Talk:Miladinov brothers

message: Guys - the book says "Bulgarian Folk Songs" on its cover - what is there to dispute at all? I mean, Shakespeare's plays don't have "English" written on the cover - you are free to claim those I guess.
If the Macedonian consciousness was "not developed", then you should remove the double Bulgarian/Macedonian in the lead. On top of, they were quite clear that they regard themselves as Bulgarians and consider the Macedonians a subset of the Bulgarians - do you want me to paste other pages of Bulgarian Folk Songs or what? I have taken the double Bulgarian/Macedonian as a compromise to avoid future quarrelling but if you intend to play your horse around, I can also pursue a harder policy - they, Parlichev and Shapkarev have left enough evidence of what they thought about their language (Bulgarian), about themselves (Bulgarians) and about the "Macedonians" (a subset of the Bulgarians = Macedonian Bulgarians). The fact that you wrote that bullshit about the "dialect of Struga" on which they "wrote" their songs (they collected them, darling) clearly shows your intents and knowledge on the subject. VMORO 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, interprete your rethorical abilities from the type of "bullshit" etcetra outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no place for such talents. Other, they collected songs not only from Struga, but also from other macedonian regions. "Wrote" is my mistake, I meant to write "collect" (I know that they didn't wrote the songs). You can't judge whether the different poets and writers from that time were Bulgarians or not, without to consider the circumstances in which they were and without some kind of analysis (Yes, Prlichev and Shapkarev could have left evidence that they were Marsians, so?). I prefer the number of  584 macedonian songs to stay, because they signifficantly differ from the 76 bulgarian, if nothing else, in their accustic independence, they have typpical macedonian-speech characteristics. Also, the part about the letters from Konstantin to Rakovski should stay in the text. Cheers, Bomac 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Folk songs

message: Strich3d, why are you pushing the fake picture from the soros archive, which has the top part truncated? Mr. Neutron 16:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake picture 

message: It is not fake picture, it is the original one. As you can see on your picture the word "B'lgraski" is not in the same line with other part of the text. It isn't even the same font. Your picture is a bulgarian falsification.--strich3D 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: :I dont think Bulgarian newspaper is neutral source!!I dont want to delete something but until that is removed "WERE BULGARIANS" the POV staies on the top.--Makedonij (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, in this case there's no issue. We've got sources that they self-identified as Bulgarians and sources that they were identified as such by Western and Russian scholars. That is quite enough. And I'd like to ask you not to put POV tags on the talkpages. --Laveol T 20:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Makedonij

message: Reverting to Macedonian ethnicity without references is pure vandalism. Jingby (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC
Please, stop reverting. Jingby (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This is yet another tedious nationalistic dispute, isn't it? So Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions applies. So L and M are now on WP:1RR parole for this article, which will drop down to 1/7RR if they abuse it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear - it does mean you have to jusify your revert on the talkpage prior to reverting, yes? --Laveol T 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking to be sure, thanks --Laveol T 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctions 

message: The reason I made a RfC is that I believe the current version of the article does not follow the basic WP principles: Neutral point of view and Verifiability. I'm confronted with several Bulgarian editors which insist on designating Miladinov brothers as exclusively Bulgarians.  Their claim is supported by citing questionable and non-English sources, especially from the site [promacedonia.org] which is a propagandist site which purpose is only to support Bulgarian point of view regarding the Macedonia region and Macedonian people. I already had a long discussion on the article's talk page and tried to reach a compromise solution that will have the following designation:
* Miladinov Brothers were poets and folklorists from the region of Macedonia (without explicit mentioning of their ethnic affiliation)
* There is an evidence that they referred to themselves as Bulgarians (although the citing sources are questionable and heavily POV-pushing)
* Some researchers and publicists argue that during the Ottoman period the term Bulgarian was not used to designate ethnic affiliation, rather to designate different sociocultural categories. (I provided appropriate and reliable sources for this assertion).
* The writings of Miladinov brothers laid the foundation of the Macedonian literary tradition.
However, there are several Bulgarian editors which are not interested to find a mutually acceptable solution and keep changing the edits I make to the article.  They keep the stance  that Miladinov Brothers were exclusively Bulgarian and put every evidence of the Macedonian affiliation of  Miladinov brothers to the Controversy section (see for example, the latest revert:  and also previous reverts:,,
Therefore I'm seeking for comments from more neutral editors that will provide outside view on the topic in order to resolve this dispute.MatriX (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence I provided shows that Miladinov Brothers are considered Macedonians not only in the Republic of Macedonia, so we can apply the other guideline: .they are considered ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria and ethnic Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia. However, I think the Todor Bozinov's proposal is generally fine and it can be accepted in order to resolve this editing dispute. MatriX (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  MatriX, indeed you have provided some third-party references (thanks for that), but could you please quote the relevant passages of each source so we can review them? I'm glad you like my idea, so let's go with it. In cases like this one, I think the best solution is to be more descriptive and to avoid explicit and unexplained claims. Todor→Bozhinov 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Todor Bozinov, thanks for editing the article according to the proposal you made and I generally accepted. However, you missed to complete the changes to the end; namely, you suggested that we should add a footnote next to the “Bulgarians” designation in order to present the opposite view about the usage of the term. Therefore I’ll remove the current references (they are some 10 references and the intro section looks pretty much ugly at the moment) and place them on some other place. About the relevant passages in the sources I provided, I added the page numbers so I think you can easily navigate and find the info you are looking for. I see you removed that references too, I'll reinsert them at some appropriate place (probably in Controversy section) MatriX (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note: The guidelines are just (as it says) guidelines and not rules per se. It is not imperative to act as they say, but were indeed designed to resolve such disputes before they become a large-scale revert war. I'm glad you finally accepted the self-identification bit and I hope that's that. Ok?--Laveol T 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll wait some period and if nobody disagrees, I'll remove the RfC tag.MatriX (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  MatriX, I didn't insert the footnote because I expected someone more familiar with what it should say would write it. It wasn't because I wanted this info out :) Todor→Bozhinov 08:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that too, np.MatriX (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad we sorted this out, I'm very happy to see that we came to a working solution so easily. All the best! Todor→Bozhinov 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but we worked hardly to find a solution and I'll return back the previously agreed version. MatriX (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Dispute about ethnicity of Miladinov Brothers 

message: From the section "Sanctions" above:
This is yet another tedious nationalistic dispute, isn't it? So Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions applies. So L and M are now on WP:1RR parole for this article, which will drop down to 1/7RR if they abuse it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear - it does mean you have to jusify your revert on the talkpage prior to reverting, yes? --Laveol T 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just checking to be sure, thanks --Laveol T 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Damn it - and I wasn't even reverting FPaS :), but was trying in fact to trim the text. Isn't it techically one revert since you must be regarding the text I one revert and then reverted its next inclusion? --Laveol T 14:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctions,again 

message: I see a reference (3) to a statement that is not true... I mean it is just a statement without any proof and any facts provided... just thesis hanging out in the air... I will give you some examples:
The author claims that: The term bulgarian, which had earlier been used to refer to all the slavs of the ottoman empire.
That is totally not true as for example the serbs were called serbs, the croats were called croats and so on... How come they were not called bulgarians if the above statement was true?? It is obvious, ain't it?
The author also claims that: bulgarian was a synonym for peasant???? 
Let me see, the people in the towns were called bulgarians as well even though that they were not peasants... Also if that was true again, this would mean that the serbs, the croats, the greeks, the romanians and all the other nations in the Ottoman empire (including turks) should have been called BULGARIANS as well. You need basic knowledge of the Ottoman social structure at that time, in order to know that.. However the greeks, the serbs, the romanians, the croats and the turks were not called Bulgarians. It is clear that this cannot be a true statement as well.
So, how can this be a reference in Wiki... It is like to take some modern bulgarian nationalist comment and put it as a reference in order to prove that the MODERN ethnic macedonians (from the country Republic of Macedonia) are bulgarians... 
Please answer why such a statement is put as an reference (meaning smth like proof)...? I never change without discussion, so I will expect you answer. Please let the answer come in a timely fashion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The meaning of the Bulgarian term

message: Please, refrain from removing sourced content or making disruptive edits prior to consulting the talkpage. Most of the issues of the article have been discussed here at some point in time. If you have any other issues and are about to remove sourced material, try discussing it here, first. --Laveol T 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th,Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655340, p. 19-20.Средновековни градови и тврдини во Македонија, Иван Микулчиќ, Македонска академија на науките и уметностите — Скопје, 1996, стр. 72.Formation of the Bulgarian nation: its development in the Middle Ages (9th-14th c.) Academician Dimitŭr Simeonov Angelov, Summary, Sofia-Press, 1978, pp. 413-415. up until the early 20th century.Center for Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe, Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE) - "Macedonians of Bulgaria", p. 14. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later.Krste Misirkov, On the Macedonian Matters (Za Makedonckite Raboti), Sofia, 1903: "And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?" However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed.Loring M. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, 1995, Princeton University Press, p.65, Stephen Palmer, Robert King, Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian question,Hamden, Connecticut Archon Books, 1971, p.p.199-200The Macedonian Question: Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939-1949, Dimitris Livanios, edition: Oxford University Press, US, 2008, ISBN 0199237689, p. 65.The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1850654921, p. 67.Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton,Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1995, ISBN 1850652384, 9781850652380, p. 101. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed.The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse,  C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1850654921, p. 67. Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton,Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1995, ISBN 1850652384, 9781850652380, p. 101. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed.The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566, pp. 65-66. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness.Europe since 1945. Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook. , pg. 808. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population.  In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.Yugoslavia: a concise history, Leslie Benson, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, ISBN 0333792416, p. 89.  Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The substitution of the term ''Bulgarian'' in this article with the term ''Macedonian'' is POV

message: An article about the Miladinov brothers does not need to be written from the POV of the Miladinov brothers themselves. --WavesSaid (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by this? --Laveol T 13:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Strumica and Prilep-Bitola dialect are "Macedonian". --WavesSaid (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with those points, and I don't doubt that they identified themselves or their language as "Bulgarian". The Miladinov brothers, however, were not linguists, and we need to exercise caution in our use of primary sources and try to avoid original research. Their personal views are exactly that and should be treated as "statements of opinion".  --WavesSaid (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, so what other source do you suppose to use as a source of their self-consciousnesses? It would be a "statement of opinion" were it somebody else's view, not their own. This won't work, sorry.--Laveol T 02:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about their language (notice the section title?). Not being linguists, their claims are statements of opinion. Their self-identification, on the other hand, cannot be disputed. --WavesSaid (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Other issues aside, does higher education in philology classify one as a linguist? I am just curious (and amused by the way one can try and get around facts). --Laveol T 03:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

text: There are already reliable sources in the actual article. Where are your reliable sources? I mean besides your own opinion, which you seem to regard as more than reliable and relevant. --Laveol T 03:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being a linguist, it's not my opinion that those dialects are Macedonian. I'm not qualified to make such claims, that's why I trust the authorities in that field. Which source classifies those dialects as something other than Macedonian? --WavesSaid (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "these dialects" but the language they wrote in. The source is indicated in the actual article. --Laveol T 04:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of the folk songs they collected are in a Macedonian dialect. --WavesSaid (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? Or are they collection of folk songs from the whole region? And what source do you have for this claim (again). --Laveol T 04:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Their language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miladinov brothers. 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/20120405084630/http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G04/01/A04_01/sa2004.htm to http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G04/01/A04_01/sa2004.htm
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) 18:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miladinov brothers. 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/20060822000622/http://macedoniainfo.com/Miladinov4.jpg to http://macedoniainfo.com/Miladinov4.jpg
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) 17:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A bit of housekeeping, good to start with the fact that Miladinov Brothers were born in Struga, Republic of Macedonia instead of writing twice later.
Macedonian POV is that Miladinov Brothers managed to bypass the strong Austrian pro-Bulgarian propaganda in the mid XIX century to covertly forward some Macedonian national ideas. The Miladinov collection of folk songs was published in Croatia, under Austrian supervision (to show Bulgarian territorial pretensions or Austrian Balkan interests). That is why Sofia is included with the other Macedonian cities. To make this very visible they put Bulgarian in the title and have a preface that emphasizes Bulgarian Slavs in the acknowledgement to the publisher, with a covert explanation that the language, writing and wording is a bit different. If you start reading the book from the foreword, there is nothing strikingly Bulgarian after that. Furthermore, Miladinov brothers were smart to insert several pro Macedonian hints. In the Miladinov collection there are legends about tzar Alexander (Alexander the Great) and that the Macedonians buried their kings in Voden. Why these so-called "Bulgarians" kept legends about ancient Macedonians kings? Why the legends of ancient Macedonians are in this book of "Bulgarian" folk songs? This could be interesting question for Bulgarian historians to answer. Toci (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Republic of Macedonia was created in 1991 and Miladinov brothers died in 1862. They were born and died in the Ottoman empire. Please, provide reliable sources in support of your claims. Thanks.Jingiby (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a link in Britanica (https://www.britannica.com/art/Macedonian-literature) that states that "in the 19th century there appeared original lyric poetry written by Konstantin Miladinov, who, with his brother Dimitrije, compiled a notable collection of legends and folk songs that contributed to the development of a nascent Macedonian literature". Macedonian language and literature is not invented dear Jingiby. Britanica is not fringe theory. Macedonian language was always there and different from Bulgarian, just the historical conditions and pro-Bulgarian or pro-Greek propaganda would aggressively fight it. That is case even today with Bulgarian Wikipedia editors, who do not see facts from within their narrow POV. Toci (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems. That is mentioned in the article:  they are also thought to have laid the foundation of the Macedonian literary tradition. That does not mean neither they identified themselves as ethnic Macedonians, neither they were born in Republic of Macedonia, nor they classified their language as Macedonian. On a contrary: they identified as Bulgarians, called their country Lower Bulgaria and classified their language as Bulgarian. By the way Britannic is a tertiary source and Wikipedia prefers secondary ones. There are used a lot of such in this article. Just read them. Regards.  Jingiby (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong that Macedonia was ever Lower Bulgaria. This is a nationalistic fantasy of San Stefano (Greater) Bulgaria. Macedonia is Macedonia. Bulgaria is Bulgaria (medieval continuation of ancient Trace). Today's reality is different from the XIX century reality on the Balkans. Macedonians were regarded as Bulgarian or Greeks. Norwegian and Finish were Swedish then. But not today. Wikipedia should be neutral. Try to state the facts (date of birth, place, works, etc.) in the articles and if you want to add controversy, better to write in talks. Wikipedia should be like Encyclopedia Britannica. If they are different Wikipedia is wrong, since Encyclopedia Britannica is peer reviewed. Your interpretation of secondary sources is not peer reviewed and you should not produce original research. Toci (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The name Macedonia derives from the Greek term Makedonía. Between 10th and 15th century Macedonia was called today Eastern Thrace, i.e. parts from Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece. With the conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans in the late 14th century, the name of Macedonia disappeared as a geographical designation for several centuries. The name was revived just during the early 19th century, after the foundation of the modern Greek state. As result of the rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, massive Greek propaganda occurred, and in this way, the name Macedonians was applied to the local Slavs, aiming to link both sides to the ancient Macedonians, as a counteract against the growing Bulgarian cultural influence into the region. Until then the Greeks called the Slavs in Macedonia "Bulgarians", and regarded them as Orthodox brethren, but the rise of Bulgarian nationalism changed the Greek position. As result a massive Greek religious and school propaganda was brought in the area, and kind of Macedonization occurred among Slavic-speaking population there. Since 1850s some Slavic intellectuals from the area, adopted the designation Macedonian as a regional identity, and it began to gain a popularity. Ultimately the designation Macedonian, changed its status after WWII and went from being predominantly a regional, ethnographic denomination, to a national one. Both brothers used in their writings as Gorna Bulgaria, i.e. Upper Bulgaria, as well as the three terms: Dolna Bulgaria, aca Lower Bulgaria, Macedonian Bulgaria and Macedonia as interchangeable. They called their Slavic language Bulgarian and regarded themselves Bulgarians. They declared themselves Bulgarian, and they were active in the Bulgarian public life.  Jingiby (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Guys, just a note about the online version of Britannica. It is not peer-reviewed. In fact, it is open for edits and this particular article is written by Gordana P. Crnkovic. You can go ahead and edit it yourself, just like Wikipedia. --Laveol T 12:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the Controversy section in an attempt to explain from NPOV the Macedonian position and backed this explanation with reliable sources. Jingiby (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Miladinov Brothers were born in Struga, Republic of Macedonia

message: This article is slanted toward the Bulgarian point of view. This is an encyclopedia and we need to arrive to neutral formulations, supported by English language sources. I propose we use this: "Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia"https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ilGfCIF4Ao4C&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=Miladinov&f=false by Dimitar Bechevhttps://ces.fas.harvard.edu/people/002283-dimitar-bechev Let's start with the first paragraph. I propose we change it to read like this: 
"The Miladinov brothers (Bulgarian: Братя Миладинови, Bratya Miladinovi, Macedonian: Браќа Миладиновци, Brakja Miladinovci), Dimitar Miladinov (1810–1862) and Konstantin Miladinov (1830–1862), were famous educators, writers and ethnographers from the Struga, Macedonia. They are considered a pioneering figures of the national awakening in both Macedonia and Bulgaria." GStojanov (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can drop some parts from pro-Bulgarian emphasis in the the first paragraph. However per Bechev himself, Miladinovs became iconic figures for the Bulgarian nationalist movement in Macedonia, while in the phrase they are considered pioneering figures of the "national awakening" in Macedonia - "national awakening" is in quotes. Per this context, from modern-day perspective the phrase "they are considered" describes the projection of the modern Macedonian ethnic distinctions onto the past, while de facto they were activists of the Bulgarian nationalist movement. More, they identified themselves as Bulgarians, called their language Bulgarian and they thought of their country as Western Bulgaria, i.e. we must distinguish the reality during their own time from the present-day Macedonian national perspective. Jingiby (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Please, do not forget also that references in the originals of the Miladinovs to Bulgaria, Bulgarian or Bulgarians are removed, replaced or cut off in North Macedonia. Museums there, even refuse to display some the original works by the two brothers. Jingiby (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not saying that Bechev's article is perfect, but he made a sincere and largely successful attempt to write WP:NPV article about this divisive and very sensitive topic. We do have two diametrically opposed views that exist in Macedonia and Bulgaria, and this article, as it is now, does not reflect that. Let us re-read the WP:NPV and think how can we make this article better. GStojanov (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Michael R. Palairet in the three-way dispute about Macedonia, the Bulgarian view is closest to the objective reality of history, but the Macedonian historiographic version violates common sense and the historical record much more than either the Greek or Bulgarian ones. And I  know the Macedonian POV: the original version of the "Bulgarian Folk Songs" is hidden from the general public; every references to Bulgaria and Bulgarians in Brothers' works are replaced with Macedonian and Macedonians; the upper part of the cover showing "Bulgarian" has been cut off, the national museum of North Macedonia refuses to display Miladinov's originals, claims such as the “Bulgarian" designation appeared shortly prior to the book’s publication after manipulation, while its authors were forced to use the designation Bulgarian, etc. Jingiby (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonian POV is that Miladiov brothers were born in Macedonia, used Macedonian dialect in their work and contributed to its development and later codification. They are very important for the Macedonian Revival, their poems are studied at primary and secondary schools, and you would be hard pressed to find a Macedonian unable to recite Konstantin's poem T'ga za jug. We need to reflect that in this article. GStojanov (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. By the time they were born, the name Macedonia was not used by the local people. Local dialects were not called Macedonian. And the brothers, as Bulgarian national activists were opposinng  the very name Macedonia, as it became popular as a result of the Greek nationalist influence in the region, i.e. around the mid-19th century. Jingiby (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Name Macedonia was certainly used. There are several newspapers named Macedonia that were printed specifically to spread the revival in Macedonia, because the name Macedonia was popular both among the intelligentsia and the common people. Miladinov Brothers did oppose that name at one point, fearing that it gives Greeks too much power over Macedonians. That is the reason why they published the collection of songs as "Bulgarian Folk Songs" and not as "Macedonian Folk Songs". But we can't judge the book by its cover. Almost all of the material in it is collected from and written in Macedonian (Struga, Ohrid, Prilep, Kukush, etc...). There are few songs from Panagjuriste, a border town between Macedonia, Bulgaria and Thrace, so their work is significant for the Bulgarian revival too. Now let's think how we can make this article neutral to both the Macedonian and Bulgarian POV. GStojanov (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: May you provide a single source that can confirm your claim, during the life-time of Miladinovs was issued a newspapers named Macedonia to spread the Macedonian revival there? Jingiby (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

text: The first issue of this newspaper was published several years after the death of both brothers by a Bulgarian who claimed that Macedonism is inspited by the Greek propagandists issue. Petko Slaveykov mentioned Greek (but also Serbian) propaganda activity, and his journal Makedonia fought back against them. More, he presented Bulgarian history as a continuation of the history of Alexander the Great who was a Slav, etc. Nonsenses which resemble modern-day pseudo-history called antiquisation, popularized in Nort Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are moving in the opposite direction now with the edits of the article. :) GStojanov (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to arrive to a neutral point of view