Jump to content

Talk:Slavs/Archive 7

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

'Slaves' derives from Slavs? (Ethnonym section)

This theory that the word 'slave' derives from the slavs is racist nonsense that's presented as fact even today. The BBC source states: "The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD." This has to be the most asinine explanation... where do you have any evidence of SPANISH Muslims in Eastern Europe in the 9th century??? --E-960 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NewEnglandYankee, second point, the section is titled Ethnonym and is about the origin of the word 'Slav' not where the term "Slave' came from (you can keep that explanation in the Slavery article). So, in effect you are mixing two separate issues, but I have a feeling some folks just need to insert such stuff to prop-up some old ideologies. Perhaps you can add the word Germination, Vermin or Germ into the Germanic Peoples article as well, from the old latin root Gvermin to sprout or spread?? --E-960 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
User:E-960, If you're assuming an ideology on my part, you're incorrect. The information you're removing is sourced to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is considered reliable. As pointed out above, the source states: "The new word for slave, sclavus, was derived from the source of many slaves, the Slavic lands of the east." How is this not consistent with the statement that "The English term 'slave' derives from the ethnonym Slav"?
In other words, the information is verifiable. If you believe it's not true, then I think the burden of proof is on you to find a source that contradicts it.
I have no information about the reliability of etymonline.com; you can take that up at the noticeboard if you'd like.
Whether this is two separate issues is a matter of viewpoint. As to your second point, if "germination" were as salient in western culture as slavery is, and *if* the etymology were reliably established, I don't see why not. If the article on "Scots" commented that "The term 'Scotch' for a type of whiskey is derived from the ethonym," would you consider that equally outrageous? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Then keep it in the Slavery article, this section is about the origin of the word 'Slav' not where the term "Slave' came from, can't argue with that fact. --E-960 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to prove how out of place this statement was, using the same line of reasoning, could I insert a note into the Germans article about the German cockroach because this name derives from "Germans". --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it is etymologically correct, English language etymology is WP:OFFTOPIC for a broad scope article on an ethnic group. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This has to be the most asinine explanation... where do you have any evidence of SPANISH Muslims in Eastern Europe in the 9th century. Czech and Slovak historians and archeologists like Dušan Třeštík, Jiří Macháček and others suggested that Great Moravians were slave hunters. These slaves (the pagan neighbors of Great Moravians) were sold to slave merchants from Bavaria and Venetia and then to other countries including the Caliphate of Córdoba (trade route Regensburg -> Verdun -> Almería -> Maghreb) and to Middle East markets. It is not about the "Spanish Muslims in Eastern Europe". Ditinili (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's irrelevant for this article, but I also see why it was in there, it's because knuckle-dragging illiterate neo-Nazis love repeating the misconception that "Slav" derives from "slave". But I agree this isn't really the ideal place to address that misconception, that would be at wikt:slave or somewhere. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, this is not the best place, but the theory that "slave" comes from "Slav" is not only some kind of neo-Nazi propaganda. E.g. Macháček writes about 13,750 Slavic slaves (al-Sakaliba) on the court of Abd-ar-Rahman III ([1] in Czech). Ditinili (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, clarifying, the nazi misconception is that "Slav" comes from "slave", i.e. the other way around. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The English term Slave comes from the term Slav and it would be hard to rationalize why in English Wikipedia it would not be mentioned in the Ethnonym part. It is interesting part of the history of the word and I don`t see why there is a need politicize the issue. At the time slave trade was one of the biggest trades in Europe, at least, and it is part of history. That`s it. If you start to get over sensitive about all the aspects of history that someone find offensive, there would not be a lot of content left in these articles. Velivieras (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
If that was a reply to me then I concede that my point is going over everyone's head. I have no issue with Wikipedia and Wiktionary reporting that the term "slave" derives from the Latin word for "Slav", but I can't think of any germane reason why we should be doing it in this article rather than, say, slavery#terminology, unless it is to correct the misconception that the etymology is the other way around. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Very simple really, the section Ethnonym is about how 'Slavs' got their name, not about how the word slavery came about in the west centuries later. So in this case, neo-nazis need to mix two separate issues just to stick the topic of slavery into the Slavs article. --E-960 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Ditinili, if the BBC article said what you wrote, I could reasonably accept the theory, however the article states: "were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD", which basically sounds like Spanish Muslims raided eastern Europe, nothing about a long trade rout. --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion takes place here, on the talk page, not through edit warring the content of the article via edit summaries. For editors who aren't paying attention to what the issue is, let me repeat that it is WP:OFFTOPIC. Per WP:TITLE, this article is about Slavs, and the etymology relates to the etymology of the identifier 'Slav', not to opinions as to the etymology of the English language word 'slave'. If any other editors think WP:ITSINTERESTING or WP:ITSIMPORTANT enough to keep up the push to introduce irrelevant content, allow me to suggest that they drop the idea right now. Enough disruptive editing, and thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
E-960 is probably right, this rather belong to the Slavery article. This should also not belong to the Germans article. However, if someone think that it is interesting enough to keep it here, it should be advocated properly in discussion, and I would say that at least something like: "The term Slav does not come from the term Slave, however...", should be added before text to prevent the mystification of readers. Though in these cases we usually do not keep here such a off-topic issues. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
To summ it up, user E-960 (talk) deleted the sourced sentence with information about English word Slave deriving from term slav. This lead to discussion where concensus was not achieved and in Wikipedia ones opinion about any issue is not enough for deletion. The burden of proof is on user E-960 (talk). The sentence should remain until concensus is ahcieved about it. Like I said before, the fact that user E-960 (talk) is apparenlty insulted about the sentence is not a reason to delete content from the article.
What comes to the issue should the article mention about the word Slave coming from the ethonym Slav. Of course if this is the case. Like I said earlier hHistory is full of issues that insult people, but that is not a reason in Wikipedia to delete content.
Now the sentence should remain and user E-960 (talk will present ones case on this talk page before any edition of the article. Not the other way around. Velivieras (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of what E-960 wrote, four other people in this discussion have opined (with varying strength) that the sentence is off-topic for this article. I will not mediate this discussion since I am involved, but it certainly looks like there is a consensus for removing it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

At this point the issue is clear, the Ethnonym section in this article is about the origin of how Slavs got their name — key sentence: The reconstructed autonym *Slověninъ is usually considered a derivation from slovo ("word"), originally denoting "people who speak (the same language) — not about how the word Slavery came about in the west centuries later. --E-960 (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If no other view points occure, we then remove the information from this article and move it to the Slavery article. Velivieras (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
No I didn`t look at it yet. Thanks for the info.Velivieras (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Slavic subjects. Krakkos (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Significant change of the number of the Slavs around the world.

Because this change was made by a Serbian editor I will point on the number of the Serbs. The number in the current stable version is 11,500,000–12,500,000 based on unreliable Serbian sources. However this number was elevated with the last edit up to 14,000,000. This is nonsense. Per Ethnologue the total number of Serbian language speakers in all the countries around the world is 8,594,866. On the other hand per Vladimir Grečić scientific research about the Serbian diaspora and published in the BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY in 2016; Original scientific paper UDC 314.74 (=163.41) DOI: 10.2298/GSGD1602063G, p. 68: it is estimated that overall, Serbia has a diaspora from 3.5 million people. By the last census from 2011 the Serbs in Serbia counted 6 Million people. That means the Serbs around the world are between 8,5 and 9,5 Million people, or ca. 9 Million. Moreover on the article Serbs they are listed as 10 Million and here as 14 Million Jingiby (talk)

User:CarRadovan, please stop with putting inflate population numbers backed by nationalist sites and do not remove the POV-tag without any discussion on talk. [2] for example is nationalist site as these mentioned above. Jingiby (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarians are not Slavs

Bulgarians are not Slavs, but people of Turkish-Mongolian origin. The Bulgarians were assimilated (i.e. they adopted the Slavonic language). I think we should mention this in the article. Noraskulk (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC).

IP comment

WHY ARE CZECH EXCLuDED ON MAP??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8880:78E0:9C6A:1C54:B349:D0EC (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see them exlcuded.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

Slavs in Canada

The map show that Canada is a country among those with "Majority Slavic ethnicities". This is nonsense, of course. According to the latest census[1], 3.4 million Canadians have Eastern European origins, or about 10%. 104.192.232.2 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The map shows it as having a Slavic minority, not majority. --Local hero talk 04:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&Lang=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1341679&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110528&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2017&THEME=120&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0

IP edit

Dear IP,

present in details your arguments here and try to build consensus. Btw. your claim regarding the "Romance peoples" would not imply to remove also Germanic ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

"Republic of North Macedonia".

After the prespa agreement the country is officially called "Republic of North Macedonia". Also according to the agreement: "there is an explicit clarification that the citizens of the country are not related to ancient Hellenic civilization that previously inhabited the northern regions of Greece." So my proposal is to change the name "Macedonians" to "North Macedonians" to avoid historical misunderstanding. People who read this article will think that Macedonians in general (including ancient macedonia) are Slavic because there is no differentiation of the word "Macedonians". Changing the name "Macedonians" to "North Macedonians" will clarify that this people are ONLY the people of the "Republic of North Macedonia" and not the Greek Macedonians. ChrisHELLGr (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Gorgis07 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also wikipedia have to say the difference between greek macedonians and slavs from north macedonia Gorgis07 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To both newly registered WP:SPAs above: Please, keep in mind that per WP:MOSMAC: the Macedonian language, the Macedonians as an ethnic group, and the Macedonian culture continue to be referred to as such (e.g. Macedonian folk song, Macedonian film, etc.). This is in line with both the Prespa agreement and the large majority of reliable sources. Also if you continue to disrupt the article I will request semi-protection against it. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

But, prespa agreement says that the name is north macedonia and in the article it says macedonia. Gorgis07 (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, check again what Prespa agreement says in its 3th article b) and c). Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all jingiby I didn't disrupted the article after you changed it the first time. Secondly the only thing you and Wikipedia in general are doing is leading people to misunderstanding the history of the country "North Macedonia" and the ancient region of Macedonia and the ancient Macedonian history in general. The only thing Wikipedia has to do is to write in the articles "North Macedonians". If you want that people who want to learn about history are getting false-misleading historical information its youre problem and you have to deal with it. ChrisHELLGr (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Request - please correct map

Hello. Would someone kindly correct the distribution of Czech on this map? The cross hatched areas appear to be referencing pre-War German populations, but all those areas are now essentially entirely Czech-speaking. 60.242.182.192 (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

@No such user:

Hi there, hope you're having a great day.

If it helps explain my motive for placing an infobox on the page, I did so for consistency with several other pages for groups of ethnicities. Think of Balts, Baltic Finnic peoples, and -- three especially solid examples -- Iranian peoples, Turkic peoples and Austronesian peoples, the latter three of whom are far more diverse than Slavs as far as I know. I'm completely fine with the flags going, by the way, as I was not aware of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG policy (Thank you for notifying me of this, I will keep it in mind).

Either way, I would like to argue in favour of an infobox, citing those at the pages of the Iranian, Turkic and Austronesian peoples (as well as the Balts and Baltic Finns of course) as an example. LVDP01 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, LVDP01, I can see it can be useful (although I'm not a fan of oversized infoboxes, but I won't insist). I looked at Germanic peoples that does not have one. If only someone would remove Canada from that map... I can accept there might be sizable groups of Slavic origin, but today they are Canadians and a majority of them speaks no Slavic language. No such user (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point, I will notify the map's creator of this discussion. In the meantime, I will add the infobox back, per our consensus. Hope you have a nice day. LVDP01 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Update: The author of the map was permabanned from Wikipedia (The user renamed themselves from the username that the map is attributed to) for displaying nazi imagery on his userpage. I could ask around to see if someone else is willing to make the edit instead (I'm not skilled enough with Inkscape to do that, sadly). LVDP01 (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. I know the basics of Inkscape so I might give it a shot, although I'm short on time recently. Give me a nudge in a week or two if I forget. No such user (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Under "regions with significant populations," shouldn’t the following list be regions, not ethnic groups? Ponydepression (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The template it uses is meant to display regions containing one ethnic group, but this article lists a group of ethnicities that share an ethnolinguistic background. If we went by "regions" we would end up just listing countries without differentiating between Slavic peoples (like Turkic peoples). Since there's a table at the bottom of the article listing the same information, I'm not inherently opposed to that. -Vipz (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Religion section

I'm starting to think there is no point in having a religion section in this article. It's virtually impossible to connect Slavs and religion, except through generalisations, misrepresentations, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Especially the Czechs demonstrate just how difficult it is to say anything meaningful about it. Everyone agrees that Czech is a Slavic language. But that's about it. Whatever one might want to say about the inhabitants of the Czech lands and later the Czech Republic, they never were a 100% Czech, and just like in every other case of an 'ethnolinguistic' Slavic group, there is a substantial Czech diaspora about whom we know very little because it is spread all around the world and its characteristics aren't centrally recorded anywhere. Moreover, in the past 20 years it seems that 'ethnic' Czechs have become increasingly unwilling to state their ethnicity in the census of Czechia, so we can't even be sure how many Czechs there are as 31.6% of the inhabitants have not stated their ethnicity in the 2021 census, and we don't know how many Czechs and non-Czechs there are in this group. We can assume and extrapolate how many of them are probably Czechs, but that gets us into SYNTH territory very quickly. This problem was still doable when I rewrote the Population section, but now we add religion in the mix, and it becomes a complete mess. Outdated sources such as the 1958 Halecki paper still proclaim the Czechs as a Catholic nation, but the fact that the entire Czech Republic population stated just 9.3% Catholic in the 2021 census gives us strong reasons to doubt that this is still the case, even if we don't know the exact ethnic composition of Czechia's population, nor the religion of the Czech diaspora. The problem is that we don't know what is the current religious situation either, only that it's unlikely to be majority-Catholic anymore. It's tempting to use the Nešporová & Nešpor 2009 paper to say something about Czech religion, but they limit themselves to the Czech Republic, and don't mention 'Slavs' or 'Slavic', so unfortunately we can't use this to say anything reliable about the religion of Czechs worldwide, let alone in relation to their "Slavness". That would be double SYNTH.

Now, multiply the issues with the Czechs' religion to all other Slavic groups in the world, and I think it becomes impossible to say anything meaningful, relevant, encyclopaedic, and reliable about it without violating one or multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Essentially, this section has all the same problems that the recently deleted articles "Catholic Slavs", "Eastern Orthodox Slavs" and "Muslim Slavs" also had. I therefore propose deleting the entire section. Reference to Slavic paganism and the Christianization of the Slavs should still be made in the History section, but otherwise I don't think we should have a Religion section at all, especially not about religion after the Middle Ages, when there was arguably nothing particularly "Slavic" about it anymore. Compare how the section Germanic peoples#Religion ends in the 12th century, and the article Germanic-speaking world doesn't even mention 'religion' either, because after the Christianisation of the Germanic peoples there just wasn't really a connection between "Germanic" and "religion" anymore. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Emenrigen: I see that you reverted my edit. Please read what I have written above about why we cannot use the Nešporová & Nešpor 2009 paper to say something about the religion of Czech people per WP:SYNTH. Thank you. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw:, I was confused by the fact that you set the "Citation needed" template, although you immediately delete one of the sources. If I am wrong, then I will return your version. Sincerely, Emenrigen (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Emenrigen:, ah, I can understand if I was not clear enough, sorry if that is the case. I did leave a link to Talk:Slavs#Religion section in the edit summary to explain my thinking, but maybe you missed that? Anyway, you're here now. :) Do you agree with the point I am making in this talk page section about how we cannot use the Nešporová & Nešpor 2009 paper to say something about the religion of Czech people (that is, self-identified Czechs all around the world), because the paper only deals with the population of the Czech Republic (not all of whom self-identify as 'Czechs', and there are many Czechs living outside the Czech Republic)? In other words, we can use this paper for the article Religion in the Czech Republic, but not for the article Slavs#Religion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw:, you can re-read my answer that I gave you above, but I will still write again: "If you think I'm wrong, you can return your version of the article." Sincerely, Emenrigen (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC).
Alright, thanks for clarifying! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not true that Slavs took over the areas left by the Germans or Celts.

The new DNA research of the graves from 2000 to 3000 BC shows that today's population of Poland is predominantly the same Halpogroupe R1a (mainly M458 and M5458) males as the found bone finds of tribal leaders 4000 years ago on this territory. Genetics don't lie, but the stories from the 18th and 19th centuries, which are simply copied into Wikipedia, do. 95.118.22.179 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please give a quote for this? I'm reading it, but not quite getting where you are coming from on this one. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352448476_The_Ancestors_of_Today's_Poles_with_the_Haplogroup_R1a Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

It is worth mentioning here that the German linguist Harald Haarmann claims in his book, recently published in 2016, "Auf den Spuren der Indoeuropäer" (eng. On the route of the Indo-Europeans) that the medieval Slavic Lucice (Wieleci) are descendants of the Slavs who between 1350 BC and 400 BC formed the aforementioned Lusatian culture. The descendants of the Lucice family are the Sorbs, who still live in Lusatia, the only remaining Slavic-speaking population of modern Germany. Auf den Spuren der Indoeuropäer. Von den neolithischen Steppennomaden bis zu den frühen Hochkulturen. C.H. Beck, München 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68824-9.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0807592105


No matter what bone finds have been found from the Corded Ware period (2000 - 3500 BC) show a genetic variation that is mainly found in Poles today. These are finds from Germany as well as Poland and the Czech Republic. Most of them have R1a M417 or M548. Nowhere else in Europe is there this frequency. This testifies that at least half of the people living in Poland today have ancestors from the Corded ware times. And these people have been living on the territory continuously for at least 5,000 years. To clarify again. The story that the Slavs came from the east originated in the 18th and 19th centuries. There was no Poland then. Both German nationalist thinking and Russian imperial thinking have greatly influenced today's view of history and it is difficult to turn back the wheel. I don't want to discredit any scientist who claims all this, but first please explain to me why people from the Corded ware culture have the same genetic peculiarities (which are very rare) as today's Poles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.14.88 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all: we can talk about Slavs only when they appeared as a common cultural group of people in Eastern Poland-Western Ukraine starting from ~600BC. Presence of R1a in ancient people does not make all of them Slavs.
For all we know ancient Lusatians might have had R1a(though I have yet to see that they were not R1b), but their culture was Germanic or Celtic - not Slavic. I think, that there is also some mixup in your claim with Later Slavic Sorbian culture, who arrived there later and also assimilated whoever was there.
None of the papers give ANY evidence for what you are claiming and definitelly your claims are way off, as you also are mixing age of DNA and place where those DNA changes emerged. Note, that Polish Baltic shore in northern Poland became completelly Slavic only around 1000AD(after it came under control of Polish kings), so you are claiming retroactivelly that Corded Ware was Slavic, while the reality is that Poles assimilated other people with those Corded Ware genes.
Here is a compilation of ancient DNA on map for your interest and getting bigger picture(use with open mind):
https://med-k-rouissi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=362af77c6ad145c8a4a5026a9177b945&extent=-2307057.137%2C549015.0046%2C16419403.2966%2C10802583.7269%2C102100
The issue, that people even with education ignore is that at the time of emergence of Slavs R1a-M558(and generaly Z280) was spread mostly in Baltic speaking people, while R1a-M458 was spread in (European) Scythians - up till the Caucasus. This is general knowledge, that R1a spread from steppes and not other way around. so claiming that Corded Ware was origin of R1a is sh!t bat crazy, so territory of Poland can not be any of what you are claiming(or even what those people are publishing nowadays). It just adds to confusion, that those earlier R1a-M458 also eventually migrated to north and most of them have been preserved in Poland.
In general - Slavs emerged as combination of these people and developed creole language based on Baltic - because those (European)Scythians settled in Baltic speaking territories, that came with Baltic speaking women. 88.111.118.115 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Slavs - ethnolinguistic or ethnic group

@Sedcrw and I, apart from one revert from @Jingiby, are in an WP:BRD cycle, but since Sedcrw refuses to start a discussion on the talk page, I'm doing so. Sedcrw has been engaging in an undo war over their edit that says Slavs are in fact an "ethnic group" and not an "ethnolinguistic group", and when asked to come up with reliable sources, they refused to do so because "it's obvious". When I contacted them on the talk page, they started pushing a fringe theory that "Separate slavic identities are nothing more than nations and tribes.", i.e. Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, etc. are just "tribes" of one Slavic ethnicity. -Vipz (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Slavs are only linguistic and territorial community, not ethnic or ethnolinguistic one. According to the Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, with editors Joshua A. Fishman and Ofelia García, issued from Oxford University Press in 2010, ISBN 0195374924, per Chapter 21: The Slavic World, written by Miroslav Hroch: The “Slavic World” is a heterogeneous group of several nations having two principal features in common: first, their languages belong to a single Slavic linguistic “family,” and second, these nations have inhabited since the sixth century the almost compact territory of East Central and Eastern Europe. Jingiby (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Language is the main basis for creating and even for maintaining ethnicity and its identity, while culture is secondary and emerges after the language, mostly locally, and changes maybe even every generation. So even if Slavs are the "only linguistic" group they would still be ethnically connected. When it comes to my claim about "tribes and nations" (I didn't explain it in detail previously), when you research the history of every separate Slavic nation, you will see that it has either Slavic tribal origins or political origins from a single Slavic people, or were assimilated, which makes them related aside from language. Sedcrw (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The idea that language is (always) "the main basis for creating and even for maintaining ethnicity and its identity" is a very eurocentric idea that often doesn't apply elsewhere in the world, where religion, tradition/customs, geography, socio-economics etc. may lay at the basis of developing ethnic identities. Language secessionism#In Serbo-Croatian is a very simple example of showing that even in Europe, language is sometimes not at the basis of developing ethnic identities, but actually stands in the way, and that sometimes other phenomena such as religion take precedence in nation-building. To second Jingiby's point, Winkler Prins (2002) states: "The original Slavic tribes lived in 2500–1000 BCE in Poland and Ukraine. After the 5th century CE they expanded their territory considerably. Today the Slavic peoples are only connected by language affinity, see [Slavic languages]." It doesn't even consider modern Slavs to be a "territorial community"; in the early 21st century, "Slavs" just means "speakers of Slavic languages", despite having tribal origins millennia ago. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
First thing, I didn't start the discussion on this page because I didn't know it existed so I didn't know what you were talking about. I mistakenly said that it was obvious and then I added more detail into my argument. Since I said that I'm not going to repeat my points and you falsely oversimplified everything I've said, I will link the conversation for everyone to see and for you to refresh your memory https://gyazo.com/c0e5a2630a4ef36d2949177fb1901c06 https://gyazo.com/9512a7186baf0601c1dcb051b9abfb34 Sedcrw (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352448476_The_Ancestors_of_Today's_Poles_with_the_Haplogroup_R1a
Slavs also have predominantly similar genetics. Slavs were the true Vikings. The new DNA tests show that. While the Germanic population has Halpogroup I, the Vikings who conquered England or Iceland have Slavic Halpogroup R1a, predominantly M458 and M548. Genetics don't lie, genetics can't be invented or told. Strangely enough, to this day most still refer to narratives that were created in the racist and national times of the 19th century. 95.118.22.179 (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The journal article you have linked to doi:10.13189/sa.2021.090202 does not mention "Viking" "Scandinavia(n)" or "Nordic". How can it possibly back up your assertions here? Please provide a quote. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
True to a smaller part, Slavs was not the Vikings, but first Swedish Goths emigrated to Eastern Europe and down to Ukraine and later Swedish Vikings from Svitjod (lands of Svear, the same as present name Sverige) in Roden (present day Roslagen) emigrated to Russia, Belarusia, Ukraine and Poland to settle down and found their sister countries to Sweden called Novgorod and Kievian-Rus. So its no wonder there still a lot of same genes left there after several emigration ways from Sweden to Slavic areas.
//Roberth 83.248.204.213 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Biases?

While there is no article for "Romance peoples", and the article on "Germanic peoples" addresses them as a "historical" grouping, this article on the Slavic peoples seems remarkably untouchable. Probably the biggest offense is that it characterizes Slavs as a single "ethnolingustic" group when in reality everyone knows they are a collection of ethnic groups (Poles, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.) who speak Slavic languages. In fact, the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic peoples are all at their core groupings of related ethnic groups. So why does Wikipedia treat this article so differently? 108.46.168.9 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Slavic world map

There are a few errors in the world map missing some of the 10%+ Slavic light green countries. According to the 2021 Estonian census, Russians made up 23.7% of the population, Ukrainians 2.1% and Belarusians 0.9%. This would mean the country is 26.7% Slavic. According to the 2021 Latvian census, Russians were 24.4%, Belarusians 3.1%, Ukrainians 2.2%, and Poles 2.0%. Thus Latvia is 31.7% Slavic. In addition, according to the latest 2014 Moldovan census, Ukrainians make up 6.57% of the population, Russians 4.06%, and Bulgarians 1.88%, thus also making Moldova 10%+ Slavic with 12.51% Slavs. 76.22.78.176 (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's been tagged with a {{citation needed}} for over a year now, alongside errors such as those pointed out above; I think it should just be removed unless and until problems with it are fixed. –Vipz (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Other nations

Vipz's argument is Irrelevant. If the text is about Slavic peoples, why not list them all? Ondřej Mazáč (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for an exhaustive list that taps into smaller or regional identities in the lead section of the article. The word "(chiefly [...])" is there for that reason. –Vipz (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic group?

The article for Ethnolinguistic group states:

An ethnolinguistic group (or ethno-linguistic group) is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language. Most ethnic groups share a first language. However, "ethnolinguistic" is often used to emphasise that language is a major basis for the ethnic group, especially in regard to its neighbours.

It is obvious that "Slavs" are not one ethnic group, but consist of various ones. Furthermore, Slavs do not share one language. I strongly suggest, then, that the page be edited accordingly. Evaporation123 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have changed the first sentence of the article myself. Turns out the relevant citation was itself poorly incorporated, as it said "Slav, member of the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in Europe..." Evaporation123 (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Evaporation123: well done! Hopefully you continue contributing constructively to articles and not blank them in protest again to prove a WP:POINT, though. :P –Vipz (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternative Map

Vipz, see how you like this map:

South Slavic languages

It is similar in style to the other two and is of a better quality I think. If you prefer it, feel free to use it. If not, I think you will really have to explain yourself. It is not as if I am not giving options, is it? VMORO 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

These are ethno-political language borders that have no ground in linguistics. This tired debate has been held time and time again. Please read up on WP:ONUS and build consensus for your change before reverting again. –Vipz (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Article vandalism by Vipz

Vipz is trying to push a map, which is factually incorrect.

1) The Maleševo-Pirin dialect is a transnational dialect. It might be practically the same on both sides of the border, but the people speaking it — on both sides of the border — self-identify in entirely different ways. Sociolinguistics is very clear on how to proceed with such issues, anyone who is unclear should really read up. Claiming the dialect for one side only is NOT the way to go.
2) The borders of the dialect are completely wrong, so again a factual error.

However, more importantly: Why is the South Slavic map divided into dialects, whereas the West and East Slavic maps show distribution of entire languages? Where is the balance in it? Why has this been done?

As Vipz is a self-proclaimed advocate of the restoration of Yugosavia and the Serbo-Croatian language, a very clear explanation comes to mind. The map does not show language distribution, it shows dialectal distribution. And what is said right above above dialectal distribution? Well, of course, Serbo-Croatian. A language, which no longer exists objectively, but apparently is very much alive in Vipz's head. I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions, but it seems that someone really, really doesn't want to see language distribution, especially if that distribution lists — explicitly — Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin as separate languages. And here we come to an even better reason why this map has to go. It conveniently conceals the existence of separate Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin languages to certain Yugo-nostalgics. Shame on you, Vipz.

Vipz, if you revert once again, I will post a neutrality disputed notice and request the involvement of an arbiter. And I will win, because I actually have arguments. But don't make me stop you if you've decided. 🧡VMORO 02:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I am very surprised that one of the main participants in the consensus built for usage of this very map (over at Talk:South Slavic languages near the bottom) is now making blatant personal attacks against me, while at the same time pursuing what they accuse me of, pushing for a new map without any consensus whatsover. With such attitude, I won't be surprised of the outcome were this incident to be reported and discussed at WP:ANI. –Vipz (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Which map do you refer to? Because I certainly did not consent to the map that you want to use. If you mean Garygo golob's map, that is another thing. Although I still think that an "ethno-political" map is the better choice in this case.
Your statement that These are ethno-political language borders that have no ground in linguistics is complete bullshit. That is how, for example, Macedonian can be an independent language. Or how Norwegian can be differentiated as a separate language from Danish. Or how what are actually completely independent languages can be regarded as a single language, Mandarin. You exhibit a 19th century attitude to linguistics. I will quote you something now to show you that you are the one who is wrong: Until 1990, the Moldovan language was written in Cyrillic. After adopting the Latin alphabet, Moldovans have virtually the same language as the Romanians. For political reasons, the Moldovan Constitution recognizes Moldovan as the national language of Moldova. This political act alone makes the Moldovan language separate from the Romanian (King 1999). Low German (Plattdeutsch), spoken in northern Germany, is incomprehensible to the speakers of Allemanian German (Allemanisch), which is used in western Austria and southwestern Bavaria. But both are considered to be dialects of the same German language. Low German is virtually identical with Dutch, but the different national identities of the speakers keep them either from proclaiming Low German a dialect of Dutch, or Dutch a dialect of German, or from creating a common Dutch-Low German language. - From Thomasz Kamusella, The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, 2008
HOWEVER. These two maps are not a hill I am prepared to die on. If it matters so much to you, fine: put Garygo golob's map and let's move on. But. The previous map goes. This is a hill I am prepared to die on.
Otherwise, take whatever measures you see fit😊. VMORO 22:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for confusing the two maps in question; you're edit-warring on several articles in your pursuit to replace both of these maps with yours (seen in the section below). If you plan on staying on Wikipedia for much longer, you need to learn how to behave yourself in disputes. From not attacking other editors, to gathering consensus for your bold change instead of re-reverting and edit-warring over it.
I'm not sure how relevant the quote "that proves me wrong" is to this discussion; if anything, Serbo-Croatian is just like Moldovan-Romanian, both are considered separate languages only for ethno-political reasons. Although South Slavic languages are a dialect continuum, and there is much debate on distinguishing dialects from languages in these cases, the four language varieties of Serbo-Croatian are all based on the same sub-dialect of Shtokavian and are fully mutually intelligible (learning a new word from another variety is no different to learning a new word from one's own variety). All other languages being compared in your post above (including the tired Danish-Norwegian-Swedish argument) are not nearly as highly mutually intelligible as Serbo-Croatian varieties.
Kindly self-revert if this is not a hill you're prepared to die on, because it may as well be. –Vipz (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Refrain from advising me on how to behave myself, I have been here on and off since 2003. For all your talk on how we should discuss arguments and not engage in personal attacks, this is all you have been doing yourself (look up). Also, lay off with the threats.
None of the maps I put on is "my own", both of them have been produced by other Wikipedia users, so the innuendo that I am somehow trying to impose my own opinion on you, or anybody else for that matter, is not corroborated by fact.
I accept your line of reasoning and will put the compromise map we have all agreed on. I still think any of the other two maps is better for this particular page and purpose, but I understand how certain things can rub a user the wrong way, especially on the Balkans, so fine. Reaching a compromise is always a solution than edit-warring. VMORO 11:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Fyi, I would also have apologised to you for taking a harder stance on this than necessary, but given your threats, I will hold on to that apology for now. VMORO 11:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Why is the Slavic language family considered an ethnolinguistic group, but the Germanic language family is not? 199.119.233.181 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic grouping

Since User:Evaporation123 did not open a talk page discussion even when requested, I am doing it on his behalf. The hope is to continue the discussion here instead of revert summaries.

I support the removal of "ethnolinguistic grouping" from the lede, as the term is either unclear or misleading. If understood as a synonym for "ethnolinguistic group", it is wrong, since the Slavs comprise of multiple ethnic groups, with different languages, religions and nation states. Another interpretation for the term would be that the Slavs are "almost" like an ethnolinguistic group, but not quite. This is vague statement and best avoided. The leads of other articles on similar topics (Turkic peoples, Tatars, Iranian peoples, Mongolic peoples) also avoid making such a claim.

The lede could be improved per MOS:LEAD by summarizing the history sections of the main text. This would give some motivation for why the term Slav carries some meaning, and is not only a linguistic class, but also a historic one. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The rule for opening a talk page discussion (as so in to avoid an edit war) is that content must not be reverted more than three times. I frankly see this subject as akin to a debate over whether the sky is blue (given what the ethnolinguistic group article basically says in its lead).
Now that you brought it up, however, it seems like a good idea to clarify the weight that the term "Slav" holds historically, in the vein of Germanic peoples. Evaporation123 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Evaporation123: Unfortunately, the term "ethnolinguistic group" has long been misused in Wikipedia to denote the set of ethnic groups that speak languages belonging to the same linguistic classifcatory unit (either a language family or a subgroup). I've had my share of tough discussions with people who really believe this, against the definition in the article ethnolinguistic group and common usage in scholarship. In short, I obviously support this edit.
On a "technical" side note: the rule (or rather: best practce) for opening a talk page discussion is WP:BRD. Going to the limit of three reverts, on the other hand, is not so good practice in content disputes. –Austronesier (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Countries with Slavic populations

There is a list of countries with Slavic populations. The countries listed include:

2603:7000:B500:5D4:6190:D593:84BB:ACC8 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavs/Archive_7&oldid=1256597602"