Talk:Macedonian nationalism/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge from Macedonism

Discussion moved here from talk:Macedonism#Merge to Macedonian nationalism --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann added a merge template to the article. From the template on the talk page:

Merged with Macedonian nationalism.

Agree with the merge. As can be seen above in the section Talk:Macedonism#This and that, I think this article name is a neologism in English. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. Anything that reduces the multitude of Macedonia-related articles to something more manageable must be a good thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. But Macedonian nationalism deeds disambiguation since it can refer to three different peoples, to ethnic Slav Macedonians, to Greek Macedonians and, at a pinch, to Bulgarian Macedonians (especially those in the US). All three peoples can be very nationalistic about their brand of Macedonian identity. Politis (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the articles. That is I've copied the text from Macedonism to here and placed it in a section called Macedonism. Now someone will need to integrate the text more fully. When I did so I noticed that the footnotes on this article were not using <ref> </ref> so I have converted the references already in this article using User:Cyde/Ref converter --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IT is Mactruth, it seems like the article...

Has completely removed most of the article on Macedonian nationalism and now centers around Macedonism. 68.40.244.138 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

someone needs to sort out this ASAP

The macedonism article was a short, but quite good article. Why the heck you put everything together I still dion't understand. Please sort out this to look like it fits the title. If not I propose to dis-merge Deadjune1 (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

macedonism needs its own article

I tried and I tried, this merge does not make sense. you mix here three completely different but related articles

1-Macedonism

This is not a neologism, is a scholarship term used by many polemics against Macedonian nationalism, especially the extreme pseudoscientific one. Is totally legitimate to keep a seperate article for a specialist term

2-Macedonian Ethnogenesis

This in it's own right is a whole article. Is one of the most interesting case of how a combination of factors (bottom-up, up-bottom political, geographical, religious) can creat within 30-60 years a whole new nation.

3-Macedonian nationalism

This is again a separate issue, more historical of the nationalistic events. This could be merged with the above, but usually nationalism has negative connotations and cannot easily be coinciled with the more romantic term of awakening.

Please comment. I insist that Macedonism is a interesting special term that deserves separation.Deadjune1 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonism is an English neologism, Wikipedia should not have a separate article called Macedonism (see WP:neologism) also "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. ... content forks ... are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." (see Wikipedia:Content forking). --PBS (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Macedonia barbed wire.jpg

The image Image:Macedonia barbed wire.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta-sockpupet Korpas

Please, explain while did you remove objective and scientific referenced information. If no reliable explaination will provided, I will revert you. That you don't like an article is no reason to delete info or change it. None of the arguments cited so far are any reason to it. Jingby (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, give a reliable reason while the objective description of the picture was removed? Thank you. Jingby (talk)

Because it will result in an edit-war between Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists as it did. It's not like I don't like the article, but there are also dubious genetic studies from Macedonians that have different explanation, so that will probably result in an editwar, too. Let's keep the article like it is now. If some children try manipulating the pic it will be taken out!

And I am not a "sockpuppet". It's sad that you're accusing me for nothing, because I was not editwarring.Seegef (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I made a big mistake. The sockpuppet is Korpas. Show the other studies from Macedonia, with another conclusions please. There are a lot of another international studies with the same conclusions as the shown in the article, I can attache here. Do not remove scientific facts, please. The picture is clear Macedonistic illogical nonsence and has at the moment clear neutral explaination. Why have it to be taken out? Jingby (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was a reliable text removed? Jingby (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not remove referenced text. Jingby (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing split into Macedonism and Macedonian nationalism

I propose a split into 'Macedonism' and 'Macedonian nationalism', because it is not the same. The idea of being a descendant of the ancient Macedonians is not nationalist policy, it does not make someone a nationalist. Of course there are Macedonians who are not nationalist and who are "macedonist". Please contribute to this question.Seegef (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you have a point. At the current form, the moderates' and the extreme nationalists' views are mixed together causing confusion.--JokerXtreme (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

See above #Merge from Macedonism, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, and Talk:Macedonism/Archive 2#This and that. The word Macedonism does not exist in English, it is a loan word an most (all?) of the English usage of the word is by people from the Balkans where they are using a term common in their language in English but it is not a term used by English speakers. That was the major reason for merging the article in to this one along with problems of systemic NPOV. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

deleted silliness

I deleted the last two lines in the contemporary views section. Both authors used as refs are about as credible as von Daniken (in other words, they're idiots), and in any case they aren't 2ary sources, and so do not meet WP:RS criteria on that account alone. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck?

It became evident that Communist Yugoslavia had borrowed parts from the histories of neighboring states to construct the Macedonian identity.

You can't be serious. --203.221.86.79 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the word borrow is not correct. The proper word is stole... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.53.208 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, anyone is entitled to his opinion. If you have any sources indicating that, we can talk about it. Wikipedia has a "WP:VER" policy.--JokerXtreme (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
95.42.33.131 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) : It's full of such sources - look wherever you want. It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of TRUTH.

The first mention of 'Macedonism'

Is not from the late 19th century but, from the early 19th century, 1830s or so, by the very Bulgarian Vasil Levski in an article. Also, much more appropriate name for the article would be Macedonian National Awakening, as no one (sane) would deny that the Macedonian nation exists today, and what the good neighbors of Macedonia call 'Macedonism' is the modern beginning of the Macedonian nation Capricornis (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vasil Levsski was born in 1837 and never used this term. National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians redirects here. Regards! Jingby (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And the first sentence should be:
The national development of the so-called "ethnic Macedonians"[1] can be said to have begun in the late 19th and early 20th century.
95.42.33.131 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-tag added?

POV tag was added without any explaination. There are around 100 reliable sources in support of the thesis of this the article. Please, do not delete sourced information, only because you disagree with it. I am waiting on discussion what here is POV-ish. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that you admit this article promotes a "thesis" confirms it's tendentious. This article is a POV nightmare. I am not going to explain to you why: you haven't learned to stick to NPOV in six years; why would I expect you will learn it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that your personal opinion is not NPOV. "Some authors" opinion is much more neutral then yours. You are biased and pro-macedonistic administrator. More, you have not the rights to delete scientifically proved historical facts. Jingiby (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Insert that stuff again and I'll meet you over at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How and why is the neutrality of this article disputed? Macedonian (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

An admin has postulated that some analysis published by Academic houses are nonsense, then deleted them, and proclaimed the rest of the article, sourced with around 100 references as POV. I think it was simply misuse of admin's powers. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged... Macedonian (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I don't need to explain why the article is unacceptable, because to every honest, intelligent contributor it must be blatantly obvious. Don't tell me it is not obvious to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, FP, you are wrong. I copy from the link I provided above: Especially in the case of a tag such as npov, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed". Macedonian (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rules-lawyering isn't helpful. I know the article is unacceptable as it is, you know it, any sane observer knows it, and if somebody truly doesn't recognize it, it's little use me trying to explain it to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly rules and lawyering are helpful here. Any sane observer understands by reading that this policy (Macedonism) is an insane official absurd in todays Europe. Didn't you, Future? Jingiby (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for again confirming that you have deliberately been misusing this article for promoting your ideological agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is NPOV dispute. The subject of the article can imply a particular point of view and this is based on reliable, published sources. Because FP feels that it is a NPOV dispute article does not necessarily mean it is biased. Furthermore, FP refuses to point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, therefore I'm removing the tag per Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. Macedonian (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hunzi6544.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hunzi6544.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

About false dichtomy Macedonist vs. Bulgarists

1. There are Serbs in RoMacedonia, with their own history, as it was supported by reference. And from "Encyclopedia Macedonica" to the fact that there are no monuments, street and other objects named after Serbs related mostly with northern part of the Republic of Macedonia speaks a volume. Serbs were not mentioned in constitution from 1991 to 2001. Jingiby perhaps tries to present history of Slavs of Macedonia as a 100% one, forgetting that Iceland was not 100% percent purely Icelandic 100 years ago, and what it can be said about tiny territory in Ottoman Empire where all forms of population shifts occurred, in all direction can be guessed.

Finally, there is the Serbian Orthodox Church vs. MOC conflict and its not mentioned at all. As for Serbs, census shows declared 36.000. They have 26 NGO and three political parties. Most of them can prove ancestry prior to Balkan Wars. And yes, there are articles in serious media that may be considered biased or derogation against Serbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.11 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody denies the presence of the Serbs today in RoM but of Bulgarians. The religious conflict is mentioned here also. I did not undertand where are your reliable sources and why was reliable info deleted? Jingiby (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, provide reliable source for the official denial in RoM of the presence of the Serbs during the Middle ages and Ottoman rule, not sources for their presence. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

USER: sources for their presence are needed in order to establish the authenthicity of Serb community. As I mentioned, omission from the 1991 Constitution, and the claim by Stojan Kiselinovski from "Macedonian Encyclopedia" is that, in essence all Serbs are post-1913 colonists. The fact that you delete the fact that Serbian medieval rulers were not given monuments, plaques etc. neither in 1944, nor are included in "Skopje 2014". Macedonian are perhaps more hostile to Bulgarians and Greeks but there is also denial and ommission of Serb presence and authenticity ("Ssbomani") in spite of the evidence to contrary, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.59 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Antiquization"

"Antiquization" is a buzzword that made its appearance in the Macedonian media only a few years ago, and it's almost always used pejoratively in reference to the Skopje 2014 project. It's a technical term used in architecture, but this article uses it more so to criticize the Macedonian claims of continuity. Many of the sources have also been misrepresented to this end. "Antiquization" aside, this article is excessively critical of Macedonian nationalism overall and doesn't provide an actual description of it. The tone is so hypercritical that one gets the impression that the Macedonian concept of nationhood is illegitimate but that all of the neighboring nationalisms are somehow legitimate. Also, there's also no need for over-citing the fact that VMRO-DPMNE is nationalist (I think I counted 7 refs!). --WavesSaid (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorialising aside, do you deem nationalism to be something useful and needed in the 20th century? I personally would deem it unnecessary and damaging. As for antiquisation, you say it is a term used quite often by Macedonian media. I've seen other media outlets, including the BBC, use it as well. It is quite appropriate and unfortunately also rather correct term to describe the process. --Laveol ^T 02:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal views are unimportant, and I wasn't trying to make any theoretical arguments with regard to nationalism. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that this article is more a criticism of Macedonian nationalism (and a poor one at that) as opposed to a description of it. The word's use by the BBC is further proof that it's a buzzword. You yourself don't understand what antiquization is because you just called it a "process". We can explain the recent events in the Republic of Macedonia without having to rely on buzzwords and sensationalist newspapers. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sensationalist newspapers? BBC? Sorry, but you are joking. I see you do not like the word, as the government in Skopje probably dislikes it as well, but it is, as I said, appropriate and valid. --Laveol ^T 03:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that the BBC is sensationalist, but it's obvious that they've appropriated it from sensationalist Macedonian newspapers. And no, I'm not joking: academics do not use the word "antiquization" in this sense. It's a technical term of archeology, not nation-building. I have no problem with the word... when it's used in the right way. The Macedonian government in all likelihood does not like it, because it's used pejoratively. --WavesSaid (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

here - make what you want from it. It seems quite at its place in this article. A quick search in google scholar shows that the term is used in scholarly work. With the meaning presented here. There are enough such sources here as well. We could, of course, have it in quotation marks, as this seems the appropriate approach. What more is there not to your liking? --Laveol ^T 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But you're not attributing those statements to the BBC. Google Books shows the term being used in an architectural sense. "Antiquization" does not refer to the claims of continuity. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar is not Google books. Some of the works there clearly speak of the term used in this article. --Laveol ^T 23:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In virtually every instance the word is given in quotation marks or qualified with "so-called". Even so, few of those articles would meet WP:RELIABLE requirements, what with turns of phrase such as "the urban mafia in Skopje has won our urban conflict", "the current government and its unintelligent "antiquization" offensive adding a further insult to our many urban injuries", "FYROM experiencing the so‐called 'Antiquization' campaign", "the guiding force for the usurpation and the appropriation of the name, along with the antiquization", etc. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you simply dislike the term for some reason and would go on refuting every argument for its inclusion in the article. Where do you want to see this new term used so that you would agree to its inclusion in the article? BBC is not enough, nor is CNN, nor are scholars. --Laveol ^T 00:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not bothering to read anything I write. I don't dislike the term, I dislike its improper use in this article. I do not oppose mentioning the claims to continuity, I just don't think you need to use a buzzword in doing so. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the term is used widely and is appropriate. Wikipedia is not here to invent or delete things but simply reflects what is being discussed elsewhere. Hence, the only reason for disregarding such a term (the only reason I can think of, that is) is not liking it. This is often the case around here, even if I am inclined to apply good faith even in your case. --Laveol ^T 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The term is not widely used outside of architecture. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Personal opinions have no place here. --WavesSaid (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I have made this term up? Seriously? --Laveol ^T 01:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You have made an association between the use of the word "antiquization" by the media and the claims to continuity. Danforth (1995) is used to support the statement that "antiquization" is a claim to continuity where it doesn't even appear once. The statement that VMRO-DPMNE is engaged in "antiquization" is not appropriately cited (you could have used Vangeli (2011), but instead you chose a source which doesn't even use the word "antiquization"). [41] is an opinion piece from a news agency. [42] and [43] talk about architecture. The use of the term by Vangeli (2011) is inconsistent with its use in all the other sources. --WavesSaid (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made, I chose? For God's sake, I have made a single edit to this article and it was back in 2009 and had nothing to do with this. I am seriously starting to think you're here just to play games.--Laveol ^T 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Honest mistake. I mistook you for Jingiby. --WavesSaid (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

IDEA

Why not you just divide the article with "CLAIMS" so as that the Macedonian side gets its claim on historical documents as well. This article needs to be semi-protected because of pro-bulgarian, pro-macedonian nacionalism. This is a macedonian writing. In the end until both academies of macedonia and bulgaria agree on a similar stance based on documents, (and they probably never will) nothing can be stated about the "idea of pro-bulgarianism" in his work. Therefore the macedonian side is slightly better-off as far as the documentation goes. However I would rather let a German, an Irish or a Welsh decide on this matter, without anyone mangling in his thoughts. It's not the strongest one who always deserves to win right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.36 (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point Sir. English version was written from clear pro-bulgarian position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.161.70 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why bother with any of that? This article ought to describe Macedonian nationalism from a historical and sociological perspective, not from the perspective of nationalists. We don't say, "Jesus is the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament", but rather, "Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament". --58.7.49.95 (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Macedonianism"

The article states that the term "Macedonist" is used in a polemic sense, and then goes on to list "early adherents". This then makes the article itself polemic. --220.253.156.237 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pure original research

I mean, I don't know how articles like this one even exist on Wikipedia. All I can read is just POV claims and statements that don't even make any sense. What is this? More than half of the sources are Bulgarian, and probably even made up as they are offline. I can't even start to explain how apparent the OR is in this one... weasel words and phrases like "development of the Macedonian ethnicity can be said to have begun in the late 19th and early 20th century" are too damn obvious as nationalist trolling, and push back on themselves as being false (I mean, "can be said", c'mon!). With section names as "Post-Informbiro period and Bulgarophobia" and "Post-independence period and Antiquisation" I can say that OR is pretty apparent even from just opening the article. This tells more about how the ethnic Macedonians started hating Bulgarians, Greeks, etc., so that it doesn't focus on its aim - the nationalist ideology or ideas or movements in the Republic of Macedonia. Please, I urge Wikipedians interested in this are to give support so that we can fix the article. Thank you. - Phill24th (talk). 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article is a mess and has been so for quite some time. I think the main reason it's existed like this for so long is that there's so much work to be done. The main contributor to the page has been Jingiby, but now that he's finally gone it may be easier to get it done. --Local hero ^talk 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

According to a study of Basil Gounaris called "The Historiography and Cartography of the Macedonian Question" published in the edition "The history of Macedonia" edited by John S. Koliopoulos, Thessaloniki, Museum of the Macedonian Struggle Foundation, 2007, p. 224, the writings of Bouchie de Belle and other researchers of that time, dedicated on the Macedonian question, were at least not neutral. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Should I be surprised that a Greek museum found it to be non-neutral? That's exactly what I'd expect. You also claim that primary sources can't be added, which is not true. You were banned for a reason, Jingiby. --Local hero ^talk 02:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Early adherents

I removed the part which claims that pro-Bulgarian activists were persecuted and executed by federal authorities of Communist Yugoslavia, because there is no reference for that. Feel free to undo this change, once you find preferably Western and non-Bulgarian source for that.

I also added a quote from Oswald Spenglers The Decline of the West, which summarizes the confusion that existed in the early 20th century among Macedonians about their ethnic identity.McMixy (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

SFR Yugoslavia and "Ancient Macedonianism"?

In several instances in the article, it is asserted - with zero reference - that "Ancient Macedonism" was doctrinally taught in former Yugoslavia. That is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Are authors of that assertion claiming that during Yugoslav era (1950's, 1960's, 1970's.....) both academics, pupils, common people held affirmative view identical to what is taught in Gruevski's era? That the language of SRM evolved without any linguistic migration from some alleged "non-Greek" language of Alexander? That Phillip, Alexander, Cleopatra, the phalanx, staters, the Sun of Vergina, gods and goddesses of Olymp are historical heritage from which a linear, unadulterated cultural and linguistic succession old more than 2.000 years followed, culminating in Makedonci of SRM? That etymology of ancient Macedonian words, including personal, geographic and other names was related with the official language of SRM? There's no such thing. Either these assertion should be substantiated with scans from Yugoslav textbooks or any other "official" texts or this nonsense should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.220.69 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

LEAD

"The origins of a separate Slav Macedonian identity and nationalism are complex" - what's up with this POV weasel word sentence in the lead. OK, they're "complex," how are they complex? in what context are they complex? Please firstly explain, clarify that to the reader, and then arrogantly remove templates. I'm not an idiot, Laveol, I know when to put a template, and where to put it! You can't just follow my contributions and revert them on everything. You wanted a discussion, here's a discussion. - Phill24th (talk). 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is complex a weasel word. The origins of nationalism are complex. Plus, you used a template indicating that there was a problem with the source behind the statement without explaining what was wrong with it. I'd also suggest you toned down your comments. You are being far from helpful and borderline uncivil, making me wonder if editing the encyclopedia is what you are here for.--Laveol ^T 08:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The template I put exists solely to point out where clarification is needed and does so for Wikipedians to help each other point out confusing statements in WIKIPEDIA'S content for those who know more about the material to help make it understandable for the reader, and has nothing to do with the sources. I didn't say it was a false statement, but it looks far too biased in its current form, and probably putting a template here would help someone find it and fix it. However, you claiming that I'm uncivil wondering if "I'm here to edit [or not]" based on whatever it might be you think about other Wikipedians, making arrogant allegations towards me, and making this into a full on battle, I must say, really makes me uncomfortable. Again, my comments are toned down, they're just fine when based on your treatment towards other Wikipedians for a reason I know, but I'll keep to myself (not to be accused of making further allegations)... and I would like to sincerely ask you, Laveol, to maybe work a little with the community, not just find all their edits and revert them. I really don't want to waste my time on Wikipedia arguing about a footnote of a template. - Phill24th (talk). 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet, here you are, wasting your time precisely on that. Once again, your comment is ad hominem and not related to the question as to why you consider the word complex to be a weasel word. I take it you do not like it, but focusing on that hate is hardly constructive. The complexity of the issue is discussed thoroughly in the article itself, plus it is sourced. Should I take it that you deem the topic to be simple, and not complex?

And yes, your last couple of edits look out of place compared to some of the previous ones you did. Especially, the comments on this very talkpage. You hardly "toned down" your comment now, did you? I was actually surprised to be greeted with such a comment. Adding a tag, such as the aforementioned one without prior justification, emphasizing on a list entry according solely to your opinion of the matter, adding a patron saint of a country, based on a statement by a politician and not on an official document that one would imagine exists. I am listing them so you can see for yourself how this looks, combined with some ultra-nationalistic views you seem to hold as suggested by this template of yours.--Laveol ^T 11:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reading at the third word...OK, Laveol, by this phase anything you say doesn't hold ground. Forget about it, and continue whatever it is you're doing in your life. Just leave it, as I made it clear that I won't be arguing on this issu anymore, my last message. Peace. - Phill24th (talk). 12:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, you would not bother to explain the tag, at least? So much for constructive discussion.--Laveol ^T 13:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to reconsider your "no discussion policy" or you're simply going to push your view without any explanation? As I have said already, this could hardly be described as constructive on your part. --Laveol ^T 10:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I Undid revision 684520407 by 78.159.147.70. It was well sourced point, made by Oswald Spengler, and he was German, not from Balkans, therefore he didnt have subjective view motivated by some local nationalism. Please do not remove parts of the article without discussing it first on the talk pages. Thank you.McMixy (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120504142215/http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/OldSite/Issue_3/maleska.macedonia.eng.asp to http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/OldSite/Issue_3/maleska.macedonia.eng.asp#_edn2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonian nationalism. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723084106/http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-macedonians.PDF to http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-macedonians.PDF

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) 12:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonian nationalism. 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) 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of a section

A whole section called The designation "Macedonian" was deleted without credible explanation. The section is pretty good sourced with academic references. A lot of images was also deleted. I have restored it for now, but now part of the information in the article is duplicate. Jingiby (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Bulgarian Exarchate

This has nothing to do with Macedonism. I am going to remove this chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to add this paragraph

I want to add this paragraph to the end of the section: The designation "Macedonian":

By the end of the 19th century, according to the Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician Vasil Kanchov: "The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians. Turks and Albanians from Macedonia do not call themselves Macedonians, but when asked where they are from, they respond: from Macedonia. Albanians, who also call their country Anautluk, and Greeks who live in the southern area of Macedonia, do not call themselves Macedonians, hence the borders in these areas according to the peoples’ perception are not clearly defined." ^[1]

User: Jingiby deleted it. His rationale is that this is an original research. This actually is not an original research. It is simply a citation from a book from a renowned Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician Vasil Kanchov. Can we get this paragraph back at the end of this section? GStojanov (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jingiby: reverted your edit based on WP:OR and WP:RS. We use Kanchov as a source on numerous Wikipedia articles so I don't believe WP:RS applies and thus neither does WP:OR. Perhaps Jingiby has other basis for his reversion that he can explain. If we do include this, maybe we just have a short paraphrase of the quote instead of providing the whole thing, just a thought. --Local hero ^talk 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I did it in more neutral way, I hope. Jingiby (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty fair to me. --Local hero ^talk 08:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks good, except the word "usually". That word is not in the citation. I suggest you remove it. The second sentence that you added needs more work. It doesn't read well. GStojanov (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It reads much better now. Let me see what else can I contribute to this article. GStojanov (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I want to thank Jingiby for helping me edit and improve this paragraph.GStojanov (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Orohydrography of Macedonia - Vasil Kanchov - 1911. Original: Орохидрография на Македония

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence

@Jingiby: I don't understand the meaning of this phrase "...process od slowly differentiation, describing people who insisted on their Bulgarian nationality, but felt themselves Macedonians above." Can you, please, rephrase it? Or at least help me understand what does it mean. Thank you. GStojanov (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The exact text in the book is as follows: As early as 1903, the anarchist Pavel Shatev/Šatev, future participant in (and victim of) the Yugoslav Macedonian state leadership, witnessed a curious process of ethno-national differentiation. In Salonika’s Yedikule prison, some people he met felt they were "only Bulgarians”; others stated that, while they were Bulgarians by “nationality,” they felt they were, above all, Macedonians. Maybe to clarify we must put simply "all" or "it" at the end of the sentence. Jingiby (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Now it makes sense. I fixed a small typo. I will try to get myself familiar with the book you are citing. GStojanov (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How do we harmonize these two statements

@Jingiby: We need to think how do we harmonize these two statements: "However, up until the 20th century and beyond, the majority of the Slavic-speaking population of the region was identified as Macedono-Bulgarian or simply as Bulgarian", and "By the end of the 19th century, according to Vasil Kanchov the local Bulgarians called themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations called them Macedonians." GStojanov (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Prefer Academic sources, published during the 21 century. Dismiss primary ones. PS. Read: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and Historiography in North Macedonia. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that policy, so we'll need to clean up the references after the first statement because they are all, except for one, primary sources. I have trouble dismissing Vasil Kanchov and yielding to French travelers. He definitely was more informed on the Macedonian issues. GStojanov (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

[1] Orohydrography of Macedonia - Vasil Kanchov - 1911. Original: Орохидрография на Македония

[1]