Talk:On Macedonian Matters

Background section

@Jingiby:: "He admitted there was not such one, and most of the Macedonian Slavs has called themselves Bulgarians, but it should be created, when the necessary historical circumstances would arise". Explain how this is related to this book or to its contents? Explain to me why we need 7 references for this? Explain to me - why are you consistently making such disruptive edits across all articles you touch even though you VERY WELL KNOW that they are often a subject of two different views, the Macedonian one and the Bulgarian one which are very different? Why do you make every single article you touch focus on the nationality of the authors instead of the actual content? This is not funny, you are seriously damaging Wikipedia's credibility, pushing your own POV and misrepresenting sources. DD1997DD (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence you repeatedly have deleted is: Misirkov appealed to the Ottoman authorities for eventual recognition of a separate Macedonian nation. He admitted there was not such one, and most of the Macedonian Slavs has called themselves Bulgarians, but it should be created, when the necessary historical circumstances would arise. It is important part from the book supported by a lot of secondary sources.

Many people will want to know what sort of national separatism we are concerned with; they will ask if we are not thinking of creating a new Macedonian nation. Such a thing would be artificial and short-lived. And, anyway? What sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we, and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?...One of the first questions which will be posed by the opponents of national unification and of the revival movement in Macedonia will be: what is the Macedonian Slav nation? Macedonian as a nationality has never existed, they will say, and it does not exist now.... The first objection – that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed – may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate historical circumstances arise...On Macedonian Matters. (1903) by Krste Misirkov.

May you explain why this long-standing text I have replaced from the article about Misirkov here was deleted? Undoubtedly it is part from that book and was properly analysed by a lot of cited researchers. Jingiby (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really see the point of discussing anything with you and this was officially the last time I'm wasting any brain power on you. You know very well that your purpose on Wikipedia is not to contribute in an unbiased way, but to push your POV. I have 0 respect for you as a Wikipedian. DD1997DD (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The text is short, very well sourced and it gives exactly what it is supposed to give - background information on topic closely related to both the author and the content of the book, so it is clearly relevant. However there is exactly 0 relevance of who respects whom here - argumentum ad hominem is to be avoided around here really.Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The background section provides context on the matter for readers who aren't familiar with the gist of the Macedonian Question which is explored in the book. The question is not why are there seven references but why are you removing a clarifying sentence with so many references. By insulting the original author of the text you're not only discrediting yourself but you're also exposing your strong bias and lack of neutrality on the matter. Please don't engage in an edit war. --ShockD (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Extending the article

I want to extend the article with an important topic, the concept of Misirkov on what tiers should Macedonian be based on. This is one of the major ideas that one can withdraw from his book, and at the same time the major reason why he wrote the book. Hence, I think it is a good addition to the article. Here is the text that was reverted two times:

THE CONCEPT OF MISIRKOV REGARDING MACEDONIAN

In this book Misirkov declares the Central Macedonian dialect to be the literary Macedonian language and defines his national program in which the question of the Macedonian literary language is of central importance. With this book he theoretically expressed his views on the emergence of the Macedonian literary language. Its language is indeed a standardized language and provides a solid basis for the formal standardization and codification of the Macedonian language. The last article in this book is entitled “A Few Words on the Macedonian Literary Language” and represents the first scientifically based, theoretical, well-founded and practically developed argumentation regarding the codification of the Macedonian language.

Misirkov's argumentation builds upon the peculiarities of Macedonian when compared to other Slavic languages. He discusses its history, its practical application in literacy, and the cultural-historical circumstances that contributed to the selection of the West Macedonian dialect and its rise as a literary language.

According to Misirkov, the need for a Macedonian literary language is a national interest of the Macedonian people and a successful instrument in the national-political fight against foreign propaganda and the use of foreign neighboring languages.

Misirkov opts for a quick solution to the Macedonian language issue and formulates his views on the Macedonian language mainly in three points:

• as the basis of the literary language he proposes the central dialects (particularly the Veles, Prilep-Bitola and Ohrid dialects), because they are equidistant from the neighboring literary Slavic languages, Bulgarian and Serbian;
• sets the spelling on a phonetic basis, with minor exceptions in favor of etymology;
• proposes to include elements from all Macedonian dialects in the lexicon.

Pronunciation and spelling

In pronunciation and spelling, he introduces several changes unique to the West Macedonian dialects. He applies these changes throughout his book.

Overview of the changes in pronunciation and spelling

Proposed change	Example	Standard Macedonian	Origin
Removal of the intervocalic consonants (e.g., w, h, d etc.)	Choek (чоек, man) Zhiot (жиот, life) Sboroi (сборои, words) Duot (дуот, the spirit) Orid (Орид, Ohrid) Sosdait (создаит, to create)	Chovek (човек) Zhivot (живот) Zborovi (зборови) Duhot (духот) Ohrid (Охрид) Sozdade (создаде)	Upper Prespa dialect and Prilep-Bitola dialect
Use of „f“ in words where „h“ is used	Uspef (успеф, success) Napisaf (написаф, I have written)	Uspeh (успех) Napischav (напишав)	Lower Prespa dialect
Introduction of the letter sequence „shch“ (шч)	Shcho (шчо, what) Opshch (опшч, general)	Shto (што) Opsht (општ)	Prilep-Bitola dialect
Introduction of the letter sequences „str“ (стр) und „zdr“ (здр)	Stred (стред, among) Zdrel (здрел, mature) Prazdna (праздна, empty)	Sred (сред) Zrel (зрел) Prazna (празна)	Struga dialect
Use of the suffixes „-tski“ (-цки) instead of „-ski“ (-ски)	Makedontski (македонцки, Macedonian) Zhentski (женцки, female)	makedonski (македонски) Zhenski (женски)	Prilep-Bitola-dialect

Morphology

From a morphological standpoint Misirkov introduces changes that are only to be found in the Macedonian dialects.

For instance, he uses the suffix t in the third person singular present, as for example in the title of the first chapter of his book:

Шчо напраифме и шчо требит да праиме за однапред?

Shcho napraifme i shcho trebit da praime za odnapred?

What have we done and what we need to do?

Apart from this case, he uses the suffix t in the varieties of the auxiliary verb be (sum in Macedonian):

• In third person plural present:

Дали принесените жртви за ослободуаiн'е не сет напразно?

Dali prinesenite zhrtvi za osloboduainye ne set naprazno?

Are the sacrifices for liberation made in vain?

• In third person singular present:

Тоа iет така, но не требит да се забораит, оти организаторите на двнжеiн'ето во поекето случаи беа чиновници, екзархиiцки.

Toa yet taka, no ne trebit da se zaborait, oti organizatorite na dvizheinyeto vo poeketo sluchai bea chinovnitsi, ekzarhiytski.

It is really like that, however one should not forget that the organizers of the movement in most of the cases were officials, exarchists.

It is evident that the pronoun from (od in Standard Macedonian) has two forms in his writings; hence we note the use of the preposition ot before a word beginning with an unvoiced consonant and the preposition od before a word beginning with a voiced consonant and vowels:

• Before a word beginning with an unvoiced consonant:

Долгот кон народот и татковината зависит от приликите историiцки, коiи преживуат iеден народ и iедна страна.

Dolgot kon narodot i tatkovinata zavisit ot prilikite istoriytski, koyi prezhivuat yeden narod i yedna strana.

The debt to the nation and the fatherland depends on the historical circumstances in which certain people and land exist.

• Before a word beginning with a voiced consonant:

Секоi чоек, како член на некоiа обшчина или некоiе другарство, имат извесен долг и извесни праа од и кон ниф.

Sekoy choek, kako chlen na nekoya obshchina ili nekoye drugarstvo, imat izvesen dolg i izvesni praa od i kon nif.

Every man, as member of community or society, has certain debt and rights from and towards them.

Misirkov adopts the Cyrillic script and composes an alphabet based on modern principles. In Macedonian Cyrillic he introduced several new graphemes, distinguishing it from other Cyrillic scripts:

• 
  The letter І is used where Ј is used today.
• 
  The letter Г‘ is used where Ѓ is used today.
• 
  The letter К‘ is used where Ќ is used today.
• 
  The letter Л‘ is used where Љ is used today.
• 
  The letter Н‘ is used where Њ is used today.

Since he adopts the idea of phonetic spelling, he insists on assimilation of sounds.

In the lexicon, and especially in word formation, he insists on folk lexicon and living word formation models: дележ (partition), продолжаач (extender) and the like.

Comparison with modern South Slavic languages

Comparison of the language of Misirkov with the modern South Slavic languages. See the english translation at the bottom of this table

Excerpt from the book of Misirkov	In Macedonian	In Bulgarian	In Serbian
Историко-културните прилики во создааiн‘ето на литературни iазици господствуваа секоаш, господствуваат они и сега. Благодареiн‘е ним во наi ноо време се откажафме да си избериме iедно од нашите наречиiа за наш обшч литературен iазик, а наместо тоа зедофме да се учиме и да пишиме на туг‘ите саседни iазици, наi поеке на бугарцкиiот. Благодареiн‘е на приликите сега ниiе си избираме за обшч латературен iазик, централното македонцко, т. е. Велешко-Прилепцко-Битол‘цко-Охридцкото наречиiе.	Историско-културните прилики во создавањето на литературни јазици господареле отсекогаш, господарат тие и сега. Благодарение на нив во најново време се откажавме да избереме едно од нашите наречја за наш заеднички литературен јазик, а наместо тоа зедовме да учиме и да пишуваме на туѓите соседни јазици, најмногу на бугарскиот. Благодарение на приликите сега ние го избираме за заеднички литературен јазик централното македонскo, т.е. велешко-прилепско-битолско-охридското наречје.	Историко-културните възможности при създаването на книжовни езици винаги са властвали, властват и сега. Благодарение на тях в последно време ние се отказахме да изберем един от нашите диалекти за наш общ книжовен език, а вместо това се заехме да учим и пишем на чужди съседни езици, най-вече на български. Благодарение на възможностите вече избираме средномакедонски като общ книжовен език, т.е. Велешко-прилепско-битолско-охридския говор.	Историјско-културне прилике у стварању књижевних језика увек су владале, владају и сада. Захваљујући њима, у последње време смо одустали од избора једног од наших дијалеката као заједничког књижевног језика, а уместо тога прешли смо на учење и писање на страним суседним језицима, углавном на бугарском. Захваљујући приликама, ми сада бирамо средњомакедонски као заједнички књижевни језик, тј. Велешко-прилепско-битолско-охридски дијалект.
The historical and cultural circumstances have always determined the process of literary language formation, and they continue to do so today. Thanks to them we have refrained from choosing one of our own dialects as common literary language and we have turned to learning and writing on the neighboring foreign languages instead, mostly in Bulgarian. Thanks to the circumstances we are now choosing the Central Macedonian dialect as our common literary language, i.e. the vernacular from Veles, Prilep, Bitola and Ohrid.

References

Yes, some claims are unsourced, but I think I can refine them (re-write and source them) over time. Some parts of the edit above are excerpts or analysis of what is written in the book. However, I couldn't find the book in English (in order to properly source the claims). Is it ok if I use the original book in order to cite paragraphs? Methodisches Gutachten (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There is not even a single WP:RS that supports this non-encyclopedic text, larger than the entire article so far. The principles of Wikipedia articles are for a concise encyclopedic style, which should be supported by modern secondary sources. Do not say that any free translations and comparisons of dubious quality are completely unnecessary and pure POV-pushing. Wikipedia:No original research is a basic principle here and this crap above is an example of WP:OR. Jingiby (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

When the topic is important and relevant to the article, it can occupy a large part of it. As far as I know, there is no WP policy regarding the length of an article.

I wouldn't say it is "crap", it is readily verifiable only by reading the book itself (of which, as I said, I cannot find an English version).

And as far as POV-pushing is concerned, the article by itself now contains only elaborations on the criticisms of the book, which is highly aligned with the Bulgarian nationalistic POV (so you may be right about POV-pushing). In my edit I have even provided an excerpt of the book in the languages Misirkov often mentions - Bulgarian and Serbian, so that his language can be compared with these languages. Methodisches Gutachten (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

On a contrary. Look at Wikipedia:Summary style. Also Wikisource is another project, that differs from Wikipedia, thus look at Wikisource:Translations. Pretty sourced content is not POV-pushing, despite you obviously dislike it. A single Bulgarian source is not a problem when it fits to the rest English language Academic ones. Jingiby (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So, basically what you are saying is that this section deserves an article of its own. And I know about Wikisource, however I do not want to translate the book and put it on Wikisource (obviously). Methodisches Gutachten (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Methodisches Gutachten. I'd like to clarify why your edits were reverted if it's not already clear. The essay you referred to is non-binding, but verifiabilty is a policy on Wikipedia. The burden of providing sources is on the editor who adds or restores content (see WP:BURDEN). Editors can and will revert content if it doesn't align with Wikipedia's policies. It's nothing personal. I wouldn't have removed all of it if the content had at least one reliable source supporting it and if the translation of the content was attributed. By the way, while primary sources (which is what Misirkov's book is) can be used on Wikipedia, secondary sources are generally preferred.

So here's what we're gonna do. You'll present any sources that you find which support the content here and then we'll discuss them. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Methodisches Gutachten, while this addition looks well formatted, it lacks sources. I would also like to say that this is not the only work written by Misirkov in this style - the "Vardar" newspaper/magazine was also written with the same orthography and style, so this is best suited for some other article. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that it lacks sources. That, and this discussion, have made me think that maybe the part with the three sublimation points describing his views as to on what grounds should Macedonian be based upon, can be included in the article (as appraisal to his linguistic and "language-building" contribution) with the following sources supporting these claims (please provide others if you happen to have some, also from Bulgarian authors): the book itself and this source from Friedman, page 187.

Additionally, perhaps the naming of the proposed sub-section, i.e., The concept of Misirkov regarding Macedonian could be re-named into The language of Misirkov (and re-edited accordingly, of course) because he uses letters and dialects that are not incorporated into the standardized forms of any known Slavic language of that time. Methodisches Gutachten (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection regarding the three points. For now, they could be integrated in the Background section. If you find more secondary sources, the sub-sections can be addressed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)