This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Bulgarian (former) inhabitants of Florina would more accurately be classified as Macedonians or Mecedonian Slavs. Andreas 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I completely support this. There are no Bulgarians in Florina (if there are, show some true, non-propagandistic sources), there is a Macedonian minority. Bomac 12:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have friends who are descendants of Bulgarians from the region, who were forced to flee after the wars (and there are apparently many Bulgarians with such faith)... what you say is extremely anti-Bulgarian POV on a controversial topic for all sides. I've changed it to a more appropriate version. Please don't continue this pro-Macedonian (FYROM) practice, but rather seek neutrality. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov→ Talk 18:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
There are NO MACEDONIANS, they ARE BULGARIANS. And there are no Bulgarians there because the Greeks have killed or exiled almost the whole population when they conquered the town in the Balkan Wars.
Macedonian Population
One Greek newspaper reported in 1992 an estimate that of the 53,000 people living in the district of Florina, the largest group, 65 percent, referred to themselves as "dopii" (Greek: locals), or "local Macedonians" [1]. - Makedon45
This statement is very unclear, since "dopii" only means "locals", as you have said.I have never, in relevant bibliography or in practice, encountered the use of "dopii" and "prosfyges" mentioned in the HRW report.In my experience, someone who identifies himself as "dopios" is stating that his family originates from the region he is currently living in(i.e. that they have not migrated for many generations)."Prosfyges" has a meaning pretty much equal to that of "refugees".Ethnic Greeks living in the region can still identify themselves as either "dopios"(local) and "prosfygas" (the same person could not identify as both, obviously) depending on their family's history.These terms are not directly connected with ethnicities.It is possible HRW's researchers have confused two different uses of these terms( one of which I have never encountered), and that's why this statement cannot be considered as solid evidence of anything.--Jsone 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have ANY sources for the above statements? PMK1 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
About Florina
I worked 2 years in the region of Florina, and I know that many of things, that at times is written here, are lies, so people who haven't stepped their foot there shouldn't instist in their opinion.
In some villages of Florina the people have slavic origin but greek conscience (Dopii=locals). The older people, speak a bulgarian dialect, which they called it Dopia (=local dialect). In some other villages the people are Greeks who came from Black sea(Pontioi). In a few villages the people are Greeks Vlachi, and there is at least one village where many people have slavic origin and slavic conscience (greeks call them filoskopiani). Many of Slavians of the region, after 1913, removed to Yugoslavia and other places. In the town of Florina most of the citizens are Greeks who removed from Bitola(Monastiri) after 1913 when the city occupated by Slavians. Of course in Florina live people from the villages around.
From the 53 000 citizens of Florina prefecture there are no more than 5 000 people with slavic origin and conscience (filospopiani).--Makedonas 12:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Macedonia, could you please provide a reference to support your statement that Lerin is spelled Леринь in Bulgarian? Google returns only one result for that spelling, but returns over 1,700 for Лерин - including several hundred results from Bulgarian websites. -- ChrisO 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have understood about the Bulgarian language, they did away with the "soft sign" in around 1973. Since then, consonants have hardened but in the writings of some of the older more conservative people, they tend to keep it. so even if Lerin DID have the soft sign some 40 years ago, it hasn't now. The question is, how do they call Lerin in Russia? No doubt this is the Slavic name, and I speak a fair amount of Russian but I have never looked to see a map of Greece to know how they say it. Celtmist 7 February 2006
Umm, maybe I'm missing a point here, but how did we get from Greece to Russia via Bulgaria? What's the relevance of Russia? -- ChrisO 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked, this is a city located in GREECE. What's with the double naming? A reference to the slavic name is ok, but that's more than enough. Check Istanbul, do you see Constantinople being mentioned anywhere?
Yes but the city SHOULD NOT be located in greece, but in BULGARIA.
Um..would you care telling us why? If anything, it's Bulgaria that's occupying Greek land, not the other way around! ;-)220.237.57.215 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Lerin?
Is there a reason for the south slavic name to be prominently featured in this article, if not to establish that there is a significant south slavic minority there? (which is not true).--Avg 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
First: there is a significant minority in this prefecture, considering the small Macedonian party collects here most of its (not too many) votes. Second, far more important, this article has already been a laughstock for the whole wikipedia community for this dispute, so we should leave it as it is since both Greek and Macedonian editors seemed to have calmed down on the issue and accepted the present solution.--Aldux 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Come on Avg, here you don't want to accept a single meantioning of an centuries old name that was in use until Greece changed it in the previous century. If not else, accept that it has an historic importance. On the other hand you want the provisional reffernence for the Republic of Macedonia to be used as many times as possible and you demand separate article and paragrafs about it. --Dipazi 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My friend the provisional reference is an official appelation. Lerin has historic importance and I don't deny its existence in the article. But according to your reasoning, the article about Republic of Macedonia should read: The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија; Greek: Δημοκρατία των Σκοπίων/Republic of Skopje), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. Because this article says: Florina (Greek: Φλώρινα; South Slavic: Лерин/Lerin) is a town in Greece. In parentheses is the name that Macedonians refer to Florina with and moreover Cyrillic letters! This is the direct equivalent, because this is how Greeks refer to the RoM. So I will be very happy if this was the intro of your country's article. --Avg 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Lerin - origin of name
Does anybody know what the origin of the name "Lerin" is? When was "Lerin" rep. "Florina" first used? We had a similar discussion for Bitola/Monastiri that showed some results. Andreas 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The origin of the name Lerin is unknown because it was the first name. Florina came after the civil war when Greece began changing the indigenous names of the areas. Florina=fLoRINa=fLERINaAlexander the great1 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to sound rude, nor 'hostile' but what on Earth are you talking about with "Florina=fLoRINa=fLERINa" ? Is this some short of bizarre attempt to folk etymological treatment?--LapisExCoelis 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is quite apparent that since the occupation Greece has changed the names of cities to make them sound Greek. The original name was LERIN, FLORINA is LERIN with just a few letters changed. See f LERIN a, it is quite obvious that just a letter was added in front of the name, one was added at the end of the name and one was changed in the middle to make it sound Greek. Alexander the great1 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a new hypothesis on the origin of the names now in the article. However, there are no sources for it. If no sources are given, the new passage ought to be deleted. Andreas (T) 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My source is an official tourist guide from the city of Florina, but here are two pages that essentially say the same thing: from the official website of the prefecture of Florina and Radio Florina. There's actually plenty of interesting additional info here, that might be worth putting into the article. Regards, sys < in 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Good work. There is, however, no mention of "Lerin" on these pages. Of course, it is rather obvoius that Lerin comes from Hlerina. The loss of an initial h before l is a characteristic of the local Slavic idiom, cf Macedonianleb "bread" vs. Serbianhleb. Andreas (T) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The city builded during the byzantine era and it was called Hlorina.Through the years Greeks used to call it Florina and Slavs Lerin81.24.182.98 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Slavs used to change cities names cause they couldnt pronounce the greek names p.e. Kastoria-->Kostur,Thessaloniki-->Solun,Stenimachos-->Stanimaka etc 81.24.182.98 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with "Republic of Macedonia"?
I think by saying Rep. of Macedonia, it's pretty clear that it's not referring to the Greek region. Why do we have to push the "former Yugoslav" part? Why is that necessary? The page is at Republic of Macedonia, so we should link it as such. The only excuse for us using FYROM is if we move that page to FYROM. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
We're adopting FYROM POV. As I was saying, articles regarding Greece do not have to refer to FYROM as ROM. FYROM is a perfectly legal name, which is used by them in all international organisations. Why should we subscribe to their POV? According to linking, I don't disagree that the link might be ROM to avoid redirects. So the best solution would be [[Republic of Macedonia|former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]--Avg 01:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You're forgetting something very important: although calling it Macedonia offends Greeks, calling it the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia equally offends Macedonians. That's why I think it would be neutral to call it ROM. As stated in WP:NPOV, it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think that many people are offended by "Republic of Macedonia" as they are by "Macedonia" for the name of the country. —Khoikhoi 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, nobody can be offended by a legal name. We don't like ROM but we can't say do not use it in Wikipedia because we're offended, since it is already used. It's the same with FYROM. They can't say they are offended, because it is already used. And I say again, ROM is not neutral. It's their POV. This is exactly what they want, to bypass all international decisions and mediation and pass ROM as a fully accepted name (which is NOT).--Avg 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, not quite. Their POV is to call it "Macedonia" The issue here is not what is legal, but what people use. Anyways, I'm too tired to discuss something like this anymore. γειά σου. —Khoikhoi 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
We've had the same discussion over and over. If their POV is "Macedonia", then our POV is "Skopje". That's the equivalent. In terms of FORMAL titles, the country has two, not one. They prefer ROM, we prefer FYROM. Γεια σου και σένα! --Avg 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, until the page Greece says "Republic of Macedonia" , then do you think it makes sense to put RofM in the city pages? Chaldean 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
but what people use - But people in Greece do not use Republic of Macedonia. Chaldean 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Greece, Chaldean. It's supposed to represent views of other people in addition to that of the Greeks. —Khoikhoi 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a Gdansk/Danzig type of compromise here. FYROM is not just the Greek name, it is the name used by all international organizations and a large number of states too. --Telex 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But it's not neutral because the Macedonians don't like it. I always thought that "Republic of Macedonia" was a sort of compromise between Macedonia and FYROM. —Khoikhoi 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. FYROM was supposed to be a temporary compromise name until the dispute could be solved. See UN Security Council Resolution 845 (1993). They cooked up this name, so that people could use it to refer to the country without taking sides. --Telex 00:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that, but today calling it FYROM is taking sides. Anyways, as I said before, having the "Republic of" clarifies that it's not talking about Greek Macedonia. —Khoikhoi 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling it Republic of Macedonia is also taking sides. Not to mention that Florina is in Greek Macedonia. That's the problem with these kind of things - no one's happy until diplomacy works everything out and even then some people will still be grumbling. --Telex 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. So what should the Republic of Macedonia article be moved to, in your opinion? —Khoikhoi 00:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I had thought of something like Macedonia (republic) (and then say in the intro: the Republic of Macedonia - also known as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - is a...). I had seen it like that somewhere (can't remember where), but a vote was taken on this issue a few weeks ago and the result was firmly to keep it at Republic of Macedonia. --Telex 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What I had in mind (I read this somewhere as well) was to have the article at Macedonia (region) and then use the name FYROM in Greece, EU, UN, NATO etc related articles and use ROM in everything else. Kind of a Gdansk-Danzig compromise. The double name solution FYROM's goverment is always trying to persuade the Greek goverment to accept (they never have and they never will though). --Telex 00:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, again you dogged the issue - why dont you change the main page first - Greece - then we can talk about everything underneath it.
I always thought that "Republic of Macedonia" was a sort of compromise between Macedonia and FYROM. - Can I ask how you figured this? "Republic of Macedonia" is what people in FYROM want. Anyways, I dont understand what is the problem here. Like why do we have to shove "R of M" into Greek people's face? This is what the subject (Florina) sees it as (As beeing part of the nation Greece) and that should be respected. I mean, putting "Republic of Macedonia" into any Greek city or village page is like going into a FYROM city or village and changing "R of M" to FYROM. Does that sound neutral? Chaldean 00:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. So what should the Republic of Macedonia article be moved to, in your opinio?
Nowhere, why should it be moved? This is what that nation has declared itself under and that should be respected. Chaldean 00:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting the root of this dispute. See User:Macedonia for the extreme FYROM POV. I quote: Aegean Macedonia [ he means Greek Macedonia ] has an estimated population of 2,400,000 with Greek speaking inhabitants making up the majority; Macedonians account for about 20 percent of the total population, forming a majority in the districts of Florina, Kastoria, Pella, Kozani, Imathia, Kilkis and Serres; there are also other smaller groups including Turks, Vlachs, and Gypsies at around 2 percent each. Pirin Macedonia has a population of 355,000 made up entirely of Macedonians with smaller groups of Bulgarians and Turks. All together, the total population of Macedonia may be estimated at 4,700,000. The idea is irredentist land claims to create a United Macedonia at the expense of Greece, Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia. Of course their claims are baseless and in the case of Bulgaria one could argue the opposite's true. In the 1911 Ottoman census, Greeks were the largest Christian population in Bitola. The FYROM government claims there are no Greeks there today - where did they go, nobody knows. In the latest census on the topic in Greece (1951), 41,000 Slavic speakers were recorded. Slavic is a wide term and covers Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarian and Greek identifying Slavs (who according to the Helsinki Human Rights Monitor, are the largest group). Evidently those claims are baseless. As even if there were 41,000 "Macedonians" in Greece, they still are not enough to form the majority in all those districts. If the irredentism would go away, then they can call themselves whatever they want. Have you ever seen any of their propagandistic websites? --Telex 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why do you argue aboult all this. There are no Macedonians, but Bulgarians and consequently soon Macedonia will join Bulgaria. It will be harder to return our lands in Greece (which are all north of Larisa) but there are ways...
Some of you are very narrow minded and blinded by such nationalistic pride and hate...it would literally shock many of you if traveled Australia-notable Melbourne, as well Toronto and see just how many Macedonians there are whose origins are from Lerin/Florina. Many of them aren't allowed entrance, others are too old to even visit their birth places and yet there are such inconsiderate people here who really have no idea that such people exist and what they, what their grandparents had to live through. And for those of you who are so diluted, I am not referring to the new 'Greek-Macedonians' but the same people as those in the republic of Macedonia. Yet many of you will continue to deny this simply because it does not support what you have been taught, which quite frankly leaves absolutely no room for doubt. This does not exclusively apply to Lerin, but to other towns like Kostur/Kastoria, Voden/Edessa and the list goes on.
Whats wrong with the term RoM you ask. Very simple. This has been covered so many times in so many articles it is now becoming quite a joke. The skopian people are very selective with their propaganda and make claims of identity which has absolutely nothing to do with their ancestral origins. It is very simple, when people ask me where my origins are from i say to them i am Greek from Macedonia. It can not be any more clear than this. When i ask skopians where are you from they say Macedonia so i start speaking to them in Greek and they can't understand me. This is confusing & is causing confusion with all other nationalities. If you asked skopians 20 years ago where they were from they would have said YUGOSLAVIAN & start talking to you in Bulgarian. In addition to this, the reason why i say the skopians are very selective is that they make no claims to the lands in Eastern Thrace under Turkish control which were all Macedonian originally as well, strange that. They do this because they need and ally in the Turks therefore conveniently leave this part off their fictitious maps (very convenient). As to the name REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, just because the skopians have included this in their constitution, that does not mean it has to be accepted by others. They can call themselves CALIFORNIANS for all i care, does that mean that everybody has to accept them as such. I keep on reading comments from people on this matter in your pages time and time again. SO WHAT if the skopian constitution includes it, it is temporarily recognized as FYROM until a solution is found so FYROM is the accepted tern you should use for now. My opinion, for what it counts is, guys, you have a history in a land that you occupied a couple of 100 years ago at most. This land was originally called Macedonia until it became part of the Roman Empire, that was its end. As the Byzantine Empire re-emerged, the name was re-ignited by the Greeks as a state within Greece which it still remains till today. You are Southern Slavs and were called Southern Serbia for a long time, this was not the Greeks fault but the fault of your Slavic brothers. Tito had a problem with you as a nationality 60 years ago when he needed to form Yugoslavia and named you Macedonians (he could not come up with anything else plus he saw propaganda in this move for future claims to GREEK land because he needed a port). Unfortunately for you, the truth always prevails and the rest of the world looked through the fictitious state of affairs. This is how it is and will remain because no matter how hard you try and change the truth, written & original history will ALWAYS prevail.Hellasforever (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)HELLASFOREVERHellasforever (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"Bravery" Slavic Revolutionary Association from Lerin/Florina
The text on the photo reads (thats' what I could decipher): "Юнашкото Дружество Бъгарски Ю?? въ гр. Леринъ 8/II/1910 .- Главатаръ СТ. Ролефъ". I do not see any "Slavic" or "revolutionalry" here. Can someone who reads Bulgarian or Macedonian please translate the text correctly? Andreas (T) 15:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding the local name of Lerin
Would it be possible to add the local name of Lerin in title as most people in the lerin area speak the macedonian/slavic/dopia/nashinski dialect. eg Greek: Florina,Macedonian Slavic:(denoting the slavic speakers fomr macedonia not thrace) Lerin
or eg Greek: Florina,Slavic: Lerin
or eg Greek: Florina,South Slavic: Lerin ????
PMK1 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Most people? Where did you get that from? --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, most people in the region do seem to be billingual, so it'd be perhaps sensible to include the name in the lede (self-identification is a different matter, of course). 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There should be no problem on adding the local names for languages spoken on the area, unless it's a language spoken by a tiny minority. I'd say to go ahead and add it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would but I'm afraid of revert wars. I don't know what the specific policy in the "Balkans and Turkey" is (ie only have separate name sections -like now- or include in the lede under specific circumstances like this). You know how heated things can get, esp. during the summer. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's winter here ;-), but I think there should be some semblance of consensus at least. I personally prefer "name" sections, simply because they reduce edit-warring, but if it were to go in the intro, it should be as "local Slavic: Lerin" BalkanFever 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The slavic name is already mentioned in the "name" section, so I don't see what's the big deal. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's customary on city articles to list all names in local languages right after the city name on the lead whenever there is more than one local language, see articles like Barcelona and San_Sebastián --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
But the local language in Florina is Greek. Slavic is a minority language. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with including Lerin in the lead. It is certainly warranted given the history of the place and the large number of Slavic speakers in the area. Please note that the fact that the place has a alternate name does not constitute a territorial claim. Aramgar (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
By the same token, I assume there is no problem with adding the Greek name for Bitola in the lead. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Lerin and Monastiri should both be added to the respective pages. I'd add Lerin myself if I wasn't supposed to be working on a presentation. The language tag *should* be 'Macedonian', but 'local Slavic' would probably reduce the edit warring. Druworos (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was there, and Yannismarou removed it. It's not so much the removal from the lead that annoys me, but the fact that refuses to believe that "Lerin" is an alternate name. That's just sad, honestly. Everybody else here, whatever their position, knows the Slavic name of the town (specifically: the Slavic spoken in that area, by however many people). And apparently he's an admin. BalkanFever 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your colourful comments aside, I (obviously) agree and I don't think a source is needed in this case, really, so I'll add it back in. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources that indicate that the "Lerin" name exists and is used:
Political party of the macedonian minority on Greece:
Bitola or Monastiri?...Florina or Lerin?...Istanbul or Constantinopole? "An Australian citizen wanted to visit Greece. When he arrived to the Greek border crossing, the police officers on duty at that time asked him where he was going. The Australian man answered "Lerin" (the Macedonian name for the town of "Florina"). They asked him again, only this time in a harsh manner, where he was going. He repeated spontaneously, "Lerin"." It ends with the tourist calling the Australian Consular office in Skopje
Also, google search, it appears that the name is certainly in use. Someone please pick an appropiate source and add an inline reference right next to the Lerin name on the article so it doesn't get removed again. By the way, I think that none of the above sources states explicatelly that Lerin is the slavic name or the macedonian name, so maybe we need another source that says so. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So now it appears twice: In the lead and again in the name section in case someone didn't get it right the first time. Shall we add it a third time just to make sure? This is getting ridiculous. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What you need to do is not adding it on more places, but using inline references with sources that show that the name exists. Use one of the above sources, or search for another one. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Added a third time, just to make sure. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
the Major point here is whether or not Lerin is the Slavika or the Macedonian name? It is both, but Slavika is not a language, it is a term used to refer to the Slavic language (Macedonian) spoken in Greek Macedonia. This is done to dis-associate the Macedonian Speaking population with a Greek Ethnic Conciousness from another group of Macedonian Speakers. What is unecyclopedic is the listing of a non-existent language "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)" as the Secondary language. That article even states that the Macedonian Language are spoken in the Peripheries of West and Central Macedonia, now clearly Florina falls in the Periphery of West Macedonia, and therefore the language spoken there can be classified as Macedonian. It is only the transitional dialects (Macedonian/Bulgarian) where a braching term is used, but when dealing with the dialects of Florina, Kastoria, Giannitsa, Linguists are in agreement that the language is clearly Macedonian. Now back to the point, if the Slavic Name is to be given than the actual name of the language should be given, Macedonian, regardless of the identity of the speakers, here we are talking about linguistics not demographics. The Article currently presents the Greek POV that "Slavic" is a language. Only "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian & Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)", Or "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)" would be appropriate so that both POV's are presented, not only the Greek one or the Macedonian.
Q1. What is the objection to my first proposal?? - "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian & Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)"
Q2. What is the objection to my second proposal?? - "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)"
Q3. If this dispute is resolved sucessfully can we use the naming protocol on other disputed names, Kastori/Kostur, Krystallopigi/Smrdes etc.????
Please add your comments so that we can finally adress the situation. PMK1 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As I've been saying all along, local Slavic works. "Slavic" by itself refers to a (very large) language family, not one language, and only the Slavic which is/was spoken in the city is relevant. Anybody who does the slightest bit of research (clicking the link) will see that the local Slavic of Florina is classified by linguists as a dialect of the Macedonian language, and anyone who doesn't care enough to click the link still won't come to the conclusion that Ukrainian is spoken there. And of course the vandals are less likely to remove it. BalkanFever 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Holy rant. Local Slavic or Macedonian Slavic will do. Simply Macedonian too but let's not go there. 3rdAlcove (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC) PS: "here we are talking about linguistics not demographics." Kind of you not to treat them as your long lost brothers :))
Local Slavic would do just fine. --Tsourkpk (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The local Slavic thing you are reffering to, already exist under the name paragraph. We dont need to add it twice and particularly in the lead. Also, Its the first time I hear that many peole talk Slavic in Florina! Most people talk Greek of course! Now if a few people do in fact talk Slavic that doesnt mean we have to start adding different names on the lead. This is a strange approach from some guys here in Wikipedia.Dvaaeg (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned user User:Mywayyy
If you look at other city articles on wikipedia, you will see tha they always list the name on several languages on the lead when they exist. Ídem for historical figures with several names, and all sort of topics. The example on the Manual of Style has a similar example when explaining what words should be bolded on the lead, see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title --Enric Naval (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
: I dont know what happens in other articles. In general the whole ideology behind adding other names AT THE LEAD is something pretty strange in Wikipedia. Now I understand there might be other reasons behind this. A Slav, or someone pro-slave would really enjoy seeing the slavic name right next to a Greek city as much as a Greek would enjoy seeing the Greek name in a Slavic city. But it is wrong. In the lead, there must always be ONE name. And thats the current national official name. End of story. We cant have 100 different names from people claiming there is a minority or multi-lingual situation. Because then we must add English, German, French and other names as well. If there is a Historical, Cultural or other reason, this can be explained and the name added at a relevant paraghaph as it already exists for Florina. I really cant understand why we should add another name AT THE LEAD. It is all least suspicious!Dvaaeg (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned user User:Mywayyy
Please don't use WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. There is only one alternative name for this city, not 100. Also, the Manual of Style page that I linked above does not agree with you about using only one name on the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with 3rd Alcove, Just Macedonian isn't fine and would create many reverts. But what about "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)" or "(Greek: Φλώρινα; MacedonianSlavic: Лерин, Lerin)". Oh @ Tsouprk, the "local slavic" spoken in the Florina area is Macedonian, what is your main objection to it's listing as macedonian? The language is Macedonian and it is greek POV pushing to pass it off as a "local slavic idiom". We need both POV's here. Personally i am for Macedonian Slavic, Are my sugestions acceptable??PMK1 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I have read Slavic_dialects_of_Greece again, and it says that in Central and West Macedonia what is talked is both transitional dialects and macedonian. So, saying that the language is only macedonian is like saying that it's not a transitional dialect, so it's making an unsourced claim, and it would be inaccurate. Unless, of course, you find a non-biased reliable scholarship source analyzing the dialects of the zone of the city, and saying that they are not transitional. (I bet that there are tons of unreliable nationalistic sources saying one thing or the other) Ok, so, I can't read. I got confused with the sentence on the lead listing the zones, the body of the article makes it clearer. Transitional dialects are spoken on the East. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No Kosovski, "Local Slavic" is not Greek POV. That's what the language is called by a majority of those who speak where it is spoken. That's why wikipedia has an article on Slavic language (Greece), and not "Macedonian language in Greece". "Local Slavic " it is. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tsourkpk, maybe you should read the article - it has a new title, among other things. "local Slavic" is not a language name, it simply describes the dialect of the Macedonian language spoken in Florina, without calling it Macedonian. Essentially, it is an uncontroversial and factually correct construction. "Macedonian" and "Macedonian Slavic" are factually correct too, but obviously they are controversial. "Slavic language" is not controversial, but it's incorrect (since it's not a language and it causes confusion). BalkanFever 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the current Slavic pipe is fine. Slavic dialects of Greece is too cumbersome, and calling it "Macedonian" implies there is only one claimant to the Slavic dialects of the region, which is clearly untrue. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to local Slavic? Nobody else seems to. BalkanFever 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but isn't that too Greek POV? I'm surprised you're proposing it, actually. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how it could be: it's not a name of a "language", it's simply descriptive - the Slavic dialect they speak in Florina is the Slavic of the Florina area (as opposed to the Slavic of the Chukotka area). But if a Greek passer-by interprets it their way, it doesn't really do any harm. Everybody's happy. BalkanFever 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's all good, then. (Though one could argue that it is the name of the language in Greece). Go for it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good? people are trying to pass off Macedonian dialects as not being part of the macedonian diasystem. The slavic dialect spoken in Lerin is clearly the Prilep-Bitola dialect but we are listing it as Slavic dialects of Greece. Also has anyone thought about the people of Lerin who identify as Macedonians, although not the majority they are still fairly subsantial in the region. Why can't their language be listed as Macedonian Slavic?. Either have both Macedonian and Slavic, or dont have any. Adding just slavic implies that the Macedonian language isn't spoken in Greece. What is wrong with (Macedonian languageSlavic dialects of Greece: Lerin, Лерин)?? What is even more deceiving is the Macedonian spelling is used, but the slavic dialects of Greece is listed? How Bizarre! PMK1 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You know, there would probably be no naming dispute at all if you agreed to call it "Macedonian Slavic" everywhere, not just here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We are not talking about the Naming Dispute that is for this page. So are you saying that macedonian slavic is acceptable? I do agree that Macedonian Slavic is appropriate for this page? once, again- What is wrong with (MacedonianSlavic: Lerin, Лерин)?? PMK1 (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I prefer BF's version. Keep it simple. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well of course, associating Florina with SlavoMacedonians must be treason in greece. What about the Macedonians who live in Florina, are they not a minority? Wikipedia allows for minority languages to be listed does it not? PMK1 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who lives in Florina is Macedonian, actually. And most of them don't speak "Macedonian". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
They don't? oh, they speak local slavic, which in the Lerin region is actually the Macedonian language? Geez, who would have thought? What about the Aegean Macedonians where are they found?, do they not speak Macedonian? Are there no Aegean Macedonians in Florina? or were they all expelled after the Greek Civil War? Please tell me, i am obviously brainwashed. PMK1 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously. By the way, linking to articles you have created yourself doesn't make your case any more convincing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What a Joke. If the language spoken in Florina is not Macedonian what is it? French? Portugese? Please tell Me. PMK1 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be if that's what its speakers called it. Apart from a tiny minority of Slavophones, they simply don't. The reason is fairly simple; they weren't subjected to the same process of "Macedonian" nation-building as their counterparts across the border in Yugoslavia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What the local speakers call it is irrelevant. What reliable sources call it counts. Let's not rehash the silly old Arvanitika conflict here. You lost that one, because you had zero reliable sources saying that Arvanitika was not Albanian. The situation here is the same. Bring one reliable linguistic source describing the local dialects in Florina as belonging to any other language than the language spoken in Skopje. There is none. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Lazy linguistics. Even if what you say is correct, WP:MOSMAC would proscribe plain "Macedonian" for this article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither MOSMAC nor your personal opinions about published linguistics can overrule WP:V. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll let you simmer down before posting here again. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Fut Perf does have a point, the language is Macedonian (whether they are Italians or Chinese), similar to the Aromanians in greece they could be devout Greeks but their language is still Aromanian. Also see Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. I proposed Macedonian Slavic because some people might be offended by just Macedonian, i have no problem about either. My reasoning for slavic is because that some people (greeks) may be offended. The Ball is in you court, Macedonian or Macedonian Slavic. You can decidePMK1 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that an ultimatum? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, See: Ultimatum, an Ultimatum is you must decide, while you can decide is friendly choice? Talk about talking off topic. If you cannot find any reliable source's which have the slavic dialect in florina as not macedonian i cannot see why it shouldnt be listed as Macedonian? PMK1 (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask again - why should there be a name in any other language besides Greek? Fut. Perf. you were against having names in any language as far as I remember. So is there a substantial minority that is self-identifying as ethnic Macedonian or something else? Cause if there is no such thing why is all the fuss? Lerin is a historical name, not a current one. And it was used by Bulgarians mostly, sorry if this offends someone. The Bulgarian school in Lerin, the Bulgarian church in Lerin, the Bulgarian whatever in Lerin. So in historical context it was a Bulgarian (or a Slavic) name, no such thing as Macedonian, sorry. The fact is that the whole "dialects of Macedonian" is a major POV fork and a somewhat frozen conflict that would get all of us blocked if renewed. Do you really want to open the Pandora box again? All this seems like a rather lame POV push to me and I'm still waiting to hear valid reasons for this nonsense. --LaveolT 12:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The rule is that significant minority languages get mentioned either in the lead or in some extra section; since we have the extra section, I don't care about the lead. I also don't care too much about the exact wording; I just care about the possibility that a POV-distorted, false factual claim about the linguistic affinities of the local dialect gets sneaked into it. No matter what we or they call it, historically or synchronically, the language spoken by the local minority in and around Florina is that language that is today called Macedonian, like it or not, it is not Bulgarian and not some anonymous phantom "Slavic language (Greece)". WP:V, period. Anything that implies something to the contrary is unacceptable. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but is there a significant minority language? I doubt it. I threw in the whole Bulgarian part cause you always want us to stay out of politics in linguistic issues, but the fact is that calling this the Macedonian language (I mean the whole thing, not just the dialect in this part of Greece) is political to start with. It's a political decision to call any Balkan Slavic language Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian or whatever. There are lots of sources speaking about this - about the whole "Nowadays a language is defended by arms, not with scientific arguments" and so on. So by calling it Macedonian we're deep in politics already, calling it Slavomacedonian or Slavonika or whatever leads us to the same point. So I'll aks again - why is this needed? To defend some ill irredentist nationalism? To satisfy the poor Bulgarians/Macedonians that have to leave the town? The only possible solution is to remove all alternative names from the lead (as it is now) and include in the history section that prior to the 1920s there was a Slavic population in the city that called it Lerin. And that's it. End of edit-wars, everybody happy, no mentions of non-existing minorities, no irredentist claims, no false factual claim about the linguistic affinities of the local dialect, no nothing. --LaveolT 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the sources (e.g. [2]) Florina and surroundings are the area where the language is most vibrant. That source estimates the number of speakers to about 50% of the population of the prefecture. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Your (non-Greek) source also calls it [slavo]macédonien/bulgare. If anything, the careful wording sets an example to follow, in sharp contrast to your extreme position. Shall we do the same here? And if not, why not? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Try harder. That paper clearly speaks of "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" as two separate languages, and leaves no doubt that the Florina varieties belong to the former, not the latter. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave the "Macedonian" versus Bulgarian debate to you and Laveol. You still haven't answered my question, though. If Euromosaic calls it [slavo]macédonien, why can't we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should all take a look at Valencian. Although the consensus among linguists is that it is Catalan, the official name of the language in Valencia is Valencian. I don't see how this is any different, except perhaps for the fact that Valencian is virtually identical to Catalan, while the Slavic dialect of Florina is far from standard "Macedonian". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds more like the situation with Romanian/Moldovan. Our situation here would become comparable the moment the Greek state decided to make "Slavomacedonian" its own co-official state language. Interesting thought, but rather irrelevant realistically... Fut.Perf.☼ 12:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Who says it has to be an official language? Greece already has an official name for it (Slavic per the 1951 census), and it's not "Macedonian". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If "Valencian" or "Moldovan" have any reality at all under those names and as distinct entities, they do so by virtue of being the object of official language policies. These are lacking here. If the 1920s experiments with the "Abecedar" and all that had been continued, you might have a point. But as it is, the linguistic policies of the Greek state towards this language are characterised mainly by their non-existence. I don't see why the terms in which representatives of the Greek state occasionally express their determination to ignore that language should have any bearing on the way we discuss it. (Needless to say, you are still engaging in your original (non-)research, as always. Do you ever go out and search for actual sources?) Fut.Perf.☼ 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I can compete with neither your research skills nor your Turkish qualifications, I'm afraid. But how is the 1951 census my own original research? There are countless Greek sources, official and unofficial, that refer to the language as something other than "Macedonian". Again, you're saying that the POV of yourself and your linguist buddies is the only one that matters, and, again, I'm telling you it's not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
When dealing with mathematics, reliable sources are those by mathematicians. With movies, movie critics. With languages, linguists. Who else would we ask, plumbers? taxi drivers? Fut.Perf.☼ 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's your problem. You actually believe your personal opinion about Greece's language policy is more important than that of the plumber or taxi driver who votes in the governments which implement that policy. Languages don't exist in a vacuum. They also have historical, geographical and political realities to contend with. And anywho, this article is about a town, not a language. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Who the f... speaks of my opinion? Stop your disruptive speculation and get your head wrapped around the use of academic sources, at last. You are engaging in disruptive editing here, which is bannable. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
FPS has given a source where the title is: "Le [slavo]macédonien / bulgare en Grèce". That looks like a sound academic source. Then FPS argues against it?! But he is an administrator and is not very bannable :-). But we have yet another source to call the language Slavomacedonian, when it concerns Greece. Politis (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I was criticizing your opinion about how indiscriminately we should adhere to the sources, as it is relevant to the future of this article. But that was before you provided a link to a source that dispels the myth that the only term used for the language in international scholarship is plain "Macedonian". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The term used by the overwhelming majority of mainstream English-language academic sources is "Macedonian" pure and simple. This has been demonstrated time and again, we don't need to repeat that here. Occasional exceptions notwithstanding. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Δεκτόν, but we're not debating the location of "Macedonian language" here. We're discussing the most sensible (and sensitive) way to refer to the language in an "exceptional" case such as this. In fact, Euromosaic-style disambiguation is fairly common in academic sources that deal with linguistic minorities in Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I have nothing against disambiguators where a common-sense argument can be made for them. What I don't accept is to use them in a way that would suggest we're dealing with a different, separate language. In the passage in question here, my personal preference would be: "The Slavic name for the city (Lerin, Лерин) is a borrowing of the Greek name Chlerinon, with the loss of the initial /h/ in the local Macedonian dialect (cf. Macedonian leb "bread" vs. Serbian hleb)." Fut.Perf.☼ 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to support Future Perfect's solution. "Slavic" seems the best solution. If necessary, I have a reliable source that says that "Lerin" is the contemporary "Slavic" name. Additionally, the name "Lerin" is attested first in the 14th century, well before --how to say this?-- the differentiation of many Slavic languages in the region. Aramgar (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as it remains in the second paragraph and I think we could loose the "with the loss of the initial /h/ in the local Macedonian dialect (cf. Macedonian leb "bread" vs. Serbian hleb)", it seems superfluous, this is not a linguistics article. Furthermore, I have seen no references to the term Lerin before the 20th century. Politis (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
About that sound change thing, I admit it's now unsourced, but I'd find it interesting if we could keep it. The passage is engaging in some etymological explanations of a comparable level about how "Chlerinon" becomes "Florina", so why not also have the branch towards "Lerin" explained in a similar way? (That the sound change in question happens to be one that is actually specifically Macedonian, in dialectal terms, and couldn't have happened in standard Serbian or Bulgarian, is just a matter of curiosity.) Fut.Perf.☼ 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, not a specialist on linguistics, but I know for sure some Bulgarian dialects bear the same specifics. --LaveolT 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a quirky little piece of information and why not, it can stay. Politis (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In my academic world we encourage interdisciplinary approaches. Linguists need historians and country analysts (such as myself), but, for better or for worse, there is not a great call for linguists because they tend to miss out on the impact of their pursuits. Hence, the facts tell us that until WWII the dialects were called Slavic, Bulgarian or Slavophone, the term Slav Macedonia was so rare as to be incidental. After WWII, we see the embergence of the Makedonski language - that is a fact. But the invention is the map that extends over such a vast region under the appelation Macedonian - that is political and irredentist (no accusations made or hinted at) Politis (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So basically we are calling the language spoken local slavic? When linguists say it is macedonian, the local dialect is Macedonian and the article we are bieng directod to clearly states that the language is macedonian. I challenge the Greek users to find any reliable linguistic evidence which states the slavic language spoken in florina is not Macedonian. Also the term "Slavomacedonian" is a deprecated term, WP:MACEDONIA recommends Slav Macedonian or Macedonian Slavic. There is reliable evidence stating that the language spoken there is Macedonian (but greeks choose to disregard all linguistic facts) , once again i am proposing; "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)" for the title. If greek users are not satisfied with this than they should present sources claiming that the language is neither Macedonian nor apart of the Macedonian Diasystem. PMK1 (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you like this - http://www.let.rug.nl/~nerbonne/clcg/vw_proposal.pdf then? At the moment all the stuff about Macedonian dialects is highly POV. If I were a linguist I'd add the whole info about Bulgarian dialects, but since I'm not I'll ask someone to add it - I saw a new editor on the Bulgarian language article - I'll try with him. --LaveolT 08:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I Have read the article, First of all the article quite clearly classifies ALL of the Macedonian dialects as Bulagarian. It is also interesting that the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria has been used as a cooperative, very neutral. <cough, cough>. Also refering the Seperation of Croatian from Serbian and Macedonian and Bulgarian is also another disputed issue, there are sources from the respective languages from the middle ages and 1793 respectively (obviously the legitimacy are both disputed.). Another point ...varieties recognized as Macedonian...are spoken outside the political borders of Macedonia...in greece. Also of interest We believe that it is not possible to fully do justice to the complexity of the linguistic aspects of this situation without the use of quantitative methods of dialect and language comparison. Although the maps show the "bulgarian" language streching across to Albania, it has included the Macedonian language with it, clearly not demarcating the line whereby macedonian ends and bulgarian starts. Linguistically the Dialects of the Florina region are closer to standard macedonian than standard bulgarian. Also to note: 'We will measure the linguistic distance between non-standard varieties of Bulgarian, between
these varieties and standard Bulgarian, and furthermore between these varieties and standard
Macedonian. which clearly implies that not just bulgarian is being tested. 'Here we anticipate that our measures of linguistic distance will demonstrate
that Macedonian shows significant differences from other varieties, whose status as Bulgarian
dialects is undisputed, in terms of external diversity and internal homogeneity. in relation to the dialects which are undiputed eg. Rhodope Dialect, Skopje-Veles Dialect. Although the report is well sourced it makes no mistake that the "bulgarian" dialects in ROM, etc. are in fact Macedonian. This applies for the Lerin region. Once again no response to the proposal "(Greek: Φλώρινα; Macedonian Slavic: Лерин, Lerin)" which reflects the veiw of most of the world (bar bulgaria and greece). PMK1 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I was writing a paragraph regarding this in the Cultural and Ethnic Conflicts board but I got too lazy and just deleted it. So, just piss off for the time being. All this whining makes me want to get someone to block you. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
WTF? blocked what for? You cant handle the truth. No point in insulting users, coz that'll get you no where. This is ridiculous. PMK1 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
...and removing it
Didn't we have this discussion already? Listing alternative names on the lead is *not* a duplication of content, see example on Wikipedia:LEAD#Bold_title and other city articles like Lleida.
I thought we had already moved to bitching about what to call the language on the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
