Talk:Yane Sandanski

Different view, for the ‘Controversy’ section

Teresa Carpenter provides a statement of Yane Sandanski’s said to Miss Stone in 1901, that in his band “there’s a mixture of nationalities: Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, a Jew etc.” This information is taken from the Memoirs of Katerina Tsilka, the other hostage in the Miss Stone Affair. (source: Тегеѕа Сагреntег, The Miss Stone Affair, рg. 40, 2003.) Teresa Carpenter is a Pulitzer winning author and one of the most prominent Miss Ellen Stone’s biographers. Speaking of Sandanski’s fellow highwaymen of many nationalities, Miss Stone herself noticed in her Memoirs, that the leader was a Macedonian pillar. (Miss Ellen Stone, ”Six months among brigands,” McClure’s Magazine, may 1902, pg. 13-14.)

The Greek pro-fascist politician and journalist Eleftherios Stavridis also says that Sandanski claimed that the Macedonians, all of them are neither Bulgarians, Greeks nor Vlachs, but a distinct ethnicity, that the Macedonian population are Macedonians only, pure descendants of the people of Alexander the Great and Philip II of Macedonia, who also weren't Greeks, but their enemies, that subdued them."'

PRIMARY SOURCE: ”Τα Παρασκηνια του ΚΚΕ” (Ελευθέριος Σταυρίδης), Athens, Greece, 1953, p. 213. ;

SECONDARY ACADEMIC SOURCES: PhD. Dimitar Ljorovski, Yane Sandanski – an apostle of the Macedonian national idea, “Macedonian Spark,” 11. XI 2011. ; PhD. Dimitar Ljorovski, “Macedonia and Greece on the Balkans,” INI, Skopje, 2014, p. 101-104.)

Iordan666 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources you introduced to th article is suitable for an encyclopaedia. This was already explained on this very page to one of your previous incarnations. Please, stop meddling with Wikipedia in your attempt to push your agenda. It will not work just as it failed to work in the past.--Laveol ^T 07:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The historian Dimitar Ljorovski Vamvakovski is PhD. and a member of Macedonian Institute of National History (INI). I cite his work and show link to the primary source - Eleftherios Stavridis's memoirs. Iordan666 (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We talk about writings by internationally recognized researchers, published from western universities publishing houses or other western academic publishing houses, not about local biased publications. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Missinterpretation of a secondary source

I found this claim incorrect: “the idea of Macedonian autonomy was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian ethnicity.” The secondary source doesn’t say that about the Sandanists, and many other sources dispute it. If I’m wrong, please show me the citation from the secondary source. Iordan666 (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Contrary to the assertions of Skopje's historiography, Macedonian revolutionaries clearly manifested Bulgarian national identity. Their Macedonian autonomism and “separatism” represented a strictly supranational project, not national. "Entangled Histories of the Balkans", Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, p. 303 88.203.200.74 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Category

Please stop adding "Macedonian revolutionaries" cat when the person is clearly not ethnic Macedonian. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please grant the independence of California, since the state is clearly not in the USA. iNkubusse^? 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article? ForeignerFromTheEast 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not. The ethnicity of Jane Sandanski is not clear, far from it. You not that. Why do you make statements like this one: "..the person is clearly not.... Jane Sandanski was a Macedonian (not Republic, just Macedonian) revolutionary and his goal was an autonomous Macedonian state, right? You have to understand that he's only considered a Bulgarian or Macedonian revolutionary, there are no facts here. iNkubusse^? 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the views of Sandanski himself count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decx (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please bring Mr. Sandanski here, or link us to his user page. BTW, whose puppet is this now? iNkubusse^? 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

His views can be illustrated by his recorded quotes. You say he was Macedonian as in ethnic Macedonian basing this on the fact that he was seeking an independent Macedonia (or "free Bulgarian Macedonia" in his own words), that does not equate with him being ethnic Macedonian. I'm surprised things as basic as this need explaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decx (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC) ]

His ethnicity is not clear and the article only shows proof that he is considered Bulgarian by the Bulgarians and by some Western authors, but that is no proof for his ethnicity! Not even a newspaper article! We can't be sure that Sandanski really uttered those words! It is absolutely no harm if this article is in that category. He is considered a Macedonian revolutionary and he has to be in that category. After all (I'll say it once again), he fought for an autonomous Macedonia, doesn't this make him a Macedonian revolutionary?! iNkubusse^? 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No it does not make him. Ethnicity is not related to actions. Also, his ethnicity is disputed only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see though that you admit he is considered Bulgarian by western scholars, too. Cause it is the reliable un-biased secondary sources that we need. If we start adding the official documents and letters, I'm pretty sure the only thing you'd say i s falsification. --Laveol ^T 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, ethnicity is not related to actions. The interview he "gave" for the Italian newspaper doesn't prove anything (he just may wanted to say that he is a Russian fighting for Germany). Thank you for helping me explain. And no, it's not disputed only in the Republic of Macedonia. His ethnicity is simply not clear! Anyway, like it or not, he is considered an ethnic Macedonian, just as he is considered an ethnic Bulgarian.

Laveol, I would say it's a falsification if it looks like one :P But I'm not saying that no western scholars considered him Bulgarian, of course they did. But there are those who deny it, and those who simply say that his ethnicity can't be strictly defined. It's a very controversial matter and you're trying to solve it very easily, but it doesn't work that way. iNkubusse^? 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

His ethnicity is not clear and controversial matter only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1° No, it's not.
2° It's not a controversial matter in the Republic of Macedonia. iNkubusse^? 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian news sites? No thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! iNkubusse^? 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, seriously the text is full of nonsense. What violent clashes with the police? What banned Macedonian orthodox church? And stop with the all orthodox Slavs were considered Bulgarians. --Laveol ^T 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This question is controversial in Republic of Macedonia. Don't forget the position of Macedonian historians I. Katardzhiev and Z. Todorovski. They assert that all IMRO activists had Bulgarian ethnic self-consciousness:

• The Bulgariannes of Sandanski is recognized by several Macedonian historians like academician Ivan Katardzhiev, director of the Historical Sciences section in the Department of Social Sciences in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the director of the Macedonian State archive Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski. Katardzhiev defines all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies as "Bulgarians" and asserts that separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was only political phenomenon without ethnic character (an interview for "Forum" magazine, in Macedonian, retrieved on September 6, 2007). Todorovski asserts that "All of them declared themselves as Bulgarians..." and "he considered himself as Bulgarian too" about Sandanski (an interview for www.tribune.eu.com, June 27, 2005, in Macedonian, retrieved on June 26, 2007). - Vulgarian 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

They are only two historians. And you use them two to write stuff like this: ...by a minority of historians in the Republic of Macedonia. I think the terms minority and majority are a bit mixed up here. iNkubusse^? 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you've admitted that this question is controversial in Republic of Macedonia. Of course you can give different points of view of other Macedonian historians. Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 14:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

iNkubusse^?, don't forget that this contemporary internal Macedonian dispute concerns all IMARO activists before WWII. Gyorche Petrov, Gotse Delchev, Nikola Karev and so on... - GriefForTheSouth 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The Bulgarian POV is supported only by Bulgarophiles, just like the Macedonian POV is supported by the Macedonians in Bulgaria (who, by the way, have no human rights). iNkubusse^? 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again, please refrain from such comments. It is not even on the subject (besides not being true of course). --Laveol ^T 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try, but I have to comment on your comment: you're right, it's not true, and the many dudes and old men I spoke to in Pirin Macedonia are not true as well... Tito invented them! And the article Yane Sandanski belongs in the category Macedonian revolutionaries because the person is considered an ethnic Macedonian, no matter that it's not proven! Just like he is considered an ethnic Bulgarian! iNkubusse^? 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm nor removing the cat. We already (or at least we two) agreed - If the others revert you again, I'll add the cat back - let's hope I won't be reverted. I'm sorry, but I don't believe to what you said above (not accusing you of lying - I just don't believe you). --Laveol ^T 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Laveol, someone here is not as constructive as you, it seems. Anyway, the other talk is way off-topic, I'd prefer your (or my) talk page. iNkubusse^? 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but him being an ethnic Macedonian is a fringe theory. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories do not include whole countries! Don't be sorry and stop reverting!!! iNkubusse^? 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying they include whole countries. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then, this theory is widely accepted in RoM, except for the two historians you admire. What about the rest of the country?! iNkubusse^? 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's have the cat - it's just a simple link right at the bottom of the article and just after "Bulgarian revolutionaries". A reader might get interested in the whole Bul-RoM issue and have his own investigation. --Laveol ^T 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Laveol, we musn't let the reader know that there is any issue! (see: irony) iNkubusse^? 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

inkubisse, you´re crazy!!!!!i´m from petrich,from pirin macdonia.i have lived 5 years in blagoevgrad.there is no such thing like ethnic macedonians in bulgaria!!!open your eyes! we are bulgarians,we say that we com from macedonia as a region.we are not opressed,we can speakour dialect whenever we want,sing our songs, etc. by the way in about every second town or village in the region there are other dialect chracteristics!!!! read some foreign press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.32.131 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words. I have nothing to say to you, I believe my eyes an ears. iNkubusse^? 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - it sounds like all people from Blagoevgrad province. Some of my colleagues even enjoy calling you Fyromians (or Byuromians in Bulgarian). No, sorry, I believe my eyes and years as well - as obviously does the man who wrote the statement above yours. --Laveol ^T 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point? iNkubusse^? 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

None :) Just a general thought --Laveol ^T 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It sounds different... Never mind. iNkubusse^? 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg

Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

References

very doubtful references. :) :) :) anybody could have written these articles from the "promacedonia.org"-site. is there a prove that he declared himself Bulgarian? if not, the "references" should be not listed.

"published in the "Narodnay volya newspaper in 1909". show it! otherwise that link should be taken out, too.Cukiger (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're joking. The image is quite visible. --Laveol ^T 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any images from any "narodna volya newspaper".. not under reference 1 or 2 where it should probably be. these references are so ridiculous. Cukiger (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You call it ridiculous just because you don't like it. Don't you see it's written that it was first published in the newspaper? Or you don't have to read it in order to call it ridiculous? --Laveol ^T 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

name

why isnt his name written in cyrillic? either macedonian or bulgarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.72.93 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I just included the Cyrillic versions of his name; I can't see why there wasn't any uptil now. --iNkubusse^? 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

Please, stop vandalizing the article. Jingby (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of the reference

In this reference ("Bulgaria was clearly treated by the Serres activists as a foreign, hostile force and Sandanski condemned what he called the Bulgarian imperialism. According to him, the Macedonians (incl. all ethnicities) had to emancipate themselves as a self-determining people(Siljanov, Ibid. 498).") It doesn't say (incl. all ethnicities), that's added by the wiki editor. It's about Stefan Kemilev, а lawyer from Bulgaria and opponent of Yane Sandanski, who witnessed:

— "Yanе had a theory that the Macedonian question should not be regarded as a part of the Bulgarian national ideals… He clearly stated that those who propagate "Bulgarian national unification" in Macedonia are death-enemies of IMRO, just like the Greek and the Serbian national-chauvinistic agitators. Furthermore, he disseminated the belief that the masses are an independent, distinctive people, and they have to believe in it. They mustn't rely on any of the alien forces." (Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943; II фототипно изд. "Наука и Изкуство", София, 1983), с. 498.)

85.30.109.189 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, there was a false reference about Deliradev speaking about "Bulgarian population" in Macedonia (See Pavel Deliradev, Razvitieto na federativnata ideya, Makedonska misal, Book 5-6, 1946, pp. 203-208.). In the source there's no such a statement of Deliradev. He even say that all the Macedonians and the Bulgarians should oppose the Bulgarian chauvinist agenda, in the very same source. If needed, I'll find a way to provide the pages. 79.126.169.242 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's added by an editor, that's why it in braces and it's just a context clarification. Regarding your "quote" from Hristo Silyanov - its misquoted & biased. Can you please show me where on page 498 it writes "national-chauvinistic"? Vandalizing articles & misquoting will not prove your personal view point. --StanProg (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, 79.126.169.242 is a possible sock of User_talk:Bobi987_Ivanov , who has been blocked for a week due to edit warring. More info here and possibly here Tropcho (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK then, let's provide the quote as it is, without misinterpretations:

— "Yanе had a theory that the Macedonian question should not be regarded as a part of the Bulgarian national ideals… He clearly stated that those who propagate "Bulgarian national unification" in Macedonia are death-enemies of IMRO, just like the Greek and the Serbian agitators. Furthermore, he disseminated the belief that the masses are an independent, distinctive people, and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces." (Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943; II фототипно изд. "Наука и Изкуство", София, 1983), с. 498.)

79.126.169.242 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And here is the actual quote: "Everyone who is agitating in Macedonia or out of it based on: liberation and unification of the Bulgarians, should be met with hostility by IMRO, just as the Organisation mets the Serbian and Greeks agitations and chetas" and "Yane had theory theory that it's fatal to the Macedonian population and Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of national unification of the Bulgarians and that people of the other stream has sold themselvs to the Bulgarian government". Now could you explain me where exactly you see "Bulgarian national ideals…" in this quote? And "He explained in general that should be worked for awakening consciousness of the masses that they are separate people that are entitled to free life and that we must fight for gaining their freedom without relying on external aid for these who would come to release them will actually come to enslave then". Do you see the huge difference between the original quote and your interpretation which you claim as "quote"? Can you please tell me where did you get your "quotes" from (mine are from the book itself)? --StanProg (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And please, do not call the fake quote provided by you "a misinterpretation" - a quote is either exact or falsified/fake. --StanProg (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are trying to be objective. It makes me more objective. But, actually, the second citation of yours, (THAT IS ACTUALLY FIRST IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT) says:

"Yane had a theory that it's fatal to the Macedonian population and Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of national unification of the Bulgarians (or, as I'd said, "BULGARIAN NATIONAL UNIFICATION"), and that people of the other stream has sold themselvs to the Bulgarian government".

The 1st citation of yours has only needed some little grammatical corrections, I think -

"Everyone who is agitating in or out of Macedonia upon: liberation and unification of the Bulgarians, should be met with hostility by IMRO, just as the Organization meets the Serbian and the Greek agitations and bands." 85.30.127.197 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But, most of all,

"Furthermore, he [Yane Sandanski] was preaching and disseminating the belief among the masses that they are an independent, distinctive people, that they have the right to be free fighting on their own and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces, because those who'd come, wouldn't be liberators, but subduors."

We are close, really close to what Sandanski wanted to say. 85.30.127.197 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So, "Yane had a theory that it's fatal to the Macedonian population and Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of Bulgarian national unification... he was preaching and disseminating the belief, among the masses, that they are an independent, distinctive people, that they have the right to be free fighting on their own and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces, because those who'd come, wouldn't be liberators, but conquerors." 79.126.188.253 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusation for vandalism

Someone's accused me for vandalism on this article. Can he or she be more specific? 85.30.127.197 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

None has accused you in that. Your talk page is empty as far as I can see. --StanProg (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FALSE REFERENCE

There was a false reference about Deliradev speaking about "Bulgarian population" in Macedonia (See Pavel Deliradev, Razvitieto na federativnata ideya, Makedonska misal, Book 5-6, 1946, pp. 203-208.). Someone returned it back. In the source there's no such statement of Deliradev. He even say that all the Macedonians and the Bulgarians should oppose the Bulgarian chauvinist agenda, in the very same source. If needed, a way to provide the pages will be found. 79.126.188.253 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The footer note is not a quote, so it's not required the same words to be in the book. That's why it begins with "See ...". The book and the pages are just listed for more information regarding the Federation idea. Please, take some time get into the principles of Wikipedia and learn the difference between quote & note.--StanProg (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's nowhere above said that the reference is a quote. It's an intentional misinterpretation. Deliradev clearly mentions the Macedonians and the Bulgarians as 2 separate entities. He never speaks about "Bulgarian population" in Macedonia. It's a Bulgarian propagandistic manipulation. 79.126.188.253 (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We could, instead of this false interpretation of Deliradev's article, use this quote, but it's already taken, and also misinterpreted:

Stefan Kemilev, а lawyer from Bulgaria and opponent of Yane Sandanski, witnessed:

— "Yane had a theory that, it's not pleasant neither for the Macedonian population nor for Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of Bulgarian national unification, and those who disagree with that theory have sold themselves to the Bulgarian government. He says, everyone in Macedonia, or outside, who propagates liberation and unification of the Bulgarians, should be death enemy to the IMRO, just like the Serbian and Greek agitations and bands. He claimed and disseminating the belief, among the masses, that they are an independent, distinctive people, that they have the right to be free fighting on their own and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces, because those who'd come, wouldn't be liberators, but conquerors."" (Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943), с. 498.)

We can use this reference, as well:

Pavel Deliradev, a well known Bulgarian publicist and theoretic, but also a co-idealist and fellow revolutionist of Sandanski's, name him as: a meritorious son of the Macedonian nation, who fought against the Bulgarian chauvinism, for a free, united and independent Macedonian state, which will have brotherly relations with all free Balkanic nations. (Pavel Deliradev's biography of Yane Sandanski, Sofia, 1946, pg. 44. and the exact page 13.)

...or, this one:

In 1904, Sandanski’s moto was “Macedonia for the Macedonins”, and he fought against the Turks and his enemies sent by the Supreme Committee in Sofia, Bulgaria. (a letter of the French diplomat in Constantinople, August 10, 1905 ; „Yane Sandanski about the distinctiveness of Macedonia and the Macedonians“, „Јане Сандански и македонското национално дело“, MANU, Skopje, 2007, pg. 89-96.) 79.126.189.141 (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We could also use this quote: Atanas Djolev, Macedonian IMRO nationalist from the Strumica area and one of the many "Sandanist" sympathizers, in his "Memoirs" says: "Within the whole of Macedonia, the IMRO struggled equally against the three Balkan imperialist states, for completely autonomous and independent Macedonia... The liquidation of the "Sandanists" meant a kind of an end of this Macedonian nationalistic struggle, and the Organization was usurped by the bulgarophile servants… Our Macedonian revolutionists, amongst whom I was something like an ordinary soldier of Macedonia, struggled for Macedonia’s national liberation, above all. We could not wait our Macedonian brothers in Aegean Macedonia to become "Greeks", those in the Serbian-occupied part to become "Serbians" and the Pirin Macedonians to become "Bulgarians". The Macedonians then, nationally were enslaved by the three Balkan countries. It was important to us to be free to call ourselves Macedonians, and to speak and write on our native Macedonian language. Here, I want to point out that the history of the Macedonian people from 50 years ago must be seen as continuum of the period before 1941. It must be understood by the future generations of Macedonians that their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers struggled for the same ideal. There were no differences between the 1903 and 1941, they had the same dreams." (Атанас Џолев – „Спомени”, „Премрежињата на македонското револуционерно движење - Спомени“, Скопје, 2006 г, стр. 223, 235-236) 79.126.189.141 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't see your point. Do you want to fill the article with different sources, most of them pointing the population as Bulgarian, and few from the "historians" of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, claiming that it is a Ethnic-Macedonian population? Is that your agenda? Trying to push a minority (local form FYROM) view point will just not work. An explanation that he is considered an ethnic Macedonian in Republic of Macedonia is enough to cover this view point. --StanProg (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all the sources are from Macedonian authors. First two are from Bulgarian authors. The second one is the one that was misinterpreted in the article. If needed, I'd show neutral sources. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Silynov is pretty clear and in his whole book he treats the Macedonian population as Bulgarians. The book of Deliradev is pure communist Comintern-influenced propaganda, published in 1946 when the Macedonian scientific institute (the publisher) is under full control of the Bulgarian Communist Party. ("After 1945 the activity of the MSI was changed to serve the macedonistic policy on the Macedonian Question in the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."). So this book is not a reliable source regarding issues related to "Slav Macedonian consciousness" (macedonistic policy). This forces Comintern-ideas back to 1903 when this communist organization did not existed and which ideas regarding the region of Macedonia were only supported by few people, like Misirkov. This is pushing of communist propaganda into the event that happened decades before. Please, revert the edits to the stable version so we can discuss how can we can actually improve the article and not pushing minority or ideological propaganda. --StanProg (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

> StanProg, 1. We are not talking about the Bulgarian historian Silyanov and his Bulgarian national-chauvinistic views on the Macedonian question. We talk about what Stefan Kemilev told him about Sandanski. Let's not extend the subject.

> 2. StanProg: "The book of Deliradev is pure communist Comintern-influenced propaganda" - Can you prove it? 79.126.191.39 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

> 3. If Deliradev is a "pure communist Comintern-influenced propagandist," then why had his work been used in this article as a reference, and why was he misinterpreted? 79.126.191.39 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to prove that Deliradev. It can be clearly seen in his texts after the beginning of the communist regime. I did not added it, as you can see, but most probably it's added because it contains facts, that are not consequence of ideological propaganda. A source may be reliable reliable regarding one information, and at the same time unreliable for another. He is not misinterpreted, since as far as I can see he is not quoted. --StanProg (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to prove it. And connect it with Sandanski's Macedonian nationalism, that was confirmed by Kemilev and Silyanov, as well.

"A source may be reliable regarding one information, and at the same time unreliable for another. He is not misinterpreted, since as far as I can see he is not quoted." - This is not an argument. A source can't be reliable when you misinterpret it, and at the same time unreliable when is quoted. Chakmak111 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The reference is clearly, and intentionally misinterpreted, as it's said above - Deliradev clearly mentions the Macedonians and the Bulgarians as 2 separate entities, in the very same source. He never speaks about "Bulgarian population" in Macedonia. 79.126.191.186 (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Deliradev is not used neither as reference, neither as source, he is not quoted, so he can't be misinterpreted. --StanProg (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

StanProg, why are you lying again? The third reference in the article clearly says: See Pavel Deliradev, Razvitieto na federativnata ideya, Makedonska misal, Book 5-6, 1946, pp. 203-208. And the text there contradicts with what the reference says. 79.126.227.91 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If the information is false, it has to be removed, hasn't it? Chakmak111 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, do not use primary sources. If possible books published by western academic publishing houses. Check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). Thank you. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, do not use fictional literature or outdated primary sources out of the context, in support of your main thessis, but only specialized modern neutral academic publications, written by an expert of the issue: the Macedonian question and especially the activity of Sandanski. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ihave added the scientific consensus about the identification of the the Macedonian Slavs, their revolutionary elite and Sandanski himself in the early 20th century, supported by lot of academic sources incl. Encyclopedia Britannica. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, do not use unreliable sources. Teresa Carpenter is not a historian, but a fiction writer. Also the statement that Miss Stone herself noticed in her Memoirs, that the leader was a Macedonian pillar is folse. The source's verification failed. Check yourself: ”Six months among brigands”, McClure’s Magazine. There aren't mentioned any Macedonians. On the other hand Hristo Siljanov's books is a primary sources written during 1920s, and published after his death during the 1940s. The general opinion of Siljanov is that Sandanski and his fellows were Bulgarians: Отзвукътъ въ чужбина отъ двойното убийство бѣ страхотенъ. Ужасиха се приятелитѣ на македонското освободително дѣло. Отдадоха се на оправдано злорадство всички, въ очитѣ на които Революционната организация бѣ трънъ и които я виждаха сега обезглавена отъ българска рѫка. Най-нелестни за българскитѣ нрави бѣха впечатленията и заключенията на европейското общество отъ подлия начинъ на убийството. Нѣкои вестници писаха за „Българска вендета”. Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, II Хр. Силяновp. 504. 212.5.158.67 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop using unschoolary and primary sources. Teresa Carpenter is a fiction writer. Also look above. The statement that Miss Stone herself noticed in her Memoirs, that the leader was a Macedonian pillar is false. The primary source's verification failed. ”Six months among brigands”, McClure’s Magazine. There aren't mentioned any Macedonians, but Bulgarians. Also Stavridis claims are highly dubious as a primary source and not cited in any secondary reliable source and not confirmed by Academic publication. Please, read how to identify reliable sources (history) on Wikipedia. Thanks. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. There is no one neutral, academic source that confirms the opinion of Stavridis about Sandanski. Fiction is also not acceptable as a source in historical topics. 149.62.201.15 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop adding fringe view primary sources and fiction literature as reiable references. Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. In the case that the views are fringe and that the fringe views are not a central item of historiographical debate, the fringe content should be relegated to its own article entirely, discussing the dismissal of the views as fringe views by the scholarly public. 212.5.158.63 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is Yane Sandanski recognised as a national hero in Bulgaria?

Yane (Jane) Sandanski was a Macedonian nationalist who fought for an independent Macedonian nation state. He fought against the Bulgarian nationalism, against greater Bulgarian nation. All sources confirm that.

Sandanski was born in the Macedonian-populated village of Vlahi near Kresna, Pirin Macedonia, on May 28, 1872. In 1879 his family moved to Dupnitsa, Bulgaria. Sandanski spent 16 years in the Bulgarian semi-independent state. He got his education there. He got his military education there as well, but he never became a Bulgarian nationalist, and he never acted like one.

Let’s see the facts. According to his very close and loyal friend Todor Panitsa, Sandanski was an Apostle of the Macedonian nation.

(Todor Panitsa interviewed by Elefterios Stavridis; Ελευθέριος Σταυρίδης - Τα Παρασκηνια του ΚΚΕ, Athens, 1953, pg. 213.)

In 1907, Stefan Kemilev, а lawyer from Bulgaria and opponent of Yane Sandanski, witnessed that Sandanski considered Bulgaria to be a foreign, hostile force, a synonym of what he called “Bulgarian imperialism”, and, according to him, the Macedonians had to emancipate themselves as a self-determining people.

(Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943), с. 498.)

In 1908, during the Young Turk Revolution, Sandanski called his people and his compatriots, to discard the propaganda of the Bulgaria authorities in order to live together in a peaceful way with the Turkish people.

Later (1912–1913) Sandanski and his faction actively supported the Bulgarian army in the Balkan wars, initially fighting for Bulgaria, but with the idea, that their duty is to fight for autonomous, and later – independent Macedonia.

Unfortunately, on a banquet organized by General Georgi Todorov, when Sandanski tried to make a toast for the autonomy of Macedonia, the Bulgarian officers pulled their swords out and made it clear to him that their struggle is for full annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria. Sandanski had no power to protest against it, so his tactical struggle continued until his murder, about 3 years later. After the Balkan wars, the Bulgarian government gave him amnesty for all of his illegal activities, but he knew he was still being followed. He knew that the Bulgarian authorities were aware and afraid of his Macedonian national-separatist ideals.

(Hristo Konstantinov's Biography of Yane Sandanski, Sofia, 1944, pg. 70-72. ; Јaне. Богатинов - "Спомени", бр.11 од в. "Доброволец", 1945 г. ; Ангел Динев, Илинденска епопеа, дел II, Скопје 1949., c. 548. ; Pavel Deliradev's Biography of Yane Sandanski, Sofia, 1946, pg. 41. ; Angel Dinev’s “Short biography of Yane Sandanski”, “Selected works of Angel Dinev”, Skopje, 1983, pg. 321-322. ; Pavel Deliradev, Razvitieto na federativnata ideya, Makedonska misal, Book 5-6, 1946, pp. 203-208.)

Todor Panitsa, again: During the war, the IMRO had a practical autonomy of the Pirin Macedonia, its completely own regime. Our goal was autonomy of the entire Macedonia, and then make it an independent state. That was the ideal of our Macedonian national hero Sandanski.

(Todor Panitsa interviewed by Elefterios Stavridis - Τα Παρασκηνια του ΚΚΕ, Athens, 1953, pg. 216.

Todor Aleksandrov called the “Sandanists” traitors to the Bulgarian nation, because “they’ve always claimed, and they still claim that Macedonia should become an independent state, that it’s a separate land and the Macedonians are a separate nation with its own multi-centennial history”. (Zoran Todorovski: "Everything for Macedonia - Monography of Todor Aleksandrov", Tsocho Bilyarski: Truth about the autonomy of Macedonia, see the letter here)

On the other hand, some Bulgarian historians have also confirmed that “’’’Sandanski's activities produced Macedonian nationalism’’’. (Стоян Г. Бояджиев: Истинският лик на Яне Сандански, София, 1994, с. 21.)

“Sandanski was trouble for Bulgaria, he and his followers inflamed the Macedonian population against Bulgaria and the Exarchate.” (Iliya Paskov, “Atanas Shopov’s Diary,” Sofia, 1995, pg. 113.) Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am really itching to remove that stuff from the talkpage, but it might actually serve a purpose as to how not to structure an argument on Wikipedia. Statements like "All sources confirm that." and "Let's look at the facts" are barely helping your cause. I will not even delve into the questionable sources that you so stubbornly stick to. And bare in mind that the photos of underlined text will simply never work s actual sources. --Laveol ^T 11:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answer my question - Why is Yane Sandanski recognised as a national hero in Bulgaria? 79.126.191.39 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a question for a discussion forum, not Wikipedia. Please, make a difference. --StanProg (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

--Laveol T, can we see your facts, and the sources that don't confirm what we say? 79.126.243.30 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Laveol, can we see your facts, and the sources that confirm the opposite of what we say? Can you prove that Sandanski fought for the Bulgarian nation, for greater Bulgarian state? 79.126.165.154 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Some sources clarifying the ideas of Sandanski and his fellows:

• The IMARO activists saw the future autonomous Macedonia as a multinational polity, and did not pursue the self-determination of Macedonian Slavs as a separate ethnicity. Therefore, Macedonian was an umbrella term covering Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, Jews, and so on. Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Historical Dictionaries of Europe, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, Introduction.
• The slogans (promoted by IMARO) of a Balkan Federation and that of Macedonia for the Macedonians were understood in a supra-national way as a polity of the national elements of the region: according to the then used ethnic terminology these included Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks, Vlachs, Serbs and so on. Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Two, Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 9004261915, p. 503.
• Slavic Macedonian revolutionaries felt loyalty to Macedonia as a region or territory without claiming any specifically Macedonian ethnicity. The primary aim of this Macedonian regionalism was an multi-ethnic alliance against the Ottoman rule. Ethnologia Balkanica, Volumes 10–11, Association for Balkan Anthropology, Bŭlgarska akademiia na naukite, Universität München, Lit Verlag, Alexander Maxwell, 2006, p. 133.
• Although in the 1920s the left wing of IMRO routinely used the term Macedonian Bulgarians, by the early 1930s they embraced the view that Macedonian Slavs constituted a separate nation. (Sandanski died in 1915) Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 135.
• "We are still in servitude to the old divisions", interview with PhD Zoran Todorovski, Director of the State Archive of the Republic of Macedonia, published on, 27. 06. 2005 in Tribune Magazine. Tribune: Part of the public and some from your fellow historians accuse you of promotining a collection about a man (Todor Alexandrov) who felt himself as Bulgarian. Are there some of our revolutionary activist who opposed him on that issue? Todorovski : Almost none. We are still in servitude to the old divisions of left and right. Ethnically, in a national sense, they were all with the same sentiments, with the same (Bulgarian) consciousness. Tribune: The journalist Victor Tsvetanoski has claimed to "Utrinski" newspaper: "Sandanski argued that it was necessary to work among the Macedonian people and to explain, they are a separate nation.Todorovski: Nowhere Sandanski supported such views. He had the same views and opinions as well as the rest of the Macedonian IMRO activists of the Left and the Right wing. He has considered himself a Bulgarian. There is a little documentation written from himself, others wrote more about him. However, in this bit, which is written by him, nowhere he mentioned Macedonian nation as a separate ethnic group, but that in Macedonia lived Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians, etc. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• "According to the Macedonian historian and best expert in IMRO-issues, the Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, all left-wing Macedonian revolutionaries from the period until the early 1930s declared themselves as "Bulgarians" and he asserts that the political separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was yet only political phenomenon without ethnic character. This will bring even Dimitar Vlahov on the session of the Politburo of the Macedonian communist party in 1948, when speaking of the existence of the Macedonian nation, to say that in 1932 (when left wing of IMRO issued for the first time the idea of separate Macedonian nation) a political mistake was made. Katardzhiev claims all this veterans members of IMRO (United) and Bulgarian communist party remained only at the level of political, not of national separatism. Thus, they practically continued to feel themselves as Bulgarians, i.e. they didn't developed clear national separatist position even in Communist Yugoslavia after 1944. Академик Катарџиев, Иван. Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот, интервjу за списание „Форум“, 22 jули 2000, броj 329. 212.117.45.70 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that here we do not talk about Sandanski's ethnicity. That's another subject. You anonymous 212.117.45.70 have just confirmed that Sandanski fought for an independent Macedonian state, and not for Bulgarian unification. Therefore, he was a Macedonian national separatist. Why is he recognized as a Bulgarian national hero? Chakmak111 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is recognized as a national hero and who is not is a priority of the states and their citizens. The answer on the question "why" can be found if you read some books about Yane Sandanski, starting with this fundamental work: [1]. --StanProg (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Yane Sandanski recognised as a national hero in Macedonia

An ethnic community has myth of origins and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests. (Nation)

Stefan Kemilev, а lawyer from Bulgaria and opponent of Yane Sandanski, witnessed:

— "Yane had a theory that, it's not pleasant neither for the Macedonian population nor for Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of Bulgarian national unification, and those who disagree with that theory have sold themselves to the Bulgarian government. He says, everyone in Macedonia, or outside, who propagates liberation and unification of the Bulgarians, should be death enemy to the IMRO, just like the Serbian and Greek agitations and bands. He claimed and disseminating the belief, among the masses, that they are an independent, distinctive people, that they have the right to be free fighting on their own and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces, because those who'd come, wouldn't be liberators, but conquerors."" (Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943), с. 498.)

His very close and loyal friend Todor Panitsa said:

- "Who told you that I'm a Bulgarian?! We, the IMRO are not Bulgarians! We are Macedonians! I'm astonished that you, as a Greek communist say something like that. I must explain it to you - You insult us when you call us Bulgarians!" - Todor Panitsa interviewed by Elefterios Stavridis:'Τα Παρασκηνια του ΚΚΕ, Athens, 1953, pg. 209. "Sandanski was an Apostle of the Macedonian nation! ...He claimed that the Macedonians are neither Bulgarians, Serbs, Vlachs nor Greeks, but a distinct ethnicity, and they all are descendants of the people of Alexander the Great and Philip II of Macedonia, who also weren't Greeks, but their enemies, and they defeated and subjugated them." – ibid., pg. 213. 85.30.104.252 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest vandalism by User:Chakmak111

Here's the changed that have been removed: [2]

1. The correct term is "standard-bearer", not "flag carrier" (flag carrier is just direct translation from Bulgarian)
2. Yane Sandanski has never been state employee until 1895. After moving to Principality of Bulgaria (from the Ottoman Empire), he studied and then he served his military service (untill 1894). Since the spring of 1895 he started his revolutionary activity and was part of a cheta.
3. Yane Sandanski was not active only in the geographical region, that after 1913 was known as Pirin Macedonia. His activity was through the whole region of Macedonia, and part of Thrace, yet he "fought mainly" in the region of the mountains Pirin & Rila. "Villagers" is to specific term - there were towns in that region as well, so I use the term "population" instead. Most of his life, Yane Sandanski lived outside of the region of Macedonia - mainly in Dupnitsa. He was 42 when died, and he lived about 13 years in that region. That's why I removed the statement "lived". --StanProg (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

These edits had been done before I re-reverted my edits, that had been incorrectly removed. Sorry for the inconveniences. Chakmak111 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hristo Siljanov

There are six sources provided in support of the thesis that Silyanov described Sandanski as Bulgarian like all other Macedonian revolutionaries. Yes, he described him as a traitor to the Bulgarian national interests, but as Bulgarian revolutionary. Also Silyanov did not use for anyone the description ethnic Macedonian. I see that with these allegations disagrees only one editor, unlike others, but he does not open a discussion to a consensus but an useless edit war. How many sources do you need, my friend?78.159.147.70 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708215834/https://www.scribd.com/doc/83169059/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%9F%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%98%D1%83 to https://www.scribd.com/doc/83169059/%D0%90%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%9F%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%98%D1%83

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jingiby, you keep deleting my positive contributions even thought I back them with PRIMARY sources. I have secondary sources as well to make my points stronger but primary are always stronger. It is not "original research" . You have no right to delete my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not "original research" it is called primary documentation and it is 1000 times more reliable than books written by probulgarian or bulgarian "academics" . Stop vandalising my contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Blatant manipulation

User:Тутуноберач, please stop using primary sources that were discussed many times above. A lot of secondary reliable sources confirm the story of the stable version. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

jingiby you are the only manipulator here how can PRIMARY SOURCES be less reliable than books writtens recently?? In contrast with you at least i did not delete your POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby how in your right mind could you possibly support that PRIMARY SOURCES by EYE WITNESSES of that era are not reliable sources???? You have no tight whatsoever to delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This part "Primary sources indicate that Yane Sandaski was an outspoken Macedonian nationalist who, fought for a "Macedonia for the Macedonians, and not a Bulgarian Macedonia." is absolutely original research - the article is a primary source and interpreted by User:Тутуноберач to his convenience, becaue the article actually finishes that there should not be division between Bulgarians, Greeks or Vlachs in Macedonia because they are all slaves. The article by Sandanski is taken out of context and its partial citation is misleading original research at best.-- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No this is not taken out of context! This is what the article states WORD FOR WORD! You are the person making their own interpretation of things clearly stated!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly this is misleading - couple of "word for word" taken out of the context. In the end he explains what he means by that statement and exactly because there shouldn't be division between Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbians and Vlachs in Macedonia because they are all slaves and this is why Bulgarians should not fight for Macedonia, and Greeks and Serbs separately but all together against the common tyranny. Or can't you read Bulgarian text? Because it is very clear in the end.-- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You are manipulating the text. I just cite what he SAYS. You get carried on and on and try to figure out what he MEANT I disagree with your interpretation!Тутуноберач (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is so immoral to manipulate a PRIMARY ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. Facts dont care about your feelings! He said he does not want a bulgarian macedonia. Not that initially he does not want to rely on bulgaria. That's a FALSIFICATION!!!!! Тутуноберач (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Не българска Македония желаемъ ние, а Македония за македонцитѣ He says it 100% clearly. You have no right to falsify an original document to fit your agenda. Тутуноберач (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just translating the end of the article so it becomes clear why is your interpretation of this original source misleading. I know the next explanation will be lost but just in case, it is initially because in later interview he says he recognizes his mistake and states "it is our duty to fight with and for Bulgaria" (See сп. Съвременна мисъл, 15.V.1915 г., стр. 24 – 25.). Or did you miss this one of the interviews he gave? This is why we must avoid citing original documents and cherry pick words from them in order to serve a point of view.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Do as you wish but you have no right to falsify what he saidТутуноберач (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I simply translated the end of the article where it is explained. And quoted another interview just to explain the addition of "initially".-- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, but still it gives you no justification to falsify his phrase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I said it : YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FALSIFY THE ORIGINAL QUOTE TO FIT YOUR AGENDA!!!!!Тутуноберач (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You have the right to add whatever you want yes but do not falsify an original quote Тутуноберач (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to quote the source correctly - I translated for you the end of the article explaining why your partial citation is misleading. Capital letters really don't help.-- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No you do not quote the source correctly you MANIPULATE it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

So quoting the article in its completeness is manipulation? But you just picked couple of words and I explained why they are misleading as you put them out of context - the context of the very same article.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add something over what I wrote do it just not manipulate and original document. He said " WE DONT WANT A BULGARIAN MACEDONIA" clear! you cannot change that!!! Тутуноберач (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia works based on a secondary sources. What says in fact Sandanski inhis letter as analysed by Macdermott in his book "For freedom and perfection. The Life of Yané Sandansky":

In Yané’s day, the population of Melnik was of several thousand was mainly Greek and Bulgarian, with a few hundred Turks and Gypsies, and a handful of Vlahs. There had been Greeks in Melnik for centuries... Nothing could be in greater contrast to the chauvinistic ituperations of the andartes than Yané’s appeal for reconciliation and common endeavour... Yané goes on to stress the fact that mutual hostility between the various nationalities in Macedonia benefits no one but the Sultan’s government, which pursues a deliberate policy of divide and rule. He assures the Greeks that the Organization is independent, non-aligned and based on internationalism, and that its intention is not to impose Bulgarian hegemony, but to win true freedom for all who inhabit Macedonia... The response to this appeal was sadly meagre. The Greek minority in Macedonia was mainly urban and did not share the economic problems of the Bulgarian peasants. Most of its members were merchants and clergy, who made a comfortable enough living even under the Sultan, and who were so consumed by hatred of everything Bulgarian that they preferred the status quo to changes which would give free rein to the Bulgarian majority. Nothing is said about ethnic Macedonians. 21:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are always more reliable than secondary interpretations Тутуноберач (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The difference of ethics between me and you is that i did not delete your contribution and source nor did i try to falsify it but you did it with mine several times. Add whatever you want just dont falsify original sources. Thank you Тутуноберач (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's guidelines disagree with you - it is always better to use secondary interpretations by experts rather than our own interpretations of original sources because in the second option we end up mostly with manipulation of quotations and cherry-picking words to serve a point such as the one you are pushing here. Unreliable source by non-experts and your interpretation of parital quotations is what I deleted.-- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a non expert but a person who met and discussed with sandansky... Primary sources are always stronger. In every university every professor will tell you this. Books written by Bulgarian and probulgarian "academics" are NOT objective on macedonia. It's not MY interpretation. I dont make any interpretations whatsoever. I just cite the document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тутуноберач (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This partial citing of documentation and non-experts to prove a point is manipulation - this is my whole point. It should be either cited in its completeness (which I tried but you deleted) or removed because now it is a manipulation of the original source.-- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, no , no, you did not do this. You did not ADD anything, you DELETED and MANIPULATED the original document. Also who is more expert that a person who met and discussed with Yane??? Тутуноберач (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the explanation of the same article. The best expert to cite are experts in the relevant field - this is why politicians with fringe theories should be deleted as source.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

no not politicians with fringe theories but politicians who met and discussed with yaneТутуноберач (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Тутуноберач, could you please:

• avoid using ALL CAPS—it's the equivalent of yelling in typed text and for this reason is considered bad etiquette or even openly rude;
• abstain from calling other editors “vandals” and their edits “vandalism”—there's a very specific definition of what vandalism is in the context of Wikipedia.

Now, on the topic itself: you claim that you use “primary sources”, noting how they are “stronger”. I assume that by “stronger” you mean how the person's own words would best describe their views, right? So, primary sources, like the ones that represent these “own words”, would be best? This surely makes sense, however I see at least a couple of problems here:

1. Unless you quote—and quote verbatim—everything that a person has ever said on a topic, you risk misrepresenting their views, because there's no guarantee that you've covered their views extensively and impartially enough. In any case, as Алиса has explained, this isn't how Wikipedia works. And quoting some person's words and claiming they mean something specific is original research. Changing the person's nationality based on that interpretation of yours is even worse.
2. Quoting someone else who, in turn, quotes the person in question isn't exactly a “primary source”—at least not in the sense of being a “stronger” source. An exception might be e.g. a biographer, who is known to be extremely thorough and trustworthy, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, does it?

So, could we agree to revert the page to the pre-discussion version and continue from there? I don't think that you have—so far, at least—provided strong enough evidence to support your version. Continuing to push forward this version without providing better argumentation would be rather unconstructive. And I'm sure you'll agree that we need a constructive discussion here.

— Luchesar • T/C 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dikaiosyni, the above applies to you as well. If you refuse to discuss this further, and continue pushing forward your version, claiming that everyone else is a “vandal”, I'm afraid you do, in fact, put yourself in the position of being someone who harms Wikipedia—both its content and its policies. Please, stop doing this! You're very welcome to share your objections here—in a way that shows respect to the opinions of the other editors even if they don't coincide with yours.
— Luchesar • T/C 11:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Luchesar, yourself and the rest of the team are the true vandals who completely disregard academic literature which challenges your bias. Yourself and the rest of the team have an agenda on Wikipedia, you are transferring the Bulgarian version onto Wikipedia and you go against anyone who tries to provide a more balanced view on Wikipedia. It is essential that Wikipedia remains neutral, however, yourself and the rest ruin its integrity with your continued vandalism and edit wars. Wikipedia is not the place for personal bias nor propaganda of irredentist governments, it is supposed to remain a place of neutrality. Unfortunately, when it comes to Balkan history, yourself and the team have ensured that it remains one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikaiosyni (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dikaiosyni, I'm afraid this attitude doesn't help the discussion at all. Please, discuss first and edit later, once at least some reasonable consensus has been reached. By the way, claims that “Primary sources indicate that Yane Sandaski was an outspoken Macedonian nationalist”, allegedly supported with quoted statements made by Yane Sandanski himself are a prime example of original research. As a Wikipedia editor you are in no position to draw such conclusions. And throwing accusations around, labeling people who don't agree with you as “biased”, while, at the same time, failing to provide any substantial argumentation for your point of view, makes this case only worse.
— Luchesar • T/C 13:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, we can include primary sources so long as we don't make our own interpretations from them. So, taking one of the sources that Тутуноберач provided, we can for simply say that Sandanski once stated that "the Macedonians, all of them are neither Bulgarians, Greeks nor Vlachs, but a distinct ethnicity". This could probably go in the Legacy section, or we could have a subsection somewhere stating some of his views. And we can work the other sources similarly. --Local hero ^talk 15:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

But this is not what the article says - he says that Macedonia should not count on the Bulgarian state and all the people in Macedonia (which he names to be Bulgarians, Serb, Greeks and Vlachs) should fight together against the Ottoman tyranny and there shouldn't be separation between those ethnicities because they are all slaves. Regarding the fringe theory with source a Greek politician and communist, this is far from reliable source - I don't agree that a non expert and a communist during the active communist propaganda in Macedonia should be used as a source for such fringe theory, a reliable scholar should be the source of that moreover you can read that the book you use as a source is part of his propaganda teachings.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Local hero, I have checked the biography of Eleftherios Stavridis. He never met Sandanski and was for the first time in Macedonia scarcely during WWI, when Sandanski was already dead. To claim that his book "Behind the scenes of Communists Party of Greece", published in Athens in 1953, i.e. ca. 40 years after Sandanski's death is reliable source is very dubious. I can not find a secondary source confirming that such ideas were propagated by Sandanski himself. This man remarkably changed his political orientatiom from an adherent communist to an extreme anti-communist. My proposal is that his book is simply communist (or) anti-communist propaganda on the Macedonian issue from the Cold War, but in any case a reliable primary source. Moreover he claimed there also that Todor Panitsa who was from Bulgarian proper (with Bulgarian parents, born and educated in Bulgaria, Bulgarian Orthodox, Bulgarian Army sergeant and Bulgarian citizen) had revealed before him, he also was not a Bulgarian. The last info in not confirmed by any secondary source too. In fact in 1953 Stavridis was advisor to the Chief of the Hellenic Army General Staff, and an instructor on ideology and the history of the KKE in the National Defence Academy, the War School and the Hellenic Gendarmerie Academy. At that time Greece was a country, just several years after a bloody civil war (1945-1949) between communist forces and the anti-communist Greek government. This conflict, considered the earliest struggles of the Cold War, resulted in severe political polarization for the next years. To insist to put into the lead such controversial claims by such controversial person written in so controversial time and not confirmed by any primary source, left personally by Sandanski, and also by any reliable secondary source, is simply against all the rules below. This is just folk history from the times of Communist Yugoslavia. Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in history

To weight different views and structure an article so as to avoid original research and synthesis the common views of scholars should be consulted. In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used.

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews
4. Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
5. Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic

Surveying these documents should provide you with an understanding of the current scholarly consensus, or the multiple scholarly consensuses held. Views lying outside of these discussions should be considered as non-scholarly opinions and weighted as such; they should generally be relegated to sections titled "Fringe views." or the like. In the case that the views are fringe and that the fringe views are not a central item of historiographical debate, the fringe content should be relegated to its own article entirely, discussing the dismissal of the views as fringe views by the scholarly public. None of the above primary sources meet the above criteria. Not to mention that they are interpreted absolutely tensely and are presented selectively, even some of them are unreliable. Those that are reliable are interpreted quite differently in the secondary sources. I ask these attacks on groups of newly registered users and the new IP-s, behind which there is probably a network with dubious intentions, to adhere to the rules listed above, except for section called "Fringe and parahistorical views." Jingiby (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that every sentence in the Lead paragraph, is sourced with reliable academic sources from the recent scholarship that are in the main body (especially in the section Legacy) per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Adding in the lead nonsense as: per post-1963 negationist Bulgarian historiography is unrelated to the issue. I can provide direct citations from English language non-Bulgarian academic publication per every sentence into the intro. Please discuss on talk before making such controversial changes in the initial paragraph. By the way per Michael R. Palairet in the three-way dispute about Macedonia, the Bulgarian historical view is closer to the objective reality of history than either the Greek or Macedonian views, but the Macedonian historiographical version violates common sense and the historical record much more than either the Greek or Bulgarian ones. For more see: Michael Palairet, Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, ISBN 1443888435, p. 16. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)