Talk:Slavic dialects of Greece

A Diasystem is a system of closely connected standard languages. There is no such thing as a Macedonian diasystem or a Bulgarian diasystem, both standard languages belong to the same Eastern Sough Slavic diasystem or Bulgarian-Macedonian diasystem. The word occurs also in the a direct quote by Schmieger with the wrong meaning, but I d not have access to the origina to check.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be used like this by some others too, fwiw [1]. But I agree it's probably a good idea to remove it where possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a really well balanced and well written article! It does nor sink to the usual mess of mud slinging and disinformation which afflict most other topics of common interest to Bulgarians, FYROM Macedonians and Greeks. Well done to all of you!

Is it really necessary to have the whole 'until 1944' thing in the intro of every article dealing with Macedonian? --124.150.39.56 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Slavic dialects of Greece is re-created, per consensus reached on RfC # 1 on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and the discussion held there. Jingiby (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This map should be removed from the article. First, it has nothing to do with dialects. Toponyms dating back to the early middle ages, and dialects spoken in modern times are two completely separate things. This article is strictly about the Slavic dialects spoken in northern Greece in modern times, not all things Slavic in Greece. Second, the source is heavily outdated (from 1941) and is contradicted by modern scholarsip, e.g. [2]. Third, it is a very low-resolution, low quality map. If the red dots are supposed to represent Slavic toponyms, that's actually very few toponyms, and the map is moreover totally unlabeled. Lastly, there already exists in the article a perfectly good map of the Slavic dialects, and thus this map is not only outdated and low resolution, but also redundant. "It has been in the article since 2019" is a very weak counter-argument. Khirurg (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the map comes from the insignificant book Die Slaven in Griechenland. It shouldn't be here in the first place! Macedonian (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't a counterargument. It's how things are done on Wikipedia. When you make a change to a stable article and get reverted, you come to the talkpage to gain consensus first before reverting it. While I'm indifferent to this inclusion of this map, I'm not sure an article titled "Slavic dialects of Greece" is limited to exclusively discussing Slavic dialects in Greece in modern times, as you state it is. If that is the case, the article would be "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia and Thrace". --Local hero ^talk 16:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say at the moment the map is pretty irrelevant to the article, since the article text has no coverage of the older history. If there was such coverage – and I think it could quite legitimately be added – there'd be no problem with including the map, showing how the recent distribution of Slavic is a remnant of what once was a much larger geographical spread some time during the Middle Ages. The toponymic evidence is clearly relevant to this history, and I don't see why Vasmer wouldn't be an adequate source for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, scrap that. Looks like the map isn't even authentic. The Vasmer book is mirrored here [3], and it looks like it only contains the monochromous blank map underlying this image – the red dots are somebody else's additions. They may well represent all the toponyms Vasmer discusses, but that also includes names he rejects as likely not of Slavic origin (check the single red dot on the island of Aegina, compared with Vasmer's coverage here [4].) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)