Talk:Shopi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconSerbia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBulgaria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Description of the dialect

Lots of problems with this article. Needs sourcing from a mainstream book in Bulgarian phonetics.

1.The article calls the variable /ja/ a diphthong, but it is not a diphthong in most cases, since it only makes the preceding consonant palatalised (also, Boyadzhiev's 1998 grammar, vol.1, phonetics, refuses to speak of "diphthongs" in Bulgarian at all).

2.The statement that the Shops pronounce variable /ja/ as /ə/ in sedja (седя) is wrong too, because this is not a variable /ja/ at all - it is originally a nasal (

big yus
), and the use of <ja> in modern standard written Bulgarian in its place was just an orthographic decision (should have been a ьъ or something, etymologically). It is not pronounced /ja/ in standard Bulgarian either - it's /jə/ or /jə/, as it should be from an etymological point of view. Compare mo~zh > məzh (мъж). The difference is that the Shops omit the palatalisation.

3. The bit about /l/ seems like nonsense, too. AFAIK, the sound shouldn't be labialised at all; rather, it may be replaced with a labial /w/ (perhaps somewhat

velarised
) "before back vowels, consonants and in the end of the word". This has been reported to occur in the speech of young people (see main article about Bulgarian language, where this is attributed to a phonetics book by V.Zhobov), but it is hardly a feature of all standard Bulgarian as reported here; and I have never heard of it being a feature of Shop speech (in fact, to the extent that I have heard it, I'd say that this is not the case, at least not in authentic middle-age Shops; I have my own speculations as to where "wawe"-like pronunciations are to be placed in terms of dialect geography and sociolinguistics, but that is another story).

I'm not making any changes now, because I don't have a book about Bulgarian dialects at home. I would need to go to the library to source my changes and perhaps improve the article in other respects, too. For the time being, I am just placing a factual accuracy tag. --194.145.161.227 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is me again, this time logged in. Still haven't found time to rewrite this, but am moving some of the worst stuff to the talk page. --Anonymous44 15:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In most places, the /l/ sound is pronounced
labialized
(more like /w/) before front vowels (e, и), as well as back vowels (a, ъ, o, у). This is in contrast to standard Bulgarian where /l/ is labialized only before back vowels, consonants and in the end of the word.
Shop: лале /lwalwe/; standard Bulgarian: лале /lwale/ (tulip)
Rewrote the section based on Stoykov's dialectology, based in particular on the South-Western dialects and assuming that the Sofia and Elin-Pelin dialects to be closest to stereotypical Shopski. The following bits remain to be sourced:
  • Accusative case, long form (after prepositions): masc. него/ньега (nego/njega), fem. нея (neja), neut. него/ньега (nego/njega) , pl. них (nih)
Stoykov says this about some dialects, but not any that could be identified as "Shopski".
  • The possessive pronoun for the third person plural is нихния (nihnija) or нихнио, ни'нио (nihnio, ni'nio), нихната, ни'ната (nihnata, ni'nata), etc.
  • The interrogative word "що" ("što") is used more often than the standard "какво" ("kakvo"). Shop: Що сакаш? (Što sakaš?); standard Bulgarian: Какво искаш? (Kakvo iskaš?) (What do you want?)
  • Palatal /n/ and /l/ ("нь", "ль") can stand at the end of a word or before /e/. Shopski: тигань /tiganj/, конье (konje); standard Bulgarian: тиган (tigan, "frying pan"), коне (kone, "horses")
Stoykov does says this about Samokov, Dupnica, Petrich and Kyustendil, but not about the South-Western group as a whole, and not about Sofia or Elin-Pelin.
  • The forms for the relative and the interrogative pronouns and adverbs are the same. Example: Shopski че ме видиш, кога ме нема (če me vidiš, koga me nema) vs standard Bulgarian ще ме видиш, когато ме няма (šte me vidiš, kogato me njama) (idiom: you'll never see/catch me)
I have the same impression, but can find no confirmation in Stoykov. ----Anonymous44 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of this article

This is a quotation of the article introduction section: "This article is about the Shopi in Bulgaria. The name Šopi is also used for ethnographic groups in Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia, which are not treated here." - so my question is: if these etnographic groups in Serbia and Macedonia are not covered by this article, by which article are they covered and where can I (or any other user) write about them? Should we then consider renaming this article to "Shopi in Bulgaria" and creating another one named "Shopi" where we can write about entire Shopi population in all 3 countries? PANONIAN 09:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means, as obvious, that the article does not contain info about the shopi outside Bulgaria. If the info in question gets into the article, the sentence in the lead should be removed. --Laveol T 12:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article to be enlarged, encompassing all Shopi. Jingby (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have nothing against that, provided that one condition is met: are the Shopi in Bulgaria, Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia a related ethnographic group? Do they share a common origin, customs, dialectal traits, etc.? The article currently is very in-depth on the Shopi of Bulgaria and their dialect and culture, I'm not willing to lose this. Todor→Bozhinov 12:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they share a common origin, customs, dialectal traits, etc.? Yes, untill the early 20th Century they were described as Bulgarians, but later accepted different ethnic affiliations. What is the problem? Jingby (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Shopi do share same origin, but, no matter of the existence of some sources that you mentioned that describe them as Bulgarians, there are other sources that describe them as unique Slavic population of central Balkans that adopted Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serb national consciousness in recent times. So, as I see it, this article should describe entire Shopi population with all opinions about their origin. By some opinions, Shopi are of same origin as Torlaks, and thus, different sources mention different borders between Shopi and Torlaks populations, for example, map of Shopluk that I made according to the map created by Serbian geographer Jovan Cvijić include some parts of Serbia and Macedonia into Shopluk, while other sources claim that these areas are inhabited by speakers of Torlakian or Macedonian. All these opinions about origin of Shopi and about borders of Shopluk region should be mentioned here. PANONIAN 22:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide these sources....I mean sources that could lead to the assumption that this is another ethnos... If such a statement is true, then there should be evidences going through the different time periods.. please provide such from medieval times, from ottoman times and after that. I am sorry about my scepticism, but i have never met such ones and that is why I am astonished by this comment. I understand the serbian point of view, but many (not all of them of course) of the serbian scholars are lead by the "Piemonte of the Balkans" political doctrine. They present the different ethnogeographical parts as different ethnoses that should be united by the serbs... So, please provide with the needed sources... There is not argue about the fact that representatives of the "shopi" group nowadays has serbian, macedonian and bulgarian national feeling. Please show this documents and historical evidences... I am particularly interested in them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


shopi are shopi

how can a shop be a serbian or bulgarian? it is newer cathegory. it's like calling a mayan, cheyeni, toltec etc. indians. or gheg, tosk, gorani, shkreti etc. albanians. it's a newer cathegory that didn't exist before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.225.8 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the main point is to try and rewrite the history of the modern nation-state of Macedonia by Serbian nationalists, since they basically invaded and violently occupied the land in the second balkan war until treaties were drawn and borders altered. Shopi are part of that region's history, hence the politicization. the balkans are complicated, but not that complicated, nationalists of all flags try and claim everything and everyone as their own and use the "complicated" history excuse as a smoke screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.63.230 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is just like saying "how can a šop be macedonian?" there are šopi in all of the three countries if you didn't know. The ones in Serbia speak a serbian dialect, the ones in Macedonia speak a macedonian dialect and the ones in Bulgaria a bulgarian one, šopi arent exclusive only to Macedonia. Indirect article (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRD cycle

Unresolved

I reverted the removal of the large portion of the text with referenced assertions per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Such important changes should be discussed per Wikipedia:Editing policy.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted insertion of the map which supports Bulgarian POV because it is against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
Instead of following WP:BRD cycle and gain consensus for the above mentioned disputed edits User:Jingiby began edit war.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiscriminator instead pushing here Serbian POV and the opinion of extreem controvercial Serbian scienist as Jovan Cvijić according to whom half Bulgaria was Sebian-populated I offer to you my former short NPOV:

The noting of Shopi as a "group" began in the 19th-century migrational waves of poor workers from the so-called Shopluk, poor areas (villages) beyond

Balkan wars, World War I and World War II the borders in the Shopi-speaking region changed several times between Serbia and Bulgaria, and later Republic of Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Your accusation that I am "pushing here Serbian POV" is not justified. I did not push any POV. I reverted your bold edits per BRD cycle. It is not BDR or BRBD cycle. It is BRD. You were bold, you got reverted, then you discuss. Therefore please follow WP:BRD and revert your edits. Then discuss.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand you. We need here NPOV, nor Bulgarian, neither Serbian POV. At the moment the section is mostly nAtionalistic POV. Jingiby (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am waiting about NPOV version of the section, please. Jingiby (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Хвала, благодаря.
I need some time to prepare my position.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antidiskriminator, how about the time for preparation? Jingiby (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologize because I completely forgot about this issue. I will try to prepare it during this weekend. Thanks for reminding me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent massive changes

The article has been boldly significantly changed. The map was removed as unsourced although there is a source indicated (Kosta V. Kostić, Prilog etnoistoriji Torlaka, 2 izdanje, Novi Sad, 1995.), Shopi are compared to "other Bulgarians", a government website is added as source while assertion supported by publication of American Geographical Society of New York was removed under "no author provided-no reliability" excuse. I will restore the stable version of the article per BRD.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blind revert is unjustified. OK, I didn't see that the map had a source and so I've restored it (though it would be helpful to provide a page number). As for the other comments:
1. The source clearly says "other Bulgarians". Sources can't just be interpreted to fit one's opinions - that is original research, if not falsification.
2. I don't see what the problem would be of using a government source. Cvijic worked closely with the Serbian government, and his views have been given great weight in the article.
3. This is not an excuse. If we do not know who the author was, we can't judge how reliable or neutral the source is. It might have been the US best specialist on the Balkans, or it might have been a Serbian diplomat in disguise (there are plenty of such cases in this period).
And the argument about the version being stable is a spurious one, if the article is obviously flawed as this one was. Kostja (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect.
  1. Restoring the version before your bold massive changes based on WP:BRD after providing a valid explanation at the talk page was not "blind revert"
  2. I did not say that no source threat Shopi as "other Bulgarians" or "other XYZ". I am sure there are millions of sources which do. The point is that it is against WP:NPOV to add such assertion to the (more or less) balanced text in order to give advantage to certain POV.
  3. Please don't delete map just because a page of the work is not provided
  4. "no author provided-no reliability" was an excuse to remove cited text. That is obvious because you attempted to attribute "Serbian nationalism" to author of the source using the Croatian Information Centre war propaganda publication written by unknown author link during recent Yugoslav war. If "no author provided-no reliability" was not an excuse you would not add another source with unknown author.
  5. The previous version was not significantly changed for almost six months. That is indication of stability and therefore it will be restored.
Please respect WP:BRD, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Editing policy (Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first.). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your explanation was not valid, as I explain below.
  2. No, the problem is that a source which says: "Jirecck says that these Shopi differ very much in language, dress, and habits from the other Bulgarians, who regard them as simple folk." is used to support a statement that says that they differ from Bulgarians. The original statement clearly considers the Shopi Bulgarians, while the text in article clearly doesn't. This is the equivalent of using a source that claims that the Shopi are Bulgarians to prove that they are NOT Bulgarians. This is blatant source falsification, Also, the POV argument is not sound. It does not violate NPOV to mention the opinions of different authors, especially if they're balanced by different opinions. And the claim that the Shopi are not Bukgarians, especially those living in Bulgaria, are not Bulgarians, is also POV, so by your logic it shouldn't be allowed either.
  3. I don't see why you're raising this issue, the map has already been restored.
  4. The comparison is not valid. In the case of the Croatian Information Centre, while we may not know the actual author, the identity of the organization which created the work is known. The American Geographical Society of New York, on the other hand, as a scientific organization publishes different authors, which may have many different backgrounds and its responsibility for the published content is not nearly as great. In any case, usage of a scientific source requires the author's name. This should be especially important in a source from 1919.
  5. So you're claiming that the version must be restored even if it's wrong? Sorry, but this is absurd. Please use actual arguments or this whole discussion is pointless.
Incidentally, regarding POV, this article gives far too much weight to the Serbian position, especially to the Serbian position in the early 20th century, a period when Serbia had territorial demands on the territories inhabited by the Shopi. Cvijic actually helped these expansionist efforts. No indication has been given that modern Serbian authors actually share these opinions. In contrast to this, no foreign authors except an anonymous contributor from 1919 supports this. Furthermore, most foreign authors considered the Shopi living in Serbia Bulgarians, including Niš (See this map, for example). So considering also that the great majority of the Shopi identify as Bulgarians (according to Cvijic's map), should so much weight be given to a marginal theory like that?Kostja (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Straw man. You accused me for making "blind revert". Your accusation was not justified. I presented arguments for my edit. Whether you believe my arguments are valid or not does not make my actions "blind revert".
  2. Jirecek does not say Shopi are ethnic Bulgarians, but actually connected them with Sapaeans and emphasized they are different from other Bulgarians. That was the main point of his text and that is what is presented in this article.
  3. I am not raising this issue.
  4. I think your selective pragmatic use of "no author provided-no reliability" argument is tendentious.
  5. No. What I said is don't make stable version more wrong.
  • I agree that this article has undue weight issue. but not only with Serbianism position. The whole article and especially classification section gave much more weight to "All Shops are Bulgarian" view than any other. I don't see a particular reason to list every single opinion about their ethnicity. Bulgarians are mentioned 25 times and Serbs 15 times in the classification section only. The section is even marked with tag which request more Bulgarianism (?). The whole article mentions Bulgaria/ns 121 times and 25 Bulgarianisms in just one section. How many Bulgarianism assertions would be enough? It is obvious whose position is given most undue weight. The point is: This article gave undue weight to both Bulgarian and Serbian black/white perspective.
  • I wish I had more time to prepare my proposal of NPOV paragraph about the classification of Shopi. It is enough to say that there are two groups of scholars. One group who claim all of them are Bulgarians/Serbs who speaks dialects which are all dialect of Bulgarian/Serbian language. The other group is represented by Cvijić who had neutral and honest approach although sometimes it caused him a trouble from some nationalists. His position is that some of them were Serbs, some Bulgarians and some mixed.
  • Cvijic's map presents territory populated with Shops, not that "the great majority of the Shopi identify as Bulgarians" which is your misinterpretation. Cvijić is used to support a map and one assertion which are both carefully attributed and quite neutral. Refuting Cvijic's neutral position as outdated and in the same time using much earlier works and maps to support "all Shops are Bulgarians and all of their dialects are one dialect of Bulgarian language" position is not constructive.
  • You are wrong about expansionism also. At the beginning of 20th century it was not Serbia who had expansionist intentions toward Bulgaria. It was the opposite. Bulgaria had expansionist intentions toward Serbia. It was Bulgarian scholars who justified these expansionist intentions with Bulgarisation of the people. Those intentions did not remain only intentions. Would you discard opinion of all Bulgarian scholars from that period because of the expansionism of their government the same way you did it with Serbian scholars?
  • Taking in consideration your unjustified accusations, fallacy and misinterpretations I agree with you that this whole discussion is pointless until real arguments are brought. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your explanation was inadequate and furthermore, you've also reverted statements for which you have no explanation at all.
  2. Actually, Jirecek says exactly that. The Shopi being different from other Bulgarians obviously means that they're Bulgarians as well. Also, Jirecek considers their dialect a Bulgarian one. As for their connection with the Thracian tribe, that is irrelevant as Jirecek only talked about their names and in any case, that doesn't invalidate them being Bulgarians - do you imagine that all peoples on the Balkans are descended from a single tribe? And yes, Jirecek mentions their distinctiveness within other Bulgarians - that doesn't mean that you can falsify the source and use it to claim exactly the opposite of what it does claim.
  3. You did raise it, but that's not the point, so let's drop it.
  4. You think so, but you haven't explained why we should be using a publication with unknown reliability and neutrality. You can't just use random passages from Google Books in this way and that's the consensus in Wikipedia, by the way.
  5. Yes, and you haven't given an explanation of why it is wrong. Instead you're arguing that we should be using original research and dubious sources.
  6. Sometimes one view is the correct one. While not all Shops are Bulgarians, most probably are and in the past most of them, if not all were considered Bulgarians. In light of this, it is an issue of balance that there are so many Serbian authors to defend the marginal position that all Shops are Serbs.
  7. Sorry, but if you're going to claim that Cvijc is honest and neutral, it would be rather unlikely for you to write any NPOV paragraphs. Cvijc claimed that a considerable part of the people in Western Bulgaria were actually Serbs or mixed with Serbs (something which no census or any observer but a few Serbian nationalists have ever confirmed) while claiming that all Serbs were pure and unmixed. Have you actually seen the map in question? Furthermore, he was not qualified at all to make such maps. He was a specialist in physical geography, not linguistics or ethnography. Otherwise he wouldn't have claimed (presuming he was honest) that the transitional are between Bulgarian and Serbian is located in Western Bulgarian, when it's mostly in Serbia. And his honesty is in question, considering that the map was made while he was working for the Serbian government when it was making territorial demands against Bulgaria.
  8. I was not claiming that Cvijic thought that most Shops were Bulgarians - he obviously didn't - but if it's assumed that his map is correct, then indeed most of the Shopi are Bulgarian. All censuses of the area and all researchers (except a few like Cvijic) have confirmed this. And frankly, if you're going to claim that Western Bulgaria is actually Serbian or mixed Serbian, this discussion is utterly pointless. And no, my problem is not with Cvijic being outdated, it's his obvious lack of neutrality, as I explained above. The maps which showed most of Eastern Serbia as being Bulgarian were not outdated for the period before 1878, when they were made. That this changed due to the region becoming part of Serbia doesn't mean that this also affected those parts that became part of Bulgaria.
  9. This is incorrect to the point of being ridiculous. Just because Bulgaria had expansionist ambitions against Serbia (though they didn't appear before WWI) doesn't meant that Serbia didn't have expansionist intentions against Bulgaria. The Serbia demands for Bulgarian territory after WWI were the third serious attempt by Serbia to expand against Bulgaria since 1878, not to mention all the propaganda in the meantime. And yes, Serbian scholars justified these intentions, including the "neutral" Cvijic. And these intentions succeeded and not only for three years like the Bulgarian intentions - last I checked
    Tsaribrod
    are still Serbian.
  10. I don't want to discard Cvijic - I just don't want him presented as neutral. And I'm curious about how any Bulgarian historians from the same time period could be discarded, what with none of them being included in the article.
  11. I don't see where I've made any "unjustified accusations, fallacy and misinterpretations", but yes the discussion is pointless if you're not even able to see that your point of view might be biased. Kostja (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Shoppe?

Shoppe as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistritsa_Babi

They are known for their use of shoppe polyphony, costuming, dancing in a ring (horo), and performing the lazarouvane (the girls' springtime initiation ritual). In 2005 they were included in UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Eastern Europe.
Any ideas? Kortoso (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Macmichael about Shopi

The British

Republic of Macedonia
:

"The native Christian inhabitans of this country antiently known by the name of Moesia, but now divided into two districts, denominated Servia and Bulgaria, are collectively called Serbiani, and speak the Slavonian language; for the original Bulgarians were a Tartar people, who came in the fifth century from the banks of the Volga, and successively adopted Slavonian dialect of their new countrymen the Servians, retaining only a few words of their former language." [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srpski Patriotizam (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes

  1. ^ Places to exchange cultural patterns, p. 1
  2. ^ Bŭlgarska etnografiia, Nikolaĭ Ivanov Kolev, Izdatelstvo Nauka i izkustvo, 1987, p. 69.
  3. ^ Istoricheski pregled, Bŭlgarsko istorichesko druzhestvo, Institut za istoriia (Bŭlgarska akademia na naukite), 1984, str. 16.
  4. ^ Felix Philipp Kanitz, (Das Konigreich Serbien und das Serbenvolk von der Romerzeit bis dur Gegenwart, 1904, in two volume) # "In this time (1872) they (the inhabitants of Pirot) did not presume that six years later the often damn Turkish rule in their town will be finished, and at least they did not presume that they will be include in Serbia, because they always feel that they are Bulgarians. ("Србија, земља и становништво од римског доба до краја XIX века", Друга књига, Београд 1986, p. 215)...And today (in the end of XIX century) among the older generation there are many fondness to Bulgarians, that it led him to collision with Serbian government. Some hesitation can be noticed among the young..." ("Србија, земља и становништво од римског доба до краја XIX века", Друга књига, Београд 1986, c. 218; Serbia - its land and inhabitants, Belgrade 1986, p. 218)
  5. ISBN 978-954-529-367-2.) The author describes the population of Sanjak of Niš as ethnic Bulgarians.[1]
  6. ^ Journey from Moscow to Constantinople, in years 1817,1818; pages 132, 133.[2]


User:Srpski Patriotizam, can you please defend your position with some arguments? Why do you think this quote, which makes no mention of the Shopi, belongs in the article? Do you believe this British doctor's travel account is particularly relevant just because he was unable to tell Bulgarians from Serbs and believed the Bulgars got their language from the Serbs? Don't you think the lack of factual accuracy (too good to be true, no?) and the lack of connection to the article's topic make this quote irrelevant here? Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It also can be said for the written work of Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui(„Voyage en Bulgarie pendant l'année 1841“ ), but you have a double standard, so that the article is not neutral. British doctor precisely describe the country of Moesia(includes the whole Shopluk area), its inhabitants, and the language that they speak. Srpski Patriotizam (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlile Aylmer Macartney about the Shopi

The Bulgarians' opinion about the Shopi cited by Prof. Carlile Aylmer Macartney has been repeatedly deleted. He was married in 1923 Nedelya Mamacheva, who was the daughter of a Bulgarian army colonel and lived for a short time in Bulgaria. His opinion has been cited by Prof. David Marshall Lang in his book The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest. This book is a secondary source published several times, including by Academic publishing houses as Westview Press. Lang was a Professor at the University of London, specialized in Bulgarian history. There is a positive Review of that book by George P. Majeska on the American Historical Review, Volume 84, Issue 1, 1 February 1979, Pages 140–141, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/84.1.140-a. Why is that info constantly deleted? Jingiby (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shopi&oldid=1206735360"