Talk:South Slavs/Archive 1

Archive 1

VANDALISM of putting Czechs' ethnicity as ethnic Lechs

West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavic languages because all Slavic peoples used more or less the same Slavic language 1000 years ago and were already partitioned into these western, southern and eastern groups. We Slavic peoples call these ethnic partitions amongst us Slavic peoples for "Lechs" (ethnic Western Slavic peoples), "Czechs" (ethnic Southern Slavic peoples) and "Rusins" (ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples) for a good reason. Common sense tells one that if even Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Pan Piotr Glownia 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lechs, Czechs and Rusins <- the missing major ethnic information about Slavic peoples

Ethnic West Slavic peoples are not equal with West Slavs as it seems and Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples are not equal with South Slavs. Slavic languages 1000 years ago were still quite similiar to eachother and not like it is today. However even from earlier times Slavic peoples had these ethnic partitions amongst Slavic peoples. "Lechs" stand for Ethnic Western Slavic peoples, "Czechs" stand for Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples and "Rusins" stand for Ethnic Eastern Slavic peoples. This is major partition amongst Slavic peoples and it is not based on language, but on ethnicity. Even if Czechs were direct speakers of modern Polish language, then they still would be belonging to the Ethnic Southern Slavic peoples by their ethnicity. Czechs during entire written history never were ethnic Lechs like Poles. Every historical source is certain on this issue. It is possible that this ethnic partition is even older then any possible differentiation of Proto-Slavic language. I direct you to "Lech, Czech and Rus", which is part of Slavic spoken history as well as historical and traditional ethnic partition on Lechs, Czechs and Rusins used amongst Slavic people by the Slavic peoples. Every dictionary and lecture commenting this ethnic partition will ensure that Czechs were always adressed as "Czechs" and not like Poles "Lechs". Czechs and Poles do belong to different ethnic groups otherwise one had to put Czechs and Poles together with Belarusians and Ukrainians into the same Western Slavic ethnicity, as the Lechs, the Czechs and the Rusins originate from the same ethnic origin, which probably used the same proto-Slavic language. All historical sources begining from XIII century ("Chronicle of Greater Poland" written in year 1295) prove it to be the general ethnic partition used by Slavic peoples in Europe. Pan Piotr Glownia 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you seperate slavs into different ethnic groups when they were, originally, all one ethnic group ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

South Slavic group

Someone who dod writte article, put Sokci and Bunjevci like part of south Slavic. Sokci and Bunjevci are part of croatian plp and like part of Croatina we are part of Slavic group, of course. Even Bosnian plp doesnt exsist, they are muslim Serbian or muslim Croatian but that is another story.

Dlojan 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bunjevci and Šokci are in Serbia recognized as separate ethnic groups and are listed in census results as such, so I do not see any scientific base to clasiffy them as Croats. Following you logic, we can also classify Croats as a subgroups of Serbs because there are claims that Shtokavian-speaking Croats are in fact Catholic Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Konj256 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) i think there should be some mention of the more recent history of south-slavs, about the idea of unification of all south-slavs, about Yugoslavia and similar.

Bulgarians

Establishing a powerful empire in the 7th century, the First Bulgarian Empire, the Bulgarians were the first South Slavs to adopt Christianity.

Main part of population of the Bulgarian Empire were Slavs and modern Bulgarians descending from them. Of course, the ruling caste of the state was of Turkic or Iranian origin (there are more theories about this of course), but they also were Slavicized since the adoption of Christianity. PANONIAN 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetically neither the Bulgarians are slavic, neither the Russians are, neither the Macedonians or the Serbs. http://protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Genetichni%20izsledvaniya/Chuvash_HLA.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.50.225 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Map

I think the map shown at the top of the page is wrong, or misleading. I know it presents the presence of slavs by language, but it is misleading. Hungary and Romania, although they speak Ugrian and Romance languages contain many slavs.

First of all, a large proprotion of the inhabitants that lived in dark age and medieval Hugary and Romania were slavs. Yes ,they were "margyarised" and "romanised" (in contrast to Bulgria eg, where the bulgars were slavicised), so most would certainly not idetify themselves as slavs now.

Additionally many slavs subsequently found themselves to live in modern hungary and romania after the formation of modern national boundaries in the 20th century.

The map included does not illuestrated this point. The map would be better suited to the article for 'slavic laguages, not "slavic people'

If you get what i mean ?

You are right of course about Slavs of Hungary and Romania, but modern ethnology classify peoples regarding the language they speak, thus the people that speak South Slavic languages are South Slavs (no matter that some of them are not of Slavic but of Illyrian, Thracian or Vlach origin), while people who do not speak South Slavic languages are not South Slavs (no matter that some of them are South Slavs by origin). PANONIAN 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The map is not correct. For first time the term VLACH was used during 11 Century. - In the 10th Century, the Hungarians arrived in the Pannonian plain, and, according to the Gesta Hungarorum written by an anonymous chancellor of King Bela III of Hungary, the plain was inhabited by Slavs, Bulgars, Vlachs and pastores Romanorum (shepherds of the Romans) (in original: sclauij, Bulgarij et Blachij, ac pastores romanorum). However, the chronicle was written around 1146. Bulgaria was not Khaganate since 866. The borders are not correct too! The most of Bulgarian territory was north from Danube and was setteld from Slavic tribes! SOURSE[1] Jingby 08:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sourse[2] Jingby 09:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sourse[3]Jingby 10:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sourse[4]Jingby 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sourse[5]Jingby 10:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another sourse[6] Jingby 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

couple of changes

I have made 2 changes to article

1) The Bulgars; I have simplified the sentence- the bulgars were an Iranian tribe influenced by Turkic language- to simply a Turkic group. This is because, while contentious, most people thik they were Turkic. Secondly it reduces the verbosity of the article

2) I added a little section about the area before the arrival of the slavs to set a bit of a picture of who had been there previously, as this is important to the formation of southern slavs.

Religion

It says here that slavs belived in one god,but they had many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord feanor (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Map (Laveol and Jingiby)

1) The Magyars arrived in the pannonian plain 890s

2) Vlachs is a term we use now for the Romanaised-Dacians that lived in the area north of Bulgaria, whether it was used back in 900AD is irrelevant

3)The map is correct. I know you wish to use a map showing the greatest extent of Bulgarian "Empire", where it ruled over Raska and Bosnia, although it was for only 3 years, but that was a brief period for 3 years from 924-927. The map i used is more correct. Your map focuses on Bulgaria. THis is not an article only about Bulgaria, but all south slavic states. So i constructed one based on sources Please refer to [7]

Thank you both Hxseek 06:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The map is not correct. For first time the term VLACH was used during 11 Century. - In the 10th Century, the Hungarians arrived in the Pannonian plain, and, according to the Gesta Hungarorum written by an anonymous chancellor of King Bela III of Hungary, the plain was inhabited by Slavs, Bulgars, Vlachs and pastores Romanorum (shepherds of the Romans) (in original: sclauij, Bulgarij et Blachij, ac pastores romanorum). However, the chronicle was written around 1146. Bulgaria was not Khaganate since 866. The borders are not correct too! The most of Bulgarian territory was north from Danube and was setteld from Slavic tribes! SOURSE[8] Jingby 08:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are cinfusing yourself

The map is circa 900s. By this time the Magyars had already arrived in Pannonia. They arrived c. 890s. Yes it was already inhabited by Slavs and Bulgars, but they were dominant caste.

As for Bulgarian Empire's control of lands to the north, this control was inconsistant at best, and was lost, during 900s, with the arrival of the Magyars who raided the area frequently.

Finally, as i already said, it doesn;t matter when the vlachs started being called "Vlachs", they were there in the 900s (if you wanna call them Romano-Dacian, or whatever, it does not matter.Hxseek 09:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually. borders were very volatile, so we could both be right. I guess the only thing that will solve it is to have more mapsHxseek 10:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And the question about the Khaganat part still stands. This is the second time you try to insert statements without having the knowledge and sources for it. Again - if you are aiming at NPOV, please, try to have the facts correct. I see you have sense and only good intentions, but still - facts, facts, facts. --Laveol ^T 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well again, i do know what i;m saying. The Bulgarian rulers only stopped used the title Khan sometime after 900s. It was during Boris' rule that Christianity was cemented as the official religion, giving up the old pagan beliefs. But it was not until 913 that Simeon was 'crowned' by a byzantine contingency as tsar or emperor. So definitely until the mid 800s, the rulers were still referred to as Khans, therefor the state was a Khanate. Hxseek 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of 864, Boris I was secretly baptized at Pliska by an embassy of Byzantine clergymen, together with his family and select members of the Bulgarian nobility. With Emperor Michael III as his godfather, Boris also adopted the Christian name Michael. Jingby 05:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Who were..

I disagree with your new inclusion to the section. Note it is titles : who were the slavs. Not who are they now. THe prupose of it was to give some kind of information as to what was known about the original slavs that came to the Balkans and contributed to the make up of modern day south 'slavs'. I think your text will be better suited to a seperate genetics section Hxseek 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cities - population

Data given as cities population are misleading. Namely, in case of Belgrade, city proper and metropolitan area are given together, while for Sofia and Zagreb (I didn't look any further) only numbers for city proper were given. Data are from statistical censuses, linked from Wiki articles. Here are the real numbers:

Name	City	Metropolitan	Total
Belgrade	1282801	294323	1576124
Sofia	1270450	109956	1380406
Zagreb	779145	309696	1088841

Any objections? If not, I'll change data accordingly. --Plantago 07:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Migrations and Origins Section

The quote was wrong so I replaced it with the original by John of Ephesus:

“the accursed people of the Slavs set out and plundered all of Greece, the regions surrounding Thessalonica, and Thrace, taking many towns and castles, laying waste, burning, pillaging, and seizing the whole country." VI 6.25

The doctored quote i removed was this, I highlighted the doctored parts so everyone can see, what is more interesting however is what was left out compared to the original I put above:

“the accursed .. Slavs wandered across the whole of Greece, the lands of the Thessalonians and the whole of Thrace, taking many towns and forts, .. and making themselves rulers of the whole country”

Also there is no such thing as Macedonia Sclavinia - if there is however, please show it in a non slav nationalistic website and I will put it back ASAP. Reaper7 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the quote had been shortened, hence the use of ...BUt if you wish to include the full quote that is cool.

No, there is no such thing as a Macedonian Slcavinia, but there was such as thing in the 7th centruy. The reference has already been provided in the text. Shame u are quick to start accusing this as 'nationalism'. I save you the trouble, i;ll put it back in myself. Hxseek (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Krashovans

the article writes about Torlakian: It is also spoken by the Krashovan community in Romania, reflecting their previous geographical settlement.

This is rather unclear. What does it mean by "their previous geographical settlement"? That the Torlakians lived originally in the Romanian Banat? bogdan (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think the opposite. I think the Krashovans are a subgroup of Torlaks, Ie the Krashovans became deistinct when they migrated from the Torlak region, north to Romania (probably during Turkish occupation )

Also, i have a doubt that it is accurate to Sub-classify Krashovans as Croats. Just because they are Catholic Slavs, it doesn;t mean they are Croats. Hxseek (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not just Catholic Slavs. They are Croatian minority in Romania [9], [10]. Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The term 'South Slavs' is missleading

South Slavs is just a direct translation of a country that used to exist which was called Yugo(south)slavia(slavs). People in Yugoslavia are no longer Southslavs because Yugoslavia is a thing of the past. Now they are Serbs, Croats and Bosnians etc. 91.191.3.222 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, No. Yugoslavia came from South SLavs - the land of the south Slavs. Just because the political organisation no longer exists, it doesn't mean that South Slavs don't exist. What you mean is that Yugoslavs no longer exist, although they still do, because some people still call themselves Yugoslavs. Hxseek (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Slav POV promulgated by Greek nationalists

In edits like this - [11]. Apparently, it's a "fact" that hundreds of toponyms across entire continental Greece "are not reliable indicators of Slavic settlements". Last time I checked in standard handbooks, Slavicization of continental Greece 6th-9th century that has left innumerable linguistic traces in toponymy (traces that by their phonological structure show Early and Late Proto-Slavic features, not some "20th century") was a linguistic, not some "ethnical" spread. Slavic nations today are composed of diverse ethnical stocks that became assimilated in the process (as DNA evidence teaches us today), effectively erasing (linguistically) all traces of "Illyrian", Avar, Gothic, Celtic, Baltic, Romance (Dalmatian) and various other language groups that must have existed there before the Slavic spread. Saying that 400+ Slavic toponyms are not a "reliable" evidence is blatant anti-Slav Greek nationalist POV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. The old "Greek man is putting me down" diatribe. I like how you brand anything that challenges your viewpoint as "anti-Slavic Greek nationalist POV". Kindly take your "anti-whatever" mentality elsewhere if you can't handle the fact that toponymy without archaeological data is vulnerable to all sorts of academic questioning.

Also, before you get started on your "wikihate marathon", could be so kind as to get an actual source to validate the statement regarding Vasmer? Thanks. Deucalionite (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Slavic spread was cultural/linguistical, not associated with large-scale migrations likely to leave consistently interpretative material traces (hence minimal DNA and archaeological evidence for some "Slavic genes" or "Slavic culture"). Here's an abundantly cited quote from the encyclopaedic article [12] published by an expert in Proto-Slavic toponomastics [he leads a research project for investigating Slavic toponyms in Austria; unlike Greeks, Austrians are not so "embarassed" to admit that Graz < Slavic Gradec):

Was die große Expansion um 600 n. Chr. betrifft, "there is no reason to assume the Slavic expansion was primarily a demographic event. Some migration took place, but the most parsimonious assumption is that the Slavic expansion was primarily a linguistic spread. that the Slavic expansion was primarily a linguistic spread. (…) Slavic ethnic identity (…) Slavic ethnic identity (...) spread more or less simultaneously with Slavic speech“ (Nichols 1993: 378). Dabei hat sich auch „weithin ein neues Lebensmodell durchgesetzt: das slawische“ (Pohl 1990: 123), das sich „durch territoriale Bindung, lokale Autonomie, einfache Sozialstruktur, flexible Kampfweise und differenzierte kleinräumige Landwirtschaft“ auszeichnete (loc. cit.). „Es setzte sich durch, Slawe zu sein“ (Pohl 1988: 95) Mehr als die Slawen war es also das Slawentum, das expandierte, und das Slawentum um 600 n. Chr. war weniger ein Ethnos als eine Lebensform (Urbańczyk 1998), zu der es unter anderem gehörte, dass man slawisch sprach.

So the lack of material culture associated with Slavs proves nothing: there is no such thing in e.g. Hungaria and Austria, yet no one defies abundant Slavic substratum in toponymics thet resulted from Slavicization in the period 6th-9th century. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have nothing against the claim to mention that Slavic toponymy evidence remains inconclusive; the lack of archaeological evidence also remains inconclusive when coupled with such immense attestation of Slavic linguistic traces. As close as to what we can get to NPOV would be to say that both sides (thouse who favour "Slavic Greece" and "Greek Greece sporadically invaded by barbarian Slavs") argue in their own POV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting too much weight on linguistics and toponymy is not a healthy practice. Physical proof is ultimately necessary when it comes to definitively proving one's arguments.

Technically, I wouldn't be surprised if "Slavic toponyms" in Greece are derived from exaggerated Byzantine literary accounts. This is why I am very skeptical about so-called "toponymical studies" that excuse themselves from providing physical data by either basing historical movements on language alone or assuming that linguistics can compensate for the absence of physical data.

Frankly, Vasmer's "discovery" of 429 Slavic toponyms in Greece hardly coincides with the archaeological data. This is why toponymy is unreliable without physical proof. Readers want hard facts and not come-and-go linguistic theories. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not "too much weight" put in linguistics - no more than in any other study related to the investigations of ancient migrations. The very explanation cited above by several highly-authoritative sources should be enough to dismiss the fantasies of Greek nationalists of Slavs not actually being there. Note that the above-cited spread of Slavs (linguistic and cultural) is precisely complemented by the lack of associated "physical" (DNA + archaological) evidence; it's the Greek POV that cannot explain thousands (it's 429 on Peloponnese alone) of toponyms all over Greece. It's not important what you "think" or would like to interpret the toponymics evidence, it's what verifiable sources claim, and the opinion of specialists and the corresponding criticism must be equally represented per WP:NPOV policy. It's hardly "fact" what you try to put as such. You've asked for sources, you've been given ones, now except the truth, it can only set you free. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Your "highly authoritative sources" assume that language can compensate for their inability to prove their theories with physical proof. That is not how scholarship works. If you want people to take your theories seriously, then you have to provide physical proof (i.e. quantitative data). It is academically bizarre to assume or attempt to prove anything in the absence of concrete data.

As a healthy skeptic of "Slavic toponyms" in Greece, I have a handful of questions. 1) Where do these Slavic toponyms come from? 2) Who developed them? 3) Who distributed them? 4) Are these toponyms derived from accurate sources? 5) Is there any physical data that can substantiate the spread of Slavic languages? These are simple questions that have to be answered if the field of "Proto-Slavic toponomastics" is to be taken seriously. I am sure Georg Holzer is an intelligent linguist, and I wish him all the best. However, linguistic studies have their limitations and if you fail to realize that much, then you're not much of a "free-thinking scholar".

Please spare me your bouts of moralism. NPOV is only good if your sources are based on WP:RS and actually contain accurate data. So, don't waste your time citing "neutrality policies" only because your information isn't substantive enough to be incorporated in an article that discusses more than just Slavic languages. Moreover, you yourself are hardly a "neutral user" given the fact that you keep labelling anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoints as "Greek POV". Don't blame other users for your cognitive dissonance. If you haven't figured it out by now, this community has a habit of rejecting user contributions if they are not based on anything concrete. Get used to it.

If you want to get close to the truth my friend, then you go read a good archaeological report. Stop imposing your linguistic determinism onto historical events without providing some semblance of physical proof. I'm still waiting on that source for Vasmer since he's the one whose "linguistic genius" came up with the whole "429 toponyms" thesis. Deucalionite (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Your "highly authoritative sources" assume that language can compensate for their inability to prove their theories with physical proof. - Of course, they do no such thing, they just interpret data that is evident to them. Unlike Greek nationalist who would like to erase and diminish importance any traces of historical evidence of Slavs populating Greek (contemporary written records that literally say that entire Greece "fell to the Slavs", complemented by toponomastics evidence). Per WP:NPOV Wikipedia must not take position. We must present all (relevant!) schools of opinion proportionally (but not violating WP:UNDUE.

However, spoken language (in this case, English) is very primitive in refinements of expression, and thus being limited by it we must evade absolutely stated constructs that involve e.g. copula "to be". So what are we exactly arguing about: You wrote: Slavic toponyms are not reliable indicators of Slavic settlements., and I rephrased it to Slavic toponyms are argued not to be reliable indicators of Slavic settlements. You, judging from your edit summary, take your source as absolute "truth", presenting it in a form that insinuates that the Slavic toponyms are generally held not to be reliable indicators of Slavic settlements, which is far from truth. The very notion of someone trying to alleviate the absoluteness of the claim you imputed in the article strikes you.

AFAICS, the source you cite is not written by a linguist, let alone a professional linguist specializing in Slavic toponyms. Holzer is exactly that, and he is active researcher in the field who wrote many papers and articles [the above cited quote is from actually printed encyclopedia, and usually the topmost researchers are selected to write articles in synthetic works like encyclopedias]: moreover, he cites several historical works.

Your questions: 1) Where do these Slavic toponyms come from? 2) Who developed them? 3) Who distributed them? 4) Are these toponyms derived from accurate sources? 5) Is there any physical data that can substantiate the spread of Slavic languages? are, of course, silly and irrelevant. What WP must do is present NPOV of the current state of affairs, not to discuss things and put them under question as editors feel "insulted" by the implication of the theories propounded by active researchers in the field. For your personal sake, I answer: 1) They "come" from [former] Slavic speakers of the area, only by a minority "ethnical" Slavs, as Slavicization was cultural and linguistic spread that involved substituting non-prestigious Greek with prestigious Slavic idiom 2)and 3) Words don't get "developed" and "distributed", they're invented and then spread by diffusion; in case of toponyms, usually they survive the bridge of borrowing. For example, lots of Ancient Greek toponyms are provably of pre-Greek substratum, many toponyms in Dalmatia are of Romance origin (Dalmatian, Vulgar Latin, not Italian), and similarly there are many "Illyrian" toponyms in the ex-Illiricum area (e.g. the name of the river in my hometown Neretva ~ Lith. nerti "to dive, swim downstream"). Beside Greece, there are many linguistically South Slavic toponyms in Austria, Romania and Hungary, and nobody makes a "problem" out of them ^_^ 4) That would be my personal value judgment, but Max Vasmer is (amongst) the greatest Slavic etymologists of the 20th century so it's highly unlikely that he would be wrong in 400+ etymons. If you have credible sources that claim otherwise please state them. 5) What people often fail to understand is that the spread of a language (and by extension, of culture) is orthogonal to the spread of 1) ethnicity [aka DNA] 2) migrations. The strict interpretation of the lack of reliable archaeological evidence leads to silly theories like Out of India theory [quoting from that article: if evidence like linguistic isogloss patterns is ignored, then the hypothesis of an Out-of-India migration becomes "relatively easy to maintain".]. The truth can only be reached by interdisciplinary approach, and if that collaboration comes to be barred by nationalist myths who pay undue prominence to whatever evidence suits them, then all the we can do is to present the "both sides" per NPOV policy.

The field of "proto-slavic toponomastics" is taken seriously for the last 2 centuries. It is far from this incredulous statement that you seem to put it. Your personal perception of the veracity and reliability of the scholarship in that field is irrelevant, as people write papers, books and encyclopedia that is based on it. It is not a matter of dispute. It is very hard to take seriously your insinuations that Holzer or Vasmer are "not free-thinking scholar", as they have no self-declaratory POV attachment, are cited by numerous colleagues, and are top researchers in the field. What's more, unlike Greek nationalists, they do not bend the evidence to suit their theories: lack of "material" (DNA + archaeological) sense in continental Greece when related to the 6th-9th century Slavicization is consistent model of spread across a vast territory, not just Greece. From Greek POV, somehow thousands of Slavic toponyms "got borrowed" from some illiterate agriculturalists and nomads into noble and cultivated Greek, which would be nothing short of phenomenal as it lacks correspondence in any other world's culture.

Once again, per WP:NPOV policy Wikipedia articles must not take sides, and every statement must be written in a NPOV may representing not the "truth" but the sources they claim. To say that "Slavic toponyms are not reliable evidence" if POV from the author of a particular book User:Deucalionite cites, not general communis opinio, as plethora of other citeable specialists (linguists, archaeologists) thinks otherwise.

What do others think of my "relaxing" of the absoluteness of the claim put forth by User:Deucalionite? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your linguistic ranting isn't helping your position. As long as each toponym in Greece does not coincide with an actual Slavic or Slavicized settlement, then I am afraid you and your "sources" have no substantive case. You can cite NPOV policies until your eyes bleed, but scholarly standpoints require physical proof.

The fact that you dismiss the questions I asked regarding the origins of so-called "Slavic toponyms" in Greece is a clear indication of your linguistic determinism. Also, for your sources to imply that archaeologists today support the Out of India Theory is not only nonsensical, but dangerously unprofessional. Historically, linguists developed and promoted the Out of India Theory years before archaeologists refuted it. For a period of time, linguists were the ones influencing archaeologists with their Urheimat theories forcing physical data to conform to purely linguistic constructs. So, do me a favor and read up on your history before distributing your linguistically deterministic gibberish. You and your sources only know how to preach about "interdisciplinary scholarship", but fail to understand its practice.

If "Proto-Slavic toponomastics" have been "taken seriously for the last 2 centuries", then you obviously haven't realized that this field of study has been influenced by political ideologies dating back to the 19th century (i.e. Pan-Slavism). That linguists today continue to promote the politically-induced exaggerations of their 19th century forebears is quite disheartening. Did it ever occur to you that the existence of "Slavic toponyms" could very well be based on misinterpretations of extant literature? Did it ever occur to you that "Slavic toponymys" in Greece could very well be based on fabrications developed by 19th century linguists with political agendas? Of course not.

Unfortunately, you're only capable of providing "linguistic evidence" and believe that your "reliable sources" can replace physical proof under the guise of "linguistic models coincide with the absence of archaeological data". For the record, I am not "bending evidence" to support my "Greek POV" positions. Vacalopoulos is intelligent enough and perceptive enough to understand the fact that you cannot assess Byzantine literature at face value. However, so-called "Slavic studies" tend to do exactly the opposite and come up with "toponymy theories" that any dignified scholar would question. Stop using the "Greek POV" card just because you have zero physical evidence to support a largely abstract linguistic construct.

I still don't see any sources from Vasmer that verify his "429 toponyms" thesis. I may have to ultimately remove it. Deucalionite (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that scholars today (including Vacalopoulos) are intelligent enough to know that toponyms alone do not constitute direct forms of material evidence. As long as toponyms have no archaeological data to substantiate their existence, then there is no definitive way to prove their origins or their diffusion. Stop trying to make "toponomastics" into something it is not and stop ruining the article just because you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance. Deucalionite (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the opinion of Vacalopoulos and similar Greek POV history fabricators. Other historians, as well as (top)onomastics specialists like Holzer, would disagree. The only thing we can do is to represent both sides equally per WP:NPOV policy, not interpret which one of them is "more truthful" [though the issue is rather obvious for anyone not infected with nationalism disease]. The sources I quoted are from experts in the field, which pass Wikipedia's verifiability guidlines. When there is disputed issue, such as the exact origin and nature of thousands of Slavic toponyms across entire continental Greece, we must act in NPOV-way presenting not the "truth", but the sources. Concordantly, everything quoted must be put thru NPOV prism, explicitely stating that it's the opinion of the source, not the "truth". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Blaming Greeks just because you can't admit to the fact that toponomastics have their limitations. Like I said, you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance because I found holes in your linguistic paradigms. Excuse me for utilizing my critical thinking skills for the sake of WP:RS. What good is neutrality if your sources assume more than they can prove? Deucalionite (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It does have it's limitationos, but to a much less extent than archaeology. Reading J. P. Mallory's capital book on Indo-Europeans you'll see that for a bunch of cultures absolutely nothing can be said for certainty, which language group they represent. Archaological and linguistic evidence complement each other; when they do not, it's so because ethno-cultural spread was not coincident with linguistical. You utilize your mental apparatus skills very well - unfortunately in a POV way. We must represent criticism of the "other side", esp. if it's held by notable scholars and supported by immense evidence.

Once again, if you have any kind of reliable and notable source that explains how exactly thousands Slavic toponyms ended up across continental Greece other then being spread by Slavic spekers (the "Slavs"; recently I saw an old map in wheech Slavic-speakers of the Greek region of Macedonia were described as "Bulgarian-speaking Greeks" ^_^), feel free to cite it. Just claiming that it's "not reliable" as if it's some generally held communis opinio is not enough; it's obviously reliable enough for a whole bunch of other historians. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At least archaeology publishes its errata and has significantly improved since the 19th century. Modern archaeological assessments/reports are pretty much top-notch these days and though archaeologists try to confirm their findings through other sources, they also try to provide as much of an independent/objective assessment of their discoveries.

Unfortunately, linguistics and archaeology do not always complement each other. This is why physical evidence should precede linguistic evidence. Let me give you a realistic example. Do you think that linguists would have been able to study and decipher Linear B had archaeologists not discovered Linear B tablets? I don't think so. I've got nothing against linguistic studies, but I do have a problem when people rely too much on toponomastical studies without any supporting physical data.

My "mental apparatus skills" are not used in a POV way. Though I admit that all users have biases, the question one has to ask is whether or not one's bias is based on concrete evidence. This is why I stress that all editors provide physical proof before making any historical or ethno-cultural assessments.

Technically, there is no confirmed explanation for the spread of "Slavic toponyms" in Greece despite the communis opinio among linguists that support a holistically linguistic diffusion. Like Vacalopoulos said, the spread of Slavic toponyms can be attributed to many variables (implying that no scholar should put any serious emphasis on toponomastics without further evidence). I know that Vacalopoulos is not a perfect historian. However, he is still regarded among scholars as a reliable author despite the fact that a lot has changed in academia since the 1970s. Therefore, his work complies with WP:RS as far as Wikipedia policies go.

Since your sources are linguistically deterministic, I recommend that you only mention the communis opinio among linguists regarding the diffusion of Slavic toponyms. However, you cannot change the fact that toponyms are unreliable as long as different variables exist regarding their existence and diffusion. Who knows? Maybe it's just a linguistic spread not attributed to any demographic movements. However, this standpoint is not the communis opinio of all scholars.

I can tell you right now that the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium doesn't place much emphasis on Slavic toponyms in Greece. Vacalopoulos is decent enough for this article and not just because he's Greek. Come on. Deucalionite (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else beside this Greek nationalist think that the sources I quoted, which include linguists specialized in the toponomastics and historians, citing from the rant above "have no substantive case" ? I'm personally sick of wasting bytes with POV partisans, and perhaps the pure numeracity of WP users having diametrically opposite view of what constitutes a verifiable source, all of which I presented IMHO are, would turn him away. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I hate to burst your bubble my friend, but calling me a "Greek nationalist" is not exactly a prudent course of action when it comes to gathering support. Technically, if you want other users to agree with you, then you should provide physical proof, provide intelligent answers to my questions regarding "Slavic toponyms" in Greece, and provide sources to verify Vasmer's thesis. So far, you've done nothing other than provide linguists who take their field in a not so interdisciplinary manner. So much for your sense of NPOV. Deucalionite (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, the issuse of negating Slavic presence in continental Greece is hardly not a "Greek nationalist" issue - it's been thoroughly disputed across diverse amount of WP article, basically all articles that deal with early mediaeval history of the Balkan peninsula. Having answered to many of your questions, and seeing you reinstating your absolute claims again and again, I sincerely feel that discussing this issue further with you personally is a waste of time. The proper way to deal with folks like you is by citing references, which I have done, and which according to you "have no substantive case". Now since there are some archaeologists and amateur historians around here, I'd like to hear what they think on this whole issue.

BTW, I've put the source for Vasmer, it was one trivial b.g.c. Vasmer+429+Peloponnesus query away. I'l look to find the original study, maybe even build a page List of Slavic toponyms in Greece ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my questions. You mostly ranted about how your sources should be incorporated via NPOV without any serious academic scrutiny. Whatever "answers" you gave me only made me more skeptical about you and your sources. Forgive me for being stubborn, but any serious scholar (aside from Vacalopoulos) will tell you that toponyms alone cannot be relied upon if there is no physical data to go with them. Plain and simple.

I see that you added John Fine to verify Vasmer's linguistic thesis. Better than nothing I guess. I hope you do find Vasmer's original work. Good luck my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Languages

The section of South Slavic languages was ridden with some bizarre POV claims, as well with some inaccuracies. There is no need to duplicate in such detail the contents of the South Slavic languages article. The section should just list 1) major divisions and subdivisions 2) major issues when it comes to classifying in cultural and sociolinguistics (which someone apparently called "political") sense, as opposed to pure dialectology. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes - Relationship with Byzantium

A. Milošević's quote is distorted by Deucalionite. Original text:

Sudeći po dosadašnjim rezultatima istraživanja, vjerojatnije će biti da su Slaveni po doseljenju u Dalmaciju vrlo brzo stupili u kontakte s autohtonim stanovništvom i pod njihovim utjecajima napustili incineraciju dajući prednost inhumaciji. Osim promjene u načinu sahranjivanja, ti kasnoantički utjecaji očituju se i u slijedu grobne arhitekture (u ranom srednjem vijeku, posebice u srednjoj Dalmaciji prevladava grobna raka obložena i pokrivena kamenim pločama) i u osnovnom tipu groblja (u ranom srednjem vijeku javlja se isključivo tip groblja na redove), a što su bez sumnje kasnoantičke tradicije, u Dalmaciji učestale tek od druge polovice V. ili početkom VI: stoljeća pod nesumnjivim germanskim utjecajima.

-Ante Milošević, O kontinuitetu kasnoantičkih proizvoda u materijalnoj kulturi ranoga srednjeg vijeka na prostoru Dalmacije, Starohrvatska spomenička baština. Rađanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb, 1996, page 39.

My (shortened) translation was:

According to previous investigations and results, there's the largest possibility that the Slavs arriving to Dalmatia very quickly stepped in contact with the aboriginals who influenced them to accept inhumation and abandon incineration. Late Antique influences were also shown in funeral architecture and cemetery type in general, undoubtly Late Antiquety tradition preserved and from the 2nd half of 5th or beginning of 6th century surely under Germanic influence.

Ivan, your translation could be better than mine. Can you check it please. Zenanarh (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it should be better. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain position of "Germanic" in the end of the quote. It's related to the Goths. Gothic presence in Dalmatia in 6th century can be connected to the first Slavic speakers there. Perception of the Goths as strong ethnic concept is abondened among the scientists. One of the most prominent scientists for Gothic thematics, Amory wrote about the Goths in Italy: "The chief forces of group cohesion in Ostrogothic Italy were neither ethnic nor based on the group-names of classical ethnography. They were region and profession". It seems that material traces left by the Goths had Germanic character, but people involved were of the multiple ethnicities. Many of them were probably proto-Slavic speakers. When western Balkan Gothic state fell apart in the middle of 6th century, Slavic Sclavinias remained there. First mention od Sclavinias dates from the 2nd half of 6th century (the seventh century manuscript "Miracula Sancti Demetni" - The miracles of Saint Demetrios). Some Byzantine and other writers used different names for the Sclavens (settlers of Sclavinias): Goths, Getae, Hunni, Avars, Scythae, Vulgari.

Martin Eggers, Das "Groβmährische Reich": Realität oder Fiktion?; Eine Neuinterpretation der Quellen zur Geschichte des mittleren Donauraumes im 9. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1995, page 214:

Population in these units, both the immigrants and aborigines, could have been pagan and(or) Arian population, and both of them could have been treated as the Sclavens.

Pagan Slavs, Bogumils and other "non-Christian" traditions in the WB are often related to Arianism, recently. They were perceived as the non-Christians by the Holy Roman Church. Arianism was brought by the Goths.

Although minor in number in comparison to the native ones, material traces of the 6th century Slavic immigrants (archeological similarity to the sites in the pre-Baltic Europe) were recorded sporadically. These people were obviously the warrior groups/clans/tribes that came with the Goths. They prolonged the Gothic state tradition in the Sclavinias which in the next centuries served as the basis for the first South Slavic dutchies, states and kingdoms. Obviously forming of a Sclavinia and Slavic state in Greece was impossible because of the strong Byzantine influence. But the earliest traces of the Slavs in Greece were nothing different than in the regions where states developed later (toponyms, sporadical material artefacts, continuation of the native traditions,...). Zenanarh (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Earliest traces of Slavs in Greece? Dubious. By the way, I wouldn't take the Miracula of St. Demetrius at face value. It's not holistically reliable. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on. Deucalionite (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not holistically reliable, but it's just an Early Medieval inscription where Sclavinias were mentioned for the 1st time. There's no reason to believe that this detail is unreliable. There are some other disputions about these Sclavinias, not concerning its dating, but rather concerning its territorial occupation and its character. Miracula of St. Demetrius mentioned Sclavinias in Macedonia in 6th century.

S. Antoljak, Hrvati u prošlosti, Ed. Književni krug, Split, 1992, p. 740:

"The rest of the Sclavinias were spread along the Adriatic coast, according to Constantine Porhirogenitus it comprised Doclea, Travunia, Pagania (or the Narentines regions), Croatia and Serbia, therefore a territory from Lezhë, Ulcinj and Bar to the Istrian inland. A few historians claimed that the Byzantines used "Sclavinias" for all inland of the Balkan peninsula, from Zadar to Thessaloniki and the Rhodope Mountains, from the Black Sea to the Adriatic Sea, from 7th to 10th century. This claim doesn't have strong basis, since not even one Byzantine writer ever specified such wide territory, nor Constantine did it."

In other words, Antoljak claims that there were no Sclavinias in present day Romania and eastern Bulgaria, as well as there was none of it deep in the Greek territory. But first Sclavinias ever mentioned were those in Macedonia.

Observe a few facts: population of the Sclavinias were of the multiple ethnicities, existing of a Sclavinia somewhere meant that Sclavens had their own ruler there, Sclavinia didn't eliminate existance of another political authority in the same place since meaning of the term Sclavinia (as used from 7th to 10th century) ranged from the territory to the social-political organization or from autonomical to semi-dependent unit.

If Sclavinia was never formed in the northern Greece, it didn't mean that there were no Sclavens - it meant that they had no their own ruler there or they weren't able or in position to organize themselves well.

1st mentioned Sclavinias were in Macedonia in 6th century - possible relation -> Ostrogoths breaking to the south from Pannonia appeared in the borders of Prevalis in 459, they colonised regions of Durrës, the most of Epirus Nova and probably surrounding of the Skadar lake first, then spread to the west to the eastern Adriatic coast and Dalmatia. If they were followed by the Slavic speakers it didn't include the Antes (in the same "military" migration) who were their opponents and Byzantine allies, however this is direction of possible Glagolithic script spread - some authors accentuated some co-relations between Germanic rhunes and Glagolithic script. Sclavens in Macedonia and northern Greece were attacking Byzant (as you've mentioned recently) but they didn't form stabile union in the south to be recognised as a Sclavinia in the next centuries, Byzantine Empire just started to expand. Many of them were Helenized and some of them contributed to the Bulgarian ethnogenesis or other. Looking from this perspective there is nothing strange about 400 or more Slavic toponyms and sporadical material remains in Greece. Nothing dangerous for the homogeneity of the Greek nation. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BY the way: P M Barford, points to a possibly earlier spread of SLavs- with the Huns (related to your Goths' theory, Z). Could account for the "sudden" appearance of Slavic speakers in much of central and eastern Europe from the 500s, out of apparent obscurity. Indeed, historians noted that the term used for Hun funerary feasts was struva - a Slavic word. Thus there were possibly multiple centres of Slavic ethnogenetic crystalization - the Danube, Polesie, etc. Hxseek (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points Zenanarh. That "Slavs" settled in parts of northern Greece would make sense given the fact that the area itself was a borderland between the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Empire (the first geopolitical entity to organize all Sclavinias). However, the toponyms in other parts of Greece appear to be based on literary exaggerations and cannot be substantiated even with the limited "Slavic" material remains discovered so far. It would be academically questionable to assume that the toponyms are derived from Slavic agriculturalists quietly settling in Greek rural areas or from Slavic nomads. It is more likely that some of the toponyms represent sites in which Byzantines used to post Slavs who were utilized as military colonists (a typical aspect of Greco-Roman military tradition). It should not be surprising if "Slavic toponyms" were products of Byzantine historiography utilized for propagandistic purposes (or at least for special effect).

A Sclavinia, technically, embodies any type of loosely organized polity (it used to mean military stronghold). Long story short, the absence of a Sclavinia usually means the absence of Slavs. Moreover, the presence of Slavs without a Sclavinia usually indicates a raiding party that temporarily utilizes a specific territory as a base of operations for general looting in which all riches are brought back across the Danube (or back to well-established Sclavinias). Complicated stuff I know, but what should anyone expect from the Middle Ages?

I can't thank you enough for making me laugh Zenanarh (clever joke). Granted, I will not deny the fact that I enjoy being a part of the Greek omogeneia. However, my ulterior motives for fiercely debating with you and other Slavic editors are twofold: 1) I'm bored as hell and need some intellectual stimulation, 2) I believe that nothing should taken for granted (that includes toponyms). In case you or other users ever wonder why I am so damn stubborn, don't always think it's because I am promoting "anti-Slavic Greek nationalist POV". Deucalionite (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of current archaeological data does not equate with lack of actual migration. Just like Greece, the record of Slavic invasions in the 6th an 7th century throughout the rest of the Balkans is also scant (an archaeological "Dark age" after the fall of the old world order). But no one can deny that there was some movement of Slavs, followed by the Slavonification of many peoples. The linguistic and historical sources should not be discounted. History is a multidisciplinary field, and all disciplines are equally important, one is not more weighted than another

By the way D. , what are your sources for the apparent settling of Slavs as mercenaries (rather than invaders on their own accord). Certainly the latter would seem to be the communis opinio. Hxseek (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Lack of actual archaeological data does equate to lack of actual migration. Every migration has a starting point, a midpoint, and an endpoint in which archaeologists can find valuable data regarding its diffusion/direction. In other words, scholars (including Curta) find migrations to entail structured routes rather than something akin to chaotic wandering.

For the record, you cannot simply utilize the "migration argument" every time there is no physical evidence to substantiate an actual migration. For any scholar to relegate the lack of archaeological data to some historiographical "Dark Age" does not mean that such an explanation (or excuse technically) can serve as a valid academic argument. Also, for any scholar to assume that archaeologists only excavate in urban centers is nonsensical given the increasing number of expeditions in villages and rural areas.

Though I agree that history should be multidisciplinary (or interdisciplinary), it also has to based on hard facts. We are not 19th century scholars who develop theories based only on literary evidence and linguistic evidence. Even Književni questions the extent of the "Slavic migrations". So, I don't see why we should cave in to "historical" sources that only seem to use anything other than hard proof to substantiate their statements.

My source that mentions the possibility of Slavs being settled as mercenaries by Byzantium comes from the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Look up the entry Slavs and see for yourself. Deucalionite (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst you raise good points, you cannot summarily dismiss the theories of a recognised, published , non-biased historian. Plain and simple. Regardless of whether you personally disagree with his methods, conclusions, etc. As it was, the article states that there is a lack of hard evidence. But it offers an explanation to this subsequently. This is what NPOV is. Sourced, neutrally-written statments about a controversial, unclear topic. Moreoever, Curta does not deny that Slavs settled in Greece. He rather states that the finds at Argos and Olympia should not be dated prior to the 800s. He , hoever, doe not deny the Slavs settled Greece, nor that there was a 218 year rule by Slavs and Avars. See his lecture notes on Barbarians in Dark Ages Greece: Slavs or Avars . have you neot heard of the encounter by the Latin Crusaders of Slavic settlements in Peloponessus in circa 1200 AD ? Hxseek (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here lies the problem my friend. Theories. Your "non-biased" sources assume more than they can prove. Bradford may be intelligent enough to make a case, but NPOV requires WP:RS and anything that constitutes academic rigor.

As for Curta, he challenges the Slavs settling in Greece. Two "confirmed" Slavic settlements in Olympia and Argos hardly equates to "Slavs dominating Greece for 218 years just like the Chronicle of Monemvasia attests". Moreover, these particular sites could very be established by Avars rather than Slavs if any scholar were to take the chronicles of John of Biclar at face value. Still, Curta questions and challenges the extent of Slavic migrations in Greece.

The encounter you are talking about between Latin Crusaders and "Slavic settlements" in the Peloponnese would have to happen between 1202 and 1204 AD during the Fourth Crusade. Also, if the source you have discussing this particular encounter is derived from the Crusaders themselves, then keep in mind that the Catholic West was just as propagandistic as the Orthodox East (especially when it came to controlling lands and titles). Please provide your source(s) regarding this encounter and we'll see how realistically viable it is. This is what academic rigor is all about my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i'll have a look, but its not the main thrust of my arguement anyway. Barford is WP:RS. this is not even worth dabating. You cannot just say that Fine and Barford, and most other scholars who support the Slavic presence in Greece , as ignorant and unthorough in their methodologies. The article plainly states that the archaeological record is scant, with possible explanations for why. Nor does the article state that the GReek race was wiped out, to be replaced by Slavs in the entirety. Obviously only some areas of Greece were Slavonicized. Ultimately, we cannot dismiss the weight of historical evidence attesting to such a presence, ranging from local , Greek sources to Frankish sources on the other side of Europe . Yes, there were exaggerations and biases, but we cannot just wish that they were just works of pure fiction. Hxseek (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Bradford is worth debating because WP:RS demands reliable and verifiable facts, not historiographical hypotheses that are not based on concrete evidence. Why do you think I did not fiercely debate against Ante Milošević? It's because the author tries to base his understanding of history on hard proof. Though I believe Milošević is adding "Slavic" values onto Late Antiquity burial traditions, he at least realizes that you need hard proof to validate anything these days. The "I can write history without proof" argument is weak in lieu of modern academic standards that almost demand that scholars present some quantitative data. Wikipedia articles deserve to be academically tempered so that readers can acknowledge them seriously. Any article that lacks hard proof tends to be laughed at whether we as editors like it or not.

Scholars that support the Slavic presence in Greece without both compelling and conclusive physical proof have to be questioned. Like I said before, nothing should be taken for granted. John Fine, for example, is not NPOV (let alone reliable) since he takes Byzantine texts at face value (thus incorporating Byzantine biases into his objective text). Any dignified Byzantinist with half a brain will tell you not to believe everything you read in a Byzantine text. The so-called weight of primary evidence means nothing if it is based on face-value assessments that fail to incorporate contextual analyses and physical data.

It is possible that few kernels of truth may actually exist in Frankish and Byzantine sources. Unfortunately, most medieval sources are inundated with politicized content that no modern scholar should regard as holistically reliable even if they are eyewitness accounts. Nowhere did I state that all medieval sources are fictional. I said that most of them tend to take real events and exaggerate them to the point where they are portrayed as "interesting tales". I already proved that basic fact with Vacalopoulos. Do you really believe that I cite sources and question things just to placate my "poor Greek mental health"? Please. You need to realize my friend that the merging of fact and fiction in any literary source renders the process of separating both very difficult without some physical data. Therefore, you need to be less concerned with the weight of evidence and be more concerned with the quality of evidence. Deucalionite (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're just going round in circles. Nothing is being taken for granted. That's why we have multiple sources, and clearly state in the article that the issue of Slavic migration, origin, ethnogenesis, etc is a complex one. Hxseek (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we both need a wikibreak. Of course, I do apologize if I ever frustrated you during our debates. Yet, these fierce, intelligent, and (mostly) civil discussions have actually helped to enhance this article by forcing it to undergo multiple tempering processes.

Unfortunately my friend, historiographical hypotheses/theories that provide "explanations" regarding the Slavic migrations come a dime-a-dozen these days (many containing "take for granted" caveats). We as editors have to thoroughly double-check every "explanation". Moreover, we have to ensure that this article be as simple as possible so that it is comprehensible to both editors and readers alike. Our best bet is to ultimately gather sources that either provide reliable/verifiable facts based on quantitative data or sources that realistically avoid making too many academic assumptions.

Always remember my friend that my so-called "judgments" are not based on some uncontrollable gamma-irradiated desire to decimate contributions that are not pro-Greek. I am not some blue-and-white-skinned Incredible Hulk going around saying "GREEK SMASH!!!" Come on. Deucalionite (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree, for the most part. You are a scholar and a gentleman. Hxseek (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Hxseek. It's good to know that I can always converse with an adept and intelligent academic such as yourself. By the way, I took the liberty of reading Curta's paper (Barbarians in Dark Age Greece: Slavs or Avars?) and learned that it is essentially a "literary review" of medieval sources that discuss the "Slavicization" of Greece. In fact, most of the article contains rehashed arguments/assessments that Curta already mentions in his work, The Making of the Slavs. Of course, I am not implying that Curta's article is not valuable content-wise. However, the article does embody a type of literary determinism deliberately developed by Curta for "strictly chronological concerns". Therefore, I would technically rely more on his book since it contains interdisciplinary (or multidisciplinary) arguments/assessments.

I think I'm going to follow my own advice and take a wikibreak. I'll be back after I take care of some things off-wiki. Later. Deucalionite (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Vasmer's study can be found online here. There are Slavic toponyms like Golem, Visoka, Kamenica etc. even on Crete, living to this day ^_^ There's even attestation of Croat ethnicon, Χαρβάτα, lol. [linguistically perfectly matching with Early Proto-Slavic *xarwāt- > Common Slavic *xorvat]--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Germans and their crazy toponyms. Ha. Great job finding Vasmer's original work my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL Crazy Greeks and their crazy Greek omogeneia. Deucalionite, have my full respect. It's hard to find normal scholar people for discussion these days. You're the one, no doubt ;) Zenanarh (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GREEK NOT CRAZY!!! GREEK SMASH!!! Ha. Zenanarh, I thank you for your sincere words and appreciate your intelligent contributions throughout this somewhat extensive discussion. I am glad to know that I have gained your respect and trust. Despite my being a typical "barbarian" (i.e. unsophisticated Greek), I always show respect towards strong intellectuals such as yourself. Keep up the good work my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Population numbers

Serbs = 9,200,000 (13,000,000 estimated all together) Croats = 4,650,000 (7,500,000 estimated all together) Burgenland Croats = 50,000 Janjevci = 10,000 Molise Croats = 5,000 Krashovans = 5,000 Bunjevci = 80,000 Šokci = 2,000 Bosniaks = 4,500,000

How the hell did someone get to this figures??

First the most exagerated number- Bosnian muslims- It is virtually impossible that there are 4,500,000 Bosnian muslims in this region. There are no more than 1,800,000 of them in BiH, in 1991. census there were 1,902,956. Now it can be only less. So 2,000,000 is max in this region.

Serbs- 9,200,000 is way too high number. There are 6,200,000 of them in Serbia, 1,200,000 in Bosnia. That is 7,400,000, now you can add another 400,000 from kosovo and croatia, than add some more and you will hardly get to 8,000,000

Slovenes... there were 1,631,363 of them in Slovenia on the last census. Not many of them live in neighbouring countries, so lets add 200,000 (which is too much already). That equals 1,800,000 of them.

I wont change estimates, altough 13,000,000 seems too high for me too 193.198.179.246 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

City populations also need to be changed because Belgrade city population isnt 1,6 million, that is entire metropolitan area. City population is 1,182,000. I doubt Sofia city also has 1,4 million but coulnt find figures for city population. Sarajevo city population is 304,614, Banja luka demographics is estimated at 147.000 according to RS zavod za statistiku (www.iu-rs.com). Other bulgarian and other cities are probably also listed with too big population number, I propose that we do it this way, first figure is city, second metro like this Belgrade (Serbia) = 1,182,000 (1,630,000) 193.198.176.138 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated map

The updated map from April 2009 will be reloaded again . Jingby (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)!

Genetics of South Slav groups

I have read elsewhere on WP that, in the genetic distinction between 'West' South Slavs and 'East' South Slavs, Serbs broadly group with Bulgarians and Macedonians, leaving Slovenes and Croats to make up the Western grouping. I'm not a geneticist, though I have what I like to think is a fairly sound general understanding of the historical and biological processes at work here. It's my understanding that, historically speaking, the Eastern grouping ('Antes'?) is derived from Slavs plus possibly remnant Thracian/Dacian populations and/or Sarmatians (Iazyges, Roxolani) and, in the case of the Bulgarians, the Turkic Bulgar element. However, I may not be aware of all of the ethnic subtleties that need to be considered, so am prepared to be corrected. Geoff Powers (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's even more mixed than that, Geoff. It's hard to 'tease out' exact 'proportions'. The Slavs of the 6th century mixed with many other groups, if there actually ever was such a thing as a culturally and ethnically homogeneous proto-Slavic people in the first place. Prior to this, similarly the 'Scythians/ Sarmatians' were also very heterogeneous, nor was there a culturally, biologically or politically unified Illyrian or even Dacian people (save for a few brief decades).

All these haplogroups, and their patterns of distribution, according to genetic anthropologists, are the result of pre-historic movements, ie when Europe was being colonized and re-colonized during the palaeolithic, mesolithic and neolithic. Later, historical migrations such as Roman colonization and Goth/ Slav/ Hun migrations did not dramatically alter these patterns (because Europe was already quite well populated by these times). If anything, they made Europeans all the more similar, although geneticists are now able to detect these micro-signatures. Eg British geneticists propose that they can identify and differentiate the genetic signatures of the successive Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman invasions. Similarly, in the balkans, there probably was an increase in R1a brought in by Slavs.

In the overall pattern, non-island Croats and Slovenians have higher amounts of R1b (the typical western European Hg) as well as R1a (the Pontic steppe Hg). The latter pattern goes somewhate against the proposed Slavic migration path, in that Slavs were meant to have predominantly entered the Balkans around the east Carpathians and into Bulgaria. On the other hand, Serbs, Macedonians, Bulgarians, (as well as Romanians and Greeks) have more E1b1b. Although its exact origins aren't clear, it is a typical 'south Balkans' genetic marker. Finally, as you probably know, haplogroup I is common to all South Slavs, but mostly so in Dalmatian Croats and Herzegovinians, whose biological ancestors were somewhat biologically isolated from other migratory effects because they lived in the Dinaric Alps and Adriatic islands.

All these differences mark different, pre-historic biological sub-strata which long pre-date the emergence of actual 'ethnic groups' Hxseek (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Gorani

I intend to switch the Gorani from the western group to the eastern branch. First of all, their homeland is Macedonia, Albania and the southern part of Kosovo (Dragaš) which is not a region where the appropriate west South Slavs (Serb ancestors) originally settled. I believe the Gorani also have Macedonian as an identity language. If anything, they - like Muslims/Yugoslavs - fit the bill for both sides but eastern for sure. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

South Slavic minorities in Greece

As far as I can see, something needs to be done regarding Greece under the heading "Countries". As it stands now, there are two entries, "Bulgarians" and "ethnic Macedonians". The last one links to "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia", which makes sense. The first entry links to "Bulgarians of Greece", which redirects to "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia", and this does not make any sense. If they are two different groups, they should not end up with the same link. I suspect that the Bulgarian entry is a remnant from the ever continuing Macedonian/Bulgarian edit wars going on all over the Wiki. I would remove it myself, but I suppose it would probably be reverted immediately, and I am too new in this game to step willingly into an edit war. So could someone braver please remove it. What is missing, however, is an entry for the Pomaks of Western Thrace. I suppose I can be brave enough to make that change myself! Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to stick my neck out a bit more: In the section "Language", the last entry is given as "Slavic (Greece)" (newly edited from "Greek Slavic"). I suggest that this entry is split into two, one for the Pomak language of Thrace, and one for the Slavo-Macedonian (or whatever one ends up calling it) in Western Macedonia. Those two dialects (or languages or whatever) do not have so much in common that they should be grouped together. More regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No sooner said ... Someone has already reverted my addition of the Pomaks and at the same time changed the entry for Turkey from "Pomaks" to "Bulgarians". I will not insist on the use of "Pomaks" in this context, even if I think it would clarify the presentation. But my concern is that the links are inconsistent: concerning Turkey, the link goes from "Bulgarians" to the article about "Pomaks", but for Greece, the "Bulgarians" are directed and then redirected to "Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia", which is absurd. To make the list consistent, I will change the link for the Greek entry. Still more regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking on changing the entry for Turkey from Pomaks to Bulgarians in Turkey beacause there is reach writen article for this population in the country. The Bulgarian speakers which are Muslims or Pomaks if you want are described in the page, while on the other hand there is no page Pomaks in Turkey. Greetings!! Pensionero (UTC)