Talk:West Slavic languages

Untitled

Contents of this page, before being turned into a redirect for Slavic languages:

===========================================================

The West Slavic languages is a subdivision of the Slavic language group (q.v.) that includes Czech, Polish, Slovak, and Sorbian.

{{stub}}

<!-- What is this:

Zdviham ruku k nebi a prapory at vlaji ja narodil se davno to jeste vonel svet

A deda rikal hochu to ja kdyz bejval mladej a ja mu tenkrat neveril jak bych to vratil zpet.

Byli s tatou kazdej jinde to presne podle roku mladi chce si rozbit hlavu o kamen mudrcu.

A pak jim ctyrycet let lhali a dneska lzou jak nikdy ale jak baba kazdy rano rekla hochu hlavne ze jsme zdravi.

A pak jim ctyrycet let lhali a dneska lzou jak nikdy ale jak baba kazdy rano rekla hochu hlavne ze jsme zdravi.

Povidal basnik Sajfrt ze Majerovic holka byla tuze pekna zenska i Gottwald za ni lez

A Zapotockejch Tonda ten bejval vzdycky smutnej co dneska o tom vite zas nesmi smi se dnes.

Driv nepustili USA dnes rusa zase nechtej jen porad naky oni nam dirigujou svet.

A proc nam ctyrycet let lhali a dneska lzou jak nikdy ale jak baba kazdy rano rekla hochu hlavne ze jsme zdravi.

Celejch ctyrycet let lhali a dneska lzou jak nikdy ale jak baba kazdy rano rekla hochu hlavne ze jsme zdravi.

Ja nevim co si vybrat ale kdyz tak bloumam Prahou bal jsem se tech minulejch az sviral se mi dech

jenze dneska vyjdu pred barak a bojim se snad jeste vic je mesto moje nemecke a ruske ve svych zdech

A kdo krade v tyhle zemi ma se jak komunisti drive A vlady stojej opravdu prominte za prd.

A to nam ctyrycet let lhali a dneska lzou jak nikdy ale jak baba kazdy rano rekla hochu hlavne ze jsme zdravi.

Celejch ctyrycet let lhali a dneska dneska lzou jak nikdy ale jak baba kazdy rano rekla hochu hlavne ze jsme zdravi. -->

================================================================

Jorge Stolfi 18:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reinstated the stub. It needs a separate article. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Pannoian Rusyn

My addition is a widely referenced trivia, e.g.: Tamaš Julian, Rusinska Književnost, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad, 1984, p.11-12 --Compay 11:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Divisions in the Lechitic group

Whereas Kashubian and the entire Pomeranian group are obviously separate from the Polish dialectical family, separating Silesian from it and not the other languages/dialects spoken in the territory of early Poland (and,in some cases, for a long time afterwards) can be misleading as to the relation between various members of this group. I believe that Mazovian, Masurian and other dialects spoken in the territory of early Poland should get at least the same treatment as Silesian if dialectical variations of Polish are to be included here. Now, this is not a question of wheather Silesian and other dialects/languages are part of what is considered modern day Polish or not; it's a question of putting the language family tree as it should be, i.e. of illustrating accurately internal relationships between its members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colddance (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Polish-German?

What does the Izbicko sign have to do with West Slavic languages? --206.207.225.18 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kašubian language?

Why is there š in "Kashubian"? Wouldn't there be also "Čech language"? What happened ;D Signed - Shian

Silesian and Slovincian

Could someone please add in the scheme the Silesian and extinct Slovincian language. I tried but unsuccessfully. Ентусиастъ (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, on the grounds that readers have best served by having culture/people and language discussed separately. Klbrain (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose making the page West Slavs a redirect to West Slavic languages. I think the meaning of "West Slavs" can easily be explained in the context of West Slavic languages, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in West Slavic languages. In addition, I propose:

1. that the lead section of West Slavs be merged into the lead section of West Slavic languages;
2. that the West Slavs#History section be merged into Early Slavs;
3. that the West Slavs#Linguistic grouping subsection be merged into West Slavic languages#Classification; and
4. that the rest of the West Slavs#Groupings section be merged into List of ancient Slavic peoples#West Slavs.
   

The main reasons for doing this are WP:OVERLAP, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: the current content of West Slavs better fits in one of the three articles I mentioned above, and/or does not seem to be relevant in this article (see also WP:OFFTOPIC), and so it is better moved to / merged into the sections I have suggested.

Note that this merger proposal is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Slavs, which closed as a rough consensus to not delete West Slavs, but no consensus on whether it should kept as a separate article (but fixed), or rather merged into West Slavic languages; subsequent discussions about its future were to be held on the talk pages. Therefore, I would like to invite @Furius, Joy, MirkoS18, Mzajac, Vipz, and Emenrigen: to join this discussion here about a possible merger of West Slavs into West Slavic languages. (Your participation is of course not required, but if you could bring valuable feedback and suggestions, that would be appreciated; together we can make Wikipedia better).

To make things easier, I will limit the scope of this discussion just to West Slavs for now. I will not be simultaneously proposing a merger of East Slavs into East Slavic languages, or South Slavs into South Slavic languages as I did in the AfD. (I thought it would be 'unfair' to nominate just one of the three articles, but this also made the discussion a lot more complicated, as a few people noted, so it's probably best if we take just one article at a time). I would also like to apologise for the fact that I chose the AfD as the method to have this discussion, when I should have done this as a merger proposal from the start; it was always my intention to propose to merge the pages (which I did in the nomination itself), but by nominating them for deletion via AfD, I have given the wrong impression, which has led to confusion. Sorry for that. I hope that the AfD closer and I have now cleared that up.

So if you have ideas or suggestions about what we can best do with this article, please share your thoughts below. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to this. While West Slavs are predominantly discussed in terms of language and early history, they are also discussed in secondary source for medieval and modern shared experiences (predominantly Catholic rather than Orthodox, closer ties with German culture in particular and western Europe more generally). I acknowledge that there is overlap between this article and others, but I don't think that it is redundant, any more than (e.g.) French people is redundant because the individual sections of that article overlap with French language, History of France, French diaspora etc. Furius (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back here, Furius. Okay, the reason why I do not follow this argument is because I do not think West Slavs in modern times are actually widely discussed in RS in the same way that French people are, because French is a language, not a linguistic subdivision (in the case of French, that is Western Romance languages > Gallo-Romance languages > Langues d'oïl > French language). Except for brief generalisations of the history of Poles, Czechs and Slovaks (and sometimes other groups), similar to what you just said about being predominantly Catholic and influenced by German culture, RS only treat them as a linguistic subdivision. To compare:

• Germanic peoples is a standalone article, but it treats the group as historical, and describes present-day speakers of Germanic languages as 'descendents' (e.g. speakers of English, German, Dutch etc.).
  • North Germanic peoples is a standalone article, but it treats the group as historical, and describes present-day speakers of North Germanic languages as 'descendents' (e.g. speakers of Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Icelandic etc.).
  • West Germanic peoples is a redirect to West Germanic languages
  • East Germanic peoples is a redirect to Germanic peoples (a redirect to East Germanic languages might even be better)
• Roman people is a standalone article, but it treats the group as historical, and describes present-day speakers of Romance languages as 'descendents' (e.g. speakers of French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian etc.).
  • Balkan Romance people is a redirect to Balkan Romance languages
  • Eastern Romance peoples is a redirect to Vlachs
  • Western Romance peoples doesn't even exist.
    • Gallo-Romans is a redirect to Gallo-Roman culture.
      • Langues d'oïl peoples doesn't even exist.
        

So I think Wikipedia has shown clear precedents for what to do in cases like this: we either regard a group of 'peoples' which had a common linguistic origin and spoke closely related languages as a historical group that doesn't exist anymore, but whose descendents do, or we make it a redirect towards an article about the linguistic subdivision that does still exist today (and encompasses all those descendents from the historical group). Currently, this article claims that "West Slavs" still exist today as speakers of West Slavic languages, therefore, I think it should be a redirect. The alternative is that we treat West Slavs the same way as Germanic peoples, North Germanic peoples, Roman people, or Vlachs: as a historical group (defined by closely related languages) that doesn't exist anymore, but whose descendents do (e.g. speakers of Polish, Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Kashubian etc.). This is what I sometimes also see in RS, and it is an option we can consider, but I think a redirect to West Slavic languages makes more sense. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: I suppose a third option would be to rename this article to 'West Slavic culture' analogous to Gallo-Roman culture. I hadn't yet thought of that, but that might be an idea, especially if we want to talk about the historical influence of Catholicism and German culture. What do you think about that? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I think it is very important to treat it as separate topics in which conclusion in one case won't preclude other cases (although it may be the case that strongest case for separate article exist in the case of South Slavs and somewhat weaker in case of West Slavs, I don't know). It's just unclear to me why you would argue for standalone Slavs article and not for example South Slavs article as you can probably use almost the same arguments in both cases?--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Against the examples that you cite here are other cases where ethnolinguistic groups are treated with standalone articles, such as Slavs, Celts (modern), Turkic peoples, Mongolic peoples, Algonquian peoples, Dravidian peoples, Cushitic speaking peoples, Austronesian peoples, Polynesians, Melanesians, Iranian peoples, and Balts. So, I don't think the precedents are as clear as you make out. Like the WES Slavs articles, these pages generally start by emphasising the commonality of language as the defining feature of the peoples under discussion, then discuss history (sometimes stopping in the middle ages, sometimes coming down to the present day), genetics, culture, and sub-groups. This is the niche/model that I see this article fitting into. Furius (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

These articles do not exist because of the linguistic affiliation of their speakers (except for Cushitic speaking peoples, which has it in its title; Cushitic peoples was deleted), but based on WP:SIGCOV about groups of peoples that have something defining in common beyond their linguistic affiliation (e.g. Polynesians). Or they still exist because no one has cared to rectify the flawed premises on which they stand (e.g. Slavs; the meaningful article is Early Slavs). Or because they are explicitly introduced as covering 19th-century ideological constructs which are notable for non-linguistic reasons (Celts (modern), also a potential option for "Slavs").

So the question is: is there WP:SIGCOV about non-linguistic commonalites of West Slavs which would justify a standalone article?

Also: those aforementioned articles are not about "ethnolinguistic groups". Slovaks and Tamils are ethnolinguistic groups. A group of ethnolinguistic groups that are lumped together for the sole reason of speaking languages of the same language family is called ........ a "lump"? [There is no such concept in sociolinguistics or ethnography]. –Austronesier (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose People groups and languages are different things. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:E890:1689:2430:B7A5 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I read the proposal and deletion request. I strongly oppose with the idea to delete/merge articles on such common terms/topics hence the reason for existence for standalone articles all these years. West Slavs article needs appropriate general expansion as terms West/East/South Slavs are not only linguistic distinctive groupings of the Slavs, but also have distinctive geographical, historical, cultural, religious and so on context and connotation which go beyond early medieval times. These are not only synonyms for Slavic language groups, and those articles on Slavic language/dialect groups are dealing in details which would be out of scope for article on relevant Slavic group of people. The only issue here is properly editing the articles on Slavic groups of people.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.