This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
That addition of "some linguists ... Bulgarian diasystem" doesn't belong here. It is not a statement about the topic of this article at all. Unlike in the case of some of the transitional dialects further east, this opinion is in no way related to actual dialect geography. Nobody who would consider Prilep/Bitola speech as Bulgarian would do so specifically and individually with respect to this dialect (as opposed to others); whoever holds such views does so because he considers Macedonian as a whole a part of Bulgarian. That such ideas exist is a (marginal) topic for Macedonian language, and treated fully in Political views on the Macedonian language or elsewhere. Taking it into every detail article dealing with parts and aspects of Macedonian is nonsensical.
And even apart from that, it is so fringy (in today's international scholarship) that a mentioning in the lead, even if just in a short neutral statement, is undue weight.
Plus, the sourcing is misleading. You can't quote a 1928 source for a statement presented in the present tense, on an issue where we all know that perceptions have crucially changed in between. Fut.Perf.☼00:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to specify:
These persistent reverts are not only mine. Everybody can see that this sentence about the other POVs was first added by GrigorG, then was erased persistently by Balkanfever (who violated the 3RR). Laveol and Future Perfect at Sunrise took part too.
I don't understand why Fut.Perf. claims that this opinion "is in no way related to actual dialect geography". Do you red the sources? You can pay attention at least to the book of the prominent dialectologist S. Stoykov (because it is online too). He don't discuss only the general questions, he describes these dialects (specifically and individually) as a part of the Bulgarian diasystem. Therefore we can't turn this information only to articles as Political views on the Macedonian language, because I pointed scientific, not political sources about these dialects.
The source from 1929 (not 1928) has its weight along with the other sources. It shows that this opinion isn't some new political theory without relevant scientific context. I hope that the editor with impressive knowledge as Future Perfect at Sunrise realizes the difference between some new, modern sciences and the old sceinces as are the different part of linguistics, where the achievements from the first half of XX century (and even earlier) are basic. In order to concrete, I’ll point that the biggest part of dialectological material of these dialects were collected and published in ХІХ and in the first half of XX century mostly by authors who thought that they made a contribution to Bulgarian dialectology. :)
The opinion about Bulgarian character of these dialects is the other opinion. As I know, there are only two scientific POV about this matter. It is truth that there was a time when was a third opinion, but unlike in the case of BG appurtenance it was very hesitatingly grounded by some Serbian authors and isn't in a currency.
The argument about undue weight can be in the favour of the thesis about the necessity to mention the other POV. Since as “NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each” In this case we only mention that there are such opinion. As I understood Fut.Perf accepted that this POV was dominant in the past. This reason itself makes the POV significant in diachronic plan. Exept this, important is the circumstance that this POV is shared today.
I understand that everybody in this argue has his opinion and maybe datreminative is his attitude to the Macedonian question as a whole. However I appeal to try to present honest the concrete subject and to be be loyal to the NPOV.--JSimin (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have absolutely no concept of undue weight. The "scientific" idea that Macedonian is Bulgarian has an entire article devoted to it. It does not need to be mentioned in this specific article. The only reason it was put here is to further a fringe view. BalkanFevernot a fan? say so!00:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy to declare that somebody hasn't concept of something. There are arguments from the one side and only conclusion as an answer by BalkanFever. Maybe he is right, but I can see it because he didn't explain his POV. The only argument - that there is an entire article about BG position about the language in RoM, for me isn't serious reason to erase the disputable sentence, at least because the quoted authors not only Bulgarian linguists. Except this, more important is that the object in this article is the concrete dialect spoken in Republic of Macedonia and parts from Greece. If there are other POVs about these concrete group of dialects why he can't point them? If this POVs deserve to be mention in the article Macedonain language, if there are entire article devoted to the this POV about the standard language, why we can’t even mention in the article about one of the dialects with relevant sources? I saw that there are many comments in the summaries with political connotation. Maybe the real reason about the reluctance of the presence of the other scientific POV is political?--GrigorG (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are points of view on the entire Macedonian language, there are points of view on the dialects of Macedonia as a whole, but not on the individual dialects (except when looking at some of them as transitional). Therefore, the passage has no place here. And funny how you insinuate that I'm removing it for political reasons, when that's exactly why you added it. BalkanFever01:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you assert that there aren't POVs on the individual dialects? The concrete example refute it. There is other POV about this group and therefore the passage (sentence) has its place.
P.S.The "insinuate" about political reasons didn't relate to you personally. I talk over those who shows political connotation in the summaries (as I note). Accidentally or not, their POV coincide with yours, but I discussed "the reluctance of the presence of the other scientific POV" as a whole. About your personal reasons I can't utter at this stage of conversation.--GrigorG (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "concrete example"? The only people that consider this dialect Bulgarian are the ones that consider the entire Macedonian language Bulgarian. That is why it's not specifically notable or relevant. BalkanFever02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that the "concrete example" refute the assertion that there aren't other POV about these concrete dialects ("...not on the individual dialects...").
If there are authors who consider this concrete group of dialects Bulgarian, we have to note this fact in the article. The fact that these authors in the other places consider the language in RoM Bulgarian as a whole don't change the situation. I would agree with you if we talk only about authors who don't discuss the concrete dialects. However, in this case we have dialectological opinions about the group which is the object of the article.
Of course, I can say nothing against the eventual idea to explain in the article (in the text or in the footnote) that these authors associate all Slavic dialects in MK with Bulgarian diasystem.--GrigorG (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I phrased clear, but obviuosly there is a problem. The logic is simple - "If there are authors who consider this concrete group of dialects Bulgarian, we have to note this fact in the article". I am talking about linguists and about the scientific POV which was dominant in the times when these dialects were represented and described in the science. If we accept the argument against it - that the deleted other scientific POV is a “fringe theory”, we have to delete this kind of information from many other articles and thus to make a seriuos step against NPOV.
I don’t understand “what is a concrete dialect meant to be?”. Here we discuss the right of the other scientific POV about the dialect to be represented – even with one sentence.--GrigorG (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
