Talk:Names of the Serbs and Serbia

Edit summary

WP:FRINGE, WP:HOWCITE. Regarding WP:HOWCITE, everything is entered according to the rule. I have seen dozens of such sources and this cannot be a reason to start deleting information from Wikipedia. As for WP:FRINGE, you have Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and there try to determine fringe theory. This is information from RS and extra RS can be added. In this RS groups of scholars make conclusion about Serbian name and it is not fringe theory. In the same article you have this information "Furthermore, he says that the town of Servia received its name from the Serbs who once lived there" This term Servia is because of Constantine VII explanation ie same information from RS which I added. Cannot first information be not fringe and information from my RS fringe, and it's about the same thing, same basis and from same historical document. Mikola22 (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's no controversy for citing Constantine VII's interpretation of the etymology, but it needs additional secondary context and rephrasing that it was wrong etymological derivation using Latin and Greek language like in the case of the Croats.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am editor and I edit article (ie enter information) according to the source. Secondary context etc I can't made it up because it is OR. I support information from English RS which gives this context(wrong etymological derivation). Mikola22 (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Your edit is WP:OR ie WP:SYN because we must not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". "Paraetymology" and "reliability disputable" fact of Tibor Živković is not consistent with other sources which exist and who do not mention these facts. Claim of Tibor Živković in this case must be after the above sentence and according to, because first RS speak about two groups of scholars which interpret the origin of the Serbian name differently. If this remained so mixed up present information refutes its own source ie we have OR because two sources the not speak as source of Tibor Živković. Mikola22 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No, "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - the conclusion is stated by at least one source as well as the other mention it as part of "imperial fantasy" or rise doubt and as such it is no violation of OR or SYNTH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Paraetymology" and "reliability disputable" facts the not exist in other two RS, if this fact exist then show them to see what it's all about. Information from first RS: " Others(scholars), following Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, suggest that the name Serb comes from the Latin servus, “servant” or "slave": "Serbs" in the tongue of the Romans is the word for "slave," whence the colloquial "ser-bula" for menial shoes, and "tzerboulianoi" for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear". This RS mentioned two groups of scholars with their theses, this (other) group of scholars probably does not consider that this term or claim of Porphyrogenitus is "Paraetymology" and "reliability disputable" otherwise they wouldn't used that historical fact in their conclusions. In any case, the RS does not have this "facts" as informations, (ie it has the opposite conclusion). By merging these sources into one Wikipedia rule is violated (If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article).

"imperial fantasy" fact is not "Paraetymology" and "reliability disputable" fact, information from the source: ("The prince of Serbia has from the beginning, that is ever since the reign of Heraclius the emperor, been in servitude and submission to the emperor of the Romans, and was never subject to the prince of Bulgaria." So writes Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, spreading, as he often does, a gauzy layer of imperial fantasy over what historians can only hope is a foundation of truth.") This part of the book is not about the name, autor after quoting Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus information give his conclusion. But this is conclusion for this quote and DAI in general, not for Serbian name or against scholars which following Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus for name fact. This article is not about De Administrando Imperio(whether it is false, true, etc). Mikola22 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Read again what SYNTH means. The source you quoted mentions both Iranian and Latin etymological derivation of the Serbian ethnonym. The claim that some scholars argue the Latin etymological derivation is also false as can be proven in the bibliography (and in the article's section "Etymology"). That derivation is debunked long ago. Nobody argues it among historians and linguists i.e. its minor or fringe theory. We cannot give WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you want we can switch places of the references as an intermediate solution, but it's really not necessary. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that should be added according to other historians or in this case Tibor Živković, because RS(book "Sailing from Byzantium") claim that other group of scholars has they claims based on Constantine VII ("Serb comes from the Latin servus"..etc). If we interpreted Tibor Živković source in that way, then we could in any article which uses information from Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus(DAI) add Tibor Živković source and "reliability is disputable" fact. Therefore, we have to be careful because this certainly is not view of all historians in general(DAI) and in this case(Serbian name) also. This is my thinking as a editor and other editors may decide if they think that there is a problem here. I'm done. Mikola22 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning every discussion. Other editors are disagreeing with you. Do not edit-war like you did on Serbia.

DAI is not a source for etymology and linguistics.

This is classical POV pushing and SYNTH, as explained above.

I understand that some circles like to think that Serbs means "slaves" (while their nation had no independent state for almost 900 years or less) but that is long buried and the root Serb is, as far as we know, far older than the Roman Empire. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic origin

The most prevailing theory considers it of Proto-Slavic origin. According to Hanna Popowska-Taborska, who also argued native Slavic provenance of the ethnonym

• In the source doesn't write "most prevailing theory considers it of Proto-Slavic origin" or information where Hanna Popowska-Taborska "argued native Slavic provenance of the ethnonym" of Serbian name. It is WP:OR. Proof is the source itself where this is not explicitly claimed. See source. Mikola22 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Stop spamming the TP. You are not confusing anybody. 2) How did you check that? What was your process? There is no OR here, 3) This massive spam and bludgeoning of the discussion is just a way to achieve one's vision and push the weak-minded thinking and theory which states that the names of Serbs as a nation means slaves. That goes very well with the theory of "filthy Vlachs" who were converted to Serbs by SOC. It's pathetic and there is a lot of different sort of problems behind that sort of "thinking:. Do not remove information for which you have not gathered community consensus and please stop gaming the system and abusing Wiki guidelines in new ways. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Please provide citation where in the source write "The most prevailing theory considers it of Proto-Slavic origin" and "argued native Slavic provenance of the ethnonym". If evidence is not exposed it is WP:OR. I am waiting, thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything is written in the section "Etymology" and the sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorbs

German-Sorbian scholar Schuster-Šewc listed the *srъb- / *sьrb- roots in Slavic words meaning "to sip, munch", found in Polish s(i)erbać, Russian сербать, etc., and also cognates in non-Slavic languages, such as Lithuanian suřbti, Middle German sürfen, which all derive from Indo-European onomatopoeic roots *serbh- / *sirbh- / *surbh- meaning "to sip, to breast-feed, to flow". According to him, the basis of the ethnonym lays in "kinship by milk" and "brotherhood in milk" which was widespread in early ethnic groups (between both relatives and non-relatives) and thus carried the secondary meanings of "those who belong to the same family, kinsman"; "member of the same kin, tribe"; and finally an ethnonym (name of a people, nation).

• This information is for Sorbs name and ethnonym. Title of the source itself say this "Порекло и историја етнонима Serb "Лужички Србин".."Origin and history of the ethnonym Serb "Lusatian Serb(Sorbs)". Information from this source concerned article about Sorbs and their etymology not Serbian etymology and it is WP:OR(source must directly support the material being presented). See source. Otherwise, we don't even know where exactly this information came from. This is translation of some source and I suppose some german source but without year, publisher etc marks. Mikola22 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I invite admins to take a look at this WP:PLAYPOLICY and constant edit-warring. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorbs II

The ethnonym is mentioned in the Middle Ages as Cervetiis (Servetiis), gentis (S)urbiorum, Suurbi, Sorabi, Soraborum, Sorabos, Surpe, Sorabici, Sorabiet, Sarbin, Swrbjn, Servians, Sorbi, Sirbia, Sribia, Zirbia, Zribia, Suurbelant, Surbia, Serbulia / Sorbulia among others

• This is information for Sorbs ethnonym and it is WP:OR(you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented), see sources. First source (Łuczyński, Michal (2017). "„Geograf Bawarski" — nowe odczytania) speak about Surbi ie Sorbs from Germany area and second source speak about Lusatian Sorbs. Mikola22 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I invite admins to take a look at this WP:PLAYPOLICY and constant edit-warring. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorbs III

There exist two prevailing theories on the origin of the ethnonym *Sŕbъ (plur. *Sŕby), one from a Proto-Slavic language and another from an Iranian-Sarmatian language.

• First issue is that sources which exist do not have this claim ie "There exist two prevailing theories" as conclusion. Second issue is that first source is about Surbi ie Sorbs from area of Germany and based on this source this information is WP:OR("you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"). This source has (*Sŕbъ (plur. *Sŕby) mentioned but not in Serbian name ethnonym context. The other source has various quotations, thesis etc without this specific conclusion of "two prevailing theories" fact. Interpreting something instead of a source is WP:OR and merging two sources into one to draw such a conclusion is WP:SYN. See sources. Mikola22 (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Sadko: Unfortunately this information is WP:OR. Show where in the sources write about Serb ethnonym with information that "There exist two prevailing theories on the origin of the ethnonym *Sŕbъ (plur. *Sŕby) one from a Proto-Slavic language and another from an Iranian-Sarmatian language", also where in second source is mentioned ethnonym *Sŕby and in which context. Therefore this information the not exist in the sources and draw conclusions instead RS is OR. I am waiting source page and citation which prove this. Everything enplane above. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski and Theonewithreason: I must warn that sources which exist do not say this information. See sources. This fact do not exist in the sources and this is WP:OR, we must not interpret sources for ourselves. I asked for this information earlier but you didn't provide this information, so please once again show page and citation where write this fact. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski and Theonewithreason: I am waiting for citation where the sources say that. Please provide evidence. If there is no evidence it is WP:OR. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything is written in the section "Etymology" and the sources. The fact you're still refusing to get the point is not saying that the issue is with the sources, but rather that the issue is with you and your lack of will to understand what's written in the sources. It is not possible to have a discussion when one side is persistent in their stubbornness. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You just confirmed what I'm saying all the time ie that this information is OR. Using "Etymology" section as proof of that fact without RS I don't know how much is according to the rules of Wikipedia. Almost all sources speak about Sorbs and article is about Serbs? I as an editor present this (OR) fact. Mikola22 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't. All the sources relate ethnonyms of the Sorbs and Serbs. If you still think you're right then ask for a WP:3O or start a dispute resolution.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Stable version

According to Colin Wells some scholars speculate that Serbian name coming from Iranian mounted warriors who previously had some influence on Slavic (Serb-Croat) population of the northwest Balkans. Also he claim that others scholars suggest that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave" using source of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and his information that "Serbs" in the tongue of the Romans is the word for "slave," whence the colloquial "ser-bula" for menial shoes, and "tzerboulianoi" for those who wear cheap, shoddy footgear", while according to some historians this derivation is a paraetymology as well as account's reliability is disputable.

• @Sadko: This information is been part of the article, it is based in various sources and written in NPOV. If there is problem with this well sourced information exist WP:RSN or WP:FTN, simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not reason for removing well sourced information. This is stable version because this information is been part of the article. Edit-warring has nothing to do with this information. Everything is explained and we must respect sources. I have to return this information to the article because it is based on multiple sources. Mikola22 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This theory doesn't have the same context as the prevailing two theories. The end. Bullshit. As well as a bullshit attempt at WP:PLAYPOLICY. Stop being disrespectful toward other editors and follow WP:BRD process. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I invite admins to take a look at this WP:PLAYPOLICY and constant edit-warring. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the sources are here to be respected, edit summary is clear. If there is a problem exist Wikipedia procedure, until then we must respect well sourced information. This is information which was part of the article and simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not argument. Explained above and in earlier edit summary's. Mikola22 (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Stonewalling will not help. Until we agree, you must respect other editors. WP:BURDEN is on your side. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Colin Wells; (2007) Sailing from Byzantium - this is not Colin Wells (historian) yet same-named independent scholar and classicist with expertise in languages and literature.

2) Mirko Grčić, Ljiljana Grčić; (2014) "Countries and cities of the 10th century Western Balkans according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the map of Guillaume Delisle" - an unreliable source because both authors (1, 2) are geographers without any expertise in linguistics or history.

3) George C. Papavizas; (2015) Claiming Macedonia - unreliable source because the author was an agricultural scientist without any expertise in linguistics or history.

4) Giampietro Fabbri; (2018) "Suparsthas and Swagwautas colonisers of the ancient world" - unreliable source because again the author doesn't have any expertise in linguistics or history as is industrial engineer.

This cannot be a stable version anyhow because it is violating several core principles of editing and it's against contributors' advice WP:SCIRS. We are dealing with linguistics and historical science here and there isn't perhaps a single reliable source. The cited sources are mostly authored by authors without any expertise in the field of linguistics and history (maybe 1, certainly 2-4), not all sources even exclusively argue the Latin derivation (1, 4) or have a lack of in-line references to see which scholars are citing as they claim (1, 3-4). In other words, the conclusion is that it's a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority which according to WP:WEIGHT does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Considering it's a false etymology by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Latin derivation can be included, only, within the paragraph describing content and context of De Administrando Imperio. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Breath-taking piss take

I edited the article and redacted, pending discussion and probable (I hope) deletion, an unsourced, wildly woolly, bigoted and misrepresented (in my inexpert understanding) piece of ... [words fail]. An extract of the highlowlights follows [emphasis added; links removed] :

Extract of out-of-scope, unsourced material removed from article

... the archetype of Serbia. Y-Haplogroup R1 societies following the Maykop culture and Yamna culture, including ancestors of the Serbs spread during the Corded Ware culture and merged with the Baden culture, a successor of the Vinča culture corrupted by the cannibals of the proto-Germanic Y-Haplogroup I, which arrived from the Arabian peninsula following as parasites of the early agriculturalists. Those cannibals, living behind traces of horror at Schletz-Asparn, [[Talheim Death Pit|Talheim]], [[Herxheim (archaeological site)|Herxheim]], Schöneck-Kilianstädten and near Magdeburg around 5000 BCE reached Scandza (Gothia), where they settled around Motala. Between 1200 and 700 BCE they invaded the Slavic (Venedi, Budini) ... ...where the Indoeuropean civilization developed 7000 years ago and, where the [[Serboi|Serbs proper]] lived protected by the Caucasian Mountains from the oppressions of the Neoassyrian Empire and similar despotic imperial polities in a land now oppressed and known as Dagestan.

I intend to remove this wholesale, unless other editors wish to alter and/or source it. I am hoping (praying) no-one objects. Normally, I would feel justified in unilaterally removing this, but given the page is semi-protected and I am relatively new, I am running it by other users first. 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Dubious material removed completely. AukusRuckus (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

There's still a lot of dubious and unreferenced WP:OR material. If see correctly all of it is related to IP's edit on 17 July 2021. I am reverting revision before IPs activity.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here I am referring only to the "dubious material" that I had flagged earlier (see above). Nothing else. I do not know enough about the topic, nor have easy access to relevant sources to be able to go further. I merely cut out the most blatantly outrageous, and egregiously offensive. Good luck with the wider article. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You did a good work. Will check your (removed) tags for quotes, else and finish checking those toponomy claims. For some of them already confirmed that are OR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Toponyms

"Toponomy" section has a lot of toponyms supposedly related to the ethnonym of the Serbs and Rascia. However, due to Serbian etymological derivation it is highly unlikely all of them are directly related to the Serbian ethnonym and not general Slavic root *serb, srb, *ras, rak and so on. What's worse, none of them are sourced. Citation is needed, please provide them, check also opposing views so they can be kept or removed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

More than half a year passed hence removed them. It is a original research list, for most confirmed on other Wikipedia language editions and sources to not have anything to do with Serbs, Serbia or Rascia but etymological origin in local language, own history and so on. As suspected, amateur's lists based on loose sound similarities. Please bring back only those which are mentioned in reliable sources as surely related to the ethnonym and not other derivations.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

Please edit the topic template at the end of the page to read "Names of European states and territories". Thank you! 2001:B07:6469:3006:2833:F11F:CA16:5B66 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I have copied your request from the other article talk to the appropriate template page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 14:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)