Jump to content

Talk:Slavs/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Classification

"Present-day Slavic peoples are classified into East Slavic ..., West Slavic ..., and South Slavic ..." : no!: Slavic languages are (roughly) classified this way. --Zxly (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

1) Slavs are not an ethnic group, they are a group of related ethnic groups. Only ethnic groups or nationalities warrant notable member info-boxes and population tolls, according to Wikipedia conventions.

2) The population is way off. For example, 111 million Slavs in Russia is incorrect, as that number only represents Russian people, and excludes millions of Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. Also, it does not account for the additional 6 million people who were 83% Slavic that were recorded from admin. sources. (See the demographics of Russia article for more details.)

Another example of blatant errors- according to census results, Ukraine is at least 98% Slavic (with the rest being Crimean Tatars), and someone entered 35 million Slavs out of a total pop. of about 50 million.

The total is closer to 400 million (about 375 million to be precise) based on adding up the separate ethnic group tolls (all Slavic ethnicities) and correcting for estimates. Russians and Ukrainians alone constitute about 200 to 210 million (150 Russians and 45 to 60 Ukrainians). And there are more than 60 million Polish people, which makes it at least 260 million, excluding the other 20 ethnic groups which often number 10 million or more.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of in favor of having the infobox, but I don't mind removing it if others decide its use is unhelpful. As for the numbers being incorrect, I'm certain that the listings I added to the infobox include all Slavs in that country and not just one group. But, the ones I'm not sure about are those under "Majority countries" plus Minority ones that I didn't add like Germany's figure only counting Sorbs. I was planning on checking all of the numbers, since the 250 million total did seem a bit small to me, but I haven't gotten around to it. And I think we should try to use the census numbers instead of indexmundi. --Local hero talk 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool. There is already a count/toll in the "population" section of the article which is based directly on the numbers from each ethnic group's article, which are in turn based on census numbers and official estimates. It makes up about 350 (low end) to 380 (high end) million to be very precise.
The main ones being Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, (150 + 50-60 + 60), and then groups like Belorussians, Serbs, Croats, Czechs, Bulgarians etc. (10, 12, 8, 15, 10).
That makes at least 300 to 320 million, and there are Slovaks, Slovenians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Rusyns, etc. Don't forget about the diasporas (included in the total here, but missed by you), there are 20 million Slavic Americans in the USA alone, and about 4 to 5 million in Canada, and that's only 2 countries. Kazakhstan has 7 million Slavs (mainly Russians and Ukrainians).--Therexbanner (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I was also planning on adding diaspora populations, but I first added countries that traditionally have had a large Slavic minority like the -stan countries, other former Soviet states, and other Eastern/Central European countries. I'm in the process of making some changes to the infobox and we can re-insert it here once everything's been added/corrected. --Local hero talk 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I think it would be best to use data from each ethnic group, which is based on census data and official estimates. i.e. Instead of doing it by country, we should do it by ethnic group.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So, like this? I took the figures and sources from each ethnic group's article, though about half of them didn't have sources. --Local hero talk 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not all of them need direct sources, as they are estimates (see Bengali people, or Turkish people for example).
But here are some for the 150 million Russians >
http://www.russkie.org/index.php?module=fullitem&id=4194
http://www.rusichi-center.ru/e/2663163-chechentsyi-trebuyut-snesti-pamyatnik-yuriyu-budano
http://rcultura.ucoz.ru/index/russkie/0-10
http://www.russedina.ru/articul.php?aid=2354&pid=5
There are many many more, but I think that should suffice, given that other ethnic groups don't even have any sources. (Turks, Bengalis, etc.)--Therexbanner (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay then, I added it to the article. --Local hero talk 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

agree Therexbanner , if we have a infobox here so we must have that for the germanic and turkic peoples and so on , and we dont so an infobox does not fit here Ami Deutshe (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the infobox. As it is now, it simply lists all the Slavic ethnic groups and their total global populations along with pictures of notable Slavs. If the choice of photos is not good, we can change them or we could remove them altogether. --Local hero talk 16:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I would second the removal of photos: they only clutter a huge infobox and hardly instructive: it does not even begin showing different facial types (if there is any classification thereof). And a possible source of endless contention for placeholding in the list. (By the way, I find it amusing that the gallery shows Pushkin, but not Rabinovich, who can quite memorably "speak languages belonging to the Slavic language family and share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits", not to say about poruchik Rzhevsky :-) Lovok Sovok (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
hahaha...im glad to see you assholes deleted my infobox and re-uploaded a blasphemous version. nonethe less....cudda just corrected the populations. the reason why some of the damn important Russians aren't there? BECAUSE: RUSSIAN PEOPLE ARE NOT THE ONLY SLAVIC PEOPLE and i have to make sure...its an equal amount and not just showing a buinch of Russian rednecks. the Russians on there were enough important people. i will keep deleting that blashmephous infobox you're welcome. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Besides correcting the populations, the figures from many other countries not yet listed, like ones with large diaspora populations, had to be added. By just listing each Slavic group with their global population number, the infobox is neater and required much less work. As for the pictures, I think we should just get rid of them. --Local hero talk 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
oh yeah...howabout we just delete the entire infobox right? oh yeah okay...its done. bye. btw...the new pictures u put in were plain shit. except for Yuri Gagarin. that prison picture of Lenin sucked a$$ which is why i put a regular on of him in there. who the hell is this Jovovich chick? some ugly Russian. so yeah. have a nice day.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
No, just the pictures. And I didn't add to or remove from the set of pictures you had. If the pictures is your only concern, then I don't see the reason for removing the whole infobox, as opposed to just changing the images, or the promise to continue to delete it in the future. --Local hero talk 04:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tito

I think it is not good to have such a controversial person as Tito, accused of all sorts of human rights violation (see Josip Broz Tito#Historical criticism) and a representative of a specific (Communist) ideology, as the first image of the infobox. This seems like making a statement. I'm sure it would be better to have e.g. Copernicus there. His contribution at the global level is much greater. --Eleassar my talk 12:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. Doremo (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


I think the whole thing is too big and too uneven. Maybe redo it in a proportional representation kind of way so that everyone is included and nobody is over included; and only the top from each nation are shown (nobody controversial)--Львівське (говорити) 18:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've switched Copernicus and Tito, per above. --Eleassar my talk 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If every ethnic group is to be represented, then we need a Macedonian, a Bosnian, a Montenegrin, and, if possible, a Sorb. It seems Slovenes and Bulgarians are over-represented, while Ukrainians and Czechs seem to be under-represented. --Local hero talk 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Slovenes only have 1, it's the Serbs that are over (+2 or 3 mixes) which would put them at 7? Yeah, that's overkill.--Львівське (говорити) 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I counted 3 Slovenes (Majdič, Trubar, Prešeren). I haven't heard of any of these three, yet they are included while Tolstoy, who is internationally known, is not. So, as you mentioned below, we need to start from scratch. --Local hero talk 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Good eye, my bad. In total there's 15-16 reps for Yugos...that it dwarfs the Russian's 11 is a cause for concern.--Львівське (говорити) 21:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Famous Slavs

Though she was born in the Ukrainian SSR and speaks Russian as a native language, Mila Kunis is ethnically Jewish, not Slavic. I could be wrong if one of her parents is ethnically Russian or Ukrainian. If both parents are Jewish, however, historically that would mean she's not considered ethnically Slavic. What do people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.54.151 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

...if her parentsa are Ukrainains well yes then she's Slavic. BECAUSE gotta remember...Slavic people are "ethno-linguistic" meaning unlike Chinese and Indians, Slavic people originate from A LOT OF PLACES. Polish people have a lot of Austrian and German origin. same with Serbs, they have a lot of Austrian and German origin too. oh yeah...Ukraine is one of the Slavic countires to have a JEWISH population. why? because a lot Ukrainians have Polish origin...a lot of the Jews from Ukraine were Polish. so if Mila Kunis's parents are Jewish people from Ukraine THAT WOULD STILL make them Slavic. Because...JEWS FROM UKRAINE ARE EITHER RELIGIOUSLY JEWISH OR OF POLISH ORIGIN...and POLISH PEOPLE ARE "SLAVIC"! so either way...you are wrong my friend. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
This is some bizarre form of original research on your part. German Jews living in Poland does not make them ethnically Polish, if that's what you're driving at. Just because Mila can speak Russian doen't mean she is a 'slavic person' or that she is ethnically Russian.--Львівське (говорити) 20:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pics of Slavs

The infobox includes a lot of people who are not really famous and don't have a big contribution to humanity, but it doesn't include Marie Curie, who was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century and she was the first person to get two Nobel Prizes. bogdan (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. The infobox should include max. 9 pics. 3×3 - Francis Tyers · 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to have just 9, I'd propose:
Gagarin, Copernicus, Mendeleev,
Pushkin, John Paul, Tesla,
Curie, Lenin, Bregović
These are people who are internationally known and who have definitely left their mark on the World's science, culture and politics. bogdan (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd try to find someone who is not so much important (perhaps Vladimíra Uhlířová) and replace the image. If there are people who are not so very important, they can be removed, but at least the most important people of major nations should be included. --Eleassar my talk 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should do a list / vote of who should make the cut, kind of like a Slavic Idol --Львівське (говорити) 19:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should vote, but we can discuss the currently included people one by one. --Eleassar my talk 19:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I mean vote as in form some sort of consensus, however we do it.--Львівське (говорити) 20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have some criteria like "If in 1000 years, we are to read a book about this era, who would we learn about? I'm sure that Petra Majdič who got just a bronze medal in the 2010 Vancouver is not one of them. bogdan (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Current breakdown

Based on the current pic, this is how it breaks down:
Russian - 11
Serb - 4
Bulgar - 4
Pole - 3
Slovene - 3
Yugoslav - 2
Croat - 2
Jewish - 2
Ukrainian - 1
Belarusian - 1
Slovak - 1
Czech - 1
Bosniak - 0
Macedonian - 0
Montenegrin - 0
Sorb - 0

Mix - 1*

And then there's Jovovich who is Ukrainian-American of Serbian and Russian descent, so take your pick. Personally, a lot of the people on there aren't even notable. IMO the entire thing needs to be torn down and reconsidered, is the person representing Czech's really the most influential Czech of all time? Klitchko is Ukraine's only rep? There shouldn't even be Jews on a list of ethnic Slavs, etc.--Львівське (говорити) 20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think a 6 x 6 gallery is perhaps too much; it should about 5 x 5 consisting of people who are known in more places than just their home countries. And are we trying to have it proportional? Like, should almost half of the images be of Russians? --Local hero talk 20:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not completely proportional on the ratio, but it would make sense if Russians had more than any other group. Also, gotta love how a Serbian merchant for Peter the Great is on the list, but Peter himself didn't make the cut over Gorby--Львівське (говорити) 21:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Sorbs necessarily need to be in the graphic, nor do Montenegrins. Also, I'm having a hard time finding a notable Belarusian for the list, maybe cover them with a Ruthenian figure or a Kyivan Rus' figure.--Львівське (говорити) 21:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the selection of pictures should be completely reworked. For example, it contains the Czech Vladimíra Uhlířová (I'm not a tennis fan and had never heard of her) but not Jan Hus or Václav Havel. As far as Czech tennis players go, Martina Navratilova is better known. I think there's no necessity to try for proportional representation based on ethnicity. Doremo (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It would also be good for only non-Slovene experts to consider the Slovene candidates, only non-Czech experts to consider the Czech candidates, etc. And for Slavic experts to not participate in the selection at all. People without specialized knowledge would have a better perspective on which people are prominent outside their own cultural contexts. Doremo (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what pop-culture prominence matters (15 minutes of fame in acting/sports doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run); not to mention, it's going to be hard to get disinterested parties involved. If we break it down so that it's like 1-2 picks each, this shouldn't be hard to figure out the most important people on our own, the only one that'll get dicey is Russia.--Львівське (говорити) 07:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of Czechs, we found our winner (Největší Čech), they consider Charles IV to be their most important.--Львівське (говорити) 08:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we can just casually ask people we know off-line in order survey disinterested parties. For example, I just asked someone (a non-Slavic specialist who is disinterested in matters Polish) and she immediately named the following Poles: Lech Wałęsa, Frédéric Chopin, Marie Curie. One can probably repeat the experiment with others; it's doubtful that any disinterested party will immediately name Vasily Zaytsev or Vitali Klitschko, for example. Doremo (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
We'll still run into problems of recentism if asking people who don't study history at all. The Klitschko brothers are pretty well know considering they've been the best boxers in the world for like a decade--Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)



Based on a PR system, we could easily do 1 pic for every 20m in population, with those that have 10m rounding up to 1 pic (bosnia, macedonia, sorbs, montenegro get left out unless they have someone exceptional) and get 20 pics. we could push to 25 and have 5 be wildcards of prominence. What do you guys say?--Львівське (говорити) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a population ratio as a basis. For example, this would make Czechs (11–12 m) and Belarusians (10 m) equal, but, although several prominent Czechs are pretty well known and have had an impact beyond their borders, I'm hard-pressed to name a single Belarusian aside from Lukashenko. There are also about five times as many Poles as Czechs, but I doubt the Poles have five times as many prominent representatives. And, of course, that would dictate that about 50% of the pics be Russian, which is unlikely to please people. Maybe a Google Books search could serve as a rough basis to establish prominence; just to pick the current first row I get "Copernicus" (1.68 m), "Mendeleev" (0.32 m), "Ivan Alexander" (0.015 m), "Pushkin" (1.70 m), "Stjepan Filipović" (0.0002 m), "John Vladimir" (0.002 m). Doremo (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, Russians are a lot greater in number so it stands to reason that they have contributed more and deserve more spots. There are entire courses dedicated to Russian history and literature; the same can't be said of the other groups (that I know of). Not only that, but assume Russia had splintered off into several republics (like the other slavic countries), we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Poles have contributed more than Czechs....but nonetheless, the 5 wildcard spots would allow the heavier lifters to get some recognition.--Львівське (говорити) 18:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe someone can run the stats, and then we can toss out the Filipovićes and Vladimirs and confirm the Copernicuses and Pushkins, regardless of ethnicity. Doremo (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"shouldn't even be Jews on a list of ethnic Slavs" ... what an idiot. what's wrong with actors/actresses of Jewish descent? Slavic people are not an ethnicity, for Serbians, Russians, Poles and Czechs are all seperate ethnicities of the same family. besides Balkan Slavs aren't so distant to nearly unrelated to East Slavs and West Slavs. the only thing that barely binds them together is the use of a Slavic language, thus this is why Slavic peoplea are called "ethno-linguistic". just as Germans, Swedish and British people (Germanic), Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkish (Turks)...yeah. Vladimir Lenin had some Jewish descent, Jewish, Russian, Swedish and Kalmyk I don't see him removed from the list. I'll let this all through for the week, then I'll be the judge on how good or bogus this infobox has been edited. 76.193.171.31 (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Do you understand the "ethno" part of "ethno-linguistic"?--Львівське (говорити) 06:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
In case many of you idiots haven't known, I intended the pictures for historians, celebraties, atheletes and prominent people of Slavic heritage. "Pure" ancestry of "mixed" ancestry! When did I say, delete celebraties? Perhaps it should go like this, put Russians on one row, Ukrainians on another, Serbians on another, Czechs on another and so forth. See? I got the good ideas! So please explain your blasphemy and you reason for posting such blasphemous content on these infoboxes that I work my butts off to create? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Feel free to add....but not delete.

Yep its back guys. Them lovely pics everyone was complainin about. Feel free to add.

Yes I know, Slavic people are not an ethnicity. They are an ethno-linguistic group, but the pictures are simply famous Slavic people. Simple. no complaining. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Just something about chosen pictures of famous people in this Infobox, for example Radmanović in place of Divac, Stojaković, Bodiroga, Korać etc. (just naming Slavic basketball players which are two class above him in every way), then Vladimíra Uhlířová (wtf)<Petra Kvitová, Lucie Hradecká, just naming much better options from same countrie and same sport.--Obelixus (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into them. You don't have to replace people, feel free to add them starting a new row. Just make sure, it doesn't get overcrowded. Yes, I know Balkan people are great basketball. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I think Mila Kunis, since she is Jewish, ought to be removed unless there's some way we can be sure that she is ethnically Ukrainian since she seems to identify as Jewish ethnically. Also, I don't think we should have two Klitschkos. And Tolstoy should not have been removed. --Local hero talk 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
We had a big talk page blowout about this for her, and the Ukrainian-American article - and the conclusion was that she is not Ukrainian.--Львівське (говорити) 07:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced her with Primož Trubar, who contributed crucially to the development of the Slovene identity. I have also replaced Radmanović with Petra Majdič (a representative of Slovene women) and W. Klitschko with France Prešeren, per talk above. --Eleassar my talk 12:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Trubar seems fitting but Majdic doesn't belong on there and Preseren is really pushing the undue weight to Slovenes here. Pick one.--Львівське (говорити) 07:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've replaced Prešeren with Trubar and Majdič with Ivana Kobilca, who has been described as the greatest Slovene woman[1] and the greatest Yugoslav woman painter[2] (partly to have a balanced representation of men and women). --Eleassar my talk 08:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Depending on how many pics we decide to go with in the below discussion, Slovenes should really only get 1 person - who is the most important one of all time?--Львівське (говорити) 08:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be Trubar, his birth anniversary was commemorated by UNESCO and it has been claimed there would be no Slovenes without Trubar. He is also important for the development of Croatian culture, he set the foundations for the Croatian literature. --Eleassar my talk 08:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Trubar is the best choice for a Slovene. His time period shows that his prominence has "staying power." Even so, very few, if any, people disinterested in Slovenia will have heard of him. A Copernicus or Curie he is not in cultural consciousness. Doremo (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
So? If we go by 'cultural consciousness' then we might as well put in Anze Kopitar or something. It's not a popularity contest.--Львівське (говорити) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
True enough. It depends what the pictures are for (has that been addressed?). I assume they're to tell general readers "Hey, here are some people that you've heard of that are Slavic." However, if that's the criterion, then no Slovenes should be pictured at all, to be quite honest. Doremo (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was just based on importance, like Bogdan suggested. If it's just people who are popular at the moment, then it's going to change quickly, people will bicker about who is more 'in' right now, etc. and it'll just keep getting edited to include obscure people.--Львівське (говорити) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Another thing that has to be considered is whether Slovene ethnicity actually existed at the time of Primož Trubar. Per [3] (J. Kosi, ed. Štih), Slovene ethnicity did not exist before the middle of the 19th century, and Trubar was not a Slovene but a Carniolan. So we're left with only Kobilca undisputedly Slovene. Nonetheless, this does not diminish Trubar's contribution and significance for the Slovene (and Croatian) nation nor does it imply that he was not of Slavic descent. --Eleassar my talk 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

remove infobox

we do not need it here , the slavs are not an ethnic group , and the infobox template is named ethnic group template , and including pictures is hard to edit , and it seems to be leading to a never ending edit war 114.45.63.59 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They are not strictly "ethnically different" either. Be that as it may, an infobox doesn't have to pertain to ethnicities. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to remove it outright...that said, no other articles like it have infoboxe - but that doesn't mean it should be gone, maybe it means the other groups (Germanic, Turkic, Finnic, etc.) should do the same. I see no evidence of a massive edit war going on, most here have been very cooperative from what I've seen, it's just one user who is being combative. --Львівське (говорити) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep! That "one" user is me! Anyways, I can remove it anytime. I've done it before and people were okay with it. The other person is right, there is a mssive edit war going on. It's gonna get even bigger. I'm just butting off for a while until I come back. Let's just see how long this blasphemy lasts. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
By the way, anyone can have mixed descent REGARDLESS of ethnicity. I just finished off someone else who was trying to remove Vladimir Lenin from the Russians article's infobox just because he had Jewish origin. Both the infobox on the Russians article and on this article. I see no reason to be deleting people just because of they have Jewish origin. Kunis is an ethnic Ukrainian with Jewish descent. Lenin is an ethnic Russian with Jewish descent. Milla Jovovich is of Serbian and Russian descent born in Ukraine. See the blasphemy now!? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Mila Kunis is not an ethnic Ukrainian of Jewish descent; she is a Jew born in Ukraine. There's a difference.--Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Says what proof? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Lots said about this topic on this talk page dispute. --Львівське (говорити) 05:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Well case rested. Her ethnicity and race seems to be in dispute of whether she's just a Jew born in Ukraine, or a Ukrainian of Jewish descent, or a Russian-Jew or a Yiddish or whatever. Apparently it seems that she doesn't wanna get it out. I don't know. Races don't seem to be an easy thing to classify. If even "magically" becoming Slavic is even possible, by just attaining a Slavic language as a native. She barely speaks Ukrainian or Russian anymore she learned them as native languages. I don't know...... PacificWarrior101 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Anybody wish to explain this edit? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Just like I predicted. It gets even more blasphemous and blasphemous. It'll get even worse. All I can say and explain is that they ruined that infobox. Removed people even though I told them to leave a message before doing so, but they think they own everything. I didn't make that edit but I'll make it even better by just deleting the stupid pictures. Nobody can shut up and get over pictures these days. So they spend hours on frigging talk pages about who should be and who should be there. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)你的母親混蛋!
This is purely pathetic. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)你的母親混蛋！

I've left a message on User talk:ГДБОБ. He is the author. I am not party to which version is best but I'm hoping he come to discuss his changes. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why constantly changing images in infobox? Every day new pictures.--Sokac121 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cool some other Russian. You see, like I said. People gotta be bitches so everyday the stupid pictures turn into an edit war. It gets even more pathetic and pathetic and blasphemous. 你的母親混蛋！ (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)你的母親混蛋！
Yeah, I'm deleting the stupid pictures infobox. It's getting really stupid and unnecessarry. Anyways, I created it and I can destroy it. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)PacifcWarrior101
It doesn't work that way pal.--Львівське (говорити) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Lvivske is right though, I created it and I can destroy it assumes ownership. The creation is actually very good and it would be sad to see it go; a consensus is the best path to take but I cannot see the problem with it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Nope. It's sad to you but to me....it's necessarry. I don't know when, but all I know is that it'll happen. Me deleting this stupid infobox is a when not an if. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
And you'll be reverted, and I think it's time an admin put you on a timeout. --Львівське (говорити) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, I'm so totally scared. The big bad self-proclaimed admins are gonna put me on "timeout". Bring it on. I'll undo your reverts. Whoooo.....timeouts. What a pathetic attempt to scare me into begging and submission. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Please understand that this page is intended for talk about the article Slavic peoples, not for your personal pummeling. Therefore, focus on the infobox itself - whether it should be included and what information should it present. Thanks. --Eleassar my talk 09:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mila Kunis

I ask you to remove Mila Kunis from the people refered to as "Slavic". Mila Kunis is Jewish, from both her mother's and father's sides of the family - thus, making her a 100% Ethnic Jewish. She needs to be in the pictures of the Jews, not in the pictures of the Slav. I am Jewish, and I would like you to remove Mila Kunis from this article, and transfer her photo to the Jewish people article.

Dude, what month are you still in? Mila Kunis was R.I.Ped from the infobox LONG LONG AGO. Nobody is 100% of anything. Lenin's ancestry was also Jewish, Swedish and Kalmyk. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Thank you, --Moto53|Talk to me! 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone were "100% ethnic Jewish", Hebrew would never have had to be revived as it would have survived every generation as the faith did. Nobody in reality is "100%" anything because ethnicity is how you declare yourself. It is true that a percentage of people in many Slavic states declare Jewish but, to give you some examples, Richard Holbrook, David Miliband and Stephen Fry are all listed as being of various descents from the European countries their families were from. Compare this to most ethnic Albanians from Macedonia, their pages will never give them as being of Macedonian descent. If an individual is monolingual and that language is of the host nation, he most certainly will have that blood in him unless he knows his parents to have come from elsewhere and he didn't bother with their tongue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Remove what? She isn't mentioned on the page. --Львівське (говорити) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ethnicity is not an easy thing to classify. The only way you'd really be labeled as your ethnicity from ancestors is if you still spoke the language. There's Russians from Lithaunia and Estonia who've never been to or even seen Russia at all. Look at Americans, the government thinks that living in America makes you American. Truly, yes American can be an ethnicity. Not an easy thing. Some ethnicities don't even exist anymore. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I just don't have tthe power to argue with you all... --Moto53|Talk to me! 10:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mila Kunis did not deserve to be her image in this article. (And the article about the Jews did not place her.)--Sokac121 (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Neither does anyone else then. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
In my honest opinion, nobody's image needs to be displayed on this page because this page is neither about one specific ethnic group nor the ideologies behind any unification or awareness (such as Pan-Slavism). In response to Pacific Warrior's statement that ethnicity is not easy to classify, yes that is true; it can be made easier though if we all accepted the term to be synonymous with "group of self-identification", that way nobody can argue back at an individual. Reading Kunis' article, it is clear that she is an American subject who identifies as Jewish so I would leave any mention of her out of Slavic based articles. I still do say though that she'll certianly have Slavic ancestry. This article needs to focus on the historical nation and the legacy is has cast onto modern ethnicities. Like this, there will be no conflict. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ibrahimović LOL. --Sokac121 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt Ibrahimović and Gretsky even speak their native Slavic languages. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Oh, I totally doubt Gretzky does; but his father was notable for being fluent in Ukrainian when he came out of his stroke. Didn't know how to play it, since Wayne is the super-famous one.--Львівське (говорити) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Are we talking Zlatan Ibrahimović? I don't know, but I would be very surprised if he didn't speak a word of Serbo-Croat (I have to use this term as he is of mixed Bosniak/Croat parentage) because there is a fair sized community in Sweden of people who relocated from SFRY; given that both his parents are from there and the known mentality and attitude of people from there in speaking to their children in the mother tongue, I am sure that he would have nothing less than a basic knowledge of the language. I'm on the same boat, born in the UK to parents from SFRY. I know of none similar to me who don't know their language, although some speak it better than others. Sweden as a nation has a very positive approach to learning and adopting foreign languages, with almost the entire literate population able to speak English extremely well; so often you'll find with Scandinavians that they not only speak English but many have a third and even fourth foreign language. For a Swede to tell you he speaks Swedish, English, French and German is not unusual. To that end, it's a bit of a tall order to imagine a Swede born to immigrant parents whose language is the same but where the child doesn't speak the mother tongue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, Slavic people are ethno-linguistic group, not a complete ethnicity. You'd have to speak a Slavic language as a native language to even be considered a Slav. Since Gretzky and Ibrahimovic don't even speak Slavic languages as native toungues, it just becomes their ancestries. I really don't think they should stay in the infobox. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Sticky issue I think. It's a WP:OR method to imply one has to know the language. Take the Jews, their identity continued for millennia because their faith was cast one generation to the next - but not the language. Today this gives you people of such diverse appearance it is patently obvious they cannot have much genetic similarity and you may also know that Modern Hebrew was adopted far later. So for years, a Jew may only have spoken German or Polish. If an individual today discovers that his great-grandparent was Ukrainian and decides to take an keen interest in that and pride himself on his Slavic past despite not knowing the language, this should be fine to accept the individual as being Slavic. As for me, I was born in Britain to Yugoslav parents and as a result, I know Serbo-Croat (all forms), Macedonian AND Bulgarian like a native of each (surprises many people). My involvement with people from these lands alongside the upbringing I had in the UK made this possible and frankly, I only consider myself Slavic as I cut out any such affiliations to individual ethnicities. But like you say, ethno-linguistic and not complete ethnicity, this is why we won't honestly need an image gallery. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to replace Ibrahimovic and Gretzky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificWarrior101 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research

There has been a claim of WP:OR in the intro. I am not sure what this is, would any user like to comment on that section? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My Claim ??!! as i earlier said you have a fetish for the word "slav", this is NOT a personal attack but a fact that other editors should know, i mean look at your userpage you clearly are a panslavist Hopelesscross (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please address the matter at hand, this is not a forum. Where is the original research here? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's about the claim that they "rank fourth among panethnicities in the world," that's backed up by the linked list. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes! The penny has dropped with me too! There is denial that this is a panethnicity and that in turn is based on my own Pan-Slavic sentiments of which I make no secret. Never made me enemies in the past! The mindset is not adopted to dislike others outside of it. Similarly, a Pan-African is one who believes in strengthening African unity throughout all the various nations that originate from the continent; that too doesn't imply anything negative towards non-Africans. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss article content here, not personal grievances and political views. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I was only citing examples as to what being Pan-Arab, Pan-African or Pan-Slavic means and how it is not a dangerous concept. I was merely defending an attack that was all! As soon as the editor who took issue with the LEDE explains his points, we shall indeed discuss the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
@Hopelesscross, panethnicity here means only the ethnos-assemblage of Slavic peoples. That is unrelated to pan-Slavicism, a political movement advocating for the closer unity of Slavic peoples which dates to the 19th century. IMO, "panethnicity" is used properly. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

disputes in Genetics section not being addressed

January of 2011? Half a year ago, editors. Looks like it has dropped off the radar of the past 3 archives of the talk page . . . There are two long passages in this section without any references/footnotes. Anyone with some expertise in this area that can address the issues? HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Central Europe

At least five slavic nations (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Lusatian Sorbs and arguably Croatians) do not live in Eastern Europe, Southeast Europe, North Asia or Central Asia. They live in Central Europe, region which is quite different from Eastern or Southeast Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on one's point of view. Traditionally speaking, Europe has been divided into 'east' and 'west' - with Germany/Italy the dividing line between east and West. Also, a majority view as taught in western schools until very recently was: West Europe-Great Britain, France, Spain, Lux., Switzerland ... Central Europe-Scandanavia, Germany, Austria, Italy ... Eastern Europe - all the rest. Today, many geographers, historians, and nationalists (!) have looked at the extreme eastern edge of Europe, and concluded that "central" Europe has been placed too far west in the past. Additionally, the fall of the Communist Bloc has had no small part in this view. IF Eastern Europe is to be considered the territories of the former USSR and the Baltic states, then the anon IP from Prague would be correct. It's a tangle, and until some of the dust settles, will be controversial. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
At least about the Sorbs there can be no discussion, no matter how you divide up Europe (unless you are trying to argue that the territory of the former GDR lies in Eastern Europe only because it used to be part of the Communist Bloc): they clearly live in Central Europe, even according to the definition you are giving. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox personalities

I think at least one famous person from every Slavic nation should be included in the infobox. Consequently, all Slavic nations will be represented and the neutrality of the article will be preserved. At the moment, there are more that three Russians, Bulgarians, more than two Slovenes, and no traces of the other nations. However, using pictures in infobox for articles like this one, is not very good idea. It can produce many unnecessary discussions. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree here. What purpose does an infobox serve here? And are we sure all these people are actually Slavs, not just representatives of multi-cultural states etc. It'd be best for the infobox to be removed or at least trimmed to only the most necessary of info. --Laveol T 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say remove the pictures only. Having mentioned the Slavic countries, nations and languages is more than enough.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Mhm, not to mention that portraits significantly increase the loading time of the page. If nobody comes with reasons why these should be kept, we could remove them say tomorrow. --Laveol T 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I am for removing the images.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the pictures are unbalanced. Counting by ethnicity just before my last edit, I got 3 poles, 11(!) Russians (3 being marginal Russian/Ukrainian), 3 Bulgarians, 3 Croats, 3 Serbs, 1 Macedonian, 1 Czech, 2 Slovenes, 5 Ukrainians (3 being marginal Russian/Ukrainian), and 1 Bosnian. Oh, and only 2 women out of the bunch. I tried to bring a bit of a wider ethnic spread by removing the relatively marginal WWII sniper Vasily Zaytsev and replacing him with the famous Slovak politician Alexander Dubček (another male, but at least an improvement on the ethnic front). As for removing them all outright, I am not so sure. I certainly think that there is a case to be made for removing them, but I also think it is helpful to the reader to see some examples of famous Slavs they might/should know. I think if we try to give a more balanced mix of ethnicity and gender, then this could be a very useful aid. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Why do you guys even have Soviet Politicians? According to most Russians, the most famous Russian leader was Alexander Nevsky - who'd be a fine replacement over Gorbachev, or any other Soviet politician. According to BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm, over 50 million Russians voted, and Nevsky was clearly the top choice. I should also note that the reason why Stalin did so well, was that he had a great presenter. Gorbachev didn't even make the cut. If you're going to represent Russia, how do you not have Nevsky? The article on Russians has Nevsky's image. Can someone please change Gorbachev to Nevsky? I was also thinking about replacing someone with Alexander Pushkin, but can't think of whom to replace at the moment. 71.165.41.100 (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the atrociously Victorian "gallery of Slavs" from the infobox. It's goddamn idiotic, huge, and doesn't help anyone but Pan-Slavic racialists, supposing there are any of those. Dahn (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the infobox personalities with the pan-slavic flag. I think the flag is much more appropriate. best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Slavic people(s?)

The article title states 'Slavic peoples', whereas the introductory sentence and the infobox state 'Slavic people'. Only one should be chosen. --Eleassar my talk 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use Slavs as the article title (cf. Celts, Balts). The lede could read "The Slavs or Slavic peoples ..." (as at Balts). The title Germanic peoples is necessary to distinguish the topic from Germans, but this is not a lexical problem for the Slavs. Doremo (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus

Jesus people change the title of the article....

90.230.225.106 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

catholicism and christianity

In infobox we can see list of religion that looks

  • Christianity
  • Catholicism
  • Islam
  • and Atheism

So, my question is "What is a difference between christianity and catholicism? As far as I know catholicism is a form of christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.37.155 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What's te reason that catholicism is reverted to the list. Is it really not christian cofession? If it is not top secret information I think we all will benefit if a person that undo changes every time will post an explanation. 178.36.149.240 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


Agreed, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. I've seen some Americans view it as separate from "true" (protestant) Christianity, which is bad position to take.--Львівське (говорити) 19:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Now infobox looks this way: "Majority: Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy Minority: Islam, Atheism and Paganism"

  • Well AFAIK there are also other religions among slavic people.
  • Those "Majority" and "Minority" categories - when religion falls into "majority" or "majority"? What are numbers that makes them "minor" or "major"?
  • Not to mention fact that there are also other christian branches present among Slavs.
  • I do not see what was wrong with just listing religions as it was before. I mean like "Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Slavic Paganism (or as it is used on wikipedia "slavic Neopaganism)".
  • Yes I do not understand why link was moved from "slavic neopaganism" to more general "paganism". I know that there are also non slavic pagan religions popular among Slavic people, but slavic paganism seems to be biggest pagan movement among them. ( IMHO ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.11.168 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of slavic word "slovo"

This word, "slovo", in ANCIENT slavic had meaning of the "noun", not of the "word".

"Word", by the case, was "glagol" term. Ask EVERY slavic linguist for confirmation of THIS FACT.

Also, as the gipotesis for origin of term "jmeno", or "the name", the most reliant variant is the greek word "memo". So, "je meno" means "one, who is in posession of memory".

Thank You.

P.S. And yes, Slovenin could be interpreted, as Human's Child - literally Heir of One, Who Brings Nouns into animal and "nemec" World.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.187.116 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Silesians

What is the source for 5 million Silesians?! Censuses in Czech Republic and Poland indicate that there is around half a million of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is joke? In Poland live 2 million Silesians (including above 0.8 million as nation - according to the national census, rest as ethnic group), in the Czech Republic - tens of thousands Silesians (including above 12,000 as nation) and in Germany: 3.6 million in 1950; 2.4 million Silesians in West Germany in 1970. In Germany in the census is not exist option of declaration nationality, in Germany - the lack of accurate data. These numbers say that the Silesians are more than 5 million, about 1 million as nation (official census declarations from adults people) and rest - some million as ethic group. Of course, the data from censuses are understated. Franek K. (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no sources for the thesis "Silesians (Also sometimes considered part of Poles and Czechs (controversial); Silingi is also Silesian tribe, but this Germanic tribe; Generally, heavily mixed with German people;), Bieżuńczanie, Bobrzanie, Dziadoszanie, Golęszyce, Lubuszanie, Opolanie, Ślężanie, Trzebowianie". Can someone gave any scientific source for it?--Plk (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Moravians

There are incorrect information about Moravians. First at all they are not an ethnic. The number of 1 mill. is wrong as well. Only the south moravian region has over 1 mill people. Officially Morava does not exists but the historical land of Moravia has about 4 mill people. Together with Czechs (about 6) is about 10 mill in total of people of the Czech republic. Have tried to fix it was reverterd. Have no desire in fight here :O) Carlmarche (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Pan-Slavic" flag

The so-called Pan-Slavic flag doesn't really belong here. Yes, its colors are featured in the flags of many Slavic countries, but how relevant is it to the article? Is it currently used by all Slavs?

The article Pan-Slavism claims that this flag was "proposed by the Pan-Slav convention in Prague in 1848", but this is not referenced.

I propose to remove the instances of this flag from this article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Amire80. Colors is not a flag. Slavic colors (blue-red-white) does not mean flag. Slavonic people never had flag Carlmarche (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


Its inclusion is relevant.--Львівське (говорити) 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetical

I read allways "Hypothetical", e.g. Hypothetical ethnogenesis of the Slavs ca. 1000 B. C. Had the wikipedia facts? This map is completly false. Area of Balto-Slavic dialectic continuum (purple) with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers Balto-Slavic in Bronze Age (white). Red dots= archaic Slavic hydronyms. I see oldeuropean, baltic, germanic, greek hydronyms, indoiranic hydronyms and a lot modern slavic hydronyms. Not more long and we have a slavic Iceage-Population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.47 (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Slavic peoples → Slavs – as noted several times on this talk page already, and in line with East Slavs, South Slavs, Celts, etc, this title is far less clunky and adheres to the principle of least astonishment. - filelakeshoe 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proto-Slavic form

I've noticed most etymologies mention the origin as *slověne, but Horace Lunt's grammar of Old Church Slavonic notes that in OCS itself the form slověni is attested several hundred years earlier. His etymology is that it is originally *slověnji (OCS writing does not distinguish ni from nji), which was formed from *slov- "be known" with an unknown suffix *-ěn- and the possessive suffix *-jь. He explains *slověn- as a personal name or similar, and *slověnji as "the people of the clan of *slověn-". I realise that this is not the mainstream explanation, so I'm not sure if it warrants mentioning without giving WP:UNDUE. But because of the earlier OCS attestation with -i, and the fact that Lunt's book is a fairly well known work in the field, it should be included? Are there any other sources that consider this, or at least any that consider the OCS -i? CodeCat (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Hitler

The reference to Athaulf and the Genocide plan is provocative and may incite anger.

There was no such plan.

Reasons being -

A. The design is physically improbable - German expansion into the Balkans would require spiritual consent, and crusades had long stopped.

B. The design could not be unanimous as conservative elements within the German establishment would always oppose it.

C. Any movement toward the Balkans or any change brought about would imply a transgression to the interests of Austria, Russia and the Ottoman. The German state is wiser than that.

D.Governance is limited over the 'German speaking population' as espoused in the Constitution of Germany, and they don't travel well, forced migration being fantastical.

It would be good if Articles were pleasant rather than a weapon. Knowledge is meant to brighten things, not cause pain. Please do not use words as Weapons and hope someone will pick it up for you.

Move On.

Defense Consul for Athaulf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.12.202 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. There is nothing on this page about "athaulf" anywhere. CodeCat (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It's good that you don't understand, If you understand, I'll oversit...lol. Kodekat..talk..should I...okay...kiss u...:)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.118.18 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How many?

I've deleted the second half of the sentence "The worldwide population of people of Slavic descent is close to 400 million for which they rank fourth among panethnicities in the world." The claim of 4th is based on Wikipedia's list of panethnicities, but that list is stated to be incomplete and does not include, for instance, the Chinese who are the largest people group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 19 March 2013‎

Joshua Project unreliable

Please see the Reliable sources noticeboard. It is evident that other sources are needed.--Zoupan 00:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationalist websites like "Serbian Unity" are also not reliable. Btw the data of the censuses don't even add up to 10.5 million so adding an extra 1.5 mil because "Serbian Unity" and an article in a Serbian newspaper says so is POV.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Правичност puts unreliable POV Serbian sources. Reduces the number of other South Slavs.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple explanation

Franek, please try to understand changes by your own, before you are reverting. Here the explanation for you: first, wrong citation. Second, the list is about regions, and Russians is not a region, but Russia. And so on.--Plk (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Plk, you enter deceptive data, your data include all persons living in the countries, not Slavs. You give the sources of census in countries, for example - your source about Poland says: "w dniu 31 marca 2011 w Polsce mieszkało prawie 38.3 miliona osób" ("on March 31, 2011 in Poland was home to nearly 38.3 million people"), 38.3 million people, not Slavs. Your data and sources concern all peoples in the countries, not Slavs. Franek K. (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The numbers are not including all persons. If you don't understand any number, ask. I see, I gave a wrong link about Poland. I will fix it. And again, please stop reverting. Ask first.--Plk (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, you give the data and sources from censuses in countries, which include whole population of the country, not Slavs. Also, your fixed source about Poland is wrong, this data relates to language, see "Ludność według języka ; Polski razem 36,410 tys" ("Population by Language ; Polish language total 36,410 thousands"). Your sources must refer to Slavs, Slavic peoples, Slavic Poles etc, not people living in Poland or people speaking Polish language and other. Your change introduces incorrect data and incorrect sources and also violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - Wikipedia:No original research. Please do not make such changes without discussion, further such edits also will be undone, until the source of the data will be talked about Slavs, Slavic people etc. Franek K. (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The previous version there are a few years, you are trying to push its false version. Please note that in accordance with Wikipedia:CYCLE, first must discuss your changes. Franek K. (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long the verison exists. Wikipedia should be better. And calling Russians and other Slavic people a region is not helpfull. This is now my last warning. If you would look at the sources, the numbers and if you would count by your own, you would see, that you're wrong and the numbers are from the census and the Non-Slavic people are subtracted. The numbers are not all people. If you will change something, do it better. Reverting is still the worst what you can do. Again for you, as simple as possible: Russians, Serbs, Ukrainians aren't regions. Russia, Serbia or Ukraine are regions.--Plk (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter how long the version exists. Wikipedia should be better? Yes, but your version is totally wrong, false data and sources, your version is even worse.
  • "This is now my last warning" - you can not give warnings in this situation because your version is new, you pushing the new version to which other user have reservations.
  • "the numbers are from the census and the Non-Slavic people are subtracted" - not everywhere. Also, it is original research.
You are trying to push its false version. Please note that in accordance with Wikipedia:CYCLE, first must discuss your changes. If there is consensus, your changes will be made ​​to the article. As long as the sources of data and will not be talked about Slavs, Slavic people and as long as the your version will be broke rules of Wikipedia:No original research, not consent to enter this data to article. Franek K. (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
And especially for you the number from Poland: 38,512,000 (people in Poland) - 36,000 (Germans) - 10,000 (Gypsis) - 33,000 (others, non Slavic) = 38.433 million Site 106. Which number you don't understand, either?--Plk (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
especially for you: your example concerns Poland only, data of other all countries already have not such calculations. Besides, your calculations concerns Poland are imprecise.
"Which number you don't understand" - that's beside the question, I understand your calculations but this is original research.
Which fact you don't understand: all data and sources must relate to Slavs and No original research. Franek K. (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I gave all sources. The old version has for some numbers no sources. And the old version doesn't show numbers of regions, while the infobox say Regions with significant populations.--Plk (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Do you have any arguments, beside those two assertions without substance?--Plk (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

These are the two main issues: in this article - Slavs, data and sources must relate to Slavs according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and no original research according to the Wikipedia:No original research. Please, you accept the rules of Wikipedia or go away. Franek K. (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's because your bad knowledge of English. Now the informations shows groups/nations, but the infobox needs regions/countries. I put the numbers of the Slavic population of some countries. The sources were the censuses. The Non-Slavic population is subtracted. So the numbers are about the Slavic population. I hope, you understand this now.--Plk (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand this but you do not understand. I know, that informations shows groups/nations, but the infobox needs regions/countries but this version existed for few years and this is a small problem. We (I, you and other users) can together try the solution to this problem, through calm discussion and consensus. This is the first case. Second case: you wrote "The sources were the censuses. The Non-Slavic population is subtracted" but in this article - Slavs, data and sources must directly relate to Slavs according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and no original research according to the Wikipedia:No original research. You can not do any calculations, etc and data and sources must directly relate to Slavs (not to Poles, Czechs and minus Austrian, plus Kashubian, minus British is equal to Slavs). Franek K. (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay. And now explain why you're thinking that we cannot count it as Slavic population, please.--Plk (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, God. You can count it as Slavic population to homework (or hobby work), not to Wikipedia because it violates two basic principles: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Franek K. (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I read WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The informations comes from reliable sources. So it's compliant to rules.--Plk (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh!? Of course, you read WP:NOR and "the informations comes from reliable sources", NOR (No original research) and sources have a connection? The second case: yes, national censuses is reliable sources BUT this sources do not say anything about Slavs, just say about ethnic groups e.g. Poles, Czechs and many other. National censuses is reliable sources for data about number of e.g. Poles, Czechs and many other, not Slavs. Your calculations about number of Slavs and joining ethnic groups e.g. Poles, Czechs and many other from the national censuses to Slavs, violate the principle of No original research. Franek K. (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If I may join in here... If a source says "there are (number) of ethnic Poles in Poland" and we conclude that Poles are Slavs, is that original research? No, that's just common sense. The common definition of Slavs includes the Poles, therefore all ethnic Poles are also ethnic Slavs. I think you are nitpicking at details here Franek. CodeCat (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is more complex. Firstly, not all national censuses have the option of nationality. Secondly: version by Plk is too many calculations of number of Slavs. If it would be only a matter of number of Poles, is ok. But, calculations numbers of all Slavic nationalities and all countries with Slavic peoples is too large thing, this large-scale calculations. Thirdly: data will not be accurate, part of some nationalities have different roots, for example: persons who declared Silesian or Sorbs nationality are not whole Slavs, part has Germanic roots. Topic of Slavs is not pure mathematics, is a more complex subject. Fourth: I understand you but please, understand me. No exist sources by national censuses show data about Slavs, just nationalities e.g. Poles, Czechs and many others. Here is beginning work rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability and No original research. But, ok. Later, there is an interpretation which nations are Slavic. This is break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research. Later, later, there is an very many calculations of number of nationalities to number of Slavs. At the moment it's clear breaking the rules of Wikipedia:No original research. Franek K. (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think addition of numbers is original research, but you're right that we should make sure that the censuses show such numbers. CodeCat (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you're right, Silesians can also be German Schlesier. And while Silesians aren't recognized as a ethnic group in any country, there is also no definition available. So we deduct them from the total number. So now is everything clear, Silesians will not be included to the total number and it's also clear, that addition of numbers is not original research.--Plk (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"deduct them from the total number"? but Silesians also is Slavic people. Also Sorbs and some other. In Wikipedia, not exist option of "deduct" of not-100% clean slavic peoples, this is POV - another violation of basic principles of Wikipedia (after WP:OR and WP:Sources). Besides, it's time for a third opinion on OR matter, in particular I mean: opinion by administrators. Franek K. (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Silesians are inhabitans of Silesia, they can be Germans (Schlesier), Czechs (Slezané) or Poles (Ślązacy). So they can be Slavic or German. And there is also a group of people, which consider themselves as Silesians without considering themselves as Polish, Czech or German. But this is a new phenomenon and there is no definition available. The same problem is with the people in Canada which say, they are European - they also can be Slavic or not. So there is no POV. This are facts, which you showed here in this discussion. We don't deduct people which are "not 100% clean Slavic". And honestly, there doesn't exist something like "100% Slavic". At the topic of ethnicity you cannot count in percents. That's just what the Nazis tried. We have to dedect Silesians just because there is no definition available same as with people which declear to be European. Remember, that you called attention to this fact.--Plk (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of Silesians (omit the fact that the removal of the entire group of Silesians because that some part is Germanic is a POV and OR). I pointed out that the there are ethnic/nation group that are not purely Slavic, numbers by national censuses (declarations of nationality) is not reliable sources for number of Slavic. Yes, national censuses is reliable sources for data about number of Poles, Slovaks and other, but not Slavs. The issue is more complex, origin / ethno-linguistic group is not pure mathematics (Poles + Slovaks + Sorbs + Silesians + Czechs + other = Slavs). It's more complicated and we need more reliable sources to Slavic (and to Slavic, not ethnic/nation groups). Sorry. Franek K. (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
CodeCat already said, that addition of numbers is not original research. So you are alone with this opinion. Who is Slavic you can look at any encyclopedia (for example Britannica) and Silesians are not listed. If you have a source, show it, than we can add them, too. If you haven't new plausible arguments, I will repair the regions. --Plk (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Firstly: opinion by CodeCat is not enough. We need is more opinions, especially by administrators. Secondly, I repeat: problem not applicable only Silesians. I gave Silesians as one of the more. Thirdly, there is yet another new problem: data from national censuses concern declared nationality and citizenship, does not apply to the origin, Slavic roots etc. People, for example part of citizens of some "Slavic" countries can be from Mongolia in Asia and feel self (for example) as Poles and declare Polish nationality because the two generations living in Poland but this is not Slavs. Data from national censuses concern declared nationality and citizenship does not apply to the Slavs, Slavs origin, Slavs roots. It's a completely different things. At the end, at this time there is no 100% support for your new change, exist just one partly support and one strong oppose. We need more opinions by other users... plus new problem (see third point), now it will be harder for you. Franek K. (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you're misconstruing my opinion. When I said that adding numbers isn't OR that is what I meant. I never said anything about the validity of the numbers. If and only if we have reliable sources for the numbers of people of each Slavic ethnicity, then adding them makes sense. But if we can't even find reliable sources for each one individually, adding is not going to help us any. Adding unreliable numbers doesn't make them reliable. :) CodeCat (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. National census data is not reliable sources, this data only show the data about unlimited declared nationality and citizenship, this is not synonymous of Slavic ethnicity. So, the problem is not just breaking the rule of Wikipedia:No original research (own calculations, by CodeCat is a contentious issue - different opinion), also violates the principle of Wikipedia:Sources, Wikipedia:POV (for example, about Silesians and "deduct") and also it works to the disadvantage of Wikipedia - data about unlimited declared nationality and citizenship and manipulation to the Slavic ethnicity. Franek K. (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello both of you. I must admit I find much of the dispute confusing particularly as the opposing revisions contain bucketloads of different information and this argument has dragged on as well! I got to about half way and it became painful for the eyes. From what I can gather, this is a stale dispute. Technically it is correct that only geographical locations and not populations can meet the criteria for the word "region" though at the same time the figure required on this article needs to be that of the Slavic population. The national census figure includes every person to have taken part in the count and this can produce all sorts of uncanny results. It is definitely the case that the absolute majority in the Slavic countries identify by one of the Slavic ethnicities, for example Bosnia and Herzegovina has a Bosniak plurality but when counting Serbs, Croats and Yugoslavs you shoot past 90% leaving only a mainly Turkish and Roma minority which cannot count for the listings. We won't cure this problem without a hint of original research which is to create out own figure for a percentage/overall number counting the combined ethnicities which are Slavic. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how reliable the census figures are, we could at least show a sum of the population of all the Slavic-majority countries (as long as we say which countries they are). While that doesn't give a very accurate figure of the number of Slavs, it would be much easier to find reliable sources for, and it does give a decent indication (to the accuracy of +- 10 million?). I suppose those figures would only really be seriously skewed in the case of Russia because it has such a large number of non-Slavs, and of course it doesn't count Slavs outside of those countries (like the Sorbs in Germany or the Russians of the Baltic states). CodeCat (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, and there you have the diasporans, and these are in every corner of the globe. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
CodeCat, "Regardless of how reliable the census figures" and "we could at least show a sum of the population"? End justifies the means? Now, I understand your erroneous opinion about uses false sources - at all costs. Also, good intentions is paved with hell. Evlekis, you're right. We can ask the administrators to opinions? Franek K. (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Asking them never usually achieves the results sought, besides, the average admin has his own field of knowledge so won't be versed in demographic studies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean, Franek. What I am suggesting is something that already exists on Wikipedia, see Slavic World. I see no problem with taking those figures (which are presumably properly sourced) and showing them in this article. CodeCat (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Article of Slavic World is a simple example and concern languages. Statistics data in this article concern countries which Slavic languages as the official languages. While, data from national censuses in the new change by Plk concern declared nationality and citizenship does not apply to the Slavs, Slavs origin, Slavs roots, Slavic ethnicity. It's a completely different things. Declare nationality and citizenship is not related to Slavic ethnicity. Every inhabitant of the country may declare nationality (for example Slovaks) even though they do not have Slavic roots and every inhabitant of the country may confirm citizenship (for example Slovak) even being a black man. Franek K. (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It is known, that Poles, Russians, Serbs etc. are Slavic people. The total number of Poles or Russians and so on are not different from the numbers from the censuses of different countries in addition. What do you think? We have to make genetic test in each country? Are you a supremacist, a racist or what? This is conspiratorial what you are doing. If in censuses people say they are Poles, so they are Poles and by definition also Slavic. And the censuses show informations about ethnicities and not just about citizenships.--Plk (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, secondly, thirdly: please stop personal attacks. Fourth: term of Pole, Russian etc is ambiguous, for example: 1) Russian is a person living in Russia and/or 2) Russian is a person in terms of russian ethnicity and/or 3) Russian is a person who declared Russian nationality in the national census because he/she feel a part of Russian culture, language, traditions, 4) other. This are three or more different things. This article is about Slavs as ethno-linguistic group. For this article, you need a reliable scientific sources about Slavs and without using Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS#Synthesis of published materials. Franek K. (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, now you showed, that you have not a lot of knowledge about this topic. 1) you mean Russian citizens by citizenship, this is called россияне. 2) this is called русские. 3) is equivalent to point 2. 4) others? yeah, animals or what? surely they are also listed in this censuses -.-
If you think, national censuses are not reliable sources, than we have to delete the whole list, because many of this "sources" are simply private pages and there is no "scientific source" about any nationality.--Plk (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Russian names have nothing to with topic. Term of Pole, Russian etc is ambiguous, for example: 1) Pole is a person living in Poland (regardless of origin) and/or 2) Pole is a person in terms of Polish ethnicity and/or 3) Pole is a person who declared Polish nationality in the national census because he/she feel a part of Polish culture, language, traditions, 4) Pole is a person who have a Polish citizenship. This are four different things. 1) and 3) and 4) no have close dependence with Slavs as a ethnic group, only point 2) have close dependence with Slavs as a ethnic group but it is a matter of scientists (scientific sources), not data from national censuses. I repeat once again, data from national censuses are reliable, reliable for data about nationalities (declaration of nationality) and citizenships of some countries, but never for Slavs as a ethnic group. Franek K. (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The ambiguity is exactly why I suggested showing the populations of the countries. Because, according to at least one possible definition of "Slav" (Franek's definition 1), Slavs are those people living in the Slavic World. It's not the only possible definition, and probably not even the definition most people use (I don't think Chechens generally consider themselves Slavs) but it is still one possible definition. Of course, we should show numbers according to other definitions of Slav as well, if we can find the numbers for them, but this is one definition we certainly can find numbers for, so it should be included. CodeCat (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
CodeCat, the numbers which I wanted to post, don't include Chechens, and the numbers don't look just to the citizenships. All the numbers are available. We could use them, but Franek don't believe in the number of national censuses and he thinks it is better to leave the arbitrary supposition of total numbers from nations from partially private pages.--Plk (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So there were two possibilities: Going back to the version before such a list was added, or fix it like it and sort by countries like it was at the beginning. I wanted the second one. But if no one wants it, than we remove it again and make it like it was before.--Plk (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose for your change.
  1. Your change is too much calculation from multiple sources, violates the principle of Wikipedia:No original research and this is very nice synthesis.
  2. Your numbers do not relate to the Slavs, your numbers relate to declarations of nationality and citizenships, not to ethnicity. But, Slavs are ethno-linguistic group, regardless of the declared nationality and citizenship. You need reliable sources about the Slavs. At the moment, you violates the principle of Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article is about the cabbage, you give a sources about peas.
  3. Your method of "deduct them from the total number" for example Silesians or Sorbs or some other because part of them have a Germanic roots is POV. Silesians and Sorbs and some other is also Slavic, it's not your decision who group is the Slavs and which may be in the article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of the main principles of Wikipedia.
If you really want to push own version, I suggest, listen to others users, third opinion, for example on page of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment or other. Franek K. (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
1. There are for each country just one source and not multiple sources.
2. The sources shows the ethnicities and not just the citizenships.
3. I don't deduct Sorbs or Silesians because of any Germanic roots, but the Silesians just because this are people from the region Silesia which can be German Schlesier, as well. Sorbs are clear Slavic (sources e.g. Britannica).
4. It's not my version or my opinion. I just wanted to fix it and make a list of countries like it was at the beginning. But now there seems to be just the option to remove this list and going back to the version before the list was added.--Plk (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Stop giving smokescreen.
Re 1. One source on one country, ok, BUT this is total 25 sources. This is synthesis from 25 sources.
Re 2. The sources shows declarations of nationality and citizenships, I know - not just the citizenships, you do not need to repeat, I know it. BUT declarations of nationality and also citizenships is not synonym of Slavic ethnicity. These are different things.
Re 3. " I don't deduct Sorbs or Silesians because of any Germanic roots, but the Silesians just because this are people from the region Silesia which can be German Schlesier" - I do not care, this is your POV. Silesians and Sorbs and some other is also Slavic, it's not your decision who group is the Slavs and which may be in the article.
Re 4. "I just wanted to fix"? Your changes breaks three main rules of Wikipedia, the current version is not perfect but your version is unacceptable by the rules of Wikipedia.
Again, if you really want to push change, I suggest, listen to others users, third opinion, for example on page of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or other. Franek K. (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, so we are agreed, that this list will be removed. All other discussion is not needed.--Plk (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it should be removed but it is not perfect. Besides, there is no consensus for deletion list, so. Franek K. (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The list is at the moment wrong and the sources are mostly private pages. There are two possibilities: Change it back to regions (that's also like it was at the beginning) or remove it and make it like it was before the list was added. I tried to put official sources and make the list as provided for in. But if you are not able to work together, than I am tired of it and we can just remove the list. --Plk (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavs/Archive_4&oldid=1144322997"