Talk:Baltic Slavic piracy

Map for this article/Accuracy challenges

This whole wikipedia article is innacurate and terrible ,but what can you expect from person who reads about them in books from 1922 and 1943 ,western slavs on the baltic were way powerfull,they have huge fleets and very big forts,practically the whole area what is called German coast those days belonged to the slavs,they have way more to do with scandinavians than the mainland Germans.You also forget about the Free city states like Lubeck ,that became part of Germany only in 18 hundreds.This whole article have to be done all over.Please read new books ,go on some Danish archeological sites read about Wolin(which by the way you can go and visit,go see Niklots monument in n orthern Germany etc)read about Canute,check on Blue tooth's soldiers and etc,i can go on.From now on the site will be done properly without any 19 and 20th century BS.

Is inappropriate and inaccurate. The map should focus on coastal bases and reach of Slavic pirates, not the Slavic countries. Also, the Magyars (Hungarians) aren't Slavic, while the Albanians and Greeks mostly are. -114.91.67.41 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd removed it. I wonder why Illyrians got mixed into the Slavs. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Also the piracy thriving in Black Sea for centuries is completely omitted from the text. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This "article" is full of nonsense and wild inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.29.14 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did it get "mixed"? Now, now... Not mixed, but properly called.

Most Southern "Slavs", especially in Dalmatia and its hinterlands (Herzegovina, parts of Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro), are partly of Illyrian origin. That is why in 15th-19th century (when such things were still remembered, before the empty-headedness took over) Austria called its chancellery for South Slavs "Illyrian Chancery". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.75.90 (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Illyrians

The part of the article with the Illyrians has to be all removed. I have reported this Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Slavic_piracyMegistias (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

split

The original article was about Baltic Slavs, and I'm going to revert it to that, because the Uskoks have their own article, and the Neretva pirates do too. This title (Slavic piracy) will then become a disambiguation page, because the term is just too broad. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Well,the autor doesn't know much about the baltic slavs.Like i said books from 1922 and 1943......????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.44.61 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is so innacurate it shouyd be removed(not only innnacurate but very stupid as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.44.61 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Far fetched

The whole article is a shamble. Although I usually do not comment on articles which I like being deleted - mostly articles I consider to be hindsighted or just not historical correct - I have to do it this time. If one considers the publication date of the two main "sources", 1922 and 1943, it won't be hard to classify the whole approach as part of the german-slavic discours of the 19th and 20th century (which is a relevant matter to be seen on). What makes this very article odd is, the absence of any pendant in the geman wikipedia: a field of interest that, holds the most controversial articles on slavism-versus-germanism! I submit that the author of this wordly concoction does not know what piracy, slavic or germanic means in the first place. It is a shame for the english wikipedia, which I (being german) rather like to use than its german counterpart. Maybe someone could rename, rephrase, reparagraphe and relete it?--78.52.32.177 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge into more general article, and upgrade quality & citations

It appears that no analagous article, to this one, exists in any other language's Wikipedia. Therefore, it seems reasonable that this topic should instead be addressed in a more general pre-existing article that already has pre-exisiting analogues in other languages. Red flags for this present article are that almost all of the citations are from only two rather old sources, and that the last sentences of each subsection lack citations. (I personally lack the expertise to address whether or not any or all of the content is accurate.) Acwilson9 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)