Talk:Anti-fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia

message: When did United Macedonia exist for it to be reestablished? Mr. Neutron 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at any map from before 1913. Before the Treaty Of Bucharest.Alexander the great1 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Before 1913 there was only Ottoman Empire. Show a map of a country which is the same as Macedonia (region) Mr. Neutron 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you provide proof that it didn't exists. You always ask us to provide proof but you only base information on your own POV. Frightner 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont be ridiculous. Maps cannot be provided because such country never existed. Note: Macedon does not include Vardar Macedonia. Mr. Neutron 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So where exactly did Bulgaria get it's illegaly annexed land in 1913, China? Look at a map of the Ottoman empire, within it you will see in plain English, a title printed "Macedonia". Frightner 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgaria has existed in its place long before the Ottoman Empire, under the same name and ethnic group. Mr. Neutron 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a country encompassing the region of Macedonia? I only see the Ottoman Empire. There has never been a country with those borders, note that very carefully. You cannot restore a country when it has never existed, you can only create it anew, which is exactly what United Macedonia is about. Or maybe you want to restore the Ottoman Empire, as this is the only country to be restored in this are? Mr. Neutron 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, you would say that Bulgaria was not reestablished after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, rather than created?Frightner 21:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgaria was restored because it existed before the Ottoman Empire in the same place with the same ethnicity. This is not true for the Republic of Macedonia. Prior to its establishment in 1991 the area was under Yugoslavia with the same ethnicity, then under Ottoman Empire by which time the ethnicity is different that the present day, as there are no records of Macedonians that far back, Serbian Empire, Bulgarian Empire, Byzantine Empire, ... and by the time you get to Macedon the ethnicity is radically different, and it did not even cover Vardar Macedonia. Mr. Neutron 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are starting to turn this into an ethnic debate rather than a geographical one. The Macedonian state existed within the Roman Empire from 500 BC. Before that it was existent as Ancient Macedonia which extended as far as Serbia. Frightner 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no state but a province, just like it was under Yugoslavia. Ok, I admit Alexaner conquered lots of land, but were his people ethnic Macedonians? Mr. Neutron 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say ethnic Macedonians, you really mean Slav Macedonians. Slavs arrived in the Balkans during the 6th century. Are you saying that Bulgarians are not Slavs and before this there were still Bulgarians occupying the region? Frightner 22:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgaria has existed since the 7th century when the Slavs came. Read the relevant articles. Unlike Slav-Macedonian irredentists, Bulgarian historians do not claim continuity up to 500BC. Mr. Neutron 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, as far as this article is concerned, we are only discussing Macedonia within the Ottoman Empire. Before the Ottoman Empire Macedonia still existed within the Byzantine and Roman Empire as a province. At the same time both empires prior to the Ottoman Empire also occupied 
the Bulgarian region and the Byzantine Empire ruled the region since the 4th century. Bulgaria couldn't have existed as a country if it was only created in the 7th century. When Slavs arrived in the Balkans fought the Byzantines and established a "Bulgarian Empire" which then fought for a Bulgarian nation and nationality. Bulgaria therefore never existed as a country but also a province or region. Frightner 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr.Neutron this will disappoint you but Bulgaria has never existed under that name until about 100 years ago. Whereas Macedonia can easily be found on any map. As for Ethnic Macedonians, believe it or not but we are not Slavs.Alexander the great1 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Donski is the only one who thinks this way. Mr. Neutron 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will repeat for the n-th time: there has not been a country within those borders before for it to be reestablished. Bulgaria was established in 681, and reestablished in 1186 and again in 1878, to which you seem very ignorant, which is pity because it is so easy to read those things. This argument is over. The point is ASNOM struggled for the creation of United Macedonia, as such animal has never before existed in history. Mr. Neutron 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr. Neutron can you watch you temper and not refer to Macedonia as an “animal”. That is very racist.Alexander the great1 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Neutron is a racist anti-Macedonian extremist as an obvious assumption. He refers to Macedonians as irredentist when in fact it was Bulgaria that annexed land from Macedonia thus, he obviously does not know the capacity of his own vocabulary. Frightner 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really unfortunate when racist "history revisionists” like Mr. Neutron join sites like this with the whole aim of spreading propaganda. It undermines the principle of Wikipedia. Alexander the great1 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is you who is breaking the rules by committing personal attacks by calling people racist, extremist and so on. Read this and do not repeat it or there will be consequences. Mr. Neutron 22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one called you an extremist before you called Macedonians "animals". According to your outlook on most articles which relate to Macedonia, you come across as extremist. Essentially saying that every revolutionary of Macedonia was Bulgarian, even thought revolutionaries such as Nikola Karev openly asserted to Greek newspaper journalists that he was Macedonian. Frightner 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used "animal" as a figure of speech and it is in no way offensive. There will be measures taken against those who attack other people. The rules are clear - comment on content, not on contributor. Mr. Neutron 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for posting that Mr.Neutron I learned something’s that I did not know. The first thing that I learned was that I did not break any rule because calling people racist or extremist as it is not a personal attack because it is true. However it is a personal attack to make racial comments like you did. So we now know that you just made a personal attack. But there is even more you made another personal attack by “Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.”. So you have made two personal attacks. I really think you need to be reported for this. Alexander the great1 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me but calling Macedonians animals is very offensive. As a Macedonian I find that extremely offensive. Alexander the great1 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you missed the first line - comment on content, not contributor. Mr. Neutron 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Mr.Neutron but no one lied you called Macedonians animals, that is despicable. Anyone that says that is obviously an extremist and racist. But please if you think anyone committed an attack please report it, so that we can speak with an administrator about this. Alexander the great1 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did more then a personal attack, you committed a hate crime by spreading hate propaganda.Alexander the great1 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's rules are not only contained within a first person perspective Mr. Neutron, i.e. do not make any "ethnic" threats to anyone, which is what you did. Another rule is "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", which you have unarguably dismissed. Frightner 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is purely unsubstantiated. Again, in the spirit of collaboration, I urge to discuss articles, not waste time on commenting whether other people are racist or not. Mr. Neutron 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is essentially the reason you keep reverting the article. No Wikipedian has a say in the matter unless it's from a neighboring perspective (i.e. Greece, Bulgaria). Frightner 00:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make such blatant accusations. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, read relevant policies. As such, edits on Wikipedia are based on merit, not on belonging to a particular ethnic group or country. Mr. Neutron 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm…ok, where to start from? Firstly do not be so harsh with Mr. Neutron – the saying “there is no such animal” is quite popular in Bulgarian Shop Culture: “Te takova zhivotno nema” in Bulgarian. It does not mean to offend, it’s just an expression. That’s not the case with Alexanderthegreat1 who has attacked users (quite a number of users) in a let’s say rather inappropriate way. Secondly, I review the problem and once again I fail to see the problem. If you talk about a Macedonia as a country (or an empire which is the case with Alexander the Great’s Greek empire) you might refer to only two things:
*1. The present-day Republic of Macedonia which has never ever had those lands within its borders – so therefore you cannot say that a United Macedonia is to be reestablished within borders encompassing historical Greek and Bulgarian lands with a great Greek and Bulgarian majority within them. On the contrary Bulgarians would have the full right to say that they want to reestablish … hmmm… a Great Bulgaria encompassing some present-day Greek and ethnic Macedonian lands, because such a Greater Bulgaria already existed. The same might come from Albanians like it or not as such a Greater Albania existed during World War II. Such way of expressing would be rather irredentist and I do not think that even the reasons I’ve given, would justify using such terms and laying claims on foreign lands. In your case it is laying hands on lands that have never been a party of your country. As far as I see it this is something beyond irredentism.
*2. The ancient Macedonian empire – if you have in mind Alexander the Great’s Greek empire when you say reestablish, you have in mind all lands from present-day Macedonia to India + Egypt. Is this really what you mean? I already know that Cleopatra, queen Elizabeth, Lenin and Stalin were ethnic Macedonians, but claiming India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey is a little too much.
*3. As funny as it sounds you might refer to Samuil’s Bulgarian empire as Macedonian. Although I do not see anything more than a good joke in this, it would still mean you lay claims on all Bulgarian lands north of Stara planina and even some present-day Romanian lands (I knew you were aiming north, but not that north. 
So which is it? --Laveol T 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you refer to lands that have been annexed from Macedonia as always Bulgarian and Greek? This is an irredentist view in latter perspective. You also refer to Ancient Macedonia as Greek, this is a nationalistic claim by several neighboring countries of the Republic of Macedonia as this is only a disputed claim and not a proven fact. This is viewed in contrast with ethnic Macedonians being Slavs and Greeks claiming that ethnic Macedonians can only be of Slavic ancestry and the Macedonian race had simply "disappeared". Many non ethnic Macedonian historians have specifically assured us many times that the Macedonian race had not been "wiped out" so to speak, but over time, the Slavs integrated with Macedonians and gave lineage to the ethnic Macedonian race. DNA verification tests titled "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" carried out by mostly non ethnic Macedonian scientists at the University of Madrid, proved that Ancient Macedonians and Greeks were two distinct peoples and that many ethnic Macedonians carry a gene strand of the Ancient Macedonians . Frightner 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This a known pseudoscience (Arnaiz-Villena controversy#The Arnaiz-Villena controversy) and I pity you and every ethnic Macedonian for believing such things. "Irredentist in latter perspective" is an ignorant statement. Please introduce yourself with the real meaning of irredentist. I can assure you, that pushing blatant POV, pseudoscience and falsified material does nothing to help your positions on Wikipedia, even works against your best interest. Such texts and conclusions based on them will be removed from articles. Mr. Neutron 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you that people should pity. You ultimately label every legitimate piece of information about the Republic of Macedonia as "pseudoscience" because of your extremist Bulgarian views. You should prove to me first why the source is "pseudoscience" as you claim. I suggest that you learn the meaning of these words not I and stop harvesting web pages related to the Republic of Macedonia and altering them to suit your falsified nationalistic views and spread political propaganda. Frightner 00:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I label it"? Have you even read the Wikipedia article, or just rehearsing your repertoire of standard answers? Mr. Neutron 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't understand the English language. If you did you would know that "irredentist view in latter perspective" is not an ignorant statement as it literally means "irredentist in a present-day perspective". Also, you need to stop acting like information of Wikipedia is concise and wholly true. Even Wikipedia itself cautions users to use other encyclopedia's other than itself as a primary point of reference. Think before you make any further accusations Mr. Neutron. Frightner 01:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote you: "Annexed from Macedonia" is the essence of irredentism. Greek Macedonia it is as it is populated mainly by Greeks. In the past it had a large Bulgarian population, which has largely been assimilated or migrated to Bulgaria. On the contrary, people identifying as "Macedonian" (as ethnic group) have been present in much more modest numbers only recently. Mr. Neutron 01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly cannot comprehend how much confusion you create when you talk. You continuously misquote me and unexpectedly change the conversation to an irrelevant matter rather than replying to the previous post or the subject. As of now, I am no longer going to comment or reply on this talk page as I will just let you continue with your political gibberish and self-identified historical genius. Frightner 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd better stop, as every reply gets you closer to making a personal attack. Mr. Neutron 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually "an irredentist view in latter perspective" is a rather strange thing to say. So Bulgaria and Greece are being irredentist towards their own present-day lands? Oh, and Niko would love your comment about the DNA tests. It really proves everything. --Laveol T 04:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very interested in finding how can Mr. Neutron claim that that research is "pseudoscience". Also, I'd like to know if Mr. Neutron is a genetics scientist, how much time he spent researching these perspectives (if he is) and I'd like a proof of his PhD of Genetics and/or Biology. If he doesn't supply these or at least proofs about his expertese, he has no legibility to claim that a research is "pseudoscience", and should be accused about having a POV, which doesn't comply with Wikipedia's rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.32.84 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Quote: "The Tito-Stalin split of 1948 and the defeat of the communists in the Greek Civil War ended Tito’s dream of uniting whole of region of Macedonia under his rule. Dejan Djokić claims that with Bulgaria once more reverting to denial of Macedonians as separate nation from Bulgarians and the victorious anti-communist Greek forces adamant in their own denial, the new Yugoslavia remained the only concrete medium for Macedonian aspirations to nationhood and quasi-statehood."
This is just plain retarded, and is obviously written by Greeks and Bulgarians. Firstly, Tito never had a "dream" about uniting Macedonia, but Macedonians feel those territories as theirs because both Greece and Bulgaria, after World War II began massive exterminations and ethnic cleansing of the native Macedonian people that lived there. Aegeans (Egejci) and Pirins (Pirinci) are the names of those peoples, which they named (and still name) themselves with.
Also, Macedonians were longing for a statehood long before post-WW II Yugoslavia. Namely, the Samuil's Kingdom was a Macedonian kingdom of the tzar Samuil, which was defeated by the Byzantine empire. Even the city of Ohrid (Lihnida, Lychnidos) was named after the pain of the Macedonian army of that defeat. Samul was no "King of Bulgaria" and Samuil's Kingdom was not "Bulgarian Kingdom", and it won't be, even if you turn yourselves upside down and move like that.
This is obvious non-sense, and I request for it to be changed. And stop Bulgarians and Greeks writing pathetic non-sense about others, and recommend them to toss their attention and resources towards their own business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.32.84 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tito's plans and what other retarded claims 

message: Sorry, I had to revert the page move. However, the name of the institution clearly includes the word "People's" and not - "National". The same way China is officially the People's Republic of China and not the National Republic of China. "National" is not exactly the same as "people's" and the two have rather different implications. I see you have moved similar articles as well, but the move was plain wrong. Plus, English-language sources do indeed refer to this institution in particular as "People's". --Laveol T 07:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "narodno" can be translated as both "national" and "people's" with about equal accuracy. Here are the WP:SETs I performed: "National" (50 hits), "People's" (3 hits). Clearly the former is the WP:COMMONNAME. Further, "National" is in-line with the current standard translation of the term in this context: see consistency at WP:CRITERIA. -- Director (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  People's vs National 

message: This article is not about Dobrin Michev himself. He worked as a historian in the Bulgarian Academy of sciences between 1971 and 1994. The Macedonian Scientific Institute is a non-governmental organization and is not financed by the Bulgarian state basically. This can be checked in the Statute of the association, which is published on the official website of the Institute - see art. 27 here: http://www.mni.bg/2013/06/ustav-na-mni.html. However this is not directly related to the issue with ASNOM's activity and the quorum of its first session, neither with this article about ASNOM itself. Another researcher Kostadin Paleshutski is of the same opinion. I have added a source about his view + explanation about the issue - >Only 60 of the designated 115 delegates were present at ASNOM's first session, but part of them were with questionable credentials. Moreover Nova Makedonija in its issues from 11—14 January, 1979, has maintained the number of the designated delegates was 122, which means the session was held without a real quorum. I have added also a lot of sources, confirming the Bulgarian army played the leading role by the driving of the Germans from the area of today North Macedonia. An example: Skopje was liberated by Bulgarian forces, while the Macedonian Partisans remained in the surrounding hills, and came down only to celebrate their entrance to the city. Similar scenes occurred in many other towns of Macedonia and Serbia, pointing to the fact that, from a military perspective the Russians were right: the Bulgarian army was the only force capable of driving the Germans quickly from Yugoslavia. Needless to say, the official Macedonian historiography, written mainly by Apostolski himself, understandably played down the crucial role of the Bulgarians. The glorification of the Partisan movement, an essential component of the post-war Yugoslav political culture-and more personal Partisan considerations left little room for such “technicalities”. For more see: Dimitris Livanios, The Macedonian Question: Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939–1949, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2008; ISBN 9780199237685, p. 134. Jingiby (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michev, Paleshutski, MNI, Yugoslav partisans, etc. 

message: I have delete this part because it contains inacurate information from User Jingiby who the text has no historical relevance but only propaganda 77.29.228.122 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the info is inaccurate, depends on the reliability of the sources which back it, not on your personal opinion. Stick to the sourced content, not to your bias. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy which is not controversal