Talk:Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moved from old talk page Talk:Pirin Macedonians ][edit]

1. What do you call significant population? I'd say 5,000 is not significant enough. 2. Why do you delete my edits since the whole world says that there were great repressions during these censuses. 3. Why do you put this map since there are at least ten other scientific maps from the period that show the thing that you don't like seeing. These are only my first few questions.--Laveol T 10:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present, this article is a POV fork of the treatment we currently have at Blagoevgrad Province#Pirin Macedonia and irredentist allegations. The one treatment is as badly pro-Macedonian POV as the other is pro-Bulgarian POV. I don't strongly care whether in the end we will have a separate article linked summary-style into the other, or just a section, or perhaps something within the structure of a new main article Minorities in Bulgaria (we should have that, perhaps). But in any case, these two texts need to be condensed into one, shorter, neutral version. Have fun, guys. Whoever manages synthesizing these two POV screeds together without getting himself banned for edit-warring will get a barnstar from me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question; why is it that when someone says "Macedonians in Bulgaria" it is automatically linked to irredentism? Köbra Könverse 11:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he says it the way it was written in the article, it is. I was going to ask what irredentism you're talking about, but I saw the irredentism allegations. I'm not sure as to why the section is named in this way. I guess it's because the Bled agreement is one of the main causes for the radical irredentist concepts of nationalist Macedonians (ethnic). The fact is there are 5,000 people in Bulgaria that self-identify as Macedonians and everything else is OR. It's like if I was saying that there are 1,3 million Bulgarians in Macedonia. It'd be easy to find non-Balkan sources for this (I have already btw), but where will this leave us? And one more thing - it's the new editor Kosovski who's raising irredentist concepts and not you or one of the other more-NPOV suited editors. --Laveol T 13:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

RE: user:laveol - the same article the same POV


Is this title (macedonians in bulgaria, as opposed to pirin macedonians) more acceptable to you? Please inform me why the page is a point of veiw push?PMK1 (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have a problem with the current name - it's fine as I pointed out on Fut.Perf's talkpage. It is POV now - I'll tell you what I'm going to do - I'll add the other POV (that way it'll become double-POV-ed) and then if you don't like my POV, we'll remove both POVs and the article will stay with the current situation only. --Laveol T 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm ready - everything is sourced form non Bulgarian/Macedonian scholars. I've removed two sentences that came with such sources. Also I'd like you to present some more info about the sources you've given. The pages from which the in-line citations come, for example. Cause the way you had written it gave the impression, that you have just copy-pasted it form some place. Also I'd like you not to delete my sources (that are not from the Balkans) as I have left yours as well. If you don't like the current state of the article, I'd agree that everything besides the current situation to be deleted. Cheers and happy reading.--Laveol T 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the population from Blagoevgrad province was listed as ethnic Macedonians mostly against their will.[4][5][edit]

The majority of the population from Blagoevgrad province was listed as ethnic Macedonians mostly against their will.[4][5] 

-

well, this statement is really something. were these alleged "macedonians" really macedonian??? it is really a huge POV to have this information about the group. would laveol please like to clarify?? btw there is just as many sources saying that the population WERE not forced to declare themselves as macedonians, rather chosing to.PMK1 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is for you to provide. The article is so controversial, but you insisted on playing the game. And I tell you once again - this is the view in the Real World. If I wasn't aware wtah they teach you in RoM I'd be laughing all the day. I'm aware what they write in Bulgaria as well so here is the view of neutral scholars. I knew you wouldn't like it. You might take the article as it is or leave it only with the current situation of the minority (of this 5,000 people). Which do you prefer? I want to avoid all the edit wars and leave the article with the only uncontroversial info there is. Do you agree? --Laveol T 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no i am alrite with the current number. As you have seen i have never written more for the 2001 census. It is just really highly innacurate "most of the population of blagoevgrad/pirin were forced to sign up as macedonian". Well if this is the case why were numerous schools, printing houses, news agencies set up with the Macedonian language as the main language, and most of these alleged "forced macedonians" could read and speak the language?It is a blatant lie. Which information you have used faulty sources, as stated below. And for that reason i am deleting it.PMK1 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History merge[edit]

I've merged the edit history of the older version at Pirin Macedonians into this page (currently Macedonians in Bulgaria), since it is essentially the same article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bulgarian communist references[edit]

RE:The Bulgarian Communist party was compelled by Stalin to accept the formation of Macedonian, Thracian and Dobrujan nations in order to include those new separate states in a Balkan communist federation.[4][5][6]

RE:The same process started regarding the populations in Dobrudja and Thrace.[4][5]

RE:decision was made that the Macedonian, Dobrujan and Thracian nations did not exist and neither did their respective languages.[9][10][4][5]


just for clarification.

i have searched tirelessly for these dobrujan an thracian nations and languages which are mentioned in the source.???? i have never heard of any thracian language but the one spoken in ancient times. and as for the Dobrujan one? it is nonexistent!

as for the this "SUPER merger" of the balkan states it is a bit unrealisitc. The bulgarian government officially stopped recognising the macedonians in 1958. 5 years after stalin died. 9 years after the greek civil war ended (thus ending any dreams of a great communist state), 11 years after the Bled Agreement (which recognised the rights of the Macedonian minority), by the way the idea of this Balkan Communist federation was quickly forgotten as the Yugoslav and Turkish communists were not for it.

this a serious POV and threaten the neutrality of the article. user:laveol needs to make the article more realistic as he has taken it upon himself to oversee the article. PMK1 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the sources for this. As for the Dobrujan and Thracian nations (you sure you have never heard of Thracians) you'll understand a lot about the Bulgarian position towards Macedonia and Macedonians from this example. --Laveol T 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i have heard of the thracian nation and of the thracian language but this dates back from ancient times, not in the last 50 years! And as for this dobrujan nation and language. even wikipedia has no mention of these nations and languages, and for it to be mentioned on THIS page? it is a bit strange isnt it!? ""The same process started regarding the populations in Dobrudja and Thrace.""" what is the relevance of that sentence? people never listed on the census' as thracians, or dobrujans! and they never listed as speaking thracian or dobrujan, there are no such languages, they are bulgarians! It is very highly UNencyclopedic to put up wrong information and unless it is changed i would be pushing for its removal.P m kocovski (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we come to the point - yes, these people were Bulgarians. This goes for the once in Blagoevgrad province as well. Yes, it is relevant, cause they were treated in such a way. It is unencyclopedic to say that they were not Bulgarians. And it is not nice to say you'll push for something. --Laveol T 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you not to remove relevant fact tags as well. You should provide sources for them and then you can remove them. --Laveol T 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes these people WERE and ARE bulgarians, thats why they wrote that in the census (unlike macedonians who wrote otherwise!). Does that mean you are still persisting with the references to the (non existant) Dobujan and Thracian languages? and to the Thracian and Dobrujan nations? PMK1 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to start login in as well. I kind of get the impression you don't want to edit with your main account. As for the Dobrujans and Thracians - this is what the refs say. --Laveol T 01:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeh sorry about that. so the book (i take it your source is a book) actually says that their is such a thing as a dobrujan and thracian language (y/n)? does the book also say that the people of thrace and dobruja were forced to write down as dobrujans or thracians (y/n)? i am really confused at the moment .. If you do not believe me just look around at other sources, they will state in unison to what have, eg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3sbswPZuHo  ; these people are not oppresed. PMK1 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YOutube is not a source. You'll be surprised (badly) by the things you can find there. --Laveol T 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i know it is not a proper source but this is an authentic video from the 50's. Could you answer the questions please so the book (i take it your source is a book) actually says that their is such a thing as a dobrujan and thracian language (y/n)? does the book also say that the people of thrace and dobruja were forced to write down as dobrujans or thracians (y/n)??? here is another book you should look up on google books ( so that you can see i am not lying) - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=m_AcqFSfvzAC&pg=PA38&dq=Ethnic+politics+in+Eastern+Europe:+A+Guide+to+Nationality+Policies,+Organizations+and+Parties+-+By+Janusz+Bugajski+-+Published+1995.&sig=4EzIIrLLmcMWDHpcvfWnO1DRSEQ#PPA238,M1 OR Ethnic politics in Eastern Europe: A Guide to Nationality Policies, Organizations and Parties - By Janusz Bugajski - Published 1995. page-235 & 238 it quite clearly states the opposite to what oyu have written.

I will be able to find just as many sources as you have and adding them just to prove a point is ridiculous! (it is not wat wikipedia is about) therefore i believe that the disputed information you have put up should be removed. thanx PMK1 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. The whole history issue should be removed. There's no way the censuses that you cite from a book, not from the official sources (but you still want me to provide them, don't you) and there's no way it'll pass without the comments of the majority of scholars. Yes, my books say that they tried to implement such things alongside Macedonian. You can judge for yourself whether such nations exist. --Laveol T 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible source fraud???[edit]

just a question why is this source -- Rothschild, Joseph. The Communist Party of Bulgaria; Origins and Development, 1883-1936. Columbia University Press, p. 126. --- used 5 times in the article when the article is focused after the end date? what would reforms in the 1950's have to do with 19 century communism? is this really bieng used as a source???? P m kocovski (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the book. Check it out if you don't believe me. I know you want to get rid of the sources, but you have nothing against them. On the contrary I have asked you a number of times to provide more info on the inline citations. If I by some chance get the book that is your only source, how should I find the passages you mention? --Laveol T 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sweeping generalisation such as "the majority ... was listed against their will", even if sourced, should never be adopted as a factual claim brought forward in Wikipedia's own voice, but always hedged and excplicitly attributed as somebody's opinion: "It has been surmised that the majority ... was listed against their will...<ref>Says whoever.</ref>." Unless the source documents how an empirical study has actually asked all those people and counted those who were listed against their will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good point, would you recommend its deletion? PMK1 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have repaired it as Fut.Perf. requested. --Laveol T 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not very good in my view. "Maintain the fact" isn't good English; sneaking in "fact" serves to peacock it up, as does qualifying the authors as "scholars like...". I personally prefer the passive voice for such instances. "It has been claimed", "it has been described as", etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a thing for action verbs :) --Laveol T 08:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue for Kocovski - your sources about the cities come from the Greek Helsinki Committee and an author who's writing about minorities between 1919 and 1980. A lot of imagination is needed to accept such sources. Find better ones or remove the cities. And what's your view on Regions with significant populations - how many should they be for significant. 1, 2, 500, 1000, 10000? Cause they're all in all 5000. The only relevant source you can put is the Bulgarian census. --Laveol T 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats what i mean! ( i wouldnt actually put that in the article) but you have to find a wide variety of sources and if we only relied on one source it would be a book reveiwPMK1 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't really catch your thought. You say what? --Laveol T 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to the questoins further up. my apologies. Oh and if the bulgarian census had a more in depth census ie. local level. than a more accurate description of where they live could be placed up. Until that i guess the CEDIME-SE document must be our best bet along with the historical figures of where they were (because where they were in the past is likely to represent the proportion of where they are today) and the other sources.PMK1 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The end of the oppressions came in 1958[edit]

This is highly innacurate. What kind of a statement is this? What oppresions? The oppressions began in 1958! Therefore it should be as i stated "At the 1958 plenum ....." there is no need for this lie!. and laveol how NPOV are your sources really?? you have basically just sourced 2 books 5 times each, all of the time saying how the Macedonians do not really exist! im sensing serious bias here! PMK1 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. So one of you wants to characterise the one state of affairs as "oppression" and the other one the other. The term "oppression" has no place in a neutral text at all, either way. I really wonder, why is it that whenever it comes to Bulgarian history, nobody, absolutely nobody, ever, makes even an attempt at giving their writing so much as a semblance of neutrality? :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To say frankly there's no way to get to neutrality regarding this issue. I already tried to explain this to Kosovski on a number of times. The only neutral part could be the current situation (and this is only hardly). I ask again - do you think it should be left only with it as is the section in Macedonians (ethnic group)?--Laveol T 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why neutrality should be impossible. The only prerequisite is that people stop assuming essentialist conceptions of ethnicity - as if ethnicity was an indelible, immutable mark on the essence of somebody's existence. Stop saying "Macedonians did this" and "Bulgarians did that". Start saying: Inhabitants of region X identified with ethnic group Y, etc. And everybody just avoid those dumb judgmental terms like "oppression" and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to give it to you - it does look more neutral this way. I was thinking about it over lunch and came up with a solution. Something of the sort: "Another turn in policy took place". Then I saw you had already changed that even before I started considering the matter. I already confessed that my part was hardly NPOV, but this way it was more consistent with the whole POV article. Oh, and another thing - Kocovski (sorry about the Kosovski - one, can't help it these days with Kosovo everywhere) hasn't got the data for the censuses (the official data I mean), but rather cites it through a literary work. So that's the POV to start with. You, know that the XX century Balkans are not the place where NPOV is possible - we've tried it in real life as well and guess what - it doesn't work. I'll say again - from this article one can learn a lot about the Bulgarian attitude towards ethnic Macedonians and the latters' irredentist concepts towards Bulgaria and Greece. --Laveol T 10:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the census they are correct now unless you are able to find and actual say internet page link of the 1946,1956 and 1965 census you will have to be content with the figures given. Also the figures are also given by Bulgarian sources not Yugoslav ones eg=>> in "Ethnic politics in Eastern Europe" by Janusz Bugajski here are a few snippits , "in the 1956 census nearly 188,000 macedonians were registered comprising 2.5% of the bulgarian population". Also this book Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict by Victor Roudometof page 62; " hence the december 1956 census showed the presence of 187,789 macedonians in pirin ,or bulgarian macedonia". Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States by James Minahan page 178" "...,counted the macedonian population seperately in the 1956 census,. At that time 187,729 were counted as ethnic macedonians in bulgaria, about 95% living in Pirin Macedonia". Macedonia its disputed history by Neil Simpson, "in the 1956 bulgarian census close to 188,000 people declared themselves to be Macedonians". Who are the Macedonians - Hugh Poulton - page 148. " The bulgarian authorities did not publish the results of the 1946 census. Yugoslav sources claim that 252,908 people declared themselves to be Macedonians in that census, - Refers to a reference, but in 1991 the bulgarian embassy in London stated that 169,544 people registered themselves to be Macedonians in 1946 <Reference> refers to source. The census of 1956 recorded 187,789 Macedonians, with 95% of them living in the pirin region where they made up 63.8% of the population". Here are just some of the sources in which census figures are stated, the number of 187,729 keeps coming up for the 1956 census, most of the books also state that c.8700 people declared in 1965. also for 1946 we should stick to the bulgarian government figurs (169,544) and possibly make mention of the yugoslav source.It clearly states that the 1946 census was not published so it would be hard to find the results of it!, thanx PMK1 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick to the Bulgarian government, but how? You do not have a direct source for the census. Hmmm, I have to tell you that Janusz Bugajski is not Bulgarian and Victor Roudometof is of Bulgaian descent. --Laveol T 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats the figure which i have placed in the article, i asume that you read that articles sources which i presented? Oh and the source from the bullgarians was in the book Who are the Macedonians,John Poulton. It also included the yugoslav source, i guess without ever publishing the results of the census there will never be consensus, but there is general agreement on the 1956 figure (187,729) and 1965 c.8700.PMK1 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you'll have to provide a better source than the Greek Helsinki Comittee. 1. It is not relevant - how should people in Greece know what's going on in Bulgaria. 2. This is a Helsinki committee. --Laveol T 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

Frankly, the intro sucks. Most of that paragraph should go somewhere lower in the article. The intro should pretty much just focus on the current situation: official number, official status etc. BalkanFever 06:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is what the whole article should say. There is a reason why the section on the page Macedonians (ethnic group) focuses on the current state only. There is absolutely no way to get to a balanced version of the other stuff. Don't you think so? --Laveol T 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Maybe we should try to find more content related to the current situation first. BalkanFever 08:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already proposed Kosovski to add something on the other MAcedonians (not the regional ones) to the article. I'm more than sure a lot of Macedonians are currently working and living in Bulgaria. He seems uninterested in them, though. I don't know why. --Laveol T 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a matter of fact this page is a lot more informative than the blurb on the Ethnic Macedonians page. I guess thats the point of wikipedia to provide information. As for the neutrality of this article it is better than it was before. Well if you have concrete statistics and information macedonians working and living in bulgaria i suggest you include them, but their is not much if anything about them, i have also imporved upon the sources used, and btw its kocovski :)! PMK1 (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pov push![edit]

Distribution of races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor, Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, New York (1923)
Distribution of races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor in 1922, Racial Map Of Europe by Hammond & Co.

what is the point of having these 2 images on the page? are you trying to prove a point. By having these 2 maps there is no encyclopedic benefit to the article nor to the reader. they should be remover ASAP, this is spamming the article laveol PMK1 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not spamming. You presented a map from 1918, I present you two others from the same period. Not that your map was relevant to the time period. If you remove anything, remove them all. --Laveol T 12:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if all of your edits are trying to prove that the macedonians do not exist. Is this really fair and neutral? I have not been 'inventing' the bulgarians in macedonia. PMK1 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, my every edit is the other POV. As I said tons of time before - this is not MK wikipedia. From my experience with it I can tell you that MK wiki is the place to spread propaganda. There you can say Cleopatra, Ivan Vazov, Nikola Vaptzarov and Adam are ethnic Macedonians. And this is the English wikipedia, where you cannot spread such things cause there's no (especially scientific) proves for such outrages statements. --Laveol T 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are mistaken, i do not believe that Cleopatra nor these other bulgarians are macedonians, we have our own history and we do not need to steal others! and by the way BG wiki is just as "bad" ad MK wiki although they go more indepth that is a source for more propaganda!

statement 1- "Македонският език или Македонска езикова норма е южнославянски език или една от книжовните норми на българския език. "

this page - here

statement - българи - 20 993 (1,04%) Около 20 000 от македонците имат българско национално съзнание, тъй като са получили българско гражданство на базата на български етнически произход и са се декларирали за българи, както например бившият премиер на републиката Любчо Георгиевскии бившия вътрешен министър Доста Димовска.[3] Много други граждани на Република Македония, и без да притежават двойно гражданство, открито афишират българския си произход, като например писателите Младен Сърбиновски и Миле is this really neutral stufff???? and just a question do you agree with statement one? PMK1 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my position on BalkanFever's talkpage. Also I'm not saying what Bg wiki is, I just notice that the info you added to this article is pretty much the one I read on mk wiki. And actually the statement you pointed out is true - 20,000 ethnic Macedonians did declare they were Bulgarians. Lyubcho is now a Bulgarian politician, isn't he? I don't care if they were lying or something - this is the fact. I agree it could be written in a more neutral style, but the basic is the true statistic. --Laveol T 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, what exactly is the problem with portal Macedonia in bg wiki? It's actually dealing with the geographical Macedonia, not with the country. Sorry about the Cleopatra part - it was provoked by User:MacedonianBoy constantly adding the name of the article about her in Macedonian, cause she was a Macedonian after all. I've had a bad day and a bad night. And then I come to wikipedia just to see a whole new crap nationalistic article. Really refreshing (end of the off-topic). What happened with the sources other from the Greek Helsinki Committee and the book from 1984, then? --Laveol T 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the only the map showing the "Macedonian Slavs" shown and none of the other (more numerous) maps which don't show them not shown? Quite clearly there was a dispute going on among mapmakers at that time regarding the existence of "Macedonians"/"Macedonian Slavs"; It is unfair and biased to present only one side of the story.--Dexippus (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. I've been trying to explain that presenting a tiny minority view as dominant is nowhere near any standards. --Laveol T 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you are going to have that type of an attitude than on the Ethnic Macedonians page you might as well have all these maps and claim that before 1944 there was no such thing as a macedonian, that is not the right type of attitude. And RE:20,000 ethnic Macedonians did declare they were Bulgarians. Actually here is the [[1]] i dont see 20,000 bulgarians! Please do not talk 2 me about Ljubcho for i will be banned from using talk pages! (i think you can get what my attitude is :) ). @dexippus, i dont know who you are but both me and laveol ( the major contributers to this article) both agreed that we would have the administrator to reveiw the page, to prevent an edit war, thanx PMK1 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Fut Perf didn't say he'd do it. A lot of time passed since we asked him to do it and he seems to have enough on his head even besides this article. Ummm, where don't you see 20,000 Bulgarians? In Bulgaria? And I don't advise you to say bad things about Lyubcho - he's a nice guy. --Laveol T 09:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only people who actually declared that they were ethnically bulgarian was something like 1400 people. not 20,000. Well if not fut perf i will approach another administrator if thats alrite. Oh, and you like ljubcho, his your friend? give him my worst regards :)!PMK1 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean 20,000 that declared they were Bulgarians and now live in Bulgaria. And what's the situation with the sources? Are you even planning on finding some real ones any time soon? --Laveol T 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok we had a misunderstanding. i didnt get what you were saying. I think having significat populations they way you put is more NPOV PMK1 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typos[edit]

I corrected some spelling mistakes in the portion "Macedonians after 1958" Maktruth (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recognition?[edit]

i was trawling through the internet and i found this page - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/MacedonianMinorities/recognition.html i wondered whether it was worth mentioning??? P m kocovski (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said previously, I do think that the ethnic Macedonian minority is actually recognized in Bulgaria. Or let's say in another way - it is not denied. But info from single-purpose propaganda sites is not welcome here. If you come across a more suitable reference it'll be nice. --Laveol T 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, thats what i mean. Well websites dont usually lie about recognition moreso non-recognition so i manage to find the another source i will bring it up. I just thought if true it would be in the article. PMK1 (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Helsinki Source[edit]

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-macedonians.PDF This is an excellent source, please read and add to the article accordingly. Mactruth (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed the source - it is not relevant.--Laveol T 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean not relevant? It is the most comprehensive study conducted on these people for 2 decades! First you said that the CEDIME-SE doc shouldnt be a source, than the Makedonsko Malsintvo v Republika Balgarija. You have dismissed enough sources, remember IDONTLIKEIT. the source will be put as an external link. PMK1 (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will be put? Are you the owner of this place, sorry? It is not relevant because this is the Greek Helsinki committee. Greek. Frankly, I don't think the BG one is ok, but this is way ouy. We already discussed that - why did your position turn on 180 again? --Laveol T 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, i don't own it. But even before we started this conversation started their was a link to the source. So i didnt have to do anything. Also who are you to judge whether it isnt relevant, a lot of the sources you have added i could whinge that they arent relevant because they are not bulgarian. What is wrong with the Bulgarian HM?? What position have i flipped 180 on??, i Just gave up arguing that the report is relevant with you. Also who would have thought that "A. Cook, Bernard (2001). Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis, p.810. ISBN 0815340583. " would be more relevant to this Article than the CEDIME-SE doc. on the Macedonians in Bulgaria. Cetrainly not me! P m kocovski (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean why a neutral scholar is more suitable than a controversial organization that has no way of knowing anything about the situation? Is this what you're asking? --Laveol T 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so controversial for? Because it recognises human rights? Also they do know extensively of the situation, they have a partner called the Bulgarian Helsinki Comitee. P m kocovski (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMK 1,i found book about Bulgarian negation and every thing about Macedonians in Bulgaria,it is from Bulgarian author STEFAN MICOV VLAHOV-FILOZOFSKIOT KLUČ ZA MAKEDONSKIOT IDENTITET (ISBN 998948716-2),it is a good source about position of Macedonians in Bulgaria,and Bulgarian pressure against Macedonians.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonij (talk • contribs) 09:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are from sources like these they should be used but stated in a neutral manner Mactruth (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Does any one object if i move the page to Ethnic Macedonians of Bulgaria? PMK1 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I object. Isn't this an article about ethnic Macedonians that live in Bulgaria? --Laveol T 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont object!In fact that article is about Macedonian minority in Bulgaria,and that minority should be called Macedonians of Bulgaria.--Makedonij (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i can see your point but in implies they are like an immigrant group to the region, or they are just in bulgaria. While of implies that they have been there from some time and originate from bulgaria (which they do). If they were an immigrant group in would be more appropriate. But seeing as they originate from bulgaria i would say that of is better? Would you agree?PMK1 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what would happen when I add the info about the recent Macedonian immigrants to Bulgaria. They wouldn't be native to Bulgaria (as of now), but would still be ethnic Macedonians living in Bulgaria (at least some of them). Should we create a special article about them? --Laveol T 11:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish you can add more info. No we shouldnt but this article focuses mainly on the Macedonians from Bulgaria, the pirin macedonians, the minority that bulgaria recognised in the 40's and 50's, not a few hundred recent immigrants. I wasnt able to find much information about recent immigrants, so i didnt put any in. PMK1 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe you have searched for info about recent immigrants/emigrants (depends on the point of view) and you failed to find any. It does not support any irredentist view and is not needed in the article, I guess. --Laveol T 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes i have. But it is not the most written about topic. I just think it is better to have of because they are of/from bulgaria, not merely in it. PMK1 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with the source now. You seem to have misread it - it definitely says they speak dialects of Bulgarian which is pretty much what it is. The source is explicit on the issue - it even cites Kanev - Bulgarian is used in everyday speach and Macedonian if at all is used only sometimes at home. As for the religion - there is no single Macedonian orthodox church in Bulgaria so the source (which is again the same) is pretty trustworthy on that. They call to Bulgarian churches. That's it. No, you cannot include only things that you like from the source. I wasn't aware it was such a normal NPOV thing until I read it. And to put an end to the old argument - it is only redacted by the Greek Helsinki Committee. --Laveol T 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know thats why i posted Eastern Orthodox Church. Also if you identified as a Macedonians than you would be pretty staunch on your identification of the language. Also if you read the summary at the top of the report. Name of the language spoken by the minority - Bulgarian or Macedonian. So both languages are used. also; Religion(s) practiced. - Eastern Orthodox Christianity.. also they nevertheless use

the Bulgarian standard language. So i think it would be more appropriate for both languages ot be listed. PMK1 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, it says that they use predominantly Bulgarian. If you want to add Macedonian, add it, but leave the predominantly Bulgarian part. As for the religion issue I have nothing against it being like this. It's right after all. I just knew it you wouldn't like what the source says. A pitty as it looks like a nice one. --Laveol T 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with both languages listed. That is fair, as for which church we are really all apart of the same church be it serbian, romanian or russian, Eastern Orthodox. PMK1 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a problem with a church not being recognized and a source explicitly stating they follow the Bulgarian church, but in order to avoid further disputes, I'll close my eyes about this issue. --Laveol T 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby's additions[edit]

Re. latest additions by Jingiby: [2]: (Although in tune with the inter-war Soviet dogma which Dimitrov himself advocated throughout his career, this attitude had become an obstacle in the way of Stalin's wish for total control over the new Eastern Bloc.): Jingiby, don't tell me you wrote this sentence yourself. It sounds plagiarised. You copied that from somewhere. But the main problem is: what does it refer to? What is "this attitude"? And what time relation is described by the pluperfect in "had become"? i.e. when was "this attitude" prevalent, and by what time had it become "an obstacle"? This is the danger of just ripping out sentences from some source and copying them. The meaning gets distorted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yow are wright. I am going to remove it. Jingby (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's talk about it (altough this should not be necessary)[edit]

Dear Jingby, Preslav. You probably very well know that there are earlier signs of Macedonian national identity, separate from Serbs and Bulgarians, so that POV-information "had Bulgarian identity" cannot stay here. It is not that simple as you would like it. Regards. 93.219.219.234 (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear annonimous, please do not remove referenced information! If you wont to discuss about Macedonian identity, please write on the articles Macedonian nationalism and Macedonian Question, but first read them! There are hunderts of references about it. Jingby (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is referenced and is a fact. End of discussion. All regular contributors here would appreciate it if you use the talkpage before removing info from the articles. You still seem to be quite up front with some wiki-vocabulary. I'll take it as an incident and won't ask if you've edited before. But, please, enough disruption already. --Laveol T 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue source for Macedonian language speakers in Bulgaria[edit]

I see in Ethnologue the figure of Macedonian language speakers in Bulgaria to be 150,000, included the estimate in the article. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mkd Hittit (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This number is of the Slavic speakers in Bulgaria, which dialect is viewed as Macedonian by Ethnologue. This number is included in the article Macedonian language. Here we don't look for the number of Dialect speakers, but of people with ethnic and linguistic Macedonian self-identification, what is different. Jingiby (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jingby, this has been applied in the same fashion in the article Bulgarians in Turkey where Ethnologue is sourced for the 300,000 Pomaks speaking Bulgarian in Turkey. As this is used in the same context, I could the ask in the same manner why include this source in one article and not in the other? Hittit (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with such a methodology and if you are going to revise this number I shell support you. Jingiby (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't put so much trust in Ethnologue information, it's obsoleted and based on sources from 50+ years ago. About 2 years ago I contacted them regarding this data and after I quoted the census results they told me that then next release will have the date from the latest Bulgarian census (regarding the Macedonians and the Macedonian language speakers). --StanProg (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent assessment of the number of Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria[edit]

The Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies came up with an assessment that ethnic Macedonians are 10% of the population. We need to include this since it is the only independent assessment[1] GStojanov (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies". https://www.ifimes.org/. Retrieved 2020-11-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

IFIMES – International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan studies reliability put under question.[edit]

The reliability of that institute is highly questionable. Per the Digital Forensic Center of the Atlantic Council of Montenegro which main goals are of countering the problem of disinformation and fake news as well as reducing problem of digital/media illiteracy did a detailed analysis of the pieces of research of the International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan studies (IFIMES), due to discovered inconsistencies in claims, biased coverage of specific topics and changing attitude towards the events and players in a short period. The DFM put under question the objectives of the IFIMES’ analyses.[1] Jingiby (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The document you provided confirms that in Monte Negro they disliked how IFIMES analyzed the political situation in Monte Negro. That does not discredit IFIMES, on the contrary. If we give space to the official statistic, which is heavily biased toward minimizing the size of the Ethnic Macedonian minority in Bulgaria, we should present the independent opinion too. GStojanov (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not a place for fake news. Jingiby (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should becareful when dismissing citations as "fake news". I propose including something like (far within the body)
according to the IFIMES there is [...], however the organization has been criticized in the past for disinformation.[2]
Obviously trying to avoid any undue weight here. Kromid (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, with 1,500 Macedonians in Bulgaria, to cover here the journalistic fabrications of Dejan Azeski for 700,000 people is, to put it mildly, insane simplicity. In fact, he didn't write his name, after all, under this journalistic writing. You can check his nationalistic articles on the site of IFIMES as: Why we are only Macedonians and nothing else?; Bulgarian ‘certification’ of identity of Macedonians and Macedonian Language?; 2020 Parliamentary elections in North Macedonia: Will the Macedonians be on the right side of the history again?, etc. Wikipedia info must be based on reliable sources, mates. In recent years there has been an explosion in new publications of very low quality that have only token reliability if any. These sites publish whatever is submitted if the author is from their collective. Some go so far as to mimic the names of some established institutions. The lack of reliable peer review implies that such articles on such sites should be treated similarly to self-published sources.Jingiby (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree here that there is not that many people that identify as ethnic Macedonians in Blagoevgrad District, Bulgaria, if another organization came out and said that 10% or more of the people in North Macedonia identify as Bulgarians I wouldn't support that source being added on the North Macedonia page either. Also I don't understand how this figure from the IFIMES is calculated, is it simply a guess or what they want it to be? --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgaria is not North Korea, in the census, you can self-identify as whatever you want, there were even some people that identified as Martians in the last census. Just 1,654 people identified as ethnic Macedonians in the 2011 census, a considerable drop from 3,117 people identifying as ethnic Macedonians from the 2001 census. On the contrary, there were 588,318 people that self-identified as Turks in Bulgaria during the 2011 census. Based on the article being cited, there is 10% of the population of Bulgaria that is ethnic Macedonians or around 700,000 ethnic Macedonians which is more than the number of Turks which are the largest recorded minority in Bulgaria, and a 42221.64% percent increase from the people that self-identified as ethnic Macedonians during the last census. Hopefully, you can see how absurd this is. You can't just impose an identity on hundreds of thousands of people when there is solid evidence from multiple censuses in the past decades that no number close to what this organization cites is close to it. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ THE OBJECTIVENESS OF THE IFIMES’ ANALYSES IN QUESTION.
  2. ^ THE OBJECTIVENESS OF THE IFIMES’ ANALYSES IN QUESTION.

People with disputed nationality.[edit]

I notice that the list of ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria includes people who defined themselves primarily as Bulgarians or those by whom the sense of Macedonian identity was expressed episodically or was vague in contrast to Bulgarian one. I suggest that they be removed or if they remain, there should be a note that they felt themselves Bulgarian too. Jingiby (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note, thanks. --Local hero talk 20:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners in a Labor camp.[edit]

In my opinion, it is quite clear that people imprisoned in a labor camp are forced to work. This does not need to be mentioned in this article. It is in the article on the Belene camp, as well as in the main article on the labor camps, i.e. this is WP:COATRACKING. Jingiby (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. --Local hero talk 20:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RS article: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors... Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. Jingiby (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't see how Hürriyet and Kathimerini articles qualify as first-hand accounts of these events (i.e. "primary" sources). Further, please read WP:AGEMATTERS carefully, as it does not suggest these sources should be excluded. Thanks. --Local hero talk 16:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read above: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Jingiby (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, please see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. These newspapers are independent and reliable. Second, I contend that these articles are not exactly primary sources. For example, the Kathimerini article is from 1953 but discusses past events in 1951, making it more of a historical report. Further, I am not making any "original analysis" of sources here. --Local hero talk 02:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political representation and edior concerns[edit]

VMORO, I have decided to open this discussion here as it is the most suitable place for your concerns voiced here. I hope that I have addressed everything with my edit here. If you (or anyone else) have any concerns regarding that section of the article, freely state them here. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_Macedonians_in_Bulgaria&oldid=1207534357"