Talk:Macedonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
Archive 1 (124 kb)

Contents

[edit] Folklore

I have a comment about this claim: "Claim 2 It is indisputable that in the Macedonian ethnogenesis, Slavic component is very significant. However according to Macedonian Slav authors, there is rich oral tradition mentioning Justinian I (Shapkarev 1889, p. 154) , Alexander the Great , Phillip II, even Karanus of Macedon founder of Macedon 8th century BC (Miladinov, #8). There are no tales about Bulgarian tsars on the other hand, including Tsar Samuil. This does not explain why overwhelming number of the intelectuals in 19th century were linking the origin of Macedonian people with Ancient Macedonians. This was confirmed with the proclamation of Kresna Uprising".

I’ll talk not only about folk tales but about folklore as a whole because almost every themes in the folk songs exists in the folktales and this is a connected matter.

1. There are folklore sources from Macedonia about bulgarian rullers. See song N 57 – King Shishman, king Latim and shepherd Tabarina in "Bulgarian Folk songs" of Miladinov Brothers .

  1. There are legends about tsar Samuel in Macedonia and in Bulgaria. Often it is a legends about some fortresses, origin of names etc.
I knew there was something about Samuel and I was going to change that once I found a source. I know for example legends about lakes connected about Samuel. I did not put Samuels stuff there but FF. As for the others? From which city comes the story about Shishman? As for the others if we want to do some compassion, songs about Serbian Prince Marko are much more than king Latim (who is this guy?) and others.--Cigor 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote, the song about king Sishman is from "Bulgarian folk songs" of Miladinov Brothers - N 57. It is not mentioned there the place of origin, but its dialect is macedonian and this song is from Macedonia. (There are one more song about Sishman in this book, but it is from the other part from Bulgarian lands). (I made a misprint - the real name of the king Latim is Latin). As for King Marko his image proves that we can make any ethical conclusions on the base of folklore heroes.
Again, who is this king Latin/Latim? When and where did he ruled? --Cigor 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

2. The figure of Alexander the Greet is presented not only in the folklore in Macedonia – from Bulgaria to the Middle East and this presence has not ethnical value. This is the image of Iskender (Iskander) from the poetry of Firdousi end eastern legends. There are a books (trenslations) about Alexander in the period if the Bulgarian national Revival which authots and readers was not from Macedonia, but nobody claims that this proves their "macedonian" consciousness or origin.

Sure, Alexander is present elsewhere, but how about Karanus of Macedon? How many other places have a collective memory of something that happened 28 centuries ago? Or anybody before Alexander for that matter? --Cigor 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What that means? Maybe there was one (or much more) example for "a collective memory of something that happened 28 centuries ago". And? Only desandents of Karanus can have memory about him? Let remember again Alexander the Great.
Well, the Bulgarians are pushing the theory that Macedonia was depopulated by the 7th century and that Kuber came and settled with Bulgars. That the Slavs at that time were way south, all the way to Morea. If this is true, from where does stories about Karanus came? Pozdrav, Ohrigjanecu. --Cigor 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3. The folklore is a disputable source about the selfconsciousness, but the folklore from Macedonia shows Bulgarian consciousness: - Folk tale from Kukush (Aegean Macedonia) that regards local christian people like Bulgarian (an example with hero Bolen Doichin and his people) – Български юнашки епос, С. 1971, Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и книжнина, книга LІІІ, С. 1971, с. 815 (legend N 189)

- Bulgarian Folk songs of Miladinov Brothers – N 356 (p.401) Veliko, pretty Bulgarian woman, Song N 474 (p.448) ….

- Folk song from Zubovci, Polog, Rebublic of Macedonia – in Арнаудов, Михаил. Народни песни от Горни и Долни Полог, в: Михаил Арнаудов Една научна командировка в Македония, София 1999, с154, N 47 – presented the local people like Bulgarians (the song is wroten in 1916)

All these examples are exceptions and the song written in 1916, well what can I say. --Cigor 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my English is not very good. This is a folk song which was collected (запишана) in 1916 from 80-old people from Zubuvci. Before 1916 this song was a part from the oral tradition. As for "exceptions" I can seek for more, but in this moment I think that they are too much: two songs from Miladinov Brothers, one song from Polog, a legend from Kukush. If you or somebody states that the folklore is an prove about ethical consciousness, I have to ask which consciousness? Regional Macedonian? Ethical Bulgarian? Ethnical Macedonian? Serbian? Greek?

So, for me this claim ia very disputable and is based on intrue arguments. --AKeckarov 12:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You may think so. The claim doesn't offer any absolute truth,but it's there, and it is not a lie. How much weight is anybody going to give to this claim, it is up to an individual reader.--Cigor 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What means "absolute thruth"? The claim state something untrue. The folklore sources (oral tradition) mention Bulgarian rullers. The claim states contrariwise. What we have to do? --AKeckarov 12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, from which city is the song about Shishman? I am asking this because during his reign (there are more than one, but I think the song is about Ivan Sh.) Macedonia was not under Bulgaria. --Cigor 12:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the song about Sishman (I am agree that maybe it is Ivan Sishman), see above. I can not understand the point of the question about the Bulgarian territory during the reign of Sishman. There are many herores in the songs and legends who never stеp in the relevant region.--AKeckarov 13:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important, because at that time Ivan Shisman state was a principality around V. Trnovo. He is considered the last Bulgarian tsar and his demise is shown in the folklore around Bulgaria as a blow to Christianity. Similarly, I know at least two Bulgarian folk songs about the last Byzantine emperor, or several about the Kosovo Battle. So it is not that much about the actual people (as they could not rule over the territories where these songs originated) but it is more symbolic – the tragedies that led to Turkish slavery. Like it or not Anton, the folklore in Macedonia has no memory of Bulgarian tsars that actually ruled over Macedonia. --Cigor 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting: First state was that there was not memory about Bulgarian rullers, now the same state is about "Bulgarian tsars that actually ruled over Macedonia". OK, from which place is the legend about Karanus? From Vergina? (And please, quote precisely your source about Karanus' legend)

And what about Samuil? He rulled over Macedonia.

I'll add one more source about folk tradition in Middle Ages: Bulgarian apocrypha originating from Macedonia - The Solun legend (there are two opinions about its chronology - ХІІ century (D.Petkanova) or ХVІ century(B.Angelov) [[1]]. There is information about Bulgarian princes from Preslav. (And about Bulgarians around Bregalnica river and in Solun etc).--AKeckarov 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can read about the story mentioned in Miladinovci #8. You can also read the same story in Sbornik na narodni umotvorenija, nauka I knizina – Sophia 1889, 4, pa 154. Is that enough detailed reference, Ohrigjanec? The city is Voden. And while we at Karan you can read song about him in another prerodbenik Isaija Mazovski work, “Spomeni” Sophia 1922. How about “Citalishte” published March/25/1870,Carigrad Stefan Zahariev in the text “Makedonsko piruvanje”, writes about Karan, the first Macedonian king…
I am still waiting for explanation who is this mysterious Bulgarian king Latin. I’ve never heard of him.
As for Samuil, I told you, FunkyFly put that. I would love to find a song about him – that would just prove the point why are we claiming him, among other things.
Once I find some spare time, I will expand massively each section and all the negators will wish the article to be deleted, but now it is too late for that. So zdravje, Ohrigjanec.--Cigor 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked you about Karan, because i did not find this legend (song) like N 8 in "Bulgarian folk songs" of Miladinov Brothers. Maybe I did not seek very carefuly or maybe you did not quote precisely. As for “Citalishte” published March/25/1870,Carigrad Stefan Zahariev in the text “Makedonsko piruvanje”, do you sure that this is a folklore source?

If you back, you'll see that I've never wrote that Latin is Bulgarian ruller. The Bulgarian ruller is Sishman. The name of the song is "King Shishman, king Latin and shepherd Tabarina" and this song is a prove that there are Bulgarian rullers (Sishman) in the folkore in Macedonia. Nothing more.

Do you think that the example with Solun legend shows something?--AKeckarov 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Karan, Ohrigjanec, I am trying to find a copy of the book to get you a scan, but without success. You know, it is unbelievable, there are many pages ABOUT the book (especially its cover), but there isn’t any regarding its content. There is something radically wrong about Bulgarians and Macedonians – such energy spent on unnecessary stuff. Anyway, the song is to be found at Sbornik na makedonski I bugarski pesmi od 1909 – 1910, page 68 (Mihajlo Georgievski: Slovenski rakopisi vo Makedonija, cit. delo, str. 161-173). However until I find this book and get you a scan, I can replace the reference with Isaja Mazhovski. He describes an event that occurred in the village Sosalija in 1867, where old people were singing several songs about Karan.
As for Shishman, he is considered as martyr of Christian faith, [2] in a similar fashion you can find songs about Constantine XI even though this emperor rule was constrained by Walls of Constantinople. So if you want, you can put Shishman reference in the article but than we have to put he never ruled Macedonia.
As for Solun legend, there is entire section , Claim 6 that deals with the name Bulgarian. If you go the archive of this Talk page, I talk about it’s meaning which can not be tied to modern Bulgarians only. Pozdrav --Cigor 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt of the fact that there are some folklore sources about Karan. I have a book of Miladinov Brothers and I just want to see the song (legend) in it. Therefore I asked for more precisely quotation. I am thinking about text about bulgarian selfdesciption in the folklore sources from Macedonia. Regards,--AKeckarov 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AKeckarov, maybe you can help me. Is there any Bulgarian site with folk tales? This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cigor 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it is two more examples about the presence of Bulgarian rullers in the folklore from Macedonia: [3] (През 1859 г. в “Цариградски вестник” Йордан х. Константинов-Джинот публикува песен, записана в Прилеп, в която цар Шишман бива поздравен от Милка Самодива (“от Перуна Неда Самоходка”) and [4]. The first is from Prilep (Republic of Macedonia), the second is from Pirin Macedonia (Bulgaria). Thereofre I am still not agree with the claim.--AKeckarov 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear God

This article is a disaster by any standards! I'll try to find time to explain why these days. Regards. --FlavrSavr 03:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will be better in few days.--ElevatedStork 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs A LOT OF WORK

But lets start and correct it, step by step.

Lest start and correct it.--ElevatedStork 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the whole talk, there has been a lot of discussion already. Why are you disputing the article?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction of the Claim 1

The text was:

The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed

The truth is quite the opposite. Self-determination has always been one of the crucial principles of the Macedonian National Movement. It was understood from the earliest phase that Macedonia is inhabited with various ethnicities, and Macedonians, as the native majority, should do whatever is needed to protect the ethnic minorities of Macedonia.

As an example, lets take a look at the Kresna Uprising Proclamation from 1878. This is, without any doubt, one of the most mature document produced by the Macedonian National Movement.

In the third article it is clearly stated that Macedonia is inhabited with various nationalities and faiths:

Article 3: All residents of Macedonia, regardless of nationality or faith, can take part in the uprising - but they must love freedom.

Article 15 names the various nationalities, and implies that the list is not definite:

Article 15: Any Christian, Muslim, Macedonian, Turk, Albanian, Vlach, or anyone else who acts contrary to the uprising and/or the Rebels will be prosecuted and punished.

Article 156 puts all religions and nationalitis in equal legal position under Macedonian civil rule.

Article 156: It is strictly forbidden to spread hatred based on religion. It is forbidden to make distinctions among the nationalities because all are equal citizens and all are under the protection of the laws of Macedonian civil rule.

Articles 162-178 regulate the rule in the multi-ethnic and multi-convessional villages and areas.

Articles 186-190 regulated the relations between the Macedonians and Bulgarian Principality (as a foreign country).

Similar articles exist for the Serbian and Greek kingdoms.

The modern Macedonain constitution makes a clear distinction between Macedonians, and the other slavic speaking ethnicities that live in Macedonia. In all censuses Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins and Bulgarians (all slavic speaking nations) were counted as separate ethnicities.

Hence to say: ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed is completely inappropriate. Exactly the opposite is the case.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filip_M (talk • contribs) .

And how about the statute of SMARO, where a member can be "any Macedonian or Adrianopolian"? You claim that Adrionopolians formed a separate ethnic group then?   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Not correct. --ElevatedStork 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the article on Kresna-Razlog Uprising and the reference given there which categorically shows that the "mature" Kresna Uprising Proclamation from 1878 is an unskilfully made fake. If you are proud with faked documents about "your" history, be so, but do not try to make others believe you. Lantonov 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not respecting self-determination

Ok, lets talk about the following statement (that you insist is correct):

The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed.

Why do you think we disregard the self-determination of anyone, including the Slav-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia that identify themselves as something else, and not Macedonians? We don't! In Republic of Macedonia there are thousands of Slav-speaking citizens that self-identify themselves as Serbs, or Bulgarians, or Bosniaks, or Croats, or Montenegrins. We know and we completely accept their free choice of self-determination. The number of Serbs, according to the last census was 40 000, the number of Bosniaks around 20 000, the number of Bulgarians 1653, etc.

The statement: ethnicity is prescribed on a regional bases, rather than being self-expressed is also untrue. Actually R. Macedonia is one of the few Balkan countries that fully recognizes all ethnicities that live in it. It does not purposely confuse the citizenship, with the ethnicity, as some other countries do, and then they claim that they are 98% ethnically homogenous. --Filip M 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethicity is prescribed on a regional basis in neighboring Albania, Greece and Bulgaria, where over a million Republicans supposedly exist, and where recent censi have recorded a couple of tens of thousands at best.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't! In Republic of Macedonia there are thousands of Slav-speaking citizens that self-identify themselves as Serbs, or Bulgarians, or Bosniaks, or Croats, or Montenegrins. So does the Republican government (that lost the elections) recognize the censi in Bulgaria and Greece?   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claim6

Removed most of the section because this is not an article about the history of Macedonia. The claim is very specific.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Original research

Ok FF, let's hear why have you butchered entire section even though it's packed with references. --Cigor 03:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How not to write an article

This won't be an exhaustive list: 1. Tag team reverting is way out, 2. not discussing controversial reversions on the talk page is way out.

I protected the article because of this lovely revert war that was going on. Please, please, please get mediation, I'd offer to mediate, but seeing as you all think I'm Macedonian there is not much point. Please see WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM. - FrancisTyers · 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediaton accepted

I have filed a mediation request here, and Тhe prophet wizard of the crayon cake was brave enough to accept it. I hope everybody agrees we should start talking now. --FlavrSavr 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Before we begin. I want everyone to know that I am totally indifferent on the out-come of this dispute. You have no idea how much I don't care about this topic :) . I'm totally neutral on the issue. If you're curious of my nationality (for some reason), I hail from the United States... but I hold my own opinions that are totally separate from my nation's government. I'm something of a free thinker.

So, just after a quick scan of everything, here's the main points I think we need to work on first:

  • We need to focus a little more on the article itself, rather than other editors. Let's ease the pressure off each other a tad and work on making the article a kick ass one that shows everyone's side of the story.
  • Less focus on the opinion of an entire nation. It's awfully hard to categorize the collective opinions of thousands of people... the "Bulgarian opinion" or the "Greek opinion"... so let's stick to specific sources and what they claim.
  • I think the reason the article appesrs POV isn't so much the viewpoints... but rather the way the viewpoints are expressed, and the overall layout and style. Each "claim" speaks as though it is absolute truth, which really isn't the way Wikipedia displays information.
  • Meh, the whole thing's a mess... but I'm an optimist. :)

So... I'll let you guys discuss, and I'll just listen... since I am, after all, completely uninvoled. I hold no authority, or decision-making power... I'm just here to guide you along smoothly so we can get stuff done. Thanks for understanding, and have fun slitting each other's throats. ^_^ --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my concerns stem from the fact that an anon sockpuppet of a blocked user (Cigor) has been deleting my recent additions of text (221 words) without explaining why. --Tēlex 09:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you actually expect Cigor and his sockpuppets to discuss, don't hold your breath. --Tēlex 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop being such a negative nancy :) - FrancisTyers · 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, seriously; he evaded his block to revert, let's see if he'll evade it to discuss. --Tēlex 09:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[removed unhelpful, sarcastic comment - FrancisTyers · 13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)]
Regarding the talk page I have never, ever avoided discussion.
Anyway, I would like to thank the Wizard for taking this task!
So my first question would be repeated one: Why was my text deleted? Almost every statement there is backed with reference. Each statement adds value in my opinion, especially in this article which was started as an attack page where being a Macedonian is not treated as an ethnic/nation designation, but rather ideological designation, like being a communist or fascist. --Cigor 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about your text (I even added to the criticism section some "response" to your addition - this is an indication of acceptance). The question is, why was my text deleted? IMO "Macedonism" = Macedonian nationalism (just like Bosniak nationalism, Croatian nationalism and Irish nationalism). I would oppose the title 'Macedonian nationalism', as Macedonians are only less than half of the Macedonians - the largest group being these Macedonians. It would be like moving Bosniak nationalism to Bosnian nationalism, and we know that there are similar ambiguities surrounding the term Bosnians. As for the IP, yes, Cigor, I believe it was you. Whether you used a public library, a proxy server or any other method, it was quite obviously you. --Tēlex 13:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Where did I delete your text? I was reverting what FF did, which was massive deletion of my text (about two pages in MS Word) without explanation. As for the IP, think what you want, but I never left Houston, TX all this time. [removed unhelpful comment. - FrancisTyers · 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)] --Cigor 13:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Portions of "your" text was deleted because it did not answer the claim, rather for the most part quoting from different places and tying those quotes into conclusions which none of the books actually supports, this is Original research.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


First, it was not "portions". It was entire section. Second, almost all sentences are backed by reference by some non-Macedonian (mostly Western historians). Most of these books can be easily found in local libraries or Internet. If you have a problem with any of those statement you find the reference, you read the book, (or at least few pages around the reference), you state your opinion why is inaccurate or irrelevant, you wait for feedback and then you delete two pages of text. Did you look at any of those books, FunkyFly? And for the record, I am not finished with that section and I plan to expand it. --Cigor 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Also Telex explain this to me: How can I have been blocked 3 times if I had the abbility of proxy server, public library and what not? --Cigor 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked 3 times for violating 3RR, not for suckpuppeting. Check user might be initiated against you if enough evidence is collected.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And Francis, how come he can repeaditly accuse me that I am sockpuppeting, and I can't answer to that?--Cigor 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop it. I would recommend you rescind your posts. - FrancisTyers · 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets all calm down and think as adults. Thank you for the accepted mediation. Lets try to make this article accurate and informative. There are two basic problems that are blocking us now:

  • First, the movement is presented as a political ideology, and not as a national (or nationalist) movement, although the whole article clearly reveals that the movement is exactly that: a national movement, so typical for the 19 century.
  • Second, it is presented as an invention of one man, serbian politician Stojan Novakovich, and its emergence is located in 1887. We have a clear proof that the movement was much older, from the early 1860-ties, and it was authochtonous The Macedonian question article..

Lets first see how we can agree on these two basic issues. --Filip M 14:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article claims that the term "Macedonism" was coined by Novakovich (which is probably true - do you have any older references to the term "Macedonism" in this context?). It does not say he invented it. --Tēlex 14:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Telex, the above mentioned article The Macedonian question is from 1871. In this article the whole movement is described, defined and critiqued in detail. The participants in the movement are labeled as "Macedonists". In addition to that, the article claims that at that point of time (1871) the movement was at least 10 years old. So, when the movement started, Stojan Novakovich was probably still in diapers. In addition to this, in the reference that you added, Novakovic neither explain nor define the term, assuming that his audience was well aware of its meaning. --Filip M 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"Macedonist" does not necessarily mean a supporter of "Macedonism". In Greece, the term "Macedonism" is rarely used (probably only by Kofos), although the people of FYROM are often called "Macedonists" (Makedonistes), which means someone who tries (or wants) to be Macedonian, but is not. Back to the point, if we don't know who or when it started (despite Cigor's sockpuppets' insistence), then don't mention it. As I've already said, in my opinion, this article should deal with Macedonian Slav nationalism, and their notorious historically dubious claims which appear nowhere in mainstream scholarship (the "historical" region of Macedonia, the only Greeks in Macedonia being the refugees from Turkey, the Macedonian Slavs being the descendents of Slavs and Ancient Macedonians, stolen Aegean Macedonia, no Bulgarians even being in all Macedonia, the "invisible" minorities, the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks etc... etc... ). Unlike in neighbouring countries (including Albania), there has not been so much historical revisionism. There are more websites devoted to spreading Macedonian Slav nationalist mythology than any other variety. It's a fascinating journey... even the websites linked to at www.maknews.com claiming to represent the Macedonians in Greece, Macedonians in Bulgaria and Macedonians in Albania (these minorities are an important aspect in Macedonian Slav nationalist mythology), are owned by people in Toronto, Canada!!! Run a whois check if you don't believe me. The lengths some people go to in order to create the illusion that their claims are true... Anyway, the bottom line is: if you don't know, don't address the issue. --Tēlex 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The content of Slaveikov's article clearly shows what you are talking about :Macedonian Slav nationalism.--Cigor 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
About that document: you have to prove that: a) it's authentic, b) it's an accurate translation of an actually document, c) give the (user)name of the translator and the original text. --Tēlex 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We can't talk like that. I do not ask the same thing from you. Slaveikov's letters are well known thing, and to my knowledge, no Bulgarian historians dispute them. I am not going to spend time to show that the document is: a) it's authentic, b) it's an accurate translation of an actually document, c) give the (user)name of the translator and the original text. Instead, if you think is not any of those 3 points, you will give us reference of some historian that thinks the document is a fake.--Cigor 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you'll have to. Otherwise, what stops me from writing my own version of Thucydides' history, and putting it on wikisource, and claiming it's authentic. There is no evidence that that is the first reference to a 'Macedonist', and it is for you to prove that it is (by quoting a reliable secondary source who says it is). Anything else is WP:OR. --Tēlex 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the original was published 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople, and it is now in Sophia. If there is a dispute of the document, FunkyFly can go (I beleive he lives there) to the archive and obtain a scan? --Cigor 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) The Slaveykov article does exist. There is a user IP: 85.187.163.40 on WikiSource.org that confirmed that a copy of the newspaper exists in the w:SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library in Sofia, and he have seen and read the article. Almost entire article was reprinted in a recent bulgarian academic publication Петко Р. Славейков, "Съчинения", том 7 Публицистика, Издателство "Български писател", София, 1981, "Македонският въпрос", стр. 21-24 (In English: Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" - "Works", volume 7 Publitsistika - Publicism, Publishing house "Bylgarski pisatel" - "Bulgarian writer", Sofia, 1981, "Makedonskiyat vypros" - "The Macedonian question", p. 21-24) I have post a request for a transcript of the original, since he claims that there are few mistakes in the translation, and there are three paragraphs missing. --Filip M 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No boys. If it actually says it (and you believe it), then fine. I think it's WP:OR to say that it is the first (or one of the first) reference(s) to Macedonism, when we don't know when it was. It's much best to say - Macedonism was mentioned in the 1971 in such-and-such a newspaper, and it may be one of the earliest surviving references to it - or something similar. --Tēlex 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that sounds fine, but a sentence such as: "Stojan Novakovich coined the term" is also totally WP:OR (no sources that he "coined the term", nor that he used it for the first time). Also, I think we should first focus on the opening paragraph and continue step by step, because our mediator might get confused. Telex, the whole problem lies that "Macedonism" is in itself, an ambigious term, and what is more important, it is a term almost exclusively used by Bulgarian (and to some extent Greek) historians. I'm surprised that you say that this article should be about Macedonian nationalism. The whole thing is a bit confusing. If we define (as in the article) "Macedonism" as extreme form of ethnic nationalism, according to which the Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian ethnic group, language and history respectively., then "Macedonism" has nothing to do with the claim that "the only Greeks in Macedonia are refugees from Turkey". If "Macedonism" = Macedonian nationalism, then those claims can be attributed to it, but then again, using "Macedonism" would be a contradiction, since this term is mostly used to actually deny a possibility for an autochtonous Macedonian nationalism in the 19th century. (as the instances of Macedonian nationalism are attributed to the Serbian propaganda) Also bear in mind than in certain circumstances nationalism is not necessary a negative phenomenon (for example Greek nationalism within the Ottoman Empire). --FlavrSavr 18:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Noone is denying the possibility for home grown nationalism in Macedonia as early as the middle of the 19th century, the quotes show that Macedonism was definitely a weapon in the hands of the Serbian propaganda, which greatly encouraged it. After all most of the population in the 19th century Macedonia considered themselves Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, OK, we'll speak about that later. Let's focus on the opening paragraph. --FlavrSavr 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back on track there... for a while the conversation was swivelling away from thearticle, but now we're starting to focus on the article. Honestly the article as it stands is a total mess... it might be wise to delete entire sections and slowly reword the whole thing. Might be more efficient. Thanks for a least remaining somewhat calm. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To FlavrSavr: I would define Macedonism as follows:

“ Macedonism is the most widespread variety of Macedonian ethnic nationalism which propagates the ideology of the continuous existence of a Macedonian ethnic group from ancient times to the present day, whose national homeland is the Macedonia. According to this ideology, in the 6th century, Slav tribes settled in Macedonia which was still inhabited by the Ancient Macedonians who had remained distinct, both culturally and linguistically, from neighboring peoples (including the Greeks), and integrated with them giving the Macedonians their present-day Slavic character. All significant events in the region were orchestrated by Macedonians. Macedonia, after having been part of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, was occupied by the Ottoman Turks, until it was illegally divided against the will of its people - the Macedonians - between Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Albania under the Treaty of Bucharest, 1913 and the Treaty of Versailles, 1919. These countries subsequently enacted assimilatory policies against the Macedonian people, and Greece in particular expelled most Macedonians and settled Greek-identifying Laz refugees from the former Persian Satrapy of Pontus giving Aegean Macedonia its present-day ethnic composition. The present-day Macedonians are the direct inheritors and descendents of the Ancient Macedonians, and more than half of the region is still unliberated. Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia still hold historic Macedonian lands and still try to assimilate against their large Macedonian minorities. Macedonia ought to be reunified with the historic Macedonian city of Solun as its capital, and the Vergina Sun on its flag. ”

I appreciate that the above may be rather Greek-centric, as it does not address the Bulgarian concerns (e.g. claiming historical Bulgarian heroes as Macedonians etc), but the above is what in Greece is usually referred to as FYROM propaganda. I think it captures the idea: Macedonism is the form of nationalism whose key ideology is that there has been a continuous existence of a Macedonian ethnic group from ancient times to the present day with the Macedonian region being its national homeland. Some Macedonian nationalists in FYROM today may value their and promote their present-day distinctiveness, but accept that the Macedonian nation is largely the creation of Yugoslav socialism. I admit that the above may be rather POV and OR, but I don't know what things sound like at the other side of things. --Tēlex 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW this could also be described as the key ideology of Macedonism. --Tēlex 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could start by rewriting the intro? I have trouble understanding the intro as it is, so maybe it could be rewritten so that someone who is completely clueless about what Macedonianism is could easily follow it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, people usually put new posts at the bottom of the section. I had to sift through all of the conversation to find the newest posts made. Talk page guidelines recommend that talk pages follow a chronological order, to keep everything easy to follow. Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Telex

I am looking now what have edited in the article and I have several remarks: Regarding Claim 1, I have never seen such statement that "Macedonian ethnic group is the only indigenous ethnic group to Macedonia" As for the Greek majority in Macedonia, allow me to quote several people: Von Knapich, the Austrian Consul in Salonika, reported in 1874 that the Greek population was limited exclusively to the Kasandra and Ayonoros districts, the old Chalcidice and the Peninsula opposite. The Austrian K. Gersin (1903) considered that Greek presence extended only as far as the River Bistrica and along the Chalcidice. The historian and long-time English diplomat at Constantinople, E. Pears, maintained the view that ‘away from the shore it is rare to find a purely Greek village except near the confines of Greece’.

Ottoman sources that you are quoting reflects church adherence not ethnic. European commentators of the period generally considered Greeks to number fewer than 250,000 people. In 1899 (German) K. Oestreich counted 200,000, and in the same year (Serbian) S. Gopcevic counted 201,140. In 1900 (Bulgarian) V. Kanchov counted 225,152 Greeks, while in 1903 (German) K. Peucker counted 240,000, and (Austrian) K. Gersin counted 228,702 in the same year. The Greek element in Macedonia constituted no more than 10 per cent of the total population in Macedonia. I also have many other references about Romanian-Greek conflict regarding their claims about Vlachs.

So I suggest you to remove your statement. The reason for that is , if it stays in the current form I will be forced to refute it. If that happen, the article will probably go in completelly different direction (other Greeks will refute my stuff, then I will theirs, and so on...) --Cigor 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. I didn't say Greeks were the majority (certainly not in the whole region as perceived by Macedonian Slav nationalists, Skopje etc...). I said that Greeks have been in Macedonia long before the 1920s (and long before the Slavs), contrary to the claims that the only Greeks in Macedonia are refugees from Turkey (makedonija.info, User:Macedonia etc). --Tēlex 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about this: [5]. OK, it not "majority", but largest population, my bad. Again, nobody claims that only Greeks in Macedonia are refugees from Turkey , other than some extremist. But than, the article confuses me: do you want to show the extremist or mainstream view?--Cigor 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't a clue about the minutiae of what goes on in the minds of Macedonian Slav nationalists (or what's mainstream amongst them or not). I expect the ethnic composition was roughly as it appears in the ethnographic maps. Sources conflict - according to Greek sources, the 1941 census Axis carried out in the occupied Kingdom of Yugoslavia recorded approximately 100,000 Greeks. The "Greeks" in the Ottoman census may have been the Rumlar, although, no one knows or can know for sure. What is known is that the Rumlar (including the existing Slav element) were more sympathetic and supportive to the Greek struggle for Macedonia than to anyone else in the region (so Greeks view them as Greeks - this may have affected why Greece got the more than Bulgaria or Serbia) even though Macedonian Slavs are more likely to claim that the Greek/Rumi presence in Krushevo were not at all ethnic Greeks but Vlachs. E. Stanford (British) in 1877 claims that the region was predominantly Greek (he use the words "narrow kinship" with Gree), and the (rather obviously pro-Greek) Bianconi (French) claims the same. My point is that Macedonian Slav nationalists seem to claim that the only Greeks in Macedonia are the refugees from Turkey; this is not the case. Sometimes they even claim that Greece "renamed" northern Greece to Macedonia when FYROM became independent. Something equally not true: even now there is no formal administrative division in Greece called "Macedonia". The renaming was the renaming of the Ministry of Northern Greece to Ministry of Macedonia-Thrace, and this took place in August 1988. There was a newspaper called "MAKEDONIA" in the Greek languages that existed in Aegean Macedonia long before WWII. The claim that Greece tried to "eliminate" Macedonia, and only discovered it in the 1990s is simply not true. If you're interested, my source on what is Macedonian Slav nationalism is User:Risto Stefov's blog at www.maknews.com, and www.makedonija.info. --Tēlex 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph (opening section)

OK, Prophet is right, we should be more organized on this matter. Let's scan this article step by step and work out a NPOV version. I'm still a bit confused what "Macedonism" actually is, but from the things said, it's like some general term, a bag, where one can put all the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian nationalism. These are the points that should be made in the opening paragraph (the very first section), and as far as I've seen from the discussion, are not disputed:

  • Macedonism is a broad term
  • The term is mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) [6]
  • General usage: Macedonism is used to describe the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian nationalism
  • Usage of the word in Bulgaria (more specific, claimed 19th century Serbian propaganda to dillute Bulgarian conciousness of the Macedonians, also "Macedonistic organizations")
  • Usage of the word in Greece (more general, tends to link the term with United Macedonia related subjects, Kofos)
  • In an extreme context, the word itself means that there is no authentic, but only an artificial Macedonian nationhood, an ideological mindset imposed by Yugoslav socialism (Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) [7]
  • The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography

We can work out a NPOV opening with this points, possibly adding some more, and then continue with the first recorded usage, and different opinions about it. (Kofos sees it beginings in the 1990s, no?) --FlavrSavr 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add few points to the FlavrSavr's excellent layout for the opening paragraph:

--Filip M 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a note to this before but it seems to have been removed, but the term is not found in the Oxford English Dictionary (full edition) either. - FrancisTyers · 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh ho! Collaborative effort? Sounds splendid, FlavrSavr! ^_^ --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fist attempt to formulate the opening paragraph

Macedonism (Bulgarian: Македонизъм, Macedonian and Serbian: Македонизам Greek:????) is a term mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) to describe the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian Nationalal Movement. In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, or a regional linguistic separatist movement. In Greece this term is used almost exclusively by Kofos in the context of United Macedonia related subjects. In an extreme context, the word itself means that there is no authentic, but only an artificial Macedonian nationhood, an ideological mindset imposed by Yugoslav socialism (Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) [8].

The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography. It is not found neither in Enciclopedia Britanica nor in the Oxford English Dictionary.

In the article The Macedonian Question published on 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople by Petko Rachev Slaveikov, Makedonism was defined and critized, his adherants were named Macedonists, and this may be one of the earliest surviving references to it.

I think that the scope of this article should be pretty limited, since it is not found in major enciclopedias. Maybe these three short paragraphs, plus some external links and quotes.--Filip M 03:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Objections - it is used in the Republic of Macedonia as well, search for Srbinovski's works. There are no sources it is used in Bulgaria more frequently than in the Republic. Second, Slaveikov mentions Macedonists, not Macedonism.   /FunkyFly.talk_  05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to address your second objection (note the changes in the third paragraph). As far as your first objection, you will need to give us a reference, so we can determine the context and the meaning. --Filip M 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

There has been no discussion on this in a week. I'm unprotecting to see if editing can proceed normally. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected. None of the disputes has been resolved. - FrancisTyers · 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that is solved entirely. Article lacks.--ElevatedStork 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A quiet before the storm

So no one has said anything for a while.. is everyone dead?

I noticed as soon as the page was unprotected, there was an edit war... this won't produce results at all.

We all have to agree not to make changes or to revert changes until we have concensus. We can't leave this page protected forever. Thanks for understanding. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the current contents of this article is out of place. There are other articles where this contents can be better placed, like United Macedonia. I think that this article should better focus on the use and meaning of the term Macedonism, and I think that the article should contain 3-4 paragraphs (like the ones proposed earlier in this discussion) plus some links and citations. --Filip M 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont agree on this one. It is a fairly well established concept and its implications are quite deep. As a matter of fact there are a couple of other claims that can also be added, including the claims of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid.  /FunkyFly.talk_  23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. See Prophet, the problem is that mediation requires at least two sides and a mediator to mediate. At the moment, "our side" is the only one who engages in productive discussion, proposes text and all... It is to be expected that the "other side" should give some constructive feedback, to eventually come to a neutral version of the text. At the moment, FunkyFly simply reverted back to his version that includes a) unsourced statements (Stojan Novakovich) and b) removal of entirely sourced sections. I reverted back to the locked version until a solution is found, though I disagree with some of the formulations, especially the opening paragrhaph. --FlavrSavr 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sourced yet irrelevant..., anyway you deleted new additions to the article, without explanation. To answer in detail, about Novakovich, it is the first reference to the word Macedonism, not Macedonist, which is the name of the article in the first place. Macedonist has other meanings, including a linguist studying the Macedonian language, so comparison does not hold. Second, the sourced material that Cigor inserted for Claim 6 mostly deals with general history of the Republic of Macedonia and it is not specific to the claim. I have left 3 paragraphs from his text which directly answer the claim, the remaining ones are unrelated and it is original research to conclude that they support the claim. And last, "your side" erases passages inserted by me and Telex without explanation in the criticism of Claims 1,3 and 4   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
FF, the statements are not irrelevant as each address Claim 6. Other than giving a vague explanation (took you probably 30 seconds to write it and delete two pages of text) you have not explained the irrelevance of a single sentence there, not to mention the entire text. It seems to me that it is only you that is bothered by it. Telex seems not to mind. I have not deleted any of your text even though I don't agree with it and I expect of you to do the same unless you convince the majority here of the benefits of your deletion. --Cigor 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Really, check this revert of vandalism to see what you are not deleting.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What about that? That is not even me! --Cigor 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, wash your hands.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make this quick to save your eyes the needless reading. Please don't take this in a mean way.
  • There are no sides, only Wikipedians and an article they work on.
  • Why not ditch the majority of the article and start from scratch?

If everyone agrees to not revert each other without explaination, then I think we have our solution. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 04:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for reverts on my behalf were given up in the discussion, about a month ago.   /FunkyFly.talk_  04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of starting from scratch. We can start with simple facts that are well established, and then only add those that can be verified. --Filip M 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Since everyone disagrees with the current articles setup, let's just tear down and build a new one based on compromise. Sounds cool to me. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting the page and working on the article again

Ok... I'm going to get an admin to unprotect the article. Let's try this again, preferably using a technique like the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If everyone stays cool, I think we can rebuild this article and make it informative and neutral. I believe we're at the point now where we need to start making changes and seeing where we can go with this. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected as per request. Thank you for using Wikipedia! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lets start with the opening three paragraphs

I think we put this version on the discussion page, FunkyFly had few concerns, we addressed them, and we should start with this version:

Macedonism (Bulgarian: Македонизъм, Macedonian and Serbian: Македонизам) is a term mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) to describe the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian Nationalal Movement. In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, or a regional linguistic separatist movement. In Greece this term is used almost exclusively by Kofos in the context of United Macedonia related subjects. In an extreme context, the word itself means that there is no authentic, but only an artificial Macedonian nationhood, an ideological mindset imposed by Yugoslav socialism (Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) [9].

The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography. It is not found neither in Enciclopedia Britanica nor in the Oxford English Dictionary.

In the article The Macedonian Question published on 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople by Petko Rachev Slaveikov, Makedonism was defined and critized, his adherants were named Macedonists, and this may be one of the earliest surviving references to it.

Please don't alter it without a previous discussion. --Filip M 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, OK. I though we had to discuss before you erase. Make your case first. The non Bulgarian nature of history, language and culture should stay, because that is what all those claims boil down to, that is what Macedonism is all about - a movement for differentiation from the Bulgarian ethnic group.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We did make our case. We made our case on this very page, and for 10 days it was open for discussion. You gave two remarks, and I responded to both. Macedonism is not ideology. It is bulgarians that perceive it as such. As far as the differentiation is concerned, Macedonians did differentiate from both Serbs and Bulgarians. Greeks too. That is a normal process of every ethnogenesys. --Filip M 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Funky, DO NOT change the page before we agree on this discussion page that a certain change is appropriate and neutral. --Filip M 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making changes without discussion. Why did you erase:
  1. The idea presents itself as an extreme form of ethnic nationalism - in Bulgaria and Greece
  2. The term can also be used as an epithet by Bulgarians or their supporters against any Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia seeking to downplay their connections with Bulgarians, or in some way exert claims of Macedonian heritage over certain groups of people outside the Republic of Macedonia - e.g. "macedonistic organization", "macedonistic orientation"
  3. The passage of Stoyan Novakovich - the first recorded use of the term. I compromised, you still revert.
  4. Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) - totally arbitrary, not in the source. Not to mention it should be "ethnic Macedonians" at least   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Let's try the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which might work well in this situation. Someone boldly makes an edit, and if an editor doesn't like it, then that editor reverts that change made. At that point we discuss what was wrong with the original edit. It's important that we never revert a revert, as then we are basically declaring an edit war. Otherwise, one revert is ok. Does everyone agree with this? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We all have to agree not to make changes or to revert changes until we have concensus. Why do you change your mind now? Plus Filip M at least on words disagrees with you. At this point I accomodate most Filip M's changes in the text, and he performed two reverts already.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to address the four issues that FunkyFly expressed, and I'll make as little changes as possible in the article to address ONLY these issues.

  1. I don't have any problems with the term "an extreme form of ethnic nationalism". Lets try to incorporate it in this sentence:

In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, an extreme form of ethnic nationalism or a regional linguistic separatist movement.

  1. This paragraph is fine, but it should stay as a fourt paragraph.
  2. Novakovic did not invent the term. He doesn't even try to define it, meaning that in his time the term was well known. We can only mention Novakovic, AFTER Slaveikov, who precizely defined and criticized the movement.
  3. You may be right on this one. Lets delete the text in the ( ). --Filip M 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My formulation does not say Novakovich invented the term. Do you have an earlier source mentioning Macedonism? It is the first recorded usage, and he does define it, read the quote carefully. definite and wisely set boundaries, presentation of Macedonian dialect and Macedonian specifics - Macedonian specifics, to counter the prevalent Bulgarian tendencies.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm, on second thought... consensus before edit, as you suggested, might be a better idea than what I previously suggested. Even so, always be bold when editing, and don't hesitate to make changes. I'll stay out of content decisions, as I really don't know much about the topic, and I really have no say in the matter anyways. I'll stick to dousing out any conflicts that arise.So, if everyone is happy with that, continue with the content discussion. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] We are getting closer on the opening five paragraphs

I think we are getting closer. I will not make any changes in this itteration, and I'll only raise five issues:

  1. The term is used in R. Macedonia only in historic context (19 century) and only in response to the opposition of the Movement. We need to clarify this.
  2. I've never seen a quote from Srbinovski and how he uses it. If we mention him by name, we need that quote. Alternatively, you might want to use Miodrag Drugovac instead of Srbinovski.
  3. Why do we need to say that Slaveikov "partly defined it"? What aspects of the movement he didn't define?
  4. The term has surely been defined before Novakovic used it in 1887. I'll try to find other references to it. Until I provide other references let it sit as is.
  5. In the quotes section, Slaveikov quote should come first, since it is the oldest.

Now the ball is in your court FunkyFly. --Filip M 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1 and 2. Not true, Srbinovski [10]. 3. Lets erase "partly defined" then, since the movent has taken an irredentist turn since those days and it has acquired new meaning. 4. This source acknowledges Novakovich as the originator of the concept. 5. Go for it. 6. Should stay last in this article because he never mentioned the term. In the article Macedonist it could come first.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Beginning

I suggest this as the beginnig of the article (it's not quite finished though), now the beginning is awful

Macedonism is a term mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) and the Republic of Macedonia (Srbinovski). In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by historians and nationalists meaning two things – a political doctrine and an extreme form of ethnic Macedonian nationalism – an artificial product of the above mentioned doctrine. Macedonism as a doctrine states generally that Macedonians (the Slavic speaking population of Macedonia) are a separate nationality (as opposed to being a part of the Bulgarian people) – as the common negative/exclusion definition widely used by ethnic Macedonians goes – ‘we are neither Bulgarians, nor Serbs, nor Greeks‘. Early proponents of Macedonism as a doctrine are Mithad pasha, valiya (local governor) of Saloniki in the 1870s; Karl Hron – an Austrian journalist and spy; the Serbian scholars Stoyan Novakovich (the first to use Macedonism as a term) and Jovan Cvijch. The countries involved were just about the interested ones for the disputed region of Macedonia (the remaining being Bulgaria and Greece, which used the term ‘slavophone greeks’ and ‘added’ some history highlights which would later be readily used by adherents of Macedonism and ironically are in the base of the on-going name dispute between Greece and RoM). The Serbian efforts were the most lasting and Novakovich and Cvijch’s ideas found some support in certain Russian circles. The effects however of Macedonism on the local population were minimal though at the turn of the 20th century Kraste Misirkov (a Macedonian intellectual) wrote his famous/infamous ‘On the Macedonian matters’ which was largely a result of the Serbian commitment and mostly that of Novakovich himself. The Serbians were the first to revise history for political reasons in connection with Macedonism stating that the Samuil’s tzardom was not a continuation of the first Bulgarian tzardom but a separate Slavic entity (around the beginning of the 20th century). This together with some primitive statements of Serbian nationalists from the 19th century – as the one that the modern Bulgarians are of Turkic/Tartaric stock (as opposed to the pure Slavic Serbs and Macedonian Slavs) will later become a part of the “scientific” justification of Macedonism as nationalism in RoM. (The activities of these Serbian nationalists from the one hand and those of Mithad pasha on the other from the 1860s and 1870s are narrowly connected with the accounts in the much-debated Slaveykov’s letters and account for the two types of Macedonists mentioned there.) After WWI and the Bolshevik revolution the Soviet Union found Macedonism useful as a means to subdue nationalist movements and focus on proletarian ones concerning Macedonia. Through the Comintern Moscow imposed Macedonism on the Balkan communist parties (including a left wing faction of IMRO – IMRO united). This model was not new for the Bolsheviks – similar doctrines and ‘nation building’ occurred in Belarus and later in Moldova. An indicative sign of this time is the brochure ‘Why are we the Macedonians a separate nation’ by Vasil Ivanovski, member of the Bulgarian Communist Party (1934). The brochure is a blueprint of the Slavic variant of the history of ethnic Macedonians (as opposed to the Ancient Macedonian’s one, which is more popular nowadays). The phrasing and the harsh accusations towards Bulgarians and Bulgarian nationalism are almost identical to the ones during communist Yugoslavia times. The paper has many distortions and inconsistencies as describing Macedonian history and while stating that Samuil’s tzardom is a Slavic non-Bulgarian state, the author still finds it necessary to explain why Bulgarians and Macedonians did not form a common ethnicity during Ottoman rule – he states the main reasons are economical ones.


also i have another suggestion - the text under The adjective Bulgarian should be moved to a different subtitle (i am not ironic) - something like examples of macedonistic history distortions. the text is a rather poor compilation of not corresponding sources - e.g A.V. Amfiteatrov and H.G. Lunt opposed to L. Danforth and H.R. Wilkinson,. apart from this we have 'the common disease' - dismissal of important facts and conveying a different conclusions from part of the sources and most of the known facts. we can elaborate on this. --Asenizator 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I hold the opinion that Claim 6, the adjective Bulgarian should be shortened, as it mostly rambles into the general history of the region, doing little to answer the claim directly. This is what I will leave:

[edit] The adjective Bulgarian

Earlier in the nineteenth century ‘Rum’ millet was reinterpreted by Greek nationalists to mean ‘Greek’ in a national sense and was also used to refer to members of the Orthodox Christian merchant class regardless of their ‘ethnic origin’ or the language they spoke. ( L. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 59; A.V. Amfiteatrov, Zemya na Razdorot, Moscow, 1903, pp. 51–52; Alexander Strahan, London, 1866, p. xxiii. ). Similarly, the term ‘Bulgarian’ had earlier been broadly used as a collective label in the Ottoman Empire but it too had no political significance, for the term ‘Bulgarian’ meant nothing more than peasant.(L. Danforth, op. cit. p. 59; A.V. Amfiteatrov, op. cit. pp. 51–52; The English historian, D. Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897–1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki, 1966, p. 11). ‘Bulgarian’ and 'Greek' were not used to designate different ethnic or national groups; they were used to designate different socio-cultural categories.(L. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 59)

It was not unique for a Macedonian to identify oneself as Christian; indeed, in Bulgaria prior to statehood, Bulgarians commonly declared themselves ‘Christian’ in answer to the question, ‘What are you?’ The term ‘Christian’ specifically meant ‘Orthodox’ and was understood to be ‘Bulgarian’. The Russian Tsar therefore was understood by Bulgarian peasants to be a ‘Bulgarian Tsar’, not by nationality, but by Orthodox Christianity. (H.G. Lunt, Some Sociolinguistic Aspects of Macedonian and Bulgarian, University of Michigan, 1984, p. 104., Bulgarian A. T. BaIan, Edna makedonska teorija, Periodichesko Spisanie LXV, 1904, p.818 )

I strongly disagree that the section needs to be shortened.
In fact it needs to be expanded and further explained. There are many contradictions and convolutions and to use anachronisms and assign modern meaning to them in order to make a point is abuse of history.
The purpose of it is to explain the situation in the 19th century. Currently, blindly using the word of Bulgarian is taken out of the context. I wanted to explain that ethnic affiliation in Macedonia at the time meant little and was replaced by Christian affiliation. That at the time of the revivalist most of them were heavily Helenized, but this changed with ample Russian influence. Otherwise when Grigor Prlicev writes that Bulgarian alphabet used to be called Serbian letters, does that means that he is also Serbian writer? Or Miladinov when he says we are descendent of House of Nemanjić, does that implies that we are Serbs? I can find MANY examples like this.
For example, I see FunkyFly repeatedly mentions Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid . I mean, what can be Bulgarian in church that almost entire higher clerge was Greek, almost all documents were written on Greek, that under its jurisdiction during its peak had South Italy, Venice, Dalmatia and most of the Balkan (including Romania)? I guess following FF logic all Orthodox Christians from Venice were Bulgarian? --Cigor 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What you dont seem to understand is that repeating the history of the region of Macedonia does nothing to support the point of the claim. It is simply rambling and remote.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not repeating the history of the region of Macedonia. It is direct explanation of Claim 6, which, you’ll probably agree with me, is the most important one. And that’s exactly why you want to shrink it as much as possible.--Cigor 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Direct is hardly a word describing it. At most 3-4 paragraphs are relevant.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censi

The statistical data available concerning turn of the century Macedonia serves graphically to underscore the fact that such data are extremely unreliable. Most figures are based upon the estimates of politically motivated parties who used them as an exercise for numerical manipulation for political ends. (D.M. Perry, The Politics of Terror - The Macedonian Liberation Movements 1893–1903, London, 1988, op. cit. p 19)


The remaining of your text can be incorporated somehow, probably as historical background, or as part of the Criticism section.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It took us 10 days to come to something that will look like a solid opening of an article. Please do not hijack it now. Read it, and try to add what you believe is missing, or alter what you think is wrong. --Filip M 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Funky, one more detail, in the opening paragraph you wrote:

Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian ethnic group, language and history respectively.

It is more correct to add Serbian and Greek, so the snippet should read:

Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek ethnic group, language and history respectively.

I'm not making the change. Either you edit the text, or just agree on this change. --Filip M 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No because the Bulgarian ethnic group is the only one relevant. Novakovich acknowledges the widespread "Bulgarian idea". The Greeks do not claim the ethnic Macedonians as Greek. Remember, the purpose of Macedonism is to oppose the Bulgarian idea. Plus lets not go into other discussions about Samuil of Bulgaria, the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Bulgarian writers and revolutionaries from the 19th century from the region and so on.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If we leave the current text, we'll create a very biased statement. Serbian attempts to assimilate Macedonians, to convince them that they are not Macedonians, but Southern Serbs, are well known and documented. If you need refrences, just let me know. Same goes for the Greek attempts to assimilate Macedonians as Slavophone Greeks. And above all, members of the Macedonian National Movement have always equally distinguished themselves from the three surrounding nations. The statement: "We are not Bulgarians, nor Serbs, nor Greeks" was one of the motos of the movement. Please reconsider this change. --Filip M 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
True, it is the desire for independence which noone argues about. However what comes before it? There were Bulgarians, Greeks and Turks recorded in the region prior to the 20th century. I can give links. Obviously the present day nation did not derive from the people that identified then as Greeks or Turks, but from the people that identified then as Bulgarians. Plus, lets not argue about the Slavophones and if they were originally Bulgarian or ethnic Macedonian, as well as the Sourth Serbs theory, in which noone outside former Yugoslavia believes.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) FunkyFly, our current text reads that Macedonians are a separate ethnic group only from Bulgarians. Like if they are not a separate ethnic group from Serbs or Greeks (?!!!). But they are. And there were attempts from both Greek and Serbian side to assimilate them as Greeks and Serbs. --Filip M 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And so they are separate from all other nations in the world. The point is noone is claiming the ethnic Macedonians as Greek or Serbian presently. The same argument about the past censi I gave still applies.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely wrong!!! If Serbs have not issues with the existance of the Macedonian nation, why do they oppose the Macedonian national church? Not to mention that Ultra nationalists still routinely attack the Macedonian statehood and claim that Macedonians are Southern Serbs. Greeks still claim Macedonians being Slavophone Greeks (even the southern portion of the ones in Republic of Macedonia). Those claims were stronger in the past, but they are still present. My suggestoin is just a plain, fair and truthfull fact: Macedonians regard themselves as different from Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks alike. --Filip M 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
...and no serious person questions that... at present. In the past, the however Bulgarian idea seems to have been the dominant one. Do the Greeks claiming southern ethnic Macedonians as Greeks remind you of ethnic Macedonians claiming Bulgarians from Blagoevgrad Province as ethnic Macedonians?   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, I've seen many persons that should be serious, like Presidents of countries, academicians, etc, but they still claim the Macedonians being Bulgarians, or Serbs or Greeks. But lets focus on our subject. Why does it bother you to say that Macedonians claim that they are not Bulgarians, Serbs or Greeks. That is so typical for the Macedonian national movement. Actually, to say anything less than that, would be an obviously biased statement. --Filip M 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is not about the Macedonian national movement, but about Macedonism. And as such, the concept is defined in a different way. You claim Slaveikov defined the concept, so is he talking about ethnic Macedonians being different than Greeks or Serbs? Is Novakovich talking seriously that they are Serbs or Greeks?   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you want to say that Bulgarians see it like a movement that tries to disctinct only from Bulgarians. Hmmm. Maybe it make sense. I don't know. Ok, I'll let this slide. As far as Srbinovski and Markovski, all you have provided so far are references from Bulgarian sources that talk about them. Not even a single quote by either Srbinovski or Markovski. --Filip M 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Correction: Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks see it as a movement to distance from Bulgarians.   /FunkyFly.talk_  04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, its kind of obvious that they were distancing themselves from Serbs too, not just Bulgarians -- I don't know about Greeks. - FrancisTyers · 09:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Francis, and we need to find a way to say that in the article. Maybe in the claims section. But for now, I'll just gramatically correct the first sentence. --Filip M 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I think we need this change

I think we need this chage (added text in bold):

In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, an extreme form of ethnic nationalism or a regional linguistic separatist movement, according to which the Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek ethnic group, language and history respectively.

Note the words: "according to which", meaning that the rest of the sentence is how "Macedonists" understand their doctrine. And they certainly have always made equal distinction from all three surrounding nations. --Filip M 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to happen because this implies that Macedonian National Movement = Macedonism. This limits the scope of term Macedonism to the past, when the movement for independence was active.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Now you are moving TOO FAST

  1. I don't have any issues to add Ratko.
  2. The second edition is pure repetition, and does not say anything new or different, it just makes the sentence longer, and I'll revert it.
  3. It cannot be and. It must be or, since the three terms do not combine. They are mutually exclusive: political ideology, an extreme form of ethnic nationalism or a regional linguistic separatist movement. I'll revert that one too.
  4. Contrived can stay (although Bulgarians prefer to be more direct and just call in artificial).
  5. The movement/Macedonism uggh. Ok, I'll let this one slide. I believe it was better before, though. The sentence was more readable.
  6. Absolutely not. To assimilate them into what? Into Macedonians? Into Serbs? Into Greeks? It does not make any sense. --Filip M 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Ok
  2. No, it is not because the Bulgarian view is supported from other countries too.
  3. It is and. Macedonism is about lingustic and ethnic differences
  4. Ok (Contrived is synonymous with artificial)
  5. Ok
  6. Assimilate them into Serbs. See Serbianization.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • second issue: Do you want to say that in Republic of Macedonia people support the Bulgarian view on the Macedonian issue, and call themselves Macedonists? Ok, how do I say this in a civilized way. Hmmm. <flame on> ARE YOU INSANE? <flame off>. Radko is a political party of the bulgarian minority in Macedonia (I don't know if they are still active at all). Markovski is long ago dead Macedonian disident that ended his life in Bulgaria, and alegedly changed his view on the Macedonian issue only after he found reffuge in Bulgaria. As far as Srbinovski, I still haven't seen any direct quote where he expresses his view on the Macedonian issue. To use the term Macedonist in a modern context is <flame on> EXTREMELY RUDE AND UNCIVILIZED <flame off> because it essentially means that you declare the modern Macedonians as imbecils who do not know their ethnicity and/or pretend to be something that they are not. There is no way how this can stay.
  • Third issue: Political ideology is one thing, ethnic and linguistic separatist movement is something completely different. It can be either the first one, or the combination of the second and third. I'll try to make it 1 or 2 and 3.
  • Sixth issue: The text still say assimilation. Assimilation into what? Serbs supported Macedonism to help them assimilate Macedonians into Serbs? Don't you think this sounds a little bit (my flame is all spent for tonight) silly. --Filip M 03:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Second: In the Republic of Macedonia some people acknowledge the Bulgarian position and describe the movement as Macedonism the way they do in Bulgaria. They do not call themselves Macedonists obviously, but they do call "Macedonists" some of their compatriates. Read the "Ratko" link. It is still active, despite the fact that its leaders were arrested and put in jail.
  • Third: will look closely
  • Again, see Serbianization will stay, as well the Bulgarian nature of the population which is sourced. You probably do not know much about the background of Macedonism. Read the quote from Novakovich for starters. Think of it as a preamble to complete Serbianization, which is actually what happened in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a move towards complete Serbianization.

  /FunkyFly.talk_  03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of Bulgarian view that Macedonism is Serbian invention, but I could never understand its logic. Let me get this straight: It was easier for the Serbs to undertake extremely risky strategy to convince us that we are separate ethnicity from Bulgarians and Serbians, rather than direct propaganda that we are Serbs? So, I’ll play Devil’s advocate here, say they succeed; they develop, all by themselves, separate conscience, different than Bulgarian, but also different from Serbian. How do they trigger second (presumably, final) stage, that is, turning all of us into Serbians? Additional problem is that all their actions were headed for direct Serbinization (as already described in the article), rather than extremely exotic endeavor. --Cigor 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, well the Serbian stragy developed in two stages. As the quotes say, Macedonism is initially pointed at the elimination of the Bulgarian idea, because "the Serbian idea by itself is in need of some kind of ally". When the Bulgarian idea is destroyed, we have the 1920s and 1930s full Scale serbianization as there is nothing left to stop it, at least that's what turned out. Eventually we have the birth of modern Macedonism with its "exotic endeavors" in history, the adoption of the Serbian alphabet to replace the Bulgarian and so on.   /FunkyFly.talk_  06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't believe it!! So you are suggesting we adopted Serbian alphabet (please read Serbian and Macedonian Cyrillic) to replace the Bulgarian!? I mean, WTF! If you pay attention to the Macedonian and Serbian alphabets you can see that we don't have hard and soft CH in our alphabet. We have hard and soft K( К and Ќ). At the same time Bulgarian alphabet has SHT, which is clearly way off. Second thing: serbian alphabet lacks the letter Ѕ (dz). There is no such language or alphabet that has adopted this letter, thus it's unique to us. And you can tell us that we adopted serbian alphabed to replace the bulgarian... I mean, we never even used the bulgarian alphabed with the I-O, YA and all those weird letters that remained with the Glagollic script. You are way off my friend, and I suggest you do your homework and read some more.89.205.27.168
  • Second issue: They don't call themselves Macedonists? Then how do they call themselves? If they call themselves Macedonians, then they don't support the bulgarian POV. If they call themselves Bulgarians, then they are not Macedonians, but members of the bulgarian minority in Macedonia, so their opinion cannot be attributed to the Macedonians. Do you understand this nice little paradox?
  • Third issue: find me one quote where Macedonians (or Macedonists if you like) claim that they are more separate (or primarily separate) from Bulgarians, and to a lesser extent separate from Serbs and Greeks. Macedonian doctrine is "equilibrium" or "equidistance", equally close and equally far from all three neighbors.
  • Sixth issue: Now you read the quote from Novakovic once again, and explain me where do you see in that quote the word assimilation. Any assimilation. Anyone into anything. The quote simply talks about the fight of the Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda, and the importance of the Macedonian movement as a singnificant factor, that can tip the ballance.

I'm too tired to edit the article tonight, but I will edit it tomorow. So far we made a good progress. Now calm down and think twice before you edit. Some of the edits you make go against your POV and against your intentions. They also go against the quality of the article, because they don't make any sense at all. --Filip M 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Second: It's not that simple my friend. Bulgarian-Macedonians, who acknowledge their past.
  • Third: You're so lost: Macedonians is not equal to Macedonists (common misconception among ethnic Macedonians). And go ahead, find a source which defines Macedonism as "equidistant" from all neighbors? Sounds a bit like Kiro Gligorov?
  • Six: Tip the balance towards future assimilation of the Macedonian people as South serbs, which sort of happened later.
Looks like some needs to rest :) Yes, enough excitement already.   /FunkyFly.talk_  04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess

i think i may try to create a disambiguation page and create a separate article about macedonism as a political doctrine. A fresh start looks a good option to me, the current article is not getting anywhere from this. some major points of interest:

- the two main streams of macedonism - the original serbian one of Novakovich, Cvijch and the communist/comintern one. they are not completely similar but are not totally independant as well.

- also developments of stance of the involved parties - e.g. the yougoslav communist party in the early 1920s spoke of bulgarians of macedonia and only some time later adopted the postulates of macedonism; the turn of viewpoint of the imro-united members in the 1930s, etc.

- differences between "bulgarian" macedonians and "serbian" macedonians of the high echelone of macedonian officials at the time of constituting SRM - Shatev, Markovski, Vlahov .. vs Kolishevski, Koneski, etc.

- developments of stances and theories regarding history

- development of the attitude toward Bulgarians and Bulgaria

--Asenizator 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some notes about the counter-claims

3 - total mess with language mistakes as well. so what is this - 4 pieces of evidence that should serve as support that there existed a medieval macedonian ethnicity? let's be serious. apart from this that when i see some guys hurrying to provide evidence on their existence in history i immediately understand that they are ethnic macedonians - there's a major point here, i hope many of you are aware of it already - do you have any idea what is the bulk of sources and documents about the medieval history of balkan peoples, including the ones with a little shorter history as roumanians and albanians? now then - i have seen several times the list of sources as in "Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Indipendence and Nation-State" and half of them are not for macedonia proper but for the thema macedonia - all in all about a page. so ... i suggest that this text is changed to something like - "according to macedonian historiography a medieval macedonian ethnicity existed.". Another important point - about medieval sources - can you provide evidence that the name macedonian was used to designate the Slavic population of macedonia (there is a precedent that it was used at least once to describe different population - that of the thema macedonia - greeks, armenians, slavs). A smaller point - Brsjak is not a name of a Slavic tribe of the 10th century - also this theory is from the time of the revival and is anachronistic.

--Asenizator 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is mess. It was even bigger mess before. The problem here is that the term is used to describe three different things:

  1. An ethnic movement that emerged in the 1860-ties, Macedonian National Movement, and was active until 1944, when the Macedonian state was created.
  2. Macedonians as a nation, even in the modern context.
  3. Macedonian political and human rights organization all over the world.

Neither of these uses is correct. They are all pejorative, and they all imply that Macedonians as a nation do not exist.

Quite frankly, since this term is not found in any major enciclopedia, I don't think we should have it here either. But if we have it, then it should be a simple, 2-3 paragraph article that explains just that: the term is a regional Balkanizam employed to describe either the Macedonian National Movement, or the Macedonian nation, or the Macedonian political and human rights organizations. The term is derogatory and insulting for the ethnic Macedonians. --Filip M 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it has notable, reliable sources... we can include it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Correction, the state was not created in 1944 but in 1991, that is when the history of the Republic of Macedonia begins. The term is quite widely used, at least in the Balkans, and it deserves attention. I dont see just because certain people do not enjoy the subject matter that it should be shoved under the rugs.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new layout

I think the current layout of the article is terrible. claim claim claim, counter-claim counter-claim, claim of claim. Why not summarize it into topic-by-topic headers? "Macedonism as a movement" "Macedonism as a nationalism" or whatever. I don't know anything about the subject, but I think a better layout would help you in explaining this very complicated issue. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the article is pretty well structured and the claims are laid and spelled out clearly.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindend) It looks like a very complicated subject, but actually, it is a very simple one. We just have many that murk the water, and make it look complicated. Macedonians are a small nation in the middle of the Balkan peninsula. All of its neighbors used to rule it in the past (at least large portions of it), and, in order to continue to do that, or to legitimize their previous behaviour, they need to "demonstrate" that the Macedonian nation "do not exist". That is exactly why they coin terms like this: Macedonist, instead of Macedonian, since in their heads, Macedonist is a Macedonian who is not realy a Macedonian (since such think "does not exist") but just imagines that he is a Macedonian. I don't think that this term deserves more than a paragraph or two. The rest of the contents should be moved to other more appropriate articles: Macedonians, Macedonian National Movement, Macedonian Political Organizations, Macedonian Human Rights Organizations, Macedonian Question, etc. --Filip M 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds wonderful. A neat POV seems to be taking shape already. So lets see, that gives you right to claim "Stolen Aegean Macedonia", and "Stolen Pirin Macedonia"? And that's when the majority of your population identified as Bulgarian in the past? Has your history come to haunt you again? And no, I do not agree with that, because Macedonism is fairly substantial in its claims, and you cannot simply downplay its importance.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There are many other, more appropriate articles, where we can present the history, demographic movements, political issues, whatever you like about Macedonia and Macedonians. This term Macedonism is a derogatory and insulting designator that Bulgarians (and practically no one else) use to "soften", downplay or even destroy the Macedonian ethnic individuality. We don't find it in the two of the most comprehensive and respecable enciclopedias. Why? Because it is a derogatory term, a slur. Do we have any policy on Wikipedia on derogatory terms, and slur? Do we really need to promote a term that is considered insulting by the nation that it is supposed to address? --Filip M 15:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We have articles on fuck for example. Macedonism IS central to understanding the irredentist claims quite popular in your country, though I repeat myself when I say it. And about Macedonians and Macedonists, they describe different entities, Macedonians should really be ethnic Macedonians in our case.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Macedonians are ethnic Macedonians. There is no doubt about that. There is no other nation in the world that uses that name as its ethnic name. But, of course, there is no harm in using the term ethnic Macedonian wherever there is a possibility of ambiguity. --Filip M 17:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Not all Macedonians are ethnic Macedonians. Some are Greek, some Bulgarian, some Albanian, even some are Serb.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly cannot agree that the current layout is good, by any stretch of the imagination. I, someone completely new to the subject, can't understand anything in this article... the layout is not "newb-friendly" so to speak. Pretty much all other articles follow a subject-by-subject layout... I don't understand why we're using claims as headers instead of subjects. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying contextual uses should not be added, which sort of is done already in the intro, but also I dont see how claim format is bad. If you dont understand something it may be a question of rewording, rather than restructuring.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not both? Like I said, the whole article could be totally rebuilt from scratch. I think it would be much easier to explain the term if the headers were "Macedonism in Bulgaria" and "Macedonism in Greece", etc. It really just simplifies everything. Claim format makes the whole thing look like a big arguement... and it's totally unreadable the way it's structured. I hate to be the nagging mother, but I really don't like the way the article is built, and don't see good or featured article anywhere in the future if you keep using it.. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
How else should the claim be organized other than a list?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) This article should concentrate on how this term is used in Bulgaria. It should clearly say that the term is used as a reference to three different things:

  1. Macedonian National Movement (1860-1944)
  2. Macedonian Nation
  3. Macedonian political, cultural and human rights organizations outside of R. Macedonia.

The claims now are a mish-mash of claims that historically were made by some of these three groups, and perceptions how others see or view them. They don't represent a coherent teaching or credo of any of these three groups. If we want to analized them, we need to state them separately, and the best way to do that, is to analize them in three separate articles.

So, I propose: to make a new article from scratch. --Filip M 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To leave a few paragraphs, after all those nice references? Nah. Macedonism is not used as a reference to either of the three items which you listed. And one more thing, the current version of the article with usage of the term is sourced, see the links.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Macedonism is used instead, so the reference is by context. Macedonist is commonly used in bulgarian press today to refer to ethnic Macedonians, either in R. Macedonia (2) or outside of R. Macedonia (3). And Novakovic refered to Macedonism in the sense of Macedonian National Movement. --Filip M 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Bulgarian press - yes, Macedonian press - yes at academic level in Bulgaria and the Republic - yes. See The Ten Lies of Macedonism. Novakovich did not mention any Macedonian National Movement. He was talking about the prevalent Bulgarian idea and its replacement with the Serbian idea.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll proceed with incorporating some of the suggestions by Asenizator, since not much other progress has being made currently.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How else should the claim be organized other than a list? /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do we have to organize claims? We should be organizing information, not claims. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting source

Check this out:

Almost immediately, Serbian nationalists (initially repudiated by their more moderate fellow-countrymen) began declaring that historically Macedonia was 'South Serbia' and that its inhabitants were all 'true Serbs'. When their propagandists made little impression on either the population of Macedonia, or the world at large, they cast about for other theories and arguments to combat Bulgarian national consciousness in Macedonia and to ease the way to its 'Serbianisation'. In 1888 Serbian nationalists came up with 'Macedonism', a theory which postulated that the Macedonian Slavs were neither Bulgarian nor Serb, but a totally separate 'Macedonian nation'. Thus 'Macedonism' may be described as a means of 'bleaching' Bulgarians as a preliminary to 'dyeing' them Serb. It has, of course, nothing in common with the slogan of 'autonomy for Macedonia' raised by the revolutionary organization of Gotse Delchev and Yane Sandansky as a means of keeping Macedonia whole and Bulgarian, when reunification with Bulgaria seemed impossible in view of Great Power opposition and local Balkan rivalries. Even if political circumstances did not permit reunification with Bulgaria in the future, either, an autonomous Macedonia was seen as a 'second Bulgaria' and a possible link in the Balkan Federation which was then the cherished goal of many revolutionaries.

It helps put things into perspective.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very so poor source. Dont have any other? --ElevatedStork 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the independence from the Bulgarian ethnic group

"In regard to their own national feelings, all that can safely be said is that during the last eighty years many more Slav Macedonians seem to have considered themselves Bulgarian, or closely linked to Bulgaria, than have considered themselves Serbian, or closely linked to Serbia (or Yugoslavia). Only the people of the Skoplje region, in the north west, have ever shown much tendency to regard themselves as Serbs. The feeling of being Macedonians, and nothig but Macedonians, seems to be a sentiment of fairly recent growth, and even today is not very deep-rooted."

Elisabeth Barker, "Macedonia, its place in Balkan power politics", (originally published in 1950 by the Royal Institute of International Affairs), p.10


"Since they were closely related to both Bulgars and Serbs and had, moreover, in the past been usually incorporated in either the Bulgar or Serb state, they inevitably became the object of both Bulgar and Serb aspirations and an apple of discord between these rival nationalities. As an oppressed people on an exceedingly primitive level, the Macedonian Slavs had as late as the congress of Berlin exhibited no perceptible national consciousness of their own. It was therefore impossible to foretell in what direction they would lean when their awakening came; in fact, so indeterminate was the situation that under favorable circumstances they might even develop ther own peculiar Macedonian consciousness."

[Ferdinand Schevill, "A History of the Balkans", p.432]

Also note the usage of "Macedonian Slavs".   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Funky, I'm tired of this. (I almost said I'm sick and tired, but I guess it is an idiom, and not a very kind one). You can get all the dusty books and stack it against the Macedonians. That means absolutely nothing. We are here and now. Have a good life my friend. There are many far more importans subjects to write about. --Filip M 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dusty books = irrelevant? I guess...   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dusty books = Propaganda that nobody reads, books completely disconnected with the reality. --Filip M 12:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It is propagandistic because it does not support Macedonism, right?   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that not all sources nessicarily have to be true. We can use such sources to help us show what various groups think about macedonism in general. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I've yet to see any reliable, non-partisan secondary sources that describe the "true name" of the "IMRO" as "BMARC". I seem to remember we had a primary source, a scan of a statute or something, but I don't remember seeing anything that suggested it was put into practice, which suggests original research.

This is the first of many complaints on this subject. - FrancisTyers · 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, no one claims that BMARC is the true name, rather than the first name of the organization. I'll reword if necessary. You sound like a typical Macedonist - deny that BMARC ever existed.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources. Look at Goce Delchev and IMORO for starters.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are just sources for amateurs. --ElevatedStork 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say "no one claims that BMARC is the true name", presumably you read the part of the article where it states:

"For example, throughout high schools in the Republic of Macedonia, the organization of revolutionaries from the late 19th century is presented under the name Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees, instead of its true name prior to 1902 - Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees. "

Emphasis mine. Please present the non-partisan secondary sources below for inspection. - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources are linked in the dates of years when the organization was active in the articles I listed above.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You put the information in the article, its up to you to provide the reliable source[s] that verify it. - FrancisTyers · 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Or is it that you put nationalists in the artcle, so that you'll have to provide it is used only by nationalists?   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of the Bulgarian nationalists use that form.--ElevatedStork 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I did what? Stop changing the subject. - FrancisTyers · 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sources are provided, just in different articles, which I will soon fix. However you claim it is used only by nationalists, which is unsourced.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I see your sources that combat our sources? --ElevatedStork 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Fikret Adanir – Die Makedonische Frage, Wiessbaden 1979
  2. “Национално-освободителното движение в Македония и Одринско” на Константин Пандев (София 1979, с.129)

Both claim BMARC was active from 1896 to 1902.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you refer to the exact paragraph and lines? pages and so on? 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't claim it is used by nationalists, at least not in the article content. I suggest you check the diffs more closely. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am checking more closely.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, please feel free to revert that. I had no intention of including it. - FrancisTyers · 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those two sources, can you please give me full citations, including at least the following: Place of publishing, Publisher, ISBN (if available), translations of the titles into English, and page numbers where the claim is made. Thanks - FrancisTyers · 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we get the full citations please? - FrancisTyers · 10:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I cited a german translation, for which I cant find the pages. I'll give you Bulgarian translations: [11]. ISBN 954-90556-5-5, pages 120-121. The book is Fikret Adanir, The Macedonian Question.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The second one: Константин Пандев, Националноосвободителното движение в Македония и Одринско 1878 - 1903 (Kostadin Pandev, The fight for national freedom in Macedonia and Adrianople), Sofia 1979, page 129 is here. Does not have ISBN because its too old.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you read it in the original German or in the Bulgarian translation?
  1. Fikret Adanir (1979) Die Makedonische Frage. Ihre Entstchung und Entwicklung bis 1908 (The Macedonian Question, It's decision and development till 1908) (Wiesbaden: Steiner) ISBN 3515029141
  2. Kostadin Pandev (1979) Националноосвободителното движение в Македония и Одринско 1878 - 1903 (The fight for national freedom in Macedonia and Adrianople) (Sofia), p. 129
No no, the ISBN and the pages are for the Bulgarian translation. Also the second one should be "the fight for national freedom".   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, is that above information correct? Also, could you please give the quotes that support this usage in the original German. You don't have to give the whole page, just the sentence where it is mentioned. In the mean time I will endeavour to find a copy to check this. - FrancisTyers · 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the full title of the book appears to be "Die Makedonische Frage. Ihre Entstchung und Entwicklung bis 1908" - FrancisTyers · 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The ISBN is not correct for the German edition. Please provide the correct one. - FrancisTyers · 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was for the German edition. Will look.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Aha, ok, my mistake. - FrancisTyers · 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That should be it. ISBN 3515029141.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So do you have the quote in German? - FrancisTyers · 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that your two sources are: 1. A book you've never read, 2. A book published in Communist Bulgaria. Not looking particularly convincing I'm afraid. - FrancisTyers · 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a start. Btw I dont see what's wrong with the Bulgarian translation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to remove it as this is not sufficiently compelling evidence. If you have the quote from the Bulgarian translation I would be interested in reading it in order to compare with the German edition when I get access to it (They have a copy at the British Library, but inter-library loans can take some time to arrive). I'll direct you to WP:CITE, "Prefer credible third-party, peer-reviewed English-language sources." and "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" from WP:RS. Your evidence is certainly not exceptional. - FrancisTyers · 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I reinserted it in a modified form.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thats better, but I've made a couple of slight changes. Are these ok? - FrancisTyers · 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] such a mess

This article looks horible. So many not fixed links, it will take me a lot of time to fix it. --ElevatedStork 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I've restructured the article, whilst keeping the vast majority of the information. The previous structure was bad in that it segregated the article into "claims", "counter claims" and so-on. We need to get away from this and try working towards representing both points of view side by side. The quotes I've moved to Wikiquote, we can possible have one or two back, but not such long ones, and it would be better if they were in the article body. I've also ref'd the references (we now have a substantial number!) and fixed a few spelling and grammar errors. Its looking much better. - FrancisTyers · 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks much better now. However one need a lot of time to fix all those gramatical errors. --ElevatedStork 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

No sources from Funky for his edit here. --ElevatedStork 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Provided the date of the newspaper.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not sufficient. I'm affraid. ElevatedStork 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
And what would be sufficient then?   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BMORC

I'll erase the words "of materials mentioning" in the sentence "For example, throughout high schools in the Republic of Macedonia, the organization of revolutionaries from the late 19th century is presented under the name Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees, and the existence of materials mentioning the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees is not mentioned" due to the follow reason: The serious scientists in Republic of Macedonia do not deny the "existence" of Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees. One of examples is the prominent explorer in RM Ivan Katardziev (Катарџиев, Иван Некои прашања за уставите и правилниците на ВМРО до Илинденското востание, Гласник на Институтот за национална историjа (ГИНИ) 5, 1961,1, с. 156, 162) who recognize the existing of BMORK, published its statute, but states that it exists only in first years. Unfortunately, the achievements of the science are not acceptable in the schools, some newspapers amd even for some Wikipedians with macedonistic ideas.--AKeckarov 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i can't quite understand what's it all about the imro name, it's an issue circulating here and there (and not on the imro article itself). here're also some arguments on the issue 1 and 2. as can be seen at least one more macedonian historian recognizes the BMARC name - Krste Bitovski. more on that - the bulgarain character of the organization is confirmed in numerous sources so refuting the "bulgarian name" fact (or trying to do so) is of no use. A good starting point for the issue can be the memoirs of the founders of imro - i have a collection of their memoirs - "ВМОРО през погледа на нейните основатели - спомени на Дамян Груев, д-р Христо Татарчев, Иван Хаджиниколов, Антон Димитров, Петър Попарсов - Военно издателство, 2002, ISBN 954-509-233-5". Memoirs of the founders and other members of IMRO are also published in RoM as can be seen in the above mentioned links. Most of them can be found online here. All of these persons talk about bulgarians from macedonia and that in strictly ethnical sense (opposing the bulgarians to other peoples as serbians, greeks, turks in the region..). I would like to also mention the fact that both statutes - that of BMARC and SMARO are not dated. So the question of when one replaced the other can never be resolved. the argument that BMARC was never the name of the organization is a pure speculation. --Asenizator 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulgarian adjective and other issues

The Bulgarian adjective paragraph was originally taken from here. this is a doctor thesis of some Nick Anastasovski, from Victoria University, Melbourne 1. so this is a secondary source that mentions primary sources which are included in the article sources but without mentioning this secondary source. as i mentioned before there are many flaws in this material - one is that the mentioned authours are not comparable and with the same reputation, competence and credibility, some of the authors cited hold quite different oppinions to the presented conclusions, the other is the dismissal of crucial pieces of evidence on the matter.

Also - as far as i know in present macedonian historiography there are other theories on the bulgarian name "problem" - the influence of the bulgarian exarchate being the most popular especially after the 1870s (check Ivan Katardzhiev for example). there's an important implication here - the "bulgarian adjective" stuff is copy-pasted in several articles about imro members - this should be dropped - in view of these persons' statements and memoirs the standard explanation of their bulgarian determination (in ethnic and not other sense) by macedonian historiography is the exarchate influence.

Speaking of "bulgarian name" theories other "theories" can be mentioned - there're quite a bunch of them in macedonian historiography, e.g. the ones explaining the bulgarian name of macedonian slavs during the middle ages. i like best the bulgar-vulgar one - it should be noted that it is originally put forward by serbian nationalists as Jovan Dragashevich and Milosh Miloevich in the second half of the 19th century.

Some of my arguments i mentioned above are not taken into account in the article - the quantity of sources argument and whether "macedonian" is used as designator for slav populations from macedonia region in the middle ages one. i will maybe make some edits to this effect - the article is quite chaotic though i am not sure if these will help.

--Asenizator 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it is a doctoral thesis, it is certainly not credible enough for inclusion per Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, unattributed reproduction of it is plagiarism. --Telex 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Next time leave a more informative edit summary ;) - FrancisTyers · 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian = "Slav" or "Christian"

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard, and I'm surpirsed the ethnic Macedonians continue to use it without thinking about it for a second, possibly influenced by the zeal of Macedonism (and often, sadly, the closely related anti-Bulgarianism).

Do we have any evidence of Greeks or Serbs referring to themselves as "Bulgarians", or being referred to as "Bulgarians" because they are Christian? Did any other Slavic people other than the Bulgarians refer to itself as "Bulgarians" or to its language as "Bulgarian" because it is Slavic? Did any Albanian, Turkish, Serbian, Greek or Roma peasant refer to himself/herself as "Bulgarian" because he/she lived in a village?

Not that I know of.

Also, the "perception of the Bulgarian character of Macedonians" was not any Russian influence of the 19th century, and it is ridiculous to claim so. Earlies figures of the Bulgarian National Revival from the region like Paisiy Hilendarski, Neofit Rilski, Kiril Peychinovich, Pavel Bozhigrobski and so on referred to themselves, their people and language as "Bulgarian" prior to this so called "Russian expansionist propaganda", whatever is meant by this.

The Bulgarian Exarchate was the national church of the Bulgarians, as illustrated by its borders encompassing most of the region of Macedonia. It had no "colonial attitude" in Macedonia and was not met with resentment and conflict by the lower "Macedonian" clergy, on the contrary — for many it was the long awaited independence from the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople. Others chose to remain part of the Patriarchate and adopt the Greek culture, and were assimilated. Todor→Bozhinov 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Todor, you're making an argument out of personal disbelief. The "Bulgarian as an adjective" section is: 1. relevant 2. sourced 3. neutral. Wholesale removals will be reported as vandalism. --FlavrSavr 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1. probably. 2. it is plagiarized doctoral thesis. 3. not really, read here. Also Nick Anastasovski seems to be the secretary of the United Macedonians of Victoria, Australia. You cant possibly get more neutral than that right?   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
FlavrSavr, are you accusing me of "disbelief" regarding that "Bulgarian = whatever" argument? Did you even read what I wrote above? I'm not talking about that plagiarized Macedonian POV thesis, it's the way you're reacting without thinking for a second and assuming that every source provided is NPOV and NOR as long as it supports your position. Now please read my arguments and tell me, honestly, do you really believe that "Bulgarian" meant anything else than "Bulgarian" in the past? Or is this simply one of the foundations of a distorted national history? Todor→Bozhinov 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's what Alexander Teodorov Balan, a Bulgarian slavicist has to say:
Was it very long before the liberation of the Bulgarians that one could hear throughout Bulgaria Bulgarians answering to the question "What are you?" (in nationality) that they are "Christians" or "raya" ? And it is not so unusual even today to hear a Bulgarian answering in court to the question of his nationality that he is a "Christian". For him the concept of nationality has not yet become a new acquisition of his reason. During the Turkish period the Bulgarian peasant termed Bulgarians from cities "Greeks", and city clothing was for him "Greek clothing". And since the Greeks called this peasant a "fat-headed Bulgarian", his brother from the city loved to be called by the term "Hellene" in order to avoid the derision associated with his true national name. Is not this exactly the same as what Mr. Misirkov tells us about the names for the Macedonian Slavs? The name "Bulgarian" had in Bulgaria fallen to a level which brought it only the derision of foreigners. In the speech of the Bulgarian himself, this name had lost its national content to such an extent that it became a synonym for "Christian", which name came to signify the entire ethnic content of the Bulgarian individual and social consciousness. Our peasant, in saying "we are Bulgarians", thought "we are Christians", i.e. orthodox. The Russian emperor was for him the "Bulgarian emperor" not by nationality but by orthodox Christianity.
A. T. Balan, Edna makedonska teorija" (A Macedonian Theory), Periodichesko Spisanie LXV, 1904, p.818
I do believe that "Bulgarian" could mean different things in the 5th, 19th and the 20th centuries. Same goes for "Macedonian". And I'm not intending to continue this conversation just to make a point - feel free to believe what you want to believe. Balan should be mentioned in the article, though. --FlavrSavr 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What this is saying is nothing more than the fact that peasants at that time were uneducated. For educated people Bulgarian has always meant an ethnic group. Also read the nice quote from Kuzman Shapkarev.[12] Avoid double standards, contemporary ethnic Macedonians have the right to declare a separate ethnic group, even claim they are descendants of the Ancient Macedonians, but in the same time they seem to be offended by the self-determination of other ethnic groups, over even by their own ethnic group, at an earlier point in time.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Balan does not say any other nationality referred to itself as "Bulgarian" besides the Bulgarians (i.e. Serbs, Greeks, Albanians, Turks), so the inclusion of an alleged Macedonian people existing under that name (because they're Christian or Slavic) cannot be justified. Indeed, we can hardly talk about a national consciousness prior to the National Revival, but I still can't find any proof that the name "Bulgarian" also included other people because they're Christian or Slavic, except for the Bulgarians and what are today the ethnic Macedonians. Thus, I see no reason why we should regard them as two separate people in the period. It seems like Macedonists simply treat this wrongly in order to misappropriate Bulgarian history. Todor→Bozhinov 10:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarized doctoral thesis? What? And who is Nick Anastasovski??--FlavrSavr 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the talk above.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I see... I'll remove it myself. There should be some part in the article regarding this issue in the future, though. --FlavrSavr 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes on Wikiquote

Wikiquote's article q:Macedonism, alluded to in "Recent changes" above, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors should discuss this at q:WQ:VFD#Macedonism. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This and that

As a native English speaker, who knows little about the subject, I think that this article is not comprehensible. It reads like one of those articles written by someone in the 1970s who read far too many articles published in the extream left journals. It uses words which are rairly used outside such litrature. A couple of examples:

The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography. It is found neither in Encyclopedia Britanica nor in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Then Wikipedia should not be inventing a neologism in English.

It has been claimed by the supporters of Macedonism that the Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed.

I have no idea what that means!

Censi

Outside the definition on Wikipedia there does not seem to be a source for this word! It certainly is not in common usage, so what is it doing as a section heading? I could go on but that is enough to get over my point. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When nationalism is raging here in Wikipedia, I'm afraid many articles will be hard to understand. This is an example of such article and hatred towards Macedonians. Bomac 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Censi is plural for census. Bomac, stop making baseless acusations.   /FunkyFly.talk_  04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In which language FunkyFly? Google: about 11 English pages for "two Censi" and about 84,000 English pages for "two censuses" and for the UK Your search - "two Censi" site:uk - did not match any documents. and about 927 English pages for "two censuses" site:uk--Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Census" is an english word of latin origin. In the latin second declension, nouns ending in -us change that suffix to -i in the plural. It's quite common in fact, compare with cactus > cacti. However, as the overwhelming majority of the editors of this article are not native speakers of english, why don't you correct it? You can't expect people to never make a mistake. (and btw spelling alone would be a very lame reason for AfD...) NikoSilver 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Cenci is not a very common English word according to HMG about 201,000 English pages for "censuses" gov:uk and three for "cenci the first put onto the web by Warrington Borough Council and two more by derwentside.gov.uk[13][14]. I would consider rewriting it if it did not have what seems to be a neologism as a title and if I could understand what it was about. But it is so poorly written that I do not! As I said I think it reads like one of those articles written by someone in the 1970s who read far too many articles published in the extream left wing journals. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ask the Fly, he has the base... ---na tri moreta... Bomac 15:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that in Macedonian or in Bulgarian? :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But we already have a much more prevalent form of nationalism, and thus, a much more extensive article on it.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and I forgot to mention that, while this is tolerated - 4m. ethnic Macedonians and Alexander the Great in the same ethnic group as Gotse Delchev - yours and your fellow admins at mk.wiki's comments on topics of history and nationalism are just a bad joke.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT no one has yet either agreed or dissagreed with what I have written here ... Perhapse it is time to put this article up for an AFD --Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And doing so will be a waste of everyone's time. The usage of the term is relatively well sourced. That notwithstanding, MAYBE it is time for some useful input on your behalf, rather than general rant.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hah, what's this? Does anybody know? NikoSilver 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It is "the flag of ethnic Macedonians".   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it sourced? And where is the source that the Liqenas Municipality in Albania is 98% "ethnic Macedonian"? NikoSilver 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. It is the "flag of the people". The Albanian one really has the star, as far as I know.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say anything there, though... You might end up like him! (see by whom also). NikoSilver 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave up editing there years ago. It might be a good idea in the long run to have cross wiki accountability for administrator's actions.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In Greek we say αυτο-βαυκαλίζομαι. Let them blow off their steam where they can. And here, of course... NikoSilver 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Who would have thought YouTube will become such a springboard for lame propaganda.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"The usage of the term is relatively well sourced." So for my education please give a verifiable reliable English language source to show that Wikipedia is not creating a neologism in English. BTW this should be an English language source by a native English language speaker not a translation of the words used by a none native speaker.--Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The term is by no means introduced or translated. Read the external links. Also google for "Macedonism -wikipedia". And your "native English language speaker" argument is baseless.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Which one of the about 332 English pages for Macedonism -wikipedia stripping out another 10% which are out recent Wikiepdia clones about 293 English pages for Macedonism -wikipedia -is-a-used-in-Bulgaria (not exactly a large sample) do you consider to be the most reliable source? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Ten Lies of Macedonism" must is the primary one, and so are other external links. And I dont really see where you are going with this, as the term is obviously used in English. Also check out google scholar.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ten lies" is a translation. As are (AFAICT) the article listed in google scholars, and if not they are written by non-native speakers who assume that the word must exist in English. If if is "obviously used" in English give an English language source like a the NYT, Washington Post or a London broadsheet paper. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And how many articles in NYT, Washington Post and London deal with problems of historical falsification of Skopje for that word to have a chance to occur? I wonder how many instances of "semirings" you will find there, albeit this is a well known mathematical concept. You are also wrong that the articles on google scholar are all written by non-native speakers of English.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
A "neologism" is not defined as something not included in... "NYT, Washington Post or a London broadsheet paper". A "neologism" is something that no source has used before (in either language). This is definitely not the case for Macedonism. There are many relevant "neologisms" in WP (with your definition). But I suspect that the real reasons why you want this deleted are different... Why don't you bring them forward? NikoSilver 10:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
An English "neologism" is a word or phrase which is not currently in use in English. Whether the word exists in other languages is irrlevent. Please produce one Wikipedia:reliable source which uses the term. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy!   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You needn't even bother FF. PBS doesn't even know that the source does not have to be in English. Read WP:V (the mother article of WP:RS that you cited above), especially the special part for Sources in languages other than English. Aside from that, your 22 books above are more than satisfactory IMO. NikoSilver 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NikoSilver for a word not to be a neologism in English it must either be placed in italics to show that it is a foreign word, or if it has not been used in Engish before but is being used in wikipedia as an English word (as is being done in this article) then it is a neologism. It does not matter if there are millions of usages in a foreign language that can be referenced, it is not accpetable to use it as an English word in Wikipedia unless it is used in other publications. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's really lame that we had to defend the fact that an -ism can go with virtually every other ethnicity in the world (anti-Turkism, Americanism, anti-Polonism, Australianism, Belgicism, Gallicism, Georgism, Germanism, Hellenism, Japonism, Luxemburgism, pan-Germanism, pan-Slavism, pan-Turkism, Persianism, Scandinavism) than that of the "Macedonians", but thank you. The sources I quote below can greatly help in expanding the article. NikoSilver 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FunkyFly which of the sources you have provided do you consider to be the one which should be used as an English reference for the use of the word Macedonism. Please also see protologism, because in my opinion the English usage references given so far the word does not seem to be in general usage: is it for example in the OED? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded for Funky in the new section below (#Academic sources). NikoSilver 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] propaganda

Also, Funky, since you're interested in propaganda, check the following goodies:

  • "Macedonian Truth - Bulgarian Lies (Part I)": This is an outrageous bullshitting campaign. For those who don't know, in simplistic terms the Bulgars had a state where present-day Tatarstan is located called "Volga Bulgaria". Some of them immigrated to Europe and occupied and mixed with Slavic tribes in the Balkans. As the Slavs were the majority they gradually assimilated the Bulgars and thus the something recognizable as the Bulgarian ethnic group as we know it today emerged. According to Macedonist theories, this makes the Bulgarians "Tatars". Tsar Samuel of course wasn't Bulgarian according to them, he was a "Macedonians", despite the fact that the Byzantine Greek Emperor who kicked his ass went down in history as the "Bulgar-slayer" not the "Macedonian-slayer". The background music in the second part of this first clip is rather good too.
  • "Macedonian Agony": Some more whiny stuff about the sufferings of the "Macedonian nation".
  • "THE GREEK FLAGS THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE." Expressions of bitterness due to the fact Greece managed to force them to change their flag.
  • "Battle for Chaeronea": Here we see the "Macedonians" celebrating their victory over the Greeks at Chaeronea. The most telling element of this clip is that you hear the MacSlav words "Heroneja", "Aleksandar", "Makedonci" and "Grci" in the background music; this shows that musicians and singers in FYROM are actually willing to perform such stuff!
  • "Stani Makedonijo": Nothing really special or novel in this one, I just like the background music (it also took me some time to figure out that "Makedonijo" is the vocative case of "Makedonija").

And in case you thought I just wanted to out our friends, here are some of the highlights of the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian reactions:

So, people, is there any more doubt that the "Macedonism" issue is real? I could fill up the page with similar anthology, and there are official sources too supporting this bullshit. Check the sources for the "unliberated whole" bit in the featured Macedonia (terminology)... NikoSilver 10:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please! That is just YouTube man, who are you kiddin'? YouTube as a "reliable" source for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia? I don't think so. Bomac 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk-page. I was illustrating a popular trend, and quite neutrally too (having outed also the other sides). To help you locate the part that makes the difference in my comment above, I've highlighted it. NikoSilver 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic sources

  • The Rough Guide to Bulgaria 4 By Jonathan Bousfield, Dan Richardson, Richard Watkins, Published 2002, Rough Guides, Travel / Foreign, ISBN 1858288827, Page 453:

...This led many young intellectuals in Vardar Macedonia to find solace in the ideology of Macedonism — which held that the Macedonian Slavs should not aspire to inclusion in the Bulgarian nation, but should aim for separate statehood within something approximating Gotse Delchev's original idea of a Balkan confederation. Many saw Macedonism as an ideology invented by the Serbs in order to break the unity of Bulgarians and Macedonians, but it did attract some notable adherents:...

  • Recent Social Trends in Bulgaria, 1960-1995 by Nikolaĭ Genov, Anna Krŭsteva - 2001, - Page 74:

The third controversial trend in Bulgarian ethnic and national self-identification is towards Macedonization of ethnic Bulgarians. It is found among some ethnic Bulgarians in the Mt Pirin region. This is actually a typical ethnographic, i.e. pseudo-ethnic group. The number of Bulgarian citizens identifying themselves as "Macedonians" is insignificant. This is proved by the very limited membership of the ethnopolitical parties advocating Macedonism in the country.

  • Mediterranean Politics by Richard Gillespie - 1994 - Page 99:

The only precondition laid down by Greece is that the FYROM repudiate the Communist concept of 'Macedonism' and toe the EU line. It would be a sreadful irony if, in the present post-communist era, the European Union granted a posteriori historical legitimacy to a communist idea. Furthermore, if the EU and the world community as a whole, through the UN, are anxious to recognize the 'Republic of Macedonia' in order to avert the risk of distabilization, they should be aware of the equally great risk of creating another trouble-spot in Greece. In either case, we must remember that, while voluble denials of territorial claims can be of purely momentary duration, the monopolizing of a name and/or symbol is a claim that can last for ever.

...and...

No international conciliatory or political legitimization of 'Macedonism' can hope to bring about a permanent resolution of the problem.

...and in Page 267 Gillespie defines "Macedonism" in the index:

Macedonism see Macedonia, Slav-Macedonian irredentism

(nice chap this Gillespie guy btw)

  • The Macedonian Conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world by Loring Danforth - History - 1995 - Page 45

According to the more extreme Macedonian nationalist position, modern Macedonians are not Slavs; they are the direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians, who were not Greeks. This claim is at least in part an attempt to refute the Greek claim that "Skopians" are Slavs and not Macedonians. According to extreme Macedonian nationalists "Slavism" is a destructive doctrine that "aims to eradicate Macedonism completely." If Macedonians are Slavs, then they "have no legal right to anything Macedonian"; they "legalize the robbery by the Greeks [of ancient Macedonians]." Macedonians should not allow the ancient Macedonians to be called Greek anymore than they would allow themselves to be called Greeks. Thus a unique Macedonian people —neither Slavic nor Greek— has existed in Macedonia since antiquity and continues to exist there now. The most powerful symbols of the continuity of Macedonian culture are "Alexander the Macedonian", as he is referred to in Macedonian sources; and the sun of the ancient Macedonian kings, which in 1992 was chosen as the flag of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia.

The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1989, edited by Sabrina P Ramet (specific part by John D. Bell) - 1999 - Page 252

In addition to the phenomena described above, there has also arisen a new form of “Macedonism” that differs from the simple proposition that Macedonians are a distinct nationality. Having its origins, apparently, in émigré communities in Australia and Canada, this doctrine asserts that the ancient Macedonians were a pure Aryan people who migrated to Macedonia from India. Their language was the original "Slavic" tongue that was later learned by surrounding peoples who labored, "slaved," in the fields. The Greeks, "dark-skinned, Semitic" immigrants to the Balkans in the fift century b.c., borrowed a form of the Macedonian alphabet, worshiped the Macedonian kings (the origin of the Greek pantheon), and borrowed/stole and then polluted Macedonian culture. Hellenism was originally not Greek, but "Macedonianism," spread through the known world by Alexander the Great. This form of "Macedonian fundamentalism" (note: another definition) also predicts future unification of the separate parts of the Macedonian nation. While "orthodox" Macedonian nationalists have denounced the fundamentalists as "rabble ... neo-fascists, and even neo-Nazis," there are indications that their beliefs have attracted some fellowing in Macedonia itself and among separatists in the Pirin.

Personal note: LOL!

There are many more where these came from, but I suspect that we're done for now... NikoSilver 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population in picture

Brianski, your edit changed the meaning of the sentence. 28% used to refer to the entire region of Macedonia. Golo Bardo, Prohor Pcinski & Gora, Blagoevgrad oblast and Greek Macedonia themselves have about 2% of the total population as ethnic Macedonians, the remaining 98% being Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and others. Refer to Macedonians (ethnic group) for details. Mr. Neutron 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it 28% actually? 2% sounds ridiculous - ethnic macedonians number more than a million. --Laveol T 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Read above, this is excluding the Republic of Macedonia, only in neighboring parts. Mr. Neutron 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm no expert on the subject, but the way I read the edit prior to mine [15] was that 28% was the figure for the entire region, including the nation of Macedonia. I've no opionon on the matter really, I just thought the language needed toning down.

[edit] The Archaeological Findings of Mikulchich

There have been some interesting archaeological findings by Mikulchich - a prominent Macedonian scholar. In his conclusions he explains that no findings of Slavic settlements in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia were avaiable before after the 9th century or so. Now what do we make out if that?

I know nothing specifically about Macedonia in this matter, but the general historical fact is that when the Balkan frontier of the Byzantine empire completely collapsed following the revolt against the emperor Maurice, and the accession of Phocas, Slavic settlements occurred as far south as the Peloponnese... AnonMoos 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent contributions

I've reverted the most recent additions by Jingiby. Unfortunately the majority of the added material was not sourced at all, and the bits that were sourced came from a personal website. This doesn't meet the standards required by our reliable sources policy, which is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. I have to say the way it was written wasn't quite how an article should be written - it seemed to take a very argumentative tone ("The reality is other." "But what is the truth?") that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of the material in this article as it currently stands is irredeemably POV and OR. I'll go through it and radically cut it back. Expect a reduction of about 60%-70% percent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the full copy-and-pasted version of the old article that somebody pasted in here. Instead, here's a link to it: [16]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slaveykov

Here you have the whole article in WikiSource.--Laveol T 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh please, stop it.

Re. Lantonov's edit [17]: This article is not about whether the Macedonian nation in fact was an artificial product of 1944 or not. So stop overloading it with arguments that it was, or with evidence allegedly showing that people outside the Mac-Bul polemics "widely" recognise this or that or that it is "established" or whatever. Don't make this into a POV fork of "History of Macedonia" again. Here, we need to simply say that Bulgarians and Macedonians disagree on this point, not more and not less, and we are not going to take sides about it. What people outside this polemic confrontation think is of no importance here. (And by the way, the reference you gave is by a Bulgarian author, so it doesn't count as independent anyway.)

Incidentally, no, the majority of international scholarship certainly does not hold as "well-established" blatant nationalist nonsense such as the idea that "Macedonians should naturally form part of the Bulgarian nation". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like the source, is not a reason to delete it. I put it there only because Filip M. asked for a clear source. It clearly shows that not only Bulgarians hold this opinion. Please, do not remove anymore an academic, verifiable, and reliable source.
About "Macedonians should naturally form part of the Bulgarian nation", I agree that that it is opinion of some Bulgarians (most of them but not all) and it should be qualified as POV. Lantonov 07:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain, it is not a "generally held" opinion, (one opinion by a Bulgarian author, even in a reputable international publication, doesn't make it so), and more importantly, whether it is in fact generally held or not is totally irrelevant to this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is written by a Bulgarian. It may be so, I do not have the whole book. If it is indeed written by a Bulgarian author, we can change it as "opinion of Bulgarian historians", for instance. Lantonov 08:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
On page 811, the article is signed "Dimiter Minchev". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. Lantonov 08:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent edits and reverts

Compare.

"Among the views and opinions that are often perceived as representative of Macedonian nationalism...
The idea that there is a fundamental, ethnogenetic distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians"

This suggests that the view that the Macedonians constitute a distinct ethnic group is a fringe view among Macedonian nationalists and/or Macedonists. So, does anyone object to me reverting back to the anonymous edits? --Hegumen (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - it currently says that this opinion is often percieved as representative of Macedonian nationalism, not that it is a fringe view. --Laveol T 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't "representative of Macedonian nationalism" imply it is a fringe view though? The idea that they are separate is certainly not a fringe view. BalkanFever 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, but it is said often perceived and above in the lead you have the explanation who perceives it. Am I getting something wrong or the current state of the articles implies that in Bulgaria and Greece it is thought that these ideas are the ideas of Macedonian nationalists and this is exactly what the term denotes? --Laveol T 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody needs to add the Greek translation of the term then. BalkanFever 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all Greek already. NikoSilver 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it in Ferris Bueller's Day Off that Matthew Broderick said "I hate all -isms for that matter"? NikoSilver 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It was also the Rastafari. BalkanFever 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Back to business) I'll just note here what that sentence was when I first wrote it some time back: "The idea that there is a fundamental, ancient ethnic distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians, going much further back than the political divisions between the two nations during the 20th century". From what I've gathered, the "ancient" bit and the "going much further back" is the important element here. That the two nations are separate today is certainly neither a fringe view nor particularly indicative of nationalist views. The belief in its age is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. (I liked Ferris better. Rent it.) NikoSilver 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
True. seen it. love it. BalkanFever 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)