File talk:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png

Very good effort by its creator, now let us try and improve it. This map can be seen as biased since it shows two names for cities in Greece and Bulgaria, but one name for cities in FYR Macedonia. We need to reflect the Albanian and Ottoman names: we should have Skopje / Uskopje, Tetovo / Kalkandelen, etc...

• There is no officially recognised region of Macedonia linguistically speaking or, at the very least, it is hotly debated, but we do have a Slavic continuum across the region; the map should expand its reach into the Slavic speaking areas of Greek and Bulgarian Thrace, the rest of Bulgaria, southern Serbian, etc. As things stand, it could be accused of progaganda rather than a helpfull tool for wikipedia.Politis (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the choice of name was simple and pragmatic: it's topic-dependent, nothing to do with politics. The Slavic names in Greece are used in the specific context of Slavic linguistics, side by side with the generally used Greek names. The dialect is actually called "Voden dialect" in much of the relevant English-speaking specialised literature. So, in the context of this map, "Voden" is important. It's just as in the context of Greek dialectology you'd include "Constantinople" and "Smyrna". Conversely, nobody uses Albanian placenames in English in the context of a discussion of Slavic dialects.

About reaching out into the surrounding territories (or obscuring the implied boundary): I'd have no problem with doing that, only there was no material. The sources we had only covered this area, I did my best to indicate the absence of a well-defined boundary by using faded-out coloring towards the Bulgarian side. I have no data at all about what the situation to the north, towards Serbia, is like.

In sum, while I agree that improvements could be made, I'd definitely not accept the map is problematic enough that it ought to be removed until improved, as you suggest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are making up the rules as you go along to educated readers of wikipedia. Lerin, Kostur, Solun are not Slavic names they derive from Greek names. We need the names for Skopje, Tetovo, Tito Veles, Bitola, etc... and of course Blagoevgrad - I mean, why include Nevrokopi and not Blagoevgrad, or Sandanski, etc...

There is plenty of material out there to extend the map. The exchange of populations between Greece and Bulgaria extended to Florina and the Black Sea. We could just as well (and with far more historical material) call the area Bulgarian Slavic dialects.

Despite the good intentions of its creator this map is more than political, it can be included in an irredentist analysis of the region. Also, the language is referred to as Macedonian Slavic in the title but Macedonian on the map. Since it includes areas where Slav Macedonian, Bulgarian and Pomak are included (though not stated) the article should properly be called Southern Slavic Dialects. By the way, no one in this exchage has suggested deleting the map or denied the existence of a Slav Macedonian/Makedonski language and its dialects; it is recognised as such and has its place in such a map - though extended. Please correct as debated and return map for approval. Politis (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please provide evidence that "Macedonian Slavic" is currently spoken across all those areas, especially in Greece. I am only aware of Slavic dialects being spoken today in the Kastoria, Aridhea and Florina regions. If we follow the logic of this map, we could have a map showing Greek dialects and covering the entire coastline from Olympus to the Danube and inland into Plovdiv, Bitola, Strumnitsa and, according to past maps, the Greek quarter of Skopje. Politis (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. This has all been discussed ad nauseam and I'm not going to re-open that debate. I'll just quote myself from the old discussion at Talk:Dialects of the Macedonian language: This isn't about "majorities". It's a dialect map, not a demographic map. Showing some place in a certain color doesn't mean that place is inhabited by a Slavic majority; it only means that whatever Slavic dialects are there (or were there), share some distinctive structural features with those of other places shown in the same colour. How many or how few speakers are there, or indeed whether any such speakers are left at all now, is immaterial. The presence of other languages (such as the majority presence of Greek) is outside the scope of such a map. End of quote. Now, please Politis, go and get us a reliable linguistic publication that describes the relevant isoglosses in better detail or more reliably than the sources I used here; otherwise you really have no business criticising this map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exasperation is a bad councelor and prevents people from reading adequately :-) There was no mention of including other languages in this map. Please read again. Please provide evidence that those dialects are spoken across all the coloured areas, especially in Greece (not in the past, but currently). As the creator of the map, it is upon you to provide relevant material. We are not all on wikipedia 24/7. Politis (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the quoted literature, read the discussion. I'm not going to answer more at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are an administrator and apparently expect everyone to know how the wikipedia show is run. Articles need to stand on their own. I am sorry to see that you are now avoiding giving explanations. Wikipedia is a fluid entity, as a dedicated administrator I would hope for greater care on your behalf. The points made above remain and have not bee fully answered. Politis (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor, I am getting impatient and I very seriously ask you to read up on things before you throw unfound criticism around, which is clearly based on a lack of understanding of the linguistic issues. You added a tag that says the image needs additional verification. There are two reliable sources cited that contain precisely the same information as shown in the map. Will you now please remove that tag? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow editor I will look into it and get back. Wikipedia is not about understanding linguistic issues, it is not a university, but about informing. Please wait and kindly change your tone and register with me. Thanks. Politis (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to inform, one must use reliable sources. I guess these sources are unreliable. BalkanFever 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are not enough but they need to be taken into consideration - to spell it out: the-two-sources-cannot-be-dismissed, but over the years we have presented many aternatives. This article is obviously protected by its creator and administrator who not only is prone to be, at best, dismisive, but also allow another editor to co-revert with him. Where does a bona fide, wiki editor such as yours truly go from here?

How about, to the next library, to do your homework? Bring a source to explain to us what isogloss runs between Drama and Serres, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your map of the Macedonian dialects as shown is perfect BUT I was wondering why Bitola which has a dialect much more differant to the Skopje dialect than Kumanovo is to Skopje but you still show it as the Same color as the Skopje and the other northern Dialects. So if you could please fix that up. I'd like to also bring your attention to the villages around the area of Loznani, Ivanjevci, Lopatica etc which can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loznani and http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0. They are included in this same group with The central dialect but if you could do some research on the local dialects here where there is a small glossary on the Loznani page will show you if it were to be added in a dialectal group it shouldn't be with Skopje and neither with Bitola or prilep as it is probaply more closer to the Prespa regional dialect or make the Villages in the central Pelagonian plain a seperate dialect where I could give you the local dialectal words, morphology, grammar etc. If not at least Make the prilep-bitola and lerin region in a seperate color for dialect. I hope you could consider my propsal as I thank you very much for your cooperation

Yours sincerely, Kristijan Batispecela (talk)

Hi, thanks for your input. Unfortunately, I can only go by the sources I have. This map is based mostly on one from Vidoeski, as the description page says, and I had no other option than to follow it closely. I have long thought of ways of improving it – most crucially, instead of coloured areas, I'd love to do a map with boundary lines (isoglosses) that would show by what features these dialects are actually distinguished. But the data I had easily available turned out not to be sufficient for doing that. Note that the map is supposed to be mostly based on structural properties of the phonology, not on dialect vocabulary, so a mere glossary wouldn't help it much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading somewhere that Vidoeski et al. didn't have much info on the "central" dialects and that Bitola hadn't been studied much at all, so they suggested studying it to the linguist who asked about it... or something like that. I'll try to find the source again, but it might take some time. BalkanFever 22:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This map is totally false,has nothing to do with the reality. Im my self a Hellenophone Macedonian from Kozani's region and i can see my area as slavophone that never was. Also Veria,Salonica,Serres,Drama was never slavophone areas. I hope this is just a mistake and not a part of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzk842 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your answer for that map.

"You have already found the discussion page for that image, so please read it (and the other discussions referred to from there.) This has been discussed by many people, most of whom unfortunately do not grasp the topic of the map. I'll quote myself, for the 20th time, probably: "This isn't about "majorities". It's a dialect map, not a demographic map. Showing some place in a certain color doesn't mean that place is inhabited by a Slavic majority; it only means that whatever Slavic dialects are there (or were there), share some distinctive structural features with those of other places shown in the same colour. How many or how few speakers are there, or indeed whether any such speakers are left at all now, is immaterial. The presence of other languages (such as the majority presence of Greek) is outside the scope of such a map.

Please try to understand this statement before you go on debating; if you don't understand it, read it again.

The contents of this map were adapted from the best reliable sources I had available at the time. If you have better sources, please let me know."

But the note under the map writes "A map showing the various Slavic dialects as spoken in Greece."

I think it is right according to your explanation is to add this "A map showing the various Slavic dialects as spoken or was spoken in the past in Greece" to the note,so that is clear that in those places are not now speaking slavic.

Sorry for being persistent but this is my homeland we are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzk842 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which page do you mean where it has that caption? Slavic dialects of Greece? Yes, the caption was suboptimal. I've reworded it somewhat to clarify what the map is intended to show. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The contents of this map were adapted from the best reliable sources I had available at the time. If you have better sources, please let me know."

Hi there i got you some independent sources(not Greek,not from Slavs writers).

1st)The Missionary Herald from the "American board of commissioners for foreign missions" at 1836

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4463/sel1.jpg

at page 287 http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2528/sel287.jpg you can see that the writer makes clear that at Serres area there were only Greeks and Turks not a mention of Slavs,so i believe that a change must be made to that area of the map..

Here is the link to that book

http://books.google.com/books?id=wnYUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA287&dq=serres+greeks&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES&hl=el#PPA287,M1

2nd)Travels in Northern Greece by William Martin Leake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Martin_Leake) at 1835 http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4463/sel1.jpg

At page 284 he make clear that no Bulgarians(at that time most of travelers that write travel books call "slavo-Macedonians" as Bulgarians) obtained possession southward of Vodhena(Edessa). So that map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_dialects_of_Greece has an inaccuracy at this place.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4883/sel284.jpg

The link

http://books.google.com/books?id=HdwGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA332&dq=filurina&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=qIL5ScOoE6G2zQToxNn5Cg&hl=el#PPA284,M1

At page 298 he describes some Turkish villages at now days Eordaia area.Djuma,Sarighiol and Budja.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/593/298.jpg

The link

http://books.google.com/books?id=HdwGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA332&dq=filurina&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=qIL5ScOoE6G2zQToxNn5Cg&hl=el#PPA298,M1

Here is the map that i write which villages are now.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6307/70851153.gif

As you can see this place is colored as slavophone area in the map,which is also an inaccuracy.

The books link

I believe that those sources are independent and close enough to truth.

Also,i saw the change(i appreciate your direct act about it)to the maps note (Dialect boundaries among the Macedonian Slavic dialects.) and i believe that this note dont make clear to a foreign reader of the page that at some of those areas were only in the past speaking Slavic dialects and that not anymore.

Thank you for your patient. kzk842 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzk842 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not comprehending what the map's scope is and what it isn't. BTW, here is another good map (after a source which may well be better in some respects than what I had). It shows the whole thing under a "Bulgarian" perspective, and it also shows a different selection of isoglosses, but that difference isn't the point here. You'll notice that the southern border of the area shown is pretty much identical to what we have here, with the exception of a minor gap north of Kozani. Those are the areas for which Slavic local dialects are attested, and that's all that counts. The number of speakers, then or now, is immaterial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You are still not comprehending what the map's scope is and what it isn't. BTW, here is another good map (after a source which may well be better in some respects than what I had). It shows the whole thing under a "Bulgarian" perspective, and it also shows a different selection of isoglosses, but that difference isn't the point here. You'll notice that the southern border of the area shown is pretty much identical to what we have here, with the exception of a minor gap north of Kozani. Those are the areas for which Slavic local dialects are attested, and that's all that counts. The number of speakers, then or now, is immaterial"

Attested by whom my friend? I show you independent sources that makes clear that in specific places were living Turks and Greeks only,not even mentioning slavic talking populations. For example the map shows the whole plain of Alexandria in Emathia as slavophones,the Turks called that whole plain area Rumluk that means Ellinotopos = Greeks-area.There was never slavophone villages or towns over there never. Another example is my area at Kozanis territory,north of Kozani town were before 1912 Turkish towns and villages(as i show you in the book),after 1912 the Turks left with the population exchange and Greeks from Asia Minor and Pontus came,so the citizens of that area never talked slavic but in the map i can see the whole area as slavophone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzk842 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now there are no slavophones north of Kozani, but the very name of KOZANI is typically SLAVIC; regards; 96.49.73.51 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go on ranting my friend, I'm bored. End of discussion. By the way, please learn to sign your posts. Place four tilde characters (~~~~) behind each talk page post, and a miracle will happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have to agree with kzk842, like your map of epirus (see my comment) this is also -even more- inaccurate (but disadvantaging greek speakers this time), continuous (im not mentioning serres because greek speech wasnt continuous but surrounded by slavic and turkish speakers) greek speaking areas in say Beroia, Kastoria or turkish speaking ones in Kozani are shown as being slavic speaking even in parts where there were NO slavic speakers and where other languages were TRADITIONALLY spoken...this map doesnt even seem to agree with the bulgarian Kanchov who was as maximalist as you could get87.202.12.122 (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no region that has the name "Greek Macedonia". The name of the province in Greece is simply "Macedonia". You might have whatever opinion you like for your own people and language, but nobody gave you the right to name any Greek regions. Therefore, you should put the name Macedonia in there. Furthermore you should apply the names of the other regions of Greece as well, as long as they appear on the map. These are Thrace, Epirus and Thessaly.

Secondly, you should "lift" the word "Greece" in such a way that some of its' letters must cover at least a portion of those dialects (that happen to be applicable on Greek soil).

Failure to correspond to the above claims shall result to a deletion of the image on grounds of irredentism, because your map is about linguistics, not about making a distinction between "Greece" and "Greek Macedonia", as if the latter is outside of the former, or should be outside of the former. There is no other resonable explanation for having only one province of Greece mentioned in the map, and Greece itself being named outside of that coloured area.

When you'll finish with these Greek issues, you should do the same with the word Bulgaria. You shall stretch it in a way that it shall contain those areas that you highlight, within the Bulgarian territory. Then you should also add the Bulgarian regions' names as you did with the Greek ones.

When you shall finish with the Bulgarian issues, you should do the same with the word Albania. You shall stretch it in a way that it shall contain those areas that you highlight, within the Albanian territory. Then you should also add the Albanian regions' names as you did with the Bulgarian ones.

Then you should add the Serbian regions' names too. Since Kossovo is small, largely unrecognized, and has no sizeable subdivisions, you can leave it alone.

This way you shall have treated all in an equal manner. Good luck!

Houhoulis Petros, December 1 2010

Sikader (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]