Talk:White Croats

Untitled

I've found [1] and i'm wondering if anyone could verify the source: US Senate-Reports on the Immigration commission, Dictionary of races or peoples, Washington DC, 1911, p. 40, 43, 105.

Czech warriors... :)

"In 995 A.D. Czech warriors from Bohemia and Moravia invaded the White Croat state and destroyed their capital at Libice." This is a funny sentence. I am not a historian, but I attended a Czech high school, so let me explain this a little. In that times, in Bohemia there were several groups. Let's call them tribes. Perhaps the most powerful of them were the Czechs (settled in central Bohemia) and the White Croats (Charváti in the Czech language, settled in east bohemia). 1) the White Croat state and capital? - that wasn't a state, it was rather a region of rule and influence 2) ...from Moravia? I think that the rule of the Czechs wasn't that powerful over Moravia. This action was only between the Czechs (and their allied or conquered neighbours) and the Charváts (White Croats). 3) I think the article is a mess as a whole article. I'm sorry but I'm not going to edit it because I don't know much about it, it's too complicated. I just wanted to give you some information. 4)I wrote only about White Croats in east bohemia, I don't know anything about them in Poland area. 85.70.117.103 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish Byelo-Harvats

In the 1930's and '40s, an estimated 100,000 "White Croatians" or known as Byelo-Harvats and somewhat 50,000 "White Sorbians" or Lusitic Serbians lived in present-day Poland, the majority around the Krakow region. The peoples were descendants of a small influx of transplanted Serbo-Croatians whom arrived in the 16th to late 18th centuries, when eastern Silesia and southern Slovincia was under Austrian rule (the Austro-Hungarian Empire). But then came the Nazis German invasion of Poland in 1939, followed by the Soviet invasion of Nazi-occupied Poland in May 1945 and finally, the Communist takeover of the Polish government in 1947 has forcibly pressured the entire White Croat/Serbian population out of the Krakow region of Poland. Almost all the Byelo-Harvats and Lusitic Serbians emigrated to the United States, though Polish-Canadian and Croatian-Canadian organizations mentioned Canada was another major destination for them, and the rest in other neutral host nations like Sweden, Spain and Argentina. To make matters complicated is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under communism as well wasn't the land of choice for ethnic Croats or Serbs from Poland. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Soběslav killed "by Polish forces"?

The article reads that "The last ruler, Soběslav (d. 1004), was killed near Prague by Polish forces in 1004 A.D". I am not really sure of that, since Soběslav and his dynasty (Slavnik's dynasty)were in friendly terms with Poland at that time. He sought refuge in Poland after the Slavnik's dynasty was massacred by the Přemyslids in Prague. As far as I know, Soběslav and Boleslaw the Brave, the Polish king, tried to conquer Praque back from Přemyslids, so Soběslav was apparently killed by the Czechs... I am not however an expert in that field, so I do not try to change the article itself. Could someone check that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilia007 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

About article discussion

US Senate reports can be verified throughout official US Senate archive using documents description and numbers of census. About White Croatian rule in todays Czech republic,as bishop of Prague was St.Wojtech, son of White Croatian prince Sobeslav Slavnik,search through Prague Archdiocese for borders of bishopric Prague of 10th century.They were positioned as Constantin Porphyrogenitus described that borders of (White)Croatia were in 10th century. About 100,000 White Croats from Krakow region is so much spoken so I would like you all, before you post any questions and doubts to consult sources and chronicles as Chronicles of Bruno of Querfurt, Constantin Porphyrogenitus, King Alfred the Great of England, Zachariah the Rhetor, Nordic Hervarsaga, Nestor's Chronicle, Arab Geographers Ibn Rusta, Kardizi, Al-Masudi... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus dextera (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

About article discussion

US Senate reports can be verified throughout official US Senate archive using documents description and numbers of census. About White Croatian rule in todays Czech republic,as bishop of Prague was St.Wojtech, son of White Croatian prince Sobeslav Slavnik,search through Prague Archdiocese for borders of bishopric Prague of 10th century.They were positioned as Constantin Porphyrogenitus described that borders of (White)Croatia were in 10th century. About 100,000 White Croats from Krakow region is so much spoken so I would like you all, before you post any questions and doubts to consult sources and chronicles as Chronicles of Bruno of Querfurt, Constantin Porphyrogenitus, King Alfred the Great of England, Zachariah the Rhetor, Nordic Hervarsaga, Nestor's Chronicle, Arab Geographers Ibn Rusta, Kardizi, Al-Masudi...Deus dextera (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bielo-Chorvats

^ U.S. Senate, Reports on the Immigration Commission: Dictionary of races or peoples, Washington D.C., 1911, pp. 40, 43, 105.

This reference doesn't support the claim from the article:

"It is interesting to add that according to some American documents from the beginning of 20th century there were about 100,000 immigrants to the US born around Krakow who declared themselves to be Bielo-Chorvats, i.e. White Croats by nationality.[4]"

page 40 page 43 page 105

It only mentions Bielochrovat as a subdivision of the Poles:

"CRAKUS, KRAKOWIAK, or BIELOCHROVAT. Names applied to a subdivision of the Poles"

"...Other names applying to subdivisions of the Poles are the Bielochrovats (the same as the Krakuses or Cracovinians), the Kuyevs, the Kuprikes, the Lublinians, and the Sandomirians..."

There is no mention of 100,000 Bielo-Chorvats on those pages. And I haven't noticed such claim in the rest of report.

178.223.65.181 (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Mr. Pink

I confirm. There is no such statement on these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Nicoljaus (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the cited pages are 22 40, 43, 88 and 105. Anyone can check and make sure that nothing is said about immigrants there. How can they support the statement, that "Polish immigrants to the United States born in around Kraków reportedly declared themselves as Bielochrovat (i.e. White Croat)"? The whole source is not the data of Immigration Commission, but the "Dictionary of races or peoples" composed by Daniel Folkmar on the base of the literature of his time, which is completely outdated now.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The source was composed on the request of the Immigration Commission and was based on immigrant censuses as well on other sources. Please provide and cite secondary sources with the same claim as yours, otherwise, you're making an WP:OR deduction. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You can look at the sources of the "Dictionary" on pages 8-12. On page 8 there are also real data from the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization [2]. There are no Bielo-Chorvats, White Croats or Crakowiaks, only Poles. So, can you support the statement "Polish immigrants to the United States born in around Kraków reportedly declared themselves as Bielochrovat (i.e. White Croat)" by the real pages from this source?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources say so. If anything, we could differently paraphrase the sentence, however, that would be OR. Please provide and cite secondary sources, I'm not asking you again nor will continue the discussion until you have done that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What are these "secondary sources"? Is that exactly what they says? Apparently, if they refer to these pages, claiming that it says about "Polish immigrants declared themselves...", then these are bad, outdated sources - now we can check the original document and make sure that there is no such thing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see you added sources [3]. I looked at the book of Novaković [4] - it's just a retelling of the book from 1963, by Dominik Mandić. He has an interesting biography: "Mandić controlled San Girolamo ratline's finances. He arranged the laundering of Ustasha money likely via the Franciscans' Vatican Bank accounts to which he had access and placed the Franciscan printing presses at the disposal of the Ustasha to print false identity information for war criminals to escape from justice after the Holocaust using ratline escapes.". I cannot say that this is a good, neutral source, and it is again over 50 years old (but not as old as Donation of Constantine). I cannot check another source yet.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the second source is written by Milorad Nikčević, who is known as Književni istoričar, teoretičar i književnik (historian of Literature, theorist and writer) [5]. It seems that this topic is simply outside of his professional scientific activities.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sarmatian

"Some historians[who?] present opinions, that ancient Croats were of Scytho-Sarmatian origin." i.a. ??? Alemko Gluhak, O. N. Trubačeva, Max Vasmer ??? etc 134.3.84.160 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

History as fairy tales

 In the 7th century A.D., seven tribes led by 5 brothers (Kluk, Lobel, Muhlo, Kosjenic and Hrvat) and 2 sisters (Buga and   Tuga) migrated ...

This is clearly a myth, devised by Constantine Porphyrogenetos (De Administrando Imperii), which by the way is missing in the references. It is like writing "In 753 B.C. brothers Romulus and Remus, raised by a she-wolf, founded Rome."

 In the late 10th century, one of the White Croats states, the duchy of Libice, was ruled by Slavnik's dynasty

Another very questionable statement, prove me wrong, but I don't think there is evidence for this in the sources. That Libice was owned by the "Charvat" tribe is conjecture of some historians, not mainstream opinion. I've just read the article "White Croatia" and although it does not cite sources, it is much more informative. Someone with the appropriate rights should consider redirecting "White Croats" to "White Croatia" and perhaps adding the paragraph about later migrations to Poland and subsequently the US.88.83.176.230 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition?

The following passage was recently removed from the article. I'm not sure if any of it is useable.

Genetic and migration of White Croats

Croats coming from the area of the southern Poland and western Ukraine to the Balkans. This fact is proven with research of Kenneth Nordtvedt and his movement of main Croatian haplotype I2a1b2a1a S17250 through history

It is also interesting that one type of R1a Z280 CTS3402 haplotype in Croats has a high frequency in the southern Poland, but it is still unclear movement of the same through history

Russian geneticist I. Rozhansky reply on question and says following. 2013/10/18.

"And Croats, Slovenes, and as, most likely, the Serbs dominated by several branches that have a common label Sneap CTS3402. Geography of these branches is such that it is possible to trace his way from the Carpathian Mountains to the Adriatic. The same can be said about "Dinarides" branch subclades I2a1b. Apparently the White Croats and Croats from the Carpathians to the Adriatic are really related people. About Lusatian Sorbs and Danubian Serbs so can not say - they are too different lineage"

Administrator of I2a haplogroup which includes Croatian I2a1b2a1a S17250 says the following.

"So far, most or all of those who are negative for S17250 have patrilineage originating near the Carpathians, particularly southeastern Poland and extreme western Ukraine. That pattern may change with more sampling, of course"

This means that negative for I2a1b2a1a S17250 are older mutations from Southeast Poland and ancestors of White Croats in Poland and Croats in Croatia.

According to official data mutation S17250 is old (age: 1728 ybp) and this mutation and its younger subbranch exists in the population of Belarus, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatian, Macedonia, Russia, Polish, Ukrainian, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and they are all from a common ancestor which means that migration of White Croats went in all directions and claim of Porphyrogenetus that Croats settled Illyria, Dalmatia and Pannonia and that they are coming from Great Croatia now gets and genetic confirmation

From the Croats who came to Dalmatia, one part separated, and occupied Illyria (Illurikon) and Pannonia (Pannonian).De Administrando Imperio.

Public map of a person with I2a haplotypes in Europe proves that all people in the Balkans with tipes of I2a haplotype or vast majority have mutations (I-CTS10228, S17250) which is formed in southeastern Poland

Dr. Orest Korčinski, Ukrainean archaelogist, investigator of White Croatian site of Stiljsko near Lviv in Ukraine said that in south western Ukraine there are more than 50 settlements of White Croats

In Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland there are so many place names that are identical or nearly identical to today's place names in parts of Croatia as Međimurje, Zagorje, Slavonia, Lika, Dalmatia,and Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere,it would be required more than 17 pages of the book that get them all made.

If anyone has some knowledge on the subject, please discuss...... --Marek.69 ^talk 14:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics confirms migration of White Croats from South Poland to Croatia and there are evidence..what's the problem? It's the genetics of White Croats and should be part of this article. As for fact that White Croats go from one center and settling today's population of many Slavic countries can not be obstacles to announced this when it is undeniable.93.136.46.75 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)croatoss93.136.46.75 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

See Origin hypotheses of the Croats#Genetics and anthropology. There is cited "He connects it with Slavic invasion of the Balkan, from the area north-east of the Carpathians since 500 CE,[82] locating the start of the I2a1b1 lineage around the middle course of the Vistula river". We can discuss, but please don't revert the information without further review. That would be enough for now. However, problem with the edit is that most of the sources are not reliable (WP:RS), or just don't talk about White Croats - indicating WP:OR(!). Also the edit was written with poor manual of style (WP:MOS). There were one or two sources which mentioned them, and possibly are loosely reliable, but are not in Latinic letters, and hard to read. They need better review which will do tomorrow. Again, note that there's no DNA evidence to connect specific Y haplogroup to the White Croats (even there's no research on the 7-8th century Croats bodies in the territory of present-day Croatia), and the edit is pure scholars speculation based on DNA studies done on modern-day Croatian or Polish nations, who within 1500 years had many migrations. Currently think that there's no need for the information to be included in the article.--Crovata (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

S17250 mutation have majority Croats and people from Balkans with I2a haplotype..Administrator I2a haplogrup..Even though there are not so many results for the new SNPs for people from Croatia and Serbia, many of these people belong to the "Dinaric-South" group as defined by STRs and I think most of "Dinaric-South" will belong to what our project calls the I-Z16983/A356 group.. Officially genealogical tree for I2a I2a1b2a1a S17250/YP204

I2a1b2a1a S17250 is dad...(White Croat)I-S17250 (age: 1728 ybp)

This are sons and descendants. I2a1b2a1a1 Z16971 I2a1b2a1a1~ BY128 I2a1b2a1a1a~A815 I2a1b2a1a2 Y4882 I2a1b2a1a2a~ A811 I2a1b2a1a3 A356/Z16983

Who are the other brothers, sons of White Croat throughout Europe? This is logical, they are all White Croatian origin but they are now Ukrainians, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croatians etc. Croats came to Balkans from White Croatia and they are only nation on the Balkans whom genetics confirms history records of arrival to Balkans. I note that people of Croatia and Balkans, all with I2a types have younger White Croatian mutations. In Poland there are older mutations, I note that Poland, Ukraine or Slovakia are not mention in the time of arrival Croats to Balkan at least not in the southern Poland and western Ukraine, this excludes possibility that it refers to someone else and not White Croats.93.136.26.42 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)croatoss93.136.26.42 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Big mystification?

I think the large part of the article is a big mystification. I start with Lead: "White Croats <...> were a group of Slavic tribes who lived among other West and East Slavic tribes in the area of Bohemia, Lesser Poland, Galicia (north of Carpathian Mountains) and modern-day Western Ukraine." Three solid links. We look at them. In the book of Orest nothing is said about the wide spreading of the “White Croats”. He talks about the Eastern Slavic tribe of the Croats, which they called the “White Croats” by mistake. Now this mistake is recognized even by Ukrainian historians. Further the book of Magochi - he speaks about exactly the same East Slavic tribe in the near-Carpathian region, repeating the same old mistake. Finally, the third source, the book Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat in general denies the existence of the “White Croatia” in the east or in the north, considering the information too doubtful ("it stood on patchy and disputable sources"). All this must be deleted and rewritten.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply false argumentation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Show how the indicated thesis is disclosed in the indicated sources. Or your statement is simply false.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't need, and especially I will not to you who are intentionally WP:NOTLISTENING, moving your misunderstanding of the whole point about title naming of the article from the Talk:Rusyns here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I remember that Miki was very enthusiastic about the Great Russian Encyclopedia, calling it "reputable and reliable source" (diff). But there is a special article “Eastern Slavic Croats” , in which this Eastern Slavic Croats are clearly separated from the “white Croats”: "According to medieval written sources and toponymy, the Croats are localized <1>in the north-west of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Croats); <2> on parts of the land in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers (white Croats, apparently, in the sense of "western"); <3> in the northeast of the Carpathian region (partly in Transcarpathia)." Thus, this wiki-article obviously mixes 3 different topics: 1) The origin and history of the Early Medieval Croats. 2) Actually "White Croats" 3) East Slavic (Carpathian) Croats. This situation must be fixed. Perhaps we need a separate article like Carpathian Croats, where to transfer the necessary part of the material.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

We are not separating the article, neither are 3 different topics. The article deals with Croatian tribes which is one and the same topic, like it is done in the majority of RS. The article has a long WP:SILENCE consensus, and it is not advisable to suddenly change its structure without a discussion or else. Actually, it is difficult to do it because the information is related to one and the same topic, which is better to have in one place rather than in separate articles which separation is not common in the scholarship. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article deals with Croatian tribes which is one and the same topic You need to decide what is the topic of the article. If it is just about "Croatian tribes", it must be renamed, because "White Croats" are not any "Croatian tribes" at all. And even if you rename it, you will have to change the structure, telling separately about the Eastern Slavic Croats, because many sources speak about them, and not about any "Croatian tribes". Now you have returned to the article cases of direct fraud. Stop it, I'm serious. I have not yet figured out who created this falsifications, but your super-involvement looks suspicious.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I already explained to you how are the Wikipedian articles titled and what's the scope of each article. It is about the usage, not correctness. The name of "White Croats" is most often used. You are extrapolating the issue to various scholarly disputes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and here you are specifically WP:NOTLISTENING. Or do not even read my message, as well as the sources referred to in support of their own fabrications that "all the northern Croats are White Croats". --Nicoljaus (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You are whose refusing to get the point - not me. Over two weeks I am explaining you the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's time to stop feeding--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

However, as an intermediate solution, it doesn't imply it cannot be written a short paragraph on the different scholarship viewpoint about the tribes naming, dispute, etc. in the "Annotations" which will have a note reference in the LEAD. Will do that today and settle the issue for now.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not in the dispute about the names. The problem is that forgery is constantly used - where the source tells about Eastern European Croats, or simply ancient Croats, it is used as if it says about "White Croats". Such treatment of sources is absolutely unacceptable, it is falsification.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Your issue is exactly about the name - the article is focused on the Croatian tribes, which are most often generally called as White Croats - that's it. There is no forgery.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The Croatian tribes are called Croatian tribes. "White Croats" are called either Croats in the Czech lands or Carpathian Croats (by mistake). Wake up, it is written even in the Russian and Ukrainian encyclopedia!--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense and ignoring the very RS you're referring to. You intentionally ignore when they say "often" or "most Ukrainian and Russian...", as well, it is not like we are basing an article on such a minor opinion. Stop to disruptively push to change the scope, structure, and title of the article which had from the beginning. In the scholarship all over the world, including Croatian Encyclopedia, the term "White Croats" includes all tribes, not exclusively only a specific group or location. The detailed scholarly dispute does not change the most common usage. You don't have basic knowledge, understanding not even common sense to get the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor opinion? You are joking? And where is the major opinion? Only in the Croatian encyclopedia? These are the two major popular on-line encyclopedias in Russia and Ukraine and even they have already dealt with this old mistake. However, the question is different: mistakenly calling the Carpathian Croats "White Croats", Ukrainian and Russian authors in any case do not mean "all the northern Croats", as you are trying to do in this mystification article. You have not found a single source that would call "White Croats" simultaneously Western Croats in the Czech lands and Carpathian Croats.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. You are getting reported for refusing to get the point for over two weeks. Thank you, this was enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The administrator has already advised you where to turn [6]. Why are you so afraid of DRN?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

They were not specifically referring to me. Great, I am now even "afraid", continuing with your provocations. That's really helpful to everyone.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's do it again:

• The majority of reliable sources and literature, including those cited in this article, White Croatia, and Rusyns#Origins, generally refer to the medieval tribes as White Croats, nevertheless their location in the Eastern or Central Europe. The fact that's the most commonly used name, and not necessarily correct as some argue, is per WP:COMMONNAME.
• The fact that there's a scholarly dispute on the location of White Croats and White Croatia mentioned in De Administrando Imperio, the fact all these tribes are mutually related and belong to the same topic, from historiographical to archaeological data and conclusions, they cannot be separated and regarded as different topics.
• The cited Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History states: They are often unreasonably also called "White Croats."
• The cited Leontii Voitovych's source (2011) states: Transcarpathian Croats and Croats lived near Dniester and San Rivers would be more correct to call Carpathian Croats, as Ya. Isayevich suggested, and not White Croats, as most Ukrainian and Russian authors write.
• The cited Paul Robert Magocsi's source (1983) states, pg. 48-56: the Croats or White Croats ... the White Croats and Galicia ... the best introductory survey on White Croats is the concise encyclopedic article by Gerard Labuda ... much of the controversy stems from differing interpretations of the tenth-century description of the White Croats by the Byzantine author Constantine Porphyrogenitus ... In 1893 was put forth what has come to be traditional view on the White Croats: that they were an autochtonous East Slavic population that had created a strong state in Galicia ... this view has been maintained by most Ukrainian writers, as well as in more recent times by Soviet archaeologists and historians ... The Soviets are particularly opposed to Polish scholars (some of whom place the center of the White Croats along the upper Vistula, others along the upper Dniester), because they do not stress the supposedly exclusive eastern Slavic aspect of the Croats ... The Czech specialists on early Slavic and medieval history, Lubor Niederle and Francis Dvornik argue that the White Croats were originally neither East Slavic nor West Slavic, and that it was only after the majority of the group migrated southward that the remnants left behind were absorbed by local Slavs to whom they gave their name, so that only by the ninth and tenth centuries can one speak of "Polish", "Czech", or "Rus" Croats ... [about Galician history and Croats], whatever answers subsequent writers have provided to such questions, it is certain that after the late tent century Galicia and its White Croatian inhabitants became part of the political, socioeconomic, and cultural sphere of Kievan Rus'.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Nicoljaus: is this so difficult to understand? Do you understand how are articles titled, and what's the scope of this article? Answer - do you understand? Do you understand that the RS mostly do not support your POV? Do you need further citations of RS?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The majority of reliable sources and literature, including those cited in this article, White Croatia, and Rusyns#Origins, generally refer to the medieval tribes as White Croats, nevertheless their location in the Eastern or Central Europe -- You can repeat this statement millions of times, but without demonstrating that most of reliable sources calls "White Croats" simultaneously Western Croats in the Czech lands and Carpathian Croats, it is just an idle talk.
  • The dispute regarding the “White Croats” locatione came to a consensus - these Croats lived somewhere in the Czech lands. Modern Ukrainian historians have recognized an old mistake, and do not call the Carpathian Croats “White Croats”, it even got into the encyclopedia. But when the Ukrainian (and earlier Russian) historians wrote about these Carpathian Croats in any case they did not mean "all the northern Croats", that's the point..
  • I don’t know how to help you see the words “mistakenly” and “ baselessly”, and not just the word “often”. . At the same time, this old "often" erroroneous name does not apply to all northern Croats", only to Eastern Slavic (Carpathian) ones
  • Leontii Voitovych, the Ukrainian historian, also recognized the old mistake eight years ago and now it recognized by Ukrainian encycopedia.
  • Paul Robert Magocsi also says nothing that "any northern Croats - White Croats". He retells old theories - "These hypothetical constructions are now of purely historiographic interest, since they do not find any confirmation in archaeological materials" (Sedov).
  • I understand clearly, but you ignore everything that contradicts your view and distort what is written in the sources.
  • And finally, if you are so confident in the correctness of your position, why are you so afraid of participating in a moderated discussion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Again pure ignorance to get the point, and accept RS which were cited.
    • There's no scholarly consensus. A complete lie.
    • 3-5, again pure ignorance to get the point. Thank you, there's no better evidence that after more than 2 weeks, with which you could get more familiar with the topic, you still don't have a basic clue about it. If you have such difficulty understanding then you clearly lack competence.
    • You avoided giving a clear answer to questions. Obviously, you did not understand anything, the RS don't support your POV, and don't want to understand the complexity of the topic. Also, you are again provoking with "afraid".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Idle talk, no arguments.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
        • You don't refute arguments simply by saying there's "no argument" especially when you obviously refuse to understand them and the topic. Fine. Call it as you wish, you have your position, I have mine and its pointless for the discussion to continue between us without saying anything new.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• I will not comment on your persistent personal attacks. I believe that you disgrace yourself in this way, not me.
• Regarding these two items: WP:OWN, WP:POINT - if you see a real problem, contact ANI; unfounded accusations are against the rules.
• Over one hundred people have reviewed my edit in this article over these days [7]. No one has reverted it. This is WP:SILENCE - no one but you found problems in this edit. This is the new consensus, is not it?
• In general, your behavior is well described by WP:STONEWALLING. This rule recommends to you: "Honor the D in BRD." Reopen the discussion on the DRN, prove your point in a moderated discussion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I never seen an editor whose manipulating with data and misusing them to make an argument especially to defend an edit which was intentionally done against the conclusions by moderator and administrator.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC about the splitting of the article "White Croats"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors closing discussions are instructed to consider the strength of arguments in RfC's after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The great majority of the text below falls into one or more of those buckets, leaving a relative paucity of useful points to evaluate. Further complicating the analysis is that very few editors actually expressed views about the RfC proposal at all. The failure of the RfC statement to state the question in a brief, neutral fashion was also noted by multiple editors. Taken together, the poorly-formed RfC statement, poor attendance, and lack of relevant arguments mean that the only policy-compliant way to summarize this RfC is that there is no consensus for the proposed edits. The absence of consensus ...commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.(non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Modern researchers separate the "White Croats" from the Eastern (Carpathian) Croats and do not consider any Early Medieval "Croatian tribes" outside modern-day Croatia as "White Croats". In accordance with this, is it worth changing the article “White Croats”, which currently mixes at least three different issues and often incorrectly uses sources?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Expanded (1st) version

I propose to narrow the scope of the article White Croats. According to the modern near-consensus, the name “White Croats” can most likely be correlated with the tribe who lived in the Czech lands. For example, Great Russian Encyclopedia claims: "According to medieval written sources and toponymy, the Croats are localized <1>in the north-west of the Balkans (the ancestors of modern Croats); <2> on parts of the land in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers (white Croats, apparently, in the sense of "western"); <3> in the northeast of the Carpathian region (partly in Transcarpathia)." [8] Now the article "White Croats" mixes 3 different topics: 1) The origin and history of all Early Medieval Croats; 2) Actually the issue of "White Croats" of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and Primary Chronicle; 3) East Slavic (Carpathian) Croats. At present, even in the popular Ukrainian encyclopedia, it is recognized that the Eastern Slavic tribe of Croats is unreasonably called “White Croats” [9]. At the same time, many researchers who write about the early history of the Croatian tribes either bypass the issue of the “White Croats” or directly call information about them unreliable. This situation should be fixed. Perhaps we need a separate article like Carpathian Croats, where to transfer the necessary part of the material. Another part of the material that describes the early history of all the Croats (and not just the "White Croats", whoever they may be) can be transferred to the article Croats or Origin hypotheses of the Croats. We can also rename this article to the article “Early Croats” by analogy with the article Early Slavs transferring part of the material relating only to the problem of “White Croats” to a separate article too. The current situation is a violation of the rules No original research and Neutral point of view. The solution of this problem will greatly improve the Precision of the title of the article(s).Nicoljaus (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, the RfC comment is not clear and does not give correct perspective on the topic and WP:RFCNOT should not be used for "Merge and split proposals" anyway. I am opposed because the proposed changes will result in exactly the opposite, and per arguments which can be found in the discussion above and mostly won't repeat here. We should not "butcher" well-connected article by moving its material to other articles ("Croats", "Origin hypothesis of the Croats" etc.) which scope is not focused on the topic or making a separate article/s which will lose the focus on the topic as well. The topic is very clear and interconnected, there's no scholarly consensus only disputes, and having only two articles (White Croats, on the tribe, and White Croatia, on the homeland) instead of several keeps all topic information easy to find and check. The title "White Croats" is, as already stated and confirmed by reliable sources above (among many others), most commonly used for exactly this topic & information without differentiation, while those titles like "Carpathians Croats", "Early Croats" are not common nor notable and will only make confusion as well as lose focus and connection from historiographical, archaeological and other perspectives between parts of this tribe and their regions. Saying that the current situation is an OR or NPOV violation is simply false and ignorance of countless RS. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Miki Filigranski: I see your "holydays" immediately over. So, you can open the topic on the DRN and try to defend your point of view there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  What is your brief and neutral statement? As it stands, it is too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so nothing is shown at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics apart from a link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for our concern. Yes, I've already seen that nothing was shown apart from a link, and also in the lower part of a page. I was encouraged by this edit: [10] - LegoBot successfully added a rather long text. Nobody commented on my first short RfC and so I tried to give a more detailed description. If we talk about a short description, it is as follows:

  Modern researchers separate the "White Croats" from the Eastern (Carpathian) Croats and do not consider any Early Medieval "Croatian tribes" outside modern-day Croatia as "White Croats". In accordance with this, is it worth changing the article “White Croats”, which currently mixes at least three different issues and often incorrectly uses sources?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Then you need to put that as the first item after the {{rfc|hist|lang|rfcid=245AF60}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I've done, but I doubt that something new will appear on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics page.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Give it another two minutes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Cool! Thank you very much.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  I see where we are heading to. You don't want an intermediate solution at all. You want to WP:OWN the article. However, that still doesn't allow you to make a revert until you reach a consensus for your edit. What's worse, it was not properly substantiated, what you wrote in the edit summary was a complete lie, and the revert was intentional to make a WP:POINT. Pathetic, and you are the one who "has patience" for DRN and RfC.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So, one more argument. In its current form, the article contributes to pushing the fringe theory of "Great Croatia" stretching from the Elbe to the Dniester in the 10th century. I think this is another argument in favor of separating and changing the structure of the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is not pushing that anyhow. That topic is the scope of the article White Croatia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

And this article (White Croats) is a FORK, and the development of this article is impeded in order to push the fringe theory mentioned above as the only one.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)-- UP--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is not pushing any fringe theory - the end. Neither is a FORK article, ironically, you're the one whose pushing making FORK articles so can be advocated a different stance on the subject ... all treating the same subject! Incredible.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:DRN is waiting for you. Maybe there these cries will make more impression.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion

• Support, in case if it is supporting accuracy. I admit this topic about early Croats is not my expertise, but I do know how many inaccuracies are in WP also including many RS, that are in reality not accurate or quality enough. Also there are cases the most common RS render a totally invalid and mistaken events/concepts, thus according to the rules such may be cited primarily, even if the flaw is known (as I recall in these discussions also similar arguments have been presented). I think our duty here is to provide the best and most accurate content and likely to find/use those RS that support it. Just good faith is needed, because in case any part is not interested on the most accurate content, may like to argue on the most common option. Nicoljaus indicated earlier why noone interfere or answer at a point, well I was deliberately waiting to provide the most neutral approach after carefully reading all the interactions of this issue. Summa summarum, WP has to tend to the most accuarate content for the benefit of the reader and I saw many good resolutions in the end by this principle. Regards and wish a professional solution with a cool head. (P.S. regarding the RFC on the talk page of the Rusyns, I have the same opinion, technically the two cases are similar, so anyone may copy my comment also there, or I'll do it if needed)(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC))

• Oppose, as was stated in the dispute above, it is one topic with one name which generally is not differentiated and as such should not be separated into smaller articles, with information moved, etc. This article has a defined scope, there is no need to split it, and considering the amount of information it has it would not be constructive, on the contrary. The best solution to the editor's dispute would be to settle on the so-called intermediate solution of revision from 11 July which explains the issue in details. (Ceha (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC))
  • The best solution to the editor's dispute would be to settle on the so-called intermediate solution of revision from 11 July -- Can not agree. This version was called the "intermediate solution" by Miki, but for me it is unacceptable one. My text for the Lead part was removed completely, and instead they written nonsense, which is not in the refs, which by its position should confirm it. In addition, without justification my useful edits in another parts of the article were canceled, iincluding the knowingly fake ref ((sfn|Zimonyi|2015|pp=295, 319)) was returned by Miki stubbornly ([11]).--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I did not write any nonsense. What's nonsensical is your ignorance of what's written in the references and to accept the fact that this article is about the medieval Croatian tribes and not only about "White Croats" mentioned in the De Administrando Imperio. You are literally wasting everyone's time on a pointless issue explained in RS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Empty talk, personal attacks - nothing of value.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Disrespect me, and other editor's opinion, one more time you're getting reported again. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
          • So, the holidays is finally over? Will you go to DRN?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • It does not appear that Nicoljaus's comments are even half as "disrespectful" as your comments to him, Miki. You have accused him of "lying" and "ignorance" repeatedly. Saying your personal attack on him is "empty talk" is not anywhere close to as aggressive as what you have written to him throughout this thread. You are by far being the more hostile one here.
    • Your constant threats to report anyone who dares even reply to your aggressive personal attacks are out of line. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • See WP:BOOMERANG. The thing to do is insist that the threats be acted upon. >;-)  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, pending a whole lot of iron-clad sourcing. This fails as a WP:RFC because it is not neutrally asking a question, it is advocating a position (one that looks like WP:OR, e.g. the over-broad claim 'Modern researchers ... do not consider any Early Medieval "Croatian tribes" outside modern-day Croatia as "White Croats"'). 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• The current state of the article ignores the "whole lot of iron-clad sourcing", that's a problem. Also, you can make your own RFC on this issue, we will compare the results.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, because RfC is not neutral, hardly of good faith because first and foremost is advocating something which clearly is not constructive for the article neither is supporting accuracy because it is utterly misunderstanding the topic & scope of the article which was repeatedly stated by several editors. The article is about the medieval Croatian tribe, whether simply called as Croats or White Croats in historical and modern sources, and it is titled as White Croats because that name is commonly used as a reference to them and to easily differentiate them and the article from contemporary Croats. The mentioned intermediate solution included in the [12] revision from 25 November is more than enough. Mikola22 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and it is titled as White Croats because that name is commonly used as a reference to them - nope, this name is used not to any "medieval Croatian tribe", but, surprisingly, to the tribe of "White Croats". This article synthesizes various sources that talk about completely different things, to do its original research. If you think that you look convincing, thoughtlessly repeating the arguments of others, then you are mistaken.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to see why Mikola really wants to keep this article in this form, see the topic below (IP user is him): Talk:White_Croats#The_main_source_of_this_article_are_White_Croats--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    • We have White Croats, someone also mentions northern Croats, you mention eastern Croats and a new article about Carpathian Croats. Archeology finds links between Czech and Slovakian area with Croatian area, there is also historical information about Croats in the Czech Republic, Thomas the Archdeacon talks about Croats from Poland, we know about Ukraine. Therefore situation is too complicated to separate this into multiple articles. Only link between all these Croats is White Croatia and White Croats and only such an article should exist, everything else is anarchy. So it is logical thinking and what you're doing is obviously not in good faith. But this is yours right, however you have no consensus and the same must be respected as well. Mikola22 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Only link between all these Croats is White Croatia - yes, this is your fringe theory, I understand this a long time ago. Professional historians describe the situation in a completely different way.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
        • We have an article on wikipedia about White Serbia although there is no historical document that mentions White Serbia, does this mean that this article should be deleted or divided into Carpathian Serbs, Lusatian Serbs, Czechian Serbs etc. That article is about Serbs and White Serbia and we must respect that. Then I might also suggest deleting or separating that article but I respect that article. Mikola22 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
          • See Lusatian Serbs. The rest is just your fantasy.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Lusatian Serbs have nothing to do with the Balkan Serbs and genetics has clearly confirmed that, given that historical records mention Visla area, Boykos area i.e. Carpatian ara, Lusatian area then we could have more articles on Serbs. Otherwise I told you that archeology does not show connections between Carpatians and Croatian findings(at least not too much) and you would like an article on Carpathian Croats? History is not based just on historical records, there is archeology, genetics, etc. According to you there would be an article on wikipedia about Carpathian Croats while in the same article there would be archeological data which point to Czechian and Slovakian area? That's why I am saying that situation is complicated for both Croats and Serbs. Why complicate it further? Mikola22 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
              •  Closed It's time to stop this useless talk.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
                • Indeed, it's time to stop this useless talk which you started and stop wasting everyone's time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Months have passed and the majority of the votes have opposed the RfC because of which, per WP:RFCEND, will revert [13] the article to the latest revision which has the already explained intermediate solution which solves the issue raised by editor Nicoljaus. That state of the article does not ignore anything. It is not constructive to continue this anymore because were removed a huge amount of sourced information which had nothing to do with the issue, nobody could edit the article in the meantime and as such, I propose ending of this RfC. If editor Nicoljaus has any other issue, is welcome to bring it in another discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that for such an action: [14] you had to ask permission from the administrator who imposed the protection. For my part, I object. In my opinion, this version: [15] removes fraud with incorrect refs and is not related to the RfC. Better get back to it. @El C: what do you say?--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

See this. Sorry, but no, there's no fraud. I am repeating you again - this article is not only about "White Croats" mentioned in the historical source De Administrando Imperio by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos yet about all the medieval Croatian tribe(s) mentioned in all historical sources. Do you understand that? How many times do I need asking you, politely and patiently, such a basic question which gives an answer whether you understand and are willing to accept that fact so we can move on? If you don't want to accept that fact then we have a serious issue - not with facts - but with you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We have already discussed all these sources (there are only two). The current state of the article is an OR--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC), made using WP:SYNTH.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we have already discussed, but the current state of the article is not an OR & SYNTH at all. This is a fraudulent and baseless statement due to your lack of will to understand and accept the facts and the scope of the article. It is really disrespectful acting as if other editors and their opinion don't exist nor have any value.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are so sure that I'm alone wrong here, why did you run away from the DRN? See also: [16]--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, the closure was requested ([17]) per admin's advice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus your revert was a border-line WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT because your edits lack consensus and that compromise is not supperted by anyone. All other editors support Miki's version, at least as I can se...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 16:59, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

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.

A simple “fuck off” would help to express the same thought much shorter. And with about the same level of validity.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected version

If there is another, more recent version which both parties agree to, let me know, and I will put that version up instead of the (April) one I chose to go with. Ping me if you reach a resolution to that effect. El_C 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this version of the article is quite good, while the question of a more serious processing of the article is being discussed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@El_C, why did you revert all back to 7 April, with which removed countless constructive edits? It doesn't change anything as Nicoljaus wants to completely change the article, was it a recent revision or years old, it doesn't matter. I reverted to an old revision from 27 June, before Nicoljaus started edit-warring on the article and practically when started the discussion at Talk:Rusyns#White Croats on 26 June which later moved on this article's talk page. I have done that because that was the last revision which had WP:SILENCE consensus and did not include information of edits, by Nicoljaus or mine, which were disputed in the discussion, DRN, RfC and so on. We cannot have a discussion, RfC, DRN when the current revision is constantly under edit war. I think we all agree on that, and as such on that old revision. However, I was blocked for 48 hours for making an edit (reverting Nicoljaus edit which does not have a consensus to mine new revision with intermediate solution), while Nicoljaus made a revert after I was blocked and even now after reverted to old revision, which is against the conclusion by the moderator ([18]) and the administrator ([19]). Nicoljaus constantly makes edits, reverts, pushing for his revision and complete change of the article, ignoring moderator & admin warning, ignoring discussion, that doesn't have a consensus - and does not get a block or discretionary sanction. Sincerely, is this Wikipedia or Animal Farm ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others")? What's more ridiculous, the editor Nicoljaus proposed his new revision (for which exist a discussion, dispute, RfC, no consensus etc.), while my new revision is an intermediate solution which includes information and sources introduced by Nicoljaus, and they completely ignore the intermediate solution - El_C how do you even expect these two editors can agree on anything when do not have the same approach to the topic and article at all?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If a tenth of these impressive efforts to empty talk would have been spent on moderated discussion on DRN, the issue would have been solved long ago.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, you are being very dishonest and disrespectful. I wasted weeks discussing with arguments, citing RS, making an intermediate solution and else still to be intentionally and unreasonably ignored by you and described as "empty talk", and now even my response to the administrator you describe as "empty talk". If that is not proof that I cannot reach any reasonable solution in any reasonable time and process with you then what the do you want? Do you know what's the most irritating thing in this whole case? Constantly repeating you I don't have the time to be active daily and writing this comments while you are abusing that, edit warring and pushing me wasting my precious time writing these comments you stupidly and provocatively call as "empty talk" instead of listening to the moderators and administrators and patiently let the process of RfC to continue and finish.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not particularly impressed with either of you right now. Is there a more recent version you both can agree to for the duration of the protection, or not? El_C 06:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As said, I agree on or old revision from 30 June, or new revision with an intermediate solution from 11 July (which is also supported by editor Ceha in RfC).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

In the sentence "Mouchlo; Mikkola related it to the name of 6th century Hunnic (Bulgar or Kutrigur) ruler Mougel/Mouâgeris.", Bulgar is a link to a DAB page. It should be piped to Bulgars. Narky Blert (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I fixed these. Pasquale (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The main source of this article are White Croats

It is first mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the 10th century, we can not have ten types of Croats in that area, "northern, western, Carpathian, Czechian, Slovakian, Polish, Lesser Polish, Ukrainian etc..) Therefore we have to go from the source, does some encyclopedia say this or that does not affect on irrefutable fact that in that area are mentioned White Croats, yes it is truth that later sources mention only Croats but in Wikipedia White Croats, White Croatia and Croats from that area have to be different from the Croats in the Balkans otherwise we would have only one name ie Croatian for both groups of peoples and area. For now genetic data shows migration of White Croats from south Poland, southwestern Ukraine to Balkans. Genetic studies on Croats "However, in comparison to older research which argued a prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2 in Croatia,[nb 1] as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the haplogroup in Ukraine, Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it suggests it arrived with Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine.[14] The most recent research by O.M. Utevska (2017), concluded that the haplogroup STR haplotypes have the highest diversity in Ukraine, with ancestral STR marker result "DYS448=20" comprising "Dnieper-Carpathian" cluster, while younger derived result "DYS448=19" comprising the "Balkan cluster" which is predominant among the South Slavs." Eupedia "I2a1b-L621 to become a major Eastern European lineage was probably the Slavic migrations from the 6th to the 9th century CE...The minority of I2a1b-L621 individuals negative for L147.2 are all found around eastern Poland, Belarus and western Ukraine, suggesting that this is where this lineage survived since the Chalcolithic."

As far as archaeological data is concerned, there are some similar findings in Croatia and Moravian and Slovakia area. That is what we know today in year 2019. Therefore obviously in the area of White Croatia and Balkan Croatia there are live peoples who are genetically connected, we will see what archeogenetics says in the future and then we will revise our point of view. 31.217.21.139 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

in that area are mentioned White Croats - In which area and By whom exactly these "northern, western, Carpathian, Czechian, Slovakian, Polish, Lesser Polish, Ukrainian etc. are mentioned as the "White Croats" at the same time? In fact, they are mentioned only twice: in the treatise "On the Governance of the Empire" by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (‘somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire’} and in the undated part of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans (Carinthians). According to the modern near-consensus, the name “White Croats” can most likely be correlated with the tribe who lived in the Czech lands ("in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers"). I do not understand why references to genetic research. None of them found any separate tribe of “White Croats”. They talk about the origins of modern Croats, and the inappropriate use of the term “White Croats” on Wikipedia only confuses the matter.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you read De administrando imperio? Here are the facts from this historical record. "But, at that time, Croats lived behind the Bagibaree, where now are White Croats (Belohrobatoi),.. The rest of the Croats remained by Francia and are now called the Belohrobatoi, they are White Croats, and they have their own prince, they are subject to Oton, the great King of Francia or Saxony,... The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descendants of Croats, also called White, who live behind the Turks (Hungarians) and in the neighborhood of Francia,.. Great Croatia, also known as "White." They can collect less horsemen than can be in baptized Croatia because they are constantly plundering by Franks, Turks and Pechenegs"...

Pechenegs as far as I know do not enter Czech territory and White Croats in 10th century are in the neighborhood of Francia but at that time Czech territory is mostly under Franks . Since it is mentioned that White Croats live behind Hungarians obviously at that time White Croatia was in the area of Southwestern Ukraine(western Carpatian area), South Poland and later up to Czech area, this fact only can prove existence of a Great(megali) Croatia in that area or possible migration of Croats in that area.

I said that some archeological scientific data(in Croatian language) show some similarities between Moravian and Slovakian findings with those in Croatia.

And there is genetics, I do not know what is problem with genetics? It's science like archeology, and it shows that there is genetic similarity between the areas of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine and Croats from Croatia. For genetics there is not too much scientific data that is true but Croatian relatives or descendants of ancestors live in today southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine which is significant, they do not live in Spain.

Localization of White Croats only in Czech lands I think it is a nonsense, do you know where Pechenegs and Hungarians are? As for me Wikipedia (White Croats)speaking about Croats but we must somehow divide this Croats on White Croats (7-10 century.. Czech lands, south Poland, north Slovakia, southwestern Ukraine) and Croatians from Balkan to know about who we are talking about. 31.217.4.53 (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

Listen, a great number of scientists have studied this treatise for centuries. And they came to the above conclusion: ‘somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire’. I also never heard that "great king Oton" ruled the Carpathians and also never heard the Francia border the Carpathians. If you are surprised by the appearance of Pechenegs, then it is known that part of the Pechenegs entered the service of the Hungarians (Turks).

obviously at that time White Croatia was in the area of Southwestern Ukraine(western Carpatian area), South Poland and later up to Czech area - This is a completely fringe theory. Some authors admit the existence of a proto-state of East Slavic Croats in the Carpathians region and suggest that Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos sometimes confuses them with the White (Western) Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula and the Odra rivers". But no Great Croatia from Elbe to Dniestr existed.

And there is genetics, I do not know what is problem with genetics? - The problem of genetics is that the “White Croats” is not a problem of genetics. Genetics will not help establish who the Porphyrogennetos wrote about. Genetics can only help to clarify the origin of modern Croats.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

we have somehow divide this Croats on White Croats (7-10 century.. Czech lands, south Poland, north Slovakia, southwestern Ukraine) and Croatians from Balkan to know about who we are talking about - This is easy to do if you do not mix the history of all Croats in the 7-10th centuries, the White Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers" and the Carpathian Croats. Obviously, in the 7th century there were no "White Croats". Only after the settlement of Dalmatia, part of the Croats began to be called "White". For Porphyrogennetos (10th century) this was "recent time."--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I also never heard that "great king Oton" ruled the Carpathians and also never heard the Francia border the Carpathians. You did not hear because White Croats are obviously mentioned in two areas. I also never heard that behind Hungarians are Czechs, White Croats can not be behind Bavaria and Hungaria at the same time, I showed you and map of Francia which in that time has a greater part of Czech lands and for that reason White Croats can not be in the Francia neighborhood if they are in Czech lands.If you are surprised by the appearance of Pechenegs, then it is known that part of the Pechenegs entered the service of the Hungarians (Turks). What this has to do with Pechenegs in Czech lands, it is about fact that Pechenegs atack White Croats from the east and that is Carpathian area. Pechenegs do not attack Franks in Czech lands. This is a completely fringe theory. Some authors admit the existence of a proto-state of East Slavic Croats in the Carpathians region and suggest that Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos sometimes confuses them with the White (Western) Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula and the Odra rivers". But no Great Croatia from Elbe to Dniestr existed.It will say archeogenetics because historical records that would confirm existence of Great Croatia do not exist, so we have to wait. Otherwise living genetics in this area indicates that it is possible.The problem of genetics is that the “White Croats” is not a problem of genetics. Genetics will not help establish who the Porphyrogennetos wrote about. Genetics can only help to clarify the origin of modern Croats. Wrong, genetics confirms or refute "De administrando imperio" and story about Croats, for now live genetics have confirmed migration of someone from direction of south Poland, southwestern Ukraine to Balkans or Roman Dalmatia, the only candidates in the Balkans for that migration according to "De administrando imperio" are Croats. In the future we will know the time of arrival and archeogenetics must also confirm this. This is then steel. Because there is no other way to determine something, except God's word.This is easy to do if you do not mix the history of all Croats in the 7-10th centuries, the White Croats "in the upper reaches of the Elbe, the Vistula, the Odra, and possibly the Morava rivers" and the Carpathian Croats. Obviously, in the 7th century there were no "White Croats"Now I explained to you that White Croats can not only be in Czech lands, and even if they are from Czech lands for now the main genetics does not show that, possible R1a branches but we'll talk about it when we find out more. This is another proof, "De administrando imperio" "The tribe of proconsul and patriarch of Mihajlo, the son of Višetin, the Arhont of Zahumlje, was originated from those who lived on the river Visla(Vistula) and who were called Litciki,Obviously, in the 7th century there were no "White Croats". Only after the settlement of Dalmatia, part of the Croats began to be called "White". For Porphyrogennetos (10th century) this was "recent time."Possible but it is still the oldest historical record that mentione White Croats and we must respect this, whether on the Balkans coming White Croats or Croats less is important because there are same people which apparently the not only come from "Czech lands". 31.217.4.53 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

Well, I understand your point of view. But, since I (as well as almost none of modern historians) do not believe in the fringe theory about Great Croatia from the Elbe to the Dniester, I continue to believe that it is necessary to change the structure of the article. Including not supporting the pushing of this fringe theory.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

---Tibor Živković(March 11, 1966 – March 26, 2013) was a Serbian academic, historian and writer who specialised in the period of the early Middle Ages. Quotes from the book "De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum" ""In any case, since Turkey is mentioned as a major geographical point to determine the position of the land of the White Croats, it is obvious that this report was made after 896, when the Hungarians settled in Pannonia. Since there is no mention of Moravia, which had not been conquered by the Hungarians until 907, this information must be after this year too. page 46. "It appears that Constantine’s primary source on the Croats had already contained this information about White Croatia. The Franks plundered Moravia during the same time, and White Croatia was a part of the Moravian kingdom of Svatopluk. In other words, the situation described in this section could be placed from the ca. 870s to the 880s as the Pechenegs and the Hungarians (Turks) were neighbors of the White Croats to the east in the second half of the 9th century..page 89. "The existence of the Croats (White Croats) beyond the Magyars, i.e. in southern Poland, is confirmed by the writing of the English King Alfred the Great, who mentioned the Croats as the neighbors of the Serbs. According to King Alfred, the Croats (Horoti) had lived (around 889 – 893) to the north-east of the Moravians, and to the east of Daleminci, while the Serbs lived to the north of Daleminci. This information is contemporary to Constantine’s source on the White Croats. The Arab writer Masoudi(10th century) had a similar description on the position of the Croats in that land (modern southern Poland).The Russian Primary Chronicle mentioned the (White) Croats as the participants in Duke Oleg’s expedition against Constantinople in 907"..page 113. This is opinion of the Serbian modern historian, your opinion is that White Croats are in Czech lands my opinion is that White Croats are in both areas, archaeological findings from that time point to existence of same peoples(tribe) up to Lviv in western Ukraine, living genetics confirms that this is area where live Croatian ancestors (older genetics). What else do we need, census of that area from the 7th century? We are waiting for archeogenetics and that is it. 31.217.9.72 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

The Russian Primary Chronicle mentioned the (White) Croats as the participants in Duke Oleg’s expedition against Constantinople in 907"..page 113 Good attempt, but Russian Primary Chronicle in 907 does not mention White Croats. And in other places where it mentions eastern Croats, it does not call them "White". But precisely "White Croats" were mentioned in the undated part of "Russian Primary Chronicle" in the same row with Serbs and Chorutans (Carinthians). So, as it written in the note 310 on the same page of the same book, others "considered these Croats as two different entities, i.e. ‘eastern’ and ‘white’ Croats." Modern historical encyclopedias do the same, and so should be done in Wikipedia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

---No problem, then we will call them Croats, not any Czech, Polish, Ukraine, Carpatian, western, eastern, northern Croats because they are not mentioned anywhere with such names but simply Croats who lived in the area of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine, north Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and we will have more Wikipedia articles that mention same peoples in several parts of Europe and each article will be titled only with the name Croats. I do not know if this is in the Wikipedia rule but if it is I'm for it. But no Czech Croats, Polish Croats etc because if we leave out data from De administrando imperio only Croats are mentioned but also because of the fact that these countries have not been mentioned at that time. I note that Croats live in those areas (according to De administrando imperio) in the 7th century and this fact must be respected. 31.217.15.106 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

I note that Croats live in those areas (according to De administrando imperio) in the 7th century and this fact must be respected. -- No, "DAI" does not contain such statements. This is only a fringe theory based on the amateurish interpretation of a complex original source.--

---

Nicoljaus (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for such open commentary. @Nicoljaus, I am asking you again - do you understand that this article is about Slavic tribe of Croats, with all historical sources, all scholarship disputes and else? Should all other Slavic tribes who were mentioned in different regions get separate articles? Of course not. Are you aware of how stupid this sounds - No problem, then we will call them Croats, not any Czech, Polish, Ukraine, Carpatian, western, eastern, northern Croats because they are not mentioned anywhere with such names but simply Croats who lived in the area of southern Poland, southwestern Ukraine, north Slovakia, eastern Czech Republic and we will have more Wikipedia articles that mention same peoples in several parts of Europe and each article will be titled only with the name Croats? I hope, since you're pushing to make WP:CFORK articles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Miki (or Mikola, I'm confused) - it is not my suggestion at all. My proposal is based on how this topic is described in modern reliable sources. It is ridiculous, but when Miki or Mikola are not engaged in idle talk, but cite reliable sources, there is immediately something that refutes their fringe theories.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedian article for Croatia.. "According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in what is today Croatia in the early 7th century." De administrando imperio says I quote "the same Croats invaded and expelled Avara from these countries, with the permission of Emperor Heraclius, they settled in that same country" Heraclius was the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire from 610 to 641[8] Archeological data can prove it because there are findings from that period in Croatia and there are some similarities with Moravian and Slovakian findings. You could change Croatian history without having to deal with the history only with the statement that this is "a fringe theory", then start editing and this article about Croatia and all others who talk about it. At that time and later they are not mentioned any Czech lands, Polish lands, Polish Croats, Carpatian Croats, Western Croats etc. Croats in that area are mentioned according to De administrando imperio as White Croats, if the Byzantine Emperor divide Croats I do not see reason why the same could not do and Wikipedia. ""Good attempt, but Russian Primary Chronicle in 907 does not mention White Croats."" "Klaić navodi i Nestorov zapis o Olegovu pohodu na Carigrad 907. godine: „V leto 6412., v leto 6413., v leto 6414., (904. – 907.) ide Ol,g na Greki. Igorja ostaviv v Kijeve; poja že množstvo Varjag i Sloven i Čjudi i Kriviča i Merju i Poljani i Sever i Drevljani i Radimiča i Horvati i Dulebi i Tiverca, iže skut tolkovniki: si vsi zvahut sja Velikaja Skut, i s simi vsemi pojde Ol,g na konih i v korablih, i be čislom korablij 2000, i pride k Cesarju Gradu.“: Klaić, Hrvati i Hrvatska, 60-61" Claim of Mate Božić "the testimony of Nestor we see clearly, that in year 907. in Army of Oleg there were Croats, which are without doubts were those Croats who lived in the neighborhood of Dulebs and others Russian tribes." "Mate Božić, Faculty of Philosophy in Split, Department of History". Dulebs live in the area of Volhynia which has no connection with the Czech lands, and whether they are mentioned as Croats or White Croats does not refute the fact that Croats live in that wider area and fact that Byzantine Emperor all these people simply called White Croats just as we have to. 31.217.4.1 (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

Wikipedian article is not a reliable source. If it contradicts the sources, it needs to be rewritten. Archaeologist Sedov wrote about the theory of "Great Croatia" in the North that "These hypothetical constructions are now of purely historiographic interest, since they do not find any confirmation in archaeological materials".

Dulebs live in the area of Volhynia which has no connection with the Czech lands - This is the reason why modern historians "considered these Croats as two different entities, i.e. ‘eastern’ and ‘white’ Croats." if you read all the sources, instead of pushing through fringe theories, you can easily figure it out.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

––––––I do not understand you, which ‘eastern’ there is no mention of ‘eastern’ Croats, De Administrando Imperio all these people calls "White Croats", others sources call them Croats, since we have article on Wikipedia that speaks about the Croats this is aricle about White Croats, there can be two articles about same peoples, all the time I'm talking that Porphyrogenitis is talking about White Croats behind Hungaria and Bavaria and this is an area from Czech lands to southern Poland, in this area and other sources finding Croats. This article talks about that, which ‘eastern’ Croats? There are no ‘eastern’ Croats, There are Croats and White Croats, there are Croatian toponyms and in Germany, Carantania, Tyrol and elsewhere and these Croats probably migrate to these areas just as the Croats migrate to the Balkans, we can not have hundreds of different Croats and for each of them have an article on Wikipedia. "According to Klaić, the same news about Vladimir's obedience to the Ukrainian Croats at the end of the Xth century was also made by the Polish chronicler Dlugosz: Vastatis eo anno dux Russiae Carvatis infertur illi (duci) a Pieczyngis (Pečenegi) bellum, contra quos egressus ad fluvium Rubiessa (Trubež) eos offendit...As far as Croatians are concerned, we see that then there were two tribes of that name (Chrovati et altera Chrowati), then these tribes lived somewhere in the west of the city of Krakow and the river Odre, and in the north-west of the high Tatras and the river Vaga, finally in the north (then very tight) of the Morava region."... Thus we can not catch place where this Croats exist and where they are mentioned, there are everywhere in that area. For that reason we must go from the source and that source is De Administrando Imperio.

31.217.4.186 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

Well, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss our amateurish interpretations of such complex primary sources. You'd better find another place for such kind of activity (WP:FORUM). Here we only state that competent historians who studied this particular issue wrote on it. And competent modern historians do not wtite about "hundreds of different Croats", but about White (western) Croats, Carpathian (eastern) Croats and Dalmatian Croats (Croats of the Croatian kingdom).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

An interesting work „HRVAT“ I „HRVATI“ – OD TOPONIMA DO ETNONIMA, (from where the last quotation about Dlugosz was cut out, without indicating the source) although controversial. The author writes further ( p.164):

"Također, kada opisuje navodnu sjevernu, „staru“ tj. nekadašnju Hrvatsku, iz koje su Hrvati „došli“ na jug, pisac DAI-a miješa vijesti o srednjoeuropskim (češkim) i istočnoeuropskim (ukrajinskim) hrvatskim plemenima." ("Also, when describing the alleged northern, "old", or former Croatia, from which Croats "came" to the south, DAI writer mixes news about Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes.")

To sum up, as I said earlier, modern scholars clearly distinguish Eastern (Ukrainian, Carphatian) and Western (Central European, Czech) Croats. You can also see the map on page 172 - there is no giant “White Croatia” from the Elbe to the Dniester. It indicates three local areas of Croatian tribes "in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe during the Xth century".--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

–––– This is an article about White Croats not about White Croatia, historical source the not mentione Eastern, Western or Southern Croats, sources mention Croats and White Croats. Therefore, or we will Croats from the area of southern Poland, eastern Czechia, northern Slovakia and southwestern Ukraine call Croats or White Croats there is no other, everything else is without confirmation in written document and as such fairytale. Eastern Croats who are they? I have never heard any Croatian historian that speak about eastern Croats, we only know for White Croats. "Also, when describing the alleged northern, "old", or former Croatia, from which Croats "came" to the south, DAI writer mixes news about Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes." "Northern" and "old" are not mentioned anywhere in historical documents, this is personal opinion of author which does not prove anything, otherwise thats clame is about White Croatia not Croats, yes DAI writer mixes news about "Central European (Czech) and Eastern European (Ukrainian) Croatian tribes" because White or Great Croatia is a wider term. As if we had an article on Wikipedia about "Dalmatian Croats", "Slavonian Croats", "Istrian Croats", "Croats from Zagorje", etc, they are all Croats. Did I tell you that in Slovakia there are some archaeological finds similar to Croatian, therefore there are no separated Czech and Ukrainian Croatian tribes because Slovaka is between them in which there are archaeological finds similar to Croatian. This means that Croats from Czechia to Western Ukraine are same peoples and they are White Croats or Croats. 31.217.3.176 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

 Closed Enough of this. I have never heard any Croatian historian that speak about eastern Croats - See the comment above with the link to Croatian historian.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

––– Eastern Croats the not exist, there is not one historical data that mentions Eastern Croats, there are Croats from Balkan and Croats, White Croats (area of southern Poland, eastern Czechia, northern Slovakia and southwestern Ukraine). Therefore Croatian historian does not speak about Eastern Croats in that area, he says that "DAI writer mixes news about Croats" and for this reason he divides Croats. It is his opinion but it did not prove with nothing. How he knows that DAI mix something? He did not even research it. Some historian can not change 10th century record with his statement. It is a common area. DAI speaks about two places from where Croats coming to the Balkans but that Croats are a single tribe and coming from one White Croatia, they can not come from five positions at the same time. They coming from White Croatia as White Croats. DAI "Great Croatia, also called "White", there were no two White Croatia. If we went with your logic then we would have and two or three White Croatia. 46.188.133.29 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)mikola

References

Edit war

Nicoljaus please stop your disruptive behavior. Wikipedia should be a place for discusion with arguments, and not politics or petty wars. If you have something which you don't agree with, discuss it here, the article doesn't belong to you... --Čeha (razgovor) 08:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Most of the editors didn't agree with his arguments which should the Nicoljaus have accepted by now. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is any problem this is the right place for discussion. Splitting article into multiple articles makes no sense or deleting parts of the article without consensus is not in good faith, that's my view. Without consensus of most editors someone cannot make such big changes in article. Mikola22 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree, Wikipedia has strict rules about that. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The majority of editors' votes at RfC are against Nicoljaus (votes 4-1, with the 1 having a conditional support), and the majority of votes support the intermediate solution. This has been going on since July which is why the last revision has not been shown for months. This is really enough. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I explain for the last time. The article was protected: [20], and reverted: [21] by administrator El C. When Miki decided to return his edits, El C sent him to the ANRFC: [22]. I just return the article to the administrator version: [23]. If you think you can ignore his decision, write him yourself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, for information: Mikola and Ceha are doing Croatian POV-pushing together in another topic: WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Donji_Kraji_discussion. They cannot be considered objective commentators on the current RFC.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, commenting the wikipedia editor, rather than article clearly shows "good faith" and wikipedian behaviour. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: editor Nicoljaus from the start is ignoring other editors opinion, which is in the majority (4-1 at RfC, with the 1 being only a conditional support), refuting to accept intermediate-solution (which is supported by three editors), and now is even making a WP:PERSONAL attack claiming we are not "objective commentators" because of our nationality. Nicoljaus with WP:OWN behavior passed all limits of tolerance and good faith and should be sanctioned. It is simply incredible that editor Miki Filigranski got blocked dealing with Nicoljaus when Nicoljaus is the one to blame for WP:GAMING.--Čeha (razgovor) 18:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Čeha. This is exactly what I mean to say. Mikola22 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski's block is for repeated personal attacks. If you can demonstrate personal attacks by other editors (diffs are required), then a series of warnings leading to escalating blocks are also likely. As for an administrator version there is no such thing, but while an RfC is ongoing, the convention is (per WP:ONUS) to leave the status quo ante version in place. El_C 19:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but there is no need for a status quo ante version because "dispute" is not about the content of the article but "scope, title, and lead", right?--Čeha (razgovor) 20:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nicoljaus has a point, you know. I see no consensus. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know what the dispute is about. El_C 06:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

In "Mouchlo; Mikkola related it to the name of 6th century Hunnic (Bulgar[159] or Kutrigur[163]) ruler Mougel/Mouâgeris.", there is a link to the DAB page Bulgar. It should be corrected to [[Bulgars|Bulgar]]. Narky Blert (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing and Proofreading

This article is badly in need of English-language editing and proofreading; e.g. missing definite articles! For example, in the "Origin" section:
• 'in this environment were formed Antes' should be 'in this environment were formed the Antes'
• 'near mythical Amazons' should be 'near the mythical Amazons'
(After the "Origin" section, I stopped reading since, with all due respect, it annoys me to read bad English on the Wikipedia if I can't fix it.) Pasquale (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorbs

Serbs (Sorbs) @Nicoljaus: What's the problem?Mikola22 (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that Primary Chronicle was published hundreds of times, and no one referred to these Serbs as "Sorbs." This is the opinion of one author who is not a historian and who for some reason decided to “ignore the syntax” (usually they don’t). This opinion has not received distribution and so there is not need to mention it (wp:weight).--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: Ok, then specify the sources which referred these Serbs from Primary Chronicle with Balkan Serbs. Regarding “ignore the syntax”.. "The first lines establish that in a remote but unspecified period the Slavs had settled along the Danube, then spread out and assumed individual names from the topography of their new homes, e.g., those on the Morava became Moravljane. The naming principle is immediately ignored and the next groupmentioned is the Czechs. We may assume that the author intended a list that started in the west and moved east to his own people, commenting on the sources of local names as he went. Unfortunatelythe text as it stands is somewhat disjointed and perhaps faulty. Ignoring the syntax.." the problem is with the text and not with the Sorbs, White Croats, Carinthian etc.Mikola22 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then specify the sources which referred these Serbs from Primary Chronicle with Balkan Serbs. See, for example, Majorov book: "The ancient Russian chronicler attributes them [White Croats] to the group of Balkan Slavs. [...] Placing the White Croats in the Balkans along with the Serbs and Horutans brings the account of the ancient Russian chronicler closer to the testimony of the South Slavic source - the so-called Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - which tells of White Croatia in Dalmatia.". His analysis is much more detailed and modern.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)--upd 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:Primary Chronicle was published hundreds of times, and no one referred to these Serbs as "Sorbs." Majorov is one source and he does not mention Balkan Serbs in Primary Chronicle, I'm interested in others sources(hundreds) which mention Balkan Serbs. "The oldest mention of the Surbi is from the Frankish 7th-century Chronicle of Fredegar"... My source: and the Sorbs (Cbp6b). Primary Chronicle talking about the area where the Sorbs live, there is no mention of the Balkans Serbs there. We need to have some source for the Balkan Serbs, for Sorbs we have this source.Mikola22 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Try to find a translation of the Primary Chronicle, were there are "Sorbs", not "Serbs". Good luck.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: I have one source which Serbs reads as Sorbs. Provide information that sources Serbs reads as Serbians(from Balkan). Primary Chronicle mentione Serbs around the Czechs, White Croats etc, this is not Balkan. Earlier you enter White Serbs but Primary Chronicle does not mention White Serbs. Where the sources that Primary Chronicle mentione White Serbs. For now one source talking about Serbs-Sorbs. That's what we have now.Mikola22 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you, as usual, ignore the arguments, I can only suggest WP:DRR--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: If I find some other source then I will edit the article. If the Balkan Serbs are mentioned then will I put this source. Mikola22 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources

The sourcing on this article is now a mess, likely due to the ongoing edit war. Nearly half of the references in the article do not link to the source list, and a number of the sources no longer have any references attached to them at all. Installing User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a good way to see which ones need to be fixed. NOTE: The sources that can be seen at the bottom of this page (Horace Lunt, Majorov, etc) are not a part of this section. They belong to comments elsewhere on this Talk page. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the problem definitely exists. Honestly, this article is by itself a mess, a fork from the article White Croatia for promoting fringe and outdated theories.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The edit war finished with the closure of the RfC on 3 December 2019, but the editors didn't follow the instructions of the closure to revert to the old revision after the protection expired on 30 December 2019. Per RfC closure, "...The absence of consensus ...commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", made by Nicoljaus, and as such the article will be reverted to the old revision. The claim that the article is a mess, a fork of the article White Croatia and promoting fringe and outdated theories is false and without valid arguments.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus in bibliography

The current consensus in bibliography is that the White Croats didn't live in different regions of eastern Europe but in the Carpathian basin and engaged in a short-distance population movement to Dalmatia. The article discusses mostly outdated theories about a "Slavic invasion", extensive migration and an "original pan-Slavic" identity in eastern Europe. @Mikola22: @OyMosby: your thoughts?.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia article in which exist relevant informations from various sources. The fact is and that White Croats are mentioned in multiple places(Carpathian, Polish etc area). Whether it is because migration in various directions or they have always been there we do not know, but sources and historians mention this. We need to see which informations specifically bother you and then I could answer more specifically. Mikola22 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

These theories were interpretations of the scarce primary sources, but they aren't confirmed in the archaeological record in the 21st century. Archaeological excavations of the early Croat settlements in northern Dalmatia show no links with Poland or eastern Europe in general. They are similar to settlements of the Carpathian basin. The enrichment of the archaeological record has led to a revision of the consensus in favor of a localization of the Croat group in that region. I'm not saying that we should necessarily remove these theories, but I think that we should place them in their historical context in the timeline of the progress of research.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Iranian theory has been abandoned in all possible ways. It's a linguistic construct of an era in which very few other tools existed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What I know from Croatian archaeological sources is some connection with Moravian, Slovenian and Slovakian area. Over Slovenia first Slavs coming to Croatian area(written records). Why there is no stronger archaeological connection with Polish area I wouldn't know but this does not mean that White Croats do not come to Roman Dalmatia and from there. We also have new sciences, genetics and archaeogenetics which show that south-eastern Poland is White Croatian source(genetics). For similarities with Carpathian basin I'm not very familiar(I see you're using Florin Curta as source), it is probably the early Slavic archaeological period. But there are more waves of migration. As for "timeline" is concerned, anything which could improve the article I can support. There may be a new section with this new data also. For Iranian theory I agree that it is unnecessary information. Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the consensus on the White Croats is they are from Modern day Southern Poland and West Ukraine. It’s why Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group. Poland is a much like Yugoslavia as it is a unification of many different slavic tribes. Most White Croats stayed and assimilated. Some left towards the Balkans and intermixed with indo European tribes like Illyrians “Red Croats” as some call them. Hence the Red and White checkerbord on the Croatian flag. Unifying White Croats and Illyrians as a new group. Of course they are just Illyrians. Same with White Serbs who came from Modern day East Germany. Some Came to what is Now Serbia amd intermingled with Illyrians and Thracians and other native tribes. The Croats. Like Serbia or Poland had done. Yugoslavia was supposed to be the same plan. Funny enough the White Croats and White Serbs would have been better off staying North. White means North after all. They would be better in relationship I think. The Balkans was a battle ground for so many invading empires fostering a toxic setting. I don’t see too many issues with the article however. Anything specific? OyMosby (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• It’s why Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group. - Source, please.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually we don’t know exactly up to when as the study ended 1911 this is in the article in modern age section. OyMosby (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This document has been checked many times, including on this page, see Talk:White Croats#Bielo-Chorvats. There is no mention that a significant number of Poles from the Krakow area called themselves White Croats when coming to the US. It's just that some Polish writers of 19th century, in the spirit of romantic nationalism, placed White Croatia in southern Poland. These fantasies were somewhat widespread.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi OyMosby, is there anything else you do not understand from the explanation above? I hope the issue is closed and you will no longer repeat that Poles from Krakow up to mod 50s who came to America put “Polish White-Croat” as their nationality and ethnic group. I also ask you to undo this edit: [24], which returns a map supporting this outdated theory. For a more detailed explanation, see this discussion: WP:ANI#Miki Filigranski - WP:CIV, WP:WAR, WP:VERIFY or WP:SYNTH. If there are more questions, I'll be happy to answer.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The explanation basically states that the United States Congress Joint Immigration Commission is a Polish ploy.... Why is the existence of White Croats in Southern Poland such a sensitive matter from two weeks ago and demand I not “repeat” something I said once? I don’t see @Miki Filigranski: talking about it. Nor do I see it as Polish Nationalism. You are making claims that I would like to see sources for. OyMosby (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you got it wrong. The explanation is based on the fact that the United States Congress Joint Immigration Commission does not mention immigrants who call themselves "Polish White Croats". But there is a part setting out the views of the 19th century about various nations, including the now obsolete theory of a "White Croatia" centered in Poland. I want to close this issue so that you do not make edits based on this erroneous belief. So I respectfully ask you either not to repeat the stories about “Polish White-Croat” in the USA, or to provide sources for this statement. For which statements of mine do you need sources?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Please cite us the pages in which can be read what you're saying, but in the discussion section "Bielo-Chorvats" because here is off-topic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, are you saying that White Croatia never existed long ago on what is now Modern Day Southern Poland?OyMosby (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a very controversial question whether it existed at all. Its localization in the area around Krakow is even more controversial. In any case, in the 10th century no trace of the Croats remained in this area and archeology does not find any traces that could be attached to the Croats. However, these are all controversial issues, but the stories about "Polish White Croats in the USA" are not based on anything at all, but they are often repeated to support the theory of White Croatia "on now Modern Day Southern Poland".--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, no it is your WP:BURDEN to cite us the pages, that confirm that "Polish immigrants to the United States born in around Kraków reportedly declared themselves as Bielochrovat". I will wait for this page numbers in "Bielo-Chorvats" section. Cheers.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pleass stop this nonsensical type of discussing again because you're not fooling anyone. The burden is on you, not on me and the pages are already cited in the article. In the mentioned section of talk page provide the pages from which can be read or deduced what you have said or better actually cite us a RS which gives such criticism of the source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Once again, the cited pages are 22 40, 43, 88 and 105. Anyone can check and make sure that nothing is said about immigrants there. How can they support the statement, that "Polish immigrants to the United States born in around Kraków reportedly declared themselves as Bielochrovat (i.e. White Croat)"? The whole source is not the data of Immigration Commission, but the "Dictionary of races or peoples" composed by Daniel Folkmar on the base of the literature of his time, which is completely outdated now.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Things you're talking about is related to the Vienna School of History. The article is written according to academic RS with NPOV in mind as all relevant POV in the bibliography are represented per WP:BALANCE. There's no new consensus in the bibliography, the Slavic invasion is not mostly outdated in fact new archaeogenetic research and data are confirming exactly the contrary, neither the Iranian(-Slavic) theory is abandoned. Furthermore, Curta is often criticized for his ignorance of scholarship consensus, data, and making controversial and progressive claims, especially about anthropology using only archaeologic data which is wrong or citing authors from the Vienna School who have ideological motivations in deconstructing ethnic identities and medieval migrations to the point of unthinkable. Instead, Curta should be placed in the timeline of the progress of research and consensus. Curta isn't more notable neither has higher WEIGHT than countless other contemporary RS. What you proposed is against NPOV. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Curta is the scholar who has shaped much of the contemporary consensus and new archaeogenetic research keeps confirming it. Just as new research keeps confirming that there never was an Anglo-Saxon "invasion" of the British Isles, but a much more complex process of settlement. That's my reading of the contemporary bibliography to which I have institutional access. To which paper published in the past 20 years are you referring in relation to the Iranian theory? --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

deconstructing ethnic identities and medieval migrations to the point of unthinkable I don't think that Curta has ever gone that far. What Curta puts forward is that instead of a grand migration/invasion from the depths of eastern Europe, the journey of the Slavic people in the Balkans was a short one from the Carpathian basin. And instead of talking about a pan-Slavic identity in the context of a primordial Slavic pan-ethnicity, he discusses the various Slavic-language cultures which emerged as a result of different social-cultural processes in their home region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Look, the thing is very simple. We cannot base the whole article on a single source and biased POV. The consensus in the bibliography isn't built overnight with one source because it has to pass at least a generation for a new consensus. Everything is written according to contemporary sources and most importantly contemporary synthesis on the topic of White Croats and Croatian migration to the Western Balkans. It gives a different and balanced perspective to various claims. There's almost nothing to add to the topic. If you think there's a need to make an edit citing Curta, I still don't understand what information do you want and in which section & paragraph. The mentioned article by Curta does not mention anything about White Croats. Citing that source would be WP:SYNTH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• The modern consensus divides "White Croatia" (the fictional ancestral home of the Dalmatian Croats, known only from DAI), the Eastern European (Carpathian) Croats of the ancient Russian chronicles, and the Croats of Central Europe, known from medieval sources, where no one calls them "White Croats". The ethnogenesis of modern Croats is a separate issue and, as far as I know, at present none of the real historians takes seriously the legend of the great migration of the whole nation from a distant "White Croatia" to Dalmatia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• As for the "Iranian theory", now they recognize the possible role of the Iranian substitute in the formation of the Antes, but no one claims that from all the Slavs it is the Croats who descend mainly from the Sarmatians or other Iranian-speaking tribes.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Please, stop. You clearly don't understand the topic or what's written in the bibliography. If you wish to start again making disruptive edits then I am not going to waste my time and am promptly going report you for a topic ban. This is my last warning.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• No arguments, only insults and threatens, as usual.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah right, but there's really one "small" problem with your arguments - they are extremely biased and completely missing the complexity of the topic. Apart from that, if you think that it is smart returning from a block and immediately intentionally edit warring on the same or similar topics because of which were previously blocked - then sorry, you're going to get the "usual treatment".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Read this, please: Wikipedia:Civility--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are the one who should read it again: "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

any mention of or reference to religious arab sources should be stated as controversial, tentative and unreliable - and the narrative should be framed from the perspective of the indigenous slavs, not the imperialistic and invading (and expelled and unwanted) arabs

i have removed an entire paragraph because it's so biased as to be unsalvageable. it looks like it was written by an imam, and not an academic or a historian.

any mention of or reference to religious arab sources should be stated as controversial, tentative and unreliable - and the narrative should be framed from the perspective of the indigenous slavs, not the imperialistic and invading (and expelled and unwanted) arabs.

there is a serious problem with fundamentalist muslims using wikipedia as a tool of propaganda to distort history for their geopolitical ambitions. i am drawing attention to this, but i cannot fix it by myself, in the presence of overwhelming resources dedicated to the cause.