Talk:Yane Sandanski/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Yane Sandanski. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

..

It is truth that Macedonians in Republic of Macedonia regard him as Macedonian, Bulgarians regard him as Bulgarian. If Sandanski while still living regarded himself like both of nations (in ethnic sense) it would be NPOV to write Bulgarian/Macedonian or Macedonian/Bulgarian. But what we can do if we can not find some evidences that Sandanski had a Macedonian ethnic consciousness? If he fight for independent Macedonia like one of the local Bulgarians? Then it would be honest to write Bulgarian revolutionary and to specify that in RoM he is regarded like ethnic Macedonian. It is just an oppinion. --AleksandarH 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, here are some of his statements and maybe you'll understand why he is considered as a Macedonian in RoM.--Cigor 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Todor Aleksandrov 1919: "тесниот - болшевик Димо Х.Димов, анархистот - мрзливец Михаил Герџиков, шмекерот - велзевул Ѓорче Петров и сандинистите предавници во минатото и сега на бугарскиот народ, говорат и агитираат дека треба да се бара автономија на Македонија, зато што таа е одделна економска и географска единица, со оддделен "македонски народ", со своја вековна историја и за да не ги плаќале долговите на Бугарија, а некои од нив се закануваат така: "ако по чудо биде дадена цела Македонија на Бугарија ние ќе се бориме со оружје во рака, за да не го дозволиме тоа обединение".

Мисли...

“Да живееш значи да се бориш - поробениот за слобода, а слободниот за совршенство"!

“Ние треба да работиме за будење на сознанието кај македонските маси дека се тие самостоен народ, дека имаат право на слободен живот и дека треба да се борат за извојување на својата слобода, без да се потпираат на туѓа помош, зашто оние што би дошле да не ослободат, ќе дојдат всушност, да не поробат".

"Јас не очекувам брзо ослободување на Македонија. Тоа може дури и да не дојде додека сум жив, но јас сакам да го зачувам народот и да го организирам и ако тоа стане, тој сам ќе си ја извојува својата слобода".

“Првпат агитирав во смисла да се постави Организацијата самостојно, да се почувствува населението слободно, на тој начин што ќе се отстранува од турските власти и што ќе се концентрира власта во рацете на Организацијата, така што населението на дело да види малку слобода, да ја осети таа слобода и да ја засака".

“Да, Македонија не треба да бара помош надвор од себе, туку во самата себе. Нејзината слобода не ќе биде подарок, туку крвав откуп, платен со илјадници жртви, какви што ние дадовме и продолжуваме да даваме".

,,Ние не сакаме да ја замениме турската тиранија, турските султани со други тирани, па ни со бугарска тиранија и бугарскиот кнез. Ние се бориме Македонија да стане автономна, независна, слободна држава, Македонија на Македонците!".

,,Вие (врховистите) ја сакате слободата на Македонија и Одринско како етапа на идните Ваши завојувања и анексии, додека кај нас слободата е легната во основата како цел. Ете каде лежи големата разлика меѓу нас - Внатрешните и Вас - Врховистите"!

“Ние не ја мразиме Бугарија и нејзиниот народ, туку се спротиставуваме на нејзината политика, која е спротивна на нашите идеали и интереси".

“Од несреќата од Версајскиот договор нашиот народ ќе ја има, наспроти сите неволји, барем таа добра страна, што ќе се ослободи еднаш засекогаш од опекунството на една политика, која е секогаш готова да го жртвува секое парче од неговата земја и ќе раскине дефинитвно со одродени македонски синови, кои наоѓајќи се далеку од неговата несреќа, одамна заборавиле дека дошле од македонската земја, упорно ја потпомагаат таа политика на тргување со нашата татковина, меѓу другото, и во знак на благодарност за добриот живот и поминот на кој предавнички се радуваат поради нејзиното богато покровителство. Да извлечеме реална поука од сето тоа и да се подготвуваме уште од сега за блиското остварување на чистиот македонски народен идеал".

"Да пиеме за слободна и автономна Македонија за која се бореа и дадоа скапи жртви сојузените балкански народи" - на банкетот во Солун, по повлекувањето на Турците 1912 година.

"Ние водиме борба против вас, врховистите, затоа што сакате да ја потчините Организацијата и да ја направите орудие на бугарскиот дворец. Со вашата оружена интервенција во Џумајско, вие на ослободителната борба и придадовте карактер на вештачко движење кое се инспирира од вас од официјална Бугарија, а не од внатрешността и од самиот поробен народ. Со тоа вие и го убивате престижот и оставате впечаток дека ние сме орудие на бугарската држава, и со сето тоа мy пречите на ослободителното дело. Ние решително им се спротивставивме на вашите офицери зашто го знаеме нивното воспитување, нивните интимни замисли. Тие се луѓе што дале клетва за верност на бугарскиот кнез и на бугарската држава, и тие не можат да бидат ништо друго освен нивни слепи и послушни орудија. А пак ние не сакаме да ја замениме турската тиранија, турските султани со други такви, па ни со бугарската тиранија и бугарскиот кнез. Ние сакаме Македонија да биде автономна, независна, слободна, Македонија на Македонците. Вие ја барате слободата на Македонија како средство, како етапа на идни освојувања и присоединувања, додека кај нас слободата, автономијата на Македонија се положени во основата, како цел. Ете каде лежи големата разлика меѓу нас, внатрешните и вас-врховистите. Ако ги пуштевме вашите другари-офицери во ТМОРО, тие ќе ја водеа оружената борба, тие ќе ги имаа во своите раце четите, бојните јатки, Организацијата, и по таков начин, при слободна Македонија тие ќе му се наложеа на македонското население, тие ќе му диктираа да го бара приклучувањето на Македонија кон Бугарија, како што стана со Источна Румелија во 1885 година. Ние ја месевме погачата, вие ќе ја јадевте."

"Ние имаме своја аграрна програма тесно поврзана со нашата општа политичка програма: првата се изразува низ барањето за доделување на земја на селаните, а втората, политичката, се содржи во барањео од Македонија да се создаде автономна област во рамките на отоманското царство. А најмногу од се друго се плашиме од тоа нашите "мили пријатели" Бугарите, Србите и Грците, да не дојдат да не "ослободуваат", зошто тие, всушност, ќе дојдат да не поробат."

Interesting quotations. But I have two serious considerations:

Formal - You didn't quote a sources.
Essentially - These quotations do not prove that Sandanski had a Macedonian ethnical consciousness. Yes, he fought for authinomous Macedonia, he fought for Ottoman Turks (1908-1910), he fight against Bulgarian government, he fought against Greek propaganda, he fought against these Macedonians who defend the idea about direct including of Macedonia to free Bulgarian State. But please, prove that he did this not like Bulgarian with some political ideas, but like ethnic Macedonian. And do not forget the documents, the newspapers of Sandanski fraction etc.--AleksandarH 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And how can be this proven? Can you guess what was in the dead man's mind? Anyway, he also had some Aromanian heritage, so I don't know how much was Bulgarian and how much was something else. BTW, here what one Greek Stavridis writes about him in his book, "Зад кулисите на КПГ", page 214:

"Сандански, по потекло од Пиринска Македонија, им припаѓаше на таканаречените словеногласни Македонци. Тој тврдеше дека како што се ослободија од турскиот јарем грчката нација, српската и бугарската, дојде часот да се ослободи и македонската нација. За да Македонија стане цела и сосем независна држава, Сандански проповедаше дека сите жители, без исклучок, не се ниту Бугари, ниту Грци ниту Куцовласи, макар и да зборуваат на македонски славјански дијалект како и самиот тој, или на грчки или на куцовлашки идиом, сите жители на Македонија се чисти Македонци, потомци на античките македонци на Филип I и на Александар."

Regards, --Cigor 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandanski's ethnicity

I cannot understand how adding Macedonian as his ethnicity requires explanation, while his Bulgarian ethnicity doesn't require any explanation, as if it was understood that he is a Bulgarian, by default. So far, the only sources that were cited are in defence of his Macedonian ethnicity, and zero sources were provided to explain why he is a Bulgarian. Given that point, it is you who should think why we shouldn't put the opening sentence like this: Jane Sandanski is a Macedonian revolutionary (in Bulgaria he is considered Bulgarian) from Macedonia.--FlavrSavr 16:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

FunkyFly, you should know that reverting without providing sources is considered vandalism. Despite having a town in your country called 'Sandanski', please do provide us a source to support the claim that he is a "Bulgarian revolutionary". It is really frustrating to see that even mentioning that he is a Macedonian revolutionary is "not convincing" when such explicit sources are provided above (I will translate them into English, I guess you don't understand Macedonian). Sandanski fought against Bulgarian imperialists all of his life, on what basis, do you claim, with such confidence, that he was a "Bulgarian revolutionary"? --FlavrSavr 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The statute of BMARC, later IMORO. Pay attention to point 3 of the document. And by the way "he fought against bulgarian imperialists" is a blatant statement. Even if it so, it is not uncommon that people with the same national identity fight for different causes. FunkyFly 01:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. There were fractions within the IMARO which were obviously fighting with each other. Also, bear in mind that we are talking about an individual, not an organization. For example, how do you explain that Todor Alexandrov blames Sandanski for supporting a separate Macedonian ethnicity? --FlavrSavr 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the statute of the organization you are referring was changed. I find it quite unbelieveable that AleksandarH said that: Yes, he fought for authinomous Macedonia, he fought for Ottoman Turks (1908-1910), he fight against Bulgarian government, he fought against Greek propaganda, he fought against these Macedonians who defend the idea about direct including of Macedonia to free Bulgarian State. So basically, he spent his life figthing against the Bulgarian government, the Bulgarian national ideal, the Bulgarian Wikipedia [1] blames him for destroying the Bulgarian national cause, and the claim that he is a Bulgarian, is indisputable, and you dispute the fact that his national identity, is in fact, disputed? --FlavrSavr 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jane Sandanski was killed by the Bulgarian tzar Ferdinand's orders. You also forget the fact that the IMARO included non-Bulgarian, and non-Macedonian revolutionaries, most notably Vlachs (such as Pitu Guli). Therefore, I must conclude, you have no basis to deduce that he was indisputably Bulgarian. To put it in other words, you are POV pushing. It would only be neutral if we add Macedonian/Bulgarian there - Wikipedia does not endorse any side in disputes. I'm putting my additions back. --FlavrSavr 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are flawed my friend. First of all the claim that he is killed by orders of Ferdinand requires a source. Second, Pitu Guli is clearly categorized as Macedonian, instead of Vlach according to your argument. Third, the cause you fight for does not neccessarily reflect on your national identity, let alone your origin. There were westerners fighting in Iraq against the American forces, this does not make them Iraqi though. FunkyFly 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it was your argument to conclude people's ethnicity according to membership within an organization. It was you who had concluded that, because Jane Sandanski was a member of IMARO, and IMARO, at a given point had a name BMARC, therefore he must be a Bulgarian. What you did in the last comment, is actually, deconstructing the only argument you have laid down in this discussion. Therefore, you still have to provide sources to explain why he is a Bulgarian, and, if you really want hard work - to explain why he cannot be a Macedonian. My arguments are presented below, and they include sources. Yours, at this moment, are non-existent.--FlavrSavr 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That is obviously how you see things, and indirectly the reason behind all this discussion. By the way wikipedia does not have to present all view points on the problem, rather only the correct ones. FunkyFly 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your appeal to motive (a common logical fallacy) still doesn't provides us insight how you have deducted that your view is the correct one. Your attempt of teaching me what Wikipedia does and does not is charming, given the fact that you obviously haven't read a bit of the NPOV policy: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. --FlavrSavr 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, I've been quite tolerant here, but your continous reverting really pisses me off. I will not start an edit war, but, rest assured, that I will not allow your POV pushing behaviour. There are means to stop vandalism on Wikipedia, and although I'm not an admin here, your conduct of ignoring sources, and ignoring differing POV than your own, will not go unnoticed. --FlavrSavr 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you really are pissed. Maybe you should take a wikibreak. FunkyFly 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Pushing the so-called "Macedonian Agenda", I thought that thinking died out with Tito, guess I was wrong. And calling Ferdinand Bulgarian is kind of low I guess you have to resort to low blows when you don't have any national identity.

Some sources

These are some sources just to explain why I insist on adding "Macedonian" there, as well. I expect the Bulgarians to add some sources to substantiate their edits, as well, I really don't see why Sandanski could be seen as a Bulgarian. Also, I expect to have the Bulgarian POV also put in a separate section, as it is constructed now, it may lead to a distorted view of the dispute - as if it was the Macedonian POV that is somehow different from the mainstream view, and not vice versa. In fact, there is no "mainstream view", Sandanski is treated almost exclusively within the Macedonian and Bulgarian historiography, as far as I know. OK, the sources:

It is evident that Sandanski's rebels had a motto called "Macedonia for the Macedonians". There is a letter sent from a French diplomat in the Ottoman Empire to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1905, that informs him about Sandanski's actions:

Sandanski's brigades, whose motto is "Macedonia for the Macedonians" are especially active in the Pirin area. (Celle de Sandansky notamment, dont la devise est "la Macédoine aux Macédoniens"...) (Documents Diplomatiques. Affaires de Macédoine 1903-1905. Paris 1905, p. 190) --FlavrSavr 02:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, this interview speaks about people sent by the Committee (The Vrhovist Committee), with a task to assasinate Jane Sandanski.

In an interview with the somewhat famous Serbian writer Branislav Nusic, Sandanski blames Serbia and Bulgaria for their interference in the Macedonian struggle. According to him, Serbia and Bulgaria are guided by selfish interests, and are only trying to expand their national boundaries. There is also an interesting reply by Sandanski:

B.N.:"...So, you are not allowed to enter Bulgaria?"

J.S.: "I cannot go to Bulgaria, but I don't need it. This is my fatherland" (Speaking about Macedonia) (Политика, 21, VII 1908, Београд) --FlavrSavr 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Todor Alexandrov, a pro-Bulgarian IMARO activist, in his letter to Panayot Karanfilov, blames Sandanski for supporting a separate Macedonian nationality. (June 6, 1919) --FlavrSavr 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

FlavrSavr did explain with relevant and neutral sources many things about Jane. Thank goodness, someone doesn't spreads propaganda, but talks reasonably and with facts! Regards, Bomac 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you that you prove my thesis that Sandanski was for authnomous (independent) Macedonia (or Macedonia as a part of young Turks motherland 1908-1909). But here we are talking about the ethnical belonging of Sandanski, not about his polical ideas. All of us know about "Macedonia for Macedonians". But which is Macedonians? Was there some ethnical Пacedonians according Sandanski himself or there was Bulgarians, Greeks, Aromanians and other peoples from MC? And when you are quoting some sources like a letter of Bulgarian revolutionary Todor Alexandrov, please do not quote only a date, but and source too. Otherwise sombody can to redirect the words of Bomac about propaganda to Macedonistic doctrine. Regards, --AleksandarH 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ОК, let me get some things straight. There's been lot of discussion up above, and at the moment, I am repeating myself. The Macedonian POV is that he was a Macedonian. The Bulgarian POV is that he was a Bulgarian. Both sides have reasons for their belief. Wikipedia does not take sides in the dispute, so it's only neutral to to state that he is either a Macedonian, or a Bulgarian. Of course, both sides have to provide sources to support their claims. So far, you haven't provided a single source. Now, what on earth gives you the right to state that he is a Bulgarian? You pressupose that your claim is the correct one - why? If you cannot determine whether JS considered himself to be a Macedonian, how can you possibly tell that he considered himself a Bulgarian? I mean, this is really getting annoying, it is so obvious that you are presenting a biased view, it would be really stupid of me to explain that you can be biased too, if you lack the basic self-criticism to admit that even if you are Bulgarian, you might be wrong, as well. I'm taking the sentence back, further unsourced edits will be reported. --FlavrSavr 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, the source that you needed is - Димитар Галев, Тодор Александров Од автономија до самостојна држава, Скопје 1995. 199. --FlavrSavr 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidences

It is very nuisance when somebody quote some source obviously false. I red entire book of the Macedonian aughtor Dimitar Galev (Димитар Галев, Тодор Александров Од автономија до самостојна држава, Скопје 1995) which FlavrSavr pointed and I did not noticed even a word that Jane Sandanski (Yane Sandanski) wasn’t Bulgarian or was Macedonian as a ethnic group. On the contrary, in the page 58 this Macedonian scientist quote a Turkish politician Habib bay who state in the Ottoman parliament in 1909 that “Jane Sandanski attach Bulgarians to us”

FlavrSavr, I had many discussions with you but you was very correct. What happened? The Macedonistic propaganda of somebody infect you?

Except this, you did not provide some evidence that Sandanski have Macedonian ethnic consciousness. On the contrary – there are many evidences that was consider as Bulgarian by contemporaries and himself. Here some of them:

А) Foreigners

See the quotation of Turkish politician above
American journalist Albert Sonixen (who had many publications on the Macedonian strugle) wrote: “Now when I am writing these lines, I am reading in the newspapers that Sandanski at the head of one band consist of one hundred Bulgarians, followed by mixed battalion of Greeks, Jews and Turks are in the gates of Constantinopole” . (Сониксен, Алберт. Изповедта на един македонски четник, София 1983, с. 180)
The English journalist Frederick Moore: “Miss Stone was captured by Bulgarian revolutionaries (i.e. the band of Y.S.)– they acknowledged that…” (Daily Express, 16 April 1903 )
American journalist Arthur Smith did not describe the nationality of YS, but defined his adherents – the Bulgarians in Macedonia, as Bulgarians : „He (i.е. Sandanski) was deified by poor Bulgarian peasants” (Смит, Артър, Спомени от Македония, София 1983, с.208)

B) Sandanski himself and his adherents

The letter of Bulgarian leader Yane Sandanski to the Greek citizens of Melnik: “Long ago you are regarding our Macedonian-Adrianopole question only as Bulgarian question. The struggle we are on, you consider as the struggle for triumph of the Bulgarian nationality over the others which are living with us …..Let forget henceforth who is Bulgarian, who is Greek, who is Serbian, who is Vlah (i.e. Aromanian), but remember who is underprivileged slave.” (Революционен лист (Revolutionary Sheet), № 3, 17.09.1904)
The speech of YS in Young Tukrs’ meeting in Nevrokop (present Goce Delchev town) from Jule 1908 which was published as a fly-sheet: “Today all we – Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Arnauts (i.e. Albanians) etc swearing an oath that we will work for our common fatherland (i.e. Ottoman Empire) (Дивизиев, Иван. Нов документ за Яне Сандански, Исторически преглед, 1964, №4, с.107-109)
The words of Y.S. , quoted in the memoirs of T. Belev: “The revolution in Macedonia shoud to be proclaimed when the labor masses: Bulgarians, Turcs, Albanians, Vlahs (i.e. Aromanians), Greeks, Jews will be become conscious and will be in revolution status….” (Белев, Т. Из живота на четите. На гости у Сандански (спомен), Илюстрация Илинден, 1933, № 6 (46))
The words of Y.S. , quoted in the memoirs of his adherent Atanas Yanev: “All we are Bulgarians, Taco (i.e. Atanas), but we are killing ourselves for nothing. It is heavy to me… (Published in 1972 – Eho newspaper, 26.05.1972)
The words of closest adherent of YS Todor Panica (1908): “In order to fight for the freedom with success, we are understanding that we have to work like nationalists and like Bulgarians to organize the Bulgarian element – most prepared for organization and struggle. However we are not and wasn’t chauvinists…” (Kambana newspaper, 17.09.1908)
In one article in the one of the newspapers of the fraction of Sandanski the author call to Bulgarian government: “You are an obstacle not for Turkish authorities, not for Turkish state, not for Greeks, Serbians, Turks, but only for Macedonian Bulgarians” (Конституционна Заря, №6, 05.09.1908)
In the other article in the newspaper of Sandanski we are informed about the Bulgarian people in Macedonia, too – Конституционна Заря, № 7, 08.09.1908
Sandanski was one of the leaders of the party of Bulgarians in Macedonia, which name was: Bulgarian People Federative Party (or People Federative party (Bulgarian section). The newspaper of this party was “Narodna volya” (The people will), published in Solun. Here it is one quotation: “Like the newspaper of Bulgarian People Party “Narodna volya” will be on the ground of this part of Bulgarian people, which consists ….” (Народна воля, бр.1, 17.01.1909). There are many evidences in the article of this newspaper for its political platform and national belonging of its leaders.

..................

So, therefore I am asserting: the common oppinion is that Jane Sandanski was a Bulgarian revolutionary from Macedonia who considered in Macedonia as ethnic Macedonian.

--AKeckarov 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You can see my source here. It says that Todor Alexandrov in his letter to Panayot Karanfilov blames Sandanski for attempts of creating a separate Macedonian people. The letter can be found, according to the sources of this site, in Galev's book. The text, and the entire site in itself is obviously pro-Bulgarian. Various pro-Bulgarian thesis are presented there, but none of them actually denies that the letter actually exists. --FlavrSavr 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what you dont seem to get, just because might be working for the creation of a "separate Macedonian people" (create a brand new nation?) it does not mean that he did not regard himself as Bulgarian. FunkyFly 00:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm...we should let the readers decide about this matter. --FlavrSavr 16:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I never asserted that there is a definite proof that Jane Sandanski had an ethnic Macedonian conciousness. My concern is that all sides of the dispute are fairly described, according to the NPOV policy. --FlavrSavr 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You say that the common opinion is that JS was a Bulgarian revolutionary. Nobody denies that it is the common opinion in Bulgaria, and nobody denies that the common opinion of the foreign contemporaries of JS (in general, there are exceptions) was that all Macedonians are Bulgarians. But can you cite me a modern neutral source that claims that Jane Sandanski was a Bulgarian? I doubt that there is a significant academic consensus for this, or to be more precise, there is no investigation of Jane Sandanski activities by significant number of foreign sources/historians. Therefore there are basically two views - Macedonian and Bulgarian. --FlavrSavr 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the above said, it is probably best to say that Jane Sandanski was a IMARO revolutionary, and that there are confronting views about his ethnic affiliation. Then, this would be followed by Sandanski's biography, and after that, a brief overview of the confonting state views and the reasons for their belief (of course, quoting their sources). Then the reader himself would decide which side is right or wrong. How does this sound? --FlavrSavr 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure there is more evidence to support the Macedonian view, however, at this moment, I have absolutely zero time to provide it. But, eventually, I will. --FlavrSavr 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, this macedonistic (not pro-Bulgarian) site is a correct in this point. Galev gave in the last page of his book a facsimilee - part of a letter of T.Alenandrov in which wasn't mention the name of YS, but mention D. Hadzidimov, M. Gerdzikov (who was not Macedonian in geographical sence), G.Petrov amd some "sandanists", who wanted autonomy for Macedonia and to create separate geographical and economical unit, and even separate macedonian people. In this case, please note the follows: 1. The letter came from arrant opponent до YS (after the murder of Sandanski) who tried to smear his enemies; 2. T.A. did not mention Y.Sandanski, but some of her fraction. Who exactly we do not know? Maybe betwen them are the Bulgarians from Misia and Thrace - M. Gerdzikov (from Plovdiv), A. Buynov (from Shumen), Hr. Chernopeev (from district of Lovech), T. Panica (from Orjahovo on Danube), Chudomir Cantardzhiev (from Sliven)? (Actually along with D. Hadzidimov these was the ideologist of the fraction of Sandanski) So who was non-Bulgarian? Sandanski? These men? For me the letter is vague (Due to the fact that Galev did not point the origine of this letter, I'll try to verify this).

I'll wait for some evidences which support Macedonistic view. Please do not forget that we are not argue about the main political purpose of Yane Sandanski - the authonomy of Macedonia and South Thrace etc, but we are argue about his ethnic belonging (consciousness). Regards, --AKeckarov 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User FlavrSavr could you be so kind to explain why was all this rush and inadequate demands:

Of course, both sides have to provide sources to support their claims. So far, you haven't provided a single source. Now, what on earth gives you the right to state that he is a Bulgarian? You pressupose that your claim is the correct one - why?

I mean, this is really getting annoying, it is so obvious that you are presenting a biased view, it would be really stupid of me to explain that you can be biased too, if you lack the basic self-criticism to admit that even if you are Bulgarian, you might be wrong, as well.

Several things to note – first this discussion board doesn’t need to be a place for rants, emotions and shallow poses, if you feel the necessity to defend a cause as it seems the case you can find plenty of other forums. Second – this board definitely is not a place for educating, if you are not prepared on the matter in question you are obviously not a worthy contributor here. So it is ridiculous to demand from others to provide you with sources on the subject in the way you do it – actually it is YOU that must be acquainted with all relevant data both in support of your view and your opponents’ view. So, can you say that you are aware of at least a good deal of facts and evidences about YS and a good deal of factual data related to YS and his background – his people, compatriots, the organization he was member of, the faction within this organization he belonged to, etc., etc., etc.. An impartial and scientific approach requires knowledge of the overall picture of the epoch and the persons concerned down to the smallest details not some amateurish exercises of layman rhetoric. Do you seriously think that collecting some evidences (fringe as they turned out to be) and forced conclusions at some moment and suppose no one was present to provide evidences for the other party would mean that you will be in your full right to impose your views in the article. Is it deliberately or out of ignorance that you resort to selectiveness of facts and dismissal of other important evidence – a common disease of macedonist historiography by the way. All this seems as bad practices to me, and it will not be exaggerated to say that your actions are causing more harm than good. I will suggest that everybody watch closely on you in the future ‘cos it seems your intentions (in the context of the encyclopaedia) are not good.

A little about the ‘dueling’ you think you are involved in – this is not the thing or at least it shouldn’t be. No emotions, no disrespect, impartiality and unbiased approach by prepared persons, this is what this free project needs in my opinion. And most of what you showed in this discussion is better suited for calm sleeping of an uneasy mind at night, rather than some serious debate. And good manners would suggest that before going to prepare for the next sparring you say at least a thank you to my and your in some sense compatriot Anton Keckarov.

Also I want to ask you something – can you please refrain from such impertinent and insulting remarks as this one:

Тоа е вистина дека го почитуваат бугарите. Сум ги видел книгите за Сандански во Софија. Комита 00:46, 6 Март 2006 (UTC) Да тоа е точно, иако навистина не знам по кој историски и морален критериум можат тоа да го тврдат

regards Asenizator 09:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Ottoman polls and queries and stuff didn't consider nationalities, but religious factions. Since there was no Macedonian Orthodox Church at the time, all Macedonians were consdiered Bulgarians, because the Bulgarian church was the only one around. Also in this context, Macedonian Muslims were considered Turks. I will quote this in the near future when I have the time. Zaebangad 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And why did people of Macedonia associate with the Bulgarian church then? Because they felt Bulgarian. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Petty question

Why does ethnic Macedonian go first? Sandanski never alluded to the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity in his time, only mentioned it as a future enterprise, and even omitted it completely when making one of his lists of the ethnicities of Macedonia. Even in an alphabetical order, Bulgarian should go first. --Tēlex 18:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding petty stuff, does anybody in Cyprus ever heard about J.S.? And have a strong opinion about him? :) --Cigor 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - most people running sites like www.macedoniagreece.com are Greek nationalists from Cyprus, e.g. Nikos Sampson ;-) --Tēlex 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. I am sure there are plenty Greek nationalists from Cyprus, I don't deny that. I just doubt that anybody from there bother to read about some Slavic revolutionary fighting for non-Greek cause. That would be like somebody in Macedonia reading about some revolutionary from Cyprus from the beginning of 20 th. Century and having strong opinion about him - don't get me wrong, I am sure Cyprus is beautiful island, and I actually know a thing or two about its history. --Cigor 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, according to Greek nationalists, they fought for an anti-Greek cause [2]. --Tēlex 18:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Croatia and Slovenia

Can somebody quote some Croation and Slovemian sources after 1991 about the nationality of Y.S.? --AKeckarov 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename

I believe this one should be moved to Yane Sandanski. "Jane" is a female English name. /FunkyFly.talk_ 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Common oppinion

I found the following comment on this talk page:

"So, therefore I am asserting: the common oppinion is that Jane Sandanski was a Bulgarian revolutionary from Macedonia who considered in Macedonia as ethnic Macedonian."

However, according to the article, Jane Sandanski is considered an ethnic Macedonian throughout former Yugoslavia. I believe the population of former Yugoslavia is far greater than that of Bulgaria. Logically, it's NOT the common viewpoint that Sandanski was Bulgarian. It would make it a minority oppinion. Zaebangad 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia does not exist anymore. No sources he's considered ethnic Macedonian in Croatia and Slovenia. Also, former Yugoslavia is the ONLY place he's considered ethnic Macedonian. /FunkyFly.talk_ 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No one in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia or even Montenegro cares about who and even what Sandanski is, to my knowledge. In Serbia, they still to an extent support the Macedonist ideas, but this is not as strong as it used to be. Also, you see it completely wrongly — it's not a former Yugoslavia vs. Bulgaria issue, it's an issue of deliberate misinterpretation of history. Todor →Bozhinov 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Quotes without sources

We do not want to replace Turkish tyranny and Turkish sultans with any other tyranny, including Bulgarian tyranny and Bulgarian king. We want independent, free, Macedonia to Macedonians.

We do not hate Bulgaria and its people but its policy which is against our ideals and interests.

We need to work in reviving the conscience of Macedonian people as a separate nation, that they have the right on freedom, and that they need to fight for their freedom without relaying on foreign help, because those who come to “free us” will actually enslave us.

We have our land reform program that is closely related to our political program: the first one is expressed trough demands of allocating the land to the peasants, the second one encompass the goal of creating Macedonia as autonomous province within Ottoman Empire. But most of all, we afraid of our “dear friends” – Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks to come to “liberate us”, for they will come to enchain us.

Long ago you are regarding our Macedonian-Adrianopole question only as Bulgarian question. The struggle we are on, you consider as the struggle for triumph of the Bulgarian nationality over the others which are living with us ... Let forget henceforth who is Bulgarian, who is Greek, who is Serbian, who is Vlah (i.e. Aromanian), but remember who is underprivileged slave.

Today all we - Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Arnauts (i.e. Albanians) etc swearing an oath that we will work for our common fatherland (i.e. Ottoman Empire).

All we are Bulgarians, Taco (i.e. Atanas), but we are killing ourselves for nothing. It is heavy to me...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.163.40 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote source

http://www.promacedonia.org/mpr/documents/sandanski.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploutarchos (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Minority of historians?!

Jane Sandanski in Macedonia is considered an ethnic Macedonian. This is in the official history of the Republic of Macedonia and almost all (if not ALL) of the historians (and the population) consider him Macedonian. Now, where have you find that information that 'a minority of historians consider him an ethnic Macedonian'? Even more, the word historians shouldn't be mentioned. The truth is that 'in Macedonia he is considered an ethnic Macedonian'. ALL of Macedonia's history books (and school books) write about Sandanski as a Macedonian. It doesn't matter wheter he is or isn't a Macedonian (personally, I think he is), but that statement ('a minority of historians') is utterly untrue. SUM: I will remove the minority part and I expect you to write why you make the revisions. INkubusse 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is considered "Macedonian" only in the Republic of Macedonia, and that makes them a minority. Mr. Neutron 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and it is the works of historians (real historians, that is) that we seek. I know about the schoolbooks in the Republic (the First and the Second great ethnic Macedonian kings). Even if you wish to look it the other way around - every single Bulgarian considers him to be a Bulgarian - so we have approximately 6 mil Bulgarians against 1-1,3 mil ethnic Macedonians. It's pure mathematics - 5-1 - this makes a minority, doesn't it? Keep in mind that this was just an example - reliable sources are needed to back up everything, not just statements. And as mentioned before - Republic of Macedonia schoolbooks are far from such a standard. --Laveol ^T 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, you missed the whole point, entirely. I'm not insane to suggest such a thing, the way you understood, I know you wouldn't allow anything good for Macedonia to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I'll try to rephrase it: 'He is considered an ethnic Macedonian by a minority of historians in the Republic of Macedonia.' means that he is considered an ethnic Macedonian only by a minority of the historians in Macedonia, not all the historians in the world. The statement says that only a small part of the Macedonian historians consider him an ethnic Macedonian. Do you get it? Of course, all the Macedonian historians are just a small part of the world's historians, but read the sentence once again: by a minority of historians in Macedonia. I hope you understand and finally stop revising something that should not be revised. It may be: ' He is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia ', just like on the articles about the other revolutionaries. Yeah, that's what I'm gonna do now and you, PLEASE tell me what is wrong with that! Oh, and I hope you agree that all Macedonians (the Macedonian historians especially) consider Yane Macedonian. Happy converting Macedonia's history to Bulgarian, Mr. Neutron! INkubusse 02:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

I changed Bulgarian revolutionary with A revolutionary from Macedonia; instead a Bulgarian revolutionary I wrote a revolutionary figure in Macedonia. There is NOTHING nationalistic or whatever you say in what I wrote (unlike the previous version). Bulgarian revolutionary is totally unacceptable and I UNDERSTAND (unlike you) that Macedonian revolutionary is unacceptable for you! But WHAT IS WRONG, OH, PLEASE TELL ME, WHAT IS WRONG with a revolutionary figure in Macedonia?!? It doesn't hurt anybody, it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings and it doesn't hurt THE TRUTH and Wikipedia's principles! If you disagree, PLEASE tell me why that is. I assure you, I won't allow you to vandalize Wikipedia (and history) and I'm sure the other wikipedians won't allow that either! Awake from that romanticist nationalistic dream and give justice a try! INkubusse 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Only over my dead body will you vandalize Jane! (hehe, I like that :D) INkubusse 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He was Bulgarian revolutionary, even so Serbs recognised this fact! [3] Jingby 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if the Serbs DID? Today, the Republic of Macedonia (which is a republic, not just a region) recognizes him as a Macedonian. And Wikipedia shouldn't omit that. I'm not suggesting Macedonian revolutionary, I'm only saying that Bulgarian revolutionary is unacceptable. P.S. The Serbs today recognize him as a Macedonian, but what has that to do with the main article? Jeez'... INkubusse 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Svik, I'm glad you're starting to get the point (that this article should stick to the NPOV as well), but if you're aware of what you left behind, than you're (as well as all of your nation) a vandal. Namely, here are the things you missed:

You wrote: Born: Vlahi, Bulgaria, present-day Bulgaria -- I don't know if this makes sense to you, but I think Vlahi, Macedonia, present-day Bulgaria would match the truth.
You removed: He is paid tribute to every year by the members of UMO Ilinden-Pirin, an ethnic Macedonian political party in Bulgaria, in the Rozhen Monastery. -- I really don't know why you don't want to face the truth, buddy. But if you don't, than you're a vandal! It's your choice.

Those were the things you've changed and I beg you to think twice before the next time you do it. INkubusse 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The interview

Another thing: I know that the interview you cited is pure, how you say, BULLFECES (I hope this isn't inappropriate), it's ridiculous even to talk about its authenticity. The real one isn't even close to this version, this is a very bad forgery, but many of the Wikipedians don't know that. But they don't know if it is authentic either! They need something they can rely on aandd that is called A Reference. Now, how do we know if the reference is reliable?! Can somebody answer this question?

Here's the current version of the quote:

The Macedonian revolutionaries, who after a long and ruthless struggle with the Turkish tyranny lived to see their dream — winning their Fatherland's liberty, cannot permit its falling under Serbian and Greek dominance. They will not refrain even from the most formidable terrorist means in order to achieve their most cherished dream — Free Bulgarian Macedonia!" (interview for Italian newspaper Seculo, Tirana, 1912);

and here is the reference: [4]. promacedonia.org is a poor site intended to spread propaganda and is not even close to a qualified source! I can create a website just like this one that states that George Bush was an Iraqi militant since his birth! Would that be enough for a citation on his article? Huh? The point is that the reference for that quotation is simply not enough and under Wikipedia's standards and thence the quotation should be removed. If you get the point, I'm very glad; if you don't, please ask what's unclear! Regards, INkubusse 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear INkubusse, you need facts before reverting something on this page. Please, do not remove sourced information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.23.122 (talk) 13:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. 87.78.23.122, sourced information doesn't always mean true information. Especially when the source is some poor site like promacedonia.org. Jesus! INkubusse 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is the newspaper itself. Also Matrix, please top blindly reverting to different POV versions each time. Mr. Neutron 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting it as your version is far more POV than the one imposed by INkubusse. Can you find some more reliable sources that the ones taken from the nationalistic sites like promacedonia.org?? MatriX 17:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: the source is the newspaper itself. Stop reverting to different POV version each time. It is also a pretty famous quote. You can find it referred to many times if you make a search. Mr. Neutron 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide just one another example other than the one at promacedonia.org? MatriX 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating for the third time. Promacedonia.com did not write the quote. It is from a newspaper from 1912 and that is enough of a reference. Mr. Neutron 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Neutron, can you provide some reliable source other than promacedonia.org that gives the same quote? I cannot find it anywhere :( MatriX 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Try this search [5] after all, it is a quote in Bulgarian, I'm not sure if Sandanski spoke English. I reiterate, the newspaper is the ultimate source. Mr. Neutron 18:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried it, but they are all Bulgarian interpretations of the events. I'm not saying that they are all wrong, but if you can make this search: [6] you can see the opposite interpretations in Macedonian. Read, for example, this article: [7]. That is why I'm looking for a reliable source coming outside Bulgaria or Macedonia. MatriX 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You fail to see, this is not an interpretation, but a direct quote. Mr. Neutron 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be convinced when I see the original post by the Italian newspaper MatriX 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or NPOV

Dear fellow Wikipedians, dear NPOV people and dear Bulgarians, I suggest that you read this before reverting my last change and calling me a vandal. I changed three (3) things from the last version and here's why:
1. before: ...was a Bulgarian revolutionary...

now: ...was a revolutionary from Macedonia...'

The fact that Sandanski was a revolutionary from the region Macedonia is something we all agree upon. His ethnicity, on the other hand, is not something we know for sure. That's why I think that a revolutionary from Macedonia is far more NPOV than the previous one.

2. before: no info about the POV in Macedonia!

now: He is considered a Bulgarian in Bulgaria, and a Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia.

Since we won't agree whether he was Bulgarian or Macedonian, I offer you the most NPOV solution: mentioning the both POVs.

3. The interview for Seculo: I think the others here are starting to realise that promacedonia.org is not the ultimate source of truthful information about the history of Macedonia. I will refrain from entering an editwar and leave this matter to you guys. I strongly believe that the outcome will be satisfactory. (If you revert the deletion of the quote, don't revert the first two changes!!!)

Something else: I have to mention the external links part! There are four (4) external links, and three (3) of them are links to promacedonia.org . Once again, promacedonia.org can be mentioned as one POV, but 3 out of 4 is too much. I think that this part (the external links) has to be balanced (in the next few weeks though).

After all I've said, I really think that there shouldn't be any argue about the first two things I've changed. If you don't share my opinion, state why and we will discuss. INkubusse 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion. Please, give us at least one text, written by Sandanski, in which he described himself or Macedonian Slav population as "ethnic Macedonian" in the present meaning of these words. Note - he established a political party, called "People's Federative Party (Bulgarian section)" and noted in its statute (written in literary Bulgarian language!) that member of this party could be "every Bulgarian, who is Ottoman citizen over 20 years" (see here). In his "Memoirs" Sandanski called Mrs. Tsilka (kidnapped by his band and born in Macedonian town of Bansko) "Bulgarian" (see in preface here), his language "Bulgarian" (page 19, see here), and one village inhabited by Turks and Macedonian Slavs "Turkish-Bulgarian village" (see first page here). Excuse me, but the Bulgariannes of Sandanski isn't POV. It is historical fact, recognized by several Macedonian Historians like Academician Ivan Katardzhiev. He defines all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies, including Sandanski, as "Bulgarians" (see his interview here) and asserts that separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy is only political phenomenon without ethnic character. By the way, there are many non-Bulgarian records about the Bulgariannes of Sandanski, for example an article in Serbian newspaper "Politika", July, 1908, number 1619, written by famous writer Branislav Nusic, in which Sandanski is interviewed and listed among Bulgarian rebels (see here, fifth column to the right). Stop your war against history! - Jackanapes 20:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P. s. The site promacedonia.org can't be POV in itself because it is online library, dedicated to Macedonian problems. This site contains different books, articles and galleries in several languages, among which there are authentic historical records and publications, academic researches, etc. Some of them certainly contain elements, which could be defined as POV, but this definition can't be made about that site as a whole. This would be pure nonsense. - Jackanapes 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To Jackspanass: You are still missing the point of an encyclopedia. This is not the place to present your original "domestic" documents, eyewitness accounts, primary sources, or God-forbid, the stories that your grandpa and grandma told you :) The site you are quoting is set with only purpose to prove that the Macedonians are Bulgarian, and their history is only Bulgarian, thus is as POV as it can be. The books quoted on that site (written by Bulgarians - without exception) are part of the long lasting, and well-known, campaign of Bulgaria to prove that Macedonians are bulgarian. This is the ENGLISH wikipedia, and as such secondary sources written in English, preferably by objective scholars from English-speaking countries should be used.

As for the name of this article, the by far most common name in the english-speaking world is "Jane Sandanski". Google scholar (not search, mind the difference) shows 43 results for "Jane Sandanski" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=sandanski+jane&btnG=Search) and only 19 for the bulgarian version "Yane Sandanski" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=sandanski+yane&btnG=Search). Google books (not search, mind you) on the keyword "Sandanski" alone (http://books.google.com/books?q=sandanski&btnG=Search+Books) reveals that most books use the form "Jane" for his first name. Hence, in the english wikipedia this article should be called "Jane Sandanski". Now if you want to make an argument (like you did in the talk on the Ilinden Uprising page) that all english-language sources are pro-former yugoslavia, and thus unreliable, please go ahead, but as I said before, then you have a much bigger fish to fry, and wikipedia is definitelly not the place for that :) Capricornis 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To Capricornis: Did you really red www.promacedonia.org? If you did, I am sure that you noticed that this is an electronic library which contents not only bulgarian books. If somebody doubts, he can check them in convinent library. I don't doubt, but I did it, I red many of these books in libraries. Anyway, this library gave an opportunity to chek many of the sources.--GrigorG 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I did. Unlike many people here pushing their own nationalistic agenda, I try to be objective and neutral. All the books on promacedonia.com are carefully selected to support the pro-bulgarian view. Not a single one opposing that view is presented there. If you think that there are no such books, just search google books or scholar and your local US or Canadian library (if you live in bulgaria - there's no need to do this, all the books in any Bulgarian library will be carefully selected to support the pro-bulgarian view).

Two points here:

1. The OVERWHELMINGLY most common name in english literature is "Jane Sandanski"

2. There's NO consensus on his nationality TODAY. And since we are writing TODAY, both sides should be presented.

Capricornis 05:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously both of us try to be neutral. :) It is true that most of books in promacedonia.com is probulgarian. But:

Most of books from XIX-begining of XX century are probulagarian (The oppinion of the most of the Macedonians from this period was probulgarian)
The authors are not only Bulgarian (from present Bulgaria or from Macedonia as region).
Not all (as you asserting) of these books support the pro-bulgarian view. Do you want to bet?

The fact that the most of the books (but not all of them) in this library are probulgarian don't depreciate the vallue of these books as sources in Wikipedia. If you have some doubts it would be better to "attack" the source itself, not the library. I have red books about Macedonian history in libraries in Republic of Macedonia (RoM), Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova etc (I used/order the books from libraries in USA, too), but obviously you do not ever read in scientific library in Bulgaria if you think that "all the books in any Bulgarian library will be carefully selected to support the pro-bulgarian view". It belies idea about scientific library. Even scientific libraries in RoM has many neutral books :)

About the points:

I don't researh carefully the question about the writing of the name of Yane Sandanski in English, but I want to specify that there are two ways. If you think about Google, you are right - "Jane" has more popularity. But if you think about the literature in English (you wrote "english literature"), i.e. historical books, "Yane" has its place. The advantage of the this way is that the English speaker will be familiar with the original pronunciation of this name. However, I think that this is a detail - important maybe, but detail.

I am agree that both sides should be presented. I'll argue with everybody who denies the right of one of the points of view. The question is how to present these opinions. Which was commmon, which is common today and ofcource what was selfconsciousness of this person. He wasn't a thing, he was a person, revolutionary, politician etc. I suggest to continue this question in the next section and here to continue with the other questions.--GrigorG 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us not deceive ourselves: if someone went through all the trouble of putting all those pro-bulgarian books online on promacedonia.com, they did because of strong emotional and nationalistic motives to prove ("scientifically" or "historically") that the Macedonians were always Bulgarian. As such, because of the motivation of the site is questionably, the whole site is tainted, and should not be used as reference, or at a very minimal level.

As for the views, I agree that both version should be presented, but no 'weaseling' putting Bulgarian before Macedonian, etc, etc. It should be made clear that both theories exist and have their proponents, without hinting which one is stronger, better, etc. -respectfully Capricornis 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that when the authors of all of these books wrote them, they knew that after century or years sombody will include their books in his electronic library? And somebody like you will deny them only because in this library has many of this point of view? I am sorry, but it is a little strange for me. Maybe you don't like this library, but what we can do? It is not a problem of the library, nor of the concrete sources. I am sure that if you know another, macedonistic library and more important - if you know macedonistic sources about Y.S. you will show them. But where are they? --GrigorG 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

for 3 days. Please resolve disputes on the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I red almost the whole discussion, I chek some of the refferences, too. I noticed follows:

Sandanski is defined as a Bulgarian (leader) by contemporaries - by Bulgarians (from Macedonia, too), by foreighners and obviously by himself (see in the discussion - the letter, the speech etc). The common opinion is that he was Macedonian as regional belonging and Bulgarian as Ethnic belonging. There are few exceptions, but they are from latest period.

Sandanski is defined as ethnic Macedonian by other ethnic Macedonians in present days and (maybe) by one of his political enemies after his death.

So, I can not see the problem to write namely this: "... was Bulgarian revolutionary from MK. In RoM he is considered as a Macedonian (ethnic group)"--GrigorG 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should go back and read again.

Two points here:

1. The OVERWHELMINGLY most common name in english literature is "Jane Sandanski"

2. There's NO consensus on his nationality TODAY. And since we are writing TODAY, both sides should be presented. The sentence should say "... was a revolutionary from Macedonia who is considered ethnic Bulgarian in Bulgaria and ethnic Macedonian in Republic of Macedonia."

Capricornis 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you didn't read what Grigor said - he was considered ethnically Bulgarian by everybody at the time and is considered Bulgarian by everywhere except in the Republic of Macedonia today. SO once again we have a Republic of Macedonia against the rest of the world duel. --Laveol ^T 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And you did not read what I said: there is NO consensus today, hence since we are writing the wikipedia today both views should be presented. Capricornis 18:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has to inform about both the modern political myths and the historical figure of Yane Sandanski. The documentary base is clear - ethnic Bulgarian leftist, who was political separatist in several periods, but also co-operated with Bulgarian authorities in other periods (during the Balkan wars for example). His Bulgariannes is disputed mainly in Macedonian (and former Yugoslav) circles, but it is also supported by several contemporary Macedonian Historians like Academician Ivan Katardzhiev and the director of the Macedonian state Archive Zoran Todorovski. In fact at the present moment this is more internal Macedonian than Bulgarian-Macedonian dispute! - Jackanapes 21:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Laveol, how can you tell something like: ...he was considered ethnically Bulgarian by everybody at the time and is considered Bulgarian by everywhere,... SO once again we have a Republic of Macedonia against the rest of the world duel?

Do you really believe the whole world thinks like you Bulgarian WP editors do? Read, for example, the following article: [8], you can find the whole text here: [9]

This article was written by the analyst Can Carpat and it describes the Macedonian-Bulgarian relations in a really objective fashion in my opinion. Here are several quotes:

...Both Bulgaria and Macedonia keep harassing poor Clio, Apollo’s Muse of History... Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) was founded in Macedonia. At that time, the founders of IMRO probably did not know what problems the paternity of the Committee was to cause these days. The ethnicity of the mythical leaders like Goce Delcev or Jane Sandanski keep causing serious problems: Are they Bulgarian or Macedonian? Today the main Macedonian organization in Bulgaria, the United Macedonian Organization (OMO-Ilinden) organizes every year a commemorative assembly at Rozhen Monastery to commemorate the death of Jane Sandanski or the “Pirin Tsar”. Violent clashes with the Bulgarian police are inevitable, for Sandanski’s nationality is far from being clear…. When during the 1870s the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was permitted in Bulgaria, it immediately attracted Slav speakers in Macedonia, including the Macedonians. Therefore to identify the Orthodox Macedonians, who affiliated with the Bulgarian Church as Bulgarians, or those, who attended the Greek Church as Greeks would not be historically convincing... Although the IMRO started its guerrilla activities in the name of the Bulgarian nation, one should not miss the fact that as early as 1905, the IMRO was split up into two major fractions. Jane Sandanski’s Seres Group aimed at the formation of an independent Macedonia and a single Macedonian identity (the Federalists), while Boris Sarafov’s fraction aimed at the incorporation of Macedonia into Bulgaria (the Centralists). In order to achieve his aim, Sandanski did not even hesitate to cooperate with the Young Turks. One can conclude that the Macedonians of today are descendants of Sandanski. Bulgarian history is marked with sad efforts in order to annex the dreamland Macedonia...

The article intro stating that he is a Bulgarian revolutionary is not neutral at all. How do mean to hide the fact that Sandanski was a federalist and clearly opposed the incorporation of Macedonia into Bulgaria? Why can't we (both Macedonians and Bulgarians editors, hopefully other objective editors as well) settle down our emotions and try to write a balanced version of the article that would not endorse any side? MatriX 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And what about all the people that considered themselves Bulgarians before the Bulgarian Orthodoh church was recreated? --Laveol ^T 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article operates with anachronistic terms: "When during the 1870s the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was permitted in Bulgaria, it immediately attracted Slav speakers in Macedonia, including the Macedonians." Ethnic Macedonian mass in 1870ies? Still more, Bulgarian Church Movement started in Macedonia in 1840ies in Skopje and strengthened in the beginning of the 1860ies under the leadership of prominent Macedonian-Born Bulgarian enlighteners like Dimitar Miladinovv, Grigor Parlichev, etc. 1870ies were the period of final mass plebiscites for inclusion of Skopje (voted 91% "pro") and Ohrid (97% "pro") eparchies in the Bulgarian Exarchate. This article is far away from most of these events... - Jackanapes 22:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

p. s. By the way, Sandanski wasn't staunch revolutionary, socialist and federalist. He was supporter of Ottoman state unity during the period of the Young Turks' revolution and acted as local Ottoman politician and businessman until Balkan Wars.

Don't forget, his Federalist party section was named Bulgarian, and many of his closest partisans were Bulgarians born outside Macedonia (Krastyo Asenov, Hristo Chernopeev, Todor Panitsa, etc.)... Sandanski's federalism as a project for "single Macedonian identity" (allegedly ethnic identity) - this is highly suspicious intepretation. - Jackanapes 23:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to dilute the discussion, but it is not correct that "the main Macedonian organization in Bulgaria" is OMO-Ilinden. The main Macedonian organization in Bulgaria is VMRO-BND (they have representatives in the parliament etc). This example shows something important. The reason of your assertion is that when you think about Macedonians you think only about Macedonians - ethnic group. Traditional sence of this word is Macedonian as a regional belonging - the same like in the case of Y.Sandanski: regional (MK) and ethnical (BG) belonging. Therefore there are two separate questions about his political ideas (the idea about Balkan federation etc) and ethnical (BG) belonging. Please, see this article on the newspaper of his party [10] and you'll understand my point.--GrigorG 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't open a can of worms. VMRO-BND is a primarily an ultra-right bulgarian nationalist organization and secondary a criminal organization with well documented links to the Bulgarian mafia in the bulgarian press. If it was still the WWII VMRO-BND would be a fascist organization and Karakachanov would be Hitler's best friend. He has recently been sent a message through the press not to set foot on Macedonian (Republic of) soil, or nobody can guarantee for his life. Capricornis 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how VMRO-BND or how the disastrous security situation in the Republic in Macedonia is important for this article. Mr. Neutron 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Capricornis, how you can say that you are trying to be "neutral" after your words about the present Macedonian legal organization (party) in BG - VMRO-BND (IMRO-BNM) and Hitler, about some criminal organization and mafia. Obviously you have not arguments about the point and therefore you want to make a strange politics. Unfortunately, it seems that some ultra ideology holding you in captivity. I mentioned VMRO-BND only because in this discussion, in this section, the marginal party OMO-Ilenden was defined as the main Macedonian organization in BG. From here I express my assertion about the meanings of the term "Macedonian" (which is very important if we want to resolve this dispute) and its dinemnsions in the case of Y.Sandanski. If you have some disagreement in essence say it. Otherwise I'll accept that you have not sufficient arguments in favour of some of your assertions about the ethnicity of Yane Sandanski. Regards, --GrigorG 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not me who made those statements about VMRO-BND and Karakachanov, it was bulgarian newspaper, Trud, 24 Chasa, Focus, etc. Go read some back issues, as I cannot find the articles on the web. Every country has it's ultra-nationalists, Serb's have Sheshelj, Bulgarians have Karakachanov, I am not sure who's the head Ustasha in Croatia right now, and those people are best left ignored, as just like trolls they feed on attention. My points was, lets discuss this article without referring to the ultra-nationalist elements (remember the Nazi party in the 1930s? they started the same way). Capricornis 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitelively you do not know Bulgarian political life. The ultra-nationalistic party in Bulgaria has other name - Ataka. Since IMRO-BNM accept Macedonian belonging only as geographical belonging, it is not strange that they are nationalistic party/organization (but ultra is very POV). Many of Bulgarian nationalists were and are Macedonians. But from here to your analogy with Nazi the path is too long. Obviuosly you like to wrote unproved assertions. In the section above you wrote that all the books in www.macedonia.com are probulgarian. I ask you are you ready to bet, but you say nothing. In the section above you claimed too that there are only probulgarian books in BG libraries!?! Here you defend your own assertion about the analogy to Hitler with nonexisting articles in bulgarian newspapers Trud and 24 Chasa. I'll ask you again: are you ready to bet? I mean your analogy, which connects IMRO-BNM with Hitler and Nazi. Sorry, but I think that with your extreme assertions you prove that you have some, not very moderate, political ideas and you are not interesting about neutral, objective present of the ethnicity and political ideas of Yane Sandanski.--GrigorG 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Ataka and Siderov, but he's so 'out there' that he's not worth even wasting bandwidth about :) I would bet with you, but I am not sure how would you pay the bet to me, since I am pretty sure you won't be able to get a visa either for USA or for Canada :) Capricornis 02:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To all parties, please discuss the article here, not some petty political issues. Mr. Neutron 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It comes too many things you are sure - bulgarian libraries, promacedonia.org, IMRO-BND, now - my abilites to get visa (!?). :)The mooney are not the only way of paing. The looser can put some notice in his page, suggested by the winner. So?--GrigorG 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Several documents and texts of the People's Federative Party (Bulgarian section)

A leading article entitled 'Our Positions' in the newspaper Narodna Volya1 explains the demands of the Bulgarian People's Federal Party, January 17th, 1909

An article entitled 'Two Tactics' in newspaper Narodna Volya expresses the view that 'the Ottoman Bulgarians' should not rely on external intervention, January 17th, 1909

An article in the newspaper Narodna Volya about Gotse Delchev, April 25th, 1909

A dispatch from the special correspondent of the newspaper Dnevnik1 (Diary) in Soloun on the attitude of Y. Sandanski towards the Exarchate, August 8th, 1909

Information on the Constituent Congress of the People's Federal Party, August 22nd, 1909 (In this document it is written "They had also worked out directives for the newspaper Narodna Volya, which became the organ of the Bulgarian People's Federal Party." - note this variant the party's name.)

Source: BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Institute of History, Bulgarian Language Institute, "MACEDONIA. DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS", Sofia, 1978, full English translations here, complete book in English here. - Jackanapes 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Hey Jackanapes, I made some deletions from the References article. I'll discuss about the text I deleted:

He regarded Slav Macedonian population and its language as Bulgarian: in his "Memoirs" Sandanski called Mrs. Tsilka (kidnapped by his band and born in Macedonian town of Bansko) "Bulgarian" (see in preface here), his language "Bulgarian" (page 19, see here), and one village inhabited by Turks and Macedonian Slavs "Turkish-Bulgarian village" (see first page here).

How can you bring out of the box the “bulgariannes” of Sandanski just because Mrs. Tsilka purportedly was a Bulgarian? Is the Mrs. Tsilka some kind of Sandanski’s relative or? What if she was a Turkish woman? That would mean that Sandanski was Turk if we follow your way of reasoning? The same thing with the Turkish-Bulgarian village, inhabited with Macedonian Slavs!? What on earth is the relation with the Sandanski ”bulgariennes” or “macedoinnes”?

The Bulgariannes of Sandanski is recognized by several contemporary Macedonian Historians like Academician Ivan Katardzhiev and the director of the Macedonia state Archive Zoran Todorovski. Katardzhiev defines all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies, including Sandanski, as "Bulgarians" (see his interview here) and asserts that separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaries toward official Bulgarian policy was only political phenomenon without ethnic character.

First, you didn't provide any reference about the claim that the director of the Macedonia state Archive Zoran Todorovski said that.Second, you brought the Katardziev statement out of the context. Here is problematic sentence, but within the context (written in Macedonian, I believe you would read it as you put mk-N on your user page):

ФОРУМ:Дали навистина Делчев се изјаснувал како Бугарин и зошто? КАТАРЏИЕВ: Ваквите прашања стојат. Сите наши луѓе се именувале како „Бугари“... Што се однесува до „бугарштината“ на нашите дејци, мора да се знае тоа дека нашите луѓе поминаа низ бугарски образовни институции,низ школите на Егзархијата, која ја спорведуваше бугарската великодржавна политика. Меѓутоа, брзо се сфати дека бугарската основа - тоа можете да го најдете во делата на Христо Татарчев и на Ѓорче Петров - е тесна основа за мобилизација на сето население во Македонија, она кое имаше потреба од слобода и развој. Затоа доаѓа до промена на името во ТМОРО. Тоа е периодот кога се јавува т.н. македонски политички сепаратизам и тоа е почетокот на развојот на македонската национална свест И во документите на емисарите на ВМРО, кои не се објавени, се констатира следново: дека Македонците не сакаат да им припаѓаат ниту на Бугарите, ниту на Србите, ниту на Грците. Велат дека се самостојни и дека секој што ќе се пројави како Бугарин, Србин или Грк - треба да биде обесен… Ќе треба да заборавите дека таа регионална свест имаше своја основа во влијанието на санданизмот, кој беше апсолутен противник на бугарската политика и кој се залагаше за самостојност на Македонија. Наследството од санданизмот, во времето на Ванчо Михајлов, влијаеше и за содавање на таа регионална свест, а врз неа се изгради и националната свест.

In short, he is claiming that in the Bulgarian context a Macedonian political separatism emerged and that is the beginning of the development of a Macedonian national consciousness, that in the IMRO documents the Macedonians are seen separate from Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks... If you are going to keep the statement about Katardziev, then also add the whole meaning of his words, not just the things that are ok for you.

To finish, can you remove all those references to the texts written in Bulgarian or Macedonian? After all, this is English encyclopedia and I really don’t know how they help the English readers to understand the matter. MatriX 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You had to discus before you deleted the references. To erase referenced texts without discussion is a vandal method. - Jackanapes 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Tsilka was born in one Macedonian city, Bansko in Pirin Macedonia, and she was of Slavic origin, this is undisputable fact. Sandanski defined her as Bulgarian, which means that for him Slavs from Macedonia were ethnic Bulgarians. Your "arguments" about Turks and Sandanski don't have any base because he clealy distinguished ethnic Turks from Bulgarians as it is seen from many documents and speeches, including his "Memoirs".

I will give you the statement of Zoran Todorovski in the meaning similar to this of Katardzhiev's words "all our people named themselves "Bulgarians". Be patient. By the way, this position provoked real scandal in some Macedonian media several months ago.

The statements of Katardzhiev are right in the context, because he make general conclusions, embracing the case of Sandanski as well. He asserts "all our people named themselves "Bulgarians". All our people - this includes Sandanski. Still more, Katardzhiev asserts that there wasn't ethnic Macedonian separatism before 1930ies and even up to 1940ies, but only political separatism among people with Bulgarian ethnic self-consciousness, and this also concerns Sandanski's case:

ФОРУМ: Неодамна, во едно интервју, висока функционерка на ВМРО-ДПМНЕ, зборувајќи за тезата дека левицата во Македонија секогаш била ориентирана кон Белград, а десницата кон Софија, ми го посочи примерот на Димитар Влахов - левичар од ВМРО (Обединета), кој се декларирал како Бугарин.

КАТАРЏИЕВ: Да, тоа е точно. И не само Димитар Влахов. Павел Шатев, Панко Брашнаров, Ризо Ризов и др. Меѓутоа, овде тезата е погрешно поставена. Не е работата во тоа дали левицата се определуваше за Србија, а десницата за Бугарија. Тука се мешаат поимите. Практично, ни левицата ни десницата не ја доведуваа во прашање својата бугарска провениенција. Тоа ќе го доведе дури и Димитар Влахов во 1948 година на седница на Политбирото, кога говореше за постоењето на македонска нација, да рече дека во 1931-32 година е направена грешка. Сите тие ветерани останаа само на нивото на политички, а не и на национален сепаратизам.

Read the excerpts from this interview again: "Сите наши луѓе се именувале како „Бугари“..." (All our people named themselves as "Bulgarians"...); "Нашите луѓе апсолутно ја прифатија и бугарска култура и се запознаа и со политичкиот живот на Бугарија и со нејзиното револуционерно движење, кое го прифатија како искуство." (Our people absolutely accepted Bulgarian culture and acquainted with Bulgarian political life, with Bulgarian revolutionary movement, which they accepted as an example.); "Првото име на македонска ослободителна организација било „Б'лгаро-македоноодрински револуционерни комитети“." (The first name of Macedonian liberating organization was "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committees.); "Практично, ни левицата ни десницата не ја доведуваа во прашање својата бугарска провениенција." (Practically neither the left wing, nor the right wing disputed their Bulgarian provenance.); Сите тие ветерани останаа само на нивото на политички, а не и на национален сепаратизам. (All these veterans /until 1944 according to Katardzhiev!/ remained only on the level of the political, but not national separatism /from Bulgariannes/.)

The English speaking readers have to know that they read non-original sources, translations of original documents. All texts, created by Sandanski and his supporters, were written in literary Bulgarian and this is another indicaton for their Bulgariannes. Why didn't they use their local dialects or Krste Misirkov's Macedonian language, proposed in 1903, instead?

Finally, don't erase any relevant reference in the future in vandal way. - Jackanapes 08:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Promised excerpts from an interview "Уште робуваме на старите поделби" (in English: "We are still in servitude to the old divisions") with Zoran Todorovski, published on the site [11], which is unavailable at that moment (the same publication was used as reference in the article Gotse Delchev on June 26, 2007, when it was accessible):

"Речиси сите наши дејци, од левицата и десницата во етничка смисла биле исти, сите се декларирале за Бугари." ("Practically all our revolutionaries from the left and from the right wing in ethnic sense were the same, all declared themselves as Bulgarians.")

"Сите се декларирале како Бугари, и Мисирков." ("All declared themselves as Bulgarians, Misirkov too.")

About Sandanski:

www.tribune.eu.com: "Новинарот Виктор Цветаноски обидувајќи се во „Утрински весник” да спротивстави бугарска (Тодор Александров) и македонска кауза, вели: „Сандански ја застапувал тезата дека треба да се работи меѓу македонскиот народ и на теренот да му се објаснува дека тој е посебен народ...”?

Зоран Тодоровски: Никаде Сандански нема таква изјава. Тој имал исти погледи и ставови како и другите македонски дејци од левицата и десницата, и тој се сметал за Бугарин. За него има малку документација, има повеќе другите што пишуват за него. И она малку што го напишал, кога кажува за населението во Македонија, никаде не спомнува македонски народ како посебен етнос, туку дека: „Во Македонија живеат Бугари, Турци, Албанци..." (www.tribune.eu.com: "The newsman Victor Tsvetanoski, trying to contrast Bulgarian (Todor Alexandrov) and Macedonian cause in "Untrinski vesnik", says: "Sandanski defended the thesis that must to work among Macedonian pеople and to explain to the people on the field that they are separate nation?" Zoran Todorovski: "Sandnski doesn't have such statement anywhere. He had the same views and opinions like the others Macedonian figures from left and right wing, he considered himself as Bulgarian too. For him there is little documentation, there are more records from other people speaking about him. And in that little dicumentation, written by him, when he speaks about Macedonian population, he doesn't mention Macedonian people as separate ethnos, but "In Macedonia live Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians...") - Jackanapes 10:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your way of reasoning is really strange. Let's first speak about Mrs. Tsilka again (oh, how funny is this part…). She was purportedly born in Bansko, Pirin Macedonia (a Macedonian city as you are saying), but she was Bulgarian. Does it come to your minds that beside Macedonians that surely lived and still live in Bansko, there were Bulgarians too? Are you saying that no single Bulgarian lived in that city during that period? Are you really serious? It is perfectly likely that Bulgarians also lived in Bansko (you do not doubt that in other occasions, you are claiming this nebulosity just when it is “useful” to your attempts to prove the Sandanski’s “bulgariennes” - what a strange word, I never heard of it), and it is perfectly possible that Mrs. Tsilka was a Bulgarian that lived in Bansko along with other people there (Macedonians). But, to return to your point, you are inserting the following “reference” in the article:

He regarded Slav Macedonian population and its language as Bulgarian: in his "Memoirs" Sandanski called Mrs. Tsilka (kidnapped by his band and born in Macedonian town of Bansko) "Bulgarian".

What strange kind of reasoning is that you are certain that Sandanski regarded the whole Slav Macedonian population as Bulgarian just because Sandanski called just one poor single woman a Bulgarian?? It would be really funny if it is not tragic (and you are calling me a vandal because I'm deleting such nebulosity). Ok, I'll not delete it (maybe you will eventually understand what I'm trying to say and delete it by yourself), but I'd also add my comment there.

I’ll rather not continue arguing about Katardziev statements (I’m getting tired with this endless discussion), I’d rather enhance the references you made so the uninformed readers could get the real point of what Katardziev wanted to say. MatriX 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, at last you admit that there were ethnic Bulgarians in Macedonia in the beginning of the 20th century! Interesting evolution. Then, why don't you think of possibility of existence of ethnic Bulgarian population in the village of Vlahi, where Sandanski was born? ;-) - Jackanapes 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've erased the Tsilka passage, as not very convincing of Sandanski's self determination. Mr. Neutron 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. - Jackanapes 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, maybe use a better description like "for example, Sandanski refered to this person as Bulgarian" because it is a little confusing in its current form. Mr. Neutron 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets leave this case without more references. I've erased it by myself. I'm tired of this. We have enough arguments about the Bulgariannes of our contradictory hero. May be it is time to expand his biography. Greetings, Jackanapes 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackanapes, you restored it with this comment:Tsilka was born in Bansko in local Bulgarian family. Can you explain to me why it is strange that Sandanski called her Bulgarian and how that is a proof that he considered the whole Macedonian population as Bulgarian? MatriX 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear MatriX, Sandanski established a political party in Ottoman Macedonia and named it Bulgarian People's Federative Party, and after this you are asking why he defined one Macedonian woman "Bulgarian"... Please, think more of this. Greetings, Jackanapes 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a second thought about the article and decided to remove all blatant POV-pushing edits based on pure speculations, quotes taken from bulgarian nationalistic sites like promacedonia.org etc. Now the article looks far more neutral. MatriX 11:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Quotes are not taken from that site, and honestly I dont see what the problem is with it, even if they are. Also such mass reverts are close to vandalism. Mr. Neutron 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All references you provide are from img54 or promacedonia.org and they are not reliable sources at all. About the interview of Macedonian historians I already provided enough info that you are simply getting the things out of the context (but you even erased my additional explanations). So, I'll keep removing everything that is not based on a neutral, and, after all, sources written in English language. MatriX 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://img54.exs.cx/img54/2918/pravilnik-sandanski.jpg http://www.promacedonia.org/bmark/lm_voevodi/1_2.htm

That is simply your opinion. The statute is not from promacedonia, it is from "Narodna volja" from 1909. Understand that promacedonia itself is not a source of information, all it does is refers to other books/publications. The only purpose why it is linked is because it actually has the text of those publications, but even if it did not the text can certainly be verified in a library or other means. Plase stop erasing valid sources. Mr. Neutron 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert Sonnichsen

In 17 March 2006, in this discussion AKeckarov quoted one Americam author and contemporary. Here is[12] his words: "Today, as I write this, I read in a newspaper correspondent's despatch that Sandanski led the vanguard of the Young Turk army to the gates of Constantinople with a company of one hundred Bulgars, followed by mixed battalions of Greeks, Jews and Turks". The name of the book is "Confessions of a Macedonian Bandit" (New York: Duffield & Co., 1909). It is published when Sandanski was alive. According to the official ideology in RoM Sandanski was a leader of some ethnic Macedonians. But the foreighner contemporary said that these Macedonians (in regional meaning) were primarly Bulgarians, followed by Greeks, Jews and Turks. Where are Macedonians as an Ethic group? I read the whole book, but didn't find them. Maybe somebody knows some book about Sandanski and IMRO from this epoch which provides some evidences about Macedonian ethnic consciousness among IMRO leaders?--GrigorG 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the same with Mercia Mcdermott, Ellen Maria Stone (the woman kidnapped by Jane) and Sandanski himself - Macedonian is used in regional sense only --Laveol ^T 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mac-Bul ethnic feuds again?

Hey everybody. Jackanapes, Mr Neutron, MatriX and all the others. Why is it that Macedonian-Bulgarian feuds have recently been flaring up so much again? I'm seeing you guys at each other's throats all the time these days. Cool down, pleaaaase.

As for this article, the current footnote 2 with all the "Bulgarian" evidence is bad. It looks like a whole load of WP:OR: Wikipedia editors having collected all sorts of arguments about why and how this guy was Bulgarian. This article should not be arguing about what he was, and certainly not on the basis of you guys' personal interpretations of Primary sources. You can say: "He is considered by X and Y as Bulgarian on the grounds that....". You cannot say: "He is Bulgarian because....". See the difference? Please shorten and rework that footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it happened because of some semi-organised edits made by new Macedonian editors. NikoSilver warned of this a couple of months ago, but nothing can actually be done about organising edits in a forum outside Wikipedia. You might ask him for further info on the case. I can show you though some interesting citations from the Macedonian editors (written in Macedonian): :[13] here User:Strich3d is asking if he should stop editing because of his poor English and start only reverting the articles to help the cause (this is a citation) and in the next section he's complaining that even in the MK wikipedia Todor Alexandrov is described as Bulgarian (Oh, no, what a shame).

Then we have all the things they say about Mr. Neutron starting from calling him names to accusations that he's being paid to edit Wikipedia and so on. According to User:INkubusse who here [14] informs the others that another 'brother' will be joining their cause. Not to mention his regrets that 'idiot' serbian historian had written that Jane was Bulgarian (shame on him). Not to mention the way he talks about Bulgarians (User:INkubusse I mean). Exactly the same can be said about Capricornis who (again in Macedonian) calls Bulgarians with names like tataro-mongols and so on (things considered really offensive by Bulgarians - the reason why some hatefull Macedonians use them).

So my idea was that all this is not in any means accidental as all these new editors use pretty much the same language and by their own words are full of hate for Bulgarian and Greeks. By this I do not want to say that they are one and the same person, but a group sharing the same ideas about their neighbouring countries. --Laveol ^T 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologized for the words I used. It was wrong and unnecessary, and of course untrue, as any school kid can tell you, the proto-bulgarians disappeared many centuries ago. It was said in a moment of passion, for which as you know, Macedonians are very well known for :) I think that the claim Mr. Neutron is 'paid' to edit wikipedia is ridiculous at best. He is simply and individual with a lot of free time :) Capricornis 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a full translation of Strich3d's edit ([[15]])? If it says what you said it says, it's grounds for a long block. Also, I'd be interested to know what Capricornis answered him (again in Macedonian, after promising me not to use that in future: [16], also [17]). And what "brother" is INkubusse referring to, is it the bit where he links to "брат"? (we used to have an en:User:Makedonec here too, but he hasn't been active for long). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FPaS: By using macedonian yet again, I tried to convey a clearer specific message to my fellow Macedonians than I could have done in english. As the always-helpful User: Laveol translated, there was no discussion about any article in it, which was the specific I previously conveyed to you I would adhere to, out of respect for the people who don't understand the language. I am not aware of any wikipedia rule or policy that prevents me or anyone from communicating in any language other than english, ESPECIALLY on other users' personal talk pages. You could have just as well asked me to translate it for you, or used the several macedonian-english web translator available - I would have been glad to oblige, and you could have asked for another version from the always-helpful, always-ready User: Laveol -cheers Capricornis 03:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So here is what Strich3d said : If I can possibly help (to undo) pages in relation with Macedonia just say so. Cause with my ... ummmm ... edits of a homeless guy/ bad edits I just make the articles worse, but working as a team is always better. My English is far from good, but still I might be useful. Cheers. The other part is a link to a forum with materials about the etnicity of Todor Alexandrov. And then: "He is bulgarised even in the Macedonian wikipedia as a result of Yugoslavian propaganda".

Capricornis instructs the other two to follow Mr Neutron's contribs and in every article concerning Macedonia to present him facts for the opposite. "He only edits Macedonian articals and spreads Great Bulgarian propaganda". --Laveol ^T 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Laveol is getting a little bit naughty here :) Didn't your mother teach you it is bad to tell on the other kids? Hehehehe.. Indeed I did write the other two guys instead of vandalizing pages and causing troubles to use FACTS against the arguments. I believe that would be much better for everyone and wikipedia itself. I have not had the pleasure to meet any of the Macedonian gentlemen here before, so for any future interaction with them - I blame wikipedie :) As for following someone's contrib, I learned that right here on wikipedia by my own contrib history being closely followed, and I will let the perpetrator remain unnamed :)

My statement about Mr. Neutron's exclusive involvement with issues related to Macedonia stands! One look at his contrib history and diffs shows that there is not a SINGLE article he has edited that the edit has not been about Macedonia. Even the in the Chernobyl disaster article he edited the 'Macedonia' part to 'Republic of Macedonia' in case someone got confused ;) What a dedication!!!! Capricornis 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of control, you're making some really serious accusations! I think that the obvious lack of Macedonians in this discussion proves you wrong! You sound ridiculous with that ..informs the others that another 'brother' will be joining their cause..! I informed them that a friend of mine (that's why I called him brother!) who has a vast knowledge of history should join the disputes, becuase he knows where to find sources (books, web-sites, even persons) about the article. And the cause part is the best! A CAUSE?!? What are we, some terrorist organization?! Is that what you're trying to say? You have a cause, that's the Great Bulgaria cause, WE DON'T, we won't a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW! We're not in a war, we're on Wikipedia, try to understand that. INkubusse 02:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, right now it very much appears that all you guys are in fact in a war, on Wikipedia. And all of you guys currently seem to be caught in the situation where fighting for your "side" is your predominant activity. (Hey, what about going away and editing something uncontroversial, for a change?) Anyway, I'm inclined to use the solution prescribed some time ago by the Arbitration Committee in another such case:

All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves.

And until then, as an interim measure for building more transparency and trust on all sides: Absolutely no non-English communication about anything potentially controversial in relation to your disputes. Not about articles, not about fellow contributors, not about administrative measures sought, nothing. Okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may add a tiny, little bit of self advertising here: please count how many new articles I've started and how much significant contribution to existing, non-controversial ones I have added, and please count the same for all the Neutrons, Laveols, Jacankpasses, Grigorgs, and all the other jolly company here. You will realize that I have been a very constructive member of wikipedia, with a few exceptions, which cannot be said for most other individuals mentioned here. (Oh thank you, thank you for the applause, you may sit down now :))) Capricornis 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question and Answer

I have one question to Fut.Perf.. Is the following part of the footnotes "personal interpretations of primary sources" or WP:OR according to you:

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)

Thank you in advance! - Jackanapes 11:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's better than the first part, although the choice of material might still be tendentious (you have no corresponding discussion of on what grounds other people consider him otherwise, presuming such arguments exist.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this second part confirm the spirit and thus the reliability of the first part? - Jackanapes 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't done any "personal interpretations of primary sources", I've translated exact quotations from historical records instead. There is significant difference. Jackanapes 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, making "exact quotations from historical records", in order to advance a position, is exactly what WP:NOR is all about. If those exact quotations from historical records have not been previously used by reliable published secondary sources in order to advance that same position, they are useless for us. And in that case, just quote the secondary sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think that there are historical records about these historical figures, organizations and events with quite different sense - offer them. Your accusations are based on abstract presumptions only. - Jackanapes 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you didn't understand me correctly. I'm not saying these documents are wrong or you are quoting them wrongly. I'm saying you shouldn't be quoting anything, unless it has been quoted previously in the literature in order to make the same point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are talking about "personal interpretations of primary sources or WP:OR" - in the footnotes you have both researchers' opinions and corresponding primary sources. - Jackanapes 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "both" is the problem. You should have only researchers' opinions (in appropriate measure for all sides), and corresponding primary sources only insofar as they illustrate the exact arguments made by those researchers, and attributed as such to them. So, for instance: which modern published expert has argued that the choice of written language used by Y.S. in his party manifesto is a piece of evidence for saying he identified as an ethnic Bulgarian? We need somebody who has made exactly this point before. (Not that I'm saying it's wrong, mind you, I just want to know who outside Wikipedia uses it as an argument.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, read the discussions above carefully. Macedonian academician Ivan Katardzhiev says: "Нашите луѓе апсолутно ја прифатија и бугарска култура и се запознаа и со политичкиот живот на Бугарија и со нејзиното револуционерно движење, кое го прифатија како искуство." ("All our people absolutely adopted Bulgarian culture and acquainted with Bulgarian political life, with Bulgarian revolutionary movement, which they accepted as an example.") This "absolute adoption of Bulgarian culture" includes literary Bulgarian language as well. - Jackanapes 10:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, stop pushing the Katardzhiev (and what was the other one, Zoran something?) quotes. Just because some senile academician said something doesn't mean that the rest of the Macedonian nation (or academics, or anyone) agrees with that. -peace Capricornis 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There there now, that "senile academician" is a member of MANU. Mr. Neutron 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah MANU, ah the sadness :) So many wonders of nature are herded there, that's why most of the Macedonian public mostly ignores them Capricornis 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackanapass: Let me break it down for you what FPaS is saying: Unless some recognized historian (preferably not from the Balkans) has used those quotes, interviews and original material in some secondary-source analysis you CANNOT use those quotes, interviews, memoirs (or what have you, you seem to be full of it) to advance and 'prove' your position

(yes that holds true even if they were published in macedonian magazines). -thank you Capricornis 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But it still means that a part of the macedonian academics think so. I think I remember a huge scandal around the words of the director of the Macedonian State archive. Don't tell me that "a senile academician" is given such a high position (prestige if not high). --Laveol ^T 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They are given more, you would be surprised. The sadness of Macedonian politics! Capricornis 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What you say explains a lot...really a lot. I'm glad to hear it from you. --Laveol ^T 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

anytime :) Same goes for Bulgarian politics, and all Balkan ones. It is a pitiful state of affairs, that's why most of the normal world avoids it Capricornis 18:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain this to INkubusse? He seems to think otherwise. Mr. Neutron 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, the link you give has very little to do with the sad state of the Balkan politics than with 'blowing off steam' as they say here. It is regretful that such words were used, obviously it doesn't benefit anyone, the least the macedonian point of view, and it proves that even as conspirators, the macedonian side is still very 'green', otherwise statements like this would definitely not be be published on a publicly accessible channel :) Capricornis 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that joke when a guy goes in front of a judge for the Nth time and gets sent back to the joint for the Nth time and before he leaves, he asks the judge: "Your honor, can you punish me for something I think?" The judge goes: "No, not really, your thoughts are your own business", the convict then says: "Then your honor, I think you are an idiot", and he gets his sentence doubled :))) There are many things to be learned from this, on many levels -cheers Capricornis 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds like one of those jokes Vancouver lawyers tell during lunch time? Mr. Neutron 00:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I had no doubt you traced my IP since the first time I appeared. Maybe I should do a couple of posts from US to confuse you ;) Capricornis 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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: [18]. --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: [19]

The correct term is "standard-bearer", not "flag carrier" (flag carrier is just direct translation from Bulgarian)
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.
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:

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.
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:

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

..

Sandanski's ethnicity

Some sources

Evidences

User FlavrSavr could you be so kind to explain why was all this rush and inadequate demands:

Petty question

Croatia and Slovenia

Rename

Common oppinion

Famous Quotes without sources

Quote source

Minority of historians?!

Enough!

The interview

Vandalism or NPOV

Protected

Several documents and texts of the People's Federative Party (Bulgarian section)

References

Albert Sonnichsen

Mac-Bul ethnic feuds again?

Question and Answer

Different view, for the ‘Controversy’ section

Missinterpretation of a secondary source

Category

Fair use rationale for Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg

References

name

POV edits

Misinterpretation of the reference

Accusation for vandalism

FALSE REFERENCE

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

Why is Yane Sandanski recognised as a national hero in Macedonia

Latest vandalism by User:Chakmak111

Hristo Siljanov

External links modified

Blatant manipulation

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in history