Talk:Young Macedonian Literary Society

Amendments

This society was crypto-Macedonistic. They published their official constitution in Sofia (which related to a common Bulgarian-Macedonian standard), but their private constitution was published in Romania (a separatist one). Please see Macedonian Language and Nationalism During the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries by Friedman available online. --203.59.139.75 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

MacedonianBoy you know Etnic Macedonians did not exist as separate ethnos at the eve of the 20th century. Lozars had somehow different linguistic but not separatist ideas in ethnic sense. Misirkov was an switching exception. The sources, you have provided do not confirm national separation. Please, stop with nationalistic POV. Please, chech the source below:

• "During the 20th century, Slavo-Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127.
• "Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236.
• "Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen. "The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67.
• "At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66.
• Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. "The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war."
• " Macedonian historiography often refers to the group of young activists who founded in Sofia an association called the ‘Young Macedonian Literary Society’. In 1892, the latter began publishing the review Loza [The Vine] which promoted certain characteristics of Macedonian dialects. At the same time, the activists, called ‘Lozars’ after the name of their review, ‘purified’ the Bulgarian orthography from some rudiments of the Church Slavonic. They expressed likewise a kind of Macedonian patriotism attested already by the first issue of the review: its materials greatly emphasized identification with Macedonia as a genuine ‘fatherland’. In any case, it is hardly surprising that the Lozars demonstrated both Bulgarian and Macedonian loyalty: what is more interesting is namely the fact that their Bulgarian nationalism was somehow harmonized with a Macedonian self-identification that was not only a political one but also demonstrated certain ‘cultural’ contents. "We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe", Diana Miškova, Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, p. 120.
• " The group was publishing the Loza magazine, which Yugoslav Macedonian historians have identifyed as an early platform of Macedonian linguistic separatism. Though Loza adhered to the Bulgarian position on the issue of the Macedonian Slavs' ethnicity, it also favored revising the Bulgarian orthography by bringing it closer to the dialects spoken in Macedonia." Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 241.
• "The Young Macedonian Literary Association's Journal, Loza, was also categorical about the Bulgarian character of Macedonia: "A mere comparison of those ethnographic features which characterize the Macedonians (we understand: Macedonian Bulgarians), with those which characterize the free Bulgarians, their juxtaposition with those principles for nationality which we have formulated above, is enough to prove and to convince everybody that the nationality of the Macedonians cannot be anything except Bulgarian." Freedom or Death, The Life of Gotsé Delchev, Mercia MacDermott, The Journeyman Press, London & West Nyack, 1978, p. 86.
• "The Bulgarian historians, such as Veselin Angelov, Nikola Achkov and Kosta Tzarnushanov continue to publish their research backed with many primary sources to prove that the term 'Macedonian' when applied to Slavs has always meant only a regional identity of the Bulgarians. "Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 112. Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the NPOV as per sources. Jingiby (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Dear User:StoyanStoyanov80 please refrain from edit warring and discuss your concerns here. Thank you. Don't remove my edits without any explanation and please stop engaging in forum posting.

Thank you Dikaiosyni (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, you are reverting all my edits, and I do give a good reason. Andrew Rossos is not reliable, he has many fringe views in his book such as that the Ancient Macedonians were not Hellenes. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You are reverting my original edits, if you do that you need to explain why and provide sources for your claims. Your view that Andrew Rossos is not reliable is subjective and unless you back that up with reliable sources, it shouldn't be taken seriously on Wikipedia. This discussion is not about Ancient Macedonia but many scholars maintain that the Ancient Macedonians were not Hellenes so it isn't a fringe view. Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not how reliable sources work on Wikipedia, if a source has many mistakes then it becomes less and less reliable. And Andrew Rossos is the literal definition of a questionable source. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

But it is not up to you to determine what is reliable what isn't. Please provide me sources that say Rossos is unreliable. That is just your opinion and forum posting has no place on Wikipedia. Facts over feelings please. Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If there are questions about the reliability of Andrew Rossos as a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be the place to have that discussion. --Local hero ^talk 17:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no questions. There are lot of researchers who have accused him as being a biased author and this is clear from his article, where reliable sources about this issue are added. Jingiby (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Being accused of bias by others does not automatically preclude him from being used a source here. --Local hero ^talk 17:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

POV

User:Jingiby can you please explain how what I stated is POV? The sources that are provided that state the Lozari identified as Macedonian Bulgarians are written by authors that clearly have pro-Bulgarian stances when it comes to the Macedonian Question. The other sources do not specify the Lozari and speak of the identity of the Macedonians more broadly at the time. As a result, the sources provided do not support the statement. Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

May you provide reliable sources that accuse all of these authors as biased or not neutral. Jingiby (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If you look at their work you will see that it is clearly aligned with Bulgarian nationalist views. Therefore, when determining a sensitive topic such as the Macedonian Question, using pro-Bulgarian sources is biased and not neutral. Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No proofs were provided.. Jingiby (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I explained myself clearly, what proof do you need? Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS. Jingiby (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Well the sources you provided are not reliable to determine the ethnic identification of the Lozari because as I said, they are aligned with pro-Bulgarian interpretations. Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What you have said is personal opinion and has no credibility. Jingiby (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Loza Magazine, issue №1, p. 58: "A few words on the issue of our nationality."

..Just a comparison of those ethnographic features that characterize the Macedonians (we understand the "Macedonian Bulgarians") with those that characterize the free Bulgarians, their arrangement to those principles of nationality, which we listed above, is enough to show us and convince It is clear that the ethnicity of the Macedonians cannot be other than "Bulgarian". And the identity of these features has long been established and confirmed by selfless science: only the blind and enemies of the Bulgarian future can not see the all-encompassing unity that fully prevails between the population from Drin River to the Black Sea and from the Danube to the Aegean Sea... If we indifferently and with broken hands stand and watch only how day by day the cultural, moral and material ties between Macedonia and Bulgaria become stronger and stronger; as the young Macedonians under the guidance of Bulgarian teachers become accustomed to be proud of the great deeds of the Bulgarian history and to think of renewing the Bulgarian glory and power, Macedonia will soon become part of the Bulgarian nation and state... Jingiby (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as unopposed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Young Macedonian Literary Association → Young Macedonian Literary Society – Hello. This was the original title until the article was moved back in 2013 without any discussion (or consensus for that matter). I'm unable to restore the original title due to technical reasons. I checked Google Books and Google Scholar and this appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• While the moves weren't discussed, we have an exception for stable titles that have been in place for a long time, that said, this isn't a major deviation from the title that this was originally moved back to. Pinging the two editors involved just in case: @Jingiby, @Blok Glo ASUKITE 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  The original title wasn't controversial though. If it was, there would be discussion about it. I don't mind input from others though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.