Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bulgarian language

May I ask if it is ok to include Bulgarian language on the infobox? Im not expert in languages, but a map [1] made by Future Perfect depicts the Bulgarian language as being spoken in some of the easternmost parts of Macedonia, near the Bulgarian border. I am not sure if these Bulgarian communities are still alive today or are part of a diaspora, but since this is the article about Slavophones of Macedonia and since the Macedonian isn't the sole South Slavic language spoken in that area, couldnt this be reflected on Infobox too? --SILENTRESIDENT 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect's map is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's definition. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of linguistic sources that discuss the Slavic language of Greek Macedonia unequivocally call that language "Macedonian". They don't say "some speak Macedonian and some speak Bulgarian", but say "they speak Macedonian dialects". That's what the vast majority of reliable sources assert. The other thing to note about Future Perfect's map is that the Bulgarian sliver in the east is not a population that is associated with or included in the definition of "Greek Macedonian". That sliver is the Pomak community, a Muslim community with a different culture and history from the topic of this article, which is the Slavic-speaking population of the Greek provinces of West and Central Macedonia. The Pomaks live in East Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. Ok, thanks.--SILENTRESIDENT 10:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Further to Taivo's comment above: The Pomaks are not in Macedonia at all, only in Thrace. Since they were Muslims, the (few) Pomaks that may have lived in East Macedonia were sent to Turkey in the population exchange, while the Pomaks of Thrace were exempted. On the FutPerf map there is, however, marked a Slavic population in the Serres/Drama area on the border between Central and East Macedonia; the source for this being Euromosaic. I do not know if there still are any left, but If there are, they will also be a part of the dialect continuum that is usually called Macedonian and that is also present in the SW part of Bulgaria called Pirin Macedonia (but you may have to search hard to find Bulgarians admitting that). --T*U (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the reason of addition was the violet color in the area of Serres, (the violet indicates a mixture of Ethnic Macedonian pink and Bulgarian purple), hinting that both Bulgarian and Ethnic Macedonian Slavophones living in the Serres region. Other than that, there is no reason to add Bulgarian to the list. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, it depends on the political background of the researcher how to call the language. Concerning these regions, linguistically it is considered more accurate to refer to an Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum and not to Macedonian, Bulgarian or Slavo-Macedonian. The Slavic-speakers of these regions refer to their language as Macedonian or Bulgarian when they speak in Greek. Jingiby (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It will probably be hard to find any Slavic-speakers at all in the Serres-Drama area of Greece today. And if the Slavic-speakers further west refer to their languager in Greek at all, perhaps some thousands will say Macedonian. But most of them will probably say they speak "ντοπιός", meaning local or native. --T*U (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum"? Is there really such a term? Pardon me for my ignorance but sounds more like OR to me than actual scientific term. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a fairly accurate linguistic description, but of course not a name to call them. In any case, whatever we call it, the important thing is to avoid the implication that these groups speak two different languages. From the perspective of the minority in Greece, it's a single language; only it's historically been described in relation to either of the two adjacent standard languages, and structurally its's located somewhere at different points along the continuum between them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, what you said now, raises another question: Having the Ethnic Macedonian language solely mentioned on the Lead and infobox, isn't an implication that the Bulgarian was not, historically or contemporary, one of the possible two relations to the Slavophones' language? Unless this article is supposed to be only about modern-day Slavophone community in Greece, (modern = after the rise of the Ethnic Macedonian national consciousness in 1900s-1940s), while it is known that the Slavophones were in this region for centuries. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then Future, will be correct to add Bulgarian again there, or it will be a biased action. Jingiby (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh not again, Jingiby with bias and such. We are just discussing something here in a civilized manner, I think you should not be quick to justify other editor's actions before you hear them. This article has seen enough troubles in the past, if something is not added to the article, there may be a good reason for this. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect has pointed out, quite correctly, that there are not two languages spoken here, only one. The question is not whether they speak one language or two, but only what to label the single language that they do speak. They don't speak either Standard Macedonian or Standard Bulgarian. They speak a dialect that is between the two. The question isn't what is "fair" politically, the question is which of the two standards do the speakers of Greek Macedonia gravitate to? Which are they linguistically closer to? The vast majority of NPOV linguistic references place these speakers closer to Standard Macedonian than to Standard Bulgarian linguistically. It's not even a close count. Some sources mention that these dialects, while included in Macedonian, are intermediate between Standard Macedonian and Standard Bulgarian, but most place them in the orbit of Macedonian without comment. Thus, to include "Bulgarian" as a label here is actually OR, being unsupported by the linguistic literature. (I provided an extensive list in a discussion from 2015 in one of the recent archives of this Talk page.) Placing two language labels in the infobox also implies that there are two Slavic languages spoken in Greek Macedonia. This is false. The text of the article already mentions the dialect situation as I recall. --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The yat (*ě) split in the Bulgarian language.

Taivo, that is a linguistic paradox. The main isogloss separating the Bulgarian dialects into Eastern and Western is the yat border, marking the different mutations of the Old Curch Slavonic. Standard Bulgarian is based on the Eastern dialects, while standard Macedonian is based on the dialects located west from this isogloss. However, the whole area of Eastern Macedonia in Greece, that is located south of Bulgaria proper, falls east from the yat border. I.e. those Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialects, are much closer to standard Bulgarian and can not be clasified as Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. According to Anastasia Karakasidou the first standartized Bulgarian script was created during 1850s by the American missionary Elias Riggs, based on the same dialects of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace in modern Greece. (Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990, University of Chicago Press, 2009, p. 83.) Jingiby (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear TaivoLinguist, TU-nor, Future Perfect at Sunrise it makes sense now. Thank you very much for your quick responses. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jingiby, I am not sure if I understand, I am not a linguist expect, I am sorry if I can't comment you on this.

Edit: if by that you mean that the Slavic speakers in the eastern parts of Greece, including East Macedonia prefecture, speak a language/dialect more closely to the Bulgarian even though they consider their spoken language to be related to that of Ethnic Macedonian, then, if none else here on talk objects to this information, it should be mentioned. But I am generally uneducated on Slavic languages, besides my ability to read and understand little text in Ethnic Macedonian. so don't count on me on that. You better seek consensus with the others here. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jingiby is engaging in original research in his analysis. It doesn't matter what he/she thinks is the case or his interpretation of a single linguistic isogloss. What matters is what the linguistic community in general says in reliable sources. The vast majority of NPOV linguistic sources place the dialect of Greek Macedonia within the compass of the Macedonian dialects and not the Bulgarian dialects. Remember, there is only one Slavic language spoken by this group of people in Greece. And linguists to an overwhelming degree include that language variety in Macedonian and not in Bulgarian. Remember also that the article covers the complexities of this dialect continuum already in both the "Ethnic and linguistic affiliations" section and the "Education and language" sections. No further clarification is necessary. --Taivo (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the map Jingiby has posted is not a map dividing Macedonian from Bulgarian languages. It is simply a map that says "East of this line X vowel is pronounced Y and west of it, X vowel is pronounced Z." That's all it indicates. --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jingiby is clearly also simplifying the dialect situation. The isoglosses are much more complex, as, for example, described in Roland Sussex and Paul Cubberley, The Slavic Languages (Cambridge, 2006) on pages 507-514. It is also clear that Jingiby has a very simplistic view of the nature of linguistic isoglosses, not realizing that isoglosses can cross language borders so that the same isogloss can divide dialects in two different languages. An example of this is the change of nC clusters to CC clusters that separates the Southern Ute dialect from Southern Paiute in the Colorado River Numic language as well as the Comanche language from the eastern Shoshoni dialect in the Central Numic group. One isogloss in two different dialect chains. His carefully described "gotcha" is nothing of the kind. --Taivo (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with defining the boundaries between Slavic languages in the Balkans is typically the involved politics, as language boundaries are defined by the national identities of their speakers rather than their actual characteristics. We have "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian" and now recently "Montenegrin", even though a purely linguistically based division would either lump them all together as one language, or (maybe) have "North Croatian" (i.e. Kajkavian), "West Croatian" (i.e. Chakavian) and "Everything else in Serbosnicroatmontenegrin except maybe Torlakian but that's controversial". See also the controversy about the "Moldovan" language, or, outside the Balkans, the (somewhat similar, not completely) issues with Galician and Portuguese or Catalan and Valencian. If you ask the speakers, no matter what the characteristics of their speech are, they'll say the speak the language matching their nationality. It's a similar story with Macedonian and Bulgarian overall, though less extreme-- originally they were considered one Slavic language, and they are still considered part of a dialect continuum. It's dubious that there's any clear isogloss that will separate "Bulgarian" from "Macedonian" as it will inevitably fail to align to the national identities of its speakers which have more to do with national borders and resulting public education regimes. Unfortunately, some linguists have also been recruited into "pro-Macedonian" and "pro-Bulgarian" camps, which have the cynical dichotomy between "all identities are fake so who cares" and "all identities are fake but some are more fake than others", a debate which seems suspiciously non-linguistic. (Western) Linguists tend to have tendencies (a) to support the claims of small and historically marginalized peoples and (b) to oppose "nationalism" (they tend to lean left politically) but in this case the two tendencies cause divergence. There's really no undisputed way to talk about it at all. The question of what standard the speakers "gravitate to" also seems a bit weird to me as, aside from political issues, a lot of them only write in Greek to begin with, so it's a moot question to ask which unfamiliar script they prefer. The most "neutral" way imo to talk about it might just be to refer to both as "Slavic" dialects (which will make neither Bulgarians nor Macedonians happy), or I guess to refer to the Pomak areas (they aren't in Macedonia, but in Thrace) as "Bulgarian" because it would be bizarre to separate them from the closely related Pomak dialects across the Greek-Bulgarian border, while the other ones are "Macedonian". But a "compromise POV" remains a POV. --Yalens (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent comment, User:Yalens. We are left with a couple of logical options. The overwhelming number of linguistic sources call the Greek Slavic dialect (not including Pomak, which is not the subject of this article) "Macedonian". That is supported by the vast majority of reliable sources. The other option is to use the Ethnologue strategy, which is to label the language "Macedonian" in Macedonia, Albania, and Bulgaria, but label it "Slavic" in Greece ([2]). This is not a satisfactory substitute since we still must link the term "Slavic" in the article to Macedonian language, since that's where our reliable sources must lead us. In the end, we are left with "Macedonian" as the label for the single Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia. What is not an option is arbitrarily using the label "Bulgarian" for any part of the single Slavic language of Greek Macedonia since that implies that there is more than one Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia and is unsupported by the overwhelming majority of reliable linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly more neutral and convenient alternative to sidestep controversy: link to East South Slavic, which includes only Bulgarian and Macedonian. --Yalens (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Yalens. Why not. --SILENTRESIDENT 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not supported by the majority of reliable sources. Facts are pesky things and the dialect of Macedonian Greece is unequivocally linked to Macedonian in the linguistic literature. It is also confusing to our readers since a reader who wants to know details about the Slavic language of Greek Macedonia isn't going to find anything at the South Slavic link. Our reader will be left stranded at a place without any guidance on where to proceed. Wikipedia must maintain its reader-friendliness and not strand them unnecessarily when the scientific literature provides a ready remedy. This article already provides a description of the complexity, but clearly comes down on the side of "Macedonian" since that's where the science leads. To then not link our reader to Macedonian language is inappropriate. If some editor ever writes a proper NPOV article exclusively about the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum, that would be an appropriate link. But to link our reader to the middle of nowhere in an outline of Slavic languages is a cruel joke. Indeed, our article clearly calls this language "Macedonian" with quotes from scientific authorities to back that up in the sections cited above. --Taivo (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As I believe you agreed with earlier, the name of whatever that language the Slavs of (Greek) Macedonia speak is not a scientific issue, but rather a political issue. The linguists themselves have no consensus. And the ethnologue link that you yourself left here notes that the language is simply called "Slavic" in areas of Greece it is spoken (I would add that there are other names for it that are used which are not "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian", but whatever). I don't think it's a cruel joke to send the reader to a page where they are immediately presented with links to both Bulgarian and Macedonian, as well as other closely related dialects (Gorani, Torlak, more distantly Shtokavian, etc etc etc). The linked section also immediately discusses details of the language spoken, details about characteristics that happen to be common to both Bulgarian and Macedonian and whatever Slavic they speak in Northern Greece should be called. It seems the most NPOV thing to do, imo. --Yalens (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yalens, a question. Still, there is no scientific name for that language in Northern Greece. If an article is supposedly to be created (with links leading to both Macedonian and Bulgarian), then how could that artice be called? --SILENTRESIDENT 08:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For the wider language, I'd call it "Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum". If we'd be doing a page on the dialects present in Greece, as I understand it they're a pretty motley group in terms of features. I'm not actually a topical expert on Bulgarian or Macedonian or the Slavic dialects of Greece though. Perhaps "Slavic dialects of (Northern) Greece", with a nice small history section talking about the early medieval Slavic invasions of Greece, some discussion about the name controversy, modern status of the language and whatnot. I'd still be theoretically willing to contribute where it would be helpful to it if desired, though I'm pretty, uh, busy (:() at the moment. I did have some source way back that discussed the (former) presence of Slavic speakers in Epirus and their ultimate Hellenization over the course of the Middle Ages, although the topic was not so much Slavs as it was Epirus' historic demographics. Of course, the page would be likely be a magnet for POV warring for a time as a number of Macedonian (I'm referring to the country with the capital of Skopje, not the Greek region) editors would not be very happy about it I suspect, but with time it could ultimately become a good article along the lines of Serbo-Croatian. --Yalens (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Yalens, why is this Macedonian language in Greece called "Slavic" in Greece (it is not called "Slavic" by linguists, who call it "Macedonian")? Perhaps it's because the Greeks think they own the copyright for the word "Macedonia(n)" and refuse to allow it to be associated with anything whatsoever Slavic. The language is not called "Slavic" in Greece for any linguistic reason, but for purely political ones. Ethnologue calls it "Slavic" because they usually follow somewhat political naming practices when such exist. Again, you fail to recognize the simple fact that the vast majority of NPOV sources call the language of Greek Macedonia "Macedonian" and link it more intimately with the language of Macedonia than with the language of Bulgaria. And your assertion that the reader will be just fine being dumped in the middle of an outline rather than at a language article is rather naive. User:SilentResident, despite the fact that Yalens did not directly answer your question, there is already a scientific name for the language spoken in Greek Macedonia. The scientific consensus is to call that language "Macedonian". Despite what Yalens wrote, there is, indeed, a scientific consensus among neutral scientists (that is, those outside the Macedonia-Bulgaria-Greece microworld). Once an article specifically on the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum exists, then I will potentially have no objection to a link from here to there (based on the actual final nature of that article, of course). But in the absence of anything useful to our readers, then this article needs to follow the scientific consensus and direct the reader to Macedonian language and not to the middle of an unhelpful outline in the middle of another article. --Taivo (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Taivo, I think you're being a bit unfair here. As SilentResident has already said, that's not a fair depiction of the Greek position at all, and while Greeks are indeed very proud and occasionally defensive about their ancient heritage, much of Greek opposition to use of the term Macedonia by its northern neighbor has nothing to do with that and instead has to do with perceived threats of irredentism in the region, which has in the past been significant. It's for similar reasons that Greece insists on calling the Turkophone Muslims of Thrace "Greek Muslims" (rather than Turks). Disclaimer, I am by no means some sort of Greek ultranationalist as I'm sure many users here can attest. As for this consensus, I'd actually be curious to see what a thorough survey of the literature would produce in terms of how the numbers align. As far as I recall at the moment, it was first called "Bulgarian" or "Slavic", then it became "Slavic" under Greece with some still calling it Bulgarian and then post Tito and especially post-1990s the Macedonian language naming dispute took over the scene. As I have linked before: while there are numerous non-Macedonian linguists who essentially back the Macedonian POV, there are also those who have come to affiliate with the Greek and/or Bulgarian POVs, and this is already extensively discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, while Ethnologue accepts the name "Slavic". The issue is too deeply tied to politics, and there is no consensus even among Western scholarship. Yes there may be a "majority" (as I said, I don't know the numbers) of Western linguists in the 1990s or 2000s who endorsed the Macedonian position, but majority does not equal consensus as there are plenty of dissidents. I don't see calling it Slavic as necessarily pro-Greek-- the extreme Greek position, if there is one, would be to claim it's "Greek Slavic", some inherently Greek Slavic language, as separate from both Macedonian and Bulgarian, as Greece has had irredentist issues with both in the past. That's not what I'm advocating; we have to avoid that and also the Bulgarian POV (it's all Bulgarian) and the Macedonian POV (it's all Macedonian except in Sofia and east of it, including in Pirin). --Yalens (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Slavic dialects spoken in Greek Macedonia are considered part of the Macedonian language in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and part of the Bulgarian language in Bulgaria. The recently released map of the Bulgarian dialects by the Institute for Bulgarian Language of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences can be found here. The Slavic population of Greek Macedonia, that speaks Slavic, speak different dialects based on their geographical location, so basically they do not speak language, but dialects. THey never studied neither literary Macedonian, neither literary Bulgarian (excluding some older people which studied in Bulgarian schools during the World War II 1941-1944). They use a lot of words, that do not exist in the present Macedonian language, but are used in the present Bulgarian language and the reason can be seen in the map above. I think that if among the languages spoken, there is the Macedonian language (appeared as a separate language for the first time in 1945), there should be added the Bulgarian language as well. --StanProg (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Academy, in the map you cited, considers all forms of Macedonian as part of Bulgarian, not just the ones in Greece, a view that is isolated outside Bulgaria and which we rightly treat as marginal in our coverage here, so for the question of where to draw the line between Bulgarian and Macedonian in Greece it is worthless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, you said: "Perhaps it's because the Greeks think they own the copyright for the word "Macedonia(n)" and refuse to allow it to be associated with anything whatsoever Slavic. The language is not called "Slavic" in Greece for any linguistic reason, but for purely political ones.". Actually allow me to disagree with you on this. The Greeks do not think they have the copyright on that term, and certainly it is wrong to accuse them that they are refusing the association of that term with anything whatsover Slavic.

The Greeks are using the term "Slav Macedonian Language" when referring to the South Slavic language spoken by the Ethnic Macedonians, and they are using the term "Slav Macedonians" when referring to their Ethnic Macedonian neighbors who belong to the South Slavic group of people that usually associate themselves with the present-day Republic of Macedonia. A proof for that is me. A proof for that is the Greek public. A proof for that is the Greek Wikipedia: [3] (Σλαβομακεδονική γλώσσα, Slav Macedonian Language).

Perhaps, when you were saying "Greeks" you meant just a small nationalist fraction within the Greek political spectrum, the far-right if we may call it, which opposes anything Macedonian for the Slavs, but the way you have described it now, it gives the impression you meant that for every and all Greeks. Which is unfortunate and ignores why this is happening. The reason the Greeks are asking for geographical/ethnic qualifiers for other languages that share the same name as the Ancient Macedonian language and the Macedonian dialect, is foremost semiological. These two Greek languages, chronologically pre-existing of the South Slavic Macedonian Language, and certainly, you can see the confusion the new language's chosen name generates even without my help: we have 3 languages/dialects sharing the same name, and yet, are very different from each other, with the two first belonging to the Hellenic group and the last one belonging to very different South Slavic group of languages. No wonder. At least I felt the necessity to clear this to you because I am a Greek and your comment does not reflect me.

But I don't criticize you for your comment, just I am emphasizing, now that the cloud of nationalist hype of 1990s has somehow settled in the region and the positions of both sides on the Macedonia dispute became crystal clear, it could be wrong to characterize the one size by the positions only held by a minority and not the majority. The majority of Greeks do not want copyright of the name, nor act as such, but also they do not want the other side to have the copyright - to put it in simple words, the Greeks just want a compromise where no side has the copyright/monopoly on the name. --SILENTRESIDENT 16:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, these are not "forms of Macedonian". The Macedonian language exists since 1945, when it was standartized, based on the south-western Bulgarian dialects. Officialy, since the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 up untill 1913 the literary Bulgarian language was taught in all Slavic schools in Greek Macedonia. The biggest Slavic high school was the Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki (1880 - 1913), where the teaching was in Bulgarian. There was a Serres high shool as well (1895 - 1913). In Greek Macedonia in (1912 - 1913) there are about 340 active Bulgarian schools, teaching in literary Bulgarian language. The Bulgarian schools in Greek Macedonia are active in (1915 - 1918) and (1941/43 - 1944) as well. How come after all these years of acting Bulgarian schools, the Bulgarian language dissapeared in Greek Macedonia and on it's place appeared a language established in 1945, without any influence on the territory of Greek Macedonia from 1945 to present days? Macedonian language was never teached in Greek Macedonia. Regarding of if it's Macedonian language or Bulgarian: The Slavic population in Greek Macedonia does not speak neither literary Macedonian language, neither literary Bulgarian - they speak several dialects, some of them closer to the literary Macedonian, some of the closer to the literary Bulgarian. That's why I think that we should either add Bulgarian language in the box, or remove Macedonian and specify that they speak local slavic dialects. In the current state we're just forcing the point of view of the Republic of Macedonia, a view that is isolated outside the Republic of Macedonia - after all that's why the article is called "Slavic speakers", which is neutral and relatively correct. --StanProg (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear StanProg actually, this was the reason I added the Bulgarian to the article, but the issue appears to be much more sensitive or complicated than I originally thought. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident, I thought I had written "Greece" not "Greeks", but apparently my memory failed me. My apologies for lumping all Greeks into the actions of the Greek government. StanProg you don't seem to understand basic linguistics. The Macedonian language did not "come to exist" in 1945. It was recognized in 1945 for what it had developed into over the past centuries--a separate linguistic system from Bulgarian. And the great majority of neutral linguists around the world recognized the Slavic dialect of Greek Macedonia as being a part of the Macedonian system and not part of the Bulgarian system. Even the most generous accounting of Greek Macedonian dialects only includes a tiny sliver of the speech community as possibly being part of the Bulgarian system and not the Macedonian one. Indeed, as others have pointed out here, even that sliver may no longer exist in Greece. We have to be very careful about pushing POVs in the Balkans. Earlier on this same page, I opposed an anti-Greek POV which was pushing a particular Macedonian narrative. Here we have a Bulgarian POV pushing a narrative that is in contrast to the considered scientific view of the majority of the linguistic community. And as I stated above, there is only one Slavic language spoken in Greece, not two. Linguists include that language as part of Macedonian. To include "Bulgarian" in the infobox is misleading, implying that there are two Slavic languages spoken in Greek Macedonia and contradicting the majority opinion of the scientific community. --Taivo (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can show me enough sources that there is some wide ranging consensus among linguists not from the language that every Slavic dialect of Greek Macedonia is part of a Macedonian language that includes the language of Vardar Macedonia and is separate from the Bulgarian language (and, for good measure, also Serbian/Torlakian), then I will vastly fix my position. At the moment, I do not see this consensus. Instead I see a struggle between a Macedonian POV and a Bulgarian POV-- which Wiki should not take sides in. When and if Macedonian exists as a separate language is disputed in the first place and there are indeed Western linguists that refuse the idea, then a subset of the argument is, if Macedonian is separate, which do the relevant dialects of Greece belong to (but see also the issue of the Balkan Gorani language in Kosovo, where they are claimed by four Slavic nationalisms plus one more but some of them view themselves as separate from all of them), so its a POV war within a POV war and its messy as crap and honestly I want neither myself nor the page to have anything to do with it.--Yalens (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Such a pure demonstration of a Bulgarian POV has rarely been expressed in my experience. You have, in essence, said that there is no language here but Bulgarian and have proclaimed some sort of natural right to claim so. Tonight I will put together two lists from the scientific literature for you: 1) those linguistic sources that separate Macedonian and Bulgarian, which you apparently need to see; and 2) those linguistic sources that include the dialects of Greek Macedonia with Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Taivo: That is absolutely not what I said and seems vaguely like a personal attack ("such a pure demonstration of a Bulgarian POV"), but I'll just assume you didn't mean any offense. In fact I explicitly said that claiming that it's all Bulgarian from Kastoria to Dobrudja is something we absolutely must avoid for NPOV policy. I understand if you didn't actually read what I wrote, sometimes I myself get a bit hasty in replying, but I know it's better not to. Anyhow, I look forward to seeing it. --Yalens (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist If you read the first grammer of the Macedonian language by Krume Kepeski (1946), you will see that this is not just recognition, but taking a specific dialect (the Central dialect of the western Macedonian dialects according them), and making it Standard/Literary language with detailed explanation how the words should be pronounced since then and how the sentences will be build including the stresses/accents. The alphabet was accepted on 3 January 1945 and the syntax on 7 June 1945. In the first grammer (1946), the Thesaloniki is not even mentioned as well as Ser & Drama. This claim appeared among the Macedonian linguests years after that. The Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect which is the dialect spoken by the Slavic population of Eastern Macedonia have no significant differences from the standard Bulgarian language. In the first grammer of the Macedonian language they define Western Macedonian dialects (Veles, Prilep, Kichevo & Bitola, plus Debar & Galiche), Southwestern (Kostur-Lerin), Southeastern (Gevgeli, Dojran & Strumica), Eastern (Shtip) and Northern (Kumanovo-Kratovo) and note "Kukush-voden" dialect as a separate dialect. Note that their Southeastern dialects cover only Vardar Macedonia and they have specified additional "Kukush-voden" dialect. Basically in their first grammer after they accepted their first alphabet and grammer, they pointed as Macedonian only the dialects within Vardar Macedonia. Later the Macedonian linguists spread their claims as far as Eastern Maedonia (Greece). And here's one example of Ser-Drama dialect (in Cyrillic) compared to literary Bulgarian & Macedonian:

• Пет къщи ф селуту са на пясък край берегъ. Ни една няма да куповам ф това време. (Ser-Drama dialect)
• Пет къщи в селото са на пясък край брега. Нито една няма да купувам в това време. (standard Bulgarian)
• Пет куќи во селото се на песок крај брегот. Ниту една нема да купувам во тоа време. (standard Macedonian)

You can clearly see how close the dialect is with the standard Bulgarian & Macedonian. Even the word "houses" (къщи/kashti) is the same in Bulgarian, and different in Macedonian (куќи/kuki). How can we say that this dialect that covers one third of Greek Macedonia is dialect of the Macedonian language but is not dialect of the Bulgarian language? --StanProg (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your continued use of "Vardar Macedonia" makes a clear and unambiguous statement about your POV. --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Vardar Macedonia" is name of a geographical region, just like Greek Macedonia. As a lingust, can you please analyze the example above and let us know according to you, part of what language is the "Ser-Drama dialect"? Am I wrong to consider POV pushing these dialects to be called exclusively Macedonian, when we can see with our own eyes the differences? --StanProg (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Vardar Macedonia" is also used by Macedonian nationalists (as opposed to other "truly Macedonian" regions, see Greater Macedonia), so its hard to see how its use alone could possibly reflect some Bulgarian nationalist bias. I think it would be a lot more productive if people would stop accusing others of having POVs rather than simply having a discussion. --Yalens (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

StanProg "Using your own eyes" is called original research and simply means that it counts for absolutely nothing in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yalens, here is the list of sources that I promised you. This is by no means a complete listing, it's just the books that I have on my shelf and could examine print on paper. But since not a single source lists the presence of Bulgarian speakers in Greece (ignoring the Pomaks, of course), the sample is fairly indicative of the linguistic literature as a whole. Also note that none of these sources were written by either Bulgarians or Macedonians.

Linguistic works that unambiguously treat Macedonian and Bulgarian as separate languages:

• Comrie, Bernard. 1992. Slavic Languages. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, New York, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
• Matthews, P.H. 2007. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. 2nd ed. (Oxford Paperback Reference). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ruhlen, Merritt. 1991. A Guide to the World’s Languages. Vol. 1: Classification. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2012. Languages of the World: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lyovin, Anatole V. 1997. An Introduction to the Languages of the World. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fortson IV, Benjamin W. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2nd ed. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Linguistic works that also specifically place the dialects of Greek Macedonia in Macedonian and not Bulgarian:

• Dalby, David. 1999. The Linguasphere Register of the World’s Languages and Speech Communities. 2 vols. Hebron, Wales: Observatoire Linguistique / Linguasphere Observatory / Bhasha Vishwa & Linguasphere Press / Gwasg y Byd Iaith.
• Voegelin, C.F. & F.M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World’s Languages. New York, Oxford, and Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Comrie, Bernard. 1990. Slavonic Languages. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages, 322–328. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Andersen, Henning. 1998. Slavic. In Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages, 415–453. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London and New York: Routledge.
• Friedman, Victor A. 1993. Macedonian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 249-305. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London and New York: Routledge.
• Sussex, Roland & Paul Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic Languages. (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2007. Western Europe. In R.E. Asher & Christopher Moseley (eds.), Atlas of the World's Languages, 257-274. 2nd ed. London & New York: Routledge.

It simply doesn't matter what original research you want to use to illustrate what you think about the linguistic affiliation of the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia. What matters is what NPOV linguists say about the matter. --Taivo (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, Macedonian is separate language from Bulgarian since 1945, so no need to proof for that. Regarding the second part of the sources, Victor Friedman in not neutral, since he's member of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. It will be good if you put a small quotes from the rest of the sources regarding the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia, the areas where Macedonian language is spoken and the areas where the Bulgarian language is spoken. It will also help the discussion if we know based on what sources these linguists wrote their analysis of the languages spoken in Greek Macedonia, like what sources do they provide as a footnotes. --StanProg (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

StanProg, I'm not writing an academic paper here. I've simply demonstrated that out of a fairly random selection of reliable sources from non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian scholarly sources, those sources that mention the dialects of Greece or mark them on maps uniformly place them with the linguistic node they label "Macedonian" and not with the one they label "Bulgarian". Unless you do the work to discredit them, then Wikipedia considers them to be reliable scholarly works on their face. You look them up in your library and examine them yourself. I'll place quotes here later when I have time, but if you want to examine their bibliographies, then do it yourself. --Taivo (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And, indeed, if you want to try to discredit peer-reviewed scholarly sources that meet every definition of WP:RS as reliable sources, then you have to prove it with other scholarly sources, not just your say-so. --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to discredit anybody, just pointing out that Friedman is not neutral. He was teaching at Skopje University, and holds academic degree in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. I just want this issue to be solved neutrally, without POV pushing. Note that the sources that you cite support just one specific viewpoint, which is disturbing. I'm not a linguist, but I speak both Bulgarian & Macedonian and know pretty well the Slavic dialects of Northern Greece, so I know how far are they from the standard Macedonian & standard Bulgarian. Most sources that support the viewpoint that these dialects are exclusively dialects of the Macedonian language are based 99% on authors from the Republic of Macedonia. I will look into this discussion from time to time, since I also have other work to do, other than pointing out obvious things. --StanProg (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic science uses a very different standard of evaluation than just "I speak the languages", so it's not unusual at all for speakers to not understand or misunderstand the statements made by linguists vis à vis linguistic relationships. Even deleting Friedman, the other linguistic evaluations are definitive. --Taivo (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am worried, the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts (MANU), is well-known in Greece for its efforts to promote Macedonian nationalism and the ethnic Macedonian POV on the history of the region, with senior academics in that institution such as Blaže Ristovski, being leading advocates of this extreme propaganda. Dear people, I strongly suggest we don't cite MANU and any of its academics in Wikipedia, as their work is far from neutral, on all issues relating to the region of Macedonia, the Slavic Macedonian Language and the national consciousness of the ethnic Macedonians. --SILENTRESIDENT 08:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As well as the Greek Academy of Sciences promoting Greece? And the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences promoting Bulgaria? And the French Academy of Sciences promoting France? And the Tongan Academy of Sciences promoting Tonga? The guide to be used in Wikipedia is scholarly consensus as found in reliable sources, not the national origin of any particular piece of research. Peer review among scholars will weed out the nationalism and the amateurs who edit Wikipedia have no business making such decisions. Even the scholarly experts in a field (like myself) who edit Wikipedia must use reliable sources to filter out the dross and not just our academic credentials. --Taivo (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Greek Academy of Sciences and Arts? Taivo, you do not know what you are talking, do you? There is no Greek Academy of Sciences, I am afraid. However, in Greece, we have the International Olympic Academy and the Modern Academy of Athens, but still, none of them focuses on promoting national positions, or nationalist propaganda, nor they focuse on Greece's views in regards to its disputes with the Republic of Macedonia. Additionally, unlike MANU, the staff and academics in the academies of Olympics and the Athens are not working on promoting far-right and nationalist propaganda. I am afraid academic institutions are not exactly the same in every country, and it is a rare sight to see academies in western countries promoting nationalist views. I reirtate that MANU to not be taken in account; frankly, the state-sponsored academies in the Balkan region are particularly vulnerable to the influence of their countries' ruling political parties, as is the case here with Nikola Todorov, who comes from VMRO-DPMNE, a nationalist political party notorious for its extreme positions on the Macedonia dispute and its policy of antiquisation in the country. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And you missed the point. The point is that you are not qualified to make such pronouncements. The scholarly community decides what is good scholarship and what is not by the process of peer review. That's why WP:RS puts great weight on peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books from academic presses. Your anti-Macedonian colors are showing again. Take a step back and let the scholars speak through peer-reviewed scholarship published in academic journals and presses. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, my objections are solely focused on MANU given its negative records, and not on the other sources which you cited. I do not object to the other sources you have cited, but you need to understand that portraying the other editors for being anti-<ethnicity> just because they are asking for caution when citing the state-sponsored institutions such as MANU, is a poor editorial approach and has no place here. Wikipedia is quite clear in that it should not take sides and adopt any particular POVs in the disputes and that includes not just the Government positions but also the government-monitored institutions which reflect the government's POV on the matter. You can't just cite state institutions which advocate the state interests, such as MANU, and present them as "neutral" in Wikipedia, Taivo. I am afraid it this comes dangerously close to indirect WP:ADVOCACY and Wikipedia:Propaganda and is unacceptable. Like I said before: MANU's case should be treated with caution. From your list of sources, the other academics are fine to cite, but MANU obviously is not. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@SilentResident: I do not doubt that MANU has a record of pushing Macedonian nationalism. In fact, I find it highly plausible. But no one is citing MANU. One of the sources given by Taivo is a book by Victor Friedman, who happens to be a member of MANU. Friedman is a specialist in the languages of Balkan, and he is also a member of similar institutions in Albania, Kosovo and Serbia. That does not make him a spokesperson for any of those institutions. The book is published by Routledge, which is not controlled by MANU or any other of the institutions mentioned. Unless it can be shown that other scholars disagree with Friedman or that other scholars regard him as biased, we have no reason not to use the source.

@StanProg: You make a quite extraordinary claim: "Most sources that support the viewpoint that these dialects are exclusively dialects of the Macedonian language are based 99% on authors from the Republic of Macedonia." May I ask on what evidence you base this conclusion? Unless you can provide any sources supporting this claim, it would be better if you would strike out the comment. Another part of your comment says: "Note that the sources that you cite support just one specific viewpoint, which is disturbing." Well, if you (or anyone alse) can provide reliable sources that support another viewpoint, then do so. If not, it means that the linguists agree, which may be surprising, but it is not disturbing.

To both of you: The key is sources. That ia what Wikipedia feeds on. --T*U (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that so far there's not a single quote from Taivo`s sources, and since this problem is not subject of many researches, we should review the sources and the information they provide very detailed, including the sources they are quoting. Here's a quote:

• "Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History", 2012, p. 156 (Peter Mackridge - "Multilingualism and standardization in Greece"): The chief additional languages spoken in territories incorporated into the Greek state in 1912-13 were various Slavonic dialects (variously labelled "Bulgarian" and "Slavo-Macedonian" in Greece, but only occasionally "Macedonian") and Judaeo-Spanish or Ladino (spoken by the large Sephardic community in Salonica [Thessaloniki]).

The information that I provided regarding the dialects is not something that I invented. Here's what "Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. İpek Yosmaoğlu" is saying in "Blood Ties - Religion, Violence and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908, Cornell University Press, 2013" Therefore, the term Bulgarian as it is used in this book should be understood to refer to the territorial dialects of Macedonia (which are quite different than standard Macedonian) as well as standard Bulgarian. So this is not "my opinion". Regarding the dialects of the standard Macedonian language, the information is from "Krume Kepeski - Macedonian grammar, National book publishing of Macedonia, Skopje 1946, p. 7". Even the macedonian linguists did not included the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia as dialects of the Macedonian language (excluding the Kukush-Voden i.e. Kilkis-Edessa which they added to the 5 regional ones: Western, Southeastern, Southwestern, Northern and Eastern, most probably because it's the closest one with the standard Macedonian). And here's one additional quote: --StanProg (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• "William Martin-Leake - Researches in Greece, London, 1814, p. 375" The most Southern districts of Greece, where the Bulgarian language is in common use, are - On the West side of Macedonian some villages in the vicinity of Koritza, and on the Eastern the hills bordering the great plain of Thessalonica, Pella and Edessa. The former district is insulated among Greeks and Albanians, but the latter may be considered as the Southern extremity of the modern Bulgaria, the Christians, who speak the Bulgarian dialect, extending from thence, with scarcely any interruption, through all the Northern parts of Macedonia Proper, as well as it's acquired provinces of Paeonia, Pelagonia &c.; and from thence throughout the whole of Moesia, and the interior of Thrace, as far as the Danube, and the neighborhood of Constantinople. And this is released in 1814, a lot of years before the Macedonian language appeared as a separate language. When explaining the "definite articles" the Greek linguist Evangelia Adamou writes "Definite articles are an exception within the Slavic languages: they have only been grammaticalized in some South Slavic languages (namely Bulgarian, Macedonian and all the non-standardized varieties spoken in Greece)..." Not how she distinguishes the 1. "Bulgarian", 2. "Macedonian" and 3. "all non-standardized varieties spoken in Greece". I've met the term "varieties" for the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia on few other places. I think that the NPOV will be covered if we either add "Bulgarian" or remove "Macedonian" and add "Slavic dialects"/"Slavic varieties"/"Non-standardized Slavic varieties", etc. --StanProg (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

StanProg, here are the "quotes":

• From Dalby, Volume 2, page 445, from a list of dialects of "Makedonski":

"makedonski-SE.; part of "macedonian"-S.; bilingual in Helleniki; [loc.] Kukus... Voden; Greece (Makedhonia)"

"makedonski-SW.; part of "macedonian"-S.; bilingual in Helleniki; [loc.] Flórina... Kastoría, Kostur; Greece (Makedhonia)"

• From Dalby, Volume 2, page 446, from a list of dialects of "Bulgarski"; no dialects in Greece except for "bulgarski-SE....Greece (Thraki adjacent)" (Pomak)
• From Voegelin and Voegelin, page 312, "Bulgarian. Ds.... Greece (Moslem Pomaks in Thrace)..." and not other reference to Greece. "Macedonian. Ds.... Southern (in the Kukus and Voden region of northern Greece);... Southwestern (in the Kostur and Lerin regions of northern Greece);... Greece (Kastoria-Florina-Edessa region)"
• From Comrie, page 323, map. The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece.
• From Andersen, page 416, map. The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece.
• From Friedman, page 249, "Literary Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia and is recognized as such by all countries except Bulgaria, where it is officially viewed as a 'regional norm' of Bulgarian, and Greece, where Macedonian is claimed not to exist--except in proclamations banning its use--or it is claimed that the term 'Macedonian' can only be used to refer to the Greek dialects of Macedonia or to Ancient Macedonian. None the less, there are citizens of and emigrants from both Bulgaria and Greece who identify their native (Slavonic) language as Macedonian...."
• From Friedman, page 300, map. Several dialects of Macedonian are marked and labelled across northern Greece from the Albanian border to east of Drama (that's where the eastern edge of the map cuts them off): (from west to east) Lower Prespa, Ohrid-Struga, Kostur, Nestram, Lower Vardar, Seres-Nevrokop
• From Scatton, Ernest A. 1993. Bulgarian. In Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 188-248. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London and New York: Routledge. From page 246, map. No Bulgarian presence in northern Greece is depicted.
• From Scatton, page 247: "The geographical extent of Bulgarian dialects is controversial. On the level of local dialects there is no sharp boundary between the speech of western Bulgaria and that of eastern Serbia, former Yugoslav Macedonia and areas of Greece and Turkey contiguous to Bulgaria in which Slavonic dialects are still spoken. The official Bulgarian position, with respect to dialects and earlier historical periods, has been that eastern Serbian dialects, all Macedonian dialects in former Yugoslavia and Slavonic dialects in Turkey and Greece are dialects of Bulgarian."
• From Sussex and Cubberley, page xx, map. The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece.
• From Sussex and Cubberley, pages 66-69, section on socio-historical evolution of Bulgarian, Greece is not mentioned.
• From Sussex and Cubberley, pages 69-71, section on socio-historical evolution of Macedonian: "The problem was not with the political status of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia but rather with the misfit between the geographical territory of this entity and the Macedonian speaking territory, which spreads into Albania, Greece and Bulgaria....Contemporary Macedonia is autonomous, though under pressure from Greece and Bulgaria in establishing its political, economic, cultural and linguistic autonomy. While the standing of the language is reinforced by political independence, Greece opposes the use of "Macedonia(n)" for the country or the language on historical ground."
• From Sussex and Cubberley, page 508: "In Bulgaria there may be as many as 250,000 Macedonian speakers, but the Bulgarians regard these Pirin dialects, together with the language varieties spoken in FYR Macedonia, Albania and Greece, merely as south-western dialects of Bulgarian. For their part, the Greeks reject a country called "Macedonia", since they consider the name to have been Greek since the times of Alexander the Great of Macedon (fourth century BC), and have been culturally unsympathetic to the Vardar Macedonian dialects spoken in Northern Greece, which have been subjected to vigorous hellenization."
• From Mackenzie, page 271, map: The region of northern Greece is colored green for Greek right up to the Macedonian and Bulgarian political borders with small numbers indicating minority populations. There are two numbers indicating South Slavic populations in this region. One is located in Greek Macedonia and the number is labelled as "Macedonian". The other is located in Thrace, and the number is labelled as "Bulgarian" (this is the Pomak population).
• From Ethnologue "Macedonian", all the (Christian) dialects of Greek Macedonia labelled as "Slavic" are listed here.
• From Ethnologue "Bulgarian", the only Bulgarian presence in Greece is the Pomak population.

I find it hilarious that you list a source from 1814, when the Macedonian dialects of everywhere were (as they still are in Bulgaria) considered to be "Bulgarian". It's a measure of poor scholarship to rely on an outdated linguistic hegemony to make your argument. This should be fairly clear. When they are labelled, the dialects of Greece are uniformly labelled as Macedonian among the NPOV linguistic community. --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@StanProg: I cannot see that the Mackridge source supports your claim. The quote you have highlighted, "variously labelled "Bulgarian" and "Slavo-Macedonian" in Greece, but only occasionally "Macedonian", is a description of how the Slavonic dialects are labelled in Greece. As I am sure you are aware of, most Greeks will hesitate to use the label "Macedonian" about the Slavic language, since for them, "Macedonian" will mean the dialect of the Greek language spoken in Greek Macedonia. That does not say anything about how linguists categorize the dialects. --T*U (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, I did a detailed review of the sources regarding the discussion this weekend and I agree, that most of them support the Macedonian viewpoint, so it's ok for me to not include Bulgarian, as a language spoken in Greek Macedonia. I don't agree with these conclusions knowing very well Bulgarian, Macedonian and the Slavic dialects of Greece, but this is not important. After all Wikipedia articles are supported by sources in their majority. We need first to understand the matter and then to discuss these controversial issue, so that's why I quoted the book from 1814, when the Macedonian language was still not existing and these dialects were considered Bulgarian, so the participants in this discussion be aware with the situation. Just like the initial dialects formulaition from 1946 & the examples with the same sentence in Bulgarian, Slavic dialect and Macedonian. I wanted to clarify this in case someone misinterpret it. --StanProg (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

StanProg, so we agree that the linguistic literature favors labeling these Slavic varieties of Greek Macedonia as "Macedonian" and not "Bulgarian". So, in effect, the status quo in the infobox remains "Macedonian, Greek" for the languages of this population. --Taivo (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that the Bulgarian language has no place on the infobox. There are no sufficient sources to back the theory that the Slavophones in Greece speak a dialect of Bulgarian, even though their dialects were considered to be part of Bulgarian language prior to the codification of the south slavic Macedonian language. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The Slavophones of Thrace do speak Bulgarian (the Muslim Pomaks), but they're not covered by this article, which just covers Greek Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A few cited sources may favour a specific view. I don't agree that the linguistic literature favours labelling Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect as Macedonian. But I agree that some people favour not making any compromise everywhere. This dialect has appearantly nothing to do with standart Macedonian when it is compared to standart Bulgarian. I am fine with changing the infobox to "Eastern South Slavic" or something similar. --Judist (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Judist, but a consensus has already formed around "Macedonian" based on the overwhelming view of the reliable sources that include the dialects of Greece in either a map or in the text. Your opinion on the matter simply bears no weight when faced with the NPOV scholarly consensus. --Taivo (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Judist, I am afraid you really need to present a substantial amount of sources backing this, because I am afraid doing this without any sources, crosses the WP:OR line and I couldn't recommend it. OR is a very serious policy in Wikipedia when it comes to what information can be present on the articles. You are always welcome to share with us any sources supporting that theory. Personally I could like to know if there are any sources, however I haven't looked on this beyond Future Perfect's map, so pardon me for not providing any sources yet. I did an OR mistake without realizing it. --SILENTRESIDENT 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A few words on Dr. Victor Friedman. He is a linguist who works at the University of Chicago in the United States of America and is a specialist on Balkan languages apart from other languages relating to the Caucasus [4]. In a post-communist environment, some Western academics such as himself have also become members of Balkan based academia, as their work relates to the region. That does not however preclude that they and their work from use in Wikipedia as it meets the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary as is published by reputed publishing houses and universities based in the West.Resnjari (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari, yes OK, still, aside from Friedman, the editors should be cautious with that particular state institution and any of its scholars, and cite their work only when they know what they are doing (i.e. Friedman). The Wiki editors should exercise caution nevertheless when it comes to Macedonia-related articles where the work of leading MANU scholars is known to be crossing the lines of Macedonian nationalism by promoting certain views over the Slavic populations in the region, which is extremely WP:POV and far from WP:Reliable and has no backing from the int. academic community. Have a good day and consider this discussion closed, as there is nothing more for us to discuss and certainly not without the editors providing reliable sources backing the claim about the Bulgarian language. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of information on this community in Greece in Western peer reviewed sources that could be used here. I clarified on Friedman so there is no doubt, even in future. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Resnjari.The discussion above is not yet archived but ongoing. You are insisting there is a consensus for the proposal above, despite four editors above objected. It is clear that there is no consensus for the removal in the discussion above. I can see more editors having objected to the proposal for removing Bulgarian than agreed. This means the article should be reverted back to neutrality. There is no consensus among linguists either. 77.85.29.224 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

To the IP create an account (editing as an IP, you wont be taken seriously) and explain your edits here. What you say may get most of the content added. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The IP clearly doesn't seem to understand that consensus isn't measured necessarily by a count of noses, but by the quality of the arguments. I presented a wide array of reliable linguistic sources above that all indicate that the Slavic dialects of Greece fall within the Macedonian linguistic sphere and not the Bulgarian one. It's a question of the burden of proof and the bulk of the evidence was not in the IP's favor. But I agree with you about the IP, that a serious editor will establish an identity. But for now our Bulgarian IP (the IP's address is in Sofia) must be taken with a grain of salt. --Taivo (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Its why i said may to the IP. The onus falls upon them if they want to conduct themselves in a constructive manner. On a seperate matter, some time back in the 1990s the EU funded a whole host of investigative acedmic teams (part of the Euromosaic project) that visited endangered/minority languages in EU member countries. The report on the Macedonian language is available and in French [5]. The report gives numbers as to how many villages exist in Greece that speak Macedonian. Its over 200 and it breaks down that data by municipalities. It also gives information about what Macedonian locals call the language (in the west and central regions of Greek Macedonia the word Makedonski, in the east of the region Bu[l]garski). What do you think TaivoLinguist, should we include this content into the article ?Resnjari (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-reporting by speakers has its own set of problems when not combined with linguistic evaluation. The Central Numic languages of Uto-Aztecan are a case in point. Speakers of Timbisha, which is linguistically the most divergent, call themselves Shoshoni. Speakers of Comanche, which is more closely related to Shoshoni, call themselves Comanche, but claim to speak a dialect of Shoshoni. Yet when speakers of all three languages are together, they cannot communicate using their native languages, but always switch to English. The same is true when speakers of any pair of the languages are present. In fact, when speakers of the even more distantly related, and absolutely not mutually intelligible to any degree, Southern Paiute and Northern Paiute languages join speakers of Central Numic languages, they all claim that they speak the "same language". So I am always skeptical of speaker self-identification of what language they speak. There are often more political reasons for a self-identification than there are linguistic reasons. The vast majority of linguists (references above) place all of these Greek dialects within Macedonian and don't break them up into Macedonian/Bulgarian. --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And just up the road from Macedonia is the world's most famous example of the failure of self-reporting linguistic affiliation in Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, where what "language" you claim to speak is entirely dependent on what religion you are. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes, i am acquainted with the wacky up north. lol TaivoLinguist, but on this, at the very least the addition of village demographics from the report for this article. Maybe we add it here in table form. I just tried to access the weblink, but for some reason the mainpage [6] and the report on the Macedonian language come as the same url. To access the report go to the option on the toolbar to the left where it says in Catalan: Clas per llengues. Click on it and it should open a page with reports on many languages. Click on Macedoni. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The village size information from the report might be valuable in the article. I'm mostly concerned about the linguistics and not the other aspects of this article (language is a minor feature of this article) because I'm a linguist. I'll take a more in-depth look at the linguistic claims of the report, but I just woke up and am not ready to tackle French yet. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, you can copy and paste it in google translate, if French isn't a language your familiar for a read. From my angle, the report is neutral as its from the EU, an organisation that Greece is a part of. True there is lots of great scholarship on the Macedonian language in Greece, but none give a break down of how many villages still exist speaking Macedonian per municipality in Greece today. I think inclusion of that data would be most beneficial to the article in table form. It would have 10 rows, 3 columns= 1 for municipality name, the next for number and a third for notes. Have a read and reflect on the idea and get back to me. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, I think that adding a table with village names and populations would be good. We don't need to add linguistic self-identifications in that table, just names and numbers. --Taivo (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, when you have the chance look at the report. Sadly it does not mention individual villages (i wish it did and a source of that kind would be great), but gives a rough outline. I'll translate one of the 10 sentences i'm referring too in the report so you get an idea of what i mean. "Département de Pella: environ 70 villages, la majorité à l'ouest du département, à Aridea et à Edessa." In a table organised in three columns of: Municipality(or whatever Greek administrative units are called)|Number of settlements|Notes; it would be something like Pella (municipality/province?)|70 villages|Macedonian speakers are a majority in the west of Edessa and Aridea municipalities. Thoughts? Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"but none give a break down of how many villages still exist speaking Macedonian per municipality in Greece today"

The Greek census 2011 did not collect data on the primary or secondary languages of the population. See here:https://web.archive.org/web/20131225192921/http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/General/nws_SAM01_EN.PDF

Due to the Kallikratis Plan (2010) of administrative reform, many municipalities were officially merged. Following the plan there are only 325 municipalities remaining in Greece, with none of the villages retaining autonomous status or allowed to elect Mayors, municipal governments, etc. Here is the current list of municipalities: List of municipalities of Greece (2011) Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Greek census does not count minority languages as it does not recognise them. Scholarship has long noted their reality. Obviously the data will be dated and the Kallivretkis mergers noted in such a table. Nonetheless it does not omit that an EU team traveled through Northern Greece and counted how many villages where speaking Macedonian, either fluently or partially some time back.Resnjari (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The most recent information must be from 1986, when the Greek census recorded 180,180 Slavic speakers. [7] The classification of the dialects by the EU team as Bulgarian has been deleted. I am going to explain some sources below and ask Taivo to check the context of his list of sources above. I think he took them out of context. IE linguist (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The EU report does not say its based on a census. Instead it was a team of academics who visited all the villages of Greek Macedonia to see the linguistic composition of the area. The findings are based on that. The last Greek census to count mother tongue was in 1951 [8]. Ethnologue has it wrong with the 1986 census number. Greece did not count minority languages at that time.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Taivo, with irrelevant metaphors you are distracting yourself to the personal nature of others, instead of noting that all of the sources in your list are taken out of context. You warned that some editors should be taken with a grain of salt, only because of their geographical location. To be honest, I am also skeptical on your neutrality. Of your possible bias as you are a member of the Ukrainian project and may assume the dispute of Bulgarian-Macedonian relationships to be equated to the Russian-Ukrainian dispute. Ukrainian dialects were all claimed by the arch-nemesis Russian, so you are also possibly more or less to equate the case of their relationships with the Bulgarian-Macedonian relationships and to be biased against Bulgarian, because you may see Macedonian as another recently raising language that is victimized by Bulgarian, as much as Ukrainian has been by Russian.

With regard to Taivo's claim: "I presented a wide array of reliable linguistic sources above that all indicate that the Slavic dialects of Greece fall within the Macedonian linguistic sphere and not the Bulgarian one" you are taking these sources out of context. And claim spurious indications from his list of sources above, which are completely taken out of context. The only one of the sources, provided by Taivo in this discussion, which may claim that all Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian and not Bulgarian, is probably Ethnologue. Although Ethnologue considers the dialect, spoken in Serres (regional unit) as Macedonian, not in the Drama (regional unit).

With regard to Taivo's claim: "The vast majority of linguists (references above) place all of these Greek dialects within Macedonian", even if it was true and the vast majority of linguists place all dialects within Macedonian, it would not be claimed that they are all not Bulgarian. You can show at best the vast majority of your own list, not the vast majority of linguists, who are specialists. You have not shown what the actual quantity of views of linguists is, but a cherrypicking list. The absence of some views in your list of sources is not an evidence for their absence. This weird synthesis is not a trusthworty reason to remove from the article the Bulgarian classification of the Drama-Serres dialect by van Boeschotten. I would not try to find the popularity of different views among linguists using a search engine, it would not be helpful with the amount of views in linguistics, this would be a random choice. I would not try visiting all libraries, there are millions of linguists, who are not specialist on Greek Macedonaia, so you can not summarize what are their views. The synthesis of the list of sources above does not consist of specialists on the dialects of Greek Macedonia, that is why I recommend to list here only specialist sources with their own research on the dialects in Greek Macedonia, not the poor quality-ones relying on the research of their colleagues. From the sources above Friedman is possibly the only specialist author, but he is taken out of context and identifies only the dialect, spoken in Serres as Macedonian, not the dialect, spoken in Drama. There is no consensus among linguists and among editors. There is more controversy with the removal of Bulgarian. Mainly because the article becomes misleading by considering the dialect spoken in Drama as Macedonian. And why, according to an imaginary source? Even the Macedonian dialectology (Bozidar Vidoeski) considers the Drama dialect Bulgarian.

There is no burden of proof, presented by Taivo, because the sources, he picked do not provide us with any examination of the dialects or are taken out of context. As in the case of Ethnologue, this is not a specialist source, but a source parroting statistical information without any linguistic approach on the classification of the dialects. Linguistics is a burden of proof through examination, each linguist classifiyng an idiom should inform the reader how is the classification done and based on what isoglosses. Be reminded, in the list of Taivo above, there is only one(Friedman) provided source with linguistic approach and examination on the dialects of Greek Macedonia, but still taken out of context. Friedman is clearly a specialist source on Macedonian dialectology, but the only one in the list. The rest of the sources in the list of Taivo are just the ones parroting labels (whether Macedonian or Bulgarian) without special examination. And the obvious taking out of context of all sources in the list appears, the spurious interpretation, that those sources mean that all dialects are Macedonian, not Bulgarian. One of the sources in the list of Taivo - Scatton, even cotradicts the theory of Taivo and says, that there is no sharp border between Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects, so this source also considers the peripheral dialects transitional. IE linguist (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic phonetic reflexes of *ktc. Standard Macedonian kj
Standard Bulgarian št
Standard Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin č(čj)
Unique phenomena: šč

Proto-Slavic phonetic relfexes of *gzd. Standard Macedonian gj
Standard Bulgarian žd
Standard Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin đj
Unique phenomena: ž, ždž, žg

Classification into a family is based on isoglosses. Even the poor quality sources do not specifically classify the Drama dialect as part of the Macedonian language, but because they are unexperienced they put a label on some dialects altogether, without mentioning which dialects. From the sources above, even Ethnologue classifies only the dialect in the Serres regional unit as Macedonian, not the one in Drama. The only specialist source in the list of Taivo above, Friedman, also claimed as Macedonian the dialect of Serres-Langadas, not the dialect of Drama. Such synthesis and cherrypicking of sources, and their contexts is not to be considered reliable. Taivo has mentioned, that the quality of evidence is important, not the quantity of sources. Linguists with their own research have been cited in the article, after visiting the area with a report to the European Comission, van Boeschoten claimed the Serres-Drama dialect is closer to Bulgarian than Macedonian. But this reasonable research has been deleted from the article. Some of you are linguists. So, what be would your opinion of the Drama dialect after referring to this free atlas of 179 maps of main Proto-Slavic phoentic isoglosses of the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continium. In 179 maps, the Drama dialect shares all isoglosses with eastern Bulgarian dialects. In other words, of 179 isoglosses, the Drama dialect shares the majority of main Proto-Slavic isoglosses only with Bulgarian dialects outside of the region of Macedonia, but never shares the features with Macedonian and not Bulgarian dialects. By Bulgarian dialects I mean those outside of the region of Macedonia, by Macedonian dialects I mean the wide range, including Pirin Macedonia. The Drama dialect is by coincidence into the Macedonia region, but the dialect in Drama does not share at least one feature differentiating Macedonian and Bulgarian, with the former. The Drama dialect is part of the Rup dialects of the Pomaks. The Drama dialect is not spoken by Pomaks, but by non-Muslims. Any Macedonian dialects, other than the one in Drama share more isoglosses with the dialects in northern Bulgaria and Serbia than with the dialect in Drama. It is ridiculous to consider the Drama dialect in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian only, based on no source. Even Macedonian dialectology refers to the Drama dialect as transitional between Macedonian and Bulgarian.

And this is not only about the Drama dialect. All the southern(including all dialects in Greek Macedonia) and eastern Macedonian dialects are transitional between Bulgarian and Macedonian, sharing sometimes the Bulgarian Proto-Slavic consonants *t, *d, not the Macedonian Proto-Slavic *k, *g, or sharing the Bulgarian reflexes in Proto-Slavic vowels *o, *e, not the Macedonian. South of Ohrid and east of Vardar the verb 'to be' is pronounced as in Bulgarian: "səm", not Macedonian: "sum". We have a burden of proof that most dialects in Greek Macedonia are intermediate and not part only of the Macedonian Proto-Slavic legacy, but also of the Bulgarian Proto-Slavic source, as demonstrated by linguists. Alongside this atlas, refer also to the images on the right. From the number of isoglosses provided, objective linguists classify the dialects of the Slavic speakers in Greek Macedonia as transitonal between Bulgarian and Macedonian, while the one in Drama is not even transitional to Macedonian(seriously, not by even one isogloss alone presented anywhere in the whole atlas). Maps of isoglosses, such as the ones on the right should be added to the article, because there is no any Bulgarian features of these dialects described in the article.

Refer to the quote in the Macedonian dialectology of Bozidar Vidoeski, the "father of Macedonian dialectology", in which he regards the eastern Macedonian dialects as "transitional dialect belts between Macedonian and Bulgarian". So, would you oppose the claims of Macedonian linguists, that some dialects in Greek Macedonia are Bulgarian also? What do you think can be mentioned of the Bulgarian language in this article? Completely nothing? My suggestion is to add again the deleted classification of van Boeschoten, which is a reliable source. The deleteion proposed to remove Bulgarian language completely from the article was based on sources, taken out of context. Even if they weren't taken out of context, this set of randomly chosen publications is not based on the claimed "largest" quantity of linguists, neither the specialist sources of high quality. This move has been motivated by sources like Ethnologue. The self-published source. I expect, that you, from a linguistic point of view, can realize it would be the inverse of actuality to remove the Bulgarian classification of the eastern dialects in Greek Macedonia. It is clear from the isoglosses, that the northern periphery of Macedonian dialects(Torlakian dialects) are safely classified also as Serbian, while the eastern and southern periphery of Macedonian dialcts are classified also as Bulgarian. IE linguist (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not taken a single, solitary one of my reliable sources out of context. I own all of these books and have quoted them precisely. You have clearly not looked at a single, solitary one of them except perhaps Ethnologue, which is not the best source in any case. And your assumption that since I am part of the Ukrainian project that I have some sort of inherent pro-Macedonian bias is laughable. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word "metaphor". I haven't used any. I'm not going to read your diatribe since it is clearly 99% original research and only peripherally based on reliable sources. The easternmost Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia may, indeed, be transitional (I never said otherwise), but when linguists draw a line (no matter how problematic that line is), neutral linguists virtually all include the Greek villages with Macedonian and not with Bulgarian. That's just the simple fact that you seem to be unable to acknowledge. My references are not "out of context". You use that phrase just because your argument is so weak. --Taivo (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not discussing your background, just noted that sometimes condemners may also be biased. I can not be certain for what is the agenda of anyone. I do not understand what you are implying right now for your sources. They are not an indication for the complete removal of Bulgarian classification from the article. There are already other sources, which consider some of the dialects as Bulgarian. There are no specialist linguists, who consider the Drama dialect as Macedonian, even the Macedonian dialectology acknowledges, that this dialect is Bulgarian as well. You have been unsuccesful to convince or verify that the Macedonian only interpretation, you have chosen, is the only reliable way for the classification of this article. Propose or let alternatives to be made. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IE linguist (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have listed (above from last year) a dozen sources that list the Slavic dialects of Greece as Macedonian and not Bulgarian so your comment, "you have been unsuccessful" is baloney. You've pointed out a couple of sources, but the vast majority of neutral sources I have cited above are unambiguous and not taken "out of context". --Taivo (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, many are taken "out of context". You have cited exactly nine sources, less than a dozen, and have not cited dozens of sources. Anybody can scroll up and confirm this. One of the nine sources is Ethnologue, which doesn't claim, that the dialect, spoken in Drama regional unit is Macedonian, but that the dialect spoken in Serres regional unit is Macedonian. Yes, Ethnologue lists regional units and the easternmost regional unit it lists is Serres (regional unit) for [mkd], not Drama (regional unit). Two of the nine sources are Voegelin and Dalby, they describe other areas as Macedonian(Florina, Kilkis, etc.), but don't claim, that the Drama dialect is Macedonian. Three of the nine just cite the same claims of their colleagues without any research provided. So, on three of the nine sources (Sussex, Cornie and Andersen) you have placed an identical quote:" The southern boundary of Bulgarian is at the Bulgarian border, the southern boundary of Macedonian is in northern Greece". I think this is nothing specific, and doesn't unambiguously mean that all Slavic dialects in Greece are Macedonian and not Bulgarian, but either way these are not sources, specialized in the Slavic dialects of Greece. These sources use repetition form their colleagues and the sources of your list are not dedicated to the dialects in Greece, but small articles without an extensive research.

Van Boeschoten, which considers the dialects Bulgarian and you have deleted from the article, has published at least two articles dedicated to the dialects in Greece only, and visited all the villages in the Florina regional unit. Specialists consider these dialects Bulgarian as well, or transitional with Bulgarian, not Macedonian only. If there are some, who consider them Macedonian and not Bulgarian, they are biased or ignorant of the features of the dialects. There are many red flags in your list of nine sources and for your assumption, that these sources all claim, that these dialects are Macedonian and not Bulgarian. IE linguist (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn to read more accurately. I did not say "dozens", I said "a dozen". And while I did not go up and perform a precise count, 9 is close enough to a dozen. And if you actually look further up the page, you will see a list of 14 references that I consulted for my comments. The 9 lower ones were just ones where I pulled quotes or described the maps. And not a single, solitary one is taken out of context. Unless you don't know what "out of context" means, then you are simply presenting my evidence falsely. Prove that they are "out of context". You can't because they are not. And I've already said that Ethnologue is not the best source. You need to actually read what I wrote about Sussex, Comrie, and Andersen--I did not quote them, I described their maps, so, of course, I would describe them in identical terms. And these are all reliable sources since they are all linguistic sources written by authorities in the field and relying on authoritative sources. You're just trying to push your POV, which is not based on a majority of the linguistic literature. Dalby and Voegelin list not a single, solitary Bulgarian dialect within Greece, so they do, indeed, support the exclusion of Bulgarian from Greek Macedonia. And these are all, indeed reliable sources, whether you like what they have to say or not. You don't get to decide whether they are reliable or not. While Dalby, Mackenzie, and Voegelin are not specifically Slavicists, the others are specialists in Slavic, some specifically in Bulgarian and/or Macecdonian, so you can't even claim that they don't know the specifics of the Greece-Bulgarian border dialects. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The total amount of the sources you have claimed to place the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian is 9, not 14. You listed the five other sources to show how they "treat Macedonian and Bulgarian as separate languages" in general, not to classify any of the dialects in Greece. You keep inducing a false impression about a high amount of your sources and that they are the so called majority. Even if your list of sources was not taken out of context, it would not be the last one in the world, so it does not represent the so called vast majority of linguists. This weird fabrication has been getting away for a long time, build upon spurious interpretation of sources. This out of context nonsense has remained unexposed to other editors and you keep denying it. The following sources, you have listed are taken out of context and your allegations on these six sources are not true (That all these sources classify the dialects of Greek Macedonia as Macedonian and not Bulgarian. None of the six sources explicitly says that the dialects are Macedonian. Let alone any of them to say that they are not Bulgarian.):

1. Your allegations on the source Ethnologue are not true, because Ethnologue identifies the easternmost Macedonian dialect as being in the Serres regional unit, not in Drama. Drama is unclassified

2. Your allegations on the source Dalby are not true, because this source describes only the dialects of Kilkis, Florina and Kastoria as being Macedonian. The dialects of Thrace are classified as Bulgarian. The dialects of Serres and Drama are unclassified by Dalby. Your spurious interpretation, that the absence of classification of the Serres and Drama dialects means, that they are Macedonian is a laughable nonsense.

3. Your allegations on the source Voegelin are not true, because this author describes only the dialects of Kastoria, Florina, Edessa and Kilkis as Macedonian. The dialects of Thrace are described as Bulgarian. The Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect is still unclassified. The absence of classification is not classification, so the dialects of Serres and Drama are unclassified.

4-5. The rest of the sources are maps only. This source is two in one. The map presented by Andersen is the map of Comrie. It is a bizzare misinterpretation of yours. This is a free link to the map from the book of Andersen: [9] Your interpretation, that the map describes the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian is a blatant, spurious interpretation. The backing of your agenda from this duo-source, is a pure falsification. Actually, I can see, that the map of Andersen and Comrie places the dialect of Nevrokop as Bulgarian along with the enitre Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect.

6. Your allegations on the map of Scatton are not true. This source can not back your allegation. That absence of Bulgarian dialects in Greece on the map of Scatton is not a depiction of them as Macedonian.

That was most of the so called vast majority of linguists in your list. You have maximum three sources left, classifying the dialects as Macedonian. One of them, the map of Friedman indeed describes all the dialects as Macedonian, as well as Sussex, probably the remaining map of MacKenzie also. I haven't checked it, because the so called vast majority, collapsed. We have as much sources, three, classifying some of the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Bulgarian. Does anyhting makes you think, that a reliable source, classifying the dialects as Bulgarian must be kept out? Taivo, from the staged fabrication of most of the sources above into a so called "vast majority of linguists", staged to block the adding of any different views to the article, you do not appear as a trustworthy one. Whoever wish, let them agree with you to fabricate your own classification in this article. It is still an original research to exclude Bulgarian based on the minority of sources. Best, IE linguist (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Before World War Two, yes the Slavic dialects of Macedonia were considered part of the larger Bulgarian language family. Politics and separation based on many factors like codification of the Macedonian dialects into a separate language has meant that scholars have been counting the dialects as Macedonian. Bulgarian scholars have kept to the old classification. This is a hard one, but the majority consensus of today is toward Macedonian and TaivoLinguist has pointed out.Resnjari (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) IE linguist, you have still failed to prove anything whatsoever. You still misuse the phrase "out of context". But putting that aside, you are basing your entire argument on fallacious reasoning. You claim that sources that count the Pomak dialect of Thrace as being Bulgarian are counterarguments to my assertion that there are no accepted Bulgarian dialects in Greek Macedonia. This article isn't about Greek Thrace, it's about the "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia". The Bulgarian-speaking Pomaks of Thrace don't qualify as living in "Greek Macedonia". They are in Greek Thrace. You can see in my comments from last year that I know very well the difference between the Macedonian dialects of Greece and the Bulgarian Pomak dialect of Thrace. The sources I cite are also clear on that as well. So your continued harping on the Bulgarian dialect of Thrace as a counter-example is a failure in your argument. And you also fail to account for the very simple fact that the majority of my sources (9 or 14 doesn't matter) are written by Slavicists, who know very well what they are talking about. Your implied characterization of them as incompetent is disingenuous. The simple fact remains, whether they separate the Drama dialect out as different from its neighboring dialect or not, they uniformly place the Greek Slavic dialects of Macedonia within the sphere of "Macedonian" and not in the sphere of "Bulgarian". Your entire argument consists of separating the Drama dialect out from the other Greek Slavic dialects. Since you don't seem to recognize the competence of any Slavicist who doesn't, then you are clearly simply pushing your POV rather than listening to the weight of Slavic scholarship in this matter. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I have listed 6 of the 9 fabricated sources by Taivo above, Taivo is removing Bulgarian by his original research. Only up to 3 of his provided 9 sources classify the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian. Check my exposition of the sources in the list of Taivo above. We have as much post-1990 sources classifying some of the dialects in Greek Macedonia as Bulgarian. Taivo you need to provide sources for your claims. Resnjari, thank you for joining the discussion. Resnjari, I ask you to examine better, there is no such majority consensus, it is a falsification of the sources. I have listed how each of the 6 sources in the list of Taivo, does not classify the dialects as Macedonian. One by one, 3 of the 6 falsificated sources are maps only, in the map of the two sources of Comrie and Andersen(see this link of the map), provided by Taivo, the Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect is painted as Bulgarian?! How ridiculous is to claim, that this source classifies the dialects of Greek Macedonian as Macedonian? Resnjari, do you think there is any reason to hide from the article all Bulgarian classifications of the eastern dialects in Greek Macedonia? Best IE linguist (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Taivo of your three sources left, one is Friedman. But you are ignorant of Firedman as an author. Friedman identifies [10] the dialect of Kilkis as transitional between Macedonian and Bulgarian, the quote of Friedman:"in the modern northern and eastern Macedonian dialects that are transitional to Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, e.g. in Kumanovo and Kukus/Kilkis, object reduplication occurs with less consistency than in the west-central dialects" IE linguist (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You have proven nothing. I have falsified not a single, solitary source. Not one. I have taken not a single, solitary source out of context. Not one. You claim that I have fabricated sources when you have provided nothing but your own original research rather than accepting the peer-reviewed scholarly statements of actual Slavicists who have contradicted you. At this point you are begging Resjnari to join you in accusing me of falsifying data and accusing reknowned Slavicists of ignorance. You have proven nothing about my sources other than you disagree with them because they don't support your POV. --Taivo (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And you think that using another scholars map invalidates a Slavicist's views? Of course it doesn't. A scholar wouldn't use another scholar's map unless they agreed with that map. No scholar would use a given map if they disagreed with it. Period. The evidence of my multiple Slavicist sources is clear--they have uniformly included all the dialects of Greek Macedonia under the umbrella of "Macedonian". --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC

Seven of the nine sources in your list have NOT uniformly included all the dialects of Greek Macedonia under the umbrella of "Macedonian". I have not begged anyone. The current classification of the dialects in this article is your own, blatant original research. A separate section about the classification should be created, where any editors can add classifications of reliable sources. You don't have consensus to hide any classification(of a reliable source) from the article. A separate section should be created for classifications, I will leave the introduction unchanged and delay its shaping to avoid conflicts. I also don't care what is going to be said in the infobox alone, if you want keep your original research only there. IE linguist (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

See also the classification of Trudgill: Trudgill P., 2000, "Greece and European Turkey: From Religious to Linguistic Identity". In: Stephen Barbour and Cathie Carmichael (eds.), Language and Nationalism in Europe, Oxford : Oxford University Press, p.259.‘Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, which in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area, the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to Macedonia diasystem…’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IE linguist (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Again you mischaracterize my sources for your own ends. My sources either 1) state that the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian or 2) state that Bulgarian doesn't extend into Greece. Why do you have such a problem understanding that? Both say, in the end, the same thing: That the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian and not Bulgarian. But you have finally provided a useful quote that isn't based on your own original research. --Taivo (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)