Talk:Slavs

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)

Misinterpretation of slavic word "slovo"

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

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

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

Thank You.

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

Silesians

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

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

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

Jesus

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

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

catholicism and christianity

In infobox we can see list of religion that looks

• Christianity
• Catholicism
• Islam
• and Atheism

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

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

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

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

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

Moravians

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

"Pan-Slavic" flag

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothetical

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

Requested move

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

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

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

• Support - long overdue move.Volunteer Marek 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see why not. GregorB (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - would simplify links to the page, which typically use "Slavs", and would be consistent with most similar pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Proto-Slavic form

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

Reference to Hitler

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

There was no such plan.

Reasons being -

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

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

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

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

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

Move On.

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

I don't understand. There is nothing on this page about "athaulf" anywhere. CodeCat (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's good that you don't understand, If you understand, I'll oversit...lol. Kodekat..talk..should I...okay...kiss u...:)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.118.18 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How many?

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

Joshua Project unreliable

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

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

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

Simple explanation

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

Plk, you enter deceptive data, your data include all persons living in the countries, not Slavs. You give the sources of census in countries, for example - your source about Poland says: "w dniu 31 marca 2011 w Polsce mieszkało prawie 38.3 miliona osób" ("on March 31, 2011 in Poland was home to nearly 38.3 million people"), 38.3 million people, not Slavs. Your data and sources concern all peoples in the countries, not Slavs. Franek K. (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The numbers are not including all persons. If you don't understand any number, ask. I see, I gave a wrong link about Poland. I will fix it. And again, please stop reverting. Ask first.--Plk (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you give the data and sources from censuses in countries, which include whole population of the country, not Slavs. Also, your fixed source about Poland is wrong, this data relates to language, see "Ludność według języka ; Polski razem 36,410 tys" ("Population by Language ; Polish language total 36,410 thousands"). Your sources must refer to Slavs, Slavic peoples, Slavic Poles etc, not people living in Poland or people speaking Polish language and other. Your change introduces incorrect data and incorrect sources and also violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - Wikipedia:No original research. Please do not make such changes without discussion, further such edits also will be undone, until the source of the data will be talked about Slavs, Slavic people etc. Franek K. (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous version there are a few years, you are trying to push its false version. Please note that in accordance with Wikipedia:CYCLE, first must discuss your changes. Franek K. (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

• It doesn't matter how long the version exists. Wikipedia should be better? Yes, but your version is totally wrong, false data and sources, your version is even worse.
• "This is now my last warning" - you can not give warnings in this situation because your version is new, you pushing the new version to which other user have reservations.
• "the numbers are from the census and the Non-Slavic people are subtracted" - not everywhere. Also, it is original research.

You are trying to push its false version. Please note that in accordance with Wikipedia:CYCLE, first must discuss your changes. If there is consensus, your changes will be made ​​to the article. As long as the sources of data and will not be talked about Slavs, Slavic people and as long as the your version will be broke rules of Wikipedia:No original research, not consent to enter this data to article. Franek K. (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And especially for you the number from Poland: 38,512,000 (people in Poland) - 36,000 (Germans) - 10,000 (Gypsis) - 33,000 (others, non Slavic) = 38.433 million Site 106. Which number you don't understand, either?--Plk (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

especially for you: your example concerns Poland only, data of other all countries already have not such calculations. Besides, your calculations concerns Poland are imprecise.

"Which number you don't understand" - that's beside the question, I understand your calculations but this is original research.

Which fact you don't understand: all data and sources must relate to Slavs and No original research. Franek K. (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

These are the two main issues: in this article - Slavs, data and sources must relate to Slavs according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and no original research according to the Wikipedia:No original research. Please, you accept the rules of Wikipedia or go away. Franek K. (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's because your bad knowledge of English. Now the informations shows groups/nations, but the infobox needs regions/countries. I put the numbers of the Slavic population of some countries. The sources were the censuses. The Non-Slavic population is subtracted. So the numbers are about the Slavic population. I hope, you understand this now.--Plk (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand this but you do not understand. I know, that informations shows groups/nations, but the infobox needs regions/countries but this version existed for few years and this is a small problem. We (I, you and other users) can together try the solution to this problem, through calm discussion and consensus. This is the first case. Second case: you wrote "The sources were the censuses. The Non-Slavic population is subtracted" but in this article - Slavs, data and sources must directly relate to Slavs according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and no original research according to the Wikipedia:No original research. You can not do any calculations, etc and data and sources must directly relate to Slavs (not to Poles, Czechs and minus Austrian, plus Kashubian, minus British is equal to Slavs). Franek K. (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. And now explain why you're thinking that we cannot count it as Slavic population, please.--Plk (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, God. You can count it as Slavic population to homework (or hobby work), not to Wikipedia because it violates two basic principles: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Franek K. (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I read WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The informations comes from reliable sources. So it's compliant to rules.--Plk (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh!? Of course, you read WP:NOR and "the informations comes from reliable sources", NOR (No original research) and sources have a connection? The second case: yes, national censuses is reliable sources BUT this sources do not say anything about Slavs, just say about ethnic groups e.g. Poles, Czechs and many other. National censuses is reliable sources for data about number of e.g. Poles, Czechs and many other, not Slavs. Your calculations about number of Slavs and joining ethnic groups e.g. Poles, Czechs and many other from the national censuses to Slavs, violate the principle of No original research. Franek K. (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may join in here... If a source says "there are (number) of ethnic Poles in Poland" and we conclude that Poles are Slavs, is that original research? No, that's just common sense. The common definition of Slavs includes the Poles, therefore all ethnic Poles are also ethnic Slavs. I think you are nitpicking at details here Franek. CodeCat (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is more complex. Firstly, not all national censuses have the option of nationality. Secondly: version by Plk is too many calculations of number of Slavs. If it would be only a matter of number of Poles, is ok. But, calculations numbers of all Slavic nationalities and all countries with Slavic peoples is too large thing, this large-scale calculations. Thirdly: data will not be accurate, part of some nationalities have different roots, for example: persons who declared Silesian or Sorbs nationality are not whole Slavs, part has Germanic roots. Topic of Slavs is not pure mathematics, is a more complex subject. Fourth: I understand you but please, understand me. No exist sources by national censuses show data about Slavs, just nationalities e.g. Poles, Czechs and many others. Here is beginning work rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability and No original research. But, ok. Later, there is an interpretation which nations are Slavic. This is break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research. Later, later, there is an very many calculations of number of nationalities to number of Slavs. At the moment it's clear breaking the rules of Wikipedia:No original research. Franek K. (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think addition of numbers is original research, but you're right that we should make sure that the censuses show such numbers. CodeCat (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, Silesians can also be German Schlesier. And while Silesians aren't recognized as a ethnic group in any country, there is also no definition available. So we deduct them from the total number. So now is everything clear, Silesians will not be included to the total number and it's also clear, that addition of numbers is not original research.--Plk (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"deduct them from the total number"? but Silesians also is Slavic people. Also Sorbs and some other. In Wikipedia, not exist option of "deduct" of not-100% clean slavic peoples, this is POV - another violation of basic principles of Wikipedia (after WP:OR and WP:Sources). Besides, it's time for a third opinion on OR matter, in particular I mean: opinion by administrators. Franek K. (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Silesians are inhabitans of Silesia, they can be Germans (Schlesier), Czechs (Slezané) or Poles (Ślązacy). So they can be Slavic or German. And there is also a group of people, which consider themselves as Silesians without considering themselves as Polish, Czech or German. But this is a new phenomenon and there is no definition available. The same problem is with the people in Canada which say, they are European - they also can be Slavic or not. So there is no POV. This are facts, which you showed here in this discussion. We don't deduct people which are "not 100% clean Slavic". And honestly, there doesn't exist something like "100% Slavic". At the topic of ethnicity you cannot count in percents. That's just what the Nazis tried. We have to dedect Silesians just because there is no definition available same as with people which declear to be European. Remember, that you called attention to this fact.--Plk (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of Silesians (omit the fact that the removal of the entire group of Silesians because that some part is Germanic is a POV and OR). I pointed out that the there are ethnic/nation group that are not purely Slavic, numbers by national censuses (declarations of nationality) is not reliable sources for number of Slavic. Yes, national censuses is reliable sources for data about number of Poles, Slovaks and other, but not Slavs. The issue is more complex, origin / ethno-linguistic group is not pure mathematics (Poles + Slovaks + Sorbs + Silesians + Czechs + other = Slavs). It's more complicated and we need more reliable sources to Slavic (and to Slavic, not ethnic/nation groups). Sorry. Franek K. (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

CodeCat already said, that addition of numbers is not original research. So you are alone with this opinion. Who is Slavic you can look at any encyclopedia (for example Britannica) and Silesians are not listed. If you have a source, show it, than we can add them, too. If you haven't new plausible arguments, I will repair the regions. --Plk (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly: opinion by CodeCat is not enough. We need is more opinions, especially by administrators. Secondly, I repeat: problem not applicable only Silesians. I gave Silesians as one of the more. Thirdly, there is yet another new problem: data from national censuses concern declared nationality and citizenship, does not apply to the origin, Slavic roots etc. People, for example part of citizens of some "Slavic" countries can be from Mongolia in Asia and feel self (for example) as Poles and declare Polish nationality because the two generations living in Poland but this is not Slavs. Data from national censuses concern declared nationality and citizenship does not apply to the Slavs, Slavs origin, Slavs roots. It's a completely different things. At the end, at this time there is no 100% support for your new change, exist just one partly support and one strong oppose. We need more opinions by other users... plus new problem (see third point), now it will be harder for you. Franek K. (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misconstruing my opinion. When I said that adding numbers isn't OR that is what I meant. I never said anything about the validity of the numbers. If and only if we have reliable sources for the numbers of people of each Slavic ethnicity, then adding them makes sense. But if we can't even find reliable sources for each one individually, adding is not going to help us any. Adding unreliable numbers doesn't make them reliable. :) CodeCat (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. National census data is not reliable sources, this data only show the data about unlimited declared nationality and citizenship, this is not synonymous of Slavic ethnicity. So, the problem is not just breaking the rule of Wikipedia:No original research (own calculations, by CodeCat is a contentious issue - different opinion), also violates the principle of Wikipedia:Sources, Wikipedia:POV (for example, about Silesians and "deduct") and also it works to the disadvantage of Wikipedia - data about unlimited declared nationality and citizenship and manipulation to the Slavic ethnicity. Franek K. (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Regardless of how reliable the census figures are, we could at least show a sum of the population of all the Slavic-majority countries (as long as we say which countries they are). While that doesn't give a very accurate figure of the number of Slavs, it would be much easier to find reliable sources for, and it does give a decent indication (to the accuracy of +- 10 million?). I suppose those figures would only really be seriously skewed in the case of Russia because it has such a large number of non-Slavs, and of course it doesn't count Slavs outside of those countries (like the Sorbs in Germany or the Russians of the Baltic states). CodeCat (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, and there you have the diasporans, and these are in every corner of the globe. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

CodeCat, "Regardless of how reliable the census figures" and "we could at least show a sum of the population"? End justifies the means? Now, I understand your erroneous opinion about uses false sources - at all costs. Also, good intentions is paved with hell. Evlekis, you're right. We can ask the administrators to opinions? Franek K. (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking them never usually achieves the results sought, besides, the average admin has his own field of knowledge so won't be versed in demographic studies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, Franek. What I am suggesting is something that already exists on Wikipedia, see Slavic World. I see no problem with taking those figures (which are presumably properly sourced) and showing them in this article. CodeCat (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Article of Slavic World is a simple example and concern languages. Statistics data in this article concern countries which Slavic languages as the official languages. While, data from national censuses in the new change by Plk concern declared nationality and citizenship does not apply to the Slavs, Slavs origin, Slavs roots, Slavic ethnicity. It's a completely different things. Declare nationality and citizenship is not related to Slavic ethnicity. Every inhabitant of the country may declare nationality (for example Slovaks) even though they do not have Slavic roots and every inhabitant of the country may confirm citizenship (for example Slovak) even being a black man. Franek K. (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It is known, that Poles, Russians, Serbs etc. are Slavic people. The total number of Poles or Russians and so on are not different from the numbers from the censuses of different countries in addition. What do you think? We have to make genetic test in each country? Are you a supremacist, a racist or what? This is conspiratorial what you are doing. If in censuses people say they are Poles, so they are Poles and by definition also Slavic. And the censuses show informations about ethnicities and not just about citizenships.--Plk (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, secondly, thirdly: please stop personal attacks. Fourth: term of Pole, Russian etc is ambiguous, for example: 1) Russian is a person living in Russia and/or 2) Russian is a person in terms of russian ethnicity and/or 3) Russian is a person who declared Russian nationality in the national census because he/she feel a part of Russian culture, language, traditions, 4) other. This are three or more different things. This article is about Slavs as ethno-linguistic group. For this article, you need a reliable scientific sources about Slavs and without using Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS#Synthesis of published materials. Franek K. (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, now you showed, that you have not a lot of knowledge about this topic. 1) you mean Russian citizens by citizenship, this is called россияне. 2) this is called русские. 3) is equivalent to point 2. 4) others? yeah, animals or what? surely they are also listed in this censuses -.-

If you think, national censuses are not reliable sources, than we have to delete the whole list, because many of this "sources" are simply private pages and there is no "scientific source" about any nationality.--Plk (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Russian names have nothing to with topic. Term of Pole, Russian etc is ambiguous, for example: 1) Pole is a person living in Poland (regardless of origin) and/or 2) Pole is a person in terms of Polish ethnicity and/or 3) Pole is a person who declared Polish nationality in the national census because he/she feel a part of Polish culture, language, traditions, 4) Pole is a person who have a Polish citizenship. This are four different things. 1) and 3) and 4) no have close dependence with Slavs as a ethnic group, only point 2) have close dependence with Slavs as a ethnic group but it is a matter of scientists (scientific sources), not data from national censuses. I repeat once again, data from national censuses are reliable, reliable for data about nationalities (declaration of nationality) and citizenships of some countries, but never for Slavs as a ethnic group. Franek K. (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguity is exactly why I suggested showing the populations of the countries. Because, according to at least one possible definition of "Slav" (Franek's definition 1), Slavs are those people living in the Slavic World. It's not the only possible definition, and probably not even the definition most people use (I don't think Chechens generally consider themselves Slavs) but it is still one possible definition. Of course, we should show numbers according to other definitions of Slav as well, if we can find the numbers for them, but this is one definition we certainly can find numbers for, so it should be included. CodeCat (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

CodeCat, the numbers which I wanted to post, don't include Chechens, and the numbers don't look just to the citizenships. All the numbers are available. We could use them, but Franek don't believe in the number of national censuses and he thinks it is better to leave the arbitrary supposition of total numbers from nations from partially private pages.--Plk (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So there were two possibilities: Going back to the version before such a list was added, or fix it like it and sort by countries like it was at the beginning. I wanted the second one. But if no one wants it, than we remove it again and make it like it was before.--Plk (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose for your change.

1. Your change is too much calculation from multiple sources, violates the principle of Wikipedia:No original research and this is very nice synthesis.
2. Your numbers do not relate to the Slavs, your numbers relate to declarations of nationality and citizenships, not to ethnicity. But, Slavs are ethno-linguistic group, regardless of the declared nationality and citizenship. You need reliable sources about the Slavs. At the moment, you violates the principle of Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article is about the cabbage, you give a sources about peas.
3. Your method of "deduct them from the total number" for example Silesians or Sorbs or some other because part of them have a Germanic roots is POV. Silesians and Sorbs and some other is also Slavic, it's not your decision who group is the Slavs and which may be in the article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of the main principles of Wikipedia.

If you really want to push own version, I suggest, listen to others users, third opinion, for example on page of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment or other. Franek K. (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

1. There are for each country just one source and not multiple sources.

2. The sources shows the ethnicities and not just the citizenships.

3. I don't deduct Sorbs or Silesians because of any Germanic roots, but the Silesians just because this are people from the region Silesia which can be German Schlesier, as well. Sorbs are clear Slavic (sources e.g. Britannica).

4. It's not my version or my opinion. I just wanted to fix it and make a list of countries like it was at the beginning. But now there seems to be just the option to remove this list and going back to the version before the list was added.--Plk (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop giving smokescreen.

Re 1. One source on one country, ok, BUT this is total 25 sources. This is synthesis from 25 sources.

Re 2. The sources shows declarations of nationality and citizenships, I know - not just the citizenships, you do not need to repeat, I know it. BUT declarations of nationality and also citizenships is not synonym of Slavic ethnicity. These are different things.

Re 3. " I don't deduct Sorbs or Silesians because of any Germanic roots, but the Silesians just because this are people from the region Silesia which can be German Schlesier" - I do not care, this is your POV. Silesians and Sorbs and some other is also Slavic, it's not your decision who group is the Slavs and which may be in the article.

Re 4. "I just wanted to fix"? Your changes breaks three main rules of Wikipedia, the current version is not perfect but your version is unacceptable by the rules of Wikipedia.

Again, if you really want to push change, I suggest, listen to others users, third opinion, for example on page of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or other. Franek K. (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, so we are agreed, that this list will be removed. All other discussion is not needed.--Plk (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should be removed but it is not perfect. Besides, there is no consensus for deletion list, so. Franek K. (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is at the moment wrong and the sources are mostly private pages. There are two possibilities: Change it back to regions (that's also like it was at the beginning) or remove it and make it like it was before the list was added. I tried to put official sources and make the list as provided for in. But if you are not able to work together, than I am tired of it and we can just remove the list. --Plk (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)