Talk:Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I)

Point of View

This article contains many non-neutral political statements and possibly historical revisionism, with terms like a "wasted" treaty and an "itchy population" (whatever that is). I attempted to remove some of this language but found that I do not know enough about the era, so I will eave it to others. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520:I agree, I can't believe this article has been up for so long without anybody noticing, I'll add some material to it from reliable sources. Aeengath (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add that User:Jingiby has been removing any mention of the existence of Macedonian people at a whim and is trying to downplay what Bulgaria did during WW1; if you check the source cited (Paul Mojzes 2011, Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century, page 43, last paragraph) it clearly says "If the members of these international commissions and international travelers and journalists were reporting the truth, then it appears that ethnic cleansing (at a minimum) and genocide (at the maximum) did take place between 1915 and 1918, carried out by Bulgarians on Serbs and Macedonians." The source clearly mentions Macedonians, but Jingiby calls it a "nonsensical claim" and pushes the view that Macedonians emerged after WW2.He has been reported so many times on the incidents dashboard, has been blocked from editing Wiki for a year and still continues pushing his POV to all articles he gets his hands to. DD1997DD (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. In that case this is simply a fringe view. Jingiby (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you are the fringe view pusher. This is a book that specifically focuses on WW1 and discusses Macedonians primarily. You have been using the same collection of sources which present a view that the Macedonian identity doesn't exist and you've been adding them to every single article! You cannot just collect a random bunch of sources THAT ARE NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT WW1 and include them to support an argument that the Macedonian identity did not exist. DD1997DD (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

For example: Nicholas Miller from Boice State University who began his career researching modern Yugoslav history wrote in his Review of Danforth, Loring M. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World: Danforth then examines the history of the construction of Macedonian identity. He is rightly cautious about providing a particular date for the emergence of a Macedonian nation. Few Slavs in the region saw themselves as a separate Macedonian people until after the First World War... The interwar period "was the time that many of them finally came to the conclusion that they were Macedonians... Their separatism was reinforced by Yugoslavia, since Yugoslavia's new regime encouraged the growth of Macedonian national consciousness. Following the war, the Slavs of Yugoslav (Vardar) Macedonia did begin to feel themselves to be Macedonian. I.e. it is unrealistic they were denationalized during the WWI. Jingiby (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That is literally one source, there are many others who claim that a Macedonian identity existed and you cannot selectively include those that support your view and exclude all the rest. That is the best example of biased editing. This article explains that although Macedonian nationalism was uncertain before WW2, it definitely existed and neighboring forces tried to suppress it. Andrew Rossos argues the same in Macedonia and the Macedonians: A History. And this book explains how complicated the whole issue is. And there are thousands of Macedonian historians I can use to write "Bulgarians suppressed Macedonians during WW1". So please don't try to pretend like this is a simple issue that can be boiled down to "Macedonians were Bulgarians" because we both know it was much more complicated than that. Until then, please remove the content you're adding and stop engaging in these pointless discussion for once in your life and try to actually improve an article you edit instead of just ruining it with your POV. Thanks. DD1997DD (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, Macedonian identity existed, but it was still in an early phase from its development at that time and was espoused in pure form by small circles of intellectuals mostly outside Macedonia. Even Misirkov, "the most significant Macedonian of the 20th century" was then a member of the local parliament in Bessarabia as a representative of the Bulgarian minority there, and declared himself as Bulgarian. Andrew Rossos is Macedonian. Stefan Troebst suggests that his narrative is enough affected by the views in the N. Macedonia and thus is representing the latest developments in the Macedonian historiography. The other article you have provided just confirms my thesis: This, and the hitherto mentioned cases actually reveal the shifting boundaries of Macedonian self-identification and the multiple regimes of its exclusivity, vis-à-vis other identity options. Although Bulgarians by national self-identification and supra-nationalists as a political theory, the local revolutionaries ironically created some of the premises that the specific political setting after the First World War transformed into a more influential Macedonian nationalism, decisively generalized in federal Yugoslav Macedonia. Therefore, the idea that the Macedonian national ideology and identity was created by political fiat is as misleading as is theoretically ignorant the question of since when exactly a Macedonian nation has existed. That means Macedonian nationalism arose in significance after the WWI and especially during 1940s. Now we are discussing the period 1915-1918. Jingiby (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to push a narrative and cherry-pick arguments. It is an undisputable fact that Bulgarians were oppressing both the Serbian and the Macedonian population and that is backed by many sources. It doesn't matter if Rossos was Macedonian, he is a professor! That is not an insignificant title and anything a professor writes in a highly reliable scholarly article can be used on Wiki. Also, the source I provided also says For a half century, Macedonian nationality existed illegally... Moreover, neighboring Balkan nationalists - Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian - who had already achieved independence with one or more of the Great Powers, chose to deny the existence of the Macedonian identity. So before you write non-sense like "Macedonians were Bulgarian" by selectively reporting sentences that you also don't understand yourself, make sure you write a coherent story that does not present only a narrow point of view. Now please revert your last edit and stop engaging in edit wars because I am not having it this time. DD1997DD (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the view of the late Macedonian academician Ivan Katardjiev on the issue is similar. At the end of November 2003, at an academic session dedicated to Misirkov, Katardzjiev publicly emphasized that at the time of the release of the Misirkov Macedonian Manifesto (1903), a Bulgarian nation existed in Macedonia and that the beginning of the Macedonian identity should be sought only after the First World War. In fact, Katardjiev explained that the Macedonian revolutionaries from the early 20th century and beyond "were Bulgarians", which caused general confusion in the ceremonial hall of the Macedonian Academy of Science and Art. He literally repeated the theses of his Bulgarian colleagues, stating that the Macedonian nation was "created" after 1944.Jingiby (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a single person that you cherry pick, I provided you with 3 different scholarly sources that discuss the Macedonian ethnicity at the time in-depth. Now stop engaging in this discussion that leads nowhere, remove all the parts that are not relevant to this article and stop disrupting Wikipedia. DD1997DD (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Only a few days ago the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia, Denko Maleski, who was Macedonian ambassador to the United Nations, now a professor of political science and international law at the University in Skopje, has stated that Macedonians and Bulgarians were single people and that the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was revolt of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, and that Goce Delchev (Macedonian №2 of the 20th century) and Krste Misirkov (Macedonian №1 of the 20th century) were simply Bulgarians. There are also other simmillar views in Macedonian scientific community in the last decades. Jingiby (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop going off topic. DD1997DD (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to revert your edit User:DD1997DD but you deleted reliable sources and sourced text and replaced it with text partly sourced with newspaper article. Please next time you add text and sources, do not delete already existing sourced text from the article. I'd strongly suggest to consider more constructive attitude in this talk page too. --Алиса Селезньова (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest for you all to use the TP more and stop edit-warring, please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: I am trying to but please take a look at his arguments - they lead nowhere and are not focused on improving this article. DD1997DD (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting to hear from fellow editor Jingiby. Do not expect that I shall let this page (which is about Serbia and its history) to be turn into some sort of standoff, and I shall not hesitate to call uninvolved editors and admins. to take a look, because the current approach is leading us nowhere, so far. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadkσ, I still discuss the issue here instead of edit-warring. You probably has a better proposal for changing the text, I am waiting for. Jingiby (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

DD1997DD, may you clarify in the section you have created called Ethnic Cleansing that the main activity in the occupied Morava region was carried out by the Bulgarian 11th Macedonian infantry division and paramilitary Bulgaro-Macedonian activists. The division was established in 1915 on the idea of the IMRO leadership around the Macedonian Bulgarian General Alexander Protogerov. He became commander of the division and there served more than 30,000 Macedonian refugees from Bulgaria. Jingiby (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, because that is not what the sources I read say; they clearly mention that it was Bulgarian officials and soldiers who did the atrocities. Any attempt to include what you mention above is original research and an attempt to distort what sources say. DD1997DD (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you need to read more carefully. Per Dimitar Bechev's Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 183: Protogerov was already a senior commander. He served in the Macedono-Adrianopolitan Volunteer Corps and later headed the Bulgarian occupation troops in southeast Serbia (Morava region) where, helped by IMRO irregulars, he brutally crushed an uprising in the Toplica district in 1917. p. 10: In 1917, Todor Aleksandrov (another Macedono-Bulgarian and leader of the IMRO), serving as an officer in the Bulgarian army, commanded the violent suppression of the uprising in Bulgarian-occupied Morava Valley in Serbia by Macedonian paramilitaries. Another Macedonian is Petar Darvingov. In the First World War he was a chief of staff of 11th Macedonian infantry division. In 1917 Darvingov as colonel was appointed a chief of staff of Moravian military region, where he was active by the crushing Toplica uprising. More on 11th division itself and its purely Macedonian staff in Srđan Rudić, Dalibor Denda, Đorđe Đurić as ed. Dobrovoljci u Velikom ratu 1914-1918: = The Volunteers in the Great War 1914-1918, Istorijski institut: Matica srpska, 2018, ISBN 8677431292, p. 40. Jingiby (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere does that mention that the despicable atrocities were not done by Bulgarians though? DD1997DD (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of them and especially the commanders who crushed the uprising and were responsible for the atrocities, thus after the War were charged as military criminals were in fact Macedonians. Jingiby (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a single source I read mentions that. And I will stick to believing sources, not what you say or how you try to connect things. DD1997DD (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Why did you add the POV banner? All of the additions I made are well-sourced and cited; it is your problem if you cannot accept the truth. And why do you recruit accounts that only make 1 edit in 2 years to revert my changes? Is @Алиса Селезньова: a sock puppet account or does she just magically appear whenever you are about to violate the three revert rule? DD1997DD (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop with the drama. We have RS presented; I do not see why should there be a tag? This ping-pong is not productive. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Allies had long pressed Bulgaria to join them but her price was the acquisition of Macedonia, the Allies regarded this as reasonable on ethnic grounds, but Serbia refused to consider it? What is this, which sources are used? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bulgaria’s traditional aims... Traditional aims? More like - claims.

Also, the whole information about previous Serbianization should be kept minimal, as it is undue and not the main topic. It seems like justification of war crimes. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stay on topic

This article is not about the Balkan wars, it should be focused on the subject which is: the Bulgarian occupation of the territory of the Kingdom of Serbia between 1915 and 1918 Aeengath (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

OK! Jingiby (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks! just like the pre-Balkan wars map of Vardar Macedonia is great for the Balkan Wars article but maybe here a map of the occupied region of Macedonia (attributed to the Kingdom of Serbia by the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913) would be better. Aeengath (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aeengath. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

Genocide of Macedonians?

• This claim is even ridiculous. It is extraordinary dubious contradicting to the main body, where a lot of another sources claim that no ethnic Macedonians existed at that time. In Macedonia called then Southern Serbia were killed several hundred local people with Serbian consciousness. They were killed by Macedonian paramilitary activists wit Bulgarian ethnic identity. This claim is full nonsense. The claims of a genocide in Serbia are not supported by any other source too. These events were ethnic cleansing, but not a genocide as a whole. Bulgarian military authorities insisted on the Bulgarian origins of the locals and their aim was not a genocide. I suggest that this sentence be removed from the introduction and moved somewhere in the main text, noting that such a view is not supported by other authors.Jingiby (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• It’s hard to find someone more qualified that Paul Mojzes and a book more balanced and better researched than “Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century” the content in the main body is not clear plus that conversation already happened with @DD1997DD: - the claim that "no ethnic Macedonians existed at that time" is addressed in this other quote

  "The Carnegie Commission’s conviction was that the Slavic majority of that area was Bulgarian, though in subsequent years it became clear that those in the area have a sufficiently strong sense of their own ethnic identity to consider themselves none of the three"

  Aeengath (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul Mojzes is expert in Church history, not in the history of the Macedonian issue. The majority of the experts of it have another opinion. Wikipedia articles in English language which are related to it, also do not support his view. I.e. it is fringe. Jingiby (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

quote from main body

"Bulgarian policy in Macedonia and to a lesser extent in occupied Serbia was motivated by what historian Alan Kramer has termed: a ‘dynamic of destruction’ a desire not just to defeat the enemy militarily, but also to erase all traces of its culture, to destroy any evidence that it had, in fact, ever been there at all"

Aeengath (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've stated before, fellow editor Aeengath has added material which is per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, nothing is taken out of context or presented with bias towards Bulgarians. Do you have suggestions for another version/wording, Jingiby? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE not WP:NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

POV section

@Jingiby: So just to be clear you added a POV template on the section because of this material:

"Macedonia consisted of a patchwork of language groups: Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Wallachians (Vlachs), Turks, and Macedonians proper

which came from here how is this a POV? please explain Aeengath (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That above is a fringe view from non-specialist. See Dennis P. Hupchick, Conflict and Chaos in Eastern Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 1995, ISBN 0312121164, p. 143.: "The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the communist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian". Jingiby (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

well obviously and one can say the same about Belgium and Swiss being a French dialect, I still don’t see what this has to do with a POV template on the Bulgarian hegemony section unless you are contesting the veracity of the whole section. also you added “The Macedonian partisans established a commission to create an “official” Macedonian literary language in 1945,” and “Whether a Macedonian nation actually existed until the 1940s is difficult to answer. “ we are talking about the Bulgarian occupation of Serbia bet 1915 and 1918 as a reminder so I shall remove this it has nothing to do with this article. per WP:IRRELEVANT Aeengath (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious that neither Macedonian language, nor Macedonian nation existed as linguistic and political entities before 1945. I will remove the fringe ideas contradicting with these facts. Jingiby (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok ref to Macedonian language can go. adding this instead: However, Vardar Macedonia comprised multiple ethnic groups who did not identify as Bulgarian; namely Serbs, Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Vlachs, Jews, or Roma; and for that other population, the Macedonian Slavs who identified as Serbs in particular, the brutality of the Bulgarian army, the irregulars and the later civil administration had all the features of ethnic cleansing. Aeengath (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As I see it it's more forced assimilation than an ethnic cleansing - they didn't want to remove those people from the area but to "fix" their "wrong" identity (similar to Serbianisation#Vardar_Macedonia). --Nk (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• All of us know very well that this particular view is very much challenged and a matter of serious debate.

  It is obvious that neither Macedonian language, nor Macedonian nation existed as linguistic and political entities before 1945. I will remove the fringe ideas contradicting with these facts.

  Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Per Stefan Troebst, a historian and Slavicist, professor of East European Cultural History at Leipzig University and an expert of the Macedonian issue, the Macedonian process of nation building is a perfect example of Gellner's theory of nationalism. Since the foundation of the Yugoslav Macedonia this construction was conducted in haste and hurry: national state, national language, national literature, national history and national church were not available in 1944, but they were accomplished in a short time. The south-east-Slavic regional idiom of the area of Prilep-Veles was codified as the script, normed orthographically by means of the Cyrillic Alphabet, and taken over immediately by the newly created media. And the people have been patching up the national history ever since. For more, see: Carsten Wieland, One Macedonia With Three Faces: Domestic Debates and Nation Concepts, in Intermarium; Columbia University; Volume 4, No. 3 (2000–2001). Jingiby (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an insane amount of other historians/theorists/social scientists/linguists/experts who present another view. Therefore, your cherry-picking of arguments is just a pathetic attempt of pushing a fringe theory by singling out such sources and including them in every single article you get your hands to, even articles like this one where they absolutely do not belong. DD1997DD (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed as WP:OR sentence

Bulgarian policy in Macedonia, and to a lesser extent in occupied Serbia, was motivated by what historian Alan Kramer has termed a ‘dynamic of destruction’ a desire not just to defeat the enemy militarily, but also to erase all traces of its culture, to destroy any evidence that it had, in fact, ever been there at all. This sentence is dispute on the talk page of the editor who added it here: [1] The motivation is that it is missing in the cited book. In the provided pages neither Bulgaria, nor Serbia is mentioned, nor any of the claims. Jingiby (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have checked also the cited in the text source, and especially pp. 1-2. Nothing about Bulgaria or Serbia is written there. Jingiby (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

it was the wrong link it's been fixed Aeengath (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Aeengath could you please tell us which part of the leading text of the article is the source #1 supporting? It seems that you've put "the wrong link" there as well. --StanProg (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. Paul Mojzes is In-text attribution, Alan Kramer quote has been added. Aeengath (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

IMRO (irregulars) and 11th Division

"Some paramilitary companies joined the Bulgarian Army forming guerrilla companies like the 11th Macedonian Infantry Division who participated at the beginning of 1916 in several massacres of Macedonian Serbs in the areas of Azot, Skopska Crna Gora and Poreče alongside IMRO-irregulars."

• Diff: [2] by Aeengath
• Diff: [3] by Jingiby

1. Source: "Бугарски масакри (1915)", "Македонска енциклопедиjа", том 1, стр. 216, МАНУ.
2. Source: Руменин, Румен. Офицерският корпус в България 1878 – 1944 г. том 5 и 6. София, Издателство на Министерството на отбраната „Св. Георги Победоносец“, 1996. стр. 19.

From what I understand from the text above, 11th Division is a "guerrilla company" that "participated in several massacres of Macedonian Serbs..." and which participated in massacres alongside IMRO-irregulars. The two provided sources practically do not confirm any of the provided information. We should be very careful when quoting sources and when we rephrase already sourced text, because now nor the sources confirm the claims, nor the text makes any sense. The facts are the following: There were a guerrilla companies, which were part of the so-called "Partisan detachment at the 11th Macedonian Division" (Партизански отряд при 11-а македонска дивизия), which consisted mostly of chetniks and voivodes (basically soldiers and leaders) i.e. irregulars. The "Partisan detachment" was created with "military order" and was commanded by Bulgarian officers, most of them from Macedonia including ones which were part of IMRO. The first source mentions the paramilitaries (not mentioning 11th Division), but the locations are completely different than the ones from the text, so although that this source is somehow related to the text, it does not confirm any of the claims. The second source is very far related to the text - at page 19 there is short biographical information about Konstantin Panov, which was the commanding officer of the "Partisan detachment at the 11th Macedonian Division", but there's not a single word in about the text above, not even that he was commanding officer of the detachment. This text needs to be reworked, the first source cited as it is, and the second source removed. Please both Aeengath & Jingiby, be more careful, because this article is looking more like original research. When I get some time, I will take a more detailed look. --StanProg (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

History of North Macedonia

Aeengath, I do not see any problems, please. What is the proposal? To split this article maybe, or what? Jingiby (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jingiby: An additional sidebar pushes everything down and affects the layout, there isn't enough content at the moment. A footer template may be more appropriate in that case. MOS:NAVLAYOUT Aeengath (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of splitting the article, as for the rest - MOS:NAVLAYOUT makes everything pretty clear. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, both, my mates, and Happy New Year. In this case maybe it will be better to create a new article. Jingiby (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year both as well! Aeengath (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jingiby and Aeengath! Enjoy the holidays. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

Moved from User talk:Svev100 § October 2022

 – Sharing the discussion with fellow editors.

Hello! I'm Aeengath. Your recent edit(s) to the page Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aeengath (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Aeengath! It is obvious that the article Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I) is based almost exclusively on Serbian sources, which is contrary to the Wikipedia's rule, that articles should be neutral and unbiased. Therefore, a Bulgarian point of view is also needed. The source which I added is an official document, prepared by the Bulgarian delegation as a response to the Serbian accusations. There is already a report of the Inter-Allied Commission as a source in this article, which contains accusations against Bulgaria. The Bulgarian document which is a refutation of Serbian accusations, is of the same type, and can be considered as the reliable source, like the report of the Inter-Allied Commission. Svev100 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Svev100, Please discuss this on the article talk page, the content you added was not backed by the ref you provided that’s the reason why it was removed. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS on how to source your edits. thank you. Aeengath (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Aeengath, yes, I mistakenly gave a link to another source. Now I corrected and gave a link to the correct source in my last edition. Thank you Svev100 (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Svev100, the content has been removed as stated on the edit summary, this section is about the international response not about the POV of each side; both the Serbian and the Greek governments presented their own memorandum to the Paris Peace Conference, this is not mentioned here, also the source seems to come from a Bulgarian TV show's blog not sure if it is a reliable source. Aeengath (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Svev100, This new addition is not directly supported by the source; Poulton does not “explains the motives of the Bulgarians in imposing a brutal repressive regime” nor say that "the Bulgarian occupation administration wanted to revenge"; please read Wikipedia:No original research. The pages cited in the source you provide are mostly about the Balkan Wars; the content of Poulton's next chapter "World War I", which is relevant to this article, is already mentioned in this article. Please propose on the TP first before adding new material and follow WP:CYCLE, thank you. Aeengath (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) edited 11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Vlachs of Vardar Macedonia

Hello @Super Dromaeosaurus You added that at the time of the Bulgarian occupation of Serbia, the Vlachs of Vardar Macedonia consisted of “ Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians”, Vlachs in the article already points to Aromanians in North Macedonia so I'm not sure that the addition is necessary, it is also not mentioned in the source. Can you please provide a verifiable RS to support this addition. Thank you Aeengath (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Aeengath. I think all of this is just an overcomplication of a mundane issue. "Vlach" is an umbrella term, not a real ethnicity. In the case of North Macedonia/Vardar Macedonia, the ethnic groups that are known as Vlachs are the Aromanians and the Megleno-Romanians. There is info about this at Vlachs, Aromanians, Aromanians in North Macedonia and Megleno-Romanians. Just adding one of them while excluding the other is unjustifiable. I am also unsure what exactly would you like a source to verify. All this info is present in the aforementioned articles, and also this is common practice throughout lots of Wikipedia articles. I think it's a WP:Citation overkill but sure, I can bring a source. I just don't think it is necessary to clutter the article with a reference on an unrelated topic to the article when we don't do this on other articles. Super Ψ Dro 18:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

What!? Vlach is a very much a real ethnicity in Republic of Serba, both de jure and de facto. I've met several people who identify as Vlachs. Your POV rampage on numerous articles is by definition unconstructive and it should be reverted by experienced editors, asap. — Sadko (words are wind) 19:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly there was no discussion here about the Republic of Serbia or the Timok Vlachs. Secondly there is no academic consensus on the status of Timok Vlachs as a separate ethnicity of their own. Though I've desisted from my attempts to a merge as clearly there is no community support. I will recognize I may not have appropriately handled the delicate nature of the issue of the ethnicity of the Timok Vlachs and I intend to disengage myself from this issue, but if you have any problem with my contributions regarding the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians (which is the real topic of discussion here) I invite you to file a report or anything you may deem necessary.

I am not going to discuss this issue further here so I recommend you do not give a reply. Super Ψ Dro 19:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus The quote used in the article concerns a pre 1913 estimate, it is directly connected to the topic of this article. The citation says: “Vlachs” as this was the word used by the British Foreign Office at the time. If you have another quote relevant to this period (1915-1918) or to the Bulgarian occupation of Serbia please feel free to add it but if you just want to define Vlachs you may want to contribute instead to the relevant articles ie: Vlachs, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians..etc. The identity of the various ethnic groups in Macedonia is a sensitive topic and never a mundane issue as the history of this page can show you, it is best to be precise and always follow sources per WP:CITE. Thank you Aeengath (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Aeengath I do not understand the issue. You've requested sourcing, I've given one source saying "Vlach" is an umbrella term that cannot be used without explanation, another saying Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians live in Northern Macedonia (basically corresponding to old Vardar Macedonia) and another with the exact quote "Vlachs (Aromanians and Megleno [...])". The pipelink you've added still excludes one of the two peoples known as Vlachs in North/Vardar Macedonia. Super Ψ Dro 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus because those sources were not relevant to this article and you also inserted them within a citation which compromised Text–source integrity. What you need to do is edit or create the page Vlachs of Macedonia instead of trying to modify every article that mention the term. I started checking all my sources connected to the topic of WW1 in Serbia and in Macedonia: Mitrović, Glenny, DiNardo, Pisarri, Rossos, Mojzes..etc and so far every single one seem to use the term Vlachs on its own. Aeengath (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Such a page has no reason to exist, as the Vlachs of Macedonia are split into two different ethnicities and do not constitute a single grouping. Yes, as the first source I've added stated, "Vlach" is a widely used name for a set of several groups among which the Aromanians and the Megleno-Romanians are included, and lots of sources, specially historical ones and sources not directly related to them, use "Vlach" without any context or explanation. But "Vlach" is still an ambiguous umbrella term.

As per WP:BLUE, not everything needs to be sourced. Vlachs explains that this name is historical and an exonym (foreign name) and not an actual ethnic group, Aromanians and Aromanians in North Macedonia explains this ethnicity is commonly known as Vlachs and Megleno-Romanians does the same; all of this info is backed by sources, and other sources not cited in these articles support this view as well. It is a view and practice applied in a multitude of Wikipedia articles, this search has many examples (not all of the results are).

I simply do not understand what is the problem here. I do not understand under what justification are we keeping information that does not go in the line of academic sources and other Wikipedia articles to wait for a specific reference. I do not believe this follows your comment "The identity of the various ethnic groups in Macedonia is a sensitive topic and never a mundane issue" when we are attributing a name commonly used for a set of ethnicities only to some of them. I also don't know what reference would address your concerns, so I am going to have difficulty solving this text–source integrity. I would appreciate it if you could explain it. Super Ψ Dro 15:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus It needs to be relevant to this article so unless you can demonstrate that in 1912 the term Vlachs, as used by the British Foreign Office in their census, was effectively an umbrella term referring to Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians, I do not see how you can add it to a quote related to the Bulgarian occupation of Serbia during World War One. Aeengath (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm certain that the sources being about the central topic of the article is not a requirement anywhere in Wikipedia. If we need sourcing to complement information in an article, we add it. I can demonstrate that the term Vlachs, in the context of the geographical region of Macedonia, refers to the Aromanians and to the Megleno-Romanians. Therefore, the British Foreign Office used an umbrella term, because that's what it is. Again, there is no policy in Wikipedia requiring sources to be specifically and only about the central topic of an article. So I please ask you to allow me to correct this article and end this disagreement already.

By the way, the estimates were for the whole of Macedonia. Not for Vardar Macedonia. This is what Rossos seems to imply at page 5 (reference 20). Super Ψ Dro 23:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I said previously, you cannot “correct” a citation, it should stay the way it is, please read WP:INTEGRITY, you have not demonstrated that “Vlachs” was used as an umbrella term for those two specific groups in the context of the quote. Moreover Vlachs are listed as an ethnic group on every official government documents, here in the 1994 census and here in the latest 2021 Census of Population in the Republic of North Macedonia. So the fact that you say that they are “not an actual ethnic group” and “an ambiguous umbrella term” “because that's what it is” seems to only be you opinion and should not be a reason to edit this article (or another) per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Aeengath (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not intend to correct a citation. WP:INTEGRITY cannot possibly be this strict. "Vlachs" is an umbrella term so the quote used it as an umbrella term. Britannica defines Vlachs as "any of a group of Romance-language speakers who live south of the Danube in what are now southern Albania, northern Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, and southwestern Bulgaria" [4]. Wiktionary includes as a definition of "Vlach" that it means "Any member of an Eastern Romance speaking group, including Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, and Istro-Romanians" [5]. Here, at page 209, "Vlach" is referred to as an umbrella term [6]. Here, it is said that the Aromanians "constitute one of the groups referred to by the umbrella term Vlach" [7]. I again remind the words of Thede Kahl, considered one of the best experts on Aromanian and related affairs: "The non-uniform use of the terms Vlachs and Aromanians requires a short definition. The term Vlachs is not only the more widely used of the two, but it can refer to varied groups like the so called Meglenoromanians, the Istroromanians, the Timok Vlachs, the ancestors of the Romanians or the Vlach Roma". Yes, Northern Macedonia officially registers both Aromanians AND Megleno-Romanians as Vlachs (vlasi). That's how they're usually known in Slavic languages. Still, in academia, "Vlach" does not stand for a real people, but for an umbrella term. Wikipedia follows this stance. I ask you to allow me to follow it here as well. I do not understand your absolute inflexibility here. Super Ψ Dro 15:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

“an umbrella term for those two specific groups in the context of the quote” where is the reference that specifically says that in the context of the quote used in the article (British Foreign Office 1913 census) Vlachs were constituted of these two groups: Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians ? You have not been able to provide it so I'm going to stop asking at this point.

Also Wikipedia is not a reliable source and like @Sadko said you seem to be adding the same unsourced content to a number of articles such as Macedonians (obsolete terminology); Sanjak of Monastir; Demographics of Greece; Macedonia for the Macedonians; Rum Millet so I can see that this is not relevant to this article and it probably best to close the conversation here. Best wishes. Aeengath (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not attempted to use Wikipedia as a source. And user Sadko has not said anything related to this discussion yet. Yes, I am adding this note to a number of articles. I do not understand how that leads to so I can see that this is not relevant to this article. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

After doing some research for the Aromanians in North Macedonia article, I added a note that they were probably referring to Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. All my best for 2023! Aeengath (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your change of mind, though I still think there should be a small change. I left a comment at the DRN. All my best for 2023 as well! Super Ψ Dro 12:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Fully agreed. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello User:Super Dromaeosaurus, User:Sadko, and User:Aeengath. I am responding to the third opinion request initiated in this matter. It appears that three editors are already involved in the disagreement, which means it is not suitable for the third opinion process. I have therefore closed the third opinion request as not procedurally correct under the circumstances. You may wish to use the other dispute resolution procedures, for example WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or the talk page of a Wikiproject. However, if I have misunderstood the current posture of the disagreement, please feel free to inform me or repost on the third opinion page. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @JArthur1984, this disagreement only involved two editors, @Super Dromaeosaurus and myself, you can find us on the dispute resolution noticeboard over here where editor @Robert McClenon initiated the request for a third opinion. Thank you! Aeengath (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The link is very helpful. I understand the posture better now. I will review the substance of that discussion and provide the requested third opinion. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, much appreciated Aeengath (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page here and now having reviewed the discussion from the prior mediation effort, I can contribute the requested third opinion. First, let me say that @Super Dromaeosaurus and @Aeengath have done an excellent job to narrow the issue ultimately in dispute.

My third opinion is that in the absence of a source more particularly defining the British Foreign Office's categorization of Vlachs in the cited survey, the word "probably" should remain in the note. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Very well. I will respect the outcome. Thank you Aeengath for your earlier compromise on adding the note. It is acceptable enough for me, even if I kept pursuing an ideal outcome afterwards. Thank you JArthur1984 and Robert McClenon too for your mediation. Super Ψ Dro 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @JArthur1984 and @Robert McClenon for taking the time to review our discussion. I have learned so much while researching the Vlachs especially by reading the excellent contributions of @SD on the subject. I hope we can collaborate on something in the future. All my best Aeengath (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge

Some of the content here could be incorporated into this article. (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)