Talk:White Croats/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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: [1], 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)

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)