User talk:Evlekis/Archive10

Turkey - Please do not modify; you may start from fresh on my current talk page.

AN

You have been mentioned on AN. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Did check but could not find anything. I was late receiving message for having been in Montenegro/BiH (not using Wikipedia) 10-15 May. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, you are invited!

Certainly something I shall look into when I have some time to spare! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Account promoting Albanian-POV sentiment

Yes, there is a group of several editors whose coordinated editing of the Albania related articles can be seen as continious and systematic disruptive POV pushing (traveling circus). I also agree with you that this editor's contribution can be seen as the same kind of POV pushing. But I don't agree that this kind of pov-pushing is "promotion of Albanian-POV sentiment". On the contrary. I think there is nothing more anti-Albanian then misusing wikipedia for dissemination of the myths of 19th century Naimian Albanian nationalism. Comparing with disruption made by other members of that traveling circus, the disruption made by this editor is insignificant. If he/she remains relatively inactive I would forget about him/her.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Category talk

Generally speaking, there is a guideline about Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which says that "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted".

• Still, regarding the famous singer you mentioned, I can point to the same guideline which says: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT)." I don't think this is a case with her.
• Additionaly, regarding the category "LGBT people from Serbia" there is a section about it (Special subcategories) which says "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." In case of this category I don't think it is a case here, so I am against this category as well.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

From Sulmues/Mesfushor - naming discussion

It's me, Sulmues. Who else would be able to reincarnate me anyways, :-)? Mesfushor (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And.... you are the responsible for bringing me back. Mesfushor (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that you've had some problems with Irvi and some other Albanian users in general for the use of the Serbian transliteration of Kosovo Albanian names. I'm actually not sure that you are right. I think it's good to have that in the first paragraph, but not in the lede, as this is the English wikipedia. Although you may regard them as Serbian nationals, they don't regard themselves as such. In general MOSBIO says it clearly that the name should be in the language of the country of which they are nationals. Now, they don't hold a Serbian passport, don't participate in Serbia's elections and so on. I would be ok if they were Albanian Orthodox people, so they would write their names in Slavonic in a church register (that would be the equivalent of Fan Noli, whose name was "Mavromatis" in the church register (but that's not in the lede)), but they are all Muslim (or at least 99% of them). What sense does it have to waste time with those edits? The only advantage is that you will attract the highest number of Albanian nationalists in wikipedia, who will feel that this is an affront to them. I welcome all of your thoughts of course. Mesfushor (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Naturally. We shall discuss it here then, just keep an eye out for changes. First of all, the religious factor is irrelevant. Both Serbs and Albanians are multi-religious even if the areas concerned have one dominant faith each. Now regarding being "Serb nationals" and how they regard themselves, these details don't actually affect the languages presented for the subject. Now let's take this from the very beginning: MOSBIO. I haven't read this but you state that a name should be "in the language of the country of which they are nationals". You probably didn't realise this but that is ambiguous! South Africa has 11 official languages but you probably won't see 11 variations of one man's name. Perhaps you meant it should adhere to the standard locally used by the individual. I can tell you here and now without checking that page that this is wrong. I doubt he page has it wrong but you may not have read it from top to bottom. The names used are those most common to English sources and in accordance with the reliable sources. The reliable sources play their part in case of variation. Now sadly this has led to other problems, yes people's names may be correct but we've had running battles where users have opposed diacritics. Now for most people closer to home, this is not an issue as very few are notable in the English speaking world. This does not mean we have to nominate them all for deletion because persons famous anywhere have their place on this website and foreign sources are permitted. However Sulmues (if I may call you that), this only pertains to the headword (ie. the title of the subject). To this end, I would never suggest moving Hashim Thaçi to either Hashim Thaci (no diacritic) or Hašim Tači (Serbian spelling). By the very same token, the immediate translation of the individual's name is not an indication that the subject is an ethnic Serb. Has this been so, the primary name of the article subject will have been in the Serbian form in the first place; otherwise you may just as well move the one-time Serbian president to [Slobodan Milosheviq] and then give his Serbian translation!

The logic surrounding the names is that they constitute alternative name formats for how the individual is known "in the language of the country of which they are nationals" [sic]. The language of Serbia is and has always been Serbian, or Serbo-Croat. Frankly I don't like to use Serbo-Croat but I concluded with an Albanian editor way back in 2007 that this was neutral for persons born 1946-1990 and it diluted "Serbian" domination and the need for Cyrillic. I favoured Serbian language and both alphabets. The way it is, about half the Kosovar population don't have any translations because they have names that are not different in Serbo-Croat Latinic (such as Lorik Cana or Bekim Bejta). Now, there are a handful of exceptions whereby a person may be ethnic Albanian born in Yugoslavia and escape having a Slavic name format. The best thing I can do to save writing long passages is link you to a conversation on the subject which was recent. If you like, continue this discussion there but please read the contents of the topic first. The page you want is Talk:Shpëtim Hasani, second paragraph, Keyword: compromise. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to post these conversations here. Mesfushor (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a good place to discuss things but I don't think this is such a major issue and I feel confident anything you and I agree to can be taken as agreed policy. I'm one of very few editors to focus on this area and most of the rebellion comes from one-time IPs trying their luck, normally their attempts at reversing consensus include switching of birthplace information and other linguistic factors. I can repel their edits by keeping track of my watchlist. In any case, I've shown you to links to the background on the subject so I'm just awaiting your views. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm after I read your thoughts I believe it's a typical gray area and Albanian editors may think it differently from me as may Serbian editors from you. Thanks, but I'll keep out of it, because it doesn't give me any pleasure. However I just feel it's good to keep track of the consensi achieved between Serbian editors and Albanian ones in one place, should you get sick and tired from Wikipedia like I felt two years ago. Others can be pointed to a consensus achieved and that's a good place to keep track of our collaboration endeavors. Mesfushor (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the need for a centre for discussion, there should be that so that any editor can consult it. I feel I should explain that I welcome your views and if you believe that adjusting the location of these translations helps things I am sure we can find a solution. Nothing is intended to provoke or to create an affront but then a positive editor should never look upon such phenomena as an insult. As I said, the only concern is when an editor attempts to amend a subject's ethnicity or family background but even then, they need to provide sources. You may find this hard to believe but I really don't care about those translations, to me they mean absolutely nothing. Why do I insert them and then monitor all activity there? Simple. It begins with what I see to be the conventions elsewhere particularly where local languages are in different scripts or in a form of the Roman alphabet where no literary code-switching is permitted. An individual born in Greece gets his name in Greek even if both his name and ethnicity suggest origin amongst the non-Greek minorities. This applies with Israel and Hebrew, the Arab world, Russian with Cyrillic, China, Japan, India, the world over. We have various non-majority subjects from Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro (Cyrillic-based lands) with their names in these local forms and very rare do you see opposition. Sadly when it comes to Kosovo, there are a handful of mainly IPs or short-lived editors who flout this convention and believe that ethnic Albanians are an exception to the rule. I know you never said this but those that never talk really need to specify why they feel like that. You know as well as I do that a subject's personal feelings towards his host nation at time of birth is not a factor than can be taken into consideration on an encyclopaedia. Then there are those that just believe that Kosovo is different. The independence vs autonomy debate is a headache entire of itself: the world is split on recognition, the region is split internally with three municipalities observing pre-2008 status, the international figures within don't know whether they are coming or going and nobody can make any sense of international law. On Wikipedia, we walk on eggshells to accommodate the situation and appease all parties. Unfortunately you'll get those editors who will not only push for all presentations to support an independent Kosovo but they will even discard historical factors left, right and centre and - to give a fictional example - Ahmed Imeri (Cyrillic removed), born 18 May 1922 in Đakovica, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (changed to Gjakova, Republic of Kosovo or Republic of Kosova), died in Preševo (changed to Presheva), etc.. These are the editors it is hard to work with and those that will come and go for ever. It's easier to revert them and leave it and only report them if they keep reappearing. But anyone wishing to talk, I am here. If tomorrow a new policy takes effect with no alternative names required even to the point that Cyrillic and Greek alphabet be removed for Serbian, Russian or Greek subjects, then I too will dismantle all those I installed, as well as all others. I hope you see the good faith implied here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that you are overall right, and currently being unnecessarily harassed by Albanian editors, who would be better off focusing on content creation on Albanian topics. I really believe those reports are stupid. But that's just me... Bolerodancer (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Evlekis, hey, you know well I appreciate you a lot and I find you an excellent contributor and consensus maker, but I couldn´t quite get what heppend in this edit. I mean, the naming part I get and I am OK, but the rest goes a bit out of established. First, you removed the Italic for of the letters for the Kosovo national team in the infobox, while it is recomened by WP:FOOTY for differenciating with the FIFA recognised national teams. Despite the efforts of Fadil Vokrri within FIFA and even Serbia to reach an agreement in order to play friendly games at least, Serbian FA made such a drama that even that went down... (hey, I personally even favour Vokrri´s initiative and I must be one of few Serbian editors, if not the only one, thinking and supporting Kosovo NT - "let them play football" - because I am perfectly conscient that even if, although will not in my personal opinion, but even if it stays within Serbia, they will allways have some wide form of autonomy, wich will most certinly include an independent form of organisation of sporting events and most probably internationl representation, similar to Faeroe Islands which are dependence of Denmark. The point is that even so that I am not an opposer of a Kosovo NT, I still favour the solution proposed by FOOTY project in order to keep non-FIFA NT´s, like Kosovo one, in Italics.

Regarding the infobox place of birth display, I am aware that some editors have been making efforts to change the established city+country formula (like Joy who has the theory how the Yugoslav Republics were countries, see this conversation) and I am not a rigid supporter of neither option, but we should really perhaps get all together and decide if a chnge is going to be done, otherwise we´ll have some article done in one way, others in another, well, you know what I men... Let me know what you think. Best regards and hopet all´s fine with you! FkpCascais (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response, and Evlekis please you don´t need at all to apologise to me, I was just wandering if I missed some discussion or something and I thought maybe you were implementing some new "World order" without me knowing :)

Regarding your explanation on Kosovo NT, I appreciate a lot the perspective you gave me. The problem is that I beleave Serbian strategy has not been working at any point. You are absolutely right, Serbia identifiying itself with Kosovo is fundamental, but the problem is that as much as Serbia tries it, it fails to do it in practice. For instance, take a look at official roads websites of both Serbia and Kosovo:

• Putevi Srbije official website

See the map? Includes Kosovo and its roads (of course!) you see them, right? Now take a look at Kosovo roads official website:

• Kosovo motorway

Wait, what? Serbia missed 38 km of highway in its "own" territory? See the point? Either you treat as yours and take care about it, or otherwise accept the fact that you have no clue neither control about what is going on there.

Now imagine a tourist wanting to go to Kosovo, and he comes to Belgrade and asks for best ways of moving around in a car. Now obviously in Belgrade they will give him the map they have which is not updated for Kosovo territory since the last presence of Serbian control there, more than a decade ago! And the turists go there and so, and sudently, they find out a highway! A highway people in Belgrade didn´t even new it exists and it is found in the terrtory they drow as "their" own! Turists found out a highway that even the autorities which claim control of that territory, didn´t even knew! They found America!

My point is that for Serbian autorities to claim any kind of sovereignity there, at least they need to acknolledge the events taking place there, including the ones they don´t control. Once they (intentionaly, or even not) miss 35 km of highway, which is more km that were ever built in Serbia during last 20 years, they somehow fail in their claim then. I mean, this is a clear exemple of how Serbia fails in its policy, because they live in a frowzen moment from the past, which is obviously out of reality. This "turist exemple" is almost as ridiculous as if a turist comes to a Turist agent in London and asks for a map of India and they give him a map from the last Imperial domination of India. What if a turist in a Kosovo exemple returns to Belgrade, goes to Putevi Srbije and says "Hey guys, you missed to inform me about a highway that exists there?" Should they answer: "Oh, we don´t recognise that highway!" - You don´t recognise a highwy?!?! I mean, see my point? For Serbia to righfully claim Kosovo it needs to have a completely different approach, in which they shuld have cooperated with all organisations and kept track of all events taking place there, or otherwise it is just a charade. Serbia by not acknolledging 35 km highway on its claimed territory is actually assuming Serbia without Kosovo policy, even if it thinks that it isn´t...

Best regards Evlekis, and sorry for this silly highway talk of mine :) FkpCascais (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, I am fully aware of how the issue of Kosovo is dealt in Serbia, no need to adress it to me. Also, I am very interested, often well familiarised, with politics, history, geography, sociology, geopolitics, and all related aspects, generally in a global perspective, but specially on Balkans. I actually didn´t grew up in Portugal, but in Mexico, then I lived for a period in Belgrade, and then I came to Portugal where I live for a while now. However, I do often travel back to the Balkans to visit family and friends, I have properties there, and I am Serbian in all aspects of its meaning (just in case you forgot:)

I just don´t share the view of the Serbian Governament and most of the political parties there on how to solve the geopolitical problems Serbia is faced with. I have been in all places of Yugoslavia except Macedonia. I have been to Kosovo twice before 1999 and I have a particular POV on how should Serbia interests on that territory be kept, and as you must have understood, they don´t match at all with the Serbian current politics. In Kosovo I ad the chance to visit all important places of historical significance, and I had the chance to see well how both, Albanian and Serbian comunities lived by then. Personally, I beleave that the rights the Kosovar Albanians had until 1999 are missrepresented. They had the geater ammount of rights any minority ever had. I think that part should be more explored here on wp and it will obviously be opposed by Albanian editors who wish to avoid the most that matter as it doesn´t combine wth the victim image they tend to present. On the other side, I beleave that Serbs nowadays don´t have any clue what would really mean to have Kosovo incorporated into Serbia, as all most of them were used to, is to have the territory officially considered as Serbian, but without the actual Albanian active participation and representation in Belgrade. Of course, I am talking of the consequences of such active participation... Serbia and Serbs already have problems in correctly dealing with much lighter problems such as Sandzak, Vojvodina autonomy or German claims in Vojvodina, imagine what would the incorporation of 2m Albanians do. Honestly, I don´t see it worth it, Serbia neither Serbs have any real plan or idea on how to deal with that problem... It is more of an absession which is costing too much my country and my fellow countriman without them being able to uncknolledge it. To be honest, it was a well planted evil sead which only sabotages Serbian development. It was a perfectly planed situation in which the enemies of Serbia had the joy of seing Serbia further and further taking wrong steps naively thinking they are doing some good to themselfs, while they are actually doing exactly as planned... long story dear Evlekis, and many punches me and my family took that prevent me in falling into the simple story of the glorious monasteries worth loosing decades of developemnt and "normal life".

To be honest with you, I do follow from time to time the Kosovo discussions, and I only don´t participate more because I may not be the best allie of some of my dearest editors from Wp such as you and WW. We could agree on most, and I could even provide some good ideas, but some certainly clash with some of the favoured by Serbian policy on that matter, so I don´t want to get involved in that, beside I really don´t have the time. Football is a passion of mine specially from the historical and statistical perspective, but far from being my only matter of interess, just that is the less controversial one, and works more as a hobbie than the polemical ones that usually turn more into a headacke. FkpCascais (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Evle, just one important thing, as I try to express the most in less possible words mostly about particular aspects and avoiding the obvious ones you would expect from a Serbian person like myself. However, I forget to mention the basic ones:

I do oppose technically to the independence of Kosovo in a sense that the territorial integrity of Serbia should have been respected in same way it was respected and imposed in Croatia and Bosnia. However, what I am doing in my thinking process is crossing the acknolledgment of the reality (fair, or not) with the damage control in the present situation. One thing is what I wish, another is what I consider fair and what should have been done, and another, and that is what I discussed here with you, is this aspect of what is currently possible and real as solution. My criticism goes mostly to the Serbian political approach which has not gone any further from the "I wish" aspect and is completely out of reality, and thus it can´t present a credible solution, and thus ends up being prejuditial to the entire process and basically only a waste of time. I can´t favour an approach which I am certain that it wan´t produce any results. FkpCascais (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Reported

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding removing sourced material. The thread is [[1]] The discussion is about the your breaking of the revert rule. Thank you. P.S. The report was already filed, I'm merely informing you. —Ottomanist (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Report

[2] 5 reverts in less than 24 hours without fact-checking.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. No evidence of no "fact-checking". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by Arbcom sanctions

Evlekis, please note that Republic of Kosovo is covered under the WP:ARBMAC decision. The options available to administrators are listed at WP:AC/DS#Sanctions. I am logging this notice in the WP:ARBMAC case. A complaint that you violated the 1RR at Republic of Kosovo was recently filed at WP:ANI#User:Evlekis. Even though many of your edits appear well-intentioned and not highly partisan, you can't rely on your own judgment in these matters. You need to get support and concurrence from other editors when changing controversial items, such as the sovereignty of Kosovo. In the future, you can't expect much sympathy if people are convinced you have broken 1RR on a contentious Balkan article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Which you were already aware of following this discussion in June (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks Majuru, I've seen it and it is another lost cause for you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ottomanist

I'm not related to Ottomanist. Majuru (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought one person was editing both accounts. I'll take your word. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names

While adding the Slavic transliterations on bios of people that were born in a Slavic state can somewhat be arqued, adding similar transliterations to personalities that weren't born in a Slavic state but merely happened to live in such states is pointless, so please do not add such transliterations again.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Kosovo

Hello, Evlekis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Kosovo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Report

3RR-— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Naming conventions of non-Slavic personalities that were born or lived in former Yugoslavia". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Macedonians

Zdravo Elvis, or Evlekis, or Elf ?! (Kidding)

Thanks for your message. Whilst I do not understand it entirely, I agree that ethnicity/ identity is subjective - ie what matters is how people identify themselves as. Of course, it is not dependent on "genetics".

But what I mean by that sentence (i cannot even remember where I wrote it), is that both genetic anthropology and , now, archaeology have disproven , or at least, case serious doubt , that Macedonians Slavs, like Serbs, Montenegrins, etc "came from" Polesie, or Poland, or wherever else 20th century Soviet-era schoalrship poustlated to have been the "Slavic homeland". It is is without debate that the genetic profile of macedonians, Serbs, Bulgarians is "Balkan", and not that of the Dnieper-Vistula region. In fact, it is the most diverse and oldest of Europe. The region of the Vardar-MOrava-Danube basins is the "womb of Europe" and the people that have lived there have been there for eons. Yes languages and culture change, but demographically, thye have always been there.

That was my point, to counter common current misconceptions that Slavs "came" to the Balkans. They did not come there. The peoples have always lived there, but became Slavs in the 7th century due to a variety of reasons, many still yet to be understood. However, it was not simply a matter of extermination and invasion, rather , quite the opposite. The same with the Anglo-Saxonization of England in the wake of Roman collapse.

Even linguistically, there is nor proof that Slavic originated in the northeastern Europe. Going on river names, no one has agreed which area is the real Slavic homeland. Some have pointed to Poland, Some Pannonia, some the Pripayat, etc. However, one thing is clear, the only evidence of names which might be Slavic prior to the 6th century comes from the Balkans. I'm sure you have heard of Bylazora (Belazora) - the capital of Paeonia , or the etymology of Edessa (original Vergina) derived from vodena, or the Phrygian capital Gordium (Russ gorod, mac grad), or the paeonian tribe Doberes (? the good folk), or the Brygians (Sl breg - mountain; ie mountain folk in the Dinaric/ Pindus region), or the endings of Thracian townships -deva -> modern Slavic -ovo; or -diza -> enclosed/ fortified settlement : modern Sl "Dzid" = wall). If not Slavic, they are clearly related to it (some form of "Pre-Slavic" ). SO how the hell did Slavic come from Russia when it was already in the Balkans in 400 BC ??

PS I love your son's name. Such traditional pagan Slavic style :)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there was somewhere , a "root" as you call it, from where Slavic langauge developed. Exactly where this was is matter of contention, and ultimately cannot be proven. However, there is no reason to assume that it was a neatly definable geographic area. As Colin Renfrew has argued, larger language areas can develop over periods of long contact to merge into a "common language". EIther way, there was never any "proto-Slavic" people living for millenia in the deep , dark woods & swamps of the Pripyat region. Just like there was no "proto-Indo-Europeans" - who are the product of overambitious (and perhaps Romantic, Eurocentric) , but otherwise credible and respectable scholars. This is a fantasy of 20th century Scholarship. Slavic ethnicity developed in the 6-10th centuries; althou Slavic language has been "in the making" for thousands of years.

What do you mean by you do not believe there was nothing of "Slavic character" in the Balkans prior to 555 AD? Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If Slavic origin names of geographical features abound in the region prior to these migrations, there is everything to suggest that Slavic people were once living there. But I have so far been given to assume that whoever was using these names - names which were their own language developments of once Slavic forms - will have been non-Slavic people such as Illyrians, earlier Greeks

Correct. And of course, I am saying they sound Slavic. They might not be, although it is had to deny Bylazora is not Slavic. The literature on the similarities between Thracian languages with Balto-Slavic is abundant in the older works - eg Duridanov, Katicic, not to mention many present-day pseudoscholars. And yes, there were certainly no "Slavs" - in the ethno-political sense, prior to 6th cenutry. But language and identity are not co-eval. Language certainly does shape ethnic identity, but ultimately, as you have stated, identity is simply a subjective phenomenon on how one group of peipole perceives themselves and are perceived by others. But keep in mind, there were no "Illyrian" and "Thracian" nations. This was a blanket lable invente by the greeks to refer to the people immidiately northeast and northwst of them, and then propagated during ROman times when they actually established the provinces of "Illyria" and Thracia. Prior to the conquest of ROme, and in absence of large Empires or kingdoms in pre-Roman Balkan times, and keeping in mind the rugged , mountainous geophraphy of many parts of the Balkans (except the Drava-Sava-Danube-Morava-Vardar highway), communities would have been relatively "closed" and parochail. A variety of different lects (= dialect or language. the distniction between the two might be hard in reality). SO it was a mosaic of many different languge groups; some of which appear to have been a form of pre-Slavic, or certainly, as we know , somewhat related satem langauges.

I don't think the migrations of central European Slavs

This is the largest historical simplification ever. There was no "Slavic migration", certainyl not the way Marija Gimbutas romantically describedz it as large number of peaceful Slavic "folk" migrating in search for better farmland. This is wrong for several reasons

(1) The archaeological basis on which it has been argued is correct. The so-called "Prague" pottery culture is a figment of Slavic archaeologists imagination. There was no universal Slavic pot, although many cultural similarities did develop over large parts of eastern (Slavic) Europe. But this came laters (600-900AD), and had more to do with exchange networks, trade, and the influence of the Avar EMpire than a migration from Ukraine

(2) Demographically impossible. How did a tribe from Polesie, or wherever, migrate and populate half of Europe ?? In fact, the Polesie appears to have been totally uninhabited around the mid 1st millenium AD ! Poland also. Ukraine was in demographic decline, but still inhbaited in 6th century. But if Slavs migrated in 500 AD from there to the Balkans, it doesnt make sense, for in the Balkans there is very little "Slavic" material until 700 AD, and then in 700 AD, settlements in Ukraine seem to have grown- not possible if people are out-migrating. So there is a real dilemma in archaeology still. You should read Curta's works on this.

(3) as mentioned before, there is no proof that Slavic originated in Russia. Language change is usually slow, but can be very rapid in periods of large scale socio-cultural change. SO it could be that Slavic developed c. 500 AD over a large area of EE, so to define a precise 'homeland" is taking the wrong approach

(4) If Slavs migrated en mass to look for better farmland, why the Balkans, esp Greece? Much of Dalmatia is limestone rock, and most of GReece is just a rock in the Aegean sea. They were no olive farmers , LOL.

So Slavs live alongside a non-Slavic nation; the non-Slavic nation adopts the Slavic tongue and with it, names of people - a single nation moves forward carrying with it any cultural remnants from the nation to have assimilated, and the size of a tribe has doubled in a short time.

There were no "Nations" in 600 AD, post -ROman Europe. The collapse of ROman EMpire had far-reaching consequences not only in southern EUrope, but also northern Europea 'barbaricum' where the elite there depended on Rome as a source of power, legitimization, trade, etc which consolidated their power. The collapse of ROme, plus perhaps climatic change, precipitated also decline in northern Europe. That is why Anglia in Germany, hundreds of years of terps in Frisia, the PRzewrosk culture, and even Chernyakov culture (but les so), all "collapsed" I knwo the theory of SLavs mixing with non-Slavs is a popular idea, and even sstated by Procopius, but this is too simplistic a model. The "Slavs" in Poland, or the Elbe, had nothing to directly do with Slavs in Ukraine, or Greece, except for becoming to speak a common language. They were not factions of one "proto-Slavic" tribe which had once lived in ancestral Slavonia, for no such land ever existed.

But what is relevant is that Dorians and Ionians themselves descended from one common ancestor, atleast linguistically if nothing else - it guaranteed a pedigree in every person; this must surely have been the case with Slavic peoples from the 6th

This is mythology and cannot be taken as prima facie evidence as to how Greek identity formed. The fact is, DOrian and Ionian were formed in the aftermath of collapse of the Mycenean lingua franca. PErhpas Dorian was a relatively peripheral lect of Mycenean, for alone it lacks any innovative change not also present in other groups (eg Aeolic, Ionian, etc).

I suggest you read D Dzino's book ""Becoming Slav, BEcoming Croat. IT is a very good book. Whilst focussed on Croatia, it is perfectly applicable to all of the Balkans, eg macedonia, Serbia. It argues similar to what I have said above, and argues that Slavic was adopted as the lingua franca by disparate communities in the scenario of a post-Roman vaccuum and the infleunce of the Avar Empire - a large an influential empire where Slavic was the "imperial" language (irresepctive of whether the Avars were "Asian".) It might be available in gull PDF form via acaedmia .com or scribd. Also, read Curta's article "Slavic lingua franca", just google Florin Curta and its on his CV page. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

http://florida.academia.edu/FlorinCurta/Papers/161557/The_Slavic_lingua_franca_Linguistic_notes_of_an_archaeologist_turned_historian_

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Former Yugoslavia naming conventions, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Former Yugoslavia naming conventions, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 22:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)