Talk:Sorbs

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, remove the |unref= from this template.

I noticed the section about Sorbian communities in Australia and Texas has been deleted. This seems to be an important part of modern Sorbian history I was wondering why it was deleted. I've picked through the discussion and history and see nothing about it. Did that section make unverified claims or violate the NOR policy? Wutx (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know, what version is it in? 85.70.117.103 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to know more of this i never heard any thing about this. until 10 minutes ago before finding this artical on a surving Elbe Slav ethnic group i did not think any still exsited any where. if you can find population figures for the artical to add then discuss them here so some one can add the numbers into the total population of the ethnic group world wide. seeing as this is a very small ethnic group this ethnic group needs a 2 or a 3 child birth policy so it can grow its numbers slightly while the larger german ethnic group could have a 1 or 2 child policy for 1 or 2 generations. i would like the worlds ethnic groups to all prosper.im part of the Urban appalacian ethnic group by the way and german history is part of my peoples heritage. 99.164.108.120 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are Sorbian descendants from Lusatian emigrants going to Australia, Africa, Canada, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas. Of these descendants there are at current best 5 cultural groups created since the 1950s to preserve the culture and history, however, the languages have not been carried on through today in these communities. www.wendish.net Kargin (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be at Sorb, in keeping with rules about plurals? -- Jake 06:06, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)

No, this is not a page on a Sorb, but on the Sorbs. Though "Sorbs" is a plural of "Sorb" gramatically, it is not always semantically - the word "Sorbs" has one meaning in "three Sorbs" and another in "the Sorbs"; this article is about the latter meaning, for which there is no singular. Nikola 09:52, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, I would add that the term 'Sorbs' refers not only to the group as an entirety but also the cultural divisions within the group, majorly being Upper Sorbians and Lower Sorbians different not only culturally but also linguistically and not simply a regional dialect difference. ≤Kargin (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "famous Sorbs", cause I have no sources for them really being Sorbs ... For discussion please see Talk:List_of_Sorbs too. Soky 00:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The intro isnt clear Sorbs being German citizen or not. And wheter they live there have always lived there or are whatever. The only refeerence is territorial - and then with reference to the former (!) GDR. All a bit strange.

The Sorbs are the native people of the area they inhabit, and a remnant of a much bigger Slavic-speaking area that is now German-speaking. Names like Leipzig, Berlin, Lübeck and Dresden are all of Slavic origin, and it was the Germanic settling of the east from the middle ages onwards that made the Sorbs a Slavic enclave. So they live where they have always lived, and of course they are German citizens.

Sorb nationalism outside home was subjected to harsh control by the state, which aimed at Germanising the people. What's that nonsense about - it sounds like slavic right wing movement. The GDR not tried to Germanising the Sorbs, they strongly supportet their culture. For example never ever before there have been a Sobian theater and so on. The industrialisation had far other reasons, the econimy of East Germany needed the coal and thatswhy they no always cared for some villages. That was nothing against the Sorbs and happened the same way to the Germans. --Knarf-bz 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also doupt the harsh control and germanisation of the sorbs, since during the times of GDR governmence an institute for sorbic culture studies was founded in 1951 at the "academy of science of the GDR" in Berlin as well as an institute for sorabistic at the University of Leipzig. In an article of the usual critical Der Spiegel magazin it says:

In the GDR the sorbs were fostered like never before. Erich Honecker discovered the people as a medium to praise their politics of minorities in the GDR. Under the SED regime, sorbic schools, publishers, theaters and many other cultural institutes were founded.

That does not really sound like surpression to me. I will start on working to change the section. Contributions will be welcomed. --Mandavi 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pertinent to keep in mind the Sorbs retained their own nationality and arts prior to the destruction of them at the hands of the Nazi's. Also keep in mind there was a fluxtuation in support for the Sorbs in the 1980's which saw a greatly decreased amount of support. Do not imagine for even a moment that the outward gesture of support was truly as it seemed. One has but to look at the treatment of the Sorbs by the germanic people throughout history to see the slant against them.Kargin (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like slavophile fantasizing using made up history and even made up maps (because there are no historical maps to use). That said it applies mostly to stuff rather unrelated to the Sorbs. Concerning the GDR, I don't think that Sorbs were singled out for oppression. It's rather that they suffered the same oppression than virtually anybody else. Being a Sorb won't earn you brownie points with the STASI. But pretending to caring about SORB culture earned the GDR brownie points with Western liberals. 105.0.2.191 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the road sign (Cottbus_zweisprachige_straßenbezeichnung.jpg) is very hard, if not impossible, to make out on the page. It is only when it is displayed at full size that the words become visible. Perhaps cropping it or adjusting the contrast would help. Otherwise the photo should probably be replaced unfortunately. Ireneshusband 03:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've cropped it and brightened it. Should be easier to read now. —Angr 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German population of prewar Silesia was 4.7 million, that of prewar Czechoslovakia about 3.5 million. Thus, the number given for the Germans expelled from Silesia and "the Sudetenland" (itself a questionable term) — 3 million — is misleading.

True, due to wartime dislocations, only about 1 million Germans remained in Silesia at the end of the war, but after the German surrender some returned to their homes, raising the German population in Silesia to about 2.5 million. (Source: Schieder, Theodor, ed. Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe. Bonn (no date), p. 204.) The small corner of Silesia that remained German would not be a significant population factor.

Since at least 3 million of Czechoslovakia's Germans were expelled, and most of Silesia's except for a sizeable number of (often bilinqual) Upper Silesians around Oppeln/Opole, one must estimate that the number of Germans expelled from "Silesia and the Sudetenland" was closer to 5 million. But the syntax should avoid giving the impression that they comprised the entire prewar (pre-Nazi) German population of these regions, since around 2 million Silesians had either been killed or had fled before the Red Army in the last months of the war.

Sca 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the part "After World War II" twists the facts in a very interesting way. First of all, the Sorbs were a minority in this region long before 1940, and many parts, especially of Upper Lusatia, didn't look Slavic at all. Secondly, the Sorb National Council was founded and based for a long time in Prague, not Bautzen. They were just *one* representative of the Sorbs and didn't speak for all of them. In fact, the older Domowina, founded in 1913, as the traditional organ of the Sorbs, was certainly more representative. Anyway, the long time Prague based (hint) Sorb National Council demanded the takeover of the Sorbian lands by Czechoslovakia (and the Expulsion of the German majority as a consequence). Which was of course not illogical since some parts, i.e. Upper Lusatia, were part of Bohemia until 1635. The Czechs liked this idea also because it would have connected two very remote regions, Sluknov and Frydlant. The Domowina however, based in Bautzen (hint), opposed this idea and saw the future of the Sorbs inside Germany. So, you can't say the Sorbs wanted this or that because two sorbian institutions, a small and a big one, wanted completely different things. Oh, another one: Sorbian teachers and priests were not deported from the Reich, at least not completely, but relocated to other parts of the Reich. 84.181.101.24 11:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, if you are able, the time frame in which both organizations existed simultaneously. During the war years I have been in the understanding that the Domowina was disbanded, the House of Sorbs confiscated and burned by the SS with some of the Domowina's leaders as well as teachers and priests being executed by the SS also. Can you please provide reference to the Domowina's position and any documents/papers supporting this. I would greatly appreciate this clarification of information.Kargin (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the following edit ny Nasz:

Recent paper on molecular genetics reports very high 63% frequency of R1a1 Y chromosome marker. This marker link Sorbs parentaly with dominating group of Scythian warriors. If two mens have the same YDNA marker they are descendants of one father.

There are three reasons for my revert:

1. What paper? It should be cited. With a reference the first sentence can be restored. It s however too short to be a separate section.
2. The Scythian link is unproved (and possibly unprovable). We do not even know what haplotypes the Scythians had. See discussion on Talk:Scythians. The sentence must be removed until some data on Scythian genetics are available. The haplotype links Sorbians to Slavs, which they are, not Scythians.

N But some sholras made papers on it.

1. The third sentence is a patent nonsense. Do all 63% of male (not "men"!!!) Sorbs have really only one father? What's his name? The thing Nasz meant is probably: The gene is inherited from the paternal side".

N But if women so far ar not born without father.

F:Sorbs have really only one father?

N not only Sorbs but all humans probably too.

F: What's his name?

Ydna do not cary this data, but you can search the legends.

Nasz, when you find your citation please insert the info back but do nt m ake a separate section from it as it should be one sentence like this: A recent paper on molecular genetics reports a very high 63% frequency of paternally inherited R1a1 Y chromosome marker in Sorb population (citation goes here), linking to genetically to other Slavic nations of similar haplotype distribution. --Friendly Neighbour 12:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F:I made the correction for Nasz

N I think you editeing Wikipedia for evrybody, but thanks for deication.

I made the correction for Nasz. I even found out the page numbers of the referenced paper (not present in the linked pre-print). Nasz, the extreme sloppiness of your edits makes it necessary to spend hours researching and correcting them. I hope that you will at least appreciate my effort and time put into improving your edits. --Friendly Neighbour 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N: ok good work, thanks for inserting references is rather complex task and F: did it nicely. Nasz 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when i was researching Slavic origins a week ago here on wikipedia it said Proto-Slav branch'd off of Indo-European about 1500 BC. when exactly did the scythians live on this earth in what centuries? 99.164.108.120 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the Constitution of Brandenburg and I couldn´t find an expression that "explicitly declares any inquiry about ethnicity unconstitutional and illegal". Can anyone verify that sentence? --134.93.52.8 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sorben: Ein kleines Lexikon published by Domowina, "Etwa 15 Prozent der sorbischen Bevölkerung sind katholischer Konfession. Als durch die Reformation das Bistum Meißen 1559 aufgelöst wurde, blieb allein in Bautzen ein katholisches Domkapitel bestehen, dem zum größten Teil sorbische Pfarreien unterstanden. Katholische sorbische Kirchgemeinden find wir in den Kreisen Bautzen, Kamenz und Hoyerswerda". Basically only the southernmost of the Upper Sorbs are Catholic; the remaining Upper Sorbs and all the Lower Sorbs are predominantly Lutheran. Which is interesting in that it makes the Sorbs probably the only Slavic ethnicity that is predominantly Protestant. Some more sources to read in this regard are http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-lu/uvod/mwalde-evangelischen_ger.html and http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-lu/uvod/mwalde-katholische_ger.html. However, I have heard that the language is being preserved better among Catholics than Protestants, so Catholics may well comprise a larger proportion of Sorbian speakers. This seems to be confirmed by the paragraph at the bottom of http://www.niederlausitz.de/web/6_19.reisetips_kultur_die_sorben.htm. But the Sorbian ethnicity includes people who speak only German, and they're pretty clearly mostly Protestant (by tradition at least if not by actual practice). —Angr 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that we can't define what exactly a "Sorb" is. Maybe I'm a Sorb, because my grandpa was Sorbian. Maybe my friend from France is a Sorb, because he likes the Sorbian people. How many Sorbs are there? We can't answer the question. -- j.budissin 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with most ethnicities, it can only be defined in terms of self-identification. If you consider yourself ethnically Sorbian, you are. —Angr 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User HerkusMonte left a message in my talk page regarding my edit in the table. First I would like to thank him for letting me know of this talk, which I wasnt aware of.

I based my edit on this interesting report http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11632788 (maybe some bits from here could be used for improving the article)

I am not an expert, but, from this source, you get the impression that Sorbs are majoritaly Catholics, even though, as Angr notes, probably those Sorbs who speak Sorb are majoritaly Catholic, while those who don't, are not.

For me, at least in the Western European context, language is the chief feature defining ethnicity (and this is a very German Herderian view) that is why I'd say that Sorbs are majoritaly Catholic. I may be wrong, though.

Thanks. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it is almost as Angr wrote. The Sorbian language is preserved much better and used much more in those regions with strong Catholic communities (eg Panschwitz, Chrostwitz, Räckelwitz, Radibor etc). If we define Sorbs as "people who speak Sorbian", there are definitely more Catholics than Protestants. Nevertheless, there is no official definition for "Sorbs" at the moment. -- j.budissin (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange position that I am perceiving you all have taken. Being American is something you are by citizenship as there is not any clear defining attribute that makes them all the same. The same could be said for Germans as the many different germanic states were united in 1871. Although to some degree it could also be applied to the Sorbian people, they are no country but rather just that, a people. If someone wakes up one day and decides to claim they are Sorbian, how does that make them one? Do they share in the history of the Sorbs, do they speak the slavic tongue or even know of it? It is true that many that can count themselves as Sorbian or of Sorbian descent do not speak either Sorbian language, it is the history that binds them as well as, according to their DNA. Of course this must seem to be a 'romantic' point of view, but how else can it be decided? Taking your view a step further, then it must be assumed that all Sorbs are Catholic or the reverse true too, are all Catholics Sorbian? Of course the answer is no and I believe it an insult to the Sorbs as a whole to imagine the people as the ebb and flow of a tide. Even amongst those that no longer speak the language, often times the customs are carried on though it is as you say, amongst the pious all of the customs and language persevere. Well,...that's the end of my rant, thanks! Kargin (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken, but please stop talking about DNA and such stuff. Thats not of importance in this discussion. Many people, who would be Sorbs in a "genetic" sense, wouldnt want to hear this today. Thats sad, but nevertheless this is the reality. Genetics dont count. -- j.budissin (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct my Bautzen friend, it is sad. I will only add that once a great Upper Sorb put to the publisher these words "And should it be true, as they say, that the Wendish (Sorbian) ways are fading away, then I give you, dear Wendish (Sorbian) brothers, this songbook as an evening song. However, should that not be true, then let these songs awaken you." (from Trudla Malinkowa's 'Shores of Hope' Eng. translation 2009) this Lutheran pastor held the language and culture as inseparable from the Lutheran faith as the written language may have disappeared if not for Martin Luther's push for the Bible in the native tongues of readers, hence it set the standard for the languages in print. Finally, in your words, what does count in being considered a Sorb then?Kargin (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal view, speaking the language should count. But everyone, who cares for Sorbian interests and likes to be a Sorb, should be counted, too. After all, ethnic membership is also a question of own attribution, especially is this the case with small peoples without an own state. This is, how Serbstwo works here. -- j.budissin (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please clarify the status of the "national flag" on the article page? We don't normally have flags for ethnic groups. Does it have some official significance? Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's recognized by the constitutions of Saxony and Brandenburg as the "Flag of the Sorbs". -- j.budissin (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Since 2005, the Sorbs have their own political party, the Wendische Volkspartei." then why:

"N.B.: While the old German-derived labels “Wend” and “Wendish,” which once denoted “Slav(ic)” generally, have been retained in American and Australian communities, they ought not be used in place of “Sorb” and “Sorbian” with reference to Sorbian communities in Germany, because many consider them offensive these days."

194.46.188.194 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this page seems to be written by slavic nationalists who project their issues with Germany onto the Sorbian people, but have no clue about the rich and complicated history of the region. The overestimation of the independence movement, which was supported only by a small minority, rejected by the majority + the Domowina and controlled by foreign interest groups (mainly the Czechs who wanted their slice of the cake (= defeated Germany)) is absurd. This episode plays almost no role in the historiography of the Sorbs (published by Sorbs itself!).
Ditto for the paragraph about Poles and Sorbs. The Sorbs never had special connections to the Poles. Because of the history of Lusatia and the geographical circumstances, they were always connected to the Czechs. Since the middle ages, when the Bohemian ruler protected them, and even after Bohemia lost Upper Lusatia, when the higher education of the Sorbs took place in Prague. The Poles on the other hand discovered their interest in the subject only after the rise of the Polish nationalism in the 19. century. For the history of the Sorbs, the connections to Bohemia and the Czechs are much, much more important. Karasek (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Please no OR and no insults against fellow editors.--Molobo (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the glorifying Polish stuff seems to be OR. Without proper Refs much more should be deleted. Ißll try to put in more sources the next days. --Slavakav (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox states that up to 15.000 Sorbs live in Poland. Strangely enough the article tells me nothing about them, although I can learn alot about the Polish solidarity with the Sorbs in Germany. If up to 15.000 Sorbs can maintain their traditions and language in such a similiar environment like Poland, where assimilation is so much easier, there have to be strong Sorbian institutions, schools etc.. Could we please get some enlightenment? How many Sorbian schools exist in Poland, and where? Is there a Polish Domowina or something like that? Karasek (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sorbian schools, no sorbian institutions and no sorbian native speakers left in Poland. -- j.budissin (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where´s the coherence between the creation of West Germany and the activities of the "Polish guard over the Lusatia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all you guys surprised by current Polish claims at wikipedia, remember that Poland based its claims of "re-establishing the Oder-Neiße Line" based on the "historical Poland of the Piasts a 1000 years earlier, when Boleslaw I thought to 'unite all the Slavic people, where-ever...". Naturally the Oder-Neiße Line was only the minnimum requirement, actually it was supposed to be the Rhine-Line.

How historically Polish is the land around the Oder-Neiße ?

'Map of Poland 992 AD, larger than beginning of Poland and already with conquered area in Silesia

Much is written that Poland today is about the same size as land of of the Polans, the later Poland, a 1000 years ago, that is in its beginnings of the early Piasts. This is a MAP of POLAND 992 AD]. Some territory was already conquered from Bohemia, such as around Wroclaw area, named for duke of Bohemia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Small pocket was already conquered from Pomerania, but Poland was nowhere near the Baltic Sea

In the year 1000 Emperor Otto III made Boleslaw I 'brother and co-worker of the empire'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) After Emperor Otto III's early unexpected death in 1002, Boleslaw I Chrobry (son of Mieszko I, dukes of the Polans (around Gniesno), who both pledged allegiance to the Ottonian emperors), seized the imperial lands of Lusatia and Misnia (Meissen) and the principality of Bohemia (also allied to emperor). These actions started a series of three wars between Boleslaw I and the German king (later emperor) Henry II that lasted until 1018, when, by the Treaty of Bautzen, Boleslaw retained Lusatia and Misnia (Poles do not like to remember: as a fief of the empire) and Henry II won Bohemia. Boleslaw's expansionist policy continued. He defeated Grand Prince Yaroslav I the Wise of Kiev.... The year Emperor Henry II died, Boleslaw I tried to claim all conquests for himself and crowned himself king...Mieszko II had to return the conquests again and so on and so on...[reply]

In other words, they base(d) all their claims on conquests made a thousand years ago, which they held for a (few) dozen years and then had to return. But they tried and tried again, always "for the glory of re-gaining" or "re-establishing the glory of the Piasts empire". Molobo and others are just mirroring this trait. MfG 5 May 2008

Poland already in 1918 requested the Oder river as its border (1918 book written in French, translated to English by Joseph Freilich, Warsaw, later known as Josef Frejlich [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory, but completely false. Naturally Boleslaw only inherited parts of territories Mieszko had. Territories of Polan were within that region [2]. The boast about emperors mean little, they had no power over Poles or Poland and were just representing occasional invaders with whom Polish rulers made peace. Also Poland was the state there, it joined tribes under its statehood. Your Germany was far away and within those borders slightly resembling modern West Germany:

[3]. Only with Germanic crusades and conquest of Wends, Sorbs and other Slavic people, most of who were destroyed by the invasions, did the borders of Germanic kingdoms shifted East. The process went on for centuries, untill events of 1945 reverted some of Germanisation.

--Molobo (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God! And when did the slavic conquests started to shift west, shortly after the neandertals vanished? Modern genetics show that Poles and Chechs have more germanic "genes" than Germans!!! Please stop this stupid nationalism and start thinking European!--Popolfi (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

| I dearly hope 'Popolfi' is trying to tell a joke here. Modern genetics show two major genetic groups which differentiate populations in Germany and Poland. Historically Slavic and German populations overlap at the borders. While history leads to mixing, the great majority of population genetics still shows these ancient differences (which in the end aren't radically different, yet the distinction cannot be ignored). How clever he thinks he is by contradicting himself. He apparently believes he is being "european" and neutral yet claims that Poles and Czechs are more 'germanic' (whatever that means) than Germans. LOL!!!|CormanoSanchez (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on calls for help in face of Germanisation issued by Sorb people towards Poland [4]. Current event, has to be included in neutral way into the article.--Molobo (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote only reflects the content of the memorandum. I therefore added this information and deleted the quote, since the Domowina wants help from Europe, not only Poland. If you are interested, the memorandum phrases it like this: "Wir fordern von den politisch Verantwortlichen endlich anzuerkennen, dass sich die Förderung autochthoner nationaler Minderheiten nicht auf Kulturförderung in der Zuständigkeit der Länder reduzieren lässt. Sie ist vielmehr ein gesamtstaatliches Anliegen, welches alle Lebensbereiche umfasst.". In short: they want an upgraded legal status by giving the responsibility to the federal government instead of Saxony and Brandenburg. It's a bit complicated to describe since Germany is a federal state with several layers of competence. If the Länder are responsible, it's only a cultural support, if the federal government is responsible the support and legal status is broadened. Karasek (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the memorandum but seperate calls to Polish President.--Molobo (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These calls were probably made during the press conference which explained the memorandum (same date). The calls to the Polish president mirror exactly the requests made in the memorandum. And they aren't mentioned on the site of the Domowina, which they should because your allegation would imply a significant political change by the Domowina. Karasek (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read on No Original Research. Your theories can't be part of the article. The calls were made public in Polish media through one of the most important and one of the largest newspapers in Poland. This is notable and sourced. There is no reason to delete it.--Molobo (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! All of this is moot as the source doesn't really exist. Colonel Mustard (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly confident I saw one at the top of this section. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ca 858 the Sorbs were ruled by a certain Duke Zistisboro:

This should be in the article. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in Sorb-related articles don't have a portal or WikiProject of their own so I am posting here for any interested editors:

I know in many aspects the different editors from West Slavic nations have not seen eye to eye, and the community has suffered due to childish naming disputes that usually deteriorate into edit wars. That's why, in the interest of common West Slavic participation on Wikipedia I have proposed a West Slavic WikiProject, that would aim and try to bridge the gaps between us and strive for fair representation of West Slavic interests, be they Sorbian, Czech, Slovak or Polish on the English Wikipedia, as well as effective multilateral debates on a multitude of contentious articles. So, just have a look and voice your support if you want. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the Ralbitz-Rosenthal or some other Rosenthal? --Ruziklan (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Rosenthal, part of the municipality of Ralbitz-Rosenthal. -- j.budissin (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While all Sorbs may be Lusatians not all Lusatians are Sorbs!! So if Sorbs are meant you should't say Lusatians , which is often done in this article. Lusatians are all inhabitants of Lusatia - and over 90% of them consider themselves German and if you want talk about ethnics (which is much harder) still over 50% are Germans - you only have to compare the number of Germans who settled in Lusatia as colonists for over 800 years. - It is the same like in the US - not all people of the USA are Native Americans - the ancestors of the Colonists form the majority today.195.243.51.34 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC) By the way this article is highly manipulative. Only one example the uprising in 1953-GDR had nothing or at least mostly nothing to do wiht the Sorbs - the most Protesters were Germans. - The same is true for supporters for an own administrative unit of Lusatia - this were also often Germans - often even expulsed people from Silesia (which over 99% considered themselves German) - Lusatian culture is not only Slavic culture but also German Lusatian culture - they have an own dialect - own traditions and so on. And this German Lusatian culture is also in danger of extinction - mostly of the economic situation in this part of Germany afte 1990 - at this does for sure also endanger the Sorbs - but some Slavic Nationalists (?) seem to want to make this article sound like it would be a forced Germanisation. Which is nonesense - there is much more money spent for sorbian culture than for German Lusatian culture (compared to the number of people). And the example with the National Theater in Berlin is also nonesense - show me only one country - where cultur in the state capital is not much more suppored than in other places in the country. 195.243.51.34 (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also not all Sorbs are Lusatians. -- j.budissin (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although Germany supports national minorities, Sorbs’ aspirations are not sufficiently fulfilled.

I am neither for nor against this statement. I would only say that it is an editorial comment, as "sufficiently" is a value judgment. Sca (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from the article:

Specifically the quoted part is what confuses me. It seems that the sentences about persecution contradict the other sentences. It could be the phrasing but one says that the Sorbs were all persecuted and the other says that they were accepted as Germans. Just needed a clarification Also the first sentence seems very strong and hardly neutral. Id edit it myself but im not really sure what the facts are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman7922 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely confusing and somewhat contradictory, as you point out, Pacman7922. I was going to post virtually the same issue on the discussion page here. In any case, this should be sorted out. Thanks. Twalls (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually much less about this period in the German version of the article, although the article itself is much more extensive in every other respect. Twalls (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare this article with the article on Sorben in the german wikipedia, you will easily discover major differences. It seems to me that this english-language article was not written by real Sorben, but by nationalist Poles of the Kaczynski branch, many of whom flocked to Britain because of better wages. Perhaps they will leave again when the pound continues its downslide against the Euro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.232.250 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

|^^^You really must enjoy amusing yourself with these asinine statements...| CormanoSanchez (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of "polish hypothesis". Article have nothing to do with reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.151.65 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some passages, that could be better. But please, tell us, what mistakes you found. Otherwise your comment would be senseless. -- j.budissin (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the current fact supported theory upon historical, oral, archeological facts present at time.

Etymology of the term Serb/Srb: Probably meant of the same kin or the descendants of the same kin, as in Pasierb/Paserb (ukr./pol. stepson), bearing the meaning of the adopted descendant Pa - serb, as well as priserbiti meaning to join or sit down next to. It described those people sharing the common origin or language. This is also congruent with the traditional way the term is used and understood among the Serbs.

пасерб - род. п. -а "пасынок", пасербка, пасербица "падчерица", укр. пасерб, блр. пасерб, польск. раsiеrb – то же. Во всяком случае, из ра- и *sьrbъ; ср. сербохорв. срб "серб", в.-луж. serb "лужичанин, лужицкий серб", ср.-лат. Surbi (см. серб). Ср. укр. присербитися "присоседиться"; см. Мi. ЕW 292; Миккола, Ursl. Gr. I, 8. Попытки сблизить, далее, *ра-sьrbъ с *sebrъ "свободный земледелец" (см. себер) неубедительны, вопреки Сольмсену (KZ 37, 592 и сл.; Преобр. II, 20, 276 и сл.; ср. Педерсен, KZ 38, 421). Сомнительно также объяснение слова *раsьrbъ как "тот, кто вскормлен не тем же самым молоком" и сближение с польск. sarbac "сосать, хлебать" (Брюкнер 398).

The King of White Serbia, 6th century, (also known as Bojka, Boika, Boii), was succeeded by two sons, one of them was the The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez), the other according to the historical timeline, the ruler of the Serbs, Knez Dervan. Not more is known about him.

From the information we have today, it seems the region described as White 'unbaptized' Serbia or Boika in the Byzantine Chronicles (De Administrando Imperio chapter 32, Constantine VII, 950 AD), lying east of the Franks (Germany), west of the White Croats (the inland regions of Silesia and Lesser Poland, according to Edward Gibbon), north of the Turks (Magyars of Hungary), corresponds with the modern regions of north Bohemia, Lusatia and south-western Poland.

Facts that support this theory are, the common linguistical origin of the West Slav (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and the South Slav (Serb and Croat) language, that differ from the Bulgarian language which also belongs to the Slavic group, the toponyms found in the region, south Bohemia (Srbsko, Srbská Kamenice etc. as well as the toponyms containing Chorvat, in the adjacent regions). Lusatian Wends still bearing the name Serbs. The region of Bohemia was known as Boii to the Romans, as well as Byzantines, after the celtic Boii tribe settling the region before Slavs. Byzantines often described people by the region (Tribalians, Thracians, Illyrians) they inhabited, eventhough the name-giving tribes were long extinct, rather than by the native names of the tribes they were carrying. The region called Boiheim by the western Rome (German suffix -heim) and Boika by the eastern Rome (Slavic suffix -ka) corresponds to the current region of Bohemia.

The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez) is described in the chronicles as being a successor alongside an unnamed brother (probably Knez Dervan) to a Serb king and having led part of the Serbs from White Serbia during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610-641 AD). On their way south they vanquished the Avars, before eventually settling in Servia (The place still bears its name), the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, a province which Heraclius granted them with the task to protect Byzantium from future threats, such as Avars.

The Serbs left the province and moved northwards, until they came to Belgrade where the strategos of the theme gave them the areas of Rascia, Bosnia, Trebounia, Zachlumi, Pagania, Neretvia and Duklja (Byzantine Sclaviniae or Slavdoms) after they swore allegiance to the Emperor. The date of his death is unknown, however it is attested before the arrival of the turkic Proto-Bulgars in the Balkans (681).

Serbs and Sorbs (south and north Serbs), were ~1400 years ago the same Polabian Slavic tribe, afterwards it came to a split, the northern Serbs that stayed (now known as Sorbs or Wends) were largely assimilated by greater Slavic tribes (Poles, Czechs) as well as non-Slavic nations (Germans) enormly influencing their language and culture by the Polish and the German one. The southern Serbs on the other hand, conquered and assimilated lesser Slavic tribes, as well as the romanised Illyrian and Thracian population of the Roman empire in southeastern Europe, into their own Slavic tribe, thus laying the foundation for the Serbian state.

This is the current theory upon academic proof present at time, everything else is still seen as romantic mythomany. Genes cannot be seen as academic proof since only after 100 years of living among a different genetical cluster, genes change, after 1400 years as well and even more, they still share the same genetical markers though, R1a and I2a2a, but in different percentage.

There's no relation

between the Sorbs and the Serbs just as same as no relation between Slovenia & Slovakia or Rusyn & Russia. All these are, of course , slavs, but they are different slavs: East slavs, West slavs, South slavs.

Pls provide the academic proof of the relation between the Sorbs & Serbs, if you believe otherwise.

Cat12zu 19:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one claims that there is a relation, just that sometimes they are called Lusatian Serbs. This is true; from The Columbia Encyclopedia: "They call themselves Srbi and hence are known also in English as Lusatian Sorbs or Serbs."

All else aside, why removing link to Project Rastko? It's still a nice site about Sorbs. Nikola 09:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's true so that's OK, cheers!
• Regarding the Project Rastko:

• Firstly, there's doubts, at least on my part, in the claims of Serbs-Sorbs relationships....but that is the mistake on my part as said in 1st point.
• But now, most of the english Rastko website are links and articles, especially the articles' paragraphs, are mere copies of several externals links to Lusatia-based site about the sorbs themselves, I feel that's too redundant (and Rastko website themselves maybe, may had violated the copyrights). There's no links or info about Serbs-Sorbs relationship in english. Most of the webpages are in serbs or germans. That will be appropriate to put in serbs, germans Wikipedia instead. Cat12zu 23:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...They are distant relatives of Serbs..."

The Sorbs are distant relatives of all other Slavic peoples, such as Russians, Czeks, Slovaks etc. But the Serbs belong to the south Slavs and the Sorbs to the west Slavs. Occasionally people confuse Sorbs from Germany with Serbs from Serbia, and many believe that because they sound alike they are directly related. 217.185.86.179 14:11 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

But probably there is a common etimology that should be explained. That is what was done at Dutch.

In Serbian schools Sorbs (Luzic Serbs is what they are named in Serbia) is thought that they are distant relatives of Serbs, as well as the other Slavic nations. They remain Western Slavs. As Serbs remain Southern Slavs. That is it.

Sorbs are the ancestors of the Serbs. Dont write about things you know nothing about. Sorbs founded 'White Sorbia' a kingdom once located where the Bundestaat of Saxony is today. They were invited into the Balkans to help subdue the populations already located their. They eventually lost their own, West Slavic, language and took on Southern Slavic speech of the groups they conquered. Anyway, thats more Serb history than Sorb, but you should at least get it right.

This crap about enslavement in Nazi Germany is crap. The Sorbs and Mazurians were the only minority groups in Nazi Germany to escape harsh treatment. The nazis tended to view both groups as Slavic-speaking Germans.

I am so sick of people who have no knowledge about any subject seamingly choosing randomly on what subjects to expound.

Watch your tone, please. This is not some Usenet forum. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

It is barely partly true. First thing we have to remember that Sorbs is an English name. These Sorbs call themselve (Lusatian) Serbs.

Secondly, there are many theories about origins of Serbs. Very interesting (and popular amongst historians) is theory about Iranic origins of Serbs. According to this theory Iranian tribe of Serbs subdued some Slavic tribes and was assimilated by them leaving their name (similary like in case of Bulgarians). According to this theory the "state" of those Serbs existed not in present day Lusatia but more east. On the basis of toponims, present day Great Poland is the most probably place. After that some Serbs (and Croats from White Croatia) could move south and settle in present day Serbia and other Serbs could move more west to present day Saxony.

And finally, talking about that "thay lost their own, West Slavic, language and took on Southern Slavic speech of the groups they conquered" has no point as before 10th century there were no separate South Slavic languages. Basically, western group of south Slavic (Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian) languages appear to derive from western dialects of Old Slavonic language and eastern group (Bulgarian, Macedonian) appear to derive from eastern dialects.Yeti 17:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Origin of Serbs article in Wikipedia states that the Serbs originated from the area populated by the Sorbs and that the two groups are (in a distant past) related to each other - basically, that the Sorbs are the Serbs who stayed behind when the 'Serbs' migrated to the Balkans in the 600s or so. Shouldn't the article at least make some mention of this (theory)?

Regards Osli73 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Byzantine historians, the Serbian people split: one brother led the White Serbs to the Balkan peninsular in the first half of the 7th century (the so-called Unknown Archont)), while the other remained; the latter's descendants are modern-day Serbs.

Oh, and I recommend checking the Dervan article - it's a Serbian/Sorbian ruler that joined Samo's Empire in the first half of the 7th century, before a part of the people migrated southwards.

The link should be in the article, at least in some way. --PaxEquilibrium 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out White Serbs as well. --PaxEquilibrium 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theories on the origin of Serbs contains a lot on Sorbian history. --PaxEquilibrium 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the name, there is not much genetic or any other co-relation between South Serbs and Lusatian Sorbs. When I checked into genetics between the two groups, I found that majority of North Serbs belong to R1a group; Most of the South Serbs belong to I haplogroup , close to 40% including myself (I checked) , and R1a<20%, and around the same ratio belong to R1b (15-20 %); Its proven that we mixed with Illyrs and Celts on the Balkan at the time of migration; Just like Lusitan Serbs mingled with Germans and later became Protestants; Now for the language; Ok, I can understand Bulgarians, Ukrainians and Russians; I can make out every 20th Polish word, hehe. So, since Sorbs are similar to Polaks, there you go, no language similarity either; That leaves us with the NAME, and culture; Even religion is way off; So God knows how we have the same name; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serbiancetnik (talk • contribs) 05:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

• Of course our genetics aren't the same, years of assimilation has made that clear, White Serbs = Sorbs, White Serbia = Sorbia, The Serbs moved southwards to the Balkans from great Poland.. //Written by a Serb. —Preceding comment was added at 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WE ARE ONLY RELATIVES WHO HAVE SAME NAMES, AND ORIGIN. ONE OF THE GENERALS IN SERBIAN ARMY, IN WWI WAS A SORBIAN, PAVLE JURISIC, HE WAS A COMMANDER OF SERBIAN THIRD ARMY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.221.229 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write in all-caps; it is interpreted as you SCREAMING AT EVERYONE HYSTERICALLY, like that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a question, are Sorbians the ancestors of Serbians? Mactruth (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article, interesting. Mactruth (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many theories about that, but none of them has been finally proven. In Serbian, they're called Lužički Srbi, which means "Lusatian Serbs". There is also German literature which was written before 1930 calling them "Lausitzer Serben", not "Sorben". It's quite sure, that ancestors of both nations came through Lusatia in the same century. -- j.budissin (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

having the same name doesn't make them the same - the relationship is beeing Slavs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.252.156 (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the name, but the common pre-christian history as stated in the Primary Chronicle of Nestor and the Byzantine Chronicle De Administrando Imperio in the 12th and 10th century. The sharing of the same name just supports what is already known and mentioned in written history. The Serbs that are predecessors of todays Serbs and Sorbs, dwelled in the region of northern Bohemia, eastern Germany and western Poland. Toponyms found in that area of Bohemia can be also found in contemporary Serbia. Serbian words which do not bear meaning in the Czech language nor the adjacent ones are found in toponyms in Bohemia (eg. Šumava), such traits among others only support the already known written history that 'old' Serbs once dwelled there, from which the modern Serbs and Sorbs (which still inhabit the same area) evolved, making it even more plausible.

One thing I will never understand: How come that one people that calls themselves 'Srbs' (South Slavic Serbs) is transliterated into English as 'Serbs', and the other that calls themselves literally 'Serbs' (Lusatian Serbs) suddenly become 'Sorbs'. In Yugoslav Serbian language, Yugoslav Serbs are called 'Serbs' and Lusatian Serbs 'Lusatian Serbs'. In both Lusatian languages, Lusatian Serbs are called 'Serbs' and Yugoslav Serbs 'Southern Serbs'. Even Germanic sources state Lusatian Serbs as Serbs not 'Sorbs'. Where this non-existent O came from? As if someone started referring to Germans as Gormans or English as Onglish, I just do not get it.

And it adds to one further confusion: people wonder about connections between Serbs and Sorbs because of similarities between their names, not knowing that those names aren't similar, but identical. Serbs, a South Slavonic people, and Lusatian Serbs, a West Slavonic people, are two different peoples but of the same origin. A branch of Lusatian Serbs moved southwards app. 1,500 years ago and participated in ethnogenesis of Serbian people, giving them their ethnic name, among other things. This identical name now seems to be different, while it is not. 79.101.67.129 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "O" was invented by the Sorbs theirselves in the beginning of the 20th century, probably to underline the fact, that theyre a special people, and not "Serbs in the north". -- j.budissin (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Sorbian national flag? is it similar to Serbian national flag? That proofs a lot.--87.250.58.188 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That proves nothing. It is also similar to Russian, Slovenian and Slovakian flag. Because it is a Slavic people's flag. -- j.budissin (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, the Sorbian flag was chosen for the following reason.

The flag of the Sorbs was first mentioned in 1842. On 23 March 1848 the order blue (top), red, white (bottom) was established by representatives in Berlin of several Slavic peoples. The order was chosen for practical reasons to distinguish it from the flags of other Slavic nations. In 1912 the Bund Lausitzer Sorben, the Domowina, was established as umbrella-organisation of all Sorb associations. It was forbidden by the Nazis from 1937 till 1945. The flag of the Sorbs was already forbidden in1935 When in the spring of 1945 the Russian and Polish troops entered Lausitz, the flag was flown again, at 17 May 1945 officially by the Domowina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.209.51 (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the above messy debate, the article desperately needs some clarity (including in the lead section) on this issue. The average reader is certainly going to come to the conclusion, given the "Sorbs'" own names for themselves, that there is a strong tie between Sorbs and Serbs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't know what "The question of kinship of Balkan Serbs and Lusatian Sorbs is not accidental" (in Toponyms) was intended to mean. Is it merely that "the similarity of names may be accidental or may be due to kinship"? Or is it really that "the question of kinship was created intentionally"? NebY (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it ment in fact "Lusatian Sorbs are Serbs". -- j.budissin (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this number referenced from and are copies of these memorials still on record? I have located one in the U.S. Library of Congress.Kargin (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section claims that the name is related to a Polish word. No reference is given, and I suspect original research. Hence, a reference to a scientific source supporting the claim is needed.

Futher, the article stated: Some claim Sorbs share ancestry with Serbs. According to one of the hypotheses, in the 5th century, after leaving their proto-Slavonic homeland, common ancestors of all Serbs and Sorbs divided into two groups. One of the groups (the ancestors of the Serbs), known as the White Serbs, reached the Balkans through the Carpathian Mountains under the leadership of the Unknown Archont, whilst the others settled in the middle part of the Elbe and become 'Sorbs'. The story depicted in Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos' De Administrando Imperio tells that a brother of the Archont had remained in what is today Lusatia with a part of the Serb people.

Weasel words, unreferenced claims, possibly going back to some nationalistic pdeuso-science, and similar stuff. Interestingly, the articles in the Sorbian wikipedias do not make any mention of it. -- Zz (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I have added the popular belief that Serbs(srbs) have no relation to the Sorb. This is a well known fact!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.114 (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Only Serbian historians claim this link!!![reply]

Actually it's not "some nationalistic pdeuso-science" (altough, cited part is not wholly correct). There IS (widely accepted) theory that Serbs (southern ones) came to Balkans from the north. It's somewhat unlikely that people in that area that are slavic and bear the same name, have no relation at all with that (proto)Serbs. While it's pretty obvious that today's Sorbs and Serbs are not the same, I really can't understand why are some people so staunchly against any mention of possible link in the past. 178.222.158.9 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC) drmr[reply]

Byzantine chronicles hardly can be seen as "some nationalistic pseudo-science" - As for the comment, I believe it is some Serbophobe bashing (Albanians or Islambosniaks). Serbs and Sorbs (or south Serbs and north Serbs) are genetically not the same, since the Serbs of the south assimilated Romans (Illyrians, Thracians) into their national corpus as well, and over 1400 years of living separately of course the genetics have changed, the north Serbs however were assimilated by the Germans and Poles to a great extent, that share similar genetic markers. Serbs and Sorbs probably formed the same Slavic tribe 1400 years ago, which is also backed up by the migration theories. Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles belong to the Polabian linguistic group, meaning eventhough different language, they share the inherent linguistical core.

The article said: Besides the memorandum, Sorbs also called on Poland and former Polish President Lech Kaczynski for protection and to represent them in talks with German state as unlike for example Danes have no state to help them against German authorities, as Jan Nuck stated "I think if Angela Merkel speaks about German minority rights in Poland to Lech Kaczynski, then the Polish President should demand the same about us". Nuck also said that the rights of Sorb people are not respected in German "Federal government and land government don't respect them(rights)" [5]

A further appeal has been made to Polish Embassy in Berlin using the histrionic language of Pan-Slavism, starting with "Help us. Do something for us. Our culture is dying. We are dying out. Slavs should help each other". Jan Nuck says it is difficult to judge if the situation comes from indifference of officials or if it is a concentrated effort aiming against existence of Sorb national identity in Germany^[1].

I fail to see the relevance of this Jan Nuck, and it seems that he makes up most of the numbers of the Serbs mentioned. -- Zz (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuck is chairman of the Domowina and represents the Sorbian people for more than ten years. There is no doubt, that his opinion is relevant. -- j.budissin (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The article should explain his function and find quotable sources. -- Zz (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears written by some sort of ethnocentric pan-slavic political movement then by historians/ethnographers. It's a far cry from enclypedic, that's for sure.

I first read this entry three years ago and commented on its lack of objectivity ("POV"). While I recognize that at various times the Sorbs/Wends were subjected to Germanization, the article as presently structured gives the impression that some sort of ethnic/national independence movement exists among them today. This is not true in any significant sense, though of course some Sorbs in some places may hold such views. I also detect an undercurrent of pan-Slavism here, particularly in the section about post-WWII activities. One must ask who and what the "the Lusatian National Committee in Prague" amounted to. The name sounds suspiciously Stalinist.

Legally the Sorbs/Wends today enjoy minority rights under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Constitution). Any "Germanization" they may now be subjected to is a structural consequence of being a very small minority in a country of 80 million. For example, it's no doubt true that employment would be virtually impossible for a person who spoke only Sorbian. While I'm no expert, I suspect that few if any Sorbs today are incapable of speaking German.

As a liberal humanist, I think it's great that people around the globe are rediscovering and honoring their ethnic origins and histories. The fact that the Sorbs have preserved their identity and heritage down through the centuries, despite being inundated by ethnic Germans, is an achievement they can be proud of. But let's not paint a picture that portrays them as a struggling, oppressed minority now, in the 21st century. This article needs a complete rewrite by someone versed in the topic and also in German history and politics.

Sca (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the etymology of "Serb" is not sourced, and does not agree with any English-language source that I could find. I am removing it. 74.73.238.142 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article claimed: The mythical King of White Serbia (also known as Bojka, Boika, Boii), 6th century, was succeeded by two sons, one of them was the The Unknown Archont (Nepoznati Knez), the other according to the historical timeline, the ruler of the Serbs/Sorbs, Knez Dervan. Not more is known about him.

From the information we have today, it seems the region described as White 'unbaptized' Serbia or Boika in the Byzantine Chronicles,^[2] lying east of the Franks (Germany), west of the White Croats (the inland regions of Silesia and Lesser Poland, according to Edward Gibbon),^[3] north of the Turks (Magyars of Hungary), corresponds with the modern regions of north Bohemia, Lusatia and south-western Poland.

Facts that support this theory are the sharing of the linguistical grammar structure between the West Slav (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and the South Slav (Serb and Croat) language, that differs from the grammar structure of the Bulgarian language that also belongs to the South Slavic group, and the toponyms found in the region, north Bohemia (Srbsko, Srbská Kamenice etc., as well as the toponyms containing the ethnonym Chorvat, in the adjacent regions). Lusatian Slavic population still bearing the name Serbs in their native language. The region of Bohemia was known as the region of the Boii to the Romans, as well as the Byzantines, after the Celtic Boii tribe settling the region before Slavs. Byzantines often described people by the region (Tribalians, Thracians, Illyrians) they inhabited, even though the eponymous tribes were long extinct, rather than by the native names of the tribes they were carrying. The region called Boiheim by the western Rome (German suffix -heim) and Boika by the eastern Rome (Slavic suffix -ka) relates to the current region of Bohemia and corresponds to the ancestral region of White Serbia (stated as Boika in the De Administrando Imperio, chapter 32).

{| class="toccolours" style="float: center; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 100%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:70em; max-width: 100%;" cellspacing="0" | style="text-align: left;" | "The Serbs are descended from the unbaptized Serbs, also called 'white', who live beyond Turkey in a place called by them Boiki, where their neighbour is Francia, as is also Great Croatia, the unbaptized, also called 'white': in this place, then, these Serbs also originally dwelt. But when two brothers succeeded their father in the rule of Serbia, one of them, taking a moiety of the folk, claimed the protection of Heraclius, the emperor of the Romans, and the same emperor Heraclius received him and gave him a place in the province of Thessalonica to settle in, namely Serbia, which from that time has acquired this denomination."...
..."Now, after some time these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. But when they had crossed the river Danube, they changed their minds and sent a request to the emperor Heraclius, through the military governor then governing Belgrade, that he would grant them other land to settle in."...
..."And since what is now Rascia (Serbia) and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Trebounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (for they had expelled from those parts the Romans who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romans; and the emperor brought elders from Rome and baptized them and taught them fairly to perform the works of piety and expounded to them the faith of the Christians."...
..."And since Bulgaria was beneath the dominion of the Romans * * * when, therefore, that same Serbian prince died who had claimed the emperor's protection, his son ruled in succession, and thereafter his grandson, and in like manner the succeeding princes from his family"... |- | style="text-align: right;" | -De Administrando Imperio chapter 32, Constantine VII^[2]

|}

According to the historical and archeological data present at time, Serbs and Sorbs (South and North Serbs), were around 1400 years ago the same Polabian Slavic tribe. At the beginning of the 7th century it came to a split in between the tribe, the northern Serbs that stayed (now known as Lusatian Sorbs or Wends) were largely assimilated by the greater Slavic tribes (Poles, Czechs) as well as non-Slavic nations (Germans), immensely influencing their language and culture. The southern Serbs, on the other hand, conquered and assimilated lesser Slavic tribes, as well as the romanised Illyrian and Thracian population^[4] of the Roman empire in Southeastern Europe, into their own Slavic tribe, thus laying the foundation for the medieval Serbian state.

This is a hypothesis usually proposed by Serb nationalists. Other articles in Wikipedia already got deleted. It has little to offer. It is mostly based on one writer from the early middle ages. Some clompletely outdated historians such as Gibbons are quoted, but it is not even clear what they are supposed to support.

Then, the claims grow thicker According to the historical and archeological data present at time, Serbs and Sorbs .. , were around 1400 years ago the same Polabian Slavic tribe or Facts that support this theory are the sharing of the linguistical grammar structure between the West Slav (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and the South Slav (Serb and Croat) language.... Amusingly, they lack quotes and references, and this is not a coincidence. It is important to note that it is not enough to find some similarities between the languages in question, but a reputable source saying that it supports the claims as stated. Also missing are references to a consesnsus in history or even a discussion. That is no coincidence either: there is not any.

This a very hard case of POV pushing, and since other atricles of that kind have been deleted on Wikipedia already, I have moved it here. Please refrain from reinstalling it without giving references to a consensus or even a discussion in science. -- Zz (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some writter? De Administrando Imperio, the historical magnus opus, that is the founding stone of a part of the Slavic history (mainly the southern Slavic one) is some writer? Are these some German nationalist moderations again, bashing Serbs and Sorbs for writting about their history, which obviously shared common ground in some part of their history. This moderation is just pathetic, and shows the amoung of ethnic bias against anything that has a non-German POV. Btw. if you are too stupid (yes, stupid) because plain ignorance is not a word to describe your lack of information on the matter before deleting it, Edward Gibbons was an English historian and Member of Parliament in the 18th century, whose thesis of the Croat 'urheimat' is used as an argument in the analysis of the theory. Yours trully a Lusatian Sorb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.70.204 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which obviously shared common ground in some part of their history - the common ground you made up in the many IP edits. And since there is not any support for the original research you concoct, you spice it up with insults. By the way, I do not believe you are Sorb either. -- Zz (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't he a Sorb? Because he doesn't share your view? It is true if you read the historical documents he listed, according to them Serbs are listed coming from the region which fits the description of present day Czech republic, western Poland and eastern Germany, before Germans settled that region. It is also true that southern Slavs share the same linguistic root as western and central Slavs. Other than that there was only one Serbian tribe enumerated in the Primary Chronicle, meaning that we most probably splitted with the southern Serbs sometime in the 5th or 6th century. I also believe this article has a strong German bias on their minorities history editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.194.26 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I really don't have a clue about this topic. Unfortunately, not much is taught about the Sorbs in german schools, at least not in non-sorbian regions, not even in Saxony. Anyways, I really don't see why the theory about the serb-sorb-relationship should not be mentioned in the article since the De Administrando Imperio is used as source elsewhere, too. Stating that according to that source, the Serbs may be Sorbs that have left their previous homeland, should be fine, IMO, as long as it is made clear that this point of view is disputed / unconfirmed. Just name the source for both point of views and everything is fine. This ways, both sides are satisfied and everyone reading the article can make his own decision. It's done similarily in the article about the origin of the serbs.--SüsüASárkány (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sorbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006082825/http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sorb/seiten/eng/03/language.html to http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sorb/seiten/eng/03/language.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorbs and Czechs section is needed.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the reception of Paul Wexler's theory about the genetic-linguistic origin of Yiddish is controversial among Yiddish scholars (however, the community of Yiddish scholars is very, very small and really comprises a handful of people), the question of whether structural linguistic similarities provide "evidence of an intimate Jewish contact with the Slavs in the German and Bohemian lands as early as the 9th century", from the perspective of Slavic linguistics, is an entirely separate question, and one which can only be competently assessed by Slavic linguists. Wexler is first and foremost a Slavic linguist, and I'm not aware of any Slavic linguists having disputed his argument. An argument that a group living in Europe had some degree of contact with another group living in the same area in the 9th century and later is not really very unrealistic, rather the opposite. --Maria Négete (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor Monochrome Monitor is currently engaged in an attempt to delete a whole section and is revert-warring against several editors. He was told by another editor last year to engage in discussion on the talk page, but has chosen to ignore this and the whole discussion on this talk page to continue his edit warring. Judging by his edit comments, he seems to confuse this article with the article on modern hebrew(!). This section is unrelated to controversies over the genetic origin of Yiddish and especially controversies over modern hebrew, and it's totally inappropriate to continue an unrelated edit war over that here. The fact that the around five other prominent Yiddish linguists have rejected Wexler's theory about the genetic origin of Yiddish doesn't invalidate Wexler's contribution as a Slavic linguist to a different field in which he is an expert, and where he makes a claim which isn't really very exceptional or controversial. --Maria Négete (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorb article states: "In 932, Henry I conquered Lusatia and Milsko. Gero II, Margrave of the Saxon Ostmark, reconquered Lusatia the following year and, in 939, murdered 30 Sorbian princes during a feast. As a result, there were many Sorbian uprisings against German rule." If you follow the link to the Wikipedia article on Gero II, Margrave of the Saxon Ostmark, you see he lived from ca 975 to 1015. So he was not even born at the time referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.239.112.219 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sorbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050831095937/http://www.domowina.sorben.com/index.htm to http://www.domowina.sorben.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not read itself like an encyclopaedic article, but instead like an essay on why Lusatia should be part of Poland.

First of all, why is there a section on genetics? Why would anyone be interested in some obscure research papers, that are actually about health issues, if not to construe some weird genetic (racial) link. Wikipedia should not be a platform for this pseudoscientific racism. Delete.

Then theres an entire Poland section, that mostly repeats some parts of the history section. In any case, there doesnt seem to be a close link between the Poles and the Sorbs, if anything it should be a Bohemia/Czechia section. Also, why include a map of Poland from over 1000 years ago (its because of irredentism). Delete.

The culture and language part doesnt tell as anything about Sorbian culture, just how some Sorbs allegedly wanted to separate. I cant believe that this entire, very long, article never mentions famous Sorbian writers like Jurij Brezan or institutions like the Sorbian museum, or the University faculty for Sorabistics in Leipzig. Or what about the extremely famous legends and literature on Krabat?

The entire article should be deleted and rewritten.

88.152.186.17 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph on Word War II mentions "the Sorbs were largely safe from the Reich's policies of ethnic cleansing". This section has no references / sources.

The following paragraph describes how the Sorbs were victims of genocide. I think this is contradicting the previous paragraph. This paragraph has references / sources.

Probably needs some attention. Another.one.of.these (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]