Talk:Saint Naum

Please stop your ongoing edits. You keep on adding references trying to support your idea that St. Naum was Bulgarian, yet none of them state that he was Bulgarian. You clearly searched in google books for your third reference "St. Naum Bulgarian" since the search words are still there, and the reference still doesn't support your claim. This is classic cherry-picking references. In fact, you removed one of your old references that explicitly calls St. Naum and his fellow missionaries Byzantine.

The place of birth of St. Naum is unknown, so you can't say that he was Bulgarian for sure (hey, maybe he was Greek, or Albanian, who knows). In his lifecycle, which is the primary source of his life, (a reference which you promptly deleted), he is called Slavic, not Bulgarian. In O pismeneh (http://mk.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9E_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%85), the missionaries, their alphabet, language and people are referred 12 times as Slavic, not Bulgarian (the only reference to Bulgarian there is that the events occurred during the rule of certain Moravian and Bulgarian princes).

If he is considered by Bulgarians to be Bulgarian, that's their right. But don't make it out like that's a fact.

Furthermore, since you simply remove other people's edits so lightly, please explain why yours should be kept? Simply put, your statement and your references don't correlate. You are padding your nationalistic edits with fake references. I am tired of insecure nationalists like you (fake references, Bulgarian is alphabetically before Macedonian ...). Grow up!

Wisco2000 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If the two of you can't come to agreement on this, you may want to consider one of the remedies at WP:dispute resolution. (Personally I've had it with nationalistic stuff, so except maybe for objective matters of fact, I probably won't be contributing.) — kwami (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article. The provided sources describe Naum as a Bulgarian medieval scholar. --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop your disruptive edita contrary the reliable sources and discuss. Jingby (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th,^[1][2][3] up until the early 20th century.^[4] It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]} However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed.^{[11][12][13][14][15]} Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed.^[16][17] According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed.^[18] After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness.^[19] With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population.^[20] In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.^[21]

AFAIK, "Macedonian" did not exist until sometime around 1880–1950. Anything before that should be "Bulgarian". AFAIK that is standard English academic practice. — kwami (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would the edit-warrior who is removing well-sourced info from the article, care to explain his actions? What is it that you do not like about the sources present? What is wrong with them and why do you edit against them? --Laveol ^T 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just found that Drembica and Velika (bishopric), the places of an historic bishopric associated with Clement of Ohrid, are redlinks. Apparently their historic location is not well known or has at least been the subject of some debate at some time. Any info that could turn them blue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

В пределите на така очертаната област са се намирали двете епископски седалища на Климент: по-малкото — Дрембица и по-голямото — Велица. Дрембица можем да търсим в Дебърца, както предположи Баласчев, но също и в крепостта Дебрица при днешното село Дебреще или Дебрище на северозапад от Прилеп, както мисли Златарски. [36] Мнението на Златарски ни изглежда по-вероятно. [37][2] Jingby (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Which seems to confirm there's some discussion over where these places were, right? That might make for an interesting little article, but it would take some work digging through the sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember these are the two names of a bishopric encompassing the larger region around Ohrid or something. I have to read some of it in my papers and stuff, since I doubt there is a lot about it on the net. --Laveol ^T 11:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Велица е била по-голямо селище: възможно е да се е намирала в басейна на р. Велика,? която според Баласчев е дала названието на Климентовата епископска област, но можем да я търсим и другаде някъде — чак в Струмишко, където се намират старинни манастири и черкви, между които и известният в средновековието Велюшки манастир? с черква. [37] Jingby (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, the paragraph which constitutes the entirety of the section First Bulgarian Empire. Could anyone please tell me where a good place to split it would be? I think the sentence starting with "[t]he most reliable first-hand accounts of the activities ..."--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a recent edit (yesterday) about "Saint Naum", please review and revert the change or grant me a permission, because now it says that Naum Ohridski is Bulgarian writer & missionary and also there were added some wrong data. I think the user who made this change should be banned for such a change, because he can't rewrite the history!!! Naum Ohridski was a Macedonian writer & missionary Dojcin94 (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Absolutely nothing to back up this change. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

So saint naum was of macedonian nationality but at that time macedonia was occupied by the bulgarians Krko23 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pls correct it Krko23 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)