User talk:Sedcrw
Your recent editing history at Slavs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -Vipz (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, the contemporary source itself states ethnicity separately from linguistic which is a lot different from the term ethnolinguistic because this term is used when the language is the main basis for an ethnic group(which doesn't make any sense to create a separate term for that as language is the main basis for every ethnicity but that is another topic). Also, I would like to know why would I need sources to prove that Slavs are in fact an ethnicity because that topic is simply irrelevant as it is widely accepted more often than not that Slavs are ethnicity so there are no articles nor anything explaining that. It would be like proving that Germans(Bavarians, Saxons, Swabians...), Italians(Sicilians, Venetians...), or Han Chinese(Sichuanese, Wu, Hakka...) are one ethnicity. Sedcrw (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Except that Germans, Italians and Chinese all live in one country, and Slavs do not. Slavs are an equivalent of Balts for example. What you're doing is trying to prove Slavs are not linguistically connected at all, contrary to what ethnolinguistic group says: "a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language". Now, there's not a single Slavic language, but these languages are pretty close to each other. Second thing, Germans, Italians and Han Chinese are an equivalent of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Serbs, etc. They are their own ethnic groups and nations. WP:SKYISBLUE (not needing to cite obvious things) does not apply on serious topics, when multiple people challenge your edit, it's not "obvious". Surely, if it were so "widely accepted", you'd be able to find a few sources to prove your point. It is widely accepted that the sky is blue, and googling "sky is blue" gives over 2 billion results. -Vipz (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Would Germans and Italians be considered ethnolinguistic groups in 1850 before unification?
- 2. The term is more often used to describe an ethnic group where language is a dominant factor(which is actually the case in every ethnic group) like the ethnoreligious group where religion is the dominant factor.
- 3. Neither is there a single Chinese language(Mandarin is only official), however after unification Italians adopted one of their languages to be the Italian language which is Tuscan, while Hoch Deutch(high german or standard german) is constructed from various german languages.
- 4. No. Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and Serbs are equivalent to Bavarians, Swabians, Sicilians, Venetians, Wu, and Hakka, while Slav is equivalent to Han Chinese, German and Italian. There is also a lot of regionalism and separatism.
- 5. Literally the curred citation on the page.
- Also if the term ethnolinguistic is used to classify people unified both by ethnicity and language, why don't we use the term "ethnic" to not confuse people since language is the most important factor in ethnicity. Sedcrw (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look, we're on the topic of Slavs, they are not comparable to Germans and Italians. Read the first sentence of their articles - citizens of Germany and Italy. They are single nations (in single countries) built around multiple ethnic groups. Slavs are an equivalent of Baltic peoples, Romance peoples, Italic peoples, Germanic peoples - people who speak a language from one of these branches. South Slavs ethnically have more in common with Albanians, Turks, Hungarians and Romanians than with Poles, Ukrainians or Russians. Linguistically however, they have more in common with other West and East Slavs. I'm not going to argue any further if you keep bringing up the same points. -Vipz (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, you are right about Germans and Italians, I've made a mistake there, but yes, let's actually talk about Slavs. Firstly, I don't know why would you assume that Slavs are equivalent to Baltic peoples, Romance peoples, Italic peoples, or Germanic peoples. Is it because of the linguistic classification of Indo-European languages? If that's the case, then that's false because not all ethnicities, nations, etc. are the same and aren't divided the same. It is very untrue that South Slavs have more in common with the peoples you mentioned, that's an argument with no background explanation. Firstly, for the millionth time, language is the main building block and characteristic of ethnicity. We need to look both at the origins and characteristics of peoples. All Slavic tribes or ethnicities or whatever emerged from Early Slavs in a tribal or political way with exception of Bulgars who were Slavicized and all of them speak Slavic. Also, can you specify what you mean when you say that South Slavs have more in common with peoples that you mentioned? Did I respond to your points properly? And without response, how will we solve this dispute? Sedcrw (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- With or without response, you'll need good sources to back up your changes. -Vipz (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Source for what exactly? You will have to specify. Sedcrw (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sources that claim Slavs are not connected by both ethnicity and linguistics (i.e. ethnolinguistics), but just ethnicity. When two editors are in disagreement, consensus has to be reached on the relevant article's talk page, Talk:Slavs in this case. -Vipz (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Source for what exactly? You will have to specify. Sedcrw (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- To try answer some of your denials here, many South Slavs have been inter-mixing with other ethnic groups in the region. What do they have in common with Russians who migrated to Russian Far East some centuries ago, and had last contact with other North Slavs before the Slavic migrations to the Balkans, other than language? Therefore, language is the dominant factor of their similarity, helped by a bit of Pan-Slavism. Serbs, Ukrainians, Russians, Croats, Poles, etc. are not regional subgroups of a grand Slavic ethnicity. Regarding Bulgars, I'm not interested in your fantasizing about who has more or less Slavic blood cells. -Vipz (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm tired of saying over and over that language is the main basis for EVERY single ethnic group(which is not ethnoreligious) in the world, it isn't some separate and isolated thing from ethnicity. Now onto South Slavs, biology doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm "fantasizing about who has more or less Slavic blood cells", Bulgarians are Slavs. What Russians have in common with let's say Montenegrins is that they are Slavs(obviously), they have common origins, and characteristics. "Serbs, Ukrainians, Russians, Croats, Poles, etc. are not regional subgroups of a grand Slavic ethnicity" is a completely oversimplified and false assumption but that is another topic and I will answer it if you want. Sedcrw (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are Irish people who speak only the Irish language and there's a whole ton of other Irish people who speak only English. Language is not the main basis for "every single ethnic group", hence the distinction is made. Why do you have a problem with the "ethnolinguistic" moniker? -Vipz (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Irish language is definitely not dead as 40% of the population speaks it, it is officially supported and it helped create an identity in the first place. The problem that I have with the term ethnolinguistic is that language is the main basis of an ethnic group so it doesn't make sense to create separate terms and creates a lot of confusion. Sedcrw (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're the first person in over 20 years the article has existed to claim this term creates "a lot of confusion". Ethnic groups are spread all over the world and through several generations forget their mother language, but they are still part of that ethnic group. Language is not the main basis of an ethnic group, but when it is, it's an ethnolinguistic group. Omitting the "linguistic" part of the term would create much more confusion to a reader (not you), as to how are all these ethnic groups (Poles, Montenegrins...) connected to one another, what makes Croats the same "ethnic group" as Russians. In these pan-ethnic articles where the language is the dominant connection between these ethnic groups, it's a tradition to write "ethnolinguistic group". If it were a religion, it would say they are "ethnoreligious group". -Vipz (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- "You're the first person in over 20 years the article has existed to claim this term creates a lot of confusion" but i'm not wrong, am i? I know what i'm talking about, there has been alot of people on the internet claiming that Slavs are only linguistically connected mainly because of this. Language is a main basis of an ethnic group, no language no ethnicity. Language is the way ethnic identities form. If Ionians or Aeolians spoke celtic for some reason then they would be celts and not Greeks. And you failed to provide more of examples what makes ethnic group an ethnic group. Again aside from main building block of ethnic group(language), what for example monengrins and russians have in common is origin. Separate slavic identities are nothing more than nations and tribes. Sedcrw (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're the first person in over 20 years the article has existed to claim this term creates "a lot of confusion". Ethnic groups are spread all over the world and through several generations forget their mother language, but they are still part of that ethnic group. Language is not the main basis of an ethnic group, but when it is, it's an ethnolinguistic group. Omitting the "linguistic" part of the term would create much more confusion to a reader (not you), as to how are all these ethnic groups (Poles, Montenegrins...) connected to one another, what makes Croats the same "ethnic group" as Russians. In these pan-ethnic articles where the language is the dominant connection between these ethnic groups, it's a tradition to write "ethnolinguistic group". If it were a religion, it would say they are "ethnoreligious group". -Vipz (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Irish language is definitely not dead as 40% of the population speaks it, it is officially supported and it helped create an identity in the first place. The problem that I have with the term ethnolinguistic is that language is the main basis of an ethnic group so it doesn't make sense to create separate terms and creates a lot of confusion. Sedcrw (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are Irish people who speak only the Irish language and there's a whole ton of other Irish people who speak only English. Language is not the main basis for "every single ethnic group", hence the distinction is made. Why do you have a problem with the "ethnolinguistic" moniker? -Vipz (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm tired of saying over and over that language is the main basis for EVERY single ethnic group(which is not ethnoreligious) in the world, it isn't some separate and isolated thing from ethnicity. Now onto South Slavs, biology doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm "fantasizing about who has more or less Slavic blood cells", Bulgarians are Slavs. What Russians have in common with let's say Montenegrins is that they are Slavs(obviously), they have common origins, and characteristics. "Serbs, Ukrainians, Russians, Croats, Poles, etc. are not regional subgroups of a grand Slavic ethnicity" is a completely oversimplified and false assumption but that is another topic and I will answer it if you want. Sedcrw (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- With or without response, you'll need good sources to back up your changes. -Vipz (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, you are right about Germans and Italians, I've made a mistake there, but yes, let's actually talk about Slavs. Firstly, I don't know why would you assume that Slavs are equivalent to Baltic peoples, Romance peoples, Italic peoples, or Germanic peoples. Is it because of the linguistic classification of Indo-European languages? If that's the case, then that's false because not all ethnicities, nations, etc. are the same and aren't divided the same. It is very untrue that South Slavs have more in common with the peoples you mentioned, that's an argument with no background explanation. Firstly, for the millionth time, language is the main building block and characteristic of ethnicity. We need to look both at the origins and characteristics of peoples. All Slavic tribes or ethnicities or whatever emerged from Early Slavs in a tribal or political way with exception of Bulgars who were Slavicized and all of them speak Slavic. Also, can you specify what you mean when you say that South Slavs have more in common with peoples that you mentioned? Did I respond to your points properly? And without response, how will we solve this dispute? Sedcrw (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look, we're on the topic of Slavs, they are not comparable to Germans and Italians. Read the first sentence of their articles - citizens of Germany and Italy. They are single nations (in single countries) built around multiple ethnic groups. Slavs are an equivalent of Baltic peoples, Romance peoples, Italic peoples, Germanic peoples - people who speak a language from one of these branches. South Slavs ethnically have more in common with Albanians, Turks, Hungarians and Romanians than with Poles, Ukrainians or Russians. Linguistically however, they have more in common with other West and East Slavs. I'm not going to argue any further if you keep bringing up the same points. -Vipz (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Except that Germans, Italians and Chinese all live in one country, and Slavs do not. Slavs are an equivalent of Balts for example. What you're doing is trying to prove Slavs are not linguistically connected at all, contrary to what ethnolinguistic group says: "a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language". Now, there's not a single Slavic language, but these languages are pretty close to each other. Second thing, Germans, Italians and Han Chinese are an equivalent of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Serbs, etc. They are their own ethnic groups and nations. WP:SKYISBLUE (not needing to cite obvious things) does not apply on serious topics, when multiple people challenge your edit, it's not "obvious". Surely, if it were so "widely accepted", you'd be able to find a few sources to prove your point. It is widely accepted that the sky is blue, and googling "sky is blue" gives over 2 billion results. -Vipz (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)