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)

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 branche 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 [2]. 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 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 not 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)

• 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 [3]. 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"

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)." [4] 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” [5]. 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)

• 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: [6] - 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)

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 ([7]) and the administrator ([8]). 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)