Talk:Georgi Pulevski

Ethnic Macedonian

Requests by Georgi Pulevski to the Serbian prince Milan Obrenović, in which he defines himself as an ""Old Serb"" and asks that his books be printed in Serbian printing houses for free, as they had an educational purpose.

User:Macodudewasalreadytaken?, 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. Pulevski's Macedonian self-identification was ambiguous. Pulevski viewed Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. He identified as a Mijak from Galičnik, then described himself as a "Serbian patriot" and later viewed him as "Bulgarian from Galičnik". Finally he viewed himself as a Macedonian, thus he changed his self-identification several times during his lifetime. For more details see: Срђан Тодоров, О народности Ђорђа Пуљевског (Srđan Todorov, About the nationality of Djordje Puljevski in Serbian). В Етно-културолошки зборник, уредник Сретен Петровић, књига XXIII (2020) Сврљиг, УДК 929.511:821.163 (09); ISBN 978-86-84919-42-9, стр. 133-144. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Pulevski’s evolving self-identification reflects the complex cultural landscape of Macedonia. His initial ties to Mijak identity connect him to local heritage, while his shifting labels—such as "Serbian patriot" and "Bulgarian"—can be viewed as pragmatic responses to political pressures. Ultimately, his contributions to Macedonian folklore and literature reinforce his connection to Macedonian identity, illustrating that identity can be multifaceted and deeply rooted in cultural context. Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no consensus at the moment about your recent changes. There are reasons to interpret Pulevski's case as an absence of clear national identity. Pulevski's numerous self-identifications actually show the absence of clear ethnic identity. Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point. Pulevski is notable for his role in Macedonian language and culture, not for contributions to Serbian or Bulgarian culture. I also don't believe an unclear ethnic identity precludes us from labelling him a Macedonian in the lead sentence. As an example, Sándor Petőfi, of Slovak/Slavic descent, is labelled a Hungarian for his contributions to Hungarian culture and nation. --Local hero ^talk 22:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Pulevski's numerous self-identifications reveal the absence of clear ethnic identity by him. All of this has been repeatedly discussed on here over the last 2 decades and we have finally arrived at the current balanced version of the article. Pulevski's changing ethnic identity is confirmed by a number of credible sources. That his role for the Macedonian identity is overexposed by some authors is another matter of POV. Jingiby (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the matter can be resolved with a RfC. I have read the talk page archive and there is no explicit consensus to list him as a Mijak there. There is only silent consensus. Going by the literature, it does not appear to be particularly relevant, especially to the point it should be in the first sentence. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ethnicity should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. His contributions to Macedonian identity are directly related to his notability.
• All of this has been repeatedly discussed on here over the last 2 decades This is clearly not true, there's only one talkpage archive page and it's sparse. This consensus was arrived at implicitly and I'm fine with it still, but I'm wondering if it is more appropriate to label him a Macedonian.
• That his role for the Macedonian identity is overexposed by some authors is another matter of POV. RS emphasize his role in Macedonian identity because that's what he's notable for.

--Local hero ^talk 21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want change the lead, then you may use a RfC. Jingiby (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So should I use my edit or not? Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want change the lead, then use a WP:RfC. Jingiby (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's basically two in support and one against here. Historically in these situations, that's good enough for a consensus when it's Jingiby and a given revived Bulgarian account against me alone but when it's Jingiby alone, that's when an RFC is apparently needed. --Local hero ^talk 02:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Is User:StephenMacky1 a revived Bulgarian account? I suppose another newly registered user here, with biased edit-agenda, is a revived account. Jingiby (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the best options are either to list him as a Macedonian or omit ethnicity entirely from the lead. I have reviewed the literature (including sources that are not currently cited in the article) about him, so those seem like the most realistic options. However, since we cannot reach a consensus, I suggested a RfC. It is not really about the number of editors which agree but even if it was, 2-3 editors would not result into a stable consensus. It is better to gain the insight from other editors too. Accusations about accounts are not really constructive here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is reasonable, maybe even leaving "Macedonian" unlinked to any page. --Local hero ^talk 19:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The term can be unlinked for articles where it is referring to citizenship. I do not see why it would be unlinked if we are referring to ethnicity. I suggest the following sources: Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: An Encyclopedia (p. 155), Sacralizing the Nation through Remembrance of Medieval Religious Figures in Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia: Volume 1 (p. 438) and The Rise and Fall of Socialist Yugoslavia: Elite Nationalism and the Collapse of a Federation (p. 243). Perhaps I'll add some when I find the time for it. More context can still be added about Pulevski's work. Either way, these sources are much better than the sources the other editor was attempting to cite and I am not opposed to that option. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something more neutral as definition. Even a Macedonian activist as Misirkov, who lived a generation later than Pulevski and is with greater merits for the Macedonian national idea than Pulevski, is not defined as an ethnic Macedonian on Wikipedia, due to his blurred self-awareness. It's not that there aren't enough reliable sources for him too to have been an ethnic Macedonian, but it's just that things are more complicated with such early Macedonists. Misirkov constantly wanders between his Bulgarian and Macedonian self-identification, while with Pulevski the work regarding his identification is even more perplexed. It is switching among Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. This is clearly stated by Tchavdar Marinov, who has defined his Macedonian identity as a regional phenomenon. By the way, not many researchers have investigated the changing identity of such individuals. Most tend to cling to their Macedonian identity and to the neglect of all others, but such an approach is rather one-sided. Jingiby (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I see your point but we are discussing Pulevski and not Misirkov. The identities of individuals were complex in this period. However, if an identity makes a person notable, it can be included. It is consistent with MOS:ETHNICITY. Pulevski probably did not have an exclusivist approach when it comes to the term "Macedonian" anyway (see Multilingualism in the Central Balkans in late Ottoman times, pp. 61–62). As an example, Grigor Parlichev did not always self-identify as a Bulgarian, but his Bulgarian national activism is what makes him notable. I am not against either option, to include or omit ethnicity. I just do not think the current status quo is good. Not that him being a Mijak is irrelevant but it is already covered in the body. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I still remain a supporter of a more objective and comprehensive approach, not focused on a separate part of a person's life, but giving a broader view of his ideas. In this case, the special thing is that Pulevski was the first known historical figure to profess a Slavic-Macedonian identity. Therefore, this identity was clearly quite unformed at this stage and could not be taken for granted at the time. Jingiby (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Unless anyone has a better idea, I will initiate a RfC. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure it's needed given just one user in opposition, but I'll commend you for seeking to ensure fairness. --Local hero ^talk 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC on first sentence (Georgi Pulevski)

What should be present in the first sentence of the article?

1. Status quo (Mijak)
2. Macedonian
3. Omit ethnicity

StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• From reading the discussion above and a check on some sources about the matter, I do not see a clear and definite consensus among sources as to which such term would be appropriate for him, and it seems to be rather like the old Facebook "It's complicated" status. Given that, I think that rather than trying to boil it down to one word in the infobox/lead, we should omit it there, and instead (if it's significant enough to merit doing it) explain more fully the situation and how and why sources disagree on it in the body of the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Going through the sources, I don't see a lot of disagreement necessarily. Almost all, from what I've gleaned, discuss Pulevski's unprecedented efforts to establish Macedonian identity and language. The difference I suppose would be that a few note his not-so clear-cut self-identity (usually as characteristic of the time he lived), while the rest don't mention that. Here's a listing of sources:

Sacralizing the Nation through Remembrance of Medieval Religious Figures in Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia Stefan Rohdewald, Brill (2022). Mentions him multiple times including as a "Macedonian historiographer", noting how "like the Bulgarian tsars, the Serbian kings remained foreigners for him... ruling over 'Macedonian regions'". Conversely, he identified some Byzantine emperors as Macedonians.

The Blinded State Mitko Panov, Brill (2019). Focuses on Pulevski's attempts to connect contemporary Macedonians to the ancient Macedonians and biblical Macedonia, as a call "to revive the history".

Yugoslavia and Macedonia Before Tito Nada Boskovska, Bloomsbury (2017). Describes Pulevski as "the most explicit personification" of representatives of the Macedonian national movement and claims he was engaged in "Phase A" national development. No mention of the unclear ethnic identity.

The Macedonian Question and the Macedonians Alexis Heraclides, Routledge (2020). Discusses his works in which he describes Macedonians as a nation and notes he was among the first to come up with the idea that modern Macedonians had ancient Macedonian ancestry, but also states that his claims cannot be used to imply a "clear-cut adherence" to Macedonian national identity.

Entangled Histories of the Balkans Daskalov and Marinov, Brill (2013). They note his famous early writings and state that his "Macedonian nationalism is confirmed by other works of his" and note his claims that Alexander and Philip were Slavs. They do note "there are reasons to interpret" his identity as unclear, as his categorizations were "often obscure" (i.e., "Catholic" being compared to "Serbian".)

Desired Language: Languages as objects of national ideology Jolanta Sujecka, John Benjamins Publishing Company (2023). Looks at Pulevskis work, particularly Dictionary of Three Languages, in detail from a linguistic perspective.

Migration In, From, and to Southeastern Europe Biljana Ristovska-Josifovska, LIT Verlag (2011). Discusses the value of his works/manuscripts in describing migrant worker life and the ethnographic/geographic situation of his native "Mijak" region.

The Slavic Languages De Gruyter (2014). Notes Pulevski's Dictionary of Three Languages as "explicit Macedonian linguistic and political separatism".

Another formulation we could go with instead of simply "was a Macedonian/Mijak writer and revolutionary" is "was a writer on the topic of Macedonian language and nationalism, and a revolutionary in Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia", or similar. --Local hero ^talk 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

B. As stated above, Pulevski is essentially only notable for his contributions to Macedonian identity and culture (I brought up the example of Sándor Petőfi, someone not of Hungarian descent but labelled as such due to his contributions to that nation and culture). Pulevski may have had varying identities at other points of his life, but these activities were simply not as notable and I also don't believe this precludes this article from labelling him as a Macedonian in the lead sentence. --Local hero ^talk 19:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have sources, describe how Macedonians view him. His contributions are already noted in the lead. This may be too complicated to summarize in the infobox. Senorangel (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should be summarized in the lead. If the Macedonian nation didn't exist today, it's unlikely he would've received a fraction of the coverage he does in sources today. --Local hero ^talk 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Pulevski's only consistent identity throughout his life was ethnographic one, not ethnonational, and that's a Mijak. On the other hand, the Mijaks as an ethnographic group had mainly Bulgarian and Serbian identity until the formation of a Macedonian one, and its imposition mainly after the Second World War. Pulevski himself goes through all these national identities in succession. The newly formed Macedonian identity then was immature and primary, unlike the other two, which were traditional in the region. Because of this, I think listing only one identity in the introduction (the most underdeveloped and most briefly professed by the subject of the article, although he is best known for it) and ignoring the others is quite controversial. The current lead is o.k. Jingiby (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

(summoned by bot) A - arguments by Jingiby are convincing.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: He is not really best known for his Mijak identity. If that was the case, it would have more coverage in the sources. However, Pulevski appears to be an underresearched individual anyway. I like the input from others here though. More information about his legacy can be added, about how he is perceived in the modern era. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

A. Status quo gives the most nuanced view of a complex identity without a nation state. I would like to ask, are there are other figures from the same period that are refered to as "Macedonian"? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cinemaandpolitics: Well since he is considered the first major figure to express a Macedonian identity, there isn't anyone exactly as old as him whom we label as such, but there are figures a bit later on that we do label as such (i.e., Dimitrija Čupovski, Nace Dimov). --Local hero ^talk 22:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Then, as I was thinking, this feels to me like a case where I would not use the definition of something new for the person that started it. I wouldn't open the lead of Marx by saying he was a "communist", for example. It feels non logical. I am surprised there is no guideline about this. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is also arguably way more interesting to put it as A, because it shows the difficulty to start a new definition instead of being born in a settled version of it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Macedonian has different meanings. There is not any person labeled here as an ethnic Macedonian from this period (1870-1890), I think. At that time, the first Macedonists appeared, but they had a pro-Serbian or pro-Bulgarian bias in ethnic aspect. Jingiby (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The Macedonian identity started late 19th century as you put it 1870'ish and the pro-Serbian and pro-Bulgarian were a result of Exarchates trying to influence the native Macedonian population on their side. Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia works based on reliable sources, historical facts and consensus here. Not on personal claims. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not "personal claims" these are historical facts that have been agreed upon with most historians. Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Look, Pulevski's diverse national identifications are a historical fact, which reveals the lack of a clear national identity by him. This is confirmed for example by Tchavdar Marinov, who is an expert of the Macedonian question, as well as of the issues related to the formation of the modern national identities on the Balkans and is often cited by different researchers in the English-language Academic publications. Jingiby (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What are Tchavdar Marinov's qualification so he can be a an "expert" of the Macedonian question. Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Tchavdar Marinov is research assistant at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Studied Philosophy at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” and History and Civilizations at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris. He received his PhD in History and Civilizations from Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. His research area includes the history and historiography of the Macedonian Question, the ideological uses of antiquity and the cultural heritage policies in the Balkans. His PhD dissertation was on The Impasse of the Past. The Construction of Macedonian National Identity and the Political-Historiographic Conflict Between Bulgaria and Macedonia. He works on theories of citizenship, nationalism and nation-state and has contributed articles on aspects of nationbuilding processes in the Balkans, contemporary Balkan history, and anthropological approaches to ethnicity to a number of journals and edited volumes. He is the author of La Question macédonienne de 1944 à nos jours. Communisme et nationalisme dans les Balkans and of « Nos ancêtres les Thraces. Usages idéologiques de l’Antiquité en Europe du Sud-Est (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2010 and 2016). Marinov is also the co-editor of Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Vol. 1: National Ideologies and Language Policies and Vol. 4: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2013 and 2017), and of Balkan Heritages. Negotiating History and Culture (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015). His research area is the historical sociology of the modern and contemporary societies of South-Eastern Europe, “Nos ancêtres les Thraces”: Usages idéologiques de l’Antiquité en Europe du Sud-Est. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2016, Regionalism and modern Europe. - London : Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. pp. 307-322., "In Defense of the Native Tongue: the Standardization of the Macedonian Language and the Bulgarian-Macedonian Linguistic Controversies” In Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov (eds.), Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Vol. 1: National Ideologies and Language Policies (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2013), 419-487, 2013 Journal article “We Cannot Give Up Our History” When the Macedonian Question Puts the Notion of Communist Bloc to the Test. In Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire (2011/1 No 109), "Ancient Thrace in the Modern Imagination: Ideological Aspects of the Construction of Thracian Studies in Southeast Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria)" in Roumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov (eds.), Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Vol. 3: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2015), 10-117, 2015, “The ‘Balkan House’: Interpretations and Symbolic ppropriations of the Ottoman-Era Vernacular Architecture in the Balkans” in Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, Diana Mishkova, and Alexander Vezenkov (eds.), Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Vol. 4: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2017), 440-593, 2017, "We, the Macedonians: The Paths of Macedonian Supra-Nationalism (1878–1912)". We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, edited by Diana Mishkova, Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press, 2009, pp. 107-138., Famous Macedonia, the Land of Alexander: Macedonian Identity at the Crossroads of Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Nationalism, In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One, pp.: 273–330, etc. His scientific interests are national and etnic identities and historical sociology. Per himself his research project "National Indifference" as a Modern Phenomenon? Theories of the Pervasiveness and Intensity of Nationalism and Their Application in the Field of Balkan History has the ambition to contribute to the ongoing debates on the temporality and social diffusion of nationalism in modern European societies by exploring the analytical potential but also the limits of the concept of “national indifference” in the study of modern and contemporary Balkan history. By crediting this concept explanatory value, the proposed research tries to understand self-identifications and external categorizations of Balkan societies since the late nineteenth century, which are often obscured by national historians. Jingiby (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ndrew Rossos is a highly regarded historian, particularly known for his work on Balkan history and national identities. He completed his Ph.D. at Stanford University, where his research centered on the complex histories of the Balkan region, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries. Rossos spent much of his academic career as a professor at the University of Toronto, where he taught modern European history with a focus on Southeastern Europe and the Balkans. His expertise on Macedonia, its national identity, and the interactions between different ethnic groups in the region has made him a prominent voice in this field.

Throughout his career, Rossos published several influential works on the history of Macedonia, addressing issues such as national identity, territorial disputes, and the broader political and social dynamics in the Balkans. His scholarship is characterized by a balanced and detailed approach, aiming to understand the complexities of the region’s ethnic, political, and historical narratives. Rossos has also participated in numerous academic conferences and symposia, sharing his insights with scholars and students alike.

His work continues to be cited in studies of Balkan nationalism and the historical development of Southeast Europe, making him a credible and influential figure in the study of Balkan history. Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

From the article on Rossos on Wikipedia. Many from his colleagues have criticized him on lack of neutrality: Rossos is an adherent of some controversial views espoused by the historiography in North Macedonia. For example, he has adopted the fringe theory of the continuity between the ancient and the modern Macedonians. He also espoused that Macedonian national identity was already well developed before WWII, a dubious view, especially for the Bulgarian part of the Macedonian population. He has been described by anthropologist Loring Danforth as one of the more "moderate" Macedonian scholars who nevertheless implies a "vague form of historical or cultural continuity between the ancient and the modern Macedonians in what is ultimately a form of nationalist historiography". Per historian Stefan Troebst, Rossos has clearly and consciously taken sides with the historians and politicians of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), and states that his works suffer from what he calls "Makedonianismus" (Macedonism). According to Danforth, "Rossos’s implicit suggestion of a continuity linking ‘the first Macedonian state’ of antiquity with the modern Macedonian state of the twentieth century could be interpreted as a subtle attempt to counter the more convincing Greek claims for cultural continuity with Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians". Professor of international relations Aristotle Tziampiris criticizes Rossos' claim of a "huge" Macedonian minority in Greece, possibly numbering to more than 100,000s, pointing out that the Rainbow Party, a party aiming primarily to exert pressure in order to secure minority rights and amend what it perceives as human rights violations against Slavic-speakers who self-identify as ethnic Macedonians, never gained more than 10,000 votes, or 0.1% of the entire Greek population. Jingiby (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are discussing this at the wrong article. This is not Misirkov's article. Either way, you should accept that your edit lacks consensus. Your edit keeps removing sourced content too. Please stop doing it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

( Macodudewasalreadytaken? (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears the RFC is over. Thanks especially to the uninvolved editors for chiming in. It looks like we're keeping the status quo "Mijak" for the opening sentence label. I do wonder if anyone had any thoughts on my idea above for the opening sentence text after "writer": "was a Mijak writer on the topic of Macedonian language and nationalism, and a revolutionary in Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia". Best. --Local hero ^talk 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

it isn't bad, and surelly you will be in the right to add info about his notability in the opening sentence. But the formulation feels a bit heavy, so I prefer the current one.

Since I was here I went ahead to shorten a bit the second paragraph, it had some repetitions that didn't add anything. There is space to add other different material, from people that know the person and body of the article. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)