Talk:White Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Current theory about the Serbs/Sorbs ethnogenesis

It is the current fact supported theory upon historical, oral, archeological facts present at time.

Etymology of the term Serb/Srb: Probably meant of the same kin or the descendants of the same kin, as in Pasierb/Paserb (ukr./pol. stepson), bearing the meaning of the adopted descendant Pa - serb, as well as priserbiti meaning to join or sit down next to. It described those people sharing the common or the same origin or language. This is also congruent with the traditional way the term is used and understood among the Serbs.

пасерб - род. п. -а "пасынок", пасербка, пасербица "падчерица", укр. пасерб, блр. пасерб, польск. раsiеrb – то же. Во всяком случае, из ра- и *sьrbъ; ср. сербохорв. срб "серб", в.-луж. serb "лужичанин, лужицкий серб", ср.-лат. Surbi (см. серб). Ср. укр. присербитися "присоседиться"; см. Мi. ЕW 292; Миккола, Ursl. Gr. I, 8. Попытки сблизить, далее, *ра-sьrbъ с *sebrъ "свободный земледелец" (см. себер) неубедительны, вопреки Сольмсену (KZ 37, 592 и сл.; Преобр. II, 20, 276 и сл.; ср. Педерсен, KZ 38, 421). Сомнительно также объяснение слова *раsьrbъ как "тот, кто вскормлен не тем же самым молоком" и сближение с польск. sarbac "сосать, хлебать" (Брюкнер 398).

The King of White Serbia, 6th century, (also known as Bojka, Boika, Boii), was succeeded by two sons, one of them was the The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez), the other according to the historical timeline, the ruler of the Serbs, Knez Dervan. Not more is known about him.

From the information we have today, it seems the region described as White 'unbaptized' Serbia or Boika in the Byzantine Chronicles (De Administrando Imperio chapter 32, Constantine VII, 950 AD), lying east of the Franks (Germany), west of the White Croats (the inland regions of Silesia and Lesser Poland, according to Edward Gibbon), north of the Turks (Magyars of Hungary), corresponds with the modern regions of north Bohemia, Lusatia and south-western Poland.

Facts that support this theory are, the common linguistical origin of the West Slav (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and the South Slav (Serb and Croat) language, that differ from the Bulgarian language which also belongs to the Slavic group, the toponyms found in the region, south Bohemia (Srbsko, Srbská Kamenice etc. as well as the toponyms containing Chorvat, in the adjacent regions). Lusatian Wends still bearing the name Serbs. The region of Bohemia was known as Boii to the Romans, as well as Byzantines, after the celtic Boii tribe settling the region before Slavs. Byzantines often described people by the region (Tribalians, Thracians, Illyrians) they inhabited, eventhough the name-giving tribes were long extinct, rather than by the native names of the tribes they were carrying. The region called Boiheim by the western Rome (German suffix -heim) and Boika by the eastern Rome (Slavic suffix -ka) corresponds to the current region of Bohemia.

The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez) is described in the chronicles as being a successor alongside an unnamed brother (probably Knez Dervan) to a Serb king and having led part of the Serbs from White Serbia during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641 AD). On their way south they vanquished the Avars, before eventually settling in Servia (The place still bears its name), the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, a province which Heraclius granted them with the task to protect Byzantium from future threats, such as Avars.

The Serbs left the province and moved northwards, until they came to Belgrade where the strategos of the theme gave them the areas of Rascia, Bosnia, Trebounia, Zachlumi, Pagania, Neretvia and Duklja (Byzantine Sclaviniae or Slavdoms) after they swore allegiance to the Emperor. The date of his death is unknown, however it is attested before the arrival of the turkic Proto-Bulgars in the Balkans (681).

Serbs and Sorbs (south and north Serbs), were ~1400 years ago the same Polabian Slavic tribe, afterwards it came to a split, the northern Serbs that stayed (now known as Sorbs or Wends) were largely assimilated by greater Slavic tribes (Poles, Czechs) as well as non-Slavic nations (Germans) enormly influencing their language and culture by the Polish and the German one. The southern Serbs on the other hand, conquered and assimilated lesser Slavic tribes, as well as the romanised Illyrian and Thracian population of the Roman empire in southeastern Europe, into their own Slavic tribe, thus laying the foundation for the Serbian state.

This is the current theory upon academic proof present at time, everything else is still seen as romantic mythomany. Genes cannot be seen as academic proof since only after 100 years of living among a different genetical cluster, genes change, after 1400 years as well and even more, they still share the same genetical markers though, R1a and I2a2a, but in different percentage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.24.131 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

No this state didnt exist because serbs are believed to be from Bulgarians orgin.That believe comes only from bulgarians. --144.138.150.31 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and humans came from the planet Mars, right? PANONIAN (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All those phanatic serbian-nationalists, who write their trash on wikipedia, like the example above about 'White or Great Serbia', should be banned and their trash erased. To the angry serbian above: -Yes, there were WHITE CROATIA and now you have BELGRADE PASALUK with Republic of Kosovo. Ha, ha, it's killing you, but that's what the history has proved. Cheers. 78.0.103.55 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Serbs ever fought with the Avars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.64.240 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I remind all users some fundamental rules of wikipedia. In order to make the encyclopedia better, please:

• remember this is NOT a forum of discussion. The talk page of this article should not be the battleground of local serbian-croatian discussions among users. Here we discuss how to improve the article, leave your political opinions out.
• do NOT make personal attacks
• bring citations to your opinions, because this is the only way they can be verified.
• sign the contributions in talk page

--Desyman44 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment* Wikipedia should be place of respect my suggestion is to remove disrespectful comments, I would like that someone explains why this kind of discussion was not deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.202.230 (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Apsol.

Please sign your contributions and explain the reason of your POV template. Otherwise there is no way to solve the controversy and the template could be removed.--Desyman44 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Serb settlement in Balkans

Current picture is misleading since it only represents Serbian settlements in Balkan Peninsula in 7th, while there were others in the south of Pannonian Basin (today's Vojvodina) that even predate those in the south. The regions depicted in the current picture are those mentioned in De Administrado Imperio + Dioclea, while according to archaeological findings, Serbian settlements on the left bank of Sava-Danube date to late 6th century. I suggest this picture be used instead because it is more accurate and encompasses the mentioned Serbian settlements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Migration_of_Serbs2.png Marechiel (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

White Serbs

Article was DELETED with only three affirmatives and one negative within the space of a week! 1st to 9th February was the voting period, I would have thought you needed more than eight days or just three affirmatives to delete an article. There is a rescued version from Wikipedia, so luckily we can restore it if the mod can be brought to his senses. Help out guys, these two articles are obviously strongly linked and to delete one is to delete the other... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps

That map has nothing to do with DA. Please remove it. Čeha (razgovor) 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Location – Lusatia

The people today named Sorbs, are the descendants of the Milzenians and the Lusizians. The historical Sorbs lived between the Saale and the Elbe (resp. Mulde) and were mixed with and assimilated by the german settlers. 109.193.159.174 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

total bulshit

all slavs are coming from the region between Volga and Don...Galicia is an old Lithuanian land which name literary even means Ukraine in Lithuanian language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.156 (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

all slavs have predominantly paleobalkan genes I2a (macedonian, illyrian, thracian), paleoanatolian J2 (phrygian, lydian, luwian, lycian), and hindi R1a. the first mention of slavs is roman sclavinii encompassing macedonia, epirus and thrace. called macedonian slavs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.183.160 (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Schafarik and other sources/deletion of article

The article says: According to Schafarik[10] the White Serbs were a Polabian Slav[11] tribe that lived in Central Europe, adjacent to White Croatia.. When we follow the link we find an old book in which an author called Schafarik is quoted. The secondary source is not mentioned as such, a thourough and utter failure in science, and we do not know anything about this author Schafarik.

If the authors of the article as is had had any relevant knowledge, they have would have found recent sources. Even Wikipedia is full of pointers. Scientific work looks different. Then, they give us links to webpages about books which somewhow support their worldview. The pages of the quotes are missing, verbatim quotes are missing, too, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. The problem is that they do not quote current scientific sources. And that is for good reasons, because there are not any. Smoke and mirrors.

I will suggest this article for deletion, too. -- Zz (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is one of the pillars of History of Serbia set, and its planed to be completely rewritten. Please, leave it as it is, or fix some problematic stuff, but sustain from AfD for some time, until its fixed. By the way, De Administrando Imperio quotation is relevant for this article notability. Thank you for your comment, anyway. Article will be fixed. Why did you removed sourced data regarding Chronicle of Fredegar? --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It will be rewritten, don't jump to conclusions Zickzack.--Zoupan 06:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but please keep in mind that there is an article Origin of the Serbs with major overlap already - the two might me be made into one. And quote the current scientific discourse. -- Zz (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorbs were NOT Serbs

Sorbs were not Serbs. This is evident already from their genetic patrimonial haplogroups... Bellow 13% of Serbian males carry "Slavic" haplogroups R1a and R1a1a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.237.120 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no claim that "Sorbs were Serbs". There are theories that the proto-Serbs and proto-Sorbs were related, their ethnonyms and early history pointing to this.--Zoupan 19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to disprove the statement of IP 109... "Y-DNA results of Serbs show that haplogroups I2a and R1a (Slavic) together stand for the majority of the makeup, with more than 53 percent."same procentage as most other Slavic nations This information is very easy to find.

Please do not enter into such speculations like Slavic genes, which in fact are not existing.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

That is actually even better explanation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.202.230 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you seem to be sadly lacking in the understanding of empirical sciences. What on earth does "Slavic genes not existing" mean?. I think what you're trying to say that according to your WP:PPOV opinion, Slavic genes don't exit. Honestly, just stop using Wikipedia article talk pages to push your WP:SOAP, or I'll take your trash to the WP:AN/I. or straight to the WP:A/R. Thank you for sticking to the subject and avoiding misusing Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:,

I am really suprised of your (over)reaction, here must be a huge musunderstanding. You ask from me a question, and after you share your negative preconceptions about me, don't you think it is to harsh? Let's see what is in our encyclopedia:

Even though R1a occurs as a Y-chromosome haplogroup among various languages such as Slavic and Indo-Iranian, the question of the origins of R1a1a is relevant to the ongoing debate concerning the urheimat of the Proto-Indo-European people, and may also be relevant to the origins of the Indus Valley Civilization. R1a shows a strong correlation with Indo-European languages of Southern and Western Asia and Central and Eastern Europe...

So if the IP's are arguing about something Slavic, but unprofessionaly they try to mix the terms about language, people or at least samples taken from a group, in an indefinitve way and forget that genetic markers have bare connection to spoken languages as these are only estimations, given the fact such evidence does not exist that a gene would ultimatley specific for one nation/ethnic group or language, excuse me...(and yes, I understand sciences, important part of my profession, where huge precisity is a basic). Wish you a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I do apologise for coming across so harshly, but it strikes me that these obscure topics are overly used for expressing personal opinions. I know you're a hard worker, but it is up to the the hard workers to set good examples by adding relevant and meaningful WP:RS rather than reprimands. I'm trying to find some time and energy to improve this area (so badly understood or appreciated badly by the Anglophone world), but there is quality material out there, and we are not constrained by the Anglophone world's lack of knowledge. This is where writing in to WP:PNT project would be invaluable. I'm crossing my fingers that you can find some new collaborators to expand our articles. DNA in articles has really suffered due to autodidacts making up their own sources created by any man and his dog. I'm looking forwards to intelligent development of content which I know you're capable of! Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:,

I usually never add genetic material to articles especially because of those uncertainties and speculations on the subject which ends all the time to claim/corrupt peoples/nations heritage/culture/ancestry and in the end any party try to interpret and draw conclusions in order to advance of it's preferred favorite (just one example of the many, they are almost fighting in the Proto-Indo-European homeland article and talk recently if the hyphothetic pre-proto-IE homeland could have been in Iran vs. Kurgan, just see an older entry ([1]), what nonsensical speculations are made with grading the subject back in time) E.g. WP:MEDRS limitated this anymans dog's attitude by prohibiting publish other than really high level and multiple grade confirmed studies, but recently I don't see much change. As I recall, @Ermenrich: handled this issues well and removed any material that would not meet reqiurements. I am usually better a watchdog type on this, checking the already existing additions and their conclusions, so I may recommend him.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, thanks for passing on that information. Perhaps Ermenrich would be so kind to take a look at Genetic studies on Bulgarians. What started as a minor, but WP:OFFTOPIC, insertion into the Bulgarians article shot off into a major 'study' into their genetics. Ethnicity and genetics have not been one and the same for many centuries. Defining the nature of a people by archaic standards is exactly that. We have separate languages and cultural predispositions, but confusing such definitions with broader cultures is a canard which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I can try to take a look at some point, Iryna Harpy and KIENGIR, though I can't claim any expertise on genetics. I honestly think it's usually better not to include them given the quality and changing nature of the sources, but that's something of a losing battle on Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be deeply appreciate, Ermenrich. I have my fingers in so many fish pies (if you get my black humour here), I'm bogged down (sorry, another bad pun here) in who'd swear black is white, while the rest of it gets overlook by the admin (apologies to them because someone have to fall for fallacy for fact, particularly difficult for when quotations are taken from languages not spoken as native by the admin involved. We speak of languages native to those criticising the text in dispute). How can any of us write per AGF when we must take it for granted that the other party doesn't know a word of the relevant, even enough English if the first place to reliably translate the language. I hope you both of you KIENGIR and Ermenrich come up with the correct interpretation ASAP. Every time one believes that Wikipedia has come up with the correct version, I must remain ready to accept it, or check into personal versions relentlessly. It's a long and weary road, end even expert opinions have to be parsed for bias. Best of luck to both of you. I there's anything concrete I can do, I'll find the time to do it. Whew! Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Iryna Harpy and KIENGIR, since recently edited articles on genetics as well on White Croats and White Serbs, extensively going through published and preprint scientific papers on Croats, Serbs, Sorbs, and other Slavic populations, I confirm no study can be found at the present time which discusses the relationship between contemporary Serbian results with 1) the medieval White Serbs / Sorbs 2) the Serbian / Sorbian ancient homeland 3) medieval route of migration to the Balkans. There's only one study which compared the contemporary autosomal DNA results of the Sorbs and Serbs, but the results should be rather included in the article Genetic studies on Serbs due to scope. To be noted, autosomal DNA has nothing to do with Y-DNA haplogroups mentioned above. The scientific papers until now only discussed the general relationship of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA with Slavic populations, and the Slavic ancient homeland from which migrated to the Balkans and other parts of Europe. Thus, for now, saying anything about genetics in this article is WP:SYNTH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski: I know that a further furore will go on unless all editors will agree to work from writing from WP:AGF. It's a long haul, and we can't expect any money from countries who still openly hate each other, but Wikipedia needs to rise above the bazaar schreiking, as difficult as it is. I am not a believer, but I have cancer, am in horrible pain Mantle cell lymphoma. I have not shifted my position except for a handful of Wikipedia's articles, and I will come over all religious for this exercise if you answer this prayer. You will have to take some faith in my husband, who is a true non-believer - and a Greek - and has never declared any feelings towards all humans other than wish them compassion I know it to be true. In Sri Lanka, he marched with the steps of another protest exposing the government lying had in glove with their own troops who who shot down all Tamils would sooner die than that betray someone. I've certainly done this, and I know he is the same. His heart is as strong as mine. I've predicted that that I will stay alive to find out the outcomes. If I can't hold up, I go back irreligion. Yet, now I admit I was their puppet. If I have true courage, would have died on my feet.

Back to point, go with your genuinely compassionate heart. It won't happen over night, but an honest RFC will happen. There will be be ballyhoo galore: be in the end but the truth with be there. How do you find it? With caution and equal care as they do. It's a talent... but the are talented writer is the world of politics. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: We will do our best, don't worry. You will be our guidance and inspiration. Take your time and rest, you deserved it after all the years of contribution to Wikipedia. Wish you all the best!--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

White Serbia does not exist

Quote: "The area adjacent to White Serbia was known as White Croatia, where the Croats trace their origin. White Serbia and its ethnic designates,"

There is no single written historical document that talks about White Serbia and at Wikipedia we have an article about White Serbia. Most of the sources are not reliable (WP:RS), or just don't talk about White Serbia - indicating WP:OR(!). For this reasons article is manipulation and false and as such is not able be a part of Wikipedia.

93.138.111.104 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)croatoss93.138.111.104 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[Edit] Striking WP:SOAP entered by WP:SOCK

The same argumentation can be made for White Croatia, please restrain yourself from nationalistic opinions, the sources are mentioned in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.202.230 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)