Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 5

Sources

I was away for a couple of hours and you almost destroyed WP! Jesus! I delayed posting this coz I couldn't stop laughing! So here goes:

Independent verifiable reliable sources from Google Scholar search (note: I shouldn't have used just scholar, but what the heck!):

• Who Are the Macedonians? H Poulton - 2000 - books.google.com ... impossible. One problem concerns the fact that the modern Slav Macedonian language only appeared in written form after the Second ...

• On Macedonian Nationality HG Lunt - Slavic Review, 1986 - JSTOR ... Byelorussia) speakers declare objectively very similar language types to ... to outsiders who accept the "scientific" definition of Macedonian Slavic speech-types ...

Those are just two from the 150 or so. No axes to grind or whatever. Now take your pick from the rest if you wish. •NikoSilver• 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of those (again, 1:1000.000) are not linguistic sources. Again - politics is the primary adute (or motive) some users want to overwhealm Wikipedia with. Bomac 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a linguistic source (how do you define one), what is a political source (how do you define one) and is there never an overlap? Also, which Wikipedia policy requires a source which fits your definition of a non-political linguistic source (whatever that may be)? Again, as I told you before, when impartial sources use the term, it rarely does carry political connotations - you have to demonstrate how it is political (we need more than your word, i.e. POV on the issue). The Poulton one seems very non-political.--Tekleni 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. There are Google hits for "magnificent Greek" (or magnificent Greeks), ergo: the Greeks, also called magnificent Greeks... etc." This seems to account for the majority of the hits. Anyway, damn all nationalism that makes people go on fighting over the same stupid Wikipedia issue for years! --Pseudonymus Bosh 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

...sometimes called Magnificent Greeks... ;-))) I like that. Bomac 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to try harder to hide your racism. You're pretty transparent.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a racist, I have said that millions of times. I have nothing against the Greek people. Bomac 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right.--Tekleni 16:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is geopolitics, it is not an attack towards the Greek people, like you do towards Macedonians. Bomac

Accusing Greeks of theft ("stealing" Aegean Macedonia) sounds like someone is bearing a grudge. Are Bulgarians also guilty of theft, BTW?--Tekleni 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Macedonians are not "Macedonians" (leave Ancients out) is grudgy, too. I mean, will you accept sm.one to change your own name against your will? I guess no. Bomac 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They have. "Greeks" is a borderline ethnic slur by which the Romans used to call a group of peoples whose common ethnic designator was "Hellenes". "Greeks" is in mainstream usage now, so it is possible.--Tekleni 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop bickering, all of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're doing it again while I'm away! Is it on purpose? You're going to ruin my nationalist bickering profile the way you're going!! Don't ever let that happen again, please! I have steam to blow off too!! •NikoSilver• 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Bomac 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK.--Tekleni 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Who else wants to have the last word and then for everybody else to stop bickering? Be my guest. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot. Also Wilkinson constantly calls it throughout his book as 'Macedo-Slav'. I'll check for the page at home where I have the book. For now, this is the book reference:

Wilkinson, H. R. (1951). Maps and Politics; a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. LCC DR701.M3 W5.

Page details later... •NikoSilver• 09:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Brilliant. There are Google hits for "magnificent Greek" (or magnificent Greeks), ergo: the Greeks, also called magnificent Greeks... etc." This seems to account for the majority of the hits. Anyway, damn all nationalism that makes people go on fighting over the same stupid Wikipedia issue for years!"

Haha, wonderful :)) - Francis Tyers · 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also: Slavic Macedonia, or Hellenic Greek? - Francis Tyers · 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Eminently reasonable compromise solution

I thought this up on a Bulgarian plane coming back from Zagreb. We have a separate article, Alternative names for the Macedonian language (see what I started) to discuss the various terms of reference (we could call it Macedonian language (terminology) if that tickled your fancy). We redirect the alternative names there and have the disambiguation note at the top altered to say:

"This article is about the Slavic language. For the unrelated, non-Slavic language spoken in the ancient world, see Ancient Macedonian language. Please see here for alternative terms of reference."

- Francis Tyers · 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis this is absurd. You can't possibly have a separate article for alternative names of a language. Even if you did (which would be a first!) it would definitely be the definition of WP:POVFORK, and a neutral summary should be included in the present article. Since the content of that whole article would definitely be of the size of ...its summary, then it should be merged. So, in any case, alernative names stay, and stop argueing about something so evident. Oh, and I have yet to see an academic source on magnificent Greeks or all the other straw-examples [sic] that have been made. •NikoSilver• 10:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be the definition of a POV fork? There is a lot of information on this matter, and I think it deserves a separate article. We have separate articles for other "other names of", so I don't see why we shouldn't with this one. I'm afraid that the size of the article is already greater than its summary on this page, and it would almost certainly be a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight to include it all. PS. The absurd thing is your position, not mine. PPS. Can you try and find me a photograph of a "Slavomacedonian - Greek" (or any other language) dictionary? I think it would make an excellent addition to the new article. - Francis Tyers · 11:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PPPS. (can that be done?) Did you actually read the guideline on WP:POVFORK? This explicitly does not apply to covering an issue in greater detail in a subarticle. As I have mentioned above, I have no problem with including the fact that there are numerous alternative names in a summary style section, and even go as far as to accept it in the disambig note! - Francis Tyers · 11:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the idea of relegating the thing into the dab notice instead of the lead paragraph quaintly attractive, although it's certainly not a standard usage of what dab notices are for. But won't the article duplicate a lot of what currently is done by Political views on the Macedonian language? If there's POV-forkism lurking anywhere, I guess it's there... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that also, but I think that so far there is no (or little duplication). I would feel fairly neutral about merging in with the Political views on the Macedonian language article, but they aren't all political. I think it would be better to take the naming stuff out of the Politics article rather than put it all in there. - Francis Tyers · 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Objection, it should not be (only?) in the disambiguation notice. It should also be in the first paragraph:

Macedonian (Makedonski jazik/Bugarski dijalekt na PJRM - see also other names) is a...

Hiding it in a dab note that no one reads is POV pushing.--Tekleni 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we're really hiding it in the FIRST LINE of the article. Give me a break. - Francis Tyers · 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And I think you know that the buggerski thing isn't going in :) - Francis Tyers · 12:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis I and a lot of users here apparently disagree with this new unilateral obsession to remove a frequent appellation from the intro of the article. The forkishness of your new article is obvious: It removes selective content from the main text; but that's beside the point for now. I will add Macedonian Slavic in the intro, as I have cited it more than adequately by WP:INDY sources. It is the minimum neutral summary that can exist in this article from Macedonian language naming dispute. You can have dab-notes/other-articles or whatever, but you cannot remove alternative appellations. •NikoSilver• 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight. The naming dispute article is well sourced, and covers the issue in more detail than it could be covered in this article. If you want we can have a 'source off' to show that uses of "Macedonian language" (referring to this language) greatly (e.g. to a degree of 50 or more) outweigh "(Slavic) Macedonian (Slavic)". Minority opinions should not go in the lead. - Francis Tyers · 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were 'minority view', you just invented a law 'minority views should not go in the lead'. At what rate does a view become 'minority'? Why is Ethnologue, Wilkinson, Poulton and Lunt 'minority'? •NikoSilver• 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, guys, next compromise proposal. Use the formulation as suggested by Francis (i.e. just a link to the subarticle without actually naming the other names), but move it from the dab notice into the lead paragraph, to make it clean. Niko, please don't reintroduce that sentence as it was, "...can also be known..." is poor English, to my mind. From what I've been able to gather from the literature, "Slav Macedonian" and other such appellations do exist but are rare. Most instances of "S. M." or "M. S." that I've seen were either one-off usages, or referred to the ethnicity rather than to the language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FP, I have more sources starting from the '50s, and they all refer specifically to the 'language' (not only ethnic-group etc). Wilkinson, in 1951 for example, uses only the term Macedo-Slav. Removing that alternative name from the intro would be a first for WP, and tendentious attempts to fork this material elsewhere so as to virginify [sic] the article, (ha! like some recent user-rename!), are not acceptable. Sorry, no deal. •NikoSilver• 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be a first. We have alternative names when they are widely used, and when they are not opposed. This is both not widely used and opposed. - Francis Tyers · 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How does your United Nations refer to it? Or other international organisations? Answers in links or full citations. - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How do the majority of scholars refer to it? - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How do the people who speak it refer to it? - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How do the majority of English speakers refer to it? - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Is this [1], from you, supposed to be a surprise POINT attack? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, but I think we should leave them all there pending a compromise. I don't see why we should favour one "alternative 'name'" over another purely on Niko's preference. - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fran, I don't understand you. The other day, you were insisting that among all the supposed alternative names, there was only a single one you would accept. I don't remember which. I think the whole point of this sentence is to remind the reader that there are some alternative naming usages that contain some disambiguating "Slav-" element. Anyway, "FYRO Macedonian" is so absurdly ugly this proposal can't possibly be serious. Please de-POINT it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it is used. :( - Francis Tyers · 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this isn't that much uglier, and it does give equal prominence to all of the alternative names. - Francis Tyers · 11:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, since when does policy require that only that name be in the introduction? Perhaps we should remove the "Old Macedonian" from the Old Church Slavonic article as that is not the most common way of referring to that language in English.--Euthymios 10:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We should, because that isn't the name of the language. I've been told that not even Macedonians call it that. "Old Macedonian" in Macedonian means 'Ancient Macedonian language'. - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed. - Francis Tyers · 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored.--Euthymios 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, you can't rearrange everything just to suit your POV. Including alternative language names if they exist is standard practice. The most controversial one I can think of is Arvanitika, where "Graeco Albanian" is mentioned in the lead. See also Azerbaijani language.--Euthymios 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with those pages too. - Francis Tyers · 11:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is clear, and I think you would have a lot of trouble in removing some of those alternative names from Azerbaijani language. All pan-Turkists on Wikipedia would uprise (sounds like a Greek-Turkish alliance in the making).--Euthymios 11:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is clear with Azerbaijani, the consensus is not clear here. - Francis Tyers · 11:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Either that, or there is a general rule. Personally, I prefer the "sourced? It stays" rule; propagandistic censorship is against the spirit of Wikipedia (of course some users still wanted to delete the Armenian Genocide article).--Euthymios 11:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the "significant use" it stays. Perhaps you could find a dictionary of "Macedonian Slavic" - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, where is the censorship? We have a whole article discussing the other names! - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, however the link to it is being placed in irrelevant places. I quite like this version of mine.--Euthymios 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fut. Perf

I agree to your compromise. Thanks. I didn't think it appropriate in the lead, but this version is ok. - Francis Tyers · 11:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"This is both not widely used {{Fact}} and opposed." Couldn't make my comment more Laconic. In any case, as a last compromise attempt, I explain what is in common with all those different appellations. You can't possibly suggest that the word Slavic is opposed (and no, it is not that rare as you want to make it sound either). •NikoSilver• 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Original, Fut. Perf. compromise:

It is sometimes also referred to by several alternative, controversial names (see below).

I slightly adjusted the original compromise for Niko.

It is sometimes also referred to by several alternative, names some of which are controversial (see below).

Now it states that only some of the names are controversial, which can be seen from the sources on the Macedonian language naming dispute page. - Francis Tyers · 08:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Claiming that the "alternative" names are "controversial" while not affording the same treatment to "Macedonian" itself is patently biased and misleading.--Kékrōps 08:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "the name of the language is in dispute" ? - Francis Tyers · 09:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine.--Kékrōps 09:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι...--Kékrōps 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lame indeed. If someone bumps on Wilkinson, Lunt, Poulton, or the Ethnologue, and then searches for the language in WP, they're gonna have to ask Francis which language that is. Keep in mind the compromise in FYROM and the comments there. I personally think that the most notable thing about this language is the naming dispute and the name derivatives. Removing the most frequent dab-term from the intro, is definitely POV. •NikoSilver• 09:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is opposed. To suggest that an English speaking person might not know that the language of Macedonia is Macedonian is absurd! :)) Wilkinson is largely irrelevant to this discussion as few people have access to his book (you and Pmanderson at the last count), Lunt calls it the "MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE" (you can even read his somewhat flawed grammar of it -- The Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language), Ethnologue call it The Macedonian language, they have "Macedonian Slav*" as an "alternate name". - Francis Tyers · 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If the name "Macedonian language" is not controversial then why does the Council of Europe not use it?--Euthymios 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't? - Francis Tyers · 11:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kind of funny how they put scare quotes around "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" :) - Francis Tyers · 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I just can't make up my mind whose Wrong Version I'm going to protect here this time, because they are all obviously equally Wrong, so I've just requested somebody else do it. Please all of yout try to get as many reverts in as quickly as possible before it's too late... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis just please don't unleash that WP:TIGER again. We all know that this is the most notable thing about that language, we all know that this dab term is not opposed, and we all know that it is very frequent in academic works and general public. What we don't know is why you want it removed completely from the intro. My last compromise attempt with just mentioning the dab term Slavic (without putting it in place) is the least I can accept. •NikoSilver• 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Pot. Please stop calling me black. Yours, Kettle. - Francis Tyers · 12:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha ha hummm. •NikoSilver• 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise we had an article on it otherwise I would have linked it :) - Francis Tyers · 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

With that out of the way and to address your points:

1. In your opinion, as a Wikipedian, a Greek person who has grown up in Greece, and a human being the most notable thing about the Macedonian language is the name. Interesting. Thanks for your contribution.

   In my opinion as someone who has studied linguistics, a native English speaker who has grown up in England, there are many notable aspects of the Macedonian language -- the spatial distinction in determiners would be a notable linguistic aspect, and the fact that the alphabet contains the letter 'S' would be a notable orthographic aspect.

   Apparently your being a linguist narrows down your visibility to the spatial distinction of determiners. --NS

   Nah, I guess I just find them more notable and interesting. Different strokes. - Francis Tyers · 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2. In your opinion, as a Wikipedian, a Greek person who has grown up in Greece, and a human being who has read a few papers, the name Macedonian with a 'Slav/Slavic/Slavo' disambiguator is very frequently used in academia and in the general public.

   In my opinion as someone who has studied linguistics, a native English speaker who has grown up in England, it is very rare to see 'Slavic' used, either in public, or in academic papers. There are several examples where it is used, but these are outweighed one hundred fold by the instances when it is not used.

   I presented 4 credible WP:INDY sources. Match those with 400 to have a valid point, but still irrelevant, as alternative names go typically in the intro below the lead sentence. --NS

   Gladly, where shall I paste them? Here, or there? - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

3. People (meaning ethnic Macedonians) don't like the "Slav" usage in general, I don't know why, I don't care why. Probably because it is associated with bigoted views, but that is my speculation. Occasionally it is used as a disambiguator (in case people get confused with the Ancient Macedonian language), and people probably don't mind then. But we have a huge great disambiguator as the first line of the page, so it is redundant. You are not trying to help the readers (the disambiguation note is already there lest they be confused out of their minds as to which language we are talking about -- it is even mentioned that the language is Slavic in the disambiguation note). In fact I have no idea why you insist on mentioning Slav after almost every word, as if you were concerned that people really might not get the idea.

   This claim is totally unsourced and based on your WP:OR in the said country, which just happens to contradict with my WP:OR in that country. I happen to have visited it 12 times and know some 200 'people's' opinion on that matter. Nevertheless, I didn't suggest my involvement in this makes me a genious. You did. I'm just asking for sources that do not limit the 'offensiveness' to 1) the Slavomacedonian compound 2)the 1950's and 3)to those Macedonian Slavs that happenned to live in Greece. --NS

   Nonsense I did no such research in the country, so your research is irrelevant! - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- Francis Tyers · 13:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers below each, you Indo-European!! (Ooops! Was that a WP:NPA?) •NikoSilver• 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "European Anglophone", unfortunately it doesn't seem to be catching on :( — much like some other alternative names ;) - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this, I even made the Slavic bold so people can't miss it. - Francis Tyers · 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, what is your problem with this? I asked you before, what do you think of this version.--Euthymios 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That version would be a fairly reasonable compromise. Not ideal, but if it floats your boat, I probably wouldn't feel the need to change it. - Francis Tyers · 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

With all that out of the way, I'd really love to see a source that claims that these 'people' are offended by the word Slavic for dab purposes. It would be nice too to see the reaction of the academic community on that supposed ancestry/intra-ethnic denouncement on microscopic political grounds! •NikoSilver• 14:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation note is right there, staring you in the face. Your edit wants to place it twice. Alternatively, you want to suggest that the language is called that, and people don't like that. As I mention above:

The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. [2]

- Francis Tyers · 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I knew those postcards were coming back! Indeed, don't you FYROM me means I am not a Slav. Sheesh! Francis, please stop insisting so much on such flimsy grounds! •NikoSilver• 14:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of postcards with different slogans. The source says that they were sent, "...after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)...". As you desired. - Francis Tyers · 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If "Macedonian" is to be used in spite of Greek objections, then it follows that "Slavic" should also be included despite objections from the dominant ethnic group of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as recognised by the CoE. And there is ample evidence to suggest that "Macedonian" is more offensive to the former than "Slavic" is to the latter. Such a balance is necessary if allegations of favouritism are to be avoided.--Kékrōps 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, I have yet to see a source claiming that Slav/ic is offensive today as a dab term next to the name. I really like how it would sound: We Black Americans are not of African ancestry and 'African Americans' is insulting. or We Germans are not of Germanic Ancestry and stick to 'Deutch' or we'll send you a postcard! Sorry, this is soooo absurd. •NikoSilver• 15:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean absurd like "oh, calling yourself Macedonians" is terribly upsetting, I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to the UN, "I say, you chaps better not call your country Macedonia!", "Oh you did? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah". :)) - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a patronising attitude is hardly going to make Greeks more amenable to cooperating with you on Wikipedia. Give it a bone, matey.--Kékrōps 16:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that such ultra-sensitivity is feigned for purely political purposes in order to score points in the dispute with Greece. Their own president was willing to accept the name Slavomakedonija for his country in the early 90s.--Kékrōps 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Greeks I suppose. - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We weren't. And that was indeed nationalistic. :-( And stupid. •NikoSilver• 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your viewpoint. Many western Europeans think Greece was stupid even to bring up the issue in the first place. It's very easy to pontificate on others' problems when you don't have to deal with the consequences. In any case, Greek officials have made it clear that "Republic of Macedonia" will have to be changed if the country wants to join the EU under a name other than FYROM. Not sure what will happen with the language, though. My guess is that Greece will not allow a "Macedonian" language to be an official language of the EU either.--Kékrōps 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll see I guess. Doesn't it feel like Greece is getting steadily more isolated with this? - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, however this is an issue that is not going to go away... in the words of our foreign minister: the Hellenic Parliament, under any composition, will not ratify the accession of the neighbouring country to the EU and NATO if the name issue is not resolved beforehand [3]. Ye may draw your own conclusions...--Euthymios 16:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Nobody else cares, with the possible exception of those outsiders who think it a fun game to play on the net.--Kékrōps 16:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another source for Niko:

Fishman, J. A. (2000) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved?: Reversing Language Shift, Revisited - A 21st Century Perspective ISBN 185359492X

A success story in RLS motivated by factors other than the above but utilising the family-community-neighbourhood links (Stage 6) is that of Macedonian. In 1994, delbierations on the recognition of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia, the Australian government bowed to pressure from Greek diplomatic representatives and sections of the Greek community to refer to the new state as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In addition the Macedonian community should now be officially called the Macedonian-Slav community to distinguish it from members of the Greek community from the Northern Greek region of Macedonia. The state government of Victoria, which has the strongest concentration of both Greek and Macedonian speakers, declared that the Macedonian language should in future be known as Macedonian (Slavonic). Both the official change of the name of a community language by a government in Australia and the affixation of the name of a language family to the name of a language are unprecedented. From a practical point of view, the same final school examination is termed Macedonian (Slavonic) in Victoria and Macedonian elsewhere in Australia. From a linguistic point of view there is no other 'Macedonian language' from which this one needs to be distinguished. An appeal by the Macedonian community to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) was unsuccessful but was overturned by the Supreme Court following an appeal by the Macedonian community in 1998. The latter verdict was affirmed in 2000, following a further appeal by the Victorian government. However the community's outrage has translated into very strong determination to maintain and transmit the language. Macedonian is the only European language which has experienced an increase in the number of home users in Australia over the people 1991 to 1996.

"With all that out of the way, I'd really love to see a source that claims that these 'people' are offended by the word Slavic for dab purposes"

How is that source? - Francis Tyers · 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So what? The "Macedonian" diaspora in Australia and Canada in particular is also renowned for its vociferous irredentism and dissemination of anti-Greek propaganda. The fact that they may be offended is still not an argument for excluding the "offending" term, unless of course you believe that their feelings matter while those of the Greeks do not. I think you have made your position on this abundantly clear.--Kékrōps 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually all disapora communities iirc regardless of ethnic origin, e.g. the Canadian Ustashes. Or maybe its just a Balkan thing. The "So what?" is that he asked for a source and I gave him one. - Francis Tyers · 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I care deeply about offending Greeks, and I don't want to do it. If you could explain to me how the choie of a name offends you maybe I could understand. I hope you're receiving 0my position clearly and not making up what you think I think. - Francis Tyers · 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You offend Greeks every time you call the FYROM "Macedonia", every time you call its people the "Macedonians", and every time you call their language the "Macedonian language". Perhaps because no one has ever provided an adequate explanation as to what makes the "Macedonians" more Macedonian than the "Greeks", who have lived in the region continuously for at least twice as long as the Slavic ancestors of the former. Or perhaps because the use of the name is inextricably linked to irredentist nationalism and the wholesale appropriation of Macedonia's ancient heritage, the ultimate aim of which is to project the (indigenous) Greeks as an alien element in Macedonia. Don't forget that Skopje only removed the Sun of Vergina from its flag and amended the irredentist clauses in its constitution in return for the lifting of a debilitating Greek trade embargo, so you can't seriously argue that "the Macedonians" wouldn't revert to such behaviour given the opportunity. You can argue that the Greeks shouldn't be offended by all this, but, for whatever reason, they are. Live with it.--Kékrōps 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Making blanket statements about an entire people is almost never valid, a fact taught in any decent course on writing or rhetoric. How can you speak for all Greeks when you claim that anyone using the term "Macedonia" offends Greeks? Or are those among my Greek friends who could really care less about the issue not "real Greeks"? (Which case, by the way, is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.) For pete's sake, learn how to qualify your statements, such as "some Greeks, e.g. myself". Oh, and attributing some goal or quality to an entire people based on the actions of their government, as you do with the entire population of the republic here, is another generally erroneous thing. CRCulver 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"You offend Greeks every time..." — nonsense. I've lived with Greeks who don't care one way or the other. - Francis Tyers · 19:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And I know Greeks who would beat you to a pulp for using the name the way you do. What an absurdly puerile response. I never claimed to speak for all Greeks. There are Greeks who wouldn't even accept being called Greeks, or who think Greece should be wiped off the map. I also happen to have a friend from Ohrid who isn't offended in the slightest when I call him a Skopjan, much less a Slav. But then he's also one of those "Macedonian" prodajeni who listens to Greek music and calls himself a Bulgarian. If you are going to misconstrue the ubiquitous convention of referring to nations as e.g. "the Greeks" without necessarily including every single individual member of that nation, then I'll rephrase for your benefit: The overwhelming majority of Greeks are offended by your use of the name Macedonian. Better?--Kékrōps 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The first time I met a Greek who was bothered about the name was on Wikipedia. In fact I think these articles on Macedonia attract them, but the Greeks who don't care stay away. I've met all kinds of Greeks in real life from guys doing their military service (Niko knows the story) to diplomats. While I think the guy who said "all Albanians are criminals" might have been bothered, I didn't stick around to find out. - Francis Tyers · 09:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to intervene. I am a bit bothered by the use of the term "Republic of Macedonia" and I do not think that all Albanians are criminals, the same time. Fotis (Greek)

The situation is straightforward. IF alternative names exist, then there is no reason for excluding them (although Francis is not proposing to exclude them but to sweep them under the carpet). If including a particular name is offensive, I know of a good formula to solve that: who cares? Wikipedia includes objectionable material'in all areas (do you want me to start a list?) so censoring data here in the name of sensitivity isn't going to work. Wikipedia is already pro-FYROM by giving undue weight to the fringe theory that the so-called Ancient Macedonian language wasn't Greek. Following the Franciscan practice on that article on removing minority views from the lead on that article would be unthinkable though. See what I'm saying about anti-Greek discrimination on Wikipedia?--Euthymios 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Si Franciscule, daca intradevar stii romaneste, spune-mi de ce esti anti-grec. Ti-am trimis un e-mail si nu ai raspuns; ai scris prostii in pagina mea de discutie. Daca nu stii romaneste voi vorbi cu tine in franceza :-) --Euthymios 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nu sunt anti-grec, poti sa-mi vorbesti in romaneste, daca inteleg mai bine decat vorbesc. - Francis Tyers · 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Heading

We needed ^that^ one. Rename accordingly please. There's a pointy discussion in my talk-page. Indulge. •NikoSilver• 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, let's please get the discussion on track again. I don't know why Francis and Kekrops are discussing people's "feelings" here at all. They are of absolutely no importance (if at all, the feelings of (Slav) Macedonians need indeed to be taken into account marginally more, after all it's their language we're talking about - Greeks and what they might or might not feel about it are of absolutely no relevance for this article) - But anyway, it's the English Wikipedia, and the only relevant criterion for how to treat names here is: What names are common in English. Let's get back to that. Francis was making the point - successfully, I dare say - that pure and simple "Macedonian" is not just more common, but overwhelmingly more common than all the other terms in the literature. So, the only question we have to ask ourselves now is, what consequences do we draw from that for the presentation of these names in the article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly is that 'successfully' coming from? •NikoSilver• 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Who cares what those pesky Greeks have ever had to say about anything, really? What matters here is what Wikipedia thinks about alternative English names in language article leads: Aromanian language, Megleno-Romanian language, Spanish language, Catalan language, Franco-Provençal language, Astur-Leonese language, Pannonian Rusyn language, ad infinitum... Oromo language even mentions a formerly widespread name used by non-speakers, "but this term is considered pejorative by the Oromos and is no longer used".--Kékrōps 03:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess there aren't many people speaking that language on Wikipedia to dispute it. Regarding Aromanian, Vlach is probably equally used as Aromanian. About Megleno-Romanian, it gives usage by speakers and by linguists (Both speakers and linguists call Macedonian the same thing). About Spanish, it gives two forms that are both in common usage, both of them used by Spanish speakers themselves (Macedonians don't call their language anything else). About Catalan, it gives a secondary official term that is used by the government of Valencia (Macedonian isn't official anywhere by another name). About Franco-Provençal, the origins of the name section is good, I couldn't say if any name is more widely used than the other (Here we have evidence that one form is overwhelmingly used more). About Astur-Leonese, it mentions different names that the speakers use in different areas (This is not so for Macedonian, all speakers call it the same thing). The Rusyn one I'm not sure, I'd have to look at it further. Needless to say the majority of your analogies are specious. - Francis Tyers · 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Any excuse will do, I suppose. Actually, it is glaringly evident to anyone familiar with the subject that it is your assertion that speakers "don't call their language anything else" that is specious. If there are speakers of this language in Greece, as the article claims, they most certainly do not call it "Macedonian" universally or even commonly. Ντόπια and Σλάβικα spring to mind, among others. To quote from "Macedonians (ethnic group)": These claims are directed at the Slavic-speaking community of northern Greece, which dominantly self-identifies as Greek (not as ethnic Macedonian) [4] and defines its language as Slavic or Dopia (a Greek word for 'local').--Kékrōps 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We have an article for Slavic language (Greece) that discusses that, and see it is called "Slavic" and has the names you describe, "Slavic (Greek: Σλάβικα Slávika, reported self-identifying names: makedonski, bugarski, balgarski [1]) " - Francis Tyers · 11:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Great - what more proof for the fact that Macedonians (ethnic group) and Bulgarians are the same people is needed? :-))))) See also vlach language (Serbia) for a similar example; they may call their language romaneste but want to have nothing to do with the romanian ethnic group.--Euthymios 11:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The people who nationally identify as Macedonians (as in ethnic Macedonians) who are in Greece (the amount of whom is unknown), call their language Macedonian. The people who don't, don't. Some of them call it Bulgarian, some dopia or slavika or whatever else. Needless to say that is covered in the relevant articles. I would be perfectly happy with having "Slavika" in the introduction if you are willing to say that Slavic language (Greece) is identical with Macedonian language. Personally I don't think it is so, and I would imagine many of the Greek identifying people don't think it is so. Ergo, what they call it is largely irrelevant to the lead of this article. - Francis Tyers · 11:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. What I was getting at is that a particular greek-identifying Slavophone in Greek Macedonia may refer to his own Slavic language as makedonski (or bu[l]garski) in his own language, but refer to it as slavika, dopia or slavomakedonika in Greek. This is what the serbian identifying Vlachs of Serbia (as distinct from the Romanians of Serbia who have romanian national identity and call their language romanian in both their language and serbian) do; they refer to their language as romaneste in their own language and refer to it as vlaski in Serbian. The fact that the Rainbow Party accumulated a total of 2995 votes in the area where the minority purportedly lives would imply that very few people actually called their language makedonski. Somehow I feel this is not the case, and equating calling your language makedonski with a FYROM national identity is a overgereralization. Bulgarians used to refer to their language as macedonian as well, one must not forget that Krste Misirkov, who spoke of a "macedonian language" yet was the same guy who said the population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. I would say that those who called their language "macedonian" in greek would be those with FYROM national identity (c.f. Rainbow Party).--Euthymios 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We did of course have this discussion earlier, but as I mentioned, people voting for political parties is a very poor indication of ethnic or national identification. Unless you are trying to say that only people who vote for Plaid are Welsh. Which is simply wrong. Regarding your other points, I don't get it. - Francis Tyers · 11:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys should vote for the Rainbow party. Then you could get Macedonian recognised as Slavomacedonian, then it could go in the LEAD as an alternate official name! :)) I dunno, you could even write it using Greek or Latin characters, that'd really piss 'em off. But why would we want to recognise a language that only around 3,000 (your numbers) people speak you ask? Well, the Cornish language has limited official recognition in the UK, and only 3,500 people speak that! Also it died! - Francis Tyers · 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We hardly have to go to all that trouble. The use of the alternate names in the relevant literature will more than suffice. Cheers.--Kékrōps 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you it is not so. - Francis Tyers · 11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nai, tragouda...--Euthymios 11:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yati den tragoudas, eimai sigouros pou kratas kalytero tono. - Francis Tyers · 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is the amount of drama we're seeing on this talkpage is quite disproportionate to the amount of actual tinkering required in the text at this point. Nobody denies the alternative names should be treated, and indeed they are, they even have a separate article and a separate section and redirects and whatnot. The only question is how much of the information pertaining to them needs to additionally go near the top of the article. It's a simple matter of textual organisation and weighing up things: the importance of the naming issue, versus the amount of space to be taken up in the lead if we were to treat them fully there, versus the amount of other more important things that compete for space in the lead. The current compromise proposals have converged on a solution where only a very brief summary of the existence of a naming dispute goes into the lead, and I fully support that solution. The remaining details of wording are insignificant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Niko's argument is that they shouldn't mind disambiguation. We already have disambiguation in the disambiguation note. Therefore it isn't necessary to disambiguate twice. Having "many of which can be formed with Slavic" in the introduction is redundant, unnecessary and absurd. As I have demonstrated, the amount of times "Macedonian Slavic" or whatever is used as a description of the language in reliable texts is negligible. The amount of times that Slavic is used as a constituent part of the name rather than as a disambiguator is minute. For example, both Lunt, Poulton and Wilkinson use "a Slavic Macedonian language" or some variant once (to disambiguate), then continue to use Macedonian language in the rest of the text.

Oooops! That was a wild shot. Actually the thing is quite the opposite. Here are the two comments showing this copied from my talk:

How is every single document of the UN or COE a unique source? You'd lose the bet with Wilkinson at least, coz I happen to have read it, and the guy says something extremely reasonable like: This book uses the term Macedo-Slav for the Macedonians of Slavic origin and their language. He says this once, and from then on he uses Macedo-Slav dozens of times. I'll find the exact quote for you. •NikoSilver• 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! So does Poulton! In fact, whenever he uses Macedonian language, he refers to (taratazum - zum - zum - zum) THE ANCIENT MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE [5] which probably makes moot about half of your sources, and proves that the language needs disambiguation for one more reason. Tough luck. •NikoSilver• 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm? What book is this? The page you link to seems to be J Shea, Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation. And he uses "Macedonian language", pure and simple, referring to the Ancient language in some chapters and the modern language in others. Thus, another case in point for Francis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Duh, I corrected the link. Notice the scare quotes whenever he does use it alone (without Slav). As I said, it's the other way around. •NikoSilver• 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Niko, what are you reading? Poulton does exactly the same thing! "Macedonian", pure and simple, for both languages depending on the context of the chapter; except where explicit disambiguation is needed! Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, this rage for removing sourced info is getting out of control. •NikoSilver• 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So why not follow their example?--Kékrōps 11:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have the disambiguation. We don't need it twice. - Francis Tyers · 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More important things that compete for space in the lead? Please. We are talking about precisely six words. Pray tell, what in your opinion is "more important" that it must compete with those six words? This is actually one of the shortest leads of any language article. If you think something that important is missing, click on the edit button and go for your life. We haven't reached our word limit yet.--Kékrōps 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which six words, precisely? BTW, it's not just quantity, it's text organisation I'm concerned with. Interrupting what would otherwise be a smooth progression of information, forcing paragraph breaks where you wouldn't otherwise need any, that sort of thing.Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that usage in the literature where "Slav.*" is used not as a constituent part of the proper name but as a mere one-off disambiguation device ought not to be treated as evidence of "alternative names". I find Francis' documentation of usage in the literature convincing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And it would appear that the rest of us don't. Quel dommage...--Kékrōps 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at Niko's talkpage. You'll have to do a lot of arguing to make that disagreement of yours more than just an argument from repetition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. More than enough references have been provided to justify the presence of the "offending" six words ("many formed with the word Slavic") in the lead.--Kékrōps 12:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How other encyclopaedias cover this

Not a particularly convincing argument (just because other encyclopaedias do something doesn't mean we should), but interesting nevertheless.

Britannica:

Macedonian Makedonski Jazik South Slavic language that is most closely related to Bulgarian and is written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, where it is spoken by more than 1.3 million people. The Macedonian language is also spoken in adjacent areas of Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia and in Australia, Yugoslavia, and Albania.

Encarta:

Macedonian Language, official language of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Because there are no clear linguistic divisions that correspond...

Columbia:

No article. Refers to it in article on "Slavic languages": The South Slavic tongues consist of Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Slovenian, and Macedonian, together with the liturgical language known as Church Slavonic.

- Francis Tyers · 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, not a particularly convincing argument. But the fact that Wikipedia includes alternate names in language article leads by convention is.--Kékrōps 12:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem - purely of textual organisation - is that in our case there isn't any clearly defined small number of alternate names, but a highly diffuse area of multiple, idiosyncratic ad-hoc usages. Treating it fully in the lead would indeed require more space than is appropriate given the very limited actual currency of each of the alternates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the lead contains only a short generic reference: many formed with the word Slavic. What's the problem?--Kékrōps 12:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is unnecessary as none of those names are in wide use in scholarly fields. - Francis Tyers · 12:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to exclude ideas on the basis of unpopularity.--Kékrōps 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV#Undue weight Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Six words out of a grand total of 152 in the lead can hardly be considered undue weight. Get real.--Kékrōps 12:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is mentioned at all is undue weight to a minority point of view. Placing it in the lead suggests that it is used by a significant number of people. This is false. - Francis Tyers · 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And what is a significant number of people, in your view? If we want to talk raw numbers, I would speculate that more people (Greeks + the few foreigners who care) call the language Skopjan or Slavomacedonian than those ("Macedonians" + the few foreigners who care) who call it "Macedonian".--Kékrōps 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On a further note I see that while you believe Ethnologue is a reliable source for alternative names, it isn't a reliable source for the number of speakers in Greece. So which is it: 180,180 speakers of Macedonian in Greece, or no dice for Ethnologue as a source? - Francis Tyers · 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There may even be that many speakers. Who knows? But no more than a handful would call it "Macedonian". Yet another unconvincing argument to add to the growing list.--Kékrōps 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt it (that there are over 100,000 speakers). - Francis Tyers · 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of "Macedonian", or of your separate "Slavic language (Greece)" of a few posts ago?--Kékrōps 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the total number of speakers of Slavic languages/dialects in Greece (excluding Pomaks) is somewhere between 3,000 and 40,000. How they ethnically or nationally identify is anyones guess as the Greek government does not include ethnic identity in censuses. - Francis Tyers · 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Those figures appear vastly underestimated to me. Russian-speakers alone would account for several hundred thousand.--Kékrōps 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about indigenous, not immigrants. How do I judge between the two? Well, I consider English and Welsh to be indigenous languages of the United Kingdom, but not Punjabi or Romanian. - Francis Tyers · 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We are all immigrants, ultimately.--Kékrōps 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't disagree there. - Francis Tyers · 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Balkan Sprachbund?

Perhaps reference to the sprachbund needn't be made in the lead either, considering its absence from all of the other Balkan language article leads except that of Bulgarian. The space we have is limited and precious, after all.--Kékrōps 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I keep saying we have to weigh things. And I say, the Balkan sprachbund is infinitely more interesting and more important than the naming issue. BTW, Macedonian is regarded as the most central, prototypical language within the sprachbund by linguists who've tried to measure degrees of relatedness within it. - If, of course, you are introducing this just as a POINT/red herring, don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Infinitely more interesting to you, perhaps. But not everyone identifies as a "linguist". In fact, most people reading the article probably wouldn't even be able to pronounce sprachbund. Κρίνεις ἐξ ἰδίων τὰ ἀλλότρια.--Kékrōps 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And indeed I would dearly wish language articles on Wikipedia would be edited by people actually interested in the languages. Not just politics and national ideologies. This is a linguistics article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is code for "only linguists should be allowed to edit here". A rather hollow argument.--Kékrōps 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's exactly what it says: Only people actually interested in languages should have any business editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Καλό διάβασμα.--Kékrōps 13:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not use your unique talents and improve the Greek article, which is substantially more impoverished than this one. - Francis Tyers · 13:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should make the first move by going in and attempting to move it to its "rightful" name, Μακεδονική γλώσσα?--Kékrōps 13:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no doubt that the most widely used name in Greek is "Σλαβομακεδονική γλώσσα", and as such it is the appropriate name for the article in that language. - Francis Tyers · 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the most widely used name in Greek is by far Σκοπιανά. Perhaps we can mention that in the lead?--Kékrōps 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Greek language article of course! - Francis Tyers · 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, you and our friends over in Σκόπια can also look into what can be done to expand and improve mk:Грчки јазик. For the time being it doesn't mention much other than Greek featuring prominently in medicine and having a complex grammar. Cute.--Kékrōps 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a comparison, look at mk:Македонски јазик and mk:Грчки јазик, vs. el:Σλαβομακεδονική γλώσσα and el:Ελληνική γλώσσα. There is more disparity in the Greek Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But then, they're doing way better than the Tajik Wikipedia: tg:Забони юнонӣ. :) - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ζαμπόνι γιουνόνι;--Kékrōps 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How about the Albanian Wikipedia: sq:Gjuha Sllavo-Maqedone?--Euthymios 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that is the most frequently used term. I know it was moved by Telex (an Albanophone Greek). If you search google, it appears to be a neologism. All the sites apart from Wikipedia seem to use "Gjuha Maqedone". - Francis Tyers · 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course their policy on naming may be different to ours. - Francis Tyers · 14:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. The selective use of the name for just one of the region's many ethnic groups is not just directed against the Greeks. The Albanians aren't "Macedonian" either. I think everyone knows what that means to a "Macedonian" nationalist.--Kékrōps 14:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't Albanians be Macedonian? - Francis Tyers · 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Turks, and the Roma can't be either. Because their native language isn't "Macedonian". Get it now?--Kékrōps 14:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. You're speaking of ethnicity and nationality as if they are fixed things, passed down genetically. Which is not the case. An Albanian can be a Macedonian as much as Macedonian can be. - Francis Tyers · 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about assimilation. My point is that even though he is a Macedonian by birth and geography, he can't be a "Macedonian" unless he assimilates to the language and culture of what you define as the "Macedonian" nation. One language/group is more worthy of being called "Macedonian" than the others, apparently.--Kékrōps 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about assimilation. If she is born in Macedonia she can be a Macedonian if she wants. Simple. - Francis Tyers · 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what you don't seem to get... according to you, being born in Macedonia (region) makes you a Macedonian (ethnic group). Why is that? The plurality (if not the absolute majority) of the population of Macedonia (region) are ethnic Greeks (or Macedonians in the regional sense). You are indulging in Macedonism, playing with the boundary between ethnic and regional identity (according to people like Alexander Donski being born in Macedonia (region) makes you an "ethnic Macedonian" regardless of your self-ifentification - this includs Greek-identifying Alexander the Great and Bulgarian-identifying Gotse Delchev). An "ethnic Macedonian" (within your meaning of the word) is a person who has the requisite national consciousness - language or place of birth have nothing to do with it: that's how we have Turkish speaking Greeks, Tatar speaking Greeks and Greek speaking Turks.--Euthymios 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. "If she is born in Macedonia she can be a Macedonian if he wants." According to you, one can only be "Macedonian" if one actively chooses a particular national identity over another. By extension, in the eyes of many, one can only belong in Macedonia if one chooses this "Macedonian" nation over the other, "non-Macedonian" nations that have "colonised" the region. Simply being born or living in Macedonia is not enough.--Kékrōps 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I have no idea what you're talking about. - Francis Tyers · 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another sidelined debate totally extraneous to the topic of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

--reset indents-- To Future perfect: never mind. According to Francis (and most Macedonists worldwide), 100% of the population of Macedonia (region) are "ethnic Macedonians", only the majority of them have forgotten their "Macedonian" mother tongue and now self-identify as part of a "foreign" to Macedonia ethnicity, but they are still "ethnic Macedonians" nonetheless - they only become "complete Macedonians" (or re-macedonianized Macedonians) when they accept Macedonism (i.e. choose to be Macedonians as per Francis). That's why the Greeks of Macedonia (excluding recent immigrants from Asia Minor and the former USSR) are hellenized "Macedonians" and thus not "true" Greeks; they are what can be called οἱ ἐν ὑπνώσει Μακεδόνες. The effect of this is that Macedonia (Greece) with its Macedonian (Greek) majority (as per Britannica) are not "truly" Greek. Read a few Macedonist websites (www.historyofmacedonia.org is a good place to start). You'll eventually understand their logic...--Euthymios 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To Francis who will probably claim he doesn't understand (stiu ca esti anti-grec - o dovedesti in fiecare zi :)) the question I'm essentially asking is this: why are the "ethnic Macedonians" the "true" Macedonians and the other ethnicities in Macedonia (one of which outnumbers the "ethnic Macedonians") considered foreign to Macedonia yet have the option of choosing to become Macedonian providing that they were born in Macedonia? Why are the "ethnic Macedonians" more Macedonian than the Macedonians (Greek) (who have been in the area for much longer than any Slavs according to Britannica)?--Euthymios 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking technique

On a different note: I notice that many of the latest compromise proposals have led to a doubling of the links from the lead: to the other article, to a footnote, to the section below. This is confusing to the reader, who really should be pointed only in one direction at that point. That is, to the section below, and only from there to the other article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done (of course). Check also above for my indented comments from my talk (before the discussion went off-track again). •NikoSilver• 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

New Reference Format

I ran the reference converter on the language article, and there didn't seem to be any real problems. It looks pretty nice, actually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.79.58 (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Example_of_Cite.php. - Francis Tyers · 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move etc.

I am steadfastly opposed to any page move in the manner of that which was done recently. - Francis Tyers · 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What did that external link quoted by w+m say anyway? I can't read Mac. Something about the Council of Europe using "Macedonian (Slavic)"? Was that the European Council or the Council of Europe? Not that it matters in terms of binding precedent set for us, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see a link... - Francis Tyers · 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the link. But it is from Deutsche Welle in Macedonian. --Michkalas 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

European council has unique official position and for all means of communication uses resolution of 1995, which was accepted in accordance with UN. Neither I nor some ministry committee can issue another official document, said for Deutsche Welle the general secretary for European council, Walter Schwimer in _______ from discussion around the internal decree on the Council which suggests term "Macedonian (slavic) language" for Macedonian language, and for nationality "person from the FYROM". Aside for Schwimer, such a document does not circulate in European Council and this is about an artificial discussion in Macedonia, held for internal purposes (I think). Macedonian ministry for foreign affairs (I think) sent a protest letter to the Council requesting immediate removal of the internal decree, which discriminates against the Macedonian citizens.

- Francis Tyers · 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Discriminates against "Macedonian" citizens my ass. Does not calling one the way one wants amount to discrimination? In that case, every Greek, Albanian and Hungarian (and maybe also Finn) could sue everyone for not referring to them by their self-identifying names (Ellines/Hellenes, Shqiptarë/Shkipetars and Magyarok/Magyars) for discrimination. Not enacting it discriminates against the Greek Macedonians who are singled out in having their identity usurped. Do you want examples of people being called PRC citizens, USA citizens and UAE citizens? Why do none of them whine? Francis, are you offended if I call you a UK citizen? If you don't want that decree to be adopted they should give their actual reasons "we don't like it". //Dirak 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that was just Francis translating what that press report from 2004 said. Why are you responding to it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the press report. I'm just trying to provoke a debate with Francis. All these "libertarians" think by supporting the poor little "Macedonians" from the evil Bulgarians and Greeks they are helping to promote justice in the world. If only they knew... //Dirak 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the volumes of talkpage archives above, I don't think that "provoking a debate" is a very useful thing to do here, especially as it doesn't actually address the article. WP:NOT, please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On rogues

One of these days, that rogue thing is going to stop being a cute excuse for violating the rules - presumably when the stewards decide to become rogues and start random desysoppings. Jimbo will probably snap then and realize that this rogue trend = anarchy. I'm just full of hell now for off-wiki issues and am bithing here about about a soon to be highly debated topic to cool down. Bear with me ;-) //Dirak 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry pal, I feel a bit the same in these days ;-) Who knows, probably they would do me a favour desysopping me; I'm really fed up dealing with sockpuppetering trolls, while I should be writing articles :-(--Aldux 01:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

HEY! I got an idea! Being rogue (both sides) and article creation are not mutually exclusive! Why don't we all spill our venom in a constructive way? (Like we did in Macedonia (terminology)?) Why not make an article about -say- Argumentation on the Macedonian dispute and cite sources and third-party opinions on the issue? It would be a hell of an article! And would provide argumentation from both sides! Who knows, it might even help solve the actual problem! (hah! yeah, gimme a break...) However, that article would definitely be the sum of all (cited -not trollish) talks and disputes that ever took place in related articles! We can also have historic references etc. Have both sides elaborate on their agendas in this! (We could also wikilink it to all trolls from then on as a response!) NikoSilver 14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In which namespace? Wikipedia: or article? - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. We start and we see where it goes from there. NikoSilver 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we really have enough Macedonia articles now. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's always the WP:AFD thingy. Anyways, I've started it here, and we see if it can make it outside of the userspace for starters... NikoSilver 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples [Hey, Slavs vs Lord's Prayer]

The Lord's Prayer does not represent the so-called Macedonian Muslims, so Hey, Slavs is a better choice, but I don't think we should include it without a translation. //Dirak 13:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We can include a translation. That presents no problem at all. - Francis Tyers · 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't we find an example that is neither religiously nor politically charged? Perhaps even one that doesn't use the M-word, God forbid. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Lord's Prayer? It is commonly used as a translation example. Vast majority of Macedonians is Eastern Orthodox, and searching for something else for the sake of political correctness where none is challenged is IMO a Bad Thing. Article 1 of wikisource:Universal Declaration of Human Rights is another one commonly translated, . Duja► 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ситe чoвeчки суштeствa сe рaѓaaт слoбoдни и eднaкви пo дoстoинствo и прaвa. Tиe сe oбдaрeни сo рaзум и сoвeст и трeбa дa сe oднeсувaaт eдeн кoн друг вo дуxoт нa oпштo чoвeчкaтa припaднoст.[6]  Andreas  ^(T) 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I added Hej Slavs because I thought it was nicer than the Lords prayer. I'd prefer to stick with a non-religious subject matter, article 1 of the UDHR would be fine too. - Francis Tyers · 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that calling the Torbeshi "Macedonian Muslims" is at least as questionable as calling the Pomaks "Bulgarian Muslims"; it is considerably doubtful that the Torbeshi identify as Macedonians, so the example made is quite weak.--Aldux 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They live in FYROM (ex-Yugoslavia, of which Hey, Slavs was the national anthem) and are Slavs. I couldn't be more relevant. //Dirak 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason I added it, but doesn't make much difference. - Francis Tyers · 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want something truly non-political and ideologically neutral, try to find the Macedonian version of "The Northwind and the Sun" - that's what the IPA uses for its phonology illustrations everywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is just another group (apart from these, these, these, and these people in the region of Macedonia) that cannot self-identify as Foo Macedonians, not to be confused by those monopolizing the name! Will any of you ever understand that the right to self-determination is a double-edged knife? Will any of you ever understand that the ones trully oppressing are the ones persistently refusing to disambiguate their name? Which also serves other ...beautiful purposes like history falsification and irredentism? Will any of you ever understand that the true reason for opposing disambiguation is theft of identity and of land? ...And you are still endorsing it? Sorry guys, I will always oppose to that. I would oppose even if I were not Greek. It just takes the ability of putting two and two together to see it... NikoSilver 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Where can we find of Racin's Beli mugri (White Dawns) in Greek, English or French? Or other writing by Racin, especially on the Slav Macedonian language. Likewise for the poems of Grigor Prlicev and the works of Constantin Miladinov. Thanks Politis 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick query

What is the earliest source we have literary wise that refers to a Skopjian language independent of other slavic languages?

Relation To ancient Macedonian

Recent studies have confirmed that Macedonian is Descending from ancient macedonian, and slavic people are natives to balkans. Please add this for into article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egejski4eva (talk • contribs) 11:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

No they haven't, no they aren't, and no we won't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Endorsed. - Francis Tyers · 11:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We should add that this is the prevailing Macedonian Slav view on the issue. As of yet, I haven't seen any other most persistant request by the said ethnicity's users, than to include these "facts". NikoSilver 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, as that would be making a statement more about national ideologies than about the language itself, wouldn't that be a topic more for the Macedonism article than for here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is a popular view of the speakers themselves, then it should be included in due weight and (of course) rejected by the academic consensus. Then, we would all relax from these persistant requests, and the speakers themselves would be more likely to be convinced if they found their view illustrated and discredited. Experience has shown that whatever is cited for adequately, is virtually undisputable! As WP:WTA#So-called, supposed, alleged, purported puts it: Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications. I find this quote quite pertinent. NikoSilver 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Niko, it's not a popular view of the speakers themselves. :-) --FlavrSavr 14:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it? There's an entire school of folk etymology that teaches, amongst other gems, that the name Macedonia has nothing to do with the Greek language and instead derives from majka "mother" + dom "home". We can't dismiss the effect of such memes on popular perceptions of descent from the ancient Macedonians. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See this for more examples. //Dirak 15:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be quite difficult to find sources to document a popular prejudice. Some websites that we could find do not document how popular this view is, especially because it is obviously refuted by Macedonian academia and official sources. What does the Macedonian language WP say? If the slavic-origin hypothesis is not mentioned there, then I think we could dismiss it here, too.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? //Dirak 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course that's not mentioned. Mk.wiki is as biased as any other Balkan Wikipedia, but we're not that prone to pseudoscientific rubbish. --FlavrSavr 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, it is WAY more biased than other Balkan wikipedias.   /FunkyFly.talk_  05:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, check out the pictures in the infobox at this and this version of the article on the Macedonians (ethnic group). //Dirak 15:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the language.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good golly, is the fact that history falsification (among others) is largely endorsed by official sources in the country north of Macedonia (Greece)? How many sources need there be provided?

FlavrSavr, all this is really dissappointing, and I would appreciate if you helped in criticizing it (and you'd be surprized of how many Greeks would come to support you for the name if you did). I don't claim descent (and all that bullshit) from Alexander the Great and Macedon (despite being a Greek), but the academic consensus suggests that these are integral parts of the Hellenic culture.

The fact remains that modern Greeks speak a "recognizably one and the same" language to that which the Athenian philosopher Aristotle tutored the Greek self-identifying, king of Macedon, Alexander the Great, while living continuously in the general same geographic area; and they are considered "inheritors" (if not offsprings) of all ancient Greek, Byzantine Greek and Ottoman empire cultural influences.

So I really fail to see how someone much less related to this culture can raise such claims. NikoSilver 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Niko, you mix up two different (though related) concepts. As far a I can see, none of the references you cite claim a connection between the modern M. languafge and ancient M., they only claim a cultural continuity (such as betwee ancient Gaul and France.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural continuity between the ancient Macedonians and the modern inhabitants of the FYROM? That's a joke, right? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so what exactly have the ethnic Macedonians preserved from the Ancients? Language? Customs? Artefacts?   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seriosly disputes the fact that the Macedonian language is a Slavic language. Different fringe groups claim different fringe theories, but they do not represent the popular view in the Republic. There isn't a single textbook that claims that the ancient Macedonian language (if it existed) is somehow related to the Slavic languages. --FlavrSavr 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mix them, they do. The main argument for all this bullshit is that modern Greeks have no more relation to ancient Macedon than modern Macedonians (Slav). "FYROM Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki confirmed the name change and pointed out that the historic military leader was an international figure and not the property of one country."

So I say, yes, I'm a bastard! But what's it to you to say so? What is it to you to claim something to which you are far more distant? And if "genes", and "mixing", and "biological continuity" is soooo important, then how come you're not using that same argument for yourselves? I strongly feel that no human is inferior or superior or different than any other, and that all these attempts to prove Greek dis-continuity are WP:Complete bollocks because no matter how many were hellenized or bastardized or mixed or replaced or exchanged (or ...group sexed for what I care!), the fact remains that it is the inheritor that must be worthy, and not the offspring that must be pure! And the language dispute is a large part of that deal, as shown in Dirak's sources above and as conveniently entirely skipped as a subject by official sources and said to be supported by all in the country north of Macedonia (Greece). NikoSilver 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On that note, the foreign minister also added that Alexander the Great is considered as much a national hero in the Republic, as in Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania, which is bullshit.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The worst part of all is that all I hear from Macedonian (Slav) users, even the most moderate ones, is defence and change of subject (or worse offense and support) rather than outright criticism. NikoSilver 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be an outright social death.   /FunkyFly.talk_  06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on this 'worthy inheritance' notion ? Hxseek 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Sarajevo or Saraevo?

I recently noticed to my surprise that the Macedonian name for the Bosnian capital is written Saraevo in Roman, with the "j" of Serbian/Bosnian. Why is this? I know that there is a policty of other Slavic languages using a J where Macedonian just has "e" (like Kragujevac, Kraguevac) but in this case it is different. The Turkish origin word is "Saray" which to Macedonian is "Saraj", so the "j" is still supposed to be there. Instead of Serbs/Bosnians installing it, Macedonian has taken it off, anyone know why? DW Celt 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Сараево (Sarevo) in Bulgarian too. The origin is clear, it's a matter of what is phonologically possible/good-sounding in different South Slavic languages. Sarajevo is not a precedent, the dropping of that final "j" when adding suffixes is a usual thing in Bulgarian and Macedonian. They don't have this "softer" touch which allows that in Serbo-Croatian. Todor→Bozhinov 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Slavic language (Greece)

There is an article with the above heading. In fact, it is an article about Macedonian language in Greece. The heading is POV, but there is interesting information, particularly on how the Greek authorities have dealt with the language over time. I believe the article should be renamed "Macedonian language in Greece" with the respective NPOV editing in some parts in the article, and it should also be included in Template:Macedonian language. See the talk page there, but let me also cite here Peter Trudgill on the Slavonic languages in Greece:

“ There is, of course, the very interesting Ausbau sociolinguistic question as to whether the language they speak is Macedonian or Bulgarian, given that both these languages have developed out of the South Slavonic dialect continuum that embraces also Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene. In former Yugoslav Macedonia and Bulgaria there is no problem, of course. Bulgarians are considered to speak Bulgarian and Macedonians Macedonian. The Slavonic dialects of Greece, however, are "rootless" dialects whose speakers have no access to education in the standard languages. Greek non-linguists, when they acknowledge the existence of these dialects at all, frequently refer to them by the label Slavika, which has the implication of denying that they have any connection with the languages of the neighboring countries. It seems most sensible, in fact, to refer to the language of the Pomaks a, Bulgarian and to that of the Christian Slavonic-speakers in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian. ”

Trudgill P. (2000), "Greece and European Turkey: From Religious to Linguistic Identity". in: Stephen Barbour and Cathie Carmichael (eds.), Language and Nationalism in Europe, Oxford : Oxford University Press, p.259. --Michkalas 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your thesis is that the great majority of Slavophones in Greece do not profess an ethnic "Macedonian" identity or call their language "Macedonian", despite the small minority that do. The purpose of the article is to analyse the linguistic situation in a slightly more nuanced way that caters for the former and not just the latter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict}That linguistically the language is Macedonian does not imply that all its speakers necessarily identify themselves as ethnic Macedonians. The name the speakers use for their language varies in different historical periods and it depends on their national consciousness and their political affiliation. Of course, the attitude of the Greek state plays its part too. I believe "Slavic language (Greece)" should be checked for POV and should be in consistency with the article on Macedonian language and included in the template of the series of articles, that's why a left a message here.--Michkalas 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate sounds strangely familiar... ;-) I will maintain, here as elsewhere, that (1) ethnic (non-)identification has nothing to do with linguistic (non-)identification; and (2) anonymous folklinguistic beliefs and opinions are irrelevant to issues of article naming and the like. My take on WP:V and WP:OR is that only opinions that have actually been proposed by reputed authors in reliable sources, not just reported in reliable sources as being held by others, have any claim to influencing our editorial naming decisions. Anonymous public opinion merely reported as such in the literature can of course be reported and described in the articles, but it can't dictate the structuring of the encyclopedia. Therefore, find a reputable author who actually endorses the view that the Greek varieties are not varieties of MKD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the article, but I have read it and found it useful. Do you have a valid reason for its deletion, considering it hasn't seemed to bother anybody until now? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I would definitely not want to delete it. Neither would Michkalas as I understand it; he was talking of renaming, wasn't he? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename it to what? "Macedonian"? And where does that leave the "Bulgarian" and "agnostic" varieties? Trudgill can't be the only authority on the matter, surely, and even he acknowledges the existence of a "question" as to what to call the language. Perhaps his own "Slavonic dialects of Greece" is a better alternative. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not support deleting. As I said, the article has some interesting information. I support renaming: "Macedonian language in Greece" or (though this is a bit Greek POV) "Slavomacedonian language in Greece". BTW, Trudgill says Slavonic languages of Greece to refer both to Macedonian and Pomakika, a Bulgarian dialect. He does not use the term just for Macedonian, as the article and most non-linguists in Greece do. --Michkalas 14:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both options would raise hackles, I'm afraid. Do we really need another Macedonian edit war? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Last time we had this discussion about MKD proper (the one spoken in RoM/FYROM), User:Francis Tyers (a linguist) professed that it doesn't matter how the others describe the language, but how the speakers themselves call it. Trudgil's reported name in that regard is very illucidating. I really can't understand how you want to call a language/dialect/continuum a different name from the extreme majority of its speakers. The other option, would be the legalese option of calling it as the government that controls these lands does. In that case too, you will only see "Slavic".

Greece terribly needs to sort out those "minority" (language or ethnic) issues, by conducting a proper census. In the meantime, the estimates of the (highly criticizing) Greek Helsinki Monitor, count 100,000 "Slavic" speakers, out of which presumably (and taking into account the electoral results of the pro-MK Rainbow party -i.e. 2,600 votes (!) in Macedonia), a figure of 10 to 30,000 Greeks with ethnic Macedonian consciousness is hypothesized. So, by extension, according to (criticizing) sources, 70-90% of the speakers call it "Slavic". NikoSilver 14:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cigar. ;-) Your alternative is wrong. The only relevant criterion, and the only one that was ever really at issue back then too, is not what the people on the ground allegedly call it, nor what the governments call it, but what that damned verifiable literature calls it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to linguistic classification of a language I can't see how this can be decided by a majority vote or -even worse- by the a government. BTW, this majority was formed through suppression by the state. --Michkalas 14:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Suppression by the state"??? You're not one of those people who think that all (indigenous non-refugee) Macedonians are in fact forcibly hellenized ethnic Macedonians, surely? That's science fiction rejected by even independent sources - don't let your anti-(Greek)-nationalism cloud your judgement.--Domitius 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we should keep the discussion in one place. Let's take it over to the other article again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even dare to call that "Slavic language (Greece)" invention Macedonian (Slavic), or I'm going to get angry :) It's as much Bulgarian as it is Macedonian, but you might well be aware of my opinion about Macedonian and Bulgarian (and therefore also "Slavic language (Greece)") being one language: purely linguistically, no offense to anyone. And you just have to know that thing about the dialect with the army and the fleet (FYROM/RoM has no fleet) :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would if it could. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I for one agree that the title Slavic Language (Greece) is clumsy, yet I fear it is the best one. The people speaking the language has been classified both as Macedonians and Bulgarians, and calling the language either of those name would be biased towards the other. On a different note, I agree that Greece should get its record straight on the minority issues, but that's another debate. MartinTremblay 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's say these people are ethnic Greeks. Why are they speaking a Slavic language!? Did they just think "Sure, we might get persecuted for not speaking the official language, but who cares?" OR Could it be that there were Macedonians and Bulgarians living in this region before Greece annexed it in 1913, and were subject to Hellenization, at which point they identified as Greek, and passed that on to their children and subsequent generations? I'm not saying that all "Slavophone Greeks" were in that situation, (some identify as Macedonian, some Bulgarian, and some may actually be Hellenes) but it does make more sense than the other explanation.

And the "Slavophone Greeks" who identify as Greeks are in a very bad position because Macedonians and Bulgarians don't like them for identifying as Greeks, and the Hellenophone Greeks don't like them because they speak a Slavic language. And I wouldn't say the language is definitely Macedonian or definitely Bulgarian. It will depend on the area and influence, although it could be a mixture like Portuñol (but harder to recognise since Brazilian Portuguese and Uruguayan Spanish are not as similar as Macedonian and Bulgarian).

Alex 202.10.89.28 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

US Institutions that teach Macedonian?

I know that this is not a forum for general Q and A, but could somebody please help me? I was just wondering if anybody knew of something like a list of US Colleges/Universities that offer courses in Macedonian? If anyone has a source of where I could find this information (on Wikipedia or externally), I would really appreciate it. Thank You. 172.132.96.66 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How was the "Macedonian language" invented

Please read the reference by Stoyan Kiselinovski in the article to learn from a witness how under pressure from the Yugoslav minority and the Communist government of Yugoslavia, the "Macedonian language" was invented. In this process, many Bulgarians, like Venko Markovski, Stoyan Mikhailovski and others, participated, because such was the politics of the Comintern, and from above the Macedonisation of Bulgarian language and history in this part of Bulgaria was ordered. Those Committees for Macedonian alphabet had the venue Sofia, Bulgaria, which is not mentioned in the article but is a solid fact. Another fact is that "Macedonian language" came into existence only because the Bulgarian government at this time (1945) was composed mostly from traitors who were under direct orders from Soviet Union.

Also, read http://www.mak-truth.com/m4_marko.htm to see how one of the principal inventors of the "Macedonian" language, Venko Markovski, regards himself and the language he speaks as Bulgarian.

Venko Markovski's judgment on the legitimacy of Tito and Kolishevski's Macedonian People's Republic, is poignantly illustrated by the following passage from his text "Krywta Woda Ne Stawa" 1981, p287

"The entirety of the serious scholars via different ways, have arrived at the conviction that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Dobrudzhia, towns and villages alike, are inhabited by Bulgarians; that the national awareness of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the language of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the literature of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the history of these Bulgarians living in Macedonia, and in Thrace, and in Moesia, and in Dobrudzhia, is not a separate one such as - Macedonian, Thracian, Moesian, Dobrudzhian history, but a common, Bulgarian history; and that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia, Dobrudzhia are the geographic expression of the Bulgarian territory"

--Lantonov 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_alphabet"

Did he invent the Slavo-slavonic-super-slavified-Macedonian language before or after those evil Serbian commies forced him to put -ski at the end of his surname? --AimLook 12:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They invented this super-language in 1945 after being "inspired" and otherwise stimulated by Comintern and Titoists like Tempo and Kolishevski. Most of them before this were -ov, and some of them were -ovski. Venko Markovski acquired the -ski between the two world wars. In 1980-2000 many lost 'v' becoming -oski and -eski. Seems like they came from Poland after a long amnesia. Lantonov 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In Greek

In Greek, Albanian and Dutch versions of wikipedia this language is called Slavic Macedonian. In the other versions it's called just Macedonian which name is biased and which name is correct? Shouldn't we try to co-ordinate articles about controversial topics to avoid different opinions expressed in different languages? Aaker 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's understandable why it's written like that in Greek and Albanian versions, not sure about Dutch. But most languages on Wikipedia cite it as simply Macedonian. If there were in fact two languages by which were called Macedonian, then I presume some sort of compromise for the names would be needed, but seeing how there is only one language recognised in the world as Macedonian, it should remain that way.

There is a Greek user who likes to go around other Wikipedias changing the name. If you see it changed, please feel free to move it back. - Francis Tyers · 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

lol :D Listen Francis. Speak the Truth! I´m sure you are the only one user who like to go around in other Wikis.... (with more of 200 edits...) and change the name from Slavic/Slav Macedonian to Macedonian. This is political propaganda, not more. Two words: Please stop. --Kamikazi2 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Since ancient Macedonians spoke Ancient Greek, how is it possible to create a language and name is Macedonian ? It would be the same if for example someone from Canada would create a whole new language and name it.. lets say American Language. Would this be acceptable ? Even more, would it be correct ? How Wikipedia can allow such political propaganda in its pages?

Hi, there is a word, it comes from Greek I think, "polysemy". You should look it up. - Francis Tyers · 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We also have the word "malakia". I think it's more descriptive of the absurd situation. NikoSilver 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:D - Francis Tyers · 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)