Talk:Krste Misirkov

Misirkov himself DID NOT CLAIM that the Macedonian ethnicity did not exist

Some anonymous editor started a conversation on my Wikipedia profile page. Here’s the conversation.

Misirkov himself, stated that the Macedonian ethnicity did not exist at this time, and most of the people called themselves Bulgarians, but it could be created, if the historical circumstances called for it.

The sentence has been taken from the context. When read it (i.e. with the following paragraph), the meaning becomes clear:

Many people will ask themselves, "what kind of national separatism are we talking about? Is the suggestion then that a new Macedonian nationality be created? Such a thing would be artificial and, as such, would only last from daybreak till noon. But what of a new (i.e. Macedonian) nationality, when we, our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfather called themselves Bulgarians? Have the Macedonians in their history ever found any outward form of political and spiritual expression? How did they behave towards the other Balkan nationalities and vice versa?...The first objection — that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed — may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise... The emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people is a perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slav group... Thus, under the present political conditions, the loss of Macedonia for Bulgaria is no less justifiable than was the loss of Serbia for Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. And just as the loss of Serbia in the political sense inevitably resulted in a loss in the national sense, so too the fragmentation of San Stefano Bulgaria will bring an ethnographic division in the train of the political division. Circumstances create cultural and national ties between people, but circumstances can also split close connections... The context is clear: Macedonian nationality was nonexisting, and did never exist before, but the political situation of separation between Bulgaria and Macedonia was crucial for the transformation of the Macedonian Slavs into a separate entity.78.159.147.70 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Misirkov stated WHAT OTHERS MAY SAY, and repeated it:

After all that has been said so far, many may say: It may be true that there was no Macedonian nation so far, and that nation may be created in time, especially in the current historic circumstances; it is true that Macedonians judged by their language cannot be neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, but are something distinct, i.e. they represent a distinct ethnographic unit, but how can we now name ourselves Macedonians and create a separate Macedonian nation, when we, our fathers, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers named ourselves Bulgarians? We can’t abandon that, since that name is holy to as much as our faith is.

BUT HE THEN EXPLAINED WHY HE THINKS THAT’S WRONG: “Let’s see if this is so.” Iordan666 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources added to the text clearly confirm opinion expressed in the text and it differs from your opinion. However, Wikipedia does not admit POV. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not my opinion, I just cite what Misirkov HIMSELF STATED. Iordan666 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The whole text of On the Macedonian matters Iordan666 (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Iordan666 (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Secondary academic sources are more reliable. There, researchers who analyzed Misirkovs work have revealed another view:

• Misirkov speaks, for instance, of the relations between "the Macedonian peoples" [makedonckite narodi], of the "convergence of interests of all Macedonian peoples." The term "nation" appears rarely and is contrasted to the term "nationality": e.g., Misirkov suggests that, in Macedonia, there are many "nationalities" [nacionalnosti], while "a distinct Macedonian Slavic nation [naciia]" does not yet exist (p. 46). This usage actually implies that the "nation" is seen as a political phenomenon of a "higher" degree, transcending a multiplicity of actual ethnic and/or confessional particularities. We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europeр, Diana Mishkova, Central European University Press, ISBN 96397762892009, р. 133.
• Misirkov lamented that "no local Macedonian patriotism" existed and would have to be created. He anticipated that Macedonians would respond to his proposal with a series of baffled questions: "What sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we, and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?...Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, and it does not exist now"... Misirkov answered by observing that national loyalties change with time: "What has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise.. Misirkov in short wanted, the Ottoman state to promote Macedonian nation-building, calling for “official recognition". Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2008, ISBN 3825813878, p. 138.
• Misirkov makes it clear at several points that this new Macedonian nation is to be created and it does not yet exist. Sundry Macedonias, Alexander Mark Maxwell, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1998, pp. 50-51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.201.81 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: Misirkov suggested that a distinct Macedonian Slavic nation did not exist then, but can be created and called to the Ottoman state to promote a Macedonian nation-building process. 149.62.201.15 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Those interpretations are wrong, because Misirkov HIMSELF EXPLICITLY SAYS: we are now acquainted with the fact that Macedonia WAS, IS and can represent a separate ethnographic unit. The passage is about the views of Misirkov, what HE HAS SAID, not how someone else interpret him. Iordan666 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong my friend. Maybe you need to read academic secondary sources.

• ...Misirkovs book will be widely cited in the 20th and the 21th centuries by all historians in the R. Macedonia as a clear indication of the existance of a separate Macedonian ethnicity. However, they ignored the fact that Misirkov abandoned his ideas and in 1910 in the Bulgarian Almanac, as well as in his memoirs, he clearly indicated his Bulgarian ethnic identity.... Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, pp. 66-67. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This part of the article is about the book, not about what will have happened 10 years later. That’s another subject. As we can see, the title of the book chapter is Can Macedonia turn itself into a separate ethnographical and political unit? Has it already done so? Is it doing so now?, and Misirkov’s conclusion is: we are now acquainted with the fact that Macedonia WAS, IS and can represent a separate ethnographic unit. Iordan666 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, we can’t use Bulgarian sources. It’s obvious that the Bulgarian authors are prejudiced, maybe tendentious and aren’t enough competent for this issue, because their interpretations are completely opposite of what Misirkov actually wrote in the book. Iordan666 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, Klaus Roth and Ulf Brunnbauer are not Bulgarians. Stop deleting academic views. 212.5.158.34 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

abe da vi imam problemite :)

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)

For us, it is Aegean Macedonia. Something can have two names. Besides, when the Greek nation first appeared in the 19th century (as we know it today), the Aegean part was not in it. Please remember that. 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2022 (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).

Why are the admins of this site so blind to the whole concept of Bulgaria and Greece being afraid of a Kosovo-like situation on their territory? Except without the war. Can we have international observers come to the Aegean part and Pirin part AND ask the people there instead of regurgitating 100 year old propaganda? 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Indeed, the linguistic analysis of his work (I have three large books about his work) state incredible similarity even with the Standard Macedonian language. Furthermore, his magazine Vardar is so close to the Macedonian Standard, that some minor elements differ. Once a person reads the book and his works, (s)he can state that it is not Bulgarian. I cannot say the same thing about Petar Pop Arsov's book "Stambolovshtinata vo Makedonija", which is a book written in Bulgarian by a Macedonian revolutionary. This time, in "On the Macedonian matters" and "Vardar" magazine, the things are quite clear.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Further to the original conversation topic, I'm changing the tag to 'mk' — the Western Macedonian dialects (which Misirkov mentions explicitly in the book itself) are universally considered just that, Macedonian. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Argh, beaten to it! It was nice to chat, lads. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Misirkov's most popular thought in BG

You have put this quote, supportingly said by Misirkov:

We (the Macedonians) are Bulgarians more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria.

I found the oroginal Bulgarian text in the link you gave and found this:

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.

or in English (Google translate, sorry for mistakes, if any):

But this is dealt cries of the Macedonians themselves: we are Bulgarians, more Bulgarians than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria ... Ye you can beat Bulgaria, and to enforce whatever you like their contracts, but this does not change our belief, our mind, that ye are not Serbs, that we, now we are told Bulgarians, as is said today and we want to to say in the future.

From the quote you can see that it is not Misirkov's thought, but he paraphrases what others said. This is a discussion that we already had in the past. Who has taken it out of context?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus, if you take a look at the original text, you can see that the whole sentence quoted above is in italics which means it is not his own thought. You have to find another one, this one is not Misirkov's own thought.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not in Italic: [6]. Jingby (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Misirkov as a Macedonian Bulgarian in the Diary from 1913

There is a claim that Misirkov remained in Bulgaria where he got Bulgarian citizenship and this is in tight connection with his "Diary", where he named himself as "Macedonian Bulgarian", which means Macedonian with Bulgarian citizenship in political sense. However, this statement is extremly dibious. He wrote the diary in 1913, but became Bulgarian citizen in 1919. This is a nonsence. The added source provides several opinions of macedonian historians before the publication of the book, i.e. that opinions are preliminar. After it's publication the Macedonian schoolarship recognised the Bulgarianism of Misirkov. Verify: Please, remove this claim. Jingby (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I corrected it, but still it is the Macedonian position. However, your word "obvious" is totally against all academic norms of neutral words (not writing) and it is very subjective. To make it simple, as you said, in Bulgaria it is "obvious" that he is Bulgarian, but on the other side it is obvious in Macedonia too that he was Macedonian according to most of his articles, magazine and book. You should avoid these type of words to eliminate the possibility of edit warring since if I start using words of that kind the article would be mass. And again, remember, we are not here to convince anyone to particular idea and that is very important. Regs.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Stan, stop adding categories that are not acceptable. We discussed and agreed not to mention nationality, so there is not nationality in the infobox, in the introduction and in the categories. I'll ask some admins if you continue with this edit warring. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please check MacDermortt p. 86: The Young Macedonian Literary Association's Journal, Loza, [15] was also categorical about the Bulgarian character of Macedonia: 'A mere comparison of those ethnographic features which characterize the Macedonians (we understand: Macedonian Bulgarians), with those which characterize the free Bulgarians, their juxtaposition with those principles for nationality which we have formulated above, is enough to prove and to convince everybody that the nationality of the Macedonians cannot be anything except Bulgarian. And the identity of these features has also long ago been established and confirmed by . impartial science: only the blind and the enemies of Bulgaria's future can fail to see the multiplex unity which prevails among the population from the Drim [*] to the Black Sea and from the Danube to the Aegean.' [16]. Also her comment # 15: Some historians in Skopje have attempted to present the Young Macedonian Literary Association and Loza as manifestations of Macedonian separatism, of the awakening of a 'Macedonia' national conciousness which rejects Bulgaria. That such a view can be advanced only by those who have not read the journal, or who bank on others not having done so, will be obvious to those who take the trouble to read it. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again. Check also the new added specialized source, please: "Though Loza adhered to the Bulgarian position on the issue of the Macedonian Slavs' ethnicity, it also favored revising the Bulgarian orthography by bringing it closer to the dialects spoken in Macedonia." Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 241. Jingiby (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to judge that one source is not relevant? I think the sources you gave are not relevant as well. Regarding the Lozars, you forget one thing. Only the first two editions were wrote by Macedonians, the rest were Bulgarians (or Macedonian Bulgarians as you say). Soon after the magazine's first editions written in Macedonian the Bulgarian government banned it and installed pro-Bulgarian authors. I am adding Macedonians back. Misirkov is not reliable (who witnessed the situation) and the authors from 21 century who cite Bulgarian authors are reliable. Well done!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All sources I have added are secondary, both even academic. No primary soureces, please. Jingiby (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And what about this irony: you can freely add Bulgarian authors and their books, but when I add Macedonian you ask for third-party source. Should you remove Bechev and Diana M? Do you see the irony? I have plenty of Macedonian sources, but I am not using them. And remember, we discuss about who founded the Association, not what they did. That should be mentioned in the article about the Ass.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Stan, please stop your nationalistic games. Everything you edited is referenced and you cannot change it. The book says Macedonian, not the stupid construction "Central Macedonian dialect". He was not even the first one who wrote on Central dialect, he wrote in Macedonian instead. Separation of Macedonian nation? Who stated previously that it was part of Bulgarian? Many, as you call "early Macedonists" claimed before Misirkov that Macedonians are not Bulgarians, including Draganov, Sarafov, Pulevski, etc. I really do not understand how you understand a language. Codification of a language does not mean it did not existed previously. Where did you get the idea? Did Bulgarian existed prior its standardization? Or Serbian before Karadzic's standardization? Forget those ideas. Best --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy you know Etnic Macedonians did not exist as separate ethnos at the eve of the 20th century. Lozars had somehow different linguistic but not separatist ideas in ethnic sense. Misirkov was an switching exception. The sources, you have provided do not confirm national separation. Please, stop with nationalistic POV. Please, chech the source below:

• "During the 20th century, Slavo-Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127.
• "Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236.
• "Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen. "The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67.
• "At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66.
• Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. "The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war."
• " Macedonian historiography often refers to the group of young activists who founded in Sofia an association called the ‘Young Macedonian Literary Society’. In 1892, the latter began publishing the review Loza [The Vine] which promoted certain characteristics of Macedonian dialects. At the same time, the activists, called ‘Lozars’ after the name of their review, ‘purified’ the Bulgarian orthography from some rudiments of the Church Slavonic. They expressed likewise a kind of Macedonian patriotism attested already by the first issue of the review: its materials greatly emphasized identification with Macedonia as a genuine ‘fatherland’. In any case, it is hardly surprising that the Lozars demonstrated both Bulgarian and Macedonian loyalty: what is more interesting is namely the fact that their Bulgarian nationalism was somehow harmonized with a Macedonian self-identification that was not only a political one but also demonstrated certain ‘cultural’ contents. "We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe", Diana Miškova, Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, p. 120.
• " The group was publishing the Loza magazine, which Yugoslav Macedonian historians have identifyed as an early platform of Macedonian linguistic separatism. Though Loza adhered to the Bulgarian position on the issue of the Macedonian Slavs' ethnicity, it also favored revising the Bulgarian orthography by bringing it closer to the dialects spoken in Macedonia." Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 241.
• "The Young Macedonian Literary Association's Journal, Loza, was also categorical about the Bulgarian character of Macedonia: "A mere comparison of those ethnographic features which characterize the Macedonians (we understand: Macedonian Bulgarians), with those which characterize the free Bulgarians, their juxtaposition with those principles for nationality which we have formulated above, is enough to prove and to convince everybody that the nationality of the Macedonians cannot be anything except Bulgarian." Freedom or Death, The Life of Gotsé Delchev, Mercia MacDermott, The Journeyman Press, London & West Nyack, 1978, p. 86.
• "The Bulgarian historians, such as Veselin Angelov, Nikola Achkov and Kosta Tzarnushanov continue to publish their research backed with many primary sources to prove that the term 'Macedonian' when applied to Slavs has always meant only a regional identity of the Bulgarians. "Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 112.Jingiby (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You can list as many Bulgarian sources and Bulgarian-influenced sources as you want, but still it does not prove anything. I did not add that sentence, it is in the article since the creation of the article itself. It means it is acceptable and supported by the community. The fact that only one user wanted to disparage the Macedonian nation and language is not worth talking about. You are off topic Jingi.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And Jingi, read what you have written: "Lozars had somehow different linguistic but not separatist ideas in ethnic sense. Misirkov was an switching exception. The sources, you have provided do not confirm national separation.". Are you aware what you have written? The founders of Loza were officially accused of separatism, national separatism, by the Bulgarian government and Stambolov. National separatism goes with the language - it's a fact. Read more please, especially Stambolovshtinata vo Makedonija. This discussion looks like forum discussion, I do not plan to argue about history here. Both thesis are in the article and that's the end of the story. My last concern was Stan's edits, which were unencyclopedic and POV --MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you do not provide reliable sources confirming ethnic separatism of the Lozars in 1903, I am going to rewrite the text. Jingiby (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I already did. What do you understand by "Macedonian separatism" as it is mentioned in one of the sources I gave? And how serious is the claim that there was "language separatism" but not "national separatism". I am hearing about this division for the first time. Give me another example where a group of people fought for the separate X language but were not X nationality? Stop the game please.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed any ethnic designation before the Lozari. Jingiby (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree as long as this decision is respected by all editors. And once again, I beg Stan and Alisia to stop with those unacceptable edits about the language and nationality since we agreed about those issues long time ago and those statements are generally acceptable in the academic circles, supported by sources. Best Jingi.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian language/dialect & Misirkov

• Regarding the "first book and scientific magazine in Macedonian" - in the first source it's stated just "Macedonian", in the second Misirkov himself has classified the texts as written in "Central Macedonian dialect", the third source is dead link, so I left the more detailed information about the classification. The Macedonian language is established in 1944. All before that is just dialects in the different areas of the region of Macedonia.
• Regarding the "where he for the first time outlined the principles of the literary Macedonian language." The first source supports the statement, the second source supports the claim that the literary Macedonian language is based on the Central Macedonian dialects and that they are chosen because of Misirkov`s manifesto. The third source on the other hand denies the claim. Here's what it says "The language planners involved in the codification of the standard literary Macedonian in 1944, however were working in complete ignorance of Misirkov's work, since most of the copies of "On the Macedonain matters" had been confiscated and destroyed..." (Frieadman). So Friedman absolutely denies involving Misirkov's work in the later established Macedonian language. You can't support information, when the source claims right the opposite. What can be confirmed by the sources is that the standard literary Macedonian language is based on the Central Macedonian dialect - which all sources confirm. --StanProg (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard of secondary sources? Stan, get over your issues about the Macedonian and stop with that codification. I explained you everything above, but you did not care to explain. Misirkov is not the first to write on Central Macedonian dialect, one example before him is Cepenkov. So, what you wrote is...--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro. He is not only considered as the greatest Macedonian in Macedonia, I have given you one English-language source. Second, that incomprehendible sentance about Macedonian separatism and Bulgarian patriotism, you do not have to repeat same thing twice in the intro. I know what you want to achieve, but it is childish. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Misirkov is very clear, by pointing that it's written in "Central Macedonian dialect" (iас и iе написаф на централното македонцко наречiе), which in plain English means "I wrote it in Central Macedonian dialect". Which one of the Misirkov sentence you do not understood or have another interpretation of? If you think, that some statement needs a source, do not vandalize it, but request a source with the template "fact" and such will be provided. It is not a good idea to provide a source for every word, but if such is needed I will gladly provide it. You can't prove your point of view by deleting statements. --StanProg (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Macedonian language was CODIFIED in 1944, of the many Macedonian dialects. Even Misirkov himself says "central MACEDONIAN dialects", not "Bulgarian dialects". 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

POV and Original reserach

What have you reverted:

1. an attempt to solve the dispute (according to well respected sources, neither my point of view, neither yours), but you reverted it (according to your POV)
2. deleted sources that support the notion that he is the most prominent Macedonian author and founder of Macedonian literary language (secondary source)
3. you brought back and information that is mentioned three times in the introduction (you overload the intro)
4. Manisfesto is only the last article of the book, not the whole book (make difference)
5. you removed the goals of the magazine and the full quotes of the magazine cited by you. Either cite the whole thing, otherwise do not take out of context as you are used to do.

So, please stop playing around. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you see what you revert? Are you aware of it? We do not argue about the dialects any more, they are not even mentioned. God...--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Stan's POV

Krste Petkov Misirkov (Bulgarian: Кръстьо Петков Мисирков; Macedonian: Крсте Петков Мисирков) (born 18 November 1874 in Postol, Ottoman Empire (today Pella, Greece); died 26 July 1926 in Sofia, Kingdom of Bulgaria) was a philologist, slavist, historian, ethnographer, publicist author of the first book and scientific magazine in Central Macedonian dialect[1][2][3], on which dialect is based the later established (August 2, 1944) literary Macedonian language.[4][5][6] In the Republic of Macedonia he is considered one of the most outstanding names in the Macedonian culture and history.[7] Outside the Republic of Macedonia, Misirkov is considered a controversial figure with his "Macedonian separatism" and "Bulgarian patriotism" in different periods of his life. A huge part of is work is central to the Balkan politics and the Macedonian question, including the development of Macedonian linguistic and political/national separatism[8] (On the Macedonian matter, Vardar magazine), the issue of the existence of a Macedonian nation distinct from the Bulgarian nation and the Bulgaria–Russia relations. He published one book (manifesto), one magazine and over thirty articles. However, at different points in his life, Misirkov expressed conflicting statements about the ethnicity of the Slavic population living in Macedonia, including his own ethnicity, calling them Bulgarians, Macedonians or Macedonian Bulgarians respectively. As a result, both his ethnic attachment and legacy remains a matter of dispute among some historians from Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia.

Neutral POV

Krste Petkov Misirkov (Bulgarian: Кръстьо Петков Мисирков; Macedonian: Крсте Петков Мисирков) (born 18 November 1874 in Postol, Ottoman Empire (today Pella, Greece); died 26 July 1926 in Sofia, Kingdom of Bulgaria) was a philologist, slavist, historian, ethnographer, publicist author of a book and a scientific magazine where he called for separate Macedonian identity and for a Macedonian language based on the Central Macedonian dialects[1][2][3]. He is considered one of the most outstanding names in the Macedonian culture and history[4] and "the founder of modern Macedonian literary language"[5]. A huge part of is work is central to the Balkan politics and the Macedonian question, including the development of Macedonian linguistic and political/national separatism[6] , the issue of the existence of a Macedonian nation distinct from the Bulgarian nation and the Bulgaria–Russia relations. He published one book, one magazine and over thirty articles. However, at different points in his life, Misirkov expressed conflicting statements about the ethnicity of the Slavic population living in Macedonia, including his own ethnicity, calling them Bulgarians, Macedonians or Macedonian Bulgarians respectively. As a result, both his ethnic attachment and legacy remains a matter of dispute among some historians from Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia.

Neutral POV (neutral sources)

He is considered one of the most outstanding names in the Macedonian culture and history and "the founder of modern Macedonian literary language".

Stan's POV (non-neutral sources)

In the Republic of Macedonia he is considered one of the most outstanding names in the Macedonian culture and history. Outside the Republic of Macedonia, Misirkov is considered a controversial figure with his "Macedonian separatism" and "Bulgarian patriotism" in different periods of his life.

He emphasizes that the book is separatist, one time is enough. Also goes for the ethnic background (he uses it three times in the intro and overloads the intro)

Quotes out of context

In the magazine Misirkov shares his concern that most, if not the largest part of the Macedonian intelligentsia would be against the magazine and its program, opposing the Macedonian national separatism. He also believes that the common people will (also) be against Vardar and his associates, the national separatists'.

But the full quotes are:

Regarding the opponents of the the magazine, Misirkov shares his concern that part of the Macedonian intelligentsia would be against "Vardar" and its program, because all Macedonian, opponents of the Macedonian national separatism, are convinced, that with money in Macedonia a man can create out of our Macedonians not only Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek or Macedonian, but even Gypsy nationality He also believes that the common people will (also) be against Vardar and his associates, the national separatists, because the idea of the separatists, is hard to be understood by the common people, which is faced up with different kinds of prechments and new ideas'.

He removes the goals of the magazine, which can be found in the source he provided. Also, he insists that the book is manifesto (he read something in the Google Book), but manifesto is only the last article of the book. Again, this is only his POV, not neutral. He has a history of Bulgarizing this article, which I and Jingi try to neutralize it.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't "solve dispute" by vandalizing other contributors edits, or make fun of them. If you need to discuss something, do it at the talk page. I will be glad to discuss every single edit. The whole "work" is called manifesto in most of the sources. Some researchers call it "pamphlet", but manifesto is more neutral. The last article is not called manifesto, but "Some words on the Macedonian literary language". The goals can be added in some form, but the content that you added does not correspond to the text in the magazine. Example

* The Editorial (which I quoted): most, if not the largest part of the Macedonian intelligentsia

* Your interpretation: part of the Macedonian intelligentsia

Above you can see that you've removed the most important part, where he sates "most, if not the largest part". There is a big difference, because Misirkov states that most of the intelligentsia (the intelligent people) and the common people will be against the "Macedonian national separatist", as he considers himself. Note that among the society there are 2 basic groups (intelligentsia and common people), so what he fears is that this magazine and the ideas will be supported by a minority group of Macedonians (people of the geographical region of Macedonia) - the national separatists t.e. the one that consider and fight for separate Macedonian nation, from the Bulgarian nation.

Feel free to discuss every single edit or even a word and we can come to e common solution, that is most neutral regarding different views of different researches of Misirkov's works and biography as a whole. --StanProg (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Stan, read the magazine and see what you wrote and what you reverted me. First please read it. I gave you link. You can revert yourself now. You cannot revert everything for only one word, you can fix it. Bring back the NPOV. Plus as you can see above, I am the only one who talks here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, do me a favor and translate in English the following statement: Најпосле по големиот, аке не речеме најголемиот, дел од македонската интелегенција ќе биде против „Вардар“ and compare it with "But the full quotes are" part. --StanProg (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, add it. Why did you delete the rest of the quotes and the goals of the magazine?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, the magazine section is done. Let's see the intro. Why did you revert the NPOV? Have you seen mine POV in it? It was a neutral proposal--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

These parts are concerned and need to be solved:

1. the whole introduction
2. constant usage of separatist and manifesto
3. adding the book and the magazine in brackets.

You do not need the brackets and manifesto (of the Macedonian literary language) is only the last article of the book.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This "As a result, both his ethnic attachment and legacy remains a matter of dispute among some historians from Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia." is the same as "Misirkov is considered a controversial figure with his "Macedonian separatism" and "Bulgarian patriotism" in different periods of his life." Where outside? I gave a source (non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian) where he is considered as founding father of Literary Macedonian and he is in fact considered as the greatest person in Macedonian culture in history. Who will consider him outside? I am restoring the NPOV intro. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's assume that you haven't seen it. I added just the first part of the quote, because I considered it more important. I returned the edits, most of which were unexplained, removing sources, and adding biased information, so we can discuss it and put the article in the previous state, before your multiple edits. This way we can discuss it here, and add what is needed. Let's start with the Vardar magazine quotes (more detailed) and the magazine goals. I'll try to offer a solution with bigger quote and the goals. Give me 10-15 minutes after this edit to be able to formulate them with less words than quoting the all the information from the intro article and to be precise enough. --StanProg (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, what's more important, what Misirkov said (direct quote) or how you paraphrase it? The magazine now is fine. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And, what should we do? Is the current version OK? If it is, then we should remove the tags.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Stan, do you mind answering the questions?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We should work on the article. No, it's not OK. It's still too messy. --StanProg (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Like what? Do you mind talking? Reordering the things is not the issue here. Also I do not plan wasting my whole day here. Speak and let's see what we need to fix. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't review the whole article including the sources in 10 minutes. You've put those templates, do with them as you wish. I have more work to do on the article anyway. --StanProg (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, avoid 'conclusive words' like: deny, prove, concludes, ect. Those words are not used if you try to be neutral. Also the section is about MK POV, and that sentence is for BG POV. Have you seen MK POV in BG POV section? That's the reason for existing two point of views, MK and BG. So, stop reverting.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we done with these five points mentioned at the beginning of this section? If we are, I should remove the tags. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What means "done"? The article will constantly being improved. This is not "final version". I'll work on it at least in the next few days. If you think that the tags are not needed remove them. --StanProg (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you keep changing the intro, quotes and the rest of the three points, according to your own personal beliefs, then the tags will remain. If they remain as they are now, the tags are not needed, since the tags are for these five issues. Neither mine, nor yours, neutral.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about a reference

Hey, guys, nice edit-war you've got under way there. I'd like to ask some things about a rather overused source. Who is Giorgio Nurigianni? A text of his, quoted as a whole in a rather odd site, is used to source a number of pretty bold statements in the text. Does anyone have an idea about Mr Nurigianni? I failed to locate him anywhere (not via any sort of Google search). Was his work peer reviewed? And why is such a large portion of his book available online? Isn't it a copyright violation? I am thinking about removing the source altogether unless someone comes with some details on this work. Even its title sounds too POVish, not to mention the text itself.--Laveol ^T 16:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Which ref is that?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Now I see. He's Italian, a writer and scholar of the Balkan affairs. The books is not online, you have to buy it. The biography provided by him was part of the anniversary project (they started the web page, the statue, conferences, etc.). Google Books. I think he took part in the project, but I'm not sure.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've checked about him this morning. He's a publicist and highly controversial figure regarding the Macedonian question. He turned his positions on 180 degrees in 1966 and started to support the ideas of Macedonism. Highly unreliable source, but he is not used in the article anyway. --StanProg (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because he does not support the BG POV he is unreliable? ;) The Biography provided on misirkov.org.mk is not by the Italian, but by the Foundation Misirkov.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. So is this text his and if not - whose is it? If it is his, then who is he? I saw nothing about his credibility. Is he an actual scholar? As I already pointed out, the title alone is going too far. --Laveol ^T 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the book, and I was wrong when I said that the Foundation wrote the text. The text is by the Italian scholar (scans). I do not see any reasons why we shouldn't use the ref. The facts are the same as any other book about Misirkov. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't find anything proving the credibility of the author or the publishing house. Could you provide some info on any of them? --Laveol ^T 15:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have, but the online articles/ news/ activities cannot be found since A1 was shut down "according to the law" (A1 and the foundation had close relations and one member of the Ramkovski family was in charge of the foundation [or close friend of theirs]). At the moment I cannot find such online materials. The fact is that Foundation exists, they put the Misirkov monument on Pella Square in Skopje, organizes conferences, lectures, published books, etc. Still, there is a contact on the webpage, you can find it at the bottom. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And how would that prove his credibility since there is no evidence outside of A1? It increasingly sounds like an unreliable and non-credible source. And, mind you, as I already pointed out - it is used to back up some quite bold statements. --Laveol ^T 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The same things can be found in the Georgi's Literature of the Macedonian language and many other sources.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any other source, but this one. So, you agree it is not suitable? --Laveol ^T 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Laveol, I want to apologize. I was wrong about the name of the foundation. It was several years ago and I quite forgot the facts. The foundation is Foundation Ramkovski (Foundation Misirkov was founded in Greece). Here is a link of the foundation, their activities, activities regarding Misirkov, etc. This foundation opened the web site. I wouldn't agree with you about the source, though.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) That is all very nice. But I'll ask again: Is the author a scholar? And, if he is, is there any proof of it? --Laveol ^T 17:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe we are misled by a wrong spelling of the scholar's surname (Nurigianni > Nurigiani).

• 11.700 hits about the author.
• Nurigiani's bibliography
• Nurigiani's biography
• Nurigiani's on a Bulgarian site
• One paragraph about Nurigiani's work regarding Bulgarian-Italian relations

So far I did not found any other scholar/ publicist/ author with such name. It must be him. He wrote about Macedonia and Bulgaria and he is quite reliable from what I saw so far. I would not take in mind those stories "he was pro-Bulgarian, he was pro-Macedonian". He published about the Balkan policies.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian person with a Bulgarian citizenship

It seems that we'll have to discuss every single word - no problem with me.

• Macedonian historians and linguists argue that it means nothing but a Macedonian person with a Bulgarian citizenship

The fact that he has declared as Bulgarian Macedonian years, before gaining a Bulgarian citizenship denies the "Macedonian historians and linguist" claim. The National Macedonian Archive confirmed that he has declared Bulgarian Macedonian in 1913 (if not earlier), while he is still with Russian citizenship. He got Bulgarian one after march 1919, which means at least 6 years after that. --StanProg (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should I discuss it? That's the theory of the Macedonian authors. Discuss it with them. Here we give what's the POV of both sides. I am not arguing about this, otherwise there are a lot of questionable statements and arguments of the Bulgarian authors. We are not reviewing their work, are we?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not telling that this is not POV of the Macedonian historians and linguists. As you can see their POV is provided. What I added is a proof that the facts deny their theory. If their theory is right, then he would identify himself as "Macedonian Russian" in 1913, while having a Russian citizenship and not having a Bulgarian one yet. --StanProg (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Stan, we do not reject, or try to deny each POV, do you get it? We provide them as they are. Otherwise what's the point of having two separate sections: BG and MK POV. What you gave is better for the Biography section, regarding his work in Bessarabia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

When a POV is denied by clear evidence (like the fact that the Earth is not flat, but spherical), it should be (at least) noted. Unless Misirkov owned a time machine, which is highly doubtful. --StanProg (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note it, but not emphasize it. what about adding "even though he declared himself as Bulgarian Macedonian prior he gained Bulgarian citizenship"?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

When the theory that the Earth is flat is denied, should we just "note it" or "emphasize on it" that this is not possible, because the clear facts state the opposite? --StanProg (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalisms again

In the following edit summary [7] MacedonainBoy claims that he is "moving the whole sentence", but in fact he vandalized/erased it. Was that intentional or just a mistake? --StanProg (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you wrote the same thing in BG POV, just before my edit? I just moved the sources, the text was the same.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not the same thing at all. It just partial information, which does not deny the fact, that the Macedonian historians and linguists can't be right, because clear facts indicate that this can't be the case. --StanProg (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Really?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro's NPOV questionable

I have rewritten partly the intro to NPOV, using two academic sources in support of my edit, avoiding the emphasis of both, pro-Macedonian and pro-Bulgarian activities of Misirkov. Jingiby (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw this quote "there's no Bulgarian who is not interested in the situation and fate of that part of our homeland, which continue to groan under the yoke of the tyrant" and this is an argument that Misirkov considered teh Macedonians as Bulgarians. I read the letter (and as much as I understood) no where in the letter indicates that he thinks Macedonians when he states "Bulgarians". This "At that time Misirkov still considers the Slavic population of Macedonia and Thrace as Bulgarian" should be removed in this case. Am I wrong?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Plus Stan is over emphasizing the same thing: "he said I am Bulgarian here, he said I am Bulgarian there", ect. For every second sentence I have pro-Macedonian one extracted from him articles and book. Am I doing it? No. I'm not overemphasizing where and how he said he was Macedonian or similar things. If Stan continues like this, I'will start adding quotes from Misirkov about his Macedonian ethnicity and how and where he glorified himself as a great Macedonian (if that's the point of Wikipedia's articles, proving how someone is the greatest Bulgarian or Macedonian).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Misirkov there is one important thing that need to be clarified very well. And this is how during the years his view for the Slavic population of Macedonia switched between Bulgarian and separate Macedonian including his pro-Bulgarian and anti-Bulgarian (pro-Macedonian) writings. The point is not to prove if he is great Bulgarian or Macedonian. I've never said that he is great Bulgarian and do not believe he actually is. He's a controversial person. There are periods of his life where he at the same time wrote pro-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian articles - the second one under a pseudonym. The quote in my second sentence is not required as far as it's specified that in that period he considered himself Bulgarian, he was part of the Bulgarian studentship and as a member of the Bulgarian Student Society. This is important, because only 3 years later, he wrote his only book/pamphlet/manifesto with the starting stage of his ideas to separate the Macedonians from Bulgarians politically & linguistically. Fell free to change that as far as the information that is provided via the quote is preserved, because it's important. --StanProg (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Choice of sources

The sources cited in this article ought to be reviewed. What's striking is that we have an article about a Macedonian nationalist from the early 20th century, yet Sperling et al. (2003) says, "In the early twentieth century, there was no separate Slavic Macedonian identity". On the other hand we have many other Macedonian nationalists who were active in the early 20th and late 19th centuries such as Pulevski (1817 – 1895), Čupovski (1878 – 1940), Aleksa Popov (1809 – 1912), Grupčev (1848 – 1907), Dedov (1869 – 1914), Naum Evro (active in the late 19th century), Konstantinovič (1881 – 1918), Temko Popov (1855 – 1929) and so forth. And then we have Motyl (2000; cited in Association of Serbo-Macedonians) who says, "Macedonian nationalism emerged in the 1860s [...]". Does Sperling et al. (2003) elaborate further on this? --203.59.88.42 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Context

Misirkov himself, stated that the Macedonian ethnicity did not exist at this time, and most of the people called themselves Bulgarians, but it could be created, if the historical circumstances called for it.

The quote in the citation has been taken out of context. To say that On the Macedonian Matters is anything but a Macedonian nationalist manifesto is ridiculous. When read in context (i.e. with the following paragraph), the meaning becomes clear:

Many people will ask themselves, "what kind of national separatism are we talking about? Is the suggestion then that a new Macedonian nationality be created? Such a thing would be artificial and, as such, would only last from daybreak till noon. But what of a new (i.e. Macedonian) nationality when we, our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfather called themselves Bulgarians? Have the Macedonians in their history ever found any outward form of political and spiritual expression? How did they behave towards the other Balkan nationalities and vice versa?"

In this article I will endeavour to answer these and many other similar questions and, in doing so,—and to the best of my ability—attempt to explain the scientific basis of national separatism and point out the inaccuracies of these objections posed by its opponents who seek to discredit it as something artificial.

Misirkov treats Balkan nationhood as new ("Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian nations from an [original] South Slavic group"), but nevertheless sees it as a natural process ("the national self-consciousness and revival of the Macedonian Slavs is very normal and understandable"). He is equally critical of those Macedonian Slavs who jumped on the Serbian and Bulgarian bandwagons, and Serbian and Bulgarian nationalists who are trying to win over the Macedonian Slavs. --203.158.41.93 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

...The first objection — that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed — may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise...The emergence of the Macedonians as a separate Slav people is a perfectly normal historical process which is quite in keeping with the process by which the Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian peoples emerged from the South Slav group...Thus, under the present political conditions, the loss of Macedonia for Bulgaria is no less justifiable than was the loss of Serbia for Bulgaria in the Middle Ages. And just as the loss of Serbia in the political sense inevitably resulted in a loss in the national sense, so too the fragmentation of San Stefano Bulgaria will bring an ethnographic division in the train of the political division. Circumstances create cultural and national ties between people, but circumstances can also split close connections... The context is clear: Macedonian nationality was nonexisting, and did never before exist, but the political situation of separation between Bulgaria and Macedonia was crucial for the transformation of the Macedonian Slavs into a separate entity. Jingiby (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That’s the opponents’ opinion, NOT Misirkov’s. Misirkov just cite what SOME OTHERS would say. He HIMSELF eventualy says:

… the reason for ignoring and hiding of the existence of the Macedonian nationality is in the existence of the name “Bulgarians” in Macedonia bearing an ethnographic meaning and its exploitation by the Bulgarians.

With other words, we are now acquainted with the fact that Macedonia was, is and can represent a separate ethnographic unit.

More:

The Bulgarian name was first popularized by the Greeks and at first it was used only for the Mongol-Bulgarians, but then it started to be used for their war allies too, and finally it became an ethnographic term for the Bulgarian Slavs. But that name in the mouths of the Greeks had one additional and very specific meaning: the most hated of all the barbarians, people uneducated, rough, and comparable with the beasts. For the Greeks all that was Slavic was rough and Bulgarian. That's how the Greeks gave that Bulgarian name to us Macedonians. And that was not the only time when our name was changed… So, up to the arrival of the Turks, we were renamed three times: 1. Slavs 2. Bulgarians 3. Serbs…

Iordan666 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Krste Misirkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101212085140/http://www.misirkov.org:80/biography.htm to http://www.misirkov.org/biography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Krste Misirkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704024503/http://194.149.135.92/frame.aspx?ProektID=75 to http://194.149.135.92/frame.aspx?ProektID=75
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220160042/http://www.misirkov.org/ to http://www.misirkov.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Krste Misirkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204131931/http://www.misirkov.org/predgovor.htm to http://www.misirkov.org/predgovor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613083616/http://www.macedoniainfo.com/Misirkov.htm to http://www.macedoniainfo.com/Misirkov.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010015807/http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=73477 to http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=73477

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Krste Misirkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921044434/http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/default.aspx?pBroj=1884&stID=4305 to http://star.dnevnik.com.mk/default.aspx?pBroj=1884&stID=4305
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704124546/http://www.misirkov.org/kpm_zmr_eng.htm to http://www.misirkov.org/kpm_zmr_eng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728164955/http://www.vmroyouth.org/misirkov.rtf to http://www.vmroyouth.org/misirkov.rtf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ivo Banac

Because Misirkov expressed conflicting views about the national identity of the Macedonians Slavs at different points in his life, his national affiliation and legacy remains a matter of dispute between Bulgaria and North Macedonia. While Misirkov's work and personality remain highly controversial and disputed, there have been attempts among international scholars to reconcile the conflicting and self-contradictory statements made by Misirkov. According to historian Ivo Banac, Misirkov viewed both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians, and espoused pan-Bulgarian patriotism in a larger Balkan context. However, in the context of the larger Bulgarian unit/nation, Misirkov sought both cultural and national differentiation from the Bulgarians and called both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia Macedonians. See: The national question in Yugoslavia: origins, history, politics, Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-8014-9493-1, p. 327. Jingiby (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Any objections against Banac's opinion? It is balanced and neutral. This opinion is since long time in the lede. User:Epnesthede, Do not put other ethnic designation without getting consensus here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20101212085140/http://www.misirkov.org/biography.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)