![]() | 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 | → | Archive 7 |
moved from above section #"Origins and Slavic homeland debate" section problems Balkan Fever 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[1] 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.
Can anyone edit this article to just Slavs? Slavic peoples sounds very retarded.. Peoples doesn't exist as a word, people is plural already. You can't add a plural on a plural.
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
— 24.15.124.2 ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 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. — 71.102.213.190 ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Somebody wrote that Slavs call Germans "Nemci"Slavic němъ - "mumbling, mute"". Nemci does not mean "mute" in Slavic, but it means "not us". Word for "mute" in Slavic language is "Nemi"
About Sclavs as Slavs. The word comes originally from Slavic/Vendic language and it means "glorious", and not "freedom". Other names for old Slavs before so called "migration into Europe" in 6. century (another hoax by Christian church and their historians that - Karantania comes from Celtic name of "friend" or Hittite name of a "stone". " Kara", Kira, Gira, Gora simply means "mountain" (also by Etruscans as "kira", Kirata a Nepal name for "hilly land".)There were no Celts already in 1. century AD (after Norik's king Vokk - in Vendic/Slavic as "Vok, Vuk, "a wolf". Celts were destroyed by king Vokk(Vuk, Volk - Wolf) in Noricum in 40 BC when they were running out from Bohemia.
Karantania was already a Slavic democratic state under King Samo in 6. century AD with special law called "Institutio Sclavica" (not some "slave's law"). I personally do not believe in official history of some Carpatian theory of Slavic migrations into Europe in 6. century AD from Nowhere ( from where "pagan slavs barbarians" came from), because simple logic tells you that it is impossible to establish a kingdom in few years (as "barbarian"), a state with 1. democratic society and with your own orders of laws like was known for:
Vizigotes Lex Visigothorum , Ostrogots Edictum Theodorijci , Langobards Edictum Rothari , Alemane Lex Alamannorum, Bavarians Lex Baiuvariorum, Saksons Lex Saxsonum, Frank Lex Salica, Austrasia Lex Ripuaria Karantanians Communis omnium Slavica lex
Karantanians have had their own law called "Institutio Sclavenica" which was known as "1. democratic law after Etruscan society - women and men were equal - emancipated"
U.S democracy was also inspired by Karantanian Democratic laws of old Karantanians/Slovenians("pagan barbarians from 6. century AD? - according from Roman Christian historians) Thomas Jefferson in (1776) his Declaration of Independence which became known as basis for U.S Independence charter on human rights!
http://www.hervardi.com/images/spomenik_ustolicevanje.gif
The Charter proclaims that all men and women are have equal rights and that their leader and Government is in the service of people but not their tyrant. This is the root of American Democracy = Karantanian Democracy and also the Inauguration of American president is based on Inauguration of Karantanian kings, princes and dukes
http://www.hervardi.com/images/ustolicevanje.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.194.214 ( talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (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)
Maybe somebody native of Slavic grup give his opinions. Me for example. Slavs (polish: Słowianie) is clearly related with a word słowo ([Słow]ianie), which obviously means 'word'. So, Slavs would literally mean Word-People, People who speak Words. There is no connection between english similarity, as because Slavic languages never mixed with Germanic languages. Only an western ignorant could think like that. Koniec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.173.169 ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (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)
04-Oct-09: I have created the 2nd archive page, ( /Archive_2) for the years 2006-2009 up to 2009-10-04. All of the non-vandal 2009 topics were retained in this talk-page. The talk-page was moved to avoid duplicating the entire 250kb text (as deleted from this talk-page, plus copied into the Archive_2 page). - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There are actually about a million Ashkenazi Jews who possess Slavic genes, spoke Slavic languages not Yiddish, looked Slavic and identified as Slavs (mainly Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians), and are of Slavic ancestry. I have no idea how they became Jewish, they just are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GooglePedia12 ( talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Dose anyone think the mass migration of Slavs (Poles, Ruthenians/Ukrainians, etc) from Eastern Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to North and South America (in particular USA, Canada, and Brazil) and the subsequent assimilation of their descendants to the new culture worth noting, nothing big maybe just like a sentence or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.202.49 ( talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there were recent edits pushing disputable info that rusyns as separate slavic people [5] [6] with arguments like "Saying that Rusyns are Ukrainians is as disputable as the contrary" and other unsupported by sources. Edits were not supported by sources. In article we have enough scholar sources dedicated to Slavs and none of them covers rusyns. Neither should this article do. I will remove disputable info from article, please don't add it back until this dispute is resolved. -- windyhead ( talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
In the article there is a map (File:Slavic distribution origin.png) under section "Origins", which has misplaced position of Serbs and Croats! -- Kebeta ( talk) 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Slavic peoples#Western group! Could someone explain to me how are Užičans so ethnically or cultural different from rest of Serbs for what they deserve to be on this list? I'm asking because I live in Užice and never notice this differences. -- Милан Јелисавчић ( talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In the article:
At first I thought this contradicted the other sources, so I took a closer look. Here is what the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to say. For "Slav" the sequence is: [7]
For "slave": [8]
So apparently "slave" is older than "Slav" in English by about 100 years, and both come from the Latin sclavus. It seems there is some ambiguity about what sclavus meant when English borrowed it, apparently in two different senses at two different times. It would be odd if sclavus meant unambiguously "slave" since then we have an ethnonym becoming an ordinary noun, then turning back into the same ethnonym. This might actually have happened, but (wielding Occam's razor) what I think is more likely is that sclavus had both meanings in M.L. (one capitalised, one not, the latter being a sort of synechdoche) and both meanings were borrowed. (The online OED seems to agree with this hypothesis, see [9] [10].) In that case "Slav" and "slave" have the same root, and a pretty recent one at that, but neither is really derived from the other as such. The quotation implies English borrowed the Latin word for "slave" and used it as an ethnonym, which does not exactly contradict etymonline due to its unfortunate ambiguity, but it is misleading if my hypothesis is correct. Hairy Dude ( talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I deleted that bullshit. First of all Vikings never sailed to Russia, you're confusing them with Varangians. Second - Swedes are not Rus'. Third - "Slave" entered English languages via French language (or perhaps other Romance language, it does not matter wich one) not Swedish. Fourth - there were no Russians before Rus'(along with Varangians and other Scandinavians) mixed with Slavs, so how could mythical "Swedish" "Vikings" possibly sell Russians when Russians are in fact descendants of very same "Vikings" and local Slavs? Are you drunk or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 ( talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted that Nazi supremacist junk because it has nothing to do with the etymology itself. English meaning "slave" is directly borrowed from Old French, whence it was inherited from Latin. Abundantly sourced and elaborated traditional explanations can be found in Grimm [11], if you can read German. It would be nice if someone would add all that, since it's out of copyright. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You have requested a source to substantiate that Yugoslavs are a Slavic nation. I contend that there are no sources to establish any ethnicity as a Slavic nation: Czechs, Ukrainians, Macedonians alike. Even if there were, there has to be a relevant place for its inclusion; marking this kind of source by the name of the ethnicity will not suffice because if Yugoslavs needs to be rectified, then so should the rest of the nations. You'll then end up with an ugly unreadable list of national groups followed by sources. You have the Yugoslavs article on which sources lead to actual census information, and other readings such as A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples are cited. Now with all this, what is the purpose of your tag? (to verify that the nation is Slavic). Is there a dispute boiling on this one somewhere? Are there questions raised in some quarters that those declaring Yugoslav within the former SFRY might actually be from the Hungarian, Italian or Albanian language communities? Is it suggested that those delcaring Yugoslav outside of the former SFRY (such as in Canada or Germany) might actually be people originating from Central America? I'm not being sarcastic here but for you to place a tag on an entry to already have its own article and sources while not requesting the same of the rest of them needs more specification as to why the part needs marking. Please also be aware that its recent placement on the article was not an addition by JoriSvs but a revert of controversial editor User:N for Neutral's decision to remove it shortly prior. Before this, it sat harmless and unchalleneged for a long time. ---- User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Can everyone also please take note the the author of this edit [13] is a confirmed disruptive sockpuppet. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
People still self-declare as belonging to Yugoslav ethnicity (narodnost) in censi in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That makes is perfectly valid ethnicity. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
And even if they see themselves as Croats, Serbs , Macedonians, etc, many still secondarily see a common Yugoslav ethnicity, even today Hxseek ( talk) 07:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
With regards to this good faith edit [14], may I say that the groups listed to not qualify as Slavic nations as defined by the section. The list deals with present-day ethnicities, that means the names by which Slavophonic persons identify. Dissimilated tribes do not count. Although in a revised historical sense those tribes constituted modern-day nationalities, many long-standing nations split into various brotherhoods, tribes, branches, etc., some remained apart to form new nations, and others joined neighbours to form a new race. Other tribes in turn regrouped. A good example is in this part of the world. In the west you had Slovenes, Croats and Serbs who all subdivided into further minorities but then regrouped, or dissimilated other neighbouring groups. The tribes in Greece are drawn from the eastern branch of South Slavs, plainly called Slavs or Sclaveni. This was the superordinate term for the branch of tribes at the same level as Croats, Serbs, etc. Today, all Slavic persons from the area in question including all who may have descent in those tribes will call themselves either Bulgarian, Macedonian, Torbesh, Pomak, Yugoslav, Serb (possibly depending who and where), and other such names. The contribution is good but needs to be placed in a more appropriate place. ---- User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert on this subject. However, I feel that the paragraph or so of the "Homeland Debate" section is poorly written and probably overstated. First, it includes glaring use of the passive voice: "genetics was applied"; "it was found". Supposedly, the one study that is cited in this paragraph "proved" one of the four cited theories correct. That's quite a statement to make.
If there are multiple studies finding the same thing then they should each be cited and the use of a word like "prove" would be appropriate. It is probably more likely that the study cited provides evidence that the Ukraine is the Slavic homeland.
Aelsbeck ( talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Aelsbeck, April 27, 2010
Just to explain this if anybody is interested. Within the Slavic world, you do not have to encounter the nearest neighbouring Slavic nation to detect cultural/genetical differences, etc. As a matter of fact, between those living closest to and among each other is where you will find nothing at all beyond the individual's desire to identify as he/she does. Natural differences do exist however among the population of each ethnicity itself, between some more apparent than with others. An example: in the Dinaric Alps, as is famously the case, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims are largely tall and heavy, all in contrast to their eponymous counterparts living outside the topographical area. In Belarus and Ukraine, you have a traditional Catholic/Central European in character west side as opposed to an Orthodox central and east side, yet people remain Ukrainian. Poland contains all sorts of varied communities within its borders, and even the smaller entities of Macedonia and Montenegro produce all kinds of cultural/even genetic variation from one side to the other. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"My other argument for emphasizing the language factor is that when 'Slavs' move out of their linguistic zone and become English or Turkish or Greek or Hebrew or whatever speakers, they cease to be considered or consider themselves 'Slavs'"
Not really, a Russian who is speaking French is still Russian as long he identifies himself as Russian and a Turk speaking Slavic language is still a Turk, speaking Slavic language wont magically turn him into a Slav. The reason for "Ethnic and linguistic family" sentence are South Slavs, who are, for the most part, slavicized Balkan natives and are pretty much unrelated to West and East Slavs. Linguistics have nothing to do with being Slavic really, Britannica for example does not even count Bulgarians as Slavs despite the fact they speak Slavic 213.148.166.210 ( talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree also. The notion of a Slavic common ancestry is still strong despite political tensions and newer ethnogenesis theories. Hxseek ( talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Suggest modifying to fit http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (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 | → | Archive 7 |
moved from above section #"Origins and Slavic homeland debate" section problems Balkan Fever 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[1] 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.
Can anyone edit this article to just Slavs? Slavic peoples sounds very retarded.. Peoples doesn't exist as a word, people is plural already. You can't add a plural on a plural.
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
— 24.15.124.2 ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 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. — 71.102.213.190 ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Somebody wrote that Slavs call Germans "Nemci"Slavic němъ - "mumbling, mute"". Nemci does not mean "mute" in Slavic, but it means "not us". Word for "mute" in Slavic language is "Nemi"
About Sclavs as Slavs. The word comes originally from Slavic/Vendic language and it means "glorious", and not "freedom". Other names for old Slavs before so called "migration into Europe" in 6. century (another hoax by Christian church and their historians that - Karantania comes from Celtic name of "friend" or Hittite name of a "stone". " Kara", Kira, Gira, Gora simply means "mountain" (also by Etruscans as "kira", Kirata a Nepal name for "hilly land".)There were no Celts already in 1. century AD (after Norik's king Vokk - in Vendic/Slavic as "Vok, Vuk, "a wolf". Celts were destroyed by king Vokk(Vuk, Volk - Wolf) in Noricum in 40 BC when they were running out from Bohemia.
Karantania was already a Slavic democratic state under King Samo in 6. century AD with special law called "Institutio Sclavica" (not some "slave's law"). I personally do not believe in official history of some Carpatian theory of Slavic migrations into Europe in 6. century AD from Nowhere ( from where "pagan slavs barbarians" came from), because simple logic tells you that it is impossible to establish a kingdom in few years (as "barbarian"), a state with 1. democratic society and with your own orders of laws like was known for:
Vizigotes Lex Visigothorum , Ostrogots Edictum Theodorijci , Langobards Edictum Rothari , Alemane Lex Alamannorum, Bavarians Lex Baiuvariorum, Saksons Lex Saxsonum, Frank Lex Salica, Austrasia Lex Ripuaria Karantanians Communis omnium Slavica lex
Karantanians have had their own law called "Institutio Sclavenica" which was known as "1. democratic law after Etruscan society - women and men were equal - emancipated"
U.S democracy was also inspired by Karantanian Democratic laws of old Karantanians/Slovenians("pagan barbarians from 6. century AD? - according from Roman Christian historians) Thomas Jefferson in (1776) his Declaration of Independence which became known as basis for U.S Independence charter on human rights!
http://www.hervardi.com/images/spomenik_ustolicevanje.gif
The Charter proclaims that all men and women are have equal rights and that their leader and Government is in the service of people but not their tyrant. This is the root of American Democracy = Karantanian Democracy and also the Inauguration of American president is based on Inauguration of Karantanian kings, princes and dukes
http://www.hervardi.com/images/ustolicevanje.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.194.214 ( talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (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)
Maybe somebody native of Slavic grup give his opinions. Me for example. Slavs (polish: Słowianie) is clearly related with a word słowo ([Słow]ianie), which obviously means 'word'. So, Slavs would literally mean Word-People, People who speak Words. There is no connection between english similarity, as because Slavic languages never mixed with Germanic languages. Only an western ignorant could think like that. Koniec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.173.169 ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (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)
04-Oct-09: I have created the 2nd archive page, ( /Archive_2) for the years 2006-2009 up to 2009-10-04. All of the non-vandal 2009 topics were retained in this talk-page. The talk-page was moved to avoid duplicating the entire 250kb text (as deleted from this talk-page, plus copied into the Archive_2 page). - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There are actually about a million Ashkenazi Jews who possess Slavic genes, spoke Slavic languages not Yiddish, looked Slavic and identified as Slavs (mainly Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians), and are of Slavic ancestry. I have no idea how they became Jewish, they just are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GooglePedia12 ( talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Dose anyone think the mass migration of Slavs (Poles, Ruthenians/Ukrainians, etc) from Eastern Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to North and South America (in particular USA, Canada, and Brazil) and the subsequent assimilation of their descendants to the new culture worth noting, nothing big maybe just like a sentence or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.202.49 ( talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there were recent edits pushing disputable info that rusyns as separate slavic people [5] [6] with arguments like "Saying that Rusyns are Ukrainians is as disputable as the contrary" and other unsupported by sources. Edits were not supported by sources. In article we have enough scholar sources dedicated to Slavs and none of them covers rusyns. Neither should this article do. I will remove disputable info from article, please don't add it back until this dispute is resolved. -- windyhead ( talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
In the article there is a map (File:Slavic distribution origin.png) under section "Origins", which has misplaced position of Serbs and Croats! -- Kebeta ( talk) 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Slavic peoples#Western group! Could someone explain to me how are Užičans so ethnically or cultural different from rest of Serbs for what they deserve to be on this list? I'm asking because I live in Užice and never notice this differences. -- Милан Јелисавчић ( talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In the article:
At first I thought this contradicted the other sources, so I took a closer look. Here is what the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to say. For "Slav" the sequence is: [7]
For "slave": [8]
So apparently "slave" is older than "Slav" in English by about 100 years, and both come from the Latin sclavus. It seems there is some ambiguity about what sclavus meant when English borrowed it, apparently in two different senses at two different times. It would be odd if sclavus meant unambiguously "slave" since then we have an ethnonym becoming an ordinary noun, then turning back into the same ethnonym. This might actually have happened, but (wielding Occam's razor) what I think is more likely is that sclavus had both meanings in M.L. (one capitalised, one not, the latter being a sort of synechdoche) and both meanings were borrowed. (The online OED seems to agree with this hypothesis, see [9] [10].) In that case "Slav" and "slave" have the same root, and a pretty recent one at that, but neither is really derived from the other as such. The quotation implies English borrowed the Latin word for "slave" and used it as an ethnonym, which does not exactly contradict etymonline due to its unfortunate ambiguity, but it is misleading if my hypothesis is correct. Hairy Dude ( talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I deleted that bullshit. First of all Vikings never sailed to Russia, you're confusing them with Varangians. Second - Swedes are not Rus'. Third - "Slave" entered English languages via French language (or perhaps other Romance language, it does not matter wich one) not Swedish. Fourth - there were no Russians before Rus'(along with Varangians and other Scandinavians) mixed with Slavs, so how could mythical "Swedish" "Vikings" possibly sell Russians when Russians are in fact descendants of very same "Vikings" and local Slavs? Are you drunk or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 ( talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted that Nazi supremacist junk because it has nothing to do with the etymology itself. English meaning "slave" is directly borrowed from Old French, whence it was inherited from Latin. Abundantly sourced and elaborated traditional explanations can be found in Grimm [11], if you can read German. It would be nice if someone would add all that, since it's out of copyright. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You have requested a source to substantiate that Yugoslavs are a Slavic nation. I contend that there are no sources to establish any ethnicity as a Slavic nation: Czechs, Ukrainians, Macedonians alike. Even if there were, there has to be a relevant place for its inclusion; marking this kind of source by the name of the ethnicity will not suffice because if Yugoslavs needs to be rectified, then so should the rest of the nations. You'll then end up with an ugly unreadable list of national groups followed by sources. You have the Yugoslavs article on which sources lead to actual census information, and other readings such as A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples are cited. Now with all this, what is the purpose of your tag? (to verify that the nation is Slavic). Is there a dispute boiling on this one somewhere? Are there questions raised in some quarters that those declaring Yugoslav within the former SFRY might actually be from the Hungarian, Italian or Albanian language communities? Is it suggested that those delcaring Yugoslav outside of the former SFRY (such as in Canada or Germany) might actually be people originating from Central America? I'm not being sarcastic here but for you to place a tag on an entry to already have its own article and sources while not requesting the same of the rest of them needs more specification as to why the part needs marking. Please also be aware that its recent placement on the article was not an addition by JoriSvs but a revert of controversial editor User:N for Neutral's decision to remove it shortly prior. Before this, it sat harmless and unchalleneged for a long time. ---- User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Can everyone also please take note the the author of this edit [13] is a confirmed disruptive sockpuppet. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
People still self-declare as belonging to Yugoslav ethnicity (narodnost) in censi in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That makes is perfectly valid ethnicity. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
And even if they see themselves as Croats, Serbs , Macedonians, etc, many still secondarily see a common Yugoslav ethnicity, even today Hxseek ( talk) 07:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
With regards to this good faith edit [14], may I say that the groups listed to not qualify as Slavic nations as defined by the section. The list deals with present-day ethnicities, that means the names by which Slavophonic persons identify. Dissimilated tribes do not count. Although in a revised historical sense those tribes constituted modern-day nationalities, many long-standing nations split into various brotherhoods, tribes, branches, etc., some remained apart to form new nations, and others joined neighbours to form a new race. Other tribes in turn regrouped. A good example is in this part of the world. In the west you had Slovenes, Croats and Serbs who all subdivided into further minorities but then regrouped, or dissimilated other neighbouring groups. The tribes in Greece are drawn from the eastern branch of South Slavs, plainly called Slavs or Sclaveni. This was the superordinate term for the branch of tribes at the same level as Croats, Serbs, etc. Today, all Slavic persons from the area in question including all who may have descent in those tribes will call themselves either Bulgarian, Macedonian, Torbesh, Pomak, Yugoslav, Serb (possibly depending who and where), and other such names. The contribution is good but needs to be placed in a more appropriate place. ---- User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert on this subject. However, I feel that the paragraph or so of the "Homeland Debate" section is poorly written and probably overstated. First, it includes glaring use of the passive voice: "genetics was applied"; "it was found". Supposedly, the one study that is cited in this paragraph "proved" one of the four cited theories correct. That's quite a statement to make.
If there are multiple studies finding the same thing then they should each be cited and the use of a word like "prove" would be appropriate. It is probably more likely that the study cited provides evidence that the Ukraine is the Slavic homeland.
Aelsbeck ( talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Aelsbeck, April 27, 2010
Just to explain this if anybody is interested. Within the Slavic world, you do not have to encounter the nearest neighbouring Slavic nation to detect cultural/genetical differences, etc. As a matter of fact, between those living closest to and among each other is where you will find nothing at all beyond the individual's desire to identify as he/she does. Natural differences do exist however among the population of each ethnicity itself, between some more apparent than with others. An example: in the Dinaric Alps, as is famously the case, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims are largely tall and heavy, all in contrast to their eponymous counterparts living outside the topographical area. In Belarus and Ukraine, you have a traditional Catholic/Central European in character west side as opposed to an Orthodox central and east side, yet people remain Ukrainian. Poland contains all sorts of varied communities within its borders, and even the smaller entities of Macedonia and Montenegro produce all kinds of cultural/even genetic variation from one side to the other. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"My other argument for emphasizing the language factor is that when 'Slavs' move out of their linguistic zone and become English or Turkish or Greek or Hebrew or whatever speakers, they cease to be considered or consider themselves 'Slavs'"
Not really, a Russian who is speaking French is still Russian as long he identifies himself as Russian and a Turk speaking Slavic language is still a Turk, speaking Slavic language wont magically turn him into a Slav. The reason for "Ethnic and linguistic family" sentence are South Slavs, who are, for the most part, slavicized Balkan natives and are pretty much unrelated to West and East Slavs. Linguistics have nothing to do with being Slavic really, Britannica for example does not even count Bulgarians as Slavs despite the fact they speak Slavic 213.148.166.210 ( talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree also. The notion of a Slavic common ancestry is still strong despite political tensions and newer ethnogenesis theories. Hxseek ( talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Suggest modifying to fit http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)