Talk:Origin hypotheses of the Serbs

message: This article does not balance enough mainstream thought about the origin of the Serbs and, as Ivan pointed out, there's just plain crazy-talk in it.
Serbs from Mesopotamia?  Serbs from Pakistan?   Please.
Let's agree to remove the more outrageous theories (cited or not!) and try to give this article a more respectable face. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section with the ridiculous Mesopotamian stuff. Can't believe it was on the page for so long-- embarrassing. --Calthinus (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive PoV [[WP:FRINGE]] garbage 

message: Please help finding reliable, modern and mainstream studies on Serbs origin. The article has everything, from WP:OR to sourced claims, notable to fringe theories. I don't believe that Serbian Academy and many reliable historians (like Tibor Živković) did not research or mention Serbs origin.--Crovata (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, when time is available. You could help by tagging disputable entries.--Zoupan 01:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to mention, I am not interested in editing the article, but as someone who speak Serbo-Croatian language, and managed to get Origin hypotheses of the Croats at a certain level, I just hope amateur readers won't fall anymore from the very start into endless research, often getting wrong information, which results with even worse conclusions. It is a very important article, but it will need, as you said - time. I will not tag or edit the article, just write a review of the article. Also would note, "reliable historians" - both Serbian and international.
1) "In the 19th century, various scholars provided several theories about the origin of the Serb ethnonym. Some researchers claimed that the ethnonym, and thereby ethnic origin, dated to ancient history." - Outdated and fringe theories, even if given media space (Jovan I. Deretić), should not be given weight and validity in the article according to WP:NPOV, and be emphasized in the article's intro. This kind of theories are the one, due to lack of information on primary sources like Wikipedia, amateur readers often stumble upon and because of lack of knowledge and critical understanding, receive wrong information and impression.
2) Mention of assumed Serbian name in toponyms throughout history (like in Pliny the Younger or Ptolemy) need quotes from original sources (like Perseus Project, and translated form), and reference to reliable sources and scholars. Scholars like Aleksandar M. Petrović, who is not a historian or linguist but philosopher, and especially Živko D. Petković, an anonymous scholar with extremily outdated source for such a topic, are not enough competent and reliable to cite. It results with finding Serbian name in toponyms everywhere, even in the territory of present-day Egypt and Southern Turkey, which is nonsense. This toponyms, like eg. Serbinum, which is mostly mentioned with root "Serv-" ie. Ancient Greek "b" is often read as "v" in Modern Greek "v", have linguistical meaning which have nothing to do with Serbian ethnic name. The city Serbinum or Servitium come from Latin servi "servant", and located near river Sava, a natural boundary in Roman province of Pannonia, it meant "city of servants" ie. part of limes defended by serving population. Similarly in Proto-Indo-European *ser-u-o ‎(guardian), and *ser- ‎(to bind, put together). The related and first etymology of the Serbian name, which is not mentioned neither in respective article Names of the Serbs and Serbia and must be neverthless (even if mostly considered wrong) of personal editors feelings toward it, by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos: "Serbs, in the language of the Romaioi, is the word for ‘servants’, whence the colloquial ‘serbula’ for menial shoes, and ‘tzerboulianoi’  for those who wear cheap, shoddy footwear. This name the Serbs acquired from their being servants of the emperor of the Romaioi." (cite pg. 157, Tibor Živković, De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum)
3) It is hard to believe that 10th century tribes of Krevatades and Sarbani have something to do with with 10th century Croats and Serbs. However, in the references are names of the (a bit outdated) scholars whose names should be mentioned in the article.
4) There too many Petković cites, and his identifications are ridiculous (eg. with Siberia) and should not be cited at all.
5) Migration of the Serbs and work De Administrando Imperio have better sources ie. are covered by work(s) of Tibor Živković.
6) Some "Iranian theory" statements need cites and additional sources for confirmation, and "It is possible..." as well "In Polish history..." are an example of WP:OR, which if there's no source to claim that, it must be removed.
7) "Autochthonic theory" needs additional reliable sources for confirmation, and clear stance that is a fringe theory (especially Jovan I. Deretić).
8) I don't see any scholar theorizing "Proto-Slavic theory", it is prone to speedy deletion. Josef Dobrovský, Pavel Jozef Šafárik, are scholars from the 18th and early 19th century, they are outdated and not reliable, we don't even cite them. Same goes for journal Prosvjeta released 1908. On Wikipedia we cite what modern scholarship has to say, not those from centuries ago. This same mistake was done in the Sporoi article. It must be distinguished the old from modern science, and unreliable from reliable sources - North American Society for Serbian Studies of course would put forward own subjective nationalistic agenda.--Crovata (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies on Serbs origin