Talk:Macedonian Bulgarians/Archive 1

2009 moves
Excuse me abouth both movings, but I did not know that currently an Arbcom injunction is running, that discuss the moving of Macedonia-related pages. So I move the title back, untill the decicion of the Arbcom. Jingby (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that only confuses
This article should be deleted because it is confusing. There are Macedonians in Bulgaria and Bulgarians in Macedonia. Why complicate it? This article is also based on some idea of Bulgarophilia around the Balkans. Words like macedonized, hellenized or albanized are not neutral without mentioning the bulgarization. Refer only on the censuses, think neutral and stay away from fringe references. This article should be deleted as as non WP:NPOV. Please WP:AGF and delete it. There are enough pages on the Macedonian dispute in Wikipedia. (Toci (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

Delete
This too far from the neutrality and especially from a serious text. The text includes Bulgarian POV, a propaganda that obviously took its roots here too. The people are Macedonian and I assure you there is no BG Macedonians. I am seeing this for a first time. Please be serious.--  MacedonianBoy Oui? 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to make more sensible comments. You need real reasons for this - no need to joke with everything. There are reliable third party sources on this. If you don't have anything constructive to add, please, do not start typing at all. -- L a v e o l  T 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see many verifiable sources were used. If the wording needs to be a bit more NPOV, we have to give the creator(s) of the article some time. Adding a speedy del tag with "no such thing" as a reason is simply wrong. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the article is evolving rapidly. If there is some way I can assist, I will. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide your scientific motives, supported by reliable University book's references, that this is a POV article and for deletion. If no, go away! Jingby (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The last part is horrible... it is written like today the modern Macedonians are puppets between the Bulgarian propaganda and Yugoslav "propaganda". It should be rewritten ... or be more fair and delete this article. It's idiotically written. 1111tomica (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Provide valid reasons for this. The article is based on a substatial nuber of third-party sources. I'm removing the tag until you provide a thorough and meaningful explanation for this action. -- L a v e o l  T 18:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I urge one of the administrators to delete this article with extreme POV content.
 * 1) The references immensely comprise books, and articles by Bulgarian historicians which seems not appropriate for this kind of article.
 * 2) The content of the article says something completely different about Ethnic Macedonians (i.e. After the Second World War and Bulgarian withdrawal, on the base of the strong Macedonian regional identity a process of ethnogenesis started and distinct national Macedonian identity was formed.) than the content in its main article. So, no double articles with different attitudes please.

It's obvious that some users did not attain their goals to put the content in the article Macedonians (ethnic group), and decided to create a new article with this POV attitude. Thanks for your attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer to ignore such close to trollish behaviour but I'll try to explain this once. The articler is about the regional group of Bulgarians that inhabit(ed) the region of Macedonia. It's not about ethnic Macedonians. The ethnic Macedonian ethnogenesis is thoroughly discussed in the appropriate article. This one, backed up by a substantial number of Western sources, discusses only the people who have or have had a Bulgarian conciousness. If you're only here to start quarrels like the last one, better not. I doubt anyone here'd be interested in such things. Thank you. -- L a v e o l  T 11:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to discuss which attitude is better, and closer to the truth, but for technical reason. The content of the article consists of assertions like:
 * "After the Second World War and Bulgarian withdrawal, on the base of the strong Macedonian regional identity a process of ethnogenesis started and distinct national Macedonian identity was formed."


 * Where Macedonian redirects to Macedonians (ethnic group). When, assertions like this aren't in the article Macedonians (ethnic group), it is impossible to see it in non-ethnic Macedonians article, as you wrote. Perhaps, with cleaning the article of such assertions about the roots of the ethnic Macedonians would change my opinion about the deletion of the article. In the article about the ethnic Macedonians something else is mentioned, so it seems not appropriate, and it makes confusion for the readers who read both articles. The main point is of course technical.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Assertion? You seem to be confusing facts and assertions. If you don't like it go argue with the scholars that've written books on this. And, besides, the article needs a sentence or two, to distinguish it from the other one. How would you explain the existence of a regional identity, which gradually transformed into an ethnic one (or national rather). I get the distinct feeling you're a name in the scientific world, which is bigger than those of Friedman, Cook, Poulton, Danforth, Palmer etc. I'd suggest you go and argue it with them first, and then, when they've changed their minds, wrote new works on subject, which reflect your view on it, you come back and explain to us all about those assertions. Thank you. Again.-- L a v e o l  T 13:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you did not answer on my questions. Why ethnic Macedonians are mentioned, when you wrote that the article is not about the ethnic Macedonians? And, how will you explain it to the readers who will read the two variants about the Macedonians in two separate articles? Wikipedia is not a forum, or blog, where you can post different opinions about one thing. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, look, the info here is well justified and heavily referenced by the biggest experts on the subject. If there's a mistake, it might as well be in the other article. Since the two groups are more or less distinct now, there should be something here that point to when the distinction became big enough, to make the terms different. The explanation here is sufficient, although it might need some expanding. I'll look at the other article later and I'll tell you what I think. -- L a v e o l  T 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say it, then ok. I'll change the internal link to Macedonians (ethnic group) in the article of any sort, because of the clear difference between two articles. These links convinced me to think that the text is about ethnic Macedonians, although the title says something different. It would be excellent work to change it as soon as possible. This article, as you assured me is not about ethnic Macedonians, well they should not be mentioned in this article. But then the new problem is how to address "Macedonians" without link. Macedonians is disambiguated with many terms, and it should be rewritten in the article. Therefore, I proposed deletion of such parts. In my opinion, more appropriate is to write it Macedonian Bulgarians, because the article is dedicated to them. But then there is another problem with the reference. What if the author meant ethnic Macedonians. Then, it should be part of the article about ethnic Macedonians, because it is not appropriate to be part of article with different content.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhere along the way you must've misunderstood something. Nevermind, the article is fine as it is. I went through the refs and the text. The interwikis point to the right articles etc. They reflect what the scholars had to say about the period. If you still find it wrong, try to find the problems elsewhere. Thanks. -- L a v e o l  T 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the scholars said about the ethnic Macedonians, then these parts are wrongly addressed in article which is not about the ethnic Macedonians. It should be removed, and added in the right article. This is misunderstanding. I'm reading the article Macedonian (Bulgarians), and read about the ethnic Macedonians. Isn't it odd? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has discussed for two weeks, I've removed the misunderstanding content about the ethnic Macedonians in this article about Macedonians (Bulgarians). Laveol agreed that these terms are different, and it's good to differntiate it in the article by removing these facts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Do not tell me I've agreed to something like this. I said the article is fine as it is. Everything is explained and sourced. The problem should be sought elsewhere. Please, do not remove any more sourced materials. -- L a v e o l  T 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I cite it:
 * "The articler is about the regional group of Bulgarians that inhabit(ed) the region of Macedonia. It's not about ethnic Macedonians. The ethnic Macedonian ethnogenesis is thoroughly discussed in the appropriate article."
 * This is one of your comments above. If this article is not about the ethnic Macedonians, please don't mention them in this article. If you're lack of facts about "the regional group of Bulgarians that inhabit(ed) the region of Macedonia", please start to find them in Bulgarian. I'll do it too, if you tell me what is the term for "Macednoians (Bulgarians)" in the Bulgarian language, according to the Bulgarian historiography. I don't see an article on the Bulgarian Wikipedia with content about the Macedonians (Bulgarians). Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I said the article is fine as it is. Read it again. The sources are sufficient. And the Bulgarian word for this is Македонци, the same as the word for ethnic Macedonians. -- L a v e o l  T 18:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to say that with the word 'Македонци' you can refer to both Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonian (Bulgarians)??? 1111tomica (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we usually do. Sometimes we say "Етнически македонци" when we mean "Ethnic Macedonians". When someone says he's a Macedonian he usually means he's from the region. I've had some confusions with Ethnic Macedonians already. Sometimes people might ask you what you mean by the word: whether you're from the modern country or just from the region. Most Bulgarians are used to the regional identifier and it's a hard time explaining you can be a "Macedonian" without being Bulgarian as well. Most Bulgarians in Sofia and the area around the Black sea are from Macedonian decent to start with. And by "Macedonian" they mean Bulgarian from the region of Macedonia. And they're proud with it ;) -- L a v e o l  T 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since, ethnic Macedonians, and Macedonians (Bulgarians) are two different terms in Engilsh, and this article proves it, please remove the text about the ethnic Macedonians in the wrong article. What is the purpose of this article? To be a proof that Macedonians (Bulgarians) became ethnic Macedonians, or to be an article roughly concentrated about the Macedonians (Bulgarians) as a different ethnic group? Obviously the content in this article deals with attitudes about the ethnogenesis of the ethnic Macedonians, and it should be removed as fast as possible. The ethnogenesis about the ethnic Macedonians is elaborated in the article about the ethnic Macedonians, and shouldn't be found elsewhere of any sort. You may have zillion of references like these, but you should try to put them in the right article, without reference to the fact that they're reliable sources. I've repeated this before, but it was apparently omitted. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, don't cut in line in front of other contributors. Tomica wrote first, if I'm not mistaken. But nevermind, all the info in the article is relevant to the subject. Sorry if you do not like it, but its quite well put and informative. The relation between the people living and the region, who have regarded as, and were regarded as by foreign scholars, Bulgarians and modern ethnic Macedonians is quite obvious. Enough materials from third-party sources are provided for this. If the info is not present in the articles about ethnic Macedonians, then this is a big miss for the other article. Sorry, this stays. -- L a v e o l  T 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm funny ... But I can't understand how can the regional identity be more important than the national. So now I am from Vardar Macedonia, so I should refer myself first as Vardarian?!?! It's funny, but I know what's the problem with you guys! You don't accept as a distinct ethnic group, but you say that we are Bulgarians. For that this article has been created. And when I see understandings like you have in the 21st century, I am so disappointed! Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think you meant to say misunderstandings in the last sentence. Yes, there seem to be huge misunderstandings all around the Balkans. What you're starting is another huge topic. You know, people that refer to themselves as Macedonians in a regional sense and as Bulgarians in a national (or ethnic) do not do this out of ignorance. They've been Bulgarian and Macedonian for as long as they can remember. They are proud of being Macedonian and they're even prouder of being Bulgarian (or vice-versa). This does not mean they do not acknowledge the existence of such a nation today. And they don't mean to tell you how to feel (at least most of them). But why do you have to tell them how to feel? Don't hey have the right to be Macedonians at least as much as you do? Or they are actually some sort of sub-humans that have no rights over it?
 * Who told you what I think on the subject? I was telling you the names most Bulgarians use. And they do it rightfully, I must add. And, please, do not start your comments with: "I know what's the problem with you guys!" You seem to sure to know where the problem is. But to be sure where a real problem lies one must start searching from himself. I know I sound kinda like Confucius. By that, I do not mean to tell you that the problem is in you, but that you shouldn't start throwing tomatoes at the others first, just because they are...well, others. That's called Xenophobia. The problem is on both sides: Those that cannot take the present and those that simply cannot accept the past.
 * I wanted to be brief, but it never seems to happen when I strive for it. I'll just finish with a personal story. My great-grandpa was from Macedonia (my family name stems from him and I bet you know people in the Republic with the same). I'm proud to be a descendant of a Macedonian. I'm just partly Macedonian, but I'm proud of it. As much as I'm proud for being a болярин. My great-grandpa was not just a Macedonian, but what you'd call a Macedonian Bulgarian (to distinguish him from the ethnic group). He'd never thought of himself as being other. He never thought Macedonia was a nation. So, let's come back to the present. I do think there is a modern nation distinct from mine. Similar and almost identical, but yet distinct. And at the same time I am proud of being Bulgarian and partly Macedonian (regionally). So what makes me wrong? Why am I supposed to be guilty of something? I haven't done anything wrong, I have't told anyone how he should feel about himself, I haven't told him his nation does not exist. Every nation begun its existence at some point of time. So had mine. So tell me what I am to blame for?
 * Since the whole thing stars to get kinda off-topic we can continue this at either mine or your talkpage. As long as I don't get called a tatar or a fascist or something like that. It has happened in the past (not from you) and I don't want to go through it again. Regards. -- L a v e o l  T 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the Macedonians in Bulgaria. The last added sentence discusses this issue. I think, it is a result of a misuderstanding of this topic. Jingby (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sock, if you are continuing with your vandalism, I am going to reprt you and semi-protection will be required. Jingby (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)