Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:00, 19 March 2006

Country name

Wasn't naming of the country solved already elsewhere? If not, then the name use by the people of Macedonia should be used and disputes left to article about the state. Pavel Vozenilek 18:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second largest city

Pulvis angelus, you are mixing a town with a municipality. Bitola is the second largest town in Macedonia after Skopje and third largest municipality after Kumanovo. Lets see the data presented from the census in 1991: Then the municipality of Bitola had a population of 122,173 () and the municipality of Kumanovo had 135.529 (). But, please notice that in the table is described the ratio between the city population (69.251) and in the farmers (66.278), in other words, about a half of the Kumanovo municipality citizens lived in the villages. So, in that period Kumanovo had approximately 70 000 citizens. Also, notice that the city population on the census performed in 1994 dropped to 66.237 (you can see that in the same article). The cituation in municipality of Bitola is much different because the population that live in the villages is much smaller than the population that live in the town. You can also check the following data from the 1994 census (click on the picture): Bitola 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

Bitola is the name used by the people of Macedonia. Also, I think that this article has a lot of Albanian POV. Somebody with better knowledge of the city history should check this. User:PANONIAN

According to the article, it appears that the name Obitelj/Bitola is older than Monastiri. If this is so, then Monastiri is presumably a translation of Obitelj and is not derived from the number of churches. Rather, Obitelj is possibly derived from the many churches. This shiould be clarified, if possible, or the mention of the churches removed. Andreas 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a revert war between editors claiming that the Greek name Monastiri came first and editors claiming that the synonymous Slavic name Obitel came first. Instead of just reverting back and forth, it would be more productive to provide documentation for these claims. If there are good arguments on both sides, then NPOV says that both should be documented. --Macrakis 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally to hear something reasonable. Because I created the recent look of the article, I'm feeling responsible what will stay in it. My actions are not done based on my personal feelings; instead, I used several different historical sources. According to almost every source I found so far, Bitola as a settlement was established by the Macedonian Slavs that shifted in this area in the VI century: , . Regarding the name, it is considered that the current official name have been gradually derived from the old Slavonic word Obitel. So far, I found two different meanings for the word, the first one tells that it means a monastery, monastery place or monastery settlement and the second one tells that it means a family or house, an area of living. Very interesting fact that supports the second meaning is that the modern Serbian/Croatian word for family is Obitelj (I’m not sure for the other Slavic languages as Russian and Bulgarian):,. Maybe the truth lies (as always) in between, probably the word means a Christian/monastery community, family:. However, you can notice that this word is not directly derived from the Greek word Monastery (Obitel and Monastery as words have completely different structures). According to every source I found so far in the written literature I had, the Byzantium sources called the town Butela, Butelion, Botila, Botili, even Pelagonia as it is stated in Britannica. I believed that the naming section satisfies both sides, because it provides the description of the Slavic word Obitel, as well as the fact that the Turkish, official name of the city before 1913 was Monastiri, derived from the Greek word for monastery (although we have no source for this claim). I also tried to explain that on the user:Miskin, Andreas and user:Hectorian talk pages. Unfortunately, some users don't know nothing else than mercilessly reverting what I have built not easily and in a really good faith. Even Latinus is now searching a way to block me from editing. If that will satisfy you, then please, go on, maybe if we Macedonians give up from editing (I must admit that I'm considering that option seriously), you can freely write everything you want, regardless if that is true or not. Bitola 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you look at what the Columbia Encyclopedia says, it does not say that it was founded by Slavs, nor does Britannica. It mentions its existance before the Slavic arrivals. You are interpreting it the way you would like to believe it was. This is all speculation as Macrakis correctly notes. Your version is original research. In fact, Columbia says that its former name was Monastir and does not say, nor imply that it was ever called Bitola or anything similar prior to that. What is your source that says that it was called Bitola in the 6th century? --Latinus 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be that the Turkish name comes from the Northern Greek dialect where unstressed /i/ has disappeared. Andreas 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what is wrong then? I already left in the article that the Turkish name probably was translation of the greek word. But, why are you reverting the first paragraph where I describe the recent, official name of the city? The fact that the recent name of the city origins from the old Slavic word is a common fact:,,. Why you always have a need to complicate the things? Bitola 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us see what is agreed on and what is not.

Agreed:

• That the names Bitolj (Serbian) and Bitola (Macedonian) have been used during most of the 20th century (I would guess, but am not sure, that the official name was changed to Bitolj immediately after the Balkan Wars).
• That the Ottoman name was Monastir. (Hence the Columbia Enc. statement that its "former" name was Monastir.)
• That Monastir is derived from the Greek name Monastiri, either because of Greek dialectal phonology or the borrowing into Turkish.
• That Bitola/Obitel and Monastir/Monastiri mean the same thing.

Unclear:

• The relationship between Heraclea Lyncestis and Bitola/Monastiri. Had Heraclea completely disappeared? Was Bitola/Monastiri a new settlement outside the walls of Heraclea (perhaps of Slavs)?

Disputed:

• Which came first, the name Monastiri or the name Bitola? If we believe the references in the article (which someone should verify), both the names Bitola (or variants thereof) and Monastiri are attested in the 11th century. It is perfectly possible that even then Slavic-speakers (such as Tsar Samuil) called it Bitola and Greek-speakers called it Monastiri.

My proposal:

1. We incorporate all the undisputed content into the article.
2. We do more research on the early name in good sources — Macedonian and Greek newspapers, government publications, and Web sites do not count.
3. Until the matter is clarified, we take no position on which name came first, and simply state that Monastir(i) and Bitola are synonyms, and both are attested as names as far back as the 11th century.

What do you think? --Macrakis 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and please, if the other editors have no objection on this, rewrite the section according to your proposal. Bitola 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Count me in... --Latinus 20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To constant reverters

At least, you could revert the page but include the corrections made by neutral users for irrelevant to the Greek origin of the name data (like Macrakis' correction of the link to the Greek wikipedia). Furthermore, the particular ip range 62.162... can be safely assumed that it evidently is the sockpuppet of a certain editor that has been blocked for repetitive reverts. Please stop, or there will be grounds for requesting a Range Block. NikoSilver 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what's odd - their blocks have already expired. Why do they use socks? --Latinus 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that than anon is User:Bitola. A 62.162... anon make this comment and signed it as "Bitola" . In this post, he says that he agrees to Macrakis's proposal and once he implements it, he uses a sock to revert it (while pretending to be someone else). Thus far, we have the following socks:

• 62.162.188.223 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 62.162.189.27 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 62.162.14.36 (talk · contribs · block log)

As I doubt that they belong to User:Realek, as his IP is 80.77.148.105 (talk · contribs · block log) and appears to be a static one, whose else's can it be, but Bitola's. It also appears to be a dynamic IP. --Latinus 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if a range block is needed (doubtful - semi-protection could suffice), a whois check reveals that the IP range is 62.162.0.0 - 62.162.255.255, so we can assume (within reason - there may be more than one user in his city) that if an IP from that range reverts, it is User:Bitola. --Latinus 21:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, still reverting . He just told Macrakis that he agrees with his proposal and then reverts him using socks and leaves trollish edit summaries. --Latinus 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Bitola, does this recent trolling spree which earned you another block serve any purpose whatsoever? --Latinus 00:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that I’m so immature after all I have done on WP? Although I’m not satisfied with the current solution (I will explain why or try to edit the section in the future), I have nothing with the current edit war around the Bitola article. My edits on that article ended on 17 March 2006 , 00:19. Since than, I didn’t make any single edit there! Actually, when I stopped with my edits on the article, I was a little bit frustrated and decided to take my “extended wikibreak” seriously, so you will not see me much around these days. Anonymous editing is not my style. Bitola 09:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)