Talk:Macedonian nationalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, lets see. We have the following things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonism on the internet

You may be interested in the following:

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

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

Macedonism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonism again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary?

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

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

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

Badly sourced, almost an attack page

There are definately multiple meanings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear enogh

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

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

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

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

Regarding Macedonism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reallity

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

Claim 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford Dictionary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point of quoting the OED was because it should be made clear that this is a Balkanian regionalism, and not a generally accepted English term. I will add it back in. - FrancisTyers · 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should include just what you said then: "...is a Balkanian regionalism term". The dictionary phrase is self contradicting ("...although it may appear in other dicts..."), very irrelevant, and very undue (in size) for such a self-contradicting/irrelevant issue. I will remove it and replace it with my (your) proposed text. :NikoSilver: 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Turns out the article itself starts with "Macedonism (...) is chiefly a Balkan regionalism." I can't think of a better emphasis on that issue. :NikoSilver: 10:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarisam

Here you go FF, just for you. Enjoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of my belief system? Huh, what are you talking about. --Cigor 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Google it. Belief system = things you believe in.   /FunkyFly.talk_   00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but how is cruelty part of my belief system?--Cigor 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you said the thing is cruel, and it is part of your beliefs. Jeez...   /FunkyFly.talk_   01:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird, rasipani telefoni. So, what do you think of Bulgarisam?--Cigor 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The real question is, do you have something to add?   /FunkyFly.talk_   02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the question. Come on FF, you can do it, you asked me to write this, at least you can answer a simple question. Or is perhaps that too much time spent on negating left little time studying your own history?Cigor 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to do anything, rather it was produced on your own accord. Or is it that you ask for a critique?   /FunkyFly.talk_   02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at five last sentence in "Claim 1" section. You asked, I provided. Sure, why not, give a critique.--Cigor 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For one, what are those points? What are you claiming? It is basically history research from the Republic, not very surprising.   /FunkyFly.talk_   02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. I am claiming that "Bulgarian(s)" had different meaning throughout the time, that the continuous Bulgarian conscience did not in fact exist, at least not at the level Bulgarian historians want to represent. As such it can be also viewed as "..political idea prevalent in the ..." , well you know the rest, you wrote that. It all a matter of perspective. --Cigor 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats what all 4 points are about? Or just the first one? Does not seem to have much punch. Anyway, remember the consitution ammendments of 1995? It was a political idea on a government level at least, to claim territories in other countries.   /FunkyFly.talk_   02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The point was to show the absurdity of this article. Unlike you, I don’t care if Bulgarians are artificial nation or not. I don’t give a toss; they are free to think whatever. The whole thing is abstraction in our head. You obviously are not capable of pointing any inaccuracy of what I wrote, so I am going to assume that you learned something today. Good night. --Cigor 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you it sounds like reseach from the Republic, so you draw your conclusions. I've read plenty of such things, some way more entertaining. Next time present your major points more clearly, because otherwise you're just giving your interpretation of history.   /FunkyFly.talk_   03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, so if is a research from the Republic (which is not), then you are going to ignore it? Wow, what an intellectual courage, bravo! If you already have read plenty of similar things, you would already have plenty of answers. Instead, all you do is avoiding...--Cigor 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't quite appear in history books, so it is researchy, so for now - ignore. Basically, you'd have time sourcing most of this stuff, especially the more spicy parts about the elite and the spies.   /FunkyFly.talk_   03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cigor, for the nice illustration of the Macedonistic POV on Bulgarian history. But it's curious you referred to Skopje-descended Constantine Tih as the "single ethnic Bulgarian tsar". And if Samuil's Ohrid was not a traditional Bulgarian centre with its Ohrid Literary School and the creator of the Cyrillic, Clement of Ohrid, then what is it? At the back of beyond? Is Neofit Rilski a Russian, because as far as I know he's the one who wrote the first grammar book of Bulgarian? And I highly doubt he's Russian, because he was born in Pirin Macedonia... hey, shouldn't that make him a pure Macedonian?

Other than that, you also seem to rely on supposition, guesses and alternative theory POVs, in order to present our history in an untrue and insulting way. Not that I'm offended, it was simply a waste of time writing yet another conspiracy theory. Todor→Bozhinov 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Look Todor, I don't want to argue with you. You seem to be very nice guy. Nor the purpose of my essay was to insult Bulgarians. This is why this is in talk page not an actual article. The purpose of this article to be parody of Macedonism article - to present facts in such manner that any nation can be deemed as a political idea prevalent in its country. And in a way it is – we don’t have DNA code that tell us we are born Bulgarian, Greek or Macedonian. They say that the greatest abuse of history is not lies but using anahronisam. Cheers --Cigor 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, if you want theories that sound logical, I can give you some:

The Greek elite was almost ruling the Ottoman Empire by the early 19th century with the Phanariotes, who were the diplomatic body and had also regional titles. The same had already happened in the past with the Roman Empire, when Romans admitted "we conquered Greeks by the sword, they conquered us with the mind", and the whole Empire was eventually ruled by pro-Greek (or Greek) Emperors who even moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. With those infiltrating Greeks, (the Phanariotes) the re-enstation of a new fearful Byzantine Empire from within was once more imminent. An empire that would give new meaning to the Constantinian doctrine for free religion, since for the first time it would incorporate Muslim citizens. So the big powers of the time, had to figure out a way to divert this procedure. That way, ironically, came also from within: They inspired the lower classes of Greeks with romantic nationalism (Lord Byron et al) and made them rebel against the Ottoman (soon to be Greek-ruled) empire. Later on, when the Greek War of Independence got out of hand, the Phanariotes had no alternative than to join the cause. So there we have it today:

• The 19th-early 20th century obsession for nations with homogenious ethnic identity that lead to all this, is today criticised as the worst way to discriminate people.
• Population exchanges and somewhat arbitrary borders separate less than effectively ethnic groups (see minorities) that once lived harmoniously together.
• Some Emperors of the past were wiser than some political leaders of today, allowing and promoting diversity.
• EU is an attempt to rectify this fallacy.
• Certain nations' governments would still wish to have more regional powers, greater territories and more subjects, for no reason other than greater power to themselves (not their people).
• Unfortunately these governments still manage to inspire their current subjects with nationalistic obsession, to their unsuspected detriment.
• Those inspired are usually the uneducated masses. Usually proclamations of independence, rebelions, wars and civil-wars are actually the result of battles between social classes, rather than battles between ethnic groups.

I find the above to be a nice analysis. Unfortunately, there are very few things I can back-up with solid proof, so most of it is original reasearch. Much like yours. I would call it just another conspiracy theory. :NikoSilver: 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sound reasonable, except "Some Emperors of the past were wiser than some political leaders of today, allowing and promoting diversity". It is not that there were wiser and promoting diversity. At those time other diversity were deemed as more important - such as religious. In history of mankind there is always somebody different utilized as a scapegoat. Cheers --Cigor 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

...and always some massively exploited ignorants were forced to back up any nationalistic ideology, to the benefit of their leadership in the expense of their personal freedoms, rights, interests, and even lives as a whole. I am sure there are some Greeks who fall in that category (Neo-Byzantine ideologies, anti-Turk or anti-Slavomacedonian sentiments, various territorial expansion scenaria etc). The same happens with some Bulgarians, Serbs and Slavomacedonians.

The best thing that ever happened is that most democratic societies and communities have managed to isolate and criticise these irredentists and extremists. My point is that the same thing should happen from within to our northern neighbors: Starting from their elite, instead of promoting such ideologies (like Macedonism, United Macedonia et al), they should find every possible chance to express their critique and opposition. They should endorse the existance of such articles and even contribute to them, as a means to educate their own people.

Otherwise, they are very likely becoming themselves part of those massively exploited ignorants. If there was a sourced article criticising Neo-Byzantology I would be the first to support it. If I sensed that my country's government acted (or tolerated) extreme irredentist and nationalistic positions, I would oppose. As I mock at theories such as Epsilonism, I would mock about those too. Think about it. :NikoSilver: 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I disagree that extreme nationalism is prevalent in Republic of Macedonia. Of all our neighbors we are the least nationalists. If you look at the history there is no case where we suppressed anybody. In fact, I would say that we are perhaps too passive. Too long we have been assigned to various countries trying to shape us and impose different conscience. We just want to be left alone living in peace. Let me give you personal example. I accidentally started writing in Wikipedia. My first registered article was Business Plot. I wanted to contribute to the stuff that I enjoyed reading in particular Byzantine Empire, perhaps a good movie or a band, maybe something finance related. But of course, I take a look of what is happening in article related with my people and country, and what do I see? Consistent denying of pretty much everything. So what is an average man is to do? He can either let go and ignore (which I did for some time), or get radicalized. One nationalism causes another. --Cigor 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are the best, everyone else sucks. Rationalizing history again arent we? Is that easier than optimizing revenue flow or harder? It sure takes a lot of questionable research.   /FunkyFly.talk_   14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Funky, but I think you are coming harder than necessary on Cigor. I definitely understand that irrational opposition may cause irrational reaction. I myself have many Slavomacedonian friends in real life and I sense that many of them don't share irredentist thoughts. Please Cigor, help in making those extremists even fewer. And by all means help in reducing any extremist group from any other country. We only have one reasonable difference: That of the name and the history that goes behind it. Let us not generalise this. There is no excuse in over-reacting because the other side does so too. :NikoSilver: 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: What I mean about over-reacting is very simple: Asking for territories outside one's country is over-reacting. Greece doesn't do it. Bulgaria neither. So I'd think again about your quote "...I disagree that extreme nationalism is prevalent in Republic of Macedonia". It is another thing to dispute a name or a history and another to dispute sovereignity. Also, it is a boomerang (as you may understand). :NikoSilver: 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rationalizing history was a term coined by User:Realek, who claimed that the Bulgarian version of history is "irrational". So basically, certain unsourced additions to it have to be made in order to "rationalize" it, which indirectly refers to questionable historical research.   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I didn't know. You know that my comment is trying to build (rather than demolish) bridges, so I hope you will excuse the NikoSilverism! :NikoSilver: 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take Realek too seriously if I were you. After all, he claims that the only Greeks in Macedonia (region) are Pontian Greeks [4] [5]. This shows a clear misunderstanding of history as written worldwide, and an undue reliance on www.maknews.com. --Tēlex 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite all, Cigor again pulled the "you offend my country, my language and everything" card, just like Vlatko, Bomac, Bitola/Matrix and whoever else before him have done, some even to justify outright vandalism. It just shows single-mindedness.   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take Bomac and Vlatkoto too seriously either. Bomac believes in a "stolen Aegean Macedonia" [6] and that the Macedonian Slavs are the descendents of Slavs and Ancient Macedonians [7], whereas Vlatkoto believes that there are no Bulgarians in the entire Macedonian region [8]. These cases also show a clear misunderstanding of history as written worldwide, and an undue reliance on www.maknews.com. Bitola/MatriX is more on the rational side. --Tēlex 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet he is the one for whom the word "Republic" in "Republic of Macedonia" is offensive.   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one's perfect. --Tēlex 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cigor? Care to comment again on "prevalence" of extreme nationalism? Can you please specify respective examples by users who declare other Balkanic ethnicities? Again, I repeat: I know off-wiki many Slavomacedonians and apart from here, I've never seen such a massive nationalistic approach. So I am not generalising, but please don't say that there is no "prevalence" (at least here)! :NikoSilver: 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to overall population, not Wikipedian sample. None of the nationalistic crap that happened in the rest of former Yugoslavia happened there. Look at this way, would extreme nationalists have Greece as their most designated tourist location, even after all the humiliation getting the visa, border passing and so on? In terms of ethnic minorities rights not one neighbor can claim having remotely close to that. As for Wikipedians, I already told you. It is extremely easy to get radicalized when you are being denied. From time to time moderate Bulgarians/Greeks and Macedonians manage to get to some compromise version of some article that last for several months. And then people like FunkyFly and Telex crawls out of the woodwork, and here we go with the destructive cycle again… --Cigor 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the woodwork, you could've used something even stronger like the sewage or the garbage can. Amazing things you can achieve with personal attacks. Keep using them and your respect will grow, and people will come for you for advice in hard times. Sounds like a plan, does it not, my cashflow optimizing friend?   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not my fault you are not familiar with a extremely common phrase. You know, like investors start coming out of the woodwork, pushing down the bond yield, since I see you recently developed affinity for finance jargon.--Cigor 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well now, I'm just trying to fit in the new cashflow optimization environment, so my termonology might be bit rusty at first.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear some things out with you to understand where you stand. I'll start by commenting your answer:

• I was referring to Wikipedian sample and clarified by noting that I have many Slavomacedonian friends who seem not to share irredentist thoughts. You must admit that the WP sample sucks, though (examples above).
• Nationalistic crap in ex-Yugo is beyond comparison. Try having lower examples for extremity. Much lower.
• Tourism is irrelevant (especially for... wikipedians!), but for visa I agree. I wish we could solve this stubborn naming issue earlier so that we wouldn't have this mess. We are both responsible: We for denying your self-determination as "Macedonians" -and- you for denying the self-determination of Macedonians (Greek) (<-please note that I use disambiguation here!) by not accepting any disambiguating term next to "Macedonians". Read Macedonia (terminology) note #5 for the official Greek position.
• Ethnic minorities rights: Remember what you (and the Albanian minority) went through in order to achieve that (still fragile) balance. Also, keep in mind that the neighboring countries' populations are largely homogenious (especially compared to your 30% or so minorities). Also, whenever (and if) Kossovo splits from Serbia, we really can't say what will happen.
• Radicalization: I understand but it works both ways. How is a moderate Greek supposed to act when he sees views like the examples above? (stolen "Aegean" Macedonia, Ancient Macedonian ancestors, Pontian Greek refugees, hundreds of thousands alleged Slav minority etc) Also, very important: It is not an excuse for grown-ups (mummy, he stole my pencil that's why I took his rubbber)
• Please provide examples of "destructive" behavior in articles. I consider both Telex and FunkyFly to be of the most moderate editors here. You will find that many "impartial third" users will agree with me. Ask around.

...and I'll finish with my personal thoughts: You are a small underfinanced country with un-homogenious ethnic composition. As a small target, you have many nationalistic predators around. You can't keep relying on their democratic sentiments and continue to piss them off with any chance you get. At some point, they may react as your (and my) fellow users here (ie get radicalised). You need friends. Gladly, you can have friends: You share common religion with both Greece and Bulgaria, common (or close or whatever) language with Bulgaria, common historic major enemies, common past, had lived harmoniously close to both for centuries. So, solve your (and our) silly issues with your neighbors. They DO want you to be autonomous, sovereign and prosperous. They DO want to help. Just demonstrate acceptance of two very basic things:

• There are other "Macedonians" around too and it is unfair that only they should disambiguate their name from you, just because of the technicality that they don't have the separate autonomy like you.
• You are largely connected to the well-respected Bulgarians in linguistic, cultural and genetic terms. However, you chose (or it just happened) to be a separate nation and everybody respects that. All modern nations developed from previous other nations and we all developed from Adam and Eve. You've had your independence one way or the other (like eg the Americans from the British). Just don't deny that you are largely connected (like eg many Americans with the British)! You will only lose the chance to claim people like Goce Delcev from that! If you accepted the simple thing that "Macedonians" and Bulgarians were the one and the same thing when he lived, but the first were under an ethnogenesis process that ended successfully, then Bulgarians themselves will tell you that logically he is one of yours too! (GD=B, B=M => GD=M) For crying out loud, what is it with you against Bulgarians? Are they lesser people or something? Personaly I like you both the same! :NikoSilver: 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please point where I deny Macedonians (Greek) anything. Or, where I make a territorial claim anywhere. The only person that I can answer about is I. The only thing that I can do about extreme nationalisms is finding some compromise version that will be acceptable to the overwhelming majority. As for Telex and FF, I beg to differ. I find Telex user page unbelievable stupid and insulting (NPOV + he talks slavenomakedonski=bugarski). As for FF, this very page is practically an attack page and you call them moderate? Obviously we have very different perspective. As for history claims, everything that I wrote in my Bulgarisam essay is true and I can back it up, I am just waiting for FF to ask me nicely, so is not that simple. Let me tell you something about GD and rest. If you look at their documents, proclamations, etc. you will have very hard time finding documents that are mentioning Bulgarians – it’s always Macedonians, Macedonian people and so on. There were people with separate conscience other than Bulgarians – Pulevski, most of the’ prerodbenici’ were linking us with Ancient Macedonians, the proclamation of Kresna Uprising, Slavejkov letters, T. Goluganov attempts for separate Macedonian churchs, etc, etc. And finally, my grand-grand father was according to this article “Macedonist” (this was during the Ottomans) so I really do not need lecture where I came from. --Cigor 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, attack page. I would have never though of it. You apparently like my -ski? Do they bother you that much? And where are those documents, bring them on, dont hide them under your pillow.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which document specifically, darling? I am not going to write another essay so you can ignore it again. And, lay of the refresh button – I was fixing a grammar error, and you already had two replies. It’s not healthy ,you know.--Cigor 03:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

" If you look at their documents, proclamations, etc" Memory problems? Btw, the refresh button is stupid. There are way cooler methods for alerts.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are too many. The IMORO politics was to hide pro-Bulgarian affiliation. That's why their Constitution (but not the first one) ignores specifically mentioning separate nations. [Image:Ustav20VMORO.jpg]. That is why the Bulgarians have found only one sentence where GD is saying he is Bulgarian - out of all his work! So willingly or accidentally, they actually helped "macedonist" cause. Here is for example an interview of the president of Krusevo Republic, he says he is Macedonian: [9] and [10]. And here is one IMRO leader talking after the failure of Ilinden uprising he unmistakably says he is Macedonian, not Bulgarian nor Serbian. [11]. Here is one IMRO propaganda poster after WWI [12]. I Greek friends will probably not like it, it says Macedonia to Macedonians. This [13] census data in Bulgaria after WWI, notice how Makedonsko in the row for nationality is substituted with Blgarsko, reminds that nothing has changed.--Cigor 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yah yah, I've heard that 100 times before. First of all, no doubt they fought for United Macedonia, but this does not enlighten about their nationality at all. Second, Macedonian in those days, as it is still now, is a regional term for a person living in the region. Remember: "Freedom for Macedonia and Adrianople". According to your logic, those revolutionaries were Adrianopolians too. We dont quite hear of the Adrianople ethnic group those days, sadly.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's what I call Bulgarian ,,democracy". ;-) Better said censorship of the free will of the demos. Bomac 08:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

...Says Bomac who'd rather use novels for his quotations, than true quotes.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice thought Niko, this however means that Macedonism should ceise to exist. But it does, and seems like it's here to stay.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, I think there is a chance for us to finally agree:

1. Do you deny that at some point back in time (any point) Bulgarians and Slavomacedonians were one and the same? If yes, when would you place the timeframe when they (or some of their leaders to be) acquired a separate ethnic consciousness (even hidden for obvious reasons)?
2. Do you feel that images like this: Image:Serhel.JPG, may be offensive to Slavomacedonian or Serbian users (especially if it were surrounded by pictures of Constantine Karamanlis, Eleftherios Venizelos, Kolokotronis, Ioannis Metaxas et al.)? Maybe then you will understand why maps like the one you linked are considered inflammatory and irredentist.
3. Do you feel that (most) Americans should be ashamed of or negating their British ancestry? Should Mexicans negate their Spanish? Why would you be ashamed if a great^{to the Nth} grand father of yours was probably a Bulgarian?

By the way, you said that an ancestor of yours was tortured by Bulgarians. So? Many ancestors of ours were tortured by other Greeks! Should we hate each-other for that? Don't you understand that those times are thankfully well behind and we are well off not twisting the knife in the wound (Greek proverb)? What will be the benefit if we keep doing that instead of recognising that we have more things in common than different? Don't you understand that negating prior connection with them inflames the situation and gives nationalist Bulgarians more reasons to try and annex you? Wouldn't it be fairer to say: "Yeah, we were Bulgarians at some point, but we split and prefer it this way!"?

• Is it logical that we can have two adjacent groups in a region with definitely different ethnic background with the same name? Would you like it if e.g. Kossovo decides to call themselves "State of Macedonia" when and if they split? Wouldn't it be unfair of them to ask only you to disambiguate your name if they did? We are all Balkanians here too, but I don't see any nation called "Republic of Balkans". Don't you understand that if it did, it would be seen by many as a direct claim to annex the whole peninsula? :NikoSilver: 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The only difference between the federation of ,,Greece, FYROM and Serbia" and United Macedonia is that people thought as one part, not different countries. Anyway, I am more offended from the FYROM irredentist inscription on that image, rather than anything else (at fisrst the name of the image was: Federation between Greece, FYROM and Serbia...).

As for what Bulgarians have done in Macedonia (one of many things): The Bulgarian occupation forces shot 12 young men from the village of Vatasha (16 june, 1943). Today there is a memorial near the village. Because of that event, there is a famous Macedonian folk-song Mi zaplakalo seloto Vatasha [14] (Vatasha is crying).

BTW, if some people were declaring themselves as Bulgarians in the past, that doesn't makes them Bulgarians. Macedonia was still under Ottomans then. Bomac 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

if some people were declaring themselves as Bulgarians in the past, that doesn't makes them Bulgarians. I can only admire your sense of humor. Btw Bomac, I'll be quoting you a lot for this neat thought of yours from now on.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, they did shoot. You probably dont know though, that the Bulgarian police shot many more in mainland Bulgaria than they did in Macedonia, and not because they were Macedonian, but because they were communist and were opposed to the regime.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• You are obviously unaware of the concept of self-determination. If someone declares as a Bulgarian, then they are Bulgarian (and if someone declares as a Macedonian, then they are Macedonian). The split comes when one tries to claim their Bulgarian identifying ancestors as Macedonians. BTW why is the fact that the inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia initially welcomed the Bulgarian occupation always covered up? --Tēlex 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They've welcomed any force which they thought it can help them in their struggle for freedom.

BTW, Telex, if Kalasha declares as descendent of the Ancient Macedonians, does it really makes them so? Bomac 10:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. The same way you claim to be a descendent of people self-identifying as ethnic Macedonians born before the 1940s, and maybe of the Ancient Macedonians. You get to decide who you are, not who your ancestors were. That's why I can't claim to be a descendent of the ancient Greeks. --Tēlex 10:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you a descendent of ancient Greeks? ;-) Bomac 10:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. I know I live in the same area and speak the same language as they did, but that's about it. I have an Arvanite background, and they didn't arrive in the area until the 12th century. Unlike the Macedonian Slavs however, I don't make anachronistic claims. --Tēlex 10:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No matter, until the arrival of Macedonian Slavs in Macedonia, wheter there were or there weren't ancients, was Macedonia a desolated land? I don't think so. Do you? Bomac 10:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. According to Britannica, when the Slavs arrived in Macedonia, Macedonia had an ethnic Greek composition [15]. What do you think that means. Why don't you claim to be the descendents of the Greeks and Slavs? --Tēlex 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, this thesis is good according to the ,,famous" genetic analyses, who state that Macedonians, Greeks and Bulgarians are the most similar people, rather than any other ethnic groups in the Balkans. Bomac 10:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to learn more about democracy, see Freedom House (especially the maps). --Tēlex 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! The Republic is in the yellow. Who would have thought...   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Britannica claims that Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria actually quarreled with each other over how to divide up Macedonia among themselves. I find it very disruptive. Bomac 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See Second Balkan War, the zenith of the quarrels. --Tēlex 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that is brutal. As you've said, this world is a bad place. Bomac 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I just figured out what Bomac is trying to say by quoting Britannica above: He thinks that Britannica uses the term "Macedonia" for his rightful country, rather than for the region! He thinks that there were some alleged "Macedonians" who were brutally divided between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia! Don't you know, Bomac, that apart from your Bulgarian/Macedonian-to-be ancestors, there were also many Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians/Not-to-be-Macedonians there? Geez! Thank God you didn't decide to call yourselves "Balkanians" (or even "Europeans" for that matter)! I imagine you would be claiming Paris as well! :NikoSilver: 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And do you know that these "Macedonians" suffered the most in those quarrels, being called Bulgarians, Serbs or even Greeks (for Mac. Slavs)? Bomac 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Everybody suffered. Don't kid yourself. There were immigrants from all newly formed countries to their respective new motherlands. Some were thinking of a different than Bulgarian identity and managed to split. They achieved it. That does not give them the right to claim that their people suffered more. Greeks suffered a lot throughout their whole history. Greek cities of 3000 years of history were deserted in Ionia. Turks, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians-this or Bulgarians-that were transferred. It was a mess. It is not anymore. Let us not strive to make it a mess! Calling yourselves just "Macedonians" implicitly denies that there are other "Macedonians" too who belong in different ethnic groups. Not to mention that it revives dark memories of Balkanic mess and is seen by many as a means to claim annexation of all other "Macedonian" lands who are (and were) not "Macedonians (ethnic group)" inhabited but "Macedonians (Greek)" or "Bulgarians" inhabited. It is an irredentist name by itself, much like "Balkanians" would be for the whole peninsula! Again: Your neighbors DO want you to be autonomous, sovereign and prosperous (because having a rich and healthy neighbor IS better, and because they share many common things with you and value your people as a whole). Don't try to mess with their autonomy, sovereignity and prosperity (because you will be the ones who will lose the most). :NikoSilver: 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I DON'T want to mess with their authonomy, and I don't have territorial pretensions. What happened in the past - happened, now we have to concentrate on our everyday lives and future.

And - I really think that the prefix SlavoMacedonians is really not necessary, as I call myself Macedonian. Yes, there are Macedonians from Greece (=Greek Macedonians), but they are part of the Greek history, and they are Greeks (if you like include here the ancient Macs., I don't care). From today's point of view, the Macedonian Slavic ethnic group is the Macedonians, that is how we traditionally call ourselves. Bomac 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it impossible to understand that if we called ourselves "Balkanians" it would be an indirectly implied generalisation that all Balkanic countries should be annexed by Greece and that all Balkanic people are Greeks? Especially when flying around maps like the one Cigor linked? Why can't you understand that we do not want to change your name, we just want you not to force us change ours? How can it be that we can have two adjacent groups in a region with different ethnic background (linguistically and genetically) and ask only one of them (Macedonians (Greek)) to add a disambiguating term in their name? Isn't it unfair? :NikoSilver: 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that questionnaire would look like this:

A: Where do you come from?

B: Greece.

A: Which region?

B: Makedonia.

A: So, you are Macedonian.

B: Yes, I am.

Noone will ever answer:

A: What is your nationality?

B: Macedonian (in Greek sense). [It will answer: Greek]

That's the problem. Macedonians are ethnic group, they call themselves Macedonians everywhere they go. Here's another dialogue, which I'm pretty sure noone ever made:

A: What is your nationality?

B: Macedonian Slav, or Slavomacedonian [It will answer: Macedonian].

--Bomac 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more interesting dialogues for you:

1

Q: Where do you come from?

A1: Macedonia

A2: Macedonia

A3: Macedonia

Q2: Whoa! So are you Macedonian, Macedonian, or Macedonian?

2

Q: Who are the inhabitants of Macedonia?

A: Macedonians ofcourse!

Q: Ah, so Macedonians are Greeks?

A: Yes (answer was given orally, since you can't mouse-over thin air).

3

Q: Should Macedonia belong to the Macedonians?

Ignorant: Naturally, it is their land!

I could add more till tomorrow if you wish...:NikoSilver: 16:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Macedonia for the Macedonians" - a famous quote of Disraeli (was it him?). It is a tautology, as every statement of the form "Land X for the X-land inhabitants" also works.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Balgariya na tri moreta" - wow, now what are these territorial pretensions towards Serbia, Albania?!? (the third sea), R. Macedonia and Greece? Are they tautology too? Bomac 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? Yes, there is irredentism in Bulgaria too. It refers to restoration of past boundaries of the country, unlike Republican irredentism which calls for a fresh expansion.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, the unsettled dream of a Bulgarian... I wonder how that will sound in Greek? Bomac 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, unstelled, what makes you say that? You'd prefer it to be unsettled?   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

C'm on, isn't that tempting at least? Bomac 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have our sea already, it's not like we are a landlocked country. So it's OK.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I hear that the medusas are very hungry in the middle of the tourist season. Bomac 14:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The five million or so tourists dont seem to mind them. Its part of the charm.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Greece is more popular destination than the Bulgarian Μαύρη θάλασσα. Bomac 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Still does not stop 10 billion dollars of annual revenue. And since you started with the comparisons, why not compare your country with Albania for example? Oh, because you're landlocked. Sorry.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So what? Hungary is a landlocked country, and still has annual revenue incomaparable much greater than that of Bulgaria. You should know to use the things you have in a better way. Bomac 14:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for the Republic. Btw, check this, Hungary is not much higher than Bulgaria, most likely it is lower.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria is not in the list. You've mixed up with Βέλγιο, darling. Bomac 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible that I mixed it up. Do you feel better now, for your country also not appearing in the list, sweetheart?   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Actually, my country doesn't have a steady develloped tourism, although I think it may be a good tourist destination. We have the beautiful Ohrid, Prespa and the now-revitalizing Dojran Lakes at least for summer tourism. Bomac 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So there is hope. Some day both of our countries can appear in the list. And who knows, given their proximity, there might be huge mutual tourism.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, Bulgaria will get firstly. We are still in process of macedonisation here. Bomac 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were already Macedonized, and now the Europeanization was on the rise. If you say so.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the Serbs are holding tightly... They won't gonna give it up so quickly. They have spies in every corner. Bomac 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to NS

1. To answer your first question, I would like briefly touch on Middle Ages. History of Macedonia and Bulgaria is different. While there Vlah and Cuman aristocrats were fighting for power, Macedonia was one of the last Byzantine provinces. Later, Skopje turned to be capitol of Serbian Empire. After that, Turks conquered all of Balkan, and here comes vacuum period for all Christians. Of all, Macedonia is affected most, because the Turks stay there longest. In the periods 1400-1800, there are many sources describing them as Serbs, Bulgarians and Macedonians. I think Serbian reference is strongest of all. So the real question is if we were Bulgarians, when did this happen? Let’s see the peasantry was for the most part Slav and its loyalty was primarily to their family, village, with the Christian Orthodox identity as the paramount spiritual affiliation. Ethnic identity could have been changed practically overnight. For example see this [16]. The intellectuals were Hellenophile. So the questions when did they turned to be Bulgarian? One of the first prerodbenik is D. Miladinov. Only after the meeting with the Russian Slavist Viktor Grigorovich in 1845 he becomes from “Greek” to “Bulgarian”. Kuzman Shapkarev for this writes “„Ot togava se prepravil beshe od Savel na Pavel, beshe se vzrodilo u nego edno nenasito rodolubie, do tolkova schoto duri do fanatizam dopirashe.” ( From then he turned from Saul to Paul, and a patriotism was born, almost limiting with fanatic). Russia was training other prerodbenici as well. And since I mentioned Shapkarev, he was working on a common Macedonian-Bulgarian language, this is true. But when this failed he wrote : He wrote "Edvam se oslobodivme od Grcite, sega pak Sopie li da staneme? ('We've barely freed ourselves from the Greeks-- are we to become Shopi in now? (Shopi are called people from Sofia region, but in wider sense meaning Bulgarians from Bulgaria). That Macedonian and Bulgarian language are same, is not true. We were beeing ridiculed by Bulgarians. Here is Editor's commentary On the language of another important prerodbenik: J. Hadzi Konstantinov - Dzinot As concerns the language of Mr. Jordan, anyone can see that it is so different from our written and spoken language, so that to a person reading it for the first time it will appear not only incomprehensible but completely different. And in truth his language, even though it appears to be Bulgarian, and its material, like that of our language, is also taken from the Church Slavic litei'ary language, has in its form, nevertheless, that is in the pronunciation of the words and in writing, so many properties and peculiarities that it can more easily be learned and spoken correctly by a foreigner, and not by a native Bulgarian. May the residents of Skopje forgive us, along with those who speak a similar language: since they also do not understand our language, nor can they speak it. "Bolgarski" (Bulgarian) in "Carigradski vesfnik" (Istambul Herald), No.55, October 6, 1851, p.19. They, do not understand our language, let me repeat that. Off course next Dzinot writes “tija prokletija Blgari”,(those damned Bulgarians) and subsequently tagged as a Serbian agent. Incidentally, there were many other scenarios the could have happened. For example you can read here where Bulgaria do not exist at all, but Macedonia do. If that was the case, by now Bulgarians would be something related to history. Read here for Greek Proposal for a Sovereign Macedonia: [17]

So why all this long intro in the first place? I am really hoping you read most of the text, to understand the key concept – Macedonians are not equal to Bulgarians. We have lot of thing to share in terms of history and culture but they are not the same. There is overlapping but we are/were not the same. We are closest to Bulgarians, but not the same. Now, typical Bulgarian would consider this as a regionalism, but we tend not to. So finally to answer your question. When would I place the timeframe , the answer is it depends. Obviously, the Macedonist would like to put the year as early as mid 19 th century, whereas Bulgarians as late as 1944. There were several events that shaped Macedonian thinkers – 1878 (failure of SanStefan), 1903 (failure of Ilinden uprising), 1913 Balkan wars/division of Macedonia. After WWI, things are pretty clear that Bulgarian option is completely discredited. But then, when we look at different writings, this may have happened much earlier. For example, in 1888, Temko Popov writes in his letter “..Don't fool yourself, Despot, the national spirit in Macedonia has attained such a state that Jesus Christ himself, if he were to descend from heaven, could not convince a Macedonian that he is a Bulgarian or a Serb, except for those Macedonians in whom Bulgarian propaganda has already taken root…” . We know earlier that in Kresna Uprising they are talking about Macedonians only. My point is, you can not tell when exactly the conscience shifted, because there was never option to be proclaimed Macedonian. When left to choose between Bulgarian and Greek, Macedonian opt for the first one, naturally.--Cigor

• So I take it that it makes such a big difference for you if it were 1878, 1900 or 1944? My honest opinion is that ethnogenesis is a lengthy gradual process. It can't happen overnight. If it takes eg ~100 years, then you can just say that 1% of the population turned every year in average. But that would be WP:OR, since I am sure that the rate couldn't have been consistent. I guess we don't have much to disagree here, despite the fact that I don't find your sources credible (no offence -just drop maknews altogether). --NikoSilver

The point is in say, 1750 you would not find many Bulgarian but Serbian and (gosh!) Macedonians. And, exactly it can't happen overnight. That is why by 1944 there was an overwhelming consensus.--Cigor 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

2. As for the image, I’ve placed to prove my point: IMORO is saying Macedonia to Macedonians, but Greek Macedonia is already in Greece. So, why should Greeks care for united Macedonia? Later, Bulgarians will complain “we never meant Macedonian people as real nation rather than congregation of different ethnicity”. Sure, whatever. --Cigor

• That is exactly the problem: If you say "Macedonia to the Macedonians" there is absolutely NO problem. But with this crazy Macedonia (terminology) that was largely inflicted on both of us, some members of your ethnic group (or Greeks or thirds) can inevitably confuse it with: "Macedonia to the Macedonians" (mouse-over to see the difference). That is where the problems start! Greeks et al wouldn't have to fear you, if we were alone in the world. Unfortunately, if a radical party in your country gains power (one way or the other...) and decides to implement plan B, then the problem is that we will have so many bullies pretending to ...separate us, that we will both lose. Do you understand what I mean? Why do you still want such a thing hanging over our peaceful heads? --NikoSilver

NS, you seem to be an intelligent person. Although I understand part of your concerns, let me ask you this question: does the name issue can really alter all those claims? Do you think that Hitler needed historical claims to justify expansion? Sure, he stated that eastern Europe was inhabited by Germanic people, but was that really relevant?In my mind, the era of wars for territorial expansion ended (perhaps I am optimist, but..) because population is largely concentrated in the cities ( in your capital there is a third of your population, JUST like our), the economy is largely service oriented rather than physical resource oriented. However, let’s say I am wrong. The only way Republic of Macedonia to realize whatever claims there are is only if 1) it have resources to do it, and/or 2) it has the opportunity to do it and/or 3) it has the willpower to do it (sorted by relevance, I think).Radical party coming to power has little to do with this.Whether we call ourselves Macedonians or something else there can always be claims.

Perhaps we want to liberate our long oppressed Byzantinized Slavs (according to Fallmerayer who thought all Greeks are Slav decent). Or, let’s say Albanian are sufficiently resourceful to invade Greece (or just being opportunistic if Greece is in trouble) to rescue our friend Telex who has Albanian roots. But Telex will say, back off, I feel Greek, however it doesn’t matter, they will “rescue” him, nevertheless. Bulgarians, well, they have pretty much claims for all neighbors (that is, all neighbors are Bulgarian). Turkey, well what can I say. And Arabs can come to your Crete, they had it for what couple of centuries? Heck, even French or Spanish can claim Greece based on Crusade states. Greeks on the other hand, if they had a radical party AND had the conditions mentioned above fulfilled could laid claims to the territories of former Byzantine Empire, that is all their neighbors.

So, my point is if you want to find claims, no mater how frivolous, you can find them. Even if you really can not find them, you can fabricate them. So, how to prevent this crap? Perhaps, with mutual understanding and tolerance. Maybe. The way is going, it certainly doesn’t seem that. --Cigor 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Firstly, Americans are not largely from British ancestry, but German, but that is not the point. Nor Mexican=Spanish (although if you watch their TV you may think so, it’s very rasist, I know, I live in Texas). There is no reasons for shame because England is country that has been independent for centuries. There is no disambiguates there. Macedonia/Bulgaria is different, Bulgaria has an opinion that they are bordering with Bulgarians only. Bulgarian do this: [18], whereas Macedonian immigrants in USA before WWI write this [19]. Do you understand the difference, now?--Cigor

• Again, I wouldn't count much on these allegations by the highly discredited maknews. Also, I couldn't care less even if it actually happened then (I would care if it happened now!). As I told you, ethnogenesis to my opinion is a lengthy process. --NikoSilver

4. I never said we should hate each other. I didn’t say he was tortured. Actually he was supposed to be executed by the Serbs, but he survived, and here I am. It is a long story and the story has Turks, Greeks,Bulgarians and Serbs involved. If we should say we were Bulgarians at some time, than we should clearly understand what does the term Bulgarians at different timeframe means. Also, I would really like to know what exactly they are –Bulgars, Slavs, Vlahs, Kumans, Thracians, etc. So far in the history we find all these people using the name Bulgarians. Heck, I called myself Macedonian, but that doesn’t mean I am descendant of Alexander the Great.--Cigor

• We have a solid base for communication if your last sentence is sincere. For the record I probably don't have either. My father is from Paxos and my mother from Crete. On the rest of your comment, if you were gradually evolving to non-Bulgarians since 1878 (as you say) then most of the ethnic groups you quoted are your ancestors too. So why resent Bulgarians? I am sure you know the whole fuss between Greeks and Bulgarians in the early second millenium and the early 20th century. It is a long-long time ago, and we have gradually become friends. Good friends, and allies. --NikoSilver

Well, I probably shouldn't discussing this topic with you but (gosh!) FF, but we view Bulgarian views as maximalist and exclusive. Here we can’t find common ground. Maybe in the future we’ll find some compromise, but again, the way is going we need vision from both sides and that is unlikely.--Cigor 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Actually, even today I still don’t understand what is the big deal about the naming. It is irrational to have a modern political dispute over a name, mostly because of the glory of Macedonian name that happened some 2300 years ago. I certainly don’t see problem between country Luxemburg and Belgian province Luxemburg (which incidentally, just like our case, they are neighbors) . It is irrational IMHO, but obviously you have a different opinion. I have absolutely no problem for the Greek Macedonians to be called Macedonians, but on the other hand, don’t except to change my name . Cheers. --Cigor 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think I explained that in #2. --NikoSilver

Yet I am to hear a single word of criticism against the mass killings the Serbs undertook in the 1920s and 1930s in your country. You approve of that? If you do, you are a true Macedonist, it would seem.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FF, the Serbs did many atrocities, I am sure you know. But, today ,Serbs have absolutely no problems with us, they fully recognize us (apart of the Church issue). If I talk to Serbs, very few will say, oh you are (South) Serbian (mostly joking). But, if I talk to Bulgarians it is always either avoidance of the topic (if they are polite) or very aggressive attacks and accusations (stolen history, you are Bulgarians, etc, you know the drill..). So the problem is not that much what has been done in the past – but what is happening now. --Cigor 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy Mother of God, Macedonism is exactly about claiming someone else's history. If you did not claim Bulgarian history up to say 1912, we would not have any problems at all, like you dont have with your Serbian buddies. Hell you might even choose to revert to the original alphabet of your language - the Bulgarian alphabet, rahter than the Serbian, for that matter. I dont see the Republic claiming Serbian historical figures.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, I intermingled my... wisdom inside your comments, adding short-sigs for both of us. I hope you don't mind. You will find that we agree in many things...:NikoSilver: 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This source does not say a word about the "Macedonian language". It talks about Macedonian local dialects. As for Claim 1, the statement is so vague that it needs to be expanded or backed up with a source.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Old Church Slavonic language" is based on the local dialects, not the Macedonian language. You are pushing your imagination a little too far maybe?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I thougt we alredy went troug Claim 1. The sentence is:

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

Ethnicity or nationality can be formed on any basis including regional. THAT is what self-determination. And, you didn't answer my question before which Bulgarian are you? Bulgar, Slav, Cuman, Vlah, Thracian, etc..--Cigor 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Dare to ask yourself the same question before you try it on others? I mean you have to consider Kuber (Bulgars), the Cumans (Kumanovo), and so on.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The regional/geographical definition is unique to Macedonism. And how is geographical prescription of nationality a SELF-identification anyway? If you have doubts, as you probably do, check this out.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. I already stated example for Bulgaria(ns). Besides, we were there, way before. Let me quote my dude Puleski in his Dictionary of Three Languages (1875) : What do we call a nation (narod / ethnicity)? (p.48) Pulevski answers “People who are of the same origin and who speak the same words and who live and make friends of each other, who have the same customs and songs and entertainment are what we call a nation, and the place where that people lives is called the people's country. Thus the Macedonians also are a nation and the place which is theirs is called Macedonia” (p.49). So my point is we think we should be ethnicity - Bulgarians disapprove => self determination argument. Does the Claim 1 answer is more clear to you now, FF?--Cigor 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FF, I see you added rebuttal. So, how do we proceed? Do I do a separate rebuttal to your rebuttal. If so, I am afraid it's going to look like a Yahoo message board, but if that is your choice, fine. --Cigor 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's going to look like whatever you make it look like.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you never sleep do you? I just posted a copy of my question, since I intend to answer other questions here? It's not healthy, you know? --Cigor 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too disapponted, afterall, as all know, I'm paid to watch you.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. But since you are idle here is some reading material for you: [20]. After all, you named a city after this dude. Why don't you follow his advice from 1917, rather than ridiculing him? --Cigor 00:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this statement, and statements by latter communists. And I'll have to point you to Misirkov and his thoughts about the population of Skopie and the region of today's Republic. After all, unlike Blagoev, Misirkov is highly respected figure in your history.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I am curious than, why do you have a city named after him, he sounds like a Bulgarian traitor to me. --Cigor 01:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the Republican history, not the Bulgarian history. And yes we do have Blagoevgrad, and also other cities like Goce Delchev and Sandanski, I guess they were traitors too? Btw, Misirkov is not really a respected figure in the Bulgarian history, despite the fact that in 1919 he called the population of Skopie entirely Bulgarian, and the Republic - Bulgarian since the 7th century. The reasons, in my opinion, are in the problems of his self-determination.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why

If the article starts as it is written with the main meaning of the term ,it expreses confusion, as there are critics about and supports for. It is better to be written so, becose in Macedonia the idea is not a consious thing with direct work against bulgarians (is this so or not it is not proven), thats why we should not state such quotes (it destroies wikipedia's relevancy policy). The nation feels as Macedonian, and it functions by that way. if you want the article to stay in the old form in the start, please prove that the macedonist are working against Bulgarians (do not missunderstand, I'm Macedonian) knowing that, and that the Bulgarians are working against the Macedonians not as Bulgarists. Sorry for the bad english.--Vlatko 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem incapable of making a distinction between the validity of the claims and the scope of the term, which is not surprising given your bad English.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is thtat the best comment you can invent. It tells me all about you. Please see the meaning, is not the bad english for you to be uncapable to understand what it means, (BTW I'm not the one who is paied to be Bulgarian, I'm Macedonian by blood).--Vlatko 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's all about the money, right Vlatkoto? Tell that to the people in the university of Plovdiv who gave you a stipend to study there. And be careful, you dont know what the government will check when you apply for Bulgarian citizenship. They might find your comments.   /FunkyFly.talk_  14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just want the begining of the article to be written in an neutral form of the meaning of the term. After that to follow the other term POV's, than we can have an eligable article that will be neutral. And I never, never atack a person, I'm human, please divide the things in the life as they should be divided. You can do everything with me, but change me inside, never!.--Vlatko 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"necer [sic] attack a person": If you say so, although there is a large collection with quotations to prove otherwise.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I do not want to spend my time in disscusions that only will and in a "hate" between us, I proposed the start of the article to be made in a neutral form, and then to follow others meaning POV's, is this enough for a disscus. I'm stopping with the nonsence, you can continue if you want with, I won't.!.--Vlatko 18:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You can start with suggesting concrete improvements. And also, does that mean that you have finally given up on the claims that it represents Macedonian culture and stuff?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NO, i did not, the word genaraly means related to macedonian "things". OK? here we can make the title related explanation in order of the culturaly influence of Macedonia, the macedonian culture, generaly speaking (mentioning and the posibility that there is an posible succesor of ancient macedonians, and culture. They influenced, as a part of greek ethnic group, or as unique ethnic group asimilated, or still they exist as Macedonian (ethnic group)>>>controversal expresion for all the mentioned groups, we do not define concret ), and the use of Macedonism in order of expresing ideas (political, cultural... ) for purposes. Do you agree of a context like this one.--Vlatko 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to source this. Find pages where "Macedonism" is defined this way.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And if I source a page, How can we be so sure in the relevancy of the written, someone wrote it, just like me and you are doing that here....?--Vlatko 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to have such an explanation of the term like in the starting article, there must be some basis ("some" Macedonian culture or "other" that is named Macedonian for the purposes related ) from wich the proces you described is crated. There is no logic in the describing of an idea, where we can read only what hapens of its acting, but the routes of the idea, how it is created, is there's someone wrong or not, (we should not forget that there are different atitudes to Macedonia>>>>none of them shell be directly pointed, the sence will be lost). Macedonism means things related to macedonia (generaly on cultural aspect). The use of macedonism fo other purposes must not be confused with.......?--Vlatko 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This would mean that the term is not used in this sense.   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)