Jump to content

Talk:List of Macedonians (ethnic group)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposal for deletion or reduction of the List of Macedonians

[edit]

More than half of these articles or names should be deleted because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. As for the list here one should raise the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references

178.148.119.189 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

@Gurther Hello. Those sources could not possibly be reliable. Last I checked, the author of the source about Goce is not a historian, but an UN coordinator. I'd like to see a secondary source for Gruev as well. The source about Misirkov also seems familiar. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologizes the site i found labeled him as a historian, although he was indeed a Macedonian representative for the UN, i agree with you, ill look for another source, cheers
also ive already provided a source on one of Dame Gruevs letters where he sides for the Macedonians
as for Krste Petkov, its the only translation i can find unless you know old Russian. This translation came during the finding of the book and when it was showed off in Skopje and Sofia, i think there is a Bulgarian translation too but i couldn't find it. Im still using it since this was reviewed by both Bulgarian and Macedonian institutes before publishing Gurther (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with finding a reliable source about Goce. None of the sources you added here recently appear to be reliable. For Jane, Koco and Dame, you used this source, which appears to be a nationalist organization promoting fringe theories. The source about Pulevski is not academic, not to mention dated. Please refrain from using such sources. There are better and reliable academic sources on the internet. You should know well by now that on Wikipedia secondary sources are preferred. Do you have any secondary sources about Misirkov's diary? StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which appears to be a nationalist organization promoting fringe theories" it cannot be fringe or nationalist if they've got actual documents and evidence, plus a lot of IMRO revolutionaries wikipedia uses promacedonia site, which is a bulgarian nationalist site, plus unlike promacedonia this one actually shows photos, which is good enough for me
The pulevski source is written by the Macedonian group in Leningrad which is full of Authors, Poets and Writers, its a contemporary source which is more accurate since back then there wasnt any bulgarian semetic feelings which means its less likely to be bias or inaccurate
Heres the original version of misirkovs diary i use the translated version here if you think the one i use is bias, you're wrong, as i've said before this was manually reviewed by Bulgarian and Macedonian historians before being publish, which can be classified as academic approved sources Gurther (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to keep the sourcing on the individuals' articles themselves and add the individuals to this list based on support in their respective articles, as had largely been the case till now. --Local hero talk 22:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the best way for this to work is for those who are commonly agreed upon to be Macedonians get no sources (their wikis already explain it) but the less agreed upon (like dzhinot, Gotse, Jane etc) should gain sources, just to support the claim Gurther (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, just for instance, you added a source for Martulkov while his article already addresses this. Just don't want it to be more work than necessary. --Local hero talk 22:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'll remove the Martulkov source Gurther (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind not having sources here. This isn't the article to try to prove what someone's ethnic identity is anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with that, according to Wikipedia rules all active biographies (those who are still alive) should contain a source to support our claim, but other then that i dont see any real reason to attach a source for most of these Gurther (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles do have sources. I removed the ones that didn't from this list. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that an editor rather arbitrarily interprets the sources he presents here, selecting only that part of them that he likes and omitting the rest. In addition, the tag for Bulgarian identity of some persons for whom in relevant articles they are indicated as Bulgarians is removed. There is no consensus on this and no one else supports his actions. It's about Gurther . Please stop such practices. Jingiby (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jingby I am not selecting which sources i like, please dont accuse editors and have good faith on them, i showed documents of them acting in a more Pro-macedonian stance and contemporary sources to support my claim. "the tag for Bulgarian identity of some persons for whom in relevant articles they are indicated as Bulgarians is removed" This is incorrect, I've removed the tags of those who specifically didn't call themselves Bulgarians, neither in the wiki nor in the sources, please dont accuse editors Jingby, as it violates any civil conversation and causes more tension rather then resolving, if you continue going down this path i might have to report you to a higher up Gurther (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, may you provide information about a single person from the list, whose tag you have removed, the reason for this being that he has never defined himself as Bulgarian, i.e. there is a lack of secondary sources, which identify him as a Bulgarian. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course i can, we have : Gavril Atanasov who has no sources that hes Bulgarian, we've got Ljubčo Georgievski who had pro-bulgarian views but didn't identify as Bulgarian, he was a Bulgarophile and what he wrote stated that some aspects of Macedonian history is false, Cento is also a good example : he was the first president of the SR of Macedonia and even advocated for union with Pirin and Aegean Macedonia, Stoyan Christowe wiki doesn't call him a bulgarian either but it has a NPOV which is great, there are several more others ive removed such as Mihail Solunov, overall all of these people ive named arent labeled as Bulgarians but instead the wiki doesn't label them anything at all for NPOV reasons. Gurther (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I read the article about Stoyan Christowe, there is clearly stated: In the first half of his life, Stoyan Christowe identified himself as Bulgarian, but after World War II and the establishment of the Macedonian state within the Yugoslav Federation, he redefined his understanding of who he was, and proclaimed himself an ethnic Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, ill be removing the notes for the others but I'll keep it for Stoyan as a compromise Gurther (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, As far as I read the article about Čento there is written: Before Čento was rehabilitated in 1991 in Macedonia he was often described by the Bulgarian communist historiography as a Bulgarian,[18] and up to this time is considered as such by some Bulgarian historians.[19][20][21] A similar view has been expressed by Hough Poulton and therefore criticized by Victor Friedman,[22] though this view still exists in the specialized literature.[23] This means simply that some Bulgarian and some non-Bulgarian researchers describe him as Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Mihail Solunov, the article about him does not state that he was ethnic Macedonian or Bulgarian, although sources can be found for both statements. It is clear from his biography that he was briefly devoted to the Macedonian cause, but for most of his life he was devoted to the Bulgarian cause. Jingiby (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem with Cento : that's what other historians view him as such, but that doesn't mean he declared himself Bulgarian, Vasil Glavinov is mostly considered a Macedonian yet some still view him as Bulgarian, I'll still keep the note since im tired with this argument and currently planning to archive it Gurther (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Time for a controversial opinion. I know that editors here may not agree with it, but I'd like to point out that the argument I'm gonna make is based on policy. I've thought about it and realized that this article isn't in line with NPOV too. Some of the people that are listed here don't really belong to this list (ex. people who are listed as Bulgarians in their articles). The way I see it this article draws a false equivalency between the Macedonian historiography and the Bulgarian historiography, as well as mainstream scholarship in general. Much has been written about the Macedonian historiography and its practices. It's pretty obvious that it's not on the same level as the latter two. Imagine if on other parts of Wikipedia, in a list of pseudosciences for example, the items were tagged with "considered a science by its practioners". I think the same logic applies here. However some disputed people could remain, ex. Misirkov, Vlahov and etc, because they're not listed as either Macedonian or Bulgarian in their articles. The List of Macedonian Bulgarians article also has this issue, but I wanted to raise the issue here first. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this doesn't need to be very complicated. If WP:RS on an individual's article supports said individual being listed here (i.e. regarded/self-identified as an ethnic Macedonian), the person should be added. The purpose of this article is to just list people, while their articles are the place to discuss ethnic background. Thus, the list will indeed include many disputed individuals. --Local hero talk 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing complicated. List articles are subject to the same policies like every Wikipedia article (which also includes NPOV). If we go by this logic, then there should be articles on Wikipedia, both claiming that evolution and creationism are true, which is contradictory. We could either retain people who are disputed (those who are disputed at least somewhere on the same level) or even exclude disputed people altogether from this list. I don't mind having the former as a compromise though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best choice we have is to delete both, both are MPOV/BPOV in some way, the Macedo-bulgarian is clearly BPOV while this one is MPOV, the best way to end any tension and to leave it in a high note is to remove both and instead make a list of Macedonians from the region (not the country) Gurther (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have focused my edits on improving the consistency of this article (transliteration of names and addition of years of birth-death), I'll chip in - the best solution in my opinion is to not include any additional sources, and the (reliable and relevant) ones currently included should be integrated with their respective article(s).

The list should only contain people which consider(ed) themselves as Macedonians or of Macedonian descent/ancestry, as well as people considered as Macedonians in N.Macedonia. If the latter consideration contradicts partially or fully the current consensus on the persons ethnicity, then a note(s) should be added next to their name/year of birth-death/proffession clarifying that (as has been the case until now).

I'd also like to propose that the names of everyone in this list should be written per their Macedonian transliteration, for consistency sake.

About Gurther's proposition that a seperate list of Macedonians (i.e people from thd region of Macedonia) be created - I think that is utterly unecessary and needlessly complicates everthying.

I'll tag everyone currently involved in this talk i.e Gurther, StephenMacky1, Local hero and Jingiby in order to finally reach a consensus/end to this discussion.

Best regards to all. Kluche (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully. --Local hero talk 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was never consensus to even include additional sources. I agree with everything, except I'd like to suggest a change to the note. The formulation could be: "Individual whose ethnic identity is disputed between North Macedonia and Bulgaria". The information about what they identified as is already present in their articles. We surely don't need another list of Macedonians, considering that there are already multiple and it'd be probably too cluttered. Gurther, choosing to focus on one subject in an article (ex. ethnic Macedonians) is not POV and this is only a list anyway. This is a discussion on how to improve the article, not delete it, if that's what you were trying to suggest. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
StephenMacky1 about the note - I suggest that the formulation be "Individual whose ethnic identity is disputed", as it is more neutral and covers possible non Macedonian-Bulgarian disputes. Kluche (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right. No objections. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kluches idea, ill start reformating it very soon thanks for the suggestions Gurther (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, StephenMacky1, Local hero and Kluche! I have another proposal. In my opinion, it should be clarified by whom it is disputed. In 90% of the cases in the articles about these persons, it is written that these are Bulgarians, and this is contested by the Macedonian side. To a lesser extent, it is about people with a dual identity. In a very small part, these are people with a Macedonian identity, which is disputed by the Bulgarian side. This should be noted in the note. Jingiby (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingby we purposefully dont label it that Bulgarians are disputing it, since foreign historians also are currently involded in the dispute, adding bulgaria would assume that only Bulgarians/Bulgaria is making these claims, which is inaccurate, and its better not to label all the disputes as simply Bulgarian because some are also considered Miljaks. Overall the best and less confusing way of labeling the notes should be "People who's identity is dispute" which is the current version Gurther (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the individuals mentioned, there are clearly enough evidences and an overwhelming consensus among researchers, which has been accepted by Wikipedia editors for the past 15 years. So those are settled questions. Fringe views ever exist. Jingiby (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the disputed ones are indeed mostly Bulgarian-Macedonian disputes, however Kluche's note suggestion is more concise and is inclusive of situations where there may be potential Serbian/Aromanian/etc. identity, so I think it's better. --Local hero talk 17:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingiby there is absolutely no evidence for Keraca Visulčeva, now some do actually have well sourced evidence (such as Rajko, Tzepenkov, Dzhinot) but Keraca hasn't, and some of these tags feel inaccurate compared to other Macedonian bulgarophiles. Gurther (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right. If you have any better formulations in mind, we could hear them. The most preferable outcome is the one where we take into account everyone's concern, as long as it abides with policy. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingiby, I still stand by my proposition - it covers all cases, and it could "future-proof" the article in terms of situations not related to Macedonian-Bulgarian polemics. I think that the formulation I proposed is clear cut, concise and the least confusing. If the reader is interested in the details of the dispute regarding any individual, there are links to the individual's article, where usually the identity situation is clarified in the lead. Not everything should be included in every article, even if it's true - that's a Wikipedia policy. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kluche, StephenMacky1, Local hero and Gurther my proposal is: "Individual whose ethnic identity is disputed. See the relevant article." Jingiby (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we need to tell people to see the article, if its disputed then they would probably check it on their own (if they are interested in the topic) this article is meant as a list and if the viewer is interested then they can easily find the pages and access them, but thats just my opinion. Gurther (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingiby, while this is acceptable for me, I'm still inclined to a clear-cut formulation, even possibly shortening my initial proposition to "Ethnic identity disputed". Kluche (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I came up with another formulation. I don't think it needs to be complicated. We could state the obvious. I hope that this addresses everyone's concern. I suggest the following: "Regarded as a Macedonian in North Macedonia. Their legacy is currently disputed." StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
StephenMacky1 I think it could not be more obvious and not complicated than "Ethnic identity disputed". Betweem your proposition and Jingiby's, I'm inclined to the latter. Kluche (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the latter proposition works for everyone, then sure. We'll let the articles give the context then. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I prefer conciseness so I like Kluche's best (Ethnic identity disputed), but Jingiby's added line See the relevant article is fine with me if you all agree. --Local hero talk 15:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, given that the majority of us (i.e Jingiby, StephenMacky1, Local hero and Gurther) have agreed on the principle of the forumlation, I'll take the initiative and implement the following - "Ethnic identity disputed. See the relevant article", which I think covers everyone's concerns. Now, regarding the addition of sources/references - I still stand that they shouldn't be in this article, instead they should be integrated in their respective articles, if they aren't already present there (if they are reliable sources that is). Judging by the replies on one of my previous comments, StephenMacky1 and Local hero share my position on this as well. Hence why I encourage other editors to comment on this, in order to get a broader consensus and settle this issue as well. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this except the sources, i still believe the more controversial people in this list should get a source as to justify them being here and plus I don't think it's gonna be possible nor easy if we were to add these sources to their wiki. Gurther (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the sources not be able to be added to the individuals' articles? --Local hero talk 17:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the wikis for most Macedonian revolutionaries often times try to aim them in a Bulgarian light, and adding pro-Macedonian sources might not be welcomed (trust me, ive tried with Jingby and other Bulgarian editors in the past) so it might be possible but i dont believe it will be accepted, but if it does, then we can freely delete the sources here. Gurther (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a question, since this conversation and dispute is over, can i remove the neutrality tag? and if anyone knows how to archive talk sections, can we archive this one? or should we still keep it up? Gurther (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther this dispute is not "over" - there is currently no consensus on the inclusion of additional sources in the article, although two editors (myself and Local hero) are for the removal of the sources, as opposed to the one editor (yourself) which is currently for the inclusion of the sources. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in regards to consensus - see WP:CONSENSUS and related guidelines/policies/essays. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, this is not a dispute. This is a POV and verifiability issue. The tags can be removed after the removal of the sources. I can see that no editor currently supports the inclusion of additional sources. The issues that other articles may have need to be addressed individually. We cannot address them all here, since that would be a pretty long conversation. When the discussion ends, it shouldn't be archived immediately, but it can be closed by an uninvolved editor/admin. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, Gurther doesn't want to understand what a reliable source is according to Wikipedia's rules, he uses sources most of which have no value or interprets the primary sources as he pleases, and he also doesn't care what other editors think about, doing often whatever he wants. Jingiby (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingby im only following the rules of WP:SOURCE while you've seemed to nitpick old communist Bulgarian books as to justify claims, and even promoting WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH by suggesting the Bulgarian talk page, my sources aren't nitpicked and follow wiki rules, i often times aim to gain more contemporary sources since they are more likely to be accurate. According to wikipedia for the section of reliable sources it states we can use non-academic sources if its mostly agreed upon or if our source has credibility, one of the things it noted for credible sources are "Reputable newspapers" which is something the New York Times falls under.
a Non-reliable source is "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest" which was what your communist source did. Im following the rules while you've seem not to. "Edit wars can also occur as users repetitively revert a page to the version they favor. In some cases, editors with opposing views of which content should appear or what formatting style should be used will change and re-change each other's edits" we both have diffrent views but its better to reach an agreement through talk subs instead of accusing one and another for the simplest things, i also advise WP:GOODFAITH towards your editors. Gurther (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, I have removed a lot of sources added by you that contradicts with WP:POLICY as WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH; WP:RS; WP:UGC; WP:YOUTUBE; WP:PRIMARY, etc. Pleaseq use better sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've seemed to not understand the meaning of the sources, here ill help out
Boris Safarov - NYT is a reliable newspaper according to WP:SOURCE since it falls under "Reputable newspapers"
Hristo Tatarchev - this part of a Bulgarian book published and reviewed by Academic sources + you've sourced pro-macedonia before, what suddenly makes it non-reliable?
Jane + Dame = self declarations are very reliable and imporant when talking about that person, you've used self-declarations aswell too. you're argument mentions how "not to analyze" yet the source and original media are easy to read and accesible
Keith Brown - he's a reliable and neutral historian who you've also sourced, its somewhat hypocritical to label some of his claims as unreliable yet accept others, the WP:YOUTUBE STATES "While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page." this interview is non-copyrightable
and finally, the "Nationalistic" site uses photos and evidence, which can be reliable, unlike pro-macedonia which is a Bulgarian nationalist site with almost to no documents, im restoring most of the sources but some will be removed since its agreeable (those being vlahov and iljo) but the rest will be returned, also please wait for the other side to respond before making changes Gurther (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, even if those sources were reliable, you still have no consensus to include them in this article (see WP:ONUS). So I'd like to ask you to respect the opinions of other editors here and not insist on including the content here. From what I can see, some sources here can be used on different articles (ex. the source about Badev). I'd also recommend you to familiarize yourself with all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, since it would make things easier for yourself, as well as all of us here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, WP:ONUS writes "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." which suggest that the sources shouldn't be used if it doesn't improve the article, i think a good portion of us can agree that the sources (or atleast a majority of them) do indeed improve the article, but i might follow your advice and attempt to implement these sources to their respectful article and if it does work ill freely remove them from here.
I'm still somewhat new with wikipedia so if you know a way to find most of the wikis guidelines (since i dont know the proper search terms for most of them) that would be very appreciated Gurther (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, if editors object, you cannot include them here. Other editors, as well as me, have expressed the opinion that some sources here could be used in other articles, especially if they are reliable, which is where this "such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article" part comes into play. You can check WP:LGL to see most of the guidelines. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gurther, we (and by that I mean Local hero, StephenMacky1 and maybe Jingiby) agree that the any and all sources have no place in this article. Read the entirety of WP:ONUS - While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You currently have no such consensus.
As for policies/guidelines - WP:PG and WP:LGL contain links to basically all policies/guidelines. Kluche (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright my apologize Kluche i wasn't aware. Gurther (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll begin implementing them to their articles very soon. Gurther (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. If no one has a problem with the current state of the article, the POV tag can be removed. I'd also like to add that it's probably better not to tag individuals whose articles don't mention an ethnic dispute with the "dispute" note. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jingbys fringe views

[edit]

I've created this talk page to discuss with Jingbys fringe view on the situation, he's failed to consult the talk page which is extremely irresponsible of him

Now onto the main topic : Jingby is attempting to add the note for Keraca Visulčeva aswell, despite her accepting the macedonian identity and was a macedonian immigrant to Bulgaria, when Jingby was confronted with this issue he suggested to me that the Bulgarian talk page of her wiki explains his justification, the problem is the talk page was riddled with original research and opinions with clear POVs, and its very clear that most editors meant those comments as opinions not facts, Jingby has attempted to label a bunch of editors opinions as facts, Jingby if you do not give a proper justification here then ill remove the tag, you've failed to form a talk page, so I'm writing this to solve the issue Gurther (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Visulcheva clearly describes her as Bulgarian and Macedonian painter. Where is the problem? Jingiby (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make her a Bulgarian or atleast someone with Bulgarian declarations, here is an example: lets call Nintendo an American and Japanese company (it isn't but as an example) does this mean they are American? No of course not, the reason why she's labeled a Macedonian and Bulgarian painter is because she is from Macedonia with a Macedonian identity, BUT she did most of her art exhibits in Bulgaria. Gurther (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you need a reliable source about this? Here you are: Енциклопедия на изобразителните изкуства в България, Том 1, Институт за изкуствознание (Българска академия на науките) Сътрудници: Александър Обретенов и колектив, 1980, стр. 150; Encyclopedia of Fine Arts in Bulgaria, Volume 1, Institute of Art Studies (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Contributors: Alexander Obretenov et al., 1980, p. 150; Jingiby (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jingby, i checked the source and it had absolutely nothing of your claims, the page Instead (of what is available) just explains her early childhood and in which college she studied in, this source doesn't even attempt to declare her identity, this source is not reliable for confirmation of her Bulgarophile tendencies. Gurther (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a Bulgarian encyclopedia for Bulgarian artists, what kind of identity should be commented on. Maybe you expect the biography of every Bulgarian artist to write that he is Bulgarian or that he is not Bulgarian? This is odd. Jingiby (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingiby this is Original Research, you don't know if the book talks about people in Bulgaria or Bulgarians, you're assuming that its talking about Bulgarians which isn't stated anywhere and it cannot be confirmed. I usually try to believe the Bulgarian sources but since this one was produced during the communist era, its highly untrustworthy considering both Macedonian and Bulgarian communist (and several others) purposefully forged or even made up details to justify their claims. Gurther (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, look at this dissertation from 2015 from the National Academy of Arts in Sofia. It is for awarding the educational scientific degree "Doctor of Sciences" to Milena Dimitrova Balcheva - Bozhkova with the title: Women Artists in Bulgarian Art in the 1930s. Scientific supervisor is Prof. Dr. Krasimira Koeva. The artist Visulcheva is also mentioned in the dissertation on p. 34. The combination Bulgarian artists, Bulgarian women, etc., is repeated on 110 places, but the term Macedonian is not mentioned even once. You probably don't think any of these mentions apply to Visulcheva, but if they do, it's frivolous? Jingiby (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to read it fully, you are doing original research once again, they do not label her or anyone named along with her as "Bulgarians" but instead they wrote "Position "artist's wife" or the problem of personal presence in art in the 1930s After the end of the First World War, there was a tendency for women to orientate themselves to marry a man with the same or similar specialty. In the period between the two world wars wars more and more often in our art we also meet married couples of artists" Gurther (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian women, Bulgarian artists, Bulgarian art, members of the Union of the Bulgarian artists, in Bulgaria, etc. There is no doubt that she was a member of the Union of Bulgarian Artists and in Bulgaria she is accepted as a Bulgarian artist, not as Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem, you don't know if its Bulgarians or in Bulgaria Gurther (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also i decided to check it again to see if it has any foreigners in this book, and there is, they nominated Aneta Hodina, a czech artist but nowhere did they mention czech. Gurther (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the text mentions on p. 13 "two foreign women" and they are explicitly named: Aneta Khodina and Ana Hen-Yosifova.
I read the afterwards section where she was named and it said "Some of these creative families are characteristically declared through that period. Modern views of marriage are illustrated with suitable examples of possible professional career of married women artists. All this is of course narrow related to professional art education, which the Bulgarians acquire women and their change in their behavior as individuals." which doesnt declare anyone who was named along with her as Bulgarians, but it seems to call their husbands Bulgarians (which if i remember correctly, i think she was married to a Bulgarian?) this source is somewhat risky and not really accurate and other sources seem to call her Macedonian, one book i found about her mentions this quote : "I was born in Macedonia, from Macedonian grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and I want to die in the Republic of Macedonia" [1] Overall i think both Bulgarian and Macedonian sources are risky for this subject so if you can find a English (or foreign source) i'll keep the note. Gurther (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not comment this issue further. I have already expressed my thesis, which is based on sources. During different periods of her life this woman had different ethnic identities. That is why in both countries she is considered their own artist. Jingiby (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jingiby all you've shown is sources that you took at face value and outdated communist sources, you've shown nothing supporting your theory while if you go to all language wikipedias (including the Bulgarian one) it clearly states she has supported the idea of an indepent Macedonia, nowhere does is state that it was in the 1990s. I will be removing the note if no further proper evidence is given, thank you. Gurther (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not reliable source. Jingiby (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
excuse me? What kind of defense is this? Wikipedia articles with sources are specifically made so Wikipedia can be reliable, Wikipedia articles are almost always the first results for every topic on google, an articles sources can also help the reader explore the topic on their own without reading the page, what you've said right here is ridiculous, what are you trying to get across with this? Gurther (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Although Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, it is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them. Jingiby (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how this is a defense, all her wikis attach a source, what are you trying to convey? Gurther (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of reliable sources were presented supporting the tag the last is academic source published in a scientific magazine from the Sofia University: Tsveta Petrova, Bulgarian women graphic artists in the 1930s and 1940s. Visual arts and music magazine, volume 1 (2020), ISSN 2683-1392, Sofia University "St. Kl. Ohridski" pp. 54-73 (56). The first was article dedicated to the person from a specialized art encyclopedia, published by the Bulgarian Academy of sciences and the second is a dissertation from the National Academy of Arts in Sofia. Jingiby (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked you once and i'll ask you again, a Bulgarian source cannot be reliable for a dispute like this (Since Macedonian sources call her Macedonian and Bulgarian call her Bulgarian) the best choice and the most accurate way to approve if she really had a Bulgarian identity would be neutral English sources, also please talk here before adding the sources i removed, in WP:SOURCE/S it states the following "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made" the article claims she is Macedonian, this source doesn't support the claim and it violates the wiki rule (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOURCE&redirect=no). Gurther (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Macedonians_(ethnic_group)&oldid=1234713390"