Talk:White Croatia

[Untitled]

I have deleted the bottom part of this artical because it had nothing to do with white croatia because it was just talking about how White croats turned into serb and how great the Serbs are, so i think some bias Serb has written this in the bases of no facts but serbian properganda. --Marbus2 5 10:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Both maps are rather wrong or biased, which doesn`t mean that "Chrobatia" didn`t existed... but how come that Germans didn`t noticed where Silesia ends and where Greater Poland starts? Really weird that none of German painters didn`t put that land on thier map if there was capital city and stronghold of tribe Polanie. Another thing is that in Xc. Germans were still fighting against the Obodrites and Lusatian Sorbs. In 1000 A.D. Poland, nor any of its parts wasn`t tributary to any Germany (neither "Roman" Empire), Bohemia was, but still it wasn`t part of Empire jet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.100.60 (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please this article is a just plain, sorry to say, BS! There is absolutley no evidence that this country existed. It cites some very very very farfetched sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.118.131 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is very vague, weasel worded, lacking citations and written in barely comprehensible English. Will someone do the decent thing and nominate it for deletion? Also, how has this nonsense come to be rated as of 'mid-importance'???? Finally, this article is dealt with in the article about White Croats, and the two should really be merged if there is anything of value here. 1812ahill (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

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

White croats and rusyns

There is clear evidence that the White Croats are ancestors of Rusyns. Rusyns are also present in significantly different genetic profile than the surrounding nations.

The few studies made thus far of the genetics of Rusyns indicate a common ancestry with other modern Europeans. An analysis of maternal lineages found that Rusyns have the highest frequency of Haplogroup I (mtDNA) found to that date. Haplogroup M* also reaches its regional peak among Rusyns. Analysis of population genetics shows statistical differences between Rusyns and other Slavic or European populations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.47.145 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2013‎

Is this for real? I mean really? Using quotes and then describing what you are quoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.170.85 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevenko Bartulin's book The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia (p. 115) also pushed another claim (considered radical by some sources) that maintained White Croatia was founded by Slavicized Iranian Croats. He also cited the work of Stjepan Krizi Sakač published in 1938, which holds that the historical terms "White" (Bijela) and "Red" (Crvena) Croatia were of Iranian origin. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

References

contradictory statements

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

Information regarding location of White Croatia and Croats

Tibor Živković located Croats beyond the Hungarians, i.e. in southern Poland claiming that it has been confirmed by the writing of the Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi therefore it is contemporary to Constantine VII source on the White Croats. Oskar Kolberg (1814-1890) in his work "Krakowskie" clame that area around Krakow was called White Croatia., Tadeusz Wojciechowski(1838–1919) in book "Chrobacya, rozbiór staroŜytności słowiańskich" clame that Croats live in area from upper course of Laba in the west to the Dniester in the east, and from the southern regions of the Krkonoša, Tatra and Carpathian Mountains in the south to the upper course of the Vistula in Lesser Poland to the north I see no reason not to include this information in the article. I have stated my reasons that this information should be in the article. Cannot one information from 19th century be in the article and other information not and a similar thing is being said. And opinion about location from a Serbian historian between opinions of other historians. Therefore there are no problems here unless if this is someone's private article. Mikola22 (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• I see no reason to include the outdated fantasies of all 19th century authors in a row. Now some are mentioned, but they are discussed and criticized by modern authors. If you want to throw someone out of them, let's discuss. In addition, the student thesis to which you refer [1] is a very weak source. In any case, the opinion of a student himself has no weight.
• As for the opinion of Zhivkovich, it is very strange, because to the north of Hungary is not Poland, but the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Most historians believe that Alfred speaks of Croats living on the upper Elbe (see Mayorov). Moreover, Zhikovich recalls these examples only to confirm that the Croats lived behind Bavaria (see the whole paragraph 2.2). Determining the position of White Croatia was not the task of this work, so there is no need to pull out random pieces from there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll start with Živković. Clame of Serbian historian which you suspect that is correct? This is not a court, this is wikipedia. Otherwise there is his information in the article "Tibor Živković notes that this term can come from the Latin name of Bavaria (Bagoaria or, less probably, Baioaria) and, therefore, the source of this information for the DAI could be of West European origin." i.e. "The situation where the White Croats were beyond Bavaria matches perfectly if the observer had been in Venice, or in the north-eastern Italy". If information on position of White Croatia was obtained from Venice or northern Italy then White Croatia is in southern Poland and this is among other things and logical claim of Serbian historian and there is no reason that his claim not to be an integral part of the article. As far Polish sources is concerned it is information from History Department and supervised by mentor (Doctor of Science, Department of History) and there is no reason to delete this data because they have been confirmed(at least partially) whit the claim of a Serbian academic Tibor Živković(2012). Furthermore this information from master's thesis is only referred to 19th century information while the original data is in the book "Hrvatska pradomovina I think everything is clear now.Mikola22 (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Zhivkovich’s work is to find the Latin source of the DAI. In this aspect, his opinion is valuable, so we quote him. His mis-speaking that Poland begins immediately north of Hungary has no value for the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is wikipedia and it is a statement of Serbian academic. Whether Poland starts behind Hungary or Austria I don't know and you need see that on articles that speak about Poland (this map is from an Polish article so you go there and discuss with them). In this article we talk about position of White Croats and White Croatia and this is what my data talking about and there is no reason to delete it except some personal reason. Problem is solved.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether Poland starts behind Hungary or Austria I don't know -- So, my supplies of good faith have run out. It turns out that your behavior is not from misunderstanding, but purposeful trolling. I consider my explanations sufficient, and if you do not agree, look for a third party.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, it's you who is in error here. Today's Slovakia is part of medieval Hungary. Poland is north of medieval Hungary. Have a look.

PS. this is also an interesting map (it has errors, but:) https://www.vintage-views.com/Encyclopedia1911/PAGE4/pages/111902k4-europe_jpg.htm --Čeha (razgovor) 14:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Čeha. There are no obstacles that data from book of academic could not be put in the article(and other data). Obviously Nicoljaus has problem with any mention of southern Poland as a source where Croats would or once live. However this is wikipedia and we must respect that.Mikola22 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If he has some academic source for his stance, he is welcome to show us, or even include it in the article. If not....

No need to complicate. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That's it.Mikola22 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to tell the Slovaks that only Hungarians lived on their lands at the beginning of the 10th century? Good luck. There was no “medieval Hungary" under Alfred the Great, just Hungarian tribes in Pannonian Plain. And, yes, another ancient map does not impress me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Did I say that anywhere? From 10th century we have Hungarian rule till the Carpathians, Slovaks are descendens of Moravians which came under Hungarian rule.

Alfred the Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great lived in time when Hungarians just destroyed Moravian state. At that time, Hungarians are heavy minority in Panonia, majority is stil Slavic. But the rule is Hungarian, and Alfred is talking about that. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Alfred does not write about the "Hungarian state" (which was not). During the life of Alfred, the Hungarians did not "destroyed Moravian state" till at list 906, (Alfred died at 899). Stop trolling.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Moravia included just today's western Slovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moravia . The Hungarians apear in 894. or 895. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, there is no exact date when whole of Moravia ceasted to exist, but the Hungarians where the southern neighbours to Krakow area from the time of their apearance in Pannonian plain. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

but the Hungarians where the southern neighbours to Krakow area from the time of their apearance in Pannonian plain. -- Find an authoritative source that claims this, and with a mention of White Croatia as located in Krakow in the same source, without OR. And these should not be 19th-century folklorists in the retelling of Zagreb students. The History of Slovakia claims that "Between 930-940, larger groups of Magyars began to migrate to the southern parts of today's Slovakia, but did not cross the line Bratislava, Hlohovec, Nitra, Levice, Lučenec, Rimavská Sobota. The territory affected by this early migration covers about 15% of today's Slovakia"--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mikola22 and Ceha: The page is protected now. The issue with these edits: [2] is now resolved at the DRN. Do you have any objections to these edits: [3]?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No objections have been received. Therefore, I ask El_C to make a return to this version:[4]--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC: Disputed additions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a two-part RfC convened as the result of this discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The RfC concerns the addition of claims regarding various source's views on the location of White Croatia. The first issue concerns the addition of claims attributed to 19th century sources, and the second issue concerns the interpretation of the source Živkovic (2012). A third dispute identified at DRN is contingent on the outcome of the Živkovic dispute, and thus there may be a need for a further RfC once this one is closed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a request for closure at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Part 1: Kolberg and Wojciechowski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following paragraph be added to the article?

Oskar Kolberg (1814-1890) in his work "Krakowskie" clame that area around Krakow was called White Croatia. Tadeusz Wojciechowski(1838–1919) in book "Chrobacya, rozbiór staroŜytności słowiańskich" clame that Croats live in area from upper course of Laba in the west to the Dniester in the east, and from the southern regions of the Krkonoša, Tatra and Carpathian Mountains in the south to the upper course of the Vistula in Lesser Poland to the north.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Part 1 survey

• Yes. Mikola22 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Also yes --Čeha (razgovor) 18:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, see the discussion. Quote from there: "1) Oskar Kolberg's account is a book of 1871: Lud: Krakowskie As far as I see, he simply retells some even more ancient polish authors and does not claim that the Krakow people call themselves “White-Croats” at his time. 2) Tadeusz Wojciechowski' account is a book of 1873 Chrobacya. Rozbiór starożytności słowiańskich Well, it's just hopelessly out of date. I see absolutely no reason to include both of these evidence in the article, WP:AGEMATTERS. In the form in which these outdated sources were given in the article, the modern source (master's thesis) is not used at all. Regarding the quality of this modern source, I note such a moment. It says that "According to the document, on pages 40, 43 and 105, about 100,000 immigrants who came to the United States from the Krakow area declared themselves as White Croats (Białochorwaty)". The cited document is US Senate Reports of the Immigration Commission, Dictionary of races or Peoples, Washington DC, 1911, pages 40, 43 and 105. Now this document is in open access and anyone can be sure that nothing is said on these pages about "100,000 White Croats (Białochorwaty) from the Krakow area". page 40 page 43 page 105 I do not know who launched this fake, but to continue to duplicate it in 2012 is complete ignorance".--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, the source supporting the inclusion of these claims is from an unpublished master's thesis and is therefore not RS. Editors in favor of inclusion were given ample opportunities to make more persuasive arguments in favor of inclusion during the DRN discussion and failed to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• No: in addition to arguments mentioned above, WP:AGEMATTERS. --T*U (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, per arguments by Tu-nor, Rosguill and Nicoljaus. Other senior editors had already rejected all of this archaism. Unfortunately, someone seems to have been using 'one click archiver', or hasn't set up a searchable archive query box to check against. Antiquated, redundant theories simply have no justification for existing on English language Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, per arguments by Tu-nor, Rosquill, and Nicoljaus. The only reason to use the late 19th-century books is to refer to them as having contradictory, discredited theories.Parkwells (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, because arguments above put it well telling AGEMATTERS. JoeZ451 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Part 1 discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Part 2: Živković

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following phrasings should be used for Tibor Živković's placement of White Croatia? The supporting citation is here, section 2.2 from page 111 to 113.

• A Tibor Živković located White Croatia beyond the Hungarians, i.e. in southern Poland
• B Tibor Živković located White Croatia in Bohemia or southern Poland

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Part 2 survey

• A. Mikola22 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• A. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• B. A couple of quotes from the source: "Since this informant provided such an incorrect distance from White Croatia to the Baltic Sea, it must be assumed that this informant had lived to the south of White Croatia (Bohemia?)." "Bohemia or southern Poland, where it must be expected the White Serbs and the White Croats lived." To be honest, I do not really understand the position of the author. It seems he did not care, Bohemia, Southern Poland or somewhere nearby. He mentions these locations as equivalent for the purpose of his work. But, definitely, he did not write anything about the "Croatian state with its seat in Krakow".--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• B, as I see no other way to interpret the quote mentioned above by Nicoljaus Bohemia or southern Poland, where it must be expected the White Serbs and White Croats lived on pg 111 of the source in question. Insisting that we cannot deviate from the quote on page 113, not even based on other contradictory information in the same source, just seems like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• B, per given sources. --T*U (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• B, per T*U, Rusguill and Nicoljaus. Rationale has already been given. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• B, because it closely follows the quote of the source Nicoljaus gives. JoeZ451 (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Part 2 discussion

Tibor Zivkovic gives concrete conclusion when he says that Croats are in southern Poland, beyond Hungarians. Otherwise "Bohemia sometimes refers to the entire Czech territory, including Moravia and Czech Silesia" So it could also be and eastern Czech Republic, in any case Tibor Zivkovic mentione southern Poland so we cannot change his claim. In the chapter on Serbs he says I quote: "then he would have been familiar with those regions to the north/northeast of Moravia and the Slav tribes settled there – especially with the White Croats and the White Serbs". Map of Moravia Mikola22 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The quote then he would have been familiar with those regions to the north/northeast of Moravia and the Slav tribes settled there – especially with the White Croats and the White Serbs would seem to be further evidence that Živković located the White Croats in Bohemia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Northeast of Moravia is south Poland(Serbs are mentioned beyond Hungarians). Živković: "It is obvious that an observer who says that the White Croats lived beyond Bavaria cannot be based in Constantinople, not even in Dalmatia" "If the observer was based in Constantinople, he would have probably noticed that the White Croats lived beyond the Turks (Magyars) as is stated inchapter 31" "The only possible answer is that the information from chapter 30 came from one source and that the other information was the author’s understanding based on his own knowledge of the geography in their own time. Therefore, this would be Constantine’s updating as the result of the inquiry he had made about this issue." "White Croats, in section 2.5 it was retold in reverse that the Croats whostayed in their ancient homeland are now called the White Croats. This example is additional evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the White Croats were part of Constantine’s primary source on the Croats..... This is actual data from Constantin, "beyond Hungarians" it means southern Poland. Mikola22 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The "analysis" by Mikola22 is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Živković mentions northeast Moravia, south Poland and Bohemia but in the same book( in Serbian language) on page 67 he mentions Czech Republic or south Poland. Bohemia is not mentioned in this book in Serbian language. Croats were mentioned twice in the source(De Administrando Imperio), once behind Bavaria and once behind Hungary and about that Živković talks, and claim that Porphyrogenit actually wrote part that mentione Croats beyond Hungarians and this is Porphyrogenit personal view at that time while the section that mentions Croats behind Bavaria is from an Italian source and some other time. Every historian who writes about De Administrando Imperio must mention Czech Republic or southern Poland (that area) but this claim of Živkovic i.e. that this is personal opinion of Porphyrogenit it means that this source(book of Živković) is different from others(different view of historian). That why he says that Porphyrogenit locates Croats in southern Poland and adds two additional sources as evidence. Mikola22 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, I shouldn't need to tell you that the Serbian word Чешка/Češka is used to refer to both historical Bohemia and modern Czechia (per shWiki and srWiki). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know, but he concretely mentione Czech Republic. "After the Migration Period, Bohemia was partially repopulated around the 6th century, and eventually Slavic tribes arrived from the east, and their language began to replace the older Germanic, Celtic and Sarmatian ones. The first wave came from the southeast and east, when the Germanic Lombards left Bohemia (c. 568 AD). Soon after, from the 630s to 660s, the territory was taken by Samo's tribal confederation." Slavs coming to Czech area during 7th century but supposedly Croats coming from there in the 7th century. The Slavs had not yet arrived to Czech Republic but supposedly from there Croats migrated in large numbers to Dalmatia (at that time Slavs caming to Istria and Dalmatia but they had not yet arrived to Czech Republic)? Mikola22 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Another great example of WP:SYNTH. At the same time, Mikola did not mention that the above quote is from another source.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC) upd: Sorry, it seem he just copied it from Bohemia article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing for sense in English

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

Snyder is a respected author, but his specialization is far from the times of Early Slavs. We have English-language authors like Fine, Dzino, Curta.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Medieval Croatian tribes in the 10th century.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of intro map.

@Miki Filigranski: I don’t know why but an IP deleted the long standing map but is this map not good? I figured it gives a good general idea of both groups and has been a long standing map. Your thoughts? I know other maps go in more detail with alternative theories. This one seem like a good intro starter. I see when it was returned you reverted it supporting the IP address deletion??? Cheers, OyMosby (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it is an extreme exaggeration for both Croats and Serbs. Dvornik had his share of criticism. At best it can be placed in the Gallery section and attributed to Dvornik but first, need to check the supposed books it was taken from. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see. I would like to work with you on it. And agreed out of scope on the White Croats article. Still the IP should have explained that. It seemed bad is all. We should have some form of map in the intro I think. You agree? I’ll have a look at your mentioned sources. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, we shouldn't use any map in the intro because there's no unanimous consensus on the location, whether even existed as a polity, and there exist various maps. I found it, but don't know whether it's in original form, on pg. 41 of R. Novaković's book Ime Srbi kroz vreme i prostor. It's a more or less faithful representation of the map on Wikimedia. I will move it to the gallery.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we use the one you transcribed from that Russian Historian’s map? Would seem very fitting, It just seems weird to not have at least a map and you mentioned the map you transcribed has consensus and agreed on? Thanks for explaining. OyMosby (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Which map exactly do you mean? The one which is in the article or previous one for which the delete request hasn't closed yet?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The first one which you made from the Russian source one which is in the article. The ladder one would be fine too but I believe you said it didn’t have good sources or something? That’s why you are deleting it? Also for the gallery being it’s the simplest map I had put it in the first row. Some of these maps seem unrelated not showing where they were?OyMosby (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

According to lead section manual of style (MOS:LEADELEMENTS) the "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. Image captions are part of the article text". Dvornik's image isn't well-produced, the map of Europe it uses is not well made either, and as such the polities are geographically located too close to the Baltic Sea. I wouldn't consider my map exactly relevant because is rather showing the location of the tribe and not of the polity, but that's not directly contradicting each other. I will place it in the intro. The previous map has good sources, but the deletion process which isn't closed yet wasn't requested by me. Dvornik's map should be last in the gallery because the order is chronological and all maps are related because are showing the assumed location of White Croats or White Croatia. Doesn't seem any of them has any preference over the other.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No you misunderstood. I get that Dvornik’s map is poor. I was saying the map you transcribed with the different routes seemed like a good one to move to the intro. As for the gallery it seemed some weren’t related or depicting anything related to White Croatia or Croats. Perhaps I misread some of them. As for order, isn’t Dvornik’s the oldest therefore first chronologicaly? Even if a map is made in 2020, if it is depicting locations or a map during 500 AD, its is older chronology. I think all the maps should be check to see what era in time they are depicting. You said none has preference over the other so I think it should be fine? I’m confused. OyMosby (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah! I see now the maps were hard to read in the different languages but you are right. Croatia is mentioned in each one. Is cartography a hobby or a study for you? You seem very well attuned to this sort of stuff? I learned a lot from your edits and talks. OyMosby (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the map's order is chronological according to the year they were published. Dvornik's map doesn't make sense because White Croatia and Great Croatia aren't the same. He's confusing the Great Croatia which supposedly existed before White Croatia and White Serbia. The map is horribly contradicting.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with you that his seems weakest. That we agree on. And ok I see you wish to list them by publishing date. Got it. Figured chronological order of various states of existence. Also never heard of the Great Croatia theory before. Is this him implying there was a country that existed before White Croatia?