Talk:Origin hypotheses of the Croats

message: 'Furthermore the national name "Croat" is of Iranian origin. According to the Russian Vselod Miller the name "Croat" comes from the Iranian word Hor-va (t)u meaning: the sun’s bed or path. M. Vasmer derives the Croatian name from Hu-urvata meaning, "friend"'
:Shouldn't it be one or the other? And what does the Greek "Horoathos" refer to?
'And the terms used to designate the high officials among the Croats, "kral, ban, zupan", are of Iranian origin. ... Even the Croatian words used to designate religious concepts are Iranian: God, religion, sacrifice, paradise, Easter; to cry out (for), to implore, to predict, and so on.' 
:Where are the comparative lists, and can these be easily verified? In my understanding, the standard Croat words for these concepts are of Slavic origin (God = Bog, etc.). Are there words for these concepts, current or archaic, that are particular to Croatian and not other Slavic tongues? Slavic and Indo-Iranian are separate branches of Indo-European, so if other Slavic languages (especially the South Slavic ones) exhibit cognates similar to the purported Croatian-Iranian parallels, it would be because of the common IE linguistic heritage and not a particularly unique Croatian-Iranian connection.
Twalls 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistic "Evidence"

message: What's the point in having an article on the theories of the origin of Croats, if one of the existing theories is just deleted? Currently only the Slavic 'arrival theory' is presented, and then mixed in the following paragraphs with autochtonous (Illyrian) theory on the basis of genetic research done within the Paleolithic continuity theory on the origin of Indoeuropeans. As said above, the Iranian/Sarmatian theory section was poorly written and referenced, and should be re-written, but not simply deleted. It doesn't matter if one agrees with a particular theory or not, but rather it is about the sociological fact that several theories exist among the Croats. All should be properly presented along with the criticism. The photo of the Tanais stone with its inscription is a relevant piece of information, when it comes to the Iranian theory, why delete it? In its current form the article should not be merged with the Croats article. Better to delete it entirely as it is no longer serving its purpose: to present DIFFERENT theories on the origins of Croats, not just one theory. 61.26.29.48 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the Iranian theory section deleted? 

message: What's explanation for these tags, Disputed ans Synthesis? Also I wonder why is the article destroyed in last few months, just because it was unfinished? Zenanarh (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If tag cant be explained it should be removed. Dromadar (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: No to merger.  Dromadar (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, please do. Pending that, I have made it a section redirect. --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger tag

message: "also because OstrogorskiGeorgije Ostrogorski, Histoire de l'État byzantin, p.122, Payot, 1998 () claims that the Slavs, who had tried to take Thessaloniki in 597, invaded Crete in 623, but the sources for his thesis are not clearly known, and because Alexandria was taken by Khosrau II of Persia in 616, but Heraclius recovered it a few years later. Here could be a link to the linguistic Persian theory, too." 
Sigh.  Persian has none/nada/zero links to the Serbo-Croatian dialect that today is called Croatian (outside of IE).  And claims of some sort of Croatian invasion of the island of Crete is nonsense, as the editor points out the author of the book has no sources listed.  Can we get goofball fringe stuff out of articles such as these, please? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the . . .  

message: It is true that Croats today are undoubtedly a South Slavic people for they speak a Slavic language. However, the proto-Croats, as it has been proved, were an Iranian-Sarmatian tribe that subjugated Slavs (either in central Europe or the Balkans) eventually passing on their name to the Slavs they ruled. So when speaking of the "origin of Croats" one may approach the question from several levels. Genetically, the Croats are probably not "Iranian" to any great extent, but ethnologically they are certainly Iranian in origin. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right , the article is a joke, but not becuase if is "hiding" the Iranic theory, but becuase it is edit by half-wits who keep pushing their own POV, whatever that may be, and not modern theories by non-pseudoscholars which all confirm that the "Croats" was foremost a political formation which took place in northern Dalmatia in the 9th century, then later became a general ethnic term. The only migration that took place was somehat earlier, from Pannonia, and not from Iran, or Sweden. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a Joke trying to obscure the Iranian theory which is in fact the most prevalent

message: I tried to respond to some of the talk comments, but the "Iranian" theory keeps returning by tose fervent suppiorters who seem only to be armed with their zealous nationalist/ideological agenda. Croats are trying to pant a picture of themselves being "different" from the Serbs, but the genes just do not support that nonsense. I am Iranian, my haplogroup is J-M172. Raise your hand, o ye "croats" who share that group! Not a single one. Ok, now that we have cleared that up, I would also to call a lie the claims that some obscure words in croat dialect, are of supposed "Iranian" provenance. Like "ban", "zupan", and hor-va" said to mean something about some paths and sun, it,s there at the top for those interested. All these "examples" are unbeknown to me, and I should know a little bit of FARSI, which is the actual language of Iran. None of these words are Farsi words. Hence, they are not Iranian, just as croats are NOT Iranians.
I hope this should put an end to that pseudo "theory" about croats being "Iranians". They are not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.20.41 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croats are not of Iranian origins 

message: @Crovata why is Nordtvedt unreliable? Why did you remove sourced content?? Please abide by the rules of Wikipedia, if you want to remove sourced material first start a discussion here on the talk page, and explain your behavior, which has been very disruptive. You can't remove sourced content at will. Seek for a consensus, and I beg you stop edit warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? That are not peer-reviewed reliable sources (of which one expired) released in some scientifical journal, book, or documents like every normal source we would use (it fails WP:IRS). That are only messages between two persons, which have no value at all for an encyclopedia. Kenneth Nordtvedt has long experience in genetic genealogy, but his a physicist, not geneticist and historian. There's no need to discuss such obvious issue. Currently am searching for reliable sources for all main Y haplogroups related to the Croats, don't bother.--Crovata (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordtvedt 

message: (diff) The Greek letter Χ is transliterated with  ch, kh, and sometimes x. This is common sense; transliterating it with H is misleading because the latter indicates a rough breathing. --Z 10:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration of Χοροάθος with H 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion