Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ...sometimes called Magnificent Greeks... ;-))) I like that. Bomac 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to try harder to hide your racism. You're pretty transparent.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: How do the majority of English speakers refer to it? - Francis Tyers · 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Is this , from you, supposed to be a surprise POINT attack? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sadly it is used. :( - Francis Tyers · 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Removed. - Francis Tyers · 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored.--Euthymios 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with those pages too. - Francis Tyers · 11:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The consensus is clear with Azerbaijani, the consensus is not clear here. - Francis Tyers · 11:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I prefer the "significant use" it stays. Perhaps you could find a dictionary of "Macedonian Slavic" - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, where is the censorship? We have a whole article discussing the other names! - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Eminently reasonable compromise solution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is not Wikipedia policy to exclude ideas on the basis of unpopularity.--Kékrōps 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:NPOV#Undue weight Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I highly doubt it (that there are over 100,000 speakers). - Francis Tyers · 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of "Macedonian", or of your separate "Slavic language (Greece)" of a few posts ago?--Kékrōps 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Those figures appear vastly underestimated to me. Russian-speakers alone would account for several hundred thousand.--Kékrōps 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We are all immigrants, ultimately.--Kékrōps 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't disagree there. - Francis Tyers · 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How other encyclopaedias cover this

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is code for "only linguists should be allowed to edit here". A rather hollow argument.--Kékrōps 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:OWN. Καλό διάβασμα.--Kékrōps 13:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: But then, they're doing way better than the Tajik Wikipedia: :tg:Забони юнонӣ. :) - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ζαμπόνι γιουνόνι;--Kékrōps 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking technique 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Example_of_Cite.php. - Francis Tyers · 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference Format 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I didn't see a link... - Francis Tyers · 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the link. But it is from Deutsche Welle in Macedonian. --Michkalas 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Page move etc.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: In which namespace? Wikipedia: or article? - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno. We start and we see where it goes from there. NikoSilver 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  On rogues 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples [Hey, Slavs vs Lord's Prayer] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sarajevo or Saraevo? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Institutions that teach Macedonian? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How was the "Macedonian language" invented 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Greek 

message: 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)
replies: text: We also have the word "malakia". I think it's more descriptive of the absurd situation. NikoSilver 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D - Francis Tyers · 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute