Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-09-01/

The dispute is on the entry for St. Naum of Ohrid

The list of the users involved. For example:

• Jingiby
• Wisco2000

The difference boils down to the fact that Jingiby insists on labeling everything Bulgarian, especially where it doesn't belong. To back up those claims, he uses references that are one-sided, cannot be confirmed, or that simply don't support his view (but he puts them as references anyway). The references fail the two key criteria in order to be included: relevant and reliable. Moreover, he deletes/reverts references that don't fit his view.

Specifically, where it says: "was a medieval Slavic scholar, Bulgarian writer and teacher" there are four references. Let's look at them individually:

1. The first reference is from a Bulgarian site that presents a pro-Bulgarian stance. It is a description of St. Naum's life with a pro-Bulgarian twist, and the reliability of the author is unclear. I included a reference instead that contains the *original* medieval description of St. Naum's life, found on a Czech site. That is the *only* original source of St. Naum's life. The original does not call St. Naum Bulgarian.

2. The second reference, when you click on the link, takes you to a page that can't be viewed. Now we have a reference that can't be checked.

3. The third reference is from google books. First, you can still see that the user was looking for books that contained "saint naum bulgarian" (see that that appears in the search field), so he was looking for a reference that proves his point. First of all, that's cherry-picking. Second, if you actually open and read the reference, calls Saint Naum or his fellow missinaries Byzantine, not Bulgarian (third sentence).

4. Finally, if you open and read the fourth reference, again, there is nothing there that calls St. Naum Bulgarian.

In fact, the most reliable source of the time (O pismeneh), a short piece that explains the mission of St. Naum (and the other Slavic missionaries) from a direct participant, mentions the word Slavic 12 times, as it pertains to the alphabet, language and the people. It does not call the alphabet, language and the people Bulgarian. The only reference to Bulgarian is to a Bulgarian prince, towards the end of the document, where it states that the events occured during his reign (as well as the reign of a different Moravian prince). You can use google translate to translate the document from Macedonian into English (http://mk.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9E_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%85).

Finally, little is known about Saint Naum in terms of his early life (we don't know where he was born, for instance). So, that also leaves open the question whether he was Bulgarian.

In conclusion, the references and the repeated reversion/editing by the user has little to do with proper referencing.

Thank you.

For most of the changes, a reason has been stated. The user simply revert the edits, and immediately reported me for vandalism. The administrator pointed out to him that my actions do not constitute vandalism. I don't think there is much of a desire for talking on the other side. Also, these transgressions are pretty obvious.

I don't think the other user wants to talk about anything that goes against his views. I have stated clearly above that he makes statements and then "backs" them up with references that are untraceable, biased, and even support a different view.

The first reference needs to be replaced with the one supplied. That's the original work, not some edited narration loosely based on it. The other three need to go (they are unverifiable and irrelevant). A reference to 'O pismeneh' needs to be included. And the word Bulgarian from Bulgarian writer also doesn't belong there. Finally, based on the "unclean hands" doctrine, Jingby's edits need to be more closely scrutinized.

{{quotebox|align=left|Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required? }}{{-}}

Saint Naum worked during most of his life in Bulgaria and died here. More, his activity to develop the Old Bulgarian literacy under the administrative control of Bulgarian Tsar Boris, was crucial for the development of Bulgarian ethnic consciousness in the present region of Macedonia, then Bulgarian province, called Kutmichevitsa. Check here: [http://books.google.bg/books?id=ppbuavUZKEwC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=who+are+the+macedonians+poulton+naum&source=bl&ots=DAT0T4fCl-&sig=vM6vx1s99E0dgBhEUKMBCk6NjbI&hl=bg#v=onepage&q&f=false Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655340, pp. 19-20.] Jingby (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jingby, you are making the Saint Naum like you know he was Bulgarian and he belongs to the Bulgarians, and he was only significant to the Bulgarians, and the rest of the people, well, who cares about them. That's what's offensive, irrational and irritating. He was Slavic (like the language, people and the alphabet) and was not only important to the Bulgarians and their national pride, but to all Slavs.

What is deeply unethical is that you keep on deleting every reference that points to that, and you go to google books, search for "St. Naum bulgarian" and that's how you get your references. Those search words are still in the search bar when you click on the third reference. And still none of your references explicitly state that. One of them (which you deleted) actually stated he was Byzantine. That's the problem: you are saying one thing, and that adding references that say another thing. That's illegal.

As far as your point that he worked for a Bulgarian king. So, he is Bulgarian because of that? Or because he worked during the Bulgarian Empire? Nobody denies that, but again, that doesn't make him Bulgarian and important only to the Bulgarians. The Ohrid School lasted after the fall of the Bulgarian Empire in the 11th century, which by your logic, would mean that it was non-Bulgarian after that? If the School was Bulgarian because Ohrid was part of Bulgaria, what does that make every town, person, and your ancestors in Bulgaria during 500 years of Turkish rule?

Stop being so dense.

Wisco2000 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He worked and lived until his death in the Bulgarian Empire, developing Old Bulgarian language and his activity was crucial for the development of distinct Bulgarian ethnic consciousness. Because of that he is Bulgarian. He was from Slavic origin and developed the Old Church Slavonic. Because of that he is important for all the Slavic people. Both things are true and are mentioned in the article. Your Macedonism is ridiculous. If you could provide reliable sources, he did not worked most of his life in Bulgaria and did not developed Old Bulgarian language, or that his activity was not important for the development of Bulgarian cosciousness,or Bulgarian literature please provide them. Jingby (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that he worked during the Bulgarian Empire makes him as much Bulgarian (on that argument alone) as it makes Turks all the Bulgarians that lived, worked and died during the 500 years of Ottoman rule. Again, the language, alphabet and people were called Slavic, not Bulgarian, which is what you seem to push for. I gave you a reference from the time, and you seem to ignore it. You also deleted a reference from Great Moravia (where St. Clement, Naum, Sts. Cyrilus and Methodius worked BEFORE Bulgaria), you deleted it and you ignore that too. If the language was Bulgarian, and not Slavic, did he teach the Slavs in Great Moravia (today's Czech/Slovakia) Bulgarian? Did the people in Moravia speak Bulgarian too? If you feel strongly that his works inspired Bulgarian national conciousness, then say that. But that was the case wherver he worked, nothing unique to the Bulgarians: his works promoted the use of the Slavic language by the Slavs, and therefore, it ended up boosting the national pride everywhere over the Latin and Greek missionaries. St. Clement was in conflict with the Greek missionaries in Southern Europe, and the Latin-speaking priests in the North. But that he was a Bulgarian and *only* Bulgarian is baseless and illogical, and the way you take over what he did and just push relentlessly is irritating. The guy was a saint that simply wanted to spread litteracy and christianize the Slavs; that's it; he wasn't there to boost your national counciousness. It's as simple as that. I am not saying he's Macedonian/Serbian/Czech/Slovak/whaetver; all I am saying is that he's Slavic, his language was Slavic, his works, books, etc, that's what they called it, and his impact was pan-Slavic.

You also seem to ignore the transgressions I pointed out regarding reference abuse that you're committing. To say one thing in a sentence and add bogus references is serious academic misconduct and highly unethical, and you have a track record of that.

Wisco2000 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)