Talk:Atanas Razdolov

POV

Currently, almost entirely Yugoslav or North Macedonia's sources are used. Just to point out that there is no way he was a Macedonian writer, given that he only wrote in Bulgarian. Also this is one of the people with variable identity and this should be reflected in the article. It is also fair to note that he is considered Bulgarian in Bulgaria and Macedonian in North Macedonia. This is standard for such personalities with switching identity in the articles so far. Jingiby (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, whats wrong with Yugoslav and Macedonian sources? A lot of the less notable POV IMRO member pages you made only cite Bulgarian sources, also I've failed to see any sources supporting the claim that he had a rapidly changing identity, also how does him using Bulgarian classify him as Bulgarian? Dimitrija Čupovski used old Bulgarian and old Russian yet hes labeled as a Macedonian. I don't want you to continue blatantly inserting your beliefs so if you are gonna "fix" this article i advise talking about it here before altering it even further. Gurther (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurtner, you only added to the article the interpretation that the person was an ethnic Macedonian, and thus it completely lost its neutrality. Let I add to it some biographical data hitherto omitted, based on unused till now sources. Thus, this person will reveal himself in a different light. Since I'm busy these days, I'll do it with a little delay. Jingiby (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i only added a link to its respected article i did not "make the article lose its neutrality", secondly how is it losing its neutrality? is it because we wrote Macedonian and you dont support that? thats somewhat hypocritical since when it came to me fighting for neutrality on lots of articles on those who are allegedly "Macedo-Bulgars" yet my suggestions are either reverted or just ignored, i advise not having a double standart and instead attempt to carry out a better neutral opinion on all IMRO-related articles. Gurther (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the article based on information I gathered from the cited sources. Thus, the article reflects that. We can assess any changes that need to be made as you add additional content and sources.

However, I do disagree with your point that he cannot be considered a "Macedonian writer" because he wrote in Bulgarian. Grigor Parlichev wrote in Greek but we don't call him a Greek writer in that article. --Local hero ^talk 17:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, please stop promoting the usage of old outdated sources, it violates WP:PRIMARY, if you are gonna keep such outdated and unreliable sources then im adding a second tag, please discuss in the talk page first before making any further trouble Gurther (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, it doesn't matter how many times and when the memories of these long-dead revolutionaries are or ar not re-published. There is a secondary source confirming that his contemporaries described him as a highly controversial figure. Primary sources here, some of them recently reissued, some not and therefore "old", simply confirm the same information. Jingiby (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, "It Doesnt Matter" isnt an excuse when it comes to violating Wiki guidelines, if there really is secondary sources who've analyzed them then replace the old outdated sources to the more accurate and secondary sources, if there are republished version which have been analyzed then you can use those aswell, but directly using the source is unreliable, outdated, somewhat-bias and other issues. Gurther (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Take the case to WP:RSN. It's obvious that this can't be resolved through talking. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It does not seem appropriate to me that the content under "Assessments in SFR Yugoslavia and North Macedonia" has such a heading. It does not seem that these assessments of Razdolov are contradicted in Bulgaria. --Local hero ^talk 21:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, i also have no clue why Yugoslavia is also featured, despite this being a dispute only by the Macedonian and the Bulgar historiography Gurther (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, if there is a secondary source then replace it with this outdated materials, otherwise the tag will be sticking around Gurther (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, it is unacceptable to use sources from a non-existent communist state in an entire section and not even mention it. It is correct that when reading a certain information it becomes clear that it is old and ideologically motivated. Especially since in this case it concerns the Macedonian school of historiography, which does not enjoy a good name. From all this combination, accompanied by some unverifiable sources, a rather dubious picture emerges. I will return the title of the section for more information to the readers. If it is removed again I will be forced to tag the article for lack of neutrality. Jingiby (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, you've used lots of old Bulgarian communist sources for several IMRO articles, i have no clue why suddenly Macedonian communist sources are unreliable yet old Bulgarian communist sources are, seems like double standarts to me. I want to reach a comprise with you Jingby, how about we agree on the following terms : you can re-add the section title as long as we can remove any Bulgarian communist sources (i. e. sources produced before 1989) and you can also remove older Macedonian communist sources in other articles, does this sound like a good compromise? Gurther (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

These are sources published in a non-existent country and this should be clear to the reader. Jingiby (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, all other Bulgarian communist sources are published in a non existent country, should we clarify that too in all the articles that they have been cited? Gurther (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I removed a bunch of communist crap from the text about a class struggle, progressive forces, etc. But the entire section cannot be based only on such dubious sources and this to be hidden from the readers. Yes, such sources can be used carefully and after neutralization, but they cannot be only such. On the contrary, they should be less than modern historical analysis.--Jingiby (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, you seem to be ignoring my question so I'll ask you once again, if Macedonian communist sources are unreliable does that mean we should also remove Bulgarian communist sources? Since you can't just claim one is dubious while supporting the other. Gurther (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's controversial in that section. It simply discusses Razdolov's support of Macedonian separatism and liberation and elaborates on it a bit. If the sources were presenting some outlandish ideas that were at odds with other sources, then I could understand including a heading like that. It also doesn't help that Razdolov doesn't appear in many foreign author sources (from what I can see). --Local hero ^talk 21:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Local hero, I propose to restore the sub-title with clarification that these assessments of Razdolov's activity are only Macedonian. The Bulgarian assessments are set out in a separate subsection. Another option is to separate two paragraphs into a common section but to start them with an explanation of where these relevant assessments were given for him. Jingiby (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I just don't see where the two sections conflict with each other. Maybe we don't need subheadings for the Views section? I'll do this and if either of you disagree, feel free to revert. --Local hero ^talk 16:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the second option is better, considering that the subheadings have been problematic for you all. Attribute the opinions where it is needed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Today North Macedonia was not a distinct state. These sources were published in SFR Yugoslavia. North Macedonia exists since 1991. Jingiby (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, it seems to me that you are purposefully ignoring my question, if continue with such behaviour i will remove the POV tag, since your only reason seems to be BPOV rather then something important or actual NPOV violation. Gurther (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. Jingiby (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i advise you read up on WP:ACCUSE, so far my discussion has remained perfectly in topic, while you've been trying to promote your fringe views and conspiracy theories that all former SR Macedonia books and sources are unreliable, so far you've provided invalid arguments to why the POV tag is added, and it seems to me that your only reason is plain spite, either reach a compromise or ill be removing the tag. Gurther (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My proposal was posted above. Jingiby (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i've read all the messages and i see proposal, unless you count you promoting BPOV by claiming all SRM sources are unreliable, which at that case cannot be considered a "proposal" Gurther (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I'll say it again. I offer 2 options. The first option is to restore the sub-heading to clarify that the first paragraph presents the assessments of this person given by the Macedonian side. You can put a neutral title such as: Assessments from the Macedonian side. The other option is to merge the two paragraphs into a common section, but keep them separate. At the beginning of each paragraph, an explanation should be added, such as: According to Bulgarian interpretations... Jingiby (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, can you please stop posting questionable tags based on your personal judgment alone. It's against the rules. Discuss first on the talk page. Jingiby (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, none of the tags are related to personal opinion, only from facts and documents all over history, i also wanna see that letter about his opinions on the term "Macedonian" since it has peaked my interest. Gurther (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

why was my edit reverted

on the page it says "he accepted the ideas of macedonism after the balkan wars" so if we go by what is written on this page then i think it's right to say he was a Macedonian revolutionary Macedonier23 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, because in the article there are also data that the person served also the Bulgarian idea as a Bulgarian army spy. At that time only a few people were with pro-Macedonian views. Apart from this, with few exceptions, such as Chupovski and Nace Dimov, the other supporters of the Macedonian idea such as Misirkov, etc., were as a rule divided between the pro-Bulgarian and the pro-Macedonian views, i.e. were not ethnic Macedonians. Jingiby (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

it says he accepted the idea of Macedonian Nationalism

so it's right to say he is an ethnic Macedonian if he turned to "Macedonism" at the end,we should respect how they identified as it would be better to say he was an ethnic Macedonian and put a bulgarian section explaining if he had Bulgarian views Macedonier23 (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

When a person in his life changed his identity from A to B, it means that he did not have a single identity. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a neutral POV in such case, that means he was neither A, nor B. Jingiby (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

it says he accepted the ideas of Macedonism so if he "changed his identity from A to B" then we should say he is B and explain how and why he changed his identity Macedonier23 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Jingiby (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that statement based on a policy? If we take actor Elliot Page as an example, that person was born as a female and was a female until recently, before becoming a man. However, that article is written as if Paige has always been a man. --Local hero ^talk 19:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

that's my point if a person became a "Macedonist" we should put what he identified as like take the page on Marko Cepenkov it says he wrote in Bulgarian because he called it that even though he wrote in Macedonian Dialect Macedonier23 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)