Talk:Bulgarians in North Macedonia

Macedonians identified themselves as bulgarians, are you FOR REAL?!

Quote: "Until 1913 the majority of the Slav population of all three parts of the wider region of Macedonia had Bulgarian identity.[7] In 1912, the region of present-day Republic of Macedonia became a part of the Kingdom of Serbia, thus becoming Southern Serbia. During World War II, most regions of Macedonia were annexed by Bulgaria. All local Slavic-speekers were regarded and self-identified as Macedonian Bulgarians."

This is the worst lie I've read in a while. Macedonians are and always have identified themselves as Macedonians, and every neighboring country tried to change that, but, obviously, unsuccessfully. I demand this section (or the whole page) to be revised or deleted. Thank you. MakedekaM (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are YOU for real? My grandma (баба ми, глупако!) was from Strumitsa, my granpa was from Seres. What were they, how do you think, macedonians??? Or fiRomians, hahaha... Your uncle Hansen ;) 85.130.68.241 (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The sites http://www.mni.bg/ and http://www.strumski.com/ provide more than enough evidence that the so called "Macedonians" were Bulgarians. -Jotaro97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotaro97 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

VMRO - People's Party

What the hell does this section (VMRO - People's Party) stand for? VMRO-PP members are bulgarophiles (which means they declare themselves Bulgarian), but they "do not consider themselves as Bulgarians" (what???????????????), "they strongly declare their bulgarophilness" I can assure you that "bulgarophilness" is NOT even a word. So, meaning, if the members do not declare themselves Bulgarian, than the party is NOT Bulgarophile, and this section is pure stupidity it must be deleted, it's nonsense. Blok Glo (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

I know we all have our statements, but Wikipedia isn't place to tell stories. The article material must include all points of view so it would be neutral, or accepted by everyone. On the section Yugoslavia there are some preety "brutal" statements that I don't think are accepted by the diverse social groups involved. Blok Glo (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss them point by point and if there are not reliable sources supporting the text add a NPOV tag. It is possibe, that this view is only your POV. Jingiby 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

^ Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810855658, p. 287.

^ Who Are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655340, p. 118.

^ Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov , Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 84.

^ Thinking About Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates About the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, Sabrina P. Ramet, Cambridge University Press, 2005 ISBN 0521616905, p. 281.

^ Essence of political manipulation: emotion, institutions, & Greek foreign policy, Nikolaos Zahariadis, Peter Lang, 2005, ISBN 0820479039, p. 85.

^ Djokić, Dejan (2003). Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Idea, 1918-1992. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 122. ISBN 1-85065-663-0.

^ Macedonia: Warlords and Rebels in the Balkans, John Phillips, I.B.Tauris, 2004, ISBN 186064841X, p. 40.

^ Мичев, Д. Македонският въпрос и българо-югославските отношения 1944-1949 г. Университетско издателство "Свети Климент Охридски", София, 1994 г. стр. 80-82.

^ Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него Коста Църнушанов, Университетско издателство "Свети Климент Охридски", София, 1992 г.; глава. 25. и гл. 26.

^ Angelov, Veselin. Macedonian Bloody Christmas, Galik Publishing House, Sofia 2003, ISBN 9548008777, pp. 179-201.

^ Новата национално-освободителна борба във Вардарска Македония 1944-1991 г. Димитър Гоцев, Македонски научен институт, София, 1998 г. гл. 3.

^ State Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples, Heather Rae, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 052179708X, p. 227. Jingiby 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain please, where in this article you think, is written the original research? Jingiby 16:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam tags removed

Please, do not introduce redundant and/or spam taqs into this article. Discuss your ideas at first on article's talk-page and describe then your suggestions. Afterwards wait for several days and if there is neither discussion nor reliable changes then add proposed by you tags. However, it is not acceptable just to put a lot of tags without any discussion. Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article. They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

It is preferable that in-line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Inline templates are preferred because they can be attached directly to disputed sentences. Section templates follow next in preference to tagging a whole article. Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page.

Please remember to use these appropriately, and use the most specific messages you can find for the situation. Jingiby (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207191544/http://www.radkomk.com:80/UstavniotSud.htm to http://www.radkomk.com/UstavniotSud.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305045748/http://www.radkomk.com/15.01.2009.pdf to http://www.radkomk.com/15.01.2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070924172406/http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/OldSite/Issue_6/editorial.eng.asp to http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/OldSite/Issue_6/editorial.eng.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Citizens

I'd like to make this point with caution, as a Bulgarian originating from within Bulgaria's borders, and one predisposed to our country's standpoint on Macedonia's population. This article is called "Bulgarians in North Macedonia" and the opener of the article states that this refers to "ethnic Bulgarians" in Macedonia (forgive my shorthand on name). We know that these past years, people from Macedonia have acquired Bulgarian documentation and have either used this to relocate and find work mainly in the Alps countries, or remain in their homeland until such time they decide to move on. However, such people do not qualify as "Bulgarians in Macedonia" except for if they declare Bulgarian ethnicity as so much of the population did pre-Yugoslavia (ditto in Greece at that time). I feel inclined to remove the citizen 60k figure removed from the infobox and incorporate it into the article if it's not there somewhere. --Edin balgarin (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd also support removing it from the infobox. Acquiring Bulgarian documents apparently requires one to claim Bulgarian ethnicity (correct me if I'm wrong) but, as you state, nearly all just want the papers to work elsewhere. It is a relevant number but can just be discussed in the text, if not there already. --Local hero ^talk 18:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Living in England for all of nine years, I am slightly out of touch on those things. I mean, obviously one does not have to be ethnic Bulgarian to obtain Bulgarian nationality, otherwise Bulgaria would be 100% Bulgarian with no minorities! As it happens we have Turks, Roma, Romanians and people identifying as Macedonian among other nations. When however a privilege is granted to residents of other countries, different rules may apply. Even so, the expedient of calling oneself by one ethnicity for the purpose of documentation doesn't mean the person carries the ethnic badge in his day to day life, or even uses it ever again in censa. Maybe a touch more research is required, but when the facts can be sourced on any relevant language, I'll happily make the changes. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ethnically motivated assaults and recent edits

This is primarly for VMORO, who has reverted my edits twice (1 and 2, despite me giving reasons here, including offering to give sources, which the user still has not requested). The user has been reverting from this version to this version.There are stark contrasts, and I'll go over every edit chronologically:

1. Removal of the Council of Europe statement - this one I do agree is a partial oversight on my behalf, as the offcial report is yet to be published, and this is information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. The introduction into the subcategory (i.e There has been a wave of hate-crime motivated attacks on Bulgarian cultural clubs in North Macedonia since the beginning of 2022., not only is it an NPOV violation, it's not sourced and clearly wants to push the reader towards a certain (false) POV).

3. The addition of the 7th February 2022 incident in Bitola regarding the "Vancho Mihaylov" club there - this has been proven to have no ethnic connotations, but rather it was a family feud, confirmed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the official investigation. [1] [2].

4. Three constatation in general - converting sources from their proper format to an inproper format. various things related to WP:NOTEVERYTHING; false constatations without any sources to lead the reader towards a certain (false) POV.

5. Addition of a statement which is not only NPOV, but not RS sourced (even Local_hero stated it was an NPOV violation).

5.1. The Macedonian club in Blagoevgrad parallel, not only is it irrelevant to this article (and clearly made to lead the reader towards a certain false POV), it's also false. Here's what actually happened there: On October 30 2022, a Macedonian culture club bearing the name of Nikola Vaptsarov was opened. Prior to the opening of the club, on October 18 2022, the Council of the Blagoevgrad Municipality adopted a declaration which banned the opening of the club. A member of the Council, Kiril Iliev, commented on this declaration that "Macedonists" were not welcomed in Blagoevgrad. Members UMO Ilinden-Pirin and various delegations from political parties in North Macedonia participated during the opening, including the leader of VMRO-DPMNE Hristijan Mickoski. A verbal incident occured between Mickoski and a Bulgarian citizen during the opening. The delegations were also blocked from laying wreaths on the Gotse Delchev monument in Blagoevgrad by members of VMRO-BND. Not all sunshine and rainbows.

6. Removal of proper romanization of the name - I have no idea why this was done, and reversed to the incorrect "Lyupco" (neither Macedonian or Bulgarian romanize names like that).

7. The case of Ljupčo Georgievski - the source that the user has presented is some random Bulgarian news website which reports what BGNES reported, which is acknowledged in the source itself. The sources which I have presented are quite popular and watched news agencies (not just websites) in N.Macedonia, which refute the claims by Bulgarian media that Georgievski was charged with anything (the refuting is done by the General Attorney of the region). Instead, he was called to an interrogation on the basis that he has spread xenophobia and/or racism. Come to think of it, this has no place in this subcategory of the article.

8. Pendikov's case - that part starts with an unsourced constatation which pushes the reader towards a certain direction and WP:NOTEVERYTHING violations (how are his injuries relevant?). Also this revert uses significantly dated information, as many of the things which are described in present tense have already happened and concluded.

8.1. Furthermore, I'd like to address that this user reverted the part about the motives behind the attack (i.e adding the statement However the motive behind the attack is unknown, and eyewitnesses state that it was not connected to his ethnicity, and then procedes to accuse me of "concealing the truth", despite me, prior to his latest revert, giving an explination as to why the motive should not be stated there and removing that part about the motive being unknown/motive being ethnic (here)

Honestly I hope this is just a mindless, senseless revert, as some of the things (like point 4, point 6 and point 8.1 for example) I've addressed are completly unresonable and absurd. I suggest we go back to this version, with some tweaks regarding the Council of Europe statement (i.e the removal of it until/if it's made official) and the case of Georgievski (point 7, i.e removing it as it is not an assault in the slightest).

I'd also like to add the activity of Fifth_Root (and I presume his IP: 78.154.13.91) which not only are their additions NPOV violations and not properly sourced, but they have been reverted by two uninvolved editors (i.e Marleeashton and Pepperbeast)

EDIT: I have decided to be WP:BOLD and tweak the article per the things I brought up above.

EDIT 2 Jingiby, the reason why I deleted the statement about the motive of Pendikov's attack can be seen here - I'll reiterate, the entire subsection is called "Ethnically motivated attacks", so I fail to see a reason to include the motive, since it's already obvious from the title. I also fail to see how it's vandalism.

Best regards to all, Kluche (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Especially No. 3 is hilarious. It was found to be a "family feud". Just like until a couple of days ago you ″′kept claiming″′ that Pendikov's assault was also a family feud. Or was it a drug-related? I don't remember any more, there are always excuses and ″"but it was something else"″. Yes, absolutely, all assaults are because of drugs, money or family feuds, not because of the rampant Bulgarophobia. And especially with regard to Pendikov - throwing mud on victims is a true sign of maturity.

All of your relevant comments have been addressed. There isn't a single word any more that conveys any attitude or opinion. There are only facts left - and I have you to thank you for that. So, thank you, I mean it😊. If you want, add a statement "according to the..." "this was a family feud" or whatever. I will review your source and if there is even a sliver of truth to it, so we add it, and life goes on😊.

Throwing eggs and screaming slur direct at a particular ethnic group or race ′″IS″′ a hate crime. The severity of the injuries of Pendikov are a testament to how serious the situation is North Macedonia. You are - very obviously - trying to hide specific facts that paint your country in a bad way. This is morally condemnable.VMORO 07:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, firstly I'd like to preface (just in case) with WP:NPA and WP:FALSECIV, and while the latter is not a policy, I still thinks it's quite valuable. I will still., however. assume WP:GF.

Anyhow, I'll start by addressing your comment, and then your edit:

1. The "No. 3 is hilarious" comment is quite contradictory - if you opened the sources you'd see that they rely the official statement of the District Attorney's office of Bitola. You yourself added the statement of the District Attorney's office on Pendikov's attack, yet you deem this as "hilarious".

2. I claimed a few days ago that the motive behind Pendikov's attack was uncertain - the District Attorney's office has charged one of the attacker with a hate-motivated assault charge, so until there is any new developpment, it's safe to assume that it's that. I am, however, against adding the District's Attorney's statement as it's needless repetition - the title for the section of course implies that it's a hate-related incident - I've also cited a Wikipedia policy related to why this should not be included (i.e WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which you have seemingly ignored).

3. On the throwing eggs part- again, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, this article is about Bulgarians in N.Macedonia, not the club. Also the Boris III club is not the "second" club - there's various more clubs, like the "Jug" club in Prilep.

4. Again, WP:NOTEVERYTHING about Pendikov's injuries, it's not an article about Pendikov or his attack, there is absolutly no reason to include such detail per Wikipedia guidelines.

Now, I'll adress the edit:

1. About Lambe Alabakovski - the exceptional claim that he was seen as a "national hero" requires an exceptional source, as per Wikipedia guidelines. The source presented is very questionable and most likely not RS.

2. About the eggs and stuff - again WP:NOTEVERYTHING, see my argument above (point 3)

3. You've changed the title in order to fit your claims, hell it isn't even properly written as it has needless capital letters.

4. About the District Attorney's statement - see point 2 for my argument.

Many of the things I've layed out in this comment were mentioned and elaborated in my first comment, but again, they have not been addressed.

Furtheremore, the changes you made certainly require consensus, as they have been disputed previously (in this case by me). Kluche (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Historical connection with World War II

As the section "Historical connection with World War II" has been disputed for almost a month, I've taken the initiative to open up a discussion about it. Currently, the section is flagged as a possible WP:OFFTOPIC violation, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Furthermore I'd like to cite a few more policies/essays which this section violates in my opinion: WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:ROC, WP:NPOV, WP:OOS, WP:NOTESSAY and possibly MOS:MAC. I think it is clear that the section needs to be completly removed. I'd like to add that some of the things mentioned in this section are repetitions from what is mentioned above Hopefully this will be resolved. Kluche (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It definitely strays too far from the article topic. The point of it seems to be to argue against the prevailing Macedonian points of view about the WWII occupation, which mostly doesn't belong here. --Local hero ^talk 19:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for starting the thread. I tagged the section in question and I share the opinion that it doesn't belong to this article. Most of the information there is already covered by other relevant articles too. On top of that, the first sentence of that section is unsourced. As far as I know, the reasons for these attacks have not been given by the authorities. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ethnically Motivated Assaults — Double Standards

I have compared Kluche's editing policy in this article and in the article Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria:

Dates and specific assaults in this article are consistently deleted, Pendikov's injuries are consistently concealed - even though they led to a diplomatic crisis and recalling of the Bulgarian ambassador in Skopje (the last step before severing diplomatic relations).

By comparison, in Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, the opinion of a city council member in a provincial Bulgarian town and a "verbal incident" with a member of the public are emphasised, all of this from sourced from a single North Macedonian website. The opinions of nobodies and "random members of the general public" are completely irrelevant. Kluche is creating a narrative rather than an informative article.

I do not intend to comment on Kluche's numerous references to Wikipedia's rules and recommendations - simply because Kluche applies them whenever they suit him/her.

This is a clear case of application of double standards. I do not intend to play hide-and-seek or revert-and-back. If Kluche continues to push the North Macedonian narrative rather than present facts and events objectively, as they occur, I will consult the other Bulgarian wikipedians if there can be arbitration on both articles. I haven't edited here in 15 years and may be rusty on technicalities, but I know what POV pushing is.

I am currently occupied with another, very large project, but once I am done with it, I will turn my full attention to this and similar articles, as I believe the integrity and objectivity of them has been compromised by Kluche's activities. VMORO 11:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. You don't seem to be addressing the arguments *based on policy* that Kluche has presented. If you have issues with the Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria article, please bring them to that talkpage. Further, with your declared intention of consulting "the other Bulgarian wikipedians", I assume it won't be WP:Canvassing. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 18:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It is curious how the arguments "based on policy" Kluche makes are applied in one way when they refer to Bulgarians in Macedonia, but in a completely different way when they refer to ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria. So where and what is the policy exactly?

A "policy" exists when it is actually applied throughout, to everyone and in the same way. Wouldn't you agree, dear neighbour? When it is not, it is just an excuse to do whatever the fuck we want. Right?

And please do not put words in my mouth I haven't said😏. I have clearly stated that if this goes on, I will look for advice on neutral arbitration. Then, maybe we can get someone from Peru or Papua New Guinea or Belgium or Gibraltar who will give an honest opinion on how deleting sourced facts about an assault that caused a diplomatic incident and will probably lead to a new Bulgarian veto is entirely "based on policy", but someone in Blagoevgrad giving Mickoski "the evil eye" (according to Telma TV) is newsworthy information. Thank you for your input and may you have a lovely day.

VMORO 10:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, firstly you have failed yet again to address any of my concerns which I have repeatedly voiced here - many of them (if not all) being backed up by one or more guidelines/policies.

Your concerns about Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria are best suited for the talk page of said article - not here. I was not aware about your concerns on this topic/article since you've never voiced them to my knowledge. Nevertheless, I'll address them there. Everyone is free to address their concerns about an article at the suitable talk page, just like I've done here with the Ethnically motivated assaults and recent edits section.

I'll use this opprotunity to invite/suggest to you to participate in the discussion about the Historical connection with World War II section, as you have been one of the greatest, if not the only contributor to it (starting from this edit). Currently myself, Local hero and StephenMacky1 are for the removal of the section, although I have purpousefully not acted as to see if any other users would participate in it.

Additionally, as Local hero pointed out, your comment may or may not imply WP:OTHERSTUFF and/or WP:Canvassing. And while the first implication is not as serious, the second one most certainly is in my opinion.

When I was writing this reply I noticed that you replied to Local hero's comment (I'm talking about your reply here), so I'd like to remind you (again) about WP:FALSECIV, WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS (although they are not policies/guidelines) and WP:CIVILITY.

Hopefully this has addressed your concerns, if not please do let me know (like I've done may a times). Best regards.Kluche (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)