Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Requested move 6 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The two oppose votes make a compelling argument as to why the article is at the current title. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia → Speakers of Slavic languages in Greek Macedonia – The current name is hopelessly ambiguous and confusing. Its construction implies "[Population] speakers of [language]" but the meaning is the exact opposite. This is especially bad in this case because "Slavic" is an ethnicity as well as a language group, so many readers will misapprehend what "Slavic" refers to here. "Of" should be "in" here; we are not addressing languages intrinsic to Greek Macedonia, but speakers of these language who happen to be (or had been) living there. The current title also implies Slavic is a specific language, which it's not. So, it fails on three distinct levels.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC) PS: I tend to wonder why this article exists. We have no comparable article I can find, e.g. "Speakers of Turkic languages in Western Armenia", "Speakers of Romance languages in North America", or whatever (and if we did, we'd never call them "Turkic speakers of Western Armenia", "Romance speakers of North America", etc.). It appears to be a trivial intersection of factoids. But that's an AFD matter not an RM matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: SMcCandlish misunderstands the point of this article and who it is about. It is not about speakers of any Slavic language who happen to live in Greek Macedonia. It does not include Russian speakers or Polish speakers, etc. It is specifically about a native, non-immigrant population of people in Greek Macedonia who speak a single Slavic language. That language, depending on the political bent of the author describing it, is called either "Bulgarian" or "Macedonian". It is not two languages, but one. In Greece, that language is called "Slavic" [1] and is included in Macedonian by Ethnologue. The title is awkward, but was the result of some discussion back in 2008 or 2009. "Macedonian" could not be used because it was politically charged and was not a linguistic label used in Greece for this language. "Bulgarian" has the same problem. And, as stated above, this article is not about any other Slavic group. --Taivo (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is at its current title because that's the best title available for this particularly complex topic, where the very definition of the topic is fraught with NPOV problems. Yes, the title is somewhat vague, but that's a blessing: it has to be, because the contentious nature of the issues forces it. We are dealing with one specific minority group, who speak one particular language – but neither do the members of this group agree among themselves what kind of a group they are (national, ethnic, linguistic minority?), nor do they agree on what the name of their language is. The article does not deal with just any speakers of any Slavic language who happen to live in that area (e.g. recent Russian or Polish immigrants); it deals with the local autochthonous minority. We can't simply call them "ethnic Macedonians", because few of them identify as that. We can't call them "Macedonian-speakers", because some dispute that linguistic label too. We can't call them "speakers of Macedonian or Bulgarian", because that would imply two distinct languages, when in reality it's just a single local dialect (which happens to have been described variously as part as either one or the other in the past). We can't call them "speakers of Slavic languages", because that, too, would imply several distinct languages. Calling them by the intentionally vague label "Slavic-speakers" or "Slavophones" has been a sensible and remarkably stable compromise, and it is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, because – surprise, surprise! – that's what a good part of the literature does. As for your grammatical claim that "X speakers of Y" can only be read properly if "Y" is a language name, I would contest that: "[people] of Y" can of course also mean a group that lives in Y. There's no ambiguity in that respect, because it is plainly obvious in this case that "Y" is a geographical name, not a language name here. I would also prefer "of Macedonia" to "in Macedonia", insofar as "of" correctly implies that it's a group specifically defined by their location in this region, while "in" might imply a mere intersection (those members of a larger group X who happen to live in Y). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits: have there been Bulgarians in Macedonia?

User:Taivo, please share your concerns about this edit. Thanks! By the way, I think some of your comments and this recent edit betray either a rather poor familiarity with the subject or an inability to maintain a neutral point of view. The sources provided speak of Bulgarians, not "Slavic Macedonians". I believe that it is not up to wiki editors to arbitrarily substitute these terms, especially when one of the main purposes of this term historically has been to conceal the fact that there have been Bulgarians in Macedonia. A fact, which your recent comments and edits seem to ignore. To quote the Carnegie Commission report: "... their (the Serbians') facile generosity impelled them to share with the Greeks the population described on their maps as "Slav-Macedonian" — a euphemism designed to conceal the existence of Bulgarians in Macedonia." (P. 158) Tropcho (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem here. This is an article about Slavic-speaking Greek Macedonians. Throughout the article, they are called either "Macedonians" or "Slavic Macedonians" or some-such. There has been a long-standing consensus that these native Greek (not immigrant), Slavic-speaking Macedonians were not to be called "Bulgarians", but "Macedonians". This has been a stable consensus for several years here. It's not about what a blind allegiance to your Bulgarian sources say because there are other sources that call these people "Macedonians". If you think that another consensus-building process is warranted, then by all means initiate one with a formal Request for Comment. If a new consensus emerges, then the article can be changed, but a long-standing, stable article, especially in an area of the world that is so readily subject to POV-pushing, should not be changed at the drop of a hat. Initiate a formal Request for Comment. --Taivo (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is no "long-standing consensus" on this issue. Just judging from the edit history and the talk-page, there has never been consensus on anything this article has to offer. Why does a simple introduction of sourced content require a WP:RC when the alleged long-term consensus was not achieved via a WP:RS? It seems like you have assumed ownership of the article and, instead of actually answering any question or engaging in constructive discussion, you simply avoid every topic by claiming the article is in some perfect state. What is more, you dismiss neutral third-party sources as "Bulgarian"? Why, when there was a single Bulgarian source amongst four other all coming from reputable scholars? I looked at the content Tropcho added and it is evidently supported by neutral sources. Yet, you claim those are "Bulgarian sources," evidently in an attempt to switch the focus of the discussion. I will go ahead and revert what seems like a blind revert on your part.

If indeed such consensus exists, could you kindly direct us to the discussion that led to it? I have been here for many years now and I do not remember us reaching any form of consensus on this topic. That said, I have taken long wiki-breaks in the past and I might have missed something. Although I can't seem to locate it anywhere on the talkpage. --Laveol ^T 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the archives, as I recall the current consensus was reached while I was living in Ukraine in 2008 or shortly thereafter. Perhaps Future Perfect at Sunrise remembers more accurately. He was heavily involved in the discussions as I recall. --Taivo (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that Taivo's "blind allegiance" remark was quite misguided, given that the two Bulgarian sources (out of 6 total) supported a minor point - the number of Bulgarian schools in Macedonia on the eve of the First Balkan War and the year when the first Bulgarian school opened in Kukush. Or was the intent to really challenge these data?

Then, let me point out that there's a "Neutrality disputed" template in the section I edited. I wonder why this template is there, if consensus has existed for so long.

Third, I read through quite a bit of the archives already and couldn't find that alleged consensus. On the contrary, as mentioned above in another discussion, Bulgarian and Macedonian featured together in the infobox until 2010 when they were replaced without any discussion by a link to Slavic dialects of Greece, which (at the present moment) redirects to this page. (This was later replaced with a link to Macedonian language). So if consensus about this truly existed as early 2008 or 2009, then it appears that this consensus didn't involve referring to the language of Slav speakers in Greece as Macedonian (as Taivo claimed above).

Fourth, we now have two relatively reliable sources (Loring Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1997, and Chambers and Trudgill, Dialectology, Cambridge University Press 1998) which agree that the decision whether these dialects are Bulgarian or Macedonian is a political one, and cannot be based on linguistic criteria. See the quotes provided with the citations here. We also have sources (Karakasidou. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood, Chicago UP, 1997. and The Carnegie Commission Report on the Cause and Conduct of the Balkan Wars, 1914) which point out that terms such as "Slav Macedonians" and "Macedonians" are not neutral. We also have sources (Raymond Detrez, Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, 2006. and the Carnegie Commission Report) which refer to the refugees as Bulgarians. Another source (Karakasidou 1997) states that a significant part of the Slavic population of Greek Macedonia left for Bulgaria after WWI declaring that it "felt Bulgarian". These are (by far) not the only (non-Bulgarian) sources which speak of Bulgarians in Macedonia (and Greek Macedonia in particular).

This leads to some important questions: were these sources considered at the time consensus was built? And also: what were the sources considered? If we know the answers to these questions, we don't really need to dig up the old discussions.

Finally, as you all probably know (if not, scroll up), there is already an RfC going on, which is quite likely to touch upon the issues we're discussing presently. Tropcho (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Other than the Chambers and Trudgill book above, Tropcho has no linguistic references, so all his other references are immaterial. According to Ethnologue, this Slavic language of Greek Macedonia is called "Slavic" in Greece and is included in the entry for "Macedonian" ([2], not "Bulgarian". According to Ethnologue the only only "Bulgarian" speakers in Greece are the Muslim Pomaks. Chambers and Trudgill are indeed correct, there is a political element to whether this Greek Macedonian language is Macedonian or Bulgarian, so any political reference is invalid. We have to rely solely on linguistic references--Ethnologue includes this dialect as "Macedonian", as does Linguasphere. Victor A. Friedman, "Macedonian," The Slavonic Languages (1993, Routledge) also includes this dialect in Macedonian, while Ernest A. Scatton, "Bulgarian," in the same volume does not include it in Bulgarian. Voegelin and Voegelin also include it in Macedonian and not Bulgarian. These are all reliable linguistic sources exclusive of any discussion of perceived ethnicity or political affiliation. And Tropcho complains that this article is somehow unstable because the infobox was changed in 2010. That's five years ago. That's stability in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably it is exactly because Danforth is not a linguist that he prefers not to give us his own opinion, but to rely on experts. Quote: Sociolinguists agree that in such situations the decision as to whether a particular variety of speech constitutes a language or a dialect is always based on political, rather than linguistic criteria.

Second, even linguists tend to have political preferences, so it's quite natural that some would classify these dialects as Macedonian. The essential point is that there is no rigid linguistic criterion to decide, which you have conceded. Unless the authors you refer to have provided such a criterion, we may conclude that they have made their choice on political grounds. For example Prof. Friedman (who is apparently also the editor of the Routledge volume you mention) has specialised in Skopje and has ongoing collaborations there, which puts him in a conflict of interest (his cv).

Ethnologue is a tertiary source and we have no idea what sources it relies on, so I'm not sure it's a good reference for our purposes. For instance, it says that population for Slavic speakers in Greece is very difficult to find. This is basically an euphemism for "We don't know". Can you provide a link to Linguasphere and more detailed reference information about Voegelin?

Also let me add that two of the sources (Detrez and Carnegie Commission) have no bearing on the linguistic dispute, but rather deal with the ethnic affiliation of the refugees. I don't see why they should not be trusted on that.

P.S. I think it's not such a good idea to assume that an edit that slipped unnoticed without discussion in the middle of an edit war gains legitimacy merely by the passage of time. Tropcho (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think that Fut. Perf.'s comment under the move proposal below contains some valid points worth stressing, including 1. complexity and 2. conflicting self-identifications of people within the group. Taivo, compare his comment with your comments above, where it is implied that only the Bulgarian nationalists and Bulgarian linguists consider the language of Slavs in Greece to be Bulgarian. In fact many members of that group have self-identified as Bulgarians and a large number of people that would probably qualify as Bulgarian nationalists according to your criteria come from the region we're discussing (this is neatly illustrated by the first of these two maps, prepared by some Bulgarian enthusiast with roots from Macedonia. It provides links to documents about Macedonia written by people born in Macedonia.) Tropcho (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Friedman did not edit the volume on Slavonic languages, it was edited by Bernard Comrie. Linguasphere is a book as is the Voegelin and Voegelin volume (Classification and Index of the World's Languages). The point is that every linguistic reference in my library calls these dialects "Macedonian". But Future Perfect's comment below indicates that a non-controversial label is "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia", not "Bulgarian" or "Macedonian". You can't use his comment to push your own position to label some Bulgarians and some Macedonians. --Taivo (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that Amazon lists Grenoble and Friedman as editors for some reason, whereas on the book itself it says Comrie and Corbett. I agree that when we want to refer to the whole group, "Slavic speakers" or "Slavophones" would be the appropriate terms, but this does not mean that we should ignore or conceal the fact that members of this group have identified variously as Bulgarians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and that they have used different labels (including "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian") to designate their language. Thus if we have good reason (i.e. reliable sources) to believe that a certain subgroup self-identified in a particular way, I see no reason to avoid stating that. Let's not forget that neutrality on wikipedia does not mean trying to find some imagined "neutral" point of view, nor trying to simplify or obscure reality. Rather, it means mentioning all the significant points of view.

And let me here once again emphasize that not only have there been a large number of foreign authors that have acknowledged the existence of Bulgarians in Macedonia, but the Macedonian Bulgarians themselves (including those from Aegean Macedonia) have been quite vocal and have left a rather rich documentary heritage which testifies to their feelings and aspirations. After all, we are talking of of hundreds of thousands of people here (Crampton, p 225 and Chris Kostov, p 85 estimate the number of refugees from Macedonia to Bulgaria at half a million), many of whom were embittered by injustice and therefore all the more motivated to speak up for themselves. Tropcho (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You continue to confuse ethnic identity with linguistic identity. It doesn't matter what these people want to call themselves, it matters what the linguistic literature (and the linguistic literature only) calls this language. It is consistently included within "Macedonian" linguistically. Trying to split this community into two groups with two labels based on politics is a lie and a disservice to our readers. This is one community with one language. --Taivo (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like the label "Macedonian", then we can find something more neutral (the language is called "Slavic" in Greece). But we have to consistently use one label and one label only through the article to avoid giving the impression that this is two different communities with two different languages. --Taivo (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, the community is split in (more than) two groups with different self-identifications already. This is a documented fact, evidenced by the sourced additions which you just removed without consensus. Sociolinguists agree that the dialects can be classified linguistically as either Bulgarian or Macedonian. Speakers, as well as linguists, give this group of dialects different names. Another documented fact. There is nothing confusing about this. What part of this is difficult to understand? If reality (i.e. reliable sources) does not conform to your ideas of what reality should be, your ideas should change, I think. Tropcho (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your invitation to find something "more neutral" indicates a misunderstanding of the wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Please do read my comment about what neutrality is (above). Or read WP:NPOV. Tropcho (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the sociolinguistic comment. The majority of linguistic sources place these dialects with Macedonian (although you have correctly noted that Pomak is often placed with Bulgarian). Speakers are often the least reliable people to tell you what language they speak (I've provided an actual example above). If you ask speakers in the former Yugoslavia what language they speak, the response from next-door neighbors, whose speech is indistinguishable from one another, will be based on religion and not on actual linguistic fact. Wikipedia has to take a neutral, linguistically-accurate position of calling that speech "Serbo-Croatian" even though none of its speakers will use that term. Using speakers' labels is unscientific. --Taivo (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is hardly anything to misunderstand about the comment. It is clear: whether standard Bulgarian and Macedonian are distinct languages or dialects of a single language is not a question that can be solved on the basis of linguistic criteria. The same statement can be found elsewhere. E.g. (quoting The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd ed. (p. 25)): "Arguments over language names often reduce to arguments of a political nature, especially when there is a dispute over national boundaries. For example, in the South Slavic continuum, varieties spoken on the western side of the Border between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria are called dialects of Macedonian by the former country, but dialects of Bulgarian by the latter – reflecting a claim to the territory. However, because there is a dialect chain in the area, linguistic criteria will never be able to solve conflicts of this kind."

In light of this, the fact that linguistic sources place these dialects with Macedonian reflects either a convention or a political preference, not a linguistic reality.

To take up your analogy with Serbo-Croation here, perhaps the most accurate way to describe the situation would be to say that these dialects belong to a Macedono-Bulgarian dialect continuum, as indeed some linguists have done (e.g. fr:André_Mazon and André Vaillant, L'evangelieaire de Kulakia: un parler slave du Bas-Vardar, (1937)), including linguists from the region we are speaking of (e.g. see Blagoy Shklifov's Bulgarian Dialect Texts from Aegean Macedonia/Български диалектни текстове от Егейска Македония (2003), or Dimitar Ivanov (from Gevgelija), The Speech of Gevgelija/Гевгелийският говор (1932)). All these have adopted the view that the Slavic dialects of Greece (as well as all other Slavic dialects of Macedonia) belong to a Bulgaro-Macedonian dialect group, and that there are certain characteristics (e.g. lack of noun cases, existence of a definite article, formation of comparative forms of adjectives with the prefix по-, lack of verb infinitive, tense system) which set apart this Bulgaro-Macedonian dialect continuum from the other speech varieties in the wider South-Slavic continuum. Tropcho (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

So you have simply proven my point--that labeling some of these individuals as Bulgarians and some as Macedonians makes no sense and is simply confusing to readers. This is one language, not two langauges depending on which speaker you talk to. --Taivo (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Now this (that it makes no sense to label some individuals as Bulgarians and others as Macedonians, and that it is confusing to do so) is a very interesting conclusion to draw from my last comment, but it is not a conclusion that can legitimately be drawn from it. Your comment confuses the two distinct questions we are discussing:

1. The self-identification of members of the Slavic community of the region;
2. The dialects that are spoken by members of this community and their relationship to Bulgarian and Macedonian.

My last comment addresses only the second, linguistic, point, and has little bearing on the first one. The flaw in your argument is, I think, the assumption that if (a) the Slavs in Macedonia speak a single language, then (b) it is confusing to say that they have different self-identifications. I think we can agree on (a) (actually, it seems to me that it's more accurate to say that Slavs in Greece speak a number of dialects of a single language), but I don't see why (b) should follow from that. Furthermore, even if it were confusing (life is sometimes complex), it would be our job to convey the complexity of the subject, instead of judging our readers too stupid to understand and offering them a dumbed-down version of reality. It is a well documented fact that members of this community have identified differently. It is not acceptable to conceal that. Concealing that would comprise a major departure from core wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. This was already discussed enough, I think.

Finally, you reverted my edit, but from your comment it's not clear what your particular objection is. Please clarify that. Tropcho (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Taivo, this is a second invitation to detail your objection regarding this (reverted again here). Merely saying "there's no consensus" is not sufficient. Thanks! Tropcho (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are simply in denial, Tropcho. The majority of linguistic treatises that are linguistic in nature state that the Greek dialects pattern with Macedonian. That's what the older text here says--most linguistic sources. You can find one or two sources that place it with Bulgarian, but you are still left with the majority placing these dialects with Macedonian. You can complain all you want, but the linguistic facts and the sources are quite clear about it. --Taivo (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim that I'm in denial is a bit ridiculous, given that one of my comments above addressed that point. Just as a reminder, the question whether Bulgarian and Macedonian, which form a dialect continuum, are separate languages or dialects of a single language is not decidable on the basis of purely linguistic criteria (The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd ed. (p. 25) and Chambers and Trudgill, Dialectology, Cambridge UP 1998). In light of this fact (please let me know if you're contesting this), it is quite reasonable to conclude that the references you mention place these dialects with Macedonian as a matter of convention, and not on the basis of linguistic criteria. Have your sources provided a linguistic criterion to decide this matter? If yes, please share it with us. Otherwise we'll have to conclude that their classification is merely conventional. In any case, to keep the text in the article as it is (not mentioning the proximity to Bulgarian) is far from neutral, I think. Even more so, given that a number of Slavists (Shklifov, Dimitar Ivanov, Andre Mazon, Andre Vaillant) consider these dialects as belonging to Bulgarian. Tropcho (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, the very source you were referring to (Scatton in The Slavonic Languages (1993)), points out that 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." (p. 247). Tropcho (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is not whether there is some hidebound standard for placing these dialects as X, Y, or X/Y, but what do the majority of reliable sources say? And the majority of reliable sources place this Greek Macedonian dialect in Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with your position.

First, it's missing the point of NPOV. We're supposed to explain the situation, representing all significant points of view, not simply (and superficially) stating what you call the majority point of view. Doing this here would be misleading.

Also, from what we've seen so far in terms of sources, I think there's no clear majority. If I'm not mistaken, you have cited three tertiary sources (Ethnologue, Linguasphere, and Voegelin and Voegelin). These might as well be relying on the same secondary source(s) (i.e. actual linguistic studies of these dialects by Slavists). This should be taken into consideration when determining what the majority view is. And we have Comrie and Greville's volume, which states that the southwestern boundary of Bulgarian dialects is controversial. Now we also have Shklifov, Ivanov, Mazon and Vaillant, four actual Slavists, who either consider these to be Bulgarian dialects or speak of a Bulgaro-Macedonian dialect continuum analogous to the Serbo-Croatian continuum. Shklifov and Ivanov are from the region itself. Ivanov's work on the dialects of Gevgelia is considered by Vaillant ("Le probleme du slave macedonien", Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris, 39 (1938), p. 196) to be one of the most important monographs in the field.

We also have (from RGA de Bray's Guide to the South Slavonic Languages (1980)): "In this brief survey we do not take into account the dialects of Greek and Yugoslav Macedonia, which are closely allied to Bulgarian and are briefly described in our separate chapter on Macedonian. These Macedonian dialects have many features which also occur in various Bulgarian dialects, but mostly not in literary Bulgarian, from which they are sharply differentiated, particularly by accent and phonetic system." (p. 87, in section The Bulgarian Dialects).

Second, if we really want to write that these dialects are "classified linguistically" as dialects of Macedonian (which is what the current version states), don't you think that it should concern us whether there are linguistic criteria (hidebound or other) for placing these dialects with Macedonian or Bulgarian? And don't you think that in our case we have quite a few good reasons to believe that there aren't such criteria, and that the grouping is a result of convention and/or reflects a political reality more than a linguistic fact? And, given the facts, do you really think that it's not relevant to mention the proximity to Bulgarian? Tropcho (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You still missed the point of my post: The text as shown in the article is 100% accurate: The majority of sources place these dialects with Macedonian. That is still the fact. If you want to add some text later in the paragraph that some sources place these with Bulgarian, then fine, but the majority of sources either openly call these dialects Macedonian or discuss them as part of their section on Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The identification of these people, as with the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonian to the north and west, as Macedonian, Serbian, or Bulgarian is entirely political. Some linguists, largely working in Bulgaria, have identified the dialects here as West or South Bulgarian; it might be useful to add both these facts in the same paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo, I think that it's unjustified and dishonest to claim that I missed the point, when my previous comment actually takes the point straight on (both with respect to its alleged majority aspect and to how far the classification is linguistic or conventional). Let's not forget that dishonesty is not civil. If you can address the points in my comment, please do so. Tropcho (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tropcho, I am not being dishonest at all. The problem is that your comments keep veering off into the details of "how" determinations are made, and whether or not these reliable sources are correct or not, rather than my point that the simple fact is that the majority of reliable sources place these dialects within what they call "Macedonian". Yes, some of them quibble, but at the end of the day they still placed X in Y and not Z. Yes, Pmanderson, the second sentence of the paragraph should be a note that the demarcation between Macedonian and Bulgarian isn't clear-cut and is fraught with political overtones. --Taivo (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the two most likely reasons for comments like yours are dishonesty and an inability to understand the argument. And my argument isn't too difficult to grasp, I think. Your last comment displays this same trend of misinterpretation. In particular, my comments neither "keep veering off into details" nor are they challenging the sources. I'm questioning your interpretation of them. Don't you think that interpreting sources is not a mechanical process and requires some discretion? In our case, it may be correct that the linguistic sources you mention list these dialects with Macedonian. However, especially in this case, where some linguists have considered Macedonian and Bulgarian as dialects of a single language, insofar as the sources don't comment on the reasons for that classification, we can't be sure whether the classification is linguistic or conventional/political.

In fact, what most sources do is mention the proximity between Macedonian and Bulgarian, which I believe we should do too. Don't you think that the situation is similar to that described in your comment about Serbo-Croatian, next-door neighbors, etc? Tropcho (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop the accusations of dishonesty, Tropcho. Accusing me of dishonesty is utter nonsense if you want to have a discussion. I understand your argument and your tactics perfectly well--you simply want to avoid the fundamental issue of sources that say something you don't like so you muddy the discussion. I have been crystal clear throughout this discussion--the majority of linguistic sources place these Greek Macedonian dialects in the basket labelled "Macedonian". So that must be the first sentence of the paragraph in question. We don't get to "interpret" the sources any which way we want based on your personal point-of-view. If you had actually read my comments thoroughly you would have noted that I then said that the second sentence should be about the problems with drawing a hard line between Macedonian and Bulgarian. That's the second sentence. Then we need, at the end of the second sentence or in a third sentence, to mention the fact that Greeks don't use either term, but simply call these dialects "Slavic". --Taivo (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your approach is rather peculiar, I think. First call for no personal attacks, then throw a baseless accusation about "my tactics". If I were in your shoes, after such a comment, I wouldn't blame people if they considered some of my remarks lacking in sincerity and/or logical consistency. Furthermore, your understanding of WP:NPA is mistaken, I think. An accusation that lacks evidence would indeed be a personal attack. In this case I believe my comment was justified. Maybe it's dishonesty, maybe it's a failure to understand. In any case, it is incorrect and it is an effective refusal to answer my questions.

I want to assume good faith, but it seems that stuff of that kind has been piling up. Just to refresh your memory: this refactoring, the removal of the link to your talk page with the claim that one should not link to "personal" talk pages (?!), claims [3] about some alleged consensus going back to 2008 (which never materialized and were contradicted by e.g. this and numerous intervening changes, edit wars, e.g. June - August 2011) + claims that Slavic speakers in Greek M. were one group historically, ethnically, linguistically, and that they are not Bulgarian (these claims contradict most of the literature and the article itself). Your last remark about interpretations based on my "personal point of view" seems to completely ignore the fact that it's not about my point of view, but that there are a number of linguists who consider Macedonian and Bulgarian as dialects of a single language and others who state that the question whether M. and B. are distinct languages cannot be decided on a linguistic basis. What should one think of all this? I feel some of these claims are rather bad and this is getting a bit disruptive.

Back to content: to establish WP:RS#Academic_consensus we actually need an academic source that says that the majority view is such and such. Do we have such a source? Otherwise stating that the majority view is this or that would be WP:OR. In fact, we can be fairly confident that even those linguists who consider Macedonian and Bulgarian to be a single language would classify most Macedonian dialects together. The essential point is that Macedonian and Bulgarian are closely related, and form a dialect continuum, pretty much like Serbian and Croatian, and we should mention that. Tropcho (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You just seem to be addicted to the personal attacks and you certainly don't assume any good will. It's also clear that you don't understand the dynamics or procedures of Wikipedia discussions. Too bad for you. Did you read what I wrote? I don't think so. Go back to the last part of what I wrote above. Read it carefully. You will see that it addresses your concerns about the difficulties of dividing Macedonian from Bulgarian. But the first sentence is still quite accurate--the majority of sources end up placing the Greek complex in the Macedonian basket. No matter how much you might not like that, it's the simple fact. --Taivo (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What is this? Did you read WP:NPA, WP:RS#Academic_consensus, or my comment? I'll let other editors judge the value of your remarks regarding my "addiction to personal attacks", which speak for themselves. Your point about the majority view may well be correct, but unless we find a source that says explicitly that Macedonian dialects are usually classified linguistically as dialects of Macedonian, it's just our pretty piece of WP:OR. Also, as I mentioned, whether they are classified as Macedonian is a secondary point. Even Bulgarian linguists group most Macedonian dialects together (except south-eastern ones). The point is the proximity between Bulgarian and Macedonian and that from a strictly linguistic point of view there is no way to decide whether they are distinct languages (and we have a source that explicitly states that this is the majority view of sociolinguists). Coming back to your Serbo-Croatian example, our case is comparable to saying that some shtokavian dialects are classified as dialects of Croatian, without mentioning the proximity between Serbian and Croatian, which, as you said, wouldn't be acceptable. Tropcho (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. I did read your comments, and am glad to see that the lack of a sharp boundary between Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects is acknowledged. Tropcho (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So can we assume that from my proposed second sentence on we are in agreement? Sentence 2 says that it's hard to draw a hard and fast line, sentence 3 says that the Greeks just call them "Slavic", and then the enumeration of the dialects more or less as it already stands. The disagreement is over the first sentence. The first sentence is not OR, it is simply a typical Wikipedia statement of fact that the majority of sources (no matter the difficulty in doing so) simply place these dialects as "Macedonian". It's OR or improper synthesis to try to claim anything otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS#Academic_consensus: Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Perhaps you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but the rule is clear. If there's a source that says usually, or frequently, etc., fine. There may well be one. But I think we have not seen it yet. On the other hand, we have seen a source state that there's consensus among sociolinguists that it's impossible to decide on a linguistic basis whether Bulgarian and Macedonian are distinct languages. Tropcho (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One sociolinguistic source that says it's hard to separate M & B does not constitute a basis for mixing them here when virtually every other linguist source treats them as separate languages. I have repeatedly said here that the second sentence should say that it's hard to separate the two languages, but most linguistic sources still separate them. You complain about summarizing academic consensus, but you yourself stubbornly practice I didn't hear that. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not one. So far we have mentioned two: David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd ed. (p. 25) and Chambers and Trudgill, Dialectology, Cambridge UP 1998. Furthermore, we have Danforth state that there's consensus among sociolinguists about that. In addition, there are linguists, Mazon, Vaillant, Ivanov (cited by Vaillant as one of the most important works on these dialects) mentioned earlier, which consider these dialects as a part of a single Bulgaro-Macedonian language. We also have Trudgill's quote in the article which says that the question is "very interesting", which appears to indicate that he didn't see consensus on this either way. We have Victor Friedman remark in a 1985 article (in The Scope of Slavic Aspect, eds. Flier and Timberlake) that some scholars treat Bulgarian and Macedonian as "identical linguistic systems". And in addition one can find quite a few others, which state either that Bulgarian and Macedonian can be considered dialects of a single language or that some linguists consider them as such, e.g. Kenneth Katzner, The Languages of the World, Routlege (2002), J. Henniger in The Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Pergamon (1992), nl:Nicolaas van Wijk in Les langues slaves (2nd ed., 1956). And by the way, I noticed that Linguasphere groups them under the same "outer language", denoted by Bulgarski+Makedonski, just as Serbian and Croatian are grouped under Srpski+Hrvatski. I heard your argument. The answer is that 1) by now we have quite a few sources that don't separate them 2) WP:RS#Academic_consensus requires us to find a source that makes a statement about the academic consensus. We have one, and it says that the consensus is that the question is not decidable linguistically.

I think we should mention that these dialects are closely related to both B and M , that they have been classified as both B and M, that the issue has been controversial, and that - since there's no sharp boundary between B and M dialects on a local level - the question cannot be decided on a purely linguistic basis. If there's a source that says that they are usually classified as M, fine, we include that too. Tropcho (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You just want to ignore the fact that while you desperately want to have a "Macedonian-Bulgarian" language in Wikipedia, that simply isn't the case. At this point you have to recognize the fact that Wikipedia distinguishes between the two. If you want to go to those articles and begin a process that will combine them, then by all means do so, but that's not relevant for this article. (See, for example, the way that the East Slavic languages are handled at Ukrainian language, etc.) But until you have combined those two languages into one on a Wikipedia-wide basis (as was done with Serbo-Croatian), then you simply have to live for now with two defined languages. So we have sources that say 1) Macedonian and Bulgarian are one language, 2) that drawing the line between Macedonian and Bulgarian is hard, and 3) that these Greek dialects go with Macedonian. So that comes back to the way I have proposed having the paragraph in question written: 1) most surveys of languages place these dialects in Macedonian, 2) sociolinguists recognize the difficulty of drawing lines, 3) in Greece they are simply called "Slavic". The issue of whether Macedonian and Bulgarian are one language or two is not a relevant issue for this article--that needs to be discussed elsewhere. --Taivo (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually since the current war in Ukraine began, the original paragraph about "one language or more" for East Slavic that was at Ukrainian language has been radically altered. The older comment is still located at Belarusian language. --Taivo (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Parts of your comment are perhaps based on a misunderstanding of my remark about Linguasphere's grouping M&B together. We don't need to prove that M and B are one language, or to say anything of a Macedonian-Bulgarian language here, and it's not a problem if on wiki the two are considered distinct (perhaps adding a note in the spirit of the comments on Ukrainian and Belorussian to the respective articles wouldn't be such a bad idea). We just have to say that these dialects have been classified both as Bulgarian and Macedonian, which by now we have established as a fact.

The only contentious point that I see at this point is whether your claim about "most surveys" is correct. I have not yet seen you give a reason why we should not follow WP:RS#academic_consensus and, from the sources we've discussed so far, it seems that we can't draw that conclusion either. Also, somehow you don't seem to believe that there is consensus that M and B's distinctiveness is not decidable on a purely linguistic basis. I think we have good reason to believe that (two Cambridge UP publications on linguistics + an explicit statement in Danforth about consensus) and we should accept it. Tropcho (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Badly written POV

The latter part of this article is done in an obviously POV manner. It should be deleted or written from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.49.162 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it permissible to specify the linguistic/ethnic affiliation of persons mentioned in the "Notable persons" section of the article, in the same manner as this is done on other pages, such as Lausanne#Notable_people? E.g. Dimitar Dimitrov, Macedonian writer and politician; Andrew Rossos, Canadian Macedonian historian; Atanas Dalchev, Bulgarian poet; etc. 17:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously yes, if this is standard practice in other articles. If it's controversial there, it is here, too. That said, the article title is terribly confusing. "Slavic" is an ethnicity, and the "of" construction implies "X speakers of Y language". I'm proposing a rename below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• I would also think that this article shouldn't be an exception. Tropcho (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Jumping on the bandwagon here, I would say that yes, this is appropriate. The only concern is that the ethnic identity of the person should not be indicated unless we have an explicit reliable source about their ethnic identity specifically. It is insufficient to rely on birth location, or even parentage to establish ethnicity; it has to be explicitly said "Macedonian writer X" by a reliable secondary source. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• No. The problem here is that this is one community speaking one language--so trying to find whether X, Y, or Z labels themselves as "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian" is going to lead to far more problems than it solves. The only reason to label individuals as "Bulgarian" or "Macedonian" is to push a divisive political agenda. What to call this one language is a different issue. But labeling individuals as either "Bulgarian" or "Macedonian" is divisive and highly charged. --Taivo (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that people from the region self-identify differently. Faithfully reporting the situation on the ground (on the basis of reliable sources, of course) is therefore another good reason (at least as good as the one you provided) to specify individuals self-identification, I think. I'm curious to know, what kind of problems do you think this is going to lead to? Tropcho (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem should be self-evident: Readers will be confused and think that we are talking about two different groups of people rather than a single group speaking a single language. I work with a Native American tribe professionally. Their language has a linguistic label that distinguishes them from the neighboring languages. Their official federal name also distinguishes them. But if you ask them what language they speak, they call their language by the name of the neighboring language. Wikipedia, if it followed your precedent here, would then incorrectly label them by the name of the neighboring tribe. --Taivo (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your concern has been addressed in this comment. In short, ethnic self-identification and language are two separate matters + there's nothing confusing if explained properly. Tropcho (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Only if they a) unambiguously (and verifiably, of course) stated it themselves or b) moved to Bulgaria or Macedonia during their life and worked there (in which case we can use these attributes as conveniently ambiguous as to whether they specify nationality or ethnicity). No such user (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Bad idea It seems most inadvisable. See the RM below; these are speakers of the same language, however they identify themselves - and trying to label them will collect ideological identifications by other people who happen to have spoken about X or Y as "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian" or possibly even "Greek" or "Serb". Which identifications show up for which person will be random.

No such user's test has the problem of the (forced) population exchange after WWI, which moved many of these people to Bulgaria.

If a person was a leader of a Bulgarian or Macedonian ethnic movement - and for some of the history involved these would be the same thing - that's a biographical fact. Include, and source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that your concern is mostly related to a possible lack of reliable information regarding the self-identification of specific individuals on the list? I would agree that in cases where no reliable information of that kind can be found, it's better to avoid a specification. How about cases where such information is available? Tropcho (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you do not; most identifications are likely to be not self-identifications, but polemics by others. Even self-identification may be less than meaningful, since there are several possible terms which all mean "member of this group", and the same person may use different terms in the effort to say something to the vast English-speaking ignorance about the politics of the Balkans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, your first sentence actually confirms my understanding that you're concerned about unreliable self-identification. There are, however cases where we have unambiguous, reliable information. What is the problem in these cases? Could you also provide examples of the confusing terms that you mention?Tropcho (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your previous post asked whether I was chiefly concerned about self-identification. I said no, and you insist that I must mean what I deny. I see no reason to answer any further questions if you're going to ignore the answers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted the first part of your comment because it came as a reply to my question about self-identifications. In any case, the question stands: do you think there's a problem with those cases where we have reliable, unambiguous information? And also please give examples/clarify your remark about the several possible terms, etc. Tropcho (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• In general no, with exceptions for those where that ethnicity is a significant part of their notability (activist, researcher specifically in ethnicity, etc), and only where such identification has been either made reliably by themselves, or by notable and reliable sources (not random gossip blogs, or "yay team" activist sites. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Rewrite of Education and Language section's first paragraph

• Various Slavic dialects are spoken across Northern Greece. These are usually classified as dialects of Macedonian by linguists who separate Macedonian and Bulgarian into two languages or two distinct dialect groups in a single larger language (variously called "Macedo-Bulgarian", "East South Slavic", "Bulgarian-Macedonian", etc.) However, linguists have often commented on how difficult it is to draw a clear line of demarcation between Macedonian dialects and Bulgarian dialects and the issue is clouded by national and political considerations. In Greece, the dialect chain is simply referred to as "Slavic". These dialects include the Upper and Lower Prespa dialects, the Kostur, Nestram-Kostenar, and Solun-Voden dialects. The Prilep-Bitola dialect is widely spoken in the Florina region, and forms the basis of the Standard Macedonian language. The Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect is considered to be transitional between Macedonian and Bulgarian. The Pomak dialect is usually classified as Bulgarian. The majority of the speakers also speak Greek, this trend is more pronounced amongst younger persons.

This is the text which I propose as replacing the current first paragraph of the Education and Language section. --Taivo (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC). Edited per discussion above. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Even if we say that they are usually classified as X., it still makes sense to say what the alternative classification is - unless it's fringe. In our case, sources frequently mention the fact that Macedonian dialects have been classified as Bulgarian, so it doesn't sound like fringe. Furthermore, it seems to me that this does not address my comment about Roland Schmieger above. Tropcho (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There's one hell of a lot of "above". Please give a brief summary of whatever you thing "Roland Schmieger" has to do with this issue. --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your browser's search function would have allowed to find the relevant passage (close to the end of the RfC you started). I pointed out Schmieger as an author who considers Macedonian and Bulgarian to be distinct languages and nevertheless classifies dialects in eastern Greek Macedonia (Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect) as belonging to Bulgarian. Vaillant also says that in spite of being geographically part of Macedonia, this dialect may as well be classified as belonging to the Rhodope group of Bulgarian dialects. There's a relatively simple geographical explanation for that (which I also got from Vaillant, if I remember correctly): there's a patch of high ground (around Kukush) separating the the valleys of the rivers Struma (in the east) and Vardar (to the west). Serbian linguistic influences propagated more easily from the north along the Vardar valley, than across the higher ground and into the neighboring valley. This is more or less where the eastern dialects of Greek Macedonia begin. The the table here illustrates the differences, and compares with the standard varieties. Tropcho (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at my comment above, below the table. Nearly all of the references that clearly divide Macedonian and Bulgarian into two languages (rather than quibbling over how hard that is or that M & B are really one language) place these dialects in Macedonian. That fulfills the definition of "usually" as I've proposed above. --Taivo (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)