Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BalkanFever (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 15 April 2008 (→I'm away for one day and................: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There's too much propaganda here. --Laveol 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Agree with your comment. Slavomacedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian, how can it have dialects of its own? The map is problematic to begin with. What are the sources for it? How many slavomacedonian speakers are there are in Mt. Athos for example? I know there is a Bulgarian monastery but wouldn't it be considered offensive to label Bulgarian a dialect of Slavomacadonian when in fact it is the other way around? Plus it is looks ugly as sin. Removed the map.Xenovatis (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do people what ever you want here on Misplaced Pages, but there is Macedonian language and nation. It is supported by almost all well known encyclopedias and scientists. I do not plan to argue with you at all.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A slavic people unrelated in all aspects with Ancient Macedonia.Megistias (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to answer the question from above - yes, I do find it offensive and, yes I do mind it a lot. It's pure propaganda and is supported by a tiny minority in the whole region - the ethnic MAcedonian nationalists. That's the simple fact. The whole world is clear on that case, but what do they care - it's obvious that everybody in the world are too stupid to understand simple facts - everybody from Rome to Varna and Istambul are ethnic Macedonians, everybody from Cleopatra to Lenin, too. Admit it guys - we're from that stupid ones as well. Only if we knew the truth. --Laveol 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything this article is a POV fork. I don't see why this subject can't be covered in Macedonian language--   Avg    21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, take a deep breath everyone. Xenovatis, sorry but that objection of yours is pretty nonsensical. Of course the Macedonian language can have and has dialects, just like every other language on earth; even if you prefer to see it as itself "just" a dialect of Bulgarian, it can still also have dialects of its own (just as a part of a whole can itself has parts.) Megistias, your remark about ancient Macedonia is completely off topic. Avg, we have articles in summary style. It's absolutely normal to factor out such topics into subarticles. Now, put those nonsensical ideological defense reflexes to rest and discuss the factual accuracy of this article like normal reasonable people. Hint: those of you who are not really interested in dialectology, get out of here, this is not for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so the authors of the page should also do this - in fact they should not have started it. First of all they use only references from RoM. Second - they present a map that they know is fake. Third - they've obviously created the page for propaganda reasons only. They've discussed the idea before. And just to clarify - I didn't say anything about the whole language/dialect issue although naturally I should be the one defending the whole: MAcedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian stuff. --Laveol 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, tell me, what exactly is false about this article, or about the map (apart from the fact that it chooses to cover a few parts of the South Slavic dialect continuum that go beyond the border of the present day RoM, a fact that is totally without significance from a linguistic perspective either way? As for the varieties spoken in Greek Macedonia, well of course they fall within the domain of Macedonian dialectology. I really wonder anybody can see a problem with that. Less shouting, more reasonable debate please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First man, I have wrote it because it is a part of my profession, I am a linguist. That is not a propaganda because we are talking for dialects and languages. I know much about Macedonian language and its dialects and for all other Slavic languages plus Albanian, so I am competitive enough to write articles from my professional orientation. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Even your own dialect map futureperfect that is Slavic Bulgarian/"Mac" does not show such an extent.And this goes for the article as well.Megistias (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that there is or used to be some level of Slavic speaking in pretty much the whole of that area in Greek Macedonia. Certainly not exclusively and certainly not a majority Slavic population everywhere, and most likely reduced to close to zero in some parts nowadays, but that's all beside the point. From the perspective of Macedonian dialectology it makes perfect sense to treat that as a single area and not bother about whatever bits within it have ceased to have Slavic speakers recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not "common" knowledge, sorry. Slavomacedonian dialects are spoken in the northern Macedonian prefectures of Florina, Kastoria and Pella. In Kilkis and Drama you find Bulgarian dialects. There are virtually no Slavic speakers in other prefectures. So related to this article, only three prefectures are relevant.--   Avg    06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We've already established that the southern boundary should be corrected. The original source map is better in that respect . See my comments on MacedonianBoy's talk page. This can easily be fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I say either delete or at least remove propaganda. --Laveol 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't explained to me what is the propaganda in it. I repeat my question: What is so wrong about either the article or the map that it couldn't be healed with some simple factual corrections? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's wrong with calling Macedonian a Bulgarian dialect and posting a map that shows it? On this and every article relating to the official language of RoM. --Laveol 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would there be anything wrong in printing a dialectological map of Low German that also showed a few of the neighbouring varieties in the Netherlands? Or vice versa? No, absolutely not. This is not about labeling languages or territories as belonging to this or that nation, it's about showing isoglosses. And those darned things have the silly tendency to cut across national boundaries. Especially if you happen to be in a dialect continuum. Shrug. Live with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you're talking about the Serbo-Bulgarian dialect continuum that most linguists talk about. What a pitty they miss out good old 5,000 years old Macedonian. So it is ok to add to the article about Bulgarian language that what is spoken in RoM is a dialect of Bulgarian? This is what Bulgarian linguists say. As this article represents only what RoM linguists say (therefore a POV to start with) the Bulgarian language article should be one-POV only, too. --Laveol 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Laveol, you are ranting now. This is confused beyond anything reasonably discussable. My recommendation is, go to bed, get a good night's sleep. That's what I'm gonna do now, and I expect when I wake up you guys won't have blown up the wiki with your rage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like being sarcastic, too, I had a car-crash today (not my fault), but I can't see why are you defending them. I've never gone as far as they did and I really really hate when someone's telling lies (especially huge ones). I've never resolved to ranting, but this article is outrageous. And offensive as well. --Laveol 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Or the map? Are you kidding? Even when the Bulgarian kingdom was in its full extent there was no such extent of Slavic.Megistias (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Root of problem

Future the problem is complicated but being a regular I think you will understand. First I will present what is and then how it is perceived.

Fact: In RoM, Bulgaria, Northern Greece there live people whose speak, or are descended from speakers, of a Slavic language, part of the South Slavic languages and member of the south slavic language continuum (this is important) that stretches from Bulgaria to Slovenia. The language in the areas in question is mutually intelligible, ie a Bulgarian has no trouble communicating with an ethnic Macedonian and an ethnic Macedonian can communicate with a Slavophone Greek. Now for the interesting part.

Perceived: In Bulgaria that language is called Bulgarian. In RoM Macedonian. In Greece it is called slavica or dopia (local). This by those of its speakers that identify themselves as ethnically Bulgarian, Macedonian and Greek respectively.

However: There are those in Bulgaria that self identify as ethnically Macedonian and call this language Macedonian. In RoM there are those that identify as ethnically Bulgarian and call this language Bulgarian. In Greece there are those among the slavophone population (a tiny minority) that self identify as Macedonian and call the language Macedonian. Now do you see the problem?

A south slavic language is spoken in most of the areas coloured in the map but deciding to call it Macedonian is imposing the POV of one tiny minority on the rest. I realize that in Linguistics you can technically call something a language even if it is mutually intelligible with an actual language but calling it a dialect was not done in vacuum, the two languages (Slavmacedonian and Bulgarian) are mutually intelligible. It is not as silly as you wish to paint it.

In light of the above Macedonian, defined as the language of those slavophones that idenitify as Macedonian, can only be spoken in areas in which they reside. In areas where the "exact same language" (qualified as above, I mean mutually intelligible) is spoken but by ethnically Greek or Bulgarian slavophones it needs to be labelled as Bulgarian or Slavica/Dopia respectively.

I know this whole thing is silly but it is the Slavomacedonians that want to establish a dialect of Bulgarian as a different language and since they are using the argument of self-determination they can't complain when it is used by others, I tried to be as clear as possible but anyone is invited to offer corrections to the above or ask for clarifications. Xenovatis (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know all that. I still don't see the problem. This is nothing but a normal "Dialects of X" page, and if the areas it treats are those areas that Macedonian linguistics happens to treat as its topic domain, then that's just it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this the English language wikipedia where we need English language sources or at least neutral ones? I'm not taking any of the RoM schoolbooks' stuff as we already defined the informative part of the article comes from such readings --Laveol 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no requirement for sources to be in English. And about any biases there might be, we could start talking about them once you started identifying where the map is actually factually wrong, something I've been asking you now for like an hour or so to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong in showing places where dialects of Bulgarian are spoken as places where some other language is. And you didn't answer my question - since there's no problem in calling these dialects Macedonian, what's the problem with calling dialects in RoM Bulgarian? I somehow got the impression this was something wrong and offensive. And are you telling be that sources should not be neutral? I thought this was important as well. --Laveol 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeat after me, slowly and carefully: This is NOT about claiming this or that territory for this or that national language. This is about describing dialect boundaries. Got it? Have you understood the comparison I gave above about Low German and Dutch? Try, at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. But still I insist on only neutral sources. I want to see a source other from those coming from RoM or Bulgaria or Greece that speaks about a Macedonian language in Pirin that is different from the Bulgarian dialect spoken there - the Bulgarian dialect that is part of the Bulgarian language continuum. Borders do divide after all and self-identification counts - Less than 1% of the people in Blagoevgrad province have described their language as Macedonian. It would help if you change the map to dialects spoken by the whatever minority lives there (slav, ethnic Macedonian, Slavomacedonian or whatever). --Laveol 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is claiming that those (possibly few) local people in Blagoevgrad who call their own variety "Macedonian" speak a dialect different from their neighbours who call it Bulgarian. They apparently speak the same, and the article correctly points out that there are those two perspectives (read it!). The map simply makes the point that the dialect spoken just west of the border, around Delcevo or whatever it's called, is essentially the same as that spoken just to the east of it in Blagoevgrad. Which, from the perspective of the scope of this article, makes it a perfectly reasonable choice to show those two areas together. Apart from silly nationalism there is absolutely no problem with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And besides the fact that the article is labeled "Dialects of Macedonian language". Shouldn't it be "Dialects of the region of Macedonia" or something? Isn't this the neutral way? Or taking into account the Greek view since this language is certainly not spoken by the majority of people in Greek Macedonia, it should be "Dialects of the Slavic language spoken in the region of Macedonia". Labeling it simply as the Macedonian language is POV. I think we've mis-understood from the beginning. You say that they speak the same language - ok, I agree (to some extent - they have lived in two different countries for over 60 years). And I say - yes, but it shows Bulgarian dialects as Macedonia, and you say - no - it's talking about dialects of both (or it's how I read it). But it is not - it claims the dialects as Macedonian as the title is such. Are you really telling me that in its current state with the current sources (RoM exclusive) and with the current map (not from a neutral source, but from a RoM schoolbook) this article is not POV? --Laveol 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the name of the language is an issue of self-identification it needs to be ensured that those slavophones labelled as Macedonian speakers do indeed identify as ethnic Macedonians. I brought up the case of Mt. Athos, there is a Bulgarian monastery where Bulgarian is spoken and by the categorization used it cannot be labelled Macedonian. Similarly we need to identify which areas in Greece are inhabited by those who identify as ethnic Macedonians and only colour those, i.e. which prefectures, villages etc. Given their number I doubt they are spread all over the coloured are and this is misleading. What are the sources saying that there are people who identify as Macedonian in all those areas? Can someone bring sources from the election results for the minority party Rainbow? This could be used as an indicator. The map as is is misleading because it could lead the unaware reader to assume that the slavic language spoken in most of the coloured areas is Macedonian when in fact by the schema followed it is not, even though it is mutually intelligible. Another indication the map is misleading is that it follows the border of the Macedonia idealized in Slavomacedonian irredentism. What is the purpose of using this particular deliniation that the map employs? Xenovatis (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about people identifying politically as Macedonians, and it's also not about how people call their language. It's about objectively describing patterns of similarities between dialects that are or used to be spoken in those areas. The map claims, for instance, that the Slavic dialects around Florina are somehow different from those spoken north of Thessaloniki. Not more and not less. Political self-identification is completely irrelevant to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Politics comes into it with the decision to label the slavic diaelcts of Florina and Thessalonica dialects of Macedonian. If the formulation you used above "slavic dialects" is used then there is indeed no problem nor should there be. If they are labelled as dialects of Macedonian however there is since they could equally well be labelled dialects of Bulgarian or dialects of dopia etc. The fact is that they are sourh slavic. Macedonian academics will label them all Macedonian (that is why I am leery of 100% trusting sources on this issue from RoM and the article only uses RoM sources now), Bulgarian ones will label it all Bulgarian and Greek sources deny there is an ethnic Macedonian minority.Xenovatis (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why I want neutral sources. Labeling those dialects as such or such to start with is POV. --Laveol 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, show us one single reliable source that does not describe the dialects around Florina or Thessaloniki as "Macedonian". (Except of course for those Bulgarian sources that deny the existence of a Macedonian language altogether, which is a non-notable fringe view these days.) "Dialects of Dopia" in the sense of a language separate from Macedonian is something I certainly have never seen in any respectable linguistics source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the burden of proof is with the one making the assertion. There are Greek and Bulgarian sources that claim exactly what you are suggesting I should provide you with but you just dismissed them out of hand. Using the equally if not more biased RoM sources alone does not really solve the issue. Like I said the same language is presented with one name or another based purely on political considerations. The argument you make about Dopia not being a language separate from Macedonian is the exact same argument made about Macedonian not being a language separate from Bulgarian.Xenovatis (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a trillion times. This is a technical linguistic article, only technical linguistic literature counts as RS. Show me a serious linguistic treatment that treats the varieties in Greece as a language separate from that to the north of the border. (Hint: There isn't any.) Ball is in your field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this article and that map has not been deleted yet is pretty weird.There is no such extent of Slavic/bulgarian/"mak" nor was it in the past.They were never a majority in Greek Macedonia.Megistias (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about "majorities", you are confusing things. It's a dialect map, not a demographic map. Showing some place in a certain color doesn't mean that place is inhabited by a Slavic majority; it only means that whatever Slavic dialects are there (or were there), share some distinctive structural features with those of other places shown in the same colour. How many or how few speakers are there, or indeed whether any such speakers are left at all now, is immaterial. The presence of other languages (such as the majority presence of Greek) is outside the scope of such a map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Well its time we start showing the real extent of Greek in the Balkans and in Turkey which is a great part of them.Most Albanians known it show we ll just make all of Albania Blue and add all the past Greek dialects so most of the Balkans will be blue"

Your belief that there were 10% Greeks in Macedonia as you expressed in the past goes to show you should take some distance from this. Megistias (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have some constructive input to make to Varieties of Modern Greek, including dialect data on outside-of-Greece varieties, be my guest. Apart from that, your grammar and orthography as well as the level of off-topicness in your argument indicate you are getting back into your disruptive editing mode. Approaching blockable level of disruption soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources were not in English and were not verifiable.Neutral verifiable sources could be used.Megistias (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be in English. And what did you do for "verifying" them? Stop engaging in disruptive editing, or I will see to it that you are banned from this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

re: page creation

thank you to who ever created this page! about time :)P m kocovski (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm away for one day and................

First of all, да ви го ебам и дијалектот и све!. (That means: "fuck your (plural) dialect and then some!"). Now that I've got that off my chest, I'd like to say a few things.

First, this article was not created as a propaganda tool. It was created by MacedonianBoy on request of P m kocovski, who wanted to know more about the dialects of the Macedonian language. The "dopia" dialects are in fact part of the Macedonian language (excluding Thrace), and this is backed up by the neutral scholars quoted in the Slavic dialects of Greece article. It focuses on linguistics, not politics, and it seems only the linguists can understand that.

About the map, I don't see the point in having the region of Macedonia borders. I'd rather see that map, and actual country borders over it, and in the caption we can (briefly) explain the terminology/view in the countries.

If you aren't interested in dialectology (specifically dialectology of the Macedonian language) then go away. What possible contribution can there be in this article from idiots who say "there is no Macedonian language". And you know it is possible for someone to say "I speak Makedonski, but I am Greek". While most of the time people would be influenced by politics in regards to what they call their language, it isn't always the case.

With the Macedonian language sources, they are verifiable, and your (all of you) only option is to trust me and the users who possess those sources. If you automatically assume they are propaganda, well then you will have to learn the Macedonian language and check them out for yourself (have fun). And you will find that they are about technical linguistics.

BalkanFever 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)