Talk:World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Slavophone population

The passage should really read Slavophone rather than "ethnic Macedonian" population. The former is a factual observation of what these people actually were, as opposed to what the partisans wanted them to be. And, even today, "ethnic Macedonians" continue to project their own identity onto the Slavophones of Greece, who may or may not be interested in having a bar of it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That is why when I wrote that part of the article I used the term Slavophone population. But I would also like to inform you that between the two world wars the ethnic Macedonian sentiment amongst the Slavophone population in Greek Macedonia was getting more and more place - especially thanks to the activity of the illegal IMRO (United) which supported ethnic Macedonian sentiments. Starting from the proletarian internationalism policy of the communist parties, the Balkan communist parties supported the right of the Macedonian people for self-determination. The people called themselves "Macedonians" - the Yugoslav and Bulgarian communist parties used this term, while the Greek communist party used the term "Slavic-Macedonians" to refer them. The Rizospastis newspaper gives thousands of evidence that there was a strong ethnic Macedonian sentiment between the Slavophone population in northern Greece. Venizelos also referred to them as a separate people. In WW2 the partisan units from Vardar Macedonia passed several times in northern Greece and communicated with the local population (In Meglena the masters of the terrene were Vardar Macedonian partisans which were engaged in battles against the German, Bulgarian and PAO troops). The SNOF was a result of the tendency of the Slavophones that were self-determined as ethnic Macedonians to have their own organization. The triumph of the ethnic Macedonian consciousness among the population was the creation of NOF and the auxiliary organizations which mibilised the whole population. Both the Slavophone families that were supporting the IMRO during Ilinden, and those that supported the "Makedonomahoi" during 1904-1908, during the Greek Civil War declared that they are ethnic Macedonians. Did you know that half of the fighters of NOF and their families that live in Republic of Macedonians, Canada and Australia that are refugees of the Civil War in Greece in the past were supporters of the Greek cause, and the other part were supporting the Bulgarian cause. But in the period between the wars the ethnic Macedonian sentiment prevailed and after World War 2 the majority of them had ethnic Macedonian sentiments. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we'll simply never know if they were indeed a majority. Even if they were, we can be sure that not all Slavophones identified with the communist cause, let alone the "ethnic Macedonian" one with which it was affiliated. And why did the SNOF have the S in its name, if its members identified as "Macedonians" only? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orders from the KKE. SNOF was formed by Macedonians that were members of the KKE in order to destroy the Ohrana activities. It was formed by the KKE, which gave the name "Slavic-Macedonian". After SNOF destroyed Ohrana, KKE gave orders to dissolve it. But the leaders of the SNOF disagreed. When after WW2, the Macedonians from Greek Macedonia organized the NOF they didn't use the term "Slavic-Macedonians" but used the term Macedonians. Why? Because this time they were not organized by the KKE, but by themselves. P.S. About do we know if the majority of them had a identity different then Greeks, you can read here (a Greek source): Γιά το ζήτημα των Σλαβομακεδόνων - Ρέννος Μιχαλέας, ΕΛΑΣ, Θεσσαλονίκη 13.XI.1944 (σελ. 1, σελ. 2, σελ. 3, σελ. 4, σελ. 5). Regards --Revizionist (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The source also speaks of the Slavomacedonian people's "sacrifices for Greece" and the "unity of the Greek and Slavomacedonian population". It is more of a critique of their mistreatment by the Metaxas régime, rather than an affirmation of their separate "Macedonian" nationhood. Still, their distinct ethnicity is a separate issue from that of their name. There is ample evidence that they themselves identified as Slavomacedonians. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, we can always count on you, Kekrops, to start another stupid and pointless discussion like this one. Köbra ^Könverse 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Refugees from the Civil War and NOF members in their memoirs stated that the name Slavic-Macedonians was imposed to them by the Greek Communist Party, which in the middle war period was "the mother party". Slavic-Macedonian is a racist term. It is the same if you call an African-American by the insulting name "Nigger". The term "nigger" was imposed on the African-Americans, the same as the term "Slavic-Macedonians" was imposed to Macedonians. Now, the both terms are insulting to the both people. It is the same as (for example) if someone calls you "Turko-Greek", because your grandfather from Pontos spoke Turkish (like the majority of the Pontian refugees. Regards--Revizionist (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Macedonian actually, but you're wrong. Slavic-Macedonian is the equivalent of African-American; the first word denotes ethnic or racial origin, while the second refers to modern geography. As for the Pontians, their origins are Greek, not Turkish, despite their former location. I must also note that they were in what is now "Turkey" many centuries before the Turks arrived in the area. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of Macedonian? Macedonian from Pontous, Karamanlides? Pontians spoke Turkish. Karamanlides spoke only Turkish. What about the orthodox Cherkez people which were also refugees in 1925? But, ok does not matter. Slavic-Macedonian is a politically incorrect word, a racist word (because it accents the race). For only 15% of out genes have Slavic indicators. The other 85% are defined as genetic materials from the people that lived here before the coming of the Slavs. While the Arvanits do not have Greek blood in them (Albanians with Greek consciousness), and Karamanlides (Turks with Greek consciousness) and so on. So don't start racist discussions, and do not use terms to other people which are offensive and insulting to them. You dislike when we use the term Aegean Macedonia, but you use Slavic-Macedonians. The compromise is the usage of the terms ethnic Macedonians and Greek Macedonians. --Revizionist (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the native language of the Pontians is Pontic Greek. As for who is starting racist discussions, you are the one claiming that being a Slav is a question of genetics, that the Arvanites have no "Greek blood" in them (whatever that means) and that the Karamanlides are "Turks". By the way, "ethnic Macedonians" is offensive and insulting to me, since it implies that I am somehow less of a Macedonian, but that doesn't seem to bother you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You started the racist talks by telling that "Slavic" is a racial adjective in the term you use to refer to the Macedonians. I just made comparation, for you to see how does it sound like. You say that "Macedonian" is not acceptable for you, but ethnic Macedonian is a composite name which defines that it is the ethnic group, not the Greek regional group. Both are Macedonians, noone is less Macedonian than the other - the one is an ethnic and the other a Greek Macedonian. While Slavic-Macedonian is a racist word which insults the Macedonians, and you still use it. How come you don't like when people use Aegean Macedonia, but you use Slavic-Macedonian? Why the hypocrisy? P.S. I have seen a Pontian dance when i was in Greece. There was nothing Macedonian in it. I was the same dances as Turks from northern Turkey, Georgians and part of Armenians have - that is, it is a Caucasus national dance. This is a Pontian folk song. Which language is this? Do you understand it? What is Macedonian, or even Greek in it? --Revizionist (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the Pontians are bordering on racial vilification and I would watch it if I were you. If Slavic is a racist word, why are you listed under Slavic peoples? "Ethnic Macedonian", in accordance with every other use of the word "ethnic", implies that you are somehow indigenous to Macedonia, and that the Greeks, of course, are not. Your remarks about the "Greek Macedonians" make it obvious that you see them as nothing but "Turks" and interlopers. Apart from the Anatolian refugees, there were and are native Greeks in Macedonia whose existence you deliberately ignore. Regarding the dance, you say that "there was nothing Macedonian in it". That's your problem; you have a very monolithic understanding of what Macedonian can mean. What makes you think that your Slavic dances, which have much in common with those of the Bulgarians and Serbs, are any more Macedonian? It is precisely that attitude that is offensive to Greeks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kekrops, but used the comparatives only to let you understand how does it feel when some Greeks "you are Slavs, you came here, you are not Macedonians". You see, to Pontians and the other refugees that came to Greek Macedonia in 1925, the ethnic Macedonians were indigenous. So there is no absolute truth, and there can be no absolute terminology. That is why I say - In articles about Republic of Macedonia or about Macedonians in countries where they are referred to as Macedonians to use the term "Macedonian", and for articles connected only with Greek issue to use the word "Macedonian" for Macedonian Greeks. BUT for articles that mention both Macedonian Greeks and the ethnic group that call themselves Macedonians to use the words "ethnic Macedonians" and "Greek Macedonians" or "Macedonian Greeks". That is what I wanted to say. But anyway, let's end this discussion. I used the term Slavophone population as general in the article in the first place. I just wanted you to know that during the Greek Civil War the vast majority of these people had a formed identity different from the Greek, and Zachariadis confirms that in his speech on the Fifth Plenum of the KKE, and Markos Vafijadis confirms with it in his memoirs. I also explained you that the term Slavic Macedonians is to the ethnic Macedonians a racist term (analogical to the term nigger), and Macedonians feel offended when are referred to by it (just as you are when people say that Pontian culture has nothing to do with Macedonia). So I would only like to indicate that most appropriate would be to use ethnic Macedonians instead of Slavic Macedonians. Gia sas. --Revizionist (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"You see, to Pontians and the other refugees that came to Greek Macedonia in 1925, the ethnic Macedonians were indigenous." So what were the Macedonians, then? Or was Macedonia inhabited exclusively by "ethnic Macedonians"? As for the question of how to distinguish between the two, WP:MOSMAC already prescribes the use of "Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonians in contexts where there is need for disambiguation", so I can't help you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops, do not be so nervous, I only asked you if you could understand the Pontian folk song, because I wanted you to get the point. The fact that the song is in Turkish, does not make the boy and his ansesters Turks, for me and for you they are Greeks. The Arvanits, we know that they have Albanian origin, but they had very very strong Greek identity, and nobody can make them something else than Greeks. I respect that, I respect people's right for self-determination. And it will be good if you also respect other people's right of determination too. The fact that the song is in Turkish does not make the boy a Turk, the same as the fact that the Macedonian language is Slavic does not make the Macedonians 100% pure Slavs. Every user here knows that all of my discussions are civil and friendly. As for the other issue, I have never said that the Macedonians are direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians. I know that it is crazy to think that. But nobody can deny that when the Slavs settled Macedonia, they also mixed with the local population. You know that all of the teritory except Thessaloníki and Chalkidiki were inhabited by Slavic speaking people. P.S. The rules about the naming can be changed. Thello na me katalavenis giati grafo auto. Thelo na kseris oti otan mou les "Slavo-Makedonas", einai to idio san na leo "Ponto-Makedonas". Den einai hthikos. Gia sas. --Revizionist (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the boy is singing in Pontic GREEK, not Turkish. And you can stop bandying the word "Turk" around as a racial epithet; you seem to be forgetting your centuries under Ottoman rule. And no, I can't understand the Pontian folk song because I'm not Pontian, and Pontic Greek is not intelligible to those of us who speak only standard Greek. That doesn't mean the Pontians who have lived in Macedonia for several generations now aren't Macedonian or Greek. As for the Slavs mixing with the local population, no objection there, but do you have any idea what the local population of Macedonia was in the sixth century AD? As for Slav Macedonian being "the same" as Pontic Macedonian or Pontic Greek, I agree. And neither is offensive; you just say it is because you want a monopoly on the name. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a monopoly over the name, I just tell you that Slavic Macedonian or Slav Macedonian is offensive (as nigger is offensive to African American, or as you are offended when someone uses Aegean Macedonia instead of Greek Macedonia. Instead of "slavic" use "ethnic". In both cases it notes that it is another separate people from the "Greek" Macedonians who are also Macedonians, as the first are.. So instead of Slavic use Ethnic - neither of them are monopoloy, just the second one is not racist and not offensive. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic" is racist and offensive for the reasons stated above, so no can do. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic is a adjective describing a people, while Slavic is a racist adjective which is offending people. --Revizionist (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and when I offer to use it in Wikipedia's own voice despite the offence it causes Greeks, you oppose it. Don't want a monopoly over the name? No, of course not. Talk about hypocrisy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Toci (in vain), Greeks were initially 43% of the population of Greek Macedonia and after the population exchanges they had become 89%[1]. Claims that the Greek presence in Macedonia was minimal or non-existent are ridiculous and a part of the all too familiar irredentist rhetoric which presents Greeks as a foreign and alien element in Macedonia (ironic considering that the Greeks would form the majority in a United Macedonia, before the proposed ethnic cleansing of course). "Slavic Macedonian" is purely in reference to the group's language (which is the only way the term "Slav" is used to refer to contemporary people nowadays) and this makes it the natural equivalent of "Greek Macedonian". This is also the reason why Revizionist's racist claims that the Pontic Greeks are "Turks" (by what, geography?) cannot be compared to the term "Slavic Macedonian". That term was "introduced and initially accepted" by those it referred to (what was that about KKE "imposing" it on them?). It also cannot be compared to "nigger" since that term is clearly intended to be pejorative (and of course is not used by the Encarta). Equivalent terms to "nigger" I suppose would be "FYROMian", "Bulgaroskopian", "FYROMongol" etc.--Dexippus (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the passage to "Slavic-speaking population", since the partisans directed their propaganda towards the local Slavophone community as a whole, not just those that had already converted to the "ethnic Macedonian" cause. I've also clarified which "Macedonian partisans" Tempo was lobbying on behalf of, and which Macedonian members of the KKE formed the SNOF, given the meaning of Macedonian in the context of Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Still massively POV

Some weeks ago I noted a some pretty severe problems with anti-Bulgarian and anti-Serbian POV writing in this article (see #Recent revisions thread above). These passages are still there in Revizionist's version. No cleanup seems to have been done. I'm now going to take out the whole "Background" section from the article, and request that it be rewritten from scratch (and shorter). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, if you think that something is not neutral, please feel free to adjust the words, but Kobra keeps on erasing 80% of the article, and that is a problem. I wrote the background very quickly, and it may not look neutral, but OK, now we will prepare a new informative background. Regards colleagues. --Revizionist (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I already included a short general-informative background. --Revizionist (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up an article, i.e. removing POV if need be, is not vandalism. Köbra ^Könverse 08:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Revizionist and Kobra, you are now both well over 3RR if I'm not quite mistaken. I'll get some uninvolved admin to look into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, strike the 3RR, didn't notice you both took a break yesterday. So, make that "blatantly revert-warring" instead... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He called my article ugly... that weawy huwt my feewings. Köbra ^Könverse 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up some of the more blatant POV in the opening paragraphs. As for capitals, they are used far less in correct, grammatical English than many people think, and Axis powers has the p in lower case. But whatever. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how you write it, as there are many rules for punctuation and grammar and many of them vary, but this is really not something worth debating over. Köbra ^Könverse 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Future, if you see the history, you will notice that I did not brake the 3RR. Please tell Kobra not to erase 80% of the article that is backed with references and photos. Reverting vandalism is not vandalism according to the WikiRules. Ragards. --Revizionist (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And how are my edits vandalism? Because I erased "80% of the article"? Where are you getting your statistics anyway? Maybe you make a habit of over-exaggerating, am I right? Köbra ^Könverse 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

National police of Slovenia???

Kontračeta - The Kontračete were Anti-Partisan Units controlled by the National Police of Slovenia.

What is the meaning of National police of Slovenia? There was no Slovenia during WW2, it was occupied and divided among the occupiers. Was that some collaborant police created by Italians? Is there any further link that could shed more light on the matter? NikNovi (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the users that contributed in the creation of this article made a mistake with this. The Kontraceta unit was created by the Bulgarians during WW2. This data will be adjusted. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. The book I cited must be wrong. Köbra ^Könverse 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I am reverting the article to the last un-vandalized v ersion. User Kobra is constatly erasing 80% of the article, although it is backed with photos and references. He just erases it. I will now return the article to its original version - that is reverting VANDALISM. --Revizionist (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Get a third opinion or file a Request For Comment to get some more eyes on this. You and Kobra are locked in a major content dispute on this article, it's been reverted back-and-forth way too many times without any constructive work being done, and if it keeps up, you will BOTH be blocked for edit warring. Stop reverting the article and start discussing it, preferably with more editors to help you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment

There is a dispute about the neutrality of the article between Kobra85 and Revizionist, with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise and a few others sometimes involved in the discussion. There are basically two versions being argued for here. Revizionist's favoured version (which is the current version at the time of this post), and Kobra85's favoured version. If I'm not mistaken, the neutrality issues were raised in regards to the current version. I'm not asking that one of the two versions is chosen, but for constructive input from Kobra85, Revizionist, and hopefully uninvolved users to improve this article. BalkanFever 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit dispute sub-discussion

Just for the record, all my contributions were reverted by Revizionist, yet I am labeled a vandal. Köbra ^Könverse 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys are in an edit war at the moment, but it is true that neither of you are vandalizing the article. Revizionist is incorrect to refer to your edits as vandalism - there may be other more appropriate terms for it, but WP is very strict in what it defines as vandalism. That said, the purpose of this RFC is to start getting some outside views on the two versions of the page to determine which (if either) is most appropriate for the page. Because you and Revizionist are both directly involved in this dispute, you're unlikely to be able to reach a decision or compromise yourselves - hence the outside views. I would strongly advise you set aside your personal differences for now and stop editing the article directly until this RFC has had time to cook. If a consensus is reached among the larger group of editors, you both should work to abide by it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, definitely not vandalism. Editorial dispute. BalkanFever 11:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets not call it vandalism, but I really do not know how to call the act of erasing 80% of the article which is backed with references and photos and is more informative. I spent so much time on reading and gathering info for the article, and now comes Kobra and erases it. I do not have problem with him, I have problem with the fact that he is constantly erasing 80% of the article. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's called a difference of opinion. Kobra claims that his version of the article is balanced. You claim that yours is comprehensive, correct, and well-sourced. That's all there is to it. That's why you need more people to help out with coming up with a version that meets WP's policies on notability, verifiability, neutral point-of-view, and reliable sources. It is quite possible that Kobra's version is more correct with respect to these policies - it is also possible that yours is. My guess is that the final consensus would fall somewhere in between. But, as I said above, you two are not going to be able to resolve this edit war yourselves since you are, by definition, the poles of the dispute.

Just to be clear, Kobra was not vandalizing the article. If anything, he would have been pushing his own POV, but since there was not an established consensus on the article content, a POV-pushing call can't really be made at this time - by edit-warring, you both were pushing your own POVs. That in itself is disruptive, but it's not vandalism, and we really do need to avoid referring to it as such. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just make it clear that the act which Revizionist calls "vandalism" is actually a rewrite of the article as requested by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, just ask him. I was doing anything but POV-pushing, as you can see, I removed almost all of the Macedonian and Bulgarian sources which would have created an obvious contradiction and added neutral English-language sources. I too spent a lot of time gathering information but Revizionist is too self-centered to realise that. Note: Revizionist replaced some of my English-language citations with Macedonian ones... very neutral indeed. Köbra ^Könverse 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get Future Perfect into this discussion, then? It'll be much better for the discussion to talk to the person who requested the changes than the one making the changes. The first question that pops into my mind on that, of course, is "why didn't Future Perfect just make the changes himself?"

In any event, I call it POV pushing because, up until now, there did not appear to be any attempt to discuss this issue per WP:BRD. All I saw in the edit histories were summaries that basically amounted to "I'm right, you're wrong", "This is the better version", and "Future asked me to make this edit", along with a few cases where you both said you had properly sourced material. WP:BRD means "Make the edit, see it reverted, then discuss". I saw a lot of WP:BOLD and reverting, but no discussion outside of the name-calling and other incivility that came as a result.

Now, can I please stop having to repeat myself here? Anyone who's been following this discussion knows what happened now - it's no longer necessary for you guys to keep talking about what the other did. We can see it plainly. Let's get on to discussing the actual content - please use the main section above. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments at this point: I've repeatedly criticised POV material in this article, most recently affecting large parts of Revizionist's version. I note that those parts I criticised most recently have now been omitted, but some of the remaining material still has POV weaknesses. For instance:

• it was not surprising that the soldiers from Vardar Macedonia, mobilized in the Yugoslav army in large numbers, refused to fight. [this passage is contained twice!]
• the British vice-consul at Skopje provided the Foreign Office with an even more extensive and perceptive analysis of the current state [unsourced judgmental interpretation, sounds like the judgment of some author in the literature uncritically taken over.]
• Gestapo held Mihailov as a reserve card in case things with Bulgaria go wrong. [unsourced interpretation]

I also still have the impression that Revizionist's version is too long and too wordy. I haven't got round to making myself a full picture of Kobra's versions yet. It's a bit difficult to do if the conflict is framed in terms of wholesale competition between two complete and entirely different article versions, either-or. Can someone please try to give a brief, neutral overview of how and where the two versions actually differ? Do they have different structural outlines, or is it just a matter of individual passages? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, this seems to be going nowhere. Köbra ^Könverse 10:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am working on the revised version in this moment. In the several days I will include the revised text with the remarks from Future. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it's not up to you, Mr. Supervisor-man. We're still waiting on an outside opinion, which is due aaany minute now... Köbra ^Könverse 08:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The kontracetniks and the Balli Kombetar are not resistance movements. P.S. Do not erase 80% of the article until an independent opinion arrives. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No independent opinion is going to arrive, unfortunately. One of you should go ask someone uninvolved to look into it. BalkanFever 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Balkan, Kobra and Jingibi, in their daily edit-wars are destroying an informative article. The article has a lot of information backed with references and authentic useful photos and maps. I demand help from the admins. The 2 versions offered by Kobra and Jingibi are chaotic. --Revizionist (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't done anything. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote

I'm calling for a vote. We need to see which version of the article Wikipedians consider encyclopedic and reliable (out of mine and Revizionist's version). Let's use my (present) article as the basis of the argument. Vote either "for" or "against" this version of the article. Köbra | Könverse 13:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Köbra's version
• Revizionist's version

Division of the article

I will divide the article in several parts, and thus make it shorter. Those people which want to obtain detailed information (people that are seeking references for books or writing historical essays can just click on the link and thus find more info. I will start doing that at once. Thus there wont be any complaint that the article is too long. --Revizionist (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I want to ask what is so wrong in Revizionist's version of the article? It seams very good, good explained and supported with images and references. Can someone tell us what is the POV in that version? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you, Kobra is constantly reverting my version of the article which is very informative and imposes his version which is a massacred version of my article. Please help, because he is constantly reverting it. P.S. Kobra says that the article is too long. Well, see Battle of Kursk, it is about one battle and is longer than this article which is about 4 years of battles. --Revizionist (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. His only good contribution to this article is changing the dates from October 23 to 23 October. Another good and useful contribution I cannot see. Or maybe both of us cannot see his useful contributions because we are not literate enough for his criteria. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can talk. Take a look at articles created solely by me, here, here and here. How sad, Revizionist goes to another contributor with no credibility to get a third opinion, or more accurately, to help him with his propaganda campaign. I'd ought to remind you, don't talk solely about another Wikipedian in your comments, it's only obvious that you're hating. I'm only doing what's best for Wikipedia, you're doing what's best for yourselves. Köbra | Könverse 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, me and Revizionist do not contribute using propaganda. Actually, we cannot edit here on the English Wiki because some Bulgarians, Greeks and Macedonians that forgot about their identity do the propaganda against us. Whether we have credibility here or not, its not your business. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go playing the blame game. "Bulgarians this, Greeks that..." at least most of them have some decency on Wikipedia. Just because I'm Macedonian doesn't mean I have to hate all Bulgarian or Greeks and it sure as hell doesn't mean I "forgot" about my identity. It's very typical of you to use that mentality though. I, for one, am trying to save the Macedonian scholarly contributions on Wikipedia from going to crap. Köbra | Könverse 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kobra on this one. If someone has references and good photos to back the article, nobody can interfere. --Revizionist (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Committee?

If I may make a suggestion to resolve the dispute between Kobra and Revizionist, the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee can be brought in to mediate between the two parties if both sides are willing to agree to it. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Köbra | Könverse 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree to. Eather vote or mediation. Yes let's do it, I want this edit war to end. --Revizionist (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, I'll make a request with the MedCab. If either party wants for have this formally mediated by the MedCom, he can make the request. Musashi1600 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am User:^.^ and have volunteered to mediate your case that was submitted to the mediation cabal. First off, I would like to make some points clear:

1. I do not issue punishments.
2. I will maintain a neutral point of view.
3. Incivility to other users involved in this case (i.e. attacking those you are in a dispute with) is not allowed.

Secondly, could all involved users please list their sides of the story (i.e. whats been happening, why it has been happening and how you would like to fix it or compromise on the issue) below here. Do not edit another user's retelling of the story, if they are lying, tell me. Thankyou. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Köbra's side

This is how it pans out: The article was in a very bad condition following neutrality disputes between Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian editors. Subsequently, Future Perfect at Sunrise requested that I rewrite the article from a neutral point of view, which I did. Shortly thereafter, Revizionist shows up and reverts the article (which he had not contributed greatly to in the first place) as well as adds a bulk of biased information and images which he claimed be "beautiful" and necessary. I then reverted him on the grounds that I had cleaned up the article and told him to make his contributions on the revised version of the article. Revizionist again reverted me and claimed that I was erasing 80% of his article — more than a slight eggaderation at that. Thus far, he has fabricated numerous excuses to revert the article and even asked several Macedonian editors who are known to make biased contributions to aid him in reverting the article. Just to summarise what I did with the article — I copy-edited the entire article and managed to replace almost every Macedonian and Bulgarian source with neutral and verifiable English sources. I did also contributed greatly to the article though Revizionist seems to think I only removed much of the information which he thinks is neutral. May I also add that, upon reverting the article, Revizionist altered information which I had sourced prior to him having removed the citations. I could go on, but I think that should cover it for now. Köbra | Könverse 11:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Revizionist's side

Greetings ^.^. First of all thanks for intervening in the dispute in a critical moment as this. Yes, I agree with Kobra that the old version was very biased and in a very bad shape. A call was given to several contributors on Macedonia related articles to try and create a more informative article. The old version was representing the fascist occupation of Macedonia as a "liberation". Kobra did a initial improvement of the article, and I also came to make a contribution too. I spent all of my free time (which is little) in reading books related to the article and obtaining authentic photos to give a better illustration of the article, thus making the article more informative. That is when Kobra started giving insults and reverting my contributions (to see his offensive language please look at the talk and history page, especially the latter). His first argument was that my version of the article is too long (but as you see the article Battle of Kursk, it is about one battle and is longer than this article which is about 4 years of battles), afterward Kobra was saying that my English is bad - but I also do not consider this as an argument to revert my contributions which compose between 60 and 80 percent of the article. I have nothing against him, honestly,I am just opposing the fact that he constantly reverts my changes without giving a reasonable argument. If someone thinks that my version is biased then please change the sentence that you think is biased but please do not erase the whole article. Regards --Revizionist (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out one lie and one eggaderation. The lie: I never said the article was too long. The eggaderation: If you want to talk maths, only 38% of the article was removed in terms of data, a majority of it being images. Making claims that I insulted you has nothing to do with the content of the article, nor does your claim of having dedicated your free time to the article. Those exuses are petty and as far as I can remember, you have given no valid reason for reverting the article, even in your little summary here. Köbra | Könverse 10:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I've had a brief look at both of your most recent versions of the article (Köbra's and Revizionist's) and I'd just like to ask a question (no offense meant); have you both tried to discuss and merge your versions together? I suggest that, If you think you can behave civilly around each other, that you copy both version's of the article to something like /New Version and try and merge them both completely (keeping in mind to discuss the removal of another user's content before doing it on a page like /New Version Discussion. Just a quick warning, I trust you both have read the 3RR page and that by the looks of it, you have both violated it, and anymore misbehavior on the article (reverting each other) and you are liable to be blocked by a passing admin. And Revizionist, some of the sources you are using I would say are of dubious reliability as they seem to be published by countries involved in the incident (thus possibly creating a bias), for example, the book Yugoslavia-manipulations with the Number of Second World War Victims was published by the Croatian Information Centre. Feel free to list your opinions of this strategy below. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I said that I requested that Revizionist make his contributions to the present version of the article in my above summary but it's apparent that he is not happy with that suggestions so... I don't know. That source you referred to was added early on by Bulgarian contributors to lower the number of ethnic Macedonian victims during the conflict and no one has really objected to it as Croatia isn't actually directly involed and can't create a serious neutrality conflict. Köbra | Könverse 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with suggesting that he/she write his/her contributions over your version ends up with him/her doing more work, something that the user probably doesn't want to do. A solution needs to be suggested that you both end up doing equal amounts of work. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried several times to convince our colleague Kobra to merge the two versions. As a matter of fact my version is an extension of 90% of his version of the article. My version is more informative, has a lot of photos, dates, names of units, battles and so on. Yes, I find your idea very constructive and I approve it. i am not against merging, I am against erasing my version of the article which is backed with references, photos, and composes 60 to 80 percent of the article. P.S. To make it more neutral, maybe you can try to make the merge ^.^. Whatever your version of the merged article is, I will accept it with no comments (sorry if I am asking to much, but I am doing this as a sign of good will). Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh*. You just reverted the whole article because of the fact that those particular are "not resistance movements" according to you, how biased is that? (Rhetorical question) I don't know if you know what a resistance movement is or not but "your" version of the article even says that Axis Bulgarian forces were "resistance". Hypocritical and biased, well done. Köbra | Könverse 13:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Scenderbeg SS and Balli Kombetar are not resistance movements, they are tools of the Axis German occupying forces (as all local SS divisions are). As for me saying that the Axis Bulgarian forces are resistance, please show me where it is stated in the text? --Revizionist (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I can't believe you missed the point. What I was trying to say was, why would you revert the whole article when you could have just removed or reworded that information? The article says "Albanian resistance", who apart from the Albanian SS battalion fought on Albania's side? Also, what's up with all the stupid acronyms? No one knows what they are. Köbra | Könverse 14:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, do what you will with the article, I'm not interested anymore. Either way, all my contributions to the article are wasted — all the sources I gathered have been excluded and there's no getting through to you, you only hear what you want to hear. Apparently the only thing this mediation does is gets the editors to sort it out themselves which, in this case, probably won't happen. I'm not going to reply anymore, so consider the dispute resolved — Revizionist gets his way and I'll bugger off. I only feel sorry for the people that have to read his version. Köbra | Könverse 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I say Kobra... As a sign of good will, I proposed that the mediator merges the two versions. That is the biggest compromise that could be offered. But OK, if you say that the dispute is resolved, I am happy that it is over. Regards and best wishes. --Revizionist (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of what has happened, the case is now closed. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"National" or "People's"

The adjective "Народно" is translated "People's" in English. The distinction is quite significant, particularly so in this case: the term a "nation" is commonly used for the population of an existing country or state. A "people" need not have established a country of their own (much like Kurds, or Macedonians during WW2). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello DIREKTOR, I visited your user page, and from what I have seen, I am sure that you can make a lot of contributions in the subject - but about your proposition to change the tittle of the article from "National Liberation War of Macedonia" to "People's Liberation War of Macedonia", I must add that the official accepted translation is National. You can see this in here - National Museum of Macedonia - NATIONAL LIBERATION WAR IN MACEDONIA. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced (the Google test appears to support this name).
Concerning the image: The Bitola Partisans image is probably the most appropriate image of Yugoslav Partisans we can find, and is hence it is good enough and significant enough to be used as the lead image of the entire Yugoslav Partisans movement. The reason I replaced it with the image of marching Macedonian Partisans is to add to the diversity of WW2 Yugoslav articles (or at least to make them appear diverse :P). I basically organize and "standardize" all WW2 Yugoslav articles so I really think it would benefit the whole category if we used different lead images. Hope that isn't a problem for you?
Concerning other edits: There are other edits of a "standardizing", non-controversial nature that were unfortunately reverted along with the image and the "People's" adjectives. (Just one example: I edited "part of Yugoslav Front of World War II" into "part of the Yugoslav Front of World War II", see Eastern Front for an example of the standard form.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave the photo with the Macedonian partisans in Bitola here, and I will send you a very beautiful similar photo with Dalmatian partisans for the article Yugoslav partisans. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image work

First of all, I want to make sure you are aware of WP:OWN. No matter how much work one puts in to an article, he/she does not gain any rights or privileges that other editors do not have. That being said, I'm sure we can resolve this problem without edit-warring or Admin mediation as it is a matter of minor cosmetic alterations. However, I hope you realize that if I'm going to wikify the article, I cannot discuss every minor cosmetic change and wait for your reply. As I stated above ("Concerning other edits:"), you are reverting all my changes, including those of a completely non-controversial nature (mostly infobox and wikilink work). If you have a problem with the image configuration (I worked hard on), please restore the other changes and do not revert everything else, it is very irritating to be frank.
Images. I was also very careful in arranging the images according to the subject of the text. I did not "randomly rearrange" them. Instead, I standardized the image size (ordinary image: 200px, map: 250px, person: 122px) and grouped them to improve the article flow. The article needs a ton of wikifying work, and its not going to get anywhere if my edits are reverted every day :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem DIREKTOR. I understand you, and I really appreciate your effort to wikify the article. I only wanted to discuss with you several minor thing, which eventually shape the whole picture. The partisan movement in vardar Macedonia had a slightly different beginning and ending than the partisan warfare in other parts of occupied Yugoslavia. i have to go now, but when i come back I will tell you what i was referring to. Till now I really thank you for the understanding. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I am well aware of the seperate, independent nature of the Macedonian Partisans ("Partisans" in Yugoslavia are correctly spelled with a capitalized "P" as per Britannica, for example Partisan - Britannica Online Encyclopedia), and would certainly appreciate any instructions you can provide as to the preferred structure of the article and its images. (Am looking forward to the new Partisans lead image :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Text removal

Now I don't want to get involved in some Bulgarian/Macedonian dispute, but from a neutral Wikipedian's point of view, that text was very well sourced indeed and you simply removed it ALL(!) According to Wikipedia policy you need to provide sources of your own if you want to contest the inclusion of a properly sourced piece of info. Only after you've cited good reasons and achieved consensus can you remove text like that. Your own opinions cannot rival those of published experts.
On a more general note, I feel you should definitely loosen-up your protective stance on this article. You appear bent on contesting any change, no matter how insignificant and/or well sourced. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Before the revision of the article, user Jingby presented the Bulgarian fascist occupiers as liberators in the article. The problem is that VMRO (United) was a communist organization, closely tied with the Commintern. There is no evidence nor refgference anywhere that members of the communist VMRO (United) participated in the creation of the Bulgarian Action Committees. Tomorrow i will photograph parts of a book which says that only members of the formal Protogerovist wing of the VMRO participated. Ivan Mihailov had another role in that time. And IMRO (united) had another. I will give this evidence tomorrow. P.S. I have already added the photo with the Croatian partisans on Yugoslav Partisans. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have problems, Revizionist. Bulgarians were not fascists. They were not occupiers also. VMRO (United) participated in the creation of the Bulgarian Action Committees too. Here is for example a document with the names of a lot of former VMRO (United) members, who founded Bulgarian Action Committee in Veles as Panko Brashnarov, Strahil Gigov and Korobarov. [2] Jingby (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the Germans and Italians were non-fascist liberators too. BalkanFever 07:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby, please keep it civil: no PAs. Bulgaria was part of the Axis, and it did most certainly occupy areas of Yugoslavia and Greece, while participating in anti-Partisan operations (see Battle of the Sutjeska). Statements such as "Bulgarians were not fascists or occupiers" say much about your NPOV. You appear to be defending Bulgarians as a people, not the WW2 Bulgarian government, while I'm sure some Bulgarians were indeed fascists in the period we are discussing. We appear to have 2 issues here:
1) The Bulgarians were greeted as liberators by some Macedonians?
This sounds perfectly plausible to me, and you did provide pretty solid sources to that effect. Many Croats greeted the Germans as liberators, and ended up spearheading the formation of the Partisan movement in Yugoslavia after the occupation revealed its "true face".
2) The VMRO (United) participated in the creation of the Action Committees?
I'd like to make it clear whether or not we agree that VMRO participated? In either case, you provided sources which I'd like to ask you to elaborate for us. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, the problem is very complicated. Please, read here [3] about the Bulgarian participation in WWII in Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. Especially since you or one of your comrades probably wrote that. BalkanFever 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the text will provide a useful insight into the Bulgarian point of view in this dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Granted I'm not as informed as I should be prior to involving myself in all this, and I will read the link you provided. However, I do know for a fact that the Bulgarian Army participated in the occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece, and that Bulgaria was part of the Axis (Tripartite Pact). In order to facilitate the upcoming discussions, I'd like to ask you again to elaborate on the sources you provided in support of your claim that VMRO (United) participated in the formation of the Action Committees. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. I will provide information this afternoon about what the Bulgarian Action Committees were, about who participated in their formation and about what was the VMRO (United)'s positions. VMRO United was a fierce enemy of the reactionary regimes in SHS and Bulgaria. It was also against the Bulgarian fascist occupation of Macedonia. They were not participating in the Bulgarian Action Committees, they were FIGHTING against them. The 3 most imortant members of the VMRO (United) - Panko Brashnarov, Dimitar Vlahov and Pavel Shatev, all of them joint the Macedonian Partizans. I will write you in the afternoon. Regards till then. --Revizionist (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the rest of the VMRO? Are we agreed that they participated in the Action Committees? And are we agreed that a part of the population of the Vardar Banovina welcomed the Bulgarian army? Can we set those issues aside as resolved? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About the participation of former IMRO United members in BAC (IMRO United was dissoluted in 1936) please read the next document:[4]

Dispatch from Veles

Macedonia, newspaper, No. 1, 1941

With many citizens assembled, yesterday on April 14, in the town of Veles with unseen enthusiasm was established a Local Bulgarian Campaign Committee. The Secretary Organizer of the Central Committee in Skopje explained the ideology of the committee, that was met by applauds and “hurrah" for liberated Macedonia, and ”hurrah” for Bulgaria, and its supreme leader Tsar Boris III - tsar of all Bulgarians. In the expanded counseling Committee members became Boris Andreev, Mine Minov, Kostadin Vanov, Lazar Krustev, Nikola Toshanov, Panko Brashnarov, Strahil Gigov, Atso Shoukarov, Tode Maystorcheio, Dimehe Garbev, Gigo Kovachov, Angel Panov, Jordan Srebrov, Georgi Georchev, Lazo Kitsov, Sazdo Hadzhi Petroushev, Angel Korobarov, Kotse Onchcv, Dr. Dimche Smilev, Lazo Stoyanov, Milan Andov. Strahil Georgov, Dimko Uroumov, Nikola Kirkov, Dimko Strachkov, Kiro Zafirov, Gyosho Organdzhiev, Peter Alchev, Doncho Ivanov, Ordan Gaberov, VIada Andov, Vassil Zafirchev and Angel Maznev. Among those members was elected an Executive Committee con­sisting of Lazar Krepiev, President, Boris Andreev, Deputy, Dr.Angel Panov, Secretary, Lazo Stoyanov, Second Secretary, Panko Brashnarov, Sazdo K. Petrushev, Strahil Georgov, Dr. Dimche Smilev and Strahil Gigov became Advisors.

The first local Campaign Committee was established by people from Veles.

Bravo to them. We have no doubt, that they will meet all hopes entrusted to them by the Central Bulgarian Campaign Committee for Macedonia.

Secretary-organizer:

V[assil] H[adzhi] Kimov

Jingby (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, the IMRO (United) was dissolved well before 1941, therefore it could not have participated in the Action Committees. Your sources prove some former members participated. Am I missing something? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My anotation was:

Before the Bulgarian intervention, former IMRO and IMRO (United) members in Vardar Macedonia, were active in organising Bulgarian Action Committees. Jingby (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• While doing the research about the subject I first collected factology, and then wrote the article. Everything I have written in the article is true and backed by evidence. I do not have to do this, but I will in order to present the validity of the data I have included in the article. Our colleague Jingby says that Bulgaria was not an occupator in Macedonia and that Bulgaria was not a fascist country during WW2, I give him this proof - (Axis Bulgarian troops involved in fightings against Yugoslav Partisans in Durmitor [5]). And finally this is a page from the autobiographical statement Panko Brashnarov gave to the UDB in Skopje in 1950 - [6] - in it Brashnarov says that he did not support nor collaborated with the fascist occupation. He became a partisan in 1944 and opened the ASNOM assembly. He was a Stalinist and was sentenced to Goli Otok because of his pro USSR ideas, but he surely did not participate in any fascist Bulgarian organization. So those information about communist participating in fascist action committees are a fraud. I hope my arguments backed by direct facts were sufficient to exclude the false information from the article. --Revizionist (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what is fascism? It is a totalitarian and nationalist ideology. Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and states. Also in Bulgaria never was classical fascism. About Brashnarov. The document is clear. He was member of this patriotic organisation. In this period Stalin and Hitler, i.e. Communism and Fascism were allies.

The campaign committee chose Executive Committee with Lazar Krepiev as President, Boris Andreev, Deputy President, Dr. Angel Panov, Secretary, Lazo Stoianov, Secretary and as advisors were elect­ed Panko Brashnarov, Sazdo Hadzhipetrushev, Strahil Georgov, Dr. Dimcbe Smilev and Strahil Gigov (Document No. 10).CSA, fund 396, list 1, file 37, page 11-12. [7]

Jingby (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the ustasha article it is stated that general Asen Nikolov was decorated with a German iron cross of the 1st degree. An ally of Germany that fights side by side against a Allied resistance movement is a fascist state. During WW2 Bulgaria was a fascist state, and conducted fascist policies. The Bulgarian historiography confirms this. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I can't believe this - user Jingby says that Macedonians did not exist prior to 1944. What kind of a non-sense is this? If he includes this kind of propaganda in the article I will exclude it. Read Misirkov, read Cupovski, Pulevski, VMRO (United) statements, read KPJ statements, read Slaveykov, and so on... Who do you think fought the Bulgarian fascist army in Macedonia? Ghosts? --Revizionist (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding some sources, materials and directions.

Due to the confusion that this material is creating to some people, i'll point to a link for some which i cannot translate it in English, but i hope that somebody will

Во такви услови доаѓа до излегување на првиот партизан од овој крај. Таа "чест" му припадна на Богданци, кога во април, 1942 год., тогаш бугарскиот војник Коле Пеев ќе се најде во пазувите на Кожуф, чекајќи да му се придружат и други партизани, но тој обид ќе биде неуспешен. По неколку дена престој, сам, тој повторно се враќа во бугарската војска, каде, заради задоцнувањето следувало и казна. Во исто време, за кмет на Богданци е поставен струмичанецот од богданско потекло Борис Џонов. Со самото доаѓање во Богданци тој воспоставува врски со партиската организација во селото и активно ја помага. Тоа не останало незабележано од окупаторите и по 4 месеци службување е сменет, а тој се враќа во Струмица каде продолжува со својата антифашстичка дејност, за на крај, една година подоцна, 24 мај 1943 год. да биде sверски мачен и изгорен во една варџиница крај Струмица. Успешното излегување партизани од гевгелискиот крај ќе биде токму во тие денови - 24 април 1943 год. Великден. Во првата група и потоа, ќе се најдат и многу богданчани - младинци: Коста поп Ристов, Ване и Иљо Калчев, Коле Пеев, тој што прв излезе 1942 год., Мито Теменугов и др. Одредот ќе дејствува, најпрвин на теренот на Кожуф, а потоа и во тиквешко каде ќе делува заедно со тиквешкиот "Добри Даскалов". Гевгелиско - богданскиот одред ќе го носи името на славниот комитски војвода Сава Михајлов. Овие два партизански одреда ќе дејствуваат и на грчка територија во реонот на Пајак планина и караџовата. Благодарејќи на својата активност, тие одреди ќе го придобијат и бугарскиот пограничен батаљон со седиште во селото Конско и заедно со него, при крај на 1943 год. на тој терен ќе биде формирана Втората македонска ударна бригада. Стекнувајќи големо борбено искуство, партизаните од Богданци ќе дадат свој значаен, може и пресуден придонес, во формирањето на гевгелиско-пљачковичкиот одред кој ќе ја има задачата на разгорување на партизанското движење во источна Македонија. Со тој одред ќе командуваат токму борци од Богданци: Димитар Марљанов - Осоговски, ќе биде негов командант, Димитар Шутарот - Аргир, негов заменик - комесар или вкупно петмина богданчани ќе се најдат во неговите редови. Одредот броел 32 борци. 1944 година Богданци ги живее последните месеци од окупацијата, кога се чувствува голема раздвиженост во целокупниот живот.

http://www.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=20989&idg=2&idb=462&rubrika=Feqton

Also the now deceased Mite Temenugov(partisan name Zelezni) has written book about the fight againts the Axis in the Gevgelija-Bogdanci-Dojran region, but don't take his numbers for granted. Another fighter, Risto Ka'lchev from Gevgelija has a authobiography published in which the number of killed german solider in the ambush that took place on Kozuf mountain are realistic. (Temenugov says about 100 dead and wounded, Kalchev reports only 10 dead and 1 captured, and the captured is shot not long after his capture, for his 'inability' to keep his mouth closed).

Aedile (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)