Talk:Krste Misirkov

message: I do have the book On macedonian matters, hope in original writings. Altrought some of you may contest it i would like to point out some quotes naming chapter and paragraph number.
Please do not contest this quotes by saying they are serbian re-work, or that they are propaganda, to contest them take the parts quoted (chapter and paragraph number) and quote them from your book to prove your point.
Предговор
Chapter 1 paragraph 5,4th sentence
"Можит, бугарите и сет праи, кога мисл'ат, оти Русиiа без Бугариiа не можит да сашчествуат, ни политично, ни економцки, но тоа iет бугарцка политика, а iас не сум намерен да политиканствуам бугарцки. Јас сум македонец и интересите на моiата таткоина ми се предстауат така:не Русиiа и Австро-Унгариiа сет неприiателите на Македониiа, а Бугариiа, Грциiа и Србиiа"
Since i am not 100% certain in my english transcription i could use some help and corrections...
"Maybe the Bulgarians are right, when they think that Russia without Bulgaria can't prosper neither economicly nether politicaly, but that is bulgarian policy, and i dont intend to politicsize bulgarian. I am macedonian and interests of my fatherland tell me to: not Russia, and Austro-Hungary are enemies of Macedonia, but Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia."  
"Состауала, состауат и можит ли Македонија да состауат от себе оддел'на етнографцка и политична iединица?"
Chapter 5, paragraph 22
"Тоа можит да се забележит на тиiе,шчо вел'ат да никога немало македонцка народност. — Немало, ама iе имат сега и ке бидит за однапред."
"This could be said to thoosem, who say that the macedonian nation never existed - Never did, but it exists now and it wil in future"
chapter 5, paragraph 15(counting from last paragraph and backward)
"Значит, името бугарин во Македониiа, со коiе сега експлуатираат бугрите, никак не iет национално, и затоа никоi од македонците немат прао со него да експлуатират македонцките интереси во негоа полза"
"So, the name bulgarian in Macedonia, which is now explotated by bulgarians, is in now way national, so no macedonian has right to to use it to explotate macedonian interests on his behalf"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsaso (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: The author explicitely states that:
Како последуач на идеiата за полно отдел'аiн'е на нашите интереси од интересите на Балканцките народи и за самостоiно културнонационално развиiаiн'е, iас и iе написаф на централното македонцко наречiе, коiе за мене от сега на тамо имат да бидит литературен македонцки iазик.  --FlavrSavr 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonian dialect he considered a dialect of Bulgarian. Matter of upgrading a Bulgarian dialect to a languge in its own right? By the way that is not real script of the book, rather in the Serbian alphababet of 1945. He used the old Bulgarian alphabet. FunkyFly 23:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book was written in Macedonian, not Bulgarian 

message: If whoever from the country who's capital is Skopje wishes to sneak in pejorative terms like "Aegean" Macedonia, s/he will be considered a vandal and reverted at sight by the whole wikipedian community. The official policy of WP, is to use the most frequent or self-identifying name. Greek Macedonia IS more frequent (I won't even google it for you). Simply "Macedonia", IS the self-identified name of 2.6 million Macedonian Greeks. We choose Greek Macedonia (like the main article Macedonia (Greece) because, unlike you, we have WP:AGF and we disambiguate. Now get over it and stop ultra-nationalistic propaganda!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Niko, the funny thing is: Your Greek government calls ethnic Macedonians "Skopjans" and the Republic of Macedonia "Skopje." Hmmm... that is NOT the self-determined name now is it! Well, doesn't that mean the Greek government needs to "get over it and stop ultra-nationalistic propaganda!?" Maktruth (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For us, it is Aegean Macedonia. Something can have two names. Besides, when the Greek nation first appeared in the 19th century (as we know it today), the Aegean part was not in it. Please remember that. 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once and for all! 

message: Misirkov's diary was uncovered in a Bulgarian antiquity shop. It is now going to jointly be published in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Russia. Its authenticity has been confirmed by Bulgarian and Macedonian experts. In his diary, Misirkov clearly identifies himself as a Macedonian Bulgarian, much to the dislike of the Macedonian press and other political circles in Skopie, taking a strong
anti-Bulgarian stance. http://news.netinfo.bg/?tid=40&oid=995281
http://www.vreme.com.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=1&EditionID=994&ArticleID=65533
220.233.208.218 14:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sign that Skopjie is starting to backpedal on the (ludicrous) "we're not Bulgarians, never have been" stance? Skopjian historians and archaeologists have, in the recent past, been proven quite good at "finding" artifacts that fit their government's needs, at a moment's notice. With about 1,000 Bulgarian passports being issued to Vardaris each month, and BG being used as the FYR's "backdoor" to the EU, the old hard-line is becoming hard to maintain. sys < in 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to stick to verifiable claims only and stress that the diary is going to be publish by Macedonian and Bulgarian State Archives. That's really good news.--Michkalas 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misirkov diary found 

message: Where can we find his original text in cyrillic? Preferably on line and especially, On Macedonian Matters. As for and 'the Self determination of Macedonians' there is a link to both Cyrillic and English texts, but is the Cyrillic version the original one, or has it been adapted to spoken Bulgarian or Spoken Macedonian? Thanks. Politis 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second external link is the original text of On Macedonian Matters.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims to be the original text, with no adaptation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever he meant, I dont know. But for sure he has changed his ideas so often in his life that to a great extent the crediubility of his arguments, whatever they might support, is lost.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are the admins of this site so blind to the whole concept of Bulgaria and Greece being afraid of a Kosovo-like situation on their territory? Except without the war. Can we have international observers come to the Aegean part and Pirin part AND ask the people there instead of regurgitating 100 year old propaganda? 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Original texts

message: I reverted to the last edit that followed the "View in A", "View in B" structure. Please use the talk page before making such drastic edits. Thanks. sys < in 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The nationality of Misirkov is contested. Please do not one-sidedly insert categories which qualify him one way or another. Mr. Neutron 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: What is this http://www.kroraina.com/ website that is referenced as a "source" in the Bulgarian POV part? its not used only here but in many other Macedonia-related articles around. it says the author is some Vassil Vassilev Karloukovski. Who is he? The introduction page seems like some 1990s personal website on geocities. I also checked his bio, it says: 
* 25.02.1970 - born in Sofia, Bulgaria
* 1983-1987 - National Mathematical High School "Acad. L.Chakalov", Sofia, class in Physics
* 1987-1992 - Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohrydski", M.S. in Physics with specialization in Geophysics
* 1993-1995 - Geophysisist at the Geomagnetic Department, Geophysical Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
* 1995-1996 - Research Associate at the Geomagnetic Department, Geophysical Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
*awarded the Lord Zuckerman studentship of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, and since April, 1996 I am a post-graduate student under the supervision of Dr Barbara Maher and Dr Mark Hounslow. The title of my research project is 'Palaeomagnetism and magnetostratigraphy of the volcanic and sedimentary rocks from the Momchilgrad Tertiary depression, the Eastern Rhosopes's mountains.' The project started as a pure palaeomagnetic one, aiming at solving the current discrepancy between the Bulgarian and Greek palaeomagnetic data on the Tertiarty tectonics of the Rhodopes mountains, but with time it took in magnetostratigraphic and some rock-magnetic studies as well.
*2001 - Post Doctoral Research Associate, Centre for Environmental Magnetism and Palaeomagnetism (CEMP), Dept. of Geography, Lancaster Un
So we have maths, geophysics, stones, minerals.. and everything else, except what we need here. what this gentleman has to do with the topic this article deals with? his undoubtely high academic credentials are completely irrelevant to this particular subject here. And what is this http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/? . Bugarash is a pejorative term in Serbia or Macedonia for someone considered a bulgarian nationalist or pro-Bulgarian or something. A greek equivalent would be a grecoman. And you call these reliable sources? Some geophysician and some guy nicknamed bugarash? Bravo, higher science you cant beat itCucayte 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious sources 

message: I want to express my dissatisfaction with the sources of the Macedonian position.They are from a site without even 1 document which makes them totally useless.Therefore I would like to ask the moderators/admins or however they are called, to remove the last 2 statements in favour of the Macedonian idea.If you check the Bulgarian sources, you will be able to see the scanned articles from newspapers, on whose basis lay our statements about Misirkov`s self-determination.Using unsourced information for such a hot discussion, concerning a historical personality from great importance- at least for Bulgaria and Macedonia, is in contrast with the idea of wikipedia to be "The Free Encyclopedia".If it`s really encyclopedia, then it shouldn`t be consisted of materials whose origin is unknown for everyone except their author.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.22.205 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information 

message: Where is there an original copy of his book, Za Makedonckite Raboti (On Macedonian Matters) - it seems there are none in Sofia. Politis (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original book?

message: The whole article is about whether Macedonians are Bulgarian or Macedonian, and has little to do with Misirkov's life. Can't we do a chronological history of the man's life instead of making the article into one about nationalism? Mactruth (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV article 

message: For the passage with the alleged quotes from On Macedonian Matters, Laveol added a source reference to an online English translation the other day . Most of the quoted parts cannot be found in that translation – the assume-good-faith explanation is that it's probably just a different translation; nevertheless, I ask that the original passages please be identified. For those passages that I could identify, I must agree with MacedonianBoy: the way those passages are embedded in context, they are not being spoken as M.'s own position, but an antithesis he is arguing against.
Since Bulgarian-Macedonian articles unfortunately have a long Wikipedia history of extremely bad abuse of primary sources, through OR synthesis, distorting quotations and over-reliance on poor-quality nationalist polemics sites, we will need to apply the same scrutiny to all other parts of the article where primary sources are quoted. Let's start with the following claim:
:In 1924 he wrote: "We [the Slavs of Macedonia] are more Bulgarians than those in Bulgaria". He advocated a Greater Bulgaria encompassing territories which belonged to Yugoslavia (today's Republic of Macedonia and Serbia), and north eastern Greek Macedonia
Source cited is here
Can somebody please point to the exact places and contexts where these claims are found? Also, can somebody please translate for the me following original passages in the Bulgarian text:
*"Във всичко друго, освен езика, ние и българите сме си вървели и вървим по свои самостоятелни пътища."
*"Но ето, че се раздават викове на самите македонци: ние сме българи, повече българи от самите българи в България... Вий сте могли да победите България, да и наложите каквито си щете договори, но с това не се изменя нашето убеждение, нашето съзнание, че вий не сме сърби, че ний досега сме се казвали българи, тъй се казваме и днес и така искаме да се казваме и в бъдеще. Искате ли отстъпки от нас? Искате ли да сме по-малко българи от самите българи? Да ви отстъпим? Отказваме се да бъдем тъй безразлични към националните си интереси като други. Ние не можем и не трябва да поддържаме мизийците във всичко, защото мизийската логика, техните на­чини на действие довеждат до сръбско-български договори и спогодби за Македония, довеждат до договори като сръбско-българския в 1912 година, като Ньойския. Ние ще бъдем повече македонци, отколкото българи, но ма­кедонци със свое отлично от вашето сръбско самосъзнание"
*"Повече българи или повече македонци? Ето един основен въпрос, върху който не веднаж е трябвало да се спира мисълта на мислещия македонец през последните тридесет години и докато едни или по-точно огромното мнозинство са се спирали на първото, намирали са се и такива, които предпочитали второто пред първото. В числото на последните е и автора на тази статия."
*"Ние, македонците, днес трябва да сме и действително сме по-малко българи и повече македонци, от когато и да било по-рано в нашата история."
Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I wrote about this problematic issue some time ago. Many references were extracted out of context. You have cleaned out the article and it is good now. Also I have said that I could not found the passages that you are pointing out, the user that put them should tell us. And one question, how important is Ivo Banac's view? If we follow that logics I can put Friedman's view, Macedonian academic's views and that will go on and on. Individual's views I think are irrelevant, since we have one book, magazine and many articles for analysing and someone's attitudes are irrelevant.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: The last reference  of the first paragraph p.5, K.P.Misirkov, "Za Makedonckite raboti" - jubilejno izdanie, Tabernakul, Skopje, 2003.  contains all the information before the deletion of the IP address and I have that book in case you wander. However, I gave two more references that support the statement and please do not rewrite my sentences, it is not pleasant to see. Even in BG he is considered as founder of the standard Macedonian and the 'Makedonizm' as you say.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: How many times you should repeat the same things? He was BG, he was BG and so on, which in fact he wasn't. Even the into you provided is not for this article, but for Demographic history of the Republic of Macedonia. If you like to contribute the article about Misirkov's life and works, then do so, but please do not exaggerate with stupid and irrelevant things. Have you seen somewhere my or by any Macedonian contributors to exaggerate about Misirkov's ethnicity? No, since that is not more relevant then his works. Please be constructive and stop pushing something that is irrelevant. All sources and sentences about so called Bulgarian nation in Macedonia are irrelevant for this article. Why do you put such things? To convince someone? That is not the aim of Wikipedia Jingiby. Edit constructively and neutrally and everyone will be satisfied. Hope you got the message. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you obviously not interested in his work any additional claims about his ethnicity, must be put in the separate section because the article loses the main point. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: I would kindly ask the user Laveol to stop pushing his irredentist theories about that the book "On Macedonian matters" is written in Bulgarian. He is led by the idea of the official Bulgarian policy of not recognizing the Macedonian language prior 1945 and I am shocked to see it in 21 c. However, take a look at this:
#The book is written in Macedonian language, not in Bulgarian. You can realize it by the vocabulary and grammar and all features of Macedonian.
#The book uses the Macedonian phonetic orthography, not the ethomological
# The script is Macedonian Cyrillic, not Bulgarian or Russian (see the old Bulgarian orthography at that time)
# About the language of the book, in many cases Misirkov states that it is written in Macedonian, and here is one quote:
What the book states? It is obvious that the book states that it is written in Macedonian. It is totally irrelevant what Laveol claims and BAN as well, you have primary source. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The book uses the Bulgarian alphabet at the time. Does the Macedonian one have a Iota? Don't think so. Thank you. --Laveol T 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so we should take your OR on a book that was written in the Bulgarian script, published by a Bulgarian publishing house in the Bulgarian capital Sofia. And nowhere does it say it is in a language different of Bulgarian. I know what it says in the book, but the author did write it in Bulgarian. He could have used some of the letters, which he uses elsewhere and which were not part of the Bulgarian alphabet, but he did not.--Laveol T 07:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I see we're about to enter a deadlock, as has often being the case with conversations with past incarnations of yours. I am trying to explain that he author wrote the book, using the Bulgarian alphabet, despite the fact that he intended one or two other letters to be used when writing in the Macedonian norm. In order the book to be published, it had to be in Bulgarian. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant since its a plain fact. The attitude of facing facts head on is not getting you anywhere. Do you have any prove refuting the fact that the letters are Bulgarian? Does it say anywhere that the book is written in a language other than Bulgarian? If the answer is no, I do not see what your case is. --Laveol T 08:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: @ Laveol: I do not know in which film are you in, but something is totally wrong with your edits. The letter і is not and was not used in BG. Leave the orthography for a while and take a look at the content. It is Macedonian. Please stop with this crap or I am forced to ask for a help. The book itself states it is written in Macedonian and your opinion it totally irrelevant, and BAN's as well.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And this one Laveol: Since the book was published in Macedonian the Bulgarians burnt all copies. You should know a bit about the topic before mechanically revert people. We are losing time in chatting with you filling your free time. It is shameful that you do not know your own Bulgarian alphabet from 1903. Totally different from the Macedonian and Serbian, totally same as Russian. Regs--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to explain something. I did before but you do not want to read it. 'I' or Iota was used in the Bulgarian language at the time. A literary reform removed it in the late XIX - beginning of XX century, but at the time Misirkov wrote and published the book, it was still consistently used. Read something about it - you claim to be a linguist and know stuff about languages. You even claimed you knew Iota had never been part of the Bulgarian language. Well, it has been. And know what do we do when all that linguistic knowledge does no good? --Laveol T 09:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Laveol, I know that it was used in Bulgarian before 19 century since it was used in all Slavic languages. But that is not a reason for your claims, since according to you, the book can be said is written in Ukrainian. And do you know why Ј was used as Macedonian letter? However, you are the first one to claim the book is in Bulgarian, and do you know why? Just because there is only one Bulgarian sentence, you claim it is Bulgarian. That is just ridiculous. Again you are avoiding some points: book's claim, the language and Misirkov's opinion - the most important things. Hope you figured out you are wrong.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I assume Bulgarian removed these letters as well: к', л', н', і, г'?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a quote, at the beginning. Misirkov in various parts of the book states that the Macedonian is used. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but you cannot omit the authors claims about the language used. However, it is more than obvious that is Macedonian. I do not know why we argue about this.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: We should definitely include his claim because it's for that very reason that he is notable. We do not, however, state whether or not his language was x or y based on that claim (that, to repeat myself for the 100th time, is in the realm of linguistics). The reason we argue about these things is because it's only through the clash of POVs that we achieve Wikipedia's ideal of NPOV — which is a roundabout way of describing mutual appeasement of competing POVs. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the linguistic analysis of his work (I have three large books about his work) state incredible similarity even with the Standard Macedonian language. Furthermore, his magazine Vardar is so close to the Macedonian Standard, that some minor elements differ. Once a person reads the book and his works, (s)he can state that it is not Bulgarian. I cannot say the same thing about Petar Pop Arsov's book "Stambolovshtinata vo Makedonija", which is a book written in Bulgarian by a Macedonian revolutionary. This time, in "On the Macedonian matters" and "Vardar" magazine, the things are quite clear.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Further to the original conversation topic, I'm changing the tag to 'mk' — the Western Macedonian dialects (which Misirkov mentions explicitly in the book itself) are universally considered just that, Macedonian. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, beaten to it! It was nice to chat, lads. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laveol's POV 

message: You have put this quote, supportingly said by Misirkov:
I found the oroginal Bulgarian text in the link you gave and found this: 
or in English (Google translate, sorry for mistakes, if any):
From the quote you can see that it is not Misirkov's thought, but he paraphrases what others said. This is a discussion that we already had in the past. Who has taken it out of context?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, if you take a look at the original text, you can see that the whole sentence quoted above is in italics which means it is not his own thought. You have to find another one, this one is not Misirkov's own thought.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misirkov's most popular thought in BG 

message: There is a claim that Misirkov remained in Bulgaria where he got Bulgarian citizenship and this is in tight connection with his "Diary", where he named himself as "Macedonian Bulgarian", which means Macedonian with Bulgarian citizenship in political sense. However, this statement is extremly dibious. He wrote the diary in 1913, but became Bulgarian citizen in 1919. This is a nonsence. The added source provides several opinions of macedonian historians before the publication of the book, i.e. that opinions are preliminar. After it's publication the Macedonian schoolarship recognised the Bulgarianism of Misirkov. Verify: Please, remove this claim. Jingby (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected it, but still it is the Macedonian position. However, your word "obvious" is totally against all academic norms of neutral words (not writing) and it is very subjective. To make it simple, as you said, in Bulgaria it is "obvious" that he is Bulgarian, but on the other side it is obvious in Macedonia too that he was Macedonian according to most of his articles, magazine and book. You should avoid these type of words to eliminate the possibility of edit warring since if I start using words of that kind the article would be mass. And again, remember, we are not here to convince anyone to particular idea and that is very important. Regs.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misirkov as a [[Macedonian Bulgarians|Macedonian Bulgarian]] in the Diary from 1913 

message: Stan, stop adding categories that are not acceptable. We discussed and agreed not to mention nationality, so there is not nationality in the infobox, in the introduction and in the categories. I'll ask some admins if you continue with this edit warring. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you to judge that one source is not relevant? I think the sources you gave are not relevant as well. Regarding the Lozars, you forget one thing. Only the first two editions were wrote by Macedonians, the rest were Bulgarians (or Macedonian Bulgarians as you say). Soon after the magazine's first editions written in Macedonian the Bulgarian government banned it and installed pro-Bulgarian authors. I am adding Macedonians back. Misirkov is not reliable (who witnessed the situation) and the authors from 21 century who cite Bulgarian authors are reliable. Well done!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about this irony: you can freely add Bulgarian authors and their books, but when I add Macedonian you ask for third-party source. Should you remove Bechev and Diana M? Do you see the irony? I have plenty of Macedonian sources, but I am not using them. And remember, we discuss about who founded the Association, not what they did. That should be mentioned in the article about the Ass.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Stan, please stop your nationalistic games. Everything you edited is referenced and you cannot change it. The book says Macedonian, not the stupid construction "Central Macedonian dialect". He was not even the first one who wrote on Central dialect, he wrote in Macedonian instead. Separation of Macedonian nation? Who stated previously that it was part of Bulgarian? Many, as you call "early Macedonists" claimed before Misirkov that Macedonians are not Bulgarians, including Draganov, Sarafov, Pulevski, etc. I really do not understand how you understand a language. Codification of a language does not mean it did not existed previously. Where did you get the idea? Did Bulgarian existed prior its standardization? Or Serbian before Karadzic's standardization? Forget those ideas. Best --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can list as many  Bulgarian sources and Bulgarian-influenced sources as you want, but still it does not prove anything. I did not add that sentence, it is in the article since the creation of the article itself. It means it is acceptable and supported by the community. The fact that only one user wanted to disparage the Macedonian nation and language is not worth talking about. You are off  topic Jingi.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And Jingi, read what you have written: "Lozars had somehow different linguistic but not separatist  ideas in ethnic sense. Misirkov was an switching exception.  The sources, you have provided do not confirm national separation.". Are you aware what you have written? The founders of Loza were officially accused of separatism, national separatism, by the Bulgarian government and Stambolov. National separatism goes with the language - it's a fact. Read more please, especially Stambolovshtinata vo Makedonija. This discussion looks like forum discussion, I do not plan to argue about history here. Both thesis are in the article and that's the end of the story. My last concern was Stan's edits, which were unencyclopedic and POV --MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I already did. What do you understand by "Macedonian separatism" as it is mentioned in one of the sources I gave? And how serious is the claim that there was "language separatism" but not "national separatism". I am hearing about this division for the first time. Give me another example where a group of people fought for the separate X language but were not X nationality? Stop the game please.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree as long as this decision is respected by all editors. And once again, I beg Stan and Alisia to stop with those unacceptable edits about the language and nationality since we agreed about those issues long time ago and those statements are generally acceptable in the academic circles, supported by sources. Best Jingi.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: * Regarding the "first book and scientific magazine in Macedonian" - in the first source it's stated just "Macedonian", in the second Misirkov himself has classified the texts as written in "Central Macedonian dialect", the third source is dead link, so I left the more detailed information about the classification. The Macedonian language is established in 1944. All before that is just dialects in the different areas of the region of Macedonia.
* Regarding the "where he for the first time outlined the principles of the literary Macedonian language." The first source supports the statement, the second source supports the claim that the literary Macedonian language is based on the Central Macedonian dialects and that they are chosen because of Misirkov`s manifesto. The third source on the other hand denies the claim. Here's what it says "The language planners involved in the codification of the standard literary Macedonian in 1944, however were working in complete ignorance of Misirkov's work, since most of the copies of "On the Macedonain matters" had been confiscated and destroyed..." (Frieadman). So Friedman absolutely denies involving Misirkov's work in the later established Macedonian language. You can't support information, when the source claims right the opposite. What can be confirmed by the sources is that the standard literary Macedonian language is based on the Central Macedonian dialect - which all sources confirm. --StanProg (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you heard of secondary sources? Stan, get over your issues about the Macedonian and stop with that codification. I explained you everything above, but you did not care to explain. Misirkov is not the first to write on Central Macedonian dialect, one example before him is Cepenkov. So, what you wrote is...--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the intro. He is not only considered as the greatest Macedonian in Macedonia, I have given you one English-language source. Second, that incomprehendible sentance about Macedonian separatism and Bulgarian patriotism, you do not have to repeat same thing twice in the intro. I know what you want to achieve, but it is childish. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Misirkov is very clear, by pointing that it's written in "Central Macedonian dialect" (iас и iе написаф на централното македонцко наречiе), which in plain English means "I wrote it in Central Macedonian dialect". Which one of the Misirkov sentence you do not understood or have another interpretation of? If you think, that some statement needs a source, do not vandalize it, but request a source with the template "fact" and such will be provided. It is not a good idea to provide a source for every word, but if such is needed I will gladly provide it. You can't prove your point of view by deleting statements. --StanProg (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macedonian language was CODIFIED in 1944, of the many Macedonian dialects. Even Misirkov himself says "central MACEDONIAN dialects", not "Bulgarian dialects". 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian language/dialect & Misirkov 

message: :Hey, guys, nice edit-war you've got under way there. I'd like to ask some things about a rather overused source. Who is Giorgio Nurigianni? A text of his, quoted as a whole in a rather odd site, is used to source a number of pretty bold statements in the text. Does anyone have an idea about Mr Nurigianni? I failed to locate him anywhere (not via any sort of Google search). Was his work peer reviewed? And why is such a large portion of his book available online? Isn't it a copyright violation? I am thinking about removing the source altogether unless someone comes with some details on this work. Even its title sounds too POVish, not to mention the text itself.--Laveol T 16:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ref is that?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see. He's Italian, a writer and scholar of the Balkan affairs. The books is not online, you have to buy it.  The biography provided by him was part of the anniversary project (they started the web page, the statue, conferences, etc.). Google Books. I think he took part in the project, but I'm not sure.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

text:  I've checked about him this morning. He's a publicist and highly controversial figure regarding the Macedonian question. He turned his positions on 180 degrees in 1966 and started to support the ideas of Macedonism. Highly unreliable source, but he is not used in the article anyway. --StanProg (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because he does not support the BG POV he is unreliable? ;) The Biography provided on misirkov.org.mk is not by the Italian, but by the Foundation Misirkov.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, wait, wait. So is this text his and if not - whose is it? If it is his, then who is he? I saw nothing about his credibility. Is he an actual scholar? As I already pointed out, the title alone is going too far. --Laveol T 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the book, and I was wrong when I said that the Foundation wrote the text. The text is by the Italian scholar (scans). I do not see any reasons why we shouldn't use the ref. The facts are the same as any other book about Misirkov. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I can't find anything proving the credibility of the author or the publishing house. Could you provide some info on any of them? --Laveol T 15:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have, but the online articles/ news/ activities cannot be found since A1 was shut down "according to the law" (A1 and the foundation had close relations and one member of the Ramkovski family was in charge of the foundation [or close friend of theirs]). At the moment I cannot find such online materials. The fact is that Foundation exists, they put the Misirkov monument on Pella Square in Skopje, organizes conferences, lectures, published books, etc. Still, there is a contact on the webpage, you can find it at the bottom. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And how would that prove his credibility since there is no evidence outside of A1? It increasingly sounds like an unreliable and non-credible source. And, mind you, as I already pointed out - it is used to back up some quite bold statements. --Laveol T 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The same things can be found in the Georgi's Literature of the Macedonian language and many other sources.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking for any other source, but this one. So, you agree it is not suitable? --Laveol T 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Laveol, I want to apologize. I was wrong about the name of the foundation. It was several years ago and I quite forgot the facts. The foundation is Foundation Ramkovski (Foundation Misirkov was founded in Greece). Here is a link of the foundation, their activities, activities regarding Misirkov, etc. This foundation opened the web site. I wouldn't agree with you about the source, though.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

text: (unindent) That is all very nice. But I'll ask again: Is the author a scholar? And, if he is, is there any proof of it? --Laveol T 17:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we are misled by a wrong spelling of the scholar's surname (Nurigianni > Nurigiani). 
* 11.700 hits about the author.
* Nurigiani's bibliography
* Nurigiani's biography
* Nurigiani's on a Bulgarian site
* One paragraph about Nurigiani's work regarding Bulgarian-Italian relations
So far I did not found any other scholar/ publicist/ author with such name. It must be him. He wrote about Macedonia and Bulgaria and he is quite reliable from what I saw so far. I would not take in mind those stories "he was pro-Bulgarian, he was pro-Macedonian". He published about the Balkan policies.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about a reference 

message: It seems that we'll have to discuss every single word - no problem with me.
* Macedonian historians and linguists argue that it means nothing but a Macedonian person with a Bulgarian citizenship
The fact that he has declared as Bulgarian Macedonian years, before gaining a  Bulgarian citizenship denies the "Macedonian historians and linguist" claim. The National Macedonian Archive confirmed that he has declared Bulgarian Macedonian in 1913 (if not earlier), while he is still with Russian citizenship. He got Bulgarian one after march 1919, which means at least 6 years after that. --StanProg (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I discuss it? That's the theory of the Macedonian authors. Discuss it with them. Here we give what's the POV of both sides. I am not arguing about this, otherwise there are a lot of questionable statements and arguments of the Bulgarian authors. We are not reviewing their work, are we?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not telling that this is not POV of the Macedonian historians and linguists. As you can see their POV is provided. What I added is a proof that the facts deny their theory. If their theory is right, then he would identify himself as "Macedonian Russian" in 1913, while having a Russian citizenship and not having a Bulgarian one yet.  --StanProg (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Stan, we do not reject, or try to deny each POV, do you get it? We provide them as they are. Otherwise what's the point of having two separate sections: BG and MK POV. What you gave is better for the Biography section, regarding his work in Bessarabia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  When a POV is denied by clear evidence (like the fact that the Earth is not flat, but spherical), it should be (at least) noted. Unless Misirkov owned a time machine, which is highly doubtful. --StanProg (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note it, but not emphasize it. what about adding "even though he declared himself as Bulgarian Macedonian prior he gained Bulgarian citizenship"?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the theory that the Earth is flat is denied, should we just "note it" or "emphasize on it" that this is not possible, because the clear facts state the opposite? --StanProg (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian person with a Bulgarian citizenship 

message: In the following edit summary  MacedonainBoy claims that he is "moving the whole sentence", but in fact he vandalized/erased it. Was that intentional or just a mistake? --StanProg (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you wrote the same thing in BG POV, just before my edit? I just moved the sources, the text was the same.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not the same thing at all. It just partial information, which does not deny the fact, that the Macedonian historians and linguists can't be right, because clear facts indicate that this can't be the case. --StanProg (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalisms again 

message: I have rewritten partly the intro to NPOV, using two academic sources in support of my edit, avoiding the emphasis of both, pro-Macedonian and pro-Bulgarian activities of Misirkov. Jingiby (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this quote "there's no Bulgarian who is not interested in the situation and fate of that part of our homeland, which continue to groan under the yoke of the tyrant" and this is an argument that Misirkov considered teh Macedonians as Bulgarians. I read the letter (and as much as I understood) no where in the letter indicates that he thinks Macedonians when he states "Bulgarians". This "At that time Misirkov still considers the Slavic population of Macedonia and Thrace as Bulgarian" should be removed in this case. Am I wrong?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus Stan is over emphasizing the same thing: "he said I am Bulgarian here, he said I am Bulgarian there", ect. For every second sentence I have pro-Macedonian one extracted from him articles and book. Am I doing it? No. I'm not overemphasizing where and how he said he was Macedonian or similar things. If Stan continues like this, I'will start adding quotes from Misirkov about his Macedonian ethnicity and how and where he glorified himself as a great Macedonian (if that's the point of Wikipedia's articles, proving how someone is the greatest Bulgarian or Macedonian).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Misirkov there is one important thing that need to be clarified very well. And this is how during the years his view for the Slavic population of Macedonia switched between Bulgarian and separate Macedonian including his pro-Bulgarian and anti-Bulgarian (pro-Macedonian) writings. The point is not to prove if he is great Bulgarian or Macedonian. I've never said that he is great Bulgarian and do not believe he actually is. He's a controversial person. There are periods of his life where he at the same time wrote pro-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian articles - the second one under a pseudonym. The quote in my second sentence is not required as far as it's specified that in that period he considered himself Bulgarian, he was part of the Bulgarian studentship and as a member of the Bulgarian Student Society. This is important, because only 3 years later, he wrote his only book/pamphlet/manifesto with the starting stage of his ideas to separate the Macedonians from Bulgarians politically & linguistically. Fell free to change that as far as the information that is provided via the quote is preserved, because it's important. --StanProg (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro's NPOV questionable

message: The sources cited in this article ought to be reviewed. What's striking is that we have an article about a Macedonian nationalist from the early 20th century, yet Sperling et al. (2003) says, "In the early twentieth century, there was no separate Slavic Macedonian identity". On the other hand we have many other Macedonian nationalists who were active in the early 20th and late 19th centuries such as Pulevski (1817 – 1895), Čupovski (1878 – 1940), Aleksa Popov (1809 – 1912), Grupčev (1848 – 1907), Dedov (1869 – 1914), Naum Evro (active in the late 19th century), Konstantinovič (1881 – 1918), Temko Popov (1855 – 1929) and so forth. And then we have Motyl (2000; cited in Association of Serbo-Macedonians) who says, "Macedonian nationalism emerged in the 1860s [...]". Does Sperling et al. (2003) elaborate further on this? --203.59.88.42 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Krste Misirkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101212085140/http://www.misirkov.org:80/biography.htm to http://www.misirkov.org/biography.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Krste Misirkov. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704024503/http://194.149.135.92/frame.aspx?ProektID=75 to http://194.149.135.92/frame.aspx?ProektID=75
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220160042/http://www.misirkov.org/ to http://www.misirkov.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Krste Misirkov. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204131931/http://www.misirkov.org/predgovor.htm to http://www.misirkov.org/predgovor.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613083616/http://www.macedoniainfo.com/Misirkov.htm to http://www.macedoniainfo.com/Misirkov.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010015807/http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=73477 to http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=73477
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Krste Misirkov. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921044434/http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/default.aspx?pBroj=1884&stID=4305 to http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/default.aspx?pBroj=1884&stID=4305
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704124546/http://www.misirkov.org/kpm_zmr_eng.htm to http://www.misirkov.org/kpm_zmr_eng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728164955/http://www.vmroyouth.org/misirkov.rtf to http://www.vmroyouth.org/misirkov.rtf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Because Misirkov expressed conflicting views about the national identity of the Macedonians Slavs at different points in his life, his national affiliation and legacy remains a matter of dispute between Bulgaria and North Macedonia. While Misirkov's work and personality remain highly controversial and disputed, there have been attempts among international scholars to reconcile the conflicting and self-contradictory statements made by Misirkov. According to historian Ivo Banac, Misirkov viewed both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians, and espoused pan-Bulgarian patriotism in a larger Balkan context. However, in the context of the larger Bulgarian unit/nation, Misirkov sought both cultural and national differentiation from the Bulgarians and called both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia Macedonians. See: The national question in Yugoslavia: origins, history, politics, Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1988, , p. 327. Jingiby (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivo Banac 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212085140/http://www.misirkov.org/biography.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed