Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 [3] 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 ([4]). 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: [5] (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 [6]. 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)

Hello, Resnjari.The discussion above is not yet archived but ongoing. You are insisting there is a consensus for the proposal above, despite four editors above objected. It is clear that there is no consensus for the removal in the discussion above. I can see more editors having objected to the proposal for removing Bulgarian than agreed. This means the article should be reverted back to neutrality. There is no consensus among linguists either. (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

To the IP create an account (editing as an IP, you wont be taken seriously) and explain your edits here. What you say may get most of the content added. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The IP clearly doesn't seem to understand that consensus isn't measured necessarily by a count of noses, but by the quality of the arguments. I presented a wide array of reliable linguistic sources above that all indicate that the Slavic dialects of Greece fall within the Macedonian linguistic sphere and not the Bulgarian one. It's a question of the burden of proof and the bulk of the evidence was not in the IP's favor. But I agree with you about the IP, that a serious editor will establish an identity. But for now our Bulgarian IP (the IP's address is in Sofia) must be taken with a grain of salt. --Taivo (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Its why i said may to the IP. The onus falls upon them if they want to conduct themselves in a constructive manner. On a seperate matter, some time back in the 1990s the EU funded a whole host of investigative acedmic teams (part of the Euromosaic project) that visited endangered/minority languages in EU member countries. The report on the Macedonian language is available and in French [7]. The report gives numbers as to how many villages exist in Greece that speak Macedonian. Its over 200 and it breaks down that data by municipalities. It also gives information about what Macedonian locals call the language (in the west and central regions of Greek Macedonia the word Makedonski, in the east of the region Bu[l]garski). What do you think TaivoLinguist, should we include this content into the article ?Resnjari (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Self-reporting by speakers has its own set of problems when not combined with linguistic evaluation. The Central Numic languages of Uto-Aztecan are a case in point. Speakers of Timbisha, which is linguistically the most divergent, call themselves Shoshoni. Speakers of Comanche, which is more closely related to Shoshoni, call themselves Comanche, but claim to speak a dialect of Shoshoni. Yet when speakers of all three languages are together, they cannot communicate using their native languages, but always switch to English. The same is true when speakers of any pair of the languages are present. In fact, when speakers of the even more distantly related, and absolutely not mutually intelligible to any degree, Southern Paiute and Northern Paiute languages join speakers of Central Numic languages, they all claim that they speak the "same language". So I am always skeptical of speaker self-identification of what language they speak. There are often more political reasons for a self-identification than there are linguistic reasons. The vast majority of linguists (references above) place all of these Greek dialects within Macedonian and don't break them up into Macedonian/Bulgarian. --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
And just up the road from Macedonia is the world's most famous example of the failure of self-reporting linguistic affiliation in Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, where what "language" you claim to speak is entirely dependent on what religion you are. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes, i am acquainted with the wacky up north. lol TaivoLinguist, but on this, at the very least the addition of village demographics from the report for this article. Maybe we add it here in table form. I just tried to access the weblink, but for some reason the mainpage [8] and the report on the Macedonian language come as the same url. To access the report go to the option on the toolbar to the left where it says in Catalan: Clas per llengues. Click on it and it should open a page with reports on many languages. Click on Macedoni. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The village size information from the report might be valuable in the article. I'm mostly concerned about the linguistics and not the other aspects of this article (language is a minor feature of this article) because I'm a linguist. I'll take a more in-depth look at the linguistic claims of the report, but I just woke up and am not ready to tackle French yet. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, you can copy and paste it in google translate, if French isn't a language your familiar for a read. From my angle, the report is neutral as its from the EU, an organisation that Greece is a part of. True there is lots of great scholarship on the Macedonian language in Greece, but none give a break down of how many villages still exist speaking Macedonian per municipality in Greece today. I think inclusion of that data would be most beneficial to the article in table form. It would have 10 rows, 3 columns= 1 for municipality name, the next for number and a third for notes. Have a read and reflect on the idea and get back to me. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Resnjari, I think that adding a table with village names and populations would be good. We don't need to add linguistic self-identifications in that table, just names and numbers. --Taivo (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, when you have the chance look at the report. Sadly it does not mention individual villages (i wish it did and a source of that kind would be great), but gives a rough outline. I'll translate one of the 10 sentences i'm referring too in the report so you get an idea of what i mean. "Département de Pella: environ 70 villages, la majorité à l'ouest du département, à Aridea et à Edessa." In a table organised in three columns of: Municipality(or whatever Greek administrative units are called)|Number of settlements|Notes; it would be something like Pella (municipality/province?)|70 villages|Macedonian speakers are a majority in the west of Edessa and Aridea municipalities. Thoughts? Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"but none give a break down of how many villages still exist speaking Macedonian per municipality in Greece today"

The Greek census 2011 did not collect data on the primary or secondary languages of the population. See here:

Due to the Kallikratis Plan (2010) of administrative reform, many municipalities were officially merged. Following the plan there are only 325 municipalities remaining in Greece, with none of the villages retaining autonomous status or allowed to elect Mayors, municipal governments, etc. Here is the current list of municipalities: List of municipalities of Greece (2011) Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greek census does not count minority languages as it does not recognise them. Scholarship has long noted their reality. Obviously the data will be dated and the Kallivretkis mergers noted in such a table. Nonetheless it does not omit that an EU team traveled through Northern Greece and counted how many villages where speaking Macedonian, either fluently or partially some time back.Resnjari (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The most recent information must be from 1986, when the Greek census recorded 180,180 Slavic speakers. [9] The classification of the dialects by the EU team as Bulgarian has been deleted. I am going to explain some sources below and ask Taivo to check the context of his list of sources above. I think he took them out of context. IE linguist (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The EU report does not say its based on a census. Instead it was a team of academics who visited all the villages of Greek Macedonia to see the linguistic composition of the area. The findings are based on that. The last Greek census to count mother tongue was in 1951 [10]. Ethnologue has it wrong with the 1986 census number. Greece did not count minority languages at that time.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Taivo, with irrelevant metaphors you are distracting yourself to the personal nature of others, instead of noting that all of the sources in your list are taken out of context. You warned that some editors should be taken with a grain of salt, only because of their geographical location. To be honest, I am also skeptical on your neutrality. Of your possible bias as you are a member of the Ukrainian project and may assume the dispute of Bulgarian-Macedonian relationships to be equated to the Russian-Ukrainian dispute. Ukrainian dialects were all claimed by the arch-nemesis Russian, so you are also possibly more or less to equate the case of their relationships with the Bulgarian-Macedonian relationships and to be biased against Bulgarian, because you may see Macedonian as another recently raising language that is victimized by Bulgarian, as much as Ukrainian has been by Russian.
With regard to Taivo's claim: "I presented a wide array of reliable linguistic sources above that all indicate that the Slavic dialects of Greece fall within the Macedonian linguistic sphere and not the Bulgarian one" you are taking these sources out of context. And claim spurious indications from his list of sources above, which are completely taken out of context. The only one of the sources, provided by Taivo in this discussion, which may claim that all Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian and not Bulgarian, is probably Ethnologue. Although Ethnologue considers the dialect, spoken in Serres (regional unit) as Macedonian, not in the Drama (regional unit).
With regard to Taivo's claim: "The vast majority of linguists (references above) place all of these Greek dialects within Macedonian", even if it was true and the vast majority of linguists place all dialects within Macedonian, it would not be claimed that they are all not Bulgarian. You can show at best the vast majority of your own list, not the vast majority of linguists, who are specialists. You have not shown what the actual quantity of views of linguists is, but a cherrypicking list. The absence of some views in your list of sources is not an evidence for their absence. This weird synthesis is not a trusthworty reason to remove from the article the Bulgarian classification of the Drama-Serres dialect by van Boeschotten. I would not try to find the popularity of different views among linguists using a search engine, it would not be helpful with the amount of views in linguistics, this would be a random choice. I would not try visiting all libraries, there are millions of linguists, who are not specialist on Greek Macedonaia, so you can not summarize what are their views. The synthesis of the list of sources above does not consist of specialists on the dialects of Greek Macedonia, that is why I recommend to list here only specialist sources with their own research on the dialects in Greek Macedonia, not the poor quality-ones relying on the research of their colleagues. From the sources above Friedman is possibly the only specialist author, but he is taken out of context and identifies only the dialect, spoken in Serres as Macedonian, not the dialect, spoken in Drama. There is no consensus among linguists and among editors. There is more controversy with the removal of Bulgarian. Mainly because the article becomes misleading by considering the dialect spoken in Drama as Macedonian. And why, according to an imaginary source? Even the Macedonian dialectology (Bozidar Vidoeski) considers the Drama dialect Bulgarian.
There is no burden of proof, presented by Taivo, because the sources, he picked do not provide us with any examination of the dialects or are taken out of context. As in the case of Ethnologue, this is not a specialist source, but a source parroting statistical information without any linguistic approach on the classification of the dialects. Linguistics is a burden of proof through examination, each linguist classifiyng an idiom should inform the reader how is the classification done and based on what isoglosses. Be reminded, in the list of Taivo above, there is only one(Friedman) provided source with linguistic approach and examination on the dialects of Greek Macedonia, but still taken out of context. Friedman is clearly a specialist source on Macedonian dialectology, but the only one in the list. The rest of the sources in the list of Taivo are just the ones parroting labels (whether Macedonian or Bulgarian) without special examination. And the obvious taking out of context of all sources in the list appears, the spurious interpretation, that those sources mean that all dialects are Macedonian, not Bulgarian. One of the sources in the list of Taivo - Scatton, even cotradicts the theory of Taivo and says, that there is no sharp border between Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects, so this source also considers the peripheral dialects transitional. IE linguist (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Proto-Slavic phonetic reflexes of *ktc. Standard Macedonian kj
Standard Bulgarian št
Standard Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin č(čj)
Unique phenomena: šč
Proto-Slavic phonetic relfexes of *gzd. Standard Macedonian gj
Standard Bulgarian žd
Standard Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin đj
Unique phenomena: ž, ždž, žg
Classification into a family is based on isoglosses. Even the poor quality sources do not specifically classify the Drama dialect as part of the Macedonian language, but because they are unexperienced they put a label on some dialects altogether, without mentioning which dialects. From the sources above, even Ethnologue classifies only the dialect in the Serres regional unit as Macedonian, not the one in Drama. The only specialist source in the list of Taivo above, Friedman, also claimed as Macedonian the dialect of Serres-Langadas, not the dialect of Drama. Such synthesis and cherrypicking of sources, and their contexts is not to be considered reliable. Taivo has mentioned, that the quality of evidence is important, not the quantity of sources. Linguists with their own research have been cited in the article, after visiting the area with a report to the European Comission, van Boeschoten claimed the Serres-Drama dialect is closer to Bulgarian than Macedonian. But this reasonable research has been deleted from the article. Some of you are linguists. So, what be would your opinion of the Drama dialect after referring to this free atlas of 179 maps of main Proto-Slavic phoentic isoglosses of the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continium. In 179 maps, the Drama dialect shares all isoglosses with eastern Bulgarian dialects. In other words, of 179 isoglosses, the Drama dialect shares the majority of main Proto-Slavic isoglosses only with Bulgarian dialects outside of the region of Macedonia, but never shares the features with Macedonian and not Bulgarian dialects. By Bulgarian dialects I mean those outside of the region of Macedonia, by Macedonian dialects I mean the wide range, including Pirin Macedonia. The Drama dialect is by coincidence into the Macedonia region, but the dialect in Drama does not share at least one feature differentiating Macedonian and Bulgarian, with the former. The Drama dialect is part of the Rup dialects of the Pomaks. The Drama dialect is not spoken by Pomaks, but by non-Muslims. Any Macedonian dialects, other than the one in Drama share more isoglosses with the dialects in northern Bulgaria and Serbia than with the dialect in Drama. It is ridiculous to consider the Drama dialect in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian only, based on no source. Even Macedonian dialectology refers to the Drama dialect as transitional between Macedonian and Bulgarian.
And this is not only about the Drama dialect. All the southern(including all dialects in Greek Macedonia) and eastern Macedonian dialects are transitional between Bulgarian and Macedonian, sharing sometimes the Bulgarian Proto-Slavic consonants *t, *d, not the Macedonian Proto-Slavic *k, *g, or sharing the Bulgarian reflexes in Proto-Slavic vowels *o, *e, not the Macedonian. South of Ohrid and east of Vardar the verb 'to be' is pronounced as in Bulgarian: "səm", not Macedonian: "sum". We have a burden of proof that most dialects in Greek Macedonia are intermediate and not part only of the Macedonian Proto-Slavic legacy, but also of the Bulgarian Proto-Slavic source, as demonstrated by linguists. Alongside this atlas, refer also to the images on the right. From the number of isoglosses provided, objective linguists classify the dialects of the Slavic speakers in Greek Macedonia as transitonal between Bulgarian and Macedonian, while the one in Drama is not even transitional to Macedonian(seriously, not by even one isogloss alone presented anywhere in the whole atlas). Maps of isoglosses, such as the ones on the right should be added to the article, because there is no any Bulgarian features of these dialects described in the article.
Refer to the quote in the Macedonian dialectology of Bozidar Vidoeski, the "father of Macedonian dialectology", in which he regards the eastern Macedonian dialects as "transitional dialect belts between Macedonian and Bulgarian". So, would you oppose the claims of Macedonian linguists, that some dialects in Greek Macedonia are Bulgarian also? What do you think can be mentioned of the Bulgarian language in this article? Completely nothing? My suggestion is to add again the deleted classification of van Boeschoten, which is a reliable source. The deleteion proposed to remove Bulgarian language completely from the article was based on sources, taken out of context. Even if they weren't taken out of context, this set of randomly chosen publications is not based on the claimed "largest" quantity of linguists, neither the specialist sources of high quality. This move has been motivated by sources like Ethnologue. The self-published source. I expect, that you, from a linguistic point of view, can realize it would be the inverse of actuality to remove the Bulgarian classification of the eastern dialects in Greek Macedonia. It is clear from the isoglosses, that the northern periphery of Macedonian dialects(Torlakian dialects) are safely classified also as Serbian, while the eastern and southern periphery of Macedonian dialcts are classified also as Bulgarian. IE linguist (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have not taken a single, solitary one of my reliable sources out of context. I own all of these books and have quoted them precisely. You have clearly not looked at a single, solitary one of them except perhaps Ethnologue, which is not the best source in any case. And your assumption that since I am part of the Ukrainian project that I have some sort of inherent pro-Macedonian bias is laughable. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word "metaphor". I haven't used any. I'm not going to read your diatribe since it is clearly 99% original research and only peripherally based on reliable sources. The easternmost Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia may, indeed, be transitional (I never said otherwise), but when linguists draw a line (no matter how problematic that line is), neutral linguists virtually all include the Greek villages with Macedonian and not with Bulgarian. That's just the simple fact that you seem to be unable to acknowledge. My references are not "out of context". You use that phrase just because your argument is so weak. --Taivo (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not discussing your background, just noted that sometimes condemners may also be biased. I can not be certain for what is the agenda of anyone. I do not understand what you are implying right now for your sources. They are not an indication for the complete removal of Bulgarian classification from the article. There are already other sources, which consider some of the dialects as Bulgarian. There are no specialist linguists, who consider the Drama dialect as Macedonian, even the Macedonian dialectology acknowledges, that this dialect is Bulgarian as well. You have been unsuccesful to convince or verify that the Macedonian only interpretation, you have chosen, is the only reliable way for the classification of this article. Propose or let alternatives to be made. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IE linguist (talkcontribs) 21:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have listed (above from last year) a dozen sources that list the Slavic dialects of Greece as Macedonian and not Bulgarian so your comment, "you have been unsuccessful" is baloney. You've pointed out a couple of sources, but the vast majority of neutral sources I have cited above are unambiguous and not taken "out of context". --Taivo (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope, many are taken "out of context". You have cited exactly nine sources, less than a dozen, and have not cited dozens of sources. Anybody can scroll up and confirm this. One of the nine sources is Ethnologue, which doesn't claim, that the dialect, spoken in Drama regional unit is Macedonian, but that the dialect spoken in Serres regional unit is Macedonian. Yes, Ethnologue lists regional units and the easternmost regional unit it lists is Serres (regional unit) for [mkd], not Drama (regional unit). Two of the nine sources are Voegelin and Dalby, they describe other areas as Macedonian(Florina, Kilkis, etc.), but don't claim, that the Drama dialect is Macedonian. Three of the nine just cite the same claims of their colleagues without any research provided. So, on three of the nine sources (Sussex, Cornie and Andersen) you have placed an identical quote:" The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece". I think this is nothing specific, and doesn't unambiguously mean that all Slavic dialects in Greece are Macedonian and not Bulgarian, but either way these are not sources, specialized in the Slavic dialects of Greece. These sources use repetition form their colleagues and the sources of your list are not dedicated to the dialects in Greece, but small articles without an extensive research.
Van Boeschoten, which considers the dialects Bulgarian and you have deleted from the article, has published at least two articles dedicated to the dialects in Greece only, and visited all the villages in the Florina regional unit. Specialists consider these dialects Bulgarian as well, or transitional with Bulgarian, not Macedonian only. If there are some, who consider them Macedonian and not Bulgarian, they are biased or ignorant of the features of the dialects. There are many red flags in your list of nine sources and for your assumption, that these sources all claim, that these dialects are Macedonian and not Bulgarian. IE linguist (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You need to learn to read more accurately. I did not say "dozens", I said "a dozen". And while I did not go up and perform a precise count, 9 is close enough to a dozen. And if you actually look further up the page, you will see a list of 14 references that I consulted for my comments. The 9 lower ones were just ones where I pulled quotes or described the maps. And not a single, solitary one is taken out of context. Unless you don't know what "out of context" means, then you are simply presenting my evidence falsely. Prove that they are "out of context". You can't because they are not. And I've already said that Ethnologue is not the best source. You need to actually read what I wrote about Sussex, Comrie, and Andersen--I did not quote them, I described their maps, so, of course, I would describe them in identical terms. And these are all reliable sources since they are all linguistic sources written by authorities in the field and relying on authoritative sources. You're just trying to push your POV, which is not based on a majority of the linguistic literature. Dalby and Voegelin list not a single, solitary Bulgarian dialect within Greece, so they do, indeed, support the exclusion of Bulgarian from Greek Macedonia. And these are all, indeed reliable sources, whether you like what they have to say or not. You don't get to decide whether they are reliable or not. While Dalby, Mackenzie, and Voegelin are not specifically Slavicists, the others are specialists in Slavic, some specifically in Bulgarian and/or Macecdonian, so you can't even claim that they don't know the specifics of the Greece-Bulgarian border dialects. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The total amount of the sources you have claimed to place the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian is 9, not 14. You listed the five other sources to show how they "treat Macedonian and Bulgarian as separate languages" in general, not to classify any of the dialects in Greece. You keep inducing a false impression about a high amount of your sources and that they are the so called majority. Even if your list of sources was not taken out of context, it would not be the last one in the world, so it does not represent the so called vast majority of linguists. This weird fabrication has been getting away for a long time, build upon spurious interpretation of sources. This out of context nonsense has remained unexposed to other editors and you keep denying it. The following sources, you have listed are taken out of context and your allegations on these six sources are not true (That all these sources classify the dialects of Greek Macedonia as Macedonian and not Bulgarian. None of the six sources explicitly says that the dialects are Macedonian. Let alone any of them to say that they are not Bulgarian.):
1. Your allegations on the source Ethnologue are not true, because Ethnologue identifies the easternmost Macedonian dialect as being in the Serres regional unit, not in Drama. Drama is unclassified
2. Your allegations on the source Dalby are not true, because this source describes only the dialects of Kilkis, Florina and Kastoria as being Macedonian. The dialects of Thrace are classified as Bulgarian. The dialects of Serres and Drama are unclassified by Dalby. Your spurious interpretation, that the absence of classification of the Serres and Drama dialects means, that they are Macedonian is a laughable nonsense.
3. Your allegations on the source Voegelin are not true, because this author describes only the dialects of Kastoria, Florina, Edessa and Kilkis as Macedonian. The dialects of Thrace are described as Bulgarian. The Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect is still unclassified. The absence of classification is not classification, so the dialects of Serres and Drama are unclassified.
4-5. The rest of the sources are maps only. This source is two in one. The map presented by Andersen is the map of Comrie. It is a bizzare misinterpretation of yours. This is a free link to the map from the book of Andersen: [11] Your interpretation, that the map describes the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian is a blatant, spurious interpretation. The backing of your agenda from this duo-source, is a pure falsification. Actually, I can see, that the map of Andersen and Comrie places the dialect of Nevrokop as Bulgarian along with the enitre Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect.
6. Your allegations on the map of Scatton are not true. This source can not back your allegation. That absence of Bulgarian dialects in Greece on the map of Scatton is not a depiction of them as Macedonian.
That was most of the so called vast majority of linguists in your list. You have maximum three sources left, classifying the dialects as Macedonian. One of them, the map of Friedman indeed describes all the dialects as Macedonian, as well as Sussex, probably the remaining map of MacKenzie also. I haven't checked it, because the so called vast majority, collapsed. We have as much sources, three, classifying some of the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Bulgarian. Does anyhting makes you think, that a reliable source, classifying the dialects as Bulgarian must be kept out? Taivo, from the staged fabrication of most of the sources above into a so called "vast majority of linguists", staged to block the adding of any different views to the article, you do not appear as a trustworthy one. Whoever wish, let them agree with you to fabricate your own classification in this article. It is still an original research to exclude Bulgarian based on the minority of sources. Best, IE linguist (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Before World War Two, yes the Slavic dialects of Macedonia were considered part of the larger Bulgarian language family. Politics and separation based on many factors like codification of the Macedonian dialects into a separate language has meant that scholars have been counting the dialects as Macedonian. Bulgarian scholars have kept to the old classification. This is a hard one, but the majority consensus of today is toward Macedonian and TaivoLinguist has pointed out.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) IE linguist, you have still failed to prove anything whatsoever. You still misuse the phrase "out of context". But putting that aside, you are basing your entire argument on fallacious reasoning. You claim that sources that count the Pomak dialect of Thrace as being Bulgarian are counterarguments to my assertion that there are no accepted Bulgarian dialects in Greek Macedonia. This article isn't about Greek Thrace, it's about the "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia". The Bulgarian-speaking Pomaks of Thrace don't qualify as living in "Greek Macedonia". They are in Greek Thrace. You can see in my comments from last year that I know very well the difference between the Macedonian dialects of Greece and the Bulgarian Pomak dialect of Thrace. The sources I cite are also clear on that as well. So your continued harping on the Bulgarian dialect of Thrace as a counter-example is a failure in your argument. And you also fail to account for the very simple fact that the majority of my sources (9 or 14 doesn't matter) are written by Slavicists, who know very well what they are talking about. Your implied characterization of them as incompetent is disingenuous. The simple fact remains, whether they separate the Drama dialect out as different from its neighboring dialect or not, they uniformly place the Greek Slavic dialects of Macedonia within the sphere of "Macedonian" and not in the sphere of "Bulgarian". Your entire argument consists of separating the Drama dialect out from the other Greek Slavic dialects. Since you don't seem to recognize the competence of any Slavicist who doesn't, then you are clearly simply pushing your POV rather than listening to the weight of Slavic scholarship in this matter. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
As I have listed 6 of the 9 fabricated sources by Taivo above, Taivo is removing Bulgarian by his original research. Only up to 3 of his provided 9 sources classify the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian. Check my exposition of the sources in the list of Taivo above. We have as much post-1990 sources classifying some of the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Bulgarian. Taivo you need to provide sources for your claims. Resnjari, thank you for joining the discussion. Resnjari, I ask you to examine better, there is no such majority consensus, it is a falsification of the sources. I have listed how each of the 6 sources in the list of Taivo, does not classify the dialects as Macedonian. One by one, 3 of the 6 falsificated sources are maps only, in the map of the two sources of Comrie and Andersen(see this link of the map), provided by Taivo, the Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect is painted as Bulgarian?! How ridiculous is to claim, that this source classifies the dialects of Greek Macedonian as Macedonian? Resnjari, do you think there is any reason to hide from the article all Bulgarian classifications of the eastern dialects in Greek Macedonia? Best IE linguist (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Taivo of your three sources left, one is Friedman. But you are ignorant of Firedman as an author. Friedman identifies [12] the dialect of Kilkis as transitional between Macedonian and Bulgarian, the quote of Friedman:"in the modern northern and eastern Macedonian dialects that are transitional to Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, e.g. in Kumanovo and Kukus/Kilkis, object reduplication occurs with less consistency than in the west-central dialects" IE linguist (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You have proven nothing. I have falsified not a single, solitary source. Not one. I have taken not a single, solitary source out of context. Not one. You claim that I have fabricated sources when you have provided nothing but your own original research rather than accepting the peer-reviewed scholarly statements of actual Slavicists who have contradicted you. At this point you are begging Resjnari to join you in accusing me of falsifying data and accusing reknowned Slavicists of ignorance. You have proven nothing about my sources other than you disagree with them because they don't support your POV. --Taivo (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And you think that using another scholars map invalidates a Slavicist's views? Of course it doesn't. A scholar wouldn't use another scholar's map unless they agreed with that map. No scholar would use a given map if they disagreed with it. Period. The evidence of my multiple Slavicist sources is clear--they have uniformly included all the dialects of Greek Macedonia under the umbrella of "Macedonian". --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC
Seven of the nine sources in your list have NOT uniformly included all the dialects of Greek Macedonia under the umbrella of "Macedonian". I have not begged anyone. The current classification of the dialects in this article is your own, blatant original research. A separate section about the classification should be created, where any editors can add classifications of reliable sources. You don't have consensus to hide any classification(of a reliable source) from the article. A separate section should be created for classifications, I will leave the introduction unchanged and delay its shaping to avoid conflicts. I also don't care what is going to be said in the infobox alone, if you want keep your original research only there. IE linguist (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
See also the classification of Trudgill: Trudgill P., 2000, "Greece and European Turkey: From Religious to Linguistic Identity". In: Stephen Barbour and Cathie Carmichael (eds.), Language and Nationalism in Europe, Oxford : Oxford University Press, p.259.‘Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, which in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area, the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to Macedonia diasystem…— Preceding unsigned comment added by IE linguist (talkcontribs) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Again you mischaracterize my sources for your own ends. My sources either 1) state that the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian or 2) state that Bulgarian doesn't extend into Greece. Why do you have such a problem understanding that? Both say, in the end, the same thing: That the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian and not Bulgarian. But you have finally provided a useful quote that isn't based on your own original research. --Taivo (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicities in Notable Persons Section[edit]

It was decided here that ethnicities should not be included in the Notable Persons section of the article. --Taivo (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: These are not ethnicities, so the decision above is irrelevant to this problem. The term "Bulgarian politician" does not mean ethnic Bulgarian, but member of a Bulgarian political party in Bulgaria and part of the Bulgarian political system - we have ethic Turks, ethic Romani people, ethnic Jews, ethnic Armenians and a lot more which are Bulgarian politicians. If you are still not convinced, please let me know what ethnicity does every "American politician" have? American? Blagoy Shklifov is a Bulgarian dialectologist and phonologist, because he is a dialectologist and phonologist from Bulgaria, studied and lectured in Bulgaria, wrote a bunch of books on Bulgarian dialectology. Georgi Traykov is a Bulgarian politician, Head of State of Bulgaria (1964 - 1971), what other politician could he be? French? Please, take your time and try to see beyond your obsession of ethic people and POVs. --StanProg (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it is completely relevant if you read it. The issue of what a "Bulgarian politician" is is ambiguous at best--is he a politician in Bulgaria or is he a politician in Greece who claims to be Bulgarian. That's the whole point of the decision that was reached--that calling someone "Bulgarian" might be different things for different people. You aren't the first editor to try to push this and it's always been rejected as too ambiguous. Calling someone "Bulgarian" can mean an ethnic self-identification, it can mean citizenship in Bulgaria, it can mean someone who has a Bulgarian parent, it can mean someone who has a Bulgarian name, etc. It is 1) ambiguous, and therefore meaningless; 2) subject to pushing a particular POV, which has always been problematic in this article; 3) unverifiable; and 4) against existing consensus. This consensus isn't about any other article but this one. Because of the difficulties of POV pushing in the Balkans, the argument, "But we do X in other places" is irrelevant. --Taivo (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Bulgarian politician" means "a politician from/in Bulgaria". If he was an ethic Bulgarian who is politician in Greece, we would have been described as "Greek politician" (in general) or "Bulgarian politician from/in Greece" (if he was a member of a Bulgarian party in Greece - and there's no such party). These are basic principles when describing a politicians. Let's look at Blagoy Shklifov. He is self-identified Bulgarian, with Bulgarian name, with Bulgarian parents, a Bulgarian citizen, which worked, lived and died in Bulgaria and wrote several books on a Bulgarian dialectology of Greek Macedonia. His last work is subtitled as "Notes about the suffering of the Bulgarians in Aegean Macedonia in the twentieth century". In the "consensus link" it says "This is not advisable", not forbidden, so it's up to the editors to find the best solution for every case. --StanProg (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You're just clasping at straws if you think that "Bulgarian politician" is unambiguous. It is totally ambiguous and can be used to push a pro-Bulgarian POV. And you're trying to edit more than just politicians. There simply is no objective control here over 1) who you claim to be "Bulgarian", 2) what evidence you use to prove "Bulgarian", 3) how reliable and non-POV the sources are that you use to demonstrate "Bulgarian", 4) whether or not the individual ever claimed to be "Bulgarian", 5) what the individual meant by "Bulgarian" if they even claimed to be such in some source (citizenship, residency, ethnicity, employment, etc.), 6) whether or not the individual was pushing a pro-Bulgarian POV rather than assessing who they were objectively, etc. There simply is no control. And you should heed that "This is not advisable". There are multiple reasons this is not advisable and I have named many of them. The best solution in this case? I've proven that the best solution is to leave the labels out (as it often is in the Balkans). --Taivo (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
There will be certainly a change, because the current list is ridiculous. This is just overprotection from something that is in the leading text the articles of these persons and specified clearly with the categorization of the articles. I did not push any POV, I just copied the descriptions from the leading texts of the articles, which I did not wrote. Maybe for now the best way is to think of a way to write precisely that they are related to Bulgaria, Greece, United States, Canada, etc, because this is a fact that does not have ethic context. --StanProg (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The way you have written "Prime Minister of Bulgaria" is acceptable because it is not ambiguous or subject to broader interpretation. It is precise. But most of these names cannot be so unambiguously classified. The terms "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" should be avoided. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Where did I wrote "Prime Minister of Bulgaria"? I wrote "Bulgarian politician". All Prime Ministers of Bulgaria are Bulgarian politicians, not French, not Spanish, not even Greek. --StanProg (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Anton Yugov, member of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Prime Minister of Bulgaria (1956 - 1962)". Or didn't you write that? That's an acceptable form because it's completely unambiguous. --Taivo (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
"Bulgarian politician", however, is ambiguous because it could imply a politician elsewhere who is Bulgarian or ethnically Bulgarian. Canada has Ukrainian politicians who are Ukrainian by descent and sometimes even by language. In the US there is a new Somali-American Congresswoman. Some references to her are just as being "Somali". It happens more often than you want to believe. "Bulgarian politician" is not unambiguous. --Taivo (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is already contested. Having those additional qualifiers for people will cause more editing warring and headaches. Its current form is neutral.Resnjari (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist: No, I added "member of the Bulgarian Communist Party". "Prime Minister of Bulgaria (1956 - 1962)" was already there. --StanProg (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari: I'm not qualifying them differently, than they are in the articles about them in both leading text and the categories. As you can see, my next edit is avoiding the "ambiguous" (according to Taivo) term "Bulgarian politician" for person that was a member of the Bulgarian communist party and Prime Minister of Bulgaria. Also, as you can see in my block log, I haven't been blocked so far for anything, including edit-warring, which is not the case with you both. If someone will get into edit-warring that would be most probably not me. --StanProg (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@StanProg:, its disappointing that you would go down that route. You have no consensus for your edits and are now from appearances accusing me of edit warring in this article. Please retract your comment about me.Resnjari (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari: According to which principle of Wikipedia for every single edit there must be a consensus before it is made and did you ask for consensus before you do an edit? --StanProg (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@StanProg:, if its contested then it goes into that area. These articles on Macedonia have been magnets for so many years for disruption and POV. Please, consideration needs to be taken into account. What your asking could opens the door for editors to start editing over what 'identity' so and so person was and some of those individuals changed their views on that over time. You know this article has complexities. Diligence should be exercised.Resnjari (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari: Again, according to which principle of Wikipedia for every single edit there must be a consensus before it is made and did you ask for consensus before you do an edit? Also, regarding your last comment how do I understand if an "edit" is contested before I do it? Do you always revert edits that you contest and do you think I should do the same? --StanProg (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Your initial edit got reverted. When that happens its off to discussion,, well that what is suggested by wiki. The wiki advice is WP:BRD (Bold, revert, discuss). Otherwise we end up with mess upon mess especially for an article like this.Resnjari (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@StanProg:, according to no principle. Taivo acknowledged forgetting or misunderstanding the 3RR, a policy of Wikipedia. You do not need to ask for consensus an ignorant of the policies user. BRD is an optional method. What Taivo implies by the BRD here is a Wikipedia:BRD misuse. Which is to let him edit-war under the pretext of BRD. StanProg, you don't need to victimize and humiliate yourself by discussing with a user, who is personally attacking you. Taivo is a misunderstanding editor, that you may ingore. He can't edit-war anymore. In an empathetic stance with StanProg, I call everybody to refrain from involving Taivo in anymore discussions with StanProg. Because Taivo is personally attacking StanProg multiple times on the user talk page. IE linguist (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:IE linguist[edit]

Just because User:IE linguist thinks he is right does not constitute a WP:CONSENSUS. Without consensus his addition to this article is unacceptable. He hasn't even tried to compromise, he's spent his entire time trying to claim that I have falsified evidence. He has done nothing whatsoever to promote consensus. --Taivo (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism is the malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
Your intruding edit-warring on removing Bulgarian from the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus and as such this vandalism is reverted. Also see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". IE linguist (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Your view of what WP:CONSENSUS constitutes is false as is your view of WP:NPOV. You don't understand the meaning of WP:BRD. You are violating it in a big way. --Taivo (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Additions relating to Macedonian and Bulgarian languages[edit]

IE linguist, StanProg, TaivoLinguist, the recent additions need to be discussed. Please everyone refrain from personal attacks or other. A large chunk of the additions do not directly relate to the article itself. From my part what i am willing to support as additions to the article as of now are:

  • the bit on early Slavonic Salonica dialect and it being the basis of influence on other Slavic languages via Church Slavonic.(it would need to be trimmed, no need for too much info about other languages i.e Russian, as article is about Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia.
  • the bit about nasal vows (not sure if we need the extra bits about comparisons with Polish?)
  • Have the bit about Bulgarian dialectologists.
  • I would also have the bit from Macedonian linguists Božidar Vidoeski and Blaže Koneski.

For the wider article:

  • The bit about Boukouvalas and Tsioulkas maybe in the body of the article in a sentence or two (as they were promoting pseudo science to Greek audiences in the early 20th century in trying to down play the Slavic nature of the spoken language in the region. But definitely not a whole paragraph on it in the language section as its wp:undue and POV.

What should not be in the article:

  • Serbian dialectology bit, the source itself states it was done for nationalist reasons.(there are other wiki pages for that like Serbian nationalism.) Because the reach of modern Serbia never went into the region, its not even applicable to the article.

Other additions more discussion is needed but some slight rewording to make them not be POVish may be ok.Resnjari (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not part of this discussion, so don't involve me, unless you need my opinion or help. I just reverted a possible vandalism of an editor blocked 3 times for edit-warring. --StanProg (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
ok, StanProg, no problem. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
To others who want to participate feel free.Resnjari (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Resnjari, your proposal is acceptable. I still hesitate whether there are additions that do not relate to the article itself, because I carefully wrote the section. This article is about a linguistic minority, so I added all this stuff with the various classifications. If it was about an ethnic minority, the language should also be classified, although the articles about ethnic groups give less weight, because, normally, separate articles for their languages exist. Here we don't have a wider article about the Slavic dialects of Greece. It could have been created, but not yet, so the only thing I could do is to try putting a section to add well.
I don't have problem with your intension to remove Serbian dialectology. But I made sure to represent anything in a light as the source does. The source Ioannidou discredits Belic as the only exception, who classified the dialects of Greek Macedonia as Serbian. The source showed the publications of the Greek teachers in a bad light, but who represent popular views in Greece, so I agree with you, that they are relevant. I added the claim with the nasal phonetic features, because the claim involves a classification, not the nasal vowels. The described features of Kostur dialect have been one of the five points of the thesis of the Lechitic-Bulgarian-Macedonian genetic relationship, introduced by Benyo Conev and held later by other Slavists: Popowska-Taborska, Samuil Bernstein and Schuster-Sewc. IE linguist (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
IE linguist you should have done your edits piecemeal and explained each one of them in the edit summary instead of ramming a whole section into the article. You are aware that this article has been highly contested in the past and is covered by WP:MOSMAC. At least half the section went into other things and deflected from what it should be focusing on.Resnjari (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) This isn't an article about language, it's an article about an ethnic group of northern Greece that is defined by speaking a Slavic language. So 90% of the text that User:IE linguist wanted to add is too detailed for this article. User:Resnjari is on the right track to limit the additions, but I think that his suggestion is still too long. For example, the nasal vowel discussion is not really needed here. It would be appropriate in an article on South Slavic languages in general or East South Slavic languages in particular, but the focus of this article isn't the detailed historical linguistics of the Macedonian-Bulgarian speech community. Also the absence of any of the broader linguistic sources that don't label any of these Greek Macedonian dialects as Bulgarian is glaring. The language section should be one or two paragraphs at most; should state that a majority of linguists place most, if not all, of these dialects within the boundaries of the Macedonian language; and should mention that the easternmost dialects are transitional and placed in Bulgarian by some linguists. But the essay that User:IE linguist wanted to add is too detailed. --Taivo (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, I agree its not about language, but a specific community. Thing is there are these redirects to this page Slavic dialects of Greece, Slavic languages of Macedonia (Greece), Slavic idiom (Greece), Slavic languages of northern Greece, Dopia, Slavic languages in Macedonia (Greece) etc. So something will have to be noted about the issue of language in the article and also the language element is a component for this community. Language is the last community signifier that differentiates them from their Greek surroundings, hence the name of article. Around half of IE linguist's additions are relevant done with some better wording on a few bits. The rest are not and they go into things about Serb issues or the Russians and of course a whole paragraph about two early 20th century Greek authors which is wp:undue. With a cut of the section that IE linguist wanted to place (removing the irrelevant data) it should give the article a 2 paragraph section on language. I think to that it would be good to add the table proposal i had about where the language is spoken based on the EU study.Resnjari (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Resnjari is right. Taivo is slightly biased and pro-Macedonian, while IE linguist and StanProg maintain pro-Bulgarian views to a certain degree. The language section should claim that many linguists place those dialects within the boundaries of the Macedonian language, but the easternmost dialects are transitional and are described as Bulgarian linguistic area by some linguists, corresponding to those in north. i.e. in Pirin Macedonia, described by many linguists as Bulgarian.Jingiby (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
ok then, i readd to the article roughly half of @IE linguist's edits and then we collectively fix some of the wording so its not POVish sounding. Thoughts everyone?Resnjari (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I might suggest placing the text (without the references perhaps) here before adding it to the article. That might save some time in the long run as we could all comment without too much fuss in the actual article. --Taivo (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. ok then i'll set it up in here in a new section and ping everyone involved (its up them after if they want to partake in the discussion).Resnjari (talk)Resnjari (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jingiby: Can you please point which one of my edits regarding the problem was pro-Bulgarian? You are the third one accusing me of something, without any evidence. --StanProg (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
"Pro-Bulgarian views to a certain degree" is the exact phrase. We all the 3 are Bulgarians. I am also pro-Bulgarian to a certain degree, maybe. This is inevitably, I think. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jingiby: I do not have a pro-Bulgarian views, I have a pro-Wikimedian ones. Returning a huge chunk of well-sourced content removed by an editor that just does not agree with it partially is a technical thing, not pro-Bulgarian one. As one of the most active administrators in the Bulgarian wikipedia, I'm accused of "anti-Bulgarian views" on a weekly basis, so I hope you can understand my frustration when being marked as pro-Bulgarian. Being neutral is not "popular" for both sides of any discussion. --StanProg (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@StanProg:, you were perpetuating the Bulgarian side of an edit war--nothing more, nothing less. User:Jingiby is quite right. I could quibble as well at being marked as "Pro-Macedonian", but since the Bulgarians (and Greeks in other Macedonian contexts) usually always outnumber any actual Macedonians, my neutrality is always interpreted as "pro-Macedonian" since I don't always agree with the pro-Bulgarian or pro-Greek POV. I don't take offense, neither should you. If you're going to edit on the English Wikipedia, then you need to adapt to being labelled "pro-Bulgarian". --Taivo (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist: What "Bulgarian side"? I do not see sides in this. I also do not see what is the "pro-Bulgarian" in that text. I can only assume that you call everything that you do not agree with - "pro-Bulgarian". I see an editor that wrote a well sourced content, most probably spend a lot of time working on it and a guy that just because he does not agrees completely with all the information in it, reverts the whole contribution. No sides there, just a disruptive behaviour. I also saw problems in the contribution, but I did not removed the whole contribution just because I do not agree completely with it. To summarize: You see sides, I see disruptive behaviour. --StanProg (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Please, let stop this kind of monologues and discus Resnjari's proposal. Thank you in advance and my excuse if somebody was insulted from my comment above. To me, after being Bulgarian, to be pro-Bulgarian to some extend, is something normal. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The stance of Taivo is definetely pro-Macedonian, but there is no evidence that I maintain a pro-Bulgarian stance or that I am Bulgarian. Taivo has falsificated/misunderstood a bunch of sources in the sections above to remove any other classification than Macedonian. What I offered was an NPOV sourced representation. Not pro-Bulgarian, to any extent . IE linguist (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Language section[edit]

The continuum of Macedonian and Bulgarian is spoken today in the prefectures of Florina and Pella, and to a lesser extent in Kastoria, Imathia, Kilkis, Thessaloniki, Serres and Drama.[1]

According to Riki van Boeschoten, the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are divided into three main dialects(Eastern, Central and Western), of which the Eastern dialect is used in the areas of Serres and Drama, and is closest to Bulgarian, the Western dialect is used in Florina and Kastoria, and is closest to Macedonian, the Central dialect is used in the area between Edessa and Salonica and is an intermediate between Macedonian and Bulgarian.[2][3] Trudgill classifies certain peripheral dialects in the far east of Greek Macedonia as part of the Bulgarian language area and the rest as Macedonian dialects.[4] Victor Friedman considers those Macedonian dialects, particularly those spoken as west as Kilkis, to be transitional to the neighbouring South Slavic language.[5]

Macedonian dialectologists Božidar Vidoeski and Blaže Koneski consider the eastern Macedonian dialects to be transitional to Bulgarian, including the Maleševo-Pirin dialect.[6][7]

Bulgarian dialectologists claim all dialects and do not recognize the Macedonian. They divide Bulgarian dialects mainly into Eastern and Western by the Yat border (dyado, byal/dedo, bel "grandpa, white"(m., sg.)) stretching from Salonica to the meeting point of Iskar and Danube, except for the isolated phenomena of the Korcha dialect as an of Eastern Bulgarian Rup dialects in the western fringes.[8]

A series of ethnological and pseudo-linguistic works were published by three Greek teachers, notably Boukouvalas and Tsioulkas, whose publications demonstrate common ideological and methodological similarities, all the three published etymological lists tracing every single Slavic word to Ancient Greek with fictional correlations and they were ignorant of the dialects they wrote about, and the Slavic languages entirely.[9] Among them, Boukouvalas promoted an enormous influence of the Greek language on a Bulgarian idiom and a discussion about their probable Greek descent.[9] Tsioulkas followed him by publishing a large and illogical book, where he "proved" through an "etymological" approach, that these idioms are a pure Ancient Greek dialect.[9] A publication of the third teacher followed, Giorgos Georgiades, who presented the language as a mixture of Greek, Turkish and other loanwords, but was incapable of deifining the dialects as either Greek or Slav.[9]

Serbian dialectology usually doesn't extend the Serbian dialects to Greek Macedonia, but an unconventional classification has been maken by Aleksandar Belić, a convinced Serbian nationalist, who regarded the dialects as Serbian.[9] In his classification he distinguished three categories of dialects in Greek Macedonia: a Serbo-Macedonian dialect, a Bulgaro-Macedonian teritorry where Serbian is spoken and a Non-Slavic territory.

The nasal vowels are absent in all Slavic dialects except for the dialects of Macedonian in Greece and the Lechitic dialects (Polabian, Slovincian, Polish and Kashubian).[10] This, along with the preservation of the paroxitonic in the Kostur dialect and Polish, is part of a series of isoglosses shared with the Lechitic dialects, which led to the thesis of a genetic relationship between Proto-Bulgarian and Proto-Macedonian with Proto-Polish and Proto-Kashubian.[11]

The Old Church Slavonic language, the earliest recorded Slavic language, was based on the Salonica dialects.[12] Church Slavonic, long-used as a state language further north in East and West Slavic states and as the only one in Wallachia and Moldavia until the 18th century[13], influenced other Slavic languages on all levels, including morphonology and vocabulary.[14] 70% of Church Slavonic words are common to all Slavic languages[15], the influence of Church Slavonic is especially pronounced in Russian, which today consists of mixed native and Church Slavonic vocabulary, analogically to the Romance and Germanic vocabulary of English, but in Russian the Church Slavonisms are not perceived as foreign due to their Slavic roots.[14] The Russian linguist Zhuravlev argues that the Church Slavonic language is the "passkey" to the Russian nation's language, history, spiritual culture, whole life and ethos[15], estimating that "55% of Russian - words, syntactic features, and so on goes back in one way or another to Slavonic".[16]


  1. ^ "THE EUROPEAN UNION AND LESSER-USED LANGUAGES". European Parliament. 2002: 77. (Slavo)Macedonian, Bulgarian
    Macedonian and Bulgarian are the two standard languages of the eastern group of south Slavonic languages. In Greek Macedonia several dialectal varieties, very close to both standard Macedonian and Bulgarian, are spoken. Macedonian acquired a standard literary form, distinct from Bulgarian, in the neighbouring Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as recently as 1944. The two words (Macedonian and Bulgarian) are used here primarily because they are the names the speakers use to refer to the way they speak. In fact, many speak of ‘our language’ (nasi) or ‘the local language’ (ta dopia): the use of actual names is a politically charged national issue. A Slavonic language presence in the Greek peninsula can be traced to the 6th-7th centuries. During the nation-state building period, specially, the use of south Slavonic dialects in the region of Macedonia fuelled severe religious and national conflicts. After annexing its ‘New Territories’ (1913), Greece treated with hostility the use of Slavonic dialects. The most painful episodes were the successive large-scale expulsions of the Slavonic-speaking population from 1913 to 1949 (end of the Greek civil war). Yet (Slavo)Macedonian/ Bulgarian is still spoken by considerable numbers in Greek Macedonia, all along its northern borders, specially in the Prefectures of Florina, Pella, and to a lesser extent in Kastoria, Kilkis, Imathia, Thessalonika, Serres and Drama.
    line feed character in |quote= at position 702 (help)
  2. ^ Boeschoten, Riki van (1993): Minority Languages in Northern Greece. Study Visit to Florina, Aridea, (Report to the European Commission, Brussels) "The Western dialect is used in Florina and Kastoria and is closest to the language used north of the border, the Eastern dialect is used in the areas of Serres and Drama and is closest to Bulgarian, the Central dialect is used in the area between Edessa and Salonica and forms an intermediate dialect"
  3. ^ Ioannidou, Alexandra (1999). Questions on the Slavic Dialects of Greek Macedonia. Ars Philologica: Festschrift für Baldur Panzer zum 65. Geburstag. Karsten Grünberg, Wilfried Potthoff. Athens: Peterlang. p. 59, 63. ISBN 9783631350652. Some members have formed their own emigrant communities in neighbouring countries, as well as further abroad. In September 1993 one of the most accepted international bodies, the European Commission, financed and published an interesting report by Riki van Boeschoten on the "Minority Languages in Northern Greece", in which the existence of a "Macedonian language" in Greece is mentioned. The description of this language is simplistic and by no means reflective of any kind of linguistic reality; instead it reflects the wish to divide up the dialects comprehensibly into geographical (i.e. political) areas. According to this report, Greek Slavophones speak the "Macedonian" language, which belongs to the "Bulgaro-Macedonian" group and is divided into three main dialects (Western, Central and Eastern) - a theory which lacks a factual basis. Consider, for example, the following statement: "The Western dialect is used in Florina and Kastoria and is closest to the language used north of the border, the Eastern dialect is used in the areas of Serres and Drama and is closest to Bulgarian, the Central dialect is used in the area between Edessa and Salonica and forms an intermediate dialect".
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Trudgill was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Heine, Bernd; Kuteva, Tania (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 118. ISBN 9780521608282. in the modern northern and eastern Macedonian dialects that are transitional to Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, e.g. in Kumanovo and Kukus/Kilkis, object reduplication occurs with less consistency than in the west-central dialects
  6. ^ Fodor, ‎, István; Hagège, Claude (309). Language reform : history and future. Buske. ISBN 9783871189142. The northern dialects are transitional to Serbo-Croatian, whereas the eastern (especially Malesevo) are transitional to Bulgarian. (For further details see Vidoeski 1960-1961, 1962-1963, and Koneski 1983).
  7. ^ Vidoeski, Božo. Dialects of Macedonian. Slavica. p. 33. ISBN 9780893573157. the northern border zone and the extreme southeast towards Bulgarian linguistic territory. It was here that the formation of transitional dialect belts between Macedonian and Bulgarian in the east, and Macedonian and Serbian in the north began.
  8. ^ "Карта на диалектната делитба на българския език". Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
  9. ^ a b c d e Ioannidou, Alexandra (1999). Questions on the Slavic Dialects of Greek Macedonia. Ars Philologica: Festschrift für Baldur Panzer zum 65. Geburstag. Karsten Grünberg, Wilfried Potthoff. Athens: Peterlang. p. 56-58. ISBN 9783631350652. First of all, a series of ethtlological and pseudo-linguistic publications should be mentioned, which appeared in Greece at the beginning of the century and continued to be published until the late 1940s. The most characteristic and distinctive among them were created in the first decade of the century by "specialists", such as the teachers Giorgos Boukouvalas and Konstantinos Tsioulkas. Boukouvalas published in 1905 in Cairo a brief brochure under the title "The language of the Bulgarophones in Macedonia" (1905). Tills essay, which assumed the Slav character of the foreign-language idioms of Greek Macedonia by naming them "Bulgarian", included a long list of Slavic words with Greek roots which are used in the dialects. Apparently, Boukouvalas' aim was to prove the enormous influence that the Greek language has had on the speech of the Slav-speakers in Greece and also to initiate a discussion about their probable Greek descent. Whether or not as a result of this initiative, two years later, a new publication by an elementary-school teacher followed: Konstantinos Tsioulkas published in 1907 in Athens a book over 350 pages in length to prove the ancient Greek character of the idioms in Greek Macecionia! (1907) The title of the monograph more or less lived up to its name: "Contributions,to the bilinguism of the Macedonians by comparison of the Slav'-like Macedonian language to Greek". Tsioulkas gave a more decisive answer to the question about the language of the Slav-speakers than his predecessor had done. Tsioulkas "proved" through a series of "etymological" lists that the inhabitants of Greece's Macedonia spoke a pure Ancient-Greek dialect. After his large, but nevertheless illogical, publication some other essays on the same subject followed. It is worth mentioning the pamphlet written in 1948 by a third teacher, Giorgos Georgiades, under the promising title "The mixed idiom in Macedonia and the ethnological situation of the Macedonians who speak it" (1948). Here it is stated that many words from the dialects maintain their "Ancient Greek character". Still, the language itself was presented as a mixture of Greek, Turkish and words borrowed from other languages. As a result, the author found himself incapable of defining it as either Greek or Slav. In examining such publications, one will easily recognise ideological and methodological similarities. One common factor for all the authors is that they ignored not only the dialects they wrote about, but also the Slavic languages entirely. This fact did not hinder them in creating or republishing etymological lists tracing every Slavic word back to Ancient Greek with fictional correlations. line feed character in |quote= at position 380 (help)
  10. ^ Bethin, Christina Y.; Bethin, Christina y (1998). Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory. 84-87: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521591485.[1][2]
  11. ^ Hanna Popowska-Taborska. Wczesne Dzieje Slowianich jezyka. Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Warszawa 2014, p. 99-100 “Chodzi o wnioskowanie na podstawie różnego rodzaju zbieżności językowych o domniemanym usytuowaniu przodków współczesnych reprezentantów języków słowiańskich w ich słowiańskiej praojczyźnie. Trzy najbardziej popularne w tym względzie koncepcje dotyczą: 1. domniemanych związków genetycznych Słowian północnych (nadbałtyckich) z północnym krańcem Słowiańszczyzny wschodniej, 2. domniemanych związków genetycznych Protopolaków (Protokaszubów) z Protobułgarami i Protomacedończykami oraz … Również żywa jest po dzień dzisiejszy wysunięta w 1940 r. przez Conewa [Conev 1940] teza o domniemanych genetycznych związkach polsko-bułgarskich, za którymi świadczyć mają charakteryzująca oba języki szeroka wymowa kontynuantów ě, nagłosowe o- poprzedzone protezą, zachowanie samogłosek nosowych w języku polskim i ślady tych samogłosek w języku bułgarskim, akcent paroksytoniczny cechujący język polski i dialekty kosturskie. Za dawnymi związkami lechicko-bułgarsko-macedońskimi opowiada się też Bernsztejn [Bernštejn 1961, 1965], który formułuje tezę, że przodkowie Bułgarów i Macedończyków żyli w przeszłości na północnym obszarze prasłowiańskim w bliskich związkach z przodkami Pomorzan i Polaków. Do wymienionych wyżej zbieżności fonetycznych dołącza Bernsztejn zbieżności leksykalne bułgarsko-kaszubskie; podobnie czynią Kurkina [Kurkina 1979] oraz Schuster-Šewc [Schuster-Šewc 1988], którzy– opowiadając się za tezą Conewa i Bernsztejna – powołują się na mój artykuł o leksykalnych nawiązaniach kaszubsko-południowosłowiańskich [Popowska-Taborska 1975a] ”
  12. ^ Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier. 2010. p. 663. ISBN 9780080877754.
  13. ^ Crișan, Marius-Mircea (2017). Dracula: An International Perspective. Springer. p. 114. ISBN 9783319633664.
  14. ^ a b Die slavischen Sprachen / The Slavic Languages. Halbband 2. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 2014. ISBN 9783110215472.
  15. ^ a b Bennett, Brian P. (2011). Religion and Language in Post-Soviet Russia. Routledge. ISBN 9781136736131.
  16. ^ Bennett, Brian P. (2011). Religion and Language in Post-Soviet Russia. Routledge. p. 53. ISBN 9781136736131.

I've struck out the parts which are not relevant to the article (as per previous thread) to section at hand and or to the wider article itself. I'm pinging those editors (IE linguist, StanProg, TaivoLinguist, Jingiby who have placed comments in the last 24 hours on the talkpage. If you wish to participate, your more than welcome and so is anyone else as well.Resnjari (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well to get the ball rolling, the language section would be easier for a reader to read if it started off chronologically. The Salonica bit about early Slavonic would go well to be the first part to the section. Thoughts ?Resnjari (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This section sounds too much like an academic paper as written and needs to be written more like an encyclopedia for non-academic readers, who don't expect to read a lot of "he said, she said" with names cited in the text. I propose that the section should begin (with appropriate refs):
  • "The Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are part of the dialect continuum between Standard Macedonian and Standard Bulgarian. Most linguists consider the majority of these dialects to be Macedonian, while the far eastern dialect of Serres-Drama is Bulgarian."
This will make the primary linguistic information for the vast majority of readers more quickly accessible so they can move on. The section can then proceed to more arcane topics. With all due respect, User:Resnjari, a strictly chronological ordering isn't always useful in an encyclopedia. We should order these articles more like newspapers--with the information that the majority of readers seek first and then details following. The details following that first paragraph can be ordered chronologically, but that first paragraph is key. --Taivo (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't know about others but that works too. I'm ok with it.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That whole paragraph about the nasal vowels is not appropriate in this article. It belongs in an article on Proto-Slavic, not here. This article is about the contemporary people of Greek Macedonia who happen to speak South Slavic dialects, not about the language itself. --Taivo (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I was 50/50 about that as as it refers to things about Polish as well. Although i see where your coming from. I mean if there is going be any bits about language comparisons obviously space should be awarded to Macedonian and Bulgarian primarily.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning the relationship between Old Church Slavonic and the Greek Macedonian dialects is good, since many readers will know about Old Church Slavonic and be interested in its connection to these dialects, but all that stuff about cognate percentages, etc. ia irrelevant to this article and should be in the article on Old Church Slavonic. Again, this article isn't about the arcane details of nasalized vowels in South Slavic or Old Church Slavonic, it's an article about a group of people. --Taivo (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
My thoughts were in that direction. Cutting that percentage stuff would do. Just a one sentence mention about influences on other languages. A reader can chase up more info on other articles via links/sources.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Finally, the paragraphs about the division of the Greek Macedonian dialects are appropriate, but IMHO too complex at present. They can be cut in half and still convey the primary information that the Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia isn't monolithic. I'm not sure that the details (and the proponents' names) are appropriate in the text. A detailed summary would be better. Also, the only topographic names in the paragraph should be from the Greek side of the border. Anything about dialect divisions that focuses on Bulgarian territory is irrelevant to this article, which is strictly about people on the Greek side of the border. Something like "The far eastern dialect of the Serres-Drama region is also spoken in neighboring Bulgaria" is good, but "The far eastern dialect of the Serres-Drama region is also spoken in X, Y, and Z east of the ABC River", where X, Y, Z, and ABC are all in Bulgaria, is bad. --Taivo (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree on the topographic stuff and wording the dialectal divisions. Only regions that come close or are neighbours have relevance due to historical contact and language area as opposed to far off ones. Agree in giving primacy to those as well.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Post-finally, I agree with all of User:Resnjari's strikeouts. --Taivo (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully others will comment. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I have committed a lot to my work, and be more relaxing, and busy these days. @Resnjari, I can finally see an objective proposal. You proposed the first suspended row to be trimmed or moved to another section. Is it an existing section or a new one? @Taivo, I agree for your proposed introducing sentence. It is NPOV. These are my general advices to the editors of the section:
1) The length. If the section I added seems too detailed to anyone, the proportion, dedicated to the dialects in this article seems short to me. Which I think are the main priority of this article. In the main aspect this is an article about something linguistic, whether it is called a group, speakers or a minority. They belong to various ethnic groups, with the language as the collective link. A similar community is the Torlakian dialect, which is spoken by various ethnic groups. I think anyone should not be discouraged to spare so much space for writing about the dialects here. I would even suggest that each dialect is described in a separate new section in this article, along with the main phonetic features mentioned? If the claims are sourced to reliable sources and are about the Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia, I won’t see anything unnecessary in any additions. Along with the shortening, I would advise everybody to find more sources and expand the section, because I am the only one, adding to this section right now. I think this is the main article. Not only because the “Slavic dialects of Greece” redirects to this article, but because this article is about speakers of several dialects, more than 5, and should describe each one of them separately. I would like to see a table with some features of all dialects in this article.
2) The number of paragraphs. My stand is, that in each paragraph I added, there is a linguistic classification, relevant to the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia, including the one, which Taivo described as a "paragraph about nasal vowels". They are susceptible to be reworded, moved or rearranged. IE linguist (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
User:IE linguist, I think you might misunderstand the point of this article. It's not about "Slavic dialects", but "Slavic speakers". It'a an article about the people, not about the language or linguistics. So the people have to be the primary focus here and not the minute details of the language. This article is not comparable to Torlakian dialect because that is an article about a "dialect" and not "speakers". If you think there should be an article that details the dialects of the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum that are spoken in Greek Macedonia, then create it. That would be the most appropriate place for the detailed linguistic description of the dialects that you are envisioning. But to load this article up with detailed linguistics is not appropriate for an article about "speakers". That's why I advocate more summarizing and less detail in this section. --Taivo (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the following as a starting point for simplification of the section (with appropriate references added later):

  • The Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are part of the dialect continuum between Standard Macedonian and Standard Bulgarian. Most linguists consider the majority of these dialects to be Macedonian, while the far eastern dialect of Serres-Drama is Bulgarian. As with all dialect continua, drawing strict divisions between the varieties is difficult. Within the Macedonian portion, a western dialect and central dialect are often recognized. The Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are distinctive among the South Slavic languages because they preserve the Old Church Slavonic nasalized vowels, which have been lost in the rest of South Slavic. Old Church Slavonic was, itself, a Greek Macedonian speech form from Salonika.

I think that this captures what a reader who comes to this page will expect about language without getting into too much detail. Again, some of the detail might be interesting for linguists, but this article isn't about the language, but about the speakers. IE linguist, if you'd like to create an article "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia", I can help if you're not sure how to start. I've created a few in my time. --Taivo (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, apologies i missed this important bit due to having to deal with the comments of others on this page. Anyway your proposal sounds good. What do others think ? Its a go ?Resnjari (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari: I will ask for the 2nd time to not ping me on the topics in which discussion I'm not participating. Regarding this issue I reverted a possible vandalism i.e. removal of huge content with reasons that are against the Wikipedia principles. My revert was not related to the content, but to the violation of an important Wikipedia principle. If you open a topic about your destructive behaviour, you can ping me. I would also like to thank Taivo and Resnjari for they stopped vandalizing and engaging in an edit wars, and for starting a constructive discussion, even under the threat to be blocked. The next good step will be to start allowing other editors to contribute to the article without their explicit approval via pre-edit consensus. Have a productive discussion. --StanProg (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
You became a willing participant in the edit warring so stop with the crocodile tears and your holier-than-thou justifications for your own misbehavior. The rest of us have moved on without you. --Taivo (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@StanProg. I won’t ping you in future. The last ping was a courtesy call out of respect as a fellow editor as you did participate in the previous talkpage discussions. It’s disappointing the words you use like "threat" and make unfounded claims toward me but i am not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Slavic dialects in Greece redirects here, i.e. there was such article, but the whole info was displaced here. Check its former content, please. Jingiby (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Taivo, you are drawing each discussion in into a quarrel. I read your proposal above. It is a synthesis containing WP:PN. It is simple: this article should represent all different classifications of the Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia, sourced to reliable sources without synthesis. There is no any indication of how long the information on the dialects should be in this article, but it is indefinite and dependent on how all reliable sources are represented correctly. There is a consensus to merge the article Slavic dialects of Greece with this one and the main article redirects here. If Taivo wants to move any information about them into the deleted article, he should start a discussion to restore it.IE linguist (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:IE linguist, an accusation of "Patent Nonsense" is rather strong considering that my proposed wording contains a summary of every single one of your paragraphs. "All different classifications" (detailed) is appropriate for a language article, but not really here. An expansion of the classification sentence somewhat might be warranted, however, if there are notable differences between them. A laundry list of every single historical classification, however, I think is too much. That seems to be your primary objection to my proposed revision. --Taivo (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Jingiby, thank you for the link to the prior article at "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia". It took some looking, but I found two different AfD discussions. I found this discussion from 2008 to keep the article, but it wasn't moved until 2011. I managed to find this discussion from 2011 (when the articles were merged). It's really a weak deletion decision if you ask my opinion. The discussion in 2008 ended in a strong "Keep", but the discussion from 2011 was mixed at best (Jingiby you were one of the voices against merging). The main argument then was that the content should be split between Macedonian language and Bulgarian language. I know that I'm a strong proponent of WP:CONSENSUS (that's why we're having a problem here in the first place), but when that consensus doesn't seem to have been properly reached, especially when the Keep consensus was so strong previously, seems to be odd. But let's assume that the consensus in 2011 should stand for now. --Taivo (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
IE linguist, i'm not against such content being in the article. If anything its long overdue. But have a look at your additions. Half are not applicable to the topic as they steer off into other topics. This can get done. Work toward a wording that can be incorporated into the article. We are not far from that. On previous articles about the language matter etc, votes were for keep and then delete etc. After those AfD discussions this is the situation that is and its time to get something in order about a language section. Everybody enough of the trivial blather. What parts are in, what parts are out, what parts are to be trimmed or shortened. Those that want to start placing proposals for sentences up, do so.Resnjari (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just noticed that there are already a plethora of detailed articles on Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects, such as Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, Maleševo-Pirin dialect, Samokov dialect, Southwestern Bulgarian dialects, and many more. Another article on dialects of Greek Macedonia would be too much on second thought. --Taivo (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
We just have a small simplified section on language. Its important because of the nature of the community's main identity marker being language that distinguishes it from its Greek surroundings. Those articles on the dialects can be in the language section as a See also. Like this a reader can get the full context and then explore further if they so wish.Resnjari (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that the ramifications of my thinking through this are that I'm still convinced that the linguistic details should not be here, but that there should be links to dialect articles (where there are linguistic details). I'm happy with the summary that I've written although User:IE linguist might be correct to include a bit more on the classification. --Taivo (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I know where your coming from but from another perspective not having anything will result in this kind of situation in future (previous separate article/s of this community's spoken language were deleted). Something to the point will address the matter and give this article a sense of stability moving forward. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I suggest the table from the deleted article to be added to this article, probably to a "Dialects" section. The table is backed by a relaible source. The proposal of Resnjari, on top, is acceptable. Although I do not agree, that half of the content from the section I have written is not applicable. In the original version the entire section is straight on the subject-matter. IE linguist (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a good table, I agree, but it is too much detail for this article, which is not about language, but people. Does that table already occur in any of the dozen articles on the dialects of Macedonian and Bulgarian? It's just too much for this non-linguistic article, IMHO. --Taivo (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
No, the table does not occur in any article. It is not too much to move it from a merged article, which redirects here. Back the length limitations with policies please. IE linguist (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Actually, I think that it is, since, as I have stated many times, this is not a linguistic article. There is a lot of information there that should be in an article, just not this one. Does this table already occur in any other article on Macedonian/Bulgarian dialects? If so, then we can just link here. I'm also going to start an RfC (below) about whether or not to recreate the "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia" article. That is actually the perfect place for that table, not here. But since you and I disagree on this, and we are but 2/3 editors, we need more input. This is the heart of our previous discussion--that you want this to be a linguistic article and I point out that it's not and shouldn't be. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not about length, it's about topic. The topic of this article is not language or linguistics, it's an ethnic group. Language description and linguistics is just a minor and peripheral issue in terms of describing the history and ethnography of this group of people. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the topic of the article. It is about a linguistic minority, not an ethnic minority. It consists of multiple ethnic groups and I have given the example with the Torlakian dialect above. And you misunderstood me, I have never claimed, that I want this to be a linguistic article.IE linguist (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I do understand you, that this ethnic group is defined by a common language (treating the dialect continuum as a whole), but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to describe that language in detail linguistically. And I disagree that it's comparable to Torlakian dialect which is an article about a specific language variety and not about people (the people are mentioned but only peripherally, in one short paragraph, "Ethnography"). This is the exact opposite: it's an article about people who are defined by using a language, and only peripherally about the details of the language. And you can, indeed, treat the speakers of these dialects of Greek Macedonia as one group because they share a common history through their interaction with the Greek government. I've started an RfC (below) to get comments from a wider group of editors since it doesn't seem that you and I will agree on this. It takes about 24 hours for the RfC to be listed in the appropriate list, so some patience will be needed. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
This minority is not an ethnic group, but multiple ethnic groups. IE linguist (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Though i agree with the proposal for a separate article i still think a small language section should exist in this article (with a link to the larger article), with the bit that Taivo summerised above + my proposal about a table that shows how many settlements exists per administrative unit as this article is about the people. So like this it offers a reader some info and chance too explore further in the article on dialects. Like this everyone gets something and no one loses out. Thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You are making things out of nothing. Now we are getting long and complicated discussions for simple classifications. I won't particiapte in a disucssion for resuming an article, as it doesn't matters to me where the text would be. I would rather exclude the table from this article than slowing down the discussion so much, and leave only the classifications in this article. IE linguist (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait which table are you referring to. The one i proposed or the one you were referring too. Mine is about the people, and where they are located. (i outlined it above).Resnjari (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The one I referred to from the deleted article. Would you link your table again? IE linguist (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There are not "multiple ethnic groups" unless you are defining ethnic group to mean the inhabitants of a single village. Ethnicity is much broader than "dialect". There is one West South Slavic ethnicity involved here. Greeks are not involved because they speak Greek and not Macedonian/Bulgarian. Unless you're talking about microethnicities, then there is only one people who speak a Slavic variety in Greek Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
If the comment's directed to me, no not ethnic groups, just people who speak Slavonic in Greek Macedonia. Its data from the Euromosaic report [13] (this link works, goes direct to the report). I wanted to make a table from the data with ten bullet points.Resnjari (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no one West South Slavic ethnicity involved here. IE linguist (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, User:Resnjari for being unclear that my comment was directed at User:IE linguist. So whether you treat these people as one ethnic group (as I do) or as multiple ethnic groups (as the two of you do), it's still about people and the history of a people, not about the linguistic details of the language varieties they speak. The language section as I've proposed above (with a modest expansion of the classification sentences), is enough so that readers who aren't interested in linguistics can learn about these people. The great detail that IE linguist wants (along with all his references) would then be perfectly appropriate for a new article that focuses entirely on linguistics. Just because this group of people is defined by the language they speak doesn't mean that this article has to be a linguistic article. It's still an ethnographic/historical article and should stay that way. If we define a group of people by their eye and hair color, that doesn't mean that a detailed discussion of the genetics and chemistry behind eye color and hair color is appropriate for an article about them. The same is true of linguistics in this article. These people are defined by the fact that they speak a Slavic language. But a discussion of the inner workings of Slavic languages isn't appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


Should a new article be created about the dialect continuum of Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia or should the detailed linguistic description of the varieties be included in this article? --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • New Article. There is much interesting, but very detailed information about the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum that can be productively included and referenced in a separate article. But it is too much information for this article and is off-topic. This article is about an ethnic group, a group of people, and only peripherally about the language that they speak. The linguistic details of the language varieties they speak is inappropriate for inclusion here. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The article we are at is not about an ethnic group. It is about Macedonians, Bulgarians and Greeks, defined by a common language. IE linguist (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether you think this group of people is a single ethnic group or multiple ethnic groups, they share a common history of oppression within Greece. (Greeks don't actually speak a Slavic language unless you are talking about "nationality", citizenship, not ethnicity.) Details of the inner workings of Slavic languages are irrelevant in this context. --Taivo (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You are probably uninformed and refusing to investigate in a row. A great part of the Slavophones identify as ethnic Greeks, check the demographics of the prefectures. IE linguist(talk) 15:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Please cease and desist with the personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
What personal attacks? IE linguist (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"You are probably uninformed and refusing to investigate in a row" --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? Everybody is uninformed of something and not all-knowing. IE linguist (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
and "refusing to investigate in a row". You don't know what I investigate. We may investigate the same material and come to different conclusions based on other research. --Taivo (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I would apology If I didn't say probably. IE linguist (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Ethnic self-identification in situations where a linguistic minority is oppressed to some extent or another is often not driven by historic reality, but by contemporary political expediency. In a census, where self-identification is used to mark ethnicity, I'm not one bit surprised to find a number of people of a minority ethnicity who identify as part of the majority ethnicity. People who are, in fact, ethnic Slavs might unsurprisingly self-identify as ethnic Greeks for political and social purposes. But whether there are actual Greeks who speak the local Slavic language natively or not is actually immaterial, this article ("Speakers") is still about the people and the history of the people who speak that Slavic language in Greece. It's not about the nuts and bolts of a Slavic language, but about the people who speak it. That's why two articles are recommended. --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it. lol YES Support proposal.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"Yes" to a new article or "yes" to adding detailed linguistics here? (The question is either/or, not yes/no. I think I know which you'd like--a new article, but just to clarify. Correct me if my assumption is wrong.) --Taivo (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In this article. This RfC is a consistent application of previous moving discussions to illustrate a WP:POINT. This article is about ethnic groups, as well as dialect groups. Currently, there is a consensus (“The discussion was closed on 22 August 2011 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia.”) to merge here Slavic dialects of Greece and move its content to this article. Other articles redirecting here are Bulgarians in Greece and Macedonians in Greece. Because Slavophone Greeks redirects here, this article is called Slavic speakers, not Slavs of Greek Macedonia. The intro should describe which ethnic groups and dialects redirect here. The article is indeed about a people, but the proposer misunderstands, that the subject involves only ethnicities and not dialects. Sometimes the locals identify only by their language(as Slavophones) or as locals(dopia) without ethnicities involved. It is about a linguistic minority, people of several ethnic groups and several dialects. It is a complicated subject, but the previous discussions agreed to consolidate the information about the dialects into this article. The proposed title of the new article is not a notable subject, the trends show, that there are zero searches for "Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia" and "Slavic dialects in Greece" in a year. The article is fully protected and conditioned on the time of this RfC, which slows down the development of this article. Please, finish it faster as possible. IE linguist (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
No. I will object to "finishing faster" because the point of this RfC is to gauge a broader range of opinion than just the three of us. The three of us disagree on how to proceed. A WP:CONSENSUS can change over time, but in order to determine whether or not consensus has changed we must get a wider range of opinions than just you, me, and User:Resnjari. Without a broader range of opinion, you will continue to try to insert too much linguistic detail into the article and I will continue to oppose it. In that case, the status quo usually wins or we have to go through this whole process again at some point in the future. So it's actually to your advantage to get a wider range of opinion--whether it is to insert linguistic details here ("Speakers") or insert them into a new article ("Dialects"). --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on where to state the linguistic information. It doesn't matter to me where this information wil be stated. It can pass as relevent in this article and in a new or another article. The problem is, that you don't want this information to be stated anyhwere, except for in a probable new article to be created in the next year. You can not create the proposed new article, because Slavic dialects of Greece has been deleted by consensus. I advice Resnjari to quickly reject this proposal, because your proposal is too long to wait and this article is not going to be restored. I have already shown that the trends in Google is zero searches for your proposed title "Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia". So, out of nothing, you create the problems of waiting for the same discussion to restore such an article a second time, which has been deleted as not a notable trend. You are prolonging in the hardest complicated way only to make a point. It could have been much easier to obtain consensus between me, you and Resnjari in the discussion above. I advice Taivo and Resnjari to return to the discussion in the section above and leave alone these already failed RfCs. IE linguist (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no time limit on Wikipedia unless you will disappear in two months, but even that is not a reason to rush. As I said previously, it might be to your advantage to wait because right now there are two editors who support a new article and only you who doesn't. There is no problem with being patient and waiting to see what the community decides. And we can call a new article whatever is appropriate. And just because "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia" was deleted once does not mean that the name cannot be resurrected and used again if a consensus of people here think a new article is appropriate. All of these arguments that you are giving are red herrings. --Taivo (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
And if no other editors show up to voice their thoughts, then we can still return to the previous discussion and try to reach a compromise on wording and content between the three of us. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I am actually in favour of creating such an article. But the proposed title it is not popular. The hopeful waiting would be a waste of time. Unless you can offer a more popular title from the trends. IE linguist (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
In Greece, these dialects are actually called "Slavic" [14], thus the title "Slavic speakers..." ~ "Slavic dialects...". Greek editors have often objected to the use of "Macedonian" in reference to anything Slavic in Greece for purely political reasons. The RfD 7 years ago (here) was actually not really a consensus, but a forced merge by a single editor apparently. The numbers of the RdD were 3 to Keep the article and only 2 to delete it and merge it with this one. How it passed is a mystery to me. Given that very poor participation in the 2nd nomination and the overwhelming desire to Keep the article in its first nomination (here), I think that we can recreate "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia". In fact, besides the three of us, only User:Jingiby has made a contribution here and he voted to Keep the article during the second RfD. The worst thing that happens is that some overwhelming number of uninvolved editors show up and ask us to change the name. The other alternative is something like, "Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum in Greek Macedonia". By using "dialect continuum" we make it clear that this is actually a definable linguistic unit despite crossing the boundary between two languages. --Taivo (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Taivo I'm personally kind of torn here as while I agree with you that indepth linguistic info, especially with jargon, is not appropriate for this page, I am not sure about restricting a new page to Greek Macedonia. Why, when Slavic dialects are also spoken in West Thrace, and historically other regions such as Epirus. Afaik the "Aegean" dialects of Slavic speech in Macedonia do not form a distinct clade based on linguistic characteristics? There is little reason to separate them from their relatives elsewhere in Greece. Indeed Slavic was once spoken in Epirus (and left behind a hefty number of placenames there), and this historical fact is relevant to the article but cannot be included in its present proposed form. What would you think of Slavic dialects in Greece or Slavic dialects of Greece? --Calthinus (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to making this new article on the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum in Greece if that is linguistically justified. --Taivo (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I would support a revival of the article Slavic dialects of Greece. Calthinus is right about scope and coverage of such an article. Apart from Greek Macedonia, covering Greek Epirus (in a historic sense) when there is scholarship, or Greek Thrace would do well to treat the full scope of Slavonic speech in Greece. The previous RFC did not take into account that the topic is wide ranging in scope and coverage. This article is about the people and as @IE linguist brought much content on language is is more then enough to revive the article with information suited to it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@IE linguist: your thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus: Your ping to IE linguist did not work. You need to save the ping in the same edit as you sign. If you later add a (corrected) ping, you will need to re-sign the post. They are hereby pinged. --T*U (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • New article. I did never quite understand why the former language article was merged in 2011. Any further info about the language should go to a resurrected "Slavic dialects..." article.
    I am, however, not quite sure it should be called "Slavic dialects of Greece", since that would indicate inclusion of Pomak language, which I understand is quite distinct from the dialects we talk about here (and already has a separate article). Perhaps "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia", which would be precise and also link it neatly to this article. But I will leave that decision to the linguists.
    --T*U (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the title issue. The Pomaks and Russian emigrés in Athens must be excluded. --Taivo (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah ok that sounds good too. I agree. So the article on dialects gets revived?Resnjari (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
re TU-nor the speech of relatively isolated mountainous Muslim Slavs of the Rhodopes is often an idiom that preserves many divergent features (similar in Golloborda in Albania, where Muslim Slavs preserved many of the features of medieval Macedonian~~Bulgarian speech that can be seen in attested Old Bulgarian -- I am not saying this is hte same language, just that it had those characteristics). What is or isn't a "different language" in this context is going to be a matter of POV and Bulgarians (Bulgarian), Turks (separate language), Greeks ("Slavic") etc are not going to agree on it, while there are differences among the Pomaks themselves. It isn't a question that has an objective answer and Wiki shouldn't be taking an objective stance.--Calthinus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of a "separate language", but about a well-defined set of dialects in the Greek provinces of Macedonia that are a dialect continuum between Macedonian and Bulgarian. The dialect of the Pomaks in Thrace is identifiably distinct and the Pomaks do not share an ethnic history with the Macedonian groups. The Pomak dialect has its own article. This new article will be just for the dialects of Greek Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Tell me then, without going into irrelevant discussions of ethnic identity or history (I can be Zulu and speak Chinese, including an obscure dialect of Gan or Hakka if I so choose and invest effort, no I am not Zulu), what are the defining characteristics shared by these (Greek) Macedonian dialects that clearly separate them from other Slavic dialects in the region? --Calthinus (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
So, I object to the creation of an article Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia, but I don't object to the revival of the deleted article Slavic dialects of Greece. The proposed title is innovative and without trends in Google, but some users still try to impose this nonsense after I had told them multiple times. The issue with the Russian immigrants in Athens is meaningless as they are also in Salonica. The Drama dialect is no different than the Pomak dialect and the Pomaks do share most of their history with so called Macedonian groups. The people of Drama and Serres did not call themselves Macedonians, but Marvatsi as the Pomaks did, they also share the same dialects with the Pomaks, not the Macedonians. That the existence of an article about Pomak language should exclude it from other articles is meaningless, as there are separate articles about the Kostur dialect and others. The fringes of Epirus are also concerned. Resnjari, Calthinus, do you agree? IE linguist (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
On this, yes.--Calthinus (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
You guys swayed me. I agree.Resnjari (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, then. I agree too with IE linguist's proposal. Jingiby (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, that the new article should include all the Slavic dialects of northern Greece, then I'll go along with it. The whole point of this RfC was to get a separate article where the detailed linguistic description of the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum of northern Greece that User:IE linguist has put together would have a proper home. --Taivo (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Count me in, too. The "missing link" of Marvatsi makes my former arguments valueless. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC #2[edit]

The proposal above leads to another one here. If a linguistic article about Slavic dialects of Greece is resumed, to me there would be no sense in the existence of this article, which is not an ethnic group article, but about a linguistic minority of multiple ethnic groups. There are still no articles about Bulgarians in Greece and Macedonians in Greece, which are only redirecting links to the article "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia". Which makes the topic of this article synthesized.
If the article "Slavic dialects of Greece" is created again, should the article "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" be turned into a disambiguation page containing the following new articles?:
1. Macedonians in Greece
2. Bulgarians in Greece
3. Slavophone Greeks. IE linguist (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • No. This article (Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia is clear and focused on the people who speak a variety of the Macedonian/Bulgarian dialect continuum in the Macedonian provinces of modern Greece. It's clear, it's focused, and it's not about language other than to define the group. The new article ("Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia" or "Macedonian/Bulgarian dialects of Greek Macedonia" or something like that) which might be created above would be about the linguistic details of the Slavic dialect continuum in Greek Macedonia, not about the people. This article ("Speakers") would remain as it is. The new article would be more like Torlakian dialect. It would include information such as the table and detailed dialect discussion here. The new article on language would not include the history of oppression and educational matters because that would remain in this article. The new article would include theories of nasal retention with Polish et al. that some linguists have proposed, isoglosses between the standard languages and between the varieties here, a history of linguistic study and description, the relation to Old Church Slavonic, and other purely linguistic matters. It would be an article that is longer than some of the articles that exist on specific Bulgarian dialects, such as Samokov dialect, even without the ethnographic detail that is in this ("Speakers") article. Deleting the "Speakers" article is not appropriate since it includes ethnographic and historical information that would not be appropriate in a new "Dialects" article. They are distinct topics about a single group of people. Dividing the "Speakers" article into separate Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Greek articles would be a serious, unacceptable, and completely unnecessary case of content forking. --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Taivo here and it would be a no on my part too. It would open the door to edit warring and counter edit warring and POV. It would be a return to the bad old days. In many of these families there are people who identify as Macedonian or Greek heritage (i live in an area in the diaspora where this is the case.) and others as Bulgarian. They have come from a group of people whose identity became fragmented due to nationalism, politics and the border for over the past hundred years. Kyril Drezov in an excellent chapter on the matter titled Macedonian identity: An overview of the major claims (1999) [15] outlines this. Any new article on language would be strictly about the language of the speakers. Only a small paragraph of a few sentences would refer to the people with a link to this article. The article about the speakers themselves would be this one.Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" are not an identifiable group referred to by many people outside of Wikipedia editors. Greek sources tend to say Slavophones or Slavophone Greeks. Ditto "Macedonians" and "Bulgarians" for respective political entities plus arguably sympathetic academics. The actual people in question also exhibit a range of divergent identities -- including "local" ones that don't align to any of the three nationalisms in question -- but aside from Slavophone Greeks none of these really approaches the title of this page. We are not in the business of inventing new ethnic groups. States (controversially) do that. Not free encyclopediae. That being said, I would like to see a concrete plan for how these new pages will play out-- such that they do not become POV messes worse than the status quo that admins will have to clean up. That's your cue, IE linguist. --Calthinus (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I do agree that wikipedia should not be in the business of creating new identities. In much of the litreture these communities are referred to as Slavophone speakers etc etc with at times other qualifiers. At risk of not making new articles become forks for this article etc, a case for a strictly language based article is there, but having more splinters would lead to POV and edits wars of the bad old days. I would not be in favour of further fragmentation beyond the additional creation of a strictly language based article.Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
My proposal may be WP:POINT. I am ignorant of any merging discussions taking place about the articles proposed. May somebody provide this information? IE linguist (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No way. That would really be unacceptable content forking. "Slavic speakers..." may be an awkward title, but it is definitely about one specific group of people. "Slavophone Greeks" is just another way of expressing the same; "Macedonians in Greece" would be the rather small subgroup of them identifying as "ethnic Macedonians", already covered in the article; and "Bulgarians in Greece"...?? Well, there were 75,915 Bulgarian citizens in the 2011 census, but they do hardly form an ethnic group of Greece. Very few (I would guess zero) of the "Slavic speakers..." have a Bulgarian identity. This idea should be put to rest asap. --T*U (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Does this article need to be put under full protection, due to the edit warring? Thanks for any responses. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's a borderline call. It's been untouched for 12 hours and the main editors involved in yesterday's brouhaha are now talking (above). If you decide to err on the side of caution, a short one should be sufficient. --Taivo (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: As far as I can see, there is a discussion above which hopefully will enable the community find an agreement. However, a short protection, say two days. would not be bad. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article following a request at ANEW and given that there is a more recent continuation of the edit war. FYI ping to EdJohnston. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
That was a good move. Thanks for your stewardship -- I've been watching this one and agree that intervention was necessary. Hopefully both sides can acknowledge there is some legitimacy in each others points, and come to a reasonable consensus. --Calthinus (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Callanecc, you did not follow my request at ANEW correctly. I have reported a user for violation of the three revert rule, I did not report a page for protection. Yet, the result of my report is a change to the status of the page. Why the report on the violation was dismissed? The user I reported is now calling names to StanProg [on the user talk page], which the latter user considers offensive. IE linguist (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You made a request a ANEW, yes. However, it is completely up to administrator action what if any action should be taken in response to a request. In this situation I determined that a number of editors would need to be blocked to prevent the edit war so it would be better to protect the page to force discussion to occur instead. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement toward the decision taken by administrators. Hopefully the discussion in the previous thread will result in making the article better. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)