Talk:South Slavs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File:Bogumili-tvrtka1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bogumili-tvrtka1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

very poor document[edit]

This is very poor document. It is seething with nationalism and poorly describes the history of the region. Funnily the Serbs still claim Croatia and Bosnia, please grow up and stop it. Serbian's were east of the Drina divided by the religion with the separation of the eastern orthodox churches and western christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.0.226 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are into your DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_%28Y-DNA%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.0.226 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of which you whinge about is true. i donlt think the article anywhwere claims that Serbia should rule Bosnia or Croatia. However it depict that at some points in history, medieval Serbia extended into Bosnia (west of Drina) and southern Dalmatia. That is a historical fact regardless of what you wish or feel. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization[edit]

I have added extra information in the infobox and reorganized the images in the gallery. I have divided the gallery into two parts: personalities and sights. I have included one prominent personality from every South Slavic nation and one famous place of every South Slavic country. Maybe we can add some pictures of the national dresses of each SS nation (one picture per nation). best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Slavic states[edit]

Where is Croatia? Or smaller west adriatic Sclavinias? Where is Panonia/Savia? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

this nonsense is growing way out of proportion. first of all. according to byzantine sources first slavic unified subject was the macedonian sclavinia. it was not kingdom or khaganat, but unified subject comprised of all the sclavinias. until the 9th century there is no other slavic entity. it had kings, like rex (hacon)chatzon and rex (pribond)perbundos. it was destroyed by combined efforts of byzantines and bulgars.

second of all. byzantine sources call all the tribes from istria to epirus and black sea, as macedonian slavs. there is no mention of serbs and croats. not until 9th-10th ct. i don't know where did you come up with that? and third of all. only in english language there is a difference between bulgars and bulgarians. otherwise, in slavic is just "blgari". not blgari v.s. blgarijanci. we call "Blgari" the turkmen tribes of russia, and we call blgari (they call themselves) the people living in thrace. this is done in order to erase the turkcicity of the bulgars by double naming the same peoples and to full the english speaking spectator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.59.148 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarians[edit]

Bulgarians are a people of mixed ancestry, which includes Slavs but is not necessarily even predominantly Slavic. The name of the nation itself is derived from the Bulgars, a Turkic people. -- Director (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, but I was under the impression that Bulgarians are considered South Slavs regardless. The very first sentence of that article states that they are a South Slavic nation. After reading this article, I don't think one would get the impression that Bulgarians are less South Slavic than the others, so the map makes it a bit confusing. --Local hero talk 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I created the new map for the added detail, and knowing that some questions remain as to the "Slavicness" of Bulgarians, I thought I'd give them a slightly lighter shade that's all. It can be altered if really necessary. -- Director (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Umm, so, what are we to do with the article about the ethnic group itself? And with all the sources that categorise Bulgarians as South Slavs? It is the first time I hear of them (us) not being considered South Slavs coming from anyone but some pan-Bulgar ultra-nationalist Tangra-believer. I thought it was a notion specific to those circles, and, thus, representing a fringe view. --Laveol T 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone mind reverting to the old map until this whole situation is clarified? The present version looks extremely awkward and confusing. What are readers supposed to think of it, especially the way the map contradicts the article as well as the article about Bulgarians. --Laveol T 23:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well there's no question that the name of the nation at least derives from a Turkic people, and that their ancestry is at least in some small degree Turkic.. Of course, all Balkan nations are the result of significant ethnic mixing. As I said, though, Bulgarians are distinct from the rest in that they derive their name from what is undeniably a Turkic tribe, and have some Turkic ancestry. Of the other Slavic nations, Croat right-wingers like to claim they descend from Ostrogoths more than Slavs, but that is a far less realistic claim..
What's certain is that its not just right-wing hoohaa.. In either case, I've no intention of opening this complex issue myself, so if the consensus is to alter the lighter shade, its fine with me? -- Director (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If the shading is uniform for all the nations from Slovenia to Bulgaria, then yes I find it better than the current one. --Local hero talk 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
this article is a cuckoo egg among slavs. history says bulgars were turkic peoples. all those pechenegs, kipchaks, bashkirs, gagaus, kumans, udi, chuvash are still turkic peoples. the bulgars came to balkans in favor of byzanthium, to subjugate what they were referring to as "macedonian slavs". they were fighting wars with macedonian slavs and their leaders: rex hacon, rex pribond and thomas, until 9th ct when they took macedonian slavic language and gradually became assimilated. there is no mention in byzantine sources about any bulgarian empire. only khaganate. ref>>https://archive.org/details/ByzantineSourcesForHistoryOfThePeoplesOfYugoslavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.59.148 (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Macedonian sclavinia[edit]

Why is Macedonian sclavinia deliberately left out of this article? there is no even mention under the graph of slavic states. all we know, confirmed sources about slavs, are byzantine sources. not some hidden wooden plates, book of veles and other nonsense. as procopius cesarensis mentions, as well as other byzantine sources, miracles of saint demetrius etc. the first slavic organized unity was called macedonian sclavinia (not some Samo kingdom). it had kings like rex hacon, rex pribond, thomas the slav. all the slavic tribes mentioned in byzantine sources are macedonian slavs rinhiniti, draguviti, ezeriti, vajuniti, smolyani, strumjani, sagudati, velegziti, bereziti, milingoi. byzantine sources dont mention serbs or croats, or bosniaks, or montenegrins as slavic pressence in the balkans earlier than 10th ct. and bulgars are mentioned as byzantine turkic allies in the fight against macedonian slavs. here are all the byzantine references, concerning slavs in the balkans, and all you'll find are those tribes i mentioned. macedonian slavs. nothing more, nothing less. https://archive.org/details/ByzantineSourcesForHistoryOfThePeoplesOfYugoslavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.59.148 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

During the early Middle Ages, the Byzantine historians categorized the numerous Slavic tribal unions on the early Medieval Balkans as 'Sclavinias' and often associated them with particular tribes. In the 8-th century, Theophanes the Confessor reported that the emperor Constantine V captured the Macedonian Sklavinias (small, tribal unions of the Slavs who settled the Balkans after the collapse of the Avars). The Slavs were self-governing in their extended families and districts, and their tribal organization was sufficiently strong to abolish Byzantine rule in the Balkans. The modern Macedonian historians have described it as some kind of primary ethno-political entity, but such views are extremely doubtful. These Slavs did not have sufficient state-building skills, they failed to unite them and in the 8th century they were reconquered by the Byzantines. On the other hand, Florin Curta describe the great Slavic invasion of the 6th and 7th century on the Balkans and particularly in Macedonia as a historical exaggeration. Thus, the construction of the first South Slavic states was organized by the Croats, Serbs and Bulgars and the local (Slavic) population in today Republic of Macedonia was first conquered by the Bulgars in the middle of the 9th century. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I give you a book, with all the byzantine sources cited, and yet you think you know better? "and now, in that way almost all of Epirus, Hellada, the Peloponnese and Macedonia have also been settled by these Skiti-Slavs. (Strabonos Epithomatus)". That is not something minor, and i have read Florin Curta. These are confirmed Byzantine sources. read the e-book before deleting my edit. WP:ADMIN. 79.126.181.13 (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You can improve my edit instead of deleting it. we're here for facts, not modern versions of history.79.126.181.13 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Why you deleted all the slavic states? you call that neutrality? WP:ADMIN help.79.126.181.13 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

The article, as per Latin peoples, Germanic peoples, Iranian peoples, etc, should not include sections on individual states, tribes, etc, which clutters the article.Also, the old revisions show POV and OR issues. The article should only include an overview of the peoples, overall history, while further information on states and tribes can be found in the see also section and sub-categories.--Zoupan 12:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, the article should obviously outline the history of individual South Slavic tribes. The only question is how much detail is necessary. The answer to that in my view is - probably more. This is a pretty small article.
Don't delete content without consensus... -- Director (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably more? So we'll have sections on individual tribes (early medieval), medieval states, early modern history, and modern states? I think you have missed the point of these kind of articles. Your view would be an endless clutterbox. What is wrong with an overview, prose, in appropriate time periods (sections)? This is the focus of the article (South Slavs, not historical countries of South Slavs). I was going to begin working on it, but you seem to have some other destiny for this article. Go ahead, work on it, I'll give it two months.--Zoupan 04:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)