Talk:Bitola inscription/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

THE TEXT 1. This is the text translated in Bulgarian from the fake stone in Voden: 1. V samodurjavnia grad Voden Az Samuil, veren v Hrista 2. Car na Bulgarite i Romeite, ot boga izpraten samodurjec 3. na vsichki strani ot Rashka do Makedonia, Tesalia 4. i Gurcia , vnuk na staria Shishman, koito beshe Han na 5. jitelite na Turnovo, postroih tozi molitven dom, za da sushtestvuva v vechnostta. Osnovite biaha polojeni v epohata na Ieremia, koito beshe pruv hristianin ot Melnik. 6. Postroen be (tozi hram) za grehovete i spasenieto na bulgarite 7. ot prokletia Satana, koito proizhojda ot Konstantinopol. 8. Tozi hram be zavurshen prez 14-tata godina ot caruvaneto mi s pomoshtta na sveshtennika Gavril, koito e duhoven pastirna jitelite na Muglen. 9. Napisano prez godina 6497 ot suzdavaneto na sveta (989 g.)5-ti Indiktion.

Rough translation into English: In the city of Voden, I Samuil, faithul to Christ, Emperor of the Bulgars and Romans, Godsent emperor of all lands from Raska to Macedonia, Thessaly and Greece, nephew of the old Shishman who was Khan of the inhabitants of Trnovo, built this prayer home, to exist forever. The foundation were laid in the epoch of Jeremiah, who was the first Christian in Melnik. This tample was built for the sins and saving of the Bulgars from damned Satan, who comes from Constantinople. This tample was finished during the 14th year of my rule with the help of monk Gavril, who is the spiritial shepherd of the inhabitants of Meglen. Written during year 6497 from the foundation of the world (989 A.D), 5th Indiction.

2. This is the text translated in Bulgarian from the stone in Bitola: "Prez godina 6523 (1015-1016) ot sutvorenieto na sveta obnovi se tazi krepost, zidana i pravena ot Ioan, samodurjec bulgarski, s pomoshtta i s molitvite na presvetata vladichica nasha Bogorodica i chrez zastupnichestvoto na dvanadesette i na vurhovnite apostoli. Tazi krepost be napravena za ubejishte i za spasenie i za jivota na bulgarite. Zapochnata beshe krepostta Bitolia prez mesec oktomvri v 20-i den, a se zavurshi v mesec... kraia. Tozi samodurjec beshe bulgarin po rod, vnuk na Nikola i na Ripsimia blagovernite, sin na Aaron, koito e brat na Samuil, caria samodurjaven, i koiito dvamata razbiha v Shtipon (Ihtiman) gruckata voiska na car Vasilii, kudeto be vzeto zlato... , a tozi v.. . car razbit bide ot car Vasilii v godina 6522 (1014) ot sutvorenieto na sveta v Kliuch i pochina v kraia na liatoto."

Rough translation into English: During the year 6523 (1015-1016) from the beggining of the world this fortress is being renewed, built and made by Ioan, Bulgarian autocrator, with the help and prayers of our Virgin Mary and through the representation of the twelve and supreme apostles. This fortress was made as haven and deliverance of the lives of the Bulgarians. The fortress Bitolia was started during the month of October 20th and was completed in the month of... ending. This autocrator was Bulgarian by birth, nephew of Nikola and Ripsimia, son of Aaron, who is brother to Samuil, the tsar autocrator, with whom they smashed in Shtipon (Ihtiman) the Greek army of tsar Vasili, where they took gold..., and this tsar was destroyed by tsar Vasili in the year of 6522 (1014) from the beginning of the world in Kliuch and died at the end of the summer

 ѹбѣжище would mean rather sanctuary than haven. P. Petrov--80.50.4.86 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

3. The Story During September 1997 a Greek national with "Bulgarian identity" from Voden named Stoidis appeared in Sofia at the National Historical Museum and declared to the Director Bozidar Dimitrov that he has in his possession a stone inscription found in Voden (Edessa) during the reconstruction of a local church. The Director declared the inscription a fake made by Bulgarian nationalists in the 19th Century. Apparently the whole story was published in the Bulgarian daily Kontinent on "02.10.1997."

The "Bitola inscription" was discovered during the demolition of a mosque in Bitola during the 1950's and so far nobody doubted its veracity. Considering the Voden case the Bitola stone has to be viewed in new light. Chances that it was written by the same authors are indeed very high. We have also to ask about other products from the same authors as well as regard the whole Bulgarian historiography concerning Macedonia with great suspicion.

There have been another falsification with stone inscription found or made from Stamen Vasilev from Sandanski in Bulgaria.Commision from state institutions have found that newest inscription is falsificat. It is obvious that nathional-romantisam is in production busines long time in Bulgaria

Еxcuse me, but what are you prove with the information about the other inscriptions. If you know some scientist who think that Bitola inscription is a fake, please be honest, poit him - his exact thesis, title, page. I assert that there is not scientists (not journalists) that assert openly that the Bitola inscription is a fake. Even in Macedonia (or Serbia). It is not true the information in the article that the term „Блъгарїнь“ (bl'garin') or bulgarians as „Блъгаромь„ (bl'garom') is a 19th century pronounciation of bulgarian/s. This is the term from ІХ centurу. I reccomend to all who understand Bulgarian language to see in disscussion page of Bulgarian articleq where I pointed many evidences about the term bl'garin in IX-XIII centuries (bg:Беседа:Битолски надпис). Regards, --AKeckarov 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To Keckarovo: Horace Lunt in Slavic Review ( Vol. 31, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), p. 499.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanjak (talk • contribs)

To Bomac

The Bitola Inscription was officially recognised as authentic in former Yugoslavia (although late as its existence was concealed for obvious reasons for nearly a decade) and is the subject of a number of research books there. Trying to include in the article tabloid theories questioning its authenticity when even your own country has acknowledged the authenticity has nothing to do with NPOV and in wiki language is called "trolling". As for the discrepancy in the names, check again your sources: Bulgarian in old Bulgarian (Preslav Literary School) is and has always been "блъгарин", "болгарин" is Church Slavonic, dear. Please, don't occupy us with popular myths circulating in nationalistic circles in the Republic of Macedonia. VMORO 13:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The so called Bitola inscription is a product of mutual imagination of Vladimir Moshin and Jordan Zaimov. There is no date visible on the inscription and half of the text is conjured by Moshin and Zaimov which DOES NOT exist on the original inscription - as Horace Lunt and Ihor Shevcenko, two prominent scholars from the Dumbarton Oaks and Harvard Department of Slavic studies, had informed scientific community. For more info I would advise those interested in the objective and true scholarly research to refer to the following commentary of Horace Lunt in Slavic Review ( Vol. 31, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), p. 499.)

Additional point: Greek archeologist Nikos Moutsopoulos who had uncovered grave of emperor Samuel (St Achilleos, Mala Prespa), commenting on the results of his excavations, stated the following: "„The graffiti in Greek on the walls of the basilic ,the Greek inscriptions on the several layers of wall painting inside the church, the tombs in the narthex in which the custom of providing the deceased with a coin to pay his passage across the Styx had been observed, together with evidence of the presence, especially in various parts of Western and Upper Macedonia, of Romans, Vlachs, Albanians and Slavs after Samuel's short-lived kingdom had fallen to Emperor Basil II (1014-1018), it may be concluded that the language of this state was indeed Greek.” (N Moutsopoulos, Vasilike...Thessalonike, 1999, p331)

So, if the language of this state was indeed Greek, where, then, the Bitola inscription, written supposedly in "ancient Bulgarian", fits the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanjak (talk • contribs)

Not a single word of what you've written is true. Sorry.--Laveol 08:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Битолската плоча е пронадејна во 1956 г. во битолската Чауш-џамија. За првпат нејзиното постоење во јавноста е соопштено 1959 г. Според Радмила Угринова - Скаловска, Битолската плоча: „помлада е за околу 25 годни од Самуиловата плоча...[ок. 1018 г.] Направена е по заповед на Јоан Владислав, еден од наследниците на Самуила. …Истакнувањето на бугарското потекло од страна на Јоан Владислав е во согласност со настојувањето на Самуиловиот род да се поврзе со државноправната традиција на Симеоновото царство. Од друга страна, и западни и византиски писатели и хроничари, сите жители на царството на Петар [бугарски цар, владее од 927 до 969 г.], наследникот на бугарскиот цар Симеон, ги наречувале Бугари.“ Дел од содрината на плочата, според преводот на Скаловска:„Овој град [Битола] се соѕида и се направи од Јоан самодржец [цар] на бугарското (блъгарьскаго) цраство... Овој град (крепост) беше направен за цврсто засолниште и спасение на животот на Бугарите (Блъгаромь)... Овој цар и самодржец беше родум Бугарин (Блъгарїнь), тоест внук на благоверните Никола и Рипсимија, син на Арона, постариот брат на самодржавниот цар Самуил...“ (Р.У. - Скаловска, Записи и летописи. Скопје 1975. 43-44.)Jingby 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jingby:

Skalovska regretfully didn't do her homework. The very first thing any serious researcher could do is to check photos or/and original inscription before writing anything in a paper. I do have original photographs of the inscription (published by Moshin and Zaimov) and from analyzing it it's obvious - DATE is MISSING. The objective, scientific truth is not a matter of consensus, prevailing opinion or out-voting the "other side".

...Меѓутоа, бидејки за време на владеењето на Самуил... Македонија била споена со дел од денешна Бугарија... тоа била една од причината што тогаш и подоцна преовладувало името „Бугари“, иако одделни византиски писатели во текот на вековите точно ги разликувале едни од другите.“ (Стјепан Антолјак, Средновековна Македонија. Скопје 1980. 175-178)Jingby 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jingby:

During excavations near Mala Prespa, Greek archeologist, N Moutsopoulos discovered inscriptions on the walls of St Achilleos church which represent a list of episcopal thrones during Samuel's reign. This list, again, shows that Danube Bulgaria with its centers in Preslav and Dorostol was NOT part of Samuel's state.

Criticism

Firstly, before editing, prove that you are really into the matter. The name of the Bulgarian Tsar is Samuil (with "i"). The topic is controversial, but in The Republic of Macedonia alone. The criticism section is too long - please try to summarize what you're trying to say. And sign your posts. --Laveol 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly the text is as follows:

Translation from Old Bulgarian: “ In year 6723 (1234) since the creation of the world, this fortress, built and made by Ivan, Tsar of Bulgaria, was renewed with the help and the prayers of Our Most Holy Lady and through the intercession of her twelve supreme apostles. The fortress was built as a haven and for the salvation of the lives of the Bulgarians. The work on the fortress of Bitola commenced on the twentieth day of October and ended on the …unreadable text… and died at the end of the summer. ”

In conclusion, Robert Mathiesen (Department of Slavic languages, Brown University) summarized opinions of the scientific community as to the value of so-called "Bitola inscription": "As long as its true age remains in doubt. the evidence of the Bitolja inscription will have to be used with great caution; but this does not lessen the special importance for cyrillic palaeography which it will have as the work of two stonecutters-whatever the outcome if and when doubts are ever finally laid to rest." (The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring, 1977), pp. 1-2.)

I've added this text here. You cannot build an article just by citing statements. If you want a part of it in the article, rewrite it. And what's this with the text - isn't the whole argument just about the year? And if it is, why did you put the text of the inscription again? And with a different text even? --Laveol 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To Laveol:

"Firstly, before editing, prove that you are really into the matter. The name of the Bulgarian Tsar is Samuil (with "i")."

Well, my friend, we can call SAMUEL any name! The reason? Well, aside Greek sources there is no mention of his name in any local, contemporary source of the time and when I say local and contemporary, I mean SLAVIC ONLY and not the Greek, Armenian (Stephan of Taron) or Arabic (Jahja). Unfortunately, Prespa and Bitola inscriptions are not what their "manufacturers" wanted them to be - those are tampered artifacts and not from the time their "discoverers" claimed them to be. Furthermore, most of the Greek transcriptions of at the time were wrong. Ana Komnena, for example, calls Serbian ruler Vlkan - Volcanos?! Unfortunately, we can only "rely" on Greek chronicles which are, aside being " reliable historical source", big propaganda pieces, as well. All Samuel's children had Slavic names: Miroslava, Radomir, Kosara, so, what makes you believe his name wasn't Slavic? Are you sure his name was Samuil? Samuel/Samoil/Samuil could easily be SAMOVIL - name of one of the serbian-slavic deities from pre-christian era.

By trying to hide facts by erasing my editions you will accomplish nothing, simply, because everything I had presented is in the facts and these facts speak for themselves: photos, expertise of the real specialists in the field (Lunt, Sevchenko, Mathiesen). The "majority" of scientists that you "claim" recognize validity of the "Bitola inscription" ARE NOT philologists but HISTORIANS, and they know nothing or very little about early Slavic orthography and epigraphy. Razbra?

Yes, we know this, cause his name is biblical as are those of his brothers - David, Aaron, and Moses. And, no, I can never be sure of something if I haven't seen it with my eyes. That's why I'm trying to put a part of your claims in the article. Neither you, nor the other Bulgarian users co-operate for now though. Yes, he was Bulgarian and yes, he was called Bulgarian and nothing else. As well as Samuil himself. I really find the way your fellows try to fill the gap of some 2000 or 3000 years in history in which the name Macedonia is used only in its geographical sense entertaining. But this is an encyclopedia, not science fiction. --Laveol 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Laveol:"Yes, he was Bulgarian and yes, he was called Bulgarian and nothing else. As well as Samuil himself. I really find the way your fellows try to fill the gap of some 2000 or 3000 years in history in which the name Macedonia is used only in its geographical sense entertaining. But this is an encyclopedia, not science fiction. --Laveol 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)"

No, he was not Bulgarian. Again, there is no slavic contemporary source which would support such a WILD claim, therefore, 'Samuil' could not call himself Bulgarian. At least, theories regarding his Areminian ancestry should be known to you. Also, my posting on Bitola inscription has nothing to do with theories of Macedonian scholars regarding Alexander the Great and Ancient Greece "controversy". I am not Macedonian.

Ok, so I was fooled by the "Rabra?" in your previous post. And you could still look at the Samuil article before throwing such statements. And sign your posts, please. --Laveol 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Contra Criticism

Horace Lunt from Harvard said:

"In 1956 a marble block serving as part of the threshold of a sixteenth-century mosque in Bitola was discovered to contain a badly worn Slavonic inscription. The text clearly must have spilled over to a lost block on the left, and to one or more blocks at the top. Yet the twelve preserved lines refer to ”John, autocrat of the bulgars„ and, later, ”son of Aron.„

It is not posible to be ”son of Aron„ and not to be Ivan Vladislav! Enough Macedonism!Jingby 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jingby: Yes, it is possible to be son of Aaron and not to be Ioan Vladislav, especially if inscription is work of two stonecutters, lines 1-6 being from one and 7-12 from comletely different stonecutter. (R Mathiesen, The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring, 1977), pp. 1-2.)

Yes, but in your "scientific translation" is no word about Aaron!?!213.130.72.22 07:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

“ In year 6723 (1234) since the creation of the world, this fortress, built and made by Ivan, Tsar of Bulgaria, was renewed with the help and the prayers of Our Most Holy Lady and through the intercession of her twelve supreme apostles. The fortress was built as a haven and for the salvation of the lives of the Bulgarians. The work on the fortress of Bitola commenced on the twentieth day of October and ended on the …unreadable text… and died at the end of the summer. ”

This is pure macedonism!213.130.72.22

The way some people are removing references from Harvard, Brown U, Dumbarton Oaks etc is a disgrace. What is next, will Berkley, Stanford, Princeton also be outlets of macedonism (whatever that is) if somebody doesn’t like the context? If the criticism is indeed propaganda, than it was probably refuted with easiness before and you can probably reference that. Otherwise both views should stay. Undue weights argument should also be explained by REFERENCES, not by . And references from Bulgaria and/or Macedonia have secondary value because of heavy bias.

Stop reverting FYROM forged documents.There are not such a conclusions from Harvard or somewhere! The second date on the original stone is good visible as the name of comitopul Aaron. Only blind macedonist is able to do such a forgery!Jingby 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

What exactly are you saying? 1) That the quotes from those articles are not correct? 2) The quotes are there, but the conclusions are different? 3) The articles do not exists?

If you have access you can check them on Internet. If you don’t, any graduate student in US (and probably other countries as well) can check it for you. I am sure someone in Wikipedia can volunteer for that, if needed.

---

The links provided are not convincingly authentic. Mr. Neutron 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoaaa...

This article was in bad shape. I've stubbed it back to something readable and reduced the chaos of the unused and poorly cited references. I strongly urge everyone involved:

• Don't re-introduce material whose sole interest is the modern political/ideological dispute between Macedonians and Bulgarians. The world doesn't care about those.
• Don't re-introduce material regarding the scholarly dispute about dating and transcription, if your aim in doing so is only to illustrate a point about the modern political/ideological dispute... (see above).
• Don't re-introduce any more scholarly quotes unless you're sure you actually understand what they are about.
• Don't re-introduce scholarly quotes you have only from second hand out of some unreliable websites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Added some text

The texts "Son of Aaron" and the year are added to the article becouse they are fully readable --Scroch 22:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Bitola Inscription1.jpg

The year is NOT fully readable and it is obvious from the photo made by V Moshin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevanjak1 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to Bitola inscription photo, unchanged, the way Moshin found it and where it can be easily seen that there is no visible date. The area where date is supposed to be is flagged with an arrow: http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/9595/bitoljskahz8.jpg

Readability

I am a Greek. I came here from the Bitola article, where it reads "The name Bitola is mentioned in the Bitola inscription, related to the old city fortress built in 1015." I read the article, saw the inscription, and cannot but notice that a large section of it is missing. So, much of the text is a bit of guessing... I have to note that I cannot see "Bitola", and "Ключ" is saved only in the last letters of "їѹ"... I don't contest that Kliuch is indeed Kliuch and Bitola is Bitola in the text, but, especially in the case of Bitola, no clear letters can be seen. Of course, it doesn't read anything of the Monastir sort, but, what is seen is ...I.OL... L could also be a D, though, I think it's an L, too... So, the name is not Bitola, but, .i.ol. which could be Bitola, Bitolj, Bitolya, Vitola, Vitolja, or to play a bit more, even Nikolas.... To think it a bit better, I am sure the fortress was named "Nikolas" indeed.... :P

I will let things stand as they are now, but, I would like to point that this inscription cannot be really used to define which exact form of Bitola was used at the time. For the simple reason that unfortunately the text of the city name is not fully saved. Also, I'd suggest people to look on this [1] for a better look before they reply, if they wanna reply to my comment here.

Also, I would like to point how the text refers to a Greek army.... Heracletus (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In the begining of the fifth row, it must be the following text: градь сь Битола. From the word Bitola, I can read only the letters: ...N(I)...O(O)Л(L)... Jingiby (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't think the controversy section is entirely relevant, more like a bit of trivia. --WavesSaid (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As the fringe views in the lead, dating the inscription from the times of Ivan Asen. Jingiby (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's work through the problems one at a time. The controversy section is irrelevant to this article, so perhaps it should be moved to Macedonian nationalism (where the Bitola inscription is already featured)? There aren't any fringe views concerning the Bitola inscription because there is no academic consensus as yet, so I think it would be best to lay out all of the arguments and counterarguments instead of cherry picking. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No academic consensus? The dating has been subject to checks by various parties and found to be exact. If it is questioned by a single, heavily politicised, party, then the latter's opinion is a fringe view. Sorry. --Laveol ^T 02:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The dating of medieval Slavic artifacts is notoriously inexact. It's inappropriate to speak of fringe views in relation to something that has only been studied by a handful of scholars, especially when they all disagree with one another on a number of points. --WavesSaid (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And the entire handful asserts pretty much the same view. Strange. No, it won't work here either, sorry. --Laveol ^T 03:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite...

“ The historian and paleographer Vladimir Mošin published the text (in Makedonski jazik, 1966), with a bold series of conjectures and emendations arguing that the inscription included reference to Samuel's defeat in 1014 and had been set up by Ivan Vladislav, Samuel's nephew (ruled 1015-1018). The Zaimovs confidently "restore" most of the text, including dates, and proceed to take their wish-thoughts as incontrovertible proof of a number of historical events otherwise unknown.

Unfortunately there is no even remotely reliable set of criteria for dating early South Slavic Cyrillic, and epigraphic material is sparse and extremely controversial. I must respectfully disagree with Mošin's estimate that this text fits in the early eleventh century. Zaimov's paleographic and linguistic arguments are inaccurate and naive.

One basic point: Mošin clearly records the fact that the date he confidently reconstructs as 6522 (1014) has been worn away ("datata e izližana"; p.39 in Slovenska pismenost, ed P.Ilievski, Ohrid, 1966). Indeed it does not show up in any published photographs (note that Zaimov's plate 2 has been doctored in an unspecified manner, and plate 3 is frankly a drawing), nor is it found in a latex mold made by Professor Ihor Ševčenko of Dumbarton Oaks. Assuming that this spot does contain a date, one can grant the 6 and the final 2, and a vertical line with a partial crosspiece that could be Ф (500) but looks much more like Ѱ (700), and is followed by a space wide enough even for М (40). If one then conjectures the numbers as 6742, the date would be 1234. This fits beautifully with the orthography and language, and identifies Ivan as Asen II, who gained power over Macedonia in 1230. Yet it also demolished the intricate historical explanations elaborated by the Zaimovs and generally diminishes the light that this inscription allegedly throws on an obscure period of Macedonian and Bulgarian history. The crucial questions remain open. ” — Horace Lunt, Review of "Bitolski Nadpis na Ivan Vladislav Samodurzhets Bulgarski: Starobulgarski Pametnik ot 1015-1016 Godina" by Iordan Zaimov and Vasilka Zaimova, Slavic Review, vol. 31, no. 2 (Jun., 1972), p.499

“ The little of this numeral that can be seen on unretouched photographs might indeed be part of the Cyrillic letter Ф (500); but, as Horace G. Lunt has pointed out, it might be also part of the cyrilic letter Ѱ (700), in which case the Bitolja inscription would seem to be of the thirteen century. ” — Ihor Ševčenko, Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1

“ Lunt informs me that Ševčenko's photographs exclude the possibility of the numeral being an Ф (500), but not being a Ѱ (700), and may even exclude the possibility of the numeral being part of date. The date may then have stood at the beginning of line 12. As long as its true age remains in doubt, the evidence of the Bitolja inscription will have to be used with great caution; but this does not lessen the special importance of Cyrillic palaeography which it will have as the work of two stone-cutters—-whatever the outcome if and when doubts are ever finally laid to rest. ” — Robert Mathiesen, Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 1977, 21, 1

“ I. Zaimov, Bitolski nadpis na Ivan Vladislav samodrzhets bulgarski (Sofia, 1970), 33–4, 155. Zaimov provides a fuller a more creative translation than is presented here, drawing on information provided far later by Skylitzes or Michael of Devol to fill in several substantial lacunae. He provides, where the writing is lost: a solid date for the inscription of 1015–16; the names of Samuel and Basil; names and details of the battles of Shtipon and Kleidion (Kliuch). Such suggestions must be treated with extreme caution. ” — Paul Stephenson, The Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.30

--WavesSaid (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

However, here is not a forum. The only academic and reliable source provided by you, although partially, is the Legend of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, (Cambridge University Press, 2003). Paul Stephenson has cited more facts then those above, pointing they all must be treated with extreme caution. Nevertheless, he does not suggest any other date or author of the inscription. No way John Asen. More, he obviously agrees, the author of the plate is John Vladislav. The academic prevailing view is: this plate was written at the time of Vladislav. Jingiby (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to engage you in chit-chat; stay on task. All of those authors are well-regarded academics and all of the excerpts were taken from peer-reviewed academic journals or books. I'm not arguing for any substantial changes: you'll notice my original comment was regarding the Controversy section. The point I'm making is that there isn't any unanimity, and that valid criticisms from several scholars are not being taken into account. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bitola inscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224012226/http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/default-mk.asp?ItemID=83BB422E5CDD9F4698F43FB94C17BBA7 to http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/default-mk.asp?ItemID=83BB422E5CDD9F4698F43FB94C17BBA7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

File:Bitolska-ploca.jpg has been deleted. Can someone please remove it? - Sumanuil (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Latest Discoveries

Jingiby, can you explain why did you removed my work from this article. It is the latest discovery presented on the official 23rd Byzantine International Seminar.All what was written is written by the authors, I referenced their work. You can check.--Forbidden History (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not try to put here unrelated issues.Jingiby (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean unrelated issues? Two neutral archeologist are proving that the plate is forgery and expressed that to the experts of that field and it is published even in Bulgaria by BAN. How come it is not related to you? Please return the edits I've made.--Forbidden History (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby,why did you change the Title of my paragraph. They are the latest discoveries. Naming them Alternative Views can be applied on the Zaimovs work, that invented the whole text and the first row on the stone inscription. These archeologist and Byzantine specialists, proved exactly that there were no 13 rows of text and wrong dating.So, this version is not accurate--Forbidden History (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This study has not been cited anywhere for now. It is not part of the academic prevailing consensus about the plate. How recent it was published is not so important. Jingiby (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Learn something about the Institution that you're trying to discredit first -> https://www.byzantium.ac.uk/about-us/. Their discovery is far more valid than Zaimovs made up text and I hope that admins won't allow your actions to discredit such institution and professors.--Forbidden History (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You can check Zaimov is cited hundreds of times: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Nobody has cited Kostic and Velenis for now: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Jingiby (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

PS. Forbidden History, may you provide a single reliable source where the study of Kostic and Velenis has been cited by another known scientist as important? May you provide the opinion of another author, who claims or admits this new study is really reliable with something, or even that it is interesting, etc? And when describing the opinion of Zaimov as a fringe read what is written by Kostic and Velenis: ...Since,it has been the subject of studies of numerous researchers. Most of them reckon that the inscription is the last written source of the First Bulgarian State with an accurate dating... That means bot have recognized that is the prevailing scientific consensus for now. Jingiby (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

OK.Let it be that way, you should know the fact that allowing someone to present his views in one of the biggest event about Byzantine, goes through jury and commission of experts of that filed. In other words their views are accepted already. Refferences will come with the years to come.--Forbidden History (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Check your source about Pande-same way you are claiming all the IMROS as Bulgarians regardless that they fight for Macedonia you call them Buglarians, here you have opposite thing. A person that was Macedonian and didn't had Bulgarian citizenship you are labelling him Buglarian, just because that is how he felt but never asked for Bulgarian citizenship. Your source clearly tells you that he got his passport before 2010 (2007 to be exact). Here you have Obolensky page, and why Droysen and Michael Pupin are not reliable sources? If they are not reliable then whole history would not exist, we should throw out Titus Livus, Herodotus, Skiliza...is that is your argument? Sorry, but not acceptable --Forbidden History (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The inscription itself describes what it is about, not some fictional organization without scientific analysis! I ask user Forbidden History to show respect! --PowerBUL (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm trying to point out as well, that the text has 12 rows of faded text and not 13 as this whole article is trying to misrepresent the whole Inscription case.--Forbidden History (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems like this is a case of some radicalized youths from Mario's History Talks. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dikaiosyni I feel that you should investigate this Canvasing WP:CANVAS, WP:TAGTEAM, and Insults by StoyanStoyanov80

Hello, I am not an administrator, but for this issue I think you should consult with the administrators. Dikaiosyni (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dikaiosyni sorry, I saw that you did so grammar corrections and I thought you are watching over this page. Thanks anyway.--Forbidden History (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Forbidden History, I do not understand your last edits, they resemble vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What I did to vandalize anything? I asked for sources and I refferenced books that speaks about Samoil. Since when is that vandalising? --Forbidden History (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), sources older then 30 years may not be reliable and you are pushing here sources older then 100 years Jingiby (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I had to use sources form different authors and decades to prove your attitude toward Horace Lunt as wrong. Calling his beliefs Frenzy Theories, and there are thousands of sources that stands for his beliefs. That is why I pointed out the sources. As an editor I had to share my sources and I did. Is that something bad? I will have in mind about IMRO when you'd be using 100 years old sources, ok? --Forbidden History (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, there is a separate article on the Bulgarian Wikipedia about Pande Eftimov. Man was born, lived and died as a Bulgarian. What is this hatred on your part? Jingiby (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't put your words in my mouth. I never said anything bad about Pande nor I used the word HATRED. Stop bullying me! I just used your approach towards persons.If they were born in Kingdom of Bulgaria and they were identifying themselves as Macedonians, all of the articles for those persons are edited by yourself and they are presented as Bulgarians. So, how come now, you are asking me to accept Pande as Bulgarian when he clearly says in your own link that he got his Bulgarian citizenship in 2007. Pande was not Bulgarian in 1956. If you still claim he was, you need to provide solid proof or document to prove that, not modern written propaganda.--Forbidden History (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, Dimitri Obolensky, refered to Samuil's state as an "independent empire of Western Bulgaria" that originated in Macedonia. Obolensky considered that the Orthodox Slavs in Eastern Europe and Balkans (Russians, Bulgarians and Serbs) had nationalism and a national consciousness during the Middle Ages. Jingiby (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I provide you with preview of the whole page. And he is not saying what are you trying to explain he is saying. so...please read again the link i provided in the talk page. --Forbidden History (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, Paraskeua Kyriakides claims in the book Northern Ethnological Boundaries of Hellenism on p. 37. that during Samuel's reign the former Proto-Slavs from Macedonia were already called Bulgarians by the Byzantines. Your personal views differ from author's ideas. Jingiby (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No,no,no Kyriakides clearly says all the Slavs and Macedonian Slavs were labeled as Bulgarians by the Byzantine and with that a lot of territories and population which were not Bulgaria/Bulgarians had been labeled as Bulgarians. Here read the whole page, before discrediting this source and you'd see that is exactly what i wrote inside the article. --Forbidden History (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, the development of Old Church Slavonic literacy in Bulgarian Empire had the effect of preventing the assimilation of the South Slavs into Byzantine culture and it also stimulated the development of a distinct ethnic identity. Per Macedonian scientist Ivan Mikulčić during the 9-10th century (the reign of Symeon) a symbiosis was carried out between the numerically weak Bulgars and the numerous Slavic tribes in that broad area from the Danube to the north, to the Aegean Sea to the south, and from the Adriatic Sea to the west, to the Black Sea to the east, who accepted the common ethnonym "Bulgarians". During the 10th century (when Samuil ruled) the Bulgarians established a form of ethnic identity that was far from modern nationalism but helped them to survive as a distinct entity through the centuries. Macedonian identiy was developed 1,000 years later. Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I can agree partially on this one. But as I said, I was forced by your disrespectful attitude towards Horace Lunt and labeling his theories as frenzy. My aim was not Samoil, but your attitude. We will talk out Samoil on his article not here. --Forbidden History (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby so, what happens now with my answers about my sources that you have noted as unreliable source and verification failed (have you read what I answered and have you checked the pages I'm reffering to? My edit on them was named Vandalism by yourself. And you did exactly the same about Pande Eftimov (deleted my verification failed tags). There is no such thing as Macedonian Bulgarian, there can be Bulgarian from Macedonia , but again you need to present solid proof of that. Such made up term didn't exist in 1956.--Forbidden History (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Simply remove them, leaving only the Yugoslav communist era one, and that of Rossos, although both are biased and dubious, or find better per WP:RS, and substitute these, and change the sentence in accordance with cited by you sources. Jingiby (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should I remove them? They stand for what they are quoted. In other words, If I ask you, how you know that Goce Delcev is on some picture, I should delete all your sources because only relevant recognition of the image of Goce can be done by the books of his time and people that knew how he looked, all the rest cannot be reliable source according to yourself. History doesn't work like that. It is build one over another, you cannot remove the foundations and old sources on which all the rest build upon.--Forbidden History (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Introductory Text Issue!

The intro part of this article is totally wrong. The plate is found in Bitola and it cannot be labeled as medieval Bulgarian stone inscription! It can be Macedonian medieval inscription (the plate is found in Macedonia and kept in Macedonia - the Official Gazette of Macedonia is very clear of which artefacts belong to Macedonia. And whether it is Bulgarian or Macedonian by the kings written on it it is a point of discussion -it's not like finished and closed dispute, and that is what the whole problem with the plate actually is. Therefore that part needs amendments cause it's not stand on neutral side, but is instantly taking the attention of the reader that he is about to witness some Bulgarian inscription. And also it cannot say it belongs to Ivan Vladislav from 1015/17, cause there are scientists that say that belong to Ivan Asen and that is from 13th century. Therefore, let me know whether you or I should make those changes?--Forbidden History (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, when this artifact was build, such a state did not exist, when it was discovered, such a state, a subject of the international law, also did not exist, and as far as I know, an independent state with such a name does not exist today too. Jingiby (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No one knows when this artifact was build. It became artifact when people discovered it. And it happened in Socialistic Republic of Macedonia. Present North Macedonia is the same country. What International Law is there about ones country artefacts? Under which law this plate is called Bulgarian? The plate is found in Macedonia and belongs to Macedonia, as simple as that. You will continue bullying me with your friends here or you will start editing the facts?--Forbidden History (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As for Introductory part I suggest the text: "The Bitola inscription is a medieval Bulgarian stone inscription written in the Old Church Slavonic language in the Cyrillic alphabet." to be changed with "The Bitola inscription is a medieval stone inscription written in the Old Church Slavonic language in the Cyrillic alphabet from Byzantine era."--Forbidden History (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As the article itself states most of the researchers believe that the inscription is the last written source of the First Bulgarian Empire with an accurate dating, while the rest argue it is from the Second Bulgarian Empire. Wikipedia is not a place for POV-pushing. Jingiby (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby If it's not POV-pushing then don't push your Bulgarian theories here. Whether it belonged to Ivan Asen or to Ivan Vladislav, now belongs to Macedonia. I asked for neutrality I didn't say to write Macedonian Inscription-but to write "The Bitola inscription is a medieval stone inscription written in the Old Church Slavonic language in the Cyrillic alphabet from Byzantine era." since the science haven't make their final words on it whether it is of Asen or Vladislav. --Forbidden History (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to your idea to disrupt sourced content, undisputed since decade, backed by academic source and supported by the prevailing academic consensus. Jingiby (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is your opinion not to the science. I asked for neutrality, but obviously that's not something that you can respect. That is intro part, and it should STAY NEUTRAL! Person that reads the text should make up his mind about the plate, not yourself.--Forbidden History (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Horace Lunt Part

Hi Jingiby, Apcbg revert my editing on Horace Lunt and asked me to discuss it over. I deleted the part at the end of the sentence where it said that Horace supports the theory that the plate was forgery and that is simply not true. He never ever said such thing. The other part that was removed by Apcbg was the approach and explanation of Horace Lunt, why he doesn't agrees on the results of Moshin and Zaimovs. Do you see any problem with that edit of mine?--Forbidden History (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I also think that the section about the alternative views became too long. I offer to stop expanding it, because it became larger then the section discussing the leading theory. I do not object to make it shorter, per WP:UNDUE.Jingiby (talk)

Then maybe the whole article should contain sections per the scientists that worked on the inscription. I don't see a reason, half of the article to be devoted for the invented texts of Zaimovs and all the rest to be called Alternative views and pushed inside 5 sentences. I made new topic Latest Discoveries and you delete it. So, I think that the structure needs to have all scientist equal approach and room for them.--Forbidden History (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby Waiting your proposal here. This is about Bitola Inscription article not about Zaimovs Inscription. So, NPOV should stand above all.--Forbidden History (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby still no answer from your side. Apcbg, please undo your last action, cause obviously no one is interested to discuss this matter. Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

All publications below are supporting the view John Vladislav was the author of the text. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of fringe views. Jingiby (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009 ISBN 0810855658, p. 195.
• Reuter, Timothy, ed. (2000). The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 3, c.900–c.1024. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 600. ISBN 978-1-13905572-7..
• The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer, Paul Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-521-81530-4, pp. 29-30.
• Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, Cambridge medieval textbooks, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0-521-81539-8, p. 246.
• Basil II and the governance of Empire (976-1025), Oxford studies in Byzantium, Catherine Holmes, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-927968-3, pp. 56-57.
• Das makedonische Jahrhundert: von den Anfängen der nationalrevolutionären Bewegung zum Abkommen von Ohrid 1893-2001; ausgewählte Aufsätze, Stefan Troebst, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2007, ISBN 3-486-58050-7, S. 414.
• Krieg und Kriegführung in Byzanz: Die Kriege Kaiser Basileios II. Gegen die Bulgaren (976-1019), Paul Meinrad Strässle, Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar, 2006, ISBN 341217405X, p. 172.
• Византийский временник, Институт истории (Академия наук СССР), Институт славяноведения и балканистики (Академия наук СССР), Институт всеобщей истории (Российская академия наук) Изд-во Академии наук СССР, 1973, стр. 266.
• Bŭlgarski ezik, Institut za bŭlgarski ezik (Bŭlgarska akademiia na naukite) 1981, p. 372.
• Срђан Пириватрић, „Самуилова држава. Обим и карактер“, Византолошки институт Српске академије науке и уметности, посебна издања књига 21, Београд, 1997, стр. 183.
• Ivan Vladislav. In Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (2013). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Retrieved 19 Feb. 2019.
• Иван Микулчиќ, Средновековни градови и тврдини во Македонија. (Македонска академија на науките и уметностите — Скопје, 1996), стр. 140-141.

I'm fine with that. Quote them on the article. I'm protesting why I'm allowed to present the "Alternative Views"? You are presenting the science-fictional text made up by Zaimov as valid one and that text does not exists on the plate itself. That is a HUGE LIE and MISINTERPRETATION of the FACTS! Whether your authors here worked on the plate or on the images photoshoped by Zaimovs is not your or mine to judge, the time will tell. Over here the article should be NPOV and it isn't.--Forbidden History (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby why are you deleting the words of Horace Lunt? That is what he wrote about them.--Forbidden History (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101. Jingiby (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

New sentence.

This new text is not verified: Moshin, Ugrinovska-Skalovska, as most of the researchers do not accept the 13 row text made-up by Yordan Zaimov. Secondary sources claim, that the the reconstructions of Skalovska, Moshin and Zaimov are very similar, and Velenis, Lund, etc. are supporters of a fringe view, but not most of the researchers. Fringe view is simply not prevailing view. Jingiby (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, Moshin second review of the plate from 1971, describes the whole text and he literally says, "I can agree with Zaimov only on two reconstructed words". Please read what Moshin said in his article (Мошин, Владимир. Уште за битолската плоча од 1017 година), and then return to my last edits. And please list which authors that worked on the plate agrees with 13 rows of the text? What do you mean "is not verified". We are discussing the reconstructed text, not the plate in general. All these researchers are decipher and reading 12 rows of text. Please shows us other researchers that read 13 rows of text.? Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

And I forgot to add Matthiessen to those researchers. You call the majority of researchers that are supporting "fringe theory" and Zaimov (which is supproted only by his wife), has the correct theory? Please be reasonable.--Forbidden History (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the article. Velenis and Kostic, who are one of the last researchers, have summarized, most of the researchers believe that the inscription is the last written source of the First Bulgarian Empire with an accurate dating, while some others argue it is from the 13th century, and only a single study proclaims it as a forgery. And Zaimov is cited everywhere in academic circles. Not Lund etc. Jingiby (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby why are you manipulating the audience once again. Please type what does it say on page 257, second column in the middle? It says:"Немам причини да полемизирам со чувствата на национална гордост на Ј.Заимов што го довело до овој невкусен испад" - Translation:"I have no reason to argue with the feelings of national pride of J. Zaimov that led to this tasteless outburst". Your original research is not needed here, stop vandalizing the article, and read the sources you are quoting next time. Thanks.--Forbidden History (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, as for Elena Kostic and Velenis, you are again mixing the things here. I didn't said anything about the dating of the plate in my last edits. It says that the majority of researchers do not agree with the 13 rows of text made up by Zaimov-which obviously you are pushing to have the main center part of the whole article. Can we put the Moshin text instead Zaimovs in the central part, which at least has 12 rows of text as the plate itself? Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Moshin

I'm moving this text to discuss before publishing in the main article; I may move couple of more such sentences:

Could we get some exact quotes? This sounds more political than scientific.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Moshin, criticized Zaimov as well and pointed out his nationalistic approach towards the whole Bitola Inscription case, he doesn't see any reason to discuss the national pride of Zaimov expressed in his work about the plate. Moshin, Ugrinovska-Skalovska, as most of the researchers do not accept the 13 row text made-up by Yordan Zaimov.

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски I already provided the quote above. Here it is once again: "Немам причини да полемизирам со чувствата на национална гордост на Ј.Заимов што го довело до овој невкусен испад" - Translation:"I have no reason to argue with the feelings of national pride of J. Zaimov that led to this tasteless outburst". As for the rest, all the researchers support 12 rows of the text, the Zaimov couple made up whole first row and therefore they claim 13 row of text. I hope it is clear now.Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски, why have you inserted copy of the plate? That is not how the plate looks like. You have the original image with 12 row of text, what Zaimov made up in their studio should not be centered in this article. Obviously no researcher approves their 13 rows of text.--Forbidden History (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. I don’t see this relevant for the article, as it’s a personal opinion of the author, who claims that there are some national pride feelings by Mr. Zaimov. We don’t argue with opinions, and we certainly don’t use them as arguments in the main articles - I hope you would agree with that. The picture I’ve included is something that comes from the home of one of the prominent Macedonian writers and politicians - Venko Markovski. I find it an useful fact, especially that with the black ink are the actual letters as found on the original. Certainly it’s not centered, but is included exactly in the relevant part. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. You just pointed out that the very first person that worked on the plate Moshin, his opinion is not relevant to you, but it is relevant that some politician/writer put an picture of the copy of the Zaimov made up text? Sorry, what Moshin said is totally opposite of what the article says and that line needs to be part of this article. Therefore I'm returning back the edits and deleting the made up fringe copy of the Bitola Inscription. Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not asking you to agree with me, I am kindly suggesting we solve the issues on this talk page, and then, once the contested issues are solved, we will put the agreed text in the article. Otherwise, we can keep on editing the main article and revert each edit, but that will not be productive.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any proposal from your side. I need to explain myself on Talk pages with cited sources just because you didn't like what is written? Please explain what's the problem with the text that was added by me? Those are words of Moshin and they are relevant. The problem of 13 rows of text, is once again relevant and I cited 7 authors that worked with the plate and none of them agrees with 13 rows of text-but 12 rows of text. Can you shows me one single link except Yordan and his wife that worked on the plate and that recreates 13 rows of text? If not, please return my edits,thanks.--Forbidden History (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски, will you provide one single source that agrees with 13 rows of text or not? You wanted to discuss and you you are not discussing?--Forbidden History (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Here’s how it works: a controversial edit is moved from the main article here. It’s been discussed in a calm, collegial way, and once agreement is achieved, it is either returned, or not. I already explained (after you kindly provided the exact quote) what the problem is - Mr. Moshin’s personal opinion about the motivation of Mr. Zaimov is irrelevant. Unless you can show a document, which proves that it was “чувствата на национална гордост” of Mr. Zaimov, which “го довело до овој невкусен испад”, then Mr. Moshin’s opinion is just an opinion, not supported by the facts. I am not removing your edits for the sake of engaging in an editorial war, but because I want the article to be correct. Let’s solve things one by one. I hope you would agree that we don’t have any documents to prove Mr. Moshin’s opinion as true, correct? Last, but not least - please, keep in mind that such edits should normally take a little bit of time, there’s no rush, no need to write and if you don’t get a response by 14 minutes, to write once more, perhaps somewhat in a hurry. These edits could wait a day, or a two, and nothing will happen in the world that would make them so urgent, as for us to work on them on a Saturday evening (in my time zone), OK? Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски, out of all nonsense written in this article (with those controversial sections about the Tito Stalin era, that the museum was hiding the plate and such nonsense), you found to discuss with me if what Moshin wrote about the Zaimov national pride is relevant or not? I don't understand what do you want me to show you the pdf of the text or what? OK then, Zaimovs text is just their opinion, not supported by any fact nor by any author as well. Should I delete everything related to Zaimovs work on this plate? Once again I'm asking you to show me one single researcher that worked on the plate that agrees of 13 rows of text. Obviously there isn't any. Therefore my edit was correct and you are saying that you are up for a correct article, but yet still deleting it. If Moshin decided to write those lines about Zaimov than he had reason to write them as simple as that. I'm quoting sources and written stuff, and that is what is written. Please leave aside your nationalism and face the facts. Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidden History, sorry to burst your bubble but all humans are related to one another. Just 75,000 years ago, following the Toba mega eruption there were less than 15,000 humans on the entire planet Earth. So you can push conspiracy theories about historical evidence, but you are exactly the same as the Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians that Macedonists tend to dislike. Albeit for the social constructs that are nationality and languages. I recommend the book Imagined Communities -- SeriousCherno (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What conspiracy theory, I quoted the researcher that worked with the plate itself, or you going to tell me now that only half of his work can be cited and the other half it cannot be cited, because it doesn't fir the Bulgarian bubble? As you can see I wrote: "Majority of researchers don't support the Zaimovs 13 rows of text, I didn't say no one, just to keep it balanced, but actually there is no one supporting fringe made up text by Zaimov couple).Veni Markovski is pushing to do an original research (to find out the feeling of Moshin-I cited his work, I wasn't researching his feelings).Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with “Forbidden history” that there is more that needs to be edited in this article, which doesn’t mean his (or her) proposed text should stay. Mr. Moshin shares his opinion about Mr. Zaimov, therefore this is not neutral point of view, and cannot be allowed in the article. I am collecting some more documents in order to share more sources, but it takes time, as like most of the Wikipedia editors, I do these edits, when I have a few minutes to spend here. If someone claims that a personal opinion by one priest turned into a scientist about another person, is relevant, one would expect some evidence to show that this opinion is based on facts. Since there are no such facts, we can’t just let it be in the article. I hope that now you understand better why your edit is not acceptable. By the way, claiming that another editor should put aside their nationalism, tells more about the person, who claims this, and not about the accused. In a funny way, what you share about me - that I have some kind of nationalism, is the same what Moshin has said about Zaimov: an opinion, without any evidence to support it. So, please, avoid personal attacks (ad hominem), if you want to have a normal conversation.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски, No I won't agree with your cherry picking of Moshin's article. He explains why he say that-it is because of the Zaimovs occupation to emphasize the "Bulgarian origin" on the plate and not taking the researchers neutral approach. He also talks about Zaimov's poor knowledge in the old Cyrillic grammar. I won't be part of any original research that you want me to perform over Moshin's claim about Zaimov work-I cite the writing not any personal emotions or whatsoever. By the way Vladimir Moshin is not of Macedonian origin to defend any Macedonian side, while Zaimov is Bulgarian and obviously defends his proud national background, which was spotted by Moshin. Can you also explain once again why there is image of a fabricated copy with non existing text, that has nothing to do with the original Bitola plate? Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Forbidden history", please, let's be more collegial, but more importantly, not include feelings in the discussion. Arguments like "he is not of Macedonian origin" and therefore he doesn't "defend any Macedonian side" are irrelevant. For example, I am born in Macedonia, so according to your arguments, I cannot write objectively about Macedonia, can I? On the other hand, I don't know where you are born, but if we accept your argument (and you are a Macedonian) would that mean that your edits are actually not objective, because you are Macedonian? So, again - we are not talking about us, the editors, but about what edits are to be entered in the article - edits, which are objective, neutral, based on facts, and not on opinions. I have explained already (you admit it, as you are asking me to explain it "once again") why the picture is worth having in the article, in the section about Zaimov's interpretation. The text of that section actually is identical with the picture, so I am not sure what your concern is. As to you saying you won't be part of any original research over Moshin's claims, I didn't ask you to be part of it, and that's normal, because neither I have said there will be such an "original research", nor I am a scientist to conduct such an "original research". But as an editor, I just pointed out that you have quoted Moshin's opinion, and not any facts.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I quoted Moshin work, not his feelings, if he thought that it was important to mention that in his article, then it is important. I mentioned his nationality to prove that if one Russian researcher, felt that from the work of Zaimov's who am I or you to deny it? As I said Wikipedia is quoting relevant authors and their works/texts and books. I quoted his article from a book. I didn't do original research and came up with those words on my own. They are inside the book-and you need to understand that. And you suppose to judge whether the words of Moshins are Fact or Oppinion? (sorry but that is Original Research) and it is not allowed here. As for the picture and the text that is another huge problem with this article, but since you are up for a "neutral good article" that part doesn't bother you or it is bothering you? There should be a text written of the leftovers of the plate, not what some researcher thought that is written, which text (with 13 rows of text) is not supported by any other researcher. So, how about deleting the picture (of the forged copy of the plate) along with the fabricated text of Zaimov and place the text of Moshin? Under which rules you decided that Zaimovs made-up and fabricated text is more accurate then Moshin?--Forbidden History (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems I need to quote what you have included in the article, "Moshin, criticized Zaimov as well and pointed out his nationalistic approach towards the whole Bitola Inscription case, he doesn't see any reason to discuss the national pride of Zaimov expressed in his work about the plate". We are not arguing if this sentence is in the book or not - I trust you have quoted Moshin correctly. I am just stating that what Moshin wrote is not a fact, but his opinion. Moshin believes that there's national pride, and nationalistic approach. If that is indeed the case, then you should not quote Moshin, but the facts, which support this statement. What Moshin has been thinking, while writing, we are not aware. If you insist on including these words, then you should also state that they are not supported by the facts. I would agree to include some wording, which shows that Moshin is (obviously?) biased, if he alleges Zaimov's nationalism, while no evidence are being provided. Please, note - I am not saying Zaimov is or isn't a nationalist; that's not the point, the point is if Moshin words are supported by evidence. It's not a good idea to delete the text by Zaimov, even if it is there to show that this is one version of interpreting the text. If you find other quotes by Moshin, which are not opinions, we could discuss and include them. As for the current text, and based on the above arguments, here's a version we can discuss:

Moshin, criticized Zaimov as well, however his criticism was based on Moshin's opinion that Zaimov has some unproven "nationalistic approach towards the whole Bitola Inscription case"; Moshin further continued to insist that there's some alleged "national pride of Zaimov expressed in his work about the plate", which Moshin wouldn't discuss. The latter statement Moshin also didn't support with facts.

Just a proposal, but as I said, once I read some more documents, I will be able to provide more concrete texts. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски, can we discuss how the paragraph should look, instead how we feel about the sentence? like this proposal you just gave-it is far more productive then discussing mine and yours opinion on Moshin. Here is my proposal:

Moshin, criticized Zaimov reconstruction of the text, especially adding whole top row with the year ЅФКВ 6523 (year of 1015), inspired by the plate of Asen from 1230. This top row was actually criticized by the Zaimov reviewer Alexander Milev as well, in his "Исторически преглед" (1971). Moshin notes that there's some alleged "national pride" of Zaimov, expressed in his work about the plate, which Moshin wouldn't discuss. The latter statement Moshin support with the fact that Zaimov, emphasized the terms Bulgaria and Bulgarian in his work. Moshin,Ugrinovska-Skalovska, as most of the researchers do not accept the 13 row text made-up by Yordan Zaimov.--Forbidden History (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)