Talk:Vasil Glavinov

NPOV

Jingiby recently removed my edit on attempting to make the article slightly more NPOV, he suggested that Vasil Glavinov never recognized or declared himself a Macedonian, im writing this to prove that this is a false theory and that this article shouldn't label him as a "Bulgarian" nor a "Macedonian" but instead it should allow the reader of the article to decide for themselves

(i will be adding sources to support my claims aswell)

- Vasil Glavinov was convinced that Macedonians had to fight for an independent Macedonian state, and that they were held down by Turks, Muslims and Albanians [1]

- Vasil Glavinovs party was called “The Macedonian Revolutionary Socialist Group” and he advocated for a free Macedonia [2]

- Vasil Glavinovs group was one of the first socialist groups to emphasize a private Macedonian identity and even criticized the Bulgarian government in his newspaper "Politiceska Svoboda" [3]

- Vasil Glavinov supported the creation of : “An Independent Federal Macedonian Republic conceived as some kind of “Balkan Switzerland” which would have its language be picked by the largest ethnic group in those regions” [4]

- Vasil Glavinov sometimes embraced the idea of a Macedonian Identity [5]

- “The Macedonians Do Not Want To Be Annexed To Anybody : Macedonia Should Remain For The Local Macedonians” - Vasil Glavinov [6]

- His groups program spread some Pro-Macedonian ideals to Macedonian Slavs in Switzerland [7]

[1] - Kemalism in Turkish Politics The Republican People's Party, Secularism and Nationalism by Sinan Ciddi (2009) p.16 (ISBN - 9781134025596)

[2] - Im Schatten des Krieges by Björn Opfer (2005) p.28 (ISBN - 9783825879976)

[3] - We, the People Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe by Diana Mishkova (2009) p.122 (ISBN - 9786155211669)

[4] - Roving Revolutionaries Armenians and the Connected Revolutions in the Russian, Iranian, and Ottoman Worlds by Houri Berberian (2019) p.131 (ISBN - 9780520278943)

[5] - A History of the Macedonian People by Graham W. Reld (2008) p.135 (ISBN - ???)

[6] - The Historical Truth The Progressive Social Circles in Bulgaria and Pirin, Macedonia on the Macedonian National Question : Documents, Studies, Resolutions, Appeals and Published Articles, 1896-1956 by Pero Korobar (2008) p.21 (ISBN - ???)

[7] - Macedonian Review Volumes 20-21 - University of Virgina (1990) p.47 (ISBN - ???) Gurther (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the discussion. At first place read the article Macedonians (obsolete terminology). Macedonians as an obsolete terminology was used in regional and in ethnographic sense and had several meanings, different from these used mostly today. At first place it was an umbrella term to designate all the inhabitants of the region of Macedonia, regardless of their ethnic origin. At the eve of the 20th century, this designation was used also to describe the Slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia, but not as a separate ethnic group, because this population was defined then mostly as Bulgarians, while their association with Bulgaria was universally accepted. Simultaneously a political concept was created, to encompass all these "Macedonians" in the area, into a separate supranational entity, based on their collective Macedonian regional identity. Now about the cited above sources:

[1] -The first one is about the idea of independent Macedonia, which was then political one, and had not ethnic connotation. Read the article about it carefully, please. The idea then was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian ethnicity, but unity of all nationalities in the area, then under Ottoman control. Vasil Glavinov's political group defined the basic aspects of the creation of Macedonian republic as a part of Balkan Socialist Federation. This "federative Macedonian republic," (some kind of Switzerland on the Balkans), would be with a cantonal organization, with separate territorial units for all the "national elements" living there, i.e. supranational, not national one.

[2] -The second one is obviously wrong. Glavinov had no party, while his Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group was part of Bulgarian Social Democratic party; Read the article about it carefully, please. At a meeting of the group on August 10, 1908, at which Dimitar Blagoev and Georgi Kirkov presented reports, the program of the group was discussed and adopted, which included demands for self-determination of the nationalities in the Ottoman Empire, general, direct, equal and secret suffrage, abolition of the Ottoman Senate, the introduction of a progressive income tax, the replacement of the regular army with a people's militia, reforms in labor legislation, and others. The idea of a self-governing Macedonia (and Adrianople) regions was emphasized in the program of these socialists and their agenda was made more explicit in their newspaper Political Liberty.

[3] - The third source is far from your agenda: The idea of a self-governing Macedonia was emphasized in the very first program of the Macedonian socialists led by Vasil Glavinov and was made more explicit in their newspaper Političeska svoboda [The Political Liberty]... Yet, the socialists’ emphasis on a separate political agenda of “Macedonian people” was based on class-ideological aspects which bestowed it with “anational” aspects. The ambitions of what is labeled “a stupid chauvinism and patriotism” and especially of the “Bulgarian chauvinism” are opposed by the socialists to the idea that “the Macedonian” [makedonecât] has to realize, at the first place, “his” class-ideological tasks. That is why, according to Političeska svoboda, “the Macedonian” should by no means be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb or Greek as “he” is, on the first place, a political “slave” [rob].

[4] - The fourth source says the same: Independent Federal Macedonian Republic conceived as some kind of “Balkan Switzerland”. The latter presumed a cantonal organization of all local “national elements” that would have the possibility to choose the official language in the cantons where they constituted the ethnic majority. Moreover the Glavinov's newspaper Političeska svoboda opposed the Serbian idea that the Macedonian Slavs are a kind of Serbo-Bulgarian “paste” and asserted their “Bulgarian” belonging. (Političeska svoboda, (March 29, 1898).

[5] - The fifth source is not neutral. It is written by Mihaylo Apostolski, i.e. It reveals the Macedonian POV, which is explained in the Wikipedia article. Its author was a Yugoslav communist partisan. By the way during WWII Apostolski was captured by the Italians but his father, a Bulgarian army veteran, made a request to the Bulgarian Minister of War, insisting on the Bulgarian roots of his family, and it was granted soon after. Apostolski, was released. Later he received a certificate he was a trustworthy Bulgarian. Later he filed an application for appointment in the Bulgarian army.

[6] - The sixth source is also not neutral. Pero Korobar, The Historical Truth, the Progressive Social Circles in Bulgaria and Pirin Macedonia on the Macedonian National Question 1896–1956 . (Skopje: Kultura , 1981) It reveals the Macedonian POV, which is explained in the Wikipedia article. Its author was also a Yugoslav communist partisan.

[7] - The last source is also Macedonian publication. It reveals the Macedonian POV, which is explained in the Wikipedia article. Moreover it connects Glavinov and the MTRK in Switzerland, which is dubious: MTRK, i.e. the Macedonian Secret Revolutionary Committee was founded in 1895 in Plovdiv. Nearly all of its members were from what is today Bulgaria. It was developed later in Geneva in a secret, anarchistic, brotherhood called "Geneva group". Its members proposed a "Macedonian state", which included also the Adrianople Vilajet (i.e. Macedonian-Thracian state) as part of the future Balkan Federation. They presumed that Bulgarian language, Bulgarian Church and Bulgarian education ought to be used there. However, the anarchists promoted the idea of the new state, for all the Macedonian "nationalities". Jingiby (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

1 - Yes, but he specifically specified in the source that the Muslim population were preventing this uprising and the Turkish government, they specifically labelled Macedonians as the liberators, in this type of situation a regional term seems ridiculous to use in this sense, which is why he probably didn't mean in reginal sense

2 - Several books actually support this theory, both macedonian and english you can check out yourself

3 - Fair argument

4 - This is actually correct, but Glavinov specifically wrote this since he didn't support the Serbian propaganda, but neither the Bulgarian, in his eyes they weren't Bulgarians nor serbs, but he did consider the Bulgarians much more closer compared to the serbs, this is accurate and no way suggest that they had "Bulgarian Identity" considering the fact they even used the same alphabets and dialects its no surprise that Glavinov considers Bulgarians a closer relative, you can find this if you look deeper in the source i send

5 - This was a translation by an American, if it really was BS or MPOV the editor would have probably cut it out, also you've sourced several sources from Bulgarian authors with clearly pro-Bulgarian views, as a matter of fact several times, and some wikis you've straight up filled with mostly Bulgarian sources, so tell me Jingby, if Bulgarian sources with most having a clean BPOV what's the point of adding them if you reject Macedonian sources, now ill admit one thing, that Macedonian sources do contain a MPOV in most of them, but this is no different from a lot of Bulgarian authors, you cant just label one nation as "bias" and the other as "correct" since thats literally what bias means

6 - Im not gonna repeat what i said in the fifth one so ill shortly explain : Why are Bulgarian sources fine but not Macedonian?

7 - Same thing as my fifth and sixth, what makes the Macedonian sources so evil but the Bulgarians so "trustable" also your sources for these claims are of Bulgarian sources, should i, using your logic say? : "this is clearly BPOV and is considered untrustable"

Also quick reminder, im not trying to label Vasil as a Macedonian, i just dont want this article to label him as a Bulgarian since assuming that is extremely obviously picking a side Gurther (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see: WP:RSHISTORY. 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 recent conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography, etc. This means that automatically all 3 Yugoslav time sources that are from the communist era and support your thesis are dropped, and only on this basis. I don't see a single Bulgarian source above. All are recent publications of European university publishers. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon" Yes this is why i dont want him labeled as a Bulgarian nor Macedonian, the topic is extremely divided and you labeling him bulgarian is one-sided and Bias (considering the fact you are Bulgarian, this is not really a surprise), this is why this topic is so divided

1 - most of my sources are from the late 2000s while some in extremely early 2010s while some go back in the 90s, i think this is considered fair

2 - I do not understand what you're trying to discuss, if you can please go more in deep so i can understand

3 - Most of these Yugoslavian resources were reviewed and published (im not suggesting that all 3 were, chances are one is probably not) but since you've really not enjoyed these three sources, ill provide you with more sources :

Vasil being labeled as a Macedonian Communist [9] [11]

His Organization being labeled as Macedonian [10]

[9] - Who's who on the Postage Stamps of Eastern Europe by Paul G. Partington (1979) p.136 (ISBN - 9780810812666)

[10] - Serbia Between East and West: The Events of 1903-1908 by Wayne S. Vucinich (1954) p.28

[11] - Bulletin scientifique, Volume 7 by Le Conseil (1971) p.331

also what i've noticed is barely any english books in Google Books refer to him as a Bulgarian, most either refer to him as a "Macedonian" or not even mention his identity at all (while some talk about the School not the person) heres a link, you can freely explore and see if im wrong in Google Books

this suggest that his Macedonian identity can fall under WP:HISTIP

"A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major"

despite all this i think Vasil should not be written as a Bulgarian nor Macedonian, just as a regional revolutionary, allow the readers to decide with themselves if they consider him as a Macedonian or Bulgarian Gurther (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in the previous discussions of the articles on Rizo Rizov and Alekso Martulkov, it became clear that you are trying to revise the standard views of historians about them and push the fringe views. This continues even now. Well, in the previous discussions, Ivan Katardzhiev's view was pointed, which you reject. This Macedonian historian clearly states that the members of the Bulgarian Communist Party of Macedonian origin finally accepted the idea about the separate Macedonian identity in the early 1930s, while until them they defined themselves as Bulgarians. Nevertheless, even later they remained closely connected with their Bulgarian past and practically continued to feel themselves as Bulgarians, even in Communist Yugoslavia. He quite clearly develops the difference between their political separatism, which was not aimed at separation from the Bulgarian nation, and the Macedonian national separatism that was developed after the Second World War. Now you are pushing fringe theses that the Bulgarian communist Glavinov who died during 1920s, led a Macedonian party already at the end of the 19th century and even felt himself to be an ethnic Macedonian at that time. It is neither neutral nor objective nor is it supported by the majority of the leading researchers. Wikipedia as a whole is not aimed at fringe theories.Even more so, the reprints you have launched of publications whose originals were published 40-70 years ago and whose authors were Yugoslav communist partisans cannot be accepted as reliable sources. Jingiby (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jingby thanks for the reply, although it does contain several problems, 1 - Alekso Martulkov was mostly agreed upon both by Bulgarian and Macedonian books (and even English) that he was a Macedonian, fighting for an independent Macedonia, freely explore Google books if you think im incorrect, Rizo Rizov also had clearly Pro-macedonian views, Seeing that for some reason love mentioning old stuff, shall i mention all your edit wars over in the Macedonian wiki? How you've been making more rude and not neutral talks about Jane Sandanski in the Macedonian wiki, purposefully refusing any evidence and instead you've basically used one book as evidence for someones ethnicity, that is fringe view jingby, this is hypocritical, 2. You've changed the quote! I have no idea why you did this, Ivan said "All IMROU members" not "All BCP members" you know very well Vasil Glavinov wasn't in IMROU which is why i dont need to explain that this is BS, in that quote he mentioned other revolutionaries, none of them being Vasil Glavinov, how can you use a source that doesn't even mention the person? Secondly this falls under Fringe Views, This 1 historian cannot be relied upon to identify all the IMROU members as Bulgarians, with this logic if i asked a Macedonian historian and he told me they are Macedonian, that means they are Macedonian now! See the problem? Also this again is BPOV, you instantly accept when a Macedonian calls something Bulgarian but when a Macedonian calls it Macedonian you instantly label it as "Bias" and "Fringe Views" where is the logic? 3. I've send you a link to explore all books mentioning Vasil Glavinov, I've explored most of them in that Link, (a majority were in English) and they seem to agree that Vasil Glavinov had a clearly Pro-macedonian stance, This suggest that his Pro-Macedonian stance is clearly considered true atleast for a majority of historians while you on the other hand have used mostly Bulgarian sources for this wiki which can be classified as BPOV, My Macedonian claims arent Fringe Views, ill say it again like 100th times already, i gave you a link to Google books for English books about Vasil, explore them, since I did and they agree on a more Pro-macedonian stance. Despite all of these i still think Vasil shouldn't be Labeled as a Macedonian nor Bulgarian, Allow the readers to decide for themselves, and add the more Pro-macedonian elements from his life, Its hypocritical that the "Alekso Martulkov" wiki desperately makes you wanna look at him in a Bulgarian light, this is because of your Fringe views, ive looked for both English books and Bulgarian books in Google Books and they all seem to agree that Alekso was Macedonian, there were however some who agreed that he is Bulgarian, but those were a small minority and thus can be considered Fringe Views, Using your logic Jingby i should remove all the Fringe Views from the Alekso wiki and instead mention the more Macedonian elements since thats what hes known for and that's what everyone writes. Gurther (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Look what I will say briefly: Glavinov never stated that he was not Bulgarian, but an ethnic Macedonian. It's simple. There is no serious modern researcher who would count him among the handful of intellectuals who spread Macedonist views at the beginning of the 20th century. In the last 20 years, there have been several serious analyzes of the Macedonian-Adrianople group in the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, and they are available online. Nowhere is it written that it was a separate party, or that they were spreading Macedonism and secession from the Bulgarian nation. It is explained in an excellent way:

"It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology. For instance, Političeska svoboda opposed the Serbian idea that the Macedonians are a kind of Serbo-Bulgarian “paste” and asserted their “purely Bulgarian” character. The “Adrianopolitan” part of the group's designation shows its commitment to the destiny of the Bulgarians in Thrace as well. It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that (Glavinov's) group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character. In any case, the Macedonian socialists were institutionally affiliated with the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, established in 1891. Its founder, Dimităr Blagoev, himself originated from Macedonia. Blagoev's party shared the same slogans of a Balkan Federation and of “Macedonia for Macedonians.” The latter was understood in a supra-national way as a polity of all the “national elements” of the region: according to the ethnic terminology used in that period, these were “Bulgarians,” Turks, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians and so on."

For more: Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction? In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Two. Authors: Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, Pages: 469–555, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261914_007 Editors Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 9004261915, p. 503. All these details are explained and cited in this article. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gurther. Welcome back. Why are we bringing up WP:OTHERCONTENT? There was a consensus between editors about those articles, in line with NPOV. If you keep repeating the same mistakes, we can't have a constructive discussion here. Also see WP:FOC, you should focus on the content during discussions, not the editor. Let's keep the discussion focused please. So I've reviewed your sources and I'll comment on those which are still disputed.

The first source appears to mostly focus on Turkish politics and the author in question doesn't appear to be an expert on the Macedonian Question or Balkan history. That also appears to be his only publication. When it comes to sources, a source can be unreliable within context, including an author's credentials (see WP:SOURCEDEF and WP:RSCONTEXT).

I won’t comment on the German source since my German is rusty and the third source because there’s an understanding about it. The sources from five to eleven cannot possibly be treated as reliable, since they all fall under WP:OLDSOURCES. It’s not that older sources can never be used, but modern sources usually have precedence on Wikipedia. Plus these Yugoslav Macedonian sources were written during the Cold War era, when the Macedonian POV was increasingly trying to debunk the Bulgarian POV, so they’re not free from ideological bias. Not to mention that some of them are also in contradiction with the mainstream view. Them being Macedonian is not the problem, but it’s the context that matters. We can't just cite random works from Google Books, but we have to make sure that they are reliable too and that they are relevant for an article. You have never clarified or demonstrated why the Bulgarian sources are unreliable in this article, so it sounds like a case of WP:JDL to me. I’d also like to point out that this article currently doesn’t contain a modern Macedonian source (ex. a Macedonian source after the independence of North Macedonia) which writes about Glavinov. WP:NPOV doesn't apply without reliable sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Macky you seem to not understand, im not trying to argue that Vasil is a Macedonian, im trying to argue that labeling as a Bulgarian can be classified as One-Sided, your review on my sources seems to be in a more negative light which is bewildering for me, lets look at this one by one, you call the first source non-useful since you consider the person who wrote about it a non-expert on the topic and that "he mostly focuses on Turkish history not Macedonian," with this logic we should throw out (3) (5) (8) (9) sources for the official Vasil Glavinov since they barely mention him, see the problem with dubious claims like these? Your second defense is that "Old Sources" arent reliable, did you even read this section? Jingby stated that modern sources arent allowed and that older should be accepted, but now i cant use older?? What else do u have left?? Middle?? (Also using the logic that old is not reliable you should throw out : (4) from this wiki) Ive clarified several times why it can be easily bias, a Bulgarian claiming someone is Bulgarian and this document being reviewed by Bulgarians is extremely obvious what it states, if it was a Bulgarian having their books being reviewed by English companies or publishers would be a perfect NPOV (So that means we have to throw out : (7) (11) from this wiki) Also i wouldn't be repeating myself if all of you have ignored my questions, since you aren't Jingby ill ask you this question, maybe you'll provide an answer: When a Macedonian historian claims something is Bulgarian you take it at face value, but when a Macedonian claims its Macedonian you label it "bias" why?

Jingby has been ignoring this question for awhile and im starting to get suspicious, Now onto the next point: you suggest that the Yugoslavia sources are purposefully Bias. Now ill agree on one thing, a good portion of them are, But this creates the question: Why?, I've noticed that a lot of BPOV editors don't have an answer for this, there is absolutely no reason for this said bias, and even if it was, what makes the Bulgarian communist sources any better? Should we not trust any communist sources? Also why mention the Cold War? The Bulgarian and Macedonians were communist, i dont see this helping at all in the conversation. One theory ive seen floating around about this Partisan bias is that "The Yugoslavian authorities wanted to create a Macedonian identity so they wouldn't unite with Bulgaria" first of all this falls under Original Research, secondly this Fringe Views since only a small amount of authors consider this, third of all this theory is bias, the fact that it was though and spread in Bulgaria is certainly interesting isn't it?

Also I've provided a link to the Google books for English books about Vasil, they state he had at some points a Pro-macedonian stance, even if they were short or not it should signify something, that this topic is messy and labeling him a Macedo-bulgarian is wrongful and one-sided, have you explored the Google Books? Have you noticed the more Macedonian siding element of these authors? Where did you guys even get these Bulgarian books? I couldn't find them in normal sense, Also not citing a single Macedonian source is ridiculous. Gurther (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You missed my points. Some of these sources write about Bulgarian, Macedonian, Balkan history and/or something about Glavinov, but the authors of some of these sources also actually specialize in Southeastern European history. That's what they have that the author of the first source you presented here lacks. I didn't claim that "old sources" are unreliable. I stated that modern sources usually have precedence over old sources on Wikipedia and usually for good reasons, plus this is per a Wikipedia guideline. The information of some old sources could be outdated and superseded by modern sources. It's not that sources have to be "unbiased". In fact, biased sources can be reliable too (see WP:BIASED). Every source has its own bias. However, when you have sources that contradict with mainstream scholarship, of course we can't treat the source as reliable. That also provides an answer to your question why some sources (be it Yugoslav, communist and etc) could be unreliable. I haven't encountered a Bulgarian communist source in this article. The Cold War is a complicated matter. That was a time when information essentially wasn't free and was controlled by communist authorities in "communist states". Information was forged, manipulated, falsified and etc. Some historiographies (ex. the Yugoslav communist historiography and Bulgarian communist historiography) were also disputing each other, now this is the case between the Macedonian and Bulgarian historiography. However, it is different now because access to information is freer now and thanks to this increased freedom, you can also access Wikipedia now. I'll agree on one thing with you and that is, if there's a source in this article that isn't sufficiently related to the subject, then it should be definitely removed. However, removing them based on your perception that the sources are unreliable is a no-go, because you haven't proved that any source in this article is unreliable. If you keep soapboxing, accusing other editors of promoting BPOV (which isn't your first time you've done so, which I've also told you not to do before and to assume good faith), doing original research or promoting fringe views, then we can take a short trip to WP:ANI and resolve this matter another way, since this is a pretty unconstructive conduct. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(This is a reply towards @Jingiby) Yes jingby thats what I've been arguing this entire time, he's had both Bulgarian and Macedonian identification and thus for the sake of NPOV shouldn't be Labeled neither, I've argued over and over again that the viewer should decide on this for themselves, ive tried to explore this "evidence of Macedonian Socialist group not existing and that it was Bulgarian" all i found were Bulgarian sources, which is both fringe views and BPOV, secondly this quote again, ive already answered this quote so ill paste over what i said "Yes this is actually true, but this doesn't state he is Bulgarian, if you look at the source again it says that the only reason he even mentioned it was since he considered Macedonians closer to Bulgarians then Serbs (which is correct)" Also this source of yours that Blagoev considered Macedonia full of "Bulgarian, Vlahs, Greeks, Slavs" was written by Bulgarians, and often not agreed upon, this is both a fringe view and weighing in reliability and promotes BPOV, isnt it odd you state that my Macedonian sources are bias yet you use Bulgarian freely? Gurther (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright this is somewhat getting ridiculous, for starters how are my sources contradicting to something scholars have agreed? Look at the Google Books for yourself you can freely search the Term "Vasil Glavinov" - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Vasil+Glavinov. And see that a majority agree on a Macedonian stance, "I didn't claim that "old sources" are unreliable. I stated that modern sources usually have precedence over old sources on Wikipedia and usually for good reasons" alright then, Jingby tells me modern sources arent reliable, so are you suggesting that Jingby is wrong? Also a majority of Communist Bulgarian historians barely disputed with them, at first they were even pro-macedonian, Some schools in Bulgaria during the 1950s changed their History books to call Samuels Kingdom not "Western Bulgaria" but "Slavic Macedonia" and that "The Miladinov Brothers weren't Bulgarian they were slavic brothers who fought for the interest of both Macedonia and Bulgaria" also given the fact they gave the body of the famous IMRO revolutionary Gotse Delcev to the government in Skopje clearly suggest they were in mutual terms, so you tell me, what were they so divided on? "However, it is different now because access to information is freer now and thanks to this increased freedom, you can also access Wikipedia now" what's the point of exploring Wikipedia when we both know its bias. Anyways I haven't tried to suggest that the evidence shouldn't be used, i purposefully said to throw them out to point out how you attempting to correct me revealed that some of these sources may be flawed

"If you keep soapboxing, accusing other editors of promoting BPOV" accusing?? Have you seen the talk pages in the macedonian wiki for Jane Sandanski? "Троши си ги паричките, алал да се ти? Ама питай го Чуповски, защо смета, дека делото на Сандански е бугарско, а Яне е агент на Фердинанд! Питай го и Балабанов, ортакот на Сандански, кой пишува на Ванчо Михалов, дека Сандански бил под силно влияние на Кобургот и бил постояно во дворецот на Фердинанд. Ега и прагматизмот, ега и чудото. Като туриш и шест години врховизам и што излиза?"

- Jingby

"Ah, great job. Censorship works well here. I hope forgery pays well. Greeting!"

- Jingiby (after being warned for vandalism)

"Dear censors, thank you very much for finally taking decisive measures to expel me for another half year! Come on, stay healthy"

- Jingby (after being blocked for Vandalism)

All of this is and more is free for you to read over here : https://mk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Jingiby

As you can clearly see, Me labeling Jingby as BPOV isnt far fetched, and the way he treats the Macedonian authorities in those wikis are downright hypocritical. Gurther (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I don't understand much from these writings above. Keep calm and take a break. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am calm jingby, I'm sharing evidence to support my statement, do you remember saying this stuff? Gurther (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

POV and fringe views

There was an older conversation about these issues, yet they only ended after Stephen decided to report me which caused the conversation to end up somewhere else, despite this no changes have been made to fix the BPOV issue of this article, for starters, almost no books (english ones) refer to him as a Macedo-Bulgar or just a Bulgar in general, the only english book i could find which without a doubt calls him a Bulgarian is a book right here, this is a huge issue, this suggest that this article is promoting WP:FRINGE theories and it needs to resolved instantly, this article more specifically follows the Bulgar fringe view (more specifically BPOV), which is why im adding the POV tag, a good portion of books actually refer to Glavinov as a Macedonian rather then a Bulgar. Gurther (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, the huge issue is your POV. Jingiby (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No Jingiby, this is a huge issue in your WP:FRINGETHEORY, almost all sources have called him Macedonian. Gurther (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, it's better to not bring up the sources again. Most of them are not reliable, except this source. There's a lack of reliable English-language sources which talk about Glavinov. I support your NPOV formulation though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, Aleksandar Matkovski book "A History of the Jews in Macedonia" also calls him a Macedonian, although i think the NPOV version is the best compromise we can reach Gurther (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

All right. By the way, if you have any alternative formulations for the lead, it's better to discuss them here first. We still haven't agreed on the exact formulation. I agree with removing "Macedonian Bulgarian" from the lead though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, how about "he is considered Bulgarian in some media, and as a Macedonian in others" that way we don't throw out Bechev and others sources since they are actually reliable. Gurther (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with "He's considered a Bulgarian in Bulgaria and Macedonian in North Macedonia"? When it comes to the English-language sources (except maybe Matkovski's source), we don't know if they're talking about his ethnic identity. They could be referring to citizenship (the one that calls him Bulgarian) or even regional identity (the one that calls him Macedonian). We can find use for all of the sources though, they don't necessarily have to be in the lead. They can be used for biographical information in the body of the article instead. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, alright then we will keep it as "He's considered a Bulgarian in Bulgaria and Macedonian in North Macedonia", may i correct the article now? Gurther (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, maybe I should take a stand too if given the chance? First, in order to discuss this person, we need to set some benchmarks. I suggest that the first benchmark should be that until the Balkan Wars in 1912 Macedonian identity in an ethnic rather than a political/regional sense was professed by only a handful of intellectuals. This opinion is not mine, but according to Dimitar Bechev's Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia. Just to clarify that most of such people also had a Bulgarian identity and had a mixed self-awareness like Krste Misirkov, for example. I suggest that the second benchmark is the adoption by the Comintern in 1934 of the special resolution recognizing a separate Macedonian identity. In our case, the subject of the topic, who was a Bulgarian communist, did not live to see 1934 and died in 1929. Also according to Dimitar Bechev's Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia, until the early 1930s the Bulgarian communists from Macedonia defined themselves as Bulgarians in ethnic sense. Gurther actually attempts to explain this man's political/regional Macedonian identity as ethnic one. However, until 1943, there was not a single Macedonian party in the ethnic sense, and our subject was a member only of Bulgarian parties, wrote in Bulgarian was Bulgarian subject and lived mostly in Bulgaria where hie died. And notice, there is not a single document of his or a pamphlet issued by him, where he states that he personally was not Bulgarian, or that Macedonian Slavs were a separate nation in an ethnic sense. Let remember that Macedonian as an obsolete terminology was used till 1940s was mostly a regional term and had several meanings, different from these used mostly today, and one of them meant ethnic Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, this is a violation of WP:SYNTH and currently you are doing WP:OR, i also wanna point out some misinformation, according to Katardžiev (which you regularly cite) The Macedonian identity began properly advancing after 1913 since they were separated from the Bulgarian propagandist churches that were running awhile back with the help of the Exarch, i also wanna note that another case of hypocrisy, you claim that he never espoused a single case of a Macedonian identity yet this case is also present with Razdolov, he never even identified at all as a Bulgarian in his lifetime, the closest thing we have of a Bulgarian identity from him is how he considered Macedonian as an umbrella term, yet despite all these clear declarations you still decided on removing any mentions of him being a Macedonian and even tried to label all Yugoslavian sources as unreliable which is frankly disappointing, now i don't wanna go off topic so I'll return with Vasil, him using Bulgarian doesn't make him a Bulgarian, Čupovski used Russian and Bulgarian yet hes a Macedonian, also the reason they used Bulgarian was (according to Vasil Ivanovski) due to the Bulgarian propaganda present in Macedonia. Your arguments (or atleast for me) are completely pointless and flaud. I advice reaching a proper consensus instead of trying to deny everything. Gurther (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As always, off-topic comments. Let stick to the facts, there is not a single document of his or a pamphlet issued by him, where he states that he personally was not Bulgarian. There is not a single document of his or a pamphlet issued by him, where he personally claims to be an ethnic Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, this is WP:OR, also these pamphlets are old outdated primary sources which is against Wikipedias guidelines, if you look at the available books that mention Glavinov a good portion of them call his party and himself as Macedonian, but this discussion isn't reserved about his ethnic identity its about the neutrality of the article, i offered a compromise and Stephen has accepted so far, you are the only one arguing, i believe the compromise i suggest was perfectly reasonable and satisfy both parties, which is why i want you to stay on track, yes i do admit with going off-track with this but now i wanna turn away from that and focuse on the article since this isn't about his ethnic identity, this isn't about the identity of the Macedonians in general, its about the neutrality of this article.

You still didn't understand something. Glavinov never led a party. He was a member only of Bulgarian parties. The term Macedonian has always had different meanings. In Glavinov's time, this term had a basic meaning Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, Wikipedia is not a forum, either stick to the subject or expect your comments to be removed, thanks. Gurther (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, can you elaborate on your position? Why do you think that Glavinov might have had a Macedonian national identity? Jingiby (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, this talk isn't about his identity its about the neutrality of the article, Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, if you continue to ignore the topic then I'll just fix the article with the previously agreed upon compromise between me and Stephen. Gurther (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not about his ethnic identity. It's about what he's notable as, based on the sources. From what I can see, he's more notable for his politics, rather than his ethnic identity. I haven't seen sources that discuss the latter. When the sources are unclear about a disputed matter, it's a standard practice to put the sides that dispute the matter between each other (Bulgaria and North Macedonia, in this case). If there are reliable sources that discuss his ethnic identity, they'll be added here to clarify the matter. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, a lot of sources mention him creating a socialist group in Macedonia and how it was the first Macedonian socialist group, i can't seem to find it's name anywhere, do you think we should mention that in the articles introduction? EDIT : i found it its the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group its already mentioned in the article so i don't think it's needed anymore.Gurther (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Small side note: you peaked my interest with these pamphlets, do you have Links to them?) Gurther (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, here you are.--Jingiby (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Gurther (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)