Talk:Slavs

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)

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)

Deleting informations

Franek K., what's your intention to delete informations? "Too detailed data" is not a reason to revert.--92.224.147.19 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No, your new changes are reverted because:

1. other population groups also have mixed nationalities (Polish-German, Czech-German, Polish-Belarusians etc), why only two ethnic minorities in Poland and Czech: Silesians and Kashubians have detailed descriptions? This is POV.
2. we well know that you want to lessen the number of Silesians and Kashubs in Poland according to Polish saying "Poland only for Poles" ("Polska tylko dla Polaków") and Silesians and Kashubians are Poles. Yes, million Silesians and Kashubians who consider themselves a nationality have a collective hallucination ;) Sorry but Polish nationalism and nazism not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
3. you change delete source by The Institute for European Studies, Ethnological Institute of UW about numbers of Silesians and Kashubians in Poland. you do not have permission to remove sources.
4. your change is too detailed data to infobox, this is infobox to simple data, not detailed. You break standards of Wikipedia. Detailed data there is separate articles, these are not delete from Wikipedia.

Your changes break three core rules of Wikipedia and some other. Franek K. (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're wrong. 1. If there are informations about other groups, you are free to add them. I added this informations about Moravians, Kashubians and Silesians, because this informations exist. 2. I don't know what you want to say about it. I want to add the right informations and don't want to make a group smaller or greater like you do. And I am not even Polish or Czech or something. If you want to know, I am German. 3. This is not a reliable source. There is no information where they did get that numbers. It seems to be a wild guess before there was any census before. So, the census from the EU in 2011 are sources are the best sources which can be added together (from Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia). 4. The details were in the section Notes at the end of this article and not in the infobox.--92.224.147.19 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're wrong. "If there are informations about other groups"? No, this article is not about the very details, numbers of Silesians-Polish, Polish-German, Czech-German, Polish-Belarusians etc. This information is nonsense in this article, this is not place for these informations. Besides, do not pretend that you have only census data for Silesians or Kashubians, these same source (census) show data about other groups, for example Polish-German, Polish-Belarusians etc, so please do not cheat. Third case: Poles, German, Czech (Bohemian) - no difference for this case, these three nations occupied these areas for centuries, so your opinions are not neutral. Franek K. (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is an encyclopedia. All informations can be added which are available. Especially if this is just a note at the end. You're right about Poles, Czechs and Slovaks. I added this informations and corrected the exorbitant numbers to this groups.--92.224.147.19 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very serious. Yes, this is an encyclopedia but this is article about Slavs, not about result of censuses about relation Silesians-Poles or Poles-Belarusians. This is not place for these informations. Secondly: not all Silesians who lives in Germany are Germans, why you falsify the number of Silesians? >800,000 is number only for Silesian nationality in Poland and Czech Republic, only nationality, not all Slavic Silesians. Franek K. (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The most people coming from Silesia to Germany were Aussiedler. They were and are Germans. Maybe there were some vanishingly low of Slavic immigrants, too. But it doesn't matter as far as there aren't any sources about such a supposition.--92.230.251.197 (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1. One source show 847,000 (published in 2013[1]), other source show 817,000 (published in 2011), both by stat.gov.pl. In Czech Republic - 21,556, so total number of Silesian nationality is 868,556 or 838,556. And this is number only for Silesian nationality, not all Slavic Silesians.
2. About German Silesians - this is your opinion. Please give sources showing that Silesians living in Germany are Germans and not Slavs. This is your OR. Knowledge of the German language has nothing to do with ethnic things.
3. your changes are reverted because must to be consensus. You delete sources with the exception of censuses, for this must to be consensus. Necessarily.

You can not restore your new changes without consensus, otherwise it will be considered as pushing own version without consensus, and also against Wikipedia:CYCLE and will be quickly reverted and treated as wandalism. Franek K. (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you post the new source when you changed the number? If you would, I and everyone else would know, where the number is from. Silesians (Schlesier) in Germany are Germans and I can give you some sources. I hope, you can a little bit German.

Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, publisher Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, chapter Kollektive Erinnerung im Wandel link

Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas. Schlesien., publisher Siedler Verlag: "(...) deutschen Schlesier stellten 1970 die größte Gruppe der Aussiedler in der Bundesrepublik"

Aussiedler treffen auf Einheimische, autor Ulrich Reitemeier: "Mit dem Betreiben der Ausreise nach Deutschland intensivieren die Deutschstämmigen die Identifikation mit Deutschland und mit deutscher Kultur. (...) Eine starke Selbstidentifikation als Deutscher ist vor allem zum Zeitpunkt des Ankommens sehr ausgeprägt."

I have also some more books at home, which has the topic about German Silesians coming back to Germany, but if you or someone else will read something about this topic, this should be enough.

Look also the German law about expellees: link - Till 1991 the people from Poland - most notably from Silesia - came to Germany as Aussiedler if they were Germans. So the Silesians in Germany (especially the one in the census 1970) are German Silesians. This kind of Silesian is a nation is not our matter. It has nothing to do with us. We are German Silesians in Germany or simply Germans.

Ask also the Silesian organisation in Germany Landsmannschaft Schlesien, if they are Slavs. Or the Bund der Vertriebenen, if you like to.

So this is not my opinion or an OR, but a well-known fact. Sure, some immigrants could be here, too. But without sources, it's still not noteworthy. Especially because I wrote, that this shouldn't be confused with the German Silesians. Because this is another group and has nothing to do with those in Poland (read also what German Silesians write about this topic).--92.224.144.88 (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

1. I know, many (3-5.5 million) Silesians have been resettled from Lower Silesia and partly Upper Silesia to inside Germany after IIWW but not all them are Germanic Silesians. A bigger problem was in the 70s, voluntary departure, most of them are Slavic Silesians who wanted a better life in West (not communist) Germany. The third great wave of emigration from Silesia to Germany was after 2004 - EU enlargement, 200,000-300,000 Slavic Silesians went to Germany. In Germany live a lot of Slavic Silesians, number of 870,000 (in Poland and Czech Republic) is no total number of Slavic Silesians, as much again live in Germany.
2. You showed source, ok but nothing has changed. To delete other sources, relying whole article on data from only one - censuses, must be consensus. It should be also consensus for too detailed data, for example Silesians-Poles or Poles-Belarusians, Belarusians-Russians etc etc. These data are unnecessary. Please wait for opinion other users and consensus. I wrote earlier: your every such change without consensus will be quickly reverted. Franek K. (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I showed sources, but your opinion is still without any source but just your way of thinking. I think this is called OR, isn't it? The details are needed, because some groups are counted more than once. The sum of 868,000 Silesians, 233,000 Kashubians and 37,393,000 Poles are not 38,494,000 people but less. The reader need this information to know that. The stand at the moment is you delete informations for no apparent reason.--92.224.144.242 (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Now, I do not know the number of Slavic Silesians in Germany, I not introduced a number of Slavic Silesians in Germany to article, so - what OR?

Numbers from censuses include only people with the nationality. Nationality is not tantamount to ethnic affiliation to the Slavs. Your version show only data of "nations by population". Do not includes all Slavs and also not includes immigration/emmigration and includes not only Slavs. Besides, nationality can include people of different roots (Slavs, Germanic), this is the case Silesians, Moravians, Kashubs, Sorbs etc. For example: Silesian nationality brings together people with roots of Germanic and Slavic, who feel Silesians as nation. See sources about "nationality", term of nationality there is no strict relation with genetics, roots, etc; nationality is personal feeling of a person to belong to a nation. According to European Commision (office chief for the organization of censuses in the states of EU), nationality is subjective feeling, such also was the question about nationality in a census. One of the existing rules, after translation from other language: "Nationality is a declarative (based on a subjective feeling) feature of every human individual, expressing his or her emotional, cultural or genealogical (due to the origin of the parents) to a particular nation". So, for example, group of people - "Poles" among historians that the Slavs - but, for example, "Polish nationality" from censuses does not mean belonging to the Slavs.

As I said earlier - is still a matter of too detailed data to main article of Slavs, censuses data about for example number of Poles-Belarusians and dozens of other combinations, these data are unnecessary. Franek K. (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A census is the only way we can say something about a number of this groups. Your argumentations is just OR as long as you are just writing stuff without giving any sources. But maybe you're right and Silesian means just a heterogeneous group and shouldn't be listed here at all? Anyway, this nationalistic genetic stuff dates from the last century. Look at the very begining in this article "The Slavs are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group (...), who speak the Indo-European Slavic languages, and share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds." For the avoidance of doubt, with this nationalistic way of thinking we cannot write any informations about any numbers of Poles, Germans, Russians and so on. Or maybe we should take from all people over the world some blood and test it?--92.224.144.242 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing sources by historians and researchers, and replace them with censuses numbers about "nationality" (subjective feeling), that the entire article was based on only the censuses, is very much disputed, if not writing that is absurd. Franek K. (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all that can be said. A census is the best source. Third parties cannot tell the people who they are. Especially, it's not up to you to decide who the people are. This nationalistic genetic stuff is inappropriate.--92.224.144.242 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP is right. Additionally, those higher numbers are based on a source which is not even about Silesians but about Kashubians and the number is mentioned only in passing. Talk about cherry-picking. Volunteer Marek  20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for delete sources other than censuses. This is a serious and controversial change, must be consensus among more users.

You also removed scientific work about Kashubinas from section of Kashubians.

Why you mark the Silesians as Poles based on sources showing Silesians as a nationality? You clearly and openly pushing POV. Franek K. (talk) 21:02, 17 October 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.