Talk:Slavs/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Discourse §

This is inappropriate, it's close to paradigmatic OR/Essay, whatever. Should at least retitle or make clear it's a recapitulation of scholarly or other non wikipedia discourse. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding content prolly OK, title like just "Early Slavs" will eliminate problem. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Physical characteristics

Are you kidding? We can talk about physical characteristic of individuals, not of entire populations. Please delete this racist sh*t! --194.28.128.148 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Slavs

Please check stronger the russian/slavian Sources, they construct a new "slavic history", but that is not true. The Term Slawic is a derivat of Slaswic, near Haithabu. The Term Waegerer (Varinger, Waräger) is from Wagerland around Kieler Foerde, North Germany, in Schleswig-Holstein/germanic coast. Rjurik was a germanic Viking, the first Slawican/Slavican. Slavs is a result of Kiever Rus. Slavs can't born before Rurik gone to Novgorod!!! Rus means Rys, in germanic Ries (Riese, gigant, big), Rusland means gigant land (dt. Großrussen) by (latin) Rissai monts/Ripphai monts (dt. Riesengebirge = Ural). The genetic in area of Novgorod is e.g. from Niedersachsen, Germany. Slavic is not from Balts. Slavic the migration of Vikings from germanic coast areas (Netherlands, Skandinavian, Germany, Pommeranian asf.). Later Ethogenese with different folks like Awares, Petsheneges, Hunns, Bolgar, Tatars and other. A map of 650 AD is completly stupid, no slavs was here. These slavic region was a region of rendeer breeders like Saami, Carelians, Komi, Perms, Urmuts, Mari and lots of other tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.159.60.41 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All your claims are occult nationalistic lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.112.177 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was destroyed as his country, Wermacht Wikipedian lies were not

The claims like "inferior slavic culture", "slavs as slaves" should be removed. We do not live in Wermacht Germany any more. Wikipedia needs a de-nazification.

I can't find the word "inferior" anywhere on the page. CodeCat (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox ethnic group

Unresolved

What is the deal with the use of this infobox? Please refrain from bloating the intro, the population numbers can be perfectly fitted in the introduction or a section, an infobox for an ethnic group is redundant, as this is an ethnolinguistical group. A map of the Slavic World and perhaps a collage with Slavic national dresses would be more fitting at the top.--Zoupan 15:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Czech republic point of view

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the Slavs. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8km from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first entered Europe through the "Silk road" to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and river's named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not Slavic enough?

An anonymous user has been replacing Lenin with Rasputin, reasoning that Lenin was not "fully Slavic" but partly Jewish. I don't really understand what religion has to do with this, nor do I understand why being partially from another ethnicity makes Lenin not a Slav. Or not "Slavic enough" to be shown in the article. All of the people shown have non-Slavic ancestors anyway. So what's wrong with showing Lenin there? I don't see the problem. CodeCat (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not about religion. "Jewish" is both a religion and ethnicity, and Lenin was Jewish by ethnicity, otherwise he was an atheist. If person X is of mixed heritage, as was Lenin, it is inappropriate for said person to represent an ethnic group as a poster child. It would be equally inappropriate if Lenin was 1/4 German. Please point out the other people who are of mixed heritage and I will replace them as well. Of course, it's pointless if it's only like 1/16 or 1/32, or maybe even 1/8, but 1/4 is clearly "not Slavic enough."

Then at what point does someone become a Slav? Is Slavic a genetic trait, is it a cultural identity, or is it linguistic? If it's genetic, then what genetic traits do we consider Slavic, and how many centuries do we need to trace back the genetic line? Were the people who spoke early forms of Proto-Slavic Slavs? What about Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers, who were as much Balts as they were Slavs? If it's a cultural identity, then didn't Lenin identify as a Russian and therefore as a Slav, rather than as a Jew? Linguistically there can be no doubt; Lenin spoke Russian, a Slavic language. Do you see how ambiguous and contentious your position really is? It's not that "clear" at all whether Lenin is Slavic enough. CodeCat (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no proof of any "proto Balto Slavic" nation. They never existed. It is simply an occult invented orthodox nonsense without any material or even linguistic evidences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.67.193 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your credibility just flew out the window... Proto-Balto-Slavic is a well-established linguistic concept, it would be rediculous to dispute it with all of the reliable sources that cover it. CodeCat (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The user above is not me, the one who replaced Lenin with Rasputin, just to be clear. "Slavs" are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group, identified by their Slavic languages and Slavic cultures. It says so in the article itself. Jewish people are neither an Indo-European ethnic group nor do they belong to an Indo-European language group. Ethnic Jews can therefore not belong to the Slavic ethnic group. Speaking the same language does not make one a member of an ethnic group. Culturally (and linguistically) speaking, a Nigerian could assimilate into Russian culture and society, but he will never become a Slav, regardless whether he is culturally and linguistically "Slavic" now. This is obvious. Genetically there are clear differences between Jewish people and Slavic people (and all other European peoples), just as there are between the Nigerian and Russians, as all autosomal DNA studies confirm. My position is not ambiguous at all, it's quite clear and obvious to all rational people. How far back the genetic line you have to go I can't answer, but having a Jewish grandfather qualifies as "not enough, " just as being half German and half Russian qualifies as "not enough." By the way, Lenin spoke Yiddish as a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.12.62 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Discourse on the early Slavs

The paragraph is stupid. First there is a claim that Slavic people originated in the 6th century between Elbe and Vistula. However it is a proven fact that Kiev was established in the 4th century by Slavic settlers. Second the paragraph explains about technicalities in ethnographic studies such as archaeological research. What good does that information do for the article? It talks about obvious stuff and it is an opinion of a few if not a single person. More over, the author of the paragraph is way to critical about ethnographic studies about Slavic people and not even drawing comparison with similar issues in other studies. Same problems exist with Germanic, Romance, Celtic and many other ethnographic studies. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources for number of Slavs

The article was locked to prevent edit warring and encourage discussion. I notice nobody has taken the initiative to start a discussion, yet. So, please take the opportunity to discuss it here? CodeCat (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

frontal.rs and krajinaforce.com are separatist and nationalistic sources. Stevo Pasalic is defended the war criminal Radovan Karadzic to the Hague Tribunal. Look how Stevo Pasalic explain the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina [1] this is terrible. I have added in this article source Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia. We need have neutral source and not separatist and nationalist sources. Thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This web pages are not "separatist" and "nationalistic". As said before, this web pages only HOST this books, nothing more. Stevo Pasalic is NOT a war criminal, separatist, natinalist... or whatever. Calling them "separatist" or "nationalist" doesn`t change a thing. The info is not provided by this web pages but by the books hosted on that page. As for the rest of the problem, you can find an answer in my comment further down. Adrian (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha.. so what if he participated as a witness of Karadzic... is he already in jail or being still trialed :) -.. and even that doesnt matter.. and where are traces of separatism here?.. and explain traces of nationalism and separatism from the Stanko Nišić book .. id love to hear this :).. youa re trying to discredit it because it mentions war crimes of croatia against serbian civilians in the 90s war and all those who were forced to fled in 1995 after operation storm, 250.000 of them... this is why this soiurce bothers you. Krajina force.com is not printer of stanko nišić`s book.. it is just the websitefrom where an online version of the book can be approached...(youve been told this 1 billion times on conversation on "Serbs" talk page!). I cant believe you are starting this all over again, Codecat just look at the conversations Shokac started on "Serbs" talk page... he was explained million times and yet he tries and tries... all of his claims and other nonsence he was spreading was ignored... because he failed discrediting the sources and degrading the number of Serbs with constant edit warring there... he now moved to here... its not the sources that bother him.. the problem is he wants to believe 12 million is too much - why? - because he as a croatian nationalist wants to claim anything that discredits anything about Serbs or Serbian sources. Funny little charachter there.. he reacts to anything Serbian just like the protesters in Vukovar do last days, attacking those serbian cyrillic signs. (Правичност (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

I really don't have much interest in this dispute. I just want the edit warring to stop so that the editing can be sane again. Since nobody took the initiative to do so by themselves, but kept reverting each other, I requested a page lock so that the editors in question might come to their senses and discuss. CodeCat (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, saying for example " Earth is round" is not enough. You must provide evidence, or on wikipedia sources for that statement. Saying that some source is bad or invalid , just because somebody says that is not enough. Sokac, if you believe that the source is not valid please use the appropriate noticeboard. About the connection to war criminal Radovan Karadzic, as far as I know, Radovan is not convicted, right? And second, even if he was a war criminal as you think, that still wouldn`t change a thing. After all , Stevo Pasalic wrote this book, not Radovan Karadzic. Do you want to discredit all sources by the Croatian government because they celebrated the arrival of Ante Gotovina? Adrian (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

With the Serbian nationalists Правичност I will no longer discuss. See what he mentions Oluja, Krajina, Tudman, Vukovar??? What is wrong with you? Book of Stanko Nišić is POV and its contents are is nationalistic. Stevo Pasalic denies ethnic cleansing of the Republika Srpska. Pasalic 2006. the decision of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, taken off the list of candidates for the Minister of Education because of pro-Serbian content that is introduced into school books in the Republika Srpska. --Sokac121 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let`s say for the sake of the example that I agree with you. Should we remove all sources presented by the Croatian government too? They celebrated the arrival of Ante Gotovina. I don`t believe that is enough you, me, anybody else just to say "that source is nationalistic, let`s not use it". I don`t believe this books are POV. Stevo Pasalic is a respected demographer in Serbia. Adrian (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats your response? Its contents are nationalistic and thats it? I bet you cant even read serbian cyrillic, verry interesting how you read that book and which demographic content was nationalistic for you.. what can be nationalistic about demographic figures... you always claim your nonsences with no proof. Let me remind you that on your last edit warre, you removed also my new reliable source [2] which states 11,5 million Serbs, also calling it POV. You are freaking impossible to even discuss with, because you want something done without any evidence about your claims! And you always end up your arguments in the way of: "this soup is too salty, but i said that because i dont like soups at all". (Правичност (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Source Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia a reliable source. www.lopusina.com is a good source, we have data on the number of Serbs in the U.S., Germany, Austria, only the data is much smaller than those imposed by Правичност. It certainly you will not accept. "Most Serbs live in Serbia - 7 million, followed by the Republika Srpska - 1.5 million in Montenegro there are about 600,000." when the book was written in 1990. Serbs in Serbia has 6 million, in Montenegro 200,000 sources should read :D--Sokac121 (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The book is from 2006.. and btw... sources for Serbian language on the "Serbian language" article are from ethnolouge- which state that there are 4,5 million Serbian speakers in serbia (eventough census in 2011 showed 6,3 and in 2002 6,7 mil.) and it also states that there are 300,000 Serbian speakers in Albania (which dont even exist- maybe maximum 3,000 or 30,000- but never 300,000) and still... none of the editors wanted to remove that source, they stated its a relaible linguistic source.... Just wanted to mention you.. not everything can be perfect. And btw... lopusinas source is meant to beused for "total Serbs population" - not Serbs in Usa, Germany etc.... there are several sources for every single thing separate. WEve told you before... sources all over internet mention 11,5, 12, 12,5 million... so we decided to use the one mostly used and thats 12 million... Oluja book by stanko Nišić is also a relaible source.. other sources (also counting the one that is under construction9 serve as backup sources which is good enough.... yous till havent mentioned your arguments... what is separatistic or antionalistic about the 12 million figures from those sources...(Правичност (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Truth Stevo Pasalić is a respected demographer in Serbia. For the rest of the world he denies genocide. Should always use sources which are listed highest number of Serbs. From each source to take only the highest numbers, others ignore. This will not go--Sokac121 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? Tomislav Nikolić also denied genocide and called it a massive massacre rather.. someones personal opinions dont have anything to do with this discussion. Oh yes it will go im afraid... how are you gonna make a higher estimation if you dont use larger figures lol? Thats what higher estimations are all about.... and ofc using reliable sources. (Правичност (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Exactly what you just said is POV. It is not neutral.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources and what they contain however, are not POV, nor nationalist, nor separatistic or whatever you used to claim. You still provided zero evidence of what you claimed. (Правичност (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

For the Serbs, these sources are not POV, for the rest of the world they are POV. So it's good that Wikipedia has it rule.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And who is the rest of the world, are you the rest of the world? (Правичност (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC))

You still provided zero evidence on your claims... and i can see only you claiming this nonsence. The sources are good and ok to be used. Are you gonna do something? Or are you just gonna keep nagging like you always did and held 3 articles hostage like this already, only loosing time and nerves claiming how serbs are being nationalist bla bla. (Правичност (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Deletion of sourced material

1. The paragraph I edited contains "unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims" which I changed into sourced data. The sources state inter alia that: In the process of ethnic consolidation the slavic tribes of Silesians, Masovians and Polans merged into Polish nation.

2. The germanic tribe of Silingi moved from Silesia before the Slavic Tribes arrived. The article is about Slavs so there is no place here for other tribes that had moved from modern Slavic lands before Slavs arrived. I sourced that info.

3. The division of Silesians into:

   Bieżuńczanie
   Bobrzanie
   Dziadoszanie
   Golęszyce
   Lubuszanie
   Opolanie
   Ślężanie
   Trzebowianie

is a tribal division from the early medieval period. If someone states that some of my sources are irrelevant because they consider tribes and not ethnic groups than what are those tribes (not ethnic groups) doing there?

Because of those facts I reinstate my edit. Opole.pl (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete data about Silingi we can understand but data about mixing Silesians with the Germans over the centuries - not. Ok, no sources in the article.

Your sources are irrelevant because they consider tribes from the early medieval period and not ethnic groups. Franek K. (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything explained above: The division of Silesians into:

   Bieżuńczanie
   Bobrzanie
   Dziadoszanie
   Golęszyce
   Lubuszanie
   Opolanie
   Ślężanie
   Trzebowianie

is a tribal division from the early medieval period. If someone states that some of my sources are irrelevant because they consider tribes and not ethnic groups than what are those tribes (not ethnic groups) doing there?

The sources you deleted state inter alia that: In the process of ethnic consolidation the slavic tribes of Silesians, Masovians and Polans merged into Polish nation. It is though clearly about ethnic groups and not only ancient tribes. Opole.pl (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Bieżuńczanie, Bobrzanie, Dziadoszanie.... is Silesian tribes, not Silesians as ethnic group. There are two separate articles: Silesian tribes and Silesians.

Also, the opinion by author of book is not enough to determine "Usually considered Poles" and this term violates the principle of NPOV. Neutral is "also considered Poles" or similarly.

Also, please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Part of your changes has been reverted, now we need to discuss, consensus for new changes and later - changes. Please stop edit-warring. Franek K. (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Therefore the part about:

   Bieżuńczanie
   Bobrzanie
   Dziadoszanie
   Golęszyce
   Lubuszanie
   Opolanie
   Ślężanie
   Trzebowianie

will be deleted because those are medieval tribes and not modern ethnic groups. Statement "Usually considered Poles" is not POV as it is properly sourced. On the other hand deletion of sourced material and replacing it with unsourced and "unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims" may be considered POV if the unsourced claims are pushing unsourced thesis that are controversial or untrue. I provided sourced material that states directly that: "Ethnic consolidation includes processes when several ethnic communities (or parts of them), usually of kindered origin and having cognate languages, merge into single ones. The merging of Western Slavic tribes (Polyane, Mazowszane, Slenzhane, etc.) into the Polish nation (...), can be mentioned as an example." That's what the source says - that Silesians merged into the Polish nation as a result of Ethnic consolidation.

To finally disprove the argument that the sources consider only medieval tribes I'll add an other source that simply states that "Silesians belong to the Polish ethnographic group." Since there are no other sources that claim otherwise the statement that "Silesians are usually considered Poles" is more than neutral. Opole.pl (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"That's what the source says - that Silesians merged into the Polish nation as a result of Ethnic consolidation"? No, source say that Silesian tribes (maybe) merged into the Polish nation as a result of ethnic consolidation but it does not matter. This is consider tribes from the early medieval period, this and present Silesians is two different cases.

"Since there are no other sources that claim otherwise the statement that "Silesians are usually considered Poles" is more than neutral" - no, term of "usually" is not neutral. Of course, there are sources show Silesians as part of Poles but Wikipedia is neutral, show this sources but may not use the terms "usually", particularly in controversial cases. There are sources show Silesians as part of Poles? Ok, but we (users) do not have the right to decide that something is "usually" or not. Franek K. (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true. We only have the right to state what is in the sources because otherwise it would be original research. I stated what I found in the sources and you have not. Therefore I am in accordance with the Wiki policies and you are not. Opole.pl (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What? Where in sources write term "usually"? Nowhere! There are sources show Silesians as part of Poles? Ok, but we (users) do not have the right to decide that something is "usually" or not. Franek K. (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic consolidation is a process that objectively took place. If you claim that there were some other developements that resulted in a creation of a new Silesian ethnic group that emerged from the Polish one - state your thesis and some reliable sources to defend them. If not that is only your "unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims" which I am trying to repair by giving this paragraph some actual sources. Opole.pl (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So do you want me to write: Silesian are Poles as the source says? I am trying to be neutral here, but if you insist. Opole.pl (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys, both of you are at WP:3RR near as I can determine. Can you please knock off the edit warring and pursue the steps at WP:DR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask how a practice of deleting sourced fragments in a paragraph that has the "This article appears to contain unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims." problem should be treated? I actually cleaned it up a little but am permantly reverted. How can I convince someone who does not want to be convinced? Opole.pl (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand.

"'Etnic consolidation is a process that objectively took place" - maybe, according to one source (one source use the word "consolidation").

"If you claim that..." - I do not claim.

Do not change the subject. You made a new change, you must give the sources, you must respect the principles of Wikipedia. Where the sources write term "usually"? Nowhere! There are sources show Silesians as part of Poles? Ok, but we (users) do not have the right to decide that something is "usually" or not. Term of "usually" is original research and POV. Franek K. (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third_opinion might help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Than I would like to see a source that says Silesians are not Poles. If not, the phrase according to some sources is wrong beacuse the reality is that these are the only sources. When we take that into consideration, the phrase according to some sources is an original research beacause there are no other sources provided. Opole.pl (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The only solution here is for Franek K. to find some actual sources that would back his opinions. You play in semantics and have nothing to support your claims. How does that comply with Wiki policies? Opole.pl (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The next thing is that I improved the paragraph and you deleted what I wrote, after which you reminded me of the anti-revert policy. As a matter of fact most of the things you do on Wiki is reverting others people work. Why don't you do something positive and write some sourced material, becauce it looks to me that I am not the problem here. Opole.pl (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. You add new information to the article that Silesians are Poles, you must give the sources, you must respect the principles of Wikipedia, I did not add any new informations to the article. I do not claim. But where the sources write term "usually"? Nowhere! There are sources show Silesians as part of Poles? Ok, but we (users) do not have the right to decide that something is "usually" or not. Term of "usually" is original research and POV. Franek K. (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I stated that Silesians are usually treated as Poles? You agree that the source states that Silesians are Poles? But you don't write Silesians are Poles as it is in the source - why? Opole.pl (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

because this applies only to the Silesians in Poland and this is only few books. It's too complicated. Good citation: "There have been some debates on whether or not a group of Silesians (historically Upper Silesians) constitute a distinct nation. In modern history, they have been often pressured to declare themselves to be either German or Polish or Czech and embrace the language of the current governing nation."

Again. There are sources show Silesians as part of Poles? Ok, but we (users) do not have the right to decide that something is "usually" or not. Term of "usually" is original research and POV.

Also your version "Usually considered Poles" [3] is fraud, Silesians living in Germany considered as German peoples, Silesians living in Czech Republic (Czech Silesia) considered as Czechs and nearly million of Silesians in Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia considered to be a separate nation (according to the national censuses, in Germany no option of nationality). Franek K. (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All things you have written above are original research because they are not sourced. The only sourced statement is that Silesians are Poles. It is you who is pushing unsourced original research not I. Regardless, I asked for a third opinion as NeilN suggested. If we cannot agree perhaps a third party will solve the dispute between someone who provides sources and someone who deletes them. Opole.pl (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

On 100% there are Czech sources about Silesians as part of Czech people, just search. For example: Germany treated Silesians as part of German people - one of the sources: "Górny Śląsk: szczególny przypadek kulturowy" (en: "Upper Silesia: special case of cultural") - Mirosława Błaszczak-Wacławik, Wojciech Błasiak, Tomasz Nawrocki, University of Warsaw 1990. Also, for example: sources from national censuses, many Silesians treat self as a separate nation - Silesian [4][5]. Also, one of the other sources: "Historia Narodu Śląskiego" (en: "History of Silesian Nation") " or other. What do you think? You show three sources about Silesians as Poles (including two about Silesian tribes from the early medieval period) and write in Wikipedia OR and POV sentence: "Usually considered Poles"? It is a mockery and nothing more. There have been some debates on whether or not a group of Silesians constitute a distinct nation or only ethnic group within Poles/Czechs/Germany nations, there are different voices in this case. Please stop pushing own POV. Franek K. (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, most of the people that declared "Silesian nationality" in the 2011 census did it jointly with the Polish Nationality - this means that they consider themselves Poles and Silesians (they do not oppose Polishness to Silesianess but combine it). Second of all, if most of the declared Silesians consider themselves also Poles, and as there are also milions of those that consider themselves only Poles (no Silesian declaration), then the statement that Silesians are usually considered as Poles is true. You proved it yourself! Finally, you did not provide any source in the text - you just deleted someone elses work. Opole.pl (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"most of the people"????? 376,000 declared it as their only nationality (436,000 who declared it as their first nationality), 431,000 declared it jointly with Polish nationality. "they do not oppose Polishness to Silesianess but combine it" - sorry, I do not understand what you mean. In general it does not mean that Poles = Silesians, because 431,000 declared both: Silesian and Polish nationality. 431,000 people declared Silesian nationality and Polish nationality, they are Silesians, but lives in Poland, so feels partly also as Poles. Also, German 148,000 and Polish 64,000 nationality, Ukrainian 51,000 and Polish 21,000 etc. This does not change the fact, 847,000 people declared Silesian nationality in the Polish national census in 2011 (and according to the source).

"Second of all, if most of the declared Silesians consider themselves also Poles, and as there are also milions of those that consider themselves only Poles (no Silesian declaration), then the statement that Silesians are usually considered as Poles is true" - you are typical Poles (no offense). This is not true, this is only your interpretation = OR. Officially: 847,000 people declared Silesian nationality in the Polish national census in 2011 (including 376,000 who declared it as their only nationality, 436,000 who declared it as their first nationality, 411,000 who declared it as the second one, and 431,000 who declared it jointly with Polish nationality) and this is facts and only facts, numbers. We are not interested in your opinions, thoughts, analysis on this topic. Also, this is data only from Polish census, Silesians lives also in Czech Republic and most, in Germany. We, Poles still we forget about it :) Franek K. (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

According to your source there are 12 000 Silesian declarations in Czech Republic - that is less than 1,5% of the declarations made in Poland (847 000). As for Germany - If you are refering to ethnic German Lower Silesians that were deported from Poland after the war then you must know that they are not Slavs and this article concerns Slavs only. If you are referring to those that left Poland in the 1950-present, than first of all you need to state (using scientific sources) how many of them are there and what percent of them declares themselves Slavic Silesians? If you can't provide this kind of information than it is only some kind of speculation aka OR. Opole.pl (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"12 000 Silesian declarations in Czech Republic - that is less than 1,5% of the declarations made in Poland" - why did you write it? It does not matter here.

"German Lower Silesians that were deported from Poland after the war then you must know that they are not Slavs" - not only Lower, half of Upper also + those that left Poland in the 1950-present. There are no adequate sources about number of Slavic part of Silesians. Most of Silesians is mixed with Germans. Also, many Silesians in Germany have Slavic roots. I and you not have sources about this. Franek K. (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no sources then it can not be written on Wikipedia (its your OR). Even if there were sourcess this article covers Slavs only (its title is Slavs). It does not cover Germanic peoples. Opole.pl (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

but you do not know what part of the Silesians is Slavic and what part of the Silesians is Germanic. So. Franek K. (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what is written under the table in the source you provided? Results of the last census shows an increase in the sense of separative ethnicity of some regional communities in Poland, although in most cases this involves simultaneous self-determination with the Polish nationality. The largest non-Polish national-ethnic identification include declarations of Silesian and Kashubian etnicity. The total reported response to the first or second ethnic question - is 847 thousand for the Silesian declarations, with less than half (376 ths.) that expressed it as their single identification, more often it was declared jointly with Polish nationality - 431 thousand. (See Table. 2). Opole.pl (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, but it does not matter here. In general it does not mean that Poles = Silesians, because 431,000 declared both: Silesian and Polish nationality. This only shows that 431,000 of Silesians are not Poles but Silesians as separate nation of Silesians and also Poles. Franek K. (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That is your OR - the Statistical office writes differently - and that is our source not your opinions. Opole.pl (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes - this is my OR. No, Statistical office writes only numbers. Do not interpret of this data. Only numbers. Franek K. (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a quote from the Statistical office report - The largest non-Polish national-ethnic identification include declarations of Silesian and Kashubian etnicity. The total reported response to the first or second ethnic question - is 847 thousand for the Silesian declarations, with less than half (376 ths.) that expressed it as their single identification, more often it was declared jointly with Polish nationality - 431 thousand. (See Table. 2). So its not only numbers - they made their professional analysis and included it in this source. Opole.pl (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"they made their professional analysis" - please stop. professional analysis? this is only two sentences. Franek K. (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to say that the paragraph I edited had no sources concerning that matter at all. There were just unsourced statements that were labelled by an editor (not me) as This article appears to contain unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims. I provided the sources and you deleted them because some of them considered medieval tribes, even though in that section those tribes were mentioned. So I deleted the fragment about the medieval tribes (that was not put there by me) and, in accordance, I ceased to use sources that refer to the tribes in favour of those that simply state that Silesians are Poles. I did not want to make an argument so instead of writting Silesians are Poles I wrote that they are usually considered as Poles so a different but sourced statement could also be included.

Bu what do you do? First you delete sourced material, than you rephrase a neutral statement. The phrase There are sources that show Silesians as part of the Poles is logically wrong as there are no other sources in this paragraph that state otherwise. Not to mention that your phrase is a gramatical disaster. Lastly, you state that my work, which is actually something positive, is a mockery. Didn't you hear about the Wikiquette? Opole.pl (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You delete Silesian tribes from the article - ok.

Not called your work as mockery but only pushing your POV and OR term of "usually". Franek K. (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the census source you provided (on the talk page, just minutes ago - not in the text), in the 2011 census 847 000 people declared Silesian nationality. Out of that number 411 000 declared it as their second nationality and 431 000 (the majority) declared it jointly with Polish nationality. There are also those, out of several milions of authohtonous inhabitants of Upper Silesia, that declared only Polish nationality. They greatly outnumber the figure of 847 000. Conclusion - only part of Upper Silesians declared Silesian nationality, and most of those who did, declared it jointly with Polish nationality. The minority declared Silesian as their single nationality (376 000) and rest (counted in milions) declared only Polish nationality. Therefore, according to your source, Most of Silesians consider themselves Poles aka Silesians are usually considered Poles Opole.pl (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This source [6] states that there are 2 milion Silesians in Poland. 847 000 of them declared Silesian nationality therefore ~ 1 163 000 declared only Polish nationality. Out of those 847 000 - 431 000 declared also Polish nationality - that gives us 1 594 000 Polish declarations out of 2 milion (considering this number is correct). 3/4 Polish declarations gives me the right to state that Silesians usually consider themselves Poles. Opole.pl (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh god!

• "several milions of authohtonous inhabitants of Upper Silesia? Several milions is total number of Silesians in Poland, Czech Republic and Germany (most).
• Conclusion? Your conclusion is original research. Extreme original research. Please stop.
• "considering this number is correct" - first wise words.
• "gives me the right to state that Silesians usually consider themselves Poles" - yes (even omit the fact that you write about the data only from Poland.), gives me the right to state that Silesians usually consider themselves Poles on the private blog. Wikipedia:No original research excludes this possibility.

And stop the jokes. I finish discuss with you, it does not make sense, wasting time. On Wikipedia, I have never seen greater original research. I'll wait for the third opinion. Franek K. (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not OR - its mathematics. After this discussion I think there are several possibilities:

1. We can write that: according to sources a vast majority of Silesians that live in Poland[7] consider themselves Poles[8]. 2. We can write my original version which is neutral and in accordance with the sources given by me and recently provided by you[9]. 3. We simply cannot accept your version because neither of the sources support it. Opole.pl (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why are you calling the data provided by the Statistical office as well as by some respective scholars a joke? If you are trying to diminish their research - it wont work. Opole.pl (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Your example is 100% original research, please ask administrators. Franek K. (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My statements are sourced therefore they are not OR. Opole.pl (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Again: please thoroughly read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Your example is 100% original research, please ask administrators. Source no.1 show only number of "2 million Silesians in Poland" and nothing more. Source no.2 show numbers: 847,000 people declared Silesian nationality in the Polish national census in 2011 (including 376,000 who declared it as their only nationality, 436,000 who declared it as their first nationality, and 431,000 who declared it jointly with Polish nationality). Your sample is total original research, SYNTHESIS and manipulation of sources. I'm tired of teaching you the basics of Wikipedia. Franek K. (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So you imply that a sentence: According to sources[10] there are around 2 milion Silesians in Poland out of whom 847 000 declared Silesian nationality (including 431 000 that declared it jointly with Polish nationality)[11]. Available sources state that Silesians are Poles They became part of Polish nation in a result of ethnic consolidation is OR? Opole.pl (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, as I see Opole.pl forgot about the fact, that millions of Silesians were expelled in the years 1945 to 1948 because of their German ethnicity. Whole Lower Silesia is today nearly without Silesians, because of the Expulsion. And now he is trying to state that Silesians are Poles. So why did all these Silesians were expelled again? --Jonny84 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of infobox

An editor wants to remove the infobox on the basis that Slavs are not an ethnicity but a pan-ethnicity. Valid reason? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrskensstämmor (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Physical Anthropology

This is a completely debunked form of science. Why is there a physical characteristics section even there? I live in Poland, and all one has to do is look around and notice there is no "Polish physical type". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.1.157.175 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Was Copernicus a Slav?

• Copernicus' mother language was a German: The Life of Copernicus (1473-1543), Pierre Gassendi, Oliver Thill, Xulon Press, 2002, ISBN 1591601932, p. 19.
• Copernicus' father, also named Nicholas, was a German-speaking: Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, Hockey, T. (2007), Springer, ISBN 0387304002 p. 252.

His origins is disputed but in any case he was of a pure Slavic ancestry. If there aren't reliable sources supporting his pure Slavic origins, I am going to remove his picture from the info-box gallery. Jingiby (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus was Slavic. This is the same question like if also Albert Einstein was a German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.77.212 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Map

The map includes Finnland, which is Finno-Ugric, not Slavic. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Which map are you referring to? This one? --Local hero ^talk 20:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Local Hero. Yes, I am referring to the first map on the page, this one as Local Hero pointed out. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Finland is not highlighted in that map. --Local hero ^talk 00:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Boy, do I feel silly right now! Don't know how I got that right! .... or perhaps I should say wrong! Just as well I never write to Father Christmas - my letters would never have made it! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, simple mistake. --Local hero ^talk 19:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There should be also at least one Slovak in the right photo panel

It is quite funny when everyone has there it's national figueres and Slovaks has none, despite the fact that we had great leaders in the past. It would be nice if you could add atleast Ludovit Stur to the right panel as a replace for Mila Jojovic. Actresses appearence in that panel next to empors and kings is also quite funny..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.104.227 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Funny!? Could you please explain that? Why do you think all those kings and saints are more "Slavic" than some actress or female scientist of Slavic origin?--194.28.128.143 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)--194.28.128.143 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wends, Sorbs and Gorani in third paragraph

I took these three ethnic groups out of the third paragraph, not because they are not Slavic nations - they are very much so - but because the article is long and the introduction is still in need of reduction. Where they are listed, it said "chiefly" and these three nations probably don't qualify for the "chiefly" term. To those that know less, the "chiefly" grouping is now consistent with nations to have states (with Bosniaks representing Bosnia and Herzegovina). From there on down there are several dozen declared ethnic designations and they cannot all be listed in this part, and nobody can decide which one is more worthy than any other!! So no offence was intended by this edit. --Theextraordinarily (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Women in the right photo panel

There is only one woman in the photo panel -- suggest that more be included.DanTrent (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding another photo to the Photo Panel

I think that it would be fair if photos of Tchaikovsky, Chopin, and Dvorak, as the greatest Slavic composers, were added to the photo panel. They deserve to be there. 77.77.248.195 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.248.195 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Mosaic in infobox

Hallo! I created a mosaic with 30 famous persons from different slavic countries, aranged chronologically by date of birth. It will seems good if added this picture in infobox, by me.--Stolichanin (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a great idea, by me. The images are clearly and tidy. In addition, there are more non-Russians and more women than current infobox photos, which is great. --151.237.102.118 (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It seems has no other opinions and I added this picture in infobox.--Stolichanin (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Would be better if it does include captions with names. For non-slavic people could be these persons unknown. Could you add it there? Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The captions with names are include in infobox under the picture.--Stolichanin (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue of images in the infobox comes up pretty often; I'm sure someone else will come along in several months and replace this one with their own. I'd much rather see no collage at all in the infobox. This one in particular seems to have a disproportionate amount of Bulgarians. --Local hero ^talk 18:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What disproportionate amount of Bulgarians? Look at carefully! Bulgarians - 6, Poles - 6, Russians - 7. The Russians remain a majority in the picture. In the previous version they was 11, which was too much. I think you need to reduce the number of Russians to 6. --151.237.102.118 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the number of Russians was too much in the previous version, so I reduce it to 7. But the faces in the photo are known and important people for the Slavs and the world as a whole. Their nationality is of secondary importance. However, the Russians are majority in the picture, because Russia is the largest Slavic country and has a many popular and significant people with international importance. Nobody of slavists and the people, who are interesting of history and culture of Slavs will agree with the views of Local hero that Bulgarians are too many. They are the same number as Poles. Bulgaria is the first Slavic state (681) and is one of the most influential countries in the history of the Slavs and Europe (the creation and spreading of the Cyrillic alphabet, the influence of Old Bulgarian culture and art over whole Slavic world, etc. Read First Bulgarian Empire,Second Bulgarian Empire and related articles - the first two persons in picture - Kliment Ohridski and Simeon the Great are representing this) and the fact that Bulgarians have also many world famous and significant people like a Vazov, Boris Christoff and Irina Bokova, who are proposed in the article. The same things are valid about Poland, which was other powerful and influential Slavic state (Read Rzecz Pospolita and related articles) and about Sienkiewicz, Chopin, Pope John Paul II, etc. As about the other countries, but these 3 states were comment by you. I mean the images are aranged chronologically, because these people representing different moments in the history of Slavs. The fact that one nation has 7 images, while others has 6 or 5 images is not relevant and it mean nothing. It is just one image with Slavic people. If we separate the persons by Slavic groups - the South Slavs have 11 persons, the West Slavs - 10, East Slavs - 9. But the Southern Slavic states are 7, while Eastern are 3 and Western are 3. But it is not so important. Moreover the nationality of some people (especially from former Yugoslavia) is controversial - Ivo Andric is thinking like Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian. But he is there as one of the greatest Slavic writers of 20th century. In addition these 3 countries are Slavic. And finally the number of women grow to 5--Stolichanin (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind logging in for all of your comments? Some might be mistaken and think that you and the IP are separate users.

Yes, I do believe there too many Bulgarians; One-fifth of the images are of Bulgarians while they only make up less than 3% of Slavs. Russians are by far the largest so, proportionally, they should have by far the most.

However, I think it should be based simply on who the most well-known individuals are. I've never heard of Bokova. That alone, of course, does not make her insignificant, but I do know that Peter the Great is far better known and does not appear in your collage. Novak Djokovic is one of the greatest tennis players of all time and didn't make it either.

I think your collage is flawed. I also think it may be tough to create an acceptable one. Thus, I'd rather we get rid of it altogether. --Local hero ^talk 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Kournikova is more greatest and popular than Djokovic. Local hero, for the first time your focus over Bulgarians surprise me, but I visited your page and now I understand what is the reason. You are our Macedonian brother, but pro-Yugoslavian Macedonian nationalist. Понеже и двамата сме българи, и произхождаме от един край (моята баба е от Скопие и аз имам лично отношение по този въпрос) дай да си пишем на български. Драги ми локален херой, няма да те убеждавам, че си българин, защото ти знаеш, че си българин. Ти си македонец, а аз съм половин македонец и половин софиянец. Общото е, че и двамата сме българи. Няма да ти обяснявам, че македонската нация е изкуствено създаден отвратителен проект на Коминтерна в лицето на Георги Димитров и Тито, защото ти го знаеш. Ако не го знаеш питай баба ти защо преди 1945 всички македонци са се смятали за българи. Не ме интересува кой югославски комунист от епохата Тито ти е промил мозъка, но в съвременния свят човек е свободен да се определя както си иска, дори като марсианец, така че аз уважавам твоя избор. Искам да те помоля да престанеш с тази омраза към българите. Не е нормално да мразиш собствения си народ. Откачено е. Не забравяй, че България беше първата държава, която призна Македония като отделна държава. Никой българин няма териториални претенции към Македония. Искаме просто вашата страна да спре да краде чужда история и да я фалшифицира (най-вече наша история, но и гръцка - пример: Александър Македонски). Благодаря!

P.S. тия 30 люде на сликата не са словени. Tия сите са македонци!--Stolichanin (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of Local hero against Bulgarians may be was influenced by this. If it is just a individual opinion, which is not related to this, I apologize to User:Local hero. --Stolichanin (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't make this weird. Despite being a 'pro-Yugoslav Macedonian nationalist', I made no complaints at the lack of ethnic Macedonians in your collage. Clearly, the only bias visible here is yours. The current infobox personalities have been stable for at least a year or so. Thus, you'd need a consensus to change it, as Al Khazar states below. And apparently the style you've used goes against standards as well. --Local hero ^talk 18:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Who "ethnic Macedonian" is missing in the collage? Alexander the Great? Gotse Delchev? Tsar Samuil? Will Smith? The truth is never against standards. --Stolichanin (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: This proposition of yours is completely irrational. The style used is obsolete and not encouraged by Wikipedia's standards so keep that in mind. I expect a properly made consensus. Not one were you gain support from IP addresses. Khazar (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Khazar, if you want a properly made consensus, tell me what is your opinion (especially when you delete my contribs). Mosaics like this are using in many articles in Wikipedia - look at Germans, French people, Dutch people, Italians and many others. I think that it is the best way to representing the significant people of different nations and people.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Their common usage doesn't mean that it's acceptable. Just as Flags are discouraged from being used in infoboxes, so are the mosaics that are frequently used. However, most infoboxes contain both. Khazar (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The new Mosaic is very bad, are all Slavs men and only one woman? that very funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.61.126 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Slavs → Slavic peoples – Hello, i would like to move this article into proposed "Slavic peoples" name, same as the article lead state before 2013. Also all other similar groups use this form, look for example: Germanic peoples, Romance peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples‎. Thanks for your reply. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, Slavic language versions of Wikipedia tend to use single word descriptions of the people: ru:Славяне, uk:Слов'яни, sk:Slovania and perhaps others, Google translates all to "Slavs". The Demonym here can equally work as Slav or Slavic. Particularly in regard to Category:Ethnic groups in Europe we find that "people" is only typically added if the Demonym does not change form when being used as a plural. If, for instance, an s can be added for pluralisation, the word "people" is not typically used. I think that this query may best be cancelled and left for discussion of relevant Wikiprojects where issues related to the specific interest groups can be addressed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both versions are correct, but it is the current one that's more concise. "People" is only used when a shorter version is not grammatically possible, as is the case with all three examples listed in the nomination.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 9, 2014; 14:31 (UTC)
• Oppose – "People" is only used when there is no unambiguous non-gendered nounal form. In this case, there is, and hence the more WP:CONCISE form is used. RGloucester — ☎ 12:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Answer – Thank you for explanation, i agree with your position, the article should remain so. Thanks for your time. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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