Talk:Georgi Pulevski

Ethnic Macedonian

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

User:Macodudewasalreadytaken?, in many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. Pulevski's Macedonian self-identification was ambiguous. Pulevski viewed Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. He identified as a Mijak from Galičnik, then described himself as a "Serbian patriot" and later viewed him as "Bulgarian from Galičnik". Finally he viewed himself as a Macedonian, thus he changed his self-identification several times during his lifetime. For more details see: Срђан Тодоров, О народности Ђорђа Пуљевског (Srđan Todorov, About the nationality of Djordje Puljevski in Serbian). В Етно-културолошки зборник, уредник Сретен Петровић, књига XXIII (2020) Сврљиг, УДК 929.511:821.163 (09); ISBN 978-86-84919-42-9, стр. 133-144. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on first sentence (Georgi Pulevski)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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