User talk:Norax93

Discussion about the reverting edits
Greetings. At last you made an acccount of your own! I am very pleased. This will make communication much, much easier between us and noone will have to chase your dynamic IPs, that you may not want to use anymore (you'd violate the rules). Now, getting back to the matter at hand, we're going to discuss here in a decent manner rather than on the talk pages of every single page, because what you're pursuing seems to be more based on a personal prejudice than anything else related to the actual articles, and your reverts need at least some explanation so that they might not be considered something gratuitous:
 * let's start off with the Corsicans page: I removed that piece and later I placed a citation needed span on it because the source (which is reliable) does not state or imply that the people in Northern Sardinia speaking a Corsican dialect are, or class themselves as, actually Corsicans. It is in fact quite the opposite: not only do not the Gallurese identify as Corsicans, the majority actually think... they are speaking a dialect of Sardinian (of course a false perception from a linguistic point of view, but still). So, as it is, it's original research, as long as the infobox says there are a number of "significant Corsican populations" in Sardinia based on that source alone.
 * This one regarding a disambiguation page of "Leppa". It is a fact that many Sardinians call improperly the Resolza that way, though it is a different thing, as I already explained when creating the proper page about the knife. On what basis do you assert that the book is not a reliable source? Do you have it, or read it perhaps?
 * This one on the main page of Sardinia: this one is really incomprehensible to me, as I've simply put a source of a reputed Sardinian linguist, one of the best on the field, confirming what the paragraph actually says: it does not even change a thing on it. Could you please elaborate a little more as to why "there is no consensus"?
 * here we get, finally, to the Sardinians page. I think you're making the whole thing a bigger deal than it actually is. First, a disclaimer: noone is denying the political membership of Sardinia, which is a fact (the island belongs to Italy). As I said, nationality is a thing, ethnicity is another: as the sources already state (see for instance Perra's books "ΣΑΡΔΩ, Sardinia, Sardegna", three volumes grouping every single mention of the Sards in ancient sources, even), the Sardinians as an indigenous people exist long before the advent of complex polities like Italy - most ethnic groups are in fact not also nations, a concept of relatively very recent origin - and the debate is about anthropology, not politics. That page is an ethnic group article, as you can see from the very format of the infobox saying "infobox ethnic group": I suggest you see for yourself, if you can't believe it. All these things are also facts, something to which "true/false" criteria and not value judgments along the lines of "right/wrong" apply. No offence, there is not much room for emotional opinions with regard to this simple thing: the edit would just normalize the page as it is, without further changes. That being said, let's keep in order the reasons you put on the table as to why you oppose the edit; of course, I'm leaving aside all the "sockpuppet" and "multiple accounts" things, which you should report to a system administrator that will investigate on it in case there is any suspect and, all in all, is also an external argument not involving the page.
 * "you are not able to bring how many Italians and how many Sardinians live in the Region". First, the two groups refer to different things: Sardinians are Italian citizens while being an ethnic group: citizenship might be acquired by anyone, regardless of ethnic affiliation, meeting all the requirements to lead a life in Italy. Also, the fact that Italy does not keep an ethnic census does not mean Sardinians are not an ethnic group: the "ethnic census" argument is a syllogism based on a false premise, given that ethic census made by political entities is not, according to ethnology studies, a requirement attesting the existence of an indigenous people. As I said, this argument would only disprove a hypotetical one, that noone has made, claming Sardinians are the sole and only people on the island. That's why the "1,661,521 (Inhabitants of Sardinia)" needs to be changed into "1,661,521 (Inhabitants of Sardinia, regardless of ethnicity)": that's been done by another user for the Corsicans and I also think it's better that way.
 * "linguistic and ethnicity are separate things: so according to your point of view as seen there is a Sardinian language (only in South and Center Sardinia) let's say that all are Sardinian when in the north they don't speak Sardinian but Corsican (Gallurese) and Sassarese, so are they separate ethnic groups". Of course, language and ethnicity are indeed different things: were language the only thing attesting an ethnic group, we wouldn't even be speaking of Sardinians by the very name the ancients gave them! An ethnic group may in fact, for historical reasons, speak one, two or even multiple languages (just making an example, the arabized Berbers in North Africa speak a number of languages, and prominently Arab because of cultural assimilation, while remaining Berbers; see also the Sami people, the Ainu etc.). True, Gallurese, Sassarese, Algherese, Tabarchino are not part of the Sardinian language. Still, that doesn't take anything away from Sardinian identity, to the point where many Gallurese actually think to be speaking a variety of Sardinian rather than Corsican, even. Of course, linguistic identity plays a role in defining an ethnic group, but this identity is very blurred, in that it's actually a matter of perception being based on something else than a sole language in particular. That's why, for example, I do not identify as Catalan while being Algherese and a Catalan and Sardinian speaker as well. What about the Italian Americans claming to be ethnically Italians (and American citizens, of course) while having switched to English? Or better yet, the Japanese Americans who don't know a word of Japanese? It's a very tricky argument, proving that "language" alone is not a requirement in itself for ethnic identity. That's why I personally think the "1,080,000 (Sardinian speakers in Sardinia)" on the infobox needs to be removed, for it doesn't prove anything either.
 * "you put 1,000,000 meaningless sources from populist newspapers and magazines and your political and nationalistic statements got sourced". Ok, please post here every single nationalist and populist source you think there is on the Sardinians page we're talking about (surely, you'll find plenty of them to be so confident in your assertion), otherwise this argument... Well, let's just say it leaves a lot to be desired.

That's it. Nothing else worth reasoning (the rest are attacks that need solid proof) have I read from your comments.

Again, I think we might reach a sweet point together by putting just "native people" (something implying also, among the other things, genetic continuity which is a fact and also widely attested by virtually any source you can find on the subject) while leaving the rest of the page as it was before. The only thing I am sure of is that a compromise on the matter should be accepted - Wikipedia is no zero sum game and, unlike the others, you're actually the only one with a really strong opinion against the edit, so I'm leaving you with some community input on your talk page. Saruts!--Dk1919 (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)