Talk:World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Latest edits

I hope I didn't speak too soon. I see there is another conflict in editing rather than discussion. Let's take a look: I assume this edit, with the ominous "new edit war" comment is a reasonable picture of the disagreement? Let's discuss the differences one at a time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1. place=parts of Macedonia (approximately south-west Greater Bulgaria) or (approximately Greater Bulgaria) -- seems clear that this part of the war didn't extend to north or east Greater Bulgaria - the MNLA didn't roll into Sofia, did it?
2. result=Inconclusive, small areas liberated or result=Inconclusive -- splitting hairs. If you can find a reference that says small areas were more or less continuously liberated, cite it, otherwise Inconclusive seems a fair default.
3. combatant1=...Macedonian National Liberation Army or combatant1=... (Macedonian National Liberation Army) -- a matter of parentheses! Seems to imply the MNLA were somehow less important than the others, not good.
4. casualties list -- breaking into casualties1, casualties2, casualties 3 seems to imply that the Albanians were on the side of the Axis, which, from what little I know of the war, was not correct. In fact, I don't like either option, it seems the casualties are only listed on the Allied side. Surely there were Axis casualties?
5. Placement of images -- eh. Apparently only a difference of taste, or is there something I'm missing?
6. "See also" -- 3 columns or 2 columns, and ordering. Again, a difference of taste.

That's it? This is nothing to write home about, folks. A couple of obvious minor changes, and a couple of differences of taste. Please, don't revert, or talk about "edit war", over trivialities like this. I'm going to make a request here: don't make reverts except for vandalism. If someone makes a change, assume it's for the better. If some parts aren't right, edit it further, trying to keep the spirit of the change, but don't go back to a prior version before the change, keep moving forward, don't go back. If you disagree with a change completely, talk it through here, see if you can get agreement to changing it back. Surely we can talk over whether images should be two inches up or two inches down without fighting over it. Please? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Jingiby intented only to revert this edit but without first reviewing the edits following that one, reverted the article anyway. I do not know why he would want to place the images in different places of the a article and resize them, especially the one of Greater Bulgaria. At the moment all of my edits are to enhance the state and look of the article, I have not contributed or deleted any information, only fixed grammar or changed wording so that the article is of a professional standard :) 203.59.172.94 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. OK, then, state your case for where the images should be, and Jingiby will state his, hopefully you can work something out. But, please, keep a sense of perspective. This should not be a big deal, two inches up or down is not going to kill anyone. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument is as follows:

1. The war was contained within the Macedonian region and not outside.
2. Here, here and here.
3. MNLA was the Macedonian division of the Yugoslav Partisans [5].
4. Here, here and here.
5. The images should be laid out like this.
6. The amount or order of the columns is not that important, the 1st column was Macedonia related, the 2nd was Yugoslavia related and the 3rd; other.

Regards. 203.59.172.94 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is pure bull****! Its clearly anti-Yugoslav and anti-partisan propaganda. Notice how the Bulgarian crimes are made small compared by the Yugoslav ones. And Bulgarians have always called Macedonia and its people their own, which is not true. Whoever made this article should be ashamed of himself! Bulgarians were not "passively" on the side of the axis, they used their alliance with the Germans to attack Serbia, which is not mentioned here. They made many atrocities against the Serbian, as well as Macedonian population during the WW2. Yet nobody seems to see the truth about their own side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.68.149 (talk) 22:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The message above is example of the trolling and trying to instigate an edit war. Notice the extreme Serbian POV in it. Bulgarian crimes! What are those? - Sources? Attack Serbia? Just the opposite. Serbia attacked Bulgaria, killing people - given facts with sources in the article. Attrocities against Serbian - naked emotions without any support, and so on. Now I regret giving a chance to Frightner, he didn't deserve this - look here - - Поздрав брате. Ако сакаш да видиш Бугарски POV погледни ја оваа страница, National Liberation War of Macedonia. Сите Бугари што учествуваат тука, користет анти-Македонски сајтови како promacedonia.org и macedoniainfo.com. Ќе видиш дека јас учествувам со NPOV [1]. Мојето корисничко име беше Frightner ама ме блокираја дека им пцуев на некој Грци и Бугари што ја вандализираја страницата. 124.168.105.254 19:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC) - - Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:INkubusse" - - resulting in this on my talk page: - - I belive I read that on your user page, so here it is: leave us alone you inhuman animals! We are human beings just like the rest of the people of the world and we deserve life! Think about what I said! Regards, INkubusse 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. ARRRGHHH, God knows! - - Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lantonov" - - What I get is personal attacks for being good. - - Answer: I won't leave you alone to steal from our Bulgarian history and culture. You should be ashamed of yourself for desecrating the memory of your ancestors who paid with their blood the honour of the Bulgarian name. You are people without honour who spit on the face of your fatherland. Lantonov 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) - - "The war was contained within the Macedonian region and not outside." Then why a picture of "Greater Bulgaria" and another with parts of Bulgaria and Greece is included? Is this a fight ("National Liberation War") for "Greater Macedonia". With everything that Frightner does, it appears that he wants to convince us (and also himself) that this is so. That historical facts speak something else is not my fault, and thus your personal attacks are misdirected. Better blame it on your biased history textbooks. Lantonov 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to attract attentions to the admins to the above, which was deleted by Frigther immediately after he saw it. Also more personal attacks on my talk pgae by him. Above we agreed to allow him on the talk page (not on the article itself) as long as he is being civil. I think he showed he can't be such. Lantonov 11:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to be right. :-(. I'll semi-protect your user and talk pages, tell me if you want them unprotected. Thanks for trying. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Frightner evading his ban

If you see a IP address you suspect might be Frightner (203.59.*.*), you can add it to this list and undo all of the edits of that user. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy he is no longer allowed to edit in any way, including talk pages and so on. Then you can let either User:AnonEMouse or User:Neil who are admins and are aware of the case. Thanks. Jingby 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this are absolutely not acceptable. I will semi-protect this article and talk page for a time, so IPs and new editors can not edit them. If the protection expires and the vandalism resumes, please drop a note on my talk page with diffs, and I will restore the protection. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All quiet here now. I re-read carefully the article, and the overall impression is satisfacory, although it makes a rather bumpy reading with strange turns in phrase at places. This is mostly due to frequent deletions and reshuffles. A style and grammar check, structuring, and semantical sentence reordering would do good here. Lantonov 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

Dear fellow Wikipedians. I've just included several photographs that are directly connected with National Liberation War of Macedonia. The photographs are released by the Archives of Macedonia, and are copyright free. Every erasing of these photos is an act of vandalization. Thank you in advance. Regards. Revizionist 10:37, 03 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal

Yes I agree that "Yugoslav partisans" is an inappropriate term. The partisans operating in Vardar Macedonia were ethnic Macedonians, Aromanians, some Turks, Serbs and Albanians. The appropriate word would be Macedonian partisans (Vardar Macedonia) or just ethnic Macedonian partisans. And one more thing, 90% of them were fighting for an independent Macedonia. Not until Kolishevski's arrival did they adopted the "Macedonia as a part of Yugoslavia principle". Revizionist 10:25, 05 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaced map and images

I replaced this map, because it is unrelated with the chapter -Early stages of conflict. Jingby 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I removed some deleted, not active images. Jingby 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1944 and aftermath-PERSECUTION of the BULGARIAN IDENTITY

The new policy really meant the denationalization of the Macedonians(or the creation of a new macedonian identity After WWII many intellectuals who opposed the denationalizational policy of Yugoslavia were perscecuted and sent to prison. The first trials started in May 28,1945 In Skopje alone 18 trials were conducted against Bulgarians.Of the 226 accused 22 were sentenced to death and the others to long prison years in prison Similar trials took place elsewhere in Yugoslavia

In September 1945 a Macedonian organization the Democratic Front Ilinden 1903 sent a lengthy letter to the wartime allied governments After cataloguing the sufferings of Bulgarians in Macedonia,it stated that without a free Macedonia there will not be peace in the Balkans. The group was accused by the Tito governments of terrorist activities and its leaders were sentenced by the Yugoslavs to long time prison terms

Around the end of 1945 the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization IMRO was reorganized and began an illegal struggle

In 1946 IMRO issued a Memorandum to the Great Powers, expressing again the sufferings of the Bulgarian population in Yugoslav Macedonia.

The leaders were arrested but were defended by the Communist prime minister of Macedonia

Though a Communist,Chento also felt himself a Bulgarian.He was sentenced to 12 years and the delegation from the great powers was not allowed to meet him

Under the influence of IMRO many pro-bulgarian organizations arose.Trial after trial followed in Yugoslav Macedonia.

From 1944 to 1980, 700 political trials were conducted against intellectuals. Hundreds of death sentences were handed down and 23.000 individuals were disappeared and are presumed to have been murdered.

Another 120.000 spent time in prisons and concentration camps.Approximately 180.000 emigrated to Bulgaria,USA,Canada and Australia

All of this occured in a population within an area whose population numbered only around two millions in 1990

Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook [6]

Macedonian language mentioning in the article

Actually there was no Macedonian literary language at the time. Purely linguistically the dialects of the local slavic population were considered Bulgarian and between the World Wars - Serbian by the current administration. Macedonian language is codified later. --Laveol ^T 09:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaotic page-move history; history merge

Oh dear, what a chaotic page history.

So, Frightner originally created this page under the current title, National Liberation War of Macedonia, on 22 July 07:

• 12:59, 22 July 2007 Frightner (Talk | contribs | block) (1,319 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Infobox Military Conflict |conflict=National Liberation War of Macedonia |image= |caption= |partof=World War II |place=parts of [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonia...')

Then, between 29 and 31 July, Jingiby wildly moved the page somewhere else:

• 17:51, 29 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved National Liberation War of Macedonia to Military history of Republic of Macedonia during World War II. ‎ (More precise!)
• 09:46, 31 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved Military history of Republic of Macedonia during World War II to Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during WWII
• 09:46, 31 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved Military history of Republic of Macedonia during World War II to Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during WWII.]] ‎ (More precise!)
• 09:47, 31 July 2007 Jingiby (Talk | contribs | block) moved Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during WWII. to Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II ‎ (SAME)

Then Frightner copy-pasted most of the contents back here, leaving a short skeleton article in the new location (then Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II, currently Military history of the Republic of Macedonia)

• 12:58, 31 July 2007 Frightner (Talk | contribs | block) (1,513 bytes) (there, now everyone's happy) [7]
• 12:58, 31 July 2007 Frightner (Talk | contribs | block) (29,335 bytes) (←Created page...) [8]

As a result, all the original page history of this page from between 22 July and 31 July is now stored at the "Military history..." article.

The other page, with this page's original history, was then maintained as a separate article, and in the process underwent even further moves:

• 14:24, 6 August 2007 TheFEARgod (Talk | contribs | block) moved Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II to Occupation of Vardar Macedonia during World War II
• 09:30, 12 August 2007 Лилјак (Talk | contribs | block) moved Occupation of Vardar Macedonia during World War II to Military history of the Republic of Macedonia

Whoever is responsible for this chaos owes me a beer for making me figure this all out.

I think I'll do a history merge, but it's going to be a tricky one. I'll try to move the original history of this page back from the current "Military history..." article into this one. Please stand by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I managed. For the record:

History merge performed

• All edits currently stored in this page's history before the edit by Frightner, 12:58, 31 July, are those that were made to this page's first incarnation, which was in the meantime moved and morphed into the current Military history of the Republic of Macedonia article. They were merged back in here today, on 10 October.
• All edits between 12:58, 31 July, and 10 October 22:40, are those originally made to this page's second incarnation, created by Frightner in a cut-and-paste move and repaired today.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources: Another total mess-up

The sourcing of this article sucks. It's POV-ishness sucks too, but let's just look at the sources for a moment. (Disclaimer: I don't read a word of either Macedonian or Bulgarian, so all my comments regarding the non-English ones are just based on the context they are from and from the overall impression.)

1. Vladimir Zerjavic - YUGOSLAVIA MANIPULATIONS WITH THE NUMBER OF SECOND WORLD WAR VICTIMS, Publisher:Croatian Information Centre, ISBN 0-919817-32-7 [9]
   • Written by some guy with a heavy Croatian, anti-Serbian agenda, published by a "Croatian Information Center" - no indications as to reliability. If we quote this guy's estimates, we should at least also be quoting the other ones he's arguing against. (Haven't checked if they differ much in those parts that concern us here though).
2. "Siegfried Jakoby, secretary to Einstein: "Macedonia - What I saw there, 1927"". Veritas, Macedonia under oppression 1919-1929, Sofia, 1931, pp. 511-512; the original copy is a Bulgarian translation from German. Retrieved 2007-08-04.
   • A primary source, clearly with a biased perspective, and hosted by an evidently partisan website. We should not be presenting arguments and conclusions (or make insinuations about such) based on primary sources. Only reliable secondary sources count.
3. "Trial of Bulgarians in Bitolya". Veritas, Macedonia Under Oppression 1919-1929, Sofia, 1931, pp. 460 464; the original is in Bulgarian. 1931. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
   • Same as above, possibly even more biased.
4. Bulgarian army occupation units in Yugoslavia 1941
   • Well, this one seems relatively uncontentious, at a first glance.
5. "Зборник докумената и података о народоослободплачком рату jугословенских народа", т. VII, кн. 1, Борбе у Македониjи. Београд, 1952, с. XII и 22.
   • Can't say about this one. Is it just a collection of primary documents, or does it contain academic analysis that would actually back up the implicit claims made here? Did anybody actually go and read it, or did you cite it second-hand?
6. Kurt Haucke-BULGARIEN,Land - Volk - Geschichte - Kultur - Wirtschaft. GAUVERLAG BAYREUTH, 1943 [10]
   • Another primary source, and obviously of the worst kind. A Nazi publication from 1943.
7. Кои беа партизаните во Македонија Никола Петров, Скопје, 1998
   • Some text by some guy from Skopje, hosted on the website of some guy from Bulgaria. No idea as to its reliability. If the text as such is a decent academic publication, then it is most likely also copyrighted, meaning the Bulgarian website hosting it is a copyvio, so we shouldn't link to it (but could of course still cite the original book)
8. IMRO Militia And Volunteer Battalions Of Southwestern Macedonia, 1943-1944 by Vic Nicholas
   • A pamphlet written up by some guy in MS Word, hosted on a completely worthless private nationalist website.
9. OHRID DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR[11]
   • Could serve as a decent source about the modern city, but there's nothing inspiring confidence in its value as a source on history.
10. ФОРУМ, "КАТАРАКТА", Ефтим Гашев
    • A journalistic text, can't say about the overall quality of the journal it's from, but normally we should be using history books by academic historians to back up such a statement, not some piece of journalism.
11. World Investment News Macedonia, Historical Events
    • Well, for sourcing a common-knowledge statement such as the date of the liberation, I guess it's sufficient. But it's still a shame we have to rely on something like this instead of decent academic literature.
12. Unet.com.mk Uprising!
    • An anonymous text about history, on a site that otherwise does something else. Again, for this point it's probably okay, sort of. But why, after months of work on this article, do we not have anything better?
13. THE EXECUTION OF THE 12 YOUNG MEN FROM VATASA IN MACEDONIA ON THE 16 JUNE, 1943
    • From a polemical nationalist website, definitely not a reliable source.
14. TODAY IN HISTORY, 1943 Macedonian Information Agency, June 16, 2007
    • Sort of semi-acceptable, but we should be able to do better.
15. Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски" София-1992[[12]
    • From an obviously partisan book of unknown quality. The statement sourced from it (heavily POV claim) can definitely not stand as a full assertion as undisputed truth, as it now does.
16. RADIO FREE EUROPE. Research, RAD Background Report/107,(East), 20 June 1984 - BULGARIAN FILM PROVOKES YUGOSLAV ANGER by Slobodan Stankovic [13]
    • Could be a reliable source about its primary subject matter, the 1984 minor ideological squirmish between Yugoslav and Bulgarian agencies over a movie. Worthless as a source about the historical events from 1943.
17. Goli Otok: the island of death : a diary in letters by Venko Markovski, New York, Columbia University Press, 1984
    • Book is probably okay as a source; presentation in the article needs to be cleansed of POV argumentative style.
18. Македонската кървава Коледа. Създаване и утвърждаване на Вардарска Македония като Република в Югославска Федерация (1943-1946) Веселин Ангелов, 2003-08-01, ISBN 9548008777 9789548008778
    • Possibly okay as a source for reporting a claim, but certainly not for letting that (heavily POV) claim stand as undisputed truth as it now does.
19. Новата национално-освободителна борба във Вардарска Македония 1944-1991г. доц. д-р Димитър Гоцев [14](Македонски научен институт, София, 1998г.)
    • Another heavily partisan source of dubious quality; coverage of the incident sourced from it is blown out of all proportion in the article now, with an obvious POV bias.
20. СТЕНОГРАФСКИ БЕЛЕШКИ Тринаесеттото продолжение на Четиринаесеттата седница на Собранието на Република Македонија, 17 January, 2007
    • Another primary source; the whole section this stands in is heavily POV and argumentative without much backup through secondary sources.
21. КОЈ СО КОГО ЌЕ СЕ ПОМИРУВА - Лидерот на ВМРО-ДПМНЕ и Премиер на Република Македониjа, Љубчо Георгиевски одговара и полемизира на темата за национално помирување.
    • Ditto.

Sorry for being blunt: But this is what you get when a bunch of kids obsessed with cheap nationalist propaganda wars spends all their time googling for "arguments", cherry-picking bits and pieces from whatever junk they can find on the internet, just to bolster up their pet POV issues, instead of spending some time in a university library reading some decent literature. I mean, come on, it's not as if there was no academic coverage (from neutral, preferably outside sources) of the events of WWII in Yugoslavia. Go and read it, then come back and rewrite the article. Forget about those cheap propaganda websites you've lived on.

In the meantime, I'll first {fact}-tag and later probably remove some large chunks of text from this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First I want to admit that I gave in on this particular article after Frightner, lets say, quit. I have to say the Fut Perf is right for most of the stuff. I'll just mark the things about which I disagree or have something to say about. A note about the sites - they might be nationalistic and so on, but the texts published in them are in original (or are a translation of the original). They were added to the sites because they present views similar to the ones desired by the host, but that does not mean that they were written with the same purpose.

• Siegfried Jakoby's book is not as biased as it seams and is as close to what we seek (it is not a primary source, but it has analysis that surely fit. I've found only extracts of it so far and to confess I'm not willing to invest a lot of time in any search.
• Oh, just a note about the World Investment News site - it should be more than removed since it has conflicting articles about the different countries.
• Venko Markovski's book should be OK, too. Moreover he was born in Macedonia after all - and an ethnic Macedonia according to the MK wiki (it turns out I do not disagree with you on that one)
• Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него Коста Църнушанов, Унив. изд. "Св. Климент Охридски" София-1992 is printed by a University press and the author is surely an academician (that's just a note really)

To sum it up - yes the sources are POV at the moment. The problem is that I'm not aware of abny descent Western (as it turns out non-German) literature on the subject. The only other literature is Yugoslavian/ethnic Macedonian and is as POV as this one (if not more). I would agree even on a deletion of the article at this point unfortunately. --Laveol ^T 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed in this discussion or just the Bulgarians? I say all the OR links have to go, this includes personal web pages, blogs, forums etc. As far as I can see almost all of the Bulgarian sources are from kroraina.com (a personal website which is POV too). This so called "collection of books" are just compilations of history ("books" and as I can tell e-mails and blogs) on Macedonia, written by Bulgarians. Also, the webmaster says that he has translated them from the originals (Bulgarian), so how trustworthy can this be? Also, the other sites that must go (and I will provide a reason); Ohrid.org.mk - not an academic source). Cybermacedonia.com - Personal site/OR (The infomation from this site is also sourced by the Macedonian Infomation Agency site). Geocities.com/mac_truth - POV/Propaganda/Personal site/OR. Bgbooks I think is a legitimate site, it should stay. Sobranie.mk should stay (website of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia).

One other thing, I would like to point out that all of the Macedonian sites are in english exept for the one added by the Bulgarians, yet all the Bulgarian sites are either in Bulgarian or translated from Bulgarian (which can ofcourse be dodgy), so how will you know what the info is going on about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.164.151 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing Bulgarian is not a ground for dubbing sources as POV and deleting academic sources such as the ones published by the Kliment Ohridsky University

of Sofia and the Institute of Macedonian studies. On the other hand, the fact that a source is by an English or American author does not make it automatically reliable as many of the history authors in the West are influenced by what they have read/heard about Balkan matters in the media or are biased in other ways (e.g. their origin). Judging for the sources only from pre-conceptions or from context is also a wrong approach. If you read more from the books that are in the kroraina site, you will see in them facts and circumstances that show violent or unkind acts also from some Bulgarians, or bad and dumb political decisions from the Bulgarian fascist or communist governments during the war. Therefore, that same sources can be used to support also some of the Macedonists arguments which shows that the sources are objective and not biased. Most of the books listed in this site are published on paper, and the fact that afterwards they are included in a blog made by a Bulgarian history buff does not make the books biased.Lantonov 05:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But how many of the Macedonian (English) sources were published in Macedonia? Quite a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.207.94 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, they are Bulgarian "historians" writing about Macedonian history as they see it, same with "Ten Lies of Macedonism" and yet the author is considered a historian? When then do people criticize Donski? Are they really tha different? And as I have said in the past, I do not support Donski's work, saying that Cleopatra was ethnically a Macedonian is nonsense.

We must have in mind that this page was not started by a Bulgarian in the first place but by a Macedonian nationalist living in Australia who poured some wild claims about a Bulgarian "genocide" in Macedonia, not supported by any sources. I proposed deleting the entire page since the beginning (read above) because I knew that this will become a mess due to the the controversial and sensitive subject and the obviously biased attitude of the author of the page (Frightner). Lantonov 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What wild claims about genocide? Before Bulgarians (Jingiby mostly) interferred, the article was short and informative, concentrated only on the war. Ever since, only Bulgarians have been getting involved (like they always do) and started making all sorts of claims, 'Macedonia was no occupied', 'Macedonians greeted the Bulgarians as liberators' etc. Btw, I did provide an image of the genocide but as usual, Neutron/Foreigner/Sockpuppet had to delete it because it went against his propaganda.

By the way, do you have a problem with me living in Australia yet loving my country? I couldn't control my parents' decision to move here when I was a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.207.94 (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, that image of the genocide did not have any source in it and from the look of it, it was most probably the Turkish genocide against Armenians since Christians do not leave bodies in the streets unburied. And no, I do not have a problem with you living in Australia. Seems that you have a problem in defining your national identity. Lantonov 06:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember finding it on a Macedonian website and it had something to do with WWII but I lost track of the link shortly before upoading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.207.94 (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your statement "Christians do not leave bodies in the streets unburied.", why have these bodies been left out in the open?[15] (From the site about the Vatasa murders.)

The above picture taken from the cybermacedonia site where the history of Macedonia dates from 8th century BC :). Don't make me laugh, I doubt that such a jingoistic and deceitful site can be found anywhere else in the Web. Read the following source: Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook ISBN 0815340583[16]. Let us see your comments against this historical account written in official encyclopedia edited by a man of British nationality and origin. Lantonov 09:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

....Помнам, како во тоа време на вообичаените саботни повечеринки, т.е. седенки на моите родители со роднините, се муабетеше за воените подготовки на Германија и Италија. Се очекуваше богот Марс да затропа на Југословенската порта, та конечно да се случи долгоочекуваниот крај на српската окупација, следователно национално ослободување со пристигање на б’лгарската војска. Од денешен аспект ваквото очекување представува ерес (демек се живеело во голема заблуда, бидејки б’лгарската војска дошла како фашистичко – царистичко окупаторска, што ке коле, беси, пали, гаси и други слични гадости).

Многу наивни си бевме: со радост и скриени желби ги слушавме радио преносите од припојувањето на Јужна Добруџа кон Б’лгарија, непрекинатото “Ура” од ослободеното население, парадните маршеви и особено популарната песна “О добруџански крај, ти за мен си един рај"

..Училишниот двор во нашата улица бргу се исполни со воени заробеници кои масовно се предаваа на Германците. Помнам кога еден од нив, штом го забележа истакнатото на една куќа б’лгарско знаме силно воскликна “Се вее нашето!”, а германскиот стражар му подвикна “Аншлус!” (нешто во таа смисла). На сите куќи карши училишниот двор се вееја б’лгарски и германски знамиња. Всушност, сите македонски маала во градот шаренееја од такви знамиња, набрзина сошиени од сонародничките на Мара Бунева...?

Подоцна, ние Македонците итри по природа, наследена од Александар Велики, седнавме на победничкиот крај од воената клацкалка. По советска команда, б’лгарската отечественофронтовска армија ги плати борџовите на слабите си политичари, та се судри со Германците кои беа во отстапување. Притоа Б’лгарите дадоа коџа жртви (особено кај Страцин) и им овозможија на партизанските бригади да го ослободат Скопје. И овој пат народот со песни радост и поинакви знамиња го прославуваше ослободувањето. Потоа почнаа црните денови на болшевизацијата и србизацијата. [17]

Tribune - Издание: 2007/114, освежено: 08.10.2007

Could somebody translate it, please! My English is not the best. Frightner, this is new INFO in Macedonian language from contemporary of the events! I see all the Macedonian people were Bulgarians in 1941? Could yoy translate the text, Frightner! Your English and Macedonian are better then mine. Jingby 07:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I will translate it below (maybe not very good quality translation because I do not have much time):

I remember how at this time of customary Saturday parties, that is, reunions of my parents with their relatives, the talk went about the military preparations of Germany and Italy. It was expected that God Mars will knock on the Yugoslavian door, so at last the long-expected end of the Serbian occupation, and thus the national liberation with the arrival of the Bulgarian Army. From today's aspect this expectation is an heresy (they [people like Frigtner - translator's comment] say we have lived in a big delusion since the Bulgarian Army had come as a fascist-monarchist occupator which will cut throats, will hang on the gallows, burn houses and other similar nasty acts).

Well, we were that naive: with joy and secret wishes we listened to the radio news about the uniting of Southern Dobrudja to Bulgaria, the continuous "Hoooray" of the liberated population, the parade marches and especially the popular song "O, Dobrudja ours, you are a paradise for me".

...The school yard in our street very soon was filled with prisoners of war who capitulated en masse to Germans. I remember one of them, when he saw the Bulgarian flag, hanging from one house, loudly exclaimed: "Our flag is flying!" and the German policeman replied "Anschluss!" (something in this sense). On all houses around the school yard were hung Bulgarian and German flags. In fact, all Macedonian quarters in the town were mottled by such flags, sewn hastily by the women, fellow nationals of Mara Buneva ...

Later on, we, the Macedonians, cunning by nature inherited from Alexander the Great, sat at table of the winners of the military massacre. Driven by a Soviet command, the Bulgarian Fatherland Front Army paid the debts of its bad politicians by fighting the Germans who were retreating. In this fight, the Bulgarians suffered big casualties (especially around Stracin) which made possible for the partisan brigades to liberate Skopje. This time, too, the people with songs, joy and others flags celebrated their liberation. Then, the black days of the Bolshevisation and Serbianisation began.

Tribune - Edition: 2007/114, updated: 08.10.2007 Lantonov 08:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(Translated from the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language as spoken today in the Republic of Macedonia)

Lantonov 08:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's really nice, but stop bothering with Fightner's ridiculous comments and posting such responses to him. This is a primary source so it won't work for the article. --Laveol ^T 09:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I seriously think to follow your good example and even delete this article from my watchlist. Such article does not have a place in a serious encyclopedia, such as Wiki intends to become. It is not national liberation war, it is WWII, and Macedonian nation doesn't exist, so all this is the same old Yugo history soap bubble. I have to turn my attention to unfinished math-phys articles that I edit now, and later, as a history project - a big article on Byzantine Bulgaria.Lantonov 09:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're back to the start - should we have such an article which could be only POV (or double-POV if we present the two views) or should we have it with this name (which is POV to begin with). --Laveol ^T 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as at the start: such article shouldn't exist under this misleading name. Hard facts in it, such as movements and deeds of Bulgarian troops stationed in Macedonia, decisions of Bulgarian politicians, and everything connected with Bulgaria, should go into an article on Bulgarian history. Other facts, like partisan movement, population's attitude to Bulgarian troops, repressions done by the Serbian communists and their puppets in Macedonia, in short, everything connected with the population living in Vardar Macedonia at that time should go into an article on Yugoslavian history. Lantonov 10:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This will unavoidably be double-POV (Bulgaro-Macedonian (BM) POV and Serbo-Macedonian (SM) POV) but I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. The more POVs, the closer we are moving to NPOV. The correct thing that must be done in this case is to treat all sources (with either POV) with the same criteria. This regards (for both BM and SM POVs): deleting sources from personal or non-offical blogs, disregarding primary sources, disregarding BM and SM non-English secondary sources. Disregarding non-English secondary sources is bad practice as it goes against the Wiki policy of countering systemic bias - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Disregarding primary sources is also bad in some cases, for example, it is bad to disregard the above cited personal account, because it is clearly non-POV being written by a Macedonian in Macedonian newspaper. In addition, this person is an eye-witness of the actual events that happened in 1941-1945 (I guess none of us is that old) and descibes not only his views and attitudes but the attitudes of the whole town he lived in then, and also attitudes of POWs and German soldiers. Lantonov 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article have to be changed, it is not objective. I disagree about the partitition of the article. Sometimes the historiy is very complicated and we need to find the balance, the "wind of change". How was it posible to occured? Jingby 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Source ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Lantonov 08:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias:

• Read news articles in as many languages as you know, from as many news sources as you can find, from as many political view points as you can find (especially those that you would normally not read) when examining a topical or recent event or editing an existing article related to a particular subject.
• Don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be used for propaganda, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. They may also be useful as a source of information about why the government of that particular country has its opinion on a subject and why it acts the way it does. The readers of Wikipedia could benefit from this, regardless of whether they agree with that view or not (if they don't, they may use it to find errors in its logic or thinking).Lantonov 08:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revert war

I haven't yet made myself a picture of what the latest reversions are about, in terms of content, but I note that the latest revert by Jingiby [18] reinstated a lot of grammar mistakes that had previously been corrected by Liljak. I'm therefore going to provisionally reinstate Liljak's version, without prejudice to further discussion of the substance. But please no more blind reverts; if anybody has an issue with specific points in Liljak's edits, discuss them here one by one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh wow. I wrote the above before I noticed how wildly you guys have been revert-warring. You are certainly aware that a long long block would be in order for both of you. But I want your input on this page, for clarifying what the dispute is actually about. That's why I chose short-time protection instead.

Also, this puts me in the embarrassing situation of having to "misuse" protection after having put in a revert myself. Please attribute it to WP:IAR for this time. For the record: My revert was motivated purely by the fact that the one version contained uncontroversial corrections of many grammar mistakes that were lost in the other version. No prejudice about the content dispute (I truly have no idea as yet what it is even about.)

Fellow admins, please feel free to override my measure as your see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All consensuses long debated on the talk page and made by Admins were reverted, most of sorced with ISBN cases ware changed with soursed from RoM newspapers forgeries. When you Future will, you can read the talk page before this edit-war and see the article before it. You can see the coments by editing from Liljak for me as LOL for example! Now this article is only FYROM propaganda page whithout any objectivity. I am ready for BLOCK! The both photos are copyright violations. Regards! Jingby (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For example this Administrator's decision was changed!

OK, so it looks like we have 3 sources, all for the Bulgarian Macedonians. So I intend to change that sentence to

"As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by the Bulgarian Macedonian population as liberators", and add those three sources (since this one sentence caused such a big edit war, using no fewer than 3 sources seems to be called for!). Last call for objections? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it looks so - As the Bulgarian soldiers entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, they were greeted with joy as it meant the end of Serbian rule.

It clear that the locals were BULGARIANS! Jingby (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This text was deleted! Why?

Relations between the local population and the Bulgarian Army was the least bit extreme. Typical is the case concerning 25 Bulgarian soldiers and their capture in Ohrid. On October 12, 1944, German forces withdrawing Vardar Macedonia camped in the town and had been leading a group of Bulgarian POWs. That evening, the POWs escaped and hid in hid in local houses. The German commander intimidated the Bulgarian mayor Iliya Kocarev by bombing and burning parts of Ohrid and ordered the arrest of 25 relatives of Macedonian partisans or notables as hostages. Kocarev rejected the idea and sacrificed himself, none of the Bulgarian soldiers were betrayed. The following day the German forces demandеd 10 kilograms of gold for the salvation of the town or for the Bulgarian escapees to be handed over to German authorities. The people succeedеd in gathering the gold, including the golden cross from one the town's churches. Ultimately, the German officer had become emotional and rejected the gold. The German forces left Ohrid without causing destruction. On October 15, 1944, Macedonian partisans entered Ohrid and confiscated the gold, they arrested the mayor for collaboration. Thereafter Yugoslav authorities denied the case or belittled it.

Jingby (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the text directly bellow my message is here, bu nevermind. I just wanted to say that Liljak has done some pretty controversial edits to the article alongside the cosmetic stuff.

And instead of discussing started looking for help in the already started edit-war. I'm pretty sure the last time I saw Liljak editing he was in some heated debate with User:Capricornis. Jingiby has his share of the fault in the case as his edits were controversial as well so it's both of them to blame, but surely Jingiby cannot be singled out again. --Laveol ^T 14:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This ISBN sourced case was deleted too! Why?

The first attempt to resist against the return of Vardar Macedonia to new Yugoslavia, was an armed mutiny of the new established Macedonian army in Skopje in December, 1944. After receiving an order to dislocation to the Srem front in Serbia, around thousand soldiers and officers from, the Macedonian army, most of them just decommissioned from the Bulgarian army, organized armed mutiny. On December 16, 1944, they headed for the Headquarters of the Macedonian National Liberation Army in Skopje, with the slogans: "We don't want Srem! We want Salonica" and "We don't want new Yugoslavia! We want free and independent Macedonia!". These slogans frightened the High Command in Skopje and Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo, Josip Broz Tito's personal representative in Macedonia, ordered that those soldiers had to be stopped, and their leaders to be arrested. After that General Mihajlo Apostoloski invited all officers disagreeing with the order to discuss together the situation, while the soldiers were to return to the barracks. The officers accepted the invitation, but later they were disarmed and arrested. In this way, on December 16, 1944, according to still not fully verified information some of the officers were killed. Almost a thousand soldiers, understanding that something is happening to their commanders, headed once again for the center of Skopje. They, however, were met by machine-gun fire and several of them fell dead, others were wounded. About 900 were disarmed and some of them arrested and jailed. Jingby (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What about this new manipulation, Liljak/Frightner!

..Another controversial event among ethnic Macedonians is when Bulgarian occupants burnt down the Eastern Orthodox church Saint Bogorodica in Skopje which was built in 1835 and housed over 10,000 worshipers. This is also considered unusual as Bulgarians are predominantly Orthodox Christians...

The church Saint Bogorodica in Skopje was never burned from Bulgarians. Here is Macedonian IT site with the history of the church. There is no info about such Bulgarian burning! [19] [20]

There is not clear hou how the church burned in 1944. According to Macedonian sources it was burned by Serbians, Bulgarians or Allies by bombing! [21] Most probably by Allies bombing. [22] According to other Macedonian sources it burned in 1943 by unclear circumstances. [23] Jingby (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent revisions

Guys, I don't know who originally wrote the following passages (Revizionist?); just wanted to say that these are quite blatantly POV. You can't be serious that this is your best attempt at neutral writing?

• "the real apogee of the ethnic Macedonian conscience and identity occurred between the two world wars, and triumphed during WWII"
• "the reactionary greater-Serbian regime in Belgrade was destroying every form of manifestation of Macedonian consciousness"

... and so on, this goes for the whole section of which these sentences were part.

I know this article used to have some heavily tendentious pro-Bulgarian material, from the time Jingiby edited it. Now somebody seems to have gone and replaced it with some equally tendentious pro-Macedonian material. That's disappointing. I hope you guys can do better than this.

By the way, about the title of the article: "National Liberation War of Macedonia" sounds like a term that may be common from the perspective of native RoMac national historiography, but is it commonly used in the international literature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is Revizionist that added those sentences. I removed all Macedonian and Bulgarian propaganda from the article but he reverts it to his biased and POV version, claiming Bulgarian and Serbian authorities tried to "assimilate the ethnic Macedonian population". Not to mention his version of the article is plagued with bad English, grammar, style as well as totaled with redlinks. He has a problem with WP:OWN on a number of articles. Köbra ^Könverse 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Future. How are you doing? As you know the articles about ethnic Macedonians were a real mess. I made a revision of the article Macedonians (ethnic group) and National Liberation Front (Macedonia) which were approved by the majority as neutral and informative. I only want to finish with the revision of this article (which we all agree was very chaotic. But this can not be done over night. i go to work, and in my free time (when I have some) I go to the library and read material, take notes, afterwards I translate them. It is a process. First I must finish inputing data (which as you see is informative - for example when which unit was formed, when it was destroyed and so on). The user Köbra is reverting all my revisions (although I added 65% new text to the article). I must finish adding, afterwards I will improve the English, and afterwards we will adjust or exclude the things that according to the majority is not neutral. You know that I always make quality contributions. Don't worry, let me finish it and afterwards we will all together make a great neutral article, and maybe recommend it for an wiki award. Cheers. --Revizionist (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is more encyclopedia-worthy than my version of the article. Just because you wrote 65% of the article doesn't mean you own it (WP:OWN), I placed a template there saying that it would be revamped and you may help "expand" it, but instead, you wish to revert my edits because you contributed a bunch of lousy propaganda and images. Köbra ^Könverse 12:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As we said - no problem, include the things you think should be included, but incorporate them into my revision. The data I imputed is informative. I mentioned all of the detachments that were formed in 1942, and their battles. After that the formation of the CPM, data about the Vardar Chetnik Corps, and about the colaborationist organizations. I will also include these days data about the February Campagn, the Spring offencive, about the Otechestven Front and the contribution of the Bulgarian Otechestven Front in the liberation of eastern Vardar Macedonia. What can be more objective than that. We are not on a race. The article was chaotic for more than 2 years. I am separating great amount of my free time to improve the article. Do include your contributions to the article, but do not erase 65% of it to do that. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have no authority to tell me what to do. Your version of the article just flat out sucks, you add stuff to my revision. Köbra ^Könverse 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well guys, it's sort of refreshing that we now have an edit war on a Balkan topic between two editors of the same nationality, for a change. That's sort of a sign of hope. ;-)

But Revizionist, you haven't responded to the objections I raised. Your text is heavily POV-laden. Get those judgmental words out. Are you even aware how much POV there is in your text? Kobra's version, as far as I can see, is somewhat more neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok Future, as we agreed, the POV will be adjusted. I just adjusted one of them - it was "The aim of the Bulgarian committees was the assimilating the population". Now it is like this: "According to the official Macedonian historiography, the aim of these Bulgarian organizations was to assimilate the Macedonian population, while the Bulgarian historiography states that they were organized to enforce the Bulgarian sentiment among the population". It is objective now. Actually very small part of the article can be said to be POV. The other part objectively informs about when which units were formed and what battles they were engaged in. As I said, Future, you have my word (as in other occasions) that everything is going to be neutral and professionally made. Thanks for the support and the time. Sincerely yours. --Revizionist (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to kiss up to Future, Revizionist. Aside from the POV, the article looks like a car wreck. What is the need for 20 images? Why do you link to articles which do not exist? Why do you feel the need to make the article overly long? Also, don't be so confident that the article will stay on your revision. You removed perfectly valid contributions that I made and are acting like your revision of the article deserves a place in Britannica, just because you "contributed 65% of the text". Who gives a rat's ass how much text you contributed? It doesn't mean that it's any good or even neutral, at that. Köbra ^Könverse 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The format and the links will be adjusted. P.S. Watch your language young man. --Revizionist (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk however the hell I feel, I didn't insult you, now did I? The article will be reverted because it's no god-damn good. P.S. Stop being so arrogant. Köbra ^Könverse 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only trying to have a normal civilized conversation, but the only thing you do is curse and use non-ethical terminology. User 157.228.x.x already complained to the administration about your behavior. If you continue like this there is a great possibility that you may be banned. --Revizionist (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That guy can't take a hint. He thought "write a novel, why don't you?" is meant to be an insult. Anyway, you didn't answer my questions. I have another one for you, why do you have so many headings, sub-headings and sub-sub-headings? I think I will suggest this article be merged with People's Liberation War. It does, really, belong that way. Köbra ^Könverse 14:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is: "Maintain civility at all times in your articles and comments.". On several occasions you have broken this principle, and even some of the users made complaints about your behavior. If you continue vandalizing and starting an edit war, an administrative ban may be the next thing you get. --Revizionist (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, you have no authority, so stop making accusations. I am actually discussing the article, you, on the other hand, prefer to avoid my questions and point the finger, so to speak. I suggest you start discussing your propaganda contributions so we can get somewhere with this. Köbra ^Könverse 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, finally we can talk normally with you. Ok let's start. What is your first question about the article? --Revizionist (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

LMAO!!! Look at my last couple of comments, I asked you like four questions already. Köbra ^Könverse 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No reply eh? I don't blame you, you did crap on the whole article. Köbra ^Könverse 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No reply meant I had some business to do this weekend. Now, about your first question, why there are so many subtitles in the article - well I decreased them by putting the collaborationist organizations under one subtitle. The subtitles are used to make the reader more orientated in the article, and to give guidance. --Revizionist (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kobra, it would be appropriate if you stop this edit-war which may soon evolve in vandalism. You can not erase 80% of the article which is backed with references and beautiful quality images and maps. Also the text is very informative. If you continue with this kind of incivil behavior I will have no other choice than to do the same thing user 157.228.x.x did - that is, to complain to the administration about your behavior. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)a