Timbouctou, I would not agree that "Muslims by nationality" is just "outdated name for Bosniaks". In last censuses in Serbia and Montenegro, Bosniaks and Muslims by nationality are listed as separate ethnic groups and term historically was also used for Gorani and Torbeš populations that are very different from Bosniaks. Furthermore, according to 2002 census, there was much more Muslims by nationality than Bosniaks in Vojvodina, and Muslims by nationality are also in majority in some settlements in Montenegro and Serbia, as you can in these ethnic maps: [1] [2] So, I would not agree that they are removed from this template. PANONIAN 06:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since the Dayton agreement had adopted the term "Bosniak", it is generally understood to mean "Slavic Muslims" regardless whether they live in Bosnia or in the neighboring countries. Yes, I'm aware that some people still see themselves as "Muslims by nationality" in censuses across ex-Yugoslavia, but all that proves is that it is still a popular statistical category - probably because the term had been used in the preceding 50 or so years. In other words, it does nothing to prove that this is an actual ethnic group different from what we refer to as Bosniaks today, and even if there are some differences - like with the Gorani and Torbeš populations you mentioned - than they should also be referred to by their present-day names (you yourself say that the term Muslim by nationality was "used historically" for them). The same thing goes for Yugoslavs, which is not really an ethnic group but a form of political belief. The census data alone cannot be used to elevate whatever people choose to say to the level of distinct ethnic groups, and besides, it largely depends on the methodology used which varies from country to country. For example I know for a fact that a small number of people in the Croatian census - where people are allowed to put down whatever they want - choose to declare themselves as "Martians", and there are also various other regional identifications which are popular in some parts of he country ("Istrians", "Dalmatians", "Slavonians" etc), kind of like "Pannonian" :-) Of course, "Muslims by nationality" and "Yugoslavs" are special cases as it is true that many people had used these terms to refer to themselves for decades - but they should be regarded as historical categories and not "ethnic grops" as such, just like "Austro-Hungarian" or "Czechoslovak" used to be self-identifying designations but no longer are. Timbouctou 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that have been provided that "Silesians" are separate from "Poles". Indeed, most sources group these two together. A couple months ago, User:Franek K, sneaked in an alteration and has been reverting ever since to enforce this view which is essentially their own original research. This reflects a broader pattern of tendentious edits of similar nature.

Basically, until this matter is resolved, this template contains original research, and should not be used, since it is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Volunteer Marek  00:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Current version was before my coming, see history of changes. Please stop the slanders and personal attacks.
• Silesians are also Czech Silesians, in Czech Republic also treated as Czechs. Most of Silesians live in Germany (Slavic roots, Germanic roots or mixed), most of these people are considered Germans. Also 0.9 million consider themselves a separate nation. In any case, you can not enter this POV, POV who show Silesians as Poles. Silesia is not a region who lie only in Poland, Silesians are not a people who live only in Poland. I know, Polish education has a lower level than in Mongolia and I know that in Poland, Silesia is the only Polish region, Silesians are only Polish patriots (in schools compulsory learning about the Silesian Uprisings) but Polish circus please leave at home. Franek K. (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I know, Polish education has a lower level than in Mongolia and I know that in Poland", "Polish circus please leave at home" - making personal attacks like these doesn't exactly help your cause. Get consensus for your changes. Volunteer Marek  19:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source: [3]: "The West Slavic Silesian dialects are considered transitional Polish-Czech dialects at base, sharing enough defining characteristics with Polish that they are usually classified as Polish dialects.". Volunteer Marek  19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See history of changes. This is not my version, this version was before my editions. Your change in new. Must be consensus for your controversial changes.

Language? Dialect? This is template about people - Slavs, not languages or dialects. Franek K. (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to the edit wars you've started on other pages, such as Silesian language and Slavs. Pretty much on every single article where you've initiated these edit wars, the consensus of editors has been against you. You've just managed to tire out good faithed editors through this long term tendentious edit warring. I provided a source above. You have not. Stop edit warring and seek consensus. You can start by providing reliable (not advocacy) sources. Volunteer Marek  20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is private opinion. For me, you push Polish nationalism everywhere. The fact is, Silesians are not only Polish nation, Silesians in Czech Republic are not Polish nation, Silesians in Germany are not Polish nation and to that yet Silesian nationality. You can not write that Silesians are Poles because it is simple fraud. You can write only that part (what? some?) of Silesians who living in Poland are part of Poles ethnic group. And, language or dialect this one thing, Silesians is other thing. Americans use English language but these not English people, Americans are nation. Franek K. (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also your version is reverted by other user - description of the changes is sufficient: WP:BRD. Your edit was the bold one. Article was stable before your edit on October 17th. You can not push a new version if is very controversial, and reverted by another user, see BRD. Simply. Franek K. (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my private opinion. I provided a reliable source above which you failed to address. And please, for the last time, stop it with the personal attacks. A more impatient editor would've already reported you to WP:AE, especially since you've been blocked for this very thing in the past.

As far as that English vs American thing goes, a better analogy would be between Americans and Southerners. People who live in Dixie have a very strong sense of regional identity and even more or less a separate dialect (believe me, it is far easier for a Polish person to understand Silesian than it is for a Yankee to comprehend true Southern speech). But they are still Americans. They are a sub-group of Americans. Same thing here. Volunteer Marek  03:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not want personal attacks? please do not provoke. If not improve your behavior I reported you to WP:AE. How many times do I have to write:

• Fact no.1: Your "reliable" source concerns Silesian language/dialect, not Silesians.
• Fact no.2: I had only one block for edit-war[4]. You had many blocks [5] for various offenses including edit-wars, personal attacks and other.
• Fact no.3: English people is only example, the point is that language does not matter. Many nations can speak the one language, for example - several nations speaks English, but Australians or Americans are not English people, these separate nationalities.

Franek K. (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go to WP:AE be my guest. Anyway, I provided a source, you haven't. Volunteer Marek  18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again. You "provided" a source about Silesian language/dialect, not about Silesians. It seems that you're doing it on purpose. At this stage clear show your provocation. Please read Wikipedia:Trolling and stop trolling, deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors. Franek K. (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither trolling nor looking to provoke. I have provided a source. You haven't. Volunteer Marek  19:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source, specifically about the group, not the language: [6]. Quote: "(Silesians) belong to the Polish ethnographic group, and speak a dialect of Polish". And with regard to those who consider Silesians a separate group, quote: "The separatists were of marginal importance, finding little support among native Silesians". Volunteer Marek  19:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Author is Piotr Eberhardt, Polish geographer. No reliable source. "Silesians (Ślązacy, German: Schlesier)" - Mr Piotr believes that the German Silesians are Poles, contrary to many other sources. Also: "The separatists were of marginal importance, finding little support among native Silesians"? 850,000 Silesians is marginal? Polish shits and propaganda. Franek K. (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Kashubians and Moravians also is disputed. Franek K. (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Silesians as nation: Historia Narodu Śląskiego (History of Silesian Nation)- Dariusz Jerczyński. Franek K. (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a reliable source, the citizenship of the author is irrelevant. M. E. Sharpe is a top academic publisher. You can't throw out a source because you don't like it.

Now, Dariusz Jerczynski, leader of an extremist fringe group, that's an unreliable source. Volunteer Marek  20:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book presents the history of Silesia, not from the position of Polish, German or Czech (occupiers), but from the position of the Silesian. Silesians do not like the books written by Poles, Germans and Czechs, with plenty of propaganda; Poles do not like the books written by Silesians because these books show the truth at the expense of the Poles. Franek K. (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eberhardt book is from a internationally respected, reputable academic publisher. Jerczynski, leader of an extremist fringe group, had his friends in that fringe group publish his book. One is a reliable source, the other is not. Volunteer Marek  20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerczynski is not leader of an extremist group. In addition, book presents the history of Silesia, not from the position of Polish, German or Czech (occupiers), but from the position of the Silesian. Whether someone is a Silesian - a matter of Silesians, Poles, Germans or Czechs - occupiers not have the right to decide about this. According to many russian academic publishers, Chechens is part of Russian nation, these the same propaganda, very not reliable in this case. Franek K. (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, Eberhardt's book is from an internationally respected, reputable academic publisher. Jerczynski's book is pretty much self published. Volunteer Marek  21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone proficient in templates, make it proper. - Altenmann >talk 01:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]