Jump to content

Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Duma and Tribune are 404. -- dsprc [talk] 10:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits by 1111tomica

Seriously, what is up with this? It's one of the most unexplainable edits I've ever seen. Certainly not an improvement to the article.

Please explain the motivation behind that edit and the two reverts ([1][2]). Todor→Bozhinov 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well by my opinion the Macedonian template should be first, because the Uprising is on the template and on the Bulgarian I can not see it. Maybe it should be removed. And also if you think that this edits are non-improvements for the article don't undone it ! Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Ummm, seriously what's up with that? Why are you pushing this? If a dispute cannot be solved you could always rely on the alphabet. And since B is further up than R or M this makes the case. Now the only thing you've done is that you broke 3RR. Try to be calmer next time. --Laveol T 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So you broke the 3RR also! What we do now? Tomica1111 (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Nope, I've made only two reverts. You're the only one that did it. --Laveol T 10:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well you are about to do it! Or you gonna call your B'lgarian friends to do that, and of course once again I am gonna be the bad boy here. Tomica1111 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

IMORO

This article refers to "IMORO", which I assume was a precursor or splinter of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, but I can't find out what it means. Ground Zero | t 20:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made two reverts as well. You're the one causing trouble now and that's why I suggested you calmed down before doing something stupid. And cut down the lousy accusations, please. --Laveol T 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

a larger map that you can see details why it is pov?

Jingiby's edit: a larger map that you can see details why it is pov? I didn't change anything in the text. Ggia (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ggia, but the size and the location of the map by your edit made the layout of the article on my display, to say, strange: [3]. I think, every editor can click on the map to enlarge it. Regards. Jingby (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For example here I added a map in the center in order people to see details.. Here in the greek wiki I added a large map of Veliko Tarnovo Medieval_Tarnovo_map_SVG.svg|thumb|right|400px.. Here in the greek wiki I added a large map of Ani area AniMap.gif|thumb|center|800px. I think that maps should be large enough so a reader can read some details without clicking on it. Also when you export the article to pdf and you print it.. if the map is small nothing is visible. I don't see anything POV having a map in a large size and readers can read details on it (consider the printed versions when you make a pdf book using pdf export feature of the wiki). Ggia (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Friend, if we are going to enlarge all maps on all articles on Wiki, so the readers can look at some details without clicking on them, I think the articles will resemble more atlases. Regs. Jingby (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you try to export this article to PDF and try to read the map (have you ever seen this feature of the wiki book creator)?)? I really I cannot understand why you revert my edit as POV. My other edits that I gave above are also POV in a way? Even in the classic encyclopedias the images of maps sometimes are large in order to read details. Ggia (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not. Jingby (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now it is clear that my edit was not to impose a POV (is it POV to make larger an existing image btw?) but to have a better arrangement of the images, specially if somebody needs to export to a pdf book.. I usually do (as you already seen in my examples) these kind of edits to different articles. Also I make larger the main map [4] for that reason too. Ggia (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but an enormous enlargement will be unacceptable. Do that in admissible format, please. Jingby (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus to retain the current title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising → Ilinden uprising – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" -wikipedia -Llc = 44 hits (many if not most of them translations of works of authors from Bulgaria) : "Ilinden Uprising" -wikipedia -Llc 4,430 hits. Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That issue was dicussed to death. Check the archives of that talk-page. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Search engine test, but search engines are sophisticated research tools and often have bias and results need to be interpreted. According to Ivo Banac "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics", Cornell University Press, 1984, pp. 307-328, the IMARO movement in 1903 was movement, which embraced both Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace regions and the insurrection in August 1903 had two major centres - the Vilayet of Bitola and the Vilajet of Adrianople. The exclusion of the Preobrazhenie from the title of this article is in conflict with the historical facts and their non-nationalist interpretation. Keep in mind that this is article not only about the present-day ethnic Macedonian myth of Ilinden, but about the historical event, and the difference is between the much later Yugoslav concept (+Ilinden; - Preobrazhenie) and the historical event (+Ilinden; +Preobrazhenie) is more than obvious. However, the first problem before such an interpretation stems also in particular from the combined Macedono-Adrianopolitan character of IMARO. The statutes and directives of the Central Committee as well as the other official documents of the Organization concern not only the Macedonian people but also the Adrianopolitan people, i.e. the Bulgarians and (in theory) other nationalities inhabiting both vilajets. In the specialized literature as the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2006, ISBN 0810849011, the Uprising is called: Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. In the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, it is called: Ilinden (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) Uprising. According to Hristo Silyanov who was the first historian of the Uprising and in his memoirs described its history, the name of the Uprising is also Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. Jingiby (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - As previously noted, the issue has been thoroughly discussed on a number of occasions. It never led to anything productive and it does not look like it ever will. --Laveol T 14:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Can you please clarify your position. You are opposed to renaming to WP:COMMONNAME because this has already been discussed? Is there any wikipedia policy argument you are able to use to ground your position here?
I noticed you were participant of discussions you mentioned. I also noticed you are not very active on wikipedia. Has anybody invited you to this discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Gees, I already answered you, I do not need an invitation to comment. As for arguments, they were aplenty back at the time neutral editors were still willing to delve into the issue. What about the fact that the uprising was in fact a single event, prepared in tight cooperation and a single aim. What about the fact that scholars describing both event use the title Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. Mind you, there are a number of ways to spell Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. Splitting it is a wrong move and would mean splitting the April Uprising in four different articles, for one. --Laveol T 11:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Again Invincible ignorance fallacy. I never said you are not free to comment here. I simply asked if anybody invited you to this discussion. Will you please be so kind to answer my question. No arguments grounded in wikipedia policies which would contradict nominator's rationale?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose — per Jingiby and Laveol. Apcbg (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you please clarify what are arguments grounded in wikipedia policies for your opposition?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Generally, article titles on Wikipedia have to be based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) in many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. Above were provided two reliable sources for that title and they are new, neutral, specialized, academic publications. Now you can check a 2005 Cambridge University Press, specialized publication by an expert of the history of the Balkans as R.J. Crampton, who called that event on p. 128. Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. More an new academic encyclopedia specialized especially in uprisings called Encyclopedia of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency by Spencer C. Tucker issued by ABC-CLIO in 2013, also calls it with combined name. Check on p. 262. That is all. Jingiby (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
So Ilinden uprising term is used by "some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice", while Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising is used in "new, neutral, specialized, academic publications"? What proof you offered for this exceptional claim? Two cherry picked sources, the first does not even mention term IUP (ti actually uses term "Ilinden rising" on index page 282) and the second is encyclopedia. What about numerous works published by Oxford UP and Cambridge UP that use "Ilinden uprising" term? Honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. I expect you to either present proof for your exceptional claim or to apologize and strike out your comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Per Macedonian historian Ph.D. Zoran Todorovski. In a speech at the launch of a Collection with documents about Todor Alexandrov called "Everything about Macedonia" held in hotel "Holiday Inn" in Skopje in 2006, he claims: we should not only pay attention to the term "Bulgarian" in the first name of IMRO, but also to the constant "Adrianopolitan" ingredient in the name of the organization, that was lost even after the First World War and the political separation on several parts of Macedonia and Southern Thrace. According to him it is known that the first name of a revolutionary organization was Bulgarian Macedonian- Adrianople revolutionary Committees, but this fact is perfidiously hidden from the historycal textbooks for primary and secondary education in the Republic of Macedonia. Finally he maintains that the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was actually Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising raised with the greatest intensity in the Bitola and Odrin vilayets of the then then Ottoman Empire. Jingiby (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You based your opposition based on statement of one author (Todorovski)? Are there other authors that support the opposite position? Is this author famous for his controversial statements about all activists, cultural or intellectual, and all revolutionaries at the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century unconditionally publicly declared their Bulgarian nationality? Is it the real reason for your recent attack to Rafael Moshe Kamhi article? Is it the reason for you to ask new page tag removed? So that you would be able to nominate for deletion the article about Jew member of VMRO? Because he does not fit into Todoroski assertion that all members of VMRO were Bulgarians (сите дејци на ВМРО се искажувале како Бугари)? The quote of Todorovski does not even mention "Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising" (can you please present a quote that confirm that "the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was actually Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising"? Honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. I expect you to either provide arguments based on wikipedia policies for your opposition to this renaming or to apologize and strike out your comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I expect you to stop that endless comments per WP:FORUM. Lets give the possibility to other editors to say something. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Will you please present a quote that confirm that "the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was actually Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's clearly the most commonly used name for the event. Further, of the 17 other languages in which this article is available, only the Bulgarian, Portugues, and Slovak versions are not simply 'Ilinden Uprising'. I'm aware we're concerned about English here, but still noteworthy. --Local hero talk 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Same Invincible ignorance fallacy like in Laveol case. This really raises additional concerns. I never said you need an invitation to comment here. I even presented a note with explanation that I am concerned you have been canvassed to this discussion. Will you please be so kind to answer my question?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting? Not at all - you don't have any evidence different from your point of view and you assumed that I have an invitation (which by the way is absolutely irrelevant and canvassing is a slightly different thing) thus implying I need one and I am not active "enough" simply for making me feel unwelcome. At least this is how I got it - classic argumentum ad hominem. Your concerns are baseless and unrealistic - I am obviously involved in the subject and my level of activity is irrelevant and subjective.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you used exactly the same fallacy as Laveol when you replied that you don't need an invitation to discuss here. It is also interesting that both of you had low level of activity prior this !voting. It is also interesting that both of you refuse to reply to one simple question and to answer if anybody invited you to this discussion. My comment about your activity is not argumentum ad hominem. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus at Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie_Uprising#Requested_move Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Discussion closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

Will you please be so kind to clarify in your closing statement what wikipedia policy was basis for the consensus you determined?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to read the edit notice which appears on this page, particular the second unindented bullet point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Link provided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Try again. There is no discussion at that link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
done.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not just paste the link to the discussion in your message, in plain view, from the outset?
WP:AT. Since WP:AT is the policy basis on which all move discussions are assessed, I saw no need to spell that out explicitly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific and explain what arguments are presented during this discussion in connection with WP:AT?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.

This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.

That's all I think it is useful to say, and this discussion is now closed. You are of course free to open a move review. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I guess I'm no one... That statement does make me question how deeply you read the discussion, BHG. And you clearly didn't notice that all of the opposition was from the same type of individual, the Bulgarian POV supporter. Antidiskriminator even addressed all of their basicly identical arguments. --Local hero talk 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on Antidiskriminator's comment above (the one claiming that googling "Ilinden uprising" produces 4,430 hits, compared to only 44 for "Ilinden Preobrazhenie" uprising): if one actually pages through to the last page of the search results (as Wikipedia:Search_engine_test recommends), one finds that there are not 4,430 hits, as initially reported by Antidiskriminator, but 134 hits (see here: "Ilinden Uprising" -wikipedia -Llc). So the difference is nowhere near as overwhelming as it might have seemed initially. If one conducts a regular web search, not a book search, one finds 364 search results for "Ilinden uprising" "Ilinden uprising -wikipedia vs. 404 for "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising" "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising" -wikipedia, which also suggests that the two names are at least as equally popular at present. Also Wikipedia:Search_engine_test warns about interpreting search engine tests, as there can be all kinds of different reasons for the frequency of use of certain terms. Tropcho (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Local hero before hurling such grave accusations, perhaps it's good to read about assuming good faith. Tropcho (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Finally, perhaps it's good to add: I think that the present title ('Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising') is more appropriate, because it emphasizes the connection between the events in Macedonia and those in Thrace, which helps shed light on the bigger picture, i.e. the historical context of the uprising. Tropcho (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Which grave accusations? That the closing admin didn't thoroughly examine the discussion? Or that all of the users against the move have the same mentality and background with regards to Macedonia-related topics? I stand behind both of them; I'm quite familiar with the editing style of the dissenting editors, way past the phase of assuming good faith.
Whether the two uprisings were closely related or not, they were not the same event and I think they ought to be split into two articles. I did not see any proof above that 'Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising' is the preferred title in English. Searching on Google books, I also found 134 results for 'Ilinden Uprising' and 44 for the current title. --Local hero talk 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Krste Misirkov's view - is it noteworthy?

My edit from yesterdaywas reverted on the grounds that Misirkov switched sides and is therefore unreliable. I am aware that Misirkov has expressed contradicting views on various questions regarding Macedonia during his lifetime. However, I think that his view is noteworthy for the following reason: in the Republic of Macedonia he is still widely regarded as one of the most prominent Macedonian nationalists and defenders of the Macedonian identity; furthermore, On the Macedonian Matters, a book which is held in relatively high esteem in the Republic of Macedonia, is one of the works in which Misirkov has most eagerly defended the idea of the establishment of a new Macedonian Slavic ethnic identity distinct from the Macedonian Bulgarian identity; in spite of this, in this work Misirkov clearly expresses the view that the rising was the work of those Macedonians who considered themselves Bulgarian; thus Misirkov is an outstanding example of a highly regarded Macedonian nationalist who considers the uprising to be Bulgarian. Also, I am not aware of any writings of his where he expresses the opposing view on that precise question (i.e. claiming that the rising was not the work of Bulgarians). I believe this makes his view noteworthy. Tropcho (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Misirkov's view is noteworthy too, more so that it is not just a passing remark but part of his substantial analysis of IMRO and the Uprising elaborated in the book mentioned above. Apcbg (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian peasants?

"The rebellion in the region of Macedonia affected most of the central and southwestern parts of the Monastir Vilayet receiving the support mainly of the local Bulgarian peasants..." - I think it should be written Macedonian pesants

The Ilinden Uprising studied as a part of ”the Macedonian national-revolutionary ideals,” that had begun about 30 years before, as the author says – Dino Kyosev, “Ilindenskoto vaastanie,” BAN, Sofia, 1953, pg. 3.;
”The Macedonian Uprising on the day of Ilinden has been the most powerful manifestation of the Macedonian strength in the struggle for political and national freedom.” – Ilinden-Krushevo, 1928, Sofia, pg. 4, preface by Naum Tomalevski;
In this article ("The New York Times," August 16, 1903), the Bulgarian Prime-minister Racho Petrov states that the Ilinden Insurrection, that had just happened that summer in Western Macedonia, “was entirely a national Macedonian movement, organized by the Macedonian Internal Committee (meaning IMRO)”. (see the 4th passage)

If someone has another sources that claim otherwise, show them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.109.189 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Tomalevski says:

”The Macedonian Uprising on the day of Ilinden has been the most powerful manifestation of the Macedonian strength in the struggle for political and national freedom of the Macedonians.” (Ilinden-Krushevo, 1928, Sofia, pg. 4) 79.126.169.242 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It's very well said "mainly Bulgarian peasants", because Turks, Albanians and other nationalities did not support the rebellion. Dino Kyosev is not a reliable source regading 1953, since as a member of te Bulgarian Comunist Party he strictly followed the comunist propaganda from that time. "Macedonian" is used as a geohraphical term and is related to the region of Macedonia. No such information about Racho Petrov is found on the provided screenshot, as well as no information about the article is presented. You're trying to push a minority view point, recognized only by historians from the Republic of Macedonia and using the strictly geographical term "Macedonia" in the context of the country created decades afer that. --StanProg (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but why lying about the Bulgarian Prime-minister Racho Petrov?? In this article ("The New York Times," August 16, 1903) (the forth passage), Racho Petrov states that the Ilinden Insurrection, that had just happened that summer in Western Macedonia, “was entirely a national Macedonian movement, organized by the Macedonian Internal Committee (meaning IMRO)”. (see the 4th passage) 79.126.169.242 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
By "passage," I meant PARAGRAPH. Sorry. See the 4th paragraph here. 79.126.169.242 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
These recent edits by 79.126.169.242 and 85.30.109.189 seem to come from a sock of User_talk:Bobi987_Ivanov , who has been blocked for a week due to edit warring. More info here. I discussed why his usage of primary sources such as newspaper excerpts similar to the one about Racho Petrov quoted here is not appropriate on his talk page. In short, the Bulgarian revolutionaries from IMORO and the Bulgarian government made a propaganda effort to convince the Balkan countries and Europe that the revolutionary movement in Macedonia had nothing to do with Bulgaria or Bulgarian interests. Tropcho (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The book of H.N. Brailsford, cited in this article, is also a primary source. He isn't a scholar, but a journalist. 79.126.169.242 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Whether he is a scholar or not is not essential. Perhaps it would be good to have a look at Primary source. Inasmuch as the book contains personal observations not presented elsewhere it is a primary source. But it also makes reference to and comments upon numerous primary sources and in this respect it is a secondary source. Tropcho (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I actually added a scientific study as a reference, along with the other sources. Dino Kyosev WAS a historian, unlike Brailsford. 79.126.169.242 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Dino Kyosev is a veterinarian, not a historian (no background in history at all). During the first years of the comunist regime in Bulgaria (1944-1948), fulfiling the ideas of the Comintern (1919-1943) and the decisions of the Bulgarian Communist Party, he wrote books based on the communist propaganda (later 40s and early 50s). Later, his writings takes the opposite side, having Anti-Yugoslav position. As a veterinarian and communist propagandator he is not a reliable source. --StanProg (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"Dino Kyosev is a veterinarian"? Can you prove this statement of yours? 85.30.127.197 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And, stop lying about the comintern. Racho Petrov's statement is from 1903. There's no "comintern" then. 85.30.127.197 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Атанас Тошкин, ‎Ана Рабаджийска, ‎Милен Куманов - "Трето българско царство, 1879-1946", Труд, 2003, с. 203 ("КЬОСЕВ, Дино Георгиев (16.1Х.1901-3.1.1977) , журналист и обществен деец. Роден в Кукуш. Завършва ветеринарна медицина във Виена и защитава докторат.". Translation: "Kyosev, Dino Georgiev (16 September 1902 - 3 January 1977) , journalist and public figure. Born in Kukush. Graduated veterinary medicine in Vienna and PhD". In USSR he also works as veterinarian (since 1933). Dino Kyosev did a report to the Comintern, while he was in Moscow in 1933. No one is talking about the Comintern in the context of 1903. Read carefully, not selectively. --StanProg (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This might be useful about some data on Wikipedia page about Goce Delchev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.169.43 (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
On the Bulgarian Wikipedia article, it's said that Dino Kyosev was a historian, as well. It's good to konw. Anyway, he was not less competent then the journalist Brailsford you quoted, was he? 79.126.169.43 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
On May 8, 1903, shortly before the Ilinden Uprising, Nikola Karev, president of the Krushevo Republic, was interviewed for the Greek newspaper "Akropolis", in which he affirmed his Macedonian ethnic identity and ancestry, and the goal - to form an independent Macedonian state. (Iōn Dragoumēs, Giōrgos Petsivas, Τα Τετράδια του Ίλιντεν, Ekdoseis Petsiva, 2000, pp. 552-556.) 79.126.166.56 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your claims are fringe view. Read the controversy section at the end of the article and stop the spam. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The "controversy" section is full of inappropriate and uncompleted references. Thanks for the annotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.165.108 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate references in the "controversy" section

  • 1. Ljubco Georgievski is not a historian, but a politician. The sentence says "scholars". Ljubco Georgievski is not a reliable source.
  • 2. The passage talks about the insurgents. Gotse Delchev was not one of the insurgents. Gotse Delchev hasn't got any connection with he passage.
  • 3. Professor Zoran Todorovski also doesn't speak about the Ilinden uprising. Again, the reference has no connection with the Wiki article.

79.126.165.108 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence into the article is as follows: Nevertheless some of the Macedonian historical scholarship and political élite have reluctantly acknowledged the Bulgarian ethnic character of the insurgents. Georgievski is part of the political elite. He wrote all IMARO-activists were Macedonian Bulgarians. Acad. Katardzhiev confirmes that not only the IMARO-members, but all Macedonian Slavs were called and/or called themselves Bulgarians. Todorovski asserts that all IMARO members (i.e. the people who carried out the rising) had Bulgarian national identity. Incidentally, similar opinion have also other politicians and historians from Macedonia as Dimitar Dimitrov, Denko Maleski, Stojan Kiselinovski etc. Stop disruptions and spam. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what a politician (in this case, Lyubco Georgievski, who is certainly not a political elite) says on a historical subject. Politicicians are not historians. 79.126.222.9 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Article name

I don't want to re-run the old debates over whether "Ilinden" and "Preobrazhenie" were one event or two, or whether there should be one or two articles (probably one), or whether "Preobrazhenie" is conventionally part of the most common name of this event in English (maybe it's not). But one thing should be changed: "Uprising" needs lowercased, it's not a proper name in English. Objections? – Needless to say, the title currently move-warred over by Micoapostolov (talk · contribs), "Ilinden Uprising - Macedonia", is unacceptable, on purely formal grounds if nothing else. The " - Macedonia" addition just makes no sense at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections to a move to lowercase 'uprising' from me. --Laveol T 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume the dates here are Gregorian - but it would be nice to say so. Once, in the lead, would be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Since no objections were received in five years, you may move the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that since this is the name of an event, such as the October Revolution or the American Civil War, it's correct to write "uprising" with a capital "U". Tropcho (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov and his Macedonian colleague Zoran Zaev cannot place wreaths at the grave of Gotse Delchev on the occasion of the 114th anniversary of the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising when Zoran Zaev is in Podgorica on a meeting with the American Vice President. http://www.mia.mk/EN/Inside/RenderSingleNews/210/133802024 http://www.mia.mk/EN/Inside/RenderSingleNews/210/133802276 Toci (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Toci: Please, check the information before reverting. Obviously he was not on two places at the same time. With the governmental airplane from the airport of Skopje to ariport to Podgorica is about 30 min. flight. --StanProg (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is possible. They celebrated Ilinden in 6-8AM. Boyko Borisov and Zoran Zaev Twitter post timestamp is August 2 1-2AM (maybe 7-10AM in Skopje).
https://twitter.com/BoykoBorissov/status/892663701513400320
https://twitter.com/Zoran_Zaev/status/892669308517724160
Then Zoran Zaev posted a photo of him talking in Podgorica in 4AM.
https://twitter.com/Zoran_Zaev/status/892707136270151680
The fake interpretation is that place wreaths on Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising as Boyko Borisov twitted. Zoran Zaev twitted happy Ilinden. He did not mention Ilinden–Preobrazhenie. The controversy remains. It is not solved. Macedonian POV is that it is Ilinden Uprising. Macedonians do not celebrate Preobrazenie Uprising. I, as Macedonian, can interpret it that Boyko Borisov came to celebrate Ilinden Uprising by Zoran Zaev twit. You reference is a Bulgarian news site which copied Boyko Borisov twit which does not correspond with Zoran Zaev twit. How can you verify which is true when they are both POV? You wrote "that lasted until" which can refer that the controversy lasted. This is the concluding sentence of the part on controversy and it might mislead the readers. The controversy remains and this fake interpretation just adds to the confusion of this article. It should not be there or it should be explained better showing the two POV. Toci (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The name of this title should be Ilinden uprising

I propose we change the name of this article to "Ilinden uprising". That is the name how this event is known in the English speaking world, in Macedonia and in all countries except in Bulgaria. Even in Bulgaria it was named "Ilinden uprising" until 1968 when it was renamed to promote a great-Bulgarian idea that the uprising didn't have a Macedonian, but rather a Bulgarian character. Encyclopedia Britannica names this uprising Ilinden uprising [5]. Why should we differ here?GStojanov (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


I don't support the change, it is not only known in Bulgaria as the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie as you can see by the sources on the page. Also you are forgetting the fact that this uprising as conducted by an organization called the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization whose own statute says 'A member of BMARC can be any Bulgarian, independent of gender,'. The uprisings were conducted together in order to guarantee a bigger chance of success.
The name is an imagined issue by you, I live in Bulgaria and both names are used interchangeably, in fact often Ilinden is used more often as it is shorter. The ethnic Macedonian identity became widespread in the region of Vardar Macedonia following 1944. You can read the letters of Blaze Ristovski in 1974 where he admits that there was no difference when the revolutionaries wrote Macedonian and Bulgarian, you can read the letters of Krste Misirkov to the Ottoman Empire where he admits that there is currently no ethnic Macedonian identity but that he believes that Macedonia should gain autonomy. (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6RveDmHbIv8C&pg=PA138&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) as well as Misirkov's attempts to create a Macedonian language between 1903 and 1907. Also you can read the many letters from the period from revolutionaries and you can see for yourself that they are written in Bulgarian, you are also welcome to see the flags that are being used by the revolutionaries, you will not see any Vergina Flags but instead the Bulgarian tri-color. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Also GStojanov, if you value Encyclopedia Britannia why don't you also take into account what they write about IMRO and the leaders of the Ilinden revolution. "IMRO was founded in 1893 in Thessaloníki; its early leaders included Damyan Gruev, Gotsé Delchev, and Yane Sandanski, men who had a Macedonian regional identity and a Bulgarian national identity." "Its many incarnations struggled with two contradictory goals: establishing Macedonia as an autonomous state on the one hand and promoting Bulgarian political interests on the other."
The article is about the Iliden-Preobrazhenie Uprising which is a serious of uprisings, of course the Macedonian historiopgrahy does not like to admit that the Ilinden uprising worked together with other Bulgarians in different parts of the Balkans because currently according to Macedonian historiopgraphy there has been ethnic Macedonians since the pre-Roman times if not earlier. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
StoyanStoyanov80, thank you for confirming that in Bulgaria the term "Ilinden uprising" is still used more often than the newly "minted" name. That new name was given to the uprising in 1968 under the Bulgarian dictator Todor Zhivkov, who needed to use ultra-nationalism to legitimize his rule. It is still not universally accepted even in Bulgaria (as you graciously confirmed), and it is certainly not accepted anywhere else. In reputable English speaking resources the uprising is called "Ilinden uprising - (St. Elijah’s Day uprising)" and we should follow here their lead. GStojanov (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Can you provide some reliable evidence that Todor Zhivkov banned the use of the word Ilinden Uprising, because I have never heard of such a thing and don't know anyone that have been told off in Bulgaria for saying Ilinden Uprising in Bulgaria.I think its kind of ironic because in North Macedonia, it seems (based on the way that you are acting) that people are deemed upon when they say Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising as people don't want to face the fact that the Ilinden Uprising was part of a series of Bulgarian uprisings that were planned to take place at the same time. Also you didn't answer my other points, and you should read the article as it is not just about the Iliden uprising it is about the multiple Bulgarian uprisings that were organized together. I don't see your reasoning good enough to separate all the uprisings such as the Ilinden Uprising, the Krastovden Uprising, the Preobrazhenie Uprising and the Rhodope Mountains Uprising into separate articles. Mind you that all of these uprisings took place in the space of 3 months and were organized by the IMRO--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide any example of this name (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising) being used in Bulgaria prior to 1968? But don't change the subject. This is the English edition of Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Article_titles we should use titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Encyclopedia Britannica calls it: Ilinden uprising[6] GStojanov (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
GStojanov, this was discussed in the last 15 years to death and nothing was changed. Just read all the archives here. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It is never to late to correct something that is wrong. If you didn't arrive to a consensus 15 years ago, we should and can arrive to a consensus now. GStojanov (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
On a contrary. There was a discussion of a requested move. The result of the move request was: not moved. There was a clear consensus to retain the current title. Jingiby (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It is a disgrace how one gang of Bulgarian editors dominates and distorts all issues Macedonian. This will have to end. GStojanov (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with title, this is just an attempt by you to push the fringe view that the Iliden uprising was an ethnic Macedonian uprising. As I told you before, stop learning about history from nationalist social media pages but read original documents and books from international scholars. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
International scholars use the name: Ilinden uprising. All major editions of Wikipedia call this uprising Ilinden uprising (ru:Илинденское_восстание, de:Ilinden-Aufstand, es:Revuelta_de_Ilinden, fr:Insurrection_d'Ilinden, ...) Why are we here following this Bulgarian-biased name that is not accepted by English speaking scholars.GStojanov (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
What is biased about the name? Even if it is Ilinden Uprising or Iliden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, it is still a series of Bulgarian uprisings organized by the IMRO. The alternative name Ilinden Uprising is already listed in the intro. You are making a big deal over nothing. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Here on the English edition of Wikipedia it should be named how it is named in the English speaking world: Ilinden uprising (which is a translation of how it is named by us Macedonians, since that was our uprising). Inside of the article we can mention that in Bulgaria it was also named Ilinden uprising until 1968, when its name was changed to Ilinde-Preobrazhenie uprising. This is not a small deal. Nomen est Omen. GStojanov (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising is a series of Bulgarian uprisings that took place both inside and outside the region of Macedonia, according to the current Macedonian historiography it is just the Ilinden Uprising as they cannot admit that the uprisings had a Bulgarian character since most of them took place outside of the region of Macedonia. Unfortunately the ethnic Macedonian identity was not developed and adopted at that time by the majority of the Slavs in the region of Macedonia, instead there was a regional Macedonian identity while the people were ethnically Bulgarian. This can be proved in a variety of ways such as the language the letters and statements by the Bulgarian revolutionaries were written in as well as the flags that they used which included the Bulgarian tri-color of white, green and red as well as the slogan 'свобода или смърт'. It is a shame GStojanov that you do not bother reading the work of key heroes in Macedonia such as Krste Misirkov, Georgi Pulevski and Blaze Koneski who themselves all admit that at the time there was no ethnic Macedonian identity. You are free to self-identify ethnically as you like and you should also have the ability to respect that right of ethnic self-determination of dead people. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Ilinden uprising was a Macedonian uprising and it succeeded in the areas where Patriarchate Macedonians were more numerous that Exarchists. In addition to that Vlachs were numerous among the insurgents. But don't change the subject: The title of this article should be: Ilinde uprising, since that is the name used by all except some Bulgarians. GStojanov (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a shame how little you know about your own country's history, you can say it was an ethnic Macedonian uprising all you like but the evidence shows otherwise. And by Patriarchate Macedonians I guess you mean members of the Bulgarian Exarchate? After all the first Macedonian Church was created by the Serbs in 1959. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we are deviating from the main topic here. The question here is not whether the uprising was Macedonian or Bulgarian, but the article's title. Given that 'Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising' is almost only used in Bulgarian historiography and 'Ilinden Uprising' is used everywhere else, I agree with GStojanov that we should stick to non-Bulgarian convention and use Ilinden Uprising. Kromid (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
'Almost only used in Bulgarian historiography' that is not true, you can do some research on that. Also you are missing my point, as you can see from this article it is made up of four main different uprisings. And yes the main topic is whether the uprising was Macedonian or Bulgarian read the first post by GStojanov, the strawman argument that just because other language Wikipedia use another name is just an excuse to push the thesis that the Ilinden uprising was somehow a separate ethnic Macedonian uprising that had nothing to do with other Bulgarian uprisings. I don't see any of the users arguing this point, going on the Macedonian language Wikipedia and trying to change the name there from Macedonia to North Macedonia or to change the nationality of Gotse Delchev from Macedonian to Bulgarian just because that is what the majority of other language Wikipedias use. I don't support renaming the article to Ilinden Uprising as that is just one uprising, while the article includes information about other associated uprisings. Also it is important to keep in mind that most of the other articles about this topic are pretty short and focus on just the Ilinden Uprising, so again not a good comparison. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The RM discussion six years is no basis for not having a discussion today. Please read that atrocious discussion where all opposition was from Bulgarian editors. No question that the current title is Bulgarian histriography. The title should be just Ilinden Uprising. --Local hero talk 17:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The uprising was supported nearly only by Bulgarian population and occurred mostly on the territories of today Bulgaria. The Bulgarian historiography is the oldest researching deeply that issue and the title must be in accordance with Bulgarian historical view. Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not an issue about the populairty of the name, and everyone involved in this knows it. Some users in this discussion are just using the strawman argument that other language Wikipedias have the name as simply Ilinden as a way to change the name in order to support the thesis of Macedonian historiography that the Ilinden was an ethnic Macedonian uprising that was is not connected to the other uprisings by Bulgarians outside of Macedonia. It makes no sense to rename this article to simply Ilinden when the majority of the uprisings that were part of it were outside of the region of Macedonia.
I don't see any of the users going on the Macedonian language Wikipedia and trying to change the name and information of articles there such as Macedonia to North Macedonia as well as the nationalities of revolutionaries such as Gotse Delchev.
As GStojanov said when he started this discussion "I propose we change the name of this article to "Ilinden uprising". That is the name how this event is known in the English speaking world, in Macedonia and in all countries except in Bulgaria. Even in Bulgaria it was named "Ilinden uprising" until 1968 when it was renamed to promote a great-Bulgarian idea that the uprising didn't have a Macedonian, but rather a Bulgarian character. Encyclopedia Britannica names this uprising Ilinden uprising [7]. Why should we differ here?" This is not a discussion about the popularity of the name but pushing the false theory that the Ilinden Uprising was a separate ethnic uprising. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Also if you take a look at the other language articles, a lot of them are just a few sentences long while majority of the rest are simply about the Ilinden uprising and does not have any information about the other uprisings. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
And Local_hero what is the problem with Bulgarian historiography, after all, the uprisings are all Bulgarian uprisings unless you choose to ignore the evidence. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we need another request for move (RM). It is only Bulgarians that call this uprising "Ilinden-P...Uprising". Everyone else and especially the English speaking sources use the name: "Ilinden Uprising". GStojanov (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep the Bulgarians that led these uprisings and also Images of Imperial Legacy: Modern Discourses on the Social and Cultural impact of Ottoman and Habsburg rule in Southeast Europe (pg 112) by Tea Sindbaek and Maximilian Hartmuth. and Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria (pg 217) by Raymond Perez, and The Balkans: Minorities and States in Conflict (pg 110) by Hugh Poulton.
Also:
A Concise History of Bulgaria (pg128)by R.J Crampton.
Anglo-Bulgarian Symposium, London, July 1982: Proceedings, Volume 1 pg 11 by Leslie Collins
Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide (pg 45 and 46) by Hans-Lukas Kieser
This is not a question about the popularity of the name, it is just an attempt by Macedonian editors to push the myth that Ilinden was a separate uprising by ethnic Macedonians that didn't exist at the time. Well summarized in "The central event in the Macedonian historiography of this period was the Ilinden (Elijah's day) uprising of 1903. This needs careful analysis since its history has been corrupted by its importance to the Macedonian national myth." Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to ..., Volume 1 by Michael Palairet. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
StoyanStoyanov80, we are not discussing the nature of the uprising, only its name. If you have something to add, please do so, if not, don't clutter the discussion. GStojanov (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
It's all connected after all, by changing the name to simply Ilinden you are leaving out the majority of the Bulgarian uprisings that were not even based inside the region of Macedonia. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
No. I would think those could in a separate article, they occurred at a different date and place than the Ilinden Uprising. --Local hero talk 03:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't 100% agree, I propose that there be one main article and then if you want there can be a separate article for each uprising such as there is for the Arab Spring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring) as all of these uprisings are connected. On the Arab Spring page they have brief info about the uprising in each country or region and then they have a link to the main article like for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Tunisia_(2010%E2%80%932011) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Yemen_(2011). And you are also forgetting the Krastovden Uprisings that happened in the region of Macedonia. All of the revolutionary districts were in contact with each other as well as with the goverment of the Principality of Bulgaria, with the uprisings originally planned for 1904 however on August 1903 at the Smilev Congress the revolutionaries decided to rebel which was what is today the Iliden Uprising, and then the other Bulgarians in the rest of the Ottoman Empire all decided to join in the following weeks.--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I see the desire of some editors to push through the old Yugoslav communist-era propaganda thesis of two separate, unrelated uprisings. Please stop with such outdated and biased ideas and look at the last Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia from 2019. Check how the uprising is described there and under what name. Please check also the original thesis of the first Macedonian PM Lazar Kolishevski, that the uprising was led by Bulgarians, and was a Bulgarian conspiracy of a Bulgarian organization, having nothing to do with the history of the then new SR Macedonia. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't support the change - the subject of the article is one, the uprising in one, consisting of coordinated and organized by one organization events with the same goal. Separating two events from the same uprising as separate articles would be artificial manipulation of the historical consensus - that the uprising is one and the events are more than connected. I can see from the sources that the current name is also widely used in English sources.Алиса Селезньова (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a problem to mention the revolts in Pirin Macedonia and Thrace as part of or in the immediate aftermath of the Ilinden uprising. The issue we are discussing is the name of the uprising and in the English speaking world this uprising is known as: Ilinden Uprising. I propose we keep the article as is and only change the name. We need to work on the article and we will, but this will take time. GStojanov (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Those other uprisings have a different name from Ilinden, this is why I propose either keeping it as it is or basing it on the Arab Spring article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring) where you have one main article of all the linked uprisings and then a separate article for each uprising.
So for example you have the 'Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising' article and then you have a section for each of the four uprisings as well as a link to a separate article of each uprising like there is in the Arab Spring article for the revolution in Yemen and Tunisia for example. The uprisings are one event either way as the leadership of each uprising had contact with each other as well as the military of the Principality of Bulgaria. The uprisings were originally planned from 1904 but after the revolutionaries in one part of the region of Macedonia decided to rise up at the Smilevo Council others subsequently joined in early too. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
We are talking about a single uprising consisting of coordinated events, organized by the same organization with the same goal and not of one uprising and the aftermath events. According to the sources, the event is known as Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising too (just couple of obvious examples p. 318, [8], [9], [10]) so the argument you are making that the current name is not used, is without substance.Алиса Селезньова (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Алиса Селезньова most of your examples are translations from Bulgarian authors. Encyclopedia Britannica uses the name: Ilinden Uprising [11]. I don't see how we here on Wikipedia (an Encyclopedia) can contradict the Encyclopedia Britannica. GStojanov (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
GStojanov, the article from Brittanica Encyclopedia that you keep referencing is not even an article instead it is a page that has links to other topics such as foreign policy in Bulgaria, history of Macedonia and the IMRO --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica names this uprising: Ilinden Uprising. Why should we differ? GStojanov (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How do you know what they are calling Illinden Uprising when there is no article on it? The Ilinden Uprising is one of multiple uprisings of Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising.--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
GStojanov, my examples may include Bulgarian authors but not only and I have no idea how you came to the idea the original texts are not in English but they are translations. Furthermore, even if some are translations - this doesn't mean the text, the terminology is not in English thus it goes to show this term is used in English literature.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Just checked Duncan Perry's The Politics of Teorror: The Macedonian Revolutionary Movements, 1893 - 1903[12], one of the most detailed studies of the Macedonian revolutionary organizations published in English. Perry refers to the uprising as the Ilinden-Preobrazhenski Uprising (see e.g. pages 128, 133). Tropcho (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Tropcho your link is for page 867, and that is a review of the book. I can't get to pages 128 or 133 to check if Duncan Perry really uses the name Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising. GStojanov (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
GStojanov did you check the Historical dictionary of Republic of Macedonia p. 94? Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The Historical dictionary of Macedonia is written by Dimitar Bechev, who is a Bulgarian. GStojanov (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this a problem? Then check the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria p. 245. Jingiby (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes it is a problem. We are editing here the English edition of Wikipedia. We should use terminology that is accepted in the English speaking world, and avoid Bulgarian bias. GStojanov (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it is a problem only for some editors from North Macedonia. In the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria on p. 245 is written Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. And the author is not a Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ilinden Uprising being of a Macedonian Phenomenon

Hello. There is an assumption that until 1944 Slavs of Macedonia unanimously identified as Bulgarian, when allegedly Tito "brainwashed" them to have an ethnic Macedonian consciousness. As a result, the Ilinden Uprising, as well as other events that are embedded in the memory of the Macedonian people (or to be politically correct, the Slavs of Macedonia) are regarded as Macedonian Bulgarian, claiming that Macedonian was a regional identity, part of a wider Bulgarian identity. However, the Ilinden Uprising was purely of a Macedonian character, which challenged Bulgaria's, Greece's and Serbia's efforts to incorporate Macedonia and its people into a Greater Bulgaria, Greater Greece and Greater Serbia respectively.


Below I will provide only sources that support the claim that Ilinden was a Macedonian phenomenon, instigated by IMRO who had an ethnic Macedonian consciousness, and not broader sources on ethnic Macedonian consciousness during the period and prior to the period, in order to be relevant to this topic:

  1. In 1903, the Macedonian Committee, rendered desperate by the pressure of the Greek, Bulgar, and Serbian propagandists, as well as by the Turks, who were beginning to take more active measures against the "comitlara" or "committee people" as they called the revolutionists, precipitated an uprising in the Monastir district, under the leadership of Damyan Grueff, Deltcheff having been killed by soldiers some time previous.[1] In the same book, the Macedonians are defined as separate, having their own ethnic Macedonian identity: In the same book, Macedonians are defined as: The committee was distinctly going to counteract their [the Serb and Greek] influence and efforts by arousing a spirit of nationality among the Macedonians which was neither Serbian nor Bulgarian nor Greek. And when the Bulgarian Government understood this thoroughly it showed itself unequally friendly. For Prince Ferdinand and his clique dreamed of Greater Bulgaria which they should rule. They wanted no autonomous Macedonia; even less did they want an independent Macedonia.[2] In the same book, Macedonians and Bulgarians (from Bulgaria proper if you think the local Macedonians were Bulgarians) are described to have been hostile: From the very first the Bulgarian bands fought the forces of the committee as did the Greeks. Neither ever penetrated very far into the country from their respective frontiers, for the peasants were opposed to them and would not feed them, though they had plenty of money and did not succeed in bribing some.[2] But of the three forces, Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian, the Bulgars and the Greeks were by far the most ferocious. The Serbs were inclined to fight fair, attacking only the committee's bands and such villages as sheltered them. The Greeks and Bulgars knew no such restrictions. They burned whole villages, massacred whole communities, including women and children, and frequently outraged women.[2] The Macedonians fought Bulgars as bitterly and fiercely as they they fought Greeks and Serbs.[3] The book also mentions on the efforts of the Bulgarian propaganda war, after having outlined that all of the leaders of IMRO were imprisoned and that the majority of the bands were cut from supplies: Only two leaders, and less than a hundred armed men, were left in northern Macedonia to resist the further advance of the Bulgarian propagandists.[3] There are more examples from this book, but I don't want to go on, you get the point.
  2. I provided this earlier, but was accused of misrepresenting the quote. To quote: The long-awaited revolt began at dusk on Sunday, 2 August 1903, Saint Elijah's Day—or Ilinden. The insurrection was confined to Bitola Vilayet be cause, according to one source, it was farthest from Bulgaria, a factor designed to show the Great Powers that the revolt was purely a Macedonian phenomenon.[4]
  3. In order to give a context, before stating this and describing the activities of IMRO, the author describes that in Macedonia, the Bulgarian national identity began being enforced to the local Macedonian (Slavs) after the establishment of the Bulgarian Excharcate Church (1870). This is now the quote that I want to refer to, which refers to my main contention: In 1895, the Supreme Committee, or what what alternatively became known as the External Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (EMRO) was established in Sofia. Referred to by some as the "Supremists," these pro-Bulgarian activists had split with the IMRO to proclaim that their ultimate goal was annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria. EMRO opposed both the formation of Macedonian national consciousness and IMRO designs to create an independent Macedonian state.[5] As showcased in this quote, EMRO who opposed the creation of a Macedonian state, and the development of the ethnic Macedonian consciousness split from IMRO, who continued to pursue the creation of the Macedonian state and the development of the ethnic Macedonian consciousness, which ultimately ended up in the Ilinden Uprising. In regard to the Ilinden Uprising, the author states: The Ilinden Rebellion of 1903 represented a moment of revolutionary consciousness in the minds of many Slavic-speakers in Macedonia.[6] There are more examples from this book, but I don't want to go on, you get the point.

If these sources are not suffice enough, I am willing to provide more sources.

I would like to encourage editors who are not Bulgarian, or Macedonian for that matter, to look into this, and assess the character of the Ilinden Uprising based on the sources that I have provided. This wikipedia article is pushing the Bulgarian historiographic POV, a number of the sources provided are Bulgarian, Macedonian ones are not permitted. I will not advocate for the permission of sources written by modern Macedonian historians to be included, because there are a number of non-Macedonian sources that support my contention. In order to ensure Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it is essential that this is addressed, in a non denialist manner (since the only time the Macedonian POV is recognised is when editors want to criticize it). Thank you. Dikaiosyni (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already outlined this before, there was a different meanings to the term 'Macedonian' back then and in the book sources that you are using, during that time it was a geographic term used to describe a wide variety of different ethinicities that happened to be in the geographic regions of Macedonia.

"The designation Macedonian according to the then used ethnic terminology included local Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks, Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, Jews and so on, and when applied to the local Slavs, it meant a regional Bulgarian identity." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotse_Delchev

And also it's worth mentioning the self-identification as Bulgarians by the leaders of the Ilinden Uprising.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is about presenting historically accurate information, not different points of views from nationalists of various countries. And the reason why I removed your addition before it was reinstated with further clarification is because you are nitpicking quotes to fit your narrative with the obvious intention of making it seem that there was some kind of separate ethnic Macedonian identity.

It is also important to highlight that this user Dikaiosyni is likely part of a Macedonian Wikipedia taskforce by the United Macedonia Diaspora, this conversation may be meatpuppeted by other members such as Macedonia1913, Тутуноберач and other newly created accounts.

--James Richards (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) to weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
  1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
  2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
  3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography
  4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
  5. Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area., etc.
Of the sources presented by Dikaiosyni, only one meets the listed criteria and that is the book by Anastasia Karakasidou. I must point out that she is a specialist in the history of the Slavic-speaking population in Greece after the Balkan Wars, and not in the history of the IMRO before them. This Macedonian phenomenon thesis has been discussed another time and is inaccurate and incorrect. Without going into details, I will emphasize only three circumstances:
  1. A group of conservative Bulgarians in Salonica organized a Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary Brotherhood. The latter was incorporated in IMARO by 1900 and its leader Ivan Garvanov, was to exert a significant influence on the IMARO. The members of the Bulgarian Brotherhood were to push the idea for the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising and later they became the core of IMARO right-wing faction. Under the direct leadership by the undeniable Bulgarian — Ivan Garvanov, the IMARO take a decision about the revolt. The decisions was taken in the early January 1903 at a congress held at the Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. The leaders of the uprising were teachers from the Bulgarian educational school system or officers from the Bulgarian Army. The insurgents flew Bulgarian flags on many places.
  2. The dogma of modern Macedonian historiography is that IMRO was an ‘ethnic Macedonian’ organisation. In its early Statute, the official name of the organisation was Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees. its membership then was restricted explicitly only for Bulgarians. The groups of such rebels associated with the organisation were called by the Turks simply the Bulgarian Committees. The acronym BMARC has been routinely abbreviated in Macedonian historiography to IMRO to avoid difficult questions about the presence in the same organisations of people nowadays described as ‘ethnic Macedonians’ from geographic Macedonia – together with ‘ethnic Bulgarians’ from the Vilajet of Adrianople in Thrace. In this case a present-day ethnic reality is projected wholesale into the past. In fact the abbreviation IMRO was accepted in 1920s by the right-wing strongly pro-Bulgarian nationalist faction.
  3. The Adrianople region (Southern Thrace) became one of the Bulgarians' most coveted irredentas, second only to Macedonia. By the end of the 19th century, the total population in the Adrianople region amounted to almost one million people, nearly one-third of whom were Bulgarians. A Bulgarian national liberation movement began to develop here in close cooperation with the liberation movement in Macedonia, and acquired an organized character after the creation of the IMARO. It were the Macedonian revolutionaries who created the first committee of the IMARO at the Bulgarian Men's High School of Adrianople. Its actions culminated in the Preobrazhenie Uprising, which broke out two weeks after the Ilinden Uprising, on 6/19 August 1903. Since the organization links in such close way the inhabitants of Thrace and Macedonia and separately links both communities directly to the Bulgarians, these facts are still difficult to be explained from the Macedonian historiography. Jingiby (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Joseph, Reynolds Francis (1916). The Story of the Great War: The Complete Historical Records of Events to Date. Illustrated with Drawings, Maps, and Photographs. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. p. 242.
  2. ^ a b c Reynolds, Francis, Joseph (1916). The Story of the Great War: The Complete Historical Records of Events to Date. Illustrated with Drawings, Maps and Photographs. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. p. 239.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ a b Joseph, Reynolds Francis (1916). The Story of the Great War: The Complete Historical Records of Events to Date. Illustrated with Drawings, Maps, and Photographs. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. p. 240.
  4. ^ Perry, Duncan M. (1980). "Death of a Russian Consul: Macedonia 1903". Russian History. 7 (1): 204. doi:10.1163/187633180x00139. ISSN 0094-288X.
  5. ^ Karakasidou, Anastasia N. (1997). Fields of wheat, hills of blood : passages to nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990. University of Chicago Press. p. 100. ISBN 0-226-42493-6. OCLC 35249492.
  6. ^ Karakasidou, Anastasia N. (1997). Fields of wheat, hills of blood : passages to nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870-1990. University of Chicago Press. p. 101. ISBN 0-226-42493-6. OCLC 35249492.

It is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.224.143 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the article refer to the peasantry of Macedonia in 1903 as "Bulgarian"?

The second paragraph of the article describes the peasants who supported the uprising as "local Bulgarian peasants". This claim is cited to five sources: "We the Macedonians" by Tchadar Marinov, The Macedonian Conflict by Danforth Loring, Contested Ethnic Identity by Chris Kostov, Blood Ties by İpek Yosmaoğlu, and "Famous Macedonia" by Tchavdar Marinov. None of these sources mention peasant support for uprising or describe the peasantry of Macedonia as Bulgarian on the cited pages. On the contrary, each explicitly says that the peasantry of Macedonia lacked a sense of national identity at the time of the uprising:

  • Loring says (on page 65) that "At the end of World War I there were very few historians or ethnographers who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed. It seems most likely that at this time most of the Slavs of Macedonia, especially those in rural areas, had not yet developed a firm sense of national identity at all."
  • "We the Macedonians" says (on page 109) that "However, from another perspective, Macedonia’s population from the turn-of-the-20th-century may seem—quite on the contrary—rather national or relatively well “nationalized,” involved in diverse political agenda and even developing its one. Of course, the very concept of a “Macedonian population” should be nuanced. If the large peasant majority was in most of the cases undoubtedly far from the univocal categories of “national identity,” the same does not hold true for its intelligentsia or 'elite.'"
  • Kostov refers (on page 71) to "wide illiterate masses of peasants, who rarely expressed any ethnic identity"
  • "Famous Macedonia" says (on page 314) that "The phenomenon of the Macedonian peasants’ unconcern for national allegiance was certainly not invented by scholars, but it became so well-known largely because of the complicated international setting of the Macedonian question: the battle of diverse national claims generated interest in the mentality of people whose national indifference in other geographic contexts went unnoticed.116 As in many other cases, for the Slav-speaking Macedonian peasantry the most important identity was often (albeit not exclusively) the confessional one."
  • Yosmaoglu says (on page 15) that "As problematic as it is to accept the plans for an autonomous entity modeled after Switzerland as the progenitor of the modern Macedonian nation-state, simply capitulating to Bulgarian nationalists’ claims (i.e., that Macedonian Slavs were in fact Bulgarian) or to Greek nationalists’ dismissal (i.e., that Macedonian Christians did not know what they were) does not do justice to the people who lost their lives as these competing national projects claimed their loyalty. Here, it would behoove us to pause and consider whether by thinking of them as either this or that we place ourselves in an analytical straight jacket symptomatic of our own internalization of the notion that national consciousness is inherently exclusive and immutable."

Each of these sources is being used to support a claim that directly contradicts its content. The article, and whoever wrote this text, is lying about the content of these sources, presumably to pursue a Bulgarian nationalist agenda. My attempts to remove this lie have been "reverted" but I would appreciate it if someone with the power to edit the article without being reverted would remove this false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecentContributor2 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I thought this would be a SYNTH issue, however in this case the claim you point out indeed appears to be not only not supported by these sources but actually contradicted by them. It needs to be corrected. --Local hero talk 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I will only note that the citations above are not very precise and will point as an example at the reference # 1 by Loring Danforth on p. 65. The continuation of the quotation is: Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, etc. I think also two separate concepts are confused above. In one case, it is about the Slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia, which is a broader concept. In the second case, it concerns the Macedonian Bulgarians, as part of them formed the core of the IMARO. Part of the peasants in Ottoman Macedonia had undoubtedly Bulgarian identity. As a compromise, however, I would suggest that the term Bulgarian peasants be replaced by more accurate one: Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionaries. The article presents plenty of sources that confirm the Bulgarian national consciousness of these activists. At the same time, I do not deny their regional Macedonian identity, according to the sources too.Jingiby (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the sources support that, either. They say that the leaders of the uprising came from the tiny intelligentsia or elite which had developed a sense of national identity, but I don't think they support assigning a national identity to all participants in the uprising. Additionally, Yosmaoglu says (on page 15) that "There was, in fact, an undeniable attachment to the ideas of autonomy for Macedonia and action independent of Bulgaria in the program and manifestos of IMRO from its inception, which can reasonably be considered as indication of a separate Macedonian identity."
Bechev says (on page lvii of the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia) that the Slavic-speaking peasantry of Macedonia in the early 1900s had little sense of national identity. He then says (on page lviii) that "The IMARO was strong among the town-dwelling intelligentsia and craftsmen and also drew support from the rural masses attracted by its call for land redistribution at the expense of the big Muslim landlords". This shows that peasant support for the uprising was based on economic factors, not national identity. I think that these sources show that support for the uprising was too complicated to simply describe its supporters as "Bulgarian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecentContributor2 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
PS. Hundreds of Bulgarians from the Principality also participated in the uprising. They were Army officers, sergeants and simply volunteers. Jingiby (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I will emphasize three circumstances again. Each of the facts below can be confirmed by lot of reliable academic sources:
  1. A group of conservative Bulgarians in Salonica organized a Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary Brotherhood. The latter was incorporated in IMARO by 1900 and its leader Ivan Garvanov, was to exert a significant influence on the IMARO. The members of the Bulgarian Brotherhood were to push the idea for the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising and later they became the core of IMARO right-wing faction. Under the direct leadership by the undeniable Bulgarian — Ivan Garvanov, the IMARO take a decision about the revolt. The decisions was taken in the early January 1903 at a congress held at the Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. The leaders of the uprising were teachers from the Bulgarian educational school system or officers from the Bulgarian Army. The insurgents flew Bulgarian flags on many places. The Revolutionary Organization used the Bulgarian standard language in all its programmatic statements and its correspondence was solely in the Bulgarian language, and received financial and military help from Bulgaria. The local revolutionaries declared their conviction that the "majority" of the Christian population of Macedonia is "Bulgarian." The group modeled itself after the revolutionary organizations of Vasil Levski and other Bulgarian revolutionaries, each of whom was a leader during the earlier Bulgarian revolutionary movement.
  2. The dogma of modern Macedonian historiography is that IMRO was an ‘ethnic Macedonian’ organisation. In its early Statute, the official name of the organisation was Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees. its membership then was restricted explicitly only for Bulgarians until 1902. The groups of such rebels associated with the organisation were called by the Turks simply the Bulgarian Committees. The acronym BMARC has been routinely abbreviated in Macedonian historiography to IMRO to avoid difficult questions about the presence in the same organisations of people nowadays described as ‘ethnic Macedonians’ from geographic Macedonia – together with ‘ethnic Bulgarians’ from the Vilajet of Adrianople in Thrace. In this case a present-day ethnic reality is projected wholesale into the past. In fact the abbreviation IMRO was accepted in 1920s by the right-wing strongly pro-Bulgarian nationalist faction.
  3. The Adrianople region (Southern Thrace) became one of the Bulgarians' most coveted irredentas, second only to Macedonia. By the end of the 19th century, the total population in the Adrianople region amounted to almost one million people, nearly one-third of whom were Bulgarians. A Bulgarian national liberation movement began to develop here in close cooperation with the liberation movement in Macedonia, and acquired an organized character after the creation of the IMARO. It were the Macedonian revolutionaries who created the first committee of the IMARO at the Bulgarian Men's High School of Adrianople. Its actions culminated in the Preobrazhenie Uprising, which broke out two weeks after the Ilinden Uprising, on 6/19 August 1903. Since the organization links in such close way the inhabitants of Thrace and Macedonia and separately links both communities directly to the Bulgarians, these facts are still difficult to be explained from the Macedonian historiography. Jingiby (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should refer to the peasantry of Macedonia in 1903 as "Macedonians", since that is how they referred to themselves. They definitely didn't call themselves Macedonian Bulgarians. That is an ugly and artificial term coined by Bulgarian propagandists in the 1960-ties. Even Bulgarian sources admit that: "The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them so."[1] GStojanov (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As explained elsewhere, the term "Macedonian" at the beginning of the 20th century didn't encompass an ethnic identity. Far from it. It only meant a regional designation. A person was Macedonian if they were born in the region of Macedonia. Their ethnicity was of their own self-identification and something completely different than the term "Macedonian". However, in 2022, this is not the case. The Macedonian ethnicity developed during the 20th century and thus this term now has a clear ethnic meaning, which didn't exist 100 years ago. Thus, it can't be used as an ethnic identifier for people who didn't identify with an ethnicity which emerged after said people passed away. TzCher (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This was not a mono ethnic uprising. All Christians and even some Moslems took part in it. So if we use the term "Macedonian population" or simply "Macedonians" that would describe the population better than anything else. GStojanov (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources, you need a lot of secondary academic sources in English language to support your baseless claims. Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Orohydrography_of_Macedonia

Even in Bulgaria this uprising is known as Ilindensko

This uprising is named Ilindensko vostanie in Bulgaria also. Here are few examples:

  • In 1917 Георги Баждаров от с. Горно Броди, Серско, Егейска Македония - "Годишнината на Илинденското въстание в Скопйе", публикувано във в. "Родина", брой 404, Скопйе, 1917 година[1]
  • In 1924 Панчо Дорев от с. Пътеле, Леринско, Егейска Македония - "Даме Груев. Илинденското Въстание. Един Спомен", публикувано в "Външна политика и причини на нашите катастрофи. Спомени, факти и документи.", София, 1924 годинаCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
  • In 1943 Христо Силянов - "Освободителните борби на Македония; Том Втори: След Илинденското въстание", София, 1943 година[2]
  • In 1961 Георги Попхристов от с. Кърстоар, Битолско, Вардарска Македония - "Говор по случай 58 години от Илинденското възстание", програма "Христо Ботев" на Българското национално радио, София, 7 юли 1961 година[3]
  • In 2007 Анастас Лозанчев от Битоля, Вардарска Македония - "Политическо завещание (26.07.1945)", публикувано в "Хр. Тзавелла - Спомени на Анастас Лозанчев; член на главния щаб на Илинденското въстание", София, 2007 година[4]
  • In 2009 Ванчо Джоне (Иван Джонев) от Крушево, Вардарска Македония - "Кореспонденция с Никола Киров Майски (1957-1961); за смъртта на войводите Георги Ралев Свекянчето и Блаже Биринчето, за Илинденското въстание, Питу Гули и др.", публикувано в "Архив на Крушевския войвода Иван Джонев", Плевен, 2009 година[5]

There are many more examples like this from all periods. This is the prevalent term used in Bulgaria. I propose we change the title to Ilinden uprising, and then in the first paragraph we can mention that sometimes in Bulgaria it is also named differently. GStojanov (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I get more hits on Google books for "Ilinden Uprising" than "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising". --Local hero talk 16:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the former move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus to retain the current title.Jingiby (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You must be joking to point out a discussion from over 8 years ago in which every single individual opposing moving the name was Bulgarian, right? --Local hero talk 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I am not joking, just keep the rules. If you insist, you may open a new request about the title. Jingiby (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Lets open a new request for the move. Or we can just scrap this article and start a new one. The bias of this article is just too much. GStojanov (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You could open a new request, if you think there are new sources/evidence/information, which may lead to a new result. As for the alleged bias, perhaps better to just try to edit it or suggest possible changes in the talk page, and then, once agreed, move it to the main article? Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You could open a new request, but since you're the one alleging bias, you should first provide new credible primary or at least secondary sources which disprove the sources used to support the article. Simply saying "it's biased" because you don't like what the primary sources state doesn't mean much in a scientific context. TzCher (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Would Encyclopedia Britannica count? It is Ilinden Uprising in Encyclopedia Britannica[6] GStojanov (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, for two reasons. Firstly, because you don't source an encyclopedia with another encyclopedia. You need primary or secondary sources to back up your claims. Secondly, because the link you just shared does not contain an article about the Ilinden Uprising and instead refers to the part of the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising in the region of Macedonia, which is also called the Ilinden Uprising, exactly as is discussed in the Wiki article in the lead and in the second paragraph.
You do source an encyclopedia with another encyclopedia.[7] In Wiklipeda you can even verbatim cite older editions prior to 1911 that are no longer under copyright. [8] GStojanov (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
If you're wondering what a secondary source means, I'm adding an example from a Polish historian completely unrelated to Bulgaria.[9] TzCher (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
What you cite is not a secondary, but a primary source. Here is a definition of a secondary source: "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper"

[10] GStojanov (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MILNAME, the article title belongs at the WP:COMMONNAME used among reliable English-language sources. So we need to establish whether that is the current title or "Ilinden Uprising". As stated above, I get more hits in a simple Google books search for "Ilinden Uprising". --Local hero talk 22:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If Britannica, the gold standard of encyclopedias, calls it "Ilinden uprising", this should be a no brainer. If we can't agree on an obvious issue like this, how will we deal with more controversial issues? GStojanov (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no wiki policy that supports naming pages based on Britannica. However, I do suspect that "Ilinden Uprising" is the appropriate name for this article, though it must be done through a WP:RM, illustrating more prevalent use in reliable English-language sources. --Local hero talk 16:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Would you like to start the process? If not I will. GStojanov (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This name change is not only unnecessary, it makes no sense in a scientific context. The WP:COMMONNAME policy refers to events or people which could have one long and elaborate name and one short name, but the crucial characteristic of the short name is that it refers to the entire event/same person as the longer name. This is not the case here. The uprising had two main parts - the Ilinden Uprising and the Preobrazhenie Uprising - but it's still one uprising, not two. Thus, the name Ilinden Uprising refers to the Ilinden part of the wider revolt, rather than to the entire revolt. That's how the name is used in Britannica and that's how it's used here in the Wikipedia article, re: second paragraph. Renaming the article as Ilinden Uprising based on the naming conventions would counter the source material itself, which clearly shows that the uprising is one and the same, organized by the same organizations, ran by the same people, in the same time period, with the same goal and supported by the same local people. WP conventions on naming do not take precedence over the historical and scientific findings in the source material. Moreover, the uprising is widely known with the current name, which is evident both in search engines (the hits of one name vs the other are almost 50%-50%), in secondary sources (there are enough secondary sources in English using the current name) and in foreign languages (the vast majority of WP articles on the same topic in foreign languages use the current name).
In conclusion, such a move would be counterproductive, unscientific and downright manipulative re: the source material. TzCher (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this change. Makes me wonder how two different uprisings that occurred on separate sides of the Balkans have been coupled together for this long. Kromid (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It makes you wonder because you've clearly not read the sources referenced in the article. They're not two unrelated uprisings, they're two parts of the same uprising, created by the same organization in the same time period with the same goal. All of this is easily verifiable in both primary and secondary sources, all reliable, all seen widespread use. The documents clearly show that the IMARO and SMAC intended the uprising to be one and the same with a clear goal - the autonomy and subsequent independence of the Macedonian region and the Adrianople region. Your first clue should've been that both organizations have MA in their initials - Macedonian-Adrianople organizations. Artificially separating the uprising into two parts makes no sense when they're clearly connected by documents, by organizers, by goals and by citizen support. TzCher (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2867
  2. ^ https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2674
  3. ^ https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2596
  4. ^ https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2512
  5. ^ https://www.strumski.com/biblioteka/?id=2507
  6. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ilinden-Uprising
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica#:~:text=As%20the%20text%20in%20the,specified%20in%20the%20Plagiarism%20guideline.
  9. ^ Miszczak, Izabela (2021). Edirne: Gateway to the Balkans. ASLAN Publishing House.
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie_Uprising/Archive_4&oldid=1244657815"