Talk:White Croatia

message: I have deleted the bottom part of this artical because it had nothing to do with white croatia because it was just talking about how White croats turned into serb and how great the Serbs are, so i think some bias Serb has written this in the bases of no facts but serbian properganda. --Marbus2 5 10:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is very vague, weasel worded, lacking citations and written in barely comprehensible English. Will someone do the decent thing and nominate it for deletion? Also, how has this nonsense come to be rated as of 'mid-importance'???? Finally, this article is dealt with in the article about White Croats, and the two should really be merged if there is anything of value here. 1812ahill (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Another article that is made up of hearsay, original research, no contemporary scientific sources and others. Same for the White Serbs which has been deleted already. That was redirected to White Serbia which should also be deleted for the same reasons. -- Zz (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: There is clear evidence that the White Croats are ancestors of Rusyns. Rusyns are also present in significantly different genetic profile than the surrounding nations.
The few studies made thus far of the genetics of Rusyns indicate a common ancestry with other modern Europeans. An analysis of maternal lineages found that Rusyns have the highest frequency of Haplogroup I (mtDNA) found to that date. Haplogroup M* also reaches its regional peak among Rusyns. Analysis of population genetics shows statistical differences between Rusyns and other Slavic or European populations.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.47.145 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2013‎
Is this for real? I mean really? Using quotes and then describing what you are quoting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.170.85 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevenko Bartulin's book The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia (p. 115) also pushed another claim (considered radical by some sources) that maintained White Croatia was founded by Slavicized Iranian Croats. He also cited the work of Stjepan Krizi Sakač published in 1938, which holds that the historical terms "White" (Bijela) and "Red" (Crvena) Croatia were of Iranian origin. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: White croats and rusyns

message: in this article can be read that "In the Slavic tradition, the colour white designates "north", thus the name of the region means "Northern Croatia".". while in the article White_Croats, for "white" there's another conception: "The term "white" among nomadic peoples of euroasiatic steppes meant "western", the other directions being named: red – "south", black – "north" and green – "east"." which one is right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacdegemecs (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: contradictory statements

message: This is a two-part RfC convened as the result of this discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The RfC concerns the addition of claims regarding various source's views on the location of White Croatia. The first issue concerns the addition of claims attributed to 19th century sources, and the second issue concerns the interpretation of the source Živkovic (2012). A third dispute identified at DRN is contingent on the outcome of the Živkovic dispute, and thus there may be a need for a further RfC once this one is closed. signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have filed a request for closure at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure signed, Rosguill talk 08:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: The quote  would seem to be further evidence that Živković located the White Croats in Bohemia. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Northeast of Moravia is south Poland(Serbs are mentioned beyond Hungarians). Živković: "It is obvious that an observer who says that the White Croats lived beyond Bavaria cannot be based in Constantinople, not even in Dalmatia" "If the observer was based in Constantinople, he would have probably noticed that the White Croats lived beyond the Turks (Magyars) as is stated inchapter 31"  "The only possible answer is that the information from chapter 30 came from one source and that the other information  was the author’s understanding based on his own knowledge of the geography in their own time. Therefore, this would be Constantine’s updating as the result of the inquiry he had made about this issue." "White Croats, in section 2.5 it was retold in reverse that the Croats whostayed in their ancient homeland are now called the White Croats. This example is additional evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the White Croats were part of Constantine’s primary source on the Croats..... This is actual data from Constantin, "beyond Hungarians" it means southern Poland. Mikola22 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "analysis" by  is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Živković mentions northeast Moravia, south Poland and Bohemia but in the same book( in Serbian language) on page 67 he mentions Czech Republic or south Poland. Bohemia is not mentioned in this book in Serbian language. Croats were mentioned twice in the source(De Administrando Imperio), once behind Bavaria and once behind  Hungary and about that Živković talks, and claim that Porphyrogenit actually wrote part that mentione Croats beyond Hungarians and this is Porphyrogenit personal view at that time while the section that mentions Croats behind Bavaria is from an Italian source and some other time. Every historian who writes about De Administrando Imperio must mention Czech Republic or southern Poland (that area) but this claim of Živkovic i.e. that this is  personal opinion of  Porphyrogenit it means that this source(book of Živković) is different from others(different view of historian). That  why he says that Porphyrogenit locates Croats in southern Poland and adds two additional sources as evidence. Mikola22 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I shouldn't need to tell you that the Serbian word Чешка/Češka is used to refer to both historical Bohemia and modern Czechia (per shWiki and srWiki). signed, Rosguill talk 08:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know, but he concretely mentione  Czech Republic. "After the Migration Period, Bohemia was partially repopulated around the 6th century, and eventually Slavic tribes arrived from the east, and their language began to replace the older Germanic, Celtic and Sarmatian ones. The first wave came from the southeast and east, when the Germanic Lombards left Bohemia (c. 568 AD). Soon after, from the 630s to 660s, the territory was taken by Samo's tribal confederation." Slavs coming to Czech area during 7th century but supposedly Croats coming from there in the 7th century. The Slavs had not yet arrived to Czech Republic but supposedly from there Croats migrated in large numbers to Dalmatia (at that time Slavs caming to Istria and Dalmatia but they had not yet arrived to Czech Republic)?  Mikola22 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another great example of WP:SYNTH. At the same time, Mikola did not mention that the above quote is from another sourceworldheritage.org/articles/Bohemia_proper.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  -- If he had said this quite explicitly, I would have no objections. But we will not speculate what the late scientist thought.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Disputed additions 

message: Should the following paragraph be added to the article?
 signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 1: Kolberg and Wojciechowski

message: *Yes. Mikola22 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 1 survey

message: Which of the following phrasings should be used for Tibor Živković's placement of White Croatia? The supporting citation is here, section 2.2 from page 111 to 113. 
*A Tibor Živković located White Croatia beyond the Hungarians, i.e. in southern Poland
*B Tibor Živković located White Croatia in Bohemia or southern Poland
signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote  would seem to be further evidence that Živković located the White Croats in Bohemia. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Northeast of Moravia is south Poland(Serbs are mentioned beyond Hungarians). Živković: "It is obvious that an observer who says that the White Croats lived beyond Bavaria cannot be based in Constantinople, not even in Dalmatia" "If the observer was based in Constantinople, he would have probably noticed that the White Croats lived beyond the Turks (Magyars) as is stated inchapter 31"  "The only possible answer is that the information from chapter 30 came from one source and that the other information  was the author’s understanding based on his own knowledge of the geography in their own time. Therefore, this would be Constantine’s updating as the result of the inquiry he had made about this issue." "White Croats, in section 2.5 it was retold in reverse that the Croats whostayed in their ancient homeland are now called the White Croats. This example is additional evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the White Croats were part of Constantine’s primary source on the Croats..... This is actual data from Constantin, "beyond Hungarians" it means southern Poland. Mikola22 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "analysis" by  is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Živković mentions northeast Moravia, south Poland and Bohemia but in the same book( in Serbian language) on page 67 he mentions Czech Republic or south Poland. Bohemia is not mentioned in this book in Serbian language. Croats were mentioned twice in the source(De Administrando Imperio), once behind Bavaria and once behind  Hungary and about that Živković talks, and claim that Porphyrogenit actually wrote part that mentione Croats beyond Hungarians and this is Porphyrogenit personal view at that time while the section that mentions Croats behind Bavaria is from an Italian source and some other time. Every historian who writes about De Administrando Imperio must mention Czech Republic or southern Poland (that area) but this claim of Živkovic i.e. that this is  personal opinion of  Porphyrogenit it means that this source(book of Živković) is different from others(different view of historian). That  why he says that Porphyrogenit locates Croats in southern Poland and adds two additional sources as evidence. Mikola22 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I shouldn't need to tell you that the Serbian word Чешка/Češka is used to refer to both historical Bohemia and modern Czechia (per shWiki and srWiki). signed, Rosguill talk 08:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know, but he concretely mentione  Czech Republic. "After the Migration Period, Bohemia was partially repopulated around the 6th century, and eventually Slavic tribes arrived from the east, and their language began to replace the older Germanic, Celtic and Sarmatian ones. The first wave came from the southeast and east, when the Germanic Lombards left Bohemia (c. 568 AD). Soon after, from the 630s to 660s, the territory was taken by Samo's tribal confederation." Slavs coming to Czech area during 7th century but supposedly Croats coming from there in the 7th century. The Slavs had not yet arrived to Czech Republic but supposedly from there Croats migrated in large numbers to Dalmatia (at that time Slavs caming to Istria and Dalmatia but they had not yet arrived to Czech Republic)?  Mikola22 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another great example of WP:SYNTH. At the same time, Mikola did not mention that the above quote is from another sourceworldheritage.org/articles/Bohemia_proper.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  -- If he had said this quite explicitly, I would have no objections. But we will not speculate what the late scientist thought.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2: Živković

message: *A. Mikola22 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2 survey

message: Tibor Zivkovic gives concrete conclusion when he says that Croats are in southern Poland, beyond  Hungarians. Otherwise "Bohemia sometimes refers to the entire Czech territory, including Moravia and Czech Silesia" So it could also be and eastern Czech Republic, in any case Tibor Zivkovic mentione southern Poland so we cannot change his claim. In the chapter on Serbs he says I quote: "then he would have been familiar with those regions to the north/northeast of Moravia and the Slav tribes settled there – especially with the White Croats and the White Serbs". Map of Moraviahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia#/media/File:Great_Moravia-eng.png Mikola22 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote  would seem to be further evidence that Živković located the White Croats in Bohemia. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Northeast of Moravia is south Poland(Serbs are mentioned beyond Hungarians). Živković: "It is obvious that an observer who says that the White Croats lived beyond Bavaria cannot be based in Constantinople, not even in Dalmatia" "If the observer was based in Constantinople, he would have probably noticed that the White Croats lived beyond the Turks (Magyars) as is stated inchapter 31"  "The only possible answer is that the information from chapter 30 came from one source and that the other information  was the author’s understanding based on his own knowledge of the geography in their own time. Therefore, this would be Constantine’s updating as the result of the inquiry he had made about this issue." "White Croats, in section 2.5 it was retold in reverse that the Croats whostayed in their ancient homeland are now called the White Croats. This example is additional evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the White Croats were part of Constantine’s primary source on the Croats..... This is actual data from Constantin, "beyond Hungarians" it means southern Poland. Mikola22 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "analysis" by  is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Živković mentions northeast Moravia, south Poland and Bohemia but in the same book( in Serbian language) on page 67 he mentions Czech Republic or south Poland. Bohemia is not mentioned in this book in Serbian language. Croats were mentioned twice in the source(De Administrando Imperio), once behind Bavaria and once behind  Hungary and about that Živković talks, and claim that Porphyrogenit actually wrote part that mentione Croats beyond Hungarians and this is Porphyrogenit personal view at that time while the section that mentions Croats behind Bavaria is from an Italian source and some other time. Every historian who writes about De Administrando Imperio must mention Czech Republic or southern Poland (that area) but this claim of Živkovic i.e. that this is  personal opinion of  Porphyrogenit it means that this source(book of Živković) is different from others(different view of historian). That  why he says that Porphyrogenit locates Croats in southern Poland and adds two additional sources as evidence. Mikola22 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I shouldn't need to tell you that the Serbian word Чешка/Češka is used to refer to both historical Bohemia and modern Czechia (per shWiki and srWiki). signed, Rosguill talk 08:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know, but he concretely mentione  Czech Republic. "After the Migration Period, Bohemia was partially repopulated around the 6th century, and eventually Slavic tribes arrived from the east, and their language began to replace the older Germanic, Celtic and Sarmatian ones. The first wave came from the southeast and east, when the Germanic Lombards left Bohemia (c. 568 AD). Soon after, from the 630s to 660s, the territory was taken by Samo's tribal confederation." Slavs coming to Czech area during 7th century but supposedly Croats coming from there in the 7th century. The Slavs had not yet arrived to Czech Republic but supposedly from there Croats migrated in large numbers to Dalmatia (at that time Slavs caming to Istria and Dalmatia but they had not yet arrived to Czech Republic)?  Mikola22 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another great example of WP:SYNTH. At the same time, Mikola did not mention that the above quote is from another sourceworldheritage.org/articles/Bohemia_proper.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

text:  -- If he had said this quite explicitly, I would have no objections. But we will not speculate what the late scientist thought.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2 discussion

message: I have made a number of copy edits to try to have this article read better in English, and to reflect what I understand of some of the arguments. While such nationalistic issues are a subject of Croat and other European authors, this article is in English and I think editors should look for sources that English speakers can read. Historian Timothy Snyder has written extensively about this territory and perhaps could provide some useful perspective. His 2003 book on Poland, Ukraine, etc. might have some relevant history: "He has spent some ten years in Europe, and speaks five and reads ten European languages. Among his publications are several award-winning books, all of which have been translated: Nationalism, Marxism, and Modern Central Europe: A Biography of Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz (1998, revised edition 2016); The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (2003); Sketches from a Secret War: A Polish Artist's Mission to Liberate Soviet Ukraine (2005); The Red Prince: The Secret Lives of a Habsburg Archduke (2008); On Tyranny (2017); and The Road to Unfreedom (2018). He has written for publications including the New York Review of Books, the New York Times, Foreign Affairs, the Times Literary Supplement, Nation, The New Republic, the International Herald Tribune, and the Wall Street Journal." From a summary related to his award-winning book Bloodlands.Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Snyder is a respected author, but his specialization is far from the times of Early Slavs. We have English-language authors like Fine, Dzino, Curta.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Also, you have added some new errors, like the statement that DAI was Latin-languaged. In fact, it was written in Greek.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing for sense in English

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