User talk:Jingiby

Neutrality in speech

You know that it is against the rules of Wikipedia to spread irredentism of this kind: "Macedonian language did not exist". And you know from Pulevski's work that it existed, which is a pain in the ass for the Bulgarian propaganda. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pulevski is only a pioneer. One-man language is a fiction. Jingby (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By contemporary please emphasize Bulgarian BAN' soldiers. One-man language? Does BAN allow you to read something there or you read just selected biographies of important Macedonian people? Please do not be ridiculous and be update your knowledge, do not base it on Kanchov's agenda :). --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism? Please, check the meaning of the word. Contemporary scientists did not think such a language existed. How could they be pioneers in something that existed from pre-historic time? --Laveol ^T 14:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing

Removing sourced information without justification is disruptive, so don't do it again. That you believe that some theory is fringe doesn't permit you to simply remove reliable sources. Kostja (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive. This people are neither independant, nor historians. Jingby (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are they not independent, nor historians? Your speculations are not ground for removing reliable sources. Kostja (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the article about the Bulgars. Iranian hypothessis is a fringe Bulgarian view only. B. Dimitrov is a speculant, Dobrev is economist. Jingby (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bulgarians. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kostja (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Костя, земи се гръмни! Jingby (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Много убедителен аргумент. Вече разбрах, че иранската теория е фантазия :)

Шегата настрана, няма да е лошо да прочетеш WP:AVOIDYOU, а не да пишеш първото, което ти дойде наум. Kostja (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mайтап бе, Уили! Jingby (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I2

Hi (like the new name ? )

Where is this new information from Nordvelt from ? Do u have a copy ?

I, too, have seen the pattern you are speaking about. However, there are few problems with it. (1) You say that Nordvelt found that I2-N is older than I2-S; however, this is at odds with earlier findings which suggested that the diversity of I2 is greater in the Dinaric Alps than in Moldavia, so it means it is older (ie originated) there (eg during ice age, or whatever) (2) If there were large-scale Slavic invasions, sources and geography states that most were focussed on northern Bulgaria, the Vardar-morava region and possibly macedonia. However, these regions have lower I2 frequencies than Dalmatia, which was protected by the Dinaric alps chain. (3) If you read Curta's & Dzino's books, they argue that there was no such thing as a massive Slavic invasion. Simply, the post-Roman Balkan provincials switched' their language to Slavic. Of course there were few immigrants, but this always hapepned, even during Roman times (eg resettling Getae, Sarmatians, etc within Balkans). Slovenski Volk (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We will have to await formal publication by Nordvelt hoepfully, because the sire is not RS 9especially the guy who wrote about expansion from the area of Great Moravia). And, what was the last part about the Preslav literary scholl, and its connection with Curta's bias ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That citation does not prove anything. It's main purpose is religious/ hegiographic (ie praising god and glorifying the work of Cyril). It is not a historical document. ANyway, it stating that the SLavs were illiterate and pagan doesn't prove they migrated from anywhere. During ROman times, 95% of the people inside the ROman empire were illiterate and probably pagan. Only societal elites were literate and Christian. I'm not denying that people called Sklavenes raided into the Balkans. However, the process which brought about the linguistic Slavonification , and later creation of "Slavic" ethnic identity, was far more complex than an invasion scenario, and one which took centuries, into the 10th or so century. Essentially, the post-Roman Balkan provincials changed their language to Slavic as part of a broader process of significant social, cultural and political change. Curta is not Slavophobe, but his approach might appear to be becuase it is very new. It takes time to absorb what he is saying, it is very complex and non mainstram. ANyway, then read Danijel Dzino's book Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat. He is Croatian, and certainly not 'anti-Slavic'. ALthough he focuses on Dalmatia,his approach can be applied to all Balkans. Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The book of Curta was translated in Bulgarian in 2010 [1] and I have it at home, but his view is very biased. By the way, all today Romanians and Moldovians used as administrative and church language Church Slavonic untill the beginning of 18th century. Here you can check it: Slavic superstratum in Romanian. Jingby (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse there is a Slavic superstratum in Romanian. The Romanian voivodes probably spoke Slavic fluently, they just chose to rather speak Romanian officially in early modern times.

I don't think Curta is biased just becuase of his Romanian background. What exactly do you find biased in his work ? {I agree with most of what he says. However, i do find him slightly over-critical of the literary sources; and his denial of a Slavic identity until 12th century - this was apparent already by 900 ADSlovenski Volk (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am planning to write an artile (ie propper , for publishing, on Bulgars. My Bulgarian is a bit shaky. If u can, is there any English translation of Zlatarsky's article (esp the early sections abut the Bulgar origins. [2]) Slovenski Volk (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have such info about Zlatarski, but probably no. I found only this translations in German: Vasil Slatarski, Geschichte der Bulgaren I: Von der Gründung des bulgarischen Reiches bis zur Türkenzeit (679-1396) / Bulgarische Bibliothek 5, Leipzig 1918 and Die Besiedlung der Balkanhalbinsel durch die Slaven / Revue internationale des études balkaniques 4 (1936), 358-375. I think that he is the classics in the Genre. Jingby (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Cool. I'll have to go through it. Can understand most of it. Between my Macedonian mother, and Russian girlfriend, we should manage, LOL. BTW: Who is Vasil Goldsmith ? (SOunds like a Bulgarian Jew !)

Yeah, Nordvelt's opinion is very interesting. But how do you account why I2 is so high in Dalmatia, behind the Dinaric mountains ?

The problem with geneticists is that they are not propper historians, They see a pattern and automacticcaly try to pice it with some historical event they vaguely know about. Eg, the pattern of R1a in the Balkans need not be related to Slavic migration. But if you take into account millenia of people moving from the steppe to the Balkans - "Kurgans", Goths, Scythians, Slavs, Sarmatians, - then the R1a pattern we see today in the Balkans is the accumulated result of thousands of smaller-scaled movements. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting map, however, I really do not see a convincing link between the Kiev culture and all Slavic cultures. I hope to elaborate on this later. I think the Bulgarians article is better now, thanks to your changes.

I really think that the Dacians, Thracians, etc did not 'lose' their culture and language as much as books generally claim. All this talk of Romanization, etc, i think is too over-estimated. if you think about it : 95% of the provincial population (in Balkans, Gaul, Brittain, wherever) were simple farmers or cattle-herders. They had no real reason to wear togas, learn Latin, eat reclined, etc, etc. The only people who became "Romanized" were people who needed to be - ie those "elites" within local or imperial government, "social climbers", clergy, soldiers, and maybe artisans/ traders . The rest, I suspect, continued living their traditional life, and spoke their traditional language. I would reckon native Balkan languages continued to have been spoken as late as the 8th century. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So there was a clade of I2 in Dalmatia already, then another one entered 500 CE from Moldavia ?

The Slavs did not come from the Kievl culture. THis theory was based on outdated archaeological models. Ie - the "Slavic culture" from the 7th-9th centuries was seen as an Iron Age peoples, which handmade pottery, wooden sunken-huts, little jewellery, etc. Just immediately prior to this, ie 2nd - 5th centuries CE, there existed 4 'cultures' in eastern Europe : Przeworsk, Chernyakov, Kiev and WIelbark. Because the Slavic culture of subsequent period did not have as elaborate pottery types or ornamenets as that of Chernyakov, Wiel or PRz, then it was merely (by a process of elimiation) equated with the simple, forest materials of the Kiev cutlure.

This does not follow. Firstly, if anything, the Kiev culture was Baltic and/or Finnic. Secondly, the fact that there was a simplification of material culture in much of the former east, including inside the Byzantine proinces, was not a result of the SLavs "bringing in" their simple culture with them, but because the of "systems collapse". To produce wheel-made pottery, intricate jewellery, etc, requires a relatively advance society to specialize, organize economic surplus, wide-ranging trade contacts. This all seems to have collapsed in much of Europe, even into "Germanic areas" of Saxony. Likely this was the result of the collapse of ROman EMpire, which accounted for most of the economic trade and cultural influences which catalyzed technological development in barbaricum. ALso the Huns were fierce and simply hoarded all the loot for themselves rather than stimulating general prosperity. THus society regressed- settlements became smaller, pottery was made by hand to suit local pruposes, and there was less need to display wealth in the form of special jewellery. Thus the changes was firstly a socio-economic change.

This created a vaccuum - as you say- and facilitated the spread of SLavic language. This was spread by the Avars who used it as the langauge of their Empire. The Avars re-created trade and culture contacts throughout EUrope, which spread the language. Later, people became aware that they all speak Slavic, and realized they were all "Slavs" Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey buddy. I have been thinking that, whilst Nordtvedt's stuff is interesting, it technically does not meet WP:RS criteria. You might want to hold off adding it in everywhere. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Technically you are absolutely right. But my sixth sence are telling me, that Nordtvedtd is closely to te truth. Let hold the things off. Regs. Jingby (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources to Pomak origins

Hello Jingiby. I ask you to reconsider your reverting of my addition to the intro om Pomaks. I am rather new to this game, and I see now that I need some help making the referencing good enough. I wrote 5ff in the the Aarbakke reference, meaning page 5 and the following pages according to the pagination of the document. This is page 27 in the pdf-file, which may make the referencing confusing. For instance: In the lower part of page 5 (27) you will find the sentence "There exists a plethora of books with more or less fanciful theories about the Pomaks." Don't you think this is a relevant source? The other source, which you have deleted, is even more relevant. On page 106 and 107 according to the pagination of the document (page 12 and 13 in the pdf file), she discusses the different Greek and Turkish theories of origin. I think these two sources justify the sentence "although alternative narratives ..." I think that it is a good thing that these two authors do not propose any theories themselves, but just refer to others. Then the alternative theories themselves can be treated in the lower part of the article, where they belong. Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 79.160.40.10 the alternative theories are treaten in the lower part of the article, because they are simply fringe views. Regs.

The point is: There exists "alternative narratives", fringe or not, and they have been heavily discussed through years and years, as those two sources shows (and I could give more, similar sources). That is in itself an interesting fact that should be represented in the article. Your point about fringe is still covered by the wording "are usually considered" in contrast to "although ... have been proposed". Actually, the very fact that this has been edited in and out of the intro many times, strengthens my view. I will try to get time to continue this discussion on the Pomak talk page. Regards 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

However, here is an encyclopedia, not a place for collections of alternative narratives, fairy-tales, science-fictions or fantasy-stories. Regs. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess we have to agree that we disagree! Could I ask you to transfer what we have discussed here to the Pomak talk page, so that we can let other people give their view. I do not know how to make the transfer, and it would be silly to use your and my time to repeat the same things arguments. Is that OK with you? 79.160.40.10 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done! Jingby (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanx! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Song zajdi zajdi

I explained in my message to you, Aleksandar Sarievski(1922-2002) was only Folk song singer and he can't compose or write something that is 500 years old {absurd} This is Macedonia root song, just like Chinese, Black American, Indian, Egypt etc. Root Song/folk song and it belongs to the people and not to Mr. Sarievski. Composer and writer is unknown