Talk:Agios Germanos

Edit-warring[edit]

I have made some clarifications, as per Boeschoten's source and the local dialects clasification in Wikipedia. Jingby (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the edit-warrior shared a bit of his views on the subject prior to reverting you... --Laveol ^T 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise the name was also being reverted, I have no problems with Macedonian Slavic. As for the rest, didnt the D Branchoff study only register denominations, eg Uniat, Exarchist, Protestant, etc. From what I'm aware it didnt even count non-Christians. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Branchoff study has recorded the ethnic groups in the area, as you see. Jingby (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it is, but he makes a distinction between Exarchist and Patriarchist Bulgarians, as well as, between Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Vlachs, Turks, etc. --Laveol ^T 09:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, by it, I meant "the study". Thanks for the link, in that case I dont see why we shouldnt write that the local were somewhat affiliated with the Exarchte in Sofia. It should be however mentioned that the whole study was in fact comissioned and entirely funded by the Exarchate based in Sofia, and is hardly NPOV. As for Kanchov, another favorite in these articles, I dont see why it should also not be mentioned, in the interests of some neutrality, that even by his admission, that his "Bulgarians" in fact referred to themselves as Macedonians/Makedonci and that this is what the surrounding nationalities called them [1]. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funded by the Exarchate? Any sources for that one? Mishev was a secretary of the Exarchate until 1901. About the other case - yes, let us call Vlachs Macedonians. It would only be fair, right? And we should also note that this was from a different book on the geographic characteristics of the region and the regional self-identification of the people, not the ethnic one. That would be a pretty long note, you know. --Laveol ^T 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, can you explain us anything about the non-existed Exarchte in Sofia? Jingby (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is fair, it is well documented that 100 years ago there were both Macedonians and Macedono-Aromanians who lived in the area known as Macedonia. It is clear that Kanchov is discussing ethnography, he even uses the word himself "Samo v ethnografichesko ..." To those unfamiliar with San Stefano inspired irredentism, it is obvious that he talks about Macedonians not "Macedonians?". Lunch for Two (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either comment on content or stop commenting at all. You are supposed to write on the subject not about editors. This is the second time I see you diverting the topic and going on the edge of a personal attack. Quit it now, please. Now, did you read the title of the book? What is it about? The sentence about ethnography only mentions that Macedonia has a clearly defined boundaries, as the Bulgarian population is spread all around it and rarely does it exit the region. And that is that. The book is about geography. Ge-o-gra-phy.--Laveol ^T 10:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to the non-Macedonist, it is obvious that he talks about Macedonians, not about Macedonians. Jingby (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get involved in his game, too, please. It is obvious he is trying to insult other editors into answering to his comments. Stay on-topic.--Laveol ^T 10:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, to quote Kanchov, one of the leading Bulgarianists of the time: "Местните българи и куцовласи, които живеят в пределите на Македония се наричат сами македонци и околните народи ги зовът тъй. Турците и арнаутите не се казватъ македонци, но попитани от къде са, отговарят: от Македония... така също и гърците, които живеят по южните области, не се казватъ македонци..." By his own admission these are people who call themselves "Macedonians". Bulgarians and Greeks from Macedonia also call themselves Macedonians, however this is only a regional affiliation. It seems unusual for Kanchov to say, as he does, that Bulgarians have this regional affiliation but the Greeks do not. Surely, if he was talking about regional affiliation he would say that Bulgarians and Greeks call themselves Macedonians. This is because in this instance the "Bulgarians" are calling themselves "Macedonians" in an ethnic sense. Furthermore, it seems unusual for the surrounding ethnicities (Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Roma presumably) to call these people "Macedonians" if they were in fact ethnic Bulgarians.

Jingiby and Laveol, I am genuinely interested in how you can somehow interpret this statement as discussing self-identifying ethnic Bulgarians from Macedonia. Surely if it was only a regional designation, then Greeks would also be included in the same category? (Would they be not?) Also, if they were indeed ethnic Bulgarians, then why would the surrounding ethnicities call, them specifically, "Macedonians"?, If we are to take this view then they would in fact be as "Macedonian" as each other, and would call each other by their respective ethnicites. Why, if they were ethnic Bulgarians, would they be called Macedonians by their neighbours? Lunch for Two (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way people call me Macedonian only because I come from the region of Macedonia. I think you have troubles with part of the text. The part you chose to quote says that Greeks from the Southern part of the region do not call themselves that way. Turks have no such regional identity, why should they be calling themselves Macedonians? Do you get what he is trying to explain? He wants to put exact boundaries on the term Macedonia. And the only way of doing so is using the regional self-identification of the people living there. And it does not work with Greeks because the ones in the Southern part of the region do not refer to themselves as Macedonians. Read the whole thing, not just the intro about the geography of the region. --Laveol ^T 11:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Turks, Greeks, Albanians and Serbs (okolni narodi) call you simply Macedonian? Surely they do not, logically you would be first refered to as Bulgarian, then as as a Bulgarian from the region of Macedonia. I understand what he is trying to say, and he says it clearly. What he is saying is that the locals call themselves Macedonians, and the others around them also call them that. If this was not an ethnic designation, then why would a person from a different ethnicity apply a regional and not ethnic designation? Lunch for Two (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, stop talk to him. It will be for nothing. He does not formate any constructive sentence in this conversation. Only POV-pushing. Jingby (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, I dont have a problem discussing so long as you can show valid and logical reasoning. Neither you nor Laveol has been able to discredit Kanchov's comments. If you can show from a reasonable perspective (one which is not biased by our own Balkan related beliefs) that by his own admission the locals viewed themselves as Macedonians, then I will be more than happy to accept your reasoning. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]