This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
White Croats article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I've found [1] and i'm wondering if anyone could verify the source: US Senate-Reports on the Immigration commission, Dictionary of races or peoples, Washington DC, 1911, p. 40, 43, 105.
"In 995 A.D. Czech warriors from Bohemia and Moravia invaded the White Croat state and destroyed their capital at Libice." This is a funny sentence. I am not a historian, but I attended a Czech high school, so let me explain this a little. In that times, in Bohemia there were several groups. Let's call them tribes. Perhaps the most powerful of them were the Czechs (settled in central Bohemia) and the White Croats (Charváti in the Czech language, settled in east bohemia). 1) the White Croat state and capital? - that wasn't a state, it was rather a region of rule and influence 2) ...from Moravia? I think that the rule of the Czechs wasn't that powerful over Moravia. This action was only between the Czechs (and their allied or conquered neighbours) and the Charváts (White Croats). 3) I think the article is a mess as a whole article. I'm sorry but I'm not going to edit it because I don't know much about it, it's too complicated. I just wanted to give you some information. 4)I wrote only about White Croats in east bohemia, I don't know anything about them in Poland area. 85.70.117.103 ( talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the 1930's and '40s, an estimated 100,000 "White Croatians" or known as Byelo-Harvats and somewhat 50,000 "White Sorbians" or Lusitic Serbians lived in present-day Poland, the majority around the Krakow region. The peoples were descendants of a small influx of transplanted Serbo-Croatians whom arrived in the 16th to late 18th centuries, when eastern Silesia and southern Slovincia was under Austrian rule (the Austro-Hungarian Empire). But then came the Nazis German invasion of Poland in 1939, followed by the Soviet invasion of Nazi-occupied Poland in May 1945 and finally, the Communist takeover of the Polish government in 1947 has forcibly pressured the entire White Croat/Serbian population out of the Krakow region of Poland. Almost all the Byelo-Harvats and Lusitic Serbians emigrated to the United States, though Polish-Canadian and Croatian-Canadian organizations mentioned Canada was another major destination for them, and the rest in other neutral host nations like Sweden, Spain and Argentina. To make matters complicated is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under communism as well wasn't the land of choice for ethnic Croats or Serbs from Poland. + 71.102.2.206 ( talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The article reads that "The last ruler, Soběslav (d. 1004), was killed near Prague by Polish forces in 1004 A.D". I am not really sure of that, since Soběslav and his dynasty (Slavnik's dynasty)were in friendly terms with Poland at that time. He sought refuge in Poland after the Slavnik's dynasty was massacred by the Přemyslids in Prague. As far as I know, Soběslav and Boleslaw the Brave, the Polish king, tried to conquer Praque back from Přemyslids, so Soběslav was apparently killed by the Czechs... I am not however an expert in that field, so I do not try to change the article itself. Could someone check that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilia007 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
US Senate reports can be verified throughout official US Senate archive using documents description and numbers of census. About White Croatian rule in todays Czech republic,as bishop of Prague was St.Wojtech, son of White Croatian prince Sobeslav Slavnik,search through Prague Archdiocese for borders of bishopric Prague of 10th century.They were positioned as Constantin Porphyrogenitus described that borders of (White)Croatia were in 10th century. About 100,000 White Croats from Krakow region is so much spoken so I would like you all, before you post any questions and doubts to consult sources and chronicles as Chronicles of Bruno of Querfurt, Constantin Porphyrogenitus, King Alfred the Great of England, Zachariah the Rhetor, Nordic Hervarsaga, Nestor's Chronicle, Arab Geographers Ibn Rusta, Kardizi, Al-Masudi... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus dextera ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
US Senate reports can be verified throughout official US Senate archive using documents description and numbers of census. About White Croatian rule in todays Czech republic,as bishop of Prague was St.Wojtech, son of White Croatian prince Sobeslav Slavnik,search through Prague Archdiocese for borders of bishopric Prague of 10th century.They were positioned as Constantin Porphyrogenitus described that borders of (White)Croatia were in 10th century. About 100,000 White Croats from Krakow region is so much spoken so I would like you all, before you post any questions and doubts to consult sources and chronicles as Chronicles of Bruno of Querfurt, Constantin Porphyrogenitus, King Alfred the Great of England, Zachariah the Rhetor, Nordic Hervarsaga, Nestor's Chronicle, Arab Geographers Ibn Rusta, Kardizi, Al-Masudi... Deus dextera ( talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This reference doesn't support the claim from the article:
"It is interesting to add that according to some American documents from the beginning of 20th century there were about 100,000 immigrants to the US born around Krakow who declared themselves to be Bielo-Chorvats, i.e. White Croats by nationality.[4]"
It only mentions Bielochrovat as a subdivision of the Poles:
"CRAKUS, KRAKOWIAK, or BIELOCHROVAT. Names applied to a subdivision of the Poles"
"...Other names applying to subdivisions of the Poles are the Bielochrovats (the same as the Krakuses or Cracovinians), the Kuyevs, the Kuprikes, the Lublinians, and the Sandomirians..."
There is no mention of 100,000 Bielo-Chorvats on those pages. And I haven't noticed such claim in the rest of report.
178.223.65.181 ( talk) 07:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Mr. Pink
Once again, the cited pages are 22 40, 43, 88 and 105. Anyone can check and make sure that nothing is said about immigrants there. How can they support the statement, that "Polish immigrants to the United States born in around Kraków reportedly declared themselves as Bielochrovat (i.e. White Croat)"? The whole source is not the data of Immigration Commission, but the "Dictionary of races or peoples" composed by Daniel Folkmar on the base of the literature of his time, which is completely outdated now.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"Some historians[who?] present opinions, that ancient Croats were of Scytho-Sarmatian origin." i.a. ??? Alemko Gluhak, O. N. Trubačeva, Max Vasmer ??? etc 134.3.84.160 ( talk) 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In the 7th century A.D., seven tribes led by 5 brothers (Kluk, Lobel, Muhlo, Kosjenic and Hrvat) and 2 sisters (Buga and Tuga) migrated ...
This is clearly a myth, devised by Constantine Porphyrogenetos (De Administrando Imperii), which by the way is missing in the references. It is like writing "In 753 B.C. brothers Romulus and Remus, raised by a she-wolf, founded Rome."
In the late 10th century, one of the White Croats states, the duchy of Libice, was ruled by Slavnik's dynasty
Another very questionable statement, prove me wrong, but I don't think there is evidence for this in the sources. That Libice was owned by the "Charvat" tribe is conjecture of some historians, not mainstream opinion. I've just read the article "White Croatia" and although it does not cite sources, it is much more informative. Someone with the appropriate rights should consider redirecting "White Croats" to "White Croatia" and perhaps adding the paragraph about later migrations to Poland and subsequently the US. 88.83.176.230 ( talk) 22:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following passage was recently removed from the article. I'm not sure if any of it is useable.
Croats coming from the area of the southern Poland and western Ukraine to the Balkans. This fact is proven with research of Kenneth Nordtvedt and his movement of main Croatian haplotype I2a1b2a1a S17250 through history [1] [2]
It is also interesting that one type of R1a Z280 CTS3402 haplotype in Croats has a high frequency in the southern Poland, but it is still unclear movement of the same through history [3]
Russian geneticist I. Rozhansky reply on question and says following. 2013/10/18.
"And Croats, Slovenes, and as, most likely, the Serbs dominated by several branches that have a common label Sneap CTS3402. Geography of these branches is such that it is possible to trace his way from the Carpathian Mountains to the Adriatic. The same can be said about "Dinarides" branch subclades I2a1b. Apparently the White Croats and Croats from the Carpathians to the Adriatic are really related people. About Lusatian Sorbs and Danubian Serbs so can not say - they are too different lineage" [4]
Administrator of I2a haplogroup which includes Croatian I2a1b2a1a S17250 says the following.
"So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of course" [5]
This means that negative for I2a1b2a1a S17250 are older mutations from Southeast Poland and ancestors of White Croats in Poland and Croats in Croatia.
According to official data mutation S17250 is old (age: 1728 ybp) and this mutation and its younger subbranch exists in the population of Belarus, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian, Macedonia, Russia, Polish, Ukrainian, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and they are all from a common ancestor which means that migration of White Croats went in all directions and claim of Porphyrogenetus that Croats settled Illyria, Dalmatia and Pannonia and that they are coming from Great Croatia now gets and genetic confirmation [6]
From the Croats who came to Dalmatia, one part separated, and occupied Illyria (Illurikon) and Pannonia (Pannonian).De Administrando Imperio. [7] [8] [9] [10]
Public map of a person with I2a haplotypes in Europe proves that all people in the Balkans with tipes of I2a haplotype or vast majority have mutations (I-CTS10228, S17250) which is formed in southeastern Poland [11]
Dr. Orest Korčinski, Ukrainean archaelogist, investigator of White Croatian site of Stiljsko near Lviv in Ukraine said that in south western Ukraine there are more than 50 settlements of White Croats [12] [13] [14]
In Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland there are so many place names that are identical or nearly identical to today's place names in parts of Croatia as Međimurje, Zagorje, Slavonia, Lika, Dalmatia,and Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere,it would be required more than 17 pages of the book that get them all made. [15] [16] [17]
If anyone has some knowledge on the subject, please discuss...... -- Marek. 69 talk 14:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
S17250 mutation have majority Croats and people from Balkans with I2a haplotype..Administrator I2a haplogrup..Even though there are not so many results for the new SNPs for people from Croatia and Serbia, many of these people belong to the "Dinaric-South" group as defined by STRs and I think most of "Dinaric-South" will belong to what our project calls the I-Z16983/A356 group.. Officially genealogical tree for I2a [18] I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204
I2a1b2a1a S17250 is dad...(White Croat)I-S17250 (age: 1728 ybp)
This are sons and descendants. I2a1b2a1a1 Z16971 I2a1b2a1a1~ BY128 I2a1b2a1a1a~A815 I2a1b2a1a2 Y4882 I2a1b2a1a2a~ A811 I2a1b2a1a3 A356/Z16983
Who are the other brothers, sons of White Croat throughout Europe? This is logical, they are all White Croatian origin but they are now Ukrainians, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croatians etc. Croats came to Balkans from White Croatia and they are only nation on the Balkans whom genetics confirms history records of arrival to Balkans. I note that people of Croatia and Balkans, all with I2a types have younger White Croatian mutations. In Poland there are older mutations, I note that Poland, Ukraine or Slovakia are not mention in the time of arrival Croats to Balkan at least not in the southern Poland and western Ukraine, this excludes possibility that it refers to someone else and not White Croats. 93.136.26.42 ( talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)croatoss 93.136.26.42 ( talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the large part of the article is a big mystification. I start with Lead: "White Croats <...> were a group of Slavic tribes who lived among other West and East Slavic tribes in the area of Bohemia, Lesser Poland, Galicia (north of Carpathian Mountains) and modern-day Western Ukraine." Three solid links. We look at them. In the book of Orest nothing is said about the wide spreading of the “White Croats”. He talks about the Eastern Slavic tribe of the Croats, which they called the “White Croats” by mistake. Now this mistake is recognized even by Ukrainian historians [1]. Further the book of Magochi - he speaks about exactly the same East Slavic tribe in the near-Carpathian region, repeating the same old mistake. Finally, the third source, the book Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat in general denies the existence of the “White Croatia” in the east or in the north, considering the information too doubtful ("it stood on patchy and disputable sources"). All this must be deleted and rewritten.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I remember that Miki was very enthusiastic about the Great Russian Encyclopedia, calling it "reputable and reliable source" ( diff). But there is a special article “ Eastern Slavic Croats” , in which this Eastern Slavic Croats are clearly separated from the “white Croats”: "According to medieval written sources and toponymy, the Croats are localized <1>in the north-west of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Croats); <2> on parts of the land in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers (white Croats, apparently, in the sense of "western"); <3> in the northeast of the Carpathian region (partly in Transcarpathia)." Thus, this wiki-article obviously mixes 3 different topics: 1) The origin and history of the Early Medieval Croats. 2) Actually "White Croats" 3) East Slavic (Carpathian) Croats. This situation must be fixed. Perhaps we need a separate article like Carpathian Croats, where to transfer the necessary part of the material.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 07:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The article deals with Croatian tribes which is one and the same topicYou need to decide what is the topic of the article. If it is just about "Croatian tribes", it must be renamed, because "White Croats" are not any "Croatian tribes" at all. And even if you rename it, you will have to change the structure, telling separately about the Eastern Slavic Croats, because many sources speak about them, and not about any "Croatian tribes". Now you have returned to the article cases of direct fraud. Stop it, I'm serious. I have not yet figured out who created this falsifications, but your super-involvement looks suspicious.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's do it again:
They are often unreasonably also called "White Croats."
Transcarpathian Croats and Croats lived near Dniester and San Rivers would be more correct to call Carpathian Croats, as Ya. Isayevich suggested, and not White Croats, as most Ukrainian and Russian authors write.
the Croats or White Croats ... the White Croats and Galicia ... the best introductory survey on White Croats is the concise encyclopedic article by Gerard Labuda ... much of the controversy stems from differing interpretations of the tenth-century description of the White Croats by the Byzantine author Constantine Porphyrogenitus ... In 1893 was put forth what has come to be traditional view on the White Croats: that they were an autochtonous East Slavic population that had created a strong state in Galicia ... this view has been maintained by most Ukrainian writers, as well as in more recent times by Soviet archaeologists and historians ... The Soviets are particularly opposed to Polish scholars (some of whom place the center of the White Croats along the upper Vistula, others along the upper Dniester), because they do not stress the supposedly exclusive eastern Slavic aspect of the Croats ... The Czech specialists on early Slavic and medieval history, Lubor Niederle and Francis Dvornik argue that the White Croats were originally neither East Slavic nor West Slavic, and that it was only after the majority of the group migrated southward that the remnants left behind were absorbed by local Slavs to whom they gave their name, so that only by the ninth and tenth centuries can one speak of "Polish", "Czech", or "Rus" Croats ... [about Galician history and Croats], whatever answers subsequent writers have provided to such questions, it is certain that after the late tent century Galicia and its White Croatian inhabitants became part of the political, socioeconomic, and cultural sphere of Kievan Rus'.-- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 13:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources and literature, including those cited in this article, White Croatia, and Rusyns#Origins, generally refer to the medieval tribes as White Croats, nevertheless their location in the Eastern or Central Europe-- You can repeat this statement millions of times, but without demonstrating that most of reliable sources calls "White Croats" simultaneously Western Croats in the Czech lands and Carpathian Croats, it is just an idle talk.
References
They are often unreasonably also called "White Croats". This is due to the fact that East Europe Croats is mistakenly identified with "Croats White" (mentioned in the undated part of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans) and "White Croats" (they appears in the treatise "On the Governance of the Empire" by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos); in fact, both cases refer to the Slavs tribes in the Balkans - the ancestors of the modern Croatian population.
after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.The great majority of the text below falls into one or more of those buckets, leaving a relative paucity of useful points to evaluate. Further complicating the analysis is that very few editors actually expressed views about the RfC proposal at all. The failure of the RfC statement to state the question in a brief, neutral fashion was also noted by multiple editors. Taken together, the poorly-formed RfC statement, poor attendance, and lack of relevant arguments mean that the only policy-compliant way to summarize this RfC is that there is no consensus for the proposed edits. The absence of consensus
...commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.( non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Modern researchers separate the "White Croats" from the Eastern (Carpathian) Croats and do not consider any Early Medieval "Croatian tribes" outside modern-day Croatia as "White Croats". In accordance with this, is it worth changing the article “White Croats”, which currently mixes at least three different issues and often incorrectly uses sources?-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I propose to narrow the scope of the article White Croats. According to the modern near-consensus, the name “White Croats” can most likely be correlated with the tribe who lived in the Czech lands. For example, Great Russian Encyclopedia claims: "According to medieval written sources and toponymy, the Croats are localized <1>in the north-west of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Croats); <2> on parts of the land in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers (white Croats, apparently, in the sense of "western"); <3> in the northeast of the Carpathian region (partly in Transcarpathia)." [8] Now the article "White Croats" mixes 3 different topics: 1) The origin and history of all Early Medieval Croats; 2) Actually the issue of "White Croats" of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and Primary Chronicle; 3) East Slavic (Carpathian) Croats. At present, even in the popular Ukrainian encyclopedia, it is recognized that the Eastern Slavic tribe of Croats is unreasonably called “White Croats” [9]. At the same time, many researchers who write about the early history of the Croatian tribes either bypass the issue of the “White Croats” or directly call information about them unreliable. This situation should be fixed. Perhaps we need a separate article like Carpathian Croats, where to transfer the necessary part of the material. Another part of the material that describes the early history of all the Croats (and not just the "White Croats", whoever they may be) can be transferred to the article Croats or Origin hypotheses of the Croats. We can also rename this article to the article “Early Croats” by analogy with the article Early Slavs transferring part of the material relating only to the problem of “White Croats” to a separate article too. The current situation is a violation of the rules No original research and Neutral point of view. The solution of this problem will greatly improve the Precision of the title of the article(s). Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc|hist|lang|rfcid=245AF60}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So, one more argument. In its current form, the article contributes to pushing the fringe theory of "Great Croatia" stretching from the Elbe to the Dniester in the 10th century. I think this is another argument in favor of separating and changing the structure of the article.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
advocated a different stance on the subject ... all treating the same subject! Incredible.-- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 21:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The best solution to the editor's dispute would be to settle on the so-called intermediate solution of revision from 11 July-- Can not agree. This version was called the "intermediate solution" by Miki, but for me it is unacceptable one. My text for the Lead part was removed completely, and instead they written nonsense, which is not in the refs, which by its position should confirm it. In addition, without justification my useful edits in another parts of the article were canceled, iincluding the knowingly fake ref ((sfn|Zimonyi|2015|pp=295, 319)) was returned by Miki stubbornly ( [11]).-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
and it is titled as White Croats because that name is commonly used as a reference to them- nope, this name is used not to any "medieval Croatian tribe", but, surprisingly, to the tribe of "White Croats". This article synthesizes various sources that talk about completely different things, to do its original research. If you think that you look convincing, thoughtlessly repeating the arguments of others, then you are mistaken.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Only link between all these Croats is White Croatia- yes, this is your fringe theory, I understand this a long time ago. Professional historians describe the situation in a completely different way.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 11:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Nicoljaus your revert was a border-line WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT because your edits lack consensus and that compromise is not supperted by anyone. All other editors support Miki's version, at least as I can se...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha ( talk • contribs) 16:59, November 29, 2019 (UTC)
If there is another, more recent version which both parties agree to, let me know, and I will put that version up instead of the (April) one I chose to go with. Ping me if you reach a resolution to that effect. El_C 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not particularly impressed with either of you right now. Is there a more recent version you both can agree to for the duration of the protection, or not? El_C 06:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In the sentence "Mouchlo; Mikkola related it to the name of 6th century Hunnic (Bulgar or Kutrigur) ruler Mougel/Mouâgeris.", Bulgar is a link to a DAB page. It should be piped to Bulgars. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It is first mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the 10th century, we can not have ten types of Croats in that area, "northern, western, Carpathian, Czechian, Slovakian, Polish, Lesser Polish, Ukrainian etc..) Therefore we have to go from the source, does some encyclopedia say this or that does not affect on irrefutable fact that in that area are mentioned White Croats, yes it is truth that later sources mention only Croats but in Wikipedia White Croats, White Croatia and Croats from that area have to be different from the Croats in the Balkans otherwise we would have only one name ie Croatian for both groups of peoples and area. For now genetic data shows migration of White Croats from south Poland, southwestern Ukraine to Balkans. Genetic studies on Croats "However, in comparison to older research which argued a prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2 in Croatia,[nb 1] as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the haplogroup in Ukraine, Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it suggests it arrived with Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine.[14] The most recent research by O.M. Utevska (2017), concluded that the haplogroup STR haplotypes have the highest diversity in Ukraine, with ancestral STR marker result "DYS448=20" comprising "Dnieper-Carpathian" cluster, while younger derived result "DYS448=19" comprising the "Balkan cluster" which is predominant among the South Slavs." [1] Eupedia "I2a1b-L621 to become a major Eastern European lineage was probably the Slavic migrations from the 6th to the 9th century CE...The minority of I2a1b-L621 individuals negative for L147.2 are all found around eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine, suggesting that this is where this lineage survived since the Chalcolithic." [2]
As far as archaeological data is concerned, there are some similar findings in Croatia and Moravian and Slovakia area. That is what we know today in year 2019. Therefore obviously in the area of White Croatia and Balkan Croatia there are live peoples who are genetically connected, we will see what archeogenetics says in the future and then we will revise our point of view. 31.217.21.139 ( talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
in that area are mentioned White Croats- In which area and By whom exactly these
"northern, western, Carpathian, Czechian, Slovakian, Polish, Lesser Polish, Ukrainian etc.are mentioned as the "White Croats" at the same time? In fact, they are mentioned only twice: in the treatise "On the Governance of the Empire" by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (‘somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire’} and in the undated part of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans ( Carinthians). According to the modern near-consensus, the name “White Croats” can most likely be correlated with the tribe who lived in the Czech lands ("in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers"). I do not understand why references to genetic research. None of them found any separate tribe of “White Croats”. They talk about the origins of modern Croats, and the inappropriate use of the term “White Croats” on Wikipedia only confuses the matter.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 09:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
obviously at that time White Croatia was in the area of Southwestern Ukraine(western Carpatian area), South Poland and later up to Czech area- This is a completely fringe theory. Some authors admit the existence of a proto-state of East Slavic Croats in the Carpathians region and suggest that Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos sometimes confuses them with the White (Western) Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula and the Odra rivers". But no Great Croatia from Elbe to Dniestr existed.
And there is genetics, I do not know what is problem with genetics?- The problem of genetics is that the “White Croats” is not a problem of genetics. Genetics will not help establish who the Porphyrogennetos wrote about. Genetics can only help to clarify the origin of modern Croats.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
we have somehow divide this Croats on White Croats (7-10 century.. Czech lands, south Poland, north Slovakia, southwestern Ukraine) and Croatians from Balkan to know about who we are talking about- This is easy to do if you do not mix the history of all Croats in the 7-10th centuries, the White Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers" and the Carpathian Croats. Obviously, in the 7th century there were no "White Croats". Only after the settlement of Dalmatia, part of the Croats began to be called "White". For Porphyrogennetos (10th century) this was "recent time."-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
---Tibor Živković(March 11, 1966 – March 26, 2013) was a Serbian academic, historian and writer who specialised in the period of the early Middle Ages. [5] Quotes from the book "De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum" ""In any case, since Turkey is mentioned as a major geographical point to determine the position of the land of the White Croats, it is obvious that this report was made after 896, when the Hungarians settled in Pannonia. Since there is no mention of Moravia, which had not been conquered by the Hungarians until 907, this information must be after this year too. page 46. "It appears that Constantine’s primary source on the Croats had already contained this information about White Croatia. The Franks plundered Moravia during the same time, and White Croatia was a part of the Moravian kingdom of Svatopluk. In other words, the situation described in this section could be placed from the ca. 870s to the 880s as the Pechenegs and the Hungarians (Turks) were neighbors of the White Croats to the east in the second half of the 9th century..page 89. "The existence of the Croats (White Croats) beyond the Magyars, i.e. in southern Poland, is confirmed by the writing of the English King Alfred the Great, who mentioned the Croats as the neighbors of the Serbs. According to King Alfred, the Croats (Horoti) had lived (around 889 – 893) to the north-east of the Moravians, and to the east of Daleminci, while the Serbs lived to the north of Daleminci. This information is contemporary to Constantine’s source on the White Croats. The Arab writer Masoudi(10th century) had a similar description on the position of the Croats in that land (modern southern Poland).The Russian Primary Chronicle mentioned the (White) Croats as the participants in Duke Oleg’s expedition against Constantinople in 907"..page 113. [6] This is opinion of the Serbian modern historian, your opinion is that White Croats are in Czech lands my opinion is that White Croats are in both areas, archaeological findings from that time point to existence of same peoples(tribe) up to Lviv in western Ukraine, living genetics confirms that this is area where live Croatian ancestors (older genetics). What else do we need, census of that area from the 7th century? We are waiting for archeogenetics and that is it. 31.217.9.72 ( talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
The Russian Primary Chronicle mentioned the (White) Croats as the participants in Duke Oleg’s expedition against Constantinople in 907"..page 113Good attempt, but Russian Primary Chronicle in 907 does not mention White Croats. And in other places where it mentions eastern Croats, it does not call them "White". But precisely "White Croats" were mentioned in the undated part of "Russian Primary Chronicle" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans ( Carinthians). So, as it written in the note 310 on the same page of the same book, others "considered these Croats as two different entities, i.e. ‘eastern’ and ‘white’ Croats." Modern historical encyclopedias do the same, and so should be done in Wikipedia.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
---No problem, then we will call them Croats, not any Czech, Polish, Ukraine, Carpatian, western, eastern, northern Croats because they are not mentioned anywhere with such names but simply Croats who lived in the area of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine, north Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and we will have more Wikipedia articles that mention same peoples in several parts of Europe and each article will be titled only with the name Croats. I do not know if this is in the Wikipedia rule but if it is I'm for it. But no Czech Croats, Polish Croats etc because if we leave out data from De administrando imperio only Croats are mentioned but also because of the fact that these countries have not been mentioned at that time. I note that Croats live in those areas (according to De administrando imperio) in the 7th century and this fact must be respected. 31.217.15.106 ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
I note that Croats live in those areas (according to De administrando imperio) in the 7th century and this fact must be respected.-- No, "DAI" does not contain such statements. This is only a fringe theory based on the amateurish interpretation of a complex original source.--
Nicoljaus ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a
WP:FORUM for such open commentary. @Nicoljaus, I am asking you again - do you understand that this article is about Slavic tribe of Croats, with all historical sources, all scholarship disputes and else? Should all other Slavic tribes who were mentioned in different regions get separate articles? Of course not. Are you aware of how stupid this sounds - No problem, then we will call them Croats, not any Czech, Polish, Ukraine, Carpatian, western, eastern, northern Croats because they are not mentioned anywhere with such names but simply Croats who lived in the area of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine, north Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and we will have more Wikipedia articles that mention same peoples in several parts of Europe and each article will be titled only with the name Croats
? I hope, since you're pushing to make
WP:CFORK articles.--
Miki Filigranski (
talk) 21:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedian article for Croatia.. "According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia in the early 7th century." [7] De administrando imperio says I quote "the same Croats invaded and expelled Avara from these countries, with the permission of Emperor Heraclius, they settled in that same country" Heraclius was the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 610 to 641[8] Archeological data can prove it because there are findings from that period in Croatia and there are some similarities with Moravian and Slovakian findings. You could change Croatian history without having to deal with the history only with the statement that this is "a fringe theory", then start editing and this article about Croatia and all others who talk about it. At that time and later they are not mentioned any Czech lands, Polish lands, Polish Croats, Carpatian Croats, Western Croats etc. Croats in that area are mentioned according to De administrando imperio as White Croats, if the Byzantine Emperor divide Croats I do not see reason why the same could not do and Wikipedia. ""Good attempt, but Russian Primary Chronicle in 907 does not mention White Croats."" "Klaić navodi i Nestorov zapis o Olegovu pohodu na Carigrad 907. godine: „V leto 6412., v leto 6413., v leto 6414., (904. – 907.) ide Ol,g na Greki. Igorja ostaviv v Kijeve; poja že množstvo Varjag i Sloven i Čjudi i Kriviča i Merju i Poljani i Sever i Drevljani i Radimiča i Horvati i Dulebi i Tiverca, iže skut tolkovniki: si vsi zvahut sja Velikaja Skut, i s simi vsemi pojde Ol,g na konih i v korablih, i be čislom korablij 2000, i pride k Cesarju Gradu.“: Klaić, Hrvati i Hrvatska, 60-61" Claim of Mate Božić "the testimony of Nestor we see clearly, that in year 907. in Army of Oleg there were Croats, which are without doubts were those Croats who lived in the neighborhood of Dulebs and others Russian tribes." "Mate Božić, Faculty of Philosophy in Split, Department of History". Dulebs live in the area of Volhynia which has no connection with the Czech lands, and whether they are mentioned as Croats or White Croats does not refute the fact that Croats live in that wider area and fact that Byzantine Emperor all these people simply called White Croats just as we have to. 31.217.4.1 (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
Dulebs live in the area of Volhynia which has no connection with the Czech lands- This is the reason why modern historians "considered these Croats as two different entities, i.e. ‘eastern’ and ‘white’ Croats." if you read all the sources, instead of pushing through fringe theories, you can easily figure it out.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
––––––I do not understand you, which ‘eastern’ there is no mention of ‘eastern’ Croats, De Administrando Imperio all these people calls "White Croats", others sources call them Croats, since we have article on Wikipedia that speaks about the Croats this is aricle about White Croats, there can be two articles about same peoples, all the time I'm talking that Porphyrogenitis is talking about White Croats behind Hungaria and Bavaria and this is an area from Czech lands to southern Poland, in this area and other sources finding Croats. This article talks about that, which ‘eastern’ Croats? There are no ‘eastern’ Croats, There are Croats and White Croats, there are Croatian toponyms and in Germany, Carantania, Tyrol and elsewhere and these Croats probably migrate to these areas just as the Croats migrate to the Balkans, we can not have hundreds of different Croats and for each of them have an article on Wikipedia. "According to Klaić, the same news about Vladimir's obedience to the Ukrainian Croats at the end of the Xth century was also made by the Polish chronicler Dlugosz: Vastatis eo anno dux Russiae Carvatis infertur illi (duci) a Pieczyngis (Pečenegi) bellum, contra quos egressus ad fluvium Rubiessa (Trubež) eos offendit...As far as Croatians are concerned, we see that then there were two tribes of that name (Chrovati et altera Chrowati), then these tribes lived somewhere in the west of the city of Krakow and the river Odre, and in the north-west of the high Tatras and the river Vaga, finally in the north (then very tight) of the Morava region."... Thus we can not catch place where this Croats exist and where they are mentioned, there are everywhere in that area. For that reason we must go from the source and that source is De Administrando Imperio.
31.217.4.186 ( talk) 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
Well, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss our amateurish interpretations of such complex primary sources. You'd better find another place for such kind of activity ( WP:FORUM). Here we only state that competent historians who studied this particular issue wrote on it. And competent modern historians do not wtite about "hundreds of different Croats", but about White (western) Croats, Carpathian (eastern) Croats and Dalmatian Croats (Croats of the Croatian kingdom).-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 08:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
An interesting work „HRVAT“ I „HRVATI“ – OD TOPONIMA DO ETNONIMA, (from where the last quotation about Dlugosz was cut out, without indicating the source) although controversial. The author writes further ( p.164):
"Također, kada opisuje navodnu sjevernu, „staru“ tj. nekadašnju Hrvatsku, iz koje su Hrvati „došli“ na jug, pisac DAI-a miješa vijesti o srednjoeuropskim (češkim) i istočnoeuropskim (ukrajinskim) hrvatskim plemenima." ("Also, when describing the alleged northern, "old", or former Croatia, from which Croats "came" to the south, DAI writer mixes news about Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes.")
To sum up, as I said earlier, modern scholars clearly distinguish Eastern (Ukrainian, Carphatian) and Western (Central European, Czech) Croats. You can also see the map on page 172 - there is no giant “White Croatia” from the Elbe to the Dniester. It indicates three local areas of Croatian tribes "in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe during the Xth century".-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 14:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
––––
This is an article about White Croats not about White Croatia, historical source the not mentione Eastern, Western or Southern Croats, sources mention Croats and White Croats. Therefore, or we will Croats from the area of southern Poland, eastern Czechia, northern Slovakia and southwestern Ukraine call Croats or White Croats there is no other, everything else is without confirmation in written document and as such fairytale. Eastern Croats who are they? I have never heard any Croatian historian that speak about eastern Croats, we only know for White Croats.
"Also, when describing the alleged northern, "old", or former Croatia, from which Croats "came" to the south, DAI writer mixes news about Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes." "Northern" and "old" are not mentioned anywhere in historical documents, this is personal opinion of author which does not prove anything, otherwise thats clame is about White Croatia not Croats, yes DAI writer mixes news about "Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes" because White or Great Croatia is a wider term. As if we had an article on Wikipedia about "Dalmatian Croats", "Slavonian Croats", "Istrian Croats", "Croats from Zagorje", etc, they are all Croats. Did I tell you that in Slovakia there are some archaeological finds similar to Croatian, therefore there are no separated Czech and Ukrainian Croatian tribes because Slovaka is between them in which there are archaeological finds similar to Croatian. This means that Croats from Czechia to Western Ukraine are same peoples and they are White Croats or Croats.
31.217.3.176 (
talk) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
I have never heard any Croatian historian that speak about eastern Croats- See the comment above with the link to Croatian historian.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
––– Eastern Croats the not exist, there is not one historical data that mentions Eastern Croats, there are Croats from Balkan and Croats, White Croats (area of southern Poland, eastern Czechia, northern Slovakia and southwestern Ukraine). Therefore Croatian historian does not speak about Eastern Croats in that area, he says that "DAI writer mixes news about Croats" and for this reason he divides Croats. It is his opinion but it did not prove with nothing. How he knows that DAI mix something? He did not even research it. Some historian can not change 10th century record with his statement. It is a common area. DAI speaks about two places from where Croats coming to the Balkans but that Croats are a single tribe and coming from one White Croatia, they can not come from five positions at the same time. They coming from White Croatia as White Croats. DAI "Great Croatia, also called "White", there were no two White Croatia. If we went with your logic then we would have and two or three White Croatia. 46.188.133.29 ( talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
References
Nicoljaus please stop your disruptive behavior. Wikipedia should be a place for discusion with arguments, and not politics or petty wars. If you have something which you don't agree with, discuss it here, the article doesn't belong to you... -- Čeha ( razgovor) 08:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Most of the editors didn't agree with his arguments which should the Nicoljaus have accepted by now. -- Čeha ( razgovor) 18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I explain for the last time. The article was protected: [20], and reverted: [21] by administrator El C. When Miki decided to return his edits, El C sent him to the ANRFC: [22]. I just return the article to the administrator version: [23]. If you think you can ignore his decision, write him yourself.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 16:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, for information: Mikola and Ceha are doing Croatian POV-pushing together in another topic: WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Donji_Kraji_discussion. They cannot be considered objective commentators on the current RFC.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 16:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Mouchlo; Mikkola related it to the name of 6th century Hunnic (Bulgar[159] or Kutrigur[163]) ruler Mougel/Mouâgeris.", there is a link to the DAB page Bulgar. It should be corrected to [[Bulgars|Bulgar]]. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is badly in need of English-language editing and proofreading; e.g. missing definite articles! For example, in the "Origin" section:
• 'in this environment were formed Antes' should be 'in this environment were formed the Antes'
• 'near mythical Amazons' should be 'near the mythical Amazons'
(After the "Origin" section, I stopped reading since, with all due respect, it annoys me to read bad English on the Wikipedia if I can't fix it.)
Pasquale (
talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Serbs ( Sorbs) [1] @ Nicoljaus: What's the problem? Mikola22 ( talk) 11:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then specify the sources which referred these Serbs from Primary Chronicle with Balkan Serbs.See, for example, Majorov book: "The ancient Russian chronicler attributes them [White Croats] to the group of Balkan Slavs. [...] Placing the White Croats in the Balkans along with the Serbs and Horutans brings the account of the ancient Russian chronicler closer to the testimony of the South Slavic source - the so-called Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - which tells of White Croatia in Dalmatia." [2]. His analysis is much more detailed and modern.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 17:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)--upd 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
References
The sourcing on this article is now a mess, likely due to the ongoing edit war. Nearly half of the references in the article do not link to the source list, and a number of the sources no longer have any references attached to them at all. Installing User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a good way to see which ones need to be fixed. NOTE: The sources that can be seen at the bottom of this page (Horace Lunt, Majorov, etc) are not a part of this section. They belong to comments elsewhere on this Talk page. Lilipo25 ( talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
...commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", made by Nicoljaus, and as such the article will be reverted to the old revision. The claim that the article is a mess, a fork of the article White Croatia and promoting fringe and outdated theories is false and without valid arguments.-- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 10:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The current consensus in bibliography is that the White Croats didn't live in different regions of eastern Europe but in the Carpathian basin and engaged in a short-distance population movement to Dalmatia. The article discusses mostly outdated theories about a "Slavic invasion", extensive migration and an "original pan-Slavic" identity in eastern Europe. @ Mikola22: @ OyMosby: your thoughts?.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s why Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group.- Source, please.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group. I also ask you to undo this edit: [24], which returns a map supporting this outdated theory. For a more detailed explanation, see this discussion: WP:ANI#Miki Filigranski - WP:CIV, WP:WAR, WP:VERIFY or WP:SYNTH. If there are more questions, I'll be happy to answer.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
deconstructing ethnic identities and medieval migrations to the point of unthinkableI don't think that Curta has ever gone that far. What Curta puts forward is that instead of a grand migration/invasion from the depths of eastern Europe, the journey of the Slavic people in the Balkans was a short one from the Carpathian basin. And instead of talking about a pan-Slavic identity in the context of a primordial Slavic pan-ethnicity, he discusses the various Slavic-language cultures which emerged as a result of different social-cultural processes in their home region.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 21:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
i have removed an entire paragraph because it's so biased as to be unsalvageable. it looks like it was written by an imam, and not an academic or a historian.
any mention of or reference to religious arab sources should be stated as controversial, tentative and unreliable - and the narrative should be framed from the perspective of the indigenous slavs, not the imperialistic and invading (and expelled and unwanted) arabs.
there is a serious problem with fundamentalist muslims using wikipedia as a tool of propaganda to distort history for their geopolitical ambitions. i am drawing attention to this, but i cannot fix it by myself, in the presence of overwhelming resources dedicated to the cause.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
White Croats article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I've found [1] and i'm wondering if anyone could verify the source: US Senate-Reports on the Immigration commission, Dictionary of races or peoples, Washington DC, 1911, p. 40, 43, 105.
"In 995 A.D. Czech warriors from Bohemia and Moravia invaded the White Croat state and destroyed their capital at Libice." This is a funny sentence. I am not a historian, but I attended a Czech high school, so let me explain this a little. In that times, in Bohemia there were several groups. Let's call them tribes. Perhaps the most powerful of them were the Czechs (settled in central Bohemia) and the White Croats (Charváti in the Czech language, settled in east bohemia). 1) the White Croat state and capital? - that wasn't a state, it was rather a region of rule and influence 2) ...from Moravia? I think that the rule of the Czechs wasn't that powerful over Moravia. This action was only between the Czechs (and their allied or conquered neighbours) and the Charváts (White Croats). 3) I think the article is a mess as a whole article. I'm sorry but I'm not going to edit it because I don't know much about it, it's too complicated. I just wanted to give you some information. 4)I wrote only about White Croats in east bohemia, I don't know anything about them in Poland area. 85.70.117.103 ( talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the 1930's and '40s, an estimated 100,000 "White Croatians" or known as Byelo-Harvats and somewhat 50,000 "White Sorbians" or Lusitic Serbians lived in present-day Poland, the majority around the Krakow region. The peoples were descendants of a small influx of transplanted Serbo-Croatians whom arrived in the 16th to late 18th centuries, when eastern Silesia and southern Slovincia was under Austrian rule (the Austro-Hungarian Empire). But then came the Nazis German invasion of Poland in 1939, followed by the Soviet invasion of Nazi-occupied Poland in May 1945 and finally, the Communist takeover of the Polish government in 1947 has forcibly pressured the entire White Croat/Serbian population out of the Krakow region of Poland. Almost all the Byelo-Harvats and Lusitic Serbians emigrated to the United States, though Polish-Canadian and Croatian-Canadian organizations mentioned Canada was another major destination for them, and the rest in other neutral host nations like Sweden, Spain and Argentina. To make matters complicated is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under communism as well wasn't the land of choice for ethnic Croats or Serbs from Poland. + 71.102.2.206 ( talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The article reads that "The last ruler, Soběslav (d. 1004), was killed near Prague by Polish forces in 1004 A.D". I am not really sure of that, since Soběslav and his dynasty (Slavnik's dynasty)were in friendly terms with Poland at that time. He sought refuge in Poland after the Slavnik's dynasty was massacred by the Přemyslids in Prague. As far as I know, Soběslav and Boleslaw the Brave, the Polish king, tried to conquer Praque back from Přemyslids, so Soběslav was apparently killed by the Czechs... I am not however an expert in that field, so I do not try to change the article itself. Could someone check that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilia007 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
US Senate reports can be verified throughout official US Senate archive using documents description and numbers of census. About White Croatian rule in todays Czech republic,as bishop of Prague was St.Wojtech, son of White Croatian prince Sobeslav Slavnik,search through Prague Archdiocese for borders of bishopric Prague of 10th century.They were positioned as Constantin Porphyrogenitus described that borders of (White)Croatia were in 10th century. About 100,000 White Croats from Krakow region is so much spoken so I would like you all, before you post any questions and doubts to consult sources and chronicles as Chronicles of Bruno of Querfurt, Constantin Porphyrogenitus, King Alfred the Great of England, Zachariah the Rhetor, Nordic Hervarsaga, Nestor's Chronicle, Arab Geographers Ibn Rusta, Kardizi, Al-Masudi... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus dextera ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
US Senate reports can be verified throughout official US Senate archive using documents description and numbers of census. About White Croatian rule in todays Czech republic,as bishop of Prague was St.Wojtech, son of White Croatian prince Sobeslav Slavnik,search through Prague Archdiocese for borders of bishopric Prague of 10th century.They were positioned as Constantin Porphyrogenitus described that borders of (White)Croatia were in 10th century. About 100,000 White Croats from Krakow region is so much spoken so I would like you all, before you post any questions and doubts to consult sources and chronicles as Chronicles of Bruno of Querfurt, Constantin Porphyrogenitus, King Alfred the Great of England, Zachariah the Rhetor, Nordic Hervarsaga, Nestor's Chronicle, Arab Geographers Ibn Rusta, Kardizi, Al-Masudi... Deus dextera ( talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This reference doesn't support the claim from the article:
"It is interesting to add that according to some American documents from the beginning of 20th century there were about 100,000 immigrants to the US born around Krakow who declared themselves to be Bielo-Chorvats, i.e. White Croats by nationality.[4]"
It only mentions Bielochrovat as a subdivision of the Poles:
"CRAKUS, KRAKOWIAK, or BIELOCHROVAT. Names applied to a subdivision of the Poles"
"...Other names applying to subdivisions of the Poles are the Bielochrovats (the same as the Krakuses or Cracovinians), the Kuyevs, the Kuprikes, the Lublinians, and the Sandomirians..."
There is no mention of 100,000 Bielo-Chorvats on those pages. And I haven't noticed such claim in the rest of report.
178.223.65.181 ( talk) 07:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Mr. Pink
Once again, the cited pages are 22 40, 43, 88 and 105. Anyone can check and make sure that nothing is said about immigrants there. How can they support the statement, that "Polish immigrants to the United States born in around Kraków reportedly declared themselves as Bielochrovat (i.e. White Croat)"? The whole source is not the data of Immigration Commission, but the "Dictionary of races or peoples" composed by Daniel Folkmar on the base of the literature of his time, which is completely outdated now.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"Some historians[who?] present opinions, that ancient Croats were of Scytho-Sarmatian origin." i.a. ??? Alemko Gluhak, O. N. Trubačeva, Max Vasmer ??? etc 134.3.84.160 ( talk) 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In the 7th century A.D., seven tribes led by 5 brothers (Kluk, Lobel, Muhlo, Kosjenic and Hrvat) and 2 sisters (Buga and Tuga) migrated ...
This is clearly a myth, devised by Constantine Porphyrogenetos (De Administrando Imperii), which by the way is missing in the references. It is like writing "In 753 B.C. brothers Romulus and Remus, raised by a she-wolf, founded Rome."
In the late 10th century, one of the White Croats states, the duchy of Libice, was ruled by Slavnik's dynasty
Another very questionable statement, prove me wrong, but I don't think there is evidence for this in the sources. That Libice was owned by the "Charvat" tribe is conjecture of some historians, not mainstream opinion. I've just read the article "White Croatia" and although it does not cite sources, it is much more informative. Someone with the appropriate rights should consider redirecting "White Croats" to "White Croatia" and perhaps adding the paragraph about later migrations to Poland and subsequently the US. 88.83.176.230 ( talk) 22:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following passage was recently removed from the article. I'm not sure if any of it is useable.
Croats coming from the area of the southern Poland and western Ukraine to the Balkans. This fact is proven with research of Kenneth Nordtvedt and his movement of main Croatian haplotype I2a1b2a1a S17250 through history [1] [2]
It is also interesting that one type of R1a Z280 CTS3402 haplotype in Croats has a high frequency in the southern Poland, but it is still unclear movement of the same through history [3]
Russian geneticist I. Rozhansky reply on question and says following. 2013/10/18.
"And Croats, Slovenes, and as, most likely, the Serbs dominated by several branches that have a common label Sneap CTS3402. Geography of these branches is such that it is possible to trace his way from the Carpathian Mountains to the Adriatic. The same can be said about "Dinarides" branch subclades I2a1b. Apparently the White Croats and Croats from the Carpathians to the Adriatic are really related people. About Lusatian Sorbs and Danubian Serbs so can not say - they are too different lineage" [4]
Administrator of I2a haplogroup which includes Croatian I2a1b2a1a S17250 says the following.
"So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of course" [5]
This means that negative for I2a1b2a1a S17250 are older mutations from Southeast Poland and ancestors of White Croats in Poland and Croats in Croatia.
According to official data mutation S17250 is old (age: 1728 ybp) and this mutation and its younger subbranch exists in the population of Belarus, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian, Macedonia, Russia, Polish, Ukrainian, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and they are all from a common ancestor which means that migration of White Croats went in all directions and claim of Porphyrogenetus that Croats settled Illyria, Dalmatia and Pannonia and that they are coming from Great Croatia now gets and genetic confirmation [6]
From the Croats who came to Dalmatia, one part separated, and occupied Illyria (Illurikon) and Pannonia (Pannonian).De Administrando Imperio. [7] [8] [9] [10]
Public map of a person with I2a haplotypes in Europe proves that all people in the Balkans with tipes of I2a haplotype or vast majority have mutations (I-CTS10228, S17250) which is formed in southeastern Poland [11]
Dr. Orest Korčinski, Ukrainean archaelogist, investigator of White Croatian site of Stiljsko near Lviv in Ukraine said that in south western Ukraine there are more than 50 settlements of White Croats [12] [13] [14]
In Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland there are so many place names that are identical or nearly identical to today's place names in parts of Croatia as Međimurje, Zagorje, Slavonia, Lika, Dalmatia,and Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere,it would be required more than 17 pages of the book that get them all made. [15] [16] [17]
If anyone has some knowledge on the subject, please discuss...... -- Marek. 69 talk 14:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
S17250 mutation have majority Croats and people from Balkans with I2a haplotype..Administrator I2a haplogrup..Even though there are not so many results for the new SNPs for people from Croatia and Serbia, many of these people belong to the "Dinaric-South" group as defined by STRs and I think most of "Dinaric-South" will belong to what our project calls the I-Z16983/A356 group.. Officially genealogical tree for I2a [18] I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204
I2a1b2a1a S17250 is dad...(White Croat)I-S17250 (age: 1728 ybp)
This are sons and descendants. I2a1b2a1a1 Z16971 I2a1b2a1a1~ BY128 I2a1b2a1a1a~A815 I2a1b2a1a2 Y4882 I2a1b2a1a2a~ A811 I2a1b2a1a3 A356/Z16983
Who are the other brothers, sons of White Croat throughout Europe? This is logical, they are all White Croatian origin but they are now Ukrainians, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croatians etc. Croats came to Balkans from White Croatia and they are only nation on the Balkans whom genetics confirms history records of arrival to Balkans. I note that people of Croatia and Balkans, all with I2a types have younger White Croatian mutations. In Poland there are older mutations, I note that Poland, Ukraine or Slovakia are not mention in the time of arrival Croats to Balkan at least not in the southern Poland and western Ukraine, this excludes possibility that it refers to someone else and not White Croats. 93.136.26.42 ( talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)croatoss 93.136.26.42 ( talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the large part of the article is a big mystification. I start with Lead: "White Croats <...> were a group of Slavic tribes who lived among other West and East Slavic tribes in the area of Bohemia, Lesser Poland, Galicia (north of Carpathian Mountains) and modern-day Western Ukraine." Three solid links. We look at them. In the book of Orest nothing is said about the wide spreading of the “White Croats”. He talks about the Eastern Slavic tribe of the Croats, which they called the “White Croats” by mistake. Now this mistake is recognized even by Ukrainian historians [1]. Further the book of Magochi - he speaks about exactly the same East Slavic tribe in the near-Carpathian region, repeating the same old mistake. Finally, the third source, the book Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat in general denies the existence of the “White Croatia” in the east or in the north, considering the information too doubtful ("it stood on patchy and disputable sources"). All this must be deleted and rewritten.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I remember that Miki was very enthusiastic about the Great Russian Encyclopedia, calling it "reputable and reliable source" ( diff). But there is a special article “ Eastern Slavic Croats” , in which this Eastern Slavic Croats are clearly separated from the “white Croats”: "According to medieval written sources and toponymy, the Croats are localized <1>in the north-west of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Croats); <2> on parts of the land in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers (white Croats, apparently, in the sense of "western"); <3> in the northeast of the Carpathian region (partly in Transcarpathia)." Thus, this wiki-article obviously mixes 3 different topics: 1) The origin and history of the Early Medieval Croats. 2) Actually "White Croats" 3) East Slavic (Carpathian) Croats. This situation must be fixed. Perhaps we need a separate article like Carpathian Croats, where to transfer the necessary part of the material.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 07:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The article deals with Croatian tribes which is one and the same topicYou need to decide what is the topic of the article. If it is just about "Croatian tribes", it must be renamed, because "White Croats" are not any "Croatian tribes" at all. And even if you rename it, you will have to change the structure, telling separately about the Eastern Slavic Croats, because many sources speak about them, and not about any "Croatian tribes". Now you have returned to the article cases of direct fraud. Stop it, I'm serious. I have not yet figured out who created this falsifications, but your super-involvement looks suspicious.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's do it again:
They are often unreasonably also called "White Croats."
Transcarpathian Croats and Croats lived near Dniester and San Rivers would be more correct to call Carpathian Croats, as Ya. Isayevich suggested, and not White Croats, as most Ukrainian and Russian authors write.
the Croats or White Croats ... the White Croats and Galicia ... the best introductory survey on White Croats is the concise encyclopedic article by Gerard Labuda ... much of the controversy stems from differing interpretations of the tenth-century description of the White Croats by the Byzantine author Constantine Porphyrogenitus ... In 1893 was put forth what has come to be traditional view on the White Croats: that they were an autochtonous East Slavic population that had created a strong state in Galicia ... this view has been maintained by most Ukrainian writers, as well as in more recent times by Soviet archaeologists and historians ... The Soviets are particularly opposed to Polish scholars (some of whom place the center of the White Croats along the upper Vistula, others along the upper Dniester), because they do not stress the supposedly exclusive eastern Slavic aspect of the Croats ... The Czech specialists on early Slavic and medieval history, Lubor Niederle and Francis Dvornik argue that the White Croats were originally neither East Slavic nor West Slavic, and that it was only after the majority of the group migrated southward that the remnants left behind were absorbed by local Slavs to whom they gave their name, so that only by the ninth and tenth centuries can one speak of "Polish", "Czech", or "Rus" Croats ... [about Galician history and Croats], whatever answers subsequent writers have provided to such questions, it is certain that after the late tent century Galicia and its White Croatian inhabitants became part of the political, socioeconomic, and cultural sphere of Kievan Rus'.-- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 13:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources and literature, including those cited in this article, White Croatia, and Rusyns#Origins, generally refer to the medieval tribes as White Croats, nevertheless their location in the Eastern or Central Europe-- You can repeat this statement millions of times, but without demonstrating that most of reliable sources calls "White Croats" simultaneously Western Croats in the Czech lands and Carpathian Croats, it is just an idle talk.
References
They are often unreasonably also called "White Croats". This is due to the fact that East Europe Croats is mistakenly identified with "Croats White" (mentioned in the undated part of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans) and "White Croats" (they appears in the treatise "On the Governance of the Empire" by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos); in fact, both cases refer to the Slavs tribes in the Balkans - the ancestors of the modern Croatian population.
after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.The great majority of the text below falls into one or more of those buckets, leaving a relative paucity of useful points to evaluate. Further complicating the analysis is that very few editors actually expressed views about the RfC proposal at all. The failure of the RfC statement to state the question in a brief, neutral fashion was also noted by multiple editors. Taken together, the poorly-formed RfC statement, poor attendance, and lack of relevant arguments mean that the only policy-compliant way to summarize this RfC is that there is no consensus for the proposed edits. The absence of consensus
...commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.( non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Modern researchers separate the "White Croats" from the Eastern (Carpathian) Croats and do not consider any Early Medieval "Croatian tribes" outside modern-day Croatia as "White Croats". In accordance with this, is it worth changing the article “White Croats”, which currently mixes at least three different issues and often incorrectly uses sources?-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I propose to narrow the scope of the article White Croats. According to the modern near-consensus, the name “White Croats” can most likely be correlated with the tribe who lived in the Czech lands. For example, Great Russian Encyclopedia claims: "According to medieval written sources and toponymy, the Croats are localized <1>in the north-west of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Croats); <2> on parts of the land in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers (white Croats, apparently, in the sense of "western"); <3> in the northeast of the Carpathian region (partly in Transcarpathia)." [8] Now the article "White Croats" mixes 3 different topics: 1) The origin and history of all Early Medieval Croats; 2) Actually the issue of "White Croats" of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and Primary Chronicle; 3) East Slavic (Carpathian) Croats. At present, even in the popular Ukrainian encyclopedia, it is recognized that the Eastern Slavic tribe of Croats is unreasonably called “White Croats” [9]. At the same time, many researchers who write about the early history of the Croatian tribes either bypass the issue of the “White Croats” or directly call information about them unreliable. This situation should be fixed. Perhaps we need a separate article like Carpathian Croats, where to transfer the necessary part of the material. Another part of the material that describes the early history of all the Croats (and not just the "White Croats", whoever they may be) can be transferred to the article Croats or Origin hypotheses of the Croats. We can also rename this article to the article “Early Croats” by analogy with the article Early Slavs transferring part of the material relating only to the problem of “White Croats” to a separate article too. The current situation is a violation of the rules No original research and Neutral point of view. The solution of this problem will greatly improve the Precision of the title of the article(s). Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc|hist|lang|rfcid=245AF60}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So, one more argument. In its current form, the article contributes to pushing the fringe theory of "Great Croatia" stretching from the Elbe to the Dniester in the 10th century. I think this is another argument in favor of separating and changing the structure of the article.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
advocated a different stance on the subject ... all treating the same subject! Incredible.-- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 21:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The best solution to the editor's dispute would be to settle on the so-called intermediate solution of revision from 11 July-- Can not agree. This version was called the "intermediate solution" by Miki, but for me it is unacceptable one. My text for the Lead part was removed completely, and instead they written nonsense, which is not in the refs, which by its position should confirm it. In addition, without justification my useful edits in another parts of the article were canceled, iincluding the knowingly fake ref ((sfn|Zimonyi|2015|pp=295, 319)) was returned by Miki stubbornly ( [11]).-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
and it is titled as White Croats because that name is commonly used as a reference to them- nope, this name is used not to any "medieval Croatian tribe", but, surprisingly, to the tribe of "White Croats". This article synthesizes various sources that talk about completely different things, to do its original research. If you think that you look convincing, thoughtlessly repeating the arguments of others, then you are mistaken.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Only link between all these Croats is White Croatia- yes, this is your fringe theory, I understand this a long time ago. Professional historians describe the situation in a completely different way.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 11:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Nicoljaus your revert was a border-line WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT because your edits lack consensus and that compromise is not supperted by anyone. All other editors support Miki's version, at least as I can se...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha ( talk • contribs) 16:59, November 29, 2019 (UTC)
If there is another, more recent version which both parties agree to, let me know, and I will put that version up instead of the (April) one I chose to go with. Ping me if you reach a resolution to that effect. El_C 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not particularly impressed with either of you right now. Is there a more recent version you both can agree to for the duration of the protection, or not? El_C 06:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In the sentence "Mouchlo; Mikkola related it to the name of 6th century Hunnic (Bulgar or Kutrigur) ruler Mougel/Mouâgeris.", Bulgar is a link to a DAB page. It should be piped to Bulgars. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It is first mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the 10th century, we can not have ten types of Croats in that area, "northern, western, Carpathian, Czechian, Slovakian, Polish, Lesser Polish, Ukrainian etc..) Therefore we have to go from the source, does some encyclopedia say this or that does not affect on irrefutable fact that in that area are mentioned White Croats, yes it is truth that later sources mention only Croats but in Wikipedia White Croats, White Croatia and Croats from that area have to be different from the Croats in the Balkans otherwise we would have only one name ie Croatian for both groups of peoples and area. For now genetic data shows migration of White Croats from south Poland, southwestern Ukraine to Balkans. Genetic studies on Croats "However, in comparison to older research which argued a prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2 in Croatia,[nb 1] as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the haplogroup in Ukraine, Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it suggests it arrived with Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine.[14] The most recent research by O.M. Utevska (2017), concluded that the haplogroup STR haplotypes have the highest diversity in Ukraine, with ancestral STR marker result "DYS448=20" comprising "Dnieper-Carpathian" cluster, while younger derived result "DYS448=19" comprising the "Balkan cluster" which is predominant among the South Slavs." [1] Eupedia "I2a1b-L621 to become a major Eastern European lineage was probably the Slavic migrations from the 6th to the 9th century CE...The minority of I2a1b-L621 individuals negative for L147.2 are all found around eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine, suggesting that this is where this lineage survived since the Chalcolithic." [2]
As far as archaeological data is concerned, there are some similar findings in Croatia and Moravian and Slovakia area. That is what we know today in year 2019. Therefore obviously in the area of White Croatia and Balkan Croatia there are live peoples who are genetically connected, we will see what archeogenetics says in the future and then we will revise our point of view. 31.217.21.139 ( talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
in that area are mentioned White Croats- In which area and By whom exactly these
"northern, western, Carpathian, Czechian, Slovakian, Polish, Lesser Polish, Ukrainian etc.are mentioned as the "White Croats" at the same time? In fact, they are mentioned only twice: in the treatise "On the Governance of the Empire" by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (‘somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire’} and in the undated part of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans ( Carinthians). According to the modern near-consensus, the name “White Croats” can most likely be correlated with the tribe who lived in the Czech lands ("in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers"). I do not understand why references to genetic research. None of them found any separate tribe of “White Croats”. They talk about the origins of modern Croats, and the inappropriate use of the term “White Croats” on Wikipedia only confuses the matter.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 09:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
obviously at that time White Croatia was in the area of Southwestern Ukraine(western Carpatian area), South Poland and later up to Czech area- This is a completely fringe theory. Some authors admit the existence of a proto-state of East Slavic Croats in the Carpathians region and suggest that Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos sometimes confuses them with the White (Western) Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula and the Odra rivers". But no Great Croatia from Elbe to Dniestr existed.
And there is genetics, I do not know what is problem with genetics?- The problem of genetics is that the “White Croats” is not a problem of genetics. Genetics will not help establish who the Porphyrogennetos wrote about. Genetics can only help to clarify the origin of modern Croats.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
we have somehow divide this Croats on White Croats (7-10 century.. Czech lands, south Poland, north Slovakia, southwestern Ukraine) and Croatians from Balkan to know about who we are talking about- This is easy to do if you do not mix the history of all Croats in the 7-10th centuries, the White Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers" and the Carpathian Croats. Obviously, in the 7th century there were no "White Croats". Only after the settlement of Dalmatia, part of the Croats began to be called "White". For Porphyrogennetos (10th century) this was "recent time."-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
---Tibor Živković(March 11, 1966 – March 26, 2013) was a Serbian academic, historian and writer who specialised in the period of the early Middle Ages. [5] Quotes from the book "De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum" ""In any case, since Turkey is mentioned as a major geographical point to determine the position of the land of the White Croats, it is obvious that this report was made after 896, when the Hungarians settled in Pannonia. Since there is no mention of Moravia, which had not been conquered by the Hungarians until 907, this information must be after this year too. page 46. "It appears that Constantine’s primary source on the Croats had already contained this information about White Croatia. The Franks plundered Moravia during the same time, and White Croatia was a part of the Moravian kingdom of Svatopluk. In other words, the situation described in this section could be placed from the ca. 870s to the 880s as the Pechenegs and the Hungarians (Turks) were neighbors of the White Croats to the east in the second half of the 9th century..page 89. "The existence of the Croats (White Croats) beyond the Magyars, i.e. in southern Poland, is confirmed by the writing of the English King Alfred the Great, who mentioned the Croats as the neighbors of the Serbs. According to King Alfred, the Croats (Horoti) had lived (around 889 – 893) to the north-east of the Moravians, and to the east of Daleminci, while the Serbs lived to the north of Daleminci. This information is contemporary to Constantine’s source on the White Croats. The Arab writer Masoudi(10th century) had a similar description on the position of the Croats in that land (modern southern Poland).The Russian Primary Chronicle mentioned the (White) Croats as the participants in Duke Oleg’s expedition against Constantinople in 907"..page 113. [6] This is opinion of the Serbian modern historian, your opinion is that White Croats are in Czech lands my opinion is that White Croats are in both areas, archaeological findings from that time point to existence of same peoples(tribe) up to Lviv in western Ukraine, living genetics confirms that this is area where live Croatian ancestors (older genetics). What else do we need, census of that area from the 7th century? We are waiting for archeogenetics and that is it. 31.217.9.72 ( talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
The Russian Primary Chronicle mentioned the (White) Croats as the participants in Duke Oleg’s expedition against Constantinople in 907"..page 113Good attempt, but Russian Primary Chronicle in 907 does not mention White Croats. And in other places where it mentions eastern Croats, it does not call them "White". But precisely "White Croats" were mentioned in the undated part of "Russian Primary Chronicle" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans ( Carinthians). So, as it written in the note 310 on the same page of the same book, others "considered these Croats as two different entities, i.e. ‘eastern’ and ‘white’ Croats." Modern historical encyclopedias do the same, and so should be done in Wikipedia.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
---No problem, then we will call them Croats, not any Czech, Polish, Ukraine, Carpatian, western, eastern, northern Croats because they are not mentioned anywhere with such names but simply Croats who lived in the area of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine, north Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and we will have more Wikipedia articles that mention same peoples in several parts of Europe and each article will be titled only with the name Croats. I do not know if this is in the Wikipedia rule but if it is I'm for it. But no Czech Croats, Polish Croats etc because if we leave out data from De administrando imperio only Croats are mentioned but also because of the fact that these countries have not been mentioned at that time. I note that Croats live in those areas (according to De administrando imperio) in the 7th century and this fact must be respected. 31.217.15.106 ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
I note that Croats live in those areas (according to De administrando imperio) in the 7th century and this fact must be respected.-- No, "DAI" does not contain such statements. This is only a fringe theory based on the amateurish interpretation of a complex original source.--
Nicoljaus ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a
WP:FORUM for such open commentary. @Nicoljaus, I am asking you again - do you understand that this article is about Slavic tribe of Croats, with all historical sources, all scholarship disputes and else? Should all other Slavic tribes who were mentioned in different regions get separate articles? Of course not. Are you aware of how stupid this sounds - No problem, then we will call them Croats, not any Czech, Polish, Ukraine, Carpatian, western, eastern, northern Croats because they are not mentioned anywhere with such names but simply Croats who lived in the area of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine, north Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and we will have more Wikipedia articles that mention same peoples in several parts of Europe and each article will be titled only with the name Croats
? I hope, since you're pushing to make
WP:CFORK articles.--
Miki Filigranski (
talk) 21:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedian article for Croatia.. "According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia in the early 7th century." [7] De administrando imperio says I quote "the same Croats invaded and expelled Avara from these countries, with the permission of Emperor Heraclius, they settled in that same country" Heraclius was the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 610 to 641[8] Archeological data can prove it because there are findings from that period in Croatia and there are some similarities with Moravian and Slovakian findings. You could change Croatian history without having to deal with the history only with the statement that this is "a fringe theory", then start editing and this article about Croatia and all others who talk about it. At that time and later they are not mentioned any Czech lands, Polish lands, Polish Croats, Carpatian Croats, Western Croats etc. Croats in that area are mentioned according to De administrando imperio as White Croats, if the Byzantine Emperor divide Croats I do not see reason why the same could not do and Wikipedia. ""Good attempt, but Russian Primary Chronicle in 907 does not mention White Croats."" "Klaić navodi i Nestorov zapis o Olegovu pohodu na Carigrad 907. godine: „V leto 6412., v leto 6413., v leto 6414., (904. – 907.) ide Ol,g na Greki. Igorja ostaviv v Kijeve; poja že množstvo Varjag i Sloven i Čjudi i Kriviča i Merju i Poljani i Sever i Drevljani i Radimiča i Horvati i Dulebi i Tiverca, iže skut tolkovniki: si vsi zvahut sja Velikaja Skut, i s simi vsemi pojde Ol,g na konih i v korablih, i be čislom korablij 2000, i pride k Cesarju Gradu.“: Klaić, Hrvati i Hrvatska, 60-61" Claim of Mate Božić "the testimony of Nestor we see clearly, that in year 907. in Army of Oleg there were Croats, which are without doubts were those Croats who lived in the neighborhood of Dulebs and others Russian tribes." "Mate Božić, Faculty of Philosophy in Split, Department of History". Dulebs live in the area of Volhynia which has no connection with the Czech lands, and whether they are mentioned as Croats or White Croats does not refute the fact that Croats live in that wider area and fact that Byzantine Emperor all these people simply called White Croats just as we have to. 31.217.4.1 (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
Dulebs live in the area of Volhynia which has no connection with the Czech lands- This is the reason why modern historians "considered these Croats as two different entities, i.e. ‘eastern’ and ‘white’ Croats." if you read all the sources, instead of pushing through fringe theories, you can easily figure it out.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
––––––I do not understand you, which ‘eastern’ there is no mention of ‘eastern’ Croats, De Administrando Imperio all these people calls "White Croats", others sources call them Croats, since we have article on Wikipedia that speaks about the Croats this is aricle about White Croats, there can be two articles about same peoples, all the time I'm talking that Porphyrogenitis is talking about White Croats behind Hungaria and Bavaria and this is an area from Czech lands to southern Poland, in this area and other sources finding Croats. This article talks about that, which ‘eastern’ Croats? There are no ‘eastern’ Croats, There are Croats and White Croats, there are Croatian toponyms and in Germany, Carantania, Tyrol and elsewhere and these Croats probably migrate to these areas just as the Croats migrate to the Balkans, we can not have hundreds of different Croats and for each of them have an article on Wikipedia. "According to Klaić, the same news about Vladimir's obedience to the Ukrainian Croats at the end of the Xth century was also made by the Polish chronicler Dlugosz: Vastatis eo anno dux Russiae Carvatis infertur illi (duci) a Pieczyngis (Pečenegi) bellum, contra quos egressus ad fluvium Rubiessa (Trubež) eos offendit...As far as Croatians are concerned, we see that then there were two tribes of that name (Chrovati et altera Chrowati), then these tribes lived somewhere in the west of the city of Krakow and the river Odre, and in the north-west of the high Tatras and the river Vaga, finally in the north (then very tight) of the Morava region."... Thus we can not catch place where this Croats exist and where they are mentioned, there are everywhere in that area. For that reason we must go from the source and that source is De Administrando Imperio.
31.217.4.186 ( talk) 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
Well, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss our amateurish interpretations of such complex primary sources. You'd better find another place for such kind of activity ( WP:FORUM). Here we only state that competent historians who studied this particular issue wrote on it. And competent modern historians do not wtite about "hundreds of different Croats", but about White (western) Croats, Carpathian (eastern) Croats and Dalmatian Croats (Croats of the Croatian kingdom).-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 08:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
An interesting work „HRVAT“ I „HRVATI“ – OD TOPONIMA DO ETNONIMA, (from where the last quotation about Dlugosz was cut out, without indicating the source) although controversial. The author writes further ( p.164):
"Također, kada opisuje navodnu sjevernu, „staru“ tj. nekadašnju Hrvatsku, iz koje su Hrvati „došli“ na jug, pisac DAI-a miješa vijesti o srednjoeuropskim (češkim) i istočnoeuropskim (ukrajinskim) hrvatskim plemenima." ("Also, when describing the alleged northern, "old", or former Croatia, from which Croats "came" to the south, DAI writer mixes news about Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes.")
To sum up, as I said earlier, modern scholars clearly distinguish Eastern (Ukrainian, Carphatian) and Western (Central European, Czech) Croats. You can also see the map on page 172 - there is no giant “White Croatia” from the Elbe to the Dniester. It indicates three local areas of Croatian tribes "in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe during the Xth century".-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 14:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
––––
This is an article about White Croats not about White Croatia, historical source the not mentione Eastern, Western or Southern Croats, sources mention Croats and White Croats. Therefore, or we will Croats from the area of southern Poland, eastern Czechia, northern Slovakia and southwestern Ukraine call Croats or White Croats there is no other, everything else is without confirmation in written document and as such fairytale. Eastern Croats who are they? I have never heard any Croatian historian that speak about eastern Croats, we only know for White Croats.
"Also, when describing the alleged northern, "old", or former Croatia, from which Croats "came" to the south, DAI writer mixes news about Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes." "Northern" and "old" are not mentioned anywhere in historical documents, this is personal opinion of author which does not prove anything, otherwise thats clame is about White Croatia not Croats, yes DAI writer mixes news about "Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes" because White or Great Croatia is a wider term. As if we had an article on Wikipedia about "Dalmatian Croats", "Slavonian Croats", "Istrian Croats", "Croats from Zagorje", etc, they are all Croats. Did I tell you that in Slovakia there are some archaeological finds similar to Croatian, therefore there are no separated Czech and Ukrainian Croatian tribes because Slovaka is between them in which there are archaeological finds similar to Croatian. This means that Croats from Czechia to Western Ukraine are same peoples and they are White Croats or Croats.
31.217.3.176 (
talk) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
I have never heard any Croatian historian that speak about eastern Croats- See the comment above with the link to Croatian historian.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
––– Eastern Croats the not exist, there is not one historical data that mentions Eastern Croats, there are Croats from Balkan and Croats, White Croats (area of southern Poland, eastern Czechia, northern Slovakia and southwestern Ukraine). Therefore Croatian historian does not speak about Eastern Croats in that area, he says that "DAI writer mixes news about Croats" and for this reason he divides Croats. It is his opinion but it did not prove with nothing. How he knows that DAI mix something? He did not even research it. Some historian can not change 10th century record with his statement. It is a common area. DAI speaks about two places from where Croats coming to the Balkans but that Croats are a single tribe and coming from one White Croatia, they can not come from five positions at the same time. They coming from White Croatia as White Croats. DAI "Great Croatia, also called "White", there were no two White Croatia. If we went with your logic then we would have and two or three White Croatia. 46.188.133.29 ( talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)mikola
References
Nicoljaus please stop your disruptive behavior. Wikipedia should be a place for discusion with arguments, and not politics or petty wars. If you have something which you don't agree with, discuss it here, the article doesn't belong to you... -- Čeha ( razgovor) 08:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Most of the editors didn't agree with his arguments which should the Nicoljaus have accepted by now. -- Čeha ( razgovor) 18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I explain for the last time. The article was protected: [20], and reverted: [21] by administrator El C. When Miki decided to return his edits, El C sent him to the ANRFC: [22]. I just return the article to the administrator version: [23]. If you think you can ignore his decision, write him yourself.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 16:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, for information: Mikola and Ceha are doing Croatian POV-pushing together in another topic: WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Donji_Kraji_discussion. They cannot be considered objective commentators on the current RFC.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 16:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Mouchlo; Mikkola related it to the name of 6th century Hunnic (Bulgar[159] or Kutrigur[163]) ruler Mougel/Mouâgeris.", there is a link to the DAB page Bulgar. It should be corrected to [[Bulgars|Bulgar]]. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is badly in need of English-language editing and proofreading; e.g. missing definite articles! For example, in the "Origin" section:
• 'in this environment were formed Antes' should be 'in this environment were formed the Antes'
• 'near mythical Amazons' should be 'near the mythical Amazons'
(After the "Origin" section, I stopped reading since, with all due respect, it annoys me to read bad English on the Wikipedia if I can't fix it.)
Pasquale (
talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Serbs ( Sorbs) [1] @ Nicoljaus: What's the problem? Mikola22 ( talk) 11:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then specify the sources which referred these Serbs from Primary Chronicle with Balkan Serbs.See, for example, Majorov book: "The ancient Russian chronicler attributes them [White Croats] to the group of Balkan Slavs. [...] Placing the White Croats in the Balkans along with the Serbs and Horutans brings the account of the ancient Russian chronicler closer to the testimony of the South Slavic source - the so-called Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - which tells of White Croatia in Dalmatia." [2]. His analysis is much more detailed and modern.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 17:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)--upd 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
References
The sourcing on this article is now a mess, likely due to the ongoing edit war. Nearly half of the references in the article do not link to the source list, and a number of the sources no longer have any references attached to them at all. Installing User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a good way to see which ones need to be fixed. NOTE: The sources that can be seen at the bottom of this page (Horace Lunt, Majorov, etc) are not a part of this section. They belong to comments elsewhere on this Talk page. Lilipo25 ( talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
...commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", made by Nicoljaus, and as such the article will be reverted to the old revision. The claim that the article is a mess, a fork of the article White Croatia and promoting fringe and outdated theories is false and without valid arguments.-- Miki Filigranski ( talk) 10:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The current consensus in bibliography is that the White Croats didn't live in different regions of eastern Europe but in the Carpathian basin and engaged in a short-distance population movement to Dalmatia. The article discusses mostly outdated theories about a "Slavic invasion", extensive migration and an "original pan-Slavic" identity in eastern Europe. @ Mikola22: @ OyMosby: your thoughts?.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s why Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group.- Source, please.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group. I also ask you to undo this edit: [24], which returns a map supporting this outdated theory. For a more detailed explanation, see this discussion: WP:ANI#Miki Filigranski - WP:CIV, WP:WAR, WP:VERIFY or WP:SYNTH. If there are more questions, I'll be happy to answer.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
deconstructing ethnic identities and medieval migrations to the point of unthinkableI don't think that Curta has ever gone that far. What Curta puts forward is that instead of a grand migration/invasion from the depths of eastern Europe, the journey of the Slavic people in the Balkans was a short one from the Carpathian basin. And instead of talking about a pan-Slavic identity in the context of a primordial Slavic pan-ethnicity, he discusses the various Slavic-language cultures which emerged as a result of different social-cultural processes in their home region.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 21:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
i have removed an entire paragraph because it's so biased as to be unsalvageable. it looks like it was written by an imam, and not an academic or a historian.
any mention of or reference to religious arab sources should be stated as controversial, tentative and unreliable - and the narrative should be framed from the perspective of the indigenous slavs, not the imperialistic and invading (and expelled and unwanted) arabs.
there is a serious problem with fundamentalist muslims using wikipedia as a tool of propaganda to distort history for their geopolitical ambitions. i am drawing attention to this, but i cannot fix it by myself, in the presence of overwhelming resources dedicated to the cause.