Talk:Bitola

message: Wasn't naming of the country solved already elsewhere? If not, then the name use by the people of Macedonia should be used and disputes left to article about the state. Pavel Vozenilek 18:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Country name

message: The existance of Greeks in Monastiri/Bitola is not a political game. It is a fact. Greeks of Monastiri live not because of a political dispute. They live in Monastiri as their grand grand parents for over 4.000 years. I don't think they live in Monastiri only for causing political disputes. They just exist.
:According to the latest census held in 2002, There are 95 385 people living in Bitola, 84 616 (nearly 90%) are Macedonians,followed by Albanians - 4164 (nearly 4%), Romas (2613), Turks (1160), Vlachs(1270), Serbs (541) and there are 550 citizens that declared themselves as "Other". Even if all of them are Greeks, it represents 0.5 % of the total population of Bitola, so there is no evidence that there is some significant number of Greeks living in the city today. They just don't exist:) MatriX (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Greeks in Monastiri

message: Pulvis angelus, you are mixing a town with a municipality. Bitola is the second largest town in Macedonia after Skopje and third largest municipality after Kumanovo. Lets see the data presented from the census in 1991: Then the municipality of Bitola had a population of 122,173 () and the municipality of Kumanovo had 135.529 (). But, please notice that in the table is described the ratio between the city population (69.251) and in the farmers (66.278), in other words, about a half of the Kumanovo municipality citizens lived in the villages. So, in that period Kumanovo had approximately 70 000 citizens. Also, notice that the city population on the census performed in 1994 dropped to 66.237 (you can see that in the same article). The cituation in municipality of Bitola is much different because the population that live in the villages is much smaller than the population that live in the town.  You can also check the following data from the 1994 census (click on the picture): Bitola 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure original research. No data to back Bitola being 2nd largest.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second largest city

message: *Ottoman writing: (منسطر )M-N-S-D-R in latin)drived from manas (epic). Because people of manasdır originally comes from Kyrgizistan. Old people of Manasdır were look like Kyrgyz people,also they were poetic people and some words of them used only in Kyrgizistan language.
===The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes===
see link
The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konya, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia. At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration
The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups: 
*the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek. 
*The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht. 
*The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). 
The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. 
The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were does Manastır name comes from ? Kailar was the big city of Manastır and Ana Britanica 

message: see link
The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konya, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia. At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration
The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups: 
*the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek. 
*The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht. 
*The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). 
The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. 
The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes

message: Is it the third largest?! Is it the second largest?! Who knows? If you can't agree, leave it out. - FrancisTyers · 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: In the article about them it says that they were born in the village of Avdela. Shouldn't they be removed from here or does this Notable people from Bitola mean people that have lived there? --Laveol 10:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They lived the most of their life in Bitola, so I guess that is making them a notable people from Bitola. MatriX 10:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oks, that's what I wanted to know :) --Laveol 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manaki brothers  

message: :Image:GRB201.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GRB201.jpg

message: :Image:GRB201.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GRB201.jpg

message: I believe that if pictures were put on both sides of the page, not just on the right, the article may be more pleasing to the eye.  Spencer 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Location 

message: :Image:MKD muni flag(Bitola).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MKD muni flag(Bitola).png

message: The title has Greek:Monastiri, i was wondering what sources there are that have Greek as the second most spoken langauge in Bitola? Last time i checked Roma were 3,46%, albanians at 2.36%, turks - 2.1%, Aromanians- 1,34%, Serbs - .66%, Bosnians - 0,002% and others at 0,67% or 497 people. Where are the greek speakers? PMK1 (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently they are more abundant than the Macedonian speakers in Florina. BalkanFever 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Historically important (yes, no Greeks left today at all)? Why does everyone constantly bitch about the names? Like a Slavic or Greek name is going to ruin your country's image. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just an answer to the Florina stuff. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.--Laveol T 09:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a guideline about how wiki editors shouldn't care about OTHERSTUFFHAPPENING (yeah, like the Balkaneers would follow it anyway)? I re-added it in Florina. There REALLY should be a guideline concerning names in the Balkans. Intro, not intro? Special cases if a significant minority exists? This is just tiring. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying to figure out something here - Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard.--Laveol T 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Let's just leave them out, shall we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wouldn't mind bringing it up at the new noticeboard? BalkanFever 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object if it had (). As opposed to those bizzare "local slavic dialects". PMK1 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: Nice one. They still speak 'local Hellenic' in Bitola and some of the surrounding villages, but the 'local Hellenic' speakers call it Ellinika (Greek). But so what. Politis (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Local Hellenic

message: I entered again the Greek name of the city, which IMO is necessary for obvious reasons (and it is difficult indeed for me to understand the reaction of certain users, such as Balkan Fever). Whether we like it or not, Greek history is related to this city, where the Greeks and Byzantines flourished for centuries; this is also the case for the spreading of the Greek language. After all it is the article itself which states that until 1911 the Greek element was dominant in the region. So erasing the Greek name from the lead is historical blindness!
There are also other similar examples, such as Smyrna, where, although there are very very few Greeks in the city, the Greek name is there. And how could it be different?! We speak about more than 2,000 years of Greek influence in the area. And the same stands for a series of other now-Greek or now-Turkish cities (see Alexandroupoli etc.). And don't tell me "raise the issue there, do not bother us here." Because all these examples indicate a certain practice, which should be taken into account.
After all, just make a quick serfing in google book to see how often the term "Monastir" appears. And even here in Wikipedia we have a Monastir dis article! So, are we going to pretend that all these things just do not exist?! And conceal a part of the city's history? Because that is exactly what the Greek name expresses. A part of the city's rich historical past. 
In any case, if those disagreeing with me want more third-party input, this is no problem of course. I support an open invitation to any third-party editors are interested in to express their views.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Greek name is so "non-grata" for the Slav-Macedonian users, I have no problem to put the magic word "formerly" before the Greek name, or even to write in Latin "formerly Monastir"; my intention is not to offend anybody's sensitivity, but neither to conceal a part of the city's indentity.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with offence or not believing it's a name. If I'm not mistaken you removed Lerin from the Florina lead because you didn't believe it was an alternate name. I didn't have a "reaction" to this, it's a way of avoiding problems. You very well know someone will remove the Greek at some point, and someone will remove the local Slavic (Macedonian) from Florina, and then it will have to continually be reverted, even though they are both in a "name" section anyway. BalkanFever 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You previously in an edit summary said "if you have a problem with Florina name" go there! So why now do you confuse the two issues?! Anyway, if I have to speak about the "Lerin" issue, I removed indeed the Lerin from Florina in a rushy decision, but then as 3dAlcove told me, I checked the talk page (which I should have done previously), and I read carefully the other side's arguments, which are logical. So, personally, I can understand the presence of the South Slavic name in Florina's article, and I hope that you'll all also can understand the presence of the Greek name in Bitola's article! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I do, I'm just saying it would be easier to relegate both of them to the name section, and others have agreed. But it's not a big deal. BalkanFever 13:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just spotted that. I have always agreed with what BF says. Can we agree once and for all (with a decision that actually binds all of us) that only the name in the country's official language will be on the lead paragraph and all the others should be at the name section? There was such a de facto agreement but recently this seems to have been reversed.--   Avg    21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem to agree on that if there is a consensus, although I am not 100% sure it is the correct thing to do. IMO each article should be examined separately, and if there is a basis for an additional name to be added why not. And this "de facto agreement" referred to which country? Greece-fYROM, all the Balkans, what? And with the Greece-Turkey cities we'll have a different "de facto agreement" (because the current consensus seems to be quite the opposite there)?--Yannismarou (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was referring to an overall Balkan pre-existing consensus, including Greece-Turkey articles. This also has been reversed recently. Check User:Aramgar role on that.--   Avg    16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not accurate Avg that such a consensus covered Greece-Turkey articles. You can see previous discussions and Baristarim's comments when Turkish names were removed from some Greek cities' leads. In any case, I agree with Politis' statement.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So basically what you're both saying is that you agree with examining every case separately. We have seen that in action and I'm not sure it is clear enough in the way things have to be clear in such an unproductive environment as the Balkans. In terms of previous consensus, many many times people have been reverted and never came back in Balkan city articles when someone told them that there is a consensus on not putting other names in the lead. Otherwise we could have repeated occurrences of mass-changing of the lead paragraph like what User:Carlossuarez46 is doing with his scripts in hundreds of articles. --   Avg    18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Avg, see the discussion here, where there was no consensus, and see also, as an example, Rhodes' lead. Should we exclude from Rhodes' lead the Italian and the Turkish name?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody (even then) said that not mentioning something in the lead means not mentioning it at all. Alternative names are important and it is undoubtedly encyclopaedic to include them, the issue here is only their prominence.--   Avg    11:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Consistency's not bad, of course, but I honestly don't think it matters much if names are featured in the lede or in a separate section. At least, I don't bother moving from one place to another. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Greek name is needed

message: This section needs a quick spelling/grammar clean up: "Children from differend countries such as EU,Russia,Ukrain,Serbia,Croatia,BiH and Macedonia participate on this event which is usually consisted of 18-22 songs. This festival is supported by the association of culture "ProMedia" from Bitola which organized this event under a different topic every year.The only award at this festival is for interpretation." Menrunningpast (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Si-Do 

message: :According to Adrian Room, the name Bitola is derived from the old Slavic word Obitel (monastery or abode), since the city was formerly noted for its monastery. When the meaning of the name was no longer understood, it lost its prefix "o".
Could someone take a look at the statement and reference above (link). It is unclear where Mr. Room got his information. I believe a more reliable source is probably in order. Aramgar (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavic etymology

message: *New portal for tourism in Bitola —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovep305 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 July 2009
:: Please explain notability of link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Mikemoral (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 July 2009
::: Makes sense to me, per external linking policy - ie it adds useful info about the topic that could not reasonably be incorporated into the article, and it does not appear promotional. The contact info seems to confirm that it is an official tourist info site.   Chzz  ►  05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: BalkanFever: your edit stated, "whats the point of having three variants of the same name if they're not in english? especially since they are better treated in the etymolgoy section". I might call on your services in other articles to back me up. I leave your edit as it stands. Just one point, do the Albanian Macedonians call it Manastir? Politis (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently they call it Manastiri. BalkanFever 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, Thessaloniki was formerly a Turkish city officially called "Selanik" before it became part of the Greek state. Polibiush (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Monastiri, Manastir

message: I think that Hristijan Spirovski and Nikolce Noveski should be removed from "People from Bitola". Dimitar Ilievski - Murato and Georgi Hristov are more remarkable than the other two, or at least you should add them in the main list in Bitola page, if there is no limit of how many names should be in the main list  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderwebmkd (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people from Bitola 

message: Latest revision as of 17:46, 5 January 2012 (edit) (undo)
Athenean (talk | contribs)
(edith durham is not a reliable source)
According to Athenean, Edith Durham is not a reliable source when she says that there were Orthodox Albanians living in Bitola, but strangely in the same article you can find Edith Durham, but this one seems reliable to Athenean:
 A former dragoman who witnessed the Balkan Wars noted in January 1914 that "hardly a year has elapsed since Monastir fell into Servian hands, and this very short period has been enough to turn it into a desert city."[12]
^ Durham, M.Edith. Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle, p255
I will undo the change of Athenean, because it seems that it just directed towards Albanians.
(Edvin (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some of the reasons Edith Durham is not considered a reliable source are presented in...the wikipedia article on Edith Durham, namely she is 1) not a scholar, and 2) extremely biased. Thanks for pointing out the above, I will remove it as well. Athenean (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Edith Durham is not a reliable source? 

message: The name Manastir was in use in Ottoman times. The Macedonian Alphabet is in use after 1944, i.e. it is impossible the name to was written in Macedonian during Ottoman times. Jingiby (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical writing of the name Manastir in Macedonian

message: Leasten, you Americans:
Stop converting the facts about Slavish poulation in this region, in contrary we could ask from Russia to solve the problem!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.75.118 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. Macedonia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bitola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329085722/http://www.nbrm.gov.mk/default-en.asp?ItemID=A82826138490824E874DC0F6B8BCE3DE to http://www.nbrm.gov.mk/default-en.asp?ItemID=A82826138490824E874DC0F6B8BCE3DE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104203728/http://emagazin.mk/%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8-%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D0%B0/ to http://emagazin.mk/%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8-%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D0%B0/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104193400/http://www.tera.mk/index.php/vesti/aktuel/80636-zatvoren-konzulatot-na-velika-britanija to http://www.tera.mk/index.php/vesti/aktuel/80636-zatvoren-konzulatot-na-velika-britanija
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Medieval history of the region is one of the least documented periods of its history. There are no direct or indirect sources of Clement's and Naum's activity in the area, and including them only by the virtue of Ohrid being geographically close to Bitola is not adequate. 
The medieval monasteries were mentioned twice. 
Repetitive use of the title "of Bulgaria" is clearly tendentious, as those figures are not known as "of Bulgaria" in any historiography, including the Bulgarian one (as a the matter of fact the articles on corresponding Wikipedia are never named as such, and there is no need of that whenever the article title is a unique name, especially in the case of Gavrilo Radomir). Throughout the whole article no other rulers are name "of [state]", which is right and in accordance with general and Wikipedias principles. I see no other reasons, except a suspicious non-NPOV motives for accentuating only one state when referring to medieval rulers.--strich3D (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep to the rules of Wikipedia. If you disagree with some articles' names, disuss it on the corresponding articles' talk page and gain a consensus to change it. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hello, I recently changed a segment of the Ottoman schools to specify that they had taught in the specific languages yet had my edit reverted and told that it is not an improvement. May I get an explanation for this, User:Jingiby ? Okrados (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: These schools were not Ottoman. Jingiby (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's clear in the article but can I get an explanation as to why it was reverted? Okrados (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from teaching in the respective languages, these schools were not owned by the Ottoman authorities, but by the respective ethno-religious and linguistic community officially recognized by the Ottomans as a separate ethnic entity. Jingiby (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian language schools in Ottoman Bitola