Talk:Miladinov brothers

Folk songs

Guys - the book says "Bulgarian Folk Songs" on its cover - what is there to dispute at all? I mean, Shakespeare's plays don't have "English" written on the cover - you are free to claim those I guess.

If the Macedonian consciousness was "not developed", then you should remove the double Bulgarian/Macedonian in the lead. On top of, they were quite clear that they regard themselves as Bulgarians and consider the Macedonians a subset of the Bulgarians - do you want me to paste other pages of Bulgarian Folk Songs or what? I have taken the double Bulgarian/Macedonian as a compromise to avoid future quarrelling but if you intend to play your horse around, I can also pursue a harder policy - they, Parlichev and Shapkarev have left enough evidence of what they thought about their language (Bulgarian), about themselves (Bulgarians) and about the "Macedonians" (a subset of the Bulgarians = Macedonian Bulgarians). The fact that you wrote that bullshit about the "dialect of Struga" on which they "wrote" their songs (they collected them, darling) clearly shows your intents and knowledge on the subject. VMORO 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, interprete your rethorical abilities from the type of "bullshit" etcetra outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no place for such talents. Other, they collected songs not only from Struga, but also from other macedonian regions. "Wrote" is my mistake, I meant to write "collect" (I know that they didn't wrote the songs). You can't judge whether the different poets and writers from that time were Bulgarians or not, without to consider the circumstances in which they were and without some kind of analysis (Yes, Prlichev and Shapkarev could have left evidence that they were Marsians, so?). I prefer the number of 584 macedonian songs to stay, because they signifficantly differ from the 76 bulgarian, if nothing else, in their accustic independence, they have typpical macedonian-speech characteristics. Also, the part about the letters from Konstantin to Rakovski should stay in the text. Cheers, Bomac 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reminder

Bomac, I will remind you that "wrote" was your mistake and in BG Wikipedia too. :) (bg:Беседа:Константин Миладинов - Obviously, you meant to write "collect" too). Miladinov Brothers considered all of their songs Bulgarian. It includes all of the songs - from present Bulgaria, Republic of Macedonia and Northern Greece. Miladinov Brothers define their language and the language of the songs like Bulgarian. Why do you separate the songs according your own present concepts? You can create a separete section about your opiinion about Miladinov Brothers or the predominant oppinion in Republic of Macedonia, but please do not transfer present political reality to the our common history.--AKeckarov 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Anton, I don't know what it would change even if I was "planning" to write "wrote". As for the political realities, the term "Bulgarian" was a political reality in that time, which means it was not an ethnical reality. Please, do not transfer past political realities in the present by misjudging them. Bomac 16:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bojan, I think that exactly here you are in a mistake. The term Bulgarian wasn't a part from some political reality in the middle of ХІХ century - at least not in today's meaning. There was not a BG state, BG church, even geographical region Bulgaria (sometimes it was Moesia(Misia), but not Macedonia). The example with Miladinov Brothers clearly shows one: the term "Bulgarian" had ethic meaning. Please, look at their life and work without emotions: In their capital work they publishes a materials from verious Bulgarian regions - Macedonia, Thrace and Moesia (if we accept that Sofia is in Upper Moesia, which is discutable), they consider their people as Bulgarian (as a part of Sout Slavs) etc. If it is not an evidence that the term Bulgarian is an ethnical reality according Miladinov Brothers I really don't know what means "ethnical reality". Regards, --AKeckarov 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there wasn't a BG state, church etcetra even more strenghtens the other fact that Bulgarian was not in ethnical, but in political sense. I think that it is a continuum from the middle ages, when Bulgarian was used to describe all the South Slavs. And, you have to know the NPOV policy, if nothing else, Miladinov Brothers are counted as "Macedonians" in Macedonia. Cheers, Bomac 11:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do NPOV mean that we can distort the facts? I am not hindering to express how Miladinov Brothers are counted in Republic of Macedonia (not Macedonia, but only in the Republic). This is a fact and you can create a separate section and explain this. But there are one certain fact: Miladinov Brothers was the activists of Bulgarian National Revival. This is not only my assertion, but their. Many years later somebody decides that they aren't Bulgarians (present doctrine in Republic of Macedonia). But why we have to accept one political doctrine in Wikipedia?

P.S. Who exactly states (historian) that in the Middle ages the term "Bulgarian" was used to describe all the South Slavs? Excuse me, but it is very strange for me? There are a few exceptions (and a few historians with political purposes) but I think that you gone too, too far. I do not understand Macedonistic logic: for the time when was BG church and state, you state that the term Bulgarian used due to them. For the time when was not BG political institutions and Bulgarians from Macedonia considered themselves like Bulgarians you state that exactly this shows Bulgarian are political term :). However, Miladinov Brothers considered them as Bulgarians and if you read their book (please do it), you'll understand weather they used the term Bulgarian in political or ethnical sense. Regards, --AKeckarov 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Anton, NPOV means that we cannot distort the facts - It's a fact that in R. of Macedonia, nowadays, in the present, Miladinovs are counted as Macedonians. We can't create a separate section, 'caus many historians (not only Macedonian) state that Miladinov Bros were Macedonians (just as those who claim that they are Bulgarians). Your great desire that they were Bulgarians pushes you on and on to claim that they were Bulgarians, without to consider the circumstances in which were all the Macedonians in that time, and not to mention the apropriate usage of the term "Bulgarian". In one word, what you see is what you get.

I don't exactly recall what is a "Macedonistic logic". I'm sure I'm going to find the answer in Bulgaria :-) Cheers, Bomac 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bojan, Do you state that Miladinov Bros had a Macedonian ethnic consciousness? That they was not Bulgarians? From where are these "many historians" which state that Miladiniv brothers was not Bulgarians? I see that it is difficult to somebody who accepts Macedonistic logic to imagine that the MK intelectuals considered them as Bulgarians in ХІХ, but read Perface of the Folk songs of Miladinov Brothers and you will understand the meaning of the term Bulgarian for them - One of the South Slavic people which are belonging Miladinov Brothers.--AKeckarov 13:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anton, I will repeat myself - CIRCUMSTANCES and the context of "Bulgarian". Nevertheless, they were talking on a Macedonian dialect (Struga dialect, which has not many similarities to Bulgarian), they were editing the songs on the phonetic script (not the etimological, which was in use in Bulgaria). And, I repeat, don't percept things on the yin-yang way. Cheers, Bomac 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bojan, why you are looking for some obscure circumstances which have a very different explanations, when we have clear situation - Etnic sense of the term Bulgarian according Miladinov Brothers themself. We can argue about Krste Misirkov or some hesitate intelectualls in next period, but Miladinov Brothers are indicative about one process among Bulgarians not only in Macedonia. The name of this process is Bulgarian National Revival. If you want to look circumstances look them from the point of view of the epoch. Of course there wasn't and aren't white and black realities, but the history works with facts. This is one of the cases when we have facts and you can see them if you are looking for sources not for retold stories.

P.S.

1. Obviuosly you did not read the "Bulgarian folk songs" since you assert that "they were editing the songs on the phonetic script (not the etimological, which was in use in Bulgaria". Please read it and something about the Bulgarian script in ХІХ c. and its codification.
2. I am not agree that the Struga dialect has not many similarities with Bulgarian, because this dialect is Bulgarian. Ay least according D. and K. Miladinov (if their language is Bulgarian, their dialect is BG too). Regards, --AKeckarov 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Editing" does not mean only "writing", it means corrections, style, redaction etc. More, I can tell you that не е злато се што сјае, ofcourse, in the meaning of the usage of "Bulgarian" in that time. I know that you are a Bulgarian and think that everything where "Bulgarian" was written in those periods is actually something related to Bulgaria, but if you relax a little bit, you can understand what I mean.

P.S. If they were Bulgarians (in ethnic sense), they would have lectured their Collection, named as "Bulgarian folk songs" in the etimological script, which all people (who lived in today's Bulgaria territory in that period) used it then (and maybe nowadays). Bomac 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bojan, I asked you many times in BG and EN Wikipedia in vain to look the book . I am holding in my own hands "Bulgarian folk Songs" in this moment. I am looking corrections, style, redaction etc. I can not see some diferences from the script used from other Bulgarian writers in these time. I do not know where are you wrote that their script was phonetic script (not the etimological). Believe, it is not truth (the other question is how much the bulgarian script is etimological). There are the letters я (you can see it in the cover bellow - Дiмитрiя, Якич), yat vocal (in pronunciation like "e" in Western Bulgaria and "ya" in Eastern parts), old ъ in the final of the words ("одъ" in the cover), щ (for sht), ю, other old vocals (nosovki) etc.

P.S. Please do not seek some evidences only for the "sport". This is not a competition. I write something about retold stories....Regards, --AKeckarov 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are speaking about stories? No matter, if you want retold stories, let we leave K. Miladinov to speak (about the transcription in the Collection):

"Правопис употребихме по возможноста најлесен и најсходен со произношението од словата; на пример вместо трите букви Ъ, Ь, Ѫ кои имает еднакво произношение, употребихме една Ѫ; напр. сѪнце, сѪрце (итн.). К‘де по грам. правила се пишит Ѫ, но се произносит а, се употреби последново. Еднакво се грижехме да предадиме верно народното произношение, по кое се водит тукашниот правопис; напр. млатЪ, потЪ, ретЪ (итн.) вм. младЪ, подЪ, редЪ (итн.). Еднакво човекот или човекѪт, вм, човЪкЪ-тЪ и др." итн.

All of this tells us that Konstantin was going in a way to establish the principle Write as you hear. There are many sentences in the book where he uses this: "Сиве почти песни се слушани од жени" or "От там одам у град Белограда" итн.

P.S. You know very well that many Bulgarian scientists have disputed the Collection, because of the dialects (Macedonian people's language) the songs are, dialects which are not suitable for the Bulgarian language. Cheers, Bomac 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, exactly this was a script of the other Bulgarian books from these times. Look at many of BG newspapers some books and you'll see that this was a common BG script (there was some diferences because there was not codification of the script, but differences had not a ptinciple nature). In all of BG notes of folklore materials reflects local dialects (because it was a folk song), but the script was not phonetic in present MK or Serbian sence, еven in today's BG ("etimological") script. (Your example prove it: Haw you can pronunciate ъ in млатЪ. Is this a phonetic?)

P.S. Do you think that the principle of the other BG folkorists was Write as you not hear? :) --AKeckarov 12:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that "many Bulgarian scientists have disputed the Collection, because of the dialects (Macedonian people's language) the songs are, dialects which are not suitable for the Bulgarian language.". On the contrary - BG public oppinion welcomed this Collection. --AKeckarov 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the macedonian script was not codificated either. You are not making progress much with your upper thoughts. And tell me, on what script was it then (if you exclude Bulgarian too)? Maybe at first BG public oppinion did welcomed this book, but in the after-that linguistic studies, this was a not a principle. I guess, the BG officials were seeing at first on the black-white way - "it writes "Bulgarian", and it must be Bulgarian". But, it appeared that it was a strange "Bulgarian" dialect. I repeat - most of dialects in which these songs are, have verry little similarities with Bulgaran, which are irrelevant. Cheers, Bomac 13:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What that means: "maybe", "I guess"? You don't know the facts, but you make a suggestion and what is more important - you change the article. The Bulgarian public and scientific oppinion was not against the book and the dialects. Contemporaries like L. Karavelov, M. Drinov etc. welcomed this book. Who of them defined the dialects (NB! not one dialect) like strange Bulgarian? These dialects was regarded as Bulgarian (There was dialects not only from present Republic of Macedonia). If you asserts that somebody in BG scientific society doubted about their belonging do you think that it is good to point him?

About the script: This was a kirilic script which was in use among BG authors and publishers. Where is the problem?--AKeckarov 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Fake picture

Strich3d, why are you pushing the fake picture from the soros archive, which has the top part truncated? Mr. Neutron 16:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

It is not fake picture, it is the original one. As you can see on your picture the word "B'lgraski" is not in the same line with other part of the text. It isn't even the same font. Your picture is a bulgarian falsification.--strich3D 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

OK, I'm Bulgarian, too, and my impression is that the Miladinov brothers apparently were indeed Bulgarian, but let's consider Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy for a second. It's clear that there is a controversy about whether they were Bulgarian or Macedonian. In this case, the NPOV policy reqires both POVs to be represented in proportion to their prevalence. So should the article really state that they were Bulgarian, as a fact, and then mention the Macedonian verison as an incorrect opinion? I think that this would only be permissible if the Macedonian POV could be regarded as a tiny minority view. But since no serious international scholars have been cited, all we have is the word of one little nation against the other. Certainly a 1937 article from Bulgarian nationalist newspaper "Zora" is not sufficient to change this, and using it, as well as the title of their collection etc., is original research (see WP:NOR) in any case. So I think the article should be more neutral. The main reason it isn't seems to be just that there are too few Macedonian editors here and they can't edit war efficiently enough.

P.S. I don't have so much time, so I won't come back to discuss this any further, but I hope that what I have said will be taken into account. --91.148.159.4 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually their books says more than anything. It is Bulgarian folk songs from Macedonia. This is it. And this is all. --Laveol ^T 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear 91.148.159.4, AFAIK this 1937 article from Bulgarian newspaper "Zora" was written by a daughter of Dimitar Miladinov. By the way, "Zora" wasn't nationalist newspaper, but one of the most respected Bulgarian newspapers at the time, created and published by one Bulgarian born in Macedonia - Danail Krapchev from Prilep. Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Last time I'm joining in) What both of you are saying above is beside my point. Saying that the Bulgarian POV is right and the Macedonian wrong just based on your own assessment of the evidence (evidence such as the title of the book, the article in Zora, etc.) is OR. The normal wikipedian way to deal with this would be to describe both POVs, citing Bulgarian and Macedonian historians respectively, and leave the reader to judge for himself which view is more convincing based on the available evidence. Unless, of course, there is a citable international scholarly consensus (which I don't think there is, because nobody outside seems to care :-)). Now, it seems clear to me that the current evidence indicates that the Miladinov brothers were Bulgarian, but it's not the business of Wikipedians to decide this.

As a side note, Krapchev's Zora was indeed respected and influential, but it was also highly nationalist (as is its descendant Nova Zora today), consistently supportive not only of all of VMRO's doings and of all military attempts at national reunification, but also of the coup of 19 of June and what followed it, of Boris III's personal regime and of Nazi Germany (during World War 2, it was almost the official organ of the regime). All of this is regarded as very laudable by most public figures today and Krapchev is praized for his anti-communist role, but whatever you feel about it, this sort of newspaper and the people who wrote in it clearly can't be regarded as a particularly neutral source in the Macedonian issue. Best, --91.148.159.4 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Another grave innacuarcy; indeed the book has been republished in Macedonia, yet it has been done so in its original format, not editions, NOTHING. So when somebody finds a source to back this crazy claim, it will remain edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Makedonij

I dont think Bulgarian newspaper is neutral source!!I dont want to delete something but until that is removed "WERE BULGARIANS" the POV staies on the top.--Makedonij (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, in this case there's no issue. We've got sources that they self-identified as Bulgarians and sources that they were identified as such by Western and Russian scholars. That is quite enough. And I'd like to ask you not to put POV tags on the talkpages. --Laveol ^T 20:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverting to Macedonian ethnicity without references is pure vandalism. Jingby (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC

Please, stop reverting. Jingby (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased source

There is a certain reason you write a book in 2008 and leave it as a whole to google books. You must've spent a whole day searching for it. It's so biased it can hardly be called a real work. It says that the Macedonian nation actually existed back when Samuel ruled the land and that Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian nationalists have been trying to deny this!!! What the? It's full of fringe views and so on. I've already read some of it through before (yeah, I have an interest in the field) and I can say it's total crap and contradicts most studies in this scientific area (even the pro-macedonistic ones). Besides the other 5 sources claim the opposite. --Laveol ^T 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are making heavy POV-pushing here and removal of sourced info from the page. You keep the references that are pushing the idea that Miladinov brothers were Bulgarians, beside there is no way to check the verifiability of those sources, and removing the citations from the published books that are available online. Please refrain from such operations otherwise I have no other choice then to escalate the problem in the WP community. MatriX (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources before writing this? Cause it's not true at all. And I gave you reasons why your source is not adequate by any means and you didn't answer me. --Laveol ^T 11:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, before any of you revert further, I recommend you both go away and study a bit and try to find out why we German editors are not perennially edit-warring with our Austrian colleagues over whether we should call Mozart an Austrian or a German. You might learn something in the process. Just a hint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The parallel with Austria is interesting yet as usually partly true; Austria has a long history of statehood, in the time you refer to it was a multinational Dukedom (Germans, Czechs, Slovenians, Poles, Ukrainians) that together with the (also multinational) Kingdom of Hungary used to form the Hapsburg Empire. Some sourced material for the Mozart article :-) Apcbg (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the parallel is more complete than that, I'd say. First of all, the statehood is pretty irrelevant here; we're talking about ethnicities. Whatever Austria's statehood, there was never a question of an Austrian ethnicity based on that, until after 1900. Plus, Austria's statehood, at Mozart's time, was clearly statehood within Germany. (And, incidentally, Mozart wasn't even born in it and lived in it only for a few years.) But don't get me wrong: I'm not here to argue that in a hypothetical POV conflict over how to characterise Mozart's ethnicity, either side would actually be wrong and the other right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oks, but in this case we have a definite case of self-identification. They both evidently identified as being Bulgarian. That's the end of the story as I'm concerned and we had already made it clear that in a case we can clearly identify that someone thought he was something, we add it to the article. We agreed on this manual of style some year and a half ago, but I cannot locate where. I'm sure about it though. --Laveol ^T 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course, just as Mozart evidently described himself as a German. There was no alternative to that at his time. What I'm trying to say is: I wish you guys could find a way of describing someone as B., without making it sound as if that devalued or negated the (totally natural and legitimate) perspective of M.s to treat that person as part of their own history. Just as I would certainly defend the correctness of describing Mozart as a "German composer", but would never dream of telling an Austrian they are wrong in treating him as a central figure in the cultural history of the Austrian nation. Because those two perspectives really and truly do not contradict each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with Mozart is interesting. Maybe we can apply an introduction for Miladinov brothers similar to the one in the Mozart article (Mozart was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era…): Miladinov Brothers were poets and folklorists from the region of Macedonia (actually, I already did such change, but I was reverted…). I remember we applied the same rule in Goce Delchev article. The most references claiming they self-determined as Bulgarians come from promacedonia.org (that can be rightfully called a biased source). We can argue about the ethnicity in the Controversy section. About the quotation I also added to the article:[1],it makes an interesting claim for the reason why they named the collection of songs as Bulgarian, but I didn't manage to find the same quotation in some another source. However, it is a published book that can be found online and it is written by a professor of history at the University of TorrontoMatriX (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, actually most sources come from outside promacedonia or whatever the other similiar site was. By the way we already have that in the article - the fringe/alternative theory of what they are regarded in the RM. We might add that they are central to the later Macedonian-literacy and are on the list of greatest Macedonian poets etc. Yeah, they should be shared, but erasing the mention to what they self-identify is not proper in this case. Unlike Gotse Delchev they clearly self-identified as Bulgarians all their life. You might say they were wrong, but in the same manner a Bulgarian could tell you taht you're wrong when you say you're a Macedonian (an ethnic, not regional one, that is). So, what about a compromise of the sort: They were Bulgarian poets etc, etc and considered central figures in the Macedonian literacy etc etc. We,ve had these talks over and over again until we agreed on a draft procedure for such cases. I'll provide you with a link when I dig it up. --Laveol ^T 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:MOSMAC#Macedonian.2FBulgarian_ethnicity_controversy. We worked on this with a Macedonian and a neutral editor and I rely on it (besides it being the closest to neutrality manual we in the region can get to)--Laveol ^T 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I continued researching the issue. I first checked the 4 references supporting the Bulgarian nationhood of Miladinov brothers. The third and fourth reference did not discuss about the ethnicity and unfortunately I didn't find any info about the second reference. About the first reference (the letter of the Dimitar's daughter), I found the text written in Bulgarian posted at the famous promacedonia site:[2]. (Off the topic, if you want to laugh yourself, try the Google translate option that translates the text in English:)) [3]

I read the whole text, but it seems it represents the Dimitar's daughter view on the matter, not the view of the brothers itself. There is one quote about what Dimitar said for his brother. I tried to translate it to English, sorry if I didn't do it properly to the end (there are also such translations later in this post):

Нежни, безкрайно полюбовни са били отношенията между двамата братя. Моят брат Константин, заявявал баща ми на майка, е едно от най-хубавите цветя на българската градина.

There is a tender relationship between the two brothers, my father wanted to say to my mother: My brother Konstanting is one of the most beautiful flowers of the Bulgarian garden.

Then I checked what Macedonian sites are saying about the ethnicity of the Miladinov brothers.

О, колку ми е срам што на грчки ги изложувам своите македонски чувства и што одвај неодамна почнав да читам, да пишувам и да разбирам македонски. Но кој е причината? Грците-архиереи, кои ги изгореа насекаде македонските пергаментски книги: во манастирот Св. Наум (крај Охрид), во манастирот Кичевска Пречиста, во Трескавец (Златоврв), околу Битола, Преспа, Железна Река, Мариово, во Охридска Дебарца и во Дебар и во други места. Така грчките архиереи, осакатувајќи го македонското духовенство, ни го одзедоа драгоценото богатство на нашата народност и оттогаш се запазија само траги од македонските книги, чувани во засолнети места.[4]

I'm ashamed that I express my Macedonian feelings in Greek language and that I just started to read, write and understand Macedonian. But, what is the reason for that? It is the Greek archbishops, that burned the Macedonian books in the monastery of St. Naum (near Ohrid), in the monastery of Bogorodica Precista, Treskavec near Bitola, Prespa, Zelezna Reka, Mariovo, Ohridska Debarca, Debar and other places. Therefore, Greek archbishops took the most precious part of our nationality and since then we have just pieces of the Macedonian books, kept in hidden places.

На 8 јануари 1859 година Константин му пишуваше на бугарскиот поет и револуционер Раковски: "Ние Македончињата, недавно овде дојдени... неожидано получих Вашето писмо полно со искрена и горешча љубов кун отечеството ми". И додава покрај другото: "И ја имам много македонски песни, кои сакам да ги издадам малко подоцкна, зашчо сега не ми позвољават опстојателствата".

On 9 January 1859, Konstantin wrote to the Bulgarian poet and revolutionary Rakovski: We, Macedonians, that came here recently.. I got your letter full of sincere love for the fatherland… I have a lot of Macedonians songs that I want to publish a lithe later, because currently there are no adequate circumstances…

Ал. В. Рачински, …, во својата некролог - биографија за Миладиновци, објавена во весникот "Ден", број 21 од 3 март 1862 година, дека станува збор за "Зборник од македонски песни, навистина одлични", значи, наспроти сето тоа, Зборникот беше озаглавен "Блгарски народни песни", иако од 660-те песни објавени во него само 76 беа бугарски! Додека ја вршел последната редакција на Зборникот, Константин Миладинов за време на средбата со Чолаков во Загреб, му побарал "сто песни од источните страни на Бугарија," за да може да ја нарече својата збирка "Бугарски народни песни", при што се договориле Константин да му плати на Чолаков по една форинта за песна.[5]

Al. V. Racinski, in his biography for the brothers, published in Den newspaper, number 21 from 3 march 1862, talked about a Collection of Macedonian songs, really good ones, but despite that, the Collection was named Bulgarian folklore songs, regardless that only 76 out of total 660 songs were Bulgarian! During the last editing of the collection, Konstantin Miladinov during the meeting with Colakov in Zagreb, asked for 100 songs from the eastern parts of Bulgaria, in order to name the collection as Bulgarian folklore songs, they even agreed that Konstantin will pay 1 forint per song.

In my opinion, we can question verifiability of both promacedonia.org like sites and the Macedonian sites I referenced here, but I’d say the ethnicity of the brothers is one way or another questionable, so maybe it is the best to apply the following guideline taken from Wikipedia:MOSMAC#Macedonian.2FBulgarian_ethnicity_controversy (the guidelines suggested to be reviewed by user:Laveol): Miladinov brothers are considered ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria and ethnic Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia, by adding the counterclaiming references to each assertion. MatriX (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not quite. It's a real letter citing quite precisely his ethnic affiliation. That's just about it. The other sources are quite specific as well. The compromise solution was suggested by me in my previous comment. Every other solution means to deny his rights of self-identification and I don't think anyone wants us to do such a thing. They were quite specific on the naming of the songs book collection as well. If RM nationalists have a problem with it they should seek it within themselves. If you don't believe the letter is real, it still in the National library - you can check it if you don't believe the site. It's quite easy actually and it's not our fault some things are not allowed to exist in RM. And I didn't get the part from the Struga website with the "Od razvojnata ekipa na struga.org" on the bottom.

The other compromise I can think of is to explicitly state that they self-identified as Bulgarians. --Laveol ^T 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a letter citing his daughter view, not self-determination of himself, therefore nobody is denying his rights of self-determination In the past, (unfortunately) it happened very often to encounter Macedonian families which members affiliated to one or another (separate) nationality. I also provided a lot of evidence why they named the collection as Bulgarian, moreover, that fact cannot be used by any means to determine their nationality. If we follow your logic, then each collector of Bulgarian songs, for example A.L. Loyd ([6]) must automatically be a Bulgarian. So, you continue to push Bulgarian POV and ignore all other evidence. That way we will never reach a consensus. MatriX (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you repeatedly ignore the two sources that talk about the slef-identification of the two brothers. Look, this is not one of the questionable identities - they said it, both. And that's it. You don't like it, your problem. Hmmm, and besides yyour example of Loyd is not really appropriate., cause he, himself, does not come from the region, ok?! I'm getting the feeling you're just playing a game and it doesn't help. Do you wanna play or reach a consensus about this? Denying soemone's basic right will get you nowhere. --Laveol ^T 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are around 100 documents, where both brothers self identified as Bulgarians:

Братя Миладинови – преписка. Издирил, коментирал и редактирал Никола Трайков (Българска академия на науките, Институт за история. Издателство на БАН, София 1964)

End of this stupid discussion! Jingby (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Even in your promacedonia propagandist site there is an explicit example of self-determination:[7]:

Ние македончината, недавна овде дойдени, неожидано получих Вашето писмо, полно от искрена и гореща любов кун отечеството ни...И я имам много макед[онски] песни, кои сакам да издадам малко подоцкна, защо сега не ми позволяват обстоятельствата. We, Macedonians, that came here recently.. I got your letter full of sincere love for the fatherland… I have a lot of Macedonians songs that I want to publish a little later, because currently there are no adequate circumstances...ако сите родолюбиви болгари, зближени мегю себе со знакомство от братска любов,

MatriX (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Macedonian" means "from the region of Macedonia". Please see Macedonia_(terminology)#Bulgarian to learn more. (Macedonian (Македонец) - a person originating from the region of Macedonia - the term has only regional, not ethnical meaning, and it usually means a Bulgarian, or a clarification is made (Greek, Albanian...).) The source added by Jingby contains a huge number of scanned letters, written by the brothers, where they identify themselves as Bulgarians. There is absolutely no problem with someone being both "Bulgarian" and "from the region of Macedonia", in fact I am proud to be one. --5ko (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I must admit the level of discussion is becoming increasingly low (maybe that is an intention of some editors). It is obvious we have different view on the matter. The adjective Bulgarian had different meaning in the past and insisting that Miladinov Brothers were Bulgarian in ethnic sense is inadequate. The term Bulgarian was used to refer to all Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (V. Friedman: Macedonian Language and Nationalism during the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, 1975, page 84), or as a virtual synonym for peasant without any political significance at all (H.R. Wilkinson: A review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia, Liverpool, 1951, page 149). The national identify of the people living in Macedonia was imposed to them as a result of the three competing nationalist campaigns of Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. Any expression of national identity that was encountered among the Macedonian peasantry was purely superficial, and owed its existence to religious or educational propaganda or even to terrorism (Wilkinson 1951:178). The term Macedonian was either used in a general regional sense to designate all the inhabitants of Macedonia regardless of their ethnicity, or it was used more specifically to refer to the Slavic-speaking Christians living in the geographical area of Macedonia. If pressed to assert some other form of collective identity, these people may well have said they were Bulgarians (D. Perry: The Politics of Terror: The Macedonian Revolutionary Movements, page 19, H. Lunt: The Creation of Standard Macedonian: some Facts and Attitudes, 1959, p.20). Before 1870 the literate Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia and Bulgaria were engaged in a common struggle against Greek cultural and linguistic domination in the Balkans and during this period the Slavic-speaking population of Macedonia called their language Bulgarian.

Therefore, I still believe the most adequate version of the intro section for this article is still the one I suggested earlier: Miladinov brothers were poets and folklorist from the region of Macedonia… (without any mentioning of their ethnicity or talk about it in the controversy section).MatriX (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If we agree (as you seem to) that they considered themselves Bulgarians, and everyone else considered them Bulgarians, how could we dare write that they were not Bulgarians? They were, and it will be written in the article. We will also add that they were Macedonian (from the region of M.), and that in the current F.Y. republic of M. people are told that the brothers were not Bulgarians (and, BTW, that neither are the people of the new republic). Oh, but the article already explains this! --5ko (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The term Bulgarian was used to refer to all Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (V. Friedman: Macedonian Language and Nationalism during the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, 1975, page 84).

Are you shure? Really! Including Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks!!! Ha-Ha Ha! The existence of a separate Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. (Loring M. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, 1995, Princeton University Press, p.65 , ISBN 0691043566) (Stephen Palmer, Robert King, Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian question,Hamden, CT Archon Books, 1971, p.p.199-200) (The Macedonian Question: Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939-1949, Dimitris Livanios, edition: Oxford University Press, US, 2008, ISBN 0199237689, p. 65.) (Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton,Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1995, ISBN 1850652384, p.101.) Jingby (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Even the famous leader of the Macedonian revolutionaries, Gotse Delchev, openly said that “We are Bulgarians” and addressed “the Slavs of Macedonia as ‘Bulgarians’ in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention”; See:The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Loring M. Danforth, Editor: Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566,p. 64. Jingby (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The national content of the Macedonian Slav revival was clearly and unequivocally Bulgarian. The identification "Bulgarian" was already current among the Macedonian Slavs; their dialects closely resembled those of their eastern Slav neighbours, who then, as now, were also known as Bulgarians; and the emerging modern Bulgarian literary language was readily comprehensible in Macedonia. Indeed, nineteenth century Macedonia served as one of the principal centres of the Bulgarian national revival: its Slav inhabitants, led by their new nationally-minded intelligentsia, participated fully in the Bulgarian literary and linguistic revivals, in the movement lor schooling in Bulgarian, and also in the first major political expression of the Bulgarian national movement, namely, the successful campaign tor a national Orthodox church, established in 1870 as the Bulgarian Exarchate. (Nationality in theBalkans, the case of Macedonians by F. A. K. Yasamee (Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132) Jingby (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree with Matrix in another case where we don't have a clear self-identification (some of the revolutionaries for example). But in this case there's no doubt they felt Bulgarian in the ethnic sense - there's too much material about it. And that's the end of the story. And stop with the "The term Bulgarian was used to refer to all Slavs of the Ottoman Empire"-nonsense already. That's mean that every Slav from Vienna to Istanbul and Ukraine should've been called a Bulgarian. Is this really the case? I know what academicians in RM say about this, but I've never seen such an ethnographic map or such a study, mentioning Bulgarians in Triest, let's say. --Laveol ^T 15:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Laveol, my point is that there are opposite views that the term Bulgarian was not used in ethnic sense by the most of the people living in Macedonia region during that period. Therefore I oppose the ethnic classification of Miladinov brothers (at least we should find a way to present the opposite views appropriately). I didn't invented the theory that the term Bulgarian was sometimes used to refer to all Slavs, the citation is taken from the Victor Friedman book Macedonian Language and Nationalism during the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries written in 1975 (Friedman is a Professor in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Chicago). He wrote: The term Bulgarian.. had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire. There is an evidence that prominent people in XIX century used to refer to all Slavs as Bulgarians, see for example this link: [8]. One paragraph is devoted to Genadij, bishop of Veles in XIX sentury, hi claims that even Bohemia and Moravia (regions in Czech republic) are populated with Bulgarians:

Гърците, които ни наричат варвари, нека си спомнят, че взимат просветата си от Европа, а в Европа най-образованите философи са от Бохемия и Моравия и всички те са славяни, наши братя, чисти българи.(Greeks, which calls upon as a barbarians, should remember that in Europe the most well-educated philosophers are from Bohemia and Moravia and all of them are Slavs, our brothers, pure Bulgarians.)

Also, Krste Misirkov in his well-known book On Macedonian matters (written in 1903) wrote the following text (sorry if I didn't make a proper translation):[9]:

Името бугарин, како се видит, до полоината на XIX век немало за нашите предедовци по големо значеiн'е од имиiн'ата: рисiанин, раiатин и каурин ...Бугарцкото име во Македониiа, значит, iет резултат на лошото третираiн'е на македонците от страна на грцкото дуовенство… Грците унишчиiа Охридската архиепископиiа за тоа, шчо се упоминуаше името „бугарцка", како историiцки reliquium, но употребуваа името бугарин за да воплотат во него своiето презреiн'е кон с словенцко. И имено тоа воплотеiн'е на грцкото презреiн'е кон нас и iет причината да се велиме „бугари", а не историiцките традициiи… Значит, името бугарин во Македониiа, со коiе сега експлуатираат бугрите, никак не iет национално, и затоа никоi од македонците немат прао со него да експлуатират македонцките интереси во негоа полза. (The name Bulgarian, as it can be seen, until the half of XIX century didn't have significant meaning to our ancestors, no more than the terms: Christian, … Bulgarian name in Macedonia is a result of the bad treatment of Macedonians conducted by the Greek clergy. Greeks destroyed Ohrid Archbishopric because there was a mentioning of Bulgarian, as a historical reminiscent, but they used the term Bulgarian to express their contempt to everything related to Slavs. That is the reason why we call ourselves “Bulgarians”, not the historical traditions. The name Bulgarian in Macedonia, which is exploited by Bulgarians, has no national meaning at all…) MatriX (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some citations from your favorite - Kraste Misirkov:

From his article National Identity of the Macedonians - 1924 .

"We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. The Serbian not only want to colonize Macedonia with Serbs from other part of Yugoslavia, but they wish to kill our Bulgarian consciousness. They took our right to call ourselves Bulgarians, even Macedonians, they intrude their schools and education, so much false and Jesuit, so much as the study of St. Sava and finally they come to the idea for the special Macedonian nationality, which they discover in South Macedonia. ... Call we ourselves Bulgarians, or Macedonians, we are very different from the Serbs, and we are with Bulgarian national consciousness..."

Krste Misirkov in "On Macedonian Matters"

We speak Bulgarian language and we believed with Bulgarians is our strong power.The future of Macedonia is spiritual union of the Bulgarians in Macedonia. The Macedonian Slavs are called Bulgarians. The biggest part of the population are called Bulgarians. All spoke that Macedonians are Bulgarians. Until 1978 all including Russian Government spoke the Macedonians are Bulgarians. But after the Berlin Congress the Serbs came with pretension to have Macedonia. They try to change the European opinion that in Macedonia there are Serbian too. If Ilinden uprising win we will be thankful to Bulgarians, but Serbians try to compete with Bulgarians and spend a lot of money and propaganda. If Macedonia is autonomic there will be no space for propaganda and the Serbs have to leave Bulgarian in peace. The Ilinden Uprising Committee is Bulgarian. The Committee is ready to give guarantee to Europe that Macedonia will not unify with Bulgaria, but they can't take the Bulgarian name and language from Macedonia! Serbia and Greece do not want to give us autonomous and independent Macedonia, because they see this as a fist step to unification. In Macedonia have only pure Bulgarian population, which can't be unified with the Turks.

Jingby (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think we can go on like this forever!? It looks this is a never ending story... The time has come for all the world to know that the people living in Macedonia are Macedonians and not Serbs, or Bulgarians or Greeks; and that the Macedonian people has its own history, its own national dignity, and its own important contributions to the cultural history of the Slavs... Macedonia is a land of old Slavonic culture, and no one will succeed in rooting out this old Slavonic culture... Macedonia will survive all misfortunes because the giants of Macedonia are not yet dead. The figures of SS. Cyril and Methodius, and St. Clement and St. Naum of Ochrid are shining examples to the sons of Macedonia, whom a glorious future awaits on the day that Macedonia, united and free, takes her place as a member with equal rights of the family of the Balkan peoples. - Misirkov, 1913 MatriX (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't Misirkov the classic example of changing identities? I mean, he changed his view about his own a couple of times, and so what? We're not talking about him here. But I see you've started a new song now, so to speak. So you do want a compromise? They self-identified as Bulgarians but a re considered prominent literature figures in the Republic of Macedonia? --Laveol ^T 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I believe it is time to stop this endless ranting, I changed the intro section based on the compromise suggested by Laveol, I hope it is acceptable for all parties concerned at the moment. MatriX (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not the version suggested by me. I'll edit it accordingly and put this text into the controversy section. The evidence about their self-identification are too overwhelming to be reduced to the sentence you put in. --Laveol ^T 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then I believe it is time to ask for other opinion... MatriX (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

This is yet another tedious nationalistic dispute, isn't it? So Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions applies. So L and M are now on WP:1RR parole for this article, which will drop down to 1/7RR if they abuse it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear - it does mean you have to jusify your revert on the talkpage prior to reverting, yes? --Laveol ^T 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking to be sure, thanks --Laveol ^T 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Dispute about ethnicity of Miladinov Brothers

The reason I made a RfC is that I believe the current version of the article does not follow the basic WP principles: Neutral point of view and Verifiability. I'm confronted with several Bulgarian editors which insist on designating Miladinov brothers as exclusively Bulgarians. Their claim is supported by citing questionable and non-English sources, especially from the site [promacedonia.org] which is a propagandist site which purpose is only to support Bulgarian point of view regarding the Macedonia region and Macedonian people. I already had a long discussion on the article's talk page and tried to reach a compromise solution that will have the following designation:

• Miladinov Brothers were poets and folklorists from the region of Macedonia (without explicit mentioning of their ethnic affiliation)
• There is an evidence that they referred to themselves as Bulgarians (although the citing sources are questionable and heavily POV-pushing)
• Some researchers and publicists argue that during the Ottoman period the term Bulgarian was not used to designate ethnic affiliation, rather to designate different sociocultural categories. (I provided appropriate and reliable sources for this assertion).
• The writings of Miladinov brothers laid the foundation of the Macedonian literary tradition.

However, there are several Bulgarian editors which are not interested to find a mutually acceptable solution and keep changing the edits I make to the article. They keep the stance that Miladinov Brothers were exclusively Bulgarian and put every evidence of the Macedonian affiliation of Miladinov brothers to the Controversy section (see for example, the latest revert: [10] and also previous reverts:[11],[12],[13]

Therefore I'm seeking for comments from more neutral editors that will provide outside view on the topic in order to resolve this dispute.MatriX (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are more then 100 original documents, where both brothers educated in Athens University and Moscow University self identified as Bulgarians, called the language in which they wrote Bulgarian, the Slavs in Macedonia Bulgarians, and were regarded as such by their contemporaries.: Братя Миладинови – преписка. Издирил, коментирал и редактирал Никола Трайков (Българска академия на науките, Институт за история. Издателство на БАН, София 1964) in English: Miladinovi Brothers - Correspondence. Collected, commented and redacted from Nicola Traykov (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Historical Institute, Sofia 1964.) Jingby (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MatriX, please quit the pushing. Promacedonia is not a source, so don't attempt to mislead anybody. Clearly, the "Bulgarian-only" variant doesn't work. Let's go with something like:

"were poets and folklorists from Macedonia, authors of an important collection of folk songs, Bulgarian Folk Songs. In their writings, they referred to themselves as Bulgarians ^{[footnote about Macedonian POV about the meaning of this]}, though besides contributing to Bulgarian literature, in the Republic of Macedonia they are also thought to have laid the foundation of the local literary tradition."

How about this? No need for drama. Todor→Bozhinov 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the guideline taken from Wikipedia:MOSMAC#Macedonian.2FBulgarian_ethnicity_controversy:

• where the person verifiably self-identified as either Bulgarian or Macedonian, but this self-identification is disputed:
  • state that "Person Z was a Bulgarian poet/writer/academic/etc, but is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia" (where applicable, you may also include a basis for the counterclaim);

We have such a case and here is a violation of the guideline. If the person, who violated the rule does not explain, how is this possible, I will revert him. Jingby (talk)

The evidence I provided shows that Miladinov Brothers are considered Macedonians not only in the Republic of Macedonia, so we can apply the other guideline: .they are considered ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria and ethnic Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia. However, I think the Todor Bozinov's proposal is generally fine and it can be accepted in order to resolve this editing dispute. MatriX (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MatriX, indeed you have provided some third-party references (thanks for that), but could you please quote the relevant passages of each source so we can review them? I'm glad you like my idea, so let's go with it. In cases like this one, I think the best solution is to be more descriptive and to avoid explicit and unexplained claims. Todor→Bozhinov 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the guideline taken from Wikipedia:MOSMAC#Macedonian.2FBulgarian_ethnicity_controversy:

• where the person verifiably self-identified as either Bulgarian or Macedonian, but not that the person is considered Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia, or in another country. This is not significant here. ONLY THE SELF IDENTIFICATION! Jingby (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Todor Bozinov, thanks for editing the article according to the proposal you made and I generally accepted. However, you missed to complete the changes to the end; namely, you suggested that we should add a footnote next to the “Bulgarians” designation in order to present the opposite view about the usage of the term. Therefore I’ll remove the current references (they are some 10 references and the intro section looks pretty much ugly at the moment) and place them on some other place. About the relevant passages in the sources I provided, I added the page numbers so I think you can easily navigate and find the info you are looking for. I see you removed that references too, I'll reinsert them at some appropriate place (probably in Controversy section) MatriX (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: The guidelines are just (as it says) guidelines and not rules per se. It is not imperative to act as they say, but were indeed designed to resolve such disputes before they become a large-scale revert war. I'm glad you finally accepted the self-identification bit and I hope that's that. Ok?--Laveol ^T 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait some period and if nobody disagrees, I'll remove the RfC tag.MatriX (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MatriX, I didn't insert the footnote because I expected someone more familiar with what it should say would write it. It wasn't because I wanted this info out :) Todor→Bozhinov 08:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that too, np.MatriX (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad we sorted this out, I'm very happy to see that we came to a working solution so easily. All the best! Todor→Bozhinov 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Make difference between Macedonians and ethnic Macedonians. Miladinovi brothers were Bulgarians and will figure here only as Bulgarians because in all sources they self-identified as such. POW is the so called "compromise". We could make compromise only if they have said we are ethnic Macedonians, descendants of Aleander the Great or something like that. I am removing the Macedonian propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BG89 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but we worked hardly to find a solution and I'll return back the previously agreed version. MatriX (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

I agree it has problems, but some of the stuff is informative and comes from neutral secondary sources. Like the info about the book. Trim it if you like, but I don't see why the whole section should go. --Laveol ^T 00:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, please don't revert the article a fourth time in 24 hours, or you may be blocked per WP:3RR. Moreover, your defacement of the page, removing Facts and cited sources, may be qualified as Vandalism. Please read through the Help pages to learn more about Wikipedia and how to write articles here. --5ko (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spare yourself the sarcasm. The passage is clearly an argumentative piece of writing designed to promote a thesis. "Facts" are enumerated not in order to simply inform, but in order to argue. Their value as arguments is not sourced. What you need in order to turn this into a proper NPOV text is:

1. Sourcing for the notability of the dispute, based on neutral third party sources (not just sources that are part of the nationalist polemics)
2. Sourcing for every factual bit of information, not just supporting the fact as such, but demonstrating where and by whom this fact has been used as an argument for which position, and demonstrating in how far that argument is a notable part of the dispute
3. Wording that embeds every factual claim explicitly within a summary of the party's claims (i.e. "Bulgarian authors typically argue that...").

This passage is a textbook example of how not to write a neutral encyclopedia, and as long as it doesn't change radically, it will go out again and again and again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Laveol, Future Perfect accused you of being sarcastic. Be careful, he will probably use this 'information' and other forms of accusation he may throw at you in the future against you. Do you think you were sarcastic? Obviously not. Do not let him intimidate you. Politis (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If this [14] is your best attempt at writing something neutral and well-sourced, you are truly a hopeless case. This will be removed again as soon as possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit it right now... Politis (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't. I have no interest in the topic. In fact, I consider the topic an extremely lame one. I only want the article cleaned of non-encyclopedic cruft. This has to be either completely rewritten, with an entirely different structure and perspective, or it goes out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean it up but as you say, you have no interest in the topic and no knowledge. Others do (not I). Do the same as me, drop it and move on. Politis (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Politis (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you've outdone yourself - 5 reverts for a day. And was the sarcastic stuff about me? Cause I wasn't sarcastic one little bit and don't think it's sounds like it. Look, the info is quite relevant. In fact I can remember seraching for info about them some time ago and most of the English sources I found were about this controversy thing. It is important since at least 3-4 sources explain it thoroughly. Even in the media it is more about this than their actual life. That's clear not POV or OR since it is part of the issue. If you want us to remove this from here why don't we remove the whole info from the article Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria? Or the corresponding one about Bulgarians in RoM? Wasn't it a rule that we include something only if it notable and covered in English language works? You've told me this sooo many times. We can remove some weasel words and I'm willing to change some of the info, but why do you insist so much on removing it all. I think it's because your mad at us, but that's not our fault. You've been telling us we're fuckers and banana citizens for a whole week now and now you as go as far as 5 reverts. I'm tired of explaining it again and again. Tell me just which sources you think are POV and/or Orish and we can discuss it. The way you're acting will get us nowhere. --Laveol ^T 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not about individual sources in there. It is about the whole structure, tone, perspective and direction of the paragraph. I really can't help you if you don't see that it is structured and designed in order to promote a specific position. (BTW, the "spare yourself the sarcasm" was directed at 5ko.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and make a draft of it somewhere in my personal space. We can edit it and work it out( I hope).--Laveol ^T 13:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I in fact decided on trimming it here. What would you say now. I can remember writing the last two sentences more than a year ago and one specifically comes from a decent publication. It is a notable part of the article in the same way it is a notable part of all publications regarding them (except those in Bulgaria and RoM which are pretty straightforward). --Laveol ^T 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a start, thanks. But now we have just a raw list of (alleged) facts, without embedding in anything explaining their (perceived) significance. That significance is now left to the reader to guess by way of insinuation, which isn't good either. Are these all sourced to the same source, the one in the final footnote? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my edit [15]. The article looked a lot different at the time. It's a footnote only for the final sentence + the something about their self-identification (how they referred to themselves in their writings). I don't know where the other info comes from. I noticed the very last paragraph (which I removed twice) was actually copied from another article (Macedonia (region), I think), but I don't know about the rest of the text.--Laveol ^T 14:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed anything that looked POV or unverifiable. The dispute is made clear in the head, so I guess it doesn't require further explanation. I'll try and find some more info on this. --Laveol ^T 15:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. This looks decent now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Laveol, why do you find the recent publication of the original Bulgarian Folk Songs in RM irrelevant and unrelated? I feel it is very much related to this article, clearly demonstrates the controversy, and is an important thing to know or to learn. --5ko (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've left the publication b Soros since it was sourced. As simple as that. --Laveol ^T 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked about the original, by the "Radko" foundation, a section you [16] removed. It was also sourced, seems to me. --5ko (talk)

Cause it was unrelated to an article about the Miladinov brothers and cause it was directly copied from the Macedonia (region) article. --Laveol ^T 15:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions,again

From the section "Sanctions" above:

This is yet another tedious nationalistic dispute, isn't it? So Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions applies. So L and M are now on WP:1RR parole for this article, which will drop down to 1/7RR if they abuse it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear - it does mean you have to jusify your revert on the talkpage prior to reverting, yes? --Laveol T 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking to be sure, thanks --Laveol T 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

L has made two edits today, both reverts, neither marked as such, and would ordinarily get blocked for it, except FPAS hasn't set a shining example so I will let that one pass on a fairness. So 5ko and FPAS get added to the 1RR parole list, and everyone gets a reminder to discuss each and every revert before reverting. I'm not yet taking any sides in this dispute, but picking up an edit comment Facts *are* NPOV is definitely nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn it - and I wasn't even reverting FPaS :), but was trying in fact to trim the text. Isn't it techically one revert since you must be regarding the text I one revert and then reverted its next inclusion? --Laveol ^T 14:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the Bulgarian term

I see a reference (3) to a statement that is not true... I mean it is just a statement without any proof and any facts provided... just thesis hanging out in the air... I will give you some examples:

The author claims that: The term bulgarian, which had earlier been used to refer to all the slavs of the ottoman empire.

That is totally not true as for example the serbs were called serbs, the croats were called croats and so on... How come they were not called bulgarians if the above statement was true?? It is obvious, ain't it?

The author also claims that: bulgarian was a synonym for peasant????

Let me see, the people in the towns were called bulgarians as well even though that they were not peasants... Also if that was true again, this would mean that the serbs, the croats, the greeks, the romanians and all the other nations in the Ottoman empire (including turks) should have been called BULGARIANS as well. You need basic knowledge of the Ottoman social structure at that time, in order to know that.. However the greeks, the serbs, the romanians, the croats and the turks were not called Bulgarians. It is clear that this cannot be a true statement as well.

So, how can this be a reference in Wiki... It is like to take some modern bulgarian nationalist comment and put it as a reference in order to prove that the MODERN ethnic macedonians (from the country Republic of Macedonia) are bulgarians...

Please answer why such a statement is put as an reference (meaning smth like proof)...? I never change without discussion, so I will expect you answer. Please let the answer come in a timely fashion.