Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ethnic Macedonians of Greece)
Jump to: navigation, search

Deleted passage[edit]

The passage below was deleted several times. Can everybody explain what is the problem, because I think, it will be better to discuss this issue. It is pritty referenced. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Large areas of north Greece were Slavic for about 1200 years until the past century.[1] The existence of any ethnic minorities is rejected by Greece and the government has followed assimilation policies and has discriminated against them.[2][3]The ideology of the Greek state is that the entire population should be Greek and the Greek government’s official position is that there are no ethnic minorities and virtually the entire population is ethnically Greek,[4][5] but that there exists only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness".[6] Greek authorities declined to recognise a Slavic minority and provide minority rights and the stance of Greece remains firm today and the minority is called with what authors describe as an “absurd and racially arrogant notion Slavophone Greeks”[7][8], an official stance “maintaining the fiction that the minorities in Greece are really Greeks” and that Greece is a homogeneous country.[9][10] Such an inconsistent claim of the Greek government in the Macedonia naming dispute is that the Slavic speakers in the Republic of Macedonia are "Slavs" and not Greek, and must not pretend for the name Macedonia, while the fact is that Greco-Yugoslav(Macedonian) border is an artificial one constructed arbitrary in 1913 and did not in any way that precisely separated so called "Slavophone Greeks" from true Slavs. Since 1913 Greek Macedonia has been subjected to a policy of forcible assimilation and Hellenization, whose first stages were exceeding population exchanges and changing place and personal Slavic names of the local inhabitants, all Slavic speakers, especially these with Macedonian and Bulgarian identity were deprived from the right to speak their language and names at home, beaten, terrorized, imprisoned, repressed by the police,[11] tortured or exiled to camps in islands, they were subjected to inhumane methods of extermination and assimilation.[12] including war crimes against little children(gouging their eyes, murder, rape, etc.)[13] The different were deprived from their right of expressing national identity although a policy of systematic extermination was carried out against what is described by the state with an utopian demarcation as "own people". The education system propagandized “Macedonia has always been Greek” and the events of settlement of a densest number of Slavic tribes(at least 5), Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians, Vlachs and any other people in the region was refuted in historical schoolbooks. The term “ρευστή εθνική συνείδηση” (fluid national consciousness) was invented in an attempt to grasp a non-national reality and claim that the minority was bilingual, although the members of the Slavic minority were early more often fluent in Turkish than Greek.[14]Although a considerable part resisted, the forced assimilation and extermination has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct.[15]

For one thing, it is definitely not written in a neutral tone. There are multiple places where the choice of adjective and clause phrasing is quite radically anti-Greek. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the author Judist (talk) can suggest some changes in text to make it more neutral and acceptable to the community here. Jingiby (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I can, of course, only state my own objections (one of which is tone) and cannot vouch for anyone else's objections. Fixing the tone is just step one. If others object to the content as a whole, that's another entire problem. --Taivo (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
OK! Let be patient for several days, if there are some kind of objections per se. Jingiby (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Taivo. In its current state, this text can never be placed on the article as it is a WP:NPOV violation and, if it is restored again, it will be removed without any prior warnings. Judist should heel to the administrator's warnings and refrain from similar disruptions in the future, including reinserting this biased content back to the article. In the event he does so, a topic-wide ban on all Macedonia and Balkan articles for him is very likely this time. As for the text, only some information - not all - can make its place into the article. But even that information could be filtered for its neutrality and tone. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jingiby.
Taivo, I am sorry for my tone, I hope you were misled by my tone from my last edit summaries and that the passage is not the case? I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution" I also checked WP:VULGAR, it says "Wikipedia is not censored and its encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the original source. ". As you see most of the passage contains quotes in commas, which are official stances of the Greek government. As Wikipedia is not censored this should stated in the article. On what grounds can object to something of such primary importance can be objected ? There are also quotations from Britannica and many claims are for Greek authors, there are several who acknowledge the "forced Hellenization" and "severe repression" of the minority during at least the extreme dictator Metaxas and this is expressed in the sources of the Greek authors Konstantinos Mousukas and Yannis Hamilakis. Whatever the truth offends, must be expressed without censorship and bias in this website, the claims were reported as in the sources. Do you agree with that? This is a due weight supported by enough authors and nationalities. But you are welcome to criticize. Could you please be more concrete about the tone? --Judist (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
My attitude toward this edit's tone was not based on your edit summaries. To suggest so is to disparage my long-term skills as a Wikipedia editor. Your edit is fundamentally biased in an anti-Greek direction and hiding behind "I'm just quoting my sources" is to abrogate your own responsibility to be a neutral editor. You chose to pick and use the most biased sources and to quote them directly rather than paraphrase or summarize them in a neutral fashion and with neutral vocabulary. Indeed, Wikipedia prefers summaries of sources rather than direct quotes when the original material is biased and the vocabulary offensive. Has there been an anti-Slavic bias among Greek authorities over time? Yes. We know that. But your extended harangue using the most biased language you could find in your sources is far from a neutral summary of the situation. It's not your edit summaries. It's your failure to present material in an unbiased manner and then hiding behind your excuse, "I'm just quoting my sources". That is not far from "I was just following orders." --Taivo (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
But your tone is only one of my objections. Since you seem unwilling to even think that your tone is offensive in a broad sense, then I will also point out other objections. There are multiple places where you have listed lurid details that are not encyclopedic and themselves bias the reader. What is the point of mentioning that little children had their eyes gouged out other than to prejudice the reader against the Greek perpetrators? It's a lurid detail that is placed here simply to inflame anti-Greek passions. There are multiple instances of this. --Taivo (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't intend to disparge you. I agree the passage to be transformed and the details of torture you mentioned moved to other section, removed, abbreviated or whatever. Would you try to transform it so that it fit better? Can you go ahead to the next step?
The point is as I said that there should be no censorship. I didn;t say I just cite sources, I said I represent them as in the tone presented by MOS. You allege me of hiding behind claims and thus justifying the removal of a whole passage? Isn't that bizzare? You can't know what are others' mentality and we care about the content, the contributors are not our business. I object to a complete removal and censorship of the passage. That (e.g.) part of Armenian Genocide should be censured simply because inflame anti-Turkish passions is not passing in Wikipedia, is it? Wikipedia is not censored and truth may be sometimes presented as offensive as it is. Isn't Holocaust, other genocides, etc, everything in detail. Why do even to question that? The reader may be prejudiced in all directions, everybody has different perceptions and we can't handle them. We should care about the information, the neutrality ignores the editors and the readers. It contains an official stance of the Greek government, biased or not, this should be noted. As for the rest, If smb finds one view so biased I simply suggest somebody to try to find more of a counter view for a balance. I will not re-add this passage in the article if nobody supports it until consensus from you. If somebody else wants it readded in the article, then go ahead and add it, correct it or whatever. Best.--Judist (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Equating the suppression of Slavic culture in northern Greece to the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is like equating a teaspoon of flour to a German chocolate cake. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New proposal the identity section, with excluded potential undue weight, which would rather be appropriate in other sections: The existence of any ethnic minorities is rejected by the Greek state officially. The minority was subjected to inhumane methods of extermination and assimilation, an unjustified terror against a minority claimed to be part of the "Greek race".[16][17][2][18] The ideology of the Greek state is that the entire population should be Greek and the Greek government’s official position is that there are no ethnic minorities and virtually the entire population is ethnically Greek,[17][19] but that there exists only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness".[20] The stance of Greece remains firm today and the whole minority is called with what authors describe as an “absurd and racially arrogant notion Slavophone Greeks”[21][22], an official term “maintaining the fiction that the minorities in Greece are really Greeks” and that Greece is a homogeneous country.[23][24] Such an inconsistent claim of the Greek government in the Macedonia naming dispute is that the Slavic speakers in the Republic of Macedonia are "Slavs" and not Greek, and must not pretend for the name Macedonia, while the fact is that Greco-Yugoslav(Macedonian) border is an artificial one constructed arbitrary in 1913 and did not in any way that precisely separated so called "Slavophone Greeks" from true Slavs. The utopian demarcation “ρευστή εθνική συνείδηση” (fluid national consciousness) was invented in an attempt to grasp a non-national reality and claim that the minority was bilingual, although the members of the Slavic minority were early more often fluent in Turkish than Greek.[14] According to some authors, the forced assimilation and extermination has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct.[25][11] Judist (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you seriously think that the above "revision" follows the dictates of WP:NPOV, then you are seriously in need of some education on Wikipedia standards and practices. I didn't get past the first two sentences before it was clear that you have no idea how to edit neutrally on Wikipedia. Sorry, but that version is equally unacceptable as a violation of WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The first two sentences represent facts and are neutral. What to state for a state, in which all citizens are alleged to be ethnic Greeks officially by the government? I don't know any current government in the world with more extensive and long-standing assimilation policy than this one, do you? It can maybe sounds not too neutral, but a fact. Now you left without telling what you insist to be changed? I am lost like this. Propose a wording and try to get consensus after compromise with others? If you are simply insisting that the passage may not be corrected by me and should be left out, please state that, without provoking me for further attempts of cooperation. Best--Judist (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have to build a consensus for this, you do. You need to look up the word "neutral" in the dictionary. You clearly don't know the meaning of it. And if you seriously are unable to see what violates WP:NPOV about this then your chances of building a consensus for any wording you propose are zero. But just so you can see why other editors reject your wording, I'll show from the beginning the earliest examples: "The minority was subjected to inhumane methods of extermination and assimilation, an unjustified terror". Anti-Greek wording is clearly found in "inhumane" and "unjustified terror". As I stated in an earlier comment, hiding behind "those are the words of my sources" is just lazy editing and violates WP:NPOV. Why don't you include any pro-Greek sources? Why don't you use anti-Macedonian wording, too, if you want to truly be neutral with this type of prejudicial use of inflammatory vocabulary? That's just the beginning. You clearly have an anti-Greek axe to grind. I'm not pro-Greek (just see the accusations of being Macedonian that are regularly hurled at me on pages related to that nation), but this wording of yours is egregiously anti-Greek. If I (who regularly defends Macedonia's right to use the name "Macedonia") can see your bias and am aghast that you claim it's "neutral", then you are in serious trouble when it comes to being able to objectively edit Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Judist, when will you ever understand what WP:NPOV, one of the Wikipedia's core content policies, is? After years of advises, warnings and two blocks, one could have expected from you that you have had more than enough time to familiarize yourself with the project's core policies. Not knowing some of the minor rules in Wikipedia after that many years, is very understandable and forgivable. There is always a minor rule or two which we may not be aware of, regardless of our time in Wikipedia. But not knowing still one of the three core content policies (really, there are only 3 here, not more!) is not forgivable. This is a tragic irresponsibility, not befitting an editor of Wikipedia. At this rate, I couldn't be surprised if you start someday creating articles such as Ethnic Macedonian Genocide, which could greatly befit as article title for your text, given the tone of it. Very saddening. There is nothing more I can add to what Taivo has told you already. Your text can by no means be added into the article, even in the case where you have managed to address the problematic tone of it. --SILENTRESIDENT 04:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi everybody. As I see here is no consensus on the proprosed by Judist variant. I try yet to make some another proposal in hope to reach a NPOV. It is as follows: Today the existence of Slavic ethnic minority is denied by the Greek state. In the past this group was a subjected to different methods of combined assimilation, an today it is claimed to be part of the "Greek race".[16][17][2][18] The position of the Greek state is that the entire Slavic population in Greece is ethnically Greek,[17][19] and it is only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks", who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect", but has a "Greek national consciousness".[20] Such a claim of the Greek government does not accept the fact, that northern Greek border does not in any way precisely separate so called "Slavophone Greeks" from another "true Slavs" - Macedonian and Bulgarian. The idea of such kind of fluid national consciousness, was invented in the early 20-th century as an attempt, to grasp a non-national fictional reality. In this way, the different assimilation policies hold during the 20-th century, including forced ones, has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct today.Jingiby (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
This is better, but still violates WP:NPOV. It's fine from the beginning up until "Greek national consciousness" (the tone, that is, I'm not saying anything about whether this should be in the article or not). Then with "Such a claim" it divulges back into the opinionated and prejudicial anti-Greek rant that is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia and stays in that mud until the end. Put it on your personal blog page, but it doesn't belong here. --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Judist and Jingiby, it seems you have confused Wikipedia for a personal WP:BLOGSPOT where such texts can be used freely. Like how Taivo has said (and he is quite clear, I don't understand why you are forcing him to repeat himself), please keep such content away from the article. The sooner this is understood, the better. We have already spent way too much time educating you about WP:NPOV, about what POV is and what it is not. Don't get me wrong, it is nice for me and Taivo to help you get familiarized with the project's core content policies, and, usually we do not WP:BITE you the editors about that, especially if you are newcomers. But thing is - you aren't exactly newcomers to the project. You have been quite old members of Wikipedia, from what I can see. And I am sure Taivo and I shouldn't be spending much more time here teaching you about the obvious (which I am afraid has become quite clear by now). Wikipedia in fact discourages such lengthy educational talks as this current one, and rather suggests sanctions to be imposed, as per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, where it states: "If the community spends more time [...] educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." and rather encourages the editors to move on and shift their focus on other articles that would really need our attention. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Taivo either insists others to correct the passage according to his views or the passage to be completely removed(I don't get it so far) and said: " Put it on your personal blog page, but it doesn't belong here" which, either of both, violates the policy Taivo cited. Namely, the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality claims: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. "

Taivo, you somehow left the rewording to other editors, with the expectation to constantly object new proposals and to insist for removal of the tones of source of due weight, but suprise- you are violating the policy above and most you can do is to propose a rewording by yourself, the passage may not be removed out of here to a blog.

Sources to be included here are measured on WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE weight, i.e. amount of non-fringe authors, who maintain a specific view. I added the sources to the proposal, a significant majority of the authors agree that there was assmilation policies(Britannica states "long standing policies of assimilation"), so this a due weight and cannot be removed, but a rewording can be attempted through the "normal editing process". "The existence of any ethnic minorities is rejected by the Greek state officially. The minority has been subjected to a long-standing govenrment policy of assimilation,[17][26][2][27][28][29] extermination, including inhumane methods[30] and terror, against a minority claimed to be part of the "Greek race". The ideology of the Greek state is that the entire population should be Greek and the Greek government’s official position is that there are no ethnic minorities and virtually the entire population is ethnically Greek,[17][31] but that there exists only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness".[32] The stance of Greece remains firm today and the whole minority is called with what authors describe as an “absurd and racially arrogant notion Slavophone Greeks”[33][34], an official term “maintaining the fiction that the minorities in Greece are really Greeks” and that Greece is a homogeneous country.[35][36] Such an inconsistent claim of the Greek government in the Macedonia naming dispute is that the Slavic speakers in the Republic of Macedonia are "Slavs" and not Greek, and must not pretend for the name Macedonia, while the fact is that Greco-Yugoslav(Macedonian) border is an artificial one constructed arbitrary in 1913 and did not in any way that precisely separated so called "Slavophone Greeks" from true Slavs. The utopian demarcation “ρευστή εθνική συνείδηση” (fluid national consciousness) was invented in an attempt to grasp a non-national reality and claim that the minority was bilingual, although the members of the Slavic minority were early more often fluent in Turkish than Greek.[14] According to some authors, the forced assimilation and extermination has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct.[37][11]"

If you also can find a minority of pro-Greek sources, which claim that there was no assimilation, add it. Apart from the sources- the rest, is the wording, which you have the right insist to change here, but Wikipedia is not censored and please stop repeating the nonsense to impose a censorship on such due weight. What seems biased to you can not be removed and moved to a non-existent blog, which claim of yours is also a bizzare violation of the good faith here. If you can not reword, but insist to remove the passage, then you are imposing censorship here and are useless for achieving the consensus according to the policies. All policies are also followed by the proposal of Jingiby, do you agree that the removed due passage violated the general rule of WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality? The passage clearly must be returned back to the article and can experience change through "normal editorial process", the policy is clear. Agree with me, because I am alleged here to be much bad user. One allegator, who instead of discussing the content, continues allegations against me - SilentResident, is a biased editor, violates NPOV throughout the articles and removes anything that is not suited with the Greek point of view, can not find the balance and are falsely threating the alleged others for behaving like her with warnings for a topic ban throughout the talk pages. The user also tries to redirect all the administrators' attention of her biased disruptive agenda and extreme views to alleged users with superficial politeness and excuses like "reading disorder" and should be carefully watched by the administrators. As the Balkans were a very notable arena of ethnic cleansings and assimilation policies the scholars coined the term Balkanization for that. Remember the general rule above- simply do not remove sourced information. If you can't reword the text or add alternative views, you must leave it like that. Trying to reword is welcome. You don't have grounds for blanking, a disruptive editing, as the policies you cited are speaking against you.--Judist (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I agree with Judist. The case here is probably an attempt to impose here some kind censorship, and this deletion of the passage above, is a violation of the rules of Wikipedia. It resembles the case of Anastasia Karakasidou. Karakasidou received her undergraduate and graduate education in the US. She has a doctorate degree in social and cultural anthropology from Columbia University. Her disseration and early reearch is focused on the ethnicity and culture of the Slavic-speakers of northern Greece. Karakasidou's monograph is called “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Passages to nationhood in Greek Macedonia”. It was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1997. However several months earlier Cambridge University Press shocked the academic worlds by pulling Karakasidou’s book from their academic list. Cambridge officials claimed that her publication could endanger the security of their associates in Greece. Misha Glenny claims Karakasidou became a target of a campaign waged in the Greek media by extreme nationalists, who claimed that her work on issues of Slavic identity in Aegean Macedonia was treacherous. These claims were made at the height of the hysteria, encouraged by members of the Greek government. Cambridge University administration explained that its decision was made under the strong pressure of the British Embassy in Athens. Per Mark Mazower from University of Sussex her writings demonstrates that contrary to official rhetoric, the current people of Greek Macedonia ultimately derive from profoundly diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I propose again to put into the article my more neutral suggestion, and to discuss it sentence by sentence here. Keep in mind it is pretty sourced with academic references. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry but your arguments do not make your biased text more eligible for use in the Wikipedia. Texts in which Greece is accused for organized exterminations, Ethnic cleansings and genocides against Ethnic Macedonians (a view which is held among Macedonian nationalists against, not only Greece, but also Bulgaria, and which is not backed by any serious historians, scholars and academics worldwide) have no place here. Stop dragging this discussion because it ain't happening. I very kindly recommend that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away. From me at least, do not expect to give you my consent as this won't happen. I will monitor the article to make sure these texts won't be added. In the case they are, they will be reverted as usual. Have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There are policies and they cannot be dropped only to rise you to the status of an owner of Wikipedia.--Judist (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, again. I don't mention anywhere terms as ethnic Macednians, genocide, organized exterminations, ethnic cleansings etc. By the way prof. Karakasidou's family got frequent threats from Greek nationalists and she herself was warned even by the Secret Intelligence Service-Mi6, to be under a terrorist threat, because of her research on the field of ethnic identity of the Slavs from Greece. Maybe this case should be added to the text. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Jingiby, the article already has covered the issues of discrimination and Hellenization policies against the South Slavic community of Greece in a balanced way that contains no anti-Greek or anti-Ethnic Macedonian or anti-Bulgarian pov, which I believe is the best possible thing we can have for now. Coming here and insisting of your part on a certain anti-Greek bias only disrupts this progress toward improving and balancing the article, will find me firmly opposing. You and Judist have dragged this discussion too far but do not expect from me to change my position on this. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not my job to rewrite your personal prejudice and make it acceptable for the article. And your claim that it's "just what the sources say" is lazy editing and doesn't make it any more appropriate for Wikipedia. You are clearly in the territory now of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are wasting our time. The bottom line is that your edit is unacceptable. There is no consensus for inserting your personal hatred of Greeks into Wikipedia and it will be reverted if you do. I will remind you that this article is subject to Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions per WP:MOSMAC and WP:ARBMAC and you can be blocked or banned if you persist and start an edit war. You have failed to build a consensus here for your edits. That's the fundamental requirement for inserting anything into Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I second everything SilentResident and Taivo have said so far. Especially the part about this article being covered by discretionary sanctions. Khirurg (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
While Judist's suggested text is completely unacceptable, Jingiby's suggestion is fine up to a point. The last part, however, from "Such a claim...", seems to be the editor's own analysis. Unless this analysis can be sourced, it falls obviously under WP:OR, and even if it is sourced, it would have to be paraphrased as one point of view, not presented as Wikipedia's conclusion. --T*U (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd go for the suggestion of Jingiby, along with the request of TU-nor. Compromised enough, all the information is referenced to serious academics and Britannica. The rest should stop complaining as long as they are able to participate in the process of editing. It seems you didn't hear that. What policies of Wikipedia actually say is that information may be normally, but not necessarily added with consensus. Consensus (by everyone) is not a must and strict rule in Wikipedia for the case as you claim. There is also a pillar of Wikipedia "ignore all rules" if something improves the article. The general rule for the case claims that the passages should be reverted and be modified by editorial process, so this is what should normally be done in this case. The general rule Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."--Judist (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Just because you shout in bold letters and stomp your foot about "compromised enough" doesn't mean that WP:CONSENSUS and other policies don't still apply. --Taivo (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
All of this material seems to already be covered under the section "Past Discrimination" and that your references could simply be added to the references already found in that section. If that's the case, then repeating the material in another section just to make a point is a violation of WP:NPOV as being a WP:POINTy edit. --Taivo (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Posting another deleted passage for discussion.Judist (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok lets see, dear Judist, what you got again for us to discuss (and potentially waste more of our time with you). The passage you added does not really add much to the article, besides being a disguise for more POV of your part, especially on the section where you wrote: "The Slavic tribes absorbed their allies the Avars and the Bulgars and some Byzantines, who were of various backgrounds (Aromanian, Illyrian, Thracian, Greek, Paeonian, Phrygian, Ancient Macedonian, etc.)".
As expected: classic WP:POV and WP:OR attempt to revive the Ancient Macedonians in the Byzantine era as a separate ethnic group from the Greeks and then link them ("absorbed") with the modern day Slavs, to establish an unbroken link between Ancient Macedonians and modern day's Ethnic Macedonians. Classic POV from the usual suspect. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ammon, Ulrich. Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110184181. 
  2. ^ a b c "GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR". Retrieved 14 August 2015. 
  3. ^ ΜΟΥΣΟΥΛΜΑΝΙΚΗ ΜΕΙΟΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΘΡΑΚΗΣ [Muslim Minority of Thrace] (in Greek). Athens, Greece: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hellenic Resources Network. June 1999. Retrieved 6 January 2016. 
    ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΦΑΤΗ ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΗ ΤΟΥ ΠΛΗΘΥΣΜΟΥ [Figures from the recent Population Census] (in Greek). Water Info. 2001. Retrieved 6 January 2016. 
  4. ^ "Greece: People: Ethnic groups". Britannica online. Retrieved 6 February 2017. 
  5. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. p. 34. ISBN 0691043566. 
  6. ^ Roisman, Joseph. Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great. BRILL. ISBN 9789004217553. 
  7. ^ Palairet, Michael. Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443888431. 
  8. ^ Detrez, Raymond. Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442241800. 
  9. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691043566. 
  10. ^ Merrill, Christopher. Only the Nails Remain: Scenes from the Balkan Wars. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781461640417. 
  11. ^ a b c Brown, Keith S.; Hamilakis, Yannis. The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories. Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739103845. 
  12. ^ Mojzes, Paul. Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 37. ISBN 9781442206632. 
  13. ^ [Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars]
  14. ^ a b c Aspects of the Hellenization of Greek Macedonia, ca. 1912 - ca. 1959
  15. ^ Wilson, Nigel. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Routledge. ISBN 9781136788000. 
  16. ^ Mojzes, Paul. Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 37. ISBN 9781442206632. 
  17. ^ a b c d "Greece: People: Ethnic groups". Britannica online. Retrieved 6 February 2017.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "britannica" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  18. ^ ΜΟΥΣΟΥΛΜΑΝΙΚΗ ΜΕΙΟΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΘΡΑΚΗΣ [Muslim Minority of Thrace] (in Greek). Athens, Greece: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hellenic Resources Network. June 1999. Retrieved 6 January 2016. 
    ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΦΑΤΗ ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΗ ΤΟΥ ΠΛΗΘΥΣΜΟΥ [Figures from the recent Population Census] (in Greek). Water Info. 2001. Retrieved 6 January 2016. 
  19. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. p. 34. ISBN 0691043566. 
  20. ^ Roisman, Joseph. Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great. BRILL. ISBN 9789004217553. 
  21. ^ Palairet, Michael. Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443888431. 
  22. ^ Detrez, Raymond. Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442241800. 
  23. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691043566. 
  24. ^ Merrill, Christopher. Only the Nails Remain: Scenes from the Balkan Wars. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781461640417. 
  25. ^ Wilson, Nigel. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Routledge. ISBN 9781136788000. 
  26. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691043566. At this point the Greek government began a policy of Hellenization whose goal was to assimilate the ethnically diverse inhabitants 
  27. ^ ΜΟΥΣΟΥΛΜΑΝΙΚΗ ΜΕΙΟΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΘΡΑΚΗΣ [Muslim Minority of Thrace] (in Greek). Athens, Greece: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hellenic Resources Network. June 1999. Retrieved 6 January 2016. 
    ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΦΑΤΗ ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΗ ΤΟΥ ΠΛΗΘΥΣΜΟΥ [Figures from the recent Population Census] (in Greek). Water Info. 2001. Retrieved 6 January 2016. 
  28. ^ Wilson, Nigel. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Routledge. ISBN 9781136788000. 
  29. ^ Bellou, Fotini. Greece in the Twentieth Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781136346521. 
  30. ^ Mojzes, Paul. Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 37. ISBN 9781442206632. 
  31. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. p. 34. ISBN 0691043566. 
  32. ^ Roisman, Joseph. Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great. BRILL. ISBN 9789004217553. 
  33. ^ Palairet, Michael. Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443888431. 
  34. ^ Detrez, Raymond. Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442241800. 
  35. ^ Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691043566. 
  36. ^ Merrill, Christopher. Only the Nails Remain: Scenes from the Balkan Wars. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781461640417. 
  37. ^ Wilson, Nigel. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Routledge. ISBN 9781136788000. 

Bulgarian language[edit]

May I ask if it is ok to include Bulgarian language on the infobox? Im not expert in languages, but a map [1] made by Future Perfect depicts the Bulgarian language as being spoken in some of the easternmost parts of Macedonia, near the Bulgarian border. I am not sure if these Bulgarian communities are still alive today or are part of a diaspora, but since this is the article about Slavophones of Macedonia and since the Macedonian isn't the sole South Slavic language spoken in that area, couldnt this be reflected on Infobox too? --SILENTRESIDENT 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect's map is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's definition. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of linguistic sources that discuss the Slavic language of Greek Macedonia unequivocally call that language "Macedonian". They don't say "some speak Macedonian and some speak Bulgarian", but say "they speak Macedonian dialects". That's what the vast majority of reliable sources assert. The other thing to note about Future Perfect's map is that the Bulgarian sliver in the east is not a population that is associated with or included in the definition of "Greek Macedonian". That sliver is the Pomak community, a Muslim community with a different culture and history from the topic of this article, which is the Slavic-speaking population of the Greek provinces of West and Central Macedonia. The Pomaks live in East Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. Ok, thanks.--SILENTRESIDENT 10:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Further to Taivo's comment above: The Pomaks are not in Macedonia at all, only in Thrace. Since they were Muslims, the (few) Pomaks that may have lived in East Macedonia were sent to Turkey in the population exchange, while the Pomaks of Thrace were exempted. On the FutPerf map there is, however, marked a Slavic population in the Serres/Drama area on the border between Central and East Macedonia; the source for this being Euromosaic. I do not know if there still are any left, but If there are, they will also be a part of the dialect continuum that is usually called Macedonian and that is also present in the SW part of Bulgaria called Pirin Macedonia (but you may have to search hard to find Bulgarians admitting that). --T*U (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the reason of addition was the violet color in the area of Serres, (the violet indicates a mixture of Ethnic Macedonian pink and Bulgarian purple), hinting that both Bulgarian and Ethnic Macedonian Slavophones living in the Serres region. Other than that, there is no reason to add Bulgarian to the list. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Please, it depends on the political background of the researcher how to call the language. Concerning these regions, linguistically it is considered more accurate to refer to an Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum and not to Macedonian, Bulgarian or Slavo-Macedonian. The Slavic-speakers of these regions refer to their language as Macedonian or Bulgarian when they speak in Greek. Jingiby (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It will probably be hard to find any Slavic-speakers at all in the Serres-Drama area of Greece today. And if the Slavic-speakers further west refer to their languager in Greek at all, perhaps some thousands will say Macedonian. But most of them will probably say they speak "ντοπιός", meaning local or native. --T*U (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum"? Is there really such a term? Pardon me for my ignorance but sounds more like OR to me than actual scientific term. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a fairly accurate linguistic description, but of course not a name to call them. In any case, whatever we call it, the important thing is to avoid the implication that these groups speak two different languages. From the perspective of the minority in Greece, it's a single language; only it's historically been described in relation to either of the two adjacent standard languages, and structurally its's located somewhere at different points along the continuum between them. Fut.Perf. 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, what you said now, raises another question: Having the Ethnic Macedonian language solely mentioned on the Lead and infobox, isn't an implication that the Bulgarian was not, historically or contemporary, one of the possible two relations to the Slavophones' language? Unless this article is supposed to be only about modern-day Slavophone community in Greece, (modern = after the rise of the Ethnic Macedonian national consciousness in 1900s-1940s), while it is known that the Slavophones were in this region for centuries. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Then Future, will be correct to add Bulgarian again there, or it will be a biased action. Jingiby (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh not again, Jingiby with bias and such. We are just discussing something here in a civilized manner, I think you should not be quick to justify other editor's actions before you hear them. This article has seen enough troubles in the past, if something is not added to the article, there may be a good reason for this. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Future Perfect has pointed out, quite correctly, that there are not two languages spoken here, only one. The question is not whether they speak one language or two, but only what to label the single language that they do speak. They don't speak either Standard Macedonian or Standard Bulgarian. They speak a dialect that is between the two. The question isn't what is "fair" politically, the question is which of the two standards do the speakers of Greek Macedonia gravitate to? Which are they linguistically closer to? The vast majority of NPOV linguistic references place these speakers closer to Standard Macedonian than to Standard Bulgarian linguistically. It's not even a close count. Some sources mention that these dialects, while included in Macedonian, are intermediate between Standard Macedonian and Standard Bulgarian, but most place them in the orbit of Macedonian without comment. Thus, to include "Bulgarian" as a label here is actually OR, being unsupported by the linguistic literature. (I provided an extensive list in a discussion from 2015 in one of the recent archives of this Talk page.) Placing two language labels in the infobox also implies that there are two Slavic languages spoken in Greek Macedonia. This is false. The text of the article already mentions the dialect situation as I recall. --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The yat (*ě) split in the Bulgarian language.

Taivo, that is a linguistic paradox. The main isogloss separating the Bulgarian dialects into Eastern and Western is the yat border, marking the different mutations of the Old Curch Slavonic. Standard Bulgarian is based on the Eastern dialects, while standard Macedonian is based on the dialects located west from this isogloss. However, the whole area of Eastern Macedonia in Greece, that is located south of Bulgaria proper, falls east from the yat border. I.e. those Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialects, are much closer to standard Bulgarian and can not be clasified as Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. According to Anastasia Karakasidou the first standartized Bulgarian script was created during 1850s by the American missionary Elias Riggs, based on the same dialects of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace in modern Greece. (Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990, University of Chicago Press, 2009, p. 83.) Jingiby (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear TaivoLinguist, TU-nor, Future Perfect at Sunrise it makes sense now. Thank you very much for your quick responses. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jingiby, I am not sure if I understand, I am not a linguist expect, I am sorry if I can't comment you on this.
Edit: if by that you mean that the Slavic speakers in the eastern parts of Greece, including East Macedonia prefecture, speak a language/dialect more closely to the Bulgarian even though they consider their spoken language to be related to that of Ethnic Macedonian, then, if none else here on talk objects to this information, it should be mentioned. But I am generally uneducated on Slavic languages, besides my ability to read and understand little text in Ethnic Macedonian. so don't count on me on that. You better seek consensus with the others here. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Jingiby is engaging in original research in his analysis. It doesn't matter what he/she thinks is the case or his interpretation of a single linguistic isogloss. What matters is what the linguistic community in general says in reliable sources. The vast majority of NPOV linguistic sources place the dialect of Greek Macedonia within the compass of the Macedonian dialects and not the Bulgarian dialects. Remember, there is only one Slavic language spoken by this group of people in Greece. And linguists to an overwhelming degree include that language variety in Macedonian and not in Bulgarian. Remember also that the article covers the complexities of this dialect continuum already in both the "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations" section and the "Education and language" sections. No further clarification is necessary. --Taivo (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the map Jingiby has posted is not a map dividing Macedonian from Bulgarian languages. It is simply a map that says "East of this line X vowel is pronounced Y and west of it, X vowel is pronounced Z." That's all it indicates. --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Jingiby is clearly also simplifying the dialect situation. The isoglosses are much more complex, as, for example, described in Roland Sussex and Paul Cubberley, The Slavic Languages (Cambridge, 2006) on pages 507-514. It is also clear that Jingiby has a very simplistic view of the nature of linguistic isoglosses, not realizing that isoglosses can cross language borders so that the same isogloss can divide dialects in two different languages. An example of this is the change of nC clusters to CC clusters that separates the Southern Ute dialect from Southern Paiute in the Colorado River Numic language as well as the Comanche language from the eastern Shoshoni dialect in the Central Numic group. One isogloss in two different dialect chains. His carefully described "gotcha" is nothing of the kind. --Taivo (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with defining the boundaries between Slavic languages in the Balkans is typically the involved politics, as language boundaries are defined by the national identities of their speakers rather than their actual characteristics. We have "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian" and now recently "Montenegrin", even though a purely linguistically based division would either lump them all together as one language, or (maybe) have "North Croatian" (i.e. Kajkavian), "West Croatian" (i.e. Chakavian) and "Everything else in Serbosnicroatmontenegrin except maybe Torlakian but that's controversial". See also the controversy about the "Moldovan" language, or, outside the Balkans, the (somewhat similar, not completely) issues with Galician and Portuguese or Catalan and Valencian. If you ask the speakers, no matter what the characteristics of their speech are, they'll say the speak the language matching their nationality. It's a similar story with Macedonian and Bulgarian overall, though less extreme-- originally they were considered one Slavic language, and they are still considered part of a dialect continuum. It's dubious that there's any clear isogloss that will separate "Bulgarian" from "Macedonian" as it will inevitably fail to align to the national identities of its speakers which have more to do with national borders and resulting public education regimes. Unfortunately, some linguists have also been recruited into "pro-Macedonian" and "pro-Bulgarian" camps, which have the cynical dichotomy between "all identities are fake so who cares" and "all identities are fake but some are more fake than others", a debate which seems suspiciously non-linguistic. (Western) Linguists tend to have tendencies (a) to support the claims of small and historically marginalized peoples and (b) to oppose "nationalism" (they tend to lean left politically) but in this case the two tendencies cause divergence. There's really no undisputed way to talk about it at all. The question of what standard the speakers "gravitate to" also seems a bit weird to me as, aside from political issues, a lot of them only write in Greek to begin with, so it's a moot question to ask which unfamiliar script they prefer. The most "neutral" way imo to talk about it might just be to refer to both as "Slavic" dialects (which will make neither Bulgarians nor Macedonians happy), or I guess to refer to the Pomak areas (they aren't in Macedonia, but in Thrace) as "Bulgarian" because it would be bizarre to separate them from the closely related Pomak dialects across the Greek-Bulgarian border, while the other ones are "Macedonian". But a "compromise POV" remains a POV. --Yalens (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent comment, User:Yalens. We are left with a couple of logical options. The overwhelming number of linguistic sources call the Greek Slavic dialect (not including Pomak, which is not the subject of this article) "Macedonian". That is supported by the vast majority of reliable sources. The other option is to use the Ethnologue strategy, which is to label the language "Macedonian" in Macedonia, Albania, and Bulgaria, but label it "Slavic" in Greece ([2]). This is not a satisfactory substitute since we still must link the term "Slavic" in the article to Macedonian language, since that's where our reliable sources must lead us. In the end, we are left with "Macedonian" as the label for the single Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia. What is not an option is arbitrarily using the label "Bulgarian" for any part of the single Slavic language of Greek Macedonia since that implies that there is more than one Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia and is unsupported by the overwhelming majority of reliable linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Possibly more neutral and convenient alternative to sidestep controversy: link to East South Slavic, which includes only Bulgarian and Macedonian. --Yalens (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, Yalens. Why not. --SILENTRESIDENT 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Because it's not supported by the majority of reliable sources. Facts are pesky things and the dialect of Macedonian Greece is unequivocally linked to Macedonian in the linguistic literature. It is also confusing to our readers since a reader who wants to know details about the Slavic language of Greek Macedonia isn't going to find anything at the South Slavic link. Our reader will be left stranded at a place without any guidance on where to proceed. Wikipedia must maintain its reader-friendliness and not strand them unnecessarily when the scientific literature provides a ready remedy. This article already provides a description of the complexity, but clearly comes down on the side of "Macedonian" since that's where the science leads. To then not link our reader to Macedonian language is inappropriate. If some editor ever writes a proper NPOV article exclusively about the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum, that would be an appropriate link. But to link our reader to the middle of nowhere in an outline of Slavic languages is a cruel joke. Indeed, our article clearly calls this language "Macedonian" with quotes from scientific authorities to back that up in the sections cited above. --Taivo (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
As I believe you agreed with earlier, the name of whatever that language the Slavs of (Greek) Macedonia speak is not a scientific issue, but rather a political issue. The linguists themselves have no consensus. And the ethnologue link that you yourself left here notes that the language is simply called "Slavic" in areas of Greece it is spoken (I would add that there are other names for it that are used which are not "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian", but whatever). I don't think it's a cruel joke to send the reader to a page where they are immediately presented with links to both Bulgarian and Macedonian, as well as other closely related dialects (Gorani, Torlak, more distantly Shtokavian, etc etc etc). The linked section also immediately discusses details of the language spoken, details about characteristics that happen to be common to both Bulgarian and Macedonian and whatever Slavic they speak in Northern Greece should be called. It seems the most NPOV thing to do, imo. --Yalens (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yalens, a question. Still, there is no scientific name for that language in Northern Greece. If an article is supposedly to be created (with links leading to both Macedonian and Bulgarian), then how could that artice be called? --SILENTRESIDENT 08:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
For the wider language, I'd call it "Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum". If we'd be doing a page on the dialects present in Greece, as I understand it they're a pretty motley group in terms of features. I'm not actually a topical expert on Bulgarian or Macedonian or the Slavic dialects of Greece though. Perhaps "Slavic dialects of (Northern) Greece", with a nice small history section talking about the early medieval Slavic invasions of Greece, some discussion about the name controversy, modern status of the language and whatnot. I'd still be theoretically willing to contribute where it would be helpful to it if desired, though I'm pretty, uh, busy (:() at the moment. I did have some source way back that discussed the (former) presence of Slavic speakers in Epirus and their ultimate Hellenization over the course of the Middle Ages, although the topic was not so much Slavs as it was Epirus' historic demographics. Of course, the page would be likely be a magnet for POV warring for a time as a number of Macedonian (I'm referring to the country with the capital of Skopje, not the Greek region) editors would not be very happy about it I suspect, but with time it could ultimately become a good article along the lines of Serbo-Croatian. --Yalens (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Yalens, why is this Macedonian language in Greece called "Slavic" in Greece (it is not called "Slavic" by linguists, who call it "Macedonian")? Perhaps it's because the Greeks think they own the copyright for the word "Macedonia(n)" and refuse to allow it to be associated with anything whatsoever Slavic. The language is not called "Slavic" in Greece for any linguistic reason, but for purely political ones. Ethnologue calls it "Slavic" because they usually follow somewhat political naming practices when such exist. Again, you fail to recognize the simple fact that the vast majority of NPOV sources call the language of Greek Macedonia "Macedonian" and link it more intimately with the language of Macedonia than with the language of Bulgaria. And your assertion that the reader will be just fine being dumped in the middle of an outline rather than at a language article is rather naive. User:SilentResident, despite the fact that Yalens did not directly answer your question, there is already a scientific name for the language spoken in Greek Macedonia. The scientific consensus is to call that language "Macedonian". Despite what Yalens wrote, there is, indeed, a scientific consensus among neutral scientists (that is, those outside the Macedonia-Bulgaria-Greece microworld). Once an article specifically on the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum exists, then I will potentially have no objection to a link from here to there (based on the actual final nature of that article, of course). But in the absence of anything useful to our readers, then this article needs to follow the scientific consensus and direct the reader to Macedonian language and not to the middle of an unhelpful outline in the middle of another article. --Taivo (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Taivo, I think you're being a bit unfair here. As SilentResident has already said, that's not a fair depiction of the Greek position at all, and while Greeks are indeed very proud and occasionally defensive about their ancient heritage, much of Greek opposition to use of the term Macedonia by its northern neighbor has nothing to do with that and instead has to do with perceived threats of irredentism in the region, which has in the past been significant. It's for similar reasons that Greece insists on calling the Turkophone Muslims of Thrace "Greek Muslims" (rather than Turks). Disclaimer, I am by no means some sort of Greek ultranationalist as I'm sure many users here can attest. As for this consensus, I'd actually be curious to see what a thorough survey of the literature would produce in terms of how the numbers align. As far as I recall at the moment, it was first called "Bulgarian" or "Slavic", then it became "Slavic" under Greece with some still calling it Bulgarian and then post Tito and especially post-1990s the Macedonian language naming dispute took over the scene. As I have linked before: while there are numerous non-Macedonian linguists who essentially back the Macedonian POV, there are also those who have come to affiliate with the Greek and/or Bulgarian POVs, and this is already extensively discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, while Ethnologue accepts the name "Slavic". The issue is too deeply tied to politics, and there is no consensus even among Western scholarship. Yes there may be a "majority" (as I said, I don't know the numbers) of Western linguists in the 1990s or 2000s who endorsed the Macedonian position, but majority does not equal consensus as there are plenty of dissidents. I don't see calling it Slavic as necessarily pro-Greek-- the extreme Greek position, if there is one, would be to claim it's "Greek Slavic", some inherently Greek Slavic language, as separate from both Macedonian and Bulgarian, as Greece has had irredentist issues with both in the past. That's not what I'm advocating; we have to avoid that and also the Bulgarian POV (it's all Bulgarian) and the Macedonian POV (it's all Macedonian except in Sofia and east of it, including in Pirin). --Yalens (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The Slavic dialects spoken in Greek Macedonia are considered part of the Macedonian language in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and part of the Bulgarian language in Bulgaria. The recently released map of the Bulgarian dialects by the Institute for Bulgarian Language of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences can be found here. The Slavic population of Greek Macedonia, that speaks Slavic, speak different dialects based on their geographical location, so basically they do not speak language, but dialects. THey never studied neither literary Macedonian, neither literary Bulgarian (excluding some older people which studied in Bulgarian schools during the World War II 1941-1944). They use a lot of words, that do not exist in the present Macedonian language, but are used in the present Bulgarian language and the reason can be seen in the map above. I think that if among the languages spoken, there is the Macedonian language (appeared as a separate language for the first time in 1945), there should be added the Bulgarian language as well. --StanProg (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The Bulgarian Academy, in the map you cited, considers all forms of Macedonian as part of Bulgarian, not just the ones in Greece, a view that is isolated outside Bulgaria and which we rightly treat as marginal in our coverage here, so for the question of where to draw the line between Bulgarian and Macedonian in Greece it is worthless. Fut.Perf. 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, you said: "Perhaps it's because the Greeks think they own the copyright for the word "Macedonia(n)" and refuse to allow it to be associated with anything whatsoever Slavic. The language is not called "Slavic" in Greece for any linguistic reason, but for purely political ones.". Actually allow me to disagree with you on this. The Greeks do not think they have the copyright on that term, and certainly it is wrong to accuse them that they are refusing the association of that term with anything whatsover Slavic.
The Greeks are using the term "Slav Macedonian Language" when referring to the South Slavic language spoken by the Ethnic Macedonians, and they are using the term "Slav Macedonians" when referring to their Ethnic Macedonian neighbors who belong to the South Slavic group of people that usually associate themselves with the present-day Republic of Macedonia. A proof for that is me. A proof for that is the Greek public. A proof for that is the Greek Wikipedia: [3] (Σλαβομακεδονική γλώσσα, Slav Macedonian Language).
Perhaps, when you were saying "Greeks" you meant just a small nationalist fraction within the Greek political spectrum, the far-right if we may call it, which opposes anything Macedonian for the Slavs, but the way you have described it now, it gives the impression you meant that for every and all Greeks. Which is unfortunate and ignores why this is happening. The reason the Greeks are asking for geographical/ethnic qualifiers for other languages that share the same name as the Ancient Macedonian language and the Macedonian dialect, is foremost semiological. These two Greek languages, chronologically pre-existing of the South Slavic Macedonian Language, and certainly, you can see the confusion the new language's chosen name generates even without my help: we have 3 languages/dialects sharing the same name, and yet, are very different from each other, with the two first belonging to the Hellenic group and the last one belonging to very different South Slavic group of languages. No wonder. At least I felt the necessity to clear this to you because I am a Greek and your comment does not reflect me.
But I don't criticize you for your comment, just I am emphasizing, now that the cloud of nationalist hype of 1990s has somehow settled in the region and the positions of both sides on the Macedonia dispute became crystal clear, it could be wrong to characterize the one size by the positions only held by a minority and not the majority. The majority of Greeks do not want copyright of the name, nor act as such, but also they do not want the other side to have the copyright - to put it in simple words, the Greeks just want a compromise where no side has the copyright/monopoly on the name. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise, these are not "forms of Macedonian". The Macedonian language exists since 1945, when it was standartized, based on the south-western Bulgarian dialects. Officialy, since the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 up untill 1913 the literary Bulgarian language was taught in all Slavic schools in Greek Macedonia. The biggest Slavic high school was the Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki (1880 - 1913), where the teaching was in Bulgarian. There was a Serres high shool as well (1895 - 1913). In Greek Macedonia in (1912 - 1913) there are about 340 active Bulgarian schools, teaching in literary Bulgarian language. The Bulgarian schools in Greek Macedonia are active in (1915 - 1918) and (1941/43 - 1944) as well. How come after all these years of acting Bulgarian schools, the Bulgarian language dissapeared in Greek Macedonia and on it's place appeared a language established in 1945, without any influence on the territory of Greek Macedonia from 1945 to present days? Macedonian language was never teached in Greek Macedonia. Regarding of if it's Macedonian language or Bulgarian: The Slavic population in Greek Macedonia does not speak neither literary Macedonian language, neither literary Bulgarian - they speak several dialects, some of them closer to the literary Macedonian, some of the closer to the literary Bulgarian. That's why I think that we should either add Bulgarian language in the box, or remove Macedonian and specify that they speak local slavic dialects. In the current state we're just forcing the point of view of the Republic of Macedonia, a view that is isolated outside the Republic of Macedonia - after all that's why the article is called "Slavic speakers", which is neutral and relatively correct. --StanProg (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear StanProg actually, this was the reason I added the Bulgarian to the article, but the issue appears to be much more sensitive or complicated than I originally thought. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
SilentResident, I thought I had written "Greece" not "Greeks", but apparently my memory failed me. My apologies for lumping all Greeks into the actions of the Greek government. StanProg you don't seem to understand basic linguistics. The Macedonian language did not "come to exist" in 1945. It was recognized in 1945 for what it had developed into over the past centuries--a separate linguistic system from Bulgarian. And the great majority of neutral linguists around the world recognized the Slavic dialect of Greek Macedonia as being a part of the Macedonian system and not part of the Bulgarian system. Even the most generous accounting of Greek Macedonian dialects only includes a tiny sliver of the speech community as possibly being part of the Bulgarian system and not the Macedonian one. Indeed, as others have pointed out here, even that sliver may no longer exist in Greece. We have to be very careful about pushing POVs in the Balkans. Earlier on this same page, I opposed an anti-Greek POV which was pushing a particular Macedonian narrative. Here we have a Bulgarian POV pushing a narrative that is in contrast to the considered scientific view of the majority of the linguistic community. And as I stated above, there is only one Slavic language spoken in Greece, not two. Linguists include that language as part of Macedonian. To include "Bulgarian" in the infobox is misleading, implying that there are two Slavic languages spoken in Greek Macedonia and contradicting the majority opinion of the scientific community. --Taivo (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If you can show me enough sources that there is some wide ranging consensus among linguists not from the language that every Slavic dialect of Greek Macedonia is part of a Macedonian language that includes the language of Vardar Macedonia and is separate from the Bulgarian language (and, for good measure, also Serbian/Torlakian), then I will vastly fix my position. At the moment, I do not see this consensus. Instead I see a struggle between a Macedonian POV and a Bulgarian POV-- which Wiki should not take sides in. When and if Macedonian exists as a separate language is disputed in the first place and there are indeed Western linguists that refuse the idea, then a subset of the argument is, if Macedonian is separate, which do the relevant dialects of Greece belong to (but see also the issue of the Balkan Gorani language in Kosovo, where they are claimed by four Slavic nationalisms plus one more but some of them view themselves as separate from all of them), so its a POV war within a POV war and its messy as crap and honestly I want neither myself nor the page to have anything to do with it.--Yalens (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Such a pure demonstration of a Bulgarian POV has rarely been expressed in my experience. You have, in essence, said that there is no language here but Bulgarian and have proclaimed some sort of natural right to claim so. Tonight I will put together two lists from the scientific literature for you: 1) those linguistic sources that separate Macedonian and Bulgarian, which you apparently need to see; and 2) those linguistic sources that include the dialects of Greek Macedonia with Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Taivo: That is absolutely not what I said and seems vaguely like a personal attack ("such a pure demonstration of a Bulgarian POV"), but I'll just assume you didn't mean any offense. In fact I explicitly said that claiming that it's all Bulgarian from Kastoria to Dobrudja is something we absolutely must avoid for NPOV policy. I understand if you didn't actually read what I wrote, sometimes I myself get a bit hasty in replying, but I know it's better not to. Anyhow, I look forward to seeing it. --Yalens (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist If you read the first grammer of the Macedonian language by Krume Kepeski (1946), you will see that this is not just recognition, but taking a specific dialect (the Central dialect of the western Macedonian dialects according them), and making it Standard/Literary language with detailed explanation how the words should be pronounced since then and how the sentences will be build including the stresses/accents. The alphabet was accepted on 3 January 1945 and the syntax on 7 June 1945. In the first grammer (1946), the Thesaloniki is not even mentioned as well as Ser & Drama. This claim appeared among the Macedonian linguests years after that. The Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect which is the dialect spoken by the Slavic population of Eastern Macedonia have no significant differences from the standard Bulgarian language. In the first grammer of the Macedonian language they define Western Macedonian dialects (Veles, Prilep, Kichevo & Bitola, plus Debar & Galiche), Southwestern (Kostur-Lerin), Southeastern (Gevgeli, Dojran & Strumica), Eastern (Shtip) and Northern (Kumanovo-Kratovo) and note "Kukush-voden" dialect as a separate dialect. Note that their Southeastern dialects cover only Vardar Macedonia and they have specified additional "Kukush-voden" dialect. Basically in their first grammer after they accepted their first alphabet and grammer, they pointed as Macedonian only the dialects within Vardar Macedonia. Later the Macedonian linguists spread their claims as far as Eastern Maedonia (Greece). And here's one example of Ser-Drama dialect (in Cyrillic) compared to literary Bulgarian & Macedonian:
  • Пет къщи ф селуту са на пясък край берегъ. Ни една няма да куповам ф това време. (Ser-Drama dialect)
  • Пет къщи в селото са на пясък край брега. Нито една няма да купувам в това време. (standard Bulgarian)
  • Пет куќи во селото се на песок крај брегот. Ниту една нема да купувам во тоа време. (standard Macedonian)
You can clearly see how close the dialect is with the standard Bulgarian & Macedonian. Even the word "houses" (къщи/kashti) is the same in Bulgarian, and different in Macedonian (куќи/kuki). How can we say that this dialect that covers one third of Greek Macedonia is dialect of the Macedonian language but is not dialect of the Bulgarian language? --StanProg (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Your continued use of "Vardar Macedonia" makes a clear and unambiguous statement about your POV. --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"Vardar Macedonia" is name of a geographical region, just like Greek Macedonia. As a lingust, can you please analyze the example above and let us know according to you, part of what language is the "Ser-Drama dialect"? Am I wrong to consider POV pushing these dialects to be called exclusively Macedonian, when we can see with our own eyes the differences? --StanProg (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"Vardar Macedonia" is also used by Macedonian nationalists (as opposed to other "truly Macedonian" regions, see Greater Macedonia), so its hard to see how its use alone could possibly reflect some Bulgarian nationalist bias. I think it would be a lot more productive if people would stop accusing others of having POVs rather than simply having a discussion. --Yalens (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
StanProg "Using your own eyes" is called original research and simply means that it counts for absolutely nothing in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yalens, here is the list of sources that I promised you. This is by no means a complete listing, it's just the books that I have on my shelf and could examine print on paper. But since not a single source lists the presence of Bulgarian speakers in Greece (ignoring the Pomaks, of course), the sample is fairly indicative of the linguistic literature as a whole. Also note that none of these sources were written by either Bulgarians or Macedonians.
Linguistic works that unambiguously treat Macedonian and Bulgarian as separate languages:
  • Comrie, Bernard. 1992. Slavic Languages. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, New York, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
  • Matthews, P.H. 2007. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. 2nd ed. (Oxford Paperback Reference). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ruhlen, Merritt. 1991. A Guide to the World’s Languages. Vol. 1: Classification. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2012. Languages of the World: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lyovin, Anatole V. 1997. An Introduction to the Languages of the World. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fortson IV, Benjamin W. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2nd ed. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Linguistic works that also specifically place the dialects of Greek Macedonia in Macedonian and not Bulgarian:
  • Dalby, David. 1999. The Linguasphere Register of the World’s Languages and Speech Communities. 2 vols. Hebron, Wales: Observatoire Linguistique / Linguasphere Observatory / Bhasha Vishwa & Linguasphere Press / Gwasg y Byd Iaith.
  • Voegelin, C.F. & F.M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World’s Languages. New York, Oxford, and Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Comrie, Bernard. 1990. Slavonic Languages. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages, 322–328. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Andersen, Henning. 1998. Slavic. In Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages, 415–453. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Friedman, Victor A. 1993. Macedonian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 249-305. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Sussex, Roland & Paul Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic Languages. (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2007. Western Europe. In R.E. Asher & Christopher Moseley (eds.), Atlas of the World's Languages, 257-274. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge.
It simply doesn't matter what original research you want to use to illustrate what you think about the linguistic affiliation of the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia. What matters is what NPOV linguists say about the matter. --Taivo (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, Macedonian is separate language from Bulgarian since 1945, so no need to proof for that. Regarding the second part of the sources, Victor Friedman in not neutral, since he's member of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. It will be good if you put a small quotes from the rest of the sources regarding the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia, the areas where Macedonian language is spoken and the areas where the Bulgarian language is spoken. It will also help the discussion if we know based on what sources these linguists wrote their analysis of the languages spoken in Greek Macedonia, like what sources do they provide as a footnotes. --StanProg (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
StanProg, I'm not writing an academic paper here. I've simply demonstrated that out of a fairly random selection of reliable sources from non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian scholarly sources, those sources that mention the dialects of Greece or mark them on maps uniformly place them with the linguistic node they label "Macedonian" and not with the one they label "Bulgarian". Unless you do the work to discredit them, then Wikipedia considers them to be reliable scholarly works on their face. You look them up in your library and examine them yourself. I'll place quotes here later when I have time, but if you want to examine their bibliographies, then do it yourself. --Taivo (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
And, indeed, if you want to try to discredit peer-reviewed scholarly sources that meet every definition of WP:RS as reliable sources, then you have to prove it with other scholarly sources, not just your say-so. --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to discredit anybody, just pointing out that Friedman is not neutral. He was teaching at Skopje University, and holds academic degree in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. I just want this issue to be solved neutrally, without POV pushing. Note that the sources that you cite support just one specific viewpoint, which is disturbing. I'm not a linguist, but I speak both Bulgarian & Macedonian and know pretty well the Slavic dialects of Northern Greece, so I know how far are they from the standard Macedonian & standard Bulgarian. Most sources that support the viewpoint that these dialects are exclusively dialects of the Macedonian language are based 99% on authors from the Republic of Macedonia. I will look into this discussion from time to time, since I also have other work to do, other than pointing out obvious things. --StanProg (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Linguistic science uses a very different standard of evaluation than just "I speak the languages", so it's not unusual at all for speakers to not understand or misunderstand the statements made by linguists vis à vis linguistic relationships. Even deleting Friedman, the other linguistic evaluations are definitive. --Taivo (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I am worried, the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts (MANU), is well-known in Greece for its efforts to promote Macedonian nationalism and the ethnic Macedonian POV on the history of the region, with senior academics in that institution such as Blaže Ristovski, being leading advocates of this extreme propaganda. Dear people, I strongly suggest we don't cite MANU and any of its academics in Wikipedia, as their work is far from neutral, on all issues relating to the region of Macedonia, the Slavic Macedonian Language and the national consciousness of the ethnic Macedonians. --SILENTRESIDENT 08:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
As well as the Greek Academy of Sciences promoting Greece? And the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences promoting Bulgaria? And the French Academy of Sciences promoting France? And the Tongan Academy of Sciences promoting Tonga? The guide to be used in Wikipedia is scholarly consensus as found in reliable sources, not the national origin of any particular piece of research. Peer review among scholars will weed out the nationalism and the amateurs who edit Wikipedia have no business making such decisions. Even the scholarly experts in a field (like myself) who edit Wikipedia must use reliable sources to filter out the dross and not just our academic credentials. --Taivo (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Greek Academy of Sciences and Arts? Taivo, you do not know what you are talking, do you? There is no Greek Academy of Sciences, I am afraid. However, in Greece, we have the International Olympic Academy and the Modern Academy of Athens, but still, none of them focuses on promoting national positions, or nationalist propaganda, nor they focuse on Greece's views in regards to its disputes with the Republic of Macedonia. Additionally, unlike MANU, the staff and academics in the academies of Olympics and the Athens are not working on promoting far-right and nationalist propaganda. I am afraid academic institutions are not exactly the same in every country, and it is a rare sight to see academies in western countries promoting nationalist views. I reirtate that MANU to not be taken in account; frankly, the state-sponsored academies in the Balkan region are particularly vulnerable to the influence of their countries' ruling political parties, as is the case here with Nikola Todorov, who comes from VMRO-DPMNE, a nationalist political party notorious for its extreme positions on the Macedonia dispute and its policy of antiquisation in the country. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
And you missed the point. The point is that you are not qualified to make such pronouncements. The scholarly community decides what is good scholarship and what is not by the process of peer review. That's why WP:RS puts great weight on peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books from academic presses. Your anti-Macedonian colors are showing again. Take a step back and let the scholars speak through peer-reviewed scholarship published in academic journals and presses. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
For the record, my objections are solely focused on MANU given its negative records, and not on the other sources which you cited. I do not object to the other sources you have cited, but you need to understand that portraying the other editors for being anti-<ethnicity> just because they are asking for caution when citing the state-sponsored institutions such as MANU, is a poor editorial approach and has no place here. Wikipedia is quite clear in that it should not take sides and adopt any particular POVs in the disputes and that includes not just the Government positions but also the government-monitored institutions which reflect the government's POV on the matter. You can't just cite state institutions which advocate the state interests, such as MANU, and present them as "neutral" in Wikipedia, Taivo. I am afraid it this comes dangerously close to indirect WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:Propaganda and is unacceptable. Like I said before: MANU's case should be treated with caution. From your list of sources, the other academics are fine to cite, but MANU obviously is not. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I do not doubt that MANU has a record of pushing Macedonian nationalism. In fact, I find it highly plausible. But no one is citing MANU. One of the sources given by Taivo is a book by Victor Friedman, who happens to be a member of MANU. Friedman is a specialist in the languages of Balkan, and he is also a member of similar institutions in Albania, Kosovo and Serbia. That does not make him a spokesperson for any of those institutions. The book is published by Routledge, which is not controlled by MANU or any other of the institutions mentioned. Unless it can be shown that other scholars disagree with Friedman or that other scholars regard him as biased, we have no reason not to use the source.
@StanProg: You make a quite extraordinary claim: "Most sources that support the viewpoint that these dialects are exclusively dialects of the Macedonian language are based 99% on authors from the Republic of Macedonia." May I ask on what evidence you base this conclusion? Unless you can provide any sources supporting this claim, it would be better if you would strike out the comment. Another part of your comment says: "Note that the sources that you cite support just one specific viewpoint, which is disturbing." Well, if you (or anyone alse) can provide reliable sources that support another viewpoint, then do so. If not, it means that the linguists agree, which may be surprising, but it is not disturbing.
To both of you: The key is sources. That ia what Wikipedia feeds on. --T*U (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that so far there's not a single quote from Taivo`s sources, and since this problem is not subject of many researches, we should review the sources and the information they provide very detailed, including the sources they are quoting. Here's a quote:
  • "Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History", 2012, p. 156 (Peter Mackridge - "Multilingualism and standardization in Greece"): The chief additional languages spoken in territories incorporated into the Greek state in 1912-13 were various Slavonic dialects (variously labelled "Bulgarian" and "Slavo-Macedonian" in Greece, but only occasionally "Macedonian") and Judaeo-Spanish or Ladino (spoken by the large Sephardic community in Salonica [Thessaloniki]).
The information that I provided regarding the dialects is not something that I invented. Here's what "Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. İpek Yosmaoğlu" is saying in "Blood Ties - Religion, Violence and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908, Cornell University Press, 2013" Therefore, the term Bulgarian as it is used in this book should be understood to refer to the territorial dialects of Macedonia (which are quite different than standard Macedonian) as well as standard Bulgarian. So this is not "my opinion". Regarding the dialects of the standard Macedonian language, the information is from "Krume Kepeski - Macedonian grammar, National book publishing of Macedonia, Skopje 1946, p. 7". Even the macedonian linguists did not included the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia as dialects of the Macedonian language (excluding the Kukush-Voden i.e. Kilkis-Edessa which they added to the 5 regional ones: Western, Southeastern, Southwestern, Northern and Eastern, most probably because it's the closest one with the standard Macedonian). And here's one additional quote: --StanProg (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "William Martin-Leake - Researches in Greece, London, 1814, p. 375" The most Southern districts of Greece, where the Bulgarian language is in common use, are - On the West side of Macedonian some villages in the vicinity of Koritza, and on the Eastern the hills bordering the great plain of Thessalonica, Pella and Edessa. The former district is insulated among Greeks and Albanians, but the latter may be considered as the Southern extremity of the modern Bulgaria, the Christians, who speak the Bulgarian dialect, extending from thence, with scarcely any interruption, through all the Northern parts of Macedonia Proper, as well as it's acquired provinces of Paeonia, Pelagonia &c.; and from thence throughout the whole of Moesia, and the interior of Thrace, as far as the Danube, and the neighborhood of Constantinople. And this is released in 1814, a lot of years before the Macedonian language appeared as a separate language. When explaining the "definite articles" the Greek linguist Evangelia Adamou writes "Definite articles are an exception within the Slavic languages: they have only been grammaticalized in some South Slavic languages (namely Bulgarian, Macedonian and all the non-standardized varieties spoken in Greece)..." Not how she distinguishes the 1. "Bulgarian", 2. "Macedonian" and 3. "all non-standardized varieties spoken in Greece". I've met the term "varieties" for the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia on few other places. I think that the NPOV will be covered if we either add "Bulgarian" or remove "Macedonian" and add "Slavic dialects"/"Slavic varieties"/"Non-standardized Slavic varieties", etc. --StanProg (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
StanProg, here are the "quotes":
  • From Dalby, Volume 2, page 445, from a list of dialects of "Makedonski":
"makedonski-SE.; part of "macedonian"-S.; bilingual in Helleniki; [loc.] Kukus... Voden; Greece (Makedhonia)"
"makedonski-SW.; part of "macedonian"-S.; bilingual in Helleniki; [loc.] Flórina... Kastoría, Kostur; Greece (Makedhonia)"
  • From Dalby, Volume 2, page 446, from a list of dialects of "Bulgarski"; no dialects in Greece except for "bulgarski-SE....Greece (Thraki adjacent)" (Pomak)
  • From Voegelin and Voegelin, page 312, "Bulgarian. Ds.... Greece (Moslem Pomaks in Thrace)..." and not other reference to Greece. "Macedonian. Ds.... Southern (in the Kukus and Voden region of northern Greece);... Southwestern (in the Kostur and Lerin regions of northern Greece);... Greece (Kastoria-Florina-Edessa region)"
  • From Comrie, page 323, map. The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece.
  • From Andersen, page 416, map. The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece.
  • From Friedman, page 249, "Literary Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia and is recognized as such by all countries except Bulgaria, where it is officially viewed as a 'regional norm' of Bulgarian, and Greece, where Macedonian is claimed not to exist--except in proclamations banning its use--or it is claimed that the term 'Macedonian' can only be used to refer to the Greek dialects of Macedonia or to Ancient Macedonian. None the less, there are citizens of and emigrants from both Bulgaria and Greece who identify their native (Slavonic) language as Macedonian...."
  • From Friedman, page 300, map. Several dialects of Macedonian are marked and labelled across northern Greece from the Albanian border to east of Drama (that's where the eastern edge of the map cuts them off): (from west to east) Lower Prespa, Ohrid-Struga, Kostur, Nestram, Lower Vardar, Seres-Nevrokop
  • From Scatton, Ernest A. 1993. Bulgarian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 188-248. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London and New York: Routledge. From page 246, map. No Bulgarian presence in northern Greece is depicted.
  • From Scatton, page 247: "The geographical extent of Bulgarian dialects is controversial. On the level of local dialects there is no sharp boundary between the speech of western Bulgaria and that of eastern Serbia, former Yugoslav Macedonia and areas of Greece and Turkey contiguous to Bulgaria in which Slavonic dialects are still spoken. The official Bulgarian position, with respect to dialects and earlier historical periods, has been that eastern Serbian dialects, all Macedonian dialects in former Yugoslavia and Slavonic dialects in Turkey and Greece are dialects of Bulgarian."
  • From Sussex and Cubberley, page xx, map. The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece.
  • From Sussex and Cubberley, pages 66-69, section on socio-historical evolution of Bulgarian, Greece is not mentioned.
  • From Sussex and Cubberley, pages 69-71, section on socio-historical evolution of Macedonian: "The problem was not with the political status of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia but rather with the misfit between the geographical territory of this entity and the Macedonian speaking territory, which spreads into Albania, Greece and Bulgaria....Contemporary Macedonia is autonomous, though under pressure from Greece and Bulgaria in establishing its political, economic, cultural and linguistic autonomy. While the standing of the language is reinforced by political independence, Greece opposes the use of "Macedonia(n)" for the country or the language on historical ground."
  • From Sussex and Cubberley, page 508: "In Bulgaria there may be as many as 250,000 Macedonian speakers, but the Bulgarians regard these Pirin dialects, together with the language varieties spoken in FYR Macedonia, Albania and Greece, merely as south-western dialects of Bulgarian. For their part, the Greeks reject a country called "Macedonia", since they consider the name to have been Greek since the times of Alexander the Great of Macedon (fourth century BC), and have been culturally unsympathetic to the Vardar Macedonian dialects spoken in Northern Greece, which have been subjected to vigorous hellenization."
  • From Mackenzie, page 271, map: The region of northern Greece is colored green for Greek right up to the Macedonian and Bulgarian political borders with small numbers indicating minority populations. There are two numbers indicating South Slavic populations in this region. One is located in Greek Macedonia and the number is labelled as "Macedonian". The other is located in Thrace, and the number is labelled as "Bulgarian" (this is the Pomak population).
  • From Ethnologue "Macedonian", all the (Christian) dialects of Greek Macedonia labelled as "Slavic" are listed here.
  • From Ethnologue "Bulgarian", the only Bulgarian presence in Greece is the Pomak population.
I find it hilarious that you list a source from 1814, when the Macedonian dialects of everywhere were (as they still are in Bulgaria) considered to be "Bulgarian". It's a measure of poor scholarship to rely on an outdated linguistic hegemony to make your argument. This should be fairly clear. When they are labelled, the dialects of Greece are uniformly labelled as Macedonian among the NPOV linguistic community. --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@StanProg: I cannot see that the Mackridge source supports your claim. The quote you have highlighted, "variously labelled "Bulgarian" and "Slavo-Macedonian" in Greece, but only occasionally "Macedonian", is a description of how the Slavonic dialects are labelled in Greece. As I am sure you are aware of, most Greeks will hesitate to use the label "Macedonian" about the Slavic language, since for them, "Macedonian" will mean the dialect of the Greek language spoken in Greek Macedonia. That does not say anything about how linguists categorize the dialects. --T*U (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, I did a detailed review of the sources regarding the discussion this weekend and I agree, that most of them support the Macedonian viewpoint, so it's ok for me to not include Bulgarian, as a language spoken in Greek Macedonia. I don't agree with these conclusions knowing very well Bulgarian, Macedonian and the Slavic dialects of Greece, but this is not important. After all Wikipedia articles are supported by sources in their majority. We need first to understand the matter and then to discuss these controversial issue, so that's why I quoted the book from 1814, when the Macedonian language was still not existing and these dialects were considered Bulgarian, so the participants in this discussion be aware with the situation. Just like the initial dialects formulaition from 1946 & the examples with the same sentence in Bulgarian, Slavic dialect and Macedonian. I wanted to clarify this in case someone misinterpret it. --StanProg (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
StanProg, so we agree that the linguistic literature favors labeling these Slavic varieties of Greek Macedonia as "Macedonian" and not "Bulgarian". So, in effect, the status quo in the infobox remains "Macedonian, Greek" for the languages of this population. --Taivo (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It is clear that the Bulgarian language has no place on the infobox. There are no sufficient sources to back the theory that the Slavophones in Greece speak a dialect of Bulgarian, even though their dialects were considered to be part of Bulgarian language prior to the codification of the south slavic Macedonian language. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Slavophones of Thrace do speak Bulgarian (the Muslim Pomaks), but they're not covered by this article, which just covers Greek Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
A few cited sources may favour a specific view. I don't agree that the linguistic literature favours labelling Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect as Macedonian. But I agree that some people favour not making any compromise everywhere. This dialect has appearantly nothing to do with standart Macedonian when it is compared to standart Bulgarian. I am fine with changing the infobox to "Eastern South Slavic" or something similar. --Judist (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Judist, but a consensus has already formed around "Macedonian" based on the overwhelming view of the reliable sources that include the dialects of Greece in either a map or in the text. Your opinion on the matter simply bears no weight when faced with the NPOV scholarly consensus. --Taivo (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Judist, I am afraid you really need to present a substantial amount of sources backing this, because I am afraid doing this without any sources, crosses the WP:OR line and I couldn't recommend it. OR is a very serious policy in Wikipedia when it comes to what information can be present on the articles. You are always welcome to share with us any sources supporting that theory. Personally I could like to know if there are any sources, however I haven't looked on this beyond Future Perfect's map, so pardon me for not providing any sources yet. I did an OR mistake without realizing it. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A few words on Dr. Victor Friedman. He is a linguist who works at the University of Chicago in the United States of America and is a specialist on Balkan languages apart from other languages relating to the Caucasus [4]. In a post-communist environment, some Western academics such as himself have also become members of Balkan based academia, as their work relates to the region. That does not however preclude that they and their work from use in Wikipedia as it meets the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary as is published by reputed publishing houses and universities based in the West.Resnjari (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Resnjari, yes OK, still, aside from Friedman, the editors should be cautious with that particular state institution and any of its scholars, and cite their work only when they know what they are doing (i.e. Friedman). The Wiki editors should exercise caution nevertheless when it comes to Macedonia-related articles where the work of leading MANU scholars is known to be crossing the lines of Macedonian nationalism by promoting certain views over the Slavic populations in the region, which is extremely WP:POV and far from WP:Reliable and has no backing from the int. academic community. Have a good day and consider this discussion closed, as there is nothing more for us to discuss and certainly not without the editors providing reliable sources backing the claim about the Bulgarian language. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a lot of information on this community in Greece in Western peer reviewed sources that could be used here. I clarified on Friedman so there is no doubt, even in future. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)