Talk:History of the Macedonian language

message: I replaced this with something I'd written as I think mine has more structure, although in a slightly more academic and less encyclopaedic style. I suspect that there are neutrality problems so have left the tag there for now. Feel free to merge in stuff from the removed into my version. - FrancisTyers 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: a) it might be more precise to write that misirkov was from Ayii Apostoli, near Salonica b) it think "On macedonian affairs" is a better translation of the title of Misirkovs book. best--Greece666 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misirkov 

message: There was no appelation 'Macedonian language' before the 1940s. The history of that language starts in the 1940s, prior to that we have reference of Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic. The way it is handled in this article, it would be like stating that old Germanic is English, or that French is Latin. (Presumably the author initiating this article is fluent in Bulgarian and Makedonski ;-). Politis 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Bulgarian" was a language group you'd be right, it isn't. Macedonian (Makedonski if you prefer) is a South Slavic language of the Eastern group. - Francis Tyers · 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted you then merged in your good edits. - Francis Tyers · 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Or Serbian, to many people the "dialects" were not dialects of Bulgarian, but dialects of Serbian. I've carefully written this article using various papers and books. In fact, in the first sentence it puts the "date of birth" of 1944. This was opposed by certain ethnic Macedonians. It is proper to speak of the various Slavic dialects of the region before this time, as these were the basis of the standard language. You will note that no-where does it describe these as the "Macedonian language" prior to the 1940s.  - Francis Tyers · 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian language

message: I don't know anything about Macedonian -- I came here because I was browsing the Good Articles page.  So you can take my suggestions with a grain of salt.  However:
I found the "Old Version," on this talk page, to be more accessible than the current version.  Is there a reason why it was shelved?  The boxed timeline of language is quite helpful, and so is the discussion of the linguistic schools.
The quote in the first paragraph by Victor Friedman is not very readable.  It might be more comprehensible if it were paraphrased.
In the Second World War section, the part where it says "the details are complicated, see footnote 19" seems inadvisable.  Maybe you can skip that part entirely and put the article from footnote 19 as recommended "Further Reading."
Finally, I'm curious about Macedonian -- I've heard that the Bulgarians consider the Macedonian language to be "actually just Bulgarian."  You address this briefly by saying that -- if I understand you correctly -- Bulgarians considered the languages of Macedonians inside their borders to be "dialects of Bulgarian."  But then I looked at the Old Church Slavonic article, since OCS was cited in this article as the first Macedonian Slavic dialect -- but that article seems to posit OCS as the predecessor language to several languages.
You don't have to answer my questions but I thought I'd just tell you how it read to me.
Katsam 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why it was shelved is that it paints a simplistic picture and is completely unsourced. I've taken your advice re: "details being complicated". OCS is cited in this article as the first standardisation of a Macedonian Slavic dialect (that is a Slavic dialect spoken in Macedonia). Thanks for your feedback. - Francis Tyers · 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some Bulgarians indeed do consider Macedonian to be "just Bulgarian", the same as some Serbs think Bosnian is "just Serbian", and some Spanish think Catalan is "just Spanish". Trudgill (1992) describes this as an "attack on language status", or "denial of autonomy, assertion of heteronomy" — he gives the Spanish/Catalan example, but the principle applies to any Ausbau minority language. - Francis Tyers · 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: As of 12/05/06, this article has not reached good article status yet. The most significant problems with the article:
* The lead section seems to be one specific factoid, not a general summary per WP:LEAD. The current lead section should be folded into the article, and a new one should be written.
* The article seems abruptly cut off. What happened to the language after WWII?
Twinxor t 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Now that the bug to which the comment refers has been fixed, I have converted the references.
Please check that I have properly de-duplicated as appropriate.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't been fixed properly, see the reference section. But I suppose it isn't that bad. - Francis Tyers · 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The following short paper gives a good overview of the artificial changes introduced in the Bulgarian dialect to make it 'Macedonian language'. Lantonov 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbisation of language

message: The Macedonian language was codified in 1944, not created, please understand the difference between the two. Maktruth (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure a past version had "codified" (maybe it was vandalised? maybe it was a different but related article altogether?). Assume good faith and/or be less paranoid. 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian language was codified in 1944 

message: I removed the following paragraphs because they do not refer to the language, but to the history of the Macedonians and Macedonia. 
Also I replaced the last section, which was again about the history of Macedonia, instead about the history of the language.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the text back to the last stable version before Macedonian Boy began making changes. Some of the changes that I have reverted were realistic, but they were too mixed with some controversial changes to find  them out. Please, lets get a consensus on the talk-page and then make them again. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: stop vandalizing! I know that you are just stalling and disrupting Macedonian articles to propagate Bulgarian propaganda. Stop adding the clarification tag and wasting my time. Honestly. Everything is explained to you in the source if you just open it. The fact that the page on Old Bulgarian redirects to Old Church Slavonic does not mean that's how it is in real life, it means that users like you have gotten their hands to it. And even if you don't consider Encyclopedia Britanica a reliable source maybe take a look at this article that was cited and a disruptive user removed? If you don't stop being disruptive, I will report you for good. DD1997DD (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyril and Methodius started to translate religious literature to Old Church Slavonic, allegedly based on the Slavic dialects spoken in the hinterland of Thessaloniki. However ca 900 AD all Slavic-inhabited lands in modern Southern Macedonia were part of Bulgarian Empire, with the border line running some 20 kilometres north of Thessaloniki. These dialects then were spoken in Bulgaria, not in Macedonia, while at that time the Byzantine province of Macedonia incorporated the region of modern Southern Thrace with capital Adrianople. OCS has also been variously called "Old Bulgarian". The term Old Bulgarian (German: Altbulgarisch) was used in numerous 19th-century authors, who noted similarities between the first literary Slavic works and the modern Bulgarian language. Moreover there was no Macedonian standard with which to compare. For similar reasons, Russian linguist Aleksandr Vostokov used the term "Slav-Bulgarian". The term is still used by some authors but nowadays normally avoided in favor of Old Church Slavonic. Both terms OCS and Old Bulgarian are equal. Some researchers do not differentiate between manuscripts of the two medieval Bulgarian schools in Ohrid and Pliska and their dialects, preferring to group them together in a "Macedo-Bulgarian" or simply "Bulgarian" recension. Others, as Horace Lunt, have changed their opinion with time. In the mid-1970s, Lunt held that the differences in the initial OCS were neither great enough nor consistent enough to grant a distinction between a 'Macedonian' recension and a 'Bulgarian' one. A decade later, however, Lunt argued in favor of such a distinction. The issue is complicated and not one-sided. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about these truths that you try to establish yourself. 3 international articles I read said Old Church Slavic was based on a Macedonian dialect and that is currently included in the article. Full stop. DD1997DD (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  DD1997DD, may you explain that text from Encyclopedia Britannica: The spread of Christianity was facilitated by the work of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who had invented an alphabet in which to write the Slavic language (known as Old Church Slavonic or Old Bulgarian?) Where is the difference? Jingiby (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article is not about the Macedonian language. I am citing an article that SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY discusses the Macedonian language on that encyclopedia, not making connections from other articles. What you are doing is skewing the facts, and giving unnecessary focus to something that is not the primary concern of this nor the article you are citing. If you check the main article you read a different story. Now please stop being disruptive and revert your last edit. DD1997DD (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No means. Check the specialists incl. academic publications by your favorites Horace Lunt and Victor Friedman. Old Bulgarian is obsolete term for OCS, but is still in use. Jingiby (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way Britannica online has a topic called Old Bulgarian language. It confirms mine POV too.Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but it says "Old Bulgarian, 9th–11th century (for those who adopt the view that Old Church Slavonic is based on Old Bulgarian". So it is a view. You can discuss that in those articles (Old Church Bulgarian or Old Church Slavonic), not in this one. DD1997DD (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have mentioned above, the issue is complicated. The initial know-how of the Saint Brothers was based on a dialects of the area around Byzantine Salonica, which itself was close to the Bulgarian border. Afterwards it was developed in Great Moravia and then in Bulgaria. However it is doubtful whether there was any sizable  linguistic differences among the dialects spoken in today Czech, Slovakia, Bulgaria and North Macedonia, and especially between the 2 literary schools in then Bulgaria (now N. Macedonia and Bul.) If any, they were symbolic.Jingiby (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a convenient date, it is generally reckoned that manuscripts written on the Balkans before 1100 are Old Church Slavonic, as opposed to the Church Slavonic afterwards. Also the Ohrid Literary School existed in the Bulgarian Empire 9-11 century, not afterwards, when the area of modern-day NM was under Byzantine rule under the name Bulgaria. By the way the content of the article Ohrid Literary School has nothing to do with the current text here.  Jingiby (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Why are you manipulating sourced content like that? Everything I wrote on Wiki can be traced back in the articles provided. Stop rewording and reinterpreting everything based on your knowledge, that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH! DD1997DD (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer is simple: Scientists' opinions often differ or are even contradicting each other. That text written by you was resembling original research and is contradicting with main articles on Wikipedia as Old Church Slavonic and Early Slavic, but even with common sense. Thus, I am in search of WP:NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not how it works. We cannot be citing "common sense" and other Wikipedia articles written by common people like us. We have to rely on what academics, scholars and experts write on the topic. I did that with three different sources to support the claim I was making. What are you even on about with this constant "that's not how it is, this is how it is because I say so" attitude? DD1997DD (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We have basic articles here. You are new, but they have been debated for 15 years and are result of long discussions to reach some NPOV. They are also sourced much better then this one. It is not possible to write a fringe thesis about a basic topic in a separeate article. As you see above, there are contradicting or unclear views even in Britannica online. Jingiby (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Church Slavonic