Category talk:Macedonian language

Bulgarian language category
I can't believe I have to discuss this, but here we are. Alisa, you made a change to this article that was reverted. Instead of reverting back, you're supposed to seek consensus for what you're trying to institute here. To me, it so obviously exposes your bias and shows why you shouldn't be taken seriously in Macedonia-related articles. But, perhaps others can provide solid reasoning, unlike yourself, that the Macedonian language cat belongs as a subcategory of the Bulgarian language cat. Please, revert yourself and provide good evidence that the belief that Macedonian is today part of the Bulgarian language is a mainstream view. -- Local hero talk  01:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From all your argumenta ad hominem I got confused - should I explain myself (again) or my point of view is not relevant sine I am not "valuable" enough? Make up your mind, please. :-) I can't believe that I have actually to discuss it with a relatively old user but all relevant points of view must be reflected given their relative weight. Of course I do not insist that half of the article itself should be dedicated to the Bulgarian point of view but it must be reflected in the category tree because it is not my point of view, or the position of a category, group or just many academics in Bulgaria - it is the point of view of all academic sources in Bulgaria. Calling a whole country's position and all its well respected academic sources "a negligible fraction" is a serious infringement of the neutrality of the category.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, while your edit may be baseless, as an 'old user' I know not to edit war. You state that all points of view must be given their relative weight. So why do you think we should so blatantly support the extreme minority view that Macedonian is a variety of Bulgarian by having the categories in the fashion you want? Is that not giving it undue weight? Your edit is actually the only serious infringement of the category's neutrality since, yes, they are a negligible and biased fraction. Wikipedia is based on reliable and neutral sources only.
 * Don't you think Laveol and Jingiby would be here backing you up if this wasn't a ridiculous addition? No doubt they observe all the editing in these parts. -- Local hero talk  23:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, I do not know where are the other users and I suppose it is too far-fetched to expect neutrality from this category - so here is a reason why. The addition of the category does not undermine the neutrality because of the simple fact that I do not want to reflect only one point of view as you do. It is not a support of this or other point of view - the addition of the category simply shows that there is another point of view, supported by numerous reliable sources. A source is not unreliable simply because the author is Bulgarian - keep that in mind, I know it may sound exotic to you. Why is it that you want to hide the point of view of a while country with all its reliable sources? I see no argument of your statement "I know not to edit war" since this is exactly what you have been doing.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand how it works. You're the one who wants to make a change to a stable page, so, since you have been reverted, you must find a consensus for the changes. I'm not the one who needs to find consensus for something that already had one.
 * And ummm no, almost nothing is too far-fetched for including the Bulgarian POV for those two. Except, apparently, this.
 * I'm not going to explain again why this is such an idiotic addition on your part, instead here are some examples from other mutually intelligible languages: Category:Slovak language, notice no Czech language cat; Category:Lao language, notice no Thai language cat; Category:Swedish language, notice no Norwegian language cat, and vice versa; and Category:Kazakh language, notice no Kyrgyz language cat, and vice versa.
 * What you're doing is not standard practice, so get consensus for it before reverting. -- Local hero talk  14:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way adding the other point of view is restoring neutrality and yes, it is a standard practice - at least it should be.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

comment: as far as I understand, this category is for a language, not for country issues. The countries Macedonian is spoken in are already reflected through the "by country" categories. Dialect_continuum suggests that within the South Slavic languages there is not one language which is superior to another one. So making Bulgarian a subcategory of Macedonian would make as much sense as making Macedonian a subcategory of Bulgarian. Same for example with Romance languages. Holger1959 (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)