Talk:Bulgarians in North Macedonia

For the statements that "Bulgarians are non-recognized" there is no citation, please provide a reliable source for the statement Maktruth (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians by Origin

Has anyone ever thought that the 60,000 people who went to bulgaria just wanted an education? That doesnt mean that they are actually bulgarian, i have a cousin who did the same thing. Shes not bulgarianPMK1 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't got references for the exact number. But if someone has signed a declaration that he/she's Bulgarian, doesn't this mean they're Bulgarian? But if they simply study in Bulgaria and have no Bulgarian passport and have not signed anything, then they're obviously not Bulgarian. --Laveol ^T 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they say "Bulgarian origin". And no, signing a declaration does not make you Bulgarian, especially if it's just for an EU passport or a better education. E.g. you could have a (racist) Macedonian at your school with a Bulgarian passport that calls you a Tatar. Why would you want someone like that to be Bulgarian? BalkanFever 13:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I want someone like that? And why do you think I want someone to be Bulgarian? Actually a signing of declaration does make you Bulgarian - that's why you sign it. You have a choice - to sign or not to sign. And its your personal choice. You say it's because of this and this, but that is your opinion (OR) and the fact is they sign it. I happen to know people that do it because they do feal Bulgarian and can feel Bulgarian without being arrested or something worse only in Bulgaria. But that's OR (and POV) again since this is my view. The fact is that they have signed it. And no, you cannot say they have no Bulgarian roots or something because of the complicated history of the region and the dynamic, let's call it, demographic situation. A big part of the inhabitants of the region did self-identify as Bulgarians at some point of the XX century so I don't see what's the problem. --Laveol ^T 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic demographic situation, yes. It's dynamic to the point where people would declare anything that would stop them getting shot, and in more recent times they declare anything that benefits them (like education, and now EU). If Serbia were in the same position as Bulgaria, you would see the same thing. It's not a question of "am I Bulgarian or not?", it's a question of "am I European or not?" BalkanFever 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Say you. And I meant the dynamic demographic situation in the past, not at present. At the time when people declared (or were forced to declare) a different ethnicity every 10-15 years. --Laveol ^T 13:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure the Macedonian government can find the people who apply for Bulgarian passports, so Bulgarians not declaring that they're Bulgarian on the census (while doing it on Bulgarian paper) because they're "scared" doesn't really apply. So 60,000 - 4,000 = 56,000 people telling Macedonia they're Macedonian and telling Bulgaria they're Bulgarian. And then they go and live in Germany or France. And no, our census is not rigged to keep Bulgarian numbers down - otherwise Albanians would be 10%. BalkanFever 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Noone says anything about your census - stop trying to put words in my mouth. Provide me a source with how many of them go to live in France, Germany etc and how many stay here. Again this is what you say. It's nice that you have an opinion on this, but how's your opinion relevant? --Laveol ^T 14:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is not about where they live. Many go to Bulgaria to study, get an education so that they can have better lives. (macedonia is not the greatest country for those kind of thins.) like the cousin that i have. But the 1417 number is the people who identify as bulgarian, although it is a bit low say, 4,000 people identify as bulgarians at the Maximum. This article must mention that the majority of people who identified as bulgarians began to identify as macedonians. Bulgaria got into the EU and THat is why people want citizenship, only a few might identify as bulgarians.PMK1 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name and expanding the article

Since RoM isn't a synonym of the whole geographic area Macedonia, I'd like to propose the article to be renamed to "Bulgarians from Macedonia".I wish to add information about the Bulgarians from all parts of the region but dividing the information into several articles is useless, IMO, especially when everything could be at one place.In the eventual new article I've the desire to include detailed information about the Bulgarian population through the centuries(since the first Bulgarian penetration till nowadays) but this is impossible under the current circumstance.Therefore I suggest:

• the article to be renamed to "Bulgarians from Macedonia"
• to be included information about the Bulgarian presence in the region under different administrative control
• to be included information the recent activity of the Bulgarian from Macedonia and their organisations
• to be included information about some hot issues but of course only on the basis of sourced information

All opinions will be appreciated. Feel free to give new ideas. --BulgarianPatriot (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And we might still have an article especially for Bulgarians from RoM - from the establishment of the Socialist Republic to present day. As for the other article - I absolutely agree. Don't forget to use mainly Western sources though :) --Laveol ^T 16:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be appropriate to have two distinct articles; they may overlap partially but that's not uncommon in an encyclopaedia. Apcbg (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is part of a series attempting to cover the minorities of this young Republic. The minority would likely be overlooked in an article covering the historical presence of Bulgarians in the region since the 1st millennium. Why not simply start the new historic article and provide links to those covering modern populations? Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, while was referenced text removed together with the references. This text now is not referensed, i.e. is a POV. I am going to restore the referenced variant if no reliable explaination is given. Jingby (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I was noticed many times to use verifide references, why to have exsepcion here? That article only says that 20.000 Macedonians have Bulgarian passport, not that it is assumed or that they are Bulgarians. I personaly have Bulgarian passport to, and i'm not Bulgarian!Makedonij (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They got the citizenship based on a self-declaration of Bulgarian descent i.e. they have self-declared as such. --Laveol ^T 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? I know to read bulgarian language, can you please show me? Insert corect reference other way, we will have EWar.Makedonij (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not threaten to turn the encyclopedia into a battleground. For a user with your history this might just be a blockable offense. I've provided a better source citing Die Welt. That should be sufficient. Have a nice evening. --Laveol ^T 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a threat! And you are welcome to block me any time. That reference that you insert is not working, the way you are acting is fanny to. You accuse other people as POV pushers, but you in mean time do that. Please stop with that. And yes this is not a battleground, so please do not use double standards.Makedonij (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of ranting about the Truth you could've fixed the reference. I'll be short here: I cannot block you; Yes, this is no battlegroung so don't threaten with Ewars; the reference is fine now; the correct spelling is "funny" not "fany" and "truth" not "treth" and accuse has two "c"-s. --Laveol ^T 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Laveol once again you insert another bulgarian newspaper link which is claiming the same as previus, that 20,000 Macedonians have Bulgarian passport and nothing more, i have it to, do you want me to upload scaned picture of my passport? And pall i'm telling you here that i'm not BULGARIAN. And thanks for wording, tray to discredit me more next time.Makedonij (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, sorry but I'm not sure I can follow your line of thought. Neither me, nor the source is telling you you're not (ethnic) Macedonian as you say. The article reads and the source says/claims that 20,000 ethnic Macedonians have acquired Bulgarian citizenship after declaring Bulgarian descent. That's it. If the whole population of the Republic of Macedonia comprised of 20,000 only, I'd understand you, but since that's not the case, try writing it in a clearer way. --Laveol ^T 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what you claim as an reference :

• Според германския вестник „Ди Велт“ вече 20 000 македонци са получили български паспорти, а молби за гражданство са подали поне още 20 000
• (english translation)According to German newspaper "Di Velt already 20 000 Macedonians received Bulgarian passports and citizenship applications are submitted at least 20 000

Where das it say that they are Bulgarians?Makedonij (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, i'm not argueing, you can have them 20,000 and live in ilusion that they realy existe, you can come to visit Strumica to, and then claim that half of city population is Bulgarian. :)Makedonij (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough. I'm getting the feeling I write in Albanian or something. If this does not solve the problem I don't know if anything can help you get into the issue:

"To get citizenship, Macedonians have to prove that they have some ancestral connection to Bulgaria - but with the intertwined history of the two countries, this is not proving too difficult for many from Macedonia."

Get it? Please tell me you do. It doesn't say anything about Strumica, it does say anything about you in particular. It says what you can read and nothing else. --Laveol ^T 00:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No i dont, sorry, i'm the stupid one, and i clear my point out, i say have them 20.000.Makedonij (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"What's important," according to historian Stefan Troebst, describing the delayed sense of national cohesion among modern-day Macedonians, "is that they know who they don't want to be, namely neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, and certainly not Greeks or Albanians." But even this lowest common denominator is in jeopardy. Some 30,000 Bulgarian passports are already believed to be in circulation in this country of 2 million people -- valuable documents which allow free travel to EU countries. The fact that the former prime minister and leader of the nationalists, Ljubco Georgievski, now travels with a Bulgarian passport has been the source of biting ridicule among critics of the new Macedonia. And the 500,000 ethnic Albanians in the country in any case traditionally feel more closely aligned with their counterparts in Albania, Serbia and Kosovo than with Macedonia's Slavic majority. - "Der Spiegel" 03/19/2009. Jingby (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians identified themselves as bulgarians, are you FOR REAL?!

Quote: "Until 1913 the majority of the Slav population of all three parts of the wider region of Macedonia had Bulgarian identity.[7] In 1912, the region of present-day Republic of Macedonia became a part of the Kingdom of Serbia, thus becoming Southern Serbia. During World War II, most regions of Macedonia were annexed by Bulgaria. All local Slavic-speekers were regarded and self-identified as Macedonian Bulgarians."

This is the worst lie I've read in a while. Macedonians are and always have identified themselves as Macedonians, and every neighboring country tried to change that, but, obviously, unsuccessfully. I demand this section (or the whole page) to be revised or deleted. Thank you. MakedekaM (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-recognised?

A non-recognised ethnic minority... yet the statistical figure is taken from the State Statistical Office of RM? --101.112.166.177 (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between a recognised minority and one that is simply counted in the census. Recognised groups enjoy more rights, while non-recognised enjoy...well, the right to live for a starter. --Laveol ^T 06:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is this distinction used contrastingly in Wikipedia articles? See Bulgarians in Germany, Bulgarians in France, etc. In any case, you're wrong; if a particular community is 'recognized' through legislation, it is worth mentioning that fact. However, if a community which comprises 0.07% of the total population of a country is not 'recognized' through legislation and afforded any special privileges, it is undue to state that it is 'unrecognized'. --123.3.240.230 (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)