Talk:Bitola

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Country name[edit]

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)

Obtielj = Bitola is the reading of original Beitola the other way around or from reverse. The present name is from Ottoma era "Beitola" which from Arabaic means the House of God. In fact, when the Ottomans conquered the city, they found it like the House of God. Given that the name of God in Arabic is Allah, and of the Kabba "Beit-Allah", then it is clear what Beit-A(o)lla means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.125.187 (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Monastiri[edit]

The existance of Greeks in Monastiri/Bitola is not a political game. It is a fact. Greeks of Monastiri live not because of a political dispute. They live in Monastiri as their grand grand parents for over 4.000 years. I don't think they live in Monastiri only for causing political disputes. They just exist.

According to the latest census held in 2002, There are 95 385 people living in Bitola, 84 616 (nearly 90%) are Macedonians,followed by Albanians - 4164 (nearly 4%), Romas (2613), Turks (1160), Vlachs(1270), Serbs (541) and there are 550 citizens that declared themselves as "Other". Even if all of them are Greeks, it represents 0.5 % of the total population of Bitola, so there is no evidence that there is some significant number of Greeks living in the city today. They just don't exist:) MatriX (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main evidence is the "Republic of Macedonia" policy. During the last 10 years a lot of Greeks are terrorised by the "Republic of Macedonia" police. These are described in the European Court of Hague. Greeks are not free to declare their Greek identity. Another reason is that as they are forced by the authorities to declare "Macedonians", actually they say the truth. Because they are Macedonians indeed, although the term "Macedonian" has a different meaning for the Greeks. They are just Macedonian Greeks (like Cretan Greeks, Peloponnessian Greeks etc.). If there was freedom and democracy in the "Republic of Macedonia" we could see the actual number of the Greeks.Chrusts 09:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

I live myself in Monastiri,and there was never Greeks around the present Republic of Macedonia.This is an attempt by Dora Bakoyanis,to trigger violence,for an apparent Greek minority in my country...I think you guys confused Greeks with Vlachs,and I'm one of them...So there you go,bye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest city[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Name[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Count me in... --Latinus 20:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the area of Bitola there were never ever,any Greeks.It is propostrous to think that the area of Bitola has been Greek speaking when it wasn't.It is more certain that Peloponez had Slavs,rather than Bitola to have Greeks.I think that anything has to do with the dominance of the church,whether it was Bulgarian,Serb or Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unlikely the Greek word to derive from the Slavic (Monastir to come from Obitjal), because Slavs came later. The city was there already. Almost each of the significant places (whether mounteen, river, or towns) are preserved in the language of the newly came populations, it is a pattern. Just they can change the pronunciation according to the language of the new people, or they can be translated in the language of new people. This is not the case only with Slavs and Greeks, but everywhere. For example, the mounteen Orbelas preserved its name (losing the initial -or) Belas and gaining slavic suffix (-ica). Vardar changed its name from Axios to Velika (which mean the same), and most of the cities preserved their names (old cities). So probably Obitjal is translation for Monastir, if it is not from a form like Bouteli. That -lja (Bitol-j, Bitol-ja) might be an older suffix which has the same meaning as today's -ovo, so the name to mean 'a place where there are monasteries' etc. But it may also mean the same as the Skopje municipality Butel, for ex. It remains not very clear. And I am not a Greek. It seems to me, however that a name of a city would hardly come from monasteries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelazgo (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To constant reverters[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:Bitola, does this recent trolling spree which earned you another block serve any purpose whatsoever? --Latinus 00:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
the greek and the slavic names are synonyms.aren't they?there is no mention of 'translation'--Hectorian 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This edit wouldn't be yours by any chance would it? Hmm... sockpuppetry galore... --Latinus 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
He's right. This should be Realek's IP. FunkyFly 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you rangeblock the IP you will block 80% of the Macedonian editors. Don't block it, make a workgroup to create an article acceptable for both sides, be objective.
MrTequila 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  • 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.

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

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 Konya, 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)[reply]

Size[edit]

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) As far as i know because i come from Bitola,it is the 2nd biggest city in Macedonia.[reply]

Manaki brothers[edit]

In the article about them it says that they were born in the village of Avdela. Shouldn't they be removed from here or does this Notable people from Bitola mean people that have lived there? --Laveol 10:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They lived the most of their life in Bitola, so I guess that is making them a notable people from Bitola. MatriX 10:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oks, that's what I wanted to know :) --Laveol 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GRB201.jpg[edit]

Image:GRB201.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GRB201.jpg[edit]

Image:GRB201.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Location[edit]

I believe that if pictures were put on both sides of the page, not just on the right, the article may be more pleasing to the eye. Spencer 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MKD muni flag(Bitola).png[edit]

Image:MKD muni flag(Bitola).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

The title has Greek:Monastiri, i was wondering what sources there are that have Greek as the second most spoken langauge in Bitola? Last time i checked Roma were 3,46%, albanians at 2.36%, turks - 2.1%, Aromanians- 1,34%, Serbs - .66%, Bosnians - 0,002% and others at 0,67% or 497 people. Where are the greek speakers? PMK1 (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are more abundant than the Macedonian speakers in Florina. BalkanFever 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historically important (yes, no Greeks left today at all)? Why does everyone constantly bitch about the names? Like a Slavic or Greek name is going to ruin your country's image. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an answer to the Florina stuff. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.--Laveol T 09:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a guideline about how wiki editors shouldn't care about OTHERSTUFFHAPPENING (yeah, like the Balkaneers would follow it anyway)? I re-added it in Florina. There REALLY should be a guideline concerning names in the Balkans. Intro, not intro? Special cases if a significant minority exists? This is just tiring. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to figure out something here - Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard.--Laveol T 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was introduced "per Florina" so OTHERCRAPEXISTS can work both ways here. As I have always said, regardless of the supposed strength (or sanity) of the arguments, names in other languages in the lead cause the arguments, and so they should go. BalkanFever 11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's just leave them out, shall we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wouldn't mind bringing it up at the new noticeboard? BalkanFever 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object if it had (Macedonian: Lerin). As opposed to those bizzare "local slavic dialects". PMK1 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Hellenic[edit]

Nice one. They still speak 'local Hellenic' in Bitola and some of the surrounding villages, but the 'local Hellenic' speakers call it Ellinika (Greek). But so what. Politis (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Greek name is needed[edit]

I entered again the Greek name of the city, which IMO is necessary for obvious reasons (and it is difficult indeed for me to understand the reaction of certain users, such as Balkan Fever). Whether we like it or not, Greek history is related to this city, where the Greeks and Byzantines flourished for centuries; this is also the case for the spreading of the Greek language. After all it is the article itself which states that until 1911 the Greek element was dominant in the region. So erasing the Greek name from the lead is historical blindness!

There are also other similar examples, such as Smyrna, where, although there are very very few Greeks in the city, the Greek name is there. And how could it be different?! We speak about more than 2,000 years of Greek influence in the area. And the same stands for a series of other now-Greek or now-Turkish cities (see Alexandroupoli etc.). And don't tell me "raise the issue there, do not bother us here." Because all these examples indicate a certain practice, which should be taken into account.

After all, just make a quick serfing in google book to see how often the term "Monastir" appears. And even here in Wikipedia we have a Monastir dis article! So, are we going to pretend that all these things just do not exist?! And conceal a part of the city's history? Because that is exactly what the Greek name expresses. A part of the city's rich historical past.

In any case, if those disagreeing with me want more third-party input, this is no problem of course. I support an open invitation to any third-party editors are interested in to express their views.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Greek name is so "non-grata" for the Slav-Macedonian users, I have no problem to put the magic word "formerly" before the Greek name, or even to write in Latin "formerly Monastir"; my intention is not to offend anybody's sensitivity, but neither to conceal a part of the city's indentity.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with offence or not believing it's a name. If I'm not mistaken you removed Lerin from the Florina lead because you didn't believe it was an alternate name. I didn't have a "reaction" to this, it's a way of avoiding problems. You very well know someone will remove the Greek at some point, and someone will remove the local Slavic (Macedonian) from Florina, and then it will have to continually be reverted, even though they are both in a "name" section anyway. BalkanFever 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You previously in an edit summary said "if you have a problem with Florina name" go there! So why now do you confuse the two issues?! Anyway, if I have to speak about the "Lerin" issue, I removed indeed the Lerin from Florina in a rushy decision, but then as 3dAlcove told me, I checked the talk page (which I should have done previously), and I read carefully the other side's arguments, which are logical. So, personally, I can understand the presence of the South Slavic name in Florina's article, and I hope that you'll all also can understand the presence of the Greek name in Bitola's article! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I do, I'm just saying it would be easier to relegate both of them to the name section, and others have agreed. But it's not a big deal. BalkanFever 13:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted that. I have always agreed with what BF says. Can we agree once and for all (with a decision that actually binds all of us) that only the name in the country's official language will be on the lead paragraph and all the others should be at the name section? There was such a de facto agreement but recently this seems to have been reversed.--   Avg    21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem to agree on that if there is a consensus, although I am not 100% sure it is the correct thing to do. IMO each article should be examined separately, and if there is a basis for an additional name to be added why not. And this "de facto agreement" referred to which country? Greece-fYROM, all the Balkans, what? And with the Greece-Turkey cities we'll have a different "de facto agreement" (because the current consensus seems to be quite the opposite there)?--Yannismarou (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to an overall Balkan pre-existing consensus, including Greece-Turkey articles. This also has been reversed recently. Check User:Aramgar role on that.--   Avg    16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of frequency of usage, international exposure. The city is clearly referred to as Monastiri until well after WWI, and rarely as Bitola - just look at the postcards, despaches, references. Its fame and fortune was built under the name Monastiri. Likewise for Istanbul, Alexandroupoli, Izmir. So the Monastiri reference should be up there next to Bitola. However, Florina had almost zero exposure as Lerin - just look at the maps; also the Lerin appelation already exists in the paragraph below. Any other choice for those two cities is, in my opinion, political (if not irredentist motivated). Politis (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate Avg that such a consensus covered Greece-Turkey articles. You can see previous discussions and Baristarim's comments when Turkish names were removed from some Greek cities' leads. In any case, I agree with Politis' statement.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish case is different. Turkey markets its former-Hellenic cities under their Hellenic names - just look at their official brochures (admitedly, it does not recognise them as Greek, but as Helleno-Roman, Roman, Ionian, Lydian, etc). This, they believe, enhances their European credentials and, as our Turkish friends know, there is no overt or covert attempt by Greek rhetoric to appropriate those cities via their name. Also, in the west, those cities have a long history of being referred to by their ancient name. Politis (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you're both saying is that you agree with examining every case separately. We have seen that in action and I'm not sure it is clear enough in the way things have to be clear in such an unproductive environment as the Balkans. In terms of previous consensus, many many times people have been reverted and never came back in Balkan city articles when someone told them that there is a consensus on not putting other names in the lead. Otherwise we could have repeated occurrences of mass-changing of the lead paragraph like what User:Carlossuarez46 is doing with his scripts in hundreds of articles. --   Avg    18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avg, see the discussion here, where there was no consensus, and see also, as an example, Rhodes' lead. Should we exclude from Rhodes' lead the Italian and the Turkish name?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody (even then) said that not mentioning something in the lead means not mentioning it at all. Alternative names are important and it is undoubtedly encyclopaedic to include them, the issue here is only their prominence.--   Avg    11:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency's not bad, of course, but I honestly don't think it matters much if names are featured in the lede or in a separate section. At least, I don't bother moving from one place to another. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Si-Do[edit]

This section needs a quick spelling/grammar clean up: "Children from differend countries such as EU,Russia,Ukrain,Serbia,Croatia,BiH and Macedonia participate on this event which is usually consisted of 18-22 songs. This festival is supported by the association of culture "ProMedia" from Bitola which organized this event under a different topic every year.The only award at this festival is for interpretation." Menrunningpast (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic etymology[edit]

According to Adrian Room, the name Bitola is derived from the old Slavic word Obitel (monastery or abode), since the city was formerly noted for its monastery. When the meaning of the name was no longer understood, it lost its prefix "o".<ref>{{Citation | last = Room | first = Adrian | title = Placenames of the world: origins and meanings of the names for 6,600 countries, cities, territories, natural features, and historic sites | place = Jefferson, N.C. | publisher = McFarland & Company, Inc. | year = 2006 | edition = 2nd edition | page = 60 | isbn = 0786422483 }}</ref>

Could someone take a look at the statement and reference above (link). It is unclear where Mr. Room got his information. I believe a more reliable source is probably in order. Aramgar (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

 Not done Please explain notability of link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Mikemoral (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 July 2009
 Done Makes sense to me, per external linking policy - ie it adds useful info about the topic that could not reasonably be incorporated into the article, and it does not appear promotional. The contact info seems to confirm that it is an official tourist info site.  Chzz  ►  05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monastiri, Manastir[edit]

BalkanFever: your edit stated, "whats the point of having three variants of the same name if they're not in english? especially since they are better treated in the etymolgoy section". I might call on your services in other articles to back me up. I leave your edit as it stands. Just one point, do the Albanian Macedonians call it Manastir? Politis (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they call it Manastiri. BalkanFever 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Thessaloniki was formerly a Turkish city officially called "Selanik" before it became part of the Greek state. Polibiush (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people from Bitola[edit]

I think that Hristijan Spirovski and Nikolce Noveski should be removed from "People from Bitola". Dimitar Ilievski - Murato and Georgi Hristov are more remarkable than the other two, or at least you should add them in the main list in Bitola page, if there is no limit of how many names should be in the main list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderwebmkd (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90.216.5.170 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)stramota kade e tuka durlovski najdobriot makedonski operski pejac,pa i toj e bitolcanec neli?[reply]

Isto Mile - Kuburot da ne go zaborajte da go spomnite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.13.225 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Edith Durham is not a reliable source?[edit]

Latest revision as of 17:46, 5 January 2012 (edit) (undo) Athenean (talk | contribs) (edith durham is not a reliable source)

According to Athenean, Edith Durham is not a reliable source when she says that there were Orthodox Albanians living in Bitola, but strangely in the same article you can find Edith Durham, but this one seems reliable to Athenean: 

A former dragoman who witnessed the Balkan Wars noted in January 1914 that "hardly a year has elapsed since Monastir fell into Servian hands, and this very short period has been enough to turn it into a desert city."[12]

^ Durham, M.Edith. Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle, p255

I will undo the change of Athenean, because it seems that it just directed towards Albanians.

(Edvin (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Well, some of the reasons Edith Durham is not considered a reliable source are presented in...the wikipedia article on Edith Durham, namely she is 1) not a scholar, and 2) extremely biased. Thanks for pointing out the above, I will remove it as well. Athenean (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical writing of the name Manastir in Macedonian[edit]

The name Manastir was in use in Ottoman times. The Macedonian Alphabet is in use after 1944, i.e. it is impossible the name to was written in Macedonian during Ottoman times. Jingiby (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R. Macedonia[edit]

Leasten, you Americans: Stop converting the facts about Slavish poulation in this region, in contrary we could ask from Russia to solve the problem!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.75.118 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bitola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Medieval history of the region is one of the least documented periods of its history. There are no direct or indirect sources of Clement's and Naum's activity in the area, and including them only by the virtue of Ohrid being geographically close to Bitola is not adequate. The medieval monasteries were mentioned twice. Repetitive use of the title "of Bulgaria" is clearly tendentious, as those figures are not known as "of Bulgaria" in any historiography, including the Bulgarian one (as a the matter of fact the articles on corresponding Wikipedia are never named as such, and there is no need of that whenever the article title is a unique name, especially in the case of Gavrilo Radomir). Throughout the whole article no other rulers are name "of [state]", which is right and in accordance with general and Wikipedias principles. I see no other reasons, except a suspicious non-NPOV motives for accentuating only one state when referring to medieval rulers.--strich3D (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to the rules of Wikipedia. If you disagree with some articles' names, disuss it on the corresponding articles' talk page and gain a consensus to change it. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian language schools in Ottoman Bitola[edit]

Hello, I recently changed a segment of the Ottoman schools to specify that they had taught in the specific languages yet had my edit reverted and told that it is not an improvement. May I get an explanation for this, User:Jingiby ? Okrados (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These schools were not Ottoman. Jingiby (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's clear in the article but can I get an explanation as to why it was reverted? Okrados (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from teaching in the respective languages, these schools were not owned by the Ottoman authorities, but by the respective ethno-religious and linguistic community officially recognized by the Ottomans as a separate ethnic entity. Jingiby (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitola&oldid=1200089069"