Talk:First statute of the IMRO

General remarks on the article

I'd like to generally remark that prior to my string of edits, the article was very poorly written, both in terms of wording but also in terms of grammar and syntax. I maintain that at times there were also some NPOV violations. Although, the problem of sourcing remains. Best regards to all. Kluche (talk) Kluche (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A sentence was added that Bulgarian could then mean (at the eve of the 20th century) a religious identity, rather then ethnicity. After checking the sources, I have not seen such a specific definition regarding the religious identity of the members of BMARK and in particular the definition of the designation Bulgarian in the organization's statute. I think this claim in that particular case is an original research or a fringe theory. In the first source, there is no mention of religious identity, but about lack of loyalty to Sofia. In the second source there is no mention of religious identity, but is written the members of IMRO who were Macedonian Bulgarians and Bulgarian Exarchists and author claims there is no simple answer to their identity. The third source is from 1920 and is not WP:RS. Itis out of date. It is older then 100 years. There is no mention of IMRO-members, too. In the fourth source, there is no mention of the IMRO, its members and their identity.Jingiby (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby You seem to not understand the cited sources and instead assume on your own on their meaning, for starters back then in old Macedonia the Macedonians had no real identity so it would make no sense for them to clarify in the constitution that they meant infact a Macedonian Exarch. Keith Brown clearly mentions religious identity in the section

"they’re not thinking of themselves as having loyalty to Sofia, to the Bulgarian state. they're using it to refer to themselves by religion or by language at a time when Bulgarian for them doesn't mean nationality Bulgarian and loyal to Sofia"

i advise reading the full text of the interview before assuming incorrect assumptions, ive removed the old sources and the unreliable one and added a new one, but it seems to me that you dont like that, when i gave clean sources of Ivan accepting the idea and even refer to them as "Macedonian Exarchs" you've removed it without a proper or well explanation, this talk thread doesn't even mention the issue so i have no clue why you've redirected me here. I've noticed your recent behaviours have been less proper and more defensive, when i and Kluche agreed on the Tatarchev naming you went completely silent and when we asked for your opinion you've seemed to ignore it.

You've also cited no source for the claim of Ivan rejecting this idea, please give me a proper explanation or i'll revert what you've removed

StephenMacky1 as for you i want to mention how this source isn't self published nor does it fall onto any other rule breaking, according WP:YOUTUBE its only allowed to delete sources when they do not contribute or its copyrighted, this isn't. please read the wiki before assuming, thank you. Gurther (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, the source is user-generated and very well could be copyrighted. We can't just link YouTube videos from random YouTube accounts. I haven't encountered a reliable source which contains the full interview too. Per WP:RSPYT: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK." Stefov's source is self-published, and his academic credentials are under question, as you can see here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And why is this a reply to my comment made prior to the addition of such sentence? Kluche (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User Gurther has started to cross all sorts of boundaries. In addition to using unreliable sources, for which he was repeatedly pointed out, he already uses openly racist and pseudo-scientific literature, quoting the ultranationalist Aleksandar Donski in the article about the VMRO statute. I see that he quotes his book on the ethnogenetic differences between the Macedonians and the Bulgarians. He is definitely trying to push clear Macedonist propaganda. Unbelievable. Jingiby (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby please do not accuse users and assume good faith, i checked my previous edit [1] i discovered that i did infact use a source of his, i apologize and ill correct myself, but the issue stil stands, plus this source has been used as a confirmation that the Macedonian historiography sided with this theory, not as a fact that they were actually Macedonian Exarchs, please properly check what its been sourced for. you've reverted books from Katardziev himself who have sided with the belief of some of the Macedonian historians, you've also not provided a proper reason or source as to explain that Katardziev had not supported this theory, i advise laying out your talks more neutral and understanding as you've seem to label my sources as "Macedonian Propaganda" which violates neutrality, please be civil and helpful when improving and communicating in the talk page

StephenMacky1 i see the issue and apologize, the source will stay remove and thank you for clearing up the issue. Gurther (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Here User Gurther has cited Донски, Александар (2005). Етногенетските разлики помеѓу Македонците и бугарите. Самостојно Издание. стр. 262. Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

i discovered that i did infact use a source of his, i apologize and ill correct myself, but the issue stil stands, plus this source has been used as a confirmation that the Macedonian historiography sided with this theory, not as a fact that they were actually Macedonian Exarchs, please properly check what its been sourced for. Gurther (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, please make a difference between Bulgarian Exarch (Head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church), Bulgarian Exarchate (the official name of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church from 1870 til 1953) and Bulgarian Exarchists (members of an officially recognised ethno-religious and linguistic community within the Ottoman Empire between 1870 and 1912). Macedonian Exarch is a nonsense and such entity never existed. Jingiby (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As i've said before i only used that term in the article because thats what the sources mention it as, this term is also present in some foreign books under the term "Macedonian Exarchist" it is not nonsensical and its an accurate term to describe Macedonians who've worked with the Bulgarian Exarch, i purposefully said "some historians call it Macedonian Exarchist" on the page because only a small portion use the name, you seem to not like that term which confuses me, Gurther (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby this does not answer my question. While I do agree that some of the concerns regarding Gurther's behaviour are valid, such behaviour is present in other Wikipedia editors.

You voiced your concern of the fact that 3 sources presented by Gurther were irrelevant either to the subject-matter or they did not support his statements. Such is the case of two sources and statements in this article alone made by yourself (removal of 1, removal of 2 statement/source), and another such case in a different article (here).

You are also concerned by the fact that Gurther used a 100 year old source which is out of date. Here's you using an out of date 80+ year old source.

Concern was also raised for the use of a YouTube video as a source, particularly a short interview. Here's you using a such source. All of the above mentioned edits have happened in 2023.

Firstly, none of these statements should be interpreted as defending the actions and behaviour of Gurther (or anyone else for that matter), nor should they be interpreted as (personal) attacks to anyone. I am merely highlighting the situation and putting it into perspective.

I would like to clearly state that I condemn such behaviour, and I regret if I have behaved or acted such in the past. Best regards to all.

P.S - I think it might be smart to create a seperate section in this talk page for the conversation between Gurther, Jingiby and StephenMacky1. Kluche (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for fringe views. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingby you seem to not understand what im saying, if you checked the edit i purposefully said SOME historians mention it and its recognized in the Macedonian historiography, i didn't add it as an attempt to state that its actually called "Macedonian Exarchist" i added it so we can see the side on the Macedonian historiographies opinion on this issue, these aren't fringe views but instead the views or opinions of others and the way i've written my edit purposefully remarks how its simple just that : opinions, and should not be recognized as offical facts on history, please understand and stop accusing editors, i also advise checking out the previous edits which clearly shows i wrote that section not as an attempt to frame "Macedonian Exarchs" as the correct term but instead as a view from some media and the Macedonian historiography. Gurther (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby if you do not have any further objections i will return most of the sources that i added that you deleted, because most if not all did not violate any kind of rule and were perfectly neutral and simply presented the views of the Macedonian historiography. Gurther (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is maybe a joke. This article is not about racist theories, fringe views, POV pushing, etc. The topic is different. Check it again. The article is fine now. Thanks, Jingiby (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingby please calm down, this is in no way neutral, you're accusing an editor of promoting "racist theories" and "POV pushing"? this is extremely insulting and not neutral, i asked for legitamate issues, and to me it seems like you aren't taking this issue seriously at all and if you continue you will be reported to a higher up. Gurther (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Check the article. It is for a statute. What was removed had nothing to do with the topic. Jingiby (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is connected, it helps the reader understand what the statute meant when it said "All Bulgarians can be members" and the sources themself confirm how Ivan Katardziev supported the theory of a Macedonian exarchs, this helps us understand the views and possible meaning of such a controversial topic, the way you've written this article barely shows the Macedonia opinion, the only thing you've added about Macedonian historians opinion is that they think the statute is fake. I attempted to expand it and you blocked it, and so far you haven't provided a realistic reason, you also haven't provided any evidence so far that Katardziev didn't recognize the Macedonian Exarchs (despite that being your main reason for the revert). Gurther (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby none of the reasons you provided for your recent reverts are correct, this is neither POV nor orginal research, please provide a proper explanation here or expect your recent "improvement" to be reverted. Gurther (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, contemporary is contemporary, not over 100 years ago. Please do not add outdated and old sources (per WP:OLDSOURCES). Have a good read of WP:RS too, I feel like you still have trouble understanding this guideline. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I have moved the deleted by me text and sources below for consistancy. None of the sources meet the criteria of WP:RS and WP:RSHISTORY. In general, the most reliable sources are recent publications as follows: 1. Peer-reviewed journals; 2. Books published by university presses; 3. University-level textbooks 4. Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses. The primary sources you presented prove nothing new, are out of date and have a problem with WP:AGE. Moreover, for all of them there are secondary credible sources in the text, and these primary ones only clog them up. See WP:OVERKILL. The only sentence you added and I removed overlaps in content with another sentence further down in the text. See: The name of BMARC, as well as information about its statute, was mentioned in the foreign press of that time, in Bulgarian diplomatic correspondence, and exists in the memories of some revolutionaries and contemporaries. This sentence presented in the text is backed by reliable secondary source. Your addition is simply WP:REPETITION and is redundand. The only difference is your claim: Although a small minority of contemporary media which is WP:OR. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to allegations and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. In the old newspaper clippings you added, nowhere is it claimed that the name BMARK is very rare. This is your personal opinion and to add it you need a credible university historical analysis by a neutral author published in a prestigious publication. One more note. A few days ago you used a racist pseudo-scientific book in the Macedonian language with anti-Bulgarian content. I see that now you are again using as sources some books in Macedonian that are far from neutral. Both imply irredentist pretensions mainly to the territory of today's Northern Greece. The title of one talks about ancient Macedonians who were almost predecessors of today's, which is not accepted as a credible thesis here, and with the Prespa Agreement it must be so in North Macedonia as well. The title of the other book is about the Macedonian minority in Greece, which is also a rather controversial topic. It's not bad to start using completely different sources as described above: modern academic publications, preferably in English. My advise is to remove them these two sources added by you as follows: Thanks.

Although a small minority of contemporary media have named the organization as Bulgarian Macedonian Revolutionary Committee (BMRC).Jingiby (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby have you read the text before reverting? i purposefully said "contemporary media" and showed old sources, of course i would use old sources for a statement like that, it makes no sense to say "contemporary media" and show modern books, it is first of all not accurate and unreliable to use modern sources to claim contemporary media, secondly what original research? you're actively breaching WP:ACCUSATIONS several times and i've grown tired of such accusations, i simply took old newspapers from the state of congresses archives to show how contemporary news media viewed MRO, "In the old newspaper clippings you added, nowhere is it claimed that the name BMARK is very rare. This is your personal opinion and to add it you need a credible university historical analysis by a neutral author published in a prestigious publication" two newspapers mention BMRC, is that not a small minority to you? this falls under WP:COMMONSENSE and it violates no rule, Jingby this is absolutely not neutral for you at all "racist pseudo-scientific" ??? Please show a reliable source which states this factor and do not accuse editors of promoting these types of theories, follow and assume good faith, ive warned you about this before and i've had enough warning you over the same things, you seem to not learn from these past mistakes. Gurther (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther for such claim about events outdated more then 100 years you must use modern secondary academic sources. If no, this is your original research which has no place here. Read WP:RS. Wikipedia is not based on outdated primary sources and sombody's personal analisys of them. You have been repeatedly advised about this but it has no effect. Just read these Wikipedia policies. It is a question of a completely different way of proving something than that of the forums. Here, clippings from old newspapers are only an aid, not proof of anything. This also applies to the facts that were written in the newspapers of the time. You don't need the old newspapers to prove it, you need today's secondary sources. Figure it out at the end! Thanks.Jingiby (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there is another problem. Searching for different letters and words in a single sentence is frivolous. I don't understand why the text is deleted, but I guess. Jingiby (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

After the issue was resolved a destructive editing is going on. Stop it, please. Jingiby (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, perhaps tag the editor which you wish to adress. I'll assume WP:GF and assume it's me. I've stated why that last part should not be included - you are constantly going on about how it's excellently sourced, however not everything which is true is relevant and should be included in Wikipedia, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Furthermore, as I pointed out, one of the sources makes it sound as if the majority of people in N.Macedonia are Macedonian nationalists, as they do not claim the Bulgarian population of Adrianopole (in this context - I do not claim that the source alludes to that all the time). It is absolutly not a destructive editing - the content in the subsection of the article is about the Bulgarian position on the statute of the IMRO, not what is claimed by Macedonian historians and the Macedonian public. Kluche (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, one of the main motives of the Bulgarian historians to contest the Macedonian position about the statute and its title is the Bulgarian character of the participants from the key region of Adrianople, which fact is not disputed by the Macedonian side. You want to remove these facts. I don't see any logic. Because of that I do not agree to remove this Bulgarian point of view about this key word in the title. Moreover it is only a part from a single sentence. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby both of the presented sources talk about Macedonian nationalists. You are equating the entire position of N.Macedonia with the one of Macedonian nationalists. I again fail to see the relevance of this part in this article subsection regarding the Bulgarian position on the issue. The wording of the contested part could also be leading on the reader towards a certain POV. Thanks. Kluche (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby respect the wishes of the editors and please stop re-adding sections that other editors disagree with, talk with Kluche first then re-add the sections, thanks. Gurther (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby i wanna reach a compromise since i do not wanna violate the three revert rule. How about instead of citing the books themself for the gallery we instead make an external link section and link those books, since WP:PST doesn't state that this is a issue and it perfectly follows wikipedia guidelines, thanks. Gurther (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The guideline doesn't say that primary sources are never allowed. The primary sources in this case appear to give some insider's insight. I suggest directly quoting from all of the primary sources in the gallery section. That way, there will be no open room for analysis of primary sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." - WP:PRIMARY, this clearly violates the rule.

"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." - WP:PRIMARY, this clearly violates the rule aswell.

i suggest removing the primary source and adding them in a external links section for the readers. Gurther (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I recommended direct quotes, so that there's no room for such a thing. It means quoting from a source exactly as it is written there. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 that isn't really helpful since the source itself also violates WP:AGE MATTERS and so do the rest. Gurther (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, it doesn't apply here. So let me clear it up for you, since I think there's a misunderstanding here. Old sources are allowed too; however, they're excluded in the following cases: if they're outdated, superseded, inaccurate or simply just unreliable. The primary sources are treated as primary here and this is made clear to the reader too. Primary sources from IMRO revolutionaries are obviously old, however we have secondary and modern sources here about the revolutionaries too, so I don't see what the issue is here. I don't think there's any analysis going on here either, however if that's a concern, direct quotes can be added. WP:PST also recommends us to use good judgment and common sense especially when considering which source is appropriate, so I'd like to think that applies here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 although yes older sources are allowed wikipedia is mostly focused and has focused on secondary approved academicly published sources and we should stick to this rule (WP:PST confirms this), if we do have secondary sources about these books then they should be clearly replaced over the current versions. According to WP:AGE MATTERS an older source may be good at giving previously unknown details but "they are prone to the errors of breaking news" (although this is somewhat focused on old news media coverings it still applies reletively well to the topic) and that "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts" and it mentions how older sources have a huge possibility of biases. Although i do agree that a quote might be a good way to resolve the issue but lets also wait for Jingbys opinion on the situation Gurther (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby i will remove the old outdated sources and add them in an external link section, if you have an issues with this please state them here before i make my changes, thank you. Gurther (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I think this is completely unnecessary. Access to the full content of an old book, whose cover is shown and title listed below, makes the most sense to be at the end of its caption and not elsewhere at the bottom. Moreover it is a source to the content of the book whose cover is visible itself. Jingiby (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby you seem to not understand the problem, this book being a source violates around three rules of Wikipedia and its extremely unreliable, you can use the cover of the book in the gallery but not the book itself as a source. WP:PST and WP:PRIMARY confirms that you need a secondary source if you were to analyze a book, WP:AGE MATTERS mentions how old books and old publishers aren't reliable and can contain some biases. An external link section would be a perfect balance since the reader can still access the books and it doesnt violate any wiki rule. Gurther (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, WP:AGEMATTERS does not apply for these sources. What you quoted applies for tertiary and secondary sources. Primary sources (ex. books and documents by revolutionaries) are not outdated. They're "subjective" stuff. If it weren't for these sources, the secondary sources wouldn't even exist. Not all sources on Wikipedia are academic, nor do they need to be, as long as they're of informative value. On the other hand, your other concerns might be valid, so it'd be great if secondary sources can be found for these sources.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me Macky, im still somewhat new with getting around wiki rules so i appreciate the help. Gurther (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby i translated the Macedonian quote, there is still a Bulgarian quote left, since i barely know Bulgar i think my translation would be ruff and inaccurate, can you translate the quote into english? thank you. Gurther (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gurther, the linguists claim that the Bulgar language is extinct. They maintain also Bulgarian and Macedonian are the languages most mutually intelligible each other. If you have problems, check with google translate. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i use Bulgar as a shorten form of "Bulgarian language" i think its pretty obvious i didn't mean the old proto-Bulgarian language. Although some lingiustics claim they are similar Macedonian and Bulgarian still have distict structures and diffrent sentence structuring, i've been studing the Macedonian language for awhile and there are a good number of distictions, also i wanna note that when it comes to translating foreign text Google translate is forbidden as its only accurate with one sentences and words but not entire paragraphs, plus i think an actual native speaker is for sure better then google translate. Gurther (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Article's title and scope

Hello. I think it's more appropriate for the article's title to be either "Names and statutes of the IMRO" or "IMRO's names and statutes". From what I've observed in sources, there's more information about the names of the IMRO, rather than solely about the first statute of the IMRO. Based on WP:PRECISION, the title should unambiguously define the topical scope of an article. The current article's title comes off as ambiguous, especially when one considers this article's scope. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is a lot of trouble here for just one statute and its name. This is actually the point of contention: the organization's first name. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Consistency

Hello. I'm starting a new thread, since I don't wanna clutter the other thread. The information of this article appears to contradict with the information on the articles of Gotse Delchev and Gyorche Petrov, especially if the authorship of the BMARC statute is really disputed like this article claims. For the articles of Gruev and Dimitrov, it appears to claim that the first name of the organization was BMARC. This needs to be sorted out, since consistency of information between articles on Wikipedia is still necessary. I'd also like to ask why it's necessary for "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees" to redirect to this article, considering that its authenticity only appears to be disputed by one side. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I know, the Macedonian historians dispute many things that are considered indisputable by other historiographies as for example the Bitola inscription, etc. That some historians in North Macedonia dispute the authenticity of this statute and its name is not strange. A number of historians there fully accept this statute and its name as entirely authentic. Even more so, none of the Bulgarian or international researchers dealing with this problem doubts this thing. Obviously, in this case we are talking about a marginal opinion based on nationalist views. Jingiby (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that answers my concerns. International researchers and scholars definitely don't doubt the authenticity of the BMARC statute or that the organization went by that name, but they do have doubts about the date of the statute and whether BMARC was the organization's first name. So this is the information that is inconsistent between this article and those articles. To fix this inconsistency, the common name "IMRO" should be used. I was thinking that a note could be added to every article where IMRO appears with a link to this article, to clarify that its first name is disputed, but in order to implement such a note, I'm pretty sure that a broad consensus is required. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, some Macedonian historians rightly criticize the Bulgarian dating of the names. It contradicts quite a few primary sources from which a reasonable conclusion can be drawn about the right dating made by Katardziev. The only thing that remains a mystery for me is how thеяе rules are dated 1896 on its cover. Jingiby (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. However we're not professional researchers, we're only students here. What solution do you offer for the inconsistency? Perhaps this will be clearer in the future if new information arises. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, all this information is also in the main article about VMRO, but in a more abbreviated form. So with this new article I'm just trying to develop the issue a bit more. So the problem with those articles you added with the tag exists there as well. Perhaps your idea of some explanatory note on this matter to the relevant articles is good. Jingiby (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, it's not just Macedonian historians who disputes the existence, there is a good amount of british, American and even some Greek historians who have disputed its existence, an example i will bring up is Keith Brown, who has supported the theory that the first name was MRO although some American historians have proposed the idea that MRO was its first name and its second name was BMARC and then SMARO, i think there should be section mentioning how some believe MRO was the first name and BMARC was the second, since the Macedonian Wikipedia covers that aswell. Gurther (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, may you cite a verifiable non-Macedonian source that explicitly states: no such statute (i.e. regulations) with such name ever existed. So far you have presented no source, only your personal conclusions for know. Thanks.Jingiby (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

They are in my user page, but here are some of them

Rossos, Andrew (2013). Macedonia and the Macedonians: A History. p. 108. ISBN 9780817948832.

Kardjilov, Petar (2020). The Cinematographic Activities of Charles Rider Noble and John Mackenzie in the Balkans (Volume One). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 3. ISBN 9781527550735.

Palairet, Michael (2016). Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 2, From the Fifteenth Century to the Present). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 131. ISBN 9781443888493.

Gurther (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)