Talk:Iranian theory about descent of Croats

Questioned article
Why is this article still here, when it doesn't cite or provide any real evidence(international) for this theory besides those from a questioned-unknown Croatian authors?Eversman (talk), 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two acronyms: AfD ASAP... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is pure fringcruft. The linguistic analysis (but with references!) of the Croatian ethnonym from Iranian-theory perspective is on Name of Croatia, and the rest of this article are fairy tales. Please initiate the procedure for article deletion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is theory, so I write it. It doesn't need to be trueth, but someone who whant to know more about that theory can read. I just saw that ther's no article about that, so I write it. That article, alredy exist on croatian wikipedia, so I just traslate it.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between theories and "theories". What is written in this article is in no way can be said to reflect a consensus in wider scholarly circles. See WP:FRINGE, for Wikipedia guidelines on fringe theories and how they should be treated. We simply cannot present them as if on par with theories that have wider scholarly acceptance.. If we do so, that would be breaking basic WIkipedia principles, such as WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), which we cannot do.
 * Also, I assure you that we are not in no way biased to Croats with respect to this matter. See for example this on the example of Serbian mythomania machinery at work (which was suppressed). Balkan nations are particularly intent on fabricating history and imagine theories of their brave ancestors, might warriors who conquered half of the Old World, in their holy quest to finally settle down in some godforsaken Balkanic s***hole.. ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LoL... what are you talking about? Our Aryan might is self-evident xD -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

People, you are makeing joke of this. You know ther is that theory, becouse you are Croats. For example, if someone whants to know more about that theory, and he is English, ore Canadian, then he can use wikipedia and read. I just whanted to bring this theory to english wikipedia, so english-speaking people can read something about that. That is all. I know that theory is wrong, but to someone it is not. This, what I wrote, that is not accepted by historians, but someone would like to know something about that, so why not to write that?! And besides, it is good when you can that ther are many theories about orgin of Croats, and especially for people who have interests in history. User DIREKTOR is makeing joke... Everyone who have visited school once in life know that ther is no superior race, non Untermenschen also. You gentilmens have exploring about genetics of croats. 29% of them have slavic orgin, and the most interesting 42% have illiran orgin, until only 30% of Albanians have Illiran orgin. And what is the most interesting, most of Hungarians have slavic orgin, and before people wher thinking all Hungarians are post-Huns. I am historian, and that is very interesting to me. Also ther are turkish, gothic and other theories, so I will write them too.--Wustefuchs (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A "theory"? Perhaps we should define "theory"? Is Intelligent design a biological theory? Is this bull an anthropological theory? Or are people simply misusing the term. A scientific theory is not something you just made-up that "makes sense". Its a logical structure that has serious support both in empirical evidence and, indeed, among the scientific community. "Theory" (in this context) does not mean "guess". We are making a joke out of this because the whole thing is nothing more than a joke: to assume that this tiny, Slav-surrounded area just happened to be populated by some Iranian tribe can only be a joke. Unsupported conspiracy theories, fringe "might-be" assumptions, and fascistoid(!) politically motivated pseudo-science are not encyclopedia material. Sry, but believe it or not: Himmler was wrong - Croats are Slavs (duh!)
 * btw I would've thought bringing in fascism a cheap shot if I hadn't spotted the Croatian Führer's portarit on you userpage. Call me a "communist", but I do dislike Nazism, and most of all its quite murderous pseudo-science. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've redirected the article to [[Croats]] which has a short take on the "Iranian theory" in its history section. Please don't restore this article in its previous content as it is full of dubious claims and unreliable sources, apparently (at least what the IP claims) translated from some Croatian Aryan-supremacist weblog. I encourage contributors to seek for reliable sources, preferably in English literature, and abundantly use inline citations, because this is a very controversial and disputed subject and every statement must be properly sourced. If the article gets restored in any other form it will be reported to WP:FTN and WP:CCN for giving undue prominence to fringe theories on the basis of nationalist supremacism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

":A "theory"? Perhaps we should define "theory"? Is Intelligent design a biological theory? Is this bull an anthropological theory? Or are people simply misusing the term. A scientific theory is not something you just made-up that "makes sense". Its a logical structure that has serious support both in empirical evidence and, indeed, among the scientific community. "Theory" (in this context) does not mean "guess". We are making a joke out of this because the whole thing is nothing more than a joke: to assume that this tiny, Slav-surrounded area just happened to be populated by some Iranian tribe can only be a joke. Unsupported conspiracy theories, fringe "might-be" assumptions, and fascistoid(!) politically motivated pseudo-science are not encyclopedia material. Sry, but believe it or not: Himmler was wrong - Croats are Slavs (duh!)"

Very good, DIREKTOR, and I don't need to mention that I'm anti-fascist too. This theory is not a nazi theory, it is theory from 19th century. And if you whant a NAZI THEORY, then Croats aren't from Iran, but they are Goths! And DIREKTOR, you should know that I study history, and I have doctorate from history, and you don't need to teach me history... pls!

And mister Ivan Štambuk, please... --Wustefuchs (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, Ivan Štambuk, you have source, look at bottom og article... and it is not from nazi-site... I do not care what nazis write!, they can write what ever they whant, but superior races do not exist!!!, we both agree with that. Why are you doing this, redirecting and all that talk? You are scared someone will read that? I'm little bit more democratic then you, as I see, freedom for all, all can read, and don't be a communist ore nazi who forbides to everyone to learn that ther are other theories - thank you, comrade Štambuk!--Wustefuchs (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are the source that mention that the word Croat is from 3750 BCE? LoL. Really Wustefuchs, don't be silly. It's forbidden to promote fringe theories, to treat them with undue prominence, and to provide them out of WP:NPOV context.
 * Once again I advise you - please rewrite the article with in-line citations based on reliable sources, preferably peer-reviewed English ones. (What is "popular" in Croatia is not necessarily "popular" in the rest of the world!) Iranian theory perhaps itself deserves mentioning, but hardly in a form that the article depicts it at this moment, which is full of dubious content and extreme PoV, and this is simply not good enough for an encyclopedia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah, we know: you have ten doctorates and are an astronaut - just like every other newb that thinks someone cares about their academic status (imaginary or not). And like I said: I would've thought bringing in fascism a cheap shot if I hadn't spotted the Croatian Führer's portrait(!) on you userpage. Call me a "communist", but I intensely dislike pseudo-science. Are you aware how ridiculous it is to claim you're an "anti-fascist" while openly supporting the Ustaše? Or are they "not a fascist movement" xD? A "Croatian revolutionary"? LoL... So you support a certain "Croatian Revolutionary Movement", eh? If I recall, Hitler spoke of being a "German revolutionary"... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Western Iranians are soooo overrated... they were pwned by Goths, Huns, Turks and almost everyone else. Only greatest losers want to have them for ancestors. How in the world could crazy Croatians come up with the idea that Iranians conquered someone? There is absolutely no evidence for that. On other hand there is great evidence of big Slavic conquests at that time. I think it is much more logical that Slavs also pwned them and that Croats acquired their name by conquering some iranian tribes. 2-0 for Slavic theory!! Go Slavs go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.104.111 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * hm this was supposed to be a joke but when I think about it, it looks so much better than original that maybe I should call my joke a 'theory' and become a great doctor historian too :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.104.111 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LoL ^_^ Actually, your theory carries lots of truth: Slavs had patriarchal sedentary society and Iranians were nomadic, and if the cultural assimilation were to occur it would be the Slavicization of Iranians and not the other way around.. All that is left of Avars, Alanians, Illyrians and other "ancient" civilizations of the Balkans and its surroundings is a handful of loanwords in Proto-Slavic and that's it :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)