used amongst Slavic people by the Slavic peoples. Every dictionary and lecture commenting this ethnic partition will ensure that Czechs were always adressed as " Czechs" and not like Poles " Lechs". Czechs and Poles do belong to different ethnic groups otherwise one had to put Czechs and Poles together with Belarusians and Ukrainians into the same Western Slavic ethnicity, as the Lechs, the Czechs and the Rusins originate from the same ethnic origin, which probably used the same proto-Slavic language. All historical sources begining from XIII century ("Chronicle of Greater Poland" written in year 1295) prove it to be the general ethnic partition used by Slavic peoples in Europe. Pan Piotr Glownia 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
About ethnicity it is stated that
"Members of an ethnic group generally claim a strong cultural continuity over time, although some historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which various ethnic groups are based are of recent invention (Friedlander 1975, Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Sider 1993)."
Therefore I urge you to not be short sighted to the XXth and XXIst centuries. Make notice of:
- Kulturkampf, which for Poles is a rude remark, so please don't do it. I hope you make notes about this.
-Can you imagine Czechs wearing kontusz like Lechs, Cossacks and medieval Hungarians did? It means not only different culture of Polish peoples to Czech peoples, but also different civilization. I hope you make notes about this.
-I am relatively sure I can eventually get you some paper about West-East civilizational and cultural clash raging in modern Poland specially in relations cities vs. country side. So Poland civilizationally is also unlike Czechs. I hope you make notes about this.
-I am Lech and Lechs are Western Slavic ethnicity and I know Czechs always were of Southern Slavic ethnicity. Please take notice I write about ethnicity. Not modern XXI century culture or language. Somebody, who did not eat in McDonald yet? Hallo, anybody home over there!?! ;)
-Czechs are often brown haired and green eyed, when Lechs are often blond/au-burn haired and blue eyed! I hope you make notes about this.
-your papers on language are not in merit equal to my papers on ethnicity, even if mine were written already in XIII century, as they did describe ethnic status quo amongst Slavic peoples lasting for 800 years at least and which still to this very day is part of living culture and tradition at least amongst Lechs. I hope you make notes about this.
As I wrote earlier it is not modern ethnic partition amongst Slavic peoples, but traditional partition of Slavic ethnicities amongst Slavic peoples and yes, I know that Lech, Czech and Rus is also a legend. How do you think Slavic peoples pass traditions from generation to generation in the first place? Koran??? Hallo, anybody home over there!?! ;)
So imho this vital information should be included on Slavic peoples page and it is still missing. :(
regards, Pan Piotr Glownia 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the text below, and you will see what I mean. Please note that the offending text didn't seem to show up in the edit screen
Max Vasmer suggests that the word originated as a river name (compare the etymology of the Volcae), comparing it with such cognates as Latin cluo ("to wash"), a root not known to have been continued in Slavic, however, and appearing in meanings of "to clean, to scour" in Baltic, slavs are dumb middle eastern dirty sand niggers.
Whoever wrote that forgets that Slavs were the first people who put a man in space (Yuri Gagarin)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.54.100 ( talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this article is in a terrible condition, while and despite the fact that it is heavily edited 365 days a year, I am not going to engage in any edits or explaining here why such "theories" have no place in an encyclopaedia like this and why genetic studies are a problem in general. But the only thing any reader can require is at least that the author or whoever write the hypothesis in a way making sense. Thus, I have commented that part out until this has been done. Juro 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Similar --- ??what and similar to what?? --- semantic/fonetic analogy Scythian - scytne, szczytne (??so what??) . Scythian distinguish themselves by pointy hat which is known from early Polish sourcese as szczyt/scyt. Similar analogy to words Czech/Czesi is czesni (noble, truthful, humane) also known as cesny or titulary abreviated to cny/a and related to szlachetny/a/i. citation needed ---- where is your souce??? you have been editing here for days, so where is the source for this?????? and how is this related to the word Slovene? -----In any ethnogenesis scenario Slověne and Scythian share the same (few hundreds years apart) territory and R1a1 prove genaological inheritance . -- What has this to do with the word Slovene??
Juro 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not know whether you do not understand the above text or just do not want to understand: The question was not about finding any source you like about ethnogenesis, but to provide (correct) sources for exactly the text you write in the section on the name AND to FINALLY EXPLAIN WHAT THIS MEANS Similar --- ??what and similar to what?? --- semantic/fonetic analogy Scythian - scytne, szczytne (??so what??) . Scythian distinguish themselves by pointy hat which is known from early Polish sourcese as szczyt/scyt. Similar analogy to words Czech/Czesi is czesni (noble, truthful, humane) also known as cesny or titulary abreviated to cny/a and related to szlachetny/a/i. citation needed ---- where is your souce??? you have been editing here for days, so where is the source for this?????? and how is this related to the word Slovene? -----In any ethnogenesis scenario Slověne and Scythian share the same (few hundreds years apart) territory and R1a1 prove genaological inheritance . -- What has this to do with the word Slovene?? Juro 02:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And this sentence: +The not visible to some toponyms include : 49000 km² Slovakia. In Poland counting only 'inhabitated toponyms': "Slow* contains 25, 126 has "Slo*" is a claer evidence of vandalism on the part of user: Nasz. I would appreciate if an admin could intervene here. Juro 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(i deleted the redundant repetiton. ) You reverted it, ok:
Im trying to add references ... Could you be so nice and wait.
03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
ps:
You are obviously neither able to explain, not to undestand what you write, you are adding original "research" (although reaserch is a misnommer), nor are you able to understand the text you are quoting, you are lying about the texts you are quoting or deleting, you are trolling, you are not discussing etc. You are definitely not qualified for any edits whatsover in this article. So just stop and write about things you have an idea of. Juro 10:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the 5th time I am asking you to provide the source for this: Similar semantic/fonetic analogy Scythian - scytne, szczytne. Scythian distinguish themselves by pointy hat which is known from early Polish sourcese as szczyt/scyt. Similar analogy to words Czech/Czesi is czesni (noble, truthful, humane) also known as cesny or titulary abreviated to cny/a and related to szlachetny/a/i. and to explain in normal language, what this has to do with the word Slovene. Are you able to understand what you are requested to do, or not? Juro 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And I am adding another point to the above list: WHO EXCEPT YOU claims that the word Slovakia is the origin of the word Slavs? Provide sources. Juro 10:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is radiculos.
1)What do you claim as not true ?
2)To what word do you like me to give you a references?
I see the problem now, your English is terrible (this is not meant as an insult), therefore you do not understand. There is no such thing as "evident" in etymology and there is no such thing as original research in this wikipedia ( WP:NOR) or in any secodary literature (like encyclopaedias) in the world. You need a SOURCE for every word, for every conclusion you draw so that we can write: according to X (and not according to Nasz!) Slovene comes from XYZ. Secondly, believe me, the part you have written is LINGUISTICALLY incomprehensible, it is not clear what exactly you are trying to say - it is not clear, what is similar to what and what that is supposed to imply with respect to the word Slovene. Thirdly, what you have written concerning the name Slovakia with respect to Slovene is an absolutely inacceptable nonsense and your personal lie. Thirdly, the part on the Dravidian theory AS A WHOLE is word by word taken from the study, Palacky refers to religion - you have 2 links in the text or are you going to claim that you do not see them either? ...And as for your last comment: If you read carefully the theory says that the word is Dravidian, not Slavic, which is of course a "bypass" of the problem, that slava as a Slavic word is wrong. But that does not matter, I am not a proponent of anything, I have just quoted one theory (maybe it is totally wrong, but this is not the place to discuss this, this is the place for quotes). Juro 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Some editors have objection to truth in those sentences:
1) According to the standard reference ( [2]), the word Slověne "cannot be derived from the word slovo ...., because -ěninъ, -aninъ occur only with placenames ...., but a placename *Slovy ....is not documented".
2) This would refer to the ancient Slavic warriors. A proponent of this theory was e.g. Roman Jacobson (reconstructed IE root *kleu-').This theory is wrong, because the word slava occurs only later [3],
If yes , is it your conclusion about incorectnes of the etymologies ?
Thanks for quote, (aparently the search not work properly) I will tranlate 'word by word' this and you chek if the ranslation is corrct. OK?
in cleaned it will mean.
slověne can not be pictured from slověne word slovo as -enin -anin only are found only in words-related to toponyms, howewer toponyms for example/begining with *Slovy are no fonded.
Nasz 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not the proponent of anything, unlike you. Secondly, just read what the current version says,It contains the answers to all your questions, and it has even a translation if you would bother to read it instead of deleting things you do not understand (do you realize that you have deleted the source twice pretending it does not contain what I say, and now you admit that you do not understand Russian? - in other words your edits were lies). Thirdly, if you had at least a basic idea about the topic at hand, you would understand that this etymological dictionary by Vasmer and Trubachev is the most authoritative source on Slavic languages (except for a newer one which is not online, but equally by Trubachev), therefore actually it would be enough to translate it and the result would be the only correct and reliable part of this whole terrible Slavic peoples article. Any serious study on the word Slovene starts with a reference to exactly this dictionary (you can take the first external link as an example) and do not dare to doubt any such work if the only language you seem to understand is Polish...Nevertheless the text of this article mentions other marginal and probably wrong theories and I do not delete them...And once more: To be clear, you personal opinion is irrelevant and after what you have written NOT DESIRED for lack of basic competence in this field. Juro 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please answer my question. Which scholars or politicians use these medieval authors as evidence for the autochthonic theory? Aecis (copy by N: from main article)
Almost all of the South Slavs can be traced to ethnic Slavs who mixed with the local population of the Balkans (Illyrians, Thracians, Ancient Macedonians, Dacians and Getae) and with later invaders from the East (Bulgars, Avars, and Alans), then fell under the hegemony of the Ottoman Empire.
I wonder how this reference to Ancient Macedonians exists. According to the article the Slavic tributes arrived in the balkan peninsula at 6th century AD. At that time, inside the Byzantine Emperor, the Byzantine Macedonians do not consist a seperate group, but they were self-identified and counted as Greeks. They were also recognised as Greeks from the rest of Greek populations from the 4th century BC (1000 years earler). So, either it should be Byzantine Greeks, either nothing. (It's like saying that they mixed with the Athenians for e.g.) Besides, at 6th century AD it's Medieval time and not Ancient. Temporarily I delete the Ancient Macedonians and I'm waiting for further corrections. The same is applied for the Thracians.
That sounds ridiculous indeed. The Slav tribes never came into contact with the Macedonians in the balkans. Since they self identified as (Byzantine) Greeks for at least a millenium. Having said that, the Slavs can not have absorbed Macedonians and Greeks into their gene pool. It's either Greeks or nothing at all.(Sal)
Sentence about common identity sounds very strange, so I removed it. There is little sense of common identity-what do Poles feel common with Macedonians or Russians ? I know attempts were made in 19. century to create a common identity but they failed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Przes ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
The idea seems disputed. Some claim there is common identity, some oppose the idea. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/998/kurczaba.html "In The Next American Nation, Michael Lind says:11 'Suppose that the federal government created a category of citizens of eastern European descent called Slavics, and made them eligible for affirmative action benefits. Soon...many Americans of partial Polish, Russian, Czech, or Romanian descent would discover their common Slavic identity, and apply for favorable treatment in college admissions, minority set-asides, and so on.... Before long....there would be "Slavic Studies Departments" at major colleges and universities, where intellectuals would debate the exact elements of the "Slavic" culture common to Catholic Poles, Orthodox Russians, and Protestant Hungarians.' As it happens, the federal government has not created a new category called 'Slavics.' And if it had, I doubt whether Romanian Americans and Hungarian Americans, their ancestors having resisted Slavicization for centuries, would embrace the status of born-again 'Slavics,' government blessings notwithstanding. Nevertheless, Lind's comments put to focus a crucial dependence between official government and academic policies on the one hand, and enrollments on the other. In a bid perhaps to discourage the study of anything but Russian, the government poured much money into the study of Russian, while the American academy has made 'Slavic languages' into an almost racial category and, presto, we have Slavic departments. Lind's comment captures well the arbitrary nature of the Slavic construct in the American academy. If ever Catholic Poles, Orthodox Russians, and Protestant Hungarians sat together, the Poles and Hungarians would undoubtedly have much to discuss; but their discussions would not include the question of how to become more perfect Slavs." http://www.unc.edu/depts/slavdept/lajanda/slav075barber.ppt "many people classified as Slavs identify more strongly with nationalist identity than with a common Slavic identity."
www.mah.se/upload/IMER/Program/IPES/Summary%2520of%2520The%2520Meaning%2520of%2520Europe.doc "The location of Czech between East and West sometimes was interpreted as a position between Germans and Russians, which in consequence led to different opinions about Europe. Slavic identity was especially strong during the German occupation. However with the defeat of Germany and emerged domination of the Soviet Union, the Western elements became dominant and the Slavic one was forgotten."
http://www.search.com/reference/Slavic_Europe "when Polish people were asked in a poll to mark traits they associate with Russians, only 0,4 % marked "Slavs" as an answer" Utlip
You disregard several sources in favour of your own opinion ? I don't think saying "nationalist blahblah" is a serious responce. Utlip
If the sources are bad or good may be judged in different way by different people. There are here though. Your opinion needs a serious source to confirm such claim. If it is so as you say, a full written citation wouldn't be a problem that would confirm the sentence.-- Utilp 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I merely came across this article - I have no special store of scholarship in the area, and most definitely no desire to get bogged in what looks like an ethnic partisan swamp. However, the entire "homeland theories" section needs some major work, and is frankly an embarrassment in the revision I saw ( here).
On a brief inspection, it would appear that what may have once been a coherent section has been eroded by insertions from what I assume is one or more "anti-Allochthonic" editors with a very poor command of English. I have no idea if this theory is indeed now discredited, but even if so the existing unsourced, opinion-strewn text would certainly not be the way to communicate this. And while phrases such as "the book is still defended by Germans like holy bone" provide amusement, even in proper English the underlying sentiments would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I realize that some contributors may not have English as a first language, but there is still a responsibility that contributions meet some minimum standard, or to enlist another editor's help in writing. "He was activ politian verbant suporter of falen pangermanizm" approaches gibberish.
There are any number of other problems with the section. I'll mark it with cleanup and neutrality tags, and hope someone suitable can be found to undertake the work. Is it possible that there is an earlier version of this section in the revision history which could be restored? - David Oberst 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Becose you cited the pangerman created swamp it may be helpful if you try to incorporate these words: Slavic ethnogenesis by Mario Alinei, 3.6 History of ideas Nasz 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
PCT is uttermost fringe and not even on topic here. It will not get air time on this article, beyond perhaps a single short phrase, per WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OKAY... You'll excuse me, but how can you explain the fact that most of the peoples (if not all) who speak Slavic languages will understand somewhat of each other, if they're not all Slavs: Serbs-Croats-Slovenians-Macedonians-Russians-Poles-Slovakians-Czechs-Sorbs-Bulgarians-Biyelorussians-Ukrainians,etc.??? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.203.194.97 (
talk) 23:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to say this , but this article is pretty wrong. The first written occurences of words relating to the current "slavonic" are after the (i think roman) introduction of the word slave in europe. Just like the word "serbian" derives from spanish . However there is a light in that these people recognised this fact and got themselves a culture organised to withstand it, not uniquely they took the enemy's derogative for a compliment and after the dark european middle-ages , flourished as a language. The heartland theory is perhaps inaccurate in so far that eg. the "Serbians" at that time already were aware of their dedication in Hispanica.(trust tacitus). 77.251.188.67 ( talk) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just came to this page and browsed through the pictures until I stumbled upon this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavs.jpg When exactly was this painting made? Because Middle Ages is a very broad period of time... For me this painting looks like made during the Romanticism when pan-slavic and nationalistic ideas originated. ( Kazkaskazkasako 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Lack of emphasis of importance of islam in slav world, particularly in south slav society. Many large slavic muslim groups i.e Bosniaks, Pomaki, Gorani. Should be given more mention, as they represent the third biggest religion amongst slavic and other nationalities in slav countries (i.e Tartars, certain caucassians in russia).
Your first point is partially correct. It is worth mentioing that some slavs in the south did convert to islam from christianity during the Turkish conquest. However on the whole they are a small minority. An exception is the Bosniaks who represent a large portion of the people who live in Bosnia. Yet they are still a minority in the context of Slavdom as a whole.
But it does not need to be emphasised. Generally Slavs are identified as a christian, european peoples. Christianity is not only their religion, but it influences their entire culture, festivals, slavic saints and way of life in general. Islam has no part in the life of the the overwhelming majority of slavs. Anyway, the whole religion section is brief, and it does not discuss orthodoxy or catholicism much more. So what do you want ? For the sake of keeping the article succint, if one wants to learn about Islam then they may perhaps refer to an article about Turkish peoples or Arabians
Your second point is absurd. Why would an article about slavs talk about Tartars, Turks, Albanians ? THis article is about slavic people, not a country. Eg if this as about Russia, they yes it would certainly need to mention that many different ethnicities and religions exist.
Islams importance in Slav Word is no more then its importance in the Celtic or Germanic world, the slavs are overwhelmingly christian, there are more atheists among them then muslims.-- 84.94.29.123 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean fully muslim or partly muslim ? Its either you're muslim or not, those muslims slav converted 500 years ago either by force or to avoid taxing by the Ottoman Empire, the entire slavic culture is based on christianity and Islam is a foreign religion for them. And bosniaks barely make up 1 percent of the slavic population, islam in this article is just as worth mentioning as it would have been in the article about germanics or dacians or greeks.-- 84.94.194.195 06:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No they weren;t Hxseek ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
WARNING: there are two sections titled "Origins and Slavic homeland debate" which are an obvious fork, dangerously diverging. Please merge ASAP. `' Míkka 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Indo-European topics |
---|
The location of the speakers of pre-Proto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic is subject to considerable debate. Serious candidates are cultures on the territories of modern Poland, Belarus, European Russia and Ukraine. The proposed frameworks are:
From the 19th century onwards, the debate became politically charged, particularly in connection with the history of the Partitions of Poland, and German imperialism known as Drang nach Osten. Generally, both German and Slavic want to be 'autochthonic' on land at river Vistula.
Autochthonic theory (the Proto-Slavs are native to the area of modern Poland), before 5th century.
Allochthonic theory (the Slavs immigrated to the area of modern Poland) after 5th century.
The debate has been used as a tool of political propaganda and is often emotionally charged and interspersed with pseudoarchaeology and national mysticism.
Contemporary scholarship in general has moved away from the idea of monolithic nations and the Urheimat debates of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and its focus of interest is that of a process of ethnogenesis, regarding competing Urheimat scenarios as false dichotomies.
Mukadderat 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me for the criticism in the area I am far form being an expert, but each time I revisit this article (usually after longer times), I see its content seriously chenged without any footnotes added to justify the change. Isn't it agains the basic wikipedia policies? I understand that initially when wikipedia was less strict in its rules, many articles were written with few references. But you have to agree that it is reasonable to expect that new contributions must follow the current, reasonably well established rules. What is your opinion? Mukadderat 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I was just wiki-hopping from german to english sites and wondering: how much quarrels would I find on this discussion-site of "Slavic peoples". My impressions are: - both sites are lacking references - both sites are seeming to refer a research-level of a 100 years ago - both sites are obvious predestinated for unlimited struggles about that (impossible) "historical truth"
So, what I was trying to stutter is: It´s suprising, how seemingly people try to defend their private-enlightments without any self-criticism. I´am very reliefed about that, because my studies in early-slavic-ethnogenesis are more than unacceptable in modern-german-historicism and I am not alone with these thoughts...-- 139.30.24.119 ( talk) 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The Czech Republic, along with Estonia, has one of the most non-religious populations in the European Union. According to the 2001 census, 59% of the country is agnostic, atheist, non-believer, 26.8% Roman Catholic and 2.5% Protestant. - Gaston28 - August 5 2007.
Yes. i think the article refers to traditional religions of slavs, ie catholic or orthodox. Granted now most people in the western world are agnostic or atheist Hxseek 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Talking about Slavic peoples as a separate ethnic group from their neighbours is just nonsense. There's no such thing as Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples or anything of the kind. Europe was populated by a great number of different peoples before the arrival of Indo-European languages, most of these peoples are still unknown although some, such as Etruscans and Basques are known. These people weren't replaced by "Indo-European", they just adopted the languages. The peoples speaking Slavic languages in Southern Europe are much more closely related to their non-Slavic neighbours ( Greeks, Albanians, Romanians). A gigantic invasion of Slavs replacing the earlier peoples in the Balkans never took place, the vast majority switched language. This article itself makes that very explicit. Poles and Czechs have been intermingling with Germans for over 1000 years, Russians with different peoples speaking Finnic languages and Turkish languages. While the articles for various inhabitans of modern countries ( Russians, Poles, Serbs etc.) and Slavic languages are all very relevant, this article could as well be nominated for deletion. It's trying to prove something that doesn't exist. JdeJ 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
When you said "Slavic" Slovenes, you hit the nail on the head. Slovenes and Slovaks nationally, Slavonians of Croatian regionally, Slovincians of Poland lingusitically as well as other communal names are all derived from the Slavic endonym. It is true that people have mixed, but people have mixed everywhere, or have dissimilated adjacent populations who were related in the first place to make them one and the same. But this is not what composes an ethnic group, it is how people declare themselves. Now much of Western Europe which is Romance speaking is so as a result of its Latin speaking past; Germanic invasions did indeed bring an end to a unique identity, but it did not break the Romanic people into pieces, it just stretched them: linguistically, and culturally, there is a continuum however you look at it. This marvelous continuum across the North Germanic; West Germanic (minus England); West Romanic; East Romanic (Romania and Moldova); north, and south Slavic worlds means that you cannot possibly draw a line down any geographical territory and say, "these people are one ethnic group genetically", and "those are another". And you certainly cannot drive around Krakow, Brno, Lviv, Ljubljana, Sarajevo or Varna and say "that Croatian is not ethnically the same as the other Croatian because Ivan's eyes are green and Zvonimir's are brown". On principle, you have your key ethnic group, say Ukrainian for instance; those down the road may say that they are Slovaks indeed, but you cannot tell me that Ukrainian identity is genetically based upon the mixtures and interferences which affected Ukrainians only, no Belarussians, no Russians, no Poles, and with regards to the Ukrainian population, it stops once people become Slovak. Perhaps that is not what you were saying. However, ethnic groups do look to an ancestral past which encompasses the wider community. Now when members of that community speak a totally different language, such as in the FYROM with Albanian; it is difficult for us to embrace each other as a single race, though we all admit to having shared experiences (Ottoman subjugation, Communism, poverty, corruption etc), and we all acknowledge that we may be distantly related. But when those neighbours speak a language which is contiguous, it becomes more natural to see each other as one and the same (of course, one needs to forget about national pride before adopting a more moderate patriotism here), and it does happen. Now with Slavs, unlike Germanics and Romance speakers, the term "Slav" in some form has been with us for as long as we can remember. There have been times down the centuries when people from present-day Poland, Russia, former Yugoslavia etc. may have used half a dozen names to denote who they are nationally, and "Slav" has always been among them, and it is what we have always known to be the linking factor from us in Macedonia and Bulgaria, to those in the far north of the Russian Federation. What's more, many people are Slavists; there was a popular movement thoughout the 18th and 19th centuries to unite all Slavic people. In this time, there was a revival of Slavic folklore and pre-christian beliefs which surfaced. Today, there is no plan to nationally unite the Slavic peoples, but then looking at it another way: is there a need? When Pan-Slavism came into effect, I believe that most Slavic people were subjugated (living under non-Slavic empires or republics), today, the vast majority of Slavic people live in Slavic countries of some kind: there are the occasional communities trapped outside, such as the Lusatian Sorbs of Germany; some left their previous settlements to live elsewhere before that territory became independently Slavic (eg. Burgenland Croats and Slovenes; Banat Bulgarians living in Hungary or Romania), others are in the diaspora but atleast they still have their family in Slavic countries. And most national flags maintain the Slavic tricolor, so there is an afinity even if not national. But looking outside the Slavic world, you have the enormous Arab world: there are about 15 Arab countries. They too have been subjected to historical mixing; Morocco with Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese) both ways leaves Syrians and Lebanese having a more European look than North Africans. Algeria is Algeria and Bahrain is Bahrain, each complete with their own ideas about nationalism and statehood, so what is Arab about them beyond language? But the people themselves embrace as Arabs even if they don't care to share the same capital city, currency and president/ruler. Think of Slavic as being "an ethnicity to the nationality", then it will be easier. Evlekis 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Think of Slavic as being "an ethnicity to the nationality"". Unfortunately this cannot make sense, because the UN definition of ethnicity takes into account of religion. This was part of the problem with the former Yugoslavia. Although the various group there (former Yugoslavia) are genetically and linguistically homogenous in general, they were not so from a religion POV, thus they are classified as different ethnic groups. The terms Slavic, Germanic etc are used as a linguistic classification, and by extension as a genetic classification, although one has of course to take into account human history and sociology. Black Americans are English linguistically, having lost all contact with the languages of their African ancestors, but genetically they are still very much African. Russians may be 'Slavs' by appearance and by language, but a recent survey showed that half the male population of Moscow have the Mongolian alcohol oxidase gene, which showed the success of the Mongol invaders at impregnating local women. Because of this genetic fact, do we now classify Russians as Mongolians? 86.157.233.233 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
While there's some questionable comments above there most certainly is no such thing as a "Slavic ethnicity". If you're referring to "Slavs" as a group of people who speak related languages you'll notice they fail to satisfy the definition of ethnicity by not having a common culture, religion, and origin. Ethnic groups tend to share those in addition to language. Moreover I don't know where these generalizations about groups are coming from. Some must be ignorant of the last 100 years worth of literature and research disproving many physical traits as belonging to ethnic groups (certainly in Europe). quite contrary to propaganda traits like light eyes and hair tend to be concentrated in non-Germanic countries in Europe (Frost & others). This is quite easily seen in the fact that you'll often see Hungarian actors or actresses playing the "most German looking" character in movies while many Britons play "the most Italian looking" character. Yes you can sometimes tell where someone might be from but there's no scientific basis for that and you'll just as likely to be wrong or right. Getting back to the core of the issue here: if you consider Slavs an ethnicity how would you propose to explain vast genetic similarities between Scandinavians and Poles? Or for that matter the differences between Lithuanians and Bosnians? Bottom line is that languages dissipate over different areas than do genetics or culture. Slavs are a linguistic family and most certainly not an ethnic group. JRWalko ( talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
All the arguements are ultimately futile, because there is no accepted definition of what ethnicity actualy entails Hxseek ( talk) 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I took liberty to replace an intro phrase about commonality by an equivocal sentence "both similar and dissimilar", which is while may look meaningless and non-informative, it is more correct. For example, Bulgarians are much closer culturally to Turks than to Belarusians, if forget common Orthodox Church (which is common only partially, by the way). Mukadderat 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is a well put description. But note that the similarity between Bulgarians and Turks refers to a genetic ancestral one, I'm not sure how culturally similar they are. After all religion has been the defining feature of many a civilisation until today Hxseek 11:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, that is the unique thing about southern Slavs in particular. They share similarities to other Slavs- a sense of similarity and relatedness (manifest in particular in western countries, eg Australia and A,erica, whereby Czeques, Russian, Poles, Serbs all seem to befriend each other), yet the that similarity can certainly extent to a regional level, whereby there seems to be an affinity with their neighbours (eg Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarian, Romanians; and Poles, Lithuanians, etc). Just a thought Hxseek 03:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The multi-ethnic Gothic state may have already had, at its fringes, elements of proto-slavic culture. This may have been a responce to the need for the proto-slavs to create a social and political unity in the face of disintegration of the Gothic empire and the arrival of the Huns.
Prior to this the slavs were obscure, not mentioned in history. They may have been what are referred to as the peoples of the 'forest-steppes' that were under the dominion of the scythian -sarmatian kingdom, however were not scythisized. From Cambridge Medieval History, volume I, the Slavs. Hxseek 12:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello all,
I hope you will correct the article.
First of all there is no need to look for roots of word SLOVENE in Latin or Greec languages.
In fact the explanation is simple, obvious, and hard to argue: SLOVo means word/language(eng.). SLOVene are people who can speak and understand one common language.
Furtermore, word NEMEZ(sngl.)/NEMZY(pl.) means dumb (engl.) and it was used previously for all kind of foreingers who couldn't speak SLOVO (the language) of SLOVenic people.
However, starting from 18 century, in Russia people started to associate mainly Germans with this word (before expressions like English NEMZY or Dutch NEMZY were quite common). In modern Russian language (and I beleive in some other slovonic languages - i.e. Polish and Ukrainian) NEMEZ/NEMZY is still a synonim of Germans.
Summary: SLOVENE are people who can speak and uderstand one common language (SLOVO). NEMZY (dumbs) are people who cannot say or understand SLOVenic language (SLOVO).
Thank you,
Anatoly Shamkin
ashamkin@gmail.com —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.225.206.160 (
talk) 06:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You can not claim one explanation to be the correct one, though your explanation is quite interesting and possibly the most accurate. There are several viable explanations, like in the venetic theory the word originating in Venci and getting the prefix "selo", meaning "small village" or "sel", derived from "seliti" in the meaning to "move", or perhaps "slo" in the meaning "went". The meaning "slo ven" or "went out"(of the original homeland) has also been proposed, there are also some more humorous ones like the prefix "slo" originating from "sol" which means salt. But since we can never know for sure how it originated, we have to either state all the theories or none. Regards. 86.61.30.53 ( talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Folk etymologies and scholars such as Roman Jacobson traditionally link the name either with the word sláva "glory", "fame" or slovo "word, talk" (both akin to OSl slusati "to hear" from the IE root *kleu-). Thus slověne would mean "people who speak (the same language)", i.e. people who understand each other, as opposed to the Slavic word for foreign nations, nemtsi, meaning "speechless people" (from Slavic němi - mute, silent, dumb), as for example in Polish: Niemcy is Germany.
Please source this. Quite a statement. Mallerd 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery." [Klein] O.E. Wealh "Briton" also began to be used in the sense of "serf, slave" c.850; and Skt. dasa-, which can mean "slave," is apparently connected to dasyu- "pre-Aryan inhabitant of India." More common O.E. words for slave were þeow (related to þeowian "to serve") and þræl (see thrall). The Slavic words for "slave" (Rus. rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, O.C.S. rabu) are from O.Slav. *orbu, from the PIE base *orbh- (also source of orphan) the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot. Applied to devices from 1904, especially those which are controlled by others (cf. slave jib in sailing, similarly of locomotives, flash bulbs, amplifiers). Slavery is from 1551; slavish is attested from 1565; in the sense of "servilely imitative" it is from 1753. slave-driver is attested from 1807. In U.S. history, slavocracy "the political dominance of slave-owners" is attested from 1840.
I'm deleting the word folk etymology. Mallerd ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the bloodline of the Emperor continued in the Muscovite royal family. The Emperor's daughter married with the Muscovite King I believe. The Byzantines had greatly influenced many Slavs, such as Serbians, Bulgarians, and Russians. They also named them as their successors after the fall. Should there be a mention of this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.44.218 ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
User Molobo insists of inserting a claim that East, West and South Slavs aren't just a linguistics grouping but also a religious and cultural grouping. I'm reverting this, as it is obviously false and consist of original research. Molobo has provided a source, but the source doesn't support his claim. To take Slovenes, Czechs and Slovaks as examples: Czechs and Slovenes are both Catholic (religious), belonged for a long time to the Austrian Empire and was influenced by it (Culture and History). Bulgarians, in contrast, are Orthodox and were influenced by the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. When Uuser Molobo is trying to invent a common religious and cultural ground for the three linguistic groups of Slavs, he is making things up. Which religion is common for the South Slavs (they are Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims)? The whole insertion is original research from the beginning to the end, as anyone with a knowledge of European history will known. Most importanly, the source provided by Molobo most definitely doesn't define South Slavs along religious or cultural lines. JdeJ ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please present sources contradicting Encyclopedia Brittanica. Furthermore they are clear religious divisions between West and East Slavs in terms of religion for example, the quote speaks about this clearly and mentions it as one of divisions. "The whole insertion is original research " Encyclopedia Brittanica can't be classified as original research, sorry. Your personal opinion on EB is not enough for it to be removed. -- Molobo ( talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
the source, EB, does not say that this is the basis for dividing West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs. That's your own interpretation and it's not correct. Both Slovenes and Croats are Catholics and use the Latin alphabet. JdeJ ( talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Historic and cultural divisions from the quote:
Religious divisions:
The only problem is that the quote doesn't mention that this religious clear divide between East and West Slavs. Of course there are no muslim West Slav groups, I am not sure about Eastern ones. But it is clear that religious divisions are clearly present and define each group-- Molobo ( talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop personal attacks.I already explained to you that scholars note East-West division in Slavic groups. It is mote uneven in South Slavs, but even there there is division between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. It is also clear that two largest groups-West and East Slavs are clearly divided by cultural and religious line and this fact needs to be noted.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Further sources on division based on culture and religion:
The end result of this conflict was a dvision of the Slavic world into two cultural zones. There was a western zone of Roman Catholic religion , where the official language was Latin and the vernuclars developed only very slowly as written languages, these included all of West Slavic, Slovenian, and Croation half of SerboCroatioan. The Eastern Cultural zone had Orthodox religion, with Old Church Slavic, serving as as the liturgical language and having a profound effect on secular language too. In this zone were most of the East Slavs, from their Christianization officialy in 988, plus the remainder of the South Slavs. This cultural division still survives in the alphabets used by different Slavic languages(...)The cultural difference survives even where religious adherence per se has disappeared. Languages and Their Status Author: Timothy Shopen, Center for Applied Linguistics page 130 University of Pennsylvania Press -- Molobo ( talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As you yourself say they are many divisions and current formulation only speaks about linguistic one, avoiding religious and cultural divisions shown by scholary sources presented above.This is obviously not neutral as the lead may suggest that only linguistic division exist between West, East and South Slavs and not thousand years of different development and culture.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"not the bogus ones you think exist" You think EB and University of Pennsylvania books are "bogus" ? Sorry but can you finally give some scholary sources that would support your private views ? -- Molobo ( talk) 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
EB clearly states that divisions exist on cultural, religious level also, so it can't support your view. So far you are presenting only your own view, no sources have been presented.-- Molobo ( talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"No, it does not link these to the division of Slavs into three groups, that's your misinterpretation." It does so: "western Slavs were integrated into western Europe; their societies developed along the lines of other western European nations.
It is a clear division into three groups, as to the rest, sorry, but I don't think a content dispute can be seen as trolling, especially as I provided several sources backing the thesis that Slavs are divided due religion, culture, history. So far you didn't brought any contradictory sources. -- Molobo ( talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is too far fetched to say that there is somewhat of a religious and cultural unity between Slavs. Certainly they all have unique features, but there is some intangible aspect that draws them together- more than just language. One can easily recognise a fellow slav, just the look of the person. Christianity unifies and defines the Slavs. They would all be Orthodox had the western Slavs been dominated by Germans (and Bosnian muslims are just a historic aberation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no cultural or religious unity amongst "Slavs" (and they are gone anyway since thousand years, replaced by seperate nations). As 'one can reckognise' that is a strange claim. How ? By calling Bosnians aberration you comitted a serious offensive violation of civility. Also you should learn history more. For example Poles have been great friends to Ottoman Empire and in fact some converted to Islam such as Josef Bem, when escaping tyranny of Russian Empire. All in all your claims have no base in facts.-- Molobo ( talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly the best way to solve this inevitable confusion is to simply stop dreaming that Language simply makes a person a Slav. The most rock solid way to know if a nation is Slavic, is to simply see if majority of the people in that nation have the typical Slavic genetic signature. For example Bosnians, Bosniaks to be more precise have less Slavic or Asian genetic signature than Germans or Austrians... yet they are listed as Slavs only because their oppressors happen to be Slavic and forced the Slavic language on them... 77.78.196.52 ( talk) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Same with Croats and Serbs.But you still speak a Slavic language,if you don't want to belong in that group anymore,i suggest you to invent a new language.Maybe Esperanto could do in period of transition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The image shows a map that appears to show what areas have Slavic peoples. I noticed that it extends into the Lapland, where the indigenous Sami people live. Would they be considered Slavic? And also, it seems to extend into Siberia. Except for the descendants of people exiled there by Stalin, isn't Siberia home to native Siberians? Just wondering if there can be some clarification. ForestAngel ( talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think JdeJ is out to create a Slavic empire all by herself. However as soon as Wikipedia realises that the Russian Secret service is trying to dominate Wikipedia, by Admining their own users gradually, and making bloated maps where this fake entity called Slavs who importantly are supposed to have a centralised base in Russia... Soon enough East Germany will be Slavic (Russian) since some of them still speak Slavic languages. 77.78.197.6 ( talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe 77.78.197.6 has a point, it certainly is in Russian global interest to gather allies via the Slavic route. 91.191.29.67 ( talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) This statement is absurd, the second biggest national group from Slavic languages group are the Poles, and it is certain that due to geopolitical and historic reasons they would never become allies of Russia. The third largest group are the Ukrainians and their relationship with Russia is also tarnished by history. I suggest removing those strange comments. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.-- Molobo ( talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would better the article if the ethnogenesis section was a bit more streamiline.I just think it is a bit disjointed currently, perhaps a little confusing even —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What WAS ANNO DOMINI Thinking? Just LOOK at this Calendar? No zero.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.228.241 ( talk) 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In most cases I object strongly to removing comments from talk pages but I'll make an exception and suggest that the long and tiresome tirades by the IP-jumper operating from 77.78.xxx be removed. The user in question has a long of history of vandalising this article and of threatening Wikipedia with bringing in hackers to destroy this site when he was blocked. His repeated vandalism is the only reason this article was semi-protected and then he turned to the talk page. I don't see how his ramblings about Yugoslavia having forced Bosnians to speak Slavic contributes anything to this site, as I'm sure any contributor will know that Bosnians had been speaking a Slavic language for about 1000 years before the creation of Yugoslavia. Nor do I consider his home-spun theories of Wikipedia being an undercover for the Russian secret service, about how all Slavs are Russians, and about how Germans and Austrians are more Asian than Bosnians have any relevance whatsoever. Trolling of that kind doesn't add anything of any value and distracts from real discussions about content. JdeJ ( talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha. He's obviously a nut Hxseek ( talk) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Genetics I disagree with the genetics section, specifically regarding the two southern slav groupings. Where is the reference to the research that this refers to? To say that the Croats and Serbs are more similar to the Slovenes and Macedonians respectively then to them selves is actually laughable. Any European group will associate themselves more with their western rather than eastern neighbors, but the Croats take this to the extreme as can be seen in their ridiculous Aryan German fantasies. If anything, Croats would be more similar in appearance in general to Macedonians rather than Slovenians. Furthermore, the Serbs are much more similar in appearance to the Croatians than the Macedonians or Bulgarians, so in a number of ways this grouping is very misleading. On another side note, the use of halpogroup percentages is highly misleading. Especially when it refers only to one halpogroup. For instance, Sorbs are described as having the highest percentage of halpogroup R1a. Does this mean that they are genetically 61%, slavs, or does it mean that they are the most slavic (100%)? Certainly the interpretation of Herzegovian’s as having 12% of the gene could be (has been) misused as describing them as being 12% slavs which is a complete under representation.
— OziSerb3 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please figure out how to add this to reference list: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964#TBL1 It is new GENETIC analysis which happens to prove that only Bosniaks are indigenous Europeans in X-Yugoslavia region and are absolutely unrelated to Slavic heritage Genetically. 77.78.199.117 ( talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1) Cuisine -
Cuisine_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.
2) Architecture.
Architecture_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
3) Language.
Bosnian_language
4) Religous behaviour (for example Serb Orthodox may behave differently in their religous expression to some other Orthodox groups)
5) Genetics. (The thing that is the least capable of lies and POW)
6)
Bosniak gene pool:
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1a_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1c_large_RG.jpg
Serb gene pool: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3a_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3b_large_RG.jpg
So Bosniaks belong to a whole entirely different tribe, or gene pool, and frequent Scandinavian I haplogroup almost exclusively in Balcans and as much as Swedes. Where as Serbs as you can see frequent intensely the E haplogroup who's ONLY and closest ancestors are Central Africans while other mixes are less than a few percent each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.198.26 ( talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets make a big list here...(remember no side in reality has anything to lose by ACTUALLY getting to the truth here)
Remember to leave emotions out of this, as this is here to help us solve the conundrum, and stop the eternal arguing, if you change your mind about something, it is not a bad thing, but it more a brave thing.
Also nobody will read your entire story if it's oversized, please make it simple, short and easy to read, the longer it is the more it looks false, as reality is usually very short and simple.
77.78.197.84 (
talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"5) Genetics. (The thing that is the least capable of lies and POW)" Disturbing claim. Genetics speak nothing of culture. One can be brother of another person and be Jewish Pole while the Brother is a Turkish Muslim. It has nothing to do with genetics-- Molobo ( talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet they are connected by speaking often closely related Slavic languages, and also by a sense of common identity and history, which is present to different extents among different individuals and different Slavic peoples. I removed this sentence. It is not neutral, seems to advocate an ideological view and is wrong in several cases to an extent that would require serious explanations that would distort the lead. -- Molobo ( talk) 03:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of North Western Europe, such as the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, and English.
The Slavic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, identified by their use of the Slavic languages . The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of Europe, such as the Russians, Poles, Sorbs, Czechs, Ukrainians, Slovaks, Croats and others.
-- Molobo ( talk) 15:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
User 77.78.197.84 is a disruptive troll, that clearly has no knowledge of history or ethnogenesis. He is the same guy who has been writing in Bosniak article trying to push absurd theories that Bosniaks are the result of fusion of Illyrians with Turks and Germans, having no Slavic contribution at all. He should be blocked. I think he is probably an old user called 'Anceint land of Bosna or something like that. Hxseek ( talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As Hxseek points out, he is misrepresenting the source, his edits do not have any support in the source he claims, as has been explained to him at length already. JdeJ ( talk) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the genetics section be touched up. At present it presents a group of South Slavs a being distinct from the rest because of the contribution of the native Balkan populace to their genetic roots. However, this is not unique to the South Slavs. All slavs encountered and mixed with other peoples as they spread out. Whatsmore, it assumes that R1a is the marker of "slavicness"- which is not exactly true. Hxseek ( talk) 08:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Look Bosniaks gene pool, they only share ancestry with Scandinavians: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1a_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1c_large_RG.jpg
Look Serb gene pool, they only share ancestry with central Africans: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3a_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3b_large_RG.jpg c is almost extinct, and other E haplogroup branches are similar but the CLOSEST and MOST RECENT ancestors to Serbs are Central Africans.
We know that there arent many ancient documents about this region, but this will help clarify who belonged to what type of tribe in the past. Note that this is only recent ancestry of course, E haplogroup may have evolved from middle east before 20,000 years ago, but this is not important as those are massive figures and that kind of stuff is not worth going in to, as to what kind of monkeys humans were 100,000 years ago :). 77.78.198.26 ( talk) 08:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Her, here. This guy (user 77.78...) is burying his head in the sand. His claims are outright comedy. We are giving him too much credit by even acknowledging his idiocy Hxseek ( talk) 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear 77.78.200.160 your knowledge and understanding of prehistory human genetics is almost none, it equals zero. Your history knowledge is even worse than that. Genetically Bosniaks are nothing special, neither distinctive from others in the region. You are discussing about I haplogroup as some Bosniak characteristic which is ridiciolous. In general Croats have more of it than Bosniaks. All South Slavs have it in rather high percentages. Investigations were made a few years ago when Serbia and Montenegro were the same state: Yugoslavia. So under the name of Serbs there would be Montenigrins too. So Serbian 25% (or something similar) of I haplo could be very high statistically in Montenegro, perhaps higher than among Bosniaks, probably similar to Dalmatia where it's over 50% (in some islands more than 75%). On the other hand, Bosniaks have quite nice percantage of E haplogroup, which is almost virtually absent in Croatia, while more found in Serbia and Macedonia. If you think that I haplotype (I2a precisely) is strictly Illyrian, you are wrong. Illyrians, how we call them, never existed as some homogenous people. The western Balkan was settled by some 70 different tribes 3.000 years ago. Only one little tribe in modern Albania were Illyroi (Illyrii). Greek and Roman writters gave that name to all inhabitants of the WB. There was no some unique Illyrian language. There were probably many different languages and dialects distinguished in 2 main groups: Centum and Satem (Indo-European languages). Genetically there were admixtures of haplotypes same as it's today. It was not so long time ago. Probably ~75% of all modern South Slavs are descendents of the indegenious Balkan people if observing the period of last 3.000 years. People who were coming in 4th-7th century from the north made the rest and only some of them were really Slavic speakers. Small groups with a lot of influence on the natives. Slavization was process - assimilation. It happened everywhere in the WB, not only in Bosnia. Also similar procceses happened everywhere in Europe, not only in WB (with other European languages of course). Bosniaks as ethnical concept is something very very young, only 18 years old. All modern South Slavs are different admixtures of the historical "Illyrians", Venets, Greeks, Thracians, Dacians, Huns, Goths, Avars, Sarmatians, Alans, Balto-Slavs, Italic people, Turks etc... And Slavs in this story were actually Sclavens - the members of multiple ethnic groups with the same "lingua franca" - Old-Slavonic language which probably originated from some proto-Slavic language in Pannonia, not in Russia. If you want to participate here, first learn something. Zenanarh ( talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Insightful as always Z. Hxseek ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not happy with the new "airbrush" style maps. They look carelessly made, and references like "Mostly based on work by Velentin Sedov: Slavs in Middle Ages" isn't very confidence-inspiring. Hxseek, I think you should experiment with the GIMP some more, in particular the layer functions, before attempting maps like that. The colour scheme may be a matter of taste, but it doesn't look very professional to me. I do suggest re-insertion of the map directly derived from EIEC, Image:Slavic distribution origin.png. dab (𒁳) 12:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the following quite erroneous phrase (and unreferenced, too) from the top of the section "Religion and alphabet".
In any case, whatever can be said here it must be phrased as a matter of opinion of an expert rather than an indisputable fact, and this opinion must be reliably referenced. Mukadderat ( talk) 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article on slavik peoples is a mishmash of unreadable jargon. It needs to be better organized and more clear. There are too many editors that are not impartial or objective. They need to be excluded. Some of what they write is absurd to even the most novice historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're Polish, and understand that Russia exploited the Slavic commonality theory during Eastern Bloc times. However, the article is NOT some POV ( I assume that's what you meant, ather than Prisoner of War) article. It mentions at least a couple of times that Slavs are today religiously and culturally heterogenous and that from the outset they mixed with other peoples. THe spread of Slavic as a means for a language of trade, whilt interesting, is a theory not put forward by the concesus of historians. There was an undeniable spreading of Slavs through out people. Just like the Goths spread, just like the Huns spread. They were all multi-ethnic groups, but the focus of the article should naturally focus on the origin of the core body of Slavs. And the article actually states a Ukrainian or Polish origin, not Russian. Hxseek ( talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the source of that claim. Anyway this is a very diverse group-the box is for single nationality or ethnic group. I think it should be removed-no source, can indicate that there is a single unified group(which isn't true and misses the colossal diversification of former Slavic tribes now turned into nations). Also for example Germanic peoples article has no such box to my knowledge.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
re: (fringe theories are inappropriate here Undid revision 234106758 by 76.16.176.177 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.177 ( talk) 05:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what the purpose of the 'Slavic peoples under foreign rule' section is supposed to be. All ethnicities in Europe have had to suffer foreign rule at some point in their history, Slavic peoples are not special in this regard. This strange section just seems to more POV pushing from Nazi-influenced groups so I've deleted it. Ronwa ( talk) 11:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
South Slavs distribution map in 1869: [7] - Added by User:Olahus. Am I the only one that thinks that it's a bit anachronistic and impartial? Bosniaks and Vlachs certainly did not declare themselves as Serbs back then. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 09:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ivan, I don't understand your point. The map claims to depict areas inhabited by Slavic (ethnic) population, not Serbian (national) populations. The question should therefore be: were the areas highlighted on the map actually poulated by Slavs? The question does not need to exclude the co-existance of non-Slavic populations, nor does it imply anything about nationality or (later) national boundaries. Why does the map raise for you questions about identifying Bosniaks and Vlachs as Serbs? -- Timberframe ( talk) 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Seen at its full size the map appears to have been amended since it was originally produced. It claims (top centre) to be "Nach den neuesten Untersuchungen von A. Petermmann" - according to the new research by A. Petermann, which would place it in the 3rd quarter of the 19th Century (Petermann died in 1878). But the key in the bottom left corner clearly shows signs of later ammendment - the symbols for the borders of Asiatic Turkey, the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Greece appear to have been added by typewriter. Similarly all the coloured boundaries appear to have been drawn by hand and many of them don't follow any visible demarcations on the map. The ethnic labels (Kroaten, Serben, etc) appear in two different fonts: a bold sans-serif and a lighter serif, the former being out of keeping with any other font I can see on the map. Furthermore, the bold sans-serif labels occur outside the green area (used presumeably to denote Slavic populations on the original map) - see for example multiple instances of "SERBEN" in the white UNGARN (Hungary) region. The use of an uncharacteristic font and inconsistency between the labelling of Slavic populations and the shading suggests that the labelling may be a later addition. There is too much about this map that suggests that it has been tampered with to allow me to feel comfortable about presenting it as a depiction of Slavic population distribution in 1869. Does the article really need an ethnographic map from this era? -- Timberframe ( talk) 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ivan Štambuk, why do you feel so extremely embarassed about a mid-19th-century map? This map was created by August Heinrich Petermann, a well-known and one of the most appreciated German cartographer and geographer of the 19th century. It's improbably that Petermann has drawn this map with some tendentious intentions. Concerning the Bosniaks: in 1869 there was no talk about a Bosnian ethnicity (they wre simply called "Muslims") and I rather believe that the author intended to include in his map the Serbs from Lika-Krbava and northern Bosnia (see also this CIA map from 1991). Concerning the Vlachs, I don't know what you mean, as I know the Serbians from Bosnia are called "vlasi" by the Croatians and Muslims. However, the size of the text "SERBEN" and "KROATEN" is truly unimportant, because the ethnic borders between the Serbs and Croatians aren't marked anyway because they were considered to be a single ethnic group (from linguistic reasons) with at least 2 identities. -- Olahus ( talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the map may incite some of our less informed readers to jump to conclusions. Of interest however, this is not the only map to depict the area settled by Serbs to be larger than that of Croats . Hxseek ( talk) 07:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of its accuracy , or lack thereof, we need to ask what the inclusion of such a map adds to the article. Will including it improve the contents of the page, or address something which has been left out ? Hxseek ( talk) 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.210.103 ( talk) 13:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The map
is completely inaccurate and it only presents a serious threat that somebody could see it and put it in some sort of scientific work which would then present nothing more serious than Shrek. There isn't Serbo-Croatian language or Serbo-Croatian languages. Following that logic we could then make Italian-Portuguese languages, Russian-Macedonian languages, Dutch-German languages and a million more crap like this. What really exists is Croatian, Serbian, Bosniak and Montenegrin language. That is clearly written in constitutions of these republics and only in Wikipedia 18 years after dissolution of Yugoslavia it and its preposterous ideas are alive and well. Every native speaker of these languages knows when somebody speaks another language of your virtual Serbo-Croatian group. The difference is not so obvious to you foreigners but I as a native speaker of Croatian language can tell. If I wanted to translate one page of Croatian text to Serbian i would have to change the whole text, its syntax, words, grammar and god knows what else. I could do it because I was alive when Croats yet had the opportunity to read more Serbian texts but I am not sure that an eighteen year Croat could. In fact, he certainly could not and the same goes for Serbs. Serbo-Croatian tried to unify that differences in one artificial language due to purely political reasons but that failed because nobody in Croatia wanted to talk Serbian and vice versa. The politicians were living in their fantasies and ordinary folk continued to talk like they always talked - in Serbia Serbian, in Croatia Croatian, in Montenegro Montenegrin and to be honest in Bosnia Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats were so mixed that there really existed something like Serbo-Croatian. Today that is changed. With the dissolution of Yugoslavia there was no more political pressure to live in fairy tales and its peoples could finally make their languages official. That is the situation today, only in Bosnia that difference goes by ethnic lines. Because I am a Croat I really don't care what will you do with Serbian, Bosniak and Montenegrin but Croats speak Croatian and this map
is at least more accurate than the one on top of the text. So I will change it back and if somebody still lives in myths I suggest reading these articles - Croatian language, Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian and especially FOLIA CROATICA-CANADIANA: A study on various aspects of Croatian language history. A 243 pages long document in PDF format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulejman ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Serbian language infuences - Montenegro, Bosniaks, and Serbs in Bosnia
Croatian language infuences - Croatia, Croats in Bosnia, Burgenland Croats and Molise Croats
Boniaks don't know what they want, their language is serbianized Serbo-Croatian with many turkish loanwords and Montenegrin, when standardized, will be as far from Serbian almost like Slovenian language. Sulejman ( talk) 11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Haven't we already decided that 'South Slavic' languages are a dialectic continuum, beter classified into Ikavian, Chakavian , Stokavian , etc rather than 'Bosnian', 'Serbian', 'mid-north coast Herzegovinian', etc, etc ? Hxseek ( talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
IP 83.77.135.167 deleted a section on genetics including references, commenting in the edit summary "tons of bs. that "New Study" is really amazing, oh my god". Sorry, 83.77.135.167, but that's just your opinion so on its own it's WP:OR and WP:POV and not a good enough reason to delete referenced (and therefore verifiable) material from the article. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the referenced material then a better way to do so is to find other reliable sources which challenge it and include a reference to those as well. In this way the reader has access to both sides of the argument instead of being denied knowledge of either side because you consider it "bs."
Regarding your previous deletion, with the comment "absolutely irrelevant and possibly wrong information. also, the abstract doesn't mention who are the 2 south slavic nations that are similar to the western and eastern slavs", much the same thing applies. The info is certainly relevant because it concerns the subject of the article. Whether it's right or wrong is not for you to say, provided it accurately reflects the content of the referenced material. If it doesn't then you can justify editing or challenging specific points, in this case by deleting the mention of Croats and Slovenes or adding a {{fact}} tag after it, but deleting the whole passage is a step too far without showing that the ref itself is considered unreliable by authoritative sources. -- Timberframe ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I question whether we should use this study as the only reference for genetics. The intro states that, genetically speaking, slavs are seperated into 2 groups - the 2 South Slavic groups, vs 'the rest' . This is the only study which suggests such as categorization. Secondly, we only have an abstract of the study.
Other studies have found that eastern Europeans (including non-Slavic Romanians and hungarians) cluster together, due to the pattern of settlement and migration in pre-history, nothing to do with "Slavicness". Eg Seminos' famous paper in 2000. Pericic pointed out that rather than the two south slavic populations, northern Russians are 'unique' in the fact that they are the only Slavs who carry Haplogroup N3.
I think we need to update the genetics section with a more widely referenced approach
Hxseek ( talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Please send it over. I have been doing some research about origin theories, I think the section definitely needs elaboration. However, the issue is complex, because the question of the proto-Slavic linguistic urmeheit may be a rather different one to the genesis of the historical entities known as Sclavenes and Antes.
Hxseek (
talk) 02:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the traditional theory. Others exist which we chould introduce to the article. I;m working on a draft now. Hxseek ( talk) 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
|I feel that adding "Finnic peoples" as influencing the Rus state is correct according to research which states Rurik being of Finno-Ugric origin. I will direct you here for my citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik
EDIT: the above comment was mine.|
CormanoSanchez (
talk)
|I am not completely convinced either way by the above Rurikid study and I am aware it is still contentious, but I assume at this point my edit stands? Would anyone be willing to clarify or dispute it?|
CormanoSanchez (
talk)
|When in history could it be most accurately described as the period when "proto-slavs" began forming different tribal identities? Did the Goths encounter only "proto-slavs", people calling themselves slovjane or some other variant, or where there already divisions in this similar to the dividing of the Germanic peoples (hence the Goths)?
I know that there were West Slavic tribes in the period where Goths moved through the Baltic regions, but what about earlier?
More simply put, by the time the proto-slavs started expanding and meeting other peoples, did they have different tribal names or where they still all grouped under the general identity of Slav?
I feel that this topic in particular should be clarified in the article, if possible.| CormanoSanchez ( talk) 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Older views, for example Soviet-era Slavists, beleived that all Slavs emerged from one tribe and spread out in a mass migration. Their theory states that from the common Slavic Prague culture emerged the Antes in 300 Ad, then the Scalvenes in 400 AD, roughly. From these supra-tribal entities, offshoots formed all the individual tribes after 500 and 600 AD. There are few Slavic tribes which have the same name in East, South and/or West Slavic areas - eg Croats, Serbs, Severians, Moravians. Some beleive this indicates a common indentity which was already established in the 'homeland. Others do not agree and beleive it's is just how the Byzantines named them.
Hxseek ( talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs an update reagrding the "origins" and "migrations" sections Hxseek ( talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
moved from above section #"Origins and Slavic homeland debate" section problems Balkan Fever 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[10] At least one member of United States National Academy of Sciences support this theory but Ivan Štambuk accusing them as anybody who can think of brain damage.
It may be worth to look for 'Ivan independent' calculation google scholar deliver quite different numbers. Who want to compare the result should know that this is not a molecular biology where citations are numbered in hundreds or hundreds of thousands, because scholars involved in paleolinguistics subject was just few dozens in the world, (living less) and they work on all branches of human languages.
EOI de Alzira.
Look at paleolinguistics and point out how many listed there scholars schould cite greatest work on paleolinguistics. Tray to abstract for moment and check what languages they works and check also if are able to wrote after 2003. Do not list the h+m.
You wrote that 'common handbooks ignore PCT' -it seem that you mistaken high school teachers with paleolinguistic scholars. Do not forget that in continuitas work group web there is much more references . 24.15.124.2 ( talk) 13:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Blanked by some vishu-kisu or camouflaged as some far-or-closeer-ester admin who can't like you find name in paper to the extent that he want to link Uralic Continuity Theory to author developing Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Under the Scenarios of Ethnogenesis section, there is a "I LOVE RAFI" posted. is this supposed to be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.150.106 ( talk) 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There is systematical misuse of false similarity between Slavic word "slav" and Latin word "sclav", what means slave. The English word "slave" itself is deceptive. It is obviously originated from Latin "sclav". Slavic word "slav" is relative to Slavic words "slovo" = word, "slava" = glory, and "sloboda" = freedom. Romans never studies Slavic languages, neither they ever conquered Slavic tribes. So the relation between "slav" and "sclav" is excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.213.190 ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
People keep removing any mention of the theory that "Slav" derives from "slave". I know this theory is bonkers, but it is out there and we must not pretend otherwise! Free Dictionary states: <As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"> - so it implies that THE MEANING of Slav is "slave". Check up also this: http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Now/Slav-As-In/520037598 - it seems History Channel also believes that "Slav" COMES from "slave". That's why I believe that the way I put it in the article, i.e. that the name is supposed to derive from the alleged enslavement of the Slavic peoples, reflects the beliefs of some people - whether we like it or not. We can debate whether it can be rephrased in a better fashion, but we cannot ignore the fact that some people believe that. What are you afraid of? This is "alternative theory" section anyway! Dawidbernard ( talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Its based on incorrect etymology and therefore need no inclusion. You would have to substantiate what "commonly encountered' means. Sounds like WP:Weasal Hxseek ( talk) 10:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, whilst Slavs were sold as slaves, eg by nomads or Verangians, there is no reason to assume that they were more numerous than other groups in such circumstances. In fact, the opposite might be true, in that, Slavs were known for taking large nubers of prisoners, esp in their raids into the Balkans.
Hxseek (
talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
While there is historic evidence for alliances between the early Danish kingdom and Obotrite(Wend) tribes settled along the Baltic coast of NW Germany, I am sceptical about the statement that numbers of Slavs, as a constituent part of Sweyn's and Canute's army, were settled in East Anglia. For the Danish leaders it may not have been unusual to employ mercenary troops, and so I would not consider this theory totally implausible, On the other hand, I know of no primary source evidence to confirm this. The reference in the article to the transfer of Slavs to England as a constituent part of the Danish army and their later settlement in East Anglia therefore needs to be substantiated. At present the statement makes only a generalised assertion and reference to a secondary source. Geoff Powers ( talk) 08:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's set the ball rolling. To judge by the edit summary for the diff at which the tag was added, the issue appears to be the map and its caption: "Countries with majority Slavic ethnicities and at least one Slavic national language". The edit summary makes the point that "Main map features Kosovo, which is predominantly Albanian not Slavic". In fact the map doesn't show Kosovo as a separate country, and that appears to be the root of the problem. If the map is amended to show Kosovo as a separate country then, by the criterion of the map and the assertion that the Kosovan population is predominantly not Slaavic, Kosovo should not be coloured. Alternatively, if the country borders are kept as the map shows, with Kosovo included within Serbia, then the Kosova population doesn't change the predominance of Slavic populations in Serbia-with-Kosovo. Anyone want to take up the arguments? -- Timberframe ( talk) 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The issue, if I've understood the original concern correctly, comes down to whether Kosovo should be depicted as a country, since the map's caption states that it shows "countries". Since the world at large hasn't formed a consensus on that, I doubt we're going to do any better here. It may be that the only consensus we can come to is that the neutrality tag is a red herring because it relates to the statehood of Kosovo, a subject on which the article is silent and therefore doesn't have a point of view. -- Timberframe ( talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You say "If one were to make a more detailed exploration..." and indeed there is such a map (Slavic languages.png) further down the article (albeit language-based, but it illustrates the point about enclaves). However the map in dispute clearly defines its resoltion to be at country level, so it can't be expected to depict enclaves. The majority of the population of Serbia - with or without Kosovo - is Slavic, so Serbia gets coloured. For me that's clear cut and there's nothing wrong with the map by its own definition, nor does the map's definition push a point of view regarding the constituent populations of Kosovo. The only possible POV regarding Kosovo that I can see is with regard to Kosovo's statehood and, as that question has not yet been resolved internationally, any depiction of that region could be disputed by someone. To err on the side of the status quo pending resolution follows well-established precedents, so I believe the map is as neutral on the point as it can be.
I propose we give the editor who inserted the tag a couple of days to respond to this discussion, after which we can remove the tag unless arguments in its favour are forthcoming and not resolved. -- Timberframe ( talk) 06:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that while you both make good points in relation to articles dealing with areas such as Kosovo or Macedonia where international consensus is lacking regarding the status and naming of terretories, the conversation isn't really relevant to this article. The concern raised by Interestedinfairness in the edit summary accompanying the neutrality tag relates to the map's claim to depict "countries" while it does not depict the border of Kosovo (and therefore it depicts its population as Slavic along with the majority of Serbia). In other words, Interestedinfairness is concerned that this article does not recognise Kosovo as a country. I contend that it is of little significance to this article, in which the map serves only to give the reader a general geographic orientation, not a detailed geopolitical one.
As has been mentioned, any affirmation or denial of Kosovo's existence as an independent country would be non-neutral; this article remains neutral on the subject by not raising it at all. It seems to me to be an inappropriate use of this article and our time to try to force this article to take a decision on the statehood of Kosovo, a subject already being discussed at more approrpriate talk pages. In short, in the context of Interestedinfairness's other involvements, I regard the neutrality tag as disruptive forum shopping. My only reason for asking you to accept the tag for a few days is to allow IIF to defend it; removing the tag without having first had both sides of the discussion would only leave the door open for repeat tagging. -- Timberframe ( talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Interestedinfairness ( talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but since you now recognise that the map depicts "countries" and not "distinct areas of land", you will understand that Kosovo does not feature on the map at all. Can we now remove the tag?
Otherwise, the solution you seek appears to be to remove the shading from that portion of Serbia (as depicted) which equates to Kosovo, but since the map resolves only to the level of countries, this is impractical and unnecessary unless Kosovo is first defined as a country. So unless you want to pursue the "Kosovo is a country" argument here, I don't see what you want to be done or why you think the map affects the article's neutrality. -- Timberframe ( talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's clear to me from your answers that however you word it, you placed the tag because you are not happy about a map which does not differentiate between Kosovo and Serbia-without-Kosovo. That's a subject that is way outside the scope of this article. I would suggest you take the argument elsewhere, but you're already doing that. Meanwhile, for the reasons I've already given above, I for one regard the tag as disruptive and unconstructive, and since only you and your puppet have objected I'm removing it, leaving you free to concentrate on fighting on more relevant pages. -- Timberframe ( talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A multiple-blocked confirmed sock puppeteer is assuming good faith (while using a puppet to suggest they are not a lone voice). Hilarious. Go fight your case on the Kosovo page, it has nothing to do with this article. If and when consensus there is to redraw maps, then you are welcome to come back and make the same request. Meanwhile, the tag is inappropriate because the article is maintaining its neutrality by not commenting on the statehood of Kosovo. -- Timberframe ( talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Page is now c. 250K, would someone mind setting up an archive bot? ninety: one 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
04-Oct-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 1 entry (name "New genetic reference") into date order for 2008. At this time, the talk-page is ready for another archive-split. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is an archive of Talk:Slavic peoples: July 2006 - Oct 2009.
The article enumerates all petty nations in Yugoslavia, four of which share the same language and three of which are a result of political bargaining rather than of historical development (nobody mentioned them before 1945), but forgets the Western Slavic Polabians and Pomorians. The latter of the two are almost fully extinct, but the Polabians are still there and speak their language and have their culture, newspapers, legal rights, etc., in Eastern Germany (former DDR). And, again Yugoslavia, aaarghhhh, there are Bunjevci, and Sokci, and Hercegovci, and Jugosloveni, and Gorani, and Muslimani, and Bosanci, and Bosnjaci, an endless number of entities, cantons and republics! A plenty of material for an eternal quarrelling! This is the result when nationality becomes a primary political issue. However, there is not a word about the Kaszubians and Slovinci, who at least should be mentioned as the last surviving groups speaking dialects of the Pomorian language. Somebody hasn't learnt their lessons. 85.11.148.60 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, every village its own military, that's how it goes. And god forbid if they don't mention us! But based on this wiki-debate site not only the South Slavs are so passionate at quarrelling, there is hardly any science or at least encyclopedic debate present on this site! Come on guys get a grip, life is not all that serious, and so is not ethnicity! No wonder the "Westerners" don't take us seriously at all and Germans make no distinction between Slavs and Gypsies! ; ) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.210.165 ( talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when are Slavs some massive ethnic group?
Italic textBold textISLAM AND SLAVDOM There is a lack of emphasis on importance of islam for slavs, big populations of muslims slavs bosniaks , gorani also pomaks etc
Actually Europeans are the most similar people of all (ie compared to asians and black). This is because 80% of Euro's make up comes from the original (paleolithic, or pre-indo-european) hunter gatherers that inhabited europe before 'migrations'. The rest comes from the IEs plus a few asiatic influences
Hxseek 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have putted new map of language distribution,it is more has more precise part "South Slavic" languages, because Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin (4 languages in 1945 - 1991 period called Serbo-Croat language) are not determined by borders.. We have Serbian in northern and eastern parts of Bosnia, Bosnian in southern parts of Serbia and Kosovo, even Slovak language in small parts of Serbia, Croatian in southern parts of Bosnia etc. --
Nedimm 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the language map belongs on the Slavic languages page, and we have a map of geographic distribution of "Slavs" in this article. Also, a key distinction about ethnic groups is unity, and the one thing all eastern europeans are unified about is their hatred of one another, so I agree with anon that the infobox should stay out.-- tufkaa 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe and hope that Wikipedia isn't dominated by the Russian secret service and isn't trying to promote that Most of Europe is actually Russian as they apparently speak Slavic. Case in point... Bosniaks are genetically less Asian than Germans/Austrians... Just because Yugo SLAVIA dominated Bosniaks for a short while and forced the Slavic languages on them... doesn't make them Slavic. Also the map doesn't take into account that Kosovo seperated and they don't even speak Slavic language. Also many Bosniaks speak German, Italian and Turkish too, does that make them Turkish, Roman and Austrian and Slav? Surely Language isn't enough for the Russian conquest of Europe.. 77.78.196.142 ( talk) 13:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hy, i have put this paragraph on the wiki page:
Since September 16, 2008 there is a new hypothesis on the origin of the term Slav. The author's argument is that the word "Slav" comes from the word "Splav" (raft) or simply the word "plav" (blue). (The complete hypothesis can be seen at http://www.hlada.com)
but it seems that it keeps getting taken down. Can someone tell me why? Is it because of the link in the end? Writ to me at: info@hlada.com Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlada ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Slavic people call themselves Słowianie, Slovani - note that there the first vowel is "o", not an "a" as in Greek and Latin. The name is pronounced Slavjanie only in those languanges where the not-stressed o is pronounced as a, like in Russian. The core is still slovanie.
Look at the origin from the Slavic people point of view. This name has much more in common with slovo - the word than with slava - the glory. The slovanie would mean people of the words, people that can speak, express themselves in contrary to the neighbours (speaking foreign languages) who don't speak any comprehesible language of slavic family hence are mute, not able to speak. Note, that for the Slavic people coming from the east the first people they've met that spoke totally different and uncomprehesible language were Germans. Note also that in all slavic languages, german language (and often Germany itself) is called: niemiecki, nemčina, Немецкий -niemieckyi = mute (Germany - Niemcy, Nemecko = Mute People).
Even today, the german language sounds in the Slav's ears like the murmuring and tongue-chewing rather with the words hardly distinguishable while within the slavic family people can still communicate (more or less efficiently).
The hypothesis that the term Slav origins from the words slava - glory has not such a strong support after closer studies. Merewyn 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And I agree with the User who wrote "Slovan" part of this talk page: "other explanations in section 'Origin of the term Slav' seem ridiculous or misguiding... (Why do you think that we would name us Slovans with ethymological roots in Greek or Latin languages, that are completelly (linguistically) foreign?)" Merewyn 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
However most linguists and historians believe that Slowianie does not mean "people of the word". I was surprised that no serious historian I know about backs this theory, and usually they are calling it "folk ethymology" (Earlier recordings of the name are consequently using "k" between S and L, to sklobenoi, sklovene etc Szopen 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless you provide other examples of the same usage of 'kl' (preferrably with references), I am inclined to believe that this is your brilliant theory created on the spot right here. Mukadderat 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you quite sure that "slovo" means "the word"? Doesn't it acctually mean "the letter"?
"Slovo" means letter, yes. -- 70.119.155.196 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Slovo" actually means the word, whilst "písmeno" (slovak, czech) means the letter.
Just because somebody speaks Turkish and German, that person isn't going to be called Turk/German, so the term Slavic needs to have genetic heritage added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.197.74 ( talk) 11:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To anybody else apart from JdeJ: Speaking Slavic cannot by definition make you a Slav under any circumstances, you may be a German born in Ukraine, and that makes you a German, not a Slav.
I've marely removed unsourced content, and there is more. Like where it says that Muslims alone are Slavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.197.74 ( talk) 11:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Lies and warped logic is not in Wikipedia's interest: for example the slogan "Kosovo is Serbia" is a good example of Lies and warped logic as even Serb historians admit that Kosovo was rulled by Serbs for 250 years only via force.
Frankly I've never read any account which identified Vandals with Venedes; what's more, the fact that Venedes as Slavs is quite undisputed amongst Polish historians. They usually point that ancient writers did not use word "German" as ethnic, but rather as cultural desisgnation (e.g. one of author, can't remember his name - Tacitus - wrote something like he don't know whether call Venedes Germans or Sarmatians, because they move on foot like Germans, but have other cultural traits as Sarmatians...) Szopen 10:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nazi Germany, whose proponents claimed a racial superiority for the Germanic people, particularly over Semitic and Slavic peoples, plotted an enslavement of the Slavic peoples, and the reduction of their numbers by killing the majority of the population. As a result, a large number of people considered by the Nazis to have Slavic origins were slain during World War II."
Citation?
Give me a break with this crap. While its true there was anti-Slav propaganda in National Socialist Germany, there was no plan for the mass enslavement of the "Slavic peoples", which I suppose to include the Poles and the Croats, among others. The National Socialists organized the Croats to fight the Serbs; they tried, very hard, to create an ethnically Polish occupation government in Poland during the war, though it didn't work and was blocked by several elements (it was in furtherance of this that the Germans brought world attention to the Katyn Forest massacre of Poles by the Soviets). As to "killing the majority of the population", the only "civilians" systematically killed by the German during the war were the "civilian" soviet commissars, most of whom were Jewish, and most of whom committed crimes against humanity.
The statement has been deleted until someone can write something Non-POV.
-- Bill White (neo-Nazi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
Who supports this theory that the Slavs have always roamed Galacia, Silesia, etc. since the dinosaurs? No seriously. If this is actually true, then there would be no common bond of any sort amongst "Slavs". I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I do know that someone came from the direction of Russia and was headed westward around 500 and then there was another wave around 700. How can Slavs already be somewhere that Slavs haven't migrated to yet? Baffled. -- 155.247.166.29 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Somewhere I read about Slavic Runes - or Vlesovitsa - somewhere. Is there anything known about them except that they possibly were (I know they are noted in one or two cases - by a German monk, for example)? I did a Google search - and found nothing more than sites mirroring Wikipedia and an article discussing old Slavic beliefs. The Wikipedia article does not provide so much information on the topic. Is there any new results in research? It is really in my interest. -- Cserlajos (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the last edits, it just reintroduce halftrue, false or fuzzy data. Nasz 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually there was falsification in XIX century, when some Polish pseudoarcheologists (badacz starozytnosci) presented something he claimed was Slavic runes. When it was proved to be falsification, no serious scientist in Poland would claim that Slavic runes existed. I was told by someone interested in the subject that he found plethora of archeological samples with different signs, which are outhand rejected because they are either considered ownership marks, falsification or something else - anything but runes. Szopen 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wander wether the Poles really Slavic? They seemed for me rather of Germanic or Baltic origin.-- Ghuter 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Czechs and Poles ARE both classes as western slavs, therefore similar. Southern slavs are NOT called czechs. Pleas do not make up things or let any personal feeling get into the way of facts
Although some sugggests that Czechs are more South Slavic than western Hxseek ( talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
|If you want to talk genetics, Poles are a nice example of the genetic differences between Slavs. A little more than half of the population is of the appearance of Northern Slavs, and are quite similar to Balts, Scandinavians (the whole blond hair/ "Nordic" look). The rest are of a more Mediterranean looking appearance, especially Gorales who have Italic roots, and are more similar to the Central European Czechs.
Latin sclavus cannot be borrowed from Turkish because it existed long before Turkish invasion.-- Planemo 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Which Turkish word should be the base for sclavus anyway?
In this section there's a part that, in my opinion, is not clear:
I have tried to correct it but I don't really know what it exactly wants to mean. Is it that this school "wants us to believe" that stuff? In that case, it would be an opinion, rather than a fact! I leave it to someone who knows more than me on this subject. Archael Tzaraath 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Somebody put Southern Slavic people like Czechs together with Lechs. Czechs belong with other Czechs. Not Lechs. Lechs are only Western Slavic people and they never included any of Czech people from south in Bulgaria up to north in Czechs, Slovakia and Southern Lusatia. What I do to notify this clear case of vandalism? Pan Piotr Glownia 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavic languages because all Slavic peoples used more or less the same Slavic language 1000 years ago and were already partitioned into these western, southern and eastern groups. We Slavic peoples call these ethnic partitions amongst us Slavic peoples for " Lechs" (ethnic Western Slavic peoples), " Czechs" (ethnic Southern Slavic peoples) and " Rusins" (ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples) for a good reason. Common sense tells one that if even Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Pan Piotr Glownia 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavs as it seems and Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples are not equal with South Slavs. Slavic languages 1000 years ago were still quite similiar to eachother and not like it is today. However even from earlier times Slavic peoples had these ethnic partitions amongst Slavic peoples. " Lechs" stand for Ethnic Western Slavic peoples, " Czechs" stand for Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples and " Rusins" stand for Ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples. This is major partition amongst Slavic peoples and it is not based on language, but on ethnicity. Even if Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Czechs during entire written history never were ethnic Lechs like Poles. Every historical source is certain on this issue. It is possible that this ethnic partition is even older then any possible differentiation of Proto-Slavic language. I direct you to " Lech, Czech and Rus", which is part of Slavic spoken history as well as historical and traditional ethnic partition on Lechs, Czechs and Rusins used amongst Slavic people by the Slavic peoples. Every dictionary and lecture commenting this ethnic partition will ensure that Czechs were always adressed as " Czechs" and not like Poles " Lechs". Czechs and Poles do belong to different ethnic groups otherwise one had to put Czechs and Poles together with Belarusians and Ukrainians into the same Western Slavic ethnicity, as the Lechs, the Czechs and the Rusins originate from the same ethnic origin, which probably used the same proto-Slavic language. All historical sources begining from XIII century ("Chronicle of Greater Poland" written in year 1295) prove it to be the general ethnic partition used by Slavic peoples in Europe. Pan Piotr Glownia 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
About ethnicity it is stated that
"Members of an ethnic group generally claim a strong cultural continuity over time, although some historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which various ethnic groups are based are of recent invention (Friedlander 1975, Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Sider 1993)."
Therefore I urge you to not be short sighted to the XXth and XXIst centuries. Make notice of:
- Kulturkampf, which for Poles is a rude remark, so please don't do it. I hope you make notes about this.
-Can you imagine Czechs wearing kontusz like Lechs, Cossacks and medieval Hungarians did? It means not only different culture of Polish peoples to Czech peoples, but also different civilization. I hope you make notes about this.
-I am relatively sure I can eventually get you some paper about West-East civilizational and cultural clash raging in modern Poland specially in relations cities vs. country side. So Poland civilizationally is also unlike Czechs. I hope you make notes about this.
-I am Lech and Lechs are Western Slavic ethnicity and I know Czechs always were of Southern Slavic ethnicity. Please take notice I write about ethnicity. Not modern XXI century culture or language. Somebody, who did not eat in McDonald yet? Hallo, anybody home over there!?! ;)
-Czechs are often brown haired and green eyed, when Lechs are often blond/au-burn haired and blue eyed! I hope you make notes about this.
-your papers on language are not in merit equal to my papers on ethnicity, even if mine were written already in XIII century, as they did describe ethnic status quo amongst Slavic peoples lasting for 800 years at least and which still to this very day is part of living culture and tradition at least amongst Lechs. I hope you make notes about this.
As I wrote earlier it is not modern ethnic partition amongst Slavic peoples, but traditional partition of Slavic ethnicities amongst Slavic peoples and yes, I know that Lech, Czech and Rus is also a legend. How do you think Slavic peoples pass traditions from generation to generation in the first place? Koran??? Hallo, anybody home over there!?! ;)
So imho this vital information should be included on Slavic peoples page and it is still missing. :(
regards, Pan Piotr Glownia 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the text below, and you will see what I mean. Please note that the offending text didn't seem to show up in the edit screen
Max Vasmer suggests that the word originated as a river name (compare the etymology of the Volcae), comparing it with such cognates as Latin cluo ("to wash"), a root not known to have been continued in Slavic, however, and appearing in meanings of "to clean, to scour" in Baltic, slavs are dumb middle eastern dirty sand niggers.
Whoever wrote that forgets that Slavs were the first people who put a man in space (Yuri Gagarin)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.54.100 ( talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this article is in a terrible condition, while and despite the fact that it is heavily edited 365 days a year, I am not going to engage in any edits or explaining here why such "theories" have no place in an encyclopaedia like this and why genetic studies are a problem in general. But the only thing any reader can require is at least that the author or whoever write the hypothesis in a way making sense. Thus, I have commented that part out until this has been done. Juro 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Similar --- ??what and similar to what?? --- semantic/fonetic analogy Scythian - scytne, szczytne (??so what??) . Scythian distinguish themselves by pointy hat which is known from early Polish sourcese as szczyt/scyt. Similar analogy to words Czech/Czesi is czesni (noble, truthful, humane) also known as cesny or titulary abreviated to cny/a and related to szlachetny/a/i. citation needed ---- where is your souce??? you have been editing here for days, so where is the source for this?????? and how is this related to the word Slovene? -----In any ethnogenesis scenario Slověne and Scythian share the same (few hundreds years apart) territory and R1a1 prove genaological inheritance . -- What has this to do with the word Slovene??
Juro 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not know whether you do not understand the above text or just do not want to understand: The question was not about finding any source you like about ethnogenesis, but to provide (correct) sources for exactly the text you write in the section on the name AND to FINALLY EXPLAIN WHAT THIS MEANS Similar --- ??what and similar to what?? --- semantic/fonetic analogy Scythian - scytne, szczytne (??so what??) . Scythian distinguish themselves by pointy hat which is known from early Polish sourcese as szczyt/scyt. Similar analogy to words Czech/Czesi is czesni (noble, truthful, humane) also known as cesny or titulary abreviated to cny/a and related to szlachetny/a/i. citation needed ---- where is your souce??? you have been editing here for days, so where is the source for this?????? and how is this related to the word Slovene? -----In any ethnogenesis scenario Slověne and Scythian share the same (few hundreds years apart) territory and R1a1 prove genaological inheritance . -- What has this to do with the word Slovene?? Juro 02:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And this sentence: +The not visible to some toponyms include : 49000 km² Slovakia. In Poland counting only 'inhabitated toponyms': "Slow* contains 25, 126 has "Slo*" is a claer evidence of vandalism on the part of user: Nasz. I would appreciate if an admin could intervene here. Juro 03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(i deleted the redundant repetiton. ) You reverted it, ok:
Im trying to add references ... Could you be so nice and wait.
03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
ps:
You are obviously neither able to explain, not to undestand what you write, you are adding original "research" (although reaserch is a misnommer), nor are you able to understand the text you are quoting, you are lying about the texts you are quoting or deleting, you are trolling, you are not discussing etc. You are definitely not qualified for any edits whatsover in this article. So just stop and write about things you have an idea of. Juro 10:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the 5th time I am asking you to provide the source for this: Similar semantic/fonetic analogy Scythian - scytne, szczytne. Scythian distinguish themselves by pointy hat which is known from early Polish sourcese as szczyt/scyt. Similar analogy to words Czech/Czesi is czesni (noble, truthful, humane) also known as cesny or titulary abreviated to cny/a and related to szlachetny/a/i. and to explain in normal language, what this has to do with the word Slovene. Are you able to understand what you are requested to do, or not? Juro 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And I am adding another point to the above list: WHO EXCEPT YOU claims that the word Slovakia is the origin of the word Slavs? Provide sources. Juro 10:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is radiculos.
1)What do you claim as not true ?
2)To what word do you like me to give you a references?
I see the problem now, your English is terrible (this is not meant as an insult), therefore you do not understand. There is no such thing as "evident" in etymology and there is no such thing as original research in this wikipedia ( WP:NOR) or in any secodary literature (like encyclopaedias) in the world. You need a SOURCE for every word, for every conclusion you draw so that we can write: according to X (and not according to Nasz!) Slovene comes from XYZ. Secondly, believe me, the part you have written is LINGUISTICALLY incomprehensible, it is not clear what exactly you are trying to say - it is not clear, what is similar to what and what that is supposed to imply with respect to the word Slovene. Thirdly, what you have written concerning the name Slovakia with respect to Slovene is an absolutely inacceptable nonsense and your personal lie. Thirdly, the part on the Dravidian theory AS A WHOLE is word by word taken from the study, Palacky refers to religion - you have 2 links in the text or are you going to claim that you do not see them either? ...And as for your last comment: If you read carefully the theory says that the word is Dravidian, not Slavic, which is of course a "bypass" of the problem, that slava as a Slavic word is wrong. But that does not matter, I am not a proponent of anything, I have just quoted one theory (maybe it is totally wrong, but this is not the place to discuss this, this is the place for quotes). Juro 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Some editors have objection to truth in those sentences:
1) According to the standard reference ( [2]), the word Slověne "cannot be derived from the word slovo ...., because -ěninъ, -aninъ occur only with placenames ...., but a placename *Slovy ....is not documented".
2) This would refer to the ancient Slavic warriors. A proponent of this theory was e.g. Roman Jacobson (reconstructed IE root *kleu-').This theory is wrong, because the word slava occurs only later [3],
If yes , is it your conclusion about incorectnes of the etymologies ?
Thanks for quote, (aparently the search not work properly) I will tranlate 'word by word' this and you chek if the ranslation is corrct. OK?
in cleaned it will mean.
slověne can not be pictured from slověne word slovo as -enin -anin only are found only in words-related to toponyms, howewer toponyms for example/begining with *Slovy are no fonded.
Nasz 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not the proponent of anything, unlike you. Secondly, just read what the current version says,It contains the answers to all your questions, and it has even a translation if you would bother to read it instead of deleting things you do not understand (do you realize that you have deleted the source twice pretending it does not contain what I say, and now you admit that you do not understand Russian? - in other words your edits were lies). Thirdly, if you had at least a basic idea about the topic at hand, you would understand that this etymological dictionary by Vasmer and Trubachev is the most authoritative source on Slavic languages (except for a newer one which is not online, but equally by Trubachev), therefore actually it would be enough to translate it and the result would be the only correct and reliable part of this whole terrible Slavic peoples article. Any serious study on the word Slovene starts with a reference to exactly this dictionary (you can take the first external link as an example) and do not dare to doubt any such work if the only language you seem to understand is Polish...Nevertheless the text of this article mentions other marginal and probably wrong theories and I do not delete them...And once more: To be clear, you personal opinion is irrelevant and after what you have written NOT DESIRED for lack of basic competence in this field. Juro 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please answer my question. Which scholars or politicians use these medieval authors as evidence for the autochthonic theory? Aecis (copy by N: from main article)
Almost all of the South Slavs can be traced to ethnic Slavs who mixed with the local population of the Balkans (Illyrians, Thracians, Ancient Macedonians, Dacians and Getae) and with later invaders from the East (Bulgars, Avars, and Alans), then fell under the hegemony of the Ottoman Empire.
I wonder how this reference to Ancient Macedonians exists. According to the article the Slavic tributes arrived in the balkan peninsula at 6th century AD. At that time, inside the Byzantine Emperor, the Byzantine Macedonians do not consist a seperate group, but they were self-identified and counted as Greeks. They were also recognised as Greeks from the rest of Greek populations from the 4th century BC (1000 years earler). So, either it should be Byzantine Greeks, either nothing. (It's like saying that they mixed with the Athenians for e.g.) Besides, at 6th century AD it's Medieval time and not Ancient. Temporarily I delete the Ancient Macedonians and I'm waiting for further corrections. The same is applied for the Thracians.
That sounds ridiculous indeed. The Slav tribes never came into contact with the Macedonians in the balkans. Since they self identified as (Byzantine) Greeks for at least a millenium. Having said that, the Slavs can not have absorbed Macedonians and Greeks into their gene pool. It's either Greeks or nothing at all.(Sal)
Sentence about common identity sounds very strange, so I removed it. There is little sense of common identity-what do Poles feel common with Macedonians or Russians ? I know attempts were made in 19. century to create a common identity but they failed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Przes ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
The idea seems disputed. Some claim there is common identity, some oppose the idea. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/998/kurczaba.html "In The Next American Nation, Michael Lind says:11 'Suppose that the federal government created a category of citizens of eastern European descent called Slavics, and made them eligible for affirmative action benefits. Soon...many Americans of partial Polish, Russian, Czech, or Romanian descent would discover their common Slavic identity, and apply for favorable treatment in college admissions, minority set-asides, and so on.... Before long....there would be "Slavic Studies Departments" at major colleges and universities, where intellectuals would debate the exact elements of the "Slavic" culture common to Catholic Poles, Orthodox Russians, and Protestant Hungarians.' As it happens, the federal government has not created a new category called 'Slavics.' And if it had, I doubt whether Romanian Americans and Hungarian Americans, their ancestors having resisted Slavicization for centuries, would embrace the status of born-again 'Slavics,' government blessings notwithstanding. Nevertheless, Lind's comments put to focus a crucial dependence between official government and academic policies on the one hand, and enrollments on the other. In a bid perhaps to discourage the study of anything but Russian, the government poured much money into the study of Russian, while the American academy has made 'Slavic languages' into an almost racial category and, presto, we have Slavic departments. Lind's comment captures well the arbitrary nature of the Slavic construct in the American academy. If ever Catholic Poles, Orthodox Russians, and Protestant Hungarians sat together, the Poles and Hungarians would undoubtedly have much to discuss; but their discussions would not include the question of how to become more perfect Slavs." http://www.unc.edu/depts/slavdept/lajanda/slav075barber.ppt "many people classified as Slavs identify more strongly with nationalist identity than with a common Slavic identity."
www.mah.se/upload/IMER/Program/IPES/Summary%2520of%2520The%2520Meaning%2520of%2520Europe.doc "The location of Czech between East and West sometimes was interpreted as a position between Germans and Russians, which in consequence led to different opinions about Europe. Slavic identity was especially strong during the German occupation. However with the defeat of Germany and emerged domination of the Soviet Union, the Western elements became dominant and the Slavic one was forgotten."
http://www.search.com/reference/Slavic_Europe "when Polish people were asked in a poll to mark traits they associate with Russians, only 0,4 % marked "Slavs" as an answer" Utlip
You disregard several sources in favour of your own opinion ? I don't think saying "nationalist blahblah" is a serious responce. Utlip
If the sources are bad or good may be judged in different way by different people. There are here though. Your opinion needs a serious source to confirm such claim. If it is so as you say, a full written citation wouldn't be a problem that would confirm the sentence.-- Utilp 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I merely came across this article - I have no special store of scholarship in the area, and most definitely no desire to get bogged in what looks like an ethnic partisan swamp. However, the entire "homeland theories" section needs some major work, and is frankly an embarrassment in the revision I saw ( here).
On a brief inspection, it would appear that what may have once been a coherent section has been eroded by insertions from what I assume is one or more "anti-Allochthonic" editors with a very poor command of English. I have no idea if this theory is indeed now discredited, but even if so the existing unsourced, opinion-strewn text would certainly not be the way to communicate this. And while phrases such as "the book is still defended by Germans like holy bone" provide amusement, even in proper English the underlying sentiments would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I realize that some contributors may not have English as a first language, but there is still a responsibility that contributions meet some minimum standard, or to enlist another editor's help in writing. "He was activ politian verbant suporter of falen pangermanizm" approaches gibberish.
There are any number of other problems with the section. I'll mark it with cleanup and neutrality tags, and hope someone suitable can be found to undertake the work. Is it possible that there is an earlier version of this section in the revision history which could be restored? - David Oberst 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Becose you cited the pangerman created swamp it may be helpful if you try to incorporate these words: Slavic ethnogenesis by Mario Alinei, 3.6 History of ideas Nasz 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
PCT is uttermost fringe and not even on topic here. It will not get air time on this article, beyond perhaps a single short phrase, per WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OKAY... You'll excuse me, but how can you explain the fact that most of the peoples (if not all) who speak Slavic languages will understand somewhat of each other, if they're not all Slavs: Serbs-Croats-Slovenians-Macedonians-Russians-Poles-Slovakians-Czechs-Sorbs-Bulgarians-Biyelorussians-Ukrainians,etc.??? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.203.194.97 (
talk) 23:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to say this , but this article is pretty wrong. The first written occurences of words relating to the current "slavonic" are after the (i think roman) introduction of the word slave in europe. Just like the word "serbian" derives from spanish . However there is a light in that these people recognised this fact and got themselves a culture organised to withstand it, not uniquely they took the enemy's derogative for a compliment and after the dark european middle-ages , flourished as a language. The heartland theory is perhaps inaccurate in so far that eg. the "Serbians" at that time already were aware of their dedication in Hispanica.(trust tacitus). 77.251.188.67 ( talk) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just came to this page and browsed through the pictures until I stumbled upon this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavs.jpg When exactly was this painting made? Because Middle Ages is a very broad period of time... For me this painting looks like made during the Romanticism when pan-slavic and nationalistic ideas originated. ( Kazkaskazkasako 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
Lack of emphasis of importance of islam in slav world, particularly in south slav society. Many large slavic muslim groups i.e Bosniaks, Pomaki, Gorani. Should be given more mention, as they represent the third biggest religion amongst slavic and other nationalities in slav countries (i.e Tartars, certain caucassians in russia).
Your first point is partially correct. It is worth mentioing that some slavs in the south did convert to islam from christianity during the Turkish conquest. However on the whole they are a small minority. An exception is the Bosniaks who represent a large portion of the people who live in Bosnia. Yet they are still a minority in the context of Slavdom as a whole.
But it does not need to be emphasised. Generally Slavs are identified as a christian, european peoples. Christianity is not only their religion, but it influences their entire culture, festivals, slavic saints and way of life in general. Islam has no part in the life of the the overwhelming majority of slavs. Anyway, the whole religion section is brief, and it does not discuss orthodoxy or catholicism much more. So what do you want ? For the sake of keeping the article succint, if one wants to learn about Islam then they may perhaps refer to an article about Turkish peoples or Arabians
Your second point is absurd. Why would an article about slavs talk about Tartars, Turks, Albanians ? THis article is about slavic people, not a country. Eg if this as about Russia, they yes it would certainly need to mention that many different ethnicities and religions exist.
Islams importance in Slav Word is no more then its importance in the Celtic or Germanic world, the slavs are overwhelmingly christian, there are more atheists among them then muslims.-- 84.94.29.123 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean fully muslim or partly muslim ? Its either you're muslim or not, those muslims slav converted 500 years ago either by force or to avoid taxing by the Ottoman Empire, the entire slavic culture is based on christianity and Islam is a foreign religion for them. And bosniaks barely make up 1 percent of the slavic population, islam in this article is just as worth mentioning as it would have been in the article about germanics or dacians or greeks.-- 84.94.194.195 06:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No they weren;t Hxseek ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
WARNING: there are two sections titled "Origins and Slavic homeland debate" which are an obvious fork, dangerously diverging. Please merge ASAP. `' Míkka 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Indo-European topics |
---|
The location of the speakers of pre-Proto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic is subject to considerable debate. Serious candidates are cultures on the territories of modern Poland, Belarus, European Russia and Ukraine. The proposed frameworks are:
From the 19th century onwards, the debate became politically charged, particularly in connection with the history of the Partitions of Poland, and German imperialism known as Drang nach Osten. Generally, both German and Slavic want to be 'autochthonic' on land at river Vistula.
Autochthonic theory (the Proto-Slavs are native to the area of modern Poland), before 5th century.
Allochthonic theory (the Slavs immigrated to the area of modern Poland) after 5th century.
The debate has been used as a tool of political propaganda and is often emotionally charged and interspersed with pseudoarchaeology and national mysticism.
Contemporary scholarship in general has moved away from the idea of monolithic nations and the Urheimat debates of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and its focus of interest is that of a process of ethnogenesis, regarding competing Urheimat scenarios as false dichotomies.
Mukadderat 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me for the criticism in the area I am far form being an expert, but each time I revisit this article (usually after longer times), I see its content seriously chenged without any footnotes added to justify the change. Isn't it agains the basic wikipedia policies? I understand that initially when wikipedia was less strict in its rules, many articles were written with few references. But you have to agree that it is reasonable to expect that new contributions must follow the current, reasonably well established rules. What is your opinion? Mukadderat 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I was just wiki-hopping from german to english sites and wondering: how much quarrels would I find on this discussion-site of "Slavic peoples". My impressions are: - both sites are lacking references - both sites are seeming to refer a research-level of a 100 years ago - both sites are obvious predestinated for unlimited struggles about that (impossible) "historical truth"
So, what I was trying to stutter is: It´s suprising, how seemingly people try to defend their private-enlightments without any self-criticism. I´am very reliefed about that, because my studies in early-slavic-ethnogenesis are more than unacceptable in modern-german-historicism and I am not alone with these thoughts...-- 139.30.24.119 ( talk) 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The Czech Republic, along with Estonia, has one of the most non-religious populations in the European Union. According to the 2001 census, 59% of the country is agnostic, atheist, non-believer, 26.8% Roman Catholic and 2.5% Protestant. - Gaston28 - August 5 2007.
Yes. i think the article refers to traditional religions of slavs, ie catholic or orthodox. Granted now most people in the western world are agnostic or atheist Hxseek 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Talking about Slavic peoples as a separate ethnic group from their neighbours is just nonsense. There's no such thing as Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples or anything of the kind. Europe was populated by a great number of different peoples before the arrival of Indo-European languages, most of these peoples are still unknown although some, such as Etruscans and Basques are known. These people weren't replaced by "Indo-European", they just adopted the languages. The peoples speaking Slavic languages in Southern Europe are much more closely related to their non-Slavic neighbours ( Greeks, Albanians, Romanians). A gigantic invasion of Slavs replacing the earlier peoples in the Balkans never took place, the vast majority switched language. This article itself makes that very explicit. Poles and Czechs have been intermingling with Germans for over 1000 years, Russians with different peoples speaking Finnic languages and Turkish languages. While the articles for various inhabitans of modern countries ( Russians, Poles, Serbs etc.) and Slavic languages are all very relevant, this article could as well be nominated for deletion. It's trying to prove something that doesn't exist. JdeJ 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
When you said "Slavic" Slovenes, you hit the nail on the head. Slovenes and Slovaks nationally, Slavonians of Croatian regionally, Slovincians of Poland lingusitically as well as other communal names are all derived from the Slavic endonym. It is true that people have mixed, but people have mixed everywhere, or have dissimilated adjacent populations who were related in the first place to make them one and the same. But this is not what composes an ethnic group, it is how people declare themselves. Now much of Western Europe which is Romance speaking is so as a result of its Latin speaking past; Germanic invasions did indeed bring an end to a unique identity, but it did not break the Romanic people into pieces, it just stretched them: linguistically, and culturally, there is a continuum however you look at it. This marvelous continuum across the North Germanic; West Germanic (minus England); West Romanic; East Romanic (Romania and Moldova); north, and south Slavic worlds means that you cannot possibly draw a line down any geographical territory and say, "these people are one ethnic group genetically", and "those are another". And you certainly cannot drive around Krakow, Brno, Lviv, Ljubljana, Sarajevo or Varna and say "that Croatian is not ethnically the same as the other Croatian because Ivan's eyes are green and Zvonimir's are brown". On principle, you have your key ethnic group, say Ukrainian for instance; those down the road may say that they are Slovaks indeed, but you cannot tell me that Ukrainian identity is genetically based upon the mixtures and interferences which affected Ukrainians only, no Belarussians, no Russians, no Poles, and with regards to the Ukrainian population, it stops once people become Slovak. Perhaps that is not what you were saying. However, ethnic groups do look to an ancestral past which encompasses the wider community. Now when members of that community speak a totally different language, such as in the FYROM with Albanian; it is difficult for us to embrace each other as a single race, though we all admit to having shared experiences (Ottoman subjugation, Communism, poverty, corruption etc), and we all acknowledge that we may be distantly related. But when those neighbours speak a language which is contiguous, it becomes more natural to see each other as one and the same (of course, one needs to forget about national pride before adopting a more moderate patriotism here), and it does happen. Now with Slavs, unlike Germanics and Romance speakers, the term "Slav" in some form has been with us for as long as we can remember. There have been times down the centuries when people from present-day Poland, Russia, former Yugoslavia etc. may have used half a dozen names to denote who they are nationally, and "Slav" has always been among them, and it is what we have always known to be the linking factor from us in Macedonia and Bulgaria, to those in the far north of the Russian Federation. What's more, many people are Slavists; there was a popular movement thoughout the 18th and 19th centuries to unite all Slavic people. In this time, there was a revival of Slavic folklore and pre-christian beliefs which surfaced. Today, there is no plan to nationally unite the Slavic peoples, but then looking at it another way: is there a need? When Pan-Slavism came into effect, I believe that most Slavic people were subjugated (living under non-Slavic empires or republics), today, the vast majority of Slavic people live in Slavic countries of some kind: there are the occasional communities trapped outside, such as the Lusatian Sorbs of Germany; some left their previous settlements to live elsewhere before that territory became independently Slavic (eg. Burgenland Croats and Slovenes; Banat Bulgarians living in Hungary or Romania), others are in the diaspora but atleast they still have their family in Slavic countries. And most national flags maintain the Slavic tricolor, so there is an afinity even if not national. But looking outside the Slavic world, you have the enormous Arab world: there are about 15 Arab countries. They too have been subjected to historical mixing; Morocco with Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese) both ways leaves Syrians and Lebanese having a more European look than North Africans. Algeria is Algeria and Bahrain is Bahrain, each complete with their own ideas about nationalism and statehood, so what is Arab about them beyond language? But the people themselves embrace as Arabs even if they don't care to share the same capital city, currency and president/ruler. Think of Slavic as being "an ethnicity to the nationality", then it will be easier. Evlekis 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Think of Slavic as being "an ethnicity to the nationality"". Unfortunately this cannot make sense, because the UN definition of ethnicity takes into account of religion. This was part of the problem with the former Yugoslavia. Although the various group there (former Yugoslavia) are genetically and linguistically homogenous in general, they were not so from a religion POV, thus they are classified as different ethnic groups. The terms Slavic, Germanic etc are used as a linguistic classification, and by extension as a genetic classification, although one has of course to take into account human history and sociology. Black Americans are English linguistically, having lost all contact with the languages of their African ancestors, but genetically they are still very much African. Russians may be 'Slavs' by appearance and by language, but a recent survey showed that half the male population of Moscow have the Mongolian alcohol oxidase gene, which showed the success of the Mongol invaders at impregnating local women. Because of this genetic fact, do we now classify Russians as Mongolians? 86.157.233.233 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
While there's some questionable comments above there most certainly is no such thing as a "Slavic ethnicity". If you're referring to "Slavs" as a group of people who speak related languages you'll notice they fail to satisfy the definition of ethnicity by not having a common culture, religion, and origin. Ethnic groups tend to share those in addition to language. Moreover I don't know where these generalizations about groups are coming from. Some must be ignorant of the last 100 years worth of literature and research disproving many physical traits as belonging to ethnic groups (certainly in Europe). quite contrary to propaganda traits like light eyes and hair tend to be concentrated in non-Germanic countries in Europe (Frost & others). This is quite easily seen in the fact that you'll often see Hungarian actors or actresses playing the "most German looking" character in movies while many Britons play "the most Italian looking" character. Yes you can sometimes tell where someone might be from but there's no scientific basis for that and you'll just as likely to be wrong or right. Getting back to the core of the issue here: if you consider Slavs an ethnicity how would you propose to explain vast genetic similarities between Scandinavians and Poles? Or for that matter the differences between Lithuanians and Bosnians? Bottom line is that languages dissipate over different areas than do genetics or culture. Slavs are a linguistic family and most certainly not an ethnic group. JRWalko ( talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
All the arguements are ultimately futile, because there is no accepted definition of what ethnicity actualy entails Hxseek ( talk) 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I took liberty to replace an intro phrase about commonality by an equivocal sentence "both similar and dissimilar", which is while may look meaningless and non-informative, it is more correct. For example, Bulgarians are much closer culturally to Turks than to Belarusians, if forget common Orthodox Church (which is common only partially, by the way). Mukadderat 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is a well put description. But note that the similarity between Bulgarians and Turks refers to a genetic ancestral one, I'm not sure how culturally similar they are. After all religion has been the defining feature of many a civilisation until today Hxseek 11:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, that is the unique thing about southern Slavs in particular. They share similarities to other Slavs- a sense of similarity and relatedness (manifest in particular in western countries, eg Australia and A,erica, whereby Czeques, Russian, Poles, Serbs all seem to befriend each other), yet the that similarity can certainly extent to a regional level, whereby there seems to be an affinity with their neighbours (eg Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarian, Romanians; and Poles, Lithuanians, etc). Just a thought Hxseek 03:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The multi-ethnic Gothic state may have already had, at its fringes, elements of proto-slavic culture. This may have been a responce to the need for the proto-slavs to create a social and political unity in the face of disintegration of the Gothic empire and the arrival of the Huns.
Prior to this the slavs were obscure, not mentioned in history. They may have been what are referred to as the peoples of the 'forest-steppes' that were under the dominion of the scythian -sarmatian kingdom, however were not scythisized. From Cambridge Medieval History, volume I, the Slavs. Hxseek 12:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello all,
I hope you will correct the article.
First of all there is no need to look for roots of word SLOVENE in Latin or Greec languages.
In fact the explanation is simple, obvious, and hard to argue: SLOVo means word/language(eng.). SLOVene are people who can speak and understand one common language.
Furtermore, word NEMEZ(sngl.)/NEMZY(pl.) means dumb (engl.) and it was used previously for all kind of foreingers who couldn't speak SLOVO (the language) of SLOVenic people.
However, starting from 18 century, in Russia people started to associate mainly Germans with this word (before expressions like English NEMZY or Dutch NEMZY were quite common). In modern Russian language (and I beleive in some other slovonic languages - i.e. Polish and Ukrainian) NEMEZ/NEMZY is still a synonim of Germans.
Summary: SLOVENE are people who can speak and uderstand one common language (SLOVO). NEMZY (dumbs) are people who cannot say or understand SLOVenic language (SLOVO).
Thank you,
Anatoly Shamkin
ashamkin@gmail.com —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.225.206.160 (
talk) 06:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You can not claim one explanation to be the correct one, though your explanation is quite interesting and possibly the most accurate. There are several viable explanations, like in the venetic theory the word originating in Venci and getting the prefix "selo", meaning "small village" or "sel", derived from "seliti" in the meaning to "move", or perhaps "slo" in the meaning "went". The meaning "slo ven" or "went out"(of the original homeland) has also been proposed, there are also some more humorous ones like the prefix "slo" originating from "sol" which means salt. But since we can never know for sure how it originated, we have to either state all the theories or none. Regards. 86.61.30.53 ( talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Folk etymologies and scholars such as Roman Jacobson traditionally link the name either with the word sláva "glory", "fame" or slovo "word, talk" (both akin to OSl slusati "to hear" from the IE root *kleu-). Thus slověne would mean "people who speak (the same language)", i.e. people who understand each other, as opposed to the Slavic word for foreign nations, nemtsi, meaning "speechless people" (from Slavic němi - mute, silent, dumb), as for example in Polish: Niemcy is Germany.
Please source this. Quite a statement. Mallerd 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery." [Klein] O.E. Wealh "Briton" also began to be used in the sense of "serf, slave" c.850; and Skt. dasa-, which can mean "slave," is apparently connected to dasyu- "pre-Aryan inhabitant of India." More common O.E. words for slave were þeow (related to þeowian "to serve") and þræl (see thrall). The Slavic words for "slave" (Rus. rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, O.C.S. rabu) are from O.Slav. *orbu, from the PIE base *orbh- (also source of orphan) the ground sense of which seems to be "thing that changes allegiance" (in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of robot. Applied to devices from 1904, especially those which are controlled by others (cf. slave jib in sailing, similarly of locomotives, flash bulbs, amplifiers). Slavery is from 1551; slavish is attested from 1565; in the sense of "servilely imitative" it is from 1753. slave-driver is attested from 1807. In U.S. history, slavocracy "the political dominance of slave-owners" is attested from 1840.
I'm deleting the word folk etymology. Mallerd ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
After the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the bloodline of the Emperor continued in the Muscovite royal family. The Emperor's daughter married with the Muscovite King I believe. The Byzantines had greatly influenced many Slavs, such as Serbians, Bulgarians, and Russians. They also named them as their successors after the fall. Should there be a mention of this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.44.218 ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
User Molobo insists of inserting a claim that East, West and South Slavs aren't just a linguistics grouping but also a religious and cultural grouping. I'm reverting this, as it is obviously false and consist of original research. Molobo has provided a source, but the source doesn't support his claim. To take Slovenes, Czechs and Slovaks as examples: Czechs and Slovenes are both Catholic (religious), belonged for a long time to the Austrian Empire and was influenced by it (Culture and History). Bulgarians, in contrast, are Orthodox and were influenced by the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. When Uuser Molobo is trying to invent a common religious and cultural ground for the three linguistic groups of Slavs, he is making things up. Which religion is common for the South Slavs (they are Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims)? The whole insertion is original research from the beginning to the end, as anyone with a knowledge of European history will known. Most importanly, the source provided by Molobo most definitely doesn't define South Slavs along religious or cultural lines. JdeJ ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please present sources contradicting Encyclopedia Brittanica. Furthermore they are clear religious divisions between West and East Slavs in terms of religion for example, the quote speaks about this clearly and mentions it as one of divisions. "The whole insertion is original research " Encyclopedia Brittanica can't be classified as original research, sorry. Your personal opinion on EB is not enough for it to be removed. -- Molobo ( talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
the source, EB, does not say that this is the basis for dividing West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs. That's your own interpretation and it's not correct. Both Slovenes and Croats are Catholics and use the Latin alphabet. JdeJ ( talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Historic and cultural divisions from the quote:
Religious divisions:
The only problem is that the quote doesn't mention that this religious clear divide between East and West Slavs. Of course there are no muslim West Slav groups, I am not sure about Eastern ones. But it is clear that religious divisions are clearly present and define each group-- Molobo ( talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop personal attacks.I already explained to you that scholars note East-West division in Slavic groups. It is mote uneven in South Slavs, but even there there is division between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. It is also clear that two largest groups-West and East Slavs are clearly divided by cultural and religious line and this fact needs to be noted.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Further sources on division based on culture and religion:
The end result of this conflict was a dvision of the Slavic world into two cultural zones. There was a western zone of Roman Catholic religion , where the official language was Latin and the vernuclars developed only very slowly as written languages, these included all of West Slavic, Slovenian, and Croation half of SerboCroatioan. The Eastern Cultural zone had Orthodox religion, with Old Church Slavic, serving as as the liturgical language and having a profound effect on secular language too. In this zone were most of the East Slavs, from their Christianization officialy in 988, plus the remainder of the South Slavs. This cultural division still survives in the alphabets used by different Slavic languages(...)The cultural difference survives even where religious adherence per se has disappeared. Languages and Their Status Author: Timothy Shopen, Center for Applied Linguistics page 130 University of Pennsylvania Press -- Molobo ( talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As you yourself say they are many divisions and current formulation only speaks about linguistic one, avoiding religious and cultural divisions shown by scholary sources presented above.This is obviously not neutral as the lead may suggest that only linguistic division exist between West, East and South Slavs and not thousand years of different development and culture.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"not the bogus ones you think exist" You think EB and University of Pennsylvania books are "bogus" ? Sorry but can you finally give some scholary sources that would support your private views ? -- Molobo ( talk) 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
EB clearly states that divisions exist on cultural, religious level also, so it can't support your view. So far you are presenting only your own view, no sources have been presented.-- Molobo ( talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"No, it does not link these to the division of Slavs into three groups, that's your misinterpretation." It does so: "western Slavs were integrated into western Europe; their societies developed along the lines of other western European nations.
It is a clear division into three groups, as to the rest, sorry, but I don't think a content dispute can be seen as trolling, especially as I provided several sources backing the thesis that Slavs are divided due religion, culture, history. So far you didn't brought any contradictory sources. -- Molobo ( talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is too far fetched to say that there is somewhat of a religious and cultural unity between Slavs. Certainly they all have unique features, but there is some intangible aspect that draws them together- more than just language. One can easily recognise a fellow slav, just the look of the person. Christianity unifies and defines the Slavs. They would all be Orthodox had the western Slavs been dominated by Germans (and Bosnian muslims are just a historic aberation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no cultural or religious unity amongst "Slavs" (and they are gone anyway since thousand years, replaced by seperate nations). As 'one can reckognise' that is a strange claim. How ? By calling Bosnians aberration you comitted a serious offensive violation of civility. Also you should learn history more. For example Poles have been great friends to Ottoman Empire and in fact some converted to Islam such as Josef Bem, when escaping tyranny of Russian Empire. All in all your claims have no base in facts.-- Molobo ( talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly the best way to solve this inevitable confusion is to simply stop dreaming that Language simply makes a person a Slav. The most rock solid way to know if a nation is Slavic, is to simply see if majority of the people in that nation have the typical Slavic genetic signature. For example Bosnians, Bosniaks to be more precise have less Slavic or Asian genetic signature than Germans or Austrians... yet they are listed as Slavs only because their oppressors happen to be Slavic and forced the Slavic language on them... 77.78.196.52 ( talk) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Same with Croats and Serbs.But you still speak a Slavic language,if you don't want to belong in that group anymore,i suggest you to invent a new language.Maybe Esperanto could do in period of transition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.240.245 ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The image shows a map that appears to show what areas have Slavic peoples. I noticed that it extends into the Lapland, where the indigenous Sami people live. Would they be considered Slavic? And also, it seems to extend into Siberia. Except for the descendants of people exiled there by Stalin, isn't Siberia home to native Siberians? Just wondering if there can be some clarification. ForestAngel ( talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think JdeJ is out to create a Slavic empire all by herself. However as soon as Wikipedia realises that the Russian Secret service is trying to dominate Wikipedia, by Admining their own users gradually, and making bloated maps where this fake entity called Slavs who importantly are supposed to have a centralised base in Russia... Soon enough East Germany will be Slavic (Russian) since some of them still speak Slavic languages. 77.78.197.6 ( talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe 77.78.197.6 has a point, it certainly is in Russian global interest to gather allies via the Slavic route. 91.191.29.67 ( talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) This statement is absurd, the second biggest national group from Slavic languages group are the Poles, and it is certain that due to geopolitical and historic reasons they would never become allies of Russia. The third largest group are the Ukrainians and their relationship with Russia is also tarnished by history. I suggest removing those strange comments. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.-- Molobo ( talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would better the article if the ethnogenesis section was a bit more streamiline.I just think it is a bit disjointed currently, perhaps a little confusing even —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What WAS ANNO DOMINI Thinking? Just LOOK at this Calendar? No zero.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.228.241 ( talk) 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In most cases I object strongly to removing comments from talk pages but I'll make an exception and suggest that the long and tiresome tirades by the IP-jumper operating from 77.78.xxx be removed. The user in question has a long of history of vandalising this article and of threatening Wikipedia with bringing in hackers to destroy this site when he was blocked. His repeated vandalism is the only reason this article was semi-protected and then he turned to the talk page. I don't see how his ramblings about Yugoslavia having forced Bosnians to speak Slavic contributes anything to this site, as I'm sure any contributor will know that Bosnians had been speaking a Slavic language for about 1000 years before the creation of Yugoslavia. Nor do I consider his home-spun theories of Wikipedia being an undercover for the Russian secret service, about how all Slavs are Russians, and about how Germans and Austrians are more Asian than Bosnians have any relevance whatsoever. Trolling of that kind doesn't add anything of any value and distracts from real discussions about content. JdeJ ( talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha. He's obviously a nut Hxseek ( talk) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Genetics I disagree with the genetics section, specifically regarding the two southern slav groupings. Where is the reference to the research that this refers to? To say that the Croats and Serbs are more similar to the Slovenes and Macedonians respectively then to them selves is actually laughable. Any European group will associate themselves more with their western rather than eastern neighbors, but the Croats take this to the extreme as can be seen in their ridiculous Aryan German fantasies. If anything, Croats would be more similar in appearance in general to Macedonians rather than Slovenians. Furthermore, the Serbs are much more similar in appearance to the Croatians than the Macedonians or Bulgarians, so in a number of ways this grouping is very misleading. On another side note, the use of halpogroup percentages is highly misleading. Especially when it refers only to one halpogroup. For instance, Sorbs are described as having the highest percentage of halpogroup R1a. Does this mean that they are genetically 61%, slavs, or does it mean that they are the most slavic (100%)? Certainly the interpretation of Herzegovian’s as having 12% of the gene could be (has been) misused as describing them as being 12% slavs which is a complete under representation.
— OziSerb3 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please figure out how to add this to reference list: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964#TBL1 It is new GENETIC analysis which happens to prove that only Bosniaks are indigenous Europeans in X-Yugoslavia region and are absolutely unrelated to Slavic heritage Genetically. 77.78.199.117 ( talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1) Cuisine -
Cuisine_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.
2) Architecture.
Architecture_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
3) Language.
Bosnian_language
4) Religous behaviour (for example Serb Orthodox may behave differently in their religous expression to some other Orthodox groups)
5) Genetics. (The thing that is the least capable of lies and POW)
6)
Bosniak gene pool:
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1a_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg
http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1c_large_RG.jpg
Serb gene pool: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3a_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3b_large_RG.jpg
So Bosniaks belong to a whole entirely different tribe, or gene pool, and frequent Scandinavian I haplogroup almost exclusively in Balcans and as much as Swedes. Where as Serbs as you can see frequent intensely the E haplogroup who's ONLY and closest ancestors are Central Africans while other mixes are less than a few percent each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.198.26 ( talk) 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets make a big list here...(remember no side in reality has anything to lose by ACTUALLY getting to the truth here)
Remember to leave emotions out of this, as this is here to help us solve the conundrum, and stop the eternal arguing, if you change your mind about something, it is not a bad thing, but it more a brave thing.
Also nobody will read your entire story if it's oversized, please make it simple, short and easy to read, the longer it is the more it looks false, as reality is usually very short and simple.
77.78.197.84 (
talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"5) Genetics. (The thing that is the least capable of lies and POW)" Disturbing claim. Genetics speak nothing of culture. One can be brother of another person and be Jewish Pole while the Brother is a Turkish Muslim. It has nothing to do with genetics-- Molobo ( talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet they are connected by speaking often closely related Slavic languages, and also by a sense of common identity and history, which is present to different extents among different individuals and different Slavic peoples. I removed this sentence. It is not neutral, seems to advocate an ideological view and is wrong in several cases to an extent that would require serious explanations that would distort the lead. -- Molobo ( talk) 03:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of North Western Europe, such as the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, and English.
The Slavic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, identified by their use of the Slavic languages . The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of Europe, such as the Russians, Poles, Sorbs, Czechs, Ukrainians, Slovaks, Croats and others.
-- Molobo ( talk) 15:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
User 77.78.197.84 is a disruptive troll, that clearly has no knowledge of history or ethnogenesis. He is the same guy who has been writing in Bosniak article trying to push absurd theories that Bosniaks are the result of fusion of Illyrians with Turks and Germans, having no Slavic contribution at all. He should be blocked. I think he is probably an old user called 'Anceint land of Bosna or something like that. Hxseek ( talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As Hxseek points out, he is misrepresenting the source, his edits do not have any support in the source he claims, as has been explained to him at length already. JdeJ ( talk) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the genetics section be touched up. At present it presents a group of South Slavs a being distinct from the rest because of the contribution of the native Balkan populace to their genetic roots. However, this is not unique to the South Slavs. All slavs encountered and mixed with other peoples as they spread out. Whatsmore, it assumes that R1a is the marker of "slavicness"- which is not exactly true. Hxseek ( talk) 08:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Look Bosniaks gene pool, they only share ancestry with Scandinavians: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1a_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1b_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/I1c_large_RG.jpg
Look Serb gene pool, they only share ancestry with central Africans: http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3a_large_RG.jpg http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/E3b_large_RG.jpg c is almost extinct, and other E haplogroup branches are similar but the CLOSEST and MOST RECENT ancestors to Serbs are Central Africans.
We know that there arent many ancient documents about this region, but this will help clarify who belonged to what type of tribe in the past. Note that this is only recent ancestry of course, E haplogroup may have evolved from middle east before 20,000 years ago, but this is not important as those are massive figures and that kind of stuff is not worth going in to, as to what kind of monkeys humans were 100,000 years ago :). 77.78.198.26 ( talk) 08:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Her, here. This guy (user 77.78...) is burying his head in the sand. His claims are outright comedy. We are giving him too much credit by even acknowledging his idiocy Hxseek ( talk) 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear 77.78.200.160 your knowledge and understanding of prehistory human genetics is almost none, it equals zero. Your history knowledge is even worse than that. Genetically Bosniaks are nothing special, neither distinctive from others in the region. You are discussing about I haplogroup as some Bosniak characteristic which is ridiciolous. In general Croats have more of it than Bosniaks. All South Slavs have it in rather high percentages. Investigations were made a few years ago when Serbia and Montenegro were the same state: Yugoslavia. So under the name of Serbs there would be Montenigrins too. So Serbian 25% (or something similar) of I haplo could be very high statistically in Montenegro, perhaps higher than among Bosniaks, probably similar to Dalmatia where it's over 50% (in some islands more than 75%). On the other hand, Bosniaks have quite nice percantage of E haplogroup, which is almost virtually absent in Croatia, while more found in Serbia and Macedonia. If you think that I haplotype (I2a precisely) is strictly Illyrian, you are wrong. Illyrians, how we call them, never existed as some homogenous people. The western Balkan was settled by some 70 different tribes 3.000 years ago. Only one little tribe in modern Albania were Illyroi (Illyrii). Greek and Roman writters gave that name to all inhabitants of the WB. There was no some unique Illyrian language. There were probably many different languages and dialects distinguished in 2 main groups: Centum and Satem (Indo-European languages). Genetically there were admixtures of haplotypes same as it's today. It was not so long time ago. Probably ~75% of all modern South Slavs are descendents of the indegenious Balkan people if observing the period of last 3.000 years. People who were coming in 4th-7th century from the north made the rest and only some of them were really Slavic speakers. Small groups with a lot of influence on the natives. Slavization was process - assimilation. It happened everywhere in the WB, not only in Bosnia. Also similar procceses happened everywhere in Europe, not only in WB (with other European languages of course). Bosniaks as ethnical concept is something very very young, only 18 years old. All modern South Slavs are different admixtures of the historical "Illyrians", Venets, Greeks, Thracians, Dacians, Huns, Goths, Avars, Sarmatians, Alans, Balto-Slavs, Italic people, Turks etc... And Slavs in this story were actually Sclavens - the members of multiple ethnic groups with the same "lingua franca" - Old-Slavonic language which probably originated from some proto-Slavic language in Pannonia, not in Russia. If you want to participate here, first learn something. Zenanarh ( talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Insightful as always Z. Hxseek ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not happy with the new "airbrush" style maps. They look carelessly made, and references like "Mostly based on work by Velentin Sedov: Slavs in Middle Ages" isn't very confidence-inspiring. Hxseek, I think you should experiment with the GIMP some more, in particular the layer functions, before attempting maps like that. The colour scheme may be a matter of taste, but it doesn't look very professional to me. I do suggest re-insertion of the map directly derived from EIEC, Image:Slavic distribution origin.png. dab (𒁳) 12:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the following quite erroneous phrase (and unreferenced, too) from the top of the section "Religion and alphabet".
In any case, whatever can be said here it must be phrased as a matter of opinion of an expert rather than an indisputable fact, and this opinion must be reliably referenced. Mukadderat ( talk) 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article on slavik peoples is a mishmash of unreadable jargon. It needs to be better organized and more clear. There are too many editors that are not impartial or objective. They need to be excluded. Some of what they write is absurd to even the most novice historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're Polish, and understand that Russia exploited the Slavic commonality theory during Eastern Bloc times. However, the article is NOT some POV ( I assume that's what you meant, ather than Prisoner of War) article. It mentions at least a couple of times that Slavs are today religiously and culturally heterogenous and that from the outset they mixed with other peoples. THe spread of Slavic as a means for a language of trade, whilt interesting, is a theory not put forward by the concesus of historians. There was an undeniable spreading of Slavs through out people. Just like the Goths spread, just like the Huns spread. They were all multi-ethnic groups, but the focus of the article should naturally focus on the origin of the core body of Slavs. And the article actually states a Ukrainian or Polish origin, not Russian. Hxseek ( talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the source of that claim. Anyway this is a very diverse group-the box is for single nationality or ethnic group. I think it should be removed-no source, can indicate that there is a single unified group(which isn't true and misses the colossal diversification of former Slavic tribes now turned into nations). Also for example Germanic peoples article has no such box to my knowledge.-- Molobo ( talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
re: (fringe theories are inappropriate here Undid revision 234106758 by 76.16.176.177 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.176.177 ( talk) 05:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what the purpose of the 'Slavic peoples under foreign rule' section is supposed to be. All ethnicities in Europe have had to suffer foreign rule at some point in their history, Slavic peoples are not special in this regard. This strange section just seems to more POV pushing from Nazi-influenced groups so I've deleted it. Ronwa ( talk) 11:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
South Slavs distribution map in 1869: [7] - Added by User:Olahus. Am I the only one that thinks that it's a bit anachronistic and impartial? Bosniaks and Vlachs certainly did not declare themselves as Serbs back then. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 09:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ivan, I don't understand your point. The map claims to depict areas inhabited by Slavic (ethnic) population, not Serbian (national) populations. The question should therefore be: were the areas highlighted on the map actually poulated by Slavs? The question does not need to exclude the co-existance of non-Slavic populations, nor does it imply anything about nationality or (later) national boundaries. Why does the map raise for you questions about identifying Bosniaks and Vlachs as Serbs? -- Timberframe ( talk) 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Seen at its full size the map appears to have been amended since it was originally produced. It claims (top centre) to be "Nach den neuesten Untersuchungen von A. Petermmann" - according to the new research by A. Petermann, which would place it in the 3rd quarter of the 19th Century (Petermann died in 1878). But the key in the bottom left corner clearly shows signs of later ammendment - the symbols for the borders of Asiatic Turkey, the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Greece appear to have been added by typewriter. Similarly all the coloured boundaries appear to have been drawn by hand and many of them don't follow any visible demarcations on the map. The ethnic labels (Kroaten, Serben, etc) appear in two different fonts: a bold sans-serif and a lighter serif, the former being out of keeping with any other font I can see on the map. Furthermore, the bold sans-serif labels occur outside the green area (used presumeably to denote Slavic populations on the original map) - see for example multiple instances of "SERBEN" in the white UNGARN (Hungary) region. The use of an uncharacteristic font and inconsistency between the labelling of Slavic populations and the shading suggests that the labelling may be a later addition. There is too much about this map that suggests that it has been tampered with to allow me to feel comfortable about presenting it as a depiction of Slavic population distribution in 1869. Does the article really need an ethnographic map from this era? -- Timberframe ( talk) 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ivan Štambuk, why do you feel so extremely embarassed about a mid-19th-century map? This map was created by August Heinrich Petermann, a well-known and one of the most appreciated German cartographer and geographer of the 19th century. It's improbably that Petermann has drawn this map with some tendentious intentions. Concerning the Bosniaks: in 1869 there was no talk about a Bosnian ethnicity (they wre simply called "Muslims") and I rather believe that the author intended to include in his map the Serbs from Lika-Krbava and northern Bosnia (see also this CIA map from 1991). Concerning the Vlachs, I don't know what you mean, as I know the Serbians from Bosnia are called "vlasi" by the Croatians and Muslims. However, the size of the text "SERBEN" and "KROATEN" is truly unimportant, because the ethnic borders between the Serbs and Croatians aren't marked anyway because they were considered to be a single ethnic group (from linguistic reasons) with at least 2 identities. -- Olahus ( talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the map may incite some of our less informed readers to jump to conclusions. Of interest however, this is not the only map to depict the area settled by Serbs to be larger than that of Croats . Hxseek ( talk) 07:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of its accuracy , or lack thereof, we need to ask what the inclusion of such a map adds to the article. Will including it improve the contents of the page, or address something which has been left out ? Hxseek ( talk) 02:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.210.103 ( talk) 13:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The map
is completely inaccurate and it only presents a serious threat that somebody could see it and put it in some sort of scientific work which would then present nothing more serious than Shrek. There isn't Serbo-Croatian language or Serbo-Croatian languages. Following that logic we could then make Italian-Portuguese languages, Russian-Macedonian languages, Dutch-German languages and a million more crap like this. What really exists is Croatian, Serbian, Bosniak and Montenegrin language. That is clearly written in constitutions of these republics and only in Wikipedia 18 years after dissolution of Yugoslavia it and its preposterous ideas are alive and well. Every native speaker of these languages knows when somebody speaks another language of your virtual Serbo-Croatian group. The difference is not so obvious to you foreigners but I as a native speaker of Croatian language can tell. If I wanted to translate one page of Croatian text to Serbian i would have to change the whole text, its syntax, words, grammar and god knows what else. I could do it because I was alive when Croats yet had the opportunity to read more Serbian texts but I am not sure that an eighteen year Croat could. In fact, he certainly could not and the same goes for Serbs. Serbo-Croatian tried to unify that differences in one artificial language due to purely political reasons but that failed because nobody in Croatia wanted to talk Serbian and vice versa. The politicians were living in their fantasies and ordinary folk continued to talk like they always talked - in Serbia Serbian, in Croatia Croatian, in Montenegro Montenegrin and to be honest in Bosnia Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats were so mixed that there really existed something like Serbo-Croatian. Today that is changed. With the dissolution of Yugoslavia there was no more political pressure to live in fairy tales and its peoples could finally make their languages official. That is the situation today, only in Bosnia that difference goes by ethnic lines. Because I am a Croat I really don't care what will you do with Serbian, Bosniak and Montenegrin but Croats speak Croatian and this map
is at least more accurate than the one on top of the text. So I will change it back and if somebody still lives in myths I suggest reading these articles - Croatian language, Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian and especially FOLIA CROATICA-CANADIANA: A study on various aspects of Croatian language history. A 243 pages long document in PDF format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulejman ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Serbian language infuences - Montenegro, Bosniaks, and Serbs in Bosnia
Croatian language infuences - Croatia, Croats in Bosnia, Burgenland Croats and Molise Croats
Boniaks don't know what they want, their language is serbianized Serbo-Croatian with many turkish loanwords and Montenegrin, when standardized, will be as far from Serbian almost like Slovenian language. Sulejman ( talk) 11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Haven't we already decided that 'South Slavic' languages are a dialectic continuum, beter classified into Ikavian, Chakavian , Stokavian , etc rather than 'Bosnian', 'Serbian', 'mid-north coast Herzegovinian', etc, etc ? Hxseek ( talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
IP 83.77.135.167 deleted a section on genetics including references, commenting in the edit summary "tons of bs. that "New Study" is really amazing, oh my god". Sorry, 83.77.135.167, but that's just your opinion so on its own it's WP:OR and WP:POV and not a good enough reason to delete referenced (and therefore verifiable) material from the article. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the referenced material then a better way to do so is to find other reliable sources which challenge it and include a reference to those as well. In this way the reader has access to both sides of the argument instead of being denied knowledge of either side because you consider it "bs."
Regarding your previous deletion, with the comment "absolutely irrelevant and possibly wrong information. also, the abstract doesn't mention who are the 2 south slavic nations that are similar to the western and eastern slavs", much the same thing applies. The info is certainly relevant because it concerns the subject of the article. Whether it's right or wrong is not for you to say, provided it accurately reflects the content of the referenced material. If it doesn't then you can justify editing or challenging specific points, in this case by deleting the mention of Croats and Slovenes or adding a {{fact}} tag after it, but deleting the whole passage is a step too far without showing that the ref itself is considered unreliable by authoritative sources. -- Timberframe ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I question whether we should use this study as the only reference for genetics. The intro states that, genetically speaking, slavs are seperated into 2 groups - the 2 South Slavic groups, vs 'the rest' . This is the only study which suggests such as categorization. Secondly, we only have an abstract of the study.
Other studies have found that eastern Europeans (including non-Slavic Romanians and hungarians) cluster together, due to the pattern of settlement and migration in pre-history, nothing to do with "Slavicness". Eg Seminos' famous paper in 2000. Pericic pointed out that rather than the two south slavic populations, northern Russians are 'unique' in the fact that they are the only Slavs who carry Haplogroup N3.
I think we need to update the genetics section with a more widely referenced approach
Hxseek ( talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Please send it over. I have been doing some research about origin theories, I think the section definitely needs elaboration. However, the issue is complex, because the question of the proto-Slavic linguistic urmeheit may be a rather different one to the genesis of the historical entities known as Sclavenes and Antes.
Hxseek (
talk) 02:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the traditional theory. Others exist which we chould introduce to the article. I;m working on a draft now. Hxseek ( talk) 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
|I feel that adding "Finnic peoples" as influencing the Rus state is correct according to research which states Rurik being of Finno-Ugric origin. I will direct you here for my citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik
EDIT: the above comment was mine.|
CormanoSanchez (
talk)
|I am not completely convinced either way by the above Rurikid study and I am aware it is still contentious, but I assume at this point my edit stands? Would anyone be willing to clarify or dispute it?|
CormanoSanchez (
talk)
|When in history could it be most accurately described as the period when "proto-slavs" began forming different tribal identities? Did the Goths encounter only "proto-slavs", people calling themselves slovjane or some other variant, or where there already divisions in this similar to the dividing of the Germanic peoples (hence the Goths)?
I know that there were West Slavic tribes in the period where Goths moved through the Baltic regions, but what about earlier?
More simply put, by the time the proto-slavs started expanding and meeting other peoples, did they have different tribal names or where they still all grouped under the general identity of Slav?
I feel that this topic in particular should be clarified in the article, if possible.| CormanoSanchez ( talk) 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Older views, for example Soviet-era Slavists, beleived that all Slavs emerged from one tribe and spread out in a mass migration. Their theory states that from the common Slavic Prague culture emerged the Antes in 300 Ad, then the Scalvenes in 400 AD, roughly. From these supra-tribal entities, offshoots formed all the individual tribes after 500 and 600 AD. There are few Slavic tribes which have the same name in East, South and/or West Slavic areas - eg Croats, Serbs, Severians, Moravians. Some beleive this indicates a common indentity which was already established in the 'homeland. Others do not agree and beleive it's is just how the Byzantines named them.
Hxseek ( talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs an update reagrding the "origins" and "migrations" sections Hxseek ( talk) 00:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
moved from above section #"Origins and Slavic homeland debate" section problems Balkan Fever 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[10] At least one member of United States National Academy of Sciences support this theory but Ivan Štambuk accusing them as anybody who can think of brain damage.
It may be worth to look for 'Ivan independent' calculation google scholar deliver quite different numbers. Who want to compare the result should know that this is not a molecular biology where citations are numbered in hundreds or hundreds of thousands, because scholars involved in paleolinguistics subject was just few dozens in the world, (living less) and they work on all branches of human languages.
EOI de Alzira.
Look at paleolinguistics and point out how many listed there scholars schould cite greatest work on paleolinguistics. Tray to abstract for moment and check what languages they works and check also if are able to wrote after 2003. Do not list the h+m.
You wrote that 'common handbooks ignore PCT' -it seem that you mistaken high school teachers with paleolinguistic scholars. Do not forget that in continuitas work group web there is much more references . 24.15.124.2 ( talk) 13:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Blanked by some vishu-kisu or camouflaged as some far-or-closeer-ester admin who can't like you find name in paper to the extent that he want to link Uralic Continuity Theory to author developing Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Under the Scenarios of Ethnogenesis section, there is a "I LOVE RAFI" posted. is this supposed to be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.150.106 ( talk) 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There is systematical misuse of false similarity between Slavic word "slav" and Latin word "sclav", what means slave. The English word "slave" itself is deceptive. It is obviously originated from Latin "sclav". Slavic word "slav" is relative to Slavic words "slovo" = word, "slava" = glory, and "sloboda" = freedom. Romans never studies Slavic languages, neither they ever conquered Slavic tribes. So the relation between "slav" and "sclav" is excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.213.190 ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
People keep removing any mention of the theory that "Slav" derives from "slave". I know this theory is bonkers, but it is out there and we must not pretend otherwise! Free Dictionary states: <As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"> - so it implies that THE MEANING of Slav is "slave". Check up also this: http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Now/Slav-As-In/520037598 - it seems History Channel also believes that "Slav" COMES from "slave". That's why I believe that the way I put it in the article, i.e. that the name is supposed to derive from the alleged enslavement of the Slavic peoples, reflects the beliefs of some people - whether we like it or not. We can debate whether it can be rephrased in a better fashion, but we cannot ignore the fact that some people believe that. What are you afraid of? This is "alternative theory" section anyway! Dawidbernard ( talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Its based on incorrect etymology and therefore need no inclusion. You would have to substantiate what "commonly encountered' means. Sounds like WP:Weasal Hxseek ( talk) 10:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, whilst Slavs were sold as slaves, eg by nomads or Verangians, there is no reason to assume that they were more numerous than other groups in such circumstances. In fact, the opposite might be true, in that, Slavs were known for taking large nubers of prisoners, esp in their raids into the Balkans.
Hxseek (
talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
While there is historic evidence for alliances between the early Danish kingdom and Obotrite(Wend) tribes settled along the Baltic coast of NW Germany, I am sceptical about the statement that numbers of Slavs, as a constituent part of Sweyn's and Canute's army, were settled in East Anglia. For the Danish leaders it may not have been unusual to employ mercenary troops, and so I would not consider this theory totally implausible, On the other hand, I know of no primary source evidence to confirm this. The reference in the article to the transfer of Slavs to England as a constituent part of the Danish army and their later settlement in East Anglia therefore needs to be substantiated. At present the statement makes only a generalised assertion and reference to a secondary source. Geoff Powers ( talk) 08:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's set the ball rolling. To judge by the edit summary for the diff at which the tag was added, the issue appears to be the map and its caption: "Countries with majority Slavic ethnicities and at least one Slavic national language". The edit summary makes the point that "Main map features Kosovo, which is predominantly Albanian not Slavic". In fact the map doesn't show Kosovo as a separate country, and that appears to be the root of the problem. If the map is amended to show Kosovo as a separate country then, by the criterion of the map and the assertion that the Kosovan population is predominantly not Slaavic, Kosovo should not be coloured. Alternatively, if the country borders are kept as the map shows, with Kosovo included within Serbia, then the Kosova population doesn't change the predominance of Slavic populations in Serbia-with-Kosovo. Anyone want to take up the arguments? -- Timberframe ( talk) 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The issue, if I've understood the original concern correctly, comes down to whether Kosovo should be depicted as a country, since the map's caption states that it shows "countries". Since the world at large hasn't formed a consensus on that, I doubt we're going to do any better here. It may be that the only consensus we can come to is that the neutrality tag is a red herring because it relates to the statehood of Kosovo, a subject on which the article is silent and therefore doesn't have a point of view. -- Timberframe ( talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You say "If one were to make a more detailed exploration..." and indeed there is such a map (Slavic languages.png) further down the article (albeit language-based, but it illustrates the point about enclaves). However the map in dispute clearly defines its resoltion to be at country level, so it can't be expected to depict enclaves. The majority of the population of Serbia - with or without Kosovo - is Slavic, so Serbia gets coloured. For me that's clear cut and there's nothing wrong with the map by its own definition, nor does the map's definition push a point of view regarding the constituent populations of Kosovo. The only possible POV regarding Kosovo that I can see is with regard to Kosovo's statehood and, as that question has not yet been resolved internationally, any depiction of that region could be disputed by someone. To err on the side of the status quo pending resolution follows well-established precedents, so I believe the map is as neutral on the point as it can be.
I propose we give the editor who inserted the tag a couple of days to respond to this discussion, after which we can remove the tag unless arguments in its favour are forthcoming and not resolved. -- Timberframe ( talk) 06:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that while you both make good points in relation to articles dealing with areas such as Kosovo or Macedonia where international consensus is lacking regarding the status and naming of terretories, the conversation isn't really relevant to this article. The concern raised by Interestedinfairness in the edit summary accompanying the neutrality tag relates to the map's claim to depict "countries" while it does not depict the border of Kosovo (and therefore it depicts its population as Slavic along with the majority of Serbia). In other words, Interestedinfairness is concerned that this article does not recognise Kosovo as a country. I contend that it is of little significance to this article, in which the map serves only to give the reader a general geographic orientation, not a detailed geopolitical one.
As has been mentioned, any affirmation or denial of Kosovo's existence as an independent country would be non-neutral; this article remains neutral on the subject by not raising it at all. It seems to me to be an inappropriate use of this article and our time to try to force this article to take a decision on the statehood of Kosovo, a subject already being discussed at more approrpriate talk pages. In short, in the context of Interestedinfairness's other involvements, I regard the neutrality tag as disruptive forum shopping. My only reason for asking you to accept the tag for a few days is to allow IIF to defend it; removing the tag without having first had both sides of the discussion would only leave the door open for repeat tagging. -- Timberframe ( talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Interestedinfairness ( talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but since you now recognise that the map depicts "countries" and not "distinct areas of land", you will understand that Kosovo does not feature on the map at all. Can we now remove the tag?
Otherwise, the solution you seek appears to be to remove the shading from that portion of Serbia (as depicted) which equates to Kosovo, but since the map resolves only to the level of countries, this is impractical and unnecessary unless Kosovo is first defined as a country. So unless you want to pursue the "Kosovo is a country" argument here, I don't see what you want to be done or why you think the map affects the article's neutrality. -- Timberframe ( talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's clear to me from your answers that however you word it, you placed the tag because you are not happy about a map which does not differentiate between Kosovo and Serbia-without-Kosovo. That's a subject that is way outside the scope of this article. I would suggest you take the argument elsewhere, but you're already doing that. Meanwhile, for the reasons I've already given above, I for one regard the tag as disruptive and unconstructive, and since only you and your puppet have objected I'm removing it, leaving you free to concentrate on fighting on more relevant pages. -- Timberframe ( talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A multiple-blocked confirmed sock puppeteer is assuming good faith (while using a puppet to suggest they are not a lone voice). Hilarious. Go fight your case on the Kosovo page, it has nothing to do with this article. If and when consensus there is to redraw maps, then you are welcome to come back and make the same request. Meanwhile, the tag is inappropriate because the article is maintaining its neutrality by not commenting on the statehood of Kosovo. -- Timberframe ( talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Page is now c. 250K, would someone mind setting up an archive bot? ninety: one 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
04-Oct-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 1 entry (name "New genetic reference") into date order for 2008. At this time, the talk-page is ready for another archive-split. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)