Talk:South Slavs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bulgarians

Establishing a powerful empire in the 7th century, the First Bulgarian Empire, the Bulgarians were the first South Slavs to adopt Christianity. The bulgarians are not slavs, they are turkic.Baxter9 12:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the history better - 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)

Hi. I am talking about the nation. Bulgarians are geneticali not slavs. Of course, now they use the ciril alphabet, and they are slavicized. You said: main part of population of the Bulgarian Empire were Slavs.. (could be, I dont know how many slavs lived in the Bulgarian empire). I just saw in the article, that Bulgarians were the first slavs... And that is not true. The: the slavs, who lived in the Bulgarian empire were the first... would be a better choice. Dont you think?Baxter9 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That is only half of the story. There is a difference between terms Bulgars and Bulgarians and you obviously mixing the two. The old Bulgars were indeed slavicized, but another half of this story is that Slavs who lived in Bulgaria adopted Bulgarian name as their own national name, thus present-day Bulgarians are mostly descendants of these Slavs. PANONIAN 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Now it is correct, it is not misleading. I agree: Bulgarians have slavic and bulgar descendents, ancestors.Baxter9 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] South Slav unity in USA

Here's a link to one of the Societies of The South Slavs in USA. The club 'Zivio' (in dalmatian dialect of Serbocroat it means 'Cheers" ) is an active place to be, between the south Slav community in this area. Enjoy: http://www.daytonfolkdance.com/zivio/ZivSSC.html Cheers, 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In Dalmatian dialect of Serbocroat? Živio is "Cheers" in Slovene and all dialects of Croatian language and I'm not sure but probably in all South Slavic languages, not only and definitely not characteristically in Dalmatian. Also there is no Dalmatian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, there is only Chakavian dialect of Croatian and you can call it Dalmatian if you want. Zenanarh (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In Macedonian it's "Živili" :) BalkanFever 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

All these maps seem to have been drawn by user Hxseek, and therefore it seems silly to use a Wikipedia editor as a reliable source. Noonien Soong (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He draws the maps based on what reliable sources say. BalkanFever 06:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is better to get the maps from those sources then. As mostly Wikipedia doesn't just use drawings by users with extensive NPOW reputation. Noonien Soong (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources i used didn't contain maps of political boundaries, etc. Only good verbal description of the borders. Even if they had maps, there is the issue of copyrighting. There is a scarcity of accurate early medieval Balkan maps Hxseek (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)