Talk:Bitola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Country name

Wasn't naming of the country solved already elsewhere? If not, then the name use by the people of Macedonia should be used and disputes left to article about the state. Pavel Vozenilek 18:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second largest city

Pulvis angelus, you are mixing a town with a municipality. Bitola is the second largest town in Macedonia after Skopje and third largest municipality after Kumanovo. Lets see the data presented from the census in 1991: Then the municipality of Bitola had a population of 122,173 ([1]) and the municipality of Kumanovo had 135.529 ([2]). But, please notice that in the table is described the ratio between the city population (69.251) and in the farmers (66.278), in other words, about a half of the Kumanovo municipality citizens lived in the villages. So, in that period Kumanovo had approximately 70 000 citizens. Also, notice that the city population on the census performed in 1994 dropped to 66.237 (you can see that in the same article). The cituation in municipality of Bitola is much different because the population that live in the villages is much smaller than the population that live in the town. You can also check the following data from the 1994 census (click on the picture):[3] Bitola 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pure original research. No data to back Bitola being 2nd largest.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Bitola is the name used by the people of Macedonia. Also, I think that this article has a lot of Albanian POV. Somebody with better knowledge of the city history should check this. User:PANONIAN

According to the article, it appears that the name Obitelj/Bitola is older than Monastiri. If this is so, then Monastiri is presumably a translation of Obitelj and is not derived from the number of churches. Rather, Obitelj is possibly derived from the many churches. This shiould be clarified, if possible, or the mention of the churches removed. Andreas 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a revert war between editors claiming that the Greek name Monastiri came first and editors claiming that the synonymous Slavic name Obitel came first. Instead of just reverting back and forth, it would be more productive to provide documentation for these claims. If there are good arguments on both sides, then NPOV says that both should be documented. --Macrakis 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally to hear something reasonable. Because I created the recent look of the article, I'm feeling responsible what will stay in it. My actions are not done based on my personal feelings; instead, I used several different historical sources. According to almost every source I found so far, Bitola as a settlement was established by the Macedonian Slavs that shifted in this area in the VI century: [4], [5]. Regarding the name, it is considered that the current official name have been gradually derived from the old Slavonic word Obitel. So far, I found two different meanings for the word, the first one tells that it means a monastery, monastery place or monastery settlement and the second one tells that it means a family or house, an area of living. Very interesting fact that supports the second meaning is that the modern Serbian/Croatian word for family is Obitelj (I’m not sure for the other Slavic languages as Russian and Bulgarian):[6],[7]. Maybe the truth lies (as always) in between, probably the word means a Christian/monastery community, family:[8]. However, you can notice that this word is not directly derived from the Greek word Monastery (Obitel and Monastery as words have completely different structures). According to every source I found so far in the written literature I had, the Byzantium sources called the town Butela, Butelion, Botila, Botili, even Pelagonia as it is stated in Britannica. I believed that the naming section satisfies both sides, because it provides the description of the Slavic word Obitel, as well as the fact that the Turkish, official name of the city before 1913 was Monastiri, derived from the Greek word for monastery (although we have no source for this claim). I also tried to explain that on the user:Miskin, Andreas and user:Hectorian talk pages. Unfortunately, some users don't know nothing else than mercilessly reverting what I have built not easily and in a really good faith. Even Latinus is now searching a way to block me from editing. If that will satisfy you, then please, go on, maybe if we Macedonians give up from editing (I must admit that I'm considering that option seriously), you can freely write everything you want, regardless if that is true or not. Bitola 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you look at what the Columbia Encyclopedia says, it does not say that it was founded by Slavs, nor does Britannica. It mentions its existance before the Slavic arrivals. You are interpreting it the way you would like to believe it was. This is all speculation as Macrakis correctly notes. Your version is original research. In fact, Columbia says that its former name was Monastir and does not say, nor imply that it was ever called Bitola or anything similar prior to that. What is your source that says that it was called Bitola in the 6th century? --Latinus 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It could be that the Turkish name comes from the Northern Greek dialect where unstressed /i/ has disappeared. Andreas 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but what is wrong then? I already left in the article that the Turkish name probably was translation of the greek word. But, why are you reverting the first paragraph where I describe the recent, official name of the city? The fact that the recent name of the city origins from the old Slavic word is a common fact:[9],[10],[11]. Why you always have a need to complicate the things? Bitola 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Let us see what is agreed on and what is not.
Agreed:
  • That the names Bitolj (Serbian) and Bitola (Macedonian) have been used during most of the 20th century (I would guess, but am not sure, that the official name was changed to Bitolj immediately after the Balkan Wars).
  • That the Ottoman name was Monastir. (Hence the Columbia Enc. statement that its "former" name was Monastir.)
  • That Monastir is derived from the Greek name Monastiri, either because of Greek dialectal phonology or the borrowing into Turkish.
  • That Bitola/Obitel and Monastir/Monastiri mean the same thing.
Unclear:
  • The relationship between Heraclea Lyncestis and Bitola/Monastiri. Had Heraclea completely disappeared? Was Bitola/Monastiri a new settlement outside the walls of Heraclea (perhaps of Slavs)?
Disputed:
  • Which came first, the name Monastiri or the name Bitola? If we believe the references in the article (which someone should verify), both the names Bitola (or variants thereof) and Monastiri are attested in the 11th century. It is perfectly possible that even then Slavic-speakers (such as Tsar Samuil) called it Bitola and Greek-speakers called it Monastiri.
My proposal:
  1. We incorporate all the undisputed content into the article.
  2. We do more research on the early name in good sources — Macedonian and Greek newspapers, government publications, and Web sites do not count.
  3. Until the matter is clarified, we take no position on which name came first, and simply state that Monastir(i) and Bitola are synonyms, and both are attested as names as far back as the 11th century.
What do you think? --Macrakis 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and please, if the other editors have no objection on this, rewrite the section according to your proposal. Bitola 18:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Count me in... --Latinus 20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I more than agree to this proposed solution in order to end this mindless edit war. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 10:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The Ottoman Census of Hilmi Pasha in the beginning of the 19th century stated that the millet of Monastir was predominantly Greek. This data is already cited in the talk page of Macedonians(ethnic group). I have a book in the Balkans (from a British) author, which states that many Greek villages of Monastir were Slavicised by the Bulgarians in the turn of the century. The later Slavic predominance in the region can thus be derived. I don't see we should not include that information in the article. The reason I haven't tried it so far, is because I didn't want to make provoking edits against the Slavic crowd. However, after having seen User:Bitola's arrogant persistance of not recognising the original Greek name of the city by making ludicrous statements such as "the Turkish name 'monastir' probably derives from the greek 'Monastiri'", or that 'Monastiri and Bitola don't have the same defitions", I have changed my mind. Miskin 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Miskin, your sources are undisputed but refer to as late as 19th century. Is it possible that Slavs were in that city sometime between 6th and 19th century, before Greeks came and pushed them out (epecially during 11th)? Is it possible, that they established the name Bitola before the Greeks translated it to "Monastiri"? Even if that's the case, it is still possible that Greeks preceded Slavs, who were in turn succeded by Greeks, to end to Modern Slavs. There is no end in this, unless someone can provide the complete history of the name. The debate is for who named the town after the meaning of "Monastery" first. We need to trace back in time and see which people (Greeks or Slavs) had reasons to name it as such.  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 17:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the Slavic invaders were settled in rural places, as the cities could not be penetrated. Is there an argument for a non-Christian people to name a city "Monastery"? Miskin 17:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No such irrational argument by me. Please present your sources that Slavic invaders were non-Christian. The second point Slavic invaders settled in rural places, while Monastiri was an urban one, is not redundant, because even if they settled there, they wouldn't have called it Bitola, unless they meant something of their religion relevant to the Christian monastery. If these are true, then I am covered, and the article should be reverted to the original version of Latinus.  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"I thought Slavic invaders not being Christian" was common knowledge, otherwise why would Cyril be credited for their Christianization [12]. It would be simpler to just find some maps of the Justianian era. I do have a bunch under my possession but those sources are currently physically innaccessible. Miskin 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

When Slavs settled the town in the VI century (according to almost all sources on Internet and in the written literature I have), it was done in the vicinity of the ancient town of Heraclea Lyncestis which was already an important episcope centre. Archaeological excavations revealed rich presence of artefacts from the Early Christian period (see my new adds on the article) and maybe that was the reason why Slavs started to use the name related to Christianity: Obitel. Bitola 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The earliest source for either name is 11th century, by which time the Slavs had been christianized. Do we know whether they were christianized when they settled or named the place? I haven't seen any sources either way. Moreover, it is perfectly possible that there was a monastery of Greek-speaking monks in this place, but that the settlement near it was Slavic-speaking. You see this sort of thing in Britain, in Gaul, etc. In any case, all of this is speculation. Until someone comes up with better sources, I see no reason to presume that either name is original. --Macrakis 18:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Macrakis. As for the sources from the 11th century, we have incorporated in the article that the Slavic name of the city is mentioned in one of the tsar Samoil treaties. But, do you have some source from the 11th century that the name Monastiri was used in that period? If you have, please tell me and we could include that in the section as well. Thanks Bitola 19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To constant reverters

At least, you could revert the page but include the corrections made by neutral users for irrelevant to the Greek origin of the name data (like Macrakis' correction of the link to the Greek wikipedia). Furthermore, the particular ip range 62.162... can be safely assumed that it evidently is the sockpuppet of a certain editor that has been blocked for repetitive reverts. Please stop, or there will be grounds for requesting a Range Block. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what's odd - their blocks have already expired. Why do they use socks? --Latinus 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that than anon is User:Bitola. A 62.162... anon make this comment and signed it as "Bitola" [13]. In this post, he says that he agrees to Macrakis's proposal and once he implements it, he uses a sock to revert it (while pretending to be someone else). Thus far, we have the following socks:

As I doubt that they belong to User:Realek, as his IP is 80.77.148.105 (talk • contribs • block log) and appears to be a static one, whose else's can it be, but Bitola's. It also appears to be a dynamic IP. --Latinus 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if a range block is needed (doubtful - semi-protection could suffice), a whois check reveals that the IP range is 62.162.0.0 - 62.162.255.255, so we can assume (within reason - there may be more than one user in his city) that if an IP from that range reverts, it is User:Bitola. --Latinus 21:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, still reverting [14]. He just told Macrakis that he agrees with his proposal and then reverts him using socks and leaves trollish edit summaries. --Latinus 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Bitola, does this recent trolling spree which earned you another block serve any purpose whatsoever? --Latinus 00:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that I’m so immature after all I have done on WP? Although I’m not satisfied with the current solution (I will explain why or try to edit the section in the future), I have nothing with the current edit war around the Bitola article. My edits on that article ended on 17 March 2006 , 00:19. Since than, I didn’t make any single edit there! Actually, when I stopped with my edits on the article, I was a little bit frustrated and decided to take my “extended wikibreak” seriously, so you will not see me much around these days. Anonymous editing is not my style. Bitola 09:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article has been agreed by all editors that appear in the talk, including User:Bitola. It is very unlikely that the constant reverts are by him. We will just have to wait and see what happens. In the mean time, all sides should be checking that the current version stays, while they search for reliable sources. NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 10:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if user Bitola agrees then I wont object for the moment. Anyway I dont object per se but I do on 2 points:
  • If we should include that here, we should include the slavic names of geographical places in northern greece and mention their rename.
  • I dont think it should say its translated from one language to the other because we havent determined the direction of the translation. We should find a more neutral solution
Realek 23:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It does not mention a translation - have you even read it? The Slavic names are included in certain Greek towns and cities. You can write about them being renamed when you find a WP:RS. --Latinus 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt but it misleads towards it: Both the Greek name Μοναστήρι [monastiri] 'monastery' and the synonymous Slavic names Obitel/Botelja/etc. Why is the slavic name a "synonym"? Concerning your remark about the renaming - I'll will look for a WP:RS. It shouldnt be too hard to find the names used by the Turks who stayed here for 6 centuries. --Realek 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
the greek and the slavic names are synonyms.aren't they?there is no mention of 'translation'--Hectorian 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
So you wouldn't object to it being the other way around (that's the logical conclussion of your statemant) --Realek 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This edit wouldn't be yours by any chance would it? Hmm... sockpuppetry galore... --Latinus 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No its not! But it makes perfect sense! So that is what your accusation on my IP adress page was... Like I said - dont make accusations based on your subjective thoughts! --Realek 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an enquiry, not an accusation - that one at your IP, was to see if you'd respond (thereby proving that it was your IP). I suspect that this IP belongs to someone else for technical reasons - see above... --Latinus 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
He's right. This should be Realek's IP. FunkyFly 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(Back to the left margin.)

Realek, you seem to be reading "X and the synonymous Y are attested..." to imply that Y is somehow secondary to X. I suppose you could interpret it that way, though that wasn't my intent in writing it. Would you prefer "X and Y are attested...; they are synonymous"? Stylistically, I don't think that flows as well. And stylistically, I think "The Slavic names A/B/C and the Greek name D" is a little heavier; but I would not object to exchanging the order. But isn't it a little silly to be quibbling about that? As for the Ottoman name, it is "Manastir" (obviously derived from the Greek name) as the article already says. --Macrakis 15:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I’m officially on wikibreak, I don’t want to leave the things unfinished. I agreed and still agree with the Makrakis proposal. I just made a little rewording of the section in order set up equal mentioning of two most important names for the town and in the following order: 1. official name 2. former name (I think the recent look is slightly biased). I hope nobody will find offended by this and that this article will become an example of good cooperation between the Macedonian and Greek editors. Bitola 18:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your rewording is fine by me. The current name specified first is undisputably correct. Had we known better, we would include information about who named it with the meaning of the word "Monastery" first. I hope sources stating that will come up. I too, believe there are amicable solutions to every subject, and wish our governments thought the same...  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were does Manastır name comes from ? Kailar was the big city of Manastır and Ana Britanica

  • Ottoman writing: (منسطر )M-N-S-D-R in latin)drived from manas (epic). Because people of manasdır originally comes from Kyrgizistan. Old people of Manasdır were look like Kyrgyz people,also they were poetic people and some words of them used only in Kyrgizistan language.

[edit] The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes

see link

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia. At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration

The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups:

  • the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek.
  • The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht.
  • The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia).

The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)--3210 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

Is it the third largest?! Is it the second largest?! Who knows? If you can't agree, leave it out. - FrancisTyers · 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/t/Talk%7EBitola_f72a.html"