Talk:Slavs/Archive 3

PCT
moved from above section  Balkan  Fever  03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * what this is this section about


 * the questionable by some sentence is here:


 * 4 Tributary of Danube postulated by Oleg Trubachyov supported by Mario Alinei in his PCT, who extend Trubachyov time-frame author: Alinei, Mario, title: Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis; pdf< /ref >. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.124.2 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that the right of the PCT theory to be mentioned is once more in dispute. I have re-instated it because it seems entirely approrpriate to mention it in the existing context which mentions a number of theories under the heading of "Homeland debate" and introductory words "The location of the speakers of pre-Proto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic is subject to considerable debate... The proposed frameworks are:...". That debate exists is in itself a noteable and documented fact that can and should be highlighted in an encyclopedic survey of the subject.  We're not going to have a balanced article if some editors deny readers the opportunity to know about some of the theories simply because, in their opinion, they are fringe or "brain-damaged" (I'm quoting from Ivan Štambuk's edit summary.) As for it's mention being WP:undue - it's the only mention in the article; is the PCT theory so absurd that any mention of its existence gives it undue weight? I contend that censoring mebtion of it is ppoint-of-view pushing and gives undue weight to competing theories. If editors want to explore the relative merits of the various theories this should be done, possibly in a separate article, on the basis of citing reviews which meet Wikipedia's criteria. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you insane? No one advocates or supports PCT today beside this closely-grouped coterie of (pseudo-)scholars. In fact, most of the common handbooks completely ignore it as it is fringy OR piece of rubbish. is the PCT theory so absurd that any mention of its existence gives it undue weight - yes it is, as it radically conflicts wall the other theories (in time-frames of about 2-5 millenia). Moreover, Trubačev's account on Slavic homeland problem has abs. nothing to do with PCT, and he is mentioned there just as "hook" to insert this PCT gibberish. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I insane? No. Nor am I an expert (or anything approaching) on the subject; think of me as a neutral reader looking for compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I'll look into the relevance of the Trubačev ref to the PCT.  Meanwhile, can you provide refs to show that PCT is rejected by neutral respected authorities on the subject, and that your statements above are more than your personal WP:POV?  I'm afraid that this subject is badly tainted by what you aptly describe a pseudo-scholarship from many sides, and while I assume good faith your language suggests more than a little bad faith which makes it hard for me to regard you as entirely neutral. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, can you provide refs to show that PCT is rejected by neutral respected authorities on the subject - No I can't, because PCT is so absurd and fringy that no respected authority gives enough damn about it to publish papers refuting it (at least I haven't found any non-PCT-endorsing linguist that takes it into account, and of PCT coterie only 1 is linguist AFAIK). PCT is formed in a way that it pleases various hardline and supremacist nationalist and supra-nationalist sentiments, telling e.g. that Germanic-, Romance- and Slavic-speakers and cultures are thousands of years older than what is usually taught at schools, and that they're "native" to the regions where they're spoken nowadays, so one can speak of Germanic, Slavic or Romance dialects/languages in the 4th or 3rd millennium BCE, which is absurd. Give some thought to the PCT, try realizing where it fits in the general scheme of things, and I can assure you that you'll develop pretty much the same amount of disgust and contempt towards IP-address insertions of PCT into various articles linking to one particular website.
 * As for Trubačev - he has no involvement with PCT at all AFAIK, his own theories and conclusions on Proto-Slavs and their relationship with "Illyrians" in prehistoric period and also fringy inconclusive BS.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

At least one member of United States National Academy of Sciences support this theory but Ivan Štambuk accusing them as anybody who can think of brain damage.
 * So what? The 99.999% of the rest of scholars completely ignores it. We cannot just present it as some kind of "alternative view" to theories that have been advanced for centuries by hundreds of scholars. I've read papers by people with Ph.D. in physics on topics such as aliens, hydrino, creationism... The prominence of the theory does not stem from the credentials of the individual authors advocating them, but from the acceptance of the theory itself by the scientific community as a whole. Stop vandalising the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. You should ignore to if you have nothing scholarly to say. Perhaps you wrote about it, its quite interesting for humanity subject, did you ? If so show please show links to your publication. But reading your post here it so likely the otherwise valid question appear to be rhetorical.


 * 2. If nobody opposing a scholarly XYZ theory there nobody have a disagrement with XYZ theory. Certainly those who have sound objections and do not wrote about it can hardly belongs to scholarly community. Or perhaps the objections will be easily refuted so nobody want to object to it to be just refuted. There is also 'theoreticaly' possible hypothetical situation when scholarly freedom is somehow squeezed and some subjects are labeled as to risky to ruin carers. But such hypothetical terror it today very unlikely. Most probably PCT thesis are sound, there is a group of scholar working in PCT framework and other silent (perhaps) do not have for now nothing in the subject to say. Can you grab that simple conjecture?


 * 3. For your stupi-stipulated over the counter examples show me members of United States National Academy of Sciences who seriously work on that! 24.15.124.2 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) ps: chcking one of the links you brought into your words we ma see quite remarkable difference explanation of CQM and hydrinos has met with criticism in the literature[4] and is not generally accepted... but you hoping to put on that PCT is criticized because nobody criticize it - if so - that's just plain antisemantism.
 * 1) My opinions are irrelevant, it's what renowned and established scholars think about PCT. In this case - nothing (as they don't care). I'm merely acting as a policy-enforcing channel (see WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR) of general scholarly opinion. I could mediate to you my personal cogitations on the subject, but I see no point in doing so. Standard handbooks on Slavic ethno- and linguogenesis completely ignore PCT, and so should Wikipedia.
 * 2) If nobody opposing a scholarly XYZ theory there nobody have a disagrement with XYZ theory.  - that is a fallacious conclusion. In this case, nobody opposes (generally) because nobody's heard of PCT, or thought of it as having scientific prominence that would justify thorough criticism in scholarly publications. I mean, people don't write papers on "Earth is not flat" type of theories. Once again, it's irrelevant whether their is group of pseudo-scholars working on the "PCT framework" - if their work is not established and accepted in the scientific community as a whole, it cannot be mentioned per WP:UNDUE, regardless of how "truthful" their theories are. There are hundreds of PCT-style theories nobody's heard of, why should PCT be different?
 * 3) the example of hydrinos, aliens etc. was merely to illustrate the point that credentials of the person propounding a particular theory are not enough of the argument to support the theory itself. It's non quis, sed quid. And hydrino is actually waaay above PCT (they're received criticism!) by that measure. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't say nobody, you just talking about yourself. Who you are ?


 * Ivan Š.: The 99.999% of the restof the rest of scholars completely ignores it.
 * 24.: the numerical value is certainly incorrect. NAS has only about 2000 members. So one if only one 2000 you can just range in 1/2 of 99.9. Given that te group of 2000 conduct research in all divergent fields of research only few (IŠ is due to check it and correct his false statement, if he want to continue pretend to be honest here) do research in prehistory. So the value may be even 0 50 70 but never even close to 99% you cant show us 200 prehistorians in NAS. This is called overestimation if insane or lie if intended. So what you will prefer to put as motive for  your such 1000 times incorrect value?  Or perhaps just talking about all scholars? If so - show us the (complement of 0.999 99 =1 000 000) enumerating million Such huge group of scholarly prehistorian who in 21 century published (in just one monograph) 2000 pages on European prehistory and who supposedly like to ignore considerations of colleges, working in framework of continuity ? 24.15.124.2 (talk)
 * Yeah, sorry, it should've been "99.99%" percent, not "99.999%".. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth to look for 'Ivan independent' calculation google scholar deliver quite different numbers. Who want to compare the result should know that this is not a molecular biology where citations are numbered in hundreds or hundreds of thousands, because scholars involved in paleolinguistics subject was just few dozens in the world, (living less) and they work on all branches of human languages.
 * Clicking on the first two links  shows indeed that these "massive" citations (of the 2 most important CPT works) are almost all self-referential..LOL  What exactly are you trying to "prove", except that no one cares about PCT ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to prove that you can recognize high hundred thousands high school teacher from unique scholars. You claim taht comon handbooks do not reprint yet 2000 pages book ''di dellea continuita


 * but i see in few minutes : C DIALETTALI ,B di FRANCESCO, Carlo Severi, Franco Cavazza GABRIELE COSTA, X Ballester, Matteo Meschiari, V Della Valle, BRUNO LUISELLI, P Trifone, Jean Chiorboli, L Serianni ,L RENZI,G Sanaa, IX Adiego, C Tugnoli, Ottavio Lurati, X Ballester, Salvatore Claudio Sgroi, Rita Caprini, Giovanni Di Pasquale, JESÚS SANCHIS CALABUIG, Alfio Lanaia,

EOI de Alzira.

Slavic peopleS?!
Can anyone edit this article to just Slavs? Slavic peoples sounds very retarded.. Peoples doesn't exist as a word, people is plural already. You can't add a plural on a plural.

-

Look at paleolinguistics and point out how many listed there scholars schould cite greatest work on paleolinguistics. Tray to abstract for moment and check what languages they works and check also if are able to wrote after 2003. Do not list the h+m.

You wrote that 'common handbooks ignore PCT' -it seem that you mistaken high school teachers with paleolinguistic scholars. Do not forget that in continuitas work group web there is much more references. 24.15.124.2 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * you should also find them.


 * Linguist Mario Alinei - University of Utrecht.
 * Linguist Xaverio Ballester - Universidad de Valencia.
 * Philologist Francesco Benozzo - Universit di Bologna.
 * Linguist Franco Cavazza - Università di Bologna.
 * Linguist Michel Contini - Università Stendhal de Grenoble.
 * Linguist Gabriele Costa - Università del Molise.
 * Linguist Philippe Dalbera - Università de Nice.
 * Historian Paolo Galloni - Edizioni Viella, Roma.
 * Anthropologist Henry Harpending - University of Utah - Salt Lake C.
 * Prehistorian Alexander Hausler - Universitat Halle/Saale.
 * Linguist Alfio Lanaia - Università di Catania.
 * Linguist Jean Le Dû - Università de Brest.
 * Anthropologist Matteo Meschiari - Università di Palermo.
 * Prehistorian Marcel Otte - Università de Liàge.

Blanked by some vishu-kisu or camouflaged as some far-or-closeer-ester admin who can't like you find name in paper to the extent that he want to link Uralic Continuity Theory to author developing Paleolithic Continuity Theory
 * that you mistaken high school teachers with paleolinguistic scholars - no you genious, I meant the standard university-level Slavic philology introductory texts, for English-speaking area that being Schenker's The Dawn of Slavic which discusses various stupid theories on Slavic homeland problem (a problem that is solved a long time ago, the results being confirmed by the latest genetic studies; the real problem remaining being various Slovene/Polish linguo-supremacists). Equivalent type-of handbooks in Russian and German also don't make any mention of PCT. Clear exemplar of fringy rubbish, and no matter how many names you copy/paste here, it won't change the fact that you simply cannot write NPOV article on PCT as the whole theory lacks critical reception from the scientific community. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Naked stupidity may be interesting but ... bay, bay.

—24.15.124.2 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Slavs and Sclav
There is systematical misuse of false similarity between Slavic word "slav" and Latin word "sclav", what means slave. The English word "slave" itself is deceptive. It is obviously originated from Latin "sclav". Slavic word "slav" is relative to Slavic words "slovo" = word, "slava" = glory, and "sloboda" = freedom. Romans never studies Slavic languages, neither they ever conquered Slavic tribes. So the relation between "slav" and "sclav" is excluded. —71.102.213.190 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nemci
Somebody wrote that Slavs call Germans "Nemci"Slavic němъ - "mumbling, mute"". Nemci does not mean "mute" in Slavic, but it means "not us". Word for "mute" in Slavic language is "Nemi"

About Sclavs as Slavs. The word comes originally from Slavic/Vendic language and it means "glorious", and not "freedom". Other names for old Slavs before so called "migration into Europe" in 6. century (another hoax by Christian church and their historians that - Karantania comes from Celtic name of "friend" or Hittite name of a "stone". " Kara", Kira, Gira, Gora simply means "mountain" (also by Etruscans as "kira", Kirata a Nepal name for "hilly land".)There were no Celts already in 1. century AD (after Norik's king Vokk - in Vendic/Slavic as "Vok, Vuk, "a wolf". Celts were destroyed by﻿ king Vokk(Vuk, Volk -﻿ Wolf) in Noricum in 40 BC when they were running out from Bohemia. Karantania was already a Slavic democratic state under King Samo in 6. century AD with special law called "Institutio Sclavica" (not some "slave's law"). I personally do not believe in official history of some Carpatian theory of Slavic migrations into Europe in 6. century AD from Nowhere ( from where "pagan slavs barbarians" came from), because simple logic tells you that it is impossible to establish a kingdom in few years (as "barbarian"), a state with 1. democratic society and with your own orders of laws like was known for:

Vizigotes Lex Visigothorum , Ostrogots Edictum Theodorijci , Langobards Edictum Rothari , Alemane Lex Alamannorum, Bavarians Lex Baiuvariorum, Saksons Lex Saxsonum, Frank Lex Salica, Austrasia Lex Ripuaria Karantanians Communis omnium Slavica lex

Karantanians have had their own law called "Institutio Sclavenica" which was known as "1. democratic law after Etruscan society - women and men were equal - emancipated"

U.S democracy was also inspired by Karantanian Democratic laws of old Karantanians/Slovenians("pagan barbarians from 6. century AD? - according from Roman Christian historians) Thomas Jefferson in (1776) his Declaration of Independence which became known as basis for U.S Independence charter on human rights!

http://www.hervardi.com/images/spomenik_ustolicevanje.gif

The Charter proclaims that all men and women are have equal rights and that their leader and Government is in the service of people but not their tyrant. This is the root of American Democracy = Karantanian Democracy and also the Inauguration of American president is based on Inauguration of Karantanian kings, princes and dukes

http://www.usoas.usmission.gov/uploads/x7/7x/x77x4zDf8rPauPRGZ9sFoQ/500x500-Obama-Inaugurated-Jan202009.jpg

http://www.hervardi.com/images/ustolicevanje.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.194.214 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? Slav vs slave
People keep removing any mention of the theory that "Slav" derives from "slave". I know this theory is bonkers, but it is out there and we must not pretend otherwise! Free Dictionary states:  - so it implies that THE MEANING of Slav is "slave". Check up also this: http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Now/Slav-As-In/520037598 - it seems History Channel also believes that "Slav" COMES from "slave". That's why I believe that the way I put it in the article, i.e. that the name is supposed to derive from the alleged enslavement of the Slavic peoples, reflects the beliefs of some people - whether we like it or not. We can debate whether it can be rephrased in a better fashion, but we cannot ignore the fact that some people believe that. What are you afraid of? This is "alternative theory" section anyway! Dawidbernard (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the truth is that the word "slave" came after the word "sclavi" and that the former comes from the latter, not vice vrsa. If you wish to present it as an incorrect theory, fine, but don't trick people who read the article into thinking it's true. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not afraid of anything. In Russian language major words like "Glory"(Slava)and "Word" (Slovo) comes from Slav. Actual word slave in russian is "Rab" which somewhat similar to word worker in Russian and doesn't sound like slave at all. What you are proposing is as stupid as saying that Jewish Rabbi comes from Russian Rab and so Jews were slave to Russian. Slav is not originated from Slave. Period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.36.161.154 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per what Dawidbernard has said, provided that sources meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS; this should also satisfy WP:FRINGE. Proportionate weight should be given per WP:UNDUE, which a brief mention in a section dedicated to alternative theories would satisfy. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I disagree with the title which takes a provocative and challenging tone while the CAPS imply shouting. It seems to demand that one chooses between Slav or Slave, with no middle or neutral ground.  I understand that you may be frustrated, but concensual resolution rarely come about by shouting at people and demanding that they take polarised positions. That just creates an emotional context which clouds neutral thinking. Can you change it? -- Timberframe (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not some "alternative theory", it's a misunderstanding by Dawidbernard. English word slave comes via Old French from Medieval Latin word Sclavus meaning "slave" (at the time of borrowing/descending), originally however meaning "Slav". Latin word Sclavus, as well as the Middle Greek Σκλάβος, are borrowed from Slavic self-ethnicon, which at the time of borrowing sounded as slaven- (in Early Proto-Slavic period), later changing to sloven- (/a/ turning /o/, following a general shift of quantitative oppositions to qualitative ones, and that is the form preserved in most Slavic languages today). The consonant cluster sl- is not allowed by Latin and Ancient Greek phonotaxis, so the prothetic /k/ was inserted turning the sl- into skl-. The evolution of meaning "Slav" to "slave" is secondary in Latin (from it spreading elsewhere). The original meaning of Slavic autonym itself, the ultimate source of both English words Slav and slave (obviously coming via different routes), is not 100% sure, but most probably is related to Common Slavic *slava and *slovo (6th-century Early Proto-Slavic *slāwā and *slawa) originally probably denoting "people who speak our tongue", and that is what the article currently states. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "slave" theory is commonly encountered and so I support its being mentioned, but Ivan's counter-argument, with suitable refs to support it, would make a good counter-balance alongside it. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "slave theory" when discussing the original meaning of the word for "Slav" in Slavic itself (i.e. the meaning of Slavic autonym slov-en-inъ) - the "slave" meaning evolved much later in Middle Latin/Romance, and that's what all the sources that Dawidbernard misunderstood actually say. English words Slav and slave are two different words with two different etymologies, the latter with well-motivated semantic shift originating in Latin (with Slavic-speakers becoming reservoir of slaves for soon-to-be-crushed-to-pieces Roman empire). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Its based on incorrect etymology and therefore need no inclusion. You would have to substantiate what "commonly encountered' means. Sounds like WP:Weasal Hxseek (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody native of Slavic grup give his opinions. Me for example. Slavs (polish: Słowianie) is clearly related with a word słowo ([Słow]ianie), which obviously means 'word'. So, Slavs would literally mean Word-People, People who speak Words. There is no connection between english similarity, as because Slavic languages never mixed with Germanic languages. Only an western ignorant could think like that. Koniec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.173.169 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, whilst Slavs were sold as slaves, eg by nomads or Verangians, there is no reason to assume that they were more numerous than other groups in such circumstances. In fact, the opposite might be true, in that, Slavs were known for taking large nubers of prisoners, esp in their raids into the Balkans. Hxseek (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for Slav (Wend) settlement in East Anglia?
While there is historic evidence for alliances between the early Danish kingdom and Obotrite(Wend) tribes settled along the Baltic coast of NW Germany, I am sceptical about the statement that numbers of Slavs, as a constituent part of Sweyn's and Canute's army, were settled in East Anglia. For the Danish leaders it may not have been unusual to employ mercenary troops, and so I would not consider this theory totally implausible, On the other hand, I know of no primary source evidence to confirm this. The reference in the article to the transfer of Slavs to England  as a constituent part of the Danish army and their later settlement in East Anglia therefore needs to be substantiated. At present the statement makes only a generalised assertion and reference to a secondary source. Geoff Powers (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some anthropological scholars analyzed the origins of the Suevi and any connections they may have with Slavs. The Suevi were a Germanic tribe related to Schwabians (see Swabia) or the Swedes due to proximity of Scandinavia with the northern German coast, but they were in conflicts with the Slavic tribes of Eastern Germany and Polonia, before the Suevi conquered or settled in Gaul/Francia (France) and Iberia/Hispania (Spain) in the 5th to 8th centuries AD. But the Suevi assimilated into the French and Spanish cultural populations over time, and Slavic genetics could well be uncovered in those portions of Western Europe. + 71.102.12.55 (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
Let's set the ball rolling. To judge by the edit summary for the diff at which the tag was added, the issue appears to be the map and its caption: "Countries with majority Slavic ethnicities and at least one Slavic national language". The edit summary makes the point that "Main map features Kosovo, which is predominantly Albanian not Slavic". In fact the map doesn't show Kosovo as a separate country, and that appears to be the root of the problem. If the map is amended to show Kosovo as a separate country then, by the criterion of the map and the assertion that the Kosovan population is predominantly not Slaavic, Kosovo should not be coloured. Alternatively, if the country borders are kept as the map shows, with Kosovo included within Serbia, then the Kosova population doesn't change the predominance of Slavic populations in Serbia-with-Kosovo. Anyone want to take up the arguments? -- Timberframe (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My two cents: I would agree with the first logical conclusion suggested above; "If the map is amended to show Kosovo as a separate country then by the criterion of the map and the assertion that the Kosovan population is predominantly not Slavonic, Kosovo should not be colored". Indeed, old maps of Yugoslavia show Kosovo as distinctly marked out, along with Vojvodina, a province that does have a Slavic majority. Therefore, and even if we take the idea that Kosovo is still a province of Serbia, the "entity" would still not merit a place in an article, (or map for that matter) about Slavic peoples because it does not have a majority Slavic population. This explanation would also seem to also apply to the alternative approach "the Kosova population doesn't change the predominance of Slavic populations in Serbia-with-Kosovo." Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The issue, if I've understood the original concern correctly, comes down to whether Kosovo should be depicted as a country, since the map's caption states that it shows "countries". Since the world at large hasn't formed a consensus on that, I doubt we're going to do any better here. It may be that the only consensus we can come to is that the neutrality tag is a red herring because it relates to the statehood of Kosovo, a subject on which the article is silent and therefore doesn't have a point of view. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a difficult one. The map shown is probably created by one of the users. It is a rough guide outlining the territories where the Slavic nations of today live. If one were to make a more detailed exploration, he'd add colour to surrounding areas where a Slavic population has been traditionally settled. This will encompass the entire areas adjacent to Slavic countries. In Europe, you have the Wends/Lusatians of Germany close to the borders with Poland and the Czech Republic. In Italy you have Slovenes, especially in and around Trieste. You also have isolated Molise Slavs, or Molise Croats, farther south. In Austria, again, you have Croats and Slovenes in Burgenland; traditional Slovenes in Carinthia locked out of Yugoslavia when their affiliates (now absent) voted to remain part of Austria after WWI; and there are some indigenous Slovaks there given Vienna's proximity to Bratislava. The name of Graz is Slavic in origin. Hungary has ethnic Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Slovaks and Ukrainians. Romania has Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians; including the Krashovan community. Albania has pockets of Montenegrins, Serbs and Macedonians. Greece has Macedonians (or Slavs), Bulgarians and Pomaks. Turkey has both Pomaks and Bulgarians. The Baltic countries all have Ukrainian, Byelarussian and Polish minorities: Russians are infact very significant in urban towns in Estonia. The middle-eastern lands which broke from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s all have Russians, as do the Caucasian countries. But looking at it another way: within the Slavic lands, you have a vacuum across many areas and Kosovo is just a tiny example. Albanians form the same kind of majority in western Macedonia as they do in Kosovo. They also do this in two of the three municipalities for which they fought between 1999 and 2001: Preševo and Bujanovac. Hungarians are an absolute majority in many contiguous municipalities in Vojvodina, with Romanians in others. There are distinct Italian areas in Istria affecting Slovenia and Croatia, and other largely Albanian pockets within Montenegro. Hungarians also form a majority across wide parts of Slovakia whilst Germans still form majorities in small parts of Poland and the Czech Republic which can certainly be highlighted. But perhaps the best example of a country to have most of its territory if not its population with non-Slavic majorities is the Russian Federation. This is naturally because despite its vast size, the areas on the Asian side are extremely sparse. Even so, the federation has (I think) 83 federal units and the names of so many of them reflect the key nation to inhabit it. Take known lands such as Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and North Ossetia; every one non-Slavic. Farther on you have Astrakhan, and then Kalmykia; the latter is renouned for being the only European entity with a Buddist majority (the Kalmyks are related to the Mongols who settled there in the 17th century). One unit is the Jewish republic; Karelia bordering Finland is itself an enourmous land in which its population is linguistically and ethnically closer to the Finns than the Slavic peoples. But the thing to consider mainly with Kosovo is its constitution. I am now purely referring to the entity which declared its independence and is recognised across most of the west: it describes itself as a country with six equal constituent nations. For all their small numbers, they include: Serbs; Bosniaks; Gorani. The stars on the flag are purported to represent six nations. Serbian is (by definition of the ruling body) an equal language with Albanian, and it appears on the passport cover. In other words, the Kosovan government recognises the rights and equality of those six nations as Bosnia and Herzegovina does with Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. All right, the Serbs haven't accepted this and there is no rotational government as such in Kosovo; and unlikey too given the small numbers. But Kosovan authorities are doing all they can to convince the outside world that the new country is not an Albanian dominated nation. Evlekis (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps the problem is simply that the map is now out of date and could do with modifying, changing. It is misleading to insert a Neutrality tag on the opening space for the sake of Kosovo. It will make people think that the first paragraph is dubious which it is not; it also contains sources. Evlekis (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the second option is taken (ie that Kosovo is part of Serbia) then Slavic is a predominant language there given that Slavic is the predominant language of all of Serbia. 121.209.233.94 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "If one were to make a more detailed exploration..." and indeed there is such a map (Slavic languages.png) further down the article (albeit language-based, but it illustrates the point about enclaves). However the map in dispute clearly defines its resoltion to be at country level, so it can't be expected to depict enclaves. The majority of the population of Serbia - with or without Kosovo - is Slavic, so Serbia gets coloured. For me that's clear cut and there's nothing wrong with the map by its own definition, nor does the map's definition push a point of view regarding the constituent populations of Kosovo. The only possible POV regarding Kosovo that I can see is with regard to Kosovo's statehood and, as that question has not yet been resolved internationally, any depiction of that region could be disputed by someone. To err on the side of the status quo pending resolution follows well-established precedents, so I believe the map is as neutral on the point as it can be.

I propose we give the editor who inserted the tag a couple of days to respond to this discussion, after which we can remove the tag unless arguments in its favour are forthcoming and not resolved. -- Timberframe (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the time being, I am happy to keep the neutrality tag on top of the article as a token of the good faith you recommended in your summary. My own edits since I have been making contributions to this site may well have given some observers the impression that I am partial to certain sides in various conflicts. Whatever my own conscience may be, I try not to exert these things if I can help it; and Kosovo is a fine example of one land where-by I have no firm opinion myself about its status. To give a philosophical example: there is no neutrality in conflict. If I'd been pro-Kosovan independence such as Interestedinfairness, I would be outraged by the inclsuion of a map which ignores Kosovo's position. If I took the view supporting Serbian integrity then I'd be pleased to see the map honouring Serbia's angle. So neutrality is out of the question. Things are not helped by the fact that the map is out of date and it precedes Kosovo's unilateral declaration, in addition to the map being sketched by an editor and not downloaded from a site. I personally suggest a new map which would ouline Kosovo and perhaps fill it with a different shade and provide a footnote explaining its current situation. Evlekis (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that maps such as those exist all over the site, take this uploaded file concentrating on Vojvodina within Serbia: . It may be sensible to use the Macedonia solution for these disputes. Macedonia, the country, is referred to by its full constitutional name Republic of on general articles, plainly as Macedonia on local articles/subjects close to home, and by its UN name of Former Yugoslav Republic of in anything concerning Greece/Greeks or for any official context where the country is represented as FYROM. This has worked years so far without any problems. Evlekis (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, all that Macedonia stuff did have some problems, so the new, binding solution (as determined by the community, overseen by ARBCOM) can be found at WP:NCMAC. Perhaps it would be best not to follow the (old) Macedonia example...  Balkan Fever  06:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that while you both make good points in relation to articles dealing with areas such as Kosovo or Macedonia where international consensus is lacking regarding the status and naming of terretories, the conversation isn't really relevant to this article. The concern raised by Interestedinfairness in the edit summary accompanying the neutrality tag relates to the map's claim to depict "countries" while it does not depict the border of Kosovo (and therefore it depicts its population as Slavic along with the majority of Serbia). In other words, Interestedinfairness is concerned that this article does not recognise Kosovo as a country. I contend that it is of little significance to this article, in which the map serves only to give the reader a general geographic orientation, not a detailed geopolitical one.

As has been mentioned, any affirmation or denial of Kosovo's existence as an independent country would be non-neutral; this article remains neutral on the subject by not raising it at all. It seems to me to be an inappropriate use of this article and our time to try to force this article to take a decision on the statehood of Kosovo, a subject already being discussed at more approrpriate talk pages. In short, in the context of Interestedinfairness's other involvements, I regard the neutrality tag as disruptive forum shopping. My only reason for asking you to accept the tag for a few days is to allow IIF to defend it; removing the tag without having first had both sides of the discussion would only leave the door open for repeat tagging. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I didn't even see the caption under the image. My concern lies with the fact that "Kosovo" the entity/country/region/territory --- whatever you wish to call it --- is clearly a distinct area of land. This distinct area of land does not have a Slavic majority. Even if Kosovo did not declare its independence, it would still not merit a feature on the map. That's my contention, not whether Wikipedia "accepts" Kosovo's independence or not. Thanks, I await your comments.

Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but since you now recognise that the map depicts "countries" and not "distinct areas of land", you will understand that Kosovo does not feature on the map at all. Can we now remove the tag?

Otherwise, the solution you seek appears to be to remove the shading from that portion of Serbia (as depicted) which equates to Kosovo, but since the map resolves only to the level of countries, this is impractical and unnecessary unless Kosovo is first defined as a country. So unless you want to pursue the "Kosovo is a country" argument here, I don't see what you want to be done or why you think the map affects the article's neutrality. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel the map should for now be removed. It does need to give the borders for Kosova and it definitely should NOT be marked any colour but pure white like the rest of them. A Slavic state it is not. We all know how it was first part of Yugoslavia then spent a few years under Serb hostile occupation and that that occupation ended and now the state is free. OK some serbs have remained from those who moved in after Milosevic annexed it but the character of the place is 100% Albanian, not like Russia. A Balanced View (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a shame you are banned. One day, if you return with a new identity (as no doubt you will), perhaps you can blow your cover and write to me explaining exactly what you mean by "not like Russia." What does Russia have to do with anything? Evlekis (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Solution: the map (as is the case in the Serbia and Kosovo articles), should show Kosovo as distinct from Serbia. But if that does happen, will it still be right to show Kosovo "the region" as having a Slavic majority? Methinks not; I mean, off course Serbia is a country, but so is Kosovo (according to 62 nations), thus a compromise must be reached. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)).

It's clear to me from your answers that however you word it, you placed the tag because you are not happy about a map which does not differentiate between Kosovo and Serbia-without-Kosovo. That's a subject that is way outside the scope of this article. I would suggest you take the argument elsewhere, but you're already doing that. Meanwhile, for the reasons I've already given above, I for one regard the tag as disruptive and unconstructive, and since only you and your puppet have objected I'm removing it, leaving you free to concentrate on fighting on more relevant pages. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No consensus has been reached. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. I'll assume good faith this time but please do not throw around accusations against me in the future; sock puppet users have been identified here. I will reinstate the tag until other users comment and a consensus has been reached -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Get off the Reichstag please. No-one gives two hoots, the boundaries are not easily visible at the zoom level in the article, and it really would not matter that much even if they were. ninety:one 22:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A multiple-blocked confirmed sock puppeteer is assuming good faith (while using a puppet to suggest they are not a lone voice). Hilarious. Go fight your case on the Kosovo page, it has nothing to do with this article. If and when consensus there is to redraw maps, then you are welcome to come back and make the same request. Meanwhile, the tag is inappropriate because the article is maintaining its neutrality by not commenting on the statehood of Kosovo. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stick to this article. The sock puppet case is finished as you well know, and now I'm assuming bad faith on your part. On Wikipedia, we have a duty to be accurate. The current map features Kosovo as a "part of Serbia". As we know however, Kosovo is considered "disputed". Thus, in the interest of accuracy and neutrality, Kosovo must be highlighted on the map; as is the case with the Kosovo and Serbia articles. Kosovo must be shown separate to continue this consistency, thus resulting in its non-relevance to this article. As was suggested above kosovo's statue " [is a] subject that is way outside the scope of this article." We are trying to reach a consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it certainly is not a dictatorship. So try and balance your argument and lets see what we can agree on. ---(Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)).
 * Go away, re-draw the map, then come back. Until then, I can only assume that your Spiderman suit is staying on. ninety:one 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Page is now c. 250K, would someone mind setting up an archive bot? ninety:one 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit talk-page year headers
04-Oct-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 1 entry (name "New genetic reference") into date order for 2008. At this time, the talk-page is ready for another archive-split. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ARCHIVED 2006-2009 into /Archive_2
04-Oct-09: I have created the 2nd archive page, (/Archive_2) for the years 2006-2009 up to 2009-10-04. All of the non-vandal 2009 topics were retained in this talk-page. The talk-page was moved to avoid duplicating the entire 250kb text (as deleted from this talk-page, plus copied into the Archive_2 page). -Wikid77 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Jewish Slavs?!
There are actually about a million Ashkenazi Jews who possess Slavic genes, spoke Slavic languages not Yiddish, looked Slavic and identified as Slavs (mainly Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians), and are of Slavic ancestry. I have no idea how they became Jewish, they just are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GooglePedia12 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern History, Slavic immigration to the New World
Dose anyone think the mass migration of Slavs (Poles, Ruthenians/Ukrainians, etc) from Eastern Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to North and South America (in particular USA, Canada, and Brazil) and the subsequent assimilation of their descendants to the new culture worth noting, nothing big maybe just like a sentence or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.202.49 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rusyns
Hi, there were recent edits pushing disputable info that rusyns as separate slavic people  with arguments like "Saying that Rusyns are Ukrainians is as disputable as the contrary" and other unsupported by sources. Edits were not supported by sources. In article we have enough scholar sources dedicated to Slavs and none of them covers rusyns. Neither should this article do. I will remove disputable info from article, please don't add it back until this dispute is resolved. --windyhead (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Map
In the article there is a map (File:Slavic distribution origin.png) under section "Origins", which has misplaced position of Serbs and Croats! --Kebeta (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Užičans?????
Slavic peoples! Could someone explain to me how are Užičans so ethnically or cultural different from rest of Serbs for what they deserve to be on this list? I'm asking because I live in Užice and never notice this differences. --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Nikola (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Half the groups on that list don't deserve to be on that list. Western Slavs should be exclusively slavs using latin script and being of catholic or other western european religion. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Slav" vs "slave"
In the article:
 * "The medieval Latin word sclavus ('captive') is the root of the modern words 'Slav' and 'slave'."

At first I thought this contradicted the other sources, so I took a closer look. Here is what the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to say. For "Slav" the sequence is: For "slave": So apparently "slave" is older than "Slav" in English by about 100 years, and both come from the Latin sclavus. It seems there is some ambiguity about what sclavus meant when English borrowed it, apparently in two different senses at two different times. It would be odd if sclavus meant unambiguously "slave" since then we have an ethnonym becoming an ordinary noun, then turning back into the same ethnonym. This might actually have happened, but (wielding Occam's razor) what I think is more likely is that sclavus had both meanings in M.L. (one capitalised, one not, the latter being a sort of synechdoche) and both meanings were borrowed. (The online OED seems to agree with this hypothesis, see .) In that case "Slav" and "slave" have the same root, and a pretty recent one at that, but neither is really derived from the other as such. The quotation implies English borrowed the Latin word for "slave" and used it as an ethnonym, which does not exactly contradict etymonline due to its unfortunate ambiguity, but it is misleading if my hypothesis is correct. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Proto-Slavic slověninŭ, ethnonym
 * 2) Byzantine Greek σκλάβος (no meaning cited)
 * 3) Medieval Latin sclavus (no meaning cited)
 * 4) Late 14c English Sclave (implied "Slav")
 * 5) became Slave under French and German influence
 * 6) nothing said about how or when Slave became Slav.
 * 1) Medieval Latin Sclavus "slave"
 * 2) Old French esclave
 * 3) Late 13c English slave.
 * I read Seppo Hentilä's (who's a professor at the University of Helsinki) book Pohjoismaiden historia (History of the Nordic countries) from 2002. It says Swedish vikings who went East (rus) from the mid-9th century onwards sold Russians and other Slavs as slaves to Arabs and Western Europe, which explains the meaning of slave in English for example. I wrote this to the article and cited the source. --Pudeo' 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several inconsistencies on wikipedia concerning slavery in Eastern Europe. Slavery was forbidden in Poland only in the 15th century.   Other articles on wikipedia explicitly mention the enslavement of war prisoners in conflicts between the Czechs and Poles. It appears that Slavs and Turkic people had more to do with enslaving Slavs than the varangians: According to Al-Muqaddasi (10th century Arab geographer), one source of "Saqaliba" slaves were the Volga Bulghars (source: "The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions" by al-Muqaddasi) -- Bulghar ethnicity is debatable, as well.  Here's another bit of info from a 10th century traveller (taken from "jews and the slave trade" wikipedia article):  "According to Abraham ibn Yakub, Byzantine Jewish merchants bought Slavs from Prague to be sold as slaves."  Turkic peoples were also a source of Turkic slaves (again, my source is al-Muqaddasi).  According to recent genetic studies, the descendants of Rurik (the proto-varangian) have Finno-Ugric Y-chromosome (N1c1).  So the Scandinavian origin of the early varangians is still based on primary chronicle (written several hundred years after Rurik's death).  174.117.103.189 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted that bullshit. First of all Vikings never sailed to Russia, you're confusing them with Varangians. Second - Swedes are not Rus'. Third - "Slave" entered English languages via French language (or perhaps other Romance language, it does not matter wich one) not Swedish. Fourth - there were no Russians before Rus'(along with Varangians and other Scandinavians) mixed with Slavs, so how could mythical "Swedish" "Vikings" possibly sell Russians when Russians are in fact descendants of very same "Vikings" and local Slavs? Are you drunk or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's almost a direct quote from Professor Seppo Hentilä. Indeed, Varangians were mostly vikings from Sweden. Your text is just incomprehensible, as if you assume there were no Slavic peoples before the 9 th Century and as if the Varangians were the only forefathers of the whole current Slav population... Vikings did use and sell Slaves from their expeditions.--Pudeo' 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that Nazi supremacist junk because it has nothing to do with the etymology itself. English meaning "slave" is directly borrowed from Old French, whence it was inherited from Latin. Abundantly sourced and elaborated traditional explanations can be found in Grimm, if you can read German. It would be nice if someone would add all that, since it's out of copyright. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, a book used in university teaching, authored by professor Seppo Hentilä, professor Christian Krötzl and lecturer Panu Pulma in 2002 is "Nazi junk". The source does not state English is the first language with the present meaning of slave, but that the present meaning of slave in English for example comes from that. I won't accept the removal of well-sourced part of the text. Sure we can tweak it to call it "one theory" but the fact is Swedish vikings did make expeitions to East (founded Rus for example) and took some Slavs as slaves. Makes sense. --Pudeo' 21:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your professor is not particularly bright person. Swedish vikings have absolutely nothing to do with semantic shift that originally occurred in Byzantine Greek much earlier. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not related just to vikings, but Otto I the Great stabilised the German-Slav border and took slaves as well, so it comes from that too. . Slav and slave come from same sclave, but the slavery of the Slavs is indeed the reason of the present meaning of slave in English, whether you like it or not. However, I have no interest to continue an edit war: this just demonstrates how bad Wikipedia is - a nationalist Slav denies the fact Slavs have been used and sold as slaves.--Pudeo' 12:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm as far as you can get from being a "nationalist". If this discussion demonstrates anything, it's how every idiot can today get a Ph.D. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

To Windyhead on Yugoslavs
You have requested a source to substantiate that Yugoslavs are a Slavic nation. I contend that there are no sources to establish any ethnicity as a Slavic nation: Czechs, Ukrainians, Macedonians alike. Even if there were, there has to be a relevant place for its inclusion; marking this kind of source by the name of the ethnicity will not suffice because if Yugoslavs needs to be rectified, then so should the rest of the nations. You'll then end up with an ugly unreadable list of national groups followed by sources. You have the Yugoslavs article on which sources lead to actual census information, and other readings such as A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples are cited. Now with all this, what is the purpose of your tag? (to verify that the nation is Slavic). Is there a dispute boiling on this one somewhere? Are there questions raised in some quarters that those declaring Yugoslav within the former SFRY might actually be from the Hungarian, Italian or Albanian language communities? Is it suggested that those delcaring Yugoslav outside of the former SFRY (such as in Canada or Germany) might actually be people originating from Central America? I'm not being sarcastic here but for you to place a tag on an entry to already have its own article and sources while not requesting the same of the rest of them needs more specification as to why the part needs marking. Please also be aware that its recent placement on the article was not an addition by JoriSvs but a revert of controversial editor User:N for Neutral's decision to remove it shortly prior. Before this, it sat harmless and unchalleneged for a long time. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone also please take note the the author of this edit is a confirmed disruptive sockpuppet. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, to be short, Yugoslavs is not "people" in terms of ethnicity, so there is no place for it in the article. --windyhead (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah that's what it's about, the same argument that many have tried over the years but haved been debunked on every occasion. I'm afraid you're wrong, Yugoslavs are an ethnicity in every sense of the word. If you want to question whether one group is a true "ethnicity", question the others, not this one. Now that I know this is your basis, I am justified in removing the citation tag. If you are interested in the subject, please read the Yugoslavs article and refer to the sources. As a few thousand people in and out of the the region of the former SFRY choose to identify by this name, they are an ethnicity. There is nothing more concrete about calling oneself Serb or Slovene. Some have tried to use the argument that Yugoslavs are "not a people because they are not fixed to one specific homeland" but this argument is quickly dismantled when you remind the same individual that Muslims by nationality are not fixed to one place either. And who are they when Slavic presence predates Islamic faith in the region? To clarify: you have Muslims surrounded by Orthodox Serbs in some places, surrounded by Catholic Croats in others, and surrounded by Orthodox Macedonians in other places. Everywhere they live, they speak the local language and are part of the same community. But we accept that they constitute another nation because they say they do. Nobody marks {fact} tags by them. Bosniaks? Is that a nation? Anyone can be a Bosniak in Bosnia but only Muslims are Bosniak outside of Bosnia (esp. Montenegro & Serbia Sandžak). No individual nation has a detail exclusive to all its members and leaving aside all outsiders, except their desire to identify by that name. And if we can't accept that one man chooses to identify by a demonym separate from each of his parents' groups, then we must return to Day One and declare all of humankind one and the same race. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not how it works. You need to provide reliable source confirming that. By removing source request tag you are doing against the rules. --windyhead (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. How would you respond if I inserted a tag on the other groups? Not even all of them, supposing I tagged just Gorani, Slovaks and Russians, is one going against the rules when removing them? User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Check article lead for some sources --windyhead (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can provide some sources where Yugoslav has been declared on some countries most recent censa. Will that do? If not, what will? And by the way, how long can a tag stay in place and what happens if it remains unaddressed? Does it mean that the section has to be deleted or can it remain indefinitely with the citation tag? You know the rules better than I do it seems. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

People still self-declare as belonging to Yugoslav ethnicity (narodnost) in censi in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That makes is perfectly valid ethnicity. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And even if they see themselves as Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, etc, many still secondarily see a common Yugoslav ethnicity, even today Hxseek (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest entries, April 2010
With regards to this good faith edit, may I say that the groups listed to not qualify as Slavic nations as defined by the section. The list deals with present-day ethnicities, that means the names by which Slavophonic persons identify. Dissimilated tribes do not count. Although in a revised historical sense those tribes constituted modern-day nationalities, many long-standing nations split into various brotherhoods, tribes, branches, etc., some remained apart to form new nations, and others joined neighbours to form a new race. Other tribes in turn regrouped. A good example is in this part of the world. In the west you had Slovenes, Croats and Serbs who all subdivided into further minorities but then regrouped, or dissimilated other neighbouring groups. The tribes in Greece are drawn from the eastern branch of South Slavs, plainly called Slavs or Sclaveni. This was the superordinate term for the branch of tribes at the same level as Croats, Serbs, etc. Today, all Slavic persons from the area in question including all who may have descent in those tribes will call themselves either Bulgarian, Macedonian, Torbesh, Pomak, Yugoslav, Serb (possibly depending who and where), and other such names. The contribution is good but needs to be placed in a more appropriate place. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ivan. The above matter had been dealt with some time ago, I think Windyhead was simply looking to inflame matters.

Homeland Debate (Genetic Study)
I am not an expert on this subject. However, I feel that the paragraph or so of the "Homeland Debate" section is poorly written and probably overstated. First, it includes glaring use of the passive voice: "genetics was applied"; "it was found". Supposedly, the one study that is cited in this paragraph "proved" one of the four cited theories correct. That's quite a statement to make.

If there are multiple studies finding the same thing then they should each be cited and the use of a word like "prove" would be appropriate. It is probably more likely that the study cited provides evidence that the Ukraine is the Slavic homeland.

Aelsbeck (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Aelsbeck, April 27, 2010

Explanation
Just to explain this edit if anybody is interested. Within the Slavic world, you do not have to encounter the nearest neighbouring Slavic nation to detect cultural/genetical differences, etc. As a matter of fact, between those living closest to and among each other is where you will find nothing at all beyond the individual's desire to identify as he/she does. Natural differences do exist however among the population of each ethnicity itself, between some more apparent than with others. An example: in the Dinaric Alps, as is famously the case, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims are largely tall and heavy, all in contrast to their eponymous counterparts living outside the topographical area. In Belarus and Ukraine, you have a traditional Catholic/Central European in character west side as opposed to an Orthodox central and east side, yet people remain Ukrainian. Poland contains all sorts of varied communities within its borders, and even the smaller entities of Macedonia and Montenegro produce all kinds of cultural/even genetic variation from one side to the other. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse. That's a problem with ue of 'genetic studies' - these studies aggregate results from a nation at the expense of analyzing/ publishing intra-national differences, with the notable exception of Banac's study on Dalmatia vs mailand Croatia. Hxseek (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for ethno-linguistic

 * I propose changing part of the opening sentence, 'The Slavic Peoples are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples', to 'The Slavic Peoples are a group of ethno-linguistic nations and a branch of the...'. My reason is that the so-called 'Slavic Peoples' share mostly a common language. The huge majority are either Catholic or Orthodox, with a few small pockets of Muslim Slavs and Jewish Slavs.
 * Wikipedia definition for Ethnic group is, "a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy". The only sure fact we have out of these criteria is that of a common language. Of course, there is also the Christian element, but the traditions of each branch are quite different. My other argument for emphasizing the language factor is that when 'Slavs' move out of their linguistic zone and become English or Turkish or Greek or Hebrew or whatever speakers, they cease to be considered or consider themselves 'Slavs'...
 * Finally, my understanding of 'ethno-linguistic' is that of a group of people identifiable by their common linguistic family. Politis (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"My other argument for emphasizing the language factor is that when 'Slavs' move out of their linguistic zone and become English or Turkish or Greek or Hebrew or whatever speakers, they cease to be considered or consider themselves 'Slavs'"

Not really, a Russian who is speaking French is still Russian as long he identifies himself as Russian and a Turk speaking Slavic language is still a Turk, speaking Slavic language wont magically turn him into a Slav. The reason for "Ethnic and linguistic family" sentence are South Slavs, who are, for the most part, slavicized Balkan natives and are pretty much unrelated to West and East Slavs. Linguistics have nothing to do with being Slavic really, Britannica for example does not even count Bulgarians as Slavs despite the fact they speak Slavic 213.148.166.210 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree also. The notion of a Slavic common ancestry is still strong despite political tensions and newer ethnogenesis theories. Hxseek (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

R1A Halotype map contradicts external souces
Suggest modifying to fit http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulitzer NA (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)