Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Republic of Macedonia-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for National Liberation War of Macedonia: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Partisan

Firstly, I am not a Communist. Seconly, the term "partisan" in the article does not refer to the Yugoslav Partisans so do not attribute to them in the article and therefore do not capitalize the term partisan. Thirdly, stop adding POV information from nationalist Bulgarian websites. If you continue to vandalize the article, you will be reported. Frightner 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] alert

Do not nominate articles for speedy to deal with editing conflicts, as was just done for this article. I of course have declined to delete it; this is clearly illegitimate, and disrupts the operation of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Investment News link

I'm not sure if we should cosider it a reliable link as there seems to be a confusion with it. Just read the article about Bulgaria and the one about Republic of Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I did not initially use the article as a point of reference, I only included it because it implements the event in the timeline of Macedonian history making it stand out as an important event. But it is okay with me if you would like to remove it because it explains that Bulgaria was forced to declare war on Germany after withdrawing from Macedonia. Frightner 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Should't we protect the article fo a while and discuss it. There is too much controversy in this one and too much nationalistic POV. I myself will refrain from editing for now and post suggestions here before adding them to the article. But it surely has to be made really balanced - presenting both POVs and not only the ethnic Macedonian one. It might turn out to be a lesson in history for all of us. --Laveol T 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very reasonable and cool-head proposal. Lantonov 13:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I requested that this article be protected earlier. One of the IP contributors has broken the three-revert rule and has been reported but continues to revert the article. The user is a POV pusher and uses nationalist websites as sources. Frightner 13:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right, Frightner, a quick perusal of the given references and external links shows that most of the documents quoted can be identified as Macedonian nationalist. Lantonov 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: National Liberation War of Macedonia

This is a dispute about what should be included in the article. Should it include:

  1. Short introduction about the region of Macedonia.
  2. Engagement of the partisan squads of the invading German, Italian, Bulgarian forces
  3. Reaction of the local population
  4. Outcome

Mr. Neutron 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comments

[edit] Let's identify the causes of conflict

The topic itself is fraught with controversy because Yugoslavian and Bulgarian textbooks have carefully selected facts about this period. Yugoslavian textbooks have omitted the major fact that Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary were liberated from Nazis mostly by the Bulgarian Army who left 130,000 dead on battlegrounds like Stracin, Strazhica, Drava-Sobolch with some help at the later stages by detachments of the Soviet III Ukrainian Army. Bulgarian textbooks have omitted the fact that in some parts of occupied Vardar Macedonia there was a resistance and organised struggle which was quenched by violence from the Bulgarian occupying force. In fact, there was organised struggle during this period against the Bulgarian government (partisans) in the whole teritory of Bulgaria and this resistance was organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party. It is hard to say where it is national Macedonian resistance and where it is anti-fascist (or communist) resistance. The truth, as always in this cases, lies somewhere in the middle. Lantonov 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there were revolts in all of Greater Bulgaria is apparent but this article itself is based on the events in the Vardar Banovina from 1941-1944 by participating ethnic Macedonians. These are the issues that need to be covered in the discussion. Frightner 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
+ the fact that a substantial part of the population of this particular region did take part in the war on the bulgarians' side. What we should have is both views presented - that part of the people in Vardar Macedonia were resisting and part of them really welcomed Bulgaria. --Laveol T 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the article is about the "war", those welcoming the occupiers were not involved in the war, the article should be about those partaking in the resistance against Axis Powers. Frightner 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I didn't express myself clearly - about 40% of the Bulgarian army in Vardar Macedonia sonsisted of locals. This is what I meant should be included --Laveol T 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay, I misunderstood what you meant. My apologies. Frightner 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the resistance was political, not ethnical. The first killed Bulgarian policemen was ethnic Macedonian. Herе is part of a stenogram from Macedonian Parlament. The comments are - it was not liberation's war but a civil war. 213.130.72.22 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Весна Јаневска: Благодарам претседателе. Почитувани пратеници, 11 Октомври, сите сме го прифатиле во Република Македонија. И јас, со задоволство. Го славиме како Ден на востанието на македонскиот народ против фашистичката окупација. Како ден кога македонскиот народ се приклучи на Антифашистичката коалиција. Сте се прашале ли, почитувани пратеници, кој на кого пукаше? Ќе ве потсетам. Претпоставувам дека повеќето знаат. Но, ќе ве потсетам дека еден прилепски комунист пукаше на еден Македонец од Смилево, кој, облечен во жандармериска униформа стоеше на стражарско место пред Учестокот во Прилеп. Почитувани пратеници, ако ова му го кажете на били кој современ европски политиколог или социолог, ќе ви каже дека тоа беше братоубиствена војна.

Љубиша Георгиевски: Заради технички причини, барам од вас дозвола одовде да ја кажам репликата, зошто треба да контролирам и други нешта. Репликата не ја задов на излагањето на Весна Јаневска да полимизирам со нејзините ставови, а нејзините ставови се такви какви што се, туку да дополнам едне еклатантен пример кој е за мене суштествен во оваа цела неколку дневна дискусија со која таа започна, а тоа е примерот на првата пушка и примерот на тоа кој кого уби. Сакам да ви кажам јас знам од прва рака не само кој кого уби, туку и како уби. Душко Наумовски кој што го испали првиот куршум од револвер не од пушка, во нашата револуција од 1941 година, беше директор на театарот. На една проба тој интервенираше во една дискусија околу тоа што значи идеолошка свест. Тогаш ми рече вака, синко, ова го велам заради него, бог да го прости, сакам неговиот спомен да го доведам овде во ова собраниска сала, затоа што беше феноменален човек, не само рака на партијата која уби еден стражар. Вели, синко, јас ќе ми ти кажам што значи идеолошка свест. Прво, добив налог од партијата да го ликвидирам стражарот на учасникот во Прилеп. Второ, не спиев цела ноќ, затоа што стражарот, џандарот беше пријател на татко ми. Лични пријатели биле и овие го мобилизирале. Кога се приближив до џандарот, цел се тресев како мало дете и многу се плашев дека ќе промашам и настојував да се приближам многу поблизу. Участокот во Прилеп беше на една прометна улица. И, сега, што се случува? Татко му на Душан Наумовски, на нашиот херој, го молел џандарот својот пријател и да рече, кажи му на тоа моено, да не речам што рекол, да се прибира навреме во овие тешки времиња, а не да се коцка по куќите. Ти ако му згрмиш како униформиран човек, белки ќе те послуша. Душан тоа после го дознава, тој не знае за ова и се враќа. Стражарот му вика, Душко, чекај да ти кажам нешто, застани, да ти кажам татко ти што ти порача. Е, тогаш, Душко искористил, се приближил уште неколку чекори за да чуе и го застрелал. Е, тоа е вели, синко, идеолошка свест.

The situation is unclear in many of these cases where local people from Vardar Macedonia (calling themselves 'anti-fascists' or 'communists') were fighting against local people (calling themselves Bulgarians and called by the former 'collaborationists', 'traitors', 'fascists', etc.). So what was it: struggle for national liberation, civil war, or a mixture of both? I think all of the struggles mentioned in the article are of this sort and they can be called national liberation, anti-fascist resistance, or civil war depending on the person who attaches names to them. Lantonov 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to stress the fact that the "war" is waged for the most part by partisans, numbering at a couple of thousand people at best. Given the fact that for the most part the local population readily cooperated with the Bulgarian invading forces, the distinction between ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Macedonian partisans is crucial. Mr. Neutron 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The "war" is about any ethnic Macedonians who referred to themselves as anti-fascists or communists who were fighting Axis forces (anyone allied with Nazi Germany, including locals of Vardar Macedonia allied with either Bulgarian, German or Italian fascists) for the liberation of any region of historic Macedonia to establish as a future and independent Macedonian state. Frightner 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

I see that the article has been greatly improved and written in a NPOV. I am satisfied with the contributions to the article so far as they involve both parties. One source that I am still unsatisfied with is Mak Truth. This website is administered by nationalist Bulgarians whose objective is to publicize the "truth about Macedonia" in a sense that it discloses information that ethnic Macedonians were Bulgarians. Frightner 10:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As of the moment I cannot really understand what the sentence which is referenced withthis site has to see. I think its some sort of a mismatch and I'll try to repair it, along with the link :) --Laveol T 10:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Laveol. Also, do you think the IP contributor's link to Balkans Campaign rather than History of the Balkans is more relevant to the article, as it took place before the Liberation War of Macedonia? Frightner 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say both are valid. I even thought about Invasion of Yugoslavia, but it turned out that it had nothing in it about this. Only the structure of Yugoslavian armies which had to defend the country - none of these seven armies was in Macedonia, though. --Laveol T 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Invasion of Yugoslavia and the post-invasion offensive (Yugoslav People's Liberation War) generally refers to the revolt in Nedic's Serbia and does not collaborate information about then independant or annexed states such as Croatia and Vardar Macedonia. With that being said, the articles about Yugoslavia in 1941-1944 essentially detail the events in Serbia as Yugoslavia did not exist within this period of time. Frightner 11:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to disturb your work, but there is a huge concern with your map. How can Bulgaria occupy a part of Bulgaria? It is the nowadays Blagoevgrad province I'm talking about - at the time it was part of the Sofia province? Could you fix it, cause I'm pretty sure a country cannot possibly occupy a part of its own territory. --Laveol T 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, the thick black line outlines the countries' borders prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, so the fact that the Blagoevgrad Province is in Bulgaria is indicated. As for your question, the map portrays the occupation of the historic Macedonia to assert the idea that there were armed detachments in those regions. Frightner 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove image Occupation_of_Macedonia.png

This image is not only historically untrue but it also contains territorial claims against Bulgaria because it includes Pirin Macedonia in the occupied territories.

Pirin Macedonia is a part of Bulgarian state since the Balkan wars. As such, it was not an occupied territory during WWII but was part of Bulgaria proper (within its borders). As such, it should be removed, because it does not correspond to the historical truth. Lantonov 13:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was corrected in "location"! 213.130.72.22 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As I have stated that the thick black lines are national borders and Pirin is within the Bulgarian border. The thin black lines only represent regions. Therefore the map in no way supports irredentism. Frightner 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw Laveol's posting after I posted the above and Frighner's answer. The answer is not satisfactory. Although the border is given, for Pirin Macedonia it says "occupied territory" which it is not because it is in the country's borders. Also, the (region) specification does not change things because the fact is that part of the Macedonia (region) was not occupied. Lantonov 14:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Occupation" has been changed to "location" of Axis Forces. Frightner 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This too is not satisfactory because there were Bulgarian troops (Axis forces, though this term itself, applied to Bulgaria, is doubtful) on the whole territory of Bulgaria. Then "location" of Axis forces would mean that the whole Bulgarian army was defending Pirin Macedonia and occupying the other parts of the region of Macedonia leaving the rest of the territory of Bulgaria without troops (undefended). Lantonov 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, this map in the context "National Liberation of Macedonia" says that the population in Pirin Macedonia fought to liberate itself nationally, and you have to present very solid evidence to support this claim. Lantonov 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There are references in the article and sources to support the claim that ethnic Macedonian military detachments were formed in both Pirin and Greek Macedonia who fought for the liberation of those regions to incorporate the region of Macedonia into a future state. That is the purpose of the map; to imply that the regions Macedonians fought for the liberation of were occupied by those particular forces. The other Bulgarian contributors are fine with the map, in that context. Frightner 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not see a source in the article that supports this. The request for reference that I put several hours ago on that place is still unfulfilled. Lantonov 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the external links. Frightner 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference for the external links. It must be put to the appropriate place. In the external link "Кои беа партизаните во Македонија?" (Who were the partisans in Macedonia?) it is written (I just copied and pasted it):

Партизанско движење во Македонија во текот на Времето на бугарското присуство всушност немаше. Мали партизански формировки дејствуваа во италианската зона во Дабарца и во германската зона во Егејска Македонија.

Translated (my translation):

In fact, a partisan movement in Macedonia did not exist during the time of the Bulgarian presence. Small partisan units operated in the Italian zone in Dabarca and in the German zone in the Aegean Macedonia. Lantonov 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above reference is probably an excerpt of the book of the Macedonian historian Nikola Petrov, published in Skopje, 1998, which is also given in the references as ref [4]. This reference gives very concrete facts connected directly with the topic of this article. I am reading it now as excerpt on the Web but I would like to have the whole book because the facts given are very interesting for me. Lantonov 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
One source by one man does not account for other sources who claim otherwise. Read the "external links" this time. Frightner
What I cited before was an "EXTERNAL LINK". The first external link is a site that has no original historically referenced material, and in the third EXTERNAL LINK, it it is written (again copy and paste):

Така, полтронските Македончиња послушни и верни на својот вожд ја формираа Македонско-косовската бригада, забравајќи при тоа да формираат барем еден Вардарско-пирински или Вардарско-егејски партизански одред (!!!). Translation: "So, the poltron(?) Macedonians, which were loyal to their leader, formed a Macedonian-Kosovo brigade, forgetting to form at least one Vardar-Pirin or Vardar-Aegean partisan unit ...

So, the "external links" unambiguously show that there was not a national Macedonian partisan movement in Pirin Macedonia. Lantonov 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are all proves from your Soros' site:

....The decisions being made at the I Session of ASNOM, at which participated the representatives from the Pirin part of Macedonia, have been accepted by the respective population. The wish for the union with Democratic Federal Macedonia has always been present in Macedonians from this part of Macedonia.!?!? Jingby 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian historical documents

Another interesting Macedonian source of that time with photo:

ИЛИНДЕН 1941 ГОДИНА. ЖИВИТЕ УЧЕСНИЦИ ВО ИЛИНДЕНСКОТО ВОСТАНИЕ ПРАЗНУВАА ВО СЛОБОДНА БИТОЛА.

Напред вдесно е членот на Главниот штаб на востанието Анастас Лозанчев. Роден во Битола во 1870 година. Еден од првите дејци на ВМОРО во Битола. Член на Битолскиот окружен комитет. На Смилевскиот конгрес е избран за член на Главниот штаб на востанието заедно со Даме Груев и Борис Сарафов. После востанието живее во Софија до 1908 година кога се враќа во Битола. При српската окупација во 1912 е принуден одново да се врати во Бугарија. Во 1941 заедно со другите живи илинденци активно учествува во востановувањето на бугарско управување во Вардарска Македонија. Умира во Софија во 1945 година.

Lantonov 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aim of the "Liberation War"

As user Frightner points out above, he initiated this article in order to include any struggle in the "historic Macedonian region" during WWII which had for its aim "establishing of independent Macedonian state". Let's analyse the aims of the struggles described in the article:

As pointed out in the article and supported by sources, the struggle against Axis powers in Vardar Macedonia was mostly organised by representatives of Yugoslavian Communist Party and emissaries of Tito like Tempo and other Serbian and Montenegrin nationals who formed ASNOM. The struggle took place mostly in the Italian-occupied zone with isolated cases in the Bulgarian-occupied zone. As is also pointed out, ASNOM changed its original aim (independent Macedonia) to "Macedonia as a part of Yugoslavia", that is, not independent. Therefore, the partisan struggle organised by ASNOM does not fulfil the aim of this article. As also pointed out in the sources, part of the IMRO members who collaborated with the Bulgarian occupying force also had the aim of "liberating Macedonia from Serbian rule and making it independent", in fact, independent Macedonia. So, the struggle of this pro-fascist individuals (not necessarily pro-Bulgarian but pro-panMacedonian) against ASNOM also can be listed as a struggle for national liberation.

In Pirin Macedonia, the partisan movement was totally organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party. The aim of this movement was devoid of any nationalistic elements and was to depose the pro-fascist monarchist government of Bulgaria and substitute it with "dictatorship of the proletariat" that is, a communist regime of Soviet type. This is supported by ample historical documentation, including the given documents in the Soros site.

In Aegean Macedonia, the population was with mixed ethnicity - part Slav and part Greek. The Slav population of the German and Italian-occupied territories there enlisted in the partisan movement organised and led by two Greek parties who had partly nationalistic aims (liberating Greece from the foreign occupation) and partly ideological aims (anti-fascist and pro-communist). The Slav population in the Bulgarian occupied territories supported in masse the Bulgarian troops and enlisted as volunteers to fight against the Greek-led anti-fascist resistance in these territories. Part of those volunteers had the aim of "independent Macedonia" and the larger part had the aim of uniting all Bulgarian ethnic elements from the 3 Bulgarian regions: Moesia, Tracia, and Macedonia. There is some historical evidence to support that local volunteer Slav brigades were formed at this time with the aim of "independent Macedonia", however, most of the documentation for this was destroyed by Greeks during and after their Civil War following WWII.

It must be stressed, however, that all the described nationalistic aims were secondary and subservient to the ideological aims which can be (somewhat simplistically) described as communist against fascist. Lantonov 10:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All individual sources in the article have different opinions on what the war was about, but before the majority of contributions using Bulgarian sources change the context of the article the article was about one thing and did not contain contradictions. This matter will have to be taken care of in time. There is not enough personal will to read all of every source available to undo contradictions and solve conflicting POV issues. You seem to be stressed over the contents of the article, I suggest, temporarily, that contributing information to the article is absent and the format and grammar issues are resolved first. This will allow more time later to solve any issues there are about the contents of the article. Frightner 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also try to read as much sources as I can and glean information. The problem with the sources is that one doesn't know what to believe and what not. Also in many of them the info is contradictory. I don't have time for now to work on this article and will return when I have more time and will. In addition, there are other wiki articles that I edit and I must do something about them. I read a little from reference [6]. It is in English and speaks about a Macedonian brigade composed of IMRO members and operating in south-west Macedonia (around the town of Kostur) which appears to have some nationalistic aims. Also ref [2] by Dimitre Michev is in English and has many releveant data from this time. Good day and have fun. Lantonov 12:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] the CREDIBILITY of our SOURCES

this is one of the worst articles ive ever had a missopportunity to see . however it doesnt suprise me, wikipedia lost its reliability long time ago. why dont you just call it "the official Bulgarian point of view on the National Liberation War of Macedonia"? ;)

and those "sources" you provide, ah "impressing" indeed. That Nikola Petrov , who is he? What are his academic credentials? are his works regarded reliable and non-partisan source?

and now some words of wisdom from your article:

As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by most of the population as liberators[1]

re: the "source" is not only Bulgarian but moreover its published in 1941 :)))) (МАКЕДОНИЯ 1941, "Възкресението" - С. Нанев, 1941 г.)
This is like quoting a Nazi German source claiming "when we occupied the Netherlanders they greeted us as liberators" :))) NPOV? "Reliable" sources? sure, sure ;)

On October 15, 1944, Macedonian partisans liberated Ohrid from Italian occupants for a short period of time.

re: Fascist Italy capitulated in 1943. And moreover, Ohrid belonged to the Bulgarian occupation zone :)). The Italian occupation zone (given to Albania) included the line: Tetovo- Gostivar- Debar- Kichevo- Struga. This starts to be quite entertaining.

Quote: 1944 when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established.

re: SFRY was formally established on November 29 1943 in the town of Jajce, Bosnia and Herzegovina at AVNOJ not in 1944. The Macedonian Republic that became a part of it had its official name(s) Democratic Macedonia, People's Republic of Macedonia and finally Socialist Republic of Macedonia which is not mentioned at all.

It was not important that thеse party members had declared Bulgarian origin during the war, along with Kiro Gligorov and Lazar Koliševski.

re: Fascist Bulgaria was not a democratic country and it was imposing a policy of Bulgarian nationalism as the other fascist countries did too, such as Italy (in occupied Dalmatia) or Hungary (in occupied Vojvodina) . The state regarded ethnic Macedonians as Bulgarians. Kiro couldnt freely declare any other origin than Bulgarian, in a same way he couldnt freely declare any other origin than Serbian during the previous Serbian occupation (until 1941). Statements given in such specific circumstances, under a regime internationaly regarded as totalitarian and fascist can not be accepted.

Quote: However, under pro-Serbian pressure a decision was later reached that Vardar Macedonia will become a part of new Communist Yugoslavia.

If the Serbian "lobby" was so strong, how come Tito recognized a Macedonian nation established on a territory formerly controled by Serbia (Vardar Banovina)? If Tito was pro-Serbian how come he later granted wide autonomy to parts of Serbia such as SAP Kosovo and SAP Vojvodina? If Tito was pro-serbian how come he recognized a separate Montenegrian ethnicity and later a separate Muslim ethnicity? Btw he was not even a Serb but half Croat, half Slovene.

Quote: According to official sources the number of Macedonian communist partisan's victims against the Bulgarian army during WWII was 539 men, which is not a high level.

RE: How can you put such an infantile statement in an encyclopedia and sleep calm afterwards? what is a "high level" for you then?? 100 000? 1 milion? 6 milions? 20 milions? You are not on a vegetable market in Pazardzhik and you are not counting potatoes.
And what are those official sources btw? The military of Axis Bulgaria?

Quote: Many people went throughout the concentration camps of Idrizovo and Goli Otok for pro-Bulgarian sympathies or an independent or united Macedonia ideology in the late 1940s.

Re: Idrizovo is not a concentration camp but a prison dont be silly. Then, the majority of prisoners at Goli Otok were not charged with pro-Bulgarian symphaties but with pro-soviet activities after the Tito-Stalin split (Cominform), 1948. After all what Vlado Dapčević has to do with Bulgaria? he was one of the notable prisoners on G.O.

the whole article is an utter rubish

ps. one more quote: НародноослободителнаТА Борба во Македонија (НОБ). Why with -TA? and why "IN" Macedonia? There's no such thing. Macedonian schoolbooks name it: NA Makedonija without that -TA. Thats not the way its called in macedonian language. it should be Narodnoosloboditelna only. Oh dear, you are writting encyclopedia or what? disaster
I have a Macedonian history book that says Нородноослободителната Борба во Македонија. More so, the lines you quoted were contributed by Bulgarian POV pushers. POV pushers contributing to this article are trying to turn it into an article entirely about Bulgarians in Macedonia between 41 and 41. The article is about Macedonian partisans who fought for the liberation of Macedonia from FASCIST BULGARIANS, ITALIANS AND GERMANS. Whenever I remove POV information from sources which cannot merely be considered credible, POV pushers revert my edits and claim "Macedonians viewed the fascists as liberators". If that was the point of the article, it would not be called the NATIONAL LIBERATION WAR. The Bulgarian POV pushers should create a seperate POV article titled Bulgarian POV on the occupation of Macedonia in World War II. Bulgarian POV is undermining the aim of the article. Also, User: Jingiby, stop reverting my edits about towns that were liberated by Macedonian partisans. Frightner
The separation of POV's is a violation of Wikipedia:POV fork. The article is not about the Macedonian partisans, it is about a war, and how that war was or was not fought. Mr. Neutron 15:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So why exactly is Bulgaria inserted into every sentence? "As the Bulgarian army..." how about the German and Italian armies? The ones that were there first. This whole article is based on nationalist Bulgarian sources and Bulgarian propaganda. Frightner 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is you are advocating a violation of the policies. Of course Bulgarian forces desereve the most space out of all forces, because it was them that occupied the region of the most part. Every source is a POV, including the once that you provide. Mr. Neutron 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And? At least they talk about Macedonia not "Blah Blah Blah Bulgaria Blah Bulgarian Blah Blah etc". Bulgarian contributors are talking in a 1st person perspective as if they were there. I keep my perspective neutral ie "The Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia" no one wants to hear no crap about them being seen as liberators by some pro-Fascist ass-kissing dissidents. Frightner 15:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Watch your language and do not make personal attacks, as well as monopolize the content. Mr. Neutron 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks against people who may have died decades ago? STFU! Frightner 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am reporting you for personal attacks, 3RR and incivility. Mr. Neutron 16:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, good luck. Better make it a long block too, might relieve me of the metaphorical gangrene you call "Bulgaria". Frightner 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am truly sorry you have such negative feelings for Bulgarians and you let them affect your edits in such a way. Mr. Neutron 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be, every Macedonian feels this way[citation needed]. I tried to keep my composure, allowing fair discussion from both parties. But then comes a time when a Bulgarian pisses you off, like with my friend User:Namajkati that got banned for speaking out. I hope Wikipedia can keep the slightest bit of dignity when more things like this happen in the future. Frightner 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, I get the point very well and not only me ;) Just a glimpse at their "sources" and certain statements is sufficient for everyone to see the "encyclopedity" and the "maturity" of the whole thing ;) Moreover its quite funny that all these citizens of a formerly defeated nazi country are now rewriting the history :)) Imagine today's neonazis from lets say Germany now rewriting an article about the Soviet Great Patriotic War for instance :)) Neuron, a "separation of POV's" was a violation? O Really? How come they are clearly separated within the Krste Misirkov article? After all why should we care about the Bulgarian POV anyway? Should we now include the Nazi Germany POV too in the Soviet Great Patriotic War article?. Should we now add the Ottoman Turkish POV in an article about Ilinden Uprising?! LOL :) Why should we be obliged to "satisfy" all the defeated sides in this war? :))) Then, Neuron, Bulgarian forces actually deserve less space, i dont see this article being named Military history of Bulgaria during World War II. This war was actually fought against them and thats the main point like it or not. After all why am i explaining all this to you, the sources and the statements you support have no credibility whatsoever. this is a pure joke. you still use that mysterious Nikola Petrov (?!) no one in the world knows who he is. pure WP:BOLLOCKS :) I beleive that even you dont know who he is. The fact that he published a book means nothing, cause everyone can do that these days. And most bizzare thing is, i see the article was protected by some japanese oceanographer (?!) What is his or her's competence over the particular subject in this article?! To judge whether certain edits are vandalism or genuine contribution, one must have certain knowledge on the subject. Hah, if this is encyclopedia I'll eat my hat (fortunatelly its not)

ps. Frightner: the name in the macedonian schoolbooks is "NARODNOOSLOBODITELNA VOJNA NA MAKEDONIJA" and that was used everywhere. Books, encyclopedias, tv documentaries etc. I dont know what book you have but check in which context that is written. Macwedonian language gramatic rules say you add -TA suffix (членување, I suppose its called article in engliosh) when you want to say THE National Liberation war. In this case, -TA should be removed. The Macedonian form should be: Народноослободителна војна на Македонија. without -TA on the first word. And its not "IN" Macedonia but "OF" Macedonia. Macedonian schoolbooks say "OF" Macedonia. dont tell me, im here in mac. :)--Detubug 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There was any state or nationality named Macedonia or Macedonians before 1944. This region and the people ware part of Bulgaria, not of Yugoslavia! Because of that we have not interest to read your Communist, pro- Yugoslav, Titoist propaganda about the history of Bulgaraia! Jingby 17:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jingybingy, we have absolutely no interest in reading your neo-nazi propagandha either, nor we are impressed by your "sources" but what can we do. Its a public secret that certain centers in Bulgaria (notably the nationalist party VMRO-BND) are spending large amounts of money for recruiting kids for internet propagandha, with lot of the money being donated to Wikimedia Foundation. VMRO-BND's president Karakacanov publicly claims Macedonian territories[5][6] so that doesnt suprise me at all. Otherwise why would someone sit 24h in front of the monitor abusing Macedonian articles in the middle of summer? There must be a good motivation (money makes the world go round). But back to the subject: The forcible annexation of territories by Fascist states in WWII was not recognized by the Allies, (this includes: USA, Great Britain, USSR, De Gaul's French resistance and so on). They were bombing Sofia in World War II certainly not because they liked your policy lol :)). On the other hand, the allied countries officialy recognized the Macedonian antifascist movement by sending various military missions, for example the British SOE mission in 1943, the US one in 1944 led by major Dickenson and so on. If you want us to justify the Bulgarian fascist occupation, that would mean recognizing German souveregnity over Austria, Poland and other countries in WWII. Of course that is not possible by any standard. The antifascist resistance in France belongs to the History of France and not to the History of Germany, ELAS belongs to History of Greece not to History of Italy or Bulgaria although these states anexed parts of Grece and so on. If you dont want that, then be consistent and say that the resistance against Ottomans in Bulgaria belong to History of Turkey only and not History of Bulgaria :)))) And for a third time" who's Nikola Petrov and what are his academic credentials?:)) Detubug 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Alex - I see you're finally back. --Laveol T 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
and hi to you Laveol, Mr. Neutron's meatpuppet (or vice versa, who cares) :-D
So you are Alex? Or Amacos? Or Namajkati? I see great similiarity between what you say and what Amacos and ALex said. --Laveol T 10:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New title of the article

I have two concerns.

  1. There is a period "." in the end of the current name, please remove it.
  2. The Republic of Macedonia was established in 1991, so during WW2 there was the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, or maybe Vardar Banovina in transition to SRM. Mr. Neutron 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that the attempt of civilised discussion turned in such an ugly anti-Bulgarian slandering campaign. Probably to be expected but still, a pity. Lantonov 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As an afterthought, maybe a probably better title of the article will be "(Military) History of the region of Macedonia during WWII" and talk about the whole region without trying to separate communist-fascist and national movements. Lantonov 06:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Neutron that we cannot talk about history of Republic of Macedonia during WWII because it did not exist at that time. Also in the template "History of Republic of Macedonia" this history goes as far back as 681 AD when the Bulgarian state was formed. It is, mildly said, historically incorrect. History of the Republic of Macedonia starts with the beginning of this Republic (September 8, 1991). Everything else is a history of Macedonia as a region. Lantonov 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Jingibingy"

Jingiby keeps spreading fascist propaganda on this article, he doesn't even make any decent contributions.. I mean, let's face it, the guy can't even spell. What's the deal with the picture of the small pro-Fascist population waiting to greet the homosexual Boris III[citation needed] and his f**k buddy, Hitler? If all Macedonians were pro-fascist at the time, there wouldn't have been a war, would there? Use that expired organ you call a brain. Frightner 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I see you have a sense of humor Lantonov. Frightner 10:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my version of the article, it's completely sourced and neutral. The only problem here is Jingiby, he has made way more reverts than me without providing any reason but "political propaganda", he is the only propagandist here. Why is it OK for him to delete my sourced information yet it is unfair for me to, since another Bulgarian contributor is quick to defend him. Frightner 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And where are your sources, Frightner. Please, list them, so people may have a look. Every source I look at, you say it is Bulgarian propaganda, including official books from Skopie, book from a former president of Macedonia, and speeches before the Macedonian parliament. It is exasperating. I put in the talk a section on "Macedonian historical documents". If you put a list there, people can take a look and discuss them. Lantonov 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't spell Skopje like a Greek nationalist again. Frightner 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not deliberate about Skopje.Lantonov 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Greeks spell Skopje as "Skopia" (Σκόπια), nationalists or otherwise, and please refrain from racial slurs. Calling all Greeks nationalists for minor adaptations on the name according to the clitics and cases of their language does not help. This is your first WP:NPA warning by me, Frightner, and I also don't like your comment here, which I can perfectly understand ("death to Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians" etc). Normally you should have been blocked for these, not to mention your userbox in the same diff. NikoSilver 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, excellent translation, one of my favorite quotes too. Why does Jingiby keep removing sourced information, especially "By the end of the war the Macedonian National Liberation Army numbered over 56,000 combatants in the Vardar Banovina and this region alone produced some 25,000 victims. German, Italian and Bulgarian occupiers of the region had over 60,000 military and administrative police personnel.[9]", from a Serbian source? Frightner 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I heard a Greek coach of a local soccer club call their opposing team this weekend (who happened to be ethnic Macedonians) Skops, so don't tell me who and who not to call nationalist. Frightner 11:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just refrain from making racial slurs and read the policy I linked. No childish excuses necessary. NikoSilver 12:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There was no 'Republic of Macedonia' in WWII

Are we being a bit silly? The boundaries of the 'Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia' were created in 1945, as a Socialist Yugoslavia was taking shape - that is after the end of the war. This title makes no sense, historically. We might as well have an article, Military history of 'Western Bulgaria' during World War II, or, indeed, of Vardar Banovina, or Southern Serbia.Politis 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, shouldn't the title be "Military history of the Republic of Macedonia"? Besides that which is a mere neglect, I think that Politis' remarks have a basis. I read from the Republic of Macedonia article: "Its current borders were fixed shortly after World War II when the government of the then People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia established the People's Republic of Macedonia, recognizing the region as a separate nation within Yugoslavia."--Yannismarou 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We could dodge all these semantics by using either Vardar Banovina that Politis proposed -or- I have another idea for consideration: We could merge this article to either Yugoslavia#Yugoslavia during the Second World War or Invasion of Yugoslavia or Yugoslav People's Liberation War (or all three depending on timeframe and location). Then, we can title the particular relevant section(s) as "Resistance of ethnic Macedonians during World War II" and even expand the section to make it a separate article.
  • Pros: The ethnic Macedonians will have an article/section dealing with them despite the fact that they were not a separate nation then.
  • Cons: To my knowledge there aren't any similar articles for subnational entities such as Vardar Banovina or People's RoM (i.e. there's no article on "Military history of Texas during WWII" lol). Therefore, probably the content should probably stay within the Yugoslavian parent articles.
Thoughts? NikoSilver 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what Neutron, myself and (anyone else?) say above. Part of the people of the region of Macedonia usurping and revising the history of all the people that live and have lived in this region is silly but not only silly. Therefore all my appeals to compare sources and separate (or not) ideological (communist, fascist, anti-fascist) from national goals (liberation of Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania - from whom?). Macedonians against fascism - what is this? A whole nation rises against an ideology and becomes communist overnight. Then what to say about Greeks that fought in ELAS in Aegean Macedonia, and Macedonian Slavs that fought against ELAS in the same region. Or about Ivan Kozarev - the Bulgarian from Pirin Macedonia who fought against Bulgarian fascist government and was the first partisan in Bulgaria? Or the partisan movement in Pirin Macedonia that was completely organised and led by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Or the liberation of the Eastern part of Yugoslavia and Hungary by the Bulgarian army at the end of 1944 acting by the orders of the Bulgarian Communist government. History is very complicated even without people pushing their views about how it should have been. Lantonov 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK for merging contents with, Yugoslavia#Yugoslavia during the Second World War or Invasion of Yugoslavia or Yugoslav People's Liberation War (or all three depending on timeframe and location). As I told Frightner, his inventions and interventions often go against the efforts of the new generation of good historians in Skopje who see the absurdity of trying to constantly identify Fyrom/RoM with a 'greater Macedonia' across the ages. Politis 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "Resistance of ethnic Macedonians during WWII" is that it is hard to describe who is ethnic Macedonian during this time. As I see from the thrust of the article, it describes mainly anti-fascist resistance in Vardar Macedonia, trying to push the thesis that it was a national struggle for independent Macedonia (region), including also Pirin, and Aegean Macedonia, as seen in the map of the region, included in it. Lantonov 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have (what I think is) an even better idea - a merge with History of the Republic of Macedonia. This is where this article/section really belongs. It can show the origins of the later Communist substate and the nowadays Republic. The period of 1940-1944 is now within the 1912-1944 section. So a new section alongside a great expansion of the others should make it look a lot better. And if the length of the new section seems to much we can always expand it (as Niko said above) to a new article - I don't think we'll come to this pretty soon, though. --Laveol T 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I partly concur with Laveol, though I still feel unease about a Republic of Macedonia going back to 7th century. We have History of Bulgaria, History of Greece, History of Serbia, and History of Yugoslavia, but all those are for periods when such states, and nations existed. Lantonov 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Lantonov and Laveol. Also, I think there might be grounds to create an article for Bulgarian policies towards 'geographic Macedonia' from 1903(?) to 1945 or 1947 (when these policies were abandoned). Politis 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree. Merging it with RoM's history will not change anything, as RoM wasn't even formed then. I stick to my original proposal about merging with Yugo related articles. The 'ethnic' dab is the furthest I could go, and this only in a subsection as this area became even a subnational entity after 1945 (when the war ended)! So given that we have no separate articles on subnational entities, let alone subnational-entities-to-be, I'm afraid there's no choice. NikoSilver 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Then History of the Republic of Macedonia should be rewritten, too. I've lways thought it to be rather useless as most of the info should be (or already is) included in the region's history. All prior to 1945 or even to 1991 even. --Laveol T 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we stick to this 'article' for the moment :-) I am happy with whatever you editors in the current discussion decide because, overall, I share your unhappy opinion of this article. Politis 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. To Lantonov I must say that he is misunderstanding the nature of the "history of xxx (nation)" articles. These articles serve to provide a complete survey of the history of a state's territory and of the people that have lived there; to put it clearly, for example History of Belgium starts a lot earlier then the creation of Belgium in 1830, beginning with prehistory; and also History of Greece starts with prehistory, speaking of a non-hellenic people, the minoans, and History of Bulgaria has a section on the Thracians. But the problem is that the article has expanded to much to be merged with History of Republic of Macedonia; maybe a rename like Bulgarian occupation in Yugoslavia during WWII or, better, Yugoslav People's Liberation War in Macedonia, as a subarticle of Yugoslav People's Liberation War. The use of "Macedonia" in this context shouldn't worry anybody, because the word "Yugoslav" disambiguates enough to avoid any confusion. Ciao,--Aldux 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we being a bit silly?- yes you are politis, good that u asked, but here's a wise solution: Since Greeks have spent 400 years under the Turks, the History of Greece during that period should be properly renamed to History of Turkey (or History of Western Turkey) while the article about the modern greek state should be renamed to The Former Turkish Colony of Greece. The greek anthropological characteristics are Turkish (tanned faces, black hair, unibrow), the greek cuisine is Turkish (donner kebap = giro, shishkebap = souvlaki, greek baklava = turkish baklava, you drink turkish coffee etc.), your music is mostly modernized arabesque turbofolk (basicaly turkish-influenced) and therefore you are Turks without moustaches. I think its a great solution 69.64.87.42 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aldux on the principle that a nation's history begins a lot earlier than creating the state but with Republic of Macedonia the situation is much different. Macedonia is a region and not a nation. To pick up the example given with Belgium: In the History of Belgium it is written: "The earliest inhabitants of Belgium were Belgae after which Belgium is named". Let us write: "The earliest inhabitants of Macedonia were Macedonians after which the Republic of Macedonia is named" and we will have the whole population of Greece knocking on your door with death threats. Another hypothetical example is closer to the situation with the Republic of Macedonia: Suppose that Alsace becomes a republic and starts to claim the history of France, Germany, Belgium, and Luxemburg and call the population of these counntries Alsatian and the languages they speak Alsatian language and the history of the whole western Europe Alsatian history. Is this history true and worthy to be included in an encyclopedia? As for Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII and Yugoslav People's Liberation War in Macedonia, I agree to have such articles if there is a need for them providing that they are historically truthful taking into account available sources and not put there for the sole purpose of being a tribunal of alleged Bulgarian attrocities and genocide against the innocent and well meaning population of Yugoslavia. As for Thracians and Minoans, those are people that have existed in history but no longer exist and the closest descendants to them are the inhabitants of, respectively, Bulgaria and Greece. This is why they are included in the histories of those countries.Lantonov 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that the written by 69.64.87.42 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC) deserves any comment but it is a good example of the abuse that rewriting and misinterpretation of history causes. In fact, the writer abuses his/her own roots because the whole region was under Turkish slavery for a long time. Lantonov 06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lantonov, regarding the post before your last one, if u are suggesting that ethnic Macedonians are sort of "artificial nation" first take a look at your own, cause its "artificial" too like every other nation in the world (this includes the modern post-1820s Greeks too, they were invented during the time of Romanticism, see Schliemann and all those pseudo-scientists). Nations dont grow on trees, people make them. Modern Bulgarians are some mix of mostly Bulgars who came from Bulgaristan an ancient name for Tatarstan (thats why you're called Bulgar-ians, not English or French), then your language is south slavic which you took from the Slavs already living in the area (the Bulgars spoke Turkic before) and now you even claim Thracian ancestry? What is your identity then? After all, OK, fine, you can be Thracian if you insist, but in that case ethnic Macedonians can claim Ancient Macedonian ancestry, they can say, well ok, the Slavs came and mixed with the local Ancient Macedonians. Cause you see, despite all the tensions, both RoM and Greece agree that areas such as Bitola, Ohrid, Gevgelija and Stobi were part of Ancient Macedonia (at least during a certain period), right? Ok, now tell me, who's NIKOLA PETROV and what are his academic credentials so that you put him in an encyclopedia? (i bet you dont have a clue and that you will not answer)

Take your Medicine and go sleeping! Jingby 09:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The above anonymous falsity, of course, does not deserve any comment. I only want to point out that Schliemann, who discovered ancient Troya, is characterised as 'pseudo-scientist'. Then what this ultimate anonymous authority will say about Nikola Petrov, the humble historian from Skopje, who in 1998 published there 10000 copies of his book "Кои беа партизаните во Македониjа" based on the investigation of his group in the Macedonian Institute of History.Lantonov 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

aha, I see. well, Alexander Donski is also humble we will put him in the article too. Im also humble. Really. you can put me as a source too. jingis, perhaps you are the one who will need medicines soon, you never know what may happen[7]

You are anything but humble, probably 'slinking' is a better description. BTW, the link you give is worth seeing and discussing. Lantonov 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we take this a threat? So you are Namajkati after all. --Laveol T 11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Crkny" in Serbian means "Die". Lantonov 11:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Bulgarian and Greek contributors editing and deciding what to do with the article? How precious. The title makes no sense, Jingiby, one of the most bias contributors to this article is a moron. I don't wanna hear any comments of "personal attacks" 'cause I don't give a shit. Frightner 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
I agree with Aldux and Jingiby made the right move. NikoSilver 12:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What part of I don't give a shit don't you understand? First people like Lantonov were claiming Macedonia wasn't occupied as it was a part of Bulgaria yet now the article is called "Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II" and there was no such thing as "Yugoslavia" between 41 and 43. Jeez, wake up and smell the coffee, no wonder this site's full of it. Frightner 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Frightner, please do not put words in my mouth. I said (more exactly, repeated after another contributor) that Pirin Macedonia was not occupied because it was inside the borders of Bulgaria before WWII. I have always said in all my contributions (you can check this) that Vardar Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia were occupied by Bulgaria. Lantonov 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As for Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II I agree with Frightner that it is incorrect to speak of Yugoslav Macedonia 1941-1943 because such state did not exist then. It is incorrect to speak of Vardar Banovina because it also did not exist at that time. I propose to drop state designations and speak about this territory in neutral terms as part of the region of Macedonia, namely, Vardar Macedonia, Occupation of Vardar Macedonia during World War II. Lantonov 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I oughta kick Politis' ass, stop calling Macedonia Skopje, go back to Ethiopia you "malaka". Frightner 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For reviewing admin: See Malakas please. NikoSilver 13:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
'National Liberation War of Macedonia' seems to be a cliche left over from communist Yugoslavia, the same as 'Fatherland War' as was called WWII in Communist Bulgaria, although the main part of this war Bulgarians fought far from the borders of Bulgaria, as far as eastern Austria. Lantonov 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Good, no need to involve them in the article then. Let's talk about Germany and Italy now. Frightner 13:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, fine with me. What do you like to talk about them? Lantonov 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
How partisans were involved in battles with them, the article is not just about Macedonian-Bulgarian battles. Aegean and Italian-occupied zones detachments should be discussed a little more thoroughly. Note; why would I add citation to a picture? Frightner 14:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they deserve more discussion because the partisan movement was more intensive there, strenghtened by ethnic differences that lack in the Bulgarian-occupied zone. The citation to the picture is needed to see where this picture is taken from. As it is now, it can be from anywhere, for instance, Kurds killed by Turkish soldiers near the border of Iraq or whatever.Lantonov 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
One editor, Frightner, has started swearing at editors (malaka = wa*ker); for this reason alone, can the gentleman be banned from editing for a while?

Politis 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no point to chew over things said in countless other places. If there is a new original material as sources, it is better be put in the respective places - Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania during WWII, for instance. Lantonov 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Republic of Macedonia is not even mentioned.. god, it's like talking to a brick wall. Latanov, I got the picture from a Macedonian-Bulgarian discussion forum, I can give you the link to the forum but I doubt I can recover the exact thread. I think some of the other picture have a link to the forum. Also, Jingibingy is still undoing my edits, he has made tons of reverts and has never been blocked for it, I got mine, how about an admin give him his for a change. P.S. Politis, I would be more than happy to get banned from wikipedia, permanently would make me even happier so еби се. Frightner 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If we will discuss something, let's discuss concrete material on the basis of sources given:
  1. Is this material sourced
  2. Is this source reliable (I say 'no' you say 'yes' or vice versa)
  3. Arguments pro and con
  4. Additional material augmenting or contradicting arguments

For instance, it is not pleasant for me to see in the article that Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia killed 12 young persons in a village but I accept it and try to live with it because it is sourced material and therefore a proven fact. Lantonov 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Who cares anymore, I'm getting tried in some form of nerdy online case. I got a bunch of Greeks and Bulgarians to hate me, what more could a Maco guy ask for? XD Frightner 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol [8] *shifts eyes* Frightner 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a picture of a German (King Boris) shaking the hand of an Austrian (Hitler). So the German royal family was sympathetic to Germans... That is for another article, German royal houses and Nazi GermanyPolitis 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not among the people who hate you, Frightner, in fact I am sorry that you did not listen to my well-intentioned advice and took such a turn. I would like to discuss things with you because it seems you have information that I lack or have learnt wrongly in school. What I really want is to sift truth from lies. Lantonov 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That [9] is a picture of a German (King Boris) shaking the hand of an Austrian (Hitler). So the German royal family of Bulgaria was sympathetic to the Nazis... That is for another article, German royal houses and Nazi Germany. The German royal houses of Belgium, British, Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc... were sympathetic to Germany at some time during WWI and WWII. P.S. Lantonov, the guy is taking advantage of your good nature. Politis 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Nobody denies that Hitler was sympathetic to Boris III and listened to him with respect. This fact was overstressed in our history textbooks during totalitarism, and now after it, it is supported by additional material and pictures. Bogdan Filov in his diary describes even by the minute all the appointments of tsar Boris, his words and thoughts during this period. The reverse is also true: in some sense tsar Boris was sympathetic to Germany and he used the mutual sympathy and respect in the interest of Bulgaria. Lantonov 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stolen pics

beside the fact that the article is pure Bulgaristani and Former Turkish Colony of Grease propagandha (propagand? ha!):), some of the images have fake copyright status, one of them: Image:Prilep1944.jpg is directly stolen from a private blog while another has a clear copyright WORLD WAR DAY BY DAY and you call this encyclopedia? :))) Aldux, do u have eyes or? :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

[edit] STOLEN MATERIALS

Please do not feed the trolls --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The author of the private Macedonian blog from which some materials have been stolen and published on Wikipedia without permition along with fake licencing was informed on the issue and he wrote an angry reaction here: http://vbb.blog.com.mk/node/48148 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I do not know what the status of this picture is, but I'd suggest you revise your username as it is totally inappropriate. I'd also advise you not to use multiple accounts and refrain from such racial comments. --Laveol T 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to the site that the above anonym pointed out. I could not see the photo in question because my screen was filled with anti-Bulgarian and anti-Wikipedian slogans, obscenities, and threats in large red letters. I hurried to get out of it because I do not want my computer to pick up such filth. If someone wants to prove a point, he might at least choose a more appropriate form. Lantonov 09:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


whats with this dude jinglebangle and his anti-macedonian pro-nazi propaganda and pics? he's spreading the same neonazi propaganda on vmacedonia forums. them pics are copyrighted as well someone better warn the guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

hey if the photo was scanned taken from a book, the apparently weak-minded (but I will say: stupid) blog owner also did copyright infringement. I call on editors not to bother trolling here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This talk page is for another article

Because of consistent vandalism and reverting this talk is in fact for National Liberation War of Macedonia. Occupation of Vardar Macedonia during World War II is a stub mainly pointing to the above article. Please someone more knowledgable (admin?) fix it. Lantonov 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a request for a preliminary assessment of this article. Lantonov 08:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The topic is locked!

Some annonimous citizens of FYROM are vandalizing the article. Please do not belive the communist, macedonist propaganda!Jingby 13:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Most people that come here are wise enough to sift facts from fiction. I continue to stick to my original opinion that this article should not exist with its present title "National Liberation War of Macedonia" because there was not a nation and it was not a liberation. This was also not a war waged by partisans but part of WWII waged by Axis and Allied powers. As for Macedonia, I see that the article is mainly for part of this region: Vardar Macedonia that was part of Yugoslavia. It (at least in its original form and also in the introduction) aims to emphasize guerilla resistance against fascism organised by Yugoslavian communists on the territory of Vardar Macedonia while presenting this as a war between the nations Macedonia (100% communist nation) and Bulgaria (100% fascist nation). The edit war is because the facts do not correspond to the aim of the person who started the article. I think that a more appropriate place for this material is in the History of Republic of Macedonia or part of the History of Macedonia (region) during WWII. As it is now, title does not correspond to content and it is just a repetition of a Yugoslavian communist cliche which is devoid of meaning. Lantonov 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why is it only the several of you Bulgarian Wikipedians editing, you are the only people who seem to give a crap, proves who really wants to spread POV irredentist-nationalist-opressionist propaganda. And I don't take likely to Tatars calling my country FYROM. Have a nice day. 203.59.65.185 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment situation is next-

combatant1=Allied Powers (communist):
Macedonian Partisans
Macedonian National Liberation Army
Serbian, Aromanian and Bulgarian collaborators.

It have to be next-

combatant1=Allied Powers (communist):
Partisans (Yugoslavia)
Macedonian National Liberation Army

Also there ware any Macedonian state, Macedonian nationality or Macedonian party to 1944. According to Macedonian sources the majority of the Partisans ware Serbians, Aromanians, Albanians and s.o. <Кои беа партизаните во Македонија* Никола Петров,Скопје, 1998> [10]- <Who ware the prtisans in Macedonia> Nikola Petrov, Skopje 1998.

Some citation from this book:

...Светозар Вукмановић – Темпо : «Во почетокот на март 1943 г. Пристигнав во Македонија каде што ја затекнав следната положба : Партијските организации во организационен однос беа во речиси полно разделување....Тоа се должи пред се на бугарското сознание на превладувачкиот дел од населението на Мкаедонија, кое не го поднесува антибугарскиот дух и не допушта да се дигне рака против Бугарија...Во текот на 1942 г. е имало шест одреди од по 10-15 борци и тие сите биле разбиени освен Битолскиот, кој што поминал на албанска територија и тоа сам на своја глава и така се запазил.»

Translation is mine - The citation is from Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo... On March 1943 when i entered Macedonia the situation was next- Communist groups ware in chaos. The reason is the Bulgarian spirit of the population.. In 1942 there ware six detachments from up to 10-15 partisans and they ware brocken...


М. Апостолски, кој што се оправдува во текот на 1945 г. «Што да правам бре.....кога излеговме во шумата само јас бев од Македонија, а другите беа Срби, Цинцари и др. и така во борбата го «зацврстивме» нашто другарство и пријателство.»

Translation is mine - The citation is from Mihailo Apostolski... What could i do, when i became a partisan only i was ethnic Macedonian, the rest ware Serbs, Aromanians and others...

Logical conclusion - the most partisans ware Yugoslavs!


combatant Allied Powers (communist):

............................

Serbian, Aromanian and Bulgarian collaborators.

This is non sence!


Jingby 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot, why does Partisan have to be a reference to the Yugoslav Partisans, Partisans and Yugoslav Partisans are not the same. Ofcourse your source will say that they were Serbs, because he's referring to Yugoslav Partisans not partisan fighter in Macedonia. 124.168.101.42 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Of course your source will say that they were Serbs,..." This source is Macedonian from Skopje, and I thank you for ('idiot')! Jingby 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous was a clear abuse ('idiot') of a Wiki editor by a banned user from Perth. Lantonov 09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


U.S STATE DEPARTMENT

Foreign Relations Vol. VIII

Washington D.C. Circular Airgram 868.014/26 Dec. 1944

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers

The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time.

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. "This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consiousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece". [11]Jingby 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Otecestven Vestnik (Sofia daily), 19 June 1991

STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION: (G. Dimitrov, V. Korarov, T. Kostov) The Kremlin, 7 June 1946

Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework of Bulgaria. Tito has shown himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic state and has had to give equal rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the unification of Macedonia, but in view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get the criticism. You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account. No such consciousness existed in Byelorussia either when we proclaimed it a Soviet Republic. However, later it was shown that a Byelorussian people did in fact exist. ..Jingby 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some documentary films about the Bulgarian "Occupation" of Vardar Banovina.

1.Macedonia after WW1 and its liberation in 1941. [12]

2.1943 - Serres, Aegean Macedonia, 30th anniversary of the heroic death of Goce Delchev. [13]

3.Bitola - 1942.Celebration Of anniversary of The Battle of the Bulgarian army during WWI at Crna river Curve. [14]

4.BITOLA - ONE YEAR LATTER.CELEBRATION OF THE LIBERATION - 1942. [15]

5.Ohrid.RESURRECTION IN 1941 - IMPRESSION. [16]

6.Skopje-1942. [17]

7.Skopje. Resurrection of Macedonia 1941. [18]

8.Resen. Resurrection of Macedonia 1941. [19]

9.Stip - 1942. Memorial service about Todor Alexandrov. [20]

10.April 1942. Skopie. Tsar Boris III square. [21]Jingby 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing for "liberators" sentence

This is about the sentence: "As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by most of the population as liberators[6]". I understand that was one of the most contentious issues that got this article protected. That citation goes to http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/mac1941/mac41.html - can someone describe that source a bit, and point to the actual page where that claim is given? I can't read Bulgarian very well, but put some words through an online translator, and that page, at least, doesn't seem to say that. There is another part of that web site, which seems to be a collection of books, that says The Bulgarian population in Macedonia met with open joy the defeat of Kingdom Yugoslavia. It saw in it the end of the 23 years of enslavement. That is why it was not surprising that the Bulgarians from Vardar Macedonia, mobilizated in the Yugoslav army refuse to fight.7 Similar was the situation in the World War I when the Macedonian Bulgarians forcibly mobilized in the Serbian army in large numbers surrendered to the Austro-Hungarian army. That's not quite the same as "was greeted by most of the population as liberators", that's closer to "was greeted by the Bulgarian portion of the population as liberators". That also seems a much less contentious sentence. Would anyone object we change this sentence to that?

There is a section titled #the CREDIBILITY of our SOURCES, above, that seems to discuss this sentence, but it seems to have been a bit heated (in the way that the ocean is a bit wet). Hopefully we can keep this section calmer. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The book in called "The Resurrection" in reference to the fact that the Bulgarian troops entered Vardar Macedonia on Easter. The book is authored by Sotir Nanev, and published by the Institute of Macedonian studies. The author is from Vardar Macedonia, and his parents have escaped to Bulgaria during the Second Balkan War. He relates his memories of 1941 as he enters Macedonia as a lieutenant of the Bulgarian Army. The whole book is written with a very patriotic feeling, and love to Vardar Macedonia and its people whom he calls the best and most progressive of all Bulgarians. He describes at lenght the mass exultation as the population of Kriva Palanka, Kumanovo, Skopje, Veles, Izvor, Prilep, Krushevo, Bitolja, Resen, Ohrid, Smilevo, meets the Bulgarian soldiers. The population of Lerin, Voden, and Solun (Thessaloniki), those are in Aegean Macedonia, is more reticent because the Bulgarians are mixed with Greeks and they are forbidden to speak Bulgarian. The policemen in the last 3 towns are mostly Greek and it is felt that there is tension among the Greek population. The publishing House is "Trud" ISBN 9545283661.Lantonov 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):In my opinion, the lot should be thrown out of the window. I've given an analysis to the source and its origin, and their is really hardly any chance it can fix WP:RS. The works in question all come from a pretty irredentist Bulgarian website, from the website of a certain Vassil Karloukovski. and Minchev's book doesn't have any indication of being really printed. Many similar problems present themselves for Macedonian sources, particularly those from the communist period, but also those from contemporary propaganda Macedonist websites, that have the same problems of www.kroraina.com, even if at least kroraina has some acceptable old books that it has placed online.--Aldux 16:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By the same token we should throw all historic literature written in France, Germany, or England, only because they are found in the blog of some history buff of those countries. Lantonov 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, blogs per WP:RS are unacceptable, unless under very specific and limited circumstances, and the same goes for material they may quote, as it can't be considered reliable.--Aldux 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Even for books published with ISBN number? I doubt it. Then we can de-link the book and it will become acceptable. A very dumb policy if it is true. Lantonov 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the WP:RS and it writes about self-published books, and books found ONLY in personal blogs. Lantonov 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought you were asking; obviously, it's not a book's fault if it is quoted by a blog. Remember (always from WP:RS) that especially in contentious topics (and if this isn't one of those... :-() it is best to rely on third-party secondary sources. It must be also sure that the authors are respected academics for the secondary sources, whose works if in Bulgarian or Macedonian are known by scholarship outside Bulgaria, and the publishing houses in question are not specialized in nationalist stuff. For example, in Italy there have always been a few small far-right publishing houses, but their works have always been utterly ignored in scholarship.--Aldux 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for remaining calm. So it's the memoirs of a Bulgarian soldier, who was greeted warmly by some Bulgarian Macedonians, and doesn't write as much about the non-Bulgarian Macedonians. It may or may not have been published - it doesn't show up on Amazon, but does show up on Google Book Search: [22] Is it all right to write the sentence the way I suggest it, that the Bulgarian Macedonians welcomed the Bulgarian army? Since that limited form doesn't seem to be a tremendously controversial statement, I imagine even a soldier's memoirs would be an acceptable source. The wider form, that most Macedonians welcomed the Bulgarian army, would probably require a better source. Agreed? Reasonable compromise? Which page actually says that he was welcomed, by the way, so we can give a more specific link for the citation? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As the link cited above shows (and I found a few other links), the book is published officially by the "Trud" publishing house with a valid ISBN number. It is even published 2 times: once in 1942, and then republished in 1993. Trud is one of the largest publishing houses in Bulgaria. It publishes the most popular newspaper 'Trud'. So 'may or may not have been published' can become 'has been published' with the preservation of the calm dreams that are a product of pure conscience. Lantonov 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole book describes the warm welcome in different towns. I don't think it's possible to add it as a footnote for the "Greeted by..." sentence unfortunately--Laveol T 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, again)I've found a good source: Between Past and Future: Civil-Military Relations in Post-Communist Balkan States, by Biljana Vankovska: she says at page 58 that in reaction to Belgrade state terror, whose resistance had been mostly incarnated by a recall to the Bulgarian spirit, many Slavs greeted them as liberator: "At the time of their invasion in 1915 and 1941, the Bulgarian troops were greeted as liberators, but in the four year rule Bulgarian nationalists. lost all sympathies" This is a quote that Vankovska does from a German historian, Troebst. Hope this helps.--Aldux 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source but Macedonian is: <Кои беа партизаните во Македонија - Никола Петров,Скопје, 1998> [23]- <Who ware the partisans in Macedonia> Nikola Petrov, Skopje 1998. The autor describes the joy of local Bulgarian population, according to the memories of contemporary Macedonian Bulgarians. Jingby 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like we have 3 sources, all for the Bulgarian Macedonians. So I intend to change that sentence to "As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by the Bulgarian Macedonian population as liberators", and add those three sources (since this one sentence caused such a big edit war, using no fewer than 3 sources seems to be called for!). Last call for objections? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(Removing copy-and-paste from http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/bccc_1941/docs1_10.html ) Jingby 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense, Jingby, but that's a lot of text, I hope if it's all right if I just refer to the link. The text seems to basically support the statement. I gather you don't object? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The book "Кои беа партизаните во Македониjа" by Nikola Petrov can also be forund in a purely Macedonian blog in the Republic of Macedonia, which is for the most part anti-Bulgarian: [24] Lantonov 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Changed sentence, added 3 references, thank you all very much for your help. If something is not right,please say. Otherwise, we now return you to your regularly scheduled controversies. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing title

I suggest that we redirect the title to Macedonian antifashist resistance movement or something like that, because the "Macedonian nation" was still not invented; I think that it was created in a monastery in 1945.

The population of Rep. of Macedonia might call it a national liberation war, but it also considers Samuil and Alexander the Macedon as Macedionians... --Gligan 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the move. As you can see from my comments above, I find the title "National Liberation War of Macedonia" misleading in all four words: "national", "liberation", "war", and "Macedonia". Lantonov 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the move as the article (Macedonia) refers to the region. It should be noted that "National Liberation War of Macedonia" is the title of the conflict in every relevant source that has been presented to the article, even sources by Western historians, scholars and academics.
Another section of the article which amounts to ongoing edit wars is in the information box, under combatants, the main entity is "Macedonian Partisans" but this is reverted, mainly by Jingiby or altered to "Yugoslav Partisans (Yugoslavia)". "Yugoslavs" were not an ethnicity, but merely an optional self-entitlement by Croats, Serbs and Slovenes of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. "Yugoslavs" also (literally) means "South Slavs" and therefore cannot be seen as an ethnicity but rather as a title for the occupants of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Another reason why it is highly unnecessary to use "Yugoslavs" is that there was no official form of "Yugoslavia" between 1941 and 1943 (as Vardar Macedonia was annexed by Bulgaria, Bosnia annexed by Croatia and had become and independent state; Independent State of Croatia and Serbia became Nedic's Serbia). I think that Jingiby is also confused with the definition of "Partisan". The article point to Partisan (military) (an unofficial military formation of combatants of any ethnicity) with Partisans (Yugoslavia) a famous group of combatants under Josip Broz Tito who were titled "Yugoslavs" after the formation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Note to AnonEMouse, I think my IP changed again. Regards :) 203.59.118.146 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The same pertains to "Bulgarian Macedonians", as there was no such ethnicity. They are either Bulgarians, Greeks, Vlahs, Albanians, or (very few) Serbs as ethnicities living in the region of Macedonia. You will find this in all serious historic literature of international origin (excluding only some authors from the Republic of Macedonia, and a couple of Serbian historians). Lantonov 13:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain Italian Americans, African Americans, Macedonian Australians etc. 203.59.118.146 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, the Wiki terrorist again :). Hello, Frighty, how's the night down under? Lantonov 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin, Lantonov just called me a terrorist. :) 203.59.118.146 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just kidding. You do not seem to have a sense of humor. Lantonov 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, I have a hell of a sense of humor ;) but I consider it odd that you can get away with trolling. 203.59.118.146 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, "trolls with an abducted princess". I want to be one of them :). Lantonov 13:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt. Personal attacks on all side. Can we get back to content, please? We were doing very well just a few sentences ago. Everybody smile nicely, and go back to discussing World War II. No fighting -- we've got a war to discuss! :-)--AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian or Yugoslav partisans

Yes, back to the discussion. I think I have made my point, I haven't witnessed any hostility towards the "Macedonian Partisans" bit except for a few exceptional edits, mainly from the same users, but I am sure everyone will agree with me that there is no real problem with Macedonian Partisans rather than Yugoslav Partisans. If there are objections, please feel free to clarify. 203.59.118.146 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to get personal. Only trying to liven up the oppressive situation in which a banned user tries to occupy the whole floor of discussion enjoying his unpunishability. Lantonov 14:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection is that there were not Macedonians as a nation. As one of the Macedonian sources says (Nikola Petrov): The partisans were Serbs, Vlahs, Montenegrans, Albanians, Tsintsars (Greek-speaking) but there was not one Macedonian. Lantonov 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So now Macedonian sources are credible eh? What credibility does that source have in historical context? 203.217.3.175 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In historical context, immense credibility. If we cite all sources back to 7th century, it will fit and corroborate nicely. Lantonov 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A Google search of this "Никола Петров" only shows citing of his works on pro-Bulgarian/anti-Macedonian websites, mostly on blogs. The search also reveals several historic Bulgarian figures with the same name. 203.217.3.175 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


What we normally do in these cases is see what the most common name is for the subject. Whether or not it's technically correct is secondary. Whether a specific source is biased or not isn't as important as the fact that it's only one source. Find lots. What do newspaper articles call this conflict? What do history books call this conflict? The relevant guideline is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions, or WP:TITLE. If you want to show that a different name is more common, give a list of history books and articles that use a more common name. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See above, that this is exactly what I did. The biggest surprise for me was that I found this book several times in extremely anti-Bulgarian Macedonian blogs. I searched with "Никола Петров партизаните беа" Lantonov 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The article also states massacres of ethnic Macedonians, yet that is denied and contributions mentioning genocide are reverted. 203.217.3.175 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement from Perth is simply not true. Here is a copy and paste from the article: "During the WWII Bulgarian army was involved in some war crimes. The execution of 12 young males and 4 females, most of them members of CPY by fascist Bulgarian soldiers is one of the most controversial events of World War II among ethnic Macedonians. The massacre, which took place on June 16, 1943, engaged 16 members of the Communist Party of Vataša, a village near Kavadarci. The Bulgarian Army was scouting ethnic Macedonian partisans and raided all the houses in the village. Without any success of pursuing the partisans, members of the Bulgarian Army captured the 12 men and interrogated them, demanding them to reveal the whereabouts of the partisans. After the unsuccessful interrogation, the men were beaten and shot by the Bulgarian soldiers. A group of females witnessed the executions, several of them were sisters of the male victims and escaped but 4 of them were also killed by the army". This stayed and was not reverted because it is supported by a couple of Macedonian sources.Lantonov 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable policy as long as sources are proportionate. In the zillions of communist books printed in former Yugoslavia, this conflict may be called National Liberation War but this does not mean that this is the absolute truth. Lantonov 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This website discussing Macedonia and the ideology of a Greater Albania during World War II mentions the Kosovo-Macedonian Brigade, which is also mentioned in the article:
“ Kicevo was held by Petar Brajovic who commanded the partisan First Kosovo-Macedonian Brigade. ”

The website then says:

“ These units fought against Macedonian and Kosovo partisan forces. ”

Indicating there were Macedonian partisans present during the conflict, even thought the brigade was a joint Serbian/Macedonian formation. 203.217.3.175 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Memories of a Macedonian Partisan Commander for the Members of the British SOE Mission in Macedonia, November 1943-May 1944 - BBC. 203.217.3.175 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct in 1943 it was Macedonian National Liberation Army and before 1943 the partisans in West Bulgaria ware Yugoslav and predominantly Serbians! Jingby 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, lets put things clear: nobody wants you here, and as a banned editor you are not entitled to expose your opinions on this talk page. If you insist, I will find myself forced to semiprotect this talk page, even if I'm reluctant to take such a course of action on a talk page.--Aldux 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Aldux, I'm making a personal request that you give him a chance. He is trying to be civil. If he can't handle it, we will protect the page, but so far he is making a fair go of it. Surely, as an administrator, you can be at least equally civil. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Anon, Frightner is not a legitimate editor, as he has been subjected to indefinite block after his case was presented to the WP:AN/I. This means that he cannot make any legitimate edits, and that those made by him can be reverted on sight. And please remember this: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". I'll let his edits on this talk stand, as a favour to you, but I can't accept that he edits any article. Obviously, if you want you can remove Frigtner's ban: I would disagree, but I wouldn't try to reenstate it.--Aldux 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support Frightner staying here as long as he is civil. To be honest, I missed him in the past two weeks. There was not a fair representation of the Macedonist point of view while we have to reach some consensus. The truth is grey, not black or white. Lantonov 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. Carry on. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I must admit also that I feel there's a problem of equilibrium: I myself started posting here mainly to present a non-exclusively Bulgarian pov, with the hope of enriching a bit the debate. But the problem remains: we can't close our eyes to Frightner's ban, and to the rules that govern wikipedia. Probably we should try to find other editors willing to participate to the debate who have some knowledge of Balkans-related issues.--Aldux 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ... Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.. The first rule of Wikipedia is: If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it.. That said, you'll notice I'm not unblocking User:Frightner just yet. Let's take this one step at a time, and see how this works. If it works, we will have more balanced, useful content, one more valuable contributor, all that good stuff. If it doesn't, we'll go back to the block war. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exuse my, I prefer the former title, - Occupation of Vardar Banovina during World War II ! Jingby 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid I can't agree with this: only a part of Vardar Banovina was occupied by the Bulgarians, and anyways it would give serious problems with WP:NAME, as hardly anybody knows what Vardar Banovina stands for when you exclude ex-Yugoslav and Bulgarian readers. As this is clearly part of the wider Yugoslav People's Liberation War article, I'd propose Yugoslav People's Liberation War (Macedonia).--Aldux 19:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Yugoslav People's Liberation War(Macedonia) is more acceptable than National Liberation War of Macedonia because it bypasses the contentious issue of nationality. However, other issues still remain. Yugoslavia, as created in 1929, was a mosaic of nationalities, most with a history of warring among them. When we say liberation war, we must clear the question of who liberated whom and from whom. This is not easy at all. As we see, some call it "occupation" and other call it "liberation". There is even a book with this name: "Occupation" or "liberation" of Macedonia. As we see above, debates on this question took place in the parliament of Republic of Macedonia. There are debates on this in Bulgaria, too. I doubt that there ever be consensus on this. For instance, in 1944-1945, the Bulgarian Army under the Bulgarian Communist Party repulsed German troops and occupied the most part of Macedonia and Serbia. In all communist history books that they obliged me to study, this was called "liberation". Was it? I don't know. This goes not only for Macedonia. Croatia, for instance, during most of WWII was a "free" state, liberated from Serbian domination. After the war, it was again reoccupied and included in Yugoslavia. The same, only more complicated, because of the Bulagrian ethnicity of the people, goes for Macedonia. Throw in this the fact that most of the fighting was on ideological (communist against fascist) grounds rather than on nationalistic grounds ("proletarians of all countries, unite!"), and the mess becomes complete. Lantonov 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Macedonia" has nothing to do with nationality within this article, "Macedonia" in the title is a geographic term (example National Liberation Army (Macedonia) and 2001 Macedonia conflict. The Macedonian partisans were fighting to unite the entire region of Macedonia i.e. Vardar Banovina, Greek Macedonia and the Blagoevgrad Province (considered Macedonism). So the title must remain "National Liberation War of Macedonia" as it concerned the entire geographic region of Macedonia (the article states partisan detachments in Kosturia and the Blagoevgrad Province). The article does not talk about occupation of Vardar Macedonia specifically this is a POV ideology to only include information about the Bulgarian Army. This article also falls under the categories of German, Italian and Albanian history of WWII. 124.168.69.127 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is so, that is, the various struggles that took place in the region of Macedonia during WWII, were united by only one aim, that is, liberation of the region of Macedonia by all other ethnicities, and creating an independent national state, called Macedonia, populated exclusively by Macedonian nationals, you must prove with independent sources that this is so. As sources cited here say, in Vardar Macedonia, the struggle was to include it in Bulgaria or in Yugoslavia, in Pirin Macedonia the struggle had no national agenda, and it was purely on ideological grounds (Bulgarian communists against Bulgarian fascist), and in Aegean Macedonia the anti-fascist struggle was waged mostly by Greek partisans against German and Bulgarian forces for this region to remain part of Greece, while ethnic Bulgarians there (whom you prefer calling Slavs) fought on the side of fascist forces (as Ohrana detachments) to include this region in Bulgaria. So the question remains: who liberates whom from whom? For more details, see "Aim of the "Liberation" war" above. Lantonov 09:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have stated multiple times what this article is about, please do not make it out to be something totally unrelated. For example, you say that only Bulgarian communists were fighting against Bulgarian fascists, if that is the case, they are irrelevant to the article and only ethnic Macedonian partisans who fought for an irredentist goal (to unite Pirin with Vardar) are to be mentioned in the article, that is the whole idea of "National Liberation War of Macedonia". I'm not denying that it was a war based on nationalistic ideologies, but anything else concerning Bulgarians and Greeks in the same time period, possibly within the region is not related, only people who fought to liberate and unite Macedonia (irredentism) are relevant to the article. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, if you don't, we can discuss further. Regards :) 203.59.118.146 10:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to include only MACEDONIAN partisans fighting exclusively for the independence of Macedonia, why do you complain of excluding most of the region from the article? There were no "Macedonian" partisans in Gorna Dzhumaya okoliya (now Blagoevgrad Province), and the partisans fighting there fought exclusively for deposing the fascist government and replacing it with communist dictatorship, both Bulgarian. In Aegean Macedonia, the only partisans who may have fought for independent Macedonia are some individual members of the Ohrana detachments (lack of sources for this, however, maybe you will find some and we will discuss them) who fought against Greek partisans. In Vardar Macedonia, itself, as sources says, partisans were Serbs, Montenegrans, Albanians, Vlahs, Tsintsars, but very few Macedonians and the aim of this movement was for inclusion of Vardar Macedonia in Yugoslavia, not for independent Macedonia. Lantonov 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That claim is POV, there is evidence, even images that prove the existence of Macedonian partisans in all regions. 203.59.118.146 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are evidences, even images that proves the existence of pro-Bulgarian partisans in all regions of Macedonia, too! There are evidences, that proves the existence of pro - Albanian, pro - Greek, pro - Yugoslav and pro - Serbian partisans in some parts of the region. Jingby 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... Just as I said, they are unrelated to the article as they did not fight for or against the liberation of the regions of Macedonia to ultimately unite them. Please refrain from enforcing POV comments that supposedly indicate there was no Macedonian ethnicity (POV) and that the Macedonian population met the Bulgarians as liberators (also POV). The latter has been disproven, and claims that there were no ethnic Macedonian partisans who fought in regions of Macedonia, respectively, will also be disproven as it is POV and propaganda. I hope you do not take offense to this comment as most of the ideas you have presented are featured in the anti-Macedonian propaganda book The Ten Lies of Macedonism. Regards. 203.59.118.146 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the Macedonian population met the Bulgarians as liberators (also POV). The latter has been disproven ...". It is good to read what other people write in this page. As we agreed just a little above, there are at least 3 reliable sources that say exactly this:"The population of Vardar Macedonia met Bulgarians as liberators". So where is the disproval? Lantonov 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. AnonEMouse has reviewed the sources and concluded that the sources states only that the Bulgarian population of Macedonia met them as liberators, which is why he changed the text of the article to comply with the sources not with user's interpretations of them. 203.59.118.146 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"... POV, there is evidence, even images that prove the existence of Macedonian partisans in all regions..." Still waiting to see this. Lantonov 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"... the anti-Macedonian propaganda book The Ten Lies of Macedonism. " Everything that does not agree with the Macedonist view is propaganda. We know this too well. No matter that the book is written by the eminent historian Prof. Bozhidar Dimitrov, with over a 100 internationally recognised works, and Director of the Bulgarian National History Museum.Lantonov 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not everything, only Bulgarian and Greek works that do "not agree with the Macedonianist view" are less considerable than (for example) if a German, English or French (etc) historian wrote them, as they would be more neutral. 203.59.118.146 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

Compromise, folks, think compromise. I notice the protection on the page has expired, and someone has already taken the opportunity to change "Macedonians (ethnic group) partisans" to "Yugoslav partisans" in a few places, while this debate is still raging here. Can we try to settle the debate here first, please? I have a suggestion that hopefully will be acceptable to both "sides" - not ideal, presumably, but acceptable. I suggest "Macedonian partisans", meaning partisans from the Macedonian region of Yugoslavia, whatever their ethnicity. Presumably that is more correct than either

  • Macedonians (ethnic group) partisans, since presumably a significant number of people from all ethnic groups in Macedonia participated, and
  • Yugoslav partisans, since that implies that partisans from all areas of Yugoslavia participated, and frankly, I doubt that too many people from Croatia or Slovenia made their way south to Macedonia to be partisans here instead of in their own homelands.

Acceptable? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the most partisans in 1941-42, around 200-300 people ware Serbians from Vardar Banovina, they ware Partisans (Yugoslavia). Later in 1943 with the creation of Macedonian National Liberation Army and Macedonian Communist Party the status quo was chanched! Beacause of thise facts I think that the communist allies ware at the beginning Yugoslav partisans and later figters from Macedonian National Liberation Army. Jingby 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that most correct is 'partisans from the region of Macedonia', however long and awkward is this phrase. It does not refer to nationality of those partisans. Saying "Macedonian partisans", moreover, partisans who fight for a "national liberation" means that some Macedonian nationality wages a war to free itself from some foreign occupation, which directly supports the Macedonist view which, as we saw from ample sources, is not even supported inside Yugoslavia. The partisans who fought during this time were various nationalities: in Bulgarian part of Macedonia they were Bulgarians (of course, here and there, a Jew, an Armenian, a Greek and so on for minorities in Bulgaria); in the Greek part of Macedonia, partisans who fought against Germans and Bulgarians were of Greek nationality, partisans who fought against Greek partisans were Bulgarian nationality; in the Yugoslav part of Macedonia most partisans were of Serbian nationality, followed by Montenegrans, Albanians, Vlahs, Tsintsars, and Bulgarians (the latter fighting on ideological grounds: communists against fascists). If we want to include in the article only the Yugoslavian part of Macedonia (as we see from the discussion, the author of this article strongly opposes to this as this defeats his stated aim), then it is better to speak of Yugoslavian partisans meaning the medley of nationalities living in Yugoslavia, and remove from the article the map of the whole region of Macedonia, which includes parts of Bulgaria and Greece, and the map of all territories, occupied by Bulgaria, as misleading and irrelevant to the subject. If we must include a map then, it will be only of the Yugoslavian part (Vardar Macedonia, Yugoslav Macedonia, or whatever neutral name). This will be historically more correct because this region (let's say, Vardar Macedonia) was a part of Yugoslavia before WWII and remained part of Yugoslavia also after WWII. In the technical military sense, the region was occupied mostly by the Bulgarian Army in the beginning of the war, after September 1944 it was occupied mostly by retreating from Greece German troops, and liberated primarily by the Bulgarian Army who fought against the Germans with some help of the Yugoslavian partisans and then returned to Yugoslavia. User:Lantonov|Lantonov]] 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you did not understand, on the many occasions, when I stated that "Macedonia" in the title of the article refers to the whole region of Macedonia, otherwise, I would have said "Vardar Macedonia" etc, as I am a neutral editor. On another point, I would settle with "Yugoslav Macedonian partisans" and have it disambiguated to Partisans (Yugoslavia). 203.59.172.94 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That also seems a reasonable compromise. Lantonov, Jingiby? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point your attention on the latest edits of Frightner here. Please look at them one by one and do not revert the whole. I find most of them acceptable and improving the quality of the article. Lantonov 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. I did not remove any information, just cleared up some faults. I am pretty satisfied with the article now as most of the issues have been addressed and corrected. The only thing left is the whole "Partisans" deal, I suggest that it becomes "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" and points to "Partisans (Yugoslavia)" ie. Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. What do you think? 203.59.172.94 11:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. "Ethnic Macedonian" in this article still jarrs on my nerves but it should be ok as long as Macedonians (ethnic group) is written well (I don't have time and nerves to look in that one and hope for the better) Lantonov 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great :-D. It is settled then. Yugoslav Partisans will become Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. Any objections? 203.59.172.94 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian or Bulgarian ethnicity

"... there was no Macedonian ethnicity (POV)..." Whose POV is that? Maybe of Siegfried Jakoby, secretary to Einstein, who in an article 'Macedonia - What I Saw There' (1927) writes:

"Macedonia is a country populated by pure Bulgarians; the Serbs there now are only settlers and colonists. The Macedonian Bulgarians are by no means an amorphous half-savage mass living there by chance but are pure Bulgarians, with a national consciousness created long ago, who, for almost a century, have been fighting - cut off from Bulgaria - for their political and spiritual freedom. And during the years after the War it is possible to see in Macedonia how valorously the Macedonian Bulgarians there are fighting for their sacred rights. The Macedonian Bulgarians are fighting with an idealism without parallel, and whoever calls these militants 'brigands' and 'gangsters', is a deliberate liar and a schemer. ... The centre of Macedonia are the districts of Ohrid, Prilep, Prespa, Moglena, Ostrovo, Kostour, Veles, Skopje, Voden, Melnik. There the popula­tion is pure Bulgarian - not only the language, but the entire spiritual life is Bulgarian. In these places I spoke with hundreds of peasants, workers and in­telligentsia and all immediately assured me that they were Bulgarians and that they wished to be Bulgarians in their own land. All over Macedonia I was able to see that the population is peaceloving and very weary from the recent wars; but they told me - we shall have to take to arms again because we are being tortured and are not left in peace. The Macedonians are Bulgarians and their duty is to work for the liberation of this land, it is their duty to their children." Lantonov 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And the source is? I would like to see (just once) a Western academic that shares the same views as Bulgarian nationalists (of that time). 203.59.118.146 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that every attempt at resolving a particular issue it turned into an ethnic debate? 203.59.118.146 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of Macedonist attempts to falsify history. Lantonov 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me which ethnicities have objected to the contents of the article. 203.59.118.146 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Western academic views? Readily - Mahon, M.1998., The Macedonian Question in Bulgaria, Nations and Nationalism,4(3):389-407. From the abstract: "The Bulgarian denouncement is based on the strong sense of loss of the territory, history and language which it shared with Macedonia in the past." So, we shared language, and history, and territory. Lantonov 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The ethnicities whose national identity and history is offended by it: Bulgarians and Greeks. Lantonov 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And Macedonians are not offended by POV pushers who enforce personal views and propaganda on many Macedonia related articles? 203.59.118.146 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Mr. Francis Tyers' comment on an edit made by Jingiby:

“ Kronsteiner has been described as "the only Western linguist still subscribing to the view that 'Macedonian is Bulgarian'", he's pretty much laughed at outside of Bulgarian circles. ”

203.59.118.146 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask who laughs at Prof. Otto Kronsteiner? Lantonov 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at whoever wrote the comment and ask them. I doubt you read all of anything I write. 203.59.118.146 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, Macedonian is not Bulgarian since 1945 by political reasons, as the Macedonians are not Bulgarians since then. Jingby 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Me and Lantonov will discuss the article responsibly (as it should be) because despite our different points of view are trying to resolve remaining issues instead of making accusations. 203.59.118.146 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Serbians in Macedonia might be offended by reading the harsh truth disproving their propaganda, but real Macedonians (that is, the majority of Slav population living in this region) have nothing to be offended or ashamed about. We have a great common history. As the Macedonian Paisiy Hilendarski born in Bansko, Pirin Macedonia, writes in 1786: "Поради что ти, о неразумний юроде, се срамиш да се назовеш българин?" Oh, sorry, maybe he was a POV pusher, too. Lantonov 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please translate this? I cannot understand Bulgarian well. 203.59.118.146 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In case that you really do not understand this (I doubt it, but it might be true if you have lived in Australia too long), it says: "Why do you, unreasonable man, are ashamed to call yourself Bulgarian?" I, for myself, also do not understand this. No irony intended. Lantonov 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Frightner: I would like to see (just once) a Western academic that shares the same views as Bulgarian nationalists (of that time)." OK, here is another academic definitely non-Bulgarian view: Macedonia from S. S. Cyril and Methodius to Horace Lunt and Blazhe Koneski:Language and Nationality (Prof. James F. Clarke, The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History, edited by Dennis P. Hupchick, Boulder: East European Monographs; New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1988. ISBN 0880331496 ) Lantonov 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused now, are you being sarcastic in most of your replies? Sounds like it. 203.59.118.146 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Frigtner, Iam going to make easier your problem with the proves. The most of the fundaments about the creation of macedonian nation and language are here: The Resolution of the Comintern on the Macedonian Nation and the Macedonian Language (1934). [25]Jingby 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1934? And that is relevant to the article how? Because I am trying to remain civil, I am going to ignore your anti-Macedonian agenda at all cost and for that matter will not respond to you at all. I figure that it will help me continue with the resolution of the remaining disputes in a civil manner, so it is best if you just leave me alone, your edits are mostly the reason I became aggravated and disruptive to begin with. 203.59.118.146 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be sarcastic, sorry if you take it like this. I want to quote just a little from the book of Prof. Clarke (ISBN 0880331496):

"The new Macedonian state and language in particular required historical rationalization to justify their separatism. But the discouraging fact was that there was virtually no Macedonian "state" history, as such. Consequently the Skopje scholars have found it necessary to rewrite Balkan history at least as far back as Cyril and Methodius to make room for Macedonia. ... Because the history of Macedonia has hitherto inevitably been written mostly in terms of Bulgaria, Macedonian historians are finding it necessary to deprive Bulgarians of some of their history, for example, St. Clement, chief disciple of Cyril and Methodius, whose anniversary on Ohrid in 1966 was celebrated as a Macedonian affair. Another example is the Bogomils, whom the Macedonians have adopted as their very own national movement. On some of these points Macedonians have trouble convincing even their fellow Yugoslavs. ... For Macedonians to deny their Bulgarian heritage is like Peter denying Christ. But Peter repented! You are familiar, I am sure, with all the distortions and denials of Bulgarian history, literature, and culture, as related to Macedonia eminating from Skopje." There is many more more than can be quoted but this is enough, because this section became too long. So if you are offended by truths found in historical sources, then what to speak about us when we read falsifications of our history? Lantonov 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, maybe if you can rephrase it... Anyways, what is this, are we even discussing the article or what? Seems like all you are trying to do is enforce some ideology about Macedonians being Bulgarian. 203.59.118.146 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems just the opposite, you are trying to enforce some fringe theory about Bulgarians being Macedonians. And you made the whole article just about this: to represent Bulgarians as a foreign occupator waging a war on some Macedonian ethnicity which exists only in the heads of a few Skopje historians. We in Bulgaria find this abusive and false, a blatant falsification of our history, and support why this is so with multitude of sources. You denying those sources and calling them nationalistic Bulgarian POV and propaganda, and accusing us of having a hidden nationalistic agenda, is pouring abuse upon abuse. Lantonov 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm, please, calm. We need to be able to talk about sources without offending editors, or we'll never get anything done. Please, folks, try a bit harder both not to offend, and also not to take offense. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the key to the problem: "...It was not until the second half of the 1940s, when the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito established the Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - thereby elevating the Macedonian people to the status of nation - that it seemed as if the Macedonian Question had been resolved. Under the leadership of Tito, and with the blessing of Joseph Stalin, the Yugoslav political elite aimed at solving the national зroblems ‘under the slogan of “Brotherhood and Unity”, and the Macedonians were recognised for the first time as a separate nation...’ (Poulton 2000: 125)

And even so - "...With the founding of the Yugoslav Macedonian republic a sense of a Macedonian national identity gained strength and became systematised. Under Yugoslav rule, and mainly directed from Belgrade, a Macedonian language was codified, an autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox Church was established, and academics developed a “usable past” and projected Macedonian national feeling far into history, for example by converting the medieval Bulgarian Empire of Tsar Samuil into a Macedonian one and even claiming a link to Alexander the Great.’(Bell 1998:193)Jingby 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the ethnic Macedonian partisan detachments in Greek Macedonia and so forth, how can they be considered Yugoslav Partisans? 203.59.172.94 09:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby himself included the sentence "Macedonian partisans, which not only included ethnic Macedonians, but also local Aromanians, Serbs, Albanians, Jews and [Bulgarians]]" taken, apparently, from a pro-Bulgarian source. Yet now he is denying this very claim. 203.59.172.94 10:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your methods of arguing are indeed very interesting. You want sources and when Lantonov and Jingiby find them, you inevitably qualify them as pro-Bulgarian and pushing Bulgarian POV; so what is a neutral POV, the Macedonian??? Please respect their efforts, they are at least trying to find something. Can you find a source for Macedonian nation and Macedonian language from before 1945 when these were invented? And don't make me laugh with presenting Yugoslav and Serbian sources. Or perhaps these are the only neutral ones, because it is written what you want to hear? --Gligan 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I only dismiss websites such as Kroraina.com and Macedoniainfo.com as Bulgarian POV. You, yourself, cannot read articles on these websites and think that they are not anti-Macedonian in a sense. 203.59.172.94 10:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point your attention on the latest edits of Frightner here. Please look at them one by one and do not revert the whole. I find most of them acceptable and improving the quality of the article. Lantonov 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. I did not remove any information, just cleared up some faults. I am pretty satisfied with the article now as most of the issues have been addressed and corrected. The only thing left is the whole "Partisans" deal, I suggest that it becomes "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" and points to "Partisans (Yugoslavia)" ie. Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. What do you think? 203.59.172.94 11:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. "Ethnic Macedonian" in this article still jarrs on my nerves but it should be ok as long as Macedonians (ethnic group) is written well (I don't have time and nerves to look in that one and hope for the better) Lantonov 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great :-D. It is settled then. Yugoslav Partisans will become Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. Any objections? 203.59.172.94 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The change was a good move. If you have a look at this link on vojska.net, Macedonian brigades of the Macedonian National Liberation Army are included in the list of "Brigades of Yugoslav partisans". I also consulted a relative and they too said that the Macedonian National Liberation Army were considered Yugoslav partisans. So therefore, my assumption is that all ethnicities of Tito's Yugoslavia which fought battles within the borders of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (even after having split up), respectively, were considered Yugoslav partisans, which is why the distinction between the ethnicities of Yugoslav Partisans is necessary. Like you said Lantonov, it is unlikely that Yugoslav Bosnian/Croatian/Slovene Partisans fought in the Macedonia. :) 203.59.172.94 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jingiby removing the following links?:

Why is it only necessary that Military history of Bulgaria during World War II remains? 203.59.172.94 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop cunning!Military history of Albania during World War II is here too! Jingby 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Stop cunning"? I'm not sure that makes any sense. A Wikipedia administrator told you himself that your removal of the links stated above was a POV edit. Also, Albanian involvement in the war is mentioned nowhere in the article. 203.59.172.94 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiThanks

Thanks folks, for mostly discussing things reasonably and politely. Please keep it up. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

I hope I didn't speak too soon. I see there is another conflict in editing rather than discussion. Let's take a look: I assume this edit, with the ominous "new edit war" comment is a reasonable picture of the disagreement? Let's discuss the differences one at a time. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. place=parts of Macedonia (approximately south-west Greater Bulgaria) or (approximately Greater Bulgaria) -- seems clear that this part of the war didn't extend to north or east Greater Bulgaria - the MNLA didn't roll into Sofia, did it?
  2. result=Inconclusive, small areas liberated or result=Inconclusive -- splitting hairs. If you can find a reference that says small areas were more or less continuously liberated, cite it, otherwise Inconclusive seems a fair default.
  3. combatant1=...Macedonian National Liberation Army or combatant1=... (Macedonian National Liberation Army) -- a matter of parentheses! Seems to imply the MNLA were somehow less important than the others, not good.
  4. casualties list -- breaking into casualties1, casualties2, casualties 3 seems to imply that the Albanians were on the side of the Axis, which, from what little I know of the war, was not correct. In fact, I don't like either option, it seems the casualties are only listed on the Allied side. Surely there were Axis casualties?
  5. Placement of images -- eh. Apparently only a difference of taste, or is there something I'm missing?
  6. "See also" -- 3 columns or 2 columns, and ordering. Again, a difference of taste.

That's it? This is nothing to write home about, folks. A couple of obvious minor changes, and a couple of differences of taste. Please, don't revert, or talk about "edit war", over trivialities like this. I'm going to make a request here: don't make reverts except for vandalism. If someone makes a change, assume it's for the better. If some parts aren't right, edit it further, trying to keep the spirit of the change, but don't go back to a prior version before the change, keep moving forward, don't go back. If you disagree with a change completely, talk it through here, see if you can get agreement to changing it back. Surely we can talk over whether images should be two inches up or two inches down without fighting over it. Please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Jingiby intented only to revert this edit but without first reviewing the edits following that one, reverted the article anyway. I do not know why he would want to place the images in different places of the a article and resize them, especially the one of Greater Bulgaria. At the moment all of my edits are to enhance the state and look of the article, I have not contributed or deleted any information, only fixed grammar or changed wording so that the article is of a professional standard :) 203.59.172.94 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. OK, then, state your case for where the images should be, and Jingiby will state his, hopefully you can work something out. But, please, keep a sense of perspective. This should not be a big deal, two inches up or down is not going to kill anyone. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
My argument is as follows:
  1. The war was contained within the Macedonian region and not outside.
  2. Here, here and here.
  3. MNLA was the Macedonian division of the Yugoslav Partisans [26].
  4. Here, here and here.
  5. The images should be laid out like this.
  6. The amount or order of the columns is not that important, the 1st column was Macedonia related, the 2nd was Yugoslavia related and the 3rd; other.

Regards. 203.59.172.94 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is pure bull****! Its clearly anti-Yugoslav and anti-partisan propaganda. Notice how the Bulgarian crimes are made small compared by the Yugoslav ones. And Bulgarians have always called Macedonia and its people their own, which is not true. Whoever made this article should be ashamed of himself! Bulgarians were not "passively" on the side of the axis, they used their alliance with the Germans to attack Serbia, which is not mentioned here. They made many atrocities against the Serbian, as well as Macedonian population during the WW2. Yet nobody seems to see the truth about their own side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.68.149 (talk) 22:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The message above is example of the trolling and trying to instigate an edit war. Notice the extreme Serbian POV in it. Bulgarian crimes! What are those? - Sources? Attack Serbia? Just the opposite. Serbia attacked Bulgaria, killing people - given facts with sources in the article. Attrocities against Serbian - naked emotions without any support, and so on. Now I regret giving a chance to Frightner, he didn't deserve this - look here - - Поздрав брате. Ако сакаш да видиш Бугарски POV погледни ја оваа страница, National Liberation War of Macedonia. Сите Бугари што учествуваат тука, користет анти-Македонски сајтови како promacedonia.org и macedoniainfo.com. Ќе видиш дека јас учествувам со NPOV [1]. Мојето корисничко име беше Frightner ама ме блокираја дека им пцуев на некој Грци и Бугари што ја вандализираја страницата. 124.168.105.254 19:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC) - - Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:INkubusse" - - resulting in this on my talk page: - - I belive I read that on your user page, so here it is: leave us alone you inhuman animals! We are human beings just like the rest of the people of the world and we deserve life! Think about what I said! Regards, INkubusse 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. ARRRGHHH, God knows! - - Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lantonov" - - What I get is personal attacks for being good. - - Answer: I won't leave you alone to steal from our Bulgarian history and culture. You should be ashamed of yourself for desecrating the memory of your ancestors who paid with their blood the honour of the Bulgarian name. You are people without honour who spit on the face of your fatherland. Lantonov 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) - - "The war was contained within the Macedonian region and not outside." Then why a picture of "Greater Bulgaria" and another with parts of Bulgaria and Greece is included? Is this a fight ("National Liberation War") for "Greater Macedonia". With everything that Frightner does, it appears that he wants to convince us (and also himself) that this is so. That historical facts speak something else is not my fault, and thus your personal attacks are misdirected. Better blame it on your biased history textbooks. Lantonov 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to attract attentions to the admins to the above, which was deleted by Frigther immediately after he saw it. Also more personal attacks on my talk pgae by him. Above we agreed to allow him on the talk page (not on the article itself) as long as he is being civil. I think he showed he can't be such. Lantonov 11:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to be right. :-(. I'll semi-protect your user and talk pages, tell me if you want them unprotected. Thanks for trying. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Frightner evading his ban

If you see a IP address you suspect might be Frightner (203.59.*.*), you can add it to this list and undo all of the edits of that user. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy he is no longer allowed to edit in any way, including talk pages and so on. Then you can let either User:AnonEMouse or User:Neil who are admins and are aware of the case. Thanks. Jingby 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this are absolutely not acceptable. I will semi-protect this article and talk page for a time, so IPs and new editors can not edit them. If the protection expires and the vandalism resumes, please drop a note on my talk page with diffs, and I will restore the protection. :-( --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All quiet here now. I re-read carefully the article, and the overall impression is satisfacory, although it makes a rather bumpy reading with strange turns in phrase at places. This is mostly due to frequent deletions and reshuffles. A style and grammar check, structuring, and semantical sentence reordering would do good here. Lantonov 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Dear fellow Wikipedians. I've just included several photographs that are directly connected with National Liberation War of Macedonia. The photographs are released by the Archives of Macedonia, and are copyright free. Every erasing of these photos is an act of vandalization. Thank you in advance. Regards. Revizionist 10:37, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree with the proposal

Yes I agree that "Yugoslav partisans" is an inappropriate term. The partisans operating in Vardar Macedonia were ethnic Macedonians, Aromanians, some Turks, Serbs and Albanians. The appropriate word would be Macedonian partisans (Vardar Macedonia) or just ethnic Macedonian partisans. And one more thing, 90% of them were fighting for an independent Macedonia. Not until Kolishevski's arrival did they adopted the "Macedonia as a part of Yugoslavia principle". Revizionist 10:25, 05 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced map and images

I replaced this map, because it is unrelated with the chapter -Early stages of conflict. Jingby 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I removed some deleted, not active images. Jingby 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1944 and aftermath-PERSECUTION of the BULGARIAN IDENTITY

The new policy really meant the denationalization of the Macedonians(or the creation of a new macedonian identity After WWII many intellectuals who opposed the denationalizational policy of Yugoslavia were perscecuted and sent to prison. The first trials started in May 28,1945 In Skopje alone 18 trials were conducted against Bulgarians.Of the 226 accused 22 were sentenced to death and the others to long prison years in prison Similar trials took place elsewhere in Yugoslavia

In September 1945 a Macedonian organization the Democratic Front Ilinden 1903 sent a lengthy letter to the wartime allied governments After cataloguing the sufferings of Bulgarians in Macedonia,it stated that without a free Macedonia there will not be peace in the Balkans. The group was accused by the Tito governments of terrorist activities and its leaders were sentenced by the Yugoslavs to long time prison terms

Around the end of 1945 the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization IMRO was reorganized and began an illegal struggle

In 1946 IMRO issued a Memorandum to the Great Powers, expressing again the sufferings of the Bulgarian population in Yugoslav Macedonia.

The leaders were arrested but were defended by the Communist prime minister of Macedonia

Though a Communist,Chento also felt himself a Bulgarian.He was sentenced to 12 years and the delegation from the great powers was not allowed to meet him

Under the influence of IMRO many pro-bulgarian organizations arose.Trial after trial followed in Yugoslav Macedonia.

From 1944 to 1980, 700 political trials were conducted against intellectuals. Hundreds of death sentences were handed down and 23.000 individuals were disappeared and are presumed to have been murdered.

Another 120.000 spent time in prisons and concentration camps.Approximately 180.000 emigrated to Bulgaria,USA,Canada and Australia

All of this occured in a population within an area whose population numbered only around two millions in 1990


Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook [27]

[edit] Macedonian language mentioning in the article

Actually there was no Macedonian literary language at the time. Purely linguistically the dialects of the local slavic population were considered Bulgarian and between the World Wars - Serbian by the current administration. Macedonian language is codified later. --Laveol T 09:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaotic page-move history; history merge

Oh dear, what a chaotic page history.

So, Frightner originally created this page under the current title, National Liberation War of Macedonia, on 22 July 07:

  • 12:59, 22 July 2007 Frightner (Talk | contribs | block) (1,319 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Infobox Military Conflict |conflict=National Liberation War of Macedonia |image= |caption= |partof=World War II |place=parts of [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonia...')

Then, between 29 and 31 July, Jingiby wildly moved the page somewhere else:

  • 17:51, 29 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved National Liberation War of Macedonia to Military history of Republic of Macedonia during World War II. ‎ (More precise!)
  • 09:46, 31 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved Military history of Republic of Macedonia during World War II to Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during WWII
  • 09:46, 31 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved Military history of Republic of Macedonia during World War II to Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during WWII.]] ‎ (More precise!)
  • 09:47, 31 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during WWII. to Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II ‎ (SAME)

Then Frightner copy-pasted most of the contents back here, leaving a short skeleton article in the new location (then Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II, currently Military history of the Republic of Macedonia)

  • 12:58, 31 July 2007 Frightner (Talk | contribs | block) (1,513 bytes) (there, now everyone's happy) [28]
  • 12:58, 31 July 2007 Frightner (Talk | contribs | block) (29,335 bytes) (←Created page...) [29]

As a result, all the original page history of this page from between 22 July and 31 July is now stored at the "Military history..." article.

The other page, with this page's original history, was then maintained as a separate article, and in the process underwent even further moves:

Whoever is responsible for this chaos owes me a beer for making me figure this all out.

I think I'll do a history merge, but it's going to be a tricky one. I'll try to move the original history of this page back from the current "Military history..." article into this one. Please stand by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I managed. For the record:

[edit] History merge performed

  • All edits currently stored in this page's history before the edit by Frightner, 12:58, 31 July, are those that were made to this page's first incarnation, which was in the meantime moved and morphed into the current Military history of the Republic of Macedonia article. They were merged back in here today, on 10 October.
  • All edits between 12:58, 31 July, and 10 October 22:40, are those originally made to this page's second incarnation, created by Frightner in a cut-and-paste move and repaired today.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources: Another total mess-up

The sourcing of this article sucks. It's POV-ishness sucks too, but let's just look at the sources for a moment. (Disclaimer: I don't read a word of either Macedonian or Bulgarian, so all my comments regarding the non-English ones are just based on the context they are from and from the overall impression.)

  1. Vladimir Zerjavic - YUGOSLAVIA MANIPULATIONS WITH THE NUMBER OF SECOND WORLD WAR VICTIMS, Publisher:Croatian Information Centre, ISBN 0-919817-32-7 [30]
    • Written by some guy with a heavy Croatian, anti-Serbian agenda, published by a "Croatian Information Center" - no indications as to reliability. If we quote this guy's estimates, we should at least also be quoting the other ones he's arguing against. (Haven't checked if they differ much in those parts that concern us here though).
  2. Siegfried Jakoby, secretary to Einstein: "Macedonia - What I saw there, 1927" (English). Veritas, Macedonia under oppression 1919-1929, Sofia, 1931, pp. 511-512; the original copy is a Bulgarian translation from German. Retrieved on 2007-08-04.
    • A primary source, clearly with a biased perspective, and hosted by an evidently partisan website. We should not be presenting arguments and conclusions (or make insinuations about such) based on primary sources. Only reliable secondary sources count.
  3. Trial of Bulgarians in Bitolya (English). Veritas, Macedonia Under Oppression 1919-1929, Sofia, 1931, pp. 460 464; the original is in Bulgarian. (1931). Retrieved on 2007-08-05.
    • Same as above, possibly even more biased.
  4. Bulgarian army occupation units in Yugoslavia 1941
    • Well, this one seems relatively uncontentious, at a first glance.
  5. "Зборник докумената и података о народоослободплачком рату jугословенских народа", т. VII, кн. 1, Борбе у Македониjи. Београд, 1952, с. XII и 22.
    • Can't say about this one. Is it just a collection of primary documents, or does it contain academic analysis that would actually back up the implicit claims made here? Did anybody actually go and read it, or did you cite it second-hand?
  6. Kurt Haucke-BULGARIEN,Land - Volk - Geschichte - Kultur - Wirtschaft. GAUVERLAG BAYREUTH, 1943 [31]
    • Another primary source, and obviously of the worst kind. A Nazi publication from 1943.
  7. Кои беа партизаните во Македонија Никола Петров, Скопје, 1998
    • Some text by some guy from Skopje, hosted on the website of some guy from Bulgaria. No idea as to its reliability. If the text as such is a decent academic publication, then it is most likely also copyrighted, meaning the Bulgarian website hosting it is a copyvio, so we shouldn't link to it (but could of course still cite the original book)
  8. IMRO Militia And Volunteer Battalions Of Southwestern Macedonia, 1943-1944 by Vic Nicholas
    • A pamphlet written up by some guy in MS Word, hosted on a completely worthless private nationalist website.
  9. OHRID DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR[32]
    • Could serve as a decent source about the modern city, but there's nothing inspiring confidence in its value as a source on history.
  10. ФОРУМ, "КАТАРАКТА", Ефтим Гашев
    • A journalistic text, can't say about the overall quality of the journal it's from, but normally we should be using history books by academic historians to back up such a statement, not some piece of journalism.
  11. World Investment News Macedonia, Historical Events
    • Well, for sourcing a common-knowledge statement such as the date of the liberation, I guess it's sufficient. But it's still a shame we have to rely on something like this instead of decent academic literature.
  12. Unet.com.mk Uprising!
    • An anonymous text about history, on a site that otherwise does something else. Again, for this point it's probably okay, sort of. But why, after months of work on this article, do we not have anything better?
  13. THE EXECUTION OF THE 12 YOUNG MEN FROM VATASA IN MACEDONIA ON THE 16 JUNE, 1943
    • From a polemical nationalist website, definitely not a reliable source.
  14. TODAY IN HISTORY, 1943 Macedonian Information Agency, June 16, 2007
    • Sort of semi-acceptable, but we should be able to do better.
  15. Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски" София-1992[[33]
    • From an obviously partisan book of unknown quality. The statement sourced from it (heavily POV claim) can definitely not stand as a full assertion as undisputed truth, as it now does.
  16. RADIO FREE EUROPE. Research, RAD Background Report/107,(East), 20 June 1984 - BULGARIAN FILM PROVOKES YUGOSLAV ANGER by Slobodan Stankovic [34]
    • Could be a reliable source about its primary subject matter, the 1984 minor ideological squirmish between Yugoslav and Bulgarian agencies over a movie. Worthless as a source about the historical events from 1943.
  17. Goli Otok: the island of death : a diary in letters by Venko Markovski, New York, Columbia University Press, 1984
    • Book is probably okay as a source; presentation in the article needs to be cleansed of POV argumentative style.
  18. Македонската кървава Коледа. Създаване и утвърждаване на Вардарска Македония като Република в Югославска Федерация (1943-1946) Веселин Ангелов, 2003-08-01, ISBN 9548008777 9789548008778
    • Possibly okay as a source for reporting a claim, but certainly not for letting that (heavily POV) claim stand as undisputed truth as it now does.
  19. Новата национално-освободителна борба във Вардарска Македония 1944-1991г. доц. д-р Димитър Гоцев [35](Македонски научен институт, София, 1998г.)
    • Another heavily partisan source of dubious quality; coverage of the incident sourced from it is blown out of all proportion in the article now, with an obvious POV bias.
  20. СТЕНОГРАФСКИ БЕЛЕШКИ Тринаесеттото продолжение на Четиринаесеттата седница на Собранието на Република Македонија, 17 January 2007
    • Another primary source; the whole section this stands in is heavily POV and argumentative without much backup through secondary sources.
  21. КОЈ СО КОГО ЌЕ СЕ ПОМИРУВА - Лидерот на ВМРО-ДПМНЕ и Премиер на Република Македониjа, Љубчо Георгиевски одговара и полемизира на темата за национално помирување.
    • Ditto.

Sorry for being blunt: But this is what you get when a bunch of kids obsessed with cheap nationalist propaganda wars spends all their time googling for "arguments", cherry-picking bits and pieces from whatever junk they can find on the internet, just to bolster up their pet POV issues, instead of spending some time in a university library reading some decent literature. I mean, come on, it's not as if there was no academic coverage (from neutral, preferably outside sources) of the events of WWII in Yugoslavia. Go and read it, then come back and rewrite the article. Forget about those cheap propaganda websites you've lived on.

In the meantime, I'll first {fact}-tag and later probably remove some large chunks of text from this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First I want to admit that I gave in on this particular article after Frightner, lets say, quit. I have to say the Fut Perf is right for most of the stuff. I'll just mark the things about which I disagree or have something to say about. A note about the sites - they might be nationalistic and so on, but the texts published in them are in original (or are a translation of the original). They were added to the sites because they present views similar to the ones desired by the host, but that does not mean that they were written with the same purpose.
  • Siegfried Jakoby's book is not as biased as it seams and is as close to what we seek (it is not a primary source, but it has analysis that surely fit. I've found only extracts of it so far and to confess I'm not willing to invest a lot of time in any search.
  • Oh, just a note about the World Investment News site - it should be more than removed since it has conflicting articles about the different countries.
  • Venko Markovski's book should be OK, too. Moreover he was born in Macedonia after all - and an ethnic Macedonia according to the MK wiki (it turns out I do not disagree with you on that one)
  • Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски" София-1992 is printed by a University press and the author is surely an academician (that's just a note really)

To sum it up - yes the sources are POV at the moment. The problem is that I'm not aware of abny descent Western (as it turns out non-German) literature on the subject. The only other literature is Yugoslavian/ethnic Macedonian and is as POV as this one (if not more). I would agree even on a deletion of the article at this point unfortunately. --Laveol T 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed in this discussion or just the Bulgarians? I say all the OR links have to go, this includes personal web pages, blogs, forums etc. As far as I can see almost all of the Bulgarian sources are from kroraina.com (a personal website which is POV too). This so called "collection of books" are just compilations of history ("books" and as I can tell e-mails and blogs) on Macedonia, written by Bulgarians. Also, the webmaster says that he has translated them from the originals (Bulgarian), so how trustworthy can this be? Also, the other sites that must go (and I will provide a reason); Ohrid.org.mk - not an academic source). Cybermacedonia.com - Personal site/OR (The infomation from this site is also sourced by the Macedonian Infomation Agency site). Geocities.com/mac_truth - POV/Propaganda/Personal site/OR. Bgbooks I think is a legitimate site, it should stay. Sobranie.mk should stay (website of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia).

One other thing, I would like to point out that all of the Macedonian sites are in english exept for the one added by the Bulgarians, yet all the Bulgarian sites are either in Bulgarian or translated from Bulgarian (which can ofcourse be dodgy), so how will you know what the info is going on about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.164.151 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing Bulgarian is not a ground for dubbing sources as POV and deleting academic sources such as the ones published by the Kliment Ohridsky University

of Sofia and the Institute of Macedonian studies. On the other hand, the fact that a source is by an English or American author does not make it automatically reliable as many of the history authors in the West are influenced by what they have read/heard about Balkan matters in the media or are biased in other ways (e.g. their origin). Judging for the sources only from pre-conceptions or from context is also a wrong approach. If you read more from the books that are in the kroraina site, you will see in them facts and circumstances that show violent or unkind acts also from some Bulgarians, or bad and dumb political decisions from the Bulgarian fascist or communist governments during the war. Therefore, that same sources can be used to support also some of the Macedonists arguments which shows that the sources are objective and not biased. Most of the books listed in this site are published on paper, and the fact that afterwards they are included in a blog made by a Bulgarian history buff does not make the books biased.Lantonov 05:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But how many of the Macedonian (English) sources were published in Macedonia? Quite a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.207.94 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, they are Bulgarian "historians" writing about Macedonian history as they see it, same with "Ten Lies of Macedonism" and yet the author is considered a historian? When then do people criticize Donski? Are they really tha different? And as I have said in the past, I do not support Donski's work, saying that Cleopatra was ethnically a Macedonian is nonsense.
We must have in mind that this page was not started by a Bulgarian in the first place but by a Macedonian nationalist living in Australia who poured some wild claims about a Bulgarian "genocide" in Macedonia, not supported by any sources. I proposed deleting the entire page since the beginning (read above) because I knew that this will become a mess due to the the controversial and sensitive subject and the obviously biased attitude of the author of the page (Frightner). Lantonov 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What wild claims about genocide? Before Bulgarians (Jingiby mostly) interferred, the article was short and informative, concentrated only on the war. Ever since, only Bulgarians have been getting involved (like they always do) and started making all sorts of claims, 'Macedonia was no occupied', 'Macedonians greeted the Bulgarians as liberators' etc. Btw, I did provide an image of the genocide but as usual, Neutron/Foreigner/Sockpuppet had to delete it because it went against his propaganda.
By the way, do you have a problem with me living in Australia yet loving my country? I couldn't control my parents' decision to move here when I was a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.207.94 (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, that image of the genocide did not have any source in it and from the look of it, it was most probably the Turkish genocide against Armenians since Christians do not leave bodies in the streets unburied. And no, I do not have a problem with you living in Australia. Seems that you have a problem in defining your national identity. Lantonov 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember finding it on a Macedonian website and it had something to do with WWII but I lost track of the link shortly before upoading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.207.94 (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to your statement "Christians do not leave bodies in the streets unburied.", why have these bodies been left out in the open?[36] (From the site about the Vatasa murders.)
The above picture taken from the cybermacedonia site where the history of Macedonia dates from 8th century BC :). Don't make me laugh, I doubt that such a jingoistic and deceitful site can be found anywhere else in the Web. Read the following source: Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook ISBN 0815340583[37]. Let us see your comments against this historical account written in official encyclopedia edited by a man of British nationality and origin. Lantonov 09:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

....Помнам, како во тоа време на вообичаените саботни повечеринки, т.е. седенки на моите родители со роднините, се муабетеше за воените подготовки на Германија и Италија. Се очекуваше богот Марс да затропа на Југословенската порта, та конечно да се случи долгоочекуваниот крај на српската окупација, следователно национално ослободување со пристигање на б’лгарската војска. Од денешен аспект ваквото очекување представува ерес (демек се живеело во голема заблуда, бидејки б’лгарската војска дошла како фашистичко – царистичко окупаторска, што ке коле, беси, пали, гаси и други слични гадости).

Многу наивни си бевме: со радост и скриени желби ги слушавме радио преносите од припојувањето на Јужна Добруџа кон Б’лгарија, непрекинатото “Ура” од ослободеното население, парадните маршеви и особено популарната песна “О добруџански крај, ти за мен си един рај"

..Училишниот двор во нашата улица бргу се исполни со воени заробеници кои масовно се предаваа на Германците. Помнам кога еден од нив, штом го забележа истакнатото на една куќа б’лгарско знаме силно воскликна “Се вее нашето!”, а германскиот стражар му подвикна “Аншлус!” (нешто во таа смисла). На сите куќи карши училишниот двор се вееја б’лгарски и германски знамиња. Всушност, сите македонски маала во градот шаренееја од такви знамиња, набрзина сошиени од сонародничките на Мара Бунева...?

Подоцна, ние Македонците итри по природа, наследена од Александар Велики, седнавме на победничкиот крај од воената клацкалка. По советска команда, б’лгарската отечественофронтовска армија ги плати борџовите на слабите си политичари, та се судри со Германците кои беа во отстапување. Притоа Б’лгарите дадоа коџа жртви (особено кај Страцин) и им овозможија на партизанските бригади да го ослободат Скопје. И овој пат народот со песни радост и поинакви знамиња го прославуваше ослободувањето. Потоа почнаа црните денови на болшевизацијата и србизацијата. [38]

Tribune - Издание: 2007/114, освежено: 08.10.2007

Could somebody translate it, please! My English is not the best. Frightner, this is new INFO in Macedonian language from contemporary of the events! I see all the Macedonian people were Bulgarians in 1941? Could yoy translate the text, Frightner! Your English and Macedonian are better then mine. Jingby 07:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I will translate it below (maybe not very good quality translation because I do not have much time):

I remember how at this time of customary Saturday parties, that is, reunions of my parents with their relatives, the talk went about the military preparations of Germany and Italy. It was expected that God Mars will knock on the Yugoslavian door, so at last the long-expected end of the Serbian occupation, and thus the national liberation with the arrival of the Bulgarian Army. From today's aspect this expectation is an heresy (they [people like Frigtner - translator's comment] say we have lived in a big delusion since the Bulgarian Army had come as a fascist-monarchist occupator which will cut throats, will hang on the gallows, burn houses and other similar nasty acts).

Well, we were that naive: with joy and secret wishes we listened to the radio news about the uniting of Southern Dobrudja to Bulgaria, the continuous "Hoooray" of the liberated population, the parade marches and especially the popular song "O, Dobrudja ours, you are a paradise for me".

...The school yard in our street very soon was filled with prisoners of war who capitulated en masse to Germans. I remember one of them, when he saw the Bulgarian flag, hanging from one house, loudly exclaimed: "Our flag is flying!" and the German policeman replied "Anschluss!" (something in this sense). On all houses around the school yard were hung Bulgarian and German flags. In fact, all Macedonian quarters in the town were mottled by such flags, sewn hastily by the women, fellow nationals of Mara Buneva ...

Later on, we, the Macedonians, cunning by nature inherited from Alexander the Great, sat at table of the winners of the military massacre. Driven by a Soviet command, the Bulgarian Fatherland Front Army paid the debts of its bad politicians by fighting the Germans who were retreating. In this fight, the Bulgarians suffered big casualties (especially around Stracin) which made possible for the partisan brigades to liberate Skopje. This time, too, the people with songs, joy and others flags celebrated their liberation. Then, the black days of the Bolshevisation and Serbianisation began.

Tribune - Edition: 2007/114, updated: 08.10.2007 Lantonov 08:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(Translated from the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language as spoken today in the Republic of Macedonia)

Lantonov 08:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's really nice, but stop bothering with Fightner's ridiculous comments and posting such responses to him. This is a primary source so it won't work for the article. --Laveol T 09:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I seriously think to follow your good example and even delete this article from my watchlist. Such article does not have a place in a serious encyclopedia, such as Wiki intends to become. It is not national liberation war, it is WWII, and Macedonian nation doesn't exist, so all this is the same old Yugo history soap bubble. I have to turn my attention to unfinished math-phys articles that I edit now, and later, as a history project - a big article on Byzantine Bulgaria.Lantonov 09:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're back to the start - should we have such an article which could be only POV (or double-POV if we present the two views) or should we have it with this name (which is POV to begin with). --Laveol T 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as at the start: such article shouldn't exist under this misleading name. Hard facts in it, such as movements and deeds of Bulgarian troops stationed in Macedonia, decisions of Bulgarian politicians, and everything connected with Bulgaria, should go into an article on Bulgarian history. Other facts, like partisan movement, population's attitude to Bulgarian troops, repressions done by the Serbian communists and their puppets in Macedonia, in short, everything connected with the population living in Vardar Macedonia at that time should go into an article on Yugoslavian history. Lantonov 10:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This will unavoidably be double-POV (Bulgaro-Macedonian (BM) POV and Serbo-Macedonian (SM) POV) but I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. The more POVs, the closer we are moving to NPOV. The correct thing that must be done in this case is to treat all sources (with either POV) with the same criteria. This regards (for both BM and SM POVs): deleting sources from personal or non-offical blogs, disregarding primary sources, disregarding BM and SM non-English secondary sources. Disregarding non-English secondary sources is bad practice as it goes against the Wiki policy of countering systemic bias - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Disregarding primary sources is also bad in some cases, for example, it is bad to disregard the above cited personal account, because it is clearly non-POV being written by a Macedonian in Macedonian newspaper. In addition, this person is an eye-witness of the actual events that happened in 1941-1945 (I guess none of us is that old) and descibes not only his views and attitudes but the attitudes of the whole town he lived in then, and also attitudes of POWs and German soldiers. Lantonov 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article have to be changed, it is not objective. I disagree about the partitition of the article. Sometimes the historiy is very complicated and we need to find the balance, the "wind of change". How was it posible to occured? Jingby 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Source ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Lantonov 08:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias:

  • Read news articles in as many languages as you know, from as many news sources as you can find, from as many political view points as you can find (especially those that you would normally not read) when examining a topical or recent event or editing an existing article related to a particular subject.
  • Don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be used for propaganda, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. They may also be useful as a source of information about why the government of that particular country has its opinion on a subject and why it acts the way it does. The readers of Wikipedia could benefit from this, regardless of whether they agree with that view or not (if they don't, they may use it to find errors in its logic or thinking).Lantonov 08:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest revert war

I haven't yet made myself a picture of what the latest reversions are about, in terms of content, but I note that the latest revert by Jingiby [39] reinstated a lot of grammar mistakes that had previously been corrected by Liljak. I'm therefore going to provisionally reinstate Liljak's version, without prejudice to further discussion of the substance. But please no more blind reverts; if anybody has an issue with specific points in Liljak's edits, discuss them here one by one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh wow. I wrote the above before I noticed how wildly you guys have been revert-warring. You are certainly aware that a long long block would be in order for both of you. But I want your input on this page, for clarifying what the dispute is actually about. That's why I chose short-time protection instead.
Also, this puts me in the embarrassing situation of having to "misuse" protection after having put in a revert myself. Please attribute it to WP:IAR for this time. For the record: My revert was motivated purely by the fact that the one version contained uncontroversial corrections of many grammar mistakes that were lost in the other version. No prejudice about the content dispute (I truly have no idea as yet what it is even about.)
Fellow admins, please feel free to override my measure as your see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All consensuses long debated on the talk page and made by Admins were reverted, most of sorced with ISBN cases ware changed with soursed from RoM newspapers forgeries. When you Future will, you can read the talk page before this edit-war and see the article before it. You can see the coments by editing from Liljak for me as LOL for example! Now this article is only FYROM propaganda page whithout any objectivity. I am ready for BLOCK! The both photos are copyright violations. Regards! Jingby (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For example this Administrator's decision was changed!

OK, so it looks like we have 3 sources, all for the Bulgarian Macedonians. So I intend to change that sentence to

"As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by the Bulgarian Macedonian population as liberators", and add those three sources (since this one sentence caused such a big edit war, using no fewer than 3 sources seems to be called for!). Last call for objections? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it looks so - As the Bulgarian soldiers entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, they were greeted with joy as it meant the end of Serbian rule.

It clear that the locals were BULGARIANS! Jingby (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This text was deleted! Why?

Relations between the local population and the Bulgarian Army was the least bit extreme. Typical is the case concerning 25 Bulgarian soldiers and their capture in Ohrid. On October 12, 1944, German forces withdrawing Vardar Macedonia camped in the town and had been leading a group of Bulgarian POWs. That evening, the POWs escaped and hid in hid in local houses. The German commander intimidated the Bulgarian mayor Iliya Kocarev by bombing and burning parts of Ohrid and ordered the arrest of 25 relatives of Macedonian partisans or notables as hostages. Kocarev rejected the idea and sacrificed himself, none of the Bulgarian soldiers were betrayed. The following day the German forces demandеd 10 kilograms of gold for the salvation of the town or for the Bulgarian escapees to be handed over to German authorities. The people succeedеd in gathering the gold, including the golden cross from one the town's churches. Ultimately, the German officer had become emotional and rejected the gold. The German forces left Ohrid without causing destruction. On October 15, 1944, Macedonian partisans entered Ohrid and confiscated the gold, they arrested the mayor for collaboration. Thereafter Yugoslav authorities denied the case or belittled it.[1][2]

Jingby (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure why the text directly bellow my message is here, bu nevermind. I just wanted to say that Liljak has done some pretty controversial edits to the article alongside the cosmetic stuff.

And instead of discussing started looking for help in the already started edit-war. I'm pretty sure the last time I saw Liljak editing he was in some heated debate with User:Capricornis. Jingiby has his share of the fault in the case as his edits were controversial as well so it's both of them to blame, but surely Jingiby cannot be singled out again. --Laveol T 14:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


This ISBN sourced case was deleted too! Why?

The first attempt to resist against the return of Vardar Macedonia to new Yugoslavia, was an armed mutiny of the new established Macedonian army in Skopje in December, 1944. After receiving an order to dislocation to the Srem front in Serbia, around thousand soldiers and officers from, the Macedonian army, most of them just decommissioned from the Bulgarian army, organized armed mutiny. On December 16, 1944, they headed for the Headquarters of the Macedonian National Liberation Army in Skopje, with the slogans: "We don't want Srem! We want Salonica" and "We don't want new Yugoslavia! We want free and independent Macedonia!". These slogans frightened the High Command in Skopje and Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo, Josip Broz Tito's personal representative in Macedonia, ordered that those soldiers had to be stopped, and their leaders to be arrested.[3] After that General Mihajlo Apostoloski invited all officers disagreeing with the order to discuss together the situation, while the soldiers were to return to the barracks. The officers accepted the invitation, but later they were disarmed and arrested. In this way, on December 16, 1944, according to still not fully verified information some of the officers were killed. Almost a thousand soldiers, understanding that something is happening to their commanders, headed once again for the center of Skopje. They, however, were met by machine-gun fire and several of them fell dead, others were wounded. About 900 were disarmed and some of them arrested and jailed.[4] Jingby (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


What about this new manipulation, Liljak/Frightner!

..Another controversial event among ethnic Macedonians is when Bulgarian occupants burnt down the Eastern Orthodox church Saint Bogorodica in Skopje which was built in 1835 and housed over 10,000 worshipers. This is also considered unusual as Bulgarians are predominantly Orthodox Christians...

The church Saint Bogorodica in Skopje was never burned from Bulgarians. Here is Macedonian IT site with the history of the church. There is no info about such Bulgarian burning! [40] [41]

There is not clear hou how the church burned in 1944. According to Macedonian sources it was burned by Serbians, Bulgarians or Allies by bombing! [42] Most probably by Allies bombing. [43] According to other Macedonian sources it burned in 1943 by unclear circumstances. [44] Jingby (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски" София-1992[1]
  2. ^ RADIO FREE EUROPE. Research, RAD Background Report/107,(East), 20 June 1984 - BULGARIAN FILM PROVOKES YUGOSLAV ANGER by Slobodan Stankovic [2]
  3. ^ Вест - Неточни и недобронамерни информации Повод: "Да се потсетиме на божиќните јануарски настани во Скопје 1945" објавен во "ВЕСТ" на 11 јануари 2001 година Понеделник 1/22/2001 [3]
  4. ^ History of Macedonia, THE NEW NATIONAL - LIBERATION STRUGGLE IN VARDAR MACEDONIA 1944 - 1991 Ph.D. Dimitar G. Gotsev (Macedonian Scientific Institute, Sofia 1999)ISBN: 9548187426 [4]

[edit] Recent revisions

Guys, I don't know who originally wrote the following passages (Revizionist?); just wanted to say that these are quite blatantly POV. You can't be serious that this is your best attempt at neutral writing?

  • "the real apogee of the ethnic Macedonian conscience and identity occurred between the two world wars, and triumphed during WWII"
  • "the reactionary greater-Serbian regime in Belgrade was destroying every form of manifestation of Macedonian consciousness"

... and so on, this goes for the whole section of which these sentences were part.

I know this article used to have some heavily tendentious pro-Bulgarian material, from the time Jingiby edited it. Now somebody seems to have gone and replaced it with some equally tendentious pro-Macedonian material. That's disappointing. I hope you guys can do better than this.

By the way, about the title of the article: "National Liberation War of Macedonia" sounds like a term that may be common from the perspective of native RoMac national historiography, but is it commonly used in the international literature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is Revizionist that added those sentences. I removed all Macedonian and Bulgarian propaganda from the article but he reverts it to his biased and POV version, claiming Bulgarian and Serbian authorities tried to "assimilate the ethnic Macedonian population". Not to mention his version of the article is plagued with bad English, grammar, style as well as totaled with redlinks. He has a problem with WP:OWN on a number of articles. Köbra Könverse 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Future. How are you doing? As you know the articles about ethnic Macedonians were a real mess. I made a revision of the article Macedonians (ethnic group) and National Liberation Front (Macedonia) which were approved by the majority as neutral and informative. I only want to finish with the revision of this article (which we all agree was very chaotic. But this can not be done over night. i go to work, and in my free time (when I have some) I go to the library and read material, take notes, afterwards I translate them. It is a process. First I must finish inputing data (which as you see is informative - for example when which unit was formed, when it was destroyed and so on). The user Köbra is reverting all my revisions (although I added 65% new text to the article). I must finish adding, afterwards I will improve the English, and afterwards we will adjust or exclude the things that according to the majority is not neutral. You know that I always make quality contributions. Don't worry, let me finish it and afterwards we will all together make a great neutral article, and maybe recommend it for an wiki award. Cheers. --Revizionist (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is more encyclopedia-worthy than my version of the article. Just because you wrote 65% of the article doesn't mean you own it (WP:OWN), I placed a template there saying that it would be revamped and you may help "expand" it, but instead, you wish to revert my edits because you contributed a bunch of lousy propaganda and images. Köbra Könverse 12:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As we said - no problem, include the things you think should be included, but incorporate them into my revision. The data I imputed is informative. I mentioned all of the detachments that were formed in 1942, and their battles. After that the formation of the CPM, data about the Vardar Chetnik Corps, and about the colaborationist organizations. I will also include these days data about the February Campagn, the Spring offencive, about the Otechestven Front and the contribution of the Bulgarian Otechestven Front in the liberation of eastern Vardar Macedonia. What can be more objective than that. We are not on a race. The article was chaotic for more than 2 years. I am separating great amount of my free time to improve the article. Do include your contributions to the article, but do not erase 65% of it to do that. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You have no authority to tell me what to do. Your version of the article just flat out sucks, you add stuff to my revision. Köbra Könverse 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well guys, it's sort of refreshing that we now have an edit war on a Balkan topic between two editors of the same nationality, for a change. That's sort of a sign of hope. ;-)

But Revizionist, you haven't responded to the objections I raised. Your text is heavily POV-laden. Get those judgmental words out. Are you even aware how much POV there is in your text? Kobra's version, as far as I can see, is somewhat more neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok Future, as we agreed, the POV will be adjusted. I just adjusted one of them - it was "The aim of the Bulgarian committees was the assimilating the population". Now it is like this: "According to the official Macedonian historiography, the aim of these Bulgarian organizations was to assimilate the Macedonian population, while the Bulgarian historiography states that they were organized to enforce the Bulgarian sentiment among the population". It is objective now. Actually very small part of the article can be said to be POV. The other part objectively informs about when which units were formed and what battles they were engaged in. As I said, Future, you have my word (as in other occasions) that everything is going to be neutral and professionally made. Thanks for the support and the time. Sincerely yours. --Revizionist (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to kiss up to Future, Revizionist. Aside from the POV, the article looks like a car wreck. What is the need for 20 images? Why do you link to articles which do not exist? Why do you feel the need to make the article overly long? Also, don't be so confident that the article will stay on your revision. You removed perfectly valid contributions that I made and are acting like your revision of the article deserves a place in Britannica, just because you "contributed 65% of the text". Who gives a rat's ass how much text you contributed? It doesn't mean that it's any good or even neutral, at that. Köbra Könverse 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The format and the links will be adjusted. P.S. Watch your language young man. --Revizionist (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll talk however the hell I feel, I didn't insult you, now did I? The article will be reverted because it's no god-damn good. P.S. Stop being so arrogant. Köbra Könverse 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm only trying to have a normal civilized conversation, but the only thing you do is curse and use non-ethical terminology. User 157.228.x.x already complained to the administration about your behavior. If you continue like this there is a great possibility that you may be banned. --Revizionist (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That guy can't take a hint. He thought "write a novel, why don't you?" is meant to be an insult. Anyway, you didn't answer my questions. I have another one for you, why do you have so many headings, sub-headings and sub-sub-headings? I think I will suggest this article be merged with People's Liberation War. It does, really, belong that way. Köbra Könverse 14:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is: "Maintain civility at all times in your articles and comments.". On several occasions you have broken this principle, and even some of the users made complaints about your behavior. If you continue vandalizing and starting an edit war, an administrative ban may be the next thing you get. --Revizionist (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, you have no authority, so stop making accusations. I am actually discussing the article, you, on the other hand, prefer to avoid my questions and point the finger, so to speak. I suggest you start discussing your propaganda contributions so we can get somewhere with this. Köbra Könverse 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, finally we can talk normally with you. Ok let's start. What is your first question about the article? --Revizionist (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
LMAO!!! Look at my last couple of comments, I asked you like four questions already. Köbra Könverse 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No reply eh? I don't blame you, you did crap on the whole article. Köbra Könverse 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No reply meant I had some business to do this weekend. Now, about your first question, why there are so many subtitles in the article - well I decreased them by putting the collaborationist organizations under one subtitle. The subtitles are used to make the reader more orientated in the article, and to give guidance. --Revizionist (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kobra, it would be appropriate if you stop this edit-war which may soon evolve in vandalism. You can not erase 80% of the article which is backed with references and beautiful quality images and maps. Also the text is very informative. If you continue with this kind of incivil behavior I will have no other choice than to do the same thing user 157.228.x.x did - that is, to complain to the administration about your behavior. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavophone population

The passage should really read Slavophone rather than "ethnic Macedonian" population. The former is a factual observation of what these people actually were, as opposed to what the partisans wanted them to be. And, even today, "ethnic Macedonians" continue to project their own identity onto the Slavophones of Greece, who may or may not be interested in having a bar of it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That is why when I wrote that part of the article I used the term Slavophone population. But I would also like to inform you that between the two world wars the ethnic Macedonian sentiment amongst the Slavophone population in Greek Macedonia was getting more and more place - especially thanks to the activity of the illegal IMRO (United) which supported ethnic Macedonian sentiments. Starting from the proletarian internationalism policy of the communist parties, the Balkan communist parties supported the right of the Macedonian people for self-determination. The people called themselves "Macedonians" - the Yugoslav and Bulgarian communist parties used this term, while the Greek communist party used the term "Slavic-Macedonians" to refer them. The Rizospastis newspaper gives thousands of evidence that there was a strong ethnic Macedonian sentiment between the Slavophone population in northern Greece. Venizelos also referred to them as a separate people. In WW2 the partisan units from Vardar Macedonia passed several times in northern Greece and communicated with the local population (In Meglena the masters of the terrene were Vardar Macedonian partisans which were engaged in battles against the German, Bulgarian and PAO troops). The SNOF was a result of the tendency of the Slavophones that were self-determined as ethnic Macedonians to have their own organization. The triumph of the ethnic Macedonian consciousness among the population was the creation of NOF and the auxiliary organizations which mibilised the whole population. Both the Slavophone families that were supporting the IMRO during Ilinden, and those that supported the "Makedonomahoi" during 1904-1908, during the Greek Civil War declared that they are ethnic Macedonians. Did you know that half of the fighters of NOF and their families that live in Republic of Macedonians, Canada and Australia that are refugees of the Civil War in Greece in the past were supporters of the Greek cause, and the other part were supporting the Bulgarian cause. But in the period between the wars the ethnic Macedonian sentiment prevailed and after World War 2 the majority of them had ethnic Macedonian sentiments. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we'll simply never know if they were indeed a majority. Even if they were, we can be sure that not all Slavophones identified with the communist cause, let alone the "ethnic Macedonian" one with which it was affiliated. And why did the SNOF have the S in its name, if its members identified as "Macedonians" only? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Orders from the KKE. SNOF was formed by Macedonians that were members of the KKE in order to destroy the Ohrana activities. It was formed by the KKE, which gave the name "Slavic-Macedonian". After SNOF destroyed Ohrana, KKE gave orders to dissolve it. But the leaders of the SNOF disagreed. When after WW2, the Macedonians from Greek Macedonia organized the NOF they didn't use the term "Slavic-Macedonians" but used the term Macedonians. Why? Because this time they were not organized by the KKE, but by themselves. P.S. About do we know if the majority of them had a identity different then Greeks, you can read here (a Greek source): Γιά το ζήτημα των Σλαβομακεδόνων - Ρέννος Μιχαλέας, ΕΛΑΣ, Θεσσαλονίκη 13.XI.1944 (σελ. 1, σελ. 2, σελ. 3, σελ. 4, σελ. 5). Regards --Revizionist (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The source also speaks of the Slavomacedonian people's "sacrifices for Greece" and the "unity of the Greek and Slavomacedonian population". It is more of a critique of their mistreatment by the Metaxas régime, rather than an affirmation of their separate "Macedonian" nationhood. Still, their distinct ethnicity is a separate issue from that of their name. There is ample evidence that they themselves identified as Slavomacedonians. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, we can always count on you, Kekrops, to start another stupid and pointless discussion like this one. Köbra Könverse 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Refugees from the Civil War and NOF members in their memoirs stated that the name Slavic-Macedonians was imposed to them by the Greek Communist Party, which in the middle war period was "the mother party". Slavic-Macedonian is a racist term. It is the same if you call an African-American by the insulting name "Nigger". The term "nigger" was imposed on the African-Americans, the same as the term "Slavic-Macedonians" was imposed to Macedonians. Now, the both terms are insulting to the both people. It is the same as (for example) if someone calls you "Turko-Greek", because your grandfather from Pontos spoke Turkish (like the majority of the Pontian refugees. Regards--Revizionist (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Macedonian actually, but you're wrong. Slavic-Macedonian is the equivalent of African-American; the first word denotes ethnic or racial origin, while the second refers to modern geography. As for the Pontians, their origins are Greek, not Turkish, despite their former location. I must also note that they were in what is now "Turkey" many centuries before the Turks arrived in the area. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of Macedonian? Macedonian from Pontous, Karamanlides? Pontians spoke Turkish. Karamanlides spoke only Turkish. What about the orthodox Cherkez people which were also refugees in 1925? But, ok does not matter. Slavic-Macedonian is a politically incorrect word, a racist word (because it accents the race). For only 15% of out genes have Slavic indicators. The other 85% are defined as genetic materials from the people that lived here before the coming of the Slavs. While the Arvanits do not have Greek blood in them (Albanians with Greek consciousness), and Karamanlides (Turks with Greek consciousness) and so on. So don't start racist discussions, and do not use terms to other people which are offensive and insulting to them. You dislike when we use the term Aegean Macedonia, but you use Slavic-Macedonians. The compromise is the usage of the terms ethnic Macedonians and Greek Macedonians. --Revizionist (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the native language of the Pontians is Pontic Greek. As for who is starting racist discussions, you are the one claiming that being a Slav is a question of genetics, that the Arvanites have no "Greek blood" in them (whatever that means) and that the Karamanlides are "Turks". By the way, "ethnic Macedonians" is offensive and insulting to me, since it implies that I am somehow less of a Macedonian, but that doesn't seem to bother you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You started the racist talks by telling that "Slavic" is a racial adjective in the term you use to refer to the Macedonians. I just made comparation, for you to see how does it sound like. You say that "Macedonian" is not acceptable for you, but ethnic Macedonian is a composite name which defines that it is the ethnic group, not the Greek regional group. Both are Macedonians, noone is less Macedonian than the other - the one is an ethnic and the other a Greek Macedonian. While Slavic-Macedonian is a racist word which insults the Macedonians, and you still use it. How come you don't like when people use Aegean Macedonia, but you use Slavic-Macedonian? Why the hypocrisy? P.S. I have seen a Pontian dance when i was in Greece. There was nothing Macedonian in it. I was the same dances as Turks from northern Turkey, Georgians and part of Armenians have - that is, it is a Caucasus national dance. This is a Pontian folk song. Which language is this? Do you understand it? What is Macedonian, or even Greek in it? --Revizionist (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the Pontians are bordering on racial vilification and I would watch it if I were you. If Slavic is a racist word, why are you listed under Slavic peoples? "Ethnic Macedonian", in accordance with every other use of the word "ethnic", implies that you are somehow indigenous to Macedonia, and that the Greeks, of course, are not. Your remarks about the "Greek Macedonians" make it obvious that you see them as nothing but "Turks" and interlopers. Apart from the Anatolian refugees, there were and are native Greeks in Macedonia whose existence you deliberately ignore. Regarding the dance, you say that "there was nothing Macedonian in it". That's your problem; you have a very monolithic understanding of what Macedonian can mean. What makes you think that your Slavic dances, which have much in common with those of the Bulgarians and Serbs, are any more Macedonian? It is precisely that attitude that is offensive to Greeks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kekrops, but used the comparatives only to let you understand how does it feel when some Greeks "you are Slavs, you came here, you are not Macedonians". You see, to Pontians and the other refugees that came to Greek Macedonia in 1925, the ethnic Macedonians were indigenous. So there is no absolute truth, and there can be no absolute terminology. That is why I say - In articles about Republic of Macedonia or about Macedonians in countries where they are referred to as Macedonians to use the term "Macedonian", and for articles connected only with Greek issue to use the word "Macedonian" for Macedonian Greeks. BUT for articles that mention both Macedonian Greeks and the ethnic group that call themselves Macedonians to use the words "ethnic Macedonians" and "Greek Macedonians" or "Macedonian Greeks". That is what I wanted to say. But anyway, let's end this discussion. I used the term Slavophone population as general in the article in the first place. I just wanted you to know that during the Greek Civil War the vast majority of these people had a formed identity different from the Greek, and Zachariadis confirms that in his speech on the Fifth Plenum of the KKE, and Markos Vafijadis confirms with it in his memoirs. I also explained you that the term Slavic Macedonians is to the ethnic Macedonians a racist term (analogical to the term nigger), and Macedonians feel offended when are referred to by it (just as you are when people say that Pontian culture has nothing to do with Macedonia). So I would only like to indicate that most appropriate would be to use ethnic Macedonians instead of Slavic Macedonians. Gia sas. --Revizionist (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"You see, to Pontians and the other refugees that came to Greek Macedonia in 1925, the ethnic Macedonians were indigenous." So what were the Macedonians, then? Or was Macedonia inhabited exclusively by "ethnic Macedonians"? As for the question of how to distinguish between the two, WP:MOSMAC already prescribes the use of "Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonians in contexts where there is need for disambiguation", so I can't help you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kekrops, do not be so nervous, I only asked you if you could understand the Pontian folk song, because I wanted you to get the point. The fact that the song is in Turkish, does not make the boy and his ansesters Turks, for me and for you they are Greeks. The Arvanits, we know that they have Albanian origin, but they had very very strong Greek identity, and nobody can make them something else than Greeks. I respect that, I respect people's right for self-determination. And it will be good if you also respect other people's right of determination too. The fact that the song is in Turkish does not make the boy a Turk, the same as the fact that the Macedonian language is Slavic does not make the Macedonians 100% pure Slavs. Every user here knows that all of my discussions are civil and friendly. As for the other issue, I have never said that the Macedonians are direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians. I know that it is crazy to think that. But nobody can deny that when the Slavs settled Macedonia, they also mixed with the local population. You know that all of the teritory except Thessaloníki and Chalkidiki were inhabited by Slavic speaking people. P.S. The rules about the naming can be changed. Thello na me katalavenis giati grafo auto. Thelo na kseris oti otan mou les "Slavo-Makedonas", einai to idio san na leo "Ponto-Makedonas". Den einai hthikos. Gia sas. --Revizionist (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the boy is singing in Pontic GREEK, not Turkish. And you can stop bandying the word "Turk" around as a racial epithet; you seem to be forgetting your centuries under Ottoman rule. And no, I can't understand the Pontian folk song because I'm not Pontian, and Pontic Greek is not intelligible to those of us who speak only standard Greek. That doesn't mean the Pontians who have lived in Macedonia for several generations now aren't Macedonian or Greek. As for the Slavs mixing with the local population, no objection there, but do you have any idea what the local population of Macedonia was in the sixth century AD? As for Slav Macedonian being "the same" as Pontic Macedonian or Pontic Greek, I agree. And neither is offensive; you just say it is because you want a monopoly on the name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want a monopoly over the name, I just tell you that Slavic Macedonian or Slav Macedonian is offensive (as nigger is offensive to African American, or as you are offended when someone uses Aegean Macedonia instead of Greek Macedonia. Instead of "slavic" use "ethnic". In both cases it notes that it is another separate people from the "Greek" Macedonians who are also Macedonians, as the first are.. So instead of Slavic use Ethnic - neither of them are monopoloy, just the second one is not racist and not offensive. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Ethnic" is racist and offensive for the reasons stated above, so no can do. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic is a adjective describing a people, while Slavic is a racist adjective which is offending people. --Revizionist (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and when I offer to use it in Wikipedia's own voice despite the offence it causes Greeks, you oppose it. Don't want a monopoly over the name? No, of course not. Talk about hypocrisy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to Toci (in vain), Greeks were initially 43% of the population of Greek Macedonia and after the population exchanges they had become 89%[45]. Claims that the Greek presence in Macedonia was minimal or non-existent are ridiculous and a part of the all too familiar irredentist rhetoric which presents Greeks as a foreign and alien element in Macedonia (ironic considering that the Greeks would form the majority in a United Macedonia, before the proposed ethnic cleansing of course). "Slavic Macedonian" is purely in reference to the group's language (which is the only way the term "Slav" is used to refer to contemporary people nowadays) and this makes it the natural equivalent of "Greek Macedonian". This is also the reason why Revizionist's racist claims that the Pontic Greeks are "Turks" (by what, geography?) cannot be compared to the term "Slavic Macedonian". That term was "introduced and initially accepted" by those it referred to (what was that about KKE "imposing" it on them?). It also cannot be compared to "nigger" since that term is clearly intended to be pejorative (and of course is not used by the Encarta). Equivalent terms to "nigger" I suppose would be "FYROMian", "Bulgaroskopian", "FYROMongol" etc.--Dexippus (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the passage to "Slavic-speaking population", since the partisans directed their propaganda towards the local Slavophone community as a whole, not just those that had already converted to the "ethnic Macedonian" cause. I've also clarified which "Macedonian partisans" Tempo was lobbying on behalf of, and which Macedonian members of the KKE formed the SNOF, given the meaning of Macedonian in the context of Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still massively POV

Some weeks ago I noted a some pretty severe problems with anti-Bulgarian and anti-Serbian POV writing in this article (see #Recent revisions thread above). These passages are still there in Revizionist's version. No cleanup seems to have been done. I'm now going to take out the whole "Background" section from the article, and request that it be rewritten from scratch (and shorter). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, if you think that something is not neutral, please feel free to adjust the words, but Kobra keeps on erasing 80% of the article, and that is a problem. I wrote the background very quickly, and it may not look neutral, but OK, now we will prepare a new informative background. Regards colleagues. --Revizionist (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I already included a short general-informative background. --Revizionist (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up an article, i.e. removing POV if need be, is not vandalism. Köbra Könverse 08:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Revizionist and Kobra, you are now both well over 3RR if I'm not quite mistaken. I'll get some uninvolved admin to look into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, strike the 3RR, didn't notice you both took a break yesterday. So, make that "blatantly revert-warring" instead... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
He called my article ugly... that weawy huwt my feewings. Köbra Könverse 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up some of the more blatant POV in the opening paragraphs. As for capitals, they are used far less in correct, grammatical English than many people think, and Axis powers has the p in lower case. But whatever. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how you write it, as there are many rules for punctuation and grammar and many of them vary, but this is really not something worth debating over. Köbra Könverse 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Future, if you see the history, you will notice that I did not brake the 3RR. Please tell Kobra not to erase 80% of the article that is backed with references and photos. Reverting vandalism is not vandalism according to the WikiRules. Ragards. --Revizionist (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And how are my edits vandalism? Because I erased "80% of the article"? Where are you getting your statistics anyway? Maybe you make a habit of over-exaggerating, am I right? Köbra Könverse 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] National police of Slovenia???

Kontračeta - The Kontračete were Anti-Partisan Units controlled by the National Police of Slovenia.

What is the meaning of National police of Slovenia? There was no Slovenia during WW2, it was occupied and divided among the occupiers. Was that some collaborant police created by Italians? Is there any further link that could shed more light on the matter? NikNovi (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the users that contributed in the creation of this article made a mistake with this. The Kontraceta unit was created by the Bulgarians during WW2. This data will be adjusted. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. The book I cited must be wrong. Köbra Könverse 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

I am reverting the article to the last un-vandalized v ersion. User Kobra is constatly erasing 80% of the article, although it is backed with photos and references. He just erases it. I will now return the article to its original version - that is reverting VANDALISM. --Revizionist (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Get a third opinion or file a Request For Comment to get some more eyes on this. You and Kobra are locked in a major content dispute on this article, it's been reverted back-and-forth way too many times without any constructive work being done, and if it keeps up, you will BOTH be blocked for edit warring. Stop reverting the article and start discussing it, preferably with more editors to help you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting comment

A user has requested comment on History and Geography.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFChist list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


There is a dispute about the neutrality of the article between Kobra85 and Revizionist, with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise and a few others sometimes involved in the discussion. There are basically two versions being argued for here. Revizionist's favoured version (which is the current version at the time of this post), and Kobra85's favoured version. If I'm not mistaken, the neutrality issues were raised in regards to the current version. I'm not asking that one of the two versions is chosen, but for constructive input from Kobra85, Revizionist, and hopefully uninvolved users to improve this article. BalkanFever 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit dispute sub-discussion

Just for the record, all my contributions were reverted by Revizionist, yet I am labeled a vandal. Köbra Könverse 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys are in an edit war at the moment, but it is true that neither of you are vandalizing the article. Revizionist is incorrect to refer to your edits as vandalism - there may be other more appropriate terms for it, but WP is very strict in what it defines as vandalism. That said, the purpose of this RFC is to start getting some outside views on the two versions of the page to determine which (if either) is most appropriate for the page. Because you and Revizionist are both directly involved in this dispute, you're unlikely to be able to reach a decision or compromise yourselves - hence the outside views. I would strongly advise you set aside your personal differences for now and stop editing the article directly until this RFC has had time to cook. If a consensus is reached among the larger group of editors, you both should work to abide by it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, definitely not vandalism. Editorial dispute. BalkanFever 11:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok lets not call it vandalism, but I really do not know how to call the act of erasing 80% of the article which is backed with references and photos and is more informative. I spent so much time on reading and gathering info for the article, and now comes Kobra and erases it. I do not have problem with him, I have problem with the fact that he is constantly erasing 80% of the article. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's called a difference of opinion. Kobra claims that his version of the article is balanced. You claim that yours is comprehensive, correct, and well-sourced. That's all there is to it. That's why you need more people to help out with coming up with a version that meets WP's policies on notability, verifiability, neutral point-of-view, and reliable sources. It is quite possible that Kobra's version is more correct with respect to these policies - it is also possible that yours is. My guess is that the final consensus would fall somewhere in between. But, as I said above, you two are not going to be able to resolve this edit war yourselves since you are, by definition, the poles of the dispute.
Just to be clear, Kobra was not vandalizing the article. If anything, he would have been pushing his own POV, but since there was not an established consensus on the article content, a POV-pushing call can't really be made at this time - by edit-warring, you both were pushing your own POVs. That in itself is disruptive, but it's not vandalism, and we really do need to avoid referring to it as such. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I just make it clear that the act which Revizionist calls "vandalism" is actually a rewrite of the article as requested by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, just ask him. I was doing anything but POV-pushing, as you can see, I removed almost all of the Macedonian and Bulgarian sources which would have created an obvious contradiction and added neutral English-language sources. I too spent a lot of time gathering information but Revizionist is too self-centered to realise that. Note: Revizionist replaced some of my English-language citations with Macedonian ones... very neutral indeed. Köbra Könverse 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get Future Perfect into this discussion, then? It'll be much better for the discussion to talk to the person who requested the changes than the one making the changes. The first question that pops into my mind on that, of course, is "why didn't Future Perfect just make the changes himself?"
In any event, I call it POV pushing because, up until now, there did not appear to be any attempt to discuss this issue per WP:BRD. All I saw in the edit histories were summaries that basically amounted to "I'm right, you're wrong", "This is the better version", and "Future asked me to make this edit", along with a few cases where you both said you had properly sourced material. WP:BRD means "Make the edit, see it reverted, then discuss". I saw a lot of WP:BOLD and reverting, but no discussion outside of the name-calling and other incivility that came as a result.
Now, can I please stop having to repeat myself here? Anyone who's been following this discussion knows what happened now - it's no longer necessary for you guys to keep talking about what the other did. We can see it plainly. Let's get on to discussing the actual content - please use the main section above. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments at this point: I've repeatedly criticised POV material in this article, most recently affecting large parts of Revizionist's version. I note that those parts I criticised most recently have now been omitted, but some of the remaining material still has POV weaknesses. For instance:

  • it was not surprising that the soldiers from Vardar Macedonia, mobilized in the Yugoslav army in large numbers, refused to fight. [this passage is contained twice!]
  • the British vice-consul at Skopje provided the Foreign Office with an even more extensive and perceptive analysis of the current state [unsourced judgmental interpretation, sounds like the judgment of some author in the literature uncritically taken over.]
  • Gestapo held Mihailov as a reserve card in case things with Bulgaria go wrong. [unsourced interpretation]

I also still have the impression that Revizionist's version is too long and too wordy. I haven't got round to making myself a full picture of Kobra's versions yet. It's a bit difficult to do if the conflict is framed in terms of wholesale competition between two complete and entirely different article versions, either-or. Can someone please try to give a brief, neutral overview of how and where the two versions actually differ? Do they have different structural outlines, or is it just a matter of individual passages? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)