Talk:Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour, created during WWII to quash opposition to Macedonian nationalism, remained in force until 1991?

Created by Jingiby (talk). Nominated by Chipmunkdavis (talk) at 11:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC).

• The article was created on the 14th, so new enough. It sits at just shy of 2500 characters, so it's long enough. It reads neutrally enough, with the discussion of the subject matter and the sources making it difficult to not have some amount of focus on the effect on Bulgarians and their supporters. I'll assume good faith on the offline references. The DYK quote is cited inline and I found no issues with the copyvio detector. The hook is short enough and interesting in that this law lasted quite such a long time until the fall of the Soviet Union. An issue though, @Chipmunkdavis:, isn't the QPQ requirement based on the nominator to DYK and not on the article creator? And you have more than 5 credits already. Silverseren^C 18:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

So it is, I forgot to add one. We can use Template:Did you know nominations/Israel–Morocco normalization agreement. CMD (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Good to go, with AGF on the offline and non-English sources. Silverseren^C 04:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• You have a cite for every sentence in the lead except for the passage in late 1944. Meanwhile, footnote 27 says it went into law in June 1945–perhaps this detail could be added to the article? Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I'm not the article writer, but i'm not seeing what you're referring to. There is a reference in the lede for both the fact that the law came into operation in 1945 and that it was originally passed at the very end of 1944. Both statements have in-line citations. Silverseren^C 21:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Silver seren: you're right, it's cited in the third sentence. So what's the first sentence for? It should probably say: The law for the Protection of Macedonian Macedonian National Honour was a statute that ... (explain its purpose). Then it would be a proper lead. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello everybody, may I help with something? Jingiby (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• The lead has been fixed nicely and the article looks much better now. Restoring tick per Silver seren's review. Yoninah (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

For the beginning, please provide valuable source that such Law even existed. The Website named "Communist Crimes" of a country that was part of Nazi German military units is biased and no author is signed under their article. And by the way IMRO is not even mentioned in that article. Metodija Andonov Chento, fought against Spiro Kitinchev, Dimitar Gyuzelov, and Dimitar Chkatrov bands. Putting these names in same sentence, is work of POV pushing propaganda. The use of any language, not just Bulgarian is part of the Educational system if there is large number of children to study it. According to the official censuses in Macedonia, Bulgarians were not depraved of any rights to express their national feeling. Here is document of declared Bulgarian in Macedonia through the past period of SR Macedonia and SFRJ go to page 64. we clearly see the number of Bulgarians declared in Macedonia starting from 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 1994, 2002. This whole article is biased and is serving someone's propaganda.--Forbidden History (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If you check the references and provided citations you wil find them. 07:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked and I didn't found them. This whole article is Original Research. Next time please sign your signature, so I know to whom I am discussing this matter. I'm reverting the old version. Please provide the sources and quotations. Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby I will ask you once again for the third time. Show me a relevant source that such Law existed. You are citing out a formation of Courts not Laws and you named this article Law for Protection of Macedonian National Honour! I clearly added the original documents and resolutions made in ASNOM, please provide us with the acts of that Law that you just made up, that is discriminating the people and not letting them express their national consciousness. We need to clearly read the Acts on it and to see which people are judged and trialed in this special afterwar courts. Whether they are judged by their nationality or by the fascist criminal acts done to the Macedonian people. Once again I repeat: This was an initial phase of Formation of the Macedonian state, laws, acts, courts, needed to be formed. These laws exist in every country, but you are misleading the readers and playing with the words to fit your Bulgarian propaganda that Macedonian nation never existed, or that was part of the Bulgarian nation. This article is openly calling out for war assistance of Bulgaria over Macedonia. Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again I ask you to provide valid source that those 100000 people were pro Bulgarians. Your source says 100000, nationality is not mentioned. You cannot use that source to label the nationality of the population how ever you want. That number is Also, I put a Tag to explain which IMRO members were trialed? - The IMRO of Ivan Mikhailoff or IMRO (United). IMRO of Mikhailof was serving the fascist regime of which the country liberated from, therefore they are judged for their mass killings, rapes, burnings, terror and massacres and not because of their national feeling - as you pushing the Bulgarian POV across the article. This court ceased to exist on 01 of July, 1945. So, clean up this article of the biased literature you are pushing. And, according to this article we need to believe that 100 000 people were sentenced in 6 months, that is 16.667 cases per month, 556 cases per day. What can I say, this is getting out of any logic. No memoirs or any evidence of at least 1000 of their own family members, to support this propaganda?--Forbidden History (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby Are you reading your own sources? Read the last paragraph and please explain us when this Court ceased to exist 1945 or 1991? Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It does not contradict the article. Read it. Jingiby (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

JingibyThis sentence is a Biased Propaganda: "This law was repealed only in 1991" and you even use it here on the Talk page under the Nomination Tag? Are you serious? Court (Tribunal) that existed for 5 months, you are presenting it as some existence of some Law, that imprisoned 100000 people in 5 months and on top of everything that existed till 1991. That is called manipulation and twisting of facts.--Forbidden History (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

And here it is the Official Gazette from 30 of June, 1945, which is signed by Metodija Andonov Chento, that this Tribunal will stop functioning and it will be abolished, the same day when the Official Gazette will announce it, and that is 30 of June/1st of July, 1945. Please explain us how Chento was sentenced by this Tribunal/Court/"Law" of yours when the tribunal was abolished by the same person in 1945? I'm aware of the Bulgarian propaganda against Macedonia, but Wikipedia is the last place where you should push it. So, please get rid of that biased sources, that have no relevant backup to support the facts that are claiming. Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, this puzzled me too. There is no doubt that the special court was disbanded in 1945. At the same time, 3 secondary sources claim that the special law has remained in force, and the functions of the special court werere taken over by the ordinary courts until the break-up of Yugoslavia. The explanation is maybe as follows. As a lawer I remember that after 1989 a lot of laws were repealed in Bulgaria at that time, which I had never heard of. They were simply adopted in the late 1940s and the 1950s, but apparently no one had applied them for decades.Jingiby (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

ОК,Jingiby but we both know that is not how the facts are functioning. I also don't know all the laws, but I found a relevant proof signed by the person you claim it was sentenced by that same Tribunal (which cannot be true-obviously it is sentenced by the normal civil courts that existed back then), that the Tribunal was abolished after 5 months of it's existence. That is why I think you need to change the Title of this Page (Article), cause is misleading and represents totally biased and unreal information regarding the Macedonian state and history. If other courts like these or laws were brought into the legal system, feel free to quote them I won't mind, but to push such info of something that lasted for 5 months that lasted for 46 years, it is not fair and speaks enough about the sources that spread that fabrication. Please amend the article properly and I suggest to change the name of the page. Thank you --Forbidden History (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's clear to you that the law is one thing and the court is another. Wikipedia works with sources and that is mainly with secondary. If you have sources, that no such law was acting, present them. If you have sources that this law ended its action before 1991, please provide them. Wikipedia is not a place for personal bias. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I got it. Although the information is scarce and somewhat contradictory, it is clear that these are two separate laws. Initially, in 1945, a tribunal was set up to deal with the counter-revolutionaries in a matter of months. In 1946, a new law was passed that regulated moderate sanctions and was apparently applied by ordinary courts. Jingiby (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The new structuring and rewriting has made the article less clear. Is the law mentioned in the first line of the second paragraph the same as the act being discussed in the first paragraph? CMD (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the literature, the law in 1946 was an expansion upon and a continuation of the law from 1944, thereby making a greater number of things illegal and punishable. We could give it its own sub-section heading if that would help distinguish that. Silverseren^C 06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The prose needs to be clear, with or without a heading. CMD (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ASNOM RESOLUTIONS

Here is the original Declaration of ASNOM. I'm quoting and translating the whole declaration:

"DECLARATION

On ASNOM, for the basic, rights of the people of Democratic Macedonia.

Act 1. All citizens of the federal Macedonian state are equal and enjoy the same rights before the laws, no matter of which ethnicity, gender, race and religion they belong to.

Act 2. All human rights for free and National expression (life) are granted, on all national minorities in Macedonia,

Act 3. Every citizen is guaranteed the security of his personality and property, the right to property and honest initiative in business life are guaranteed.

Act 4. Every citizen is guaranteed the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

Act 5. All citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, press, assembly, contract and freedom of association.

Act 6. The suffrage of Democratic Macedonia is exercised by the voters by secret ballot on the basis of the general, equal, direct and personal suffrage."

Your article is totally opposite to this Democratic ASNOM Declaration and in fact is manipulative and obviously driven by Propaganda.--Forbidden History (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Here is the official parliamentary website of the Parliament of Macedonia. I'm sharing so anyone can read the ANSOM Acts in English, so they can understand your manipulation and propaganda driven stands. This article is insult for any normal person intelligence.--Forbidden History (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Clear out those long citations please !!

Future and past writers, please get your citations down to references, and put all that text below. It is impossible to edit the article with paragraphs of text imbedded in the citation part of the text. Thanks! Billyshiverstick (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing

Silverseren, since the editor Jingiby, still haven't provide not one single source that Metodija Andonov was sentenced by this court and obviously you deleted my edits. Please provide us with that source. Also, please let us know why have you deleted my translation of the statute and the image? I assume you understand Macedonian language and you read the newspaper and found something that is not true or what? From the day one I'm trying to explain that this whole thing is based on modern Bulgarian propaganda and has nothing to do with any logic or anything. First the editor claimed that the Court existed till 1991, then when I proved him wrong, that the court was closed 5 months after, then he changed his mind and cited only one single source (Bulgarian by the way), that the Court continued to exist from 1946, and that 100.000 were sentenced with it, and if we read the article now it says that the Court wasn't active after 1950 and at the bottom that it was valid till 1991, and it was pushing people to hide their "Bulgarian" identity? And by the way you deleted my Official State Census results from 1953 till 2002-is there something more relevant than census results? Your activity is for sure securing someone else's POV.--Forbidden History (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing Andonov if it isn't covered under the sources given. The problem is that you keep adding POV language into the text (not to mention your edit summaries). You have made a number of claims about this article and topic, despite the actual references given in the article contradicting you. If you want to dispute the characterization of the topic as given by those references, then you need reliable secondary sources that make the claims you are saying. And extrapolating data from census material is not a secondary source, as it is you analyzing the data for that result. That is a violation of the no original research rules. Silverseren^C 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Silverseren, OK let's start from the beginning. Please show me ONE single source in this article that speaks of LAW? All the sources speaks of COURT. In Mаcedonian Суд means Court, Закон means Law. Therefore please check the sources 1,2,3 and 4-they all speak of Court-how about showing second source that there was any LAW? So, we reach to the point of Censuses. You want me to provide you a secondary source that the Censuses in one country are reliable source? - I haven't heard someone to question the reliability of one country official results, printed materials in 2016 - how this is not you taking POV side, questioning some country official census results? And for the 100.000 persecuted "Bulgarians" I cited their own Bulgarian Historian, that laughs on that, and he doesn't even find it reasonable to discuss it-is that not a secondary source? Here is the translation for you: "Because of the mentioned revolt, there are really tried, convicted and repressed. But neither dozens were killed in the square itself, nor 70 officers were killed, nor 900 died in the Skopje fortress from hunger and thirst. Against the background of the census we have, 23,000 killed in the Ohrid region and 150,000 sent to prisons are fantasies that do not even deserve comment. The killings did not take place on Christmas Day, but in mid-January 1945. Many elite people who were convinced Bulgarians were brutally killed. But there are others killed." You need to know that Macedonia during that period had less than 1,5 million citizens. Macedonian partisans were less then 65.000-do you really want us to believe that 65-70.000 partisans won over 100.000 domestic traitors + Albanian balists + Bulgarian + Italian + German occupying forces (if only the domestic traitors outnumbered them), please be reasonable?Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Silverseren, also please let me know how this is not original research? Since that is not written in the cited books (No.6 and No.7 -second paragraph of this article):"The tribunal was to judge "the collaborators of the occupiers who have put down the Macedonian national name and the Macedonian national honour", as part of an attempt to differentiate an ethnic and political Macedonian identity separate from neighboring Bulgaria and the historical Ottoman Empire Bulgarian community, of which both had been part."

How this line in the Purpose section is not original research?:"The purpose of the law was to distinguish the new Macedonian nation from Bulgaria, as differentiation from Bulgarians was seen as a confirmation that Macedonians were a separate ethnic community." When in the newspaper introduction to the statute clearly says why this Court is formed (and that is to Trial all the fascist collaborators, nowhere is even mentioning the word "nationality" nor "Bulgarian"). And you deleted that part saying that is POV? How come?-Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidden History, keep to the Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, please also keep to Wikipedia guidelines-No Original research! No POV! Citing sources! (Metodija cannot be sentenced by a Court that didn't exist at the time. By the way the Court was dismissed, by his own Metodija's signature!) You found one source saying that the court was reopened at 20 of November,1946-therefore that Estonian website is obviously biased irrelevant source. Also, provide us with source for Panko Brasnarov.Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of a reliable source is a vandalism. Wikipedia is based on secondary, not on primary sources. Jingiby (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, and what makes this website, reliable source? Obviously the source is biased taking care to protect the Estonian involvement in the Nazi alliance during WWII.--Forbidden History (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Estonian Institute of Historical Memory is mentioned in different academic publications as reputable institution. Check on Google books. Also keep in mind that in 2019 the EU Parliament adopted a resolution which has equated Communism with Nazism. The charges against Cento were equal as per that Law: of working against the SR Macedonia as part of SFR Yugoslavia, being a traitor in contact with IMRO terrorist, who supported a pro-Bulgarian Independent Macedonia as envisaged by Ivan Mihajlov, etc. All that fits with the Law. The name of Cento was a taboo in Communist Yugoslavia. Jingiby (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't twist the facts. Cento is sentenced because of fighting for Independent and United Macedonia for the Macedonians, and doing crimes against the Yugoslav Federation and Law (not against Macedonia, as these other Bulgarophile did). Ivan Mihailov, CHaktrov,Gjuzelov and alike were fighting for putting Macedonia inside the Bulgarian kingdom and that is why they were sentenced to death. Those two things are different as black and white. While Cento was declaring independent country and forming the first liberated state of the Macedonians, these other listed Bulgarophile were fighting against that, they were negating the existence of the Macedonian nation, declaring it as Bulgarian. In fact Cento in person was asked to join the Bulgarian occupier's in 1943, on which he answered, "I'm not Bulgarian, but a Macedonian and I don't have nothing in common with that cause."- (so stop this non sense, the black is black the white is white. It fits with the Law", you say? What is this another original research done by yourself? Stop discgracing the name of Cento.Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a place for WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Jingiby (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How can be book printed in 2016 be an original research for a census results held in 1948 till 2002 and other book printed in USA printed in 1999? Please take care of your own original researches concerned about the TITLE of the article(that includes sources number 1,2,3 and 4.-all of them speaks of Court none of them mentions any LAW)-how did you came up with the article title?--Forbidden History (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, since now you want to manipulate with the Census results mixing Serbia (Western Outlands) and Macedonia, here are the censuses from Serbia and the Western Outlands. I'm sure you are aware of them, but I will post it here so Admins can understand you manipulations, that you are doing with this article.--Forbidden History (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And in case you forgot where is Western Outlands, here you can check your own article about it.Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby Also, this source of yours is contrasting the reality:Георги Фотев, Другият етнос (1994) Акад. изд-во "Марин Дринов", БАН, София - the results of the censuses are demasking his purposes of such claim as well. Please correct that sentence to fit the NPOV.Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The last added sentence has no direct relation to the text. It is partially nonsensical: According to the Bulgarian historian Stefan Dechev these acussations by the Bulgarian historiography have no scientific and real basis, to claim that dozens were killed, that 23,000 Bulgarians were killed in the Ohrid region only, and another 150,000 Bulgarians imprisoned in Macedonian prisons. He characterizes all this as fantasies, which do not deserve any comment. Nowhere in the cited article written by Dechev is mentioned anything about this special Law and the tribunal, subject of that article. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article is mentioned the number of 23,000 victims. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article is mentioned a number of 150,000 imprisoned. The numbers in the article are different and are based on cited Western academic sources in English. Dechev commented on other publications and allegations that are not the subject of this article and are not mentioned in it. If no logical explanation will be given for this spam by till unlocking of this this article, then I will remove it. The addition of the table was disputed by several editors as redundant for the article, but it was re-added several times through an edit-war against the will of the other editors. It was removed by me to the article Bulgarians in North Macedonia. The same goes for it. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, so you want to tell us that there are another additional 150.000 trail cases of which Stefan Dechev is talking about? That makes like one quarter of the population (250.000) that were imprisoned? Dechev refers to the same people, those are the after war Court processes, obviously some historiographers said that there were 100.000 others 150.000, so he denies the emphasizing of the numbers by the Bulgarian historiography and politicians. If we ar efocusing on the exact words of the cited sources - please provide ONE single source that there was this Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour and not Court for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour? Also, shows us this quote in your cited books (6 and 7): as part of an attempt to differentiate an ethnic and political Macedonian identity separate from neighboring Bulgaria and the historical Ottoman Empire Bulgarian community, of which both had been part.

As for the table, you can have even 10 more Bulgarian editors wanting to remove it (but that doesn't makes the cited table irrelevant, does it?), you need to explain us why it should be removed? If the table should be removed then please revise the text in this article and make the text explaining just those processes till 1950, where you say that this Court was was in smaller use. But pushing such info that this Court was alive till 1991 and people were depraved of their human rights (and the statistical data is showing the oppposite), then I don't see a reason why not to have a table that statistically shows how big was the number of the the people that declare themselves as Bulgarians in Macedonia.Thanks.--Forbidden History (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

All disputed facts are proved in the article with English-language academic sources and citations. However, Wikipedia is not a forum. This is another Wikipedia rule you don't want to learn. There is no one to deal with you all the time and repeat the same thing. If you want to talk non-stop, you obviously have to go to a forum. Jingiby (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my quoted facts are also taken from English, Serbian/German and Bulgarian authors. Things obviously cannot be explained with cited sources that you decide to ignore, there is not other option that discussing them here. Have you answered on one of my questions so far? Did you see me deleting your cited sources (even though they are not citing what you have written in the article)?--Forbidden History (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DONOTFEED. Jingiby (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This sentence was moved for discussion: According to the Bulgarian historian Stefan Dechev these acussations by the Bulgarian historiography have no scientific and real basis, to claim that dozens were killed, that 23,000 Bulgarians were killed in the Ohrid region only, and another 150,000 Bulgarians imprisoned in Macedonian prisons. He characterizes all this as fantasies, which do not deserve any comment. Nowhere in the cited article may be found the phrase: these accusations by the Bulgarian historiography have no scientific and real basis or the like. The article of Dechev does not mention neither the Law nor the Court. Jingiby (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Editing after the topic ban of Forbidden History

Since the user who tried to change significantly the article without providing reliable secondary sources is banned from editing topics related to the Balkans, I will try to remove some of his most controversial changes. If anyone thinks that something I am doing is not correct or wrong, please report it here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protected

There is an edit war going on in this article, and pursuant to a request at RFPP, I have fully protected the page for the next 48 hours. Please discuss the situation here and reach a consensus before continuing to edit the article when the protection expires. –Darkwind (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)