Talk:Slavs/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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 Kashubians 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)

What are you talking about !!???!!! You *added* this information. You've been engaged in a slow moving edit war on this issue for months, if not years. If this is indeed a "serious and controversial change", then yeah, you need to get consensus. To *include it*. Especially since the source you're using is not even about the subject! See WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

As far as consensus goes, obviously there are more people here objecting to your changes, than supporting them. So you are the one who is failing to follow consensus (instead of engaging in a lot of talk page WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And I moved the designation of Silesians because even the damn footnote says that sources show Silesians as part of Poles! In otherwords, I'm undoing somebody (yours?) original research. If the sources say one thing, then we don't put something completely else in the text and then add a footnote with the correct information.

And let's keep in mind that it hasn't been that long since you got blocked for editwarring and tendentious editing after multiple warnings. This is *exactly* what you're doing here. And you're accusing *me* of POV pushing?

Please self revert, and seek consensus here on talk page. Volunteer Marek  21:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no matter who changed many months ago, I'm or Pope or President of United States. Important what is now. IP made ​​a new change - remove sources except censuses. This is new change. This is a serious and controversial change, must be consensus among more users, not only IP and you. Secondly: sources - data from censuses in Poland and Czech Republic nothing wrote that Silesians are Poles, censuses show Silesians as nationality. Also, you pushing POV in many articles, you have in your account many blocks, I have only one. So how do you write about my person, see for yourself. Franek K. (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There was never any consensus for the changes you introduced. You cannot claim "consensus" on the basis of "I reverted". In fact, that's completely backwards. Your edits are problematic and have been repeatedly challanged and reverted y other users. It is up to you now to provide a sufficient rationale for them, to argue for the sources you're trying to use and to convince others that your edits improve, rather then denigrate, the article. You can edit constructively and you can start by not making personal attacks or inflammatory accusations.

And on one hand we have "IP and me", on the other hand we have... just you. And that's "consensus" according to you?  Volunteer Marek  00:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just created an account, so I not anymore an random IP. I already gave a lot of informations that the German Silesians are something else that this Slavic one. So please stop to make us slavic... Your changes are without any sources and downright ridiculous. You ignore discussions, ignore arguments and ignore sources. It seems, that you are living in a world of your own. And just an information for you: there is no rule to keep the status quo. If there is something wrong, everyone can change this. If there is something old, everyone can replace it with a new source.--RealSchlesinger (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For now, I not continue the edit-war about remove sources other than censuses. I wait for greater consensus among more users, not only IP (now as new user RealSchlesinger) and Volunteer Marek. But moved Silesians to Poles is vandalism and POV. Sources - censuses show Silesians as nationality. Volunteer Marek, please stop vandalism. Franek K. (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, two editors is more of a consensus that just one. Stop claiming "consensus" when you obviously are edit warring against it. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Two users against one is not clear consensus especially if someone asks for a third opinion. Franek K. (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Too detailed

After changes by IP (now as new user RealSchlesinger), Poles, Silesians, Kashubians and Moravians have too detailed data, ie. Silesian-Polish number of people, Moravian-Czech, etc etc. These data are too detailed for main article of Slavs. For these too detailed data are place in articles about these nationalites, not here. Secondly: why only four nationalites have detailed data? POV - favoritism or diminution of the number or importance of the nationality. @RealSchlesinger: please add informations about other nationalites, for example Bulgarians-other, Ukrainians-Russians etc, many sources show these data. Thirdly, we wait for opinion by other users, if other users also think than these data are too detailed for main article or data will not be completed by RealSchlesinger, data will be transferred to other articles. Franek K. (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are simply removing well sourced info per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since when "too detailed" has become a reason to remove sourced text? And it's not RealSchlesinger's responsibility to add info about Bulgarians. "Only four" - what is that suppose to mean or prove?

So to answer your question, "other users" think that these data are fine for this article. Volunteer Marek  20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is one but if any information does not fit into the main article, they can be transferred to other. Other users have right to own opinion. Why forbid others to speak? Why do you say for others if you not waiting for their opinion? Franek K. (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So you did revert it per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I guess the honesty is refreshing. And nobody's forbidding anyone to speak. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT say "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. There is actually quite a lot of true and sourceable information out in this world that does not belong on Wikipedia, or in a particular article. For example, Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, trivia, or how to information". Too detailed data, ie. Silesian-Polish number of people in main article of Slavs is trivia, nothing more. Franek K. (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a note to info in the infobox! Anyway, if you really think that it's too detailed we can remove the info all together, since, per sources, slavic Silesians are a subgroup of Poles. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What? "Silesians are a subgroup of Poles"? Dual nationality in part of peoples does not mean "Silesians are a subgroup of Poles". Dual nationality there is no relationship with dividing into subgroups. It is completely illogical. So, the man who declares Polish and Silesian nationality is Silesian: a subgroup of Poles and the man who declares Silesian and Polish nationality is Pole: a subgroup of Silesians? WOW. Please, teach a little - Wikipedia:Competence is required. Franek K. (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that last part made me snortle my coffee on my keyboard. Volunteer Marek  21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, yes, a person can declare dual nationality if they so wish. But ethnically and linguistically, Silesians are a sub-group of Poles. Moreover, this "dual nationality" is not recognized by either Poland, Czech Republic, European Union or any other entity. Volunteer Marek  21:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, is not. Ethnically Silesians are a sub-group of Poles? How? Silesian tribes lived in Silesia few centuries before X century when Silesia was incorporated into Poland on only ~300 years. For most of 1300-year history, Silesia had nothing to do with Poland, Silesia in Poland was from X century to 1335 and from XX century (not whole). Nationality is not recognized by either Poland, Czech Republic, European Union? Even if, it does not matter, nationality is not citizenship and has nothing to do with politics. Franek K. (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh no. In the X century there really were neither Silesians nor really Poles. There was a continuum of mutually intelligible Western Slavic languages from Moravia up to Pomerania. "Poles", "Czechs", "Slovaks", "Kashubians" and a few others, evolved gradually out of this group (there might have already been some distinction between "Poles" and "Czechs" back then but it was much smaller than today), as did "Silesians" whom most sources regard as subset of Poles. I've already provided a source. You haven't. Volunteer Marek  21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no old reliable sources that write that to period of XVIII-XX century Silesians regard as subset of Poles. Newer sources exist but this is only German or Polish propaganda (and later works based on this propaganda shits). Even though it does not matter. Now, there are sources which shows Silesians as part of Poles, Czechs, Germans and SIlesian nationality. There no reliable sources which wrote: all Silesians (in Poland, Czech Republic, Germany) are Poles. Franek K. (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course this isn't true. This is not "German or Polish propaganda", nor is it based on "propaganda shits" (whatever that is). The usual distinction is between Silesians, an ethnic subgroup of Poles, and German Silesians. Volunteer Marek  23:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

German and Polish propaganda? Sorry, but as long as you don't accept any source at all, because it's in your opinion just propaganda, you shouldn't work here but blog with other conspiracy theorists. I really don't care about you Slavic stuff, but I just searched a little bit to know about your problem and found this. This topic was already in the European Court of Justice. And the adjudication was: There is no Silesian nation. Franek, maybe this is now an European propaganda? :D Honestly, find yourself a new hobby. German Silesians are surely not Slavic and surely not a nation. German Silesians have surely nothing in common with this stuff and we surely don't want be involved or declared as Slavic. We are simple Germans, originally from Schlesien. Anyway, I will write an article about German Silesians, because it's not the same as the group(s) described in Silesians. --RealSchlesinger (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RealSchlesinger wrote "This topic was already in the European Court of Justice. And the adjudication was: There is no Silesian nation" - thank you - you gave a perfect example of Polish propaganda. Yes, Polish press wrote about this but later came true, see document by European Court of Justice. European Court of Justice never not wrote "There is no Silesian nation", decision concerned the absence of registration of ZLNŚ, European Court of Justice did not see the breaking of the law by the Polish government, application by ZLNŚ has been rejected - see original document by European Court of Justice. RealSchlesinger, thank you.

RealSchlesinger, thank you - again. Yes, Silesians are multi-ethnic group, there are German Silesians, two groups of Slavic Silesians (Polish, Czech) and group Silesians declaring Silesian nationality. Yes. We can cry because of that. Volunteer Marek trying push version "All Silesians = only Poles". Yes, RealSchlesinger, do not change the fact that we can not connect all Silesians only to the Poles. Franek K. (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the Silesians are multi-ethnic (sic), why do you try to make all of them just Slavic? There should be a distinct boundary between those groups creating articles German Silesians, Polish Silesians and Czech Silesians. Nevertheless, your tin foil hat theories are in the wrong place.--RealSchlesinger (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Catherine?

Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg is not a very slavic name, isn't it? She's not a Slav! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.146.26 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I replaced her with Elizabeth of Russia. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 27, 2015; 16:50 (UTC)

Famous Slavs

It is forgotten to put in category of famous Slavs instead of some contemposrary the real historically important persons that contributed significantly to civilization Chopin, Copernicus, Lomonosov, Peter the Great, Kutuzov, Sholokhov, Ivo Andric, Miroslav Krleza, Franz Kafka, Tchaikovsky, Milankovic, Mohorovicic, Mestrovic, Borodin, Rachmaninoff, Antonin Dvorak, Lobachevsky, Bubka, Lenin, Suvorov etc.

Why even have an ethnic group box?

Slavs are not a singular ethnic group, yet by having an ethnic group box with "images of famous Slavs" we are implying they are. it's a bit absurd. Also, the number of Slavs is greatly exaggerated through double-counting. 98.242.245.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Tymoshenko is a Jewess (Jude)

A Jewess with dyed hair and a synthetic plait. She has nothing to do with Slavs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.99.229.72 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Slavs can be Jewish too. Slavs are not required to follow any particular religion. CodeCat (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jews typically did not consider themselves Slavs and Slavs did not consider themselves Jews. Jews considered themselves an ethnic group and are one. Please read up on this. 98.242.245.6 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Judaism is not only a religion, my dear. So, Tymoshenko is not a Slave. Do you understand ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.114.228 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone claim that Timoshenko was a slave, lol. In any case - She's 1/4 Jewish at most, being mostly Latvian (Grigyanis) and Russian (Telegina). IDiO (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

'Please change Pan-Slavism, a movement which came into prominence in the mid-19th century, emphasized the common heritage and unity of all the Slavic peoples. The main focus was in the Balkans where the South Slavs had been ruled for centuries by other empires: the Byzantine Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Venice. The Russian Empire used Pan-Slavism as a political tool; as did the Soviet Union, which gained political-military influence and control over most Slavic-majority nations between 1945 and 1948 and retained a hegemonic role until the period 1989–1991. to Pan-Slavism, a movement which came into prominence in the mid-19th century, emphasized the common heritage and unity of all Slavic peoples. The main focus was in the Balkans where the South Slavs had been ruled for centuries by other empires: the Byzantine Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Venice. In Bohemia (modern day Czech Republic and Slovakia), where the relationship between nation and state remained ambivalent as a product of long-term developments of society, Pan-Slavism flourished. Jan Kollar, a Slovak scholar, developed Pan-Slavic ideals and promoted Slav reciprocity to create a united culture and language against the Austrian Empire in his work Slavy Dcera (The Slavic Daughter). The Soviet Union used Pan-Slavism as a political tool, which gained political-military influence and control over most Slavic majority nations between 1945 and 1948, while establishing the Eastern bloc post-World War II, and retained a hegemonic role until the period 1989—1991.

under the Pan-Slavism section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#Pan-Slavism

Sources Ladislav Holý, The Little Czech and the Great Czech Nation: National Identity and the Post- Communist Transformation of Society, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).</ref>

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pishcal — ♣ 16:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2015

image32 = Jan Hus.jpg| caption32 = [[Jan Hus|J.Hus] Vbotka1 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The following people are not Slavs

Klitchko (Etinzon) is a Jew, Tchaikovsky is Finno-Ugric, and so is Mendeleev and Peter the Great, Elizabeth of Russia is German (oh, GOD, how did you NOT know this one?!), Sharapova is Tatar (therefore Turkic), Dostoyevsky is part Finno-Ugric and Tatar, Olga of Kiev was either of Swedish or Cuman descent (it is known that Sveinald, her son, was indeed half-Cuman, therefore half-Turkic), either way she wasn't Slavic... Uh, you really should get your facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.92.137.249 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

T. Proeski

I do believe that Tose Proeski was Aromanian, not Macedonian, thus nor Slavic. Probably a good thing to take him off the infobox, replace him with another Slavic Macedonian. 62.162.176.154 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

True, Proeski is not ethnic Slav, but Aromanian (Vlach).--Zoupan 17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Mess

The article is a mess. There should only be small, summarized, and comprehensive sections regarding mostly history, geography and culture. Instead of having half of the article about the approach in research and various views and hypothesis, that information should be further read where appropriate, Early Slavs.--Zoupan 17:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, good work with transferring the content! --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox images

There should be one line with the most notable rulers.--Zoupan 17:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think the best format for the portrait photos of significant individuals is to organise it by birth dates. This removes any bias and renders redundant any POV-pushing discussions as to "who is more noteworthy" (otherwise: I'd argue it is extremely biased to place John Paul II as the first person, but also controversial considering his despicable attitudes regarding how society should be run - see how that could quickly turn into pointless arguing between users?). Besides, the chronological layout seems to be preferred on Wikipedia anyway. For these reasons I've re-organised the images in the infobox so that they are in chronological order... and phew, I'm glad that's over (checking all birth dates and editing all that formatting so that it fits was a pain). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Slavs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120623215020/http://www.rusichi-center.ru:80/e/2663163-chechentsyi-trebuyut-snesti-pamyatnik-yuriyu-budano to http://www.rusichi-center.ru/e/2663163-chechentsyi-trebuyut-snesti-pamyatnik-yuriyu-budano
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091207203605/http://www.lib.msu.edu:80/sowards/balkan/lecture1.html to http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

History

I note that there's a solid millennium of history missing from this article. The page skips straight from the 9th to the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.251.193 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Slavs without state" need Silesians

Slavs without state, there are Lemkos, Moravians, Kashubians, but where are Silesians? Our population is bigger than almost every slavs there.

Poland: 2 million, of which 847,000 officially declared Silesian nationality Czech Republic: no data, 21,556 declared Silesian nationality Germany: unknown (historical data: 3.6 million in 1950; 2.4 million Silesians in West Germany in 1970).

- you are not a nation but some of you are Wasserpolacken at most — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.223.25 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a very ignorant thing to say and it's all very subjective, as similar things could be said about other Slavic minority groups. Besides, Wikipedia is not a place to get your personal point of view across, but where we show other views of media outlets/encylopedias/scholars/other groups or institutions out there using sources that they have provided us with through centuries of literature. There are countless sources showing us that Silesians as a group have a fairly strong separatist identity, arguably much stronger than most other groups mentioned in the "Slavs without a state" section. For this reason Silesians should be included on that list... in fact, I'm quite sure they were (I took part in reorganising the mess that used to be in that infobox), however it looks like someone removed them. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So as long as you have something written you believe it is true. That is very typical for you communists - all that lack of afterthought. Anyway the majority of Silesians considers themselves to be Polish, just as their ancestors, who fought in the uprisings, did. There are of course “Ślązakowcy” and some agents of foreign powers, who claim otherwise. Unfortunately the tern “Silesian” is already occupied but “Wasserpolacken” is still free to take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.223.25 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A Silesian person claims that Silesians should be included in the infobox as a Slavic minority group - you show up to disagree with that, then after denying the data provided by said Silesian person you say that most Silesians identify as Poles... Hilarious! Anyway, I guess you probably haven't heard of the fact that people can identify as more than one ethnic group? Pushing aside your fantasies, I'm sorry to inform you that statistically in 2011 as many as 847 000 people declared Silesian ethnicity in Poland (376 000 called themselves only Silesian, whereas 431 000 identified as Silesian and Polish at the same time). Many of those who chose Polish and Silesian also selected the latter as their primary option. On a side note, please keep your assumptions about my views to yourself, thank you. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Slavs are not proto-Aryans

1) The argument that Slavs were proto-Aryans is a nonsensical and highly dangerous/inflammatory statement as it opens up a whole slew of eugenics or genetic-superiority implications-- all early main Aryan cultures (Indic, Iranic, Germanic) continue to survive and Slavs have no place in this regard whatsoever; therefore, an abuse of the Indo-Aryan identity (Leopold, J.. (1974). British Applications of the Aryan Theory of Race to India, 1850-1870. The English Historical Review, 89(352), 578–603. ; Cannon, G.. (1998). [Review of Aryans and British India]. Anthropological Linguistics, 40(2), 348–351.).

2) The identity of Slavs are tied to their language, and culturolinguistically independent or correlant to Byzantium (Du Feu, V.. (1994). [Review of The Origins of the Slavs: A Linguist's View]. The Slavonic and East European Review, 72(1), 157–159.; Fisher, R. L.. (1977). IE *po- in Slavic and Iranian. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Sprachforschung, 91(2), 219–230.; Dvornik, F.. (1960). [Review of The Origins of Russia]. The American Historical Review, 65(2), 347–349.).

The reversion is very opinionated and biased view of slavs. My changes corrected for the existing bias, and provided objectivity.

Few of the many references available are provided. My corrections were based on fact and anthropological evidence. Please un-revert the changes as soon as possible.

Based on of your edits diff1, I think you're confused about the names like Indo-European, Aryan and Indo-Aryan. Indo-European is not equal to Aryan or Indo-Aryan. Slavs are IE-speaking peoples. What's wrong with that fact? Also it seems that you try to disrupt this article with your anti-Slavic POV diff2. --Zyma (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Klitschkos are Jews

with ther last name Etinzon, remove the jews from the gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.223.25 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why can Jews not be Slavs? Religion doesn't have anything to do with it. CodeCat (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

He means ethnic Jews, not followers of Judaism. However, I agree with you, Ashkenazi Jews and Slavs have mixed throughout centuries - with each other and other ethnic groups. Many other individuals in the infobox have mixed ancestry too. Everyone on this planet has mixed ancestry to a degree and there is no such thing as completely "pure blood" (and even if there was, I don't see why it should be desirable or undesirable). Thus most ethnic groups are distinct or similar thanks to their languages and culture, not their genetics. Slavs are first and foremost a cultural entity, their relatively shared genetic ancestry comes second. The Klitschkos are Ukrainians, therefore they are Slavs, regardless of whether they have some Jewish ancestry or not. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Не еврей. Еврей - Коломойский.37.194.189.130 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Эскапистка

Remove images of individuals in infobox?

I think it would be best to remove all of the images in the infobox from this article. It is extremely controversial as to who is "popular" or "important" enough to be included in such a gallery (or not Slavic enough according to some people's standards), so it only causes disputes and edit warring. It is even more annoying when users make edits to replace someone they don't like with another person - usually messing up the chronological order of the entire thing in the process. Last but not least, these images don't really add anything to the encyclopedic value of the article. They are reminiscent of the nationalist self-promotion of earlier Wikipedia articles (and current ones regarding some Eastern European countries such as Poland), where all but positive things would be posted about a particular country or region - in this case, it screams: "hey, look at us Slavs, we had so many famous people, we are amazing", etc. Who is with me on this? And before someone opposed to this says I'm hating on Slavs or something, I just wanna point out that I'm a Slav myself. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see the current central discussion about exactly this proposition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was just reminded about this earlier by Iryna Harpy, so I should have left a link to this discussion here as well. Thanks. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

150 million Slavs in Russia?

How there can be 150 million Slavs in Russia while the country's total population is around 143 million and contains non-Slavic people? Russia includes ethnic count of her citizens in censuses and this information must be changed by referencing the newest census.

You forgot the Russian Armed Forces (771,000 active personnel). 1 Russian soldier is comparable to 10 others and this exactly makes a difference of 7 million. :-) Ditinili (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Laffs aside, I do think this needs to be checked into properly, so I'm going to tag it for better sources. As it stands, there have been difficulties extrapolating realistic figures for the Russians article. If we take into consideration that WP:CALC has been applied to include diasporic Slavs from the various ethnic groups, figures for Russians need to be treated in the manner. Having looked at the sources being used, the number of ethnic Russians as opposed to citizens of Russia are being conflated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Repetition of multiple sentences

There are currently many sentences that appear both in the lead and in the section "Overview". Since the lead is itself supposed to be an overview, I would suggest that the "Overview" section be eliminated and that anything in that section that is not already in the lead be merged into the lead. Loraof (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Loraof, you are correct. The entire overview section is completely redundant, so I've merged it with the lead as you proposed. Feel free to check the changes and add anything I may have missed. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job! And so quick! Loraof (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that you've done an excellent job, Samotny Wędrowiec. Now the lead is reasonable size and informative, and provides the overview succinctly. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, much improved. On a related note, I believe there used to be templates below the infobox such that images could not be placed in the early sections, leading to the mini-gallery. I'm spreading those images out to eliminate the gallery. The text jumps from the 9th to 19th century, and some of the images pertain to that long gap, but I've tried to put them where they make some sense. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Next on the agenda is cleaning up the lists into tables, rather than just multicolumns which is throwing the layout of the page. I'll get onto this ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this, both of you. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox ethnic group

I am against the use of this infobox in this article. I think a map such as this, or an ethnographic map, is enough for the lead.--Zoupan 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. There are a number of articles along similar lines which don't really fit the 'ethnic group' infobox (such as Afro-American peoples of the Americas, European Americans, White Africans of European ancestry). I suspect that it's something to be addressed in a more centralised venue. The definition of ethnicity predominantly encompasses more specific cultural groups, so I do think that following the lines of Germanic peoples is a better way to present the content. The list of estimates per ethnic group would be better presented in a table in the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, you haven't given a single reason as to why we should not use the infobox. I might even support the idea, but it would be nice of you to actually explain why you're doing this instead of removing content from pages and saying that you're against it. As for what defines an ethnic group - it's all socially constructed anyway, there are a ridiculous amount of ways to define ethnicity - even more than there are ways of defining nations. If the standard on Wikipedia is that nations are synonymous to ethnic groups, then I guess Slavs are not an ethnic group. If not, then Slavs fit most definitions of an ethnic group. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I boldly removed it as Iryna Harpy summed it up. See Latin peoples and Germanic peoples. The infobox is suited for single ethnic groups, not ethnolinguistical groups (certainly not if it includes over 10 major ethnic groups). What defines an ethnic group is one thing, the use of the infobox is another matter. Sections on nations and ethnic groups are to be expanded. I see this article's future as it should be, a summary of the concept of Slavs, not a (1) ethnic group in which we list every single theory, study, census and historical event. A future List of Slavic ethnic groups would take care of such intricate detail regarding the actual ethnic groups. None of the data of the infobox has been removed, simply moved to another section.--Zoupan 18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I do think it's an improvement. There's a little work to do in order to set up the list, but Wikipedia is an ongoing project, and sometimes it takes a bold move to kick-start things (so long as there's consensus amongst editors that it's a way forward rather than backward). It also provides an opportunity to go through the refs, verify them, assess them for meeting with RS standards, and build on them in order to improve the quality of the content and comprehensibility for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Image WP:PERTINENCE

I've reverted this addition of 2 images as being redundant decorations of no particular relevance in enhancing the content of this article for the second time. Please see the edit summaries here, here, and here.

Personally, I don't find a generic looking image of Roman Catholics parading down a street in Sanok, carrying a description of "Poles are predominately Roman Catholic" particularly edifying for the reader when it's crushing up against a list of 'The main Slavic ethnic groups by religion' which really needs to be turned into a table to be easily read.

Secondly, can the EthnicRussiansInTheFormerUSSR.png map of what has been captioned "Ethnic Russians in former Soviet Union states according to the most recent census" be deemed appropriate in the context of an umbrella article providing an overview of the related, yet distinct, ethnic groups who make up the greater constituent group known as 'Slavs'? In and of itself, the map is badly sourced and can only based on very dated census information from the various ex-Soviet countries where Russian diasporas exist. It may be fine for the article on Russians on the proviso that the difficulties in establishing Russian diasporic figures be elaborated on in the text. Mind you, on that note, Tobby72, your input on the "Russians" article would be greatly appreciated as there have been edit wars over what constitutes Russian 'ethnicity', and the article has just come to a stalemate situation where it has been reduced to a mess due to some editors who refuse to acknowledge Pushkin as being 'Russian' based on some OR arguments that read more like the One-drop rule rather than anything based in reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

němci =

The article says "in contrast to the Slavic word denoting "foreign people" – němci, meaning "mumbling, murmuring people" (without referencing a source), but as far as I know as a native speaker of Russia "němci" means "mute, silent" rather than "mumbling". Can this be fixed? Netrat (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the same in Polish. I'm not sure where this previous info is from, but I think pretty much any native Slavic speaker will agree with what you've said. I've changed the article to reflect this. Still, even though it's common sense to us, it would be good to find a source for this as well. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think this wiktionary article is probably a good enough source, isn't it? That's a wikimedia project, and it shows the Proto-Slavic reconstruction from which all the modern Slavic names for Germans descend. --IDiO (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, needs to be referenced at Slavs (ethnonym), though.--Zoupan 21:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)--Zoupan 21:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The informaton validity

The statement "The West Slavs have origins in early Slavic tribes which settled in Central Europe after Germanic peoples had left this area during the migration period" is doubtful. There are in modern Germany many toponyms with obvious Slavic etymology (Leupzig, Rostok, Dresden, Lubek, Pomerania). The sensible explanation has to be longtime Slavic presence in East Germany while the ancestors of Germanic people sit on the Jutland and the Scandinavia.

--В.Галушко (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Leupzig and other cities were founded (or named) after migration period. БСЭ also says " Во 2-й половине 1-го тыс. Славяне заняли Верхнее Поднепровье и его северную периферию, принадлежавшие ранее восточным балтам и финно-угорским племенам, а также земли по нижней Эльбе и юго-западному побережью Балтийского моря" Cathry (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, East Germany has a long history of Slavic settlement - with groups such as the Sorbs continuing to have a cultural presence there today. However, this doesn't change the commonly accepted theory that even these areas were previously inhabited by Germanic peoples, as the early Slavs are said to have arrived in Eastern Europe (and later spread to the Southeast and West) from deeper within Eurasia. Most of the other theories about this, some of which claiming that Slavs originated on the lands of present-day Poland, are not as widely accepted and generally have much less evidence to back themselves up. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that some of them are almost completely baseless. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"Slavs originated on the lands of present-day Poland"-it is mainstream theory. And early archaeological cultures often show multi-ethnicity, so it is impossible to draw clear bordelines between territories. Cathry (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Poorly sourced:

• Sorbs are Catholic or Protestant;
• There exist Protestant Silesians in Poland;
• Many Russsians are nominally Orthodox, but the majority isn't active. I believe that the number of parishes in Ukraine is higher than in Russia (to be verified).
• Slavic Czechs were rather Hussites opressed by Austrian Catholics, see the Battle of White Mountain. Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Good comments, feel free to add a few more lines of sourced content about this in the religion section. I would help if I had more time, especially since it's interesting stuff, but my hands are full at the moment. In any case, as long as you come up with the appropriate sources, I support the inclusion of these topics in the article. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have sources.Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Early Slavs

No mentioning of Kievan Rus at all in the middle ages section?? They were for a few centuries the largest Slavic state around until the Mongol invasion put an end to it. A1979s (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Source falsification

The source[2], which only says on page 5th that there is 3.9-4.2 million Serbs in the diaspora, was firstly falsified for a total number of over 13 million. Today Zoupan made a new flasification of this source for over 12 million and even said to check the source after he had made the falsification. At a maximum, the Serbian Diaspora Ministry says on other pages that the diaspora consists of 4.5 million ethnic Serbs, including this in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.82.204 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

12 million is the number in diaspora and in Serbia together. In any case, this number must be in sync with the article "Serbs". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not the number of the removed and falsified source. In the current case it is not in sync neither with the article, nor with the infobox of the article, which counts about 9 million in all countries. The deleted foreign source of under 10 million perfectly syncs with that. In the main article the only sources that state the 12 million figure always count 7.5 million Serbs in Serbia.[3] And any lower estimate is deleted here. This is from where the gap comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.82.204 (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Edit-warring on inflating your own ethnic group's number including the national minorities is a tendentious edit deviating statistics. Total abuse of WP:BRD, either silence or personal attacks towards other users. What is your reason for removing the sources stating 9-10 million or are you going to at least state something? So far not stated, then stop acting fanatic and your removals of lower estimates. Your ethnic group is not the only one with privileges on number inflation in the table. I agree for removing the whole table if the tendency continues. As long as the inflated 12 million is kept, if you think that some of the sources are not reliable or suitable post it on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead of edit-warring. Thank you.Judist (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Focal source of slaves for Otto the Great?

Hello Velivieras, please could you please clarify your claim that the Slavic lands were "the focal source of slaves for Otto the Great"? It is the 10th century and for example Bohemia was not part of the Holy Roman Empire until 11th century, it was the independent Principality of Bohemia, at some times they fought numerous batttles against each other, and in other times it paid tribute exchange for peace threaty, but not in the form of slaves, there were some border raids on both sides, but I cant imagine that you mean this to be described as the focal source of slaves. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jirka.h23. This source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slave states in the definition of slave that "This sense development arose in the consequence of the wars waged by Otto the Great and his successors against the Slavs, a great number of whom they took captive and sold into slavery." And this source https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/The-bishops-of-Rome#toc276189 states that "The new word for slave, sclavus, was derived from the source of many slaves, the Slavic lands of the east." So the first source claims that the word slave derives from actions of Otto the Great and his successors and the other states that Slavic lands were major source of slaves. Like I said in my edit, mentioning the actors of slave trade at the time is not fruitful because slave trade was universal and big part of economy everywhere in Europe and in the world.(talk) 16:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you're probably right, Otto the Great would really took many slaves from the Slav lands, I remembered that the whole west Slavic tribes were extincted during these times, like for example Polabian Slavs (except for Sorbs), maybe you are right, mentioning all the actors of slave trade is useless, this was common form of trade in the world, other example could be Crimean Tatar raids into today's Ukraine and Russia where the main purpose was also capture of slaves, the number of people from the Slavic lands was estimated about 3 million. List all the actors is here probably unnecessary, now I am also for deletion.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)