Talk:World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

stolen pics

beside the fact that the article is pure Bulgaristani and Former Turkish Colony of Grease propagandha (propagand? ha!):), some of the images have fake copyright status, one of them: Image:Prilep1944.jpg is directly stolen from a private blog while another has a clear copyright WORLD WAR DAY BY DAY and you call this encyclopedia? :))) Aldux, do u have eyes or? :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

STOLEN MATERIALS

Please do not feed the trolls --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The author of the private Macedonian blog from which some materials have been stolen and published on Wikipedia without permition along with fake licencing was informed on the issue and he wrote an angry reaction here: http://vbb.blog.com.mk/node/48148 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I do not know what the status of this picture is, but I'd suggest you revise your username as it is totally inappropriate. I'd also advise you not to use multiple accounts and refrain from such racial comments. --Laveol ^T 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to the site that the above anonym pointed out. I could not see the photo in question because my screen was filled with anti-Bulgarian and anti-Wikipedian slogans, obscenities, and threats in large red letters. I hurried to get out of it because I do not want my computer to pick up such filth. If someone wants to prove a point, he might at least choose a more appropriate form. Lantonov 09:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

whats with this dude jinglebangle and his anti-macedonian pro-nazi propaganda and pics? he's spreading the same neonazi propaganda on vmacedonia forums. them pics are copyrighted as well someone better warn the guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

hey if the photo was scanned taken from a book, the apparently weak-minded (but I will say: stupid) blog owner also did copyright infringement. I call on editors not to bother trolling here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for another article

Because of consistent vandalism and reverting this talk is in fact for National Liberation War of Macedonia. Occupation of Vardar Macedonia during World War II is a stub mainly pointing to the above article. Please someone more knowledgable (admin?) fix it. Lantonov 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a request for a preliminary assessment of this article. Lantonov 08:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The topic is locked!

Some annonimous citizens of FYROM are vandalizing the article. Please do not belive the communist, macedonist propaganda!Jingby 13:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Most people that come here are wise enough to sift facts from fiction. I continue to stick to my original opinion that this article should not exist with its present title "National Liberation War of Macedonia" because there was not a nation and it was not a liberation. This was also not a war waged by partisans but part of WWII waged by Axis and Allied powers. As for Macedonia, I see that the article is mainly for part of this region: Vardar Macedonia that was part of Yugoslavia. It (at least in its original form and also in the introduction) aims to emphasize guerilla resistance against fascism organised by Yugoslavian communists on the territory of Vardar Macedonia while presenting this as a war between the nations Macedonia (100% communist nation) and Bulgaria (100% fascist nation). The edit war is because the facts do not correspond to the aim of the person who started the article. I think that a more appropriate place for this material is in the History of Republic of Macedonia or part of the History of Macedonia (region) during WWII. As it is now, title does not correspond to content and it is just a repetition of a Yugoslavian communist cliche which is devoid of meaning. Lantonov 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it only the several of you Bulgarian Wikipedians editing, you are the only people who seem to give a crap, proves who really wants to spread POV irredentist-nationalist-opressionist propaganda. And I don't take likely to Tatars calling my country FYROM. Have a nice day. 203.59.65.185 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment situation is next-

combatant1=Allied Powers (communist):
Macedonian Partisans
Macedonian National Liberation Army
Serbian, Aromanian and Bulgarian collaborators.

It have to be next-

combatant1=Allied Powers (communist):
Partisans (Yugoslavia)
Macedonian National Liberation Army

Also there ware any Macedonian state, Macedonian nationality or Macedonian party to 1944. According to Macedonian sources the majority of the Partisans ware Serbians, Aromanians, Albanians and s.o. <Кои беа партизаните во Македонија* Никола Петров,Скопје, 1998> [1]- <Who ware the prtisans in Macedonia> Nikola Petrov, Skopje 1998.

Some citation from this book:

...Светозар Вукмановић – Темпо : «Во почетокот на март 1943 г. Пристигнав во Македонија каде што ја затекнав следната положба : Партијските организации во организационен однос беа во речиси полно разделување....Тоа се должи пред се на бугарското сознание на превладувачкиот дел од населението на Мкаедонија, кое не го поднесува антибугарскиот дух и не допушта да се дигне рака против Бугарија...Во текот на 1942 г. е имало шест одреди од по 10-15 борци и тие сите биле разбиени освен Битолскиот, кој што поминал на албанска територија и тоа сам на своја глава и така се запазил.»

Translation is mine - The citation is from Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo... On March 1943 when i entered Macedonia the situation was next- Communist groups ware in chaos. The reason is the Bulgarian spirit of the population.. In 1942 there ware six detachments from up to 10-15 partisans and they ware brocken...

М. Апостолски, кој што се оправдува во текот на 1945 г. «Што да правам бре.....кога излеговме во шумата само јас бев од Македонија, а другите беа Срби, Цинцари и др. и така во борбата го «зацврстивме» нашто другарство и пријателство.»

Translation is mine - The citation is from Mihailo Apostolski... What could i do, when i became a partisan only i was ethnic Macedonian, the rest ware Serbs, Aromanians and others...

Logical conclusion - the most partisans ware Yugoslavs!

combatant Allied Powers (communist):

............................

Serbian, Aromanian and Bulgarian collaborators.

This is non sence!

Jingby 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot, why does Partisan have to be a reference to the Yugoslav Partisans, Partisans and Yugoslav Partisans are not the same. Ofcourse your source will say that they were Serbs, because he's referring to Yugoslav Partisans not partisan fighter in Macedonia. 124.168.101.42 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Of course your source will say that they were Serbs,..." This source is Macedonian from Skopje, and I thank you for ('idiot')! Jingby 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous was a clear abuse ('idiot') of a Wiki editor by a banned user from Perth. Lantonov 09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

U.S STATE DEPARTMENT

Foreign Relations Vol. VIII

Washington D.C. Circular Airgram 868.014/26 Dec. 1944

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers

The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time.

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. "This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonian "national consiousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece". [2]Jingby 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Otecestven Vestnik (Sofia daily), 19 June 1991

STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION: (G. Dimitrov, V. Korarov, T. Kostov) The Kremlin, 7 June 1946

Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework of Bulgaria. Tito has shown himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic state and has had to give equal rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the unification of Macedonia, but in view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get the criticism. You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account. No such consciousness existed in Byelorussia either when we proclaimed it a Soviet Republic. However, later it was shown that a Byelorussian people did in fact exist. ..Jingby 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some documentary films about the Bulgarian "Occupation" of Vardar Banovina.

1.Macedonia after WW1 and its liberation in 1941. [3]

2.1943 - Serres, Aegean Macedonia, 30th anniversary of the heroic death of Goce Delchev. [4]

3.Bitola - 1942.Celebration Of anniversary of The Battle of the Bulgarian army during WWI at Crna river Curve. [5]

4.BITOLA - ONE YEAR LATTER.CELEBRATION OF THE LIBERATION - 1942. [6]

5.Ohrid.RESURRECTION IN 1941 - IMPRESSION. [7]

6.Skopje-1942. [8]

7.Skopje. Resurrection of Macedonia 1941. [9]

8.Resen. Resurrection of Macedonia 1941. [10]

9.Stip - 1942. Memorial service about Todor Alexandrov. [11]

10.April 1942. Skopie. Tsar Boris III square. [12]Jingby 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for "liberators" sentence

This is about the sentence: "As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by most of the population as liberators[6]". I understand that was one of the most contentious issues that got this article protected. That citation goes to http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/mac1941/mac41.html - can someone describe that source a bit, and point to the actual page where that claim is given? I can't read Bulgarian very well, but put some words through an online translator, and that page, at least, doesn't seem to say that. There is another part of that web site, which seems to be a collection of books, that says The Bulgarian population in Macedonia met with open joy the defeat of Kingdom Yugoslavia. It saw in it the end of the 23 years of enslavement. That is why it was not surprising that the Bulgarians from Vardar Macedonia, mobilizated in the Yugoslav army refuse to fight.7 Similar was the situation in the World War I when the Macedonian Bulgarians forcibly mobilized in the Serbian army in large numbers surrendered to the Austro-Hungarian army. That's not quite the same as "was greeted by most of the population as liberators", that's closer to "was greeted by the Bulgarian portion of the population as liberators". That also seems a much less contentious sentence. Would anyone object we change this sentence to that?

There is a section titled #the CREDIBILITY of our SOURCES, above, that seems to discuss this sentence, but it seems to have been a bit heated (in the way that the ocean is a bit wet). Hopefully we can keep this section calmer. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The book in called "The Resurrection" in reference to the fact that the Bulgarian troops entered Vardar Macedonia on Easter. The book is authored by Sotir Nanev, and published by the Institute of Macedonian studies. The author is from Vardar Macedonia, and his parents have escaped to Bulgaria during the Second Balkan War. He relates his memories of 1941 as he enters Macedonia as a lieutenant of the Bulgarian Army. The whole book is written with a very patriotic feeling, and love to Vardar Macedonia and its people whom he calls the best and most progressive of all Bulgarians. He describes at lenght the mass exultation as the population of Kriva Palanka, Kumanovo, Skopje, Veles, Izvor, Prilep, Krushevo, Bitolja, Resen, Ohrid, Smilevo, meets the Bulgarian soldiers. The population of Lerin, Voden, and Solun (Thessaloniki), those are in Aegean Macedonia, is more reticent because the Bulgarians are mixed with Greeks and they are forbidden to speak Bulgarian. The policemen in the last 3 towns are mostly Greek and it is felt that there is tension among the Greek population. The publishing House is "Trud" ISBN 9545283661.Lantonov 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):In my opinion, the lot should be thrown out of the window. I've given an analysis to the source and its origin, and their is really hardly any chance it can fix WP:RS. The works in question all come from a pretty irredentist Bulgarian website, from the website of a certain Vassil Karloukovski. and Minchev's book doesn't have any indication of being really printed. Many similar problems present themselves for Macedonian sources, particularly those from the communist period, but also those from contemporary propaganda Macedonist websites, that have the same problems of www.kroraina.com, even if at least kroraina has some acceptable old books that it has placed online.--Aldux 16:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By the same token we should throw all historic literature written in France, Germany, or England, only because they are found in the blog of some history buff of those countries. Lantonov 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, blogs per WP:RS are unacceptable, unless under very specific and limited circumstances, and the same goes for material they may quote, as it can't be considered reliable.--Aldux 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Even for books published with ISBN number? I doubt it. Then we can de-link the book and it will become acceptable. A very dumb policy if it is true. Lantonov 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the WP:RS and it writes about self-published books, and books found ONLY in personal blogs. Lantonov 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought you were asking; obviously, it's not a book's fault if it is quoted by a blog. Remember (always from WP:RS) that especially in contentious topics (and if this isn't one of those... :-() it is best to rely on third-party secondary sources. It must be also sure that the authors are respected academics for the secondary sources, whose works if in Bulgarian or Macedonian are known by scholarship outside Bulgaria, and the publishing houses in question are not specialized in nationalist stuff. For example, in Italy there have always been a few small far-right publishing houses, but their works have always been utterly ignored in scholarship.--Aldux 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for remaining calm. So it's the memoirs of a Bulgarian soldier, who was greeted warmly by some Bulgarian Macedonians, and doesn't write as much about the non-Bulgarian Macedonians. It may or may not have been published - it doesn't show up on Amazon, but does show up on Google Book Search: [13] Is it all right to write the sentence the way I suggest it, that the Bulgarian Macedonians welcomed the Bulgarian army? Since that limited form doesn't seem to be a tremendously controversial statement, I imagine even a soldier's memoirs would be an acceptable source. The wider form, that most Macedonians welcomed the Bulgarian army, would probably require a better source. Agreed? Reasonable compromise? Which page actually says that he was welcomed, by the way, so we can give a more specific link for the citation? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As the link cited above shows (and I found a few other links), the book is published officially by the "Trud" publishing house with a valid ISBN number. It is even published 2 times: once in 1942, and then republished in 1993. Trud is one of the largest publishing houses in Bulgaria. It publishes the most popular newspaper 'Trud'. So 'may or may not have been published' can become 'has been published' with the preservation of the calm dreams that are a product of pure conscience. Lantonov 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole book describes the warm welcome in different towns. I don't think it's possible to add it as a footnote for the "Greeted by..." sentence unfortunately--Laveol ^T 17:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again)I've found a good source: Between Past and Future: Civil-Military Relations in Post-Communist Balkan States, by Biljana Vankovska: she says at page 58 that in reaction to Belgrade state terror, whose resistance had been mostly incarnated by a recall to the Bulgarian spirit, many Slavs greeted them as liberator: "At the time of their invasion in 1915 and 1941, the Bulgarian troops were greeted as liberators, but in the four year rule Bulgarian nationalists. lost all sympathies" This is a quote that Vankovska does from a German historian, Troebst. Hope this helps.--Aldux 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source but Macedonian is: <Кои беа партизаните во Македонија - Никола Петров,Скопје, 1998> [14]- <Who ware the partisans in Macedonia> Nikola Petrov, Skopje 1998. The autor describes the joy of local Bulgarian population, according to the memories of contemporary Macedonian Bulgarians. Jingby 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

(Removing copy-and-paste from http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/bccc_1941/docs1_10.html ) Jingby 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense, Jingby, but that's a lot of text, I hope if it's all right if I just refer to the link. The text seems to basically support the statement. I gather you don't object? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The book "Кои беа партизаните во Македониjа" by Nikola Petrov can also be forund in a purely Macedonian blog in the Republic of Macedonia, which is for the most part anti-Bulgarian: [15] Lantonov 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Changed sentence, added 3 references, thank you all very much for your help. If something is not right,please say. Otherwise, we now return you to your regularly scheduled controversies. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing title

I suggest that we redirect the title to Macedonian antifashist resistance movement or something like that, because the "Macedonian nation" was still not invented; I think that it was created in a monastery in 1945.

The population of Rep. of Macedonia might call it a national liberation war, but it also considers Samuil and Alexander the Macedon as Macedionians... --Gligan 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the move. As you can see from my comments above, I find the title "National Liberation War of Macedonia" misleading in all four words: "national", "liberation", "war", and "Macedonia". Lantonov 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move as the article (Macedonia) refers to the region. It should be noted that "National Liberation War of Macedonia" is the title of the conflict in every relevant source that has been presented to the article, even sources by Western historians, scholars and academics.

Another section of the article which amounts to ongoing edit wars is in the information box, under combatants, the main entity is "Macedonian Partisans" but this is reverted, mainly by Jingiby or altered to "Yugoslav Partisans (Yugoslavia)". "Yugoslavs" were not an ethnicity, but merely an optional self-entitlement by Croats, Serbs and Slovenes of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. "Yugoslavs" also (literally) means "South Slavs" and therefore cannot be seen as an ethnicity but rather as a title for the occupants of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Another reason why it is highly unnecessary to use "Yugoslavs" is that there was no official form of "Yugoslavia" between 1941 and 1943 (as Vardar Macedonia was annexed by Bulgaria, Bosnia annexed by Croatia and had become and independent state; Independent State of Croatia and Serbia became Nedic's Serbia). I think that Jingiby is also confused with the definition of "Partisan". The article point to Partisan (military) (an unofficial military formation of combatants of any ethnicity) with Partisans (Yugoslavia) a famous group of combatants under Josip Broz Tito who were titled "Yugoslavs" after the formation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Note to AnonEMouse, I think my IP changed again. Regards :) 203.59.118.146 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The same pertains to "Bulgarian Macedonians", as there was no such ethnicity. They are either Bulgarians, Greeks, Vlahs, Albanians, or (very few) Serbs as ethnicities living in the region of Macedonia. You will find this in all serious historic literature of international origin (excluding only some authors from the Republic of Macedonia, and a couple of Serbian historians). Lantonov 13:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain Italian Americans, African Americans, Macedonian Australians etc. 203.59.118.146 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, the Wiki terrorist again :). Hello, Frighty, how's the night down under? Lantonov 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin, Lantonov just called me a terrorist. :) 203.59.118.146 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just kidding. You do not seem to have a sense of humor. Lantonov 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I have a hell of a sense of humor ;) but I consider it odd that you can get away with trolling. 203.59.118.146 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, "trolls with an abducted princess". I want to be one of them :). Lantonov 13:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt. Personal attacks on all side. Can we get back to content, please? We were doing very well just a few sentences ago. Everybody smile nicely, and go back to discussing World War II. No fighting -- we've got a war to discuss! :-)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian or Yugoslav partisans

Yes, back to the discussion. I think I have made my point, I haven't witnessed any hostility towards the "Macedonian Partisans" bit except for a few exceptional edits, mainly from the same users, but I am sure everyone will agree with me that there is no real problem with Macedonian Partisans rather than Yugoslav Partisans. If there are objections, please feel free to clarify. 203.59.118.146 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to get personal. Only trying to liven up the oppressive situation in which a banned user tries to occupy the whole floor of discussion enjoying his unpunishability. Lantonov 14:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection is that there were not Macedonians as a nation. As one of the Macedonian sources says (Nikola Petrov): The partisans were Serbs, Vlahs, Montenegrans, Albanians, Tsintsars (Greek-speaking) but there was not one Macedonian. Lantonov 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So now Macedonian sources are credible eh? What credibility does that source have in historical context? 203.217.3.175 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In historical context, immense credibility. If we cite all sources back to 7th century, it will fit and corroborate nicely. Lantonov 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A Google search of this "Никола Петров" only shows citing of his works on pro-Bulgarian/anti-Macedonian websites, mostly on blogs. The search also reveals several historic Bulgarian figures with the same name. 203.217.3.175 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What we normally do in these cases is see what the most common name is for the subject. Whether or not it's technically correct is secondary. Whether a specific source is biased or not isn't as important as the fact that it's only one source. Find lots. What do newspaper articles call this conflict? What do history books call this conflict? The relevant guideline is called Wikipedia:Naming conventions, or WP:TITLE. If you want to show that a different name is more common, give a list of history books and articles that use a more common name. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See above, that this is exactly what I did. The biggest surprise for me was that I found this book several times in extremely anti-Bulgarian Macedonian blogs. I searched with "Никола Петров партизаните беа" Lantonov 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The article also states massacres of ethnic Macedonians, yet that is denied and contributions mentioning genocide are reverted. 203.217.3.175 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement from Perth is simply not true. Here is a copy and paste from the article: "During the WWII Bulgarian army was involved in some war crimes. The execution of 12 young males and 4 females, most of them members of CPY by fascist Bulgarian soldiers is one of the most controversial events of World War II among ethnic Macedonians. The massacre, which took place on June 16, 1943, engaged 16 members of the Communist Party of Vataša, a village near Kavadarci. The Bulgarian Army was scouting ethnic Macedonian partisans and raided all the houses in the village. Without any success of pursuing the partisans, members of the Bulgarian Army captured the 12 men and interrogated them, demanding them to reveal the whereabouts of the partisans. After the unsuccessful interrogation, the men were beaten and shot by the Bulgarian soldiers. A group of females witnessed the executions, several of them were sisters of the male victims and escaped but 4 of them were also killed by the army". This stayed and was not reverted because it is supported by a couple of Macedonian sources.Lantonov 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable policy as long as sources are proportionate. In the zillions of communist books printed in former Yugoslavia, this conflict may be called National Liberation War but this does not mean that this is the absolute truth. Lantonov 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This website discussing Macedonia and the ideology of a Greater Albania during World War II mentions the Kosovo-Macedonian Brigade, which is also mentioned in the article:

“ Kicevo was held by Petar Brajovic who commanded the partisan First Kosovo-Macedonian Brigade. ”

The website then says:

“ These units fought against Macedonian and Kosovo partisan forces. ”

Indicating there were Macedonian partisans present during the conflict, even thought the brigade was a joint Serbian/Macedonian formation. 203.217.3.175 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Memories of a Macedonian Partisan Commander for the Members of the British SOE Mission in Macedonia, November 1943-May 1944 - BBC. 203.217.3.175 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct in 1943 it was Macedonian National Liberation Army and before 1943 the partisans in West Bulgaria ware Yugoslav and predominantly Serbians! Jingby 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, lets put things clear: nobody wants you here, and as a banned editor you are not entitled to expose your opinions on this talk page. If you insist, I will find myself forced to semiprotect this talk page, even if I'm reluctant to take such a course of action on a talk page.--Aldux 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aldux, I'm making a personal request that you give him a chance. He is trying to be civil. If he can't handle it, we will protect the page, but so far he is making a fair go of it. Surely, as an administrator, you can be at least equally civil. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon, Frightner is not a legitimate editor, as he has been subjected to indefinite block after his case was presented to the WP:AN/I. This means that he cannot make any legitimate edits, and that those made by him can be reverted on sight. And please remember this: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". I'll let his edits on this talk stand, as a favour to you, but I can't accept that he edits any article. Obviously, if you want you can remove Frigtner's ban: I would disagree, but I wouldn't try to reenstate it.--Aldux 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support Frightner staying here as long as he is civil. To be honest, I missed him in the past two weeks. There was not a fair representation of the Macedonist point of view while we have to reach some consensus. The truth is grey, not black or white. Lantonov 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. Carry on. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I must admit also that I feel there's a problem of equilibrium: I myself started posting here mainly to present a non-exclusively Bulgarian pov, with the hope of enriching a bit the debate. But the problem remains: we can't close our eyes to Frightner's ban, and to the rules that govern wikipedia. Probably we should try to find other editors willing to participate to the debate who have some knowledge of Balkans-related issues.--Aldux 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ... Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.. The first rule of Wikipedia is: If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it.. That said, you'll notice I'm not unblocking User:Frightner just yet. Let's take this one step at a time, and see how this works. If it works, we will have more balanced, useful content, one more valuable contributor, all that good stuff. If it doesn't, we'll go back to the block war. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exuse my, I prefer the former title, - Occupation of Vardar Banovina during World War II ! Jingby 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid I can't agree with this: only a part of Vardar Banovina was occupied by the Bulgarians, and anyways it would give serious problems with WP:NAME, as hardly anybody knows what Vardar Banovina stands for when you exclude ex-Yugoslav and Bulgarian readers. As this is clearly part of the wider Yugoslav People's Liberation War article, I'd propose Yugoslav People's Liberation War (Macedonia).--Aldux 19:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Yugoslav People's Liberation War(Macedonia) is more acceptable than National Liberation War of Macedonia because it bypasses the contentious issue of nationality. However, other issues still remain. Yugoslavia, as created in 1929, was a mosaic of nationalities, most with a history of warring among them. When we say liberation war, we must clear the question of who liberated whom and from whom. This is not easy at all. As we see, some call it "occupation" and other call it "liberation". There is even a book with this name: "Occupation" or "liberation" of Macedonia. As we see above, debates on this question took place in the parliament of Republic of Macedonia. There are debates on this in Bulgaria, too. I doubt that there ever be consensus on this. For instance, in 1944-1945, the Bulgarian Army under the Bulgarian Communist Party repulsed German troops and occupied the most part of Macedonia and Serbia. In all communist history books that they obliged me to study, this was called "liberation". Was it? I don't know. This goes not only for Macedonia. Croatia, for instance, during most of WWII was a "free" state, liberated from Serbian domination. After the war, it was again reoccupied and included in Yugoslavia. The same, only more complicated, because of the Bulagrian ethnicity of the people, goes for Macedonia. Throw in this the fact that most of the fighting was on ideological (communist against fascist) grounds rather than on nationalistic grounds ("proletarians of all countries, unite!"), and the mess becomes complete. Lantonov 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Macedonia" has nothing to do with nationality within this article, "Macedonia" in the title is a geographic term (example National Liberation Army (Macedonia) and 2001 Macedonia conflict. The Macedonian partisans were fighting to unite the entire region of Macedonia i.e. Vardar Banovina, Greek Macedonia and the Blagoevgrad Province (considered Macedonism). So the title must remain "National Liberation War of Macedonia" as it concerned the entire geographic region of Macedonia (the article states partisan detachments in Kosturia and the Blagoevgrad Province). The article does not talk about occupation of Vardar Macedonia specifically this is a POV ideology to only include information about the Bulgarian Army. This article also falls under the categories of German, Italian and Albanian history of WWII. 124.168.69.127 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is so, that is, the various struggles that took place in the region of Macedonia during WWII, were united by only one aim, that is, liberation of the region of Macedonia by all other ethnicities, and creating an independent national state, called Macedonia, populated exclusively by Macedonian nationals, you must prove with independent sources that this is so. As sources cited here say, in Vardar Macedonia, the struggle was to include it in Bulgaria or in Yugoslavia, in Pirin Macedonia the struggle had no national agenda, and it was purely on ideological grounds (Bulgarian communists against Bulgarian fascist), and in Aegean Macedonia the anti-fascist struggle was waged mostly by Greek partisans against German and Bulgarian forces for this region to remain part of Greece, while ethnic Bulgarians there (whom you prefer calling Slavs) fought on the side of fascist forces (as Ohrana detachments) to include this region in Bulgaria. So the question remains: who liberates whom from whom? For more details, see "Aim of the "Liberation" war" above. Lantonov 09:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have stated multiple times what this article is about, please do not make it out to be something totally unrelated. For example, you say that only Bulgarian communists were fighting against Bulgarian fascists, if that is the case, they are irrelevant to the article and only ethnic Macedonian partisans who fought for an irredentist goal (to unite Pirin with Vardar) are to be mentioned in the article, that is the whole idea of "National Liberation War of Macedonia". I'm not denying that it was a war based on nationalistic ideologies, but anything else concerning Bulgarians and Greeks in the same time period, possibly within the region is not related, only people who fought to liberate and unite Macedonia (irredentism) are relevant to the article. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, if you don't, we can discuss further. Regards :) 203.59.118.146 10:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to include only MACEDONIAN partisans fighting exclusively for the independence of Macedonia, why do you complain of excluding most of the region from the article? There were no "Macedonian" partisans in Gorna Dzhumaya okoliya (now Blagoevgrad Province), and the partisans fighting there fought exclusively for deposing the fascist government and replacing it with communist dictatorship, both Bulgarian. In Aegean Macedonia, the only partisans who may have fought for independent Macedonia are some individual members of the Ohrana detachments (lack of sources for this, however, maybe you will find some and we will discuss them) who fought against Greek partisans. In Vardar Macedonia, itself, as sources says, partisans were Serbs, Montenegrans, Albanians, Vlahs, Tsintsars, but very few Macedonians and the aim of this movement was for inclusion of Vardar Macedonia in Yugoslavia, not for independent Macedonia. Lantonov 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That claim is POV, there is evidence, even images that prove the existence of Macedonian partisans in all regions. 203.59.118.146 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are evidences, even images that proves the existence of pro-Bulgarian partisans in all regions of Macedonia, too! There are evidences, that proves the existence of pro - Albanian, pro - Greek, pro - Yugoslav and pro - Serbian partisans in some parts of the region. Jingby 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... Just as I said, they are unrelated to the article as they did not fight for or against the liberation of the regions of Macedonia to ultimately unite them. Please refrain from enforcing POV comments that supposedly indicate there was no Macedonian ethnicity (POV) and that the Macedonian population met the Bulgarians as liberators (also POV). The latter has been disproven, and claims that there were no ethnic Macedonian partisans who fought in regions of Macedonia, respectively, will also be disproven as it is POV and propaganda. I hope you do not take offense to this comment as most of the ideas you have presented are featured in the anti-Macedonian propaganda book The Ten Lies of Macedonism. Regards. 203.59.118.146 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the Macedonian population met the Bulgarians as liberators (also POV). The latter has been disproven ...". It is good to read what other people write in this page. As we agreed just a little above, there are at least 3 reliable sources that say exactly this:"The population of Vardar Macedonia met Bulgarians as liberators". So where is the disproval? Lantonov 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. AnonEMouse has reviewed the sources and concluded that the sources states only that the Bulgarian population of Macedonia met them as liberators, which is why he changed the text of the article to comply with the sources not with user's interpretations of them. 203.59.118.146 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"... POV, there is evidence, even images that prove the existence of Macedonian partisans in all regions..." Still waiting to see this. Lantonov 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"... the anti-Macedonian propaganda book The Ten Lies of Macedonism. " Everything that does not agree with the Macedonist view is propaganda. We know this too well. No matter that the book is written by the eminent historian Prof. Bozhidar Dimitrov, with over a 100 internationally recognised works, and Director of the Bulgarian National History Museum.Lantonov 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not everything, only Bulgarian and Greek works that do "not agree with the Macedonianist view" are less considerable than (for example) if a German, English or French (etc) historian wrote them, as they would be more neutral. 203.59.118.146 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Compromise, folks, think compromise. I notice the protection on the page has expired, and someone has already taken the opportunity to change "Macedonians (ethnic group) partisans" to "Yugoslav partisans" in a few places, while this debate is still raging here. Can we try to settle the debate here first, please? I have a suggestion that hopefully will be acceptable to both "sides" - not ideal, presumably, but acceptable. I suggest "Macedonian partisans", meaning partisans from the Macedonian region of Yugoslavia, whatever their ethnicity. Presumably that is more correct than either

• Macedonians (ethnic group) partisans, since presumably a significant number of people from all ethnic groups in Macedonia participated, and
• Yugoslav partisans, since that implies that partisans from all areas of Yugoslavia participated, and frankly, I doubt that too many people from Croatia or Slovenia made their way south to Macedonia to be partisans here instead of in their own homelands.

Acceptable? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the most partisans in 1941-42, around 200-300 people ware Serbians from Vardar Banovina, they ware Partisans (Yugoslavia). Later in 1943 with the creation of Macedonian National Liberation Army and Macedonian Communist Party the status quo was chanched! Beacause of thise facts I think that the communist allies ware at the beginning Yugoslav partisans and later figters from Macedonian National Liberation Army. Jingby 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that most correct is 'partisans from the region of Macedonia', however long and awkward is this phrase. It does not refer to nationality of those partisans. Saying "Macedonian partisans", moreover, partisans who fight for a "national liberation" means that some Macedonian nationality wages a war to free itself from some foreign occupation, which directly supports the Macedonist view which, as we saw from ample sources, is not even supported inside Yugoslavia. The partisans who fought during this time were various nationalities: in Bulgarian part of Macedonia they were Bulgarians (of course, here and there, a Jew, an Armenian, a Greek and so on for minorities in Bulgaria); in the Greek part of Macedonia, partisans who fought against Germans and Bulgarians were of Greek nationality, partisans who fought against Greek partisans were Bulgarian nationality; in the Yugoslav part of Macedonia most partisans were of Serbian nationality, followed by Montenegrans, Albanians, Vlahs, Tsintsars, and Bulgarians (the latter fighting on ideological grounds: communists against fascists). If we want to include in the article only the Yugoslavian part of Macedonia (as we see from the discussion, the author of this article strongly opposes to this as this defeats his stated aim), then it is better to speak of Yugoslavian partisans meaning the medley of nationalities living in Yugoslavia, and remove from the article the map of the whole region of Macedonia, which includes parts of Bulgaria and Greece, and the map of all territories, occupied by Bulgaria, as misleading and irrelevant to the subject. If we must include a map then, it will be only of the Yugoslavian part (Vardar Macedonia, Yugoslav Macedonia, or whatever neutral name). This will be historically more correct because this region (let's say, Vardar Macedonia) was a part of Yugoslavia before WWII and remained part of Yugoslavia also after WWII. In the technical military sense, the region was occupied mostly by the Bulgarian Army in the beginning of the war, after September 1944 it was occupied mostly by retreating from Greece German troops, and liberated primarily by the Bulgarian Army who fought against the Germans with some help of the Yugoslavian partisans and then returned to Yugoslavia. User:Lantonov|Lantonov]] 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you did not understand, on the many occasions, when I stated that "Macedonia" in the title of the article refers to the whole region of Macedonia, otherwise, I would have said "Vardar Macedonia" etc, as I am a neutral editor. On another point, I would settle with "Yugoslav Macedonian partisans" and have it disambiguated to Partisans (Yugoslavia). 203.59.172.94 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That also seems a reasonable compromise. Lantonov, Jingiby? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point your attention on the latest edits of Frightner here. Please look at them one by one and do not revert the whole. I find most of them acceptable and improving the quality of the article. Lantonov 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. I did not remove any information, just cleared up some faults. I am pretty satisfied with the article now as most of the issues have been addressed and corrected. The only thing left is the whole "Partisans" deal, I suggest that it becomes "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" and points to "Partisans (Yugoslavia)" ie. Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. What do you think? 203.59.172.94 11:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. "Ethnic Macedonian" in this article still jarrs on my nerves but it should be ok as long as Macedonians (ethnic group) is written well (I don't have time and nerves to look in that one and hope for the better) Lantonov 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great :-D. It is settled then. Yugoslav Partisans will become Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. Any objections? 203.59.172.94 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian or Bulgarian ethnicity

"... there was no Macedonian ethnicity (POV)..." Whose POV is that? Maybe of Siegfried Jakoby, secretary to Einstein, who in an article 'Macedonia - What I Saw There' (1927) writes:

"Macedonia is a country populated by pure Bulgarians; the Serbs there now are only settlers and colonists. The Macedonian Bulgarians are by no means an amorphous half-savage mass living there by chance but are pure Bulgarians, with a national consciousness created long ago, who, for almost a century, have been fighting - cut off from Bulgaria - for their political and spiritual freedom. And during the years after the War it is possible to see in Macedonia how valorously the Macedonian Bulgarians there are fighting for their sacred rights. The Macedonian Bulgarians are fighting with an idealism without parallel, and whoever calls these militants 'brigands' and 'gangsters', is a deliberate liar and a schemer. ... The centre of Macedonia are the districts of Ohrid, Prilep, Prespa, Moglena, Ostrovo, Kostour, Veles, Skopje, Voden, Melnik. There the popula­tion is pure Bulgarian - not only the language, but the entire spiritual life is Bulgarian. In these places I spoke with hundreds of peasants, workers and in­telligentsia and all immediately assured me that they were Bulgarians and that they wished to be Bulgarians in their own land. All over Macedonia I was able to see that the population is peaceloving and very weary from the recent wars; but they told me - we shall have to take to arms again because we are being tortured and are not left in peace. The Macedonians are Bulgarians and their duty is to work for the liberation of this land, it is their duty to their children." Lantonov 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And the source is? I would like to see (just once) a Western academic that shares the same views as Bulgarian nationalists (of that time). 203.59.118.146 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that every attempt at resolving a particular issue it turned into an ethnic debate? 203.59.118.146 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of Macedonist attempts to falsify history. Lantonov 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me which ethnicities have objected to the contents of the article. 203.59.118.146 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Western academic views? Readily - Mahon, M.1998., The Macedonian Question in Bulgaria, Nations and Nationalism,4(3):389-407. From the abstract: "The Bulgarian denouncement is based on the strong sense of loss of the territory, history and language which it shared with Macedonia in the past." So, we shared language, and history, and territory. Lantonov 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The ethnicities whose national identity and history is offended by it: Bulgarians and Greeks. Lantonov 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And Macedonians are not offended by POV pushers who enforce personal views and propaganda on many Macedonia related articles? 203.59.118.146 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin Mr. Francis Tyers' comment on an edit made by Jingiby:

“ Kronsteiner has been described as "the only Western linguist still subscribing to the view that 'Macedonian is Bulgarian'", he's pretty much laughed at outside of Bulgarian circles. ”

203.59.118.146 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask who laughs at Prof. Otto Kronsteiner? Lantonov 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at whoever wrote the comment and ask them. I doubt you read all of anything I write. 203.59.118.146 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, Macedonian is not Bulgarian since 1945 by political reasons, as the Macedonians are not Bulgarians since then. Jingby 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. Me and Lantonov will discuss the article responsibly (as it should be) because despite our different points of view are trying to resolve remaining issues instead of making accusations. 203.59.118.146 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Serbians in Macedonia might be offended by reading the harsh truth disproving their propaganda, but real Macedonians (that is, the majority of Slav population living in this region) have nothing to be offended or ashamed about. We have a great common history. As the Macedonian Paisiy Hilendarski born in Bansko, Pirin Macedonia, writes in 1786: "Поради что ти, о неразумний юроде, се срамиш да се назовеш българин?" Oh, sorry, maybe he was a POV pusher, too. Lantonov 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please translate this? I cannot understand Bulgarian well. 203.59.118.146 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In case that you really do not understand this (I doubt it, but it might be true if you have lived in Australia too long), it says: "Why do you, unreasonable man, are ashamed to call yourself Bulgarian?" I, for myself, also do not understand this. No irony intended. Lantonov 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Frightner: I would like to see (just once) a Western academic that shares the same views as Bulgarian nationalists (of that time)." OK, here is another academic definitely non-Bulgarian view: Macedonia from S. S. Cyril and Methodius to Horace Lunt and Blazhe Koneski:Language and Nationality (Prof. James F. Clarke, The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History, edited by Dennis P. Hupchick, Boulder: East European Monographs; New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1988. ISBN 0880331496 ) Lantonov 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused now, are you being sarcastic in most of your replies? Sounds like it. 203.59.118.146 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Frigtner, Iam going to make easier your problem with the proves. The most of the fundaments about the creation of macedonian nation and language are here: The Resolution of the Comintern on the Macedonian Nation and the Macedonian Language (1934). [16]Jingby 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1934? And that is relevant to the article how? Because I am trying to remain civil, I am going to ignore your anti-Macedonian agenda at all cost and for that matter will not respond to you at all. I figure that it will help me continue with the resolution of the remaining disputes in a civil manner, so it is best if you just leave me alone, your edits are mostly the reason I became aggravated and disruptive to begin with. 203.59.118.146 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be sarcastic, sorry if you take it like this. I want to quote just a little from the book of Prof. Clarke (ISBN 0880331496):

"The new Macedonian state and language in particular required historical rationalization to justify their separatism. But the discouraging fact was that there was virtually no Macedonian "state" history, as such. Consequently the Skopje scholars have found it necessary to rewrite Balkan history at least as far back as Cyril and Methodius to make room for Macedonia. ... Because the history of Macedonia has hitherto inevitably been written mostly in terms of Bulgaria, Macedonian historians are finding it necessary to deprive Bulgarians of some of their history, for example, St. Clement, chief disciple of Cyril and Methodius, whose anniversary on Ohrid in 1966 was celebrated as a Macedonian affair. Another example is the Bogomils, whom the Macedonians have adopted as their very own national movement. On some of these points Macedonians have trouble convincing even their fellow Yugoslavs. ... For Macedonians to deny their Bulgarian heritage is like Peter denying Christ. But Peter repented! You are familiar, I am sure, with all the distortions and denials of Bulgarian history, literature, and culture, as related to Macedonia eminating from Skopje." There is many more more than can be quoted but this is enough, because this section became too long. So if you are offended by truths found in historical sources, then what to speak about us when we read falsifications of our history? Lantonov 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, maybe if you can rephrase it... Anyways, what is this, are we even discussing the article or what? Seems like all you are trying to do is enforce some ideology about Macedonians being Bulgarian. 203.59.118.146 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems just the opposite, you are trying to enforce some fringe theory about Bulgarians being Macedonians. And you made the whole article just about this: to represent Bulgarians as a foreign occupator waging a war on some Macedonian ethnicity which exists only in the heads of a few Skopje historians. We in Bulgaria find this abusive and false, a blatant falsification of our history, and support why this is so with multitude of sources. You denying those sources and calling them nationalistic Bulgarian POV and propaganda, and accusing us of having a hidden nationalistic agenda, is pouring abuse upon abuse. Lantonov 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm, please, calm. We need to be able to talk about sources without offending editors, or we'll never get anything done. Please, folks, try a bit harder both not to offend, and also not to take offense. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the key to the problem: "...It was not until the second half of the 1940s, when the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito established the Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - thereby elevating the Macedonian people to the status of nation - that it seemed as if the Macedonian Question had been resolved. Under the leadership of Tito, and with the blessing of Joseph Stalin, the Yugoslav political elite aimed at solving the national зroblems ‘under the slogan of “Brotherhood and Unity”, and the Macedonians were recognised for the first time as a separate nation...’ (Poulton 2000: 125)

And even so - "...With the founding of the Yugoslav Macedonian republic a sense of a Macedonian national identity gained strength and became systematised. Under Yugoslav rule, and mainly directed from Belgrade, a Macedonian language was codified, an autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox Church was established, and academics developed a “usable past” and projected Macedonian national feeling far into history, for example by converting the medieval Bulgarian Empire of Tsar Samuil into a Macedonian one and even claiming a link to Alexander the Great.’(Bell 1998:193)Jingby 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the ethnic Macedonian partisan detachments in Greek Macedonia and so forth, how can they be considered Yugoslav Partisans? 203.59.172.94 09:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby himself included the sentence "Macedonian partisans, which not only included ethnic Macedonians, but also local Aromanians, Serbs, Albanians, Jews and [Bulgarians]]" taken, apparently, from a pro-Bulgarian source. Yet now he is denying this very claim. 203.59.172.94 10:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your methods of arguing are indeed very interesting. You want sources and when Lantonov and Jingiby find them, you inevitably qualify them as pro-Bulgarian and pushing Bulgarian POV; so what is a neutral POV, the Macedonian??? Please respect their efforts, they are at least trying to find something. Can you find a source for Macedonian nation and Macedonian language from before 1945 when these were invented? And don't make me laugh with presenting Yugoslav and Serbian sources. Or perhaps these are the only neutral ones, because it is written what you want to hear? --Gligan 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only dismiss websites such as Kroraina.com and Macedoniainfo.com as Bulgarian POV. You, yourself, cannot read articles on these websites and think that they are not anti-Macedonian in a sense. 203.59.172.94 10:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point your attention on the latest edits of Frightner here. Please look at them one by one and do not revert the whole. I find most of them acceptable and improving the quality of the article. Lantonov 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. I did not remove any information, just cleared up some faults. I am pretty satisfied with the article now as most of the issues have been addressed and corrected. The only thing left is the whole "Partisans" deal, I suggest that it becomes "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" and points to "Partisans (Yugoslavia)" ie. Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. What do you think? 203.59.172.94 11:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. I am bound to accept "Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans" for the lack of something better. If it is only "Yugoslav Partisans" it should talk about the whole Yugoslavia. "Yugoslav Macedonian" means to me a person from Yugoslav Macedonia, or, alternatively, in this context, an inhabitant of Yugoslav Macedonia who fights for re-integration of this region in Yugoslavia. Both are acceptable to me because they sound historically truthful. "Ethnic Macedonian" in this article still jarrs on my nerves but it should be ok as long as Macedonians (ethnic group) is written well (I don't have time and nerves to look in that one and hope for the better) Lantonov 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great :-D. It is settled then. Yugoslav Partisans will become Yugoslav Macedonian Partisans. Any objections? 203.59.172.94 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The change was a good move. If you have a look at this link on vojska.net, Macedonian brigades of the Macedonian National Liberation Army are included in the list of "Brigades of Yugoslav partisans". I also consulted a relative and they too said that the Macedonian National Liberation Army were considered Yugoslav partisans. So therefore, my assumption is that all ethnicities of Tito's Yugoslavia which fought battles within the borders of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (even after having split up), respectively, were considered Yugoslav partisans, which is why the distinction between the ethnicities of Yugoslav Partisans is necessary. Like you said Lantonov, it is unlikely that Yugoslav Bosnian/Croatian/Slovene Partisans fought in the Macedonia. :) 203.59.172.94 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jingiby removing the following links?:

• History of the Republic of Macedonia
• Military history of the Republic of Macedonia
• Military history of Germany during World War II
• Military history of Italy during World War II

Why is it only necessary that Military history of Bulgaria during World War II remains? 203.59.172.94 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop cunning!Military history of Albania during World War II is here too! Jingby 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Stop cunning"? I'm not sure that makes any sense. A Wikipedia administrator told you himself that your removal of the links stated above was a POV edit. Also, Albanian involvement in the war is mentioned nowhere in the article. 203.59.172.94 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks folks, for mostly discussing things reasonably and politely. Please keep it up. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)