Talk:Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I)

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" [1]. 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" [2]. Here, at page 209, "Vlach" is referred to as an umbrella term [3]. Here, it is said that the Aromanians "constitute one of the groups referred to by the umbrella term Vlach" [4]. 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)

Serbomania?

Why is this topic so one-sided? What is said about the population of Pomoravie and Macedonia is simply untrue. Those lands were FILLED with Bulgarians. There are thousands of sources that can back this claim. This article is mostly based on Serbian sources, which is simply wrong for a site like Wikipedia. 77.85.34.58 (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)