Talk:Mijaks

Flag
Can we add the Mijak flag somewhere in this article? http://www.tresonce.com.mk/images/zname1.jpg Novica (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

7th ct
how come, in ohrid we have slavic archeological finds from 4th ct?79.125.225.92 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

POV-section
Please delete whole of this nationalistic Serbian propagandist text. Jingiby (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. In the absence of a reason and if it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor..
 * The view of Cvijic is carefully attributed to him. It is even emphasized that he is considered controversial. It is important to present this view to the readers, together with other views if they existed. No need for pov tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is place for neutrality. Jingiby (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget to appropriately thread your posts on talk pages.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cvijic is outdated and very controversial. Btw what's  Bernath-Nehring (1988), p. 392 ?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is really outdated and controversial is 1539 work of Franco Demetrio extensively used in Siege of Krujë (1466–1467) which you reviewed as GA.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the text was tendentious at the max and sounded like a really badly-written first grade textbook of a ultr-Communist state. It has no place in an encyclopaedia, sorry. You might review your edits, given the number of users that oppose the inclusion of the text. Please, try and explain such tendentious edits prior to adding similar content to articles.
 * If no explanation is provided for the poorly-sourced content in other sections, it ought to be removed as well. -- L a v e o l  T 14:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "According to Cvijic", and what i'm seeing is ethnographic research, which explains some cultural aspects of Mijaks at that time. Instead, find sources that speak against this data, you can't claim neutrality when you decide to delete sourced material. Add Macedonian, Bulgarian, international sources.--Z oupan 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Ok, so we add a Bulgarian source, a professional historian, if you like who claims these people were mixed with proto Bulgarians and preserved traditional proto Bulgarian customs and holidays. They also successfully resisted the Serbianisation (the Serbian Orthodox Church etc.). Also, the old people were very well known (?!) to Prince Marko, who was in fact, of course, a Bulgarian nobleman and probably a direct descendant of the Bulgars himself. While, we are at it, we might add the opinion of a respected Macedonian historian, according to whom Mijaks were actually direct descendants of Alexander the Great. As it is obvious they managed to quite successfully fend of Serbian, Greek, and Bulgarian propaganda. And, of course, the older once remember the great Macedonian Prince Marko who, besides being a nobleman from the Ptolemaic dynasty, was also one of the first defenders of Macedonia against the invasions of Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Turks.
 * Do we really need to soapbox every article with ultranationalistic texts from all sides just so we can say that the article represents all points of view? The text is totally unencyclopedic and adds nothing of value to the article. Reading it tells you nothing of the people but just shows you that a Serbian ethnographer described them as the most Serbian people on Earth. And that from the guy according to whom a third of Bulgaria was also Serbian. Nice stuff. -- L a v e o l  T 20:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Talk about ignorance. Is the Serbian feast days and Slava Serbian POV? Is Prince Marko Serbian POV (The Mijaks claim he was from Mijačija btw)? If there is a Bulgarian source claiming that Mijaks have proto-Bulgar customs they should most certainly be added to the article ("According to"), and don't be sarcastic. I mean, the traditions that Cvijic talks about are evidently connected to Serbian history and the Serbian Church, is it POV to state these? What you're doing, is to accept the fact in the intro "[The Mijaks] are known for their ecclesiastical architecture, woodworking, icon painting, and other rich traditions", but refuse any further information (in this case clearly attributed to Cvijic) about these. --Z oupan 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.


 * Balkan related topics are complex and almost always controversial. It would be wrong to ignore controversies.
 * This particular issue can be divided into two parts. First about ethnicity and second part about ethnography research of Cvijic.
 * Ethnicity. The first sentence of this article says that Mijaks are Macedonians. Ethnic Macedonians. Are there other significant theories? Yes. There is at least one different significant opinion. That they are of Serb origin. Jovan Cvijic is probably the main proponent of that position. He based it on his detailed research which is summarized in the removed paragraph. I don't know if there are more theories, but I believe you if you say that there are Bulgarian theories as well. If there are then they should be presented because otherwise this article would be against NPOV. This part of the issue can be resolved by adding one sentence about existence of different theories about ethnicity of Mijaks. Something like:"There are theories that Mijaks are of Serb (according to J. Cvijic) or Bulgarian origin, though in 2002 census in Debar almost nobody declared Serb or Bulgarian ethnicity."
 * Ethnology. Cvijic is respected scholar who presented many details about Mijaks which are unrelated to his "Mijaks are Serbs" position. Like their feast days (служба), that the center of their spiritual life was Saint Jovan Bigorski Monastery, that Prince Marko was famous to them, ... Adding one or more sentences about Cvjic's findings (without any pov perspective) about Mijaks would be beneficial to the article.
 * Any thoughs?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems like we are not far from reaching consensus. Yes, we might add a sentence (one) on Cvijic's opinion (again I emphasise on the fact that he regards about a third of Bulgarians as Serbs; and there are some Bulgarian scholars who have suggested 1/3 of Serbs are Bulgarians or something or Macedonian scholars who claim the same for Bulgarians and Serbs - you know the drill, it's the Balkans). Information on their customs and beliefs could be beneficial to the article but only if the nationalistic rhetoric is left behind. The actually useful information in the text, as it was, was lost in a sea of nonsense.
 * This is precisely why it'd be better to discuss the wording here before adding the text back. As for the other significant theories, there are none. Cvijic's opinion is a simple fringe theory. And an outdated one for the matter. The same could be said for any present-day sources claiming these people are actually Serbs and Bulgarians who have vehemently opposed to Bulgarisation/Serbinisation/Macedonisation. Such notions never help and have no place in Wikipedia. And the text, as it was, was full of such notions. -- L a v e o l  T 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Will you please present some Bulgarian respectable scholar for Bulgarian theory and I will prepare the draft and propose it here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So as not to get to respectable scholars like Bozhidar Dimitrov, we could mention Vasil Kanchov's view. In his ethnographic work on Macedonia, he mentions Mijak villages as populated by Bulgarians. The same goes for Michev's La Macédoine et sa Population Chrétienne. If we wish to present both views, maybe these would do. But again, as is the case with Cvijic, these works are from the beginning of the XX century. -- L a v e o l  T 23:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be a book by Georgi Traychev dedicated to Mijaks, but I have no access to it. -- L a v e o l  T 23:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your time.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant there is little chance of me getting access to it anytime soon. I propose we simply mention in one sentence Cvijic's view and in another - Michev and Kanchov's. The wording could be something along the lines of: In their ethnographic works from the beginning of the XX century, Bulgarian scholars (or any other appropriate title) Vasil Kanchov and Dimitar Michev regarded the Mijačija area as Bulgarian-populated. For any further info I have to look at Kanchov's book again, but this won't happen before Monday. -- L a v e o l  T 00:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I thought you would be able to access it soon. I guess I am too tired. Thank you for your cooperation. I will prepare draft tomorrow. Лека нощ.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, I didn't word it as I should've. Don't worry. Лека. -- L a v e o l  T 00:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, what happened with discussions here, guys? Anything new? -- L a v e o l  T 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You were going to check Kanchov and Michev?--Z oupan 06:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Well, I thought Antidiskriminator was going to prepare a draft :) Might just be that everyone is waiting for each other. -- L a v e o l  T 06:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize because I forgot about this. I will prepare a draft. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Cvijić's view about ethnicity of Mijaks
I was mislead by some comments to believe:
 * 1) that Cvijić supported simplified Serbian nationalistic point of view of Mijaks being Serbs. No. Cvijić apparently had neutral and honest approach although sometimes it caused him a trouble from some nationalists.
 * 2) that Cvijić claimed that Macedonian Slavs and Bulgarians are actually Serbs. His conclusion about 19th and early 20th century Slavs of Macedonia was that they were Slavs without specific ethnic sense. Cvijić referred to Macedonian Slavs as "flotantna masa" (floating mass).
 * 3) that Cvijić emphasized Serbian ethnicity of Mijaks. No. He referred to them as South Slavs from Macedonia who were of Slavic, Aromanian and Serbian origin.

His research about ethnic origin of Mijaks can be summarized like this:


 * Jovan Cvijić classified Mijaks into South Slavs, precisely the 'western macedonian variety' of the 'central type'. His conclusion about the ethnic origin of Mijaks was that nomadic Aromanians mixed with native Slavs and later with Serbs who moved from Ottoman Albania to avoid process of Albanisation and Islamisation.

References

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. I think the previous removed Cvijić comment should be added to culture, as it relates to cultural traits (folklore, art etc) while the above should be added to ethnography section, while adding "in views of historical consciousness, he noted that the Mijaks had preserved traces of Serbian history (folklore, art, slava)" to ethnography as well. --Z oupan 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
 * Thanks. I think that it is best to focus at one issue at time. Right now it is ethnicity issue. Before proposing and discussing the ethnography text, pro-Bulgarian view should be presented after Cvijic's. Maybe User:Laveol can help with it by proposing it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll come up with the text pretty soon, but I've got to ask. Does this mean that Cvijic did not actually write the stuff I removed with this edit? I mean the bit in English. -- L a v e o l  T 15:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good question. Cvijić, of course, did write the quoted text which was appropriately interpreted. The point is that the text you removed was more related to ethnography of Mijaks, their culture, customs, stories, historical consciousness... not to their ethnic origin. But the expression "a Serb consciousness" of Mijaks was probably not the best choice because it could mislead readers to believe they had Serb ethnic origin only. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So I have two additions to propose. One is to the history section and the origin of the ethnonym in particular. It goes:

"Bulgarian ethnographer Vasil Kanchov deems the term Mijaci (or as he spells is Mi'yatsi Ми'яци) to derive from the first-person plural pronoun mi'ya used by the local population. Thus, mijaks simply means we/us."
 * The second should go after Cvijic's view. It ought to be along the lines of:

In their works from the beginning of the XX century, Bulgarian ethnographers Vasil Kanchov and Dimitar Michev describe the local Mijak population as Bulgarian. -- L a v e o l  T 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Refs


 * Ethnicity:
 * Thank you for your proposal. I also have something to ask you:
 * Don't you think Cvijić's explanation about ethnic origin of Mijaks is so convincing and neutral that it would be wrong to add any other simplified view of Mijaks having 100% Bulgarian (or Serbian, Macedonian, Illyrian or Aromanian) ethnic origin?
 * I am not trying to avoid what we agreed and if you Laveol don't agree with me, then I don't mind adding the text you proposed with 100% Bulgarian view.
 * Etymology
 * Please give me some time to reply to your etymology proposal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Did some Ottoman, Western or Russian traveler or researcher find Serbs among the Mijaks before the rise of nationalism in Macedonia, i.e. before 1870? If I know, no! Tsviitsh is only a biased writer from 20th. century. Jingiby (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it'd only be fair if we include it as well. He does mention they were Slavs who mixed with Serbs and it only depends on the respective author's definition of what a Serb/Bulgarian is. I've tried to dig up some more but both Michev and Kanchov derive their texts on talks with the actual population. That is why Kanchov has such an explanation of their origin. As for the explanation itself, I only imagined including it as a suggested origin not as the final truth. The article currently states that the ethnonym is unclear and this is one theory about it. It'd be great if you find some other theory as well. This one sounded really interesting and I decided it'd really add something to the article. As far as I see it, such an ethnonym would put them somewhere near the Slavic populations of Albania and Kosovo (Gorani, not Serbs) as they both use such an ethnonym when describing themselves or their language.
 * Pff, got distracted with the info. So, you're welcome to suggest anything. Take your time. Cheers. -- L a v e o l  T 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ОК. I agree with you to include their view too. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mijaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090102022726/http://www.reka.org.mk:80/tekst.asp?lang=eng&tekst=4 to http://www.reka.org.mk/tekst.asp?lang=eng&tekst=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mijaks. 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/20110727034648/http://www.culture.in.mk/story.asp?id=6968&rub=69 to http://www.culture.in.mk/story.asp?id=6968&rub=69

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) 03:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Bulgarian and Serbian
Per the current trend on English language Wikipedia to add Macedonian on Bulgarian and Albanian historical figures and topics I think the two languages should be added here due to the famous Mijak figures that identified as Bulgarians and Serbs sometime in their life such as Georgi Pulevski, Dame Gruev, Parteniy Zografski, Golub Janic, Avram Caljovski, Doksim Mihailović, Josif Mihajlović Jurukovski and Toma Smiljanić-Bradina. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Mijaks are currently a subgroup of ethnic Macedonians - with your logic one could add the Bulgarian and Serbian translations to the lead of ethnic Macedonians, but that wouldn't be right. Best of reserving Blg/Srb translations in the leads for pages directly associated with those figures. I guess you can add your translations to the Ethnography subsection that mentions Serb and Bulgarian POV on the matter. Kromid (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol very good point you are right. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Veselinović
I removed


 * The source is not Slijepčević but Veselinović, who wrote a book about Macedonia as populated by Serbs in the context of the aspirations of the Serbian elite in Macedonia before early 20th century wars in the Balkans. From the same era in the early 20th century, there are many publications by Bulgarian authors who paint all of eastern Serbia as Bulgaria. I think that we can all understand that early 20th century books by Balkans authors about the ethnic composition of claimed territories aren't WP:RS. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)