Talk:Slavs/Archive 1

message: The picture in the article is irrelevent, and doesn't add anything to the article, and may detract from it. Unless I hear a reasonable arguement for retaining it, (other than for its comedy value,) I'll delete it. --Dumbo1 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious Picture

message: Listing Bunjevci and Šokci under Serbs and Istrians under Croats is another shining example of Milošević-like logic.
First of all -- Istrians -- a fraction of people in the Istria county of Croatia declared their ethnicity (local word "narodnost", rather ambiguous but fairly well translated as ethnicity) as regional. I've never heard of that group asking for any separate ethnic minority rights, while I've often heard of (self-proclaimed) Croats in Istria demanding regional autonomy, so while it's plausible to consider the Istrians distinct, it's pretty hard to imagine why they should be listed as a separate _ethnicity_.
As for Bunjevci and Šokci, ever since the census of 1981, their number in Serbia (Vojvodina really) rose as the number of Croats fell (and the number of Yugoslavs also rose). Bunjevci are the more vocal group of those, and there is a faction among them that claims they're neither Serbs nor Croats, just plain Bunjevci. Another faction thinks they're Croats. The Šokci on the other hand, spread through both Slavonia and Vojvodina. In Slavonia they hardly register as a blip on the ethnic radar, whereas in Vojvodina they show up, together with the undeclared and other regional affiliations, almost always in places where there are/were significant Croat minorities.
I don't know, maybe it's all due to Tito's and Ranković's and whoever's discriminatory policies against the people who actually wanted to be part of smaller ethnic groups. Or maybe it's due to the fact they're a small Catholic minority among the Orthodox Serbs, looking to get out of sight at a time when Serb nationalism is looking very unfavourably at the "enemy". (Needless to mention, Croats, Albanians and Bosniaks were all painted that way during the Milosevic-led jingoist upheaval.) Declaring one's self a member of one of those groups, that isn't simply Croat and has ways of getting by as Serb, was a reasonably simple way out. I don't blame them, really. But wartime opportunism is one thing; continued flawed ethnic appropriation is another, and that's what the current article perpetuates.
The sad thing here is that I'm arguing the same basic point as the Croat nationalists and that I'm likely going to be accused of siding with them by the Serb nationalists. *sigh*
--Shallot 11:42, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Bunjevci, Sokci, Istrians

message: I removed the second "sentence" from the article because try as I might, I could make no sense of it:
:The Germanic and Rumanian population will be effect of language changes after conquest. Characteristic genetic Y mark HG3 (M17).
Who does it refer to? What does it mean? Where does it come from? Could whoever added this, or someone familiar with the theory, rewrite this as a real sentence and reinsert it into the appropriate paragraph? Thanks. --MIRV 21:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Incoherent sentences

message: The anonymous user from 193.198.x.y (cmu.carnet.hr, a dialup block from Croatia) apparently seems to have an anti-Serbian agenda... I just noticed after this recent commit here that they have been continuously reverting the Bunjevci article to some blatant copy&paste and have also now changed the Gorani article to make the Macedonians, though Google shows that they're more like the Bosniaks. Mass-revert, and/or ban? It'll be non-trivial to ban them without banning the whole dialup range... --Shallot 00:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bunjevci, Gorani, etc

message: The anonymous user from 24.70.95.203 (something in Canada IIRC) apparently has a pan-Serbian agenda... they included notes about Molise and Gradisce/Burgenland in here and in Serbo-Croatian language, and marked them as Serbs, whereas those are Croats AFAIK. They also don't seem to grasp the fact Burgenland == Gradišće, and their user contribution page shows some other deficiencies... --Shallot 00:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the time of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there were scholars which held that there exists a certain people called Serbocroats :) Nikola
Those Slavs in Kruč, Mundimitar and Filič, as shown on this page, came from Croatia and speak a dialect closest to Croatian čakavian. To consider them Serbs is really shallow conjecture that serves no purpose but to troll. --Shallot 17:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: See, for example, this article. Nikola 06:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose that if the old lady said so, the old lady said so :) But it's still a single report over a hundred years old, and it doesn't appear to be reproducible today. Perhaps both Croats and Serbs migrated back then, but the Serbs are no longer to be found today, faster naturalization or something... --Shallot 13:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Serbian megamoronism has achieved new triumphs, I see. What's next ? Serbopitecs ? http://www.croatidelmolise.it/ Mir Harven 14:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: There are, have never been and will, surely, no such group as "Molise Serbs". This is just a part of despicable Serbian propaganda and I the page should be removed. It's simply a disgusting lie. http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/michelequici/croati/ , http://www.eurolang.net/Languages/Croatian.htm , http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Sprachwiss/slavistik/acqua/spracheE.htm Mir Harven 21:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: This user has since restated pretty much the same on Talk:Molise Serbs, but after reviewing some data it seems like the term is being intentionally twisted for a political purpose. Someone else should have a look at it before I move it to what seems to be a more suitable title (like "Serbs in Italy"). --Shallot 21:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

text: One more note: there actually is a difference in terms between Burgenland Croats and Gradisce Croats: Burgenland refers to the area of one Austrian Bundesland, while gradiscanski Hrvati at least in Croatian usually seems to include the autochthonous Croat minorities in Western Hungary and Slovakia. In other words: Burgenland Croats are the largest subgroup of Gradisce Croats, but not all Gradisce Croats live in Burgenland. Unless there is a fixed terminology in English of which I don't know, i suggest we should copy this use into English, calling them Gradisce Croats when historically or culturally talking about the Croats in pre-WW-I Western Hungary and Burgenland Croats only in an Austrian context. Jakob Stevo 15:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, while we're at it, I might mention the following: I happened to catch a glimpse of some programme on HTV recently where they interviewed Croats from Slovakia at some folklore-related event. The interviewer, from .hr, referred to them as being "gradišćanski Hrvati", but the woman she talked to seemed to take offense at that notion, saying that their ancestors moved at the same time but not to Gradišće so that she shouldn't call them the same name. I was slightly surprised myself, and I don't know if this is a common sentiment, either. --Shallot 21:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I never talked to any Slovakian Croats :-) but the ones in Austria talk about "gradišćanski Hrvati on both sides of the border". Jakob Stevo 16:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gradisce/Burgenland, Molise, etc

message: Can someone please check the anon edits made in the last few minutes? Thanks! Mark Richards 22:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon edit

message: The map  refers to languages rather to ethnic groups so it may cause confusion. It also lists no minorities, and it doesn't show anything other than a zoomed part of Europe. Further, there's no license attached, but there is some note in the lower right corner that resembles the author. I don't really see why it should remain on the page... --Shallot 21:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The English word "slave" has its root in the Slavic ethnonym, because the Roman Empire often used Slavs as slaves. See this external>>>
>>>there were not slavs in west-southern europe till of the end of 6 cent. about 600. political end of west-rome is date 476. --80.142.197.150
:Maybe it should say the Holy Roman Empire ??? Jakob Stevo 15:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One of history's mysteries... Nikola 10:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Slav (from the widespread enslavement of captured Slavs in the early Middle Ages) (source) --Cyberman 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Jack, Belated thanks. But I see two days later Voyevoda reverted back to the original version, which was then deleted by someone again two days later (version 36896199). I re-inserted your version with a slight change into the new origin-of-the-term-Slav chapter. 193.68.41.17 10:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slav is a self-name of slavic people. It is connected with slawic words slava - "honour" and slovo - "word". Probably it means "those who can speak", i.e. with words.--Nixer 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The word slave

message: In the 19th century, Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics.
I'm not sure if this is right. The 19th cent. Pan-Slavism had quite a big influence on practical politics after the WW1. It led to the creation of the SHS Kingdom (Yugoslavia) whose official anthem was the Pan-Slavic song, Hej Sloveni. I guess the creation of Czechoslovakia was also influenced by the Pan-Slavic movement, and perhaps to some extent also played a role in the creation of the Soviet Union (which started as a union of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarussian soviet republics).
Also note that national colors of most Slavic nations are based on the Russian white, blue and red flag, since Russia was seen as the natural leader of the Pan-Slavic movement (notable exceptions are the nations which used to be dominated by Russia - Belarus, Ukraine and Poland); see Pan-Slavic colors. Of course, Pan-Slavism was more popular among some Slavic nations, and less among others. For intance, it had almost no following in Poland which was fighting for independence from Russia and wouldn't adhere to a Russian-led movement.
--Kpalion 10:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pan-Slavism

message: This pseudo-scientific piece can only have a very nationalistic scholar as its origin:
The opposite recent theory postulates an autochthonous Slavic origin from pre-glacial times. The Germanic and Romanian (Vlachian) populations, by this theory, would have arisen from the effect of language changes after conquest. This theory is based on genetic research and a theory of multi-regional human evolution instead of the "out of Africa" concept. The Slavic homeland, in this theory, would have included areas described by Tacitus as Germania. Tacitus wrote that Germania, as applied to all the Germanic peoples, was a relatively recent (1st century) coinage.
So, I conclude that the Slavs have inhabited Eastern Europe since before the ice age. The text also implies that the presence of Germanic tribes and Romanian are linked to the later immigration to Europe. This logically means that the Slavs are descended from Neanderthals, right? Wiglaf
Yeah, this version of the autohtonic theory is much exagerrated, but in matter of fact, there is no theory that explains all the issues, so autohtonic theory, saying  pre-Slavs populated some nicha areas in Poland since ice-era and then emerged and then have assimilated some local elements explains facts no worse then invasion theory. Cautious 16:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This article impresses me as full of agressive speculations.--Wiglaf 12:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of autochthonous Slavic origin

message: I believe that Hitler's opinion on Slavic people is totally irrelevant and has little or no impact on the discussion on Slavic people in the historical context. In fact, despite a large international influence Hitler's statements have no place in this article. If his opinion may come across as important or worthy of mentioning to Germans, it should be put in the Hitler's biography or a separate article on Hitler's view vis-a-vis Slavic people. I think that to most Slavs, Hitler's or generally German opinion on them are irrelevant.
--VicFromTheBlock
: Fact remains that Nazi Germany committed genocidal acts against large numbers of Slavs just because they were Slavs, so I'll rephrase... 
--Joy [shallot]
I agree with --Joy [shallot] Nazis planned partly to exterminate, partly to assimilate the Poles and Czechs, because of their racial inferiority. When someone wants to exterminate you, it is not irrelevant.--Georgius 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it had to do with them being Slavs but Germany needed the land and it was already habited. Hence the 9 million Slavs killed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's opinions on Slavic people

message: At first I edited the following piece:
:"In particular it is noted that, the  Russian suffix -ane/-yane in slavyane (-anin/-yanin, singular form) occurs only in nouns that descibe persons affiliated with certain places (e.g. anglichane for "Englishmen," gorozhanin for "city dweller", from gorod for "city"/"town", etc.)."
But after some thought I removed it at all. This is an encyclopedia article, which is no place for linguistic bickering. This argument may be refuted at least in three ways.
*The appearance of the suffix may be the result of a corruption and subsequent back-formation to the root slav-. The most famous example is zont
*The refutation is irrevant, since it is  inapplicable to the early form "slovene"
*This latter form may be connected to suffix "-en/-an/-yan" with the meaning "has the property of" or "made of".
And of course someone else may try to counter these refutations, and ad infinitum.mikka (t) 01:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: I was wondering, would people like it if Slavic tribes was split off from this article? That way we could eliminate most of the historical mulling from here, and leave more space for expansion in the tribes article. --Joy [shallot] 13:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  split off tribes? 

message: I see that this part of the article is writen by people who have poor knowledge about Slavic ethnic groups. I have to inform you here about some facts:
1.The government of Serbia officialy recognize these South Slavic peoples as a separate ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Muslims, Bunjevci, Šokci, Goranci, Yugoslavs. So, all of them are a separate nationalities (Not a subgroup of another nationality!!!).
2.The constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina officialy recognize 3 nationalities in this country: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats (There is no such thing as "Bosnians" in ethnic or national terms). 
3. The government of Romania officialy recognize Krashovans as a separate ethnic group (And that mean that they are not a subgroup of Serbs). 
4. Bokelji are not an national or ethnic group, but only regional affiliation.
5.Also, I think that it is a better way of presentation to write all ethnic names in one single line (with no subgroupings). Or, at least, the subgroupings should exist only there where they are not disputed. The worst way of presentation is to mention some ethnic groups twice. For example, Rusyns, Silesians and Moravians are the disputed ethnic groups here. I think that Czech census from 1990 (not sure about this) recognized Moravians and Silesians as a separate ethnic groups. Anyway, if the classification of these 3 groups is disputed, we should write some note about this, but we should not write their names twice! It is ridiculous.
User:PANONIAN
----
1. I agree that it is ridiculous. I am happy that I am not the only one who thinks this way. 2. Czech or Slovak censuses, just as those of many other countries, recognize any nationality (except for jokes - some people give "Eskimo" as their nationality :-) ). 3. You make wrong assumptions about wikipedia users. The true reason why we had some nations twice is that some people will not recognite that some other nations are separate nations (whatever you say) Juro 00:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Slavic peoples 

message: Maybe this can help:
* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html
Czech Republic: Czech 90.4%, Moravian 3.7%, Slovak 1.9%, other 4% (2001 census)
This is from previous census:
* http://mapsandflags.com/ez.html
Ethnic groups: Czech 81.2%, Moravian 13.2%, Slovak 3.1%, Polish 0.6%, German 0.5%, Silesian 0.4%, Roma 0.3%, Hungarian 0.2%, other 0.5% (March 1991)
So, both, Moravians and Silesians, are listed here as a separate ethnic groups in Czech census.
However, seems that Polish census does not list Silesians as a separate ethnicity, as well as Ukrainian census does not list Rusyns as such:
* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html
Poland: Polish 96.7%, German 0.4%, Belarusian 0.1%, Ukrainian 0.1%, other and unspecified 2.7% (2002 census)
Ukraine: Ukrainian 77.8%, Russian 17.3%, Belarusian 0.6%, Moldovan 0.5%, Crimean Tatar 0.5%, Bulgarian 0.4%, Hungarian 0.3%, Romanian 0.3%, Polish 0.3%, Jewish 0.2%, other 1.8% (2001 census)
However, in both census results, there is a category "other", so, the Silesians and Rusyns might be listed there. Does somebody have more detailed information about censuses in Poland and Ukraine? So far, I believe that Moravians and Silesians should be regarded as a separate ethnic groups since they are listed as such in Czech census. User:PANONIAN
----
Here are the detailed results from Czech census:
* http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/basic_final_results_of_the_population_and_housing_census_2001
Ethnic groups in Czech Republic:
*Czechs = 9,249,777
*Moravians = 380,474
*Silesians = 10,878
*Slovaks = 193,190
*Germans = 39,106
*Poles = 51,968
*Roma = 11,746
*other = 292,921
The results from Polish census:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland
Ethnic groups in Poland:
*36,983,720 Polish
*774,885 Not specified
*471,475 Non-Polish, or multi-racial, including:
*173,153 Silesian
*152,897 German
*48,700 Belarusian
*31,000 Ukrainian
*12,900 Roma
*6,103 Russian 
*5,863 Lemko
*5,846 Lithuanian
*5,062 Kashubian
*4,500 Other (including Africans)
*2,000 Slovak
*1,808 Vietnamese
*1,633 French
*1,541 American
*1,404 Greek
*1,367 Italian
*1,112 Bulgarian
*1,100 Israeli Jews
*1,082 Armenian
*831 Czech
*800 English
*500 Tatar
*45 Karaite
User:PANONIAN
----
I have not suggested considering the Moravians as a part of the Czechs, all I wanted to say is that the Czech or Slovak census is, strictly speaking, no "proof" because it accepts anything people write there (and I assume that the same holds for other modern European censuses). But I understand that the problem is, what other sources one should use otherwise...
Maybe the following sentence will clarify my point: The censuses do not provide an "objective" division of nationalities (which is the division described by ethnographers etc.), they only reflect the self-definition of people.
Juro 15:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Official census data

message: It is a bit arrogant to state that there is no such thing as Bosnians in national terms.  Nearly all international states recognize this as nationality of people who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  This can be compared to a group called Yugoslavs.  See Bosnians article for more information. Also I don't see a reason to add population numbers next to each nation and than arrange the groups based on that.  It makes the article more difficult to maintain and prone to errors just to name few concerns --Dado 22:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosnians

message: As for the other sources than the census, I have some literature about Vojvodina Rusyns, but that literature is mainly in Serbian and published in Serbia, so I doubt that you can find these books in your country. User:PANONIAN
----
No, I claim that they are just Rusyns (the Ukrainian government would even say Ukrainians :-) ). And everybody having the slightest idea of this topic (and I have a very "big" idea of it) knows that. The Rusyns in former Yugoslavia are not a separate "ethnic" or "linguistic" group (whatever they themselves are claiming) - that's the problem with your census data as it has been explained to you already above. They came from the western part of the Rusyn continuum so their language stands between Eastern and Western Slavic - just like that of virtually all Rusyns (the division in Western/Eastern/Southern Slavs is quite problematic in many respects anyway). But the general consesus on ALL Rusyns is that they are East Slavs. If some authors are claiming the opposite (which I can hardly believe), then they do not know West and East Slavic languages well enough.Juro 01:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rusyns

message: Why not make a seperate article about the list of Slavic tribes  connected to the main article here ? Currently the shape of article is distorted by the list at the beginning--Molobo 10:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal=

message: In the "Slavs in the historical period" section, there is a line saying "The Croats probably merged with the Alans and the Serbs with the Illyrians.". While I can't say anything on the second statement, the first one is contradicted by the genetic makeup of the Croatian population. The Alans originated from the Mid East which means that they would belong to Haplogroup J2 (M172) or E3b (M35). The Croat population on the other hand is mostly limited to HG's I (M170) 38%, R1a (M17) 33% and R1b (M173) 16%. The J haplogroup is limited to 5% and most likely related to the neolithic farmers that moved to Europe some 10k years ago (and brought agriculture with them).
Genetic data taken from: http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Barac2003.pdf, but there are plenty of other references.
The M170 (I) group is the "Celtic" HG which is most likely a result from ice-age migration to the south. It is exclusive to Europe. The M17 (R1a) HG is typical eastern-european, common in many Slavic countries. The M173 (R1b) is typical western-european and dominant in France, Spain, Wales, Germany etc It is also exclusive to Europe. So there's little chance of any major merge with any people of recent (last 10-20,000 years) non-European origin, which kind of ruins the Alan theory (and the formerly popular "out of Persia" theory).
I don't have any data on Serbs and Illyrians, but it's possible that the information there is based on fairly outdated theories as well. --Denoir 20:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croats and Alans 

message: The following phrase is deleted from intro:
:"The idea that the Slavic people have more in common than their origin, the origin of their languages, and some cultural aspects is derived from romantic nationalism, the panslavism movement, and the notion of ethnicity as a biological basis of nations."
It is a chaotiv piece of an anti-panslavist dispute, rather than a piece of information. Such a vague form has no place in the intro:  what exactly is "more in common"? This artice about ethnicity, rather than about political movements, and I fail to see what can be more than culture, language and origin in this specific context. mikka (t) 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common of Slavs 

message: I removed several pieces of rant about "under-consolidation" of Slavic people. I don't see the reason for this politicized fuss in an article aboout ethnic topics. There is nothing special in this "non-consolidation". We don't see Finno-Ugric, Germanic, Romance peoples consolidated either, what's the problem?  I see the deleted pieces as nothing but a feat of Slavophobia, an attempt to "prove" that Slavs are inferior and underdeveloped. mikka (t) 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation 

message: I see that some people constantly changing the listing of these two peoples, thus I have to give my answer to this:
*1. Muslims by nationality IS NOT a political term, but it was and still is the manner how members of this ethnic group identify themselves. Today, most of the former Muslims by nationality declared themselves as Bosniaks, but NOT ALL OF THEM. For details, you can see the demographics of Sandžak, and you will see that people there still identify themselves as Muslims by nationality. PANONIAN (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never even heard of a field called geolinguistics, but even if South Slavonic is more conservative than East or West Slavonic (an argument of the topology of the Slavonic language tree), it is supreme nonsense to consider this a proof that Proto-Slavic was spoken in the Balkans (a geographic argument). If you found a community in the North American desert where Early Modern English was preserved virtually intact, would you deduce from this that Britain was colonized from Nevada? dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mario Alinei is deplorable. It will become the practice in Wikipedia to simply remove his musings as pseudo-scientific junk, and confine them to his article or to Paleolithic Continuity Theory. Alexander 007 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonians and Muslims by nationality 

message: When in comes to origin the Scythians should be mentioned. Since this would not contradict but satisfy two other thesises.
- Autochtony
- Irianian (Aryan) Origin
The Scythians have formed in the Eurasian Steppes (Autochtony).
The Scythians are Irianians. 
A third Theory can also be included: "One theory suggests that two waves of Slavs existed, the Proto-Slavs (called by these theorists "Venedes" or "Wenets") and the Slavs proper; and that these two groups were eventually mixed to become the Slavs of today" if the mysterios "Slavs proper" were the Scythians.
I will add ",sometimes associated with the "Scythian farmers" of Herodotus" to the article 
behind the Chernoles culture.
Since the association with the farmer scythians is mentioned in the related article (Chernoles_culture).
This should be enough for Scythian Origin in the article.
(... my three cents to the above) -Kingdom of Sarmatia - The area of Kingdom of Sarmatia is mentioned by Jordanes as place of origin of invading Bisantium in VI century Slavic tribes. Problem with this is only that this teritory was conquered in I century by Thracians Getae and put according to some Roman Empire chroniclers as under their "barbarian kings'" government. In IV century invaded this part of Europe Huns (could they be some relatives to Baltic people? As it could explain some certain Baltic influences in Slavic languages). In V century Kingdom Sarmatia was dismantled by moving from Poland Nordic but Germanic people called Visigoths, who settled in this exactly same area together with Scythians and Getae for some time before moving on to Spain. It could be that R1a is genetic marker of Scythians and Huns, The Eastern Slavs when I1 could be genetic marker of Thracian Getae (mostly typical of Eastern-Southern Europe I1b YDNA), The Southern Slavs, and Nordics from Poland, the Western Slavs (I1a and possibly some Visigothic R1b YDNA). Slavic language could also be effect of very possible creolization process. Pan Piotr Glownia 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scythian Origin 

message: Hello Ghirlandajo. I remind you to Wikipedia:AGF and Wikipedia:NPA which I'm sure you are fully aware of, but seem to not profess as I gather from the last edit summary. All this bullshit is is an error-fix using information verified from Origin of Serbs and the Origin of Croats section mentioned in History of Croatia, coupled with the Sarmatian section outlining Polish Sarmatisim. Saying the Serbs are defined by their mix of the Illyrian population is an error. I fixed the error and explained it in more detail. Plus, I rearranged some of the ulterior theories material (not realizing the first were already summarized). I also removed the Genetics section as it does not make any sense in context, and seems to be opinionated in its interpretation. I will revert back now with the edits I mentioned above. Thanks, feel free to fix spelling and grammar - etc. 72.144.183.130
:I agree the genetics section is without consequence, so we may remove it. Rather than that, you re-inserted its mischaracterization of
::"A recent Stanford study concluded that the peoples of Slavonic tongue are the most closely related populations to the proto-Indo-European stock"
:(while the study does of course nothing of the kind; the pertinent passage is the discussion of the M17 haplogroup. no "proto-Indo-European stock" is mentioned. This is, frankly, just bullshit). If you want to take the "pre-glacial" stuff out of the "fringy" section, you could at least cite a reference for it; I left it in as a courtesy, but unless you have a solid reference discussing "autochthonous Slavic origin from pre-glacial times" it really has no place here. If you do have a reference, I am confident it will still be in crackpot territory. Sigh, everybody has "authochthonous origins in pre-glacial times" because everybody has pre-glacial ancestors who lived somewhere (I am sure I have pre-glacial ancestors, because otherwise I just wouldn't be here, duh), this is just a self-evident remark without the slightest relevance to the ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Origin of Serbs reasonably envisages a Slavicization of the Serboi in the 7th century. Nothing pre-glacial about it; 5th-7th century is the timeframe relevant to the discussion, anything earlier is pre-Slavic and only of marginal interest to this article as possible components of predecessor cultures. dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Croats/Serbs mention

message: Shouldnt the proper title be: "Slavic people", and not 
"Slavic peoples"?
In my native lanuage, (spanish) to say peopleS,is redundant,and although widely used, is considered to be incorrect.
The term people is already referring to a  number of individuals; it aint necessary to add an S.
:Apart from being the plural of "person", "people" is also a regular countable noun meaning "ethnic group" or "nation". So this usage is correct. Zocky | picture popups 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Why is no image allowed to be at the top of this article? The article could use a good image at the top, but all the possibilities have since been removed. Why is everyone so vehemently against the addition of an image? 72.153.53.35 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no Image?

message: The term Slavic, as pronounced here in slavic languages, is Slovan.
It is clearly from the word Slovo, which means the Word, in most of slavic languages. We do not name us Slavans, which would be from Slava, glory. (Could this interpretation come from the Russian form of that word?)
The term Slavic or sclavic is external, not used within the slavic teritories/languages.
Hence the meaning man of the Word is correct, and other explanations in section 'Origin of the term Slav' seem ridiculous or misguiding... (Why do you think that we would name us Slovans with ethymological roots in Greek or Latin languages, that are completelly (linguistically) foreign?)
: "Slavic" is Slovjanski or Slovenski depending on the language. -Iopq 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovan 

message: It's one thing to push that Slavs can constitute some type of massive ethnic group when often their cultural and genetic ties are loose, but its a whole 'nother story to start pushing that they constitute the largest linguistic and ethnic body on mainland Europe, when that is totally incorrect. It can easily be proven. The following are Slavic countries:
THESE FIGURES ARE INCORRECT!
Poland: about 38 million people of Slavic origin
Czechia: about 9.8 million 
Slovakia: about 4.6 million 
Slovenia: about 2.1 million 
Croatia: about 5.4 million
Macedonia: about 1.5 million
Bosnia: about 5.0 million
Serbia: about 7 million
Bulgaria: about 7.3 million
Ukraine: about 45 million
Belarus: about 10 million
Russia: about 100 million (this number discludes people of non-ethnic Slavic origin because thats how its defined here. In the Russian census ethnologue reports are often used in place of an ethnic designation - its a rough estimate at best and the number is likely to be lower anyway)
234.7 mil approximately
Mainland Europe has a population of roughly 710 million + the unused 42 million of Siberia (which we are including as part of Russia)
So 235/750 ~~ 31%. Still under the 1/3rd mark EVEN when we include the uncertain numbers of Russia. In any other fashion, this information is totally misleading and all in all unneccessary. 68.212.177.48 19:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole section of sources up there for claiming that Slavs are the largest ethnic group of peoples in Europe, so I guess that's settled. The other issue, "about one third". Your methodology which adds all of Russia to Europe skews the numbers somewhat downwards, as the European part of Russia has both a larger total population and a larger share of Slavs than the Asian part. But even you have arrived at 31%. That's exactly "about one third", wouldn't you say? Zocky | picture popups 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read the above section called "Slavic identity" where other encyclopedia's definition of Slavs is quoted. Also, you may want to consider that you may be wrong. Zocky | picture popups 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic, Linguistic, and Biggest?