Talk:Krste Misirkov

I consider the article a little biased towards bulgarian postion. There are absolutly no quotes from the On Macedonian matters book, that are not out of context or none whatsoever. However quotes of the bulgarian postion fed from newspapers are widley included. To balance it i suggest presenting the macedonian postion on the basis of quotes from "On Macedonian Matters", i have included some at the bottom.

I try to be objective, but considering the fact that the whole book On Macedonian matters is detrimined to make the dinstinction between macedonian and bulgarian nation and language and adress the macedonian nation in today's sense of word, i find diffrent interview's, small notes, and his so-far-unpublished diary irrelvant. In short, the book that makes the separation and disntiction between macedonians and bulgarians outweights all thoose tiny notes and quotes derrived from newspapers.

So i urge you to include some of the quotes from the book, or even search for more that present the macedonian postion, to ballance the article.

Consider the relevance and logic in it, a man writes whole book about dinstinctive maceodonian nation, and now that book is irrelevant, and what is relevant are newspapers.

Truth is what i like in Wikipedia, it always gets there, especialy when conflits arise. Tomsaso

Quotes

I do have the book On macedonian matters, hope in original writings. Altrought some of you may contest it i would like to point out some quotes naming chapter and paragraph number. Please do not contest this quotes by saying they are serbian re-work, or that they are propaganda, to contest them take the parts quoted (chapter and paragraph number) and quote them from your book to prove your point.

Предговор Chapter 1 paragraph 5,4th sentence

"Можит, бугарите и сет праи, кога мисл'ат, оти Русиiа без Бугариiа не можит да сашчествуат, ни политично, ни економцки, но тоа iет бугарцка политика, а iас не сум намерен да политиканствуам бугарцки. Јас сум македонец и интересите на моiата таткоина ми се предстауат така:не Русиiа и Австро-Унгариiа сет неприiателите на Македониiа, а Бугариiа, Грциiа и Србиiа"

Since i am not 100% certain in my english transcription i could use some help and corrections... "Maybe the Bulgarians are right, when they think that Russia without Bulgaria can't prosper neither economicly nether politicaly, but that is bulgarian policy, and i dont intend to politicsize bulgarian. I am macedonian and interests of my fatherland tell me to: not Russia, and Austro-Hungary are enemies of Macedonia, but Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia."

"Состауала, состауат и можит ли Македонија да состауат от себе оддел'на етнографцка и политична iединица?"

Chapter 5, paragraph 22

"Тоа можит да се забележит на тиiе,шчо вел'ат да никога немало македонцка народност. — Немало, ама iе имат сега и ке бидит за однапред."

"This could be said to thoosem, who say that the macedonian nation never existed - Never did, but it exists now and it wil in future"

chapter 5, paragraph 15(counting from last paragraph and backward)

"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"

"So, the name bulgarian in Macedonia, which is now explotated by bulgarians, is in now way national, so no macedonian has right to to use it to explotate macedonian interests on his behalf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsaso (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This text presents a distorted view of Misirkov's life. While he did declare himself a Bulgarian several times throughout his life, he returned to Macedonian positions at the end of his life. [1] --FlavrSavr 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to pick some quotes made "Later in life" (or fabricated after death) to present one point of view. The article is about the person and his entire life. The site (in the Serbian-based orthography which KM never used) is not convincing as an impartial reference. Presenting both points of view is needed for balance. Sysin

Here's the same text in English. [2] I think we should lay out the facts from his life, and then present both views. --FlavrSavr 22:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The book was written in Macedonian, not Bulgarian

The author explicitely states that: Како последуач на идеiата за полно отдел'аiн'е на нашите интереси од интересите на Балканцките народи и за самостоiно културнонационално развиiаiн'е, iас и iе написаф на централното македонцко наречiе, коiе за мене от сега на тамо имат да бидит литературен македонцки iазик. [3] --FlavrSavr 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation: As a further mark of my support for the idea of completely separating our interests from those of the other Balkan peoples and independently continuing our own cultural and national development, I have written the book in the central Macedonian dialect, which from now on I shall always consider the Macedonian literary language. [4] --FlavrSavr 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian dialect he considered a dialect of Bulgarian. Matter of upgrading a Bulgarian dialect to a languge in its own right? By the way that is not real script of the book, rather in the Serbian alphababet of 1945. He used the old Bulgarian alphabet. FunkyFly 23:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Funkyfly, dont be so ignorant. Maybe you already know, maybe not, that an exact "photocopy" edition (or how should I call it) of the original "On Macedonian matters" has been published long time ago and its widely available (I own one myself). I strongly beleive u can find it in any bookstore or library in Bulgaria too. Let's leave aside the discussion whether there's a macedonian language or it is just a dialect of the bulgarian language for now, and stick to the facts.
A fact is that the book is:
- not written in a standard Bulgarian alphabet,
- not written in a standard Bulgarian language

Actually Misirkov uses phonetic alphabet in his book as Flavrsavr properly quoted contrary to the standard bulgarian alphabet. For example Misirkov uses: Македониіа (Makedonija), Бугариіа (Bugarija), Грциіа (Grcija) for Macedonia, Bulgaria and Greece respectively contrary to the bulgarian: Македония, България, Гърция.
You don't have to be an academic from Oxford or Cambridge to notice the difference. Misirkov uses "і" exactly in a same way we use "ј" (sounds like Y in Yellow)

Again, as Flavrsavrs correctly pointed out previously, Misirkov intentionally took the central dialects as a base for the standard macedonian language (probably beacuse they were less influenced by the neighbouring languages) and so Misirkov is actually a predecesor of the alphabet and language reform that will take place after the WWII in Republic of Macedonia when letters such as: Я, Щ, Ъ and others were removed while letters like Ѓ, Ќ, Њ and the unique Ѕ (DZ) were added.
For all those who may say: well that was actually a "serbianisation", I will point out to the following quote from the article Macedonian alphabet
QUOTE:
With the codification of the Macedonian literary language in 1944, the alphabet adopted was ultimately based on that of Vuk Karadžić's phonetic alphabet. This has subsequently lead to calls of "serbianisation", particularly from Bulgarian linguistics. However, the rationale for adopting a phonetic alphabet can be alternatively explained by looking at earlier Macedonian texts, namely, the book On the Macedonian Matters by Krste Misirkov.

In it, Misirkov uses the combinations г' and к' to represent the phonemes /ɟ/ and /c/. In addition, the letter i is used where ј is used today.

The letters 'љ', 'њ' and 'џ' are undoubtedly of Serbian origin, but their predecessors are clearly illustrated in Misirkov's book as л' and н' and even earlier in other texts as ль and нь.

Today, the letter 'ѕ' is unique to Macedonian, it is, however, much older and is found in the early Cyrillic alphabet.(end of quote)

So what "serbian post-1945 alphabet" are you talking about all the time then? you see clearly that the modern macedonian alphabet is much based on what Misirkov did almost half century before Tito and Blaze Koneski(and just btw, Tito was a 1/2 Croat/Slovene, its rather entertaining when Bulgarian side calls his policies "serbo-communist" lol)

Also, regardless of Misirkov's ambivalence concerning his ethnicity which is obvious throughout his works, in this particular book "On Macedonian Matters" he clearly, I mean CLEARLY and UNDOUBTELY advocates MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE. He intentionally wrote it in central dialects, he intentionally uses an alphabet different than the Bulgarian so no need to discuss that, he wrote it in Macedonian language. Thats what the author himself says.--Vbb-sk-mk 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian language is merely a (thick) Bulgarian dialect from the South. Any linguistic study will easily confirm that. Now that Macedonia (FYROM) exists as an independent entity, it can finally claim to have its own distinct official language. This, however, does not change the fact that it is a Bulgarian regional dialect turned into a language. What is most important here is that the work of the Macedonian intellectuals such as Misirkov & Co need to be seen in the context of the the revival of regional cultural autonomy in their time. Their push for writing in their own regional dialect is nothing strictly confined to Macedonia but can be found throughout Europe. In Norway for instance, based on such initiative, there has been created a second official language based on North-Western dialects.

Once and for all!

If whoever from the country who's capital is Skopje wishes to sneak in pejorative terms like "Aegean" Macedonia, s/he will be considered a vandal and reverted at sight by the whole wikipedian community. The official policy of WP, is to use the most frequent or self-identifying name. Greek Macedonia IS more frequent (I won't even google it for you). Simply "Macedonia", IS the self-identified name of 2.6 million Macedonian Greeks. We choose Greek Macedonia (like the main article Macedonia (Greece) because, unlike you, we have WP:AGF and we disambiguate. Now get over it and stop ultra-nationalistic propaganda!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Niko, the funny thing is: Your Greek government calls ethnic Macedonians "Skopjans" and the Republic of Macedonia "Skopje." Hmmm... that is NOT the self-determined name now is it! Well, doesn't that mean the Greek government needs to "get over it and stop ultra-nationalistic propaganda!?" Maktruth (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Misirkov diary found

Misirkov's diary was uncovered in a Bulgarian antiquity shop. It is now going to jointly be published in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Russia. Its authenticity has been confirmed by Bulgarian and Macedonian experts. In his diary, Misirkov clearly identifies himself as a Macedonian Bulgarian, much to the dislike of the Macedonian press and other political circles in Skopie, taking a strong anti-Bulgarian stance. http://news.netinfo.bg/?tid=40&oid=995281 http://www.vreme.com.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=1&EditionID=994&ArticleID=65533 220.233.208.218 14:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A sign that Skopjie is starting to backpedal on the (ludicrous) "we're not Bulgarians, never have been" stance? Skopjian historians and archaeologists have, in the recent past, been proven quite good at "finding" artifacts that fit their government's needs, at a moment's notice. With about 1,000 Bulgarian passports being issued to Vardaris each month, and BG being used as the FYR's "backdoor" to the EU, the old hard-line is becoming hard to maintain. sys < in 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Better to stick to verifiable claims only and stress that the diary is going to be publish by Macedonian and Bulgarian State Archives. That's really good news.--Michkalas 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Original texts

Where can we find his original text in cyrillic? Preferably on line and especially, On Macedonian Matters. As for and 'the Self determination of Macedonians' there is a link to both Cyrillic and English texts, but is the Cyrillic version the original one, or has it been adapted to spoken Bulgarian or Spoken Macedonian? Thanks. Politis 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The second external link is the original text of On Macedonian Matters.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FunkyFly, you also provided the cyrillic text for 'On Macdonian Matters'. Is this the original text as written by Misirkov, or a transfer into a currently spoken language? Politis 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It claims to be the original text, with no adaptation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. I have the impression - and it really is only an impression - that when Misirkov speaks of a Macedonian language, he does not mean a separate language from Bulgarian, but rather like some Greek authors from Crete, Corfu or even Cyprus who wrote in Cretan, Corfiot or Cypriot. They do not mean they are writing in a language that is 'not Greek' but that they are proud of their local Greek dialect. In this way, Misirkov seems to be proud of his local Bulgarian dialect; just like other Bulgarians are proud and anxious to preserve their regional variations of the language.Politis 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever he meant, I dont know. But for sure he has changed his ideas so often in his life that to a great extent the crediubility of his arguments, whatever they might support, is lost.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about the possibility that he didn't change has arguments, but only the INTERPRETATION of his writings by the Bulgarian propaganda has been changing the meaning of his points!? Andrevski, 2007.

LOL, poor guy, perhaps he would go crazy if he lived today and simply emigrate to the US, and play slightly depressing country and western songs, just to forget. Politis 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You know guys, Misirkov anticipated your discussion above (in 1907!!), and on page 4 (preface) in his book "On the Macedonian matters" he makes the following point: "I am a Macedonian and this is how I see the position of my country: it is not Russia or Austro-Hungary that are the enimies of Macedonia, but Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. Our country can be saved from ruin only by struggling fiercely against these states". Later in the book he explains this position in more detail, so please read it for a change. (December 24, 2007, Andrevski).

Revert

I reverted to the last edit that followed the "View in A", "View in B" structure. Please use the talk page before making such drastic edits. Thanks. sys < in 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I reviewed the changes and they are all acceptable, except the titles of the sections. I have maintained the old titles which accurately describe the sections for what they are: two interpretations of the same subject. Other than that, I have reverted my revert. sys < in 09:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

The nationality of Misirkov is contested. Please do not one-sidedly insert categories which qualify him one way or another. Mr. Neutron 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

dubious sources

What is this http://www.kroraina.com/ website that is referenced as a "source" in the Bulgarian POV part? its not used only here but in many other Macedonia-related articles around. it says the author is some Vassil Vassilev Karloukovski. Who is he? The introduction page seems like some 1990s personal website on geocities. I also checked his bio, it says:

• 25.02.1970 - born in Sofia, Bulgaria
• 1983-1987 - National Mathematical High School "Acad. L.Chakalov", Sofia, class in Physics
• 1987-1992 - Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohrydski", M.S. in Physics with specialization in Geophysics
• 1993-1995 - Geophysisist at the Geomagnetic Department, Geophysical Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
• 1995-1996 - Research Associate at the Geomagnetic Department, Geophysical Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
• awarded the Lord Zuckerman studentship of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, and since April, 1996 I am a post-graduate student under the supervision of Dr Barbara Maher and Dr Mark Hounslow. The title of my research project is 'Palaeomagnetism and magnetostratigraphy of the volcanic and sedimentary rocks from the Momchilgrad Tertiary depression, the Eastern Rhosopes's mountains.' The project started as a pure palaeomagnetic one, aiming at solving the current discrepancy between the Bulgarian and Greek palaeomagnetic data on the Tertiarty tectonics of the Rhodopes mountains, but with time it took in magnetostratigraphic and some rock-magnetic studies as well.
• 2001 - Post Doctoral Research Associate, Centre for Environmental Magnetism and Palaeomagnetism (CEMP), Dept. of Geography, Lancaster Un

So we have maths, geophysics, stones, minerals.. and everything else, except what we need here. what this gentleman has to do with the topic this article deals with? his undoubtely high academic credentials are completely irrelevant to this particular subject here. And what is this http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/? . Bugarash is a pejorative term in Serbia or Macedonia for someone considered a bulgarian nationalist or pro-Bulgarian or something. A greek equivalent would be a grecoman. And you call these reliable sources? Some geophysician and some guy nicknamed bugarash? Bravo, higher science you cant beat itCucayte 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I want to express my dissatisfaction with the sources of the Macedonian position.They are from a site without even 1 document which makes them totally useless.Therefore I would like to ask the moderators/admins or however they are called, to remove the last 2 statements in favour of the Macedonian idea.If you check the Bulgarian sources, you will be able to see the scanned articles from newspapers, on whose basis lay our statements about Misirkov`s self-determination.Using unsourced information for such a hot discussion, concerning a historical personality from great importance- at least for Bulgaria and Macedonia, is in contrast with the idea of wikipedia to be "The Free Encyclopedia".If it`s really encyclopedia, then it shouldn`t be consisted of materials whose origin is unknown for everyone except their author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.22.205 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Original book?

Where is there an original copy of his book, Za Makedonckite Raboti (On Macedonian Matters) - it seems there are none in Sofia. Politis (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

POV article

The whole article is about whether Macedonians are Bulgarian or Macedonian, and has little to do with Misirkov's life. Can't we do a chronological history of the man's life instead of making the article into one about nationalism? Mactruth (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I have put POV tag on the section Ethnicity since it represents only irrelevant, mysterious and unreliable sources that support only the BG POV. Until that section is not cleaned up, please do not remove the tag.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, mysterious :)) I love the way you describe sources. Be more specific, though. I think it represents both points of view and if you let me guess, I just think you don't like seeing any of the Bulgarian stuff. --Laveol ^T 13:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

let's see. There isn't analysis of the book, there is not analysis of his work and there is not analysis of his POV. But we have analysis supported by some diaries that are not relevant enough and there are sentences extracted from context. Where is the sentence where Misirkov says: I, Macedonian..... In fact, have you read the book? If not do not revert me and be fair to say that those sentences are extracted from context, those are not his thoughts.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS:Do not delete the encyclopaedic intro. We do not use pov-intros.

Who deletes intros? I just re-edited it to make it clear who says what. Remember the formula he is regarded as this in that etc. Well, it goes here as well. "WE" do not make pov-intros? What should that mean? Are you on another one of your edit-warring sprees? Or you're just trying to annoy people. The extract is from thew book. The diary is notable enough and got enough coverage on both Bulgarian and Macedonian media. Anything else? --Laveol ^T 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for last time to stop with your vandalism. You are deleting encyclopaedic intro, a standard intro for a famous person. We must mention his profession, then the Bulgarian controversy related to his personality, since in Macedonia all agree and it is clear what he was. I am not planning to play games with you. If you have something academically to add, you are welcome, but please be patient and allow other users to add relevant things.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

PS:I asked about you, have you read something from Misirkov or this is your classical wiki-behaviour?

Lol, you're being funny now. His person is controversial like it or not. I'm not removing any info, just mentioning that he's regarded this in RoM and that in Bulgaria. This is not vandalism and if you mention it again you're giong to ANI ... again. You're an admin on another project and should know better. And yes, I have read parts of the book and the diary. --Laveol ^T 11:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have read the book, you would know now how BG bulgarize the Macedonian history, you would understand the propaganda and you would not make that poor guy Bulgarian. But, back to the topic, do not remove the academic intro.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling we've read two different books. Typical of the Balkans, by the way and I wouldn't be surprised one little bit. From both sides in this case. --Laveol ^T 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are two original different books published in 1903, then ok, we have read two different books.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How about one original book that has got two different versions in two different countries? --Laveol ^T 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the one published in Sofia, you?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you've read the original original? The one that the guy actually wrote? With his hands? I've read a newer edition from the library in the University. I imagine you've red an edition from the 1990's, but there's no way to be sure. --Laveol ^T 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that you have read the book, but read it here. You will find out astonishing facts, an eyewitness of that time.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would kindly ask the user that put this sentence in the article to tell me on which page are those extracted out of context sentences so we can show the whole sentence, otherwise I will delete them. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I could not find the parts in the book and show you that those were not his own thoughts, but rhetorical questions, I have given explanation about these rhetorical questions and statements. If I found them in the book, I will post them within the complete sentence. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

For the passage with the alleged quotes from On Macedonian Matters, Laveol added a source reference to an online English translation the other day [5]. Most of the quoted parts cannot be found in that translation – the assume-good-faith explanation is that it's probably just a different translation; nevertheless, I ask that the original passages please be identified. For those passages that I could identify, I must agree with MacedonianBoy: the way those passages are embedded in context, they are not being spoken as M.'s own position, but an antithesis he is arguing against.

Since Bulgarian-Macedonian articles unfortunately have a long Wikipedia history of extremely bad abuse of primary sources, through OR synthesis, distorting quotations and over-reliance on poor-quality nationalist polemics sites, we will need to apply the same scrutiny to all other parts of the article where primary sources are quoted. Let's start with the following claim:

In 1924 he wrote: "We [the Slavs of Macedonia] are more Bulgarians than those in Bulgaria". He advocated a Greater Bulgaria encompassing territories which belonged to Yugoslavia (today's Republic of Macedonia and Serbia), and north eastern Greek Macedonia

Source cited is here

Can somebody please point to the exact places and contexts where these claims are found? Also, can somebody please translate for the me following original passages in the Bulgarian text:

• "Във всичко друго, освен езика, ние и българите сме си вървели и вървим по свои самостоятелни пътища."
• "Но ето, че се раздават викове на самите македонци: ние сме българи, повече българи от самите българи в България... Вий сте могли да победите България, да и наложите каквито си щете договори, но с това не се изменя нашето убеждение, нашето съзнание, че вий не сме сърби, че ний досега сме се казвали българи, тъй се казваме и днес и така искаме да се казваме и в бъдеще. Искате ли отстъпки от нас? Искате ли да сме по-малко българи от самите българи? Да ви отстъпим? Отказваме се да бъдем тъй безразлични към националните си интереси като други. Ние не можем и не трябва да поддържаме мизийците във всичко, защото мизийската логика, техните на­чини на действие довеждат до сръбско-български договори и спогодби за Македония, довеждат до договори като сръбско-българския в 1912 година, като Ньойския. Ние ще бъдем повече македонци, отколкото българи, но ма­кедонци със свое отлично от вашето сръбско самосъзнание"
• "Повече българи или повече македонци? Ето един основен въпрос, върху който не веднаж е трябвало да се спира мисълта на мислещия македонец през последните тридесет години и докато едни или по-точно огромното мнозинство са се спирали на първото, намирали са се и такива, които предпочитали второто пред първото. В числото на последните е и автора на тази статия."
• "Ние, македонците, днес трябва да сме и действително сме по-малко българи и повече македонци, от когато и да било по-рано в нашата история."

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I wrote about this problematic issue some time ago. Many references were extracted out of context. You have cleaned out the article and it is good now. Also I have said that I could not found the passages that you are pointing out, the user that put them should tell us. And one question, how important is Ivo Banac's view? If we follow that logics I can put Friedman's view, Macedonian academic's views and that will go on and on. Individual's views I think are irrelevant, since we have one book, magazine and many articles for analysing and someone's attitudes are irrelevant.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The translation of:
• "Във всичко друго, освен езика, ние и българите сме си вървели и вървим по свои самостоятелни пътища."
  • "In everything other than the language, we and the Bulgarians have walked and walk in separate ways"

• "Повече българи или повече македонци? Ето един основен въпрос, върху който не веднаж е трябвало да се спира мисълта на мислещия македонец през последните тридесет години и докато едни или по-точно огромното мнозинство са се спирали на първото, намирали са се и такива, които предпочитали второто пред първото. В числото на последните е и автора на тази статия."
  • More Bulgarians or more Macedonians? Here's the big question, on which not once had to work the thought of a thinking Macedonian, during the latest thirty years, and while one, or more accurately the vast majority, have accepted the first, there were those who prefer the second. Among the second ones, is the author of this article.

• "Ние, македонците, днес трябва да сме и действително сме по-малко българи и повече македонци, от когато и да било по-рано в нашата история."
  • "Today, we, the Macedonians, should be, and we are actually less Bulgarians and more Macedonians, than ever before inour history."

--StanProg (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Но ето, че се раздават викове на самите македонци: ние сме българи, повече българи от самите българи в България... Вий сте могли да победите България, да и наложите каквито си щете договори, но с това не се изменя нашето убеждение, нашето съзнание, че вий не сме сърби, че ний досега сме се казвали българи, тъй се казваме и днес и така искаме да се казваме и в бъдеще. Искате ли отстъпки от нас? Искате ли да сме по-малко българи от самите българи? Да ви отстъпим? Отказваме се да бъдем тъй безразлични към националните си интереси като други. Ние не можем и не трябва да поддържаме мизийците във всичко, защото мизийската логика, техните на­чини на действие довеждат до сръбско-български договори и спогодби за Македония, довеждат до договори като сръбско-българския в 1912 година, като Ньойския. Ние ще бъдем повече македонци, отколкото българи, но ма­кедонци със свое отлично от вашето сръбско самосъзнание"
  • But here they are, the shouts of the Macedonians themselves: We are Bulgarians, more Bulgarians than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. Your had the opportunity to beat Bulgaria, аnd to impose any treaty you want, but this cannot change our belief, that we are not Serbians, and so far we said that we're Bulgarians, we say this today, and that's how we want to call ourselves in future. Do you want us to stand back? Do you want us to be less Bulgarians than the Bulgarians themselves? Do you want is to stand back? We refuse to be so indifferent to the national interests as the others. We can't, and we should not support the Moesians in everything, because the Moesian logic, their ways lead to Serbo-Bulgarian treaties and agreements about Macedonia, lead to treaties as the Serbo-Bulgarian in 1912, like the "Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine". We will be more Macedonians than Bulgarians, but Macedonians with a different than your Serbian self consciousness.

--StanProg (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

References

The last reference of the first paragraph p.5, K.P.Misirkov, "Za Makedonckite raboti" - jubilejno izdanie, Tabernakul, Skopje, 2003. ISBN 9989-937-42-7 contains all the information before the deletion of the IP address and I have that book in case you wander. However, I gave two more references that support the statement and please do not rewrite my sentences, it is not pleasant to see. Even in BG he is considered as founder of the standard Macedonian and the 'Makedonizm' as you say.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Also please do not rewrite the sentence about the book and the magazine since you missed the point. In other words, the sentence is focused on what did he do, not what did he write.

author of the first book and scientific magazine on standard literary Macedonian language

and

author of the book and magazine, where he argued for the creation of a standard literary Macedonian language

are not the same. The point is this: until then the Macedonian books were written in dialects, and Misirkov wrote in standard Macedonian. The mazagine Vardar is the first scientific Macedonian magazine, the previous ones of other authors were focused on politics, revolution, society and culture. The second paragraph talks about the content and his views. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

How many times you should repeat the same things? He was BG, he was BG and so on, which in fact he wasn't. Even the into you provided is not for this article, but for Demographic history of the Republic of Macedonia. If you like to contribute the article about Misirkov's life and works, then do so, but please do not exaggerate with stupid and irrelevant things. Have you seen somewhere my or by any Macedonian contributors to exaggerate about Misirkov's ethnicity? No, since that is not more relevant then his works. Please be constructive and stop pushing something that is irrelevant. All sources and sentences about so called Bulgarian nation in Macedonia are irrelevant for this article. Why do you put such things? To convince someone? That is not the aim of Wikipedia Jingiby. Edit constructively and neutrally and everyone will be satisfied. Hope you got the message. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you obviously not interested in his work any additional claims about his ethnicity, must be put in the separate section because the article loses the main point. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Laveol's POV

I would kindly ask the user Laveol to stop pushing his irredentist theories about that the book "On Macedonian matters" is written in Bulgarian. He is led by the idea of the official Bulgarian policy of not recognizing the Macedonian language prior 1945 and I am shocked to see it in 21 c. However, take a look at this:

1. The book is written in Macedonian language, not in Bulgarian. You can realize it by the vocabulary and grammar and all features of Macedonian.
2. The book uses the Macedonian phonetic orthography, not the ethomological
3. The script is Macedonian Cyrillic, not Bulgarian or Russian (see the old Bulgarian orthography at that time)
4. About the language of the book, in many cases Misirkov states that it is written in Macedonian, and here is one quote:

Со тиiе неколку зборои iас сакаф да поiаснам содржаiн'ето на предложената на македонцките читачи книга за наiважните за нас прашаiн'а. Како последуач на идеiата за полно отдел'аiн'е на нашите интереси од интересите на Балканцките народи и за самостоiно културнонационално развиiаiн'е, iас и iе написаф на централното македонцко наречiе, коiе за мене от сега на тамо имат да бидит литературен македонцки iазик. Нерамностите, шчо ке се окажат во iазикот на моiата книга, сет сосим природни и ке можеа да се отстранат само при iедно по глабоко знаiаiн'е на централното македонцко наречiе, со шчо не можам да се пофал'ам. Но и при тоа се надеiам, оти за македонците таков iазик ке бидит по приiатен и по звучен, од iазико на нашите суседи, со коiи ниiе сега за сега се дигаме на големо.

What the book states? It is obvious that the book states that it is written in Macedonian. It is totally irrelevant what Laveol claims and BAN as well, you have primary source. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) This is the most stupid mistake that you can do since: (1) it is not Bulgarian, but Macedonian, (2) the Macedonian language uses phonetic orthography, not etymological, (3) the book uses Macedonian alphabet, instead of Russian and Bulgarian, (4) and finally, the most important, read the book and see what language it is used. Some time ago I asked you to read the book just to inform yourself, but obviously you did not look at it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The book uses the Bulgarian alphabet at the time. Does the Macedonian one have a Iota? Don't think so. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The script and spelling are irrelevant. Many non-Slavic languages have used and some continue to use Cyrillic, many non-Semitic languages have used and continue to use Arabic script and it is also fairly easy to transcribe non-Slavic languages into Cyrillic. Any Macedonian or Bulgarian variant could be written with either phonemic or morpho-phonemic spelling conventions and they would be understood equally as well as each other. The opinion of contemporaries as to the classification and naming of the language is also largely irrelevant - Ukrainian texts from before the 20th century are not labeled Russian (even though they were considered as such at the time). What's more, the language of Misirkov is his own attempt at codifying a Standard Macedonian language on the basis of Western Macedonian dialects. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so we should take your OR on a book that was written in the Bulgarian script, published by a Bulgarian publishing house in the Bulgarian capital Sofia. And nowhere does it say it is in a language different of Bulgarian. I know what it says in the book, but the author did write it in Bulgarian. He could have used some of the letters, which he uses elsewhere and which were not part of the Bulgarian alphabet, but he did not.--Laveol ^T 07:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about 'За македонцките работи'? Regardless, the book was written with a variant of the Cyrillic alphabet unique to Misirkov's works. But let me simplify this for you: if he had written the book in hiragana, it still wouldn't be Japanese. The country in which a book was published is 100% irrelevant (and I'm not going to insult my own intelligence by explaining why). The name a writer uses for the language he writes in is also irrelevant to its classification (we should certainly mention their opinion if it has some significance to the context in which it is being referenced) but linguists do not classify languages based on the opinion of its speakers... ever). --124.148.192.108 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see we're about to enter a deadlock, as has often being the case with conversations with past incarnations of yours. I am trying to explain that he author wrote the book, using the Bulgarian alphabet, despite the fact that he intended one or two other letters to be used when writing in the Macedonian norm. In order the book to be published, it had to be in Bulgarian. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant since its a plain fact. The attitude of facing facts head on is not getting you anywhere. Do you have any prove refuting the fact that the letters are Bulgarian? Does it say anywhere that the book is written in a language other than Bulgarian? If the answer is no, I do not see what your case is. --Laveol ^T 08:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who speaks Bulgarian (and would therefor be familiar with the Bulgarian alphabet), is <i> part of the Bulgarian alphabet? Are the digraphs <н', л'> part of the Bulgarian alphabet? Let's also compare two sections of the book: София, Печатница на „Либералний Клубъ“ vs. any of the body text (Секоi чоек како член на некоiа). Considering you are so knowledgeable, please tell me how these differ. Actually, I'll save you the trouble.. the former is written in the Bulgarian alphabet (я, й, ъ) in accordance with the orthographic conventions at the time (-ий, -ъ), while the latter is written in something other than Standard Bulgarian. Secondly, the opinion of the publishing house is also irrelevant. Linguists also do not base their classifications on the opinions of non-linguistic organizations. My opinion is relevant because Wikipedia, by its own definition, is a collaborative project. Facing facts is the only thing I'm doing. You, on the other hand, wish to label Misirkov's language 'Bulgarian' because you consider him to be an ethnic Bulgarian - and in the absence of any real reason why it should be labeled so, you are scrambling to list completely irrelevant points. Again, you are not using a logical argument: does Beyond Freedom and Dignity state the language it's written in? Probably not. Does that mean we can call it Bulgarian (or anything other than English)? No, of course not. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Laveol: I do not know in which film are you in, but something is totally wrong with your edits. The letter і is not and was not used in BG. Leave the orthography for a while and take a look at the content. It is Macedonian. Please stop with this crap or I am forced to ask for a help. The book itself states it is written in Macedonian and your opinion it totally irrelevant, and BAN's as well.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And this one Laveol: Since the book was published in Macedonian the Bulgarians burnt all copies. You should know a bit about the topic before mechanically revert people. We are losing time in chatting with you filling your free time. It is shameful that you do not know your own Bulgarian alphabet from 1903. Totally different from the Macedonian and Serbian, totally same as Russian. Regs--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to explain something. I did before but you do not want to read it. 'I' or Iota was used in the Bulgarian language at the time. A literary reform removed it in the late XIX - beginning of XX century, but at the time Misirkov wrote and published the book, it was still consistently used. Read something about it - you claim to be a linguist and know stuff about languages. You even claimed you knew Iota had never been part of the Bulgarian language. Well, it has been. And know what do we do when all that linguistic knowledge does no good? --Laveol ^T 09:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Laveol, I know that it was used in Bulgarian before 19 century since it was used in all Slavic languages. But that is not a reason for your claims, since according to you, the book can be said is written in Ukrainian. And do you know why Ј was used as Macedonian letter? However, you are the first one to claim the book is in Bulgarian, and do you know why? Just because there is only one Bulgarian sentence, you claim it is Bulgarian. That is just ridiculous. Again you are avoiding some points: book's claim, the language and Misirkov's opinion - the most important things. Hope you figured out you are wrong.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume Bulgarian removed these letters as well: к', л', н', і, г'?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, <i> was a positional variant of <и>. Misirkov clearly uses <i> in place of <й>. @MacedonianBoy, neither the book's nor Misirkov's own opinions have any bearing on the classification of the language he used. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I gave a quote, at the beginning. Misirkov in various parts of the book states that the Macedonian is used. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So if he said it was Bantu, you'd argue for that? Both of you go and read the first sentence of Western Macedonian dialects. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but you cannot omit the authors claims about the language used. However, it is more than obvious that is Macedonian. I do not know why we argue about this.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We should definitely include his claim because it's for that very reason that he is notable. We do not, however, state whether or not his language was x or y based on that claim (that, to repeat myself for the 100th time, is in the realm of linguistics). The reason we argue about these things is because it's only through the clash of POVs that we achieve Wikipedia's ideal of NPOV — which is a roundabout way of describing mutual appeasement of competing POVs. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)