Talk:Slavs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Spurious Picture

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)

The caption on the picture has been changed, but is the picture relevent to this article? i think not. --Dumbo1 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the pic. I was just about to post it on Images and Media for Deletion. --Dumbo1 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the pic. I don't know about southern slavs, but it does justice ot the literature representation of Western/Eastern Slavs in the period mentioned.--LordRahl 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian

62.47.28.215 let us clearify a bit a term Macedonian. I am Slovene and also I am a Slovene citizen. In Slovenia there are no other Slovenes. We can't talk about Slovene or non-Slovene Slavs. In this country there are just other nationalities. So what nationality you are? I know just for a nation, called Macedonians. You might be Greek, Albanian, Serb or whatever. If you insist on the term Macedonian Slavs, so let it be. Are there any other nations which are Macedonians but are not Slavs? I think not. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 09:30 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

The Macedonians are Greek people ! See Alexander the Great and "Vergina sun" ! Macedonian,Greek 25.04.2003

So in my point of view you're Greek or at least Macedonian Greek. Probably you talk and write Greek. According to one snub German I'll be Slovene Slav, which do not exist. --XJamRastafire 09:47 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Slovene Slavs don't exist. well they do, but the term is merely a duplication since the very word 'Slovene', used to refer to a national of the country Slovenia; Slovak, for Slovakia (Slovenska in Slovak with Slovenia being SLOVINSKA; Slavonija, for the region populated by Serbs and Croats in Eastern Croatia; along with national groups such as the Slovincians of Poland; down to more remote titles such as Slavija Square in the centre of Belgrade, to football clubs Slavija Prague in the Czech Republic and Slovan Bratislava in Slovakia, as well as other lists and lists of names of dialects, subnations, regions, entities, are all entirely based on the root 'Slov/Slav etc' aknowledging descent from the Slavs. The reason that in Ljubljana that the locals who speak the native language are called Slovenes is that they never went through the process of switching their name into something else like the Croats and Serbs did before and the Montenegrins and Bosniaks have done more recently! Slovenes forever! Ragusan 17.9.05

Bunjevci, Sokci, Istrians

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)

The nonsense about "Bunjevci" "people" deleted. This is simply a regional Croatian subgroup that was in past 10-20 years manipulated and pressured by Serbian fascist regime of Slobodan Milošević and Vojislav Šešelj (the ICTY Hague tenants)to distance from Croatdom- for very obvious reasons for which they are currently at trial. There are no separate Bunjevac press, books, dialect or folklore. Every Bunjevac, from father of modern Croatian nationalism Ante Starčević, to popular folklore singer Zvonko Bogdan- knew and know where they belong. As for censa- any census that is conducted in the climate of fear is of no consequence. "Ethnic" Bunjevci are as "real" as "ethnic" Yugoslavs, as real as angular circle or square triangle.

  • If I might make an observation at this stage: the name Bunjev was with these people on arrival to their adopted homeland of present-day Vojvodina. If Croats is what they were then Croats they would have called themselves and the term 'Bunjev' might never have surfaced. But what in the Hell constitutes Croathood anyway, or Serbianhood for that matter? And what's so wrong with people declaring themselves Yugoslavs? The basis for nationality among the principle populations is that they are based on being Slavic - the titles Serb and Croat can be traced back centuries (authenticly), Macedonian (as a Slav subgroup) only since the 1890s; nations are created, nations die! The point is that even Croats and Serbs were once something else, followed by a transitional period where they are subgroups of Slavs, and today the Slavic background is all but forgotten - that is the choice of the locals, but by saying one is a Yugoslav, he claims to be Slavic, which indeed he is, and from the south (Jug), which of course he is since the others north of Hungary and Northern based Slavs. It is the policy of a democratic society to allow its people to choose the name of their nationality whether or not a corresponding state exists, but you may choose only one, you cannot claim to be both Sardinian AND Italian: your people would be either those who call themselves Sardinians or those who say Italians, no matter what they wrote on the previous census. We can switch our nationality by the hour if we so choose, it's all imaginary any way. Now in this climate of fear, I am sure that natives to Vojvodina who were Croats yesterday became Bunjevs the next day in order to maintain some of their identity. This does not mean that this was how the Bunjev race was created. I had a girlfriend who was a Bunjev way back in the 1950's (when I studied in Novi sad) and even then she spoke of how her people were one of the excluded minorities, not given a republic or region where-by they may be autonomous.

Ragusan 18.9.05 M H

Milosevic did not pressure them, even before Milosevic came to power some Bunjevci chose to be a seperate ethnic group. There are in fact seperate Bunjevci press, books, and foljlore.

Incoherent sentences

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)

Slavs in the Vistula 500 BC?

The article alleges that Celts and Germans passed through the Vistula area "without displacing" local slavs. Is there a confusion with Illyrians and Thrakians? What evidence is there that Slavs lived there before the 6th century?


Also, who is the editor? The articles often seem written by unreconstructed Polish nationalists.

What do Illyrians and Thrakians have to do with the area around the Vistula River?

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. Culture has to do... check your archeology of Pomeranian culture or read about the Slavic people's cultural archeological trace on http://home.swipnet.se/Piotr_Glownia/ . This is talk about proven prehistoric cultures with proven Slavic traces and their cultural ancestors.

Bunjevci, Gorani, etc

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)

Gradisce/Burgenland, Molise, etc

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)

Now Igor also inserted these "heavily Italianized Molise Serbs". Like, what the hell? Google can't find a single mention of that. I found only one page that refers to them as "Serbs-Croats", probably per the notion that those who speak "Serbo-Croatian" must be "Serbo-Croats", which is false (though amusing).

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)

See, for example, this article. Nikola 06:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
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)
Serbian megamoronism has achieved new triumphs, I see. What's next ? Serbopitecs ? http://www.croatidelmolise.it/ Mir Harven 14:52, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Serbs can still be found in the region and other regions. So you have no right saying that their is no thing as Molise Serbs. There are Molise Serbs, and the article did not refer to Molise Croats. Molise Serb also refers to people who are Serbian Orthodox living in Italy who can trace their origin to Serbia, and whose ancestors came to Italy in the late 15th or early 16th century.User:Slav

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)
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)

I know nothing about Molise Serbs or Burgenland Serbs. But I know lots of about Molise Croats and Burgendland Croats. In Google there are just a few hits for B. Serbs (all Wikipedaia based) and M.Serbs. But hundreds hits for B.Croats and M.Croats. Before you introduce your thesis, please write something more about that. Yeti 22:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The Gradisce Slavs speak and write Cakavian-Ikavian (Gradisce-Croatian newspaper) and are about the most Catholic people you get in Austria east of Salzburg :) Calling them Serbs is going way beyond even Vuk Karadzic' theories... Jakob Stevo 14:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

I hate to tell you this, but I am afraid the people of Molise no longer have an affiliation to Croats NOR Serbs. There has been no coherence between them and any of the Slavs over the Adriatic and the Molise people have lived in harmony, maintaining their identity and remaining largely decentralized by the 19th century nationalism which spread accross central and eastern Europe. The people of Molise refer to themselves as Zlavs when speaking English, the 'Z' reflects a phonetical change from 'S' with the word 'Slav' being the root of the name as indeed is the case for Slovenes, Slovaks and other groups. Now, I do not sit here and write to anybody claiming to be a complete expert. I can however deduce information rationally and this I will present to you with the following observation. The names SERB and CROAT are just two of dozens of Slav-based communites who have grown in importance over the centuries and have labelled their names to many other small communities, in other words, they are the giants among the smaller Slavic communites there in the Balkan area. But what the hell has Serbianism ever meant? Nothing more than having the misfortune to be under the control of Belgrade based beaurocrats, and although one may come from elsewhere, the only way for him to historically speaking prosper as a Serb would have been to declare himself Serbian and adhere to the unwritten laws of a Belgrade elite. However, let me assure you, that this is not an attack on Serbia or any of its cultural property. Croatia is an exact replica in the mirror with Zagreb forever biting for as much as it could possibly swallow. If Croatian authories had been more succesful after World War II, it would have been they who had the regions captured from Italy as a part of them: Koper would have formed a part of Croatia's coastline, and Slovenia may yet be landlocked. Then you'd hear stories and read historical literatuire and other publications of how Koper had a rich and vibrant history which continued in the 6th century when it had been occupied by CROATS. There is no end to some peoples nationalism, (if Koper were in Croatia, would Croats honestly state that one of its towns is entirely populated by Slovenes though these people have never formally been a part of Slovenia and were already a part of Croatia when the country was formed?) I doubt it, so, maybe the Čakavian speaking region from where the Molise people were previously settled did not have the term 'Croat' to use for themselves when they migrated to their present settlements and history has stood testiment to this. The other alternative is that the term 'Croat' WAS being used by the locals of the region but there is one note on this subject too. Before the Venetians annexed the eastern Adriatic coastline, the most populous group was the now absent Dalmatian people. Like the Venetians, the Dalmatians too were descendants of the ancient Romans and this was one reason that they formed an alliance. Yes indeed there were Slavic speaking communities along the Adriatic BUT they were not a majoroty, not atleast when Dubrovnik was known as Ragusa and was independent. However, within two hundred years of Ragusa's city state, the name changed from Dalmatian influenced Ragusa to the Slavic inspired Dubrovnik reflecting the change in people, and what caused this change? The answer is just one more of the countless mass migrations by South Slavs from one region to another (such as Serbs crossing the frontier three hundred years ago to form the Krajina, now in Croatia), as tens of thousands of Slavs pounded westward to the Adriatic to join their ethnic allies and thus dilute the Dalmatian nation and resist the Venetian occupation. Now just as many of these people were Croats, there was ALSO Serbs among them too. Quite how Serbs and Croats when coming from the same towns are different to each other is quite another issue, the point is that they travelled together, from the same starting point, to the same destination and all for the same reason. As such, the language spoken by one was the same as the other and how it was to become was attributed to both Serbs and Croats. Perhaps on realising this, the Molise people reverted back to the term Slav, later Zlav. That is the other theory. However, ludacris though the suggestion that they are Molise Serbs may be, it is equally ridiculous to deem them Croats. They may be descended from both as both lived in the region, or their departure was before the locals were pressured into accepting that they are affiliated to Zagreb. User:Celtmist 9-10-05

Anon edit

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

Map

The map Media:slavic.jpg 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)

The word slave

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)
One of history's mysteries... Nikola 10:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article currently states: "There is absolutely no linguistic connection between Slavic people and slaves; slave is derived from a Greek word meaning 'spoils of war'."

This claim should either be replaced or sourced. It contradicts my (1986) copy of Oxfords' (and several other English-language dictionaries), which don't claim the Nazi version that "Slav" came from "slave", but the opposite. The Wiki pages of Slavery and Slavery in medieval Europe also use the latter version. --62.201.85.135 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it. There is a discussion on the false etymology page. As current dictionaries give the Slav>slave derivation (not the reverse, which is different!), it is not acceptable to dismiss this totally.--Jack Upland 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Slav (from the widespread enslavement of captured Slavs in the early Middle Ages) (source) --Cyberman 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Religion of the Czechs

I thought most Czechs are catholics, not protestants? Meursault2004 23:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, most Czechs are non-religious and usually describe themselves as "atheists". --Kpalion 10:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
According to the CIA Factbook, 40% is atheist, 39% catholic. —Cantus…☎ 06:44, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Pan-Slavism

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)

"Further Fact on the 'Pan-Slavism' inaccuracy" Nineteenth Pan-Slavism developed as a movement among intellectual circles and DID influence practical politics! In fact the whole Yugoslav political catastrophy was spawned by such dangerous ideas. Slobodan Milosevich’ seized a wonderfull opportunity for his megalomaniac plans and, in essence, Serbian and Montenegrean propaganda had been feeding from pan-slavic material.

I apology for being so short, however I am sure. I followed European Security Module in a top-rated university, and I remember my lecturer’s special note on that (which of course I used in the exams ;-).

I welcome anyone to investigate it and see if I’m right.

I thank you, Marco Polo

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. Is nobody bothered that first [b]ever[/b] pan-slavic conference was called by Polish "sarmatian" Nobility before Russian Empire went crazy on developing its own version of panslavism? XVIII century is more accurate time of creation of that European movement. It is based solidly in XIV century on Vincety Kadlubek ideological paperwork.

Theory of autochthonous Slavic origin

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)

They point is that both theories as presented here start from the assumption that there has always been such a thing as clearly defined nations. Most certainly the Germanic expension to the south east during the last pre-Christian centuries was only carried by a small amount of people who formed the elite and mingled with the existing population. Again, most certainly the existing population was in some way related to the ones that later became known as Slavs. If they where Slavs themselves, we simply can not say as we don't know their language. Also we don't know if Germanic became doninant language in, let's say, todays Poland, or if it ever remained language of elites and administration. We only know that the earliest existing Germanic text (the Lord's Prayer in Gothic) contains words that are most certainly not Germanic (ata for father resembling of Turkic). That leads me to believe that the Eastern Germanics shared the space with other peoples - the Ostrogoths possibly with some Turkic tribes, the Visigoths probably with Skyths, the ones further to the Northwest - Vandals, Langobards, Burgundians,... - maybe with proto-Slavs. So I believe it's possible that what we came to call Slavs emerged from the authochthonous population of what (much later) came to be parts of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth after the Germanics left during the migration era. Also I recall no records of a great Slavic invasion in Poland or Eastern Germany, they just suddenly seem to be there at one point. But it doesn't make sense to say they have been there from pre-glacial times. Jakob Stevo 15:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

This article impresses me as full of agressive speculations.--Wiglaf 12:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. For Slavs to be natives of Europe, Slavs must be descendants of the Cro-Magnon people. So until ancestors of Slavs will become fully genetically recognized as Cro-Magnon people it is only a pure short-cut based on existing material evidence of cultural trace of Slavic culture in Europe. Culture is something that many people can share like for example... Italic people, Germanic people, Baltic people, Slavic people and even Nordic people in battle axe culture in Europe. - pan Piotr Glownia

2.It seems that Homo Cro-Magnon did mix with Homo Sapiens in line of Central-European cultures (evidence is found in the archeological findings of Ertebølle culture), which over time resulted in Lusatian culture. A part of Lusatian culture, the Slavic Pomeranian culture is the basis for autochton theory, which states that Slavs are native population of Europe. Also R1a socialized usually with Slavs does not exist in the West Slavs, as it is obvious in Germany (No Rusins there, just Lechs). So there is some certain cultural evidence supporting Slavs as cultural descendants of Cro-Magnoids. Genetic evidence would have to prove that haplotype I1 Y DNA is of mixed Sapiens and Cro-Magnon races. However I1 Y-DNA is not known as Y-DNA of mixed species so far. - pan Piotr Glownia

Sentence

No, this sentence does not make sense as it is: "The Germanic and Romanian (Vlachian) populations, by this theory, would have arisen from the effect of language changes after the conquest". I see that the original phrasing of the sentence was totally incoherent (see history)---this one is not much better. I am erasing this phrase completely. (Decius)

commented out bits

The various Slavic nations and peoples conducted their policies in accordance with what they regarded as their national interests, and these policies often proved as bitterly hostile toward other Slavic peoples as friendly toward non-Slavs. Even political unions of the 20th century, such as that of Yugoslavia, did not always achieve ethnic or cultural accord and remained essentially hegemonical in favor of certain groups.

Nothing specific to Slavs here: as if Chinese, African, Romance or Germanic people didn't kill their kin --User:Mikkalai, 10 Dec 2003

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. We Polish did recognized halfbreeds like Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Hungarians as our Slavic brothers and not as friendly Non-Slavs. 2. Polish-Russian problems arise from the problem that Slavs of tribe Kryvichy (area around Smolensk up to Novogrod) are the only Russia's pure Slavic tribal population known to live there.

Hitler's opinions on Slavic people

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)

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).

Etymology of Slav

There is another etymology that should be mentioned in the article, because it is possible: the theory is mentioned in a Time-Life book on The Balkans by Edmund Stillman, and in many other sources. The idea is that Slav is from Slava a swampy region near the Vistula river. The Strategikon describes the Slavs as being well-acquainted with living in swampy areas.

The book is 'The Balkans' by Edmund Stillman and the Editors of Life, and was part of the 'Life World Library' series. My copy is from 1964. I am going to quote the entire paragraph on pg. 28, which was titled "The Disputed Origin Of 'Slav'":

"The origin of the name of the Slavs, the tribal ancestors of so many of the Balkan peoples, and of the Poles and Russians as well, has been considerably disputed. The dispute, moreover, is a partial reflection of the tensions between peoples which have long permeated the area. The Slavs themselves offer a totally legendary explanation, tracing the origin of the name to 'Slava', the word for "glory" in the ancient Slavic language. Some philologists connect the word with the medieval Latin word 'sclaveni', from which the English word "slave" is derived. Still another suggestion sometimes offered is that the word derives from a river or swampy area known as 'Slava' or 'Slova'. The Slavic peoples did, in fact, originally come from the marshy regions of the upper Vistula valley area in what is now Poland."

-Decius 07:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who are you arguing against here? Why not simply fix whatever needs to be fixed in the article, and drop the offensive overgeneralized rant against some apparently imaginary enemies? Where does all this bile come from... --Joy [shallot] 11:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to put this etymology in the article. What I am going to fix is that "germanic, romanian" statement. Bile is secreted from the liver and stored in the gallbladder. Decius 14:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone throwing stones, but I think one must have hit your gallbladder. Clean-up in Slavic peoples! —Michael Z. 2005-01-29 17:48 Z

No, no stones hit me, they didn't have good aim, and not enough force behind them. Anyway, this article was a mess when I came across it. Decius 06:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've looked up the etymology of Slav in Vasmer, a very reliable source. He rejects the etymologies from slovo, slava and the Greek sklabos based on the fact that the suffix -yane occurs only with place names. This would lend credence to the river theory.
Ah, the good old Josef Dobrovský's theory from 1784. It's worth pointing out that Russian -yane (-яне) suffix you mention comes from Old Ruthenian -ęne (-ѧнє), while Slavyane (Славяне) comes from Slověni (Словѣни). -- Naive cynic 21:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In what ancient manuscripts is the "sloveni" word used? mikka (t) 21:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a concordance, but the Nestor's Chronicle uses it, for an example. -- Naive cynic 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It says the "slave" derivation is a false etymology. Is there any solid evidence for this or perhaps it is just an uncomfortable truth Wikipedia would prefer to avoid? I don't think it is just a result of national socialist propoganda - there is wide spread evidence for this root. -- LolNoYuo 15:20, 5 Feb 2006 (UTC)
The word slave COMES FROM Slav, not the other way around. -Iopq 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"Webster's Dictionary of Word Origins" says that our word 'slave' actually comes from the word 'slav', not the other way around.Cameron Nedland 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed

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)

I encountered the article about Slavs quite by chance and I havn't even read it actually. I stopped at the origin of the name 'Slav'. before I come up with my point short necessary introduction. I'm a Pole, and what's more important I'm a graduee of Slavic languages (although outside my speciality for a few years). What stroke me is the explanation the author gives about the origin of the name of Slavs. I've never heard about the 'slava' (glory) theory. it sounds rather like a legend (but this might be my ignorance). Instead i'd suggest taking a look at the following explanation: the word 'slav' is derived from the word 'słowo' (a word - in polish). This is not, of course, my theory and it is being discussed among slavists. in polish 'słowo' means 'word' in russian and serbocroatian - 'letter' (I don't know other slavic laguages), at any rate it has to do with communication, i.e. the term stands for people who "we are able to communicate with" as oppose to e.g. Germans. Polish word for 'Germans' is 'Niemcy' (serbocroatian: 'Nemci/Njemci', russian: 'немцы' (Niemcy)) etymology of this word is very likely to be "people we are not able to talk to'. in polish 'niemy' means 'dumb' and some scientists link the etymology of 'Niemiec'(a German) with 'niemy' - "a person who is not able to speak, we are not able to understand him". Germans were probably the first 'uncommunicative' people we (slavs) encountered when we settled down in Europe, which underpins the theory of the 'word'-theory of the origin of the term 'slav'. as to the the theory of the 'swampy region' as the origin of the term 'slav' - it seems to me very peculiar. again, I've never heard about it (again this may be my ignorance or lapse of memory). I hope somebody who edits the article will make use of my suggestion. I'd like to point out that I'm rather rather an ignorant in slavistics now, after so long period of not dealing with the subject, and the theory I came up with requires more thorough examination. Yes, it is a scientific theory indeed but anyway, if somebody is going to use my tips, he/she has to investigate a bit the theory to find some scientific resouces etc. If I can be of any assistance in this matter just let me know. greetings

struga195.214.216.6 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

South Slavs

Bosniaks, Muslims, Croats, Bunjevci, Sokci, Yugoslavs, Serbs, Gorani and Montenegrins are all listed as separate nationalities in last census in Serbia in 2002. So, all of them are separate nationalities (not part of another nationality). User:PANONIAN

I feel that it's an excessive fragmentation. You end up with more Slavic subgroups in 250,000 km² Yugoslavia than in 22,000,000 km² Soviet Union. This begs the question: are they really all that different, or are we applying different division rules to different countries?
Bunjevci and Gorani are less than 50,000 people each, they should probably be listed as subgroups of Croats and Serbs, respectively. I don't know how appropriate it is to include Muslims and Yugoslavs in the list, neither of these ethnic groups existed until 50 years ago. --Itinerant 03:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And how big should a nation be in order to be treated as a nation? If the government of Serbia and Montenegro treats them as national minorities, then why should we "assimilate" them by force here in wikipedia? Halibutt 07:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose we could have a nation of only 50,000 if it was sufficiently self-contained and isolated from the rest of the world ( e.g. somewhere on a Pacific island ). In the center of Europe, I doubt it is possible for such a small group of people to attain sufficient isolation and identity. Most European nations are at least a few million people. When we have a group of 5,000,000 people ( who call themselves X ) living on a certain piece of land and another group of 50,000 people called Y who live in the neighboring area, speak essentially the same language, have the same religion, and probably share the same ancestry, it makes sense to list X as a nationality and Y as a subgroup of X. --Itinerant 08:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Our section definition is rather broad and allows for this, it only says "ethno-cultural subdivisions". If we changed the section to be like the categories, we'd have one group with "nations" and one with "ethnic groups" and probably avoid this distinction. Then the borderline cases would be fewer (although still existant - see Montenegrins). --Joy [shallot] 09:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I already said, all of these ethnic groups are officially recognized nationalities by Serbian government and there is no reason to assimilate them here (As Halibutt pointed out). Now, for Itinerant: I do not know is this fragmentation excessive or not, but that is just how things are. Also, in former Soviet Union you have much more small ethnic groups (only difference is that these ethnic groups are not Slavic). And you ask are these ethnic groups really different. I can tell you this: I live in Vojvodina region of Serbia and all of these ethnic groups live here, so I can tell you from the first hand that they are different. For example, people of Bunjevci nationality live mostly in northern Vojvodina. Some of the Bunjevci regard and declare themselves as Croats, some regard and declare themselves as Serbs and some regard and declare themselves as separate Bunjevci nationality. Bunjevci, which declared selves as such, do not regard selves as part of Croatian or Serbian nationality, and they are recognized as separate nationality by Serbian government. As for Muslims and Yugoslavs, they are also recognized nationalities by Serbian government (Even my mother declared herself as Yugoslav). So, I do not see a reason not to include these nationalities here. Why creating unneeded time limit (they didn’t existed 50 years ago). So what if they didn’t? They exist now and only that is important here. As for your statement that these nations should be listed as part of larger nationalities because they share same language and heritage with these larger nations, it is not what define a nationality. If these small nationalities do not regard themselves as parts of larger nations, there is no reason that we regard them as such. It is a national consciousness what makes somebody to be part of one nationality (not language and heritage). For Joy: I am pretty sure that Bunjevci Croats or Croats of Bunjevci origin (not same as Bunjevci nationality) exists in Vojvodina, but I am not sure are there Sokci Croats (not same as Sokci nationality). I suppose that some declared Croats in Vojvodina are Sokci by origin, but I repeat, I am not sure. User:PANONIAN

There are numerous Šokci in Slavonia that are Croats (telling you from first-hand experience). --Joy [shallot] 20:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added Rusyns from Vojvodina in article (I forgot to log in when I done this). Ukrainian Rusyns are listed here as sub-ethnicity of Ukrainians. However, Rusyns and Ukrainians in Vojvodina are recognized as separate nationalities by Serbian government. Besides that, Rusyns in Vojvodina speak Western Slavic language (similar to Slovak), while Rusyns in Ukraine speak Eastern Slavic language. If we have these facts in our mind, we should to include Rusyns from Vojvodina in our list as separate ethnic group of Western Slavs. Also, their name is Rusyns, but I wrote Vojvodina Rusyns to make distinction between them and Rusyns, who live in Ukraine. User:PANONIAN

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. Nationalities, religions and any other non-blood related divisions and unions are totally irrelevant on who can call himself a Slav. 2. We Slavs are ethnic group based on common ancestors, common blood in our veins and totally nothing else. 3. By tracing people to their original tribal unions of XVIII century one can notice who does and who does not fit as "out of blood" Slav. 4. Partition of Eastern Slavs on Rusins, Bielarusins, Blackrusins and Redrusins dates from Xth century. Before there was a more natural for us Slavs partition on tribal unions based on kinship.

Bokelji

Bokeljs (Serbian: Бокељи) are NOT Croats. Less then 2% (or something) have declared them selfs as Croats. I have changed this allready but somebody keeps returning it. Milan Tešović 15:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the number 2% from? Ever seen the article Bokelji? --Joy [shallot] 16:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What a load of nonsense from the pair of you above? If she declares herself Bokelj then that's what she is, no matter what she wrote on the previous census. If she declares herself a Croat, she can't be a Bokelj then! Ragusan 13 October 2005

I admit to traditionally having written 'Yugoslav' for me as my entire family did. People get funny; "you can't have that mate, it don't exist..." well bollocks, I thought: in this world there are more named nationalities than there are recognized countries even if you include the proposed states. Nationality is about deciding who you personally are, and anyone else who chooses the same national name as you will automaticly become nationally affiliated to you. Besides, an adherent to democracy has no ethical right to point his finger at another human being and tell him "your nationality is not ABC, it is XYZ!", but I am too soft. So I abandoned calling myself Yugoslav and now I have no nationality; my nationality remains blank, and before anyone tells me I am alone, there are over four million of us from every continent who for some reason or another, choose to wish to be seen as human beings, ourselves in other words, and not one of an imaginary community. Yes I still have citizenship for Great Britain and Croatia but that's neither here nor there.

Ragusan 14 October 2005

Assimilation

"Still more confusion comes from the fact that some Slavic peoples originated as a result of complete assimilation of ancient non-Slavic peoples. For example, the name of modern Bulgarians can be traced to the Turkic tribe Bulgars who merged with Balkan Slavs in the 7th century."

But this actually is an example of the opposite of the first sentence! Nikola 06:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree + ther are quite many cases of the opposite - the Polabian Slavs who became assimilated by the Germans, the Panonian Slavs who were assimilated by the Hungarians and the Slavs in Pelloponessos and Thessaly, who were assimilated by the Greeks. I can't see any "Slav resilience" in these cases VMORO 08:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

A Polish Clansman answer: Already first historical Slavs according to Jordanes belonged to three different groups of Anti (with Sarmatians-Scytians), Sclavene (Slavs) and Venedi (with Ethruscans). It is partition based on kinship. City Palermo had entire district in medieval times settled by Slavs, but strangely Y-chromosome haplotype r1a associalised with Easterners sporadicly exists in entire West Europe Sycily included. Haplotype r1a just is not the original Slavic genetic mark.

Do the Slavic people exist?

Wikipedia does not have an article about Germanic people (only Germanic tribes) or Romance people.No list of Germanic people including Tiger Woods,Einstein and Vincent van Gogh.

Is it really true, that people speaking Slavic languages today have a common ethnic origin? Does for example an average Czech have more common ancestors with an average Macedonian than with an average German-speaking Austrian? Or do Macedonians really have more common ancestry with people living currently in Poland than with people living in Greece? Do the Slavic peple have something in common apart from the origin of their languages?--Georgius 10:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that generally there are a proportion of genes in common, but I haven't read any genetic studies on the matter. In the old days, scholars used to speak of "Slavic physical traits" such as brachycephalic craniums (basically, wide faces), etc., but that is largely outdated science. Alexander 007 11:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
So what do you suggest, Georgius? Moving this article to Slavic-langauge-speaking people? – Kpalion (talk) 2 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
It's a matter of description: historically the Western Europe authors (mainly XIX century) divided people by French, German, English, Italian, Spanish, Scandinavians and the rest of the world: let's-call-them-Slavic-people-for-simplicity. Note that even today Europe means for the West just the countries from Italy to Sweden and from Spain to Germany as if the eastern part of Europe continent did not exist (open ANY Western book about "European art" or "History of Europe" ect and I will give you 1000$ if you find any information about Bulgaria, Czech or Poland). Sometimes Western people recall of existence of Russia and then the scandals like one with Mr. Schroeder, ex-Kanzler of Germany calling Russia "the best NEIGHBOUR of Germany" can occur - people of Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia could feel at least offended if not threatened. I hope that after enlargement of EU by 10 more countries, the Western common conscience that Europe spans to Ural mountains, not Oder river expands. Merewyn 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I would change the opening paragraph as follows:

"The Slavic peoples are the most numerous linguistic body of peoples in Europe. They are defined by speaking Slavic languages and reside chiefly in Eastern Europe, but are also found in Asia. The idea that the Slavic people have something in common appart from the origin of their languages is connected with romantic nationalism, the panslavism movement and the notion of race as the biological basis of nations. It is not universally accepted today."

(A Polish Clansman answer: 1.HOMO CRO-MAGNON RACE? / IF NOT THEN SOME OTHER NEOLITIC EUROPEANS LIKE MEDITEREANS OR SEMITES ?/)

--Georgius 6 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph as proposed above, omitting the last sentence.

--Georgius 6 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Hey Georgius, I agree with you to an extent, but the Slavs also have some culture in common, beyond language (folklore, etc. etc.). Your formula in the opening text will eventually have to be revised to reflect more than just language-affinity in common. Alexander 007 10:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You asked a good question back in May of 2005 Georgius. Though I've contributed here since then, this is the first time that I've read your remarks so I'd like to make something a little clearer to you even though 007 did give you an good answer. Prepare for a rather long passage! Do the Slavs have a common origin; are there no Germanic nor Romance people? This is a triangle, and like all triangles, it is hard to start at one point calling that the first of the three! So, Romance people: you could say, that the countries in which a Romance language is a first language (ie. Italy, Portugal, France, Switzerland etc.) roughly outlines what was at best the Roman Empire. Romans spoke Latin, Latin soon became Vulgar Latin in the later stages but after the Gothic invasions, new languages were born in the shape of French, Spanish etc. French and Spanish are not particularly influenced by the Gothic languages, but the Goths who devastated the Roman Empire stayed long enough to drasticly change the shape of the languages before finally deciding to speak the Romance language instead. On the one hand, Latin, which maintained a single dialect thanks to a well established written language, was spoken the same everywhere; on the other hand, though the changes from AD 490 onwards transformed all of this, a continuum of language, ideology, custom, tradition AND ethnicity STILL exists along these modern borders. For example, Occitan speakers of South-Eastern France, say Nice for instance, share more in common with the people over the border of Mont Blanc in Piedmont which is in Italy, than either groups have with Paris and Rome, but the chain connects them. This is how things are with the Slavic peoples too. Now the Germanic peoples: I mentioned the Goths - these were various tribes who were what we now call Barbarians, meaning that although they had evolved to the stage that they had a language, they were not as civilized and enlightened as the Romans whom they vanquished: perhaps a prelude to why French is still a Romance language. Of course, the new names for many nations and regions is named unto the conquerors. Franks were Goths, but now they give their name to France, a country where the Catholic church maintains importance and the language is still descended from Roman. The only country where the Germanic influence over the language in a previously Roman area came out on top is this one: The United Kingdom, English! In our history, England, was invaded by Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and many more. The three mentioned were all Barbarian tribes who spoke similarly related languages, now identified as Germanic. Though the three would unite and dissimilate each other, there was never any theory nor question whether they were previously related, or descending from one earlier tribe. It is possible that different groups of people may become linguisticly closer to one another after long periods of time in close contact, but whether or not a Proto-Germanic tribe existed is buried in prehistory. Slavs by comparison ARE mentioned in many ancient writings in Etruscan, Greek, Persian and Latin - people with whom they came in contact. They were described as being civilized, beyond the stage of barbarianism though not yet advanced in terms of technology and writing. Now there is a suggestion that Slavs MAY not have originally been one and the same group, that a series of clans united and became Slavic with ensuing generations: this again is something which would have happened before any such recordings were confirmed. With modern day Slavonians, Bosniaks, Poleszuks, Pomeranians, Moscovites etc. as Slavs, it can be said that Slavs have an unbroken history of 4,000 years. Before that, nobody knows, after that - all of these people reached their destinations AS one single race, and all schisms and misms came afterwards. Now does a Macedonian Slav have more in common with a Polak than a Greek? Some ways yes, some ways no. Genetically? Well that is not relevant. You see, being ethnicly pure does not entail a whole community all descending from one common ancestor. Being ethnicly pure means that the culture to which you adhere is itself derived from one source. No it does not mean that the culture will not have picked up habits from outsiders, but so long as you can identify those habits, be it a word in your language, a type of food - then that custom will forever be as foreign to you as to those to whom you are distantly affiliated BUT have escaped the influence. Now this is where language will prove more important than people take it for: world factbooks now recognise THREE primary types of modern Macedonian: Macedonian Slavs, Macedonian Greeks and Macedonian Albanians. Only the language tells them apart. So in a town such as Kastoria which is in Greece, there is a tradition of all three languages having been spoken there. Genetically these people may be close to each other but for those who might only speak ONE of the languages (unlikely in the 21st century), say Greek - since that one in Kastoria is obligatory, then even if he is 75% Slavic, 23% Albanian and the other 2% a complete historical mixture, that can only probably be because he has decided NOT to bother with the languages of his parents, say one is Albanian, the other Regional Slavic. If they use Greek as a mutual language, and their son goes to school only knowing Greek and he is not exposed to Albanian or Slavic, not atleast in his home, then he will become a Greek - in mind, in mentality, in humour, in emotion, in passion, in strength and in weakness - and his contribution is as valid as that what he takes from Greek life. No language is neutral, all languages have their own system, history, adventures, and most of all, structuring of the world around them. Now in the South Slavic regions, many tribal names to have a place in history no longer have modern descendants who can claim to be of that ethnicity in the census. For example, the Avars, early Slavic allies; they clearly assimilated that of everyone around them and soon the name fell into disuse. Surely many of todays Serbs and Bulgarians have in them the Avar blood but the spirit has gone. Bulgars were once a Turkic tribe, but they too assimilated Slavic culture. We now speak of Bulgarians as the Slavic people inhabiting Bulgaria, and the Bulgars as the ancient tribe of the region. It won't only be Bulgaria where people are descended from the Bulgars, but assuming nobody has moved from their land of ancestry, then the Bulgar descendants will form a triangle between Belgrade, Skopje and Sofia. Well done if you've noticed that some of them will have assimilated the Romanians, because their path is crossed too. Tatar, another term for Bulgar, is still used by some people who ARE descended from the Bulgars, but they are not to be found in the Balkans - some are in the Ukraine, but the only known region called Tataristan is found in present day Russia. Further north, peoples of Poland and Germany may very well have swapped places and there may be genetic links there too, but once the language has gone, there is no way back to who you once were. It would be folly for a Finlander to try to claim that he is one of the 300,000 ethnic Swedes who live in Finland if he has a Finnish name, reflecting the fact that he is born to Finnish parents, even if they had some Swedish ancestry. Nationality can be adopted and membership to races can be accepted by the wider community; you go with their girls - you produce their children. You go with your own girls who also assimilated the new race, your children won't know who came from the original race and who was from the adopted one - and nor will the originals after a generation or two - even different skin colour only has a limited timeline if people are mixing, before a common blend is established and in accordance with the atmosphere. Just so that you know, Gypsies have a diaspora in all countries of the world but no land to call their own, they had for the most part maintained a clandestine Indo-European language to identify each other, today however, in many Western countries, new age travellers may be tempted to declare themselves Roma and so a true cultural link is all but lost among them. The Jews lost their language 500 years before Christ, and they too had a huge diaspora everywhere, but through keeping the religion they held onto some kind of identity. Even that has been damaged in that today, the synagogue accepts people of Jewish faith but admitedly not from Jewish families, whilst those who are declared Jews may belong to seperate religions. So Georgius, no nation is sure to come from one background entirely - the term 'Slav' has always stayed with all modern communities and they are still linked by the ethnolinguistic chain (only broken between Slovenia in the South Slav zone and Slovakia in the North {west} Slav zone, for historical reasons). Russians have always accepted being Slavic, Slovenes and Slovaks have it as the root of their name and Bulgarians too accept it and are accepted as Slavs. The Germanic people? No historical name nor mention does not rule out the chance that there once was a Germanic group even if we don't know which Gothic tribes were a part of it and which ones assimilated it. Arabs were a powerful people but like the Chinese and Spanish, they imposed their language on many weaker communities and today, nobody who speaks Arabic can claim to be anything else; even saying that you're Algerian, not Arabian is no solution, because the entire fabric of Algerian life and statehood is based on being Arabian. Celtmist 26-10-05

split off tribes?

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)

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. Slavic people are the Slavic tribes. Other nationalistic, religious and teritorial blabering is just some nonsense about Slavic speaking Non-Slavs and maybe not Slavic tribes should be split off, but Slavic language ethnicities should be split off away from Slavic people. It is like some White American trying to profit from Native American Cassino in the Native American reservate, when having none in family of any American Native descend and only being able to speek some native American language.

Or something similar

This sentence from Etymology of Slav won't do in a Wiki article, whoever wrote it: "In the Old Slavonic language that word is "Sloveane", or something similar..."---The precise form needs to be verified, etc. Alexander 007 2 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Nemtsi does not mean "dumb"

I kind of know 3 Slavic languages, but in none of them nemci/nemec/nemtsi has a derogotive meaning of "dumb". Mute, not dumb. Gaidash 6 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Well, in contemporary Polish language "Niemcy"="Germans" and "niemowa"=one who cannot speak. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
The word "dumb" in English primarily means lacking intellect, but the secondary meanings are lacking the power of speech - "mute". I think the latter word should be used to avoid ambiguity. --Joy [shallot] 6 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
OK, I see it has been changed. This is much more accurate. Gaidash 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Classification of Slavic peoples

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)

When I said that some ethnic groups were recognized in census, I meant that they had their own statistical code and they were listed as separate ethnic groups in census results. The other ethnic groups, which were not recognized as such, were simply listed as "others". So, were Moravians and Silesians listed as such in census results in Czech Republic, or they were listed as "others"? User:PANONIAN

As far as I remember, there was a list of say 5 most probable nationalities (including Moravians of course- I do not remember the Silesians) and then you have the "other" field. But that's a pure matter of simplification of the processing. The result is still the same: you can give ANY nationality and they will recognize it as such (even if you write say "Southern Polish"). That's a question of general approach, not of the recognition of Moravians or any other particular nationality. The approach was different before 1989...And the codes for nations are also only a technological issue, but again there is one for the Moravians, of course. Juro 02:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Official census data

Maybe this can help:

Czech Republic: Czech 90.4%, Moravian 3.7%, Slovak 1.9%, other 4% (2001 census)

This is from previous census:

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:

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:

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:

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)

Secondly, the numbers and countries you have given in the article ARE WRONg, because they ignore those living outside the homecountry. I suggest that you remove them, the exact numbers are/should be in the particular articles.Juro 15:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

About censuses: actually, my previous job was connected to 2002 census in Serbia and I know how statistics work. I will give you example what is the difference between recognized and unrecognized groups in census. There were people in Serbian census who declared themselves as Vojvodinians (living in Vojvodina), Sumadinci (living in sumadija), Sandzaklije (living in Sandzak), etc. However, they simply were not recognized as such by the Serbian statistics and they all were listed under one single statistical code - regional affiliation. Also, some other peoples, who declared themselves as Kurds or Eskimos for example, were also not recognized as such, and were all listed under one single statistical code - others. So, all ethnic groups, which are recognized as such by the statistics of any country should be regarded as separate ethnic or national groups. What is the ethnicity if not the way how people declare themselves in census? This have not much to do with ethnology of course. Some ethnologist would even argue that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are not separate ethnic groups, but one single group. One have also argue that Czechs and Slovaks are one single group. That is why we have to respect what people declare in census and how people regard themselves in ethnic terms.

As for the numbers and locations of ethnic groups in the article, my thought was that this could improve article. If some numbers are not correct, can you write the correct ones? As for the locations, yes, you are right that this do not show all countries where some ethnic groups live. However, my thought was that the article could show at least the homecountry of the mentioned group, if not all countries. I already used that kind of presentation in my articles about nations of the World on Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. You can see one here: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spisak_naroda_sveta

User:PANONIAN

  • One remark: The problem is that in CZ, SK and in Austria, for example, the Voivodinians would be recognized. The only problem with that (and analogous) terms is that the number would be negligible to be found as a name in published lists... So, obviously, there are differences in the methodology. And secondly: Of course there is a difference (even a huge difference) between the self-definition of people and the scientific divisions (linguistic, ethnographic etc.): the Silesians, for example, are not an objective nationality (not to mention a nation) - I have never read any book etc. mentioning them as such. But, take it just as a remark, I do not object to the current list...But still, why don't you want to remove those numbers given that we have the correct numbers in the particular articles? Juro 00:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The following messages are primarily for Panonian. I respect your intelligence and good conclusions over the above matters. All I wish to do is make a couple of observations. Firstly, about Krashovani, well it's not just the Belgrade government who claims these people but in Zagreb my government says that all those who speak the Slav language in Romania are Croats. Bulgaria also claims them Bulgarian, they can be what they want. The imporant thing is, that Official Censa are NOT, repeat NOT to be trusted as anything gospel. Not even under the watchful eye of international monitors are they valid; each there to represent his own national interest, and if the U.S government should decide that Azerbaijan is 85% Kurdish One-armed Lesbian by nationality and the other 15% Marsian Refugees by nationality, then such, they are. The fact is that ALL governments manipulate the statistics to suit them best. Here is an example: I lived in Poland for over four years where I knew for a fact that people used local names for nationality; if you take an interest in the Mazurians, Silesians (as there are some in Poland), Slovincians etc. you will see that these are more than just dialects, they are infact proposed nations who, were it to be realised that they had more popularity than the Polish government accepts, would make louder noises and Poland, despite a name going back centuries, would suffer the same fait as Yugoslavia, needless to say that even in my native Croatia, the number of people declaring themselves Dalmatians and Slavonians rose from hundreds shortly after independence to thousands ten years on...the cracks are only beginning to show in Istria, give it time. So how on Earth Warsaw sees over 90% as Polish I don't know, no single person I knew called himself a 'Pole' in the time I spent there, not except for political purposes such as 'when we as Poland join the E.U etc'. Nations are created, countries are born, countries die, nations die witrh them, the culture lives on but the name changes. Ragusan 14 October 2005

Bosnians

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)

Dado, you know very well that constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize 3 peoples: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. Some countries have one principal nationality, but Bosnia and Herzegovina have 3, and "Bosnians" are not one of them. And there is no similarity with Yugoslavs. There are people who declaring themselves as Yugoslavs in census, and they are recognized as a separate nationality in Serbia. There were some people who declared themselves as "Bosnians" in 2002 census in Serbia, but they were listed as "regional affiliation", not as national or ethnic group (unlike Yugoslavs). If some people in the next census in Bosnia and Herzegovina declare themselves as Bosnians and if the statistics of this country recognize them as such we can claim that they exist. But the claim that "Bosnians" are a nationality, which include Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats is comic. Even more comic is claim that their number is 3,922,000. If some people declare themselves as Bosnians in next census, their number would be not larger than 80-100,000 (if so). But, in the last Bosnian census (1991), the people who maybe declared themselves as "Bosnians" were certainly listed as "regional affiliation", not as nationality. So, they simply do not exist. As for the population numbers of ethnic groups, we can make a vote about this, why not? User:PANONIAN

You are correct only if you are considering the census data as the only source. It is also however truth that most foreign countries are officially using the term Bosnians as a term to define all people that come from Bosnia and Herzegovina. In my own example for official documentation my nationality is considered Bosnian no matter how I declared myself in the census. In fact many countries don't recognize term Bosniak or Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat in their official discourse. Your claim is similar to stating that Americans don't exist since they declare themselves in the census as either Caucasion, African-american or Hispanic. Your data is correct but limited which makes your conclusion wrong. This is another reason why I think adding numbers for population is a bad idea.--Dado 06:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition, census data is many times subject of political manipulation. Example is that Bosnians were not allowed to declare themselves as Bosnians in former Yugoslavia even when they requested that option in the constitutional amendments in 1947 and 1973. In stead they had to declare themselves either as Serbs or Croats intil 1963, undecideds or "muslim in national sense" until 1973, and Muslims (with capital M) until 1991. While in 1993 the name Bosniaks was introduced to replace name Muslim it was too late for that name to include non-muslim Bosnians which were naturalized into Serbs and Croats nations in a 50 year long subjegation by Yugoslavia. The Bosnian nationhood in Bosnia has been under fire by nationalist (on all sides) for over 100 years and simply denying their existance is an extension of the same ideology and generaly used to drive the constituent nations of Bosnia further apart. While census data is usefull most of the time its blind and simplistic usage as it is done in this case is incorect.--Dado 07:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The census data is only valuable source, which can tell us who is a nation, and who is not. The fact that some foreigners (who even can not find Bosnia on map) use name "Bosnians" to designate people who live there means nothing. It does not mean that "Bosnians" are a nation. "Bosnians" are a regional name (like "Herzegovians" - it is Bosnia and HERZEGOVINA, remember - or "Dalmatinci" and "Slavonci" in Croatia, "Sumadinci" and "Vojvodjani" in Serbia, etc. Besides this, as I already said, the official name of the country is Bosnia and Herzegovina. People who live in Herzegovina would never tell you that they are "Bosnians" but "Hercegovci". "Bosnia" and "Herzegovina" are only two geographical regions within Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus "Bosnians" are nothing but regional name. Also, you wrote in the article that Bosniaks are a subgroup of "Bosnians". What then we will do with numerous Bosniaks who live in Serbia? Are they a subgroup of "Serbians". Of course, the "Serbians" also do not exist as a people (like "Bosnians"), no matter that some foreign countries use term "Serbians". The main nation in Serbia are Serbs, not "Serbians". Nationality in Balkans and Eastern Europe in general is defined different than in USA or western Europe. The fact that some foreigners trying to explain our ethnic and national relations with their standards can only be indicator that they have a lot to learn about us. One, more thing, I will add your "Bosnians" to the article, but I will mention them among other regional groups, not among nationalities. User:PANONIAN

Census data is hardly the only source that tells us who is a nation (you have been looking at that data for too long and you may need to consider a different perspective). Census is used generally to determine the needs of the population of certain region or country and not for nationalistic missuse as was used in Bosnia during the war ie ethnic cleansing. You may be simply extending that missuse. Identity of particular people is far more complex matter than what you are presenting here and many times you have people who consider to have multiple national identities (primary and secondary). I have not met a single Herzegovinian that has claimed that he or she is a Herzegovinian before they state they are Bosnian. The recent gene research of the South-eastern Europe have confirmed that "Bosniaks" in Serbia are not in fact of Bosnian descent but that they have far more relations to Serb and Montenegrins. They way Bosnians view their natinality and the way the Serbs view their nationality is far different than what you are concluding here.--Dado 15:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"I have not met a single Herzegovinian that has claimed that he or she is a Herzegovinian before they state they are Bosnian"

Obviously, you did not met much Herzegovians. But I did. Many Herzegovians live here in Vojvodina. One my friend from school was Herzegovian, and when one person said to him that he is Bosnian, he was insulted, and he said: "No, I am not Bosnian, but Herzegovian". Of course, it was before the war. Now he would probably said that he is a Serb.

"The recent gene research of the South-eastern Europe have confirmed that "Bosniaks" in Serbia are not in fact of Bosnian descent but that they have far more relations to Serb and Montenegrins."

So what? The way how somebody declare himself in census have nothing to do with genes. If Bosniaks from Serbia declare themselves as such that is what they are.

"They way Bosnians view their natinality and the way the Serbs view their nationality is far different than what you are concluding here."

Correct me if I am wrong, but was your definition of who is an "Bosnian" that Bosnian could be a Serb, Croat or Bosniak who live in Bosnia. Now you claim that Serbs are something different than "Bosnians". First decide what your definition of an "Bosnian" is and then defend this definition. For me, the definition of an Bosnian is clear. Bosnian is somebody who live in Bosnia, which is one of two large geographical regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other one is Herzegovina). Thus, Bosnian is a regional name. Also, the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as statistics of this country do not recognize the term "Bosnian" in any meaning. User:PANONIAN

One more thing, about the presentation of ethnig groups in the article. Here is one similar article: Vlachs. The ethnic groups in that article are presented in similar manner. There is a name of ethnic group, the population number, and the name of the country/countries where that group live. Nothing unusual. Also, I think that some people would like to see in this article the information about population number and location of ethnic groups. It would be unneeded tribulation for readers to have to open every single article about ethnic groups to find this information. User:PANONIAN

Could you PLEASE use the correct numbers including the people outside their homeland then? After all, it's you who added those numbers, so you should insert the correct numbers at least. Juro 23:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What exact number you claim to be incorrect? User:PANONIAN

  1. Please don't confuse ethnicity, regional affiliation, and state affiliation. These are very different things. In particular, Bosnians, Czechoslovaks, Soviets, or Yugoslavs are not ethnic groups.
  2. Please be aware that it is very common for the same name to be used in two (e.g., Moravians) or all three (e.g., Czechs) of these senses.
  3. Please be aware that the same name may be used in different sense in different countries (e.g., Silesians in Poland and in Czech Republic).
  4. Please don't confuse ethnicity and self-declared nationality. These are very different things.
  5. 164,599,000?! 50,002,000?! 49,796,000?! These numbers are absolutely ridiculous. Some are also off by more than one order of magnitude. E.g., there are at least 300 thousand Kashubians in Poland alone, as opposed to 5 thousand that declared Kashubian nationality, or at least 3 million Silesians (in the ethnic sense), as opposed to 170 thousand.
  6. Please classify peoples according to mainstream scientific view, rather than some ad-hoc criteria. The appearance or lack of appearance of some group in a census doesn't determine if it is an ethnic grooup, and doesn't tell anything about the group's genetic classification. Similarly, assignment of a statistical code for some group doesn't, usually, tell anything about the group's status.

I have corrected most of these errors in the classification of Slavs (except the South-Western ones, where I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough). If someone decides to re-add numerical estimates, please use data from comparable sources. · Naive cynic · 10:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Yugoslavs are an ethnic group. They are recognized as an ethnic group in Serbia. Rusyns in Vojvodina are also an separate ethnic group, which speak an western Slavic language and they have nothing to do with Ukrainians. Please do not delete this if you are not familiar with this issue. As for Moravians and Silesians, you can see the results from Czech and Polish censuses above where they are listed separately. Why we should assimilate them into Chechs and Poles. I do not know much about Rusyns in Ukraine, and I do not know how Ukrainian statistics count them. But I will try to find this information. User:PANONIAN

Yes, and Muslims by nationality are also an recognized ethnic group in Serbia. As for the numbers, I took most of the numbers from this book: Leksikon naroda sveta (Lexicon of the nations of the World by Mile Nedeljković, Belgrade, 2001). User:PANONIAN

  • you can re-add the Vojv. Rusyns if can provide a source (other than the census)

Juro, you just forced me to write article about Vojvodina Rusyns. If you claim that they are not a people, please come to Vojvodina and Novi Sad and meet them. I personally know some of them. They speak an western Slavic language, which is similar to Slovak language, but also different than Slovak. There are multilingual public inscriptions in Novi Sad written in all official languages of Vojvodina, and language of Vojvodina Rusyns is one of these languages. The eastern Rusyns, who live in Ukraine speak an eastern Slavic language. We have here two different peoples, who share the same name, but speak two very different languages (similar like Serbs and Sorbs). User:PANONIAN

Rusyns

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)

Addition:You do not know which country is "mine".

Here is a little logic: the language of Rusyns in Vojvodina is WESTERN SLAVIC, and they CAN NOT be a eastern Slavs. Both, Ukrainians and Ukrainian Rusyns speak a eastern Slavic languages. One same people just CAN NOT speak two so much different languages, which belong to different branches of Slavic languages. Also, the division between eastern and western Slavic languages is quite clear. The fact that some Rusyns in eastern Slovakia also speak an western Slavic language could only mean that they are an separate ethnicity too (not a part of eastern Slavic Rusyns). Second, Vojvodina Rusyns live in Serbia, not in Ukraine, and no matter what Ukrainian government claim, Serbian government recognize them as a separate people. I just defend here the right of small nations to exist. The denial that small nations such as Rusyns or Bunjevci are a separate ethnic groups have obvious political motives by certain countries, which would like to see these small nations assimilated into some larger ethnic group. Serbia is not one of these countries, and all these small nations which live in Serbia have right to be what they are. The countries such are Ukraine and Croatia would just have to accept this. By the way, which country is yours? :) User:PANONIAN

  • The problem in your logic is right at the beginning - their language is NOT a western Slavic language, it's an eastern Slavic language. You can ask this any scientist from Western Slavic countries or Western Europe, you will always hear the same answer. There is absolutely NO book on Slavic languages (at least in Czechia and Slovakia) that would include Serbian Rusins or any other Rusins in the Czecho-Slovak group or Western Slavic languages. That's a mistake resulting from the fact that the western part of the Rusyn continuum has some features of Polish and Slovak. (For your informtion the Slavic dialects from western Czechia up to Russia form a gradual continuum). If you want a little bit logic: the Rusyns in Slovakia have even more Slovak (i.e West Slavic) language features than those in Serbia, but nobody (especially not they themselves) consideres them a separate group "Slovak Rusins", that's not only ridiculous, that's even stupid. So if nothing else, the current division is inconsistent, because we use the deformed approach of a Serbian census for Serbia, and other approaches for other territories. From another perspective, Slovaks in Serbia (having had a similar fate like the Rusyns) speak a very different Slovak language as compared to Slovaks in modern Slovakia, but nobody classifies them as "Serbian Slovaks" (not to mention the remak "not to be confused with the Slovaks" like you did in the Rusin article). The Rusyns in Serbia speak just a Rusyn dialect, that's all. Juro 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"If you want a little bit logic: the Rusyns in Slovakia have even more Slovak (i.e West Slavic) language features than those in Serbia"

Ok, just tell me this: is the language of Rusyns in Slovakia closer to western or eastern Slavic languages? User:PANONIAN

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. No matter what Slavic language these Volochian tribes speak in any place of Galicia... it doesn't make their blood Slavic. Intermarriage is more propper way to achieve that goal. 2. The original Ruseans' tribe are Viking tribe from southern part of teritory of medieval Sveans' tribe. "Svea Rike" an early name for Sweden. 3. Rusins ain't Rusyns, but the big Slavic Kievian Poliany tribal union. Belorusins, Redrusins and Blackrusins ain't Rusyns either... although they consist on average of couple tribal unions.

Rusyns in Ukraine

The Ukrainian government doesn't recognize Rusyns or Polishchuks as separate ethnic groups and lumps them all together under "Ukrainians". Kazak 23:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have information from last Ukrainian census perhaps? The names of ethnic groups listed in it, and their numbers? That would be useful for this article. User:PANONIAN

Sure, right here, if you can speak/understand Ukrainian (if not, I'll translate):

As part of its continuing efforts to Ukrainianize the country, or make it seem more "Ukrainian" than it really is, the government (aside from refusing to recognize Rusyns, Polishchuks and others) also introduced the concept of "mother tounge" - "ridna mova". It was more convenient for over 60% of the people surveyed to put down "Ukrainian", even though statistics show that up to 70% of the population primarily uses Russian in every day life. Incidentally, this policy hasn't changed at all from Kuchma to Jushchenko. Almost all of the Hungarian and Romanian population of Ukraine voted for Janukovych in the last election - they fear Ukrainian nationalism will try to stamp them out. Ukrainian nationalists, on the other hand, consider their Ukrainization justified by the Russification of western Ukraine that occurred periodically starting with Nicholas I.

Kazak 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't abuse the tragic conflict between Poles and Ukrainians for your purposes, it is also fault of wrong Polish policies towards Ukrainian people.

--Molobo 10:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kazak, the info you are referring to is available in English at this same census site. Also, regarding the "mother tongue" issue, you pointed out the problem correctly but you might be interested to see it at a broader context. I tried to do that at Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era. The last paragraph is specifically about the issue of your consern. Also, please check talk there for more info. If anyone's interested, please help bring the Ukrainian language article to WP:FA status. It seems to be one of the better UA-related articles already. Thank! --Irpen 06:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Kazak, I can read Cyrillic letters. So, here are the results from Ukrainian census:
  • Ukrainians = 37,541,000
  • Russians = 8,334,000
  • Belorussians = 275,000
  • Moldovans = 258,000
  • Crimean Tatars = 248,000
  • Bulgarians = 204,000
  • Hungarians = 156,000
  • Romanians = 151,000
  • Poles = 144,000
  • Jews = 103,000
  • Armenians = 99,000
  • Greeks = 91,000
  • Tatars = 73,000
  • Roma = 47,000
  • Azerbaijanians = 45,000
  • Georgians = 34,000
  • Germans = 33,000
  • Gagauz = 31,000
  • others = 177,000

So, the Rusyns are not mentioned here, but the people who declared themselves as Rusyns could be listed in the category "others" of course. User:PANONIAN

Panonian: They're not, trust me. Ukrainian nationalism is pretty aggressive and leaves no room for dissent.

Hi Irpen - I'm glad the article was updated with an appropriate explanation. :-) Kazak 02:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

So, you want to say that declared Rusyns are simply counted as Ukrainians in census results? User:PANONIAN

That's exactly what I'm saying. Kazak

True, however, it is noteworthy that within Ukraine the Rusyns are much less fierce in identifying themselves as a separate ethnical group than the Rusyns in the neighboring countries or in the diaspora. Whether or not the decades of propaganda saying that they are just a subgroup of a Ukrainian nation played a role is a separate question. But in this enviroment, their self-perception evolved to a less Rusynistic, so to speak, than of the Rusyns elsewhere. So, one should be careful to separate this propaganda caused volunteerly switch from the forceful coersion, as some would like to put it. --Irpen 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Extinct tribes

The page is cluttered with the names of Slavic tribes from the Middle Ages for purposes completely mysterious to me. Whereas some of them (like the Pomeranians) seem to have been completely distinct and deserve a mention here, others like Masovians, Polans and Vistulans have no place in this classification. If they participated in the formation of the Poles as a people and nation (which is the case), then they do not deserve a single entry here. If we start including all Slavic tribal names here, the page will have no beginning and no end. But anyway, I want to get some opinions before I erase them. VMORO 16:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)~

  • On the other hand, the Górals in southern Poland seem to be missing. Can somebody say where they fit in?

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. Górals fit with general people of Moldavia and Rumenia with the rest of their Volochs/Rusyns tribes. 2. Masovians, Polans and Vistulans did not from Polish people, but did form Polish Nobility. Big difference.

Proposal=

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)

Slavs as Aryans: Genetic tests

Here is an interesting article on Slavs that may merit a section on this page:

"Slavs the true "Aryans"? Holy untermensch!

I was pointed to this article (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2001_v98_p10244.pdf) over at Stanford that indicates Slavs are the closest to proto-Indo-European stock. Don't tell the Germans.... The article is titled Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y chromosome diversity, Spencer Wells shows up. It's a few years old & I think I might have posted a link before, but pretty wide-ranging & worth a second read (long download). The whole site over at Stanford that archives this sort of genetics work is worth a read & browse."

A Polish Clansman answers: 1. Y chromosome haplotype r1a is the genetic mark of Scytians and Sarmatians and can not be found in descendants of Palermo Slavic diaspora in Sicily. Certainly Sarmatians and Scytians are "Aryans". however these "Aryans" are not "Slavs". Beside Slavs do not share common ancestors with all Sarmatians and Scytians... only with these "slovanized" ones like Anti. 2. Besides culture heritage points Slavs as descendants of other human species then Homo Sapiens of which "Aryans" haplotype R are mutant evolved some 20-10 thousends years ago somewhere in Asia. Homo Cro-Magnon is not proven even to be a direct descendence of the same Homo species Sapiens come from. However like between Canis Lupus and Canis Familiaris there is some certain common origin.

Montenegrins

Nikola, please do not change the list. Montenegrins are generally (officially and unofficially) recognized as a separate people in both republics of Serbia and Montenegro. In the census results in Serbia they are listed as Montenegrins. User:PANONIAN

Well, I ask you not to change it. This is completely untrue. On censa, everyone has the right to state nationality, but that does not equal official recognition. Nikola
  • There is difference between "stating a nationality" in census and "listing the nationalities in the census results". There were people in Serbia who declared themselves as Kurds or Eskimos, but they were not officialy recognized as such and they were simply listed as "others". User:PANONIAN
They would have been had their number been high enough. Nikola

Yes, but why you claim then that Montenegrins are not officialy recognized by the state? Serbs, Montenegrins and Yugoslavs are considered by the state to be 3 main nations of Serbia-Montenegro. They are recognized. User:PANONIAN

They aren't! But OK, it's irrelevant, even if they would be it might be wrong and isn't of too much importance to us. Nikola

Listen, I do not know where you live, in Serbia or in diaspora, but I learned in elementary school that Yugoslavia have 6 nations: Serbs, Montenegrins, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians and Muslims. They all were recognized by the Yugoslav state and they still are recognized by the successor states. User:PANONIAN

Constitutional charter of Serbia and Montenegro is at http://www.skupstina.cg.yu/skupstinaweb/dokumenti_tekst.php?id_dokumeta=4 . As you can see, it doesn't recognise any particular nation. Nikola

Well, it also does not recognize the Serbs, so you would say that Serbs are not a nation too? User:PANONIAN

The opinion that Montenegrins are a subgroup of Serbs is not only unofficial one but also not generally accepted. User:PANONIAN

This is completely untrue as well. The fact that Montenegrins are Serbs is generally accepted. Nikola
  • Among whom? Only the advocates of Greater Serbia would deny the existence of Montenegrin nation. User:PANONIAN
That's not true. For example, User:Dori is an advocate of Greater Albania, yet denies existence of Montenegrin nation ;) Nikola

What ever. Point is, who want to occupy and attach Montenegro to his "Greater State", he also deny the existence of Montenegrin nation for political reasons. Similar thing is with Macedonians. The article about Macedonians on Wikipedia is full of Greek and Bulgarian propaganda against Macedonian nation. Very pathetic! User:PANONIAN

I don't know where did that entered your head, but it is completely wrong and without any touch with reality. For start, Serbia and Montenegro are one country already. Nikola

Yes, Serbia-Montenegro is one state, but Montenegro is not part of Serbia (notice the difference). User:PANONIAN

You should notice that, though in Serbian they might mean the same, in English "state" and "country" have two different meanings. Nikola

Nikola, I think that you very well know what I talking about: Montenegro is not part of Serbia, end of story. User:PANONIAN

Tell me this: how would you define a "nation"? What else Montenegrins should to have to be recognized as a nation by you? User:PANONIAN

A nation in this context is an ethnic group which has specific national elements, such as language, customs, history, genetics... For Montenegrins to be a nation, they would have to have some specific quality which would distinguish them from other nations. Nikola

Ok, here is one example: what is the difference between one German and one Austrian, or what is the difference between one Argentinian and one Chilean? If we use your criteria then we should declare that half of World nations do not exist. Are Americans a nation according to you, or they are simply English people from America? Where we should to draw border and say how much two nations have to be different one from another to be considered two separate nations? User:PANONIAN

You'll have to ask Germans, Austrians, Argentinians, Chileans etc. I have not studied their ethnic history. The fact that sometimes it may be hard or impossible to distinguish two nations according to some objective criteria doesn't mean that it always is. In this case, it isn't. Nikola

You have not studied their history, but that is the point - this is not about history but about present. There are two criterias, which can easy distinguish two nations:

  • 1. national consciousness
  • 2. census results

So, Montenegrins do have Montenegrin national consciousness and they declare themselves as Montenegrins in census. User:PANONIAN

Arguably, most Montenegrins do not have Montenegrin national consciousness and do not declare as Montenegrins in censa. And, even if they would, it would not neccessarily be relevant, but I'll explain that below. Nikola

And what is your definition of one Montenegrin? There are two definitions here: 1. Montenegrins as ethnic group, 2. Montenegrins as all citizens of Montenegro, regardless their ethnic origin. I speak all the time as Montenegrins from first definition, and what makes them Montenegrins is the fact that they declare themselves as such in census. And yes, most of them do have Montenegrin national consciousness. Would you say that Milo Đukanović, Filip Vujanović and Svetozar Marović do not have Montenegrin national consciousness? Would you say that people who voted for them do not have Montenegrin national consciousness? Also, if you go to Cetinje, the stronghold of Montenegrin nationalists and tell them that they are not Montenegrins but Serbs, they would probably beat you. User:PANONIAN

No matter who their ancestors were, present day Montenegrins are not Serbs. Also, they are not same with Serbs from Montenegro, who also call themselves Montenegrins. User:PANONIAN

Yes, they are. If they are not the same, there must be some differences between them. What are these differences? Nikola

I can ask you then what are the differences between the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks as well? Maybe we all are simply Yugoslavs, right? However, I will answer this: the difference is a "national consciousness". If somebody believe that he is a Serb, he is a Serb, if somebody believe he is a Croat, that is what he is, if somebody believe he is a Montenegrin, he is a Montenegrin (And you very well know how many people have Montenegrin national consciousness). User:PANONIAN

Well, that is easy: Serbs speak Serbian language while Croats speak Croatian language; also, nearly all Croats are Roman Catholic. By your criteria people who believe to be Martians are in fact Martians, which is obviously nonsense. Nikola

Not exactly. Both, Serbs and Croats speak Serbo-Croatian language and they both are mainly Atheist by faith. So, there is no big difference between Serbs and Croats. As for Martians, I heard that some people in Serbia declared themselves in census as Borg. So, what are they if not Borg? However, this have nothing to do with Montenegrins. In Socialist Federal Yugoslavia Montenegrins were officialy recognized as one of 6 nations of Yugoslav state. That is obviously recognition of their nationality from the highest level of power, thus the existance of their nation cannot be disputed. User:PANONIAN

No, that is not true. Serbian and Croatian are distinct languages; on last census in Serbia, IIRC some 90% of the population (of all ethnicities) has declared as religious. And I can't believe this: "what are they if not Borg"????? These people may be Serbs, Hungarians, Albanians - we don't know because we don't know who they are and they have not declared their ethnicity truthfuly. SFRY created and not recognised Montenegrin nations.
Oh, here's one more: Croats don't have slava. Nikola

Well, Nikola, Serbian and Croatian ARE NOT different languages. If you speak Serbian you can understand 100% somebody who speak Croatian. Of course, people in census declare these languages as different, and that is why these languages are recognized as such, but that was not the point. Point was that it is not language what separate two peoples, but national consciousness. Also, people declare themselveas as religious in census, but most of them are actually atheist. User:PANONIAN

OK, so let's see where you stand now. People can declare in a census what their language is, what their religion is, and what their nationality is. In various censa in Serbia, majority of people have declared that they speak Serbian, while in various censa in Croatia, majority of people have declared that they speak Croatian. In the last census in Serbia, an utmost majority of people have declared themselves as being religious. In the last census in Montenegro, a plurality of people have declared themselves as being Montenegrins by nationality. Neither one of us disputes these things.
However, now you come and tell me that, despite the fact that they have declared to speak different languages, Serbs and Croats actually do speak the same language, and, despite the fact that they have declared to be religious, most people in Serbia are actually atheist.
But when I tell you that, despite the fact that some people declare as Montenegrins they are actually Serbs, you tell me that it can not be so, and that their declaration is the only thing that counts. Would you care to elaborate on this a bit, please? Nikola 09:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Language, ethnicity and religion are 3 different things. Of those 3 only the language really exist as the tool for communication, while other two exist only in peoples heads. Also, if somebody consider himself a adherent of one religion that mean that he modulate his life in accordance with this religion (he go to church, pray, etc...). On the contrary, the ethnic origin do not have this kind of impact on human life. If you belong to one ethnic group it does not mean that you have to modulate your life in accordance with some rules (like it is the case with religion). Your ethnic origin is only something you write on the paper in census and nothing more. Thus, it would be not wrong to say that ethnic origin is a "state of mind". It is only something you believe in and that have no impact on your life. That is why I claim that if you 100% understand what somebody speak then you speak the same language as him, if you go to same church and pray to same god as someone, then you are adherent of same religion as him, and if you state the same nationality in census as someone, then you are a same nationality as him. So, the one who did not declare himself in census as a Serb is simply not a Serb. And, Nikola, there are some Montenegrin nationalists who really hate Serbs, so, how can somebody who hate Serbs to be a Serb? It is ridiculous. User:PANONIAN

As for those people who declared themselves as "Borg", why they cannnot be "Borg" if they want. User:PANONIAN

Do you know what Borg are actually? They cannot be Borg because they are not cyborgs, their minds are not parts of the Borg Collective, and they do not live in Borg cubes. Nikola

Well, depends of your definition of an "Borg". According to your definition the Borg have to be a cyborg and part of Borg Collective, but according to somebody else definition, it does not have. User:PANONIAN

You cannnot say that they are Serbs, Hungarians or Albanians because they did not declared themselveas as such. User:PANONIAN

Actually, I can, and I have. Once I met a guy online who told that he declared as Šušumiga on the census. However, because of his perfect Serbian language, degree of support for Serbs in Bosnia and surname which ended in -ić I concluded that he is Serb actually. Nikola

He "actually" could be Croat, Yugoslav, Montenegrin even the Hungarian (some Hungarians have Serbian names). User:PANONIAN

The nationality is only a freedom of choice, you do not have it, but you choose it. And to repeat, Montenegrins were one of six recognized nations of SFRY. Also the fact that Croats do not have Slava is irrelevant for this discussion. User:PANONIAN

It is, because that is one of the things that objectively separates them from Serbs. Nikola

Well the fact that you once in every year make a lunch and call your cousins and friends to eat and forgather with you does not really separate you from the Croats. User:PANONIAN

The subgroups of Serbs are mentioned in the article about Serbs, and Serbs from Montenegro who call themselves Montenegrins (Crnogorci) are also listed there. User:PANONIAN

Incidentaly, Serbs from Montenegro who call themselves Montenegrins are Montenegrins. Nikola 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • No, they are Serbs from Montenegro. They also call themselves Montenegrins, but since they declared themselves as Serbs, they are Montenegrins only in regional sense. However, you persist to deny the existance of other Montenegrins who do not believe they are a Serbs (No matter you like it or not, but they exist). User:PANONIAN
They are Serbs from Montenegro, but they are Montenegrins as well. They are not Montenegrins only in regional sense, but in ethnic as well. Of course, there are Montenegrins who think that they are not Serbs. They are (AFAIK) a minority, and they are wrong. Nikola 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is not you who should judge are they wrong or not. It is their right and their busynes to judge this. Besides, how can you be sure they are wrong? There was ancient Illyrian tribe named Docleans, and first Montenegrin state was Doclea. The medieval writers mention 3 nations, which inhabit the territory of present day Montenegro - Serbs, Croats, and Docleans. So, before they become Serbs, the ancestors of Montenegrins probably were Docleans (Dukljani). This is only one historical view of course, but history is completely irrelevant in this issue. The only important thing is national consciousness among various ethnic groups. If somebody do not declare himself as a Serb in census, you cannot possibly to claim that he is a Serb. It is democratic right of everybody to choose his nationality. We cannot argue with this right.

To conclude: this article mention the Montenegrins who consider themselves separate people. Those Montenegrins (Crnogorci) who consider themselves to be a regional subgroup of Serbs are mentioned in the article about Serbs, together with other Serb regional subgroups, such are Šumadinci, Vojvođani, Hercegovci, etc. If you mention in this article only those Montenegrins who are a regional subgroup of Serbs and not mention other regional Serb subgroups, you will insult regional pride of many Serbs. User:PANONIAN

Why wouldn't it be me, if I can study Montenegrin history and ethnos, and conclude whether they are a nation or not? Everything else you have said might apply in reverse - how can you be sure they are right? It is democratic right of everybody to claim his nationality, and it can't be argued with, but unfortunately for some, this goes both ways - it is democratic right of everybody to claim nationality of anybody else. Yes, if someone claims to be Montenegrin or Martian, while he obviously is not, I too can claim that he is wrong.
I disagree with the last point, because Montenegrins are one of the largest and most visible Serbian subgroups; of course, when articles are written about others one might add them too. Nikola 15:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It cannnot be you because you are not ethnic Montenegrin. The only relevant thing is how one Montenegrin think about himself. Also if you claim that somebody who declare himself as Montenegrin or Martian, is not that but something else, then you deny his right of choice. User:PANONIAN

This is completely wrong. Everyone has right to declare his nationality, and I can't do anything to deny that right, even if I would want to. However, the fact that people have that right does not mean that they won't joke, lie, mislead or be wrong when they use it. Besides, I can also say that by limiting my right to claim that they are something else, you limit my right of free speech. Nikola

Yes, but with this "right of free speech" you insulting ethnic Montenegrins. Insulting speech against other ethnic groups is forbiden by law in Serbia. User:PANONIAN

The nationality is only right of choice and nothing more. Beyond the borders of choice, the nationality does not exist. User:PANONIAN

And how do people make that choice?
In Montenegro, there are numerous stores that sell large wooden four-sided dice. On each side of these dice, one of "Serb", "Montenegrin", "Muslim" and "Albanian" is written. When Montenegrins come of age, they buy a dice, throw it, and then choose their nationality according to how the dice fell. If it fell on "Muslim", they also flip a coin, so that they could see whether they are actually Bosniaks.
People decide what their nationality is according to their knowledge about their past, their family, their origins, their history, and of course their present. People gather information about these things and form their opinion about their nationality, which then they declare on censa and in other occasions (of course, they may also declare that they are something else than what they think they are for some reason, but that is beside the point). If they can do so, then other people can do so. Me or you can study someone's past, family, origins, history and present and conclude about their nationality. Our conclusions may be different, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist or that they are not important. Nikola 09:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You must understand that Montenegrins see their past and their origins different than you see this. Your view and their view about this are only two different points of view, and nothing more. Fact is that we write here about them not about you, so it is more important what they think about themselves than what you think about them. If article is about you, then would be more important what you think about yourself than what your neighbour (who maybe hate you) think. That is the whole point. User:PANONIAN

As for Montenegrins as subgroup of Serbs, my point was that this article should to speak about Montenegrins, which are separate nation, while these Montenegrins, which are subgroup of Serbs should be mentioned in the article about Serbs (In fact they are mentioned in this article too, among regional subgroups of South Slavs). User:PANONIAN

Article about Montenegrins should be about Montenegrins, I think that that is pretty clear. Nikola 09:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that we discuss here about the list of Slavic peoples in this article, not about Montenegrins article. :) User:PANONIAN

A Relevant Return to the Rusyns of the Ukraine

Hello to you Panonian. Just some quick information for you. If you read my contributions about Slavic nations and subnations etc, you'll see that I have on many occasions based my information on the details which I am about to give you. You asked if the Rusyn people spoke a language which was West or East Slavic. I gather you are Montenegrin (not sure, I could be wrong). For you, there has been a recent debate as to the true status of Montenegrin nationality. Whichever conclusion you move towards: Serb; Montenegrin; Bosnianized Albanian; Hungarianized Sicilian with sprinklings of Jewish Norwegian Communists (of Hindu Faith), it doesn't alter the solid status that Montenegro belongs to the South Slavic branch of regions, as such, so does the local language (whatever that be called). You might tell that by this stage, I see nationality as a bit of a joke. Despite my often unserious remarks, my only belief is that in this world, we are all one and the same. I come up with these expressions to invite more ridicule into a ridiculous sitaution, a form of satire as it were. Now, because of one historical event, Slavs became split by the fact that those Slavs connecting one group to another, lost their identity. History records the White Horvaths as having assimilated the Hungarian/Austrian speaking nations of East-Central Europe and since then, Slovenes have started the South Slavic chain, and Bohemians (Czechs) start the North Slavic chain (in the opposite direction). Now, South Slavia begins with the Slovenes and at its farthest exterem stretches into Turkey in regions south-east of Bulgaria where the community is claimed by the Bulgarian government (since no one challenges them). However, sticking to the point, North Slavia is further divided between East and West Slavic linguistic zones. Unlike the South Slavic zone, the East and West are joined, so where one ends, the other begins. The terms east and west and more religious in terms if administrative politics. The present day countries of Belarus, The Ukraine and the Russian Federation compose the Eastern Slav zone and like Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria in the South Slav zone, are based primarily on Orthodoxy - the Czech, Slovak and Polish states create the Western Slav zone, based primarily on Catholisism (even if over the years, many have converted - Czechs are largely non-religious). Like you are familiar with Serbia and Croatia, when you run through certain lines from Montenegro, bisecting Bosnia and Northern Serbia, you see that many towns are populated by both Christian secular groups as well as the Muslim faith, the primary reason most choose the title Croat/Bosniak-Muslim/Serb...- all right, Montenegro is breaking away from this stigma - but along the present border zones between the former USSR and the West Slavic states, you have the two Christian faiths living in many of the towns and doing so as the same nation but only using different names. Because it is a continuum, there can be no knowing whether Rysins speak an East or West Slavic language, it all rather depends on where they are. Rusyns in Ukraines far east clearly speak an Eastern dialect, and those in Slovakia will speak a western dialect; like the Croats in Vojvodina, the Serbs in Herzegovina, and the Muslims in Croatian administered Dalmatia (and all other combinations), their presence and contribution to society is woven into the fabric of Ukranian/Slovakian life, and being of Slavic descent means that the principle Ukranians/Slovaks have no grounds on which to claim to be natives in a way that Rusyns are migrants; plain foreigners, or simply an unrelated minority (like your Albanians in Ulcinj). So my only point is that in North Slavia, the east/west division is not so clear but in any case, it is a continuation. One of the most striking linguistic differences between North and South Slavic is use of the word 'Prav' which is used for Law/Rights related words eg. Pravda (Russian Justice, a journal), Pravnik (Macedonian for lawyer). When it comes to directions, North Slavs use 'Prava' to mean 'to the right' and South Slavs use it to mean 'straight ahead' having taken Bulgarian dyasno, Slovenian desno etc. from one of the previous overlords (nor sure which, Greek or Roman). This fundemental difference may be minor, but is a clear guide to any remote Slavs living in Austria or inner Hungary to which group they belong. There is no such boundry between East and West Slavic, Russian may use your da for yes with Polish using a cognate tak but in Eastern Poland, they have already yielded to Da after a Ta stage (having dropped the k) preparing the Da structure of Belarus and Russia, but like I said, there is no barrier which divides all ABC in the west and XYZ entirely in the east! Hope you understood! Celtmist 27-10-05


Croats and Alans

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)

Vague Britannica text

Vague and incomplete statement, recently added:

While Western Slavs integrated into western Europe and developed in ways similiar as other western European nations, Eastern and Southern Slavs experienced Mongol and Turkish invasions and pursued more autocratic and state-centred forms of government

In what ways did Western Slavs develop similarly to other nations—hair colour, cooking habits, poetry? Currently this has no real meaning; could be construed as an artifact of English Russophobia.

The statement about autocratic government applies to Muscovy, but I think not to the Eastern Slavic principalities of Galicia and Volhynia. Does the Mongol invasion apply to South Slavic peoples at all? —Michael Z. 2006-01-29 21:14 Z

In what ways did Western Slavs develop similarly to other nations—hair colour, cooking habits, poetry? Well in short they experienced and were influenced by Western Europe's ideas while Russia was under so called Tartar Yoke and developed its own autocratic culture. For example http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html There were also important cultural effects. Mongol domination retarded Russia's cultural development. It delayed for at least two centuries any contact between Russia and Europe, which was at that time the only fountain of progress and enlightenment. The Russian Middle Ages were barren of achievement in any field of creative endeavor, except perhaps that of icon painting, which reached high standards in the fifteenth century. In the economic field the most spectacular development was that of the invasion. It took time before the Russian economy recovered from the devastation wrought, although the extremely low technical and economic levels prevalent during this period facilitated the task. Foreign trade, which came to a standstill with the conquest, revived substantially thereafter. There was little progress in agriculture and industry, but there is no evidence that these pursuits sank below their modest pre-Mongol level. As with cultural endeavor it was a case of stagnation and arrested development rather than of deterioration and decline. The Russian economy, however, was severely affected by two manifestations of the Mongol rule: exaction of tribute, often exorbitant ones, and warlike action that took the form either of invasions of Russia or of foreign wars in which the Russians were forced to participate side by side with their masters. The blending of the Byzantine tradition embodied in the church and Mongol ideas and administrative usages paved the way for the establishment of the semi-oriental absolutism of the Muscovite tsars. The window on Europe, which might have admitted the refreshing breeze of western influences, was still tightly shut, while the deadening storms from the Asiatic steppes swept freely through the length and breadth of the land. Moscow autocracy of the 16th century was no different form that of the Tartar Khans. The landed aristocracy became servile to the Moscow grand dukes and tsars. the veche lost the right to choose and expel princes - a function which had been taken over by the khans. The common people began to drift quite noticeably into the dark night of serfdom. Professor Gerhard Rempel at Western New England College

--Molobo 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's quite poetic. Wish we could just paste it in. I guess this article calls for something briefer. How about the following?
While Western Slavs developed along with western European nations, the Eastern Slavs of Muscovy, cut off by the effects of Mongol and Turkish invasions, were set back economically and culturally, and had more autocratic and state-centred forms of government imposed on them.
I think the East Slavs in Halych-Volhynia wouldn't be included in this description, and I don't know very much about the history of the South Slavs. —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 04:12 Z
Nowhere in medieval Europe was the government democratic - even where rulers were elected, they were elected by nobles, and not by general population, most of whom were serfs, a small step up from slaves. The whole sentence should simply go - it reads as another attempt to distance some Slavic nation or another from Russians for purely political reasons having to do with semi-recent history. Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Common of Slavs

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)

Consolidation

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)

Macedonians and Muslims by nationality

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)
    • This is because of clumsy English rendering of the term: I would expect the proper term to be "Muslim" ("Musliman" in native languages), and the article title disambiguated as Muslim (nationality), ust as you are egainst writing "ethnic Macedonians". mikka (t) 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I will not argue with that, both names for the article are OK if you ask me. PANONIAN (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. I do not understand why only Macedonians should be listed here as "ethnic Macedonians". This is a list of Slavic PEOPLES, thus the fact that Macedonians are listed here among "Slavic peoples" imply that these Macedonians are "ethnic" Macedonians, like ALL OTHER peoples mentioned here. Second thing, not only Macedonians, but many other peoples from this listing are disambiguation terms. For example, "Montenegrins" could be "ethnic Montenegrins", but also all citizens of Montenegro, Russians could be "ethnic Russians", but also all citizens of Russia, etc. Since this is article about SLAVIC PEOPLES, the name of the article imply that names listed here are the names of PEOPLES or ETHNIC GROUPS, and not the names of citizens or anything else. So, it is quite enough to write only Russians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and not "ethnic Russians", "ethnic Macedonians" or "ethnic Montenegrins".PANONIAN (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)



What Migration In regards to the coming and origin of the Slavs, I am yet to come across a single contemporary Roman-Byzantine document that speaks of a "migration" of Slavic peoples. Geo-linguist Mario Alinei seems to assert that that the local Thraco-Illyric populations of the Balkans were related to the Slavonic-speakers, where he also makes mention that South Slavonic is the origin of the broader linguistic group. pg 25-6; As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been suprised that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value- froma geolinguistic point of view- of the assymetric configuration of the SLavic Area. Even more so since the cause of this assymetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first year sudents of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, bt each of its two branchings- the Western and the Eastern- shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic poit of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two northern branchings must be a later development, each with its own proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d'etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense. Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the Slavic homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe and of the Slavic migration in traditional terms as well as all of its corollaries. Pg 30-1; ...the Illyrians were not only a people contiguous to the Slavs, but later, they also formed an elite group that dominated the Southern Slavic territory for a period. Pg 37; ....the Thracians were a Slavic group [1]

Taking into account all this information, one cannot seriously argue for a 6th century Slavic "migration". However it seems to be the case here, so I propose another theory to be added to the article relating Slavic origins, relying on PCT, which is credible. Although it may sound nationalistic, it is nevertheless extremely significant for Slavonic studies, theories change with times as more evidence is produced, analysed and uncovered, just because the term "Slavs" appeared in the 6th century it does not mean they the people that adopted that name also did. It is extremely unscholarly to speak of half of Europe's population as appearing out of thin air, in my mind, the Slavs are quite possibly the oldest Europeans.Soldier of Macedon 03:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Scythian Origin

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)

Croats/Serbs mention

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)


Here is the reference of that "mischaracterization" you speak of: [2]

Note only that - its just logical...last to come from Indo-European heartland should be closest to proto-Indo-European. Also, you are totally right - the Serb/Croat mention has nothing to do with the "pre-glacial" material. That was another part of the section. I replaced "Other Theories" with "Fringe Theories" as you are correct - they are very dubious and peripheral in nature. My main grievance is the inclusion of the Serb/Croat mention as it was totally incorrect beforehand. Other than that you can play around with the Fringe Theory section - but the genetics article was interpreted correctly initially. 72.144.92.124 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

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)

A Polish Clansman answer: 1. So many Non-Slavs posing today for Slavs on the only basis that they dwell in the Eastern Europe... so go figure that this is not a Cathalonia. This is your entire Spain packed full with different culturally and genetically Basks... All talking of course in your proper Madrit Spanish language. 2. We Polish in Poland and from begining of XXth century also English intelectuals call this phenomenon "ethnic Eastern European hell". Mostly because to the contrary, that everybody is speaking the same language in every of these "Slavic" countries, nobody really understands eachother. 3. Take that example: Take two Polish together and you have entire THREE DIFFERENT political parties in one spot. On the other hand you take one particular Polish, one particular Lithuanian, one particular Belarusin and one particular Kozak and you do not have to found even a single political party, as it is understanding without words in absolute consensus. Something achievable usually only in one ethnic groups on other sides of this planet.

"Slavic identity"

As we all know there isn't such thing as common identity today, neverthless it is a part of ideology of certain nationalist groups in Russia and Serbia from what I know. It can be mentioned in articles about them but has no place in the lead, as it is untrue. If this biased sentence will be pushed forward, I will be forced to give an accurate description why it is untrue. It would disrupt the article, but I hope that honesty will prevail and this propaganda sentence won't be restored. --Molobo 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is simply silly. Ask almost any person in Slavic-speaking countries whether their ethnic group is a kind of Slavs, and the overwhelming anwswer will be yes. Serbs, Russians, Slovenians, Croats, Czechs etc. considering themselves a kind of Slavs, even if they don't put great importance on that, is common identity. Zocky | picture popups 11:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I checked all the wikipedias in Slavic languages. Each one of them includes a statement that the ethnic group which primarily speaks the language is a kind of Slavs. Zocky | picture popups 12:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the latest thing is removing the reference to Slavs being an ethnic grouping and the claim that they don't constitute about a third of Europe's population. The first is easily disproved by the rest of the article itself as well as by appropriate articles in other encyclopedias. The second is even easier. According to our article Europe, there are about 710.000 Europeans. There are about 240 million people living in Slavic countries, excluding the Asian part of Russia. Of course there are million of non-Slavs in Slavic countries as well as millions of Slavs in non-Slavic countries. But all in all, "about one third" sounds like a fair estimate. Zocky | picture popups 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from Molobo about how Slavs are not an ethnic grouping according to his interpretaion of a source, and about how most Poles don't think Russians are Slavs, so there can be no common identity. What Poles think about Russians is not the subject of this article and even if everybody in Poland thinks that Russians are not Slavs (which I seriously doubt), that's just tough, as the rest of the world, including several Polish encyclopedias thinks they are.
About the other claim, that Slavs are not an ethnic grouping, let's see what other encyclopedias say:
  • according to Britannica, a Slav is "Any member of the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in Europe." [3]
  • according to Columbia, Slavs are "the largest ethnic and linguistic group of peoples in Europe belonging to the Indo-European linguistic family." [4]
  • according to onet.pl's Portal wiedzy, Slavs are "najliczniejsza etnicznie i językowo indoeuropejska grupa ludnościowa w Europie"[5] (my polish is not that good, but I'd bet that says "the most numerous ethnic and linguistic indoueropean group of peoples in Europe".
Can we now please stop this? Zocky | picture popups 23:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section "Nationalist and fringe views"

A apologize for intervention. I am not an expert in Slavs. This page simply sits in my watch list after my edits related to Saqaliba article.

I cannot help but notice the deletion of the whole section with some garbled edit summary. My impression is that the section is not a complete nonsence. Of course wikipedia policy says that one may delete unsourced statements. But a common sense requires some amount of diligence and carefullness, not to say about respect to fellow contributors. It is one thing to delete a random addition of an anon who came and go, and no one is here to ask for confirmation. But deletion of a large chunk without discussion is IMO inadmissible.

I apologize if the issue was alreay discussed and I simply didn't notice this (like I said, I am not expecially interested in Slavic matters). But again, if it is the case, the edit summary of the deletion should have referred to this discussion.

Of course, it is also not my business, but I find the issue (new theories) interesting and I'd like to urge interested persons to address the problems with the section. Inshallah.

By the way, isn't it time to archive the page? Mukadderat 01:16, 1 July 2006

Why no Image?

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)

-We Slavs DO DIFFER between us in appearance. We are partitioned for Czechs, Rusins and Lechs for some reason, you know. Maybe we should try to find three different Slavic pictures instead of just one, so all Slavs can agree to belong to one or another of these three Slavic groups. Pan Piotr Glownia 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Slovan

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)

Word Slavic comes from West European languages and it is very close to word slave. "Slavic" is not a Slavic word, as it can be sooner a free Non-Slavic interpretation of some Slavic word. -Pan Piotr Glownia 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic, Linguistic, and Biggest?

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)

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)

Slavs are the largest "LINGUISTIC BODY" of Indo-European people in Europe. That's what the whole section of sources up there is saying. What this ARTICLE claims is a whole separate deal. This methodology shows exactly why they don't constitute one-third of continental Europe. That was the entire point. That would remove approximately 15 million Slavs and drop it down to 710 million. In which case we get: 220/710 = still only 31%. Yes, it is close to 1/3rd but it doesn't work using BOTH a "linguistic" and "ethnic" definition because there are probably numerous people who speak Slavic languages and aren't "ethnically" Slavic. It's just simple to show that unless you count them as a linguistic body instead of both an ethnic and linguistic, you can't say they constitute about 1/3rd of CONTINENTAL Europe. 72.144.191.155 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

It's not about whether or not they form 30%+ (roughly 1/3rd) of mainland Europe, its about by what definition they fill that 1/3 - linguistic or ethnic? Since nobody can decide on a neutral method to present the introduction, ('Slavs are an indoEuropean peoples' would work) there is no choice but to leave out this information. It's not of crucial importance anyway. The article did fine without it for the majority of its existence.72.144.161.51

I can see why your percentage is smaller than exactly 1/3rd: you didn't add in the Slavs of Montenegro and the small scattered Slavic populations of Moldova, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania Germany, Austria and Romania. It's true that they don't add up to much, but they could be the reason. Having checked through all of the "demographics of" articles for those countries, I found the aggregate Slav population to be 5,048,066 (we can just use 5.05 million). Its a small number (and if you included Montenegro in your count of Serbia then it is probably too high by around 500,000), but even if it overcounts, the Slav population in non-Slavic majority countries amounts to around 4.5 million. It also doesn't take into account any Bulgarians in Turkish Europe or the any immigrant Slav populations in Italy.208.163.48.15 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavs/Archive_1&oldid=1137190149"