Talk:First statute of the IMRO

General remarks on the article

I'd like to generally remark that prior to my string of edits, the article was very poorly written, both in terms of wording but also in terms of grammar and syntax. I maintain that at times there were also some NPOV violations. Although, the problem of sourcing remains. Best regards to all. Kluche (talk) Kluche (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A sentence was added that Bulgarian could then mean (at the eve of the 20th century) a religious identity, rather then ethnicity. After checking the sources, I have not seen such a specific definition regarding the religious identity of the members of BMARK and in particular the definition of the designation Bulgarian in the organization's statute. I think this claim in that particular case is an original research or a fringe theory. In the first source, there is no mention of religious identity, but about lack of loyalty to Sofia. In the second source there is no mention of religious identity, but is written the members of IMRO who were Macedonian Bulgarians and Bulgarian Exarchists and author claims there is no simple answer to their identity. The third source is from 1920 and is not WP:RS. Itis out of date. It is older then 100 years. There is no mention of IMRO-members, too. In the fourth source, there is no mention of the IMRO, its members and their identity.Jingiby (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby You seem to not understand the cited sources and instead assume on your own on their meaning, for starters back then in old Macedonia the Macedonians had no real identity so it would make no sense for them to clarify in the constitution that they meant infact a Macedonian Exarch. Keith Brown clearly mentions religious identity in the section

"they’re not thinking of themselves as having loyalty to Sofia, to the Bulgarian state. they're using it to refer to themselves by religion or by language at a time when Bulgarian for them doesn't mean nationality Bulgarian and loyal to Sofia"

i advise reading the full text of the interview before assuming incorrect assumptions, ive removed the old sources and the unreliable one and added a new one, but it seems to me that you dont like that, when i gave clean sources of Ivan accepting the idea and even refer to them as "Macedonian Exarchs" you've removed it without a proper or well explanation, this talk thread doesn't even mention the issue so i have no clue why you've redirected me here. I've noticed your recent behaviours have been less proper and more defensive, when i and Kluche agreed on the Tatarchev naming you went completely silent and when we asked for your opinion you've seemed to ignore it.

You've also cited no source for the claim of Ivan rejecting this idea, please give me a proper explanation or i'll revert what you've removed

StephenMacky1 as for you i want to mention how this source isn't self published nor does it fall onto any other rule breaking, according WP:YOUTUBE its only allowed to delete sources when they do not contribute or its copyrighted, this isn't. please read the wiki before assuming, thank you. Gurther (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, the source is user-generated and very well could be copyrighted. We can't just link YouTube videos from random YouTube accounts. I haven't encountered a reliable source which contains the full interview too. Per WP:RSPYT: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK." Stefov's source is self-published, and his academic credentials are under question, as you can see here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And why is this a reply to my comment made prior to the addition of such sentence? Kluche (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User Gurther has started to cross all sorts of boundaries. In addition to using unreliable sources, for which he was repeatedly pointed out, he already uses openly racist and pseudo-scientific literature, quoting the ultranationalist Aleksandar Donski in the article about the VMRO statute. I see that he quotes his book on the ethnogenetic differences between the Macedonians and the Bulgarians. He is definitely trying to push clear Macedonist propaganda. Unbelievable. Jingiby (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby please do not accuse users and assume good faith, i checked my previous edit [1] i discovered that i did infact use a source of his, i apologize and ill correct myself, but the issue stil stands, plus this source has been used as a confirmation that the Macedonian historiography sided with this theory, not as a fact that they were actually Macedonian Exarchs, please properly check what its been sourced for. you've reverted books from Katardziev himself who have sided with the belief of some of the Macedonian historians, you've also not provided a proper reason or source as to explain that Katardziev had not supported this theory, i advise laying out your talks more neutral and understanding as you've seem to label my sources as "Macedonian Propaganda" which violates neutrality, please be civil and helpful when improving and communicating in the talk page

StephenMacky1 i see the issue and apologize, the source will stay remove and thank you for clearing up the issue. Gurther (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Here User Gurther has cited Донски, Александар (2005). Етногенетските разлики помеѓу Македонците и бугарите. Самостојно Издание. стр. 262. Jingiby (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

i discovered that i did infact use a source of his, i apologize and ill correct myself, but the issue stil stands, plus this source has been used as a confirmation that the Macedonian historiography sided with this theory, not as a fact that they were actually Macedonian Exarchs, please properly check what its been sourced for. Gurther (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, please make a difference between Bulgarian Exarch (Head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church), Bulgarian Exarchate (the official name of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church from 1870 til 1953) and Bulgarian Exarchists (members of an officially recognised ethno-religious and linguistic community within the Ottoman Empire between 1870 and 1912). Macedonian Exarch is a nonsense and such entity never existed. Jingiby (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As i've said before i only used that term in the article because thats what the sources mention it as, this term is also present in some foreign books under the term "Macedonian Exarchist" it is not nonsensical and its an accurate term to describe Macedonians who've worked with the Bulgarian Exarch, i purposefully said "some historians call it Macedonian Exarchist" on the page because only a small portion use the name, you seem to not like that term which confuses me, Gurther (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby this does not answer my question. While I do agree that some of the concerns regarding Gurther's behaviour are valid, such behaviour is present in other Wikipedia editors.

You voiced your concern of the fact that 3 sources presented by Gurther were irrelevant either to the subject-matter or they did not support his statements. Such is the case of two sources and statements in this article alone made by yourself (removal of 1, removal of 2 statement/source), and another such case in a different article (here).

You are also concerned by the fact that Gurther used a 100 year old source which is out of date. Here's you using an out of date 80+ year old source.

Concern was also raised for the use of a YouTube video as a source, particularly a short interview. Here's you using a such source. All of the above mentioned edits have happened in 2023.

Firstly, none of these statements should be interpreted as defending the actions and behaviour of Gurther (or anyone else for that matter), nor should they be interpreted as (personal) attacks to anyone. I am merely highlighting the situation and putting it into perspective.

I would like to clearly state that I condemn such behaviour, and I regret if I have behaved or acted such in the past. Best regards to all.

P.S - I think it might be smart to create a seperate section in this talk page for the conversation between Gurther, Jingiby and StephenMacky1. Kluche (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no clue why my edits have been reverted, that source is unreliable, and the only sources i could find online that support it are BPOV, more over this is an article talking about the event which suggest that this source is Oral history, and since only Bulgarian media claims it happened it falls under fringe views guidelines. Gurther (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i advise not edit warring and instead discuss the issue here, its better to reach a consensus rather then fighting. Gurther (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for fringe views. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingby you seem to not understand what im saying, if you checked the edit i purposefully said SOME historians mention it and its recognized in the Macedonian historiography, i didn't add it as an attempt to state that its actually called "Macedonian Exarchist" i added it so we can see the side on the Macedonian historiographies opinion on this issue, these aren't fringe views but instead the views or opinions of others and the way i've written my edit purposefully remarks how its simple just that : opinions, and should not be recognized as offical facts on history, please understand and stop accusing editors, i also advise checking out the previous edits which clearly shows i wrote that section not as an attempt to frame "Macedonian Exarchs" as the correct term but instead as a view from some media and the Macedonian historiography. Gurther (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby if you do not have any further objections i will return most of the sources that i added that you deleted, because most if not all did not violate any kind of rule and were perfectly neutral and simply presented the views of the Macedonian historiography. Gurther (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is maybe a joke. This article is not about racist theories, fringe views, POV pushing, etc. The topic is different. Check it again. The article is fine now. Thanks, Jingiby (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingby please calm down, this is in no way neutral, you're accusing an editor of promoting "racist theories" and "POV pushing"? this is extremely insulting and not neutral, i asked for legitamate issues, and to me it seems like you aren't taking this issue seriously at all and if you continue you will be reported to a higher up. Gurther (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Check the article. It is for a statute. What was removed had nothing to do with the topic. Jingiby (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is connected, it helps the reader understand what the statute meant when it said "All Bulgarians can be members" and the sources themself confirm how Ivan Katardziev supported the theory of a Macedonian exarchs, this helps us understand the views and possible meaning of such a controversial topic, the way you've written this article barely shows the Macedonia opinion, the only thing you've added about Macedonian historians opinion is that they think the statute is fake. I attempted to expand it and you blocked it, and so far you haven't provided a realistic reason, you also haven't provided any evidence so far that Katardziev didn't recognize the Macedonian Exarchs (despite that being your main reason for the revert). Gurther (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby none of the reasons you provided for your recent reverts are correct, this is neither POV nor orginal research, please provide a proper explanation here or expect your recent "improvement" to be reverted. Gurther (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, contemporary is contemporary, not over 100 years ago. Please do not add outdated and old sources (per WP:OLDSOURCES). Have a good read of WP:RS too, I feel like you still have trouble understanding this guideline. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I have moved the deleted by me text and sources below for consistancy. None of the sources meet the criteria of WP:RS and WP:RSHISTORY. In general, the most reliable sources are recent publications as follows: 1. Peer-reviewed journals; 2. Books published by university presses; 3. University-level textbooks 4. Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses. The primary sources you presented prove nothing new, are out of date and have a problem with WP:AGE. Moreover, for all of them there are secondary credible sources in the text, and these primary ones only clog them up. See WP:OVERKILL. The only sentence you added and I removed overlaps in content with another sentence further down in the text. See: The name of BMARC, as well as information about its statute, was mentioned in the foreign press of that time, in Bulgarian diplomatic correspondence, and exists in the memories of some revolutionaries and contemporaries. This sentence presented in the text is backed by reliable secondary source. Your addition is simply WP:REPETITION and is redundand. The only difference is your claim: Although a small minority of contemporary media which is WP:OR. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to allegations and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. In the old newspaper clippings you added, nowhere is it claimed that the name BMARK is very rare. This is your personal opinion and to add it you need a credible university historical analysis by a neutral author published in a prestigious publication. One more note. A few days ago you used a racist pseudo-scientific book in the Macedonian language with anti-Bulgarian content. I see that now you are again using as sources some books in Macedonian that are far from neutral. Both imply irredentist pretensions mainly to the territory of today's Northern Greece. The title of one talks about ancient Macedonians who were almost predecessors of today's, which is not accepted as a credible thesis here, and with the Prespa Agreement it must be so in North Macedonia as well. The title of the other book is about the Macedonian minority in Greece, which is also a rather controversial topic. It's not bad to start using completely different sources as described above: modern academic publications, preferably in English. My advise is to remove them these two sources added by you as follows: Thanks.

Although a small minority of contemporary media have named the organization as Bulgarian Macedonian Revolutionary Committee (BMRC).Jingiby (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby have you read the text before reverting? i purposefully said "contemporary media" and showed old sources, of course i would use old sources for a statement like that, it makes no sense to say "contemporary media" and show modern books, it is first of all not accurate and unreliable to use modern sources to claim contemporary media, secondly what original research? you're actively breaching WP:ACCUSATIONS several times and i've grown tired of such accusations, i simply took old newspapers from the state of congresses archives to show how contemporary news media viewed MRO, "In the old newspaper clippings you added, nowhere is it claimed that the name BMARK is very rare. This is your personal opinion and to add it you need a credible university historical analysis by a neutral author published in a prestigious publication" two newspapers mention BMRC, is that not a small minority to you? this falls under WP:COMMONSENSE and it violates no rule, Jingby this is absolutely not neutral for you at all "racist pseudo-scientific" ??? Please show a reliable source which states this factor and do not accuse editors of promoting these types of theories, follow and assume good faith, ive warned you about this before and i've had enough warning you over the same things, you seem to not learn from these past mistakes. Gurther (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther for such claim about events outdated more then 100 years you must use modern secondary academic sources. If no, this is your original research which has no place here. Read WP:RS. Wikipedia is not based on outdated primary sources and sombody's personal analisys of them. You have been repeatedly advised about this but it has no effect. Just read these Wikipedia policies. It is a question of a completely different way of proving something than that of the forums. Here, clippings from old newspapers are only an aid, not proof of anything. This also applies to the facts that were written in the newspapers of the time. You don't need the old newspapers to prove it, you need today's secondary sources. Figure it out at the end! Thanks.Jingiby (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there is another problem. Searching for different letters and words in a single sentence is frivolous. I don't understand why the text is deleted, but I guess. Jingiby (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

After the issue was resolved a destructive editing is going on. Stop it, please. Jingiby (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, perhaps tag the editor which you wish to adress. I'll assume WP:GF and assume it's me. I've stated why that last part should not be included - you are constantly going on about how it's excellently sourced, however not everything which is true is relevant and should be included in Wikipedia, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Furthermore, as I pointed out, one of the sources makes it sound as if the majority of people in N.Macedonia are Macedonian nationalists, as they do not claim the Bulgarian population of Adrianopole (in this context - I do not claim that the source alludes to that all the time). It is absolutly not a destructive editing - the content in the subsection of the article is about the Bulgarian position on the statute of the IMRO, not what is claimed by Macedonian historians and the Macedonian public. Kluche (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, one of the main motives of the Bulgarian historians to contest the Macedonian position about the statute and its title is the Bulgarian character of the participants from the key region of Adrianople, which fact is not disputed by the Macedonian side. You want to remove these facts. I don't see any logic. Because of that I do not agree to remove this Bulgarian point of view about this key word in the title. Moreover it is only a part from a single sentence. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby both of the presented sources talk about Macedonian nationalists. You are equating the entire position of N.Macedonia with the one of Macedonian nationalists. I again fail to see the relevance of this part in this article subsection regarding the Bulgarian position on the issue. The wording of the contested part could also be leading on the reader towards a certain POV. Thanks. Kluche (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby respect the wishes of the editors and please stop re-adding sections that other editors disagree with, talk with Kluche first then re-add the sections, thanks. Gurther (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby i wanna reach a compromise since i do not wanna violate the three revert rule. How about instead of citing the books themself for the gallery we instead make an external link section and link those books, since WP:PST doesn't state that this is a issue and it perfectly follows wikipedia guidelines, thanks. Gurther (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The guideline doesn't say that primary sources are never allowed. The primary sources in this case appear to give some insider's insight. I suggest directly quoting from all of the primary sources in the gallery section. That way, there will be no open room for analysis of primary sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." - WP:PRIMARY, this clearly violates the rule.

"Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." - WP:PRIMARY, this clearly violates the rule aswell.

i suggest removing the primary source and adding them in a external links section for the readers. Gurther (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I recommended direct quotes, so that there's no room for such a thing. It means quoting from a source exactly as it is written there. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 that isn't really helpful since the source itself also violates WP:AGE MATTERS and so do the rest. Gurther (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, it doesn't apply here. So let me clear it up for you, since I think there's a misunderstanding here. Old sources are allowed too; however, they're excluded in the following cases: if they're outdated, superseded, inaccurate or simply just unreliable. The primary sources are treated as primary here and this is made clear to the reader too. Primary sources from IMRO revolutionaries are obviously old, however we have secondary and modern sources here about the revolutionaries too, so I don't see what the issue is here. I don't think there's any analysis going on here either, however if that's a concern, direct quotes can be added. WP:PST also recommends us to use good judgment and common sense especially when considering which source is appropriate, so I'd like to think that applies here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 although yes older sources are allowed wikipedia is mostly focused and has focused on secondary approved academicly published sources and we should stick to this rule (WP:PST confirms this), if we do have secondary sources about these books then they should be clearly replaced over the current versions. According to WP:AGE MATTERS an older source may be good at giving previously unknown details but "they are prone to the errors of breaking news" (although this is somewhat focused on old news media coverings it still applies reletively well to the topic) and that "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts" and it mentions how older sources have a huge possibility of biases. Although i do agree that a quote might be a good way to resolve the issue but lets also wait for Jingbys opinion on the situation Gurther (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby i will remove the old outdated sources and add them in an external link section, if you have an issues with this please state them here before i make my changes, thank you. Gurther (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I think this is completely unnecessary. Access to the full content of an old book, whose cover is shown and title listed below, makes the most sense to be at the end of its caption and not elsewhere at the bottom. Moreover it is a source to the content of the book whose cover is visible itself. Jingiby (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby you seem to not understand the problem, this book being a source violates around three rules of Wikipedia and its extremely unreliable, you can use the cover of the book in the gallery but not the book itself as a source. WP:PST and WP:PRIMARY confirms that you need a secondary source if you were to analyze a book, WP:AGE MATTERS mentions how old books and old publishers aren't reliable and can contain some biases. An external link section would be a perfect balance since the reader can still access the books and it doesnt violate any wiki rule. Gurther (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, WP:AGEMATTERS does not apply for these sources. What you quoted applies for tertiary and secondary sources. Primary sources (ex. books and documents by revolutionaries) are not outdated. They're "subjective" stuff. If it weren't for these sources, the secondary sources wouldn't even exist. Not all sources on Wikipedia are academic, nor do they need to be, as long as they're of informative value. On the other hand, your other concerns might be valid, so it'd be great if secondary sources can be found for these sources.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me Macky, im still somewhat new with getting around wiki rules so i appreciate the help. Gurther (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby i translated the Macedonian quote, there is still a Bulgarian quote left, since i barely know Bulgar i think my translation would be ruff and inaccurate, can you translate the quote into english? thank you. Gurther (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gurther, the linguists claim that the Bulgar language is extinct. They maintain also Bulgarian and Macedonian are the languages most mutually intelligible each other. If you have problems, check with google translate. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i use Bulgar as a shorten form of "Bulgarian language" i think its pretty obvious i didn't mean the old proto-Bulgarian language. Although some lingiustics claim they are similar Macedonian and Bulgarian still have distict structures and diffrent sentence structuring, i've been studing the Macedonian language for awhile and there are a good number of distictions, also i wanna note that when it comes to translating foreign text Google translate is forbidden as its only accurate with one sentences and words but not entire paragraphs, plus i think an actual native speaker is for sure better then google translate. Gurther (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Article's title and scope

Hello. I think it's more appropriate for the article's title to be either "Names and statutes of the IMRO" or "IMRO's names and statutes". From what I've observed in sources, there's more information about the names of the IMRO, rather than solely about the first statute of the IMRO. Based on WP:PRECISION, the title should unambiguously define the topical scope of an article. The current article's title comes off as ambiguous, especially when one considers this article's scope. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is a lot of trouble here for just one statute and its name. This is actually the point of contention: the organization's first name. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Consistency

Hello. I'm starting a new thread, since I don't wanna clutter the other thread. The information of this article appears to contradict with the information on the articles of Gotse Delchev and Gyorche Petrov, especially if the authorship of the BMARC statute is really disputed like this article claims. For the articles of Gruev and Dimitrov, it appears to claim that the first name of the organization was BMARC. This needs to be sorted out, since consistency of information between articles on Wikipedia is still necessary. I'd also like to ask why it's necessary for "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees" to redirect to this article, considering that its authenticity only appears to be disputed by one side. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I know, the Macedonian historians dispute many things that are considered indisputable by other historiographies as for example the Bitola inscription, etc. That some historians in North Macedonia dispute the authenticity of this statute and its name is not strange. A number of historians there fully accept this statute and its name as entirely authentic. Even more so, none of the Bulgarian or international researchers dealing with this problem doubts this thing. Obviously, in this case we are talking about a marginal opinion based on nationalist views. Jingiby (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that answers my concerns. International researchers and scholars definitely don't doubt the authenticity of the BMARC statute or that the organization went by that name, but they do have doubts about the date of the statute and whether BMARC was the organization's first name. So this is the information that is inconsistent between this article and those articles. To fix this inconsistency, the common name "IMRO" should be used. I was thinking that a note could be added to every article where IMRO appears with a link to this article, to clarify that its first name is disputed, but in order to implement such a note, I'm pretty sure that a broad consensus is required. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, some Macedonian historians rightly criticize the Bulgarian dating of the names. It contradicts quite a few primary sources from which a reasonable conclusion can be drawn about the right dating made by Katardziev. The only thing that remains a mystery for me is how thеяе rules are dated 1896 on its cover. Jingiby (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. However we're not professional researchers, we're only students here. What solution do you offer for the inconsistency? Perhaps this will be clearer in the future if new information arises. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, all this information is also in the main article about VMRO, but in a more abbreviated form. So with this new article I'm just trying to develop the issue a bit more. So the problem with those articles you added with the tag exists there as well. Perhaps your idea of some explanatory note on this matter to the relevant articles is good. Jingiby (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, it's not just Macedonian historians who disputes the existence, there is a good amount of british, American and even some Greek historians who have disputed its existence, an example i will bring up is Keith Brown, who has supported the theory that the first name was MRO although some American historians have proposed the idea that MRO was its first name and its second name was BMARC and then SMARO, i think there should be section mentioning how some believe MRO was the first name and BMARC was the second, since the Macedonian Wikipedia covers that aswell. Gurther (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, may you cite a verifiable non-Macedonian source that explicitly states: no such statute (i.e. regulations) with such name ever existed. So far you have presented no source, only your personal conclusions for know. Thanks.Jingiby (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

They are in my user page, but here are some of them (note: there is more in google books aswell)

Rossos, Andrew (2013). Macedonia and the Macedonians: A History. p. 108. ISBN 9780817948832.

Kardjilov, Petar (2020). The Cinematographic Activities of Charles Rider Noble and John Mackenzie in the Balkans (Volume One). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 3. ISBN 9781527550735.

Palairet, Michael (2016). Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 2, From the Fifteenth Century to the Present). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 131. ISBN 9781443888493.

Gurther (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that? Keep in mind that "wikipedia: original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. [a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support [b] the material being presented. Please, provide direct quotations supporting your claims. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, none of these dispute the existence of BMARC. Not even Rossos. If you check his notes about IMRO, he had written that its 1897 statute referred to it as BMARC. Palairet had written that Delchev dropped the designation "Bulgarian-Macedonian", which clearly means that he doesn't dispute its existence either. The first name of the organization is definitely disputed though. Anyway if such a note were to be accepted, what would the wording of the note be? Feel free to suggest. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

On a contrary. Rossos who is accused of being pro-Macedonian explicitly claims on p. 300: Its 1897 statute referred to it as the Bulgarian- Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization.Jingiby (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the introduction of that article with some clarifications about the possible variants of its authors of the statute could serve as a basis. Jingiby (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Which article? IMRO's? Well, according to some reliable sources, Delchev and Petrov authored some statute in the 1890s. However, the SMARO statute was definitely authored by Delchev. All of the reliable sources maintain that. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i haven't violated the OR guidelines, the books i presented are perfectly cited, i also wanna note that these are only a small portion as you can find several more (as a matter of fact i found more books supporting MRO rather then BMARC, but some supported both, but who knows maybe since i live in Macedonia i get pro-Macedonian books) keep in mind im not trying to disprove the existence of BMARC, i am just showing with these sources that its statue is disputed more then just Macedonian historians. Gurther (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I don't understand your writings. All the verifications of the sources you presented have failed and they do not match your claims. Jingiby (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, if you couldn't understand it i advice re-reading it, but if you really do not understand, I'll give you a short description: basically i do not violate OR (Original Research) guidelines and my sources are properly formatted, most support my claims and you can find plenty more in my user page and google books (currently planning to add more to my user page) Gurther (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 I propose this text for the note: Due to the lack of original protocol documentation, and the fact its early statutes were not dated, the first statute of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) is uncertain and is a subject to dispute among researchers. The dispute includes also its first name, as well as its dating, validity, authorship, ethnic character, etc. Certain contradictions and inconsistencies exist in the testimonies of the founding members of the Organization. In general, it was often called "the Bulgarian Committee" on the eve of the 20th century. It appears the Organization to have originally been called in its first statute the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committees (BMARC). It is not entirely clear who authored this statute, but most probably it was Petar Poparsov, although another version attributes it to Gotse Delchev. Jingiby (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's too long. In my opinion, it should be more brief and more concise. Only the first two sentences of your proposal should remain. Then in the end, we can put this: For more information, see First statute of the IMRO. So it can be formulated like this: Due to the lack of original protocol documentation, and the fact its early statutes were not dated, the first statute of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) is uncertain and is disputed among researchers. The dispute also includes its first name, as well as its dating, validity, authorship and ethnic character. For more information, see First statute of the IMRO. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually I have a better proposal. Formulation: The first statute and name of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) are disputed. For more information see First statute of the IMRO. Let the article do the clarification. As for the authorship, Petar Poparsov's article already includes his alleged authorship of the statute. For the rest of the articles, we'll sort it out. We can clarify wherever it's needed for the rest. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, very well. I agree with the second proposal. Jingiby (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Note about Internal Macedonian Revolutionary's Organization's first name

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. Should there be a note which would clarify that Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization's first name is disputed for all articles where its common name appears? The proposed content of such a note is: The first statute and name of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) are disputed. For more information see First statute of the IMRO. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Per The Macedonian Question And The Macedonians (Heraclides, 2021): "The revolutionary organization set up in 1893 changed its name several times before ending up with the name that it is known today. Regarding the years 1893-1895 no documents have been found but the more common name used was probably Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (as pointed out by Tatarchev)." And he does not present any other first names for the organization. The only thing I see on the article that contradicts this is that Poparsov apparently claimed the original name was "Committee for acquiring the political rights of Macedonia".

Regarding the first statute, it seems clear that that is disputed. I think a note is a fair treatment of the situation. Note that I made a minor edit to the page once in March but have been otherwise uninvolved. --Local hero ^talk 21:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This article has bigger problems. A new note will not solve these problems. How does this topic even deserve an article in itself? This is a side note, not an article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of the note added by User:StephenMacky1. Jingiby (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Laurel Lodged. This is the time I'm doing a RfC. Yes, this article has issues, but there's always room for improvement. Could you summarize what you perceive as issues in this article? If people think a note is necessary, I'm also open for alternative options for the note. It wouldn't hurt to have more options. When it comes to article improvement, this isn't the only article concerned, but pretty much all IMRO-related articles. To give more context here, the first name dispute of IMRO applies for the period of 1893–1902. The last name and the common name of the Organization is the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, but reliable sources still call it by different names, especially for the period of 1893–1902. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, StephenMacky1 i noticed how you keep adding "first name disputed" and a link to this article in other articles that mention IMRO, i am writing this to propose a possible solution to make that easier, a template tag (similar to the template tag about Kosovo which is used in Kosovo related articles), that way you can redirect users much more easily and plus could give more context to the situation other then "first name disputed". Gurther (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I had that in mind too. I'll still wait to see if there will be any additional input from editors. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, i don't see any disagreements, if you wish you can try to apply for a template note. Gurther (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If all participants here agree, we can close the discussion. If not, I'll give it a week max at least. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, I think the deadline you proposed has expired. Jingiby (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2023 (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.

Dispute

Hello Gurther, you can make your case here. Explain what's the issue here. I reverted you to prevent disruptive editing and edit warring. After a revert, you automatically need consensus to change or remove something. The source which you removed has Chavdar Marinov attached as its author. I agree with your desire to maintain NPOV, but I disagree with your methods to achieve it. I also agree that there's more context to Katardžiev's interview than is being presented here. So always start a discussion for controversial changes. Also you and Jingiby need to calm down. If you can't achieve resolution on something between yourselves, just request outside opinion. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The current source is a fringe view source only being supported by BPOV sources, Chavdar (the author) of said source has had a BPOV history aswell, claiming that Vančo Mihajlov was influenced by "propaganda from Skopje" and that the Macedonian language is just serbinized Bulgarian, i also explored and found some Macedonian media which mentions this case, and according to some of them, Chavdar claimed that this conversation happened to a Macedonian news media in a meeting about the 100 year anniversary of Misirkov, as far as im aware Katardžiev has never stated publicly that this is true, and considering his BPOV history it might suggest fabrication or altering of words, although i might be wrong i personally believe that it would be much better if we found a source by Katardžiev himself which confirms this. Gurther (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the interview was a fabrication? There's an archived version of the interview, with names of journalists attached on the source too. That's a serious accusation, considering that Marinov is cited on many articles on Wikipedia, but also that's the first time I hear something like that. Here's what I suggest though: Give more context to the interview and attribute Marinov's and Dechev's opinions, as well as move them to the "Bulgarian views" section. Both sources are opinion pieces, so they're reliable per WP:RSOPINION, as long as we attribute them as opinions. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, im not claiming fabrication, i highly doubt they can pull of a fabricated interview without ever being caught or exposed, that would be ridiculous, although im suggesting the possibility of taking things out of context, since the original Forum interview is already taken out of context although that just might be a theory of mine and nothing more. Also i agree on your proposal to move them to the Bulgarian views section since its definitely better and i think it would satisfy both parties. Gurther (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurtner, you didn't read the article at all. You even lie that there is no named author. Chavdar Marinov is the author and it is stated there. He is known for his publications in academic publishers in English and French on the Macedonian question in Europe. It is about the scientific conference in 2004 in Skopje on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Misirkov's birth. He was present there as a representative of a French university and met with Katardziev. Later he published his impressions. He has been welcomed by historians in Skopje many times as a guest. On the other hand, deleting the internal reference for the term Macedonian that is academically referenced is another nonsense. If, apart from empty talk like these above, there is nothing substantial, I will return the edit. Jingiby (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, make sure to read up on WP:OR and WP:GAME, as well as WP:3RR, since i have noticed you have begun regularly violating those, i believe Mackys proposal was a perfect compromise yet you cant seem to accept anything, such stubbornness indicates WP:NOTHERE behavior, as for the deletion of the link, its perfectly reasonable since original research is against the rules. I advice reading up and getting a better grip on understanding the wiki guidelines or i might have to resort to other measures. Gurther (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, why did you falsify Katardzev's interview again and manipulate the other sources that reveal his position? Jingiby (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

manipulate what exactly Jingiby? are you talking about the Forum interview? or just his view on IMRO in general? since either way no falsification is present, in a good portion of his books Katardziev has called all these revolutionaries Macedonian, people change their opinions overtime Jingby, i also find it somewhat strange that you often times cite one of his more pro-Bulgarian books yet seem to ignore his others, for example in 1968 he wrote a book about IMRO until the ilinden, in it he did not make a single mention to BMARC (despite finding the statute in 1961). Gurther (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

All right guys. Since there are different interpretations about the interview, why don't you quote directly from the interview? In English, of course. Then we can analyse it and try to reach a consensus on the wording. It'd be good to settle this matter once and for all. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 the Chavadar interview or the Forum one? im confused. Gurther (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

On its second day, there was a noisy scandal between Ristovski and Katarjiev, after the latter emphasized that at the time of the release of the Misirkov Manifesto, a Bulgarian nation existed in Macedonia and that the beginning of the Macedonian identity should be sought only after the First World War. Ristovski, for his part, accused Katarjiev of dangerous views for Macedonian historiography. Katarjiev's main pathos was directed against ignoring the importance of Ilinden and the Internal Organization, which Ristovski quite openly identified with the "Great Bulgarian" Sofia Supreme Committee, stating that he saw no difference between the two revolutionary wings. In fact, Katarjiev confirmed the same, explaining that the Macedonian revolutionaries "were Bulgarians", causing a general disturbance in the ceremonial hall of the Macedonian Academy. He even literally repeated the theses of his Bulgarian colleagues, stating that the Macedonian nation was "created" after 1945, for political reasons and on the basis of repression. Jingiby (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The Forum one. Marinov's source is an opinion piece, not an interview. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

KATARJIEV:...In 1944, it was said by the then powerful statesmen that Gotse Delchev and Ilinden should not be celebrated because he was a "Bulgarian" and the Ilinden uprising was a "Bulgarian uprising".

FORUM: Did Delchev really declare himself Bulgarian and why?

KATARDJIEV: Such questions are valid. All our people called themselves "Bulgarians"..."

"FORUM: Recently, in an interview, a high-ranking official of VMRO-DPMNE, speaking about the thesis that the left in Macedonia was always oriented towards Belgrade, and the right towards Sofia, pointed out to me the example of Dimitar Vlahov - a leftist from VMRO (United), who declared himself as Bulgarian.

KATARDJIEV: Yes, that's right. And not only Dimitar Vlakhov. Pavel Shatev, Panko Brashnarov, Rizo Rizov and others. However, the thesis is misplaced here. The issue is not whether the left decided for Serbia and the right for Bulgaria. This is where the terms get mixed up. Practically, neither the left nor the right questioned their Bulgarian origin...--Jingiby (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i advise not cutting up the section for your POV and showcasing the full section:

FORUM: Recently, in an interview, high official of VMRO-DPMNE, speaking about the thesis that the left in Macedonia has always been oriented towards Belgrade, and the right towards Sofia, he showed me the example of Dimitar Vlakhov - a leftist from VMRO (United), who declared himself as a Bulgarian.

Katardziev: Yes, that's right. And not only Dimitar Vlakhov. Pavel Shatev, Panko Brashnarov, Rizo Rizov and dr. However, the thesis is misplaced here. It's not the matter of whether the left was opting for Serbia, and the right for Bulgaria. Here they mix the concepts. Practically, neither the left nor the right questioned their Bulgarian provenance. It will bring even Dimitar Vlakhov in 1948 at a session of the Politburo, when he spoke about the existence of the Macedonian nation, to say that in 1931- A mistake was made in 32 years. All those veterans remained only at the political level, not at the national separatism. One must be mentioned here a phenomenon. The division of Macedonia in 1913 took place extremely harmful role in the consciousness of the Macedonian. Why? Because it interrupted normal communication - political, cultural, economic - among the Macedonians. Go stopped the process of creating a unique Macedonian history of the entire Macedonian area. He tied the Macedonian progressive forces to the progressive forces of the countries in which they existed. They began to accept the political determination and philosophy of the countries among which Macedonia was divided. Thus, during NOB, when the time came for connection, there was a huge gap in the awareness of The Macedonian from the three parts of the country. Everyone said that are Macedonians, but everyone gave that term a different meaning content. Coming from Bulgaria, they thought they should to come to the head and lead Macedonia, especially veterans like Shatev and Vlahov. They practically are they felt like Bulgarians. VMRO (Ob.) did not move from ordinary political Macedonian separatism. In Vardar Macedonia, on the other hand, thanks to Serbian slavery, a process of self-expression flows through the literature. The fact should be recognized the existence of a Croatian and a Slovenian movement in Royal Yugoslavia contributed Macedonian national movement to be understood much more deeply. Hence the appearance of newspapers such as Luch in 1937 year, in which the Macedonian theory comes to the fore national identity.

here is the entire section, without anything being cut Gurther (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, Katarjiev's thesis is clear. All Macedonian revolutionaries were Bulgarians - left wing and right wing. All Macedonians also were called Bulgarians. Macedonian identity gained momentum between the two world wars and especially after WWII. But Macedonian revolutionaries remained Bulgarians even after the Second World War. He describes the case with the left wing. The right wing is clear - Ivan Mihaylov claimed in 1990 all Macedonians were Bulgarians. Otherwise, the article we are commenting on, concerns 1890s. For this period, Katarjiev had any hesitation. Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, the thesis isnt as clear as you wish it is, on one hand he mentions how they all felt like Bulgarians but on the other he mentions how due to the separation of Macedonia in 1913 resulted in those who migrated to Sofia to begin accepting Bulgarian philosophy/propaganda and that was the reason why during NOB the Macedonian identity was still ruff and somewhat unsure of its existence, also this is about former IMROU members, not IMRO, this article is about IMRO, and not IMROU. Gurther (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, since there are differences in the interpretation of a primary source such as Katarjiev's interview, it is appropriate to see how it is interpreted by a secondary source of a specialists in the field. Such a researcher with international authority is undoubtedly Tchavdar Marinov - Ph.D. in History and Civilizations. He is a historian dealing with modern and contemporary Balkan history. And he is clear above about the views of Katardjiev on the issue: Before another publishing house, Katarjiev stated that during the period of Ilinden, "our people" called themselves "Bulgarians", thereby confirming a previous scandalous interview...In fact, Katarjiev confirmed the same, explaining that the Macedonian revolutionaries "were Bulgarians", causing a general disturbance in the ceremonial hall of the Macedonian Academy. Jingiby (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, there is no diffrent interpretation, usually when we use secondary sources it has to have a realistic reason, examples include older documents, statutes, treaties, letters and much more, an interview doesnt not need another source for analysis, to me it seems like you're somewhat trying to ignore the fact that he supports the theory that they were Bulgarian and Macedonian in diffrent periods of his life and instead try to nitpick the ones who've only analyzed one section, although i think Tchavdar Marinov opinion can be reserved for the Bulgarian views section since its still actually reliable. Gurther (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, see also historian Stefan Dechev's interpretation of the interview, which completely refutes Gurther's thesis: So, in conclusion, Gotse Delchev and IMRO are "children of the Exarchate", and the later ethnic Macedonia was mostly a creation of a young generation brought up from the late 1920s, then in Belgrade or Zagreb, who had another sensitivity. The old IMORO people were not like that. It is not by chance that the distinguished historian Ivan Katardziev in an interview from the late 90s said that even one Dimitar Vlahov until the end of his life could not feel what it means to be an ethnic Macedonian, he remained with the old political Macedonism of Gotse Delchev and Yane Sandanski, who is a very Bulgarian phenomenon.Jingiby (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Then my offer about attributing them as opinions in "Bulgarian views" still stands. We'll cite Katardžiev's interview there too. That's the only feasible solution that I can think of. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, i think thats the best compromise we can reach, because any other ideas will probably lead to long and problematic debats and discussions about Katardžiev's views, since Jingiby refuses to move to any compromise and only wishes to stick to his POV. Gurther (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, because Katarjiev had clearly contradictory views and when he came to a moment of revelation he was obviously of the opinion of his Bulgarian colleagues, i.e. that the Macedonian nation was created after 1944 with the help of repressions and based on political motivation, what would he suggest as a compromise text in this case? Jingiby (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, it seems to me that you don't know much about Katardžiev, throughout his life hes always had both pro-bulgarian and pro-Macedonian views, similar to Misirkov, even after the 2000s. Gurther (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is good then to point out something simple, such as: "Katardziev himself had a conflicting views on the emergence and development of the Macedonian national identity and its perception by the IMRO revolutionaries." For another analysis of his position see also: Academician Ivan Katardziev, speaking about Macedonian political figures in the 1930s, is categorical that neither the left nor the right questioned their Bulgarian origin. And on the occasion of TMORO's separatism at the very beginning of the 20th century, he clearly declared: "This is about dividing Bulgarians from Bulgarians. The most frequent ethnonym in Macedonia at that time was "Bulgarian". Here is the continuity of the cultural development of our people." His position is quite categorical, that the Macedonian nation was created after the Second World War for political reasons. For more: Проф. д-р Антони Стоилов, Крайно време е за сътрудничество. За езиковия спор, македонската литературна норма, Мисирков и възможностите за сътрудничество между езиковедите от Република Македония и Република България във В-к Култура - Брой 28 (2908), 21 юли 2017 г. Jingiby (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, experts on this field (history to be exact) need to be cited, a lingistics opinion on this isn't reliable. Also this source violates WP:WINARS, more specifcally the section stating "Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because that is circular sourcing." Gurther (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that wording is good since this article focuses on IMRO and it's not well-sourced. Stoilov's analysis appears to not align with the scope of this article too. This article is about the early period of the Organization, not about the 1930s, which is how he interprets a part of Katardžiev's interview. The second part of Stoilov's analysis is not reliably sourced by him, he cites some Bulgarian forum source and Marinov's opinion piece, which we already have here. For such a wording, better sources would be needed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I didn't understand that with Wikipedia citing, but it's not the first time you've written out of context. Jingiby (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, the article you've cited uses other sources which indicates its a mirror wikipedia site, which is unreliable for citing, for a better understaind on what "Mirror Wikipedia" means make sure to read up on WP:CLONE. Gurther (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, certainly the article does not cite Wikipedia. The rest is your imagination.Jingiby (talk)

Jingiby, read up on WP:WINARS, since i guess you are to stubborn to trust me. Gurther (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)