Jump to content

Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Local hero (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 5 September 2024 (→Disruptive editing pattern: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Even in Bulgaria this uprising is known as Ilindensko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Requested move 6 August 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Both numerically, and in terms of policy/guidelines, there is no consensus to move here. On the side of those favouring the move is the name used in one or more high(er)-quality sources, particularly Britannica, on the side of those opposing the move is a perceived accuracy/scope-change issue with the name. Particularly consider the potential vote-stacking issues, the consensus is against moving and for the article to remain where it is. I did consider letting this discussion run further but the lack of any recent activity makes this pointless. Nominators are reminded not to !vote in the discussion but instead simply comment, as their nomination is already considered a !vote.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising → Ilinden Uprising – Recognizability-The uprising is known in the English speaking world as Ilinden Uprising. Encyclopedia Britannica only referrers to it by the name of Ilinden Uprising[1]. The longer term (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) is used only in Bulgarian language sources, and they use both terms. Concision-The uprising is uniquely identified by this name Ilinden and there is no need for the longer name that it now has. Precision-There is no other uprising by the name Ilinden, so there is no need for further qualification.

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ilinden-Uprising

– GStojanov (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this is inappropriate. I will not contact anyone regarding this from now on.GStojanov (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One with no knowledge of these events would probably be confused as to why uprisings in western Macedonia have been grouped into one article with uprisings in eastern Thrace. As I stated above, I get more hits for "Ilinden Uprising" than "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising" in a simple Google books search. Looking at scholarly sources already cited in the article with quotes or links provided, it seems Kostov, Detrez, Bechev, Khadziev, Jelavich, Poulton and Brown use "Ilinden Uprising"; Gotsev and Hristov use "Ilinden-Preobrazhnie Uprising".
I find the following sentence from the sole Note in the article interesting and relevant to this discussion: Since the 1960s, the members of the Bulgarian historical community have been trying to popularize the name "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" uprising. --Local hero talk 05:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: In the previous move request discussion from 2014 ([4]) you mention as a reason for supporting the move the fact that most of the other language Wikipedias use "Ilinden uprising" as a term (17 vs 3 as per your words). In the present move request the situation is the opposite and almost all are in favor of "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising". Can you elaborate on why this fact was important for you in the previous move request, and not so important in this one? --StanProg (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll elaborate about 8-year-old discussions right after you reply to my comments on this active discussion. Thanks. --Local hero talk 15:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reply as promised: it should be obvious that the other wikis have simply followed English wiki's article title, as happens commonly. If we are to rightly change the title here, in eight years we will see that most other wikis will have followed suit. --Local hero talk 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This name change is not only unnecessary, it makes no sense in a scientific context. The WP:COMMONNAME policy refers to events or people which could have one long and elaborate name and one short name, but the crucial characteristic of the short name is that it refers to the entire event/same person as the longer name. This is not the case here. The uprising had two main parts - the Ilinden Uprising and the Preobrazhenie Uprising - but it's still one uprising, not two. Thus, the name Ilinden Uprising refers to the Ilinden part of the wider revolt, rather than to the entire revolt. That's how the name is used in Britannica and that's how it's used here in the Wikipedia article, re: second paragraph. Renaming the article as Ilinden Uprising based on the naming conventions would counter the source material itself, which clearly shows that the uprising is one and the same, created by the same organization in the same time period with the same goal. All of this is easily verifiable in both primary and secondary sources, all reliable, all seen widespread use. The documents clearly show that the IMARO and SMAC intended the uprising to be one and the same with a clear goal - the autonomy and subsequent independence of the Macedonian region and the Adrianople region. This is also why both organizations have MA in their initials - Macedonian-Adrianople organizations, not separate Macedonian and Adrianople organizations. Artificially separating the uprising into two parts makes no sense when they're clearly connected by documents, by organizers, by goals and by local support. WP conventions on naming do not take precedence over the historical and scientific findings in the source material. Moreover, the uprising is widely known with the current name, which is evident both in search engines (the hits of one name vs the other are almost 50%-50%), in secondary sources (there are enough secondary sources in English using the current name) and in foreign languages (the vast majority of WP articles on the same topic in foreign languages use the current name). In conclusion, such a move would be counterproductive, unscientific and downright manipulative re: the source material. TzCher (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing whether the Ilinden and the Preobrazhenie uprisings were connected. I don't think that is the point of the debate here. However, even if they were connected, this is not basis enough to cover them in the same article. For example, the Berkovitsa rebellion (1836), the Pirot rebellion, and the Belogradchik rebellion (1836) are all covered in separate articles even though they were connected. The simple geographical distance is reason enough to have separate articles here.
With that being said, this discussion is specifically about the title of this article as it is. 43 pages of books hits to 35 pages in favor of "Ilinden Uprising" is not "50/50". Also, I also pointed out that the sources already found in this article with quotes/links available strongly favor "Ilinden Uprising". I'm curious what is "enough secondary sources" to justify the current title? Because whatever that "enough" amount is, the amount for "Ilinden Uprising" is greater. The title of this article, per policy, should be "Ilinden Uprising". Whether the Preobrazhenie content should be split into a separate article thereafter, I believe, will require a separate discussion. --Local hero talk 04:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is about Ilinden, Preobrazhenie and Krstovden uprising, including all of them, in which the IMARO and SMARC participated. Counterargument to Encyclopedia Britannica quotation: There is only 1 article about IMARO/IMRO alltogether there, no matter they are split in both W:BG and W:MK. Why dont we split them here in W:EN? --Протогер (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The uprising is a single entity and is widely known among the academic community as the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. In the Republic of North Macedonia, only the part of the uprising that took place in the region of Macedonia is considered, and for this reason it is simply called the Ilinden Uprising there. It was organized by the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization, it broke out on the territory of Macedonia and Adrianople, but in different parts it broke out on different days. The subject of the article is the entire uprising, not only the activities on the territory of the Macedonia region, so I think the current name is the most correct one. There are academic sources all over the world that use exactly that name for the uprising, which can be easily verified. --StanProg (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" is the whole uprising (2 August 1903 – November 1903), while Ilinden uprising is just part of it. "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" is recognizable as a term, it's natural, as most of the people search by this term, additionally searching for Ilinden uprising leads to the same article, it's precise, while "Ilinden uprising" is ambiguous (Quote: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.), it's concise as it's no longer than necessary to identify the subject and the pattern of the name is consistant with other uprisings. Also there was a previous consensus regarding that name. --StanProg (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per initial proposal: In the English speaking world this Uprising is only known as Ilinden Uprising. Encyclopedia Britannica, the gold standard of Encyclopedic knowledge, only refers to it as Ilinden Uprising. This name satisfies all recommendations for a title: it is Recognizable, Precise and Concise. GStojanov (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my opinion from 2014: That issue was discussed to death. Check the archives of that talk-page. I suggest you have read Wikipedia:Search engine test, but search engines are sophisticated research tools and often have bias and results need to be interpreted. According to Ivo Banac "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics", Cornell University Press, 1984, pp. 307-328, the IMARO movement in 1903 was movement, which embraced both Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace regions and the insurrection in August 1903 had two major centres - the Vilayet of Bitola and the Vilajet of Adrianople. The exclusion of the Preobrazhenie from the title of this article is in conflict with the historical facts and their non-nationalist interpretation. Keep in mind that this is article not only about the present-day ethnic Macedonian historical myth of Ilinden, but about the historical events, and the difference is between the much later Yugoslav communist concept (+Ilinden; - Preobrazhenie) and the historical event (+Ilinden; +Preobrazhenie;) is more than obvious. However, the first problem before such an interpretation stems also in particular from the combined Macedono-Adrianopolitan character of the IMARO. The statutes and directives of the Central Committee, as well as the other official documents of the Organization concern not only the Macedonian people but also the Adrianopolitan people, i.e. the Bulgarians (the IMARO membership was restricted only for Bulgarians till 1902) and (in theory) other nationalities inhabiting both areas. In the specialized literature as the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2006, ISBN 0810849011, the Uprising is called: Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. In the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, it is called: Ilinden (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) Uprising. Hristo Silyanov was the first historian who systematically described the Uprising after having participate in it. In his memoires, he used the designation linden-Preobrazhenie. Jingiby (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, "Ilinden Uprising" is favored among the existing references in the article, as well as in a books search. You may want to update years response now, eight years later. --Local hero talk 20:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Nearly 10 days into the discussion, we have no input from non-Bulgarian/non-Macedonian editors. Further the "oppose" voters still have yet to explain why the supposed "connectedness" of the uprisings means that we must title this article to name two uprisings rather than the most common name. --Local hero talk 20:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It's not connectedness. This is one uprising, organized as one by IMARO for autonomy of the Macedonia & Adrianopole region, lead as one, which break out on different dates in the different parts of Macedonia & Adrianopole region. In the region of Macedonia the first date is St. Elijah`s day, while in region Adrianopol the first date is Transfiguration of Jesus`s day. This why the name is composite - based on the two regions, just like the Macedonian-Adrianopolian organization. --StanProg (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text describes it as "a closely related uprising organized by Thracian Bulgarian revolutionaries in the Adrianople Vilayet", not "one uprising" as you claim. The Kruševo Republic was crushed on 12 August, and the Preobrazhnie Uprising began a week later in a different region. They may be connected or even executed by the same group but that does not make it one whole uprising. Further, for Wikipedia purposes, we choose the common name in reliable sources which is in fact "Ilinden Uprising" - regardless of whether this article also includes the Preobrazhnie Uprising or not. --Local hero talk 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad you don't know that the uprising in Western Macedonia did not end with the fall of Krushevo Republic. Battle for Chanishte took place on 2/3 october 1903. This seems as minimizing the activity of IMARO to just try to prove a point. A wrong one. --Протогер (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Firstly, the uprisings are not 2, but 4. Secondly, it was explained that in the specialized literature, the uprising is known by its combined name, for greater accuracy. he names of the 1903 uprising were given by the historians, not by the rebels. The names "Ilinden" and "Preobrazhenie" uprising gained popularity after the First World War in Bulgaria. Then the combined before the Balkan Wars Macedonian-Thracian liberation movement split in two organizations. As more numerous and active, the Macedonian activists imposed mainly the name "Ilinden" on the Bulgarian public. Since the 1960s, the members of the Bulgarian historical community have been trying to popularize the name "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" uprising. Their logic is that at the beginning of the 20th century the organization was one: "Macedonian-Adrianopolitan", and its goal was a common uprising. Some Bulgarian historians insist that to the name of the uprising must be added the "Day of the Cross" (Krastovden), because then was the beginning of the rebellion in the Serres Revolutionary District. Before the Second World War the historians in Yugoslavia emphasized the Bulgarian provenance of the rebellion, but after the War they insisted that these were two separate uprisings that were not related, one being Bulgarian and the other Macedonian, as this thesis has been maintained to this day in North Macedonia for political reasons. Jingiby (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Specialized literature"? Let's stick to Wikipedia naming policies. Thanks for pointing out that we only see "Ilinden-Preobrazhnie Uprising" used because of a push by Bulgarian historians to do so since the 1960s. --Local hero talk 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing pattern

User:Anonymoususer95, please discuss here point by point your objections. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says that the uprising was "supported by Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionaries." This claim is cited to five sources:
  • Tschavdar Marinov, "We the Macedonians, The Paths of Macedonian Supra-Nationalism (1878–1912)", in We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, pp. 107–137: accessible for free here (https://books.openedition.org/ceup/890).
  • Tchavdar Marinov, Famous Macedonia, the Land of Alexander: Macedonian identity at the crossroads of Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian nationalism in Entangled Histories of the Balkans – Volume One: National Ideologies and Language Policies with Roumen Daskalov and Tchavdar Marinov as ed., Brill, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, pp. 273–330 (accessible free here: https://archive.org/details/1daskalovRTchavdarMEdEntangledHistoriesOfTheBalkans/mode/2up).
  • Loring M. Danforth, The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Princeton University Press, Danforth, Loring M. 1997, ISBN 0691043566, p. 64
  • Chris Kostov, Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900–1996, Volume 7 of Nationalisms across the globe, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, pp. 87–88 (available free here: https://archive.org/details/contestedethnici0000kost).
  • İpek Yosmaoğlu, Blood Ties: Religion, Violence and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908, Cornell University Press, 2013, ISBN 0801469791, pp. 15–16.
As far as I can tell, none of these sources use the phrase "Macedonian Bulgarian" to refer to the participants in the uprising. Furthermore, three of the sources appear to expressly criticize the use of this phrase:
  • In "Famous Macedonia", on page 275, Marinov describes "Macedonian Bulgarian" as a Bulgarian "exclusive nationalist conception" of Macedonia.
  • In "We, The Macedonians", Marinov also says that "today, the Bulgarian and the Macedonian historiographies are still struggling for the 'right' definition of identity for the local [Macedonian] Slavs: 'Macedonian Bulgarians,' according to the scholars from Sofia, or 'ethnic Macedonians,' according to those from Skopje."
This makes clear that by using the phrase "Macedonian Bulgarian" to refer to historical figures claimed by both ethnic Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists, we are siding with the Bulgarian nationalist position, contrary to the principle of WP:NPOV. On page 9, Yosmaoglu says regarding the use of ethnic identifiers in writing about this topic that "My solution, dictated by necessity, is to use terms such as "Greek", "Bulgarian", and "Vlach" in quotation marks and to convey the complexity of the situation by refraining from using ethnic epithets whenever possible." This is the approach we should be using in the article.
The same three sources also appear to directly contradict the claim that the participants in the uprising can be described as Bulgarian:
  • In We the Macedonians, Marinov says the following about IMRO around the time of the uprising. They advocated a "political separatism" that rejected union with Bulgaria (p. 300). They "promoted a separate political loyalty, different from one to the Bulgarian state. This 'Macedonian' loyalty was particularly emphasized in leftist political discourse. The Macedonian socialists and anarchists had already gone even further in distancing themselves from mainstream Bulgarian nationalism ... The socialists labeled national ambitions “stupid chauvinism and patriotism,” especially “Bulgarian chauvinism,” and countered that the “Macedonian” ( makedonetsat ) should by no means be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb or Greek, as he was, above all, a political “slave” (rob) In some articles of the newspaper (as well as in party documents of the Macedonian socialist group), the term “Macedonian people” ( makedonski narod) is contrasted with the “Bulgarian people” (balgarski narod). The socialists had little support in Macedonia, but some of them held important positions in the Internal Organization" (pp. 301 - 302).
  • In "Famous Macedonia", Marinov again suggests that IMRO's ideology around the time of the uprising was too complex to simply describe it as Bulgarian. He specifically says "All these aspects of the organization’s activity make visibly difficult its translation into the terms of Macedonian nationalism. However, although they do not contradict the idea of Bulgarian ethnicity and of Bulgarian nation within Macedonia, the aforementioned autonomist and independentist stances may hardly be seen as an expression of a mainstream Bulgarian nationalism or, to put it into indigenous terms, of a 'Bulgarian state nationalism.'".
  • Finally, Yosmaoglu says on page 15 about IMRO's support for autonomy for Macedonia: "As problematic as it is to accept the plans for an autonomous entity modeled after Switzerland as the progenitor of the modern Macedonian nation-state, simply capitulating to Bulgarian nationalists’ claims (i.e., that Macedonian Slavs were in fact Bulgarian)... does not do justice to the people who lost their lives as these competing national projects claimed their loyalty. Here, it would behoove us to pause and consider whether by thinking of them as either this or that we place ourselves in an analytical straight jacket symptomatic of our own internalization of the notion that national consciousness is inherently exclusive and immutable." He adds that "There was, in fact, an undeniable attachment to the ideas of autonomy for Macedonia and action independent of Bulgaria in the program and manifestos of IMRO from its inception, which can reasonably be considered as indication of a separate Macedonian identity."
As these quotations show, Marinov and Yosmaoglu both argue that the ideology of IMRO around the time of the uprising was too complex to simply identify it or its members as "Bulgarian". This contradicts that claim that these sources are cited to support. Anonymoususer95 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. All these peculiarities in the identity of the Macedonian revolutionaries thеn are explained in the article about the Macedonian Bulgarians. The process of the separation of a distinct Macedonian nation is also described there. Some time ago, in this article, it was written simply about Bulgarians in Macedonia. After that, we began to write on Wikipedia on Macedonian Bulgarians. This term more accurately describes this specific case. Also, if you read this article, you will see that the case of separation is also discussed here. And last but not at least, the first statute of the IMRO limited the membership in the organization to Bulgarians only. As Denis Ljuljanović has pointed on p. 211 in the book Imagining Macedonia in the Age of Empire. State Policies, Networks and Violence (1878-1912), (ISBN:9783643914460): Its primary name Bulgarian Macedonian - Adrianople Revolutionary Committees emphasized a Bulgarian element that was also evident in its first Constitution (Ustav). Per its Article 3: "Membership is open to any Bulgarian, irrespective of sex, who has not compromised himself in the eyes of the community by dishonest and immoral actions, and who promises to be of service in some way to the revolutionary cause of liberation." Per Art. 2. To achieve this goal they [the committees] shall raise the awareness of self-defense in the Bulgarian population... All its basic documents were written in standard Bulgarian language. The first statute of the IMRO was modelled after the statute of the earlier Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee from which IMRO adopted also its symbol: the Bulgarian lion and its motto: Svoboda ili smart, etc.
Now briefly about the opinion of the two quoted authors on the issue of the national affiliation of the revolutionaries from the IMRO at the beginning of the 20th century.
First about Marinov's opinion. See here page 3 in Historiographical Revisionism and Re-Articulation of Memory in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Without entering into the intricate details, here is an example: during the Ottoman period, the IMRO was named, most of the time, Secret Macedono-Adrianopolitan Organization, and, after 1905, Internal Macedono-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Organization (VMORO). It was active not only in Macedonia but also in Thrace – in the Vilayet of Adrianople (modern Edirne in Turkey). This fact is still difficult to explain from a Macedonian historiographic viewpoint: it suggests that Macedonian revolutionaries in the Ottoman period did not differentiate between ‘ethnic Macedonians’ and ‘ethnic Bulgarians’ from Thrace. Moreover, as their own writings attest, they often saw themselves as ‘Bulgarians’ (or ‘Macedonian Bulgarians’) and wrote in standard Bulgarian rather than in the Macedonian dialect.
And now for the other author's opinion on the matter, i.e. on F.A.K. Yasamee' opinion, please look at his article Nationality in the Balkans: The case of the Macedonians: Formally, IMRO did not seek Macedonia's annexation to Bulgaria, but only Macedonia's autonomy - a point which has encouraged misleading suggestions that IMRO viewed the Slavs of Macedonia as an independent "Macedonian" nation, ethnically separate from the Bulgarians. In reality, IMRO never questioned the Bulgarian national identity of the Macedonian Slavs; its apparent preference for autonomy over annexation was essentially a matter of political tactics, and at most, implied a recognition that the presence of numerous non-Bulgarians in Macedonia might render outright annexation to Bulgaria impractical. Jingiby (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymoususer95 I agree with the removal of the sources which do not even mention the uprising. So, we should add replacement sources instead. For example, we could add Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe (ISBN 9783825813871). You can check pages 135 and 136. Who are the Macedonians? (ISBN 9781850652380) is another option as well. The statements need to be properly and relevantly sourced. Sources could be found for the Aromanian participation as well. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StephenMacky1, What do you mean by de-sourcing? I find your point a bit unclear. If one of the quoted sources also mentions the uprising itself, but it also includes the quote indicated here now, what should be removed? The entire source, or to remove the quote only, or to additionally cite the pages where the uprising is mentioned and adding additional citations? Jingiby (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that mention the uprising, then they can be moved to the body and be used in a different context. The body could use more sources. The sources I suggested directly support the statements in the lead. They discuss ethnicity in the context of the uprising. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of problems with this:

First, as I explain above, Yosmaoglu and Marinov (in both "Famous Macedonia" and "We, the Macedonians" clearly argue that:
1) IMRO's ideology and approach to nationalism in the 1890s and early 1910s was too complex to simply identify its members as "Bulgarian"
2) To identify Macedonian Slavs claimed by both modern Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists as "Bulgarian" is inappropriate because it ignores the complexity of national identity at the time and adopts the Bulgarian nationalist position.
This is an important scholarly view that should be represented in the article, irrespective of what other sources say.
Also, Ipek Yosmaoglu and F.A.K. Yamasee are different people.
Regarding the book Who are the Macedonians (Indiana University Press, 1995) by Hugh Poulton, he says on pages 53-54 that "Thus almost from the outset, VMRO [IMRO] was fatally divided in its aims between protagonists of Macedonia for Bulgaria, and of a separate Macedonian state, existing either within some form of federation or independently. Later, faced with differing situations, VMRO veered first one way and then the other. The nuances between the two camps have fuelled endless polemics in recent times between the Bulgarians, who naturally support the former view, and the post-Second World War Yugoslav Macedonian regime who as naturally stress the latter."
So Poulton agrees that IMRO cannot merely be described as "Bulgarian" and shows that the Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalist perspectives on IMRO are equally convincing.Anonymoususer95 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we read the same things, but understand them differently. These works have been debated here to death for the last 20 years and some consensus has been reached on the matter. As the Macedonian historian Ivan Katardziev claimed the first name of the organization in the 1890s was Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committees. He believed that practically, neither the left nor the right wing members of IMRO ever questioned their Bulgarian origin. According to him, their separatist concepts have been confused in North Macedonia. Katardziev explained that Macedonian political separatism is one thing, while Macedonian national separatism, which was developed especially after the Second World War, is quite another. According to him, even the members of the left wing of IMRO, who in 1934 formally accepted the Resolution of the Comintern on the existence of a separate Macedonian nation and language, after 1944 still continued to feel themselves de facto as Bulgarians and therefore were isolated or repressed in Communist Yugoslavia. And here we are talking about the year 1903. Please, read the following articles, their sources and the discussions on the talk pages carefully before continuing the discussion: First statute of the IMRO; Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee; Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization; Bulgarian People's Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization; Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs, People's Federative Party (Bulgarian Section); Internal Thracian Revolutionary Organisation; Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (United); Bulgarian Action Committees; Autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople regions, Independent Macedonia (IMRO), Independent Macedonia (1944), Macedonian nationalism; Historiography in North Macedonia and Macedonian Bulgarians. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that you are misrepresenting Katardziev as well. In what writing did Katardziev make these claims? Please provide a complete citation, quotation, and page number: see WP:BURDEN, WP:NONENG.
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia": see WP:WINARS. Pointing to a dozen other articles is an obvious attempt at deflection from the misrepresentation of sources in this article. In any case, those other articles also seem to be rife with misrepresentation of sources; for example, the article Macedonian Bulgarians misrepresents Poulton. I see no consensus about the misrepresented sources; for example, another user previously pointed out the misrepresentation of the same sources on this talk page.
If you are unwilling to acknowledge this problem, it seems that fixing this problem of misrepresentation will require a broader solution to address all the affected pages, perhaps through the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Anonymoususer95 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to see a reply here. --Local hero talk 20:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie_Uprising&oldid=1244233771"