Talk:Kresna–Razlog uprising

Question

Is this the same as Razlog Uprising? Should it be merged? ForeignerFromTheEast 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think! Jingby 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work Jingiby and Lantonov, the article is shaping up quite well! I have redirected Razlog Uprising to this article, if you want to add any information from it to the one here refer to the redirect's history. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe

I can't believe this:Kresna -Razlog uprising is Bulgarian uprising too?!!LOOOL!!!Come on!Bulgarians haven't upriings against Turks,at all.OK,there is one in april 1876,but this is more Russian war against Turks.You are really poor and sick forgers of Macedonian history,you are all but not a persons who can write encyclopedia,and this who approve this, must know, that with his approval, he help Bulgarians to legalize their genocide toward Macedonian people!I hope you will receive that you deserve! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.222.184.4 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised?

person: Dimitar Mecev (Димитър Мечев)

address: MisTik-Netcom

address: 46 Blagoj Jankov (Благой Янков) Muceto Str.

address: Strumica

address: Macedonia

phone: 38934327310

fax-no: 38934327310 Read a little more academic (not Skopje-forged) literature and you will eventually become a believer. Lantonov 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC),

Why you should be surprised?And about forgery,it is well known around whole Europe and the world,who are No.1 forgers and pirates in the world!

Yes, I know, Macedonians, Albanians, and Kosovars are always alternating on the top 3 places. I can't believe how those who forged the infamous "Proclamation..." sleep in their beds. They must have a very callous conscience. Lantonov 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian Uprising

The uprising in that time was known as Macedonian Uprising and that's not vandalism.--Ssschhh (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article

Can we, please, rename the article into: Macedonian Uprising. It is clear that the Uprising was named: "Macedonian Uprising" by the insurgents. Please refer to the stamp they used: Macedonian Uprising. --GStojanov (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Letter from Dimitar Pop-Georgiev Berovski to Pulevski

User:StanProg does the source you provided for this letter include a transcription of the letter? GStojanov (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

GStojanov: The provided source is the original document from the National Museum of Military History, along with the identification. If you don't understand the document text, I can write it to you as it is in the original in Bulgarian and translate it to English (or Macedonian) if needed. --StanProg (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My question was if they transcribed the text and analyzed it syntactically, grammatically and orthographically? I can read the letter and this wording: "...горе од скалата, по ридо, дори долу на мостoт..." makes me believe that the letter is written in the local Macedonian dialect of Pirin Macedonia, with some influences from the central Macedonian dialects. Additionally the use of the jot (i) (for example: "расположенiето"), is found in all orthographies of the 19th century Macedonian Revivalists from Parteniy Zografski to Krste Misirkov, and is not typical for the Bulgarian orthography where (й) is used instead. GStojanov (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's written in Bulgarian, it says "горѣ отъ скалата, по ридо, дори долу на мостътъ". The definite article of "ридо" used for a wider region, and the rest of the text is spread on the whole territory of the lands settled with Bulgarians, including in the regions of Macedonia and Dobrogea. "i" is not jot, it's (dotted i). Jot is a Greek letter. The "dotted i" is also used on the whole territory of the Bulgarian lands, in Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, etc. Furthermore this "i" is different than "й" as a letter and use ("i" = "и"). Parteniy Zografski, just like many other Bulgarian writers (like Hristaki Pavlovich) wrote in Bulgarian language, and in his book on the Bulgarian lanauge he used jotted i, which was used in that early stage (again like Hristaki Pavlovich). Nothing of this is limited to the geographical region of Macedonia. Dimitar Pop-Georgiev Berovski was a Bulgarian, teached in Berovo (since 1872) in Bulgarian language, in the Bulgarian exarchiate school, it's normal his letters to be in Bulgarian. --StanProg (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My question was if in your source they examined the document from a linguistic perspective. I don't have access to your source, otherwise I wouldn't bother you, I would have checked myself. GStojanov (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The source is the original document. It is also presented in the book of Dimitar Berovski (grandson of Dimitar Popgeorgiev Berovski), but there it is just presented. It's in regular Bulgarian language, that's trivial, no need for some special examination. --StanProg (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Г-нъ Дѣдо Георги!

Умолявате ся тая вечеръ
да отидете съ цѣлата <или> съ
нѣколко души отъ четата
патрола по стражитѣ, ка-
то захватитѣ горѣ отъ ска-
лата, по ридо, дори долу на
мостътъ при Капчева. То-
ва може да го направитеѣ
спорѣдъ расположеніето Ви,
и на двѣ отделенія. Одговорете.

На Македонското востаніе
Началн. Щаба
ДПГеоргіевъ

--StanProg (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the local dialect of Pirin Macedonia. Keep in mind that ѣ is always pronounced as e in all Macedonian dialects. So we could name this language as "Local Macedonian dialect from Pirin Macedonia". This letter is written in 1878 when neither the standard Bulgarian nor the standard Macedonian language are yet codified. GStojanov (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How this could be in "Pirin dialect", when Berovski have not even step a foot in this region before 1878 when the letter was writen? Berovski has teached the Bulgarian kids in Berovo via Bulgarian textbooks, written in Bugarian language, according to the Bulgarian grammmer books. In this region it would be "мостотъ", not "мостътъ". In fact there's no a single word, that is not used northern or eastern of this region. The grammer is also exclusively Bulgarian. In the region of Macedonia, the Bulgarian schools teached by the Bulgarian grammers such as:

• Neofit Rilski - Bolgarska Gramatika (1835)
• Ivan Bogorov - Purvichka Bolgarska Gramatika (1844)
• Yoakim Gruev - Osnovna Bulgarska gramatika (1858)
• Ivan Momchilov - Gramatika na novobulgarskia ezik (1868)
• and hunderds other books written in Bulgarian.

According to which grammer, existing at that time was the above text written? Is there a a single "Macedonian grammer" book in that period? Could you write this text in the "Pirin dialect" that existed at that time, so we can see how this dialect looks like, because this above is 100% literary Bulgarian from that time? --StanProg (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Stan, what we are doing now is an original research. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Only if we have a reliable source that states that this letter was written in Bulgarian language, only then we can keep this statement. GStojanov (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dimitar Berovski worked as a teacher appointed by the Bulgarian Exarchate in the Bulgarian schools' system in the Ottoman Empire. The curriculum then included the compulsory study of literary Bulgarian - written and spoken. Naturally, the letter was written in then Bulgarian. The Macedonian language was codified in 1945. Jingiby (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

And Bulgarian language was codified in 1899, 21 years after this letter was written. In the Exarchate schools in Macedonia the schooling was routinely done in the local Macedonian dialect. Unless the teacher was from Bulgaria, which was not common. And even then he/she had to adjust to the local dialect or was fired (ref. several incidents in Veles and Prilep). Shapkarev printed in 1868 a set of 6 schoolbooks in a dialect "more understandable for the Macedonian children". Prior to that Zografski printed in 1858 a primer that is so close to the modern Macedonian language, we can almost use it as is. GStojanov (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As you know an alphabet with 32 letters was proposed by Marin Drinov and gained prominence in the text books since the 1870s. That is the case with this letter. And you didn't provide secondary reliable source. That above is POV. I have. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I know you have that POV, so I propose we avoid all POVs here and not try to determine what is the language of this letter. GStojanov (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

PS. The sources:

"The Macedonian Revolutionary Organization used the Bulgarian standard language in all its programmatic statements and its correspondence was solely in the Bulgarian language, nearly all of its leaders were Bulgarian teachers or Bulgarian officers, and received financial and military help from Bulgaria. After 1944 all the literature of Macedonian writers, memoirs of Macedonian leaders, and important documents had to be translated from Bulgarian into the newly invented Macedonian." For more see: Bernard A. Cook ed., Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Taylor & Francis, 2001, ISBN 0815340583, p. 808.

"The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the communist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian". Dennis P. Hupchick, Conflict and Chaos in Eastern Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 1995, ISBN 0312121164, p. 143.

"In one respect, however, Macedonian nationalism threw up a problem which the Communist Party could not ignore: the question of the status of the Macedonian language. If, as Dr. Johnson remarked, languages are the pedigrees of nations, then the Slav inhabitants of Macedonia were by any reasonable linguistic criteria part of the Bulgarian nation... The construction and dissemination of a distinctive Macedonian language was the medium through which a sense of Macedonian identity was to be fixed... The past was systematically falsified to conceal the fact that many prominent ‘Macedonians’ had supposed themselves to be Bulgarians, and generations of students were taught the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation. The mass media and education were the key to this process of national acculturation, speaking to people in a language that they came to regard as their Macedonian mothertongue, even if it was perfectly understood in Sofia." For more see: Michael L. Benson, Yugoslavia: A Concise History, Edition 2, Springer, 2003, ISBN 1403997209, p. 89. Jingiby (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GStojanov, are you sure of your claim that "ѣ is always pronounced as e in all Macedonian dialects"? There are some Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia (incl. Pirin Macedonia) where there isn't "e" in this position.--Akeckarov (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Parteniya Zogravski yes, ref: Point 5. But I know that there are some villages to the eastern edges of the Macedonia that are on the other side of the yat border. GStojanov (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

In general it is it, but we can also discuss the vowel in question in some regions on the west side of the yat border.--Akeckarov (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have not noticed in Petrich the use of yat. They say e. But we are on a rabbit trail. My point is that we can't do original research here. The language of the letter can't be determined by our decision and deliberation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GStojanov (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In this text everything is grammatically in Bulgarian. There is no a single difference in grammar between this text and modern Bulgarian. Could you please translate this text in modern Macedonian, so we can see if the grammar is identical, like in Bulgarian? --StanProg (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

Gurther, all primary sources are from Macedonia: Documents and Materials (Sofia, 1978), issued by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the rest are secondary. Macedonia: Documents and Materials is available on google books on several places for fact checking. The same book is cited by many international researchers in different academic publications as reliable source.Please explain which sources are not reliable and your motivation about. Nothing is self-evident. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, from what i could search through the book, the only letter it analyzed was a letter from Dimitar Pop Gjorgiev to Gjorgjija Pulevski, no mentions of the other letters, which is why the tag is being kept unless further sources are provided Gurther (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, you do not provide any justification as to which source and why it is not reliable. Jingiby (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, im talking about the book you gave me as a source, from the limited view i could get the only letter it analyzed was the one i already had mentioned, if there are pages of others which prove me wrong feel free to share them. Gurther (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, I don't think you understand what you're talking about at all. In this case, it is not important whether you are convinced of what the cited documents are about, but whether they were published in a reliable source. If they are published in a trusted source, you cannot put such a tag. Jingiby (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i don't think you understand what im trying to say, if you want those letters as valid they have to be mentioned first in a academic reliable book, so far i could only find the book mentioning one letter (i already mentioned it in the first message) this means that for now that letter is reliable but the rest are not, hence why the tag is added, i will ask you again to provide anything that supports all those letters, because if the book does not then the tag is sticking. Gurther (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurtner, what you found and what you didn't have nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, so I ask that it be removed. Jingiby (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, since you keep missing my point I'll phrase this in a simple request, if you provide links or photos to the pages which have supported all the letters present in the article i will freely remove the tag. Gurther (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Kluche, can you explain why a huge amount of credible secondary sources are removed along with the information they support. This is almost vandalism.Jingiby (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I already explained why - the Marinov source does not back up what the statements actually says, and the other 3 sources don't mention the uprising at all. I also cited a policy backing up my actions. Kluche (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, you can use a tag if you're disputing a statement and then discuss it, instead of removing it outright. The wording can be sorted out. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 I removed it judging your statement and edit here. Regards. Kluche (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, this is your third revert, if you do not calm down you will be reported for violating WP:3RR Gurther (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain what is going on here? A huge amount of credible primary and secondary sources in the English language, I'm talking dozens of such sources, are being removed along with the text they support. At the same time, a tag is placed for unreliable sources and an edit war is waged. This is a complete madhouse! Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, what are the dubious sources that there are probably none left?Jingiby (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, all the letters, the rest of the books are fine. Gurther (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, you do realize that you began the edit war? As a matter of fact the only person with three reverts is you, nobody has edit warned other then you. Also a lot of those sources were removed due to the fact they weren't related to the subject. Gurther (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

?!? Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, i removed unreliable quotes from a BPOV site the edit was perfectly normal, although your revert on the other hand has so far been unjustified. Gurther (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, Marinov's source really doesn't appear to support the statement. It appears to talk about the same documents which Bulgarian historians consider to be forgeries and not about any other documents. at least from what I can see. I recommend removing the statement, but retaining Marinov's source, since it's still useful. If you want to retain the statement, you can add sources which explicitly and directly deem the Macedonian ethnic interpretation of the events to be wrong. The tag about unreliable sources should be removed too, if there are no objections. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello everybody. As far as logical thinking and common sense allow me to make analyses, I will present my position. It is obvious that there was no developed Macedonian national identity at that time and this is confirmed by the sources in the article. It is also clear from them that there are only two documents that support the Macedonian historians' thesis of the existence of such a widely advocated identity. However, these documents are considered to be forgeries by their Bulgarian counterparts, because no such originals have been found, and there are problems in their vocabulary, spelling, etc. From now on, it is clear that the remaining documents from the uprising obviously do not support the Macedonian side's thesis. By the way, about a dozen primary documents supporting the Bulgarian thesis, which were available in an academic source, were deleted. Since they were unjustifiably removed, the tag that was placed because of them should also be removed as mentioned above. Moreover, the editor who posted it confirmed that it is already redundant also above. Now I understand that my way of thinking espoused here is not accepted as authoritative one. So I will add a new source with explicit text, as apparently the other editors insist on having. The text in Bulgarian reads: Цялата документация на Кресненско-Разложкото въстание показва българския характер на въстанието и населението от Македония. (The entire documentation of the Kresna-Razlog uprising reveals the Bulgarian nature of the uprising and the population of Macedonia). Jingiby (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, this stance of yours has lots of issues, for starters the sources who support the theory that the Macedonian identity didn't exist back then dont mention the Macedonian uprising anywhere, because of this those sources fall under WP:SYNTH. Those "dozen" sources weren't proper sources, and came from a BPOV sites, the book you attempted to use to promote the BPOV site doesn't even mention all the letters you've tried to defend, it only mentions one letter (which isn't even cited in the article), honestly i've considered sending an appeal to the reliable sources committe about promacedonia and to see if its even the slightest bit reliable, if they consider the site unreliable then all future usage of the site for citation will be removed Gurther (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You can restore the Macedonia: Documents and Materials source too with all of the relevant page numbers, instead of having excess citations from the same source. I believe the editor above was asking for the page numbers from that source too. At the end of the day, it should be readable. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, from what i could access the book, only one letter is ever mentioned, i asked Jingiby yesterday to atleast provide pages for the other letters but so far no response on that matter. Gurther (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

"Syntesis that was "Irrelevant"

I wonder when any serious European historian will write even 1 line about this wreched insurrection. Are we waiting for this to give the articile the quote that will turn it from "the North Macedonias" vs "the Bulgarians said" to "well, it was one thing."? Would anyone explain to me? Other than Kluche, whose primary purpose is to stop information from being published by quoting "Wikipedia policies". I don't see Wikipedia policies, I see suppression of information - because by now, no information can be positive for North Macedonia - because it is information, rather than a hoax. VMORO 12:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, i don't think you understand what Synthesis means, so please read up on WP:SYNTH to get the proper grasp of the situation, moreover read up on WP:WNTRMT, you can't just remove tags because you think "its supressing information", it violates wiki guidelines and i advise following the rules. Gurther (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I know exactly what I am saying. I have never seen anyone else than North Macedonian editors engage in disruptive editing, where they take down (hide) information by referring to a Wikipedia policy. How would you call that? Bureaucratic sabotage? I am sure there is a Wikipedia policy regarding that, and I will find. Cheers, neighbour dearest🤭. 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC) VMORO 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, i advise reading up on WP:GOODFAITH, you constantly assuming that all Macedonian editors want to "hide" something is ridiculous, also me citing rules isn't violating anything, its called respecting the wiki guidelines, the fact that you are violating guidelines and assume that us mentioning that is "trying to hide stuff" tells me that you might be WP:NOTHERE. Gurther (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not advise me to read on Good Faith, I have been in contact with North Macedonian editors for 20 years, and good faith is its in appropriate place.

So, I took the liberty to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, and... you are misinterpreting both what it says and its conclusion, so I would in turn advise to read it again—perhaps you simply did not got it the first way (so there is the good faith speaking)🤭.

So synthesis means combining materials from different sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. So basically A = B, and B = C, so A = C—if I have to explain it to myself and to any three-year-old, as in such matters, I consider myself a three-year-old.

So where exactly does any of these sources say something A, and then another says somehting B, and then (bad wikipedian me😵), I have drawn the conclusion C? Please I'd like to get specific examples.

No, this is not synthesism is any way, as it says ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY: A SEPATATE MACEDONIAN SELF-CONSCIOUS FIRST DEVELOPED IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

You might not like. You might resent it. But this is modern historical consensus. Any objections? Pleae lay them out clealy, if not return the erased portions immediately. VMORO 13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) VMORO 13:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Oopsie, I have posted the same thing a hundred times. Sorry! VMORO 13:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, since you seem to fail and understanding ill phrase this in a very simple way. Synthesis is combining two diffrent and unrelated sources to reach one conclusion (which means its not A=B or B=C but instead means A+B=C) The article or the Kresna Uprising is A for this situation, those sources talk about how a Macedonian often regarded himself as a Bulgar, or Macedono-Bulgar, thats B for this situation, so the person who wrote that section combined A+B to conclude that the Kresna uprising was a Bulgarian one (Which makes it C), but the problem is that B, never mentioned Kresna revolt (A) at all, and A doesn't mention B either, so its like combining two unrelated materials which do not mention eachother in order to imply a third view, this is why the tag is placed since the sources are unrelated and violate original research, hope this helps explain things better. Gurther (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello VMORO. I have tagged the section before for being out of scope, not for "synthesis". Since it's a controversial subject, I agree that there should have been a discussion regarding any potential changes and removals of content from the section, to avoid unnecessary arguments. I simply wanted the section to talk more about the controversy regarding the uprising itself, directly and explicitly. I don't think there's any censorship going on here considering that there are already dozens of articles on Wikipedia which have information about the Macedonian identity, not to mention that Wikipedia is a public platform where anyone can review the history of a page. It isn't much to ask for articles to be within scopes. I tagged the part about the Western scholarly consensus about the uprising for being unsourced as well, not to mention the citation overkill (which could have been easily resolved by bundling the citations). As for issues with the content that other editors may have, I won't comment on them, since they can speak for themselves. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear Stephen, thank you for getting back to me. I sure might have done a citation overkill (I kind of did😁). But. I disagree that there aren't attempts at censorship going on here, specifically by editors from North Macedonia. They have a general problem with evidence—or lack thereof—so I instead see persistent attempts to suppress any information that clashes with their "national narrative" by using Wikepedia policies as a shield.

One example: the article Bulgarians in North Macedonia. At present, two of the two heads of Bulgarian clubs in North Macedonia (establihsment of new ones have been banned) have been charged with identical charges about racism, spreading hatred, etc. etc. An interview with the Secretary of one of the clubs, who had been severely assaulted because he was Bulgarian, where he complained that as a Bulgarian, you are ostracised from society, you cannot get a job, etc. etc. led to the Deputy Prime Minister of North Macedonia saying that he (the victim of the assault) should be prosecuted by the public prosecutor's office for offending Macedonian honour, and then a political party charged him with a similar charge as the other two. So what is that? Out of scope? Or judicial repression?

I see clear signs of judicial repression, wheras your colleagues here, who you extol, see "entry out of scope", "of no significance", "let's forget about it", the NM prosecuting authorities are just outdoing themselves etc. etc. "Deep concern about being being in scope" or "Simple obfuscation"? (I have left this page for the time being, and I will return to it later.) However. I started editing here again half a year ago after many, many years, and I what I can see from my interaction with other people is that the only ones who behave this way are North Macedonians. But, yes, I'm sure it's only a coincidence.

Since you are, without a doubt, a much more experienced editor than me at the moment, would you share a hint as to what we should do about articles that are not particularly remarkable—such as this one —and do not attract major attention—unlike, e.g., Krste Misirkov or Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising? We do "we say" and then "they say"? Somehting like "a woman said this in a queue"? Without any sliver of something resembling impartial opinion?

How is the weight of "Bulgarians were synonynomous with peasants" equal to a statement such as "Until the 19th and early 20th century, Macedonian meant a regional, rather than ethnic identity"? The first one is not only offensive, but it is actually proven to be untrue. There was a plebiscite in two Macedonian eparchies to join the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1874, which were won by more than 90%. So did these people vote to be part of a peasant church, or ofa national church? I don't need to talk about the second one, where there is indeed actually a scholarly consensens.

Would you please confirm—as is claimed by (I forgot his name)—that any citation of that citation overkill (according to you, and I give you right here😁) that Macedonians as a self-concientiousness developed in the 20th century, which IS the scientific consensus, is inadmissible because of... scope:)? VMORO 17:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, your views seem to violate WP:NPOV guidelines, i advise reading up on WP:GOODFAITH, also i want to point out your hypocrisy, you claim that Macedonian editors "censor" materials, yet you seem to be unaware of the fact that Stephen is from the Republic of Macedonia, also this isn't related to this section at all, you are going on random political rants attempting to justify your Bulgarian biases, i advise reading up on WP:NOTFORUM, if you continue to contribute unrelated rants your posts will be removed. Gurther (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this a threat? And who is going to remove them? You? How many Wikipedia policies did you violate with your last sentence alone😁? Why don't you brush up on WP:HARASS, WP:CIV, WP:OWN as well as, of course, WP:NPOV. Thanks. VMORO 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) VMORO 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

VMORO, I was obviously talking about this article only. Regarding issues with other articles or even conduct of other editors, there are better venues on Wikipedia to discuss such things, so let's stick on topic. Yes, this article isn't as notable as the other two mentioned, but we don't have any other option other than working with what we have (obviously doesn't include inserting fringe views). So, what I'd suggest is that we keep seeking out independent and impartial opinions (a good starter is Palairet's source Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 2, From the Fifteenth Century to the Present), Volume 2 which provides some detail about the uprising and the interpretations). I understand the concern of a false equivalency between the Bulgarian and the Macedonian view, but there's currently no scholarly consensus about the uprising. However, there are some independent and impartial assessments regarding the uprising. I do not have any issues with the citations from the citation overkill, just with the citation overkill itself.

Gurther, there isn't WP:SYNTH, Vermund's source talks about the uprising, as well as about the interpretations. You can remove the tag now. By the way, there are inline synthesis tags as well. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Gurther (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool, man, cheers. VMORO 21:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You have done nice job researching sources. It seems that in some sources the uprising is called also "Macedonian" because it involved Macedonian lands and these lands were the subject of the conflict. However, as this is Wikipedia, I still believe the names shall be kept and remembered as they appear in the sources - Kresna-Razlog a.k.a Macedonian uprising. This is an important historical event for at least three nations now so it shouldn't be embezzled by any of them. Litev (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If the comment was meant for me, I haven't removed anything of the sort, nor I have anything against that. I do believe it was called that (without researching in detail). What I do have something against are the attempts to privatise the rebellion as an "ethnic Macedonian" one, which it wasn't, because there was no (widspread) ethnic Macedonian conciousness at the time. Moreover, the uprising took place almost entirely on the territory of present-day Bulgaria. I am not sure which three nations you are referring to though, would you clarify? VMORO 21:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I had pulled a number of other sources pertaining specifically to the uprising, but you seem to have reached a satisfactory compromise in my absence, so I will not be opening the discussion again. Thanks to everyone.😊 VMORO 21:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the issue?

Kluche, I don't understand anything from your comments. You don't credit the sources at the end of the first sentence or what? Rossos is not cited there. The first source is Who are the Macedonians by Hugh Poulton. It states: A major Bulgarian uprising took place in October 1878 in the north - east of the Razlog - Kresna region. Committees had appeared in the new Bulgaria at the end of August to achieve Bulgarian unity along the lines of San Stefano. The second source "A Concise History of Bulgaria" claims: Activists in Bulgaria staged a rising in the Kresna - Razlog region of eastern Macedonia , but it was not well coordinated and was suppressed with ease. The context as described there is clear. Their aim was unification of all Bulgarian lands. The 3th source is "Stefan Stambolov and the Emergence of Modern Bulgaria, 1870-1895" describes the same: uprising initiated and supported from Bulgaria and aiming liberation/unification. "Ethnic rivalry and the quest for Macedonia, 1870-1913" is cited: Here we encounter the problem that in many sources the population is called Macedonian Bulgarians. In most cases it is not clear if the words Macedonia/Macedonian have anything else than a regional (as opposed to national) sense. Jingiby (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby I think I've made myself clear, although I did mix Rossos with Poulton. In the first lead sentence, only one (Poulton) calls the uprising Bulgarian. The second source states that ": Activists in Bulgaria staged a rising in the Kresna - Razlog region" - that does not mean it is a Bulgarian uprising, especially given the participation of Kalmykov and Wojtkiewicz. The third source refers to the participants as Slavs.

The "Ethnic rivalry and the quest for Macedonia, 1870-1913" quote you've provided also does not back up the statement it should cite.

As for the last sentence of the article which you mentioned - I've already commented on it, without a response. I'd like to add that the sentence in question is a possible coatrack. Kluche (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, the fringe theory of the researchers in North Macedonia inherited from Communist Yugoslavia that 145 years ago there was an uprising of ethnic Macedonians fighting for an independent Macedonia on the territory of today's Bulgaria is absolutely groundless. At that time, the history knows only 1 (one) person by name who revealed such ethnic self-awareness. Contrary to your statements, all the sources quoted in the article claim that the uprising was initiated and supported by committees in Bulgaria and aimed at the accession of Macedonia to Bulgaria. The sources presented in the article support the thesis that the view of the Macedonian researchers is marginal and based on a forged document. It was quite clearly said that the term Macedonian at that time had a completely different meaning than what the historiography in North Macedonia tries to attribute to it. Many observers at the time concluded that the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia were "Bulgarians" (R. King 1973 : 187) and that the term "Macedonian" was not used to identify people as belonging to a distinct "Macedonian" ethnic or national group. Rather "Macedonian" was either used in a general regional sense to designate all the inhabitants of Macedonia, or it was used more specifically to refer to the Slavic - speaking Christians living in the geographical area of Macedonia. If pressed to assert some other form of collective identity, these people may well have said they were "Bulgarians" (Perry 1988 : 19; Lunt 1959 : 20). For more see: Loring M. Danforth (1997) The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton University Press, p. 60. You can check also the European public opinion about the issue. As Michael Palairet claims in Macedonia: A Voyage through History Vol. 2, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, p. 121: The Macedonians attach importance to the Kresna rising, claiming it was their doing rather than Bulgaria's. The outer world, however, in so far as it took any notice of Kresna at all, treated it as a Bulgarian venture. The outer world was too dismissive. Kresna was to become a festering sore - the cockpit for incessant warfare between the Bulgarian gangs and the Ottomans. As Michael L. Benson claims: in Yugoslav Macedonia the past was systematically falsified to conceal the fact that many prominent 'Macedonians' had supposed themselves to be Bulgarians, and generations of students were taught the "pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation." For more see: Yugoslavia: A Concise History, Edition 2, Springer, 2003, p. 89. Jingiby (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Did I mention anywhere calling this uprising Macedonian? No.

Contrary to your statements, there's foreign sources in the article which don't explicity state it is a Bulgarian uprising. I already backed this up with quotations in my last comment.

I assume that by the "one person by name who revealed such self-awareness" you mean Pulevski. Ironically, he particpated in the uprising, along with other non-Bulgarians in the higher ups like Kalmykov and Wojtkiewicz.

Regarding the document used by Macedonian historians - Bulgarian historography treats it as a falsification, as evidented in the article.

The block of sources which you've presented has only one source which is relevant to the discussion above, and I attempted to find any information regarding the credebility of the author and failed. The rest fail to adress the rest of my concerns which I layed out in the latter half of my comment - the statement of "Ethnic rivalry and the quest for Macedonia, 1870-1913" and the last sentence of the article. Kluche (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to Michael Palairet's credibility, he's a researcher and is regarded as reliable by other reliable sources. Several reliable sources cite his source and some have even mentioned him directly (like here). Although he's primarily an economics historian, but sources from researchers are reliable too. That's why we cite sources from Bechev and Heraclides too for example. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being constructive and directly answering my concerns. Kluche (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the last sentence - I thought that it was already a settled matter. There was an editor who was disputing it as "synth". I don't see it that way since it's sourced, but maybe the wording could use some improvement. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As I stated previously, I answered why I removed it and I got no reply. No where did I dispute it as synth. I removed it due to your statement here, as I have previously stated. Kluche (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are sources now which support the sentence. It was undue before because there were sources which talked about Macedonian identity, but didn't talk about the uprising too. The last sentence is due though because Vermund's source is present now, which talks about the Macedonian identity and the uprising too. If there are sources about both things, they can and should be used. There's also less material in the article about the Macedonian identity now, especially undue material. Concerning the synth dispute, I was referring to a now indefinitely blocked editor. Hope that clears it up. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, this is familiar tactic when the authors and the credibility of all the sources are completely denied. But the source above summarizes clearly and simply that for the whole world, the uprising was Bulgarian venture. If you have information about an individual other than Pulevski, who declared a Macedonian ethnic identity before 1879, it will be a historical discovery. Otherwise, Pulevski himself expressed, in addition to Macedonian, also Bulgarian, and Mijak identities, which means, as Chavdar Marinov claims in Entangled Histories of the Balkans: Volume One: National Ideologies and Language Policies. (2013) BRILL, on p. 300, he viewed Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. In his application for a veteran pension to the Bulgarian Parliament in 1882, Pulevski wrote that unfortunately Macedonia remained unliberated and unattached to Bulgaria. That means Pulevski himself wanted unification with Bulgaria. For other sources, see also Laszlo Valki, Changing Threat Perceptions and Military Doctrines, Palgrave Macmillan, 1992, p. 219: "The Macedonian Question emerged in 1878, as a result of the provisions of the Berlin Congress, by virtue of which Macedonia and the region of Adrianople were taken away from the newly formed Bulgarian state and given back to the Ottoman Empire. Up until that time, the national liberation struggle of Macedonia had been an inseparable part of the Bulgarian struggle against Ottoman domination. In response to the unjust provisions of the Berlin Congress (1878), the Kresna-Razlog uprising broke out in September of the same year ." It is not bad to look at Anna Mazurkiewicz, East Central European Migrations During the Cold War, 2019, De Gruyter: "The desire for uniting the ethnic Bulgarian lands and the brutal policies of the Ottoman authorities in Macedonia and Thrace sparked immediate resistance and led to organized efforts for liberation from Ottoman rule and uniting with Bulgaria. The struggle against the dictates of the Treaty of Berlin started almost straight away and every revolt against the Ottomans in Macedonia and Thrace, crushed with extreme brutality, was followed by mass emigration of the survivors population. This was the case with the Kresna-Razlog uprising (5 October 1878 – spring 1879) when 30,000 people escaped to Bulgaria." Jingiby (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice to check the credibility of authors and sources. And I never denied the credibility of all sources, like you make it seem. And I thank StephenMacky1 for answering my concern, which I originally posed to you.

By the way, Pulevski expressed his ethnic Macedonian identity in 1875, not 1879; he did so cleary again in 1892. But, this page is not about Pulevski.

By the way, non of the sources which you've cited are present in the article. So instead of copy-pasting them here, maybe it would be more constructive from your behalf that they be integrated in the article?

And again, you've failed to state if you can or cannot verify (in terms of if the source actually states what it should back up in the article) the claims made by "Ethnic rivalry and the quest for Macedonia, 1870-1913" p 56, despite me asking for it multiple times quite clearly. Kluche (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Kluche, there is no doubt that Pulevski expressed Macedonian self-awareness in 1875. The uprising ended in 1879. That is why I wrote above that it would be a historical discovery if you found another person, who before 1879 besides Pulevski, had declared Macedonian identity. The last question in fact is not quite clear to me. As it is about the content of the book, it is freely available here. Jingiby (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "only 1 (one) person by name who revealed such ethnic self-awareness", without naming them, hence why I stated that I assumed it was Pulevski.

I'll restate my question - does "Ethnic rivalry and the quest for Macedonia, 1870-1913" p 56. back up the statement: The uprising broke out following the protests and spontaneous opposition to the decisions of the Congress of Berlin, which, instead of ceding the Bulgarian-populated parts of Macedonia to the newly reestablished Bulgarian suzerain state per the Treaty of San Stefano, returned them to Ottoman control.? I thank you that you provided the book and page in question, which does not back up the abovementioned statement made in the article.

In fact, in the source which you've provided both Bulgarian and Macedonian historography are critizied in regards of the uprising. It also does not dispute "The rules of the Macedonian rebel committee", which is considered a forgery by Bulgarian historians.

Hence, due to conflicting views, both Macedonian, Bulgarian and foreign, I propose the following replacement for the second sentence of the article i.e the above-mentioned statement: The uprising broke out following the protests and spontaneous opposition to the decisions of the Congress of Berlin.

Regards. Kluche (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the introduction should contain the synthesis of the prevailing opinion of the researchers visible in the reliable sources on which the topic is based. That is, not the opinion of Macedonian or Bulgarian researchers, but of those who express the prevailing opinion, regardless of their nationality. I think the intro is balanced right now and reflects just that. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)