Talk:Historiography in North Macedonia

Images
There are too many images in the article, which is making problem with text formation. I suggest to make a Gallery paragraph or delete 1/2 of them, per WP:MOS.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will make a gallery then. Jingiby (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"North Macedonia" is a contentious geographical term that could include Pirin Macedonia
I would suggest that every instance of "North Macedonia" be replaced with the "Republic of North Macedonia" because the former is a contentious geographical term that could include Pirin Macedonia/Blagoevgradska Oblast, part of the Republic of Bulgaria, and fuels irredentist claims from the Republic of North Macedonia on that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vurhovist (talk • contribs) 12:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You stole land, don't recognize our ethnicity and you claim WE are the bad guys? 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality tag added
No discussion to justify the tag. Only disruptive editing and deleted sources. Jingiby (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The edits by Jingiby and this whole article is a POV nightmare because of the biased edits by Jingiby


 * How can the admins not see how this Jingiby is biased? After the fall of Nikola Gruevski there are so many edits by him (though it wouldn't surprise me if it is a paid account used by many)... 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Added the tag. The article is far from NPOV in my opinion and we should definitely continue discussion on the neutrality of this article. Kromid (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the need for a neutrality tag (and the concomitant neutralizing edits) Muttnik  talk 13:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kluche Hello. If the neutrality of the article is still disputed, it needs to be discussed here. Otherwise the removal of the tag is justified. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * StephenMacky1, hello. I think the tag should remain as in my opinion the article is written in a manner which just focuses on debunking every claim made by Macedonian historiography, as opposed to objectivly disserting it. And while the article is quite well sourced, the wording is very contentious, as it reads more like an argumentative essay. So if the NPOV tag is to be removed, I suggest that the essay-like tag be added. As an example of poor writing, I'll point out the "Foreign historiographic studies" section - quite literally the enitre section is worded as "X said Y" over and over again, which I'm sure is not in spirit with Wikipedia guidelines. Another example is the description of some images - like the case of the Vataša massacre image, which could pertain to justifying the actions of the authorities. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The description of the photo with the massacre in Vatasha does not justify the violence, but shows the reverse side of the medal, which is never shown in North Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need for other tags. It'd be better if all of the issues get addressed here. I agree that this article has issues when it comes to wording. I think the topic could be introduced in a better manner as well. The article should be accessible to all readers, thus it should establish what the topic is, not just merely list opinions. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with StephenMacky1. In fact the neutrality of the article was not disputed essentially for a whole year.Jingiby (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * that doesnt make sense to me, just because it wasn't disputed earlier doesnt mean its neutral it just means that it took editors longer to discover the POV issues. Gurther (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Gurther, the tag may be removed if there hasn't been a discussion about it for a period of time. On top of that, before the tag was removed, I haven't seen any editor elaborate what the POV issues are. You can freely elaborate the issues that you have with the article here. When we add tags, we should address the issues too. I think we shouldn't rely too much on tags when we can address the issues. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not trying to get involved in the POV issue since its already obvious what the issue is (the writing style and structure) plus pretty much what you said, im just saying jingbys logic makes no sense, im not here to dispute but i do think some sentences and sections need to be reworked but i think we should wait to hear the opinions of the editors who originally added the tag instead of the three of us discussing. Gurther (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, in fact the neutrality of the article was not disputed essentially for a whole year. Nobody tried to justify the tag added to the article. Nothing is self-evident and I really don't know what the user who put it meant with it. Why somebody thinks there is a lack of neutrality in the article, when most of it is properly sourced? It does not look like it contains any WP:OR or whatsoever. A discussion is only now starting after the tag was removed, but after hanging around for a year without being justified. Moreover, the idea of such tags is not to hang around indefinitely, but to make efforts to improve the article after reaching a consensus about it on the talk page. Nothing of the sort happened. Jingiby (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said before just because it wasn't disputed before doesn't mean its been neutral there are several issues from a wiki which only get found out years later, this is a common occurrence. The problem isn't about how properly sourced it is (its got academically approved sources and lots of foreign media which is definitely reliable) what i see the problem with this wiki is the way it focuses on framing the Macedonian historiography as a fraud or that its manipulative and it tries to show examples with photos and sources which makes it look like its trying to say "the macedonian claimed this but heres why they are wrong" i believe any nations historiography no matter how controversial their claims are should be respected in some way and not treated as communist forgeries. Gurther (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Do not delete them. Thanks.Jingiby (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Jingiby, I immediatly backed up my arguments with Wikipedia guidelines/policies. Meanwhile you failed to do that prior to your last edit. Furthermore you've failed to adress my absolutly vaild concerns of grammatical and syntax errors (which I pointed out twice), instead choosing to blindly revert, which can be seen as quite unconstructive. You've also used weird allegories/methaphores such as a "historiographic medal", which again can be seen as unconstructive.
 * Furthermore your argument that "this side of the medal" is not shown in the historiography of N.Macedonia, despite you using a Macedonian historiographical source from the 60s.
 * I would also like to add that I'm not the only editor which agrees that there are wording issues in this article, and I find your edit contributing to said problem.
 * So again, I'll ask of you to stop blindly reverting and ignoring valid concerns. Thanks. Kluche (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have any stylistic remarks, you can correct the text. However I've noticed that you often remove everything with that pretext. Jingiby (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby again, stylistic remarks are not the only motive for removal in this case. I've also seen you ignore valid concerns of editors often (like right now), instead unconstructivly reverting. Also please see my addition to my previous reply. Kluche (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to write so many things about nothing. It is clear that the text directly concerns the topic and especially the specific case with the statute of the IMRO and the Bulgarian name of the organization, which problem is extremely painful in North Macedonia and therefore its authenticity is denied by its historians. It also becomes clear that this is devoid of logic because the discovery of the statute itself was made in Skopje and the discoverer was a very famous researcher. The source from 1961 is the original publication of Katardjiev when he discovered the statute. How many sources do you want me to add on the matter? Katarjiev himself, by the way, was outraged by his colleagues. Jingiby (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I offer you the following version: For that reason most modern Macedonian historians reject its authenticity, despite its original was discovered for the first time by their colleague. Jingiby (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby what I've written in regards to your behaviour is what your edits testify.
 * No where did I mention that the addition is off-topic.
 * As I mentioned previously, your edit directly contributes to the wording problem that this article has i.e "X said Y but that's not true and here's Z". Again, you claim that this side of the medal" is not shown in the historiography of N.Macedonia, despite you using a Macedonian historiographical source from the 60s.
 * What I've managed to gather from the source used in the prior statement (i.e We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe) seems to indicate that it does not mention any reason for the rejections - instead it states that it is a controversial matter and that it is rejected for "obvious reasons", then providing an argument for the rejection
 * So I propose this formulation - It was discovered by Ivan Katardžiev and its' authenticity has been disputed by most Macedonian historians. - I think that this is the most neutral formulation which is in accordance with the sources presented and it corrects the grammar/MOS issues which you have reverted to twice. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With small tweaks: Although it was discovered by Ivan Katardžiev, its' authenticity has been disputed by most Macedonian historians. Jingiby (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This, again, contributes to the wording problem, hence I am standing by my proposition. Kluche (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Then we will have to split the sentence into two separate ones: ''It was discovered by Ivan Katardžiev in Skopje. Its' authenticity has been disputed by most Macedonian historians.'' Jingiby (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no issues with this formulation. Kluche (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I agree with Kluche's past concerns about this article. To avoid "he/she said", we can include common views of scholars in the "Foreign historiographic studies" and that section could be expanded with studies/surveys about the Macedonian historiography. Palairet's opinion also belongs there, while Gjorgiev's opinion can be included in "Alternative views". "Recent developments" currently reads like a news style section and also suffers from the "he/she said" problem. The information there could be trimmed. If the section is to be kept, it should be renamed too so that it doesn't include any timeframe. Its current name makes it prone to news style and recentism. The article spends more time talking about the Macedonian nation than the historiography itself. I also have issue with the way the Vatasa massacre is being presented here, plus I don't think this is the right article to address it. The comparison of the massacre with massacres from old Bulgarian territories is also not relevant and it's not supported by the sources. I'd like to point out that we as editors are not here to right great wrongs, so while we should show the "reverse side of the metal", it can only be done so if it's verifiable, relevant, significant and balanced. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this assessment. I think all of these suggestions would help mitigate the article's issues. -- Local hero talk 19:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disputed
i orignally planned on adding the POV tag for this article but i think the POV issue is less important for this situation, the way this article is formatted and layed out is a clear violation of WP:NOTESSAY, the article has a heavy focus (especially with the photos) on disproving or countering claims by the Macedonian historiography, its phrasing also feels like its mocking the historiography and not to convey information to readers, here are some examples :


 * "The historiography did not revise much of the Yugoslav past, because almost all of its historical myths were constructed during the communist era."
 * "People such as Ivan Mikulčić, Zoran Todorovski and Slavko Milosavlevski tried to openly oppose the popular historical myths in the Republic of Macedonia."
 * "the Yugoslav partisans' activity during WWII has been so deep rooted in the society, that it seems to be a consensus among historians there, that any revision of that  communist historical myth  is unimaginable"

these sentences and many more seem more focused on trying to show the historiography as nothing more then a "communist historiocal myth" the article could have done a more neutral way of phrasing by labeling them as "claims" and not "myths" since it makes it look like the editors are picking a side which is a violation of several wikipedia guidelines, but for now we will only focuse on the Essay guideline, once that issue is resolved maybe in the future we can help improve the neutrality as well. If we can rework it or more properly explain it i'll remove the tag, unless we can reach a diffrent compromise. Gurther (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Gurther, the question here is whether experts in this field use the terminology "historical myth" in relation to the historiography in North Macedonia. If this is the case, there is no basis for placing such a tag here, nor for replacing this term with another description. That is, you have to prove firstly here that this terminology is not used in the specialized literature towards Macedonian historiography, and this requires to put this tag above. If this is not the case, or with other words, you do not have such evidence, the tag should be removed. Jingiby (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, just because some sources use the term "myth" doesn't mean the Wiki article should use it, after all the authors don't have to listen to any NPOV guidelines while Wikipedia does, you can still use sources which call it a "myth" but you must phrase it in a more respectful manner. Gurther (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gurther if this term is used in a reliable source attached to a sentence in this article, there is no reason to protest. Jingiby (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, please view WP:BESTSOURCES "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." bias sources are allowed (to some extent) but they must be balanced and formatted in a NPOV. Gurther (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. All listed statements above are sourced. Although I'd like to point out that Todorovski is not mentioned in Kostov's source, but he's mentioned in Bechev's source (Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia), however it doesn't mention his statement that all revolutionaries were Bulgarians either, so this needs to be corrected. The best case for NPOV can be made for Kolozova's opinion. Kolozova herself never uses the term "historical myth", let alone "communist historical myth", so it's best to convey information based on the author's words. I can't comment on the third disputed statement since I don't have access to the source in question. @Gurther, there's a whole difference between the terms "claim" and "myth". It basically changes the whole meaning of the information that the source was conveying and that's not really per NPOV. On Wikipedia, we retain the original meaning of the information from the sources, not reach our own conclusion (per WP:NOR). NPOV is a tricky policy to understand, however it doesn't mean that we give equal validity to all views. When it comes to historical negationism, it has to be clearly described as such (per WP:PSCI). StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * StephenMacky1, thats the problem, Macedonian claims aren't really exactly fringe (except with Samuil and Alexander and other old 10-14 centuries leaders) the topic is very controversial and its extremely divided, such claims with IMRO have supporters and non-supporters for both sides, thats why we should take a more neutral stance and label those as "claims" although we can add the word "myth" to those who are clearly a myth (for example the Rosetta Stone claim is clearly a myth without a doubt so the usage of the term there won't cause any issues). Gurther (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed the wording, per source. Let me know if you have any other concerns regarding this. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * StephenMacky1, Well i just attempted to change it to its proper and neutral form but it seems you disagree, might wanna explain why atleast? Gurther (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I already explained. It's already per NPOV and sourced. Changing it to "claim" changes the whole meaning of the information from the source. By the way, the label "myth" only applies for sourced information here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stepehen, according to WP:BESTSOURCES if these sources are reliable and a little bit POVish (like calling it a myth) then we should correct it so it can be more neutral. Gurther (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what you're trying to refer to is WP: BALANCE, however it doesn't apply for this case either, as of now. You need a reliable source that disputes the label "myth", which you currently don't. So your best chance of disputing it is finding reliable sources that do. If there are none, then there's no good reason to change it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait im somewhat confused, you want a source which mentions these claims as claims or a source stating how they aren't myths but claims? Gurther (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Something that disputes that they are myths, which would warrant the use of the term "claim". StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Brown, Keith (2003).  The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation . United Kingdom: Princeton University Press (p.10)
 * Jane K. Cowan (2000) Macedonia: The Politics of Identity and Difference . United Kingdom: Pluto Press. (p. XV)
 * Errington, R. M. (1990).  A history of Macedonia . United States of America: University of California Press. (p. 4)
 * Poulton, H. (1995). Who are the Macedonians? : Hurst. (p. 6)
 * (quick side note i could barely find any books which call these claims as "myths", the only books i could find were talking about how the claim of Alexander the Great by Macedonia was a myth which it clearly is, any other book i found calling their claims "myths" had a huge POV issue, one of them even said Tito invented them or were mentioning how the Greek goverment called them a "myth") Gurther (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Some sources that openly connect Macedonian historiography with myths:
 * Stojanov, D., Todorov, P. (2020). The Myth of Victimization in Macedonian History Textbooks (1991–2018). In: Ognjenović, G., Jozelić, J. (eds) Nationhood and Politicization of History in School Textbooks. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38121-9_12
 * Brunnbauer, U. (2004). Serving the Nation: Historiography in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) After Socialism. Historein, 4, 161–182.
 * Troebst, S. (1999). IMRO + 100 = FYROM? The politics of Macedonian historiography. In: Pettifer, J. (eds) The New Macedonian Question. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
 * Vangeli, Anastas. (2011). Nation-building ancient Macedonian style: the origins and the effects of the so-called antiquization in Macedonia. Nationalities Papers. 39. 13-32.
 * Brunnbauer, Ulf (2004) Historiography, Myths and the Nation in the Republic of Macedonia. In: Brunnbauer, Ulf, (ed.) (Re)Writing History. Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism. Studies on South East Europe, vol. 4. LIT, Münster, pp. 165-200; etc. Jingiby (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This just proves my point further that this topic is extremely divided, we should stick to a neutral version instead of a blatantly picking a side. Gurther (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This proves nothing. Maybe you must check the sources, you have provided, again. For example Brown uses in his book widely this terminology: Check here, please. Jingiby (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What was the link for? i went to it and all i got was the book but everything in Bulgarian, no preview for the Bulgarian version i assume so i see no other reason with bringing the link. Also the books i've used have supported my claims that calling it a "myth" isn't clear throat cut as you want to think it is, this issue is a complicated matter and should be treated with more respect. Gurther (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Every historiography has its myths. At the moment, you are trying to prove that the Macedonian historiography, which is criticized for having many such myths, does not have any. It's a pointless cause. Jingiby (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not trying to state that the historiography has no myths it absolutely has some, the Rosetta stone, Alexander the great and Phillip the II are a clear myth to claim, im stating how the ones who aren't obviously a myth (such as IMRO) should be labeled as "claims" not "myths" i also dont appreciate the POV phrasing that the historiography is "a communist myth" i recommend more neutral phrasing. Gurther (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any ideas about Samuеl of Bulgaria who predated the Macedonian identity by 1000 years and was adopted by Macedonian historiography during 1960s? The first Macedonian historians during 1950s searched the roots of the Macedonian nation back to the late 19th century. The Bulgarian campaign denying the existence of a separate Macedonian language and identity that started in 1958 resulted in a sharp deterioration of the relationships between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Its result was the idea Samuel of Bulgaria's state was a medieval Slav Macedonian entity, which is also a fringe theory. Jingiby (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you are bringing Samuel, the reason why i haven't mentioned him is because during his reign the concept of nationalist or ethnic identity was non-existent (same case with Alexander, but the reason i mentioned them was because they weren't slavs so clearly weren't Macedonians) back then the only identity was regional and even that was a far stretch and extremely rare, also why are we talking about this? This isn't related at all I'm talking about how we should label the claims of Macedonian about the 18-19 century revolutionaries should be labeled as claims and not myths. Gurther (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have discussed it with you. You know that not all researchers accept this thesis. A number of well known scholars believe that there were ethnicities in the Middle Ages. Indeed, far from today's nations, but with an ethnic identity. Such researchers insist in their academic studies, published in Western Universities' publishing houses the Bulgarian nationality arose in the 10th century. That is, at the time of Samuel, there was a Bulgarian ethnicity, and therefore the country of Samuel was recognized in 2022 as a Bulgarian state by the joint historical commission between Bulgaria and North Macedonia. These are official documents signed between the two countries. As the Macedonian historian Mitko Panov has claimed, the Macedonian historians recognized the existence of Bulgarian nationality in the Middle Ages. These are indisputable facts. Jingiby (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, this is not a forum, i advise sticking to the topic, instead of discussing about Samuel we should discuss about the essay like writing of this article, and some of its POV issues, not about Samuel. Gurther (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Macedonian view about the IMRO figures is not marked as a "myth" here though. It's clearly attributed as an opinion of Todorovski. What other statements do you consider to be essay-like? StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some issues are still in this article, although they are more POV and source related issues rather then essay, so i propose the idea of changing the tag for "essay type article" to "POV". Also Todorovski's quote is somewhat taken out of context, if you read the interview he does say how they were all "Bulgarians" but he also mentions how back then the IMRO revolutionaries had rapid changing identity and no consistency since back then a ethnic identity wasn't fully established yet. Also the article has some sourcing issues, the article sources the opinions of philosephers and pathologist and even a film director and even politicians (Zoran Zaev to be specific) which is extremely unreliable, since they are not experts on the topic. Also i believe some photos need a rework, for example the Miladinov ones sources only mentions how the Bulgarian historiography accused them of cutting out "Bulgarian". Gurther (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All right. However if it gets replaced with a POV tag, the issues will need to be addressed more actively. Otherwise there would be no justification for the tag. Such issues can be resolved without tags too, but active participation would still be required. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll replace the tag and soon I'll begin doing some changes, currently im busy with other stuff so for now ill replace the tags and once im free I'll begin helping out. Gurther (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This tag is not justified. Moreover there is no consensus. By the way, I don't think Wikipedia is a censorship. The idea to suppress the sharp criticism of leading intellectuals, scientists and politicians in North Macedonia of the local historical narrative resembles Yugoslavian communist censorship. In Todorovski's interview, there is no such text about a rapidly changing national identity of the VMRO revolutionaries. Regarding the Bulgarian criticism of the Macedonian falsifications about the Miladinov brothers, the quoted source says: These Bulgarian arguments have strong support in international academic circles. Jingiby (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Jingiby, please calm down and please stop accusing, remember to assume good faith, this isn't censorship as a matter of fact i planned on keeping Zoran Zaevs interview since the historiography is owned by the country and since he was the PM his opinion is somewhat important, but you must admit the opinions of some Macedonian film directors and philosephers is not needed, i also advise you stop violating Wikipedia guidelines and read up on WP:WNTRMT and WP:WTRMT so you know when to remove tags. Here is where Todorovski stated it : "I would like to underline, regardless of how someone felt, they could have been French, Russian, Armenian, all that was important was for what purpose he fought in relation to Macedonia, and it was undoubtedly, as confirmed by the numerous documents of Todor Aleksandrov - for an independent, independent Macedonia. That is also today's ideal, for our Republic of Macedonia to survive. The ideal should be the same for Albanians, Turks, Roma, Vlachs, and Serbs" Gurther (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Gurther, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain text and images that some readers consider objectionable. Some articles may also include images and text which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness, but on whether they are appropriate. Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of existing here policies. In any case, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, or duplication. Jingiby (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby i advise you stop with accusing your fellow editors and read up on guidelines i mentioned, this isn't censorship its the removal of info not need and the removal of those who's opinion is not important, stick to the topic, if you continue to accuse editors or continue to assume bad faith then you might be warned or reported to a higher rank. Thank you. Gurther (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gurther, I understand what is written above, but I do not see any logic in it. Jingiby (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, what I've written is basically a warning telling you to calm down and stop accusing editors, this isn't censorship and this type of accusation is nothing but assuming bad faith i recommend you stop with this behavior. Gurther (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you interpreted my posts as a bad faith. Jingiby (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, i do not want this discussin to end without reaching anything and the tag just sticking there for days or even weeks, so i will be straight forward and quick, if you do not have any realistic reasons to include the opinions of non-historians about a historiography, then their views will be removed (although we can make an exception for Zoran Zaev) I also recommend a rewrite but i do not want to start an edit war so we will discuss it here first. Gurther (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gurther, since I disagree with you, you don't have to ask me in 2 days if I've changed my mind. I have explicitly referred to the Wikipedia no-censorship policy above. I will add, that this text is years old and until now there have been no objections to its presence in the article. In this situation, I recommend that you initiate a procedure for requesting a third opinion. In this situation you can read Dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, i keep telling you why you citing the rule that "this is censorship" is meaningless and assuming terrible faith, im not censoring anyone's opinions, but the opinions of those who aren't experts in this topic is pointless and only distracts readers, the reason why I haven't contacted the third opinion board is simple, common sense. This is such a minor issue im asking for you to agree yet you seem to be holding on to some of your biases. If you really do want to keep the opinions of those who aren't educated on the topic then why don't we agree on a compromise? I propose a section which focuses on the opinions of Macedonians about their historiography, we will feature both negative and positive views, that way we don't blur the line between an expert and some random film director. I also wanna note how just because an article has had no issues before (despite the fact this one has quite a few times before you shut the discussions down with barely any change) it doesn't mean the article is perfect, it might take awhile for readers to notice the biases in the article. Gurther (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The opinion of the world's most famous Macedonian film director with several films nominated for an Oscar, who lives in the USA, cannot be defined as accidental. Jingiby (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I recommend you read up on Darko before assuming, hes had three films released in foreign languages, two were submitted for a nomination but weren't accepted while one won two awards from a Russian and Croatian Music festival, also just because he's known (which he barely is outside the balkans) does not make him someone educated in this topic, a film director opinion should not be featured on a article about a historiography, and don't get me started on the usage of philosophers and other Macedonian experts who also barely know about the topic, this is just bringing up irrelevant people into a controversial topic. Gurther (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing and pictures
Hello Jingiby. I know that the article is about the development of the historiography, that's not an issue. It's just that it has come to my attention that there are some pictures whose captions rely entirely on primary sources, with the picture that I tried to remove being such an offender too. Considering the controversy surrounding the historiography, it's better to rely on secondary sources, which is definitely preferred for scholarship too. I think the sourcing of the article is the easiest segment that can be handled. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello StephenMacky1, I think this image is suitable to give the reader an idea of what the Macedonian researchers' study is about and how ridiculous their claim is. The secondary reliable source for the article is ensured meanwhile. Jingiby (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's more suitable for the article antiquization. I haven't seen proof that it was notable within the historiography or that it had any impact on it. From what I've seen, the study in question was only notable in some circles and it was only financially supported by MANU. I recommend a change in the wording of the caption too: "The Rosetta Stone, dated 196 BC. During the 2000s some Macedonian researchers (one being a member of MANU) promoted the view that the "Demotic Egyptian" script on it was written in a Slavic language close to modern Macedonian and that this was the language of the Ancient Macedonians." StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The other co-author is PhD Aristotel Tentov who is a full Professor at University “St. Kiril i Metodij” in Skopje, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science Department. The project was funded by MANU and the results of this pseudo-scientific research were published in its peer reviewed journal. Jingiby (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Source
@Jingiby Hello. Please read the whole guideline. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. This source appears to be an unreliable primary source and it's barely cited in the literature (as can be seen from Google Scholar). The source in question also doesn't mention anything about the Macedonian State Archive case, neither does Kostov's source. It'd be good to have a reliable secondary source specifically about the case. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, StephenMacky1. How about Živić, T., & Vranješ, A. (2017). Josip Juraj Strossmayer: A Statesman of Culture. Култура/Culture, 6(14), 136-144 ISSN 1857-7725: However, the polemics about the instigation of the Miladinov brothers’ miscellany have continued in the 20th century, since the 1983 Macedonian edition as the Collection of the Miladinov Brothers, reprinted in Skopje, removed every single “Bulgarian” reference therefrom. A republishing of the original in the year 2000 tried to restrain the passions but only triggered a vigorous protest by the Macedonian historians. Eventually, the Macedonian State Archive, financed by the Soros Foundation, displayed a Xerox copy thereof, having previously meticulously cut off the adjective “Bulgarian,” so the cover page simple read Folk Songs. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll ask for feedback from WP:RSN regarding the reliability of the source currently in the article (since it's present in another article too), another source and this source about Strossmayer. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)