![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
User:Dbachmann added a merge template to the article. From the template on the talk page:
I've merged the articles. That is I've copied the text from Macedonism to here and placed it in a section called Macedonism. Now someone will need to integrate the text more fully. When I did so I noticed that the footnotes on this article were not using <ref> </ref> so I have converted the references already in this article using User:Cyde/Ref converter -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Has completely removed most of the article on Macedonian nationalism and now centers around Macedonism. 68.40.244.138 ( talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The macedonism article was a short, but quite good article. Why the heck you put everything together I still dion't understand. Please sort out this to look like it fits the title. If not I propose to dis-merge Deadjune1 ( talk) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried and I tried, this merge does not make sense. you mix here three completely different but related articles
1-Macedonism
This is not a neologism, is a scholarship term used by many polemics against Macedonian nationalism, especially the extreme pseudoscientific one. Is totally legitimate to keep a seperate article for a specialist term
2-Macedonian Ethnogenesis
This in it's own right is a whole article. Is one of the most interesting case of how a combination of factors (bottom-up, up-bottom political, geographical, religious) can creat within 30-60 years a whole new nation.
3-Macedonian nationalism
This is again a separate issue, more historical of the nationalistic events. This could be merged with the above, but usually nationalism has negative connotations and cannot easily be coinciled with the more romantic term of awakening.
Please comment. I insist that Macedonism is a interesting special term that deserves separation. Deadjune1 ( talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Macedonia barbed wire.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, explain while did you remove objective and scientific referenced information. If no reliable explaination will provided, I will revert you. That you don't like an article is no reason to delete info or change it. None of the arguments cited so far are any reason to it. Jingby ( talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, give a reliable reason while the objective description of the picture was removed? Thank you. Jingby ( talk)
Because it will result in an edit-war between Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists as it did. It's not like I don't like the article, but there are also dubious genetic studies from Macedonians that have different explanation, so that will probably result in an editwar, too. Let's keep the article like it is now. If some children try manipulating the pic it will be taken out!
And I am not a "sockpuppet". It's sad that you're accusing me for nothing, because I was not editwarring. Seegef ( talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, I made a big mistake. The sockpuppet is Korpas. Show the other studies from Macedonia, with another conclusions please. There are a lot of another international studies with the same conclusions as the shown in the article, I can attache here. Do not remove scientific facts, please. The picture is clear Macedonistic illogical nonsence and has at the moment clear neutral explaination. Why have it to be taken out? Jingby ( talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was a reliable text removed? Jingby ( talk) 07:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not remove referenced text. Jingby ( talk) 10:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose a split into 'Macedonism' and 'Macedonian nationalism', because it is not the same. The idea of being a descendant of the ancient Macedonians is not nationalist policy, it does not make someone a nationalist. Of course there are Macedonians who are not nationalist and who are "macedonist". Please contribute to this question. Seegef ( talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you have a point. At the current form, the moderates' and the extreme nationalists' views are mixed together causing confusion.-- JokerXtreme ( talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
See above #Merge from Macedonism, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, and Talk:Macedonism/Archive 2#This and that. The word Macedonism does not exist in English, it is a loan word an most (all?) of the English usage of the word is by people from the Balkans where they are using a term common in their language in English but it is not a term used by English speakers. That was the major reason for merging the article in to this one along with problems of systemic NPOV. -- PBS ( talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the last two lines in the contemporary views section. Both authors used as refs are about as credible as von Daniken (in other words, they're idiots), and in any case they aren't 2ary sources, and so do not meet WP:RS criteria on that account alone. — kwami ( talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It became evident that Communist Yugoslavia had borrowed parts from the histories of neighboring states to construct the Macedonian identity.
Well, anyone is entitled to his opinion. If you have any sources indicating that, we can talk about it.
Wikipedia has a "
WP:VER" policy.--
JokerXtreme (
talk)
16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
95.42.33.131 (
talk)
14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) : It's full of such sources - look wherever you want. It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of TRUTH.
Is not from the late 19th century but, from the early 19th century, 1830s or so, by the very Bulgarian Vasil Levski in an article. Also, much more appropriate name for the article would be Macedonian National Awakening, as no one (sane) would deny that the Macedonian nation exists today, and what the good neighbors of Macedonia call 'Macedonism' is the modern beginning of the Macedonian nation Capricornis ( talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Vasil Levsski was born in 1837 and never used this term.
National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians redirects here. Regards!
Jingby (
talk)
13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And the first sentence should be:
The national development of the so-called "ethnic Macedonians"[1] can be said to have begun in the late 19th and early 20th century.
95.42.33.131 (
talk)
14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
POV tag was added without any explaination. There are around 100 reliable sources in support of the thesis of this the article. Please, do not delete sourced information, only because you disagree with it. I am waiting on discussion what here is POV-ish. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that your personal opinion is not NPOV. "Some authors" opinion is much more neutral then yours. You are biased and pro-macedonistic administrator. More, you have not the rights to delete scientifically proved historical facts. Jingiby ( talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An admin has postulated that some analysis published by Academic houses are nonsense, then deleted them, and proclaimed the rest of the article, sourced with around 100 references as POV. I think it was simply misuse of admin's powers. Jingiby ( talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly rules and lawyering are helpful here. Any sane observer understands by reading that this policy (Macedonism) is an insane official absurd in todays Europe. Didn't you, Future? Jingiby ( talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hunzi6544.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
1. There are Serbs in RoMacedonia, with their own history, as it was supported by reference. And from "Encyclopedia Macedonica" to the fact that there are no monuments, street and other objects named after Serbs related mostly with northern part of the Republic of Macedonia speaks a volume. Serbs were not mentioned in constitution from 1991 to 2001. Jingiby perhaps tries to present history of Slavs of Macedonia as a 100% one, forgetting that Iceland was not 100% percent purely Icelandic 100 years ago, and what it can be said about tiny territory in Ottoman Empire where all forms of population shifts occurred, in all direction can be guessed.
Finally, there is the Serbian Orthodox Church vs. MOC conflict and its not mentioned at all. As for Serbs, census shows declared 36.000. They have 26 NGO and three political parties. Most of them can prove ancestry prior to Balkan Wars. And yes, there are articles in serious media that may be considered biased or derogation against Serbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.11 ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Nobody denies the presence of the Serbs today in RoM but of Bulgarians. The religious conflict is mentioned here also. I did not undertand where are your reliable sources and why was reliable info deleted? Jingiby ( talk) 08:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, provide reliable source for the official denial in RoM of the presence of the Serbs during the Middle ages and Ottoman rule, not sources for their presence. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 08:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
USER: sources for their presence are needed in order to establish the authenthicity of Serb community. As I mentioned, omission from the 1991 Constitution, and the claim by Stojan Kiselinovski from "Macedonian Encyclopedia" is that, in essence all Serbs are post-1913 colonists. The fact that you delete the fact that Serbian medieval rulers were not given monuments, plaques etc. neither in 1944, nor are included in "Skopje 2014". Macedonian are perhaps more hostile to Bulgarians and Greeks but there is also denial and ommission of Serb presence and authenticity ("Ssbomani") in spite of the evidence to contrary, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.59 ( talk) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
"Antiquization" is a buzzword that made its appearance in the Macedonian media only a few years ago, and it's almost always used pejoratively in reference to the Skopje 2014 project. It's a technical term used in architecture, but this article uses it more so to criticize the Macedonian claims of continuity. Many of the sources have also been misrepresented to this end. "Antiquization" aside, this article is excessively critical of Macedonian nationalism overall and doesn't provide an actual description of it. The tone is so hypercritical that one gets the impression that the Macedonian concept of nationhood is illegitimate but that all of the neighboring nationalisms are somehow legitimate. Also, there's also no need for over-citing the fact that VMRO-DPMNE is nationalist (I think I counted 7 refs!). -- WavesSaid ( talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that the BBC is sensationalist, but it's obvious that they've appropriated it from sensationalist Macedonian newspapers. And no, I'm not joking: academics do not use the word "antiquization" in this sense. It's a technical term of archeology, not nation-building. I have no problem with the word... when it's used in the right way. The Macedonian government in all likelihood does not like it, because it's used pejoratively. -- WavesSaid ( talk) 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not you just divide the article with "CLAIMS" so as that the Macedonian side gets its claim on historical documents as well. This article needs to be semi-protected because of pro-bulgarian, pro-macedonian nacionalism. This is a macedonian writing. In the end until both academies of macedonia and bulgaria agree on a similar stance based on documents, (and they probably never will) nothing can be stated about the "idea of pro-bulgarianism" in his work. Therefore the macedonian side is slightly better-off as far as the documentation goes. However I would rather let a German, an Irish or a Welsh decide on this matter, without anyone mangling in his thoughts. It's not the strongest one who always deserves to win right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.36 ( talk) 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point Sir. English version was written from clear pro-bulgarian position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.161.70 ( talk) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the term "Macedonist" is used in a polemic sense, and then goes on to list "early adherents". This then makes the article itself polemic. -- 220.253.156.237 ( talk) 03:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know how articles like this one even exist on Wikipedia. All I can read is just POV claims and statements that don't even make any sense. What is this? More than half of the sources are Bulgarian, and probably even made up as they are offline. I can't even start to explain how apparent the OR is in this one... weasel words and phrases like "development of the Macedonian ethnicity can be said to have begun in the late 19th and early 20th century" are too damn obvious as nationalist trolling, and push back on themselves as being false (I mean, "can be said", c'mon!). With section names as "Post-Informbiro period and Bulgarophobia" and "Post-independence period and Antiquisation" I can say that OR is pretty apparent even from just opening the article. This tells more about how the ethnic Macedonians started hating Bulgarians, Greeks, etc., so that it doesn't focus on its aim - the nationalist ideology or ideas or movements in the Republic of Macedonia. Please, I urge Wikipedians interested in this are to give support so that we can fix the article. Thank you. - Phill24th ( talk). 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I removed the part which claims that pro-Bulgarian activists were persecuted and executed by federal authorities of Communist Yugoslavia, because there is no reference for that. Feel free to undo this change, once you find preferably Western and non-Bulgarian source for that.
I also added a quote from Oswald Spenglers The Decline of the West, which summarizes the confusion that existed in the early 20th century among Macedonians about their ethnic identity. McMixy ( talk) 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
In several instances in the article, it is asserted - with zero reference - that "Ancient Macedonism" was doctrinally taught in former Yugoslavia. That is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Are authors of that assertion claiming that during Yugoslav era (1950's, 1960's, 1970's.....) both academics, pupils, common people held affirmative view identical to what is taught in Gruevski's era? That the language of SRM evolved without any linguistic migration from some alleged "non-Greek" language of Alexander? That Phillip, Alexander, Cleopatra, the phalanx, staters, the Sun of Vergina, gods and goddesses of Olymp are historical heritage from which a linear, unadulterated cultural and linguistic succession old more than 2.000 years followed, culminating in Makedonci of SRM? That etymology of ancient Macedonian words, including personal, geographic and other names was related with the official language of SRM? There's no such thing. Either these assertion should be substantiated with scans from Yugoslav textbooks or any other "official" texts or this nonsense should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.220.69 ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"The origins of a separate Slav Macedonian identity and nationalism are complex" - what's up with this POV weasel word sentence in the lead. OK, they're "complex," how are they complex? in what context are they complex? Please firstly explain, clarify that to the reader, and then arrogantly remove templates. I'm not an idiot, Laveol, I know when to put a template, and where to put it! You can't just follow my contributions and revert them on everything. You wanted a discussion, here's a discussion. - Phill24th ( talk). 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I Undid revision 684520407 by 78.159.147.70. It was well sourced point, made by Oswald Spengler, and he was German, not from Balkans, therefore he didnt have subjective view motivated by some local nationalism. Please do not remove parts of the article without discussing it first on the talk pages. Thank you. McMixy ( talk) 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
A whole section called The designation "Macedonian" was deleted without credible explanation. The section is pretty good sourced with academic references. A lot of images was also deleted. I have restored it for now, but now part of the information in the article is duplicate. Jingiby ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Macedonism. I am going to remove this chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to add this paragraph to the end of the section: The designation "Macedonian":
By the end of the 19th century, according to the Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician Vasil Kanchov: "The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians. Turks and Albanians from Macedonia do not call themselves Macedonians, but when asked where they are from, they respond: from Macedonia. Albanians, who also call their country Anautluk, and Greeks who live in the southern area of Macedonia, do not call themselves Macedonians, hence the borders in these areas according to the peoples’ perception are not clearly defined." [1]
User: Jingiby deleted it. His rationale is that this is an original research. This actually is not an original research. It is simply a citation from a book from a renowned Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician Vasil Kanchov. Can we get this paragraph back at the end of this section? GStojanov ( talk) 20:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
User:Dbachmann added a merge template to the article. From the template on the talk page:
I've merged the articles. That is I've copied the text from Macedonism to here and placed it in a section called Macedonism. Now someone will need to integrate the text more fully. When I did so I noticed that the footnotes on this article were not using <ref> </ref> so I have converted the references already in this article using User:Cyde/Ref converter -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Has completely removed most of the article on Macedonian nationalism and now centers around Macedonism. 68.40.244.138 ( talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The macedonism article was a short, but quite good article. Why the heck you put everything together I still dion't understand. Please sort out this to look like it fits the title. If not I propose to dis-merge Deadjune1 ( talk) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried and I tried, this merge does not make sense. you mix here three completely different but related articles
1-Macedonism
This is not a neologism, is a scholarship term used by many polemics against Macedonian nationalism, especially the extreme pseudoscientific one. Is totally legitimate to keep a seperate article for a specialist term
2-Macedonian Ethnogenesis
This in it's own right is a whole article. Is one of the most interesting case of how a combination of factors (bottom-up, up-bottom political, geographical, religious) can creat within 30-60 years a whole new nation.
3-Macedonian nationalism
This is again a separate issue, more historical of the nationalistic events. This could be merged with the above, but usually nationalism has negative connotations and cannot easily be coinciled with the more romantic term of awakening.
Please comment. I insist that Macedonism is a interesting special term that deserves separation. Deadjune1 ( talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Macedonia barbed wire.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, explain while did you remove objective and scientific referenced information. If no reliable explaination will provided, I will revert you. That you don't like an article is no reason to delete info or change it. None of the arguments cited so far are any reason to it. Jingby ( talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, give a reliable reason while the objective description of the picture was removed? Thank you. Jingby ( talk)
Because it will result in an edit-war between Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists as it did. It's not like I don't like the article, but there are also dubious genetic studies from Macedonians that have different explanation, so that will probably result in an editwar, too. Let's keep the article like it is now. If some children try manipulating the pic it will be taken out!
And I am not a "sockpuppet". It's sad that you're accusing me for nothing, because I was not editwarring. Seegef ( talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, I made a big mistake. The sockpuppet is Korpas. Show the other studies from Macedonia, with another conclusions please. There are a lot of another international studies with the same conclusions as the shown in the article, I can attache here. Do not remove scientific facts, please. The picture is clear Macedonistic illogical nonsence and has at the moment clear neutral explaination. Why have it to be taken out? Jingby ( talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was a reliable text removed? Jingby ( talk) 07:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not remove referenced text. Jingby ( talk) 10:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose a split into 'Macedonism' and 'Macedonian nationalism', because it is not the same. The idea of being a descendant of the ancient Macedonians is not nationalist policy, it does not make someone a nationalist. Of course there are Macedonians who are not nationalist and who are "macedonist". Please contribute to this question. Seegef ( talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you have a point. At the current form, the moderates' and the extreme nationalists' views are mixed together causing confusion.-- JokerXtreme ( talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
See above #Merge from Macedonism, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, and Talk:Macedonism/Archive 2#This and that. The word Macedonism does not exist in English, it is a loan word an most (all?) of the English usage of the word is by people from the Balkans where they are using a term common in their language in English but it is not a term used by English speakers. That was the major reason for merging the article in to this one along with problems of systemic NPOV. -- PBS ( talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the last two lines in the contemporary views section. Both authors used as refs are about as credible as von Daniken (in other words, they're idiots), and in any case they aren't 2ary sources, and so do not meet WP:RS criteria on that account alone. — kwami ( talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It became evident that Communist Yugoslavia had borrowed parts from the histories of neighboring states to construct the Macedonian identity.
Well, anyone is entitled to his opinion. If you have any sources indicating that, we can talk about it.
Wikipedia has a "
WP:VER" policy.--
JokerXtreme (
talk)
16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
95.42.33.131 (
talk)
14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) : It's full of such sources - look wherever you want. It is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of TRUTH.
Is not from the late 19th century but, from the early 19th century, 1830s or so, by the very Bulgarian Vasil Levski in an article. Also, much more appropriate name for the article would be Macedonian National Awakening, as no one (sane) would deny that the Macedonian nation exists today, and what the good neighbors of Macedonia call 'Macedonism' is the modern beginning of the Macedonian nation Capricornis ( talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Vasil Levsski was born in 1837 and never used this term.
National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians redirects here. Regards!
Jingby (
talk)
13:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And the first sentence should be:
The national development of the so-called "ethnic Macedonians"[1] can be said to have begun in the late 19th and early 20th century.
95.42.33.131 (
talk)
14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
POV tag was added without any explaination. There are around 100 reliable sources in support of the thesis of this the article. Please, do not delete sourced information, only because you disagree with it. I am waiting on discussion what here is POV-ish. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that your personal opinion is not NPOV. "Some authors" opinion is much more neutral then yours. You are biased and pro-macedonistic administrator. More, you have not the rights to delete scientifically proved historical facts. Jingiby ( talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
An admin has postulated that some analysis published by Academic houses are nonsense, then deleted them, and proclaimed the rest of the article, sourced with around 100 references as POV. I think it was simply misuse of admin's powers. Jingiby ( talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly rules and lawyering are helpful here. Any sane observer understands by reading that this policy (Macedonism) is an insane official absurd in todays Europe. Didn't you, Future? Jingiby ( talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Hunzi6544.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
1. There are Serbs in RoMacedonia, with their own history, as it was supported by reference. And from "Encyclopedia Macedonica" to the fact that there are no monuments, street and other objects named after Serbs related mostly with northern part of the Republic of Macedonia speaks a volume. Serbs were not mentioned in constitution from 1991 to 2001. Jingiby perhaps tries to present history of Slavs of Macedonia as a 100% one, forgetting that Iceland was not 100% percent purely Icelandic 100 years ago, and what it can be said about tiny territory in Ottoman Empire where all forms of population shifts occurred, in all direction can be guessed.
Finally, there is the Serbian Orthodox Church vs. MOC conflict and its not mentioned at all. As for Serbs, census shows declared 36.000. They have 26 NGO and three political parties. Most of them can prove ancestry prior to Balkan Wars. And yes, there are articles in serious media that may be considered biased or derogation against Serbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.11 ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Nobody denies the presence of the Serbs today in RoM but of Bulgarians. The religious conflict is mentioned here also. I did not undertand where are your reliable sources and why was reliable info deleted? Jingiby ( talk) 08:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, provide reliable source for the official denial in RoM of the presence of the Serbs during the Middle ages and Ottoman rule, not sources for their presence. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 08:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
USER: sources for their presence are needed in order to establish the authenthicity of Serb community. As I mentioned, omission from the 1991 Constitution, and the claim by Stojan Kiselinovski from "Macedonian Encyclopedia" is that, in essence all Serbs are post-1913 colonists. The fact that you delete the fact that Serbian medieval rulers were not given monuments, plaques etc. neither in 1944, nor are included in "Skopje 2014". Macedonian are perhaps more hostile to Bulgarians and Greeks but there is also denial and ommission of Serb presence and authenticity ("Ssbomani") in spite of the evidence to contrary, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.59 ( talk) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
"Antiquization" is a buzzword that made its appearance in the Macedonian media only a few years ago, and it's almost always used pejoratively in reference to the Skopje 2014 project. It's a technical term used in architecture, but this article uses it more so to criticize the Macedonian claims of continuity. Many of the sources have also been misrepresented to this end. "Antiquization" aside, this article is excessively critical of Macedonian nationalism overall and doesn't provide an actual description of it. The tone is so hypercritical that one gets the impression that the Macedonian concept of nationhood is illegitimate but that all of the neighboring nationalisms are somehow legitimate. Also, there's also no need for over-citing the fact that VMRO-DPMNE is nationalist (I think I counted 7 refs!). -- WavesSaid ( talk) 01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that the BBC is sensationalist, but it's obvious that they've appropriated it from sensationalist Macedonian newspapers. And no, I'm not joking: academics do not use the word "antiquization" in this sense. It's a technical term of archeology, not nation-building. I have no problem with the word... when it's used in the right way. The Macedonian government in all likelihood does not like it, because it's used pejoratively. -- WavesSaid ( talk) 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not you just divide the article with "CLAIMS" so as that the Macedonian side gets its claim on historical documents as well. This article needs to be semi-protected because of pro-bulgarian, pro-macedonian nacionalism. This is a macedonian writing. In the end until both academies of macedonia and bulgaria agree on a similar stance based on documents, (and they probably never will) nothing can be stated about the "idea of pro-bulgarianism" in his work. Therefore the macedonian side is slightly better-off as far as the documentation goes. However I would rather let a German, an Irish or a Welsh decide on this matter, without anyone mangling in his thoughts. It's not the strongest one who always deserves to win right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.36 ( talk) 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point Sir. English version was written from clear pro-bulgarian position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.161.70 ( talk) 14:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the term "Macedonist" is used in a polemic sense, and then goes on to list "early adherents". This then makes the article itself polemic. -- 220.253.156.237 ( talk) 03:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know how articles like this one even exist on Wikipedia. All I can read is just POV claims and statements that don't even make any sense. What is this? More than half of the sources are Bulgarian, and probably even made up as they are offline. I can't even start to explain how apparent the OR is in this one... weasel words and phrases like "development of the Macedonian ethnicity can be said to have begun in the late 19th and early 20th century" are too damn obvious as nationalist trolling, and push back on themselves as being false (I mean, "can be said", c'mon!). With section names as "Post-Informbiro period and Bulgarophobia" and "Post-independence period and Antiquisation" I can say that OR is pretty apparent even from just opening the article. This tells more about how the ethnic Macedonians started hating Bulgarians, Greeks, etc., so that it doesn't focus on its aim - the nationalist ideology or ideas or movements in the Republic of Macedonia. Please, I urge Wikipedians interested in this are to give support so that we can fix the article. Thank you. - Phill24th ( talk). 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I removed the part which claims that pro-Bulgarian activists were persecuted and executed by federal authorities of Communist Yugoslavia, because there is no reference for that. Feel free to undo this change, once you find preferably Western and non-Bulgarian source for that.
I also added a quote from Oswald Spenglers The Decline of the West, which summarizes the confusion that existed in the early 20th century among Macedonians about their ethnic identity. McMixy ( talk) 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
In several instances in the article, it is asserted - with zero reference - that "Ancient Macedonism" was doctrinally taught in former Yugoslavia. That is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Are authors of that assertion claiming that during Yugoslav era (1950's, 1960's, 1970's.....) both academics, pupils, common people held affirmative view identical to what is taught in Gruevski's era? That the language of SRM evolved without any linguistic migration from some alleged "non-Greek" language of Alexander? That Phillip, Alexander, Cleopatra, the phalanx, staters, the Sun of Vergina, gods and goddesses of Olymp are historical heritage from which a linear, unadulterated cultural and linguistic succession old more than 2.000 years followed, culminating in Makedonci of SRM? That etymology of ancient Macedonian words, including personal, geographic and other names was related with the official language of SRM? There's no such thing. Either these assertion should be substantiated with scans from Yugoslav textbooks or any other "official" texts or this nonsense should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.220.69 ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"The origins of a separate Slav Macedonian identity and nationalism are complex" - what's up with this POV weasel word sentence in the lead. OK, they're "complex," how are they complex? in what context are they complex? Please firstly explain, clarify that to the reader, and then arrogantly remove templates. I'm not an idiot, Laveol, I know when to put a template, and where to put it! You can't just follow my contributions and revert them on everything. You wanted a discussion, here's a discussion. - Phill24th ( talk). 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I Undid revision 684520407 by 78.159.147.70. It was well sourced point, made by Oswald Spengler, and he was German, not from Balkans, therefore he didnt have subjective view motivated by some local nationalism. Please do not remove parts of the article without discussing it first on the talk pages. Thank you. McMixy ( talk) 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonian nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
A whole section called The designation "Macedonian" was deleted without credible explanation. The section is pretty good sourced with academic references. A lot of images was also deleted. I have restored it for now, but now part of the information in the article is duplicate. Jingiby ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Macedonism. I am going to remove this chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to add this paragraph to the end of the section: The designation "Macedonian":
By the end of the 19th century, according to the Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician Vasil Kanchov: "The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians. Turks and Albanians from Macedonia do not call themselves Macedonians, but when asked where they are from, they respond: from Macedonia. Albanians, who also call their country Anautluk, and Greeks who live in the southern area of Macedonia, do not call themselves Macedonians, hence the borders in these areas according to the peoples’ perception are not clearly defined." [1]
User: Jingiby deleted it. His rationale is that this is an original research. This actually is not an original research. It is simply a citation from a book from a renowned Bulgarian geographer, ethnographer and politician Vasil Kanchov. Can we get this paragraph back at the end of this section? GStojanov ( talk) 20:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
References