Talk:Macedonian nationalism/Archive 2

message: This article is a disaster by any standards! I'll try to find time to explain why these days. Regards. --FlavrSavr 03:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, it will be better in few days.--ElevatedStork 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear God 

message: But lets start and correct it, step by step.
:Lest start and correct it.--ElevatedStork 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the whole talk, there has been a lot of discussion already. Why are you disputing the article?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs A LOT OF WORK 

message: The text was:
The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed
The truth is quite the opposite. Self-determination has always been one of the crucial principles of the Macedonian National Movement. It was understood from the earliest phase that Macedonia is inhabited with various ethnicities, and Macedonians, as the native majority, should do whatever is needed to protect the ethnic minorities of Macedonia.
As an example, lets take a look at the Kresna Uprising Proclamation from 1878. This is, without any doubt, one of the most mature document produced by the Macedonian National Movement. 
In the third article it is clearly stated that Macedonia is inhabited with various nationalities and faiths:
Article 3: All residents of Macedonia, regardless of nationality or faith, can take part in the uprising - but they must love freedom.
Article 15 names the various nationalities, and implies that the list is not definite:
Article 15: Any Christian, Muslim, Macedonian, Turk, Albanian, Vlach, or anyone else who acts contrary to the uprising and/or the Rebels will be prosecuted and punished.
Article 156 puts all religions and nationalitis in equal legal position under Macedonian civil rule. 
Article 156: It is strictly forbidden to spread hatred based on religion. It is forbidden to make distinctions among the nationalities because all are equal citizens and all are under the protection of the laws of Macedonian civil rule.
Articles 162-178 regulate the rule in the multi-ethnic and multi-convessional villages and areas. 
Articles 186-190 regulated the relations between the Macedonians and Bulgarian Principality (as a foreign country). 
Similar articles exist for the Serbian and Greek kingdoms. 
The modern Macedonain constitution makes a clear distinction between Macedonians, and the other slavic speaking ethnicities that live in Macedonia. In all censuses Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins and Bulgarians (all slavic speaking nations) were counted as separate ethnicities.
Hence to say: ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed is completely inappropriate. Exactly the opposite is the case.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filip_M (talk • contribs) .
::And how about the statute of SMARO, where a member can be "any Macedonian or Adrianopolian"? You claim that Adrionopolians formed a separate ethnic group then?   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not correct. --ElevatedStork 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of the Claim 1 

message: Ok, lets talk about the following statement (that you insist is correct):
The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed.
Why do you think we disregard the self-determination of anyone, including the Slav-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia that identify themselves as something else, and not Macedonians? We don't! In Republic of Macedonia there are thousands of Slav-speaking citizens that self-identify themselves as Serbs, or Bulgarians, or Bosniaks, or Croats, or Montenegrins. We know and we completely accept their free choice of self-determination. The number of Serbs, according to the last census was 40 000, the number of Bosniaks around 20 000, the number of Bulgarians 1653, etc.
The statement: ethnicity is prescribed on a regional bases, rather than being self-expressed is also untrue. Actually R. Macedonia is one of the few Balkan countries that fully recognizes all ethnicities that live in it. It does not purposely confuse the citizenship, with the ethnicity, as some other countries do, and then they claim that they are 98% ethnically homogenous. --Filip M 03:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethicity is prescribed on a regional basis in neighboring Albania, Greece and Bulgaria, where over a million Republicans supposedly exist, and where recent censi have recorded a couple of tens of thousands at best.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't! In Republic of Macedonia there are thousands of Slav-speaking citizens that self-identify themselves as Serbs, or Bulgarians, or Bosniaks, or Croats, or Montenegrins. So does the Republican government (that lost the elections) recognize the censi in Bulgaria and Greece?   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not respecting self-determination 

message: Removed most of the section because this is not an article about the history of Macedonia. The claim is very specific.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim6 

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

message: This won't be an exhaustive list: 1. Tag team reverting is way out, 2. not discussing controversial reversions on the talk page is way out. 
I protected the article because of this lovely revert war that was going on. Please, please, please get mediation, I'd offer to mediate, but seeing as you all think I'm Macedonian there is not much point. Please see WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM.  - FrancisTyers · 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How not to write an article 

message: I am looking now what have edited in the article and I have several remarks:
Regarding Claim 1, I have never seen such statement that "Macedonian ethnic group is the only indigenous ethnic group to Macedonia"
As for the Greek majority in Macedonia, allow me to quote several people:
Von Knapich, the Austrian Consul in Salonika, reported in 1874 that the Greek population was limited exclusively to the Kasandra and Ayonoros districts, the old Chalcidice and the Peninsula opposite. The Austrian  K. Gersin (1903) considered that Greek presence extended only as far as the River Bistrica and along the Chalcidice. The historian and long-time English diplomat at Constantinople, E. Pears, maintained the view that ‘away from the shore it is rare to find a purely Greek village except near the confines of Greece’.
Ottoman sources that you are quoting reflects church adherence not ethnic. European commentators of the period generally considered Greeks to number fewer than 250,000 people. In 1899 (German) K. Oestreich counted 200,000, and in the same year (Serbian) S. Gopcevic counted 201,140. In 1900 (Bulgarian) V. Kanchov counted 225,152 Greeks, while in 1903 (German) K. Peucker counted 240,000, and (Austrian) K. Gersin counted 228,702 in the same year. The Greek element in Macedonia constituted no more than 10 per cent of the total population in Macedonia.
I also have many other references about Romanian-Greek conflict regarding their claims about Vlachs.
So I suggest you to remove your statement. The reason for that is , if it stays in the current form I will be forced to refute it. If that happen, the article will probably go in completelly different direction (other Greeks will refute my stuff, then I will theirs, and so on...) --Cigor 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you're getting at. I didn't say Greeks were the majority (certainly not in the whole region as perceived by Macedonian Slav nationalists, Skopje etc...). I said that Greeks have been in Macedonia long before the 1920s (and long before the Slavs), contrary to the claims that the only Greeks in Macedonia are refugees from Turkey (makedonija.info, User:Macedonia etc). --Tēlex 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am talking about this: . OK, it not "majority", but largest population, my bad. Again, nobody claims that  only Greeks in Macedonia are refugees from Turkey , other than some extremist. But than, the article confuses me: do you want to show the extremist or mainstream view?--Cigor 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't a clue about the minutiae of what goes on in the minds of Macedonian Slav nationalists (or what's mainstream amongst them or not). I expect the ethnic composition was roughly as it appears in the ethnographic maps. Sources conflict - according to Greek sources, the 1941 census Axis carried out in the occupied Kingdom of Yugoslavia recorded approximately 100,000 Greeks. The "Greeks" in the Ottoman census may have been the Rumlar, although, no one knows or can know for sure. What is known is that the Rumlar (including the existing Slav element) were more sympathetic and supportive to the Greek struggle for Macedonia than to anyone else in the region (so Greeks view them as Greeks - this may have affected why Greece got the more than Bulgaria or Serbia) even though Macedonian Slavs are more likely to claim that the Greek/Rumi presence in Krushevo were not at all ethnic Greeks but Vlachs. E. Stanford (British) in 1877 claims that the region was predominantly Greek (he use the words "narrow kinship" with Gree), and the (rather obviously pro-Greek) Bianconi (French) claims the same. My point is that Macedonian Slav nationalists seem to claim that the only Greeks in Macedonia are the refugees from Turkey; this is not the case. Sometimes they even claim that Greece "renamed" northern Greece to Macedonia when FYROM became independent. Something equally not true: even now there is no formal administrative division in Greece called "Macedonia". The renaming was the renaming of the Ministry of Northern Greece to Ministry of Macedonia-Thrace, and this took place in August 1988. There was a newspaper called "MAKEDONIA" in the Greek languages that existed in Aegean Macedonia long before WWII. The claim that Greece tried to "eliminate" Macedonia, and only discovered it in the 1990s is simply not true. If you're interested, my source on what is Macedonian Slav nationalism is User:Risto Stefov's blog at www.maknews.com, and www.makedonija.info. --Tēlex 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Telex 

message: OK, Prophet is right, we should be more organized on this matter. Let's scan this article step by step and work out a NPOV version. I'm still a bit confused what "Macedonism" actually is, but from the things said, it's like some general term, a bag, where one can put all the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian nationalism. These are the points that should be made in the opening paragraph (the very first section), and as far as I've seen from the discussion, are not disputed:
*Macedonism is a broad term
*The term is mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) 
*General usage: Macedonism is used to describe the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian nationalism 
*Usage of the word in Bulgaria (more specific, claimed 19th century Serbian propaganda to dillute Bulgarian conciousness of the Macedonians, also "Macedonistic organizations")
*Usage of the word in Greece (more general, tends to link the term with United Macedonia related subjects, Kofos)
*In an extreme context, the word itself means that there is no authentic, but only an artificial Macedonian nationhood, an ideological mindset imposed by Yugoslav socialism (Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) 
*The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography 
We can work out a NPOV opening with this points, possibly adding some more, and then continue with the first recorded usage, and different opinions about it. (Kofos sees it beginings in the 1990s, no?) --FlavrSavr 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a note to this before but it seems to have been removed, but the term is not found in the Oxford English Dictionary (full edition) either. - FrancisTyers · 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ho! Collaborative effort? Sounds splendid, FlavrSavr! ^_^  --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph (opening section) 

message: Macedonism (Bulgarian: Македонизъм, Macedonian and Serbian: Македонизам Greek:????) is a term mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) to describe the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian Nationalal Movement. In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, or a regional linguistic separatist movement. In Greece this term is used almost exclusively by Kofos in the context of United Macedonia related subjects. In an extreme context, the word itself means that there is no authentic, but only an artificial Macedonian nationhood, an ideological mindset imposed by Yugoslav socialism (Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) .
The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography. It is not found neither in Enciclopedia Britanica nor in the Oxford English Dictionary.
In the article The Macedonian Question published on 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople by Petko Rachev Slaveikov, Makedonism was defined and critized, his adherants were named Macedonists, and this may be one of the earliest surviving references to it.
I think that the scope of this article should be pretty limited, since it is not found in major enciclopedias. Maybe these three short paragraphs, plus some external links and quotes.--Filip M 03:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objections - it is used in the Republic of Macedonia as well, search for Srbinovski's works. There are no sources it is used in Bulgaria more frequently than in the Republic. Second, Slaveikov mentions Macedonists, not Macedonism.   /FunkyFly.talk_  05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I tried to address your second objection (note the changes in the third paragraph). As far as your first objection, you will need to give us a reference, so we can determine the context and the meaning. --Filip M 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fist attempt to formulate the opening paragraph 

message: There has been no discussion on this in a week.  I'm unprotecting to see if editing can proceed normally. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reprotected. None of the disputes has been resolved. - FrancisTyers · 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that is solved entirely. Article lacks.--ElevatedStork 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: So no one has said anything for a while.. is everyone dead?
I noticed as soon as the page was unprotected, there was an edit war... this won't produce results at all. 
We all have to agree not to make changes or to revert changes until we have concensus. We can't leave this page protected forever. Thanks for understanding. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the current contents of this article is out of place. There are other articles where this contents can be better placed, like United Macedonia. I think that this article should better focus on the use and meaning of the term Macedonism, and I think that the article should contain 3-4 paragraphs (like the ones proposed earlier in this discussion) plus some links and citations. --Filip M 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont agree on this one. It is a fairly well established concept and its implications are quite deep. As a matter of fact there are a couple of other claims that can also be added, including the claims of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid.  /FunkyFly.talk_  23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. See Prophet, the problem is that mediation requires at least two sides and a mediator to mediate. At the moment, "our side" is the only one who engages in productive discussion, proposes text and all... It is to be expected that the "other side" should give some constructive feedback, to eventually come to a neutral version of the text. At the moment, FunkyFly simply reverted back to his version that includes a) unsourced statements (Stojan Novakovich) and b) removal of entirely sourced sections. I reverted back to the locked version until a solution is found, though I disagree with some of the formulations, especially the opening paragrhaph. --FlavrSavr 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourced yet irrelevant..., anyway you deleted new additions to the article, without explanation. To answer in detail, about Novakovich, it is the first reference to the word Macedonism, not Macedonist, which is the name of the article in the first place. Macedonist has other meanings, including a linguist studying the Macedonian language, so comparison does not hold. Second, the sourced material that Cigor inserted for Claim 6 mostly deals with general history of the Republic of Macedonia and it is not specific to the claim. I have left 3 paragraphs from his text which directly answer the claim, the remaining ones are unrelated and it is original research to conclude that they support the claim. And last, "your side" erases passages inserted by me and Telex without explanation in the criticism of Claims 1,3 and 4   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FF, the statements are not irrelevant as each address Claim 6. Other than giving a vague explanation (took you probably 30 seconds to write it and delete two pages of text) you have not explained the irrelevance of a single sentence there, not to mention the entire text. It seems to me that it is only you that is bothered by it. Telex seems not to mind. I have not deleted any of your text even though I don't agree with it and I expect of you to do the same unless you convince the majority here of the benefits of your deletion. --Cigor 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, check this revert of vandalism to see what you are not deleting.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about that? That is not even me! --Cigor 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, wash your hands.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll make this quick to save your eyes the needless reading. Please don't take this in a mean way.
*There are no sides, only Wikipedians and an article they work on.
*Why not ditch the majority of the article and start from scratch?
If everyone agrees to not revert each other without explaination, then I think we have our solution. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 04:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Ok... I'm going to get an admin to unprotect the article. Let's try this again, preferably using a technique like the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If everyone stays cool, I think we can rebuild this article and make it informative and neutral. I believe we're at the point now where we need to start making changes and seeing where we can go with this. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected as per request. Thank you for using Wikipedia! ~Kylu (u|t)  23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting the page and working on the article again 

message: I think we put this version on the discussion page, FunkyFly had few concerns, we addressed them, and we should start with this version:
Macedonism (Bulgarian: Македонизъм, Macedonian and Serbian: Македонизам) is a term mostly used in Bulgaria, and to some extent Greece (Kofos) to describe the perceived negative aspects of Macedonian Nationalal Movement. In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, or a regional linguistic separatist movement. In Greece this term is used almost exclusively by Kofos in the context of United Macedonia related subjects. In an extreme context, the word itself means that there is no authentic, but only an artificial Macedonian nationhood, an ideological mindset imposed by Yugoslav socialism (Macedonians = Bulgarian Macedonists) .
The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography. It is not found neither in Enciclopedia Britanica nor in the Oxford English Dictionary.
In the article The Macedonian Question published on 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople by Petko Rachev Slaveikov, Makedonism was defined and critized, his adherants were named Macedonists, and this may be one of the earliest surviving references to it.
Please don't alter it without a previous discussion. --Filip M 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, OK. I though we had to discuss before you erase. Make your case first. The non Bulgarian nature of history, language and culture should stay, because that is what all those claims boil down to, that is what Macedonism is all about - a movement for differentiation from the Bulgarian ethnic group.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We did make our case. We made our case on this very page, and for 10 days it was open for discussion. You gave two remarks, and I responded to both. Macedonism is not ideology. It is bulgarians that perceive it as such. As far as the differentiation is concerned, Macedonians did differentiate from both Serbs and Bulgarians. Greeks too. That is a normal process of every ethnogenesys. --Filip M 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I think we are getting closer. I will not make any changes in this itteration, and I'll only raise five issues: 
#The term is used in R. Macedonia only in historic context (19 century) and only in response to the opposition of the Movement. We need to clarify this. 
#I've never seen a quote from Srbinovski and how he uses it. If we mention him by name, we need that quote. Alternatively, you might want to use Miodrag Drugovac instead of Srbinovski.
#Why do we need to say that Slaveikov "partly defined it"? What aspects of the movement he didn't define?
#The term has surely been defined before Novakovic used it in 1887. I'll try to find other references to it. Until I provide other references let it sit as is.
#In the quotes section, Slaveikov quote should come first, since it is the oldest. 
Now the ball is in your court FunkyFly. --Filip M 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are getting closer on the opening five paragraphs 

message: Earlier in the nineteenth century ‘Rum’ millet was reinterpreted by Greek nationalists to mean ‘Greek’ in a national sense and was also used to refer to members of the Orthodox Christian merchant class regardless of their ‘ethnic origin’ or the language they spoke.
( L. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 59;  A.V. Amfiteatrov,  Zemya na Razdorot, Moscow, 1903, pp. 51–52; Alexander Strahan, London, 1866, p. xxiii. ). Similarly, the term ‘Bulgarian’ had earlier been broadly used as a collective label in the Ottoman Empire but it too had no political significance, for the term ‘Bulgarian’ meant nothing more than peasant.(L. Danforth, op. cit. p. 59; A.V. Amfiteatrov, op. cit. pp. 51–52; The English historian, D. Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897–1913, Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki, 1966, p. 11). ‘Bulgarian’ and 'Greek' were not used to designate different ethnic or national groups; they were used to designate different socio-cultural categories.(L. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 59)
It was not unique for a Macedonian to identify oneself as Christian; indeed, in Bulgaria prior to statehood, Bulgarians commonly declared themselves ‘Christian’ in answer to the question, ‘What are you?’ The term ‘Christian’ specifically meant ‘Orthodox’ and was understood to be ‘Bulgarian’. The Russian Tsar therefore was understood by Bulgarian peasants to be a ‘Bulgarian Tsar’, not by nationality, but by Orthodox Christianity.
(H.G. Lunt, Some Sociolinguistic Aspects of Macedonian and Bulgarian, University of Michigan, 1984, p. 104., Bulgarian A. T. BaIan, Edna makedonska teorija, Periodichesko Spisanie LXV, 1904, p.818 )
:I strongly disagree that the section needs to be shortened. 
:In fact it needs to be expanded and further explained. There are many contradictions and convolutions and to use anachronisms and assign modern meaning to them in order to make a point is abuse of history.  
:The purpose of it is to explain the situation in the 19th century. Currently, blindly using the word of Bulgarian is taken out of the context. I wanted to explain that ethnic affiliation in Macedonia at the time meant little and was replaced by Christian affiliation. That at the time of the revivalist most of them were heavily Helenized, but this changed with ample Russian influence. Otherwise when Grigor Prlicev writes that Bulgarian alphabet used to be called Serbian letters, does that means that he is also Serbian writer? Or Miladinov when he says we are descendent of  House of Nemanjić, does that implies that we are Serbs? I can find MANY examples like this.
:For example, I see FunkyFly repeatedly mentions Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid . I mean, what can be Bulgarian in church that almost entire higher clerge was Greek, almost all documents were written on Greek, that under its jurisdiction during its peak had South Italy, Venice, Dalmatia and most of the Balkan (including Romania)? I guess following FF logic all Orthodox Christians from Venice were Bulgarian? --Cigor 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you dont seem to understand is that repeating the history of the region of Macedonia does nothing to support the point of the claim. It is simply rambling and remote.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not repeating the history of the region of Macedonia. It is direct explanation of Claim 6, which, you’ll probably agree with me, is the most important one. And that’s exactly why you want to shrink it as much as possible.--Cigor 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct is hardly a word describing it. At most 3-4 paragraphs are relevant.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The adjective Bulgarian 

message: The statistical data available concerning turn of the century Macedonia serves graphically to underscore the fact that such data are extremely unreliable. Most figures are based upon the estimates of politically motivated parties who used them as an exercise for numerical manipulation for political ends. (D.M. Perry, The Politics of Terror - The Macedonian Liberation Movements 1893–1903, London, 1988, op. cit. p 19)
The remaining of your text can be incorporated somehow, probably as historical background, or as part of the Criticism section.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funky, one more detail, in the opening paragraph you wrote:
Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian ethnic group, language and history respectively.
It is more correct to add Serbian and Greek, so the snippet should read:
Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek ethnic group, language and history respectively.
I'm not making the change. Either you edit the text, or just agree on this change. --Filip M 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I think we need this chage (added text in bold):
In Bulgaria this term is used primarily by the nationalists to describe the Macedonian National Movement as a political ideology, an extreme form of ethnic nationalism or a regional linguistic separatist movement, according to which the Slavic-speaking population in Macedonia forms a separate ethnic group, possessing unique language and separate history, independent of the Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek ethnic group, language and history respectively. 
Note the words: "according to which", meaning that the rest of the sentence is how "Macedonists" understand their doctrine. And they certainly have always made equal distinction from all three surrounding nations. --Filip M 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not going to happen because this implies that Macedonian National Movement = Macedonism. This limits the scope of term Macedonism to the past, when the movement for independence was active.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think we need this change 

message: # I don't have any issues to add Ratko.
# The second edition is pure repetition, and does not say anything new or different, it just makes the sentence longer, and I'll revert it. 
# It cannot be and. It must be or, since the three terms do not combine. They are mutually exclusive: political ideology, an extreme form of ethnic nationalism or a regional linguistic separatist movement. I'll revert that one too. 
# Contrived can stay (although Bulgarians prefer to be more direct and just call in artificial). 
# The movement/Macedonism uggh. Ok, I'll let this one slide. I believe it was better before, though. The sentence was more readable.
# Absolutely not. To assimilate them into what? Into Macedonians? Into Serbs? Into Greeks? It does not make any sense. --Filip M 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of Bulgarian view that Macedonism is Serbian invention, but I could never understand its logic. Let me get this straight: It was easier for the Serbs to undertake extremely risky strategy to convince us that we are separate ethnicity from Bulgarians and Serbians, rather than direct propaganda that we are Serbs? So, I’ll play Devil’s advocate here, say they succeed; they develop, all by themselves, separate conscience, different than Bulgarian, but also different from Serbian. How do they trigger second (presumably, final) stage, that is, turning all of us into Serbians? Additional problem is that all their actions were headed for direct Serbinization (as already described in the article), rather than extremely exotic endeavor. --Cigor 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, well the Serbian stragy developed in two stages. As the quotes say, Macedonism is initially pointed at the elimination of the Bulgarian idea, because "the Serbian idea by itself is in need of some kind of ally". When the Bulgarian idea is destroyed, we have the 1920s and 1930s full Scale serbianization as there is nothing left to stop it, at least that's what turned out. Eventually we have the birth of modern Macedonism with its "exotic endeavors" in history, the adoption of the Serbian alphabet to replace the Bulgarian and so on.   /FunkyFly.talk_  06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't believe it!! So you are suggesting we adopted Serbian alphabet (please read Serbian and Macedonian Cyrillic) to replace the Bulgarian!? I mean, WTF! If you pay attention to the Macedonian and Serbian alphabets you can see that we don't have hard and soft CH in our alphabet. We have hard and soft K( К and Ќ). At the same time Bulgarian alphabet has SHT, which is clearly way off. Second thing: serbian alphabet lacks the letter Ѕ (dz). There is no such language or alphabet that has adopted this letter, thus it's unique to us. And you can tell us that we adopted serbian alphabed to replace the bulgarian... I mean, we never even used the bulgarian alphabed with the I-O, YA and all those weird letters that remained with the Glagollic script. You are way off my friend, and I suggest you do your homework and read some more.89.205.27.168
*Second issue: They don't call themselves Macedonists? Then how do they call themselves? If they call themselves Macedonians, then they don't support the bulgarian POV. If they call themselves Bulgarians, then they are not Macedonians, but members of the bulgarian minority in Macedonia, so their opinion cannot be attributed to the Macedonians. Do you understand this nice little paradox?
*Third issue: find me one quote where Macedonians (or Macedonists if you like) claim that they are more separate (or primarily separate) from Bulgarians, and to a lesser extent separate from Serbs and Greeks. Macedonian doctrine is "equilibrium" or "equidistance", equally close and equally far from all three neighbors. 
*Sixth issue: Now you read the quote from Novakovic once again, and explain me where do you see in that quote the word assimilation. Any assimilation. Anyone into anything. The quote simply talks about the fight of the Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda, and the importance of the Macedonian movement as a singnificant factor, that can tip the ballance. 
I'm too tired to edit the article tonight, but I will edit it tomorow. So far we made a good progress. Now calm down and think twice before you edit. Some of the edits you make go against your POV and against your intentions. They also go against the quality of the article, because they don't make any sense at all. --Filip M 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like some needs to rest :) Yes, enough excitement already.    /FunkyFly.talk_  04:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now you are moving TOO FAST 

message: i think i may try to create a disambiguation page and create a separate article about macedonism as a political doctrine. A fresh start looks a good option to me, the current article is not getting anywhere from this.
some major points of interest:
- the two main streams of macedonism - the original serbian one of Novakovich, Cvijch and the communist/comintern one. they are not completely similar but are not totally independant as well. 
- also developments of stance of the involved parties - e.g. the yougoslav communist party in the early 1920s spoke of bulgarians of macedonia and only some time later adopted the postulates of macedonism;  the turn of viewpoint of the imro-united members in the 1930s, etc.
- differences between "bulgarian" macedonians and "serbian" macedonians of the high echelone of macedonian officials at the time of constituting SRM - Shatev, Markovski, Vlahov .. vs Kolishevski, Koneski, etc.
- developments of stances and theories regarding history
- development of the attitude toward Bulgarians and Bulgaria
--Asenizator 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: 3 - total mess with language mistakes as well. so what is this - 4 pieces of evidence that should serve as support that there existed a medieval macedonian ethnicity? let's be serious. apart from this that when i see some guys hurrying to provide evidence on their existence in history i immediately understand that they are ethnic macedonians - there's a major point here, i hope many of you are aware of it already - do you have any idea what is the bulk of sources and documents about the medieval history of balkan peoples, including the ones with a little shorter history as roumanians and albanians? now then - i have seen several times the list of sources as in "Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Indipendence and Nation-State" and half of them are not for macedonia proper but for the thema macedonia - all in all about a page. so ... i suggest that this text is changed to something like - "according to macedonian historiography a medieval macedonian ethnicity existed.".
Another important point - about medieval sources - can you provide evidence that the name macedonian was used to designate the Slavic population of macedonia (there is a precedent that it was used at least once to describe different population - that of the thema macedonia - greeks, armenians, slavs).
A smaller point - Brsjak is not a name of a Slavic tribe of the 10th century - also this theory is from the time of the revival and is anachronistic.
--Asenizator 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it has notable, reliable sources... we can include it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, the state was not created in 1944 but in 1991, that is when the history of the Republic of Macedonia begins. The term is quite widely used, at least in the Balkans, and it deserves attention. I dont see just because certain people do not enjoy the subject matter that it should be shoved under the rugs.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes about the counter-claims 

message: I think the current layout of the article is terrible. claim claim claim, counter-claim counter-claim, claim of claim. Why not summarize it into topic-by-topic headers? "Macedonism as a movement" "Macedonism as a nationalism" or whatever. I don't know anything about the subject, but I think a better layout would help you in explaining this very complicated issue. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, the article is pretty well structured and the claims are laid and spelled out clearly.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: How else should the claim be organized other than a list?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do we have to organize claims? We should be organizing information, not claims. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new layout 

message: Check this out:
Almost immediately, Serbian nationalists (initially repudiated by
their more moderate fellow-countrymen) began declaring that
historically Macedonia was 'South Serbia' and that its inhabitants
were all 'true Serbs'. When their propagandists made little impression
on either the population of Macedonia, or the world at large, they
cast about for other theories and arguments to combat Bulgarian
national consciousness in Macedonia and to ease the way to its
'Serbianisation'. In 1888 Serbian nationalists came up with
'Macedonism', a theory which postulated that the Macedonian Slavs were
neither Bulgarian nor Serb, but a totally separate 'Macedonian
nation'. Thus 'Macedonism' may be described as a means of 'bleaching'
Bulgarians as a preliminary to 'dyeing' them Serb. It has, of course,
nothing in common with the slogan of 'autonomy for Macedonia' raised
by the revolutionary organization of Gotse Delchev and Yane Sandansky
as a means of keeping Macedonia whole and Bulgarian, when
reunification with Bulgaria seemed impossible in view of Great Power
opposition and local Balkan rivalries. Even if political circumstances
did not permit reunification with Bulgaria in the future, either, an
autonomous Macedonia was seen as a 'second Bulgaria' and a possible
link in the Balkan Federation which was then the cherished goal of
many revolutionaries.
It helps put things into perspective.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very so poor source. Dont have any other? --ElevatedStork 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting source 

message: "In regard to their own national feelings, all that can safely be said is that during the last eighty years many more Slav Macedonians seem to have considered themselves Bulgarian, or closely linked to Bulgaria, than have considered themselves Serbian, or closely linked to Serbia (or Yugoslavia). Only the people of the Skoplje region, in the north west, have ever shown much tendency to regard themselves as Serbs. The feeling of being Macedonians, and nothig but Macedonians, seems to be a sentiment of fairly recent growth, and even today is not very deep-rooted."
Elisabeth Barker, "Macedonia, its place in Balkan power politics", (originally published in 1950 by the Royal Institute of International Affairs), p.10
"Since they were closely related to both Bulgars and Serbs and had, moreover, in the past been usually incorporated in either the Bulgar or Serb state, they inevitably became the object of both Bulgar and Serb aspirations and an apple of discord between these rival nationalities. As an oppressed people on an exceedingly primitive level, the Macedonian Slavs had as late as the congress of Berlin exhibited no perceptible national consciousness of their own. It was therefore impossible to foretell in what direction they would lean when their awakening came; in fact, so indeterminate was the situation that under favorable circumstances they might even develop ther own peculiar Macedonian consciousness."
[Ferdinand Schevill, "A History of the Balkans", p.432]
Also note the usage of "Macedonian Slavs".   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funky, I'm tired of this. (I almost said I'm sick and tired, but I guess it is an idiom, and not a very kind one). You can get all the dusty books and stack it against the Macedonians. That means absolutely nothing. We are here and now. Have a good life my friend. There are many far more importans subjects to write about. --Filip M 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dusty books = irrelevant? I guess...   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dusty books = Propaganda that nobody reads, books completely disconnected with the reality. --Filip M 12:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is propagandistic because it does not support Macedonism, right?   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that not all sources nessicarily have to be true. We can use such sources to help us show what various groups think about macedonism in general. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the independence from the Bulgarian ethnic group 

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

message: I've restructured the article, whilst keeping the vast majority of the information. The previous structure was bad in that it segregated the article into "claims", "counter claims" and so-on. We need to get away from this and try working towards representing both points of view side by side. The quotes I've moved to Wikiquote, we can possible have one or two back, but not such long ones, and it would be better if they were in the article body. I've also ref'd the references (we now have a substantial number!) and fixed a few spelling and grammar errors. Its looking much better. - FrancisTyers · 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks much better now. However one need a lot of time to fix all those gramatical errors. --ElevatedStork 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: No sources from Funky for his edit here. --ElevatedStork 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided the date of the newspaper.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not sufficient. I'm affraid. ElevatedStork 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what would be sufficient then?   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

message: The Bulgarian adjective paragraph was originally taken from here. this is a doctor thesis of some Nick Anastasovski, from Victoria University, Melbourne 1. so this is a secondary source that mentions primary sources which are included in the article sources but without mentioning this secondary source. as i mentioned before there are many flaws in this material - one is that the mentioned authours are not comparable and with the same reputation, competence and credibility, some of the authors cited hold quite different oppinions to the presented conclusions, the other is the dismissal of crucial pieces of evidence on the matter.
Also - as far as i know in present macedonian historiography there are other theories on the bulgarian name "problem" - the influence of the bulgarian exarchate being the most popular especially after the 1870s (check Ivan Katardzhiev for example). there's an important implication here - the "bulgarian adjective" stuff is copy-pasted in several articles about imro members - this should be dropped - in view of these persons' statements and memoirs the standard explanation of their bulgarian determination (in ethnic and not other sense) by macedonian historiography is the exarchate influence.
Speaking of "bulgarian name" theories other "theories" can be mentioned - there're quite a bunch of them in macedonian historiography, e.g. the ones explaining the bulgarian name of macedonian slavs during the middle ages. i like best the bulgar-vulgar one - it should be noted that it is originally put forward by serbian nationalists as Jovan Dragashevich and Milosh Miloevich in the second half of the 19th century.
Some of my arguments i mentioned above are not taken into account in the article - the quantity of sources argument and whether "macedonian" is used as designator for slav populations from macedonia region in the middle ages one. i will maybe make some edits to this effect - the article is quite chaotic though i am not sure if these will help.
--Asenizator 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is a doctoral thesis, it is certainly not credible enough for inclusion per Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, unattributed reproduction of it is plagiarism. --Telex 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bulgarian adjective and other issues 

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

message: As a native English speaker, who knows little about the subject,  I think that this article is not comprehensible. It reads like one of those articles written by someone in the 1970s who read far too many articles published in the extream left journals. It uses words which are rairly used outside such litrature.
A couple of examples:
:The term is chiefly a Balkan regionalism, rarely used in the English historiography. It is found neither in Encyclopedia Britanica nor in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then Wikipedia should not be inventing a neologism in English.
:It has been claimed by the supporters of Macedonism that the Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed.
I have no idea what that means!
:Censi
Outside the definition on Wikipedia there does not seem to be a source for this word! It certainly is not in common usage, so what is it doing as a section heading? I could go on but that is enough to get over my point. --PBS 10:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When nationalism is raging here in Wikipedia, I'm afraid many articles will be hard to understand. This is an example of such article and hatred towards Macedonians. Bomac 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Censi is plural for census. Bomac, stop making baseless acusations.   /FunkyFly.talk_  04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which language FunkyFly? Google:  about 11 English pages for "two Censi"  and  about 84,000 English pages for "two censuses"  and for the UK Your search - "two Censi" site:uk - did not match any documents. and  about 927 English pages for "two censuses" site:uk--PBS 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Census" is an english word of latin origin. In the latin second declension, nouns ending in -us change that suffix to -i in the plural. It's quite common in fact, compare with cactus > cacti. However, as the overwhelming majority of the editors of this article are not native speakers of english, why don't you correct it? You can't expect people to never make a mistake. (and btw spelling alone would be a very lame reason for AfD...) NikoSilver 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cenci is not a very common English word according to HMG about 201,000 English pages for "censuses" gov:uk and three for "cenci the first put onto the web by Warrington Borough Council and two more by derwentside.gov.uk. I would consider rewriting it if it did not have what seems to be a neologism as a title and if I could understand what it was about. But it is so poorly written that I do not! As I said I think it reads like  one of those articles written by someone in the 1970s who read far too many articles published in the extream left wing journals. --PBS 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Was that in Macedonian or in Bulgarian? :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we already have a much more prevalent form of nationalism, and thus, a much more extensive article on it.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, and I forgot to mention that, while this is tolerated - 4m. ethnic Macedonians and Alexander the Great in the same ethnic group as Gotse Delchev - yours and your fellow admins at mk.wiki's comments on topics of history and nationalism are just a bad joke.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: And how many articles in NYT, Washington Post and London deal with problems of historical falsification of Skopje for that word to have a chance to occur? I wonder how many instances of "semirings" you will find there, albeit this is a well known mathematical concept. You are also wrong that the articles on google scholar are all written by non-native speakers of English.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A "neologism" is not defined as something not included in... "NYT, Washington Post or a London broadsheet paper". A "neologism" is something that no source has used before (in either language). This is definitely not the case for Macedonism. There are many relevant "neologisms" in WP (with your definition). But I suspect that the real reasons why you want this deleted are different... Why don't you bring them forward? NikoSilver 10:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An English "neologism" is a word or phrase which is not currently in use in English. Whether the word exists in other languages is irrlevent. Please produce one Wikipedia:reliable source which uses the term. --PBS 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy!   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You needn't even bother FF. PBS doesn't even know that the source does not have to be in English. Read WP:V (the mother article of WP:RS that you cited above), especially the special part for Sources in languages other than English. Aside from that, your 22 books above are more than satisfactory IMO. NikoSilver 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Also, Funky, since you're interested in propaganda, check the following goodies:
*"Macedonian Truth - Bulgarian Lies (Part I)": This is an outrageous bullshitting campaign. For those who don't know, in simplistic terms the Bulgars had a state where present-day Tatarstan is located called "Volga Bulgaria". Some of them immigrated to Europe and occupied and mixed with Slavic tribes in the Balkans. As the Slavs were the majority they gradually assimilated the Bulgars and thus the something recognizable as the Bulgarian ethnic group as we know it today emerged. According to Macedonist theories, this makes the Bulgarians "Tatars". Tsar Samuel of course wasn't Bulgarian according to them, he was a "Macedonians", despite the fact that the Byzantine Greek Emperor who kicked his ass went down in history as the "Bulgar-slayer" not the "Macedonian-slayer". The background music in the second part of this first clip is rather good too.
*"Macedonian Agony": Some more whiny stuff about the sufferings of the "Macedonian nation".
*"THE GREEK FLAGS THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE." Expressions of bitterness due to the fact Greece managed to force them to change their flag.
*"Battle for Chaeronea": Here we see the "Macedonians" celebrating their victory over the Greeks at Chaeronea. The most telling element of this clip is that you hear the MacSlav words "Heroneja", "Aleksandar", "Makedonci" and "Grci" in the background music; this shows that musicians and singers in FYROM are actually willing to perform such stuff!
*"Stani Makedonijo": Nothing really special or novel in this one, I just like the background music (it also took me some time to figure out that "Makedonijo" is the vocative case of "Makedonija"). 
And in case you thought I just wanted to out our friends, here are some of the highlights of the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian reactions:
*Greek: "THE BANANA REPUBLIC": Really funny; especially towards the end.
*Serbian: "Free Kosovo Epirus Montenegro!!!": "Macedonia" and how it is "southern Serbia" is discussed after the Albanian-bashing beginning.
*Bulgarian: "World Conspiracy against Macedonia!!!": Quite boring, he's just citing sources disproving Macedonism (like as if one should need to in the first place).
So, people, is there any more doubt that the "Macedonism" issue is real? I could fill up the page with similar anthology, ... NikoSilver 10:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk-page. I was illustrating a popular trend, and quite neutrally too (having outed also the other sides). To help you locate the part that makes the difference in my comment above, I've highlighted it. NikoSilver 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  propaganda 

message: *The Rough Guide to Bulgaria 4 By Jonathan Bousfield, Dan Richardson, Richard Watkins, Published 2002, Rough Guides, Travel / Foreign, , Page 453:
...This led many young intellectuals in Vardar Macedonia to find solace in the ideology of Macedonism — which held that the Macedonian Slavs should not aspire to inclusion in the Bulgarian nation, but should aim for separate statehood within something approximating Gotse Delchev's original idea of a Balkan confederation. Many saw Macedonism as an ideology invented by the Serbs in order to break the unity of Bulgarians and Macedonians, but it did attract some notable adherents:...
*Recent Social Trends in Bulgaria, 1960-1995 by Nikolaĭ Genov, Anna Krŭsteva - 2001, - Page 74:
The third controversial trend in Bulgarian ethnic and national self-identification is towards Macedonization of ethnic Bulgarians. It is found among some ethnic Bulgarians in the Mt Pirin region. This is actually a typical ethnographic, i.e. pseudo-ethnic group. The number of Bulgarian citizens identifying themselves as "Macedonians" is insignificant. This is proved by the very limited membership of the ethnopolitical parties advocating Macedonism in the country.
*Mediterranean Politics by Richard Gillespie - 1994 - Page 99:
The only precondition laid down by Greece is that the FYROM repudiate the Communist concept of 'Macedonism' and toe the EU line. It would be a sreadful irony if, in the present post-communist era, the European Union granted a posteriori historical legitimacy to a communist idea. Furthermore, if the EU and the world community as a whole, through the UN, are anxious to recognize the 'Republic of Macedonia' in order to avert the risk of distabilization, they should be aware of the equally great risk of creating another trouble-spot in Greece. In either case, we must remember that, while voluble denials of territorial claims can be of purely momentary duration, the monopolizing of a name and/or symbol is a claim that can last for ever.
...and...
No international conciliatory or political legitimization of 'Macedonism' can hope to bring about a permanent resolution of the problem.
...and in Page 267 Gillespie defines "Macedonism" in the index:
Macedonism see Macedonia, Slav-Macedonian irredentism
(nice chap this Gillespie guy btw)
*The Macedonian Conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world by Loring Danforth - History - 1995 - Page 45
According to the more extreme Macedonian nationalist position, modern Macedonians are not Slavs; they are the direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians, who were not Greeks. This claim is at least in part an attempt to refute the Greek claim that "Skopians" are Slavs and not Macedonians. According to extreme Macedonian nationalists "Slavism" is a destructive doctrine that "aims to eradicate Macedonism completely." If Macedonians are Slavs, then they "have no legal right to anything Macedonian"; they "legalize the robbery by the Greeks [of ancient Macedonians]." Macedonians should not allow the ancient Macedonians to be called Greek anymore than they would allow themselves to be called Greeks. Thus a unique Macedonian people —neither Slavic nor Greek— has existed in Macedonia since antiquity and continues to exist there now. The most powerful symbols of the continuity of Macedonian culture are "Alexander the Macedonian", as he is referred to in Macedonian sources; and the sun of the ancient Macedonian kings, which in 1992 was chosen as the flag of the newly independent Republic of Macedonia.
The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1989, edited by Sabrina P Ramet (specific part by John D. Bell) - 1999 - Page 252
In addition to the phenomena described above, there has also arisen a new form of “Macedonism” that differs from the simple proposition that Macedonians are a distinct nationality. Having its origins, apparently, in émigré communities in Australia and Canada, this doctrine asserts that the ancient Macedonians were a pure Aryan people who migrated to Macedonia from India. Their language was the original "Slavic" tongue that was later learned by surrounding peoples who labored, "slaved," in the fields. The Greeks, "dark-skinned, Semitic" immigrants to the Balkans in the fift century b.c., borrowed a form of the Macedonian alphabet, worshiped the Macedonian kings (the origin of the Greek pantheon), and borrowed/stole and then polluted Macedonian culture. Hellenism was originally not Greek, but "Macedonianism," spread through the known world by Alexander the Great. This form of "Macedonian fundamentalism" (note: another definition) also predicts future unification of the separate parts of the Macedonian nation. While "orthodox" Macedonian nationalists have denounced the fundamentalists as "rabble ... neo-fascists, and even neo-Nazis," there are indications that their beliefs have attracted some fellowing in Macedonia itself and among separatists in the Pirin.
Personal note: LOL!
There are many more where these came from, but I suspect that we're done for now... NikoSilver 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic sources 

message: There have been some interesting archaeological findings by Mikulchich - a prominent Macedonian scholar. In his conclusions he explains that no findings of Slavic settlements in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia were avaiable before after the 9th century or so. Now what do we make out if that?
:I know nothing specifically about Macedonia in this matter, but the general historical fact is that when the Balkan frontier of the Byzantine empire completely collapsed following the revolt against the emperor Maurice, and the accession of Phocas, Slavic settlements occurred as far south as the Peloponnese... AnonMoos 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Archaeological Findings of Mikulchich 

message: I've reverted the most recent additions by Jingiby. Unfortunately the majority of the added material was not sourced at all, and the bits that were sourced came from a personal website. This doesn't meet the standards required by our reliable sources policy, which is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. I have to say the way it was written wasn't quite how an article should be written - it seemed to take a very argumentative tone ("The reality is other." "But what is the truth?") that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the material in this article as it currently stands is irredeemably POV and OR. I'll go through it and radically cut it back. Expect a reduction of about 60%-70% percent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent contributions 

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

message: Compare.
:"Among the views and opinions that are often perceived as representative of Macedonian nationalism...
::The idea that there is a fundamental, ethnogenetic distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians"
This suggests that the view that the Macedonians constitute a distinct ethnic group is a fringe view among Macedonian nationalists and/or Macedonists. So, does anyone object to me reverting back to the anonymous edits? --Hegumen (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean - it currently says that this opinion is often percieved as representative of Macedonian nationalism, not that it is a fringe view. --Laveol T 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't "representative of Macedonian nationalism" imply it is a fringe view though? The idea that they are separate is certainly not a fringe view. BalkanFever 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, but it is said often perceived and above in the lead you have the explanation who perceives it. Am I getting something wrong or the current state of the articles implies that in Bulgaria and Greece it is thought that these ideas are the ideas of Macedonian nationalists and this is exactly what the term denotes? --Laveol T 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody needs to add the Greek translation of the term then. BalkanFever 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all Greek already. NikoSilver 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it in Ferris Bueller's Day Off that Matthew Broderick said "I hate all -isms for that matter"? NikoSilver 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also the Rastafari. BalkanFever 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep. (I liked Ferris better. Rent it.) NikoSilver 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True. seen it. love it. BalkanFever 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edits and reverts 

message: Why Sir, the title of this article is atrocious! The very name Macedonia is ambiguous! - Francis Tyers · 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, you're right! However, there is only one "national awakening" (that is start of ethnic nationalism) of any group with the name "Macedonian"/"Macedonia", so I think we're safe! I've included two disambiguation notes to make it completely clear! - Francis Tyers · 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that sounds fairly reasonable, after all the Macedonians haven't had a national awakening, they are Greek, and their Macedonia is Greece. There can be only one thing referred to with "National awakening of Macedonia", and with those disambiguation notes, I must say it is quite unambiguous. - Francis Tyers · 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :...we don't want to monopolize the name "Macedonia" so the Greek position is unreasonable...
This is repeated again and again by FYROM nationalists and their apologists (such as Francis), but that it is articles such as this which demonstrate that that position is a pile of crap. //Dirak 18:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out another National awakening of Macedonia and I will gladly disambiguate the name. As it stands the name is unambiguous as there has only been one Macedonian national awakening, and that is of the ethnic Macedonians. Please, I'd like to see another one, then we have some ambiguity. - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Word games... this implies that there are grades of macedonianness with FYROM at the top and everyone else at the bottom. Macedonia is not the national homeland of only the Macedonians (FYROM variety), and everyone else are foreigners. Need I remind you that the Macedonians (FYROM variety) are a minority in the region. //Dirak 18:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they are a minority. You've mentioned that thing about "grades" before. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. - Francis Tyers · 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they get to monopolize the name? You know it is controversial, you know that it is a territorial claim (if the national awakening of Macedonia only pertains to the FYRO Macedonians, then that looks like a territorial claim to me). //Dirak 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it is a territorial claim. Macedonia can mean a million (well not quite) different things, and it only means "unliberated Macedonian homeland" in a minority of crazed extremist nationalists. This article does not support their point of view. - Francis Tyers · 18:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means a region in southeastern Europe. When you link that region to the national awakening of one ethnic group it is a territorial claim. //Dirak 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even bother to read the disambiguation note? - Francis Tyers · 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also like the fact that you marginalize those. I am curious, didn't you spot it in your visit there? Most I've met think that they descend from Ancient Macedonians and that Aegean Macedonia is occupied territory. There are also official sources for all that (to remind you). NikoSilver 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the people I met on my visit agree that Alexander was more Greek than ethnic Macedonian, and none of them layed claim on him, or believed that they were descended from him. You obviously swing in the wrong circles, Niko :D - Francis Tyers · 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, national awakening in Macedonia could regard other ethnic groups living in the region. Several incidents taking place in Macedonia constitute national awakening for Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians etc. I'm changing the name (Jesus, I'll actually have to type this). NikoSilver 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll dab that. - Francis Tyers · 19:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They already have their own articles, so I've added them to the dab note. PS. Thanks for using "Republic of Macedonia" I know it will have been hard :/ - Francis Tyers · 19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I do huh? I've been there 15 times (or so). I've spoken with doxens of people. Regretfully, the wrong circles comprise the majority of the population. Finally, I remind you official sources (which you dodged). So, the point is: can you provide sources for your claims that they don't? I can provide sources that they do. Finally, do you really want me to cite facts that constitute national awakening for Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians etc in Macedonia (region)?? What exactly do we dispute here? (PS. I didn't use RoM. M was pretyped and I only typed Ro and hit enter! :-)) NikoSilver 19:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't prove a negative, and I wouldn't trust the official sources. The amount of rubbish the official sources of the UK government puts out is astonishing. About the RoM, phew! :)) - Francis Tyers · 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Fran, but it is not enough. The same way, the article for the country and for the ethnic group have dab notes, but also include dab in the title ("Republic of" and "ethnic group" respectively). Your new title is fine though. NikoSilver 20:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really dissappointed... NikoSilver 20:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did say that the new title was reasonable, but the comment seems to have disappeared in the to-ing and fro-ing. - Francis Tyers · 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit 

message: You added 5 or so different refs for the same book. Are you going to add pages? If yes, I suggest you compile them into one ref, and add pages for a,b,c refs. (like we did in for Wilkinson). NikoSilver 20:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they fix the bug yet? - Francis Tyers · 20:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Old-ref style. How about doing it like we did it like in the Notes in Mac Term? (using above  and below )? I suggest you do it now, before we increase the number of refs. NikoSilver 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let me look at that. - Francis Tyers · 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danforth 

message: *Whilst the article should not be merged with History of the Balkans, what about a merger with Macedonism?
*I suggest moving the article from its present name. If this is about Macedonian nationalism, the article title should clarify that.
--Soman 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is like the title says, about the National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians, this is to fit in with National awakening of Bulgaria, National awakening of Romania, National awakening and the birth of Albania etc. - Francis Tyers · 10:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers and moves 

message: This article looks fine the way it is named and the way it is placed among other similar national awakening articles. It can probably be expanded into a much better article, but that is absolutely no reason for its removal. If we start removing all articles that could have been better written from wikipedia, soon we will have a very small free encyclopedia.  It can stay this way until some good soul puts some time into it ;) <-- emoticon .
As for the merging with History of the Balkans, it might be a possibility only after all the other national awakening articles are merged into it.
Capricornis 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks on this article 

message: I am very interested to see where is the POV here? This is probably the most sourced article I've ever seen, every sentence having a citation? Capricornis 00:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Needs to be readded with proper referencing:
After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%), the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. The Exarchate was also represented in the whole of southern Macedonia. The “Macedonian Question,” became especially prominent after the Balkan wars in 1912-1913 and the subsequent division of Macedonia between the three neighboring states, followed by tensions between them over possession of Macedonia. This partitioning of the territory had a tremendous influence on the development of the Macedonian national identity.Center for Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe - Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE)MINORITIES IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE - Macedonians of Bulgaria, pg. 6  In order to legitimise their claims, each of these countries tried to 'persuade' the population into allegiance. Paul Fouracre. Cambridge Encyclopedia of Medieval History Some scientists argue also that the use of any ethnic definition of the Slav speekers in Macedonia during the 19th and early 20th Century did not refer to ethnicity, but rather a socio-occupational description. The Slav population in Macedonia tended to be Christian peasents, farming folk,The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World - Loring M. Danforth, ISBN13: 978-0-691-04356-2 attested socio-political circumstances, such as in what language the local schooling was provided, or whether the local church aligned itself with Serbian, Bulgarian or Greek Orthodoxy. The majority were under the influence of the Bulgarian Exarchate and its education system, thus in the early 20th century and beyond, were regarded as Bulgarians, whatever that meant.(Brubaker 1996: 153; Ruhl 1916: 6; Perry in Lorrabee 1994: 61)The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The Races and Religions of Macedonia, "National Geographic", November 1912. Carnegie Endowment for International peace.REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION. To Inquire into the causes and Conduct OF THE BALKAN WARS, PUBLISHED BY THE ENDOWMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 1914  However, the key events in the formation of a distinctive Macedonian identity emerged during the first half of the 20th century in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 when the Bulgarian Exarchate discontinued its activity in most of the region. The process strengthed especially following the Second World War, with the withdrawal of Bulgarian authorities from Macedonia, the establishment of Yugoslav Macedonian Republic and the signing of Bled agreement. With the founding of the People's Republic of Macedonia in 1944 as part of SFRY, a sense of a Macedonian national identity gained strength and became systematised.(Bell 1998:193) The Yugoslav government began a policy of removing any Bulgarian influence and cementing the Macedonian identity.Europe since 1945. Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook. , pg. 808.
- Francis Tyers · 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed to be readded 

message: Macedonian nationalism concerns three separate peoples, the ethnic Slav Macedonians, the Bulgarian Macedonians and the Greek Macedonians. Suggest title be changed to Slav Macedonian nationalism. Politis (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foo'ian nationalism" refers to nationalism associated with a nation of Foo. There is no Greek Macedonian nation and no Bulgarian Macedonian nation. Nationalism of Greek Macedonians is Greek nationalism, not Macedonian nationalism. Of all the many meanings of the term Macedonian, there is only one that refers to a nation, hence, "Macedonian nationalism" can only refer to that. No ambiguity here, no danger of misunderstanding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You seem to be confusing the term "nation" with "state" as in sovereign, internationally recognized state. "Nation", in my Chambers Dictionary, is: "a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture, or historical tradition WHETHER OR NOT BOUND BY THE DEFINED TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF A STATE". It is a commonplace of 20th century history that the Austro-Hungarian empire broke up largely due to the forces of nationalism, but if we follow your concept of "nation", that couldn't have happened.
There are more interesting questions we could ask here: How did an historical identity related to Greek culture and the legacy of Alexander become transfered to a Slavic-speaking ethnicity? What languages did the "Macedonians" speak before they began speaking Southern Slavic? How did they feel about the change? What we need here is more information, not the tired old name-calling and complaints which we have all heard before.Jakob37 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name confusing