User talk:Zenanarh

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ronz 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Ronz 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. -- Ronz 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your unsourced edits and reverts
It's one year that I have discussion about some 'typical' nationalistic edits, now you arrive to reopen some deep discussed arguments. Stop this. Forget nationalistic POV, and leaern previous discussion before to enforce POV. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no nationalistic POV from my side, you are manipulating with data and you are ignoring the sources which are not yours (written in Italian of course). Acting like that, you are the one with extremely POV statements. Never mind I will go step by step if it's needed, you can't make Zadar to become an Italian city. By the way it was only 23 years the part of Italy, isn't it? And your important people in Zadar are soldiers? The half of them? Zenanarh 22:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Zara WAS an italian city. It's on you to prove it was Croatia.... as it NEVER ws croatian.--Giovanni Giove 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zadar became officially 'croatian' when the YUGOSLAV ARMY, consisting of 80% SERBS,-'liberated' that beautiful city in 1945. And since then it was YUGOSLAVIAN city, not only croatian. Anyway, I love that city. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 August 2007


 * Zadar has been Croatian for over a thousand years. Further proof you cannot edit Croatian articles, since you know nothing about the country's history. Shameful.--Jesuislafete 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was Croatian from 10th to 15th century the most of time, it was Venetian from 15th to 18th centura and it was Italian from 1920-1943. No need to prove anything. You are the one who must prove how can Zadar can be more Italian than Croatian. Croats make the majority of population from 10th century until nowadays. The only exception was the period in 20th century when Italians were the majority thanks to the fact that 25% of population were Italian soldiers.Zenanarh 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reported
You have been reported to an administrator.--Giovanni Giove 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh, this Giove's message above can be treated as a threat. He hasn't discussed at all, but after few messages, he childishly (or maybe not) threatens you with the administrator. That's Giovanni Giove's behaviour pattern. When he can't proove what he wants (he never does, he just says "it's like that!"), than he threatens you with the moderators, admins etc.. I'm just asking myself how long'll admins tolerate him, his behaviour and his propagandist POV contributions and his vandalistic behaviour (deleting of "unwanted" references, ignoring of sources, 3RR...). So, if you're not the sockpuppet of that user, than, don't be afraid. If you are that user... then, noone can help you. Kubura 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

HA, HA, HA!!! Sredio te Giovani! Neka te i dokrajci i tebe i sve kao ti na wikipediji! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 August 2007

Don`t forget the history
Zadar was italian too

Removed data
Listen, can you make a list of data that Giovanni Giove's removed, at least recent ones? Like this, where he has on the talk page of article Maraschino removed your message. That message was criticising, not insulting and contained no personal attack. Also, make a list of links (compared versions) with, if possible, short descriptions what he did. That way you're enabling to admins to see, in short, what wrong things has he done. Napravi popis promjena di ti je on minja sadržaj članka ili stranice za razgovor (ostavi poveznicu na uspoređene inačice, tako da se može vidit odmah šta je on minja). Reci na kojem je to članku/stranici za razgovor članka ili suradnika bilo. Navedi ukratko šta je učinia pri toj promjeni (budi kratak, jedna rečenica je dosta, imaj na umu da će to administrator čitat, stoga nemoj zamarati admina sa kobasicon od objašnjenja). Kubura 03:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking... his edits are violent, naive and almost all incorrect. Since I know the themacity very well it's quite enough for me to edit correct states in proper context followed with the sources... if his behaviour would be the same I will do what you've proposed me. Thanks. Zenanarh 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Zadar and Maraschino
You seemed to be having a dispute with Giovanni Giove over issues concerning these two pages. It will be appreciated if you could stop edit warring with him, and solve the dispute on the talk pages of the articles. Please note that my messages on the articles are not an endorsement of the current version, but are a way of stopping the warring. Further 3RR violations on the article may result in full protection of the articles. Particular attention needs to be paid towards the dispute resolution process, and assuming good faith with the other user. Thank you. -- Dark Falls  talk 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your energy on reverts, that'll compromize your position. Read WP:DR (rješavanje sporova). Give arguments on the talk page, and ask him to answer. If Giovanni Giove ignores your arguments with his racistic remarks like "Ital. books are OK about history, just like German, French (or whatever) books. Croatian books will reach the same level in few years; it's enough to give to the democracy the proper time to push out all the Nationalistic debrishes of the Communist and Post-communist regimes ", or "Croats deliberately falsify the data about Italian personalities of Dalmatia", than he'll compromize himself. He calls "Croatian books as nationalistic", and at the same time in Italy they romanticize Mussolini's era, especially fascist Italian rule over occupied territories of Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Lybia. From the same country, Italy, where a political party, that openly calls/declares itself (at least, by their party chief) as "postfascist" (misini, MSI), came to rule???? Fascist revisionists. Where its chief political persons declare territorial aspirations towards the territory of neighbouring countries (Croatia) and deny the history of neighbouring peoples (Croats, Slovenes...). Kubura 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Kubura 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His editing is more than shameless - he uses this source for editing Zadar article - "Irredentismo" page. Imagine that Germans use "Mein Kampf" for editing the article about the Jews. It would be the same... Is it legal in Wikipedia?Zenanarh 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Zadar
Would you consider leaving the article on this revision for now? It may not be a ideal revision, but it is an attempt to stop edit warring, without resulting in protection. Bear in mind that this revision will be permanent until the dispute is resolved. If you agree with this, please say so on my talk page. Cheers. --10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFalls (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 June 2007


 * Drzi se. Nemoj da te taj Dovani isprovocira. Ja cu ti pomoc koliko god mogu.--Jesuislafete 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nema frke... Hvala i tebi i Kuburi... da je malo više vremena istjerao bi ga sa Wiki za sva vremena... ovako borba. Problem je što imamo strašne izvore na hrv. jeziku, ali nisu prevedeni i nema ih na netu pa bi moglo potrajati...Zenanarh 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ovako. Pobij mu njegove teze svojim materijalima na stranici za razgovor. Možeš sa poveznicama, sa referencama na knjige, radove... Na sam članak možeš staviti, , , ovisno o slučaju u odlomku/članku. Što ti trebaš napraviti - ukloni jedanput njegove sporne stavke u članku, i kreni sa "paljbom" na razgovoru: zašto si to učinio, jer..., zbog čega si to učinio, jer izvor taj i taj govori tako i tako. Ako on krene brisati i vraćati na svoj POV, to je njemu otegotna okolnost. Ne spuštaj se na njegovu razinu. Jednim mijenjanjem (i odlaskom na raspravu, i ne diranjem u članak poslije sve do zaključenja rasprave na razgovoru). Štogod on sporno napiše, navedi to na razgovornoj stranici i navedi protuargumente. Zatraži neka on odgovori. Ignoriranje mu neće pomoći, štaviše VRRRLO će mu odmoći. Kubura 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Onda ovako. Ne diraj u članak, ne po sadržaju, ali možeš ostaviti one tagove. Samo posli navedi na razgovoru zašto si to učinio, odnosno, što smatraš spornim. U sadržaj članka nemoj dirati, a u dogovoru sa nekim od admina, s kojima si u kontaktu, pitaj može li se zakomentirati članak i "zaključati" ga, dok traje RfC. Tako da nema spornog sadržaja na vidljivom dijelu, ništa nije obrisano, a argumentiranje može ići na razgovoru. U svakom slučaju, ne upuštaj se u uređivački rat! Ako on šta obriše, njemu je to otegotna okolnost, to ti ponavljam. Kubura 06:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Next step
We should send a message(s) to Giovanni Giove on his talkpage, regarding his contributions. We'll ask him there to explain his attitudes in behaviour. In fact, that's a next step, if discussions on the talk pages give no results. In sections we have to ask him ALL things we want to ask him. These aren't personal attacks, these are our requests for explanation. You had problems with him on the articles of Maraschino and Zadar. I had problems with him on articles Republic of Dubrovnik and Jakov Mikalja. There'll be more problematic articles, because he pushed his propaganda on a bunch of articles. It's hard to cover all those articles with "arguments against his POV and propaganda". I saw that some other users had problems with him, like user Markussep, (see User_talk:Giovanni_Giove with the article Koper. If he cannot connect something (from Croatian Littoral) with Italy and Italians, than he tries to connect with Serbs, or inserts fictitious things, like Shtokavian language, "Serbocroatian" (centuries before that Frankestein term was coined)... Kubura 18:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, see this as example. I've sent him the message. You can also specify all of his problematic behaviour on a certain article, and post him that on his user page (as an other section). You have to follow the procedure. That message must show where he pushed an information, which you find as untruth/uncorrect/completely wrong/filtered/uncomplete/with double meaning. Then, the message must show what counterarguments (if possibly, referenced) you and other users posted on the talkpage. Then, the message must show where he ignored the counterarguments. For all that, use "difference between revisions". Kubura 09:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Irredentism, expansionism, fascism and revisionism
Zenanarh. Things are going towards RfC. Prepare material. RfC is not coming over night, neither in a few days. It may come in two weeks, a month, three months, whatever. But, prepare all materials where you disagree with him, where you ask him to explain something. Today, he AGAIN put a tag "history of Italy" on the Republic of Dubrovnik talkpage. Such territorial expansionism and historical revisionism cannot be tolerated anymore. Not to mention his anti-Croat attitude, his "Croathood denialism". For every Giovanni Giove's line you find disputable, put it on his talkpage (and a copy on your talkpage). Then he cannot says that he didn't saw it (although he patrols on all Croat Littoral-related articles, so he always sees everything. Like... is that his job?). And he MUST answer on those questions. Onda će morat odgovorit, ne izmotavat se. I dobro objasnit i pokrit svoje izjave. I objasnit odakle mu njegovi stavovi. A za onakve šovinističke izjave, da se ticalo nekih drugih naroda, bia bi on davno trajno izbačen sa ovog projekta. Kubura 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

His companion in editwarring, Giorgio Orsini, it seems, earned an indefblock. Trajno blokiranje. Hvala ti Isuse. . Kubura 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovani, calm down; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 15 August 2007


 * "Cheers!"...? Mislim da znam tko je ovo, al' nije važno, što je tebi? To što radimo protiv taljanskih nacionalista, ne znači da smo mi nacionalisti. DIREKTOR 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ma pacijent, postoje ustanove za takve Zenanarh 08:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for un-reverting that guys butchering. I acn't believe these guys have the nerve to just undo all my hard work...

I have warned that "professor". I'm going to the Admins next if he udoes.DIREKTOR

Zadar/Zara
Well, we call it Zara when referring to the medieval city, especially when referring to it in the context of the crusades. "Siege of Zara" is simply the name used in English. Adam Bishop 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying the different names of the city, I am just saying we call the crusader siege the "Siege of Zara". This is of course because the earlier scholarship on the issue was written while the city was still called Zara, in the 19th and 20th centuries. If you wish, I will check to see if anyone refers to it as the "Siege of Zadar" in more recent publications, but I do not think that is the case. Adam Bishop 01:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with Italy or Croatia or nationalism; the vast majority of English speakers neither know nor care about Zara/Zadar, or even know where it is. For the thirteenth century city and the siege, we just happen to call it Zara. Adam Bishop 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I just wanted to confirm that it is always called Zara in English sources.
 * - The Penguin edition of "Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades"
 * - Edgar Holmes McNeal's translation of Robert of Clari's Conquest of COnstantinople
 * - The Old French original of Geoffrey of Villehardouin has Jadres
 * - Jonathan Harris' Byzantium and the Crusades has "Zara (Zadar)", but only at its first mention
 * - The Crusades by Hans Mayer
 * - Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades
 * - The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of COnstantinople by Jonathan Phillips
 * - God's War by Christopher Tyerman
 * - The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden
 * These are just the ones I have in front of me right now; Tyerman, Madden, Harris and Phillips have all written within the past five years, so there really is no change in recent scholarship. There are numerous other older books about the Fourth Crusade that I have used in the past which also call it Zara (the book by Madden and Donald Queller, for example). Adam Bishop 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't fool me, you are Fabrice!
 * No, actually he's Zenenarh. DIREKTOR 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * oh,excusme.
 * You are excusmed, my friend...DIREKTOR 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL Zenanarh 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure your meticulous review of my edits has informed you, I gave up on the Zadar article long ago; dealing with the Balkan nuisance on the English Wikipedia is not worth my time or effort. As I have repeated to you and the rest of Croats who have been pestering me lately, I don't care what you think it should be called. I believe I have thoroughly proven that the 1202 siege is the "Siege of Zara" in English, so there is nothing left for me to do. Adam Bishop 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Zadar
It looks like Giovanni Giove is once again trying to destroy the NPOV version of the Zadar article (as well as corrupt it with his terrible English). I would appreciate your support since it looks like my efforts to prevent the edit war will not be successful. Regards, DIREKTOR 14:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95"
Can you please check this matter out and cast a vote. The link for the actual category is here and the discussion and voting is taking place here. Thanks. --No.13 07:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of Zadar
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Zadar, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Dark Falls  talk 07:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's quite strange that I wasn't invited there. If not on the article Zadar, I was engaged a lot on the article Jakov Mikalja. Kubura 13:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatian Anti-Riots
Do Not interfere with my edits. I have been objective in these matters since I came on Wikipedia. I rephrased the information without removing the details. If you have a problem with my edits, use the talk page. Use mine if you wish but never revert me, my edits are not saved simply to be reverted by people who like to paint fairy-tale pictures that the war in the Balkans was 100% the fault of Serbs and everyone else was plain innocent. Evlekis 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I Will interfere with your edits because you haven't been objective in this matter. Did you use the talk page? The rest is said by you, not me. Zenanarh 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That night, you did really anger me. It was the way in which you reverted the whole edit. My only purpose was to be objective. My only purpose is to be fair. If there were one or two parts you did not like, I rather you edited them; where-as I made grammatical changes all in the same edit. I will be using the talk-page and believe me, you may be in for a discussion war of words if you promote a pro-Croatian and anti-Serbian viewpoint, so prepare yourself and start seeking sources, you're going to need them. I'm not a Serb, nor a Serbian sympathiser, but I know propaganda when I read it. Following an exchange of messages with Dr.Gonzo I decided to restore the page back to how you left it. I'm a peaceful individual, but shortly, I will be raising issues on the Talk Page. Evlekis 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because of a few changes which were leading to POV. Sorry for grammatics. Don't presume my viewpoints, you don't know it. Can you exactly precise what propaganda? Zenanarh 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, my talk comments (like the one on Dalmation Riots after yours) are largely a parody, nothing serious; I don't really expect you to start such an article. But about the Riot page itself, I wasn't planning on changing the content, I simply wanted to alter the presentation slightly and make it more readable. When I have more time, I'll make my proposals but I am sure they won't meet with any hostility. I'm not pro-Serb and I'm not pro-Croat in their affairs; I know that this is a sticky issue: nobody likes to admit that their people did wrong, then you provide them with a source (such as a video link with Youtube) which the other party states is nothing more than propaganda... we can't make any progress unless every editor unless we ackowledge that all sides did some bad, and not cry out that one side did worse than the other. I don't accuse you of having done this, I meant on principle: anyhow, try not to take offence of my comment on the bottom of the Riots talk page, it is one of dozens of similar comments I have made to people. Thanks. Evlekis 12:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I can see you really seem to be a person who wants to be neutral so therefore objective, but... The point is that taking (what you suppose that it is) a "neutral" position doesn't mean that you are really objective! I was reading some of your contributions of similar matters and I have noticed this: concerning any of these cases - you stand in the middle and say I'm neutral, I'm objective, I'm fair. What makes you think that standing in the middle automatically means objectiveness? To someone who is not familiarized to agenda your attitude would seem to be the only correct one, but in the same time, to someone who is, you could look like just another provocateur. For example: my only revert of your edit was such a case. I appreciate your work here and you have all my sympathies but the Balkan circus is nothing simple and logical, especially not logical. And you are obviously trying to solve some of these problems by pure logic: A beats B, B beats A, A revenges, B revenges,... It could work at some isolated island in the Pacific ocean where 2 cannibal tribes eat each other repeatedly in hopeless never ending chain until C comes and eat them both... the Balkans are something completely different. You should turn on some new logic there which includes all letters of all known alphabetics and also invent some new complicated formulas. As you surely know the Balkan peninsula is historically really a specific space in Europe, it's populated by humans for 35-40.000 years. It played its role in Paleo-populating of Europe, Neolithic repopulating of Europe, ancient Mediterranean cultures, Dark Ages, Antique, Medieval, so many migrations, so many wars, so many crucial historical occasions which influenced all other European space... And there was never such simple logic as A->B, B->A. Practically you can say that all present ethnicities of the Balkans have painful memories, but what's more sure they never solve it with the initiators of the pain, always with someone else. It's like some traveling disease A->B, B->C, C->D,... How can it be stopped? I think the only way would be if every of these letters becomes conscious of its actions. And the only way to make A or B to become conscious is to make them realize their mistakes and to accept consequences. So I think that your engagement is just firing of new old fires. If you are giving blessing to a criminal he will be a criminal again. And that's what you are doing here, even your intensions are positive. It's completely the same story with Serbs and Croats in last 100 years. Serbian governments are always blessed by strong European countries and always get a green light for their initial actions. When these actions end in crisis these strong political offices are trying to equalize responsibilities. The result is a hundred years of local A->B, B->A,... The court in Haag made the same mistake. They are trying to equalize the responsibilities for this last war and the result could be only one - new crisis! Sad but true.
 * Well, I can give you a new general logic which is the key of these Serbo-Croatian crisis. It includes 3 letters and a period of last 500 years: A (Turkey), B (Serbia), C (Croatia). Simplified it was like this: A->B, B->C. Think about it. Cheers. Zenanarh 18:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
 * since today...you are my friends!

Četvrti križarski rat
Ej, treba mi pomoc oko obrane moje JEDNE recenice kojom objasnjavan da ime Zadra u 1202 nije bilo Zara. Dobro bi mi doslo kad bi pomoga i doda neki izvor kojin bi usutka Giovea i Bishopa. Treba pokazat da Zadrani nisu svoj grad zvali Zara 1202, hvala. P.S. ako ga nades molim te objasni ga na talkpageu. DIREKTOR 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hvala. (P.S. Pisa sam na Hrvatski da ne bi citali taljani. Giove i Brunodam uporno prate sve sta napisem...) DIREKTOR 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubrovnik
Ovi Giove je na steroidima zadnjih par dana i mjenja sve živo, probaje stavit imena na Republic of Ragusa u taljanski i prominit službeni jezik u taljanski. Treba ga zaustavit... DIREKTOR 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

hahaha ojačao mali na godišnjem, goni ga duracell, sto posto je bija u nas na zdravoj spizi, a balina samo tako Zenanarh 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Prijavia san našega malega mehaničarskog šegrta Adminima, na njihovoj ploči za prijavljivanje: opet je reverta onu rečenicu na četvrtom križarskom ratu i sada revertira moj teški trud u preimenovanju imena Dubrovačkih gospara iz "Ghetaldi", npr., u "Getaldić/Ghetaldi". Možda koja rič još od tebe pojača poruku... DIREKTOR 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics
Hi Zennerah. I see you are quite knowledgable about archeo-genetics. Tell me where i can confirm that ancient macedonians possessed the I1 and J2 haplotypes. Hxseek 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hvala lijepa Hxseek 12:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Z. Would you mind clarifyin something. When analysing haplogroups one speaks of 'frequency' and 'diversity'. Frequency is self-explanatory. But what does it mean when there is, eg, 'a high diversity of haplogroup R1a' ? Hxseek 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again mate Hxseek 08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Zadar RFC
Ako još nisi primjetia, šegrt je stavia "Request for comment on the ethnicity of Zara" na Zadar talkpage. Predlažem da ga pobijemo u svemu čim zine. DIREKTOR 15:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Koji panglu nije ni svjestan, već sad tamo ima materijala a ja imam još samo treba prevoditi to je jedina frka jer uzima masu vrimena. Anyway I'm hardly waiting. Zenanarh 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's need of assistance I would be happy to help in translating said materials. DIREKTOR 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tvoje mišljenje
Dobro bi mi došlo kad bi iznijeo svoje mišljenje o našemu priajtelju gioveu na Administrators' noticeboard/incidents, tamo sam ga opet prijavia na savjet Isotope23 i što me više ljudi podrži to bolje. DIREKTOR 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Isotope23 forgot to mention this to you: The Arbitration Committee (the ultimate option) has been called in (by him) on the Dalamtia issues. You should definetly get involved, as soon as possible I might add. It's taking place here. Note that the comitee is primarily interested in the offences commited by our friend and others (use links when possible), but adding sources showing the validity of our side cannot be considered unnecessary, I believe. DIREKTOR 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry
Do you know that user Brunodam had a sockpuppet, that he used for edit-warring? Here: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brunodam. I'm telling you to have this in mind, to let you know that he's prone to do such things. I'm notifying you, because you and Brunodam have intersections of interests; you're a party concerned here, and there's a chance that you'll have problems with his editwarring and sockpuppetry. So, if you notice something suspicious, if somebody gets into edit wars on the article (and always "someone new" jumps in to save someone from violating 3RR rule), have in mind whome you're dealing with. Especially when these "newcomers" have particular interest in same articles... and their interventions are theirs only contributions. First edits, and already edit-warring. Kubura 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo
Here's the thing, Giove's expanding the front of his attacks, he now wants sources to confirm it is even a possibility that Polo was from Korčula (he added all sorts of "citation needed"s on my "Controversy" section). Polo is really not my thing so could you oblige him with a couple of sources, just to shut him up... DIREKTOR 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thnx. I think the whole thing is his attempt to make me (or anyone that tries to remove his POV) look like the kind of people that destroy sources. I mean this is obvious POV pushing from him on an NPOV article. DIREKTOR 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We've been reported
Our evil game has been uncovered by Giovanni Giove, the champion of truth. You and I have been collectively reported for breaching the 3RR, by a guy that earlier made 7 reverts in one sitting. Imagine... DIREKTOR 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zenanarh
I'm not into details with the reference you gave and translate - I had no time to read it, so I've no objection for mentioning Polo as a Croatian (it is not sure that he was but on the other hand-it's also not sure that he wasn't). More, I see that it's important to you and that you made a great effort to translate this article-so, I think that I've no objection any longer.--Gilisa 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Istrian exodus problem
Hi Zen, really could use some help in the Istrian exodus matter. The main problem is that User:PIO is trying to make me look like a lone "POV warrior" with the involved Admin, Riana (talk), and on the Istrian exodus talkpage. DIREKTOR 11:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Read your message
meant to reply earlier, but forgot. If you ever need help with English wikipedia, don't be afraid to contact me. Just be careful, I believe it's against the rules not to write in English, but I don't think it will matter if you are confused by something. Cheers! Message me if you need anything. --Jesuislafete 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo and Giovanni Giove
Do you see what this guy is trying to do? After posting the RfC and not participating in it, he wrote "Conclusion" on the Marco Polo talkpage, added his own personal beliefs beneath it and then went to an Admin (namely, Asterion) saying the RfC is "concluded" and that he should read the conclusion, unblock the article, and support his "concluded" version. I'm a little indisposed for the time being (faks) so I hope you can stop his cheap, childish attempts to get his way. Britannica supports the "both theories are equal" theory. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is now unblocked. I extended the original protection for a week longer but doing so again is not good. If things get too heated, I suggest you all seek informal mediation. I have my own opinion about the subject but I would rather keep it to myself and not let it interfere with admin actions. It would not be ethical to express an opinion on article that I protected. As I said when I first intervened, it is not really up to admins to "choose a version" or rule in content disputes. I am sure you will understand. Nonetheless, please avoid breaching the 3RR rule or edit war. Regards, -- Asterion talk 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa
Giove is now editing Republic of Ragusa. He once again claims Italian was the official language, with no sources at that, can you do something about this? DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 11:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR are each subject to an editing restriction for one year. Each is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo (and Ghepeu)
Hi Zen, I'd just like to turn your attention to the Marco Polo article again, there are basically two problems:


 * Our pal Ghepeu, insists on saying "most sources support the Venetian theory". And that "Polo was a self-declaring venetian citizen". What this means, really, is "we think most scientists believe this theory" and "Polo says he was born in venice, so the above thingy is stupid". He also insists on uncompromisingly calling Korčula "Curzola", without even the contemporary local word for the island in brackets.


 * I seriously suspect a lot of stuff was removed from the Korčula theory arguments subsection. In any case it needs expansion, could you add a sentence or two?

Thnx, DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Korčula theory, I say: "mainstreams cience today support Venice theory". That means, "most sources". But, Korčulan theory cannot be rejected, because it has grounds. Don't get into edit wars if someone is mutilating the "Korčula theory" section. Don't allow infantile egoistic persons to compromize your honest editing ideas. Just warn him on the talkpage that he cannot do that. If he continues mutilating the section and/or ignoring your notices, then we'll elevate things to higher level. Kubura (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing!
I can' believe what a POV-fest that Marco Polo controversy section is turning into!... The Korčula theory is being ridiculed and relativized, while the Venetian one is stated as if it is 100% certainly true. Its arguments are stated as sure fact, even if they are nothing more than speculation. There's bad spelling&grammar there, there's like a metric TON of weasel words, and that's just a start! Somebody needs to do something, and with my restriction I can't really do much (the restriction doesn't seem to bother Giove, though, he's reverting everything he sees 8| ). Maybe we could alert an Admin, but who'd be crazy to mess with this? DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculizing and relativizing of things should be treated as anti-wikipedian and disruptive work. So, those who do that are bad-intentioning persons. Don't ever loose your nerves because of that. The ridiculizers of other theories are writing their own indictment and sentencing judgement with such mocking work. It'll turn again them. Time works against them. Kubura (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Croats in Dubrovnik
Could you please explain what this edit summary means and who are those Orthodox Croats? --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RC
That Red Croats do not exist in any source whatsoever, and are a product of invention, mostly based on nationalism. --PaxEquilibrium 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources are listed in Red Croatia article. There should be added also sources from 13th century: Thomae Archidiaconi "Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum" and Chronicles by the same author. According to Toma, Croatian king (887-917) Budimir (Satamir,Satimerius) divided Croatian kingdom in 2 regions: Zagorje (eng. inland) and Primorje (eng. seaside); Primorje was additionally divided on White and Red Croatia. Croatian nationalism from 9th century? Zenanarh 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but later, launched mainly by Ivo Pilar. Red Croats are nowhere mentioned, but are a result of historical assumption from the term Red Croatia, for which there is very little historical data, close to nothing, to actually assume it existed in the normal historical course of time. For example, only one of the versions discovered in thr 16th century has records of Red Croatia itelf, other versions do not. The story refers to a mythic tale of Goths forming an Empire in the western Balkans, which was divided into Serbia (from Kosovo to the river of Una in modern-day Croatia) and Dalmatia, divided into Upper and Lower, for the latter of which the term "Red Croatia" sometimes appears, at a non-recorded congress in 753.
 * All the other statements come from copies of the very same one ambiguous work, which is outside the love tale between Kossara and Jovan Vladimir (which is also poetry, not history, however with a lot of historical basis) not much than, as Archbishop Gregory himself points out, national telling. If we could account the national telling of the clans in Montenegro, we would have to write that all Montenegrins are descendants of the heroes from the Battle of Amsfeld in 1389, which would be foolish in the same manner. Another interesting thing is the questionability of Thomas the Archdaecon's work itself, mentioned a Croatian ruler that did not exist. The 3rd source (between, the cite-source is broken, you should fix it) also just repeats the tale, but with an even more ahistorical mythological tone, presenting this Gothic Kingdom of Dalmatia, which was divided into several lands (of whom one is Red Croatia). In essence, this does not belong to a simple outright article as Croats, especially considering the fact that there was never ever any mention of Red Croats themselves, but is a recent product (which yes, probably has to do something with nationalism - the ultra-nationalist late 19th century course supported it), based on this word, which seems to appear but not present truly the real historiographical record. --PaxEquilibrium 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is funny though is that those who call upon Red Croatia, never recognize that Bosnia was a Serb land and the area all the way to the river of Una populated by Serbs. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You should present references for your claims, your explanation is just your word. What is its relevance? BTW when you show it I will show you opposite references so we'll have "dispution situation" but I think you already know it, don't you? ;))) Zenanarh 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah well did you read my comment? References for what precisely? I just explained the very self-contradicting issue you yourself showed when you cited the mentions of Red Croatia. For instance, I'll be glad to show you that from 877 to 917 ruled Iljko, Zdeslav, Branimir, Mutimir and then Petar, but do you really not know this? Also do you really not know that the first time a Regal crown is associated with the Croatian throne is in 924 (or 925, or perhaps even 923) with the case of Duke Tomislav?
 * Also, I shall repeat again - none of the sources you mentioned, and not a single even in history mentions the Red Croats, which are a product of plain assumption (i.e. Original research). --PaxEquilibrium 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but aren't we talking about the article Red Croatia and not Red Croats?? I agree that there is lack of that ethnic term which means nothing, since there are historical sources about geographical (or geo-political) term, it still doesn't mean that ethnical term didn't exist in some kind of usage. Does it matter? Red Croats however was for a long time well known ethnical term for centuries among Croats in the south - Bokelji for example. 3 sources in 12th to 14th century are not very little historical data, close to nothing by keeping in mind what period we aree dicussing of. How many different reliable sources up to 14th century about political and/or geographical terms in the western Balkans do we have at all for period 6th-9th century? Or elsewhere in Europe for the same period? In many cases saved sources are almost the only one for specific occasion. Why not using it in Croats article, BTW Raška is used in Serbs article isn't it? Please don't misinterpret and overturn every Croatian historical data into 19th century nationalism discoveries discussions etc...

According to Libellus Gothorum there were Silimir, Ratimir, Satimir, Budimir as earlier rulers. However Budimir from Hrvatska kronika was the same person named king Sventoplk/Svetopelek in Chronicles by the Priest of Doclea. Letters from Pope described Branimir and Sventoplk as gloriosus comes Sclavorum. Also there are even some claims that king Budimir-Svetopelek was actually most possibly Branimir. If some person didn't exist then it was king Svetopelek since his name was inventioned by bad translation of a original source to Latin language; sveti puk => svetopelek!!! sveti puk (eng. holy people), So "Budimir was ruling holy people" (well something like that) was translated as Budimir was "Holypeople" and his real name Budimir was erased (M. Hadžijahić: Pitanje vjerodostojnosti, 206). Your conclusion that he didn't exist is nothing but unsourced POV. Also "Hrvatska kronika" is by many authors concerned as the most relevant source for the area, actually opposite to your claim Another interesting thing is the questionability of Thomas the Archdaecon's work itself, mentioned a Croatian ruler that did not exist built on pure misinterpretation or ignorance whatever...

Not all kings in Europe got a crown from Pope, it still doesn't mean that they were not crowned or perceived as kings by their own people. Difference was whether they were accepted as kings by the Holy Roman Church or not. And Roman Church had a lot of problems in Illyricum after developing of Arian Christianity there. "Svetopelek" according to the Latin source by the Priest of Doclea accapted Arianism! And so on and on and on... Zenanarh 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We are talking about the Red Croats, I only for a short notice skimmed to Red Croatia to point out several matters. Yes, it does matter. It does matter in the same manner that there is a village in the western part of the country called "Harvatovici", but has absolutely nothing to do with Croats, and since its creation till today no Croats live in it. A plain assumption as that about a mention of a Red Croatia, which doesn't have basis in the standard historical course (and is mentioned in obviously highly erroneous and mythic sources), is just as that - especially not to claim that during the migration of Croats into the Balkan peninsular "Red Croats" populated those lands, which is a plain violation of Wikipedia's policy no original research. I do not misinterpret any source - in this case it's being misused. The rise of romantic nationalism was a typical thing, and didn't occur just with the Croats - the Serbs too. For example, during the Age of National (Re?)Awakening the Dubrovnikers (many prominent individuals, as well as elsewhere from, well mostly Dalmatia) considered themselves Serbs-Catholics. That was even one of the reasons stated by the evil forces that teared down Yugoslavia in the 1990s for the Siege od Dubrovnik and that's why many Serbs (most notably the Serb Radical Party) still thinks "Dubrovnik is Serbian". That's misusage. How many different sources? Plenty. The Frankish Annals, Kekauman's works, John Skylitzes' records, Byzantine Princess Anna Comnenus' literature and hoards of others, none of them mentioning ever such a thing as a "Red Croatia".
 * The Red Croats was never ever a term that existed before interpretation of Red Croatia in the 19th/20th century, it has nothing to do with the Boccans - who themselves have little to do with the Croats historically, aside from the fact that the remaining Catholics have attained for a century or so some time by now a Croatian national identity. Many of them descent from Serb clans, e.g. the Zmajevic family.
 * My conclusion that "King Budimir" never existed is nothing but unsourced POV? Lol, see list of rulers of Croatia article in Wikipedia. ;))) The whole story about Goths creating some sort of a gigantic Kingdom and then dividing it, alluding that Croats and Serbs have completely identical origin and have been created in the Balkans through fictional toponyms "Croat-" & "Serb-" as well as the beforementioned allegation that we're all Germanians and not Slavs doesn't sound too fishy to you?
 * Svetopelek has never ever existed. That has been cleared up. He refers to several emotions, as well as geographical entities which were used by Archbishop Gregory to write a fascinating story. Stories like Serbs building in the Early Medieval Ages the city of Dubrovnik...all in all, should someone read (I advice you) the Chronicle and its several version, he/she should follow the interpretations of most historiographs in the world - that only the part about Jovan Vladimir and Kossara is historically accurate (like Paul Stephenson clears out - most historians dismissed the entire Chronicle completely unwilling to even consider it for a historically valuable source).
 * Taking all this to understanding, it seems shere madness to put that which I put at the Croats article. --PaxEquilibrium 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pax you must understand something: your personal opinion means nothing if it's unsourced in Wiki. Every such statement by yours is original research. If you're trying to impress me by conclusions that historical existing of Red Croatia should draw equally existance of an etnic group of the same name, you're on the wrong way. Let's say that Red Croatia did exist as geo-political unit, it still doesn't mean that it was formed by Red Croats. Actually there are sources that it was formed by a ruler. So there's possibility that later ethnonim was developed among Croats meaning the former Croat population of that area. You simply cannot deny it. As long as I know Red Croatia is deeply built in verbal tradition of Croats in Dalmatia and it really doesn't have anything to do with Croatian nationalism (to be honest your discussion about it, Tuđman's Croatia -LOL etc..., is something which I've heard about for the first time, it's totaly unknown in the Croatian publicity so I believe you've largly exaggerated it). Of course we definitely cannot deny even posible existance of the ethnic group Red Croats, but since there are no accesible or known reliable sources it's automatically agenda for forums and nationalistic Balkans orgies no matter from which side. However later it was used by nationalists but it's sad that you use it for discrediting of the article (rich text about who eat who, who was good, who was bad etc...). Such your contribution reveals your nationalism, well almost sick one by my opinion...

According to investigations of several sources of several authors it can be concluded that Budimir definitely did exist (somewhere he was named Svetopelek or similar) but not as the ruler of one huge state - he was just a ruler of one of the Sclavinias! and it's very well known that there was some number of it in the middle of 9th century in the area (affected by Duvno congress decisions). So dear Pax don't simplify it (list of rulers of Croatia article in Wikipedia) and don't misinterpret it (Stephenson's finding of errors in the text, in fact there are almost no historical sources without errors - it still doesn't mean that sources are not valuable - but that's something that scientists know very well - it's not on us to judge it - it's question of scientific treatment - not religion - is there a God or not...). Free your mind Pax don't be a horse (joke - no insult!)

Concerning Serbs and Dubrovnik (and why not Red Croatia again :)) I can say this: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula, it was never found in Serbia, Tracia and Danube Bulgaria, at the eastern Adriatic coast it was found from Istria to Dubrovnik, mostly in the area of previous Liburnians and Iapodes - later first Croatian state. Also it was stated that usage of Glagolithic alphabet was able to develop only through some political or military union of Croats from one and some Germanic ethnos (Goths?) from the other side, since there are Germanic names for a large number of Glagolithic letters. Recently a Slavic grave was found (by my sister-archeologist :))) in Župa Dubrovačka containing 10th century Porfirogenetus coins and Glagolithic text. However after scientific treatment it's dated in the beginning of 11th century. Text is not yet treated nor translated yet, hope it will be soon, but surely is the oldest Croatian one found in Dubrovnik region until now. Since that area is not yet archeologically investigated (and it's Dubrovnik! believe it or not...) there are implications that it's just first in a row. Confirmation of it would mean that the same Slavic ethnos was populating Dubrovnik region as elsewhere in the west - Croats! Time will show...

The whole story about Goths creating some sort of a gigantic Kingdom and then dividing it, alluding that Croats and Serbs have completely identical origin and have been created in the Balkans through fictional toponyms "Croat-" & "Serb-" as well as the beforementioned allegation that we're all Germanians and not Slavs doesn't sound too fishy to you? - this sentence of yours tell me this: - you don't understand historical processes like forming of an ethnos - what makes you think that some etnos can be so clean so it could be connected to one or another or third initial clean etnos??? Multi-diciplinary science abondoned this out of date kind of thinking! - We're all neither Germanians neither Slavs! Do you know exactly who have invented that etnonim (Slav) and how? - Even genetically and anthropologically the most of Serbs and the most of Croats are not of the same origin! One historian said (I forgot who...) that it's absolutely fascinating that Croats and Serbs have used pretty same language when all other differencies are kept in mind... Differencies attract but also explode - we know it aren't we? And there's nothing wrong about it. Zenanarh 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of original research makes me think you don't know South Slavic history at all. ;))) Fine, I shall henceforth strictly give you sources.
 * Here's an example: it says that some sort of a "King Budimir" ruling between 877 and 917 divided Croatia into White and Red. Refer to the Kingdoms of Europe for example. I am very surprised that you didn't even try to search for a list of Croatian rulers. Between 877 and 879 Duke Zdeslav (famous Trpimir's son) returned to power. He was succeeded by Branimir, who reigned until 892. And then Muncimir (third Trpimir's son) ruled until 910. And finally, Tomislav (his son) reigned all the way to that 917. It's a bit weird to me that you actually don't know the Great Toma... ;P And the territory of the alleged Red Croatia was subjected to the Serbian House of Vlastimirovic then.
 * No, I'm not. I'm trying to note that it's highly POV to naturally *assume* such a excessively controversial thing and include it directly. I can deny it, as most historians (from Croatian like Ferdo Sisic across international like Paul Stephenson), because there is no such ethnonim outside some very unbased interpretations of Savic Markovic Stedimlija that "Crna Gora" evolved from "Crvena Hrvatska". In essence, it was launched by Ivo Pilar (refer to his works) and no one in detail before. If you know better, show me. ;)
 * You simply cannot deny it. As long as I know Red Croatia is deeply built in verbal tradition of Croats in Dalmatia and it really doesn't have anything to do with Croatian nationalism. Please show. Red Croatia is completely unknown to the world before the 16th century, when first copies of the Archbishop's Chronicle were made, the Croatian translators (Lucic?) even allegedly removed Red Croatia, considering it a mistake that mysteriously passed through several sources. The first more thorough research of Red Croatia surfaces in the 19th and 20th centuries and yes is directly related to nationalism, as its greatest researcher and theorist was an Ustasha.
 * Now there you're a bit too far going. ;) I would be willing to change my opinion if you show me any source earlier than the 19th/20th century nationalist interpretations, that were never ever accepted in broader scale until the Ustashas came to power. Should there ever be something alluding that Croats came in two groups: White and Red - I would gladly accept, but sadly there is no such thing. --PaxEquilibrium 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that a Budimir existed, but neither was he a King, nor did he live during the years Thomas states and he obviously didn't even do the things described. The interpretations of the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea are not those of my own, but of most historians. Unlike just holding errors, this propagandist/poetic/romantic work (shortly called "pamphlet" by some), has only the story about Jovan Vladimir and Bulgarian princess Kossara historically accurate (but normally as with most sources, told like a fairy tale), for others there is no historical confirmation anywhere else beyond the work itself. The same would be as if I would use the "History of Montenegro" of Petar I Petrovic-Njegos as a source for Montenegrin-related article, the article itself holding only a bit more than half actually true historical data (it bases itself on epic stories, much like the LjPD, and outright writes that Montenegrins are simpleton Serbs - and yet we don't see that used in Wikipedia, do we?). --PaxEquilibrium 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: the Glagolitic script was used by Serbs too, but for a very short time, they crossed to Cyrillic script immediately as it was founded. AFAIK, the oldest Serb book - the Marian Gospel from the early 11th century, was written in Glagolitic. On the territory of Serbia two Apolostolic works, in Glagolitic, were discovered and studied: the 11th century Gerskovic's & Mihanovic's script, likewise written in Glagolitic. By the way, on the territory of Red Croatia, the Cyrillic script was mostly in usage ever since it was created, with the finest and oldest works in the Serbian recension of Slavic written right there. Oh and about taht post - the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja writes that the Serb ruler has constructed Dubrovnik in the 10th century (or slightly before). :)))) --PaxEquilibrium 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even genetically and anthropologically the most of Serbs and the most of Croats are not of the same origin! Well there's your contradiction again. The sources of the theory of Red Croatia all undoubtedly claim that a single whole of peoples (Gothic/Slavic/whatnot) built a huge empire, and that they further divided along geographical lines, which obviously, according to you, became the basis for ethnogenesis of peoples, i.e. Croats and Serbs. An it also writes that the Croatian, Serbian and other dynasties commonly descend from the original rulers of this...ancient Yugoslavia? And of course I do not believe in that, there are differences - that's precisely why I dismiss the story of Red Croatia as a truly historical possibility. By the way, what differences were/are you referring to? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're playing dumb. I have never said that there were Red Croats in the sources, but half of your discussion is about it, feel free to enjoy your imagination. I don't need you to teach me a history. I know it very well.

You have 3 "Serbian" Glagolithic sources from 11th century? Nice. Croats have hundreds and hundreds of it 9th-16th century. Now if I would use your kind of logic in discussing it would mean that these "Serbian" sources were written by Croats! LOL

Cyrillic scripts in Dubrovnik were written in Western cyrillic alphabet used by Croats. Oh is it possible that the Serb ruler was "bauštelac" in Dubrovnik? Nice of him. He can always come back if he wants to work hardly again, but without the rockets, mines, granades, chemicals and 150mm pancir-bullets please.

a single whole of peoples ??? I won't comment the rest, you are very profiled misinterpretator. And I'm tired of this conversation with you. I suggest that this discussion at my talk page reaches "the end", see you in the article talk pages when I get some free time. Ciao for now.Zenanarh (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's precisely what I've been trying to elaborate. What gives us (or better, what gave me ;) the right (potentially violating No original research) to write Red Croats at the Croats article, especially in the manner at which it currently is?
 * What do you mean, and especially by the ""s? Let me quote you: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula, it was never found in Serbia, Tracia and Danube Bulgaria, at the eastern Adriatic coast it was found from Istria to Dubrovnik, mostly in the area of previous Liburnians and Iapodes - later first Croatian state. Well, it obviously was. And the Serbs used the script, just like the Bulgars, for a tiny short time before fully switching to Cyrillic. Your point was/is...?
 * I'm not talking about Ragusa, for which that might (or better, probably is) the truth. But for the whole hinterland from slightly beyond the river of Narenta to northern Arboria, of which Red Croatia was supposedly composed.
 * Tell me something, did you read the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea? The tale is that a people (the Goths/Slavs or whatever they are) settled in the west Balkans creating a small Slavic empire, this "proto-Yugoslavia" as some pro-Yugoslavian politicians from Croatia in the late 19th century used to describe, than on this Council at the Field of Duvno (which is unrecorded anywhere else outside it), they epically decided to split the country into two parts: Serbia (composed of the realms of Rascia and Bosnia, from Metohija to the river of Una) and Dalmatia, which split onto Lower Dalmatia or White Croatia and Upper Dalmatia (which is in some sources referred to also as Red Croatia). The conclusion from this that would simply follow, is that these (geographic?) terms became designations for the peoples (Serbs & Croats, sometimes taking the local names of Rascians, Bosnians and Dalmatians) that locally live there - however with the case of Red Croatia that sometimes mentions, gave birth to no Red Croats?
 * Well does this mean that you comply? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I never accuse - accusations come from certainty, I alluded to the possibility that you might be, among other reasons because Giovani (yes, that highly not constructive editor) accused you.
 * "you're just an extreme nationalist POV pusher". Now those are very, very hard words. You should explain yourself when making outrageous accusations, otherwise this might be plainly a PA|personal attack. For example, I've received countless Barnstars. Four of them from Bosniak users, two from Montenegrin, one from American, one from Greek, one from Jewish, one from Serbian and two from Croatian users (some of them I kept here). I've been proposed to become an administrator from a Croatian, a Montenegrin, two Albanian and an American wikipedian.
 * So in the end, I'll ask you again - does this mean that you comply? :) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excusé moi if I got wrong impressions about you... History is nothing like our discussion above, so I've already suggested moving to the related articles. There's a lot of mess in Dalmatia related articles and I'm more concentrated on other things so appreciate if you wait with Red Croats for a while... well, a little bit longer... Zenanarh (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Zen, someone hasn't mentioned you that ancient Doclea had mixed mentioning of Croats and Serbs in its history (if I remember well, Porfirogenetus "skipped" Doclea in the sequence that someone here likes to cite). Second, go to hr.wiki, I'll explain you there the rest. Third, don't ever loose your temper. Don't allow them to provoke you. That's what they want you to do. Rather talk to me. Bye, Kubura (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not quite correct. It is said on one occasion by Skilitza's continuer the people of Serbs that also call themselves Croats, because he doesn't look the difference and considers it whole one same people (which goes along with the theory of the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea that it is one people who possibly later got two [and more] names).
 * I'm not provoking anyone. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin
I'm ensuring that some form of calmness and neutrality is preserved. No, Serbian is both ekavian and iyekavian dialect, Montenegrin is...well, none yet defined (although it'll probably be iyekavian). :) No, but because Serbian was always the language spoken in Montenegro, the term "Montenegrin language" is being brought into usage only lately, and is still a matter of great controversy - to be solved soon, I hope. The other way around is the political act. I do not understand what do you mean by "..how many original Montenegrin words became "Serbian"..", could you elaborate please? Well, I asked just for you my family this night, and they declared Serbian language. ;) Also, what is "proud original Montenegrian"? Please define. You're however, wrong. Montenegro broke its union with Serbia only a year ago. Of course t'is not be a forum - we're discussing the article.

P.S. I was a bit surprised when you appeared and wrote that, I expected that you'd write that Montenegrins are Serbs, since you even consider that Macedonians are Bulgarians. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL what are you using? Magic mushrooms? Such kind of playing dumb (first group of your statements above) and imagination (second-Macedonians) I haven't seen for a long time. Actually I think that you're a Serb (all homo sapiens = Serbs) and I'm a Martian (since I'm a Croat). :P Zenanarh (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is your second personal attack. Please refrain from such edit. Second of all, you said it on this very talk page: "I can say this: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula,...". :) Third of all, I don't nationally-declare myself & I think we should return to the main discussion to the up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula - where exactly you see Macedonians are Bulgarians here? Zenanarh (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, right in there. Now please, return to the main subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Really you're my idol! Everything is so simple to you, maybe that's why I can find so many biased or unobjective interpretations of my words from your side. P.S. Excuse me for getting a little bit personal in my earlier reply, but some of your conclusions are so inspirative sometimes. No insult... I would like to have some more free time for discussions with you. Unfortunately I don't have it at the moment. Sorry... Zenanarh (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Will be waitin'. The intention of that comment was to raise up the mood, by the way. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

illyrian map tribes locations
Can you give me a hand in illyrian tribes pre-roman conquest locations? I can remake the map with all the tribes thought i i' ll make it bigger.There is a lot of tribes thoughMegistias 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Can you mail me about it? hoplitesmores@yahoo.grMegistias 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have some problems with mail, give me 2 days Zenanarh 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure, ill be waiting!Megistias 18:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) an example,also the some thracians that mixed and are considered "illyrians" from a time thereafter will be simply shown as illyrians or should we use some special symbol in Dardanians? Illyrians prior to Roman conquest]Megistias 11:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe color of the name can help. Dardani were more Thracians than Illyrians, Iapodes were mixed with Celts. Since there were Celtic tribes present in some number among Illyrian ones, we can put them there too, so I think the usage of different colour can help. This is very "sensible" matter and any kind of simplified approachment can be reason for dispution. Maybe we can do something like this: Celts-blue, Iapodes-purple, Illyrians-red, Dardani-orange, Thracians-yellow,... hmm too complicated? There are Veneti and Greeks too so... What do you think?Zenanarh 11:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed its problematic.It will be look bad and wont really explain rather than confuse.We either leave it in a generic fashion-aereas and tribes- and let interested parties get their info on each tribe(dardani case in example)from its description in according subject pages rather than confuse them with the map.Too many tribes and the issue of when were they thracians and when did they turn illyrian by mixing.Better simple and explanations will be found in the subject pagesMegistias 12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Or half colorize mixed tribe names in the fashion you suggest!Megistias 12:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now when I see map I think colors will not help. Since name Illyrians was applied to all of them, which is dispution matter concerning some of them, it would be better not to take jury side. It's not on us to decide. Ethnogenesis is much more complicated than a few different colors. Let's leave it to a reader and related articles, by first suggestion of yours. Zenanarh 12:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok i ll leave it as it is and check out some more stuff to see what improvements can be madeMegistias 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree we can do it here or at your talk page, whatever you like. I think it would be much easier and quicker than by mail, since I can give you modern geographical places (with wiki links) the closest to the pre-Roman conquest positions of the tribes. Almost every Wiki article of the modern city, river or mountain have a map with position, so you can easily use it for your map. Is it OK? Zenanarh 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure ,mail me!Megistias 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user
Maybe it's unbelievable, but I used the same argument. Was the name "Siege of Zara" really used only in 19th century books? It looks strange to change the name of a historical fact. Anyway, if it has really happened, that's all. 87.8.239.37 11:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not the name of a historical fact. If Englishmen in 18th and 19th century were using Zara (since it was the name of the same time), this logic would mean Zadar at present (since it is the name at present). Historical name was Jadera (J was spoken Z, adding accents - Zad(e)r(a) or Zad'r' and here we go again - Zadar - by modern Croatian slang spoken in Zadar at present it's Zad'r). Zenanarh 12:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The historical fact is the "Siege of Zadar". Compare to the "Battle of Stalingrad". Anyway, I repeat, if modern English history books calls it "Siege of Zadar", that's the name which should be used. 87.8.239.37 12:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I disturb you. I'm anonymous because I don't want people to judge me on my past edits. Wikipedia gives me this freedom, and I use it. I committed the error to touch sensitive issues, and I'll do that no more. Regarding the article Birth Place of Marco Polo, I hope you could revert two obvious errors (you can check any dictionary): An other thing, maybe more controversial: it's really probable that "Marc Pol" is only a Francization, it was a really common practice to translate names (don't you remember all the italianized Croatian names?), so that should be mentioned at least in the "Criticism of the Curzola theory" section. To end all discussions about me around there, yes, my English is not very good, and I need evening classes. Is it really so funny? Last time I say that, I was not that man, anyway, it doesn't matter, I will disturb you no more. 87.9.235.137 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Polo means chicken or fowl" should become "Pollo means chicken or fowl";
 * "Habitatox" should become "Habitator".

Giovanni IPs
Zen, please don't waste your energy with some more "Giovanni discussions", just revert and report him, User:Afrika paprika was dealt with, so will he. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Zenanarh 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just don't forget to revert the IPs all the time (as you know, I can't :. I'll see about reporting him and getting an Admin on the sockpuppetry case. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a sockpuppeteering report about all this, here: Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th). Any help in the way of additional evidence or support would be appreciated. This guy simply must be stopped already! -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know...
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See. You've been mentioned. Kubura (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Theories about origins of Croats
Look my work on hr.wiki. I've made a list of theories, and each theory is an article for itself. Kubura (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia's now in Italy
Have you seen this? 

Dalmatia???? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff in which that categorization was done. Kubura (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian fighting style article - War tactics

 * Hi Zenarnarh.I have material in here for the endeavourIllyrians groupand i renew and update anything i find as much as i can.We have a resurrected discussion here from when i knew littleIllyrian stuff.Tell me what you think.They were the Uber-peltast mountain warrior hybrid !Megistias (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Helmets shown in the pictures and illustrations were found in Novo Mesto and Vač in Slovenia, Vač location was Iron Age Hallstat culture and closer to Veneti. Some other:, , , , no link - bronze helmet in Trstenik in Serbia (5th century B.C.),... Zenanarh (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ..., no link - bronze helmet in Picug near Poreč in Croatia (5th century B.C.) Zenanarh (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderfull i have gathered lots of stuff as well.The hellenistic illyriaand this troop appearance and these would be kings and lords in hellenistic era style usage of the hoplite shield/or a circular one on horseback or off itIllyrian kings.Megistias (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a variety from Iapodesillyrian capsand from an illyrin king's grave king arms.In the group i have all the material illyriansMegistias (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See webber tooIllyriansMegistias (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * STipeviccoverMegistias (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gradisca/Gradišče
Hi: check out the changes on the page Gradisca d'Isonzo. Take care and happy New Year, Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

?
Hello Zenanarh. Can you help me understand what this mean (from Haplogrou I article)

''Despite the fact that the predominantly Sardinian Haplogroup I1b1b-P41.2=M359 is derived from the predominantly Balkan Haplogroup I1b1*-P37.2, the derived Haplogroup I1b1b is practically absent east of France and Italy, while it is found at low but significant frequencies outside of Sardinia in the Balearic Islands, Castile, the Basque Country, the Pyrenees, southern and western France, and parts of the Maghreb, Great Britain, and Ireland. Thus, Haplogroup I1b1b appears to be strongly associated with Southwest Europeans of Paleolithic ancestry, and its carriers bear only a distant relictual relationship to the I1b1*-bearing populations of the Balkans. ''

?Hxseek (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

?
Hello Zenanarh. Can you help me understand what this mean (from Haplogrou I article)

''Despite the fact that the predominantly Sardinian Haplogroup I1b1b-P41.2=M359 is derived from the predominantly Balkan Haplogroup I1b1*-P37.2, the derived Haplogroup I1b1b is practically absent east of France and Italy, while it is found at low but significant frequencies outside of Sardinia in the Balearic Islands, Castile, the Basque Country, the Pyrenees, southern and western France, and parts of the Maghreb, Great Britain, and Ireland. Thus, Haplogroup I1b1b appears to be strongly associated with Southwest Europeans of Paleolithic ancestry, and its carriers bear only a distant relictual relationship to the I1b1*-bearing populations of the Balkans. ''

?Hxseek (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks friend, that explains it very well. Yes, i got the quote from the wiki page on Haplotype I. Hxseek (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

true
Yes, you're right Z. I wasn't trying to put any particular case across, but i thnk that is where most of the animosity stems from WWII, does it not? from what i know, serbia and croatia never had any conflicts in medieval or ottoman times (excpet for maybe brief skirmishes over Bosnia c. 11th century), did they ? it just seems so crazy such animosity can come about in the space of 100 years. Hxseek (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor"
So, in order to combat this and restore balance, you're doing exactly the same thing but with the languages reversed? This is why I generally wouldn't touch Balkans-related articles with a ten-foot bargepole. It's insane. Dewrad (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some genetics
Hey Z. Regarding the south slav genetics study: although we have estimated how old the different haplotypes are, can we determine when they actually entered the balkans? Also do we know of any mtDNA data pertaining to Balkans peoples ? Hxseek (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetics
KAk ci Zenanarh. I was wondering if you were aware of any data on mtDNA for sout slavs, and any DNA studies on old slavic burials ?? These would add a lot to the picture Hxseek (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes i underatand the utility of Y-Dna, but its ony half the picture. Since women didn't migrate as much, they were more static. Thus analysing mtDNA of former Yugoslavs would give us a better picture of the native Balkaners who were Slavicized-who was already there before Slavs arrived.


 * Interesting what you say about the tribes. I am not sure i neccesarily agree that Ikvains,Shtokavians, etc were tribes, they are merely modern lignusitic (and a bit arbitrary) sub-classes. From what i have read: Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are descended from the Sclaveni- a western south slav group that dwelt in the middle danube, as opposed to the antes (who were nontheless very similar). They were essentially one people divided into many small tribes. Serbs and Croats might have been one of these tribes, or a noble clans that rose to rule others. Their power waxed and waned, thus the borderes of their early states fluctuated. Centuries later, Serb and Craot came to be a 'core' for formation of ethno-national state (encompassing surrounding SLavs). Certain areas might have been bastions of Illyrians. Apart from the Byzantine Dalmatian towns (SPlit, Kotor, Ragusa, etc), Illyrians / Vlachs survived in the mountainous areas -especially montenegro and parts of Bosnia. Zlatarski -a bulgarian Slavist, suggests that Macedonians are descended from eastern south slavs - from the ANtes supra-tribal federacy. Slovenes might have been more a western Slavs group (descended from Duljebs, Vah and Morav slavs) that became seperated from cheques and slovaks. What do u think ? Hxseek (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He lives!! ;)
Hi Zen Well I'm finally done with all the tests and exams, and I'd appreciate if you could bring me up to speed with the latest events around here. What goes on? :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken
I have never at one point stated that Pagania was Serbian or Croatian ! I have not actually written anything for the Pagani, Zahumje or Travunia article. Over the past 3 months, i have been doing extensive research by non-Serb, non -croat historians. Now i can say that my knowledge about early slav history is better than anyone. I have no interest in proving one view nor another.

If you read my last edit on south slavs (read the article and check the maps), early states section- you will note that i state that there were 7 or so early slavic 'states'. The croat duchy of dalmatian, savia/pannonian 'croatia', serbia, zahum, travunia, dulja, pagania. I clearly state, at one point one of these duches grew powerful and exerted influence over another. Never did i say that Paganians becamse Serbs or whatever.

Most western historians- Curta, Fine, Hupchik- use cinstantine porphyrogenitus as a source. Yes, it has its problems. But it is still the only useful source on the early slav states apart from royal frankish annals. The chronicles of the priest of Duklja is next to worthless because it is a legendary account.

Now, my conclusions, from what i have read, are thus: The western south slavs may be all descended from one tribal union- the sclaveni. Also much of dalmatia was also settled by Avars. The serbs and croats were a numerically small group. They became a leading clan in their central territories (ie dalmatia around nin) and southwestern Serbia, respectively. As their power grew, they commanded loyalty, etc from paganians or zahumljiani. Centuries later Croats and Serbs came to be the name for the nation rather that the people/clan. Because the original Serbs and croats were so small amongst a sea of other slavs (that were the same), essentially zahumljiani, pagani, travunians were all the same ethnically. Even if you do not wish it/ beleive it, even Serbs and Croats were probably very very similar. We cannot overlook the similarities in the whole "white' homeland or the possible iranic origins which applies to both. So what happens when sclaveni occupy all the former yugoslavia, mix with some Illyrians here and there, plus few avars. Then come serbs and craots (who are very similar/ same)? Final product largely a very similar people all inhabiting from Slovenia to northern Macedonia. So how can we prove by language or acrheology that Serbs or Craots actually ruled Bosnia (or whatever) when (1) their cultures/ language where not even significantly different from one another, (2) there is actually not much evidence from these early periods anyway (3) both probably ruled the area even within the space of 20 years ??

I can honstly say, again with no pro-Serb agenda, that historians such as Hupchik, Fine and Cruta all tend associated Dukljian, Zahumljiani and TRavunians as Serbs. Eg call them Zetan Serbs. THe Paganii are less mentioned after 1000, but they were probably more independent. If you can notify me of a western, non-croat source calling Dukljians or Zahumljians as Croats, then i would be happy to take it on board. But as i said, it is not even worth debating because they were all one people, divided into many tribes (quote from Fine). So proving whether Paganians where Croats or Serbs is like trying to prove whether Charlemagne was a Salian or Ripurian Frank.

As conflicting as constantine's account is, it doesn;t matter. He says that Paganians, Zahumlji, etc are Serbs. This may be because during his time (ie 10th century) they were under Serbian influce. When i redo the serb, duklja articles, i will state this, rather than leaving contsantines account (or the Dukljian PRiest's account) as gospel. Hxseek (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And i never supported the cetina river as being a border. It is far too artificial to suggest that serbs and croat were neatly divided into delineated territories. The medieval world was multi-ethnic and non-national. There were no border (well, they were fluctuant and fluid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I understand your emotion. Since i am borne in asutralia, and consider myself australian, i think i am a bit more neutral on the matter. But anyway.

As for the avars, contsantine in D.A.I repeatedly makes mention of Avars settling parts of Dalmatia. Plus there is archeological traces of Avar culture, plus various turkic toponyms. Out of interest, see that croatian female tennis player, i forget her name. She is quite dark and almost looks as if her eyes are asian. Perhaps a trace of Avar ??

You should read this book: Southeastern Europe in the middle ages by Florin Curta. Its a it full on. He suggests that 'Croats' was not an ethnic label. He thinks that croats might have been a clan of Slavic nobles that came to rule over much of dalmatia in service of the Franks. They had very developed material culture. Interestingly though, there is no metnio of 'Croats' in the literature until COntsantine's works in 10th century. The royal Frankish annals only metion the guduscans and Liutevit as a pannonian slav. They do not mention any croats ! ? Hxseek (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So do you know anything about the Guduscans ?
 * Fascinating. So you think that the Guduscans might have been descended from the Goths. Is Borna a German name ? What source provides such a theory (so i can include it in my upcoming revision to articles)? Hxseek (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for that. I want to include it. Soon i want to upgrade the croatia, Duklja, Bosnia articles- medieval section. I am just summarising my research, I think their quality will be much improved. I will include this info about the Guduscans.

ABOUT R1a. IT has been dated back to ? 15, 00 years ago. As you are well aware, three theories about its spread to the Balkans are as (1) part of re-population of Europe from the refugium in Ukraine (2) Spread of indo-Europeans and domestication of horse (c. 2, 000 years ago) (3) Spread of Slavs. The last is least likely. Because we know think that the migration of slavs would have to have been HUGE to actually effect the genetic composition of Balkaners. Therefore R1a was already in the Balkans before Slavs arrived. They might have merely increased its presence by a tiny margin

What i asked you eralier is about mtDNA of south salvs. Do we know anything about this ?? Because Y-DNA is obviously only half the story. Women tended to be more sedentary, as men were more involved with war and migrations/invasions. So if we knew the mtDNA composition of south slavs, we would have a better picture of the pre-Slavic peoples in the Balkans. Hxseek (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re
Incredible, its like I never even left in the first place! Its like I said with these nationalist Italians, they think of themselves as superior "renaissance-like" civilized European gentlemen (even though most can't even write in English), while we are primitive "barbarians" who slaughter each-other constantly and reproduce at an alarming rate, so as to swamp the "builders of Dalmatian culture", the Venetians, out of their lands. What they cannot realize is that despite their (economically oppressive) rule, the Croats (i.e. Slavs) always formed the overwhelming majority in Dalmatia, ever since the fall of the Roman Empire (of which Italy is hardly the successor-state). Wikipedia is simply unable to combat these people, and the like. They are obviously the "aggressors" here, with their strong sympathizing with irredentism, but Italians are much "closer" culturally to Americans (and the British) so the thing is "evened out". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Helpful data
Here's to help you with DAI. Here's the link. Mit o srpstvu srednjovjekovne Bosne and the book of Ivan Mužić [http://www.muzic-ivan.info/hrvatska_povijest_9_stoljeca.pdf Hrvatska povijest 9. stoljeća] (*.pdf file, 1,7 MB). These are in Croatian. Also, dojdi na našu wikicu, još ti iman tega za reć. There we don't have obligation to write in English. Kubura (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Glacolitic, etc
Yes, i definitely agree the DAI was political bias in some aspects, since hie tries to downplay Croati'as independence, etc. He mentions the minor skirmish between Croatia and BUlgaria in the mid 800s, but doesn;t even talk about the major battle of Bosnians highlands, which was during his time.

I understand that glacollitic was used by Croatia. More correctly though, it was used by the Dalmatian bishoprics, was it not, befoire the Split synods slowly removed it. With all due respect to your suggestion, i dont think that we can safely say that Duklja was under Croatian rule, or was of Craot ethnos, just because Glacolotic scriupt was found there. Was it not also used in nearby Macedonia for example ?

Like i keep saying, it is pointless to keep trying to prove whether Pagans, Zahumljians were Serbs of Craots. in the 700s- 100s, these early times, they were seperate duchies. Ethnically, they were all very similar, speaking a very similar language. Croat (and Serb) just probably referred to one clan or tribe of southern slavs. THus the traditional view that Serbs occupied the southeast half and croats occupied the northwest half is wrong. In fact, their initial territory was probably much smaller, ie northern dalmatia around Nin, and southwestern Serbia around the Lim and Ibar rivers, respectively. Later, over time, their power increased. Eg croatia spread to Slavonia, and Serbs spread into srem. Thus the slavs in these areas, which were probably of different tribal clans/ tribe originally, also came to be called Croats and Serbs subsequently. Thus what were Paganians ? They were south slavs who were called Paganis/ Neretvi/ Mariens. Croats were their neighbours, and also related, and often allied. Hxseek (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your points. I have not come accross any English-language books going into the Glacollitic aspect. Either way, i am not convinced that finding of Glacollitic script will 100% equate with Croatian ethnicity. I am taking the approach of John Fine, and other western historians, who present the view that 'Serb' and 'Croat' only became established as ethnic labels much later in history. initially they were tribal, or less so- even a clan or dynastic name. Curta suggests that the 8th century Croats were a collection of nobles -Trpimir and his Zhupans. As they established control over most of northern Dalmatia, western Bosnia, the area became known as Duchy of the Croats. Much later, the area became known as Croatia, in the name sake of the founding rulers.

Comparison: Bulgaria. In 900 Bulgaria was huge. But it doesn;t mean that the Bulgars settled Dacia, Moesia, Macedonia, Serbia, Slavonia, Greece. Similarly we can find Bulgar artifacts in these areas alos. However, the Bulgar elites and their family clan were only concentrated in Dobrudja.

Only difference is : Croats were Slavs. For all the different theories about their origins and settlements (whether they were Sarmatian, or Goths) for all intents and purposes, they were Slavicized by 700. So, they were too similar to their other Slavic neighbours- the Serbs, Pagani, Zahunljiani, Trabunites- to have established a clearly different nature of existence to look into archeology and clearly say "here are croats, there are Serbs".

As for Zahumljiani and TErbunites. The same arguement could be applied. Slavs that fell under Serb rule at times. Hupchik and Fine generally refer to them as Serbs though. If you can point out to me a western scholar that calles them croats, i will be too happy to include that into my new articles.

Regards Hxseek (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zen, there's a book of Ivan Mužić Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća (this is a *.pdf file, 3.83 MB in size). You may find some of Croatia's early history there and explanations. Kubura (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independance
Stop re-editing the Croatian War of Independance article.I agreed on those changes with SWiki78.ok?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC) If you want to change something go to the descussion page first. Disscuse the issues and do not edit without anybodies approval.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that joke-incident didn't take place in 1990. and in the referrence title is Franjo Tudjman 1992-1999. Until someone finds the actual date when that quote was made it shouldn't stand there because the story should go in chronological order. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for the source/refference for your change.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio
This paragraph that you have reinserted for the second time is a word-for-word copy of the text at the reference you provided. The reason I removed it is because it is a possible copyright violation and text in Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please rewrite that paragraph, otherwise it will be removed again as Wikipedia can get into legal trouble by hosting copyrighted material. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Munjopošta
Javi mi se na hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move
I requested a move of Dalmatian Italians to Italian minority in Dalmatia, just though you'd want to know. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Horvat
I just realized he's practically the same as Dominik Mandic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Suffix -mir
Er, Zenanarh, do you perhaps happen to think that Serbs didn't have such names? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed opinion? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Boring? Zenanarh (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, you really definitely need to work up on your mood. ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm in excellent mood... when I don't have to dig those mines on the moon with you... in those neverending debating sessions. And buddy, you really definitely need to work up on your private life. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And... hmm... Actually, I've asked you: are you feeling bored? Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

About fascist italianization
HI

I have found some data abou Italian historiographer. Those guys disclose the myth about Italian soldiers as "brava gente" who were coming to war with guitars :


 * Paolo Rumiz


 * Gianni Oliva


 * Davide Conti

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Rumiz [] [] [] []    

Captain Corelli's Mandolin (film) was a totally forgery!

--Anto (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LoL! :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * John Lennon: Imagine there... :) Zenanarh (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics-arbitration
Hi

I intend to send this argument about spelling the south Slavic names (Franjo Tuđman ,Novak Đoković etc. ) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

It seems it's the only solution! --Anto (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalmatia
Were the northern-most islands part of Croatia in the 11th century (ie Rab, etc)? If so, when did Byzantine status formally end? Hxseek (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ALso, when you get a chance. Correct me if i am wrong. Slavonia is a portion of what was Savia-Pannonia in the 9th century, right? WHen did it begin to be called Slavonia. ?
 * When Hungary amalgamated Croatia, was Slavonia a direct part of Hungary, whilst Croatia was more independent ? Hxseek (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought so. What were the borders of the Banovina of Slaovenia? Was it like present-day Slovenia

By the way. I am working on a bit of early to mid medieval history for Croatia and Dalmatia. I just want to add a bit of extra info to what we have now in the articles. When it is finished, i would appreciate your comments/ approval, etc. Hxseek (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubrovnik, the ancient Ragusa
i want to let you know that Ragusa, because of its venetian-like italian speaking government, in analogy with the famous four Italian maritime Republics, was also known in europe as the fifth Italian maritime Republics. Ragusa was a Venetian City from the IV crusade (1204) until 1358. So this beautiful city was also italian, (and so in 1809 was part of the Italian Napoleonic Kingdom). It is a fact that many italian poets and artists was born there. It was also Croatian (and many famous Croatian people was born there) and now is still a Croatian city, but history and origins can not be denied. So please re-consider my edit in Dubrovnik ;) bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.27.86 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 April 2008

Here's my message on Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik from 18 March 2008, 13:56: Here's the reference and  Pavao Krmpotić: Kazneni postupak prema srednjovjekovnom statutarnom pravu Dubrovačke Republike'', Pravnik, 40, 2 (83), 2006, p. 89. (Criminal procedure according to the statutary Law of Republic of Dubrovnik): Venice has concquered Dubrovnik in 1205. With the Peace Treaty from Zadar from 1358, the rule of Venice over Dubrovnik ended. Until 1526, Dubrovnik recognised the King of Croatia and Hungary as the sovereign (dinasties: Angevins, Luxemburg, Habsburg, Hunyadi, Jagiellon).''". If someone continues to speak about Dubrovnik as Italian city, ask him why don't he/she speaks about Southern Italy as Arab land and that those beautiful areas were also Arab land. Kubura (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All hail the King! ;)
Hi Zen, maybe you'd be interested in the ongoing discussion concerning the legitimacy of our King, His Royal Majesty Tomislav II of Croatia ;) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In either event, your participation would be appreciated. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked for some sources saying NDH was a monarchy and Tomislav II was the king their are plenty. Are you going to reconsider your position to reflect what published sources say isn't that what were supposed to do on Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Lies"
Insted of saying that my work is lies. Take one point and prove it wrong with a source. There you go. Mike Babic (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia and royal rights
Hi, Zenanarh. You'll find this info useful. When the Catholic reconquista began on the areas of Croatia, appeared a problem between "allied" sides, Habsburgs and Venice, because they all wanted to have Dalmatia for themselves. Venice was seriously concerned, because Habsburgs claimed the Dalmatia according the fact that it was one of Habsburgs' obligations, when they accepted Croatian crown (separately from Hungarian): to liberate and unite all Croatian lands. Dalmatia was one of them. Ukratko, Habsburzi su polagali pravo na Dalmaciju temeljem tega što su bili hrvatski kralji odnosno jer je Dalmacija je bila dil Hrvatskeg Kraljevstva. Kubura (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Haplogroup I2a1
It states: "Haplogroup I2a1 (P41.2 (M359)) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians" ... In fact 40% of Sardinians have M26 not P41/M359 SNP. You can check the source you cited. (on p.19 I1b2-M26) and also ".Zei G, Lisa A, Fiorani O, Magri C, Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS.:"From surnames to the history of Y chromosomes: the Sardinian population as a paradigm". By the way, SNP P41/M359 is very rare in hg I, and it is mentioned as M359 in Cengiz Cinnioglu et all.:"Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". So, "Sardinian" subgroup is I2a2 not I2a1. Medlare (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slavic language
You wrote very interesting comments on the Bosniaks talk page about DNA etc. Unfortunately the Noone Soong idiot was just that same Bosniak puppet whose been writing rubbish all this time. Where did you read about the theory that Slavic was used as a Trade language near the Black sea ? Hxseek (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, i am (a little) acquainted with the spread of Slavic and IE languages. But i had not heard of before you mentioned it that Slavic might have been a language of traders. Quite interesting. How did it eveolve? Were these traders some specific ethnicity. Did Slavic evolve from an interplay of gothic with Scythian ? ? All i know is the most common theory that Balto-Slavic languages are what remained in Ukraine after the other IEs spread out. (I am not a linguist, by the way,. More a scientist) Hxseek (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: And you think they were bearers of Haplogroup N ? Like Uralics and Mongols ? Hxseek (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. So the Stokavians were a newer arrival, with slightly different dialect and some unique material cultures. So how did Croatian Stokavian come about. It must mean that the new Stokavians mixed in with the original Kakvain Croat Slavs.

How do you actually propose that the Language moved from the Urals to Ukraine? The far majority of scholars state that Slavic originated in Ukraine- where the oldest hydronyms are found. How can we reconcile these two theories ?

Also: When the Slavic speakers arived, do you think that any of the authochthons were still speaking Illyrian and Thrcians, or were they all Hellenized and Romanized. Ie did any Illyrian contribute to Serbo-Croatian and did Thracian really contribute to modern Bulgaro-Macedonian ? Hxseek (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fascinating as always. I will check ou that fibrosis disease you referred to ( I am a doctor).

I can only spaek a bit of Macedonian (because my grandmother is Maco- she took care of me as a baby). My girlfriend is Russian. It sounds bloody alien to me ! A lot of "njet" and such sounds. They accent their words differently also, more at the beginning of the word rather than at the end like us south slavs. In contrast i find Ruthenian and Ukrainian very similar to Byulgarian and Macedonian. Must be that Antean legacy ? ! Whenever i meet a croat, we can speak together well. He speaks Craotian and I speak Macedonian, but we are understanding each other still. Funny, eh. POlish also more similar than Russian. But i just don;t get exposed enough to really know.

Interesting also what you say about Croat kingdom. Yes, I find myself wondering how things might be different if history was different. I think that the Slavs had the potential to be the greatest superpower, but too divided. A lot of us hate each other. Croats had a great and prestigious kingdom, same with Serbia later, Bulgaria- was a power almost as good as the Franks. A lot of it was bad luck. For example, the Franks- they were also divided into many tribes but they had rulers which would be able to forecefully unify the Frankish realm and spread further (although not always). In contrast the south slavs always remained seperate. The polarising influences of Catholicism and Orthodoxy only enhanced this. The worst thing was the Ottoman occupation. It devastated the Balkans. My dad tells me how the best "Turkish" fighters were Slavs from Dalmatia and Hercegovina (? Paganian amcestors). They killed all the Slavic nobles - who carried the prestige, culture and spirit of our people. WHilst western Europe was going through the enlghtenment, scientific revolution, liberalism; our people were slaving to survive, being massacred by Islamic oppressors. We had to re-develop a noble class, re-define our identities (althoug it was never really lost). This put us very much further back compared to west Europe. Anyway. Hxseek (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes i can read it and understand most of it : )

By the way is Zenanarh your name, or does it stand for something ?

Well the theory about the Iranic/ sarmatian origin of Croats (and Serbs) is very possible. have you read my article on the Antes ? Valentin Sedov is a Slavic scholar, who statet that the Serbs and Croats were one of a number of tribes of the Antean tribal union. People think that the name Antes is Iranic, just like Croat and Serb. The Alanics mobilised and rled the mores numerous SLvas, being absorbed into them, but the name is kept. A testament to the Sarmatian influence.

The whole "massive Slavic migration" theory is undoubtedly linked to the Byzantine accounts where they state that "hundreds of thousands of Slavs took Macednoina, Moesia" etc. Obviuosly an inflated figure. As we both know, the genetic studies show that modern day Serbs,Croats, macedonians etc are primarily descended from paleolothic balkan peoples. But again, the only trouble is we don;t know with certainty what the markers' of original Slavs were. For example, slavs coould have been different. The Byzantines noted that there were Antes and Slaveni- 2 different but otherwise identically-speaking groups. The Balkan slavs -as yuou say- could have been Slavified dacians, Sarmatians, etc. I am sure there was aGermanic contribution as well, for we know that the Gepids and Goths all lived in the Balkans,. Only thing is, we don't know whether they had a significant ground presence ( a snumerically significant presence) in the balkans. it could have been just a small number of elites ruled over Thracians, Dacians, illyrians, etc.

lastly, your CF gene which places a large Slavic settlement in Macedonia is a bit at odds with the fact that Macedonians have the lowest levels of R1a of all Slavs. . . Hxseek (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetics
What does one refer to when they speak of a cluster in genetics

Eg; E3b1a (M78) has 'a', 'b' and 'y' clusters; of which 'a' is unique to Europe. Does it mean variations in microsatellite sequence ? Hxseek (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Slavic settelemts
The books I have read i suppose put forward the 'dogma' that Slavs settled from the 500s. Although they do clarify that the Byzantines often branded anyone from the east a "Hun" or "Scythian", so  a Scythian raid in the 400s could have been Slavs. And certainly Slavs could have been part of the Goths and Huns, but only became the dominant demographic from the 500s. Hxseek (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nase More?
Have a look at this: Italian Mare Nostrum by Brunodam. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I proposed the deletion of Mare Nostrum. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Illyrians, hallstatt
Hey Z. I am curious about the influence of Hallstat culture on Illyrians. is your arguement that its presence was largely confined to Pannonia, whilst the Illyrians had tjeir own, independent cuklture that eveolved endogenously in the Balkans theough the Bronze age ? Hxseek (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I love your joke mate. Which book would you reccomend to read re: Ilyrians. is Wilkes good ? I can read Croatian, but it will take my 20 years to get through works by Stipcevic or Benac . Hxseek (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Dalmatia cleanup
Hi Zen, I recently cleaned up, organized and expanded the Antiquity and Medieval period sections of the History of Dalmatia article. I was wondering if you could take a look at my effort, and maybe fill in the few gaps that are left in the temporal continuity of the article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Boka Croats
Zenanarh, a long time ago you mentioned some archives and tons of mentions of them. Any light on this? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no time for you Pax. Are you boring again? Find some book, sit on your bike/car/train whatever and go to the beach. Sea is warm these days... and don't call it voda cos it's more ;) Zenanarh (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sea is incredible these days! (LOL, the old voda/more bit. Technically, no voda is 100% pure you know... ;)
 * Jesus, I didn't know that... Zenanarh (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kidding, Zen! When I was a kid, you could immediately tell a Vlaj from a Splićanin by the voda/more test :D (no offense, whatsoever, Pax) --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And what's the best of all, DIREKTOR, we were always forced to laugh twice to these "froggies" concerning voda/more. 1st time when they call it voda, 2nd time when they think it's a joke about its chemistry (voda is 100% pure, while more is not). They never understand that it's not a joke, it's serious. Calling it voda instead of more is almost offense to us, it's not a joke at all. It needs generations of living by the sea to get the sea in your bones, blood and genes. They don't understand that we have almost sexual and definitely spiritual relationship to the sea. But they think it's a joke about its chemistry, so it's even more funny :) Zenanarh (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its really kind of sad, nowadays you're either a Vlaj or an Italian, what happened to the middle? What happened to Dalmatians that are neither Italian-supporting separatists or people of the hinterland that have nothing to do with the sea? I mean they're still here, but definitely as a dying breed (I suppose you've seen the documentary: Prosjaci i sinovi? ;)
 * Btw, Zen, I placed an infobox on the Dalmatia article, and, its kind of weird but I can't seem to get the wikilinks to appear below the flag and coat of arms that lead to the Coat of arms of Dalmatia and Flag of Dalmatia articles (like in any other state infobox) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry DIREKTOR we are still here, majority as it has always been. Only that we don't have to shout and fight anymore, we can finally enjoy on our own, that's why there's no noise coming from our side anymore. All of them who are screaming and struggling now are those who got foot in ass. Infobox? Let's see... Zenanarh (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Red white and blue
Hey Zen, have a look at the "Red white and blue" section here, maybe you know: --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re
Actually, its an old map I had on my computer for ages, I just noticed it recently. I got it about five years ago from a friend's blog, and that has been deleted (I always backup my pics, docs, and mp3s when I buy a new computer). I think he scanned it or made it somehow, I'm not sure. Its not exactly perfect but its a temporary measure :) Btw glad to see you're doing Zadar, nice work. You know I first started to work on Split after I saw the quality of the Zagreb article, and I didn't want those Wikipedia-crazy purgeri to find the Split article looking more like the Imotski article than the Zagreb article. ;) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Italian_Mare_Nostrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to amend WP:UE
I just made a draft of a proposal to amend WP:UE to avoid "reliable source" misuse. Take a look and tell me what do you think. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chakavian
To your last statement, yes I would say Parisian French belongs to Japanese, if Japanese by its nature was a Romance language and the Japanese person living in France spoke it as a natural language. Japanese is not a dialect of French and therefore, for a Japanese person to speak French will mean that he does so as an alternative language to his ethnic language, or because he has no knowledge of his ethnic language. But the ethnic language still exists, and unlike Serbian and Croatian, there is no link between Japanese and French. There is no link between Japanese and any language. It is what is known as an isolate in that its roots cannot be ascertained (rather like Basque). The rhetoric you use to describe Croatian squares with the nationalist propaganda fairytale promoted by individuals who opposed Croatia forming a part of any Slavic union, and in turn favoured a single Croatian language. No matter what the subject, there is a Pan-Croatian answer: linguistics, ethno-genesis, culture, history, mentality, food, music, colour of eyes, average height, pronunciation of the same phoneme, hand-writing style, which side of the bed ones rises from in the morning etc etc. It does get ridiculous. If all of this was totally true, there could never have been a reason for one significant section of Serbian and Croatian society coming together to work towards a single identity. If you try to use the argument that "Croats were lured/bullied/absorbed into the programme", then it raises a question, why Croats? With so many natural differences, Serbs might just as well have tried to do the same thing with their northern neighbours, the Hungarians, or the Romanians. And in any case, such a venture is not wholly in line with true Serbian nationalism as it involves relinquishing aspects of their own identity. Of course, if the entire "Serbo-Croat" chemistry were a scheme designed to Serbianise all Croats, then the initital Serbian outlook towards the Croat would have been one of resentment. The actions which followed would have been some form of attempt to capture the Croatian lands and population. Evidence? Never was there a Serbo-Macedonian ideology. Never did a Macedonian believe in it. Serbia's nationalist desire to hold Macedonia was based on the notion that many anti-Serbia Croats claimed: "we and our territory are the subjects of Serbian expansionism." Yet the Macedonian nationalist awakening was taking place around the same time as everyone elses, from the 1860's onwards. The modern region of Macedonia never fell to the Kingdom of Serbia until 1912. That gave "Serbian expansionists" around 50 years to plan a "Serbo-Croat-Macedonian" unification programme before they could reduce the name to just plain "Serbian". In your statement, you made no accusation about Serbian nationalism. But reading the rhetoric of Pan-Croatian editors is like an open book: you know what comes next, and you know the general mood towards certain phenomena; in other words, predictable. Nowhere can one read more nonsense than in this ridiculous fantasy "Serbian evolved from this, and Croatian from that". Ask yourself a question. Where does that leave Bosnian? It is a common joint Serbo-Croatian (not in the positive sense, but as two individuals) tendency to deny a seprate Bosnian culture, language, identity etc. Where-as you two nations (I am not Serb so that you know) were repeatedly reminded by your clerics that all Catholics and Croat, all Orthodox followers are Serb, and all Muslims are "ours" (whoever it is making the statement), Bosnians argue that the tribes who settled on Bosnia & Herzegovina were neither Serb nor Croat and that only the Muslims hold this true identity, and that those who are Christian have been coaxed into believing they belong to the neighbouring nation. What do I think? I think that all Serbs, Croats and Bosnians who see themselves as different are blind adherents to a fallacy. First of all, standard language is shaped by sculptors, all other symbols of patriotism (flag, anthem etc) are also the works of individuals, and the ensuing programme is designed to attract various people from far and wide to accept a centralised programme to identify as one, even adopting a history regardless of ones actual past. Of the 8-9 million or so Croats in this world today, there is nothing that each and everyone holds in common which discludes other nations. There is nothing they hold in common anyway beyond the ethnicity which they declare. Of the 11 million or so Serbs around the world, they too hold nothing in common collectively as opposed to others, nor with each other any way. Again, it is how Mr.X declares himself. This is not just the case today, but assimilation/dissimilation, adopting/rejecting old and new identities dates back to time immemorial. Nations are born, they rise, they fall, they are forgotten. There will be no Thracians, Avarians, Wallachians, Romans, Etruscans or Phonecians in the Olymlics this year my friend. Nation-building as you know it today doesn't have its history going back as far as its architects like to convince everyone. They say it has been going on forever. The notion of a centralised programme entails cohesion. If the ancestors of those who declare Croatian ethnicity today lived in the same territories down the centuries, then you are kidding yourself if you believe that there was some form of cohesion from one extreme (such as Istria) to another (Dubrovnik/Montenegro), to another (Slavonia and Vojvodina), to another (Central Bosnia), to another (Croats originating from Hungary), followed by the isolated Croatian communities of Molise, Burgenland, Kosovo, parts of Slovenia removed, and Romania. You could argue that Croats in the former Yugoslavia were a constituent nation of a single country whilst those outside it were compelled to live in foreign lands, thus strengthening a single Croatian identity within Yugoslavia. However, there was no Croatian country before Yugoslavia either. Your people were carved up among Venetians, Austrians, Hungarians, Ottomans. But even if nationalist architects dream up some fantasy about how there was cohesion among all Croats even when subjugated by different races, how will they convince neutral observers that these Croatisms travelled the length of the regions of Croatian settlement but miraculously by-passed all non-Croats, making Croats in Mostar culturally and linguisticly closer to those in Varaždin than to his Serbian/Muslim neighbours on the same street. Some people like to think that ever since Serbs and Croats settled on the Balkan/surrounding area, that their whole futures would be shaped by the schisms which ensued, as though a void ran between the two nations, as though for twenty million years here was no contact between one and the other, and when the vacuum was filled and the gaps were bridged, it was as though you had racehorses on one side and three-legged donkeys on the other. There was no Berlin Wall, and no wall ever stopped people appearing over the other side. There were no Byzantine government secrets and even before Slavic arrival, west and east traded and people relocated/migrated for various reasons. The very fact that there is a Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian all within a country of fewer than five million inhabitants is evidence itself that there was never linguistic cohesion among the speakers. The fact that Slovenian is what it is and that its dialects across the border are intelligible is evidence that for all the centuries, the Croatians failed to develop a distinct language from which new dialects would emerge. Do you know what a dialect continuum is? Do you know that Croatians are positioned at various points along a continuum stretching from Autrsia and Italy right down to European Turkey? Do you know that there is no abrupt halt anywhere down that track, and that people's rural speech (which in the long term affects standard language) changes with one village/municipality to the next only gradually, and that where two languages use two different words for a single object, that they on the fringes may use either word rather than "vlak" ends here ---> <---and here is where "voz" ends. Whether or not Serbian and Croatian once formed a single language, the two are inextricable for more reasons than one. Croatia has itself chosen to base its standard language on a Dubrovnik, not only removed from the rest of Croatia in that it closely borders Bosnia and Montenegro; but also because Serbia's traditional centre, Eastern Herzegovina, is a stone's throw away. You can no more expect major differences in those tongues than you can Galician Spanish with the dialects of Northern Portugal. Of course, if modern Croatian had been based on Kajkavian, and your presenters on TV spoke it, along with the academics; then it would be a separate language from Serbian. But would it linguisticly be different from Slovene? Difficult one. It is pathetic to assume that some linguistc divide separates Serbs from Croats. Non-adherents to standard languages (the subjects of Chakavian and Kajkavian) speak the local form and that in turn is similar to the neighbours' speech. You cannot drive down to Cavtat and expect to hear Slovenian overtones distinguishing the speech from that of ethnic Serbs in some near-by area. In so far as there is traditional variation among South Slavs, the division is rigid, and lies deep in the south of Serbia were Torlakian splits Bulgarian & Macedonian one one side with your languages including Serbian on the other. The differences may appear fundemental, but even they are nothing huge. It does however show how East South Slavic tongues become West South Slavic tongues. It possibly reflects that our ancestors (yours and mine) may had lived apart for quite some time before driving into each other on the Balkan, having entered via different routes. But if they were so different, then you'd be able to distinguish one dialect from the other, and one is more likely to be bilingual in that he speaks the West South-Slavic language with one person and the East with the other; but the physical possibility of a merger can only happen because the languages hadn't branched out far enough. In cases where languages have gone past the point of no return and its speakers have returned to each other, two distinct languages exist. The is the case in Jutland with ethnic Danes (North Germanic) and Germans (West Germanic). Originally speakers of Proto-Germanic, their ancestors split paths and returned to each other generations later on this territory. The languages are distinct and no intermediate form exists: you'd have to invent one, but it cannot occur naturally. If a child is born in Schleiswig to German parebnts, grows up speaking German and is then exposed to Danish, it might just as well be Hebrew to him. They share the same towns but Danish remains closer to Icelandic, and German to English and Swiss dialects (High German, which by nature is very different). South Slavic languages have a single continuum, not two, and it is as pronounced now as it ever was. Now I don't personally state that every part of a continuum forms the same language, but then I cannot place my finger on the map and say "ABC end here, and XYZ starts from there." You seem comfortable with Croatian and Slovenian running into each other, but you seem at odds to accept that Serbian belongs to the same family. But even the purest Croatian language which rids itself of what it decries to be "Serbianisms from the previous chapter" can never make Croatian fundementally different in its standard form not whilst its basis is a region close to Serbia's linguistic heartland (even if it happens to be outside of Serbia). Serbs in turn have more than enough variation from east to west, and south to north. Even the written language was never the same: on the Adriatic coast, it was common for Croats to use "gn" for the present-day "nj" sound; it just shows that they were influenced by Venetian, which is in turn a distant relative of French, which also uses that combination. They didn't do that in Pannonia. Anyhow, if I might recap: I never stated that Chakavian is a dialect of Serbo-Croat, you just show me the edit where I made that remark. In so far as a Serbo-Croat language existed, like all other territories, it had its boundries. Looking after WWII, those boundires came to be defined as those embracing the four out of six former republics; as such, all dialects within them were classed as dialects of this language, even though Torlakian and Kajkavian are closer to their neighovuring languages than to each other. Chakavian may be "pure Croatian" with regards to its speakers, but Croats were during the time of Serbo-Croat's importance a component of a bigger ethnic umbrella. My original purpose was to state that Chakavian is contained within Croatia because I believed that non-Croats did speak it. They certainly may have spoken it had they too been settled there for more significant periods. Maybe the odd lump and bump would have created some variation within in to begin, but generation by generation, it would have: taken shape; maintained original features; adopted external influences; and finally be flattened out so as to reflect its position within the continuum. If its new occupiers had come from so far down the line that their language was unintelligible, such as a party of Bogomils from Bulgaria; then there wouldn't have been a fusion, the two would have stood separate almost like Croatian and Italian. If the bulk of the Serbs came to Chakavian lands after WWII, then there is practically no chance of a Serb speaking Chakavian. Non-standard dialects are passed down by people through the generations, and used by individuals with others with the same knowledge. A man born to Serbian parents from Novi Sad in Chakavian lands may develop a Chakavian accent but will only use his standard language, which may be Ijekavian Serbian, or Croatian; whichever he chooses to speak and however he personally declares it to be. There are no schools or institutions which carry out local affairs in Chakavian, its presence is a symbolic monument reflecting the linguistic culture of the previous settlers. I know that. I just personally thought that there may have been some non-Croatian speakers, and I respect the fact that two people can converse in the same language and both have different names for it reflecting their own ethnicity. A Japanese person will have to brush Japanese to one side to speak French, but Serbs and Croats, not only Slavic but travelling on the same train, need only switch compartment. Even if there was once a time that a divide line separated all Croats from all Serbs, never did all of both groups adopt a single unified standard of language, and never did they break their intelligibility. The result: even though Serbs were to Knin, and Croats went to Janjevo, and both sets went to Krashovan territory in Romania, every language being what it is, is so because of those who speak it. People make language; it doesn't make people. The presence of Croats in Serbia; Serbs in Bosnia; Muslims in Croatia all have their effect on the local speech, even outside their communities. Unlike an Italian village in Istria which has no effect on Croats on one side and Croats on another; Serbian speakers in a village in Eastern Slavonia will certainly have an effect on the speech of Croats on either side of them. Their presence forms a part of the operational matrix which gives all Croatian-Slavic speech its features from which it will choose "how its standard will be." A word such as "kruh" is as much his word as it is the Croatian's. Before the 19th century, there was no golden age when one nation set about creating its own words purely for themselves. Nations weren't even concrete in their stature. Old texts from Croatia see that your people may have called themselves: Croats, Slavs or Illyrians; other times, other names. I hope my position is clear to you now. I never said Chakavian is Serbo-Croat, I am all right with it being Croatian. Evlekis (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chakavian and nationalism
All right Zenanarh, I am sorry to have exhausted you with the extremely long note. It appears that we both had some misconceptions about the each other; you certainly set me straight about yourself, and now I'll try (in more brief) to show you where I am coming from. This, I hope, will make our future edits more comprehensible to each other. I am sorry if I accused you of Pan-Croatism. Politics by nature is ugly, and however much a member of any nation thinks he is politically disinterested, the systematic influence of surrounding life permeates ones bloodstream and the effects show. Nobody anywhere is immune this this disease, as you can see, even I am not. Perhaps you are not a Croatian nationalist: fortunately I know that wishing for a country's independence is not necessarily the work of "nationalists", for example (familiar ones), Macedonia and Montenegro were both led out of the Yugoslav federations by their successors to the League of Communists; parties who spent over 40 years persecuting right-wing nationalists from all angles. Alternatively, it is physically possible (though hard to find an example) where-by a nationalist may believe in federal/state unity. For one, he may just be an over-all Yugoslav/Czechoslovak/Soviet nationalist; on the other, as these countries comprised federal units which stood entire of themselves, some may feel as staunch nationalists that it is in their region's interest to be within the larger unit. This second example is slightly harder to explain, so I won't get into it just now. Yes I do regard myself as a Pan-Slavist. However, I live in the 21st century and my vision is forward, not backward. I am inspired by the ideologies of the 18th/19th centuries, and I do not long for the old chapters to return. I believe that it is for the good and not the bad that I have my views. Never the less, your detection of Pan-Slavic thinking coming from me was just as my assumption that you preach Croatian nationalism is to you. Whilst I make no attempt to hide my feelings, none of them came out when I wrote to you. I have entered similar conversations on Wikipedia when the topic has been remote from the Balkans and the Slavic world. You, and Ivan, and Kubura, all know your history about Croatia, its land and its people. I cannot compete with any of you! I am just a UK-born citizen to parents from Macedonia. Doesn't make me a historian on Dalmatia, I accept. Never the less, the overtones of systematic propaganda by political figures, including historical commentators, echo for miles. Do you know the problem with listening too much to political commentators posing as neutral "historians"? When you try too hard to promote an erroneous message, you come into conflict with logic. I don't know my Croatian history, my personal background is science, nature and philosophy; particularly linguistic which means more than most people realise. To take an example, Ivan - whom I respect with deep regards - stated, when defending Chakavian as purely Croatian, that by simply stating it to be a Croatian dialect automaticly confirmed its geographical position, and as such did not discriminate non-Croats; he used the term "dialectology". In other words: "Bavarian" is a dialect of German, even though non-Germans, and hence non-Bavarians (ie. Austrians) speak the same language dialectally but Bavarian being in Germany makes it a German dialect. I believe that the last statement was fair, after-all, Bayern (Bavaria) is the name of a region; Čakavska krčma is not! But if our mutual friend is right about dialects belonging to the country; then what about nations not to have a state? The Kurdish spoken in Turkey would be classed as Turkish, yet it is neither related to Standard Turkish nor are its speakers Turks. This is where the importance of "correct language naming" kicks in. Now you're not stupid, you know well that Chakavian is applicable to the Slavophonic community of the region, and the special dialect of Albanian spoken in Ulcinj is not a form of Serbian or Montenegrin. However, it is possible that when two neighbouring languages are related; dialects in one region can scientifically belong to the other language, much to the dismay of some locals. To take an example: Mirandese (spoken in Portugal) was some time back classified as being a dialect of Castillian Spanish. It is certainly almost identical to Asturian across the border in Spain; and if Mirandese is Portuguese, so is Asturian. The border is political. Natural linguistics do not follow the laws of human politics. Likewise, Galician of Spain is a separate language - from Castillian Spanish - but not in its own right. For years, it was one of the original ten languages to emerge from Latin but it was considered the same as Portuguese. Now you yourself probably know how long Spaina and Portugal have had thes eborders between them, centuries. The climate is changing, I know, there is no more talk of Galician-Portuguese as with Croato-Serbian, and Galician's autonomous status is slowly giving it distance from its old linguistic partner. But on principle, it is widely accepted that certain dialects are classed as being the language of the neighbouring country. So, discarding German is a widely used standard language: Bavarian falls into Austro-Bavarian. Austria's westernmost dialect is classified with Switzerland's German dialects. In reality Zenanarh? Even that is total nonsense. as I said, nowhere does something just halt abruptly. There is a smoother than smooth transition from Dutch (of the Netherlands) into German; from French (via Occitan) into Italian (via its northern dialects/languages). Now I had already conceded that it is unlikey that Serbs speak Chakavian, for dozens of reasons, the biggest of which being that most Serbs today call their language Croatian, whichever accent/dialect they have. But oddly enough, I wasn't really thinking of Serbs with the dialects. I don't know what gave you the "Pan-Slavic" approach here, but I was mainly referring to Slovenes whom I know had greater numbers in Istria on earlier censa (as people declare differently with passing time). You see, with these being non-standard dialects, there is no regulatory body and no call from speakers to start allowing certain institutions to use the dialects. If there were, I would bet my bottom dollars that Kajkavian would be instantly and unanymously considered a dialect of Slovene. It is more than the word "kaj" which links it with the other. Croats will oppose, of course, as they know the significant importance of Kajkavian to Croatian culture; and indeed, the speakers are still Croat. The question of Galician/Portuguese; Asturian/Mirandese; Moldovan/Romanian; Urdu/Panjabi, all provoke local argument. Now I know my own answer to these issues. Where there is a fixed standard to any any language, if the linguists generally refer to them as a variant of another language, my objective is to respect people's choice and identity. Now, this doesn't mean that I'm going to be ridiculous, and tell the Piedmontese citizens that their language is a dialect of French - or rather Occitan - when many today happily call themselves Italians. But, there is another way: you can place together these fixed languages, and state that : A dialect + B dialect, are two variations of a single language. That way, it remains scientific, unpolitical, and rather than causing biggots to look to their neighbouring country as a distant enemy, perhaps they could come to realise that they have more in common than originally thought. That is the reason why I am happy to stae the importance of Kajkavian and Chakavian to Croatian; and that its speakers are all Croat, as long as we explain its place along the continuum. Now I can't be fairer can I!!?? Pan-Slavism. No Zenanarh, I don't necessarily believe that Pan-Slavism involves a single state. I long for a world where we as people can embrace one another, can treat each other as though we were from the same country, and can stand as friends above all other nations. Many do actually do this. If I were a Serb in Croatia, 1991, and my principle belief was "Yugoslavia". I would not support any form of campaign against fellow citizens whom I considered a part of the same nation, therefore, being who I am, I did not support the RSK, nor the involvement from Belgrade. I'd have been inclined to "let them go", and if they dragged me along with them, I would only have asked that my being Serbian not hinder any prospects to living in the country, and that it be remembered that the state-nation is still Slavic, as I am, so therefore we all should cooperate with one another and work towards a future, where-by we try to make this new country successful, and that the new country - despite its name - treats all Slavic citizens equally. If cooperation can be promoted, there is no conflict. Now I don't care one bit about the Italians and the Germans. My concern is not with either of them (as a Pan-Slavist), all other non-Slavic nations, yes, I do care about them to a degree (again, speaking as a Pan-Slavist). My wife is Bulgarian. They too are South Slavs, but were never within the same country. It causes no inconvenience that when I go there, I am warmly embraced by Bulgarian patriots. Bulgarians, not having been involved in Yugoslavia's ugly affairs, have no reason to hate. They are happy to be considered Slavic, and they warmly embrace Russians, Czechs and peoples from our former republics. They are generally happy to communicate in Russian where they can, and even Macedonian/Serbian. They listen to all that Turbo-Folk crap, but that extends to music from Bosnia, Montenegro and Croatia; but sadly, the average Bulgarian only knows it all to be srabski (Serbian), even if it is Macedonian - so don't take offence if you go there. I see everyday Czechs and Slovaks are warm with each other, it pleases me. Poland too has an interesting history, although one nation: its regions bare names of older nations, who in turn maintain the name for their dialect etc. and it is evident that had these Slavic nations not united earlier with a common vision, they too may have ended up on the same tracks as the rest of us. Poland is an example of Slavic nations coming together to form a success. By the time everyone else was trying to do it, they'd forgotten how it started and mistakenly took themselves to be a single group! (All right, that's a bit humourous). I do speak Croatian. If and when I ever go there, if I get talking to anyone, I will make my feelings absolutely clear; I expect not to offend people, and to be taken in as one of the family. The subject of politics needn't even emerge, as you stated about Mujo and Hasan; we don't have to lose them! They are an integral part of all of us, and I love the jokes as well. Fair enough, it sidelines Bosniaks as the expence of all other former Yugoslavs, but they too have to realise that it is just a joke, nothing offencive. If there is a reality behind our being Slavic, from the same part of the world with elements of shared history, then we know what our mentality is from the word "go!", for instance, unlike outside the former Yugoslavia, we don't generally enquire what the other person's nationality is, but we do ask them how much they earn! In England, it is the opposite - "so where are you from then?" but never "how much do they pay you?" Among Italians, the "mother" is sacred, in the Slavic countries (I recently noticed Polish as well), the "mother" is the thing you fuck when you are angry along with the other person's sister and his tribe. Apparently, Italians don't like that, even the ones in Istria - I say, they know where they can go! Unity, among Slavic peoples, can exist in many ways. Just seeing our countries cooperate is good, and seeing us give each other points at the Eurovision is another example. It is everything from political voting to individuals able to meet and be friendly. I'm trying at the moment to pick up the Slovene language. I don't want to go there and them treat me as a foreigner: once I fuck "their mothers", they'll quickly see that I'm no outsider. I am of course joking. So far, I've been fortunate that when I have met Croats, Slovenes, even Russians here, there has always beena warm presence between them and me and a feleing of belonging to the same nation, whichever it is. I am happy for that and I don't wish to lose it. The English, on the other hand, with whom I have worked, have just about considered every foreigner (from fellow workers to lorry drivers) to be a country-man of mine, whereby there is trust between me and him, but not between me and them. You can't explain to an English worker the difference between Serbian and Croatian anything, so when they class all things foreign the same - I don't argue, I just agree. Then laugh at them behind their backs, or even to their faces without them noticing: I speak some Polish, I convinced this English woman who hates foreigners at a Service Station that Polish in my town is the official language ever since Poles formed a 54% majority there, and that from February 1st, 2009, English will be forbiden in public. She was stupid enough to believe it, and her response, "they bastards come here, take our jobs, bla bla bla!" we need never lose the Mojo/Hasan jokes, nor the jokes about lazy Montenegrins, buried upright for spending his whole life lying down. I've never known a Montenegrin take offence, one friend of mine, 2,10m tall, his fingers are the length of my hand, and he'd laugh his bollocks off at that joke. This is it. This is where my Pan-Slavism ends. Back on a serios note, you say "look what happened in the 20th century", I can respond - mistakes were made at an administrative level. I don't let them deter me from supporting a second try, but only if I am personally declared "Dictator for Life" and what I say goes. Then it will be different, but I won't settle for Minister of Education. It's all or nothing. But if I did things my way, I'm sure everyone would be happy; in three generations time. Zenenarh, do not consider me a foreigner. I respect Croatia and everything it stands for. In any confrontation involving Croats and outsiders, I'll be down on your side like a stone through a wet paper bag; I did briefly take part in the Marco Polo discussion, now I have some evidence of his Croatian background, but Italians don't buy it; they block their ears and cry out loud the rubbish that they wish to feed the planet. I hope we are clear with each other where we stand now! Pozdrav. Evlekis (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh, if you can find anything to do with Dalmatian, or the West Balkan Romance languages, please send me a link; whether it be in Croatian (or Bosnian/Serbian if you like, given that you have the ability to read them without being funny) or English. I am very intersted in these languages, especially Dalmatian which I know is the one major tongue descended from Latin which had all its speakers die out. Many languages are influenced by neighbouring languages and the only ones who arn't are those whose academics went through great lengths to remove their features; I speak of Greek Katahervousa, which went through the trouble of removing all Turkish origin words. Whilst Greek had something of a diglossia between this variation and dimotiki (Demotic) - similar to the Norwegian system of Bokmål and Nynorsk if you are slightly familar - it was eventually decided to use the more people-friendly Dimotiki, and so some Turkish words were gradually reintroduced. But on the whole, you'll find that standard Croatian has more Turkish origin words than Greek, yet your lands spent far less time subjugated by the Ottomans; parts of modern-day Greece, rather like my parents' native Macedonia, spent the full 500 years in that Empire. And as you don't need me to tell you, the farther south/east you travel from Croatia, the more the vernacular maintains Turkish vocabulary. Serbian more than Croatian, but Macedonian and Albanian both more than Serbian (eg. where Serbian uses lopta, Macedonian uses topka, on top, Turkish for ball) and Bulgarian has more than anyone... how does Greek come to miss it? Back to Croatia, I've always been interested in how Romance languages influenced all our South Slavic languages. These features range from the post-Vulgar period which was being spoken whilst our ancestors settled, to the newly developed tongues with which we all came into contact: Dalmatian, Istriot (for whatever it truely is), the various dialects of Romanian (especially away from Romania, but where the Vlach populations live), and in your case especially, Venetian. It is one of the key characteristics of South Slavic languages which separate them from West and East Slavic, whose only Romance words are the later-introduced internationalisms such as "informacja" to use a Polish example. It is good that Dalmatian is preserved somewhere, my interests lie with whether Istro-Romanian forms a link between the other Romanian dialects and Dalmatian. Dalmatian is classifed as West Romance and Istro-Romanian, whilst removed from Daclo-Romanian (of Romania) remains a dialect of it, and is said to be the western-most extreme of this language. If a link exists between Istro-Romanian and Dalmatian then the languages were continuous in dialect until the 19th century, but only if. Meanwhile, Istriot and its formation is of interest to me, particularly its relationship to other Romance languages. Is it a complete isolate? Does it relate to Ventian/maybe Friulian dialects? or old Dalmatian? or the eastern Romance languages. If you know of any link, please send it, cheers. Evlekis (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re
While I doubt Giove isn't present in some reincarnation somewhere on enWiki or itWiki, I don't think this is him. This guy is more interested in Dubrovnik and associated personages. Talk to him, maybe it can be resolved with discussion. Most importantly, stay calm and be polite, you know how it is... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Place names & Wikipedia policy
I have noticed that there are many articles that include geographical place names in more than one language, such as, for example Rijeka/Fiume or Zadar (Zara) etc. I would like to draw your attention to the relevant Wikipedia policy on this matter, which is strict and explicit, and says that this is not permitted. It is WP:NCGN and you should read it carefully. Basically, it says that: Therefore, under this rule, non-English place names must be removed from all articles to standardise the encyclopedia and avoid confusion. Please remove non-English place names, and edit summaries that do so should mention this policy WP:NCGN. I have started this standardisation but I cannot cover all the articles. Please help out here and encourage other editors to comply with official policy. Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the English Wikipedia, only English names should be used. This means, except in a few cases, the modern most commonly used modern name, such as Trieste, Istria, Montenegro etc.
 * Non English names can be mentioned once, in the lead section.
 * Where an article is explicitly about a period of time in a place (eg the Republic of Ragusa) it seems the foreign name is acceptable.

Your un discussed deletion
In Marco Polo birthplace, you have deleted my edit with no reason. Don't do it again.Marco Pagot (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the author of the text. User:DIREKTOR made some gram tweaks, you've jumped in suddenly doing what exactly? Explain it in the talk page! Zenanarh (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)You are not the "owner" of the article. 2) You don't appear to be the original author of it (BTW). 3) What I do is self evident. If you think that I've done some mistake correct the single mistake (I don't claim to be perfect). But don't revert all: this is quite uneducated! 4) I can't discuss anything if you do not say where I am wrong (if I am wrong).--Marco Pagot (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Of course I'm not. 2) I didn't create the article it's true, however I've edited more than 95% of the text there with references. 3) You're right it's self evident, I didn't find anything relevant in your changes except Dalatia - Dalmatia. 4) As I said let's go to the talk page, there you can explain each of your changes. You were able to do it already. Or you want me to ask you: why this? why that? how come? Zenanarh (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd warning you have again deleted my work. For the 2nd time. Next time it will be a 3RR violation! Even if you will call some friend of you for the 3d revert. If my edits are not "relevant" they are for sure not wrong, so don't delete them. Correct my errors even directly in the article. Because I CAN'T be wrong in all, you are not allowed to revert ALL. I warn you: next time, the moderator! Regards--Marco Pagot (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down baby, stop with that childish screaming, all your crucial changes were wrong in my opinion except one grammatic error. As I said I'm waiting for your explanations in Talk:Birthplace of Marco Polo. Zenanarh (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back GG. How are you these days? I was wondering what had happened to you. Quite a long wikibreak, eh? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Caro amico! Long time no read, what have you been up to all this time? Nice one Alasdair, I honestly had no idea it was Him, though I suppose I should have suspected something... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew it was him actually, completely the same behaviour: speedy edit warring and threats, capital letters in every second sentence, specific comunnication, 3RR obsession, return to the place of his last sin - Marco Polo and grammatical errors like un discussed :) I was hoping he will write some more to be sure. :) Zenanarh (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Croatian islands and cities
Hi, I have been noticing there is some irredentist-like Italian fixed on italianizing pages of Croatian islands and cities by adding Italian names to the pages. I noticed that you have reverted some, and I have spent the last few days reverting most of his edits. I wouldn't have a problem if there was a need for it, but this guy seems fixed on just adding every Italian thing he could to Dalmatian area. Is there anyway you think that the guy could be blocked or the pages semi-protected? Best. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Zen, I've reverted all Jesuislafete's edits and dropped him/her a note on his/her talk page. What we need to do, as I've said to Jesusislafete is to standardise all the articles. If we all apply the policy properly then we can raise the quality across all the Istria-Dalmatia articles. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Poreč
Zen, please have a look at Poreč, which I've cleaned up but of course have upset the chicken's nest a bit. I need help with census data, where you know a million times more than me. In fact, maybe, generally, could you follow me around, as my intention is to gradually (but ASAP) bring every article into the kind of standardisation that we've talked about. I'll buy you a beer/many beers. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zen :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Many beers. Zenanarh (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject Croatia banner
Hi Zen, I have created a new banner with class and importance functionality for WikiProject Croatia several days ago. I've been seeking input on the WP:CRO talk page, but no one has answered yet. Should I remove the old banner? Admiral Norton (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zadarska povist
Evo ti članak o zadarskoj povisti, ali ne može ga se skinit internetski, morat ćeš poći u knjižnicu. As far as I've managed to see, really interesting article. The fin-de siècle in Zadar – political and social conditions in Zadar and Dalmatia on the eve of the First World War. Even the summary might be helpful. Kubura (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: PaxEquilibrium
Wow... Well I suppose I never did face him in a serious argument. He certainly seemed ok... Btw, Zen, have a look at the Pula talkpage -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian maps
Sure. I would be happy to do so. It may take a while. I will need some sources depicting the correct territories of the various tribes. Hxseek (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia
Can you please look list of prominent Serbs from Croatia in this article. I have deleted many of names writen by POV editor user:Mike Babic (if you do not believe that he is POV look his user page). In my thinking prominent are person know outside of ex Yugoslavia borders ?--Rjecina (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

South slavs
Hey Z. i just all of a suddne wanted to write a discussion/ appraisal about the ethnology of south slavs. I want to include it in the south slavs article. Since you are a bit of an ethnologist also, please check this out when you have some time :


 * The origin of Slavs has been a challenging question for scholars. The most widely accepted theory was that the proto- Slavs originated in Eastern Europe, in the vicinity of southern Poland or Ukraine. From there, they spread about in all directions in the 5th and sixth centuries.

Pavel Josef Safarik developed an eastern European origin for the Slavs based, in part, on the work of Jordanes’ Getica, which equated the Sclavenes with the Venethi. The Venethi were an ancient tribe who had been mentioned by earlier sources such as Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy and Tacitus. Thus the Slavs were given a “respectable antiquity” far preceding the sixth century.

In the 19th century, theories of the Slavic urmeheit were predominantly developed by linguists and philologists. Scholars such as Safarik argued that language is the defining factor in the formation of a culture. Therefore in the absence of written sources, constructing a Common Slavic from modern Slavic languages meant reconstructing the social and cultural life of early Slavs. Using a linguistic approach, A L Pogodin traced the origin of Slavs to the regions of Volhynia and Podolia in southern Poland, where the oldest Slavic hydronyms exist. J Rostafinksi, a Polish botanist, argued that the Slavic homeland was devoid of beech, larch and yew (because in all Slavic languages the words for the above trees are of Germanic origin), but all had an old Slavic word for hornbeam – distributed in the marshes along the Pripet river in Ukraine.

The rise of archaeology post world wars merely confirmed the theories developed by the linguists. Focusing on pottery in particular, archaeologists placed the Prague, Penkovo and Kiev types as exclusively Slavic pottery. Valentin Sedov places these as the successors of the Przeworsk culture, often connected to the Venethi.

However a conundrum exists. How could an obscure, apparently backward culture appear on the scene so suddenly and populate almost half of Europe? Lubor Nierdele put forward the idea that climate and soil shape a civilisation. The harsh conditions of the Pripet marshes forced the Slavs into a poor level of civilisation. Only contact with the advanced Roman Empire made it possible for the Slavs to abandon their entirely wood-based culture and start producing their unique ‘Slavic’ pottery – deemed an intermediary between Roman and medieval styles. The unfavourable conditions of their homeland also ensured the development of social organisation based on cooperation of large family units called zadrugas. This was based on a principal of social equality and curtailed any attempts of centralisation of economic or political power – the “democracy” referred to by Procopius. Subsequent overpopulation necessitated outward migration. Safarik further postulates that the Slavic colonisation of Eastern Europe was not a violent conquest, but a peaceful colonisation of agriculturalists. Indeed, Procopius remarked at the willingness with which Slavic military units added new prisoners to their ranks.

For the centuries preceding the fall of Rome, the proto-Slavs must have been exposed to the numerous confederacies that ‘ruled’ over the vast Eurasian step stretching from the Danube to the Dnieper- Don basin. The Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns all had great empires but ultimately collapsed and disappeared from history. These steppe nomads organised and controlled some Slavic speaking tribes into military units. In the service of the nomad rulers, the ranks of the Slavic military units swelled and became spread throughout much of Eastern Europe. In the 5th century, a great changing of the status quo occurred - the Hun Confederacy and the Roman Empire collapsed as Germanic tribes pushed westward. The Slavs filled the power vacuum. According to Byzantine sources, they appeared by the hundreds of thousands on the northern bank of the Danube, pouring into the Balkans and pushing west toward the Elbe.

But rather than a sudden explosion of Slavic migration, their pre-eminence in Eastern Europe may perhaps be more accurately described as a rise of a new leading clan amongst the poly-ethnic soup of peoples. Slavic became the lingua franca over a vast area stretching from the Danube to the Baltic Sea. There was a process of “gradual Slavicity” where non-Slavic tribes became Slavic because they adopted Slavic language.

Essentially by the 5th century, the Slavs were a collection of heteregenous people. This challenges previous ideas of ethnicity – the views of the primordialists who view an ethnic group as biologically identical and of common origin. Instead scholars such as Walter Pohl argue that ethnicity is a term constructed by rulers and leading clans using amalgamative metaphors such as the concepts of kinship and ancestral aboriginality. Such charismatic rulers formed the nuclei of ethnicity, carrying traditions and myths to legitimise their rule and gather adherents. Throughout history ethnicity has been ever changing, as people join and disband from these nuclei of culture. At times, they would all together disappear when the leading clans is defeated by a challenger.

This suggests that for all comings and goings of tribes through the Balkans, the overall population has remained relatively steady. All the ‘mass migrations’ of tribes after the fall of Rome were probably undertaken by small numbers of military elites that recruited or enslaved the numerically superior but militarily disorganised local populace. Yet, the Romans and Greeks called the entire population “Goths” or “Huns” because they were the paramount clan in a given area at a given time.

This gives credence to the notion that modern South Slavs are merely Slavicized paleolithic Balkaners. Previous ideas such as the Illyrian movement were largely dismissed by the out of Ukraine school of thought. However, we can see that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Population genetic studies indeed show that genetic ancestry of south Slavs can be traced to predominantly originate from the Balkans since Palaeolithic and Neolithic times.

Hxseek (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Podgorica Assembly
Can you please look this article (my version if there is revert by Pax puppet) and edit article in better english ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Star
Well that's very nice of you Zenanarh. But can I ask you one question! Was that award meant as some kind of joke or are these things serious? Don't worry, I'm not upset by anything! Evlekis (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, both... Bold is joke, the rest is serious. Zenanarh (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I mean... it's joke... but I meant what I wrote. I saw your huge message on Kubura's page and couldn't resist. Nothing negative, sorry. Zenanarh (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about "Krajina"
Thanks for the reply. You've given me much to answer you, so prepare yourself, this will be long! Now I know very well that the land known as "Krajina" was not a regional unit recognised within Croatia, I know it was only of interest to the largely Serb population which opposed Croatian indepdendence (anyone who tells you that it was 100% Serb is misinformed, as I know there was a Vlach population living in isolated numbers and most of them declared their support for the RSK), but how can I speak of a region which was a part of Lika, a part of Dalmatia etc? It's long and painful for the fingers! The most honest reference is the "land held by the Serbs" but that is also long, so let's use Krajina between ourselves, as we've both established that we both know that it is irrelevant to the Republic of Croatia. Now at this stage, I wish to inform you that I won't be saving any more comments on the Operation Storm talk page for the time being. I feel disheartened that I failed to persuade the bulk of the recurring editors that "retook" was inappropriate, which was my main intention. Upon that note, I will retire from making edits to politically based articles, I feel it is futile. I am capable of making up my own mind, but others only know how the read the words thrown at them literally. Now you tell me that I come from "that group of people" with a distorted vision. I say, nobody has a distorted vision, everyone can see the scenario exactly as it is. This "distortion" is based on a failure to realise that an object can be obrseved from several different angles, and it is these alternative vantage points which serve as the basis for one man's thinking. Now you have never asked me before "Evlekis, how do you feel about the old RSK etc and the Serbs of Croatia?", and I rarely transmit my true thoughts about anything anyway. You assumed that my editing style gave away my political position. Now here is a true insight: if the Serb declaration of independence had come just seven hours after the Republic of Croatia announced its own, I would have never argued with "retook". If those Serbs had not declared independence, but had merely waged the same campaign against the security forces loyal to Zagreb as is the case in Sudan with the SLM, all in the hope of achieving an independent entity, I never would have opposed the words "rebel" or "separatist" either. I only looked at the siatuation: what happened; what do we agree happened, and I based by writing on those issues. I did not engage in an argument where-by I believed anyone to be right or wrong, acting legally or illegally, morally or immorally. The following notes are extremely long, you don't have to read them all now. I've nubered them for simplicity. Respond whenever you wish, and don't resort to hard feelings, as I have no ill-founded opinion of you. You however have done so. Each time you've made discussion page edits, you've spoken from the heart and have published your personal experiences. Now I can tell you a number of things, and believe me, you are not going to like them, but I must warn you in advance: I am not pro-Serb in the debate, which is as well, because if you or the other Storm regular editors ever came up against an actual Serb heavyweight with facts at his fingertips and private experiences to reveal, there'd be one almightly battle to end all battles. Remember Zenanarh, I am not an expert on the "what happened" side of things. I said before and I say again, my strong points are science and philosophy (regarding sociopolitical issues). I know the causes and the reasons for things and the nature of the responses. This means that when one is too wrapped up in his party's propaganda, he begins to produce illogical statements which are all the rage among the warring community, and among the unsuspecting observers who read the publications, but I don't get fooled. There is no political report that I cannot watch where-by no fewer than 20 questions pop up which I'd like to ask, but you know how it is: CNN give you the lowdown, how can any individual scrutinise this reporter? You're unlikely to meet him, and he won't listen to you if you did. So from the beginning:


 * 1. Post World War II Yugoslav authorities encouraged Serbs from Serbia to settle in "Krajina", so that if the plan works, they have "Greater Serbia", and if it fails, they have homes to return to. Sorry friend, but that statement is absolute bullshit in its entirety. I don't accuse you of lying, nor that something had taken place which led you to believe this. But let's examine the facts: Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic entity, created by hardliners from all of its regions which fought one bitter and bloody war to create a country which aimed to serve the failed principles of the first Yugoslavia in that it served its Slavic population whilst curving the internal nationalism. Conflict arose about how they should go about it, but the man in power - Tito - chose to establish the now all too well known republics, and have the citizens identify by the nationality of their choice. The first few years of Yugoslavia's existence were marked by its Population Reorganisation Plan (I coined that term, so don't "Google" it!); first there were the Bleiburg killings, which you know about, an act of retribution against a mostly Croat civilian population; then there was the identity cleansing of the ethnic Germans, I believe that they were forcefully Hungarianised with one part of the population opting to leave; then there was the Foibe chapter, the removal and killings of those Italians in a heated territorial dispute in which Yugoslavia tried to get Trieste (presumably for its Slovenian Socialist Republic), whilst Italy wanted lost interwar territories. With other lesser implementations concerning the population, it was all together clear that this new country spent much of its first days ridding itself of the bad apples to create an environment in which it hoped that its new nations would live in peace and harmony. So by around 1950, anyone still inside the country using the ethnicity chosen by himself was no threat, either as an individual, or as part of the wider ethnic group. Religion, as you know, could be used as a symbol for national identity in the sense of separatism, and so its practice was silenced (note, this is just one reason, though not all). As such, there could have been no doubts in the minds of the authorities that one part of the population was more trust-worthy than the other. And even if they did suspect this, that line of doubt couldn't possibly be along ethnic lines, "the Serbs can be trusted to be good Yugoslavs but not the Croats." Apart from the fact that people now knew what happens to the dissident population, the new Croatia was a fundemental instrument at the heart of the new Yugoslav entity. If the Post-War Croatian population could not be trusted, with such fine players as Franjo Tudjman who fought as a Partizan, then who could be trusted? The Yugoslav authorities did not have to encourage one part of its ethnic population to settle in another area, it was not founded on a "what might happen tomorrow?" platform, but one of confidence such as "this is how it must always be". Tito and his authorities, having overcome opposition which aimed to make Yugoslavia a unitary entity consisting of one predominant Yugoslav ethnicity in the style of Italy (which has experienced similar problems from its first days to present) - and one which I don't mind telling you right now, I would have preferred (to end all suspiction that I favour Serbian aspirations) - had the power to draw the internal borders as and where they chose. Had they wished to include the "Krajina" and Eastern Bosnia within Serbia, they could have done so. There was no requirement for the territory to have an absolute ethnic Serb majority. Likewise, if this were undesirable from the very top, if the region of Krajina needed to be within Croatia but the Serb local interests catered for, then there may well have been a need to increase the percentage of Serbs for future objectives, but first, it would have needed the existence of an autonomous province at the same level of Kosovo and Vojvodina; honourary in the beginning (1946) only to gradually have more and more power decantralised and devolved to it with each new constitution until 1974 when which the "Krajina" authorities were totally detached from Zagreb dependence. But as you know, this never happened; the authorities which you claimed encouraged relocation in large numbers did nothing for that population on its new terrain, yet it reduced the territory of that nation's home republic by creating two autonomous provinces and then devolving more and more authority to them with the passing years. A common myth quoted by some former Yugoslav ethnicities is that "Serbs were all powerful", yet if they were, how did their republic manage to lose its grip on Kosovo and Vojvodina? And why were such entities not created anywhere else? As you are reading this Zenanarh, are already mentally starting to answer that question? About Kosovo and Vojvodina and their positions within federal Serbia? If so, you're doing so too soon, because there are other issues involving the weakening of Serbia in post-war Yugoslavia. What about the very creations of Macedonia and Montenegro? These were not autonomous provinces but republics, carved out from former Serbia: Montenegro was "tricked" into drowning itself into Serbia for the benefit of the first Kingdom, but Macedonia's FYR actually fell to the Kingdom in 1912 when its own citizens fought the last of its Ottomans. And this is my part of the world, and I'll tell you, that at that time, a fair chunk of the population called itself "Serb", and those who didn't were mostly "Bulgarian". Not a great many ethnic Macedonians from that time. So if your statement were true, then this multi-ethnic authority would have had some kind of identity crisis, not sure what it was ever trying to achieve. But if you meant that this was some secret coming only from the Serbian authorities, then these people would have been acting in stealth, and I don't see how such great transfer in population could be secret, with nobody suspecting anything until Census Day in 1991. In addition, it would now appear that the Yugoslav Idea was not supported by anyone, and everyone in it was trapped by an invisible force and made to serve it, because if these Serbs were unhappy with things as they were, and if the other republics truely had resentment, then who was in the driving seat? The whole thing would not only have fallen apart from the beginning, but it wouldn't have even emerged in the first place. Just as Bulgaria and its South-Slavic population never joined; you also might never have entered such a phase. All that might have happened was that WWII may have continued a little longer with all of Yugoslavia's ethnicities fighting their 90's wars in advance to try to win what they could until either powerful outsiders intereved militarily or negotiations were reached and new borders were drawn. But some resilient people in some prestigious places opted for a united Slavic country, and they knew who they were, and what their intentions were; as I said earlier, some may have had different ideas (even for a united Yugoslavia), but they were either silenced, expelled, or given the opportunity to occupy important poisitions so long as they cooperated with the powerful body. There is no conflict within a powerful body, all its ideologies, boundries, laws and fundemental practices are founded in advance. The only way radical changes can happen is if that powerful body is physically ousted: this is another tehcnical issue I won't bore you with, but I know from following events around the world, from Zimbabwe and Mauritania every day as we write, to Myanmar in the long run, to Ethiopia years ago, to everything everywhere, not just the Balkans. But that ousting needn't always be a coup or a civil uprising, sometimes it can happen behind the scenes with the public not even knowing. So any serbs who settled in "Krajina" throughout the 1943-91 period, were conscious that they were serving a Pan-Serbian interest, so they can only have been in communication with Serbian nationalist agents within the Republic of Serbia, who in turn were acting behind the backs of the authorities who directly posed a threat to them. No other way could those authorities have taken Macedonia's two million citizens from Serbia; Montenegro's fewer-than-half-a-million-at-the-time citizens and give its local authority the same rights as Slovenia, and create a further mockery by creating autonomous provinces within Serbia. It's like insult to injury, Serbs clearly had no power to prevent the status of Kosovo and Vojvodina emerging, so they couldn't have infuenced how they stood either; the Yugoslav authorities could have easily gone all the way and put Serbia out of its mysery by declaring them the 7th and 8th republics, but by making them nominally Serbia and then in 1974 arranging their governments so that they answered directly to the federal capital and were able to bypass Serbia completely - but nominally within Serbia - must have really insulted some Serbs. If Serbia's population is around 10 million, and Albanians were arround 2 million, they made up a fifth of the population. In Macedonia, where Albanians were similarly concentrated, their approximate half a million out of two million meant that they comprised 25% of the overall population, but no status was awarded to a Western Macedonian-Albanian authority. So it is clear that only anti-Yugoslav Serbs may have encouraged its population to inhabit "Krajina", and those Krajina-Serbs must have known this. With regards to "placing Serbs in a 'Greater Serbia' in advance", I have a question for you. What was so special about "Krajina"? Was it the only zone which single-state Serb nationalists wished to conquer? Were there not other parts of Croatia which were both traditionally inhabited by some Serbs, and featured on a map of a proposed Serb state? How about the entire southern half of the Adriatic coast? Dubrovnik may have been beseiged in the early stages of the war, but that not the same as an earlier project aimed to create a Serb majority not only in Dubrovnik but the entire Nerevta county region. Forget the seige and shelling, the local Serbs could have declared independence either as a single entity, or as part of Krajina and Eastern Slavonia. How about the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Never mind Eastern Bosnia, they could have distributed these Serbs far and wide and here it was even easier. Bosnia, being characterised by many municipalities having a relative majority thanks to the recognition of ethnic Muslims, meant that Serbs only needed to establish a reasonably heavy presence of Serb pluralities throughout todays Federation of BiH. I mean, apart from the fact that Serb and Croat nationalists view Bosnia's muslims as theirs, who could have known in 1961 that the Muslims and Croats would once unite to overpower the Serbs? And there weren't that many clues in 1992 either were there? Because for about 18 or so months, there was an armed conflict between Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Only the Washington agreement of 1994 put an end to it. How about establishing a Serb presence throughout all of Montenegro? They had a traditional one in Montenegro's north, as Montenegro's new borders encompassed a part of the Sandžak previously in Serbia even when a Montenegrin entity last existed. But with Montenegro being so sparse, just transferring a few thousands here and there and a Serb character may quickly have developed over the years. Nobody could have known in 1946 that if the republics choose to split, Montenegro will remain in league with Serbia. Montenegro's existence is founded on a principle that it is not a part of any kind of Serbia. Nationalist Serbs also realise that their territorial integrity of Montenegro must forbid the existence of a Montenegrin entity, and that was what happened in 1918. The same is of Macedonia, if you cannot encourage Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians and Montenegrins that they are Serb, send in Serb families over the decades, form majorities and pluralities everywhere, and when the time is right, foment revolution! Break away in one piece, Hello Greater Serbia! But none of this ever happened. Serbia, blamed for the break-up and the wars, was premature; perhaps it should have waited until even bigger Serb majorities existed, rather than Macedonia's mere 2% Serb population; and even they are mostly families who never took a Macedonian ethnicity, rather than ones who relocated from Serbia. Now if I were a conscious Serb nationalist living in 1950, I'd naturally have my reasons to oppose a Yugoslav entity, and would mourn the existence of "Krajina" within Croatia when there was some form of Serb population there. But I would be more determined to establish the Serb territories lost first, such as the provinces within Serbia, followed by Macedonia and Montenegro, and then start from the near side forward, that means Bosnia, Eastern Slavonia, and work my way to Krajina at the end, as the final chunk. And if that's what I would do, why would anyone do different? Of course you could argue that the Serbs probably didn't have enough people to spare to achieve majorities all over. But that is easily overcome. First of all, much of Central Serbia has an absolute Serb majority, and moving the whole of Kragujevac and Kraljevo into one region could have increased the population by 200,000+ in that territory without harming the Serb majority in central Serbia. In addition, once the empires came to an end (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman etc), no new country existed which included Central Serbia as unredeemed territory. Obviously there is the odd exception, Albanian Kosovo, for long complicated reasons, incorporates the Preševo Valley into Estern Kosovo, but that does nothing to the rest of the territory. Were these Serbs looking to become a majority overnight in "Krajina"? No ofcourse not, so why did the conscious Serbs not do what the Albanians of Kosovo did, and have ten children per household? Have grandfathers shagging the aunts, anything to create a proliferation of children, children, children and bolster ones own ethnic presence? Most Albanians I know from Albania have one or two siblings at most, most Serbs I know from Krajina have just the one sibling, and most Albanians I know from Kosovo have five from one parent and five from the other. Just my experiences Zenanarh, as you give yours too. So I just do not believe this nonsense about Post WWII authorities encouraging Serbs to settle in "Krajina".

Sorry that was long, but there are other points, not so long fortunately. They are in no particular order except that it was the order in which they appeared in your e-mail.
 * 2. Only hard-core Serb nationalists recognised "Krajina" as Serb. This is a contradiction in terms. Hardcore Serb nationalists recognise only one state (NOT republic, get that straight) which incorporates the non-diaspora Serb population, and the self-proclaimed Serbian lands. They do not declare independence for small ethnic regions and have a parliament separate from another existing Serbian parliament. If that other Serbian parliament fails to merge with the newly declared body, it becomes an enemy of the Serb nationalist and his goal is to capture its grounds (Belgrade) and duristiction (Serbia, and Montenegro), and incorporate it into the "Serbia only" entity. Yes that might mean settling up new quarters in Belgrade if Belgrade be considered the city of importance. Italy did the same thing in 1871, it smashed the Papal States to capture Rome, then made Rome the capital by moving themselves in. The trouble is, just because a united party of Serbs, in unison with other Serbs elsewhere, fought against Croatia, you feel that it has got to be in the name of "Serb nationalism", and not just any kind, but "hard-core natioanlism". In reality, there is no split within Serbian nationalism, with a "hard-core" and a "soft-core". The foundations are lain down, the maps are complete, the government type confirmed, the rules written: it is a mere referendum, you either are a Serb nationalist, or you are not. By not being one, does not mean that you are less Serb, nor that you may have less power. And that is how it is with Croatian nationalism, Albanian, Greek, Italian, Spanish, everyone. There may arise conflict among nationalists, how do we achieve these goals, I say this way, you say that way, but there is no conflict regarding what those goals are. As I told you before, an independent Krajina is not a hallmark of Serb nationalism. It is however, an evil (because to me, all nation building is evil), it is also a venture to support a single ethnic group. The authorities of that body performed some atrocious acts against dissident memebers of its population, and created a hostile environment for the Croats and Bosniaks. However, the Croats and the Serbs both bore the characteristics of medieval tribal factions; not because they tried to wipe each other out, but because neither of them would budge one inch. In 1995, you had the Z4 plan which aimed to end of the war in Croatia by creating an entity similar to today's Bosnia and Herzegovina in which the region is "retaken" (as you put it) by Croatia, and "autonomous" within the war zones, as the Serbs once put it. No, not enough, we Croats declared our independence on the grounds that our republic will maintain its unitary status, and no such population will have any privileges. Whilst from the other side: definitely not, we are a legal majorirty population of Serbs and have marked our boundries, we don't want to be a part of a united Croatia in any shape, and we have our principles for the legality of this republic so we will not give it up. Rather like cats and dogs. But the plain fact is, that Croatia's independence architects acted purely from self-interest motives: they produced the rhetoric which you repeated on my talk page, and chose not to make concessions for the ethnic minorities. For the Italians and the Hungarians, it can't have meant much, but for the Serbs, it meant changing from the status of "Serb living in Serbia/Yugoslavia" to "Serb living in the USA" whilst remaining in his front living room. I'll get back to this one later. But let me assure you of one thing: Croatian propaganda was all "Greater Serbia, Greater Serbia" and Serbian propaganda "Ustashe, Ustashe." I am one of the few who does not subsribe to either of these fallacies, and one cannot honestly be true without the other. All this talk of "our good faith moderate faction against an enemy evil agressor" is sheer nonsense. If you look at the page on HDZ, it was I who recently took out "nationalism" as its ideology. I know what Croatian nationalism entails, and the HDZ is not nationalist. Of course, some bastard replaced it with Moderate nationalism and I gave up. No such thing, but pointless arguing there. All the famous people about whom we write from entertainment to politics all speak of how unreliable Wikipedia is, another reason I will retire from the political presentations. Serbs and Croats were at war (even though their armies comprised non-Serb and non-Croat participants); that war was based on holding diametrically opposed views, and not on the factions being "nationalist" (I am defending Croats here as much as Serbs, not that I condemn "nationalism" in the first place, but I know how to identify it, others don't). Croatia going independent did not mean that this was an act of "natioanlism". Nationalists led Serbs and Croats into their first union in 1918. Non-nationalists led Macedonia and Montenegro out of the federation. And Kosovo is a symbol of anti-nationalism, Albanian nationalists also traditionally advocate a single state, and Kosovo is like Cyrpus to the Greeks. Greek nationalists long for one Greek state but Cyrpus is an independent entity where-by its population identifies as Greek, not Cypriot. I'd say the same for Northern Cyprus regarding the Turks but is is widely unrecognised. If Tudjman made clear in December 1990 that future Croatian independence would not benefit his Serb minority, then those Serbs, who not only opposed being reduced in status but were opposed to independence too, simply could not be expected to remain inactive. The fact that they had help from a power affiliate in the form of Serbia-porper was a bonus which gave them the strength to fight for their own aspirations for four years. Sad though the consequenses were, I conclude that neither the Croatian independence lobby, nor the Serb Krajina enthusiasts were true nationalists of their own nations. I will not interfere with what the articles say because I can make my own decisions.


 * 3. You mentioned Kosovo and "Krajina" not being the same thing, because Kosovo existed in some shape. Actually, precious as the region is to Serbs, the name of the territory was not important. It was having those lands which satisfied the Serbs. Sadly, my knowledge isn't good enough to explain to you the lands which the Serbs call Kosovo, but I can tell you two things: upon winning back the region in 1912 and living through the first Kingdom until WWII, no Kosovo entity existed, even so, a part of what had previously been in the Ottoman Vilayet of Kosovo had already been surrendered at the Treaty of London, 1913, to the newly independent Albania which the Serbs and Greeks had wanted to split between them. By the time Kosovo was nominally back on the political scene in 1946, other parts of it had already been bitten off to create the new entities of Montenegro and Macedonia (Skopje was the capital). Its creation was the work of Yugoslavia's federal authorities and it was carved purposely for the benefit of an Albanian population living within it as thanks for their contributions during the war. A final part of the old province remains within Central Serbia to this day. By the time Miloševič rose to power, he used past anti-Serb measures to his advantage, not by cancelling Kosovo's autonomy nor by indentity-cleansing the Albanians, but by keeping the province and reverting it to its pre-1974 status, giving its authority only what it had at the last revision of 1971, not enough to give an Albanian parliament absolute power over Serbia within the region. That way, he kept the legality of a Kosovan province and authority. You did say he was clever.


 * 4. You mentioned how shameful the Serb nationalists of Krajina were during their short reign. You choose your words carefully. So do I. There was nothing shameful about them at all. This is the voice of Croatian superiority calling here. I recall that you told me about some Serbs who fought along side you against the "Serb agressor" during the Homeland Wars. I appreciate that you, Zenanarh, do not hate people for being Serb. There is another user on Wikipedia called Davu.Leon, a man who knows all his ins and outs about the Kosovo conflict, a man who despite being Irish can speak of Albanian innocence against a Serb agressor rather like you. He is just about convinved that every pro-Albanian fairytale is true, and every Serb claim is false. How can you argue with someone who considers the US government and NATO as third parties with no interest? With Anglo-American high profile media being "neutral"? And with the Hague War Crimes court and its findings being reliable material. May be reliable for Wikipedia because of its policies, and reliable when convincing the already converted, but not the rest of the world's citizens. To me, "reliable" means that two sides of a conflict can consult this device to give them the correct answer and the past conflict is closed. This miracle doesn't exist. Back to the "shameful Serbs". I have never considered the Albanian actions as shameful throughout the 1990's in their campaign for an independent Kosovo. I've never considered the actions of their authorities as shameful when they did some outrageous things in their attempts to press for greater autonomy throughout the 1980's. I have never considered the Kurds as shameful in their struggles in their lands, least of all Turkey where I sympathise strongest with them; although the same party is involved, I have least time for the Kurds of Iraq, I won't go into why. Still I don't call them "shameful". I do not consider the Beafrans as "shameful" for their anti-Nigerian campaign between 1967 and 1970, nor the Anjouan people today in the Comoros. I certainly never critisised the Croats in their autonomous campaign in Herceg-Bosna, neither did I criticise the Bosnian Muslims throughout Bosnia who supported Fikret Abdić. Likewise, I do not condemn the ARBiH for its campaign against its opponents throughout the Bosnian conflict, and some of them would shock you. I don't codemn ETA, but I would offer stronger support (for private reasons) to a campaign against the French over the border (but only whilst the UPM are in power in France, again, for technical reasons which I won't go into). Mr.Davu.leon is not anti-Serb. He wrote in a statement to an Albanian that "not all Serbs are bad, as there are many in Kosovo who have admitted their actions and condemned them". Now let me anaylise you and him and your attitutes towards these Serbs: Kosovan Albanians wage an armed campaign against Belgrade to win over a region from Serbia; in 1990, new laws passed in Croatia will recude the status of Serbs in Croatia, which is on the brink of going independent. Now let's assume, that the outcome of these conflicts results in the deaths of all "bad Serbs", and the only ones left are "good Serbs", ones who supported the campaign of Croatia or refused to associate themselves with a now-defeated Serbian army in Kosovo. In my honest opinion Zenararh, your Serb compatriots may have acted from the purest of motives but were nothing more than fools to themsevles and a danger to the race by which they declared themselves. Remember I said earlier that Croats fought for a unitary Croatia and Serbs for an independent Serb entity within Croatia? Now, let's imagine that similar to the plans of the Z4 team, that an internal party comprising Serbs and Croats existed which came together based on principles similar to the Z4 resolutions; a prominent mixed-race army which believed in an independent federal Croatia in which a Serb canton would form a part. This way, you get Serbs believing in an independent Croatia - so they would be opposed to separatists; and you'd have a pro-federation lobby of Croats, opposed to the HDZ policies. Now this never happened. Croatia knew what it was fighting for. All right, so the rights of every one of its citizens is guaranteed, I mentioned earlier that jumping from "a Serb in Serbia" to "a Serb in the USA" is not necessarily a bad thing. The Serbs in the USA have rights just as they do in Croatia, for example: Rod Blagojevich is an ethnic Serb who is a Democrat, and is governor of Illinois; George Voinovich, another Serb, is the Republican senior senator of Ohio, sure they have rights. Look around the world, Igor Chudinov of Kyrgzzstan is currently the PM, he is Russian and speaks not a word of Kyrgyz; Jalal Talabani is Kurdish and is president of Iraq. If these Serbs made it to where they are today in the USA, nothing inhibits them from taking the highest office of President one day. But what citizens do for their nation within a country and what they do for themselves Zenanarh, are two completely different issues. The Serbs of Croatia wanted some for of self-determination, and this is the one thing that all minorities battle for in conflicts. Self-determination needn't always be independence, but it does call for marked boundries and a local authority serving the interests of the nation in question. Becoming US president does not allow you to suddenly grant your people these benefits, not that Serb-Americans have sought them either. Mr.Talabani is certainly in no position to appease pro-independence Kurds as his office of Iraqi President was created for a purpose, and that purpose was to serve the interests of the nation which put him there, which was in turn, a united Iraqi affair. So, looking at Tudjman pushing for a Croatia in which Serbs are equal but have no self-determination, and with some Serbs subscribing to that, along with the Kososvar Serbs who were opposed to the Serb campaign in the province, where does this leave the Serb nation? If the good Serbs of a century ago had opposed the Serb Kingdom so as to fight for the Ottomans or Austria-Hungary, there would have been no Kingdom of Serbia in the first place. All Serbs would have lived like foreign citizens in their respective homelands. Take it from me Zenanarh, a man who knows (and you can scour the web for evidence against what I am telling you for weeks and weeks and you will find nothing), that if the only Serbs left on this world were ones like your friends who fought aginst a body representing Serbian interest, then how many more generations would that nation see? What would be the point in your friends holding their heads high in pride that they are Serbian, continuing its traditions etc. if all they do is bitterly oppose any movement by the wider nation? It's one thing to fight for a Serb province in Croatia, or a joint Serbo-Albanian venture independent of Belgrade in Kosovo, but another thing totally when joining a party which is opposed to your group equality, which is in turn because it doesn't trust you. These nations cannot survive my friend. Unless there is some form of committee which comes together to strive for the recognition of the race in some form, that nation Zenanarh, will join the ranks of the Thracians, Dacians, Avars, Severs, Belgii, Phonetians, Etruscans, Dalmatians, Cornish (in the UK) and all of the other once great nations who became dissimilated by the wider predatory ethnic groups. You assimilate, you lose your identity, easy as that. You wish to keep it, you fight for it. If the Molise Croats are happy to Italianse, let them, but if they wish to remain known, they will have to stick together; and if a movement pushing for greater group rights should emerge, they would be advised to support it, and not fight against it, especially for an Italian regime which may wish to strip the few things they may have. I can't deliver this message any clearer. If you meant that the Serb atrocities were shameful, then I am sorry Zenanarh, I know that thesr things are bad. They are bad all over. But no way can the intentions be shameful unless you really hate Serbian identity.


 * 5. Vojvodina being of interest to Croats, and only occupied by later Serbs: yes I know that Zenanarh, there were in fact some Serb tribes who settled there in the 7th century, but on principle, the bulk is made up by those piling in over the past three centuries. I know that Croats form a majority in some municipalities, and that expansionist Croats believe the region to be Croatian. And take it from me Zenanarh, in no way do I oppose them for their views. They are founded, such as everyone elses are.


 * 6. Serbs such as Tesla loyal to Croats. Badly written my friend. Nikola Tesla lived at a time when Serbian and Croatian identity was embracing its Slavic character, whilst todays creeds of both nations were at an early stage, and when the nations struggled in their aspirations against the Austrians. Some thinkers then believed in a sole Slavic identity, others believed in the two nations remaining but being partners. Warm days among your nations they were. But there were no Serbs loyal to Croats, it was a case of Serbs and Croats aiming for the same goals. Of course, his region was called Croatia and he appreciated that. But no nation is a slave to any other, he didn't live to appease the Croats, he lived for himself, and in those days, there was harmony among the two nations.


 * 7. Post War persecution of Croats. I've never heard such rubbish. I only know that anti-federalists were victims of persecution, but when a man of Croatian origin can make it to the highest office, it cannot be because one is "Croatian" or "Montenegrin" that he suffers what comes to him. The events of 1971 were viewed as threatening to the then-authorities and so they were clamped down, but the question of a Slovene being treated favourably to another man because that man is Croat is nonsense. Unless all non-Serbs were persecuted. If Serbs had the power to do that, they might well have renamed their country "Serbia."


 * 8. The language of the country was known as Serbo-Croat, and the notion of Serbs calling it Serbian, Croats calling it Croatian, dates back to its infancy. The various dialects are linked by a dialect continuum. In Kashmir, Hindu speakers of a dialect call it Hindi, and Muslim speakers of the same dialect call it Urdu. Urdu and Hindi have separate standard languages (like Serbian and Croatian) but are part of a single continuum and their speakers overlap each other. You can't expect a separate Mostar speech for the three ethnic groups living there in the same way as there exists Slavonian Croatian and Slavonia-origin Hungarian, both different from their standard languages. Those who spoke the same language as their fellow Croats must have been the "Krajina" Serbs who descended from the original settlers; they would not have suddenly changed from calling it Croatian to Serbian, or from Serbo-Croat to Serbian, without adopting the standards of the Central Serbian new settlers whose presence would have "indoctrinated" them. Likewise, there would have been no shock for them when going to Serbia because they would have already familairised themselves with it in their time with the new "Krajina" settlers. Nobody said Serbian and Croatian were exactly the same, and that the language of Krajina's Serbs could appear to be standard Croatian, but then they are not so different that a visit to Belgrade creates shockwaves. As for the new settlers to Krajina, if they were really "working on some Serbian sceheme", then they wouldn't have "switched" to calling their language Serbian, they'd have been calling it before they arrived on your terrain.

I'll have to leave it at that Zenanarh. This will exhaust you and I am sorry. If you wish to repsond to me even next week having given yourself time to read it, then I don't mind. I am not looking for conflict with you personally, that is the last of my intentions. I want good relations with all Croats and people from the former Yugoslavia, but our information clashes at times, and as I told you: I don't know the facts, but I know my science, and things aren;t always as they told to someone. Best wishes. Evlekis (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation
No problem. Feel free to ask if you need more :) Also, could you tell me what is the English name for inhabitants of Zadar? I have used "Zadrans" here and in the Zadar article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages
During the Migration Period and the Barbarian Invasions, Zadar underwent a stagnation. In the 5th century, under the rule of Ostrogots, Zadar became poor with many civic buildings turning into ruins. About the same time (6th century) Zadar was hit by an earthquake, which destroyed entire complexes of monumental Roman architecture, whose parts will later serve as material for building houses. From the 4th to 6th century a new religion developed&mdash;the christianity; a bishop is assigned to Zadar and a new religious center is built north of the forum together with a basilica and a baptistery, as well as other sacral objects. After the retreat of Ostrogots from Dalmatia in 537 and the Fall of Western Roman Empire, Zadar was ruled by Byzant. At the same time, Avars and Slavs started to attack. Salona was captured and destroyed in the early 7th century, so Zadar, the only Croatian city to defeat the attackers, became the new seat of the Byzant province Dalmatia. The city kept its role as the Dalmatia capital until 1918.

At the beginning of the 9th century the Zadar bishop Donat and the city knez Pavao mediated the dispute between the Charlemagne's Frankish Empire and the Byzant Empire. The Franks held Zadar for a short time, but the city was returned to Byzant by a decision of the 812 Treaty of Aachen. Zadar's economy revolved around sea, fishing and sea trade; and thanks to a new strategic position it became the most important city between the Kvarner islands and Kaštel Bay. Byzantine Dalmatia wasn't territorially unified, but an alliance of city municipalities headed by Zadar, and the large degree of city autonomy allowed the developmen of Dalmatian cities as free communes. Zadar was the leader of this movement and its position at that time was equal to Venice's.

Zadar during the Middle Ages
At the time of the Zadar medieval development, the city became a threat to Venice's ambitions and the idea of a Croatian state began to form in the Dalmatian Zagora. Zadar slowly established first business and later political ties to Croats, who were becoming ever more popular in the city life. During the 10th century Croatian names could be found among priors, judges, priests, abbots and nuns, showing the incorporation of the Croatian ethnic element among all city classes. The inhabitants started to work for the indepedence of Zadar against Byzant. The head of this movement was the mightiest Zadar patrician family&mdash;Madijevci. After negotiations with Byzant, Zadar was attached to the Croatian state led by king Petar Krešimir IV in 1069. Later, after the death of king Dmitar Zvonomir in 1089 and ensuing dynastic run-ins, in 1105 Zadar accepted the rule of the first Croato-Hungarian king Coloman. After that time Zadar started to fight wars against Venice. The Republic of Venice captured Zadar for the first time in 1000 and violent attacks and sometimes even captures resisted by Zadrans continued until 1358 and the Treaty of Zadar.

Zadar was especially devastated in 1202 after the Venetian doge Enrico Dandolo used the Crusades on their Fourth Crusade to Palestina. The crusaders were obligated to pay Venice for sea transport to Egypt. As they weren't able to produce enough money, Venetians used them for the Siege of Zadar, when the city was destroyed, demolished and robbed. The king of Croatia and Hungary Emerik condemned the crusade, because of an argument about the possible heresy committed by the God's army in attacking a Christian city. Nonetheless, Zadar was devastated and captured, with the population sent away. Pope Inocent III excommunicated Venetians and crusaders involved in the  siege. After more rebellions the Treaty of Zadar was signed and the city came under the rule of Louis I of Hungary in 1358.

The population of Zadar in the Middle Ages was mainly Croatian, as shown by the writings of cardinal Boson, who followed Pope Alexander III en route to Venice in 1177. When the papal ships took shelter in the harbor of Zadar, the inhabitants greeted the Pope singing in Croatian. Even though riddled by sieges and destruction, the time between 11th and 14th century was the golden age of Zadar. By its political and trading achievements, and also his skilled seamen, Zadar played an important role among the east Adriatic coast cities. This affected its look and culture: a lot of churches, rich monasteries and palaces for powerful families were built, together with the Chest of St. Simon). One of the best examples of the power and glory of Zadar at that time was the first Croatian university built in 1396 by the Dominicans.

From 15th to 18th century
After the death of Louis I Zadar came under the rule of Sigmund of Luxembourg and later Ladislav of Napoli, who, witnessing his loss of influence in Dalmatia, sold Zadar and his dynasty's rights to Dalmatia to Venice for 100,000 dukats on July 31 1409. That way Venice took over Zadar without a fight, but confronted by the resistance and tensions of important Zadar families. These attempts were met with persecution and confiscation. Zadar remained the administrative seat of Dalmatia, but this time under the rule of Venice, which expanded over the whole Dalmatia, barring the Republic of Dubrovnik. The Venetians restrained the political and economical autonomy of Zadar, which was still a prosperous city even with the repression. During that time Juraj Dalmatinac&mdash;one of the best known renaissance men, famous for his work on the Cathedral of Šibenik&mdash;was born in Zadar. Other important people followed, such as the Lucijan and Franjo Vranjanin, best known in Italia for their sculptures and buildings.

The 16th and 17th centuries were noted in Zadar for Ottoman attacks. Ottomans captured the continental part of Zadar at the beginning of the 16th century and the city itself was all the time in the range of Turkish artillery. Due to that threat, the consturction of a new system of castles and walls began. These defense systems changed the way the city looked. To make place for the pentagon castles many houses and churches were taken down, along with an entire suburb: Varoš sv. Martina. After the 40-year-long construction Zadar became the biggest fortified city in Dalmatia, empowered by a system of castles, bastions and canals filled with seawater. The city was supplied by the water from public city cisterns. During the complete makeover of Zadar, many new civic buildings were built, such as the City Lodge and City Guard on the Gospodski Square, several army barracks, but also some large new palaces.

In contrast to the insecurity and Ottoman sieges and destruction, an important culture evolved midst the city walls. During the 16th and the 17th century the activity of the Croatian writers and poets became remarkable (Jerolim Vidolić, Petar Zoranić, Brne Karnarutić, Juraj Baraković, Šime Budinić). Also noteworthy is the painter Andrija Medulić (c. 1510/1515 – 1563), who used to sign his name in Venice as "Andrea Schiavone."

During the continuous Ottoman danger the population stagnated by a significant degree along with the economy. During the 16th and 17th centruy several large-scale epidemics of bubonic plague erupted in the city. After more than 150 years of Turkish threat Zadar is not only scarce in population, but also in material wealth. Venice sends new colonists and, under the firm hand of archbishop Vicko Zmajević, the Arbanasi settled in the city, forming a new suburb. Despite the shortage of money, the Teatro Nobile (Theater for Nobility) was built in 1783. It functioned for over 100 years.

After the fall of Venice in 1797 Zadar and Dalmatia were attached to Austria, but the first Austrian reign of Zadar lasted only until 1806.

Zadrani
Hi Zenanarh. Your question is interesting, for as I'm sure you know, the English language is not like the Croatian in which you can easily refer to a city's inhabitants (like Zadrani, Splićani, Purgeri/Zagrepčani.) Sure, there are some examples, like Londoners, New Yorkers, etc., but for the most part, people tend to use all kinds of phrases, some common ones like "natives" or "locals" "A native of Edinburgh" or "Chicago locals." I think Zadar natives or locals would work. Hope this helps. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Too bad. I hoped for something more interesting. Admiral Norton (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Heck, I wish too. I think "Zadrinians" would be closest, but since most English-speaking people have never heard the term, it might confuse them. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi Zenanarh, as you can see from my contributions these past days, I exhausted my own self as well! To be honest with you, maybe it isn't honestly worth reading the remainder of that essay, what is the point? What terrifies me is the long term prospect that if we continue to exchange experiences and facts, it will turn into another Croat vs Serb disagreement! It is impossible to escape for me; if I am arguing with a Croat about Croatia-based activities in the 90's, I am automatically adopting a pro-Serb position. Believe me Zenanarh, it is not my intention! Naturally, I don't see my position as pro-Serb, because I could easily reproduce a Croatian vantage point into a discussion with any Serb who truely feels that the Serbs were morally justified in their 90's actions. For similar reasons, I wouldn't want this to happen. To prove my good faith, I am retiring from all political articles. Yes we will cross paths again in future, as I will still edit on subjects regarding our people and cultures, such as linguistic issues, and as you know, they too can provoke bitter disputes at times which can easily draw back some of the more political subjects! I won't shy away from those but then again, if they get too unfriendly, I shall leave them too! The whole reason I said so much to you in the first place is because I notice that as an editor, you are more talkative than 99% of them, you appear human and the rest of them seem a bit "robotic", sometimes it is like trying to negotiate with a vending machine! I don't want rows and disagreements, we all know what happened back then, and one can look at these things from any angle and each time, the picture changes. I consider you a good editor on the articles, so keep up your good work. If you are biased, then stay biased, because sometimes, trying to be "neutral" (physically impossible) is like banging your head on the wall! It is a futile venture. For now, best wishes! Pozdrav. Evlekis, August 27, 2008 1503 GMT

Croats
Interestingly, despite their numerous interactions with the Dalmatian Slavs, the Franks (by way of their chronicles in the Royal Frankish Annals) make no explicit mention of the name "Croats". Curta suggests that an answer to this conundrum could be that the Croats were not a distinct ethnic group, but rather an emerging clan of Slavic elite centred in northern Dalmatia. They rose c. 800AD, coinciding with the Franks arrival.

What do you think about this idea ? Hxseek (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I don't beleive the whole white croatia theory

My trouble is that i know quite a few of the southern south slav tribes (the Sklavinias) near greece, but comparitively scarce knowledge about actual Slavic tribe names in Dalmatia and Pannonia, etc. (In reference to my 700 AD map) Hxseek (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. About White Croatia - the first mention of it was by Porphyrogenitus. Latter sources mentioning it were the Russian Primary Chronicles, King Alfred's History of the World and some Arab source. But these were all later. THey could simply have been regurgitating the Byzantine's description. BUt i didn't know there are archeological findings of a White Croatia in Poland.

And also, i didn;t realize how different Kaikavian and Stokavian are. They uses totally different nouns. Hxseek (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So Chakaivian / kaikavian are older. So if Stokavian is newer, do you think this coul be the arrival of the Serbs and Croats that Porphyrogenitus is alluding to, as later than other Slavic groups. And are you saying the Macedonian/ Bulgarian was more related to Kaikavian bvefore the influence of Stokavian ? Hxseek (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. I await the continuation

So where is this "U-shaped" settlement by Stokavians located ? You mean eastern Serbia and central Macedonia ?

This theory about the older Chaikavians settling western Balkans earlier goes agianst most historiography that states that the eastern  Balkans were settled earlier. They suggest that Thrace, Macedonia were settled by 580, compared to Dalmatia which occured after 600. This is beacuse because access to the west balkans was blocked by the presence of lombards and gepids until 600s- who were formidable soldiers. Hxseek (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. So could it mean the older Slavs - the Ante and Sclavens which the Byzantines were mentioning were the oder slavs which arrived in 500s. They assimilated with the natives quickly- leaving no distinct material culture because there was essentially a continuation of the pre-existing Romanized-Native hybrid culture.

Then later came the Stokavians, with new terms and a distinct material culture. So is this what de Administrando Emporio could be referring to when it talks of the White Serbs and Croats from the north ? Do we have anything linking their archeology with material in czeque lands or poland ? Hxseek (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * what do you mean by "there were no brachycephalic skulls" ? You mean in graves with dolicocophealic skulls, there wasn;t a mix with brachy's initially. But then you say that the Slavs completely accepted the native culture. So are you saying that early Slavs burned their dead ?

I have read that the evidence of Slavic 'invasions' was a decrease in the number of churches and the presence of christianity. The natives were only superficially Christian, and it did not take much for them to abandon it for paganism again. It was only through the wroks of Frankish missionaries and and the byzantine enclaves that chrisitanity was re-introduced.

I read (by Curta) that Nin might be the sight of where the Croats (whoever they were) first rose as the the leaders of Dalmatia. Old burial grounds showing large Carolingian swords as well as Avar spurs. Symbols of power and prestige. The fist Dukes were called Dukes of Croats and SLavs, suggesting that perhaps the Croats were one small clan, out of which the Dukes (BRanimir, et al) were the leaders, and also ruled all other SLavs in northern Dalmatia. Hxseek (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How significant was the presence of Goths in Dalmatia. I know that after the Goths were defeated from Italy by Zeno, there remained Liburnia Tasrica. Do we have much archeological evidence for them remaining in Dalmatia ? Hxseek (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Good night. Is any of the works of Klaic or others available in English ? Hxseek (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Giove or Brunodam?
Have you seen this edit ? Kubura (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither. User:Gennarous is a banned sock of User:Yorkshirian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and 3RR violation
I'm sorry to disturb you. I noticed you reverted in Giovanni Luppis the wrong and POV version from this user I reported him here] for 3RR violation. Could you please help me to keep an eye and maybe ask to protect the page? Many thanks --D&#39;Agrò (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A problem
Could you please lend me a hand at the dispute on Talk:Sveta Gera? Some users first claimed the peak is Slovenian and now claim the peak is on disputed territory, but that it should somehow still use the Slovenian name. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera partly belongs to Slovenia and partly to Croatia. The dispute concerns only the sovereignty over the summit of the peak." Don't you agree? I'm leaving the dispute regarding the summit area to be solved by elected politicians, not Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to mention in the article what the experts concluded with the provision that you attribute and reference your claims. As for the peak in general, it would be best (see rationale) if we followed established Wikipedia guidelines, which I have already quoted several times. --Eleassar my talk 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Croatia/Participants
You are added on this list. If this is mistake you can delete your name from this list.--Rjecina (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change is deleted --Rjecina (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Insults in edit sumaries, POV
Please mind WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I am not a banned user. Please do not push your POV using ad homminem attacks against other editors! 78.30.150.253 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not a banned user. Please stop with your abuse! 78.30.150.253 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Zadar section Recent History discussion
Despite of your insults, I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion about Zadar article recent history section. I feel that current version is one sided and has issues that need to be resolved. I will ask some other people to participate in discussion too. Thank you. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Goths.
Very interesting. However, most historians write that the Goths (and other Germanics) "left no traces in the Balkans", but were "temporary occupiers" that moved onto Italy and Spain, etc. Toponyms and place names alone aren;t strong enough evidence to testify existence of Goths at the time of the 'Slavic arrival'. It could merely represent a passed down memory from the locals, etc. In the Ostrogoths article here on Wiki, it mentions virtually nothing about the Balkans aspect f the Gothic kingdom. It states that ther Goths may have been soem 20, 000 or so that moved into Italy.

Do we have archeological evidence of Goths existing in the balkans after 535 AD ? The matter is complicated because Slavs had gothic-type of material culture as well Hxseek (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Z, if you have time, please check the discussion page on Greeks, section- "Intervention". I am having an interesting debate with someone about Slavic material culture in the Balkans. I think you can shed some perspective. Hxseek (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your discussion about plough and vatra has me perplexed. If the older, 'marginal' Slavs arrived beofre the 2nd wave (mid 6th century), as you say - this is not supported by Byzantine accounts. Byzantines started talking abut Sclavenes and Antes from 500s. The first raid was in 518, and only in 580 - 600 did they actually start to stay in the Balkans. Before this, they returned back north of the Danube with their loot. Secondly, if we have no archeological evidence for the first wave of Slavs (because they straight away adapted the material culture of the natives), then on what basis have these theories stemmed from ? Hxseek (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Riva prema jugu.jpg]]
Hi. You've deleted this one  for what reason? Eleassar proposed it for deletion with very shaky argumentation. The image has also a credit, which hampers its free use - what does this mean? What precisely? It could easily be replaced with a better one - Eleassar proposed it for deletion but never contributed to the pages this image was linked to. He/she doesn't care about replacing it. I'm not author nor uploader of that image (which had permission of an author for free use), but I've used it on my user page and I like that photo. It seems it was little childish Eleassar's sabotage of my user page User:Zenanarh after my contribution in discussion where I was his/her opponent. Please can you consider possible undeletion of it? Zenanarh (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with undeleting this image is that the photo caption was "Photo: Toni Perinić, with his permission. From his site to wiki.". This implies that the photo did not belong to the uploader (User:Domatrios) and there is no provided source to verify the PD license against. I can see a 2007 upload of the image on another site - presumably copied from wikipedia - but cannot see an original source for the image. Unless we can verify that Domatrios is Toni Perinić or find a weblink with a free license then it seems that the image cannot be verified to be free. I can see a note on another language wikipedia ("Nepropisno postavljena datoteka, istekao rok za popravak") which I unfortunately cannot translate but tells me there was some issue there. There are other images on commons that can replace this and other free ones on flickr. I'm happy to undelete if only we can verify that Toni has given permission for his image to be released to the public domain - or some other free licence - Peripitus (Talk) 03:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sveta Gera again
User:Karbinski has started a discussion to rename the article to Sveta Gera/Trdinov vrh. As I don't have time for thorough participation right now, I'm asking you to present the cadastre and other evidence again to stop Eleassar and Yerpo from creating a false representation by comment overload. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Illyrians maps
I'm still keen to do those ilyrians maps, if we can get an accurate information source on which to base the locations of tribes upon.

ALso, i thing that's still perplexing me about the slavic settlements archaeology thing. If there is not evidence for this earlier settlement of Slavs, how did the Croatian/ Serb historians conclude that there ever was an early settlement of SLavs before 600s. Ie maybe there was only 1 settlemetn, from 600s on. That is what we have evidence for ? What do they base this theory of two waves apart from just the difference in disrtibution of oganj and vatra ? Hxseek (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Good luck with everything

Thanks for that. I'll have a read Hxseek (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation
I have adopted Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Sveta Gera. There are some questions to help get things underway. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetic History of South Slavs
Hey Z. I want to start a new article, with above title. When you get a chance, check out my draft:

Intro

Y chromosomal DNA and mtDNA haplogroups have been used to identify information about a population’s deep ancestral roots going back many thousands of years ago. . From a Y-DNA perspective, South Slavs contain the highest frequency of haplogroup I2, postulated to have originated in the Balkans before the Neolithic. Such data is interpreted as evidence of genetic continuity between modern South Slavs and the ancient Balkan inhabitants. In addition, South Slavic men also harbour significant frequencies of E3b, R1a, R1b, and J2; making South Slavs the most genetically diverse Europeans. This highlights the fact that the Balkans has played pivotal role in the paths of many a migration. It should be noted, however, that mtDNA and Y-chromosome based genetic studies do not give a complete picture of the overall genetic structure of a population; but are useful in highlighting ancient migratory patterns. In addition, due to methodological factors, different studies produce often wide variations in the estimated ages of certain haplogroups, thus arriving at potentially different conclusions. Consequently, further studies are needed before we can obtain more accurate and generalisable conclusions.

Background
Historically, the Balkans has been home to a diverse range of peoples. Analysis of extant Balkan populations has so far given interesting insights into the timing and patterns by which Europe was populated.

The colonization of Europe occurred c. 35 to 40 kYa (during the Palaeolithic), when White Man split off from his West Asian cousins and migrated into Europe, with the subsequent development of the Aurignacian culture. One route of entry was via the Strait of Bosporus into South Eastern Europe (the other major route being along the northern contours of the Black Sea, the Pontic steppe). A drop in the earth’s temperature occurred circa 20 kYa, an event known as the Last Glacial Maximum. This rendered much of Europe uninhabitable, except a few areas in southern Europe which became ice age refugia. One of these refugia was in the Balkans. As the climate began to warm from 14 kYa, Europe was repopulated by offspring of the few survivors, hence making Europeans the most homogeneous of all populations.

Subsequently, the Neolithic Revolution heralded the transition of human life from hunter-gathering to a more settled life of agro-pastoralism. This began in the Levant, over 10 kYa, and is postulated to have spread into Europe, arriving into the Balkans by 7 kYa. One issue which scholars debate is whether this spread occurred via an actual migration of peoples from the Middle East into Europe, or whether it was merely a flow of ideas via cultural contact. Population Genetic Analysis of today’s South Eastern Europeans has been able to shed some light on the issue. The introduction of farming is associated with the development of several Neolithic culture complexes in the Balkans (See ‘’Prehistoric Balkans’’). However, it was not until much later that distinct, recognizable “ethnic” groups arose. The hypothesized arrival of the Proto-Indo-Europeans during the Early Bronze Age, and their subsequent interaction with the Palaeolithic “Old Europeans”, produced the first historically recorded peoples in the Balkans- the Hellenes, the Illyrians and the Thracians. Such a “Kurganization” scenario of ethnogenesis is by no means proven, and intense academic debates continue regarding this theory.

During antiquity, the Balkan peoples were often in contact with other cultures, especially the Celts of central Europe, and subsequently (and perhaps more importantly) the Romans. During the Roman zenith, Roman culture flourished, and historical sources suggest that there were population movements associated with the settlement of Roman veterans, soldiers and traders in the newly conquered Balkan provinces; counterset by the removal, and even systematic extermination, of rebellious Balkan tribes. In the early middle ages, there were numerous invasions by “barbarian” groups such as the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Lombards, Avars, Bulgars, and Slavs, during which time the Balkans was apparently “devastated” and “depopulated”.

The population genetic studies that will be discussed in this article have helped demonstrate a remarkable continuity between all modern European populations and their Palaeolithic forefathers. Indeed, this supports new research in the fields of archaeology and social anthropology which have seriously challenged the theory of “mass invasions” associated with the ’’Völkerwanderung’’.

Y-DNA Haplogroups
Y-DNA haplogroups are genetic loci found on the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome (the ‘male’ chromosome). They are paternally inherited, and their respective relationships can be established by examining the pattern of single nuclear polymorphism (SNP) mutations which have accumulated over hundreds of thousands of years.

Over ninety per cent of the South Slavic men carry one the following five Y-DNA haplogroups: R1a, R1b, E1b1b (formerly E3b), I2 (formerly I1b), and to a lesser extent, J2.

Haplogroup I is ‘unique’ to European populations, enjoying highest frequencies in the western Balkans. Haplogroup I is believed to have originated in Europe before the LGM, between 28-22 kYa, in descendants of men that arrived from the Middle East circa 20-25 kYa. Indeed, its closest phylogenetic relative is Haplogroup J, which dominates the Y-DNA diversity of Near Eastern men. Its genetic age closely corresponds to archaeological evidence of an arising culture in Europe, the Gravettian culture, which was found from Western Europe through to Central Europe and even Russia. With the onset of the LGM, much of Europe became uninhabitable- except a few areas in southern Europe. During this glacial maximum, Western Europe (Iberia) and Central- Eastern Europe (the northwestern Balkans) became genetically and culturally isolated from each other, and an Epi-Gravettian culture persisted in the latter. A population of survivors bearing the haplogroup I lineage survived in the Balkan refuge. With the Allerod Oscillation from c. 14 kYa, the climate began to improve. Subsequently, Europe was re-colonized by the few survivors, during which time haplogroup I2 differentiated from the parent I* group (11.1 kYa according to Pericic, 10.7 kYa according to Rootsi 2004). The bearers of I2 (named the Dinarics) consequently repopulated much of eastern and southeastern Europe, especially during the early Holocene period. {In contrast, the origin of I1 is still debated; Rootsi placed it in the Iberian ice age refuge, where it differentiated from parent haplogroup I. Later studies, however, suggest a younger, post-glacial origin. Either way, I1 is most frequent amongst Scandinavians and Northern Germans, although it is 2nd in frequency to R1b}.

I2 has the highest frequency and diversity in the western Balkans, with a peak of 64% in Herzegovinians. High rates are also found throughout all other republics of the former Yugoslavia (over 30%). The frequency is 23% in Bulgarians, with moderate frequencies throughout the remaining peoples of central and Eastern Europe (10-25%). Its frequency drops sharply as one goes west into Italy (1% in Nth Italians), whereas there is a more gradual tapering as one goes south (18% in Northern Greeks, 8% in central Greeks, 2% in Turks). Thus it can be seen that the Balkans served as an ice age refuge, and its “Dinaric” people re-populated much of South Eastern and Eastern Europe.

R1b (M 343) is dated to have arisen from its parent haplogroup, R1 (M 173), circa 25-30, 000 years ago. The undifferentiated R1 complex underpinning both R1a and R1b prevalence in Europe has been dated to circa 40, 000 years ago, origination in central Asia. Semino links its spread into Europe with the arrival of Homo sapiens sapiens, possibly coinciding with the appearance of the Aurignac culture. Today, R1b is found throughout Europe, as well as western and central Asia. The highest frequencies of R1b are found in Western Europe, although Western European subclades of R1b are dated to be the youngest of all (confirming an Asian origin). Like the situation with haplogroup I2 in the Balkans, the prevalence of haplogroup R1b in Western Europe is due to population bottlenecking and founder effects associated with the LGM. During the LGM, much of the European population died out, reducing genetic diversity. A population bearing R1b managed to survive in Iberia, where R1b achieved genetic homogeneity. Ancestors of this population subsequently repopulated Western Europe, dispersing R1b. Consequently, R1b has very high values in western Europe, especially amongst Atlantic countries (Britain, Spain and Portugal all have frequencies over 80%). Its frequency decreases toward Eastern Europe. Its overall frequency in the Balkans is 9%, with two demographic peaks – the northwest and southeast. In the north, Slovenes (23%) and mainland Croats (15%), and in the south, Bulgarians (17%), Greeks (up to 22%), and Turks (circa 20%), all have higher frequencies compared to the more central Balkanians (10% in Serbs, and less than 5% in Bosnians, Herzegovinians and Macedonians). Such a pattern may be reflective of two separate post-glacial migrations of R1b bearers into the Balkans, one eastward from Iberia, and another westward migration from an Anatolian ice age refuge.

R1a is considerably younger compared to R1b, dating back to 15, 000 BP. R1a reaches its highest frequency and diversity in Eastern Europe. Sometimes called the “Slavic gene”, highest frequencies of R1a are found amongst Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and Sorbians (all at rates exceeding 50%); and is indeed found in significant frequencies throughout all Slavic speaking countries. However, rates are also high amongst Scandinavians (26% in Norwegians, 19% in Swedes), as well as Hungarians and Romanians (both harbouring rates of circa 20%). Frequency drops to 8% in Greeks, although some studies have shown that Greek Macedonians have a frequency of 35%. To the west, frequency rapidly drops to below 5%, although 10% of German men bear R1a. Outside of Europe, high frequencies are found in some central Asian populations, such as Tajiks and Kyrgyz, possibly reflecting founder effects associated with the spread of Indo-Europeans. The average frequency of R1a amongst South Slavs is reported at 16%, with a north to south gradient. It is more prevalent amongst Slovenians (37%) and mainland Croats (34%) compared to Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians and Herzegovinians (all less than 15%). Bosnians have an intermediate frequency of 24%.

As far as South Slavs are concerned:

“At least three major episodes of gene flow might have enhanced R1a variance in the region: early post-LGM recolonizations expanding from the refugium in Ukraine, (Indo-European) migrations from the northern Pontic steppe between 3000 and 1000 B.C., as well as possibly massive Slavic migration from A.D. 5th to 7th centuries.”

Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly E3b), characterised by the M35 mutation, originated in North Eastern Africa, circa 24 kYa. The most prevalent sublcade of E1b1b in Europe is that of the E1b1b1a2 clade (characterised by the M-78, V-13 mutation), which enjoys highest frequencies in the Balkans, although its diversity (age) is higher in Anatolia. Formerly, the presence of E1b1b1 in South-Eastern Europe was proposed to represent the spread of Neolithic farmers out of Anatolia. However, a newer study by Cruciani suggests that whilst it originated in Anatolia c. 10 kYa, its expansion throughout the Balkans was actually the result of a population expansion originating from within the Balkans c 5.3 kYa, possibly associated with the Balkan Bronze Age. Pericic links the spread of Balkan E1b1b to archaeological evidence of trade networks along the Morava-Danube-Vardar river system. {Whilst over 93% of E1b1b haplogroups found in the Balkans are of the V-13 variety, some 4% (on average) Spanish and southern Italian men carry the V-12 (E1b11a1) variety, which represents an ancient, possibly direct trans-Mediterranean, migration from northern Africa to Southern Italy and Spain, c. 13 kYa. In addition, another subhaplogroup - E1b1b1b (M 81)- is also found in Southern Spaniards, representing gene flow brought in by the migration of Berbers and Sephardic Jews during the Middle Ages. These latter two E haplogroups are not found in the Balkans}. Haplogroup E1b1b is found at frequencies of approximately 20% in Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Serbians. In contrast, it is found at frequencies of less than 10% in Bosnians, Herzegovinians, Croats and Slovenes. Amongst other Balkan peoples, it is also very frequent amongst Greeks, Albanians and Romanians. North of the Carpathians, frequencies are low, often less than 5%. Moderately high frequencies exist in Southern Italy also, perhaps reflecting movements from Greece.

The dispersal of E3b reflects a more localized expansion of farmers/ traders originating from within the Balkans during and after the Neolithic. In contrast, R1b, R1a and I2a reflect older, stronger dispersals over wider geographic areas, coinciding with the re-population of a de-populated, post-glacial, Europe.

Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks and Albanians all have J2 frequencies of over 20%. J2 frequency drops sharply as one goes progressively northward from these populations. Excepting Bulgarians, South Slavs have rather low frequencies of J2, less than 10%.

J2 is proposed to have originated in the northern Levant or Anatolia, prior to the Neolithic. It is found in significant proportions along coastal Mediterranean regions such as southern Italy, the southeastern Balkans, and, to a lesser extant, parts of Spain. Such a pattern is suggestive of maritime migration out of the Near East. In addition, King and Underhill described that the distribution of J2 closely corresponds to the distribution of painted pottery and anthropomorphic figurines associated with the spread of agriculture during the Neolithic. {One particular sublcade, J2e (aka J2b by some authors) has the highest frequency and diversity in central Greece. It has been postulated that this represents a later, separate migration pattern out of Greece, linked to the Bronze Age Greek culture, a period which saw the establishment of Greek colonies along the Black Sea, eastern Anatolian coastline, Southern Dalmatia, Southern Italy and parts of Spain. J2e is the predominant J subhalogroup amongst South Slavs, although Bulgarians harbour J2f, J2a, as well as J1}. This suggests that there was a demic diffusion of Neolithic farmers out of the Levant into southern Europe- particularly the southeastern Balkans and southern Italy. Subsequently farming spread throughout the rest of Europe only by means of cultural contact, since the frequency of this haplogroup outside the abovementioned areas drops rapidly.

In an attempt to categorise the populations of Europe and analyse their relative genetic backgrounds, Semino performed a principal component analysis (using five autonomic protein markers and Y-DNA haplogroups). It showed that Europeans clustered into three major groups – Western Europeans (including Iberians, northern Italians, Dutch, Germans), Eastern Europeans (Slavic-speaking countries, Hungarians, Romanians), and Mediterranean (Turks, Lebanese, Southern Italians, Greeks, Albanians). Certain populations were more borderline than others. For example, Germans and Czechs are almost midway between eastern and western European cluster groups. Greeks, whilst tending to cluster with the Mediterranean group, were closer to Europeans than Syrians, Lebanese and Turks. Naturally, southern Europeans (such as Italians, French and Andalusians) have a closer genetic relationship to the Mediterranean cluster than northern Europeans.

Mitochondrial DNA
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the DNA found from mitochondria, organelles found in Eukaryotic cells. A mitochondrion has its own DNA, separate from that found in the cell nucleus. Such mtDNA is maternally inherited.

A study examining the frequency of mtDNA haplogroups in South Slavs revealed that remarkable homogeneity with the rest of the European population. Specifically the study participants predominantly harboured Haplogroup H, at frequencies of 40-45 %. Indeed, such frequencies are found in the general European population. Haplogroup H is estimated to have arrived into Europe from western Asia/ middle East c. 30, 000 years BP, possibly corresponding to the spread of the Gravettian culture.

Haplogroup U5 occurs at an average frequency of 10%. It is dated to 50 kYa, postulated to have also originated in the Middle East. Today, Finnic and Sami populations harbour the highest frequencies of U5, due to founder effects of post-LGM recolonization.

The next most significant mtDNA haplogroup is that of J, found at frequencies of 7-12 %. It has been associated as a marker of the spread of farmers from the Near East.

Analysing the mtDNA data, one can see two major differences from the pattern of Y-DNA haplogroups. Firstly, the mtDNA groups are (mostly) older and, secondly, they have a Middle Eastern origin, in contrast to the predominance of the central Asian R1 complex in the Y-DNA pool of European men. Such a difference may be the result of different migratory behaviours between men and women. As Semino suggests:

“These discrepancies may be due in part to the apparent more recent molecular age of Y chromosomes relative to other loci (27), suggesting more rapid replacement of previous Y chromosomes. Gender-based differential migratory demographic behaviours will also influence the observed patterns of mtDNA and Y variation (24).”

That is, men may have been more likely to undertake long distance migrations then women.

Conclusions
The various studies highlight that the paternal and maternal lineages of South Slavic people are, on the whole, consistent with the typical European Y-chromosomal and mtDNA gene pool, respectively. However, the pattern of Y-DNA haplogroup frequency in South Slavic men is unique. Unlike Western Europe, which is heavily dominated by R1b, collectively, the Balkan Slavs harbour multiple haplogroups (E3b, I2, R1a, J2 and R1) in significant frequencies, making them the most genetically diverse Europeans.

There are, both, similarities and regional peculiarities amongst the South Slavic Y-DNA haplogroup pool. There is a significant element of common genetic heritage, as seen by the pervasive presence of haplogroup I2. It is viewed as the genetic marker of the migratory path taken by the “Dinarics”, who took refuge in the Balkan Peninsula during the LGM and subsequently repopulated much of South-Eastern and Eastern Europe.

At face value, there seem to be discernable patterns when looking at the frequency of the remaining haplogroups (R1a, R1b, E1b1b, and J2). Post-glacial migratory movements into the Balkans emanating from Ukraine are marked by R1a, which is more prevalent in the northern Balkans. Additional post-glacial movements from Iberia and, possibly, Anatolia are suggested by a regional high diversity of R1b in the Balkans, with two frequency peaks- Slovenians and Croats in the northwest, and Greeks and Bulgarians in the southeast. From an mtDNA perspective, the Glacial Maximum also reduced mtDNA diversity, reflected by the dominance of haplogroups such as H and U which also expanded from the south European refugia. Neolithic and post-Neolithic migrations were more pronounced in the southern and eastern regions of the Balkans, being geographically contiguous to the Near East/ Levant. Indeed, the arrival of agriculture into Europe during the Neolithic has been linked by some scholars with the mtDNA haplogroup J and the Y-DNA haplogroups J2 and E1b1b, although the expansion of the latter may actually represent a population expansion from within the Balkans. Finally, Pericic and Semino envisage an Early Bronze Age genetic contribution from the expanding Kurgan culture, also marked by haplogroup R1a, which may provide genetic evidence for the spread of Indo-European peoples from the urmeheit in modern Ukraine. Further studies will be required to substantiate the haplogroup frequency patterns found so far, and elucidate their meaning.

Ancient, bi-directional gene flows between the Balkans and Eastern Europe account for the clustering of South Slavs with all other Slavs, as well as the non-Slavic Hungarians and Romanians. In addition, we see that of all the Eastern European peoples, Bulgarians have a closer relationship with Mediterranean populations.

Ultimately, the genetic patterns we have encountered testify to the key role the Balkans has played in structuring the genetic, cultural and linguistic landscape of Europe. In addition, the studies indicate that there is significant genetic continuity between the autochthonous Balkan population and modern South Slavs. As such, later migrations of Romans, Huns, Goths, Slavs and Bulgars may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetic composition of Balkan people. However, DNA analysis of burials from, both, autochthonous and early Slavic peoples is required to illustrate whether the events of the Great Migrations period had a significant ‘biological’ impact on the Balkan inhabitants. Such analysis is, unfortunately, complicated owing to the technical difficulties associated with extracting ancient DNA.

ok. interesting theory.i'll add it. when you get a chance, get back to me about the genetics Hxseek (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Z. A while ago you pointed me to a genetics paper juston Croatian population: mainland vs Islands. Where's the link ( I think it was by marijanovic) ? Hxseek (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes ! It was Barac, sorry. That's it. Thanks Hxseek (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jingby (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars
For some last two years I was reading about Yugoslav wars. I read about fears of Serbian minority, about log revolution etc. I read a lot about massacres committed by Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. I read Serbian propaganda, Croatian propaganda, I read about massacres committed in Slawonia by Croats, and massacres committed by Serbs. What about you? You gave links to four articles (I read them already a long time ago) which were not in RSK but in RS in Bosnia. The concentration camps in Bosnia should convince me, that Krajina Serbs were Nazis? I do not think Serbs are evils who are to be blamed for everything. I think that you all are guilty (even though Serbs in Bosnia were more guilty than others, and Croats were more guilty than Muslims). And singling out Serbs and pointing them as "Third Reich" is simply unjust. Szopen (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC) PS: Heliodrom camp, Dretelj camp. Szopen (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First let's be clear: I do not accuse all Serbs, all Croats, or all Bosniaks. By saying "you are all guilty" or "some are more guilty than others" I made- maybe a bit unfair - generalisation. I still think that my hierarchy "most guilty Serbs, less guilty Croats, even less guilty muslims, no one innocent" is in general correct. I made it after reading things like that: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR64/004/1999/en/dom-EUR640041999en.html (sporadic killings of Serb civilians in Slavonia, some motivated by revenge)

Some "propaganda" i read is this report from UN authorities http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/X-B.htm (19 serbs killed in mass grave, some info about other investigation) and more from the same investigation (UN INVESTIGATION): "Throughout October 1991, members of the Croatian Army reportedly began arbitrarily arresting ethnic Serbs in the counties of Pakrac, Garesnica, Kutina, Bjelovar, and Zagreb. *282 These persons were taken to several small camps in the region, including «Ribarska Koliba» (fisherman's cottage) in Marino Selo and «Stara Ciglana» in Pakracka Poljana. *283 Both of these camps are near the Ilova River. *284 Later, control of the detention facilities was turned over to the National Guard of Croatia. According to witness statements and reports, prisoners were beaten and tortured; and up to 2,500 were allegedly killed near the campsites. *285 These activities continued until March of 1992. " "  Based on two statements of former prisoners of Marino Selo, a minimum of three separate mass graves were reportedly excavated at Marino Selo, as a means of disposing of the bodies of those killed at the camps in Marino Selo and Pakracka Poljana. The graves at Marino Selo are said to contain the bodies of as many as 800 Serbs. In Pakracka Poljana, villagers and subsequent UNCIVPOL investigations suggested there existed as many as 26 mass graves holding the bodies of 700 Serbs. One report noted that many of those buried in the graves were not former detainees of these camps, but were from other settlements in Western Slavonia where Serbs were killed in late 1991. Their bodies were then transported to the sites, which were in the vicinity of the Ilova River. *286 Serb sources, however, allege that that Croatian authorities reopened some of the gravesites and took the bodies elsewhere as a means of hiding any evidence of mass killings. This activity was reportedly taken in response to publication of information about the camps and mass graves in the region. *287" As for all mass graves in Bosnia and Croatia: "The ethnicity of perpetrators responsible for killing persons buried in mass graves are as follows: 1. Persons buried in 81 of the reported gravesites are alleged to have been killed by Serbs; 2. Persons buried in 16 of the gravesites are alleged to have been killed by Croatians; 3. Persons buried in five of the gravesites are alleged to have been killed by Muslims; and 4. Of the reports, 87 of the reports did not identify a perpetrator. Where the ethnicity of the perpetrator was not clearly established from the data, sites are classified as having an unspecified perpetrator, despite one ethnic group's clear military control of the region. *13 " You see, I started to read it two or maybe more years ago, when I tried to understand why there is so much hatred between Croats, Serbs and others, and I tried to find sense in Yugoslavian war. I can't say I understand it more than before. In fact I understand it far less than before, except for impression that 30 million people were driven to war by bunch of nationalist, criminals and opportunists. Szopen (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on my page
I see we have another Croatian Language enthusiast. Actually, what I meant was "I cleaned my page of talk. Dirty it up." but I am still learning the language, so I have bad grammar and may have misused some words. Thank you for your corrections and I will fix it soon. The New Squeaky razgovor 00:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Croat haplogroups.jpg
Feel free to create a new one if there are inaccuracies. I'm no longer actively participating in writing that particular article. --Denoir (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Illyrians
I have made a preliminary map. We need to check the accuracy, and sort which tribes were mixed or of uncertain linguistic affinities



Hxseek (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll have complete rush hour in the south east of their area, where there are many known names in a small region, similar in spots elsewhere in Illyricum. A map should be zoomed to make more space for names. It would be logical to include Illyrian-related tribes like Messapians, so Italian Adriatic coast should be seen. Cut it in the far east and south ;) Zenanarh (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'll have to probably download a bigger blank map. Hxseek (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * New Version ->


 * Do you think I should seperate Pannonian tribes from 'Illyrians proper' ? Hxseek (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of tribes is another problem, Pannonians were not Illyrians proper, they had Hallstat culture, neither Liburni, Iapodes, Histri, Dardani and some others were. But they were all "Illyrians" in wider context or close Illyrian related.

Illyrians, Illyrian related: Abrei Abroi Abri, Albanoi Albani, Amantini, Andizetes, Ardiaei Vardaei, Ardiani, Arrianes, Atitani (in Epirus), Autariatae, Breuci, Carni, Chaones, Chelidonioi, Colapiani, Daesitiates, Dalmatae Dalmati Delmati, Daorsoi Daorsi, Dardani, Dassaretae, Daunii Dauni, Deraemistae, Derentini, Deuri, Dindari, Ditiones, Docleates, Encheleae, Glinditiones, Grabaei, Histri (in Istria), Iapodes Iapudes Iapydes, Iasi, Iapyges, Labeates, Latobici, Liburni, Maezaei, Melcumani, Messapii (in Apulia), Molossi, Naransii, Oseriates, Paeligni Peligni, Paeones, Parthini Partini, Penestae, Peucetii, Picentes, Pirustae, Plearaei, Poediculi (in Italy), Sallentini Salentini, Sardeaties, Scirtones Scirtoni, Seleiitan, Sesareti, Taulanti.

"Pannonians" is umbrella name for Iasi, Colapiani, Breuci, Oseriates and Amantini and some others. Here's good article with positions of these tribes and nice historical insight. Zenanarh (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC) South of the Sava river, in the area where the political influence of the Pannonian Celts was reduced to their more or less noticeable cultural influence, there were some of the most powerful Pannonian communities, mentioned by Strabo (7.5,3). Their ethnical territories spread over the vast mountaineous area ending on the northern slopes of the Velebit and the Dinara mountains in the hinterland of the Adriatic sea. There lay, according to Strabo (7.5,3) and Appian (Illyr., 3.14 and 4.22) the southernmost ethnical border of the Pannonians towards the non-Pannonian communities.
 * the area west of the Mons Claudius (mountains surrounding the Požega basin) was occupied by the Taurisci and the area east of the mountain by the Scordisci, both of the Celtic origin. The Taurisci, who settled the upper Sava valley, were predominant over several Pannonian communities, i. e. the Serretes and the Serapilli (upper Drava valley), the Iasi (between Aquae Iasae/ Varaždinske Toplice and Aquae Balizae/Daruvar, extending to the south as far as Pakrac and Lipik), the Varciani (from Žumberačka Gora and Medvednica along the Sava north of Segestica/Sisak), the Colapiani (along the river Kupa, as far as its confluence with the Sava, with eastern border in the lower Una valley) and the Osseriates (between the mouths of the Una and the Vrbas, probably as far as the mouth of the river Bosna). The Scordisci were settled along the confluence of the Sava and the Danube. The area of their political influence covered the Andizeti (the lower Drava valley, Baranja and eastern Slavonia probably with Cibalae/Vinkovci as the southernmost point), the Amantini (Srijem), the Breuci (the Sava valley, from the mouth of the Orljava river eastwards, holding both banks of the Sava and reaching the Danube in the vicinity of Vukovar) and the community of the Cornacati (around Sotin, south of Vukovar) who were probably of Breucian origin. Zenanarh (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The southern Pannonians were the Maezaei (between the lower Una and Vrbas valleys, as far as the northern slopes of Grmeč (70 kms long mountain between Una and Sana) and Srnetica to the south), the Ditiones (south of Maezaei, between the Mount Plješevica to the west, the Vijenac (Bosansko Grahovo) and Šator (Glamoč/Bosansko Grahovo) mountains or perhaps even Dinara to the south, and the easternmost slopes of Klekovača (Drvar/Bosanski Petrovac) and Lunjevača (Drvar) to the east), and the Daesitiates (between the Vrbas and perhaps the Drina valleys, extending as far as the mountains south of Sarajevo). There were also several smaller ethnical communities (cfr. Strabo, 7.5,3), probably the Deretini, the Dindari, the Glinditiones and the Melcumanni, all probably within the vast area of the Daesitiates who, according to the authoress, politically dominated the communities mentioned. Zenanarh (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deretini were in Rama valley, Dindari in Dinara, fields of Bosansko Grahovo, and in central Drina basin, Glinditiones in Nevesinjsko Polje (Field of Nevesinje), Melcumani in Gatačko Polje (Field of Gacko).Zenanarh (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sardeates to the east of the Ditiones, around central and upper Vrbas.


 * Dalmatae from Neretva to Krka. Dalmatae close related: Maezaei, Ditiones, Daesitias, Daversus or Daorsi to the east of lower Neretva in Herzegovina with centre in Stolac, Deuri uknown position, according to Stipčević to the north of Delminium, unknown Tarioti (Tariona), by the sea, probably between lower Krka and Šibenik to Rogoznica.
 * probably not Delmatae: Nerastini (Nerate - region of Jesenice near Omiš), Onastini (Oaeum - Omiš) possible remains of the older Nesteai


 * Nesteai or Nestaioi from Poljica (near Omiš) to Makarska riviera with inland and Manius held the inland opposite to Pelješac peninsula, later it was taken by the Delmatae and Daorsi.


 * Island communes: Issaei (Issa - Vis (island) Solentini (Solentia - Šolta), Separi - unknown, Epetini (Epetion - Stobreč)?


 * Ardiaei in the coast and islands from Bay of Kotor to Neretva (gave the kings to the Illyrian Kingdom and destroyed by the Romans), Pleraei between Pelješac and Bay of Kotor, both addicted to seamenship, Narensii around Neretva river.


 * Docleatae in western Monenegro, around Dioclea, Labeates were on the coasts of Skadar Lake, Scirtones to the east of them towards Macedonia. To the south of Skadar Lake, in modern northern and central Albania, there were a few smaller tribes, Albanoi among them.


 * Autariatae were one of the strongest Illyrian tribe in some period, their seats were in eastern Bosnia from Tara river and Lim river to Morava river in the east.


 * Epirus was settled by tribes Helenized during the age of historiography, but of possible "pre-historic" Illyrian roots: Atintani, Chaones, Molossi to the south west of the Macedones.


 * Taulanti had earlier seats to the north of Black Drin and later moved to the south in surrounding of the Greek colonies Dyrrachion and Apollonia. Per some sources they were made of more smaller tribes like Chelidonioi, Sesareti, Abri or Abrei, Parthini to the north of Dyrrachion.


 * Dassaretae around Lake Ohrid, Penestae to the north of the lake, around Black Drin river and Pirustae next to the north.


 * Dardani on wells of Vardar, from where Thracian Tribali went to Danube. They were huge heterogenous Thraco-Illyrian tribe, probably consisting of more smaller ones, settled in almost all modern central and southern Serbia to the west of Morava and to the east of it to Timok River, northern Macedonia and Kosovo.


 * Macedones had been "barbarian people" for the Greeks until 5th-6th century BC, but then Helenized and recognized as the Greek tribe in 2nd century BC. The same thing happened to their neighbors the Paeones, settled around the central Vardar and its contriburaries Bregalnica and Crna Reka. It seems that Paeones were more large and spread to the Aegean Sea in more ancient times.


 * Liburni in the coast and islands from Krka to Raša in Istria. They were somewhat older tribe, extremely maritime people who reached their paek in 7th century BC, when they ruled all Adriatic Sea and had collonies in Italian coast in Apulia, near Hadria in the north and in the island of Corfu in the south. Liburnian related tribes: Mentores in the Kvarner bay, Hymani, Enchelae at the beginning in Boka Kotorska bay later in the south between Taulanti and Chaones from Epirus, formers of the first known Illyrian state in the south, Bu(li)ni near Bribir and to the north of Salona, Peucetii or Peucetias around Cetina river.
 * Liburnians had dodekapolis organization (14 communes), some of their communes: Lacinienses (unknown - from Lacinium?), Stulpinos (city Stulpi), Burnistas (Burnum), Olbonenses (Olbona), Alutae (Albona - Labin), Flanates (Flanona - Plomin), Lopsi (Lopsica - Sv. Juraj to the south of Senj), Varvarini (Varvaria - Bribir), Asseriates (Asseria - Podgrađe near Benkovac), Fertinates (Fulfinum, Krk), Curictae (Curicum, city of Krk), Iadertines (Iadera - Zadar),...


 * Iapodes from upper Kupa to upper Una, rougly between Velebit and Bihać, their language was between Pannonian and Illyrian, material culture mixed Celtic and Illyrian, also close to the Liburni.


 * Histri in Istria more related to Veneti, relations were drawn between Veneti and Liburni too, concerning some personal names in later Romanized age. Latobici in modern Slovenia, also related to the Veneti. Zenanarh (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's good info. The Carni were also Venetic, weren't they ?

The Pae0nes and Dardanians are thought to be mixed Thraco-Illyrian and considered seperated to Illyrians. Do you know if the Bisalti and Denthetelai were sub-tribes of the Paeones ?

The picture is actually very complicated, because different tribes existed at different times. Eg some tribes only existed after the Roman conquest, becuase the Romans split larger powerful tribes and made them into smaller ones, giveing them new, clearly Latin, names eg after rivers and mountatins.

Hxseek (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Carni Venetic too. Bisalti were Thraco-Macedonians? Don't know about Denthetelai. Yes, picture is complicated, that's why you should avoid state boundaries, like for Illyrian state, at least in this map, and give pure information about positions. Probably some categorization to mark Celts, Veneti related, Helenized, Pannonian, Thraco-,... or groups like Pannonian, southern Pannonian, Dalmatian group, Liburnian group, Illyrian state group,... Zenanarh (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * les Serdi, Denthelai, et Bisaltes qui fermaient le royaume à l'ouest, voisins des Paioniens Zenanarh (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Yep. In the current map, I mark Celts and Venetic groups. So who were the Illyrioi proper ? Hxseek (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Benac, Illyrians proper were from Glasinac in Bosnia (higland on the moutain, 10 kms to the east of Sarajevo) to northern Albania. See Autariatae - Glasinac culture.
 * The Autariatae, Dassaretae, Chelidones, Taulanti, etc. are considered to be the Illyrians proper, while the Liburni, Pannoni, Delmatae and Iapodes are considered to be distinct from the "true" Illyrians to the south (acc. to Wilkes).
 * Pannonian Celts: Taurisci, Scordisci
 * Pannoni: Serretes, Serapilli, Iasi, Varciani, Colapiani, Osseriates, Andizeti, Amantini, Breuci, Cornacati
 * Southern Pannoni: Maezaei, Ditiones, Daesitiates, (Deretini, Dindari, Glinditiones, Melcumanni ?)
 * Delmatae group: Delmatae, Maezaei, Ditiones, Daesitias, Daversus or Daorsi, Deuri, Tarioti, Sardeates?
 * Liburni related: Liburni, Mentores, Hymani, Enchelae, Bu(li)ni, Peucetii or Peucetias, Iapodes
 * Veneti related: Histri, Latobici, Carni
 * Thracian related: Dardani,
 * Helenized: Macedons, Paeones, Atintani, Chaones, Molossi
 * Could be Liburnian or Ardiaei or other related: Nesteai or Nestaioi, Nerastini, Onastini, Issaei, Solentini, Separi, Epetini
 * Proper: Autariatae, Ardiaei, Pleraei, Narensii, Docleatae, Labeates, Scirtones, Albanoi, Taulanti, Chelidonioi, Sesareti, Abri or Abrei, Parthini, Dassaretae, Penestae, Pirustae (Deretini, Dindari, Glinditiones, Melcumanni ?) Zenanarh (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about marking territory, because that way you mark territory and some tribes fall within it - not wanted information in some cases.
 * Example: Liburni and Veneti.
 * Ethnogenesis: Liburni were Paleolithic natives plus Neolithic newcomers from the Levant (2nd-4th millenium BC, sea migrations, "Sea People" migration feedback). Veneti were native Eugenoi plus Neolithic newcomers Trojan-Paphlagonian tribe known as the Eneti. Both people reached their peaks in the age of the Etruscans, Old Greeks and Phenicians, late Bronze Age, early Iron Age. Both people had Levantine sub-components but different fellows interefered.
 * By culture: Liburni had a lot of prehistoric elements in their culture, completely addicted to the sea, had a lot of impact on maritime culture of all people settled in the Adriatic coasts, their galaia was a prototype of an ancient galley, matriarchal organization, cult of woman (men on board, women in action :). Veneti were the Alpine people, miners, far relatives of tha Gauls. Both Liburni and Veneti were influenced by the Hallstat culture. Relation Liburnian to Venetic language was based on onomastics, but pattern used for this statement is unbelievably small. Around a few hundreds of Venetic toponyms and names are known, around of a few tens of Liburnian. Relation was based on similarities found in only a few Liburnian names in their Latinized forms in 1st century AD, so it's very shaky. Proofs based on Neo-Liburnian which was a predecessor of the Veyan Chakavian can be misleading too, all northern Adriatic was concentrated on the city of Aquilea (in Venetic area) as cultural, religious, political and military centre during the Roman Empire and the Early Medieval. BTW in 7th cent BC Liburni had a colony in Venetic land, Veneti didn't have one in Liburnian. Liburni were probably distuinguished tribe from the others, but obviously related to all its neighbors, with language unknown but possibly somewhere in natural position between Venetic and Illyrian.
 * What do you think about making difference among tribes by colored names instead of filling territory? Or using smooth transition beween colors as you used to in your older maps, if filled territory is more easy? Zenanarh (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by smooth colour transition ? might have to make a few maps. Eg start with a general outline map like:

And then do 'zoom-in' maps of Ilyrians, etc Hxseek (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah my English, smooth transition, how to say, like in this smaller map of yours, when colours mix a little bit when changing - airbrush! Yep airbrush style! Why did I use word "smooth"? Zenanarh (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See what you think of the new hg I2 map
 * just out of interest, the distriution of I2 corresponds more cloely to the distribution of Slavs than R1a, i think ! ? Hxseek (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. By the way, i got an english version of stpcevic's illyrians. Should be a good read. Hxseek (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can updae the Ethnogenesis section of Illyrians:

''The difficulty in answering such a question lies in the fact that the peoples known as “Illyrians” were a heterogeneous, though analogous, mixture of peoples which never completely merged to form a single ethnic identity. Therefore we cannot produce a single theory on their ethnogenesis, for the disparate Illyrian groups do not have identical origins.'' ''Until the middle of the twentieth century, a prevalent theory was that the proto-Illyrians were bearers of the Bronze Age Urnfield culture. Proposed by the German archaeologist Kossinna, it was supported by Pittioni and Pokorny, as well as philologists who found evidence linking toponyms from the western Balkans with other European sites. According to this theory, from 1200 BC the proto-Illyrians commenced on a far-reaching movement from Luzice, Germany into Gaul, Spain, Britain, Scandinavia, Italy and the Balkans. The movement into the Balkans then catalysed the Doric invasion of Greece. Indeed, there was archaeological evidence of Urnfield finds in the abovementioned regions. Many latter archaeologists, however, discussed became more aware of the dangers of trying to equate archaeological cultures with distinct ethnic groups, and Kossinna’s ‘Pan-Illyrianist’ theory of fell out of favour.''

''A later, autochthonous theory emerged. Excavating sites in the western Balkans, some archaeologists discovered that there was no discontinuity between Bronze Age and Iron Age, and some even cited evidence for continuity stretching back as far as the Neolithic. A notable proponent of the autochthonous theory was Sarajevo archaeologist A Benac, who supported the notion that no migrations into the Balkans took place during the Bronze Age. Rather, during the Eneolithic, the spread of the Indo-Europeans led to an Illyrianization of the western Balkan peninsula. This brought together all the elements characteristic of the proto-Illyrians. Then final evolution into Illyrians happened during the late Bronze and early Iron Ages; a process that was internal to the Balkans, without new, external elements.''

''Stipcevic supports Benac’s views, with a few clarifiers. He does not see that such a process was uniform throughout the entire area inhabited by the peoples we refer to as Illyrians. For example, he supports the view of Spanish archaeologist, P Bosch-Gimpera, who felt that the Urnfield culture did have some influence on the Illyrian ethnogenesis, especially in the area of modern Slovenia and northern Croatia. Some tribes, such as the Liburni, retained very archaic, pre-Indo-European practices (which were often matriarchal) until very late. Banac’s work is mainly applicable to the Illyrian groups in Bosnia, western Serbia and part of Dalmatia. Essentially, ethnogenesis varied from group to group, and at present we cannot accurately re-construct this interwoven and varied process. ''


 * Update it! Zenanarh (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Ok mate. Here to begin with a general map of linguistic boundaries in Balkans



Then zoom in on northern Dalmatians, Pannonians, Liburnu, Venethic-family



Also if needed In Pannonia - the celtic influences



Then I will do of southern Illyrians and Epirotian tribes.

Hxseek (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. You see, Veneti as a group were settled more inland in the Alps than by the sea side. Histri, Carni, etc were their eastern sub-tribes. Supposed area (line) where Venetic languages were changing to the others is unknown. Use airbrush style to separate it a little bit more to the west (like Istria-Venetic, to the east-the other). You have probably the same situation in the east (Thracian). I like your maps. It will be quality. Zenanarh (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think the concensus is that Dardani were partly Ilyricized THracians, although they are mostly considered seperate to other Thracian and Illyrian tribes. I tried to make the region of Moesia Superior to Macedonia (th emorava basin) a mixed Red/Green colour, but id did not come up so clear. Hxseek (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks again for helping me fix up my talk page statement. You'r right... Croatian is alot harder than english :)

-Still learning, OG Squeaks grafitti 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LoL
Sry about reverting you Zen :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna write-up a full report today. This kind of disruption surely warrants a range block. btw, the 19... guy: that's Ragusino, the 15... guy: that's Luigi. Both definitely warrant intervention. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already informed EdJohnston. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pannonian Croatia
Hi Z. Di you know anything about the history of Savia (ie Pannonian Croatia) after Liutevid's revolt was put down. Was it ruled by Franks direct, was it a march ? Do have any specific details ?

How far inland did Dalmatian principality extend ?

Hxseek (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I hope you feel better soon. Maybe a holiday in tropical Sydney will fix the winter chills ?


 * anyway, this is what i got from sources re: borders in late 9th century [[Image:Balkans850.png|thumb|left|330px|Late 9th century]]

Hxseek (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You guy's might be interested in the series of etymological maps at this site, which I stumbled across some years ago: http://www.roman-emperors.org/Index.htm. You'll find in the map for "Europe 900 AD," the depiction of the Dalmatian coast is fairly consistent with the map presented just above by HXseek. Cheers Romaioi (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kabudžić or Kaboga
Hi Zen, the last Ragusan house article that needs to be translated from Italian is House of Kaboga/Caboga. However, I'm not sure whether to use "Kaboga" or "Kabudžić". User:Caboga (inactive since March) seems to strongly feel that "Kaboga" is correct. What are your thoughts on the dilemma, if I may ask? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Views
It's W.I.P., feel free to edit it, I encourage nothing but the truth. PRODUCER ( TALK ) 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I (Y-DNA) map
Hi Zenanarh just got your message, I really prefer Paint.net, but I am very busy these days & I still don't know how to use it! If you have a Paint.net version that you want to use as a newer version, please do so I can give you access to my wikimedia account or you can email me the map >>> dnatimes@gmail.com

Its better to update using a newer version so you don't have all kinds of Wikipedia maps on Google images. Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dalmatian Languages
Here:



Beautiful, yes ? I put in the article

Hxseek (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. So the languages were spoken more widely than just in the cities ? Do we know where they were spoken exactly, I can depict it in the map Hxseek (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS the 'Iranian origins' article was very interesting. Still, it is quite conjectural and with little 'hard' proof. There are some oversights in the article. Eg I don't know which genetic results they are referring to which ascribe an 80% Iranic origin for Croats. Moreover, the system of organizing tribes into 'White', Blck, 'Red'. etc: isn't that Turkic rather than Iranic. Many of apparent cultural similarities could be due to a root of common indo-european customs. EG celts had similarities with Iranic customs, but no one is claiming an iranic origin of Celts Hxseek (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Omg LOL
I can't believe they're considering suing Wikipedia. That's so ridiculous it defies belief :P The interesting thing is none of the group Brunodam claims is behind these bans is an administrator :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Main accounts.
 * User:Brunodam. Multiple sockpuppeteering, proven conclusively and beyond doubt by checkuser.
 * User:Giovanni Giove. Blatant, immediate, and repeated violations of his arbitration committee edit restriction. Later sockpuppeteering.
 * User:PIO. Blocked for edit-warring (in articles not related to Dalmatia), ignored the block, engaged in block evasion and finally got banned.
 * User:Ragusino. Blocked for edit-warring, ignored the block, engaged in block evasion, and finally got banned. (Also disclosed personal information.)
 * Socks quoted by Brunodam (on kataweb) to artificially enlarge his list:
 * User:D'Agro. Never heard of him, but it appears he's Giovanni Giove's sockpuppet.
 * User:Marygiove. Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of Brunodam.
 * User:Barba Nane. Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of PIO.


 * LOL, they should engage Ace Ventura: Pet Detective to achieve something... Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Zadar 2
Hello Zenanarh. You have some worthwhile ideas for improving the Zadar article. Perhaps you would consider copying the best suggestions from my Talk (by whoever made them) over to Talk:Zadar? You could then leave a pointer behind, to guide whoever thinks my talk page is the hub of all Dalmatian issues. I only watch the sockpuppets, I haven't been very creative in this area. I think I nominated one AfD on a Dalmatian topic, and that's about it.. It's good that there seems to be some opportunities for cross-Adriatic harmony developing, though I don't know the Italian editors very well. It does not look like Talk:Zadar has been a very friendly and congenial place, but it would be worth trying anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

TomislaV's Croatia
See what you think of my map of Croatia 925 AD Hxseek (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians, again
I'm still experimenting with maps of Illyrian tribes. Do you think I should colour-code the different tribes into those with (presumed) Celtic-sepaking, Nth Pannonian, Dalmatian, Venethic, Sth Pannonian, Proper Illyrian, Thraco-illyrian, etc; or are these categorizations too hypothetical to bother with ? Hxseek (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC
All users involved in personal union discussion are invited to RFC on Talk:Pacta conventa (Croatia)--Rjecina (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
I replied on my page Hxseek (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Liburna
I replied at Talk:Liburnians (diff.). - Best, Ev (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes
I'm learning but no classes... not offered at my school Jacob S. grafitti 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hehe
I see you liked my joke ^_^

By the way, about what you wrote for "I like it", I took it to a translator but it doesnt quite seem right to me. Is'nt "Ja" the translation for I or me? Or is my grammar just that bad :D ? Jacob S. grafitti 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I never knew croatian grammar was so laid back... I guess I was speaking it wrong all this time Jacob S. grafitti 23:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetics
I don;t think any published data has used this idea, but the fact that Albanians have rather low frequencies of I2b compared to north - western Balkaners, and quite high proportions of E3b, would seem to support a more eastern (ie Dacian or Thracian) origin rather than Illyrian. . Hxseek (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but such conclusion based on genetics solely would be a little bit superficial. It's known (per archeology) that tribalization of the Illyrians occured during the Bronze Age (I-E-ization of the Balkans: I-E newcomers + PaleoBalkan indigenes), so there were developed tribes in the Iron Age. So it's possible that R1a in the north, or J2 and E3 from the east contributed to this process. On the other side Greek sources usually describe Illyrians as tall, white-skinned and light hair/light eyed people. They were "giants" in the Greek eyes. The most of Albanians are physically more similar to the Greeks and Romanians (short, black-hair) - obviously Mediterranean component (J2, E3). In the most part of territory settled by the Illyrians I2a1 is predominant, in the same place (Dinar Alps) there are the tallest Europeans of our age (another tall Europeans are the Norwegians, there's high frequency of Ia1 HG!). In my thinking the best name for the bearers of I2a1 in the Western Balkans would be "pre-Illyrians". Zenanarh (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here I have found some links to genetic studies including Albanian population.

              Can you help on these? Bests Aigest (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you compile the results of those, ie the frequencies of the different mtDNA and Y-chr haplogroups reported for Albanians, and list them, I could explain their 'meaning' in terms of what migratory events they theoretically depict Hxseek (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aigest, for better understanding, you should first examine different haplogroup articles in wiki to get better picture. More or less, male genes (Y-chrommosome haplogroups) has shown that the most of the Albanians were descendents of the Neolithic settlers (J, E groups) in Europe - agriculture migration from Asia Minor. For some specific subgroups, it's known where it originated (it's evaluated on basis of the highest frequency and the lowest dissipation found in modern population in the same place). For example it's known that some E subgroup (it's E3b1a2 if I remember well) originated in Anatolia 8.000 yrs ago (perfectly aligning to the first appearance of the Thracians), then gradually spread to the eastern and central Balkans. J2a1 is possible Greek-Turkey origin (geographically) from the same period - probably pre-Greek population in Greece, before other J2 subgroups massively penetrated to Greece (proto-Greek tribes?), coming from Asia Minor. Etc. Female genes (MtDNA) usually show less dynamics (women were more static, didn't play around with the swords and helmets and... their sexual tools of course), so usually more autochtonous, roughly said.
 * However if you want to sum these sources to create whole picture about Albanian genetic structure (pre-history genetic flow) do what Hxseek says, compile results. Zenanarh (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zen, I know that it is almost impossible to understand or to have a clear wiev about ethnicity of the people based on genetic data (especially in the Balkans:)). I didn't mean to explain the Albanian population genesis (Illyrian, Thracian, Thraco-Illyrian?) from the above data. All I wanted from these data was to have some characteristics of the current Albanian population. For ex Neolithic settlers or Paleolithic settlers (Cavalli-Sforza?). Mediterranean population (grouped with sardinians, greeks?) or (Nordic population?). Possible affinities with the current Balkan populations(Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians?) or other characteristics (populations bottleneck?). If we can extract these things form the researches above and put them in a list or smth it is ok, but that's all. Otherwise it is OR and we can not put it in Wiki. Thank you once more. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what these sources actually do. I'll take a look when I find some time. Zenanarh (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was reading this and found this  J-M12(M102) lineages would trace the subsequent diffusion of people from the southern Balkans to the west while its frequency in is much higher in Albanians than in other populations Albanians (14.3) followed by North-Central Italy (9.6) and Hunza (Pakistan) (7.9)?!?! Can we trace its time of appearance?Aigest (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's J2b (did I say J2a1 above? My bad...). Read here Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA): J2b (M12, M314, M221, M102) Mainly found in the Balkans, Greece, Italy, and South Asia; Haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and was reported to be found in modern Crete (3.1%) and mainland Greece (Macedonia 7.0%, Thessaly 8.8%, Argolis 1.8%) That's what article says... Zenanarh (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You lost me here:) anyway the paper refers clearly to a migration from that area (Albanian peak) to the west "Although J-M172* encompasses most of the M172 Y chromosomes in continental Europe and India (Kivisild et al. 2003; present study), their degree of affinity and shared history remain uncertain. The J-M67*, JM92, and J-M102 representatives reflect more distinctive origins and dispersal patterns. Whereas J-M67* and J-M92 show higher frequencies and variances in Europe (0.40 and 0.32, respectively) and in Turkey (0.32 and 0.30, respectively [Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004]) than in the Middle East (0.17 and 0.09, respectively), J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) ''(figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans. On the contrary, J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, as well as by seafaring Neolithic populations who reached southern Italy''.. Which would have been the time of this diffusion from that area? The Neolithic? Aigest (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about this high frequency in Albanians 14.3% (M102) almost double or more of its neighbour populations (see table 2 in the same article)? Can you give an explanation? Aigest (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Paper says southern Balkans, yes there's a table showing peak among the Albanians (14%) which should be taken as a part of the story of this HG, not essence of it, bearing in mind that modern Albania lies in the mountains, a little bit isolated from the surrounding, so that could be reason why there's bigger local frequency than in close neighborhood which suffered more late ethnic changes (Greece was invaded from the east soon after). BTW Albania is obviously considered as too small region to be classified solely as the origin place and is taken as a part of southern Balkan there. Maybe there are also Greek scholars who think that ancient Greeks invented whole universum? :) If dispersion of M102 is higher in Albania than in Greece, than origin place would be closer to Greece. Higher frequency + lower dispersion = closer to origin place. Time? From the 1st appearance up to now. That's where historiography and archaeology jumps in with historical migrations. It was certainly during Neolithic in the best part (to the west, Italy, Crete,...). A part of so-called Mediterranean anthropology. Zenanarh (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Or may be the Arvanit data have crippled the Greek data:) giving them a higher % LOL. Now serious the dispersion is the pretty much the same between Albanian and Greeks but also this does not explain why North Center of Italy (9.6)(and there were a lot of migrations in that part of Italy:)) has higher values than Greece (6.5) with Croatians close to Greeks (6.2)? My best guess is that that area is the origin. Anyway all I can think now related to it is Maliq culture of that time. Anyway this remains to be clarified later but it seems to me that the lower levels of this J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, is a minus for Thracian origin (in the meaning that most of the Neolithic type in Albanian population is from South Balkan type (14.3%) while From Anatolia is 3.6+1.8=(5.4%) so it comes to almost triple and to this is to be added the value of M267 (3.6%) which puts a Mediterranean influence also, but still the sum is 3.6+5.4=9% under 14.3% with a significant difference regarding Neolithic type HG J). Albanians as a conservative (you agreed on this above) would have inherited higher values for that but no, it didn't happen (it looks like regarding HG J they are mostly autochthonous (M102) with an ingredient from Anatolian and Mediterranean). Anyway mine is pure OR:) Aigest (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Albania surely is too small to be defined as origin place, scientists like to use wider regions in their definitions. So that's southern Balkans. Notice that 6 or 9 or 14% are not high values. 14% is local peak, there's always some +/- tolerance, 14% is simplified statistic value, more correct would be 10-18% or 11-17% (tested individuals are not all nation, just representative group, like 60 or 100 individuals). Wider regions are always more "washed away" than local points; ie I2a1 is ~48% in all Croatia, it's 50-60% in Dalmatia, it's 75% in the island of Brač; or R1b which is pretty high in the British islands, and one of its local peaks is 98% in a certain fishermen city in the north of Scotland. BTW these percentages are relative numbers, cumulatively Greek 6% could mean more people than Albanian 14%.
 * J2a1b (M67) and J2a1b1 (M92) are Anatolian origin, via Bosphorus to Greece, it's colonization of ancient Greece by the other J2 HGs, in some moment when M12 was already there. I've pointed to certain E3b subgroup (E3b is old mark, new is E1b1b... well M78 lineages, see Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)) as HG which originated in the Near East and corresponded to Thracian migration from Anatolia to Thracia 8.000 yrs ago. It's around 45% in Kosovar Albanians and 27% in Albanians. It's actually the most frequent HG in Albanian population. Zenanarh (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well both authors here Battaglia 2008 suggest that the E-V13 sub-clade of E-M78 originated in situ in Europe, and propose that the first major dispersal of E-V13 from the Balkans may have been in the direction of the Adriatic Sea with the Neolithic Impressed Ware culture often referred to as Impressa or Cardial. and Cruciani 2007 suggest that this might have been associated with an in situ population increase in the Balkans associated with the Balkan Bronze age, rather than an actual migratory movement of peoples from western Asia agree on the on situ (Southern Balkans) creation of the population (see the map included for the dispersal) and it is related to the  data you represented before. I think it is referring to this study here which conferms that 45% you mentioned but as you see in the same study there also the Kosovars which have even higher values of M102 (16.7%) than Albanians (14.3%) and there were in total 114+51=165 Albanians and 118 Greeks in that study who had that mark (while there were Macedonian Greeks and Cypriot Greeks who didn't have that mark). So once more the Eastern Balkan origin get a minus both ways. Aigest (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Citing Battaglia here ''In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence.'' So no Anatolia, no east Balkans. The same for Cruciani 2007 only the estimated time difers Now concluding M102 and E-V13 originated in South Balkans (if we go for higher subgroups like from E3b and higher we would go to the Apes:)) both of them have higher values in Albanians (see above) that puts them as pretty much autochthonos populations since (M102 and E-V13 though:)) Aigest (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many papers, many theories. See this, read "introduction" section. Zenanarh (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very shortly after the publication of these two books, Cruciani et al. (2007) published a new study defining ten subclades of haplogroup E3b1a-M78 through several newly identified unique event polymorphisms (UEP’s).[7] The subclade E3b1a2 (identified by the presence of the V13 and V36 UEPs) was found by Cruciani et al. (2007) to have a strong phylogeographic association with the southern Balkan peninsula; this subclade also was found by the same study to correspond very closely to the α (“alpha”) cluster of E3b1a-M78, first identified by Cruciani et al., (2004) using microsatellite (STR) data. Cruciani (2007) also stated that the subclade defined by the V13 UEP (phylogenetically equivalent to E3b1a2 and E3b1α) was found in 85% of western European males who also were positive for E-M78.


 * Semino et al. (2004) viewed E3b1a-M78, of which E3b1a2 is, by far, the most common subclade in Europe, as an indicator of the diffusion of people from the Balkans (along with a “companion” clade, J2b1-M12/M102) and therefore a cAndo-Indianoidate for a residual genetic signature of the Neolithic demic diffusion model. Cruciani et al. (2007) have brought the Neolithic dating assumption into question, however, by their revised dating of the expansion of E-V13 and J-M12, from the Balkans to the remainder of Europe, to a period no earlier than the Early Bronze Age ("EBA").


 * Two dating methods were employed by Cruciani (2007) to calculate the "time to most recent common ancestor" ("TMRCA"): that of Zhivotovsky et al. (2006) based on his "evolutionary effective” mutation rate for an average square distance ("ASD") calculation, and the second based on Forster et al. (1996) and Saillard et al. (2000) utilizing ρ ("rho") statistics, employed to "assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.” Cruciani et al. (2007) found that Forster’s method produced time estimates that were slightly younger than the ASD-based method but that the difference was significant only for the root of the entire haplogroup.


 * An important finding of this study was that E-V13 and J-M12 had essentially identical population coalescence times. They concluded that the E-V13 and J-M12 subclades expanded in Europe outside of the Balkans as the result of “a single evolutionary event at the basis of the distribution of haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 within Europe, a finding never appreciated before.” Further, Cruciani, et al. (2007) wrote that


 * Our estimated coalescence age of about 4.5 ky for haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe (and their C.I.s) would also exclude a demographic expansion associated with the introduction of agriculture from Anatolia and would place this event at the beginning of the Balkan Bronze Age, a period that saw strong demographic changes as clearly testified from archeological records.


 * These expansion times were calculated by Cruciani (2007) to have occurred between 4.0-4.7 kya for E-V13 and 4.1-4.7 kya for J2-M12, with the upper limit of the expansion time for E-V13 at 5.3 kya and for J2-M12 at 6.4 kya. Both expansion times therefore are centered at approximately 4.3-4.35 kya, a period of time corresponding to the EBA in the southern Balkans (Hoddinott, 1981).


 * Cruciani et al.’s E-V13 and J2-M12 coalescence times bear a striking similarity to carbon-14-based date calculations for certain archaeological sites in the Maritsa river valley and its tributaries, near the city of Nova Zagora, Bulgaria (Nilolova, 2002). These sites are associated directly with the proto-Thracian culture of the southern Balkans that came to dominate the region during the first millennium BCE. Sites surveyed included Ezero, Yunatsite, Dubene-Sarovka and Plovdiv-Nebet Tepe, all of which had deep associations with the developing EBA proto-Thracian culture of the region. It is evident that if Cruciani et al. (2007) are approximately correct in their dating of the expansion of E-V13 from the Balkans, then Oppenheimer’s theory of the role of E3b in Neolithic Britain is flawed fundamentally. E3b1a2 could not have arrived in Britain during the Neolithic era (6.5-5.5 kya) if it had not yet expanded from the southern Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently with the above article has been dealed here while the E-V13 appears to be notably absent in Central England where this author (Bird) rather justifies and this is a minus of his theory and also the same author seems to forget the Peloponnesian Greeks 47%!!! which means the higher % of all this E-V13 (unless Peloponnesian were Thracians by that time:)). So we have here many studies and groups of authors interpreted by Cruciani 2007 and Battaglia 2008, against a theory of Bird 2007 which is based on the absent data  E-V13 appears to be notably absent in Central England and some lack of memory Peloponnesians 47%!! and moreover for what the study Cruciani and later Battaglia declared about the origin from South Balkans (without mentioning his historical interpretation, the fact that Dardanians are generally classified as Illyrians (no Thracian name west of Morava) by linguist Krestchmer, Alfoldy, Katicic, Krahe, Mayer etc even forgetting the high values of M102 among them which further connects them to Southern Balkans etc or the fact that Thracians might have that mark also in some level just like the current Bulgarian population has and either he is not secure about this (a) whether E-M78 (putatively E-V13) haplotypes from the Northern Wales/Cheshire geographic cluster and from the southeastern England cluster are in fact from the same population, originating in the Balkan peninsula, or whether their arrival times and migration routes are substantially different; (b) what role (if any) J2-M12 has had in the Roman occupation and settlement of Britain; and, (c) could any E3b haplotypes located in the Rhine river region also have been the result of settlement and military occupation of Germania Inferior by soldiers of Balkan origin?) anyway concluding his hypothesis is not based and convincing (based on lack of data and dubious historical and genetical interpretation see above) Anyway my idea is that the actual data regarding the Neolithic marks of the current Albanian population tells us two confirmed facts '''1. Population generated in Southern Balkans (no significant marks on Anatolian and Bosforus area) 2. It moved North (E-V13 Central Europe) and West' (M102 Adriatic, Italy)''. and whether it happenned in Bronze Age ''A single clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic.'' (Cruciani 2007) or earlier in Neolithic (Battaglia 2008) it fits with the autochthonous theory of the Illyrians as a Balkan generated ethnos (Benac, Korkuti, Stipcevic, Anamali, Bosh-Gimpera) Aigest (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link about a genetic study on Thracian population citing human fossil bones of 20 individuals dating about 3200-4100 years, from the Bronze Age, belonging to some cultures such as Tei, Monteoru and Noua were found in graves from some necropoles in SE of Romania, namely in Zimnicea, Smeeni, Candesti, Cioinagi-Balintesti, Gradistea-Coslogeni and Sultana-Malu Rosu.... and the human fossil bones and teeth of 27 individuals from the early Iron Age, dating from the 10th -7th century B.C. from the Hallstatt Era (the Babadag Culture), were found extremely SE of Romania near the Black Sea coast, in some settlements from Dobrogea, namely: Jurilovca, Satu Nou, Babadag, Niculitel and Enisala-Palanca nd in the end the result  Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9 %), the Alban (6.3 %) and the Greek (5.8 %) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%). Aigest (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it seems my knowledge of Neolithic HGs was frozen in 2007. Well, whole genetic picture of the Balkans fits with the autochthonous theory of the Illyrians. More or less, genetic pool of the Balkans didn't change signaficiantly from the Iron Age up to now. Maybe 2 main changes were some influx of nomads from the north during Migration Period (1.500 yrs ago) which probably increased R1a percentage to some degree (R1a surely contributed earlier to Pannoni, Iapodes or some others, starting to be present in the Balkans from 3th-2nd millenium BC); and some influx of the Turks (500 yrs ago) which probably additionally increased presence of the Neolithic HGs (E, J) in the southern and central Balkans. Then we have 4 main reservoirs of male genes contributing to the Illyrians (Illyricum) and neighbors Thracians, Greeks,... Paleolithic people settled in 2 Ice Age refugiums (20.000 yrs ago): I2 refugium in the western Balkans (Gravettian Culture) and small Peloponnese R1b refugium. Allegedly there was also R1a refugium to the north of the Black Sea, but they reached Balkans much later (4.000 yrs ago). During Neolithic new groups came via Asia Minor (E, J) by whom agriculture moved to Europe replacing the culture of Gravetian hunters (cave lion killers, neanderthal rapists, food collectors). Neolithic influx must have lasted for all period of Neolithic, first were agriculture bringers, the last were Asia Minor culture bearers - directly involved in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Culture story. In the Balkans 2 groups were meeting: Paleolithic people survived (genetically) in the western Balkans (every 2nd Croat, Herzegovinian, Bosniak), while those (R1b?) from the southern and eastern Balkan were simply flood by the Neolithic farmers. Levantine people who came to the south were part of global Levantine migration to the Mediterranean, they contributed to ethnogenesis of the Greeks, Italic people, Thracians, but also Illyrians - obviously those in the south. It's interesting that all places where these 2 different groups have met (Paleo indigenes & Neo migrators) produced recognised cultures of a region, during the Bronze Age, like Ethruscans, Veneti, Old Greeks (R1b + E,J), Liburni (predominant I2 + small J) or Illyrian proper in the Iron Age (I2 + E,J). For this last one there's no doubt that I2 was predominant in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, while Albania and Montenegro were a sort of mixing zone. Macedonia has perfect admixture of I2/E/J. Dalmatae group same as the Southern Pannoni must have had almost exclusively I2 mark. There were certainly differences within Illyrian proper ethnic body, so Ardiaei settled in the southern Dalmatia must have been predominantly I2, while Taulanti settled in Albania were probably E/J predominantly. What really changed in last 2.000 yrs is that we are driving cars now, ignoring good old astrology and our languages have changed (as they always do) ;) Zenanarh (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well interestingly I had a conversation yesterday with a wellknown ALbanian archaeologist specialised in Neolithic he informed me about this 5ème colloque L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Epire dans l'Antiquité taken place in Grenoble on October 2008 where he himself was a participant. Speaking about the hypothesis of EV13 he said that indeed the movement of Neolithic was from the south Balkans to Europe North and West(also used by Renfrew). Regarding the actual Albanian territory he (but not only him:)) linked it with Maliq culture in Korca basin (while Maliq has an uninterrupted culture and has been used as a timer for chronology but there were also Vlush, Dunavec, Kolsh and Podgorie) where the recent results (carbon) made in Florida(USA) in 2009 for that area had dated it at 6000 B.C. (Pogradec data in Korca basin). A very interesting thing (for me:)) I heard from him was about a difference you could see in archaeological findings north and south of Shkumbin river (which maybe will be presented later as a theory) coinciding with Tosk-Geg division of Albanians. As for the epirots ... well you know everybodies opinion except that of the modern greeks:) (the old ones thinked differently:)). Now returning to genetic data that was some good info interestingly south Illyrians propably were different from north Illyrians (ok we are OR here) may be the movement of EV13 (propably Thessaly region) was along the thin line of Adriatic cost (even passing Otranto to South Italy) not entering so much in the internal Bosnia and also through Vardar Morava valley to the Danubian basin. My guess is that the Protoalbanians (if they were not the origin:)) were very close to the origin of this movement since they are harbouring higher values and this places them prety much in the same area coinciding with Ev13 and M102 also in the same time.But mine is only a guess anyway:). Bests Aigest (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Geography played important role for Neolithic migrators. Neolithic farmers penetrated to Europe via Bosphor-Greece-Vardar-Morava-Danube motorway. River basins, nice lands to be cultivated. That's excatly line which has significant frequency of E/J HGs, especially E-V13 on its way to Central Europe. To the west (Bosnia&Herzegovina, Dalmatia) there were mountains as a barrier. E-V13 is almost completely absent in Croatia, while in B&H its presence (as well as J) comes certainly from local migrations from the east to the west of the Balkan peninsula during Ottoman expansion. There is some J in Croatia (M102), probably the remains of those migrators who were using the sea and the coast on their journey to the west. Their frequency could have been somewhat larger in the past, which changed once again thanx to the Ottomans, since there were massive local migrations (refugees) from Dalmatian inland to the coast and islands. Zenanarh (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I compiled these tables (you can later delete them seems they take much space:))

hope this is useful;) Bests Aigest (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all very interesting. Albanians have highest frequency E1b1b in Balkans, but they have low diversity, meaning that it spread there relatively late, and has accrued a high frequency due to genetic drift, given that Albanians had been an isolated population inhabiting remote areas. Therefore V13 did not originate in Albanians.

E M-78 arose in northern Africa somewhere. According to Cruciani, the mutation which defines V13 subsequently originated in Anatolia, then came to Europe sometime between 17 kya to 7 kya, then expanded from within ths southern Balkans during the Balkan Bronze age trade explosion.

According to Bataglia, northern African hunter gatherers dispersed E M-78 during to Holocene wet period. He then places the origin of the V13 linease somewhere in Macedonia or Peloponessus in the late Mesolithic. It expanded due to indigenous southern Balkaners adopting farming, hence increasing their reproductive succesess. Pericic highlighted the role of the Morava-Danube-Vardar river systems in spreading it thorughout the Balkans. Battaglia talks of 'leap frog' colonization of these Balkan former hunter-gatherer turned farmers up the Adriatic and further west. I don;t know how he came up with this, given that V-13 is not very well presented in Croatia or northern Italy; unless it was a very small number of pioneer colonists. Pericic's theory is more supported by the current distribution of V13, being so abundant it Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Albania and Serbia, as well as southern Italy (which could be due to Greek settlements).

That's the trouble with these studies, they come up with huge variations in time - one's neolithic the other Bronze Age. They are hardly concrete findings. Moreover, these authors' conclusions are made on the basis of how they see their data connecting with what is known through archaeology or linguistics. So we still cannot, at this point, take them as hard facts. But they do show some interesting trends.

The story of J2 is even more comlicated, because the patterns we see in its overall distribution are made up different sub-clades, all of which have a different, and as yet, not fully illustrated demographic histories (as you guys have noted above). From what I have understood:


 * J2 originated in near east in hunter gatherers who began to spread after LGM, and therfore diversify, creating J2a sub-lineages (Cinnioglu)


 * According to Semino 2004, undifferentiated j2 (ie J2 M172*) simply follows the Anatolia to southern Europe pattern, suggesting a Middle Eastern to European spread during the Neolithic.


 * J2a -M410 is prominent in Crete and Anatolia, thus King et al postulated to have expanded from Anatolia to Crete during late Neolithic/ early bronze Age. Goes with archaeological evidence which proposes that the minoans developed from Anatolia/ west Asia.


 * J2b (M12) is more prevalent in northern Greece, as well as Albania, Macedonia rather than Crete. It is absent in Anatolia. So it could have come from somewhere near Syria (ie Levant) by a migration of farmers, likely by sea, given that it's rare in Turkey. (King et al). Instead, Semino (2004) connects it to a spread from the southern Balkans.


 * J2a1 (M92 & 67) expanded in Crete 3100 BC (King et al) and other bronze Age expansion in Europe. Cinnioglu found it is prevalent in northwest Anatolia (ie near Europe), and connected it with maritime Troia culture (ie ancient Troy). Semino found that its also high in Caucasus, southern Balkans and central -southern Italy, suggesting a land spread via the Bosphorus to the Balkans and seaborne spread to Italy. Di Giacomo instead favours its emergence in the Aegean, expanding due to the Greeks.

Also, there is no mention that R1b was in an ice age refugium in Peloponeese, but in Anatolia. Hence R1b arrived in the Balkans post -LGM or Holocene period from two directions - Iberia and Anatolia. hence the localized high diversity of R1b in Croats and Greeks (as per Pericic). And I don;t thnk that R1a was brought in by the Turkics. They were Mongolians, but Sarmatians and Scythians were 'white', anthropologically speaking, who originated in the Ukrainian steppe, thus woule have brought in R1a1 lineages into the Balkans also, in addition to the ice age survivors from Ukraine, the hypothetical indo-europeans, Goths from Oium, Sclavenes, Antes, etc.

The other thing to remember is that Y haplogroups are only part of the story. They are good for picking up migrations, but do not give the "complete picture' like autosomal DNA does. If you look at autosomal DNA studies, they show that there isn't any significant clustering, unlike Y DNA Hgs, which show sharp geographic patterning. This because Y DNA Hgs are so prone to drift. Autosomal DNA more accuratley reflects the overall genetic diversity, and this shows that Europe is very homogeneous, with gentle gradients ("clines") showing a northwest to southeast axis.

As Z pointed out, mtDNA is also less geographically structured. However, rather than women being more stationary, its probably becuase they moved around more ! The practice of patrilocality means that women move to the home of their husband. That's why mtDNA Hgs are more ubiquitous, and not restricted to cerain regions. Also polygyny means that only a few powerful men produced sons, with many women. Tha's why Y DNA Hgs are more restricted to cerain areas, where they predominate.

Lastly, not all geneticists believe that there is genetic continuity between ancient and modern Europeans. Levy-Coffman thinks that, without comparing ancient DNA patterns with modern ones, we can be sure that the modern distributions are a realistic reflection of anceint demographic processes. In fact, she belives that all the migrations, plagues, famines and wars have basically created a new European race, totally different from the ancients.

By the way Z, I;m coming to Croatia ! Hxseek (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm apparently (King and Underhill 2008) just like Battaglia have contradicted Cruciani about the Bronze age, they go more with estimation of Battaglia "The calculated expansion time of haplogroup E3b1a2- V13 in mainland Greece is 8,600 y BP at Nea Nikomedeia and 9,200 y BP at Lerna/Franchthi Cave and is consistent with the late Mesolithic/initial Neolithic horizon. These dates exceed those reported previously for Europe (Cruciani et al., 2007) that date to the Bronze Age. This discrepancy arises mainly because of differences in the choice of mutation rate used." and also the Pericic data are also discussed because higher values of E-V13 are found in mainland Greece "One can point to another post-colonization population influx into Crete (1100 BC) this time from Greece, as represented by V13 which occurs at ca. 35% frequency in both Thessaly and the Peloponnese while its frequency on Crete is only 7%, indicating a mainland contribution to the Cretan Y chromosome inventory, albeit no more than 20%.". So more likely that the E-V13 mutation happened in Neolithic in South Balkans (Battaglia 2008,Underhill 2008) Regarding the actual Albanian population the E-M78 is represented only by E-V13, giving the closed nature of Albanian society, the absence of other markers (otherwise some other markes should have been retained) indicate that at least they were no near Anatolian area (as for the E-M78). If the data of Underhill are to be confirmed the frequency of E-V13 in continental Greeks (35%) is surprisingly similar with that of the Albanians (32%). If it originated in South Balkans (Thessaly area I suppose) that puts the contribution of E-V13 to the neighboring populations of regions of South Illyria, Ancient Macedonia and Thracia. Since there are no other markers of E-M78 except for E-V13 in current Albanian population that puts them in Macedonia or South Illyria (we are speaking of Neolithic here no nations just regions) just for the Hg E contribution. As for the Hg J contribution also in the current Albanian population is represented mostly by M12/M102 (14.3%) with some contributions from M67 (3.6%), M267 (3.6%) and M92 (1.8%). According to Semino 2004 ''J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans'' again the distribution in Europe from Southern Balkans Again here the subgroup M172* itself (expanded in Anatolia region and in Greece an Macedonia) it is not represented in current Albanian population just like the Croat population. The M12 is considered to have followed the Adriatic route (N-C Italians 9.6%, Croatians 6.2%, Greeks 6.5% no presence in Hyngary). It is too much to consider again a genetic drift for the current Albanian population (It should have been very selective and smart gene selecting only E-V13 and M12 for the current Albanian population:)). So in the end considering what is to be the contribution of HgE and HgJ in the current Albanian population it is with a big % presented by population generated in South Balkans which moved North and West (Semino M12 west, also Battaglia V13 and M12 West, while Cruciani North and West) propably in Neolithic times (Battaglia 2008, Underhill 2008) and small signs of Anatolian connection (M67 (3.6%), M267 (3.6%) and M92 (1.8%) which could also have arrived through Adriatic sea just like in Puglia or North Italy). As for the HgI as I remember the conclusions of Rootsi 2004 "Nonetheless, the I1a data in Scandinavia are consistent with a post-LGM recolonization of northwestern Europe from Franco-Cantabria, whereas the expansion of I1b* in the east Adriatic–North Pontic continuum probably reflects demographic processes that began in a refuge area located in that region" so the refuge for the population regarding I1b* should have been in that line east Adriatic–North Pontic, an imaginary line from Dalmacia to Moldova peaks (24.1%) descending through Southern Balkans (Albanians 17%, Greeks 8.4%) and not in Peloponesium or Anatolia. Also is interesting that is not presented in Northern Italia (1%). Aigest (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep Hxseek (talk)

I'll be spending most of my time in Split and Dubrovnik. I have a cousin in Korcula I'll visit. How far is Zadar from Split by car ? Hxseek (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I might visit. I'm sure zadar is beautiful Hxseek (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Zen do you mind if I copy this discussion here (apart the tourism issue:)) to another talk page . I think it will be very useful there. Thanks in advance;) Aigest (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Copy it. Zenanarh (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians heritage
I intend to add to the Illyrians article a subarticle about Illyrians heritage nowadays. If you have any material on that that would be great (For eg as far as I remember at Stipcevic book it was a reference to Truhelka(?) about a costume still in use in late XIX century in a Dalmatian island to part the land every 8 years relating it to Dalmatae as expresily stated in old authors Strabonis(?)). Not only this kind of things but everything you feel that could be used in that article. Bests Aigest (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Long time, no see... or speak... or type... whatever :p

But anyway, I'm back to Wikipedia after about a two month break... I'm ready to start editing articles about Michigan and the The Balkans, as well as your userpage again!

Also, odd question, but what is the etymology of your username?

Jacob S. leaveMeAMessage 05:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Still around
Hey Z. If you're still here, you gave me a good account of the border history of the Frankish -Bulgar wars in pannonia earlier. can you direct me to it's source (was it Klaic ? ) Hxseek (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, yeah. Same old Balkans. I got some good info on early Croat history, Pannonia, Carantania, etc. I read Gudulescu's book too. unfortunately, there aren't any English versions of Klaic's book I can find. Nevermind, I think I have quite a bit of info to re-vamp some of the old articles. By the way, I was in Hvar, Ston and Dubrov in July. Lovely place. I really enjoyed partying in Hvar :) Hxseek (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK ? So what are the 'lively' places, for next time ? Hxseek (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthropology
Hey. Have you come across the paper "Anthropological analysis of the Old Croat necropolis in Nin-Zdrijac in reference to the Slav settlement in the Balkans" in Sbornik Narodniho musea v Praze 43:131-39 ?

Also, a while ago you were telling me some mtDNA work on Illyrian remains was being started

Hxseek (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * mm. I don;t know now either whether it was about Illyrians or Croats. Anyway, do you happen to have that paper about the Croat necropolis and the dolicocephaly of the buried peples there ? Hxseek (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right. But, do you have that paper on physical antrhopology and alleged similarities of Croat Slavs with those in Poland Hxseek (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you can that'l be great. It is good to get a variety of disciplines when studying our origins- linguistics, genetics, anthropology, etc. I have been reading quite a lot of Croatian works. Some are really great, although I found Gudulescu's work from th 60s a bit chauvanistic. Budek is a great scholar, his article of Croatian identities is very sound. Croatia had great wealth of archaeological finds, other places, eg central Bosnia or southern Serbia are lacking anything on par with the richness of the so-called "Old Croat culture" of the late 700s/ early 800s. This must mean that the rise of the Croats was indeed one of a powerful militarized class under the patronage of Avars, then Carolngians. I think the White Croatia "migration" theory is dead Hxseek (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way have you heard the one about "Croats' being a Turkic tribe ? Hxseek (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you cannot obtain an overall view from one site, regarding the anthopological side of things. I'm sure early medieval Croatia would show a mixture of Nordic, Dinaric and other sub-types, perhaps maybe even a few Mongolids. I'm just interested in the exact pattern and variation. I read an awesome antrhopological book about the Avars, and the varation of sub-types in different areas.

Regarding the "Old Croat culture": its style certainly bespeaks of a Late Avar influences (belt mounts, straps, etc), as well as Carolongian swords, spurs, etc. All such finds indicate they belonged to powerful & influential men, possibly the Croat dukes and their retinue of zhupans named in sources. Such finds appear throughout northern Croatia from Nin to Cetina and inland considerably. The finds at Nin are apparently the richest. It has been argued that the rise of the Croat polity coincides with the arcaheology findings, which are dated to the 8th and 9th centuries. Gradually between the 630s and the final collapse of the Avar Khanate in 800, a new regional power rose in northern Dalmatia. Gradually, it broke free off Avars and rather became more influence by the Franks as they pushed out the Avars. Virtually exact same picture in Carantania and Moravia. We see a rise of regional centres which evetually break off the centre (between the Tisza and Danube rivers in Pannonian plain). Probably, the Croat realm consisted of a mixture of people (Slavs, autochthons, other peoples in Avar Empire). However, to unify their realm and legitimise their rule, the Croat dukes borrowed or created and the propagated an 'origin myth' recounting the collective memory of the Croat people and their migration from 'White Croatia'. Some have argued that this story was created by the Croats themselves and that the Byzantines heard it from one of their representatives in the Dalmatian cities. However, the construct of the story betrays a Byantine invention, given that it is just like many other stories. Eg, that of the Serbs, the migration of the Bulgars from an original "Great Bulgaria", the migration of the Goths from Scandinavia - the supposed Germanic "homeland", etc, etc. All speak of a migration of an entire 'people' led by a royal family from somewhere north.

Whatever the case, the story in DAI is semi-legendary. That is not to say that the DAI is useless. Rather, I think it is a very accurate document - as it should be; given that it was created by the Emperor of the Byzantines. However, its accuracy does not pertain to the origins myths in it, but to its reporting of the political situation in Europe during Porphyrogenitus' era (9mid 900s). Therefore, when he states that the Croats "split off and also took Pannonia", it means that in the mid-10th century, the Croats ruled the land between the Sava & Drava. Ljutovid, on the other hand, in the 820s, was not a Croat- there is no evidence to suggest that identifie as a 'Croat'. Rather, he was the "Slavic duke of lower Pannonia" (as the Annals say). With similar reasoning: Pagania, Travunia, and Zahumlje were under the authority of the Serbs in mid-1oth century. It does not mean that in the 700s a large ethnically coherent group of people called Serbs came to the Balkans and inhabited all Raska, Bosnia, and southern Dalmatia. Like the Croats, the Serbs must have started off in somehwere in southern serbia, southeastern Bosnia under Byzantine and Bulgarian influence, maybe even Frankish also. However, the archaeological findings there are quite modest compared to that of the Croats.

As for the name Croat, its etymology is almost undisputedly Iranic. If at some point a group of Iranic Croats existed in Europe, then they considerably moulded into a totally different people already by the 900s. Certainly, Sarmato-Iranic groups existed throughout the Balkans and Europe, however, no clear reference to "Croats' exists in sources as a distinct ethno-tribal unit before the 800s. Eg, in the Avar khanate, sources tell us that there were Sklavenes, Antes, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Zabender, etc, etc, but no Croat (or Serb) mentions. Budek suggested that some tribal names 'floated around', ie were used by multiple people. Similarly, the Byzantines sometimes often merely 'recycled' names. Whenever a new barbarian polity emerged, they often re-used old terms like Scythians, Goths, or Venethi.

Hxseek (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Interesing paper Hxseek (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the paper about R1a1 possibly originating in Balkans ? Hxseek (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The author dates it to c. 11 kYA (from what I remember). He thinks that R1a1 differentiated from R1* in the Balkans, then spread to southern Russian steppe. Here check it out.

However, its just another theory. Indian geneticists argue that India has the highest R1a1 frequency and diversity, therefore it originated in India. I think it is a large "Eurasian marker" since many eons ago. It seems to have high diversity in India and Balkans because they have geographical and cultural diversity. In the 'centre' - ie the plains of Iran, steppes of central Asia and Russia, all R1a1 lineages homogenized (ie diversity became molded together), due to lack of significant barriers. Hxseek (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That paper was referenced in one of Curta's books. I think I ordered the article from my local library. Its old, obsiously, but good o get an idea. I am also waiting fro another one which apparently looks at all the ex-Yugo areas. I know "genetic antrhopology" has taken over, but physical antrhopology still has a place, if not the least, it gives a 'direct' reflection of what is going on at a certain point in time Hxseek (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Map
It is nice one. We could use it for Illyrian tribes, etc. So you download it onto your Inskape, then just delete all the words and labelling, leeaving the rivers. Ie each component of the map can be seperately deleted so you're left with only what you need. Capish ? Hxseek (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What Illyrian maps require constructing ? Hxseek (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I look forward to seeing it Hxseek (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthro
Thanks for that. Very interesting.

I have obtained some very interesting articles, some old, some new. Some you probably know about: Anthropological Analysis of Old Croat necropolis in Nin-Zdrijac.., Theories about settlement of Slavs in Yugoslavia in light of anthropological finds, Craniometric Relationships among Medieval Central European Populations: Implications for Croat Migration and Expansion.

New Genetics articles about R1a1 and new sub-lineages and their relationship to questions about Slavs, Scythians, Indo-Europeans. If you want these, I can email them to you Hxseek (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * the old croat articles are hard copies. I'd have to photo-copy them an mail them to you Hxseek (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (Which I don;t mind doing) Hxseek (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some very interesting new developments have come along in R1a. They have found a few new subclades, giving a more specific demographic history for R1a. Although they cannot locate it exactly, the current theory is the it probably arose in either Pontinc steppe, southe Asia (nth India), or western Siberia. SO it preceded any supposed Indo-European migration, and recent studies argue that diversity is greates in Northern India, therefore it is likely oldest in Sth Asia. However, there might have been two 'poles of spread' one sth Asia, the other eastern Europe. They found ancient Y-DNA from Corded Ware bodies from the Bronze Age, as well as in Scythians, meaning that it existed at least back then in Europe in those people.


 * They found a new subclade - R1a1a7. Most R1a in the world is R1a1a. Straight R1a and R1a1 don;t occur much. Similarly R1a1a1 -through-to-6 are also rare. But R1a17 is common in eastern Europe, esp Poland (most) (where it is most of the total R1a), Czech areas, Ukraine, a bit in Russia (only say 7% of the 40% of R1a in men). In the South Slavs, however, R1a1a7 is rare (only 20% in one Dalmatia island ( forget which one), and less than 5% everywhere else. Rather, there they have just Ra1a, which is obviously the older one found throughout Eurasia from easterm Europe to sth India. Meaning the similarity in R1a1 of sth Slavs with other eastern Europeans stems from an older migratory event, and not a more recent one (Corded Ware culture, or Slavs).

Hxseek (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What'a your email Hxseek (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vindelicia
Hi Zenanarh, I replied on my talk page. Pasquale (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Zenanarh, I do agree with you that personal names are of limited value when assessing ancient languages, but when that is all you have, then you have to take it. A much bigger mistake in analyzing ancient languages is confusing archeological evidence with linguistic evidence, which is apparently what you do, and I quote you: "But in the Bronze Age, proto-Liburnians (in the same place) are linked to the Dinarian pre-Indo-Europeans and influence of Pannonian Vučedol culture of West Croatian-Slovenian (Ljubljansko Barje) type (and this one had nothing to do with Ligurians, more likely Aryans - admirers of Orion). Adriatic-Pannonian migrations (Dorian was one of it) from 1200-1000 BC broke Bronze Age continuety in "Liburnia" partially and from that moment we can speak about the Liburnians." All of this tells us absolutely nothing about the linguistic affiliation of the Liburnians. There are many cases in which archeology shows a continuity of settlement, but the historical record shows a language change. It looks like you are even reaching back into the Bronza Age, the second millennium B.C., looking for evidence on the Liburnians of 1,500 years later! During those 1,500 years, the language spoken in historical Liburnia may have changed several times. As a trained historical linguist, I guarantee you the archeological evidence is almost meaningless. By comparison, the reference to "Servius' commentary on Virgil's Aeneid i. 243" is much more useful, since it comes from a contemporary. I had thought you were saying that that reference was incorrect, but apparently you don't. You simply, in your own words, "don't know what to do with Servius and Virgil". Well, in that case, I have to ask you politely to leave that reference there, since, as I repeat, it is of greater value than any conclusions you might attempt based on the archeological evidence. Pasquale (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Badnjak
Do you happen to have any information on the Croatian history of badnjak? Check out the page if you will, and try to help it out. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked my librarian today on this, on the sources regarding the adoption of pre-Christian beliefs of Slavs into Christianity, namely the badnjak log custom, and she was like "WTF" :) However, I did manage to find one book on my on that mentions something on this, although the article currently cries for some serious, dedicated ethnological sources from Croatian perspective (which I don't have the faintest idea where to even start looking for!). Scanned relevant pages from that book:, , , --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Illyrians
I don't know if it has been stated in literature much, but I have had a thought about Illyrians and Rome. As you know, The Roman Empire's take over Ilyrian tribes was a conquest, albeit a large amount of autonomy was left to local populace. Nevertheless, the old tribal systems were changed - new ones were formed, and old stubborn ones divided (eg Breuci, Andizetes of Pannonia). For the first 200 years of occupation, they were in essence ruled by 'Italian' Romans- who formed the senatorial classes. During this time, many were given ROman citizenship, joining the army (had the best strength) and cities were formed, changing the fabric of society. By the 3rd century, Illyrians were Emperors, basically continuously till 6th century ! This cases a consciuos shift of 'ROman' society to Illyria and Pannonia. This undoubtedly represented an expression of Illyrican identity. THe Praetorium prefect was made of Illyrians, and the basically passed the Emperor title amongst each other. ROme became a has been, as new centres were Sirmium, etc. In essence, the ROman infrastiructure allowed Illyrians to create a never-before supra-regional identity, and ultimately took contrl of the Empire for themselves. That is why the west fell to 'barbarians' first, largely left to its own device. Clearly, the Illyricans wanted to preserve their mother land. Legions, forts, and new power were mostly concentrated to Danube and East. Hxseek (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The point is, that Rome itself was less stabile, due to inner political struggles and loss of idealism which had been earlier used for its creation, than its province Illyricum during the Late Antique. Usurper politics of Rome destroyed Rome at the end, too many slaves were brought to Italy, too many non-Roman cultural artefacts from all parts of Empire were brought there, it became finally a graveyard of the Roman identity and ideal. Some scientists concluded that Illyricum prolonged life of the Empire, but not simply because of a consciuos shift of 'Roman' society to Illyria and Pannonia - all these Illyrian emperors were conscious of their Illyrian identities and many Illyrians were not Romanized at all; it was because this new culture that arose in Illyricum was more pure, unspoiled by sick ideas, such as "Rome above all", "Rome - a city of all cities", etc... Romanized Illyrians simply enjoyed that culture, they didn't create a virtual monster. Zenanarh (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I trust you had a sreken bozhik and nova godina ? Hxseek (talk)


 * I beg your pardon. My Čaikavian is not very good :) Hxseek (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. The only ex-Yugo language that I can speak is Macedonian (& not very well), coz that's what my grandmother is, and that is what i learnt here in Australia when she took care of me when I was young. When I was in Hvar and Dubrov, I could understand most of what people spoke to me, but not the news (ie 'educated' idioms). I found Montenegrin easier to understand Hxseek (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC

Ancient sources
Hi, Zenanarh. OK, so, many modern scholars find the variable quality of [Servius'] work and the often simplistic interpretations frustrating. And so what? That comment refers to the quality of his commentary on Virgil's life, sources, and references, not on the Liburni-Vindelici linkage. The fact remains that this is one of the extremely few ancient sources that say anything at all about the ethnic affiliation of the Liburni, therefore it should be quoted, as should be the few other ancient sources. There should be a section Ancient sources listing that information that you removed. The modern scholars' speculation and conjectures are also of value, but you should always start with the ancient sources when discussing an ancient ethnic group! Pasquale (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban
If you have some spare time, can you tell me what Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik says about Ban and zupan, and their alleged derivation from Avar-Turkic ? Hxseek (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hxseek (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Yes, I've heard of that zhupanm like ban, might be Avaric. Meawhile i'll email you an article about Croat origins. Hxseek (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Understanding?
Since you say that «"... it was provisionally changed to Zadar/Zara from 1910 to 1920 and finally only Zadar in 1945." and "was provisionally changed to Zadar/Zara from 1910 to 1920; from 1920 to 1947 the city became part of Italy as Zara, and finally was named Zadar later on." have completely the same meaning."», then arguably you seem to have problems in understanding, as the first sentence is factually inaccurate and entirely lacking any reference to the Italian name and the Italian government as such. As for the rest of your message linked above, and talking about good faith: who you refer to with "Do you people"? I am a single person; also, you are hinting that I could be zealot who want to glorify fascist occupation. Therefore, I think you should better try to avoid etiquettes and yes, removal of accurate, factual and relevant information is vandalism. Finally, about WP:NCGN thanks for pointing it out. I will read it and operate accordingly, much of course. Bye, --Piero Montesacro (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree about your evalution on what is "equivalent" and what is not, as above. If we speak about official names, the official name was Zara until 1947, and not until 1945, as the article stated before my edit. I have pointed out what is a vandalism, not branded you a vandal, while you are commenting about the author (me), I have just reminded what is a vandalism, i.e. I commented the action and not its author. Therefore, I have not etiquetted anyone. Get it? The name section, much of course, explains, among other things, under which governments the name changed (including changes under Austro-Hungarian rule), and peacefully did so before edited the article: so I don't get why you are complaining about the simple mention of the much obvious and hard fact that cities often change their official name under different governments. Zara was the official name under the Italian government. And Venetian prominent authors did not seem to feel Italian as a foreign language, so to speak: check for example Pietro_Bembo. In conclusion, you have yet to show where I assumed bad faith, while we have stamped in the history of the relevant pages plenty of hints, if not proofs, that you have assumed my bad faith... Ciao! (word of Venetian origin but go tell it's not Italian! ;) --Piero Montesacro (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: we agree on the article contents, which is what counts more here. I perfectly agree with you about this and also about the fact that we don't need to argue on, as you say, stupid things. And not, I have not accused you to be a vandal, absolutely not: I just reminded in the edit line, to any user, what a vandalism is, otherwise, I would have added your name, which I didn't. But please, be so kind to avoid trying to give me lectures on my own mothertongue: as you might know, I happen to be a native Italian speaker and, I presume, a fairly well educated person to know enough about my native language history, which is just a bit more complicated than you seem to imagine. But I am digressing. Once again, let's go ahead in peace, ćao ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piero Montesacro (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies very gladly accepted. :-) Have a nice day! --Piero Montesacro (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Liburnia
I see that you were contributing on that article. There's a book of Ivan Mužić on the internet available in *.pdf format. There's a section in it that speeks about Liburnia. Kubura (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just post your arguments on the talk page and stay calm. Don't take it personally. Just sit and wait. Patience, patience and patience. Problem with literature in English (regarding Croats and Croatia) is that the authors of their books were and still are mostly rechewing the same stereotypes that were served them in 19th and 20th century. Very few of them have scratched to see what's underneath the surface. Kubura (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Trnovo Battle
I'd like to know if you could help - or if you know of anyone who might be able and willing to - in finding sources (either in English or Slovenian and Croatian, possibly to be translated to English) about a series of armed clashes occurred in and around Trnovo essentially between Italian forces (Xa MAS), allied with German forces, and the Slovenian National Liberation Army XIX Brigade "Srečko Kosovel", allied with Italian Partisans, starting from late December 1944 and ending in early January 1945, which are also know in Italian literature as "Battaglia di Tarnova" (Tarnova Battle), occurred during the German-led "Operation Adler". Thanks in advance for your help. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. Could you please be so kind to any Slovenian user that might be helpful on the subject? Thanks again. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Albanian name

 * I never claimed something to warrant this "Arba and Olbonenses have nothing to do with Albanian name.". Of course they dont. I just did this in an effort to start cleaning up the mess. Megistias (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its ok, it happens to me all the time. I also removed the Lopsi.Megistias (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly migrate your liburnia maps to the commons?Megistias (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you cursing?

 * What is this insult for? diff. Liburnians had several 19th century sources, it seemed to forget that a Liburnia article existed, the grammar and syntax errors were appalling, it had Croatian sources when English one exist, Original Research and many other issues.Megistias (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Zenanarh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --86.29.139.90 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Origin of ALbanians
I have been having a rather unfruitful arguement with our colleague, Pannonian, about origin of Albanians, on the Origin of Romanians talk page. Given your knowlegde of Illyrians, you should have a look. Hxseek (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pagania
Hi Zenanarh! There are some changes happening on the Pagania article. You might like to contribute as you were involved in the original consensus concerning Slavs vs. Serbs/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pagania#Re:_Porphyrogenitos-_You.27ll_have_to_get_another_consensus_happening_on_the_talk_page. Link]. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi
How firend. Have you cme across any interesitng data in Croatian literature about the change of toponyms and place names, etc from pre-Slavic to Slavic in the west Balkans - ie the pace, dating and patterns ? Hxseek (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Pozdrav, šta radiš ? have a nice Wiki holiday ? i've been doing a bit. Had a major project re-doing the article on ancient Macedonians, which was difficult but rewarding. Apart from that, I have continued to read about Slavic and other Balkan related things relating to late Antiquity and early Medieval times. I am attempting to publish an article about the Scythians a.t.m; then hope to at some point further develop the Illyrians article page here. By the way, did yu read Danijel Dzino's book Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read anything particularly interesting ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion response

 * Hello there. I'm in response of a request for a third opinion. I am currently reviewing the talk page of the disputed page and should come up with a response in the near future. Whenaxis (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.


 * Hi. This is Whenaxis. I filed an edit war filing on your behalf for both you and Silvio1973 for your edits on Zadar and Luciano. You can see the application here: . Hope all gets resolved - or unfortunately arbitration will be the next step. Yours truly,  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 23:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the edit war has seemed to have calmed down, I have decided not to issue a block in this case, but this is a clear warning that Edit warring and/or violation of the three revert rule are not allowed and will result in a future block if continued. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on ANI
You're being discussed on ANI. &mdash;Dark 21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again
After my decision, I looked back to your contributions and Silvio1973's contributions. And I thought everything was over, then I saw Silvio's edits for Luciano Laurana and Schiavone, and you guys are still disputing.

So I decided to help you guys make a decision by requesting for comments from the larger community. I will follow the dispute in the following days, if you need anymore help, please leave a message on my talk page. Sincerely,  Whenaxis  talk contribs 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Zenanarh)
Hello, Zenanarh. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Requests for comment/Silvio1973 and Zenanarh, where you may want to participate.  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hg I
have you seen this paper. Interestingly, it shows that Hg I is lower in Montenegrins {29.2%) than Serbs (38.5%). This is not what I;d expect given that Montenegrins are basically Dalmatians also. However, it sort of makes sense because Albanians have very low levels of Hg I, although they are just south of Croatia. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you guve me your personal email, i can attach the PDF and send it Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
I brough up your recent behavior on WP:ANI. -- Director  ( talk )  17:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh, I know you do not agree with some other editors regardig this issue, but it's always best to keep calm and remain civil at all times. Understandably, discussion can become heated at times in the debate but it's no excuse for incivil behavior. &mdash;Dark 13:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Hi. It's Whenaxis again. I would just like to follow up with my previous mediation and I would like to see if there are any remaining issues that have been on your mind. Any questions regarding what the next step should be or anything else, I am happy to help you with your journey on Wikipedia. Please leave a message on my talk page on anything I can do to assist. Thanks,  Whenaxis  about &#124; talk 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice
There is a pending AE request related to your edits.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
In accordance with WP:ARBMAC and WP:DIGWUREN, and as a result of this AE thread, you are hereby banned from all articles and discussions concerning the former Yugoslavia (including biographical articles on persons born in that region) for a period of six months. For the avoidance of doubt, this ban applies not merely to this account but to any other under your control and to any IP address from which you choose to edit while logged out. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Who counts our cells
I understand every word You wrote. Seeing this - good God, someone is counting bus stations. There is a good reason why people are leaving en.wiki and why is this project severely suffering from the editor losses. Another user joined the club, as I see. Kubura (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)