Wikipedia

Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 9

< Talk:Macedonian language
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Beat of the tapan in topic Full protection
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Bulgarian

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion
  Unresolved

I noticed that Bulgaria/Bulgarian is mentioned 128 times. Is it too much?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'Relationship to Bulgarian' section is essentially a historical spiel. It should be reworked into the 'History' and 'Political views on the language' sections. Good luck with that though. --58.7.49.95 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also full of nationalistic crap:

called simply Bulgarian

This is the author's conjecture, not a matter-of-fact statement.

differentiation between "Slavic-Bulgarian" and "Greek" groups

This claim is based on the title of the cited work, not its content.

in the Macedonian-Bulgarian linguistic area

This implies unity, although neither standard had yet been codified.

Bulgarian was banned for use and the local vernacular fell under a heavy influence by the official Serbo-Croatian language

This implies that Bulgarian was the native language of the population, and that it was then Serbianized. Neither claims are present in the source. It does not associate Serbian influence with this period.

bring the Macedonian dialects back towards Bulgarian

Again, this implies unity. It's also a roundabout way of saying, "Bulgarian was imposed".

This political situation stimulated the necessity of a separate Macedonian language

As separate from what? Efforts to develop a standard norm were originally the product of nationalism (Misirkov and co.). The actual "need" for a standard Macedonian language came about in 1944 when there was a need for an official language.

codification after the Second World War

A supradialectal norm already existed. It was only after WWII that the process of standardization could be completed.

progressive split in the common Macedonian-Bulgarian diasystem

This doesn't even make any sense. The technical term is 'East South Slavic languages'.

no clear separating line between these two languages on level of dialect

Nor is there between any neighboring South Slavic languages. It already says "diasystem" anyway.

Serbo-Croatian was adopted as a second official language

Serbo-Croatian was not an official language of SR Macedonia. It was the working language of SFRY.

and Bulgarian was proscribed

Again, this implies that Bulgarian was the native language of the population. There was no longer any need for Bulgarian, because Macedonian was to be used. The Exarchate also ceased to function in Macedonia from that point on.

the strong Serbo-Croatian linguistic influence in Yugoslav era, led to a horizontal cross-border dialectal divergence

Meaning?

Macedonian language is still an ausbau language, that is intentionally diverged, particularly from Bulgarian

This does not mean Macedonian was artificially separated from Bulgarian. They are both Ausbausprachen with respect to one another, and other South Slavic languages.

--58.7.49.95 (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Every disputed by you claim above is properly sourced. Jingiby (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not about sourcing. I guess it is possible to find sources for million mentions of Bulgaria/Bulgarian. I am concerned that this might be WP:UNDUE issue which is getting worse instead of being resolved. One year ago there was 72 mentions of Bulgaria/Bulgarian. Ten days ago, when I first wrote about it, it was 128 (+78%). In the meantime the size of the article increased only for 31%. Now, ten days later, it is 137, for the same size of the article. It can be concluded:
  1. Bulgaria/Bulgarian are mentioned 137 times in article about Macedonian language.
  2. during past year the number of mentions of Bulgaria/Bulgarian increased for 78%.
  3. the ratio of mentions of Bulgaria/Bulgarian and the size of the article has been increased for 45% during last year.
  4. there is 7% increase only during past ten days. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an incredibly silly thread. It doesn't matter how many times Bulgarian is mentioned in the article. Numbers don't mean anything. What is their context? Are they in the context of "The Macedonian standard grew out of western Bulgarian dialects"? (Relevant use of "Bulgarian".) Or are they in the context of "Macedonian has X vowels, but Bulgarian has Y vowels"? (Irrelevant use of "Bulgarian".) And how many of those uses of "Bulgarian" are actually in the references rather than in the text? I suspect that you ran an automated search, which means that you have no way to distinguish the use of "Bulgarian" within the actual text and "Bulgarian" within the references, as part of the title of books or articles. If you sat down and hand-counted the number of occurrences of "Bulgarian" then you are wasting your time on things that don't matter. You're doing nothing worthwhile to "defend the honor" of either Macedonia or the Macedonian language. Get a life. --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any context could justify 137 mentions of Bulgaria/Bulgarian, more than hundred outside the references. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you want to change? — Lfdder (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing. What I wanted is:
  1. to present my concern about undue issue this article has regarding Buglarian
  2. to check if other editors share my concern about it:
    1. If they do then it would be necessary to resolve it and to agree how to deal with its cause
    2. If they don't and present valid arguments for their position, then I will not be concerned anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no wp:undue here. Bulgarian is very relevant when discussing Macedonian. — Lfdder (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There most certainly is WP:UNDUE: there is an entire historical spiel ('Relationship to Bulgarian') which is poorly written, improperly sourced and misleading (see my comments above and compare my attempt at fixing it). That section does not really describe the relationship between the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages, only the historical identities of their speakers (which is not a criterion used by linguists when classifying languages). Perhaps it could be reworked into Macedonians (ethnic group) and History of the Macedonian language. In any case, only briefly does it mention attempts at codification and, apart from that, only the last two sentences are language-specific. For comparison, Ukrainian language does not mention 'Little Russian' in every section, but it too is "less about the language and more about the geopolitical situation". For how much longer will these articles be the playpen of nationalists? --124.148.249.235 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely a valid argument. You've made generalized comments, how about some referenced specifics? (If you want other editors to read your comments, I suggest you make them short and limited in scope. --Taivo (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not expert on the topic in question so I apologize in advance if my honest opinion, which I will present below, about this issue is wrong.
  • I would like to thank to User:Jingiby for presenting Hupchick's text (diff). I don't think it is completely offtopic. In order to avoid over-use of copyrighted material I will just point to the link presented by Jingiby : "Conflict and chaos in Eastern Europe” Dennis P. Hupchick, Palgrave Macmillan, 1995, ISBN 0312121164, and the pages: 142-144.
  • Hubchick's text actually confirms this article has undue issue. The "Bulgarian" issue of this article is the consequence of using outdated equations between different people and their languages in different periods. Yes, some earlier sources indeed referred (some still parrot this perception) to all different dialects spoken by all Slavs of the whole region of Macedonia until the beginning of XX century as a dialect of Bulgarian or Serbian language. This unique dialect does not exist in reality but only in such outdated perspectives. Yes, such outdated perspectives exist and therefore they should be mentioned within a short note, together with political context of such perspectives. Not 137 times. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, Hupchick's opinion is something different, by the way: The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the socialist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think not. The quote you presented directly supports Hubchick's position I presented above.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is that certain editors are reading academic literature with nationalistic goggles (see the comment relating to 'Ausbausprache' below). Hupchick is saying that Bulgarian nationalists could no longer claim Macedonian as a variety of Bulgarian because their [the Bulgarians'] standard language is not a standardized variety of a dialect spoken in Macedonia (and vice-versa with Macedonian vis-à-vis Bulgarian). Notice the term 'linguistic reality'. Languages are real: they are alive in the everyday face-to-face interaction between their speakers. Ethnicities and nations are not: they are social constructs which only exist insofar as their members imagine them. Irrespective of all of that, Dennis P. Hupchick is not a linguist or a sociologist, and his academic memberships and background are a clue as to why he uses charged language; were he a sociologist, he would know that all national myths are "obviously plagiarized historical arguments". --203.59.100.9 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"Hupchick is not a linguist". Then why should he be considered here at all? This is a page about a language and the most qualified people to comment are linguists. If he's not a linguist, then his value to this discussion drops considerably, perhaps even to irrelevance. --Taivo (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue here has many historical aspects, i.e. when arose the Slavic Macedonian language as a separate one, and was its development related to this one of the Bulgarian language in any way? Dr. Hupchik is Professor in History and holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Pittsburgh. However his opinion is confirmed by linguists as Henrik Birnbaum, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literature, he was an internationally renowned scholar in the field of comparative Slavic linguistics, which he taught at UCLA for 40 years. According to him:
Extended content
...First, let us briefly discuss the issue of Macedonian. As I have stated elsewhere (Birnbaum 1980b:170-4; 1982:18-20). I am of the opinion that, while there can of course be no doubt whatsoever as to the independent status of contemporary Macedonian as a standard language, it is equally clear, that there is no reason to assume the existence of any Old (or, for that matter, Middle) Macedonian language in the medieval or early modern period. In other words, present-day Macedonian is a descendant of Old Bulgarian (in its literary form also known as Old Church Slavic) just as much as modern Bulgarian, albeit with a different — namely, western — dialectal basis. In this respect, therefore, the prehistory of Macedonian is roughly analogous to that of Slovak except that the latter was firmly established as a literary language by the midnineteenth century, whereas the same applies to Macedonian only as of 1940s... And, as Auty (1979:73) /Handbook of Old Church Slavonic: Texts and Glossary Pt. 2 (London East European series)/ has rightly pointed out, "it is arguable that if the provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878 had been carried out and a greater Bulgaria had come into existence, embracing wide areas of the central Balkans, Bulgarian would have been accepted by the Macedonians as their literary language." Since Macedonia, following the decisions of the Berlin Congress, instead remained under Turkish rule until 1912, the linguistic evolution in the area took a different course, and it is precisely the period between 1878 and 912 that proved decisive for the formation of a separate Macedonian language... See: "Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Historical Linguistics", Current issues in linguistic theory, v. 34, ISSN 0304-0763, John Benjamins Publishing, 1985, ISBN 9027235287, Divergence and convergence in linguistic evolution, Henric Birnbaum, pp. 14-15.
Jingiby(talk) 07:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, languages are real. Language planning is real too. — Lfdder (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "when arose the Slavic Macedonian language as a separate one"? There aren't any clear borders between the South Slavic languages; there is a massive continuum of dialects. To say that Macedonian dialects and the standard Macedonian language are in some way 'Bulgarian' would be misleading because, Bulgarian dialects and the standard Bulgarian language could then be said to be Macedonian. Your argument is essentially that because the Bulgarians established a nation-state before them [the Macedonians], they [the Bulgarians] can claim them as their own. If the Macedonian Slavs had been incorporated into the Bulgarian nation-state, then of course they would have to had accepted Standard Bulgarian. If the Slavs of Moesia established a nation-state, then today we would also be discussing a Moesian ethnicity and Moesian language. That excerpt proves my point that nations are fictitious. This is Macedonian language, not Macedonians (ethnic group). Discuss the common history of the two languages (attempts at a compromise standard language), the similarities (lexical cognates, nominal and verbal morphology) and differences (sound changes from PSl., Future in the Past tense, literary words). There are already articles such as Political views on the Macedonian language and History of the Macedonian language. You don't need to convince the world that your neighbors are confused or brainwashed because most people outside of the Balkans couldn't care less. There is, however, a factual inaccuracy in the excerpt; Old Church Slavonic does not have any modern-day descendants apart from the liturgical Church Slavonic. The claim that Bulgarian is descended from "Old Bulgarian" via "Middle Bulgarian" is part of the national myth. Bulgarian was standardized during the late 19th and early 20th century on the basis of a modern vernacular. Old Church Slavonic is a snapshot in time, not an ancestral language which fragmented (as with Latin). --124.169.244.98 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not convince the world in anything. As the Turkish Prof. F. A. K. Yasamee from Marmara University, Department of International Relationsin claims in "Balkans - a mirror of the new international order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995 (pp. 121-132): The national revival of the Slavs of Macedonia had national content which was clearly and unequivocally Bulgarian. The identification "Bulgarian" was already current among the Macedonian Slavs; their dialects closely resembled those of their eastern Slav neighbours, who then, as now, were also known as Bulgarians; and the emerging modern Bulgarian literary language was readily comprehensible in Macedonia. Indeed, nineteenth century Macedonia served as one of the principal centres of the Bulgarian national revival: its Slav inhabitants, led by their new nationally-minded intelligentsia, participated fully in the Bulgarian literary and linguistic revivals, in the movement lor schooling in Bulgarian, and also in the first major political expression of the Bulgarian national movement, the campaign tor a national Orthodox church, established in 1870. More, as it is described by Dimitar Bechev in his Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 134: Writings produced in regional dialecs from the early 19th century and so forth were typically described by their authors as "Bulgarian" and the Slavic Macedonian inteligentsia accepted in 1880s the standartized on its eastern dialects Bulgarian language. What do you try to convince us? That there was any Bulgarian connection between both contemporary languages, at a position, that the whole dialect continuum was identified by the Macedono-Bulgarian intelligentsia as Bulgarian-speakers area (the contemporary common people in that area, identified their language mostly into the same way). My claim is simple: between the two most closely related languages, was a close relationship, based exept only on linguistic principles, also on a historical label "Bulgarian" which over the time has languished. The story is much older and in the oldest manuscripts Bulgarian language was initially referred to "Slavic language". In the Middle Bulgarian period this name was gradually replaced by the name "Bulgarian language" and the most notable example is the Service of St. Cyril from Skopje, a 13th-century Middle Bulgarian manuscript from northern Macedonia. The first mention of the language as the "Bulgarian language" instead of the "Slavonic language" comes in the work of the Greek clergy of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid in the 11th century, for example in the Greek hagiography of Saint Clement of Ohrid by Theophylact of Ohrid (Region of Macedonia again). Jingiby (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Basically, IP takes offence that Bulgarian is called Bulgarian. — Lfdder (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
IP doesn't take offense to anything. However, your ad hominem proves that you (and others) are the one with an agenda. --203.59.35.13 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment the contribution, not the contributor.
Bulgaria/Bulgarian is now mentioned 143 times.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Might we be able to use that bit of info to build a spaceship? — Lfdder (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, numbers mean absolutely nothing. I've described this to you before. Of course Bulgarian is going to be mentioned here since the history of Macedonian is intimately tied up with Bulgarian. Denial of that gets you nowhere. We've dealt with this problem in even greater detail at the article on Slavic dialects of Greece (I can't remember the exact title). Macedonians want to call them "Macedonian", Bulgarians want to call them "Bulgarian", and Greeks want to call them "Slavic". It's a hornet's nest. So we work around compromises and try to do the most NPOV job we can with the available resources. There are many things on Wikipedia you won't like because they are compromises based on consensus. Live with it. If you can't live with it, then get off Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to deny or downplay their common history. The section 'Relationship to Bulgarian' is a nationalistic sales pitch; there isn't a single mention of a phonological, morphological or lexical similarity between the two languages. --203.59.35.13 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How to resolve cause and consequences of the issue

  • More than two weeks ago I presented my concern about undue issue this article has regarding Bulgarian. My intention was to check if other editors share my concern about it:
  • A group of editors, some using incivil and unnecessary harsh ad hominem comments ("Get a life", "...get off Wikipedia", "... build a spaceship"), insisted that this article does not have an undue issue regarding Buglarian. I don't think they presented valid arguments for their position. One editor attempted to support his position with work written by Dennis P. Hupchick, who is a highly-regarded expert on Eastern Europe (link). During discussion it was explained by me and IP editor that Hupchick actually supports my position.
  • In the meantime the situation with undue weight became even worse and number of Bulgarian/Bulgaria mentions significantly increased. When I pointed to this problem, the reply was "numbers mean absolutely nothing" (diff).
  • An IP editor wrote several comments from the modern perspective regarding language, ethnicity etc. and actualy confirmed that this article has undue issue regarding Bulgarian. IP editor emphasized "There most certainly is WP:UNDUE", "The section 'Relationship to Bulgarian' is a nationalistic sales pitch" and "There are already articles such as Political views on the Macedonian language and History of the Macedonian language. You don't need to convince the world that your neighbors are confused or brainwashed".
  • I conclude that my concern is justified. Now it is necessary to determine:
    • What is the cause of this issue and how to deal with it?
    • How to resolve this issue?

Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That whole section should be trimmed and merged into History. The History section needs attention too. — Lfdder (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That would be a good start to begin resolving the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Torlakian dialects

Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

I've just inserted the dialects of Bulgarian, including the Torlakian dialects, in the infobox to balance the views that the dialects are not only classified as Serbo-Croatian (see the infobox in this article). My intent was to completely remove this disputed claim since there is no agreement among the linguists of whether to classify these dialects as Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian or Macedonian, but got objected on the talk page by some users who rely only on the sources that it's part of Serbo-Croatian and don't even know the history of the problem about this issue. Then, I decided to insert this claim in the articles about Macedonian and Bulgarian in order to counterbalance the views.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to reference the article Dialects of Macedonian, then any potential placement of Torlakian belongs at that article, after building a consensus for its mention there, not here. --Taivo (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In any case, whatever the mainstream views of Torlakian may be, Kiril's attempt at including it in a tree as a sister node to "Macedonian dialects" [1] makes no sense: either Torlakian is a "Macedonian dialect" (then it doesn't belong side by side with the latter in a classification tree, but is part of them), or it is not a Macedonian dialect, then it doesn't belong in this page at all. I also don't see Torlakian is "disputed". Serious linguists – except perhaps those with a national agenda – typically won't "dispute" such classifications; they will simply note that Torlakian varieties are borderline and take it for granted that they can be seen in either context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with Future Sun Perfect and that's why I think the classification of these dialects should be excluded from the article about Serbo-Croatian.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Kiril, are you unable to understand that if we have an article on Macedonian Dialects, then that is the place to have this discussion and the place to put Torlakian if you can build a consensus for its inclusion? And you are violating WP:BRD. If you edit and are reverted, then you are required to build a consensus on the Talk Page before reinserting material that others object to. --Taivo (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The only one who reverts my edits is you. Who gave you the right to revert my edits? I cannot find it in any rule on Wikipedia. When reverting your edits I called you to come here and discuss the issue before taking any action.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:BRD. That stands for "Be Bold in editing, if you are Reverted, then Discuss and build a consensus before editing again. --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
As for the Macedonian dialects, you simply don't understand my point. If the article about Serbo-Croatian can include such claim, why it's prohibited for the articles about Macedonian and Bulgarian? Please stop with your POV. I agree that most of the Torlakian dialects are spoken in Serbia, but it doesn't simply provide any evidence that these dialects are only Serbian and not Macedonian and Bulgarian. It's also evident that you don't have any knowledge about the issue and you're trying all the time to play with some sources that don't provide you anything concrete about the matter. The region that is about 40 km from my hometown covers the southernmost edge of the Torlakian dialects. Normally, these dialects are classified as Macedonian on the grounds that they're spoken on the territory of Macedonia. On the other side of the border, the same dialect is classified as Serbian because it's spoken in Serbian. You will surely state that this is all because of some political reasons, but you have to be careful when using your selective approach to interpret the sources. The matter is much more difficult to resolve as you may think.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't understand, do you? My edits here have zero to do with your POV about Torlakian and whether or not you can build a consensus. My point is that this article is the wrong article to be editing if you want to include Torlakian after building a consensus. Since there is an article on Dialects of Macedonian, then that is the place to have your discussion and the place to build your consensus if you can. --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You're playing a sneaky game. Why do we need the article Torlakian dialect? I did mention that the issue is completely elaborated there and there is no need to put efforts and include it in the separate articles and thereby create nationalistic views. When I was doing it, you were simple non-responsive and were trying to illustrate a different point. A fair point will be to let it be as it's resolved there and to take it out from the articles about the three languages. Do you agree?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Another proposal that I can come up with is to insert information that some Torlakian dialects are classified as part of each of the three languages. It may be even a better solution because we can then remove the fact saying it's disputed because most of the scholars usually tend to classify some of them as part of these languages. Any opinion on this one?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion needs to be at the correct places in Wikipedia: Dialects of Macedonian, Dialects of Bulgarian, and Serbo-Croatian, not here. --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
How can you compare Serbo-Croatian to Dialects of Macedonian and Dialects of Bulgarian? If there is no existing article titled Dialects of Serbo-Croatian, you're welcome to create one and take out the issue there. In addition, my proposal is for the infoboxes in the articles Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian language and Bulgarian language. Languages and dialects are different things.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a problem comprehending the situation? This article's infobox has a link to Dialects of Macedonian. That is the place where all discussions of what dialects comprise Macedonian take place. If you want to create an article on dialects of Serbo-Croatian, then be my guest. But I am working with the articles as they exist and the content you want to add here doesn't belong in this article, it belongs at Dialects of Macedonian. That's simply the fact of the matter. You put Wikipedia content in the Wikipedia article where it belongs. Your "reasoning" for why you want to put it here is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
My proposal is to mention in parentheses in the infobox that some of the Torlakian dialects are included. This view is already presented in the article on Dialects of Macedonian (see for example Kumanovo dialect), which can be simply translated in the article on Macedonian language to give the readers more information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But people argue over whether they're SC or BM. If others split them between SC and BM, that would be yet a third view, not a replacement for the first two. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct. Linguists cannot agree on their classification at whole, but many of them have tried to classify few of these dialects as part of these languages. Please understand it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Whichever way it is, it is too complex to be placed in the box. Infoboxes are for factbites that are undisputed, neat and tidy. Anything that needs hedging or explanation is simply unsuitable for inclusion there. The box currently – and for very good reasons – makes no attempt to enumerate or classify the various dialects of the language; it merely provides a single link to the article where they are treated in full. It also makes no attempt at covering the various delimitation problems – the Torlakian area is not the only such area, after all. Among all these open issues, the question of delimitation of Torlakian is by no means anywhere important enough to force us to give it such a privileged position in the infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree and that's why I proposed to remove the disputed fact in the article on Serbo-Croatian that the Torlakian dialects are part of this language. Feel free to go there and explain it to the others. Meanwhile, this is the only way to balance the views.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources that provide evidence that some Torlakian dialects are classified as Macedonian are the following:

  • Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic features, Olga Mišeska Tomić, Springer, 2006, ISBN 1-4020-4487-9.
  • Friedman, Victor (2006). "Determination and Doubling in Balkan Borderlands". Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1–4: 105–116.
  • Remetić, Slobodan. 1996. "Srpski prizrenski govor". Južnoslovenski filolog. 42:319-614.

Note that the Kumanovo dialect and the Gora dialects are the most common Torlakian dialects that are included as part of the Northern group of Macedonian dialects.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You "totally agree" with me, and yet you have reverted me again? You have evidently not even begun to understand what I was saying. Please re-read it. Also, you have just broken WP:3RR on two articles at once. I give you the opportunity to self-revert, before I ask for you to be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please calm down and understand. I agree with you that it's not suitable for an infobox to contain disputed claims, which is evident in the article on Serbo-Croatian (please see "Torlakian (disputed)" in the infobox there). Since some users there opposed my proposal to remove the disputed content from the article, which eventually leads to lowering the article's quality I decided to take some action and counterbalance the views by editing the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian. If you still agree that it's not good to mention disputed claims in infoboxes, you might be interested to go and support your opinion on the discussion there. Doubling the standards will not resolve the problem. Why it's permitted for the article on Serbo-Croatian to include disputed claims and why not for the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for actual sources, Kiril, but you still refuse to get it through your head that the information you want to add belongs at Dialects of Macedonian, not here. --Taivo (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback request: VisualEditor special character inserter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The developers are working towards offering mw:VisualEditor to all users at about 50 Wikipedias that have complex language requirements, such as Macedonian. Many editors at these Wikipedias depend on being able to insert special characters to be able to write articles.

A special character inserter tool is available in VisualEditor now. They would like to know what you think about this tool, especially if you speak languages other than English. To try the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ tool, please:

 
The “insert” pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the ‘⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽’ tool.
 
This is the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ inserter. Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

To let the developers know what you think, please leave them a message with your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on Mediawiki.org or here at the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. It is really important that the developers hear from as many editors as possible. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There is a tag about neutrality that has been here for over a year, but no active discussion. If nobody objects, and presents a reasoned argument, I will remove the tag. The purpose of tags is to direct attention and discuss in order to improve the article, until the tag can be removed. If there is a problem, it should be discussed. If not, the tag should be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No reason provided for the tag, so I removed it. There seems to be no neutrality dispute.Jeppiz (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation audio in lead

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The /d/ in /makedonski/ sounds a lot like an interdental fricative to me. Is this a common allophone for it? — lfdder 02:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Macedonian /d/ is dental and apical which is why it might sound similar to an interdental fricative. However, it is very much a stop and not a fricative. --106.68.42.16 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The bit about "For thine is the kingdom, [and] the power, and the glory, for ever and ever." seems to be missing. 78.32.68.244 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Tropcho (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this a specifically Protestant bit? No wonder it was missing if the country was originally all Orthodox. 176.221.120.203 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Continuum with Serbo-Croatian?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states: "Macedonian dialects form a continuum with Bulgarian dialects; they in turn form a broader continuum with Serbo-Croatian through the transitional Torlakian dialects".

Does that mean that Macedonian does not form a continuum with Serbo-Croatian? I would have thought that the Macedonian dialects close to Serbia were close to Serbian than to Macedonian dialects? --Vitzque (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is quite correct, and you are also correct. Macedonian dialects form a continuum with with Serbo-Croatian dialects, and that continuum runs through the Torlakian dialects.Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Macedonian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Macedonian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macedonian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

In my opinion, a disambiguation page is necessary. The disambiguation page "Macedonian" is not sufficient. A lot of historical and scientific books refer to the "Macedonian language", the language which was spoken by the Ancient Macedonians. In fact we have two languages with the same name, and this controversy must be mentioned in a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestmoon (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Jestmoon(talk) 13:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The other Macedonian language is already linked in a hatnote at the very top of this article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

However it is not clear. If someone reads in a book of Nilsson or Burkert "Macedonian languge", he cannot find the appropriate term in Wikipedia.Jestmoon(talk) 14:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I read carefully the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In my opinion the second aspect "long term significance", cannot define a Primary topic, and a consensus is necessary. A disambiguation page may describe the following:

Jestmoon(talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary linguistics is the primary scholarly field relevant to determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case. In terms of numbers of linguists publishing and doing research, the number using "Macedonian language" to refer to the modern language makes the number using it to refer to the ancient language near zero. Thus within the primary field in which "language" is the topic of study, the contemporary language is overwhelmingly the primary topic for "Macedonian language". This shouldn't even be a question for debate. Trying to raise the ancient language labelled "Macedonian" to the level of a co-equal primary topic for the term is rather humorous. --Taivo (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
To demonstrate this, I did a search on Google Scholar for "Macedonian language" ([2]). I looked at the first five pages of results (I got bored after that) and there was not a single, solitary reference to the ancient language. Not one. That should be fairly conclusive that there is no problem defining a primary topic for "Macedonian language"--it is the modern Slavic one. --Taivo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.I do not want to contradict with you. I do not want to raise the Ancient Macedonian language to a co egual primary topic. However usually the disambiguation pages list articles which include the same title, e.g "Macedonian language".Jestmoon(talk) 17:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There are only two items that any disambiguation page would contain here: this page and Ancient Macedonian language. There's no confusion here at all. But a disambiguation page of only two items is rather silly. Most disambiguation pages contain at least three items (such as Paiute). That's why the primary page should be here with a hat note to the other, lesser known and much less commonly referred to, ancient language. And voilá! That's exactly the way it is set up now. There is no situation in which the ancient language is of equal importance to the modern language in terms of reference or use. --Taivo (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian Language considered as native in Romania

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this based on an article, study, encyclopedia or anything reliable? Please answer, I have no intention to be mean rude or offend anyone so I am sorry beforehand. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

AlbusTheWhite: Your earlier removal of Albania (and Greece) was plainly disruptive. Your current change from Greece to Northern Greece in the infobox is unacceptable, unless you also want to change Albania to Eastern Albania, Bulgaria to Southwestern Bulgaria etc. It might make sense to discuss the spread of the languge in the main text, but not like this in the infobox. Regarding Romania, you have a point. However, further down in the infobox, it is sourced that Macedonian is a recognized minority language in Romania, so you would have to explain why that is not enough to list Romania. In any case, you are lucky not to have been blocked for edit war. Please read WP:EDITWAR and stop your disruptive edit pattern. --T*U (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
AlbusTheWhite: your edits were far from being positive contributions to the article. The information you have attempted to remove is well-sourced and their removal without solid explanation goes agains't Wikipedia's rules. Unless you provide strong WP:Reliable sources (I doubt such sources exist) proving that this language is not spoken in Albania, Greece and Romania, your edits will again simply be reverted. I highly recommend that you use talk pages instead of resorting to edit wars with other editors, as this page falls under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Distribution of Macedonian language

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In your article on the right panel you have a map on very low resolution:

 

The Macedonian-speaking world: (dark blue) = regions where Macedonian is the language of the majority [citation needed]

(light blue) = regions where Macedonian is the language of a significant minority [citation needed]

This map is highlighting that there are regions in the 3 northern prefectures (Nomoi) of Pellas, Florinas, and Kastorias where Maecedonian is the language of the majority or minority. The verb "is" defines it therefore as the predominant language of the people in the coloured areas.

I was raised and currently live in Nomos Pellas. My grandparents' generation were indeed speaking predominantly a south slavic dialect, until the 1950's and 1960's. Today there is hardly anyone speaking the Modern Macedonian language. The only place you can hear it is occasionally on villages in the mountainous areas and only from old people (60 years old and older). The predominant language however is Greek everywhere, in all the villages of these prefectures. Anyone is welcome to come here to attest that.

Also, the map is falsely annotated and does not provide citation. There are areas coloured in Greece that do not have any population whatsoever, but only mountains. Thus, I ask the editor to kindly provide a very high resolution version of this map which specifically states which villages, towns and cities are included.

I was raised, lived and studied in these areas and I don't see what this map is telling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michail.iakovidis (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Macedonian is not an officially recognized language from the United Nations or from any other official organization. All references should be removed. 165.225.72.217 (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The former "Republic of Macedonia" is now the "Republic of North Macedonia". All references in text should change. Vemman (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that. Many references throughout the text are in historical contexts where the use of the new name would not be appropriate. But it's true we should go through the text and make sure it's decently consistent and the unavoidable shifts in names are explained and contextualized properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done: what User:Future Perfect at Sunrise said. NiciVampireHeart 03:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Macedonian?

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This should really be changed into North Macedonian language or South Slavic language. In case somebody looks for the language Alexander the Great spoke, he is going to look at this article, most probably not noticing the line written in Italic that says "see Ancient Macedonian language.". Einserschüler (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Forget it. You need to wrap your head around the simple fact that the world out there calls that language Macedonian, all our sources do, and therefore so do we. It's really as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
100% agree with Future. It's not even an issue worthy of questioning. There is not one single linguistic source that calls this modern Slavic language anything other than "Macedonian". And the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are almost universally called "Macedonian" by specialists who aren't Greek. Do you want to call them "South Macedonians"? --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In the end is not about how the linguists or the people call it. I thought Wikipedia = facts. It has been agreed that it will be called Macedonian though: Prespa Agreement: Article 1 section 3 clause C Before that, the term Macedonian used for that language (instead of the Hellenic) by the linguists was not legit, but I can not imagine them calling it FYROMian. I still believe (like millions of others but not a hand full of politicians) that it should not be named Macedonian since it will (as it is intended to) bring the confusion mentioned above. But that is my opinion (like "It's not even an issue worthy of questioning") and Wikipedia is not about opinions.--Einserschüler (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You are sorely mistaken if you think that a political piece of paper can change the facts. The fact is that linguists universally call the Macedonian language "Macedonian" and not some artificial construction that makes Greeks happy. Wikipedia is, indeed, about "how linguists call it". Perhaps you need to read Wikipedia's policy on naming things. Your opinion and some political agreement that has no force in linguistic science doesn't matter. All that matters is what linguists call the thing. And I guarantee that no linguist is even going to take a first look at the Prespa Agreement other than to mock the levels to which Greeks salivate over maintaining their fictional trademark over the term "Macedonia(n)". --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Outdated source about language's name being a matter of controversy "in Greece"

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The name of the Macedonian language is a matter of political controversy in Greece and Bulgaria[1] as is its distinctiveness compared to Bulgarian in Bulgaria.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Mirjana N. Dedaić, Mirjana Misković-Luković. South Slavic discourse particles (John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010), p. 13
  2. ^ Victor Roudometof. Collective memory, national identity, and ethnic conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian question (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002), p. 41
  3. ^ Language profile Macedonian, UCLA International Institute

Given the new developments and revelations that have emerged, with Greece fully recognizing the language even before the Prespa Treaty, (albeit silently) and which the treaty merely reaffirms, I think the above sentence about the language being a matter of controvercy "in Greece and Bulgaria" needs to be updated to have Greece removed from it, especially now that the language dispute has been resolved. However, the source is outdated and a new one confirming that the language name dispute is now an issue only for Bulgaria, not Greece. How can this be done? I am asking here because I have the impression if I go and edit the lead to remove "in Greece" from it, someone else will surely revert my edits on the grounds "the (outdated) source says so". --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 20:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The vast majority of Greeks do not recognise rhis as "Macedonian" language. The government might be willing to throw away history but the Hellenic people are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.11.207 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Cool story, bro. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, Greece should be dropped from the statement. Also the statement about it being of political controversy in Bulgaria should not be in the introduction and moved elsewhere in the article. Bulgaria is pretty much insignificant in international matters and it's view on the Macedonian language is a politically motivated fringe view according to the majority of linguists. Again, such POV should not be presented in the introduction 120.21.68.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the name of the language is a problem in Bulgaria, that part of the statement should probably be dropped Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Odd grammar in the Vocab section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The statement,

"This change was aimed at bringing written Macedonian closer to the spoken language, effectively distancing it from the Bulgarian language with its numerous Russian loans, and represents a successful puristic attempt to abolish a lexicogenic tradition once common in written literature"

If I understood this statement correctly, it says that Bulgarian was more russified than Macedonian due to such changes. But the wording and grammar are ambiguous since if you read the sentence by itself, you may think that it was Macedonian that had more Russian loans. A better rephrasing would be:


This change was aimed at bringing written Macedonian closer to the spoken language, effectively distancing it from the more Russified Bulgarian language, and represents a successful puristic attempt to abolish a lexicogenic tradition once common in written literature

Or something along those lines, I'm open for proposals. Beat of the tapan (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no ANCIENT MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE that is extinct! The Macedonians spoke Greek, which is still being used today! The current claims in this article are false. The language spoken in FYROM or North Macedonia is Slavic, a form of Bulgarian and should be identified as so. Macedonian language was and is Greek.

108.15.39.201 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC) 108.15.39.201 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 23:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Request sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Jingiby: I cannot find any trace online of the sources you quoted, Cornelis H. van Schooneveld, Linguarum: Series maior, Issue 20 Kronsteiner and Otto, Zerfall Jugoslawiens und die Zukunft der makedonischen Literatursprache. Can you clarify where you found them, digitally or a physical copy? What is the ISBN? Thank you.

This is Linguarum: Series maior, Issue 20; and this is Zerfall Jugoslawiens und die Zukunft der makedonischen Literatursprache. Jingiby (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There are mistakes in the phonology section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Firstly, in the vowel section, <e> in Macedonian is pronounced as a mid-open /ɛ/ vowel according to the standard, and it is written like that in the article, but the link opens up the mid-close /e/ vowel. Secondly doesn't Macedonian have three l-sounds, one is <л> in front of <е> & <и> /l/, <л> in front of all other vowels /ɫ̪/, and <љ> /lʲ/ in the standard Prilep-Bitola dialect. And also there inconsistencies with the sitting of the l-sounds further down the article.Thehoesthoe (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian-Greek dictionary from the 16th century.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Page from „Ἀρχὴ ἐν βουλγαρίοις ριμάτον εἰς κῑνῆ γλότα ἐρχομένη”, a Bulgarian-Greek dictionary from the 16th century. Vat. Archivio San Pietro C 152, fol. 134v

The description of the dictionary and its reference to Bulgarian language is in Greek and can be seen in the enclosed text.

This is not an article about Bulgarian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There was a discussion through edit-summary about that isse on the article itself, wheter the designation Bulgarian is ever mentioned in the original, but the involved edditor does not react now. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Full protection

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Due to the recent significant and controversial changes, I have restored the last version prior to when this content dispute started and fully protected the article for ten days. Can I suggest you use this time to reach consensus on appropriate changes to the article (perhaps copy the article to a sandbox or subpage and work on it there) and once protection has expired, only make changes for which consensus has been achieved. Thanks, Number 57 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: Actually over the last 12 hours there has been significant progress toward an acceptable version. The political issues that were the trigger for the large-scale changes have been clarified and removed by and large. The sizes of the changes have been getting smaller and smaller. Your locking is actually interfering with that productive process. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure that above claim is exact and correct. Jingiby (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
In the last six hours there were seven reverts that involved adding or removing more than 50KB of text. This does not suggest significant progress. I will not be unprotecting the article early unless clear consensus is reached on an acceptable version of the article. The article being locked does not stop you working on another version of it somewhere else. Number 57 17:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: I am not sure how aware you are of how disruptive User:Jingiby and User:Apcbg (I suspect the latter might be a sock puppet account of the former user. It only magically appears after the first user reverts twice and its only input in the last month is reverting edits I have made that are always 100% cited). Additionally, the user who reported me engaged in no discussions whatsoever and adds banners to articles without proper explanations on their talk page. Just take a look at the comments these users have been leaving on this talk page and how much they stall the process of this article's progress without bringing any arguments. And please compare them with the constructive discussion points User:Calthinus brought up which I carefully went through one by one and included in the more neutral version. The quantity of this article does not equal quality. It's just the product of years of stealthy propaganda that gives so much weight to political points of view to both this article and many alike (take a look at how User:Jingiby accidentally forgot to add an entire 20.000 kbs worth of article that present an unbiased version of the content but did not forget to add 3 sources with long passages just to support a claim that the Macedonian language was Bulgarian in an article about a simple play). And again [3] [4] User:Apcbg magically appearing two seconds after User:Jingiby reverts me twice. DD1997DD (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Given that Apcbg has been editing since 2006, I suggest you withdraw the accusation of sockpuppetry. Please resolve this dispute by reaching consensus and stop @ing me. Number 57 18:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure. That would only be possible if one of the users who consistently revert me makes a single constructive comment. That is not happening though. The fact that someone has been editing Wikipedia since 2006 does not mean that the content they're adding to every single page is unbiased/contributes to the neutrality of the article. DD1997DD (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Taivo, there has been a good deal of progression to a logical consensus and I don't think the disruptions of certain persistent editors who obviously are trying to prove some sort of point (I don't know, maybe bg=mk) is sufficient justification to revert all the progress which was actually discussed. I doubt a "clear consensus" requires the approval of User:Jingiby and User:Apcbg. Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
If anything User:Jingiby is notorious for his biased editing even outside Wiki. Take a look at disputes he's part of on articles like Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews where he's immediately joined by other users to stall the process of reverting his biased edits. DD1997DD (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why, but I am not surprised at all. Hmmm — Tom(T2ME) 12:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beat of the tapan: There was no progress at all. All my requests the article to be reverted to the stable state, so we can start discussing the changes ended with no answer. So instead of reverting these changes and getting a consensus on the 10+ sections that were either deleted, either heavily changed, we ended up with the same, plus protection for 10 days. I spent some time reviewing changes and will come up with some notes on them. We need to start discussing, and not continuing with personal attacks, dear Macedonian friends DD1997DD, Tomica & User:Beat of the tapan. --StanProg (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Where do you see a personal attack? That's just evidence of who we are dealing with. Oh, and sorry StanProg, I didn't know that you owned the article so everything needs to be filtrated through you before changes are made. Actually, there was a progress (non-Macedonian editors such as Taivo and Future also saw it and agreed on), however, it seems that the propaganda is strong here on Wiki. — Tom(T2ME) 12:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Tom, I have warned both DD1997DD and Beat of the tapan on their talk-pages to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Here is a place to discus the issue not the editor of the issue. There are another places for that. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Pointing evidence about a certain type of agenda =/= discussing an editor. — Tom(T2ME) 13:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is the problem with the original edit, User:StanProg. The article had been trashed by anti-Macedonian editors for so long that the politics of pushing a Bulgarian POV had completely overwhelmed the actual linguistic content of the article. This is a linguistic article where politics have no place whatsoever. But the anti-Macedonian cabal in Wikipedia will have no changes whatsoever made to the article as is because it pushes the Bulgarian POV so strongly. The only way sometimes to improve an article and to remove rampant POV in certain sections, is to wipe the slate of those sections and start over with the question of "What is and is not relevant to a linguistic article?" But since the anti-Macedonia cabal have such a vested interest in maintaining the Bulgarian POV, they are unwilling to work with neutral editors in improving and in winnowing. That's why it's important to reject the POV of the intrasigent editors by wiping the article and to rebuilt with neutral editors. That was what was happening before the article was shut down by User:Number 57, who simply and unwittingly dropped the problem text back into place and ignored all the positive work that had been done among the neutral editors. The solution is a simple one. Relying entirely on neutral, non-Bulgarian/Macedonian/Greek reliable sources in the English language literature, it is entirely possible to illustrate that Western linguists are mixed over the last half century as to whether Macedonian and Bulgarian are a single pluricentric language, or two separate languages. There is no need to relitigate the political issue. A single sentence or short paragraph is all that is required: "Macedonian and Bulgarian share a certain level of mutual intelligibility so there are linguists who treat them as two seaparate languages (X, Y, Z) and linguistis that treat them as a single pluricentric language (A, B, C)." Period. That's all that is needed. Readers don't care that the Bulgarians want to claim Macedonian as a Bulgarian dialect. They come to this article to find information about how to conjugate verbs and decline nouns. They come here looking for a reference to a reliable grammar or dictionary. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Well said. It is clear that the article in it’s stable form is a mess and there is plenty of WP:COATRACK hidden there, which a few fellow editors did a good job of removing before the revert. I agree that neutral points of view should hold the most weight on the topic to dilute political Balkan shenanigans that plagues most articles, but the rules of Wikipedia must be respected in the process. For example, editors cannot use C-class articles to justify waiving Wikipedia’s rules. The article should be only about the linguistics of the Macedonian language which is clearly distinct to the Bulgarian language, this alone can justify dropping the tremendous amount of references to the Bulgarian language in the article. Beat of the tapan (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonian_language/Archive_9&oldid=1027132310"