Talk:Parteniy Zografski

POV

Read a bit more book. He was not BG and this article should be rewritten. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us the final truth. Now go and read some "book" as well. --Laveol ^T 11:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Enlightener?

The article called Zografski an "enlightener", which I have deleted. While "enlightener" may be a lawful agent noun, it has no definition (other than "one who enlightens", hardly enlightening in the present context). Somebody who knows something about Zografski should supply a more descriptive term. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Scientifical one

Hello all, this scientifical and accurate translation are being preferred even by citypopulation.de. Is it too late to use the scientifical transliteration of Slavic proper names too, along with place names... Thanks Manaviko (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Common language

Zografski never used Macedonian designation for a common language. He called it only Bulgarian. Zografski discussed the different dialects, incl. Macedonian and their role in the common Bulgarian language. Jingiby (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

He uses the designation: Macedonian dialect, and in the same article he also mentions the Serbian dialect. Furthermore he finds that the Macedonian dialect is more similar to the Serbian dialect than it is to the other one, spoken in Bulgaria and Thrace, at least as far as the stress and phonetics is concerned.GStojanov (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote and Wikisource

I have created an article about Zografski on Wikiquote and replaced there all the quotations. There is a possibility to improve it with a new quotations. I have provided also an link to it from that article, so if anybody is interested on quotation he or she has a possibility to enrich it and to find different quotations from that author. I have established also a link to the Wikisource project. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You made significant improvements to the article. I will continue with few more. I will use as my source mainly the Historical Dictionary of Macedonia, a source that you referenced too. GStojanov (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jingby, do you know in what work (book, article...) "He called the Macedonian dialects Lower Bulgarian and the region of Macedonia Lower Bulgaria." GStojanov (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

In the secondary source is cited "Tsarigradski vestnik" from February 9, 1857. Probably it is in this article: "Следующата статия много е важна и побуждаваме Читателите с внимание да я прочитет", публикувано във в-к "Цареградски вестник", година VII, бр. 315, Цариград, 9 февруари 1857 година. Jingiby (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I found it. The exact citation is: "According to what we know, our language is divided into two main dialects: upper-Bulgarian and lower-Bulgarian. The first one is spoken in Bulgaria, Thrace and some parts of Macedonia, and the second one in Macedonia in general, or old Bulgaria." So what we have now is an oversimplification of his statement. Let's think how we present this information. GStojanov (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

As you now I use secondary sources. Here is an encyclopedia, neither Wikiquote, nor Wikisource. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jingiby (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Serious POV

This article is very biased. The first paragraph is not encyclopedic, but rather polemic. I suggest we rewrite it and preset both sides of the dispute: the Macedonian and the Bulgarian, in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. I propose we reword the first sentence like this:

"Partenij Zografski (Bulgarian: Партений Зографски; Macedonian: Партенија Зографски; 1818 – February 7, 1876) was a 19th-century Macedonian and Bulgarian cleric, philologist, and folklorist from Galičnik in today's North Macedonia."

During the first half of the 19th century both the modern Bulgarian and the modern Macedonian nation still do not exist. Many intellectuals considered themselves to be both Macedonian and Bulgarian. This is particularly true of Partenija Zografski. GStojanov (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one historian has heard of a Macedonian nation in the first half of the 19th century. It was formed after the Second World War. Jingiby (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Bulgarian nation did not exist in the first half of the 19th century either. It was created after 1878 when Russia waged a war against the Ottoman Empire and created the principality of Bulgaria. GStojanov (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Your claim is folse. It was officially recognized by the Ottoman authorities in 1870, moreover we talk here about Zografski, who was a member of the intellectuals who struggled for that recognition. In 1852 Zografski became a member of Българска Матица (Bulgarian Motherland) a socio-cultural organization of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire, with headquarters in the capital Constantinople. May you provide a secondary reliable sources confirming Zografski had Macedonian national identity or insisted on the creation of a separate Macedonian language, distinct from Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman authorities did not recognize a Bulgarian nation in 1870. They recognized a new millet, a confessional community that allowed people to be grouped by religious confession as opposed to nationality or ethnicity. GStojanov (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That above is the fringe view of researchers in former Communist Yugoslavia, now supported in North Macedonia. Per prevailing scientific consensus the situation is the opposite. For example per Richard J. Crampton's book: "A Concise History of Bulgaria", issued by the Cambridge University Press is confirmed another thesis on pp. 73-75. i.e. "in the struggle for the establishment of a separate Bulgarian church the modern Bulgarian nation had been created, etc." Jingiby (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What does Mr. Crampton say, when was the modern Bulgarian nation created? (The definition of the millet was copied verbatim from Wikipedia and it is not a fringe view). GStojanov (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

From the article about Millet systeM you should read the subsection Effect of nationalism where is explained how the rise of nationalism in Europe under the influence of the French revolution had extended to the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century. The Ottoman millet system began to degrade with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnic nationality. The interaction of ideas of French revolution with the Ottoman Millet system created a breed of thought (a new form of personal identification) which turned the concept of nationalism synonymous with religion under the Ottoman flag.

What Chrampton wrote is free too check here. For example on p 80. The campaign for a separate Church had provided an enormous stimulus in developing Bulgarian national consciousness. In Macedonia the appearance of Slaveikov's Makedoniya in 1866 played a huge part in persuading many Slavs to think of themselves as Bulgarians. The clause of the 1870 ferman allowing for plebiscites mobilized opinion even more. A petition signed by over two-thirds of the adult population asking for inclusion in the Exarchate was sent from Ohrid as early as May 1870, and similar documents were prepared in many other Macedonian sees and parishes. Official plebiscites were held in 1874 in the Ohrid and Skopje dioceses, both of which voted for inclusion in the Exarchate. In fact, it was in this church campaign that the modern Bulgarian nation was created. It was a campaign in which the Bulgarians had broken away from the hellenizing influence of the Patriarchate; yet they had retained their essential Orthodoxy and had rejected the westernizing pressures inherent in Uniatism. The Bulgarians had also found methods for the articulation of their national aspirations which were political in form but religious in content...Jingiby (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Even in your quote it points out that: "Many Slavs were persuaded to think of themselves as Bulgarians." So the "Revival" was a propaganda operation, at least in part financed and led by Russia. Also note that not all Slavs accepted that persuasion. And most, like Zografski, had divided loyalties: toward their local homeland (Macedonia) and toward this new idea of building a joint venture nation with Bulgarians. But the bottom line here is that Bulgarian nation was not really created until Russia liberated and established the Bulgarian principality in 1878. It was a propaganda affair of a limited number of intellectuals, clerics and wealthy business people. The vast majority of the common people were unaffected by it. GStojanov (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonism was still in the early stages back then, and Zografski was not a promoter of it. The first real promoter is Gjorgji Pulevski, although he also supported a union with Bulgaria. The argument above by Stojanov that the general population had an ethnic Macedonian identity makes no sense as they chose to be part of the Bulgarian millet.--MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a debate about why and how the Bulgarian ethnic identity was the most dominant among the Slavs in the region of Macedonia. It is about Zografski's identity, and from what I have read, I do not think there is any logical reasoning to describe him as an ethnic Macedonian. Just sharing my opinion. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose we simplify the first paragraph and remove the polemic tone:

Parteniy Zografski (Bulgarian: Партений Зографски; Macedonian: Партенија Зографски; 1818 – February 7, 1876) was a 19th-century cleric, philologist, and folklorist from Galičnik in today's North Macedonia.

We can present the rest of the facts in the text of the article, and we should refrain from POV of any kind, since this is an encyclopedic article. GStojanov (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose. Everything is pretty sourced there. Jingiby (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why 'Bulgarian' should be removed, it's like if someone wanted to remove Macedonian from Goran Pandev's page. Stojanov, brate, it is hard for me to tell you this but you are acting embarrassingly. I honestly don't understand the obsession of some Macedonians to deny the existence of other ethnicities in Macedonia. History is not a competition, it's a science that is based on facts. Too many of our compatriots are wasting time on trying to deny facts that they do not like, what benefit does it bring to deny the Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian presence in Macedonia in return for being a broke and corrupt country. I wish you all the best as this conversation is pointless if you are going to have an agenda that stops you from taking into consideration the overwhelming sources. You may think that you are helping our 'identity' but you are only making us look stupid and as bigots. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MacedonianGuy97 by "us" do you mean Macedonians or Bulgarians. GStojanov (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

GStojanov Because I do not believe in stupidity that there have been ethnic Macedonians for 3000 years, I can't be a Macedonian? --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby Where is it sourced that he was a Bulgarian national? He could not have been, since the Bulgarian nation is created two years after his death. GStojanov (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Bulgarian cleric, philologist, and folklorist" - He was Bulgarian Metropolitan of Nishava (Bulgarian Exarchiate) i.e. "Bulgarian cleric". He worked primarily on Bulgarian philology & folklor i.e. "Bulgarian philologist, and folklorist". Regarding his self-consciousness, he declared the dialects of Macedonia as part of the Bulgarian language in his works (see: "Thoughts about the Bulgarian language"). He declared the primary population (as of 1858) of the territory of the former Archbishopric of Ohrid as Bulgarian (see the introduction of: "Life of Clement of Ohrid"). There's no doubt that he sees himself as a Bulgarian, speaking Bulgarian language. If the Bulgarian nation is created in 1878, then when the Macedonian nation was created, and could he be a Macedonian in that context? Also, note that Bulgarians are not just a nation, as's described in the article. His works include "Thoughts about the Bulgarian language", "Bulgarian folk songs in Macedonian dialect", "Documents on the history of the Bulgarian church" --StanProg (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

StanProg let me ask you something that will help us resolve this dilemma: was Charlemagne French or German? GStojanov (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

GStojanov this will not help us. You can't compare the 9th-century person with the 19th-century one. --StanProg (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@StanProg Ok. How about Jan Kolar, was he a Czech or a Slovak. GStojanov (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

About the 19th century we may use scientific opinions. For example per John Van Antwerp Fine until the late 19th century both outside observers and those Bulgaro-Macedonians who had clear ethnic consciousness believed that their group, which is now two separate nationalities, comprised a single people, the Bulgarians. Thus the reader should ignore references to ethnic Macedonians for that period, while the term 'Macedonian' was used then in reference to a geographical region. Nevertheless, the absence of a national consciousness in the past is no grounds to reject the Macedonians as a nationality today. Fore more see: "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century," University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, pp. 36–37. Jingiby (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why the argument at all, but here’s a link to a historic book, that talks about Parteniy Zografski, and given the fact that the author is Venko Markovski, perhaps it could be useful: https://books.google.com/books?id=EHxqxk8U-akC&lpg=PT34&ots=l5IfMLwS9r&dq=%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8&pg=PT34#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Вени Марковски (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

GStojanov, I notice that lately your edits are frankly destructive, violating all neutrality and are starting to look more and more like vandalism. I will ask you stop to remove well-referenced passages from the article just because you don't like them. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)