Talk:Alekso Martulkov/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disputed neutrality

I see that the sources used are mainly the writings of Yugoslav communists from half a century ago, which shows a lack of modern reading and is quite one-sided. The opinion of the Macedonian historian Ivan Katardzhiev is that all left-wing Macedonian activists, former members of the IMRO (United) as Rizov, never managed to get rid of their strong Bulgarophile sentiments. He claims all left-wing Macedonian revolutionaries from the period until the early 1930s declared themselves as "Bulgarians" and he asserts that the political separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was yet only political phenomenon without ethnic character. Katardzhiev claims also all the left-wing veterans remained only at the level of political, not of national separatism. Thus, they practically continued to feel themselves as Bulgarians, i.e. they didn't develop clear national separatist position even in Communist Yugoslavia after WWII. For more: Академик Катарџиев, Иван. Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот, интервју за списание "Форум", 22 jули 2000, број 329.Jingiby (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten, it is full of factological and chronological errors, which push the POV to one side obviously. --Протогер (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense: During his time in IMRO he worked at Veles[14] and Kumanovo and helped in organizing and helping wounded soldiers during the llinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising.[15].. After the failure of the uprising he fled to Sofia to avoid being drafted by the Serbian authorities,[16][17]

The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising is from 1903, and Serbian authorities were installed in the city in late 1912. @Gurther:, better work on improving these facts and do not push to POV. --Протогер (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, mobile users cant talk so i had to use third-party ways to be able to communicate

first ill answer @Jingiby

- All of these sources are purposefully from Yugoslavia since back then the Macedonian historians weren't so anti-bulgarian bias, back then the anti-Bulgarian sentiment barely existed so its less bias then modern sources

- One historians interview isnt a great source for deciding an entire persons ethnicity, considering the fact neither he nor the innterviewer cited any sources

- You've taken the text out of context, he didnt say "Bulgarophile Sentiments" he said "they felt like Bulgarians" which is different

- He's the only historian to propose to idea, and only bulgarian historians follow this (with the exception of some bulgaro-americans) while a majority of the world agree that atleast most identified as macedonian

Now ill Answer @Протогер

- If you read earlier on you'll notice how it says "in his youth he noted how Veles wasn't full of pro-bulgarian propaganda but instead with pro-Serbian (Serbophile) organized by the Serbian authority" which suggested that the serbian authority was already somewhat active in the area, and considering the fact that the people they attempted to lie to rebelled, its not much of a shocker

now if you excuse me im reverting it to the correct version Gurther (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also quick note : before starting another edit war please discuss here so its less chaotic and more well-organized Gurther (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There are time gaps for like 10 years, i'm trying to improve them. By the way, Alekso Martulkov is obviously Bulgarian activist during this early period. So, please stop reverting. --Протогер (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence of him being a bulgarian activist he acknowledge in his book and in several sources he fought for the liberation of macedonia, you arent time filling your attempting to insert clearly flawed evidence Gurther (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read his book before blatantly assuming his bulgarianism http://macedonian.atspace.com/knigi/am_spmni.htm Gurther (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Memoirs are not the only source to improve biography article, are they? Giving one point view is the definition of breaking the POV rule. Stop vandalising the article, while i'm improving it. Thanks! --Протогер (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

They arent but they are a clear indication, especially on the matters of self declaration, you cant call someone a bulgarian despite his obvious macedonian stance Gurther (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses WP:SECONDARY SOURCES, moreover a man may change his identity several times during his life. Jingiby (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

a man cannot have different ethnicities, no matter how he declares himself he cant change it, its like biological parents, you can change them or get new ones but they are still your original parents, and judging by his action we can clearly state he is a macedonian Gurther (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Протогер please explain your attempt of bulgarnization of the Alekso wiki Gurther (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Bulgarnization?! Please give definition for this term. --Протогер (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're blatantly assuming he is a bulgarian despite him fighting for a macedonian state, he has identified as a macedonian, the most NPOV we can make this is a Macedonian with some Pro-Bulgarian ideals Gurther (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm citing sources, not assuming anything. This is the way to write NPOV article. You're the one defining everything as "ethnic macedonian by birth". By the way, most of Bulgarian revolutionaries from late 19 and early 20 century fought for liberation of Macedonia. Check IMRO article for instance. --Протогер (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Most imro members are Macedonian, they've identified as such aswell, but thats a whole new level of hot water that we dont wanna talk about right now, since IMRO is a ruff argumental mess and i want this article to be peaceful, He is Macedonian, declared himself such but has pro-bulgarian ideals in his early life and hes consdered a bulgarian in bulgaria, thats how we will balance this out Gurther (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not distinguish different Ethnonyms "macedonian". :) --Протогер (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh i have, when you write a book about yourself you dont identify from your region, especially in a huge nation (like Yugoslavia), IMRO also had an ethnic macedonian identity instead of a regional, the problem is you seem to fail at grasping that Gurther (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, on the one hand you have that, on the other you also have Katardžiev calling Martulkov a "Famous Macedonian revolutionary, socialist by beliefs" in his book "History of the Macedonian people: Macedonia between the Balkan Wars and World War 2 (1912-1941)" p.103, also publised in 2000.

Furthermore there's his memoirs where he clearly aspoused pro-Macedonian views and feelings (link can be found at the botton of the article).

So it's not so clear cut. Kluche (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

I see that the sources used are mainly the writings of Yugoslav communists from half a century ago, which shows a lack of modern reading and is quite one-sided. The opinion of the Macedonian historian Ivan Katardzhiev is that all left-wing Macedonian activists, former members of the IMRO (United) as Rizov, never managed to get rid of their strong Bulgarophile sentiments. He claims all left-wing Macedonian revolutionaries from the period until the early 1930s declared themselves as "Bulgarians" and he asserts that the political separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was yet only political phenomenon without ethnic character. Katardzhiev claims also all the left-wing veterans remained only at the level of political, not of national separatism. Thus, they practically continued to feel themselves as Bulgarians, i.e. they didn't develop clear national separatist position even in Communist Yugoslavia after WWII. For more: Академик Катарџиев, Иван. Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот, интервју за списание "Форум", 22 jули 2000, број 329.Jingiby (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten, it is full of factological and chronological errors, which push the POV to one side obviously. --Протогер (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense: During his time in IMRO he worked at Veles[14] and Kumanovo and helped in organizing and helping wounded soldiers during the llinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising.[15].. After the failure of the uprising he fled to Sofia to avoid being drafted by the Serbian authorities,[16][17]

The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising is from 1903, and Serbian authorities were installed in the city in late 1912. @Gurther:, better work on improving these facts and do not push to POV. --Протогер (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, mobile users cant talk so i had to use third-party ways to be able to communicate

first ill answer @Jingiby

- All of these sources are purposefully from Yugoslavia since back then the Macedonian historians weren't so anti-bulgarian bias, back then the anti-Bulgarian sentiment barely existed so its less bias then modern sources

- One historians interview isnt a great source for deciding an entire persons ethnicity, considering the fact neither he nor the innterviewer cited any sources

- You've taken the text out of context, he didnt say "Bulgarophile Sentiments" he said "they felt like Bulgarians" which is different

- He's the only historian to propose to idea, and only bulgarian historians follow this (with the exception of some bulgaro-americans) while a majority of the world agree that atleast most identified as macedonian

Now ill Answer @Протогер

- If you read earlier on you'll notice how it says "in his youth he noted how Veles wasn't full of pro-bulgarian propaganda but instead with pro-Serbian (Serbophile) organized by the Serbian authority" which suggested that the serbian authority was already somewhat active in the area, and considering the fact that the people they attempted to lie to rebelled, its not much of a shocker

now if you excuse me im reverting it to the correct version Gurther (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also quick note : before starting another edit war please discuss here so its less chaotic and more well-organized Gurther (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There are time gaps for like 10 years, i'm trying to improve them. By the way, Alekso Martulkov is obviously Bulgarian activist during this early period. So, please stop reverting. --Протогер (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence of him being a bulgarian activist he acknowledge in his book and in several sources he fought for the liberation of macedonia, you arent time filling your attempting to insert clearly flawed evidence Gurther (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read his book before blatantly assuming his bulgarianism http://macedonian.atspace.com/knigi/am_spmni.htm Gurther (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Memoirs are not the only source to improve biography article, are they? Giving one point view is the definition of breaking the POV rule. Stop vandalising the article, while i'm improving it. Thanks! --Протогер (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

They arent but they are a clear indication, especially on the matters of self declaration, you cant call someone a bulgarian despite his obvious macedonian stance Gurther (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses WP:SECONDARY SOURCES, moreover a man may change his identity several times during his life. Jingiby (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

a man cannot have different ethnicities, no matter how he declares himself he cant change it, its like biological parents, you can change them or get new ones but they are still your original parents, and judging by his action we can clearly state he is a macedonian Gurther (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Протогер please explain your attempt of bulgarnization of the Alekso wiki Gurther (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Bulgarnization?! Please give definition for this term. --Протогер (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're blatantly assuming he is a bulgarian despite him fighting for a macedonian state, he has identified as a macedonian, the most NPOV we can make this is a Macedonian with some Pro-Bulgarian ideals Gurther (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm citing sources, not assuming anything. This is the way to write NPOV article. You're the one defining everything as "ethnic macedonian by birth". By the way, most of Bulgarian revolutionaries from late 19 and early 20 century fought for liberation of Macedonia. Check IMRO article for instance. --Протогер (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Most imro members are Macedonian, they've identified as such aswell, but thats a whole new level of hot water that we dont wanna talk about right now, since IMRO is a ruff argumental mess and i want this article to be peaceful, He is Macedonian, declared himself such but has pro-bulgarian ideals in his early life and hes consdered a bulgarian in bulgaria, thats how we will balance this out Gurther (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not distinguish different Ethnonyms "macedonian". :) --Протогер (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh i have, when you write a book about yourself you dont identify from your region, especially in a huge nation (like Yugoslavia), IMRO also had an ethnic macedonian identity instead of a regional, the problem is you seem to fail at grasping that Gurther (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, on the one hand you have that, on the other you also have Katardžiev calling Martulkov a "Famous Macedonian revolutionary, socialist by beliefs" in his book "History of the Macedonian people: Macedonia between the Balkan Wars and World War 2 (1912-1941)" p.103, also publised in 2000.

Furthermore there's his memoirs where he clearly aspoused pro-Macedonian views and feelings (link can be found at the botton of the article).

So it's not so clear cut. Kluche (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Compromise

lets try to talk here and form a more compromised approach to this, i dont have the free time to endless revert edits so please give a good reason here before editing @Jingiby and @Протогер Gurther (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It is you who need to give arguments. 4 editors already revert your POV edits. --Протогер (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, two of them being bulgarians, one because i didnt reply in the talk page, whats your argument? its already well sourced enough, and you can freely read his book and explore other books Gurther (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My argument is that NPOV can be reached with presenting all point of views and adding facts about Martulkov's biography you missed in first place. --Протогер (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, we've already done that, i even added the bulgarian spelling of his name, but he is still a Macedonian Gurther (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, you have repeatedly removed the POV tag without actually addressing or resolving the issue. That tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. Also you cannot resolve the issue unilaterally. Consensus needs to be reached between editors during disputes (see WP:DR). Continuing to edit war is unconstructive. Also you should assume good faith and not direct personal attacks at other editors. You need to realize that this is nothing personal. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag since we've reached a compromise (for now atleast) that Alekso should be a Macedonian but we should also write his name both in bulgarian and macedonian and acknowledge the news quote by one of the Macedonian historians about the IMRO:U identification, There is no direct attacks but i have bad faith since both Bulgarian and Macedonian editors have clashed on the topics, and considering Jingbys history of making clearly bias articles just to undervalue N. Macedonias history is ridiculous, but me and Protoger have somewhat agreed that this current version is gonna be the compromise, they should also address why they add stuff during the edit war without consulting in the talk page despite me asking them several times, ive even made a second one hoping this would get their attention, and it has seemed to work with Proto while on the other hand Jingby is less-compromising Gurther (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, during the 20th century, Slavo-Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism. This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift. For more: Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127.

I have no idea whats wrong but for some reason i cant reply to this comment, so im using the editor, most macedonians did want a united nation, thats true and at first they considered and tried to also add bulgarians in their little ideal nation, but the problem with that was several anti-union bulgarian organization messed around with the idea, Also at first IMRO was leaning towards the bulgarian people, but they quickly realised that this organization should be centered towards the macedonians "the founders of the Organization such a question did not exist... Later, when the same leaders saw that the idea of liberating Macedonia could find sympathy among non-exarchist Bulgarians, as well as among other nationalities in Macedonia and under the influence of members of the organization with left-wing understandings, they replaced the statute of the organization in the sense that any Macedonian can be a member of the organization, regardless of his nationality and whatever his political understandings were, just to accept its principles and fight for the political autonomy of Macedonia" for more see Димитър Влахов, „Борбите на македонския народ за освобождение“, 1-во изд. Виена, 1925 г. стр.10-11. eventually they began discrediting the Bulgarians, considering them as "a virus" or "traitors" and eventually began acting pro-macedonian "The internal revolutionary organization will let everyone understand that it works for the unity and independence of Macedonia, as a free state on the Balkan Peninsula. That organization has given and in the future will give evidence that it is not an agent of any of the Balkan states, but an agent only of Macedonian freedom and independence. With such evidence, it will gradually remove the tribal differences in Macedonia and organize the future Macedonian people, if colorful, but capable of self-governing peacefully and quietly." for more see Право, II/31 (39), 22. 09. 1902, 3 (Written by Hristo Tatarchev) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurther (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Being away from computer does not mean i agreed to anything, nor Alekso Martulkov being from region of Macedonia means he wasn't Bulgarian. --Протогер (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright then my bad Gurther (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

National identity details

If the dispute about his nationality is important (some editors say that he was Macedonian, others that he was Bulgarian), why is it not important to insert the detail that at the trial in 1935, where some of the accused declared themselves Bulgarians, some Macedonians by nationality, Martulkov was part of those who declared themselves as Bulgarians by nationality? I suggest that there be a separate subheading "Legacy", where details about his identity and the dispute about it will be mentioned. If no such subheading is to be added, then those details should be inserted in the biographical subheading(s), in accordance with the course of his life. Anyway, I will also read his memoirs and see what can be added, especially about his national self-declaration. I was not very pleased that the article contained a detail that does not exist in the memories (the above mentioned claim that Martulkov allegedly made about dominance of pro-Serbian propaganda over pro-Bulgarian propaganda in Veles)... Идеологист (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Идеологист, I removed the trial declarations as it was not properly sourced. If a better source is provided then so be it, although a reformulation of the sentence would be required.

Regarding his identification - to my (limited) knowledge, in his memoirs he self-identifies/takes a (pro-)Macedonian position.

Like I pointed out previously - on the one hand you have Katardžiev's interview with Forum, on the other you also have Katardžiev calling Martulkov a "Famous Macedonian revolutionary, socialist by beliefs" in his book "History of the Macedonian people: Macedonia between the Balkan Wars and World War 2 (1912-1941)"

Hopefully this question will be resolved peacefully. Kluche (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and thanks for participating in the solving of the "pro-Bulgarian propaganda" claim. I also do not like edit wars and, in my opinion, if editors stay to the Wikipedia standards, this article has little to nothing to fight about. It can be mentioned exactly, according to historical sources, where he claims to be Bulgarian by nationality, where Macedonian by nationality. By the way, pro-Macedonian or Macedonian position does not have to mean Macedonian by nationality, Macedonian was a very strong political (not national) as well as regional identity during his life. P.S. "Macedonian revolutionary" does not have to mean per se Macedonian by nationality. IMARO revolutionaries were both called "Macedonian revolutionaries" and "Bulgarians" at the same time and context. Katardzhiev may have used it in either way. Идеологист (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katardziev admits that the idea of a separate Macedonian nation and language adopted in 1934 was not unequivocally accepted in the United IMRO. Tension was created and it took time to overcome the contradictions. However, the right-wing faction of the United IMRO did not accept this decision and broke away. Subsequently, those who accept this thesis remained in practice torn between their Bulgarian past and their Macedonian future. Jingiby (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That is why I think Katardzhiev's "Macedonian revolutionary" terminology was not said in some national sense.

Additionally, I half-read his memoirs (the pages available here, ie. p. 65 onwards), and Martulkov clearly states (p. 66) that: 1. The Organization at first had an article in its constitution allowing the participation only of Bulgarians, but changed that to allow all inhabitants of Macedonia and Adrianople to participate, and also "the organization prohibited national disputes within its territory", and 2. Martulkov mentions that the article allowing participation only of Bulgarians "was a purely nationalist position", which he did not agree with. Taking this into account, for Martulkov "Macedonian revolutionary" could not have had national connotation, that would have been against his view of what the Organization was about (ie. not a nationalist organization, but one open to various nationalities). Идеологист (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, in the interview, Katardžiev states that the Macedonian language and nation began developping in the 19th century, not 1934. He does not state what you've said in this comment i.e he does not delve into the left-right division of the IMRO. Hell, he even calls some actions by Ivan Mihajlov as pro-Macedonian.

As for Идеологист - if you look closly, when Martulov speaks of Serbs and Bulgarians from Macedonia he uses quotation marks (i.e "Serbs" and "Bulgarians") - clearly using a scare quote. Kluche (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is written by Katardziev: Без оглед на сето тоа по 1930 година во средината на македонската прогресивна емиграција започнала дискусија за „етничко-националната база" на македонското национално-револуционерно движење... По се изгледа дека диску сијата во круговите на левицата околу етничкиот, т.е. националниот карактер на македонскиот народ и борба, била жестока... Всушност, дискусијата околу прашаььето за тоа дали Македонците претставуваат самостојна словенска наци ja или не, открива дека дошло до нова поларизација во редовите на O6eдинетата' во Бугарија, а според тоа и до нови отпадништва. Десната трупа во неа, на чело со Васил Хаци Кимов кој бил член на Обласното раководство, се издвоила од Организацијата. (in English) Regardless of all that, after 1930, in the middle of the Macedonian progressive emigration, a discussion began about the "ethnic-national base" of the Macedonian national-revolutionary movement... It seems that the discussion in the circles of the left about the ethnic, i.e. national, character of the Macedonian people and the struggle, was fierce...In fact, the discussion surrounding the issue of whether the Macedonians represent an independent Slavic nation or not, reveals that there has been a new polarization in the ranks of the "IMRO United" in Bulgaria, and therefore new defections. A group in it, headed by Vasil Hadzikimov who was a member of the Regional Committee, separated from the Organization. Jingiby (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

A source on this would be appretiated, as this is not in the Forum interview which you have called upon many a times. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Резолуциjata на Коминтерната од 1934 r. и Македонскиот национален индивидуалитет. (The Resolution of the Comintern from 1934 and the Macedonian national individuality.) pp. 85-87. Jingiby (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I took note of that. His use of quotation marks does not have to mean that he disagrees with that (if you think that he uses them in such a manner), but can mean that he simply uses them to make sure the reader knows those are the exact names that were used at those times, at those places, in those events - quotation marks can mean accurate transmission of what was said back then. Mind you, some historians in SR Macedonia had a tendency to manipulate historical sources by changing "Bulgarians" with "Macedonians."

By the way, Martulkov does not cite the use of the name Bulgarian(s) once, twice, but several times and not only in the context of it being used in his city or in general by people from Macedonia, but even by Serbs (p. 81): "We, Serbs, in the organizational sense, are behind the Bulgarians. Bulgarians overtook us"...

Martulkov leaves an impression in his memories that he is surrounded by Bulgarians: he quotes them in multiple events surrounding him and the revolutionary work. Your reading of his memories that he was ethnically Macedonian and not ethnically Bulgarian, if inserted into the overall narrative of the book, would mean that Martulkov was rare in the Ottoman Macedonian society with such an ethnicity.

I say this considering his identification as Bulgarian at the trial in 1935, an event in which he had the choice to say whether he was Bulgarian, Macedonian, abstain (like Dimitar Vlahov), etc.

Bearing all this in mind, I could not find a historical source in which he nationally defines himself as a Macedonian. Please share if there is one, so that we can discuss it (taking into account other historical sources), so that we can be clear about the question of his nationality. Yes, it is possible that he changed his national self-declaration from Bulgarian to Macedonian. But it is also possible that he stuck to his self-declaration as Bulgarian even when he lived in SR Macedonia (perhaps without emphasizing it, so as not to be suspicious of the authorities, as other people who identified themselves as Bulgarians were). Best regards. Идеологист (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

As a result of these contradictions mentioned above, at the end of 1936, the IMRO (United) dissolved itself. Jingiby (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, quotation marks are used for an accurate transmission of what was said back then, when used to quote enitre statement/sentences. In this case, it's obvious that he is using scare quotes. Furthermore, while replacing Bulgarian with Macedonian did occure sometimes back then, this is no such case - since he uses "Bulgarian" at p.65, like you pointed out.

What we lack is the earlier and later parts of his memoirs, which could clear some things up. I've only been able to locate a snipped view version of his full memoirs (here)

A document which could be considered a national self-identification as Macedonian is the Appeal to the Macedonian emmigration in Bulgaria - which has been charaterized as sticking to the Comintern resoultion on the Macedonian question. Furthermore, in his memoirs he has used terminology such as "Macedonian national-revolutionary struggle".

Either way, unless there is a breakthrough in finding his memoirs, we'll be stuck in a perpetual loop of a conversation - I suggest we keep the current lead formulation. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I think overall the article is now in a fairly decent shape and it's good to remove the questionable neutrality tag I put on it. Jingiby (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that the article has been greatly improved compared to the first versions. Thanks to anyone who participated in the improvement. The POV template can be removed, if I am asked. Идеологист (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the tag. Kluche (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"Pro-Bulgarian propaganda" not mentioned in the cited pages

The term "pro-Bulgarian propaganda" or any of that sort (Bulgarian propaganda/Bulgarophile propaganda/propaganda of the Bulgarians, etc.) is not mentioned in the cited pages (68 and 70) of his memoirs (in fact he does not mention the Bulgarian name at all in those pages). Also, in those pages he does not claim that Veles was full of pro-Serbian or Serbophile propaganda, rather he mentions "A base for Serbian propaganda began to be formed in our town as well (there were already agents of it among the citizens of Veles)" (p. 68). If someone can cite the exact page(s) where Martulkov claims that in his youth Veles was not full of pro-Bulgarian propaganda but instead of pro-Serbian (Serbophile) one organized by a Serbian authority, as the current version of the article claims. Идеологист (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Идеологист, sorry I didn't see this earlier, I've already removed it since I think it's irrelevant (even if the information is true), since this is an article about Martulkov and not Veles during Ottoman rule. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we add this?

Ok, so I was exploring books about Alekso Martulkov and one of them featured another person who might be a family member to Alekso Martulkov, his name is Ivan Martulkov, hes mentioned as also being a member of the BCP and also in Sofia like with Martulkov, does anyone have more evidence to support if hes a family member or not? Thank you Gurther (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced he was his brother. Most probably they were cousins. Jingiby (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok so should we write him in the family section or just leave him out the article entirely? Gurther (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The second. Jingiby (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright Gurther (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AleksoMartulkov.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Bulgarian pedagogical school in Skopje

The Bulgarian Men's Pedagogical School in Skopje aimed to prepare teachers for the Great Skopje Exarchate Diocese and for all of Macedonia. The pedagogical courses from the Thessaloniki Bulgarian Men's High School were moved to the Skopje school, which until then had four classes. A boarding house has been established at the school too. Martulkov studied there per Petar Mandzhukov's memoires: B една от стаите на същата къща, където живеехме ние с Калчев, беше квартирата на Петър Завоев от гр. Кратово (по-късно журналист в София с псевдоним Прохор Пчински) и на Атанас Колев от с. Павликени, Севлиевско; и двамата бяха изключени ученици, които живееха в Скопие и се готвеха да държат в края на годината изпита от трети курс на Скопското педагогическо училище. Чрез тях двамата ние се запознахме с всички ученици от трети (последния) курс на училището; много скоро около нас се образува един ученически анархистичен кръжок, предимно от велешани, от които си спомням Ильо Поп Йорданов (братовчед на Орце), Александър Мартулков и някой си Андрей; имената на другите съм забравил. Jingiby (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason why this information should be suspect, regardless of the fact that we get it from a memoir and not from an official source (in fact, the author of the memoir can be said to be a reliable source, a participant in processes in which Martulkov also participates, and who, according to the quote, knew Martulkov: "...we got to know all the students... very soon a student anarchist circle formed around us, mostly from Veles, of whom I remember... Aleksandar Martulkov... I have forgotten the names of the others."). It lines up with the course of his life. He studied at the Bulgarian Pedagogical School in Skopje and then worked as a teacher in the Bulgarian school in his hometown. We notice such a course of life in the biographies of numerous other people from Macedonia of that time. Идеологист (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Martulkov himself confirms in his memoirs that he graduated from the Skopje Pedagogical School and describes his studies there: По завршувањето на трети клас во Велес, го проoолжив образованието во Скопското педагошко училиште во први клас. Курсот на Скопското педагошко училиште беше тригодишен. i.e.: After completing the third grade in Veles, I continued my education at the Skopje Pedagogical School in the first grade. The course at the Skopje Pedagogical School was three years. etc. The full name of the school was: Bulgarian male three-grade pedagogical school. Jingiby (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Order of languages

Nauka, the WP:COMMONNAME of Alekso Martulkov is Александар Мартулков, not Александър Мартулков. Please state a guideline/policy which supports your view, since this can be considered vandalism. Kluche (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you show me where is that WP:COMMONNAME set as Александар Мартулков? Is that also some kind of policy - is there any list of "WP:COMMONNAMES" that we should comply? And why my edits of the language order should be considered as vandalism, but yours should not? I see alphabetical order in the language lists of any interwiki list - this is why the connections to Bulgarian versions of the pages are placed after the links to Arabian versions and before the links of English versions. It is not some kind of fight for predominance of languages, just alphabetical order.--Nauka (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME means that the most recognizable and most used name should be given to an article and used within the article as a primary name. I got more hits, both on Google and on Google books for Александар Мартулков, than

Александър Мартулков. Actually when I searched for Александър Мартулков I got more results for Александар Мартулков.

I'd also like to ask again for a guideline/policy which backs up your view. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Mayde you got more results for Александар Мартулков, beacouse of your language settings in the Google search. This is why someone else may receive more results for Александър Мартулков. As I already noticed, I comply with the alphabetical order of the languages applied for the interwiki links in Wikipedia and Wikidata. It is cleary visible in every interwiki list. Kind Regards!--Nauka (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect I have it in English. As for the rest of your comment - interwiki links don't justify anything, furthermore they are not related to mainspace of an article. I've cited an official Wikipedia policy which directly delves into this. Regards Kluche (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Systematic attempts to bring the article out of its neutral state.

I notice that persistent and systematic attempts are being made to bring the article out of its neutral state. Please let this finally stop. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop promoting fringe views, all books in English and Macedonian and a good portion of Bulgarian have described him as a Macedonian this means its a accepted fact almost everywhere that he was Macedonian. Gurther (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

None of them was provided here. Jingiby (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I call on all the editors who have commented on the topic to express their opinion about the state of the article in which Gurther is trying to bring it. In my opinion, it is an attempt to manipulate the content. The article itself says that in the mid-1930s Martulkov continued to define himself as a Bulgarian. Three researchers point out that revolutionaries like him continued to feel that way for the rest of their lives, regardless of how they declared themselves in Communist Yugoslavia after the war. The case of the Macedonian historian Katarjiev is clear. Apart from confirming that all revolutionaries from IMRO, both left and right, felt that they were Bulgarians, he claims all from the left wing who accepted Macedonian identity in the 1930s or later, without exception, continued to feel practically as Bulgarians. Katarjiev is adamant that these with Bulgarian feelings were absolutely all of the left wing, no matter what he called them. I call for an opinion User:Local hero; Kluche; Nauka; User:StephenMacky1; User:Идеологист. Jingiby (User talk:Jingiby) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby please stop accusing editors and promoting fringe theories, those sources cited which stated that Martulkov saw himself as a Bulgarian before the accepting of the coniform were all Bulgarian and might be a little POVish, these sources stated that he saw himself as a Bulgarian after Yugoslavia are mistoken out of context, Katardžiev doesn't mention Martulkov anywhere and as a matter of fact Katardžiev calls him a Macedonian, the second source (as you mentioned) cites Katardžiev which also makes it not useful and the third could actually stay since it's reliable source. Please provide English academically approved sources which state some of these beliefs, and if there are any then this is just a violation of fringe theory. Please stop with the Vandalism. Gurther (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be far easier if you all summarized issues based on content, rather than on other editors. It would make things easier to read for everyone else. Also, as far as I know, editor Nauka wasn't involved in the POV dispute. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yea Nauka was only involved with the dispute on which language should his name be spelled first Gurther (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gurther,

I hope this message finds you well. I kindly want you to be reminded of Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly the policy on Neutral Point of View (NPOV), which requires edits to be based on reliable sources. Since you are bringing none to the tables. The edits will be indeed reverted.

Gurther you have been making edits that do not conform to NPOV and has not provided trusted sources to support their changes. As a result, their edits have been reverted. Furthermore, you have been spreading NM propaganda and falsifying historical figures on your user profile.

I urge the Wikipedia community and fellow editors to investigate this issue and take appropriate action to restore the article to its accurate and reliable state. Nikolay.rusev (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Nikolay.rusev almost all sources present have called him a Macedonian, both English and Macedonian with a good portion of Bulgarian clearly mention him as a Macedonian, this isn't a violation of NPOV but as a matter of fact it's perfectly legal in all guidelines, although both you and Jingby seem to be promoting fringe views which is against the terms of Wikipedia, please provide English academically approved sources otherwise some of your claims wont be reliable Gurther (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There are indeed fringe teories in the present article, but in statements "proving" his pro-macedonism. Like this one: "He was sentenced to 5 years in prison and was ordered to pay a fine because of his pro-Macedonian national views.[46]." I own the book of Decho Dobrinov and there is written that, while Martulkov clearly identified as Bulgarian he was sentenced because of spreading hatred against the rulling class. Also there is no IMRO (Autonomous) - this term is directly taken from communist era literature, but only IMRO, while the IMRO (United) is little fraction and should be in brackets. --Протогер (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I used autonomous to describe IMRO since calling it simply "IMRO" might make the reader think about the 1890s version but i guess its fine for now. Gurther (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, on pages 65-66 in his memoirs, Martulkov claims that in the first statute of the Organization there was a special article that gave only Bulgarians the right to be its members, i.e. see the article : First statute of the IMRO. Jingiby (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how thats related nor could i find this, if you have no further disputes I'll remove the tag and return it to the pre-vandlism version. Gurther (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote at all. It doesn't make any sense. Jingiby (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? All i said was the comment about MRO allowing only Bulgarians isn't related to the conversation, and that if you have no further objections I'll re-add the materials that were unfairly deleted. Gurther (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

None of the editors invited here for discussion has so far stated that it is something deleted from the article that is important and should be re-added. I also don't see any such text either. Nobody invited here objected to the current version of the article. Nobody changed it to its previous version or espoused such view. It is necessary to convince the rest of the editors of your views. This is not happening so far. So, try to discus it here again. If nobody agrees wit you, keep the text so. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but i could barely understand that, a lot of grammar errors has made this almost unreadable but ill try to respond to what i could understand. Jingiby we don't need other editors to agree or disagree since the current version is promoting fringe theory because almost all books have refered to him as a Macedonian (except some Bulgarian books) and the only sources who support the theory that former IMROU members in Yugoslavia still saw themselves as "Bulgarians" are Bulgarian theories and a out of context quote from Ivan Katardžiev. This isn't reliable. Gurther (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If what you claim is true, someone else will back you up. So far there is none for know. Jingiby (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kluche, all the sources claim the IMRO activists had originally Bulgarian national identity. The leftist who adopted Macedonian one in 1934-1944 were uncertain what they were. There were dozens of such people and all of them could not be mentioned by name by the authors of the studies. Martulkov is mentioned explicitly by Tony Nikolov as such an example. There is nothing fringe. Tribuna was one of the most authoritative magazines in Macedonia, and the author of the article Zoran Todorovski was the director of the State archive. Jingiby (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, Toni Nikolov is neither a historian nor a researcher. He is a journalist and philosopher, so I cannot consider him RS on such an issue. By the looks of what he wrote about himself, he doesn't concern himself with history at all.

I already mentioned this once, I'll state it again - you are using both the interview with Katardžiev and a source critizing him. So which one is it? By the way, Zoran Todorovski is not the author of the article, he is the interviewee. Neither Katardžiev nor Todorovski mention Martulkov.

About Palmer's book - I request that you provide the page(s) which back up your claims. A quick inside search of the book shows that Martulkov is not mentioned.

So what we are left is an opinion article by Dechev, which does not mention Martulkov.

And finally, WP:OVERCITE. Hence why I'm inclined to remove the section, which itself could be considered as WP:IMPARTIAL. Kluche (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Palmer's source may not be reliable too. Last I checked, Palmer is a psychology professor, definitely not someone who specializes in Southeastern European history for example. Yet I've seen the source frequently. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's leave only the historians then. In fact, there is no doubt that Ivan Katardziev and Todorovski were Macedonian historians. In two separate interviews, both claimed that all revolutionaries from VMRO had a Bulgarian national identity. Todorovski did criticize Katardziev, but that has nothing to do with this case. The important thing is that they were of the same opinion on the matter. Of course there are some nuances. Katardzhiev explicitly emphasized that everyone, I repeat "everyone" from VMRO United, who accepted Macedonian identity at a later stage (such as Martulkov), in practice continue to feel Bulgarian after the Second World War. Todorovski dId not raise this issue at all and claimed that both, the left and right wings had a Bulgarian national identity. Stefan Dechev on the other hand is a Bulgarian historian known for his special position on the Macedonian issue. Because of this, he has been criticized in Bulgaria and welcomed in North Macedonia. He quotes Katardziev and fully agrees with him: "As a historian Ivan Katardziev pointed out, even the veterans of the left-wing VMRO (United) in the second half of the 1940s "remained only at the level of political, not national separatism.” Then Dechev continues: In this sense, we can say that today's definition of Macedonian national identity necessarily went later through Yugoslav socialization and overted anti-Bulgarianism, and this certainly also goes through a historical narrative from the Yugoslav era, which seriously ignores many historical facts. Not by chance, speaking of personalities like Dimitar Vlahov or Pavel Shatev, Katardziev adds: "They practically felt like Bulgarians. VMRO (United) did not budge from the usual Macedonian political separatism." I will only add that Chavdar Marinov says the same: The IMARO activists clearly distinguished their Macedonian political identity from their Bulgarian national identity, which existed in parallel. In fact, the idea is that the Macedonian identity had to go a long way to take on a truly separate form, and these people simply did not went through that phase of Yugoslavization and Bulgarophobia. The fact that Martulkov left Yugoslavia and returned to Bulgaria shows that he could not adapt to this atmosphere. Needless to say, not everyone of the left wing accepted the new Macedonian national identity, and only a few of the right wing do it, but many were persecuted for that, sentenced to prison, killed, etc. Jingiby (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, attempting to push non-RS as RS is not positive.

Secondly, attempting to portray Todorovski as a mainstream opinion in N.Macedonia is not NPOV. He is quite literally defined as a revisionist, something you clearly are aware of.

Third, I've reread both interviews. You have Katardžiev who states that IMRO(United) members were political, not ethnic seperatists, and then you have Todorovski (responding to critisism by Katardžiev) effectivly stating that Katardžiev does not consider IMRO(United) members (like Vlahov) as only political seperatists, but as ethnic/national ones too. The sources are contradicting eachother. They also continue to underline the revolutionaries's fight for an independent united Macedonia, and not their identity.

Fourth, no one, and I repeat no one has mentioned Martulkov.

Fifth, it seems to me that both Dechev and Marinov continue to use buzzwords like "Yugoslavization" and "anti-Bulagrianism", which don't even exist in the English language - and might go against Wikipedia policy (MOS:NEO, MOS:LABEL). We are also not talking about IMARO activists, many of whom died before WW1 - we are talking about a man who was part of the original IMRO, IMRO(United) and later ASNOM. A source on Marinov's statement would also be nice.

Sixth, I'd like to bring attention again to the fact that in his memoirs, when Martulov speaks of Serbs and Bulgarians from Macedonia he uses quotation marks (i.e "Serbs" and "Bulgarians") - clearly using a scare quote. Furthermore, in his memoirs he has used terminology such as "Macedonian national-revolutionary struggle".

Seventh, why is this in the "During and after World War II" section when it talks about his identity over a longer period of time, not just during and after WW2?

Finally, I'd like to (preemptively, not implicatively!) note of WP:OR and the fact that correlation is not equal to causation. Kluche (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

First: the historiography of North Macedonia has been in a state of stupor for decades and it is not presented anywhere as a positive example of development. Second: the fact that the director of the state archive is presented there as a revisionist, only confirms the fact that everything has been frozen on this historical topic since the time of communism. Even more, the views of Katardziev, who was maybe the greatest specialist in the history of VMRO, have also been often criticized. Third: I did not see anywhere Todorovski to claim that the revolutionaries of VMRO were national separatists, as well as Katardziev. Fourth: it is not possible for an interviewed to list all the dozens of revolutionaries, the categories listed are important, and they are two: activists of VMRO, respectively of the VMRO United. Martulkov undoubtedly falls into both categories. Fifth: I do not think that a researcher's philosophical education is an obstacle for him to take a position on a historical issue in which he has great expertise. For example, the author of the Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia is a Bulgarian political scientist. Tony Nikolov often writes about the Macedonian issue, and even more so he presents obvious facts: half of the leadership of ASNOM, including Martulkov, fled back from Yugoslavia to Bulgaria in the 1960s, and the other half had already been thrown into prisons and labor camps. By the way, his memories were written in Bulgarian and translated into the new Macedonian language. He never get to learn it. Sixth: that with Anti-Yugoslavism and Bulgarophobia was my paraphrase of what Dechev said, which I have translated, I think exactly, see above. Just the last two sentences from the post are mine. Sixth: the memoirs of any one person are not a fully reliable source, and as a primary source it should be evaluated carefully. For example, Martulkov claims there that initially the VMRO statute allowed only Bulgarians to be members. In addition, he was a member of the Bulgarian section of the People's Federal Party, whose statute also allowed only Bulgarians to be members of it. The same person was a member of the Bulgarian Social democratic party and the Bulgarian Communist Party and was a Bulgarian deputy in the national parliament. In addition, he completed his education only in Bulgarian schools and in Bulgarian high school. He worked also as a Bulgarian teacher. He declared himself before the court as a Bulgarian in the trial in 1936. In 1941, he discussed the creation of Bulgarian action committees in Yugoslavia. Only in 1944 did he show an Macedonian consciousness and went to Yugoslavia to build a new Macedonian state. But in the end he couldn't stand the situation there and fled back to Bulgaria. By the way, in Yugoslavia he was placed in isolation, etc. The conclusion is clear: his attempt to adopt a new identity in Yugoslavia failed. Jingiby (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, no where did I mention Macedonian historiography.

Secondly, here's where Todorovski heavily implicates that Katardžiev claims that IMRO revolutionaries were national seperatists:

Interviewer: Ivan Katardžiev says in "Utrinski Vesnik": "Let those who stand for Todor Aleksandrov tell me where and when Todor Aleksandrov fought for the Macedonian language, when he fought to support Misirkov's book 'About Macedonian Affairs...'"

Todorovski: I don't know any other Macedonian actors who have spoken out on this issue. Wil same person [Katardžiev] say, when Dimo ​​Hadži Dimov and Dimitar Vlahov in those years, after the First World War, as the most prominent representatives of the left and the communist movement, fought for the Macedonian script and language, let's not talk about Lazar Koliševski and our other communists until 1944 year, did they also advocate for the Macedonian language?...

It is clear that Todorovski is stating that Katardžiev claims that the leftists in the IMRO were national seperatists, which contradicts your other source i.e the interview with Katardžiev. I never said that Todorovski claimed IMRO revolutionaries were national seperatists.

Third, on your comment about an interviewee not being capable of listing all revolutionaries - then maybe interviews are not RS for such topics?

Fourth, Nikolov clearly does not have the right qualifications to be used as a reliable source in these types of situations, end of story. Plus, in the source presented, he does not claim that "half of the leadership of ASNOM fled to Bulgaria in the 1960s".

Fifth, you did not reply to my 7th point/concern. Kluche (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, clearly almost everyone agress that these sources and claims are not reliable and that some of these authors aren't qualified historians, i also want to mention your misusage of the interview by Ivan Katardžiev in 2000 "Forum". Yes he mentions how they "practically felt like Bulgarians" but you seem to forget to mention the second half of his answer :

"But we must mention an important phenomenan here. The division of Macedonia in 1913 played an extremely harmful role in the consciousness of Macedonians. Why? Because it interrupted normal communication - political, cultural, economic - between Macedonians. It stopped the process of creating a unique Macedonian history of the entire Macedonian area. Macedonian progressive forces tied them to the progressive forces of the countries in which they existed. They began to accept the political determination and philosophy of the countries between which Macedonia was divided. Thus, during the NOB, when the time came for connection, there was a huge gap in the consciousness of Macedonians from the three parts of the country."

What Katardžiev has basically stated here is that although they saw themselves as Bulgarians this was because they were forced to accept Bulgarian philosophy since the 1913 balkan war helped damage the Macedonian identity and since a majority of IMROU members were in Sofia they had to accept Bulgarian philosophy and this philosophy sadly stuck to them. I also wanna mention that this still doesn't mention Martulkov anywhere. Gurther (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, my answer is this:

On the first question: usually one side refers to the characteristic views based on sources from Macedonian historiography. That's why I commented on its level. Regarding the second question: I do not know what arguments the two deceased had, but from their words in the interviews it cannot be concluded that some of them deny the Bulgarian national identity of the revolutionaries from VMRO. And otherwise everyone can accuse the other of something with or without reason. Regarding the third question and the full listing of revolutionaries, it seems to me that it is completely devoid of logic. Regarding the fourth question about Nikolov, who is a lecturer of philosophy at Sofia University, I think you are wrong. His article is completely objective and contains criticisms of both sides with a view to mutual concessions and reaching a compromise. However, focusing on separate words or phrases is not a constructive position. As for the seventh question, it is clear from the article that for the first time Martulkov expressed Macedonian national identity in 1944, when he was 66 years old. It is more than clear that until then he was a Bulgarian.

Now I answer to Gurther. It is about some kind of repression, which is nowhere mentioned by Katardziev. As far as I know, Katardziev claimed that the Macedonian national identity was created on the base of the Bulgarian identity by repressions hold in communist Yugoslavia. Иван Катарџиев: Тие работи треба да се имаат предвид, за да не се дојде до погрешни заклучоци. Македонската свест почна да се развива дури по Првата светска војна, највеќе во Србија и во Грција, бидејќи таму се спречи бугарската пропаганда, се затворија бугарските училишта. Во Македонија мрежата на бугарскиот школски систем беше дури погуста отколку во Бугарија. Затоа се разви македонска свест – знаете за “Луч”, драмите на Васил Иљовски и пр. Инаку за македонска интелигенција може да се зборува дури по 1945 г. и тоа благодарение постоењето на државниот субјект – НР Македонија во рамките на Jугославија. Таа македонска интелигенција се разви прво врз основа на репресијата, за да може да се развие и таа свест.Jingiby (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, since im not Kluche I'll only respond to my section of your claims. Katardžiev (in what you've shown me atleast) doesn't mention anywhere on how the Macedonian identity was based of the Bulgarian. He mentions how the Greek and Serbian government removing the Bulgarian propaganda helped in awakening a private Macedonian identity but not create. I also wanna note that this is further justifying the claim by Katardžiev in the Forum interview since the Bulgarian government kept the Exarchate their philosophy and influence effected those in IMROU who were in Sofia (including Martulkov) which just shows us even further that these "declarations" were just Bulgarian influence by propaganda from the Exarchate and were not ethnic declarations. Gurther (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Gurther! Иван Катарџиев: Тука многу се зборува за “политички” и за “национален сепаратизам”. Луѓето не праваат дистинкција, не го употребуваат коректно. Националниот сепаратизам претпоставува изградена нација со национална свест и оттаму – сепарација. Така врз основа на веќе формираната бугарска нација во Македонија се прави сепарација. Тие беа со бугарска национална свест, а Македонска нација се создаде по Втората светска војна од политички причини. Ivan Katardziev: There is a lot of talk here about "political" and "national separatism". People don't make a distinction, they don't use it correctly. National separatism presupposes a built nation with a national consciousness and hence - separation. Thus, on the basis of the already formed Bulgarian nation in Macedonia, separation was made. They (the IMRO-activists) had a Bulgarian national consciousness, and the Macedonian nation was created after the Second World War for political reasons. Jingiby (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Im starting to doubt the reliability of these quotes, for starters which interview is this from Katardziev? since i can't find it at all, all i found was a bunch of quotes from ultra nationalist Bulgarian sites and random forums with no validity. I also think the (the IMRO-activists) appreviation is somewhat of a violation of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH but if im wrong feel free to correct me. Gurther (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, since the dispute is still going on i want to reach an agreement with anyone who is still active in this conversation, my plan for the introduction is that he was "a Macedonian revolutionary and publicist", and to remove the section which states "hes considered a Macedonian in Macedonia" and also correcting it from "hes considered a Bulgarian in Bulgaria" to "hes considered a Bulgarian in the Bulgarian historiography" if anyone has an issue with this please state it here since im open to suggestions. Gurther (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current intro though? Most of the sources here appear to be Macedonian and Bulgarian. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The current version has some Fringe theory issues, almost all Bulgarian, English and Macedonian books have called him a Macedonian revolutionary. And some grammatical errors.Gurther (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Subjects are usually described for what they are notable for, based on reliable, secondary and independent sources. You can check WP:N. If there are such sources (English and independent) about the subject, you can present them here. The ones I encountered in English haven't been independent. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ive also noticed the lack of Notability in English books, from what i've seen most english books just quote or cite his book and the rest either dont mention his ethnicity or are extremely outdated (i remember finding one from 1934) does this mean this article has the potential of deletion? im not very aware when it comes to WP:N so feel free to explain if you wish to. Gurther (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There are worse articles out there. I'm just recommending you to keep the intro as it is and try to keep the article without issues. I've seen newer articles get deleted because its editors didn't have the chance to prove to prove their notability or due to other issues. Just make sure that you have sources when trying to create an article because the same principle applies when you are working on a project for example. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, since this dispute is resolved may i remove the tag? Gurther (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can go ahead. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Since a lot is written here about the fringe views of the Bulgarian historiography, but without any sources, let's still present a few:

• "Until the late 19th century both outside observers and those Bulgaro-Macedonians who had an ethnic consciousness believed that their group, which is now two separate nationalities, comprised a single people, the Bulgarians. Thus the reader should ignore references to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle ages which appear in some modern works. In the Middle ages and into the 19th century, the term ‘Macedonian’ was used entirely in reference to a geographical region. Anyone who lived within its confines, regardless of nationality could be called a Macedonian...Nevertheless, the absence of a national consciousness in the past is no grounds to reject the Macedonians as a nationality today." "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century," John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, pp. 36–37.
• "At the end of the World War I there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Macedonian Slavs who had developed then some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians." The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world], Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65–66.
• "Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen. The first Congress of AVNOJ in November 1942 had parented equal rights to all the 'peoples of Yugoslavia', and specified the Macedonians among them." The struggle for Greece, 1941–1949], Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67.
• "Yugoslav Communists recognized the existence of a Macedonian nationality during WWII to quiet fears of the Macedonian population that a communist Yugoslavia would continue to follow the former Yugoslav policy of forced Serbianization. Hence, for them to recognize the inhabitants of Macedonia as Bulgarians would be tantamount to admitting that they should be part of the Bulgarian state. For that the Yugoslav Communists were most anxious to mold Macedonian history to fit their conception of Macedonian consciousness. The treatment of Macedonian history in Communist Yugoslavia had the same primary goal as the creation of the Macedonian language: to de-Bulgarize the Macedonian Slavs and to create a separate national consciousness that would inspire identification with Yugoslavia." Stephen E. Palmer, Robert R. King, Yugoslav communism and the Macedonian question, Archon Books, 1971, ISBN 0208008217, Chapter 9: The encouragement of Macedonian culture.
• "Nodoubt,the vast majority of the Macedonian peasants, being neither communists nor members of IMRO (United), had not been previously affected by Macedonian national ideology. The British officials who attempted to tackle this issue in the 1940s noted the pro-Bulgarian sentiment of many peasants and pointed out that Macedonian nationhood rested ‘on rather shaky historical and philological foundations’ and, therefore, had to be constructed by the Macedonian leadership." Livanios, D. (2008), The Macedonian Question: Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939–1949.: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0191528722, p. 206.
• “Even as late as 1945, Slavic Macedonia had no national identity of its own." Nikolaos Zahariadis (2005) Essence of Political Manipulation: Emotion, Institutions, & Greek Foreign Policy, Peter Lang, p. 85, ISBN 0820479039.
• After WWII in Macedonia the past was systematically falsified to conceal the fact that many prominent "Macedonians" had supposed themselves to be Bulgarians, and generations of students were taught the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation. The mass media and education were the key to this process of national acculturation, speaking to people in a language that they came to regard as their Macedonian mother tongue, even if it was perfectly understood in Sofia. Michael L. Benson, Yugoslavia: A Concise History, Edition 2, Springer, 2003, ISBN 1403997209, p. 89.
• In what I see as a three-way dispute about Macedonian identity, I reject partisan approaches, but concede that the Bulgarian view probably does fractionally less violence to the ascertainable facts of history than either the Greek or Macedonian. Michael Palairet, Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, ISBN 1443888435, p. 16. Jingiby (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, this isn't connected to the subject at all, we aren't calling the Bulgarian historiography "fringe views" we are just showing the opinions of other historiographies. None of these sources mention Martulkov aswell which is just plain usless i advise you re-read what we've been discussing, thank you. Gurther (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This must be an April Fool's joke. Jingiby (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? Gurther (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)