From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

From what I can see, this article is well written, in an encyclopedic fashion, and constitutes a result of quality research. Let's work from it, and if you want to change anything you find incorrect, let's discuss those issues here first. --Aurvandil 11:15, 29 December 2016 (CET)

The edits to the article by a now apparently absent editor were problematic and anti-Slavic in numerous way as described in the now deleted talk page sections. Just a few examples:
  • The editor cites very old sources, ignoring much new research, such as recent archeological research which contradicts his anti-Slavic claims. For example, the editor cites the 1913 "The Cambridge Medieval History" when there is the 2005 "The New Cambridge Medieval History" which contradicts many of the 1913 claims.

Actually, if you take care to read the main article the 1913 edition is not contradicted. The article is not anti-Slavic. it is factual.

  • The article, citing very old sources, negatively claims that "The Slavs had no collective name before their tribes spread from the Polesie; they therefore had no notion of a single people or nation, as such,[2] (as the modern Pan-Slav Movement did), and the various tribes did not always have a common culture. Baudoin de Courtenay, the famous specialist in the Polish language, argues that "there is no specifically Slav civilisation, common to all the Slavs and to none of the other peoples"." That is contradicted by modern sources such as the 2005 "The New Cambridge Medieval History" which states that the Slavs early had a particular culture, religion, physical appearance, language, and so on, so the claim of them having no notion of being a people is false.

The 2005 source does not contradict this. Moreover the great expert on Slav History and Civilisation (formerly at the Sorbonne), the French Professor Roger Portal, has reiterated most of this in the 1960s and 1970s.

  • The 2005 "The New Cambridge Medieval History" also states "An intriguing phenomenon is the fact that the oldest Slavic cultural elements appear within the area of the so-called Chernyakhov Culture, which most archaeologists agree was a material culture which reflected the existence of a multi-ethnic Gothic state on the Black Sea. What is more, these Slavic traits appear in their classic form, which is later duplicated over large areas of central, eastern and southern Europe. This means that the creation of the Slavic cultural model and the development of the elements of material culture which later formed the ethnic identification features thus occurred within a foreign, multiethnic cultural environment, no doubt as a result of the need for self-identification in order to manifest their differentiation from other groups." Thus again, self-identification by Slavs very early.

This is an out of context extract. The Slavs and their movements have been studied since Roman times and recorded by Roman historians and writers. There was no central Slav civilisation. This is a crazy assertion. it is universally accepted in reference books that the Slavs were disparate tribes and it was these tribes which spread in the different directions in Europe. Doubtless these particular tribes self-identified. None of this detracts from the main article here.

  • Another example, again citing very old sources, is by claiming that the earliest Slavs were thought to have had no domestic animals except swines. The 2005 "The New Cambridge Medieval History" instead states that the earliest description of Slavs describes them as making sacrifices of "of oxen and other animals" so the description of them as only having swines is dubious. Upplysning 12:31, 29 December 2016 (CET)

You are absurdly repetitive and the very reason the last Talk page was deleted was because of your nagging another user, now departed. Now you are deleting things which you had been expressly told not to delete. I shall revert those. Matt58 18:25, 10 January 2017 (CET)

I have not been told to keep everything you added but to discuss on this talk page which I did. I received no answer. Do you have any actual responses to my arguments? Upplysning 18:28, 10 January 2017 (CET)

They were all on the old page.Matt58 18:47, 10 January 2017 (CET)

No good answers there. Anyway, you should have added some comment here indicating still continued opposition to my arguments. Upplysning 18:58, 10 January 2017 (CET)

Your opposition appears to be non-academic.Matt58 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Having read the article I cannot see that there is clear intention to be derogatory towards Slavs. The sources used are academic and taken from excellent books. Much is said about Slavs (notably with regard to WWII) and clearly the idea of this page was simply to provide a background to them. Many people dispute history before 1000AD. Your point about the 2004 edition of the newer Cambridge History is taken although it is surely unwise for them in this instance to use a Polish writer to this extent as their history books are notoriously biased. There is absolutely no evidence that the Slavs across Europe ever saw themselves as a single entity. This is simply untrue. I will revisit the article at some point to see what can be done. Matt58 09:34, 11 January 2017 (CET)

We should simply dismiss Polish historians as "notoriously biased"? But ignores that a major reference work like this is fact-checked and reviewed by numerous people, both before and after publications, and who would have complained if there were major errors and biases as you claim. Upplysning 17:31, 11 January 2017 (CET)

Would you like a list of western authors critical of Polish 'historians', as well as politicians such as Prime Ministers (Nitti of Italy and Lloyd George of Britain) who referred to the 'histories' presented by the Polish Delegation at the Peace Conference in 1919 as "fantasies"? How you personally know the process for publication of anything from the Cambridge University Press I cannot think but the general editor is the person who has the last word and no-one reviews it until publication. I think you are out of your depth here. Matt58 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What has possible problems done in 1919 to do with current research on Slavs? Should we simply dismiss all later historians from the Allied countries due to the problems of the Nuremberg Trials? As you mention, at least one person will have reviewed "The New Cambridge Medieval History" material before publication, and if there were major errors and biases as you claim, then there would likely have been complaints afterwards by the numerous people reading it. This not Holocaust revisionism where people will be fired or worse for stating dissent. Upplysning (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
You are have edited my replies by inserting comments such as (unacceptable claim) and (repetition of above) WITHIN MY SENTENCES, which is fabrication, confusing, and dishonest. Removed. Upplysning (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that the only person attempting to fabricate and confuse here is yourself. I cannot understand what you have said in the first two sentences of your last post here. I was answering you previous post about Polish historians. In the world of anthropology and history there are dissenting views. I answered your questions relating to the the two versions of the Cambridge book. They simply do not digress from one another in any significant way. As I also pointed out there are other books and other experts who significantly support what is on the Slav page and they too are cited. At the end of the day I cannot understand your big problem here. You have been banging on about this for 4 years. You seem to be deliberately trying to make trouble. We have been here before, sadly. Matt58 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The section on The Slavs by Zbigniew Kobyliński, an archaeologist(!), and edited by Paul Fouracre of the left-wing University of Manchester in the 2005 Cambridge volume states as a summary (available on-line):

"The earliest description of the Slavs comes from “De Bellis”, a work of Procopius, which was written just before the middle of the sixth century. The origin of the Slavs has given great weight to linguistic arguments. Linguists seeking the original homeland of the Slavs have attempted to define the chronology of the processes on the basis of philological arguments, and to identify the place of origin of the Proto-Slavic language. Three archaeological cultures, the Penkovka, Prague and Kolochin cultures, occupied an extensive area from the Dnepr valley in the east to the eastern Carpathians in the west, denoting the area occupied by the Slavic ethnic group in the fifth and the sixth centuries. At the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh century the Carantanian Slavs were dependent on the Avars, but this dependence was weaker than that of the tribes inhabiting the Carpathian basin".

I am unable to see how this fundamentally differs from the summary on the Metapedia page. Matt58 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That quote is unrelated to the problems discussed above, which is your negative depictions of Slavs, such as having no notion of being a single people or nation. You also state dubiously negative descriptions of their culture, but yet state "Despite all their disadvantages, the Slavs multiplied", giving no explanation for how this could occur. "The New Cambridge Medieval History" gives the explanation that while their culture were less advanced than, say, the Roman Empire, it was still seen as superior by the previous inhabitants of the areas they moved into, especially after the societal collapses occurring in association with the invasions of nomads and the fall of the Roman Empire, causing voluntary assimilation and Slavicisation into the Slav culture, explaining the rapid growth of the Slav population. Furthermore, apparently you think that being an archaeologist is a problem, which is strange, but likely related to recent archaeological research not being in your ancient and outdated sources. Upplysning (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. There was no Slav nation or civilisation. No books say so anywhere. The various places the Slav tribes expanded into, notably into the former Roman Illyria, would disagree with you. You are out of your depth here. Matt58 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As noted earlier with source, the claim of Slavs having no notion of being a people is false. There were both invasions and voluntary assimilation and Slavicisation into the Slav culture, same source, "The New Cambridge Medieval History". Upplysning (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well it is false. They were scattered tribes. No-one in heir right mind disputes this. Published in a Cambridge book (a university known for its Leftist agenda) does not make it correct, especially when the article itself is written by a Polish archaeologist (not a historian or anthropologist) with an agenda. People can read the article, consult the numerous sources offered and decide for themselves. Matt58 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Another straw man, no one has argued that there were not different Slavic tribes. That does not mean the absence of some form of common identity. Why are archaeologists problematic as sources? Is it because recent archaeological research may not agree with your ancient and outdated sources? Are books by Cambridge and/or Poles generally banned as sources, even if only described as presenting a particular view rather than the Truth? It should be noted that Matt58 has added anti-Polish material to many articles, see Talk:Poland‎‎. The anti-Slavic materials in various articles appear to be extension of this. Upplysning (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Matt58 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? Does not exactly support your opinion on the extreme importance of Pan-Slavism. "While limited, the impact of Panslav efforts on Russian diplomacy was not negligible." and "After the Sarajevo assassination and during the July crisis, Russian Panslavs pressured their government to support Serbia unconditionally. The impact of these endeavours was limited; other considerations shaped Russian foreign policy much more decisively." You ignored all my questions in my previous reply. Upplysning (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I read the entire article, not cherry-picking and pasting as you have done. It supports everything that the other countless references say. One wonders just how many references are needed for a non-academic like you? Matt58 (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently your confirmation bias is so strong that you could not see, and possibly still cannot see, that the article contradicts your own opinions. Regardless, thanks for bringing it to our attention, it can be cited in the future as one source on Pan-Slavism not being an extremely important cause of WWI, not even in Russia. Upplysning (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)