Talk:Macedonian nationalism/Archive 2

I've re-edited this article due to the fact that ,,Macedonism" is Bulgarian POV towards Macedonia. 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomac (talk • contribs)

It seems to have been moddled on Moldovenism. --Telex 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, check this out.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, check this dictionary out.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, tottaly fits in pro-Bulgarian 'bout Srbinovski. And the second one is a dictionary. Why the hell this word can't be included? Bomac 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's also used by non-Bulgarians.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

C'm on, so many books are written in Bulgaria about this issue and you claim that it's not most widely used in Bulgaria? Gimme a break. Bomac 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

C'm on, Gimme a break? Impressive debating skills you have. However, the fact is, the term is used outside of Bulgaria by non-Bulgarians too, which means that you cannot insert that passage of yours.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's to say? I guess I have... I'll say this again: de facto Macedonism is a word that is mostly used in Bulgaria (endoubled, trippled...) than in any other country. BTW, thank's for, er, ,,saving" my user-page. What an idiot and hypocrite can edit my user-page?... Bomac 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And, because it refers to non-Bulgarian origin, it is most surely overwhelmingly used in Bulgaria. Bomac 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Idiot, hypocrite? OK, well next time I'll just leave it vandalized for a little while instead of restoring it. I dont see how your argument does not apply to other countries, or how macedonism is less frequently used in the Republic than it is in Bulgaria.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not blaming anyone... I just had to say those words 'caus that user was one of those with short expiry date... Bomac 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your country and former Yugoslavia are the only places where separate ethnicity before the beginning of the 20th century is claimed, as opposed to Bulgarian, so I dont see how that applies.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So, when the Bulgarian nation was forming, there was some sort of Bulgarism? Bomac 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe? You might start researching the subject. For sure no history was stolen from neighboring states, which is, on the other hand, the essence of Macedonism.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean the 3000 yeared one? Bomac 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you say 3000 so be it. It starts from 1991 as far as others are concerned.  /FunkyFly.talk_   00:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I thought of your glorious Bulgarian 3000 yeared history. Do we steal that one? Bomac 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a modest 1325 year one, since 681 AD. Yes - Samuil, all the 19 th century revolutionaries, etc etc, are stolen.  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Samuil and others were active in Macedonia, so I really don't know who is stealing ;-) Bomac 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Oh, the geographical vs the ethnic principle comes again. Good job Bomac, you've got all the kudos. By the way I can quote you for a typical Macedonistic statement "They were active in Macedonia, therefore they were Macedonians".  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets see. We have the following things:

1. Bitola inscription
2. Basil II Bulgaroktonus
3. The statute of BMARC
4. Konstantin Miladinov's signature - "Sub-Danubian Bulgarian" ('Задунайского болгарина') [1]
5. Goce Delchev declaring himself Bulgarian (remember that Macedonian quote which you never confirmed?)
6. Various censi from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.
7. The flippant Krste Misirkov, changing from Bulgarian to Macedonian on several occasions. Even daring to call the population of Skopie "entirely Bulgarian" and the present day Republic "purely Bulgarian country". This person by the way was voted "The Macedonian of the XX century" in 1999. What an honor that must be.
8. The father of the Macedonian language Blaze Koneski declaring himself Bulgarian when enrolling the University of Sofia in 1941. I guess he did not put that on his resume.

Feel free to add to that list.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's how all began: (I'll quote my favourite ,,macedonist" Petkov Misirkov): ,,(...)The Bulgarian name was popularised between the Slavs by the Greeks, and firstly this name reffered to the Bulgars-Mongols(...)at last, it became ethnographic term for the Bulgarian Slavs(...)But that name in the eyes and mouth of the Greeks had even specialized meaning: barbarians, uneducated people, rude people who border with beastry. For the Greeks, everything Slavic was rude and Bulgarian. Greeks gave the name ,,Bulgarians" to us, Macedonians, too..." Bomac 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"We are more Bulgarians than those in Bulgaria". Sounds familiar. Anyway, the point is people decribed themselves as Bulgarian, so that stays. Whatever else theories about the meaning of the term Bulgarian might arise should be discussed about the article Bulgarians. Wikipedia is going with the self-identifying principle, not trying to "rationalize" history with the Macedonistic geographical principle.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer the upper statement. It is very popular among today's scholars. Bomac 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I will quote you on this also. Macedonism is also about selective usage of facts. Good job.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good boy. Here's an A+ in the diary. Bomac 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. But, I don't have the intention to do so (for now) ;-) Bomac 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be truly impressed if you can back it up with sources appropriately. I'll wait.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

. Bomac 20:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Remeber though, "Living in Macedonia, therefore Macedonian and not Bulgarian" is out of the game.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I'll get sources from the Bulgars-Mongols period also. The theory about the root of the Bulgarian name circles round this period. There wasn't ,,Macedonism" then, isn't it? Bomac 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be waiting. Dont forget the tatarians too. Dont foget to find sources that there was absolutely no mixing between people living in present day Bulgaria and the present day republic so that you dont claim that you yourself are Mongolian or whatever else. Also dont forget to bring sources for Khan Kuber and the Kuman tribes that settled in present day Kumanovo, not too far from Skopie.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the ,,Macedonist" Misirkov, they weren't Tatars, but Mongols (still, it is close). What are you talking about? I'm speaking 'bout the Bulgarian name. BTW, as a ,,Macedonist", I don't support the non-mixing theory (which I've never heard of, though). Here on Balkans, it is hardly this theory to get in practice. Bomac 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. We have all the time in the world to sort this out. Just dont get too disappointed with the results.  /FunkyFly.talk_   21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No need of disapointments. Bomac 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And one more important thing. You have to also prove that all of your ancestors (people that lived in the present day Republic) were lame to the extent that they did not know the fringe theories of Misirkov and were tricked by the Greeks who made them refer to themselves as Bulgarian rather than Macedonian, instead of consciously doing so. And yet, another thing, you'll have to explain how the contemporary Bulgarians did not end up calling themselves Tracians or Moesians and seem to have accepted the Greek barbarism, still being aware of the names of the former roman regions they inhabit? Basically all the revolutionaries, writers such as Miladinovi, Shapkarev and so on were according to Macedonism theory, either totally uneducated and unaware of the history of their people, or being scared to declare Macedonian because of fear of being shot or beaten by the Turks (who'd rather have them as Bulgarians????), until the true genius of Misirkov (or whoever else) revealed the truth upon them (posthumously of course). If you are interested, read the article about Mormons and their practice of claiming their dead ancestors for the Mormon religion (see the Salvation section). Interesting fact: Adolf Hitler has already been claimed as a mormon by a heir of his.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So to summarize, your ancestors were either very stupid Macedonians, or Bulgairans. However, knowing the resentment of the word 'Bulgarian' in the Republic, I sort of guess where this might head to.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonism on the internet

You may be interested in the following:

• macedonism -wikipedia: 753 results (only all websites)
• macedonism -wikipedia site:.bg: 35 results (only in .bg websites)
• macedonism -wikipedia -site:.bg: 721 results (excluding .bg websites)

--Telex 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonism

Hi, again. Please if you write about Macedonism, write generaly about the term, and all posible varietis that the term can mean, not only the bulgarian, thats just an apply of personal conviction. Thanx--Vlatko 13:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you are not giving any alternatives. I'm still waiting to hear what it means in the Republic, if it is something different.  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Stll, even if there is nothin written about the other meanins, you must point it, it must be pointed. I will write an article about the general meaning of the word. But it must be pointed as an disambiguation in order of acuracy.--Vlatko 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there are Macedonians, which use it in this way, so I dont really know what you are trying to achieve.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thats one meaning of the term, it has nothing to do with who is using it, but in the context, what it means. Macedonism can stillmean everything macedonian, macedonian culture, macedonian influence outside the borders of macedonia....and more.--Vlatko 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For one, we should have articles about Macedonian Culture and International relations of the Republic of Macedonia. Macedonism has a very specific meaning in historical perspective.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the entire time you answer to your self, even in historical perspective it's one meaniing of the term. As you are saing the macedonism article you wrote should be in someones history article. Not on a general site about..--Vlatko 18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, because the term is described at its most frequent use. Google the term and see how many times it is used in historical context versus other contexts. It is overwhelmingly historical.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what I wanted to hear, the elaboration in numbers of one meaning, means not the general meaning and the meanings of the term. Google is not the prouve about the meaning of the term, it is how you understand it. If there is nothing on google about some tree does it means that it exists not?.--Vlatko 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Means that the meaning is not the most widely used one, most likely not the primary one.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will point it again, the article is about the term Macedonism, not about google's numbers. If there is an article about it should be entire, not conformistic.--Vlatko 18:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not, but those numbers show what is important. I would suggest that you insert additional meanings in another section. This way we can sort them into primary and secondary.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And finaly, you told me your intention, you are writin on wikipedia, it is an enciclopedia you know. Why don't you write that in "Bularian view of Macedonism" and make a link in macedonism.--Vlatko 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but the term is also used in your country with the same meaning.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you make no points. We talk about the different meanings. But you are standing only on one. Why? Do you understand the term? As I see you do not. I realy tried to explain it to you. Lets call someone else in the disscusion please. Do you agree?--Vlatko 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonism again

You constantly revert the article about macedoniasm, the part of the term that points the political meaning, you have to realise that the written one is only bulgarian perseption and that wikipedia is here to inform, such an idea exist not in macedonia, but is a delusion of bulgarians, It must be added and this, "Bulgarian understanding of the term", "Macedonian respond to the bulgarian POV", you cant be so conformistic.--Vlatko 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Any constructive suggestions?   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please add over the part where it is explained one of the political meaning of the term: "Bulgarian POV", it will be the most correct so, not only that, lots of meanings can be aded about, the word by it self gives them, it completly means "everithing related to macedonia, not to be musundrstood, not only to republic of macedonia and its culture, but also and to ancient macedonia in cultural perception.--Vlatko 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's unlikely to happen. All of the 6 points listed are supported by the people in the Republic, so they stay. Do you personally reject any of them? If so which ones? The term is also used by Republicans too. Just google it. Srbinovski is one example.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in wich concept are they supported as such, and by who, do you mean Macedona or Bulgaria. It is stupid to implicate only one's view over all others. Well it is you that relates the term macedonism to Bulgaria then, he only relates macedoniasm as a concept to macedonia and macedonias viewed so "Macedonians throught all the times", if you understand what I mean, he puts not "Bulgaria" in the middle.--Vlatko 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Macedonism is widely used term. See here, here and here. Its primary usage is related to politics and history, and it is a well established concept, in Bulgaria and in the Republic. Macedonism in as cultural and international influence is hardly used.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We do not googalise wikipeda you know, we just inform, the googe numbers are not wikipedia's articles. Even if there is only one different view of a 10000000000000 it must be pointed. I cant get how could you wrote such thing like the one above.--Vlatko 00:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:GT. --Telex 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The world does not revolve around you. Read this: Wikipedia:Google test.   /FunkyFly.talk_   23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis has allready shown it to me times ago, I know what it means, but as it seems you do not. Tell me funky if there is some vilage near Kardjali that is called "Bubigurovo" and it is nowhere to be found in google, than acording to you there shell not be an wikipedia articlle called Bubigurovo, Is it so?.--Vlatko 02:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that it is used in political context very frequently, from both Republican and Bulgarian sides. Other than that, there is nothing to add, and further discussion serves no purpose.   /FunkyFly.talk_   23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary?

Well, primary or secodary, explain to me how do you distinguish what is what, is there some way I do not know to make some clasification like your's. Silly. Here the primary is obvious he macedonian cose there it wont be bulgarian point of view about the term if there was none macedonian culture, maibe the greeks and serbs view different on the creation of the macedonians , and macedonism has different meaning by them. But ok. primary meaning is the one I wrote, the secondary is the one that comes from the macedonian culture, logicaly?--Vlatko 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, as I said, you alone cannot determine what is primary and what not, google it.  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But you did it. The term has a basis and everithing else comes from. The primary one I wrote, you have to agree that it is so. And google you say is how you understand it. This is free enciclopedia not googlepedia.--Vlatko 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Badly sourced, almost an attack page

There are definately multiple meanings:

R Astbury (1967) "Varro and Pompey" - The Classical Quarterly

"... He thinks that as Anaximenes' work was a satire on Greek democracy and anti- Macedonism, so Varro's similarly titled work was a satire on Roman democracy. ... "

FW Walbank (1943) Alcaeus of Messene, Philip V, and Rome (Concluded) - The Classical Quarterly

"... In the earlier period this philo- Macedonism had been the natural policy of the newly liberated Peloponnesian states- Messenia and Arcadia; in the later it was ... "

Although it only has 8 hits in total from Google scholar [2]. Although fourteen results from Google books [3]. And it seems that yes it is used by Macedonians: 'According to extreme Macedonian nationalists, "Slavism" is a destructive doctrine that "aims to eradicate Macedonism completely"' (Danforth 1997) The Macedonian Conflict.

Anyway, do the research yourself. It would hurt to try and write something NPOV in a while. - FrancisTyers · 19:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Any constructive suggestions? Bear in mind that the main section is extensive because it is given due weight because of its present usage.   /FunkyFly.talk_   19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Point out its extremist nature, note that the term is largely used by Bulgarians, and why the term is used by Bulgarians, give some historical background. Just make it less like an all-out-attack. You know you can do it! - FrancisTyers · 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It does say it is used by Bulgarians, and it says it is used as "reaction against alleged attempts at falsification of history by the Republic of Macedonia". Extremist nature - "extreme form of nationalism". As for historical background, I've already given a letter from 1888, and there should be some more. However Republicans and Serbs apparently also use it, and in the same sense. So you cannot simply label it as "Bulgarian POV"   /FunkyFly.talk_   19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The connection

The connection is in the historical doctrine of the Republic.   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what I mean and it is so, if you want to be logical in the artical that relation to RoM, please put and the other meaning of the term. Or explain to me please how is this article in the present form to RoM related. As I see it is related only to Bulgarian "history".--Vlatko 11:08,16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is related to the Republic because of her doctrine, dont pretend you dont know what I am talking about.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Realy? Is that so, It is used in more than one meaning about macedonism, Only Bulgaria uses it officaly in the form presented in the article, not RoM. Critics about the Bulgarian POV might be used in USA and Zimbabwe for example, please ad this land's realtion to.--Vlatko 11:13,16 June 2006 (UTC)

Officially? Can you point sources where it is used by the government? It has colloquial and academic use.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I search for them, "it is so and you know it", The articlle in an macedonian newspaper about "your" macedonism means not a relation to RoM.--Vlatko 11:08,17 June 2006 (UTC)

Google it in Macedonian and see what appears. This discussion is over.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Really, I just did it, and only newspaper articles comed out and some critics, you have not taken time to see the meaning of the google sources, it is enough for you to see the first two lines, this proves everything, it seems you can't understand what I want to explain, I do not like to make an pointles argue with you, think about what I'm saying, lets make some deal, I' tired of this rv, rv, rv... please stop doing this as it is a play.".--Vlatko 11:26,16 June 2006 (UTC)

See the link of "Ratko", which I just added to the article. It is an organization in the Republic. Further comments will be moved to the talk page of the article.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, point me an official history book of Macedonia, where i is mentioned and Ill stop. And please stom idirct implication it gives nothing to as all.--Vlatko 11:31,16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you dont quite comprehend what "related" means. It does not mean "it is used in official textbooks", just it is connected and relevant, albeit as criticism in our case.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratko is an comunity, where is the official support here?" And for the ena, you answered to mine question, it is not related to RoM, think what you've just said, do you want me to ad Masedonian-stub templates to all pirin macedonia articles.--Vlatko 11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do whatever you wish, but there is no guarantee that your edits will stick in the end.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear enogh

It's clear enough that Republicans dont endorse the term.   /FunkyFly.talk_   19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So, why are you reverting? --Cigor 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the term is not limited to whether Bulgarians endorse it or not. It was actually a Serbian invention. Plus many ethnic Macedonians use it with the same meaning.   /FunkyFly.talk_   19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What an utter disapoitment are you, FF. At least User:VMORO had spine to represent Bulgarian views. You on the other hand, are allying with Greeks. Pathetic and pitiful.--Cigor 19:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Macedonism

I am sorry, but you haven't explained why my version is inaccurate or type of vandalism. Otherwise, following your logic, we can make articles about any nation as political ideology. I understand you have to follow Greek agenda, but surely you are not completely out of common sense. Cheers, --Cigor 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case why don't you provide sources for that, especially related to usage in RoM, rather than reverting me? Cheers. --Cigor 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. One is is about the Ratko organization, other is for Srbinovski.   /FunkyFly.talk_   02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to be clearer. The article, as it is, refer to being ethnic Macedonian in RoM as some kind of political ideology, like being a communist or fascist. Now, I understand that maybe this is how this fact is viewed in Bulgaria, but certainly not in RoM. Without clearly stating this is almost exclusive Bulgarian POV, the article distorts reality, like it or not. --Cigor 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Hello? "Then you have to provide sources that it is used more frequently in Bulgaria than in RoM. " The term is almost never used in RoM. Why don’t you prove otherwise? I understand that pursuing Greek agenda can cloud one’s mind, but this is too much…--Cigor 02:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the sources do not support the claim that the term is prevalent in RoM. I mean, if I quote Radule who is a Bulgarian citizen, would that make a justification for an article that state Bulgarisam is a prevalent political ideology in Bulgaria that ...--Cigor 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"..Whether the country's population endorse the term or not has nothing to do with its usage..". Fine, but why not specifying who is using the term? As far I know it only the Bulgarians using this term. Let me quote an old text: "Otkako se pogrciv, mnogu itar stanav". Cheers. --Cigor 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not the first nice thing in the Macedonian language to my address.   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Funky, why dont you try beeing more pragmatic, maybe than you'll start to realise the things better. Realy why do you so blindly believe in the bulgarian and greek history quotes, I'm not saying that all macedonian is true, but not at all believe in your bulgarian and greek statement relating to macedonia. BE realistic for a moment.--Vlatko 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, talking about blind beliefs.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But it is so, you've started such un scepticly relevant article, and Why mine, not your believe is not the blinded one. I'm realy willing to discus about much of the themes, but you sunk every ship.--Vlatko 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Reallity

Why did you reverted an logical and real constatation? I do not agree with you The bulgarian POV about the term to be presented without showing the other part's meaning.--Vlatko 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Claim 1

Text: "The Slav-speaking inhabitants of the contemporary region of Macedonia constitute a separate ethnic group (regardless of their self-determination). A typical Macedonistic statement would be: "Those Slavs live in Macedonia, therefore they are ethnic Macedonians" [citation needed]. In other words, ethnicity is prescribed on a regional basis, rather than being self-expressed. "

When a group of people decide to form a nation or a separate ethnos, this is caled self determination. I understand that to many nationalist, this is a novel concept, but that is how it works. Also " typical Macedonistic statement would be: "Those Slavs live in Macedonia, therefore they are ethnic Macedonians", is a blatant lie.

Therefore, why do I need to suport Claim 1 with a quote?--Cigor 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How come this self-determination does not reflect in the censi?   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Cigor. Why don't we state the electoral performance of the Macedonian Slav political parties, such as the 2,955 votes of Vinozhito in Aegean/Greek Macedonia in the latest elections. You're into using elections as population indicators. --Tēlex 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the quoted sentence is very debatable, but I find it capturing the spirit of the claim very accurately.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Macedonians are/were not recognized in the censi. When they ARE recognized they suddenly popped out in Bulgaria, how do you reconcile that? I mean, if we look at census data in imperial Russia, I sure there many nations omitted. Does that mean they did not exist? --Cigor 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, not recognized. Did you read that in some forum? Care to source your statement?   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where was option in any of those censuses for Macedonians. --Cigor 20:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In 2001 they recorded 5000 of them.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 5000 even under heavy discrimination. But let me ask you, according to you there were no Macedonians or Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia between 1918-41. Were they all Serbs?--Cigor 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You trow accusations left and right, without any sources. If you claim something, present supporting information.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. --Cigor 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no data for censuses in that period. Maybe we can source something? Does it have to do with the region being called "Old Serbia"? The article on Demographic history of Macedonia mentions South Serbs.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure you don't. Here, let me help you: Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Demographics. Oh look at that not a single Bulgarian!? I wonder where they hid. So, what do you think were there Bulgarians or Macedonians between world wars--Cigor 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few "others", and the data does say "grouped by mother tongue". 2+2=? --Tēlex 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few?! 0.58% or 69,878 is quite a few!? Any other group would be less than 0.11% or 12,553. Hahah, your hatred and ignorance is unbelievable... --Cigor 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, see WP:NPA. Secondly, pay exception to the fact that the only legitimate church in Vardar Banovina at that time (and at present, despite what Mr Stephen says) was (and still is) the Serbian Orthodox Church. We know that church affiliation can affect one's self-perception - witness how the Slavic-speaking minority of Greece self-identifies as Greek (with the exception of Vinozhito and their 2,995 voters) and are members of the Greek Orthodox Church; many fought against their co-lingual IMRO and for the Greeks during the Greek Struggle for Macedonia. Not to mention that a serbianation policy had been enacted - this prompted the inhabitants of Vardar Banovina to welcome the Bulgarian occupation at first. Furthermore, we know that Serbian linguists view the Torlakian dialect as a dialect of Serbian (even though it is more similar to standard Bulgarian) - was that view not followed then (and to other Slavic dialects spoken in the area)? For all I know, many could have declared as Serbs (which was what was expected of them). You say the census recorded no Bulgarians. I'd like to see who those "others" were and where they were. --Tēlex 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess South Serbs it was then. It's consistent with other earlier Serbian censi. (late 19th century)   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps just Serbs. --Tēlex 22:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also consistent with the "Serbian Idea", see the letter.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the fact that a Serb coined the term Macedonism? --Tēlex 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That, and their desire to assimilate the native Bulgarian population there.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So to summarize, both of you agree that there were no Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia at that time? Interesting logic. As for "others", the same can be applied for Macedonians. I see there are 1.1% other in Bulgaria. Why don't we consider them as Macedonians. As for WP:NPA, you brought it on yourself. Look at your page, User:Telex. I mean you have claim that "This user tries to maintain the neutrality of articles and abhors POV pushing." but also this: "Корисникот почетнички зборува славомакедонски, бугарскиот дијалект на западна Македонија.". This is either cynicism or stupidity, or both. Because by having the later box you are not maintaining neutrality and you are having POV. By doing that, you are insulting my country, my people, my language and finally me. You are spending your entire day on editing articles against my country. You are probably paid to do that, because a man can't do any real work that spends so much time on Wikipedia. So, then why should I have any respect for you? What do you except from people you are denying basic human rights? There are many wonderful Greeks and Bulgarian here. Heck, even User:VMORO was nice compared to FF and you.--Cigor 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's no excuse for personal attacks or personal remarks. The only basic human right which comes to mind is freedom of speech - something which you don't seem to have a problem restricting. As for the ethnic composition of Vardar Banovina - I'll resort to this. --Tēlex 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. You are probably ill informed, or you are heavily indoctrinated as usual. Noone is arguing the existence of the contemporary ethnic Macedonians. Their (short) history is the focus of the attention.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FF, I understand why are you behaving the way you do. You probably started editing articles with best intentions. But you should accept the responsability that with every your edit you are causing grave resentment of Macedonians toward Bulgaria. Pity. --Cigor 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Many historical sources cause grave resentment in ethnic Macedonians, to the point that resentment looks like their natural state. Nothing can be done about that.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So Cigor, back to claim one. This is what happens. The region of Macedonia is somehow defined. All of the Slavic population becomes ethnic Macedonian, independent of what it was previously. People leaving the region remain ethnic Macedonians. People coming in the region become ethnic Macedonians. I guess if the entire world slavic population passed through the region, there will be nothing but Macedonians left.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Same argument can be made for almost any nation, FF.--Cigor 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to find other nation which defines itself in geographical terms.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about Bulgaria?--Cigor 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about her?   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary?

Just wondering, what's so important with the word not appearing in the Oxford Dictionary, so to be mentioned as the term's first and allegedly most important characteristic? Neither are leet and w00t listed there. 'Macedonism' is a very specific regional neologism, it's not a word you'd hear outside the Balkans topic, so this is expected. You may mention that Oxford Dictionary fact somewhere in the body, but please remove it from the most important part of the intro — it's as irrelevant as saying 'Macedonism is not a cow nor a bottle of Coke'. Todor→Bozhinov 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe because it is Bulgaria's product. It is unknown to Oxford. Bomac 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually Serbian product.   /FunkyFly.talk_   21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It's same to me. Bomac 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Macedonism is just another -ism. You can have NikoSilverism, Bomacism, Telexism, FunkyFlyism you name it. It's one of those Greek endings that go with everything. Check for more -isms (that wouldn't exist in ...Oxford Dict. either) below:

• Bushism
• Blairism
• Turkism
• and ofcourse... Macedonism

So please drop the dictionary quote alltogether from the article coz it means zilt. :NikoSilver: 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarisam

Here you go FF, just for you. Enjoy.

Part1 It goes like this, there is a tribe called Bulgars what forms a state around Danube after successful wars with Byzantine Empire. Its territory expands and reaches its peak under Simeon. Simeon was so powerful, that he proclaims to be Tsar, or an emperor a title available only for Byzantine emperor or HRE. In fact, he wants to replace the Byzantine Empire with a new one, but fails. In the Bulgar state, the Slavs are second-rate citizens, whereas Bulgars are the elite. To make the country more stable they adapt Christianity. There are pressures to revert to paganism as late as 893. Anyway, official Bulgarian view is that by then a new Bulgar-Slavic ethnicity was formed. Let say, for the sake of an argument that is true. Although, some claim that Gagauz people are direct descendant of Bulgars, so the process of assimilation was not completed in that case. Let’s even ignore the fact that Samuil creates a new state far from the traditional center of power of Bulgar boyars – Preslav and Pliska. Anyway, by 1018 Byzantine Empire finally recapture the entire Balkan peninsula.

Part2 It follows long occupation until the revolt in 1185.Now, by now we would think there is well formed nation, even though probably Hellenized at some level. So, who makes the revolt? Contemporary sources (Nicetas Choniates, are mentioning mostly Vlachs, although Kumans also play an important role. In crusaders chronicles the stare is referred as Wlachia. No Bulgarian yet. So what happen next? As any ambitious ruler they are calling on the legacy of the First Bulgarian Empire. So, now we have Bulgaria. Incidentally, there is not a single Bulgarian tsar who is not either with Vlach or Kuman origin, other than one Mongol and Konstantin Tih. After 1280, most of the elite is with Kuman origin. So, just like the first Bulgarian state, here, once again we have foreign elite establishing a state. By the end of the 14th century Ottomans conquered Bulgaria.

Part3 Under Ottomans, Bulgaria changes its religious and ethnic composition significantly. The Ottomans pretty much controls Christian raya trough the Greek church. Now, under Greeks, the word “Bulgarian” has a pejorative meaning: peasant, stupid, vulgar etc. (see B. Primov , Bugrite Sofija 1970 for a complete list). In Bulgaria class and ethnicity overlapped . When Slavs moved into the urban world or became members of the middle classes, they generally shifted their identity to Greek. In Belgrade, for example, Serbian townsmen dressed in the Greek style, the Belgrade newspapers included the rubric Grecia (Greece),and, at least according to Stoianovich (1994: 294), the local Christian“higher strata” were Grecophone until 1840. In South Albania and Greece during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thousands of Orthodox Albanians and Vlachs became completely Hellenized (Skendi 1980:187–204). In the Bulgarian lands, during the second half of the eighteenth century, the domination of cultural life by the ecumenical patriarchate led to the promotion of Grecophone culture in liturgy, archives, and correspondence (Markova 1980).

In 1762, monk Paius writes “Oh, unreasonable people why are you ashamed of your name… “ well, you know the rest. Now let elaborate this. Where does he gets information about Bulgarians? He reads this from some Latin monk translation of a short Greek history of Bulgarian Empires. So it isn’t that there some tales that transfer from generation to generation, no he get this from a foreigner. Anyway, his work is largely ignored until 1820s. At that time most of the intellectuals continued to be Greek, even their greatest prerodbenik Aprilov who was declared Greek. On the other hand, Petar Beron, the author of Fish Primer was declaring himself as – Thracian/Miziec! But none of that matter, because Russia was getting stronger while Turkey was getting weaker, so naturally it aspired to have an access to Mediterranean, and Bulgaria looked logical, from there capturing Constantinople and dismantling Turkish Empire should be easy. So they have sent their agents agitating for Bulgarian cause. It was after their works the whole process gain momentum. Russian first writes a grammar of Bulgarian language. And, after a short and unsuccessful uprising, it is the Russian army that liberates Bulgaria. They want to make large Bulgaria but essentially a Russian province. West complains, Macedonia stays within Turkey, and here we go after 150 years….

So, therefore what are Bulgarians? Slavs, Kumans, Vlahs, Tatars, Thracians, Turks, Gagauz, etc, etc… --Cigor 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And you got this from...?   /FunkyFly.talk_   00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you I wrote it just for you. There goes my time wasted, probably.However, if any of the statement is questionable we can discuss--Cigor 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Awww, you should have started the article, and you have to show that is the primary usage, and not a way to express your personal dislike of all things Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_   00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, why would I do such a cruel thing? How many Bulgarians would be unhappy reading anything else but romantic view of their history? Where woud my karma go? Besides, I don't dislike Bulgarians. We share lot of common stuff, and they have pretty talented people. Actually I am listening to Bulgarian music now and I bet you can't guess it, one to milion. I also have relatives there. They are Bulgarian, I am Macedonian. It is just the nationalists who disregard other peoples, I don't like--Cigor 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think it would be cruel? Isn't it part of your belief system? Or your beliefs are cruel too?   /FunkyFly.talk_   00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)