Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
First Sentence of Education and Language
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are two competing options for the first sentence of the section "Education and Language". 1) State that the dialects are usually classified as Macedonian. (The second sentence then will explain that it is difficult to draw a firm boundary between Macedonian and Bulgarian). 2) State that the dialects are sometimes classified as Macedonian and sometimes as Bulgarian. (The second sentence will then proceed as above). --Taivo (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- #1--Macedonian. In nearly every modern summary that specifies where dialects are located, whether overall surveys of Slavic or of the world's languages, the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are placed in the "Macedonian" basket. The sources often admit that it's hard to decide sometimes, but in the end they are regularly placed in Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- #2 There are good reasons to mention both. There are a number of neutral sources that either a) consider Macedonian and Bulgarian to be dialects of a single language; or b) point out that all Macedonian dialects (including these spoken in northern Greece) have sometimes been classified as dialects of Bulgarian; or c) state that there is no sharp boundary on a local level between Bulgarian and Macedonian and that therefore the extent of the two languages is controversial d) state that from a strictly linguistic point of view the question whether Macedonian and Bulgarian are distinct languages or dialects of each other cannot be decided (D. Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd ed., and Chambers and Trudgill, Dialectology, Cambridge UP, 1998). According to L. Danforth (The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press 1997), there is consensus among sociolinguists about point (d) (i.e. the question whether M and B are distinct languages is not decidable on the basis of strictly linguistic criteria). Thus in any case it seems justified to mention both.
- Furthermore, WP:RS#Academic_consensus requires us to find sources that explicitly support blanket statements such as "these dialects are usually classified as such and such". Such a source has not been presented on this talk page yet. It may well exist (in which case we can safely make such a statement), but given that from a strictly linguistic point of view it cannot be decided whether Macedonian and Bulgarian are distinct languages, it would not be surprising if such a statement actually has not appeared in the scholarly literature (since it's a bit meaningless to emphasize that some dialects are usually classified as A and not B, if there is consensus among sociolinguists that A and B are so closely related as to not be distinguishable on a purely linguistic basis.) Tropcho (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is a reply to a comment that was withdrawn with a peculiar edit summary. The WP:RS#Academic_consensus point has not been addressed with anything else but "it is simply a typical Wikipedia statement of fact that the majority of sources (no matter the difficulty in doing so) simply place these dialects as "Macedonian"". This is reminiscent of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it flies in the face of policy. And in this case, Taivo's proposed synthesis also flies in the face of academic consensus that M and B are not distinct from a purely linguistic perspective. And looking at the sources we've discussed, it appears that there's no clear majority. Has this point been addressed? So I'm not sure who's ignoring arguments here. Tropcho (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- (Note: Tropcho's response above is to a comment that I posted and then immediately deleted.) Tropcho continues to muddy the waters with irrelevant information. The question at hand is whether most sources place these dialects in a basket labelled "Macedonian" or in a basket labelled "Bulgarian". Wikipedia divides these into two languages, so only those sources which clearly distinguish between these two are relevant. If a source doesn't distinguish between these two languages in some concrete way, then it doesn't count. The proposed second sentence of this paragraph will cover the difficulty of distinguishing between these two languages, so half of Tropcho's comment is irrelevant in this context (as well as most of his previously posted sources). He may want to combine these languages, but Wikipedia does not. If he wishes, that is a discussion to be conducted elsewhere. Until Wikipedia joins them, then those "it's hard" arguments that he makes aren't relevant. The only question here is whether the majority of sources that distinguish Bulgarian from Macedonian place these in the "Macedonian" basket or in the "Bulgarian" basket. --Taivo (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the argument in Taivo's note is flawed for two main reasons: 1) It is based on a straw man. (No one here is suggesting that we should write in this article that B and M are a single language.) 2) It suggests that we should disregard some sources because they are - allegedly - at variance with what's on wikipedia (they are not, I think, and even if they were, the argument would be invalid, as wikipedia content is expected to follow reliable sources, not the other way around). Tropcho (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, Tropcho, my argument is not "flawed". It is very specific--if a source does not make a distinction between Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects, and treats them as a continuum without assigning them into either "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian", then they are irrelevant for this RfC. It doesn't mean that they are irrelevant for the article in terms of a later sentence that says there are difficulties in drawing lines. You keep trying to make this discussion about more than it is in order to confuse the issue of this RfC. It's a very simple issue. --Taivo (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- You probably realise that just because an argument is specific does not mean it's not flawed. I think the flaw is that the argument is based on a false dilemma. The underlying assumption is that we have to decide between the two choices in the RfC, so if a source states that B and M dialects form a single language, but refers to that language as Macedo-Bulgarian or Bulgaro-Macedonian (as e.g. Linguasphere or Vaillant and Mazon do) then we should ignore it. I think that the assumption is wrong. We can (should?) be flexible and if there are sources that consider these dialects as a part of a dialect continuum, why not mention it? Furthermore, such sources do not contradict what's in the article on Macedonian, where - by the way - the fact that these dialects have been classified as Bulgarian is also mentioned, as well as the fact that B and M form a dialect continuum. Tropcho (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Your understanding of Linguasphere is also flawed. While Linguasphere combines Macedonian and Bulgarian into one outer language, it very clearly and unambiguously divides the dialects into two inner languages--Macedonian and Bulgarian--and then just as clearly places the Greek dialects into the Macedonian basket. But you also miss the point completely in your continual attempts to cloud the issue. I am quite willing and have proposed ways to include the uncertainty in the paragraph, just not in the first sentence. Wikipedia has divided this East South Slavic complex into two languages for now. And when we deal with the Balkans, we try especially hard to be consistent in our approach across articles (so that WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't actually apply within the group of articles). See the hard work that has gone into the Serbo-Croatian complex for an example. So your desire to provide murk in the first sentence goes against the way that Balkans editors in Wikipedia have structured this area. If you want to combine Macedonian and Bulgarian, then go to one of those talk pages and work it out with the editors who are interested. This is not the article to muddy the waters. There is a possible compromise that has been used in the title--the Greek compromise to simply call these dialects "Slavic" or "Greek Slavic". But trying to treat Macedonian and Bulgarian as one language here goes against the choices and consensuses that Wikipedia editors have reached in dealing with Macedonian and Bulgarian. All of your issues I have proposed to deal with in subsequent text in the paragraph, but that first sentence is the only issue here--and most classifications of the dialects of Greece have placed these dialects in the Macedonian basket. That should be the first sentence of the paragraph. Then you can talk about problems and exceptions after that. --Taivo (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the issue is indeed simple, and I'm not the one "muddying the waters" and "making the discussion about more than it is". Is stating what the sources say "adding murk"? It's our job to say what the sources say and represent all significant points of view. Are there sources that say that these dialects have been classified as Macedonian? Yes. As Bulgarian? Yes. Is there a source making a statement about them usually being classified as Macedonian? Maybe, (probably?) but we don't know yet. Maybe there's a reason why we haven't seen such as statement yet? In any case, you have not yet addressed WP:RS/AC, and you are bringing in some extraneous stuff. It seems to me that it's as simple as that. And what is more, the article about Macedonian already states that these dialects have been classified as Bulgarian, so there will be nothing too revolutionary about stating it here as well (it doesn't have to be the first sentence, but it only makes sense to say that in a single sentence, e.g. "they have been classified as such and such, and, especially by such linguists, as such"). Also, Trudgill's quote in the article clearly indicates that the alleged consensus ("usually classified as") does not yet exist (or Trudgill doesn't know about it). This is not the same as discussing dialects spoken in B and Rep. of M. Also, what is the continuation that you propose for that paragraph? Tropcho (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, regarding Linguasphere, their three level classification (outer language-inner language-dialect) is meant to be the English-language analogue of the French/German langue-dialecte-parler/Sprache-Dialekt-Mundart. So correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can tell, my interpretation of Linguasphere classification comes quite close to yours at the time you made this edit. Tropcho (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- You missed the point again. The point I am making here is that Linguasphere, even though it groups Macedonian and Bulgarian into a single outer language, still divides the outer language into a Macedonian inner language and a Bulgarian inner language and puts the Greek dialects in the Macedonian part of the scheme, not in the Bulgarian part of the scheme. That distinction was irrelevant to the Ukrainian discussion. The point that I'm making here is that authors who have two "baskets" almost always place the Greek dialects in the Macedonian basket. Authors that don't make a distinction between Macedonian dialects and Bulgarian dialects are the ones that have no relevance to the question at hand (which only relates to the first sentence). --Taivo (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you scroll up a ways, you will see what I propose as a structure for this paragraph as a whole. But tomorrow when I have a little more time, I will write up a sample and post here.
- Well, since we want to make a general statement about how these dialects are usually classified, as opposed to how they are usually classified by linguists who consider Bulgarian and Macedonian to be distinct languages (which is a more specific statement), it seems to me that these sources are still relevant. Actually, even if we consider only these linguists, I think there might still be a problem. The eastern dialects of Greek Macedonia (the Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect) have been classified as Bulgarian even by such linguists. E.g. Roland Schmieger writes that the dialects around Kavala and east of Drama belong to Bulgarian (International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1998, Vol.131, pp.125-55). Tropcho (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. looking forward to that sample. Tropcho (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies for not getting that sample cranked out. I had to deal with some technical issues with the MidTerm Exam in History of English that I'm giving this week. They're all electronic and posted on-line, but that doesn't mean that the technology is always up to the task. I've got a large block of time tomorrow. --Taivo (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you scroll up a ways, you will see what I propose as a structure for this paragraph as a whole. But tomorrow when I have a little more time, I will write up a sample and post here.
- You missed the point again. The point I am making here is that Linguasphere, even though it groups Macedonian and Bulgarian into a single outer language, still divides the outer language into a Macedonian inner language and a Bulgarian inner language and puts the Greek dialects in the Macedonian part of the scheme, not in the Bulgarian part of the scheme. That distinction was irrelevant to the Ukrainian discussion. The point that I'm making here is that authors who have two "baskets" almost always place the Greek dialects in the Macedonian basket. Authors that don't make a distinction between Macedonian dialects and Bulgarian dialects are the ones that have no relevance to the question at hand (which only relates to the first sentence). --Taivo (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, regarding Linguasphere, their three level classification (outer language-inner language-dialect) is meant to be the English-language analogue of the French/German langue-dialecte-parler/Sprache-Dialekt-Mundart. So correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can tell, my interpretation of Linguasphere classification comes quite close to yours at the time you made this edit. Tropcho (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the issue is indeed simple, and I'm not the one "muddying the waters" and "making the discussion about more than it is". Is stating what the sources say "adding murk"? It's our job to say what the sources say and represent all significant points of view. Are there sources that say that these dialects have been classified as Macedonian? Yes. As Bulgarian? Yes. Is there a source making a statement about them usually being classified as Macedonian? Maybe, (probably?) but we don't know yet. Maybe there's a reason why we haven't seen such as statement yet? In any case, you have not yet addressed WP:RS/AC, and you are bringing in some extraneous stuff. It seems to me that it's as simple as that. And what is more, the article about Macedonian already states that these dialects have been classified as Bulgarian, so there will be nothing too revolutionary about stating it here as well (it doesn't have to be the first sentence, but it only makes sense to say that in a single sentence, e.g. "they have been classified as such and such, and, especially by such linguists, as such"). Also, Trudgill's quote in the article clearly indicates that the alleged consensus ("usually classified as") does not yet exist (or Trudgill doesn't know about it). This is not the same as discussing dialects spoken in B and Rep. of M. Also, what is the continuation that you propose for that paragraph? Tropcho (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Your understanding of Linguasphere is also flawed. While Linguasphere combines Macedonian and Bulgarian into one outer language, it very clearly and unambiguously divides the dialects into two inner languages--Macedonian and Bulgarian--and then just as clearly places the Greek dialects into the Macedonian basket. But you also miss the point completely in your continual attempts to cloud the issue. I am quite willing and have proposed ways to include the uncertainty in the paragraph, just not in the first sentence. Wikipedia has divided this East South Slavic complex into two languages for now. And when we deal with the Balkans, we try especially hard to be consistent in our approach across articles (so that WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't actually apply within the group of articles). See the hard work that has gone into the Serbo-Croatian complex for an example. So your desire to provide murk in the first sentence goes against the way that Balkans editors in Wikipedia have structured this area. If you want to combine Macedonian and Bulgarian, then go to one of those talk pages and work it out with the editors who are interested. This is not the article to muddy the waters. There is a possible compromise that has been used in the title--the Greek compromise to simply call these dialects "Slavic" or "Greek Slavic". But trying to treat Macedonian and Bulgarian as one language here goes against the choices and consensuses that Wikipedia editors have reached in dealing with Macedonian and Bulgarian. All of your issues I have proposed to deal with in subsequent text in the paragraph, but that first sentence is the only issue here--and most classifications of the dialects of Greece have placed these dialects in the Macedonian basket. That should be the first sentence of the paragraph. Then you can talk about problems and exceptions after that. --Taivo (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- You probably realise that just because an argument is specific does not mean it's not flawed. I think the flaw is that the argument is based on a false dilemma. The underlying assumption is that we have to decide between the two choices in the RfC, so if a source states that B and M dialects form a single language, but refers to that language as Macedo-Bulgarian or Bulgaro-Macedonian (as e.g. Linguasphere or Vaillant and Mazon do) then we should ignore it. I think that the assumption is wrong. We can (should?) be flexible and if there are sources that consider these dialects as a part of a dialect continuum, why not mention it? Furthermore, such sources do not contradict what's in the article on Macedonian, where - by the way - the fact that these dialects have been classified as Bulgarian is also mentioned, as well as the fact that B and M form a dialect continuum. Tropcho (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, Tropcho, my argument is not "flawed". It is very specific--if a source does not make a distinction between Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects, and treats them as a continuum without assigning them into either "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian", then they are irrelevant for this RfC. It doesn't mean that they are irrelevant for the article in terms of a later sentence that says there are difficulties in drawing lines. You keep trying to make this discussion about more than it is in order to confuse the issue of this RfC. It's a very simple issue. --Taivo (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the argument in Taivo's note is flawed for two main reasons: 1) It is based on a straw man. (No one here is suggesting that we should write in this article that B and M are a single language.) 2) It suggests that we should disregard some sources because they are - allegedly - at variance with what's on wikipedia (they are not, I think, and even if they were, the argument would be invalid, as wikipedia content is expected to follow reliable sources, not the other way around). Tropcho (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Option #2' is more informative and more neutral. This article is already confusing and the subject of POV-related complaints (see previous RM discussion), so this seems like a sensible change toward increased neutrality and clarity. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Both options have their faults. It seems that this question is complex enough that it deserves its own paragraph. This avoids trying to squeeze it into subsidiary phrases in the first paragraph. Readers might find it easier to first get the big picture (that the dialects belong to the Slavic language family) and then follow the issues of classification. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can you specify these faults? I'm having a hard time distinguishing between your suggestion and option #2 in the RfC. I.e., we should explain the situation for our readers, not favor one interpretation over the other. I'm not invested in any exact approach to doing so, but option #1 seems like a PoV problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Option #2 in the RFC proposes to mention the two sub-families in the second sentence. My proposal is to do this in the second paragraph. The two sides of the debate above have already pointed out the faults in their opponents' proposals. In addition to that, it makes for really clumsy and confusing prose to try to shoehorn this question into either the first or second sentence. In my opinion, each paragraph should be devoted to one topic. The topic for an opening paragraph on "Education and language" is to set the scene. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can you specify these faults? I'm having a hard time distinguishing between your suggestion and option #2 in the RfC. I.e., we should explain the situation for our readers, not favor one interpretation over the other. I'm not invested in any exact approach to doing so, but option #1 seems like a PoV problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Third-ish position: I would start the paragraph describing the language as any other (with such material) and then say that the official Greek and Bulgarian position is that there is no Macedonian language, but rather that is a dialect of Bulgarian.[1]. Then continue normally. --Precision123 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. That sounds like a sentence for my proposed second paragraph. In other words, first (para 1) we describe what people speak, and how they are educated. Then (para 2) we talk about how different authorities classify or label it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me, Hroðulf. You can use the sources I posted (if needed) to help keep it NPOV. --Precision123 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I also think that some extra explaining about the characteristics of these dialects might benefit the article. By the way, Precision123, note that the second reference you provided isn't unbiased (by the Shea's own admission) nor very factually accurate (see Duncan Perry's review of the book in Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, Autumn, 1999, pp. 680-681). Shea represents basically what is the nationalistic Macedonian POV. Friedman (the author of the article in the Concise Encyclopedia) also generally leans towards Macedonian views, and is a self-declared defender of the distinctness of Macedonian (see e.g. here), which incidentally puts him at variance with those (seemingly the majority of sociolinguists, if we are to believe Loring Danforth) who think that the question whether Bulgarian and Macedonian are distinct languages is not decidable on the basis of purely linguistic criteria. In general biased sources are fine, because they provide one of the points of view. We will need to take into account other sources as well, though. So far about a dozen have been discussed on this talk page (see my comment #2 and the longish discussion between Taivo and myself that led to this RfC). Tropcho (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Tropcho: I don't think Friedman is really at odds with Danforth. The view that "the question whether Bulgarian and Macedonian are distinct languages is not decidable on the basis of purely linguistic criteria" is a fairly standard response from linguists when referring to two groups of speakers whose languages are neighbours on a dialect continuum. Exactly the same is said, for example, about Scots and Ulster Scots, or Valencian and Catalan. If I understand correctly, it is a way of saying that linguists aren't interested in dictating to communities a distinction between a language and a dialect. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly, linguists aren't interested in doing that, whereas in the interview I linked to, Friedman states (I'm paraphrasing) that the "scientific truth" is that B and M are distinct languages. Tropcho (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, it seems to me that Hroðulf's point is quite significant for this RfC. If linguists aren't interested in doing that, I think it's reasonable to use the same approach here, given that there are people from the region who consider themselves Macedonians, and others who consider themselves Bulgarians (and these groups would usually call their language Macedonian or Bulgarian, respectively - although it's the same language).
- In other words, I suggest we proceed as follows:
- Describe the general characteristics of the dialects, i.e. state that they belong to the eastern group of South Slavic (comprising Macedonian and Bulgarian) and have all the characteristics that set apart this group from other Slavic languages (no cases, existence of a definite article, lack of infinitive, narrative mood, comparative forms with prefix po-, future tense formed by present form of the verb preceded by ќе/ще (I'm following Nicolaas van Wijk here)).
- State that speakers have referred to their dialects in various ways (most notably Macedonian and Bulgarian).
- Linguists have also classified them as either M or B (we might also want to mention that some of these dialects have characteristics that bring them closer to standard Macedonian, while others (e.g. Ser-Drama-Lagadin dialect) are closer to standard Bulgarian/eastern Bulgarian dialects).
- State that strictly speaking there's no hard and fast rule to decide which one of these two groups is right. Tropcho (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Local hero, User:Laveol, would you guys comment? Tropcho (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hroðulf, Precision123, SMcCandlish ☺, any final comments? Tropcho (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Tropcho you should not be closing this. It should be closed by an uninvolved, neutral admin since you and I do not agree. --Taivo (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Works for me, other than that fourth point. Asserting in WP's voice that the question is intractable is original research. For all we know, this question could be linguistically settled next week. Just let the sourced facts speak for themselves without editorializing about them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hroðulf, Precision123, SMcCandlish ☺, any final comments? Tropcho (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly, linguists aren't interested in doing that, whereas in the interview I linked to, Friedman states (I'm paraphrasing) that the "scientific truth" is that B and M are distinct languages. Tropcho (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Tropcho: I don't think Friedman is really at odds with Danforth. The view that "the question whether Bulgarian and Macedonian are distinct languages is not decidable on the basis of purely linguistic criteria" is a fairly standard response from linguists when referring to two groups of speakers whose languages are neighbours on a dialect continuum. Exactly the same is said, for example, about Scots and Ulster Scots, or Valencian and Catalan. If I understand correctly, it is a way of saying that linguists aren't interested in dictating to communities a distinction between a language and a dialect. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I also think that some extra explaining about the characteristics of these dialects might benefit the article. By the way, Precision123, note that the second reference you provided isn't unbiased (by the Shea's own admission) nor very factually accurate (see Duncan Perry's review of the book in Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, Autumn, 1999, pp. 680-681). Shea represents basically what is the nationalistic Macedonian POV. Friedman (the author of the article in the Concise Encyclopedia) also generally leans towards Macedonian views, and is a self-declared defender of the distinctness of Macedonian (see e.g. here), which incidentally puts him at variance with those (seemingly the majority of sociolinguists, if we are to believe Loring Danforth) who think that the question whether Bulgarian and Macedonian are distinct languages is not decidable on the basis of purely linguistic criteria. In general biased sources are fine, because they provide one of the points of view. We will need to take into account other sources as well, though. So far about a dozen have been discussed on this talk page (see my comment #2 and the longish discussion between Taivo and myself that led to this RfC). Tropcho (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me, Hroðulf. You can use the sources I posted (if needed) to help keep it NPOV. --Precision123 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: For the benefit of people commenting, I've tried to put together a table that provides something of an overview of the sources mentioned in the discussions preceding this RfC. (Note added later: other editors please feel free to add/correct content if you notice inaccuracies or omissions. If you do edit the table, perhaps also add a note below it stating that you've done so (for clarity).)
| Author | Title | Year | Publisher | Summary and/or Quote(s) |
| David Crystal | The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd ed. | 1997 | Cambridge University Press | "Arguments over language names often reduce to arguments of a political nature, especially when there is a dispute over national boundaries. For example, in the South Slavic continuum, varieties spoken on the western side of the Border between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria are called dialects of Macedonian by the former country, but dialects of Bulgarian by the latter – reflecting a claim to the territory. However, because there is a dialect chain in the area, linguistic criteria will never be able to solve conflicts of this kind." |
| Chambers and Trudgill | Dialectology, 2nd ed. | 1998 | Cambridge University Press | "Similarly, Bulgarian politicians often argue that Macedonian is simply a dialect of Bulgarian - which is really a way of saying, of course, that they feel Macedonia ought to be part of Bulgaria. From a purely linguistic point of view, however, such arguments are not resolvable, since dialect continua admit of more-or-less but not either-or judgements." |
| Loring M. Danforth | The Macedonian Conflict | 1997 | Princeton University Press | "There's consensus among sociolinguists that in such situations it cannot be decided on a purely linguistic basis whether a certain speech variety constitutes a language or is merely a dialect." |
| Kenneth Katzner | The Languages of the World, 3rd ed. | 2002 | Routlege | "Macedonian is closely related to Bulgarian and is considered by some to be merely a dialect of that language." (p. 96) |
| J. Henniger (contributor), RE Asher (editor) | "Bulgarian and Macedonian" in The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 1 | 1992 | Oxford: Pergamon Press | "From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian." |
| David Dalby (ed.) | Linguasphere | 1999/2000 | Linguasphere Observatory | Bulgarian and Macedonian listed as "inner languages" (dialects) within a single "outer language" (language) "Bulgarski+Makedonski". All Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are included as sub-dialects of the Macedonian inner language. (For comparison, Linguasphere classifies Serbian and Croatian as inner languages of the same outer language "Srpski+Hrvatski".) |
| RGA de Bray | Guide to the South Slavic Languages | 1980 | Slavica Publishers | Separate chapters for Bulgarian and Macedonian. Quote from the Dialects section in the chapter on Bulgarian: "In this brief survey we do not take into account the dialects of Greek and Yugoslav Macedonia, which are closely allied to Bulgarian and are briefly described in our separate chapter on Macedonian. These Macedonian dialects have many features which also occur in various Bulgarian dialects, but mostly not in literary Bulgarian, from which they are sharply differentiated, particularly by accent and phonetic system." The Slavic dialects of Greece, as well as the dialects of Pirin Macedonia (in Bulgaria), are discussed in the chapter on Macedonian. |
| Bernard Comrie and G. Corbett (eds.) | The Slavonic Languages | 1993 | Routlege | In the chapter on Macedonian, the map of Macedonian dialects includes all South-East Slavic dialects in Greece and southwestern Bulgaria. Quote from the chapter on Bulgarian: "The geographical extent of Bulgarian dialects is controversial. On the level of local dialects there is no sharp boundary between the speech of western Bulgaria and that of eastern Serbia, former Yugoslav Macedonia and areas of Greece and Turkey contiguous to Bulgaria in which Slavonic dialects are still spoken. The official Bulgarian position, with respect to dialects and earlier historical periods, has been that eastern Serbian dialects, all Macedonian dialects in former Yugoslavia and Slavonic dialects in Turkey and Greece are dialects of Bulgarian." |
| nl:Nicolaas van Wijk | Les Langues Slaves (2nd ed.) | 1956 | Mouton & Co - 's-Gravenhage | Speaks of three languages in the South-Slavic area: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian. |
| Andre Vaillant | Le probleme du slave macedonien | 1938 | Bulletin de la Societe Linguistique de Paris 39, 195 - 210 | From the abstract: "Macedonian speech varieties (fr: parlers) form a part of a Bulgaro-Macedonian linguistic group"; About the eastern Macedonian dialects (east of Salonika in Greek Macedonia): "les parlers de la region de Suho a l'est de Salonique vers Seres, que la geographie historique attribue a la Macedoine, mais qui se rattachent aussi bien aux parlers bulgares des Rhodopes." (i.e. they may as well be classified as belonging to the south-eastern group of Bulgarian dialects). |
| Voegelin and Voegelin | Classification and Index of the World's Languages | 1997 | Bulgarian and Macedonian treated as distinct languages. Dialects of Greece included in Macedonian. | |
| Dimitar Ivanov (b. in Gevgelija) | The Speech of Gevgelija (quoted by Vaillant (1938)) | 1932 | Macedonian Scientific Institute | Dialects of the region considered Bulgarian. |
| Ethnologue, 18th edition | Macedonian and Bulgarian and language map of Greece/Macedonian | 2015 | Summer Institute of Linguistics | Dialects of Greece, with the exception of Pomak, are considered Macedonian. Pomak is considered Bulgarian. Map of Greece/Macedonia labels Greek Slavic dialects as "Slavic". |
| Blagoy Shklifov (b. near Vitsi, Greek Macedonia) | Bulgarian Dialect Texts from Aegean Macedonia | 2003 | Bulgarian Academy of Sciences | Slav dialects of Greece considered Bulgarian (as all other Macedonian Slavic dialects). |
| Andre Mazon, Andre Vaillant | L'evangelieaire de Kulakia: un parler slave du Bas-Vardar | 1938 | Librairie Droz (Paris) | Consider all Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects as a part of a Bulgaro-Macedonian group distinct from the neighbouring Serbo-Croatian. |
- Comment. In reading through these references there are only two positions espoused by all but one of the sources: 1) These dialects are Macedonian; 2) Macedonian and Bulgarian are one language. Only one source lists these dialects as Bulgarian. Therefore there are only two options here: 1) treating these dialects as Macedonian in the first sentence with further clarification that some sources classify M & B as one language (not "Bulgarian", but something else); 2) treating Macedonian and Bulgarian as one language (not called "Bulgarian"). Wikipedia separates these two languages and doesn't treat them as a single language. (If you want to change that, then you need to leave this page and work that out at Macedonian language and Bulgarian language.) So the first sentence as currently written is still accurate since nearly every source that divides M & B into two languages places these Greek Slavic dialects into Macedonian and not into Bulgarian. --Taivo (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is not accurate. It would be more accurate if it read something like "these dialects are usually classified as M by linguists that consider M & B to be distinct languages", which is quite different from the version you propose (the addition is significant). Even this more accurate version would constitute novel synthesis of disparate material, which goes against the WP policy on academic consensus plus it would belie the consensus that exists among linguists that, strictly speaking, M and B can be considered to be a single language.
- I think it should be clear by now that both views (i.e. that these dialects are Bulgarian or Macedonian) are valid from a linguistic perspective, and both are notable enough to be mentioned. Mentioning one without the other wouldn't be neutral. Tropcho (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem in the first sentence adding the phrase "among linguists who separate M & B into two languages or two distinct dialect groups in a single larger language." If you notice the second sentence in my proposed paragraph below, I mention the difficulty of drawing distinct language boundaries. And you don't seem to understand what "synthesis" is in a Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia editors always have to look at the sources, weigh them, and write a summary of the facts. If you want to call that "synthesis", then you can, but that's not considered to be inappropriate synthesis in a Wikipedia sense. The facts of the matter are precisely what I have outlined--there are two groups of sources--those that separate M & B (in which case the Greek dialects are included in M in all but one case) and those that combine B & M (in which case the Greek dialects are included in the larger whole). Only one source separates B & M and places the dialects in B. With the addition of the above clause, the proposed paragraph is, indeed, accurate. --Taivo (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the claim that this is not unacceptable synthesis is not correct. WP:RS/AC explicitly refers to this type of situation. Quote: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."
- Your synthesis rests on a dozen sources or so. There are many more, as you probably can guess. Before anyone makes a blanket statement, they should be familiar with most sources. That's why synthesis is left to experts.
- Also, do I understand correctly that you absolutely don't want Bulgarian mentioned in the first sentence? Per WP:NPOV, I think we should mention both points of view, as neither one is fringe. Tropcho (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Tropcho, there is no version of NPOV based on these sources which will include Bulgarian in the first sentence. Read the sources--they either 1) place these dialects in Macedonian or 2) place these dialects in a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language. There is no version of NPOV which gives Bulgarian equal stance with Macedonian in this case. There are political sources, but not neutral linguistic sources which do that. All the objective linguistic sources either place these dialects in Macedonian or they place them in a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language. Neutral linguistic sources do not place them in Bulgarian. You keep trying to push a Bulgarian POV that is simply not found in linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Labelling sources we don't like as "political" and "not linguistic" is convenient and can be quite tempting. However, per WP:BIASED, biases sources are not inherently disallowed and in fact can be excellent sources about the different viewpoints on a subject. Furthermore, in this particular case, the claim that those sources are not linguistic, but political is unfounded. Really, on what is this claim based, please? Sources 1-3 in the table (Crystal, Chambers & Trudgill, and Danforth) make it clear that both points of view are equally valid (or invalid, if you wish), from a strictly linguistic point of view. There's a dialect chain in the area and it is thus impossible to draw the line between B and M on the basis of linguistic criteria alone. That is why Comrie and Corbett, as well as Schmieger (among others), state that the extent of Bulgarian dialects to the southwest is controversial. Also, you seem not to have noticed that some of the sources above state that Macedonian can be considered a dialect of Bulgarian (not merely of a common Bulgaro-Macedonian language, as you present it); this of course applies equally well to the group of dialects we're discussing. It's quite clear from the above discussion that my proposal involves presenting both points of view. That's the essence of wikipedia's NPOV policy. On the other hand, you are suggesting presenting just one of the points of view, which is basically the Macedonian nationalistic POV. Tropcho (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Labelling a single Macedonian-Bulgarian language as "Bulgarian" is highly POV and unacceptable to Wikipedia, so calling these dialects of Greece "Bulgarian" because that is the label used by POV sources that include Macedonian as a dialect of Bulgarian is not neutral--it is pushing a strictly Bulgarian POV. The sources above are very, very clear--there are only two options that nearly all of the sources fall into (the remaining one can be considered fringe therefore): 1) The Slavic dialects of Greece are part of the Macedonian language or bundle of dialects, or 2) Macedonian and Bulgarian (and therefore all the Slavic dialects of Greece) are a single Macedo-Bulgarian language. And, you have completely misrepresented the sociolinguistic sources that mention politics. There is no "political" measure that is a valid linguistic determinant. Indeed, it is very easy to remove the political judgments--simply don't include any sources written in Macedonian or Bulgarian. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to draw clear linguistic lines, but when those lines are drawn, the Greek Slavic dialects almost always fall on the Macedonian side of the line. You simply can't get around that. When the lines are not drawn, then we are not talking about "Bulgarian", we are taking about a "Macedo-Bulgarian" dialect chain or single language. You simply don't have the sources to back up your determination to put the word "Bulgarian" in the first sentence as if the sources give it equal weight. The only linguistic evidence is for either "Macedonian" or "Macedo-Bulgarian" as the term to cover the language that these Slavic dialects of Greece belong to. --Taivo (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's somewhat naive to claim that excluding Macedonian or Bulgarian sources will remove political judgments. See e.g. the review of John Shea's book mentioned above, or Victor Friedman's interview (linked to above). Also, I think your suggestion to exclude some sources, as well as your statement that POVs (and "POV sources") are unacceptable, is based on a misunderstanding of wikipedia's NPOV and reliable sources policy. It is correct that calling Bulgaro-Macedonian dialects "Bulgarian dialects" is a POV. However, mentioning that POV in the article is not a problem on wikipedia per se, unless it's a fringe POV, which it is not (evident from the sources, e.g. Henniger, van Wijk, Ivanov, Shklifov (the last two originate from the region whose dialects we're discussing), as well as Katzner and Comrie & Corbett, who mention that some hold that view). Perhaps reading WP:NPOV and WP:BIASED again could help. Also, read again the first three sources. There's no linguistic criterion to decide where to draw the line in a dialect continuum, nor indeed whether such a line should be drawn (as long as all dialects in the continuum are mutually intelligible to a high degree). Thus, saying that once the line is drawn "the Greek Slavic dialects almost always fall on the Macedonian side of the line" is incorrect. If it were true that they almost always fall on the Macedonian side of the line, why would e.g. Comrie & Corbett and Schmieger state that the extent of Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects is controversial? Tropcho (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Labelling a single Macedonian-Bulgarian language as "Bulgarian" is highly POV and unacceptable to Wikipedia, so calling these dialects of Greece "Bulgarian" because that is the label used by POV sources that include Macedonian as a dialect of Bulgarian is not neutral--it is pushing a strictly Bulgarian POV. The sources above are very, very clear--there are only two options that nearly all of the sources fall into (the remaining one can be considered fringe therefore): 1) The Slavic dialects of Greece are part of the Macedonian language or bundle of dialects, or 2) Macedonian and Bulgarian (and therefore all the Slavic dialects of Greece) are a single Macedo-Bulgarian language. And, you have completely misrepresented the sociolinguistic sources that mention politics. There is no "political" measure that is a valid linguistic determinant. Indeed, it is very easy to remove the political judgments--simply don't include any sources written in Macedonian or Bulgarian. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to draw clear linguistic lines, but when those lines are drawn, the Greek Slavic dialects almost always fall on the Macedonian side of the line. You simply can't get around that. When the lines are not drawn, then we are not talking about "Bulgarian", we are taking about a "Macedo-Bulgarian" dialect chain or single language. You simply don't have the sources to back up your determination to put the word "Bulgarian" in the first sentence as if the sources give it equal weight. The only linguistic evidence is for either "Macedonian" or "Macedo-Bulgarian" as the term to cover the language that these Slavic dialects of Greece belong to. --Taivo (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Labelling sources we don't like as "political" and "not linguistic" is convenient and can be quite tempting. However, per WP:BIASED, biases sources are not inherently disallowed and in fact can be excellent sources about the different viewpoints on a subject. Furthermore, in this particular case, the claim that those sources are not linguistic, but political is unfounded. Really, on what is this claim based, please? Sources 1-3 in the table (Crystal, Chambers & Trudgill, and Danforth) make it clear that both points of view are equally valid (or invalid, if you wish), from a strictly linguistic point of view. There's a dialect chain in the area and it is thus impossible to draw the line between B and M on the basis of linguistic criteria alone. That is why Comrie and Corbett, as well as Schmieger (among others), state that the extent of Bulgarian dialects to the southwest is controversial. Also, you seem not to have noticed that some of the sources above state that Macedonian can be considered a dialect of Bulgarian (not merely of a common Bulgaro-Macedonian language, as you present it); this of course applies equally well to the group of dialects we're discussing. It's quite clear from the above discussion that my proposal involves presenting both points of view. That's the essence of wikipedia's NPOV policy. On the other hand, you are suggesting presenting just one of the points of view, which is basically the Macedonian nationalistic POV. Tropcho (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Tropcho, there is no version of NPOV based on these sources which will include Bulgarian in the first sentence. Read the sources--they either 1) place these dialects in Macedonian or 2) place these dialects in a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language. There is no version of NPOV which gives Bulgarian equal stance with Macedonian in this case. There are political sources, but not neutral linguistic sources which do that. All the objective linguistic sources either place these dialects in Macedonian or they place them in a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language. Neutral linguistic sources do not place them in Bulgarian. You keep trying to push a Bulgarian POV that is simply not found in linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem in the first sentence adding the phrase "among linguists who separate M & B into two languages or two distinct dialect groups in a single larger language." If you notice the second sentence in my proposed paragraph below, I mention the difficulty of drawing distinct language boundaries. And you don't seem to understand what "synthesis" is in a Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia editors always have to look at the sources, weigh them, and write a summary of the facts. If you want to call that "synthesis", then you can, but that's not considered to be inappropriate synthesis in a Wikipedia sense. The facts of the matter are precisely what I have outlined--there are two groups of sources--those that separate M & B (in which case the Greek dialects are included in M in all but one case) and those that combine B & M (in which case the Greek dialects are included in the larger whole). Only one source separates B & M and places the dialects in B. With the addition of the above clause, the proposed paragraph is, indeed, accurate. --Taivo (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.