Talk:Eugene N. Borza

Borza's recognition

Regarded by whom and by what standards? As per WP:AWW ("...is widely regarded as..."), I will remove this bit, unless someone else offers something constructive. I'm not doing it now, although I could, because I want others to debate on this. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing this bit. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some links that show who regards him "widely"...

http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10224&lid=9

"He is an authority in the history and archaeology of Ancient Macedonia and the Classical Revival in Greece. "

and this:

http://www.cams.psu.edu/resources/scholarships.shtml

"The Eugene N. Borza Award in Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies honors and recognizes outstanding achievement by undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State who are participating in the education abroad program in Athens. The award was created by and is named for Professor Emeritus of Ancient History Eugene N. Borza, an expert on Greek history-- particularly Macedonia and its rulers--who was a member of the Department of History faculty for many years and also served as Head of the Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies. Professor Borza initiated the Athens Program and directed it for two years."

and this:

http://media.www.unogateway.com/media/storage/paper968/news/2002/01/29/News/Leading.Macedon.Expert.To.Speak.At.Uno.Feb.5-2545080.shtml

"Leading Macedon expert to speak at UNO Feb. 5"

and this:

http://www.athenscentre.gr/Guest%20Speakers.htm

"Eugene Borza- historian, expert in Macedonian Civilization."

etc, etc, etc.

And as I pointed out on the talk page of Ancient Macedonians, a book has been published in honour of his contributions to the study of ancient Macedon.

http://community.livejournal.com/megalexandros/57510.html

"Macedonian Legacies: Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza"

gingervladGingervlad (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic recognition means "impact". There are tools for determining a scholar's impact. If you can provide such references, please do so. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise that you do not care for Borza..and I would be curious to see what tools you are referring to. What is the "impact" you are looking for? Is this, respectfully, something you have decided yourself?

Do the opinions of other scholars matter? That he is still included in the syllabus in classes? Is his work cited in other published materials?

Really the onus is on you to show that he hasn't had an impact. Or that any of the above are wrong. Can you show references that prove Borza has not had an impact?

See even in the coffee table book on Alexander by Laura Foreman. She asked Borza, not others, to guide her in the book. (note: While the book is lush with illustrations and I own it for that reason, her conclusions don't jibe with mine, or perhaps even Borza's as he notes in the book.) This is a book aimed at a general audience.

http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Conqueror-Laura-Foreman/dp/0306812932

Scholars such as Badian, Green, Heckel, Burstien, Anson, Palagia, Carney, Thomas, and on and on have recognised his work. Some of the same names on the letter to Obama, from Stephen Miller's site are the same ones honoring Borza in the new Festschrift. And the Fellowship in his honor noted above, again...this denotes someone who has had impact.

Do not discount his "impact" outside the Greek/Macedonian problem, because, as I have said here and elsewhere, his work has been misappropriated.

Even in the past year, National Geographic has had an article about his and Palagia (again, a signatory on the letter to Obama) opinions on the occupant of Tomb II. This collaboration should tell you something. That he is still active and that other recognised scholars in his filed do not consider him "fringe'.

gingervladGingervlad (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I plan to start an decent expansion of the Borza article if no one has any objections. I'll give it a few days and would appreciate any comments (and help!). Gingervlad (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead or Alive?

The article says "was an emeritus professor". Is he alive? The title of Emeritus is lifelong.

Greece and Ancient Macedonia.

I have read Borza's opinions for the diferrences between Greeks and ancient Macedonians. He claims that they was a great antipathy between them, but this does not mean anything. There was a great antipathy between Athenians and Spartans, but they were both Greeks. Only the citizens of North Macedonia, are interested to prove that the Ancient Macedonias were not Greeks, and that their language was not related with the Greek language. In some articles North Macedonia appears as Macedonia, and pella(stone) appears as an Ancient Greek word, allthough it was an Ancient Macedonian word.Jestmoon(talk) 16:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Expanding section relating to Borza's views on modern Macedonians

I wish to dispute the reversion made by Jingiby of an edit that I made as of January 30, 2024‎ with the purpose of expanding the section on Borza's views to further clarify his views on the ethnogenesis of modern Macedonians. Prior to January 17, 2024, the section read as follows:

Borza also noted that the ancient Macedonians were not related to the modern ethnic Macedonians.[5] He wrote that the modern-day ethnic Macedonians "who have had no history, need one" and that they are "a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present".[7]

This was the result of a revision made as of November 25, 2023, prior to which, the text was as follows:

Borza also noted that the ancient Macedonians were not related to the modern ethnic Macedonians. Per Borza, the modern-day ethnic Macedonians, are a recently emergent people in search of their past.

This was the result of a series of revisions made on June 10, 2023, before which the original text added read as follows:

Borza also noted that the ancient Macedonians were not related to the modern ethnic Macedonians. Per Borza, the modern-day ethnic Macedonians, are a recently emergent people in search of their past.

This text was added as December 2022, which indicates that for the better part of two whole years Borza's views on the subject of Macedonian ethnogenesis has been misrepresented solely to focus on the fact they don't have a link to antiquity and to indicate without clarification that they were a "newly emergent people," which vastly oversimplifies Borza's views on the matter.

The fact that this page has been allowed to include Borza's views on this subject for two years indicates that the topic of Borza's views on Macedonian ethnogenesis constitutes a valid subject matter for this page, otherwise the text would not have been included in the first place. The fact that revisions occurred on June 10 and November 25 of 2023 also indicate the text has been a continuing source of vigorous debate without final resolution.

Hence, Jingiby's decision to overturn my recent addition of the following text is without merit. This subject matter has been deemed appropriate for this Wikipedia page, contrary to Jingiby's claims in the revert message, and I propose that the additional text be included. This is for the sake of a man who sacrificed time and energy and went out of his way to accompany a young girl to a cemetery and who did additional research regarding the controversial subject of Macedonian ethnogenesis, at risk to his personal reputation by wading into a political dispute which he generally chose to steer clear from. It's not fair to now misrepresent his views on the matter given the sacrifice he made and the effort he put into doing this research.

The text I added is fully supported by citations and quotes that can be easily verified by consulting Borza's original essay ("Macedonian Redux"):

At the same, regarding the ethnogenesis of today's Macedonian people (who live in the Republic of North Macedonia), Borza did not subscribe to the notion that the Macedonian ethnicity was the "invention" of Josip Broz Tito, leader of the former Yugoslavia, as is sometimes alleged. Borza states: "Thus it is clear that Tito did not invent either a Macedonian ethnicity or a Macedonian language—as has been alleged—when he created a Macedonian Republic as a part of the postwar Yugoslav federal state. He rather provided legitimacy and support for a movement that had been underway- since at least the late nineteenth century." Thus, Borza affirms that Macedonian ethnogenesis had begun since at least the late nineteenth century, which he confirms through personal anecdotes about visiting the gravestones of Macedonian immigrants at a cemetery in Steeltown, Pennsylvania, where he found one gravestone for a person whose ethnicity was indicated as "Macedonian" and whose date of death was listed as 1906: "It is a simple, weather-worn headstone with the name of the deceased followed by (in English) 'Mace-done [sic] died Sep. 20, 1906 At Steelton Pa.' Thus, six years before the First Balkan War in which the region of Macedonia was detached from the Ottoman Empire by Serb, Greek, and Bulgarian armies, the reality of Macedonia/Macedonian already existed among Macedonian immigrants in central Pennsylvania." Borza's ultimate conclusion is that Macedonian ethnicity came about as a result of a natural and organic process of "nation-building" that had begun in the nineteenth century and reached it "culmination" under Tito's policies in the former Yugoslavia: "Tito's policy, was the culmination of a process that had been under way for the better part of a century; he provided legitimacy, for Macedonia and accelerated a natural passage of nation-building already well under way." Adding to this, Borza acknowledged the separate and distinct nature of the Macedonian language vis-a-vis other Slavic languages: "And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian."

Again, the citations can be verified by downloading the article published via De Guyter: Borza, Eugene (1999). "Macedonia Redux". In Titchener, Frances B.; Moorton, Richard F. (eds.). The Eye Expanded: Life and Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity

A free version is available: http://marpedia.blogspot.com/2020/11/macedonia-redux-and-essay-by-eugene-n.html

I'd be more than willing to send a copy of the pdf downloaded from the article behind the paywall on the De Gruyter site as well.

With that, I hope that in the interests of fairness, the proposed addition would not be reverted. And if there are no objections to the quality of the citations or the rationale outline here, the above text will be added again. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with above proposal per Wikipedia:OFFTOPIC and Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. This content is suitable for another articles as Ethnic Macedonians, Macedonian Nationalism, etc. Jingiby (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't editorialize the added text. I added a single sentence and provided a quote to support. You are editing the text to make it imply something that didn't reflect Borza's views. He was commenting specifically upon the Macedonian ethnicity, nationhood, and language, and nowhere did he describe it as a result of a joint effort of Bulgarians and Macedonians. Here is the full text:

"Thus it is clear that Tito did not invent either a Macedonian ethnicity or a Macedonian language—as has been alleged—when he created a Macedonian Republic as a part of the postwar Yugoslav federal state. He rather provided legitimacy and support for a movement that had been under way- since at least the late nineteenth century. Whatever the merits and flaw of Tito's Yugoslavia, it was an experiment in ethnic diversity based on his recognition that the best hope for a unified South Slav state against traditional antagonists was to recognize and encourage ethnic development within the Yugoslav federal system. Tito's imprimatur on a Macedonian state was an attempt to counter traditional Bulgarian influence in the region of Macedonia, From the Yugoslav federal point of view, one of the best safeguards against the Bulgarians, who were traditional enemies of the Serbs, was to give recognition to the Macedonians as a separate south Slavic ethnicity. (As of this writing, the Bulgarians, like the Greeks, still do not recognize the Macedonians as a distinct nationality.) Tito's policy, was the culmination of a process that had been under way for the better part of a century; he provided legitimacy, for Macedonia and accelerated a natural passage of nation-building already well under way." Historybuff4life4health (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, your edit contradicts what Borza wrote in the text since Borza made reference to the part played by Bulgarian nationalists in trying to undermine Macedonian identity. Hence, he wrote: "As of this writing, the Bulgarians, like the Greeks, still do not recognize the Macedonians as a distinct nationality."

This page reflects Borza's views, and this specific sentence is supposed to reflect Borza's views on the nationhood of contemporary Macedonians. Nowhere did Borza indicate that he believed the nation-building process to involve "a joint effort of Macedonians and Bulgarians," as you wrote, since part of that nation-building effort is at odds with Bulgarian interests, which is also in the text.

You are known to have an affiliation with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, so please refrain from editorializing in a way that includes your own political views in the text. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I support given that it gets condensed into 1-3 sentences, otherwise as Jingiby mentions it is better used for articles specific to Macedonians. Kromid (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point. I will add a pared down text as you suggest. I could see how the original text I proposed would create the Coatrack problem raised by Jingiby.

That being said, I think this whole page will need to go undergo a major structural revision at some point in the future. As of now, the "Views" section reduces the entirety of Borza's work to the question of the Hellenicity of the Ancient Macedonians.

Borza's work goes way beyond this, touching upon many aspects of Ancient Macedonia, including its history, economics, social and political institutions, material culture, and much more. It's just a question of credible people putting in the time and effort. As of now, the page from the Archaeological Institute is much better than the Wikipedia page. I think Borza deserves better than this, and someone should reach out to his colleagues and coworkers to see if they could get involved in this. It would go a long way in avoiding politicization of his works by various interested parties and in presenting a more balanced and holistic overview of what Borza believed and, more importantly, achieved.

If we were to expand the page at some point in the future to be more comprehensive so that it actually does justice to Borza's oeuvre, then a modified version of the original text I proposed would be more appropriate as part of a subsection of an expanded treatment of his overall "Views." Historybuff4life4health (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have secondary sources which discuss his work, then you can add them here. Otherwise calling his former colleagues here would not be a good idea due to a conflict of interest (although they are probably permitted in giving input), but I think Wikipedia does allow requesting the assistance of experts, especially if you think it's needed for the "Views" section or perhaps even for the article as a whole. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As I already wrote above, this topic is not for this article. It's quite extensive, and from here on, an edit war can break out over what to add and what not. Even more, secondary sources are needed for Borza's views, not primary as it is at the moment. Jingiby (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet this topic was included on the page for the past two years with no objection on your part. You didn't have a problem with the way the topic was addressed only because the version existing during that time conformed with your ideological priors.

No need for an edit war. We can discuss things here. An "edit war" would only break out in part due to your insistence on interpreting his views a certain way. We'll figure it out. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the recent edit you made, it implies that Macedonian "ethnicity" came about as a result of a joint Bulgarian and Macedonian struggle. This is a misrepresentation of what Borza said. I am aware of the part that you quoted but Borza said the "emergence of Macedonian nationality" was the offshoot of the Macedonian and Bulgarian struggle in a strictly chronological sense, not the ethnicity, language, and nation itself. Other quotes throughout the essay make it very clear. For example,

"By 1875, however, the first tracts appeared favoring a Macedonian nationality and language separate from standard Bulgarian,10 and the conflict had been transformed from an anti-Hellenization movement into a Bulgarian-Macedonian confrontation."

"Both Macedonian nationalism and a literary language continued to develop, despite the hostility of the three states that now laid claim to the region. "

So we'll need to tweak your edit to ensure faithfulness to Borza's intended meaning. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That is why I say that we need a secondary source, an analysis of Borza's views, made by a third party - an expert on the matter. Otherwise, I do not agree with the opinion, you have expressed above about Macedonian ethnicity. Jingiby (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of my opinion about Macedonian ethnicity. It's a question of Borza' opinion on the matter. And he was very clear that Macedonian language and ethnicity were distinct from Bulgarian.

I'm not the one who made this a topic for the current page. Other people did. And they are the ones that politicized it, and you had no objection to this being a topic for the past 2 years.

As for a secondary source, I highly doubt that anyone is interested enough to offer an opinion on the matter. We can certainly invite people to read Borza's essay "Macedonian Redux," and I am quite confident that they will agree with me based on what the text says, as I'm only being faithful to what the text says. You are the one who had to delete the original quotes, and you insist on a secondary source because on some level you probably understand that the original texts (and by extension, Borza's actual views) don't accord with your own opinions.

The question of who constitutes a valid secondary source is just fraught with issues of bias and controversy as is the original question of how to interpret the original text (at least, it's "difficult" from your point of view only because you don't agree with Borza's opinion).

I don't mind having a multitude of third-parties read "Macedonian Redux" and draw their own conclusions. I just doubt that qualified and neutral people have the time or interest to comment on this.

The page for Ernst Badian avoids the question of the Hellencity of the ancient Macedonians as well as questions about contemporary Macedonia, despite the fact that Badian didn't believed the ancient Macedonians to be Hellenes.

We could organize the page so that it's more like Badian's page, and I proposed that to Jingiby, but you rejected that proposal. So we are where we are. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you simply have misunderstood Borza. Borza does not go into details about the Bulgarian-Macedonian unity/separation, because the topic is extensive. As he writes in note #9 below the text: The confusion of the old woman in the Baldwin cemetery in the 1990s about her Bulgarian/Macedonian identity is not an isolated case, as is made clear in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), p. 690. He simply refers to the relevant academic source of information where your interpretation of what Borza wrote is completely refuted and where it says clearly and precisely: “Immigrants from Macedonia came to the United States in significant numbers during the early years of the 20th century. Until World War II almost all of them thought of themselves as Bulgarians and identified themselves as Bulgarians or Macedonian Bulgarians...The greatest advances in the growth of a distinct Macedonian-American community have occurred since the late 1950's. The new immigrants came from Yugoslavia's Socialist Republic of Macedonia, where since World War II they had been educated to believe that Macedonians composed a culturally and linguistically distinct nationality; the historic ties with Bulgarians in particular were deemphasized." Jingiby (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The footnote you mentioned (footnote #9) is merely Borza reporting on the existence of disputes regarding which dialect should be used as the literary language. It's not a statement of Borza's opinion, and it's irrelevant if the cited source you mentioned (Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups) somehow agrees with you because the act of citing a source is not the same as agreeing with the source. Borza's citing a portion of the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups is not tantamount to Borza agreeing with everything written there. In context, Borza is simply tracing a chronology of events. In fact, after he cites that source, he mentions the existence of literary evidence favoring a distinct Macedonian nationality and identity following: "By 1875, however, the first tracts appeared favoring a Macedonian nationality and language separate from standard Bulgarian,10 and the conflict had been transformed from an anti-Hellenization movement into a Bulgarian-Macedonian confrontation."

In fact, in foot #4, Borza, in analyzing the gravestone epigraphs and census data, writes the following: "There is little doubt in my mind that the toponym should be considered as a statement of the ethnicity of the deceased. This is confirmed by the preferred and common Macedonian "off," and "eff" endings to surnames (as against typically Bulgarian endings for those born in Bulgaria), and by the census reports which distinguish between the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages." Hence, Borza interprets the gravestone and census data to indicate the existence of Macedonian language and ethnicity as separate and distinct, contradicting the Harvard Encyclopedia entry you just quoted.

Personally, I think it reflects desperation on your part that in order to try and mischaracterize Borza's views (which are delineated very clearly in the essay), you have to go into footnotes and find a source that Borza quoted and then use the opinion stated in that source as if it were Borza's own opinion.

I would respectfully ask that you cease in your attempt to interpolate your political views. Again, this page is about WHAT BORZA BELIEVED, not what YOU BELIEVE. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Since your opinion of what Borza thinks about the matter is diametrically opposed to mine, we obviously will not reach a consensus. Your idea that by quoting one or two sentences but out of the context of the whole article and found them as a quintessence of it, is absolutely different from mine, which considers the author's opinion, but holistically. Moreover, your view does not correspond with any of the in-depth articles on Wikipedia dealing with the Bulgarian-Macedonian divergence. In this regard, I am removing the controversial sentence, which was added without prior discussion on your part and subsequently modified by me. I advise you, until we reach agreement here, but with the participation of the other editors who have commented on the matter, not to add texts to the article. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, you are then one who doesn't consider Borza's opinion holistically. You rely upon an obscure footnote that references the Harvard Encyclopedia, and then you use the Harvard Encyclopedia, which Borza only quotes partially and incidentally for a limited purpose without any indication that he agrees with everything in that entry, to make your point as if this Wikipedia article were about the Harvard Encyclopedia opinion instead of Borza's opinion. I have always encouraged people to read the original text and draw their own conclusions because I am confident that people will see Borza's opinion for what it is. You are the one who wants to bring in secondary sources because you know that the original text doesn't agree with your ideology.

It doesn't matter what my views are. And other Wikipedia articles related to the Macedonian-Bulgarian divergence are totally irrelevant here. What matters is BORZA'S VIEWS!!

I oppose you removing the sentence because Kromid already supported it, and your modification of it is an indication of your tacit acceptance of it. You can't agree with something and modify it and then decide to remove it because someone disagrees with how you modified it. You are acting like a spoiled child who can't get what he wants. You were okay with the sentence and then wanted to modify it (and I didn't even remove your modification either). Now you want to remove it altogether because I am disputing the basis for your modification.

You are being very childish Jingiby. I advise you to conduct yourself with a greater degree of professionalism. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You are not entitled to remove the sentence. You already agreed to keep it by virtue of the fact that you modified it. I think we should wait for other Wikipedia editors to chime in and offer their opinions.

If we are going to remove something on the basis of its being controversial, then we should remove the entire section related to the Macedonian question. However, as I said previously, you were okay with this being a topic FOR 2 YEARS ALREADY! And you were okay with it because during that time, the text agreed with your ideology. Now that someone has come along to challenge the wording of the text, you are suddenly unhappy with it and you only want to remove a small portion that doesn't fully conform to your ideological priors. Why not just remove the whole section then?

You truly are being a spoiled child who just acts out because he doesn't get what he wants. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

These below are the bot versions of the sentence under question for discussion:

1. At the same time, Borza also believed that contemporary Macedonian ethnicity came about not as an "invention" of Tito or the Communist party of the former Yugoslavia but rather as a result of a natural and organic process of "nation-building" that had begun in the nineteenth century and reached it "culmination" under Tito's policies: "Tito's policy was the culmination of a process that had been under way for the better part of a century; he provided legitimacy, for Macedonia and accelerated a natural passage of nation-building already well under way."

2. At the same time, Borza also believed that contemporary Macedonian ethnicity came about not as an "invention" of Tito or the Communist party of Yugoslavia but rather as a result of a natural and organic process of "nation-building". It had begun in the late nineteenth century as an offshoot of the joint Macedonian and Bulgarian struggle against Hellenization and reached it "culmination" under Tito's policies after WWII. Jingiby (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "bot version." What kind of "bot" did you use? How did you configure it?

In any case, I would vote for (1), as it is more fully aligned with Borza's intent. That being said, however, I'd prefer that qualified HUMAN BEINGS who are not biased or in any way connected to the Macedonian question intervene, analyze Borza's text objectively, and come to their own conclusions. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want more editors to give their opinions, you can start a RfC. I personally think all original analysis from primary sources should be removed. The section should be expanded with analysis from secondary sources and if that isn't possible, then it's best to do away with the whole section and only retaining content cited to secondary sources. In the meantime, I'd advise on following WP:FOC, because otherwise the dispute cannot be resolved. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen, that's good advice. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you designated the "Views" section as a "coatrack section" but that's not what we agreed upon in the Talk. That's your opinion about our discussion in the talk. Where did anyway say anything about designating this a "coatrack section"? That's your opinion on the matter. We should make a request for comment from object third-parties. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we wait for awhile and see if any other editors would like to chime in and offer their perspectives. I think you acted prematurely by designating the "Views" section as a "coatrack section" based on your opinion and without consulting any of us in the chat. You also acted prematurely in deleting the entire paragraph without our consent. That's not cool Jingiby. You should learn to collaborate with others, respect the Wikipedia rules and procedures, and stay true to the Wikipedia mission. Historybuff4life4health (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment From a quick glance, I believe that @Jingiby and other users are right expressing WP:COATRACK and WP:OFFTOPIC concerns, because this article is most importantly a biography. Borza's field was ancient history; the article seems to disproportionately focus on modern history, which can raise WP:UNDUE concerns. I believe that even a separate views header might be a bit problematic, because we could just quote anything out of Borza's books and present it as "views". IMO his best-known stances could be concisely summarized in a short text, based mostly on secondary sources and that's all. I believe that detailed history of modern Balkan nations has ultimately little relevancy here. Piccco (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)