Talk:Gotse Delchev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The discussions about this article up to 14 May 2005 have been moved to Talk:Goce Delchev/Archive 1.

Contents 1 Please do not practice fly-by and anonymous edits 2 Suggestions for edits 1-4 done (I hope) 3 Banitsa 4 To the macedonian editors 5 POV - pushing 6 Consensus 7 The disputed ethnicity of Goce Delčev 8 Please fix link in "Ethnicity of Goce Delchev" section 9 SICK! 10 Dual nationality 11 Sources that GD was a member of SMARO in 1898 12 The "Documents" section 13 Question 14 Edit warring 15 Numb the doubt 16 Unprotecting 17 Ethnicity 17.1 Letter from Goce Delchev to Nikola Maleshevski 18 More Documents 19 JUSTICE AT LAST 20 Hugh Poulton 21 Requested move 21.1 Survey 21.2 Discussion 22 Removal of false quotation

[edit] Please do not practice fly-by and anonymous edits

IMPORTANT: As this article contains issues that can be contentious, it is best to refrain from fly-by and anonymous edits, even those of the slightest detail. The article has been under protection once already and can easily become protected again: this serves no purpose. Paricipants with issues should address these through any of the current discussions on this page, or by opening a new sub-category. However, it would be best if they propose concrete edit accompanied with good reason and references. It can be a good idea if they could read through this discussion in its entirety: this will allow them to appreciate that many POVs and NPOVs have already been expressed and discussed. --Modi 13:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for edits 1-4 done (I hope)

1. I have tried my best to incorporate and bring coherence to sometimes differing suggestions.

2. This discussion has become too long: should we archive it?

3. If anyone has issues with the current version can we agree to proceed as follows:

• establish a discussion subheading
• locate and cut'n'paste contentious article text into the discussion
• explain what your problem is
• propose an alternative wording

4. While everyone's discussion have had an immense educational value (at least for me), from a practical point of view of refining this article I feel we have gotten carried away on several occasions.

5. Things to do:

• establish the issue of the remains
• full letter translations

Have a nice weekend everybody! --Modi 08:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Modi, the work of GD has a significance for Macedonian statehood but not for Macedonian nationhood - it is Misirkov's work which is of importance for the formation/legitimisation of the Macedonian nation (that part of the work, which did not refer to the Macedonian Slavs as of Bulgarians and which did not advocate for Great Bulgaria), so i have made the necessary edit to that effect. One of the statements has an unclear wording so I wanna ask you what you meant with it. The question regards the bolded text: Bulgarian historians argue that the Macedonian autonomy was never meant to have an "ethnic Macedonian" nature and note that no such distinction existed at that time while explaining that the current use of the term can be problematic. I wish everyone a good weekend, too. VMORO 13:19, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear to me, but maybe I am missing something. Would you like to delete it or some part of it? I thought the whole discussion revealed that Bulgarian historians assert that their was no notion of a Macedonian ethnicity (as distinct from Bulgarian) at the time of GD and many feel that even today this is a dubious proposition. Would you like to propose an alternative text? Cheers, --Modi 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this version of the article is a good examle of a NPOV. Yes, Modi, the discussion should be archived, but I don't know how to do that. I will try to find the full Karev-Delchev letter translation and make proposal for subheadings, the first moment I encounter some free time. Have a great weekend. --FlavrSavr 18:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

AKeckarov "However there aren't...etc"== Hi semi-anon AKeckarov! I have reverted your edit in order to put it here for discussion:

The statement that is proposed for addition in the ethnicity section is:

"However there is no evidence that Goce Delchev had any other consciousness except Bulgarian."

AKeckarov, can you please explain what is the problem that this addition will solve. Once you have done this, those interested in the article can react and we could agree to an addition or edit. I can not disagree or agree with your suggestion as I do not understand your rationale nor do I see any new evidence or references introduced. I trust you can enlighten us with your insights. Thank you and I look forward to your contribution. --Modi 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Modi! Thanks for your atention to my suggestion.

The problem that my sugestion can eventually solve is only one - correctness. The true is that there is no evidence that Goce Delchev had any other consciousness except Bulgarian. One of my educations is History, my family is from Macedonia (Ohrid) and I know very well the official doctrine of Scopie. If there was some evidence for non-Bulgarian consciousness of GD, be sure I and you (after you involved in this discusion) would be informed. Coce Delchev and IMRO had a contradictions with some of Bulgarian governments about methods of the strugle, but their ethnic belonging was Bulgarian, their culture and language was Bulgarian. The ideas of Macedonism (The doctrine that the Macedonians aren't Bulgarians) in this time wasn't popular in Macedonia. There are many, many documents of the liders of IMRO (IMORO) wich proving this. So, I think that my suggestion is in favour of neutrality. If we want to describe correctly every points of view (I don't want to define my point of view only like Bulgarian because it is the point of view of the contemporaries - Turcish, Englishmen etc), we have to think about some sentences in this sence. I do not want to delete non very serious macedonistic (not Macedonian, because in regional sence I am Macedonian too) assertions that in the begining of XX century, in the time of Bulgarian schools and literature the word "Bulgarian" actualy didn't ment "Bulgarian" :), I just want to add one very simple sentence. One of the options is: "The defenders of Bulgarian belonging of Goce Delchev emphasize that there aren't evidences that Goce Delchev had any other ethnic consciousness except Bulgarian"

Further, If somebody wants to know more, he can read the literature of the epoch and to form his own, real neutral oppinion. Ragards, Anton Keckarov, --AKeckarov 16:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I now understand what you want to say. Before discussing the substance of your suggestion, let me express my unease with true-but-negative statements in general, as your suggestion is of this nature. It is very easy to say that "there is no evidence that GD slept in anything else but a bed" (as opposed to, say, a hammock or on a tatami). The reason is because many, if not most, people in that region in those days slept in beds (sometimes not very nice ones, nor would they resemble much the beds used today in that region - at least not beds used by school teachers). The statement is true by deduction from a general notion of bed culture. However, it applies to just about everyone else too. This makes it a non-notable statement and I think we should edit out non-notable statements from wiki articles because they dilute the subject matter.

Your suggestion can be positively reformulated to read:

However, there is evidence that Goce Delchev had a Bulgarian consciousness.

When you look at it in positive language, you can go back to the article and find that it already reads:

"In some of his correspondence he discribed himself as a Bulgarian..." ... is this not almost the same?

And then there is a specific reference with partial translation and picture of his letter to Nikola Maleshevski - the actual evidence is there for all to see!

If you really think about it, all what you want to advance is already there, just formulated positively.

Going back to the negative stile issue, I have a deep dislike of the usage of negative formulations as I find its purpose is usually political. This may not be the case in your proposal but as someone who has been writing on socio-economic and political issues for a very long time, I assure you that being positively assertive is better value, in particular for wikipedia readers. There is little value in figuring out what something is not, as the "not" of most things is an infite list, while the "what is" is finite and useful.

I look forward to your comments and encourage you to create your user page. BTW, have you seen the Ohrid article? Regards --Modi 17:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

AKeckarov, I think, you should really look the discussion first. Actually, I have provided some evidence where he identifies himself with "we, the macedonian people". I don't claim that he had an undoubted macedonian conciousness, but to claim that he was of bulgarian conciousness (or ethnicity) is also misleading. We have no insight of his "conciousness", but we do have insight of his deeds. None of his actions was directed towards the accomplishment of a Greater Bulgarian state. The both views are presented fairly, so the NPOV, is preserved. --FlavrSavr 21:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Modi, I think that you almost convinced me. It is really worth to think about positive and negative stile. There is too many history in every piece in Balkans and too many emotions. I like the history but I am not pleased at its usage for political purposes. Actually, I know that the world is not obliged to listen our Balkan wrangles. I'll see the Ohrid article, thanks for idea.

P.S. However, there is evidences (memoirs of the contemporaries) that GD slept in anything else but a bed - sometimes in the ground, when he was in the moutains in Macedonia with his revolutionary band. The deduction is very useful thing, but the historians are nagging and mistrustful peoples :)) Regards, Anton

FlavrSavr, I'll look this discussion. It is strange for me why you (you or Ivica) didn't provide any evidence in MK wikipedia when I asked you for this. I hope that you pointed here the concrete source for this eveidence - literature (archive, maybe). If you didn't, please do it (I hope that the source is not your textbook). And I hope too that you make difference between Macedonian like regional term (which includes every nationalities in MK) and Macedonian in ethnic sence. Both of we are Macedonians, but obviously you are in both of meanings of the word and I am not. In discussions in MK Wikipedia I had an oppurtunity to explain why IMORO fighting for aythonomy, not for "accomplishment of a Greater Bulgarian state" and I quoted one of its founders - Hristo Tatarchev who claim in his memoirs that the authonomy was only realistic purpose. I reccomend you to see my article Dimitar Vlahov (Димитър Влахов) in BG Wikipedia and to read a part of the confession of the one of Macedonistic and Communist leaders about usage of the terms "Bulgarians" in the begining of XX century. Concerning NPOV I haven't big notes, but it is normal you to be more satisfied. Every compromise is a retreat. The question is who and how much retreats. In a state of expectation for sources (if there aren't in discussion) and with best regards,--AKeckarov 23:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Lutskanov: Hi, everybody! I just want to make one simple remark: The mere fact that the existence of the so-called "macedonian nation" provokes such deep epistemological discussions may be means something? What is it? Is it that the ontological status of this entity is a little bit problematic? ;) By the way, yes, I'm bulgarian (living in Bulgaria);)))

[edit] Banitsa

There are two places called Banitsa in the Serres Prefecture, one is today's Simvoli, and the other one is in ruins. I presume the second one was Delchev's death place, but are there any sources? Andreas 00:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did some research, but with no success. --Realek 08:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a map of the place where Delchev died, so it is indeed Banitsa (ruins). Andreas 15:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the macedonian editors

Could you please provide sources where Goce Delchev determines himself as Macedonian, rather than describing the cause he is fighting for? The letter of Malashevski to Delchev has little value here, especially when Delchev refers to himself as bulgarian in another letter. Any comments? FunkyFly 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think is neutral enough that only revolutionery is mentioned. Independent Macedonia was Goce's ideal, no matter how he proclaimed himself. Maybe he was proclaiming as Bulgarian, but he never fought for Bulgaria. Bomac 18:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

But the ethnicity is exactly about self-identification. You have not provided sources that he self-identified as Macedonian, only that he fought for independent Macedonia, which is completely different. The article clearly says the he fought for indenepenent Macedonia, so let the reader determine how that relates to his nationality, if it is something other than Bulgarian. FunkyFly 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, he might not have fought for Bulgaria, which is true. Bulgaria was not under Turkish rule unlike Macedonia. However, he based his operations primarily in Bulgaria, and the country was of crucial importance to his organization. FunkyFly 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Everyone chooses his/hers self-identification. Goce wanted to be a Macedonian and live in a free and independent country. How can you tell that ,,Bulgarian" should stay, if the Bulgarian didn't fought for it's fatherland, but for another one? For the sake of NPOV, this version should stay. Bomac 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is simply your opinion, which is not by any means NPOV. Provide sources that he identified as Macedonian. FunkyFly 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw your argument reminds me of a Dutch woman, who converted to Islam and went to Iraq to become a suicide bomber. Would you dare claim that she all of a sudden became Iraqui? FunkyFly 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not my opinion. It is logical and that's the way it was. Are you denying that he wanted to live in free and independent Macedonia? Free and independent Macedonia with Bulgarians? Gimme a break. The sources are his statements, including the ,,pro-Bulgarian" one. Bomac 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying any of this. It is clearly in the article. The only thing that I object to is that he considered himself as Macedonian, simply because I cant find any sources. If you have something to present, then present it. FunkyFly 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Those who believe that answer of our national liberation lies in Bulgaria, Serbia or Greece might consider themselves a good Bulgarian, good Serb or a good Greek, but not a good Macedonian." This can be stated only by a person who feels like Macedonian as equal as he feels as Bulgarian in other statement. It's simply NPOV. Bomac 19:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Turns out, this quote is actually from a novel, and Goce never said it. FunkyFly 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, personal my friend, that is your opinion. He does not say "I am macedonian". Rather makes a general conclusion. Plus he gives no insight as to how Macedonian relates to Bulgarian, and in particular if Macedonians are part of all Bulgarian people. The only 100% sure fact is that he considered himself bulgarian and that stays in the article. FunkyFly 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a double break! Would you like to give you a source in which he says: ,,??? was my first fiancee?!" In that sentence, "Bulgarian" can have several meanings, and not strictly ethnicity (gosh, you people!). Bomac 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV - pushing

It is extremely POV what you do FunkyFly. Goce said this himself: „Но тоа е патот за ослободувањето на народите од туѓо иго. По него оделе Грците, Србите, Бугарите. По тој пат треба да одиме и ние, Македонците, за да се ослободиме од Турците.“ Bomac 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Any sources, correspondence etc to back this up? FunkyFly 19:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

There was a consensus on this article's opening lines until some guys started POV pushing. This was done mainly by me (representing the Macedonian POV) and VMORO (representing the Bulgarian POV), after an extensive discussion - Talk:Goce_Delchev/Archive_1. Similar pattern should be followed for most VMORO activists whose ethnicities are contested between RoM and Bulgaria, since there is no academic consensus between modern non-partisan historians. The reader himself should decide which side is right or wrong, according to the presented sources. Everything else is simply contrary to the NPOV. --FlavrSavr 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On a more personal note, I'm surprised that the Bulgarian side opened the edit war again, such frivolous POV pushing on his ethnicity is not allowed even in the Bulgarian Wikipedia article about Goce Delchev. --FlavrSavr 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensuses are not binding by any means. I dont know what the bulgarian article has to do with this discussion. The arguing side simply has not provided sources where Goce Delchev refers to himself as "Macedonian". FunkyFly 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... Flavrsavr, you made this comment at 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC). At the same time, the article you linked to was at this version. If you look carefully, at that version (and at the current version), you will see, above Delchev's picture, the words български революционер. Telex 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disputed ethnicity of Goce Delčev

In the paragraph "Ethnicity of Goce Delchev" there is a line that says:

Bulgarian historians argue that the Macedonian autonomy was never meant to have an "ethnic Macedonian" nature and note that no distinction between a "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" existed at that time pointing to the use of "Adrianopolitan" alongside "Macedonian" in the documents of the IMARO.

This is simply not true: everyone that understands the language can see that in the Statute of IMARO

it is clearly written that the goal of the organization is to liberate Macedonia and the region of and around Adrianople (Македония vs Одринско).

I have no intention to enter this ridiculous "editing war", I'm just irritated by the lies spread by the Bulgarians! Who in his right mind can tell 2 million people that they have been wrong all their life, that they in fact are not Macedonians but Bulgarian, that all of their parents and grand parents have lied to them for some unknown reason!

Two questions for them:

1. Why do you think Bulgaria was considered as an occupier during the I and II World War?

2. Why do you think the Macedonians in Albania and Greece (and until the 1950's in Bulgaria) declare themselves as Macedonians, not Bulgarians, since they were not influenced by the so called Serb communist propaganda in the past 60 years? The same goes for the Macedonians in Australia, USA and Canada: why don't the Macedonians there declare themselves as Bulgarians, since most of them are there since the 1960's?

Get a life, stop telling others how to live!

I'm sorry, but Goce Delchev never described himself as anything other than Bulgarian. He may have fought for Macedonia, but that doesn't make him Macedonian. The Kosovo Liberation Army fought for an independent Kosovo - that doesn't stop them being Albanian. He always called himself a Bulgarian - respect his self identification and stop imposing anachronistic labels. Telex 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is also not true! Can you tell me in which letter does Goce call himself a Bulgarian?

Because I can quote 2 letters from his correspondence that can be found in Macedonia:

1. A letter from Goce Delcev to Dame Gruev (1894) in which he says:

Can there be another place for a Macedonian, but Macedonia? Is there another nation in this world that is more unfortunate than the Macedonians? And is there a wider work field than Macedonia?

2. A letter from Nikola Karev to Goce Delchev:

It is time for us to stand up and fight. We shouldn't wait for freedom from Greeks, neither from Bulgarians, but we Macedonians should fight for our Macedonia, ...

Clearly, he wouldn't write to him "we Macedonians" if he thought that Goce was Bulgarian!

Are you sure the first one is not from a novel? The second one says that Nikola Karev thought of himself as Macedonian, but does not say anything about Goce. FunkyFly 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm 100% sure that it's true.

Here http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2003/sonce448/Tekst40.htm you can read it in macedonian.

Also, you are welcomed in Skopje to visit the National Museum of Macedonia, where you can see it in original (open every day 09-17, exept monday).

This is actualy one of the most famous quotes from Goce, perhaps just as famous as I understand the world solely as a field for cultural competition among nations.

The first one is talking in the abstract - he doesn't say I am Macedonian. Of course he wouldn't - the Macedonian ethnicity hadn't been invented then by Tito. To call him Macedonian is an anachronism. Telex 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true, a common lie told by the Bulgarians; it's tragic that most of the young Bulgarians actually do believe this! It takes but one visit to Macedonia to find out the truth.

If Macedonians were "invented by Tito" after WW2, how is it possible that all of a sudden every single "Bulgarian" in Macedonia suddenly chose to call himself a Macedonian and to teach his children that they are Macedonian and not Bulgarians (as you think), teach them that everybody hated Bulgarian occupiers during WW2? I don't think that there is a force in the world that can do that overnight!

How comes that the "Tito invention" flew over in Albania and Macedonians there declared themselves as Macedonians, not Bulgarians? There could be no discussion about influence from Yugoslavia because in those days (1950-1990, under Enver Hoxa) the border between Albania and Macedonia was closed and no one could cross it!

Just like every official census up until 1912 or so showed no macedonians at all, rather a mix of bulgarians, greeks, turks and others. FunkyFly 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is simply because in Ottoman Turkey the only two legal orthodox churches were the Greek and the Bulgarian church, and the censuses were conducted according to the religion; for instance, there were no Turks or Albanians, only Muslim; there were no Serbs in Kosovo, but 531000 Bulgarians are numbered!?!? You can see the results from the last census in the European part of Ottoman Turkey here http://www.univ.trieste.it/~storia/corsi/Dogo/tabelle/popolaz-ottomana1911.jpg

As you can see, the ethnicity is determined primarily by the religion and the church someone attended!

And you still haven't answered my 2 questions from the beginning? Or you don't have answers?

According to the paragraph of "Ethnicity of Goce Delchev," the sentence in the beginning of the article: "He is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia." is simply not true. Who is "He" considered by? Macedonians say he is Macedonian, Bulgarian say his Bulgarian, but in the "Ethnicity of Goce Dlechev", it states that he considered himself as Bulgarian ethnically. So how is "He is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia." a fact? The article is contracting itself. Chaldean 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You say: ...but in the "Ethnicity of Goce Dlechev", it states that he considered himself as Bulgarian ethnically....

This is exactly what is wrong with this article, written by a Bulgarian trying to spread Bulgarian propaganda. Goce Delčev nowhere states that he is Bulgarian, quite the opposite, on numerous occasions he tries to describe himself as a Macedonian, a citizen of a state that didn’t exist then, that was enslaved by the Ottoman Empire; a state that is his fatherland for which he fought for and at the end he gave his life for.

This is getting ridiculous:

• Goce Delchev himself said:

  We must struggle for the autonomy of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople in order to preserve them in their integrity which is a stage to their future incorporation to the common Bulgarian fatherland. [1]

• No Macedonian ethnicity existed at that time. The Macedonian ethnicity was created by Tito in the 1940s, a very easy thing to do to a largely illiterate population (witness the Moldovans, a similar example).
• These, what you call, Macedonian minorities in Albania and Bulgaria didn't exist prior to 1990. They are a fabrication of the Republic of Macedonia and the only reason Albania and Bulgaria recognised them was to safeguard the interests of the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians and Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia.
• The so-called Macedonian minority in Greece is also fabricated. The only evidence of its existence is a political party - the Rainbow - which in the latest elections amassed approximately 3,000 votes in Macedonia, presumably due to the fact that it is the only political party supporting gay rights (that explains the fact that they got more votes outside Macedonia).
• If you go to Greece, Bulgaria or Albania, there is direct visual evidence of a Greek minority in Albania and Turkish minorities in Greece and Bulgaria (amongst others, Aromanians etc). There have been demonstrations involving hundreds of members of these minorities who can all speak their languages. Where are the so-called Macedonian minorities? No one has ever spoken to any of them or met any of them (except their one or two representatives - their political parties). They seem only to exist on paper (and on the internet) and this is exactly because they do.
• There is no evidence of a separate Macedonian ethnicity prior to the 1940s. There is evidence of Albanians, Greeks, Turks, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Vlachs, and there is ample evidence of the existence of each. The Albanians are one of the most ancient people in Europe and an Albanian language as we know it today exists at least since 1555, when their first book was published (Meshari), and people like Skanderbeg and Ali Pasha were certainly aware of them; the Vlachs had Great Wallachia etc... etc... Where are the Macedonians? Don't say ancient Macedon, that's rubbish. There are no identifiable links of the modern (Slavic) Macedonians with ancient Macedon, who most definitely weren't Slavs. Only claims exist - and claims remain claims until they are proven. This has yet to happen Telex 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Even stronger one is this one:

Letter from Delchev to Malashevski:

I have received all letters which were sent by or through you. May the dissents and cleavages not frighten you. It is really a pity, but what can we possibly do when we ourselves are Bulgarians and all suffer from the same disease! If this disease had not existed in our forefathers who passed it on to us, we wouldn't have fallen under the ugly sceptre of the Turkish sultans...

As for him being considered macedonian in the rep. of macedonia - that represents the viewpoint of a minority of historians. FunkyFly 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement of Goce says much more than the pro-Bulgarian part. The other part of the sentence (If this disease had not existed in our forefathers who passed it on to us, we wouldn't have fallen under the ugly sceptre of the Turkish sultans...) allude us that actually there were people who were identifying as Macedonians then (I mean Macedonian Slavs). Bomac 14:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe the Macedonian national conscience was not (or very little) developed in that period. But, I think it is very POV-ish to state that Goce was a X nationality revolutionaire. If nothing else (I mean the Macedonian POV: what Misisrkov says 'bout propagandas in Macedonia etc.), Goce was a cosmopolitan in the real meaning of that word. ,,I understand the world solely as a field for cultural competition among nations" he said. So, he was only a revolutionairy who fought for freedom of the peoples in Macedonia. Bomac 14:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Again my friend, we are talking about his origin, his self-determination, not his intentions to secure freedom for the peoples of Macedonia. And both are clearly reflected in the article. FunkyFly 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is the thing that makes you push the ethnic principle? Bomac 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont sound ridiculous. FunkyFly 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

--

This is getting ridiculous:

Definitely!

Goce Delchev himself said: We must struggle for the autonomy of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople in order to preserve them in their integrity which is a stage to their future incorporation to the common Bulgarian fatherland.

Just where exactly did Goce say that?

The Macedonian ethnicity was created by Tito in the 1940s, a very easy thing to do to a largely illiterate population

Both my grandfathers were not illiterate. One of them, born 1913, even had a faculty degree from the Economic faculty in Sofia. Yet, neither he, neither my other grandfather, never called themselves Bulgarians (nor Serbs), but always Macedonians. Both of them had nothing but resent for Bulgaria, because of the Bulgarian occupation in WW2, that they had to live through, when Bulgaria forcefully renamed them (Popov instead of Popovski and Simeonov instead of Simonovski) and forbade the use of Macedonian, just like Serbia did before them. Many Macedonians were actually tricked that they were being liberated, but actually what they got is just another tyranny. It didn't take long before they organized themselves to fight Bulgaria and its allies, Germany, Italy and Albania.

These, what you call Macedonian minorities in Albania and Bulgaria didn't exist prior to 1990. They are a fabrication of the Republic of Macedonia and the only reason Albania and Bulgaria recognised them was to safeguard the interests of the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians and Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia.

This is definitely not true. The conducted censuses in Albania during Enver Hoxa (before 1990) counted a Macedonian minority in the region of Little Prespa. Albania never problematized the existence of the Macedonian people, as did Greece and Bulgaria; the only problem was (is?) with the Macedonian minorities in the Albanian regions just west of Debar and in Gora, where Macedonians adopted the Muslim religion (the so called Torbesh Macedonians) - these are accounted as Albanians. Further, in the first two censuses conducted in Bulgaria, in 1946 and 1956, 160541 and 178862 people declared as Macedonians, mostly in the region Pirin Macedonia, which remained occupied by Bulgaria from the Balkan wars until today. In the next censuses, these Macedonians mysteriously disappeared - due to the repression from Bulgarian authorities.

The so-called Macedonian minority in Greece is also fabricated.

This is a different issue, but: indeed, there are very few Macedonians left in Aegean Macedonia: most of them were forced to leave the country after the Greek civil war. Many of them settled in the Republic of Macedonia. Still, if you visit the regions of Lerin (Florina), Kostur (Kastoria), Voden (Edesa), Prespa… you will find Macedonians. Most of them have Greek names and don't speak Macedonian in public (when other Greeks can hear them), but if you find yourself alone with them, you will see that they haven't forgotten the language and they identify themselves as Macedonians - just are not allowed to publicly say so. I visited these regions a few times and I'm telling you this from a first-hand knowledge. Go and find for yourself, don't just listen to the lies they taught you in school.

If you go to Greece, Bulgaria or Albania, there is direct visual evidence of a Greek minority in Albania and Turkish minorities in Greece and Bulgaria (amongst others, Aromanians etc). There have been demonstrations involving hundreds of members of these minorities who can all speak their languages. Where are the so-called Macedonian minorities?

Every year thousands of Macedonians from Pirin Macedonia go visit the grave of Jane Sandanski in the Rožen Monastery; and yet, every year they are not allowed to even come near the grave. Some years they were even beaten by the police and Bulgarian nationalist like you. Not to mention that the registration of the Macedonian political parties is still forbidden. They are there - you just don't want to see them.

There is no evidence of a separate Macedonian ethnicity prior to the 1940s... Where are the Macedonians? Don't say ancient Macedon, that's rubbish.

Yes, it's rubbish. Macedonians are of Slavic descent, most probably more Slavic than Bulgarians (who have Tatar blood in them). The problem with the non-recognition of the Macedonian nation is mostly because we didn't manage to form our state in the mid-XIX century, when most of the Balkan states succeeded in getting independence from Turkey. The national consciousness was formed then. And every newly formed state identified itself with some medieval state. What no one takes in regard is that a nation as we know it today didn't exist then on the Balkans (before the XVIII century). Most probably, every single Slav identified himself as identical to every other Slav of the Balkan Peninsula - no language was codified, no other state but the Ottoman Empire existed. The elements that mattered were similarity of the spoken language (Slavic) and the belonging to the Orthodox Christian religion. In this sense, a Bulgarian could not see any difference from a Serb or Macedonian and vice versa. If we managed to form our state in the 1850's for example, I'm sure that no one would dispute our ethnicity nor our identification with the medieval states of Samuil and Krale Marko, as do Bulgaria and Serbia today!

I am just asking the bulgars to come here, and have a chat or two with Aegean and Pirin Macedonians, which have been erradicated from Greece (in the Civil War, when 15.000 Macedonians were killed) and Bulgaria (police force and by other means of pressure). Come here and have a chat, and hear what THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, and NOT YOUR PROPAGANDA.

There is no Aegean and Pirin Macedonia. Only Greek Macedonia and the Blagoevgrad Province - while you're at it, why don't you explain the following: according to the 1911 Ottoman census there were c. 350,000 Greeks and c. 246,000 Bulgarians in Bitola/Monastir. What has happened to them, where are they today? I'm guessing they were "erradicated" as well. Good luck in explaining why "Macedonians" don't show up in that census as well. Telex 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Read carefully! Go back a few posts here, around the middle of this section, where you'll see the same link as you provided and you'll see the explanation!

No Turks in Turkey? No Serbs in Kosovo? No Albanians? Come on, think about it!

[edit] Please fix link in "Ethnicity of Goce Delchev" section

Please change the "Macedonians" link so that it links to a real article, not a disambiguation page. Thanks. --Iggle 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done.FunkyFly 01:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SICK!

This is completely sick! Bulgarian nationalists do anything they want. The letter where Goce says "we are all Bulgarians, what can we do" is not authentic at all. It may be written by any kid in Bulgaria, though. There are many other letters from Goce where he clearly makes distinction between Bulgarians and Macedonians and he says that he fights for Macedonia and Macedonians, not Bulgarians. But Macedonians seem to be too lazy to stand up and see what's going on. The truth is being hidden successfully by the Greatbulgarian nationalists. But as you all know, the truth will come out in the end, don't worry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by INkubusse (talk • contribs).

I guess westerners travelling in the region in the 19th century were forging their results too, because nobody recorded any Macedonians.   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it IS very strange (because of course Bulgarian nationalists won't let it), but they did record. There are some letters where Austrains and English wrote that there are many people in the region of Macedonia claiming to be different from the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs and they call themselves Macedonians (late XVII century) and there's a very interesting thing, one of then wrote "they say: we are Slavic and they are Turano-Bulgarians)". Hmm... And, Goce Delchev never said that he was Bulgarian, on the contrary, he was tending to persuade Macedonians to free themselves of foreign propagandas and he was ALWAYS saying that the only way to freedom of Macedonians is the internal way, only internal revolution is the way, no Bulgarians, nor Serbians will help us. And by the way, err, that letter from Goce (on the page) is.. i don't know how to call it.. it's funny, i think that even bulgarians know that it's forgery. In fact, the real letter is in one of our museums and it's very similar to the one exposed on the page. Goce was just saying that we suffer from a dicease, that we should all tend not to be ashame of being Macedonian and we shouldn't betray ourselves and some other things. In (not far) future, that letter will be removed and maybe you'll get some penlties for forging or something (yeah, i know you might be lauging at the moment). That's all, God be with you and people live freely!

[edit] Dual nationality

Question to Francis. Fran, you supported a solution of the form "Macedonian and Bulgarian". However you erased the "Bulgarian and Aromanian" solution in place for Pitu Guli. Does that or does that not mean you really support the dual nationality solution, or does it mean you're just being inconsistent?   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, see my comments above about starting an article Macedonians (which does not redirect to Macedonian).   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I suggested a similar idea to User:Vlatkoto, although calling it Bulgarian-Macedonian ethnicity dispute. I think it would be a good idea. Regarding "dual nationality" you are right, I've restored the dual nationality bit on Pitu Guli. - FrancisTyers 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a triple nationality now, to be precise.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people are born lucky :) - FrancisTyers 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is different thing. I will support a statemnt of the form, X is [[Bulgarians|Bulgarian]] and [[Macedonians|Macedonian]].   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thats good. - FrancisTyers 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better than the current version, however, sounds a bit WP:OR to me. I would also suggest that we should put Macedonian before Bulgarian - he's definitely more relevant as a revolutionary from Macedonia (nobody denies that he fought for an autonomous Macedonian state). --FlavrSavr 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also serious objections about the terminology. The most widely used term for the organisation is IMRO or IMARO, not BMARC (even though when he was alive was certainly not IMRO). Sure, I'm an evil and a brainwashed Macedonist for claiming this, but most international sources may have a good reason for the use of the term IMRO instead of BMARC. First of all, it is uncertain how the organisation was named from its beginnings, and in the 19th century. Two rival constitutions exist - the BMARC and the SMARO constitution. The Bulgarian POV is that the operating name was BMARC from 1896 to 1902. As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence for this. Moreover, it is very unlikely for this to be true - there is SMARO constitution which is to be found in the British Foreign Office which is dated under 1898 - PRO. - FO 78/4951. Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S.I. --FlavrSavr 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very clear that by avoiding the real name of the organization which Goce Delchev joined, BMARC, one must be aiming to dillute the importance of the Bulgarian consciousness of its members. IMRO is a collective name for a host of different organizations and that is mentioned in the article, however it did not exist at the time, so BMARC stays. Whatever other competing organizations existed at the time might not be relevant unless it is shown that Goce Delchev was their member. For Bulgarian-Macedonian, we use Bulgarian first because that is the only sourced nationality of Goce Delchev. Also, important part of his life is his teaching Bulgarian language, in a Bulgarian school in Stip. And last, but not least, Turkish documents from 1903 describe Goce Delchev as a leader of the "Bulgarian committees". [2]   /FunkyFly.talk_   00:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Hm.. it's really your own POV that as you say by avoiding the real name of the organization which Goce Delchev joined, BMARC one must be aiming to dillute the importance of the Bulgarian consciousness of its members."That does not apply to Britannica, you can check the article about IMRO there - [3]. Now, not only Goce Delchev fought under the slogan "Macedonians for the Macedonians", it has also adopted (excerpts from the full article): a program aimed at winning autonomy for Macedonia from its Ottoman Turkish rulers and at creating a Balkan federation, in which Macedonia would be an equal partner with all other Balkan states. However, by the end of World War I, however, IMRO's indiscriminate and unprincipled use of terror had alienated both its Macedonian and Bulgarian supporters. There's not even the slightest mentioning of the "Bulgarian national conciousness" of it's original members, and instead it is specifically stressed that their slogan was "Macedonian for the Macedonians", and that what is really important about it, according to the widely accepted international neutral point of view.--FlavrSavr 02:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Turkish documents, that is no surprise. The Christian Slav population of Macedonia was generally regarded as Bulgarian, at the time. That also applies for most (but not all) international terminology, at the time. However, what is much more important is how modern historians would interpret the activities of the original IMRO - were they really instances of "Bulgarian patriotism"? According to Britannica, no, and this is the widely accepted view. Were they "Macedonian patriots"? Yes, they were. Were they ethnic Macedonians, in the modern sense of the word? That's hard to say, but in general, they played a significant role in the process of the awakening of a separate ethnic Macedonian identity. --FlavrSavr 02:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As for, "the competing organizations", you must be joking. SMARO was not a competing organisation to BMARC, IMARO, and IMRO, it is the same organization! I stay reserved for BMARC because it's really unknown in what particular period of IMRO's history was that name/statute used. However, I would urge you to find the following sources:

• A statute of BMARC with Goce Delchev's signature on it.
• A proof that the BMARC statute was used from 1896 to 1902.

I'm adding my sources below. --FlavrSavr 02:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources that GD was a member of SMARO in 1898

Here are my sources (to be honest, I didn't expect to find such an explicit statement that GD was the leader of SMARO, not BMARC in 1898)

• A letter from Goce Delchev to the Archibishop Menini

11 july 1898

Foreign representation of SMARO Sofia

To His Excellency The Archibishop of Plovdiv Mr. Mennini

... Our SMARO is nowadays labeled a terrorist organisation from many representatives of the Christian states, firstly because of the ignorance of our struggle, and secondly because of the personal interests of their states...

The letter is signed by Gjorgji (Goce) Delchev. There is also a similar letter to the same person (Archibishop Menini, send on 3 July 1898, in which again he is a member of SMARO. I'm too lazy at the moment to translate the SMARO parts of that letter).

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/9-10 (1971), 978-980.

--FlavrSavr 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• A letter from Archibishop Menini to the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith

12 july 1898

Plovdiv Holy Archibishopry no. 398 12 july 1898 Plovdiv

To the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith Rome

Your Eminency, Enclosed to this letter are the two letters which I have received from the representative of the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Organisation Gjorgji Delchev related to the given favors to some Macedonian revolutionaries...

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/9-10 (1971), 980-982.

Several instances of "SMARO" appear throughout the letter, and it is pretty clear that: "the Secret organisations, that carries the name SMARO is the biggest enemy of the peace in this part of the world", that is, SMARO is IMARO.

Given the above said, I'm uploading the SMARO statute as parallel to the BMARC statute, and I'm expecting that you will provide the sources above. --FlavrSavr 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As no evidence was given to support the claim that Goce Delchev was a member of an organization called "BMARC", I don't see any need to emphasize it (italics in the opening section? a little bit biased, no?) . As I've already stated, it is likely that IMRO was named "BMARC" at a given period in the organization's history (perhaps, somewhere in the begginings), but it's completely unknown when that period was, and there are only speculations about it. One thing is for sure, the organization's name was SMARO from at least 1898 (evident from the documents above), and not from 1902, as the Bulgarian historians claim. Given that:

• All his revolutionary activities before 1898 should be put under the SMARO label, as well, ("BMARC/SMARO"), or simply, under the "IMRO" label, the most commonly used name for the organization in English (see Britannica)
• All his revolutionary activities after 1898 should be put under the SMARO label, or simply, under the "IMRO" label.
• General statements, such as the opening paragraph, should be put under the "IMRO" label because that is basically the only term that is widely used in the English language, while the others are rather obscure to the average reader. Such patterns are followed in the Macedonian and Bulgarian terminology, as well (see the WP articles). Of course, clarifications should be made. --FlavrSavr 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This should apply to all IMRO related articles. Any thoughts/comments/complaints? --FlavrSavr 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As it is already stated in the article, SMARO could have been incorporated in 1898, and it might even have coexisted with BMARC until 1902, as Goce Delchev, given the new sources, seems to have been a member of both. However still, there is no mention of Goce Delchev calling himself a Macedonian, rather various other conclusions. It is also questionable whether Macedonian refers to ethnicity or geographical area. And by the way, the statute of BMARC was worked out in the Solun congress of 1896 by Goce Delchev and Gjorche Petrov.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Petar Pop-Arsov one of the founder of of VMORO/SMARO/BMARC? If VMORO was such a Bulgarian organization, how come he wrote this in 1894:

"…It is hard, is it not, Mr. Sarafov, when a man once falls morally in the eyes of the people?... And we promise you that such will continue to be the fate of any of your compatriots who come to Macedonia with pretensions to ‘creating Bulgars’, to ‘cultivating the land’ and to ‘taking over everything’ as you wish to do in Salonica with the Sunday School, with your ‘presidency’ and your ignoring of the rights of the Council — the representatives of the people: even worse will be the position of your chief, let him be who he may, if he goes on giving you similar instructions. The Bulgarian ideal will never triumph if you go on in this mind. Why have we Macedonians got nothing at all? We have gained nothing thanks to our blind trust in our so-called brothers and so we have nothing to lose. It is sad, but what can we do when the majority of our intellectuals have been corrupted by your gold? Once upon a time the gold of our countryman Philip bought the prudent Athenian intellectuals and he conquered Greece. Other days, other ways, conditions are just the reverse now — Brother has sold brother…"

--Cigor 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The only source on the internet with that quote is faq.macedonia.org, a notorious Macedonist site. That is a significant statement, and has significant implications - unless it is like the we Macedonians statement that Delchev originally said, which later turned out to be a quote from a fantasy novel, if you want to use that, you'll have to tell where you got it. Back to the point, I think some kind of NPOV compromise should be worked out - this revert war could continue indefinitely. --Tēlex 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The text comes from brochure by Petar Pop Arsov called "Stambolovism and its Representatives in Macedonia" and it was published in 1/11/1894. I don't think that Bulgarians dispute this document AFIK (FunkyFly?). Here is pic [4] --Cigor 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on those letters in Talk:Internal_Macedonian_Revolutionary_Organization (VMRO 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] The "Documents" section

I'm adding a couple of documents in the appropriate section. It's a bit vulgar that both sides in the dispute flash around their documents in the article, but the reader might get a wrong impression that Goce Delchev never spoke of "Macedonian people". Perhaps we should add the documents on wikisource, while we could add here that in a particular letter (link to wikisource), GD speaks of (subject). --FlavrSavr 03:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added the documents, and I've made some changes in the structure of the text. --FlavrSavr 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Has anyone have a picture of Goce Delchev's tomb in Skopje? I happen to live there, but I have a lowsy camera. --FlavrSavr 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

There is an unfortunate edit war going on here. I would like to suggest the following:

• Claiming that Goce Delchev was an ethnic Bulgarian or ethnic Macedonian cannot be anything else other that original research. There are statements where he claims both Bulgarian and Macedonian ethnicity. I'll add one more here for the Macedonian people. Moreover, he fought for an independent or autonomous Macedonian state and he refers to those advocation union with Bulgaria as "degenerates". Sure, one can argue that he used Macedonian as a "regional identifier", but he also might have used Bulgarian as a "religious identifier" (member of the Bulgarian Excharhate, see A.T. Balan) or as a "political wrapping" (see, Stefan Vlahov-Micov, both authors are ethnic Bulgarians). So, until modern neutral reliable sources are provided to to suggest that there is a consensus that Goce Delchev was an ethnic Bulgarian, that he was a fervent Bulgarian patriot or something, it would be totally POV to assert that he is a "Bulgarian revolutionary". That is not for Wikipedia to determine or suggest, the reader should decide for himself. For now, Britannica states that he fought for "Macedonia for the Macedonians". No one sane claims that Petar I Petrović-Njegoš was a Serbian king.--FlavrSavr 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no evidence, nor a source has been provided to state that Goce Delchev was a member of organization called "BMARC". There is a possibility for it, but until it is proven, we can only operate under the realm of possibility. Of course, there is a "BMARC" statute over there, but then again, there is absolutely no evidence, nor a source has been provided to state that the organization's name was BMARC between 1896 and 1902 specifically.--FlavrSavr 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there is a solid proof that the operational name of the organization was SMARO in 1898 (at least four years before 1902), as presented above. That is a fact. FunkyFly has requested such sources, and I have found them, now it's his turn to support the BMARC theory. Stating that Goce Delchev was certainly a member of BMARC from 1896 to 1902 without presenting any sources, is brutal POV pushing, if not plain vandalism, and I will continue regarding it as such. I would also like to remind everybody that is the 3RR rule is a Wikipedia tool to prevent edit wars, and not a policy to protect a side that is presenting zero sources to support it's claims. If this trend continues, and further unsupported reverts are being made, I'll contact an sysop to protect this page. Then the supporters of the claim would have to use the talk page and present some sources, for a change. --FlavrSavr 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So the Solun congress never took place and Goce was not there, and he did not work out the statute?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it clear. You have no sources to state that the statute of BMARC was worked out in the Solun congress of 1896 by Goce Delchev and Gjorche Petrov. This has nothing to do with Goce Delchev being present at the Solun congress, but to say that the name in the statute was "BMARC" worked out there, you'll need to present sources. According to Macedonian historians, the name in the statute worked out in Thessaloniki is "SMARO", and so far, the sources presented, the conversation with Nikolayev, the large inclusion of Vlachs (apparent non-Bulgarians), seem to indicate that their view is the correct one. One thing is for sure, the organization name in 1898 (and not in 1902). If you claim the contrary, present sources. --FlavrSavr 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing is the turkish documents, which say he was the leader of the Bulgarian committies. Read at the bottom. [5]   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've explained that above, care to read. "Bulgarian committees" is not the name of the organization. Moreover, even according to the Bulgarian historians, the name of the organization was SMARO as late as 1902. The source you have provided celebrates the murder of Goce Delchev. That happened in 1903. The telegram was send on May 9, 1903. So, is it possible that you have made an another epochal discovery, like the "parallel statutes" theory? --FlavrSavr 03:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numb the doubt

What a joyful edit war. Work it out on the talk page, then request unprotection. - FrancisTyers · 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could stick a POV tag {{POV}} on the article. I think WP:NPOV#Undue weight is violated. --Tēlex 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would present much of a problem. - FrancisTyers · 19:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean you have a POV on the issue and you protected the page? ;-) --Tēlex 19:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really have a POV on whether this guy was Bulgaronian or Macedarian. I thought you knew? I get all my information from maknews.com! - FrancisTyers · 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

There has been no discussion on this for over a week. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Again, this was discussed before. It is the only known self-reference to his ethnicity, so Bulgarian should stay.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... --FlavrSavr 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter from Goce Delchev to Nikola Maleshevski

In the following letter, Goce Delchev, among other topics, expresses his strong opposition to the activities of Doncho Zlatkov, a member of the Supreme Committee, a parallel pro-Bulgarian organization based in Sofia. Stressed words as in the original.

22 April 1897

...Not only the news about the capture (if of course, true) are dismaying, but Doncho with his heroes is much more awful. Who knows if there is a people that has suffered more from its degenerates, than the Macedonian people!...

Гоце Делчев, Преписка, 43 – 44 --FlavrSavr 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet it does not say anything about his own ethnicity. That's a pretty general statement he's making. Plus it is in no way clear if he is talking about the ethnic Macedonians, or the people in the region of Macedonia.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I relent with the last source. It is unnecessary to ref a subsection of the article, so can you erase ref 2?   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure.--FlavrSavr 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note (regarding the language Goce spoke) the excerpt from the memoirs of Ivan Anastasov:

Първото впечатление отъ Дeлчева бeше, че той е чистъ и непороченъ, а при туй решителенъ човeкъ. Той говорeше доста литературно та не всички го разбираха. Хората все питаха: аджаба хубаво говори, ама какво, не можахме всичко да разберемъ.

The first impression from Delchev was that he was clean and uncorrupted, but also a man of action. His speach was quite literary so not everybody understood him. The people always said: he speaks very well alright but what exactly - we couldn't understand. (VMRO 04:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] More Documents

Circular letter from the Central Revolutionary Macedonian-Adrianople Committee to the Secret Revolutionary Macedonian-Adrianople committees - June 1902

....

Macedonians and Adrianopleans!

....

And that, which is known maybe by very few of us - that there are compatriots of ours in Bulgaria and here, who stand in the way of the organization, who want to stop its right way, who wish and act for its destruction.

People who were not allowed to have an organization as a means to implement their shrewd intentions, people, who were not allowed to trade with our tears and with our blood for accomplishing their low aims - these people are against us, against the organization, against the whole Macedonian-Adrianoplean people!

Their bear den is in Sofia, the field of their abominable deeds is in our Macedonian and Adrianople mountains and villages.

.....

НБКМ БИА, ф. 305, а.е. 260, л.50. печатно

footnote 1 - K. Pandev holds the opinion that author of the circular is Peyo Yavorov.

taken from "Из архива на Гоце Делчев" - главно управление на архивите при министерския съвет, подготвили за печат Ива Бурилкова и Цочо Билярски, София 2003, page 560

--Asenizator 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very neat example, both bolded parts summarize the idea well. Would it be possible to scan it (if it's a facsimile), so we could use it as a source? Todor→Bozhinov 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JUSTICE AT LAST

I can't express my gratefulness to all the wikipedians who participated in changing the Goce Delchev article, so that it would be at least a bit closer to the "real" NPOV. Due to certain delay, I'm checking this article after a long time and I was pleasingly surprised by the obvious changes. Just continue like that and I believe that someday, perhaps all the history articles will have a satisfactory NPOV (though, to ones who don't know the truth, it's all the same). INkubusse 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he's Bulgarian from Macedonia. Note the absence of a link to Macedonians (ethnic group).   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I know that that is the range of your knowledge, but please, try to keep it for yourself because of a simple reason: maybe that is NOT the 'objective' truth. In fact, it's not, since there are many quotes of his in which he says 'We Macedonians don't need any help from Bulgarians, Serbs or Greeks'. I think this clearly makes him different from a Bulgarian in Macedonia. Never mind, it's not important here. All that matters is that the NPOV in the article is finally satisfied up to a point, for which I'm very thankful to both Macedonians and Bulgarians. And I'd like to say "честит празник" to all Macedonians (and all the ones who have respect for the Ilinden revolutionaries). INkubusse 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but he means it in a regional way. There are quotes where he says "We the Bulgarians".   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Честит празник" is as much in Macedonian as in Bulgarian, so thanks, it's a nice and well celebrated holiday here too. Note that's not WP:POINT, at least not deliberately :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The "don't need no help from Bulgarians" part makes it clear that he cannot be Bulgarian (by ANY logic, though). And the quotes where he says "We are Bulgarians" are non-existant, never has he said such thing, but that's NOT an issue to be discussed on Wikipedia and as such, it should be left alone, PLEASE. Any argument about this should be banned. And I said "4estit praznik" so that it could be understood by Bulgarians too, but in Macedonia they say Srek'en praznik. God be with you! ;) INkubusse 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the truth hurts sometimes, but denying it always helps.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh, "non-existant", "never has he said such thing", "NOT an issue to be discussed"... What exactly is the problem with you guys? Delchev clearly self-identified as an ethnic Bulgarian and clearly worked to create an independent/autonomous multiethnic state encompassing the region of Macedonia. His "Macedonian people" and "Macedonian-Adrianopolitan people" are as much an ethnic identifier as the later "Soviet people" thing. Todor→Bozhinov 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see another "non-existing" quote by Jane Sandanski (the last one).   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly you've come and made a fool of yourself. Stop nationalising all over the place. - FrancisTyers · 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you directing this towards?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonian. It really does get tiresome. - FrancisTyers · 17:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 ;) The important thing is that the article was changed (for the will of truth). Anyway, there are numerous letters where Goce Delchev claims to be Macedonian (Slavic), which is different from Bulgarian (Tatar), but I won't argue with you on that topic, since your mind is poisoned (duh). Oh, and, where are the few letters from and to Goce in the article? Hmm... They contained stuff like "WE DON'T NEED HELP FROM BULGARIANS", so, they were removed. Never mind, it's ok with me, I was worried only about the first part of the article where it used to say that Goce was an ethnic Bulgarian, but now, it's balanced (more or less). INkubusse 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, Bulgarian = Tatar. See Macedonism. Btw the quotes you mentioned were removed because they are from the novel Ilinden by Dimitar Talev. And also, "Macedonian" here is used to identify a person from the region of Macedonia, not en ethnic Macedonian. When Goce Delchev said Macedonian he meant a person from the region. Remember the statute of SMORO - "Every Macedonian and Adrianoplian"   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an ethnic Adrianopolitan :) Not really, no... Not that I have anything against the Tatars, but I have little to do with them, sorry. I'm as much a Tatar as you're a descendant of Alexander the Great. And in fact, you probably know that Kuber, Asparuh's brother, settled in what is today the Republic of Macedonia together with his people, so you're partially of Bulgar ancestry too (just as much as we Bulgarians are). Thus, by calling the Bulgars' advanced and ancient civilization "Tatar" you insult your own culture and history... and you have no grounds to do so. Todor→Bozhinov 10:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, modern Bulgarians (and most Macedonians a.k.a. Western Bulgarians :p) won't have any significant Tatar ancestry, as the Tatars are descendents of the Bulgars (in Volga Bulgaria), not the other way round. Big Fat Green Frog 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I just can't understand how come you can insult as much as you want and no-one even cares. E.g. the part where u call me a Bulgarian (eww) insults me more than ANYTHING, I think that Satan wouldn't say such thing to me. And the "western Bulgarians" are a fiction of yours for which I don't blame you, you do not choose to learn fictionary history, though. And I plead you not to offend me anymore. Thank you. iNkubz (i don't feel like signing in :) )

Oh, and the article about Macedonism is simply.. ridiculous and everything I can say about it is *****. LOL DUDES! u're insane

[edit] Hugh Poulton

I have searched several archives of the scholarly literature and have found only 1 mention of "BMORK"/"BMARC" etc. This was in Hugh Poulton's book. It features as an unreferenced footnote. It seems strange that such an important point should be left out of all other literature on the matter. Perhaps the sign of a great anti-Bulgarian conspiracy — I don't know, but I hardly think that a single footnote in a book outweighs the countless other sources available. - FrancisTyers · 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Other sources" is a weasel word. What sources? --Telex 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For example:

Terrorism in the Age of Roosevelt: The Miss Stone Affair, 1901-1902, by Randall B. Woods American Quarterly © 1979

"In September 1901 one of those groups, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation, seized and held for ransom Ellen M. Stone..."

"To this end Prince Ferdinand, Bulgaria's expansionist ruler, established in 1895 the External Organization -- known also as the Supreme Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Committee. Dedicated to armed revolution, the External Organization actually advocated "either way" to Macedonian redemption -- autonomy or incorporation into the Bulgarian state. In intermittent and uneasy alliance with the Sofia-based group was a collection of militant Macedonian autonomists who in 1893 had organized themselves into the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Between 1893 and 1897 IMRO concentrated on gathering arms and perfecting its organization."

- FrancisTyers · 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FROM IMRO:

When, in addition to these advantages, the Bulgarophil Macedonians started their marvellously-organised revolutionary committee in 1893, the Servian cause received its death-blow. By way of emphasising her antagonism to Bulgaria, official Servia now adopted an openly Turcophil policy, and nothing could be more fatal to the prospects of any Christian race in Turkey. The Macedonian peasantry will bestow their allegiance only on a propaganda which promises them some speedy prospect of release from the Ottoman yoke. Finally, there is this great difference between the rival propagandas, that while the Bulgarians are working for the autonomy of Macedonia, the Servians and the Greeks aim only at its annexation to their own country. The result is that their activities seem to be for the profit of their own land, whereas the Bulgarians are undoubtedly creating a spirit of local Macedonian patriotism. The Servian movement is a purely official agitation, guided and financed in Belgrade; whereas, despite the sympathy of Sofia, the Bulgarian Revolutionary Committee is a genuine Macedonian organisation

H. N. Brailsford , MACEDONIA: ITS RACES AND THEIR FUTURE, Methuen & Co., London, 1906

Milena Mahon "The Macedonian question in Bulgaria" in Nations and Nationalism 1998

"...Yet the veiolence of these movements generated the heroic perception of the Bulgarian struggle for national unity. Laying the foundation of the shared Bulgarian and Macedonian myths of liberation, the organisations thus had an impact that lasts until this day. The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (VMRO or IMRO) was founded in 1893 in Salonica. The Supreme Macedonian Committee of VMRO was established in Bulgaria in 1895."

And whats the point of this? The way it is worded now it says according to some historians this, and according to some that.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Spyridon KOTSOVILIS "Exploring the Sources of Greek Foreign Policy Towards the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (this is a symposium paper)

"In 1893 the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (VMRO) was founded, opposing the partition of Macedonia and advocating the idea of autonomy. Soon a rival sentiment in favour of incorporation into Bulgaria gave rise in 1895 to an external Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, based in Sofia. Both groups clashed with Greek and Serb irregular bands and the Ottoman army, during the violent period known as the ‘Macedonian Struggle’ (1897-1908) which provoked the deployment of the first modern International Police Force."

Atlas of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century By R. J. Crampton, Ben Crampton

"In 1893 the situation was complicated by the establishment of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) which advocated the creation of a separate Macedonian state within a Balkan federation. The Bulgarians went to considerable lengths to neutralise IMRO and by 1903 had infiltrated its leadership. In August 1903 IMRO staged a large-scale revolt in the Macedonia and Edirne (Adrianopole) vilayets."

So, I've cited four sources (that I have access to, there are probably some others) that state that "The IMRO was founded in 1893". This is not a page about the IMRO, it is a page about Goatse Delchev. If you want to discuss the various names of the IMRO, do it on the IMRO page. Not this one. I'd hope the IMRO would include this information it is quite interesting. - FrancisTyers · 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone did their homework.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, most sources do refer to this organization by the later name IMRO (or VMRO) at whatever period. No one claims that it was called that before 1902; some people (mosly from FYROM) say it was called SMARO (or TMORO), and others say that it was called BMARC (or BMORK). Do you have a source saying that it was called SMARO then, and not BMARC? --Telex 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, discuss it on the IMRO page. Although that page is looking kind of like a quagmire as it is. - FrancisTyers · 17:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw it is beyond any doubt that IMRO was not the name of the organization since the beginning, rather a collective name, which was legitimized much later - in 1920 or so.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Removal of false quotation

I removed the following text from the article:

“Gifted with healthy national sense, Gotse clearly saw, that in uniting all Macedonians… lies the pledge for freedom of Macedonia as independent political unit” (Eftimov, Dim. P. Deloto na Gotse Delchev, Varna 1937, p 19). In the name of the ideal “Macedona to Macedonians” all ethnic groups are with the Organization. In Western Macedonia, Gotse is met as a welcomed guest to Grkomani (pro Greek), Bugaromani (pro Bulgarian), Srbomani (pro Serb) and Vlachs (Romanian Macedonians). “Under his convincing advocating in the name of the common Macedonian ideal, disappeared artificially imposed national antagonism.” (Ibid, p 18)

I checked it against the original book (cited in the References section in the article) and it is false. In particular, nowhere is the word Bugaromani mentioned. Instead, it says българи (Bulgarians). (VMRO 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)) Here is what can be read on p. 18 and 19:

"При обиколката си в Западна Македония, където на всяка стъпка трябваше да конферира с гъркомани и куцовласи (sic!), той проявяваше всичкото обаяние на едно искрено слово и всичката привлекателност на една светла душа, защото и гъркомани, и куцовласи го посрещнаха като желан гост и го изпратиха като роден брат." (p. 18) (During his tour of Western Macedonia, where on each step he had to confer with Grecomans and Vlachs (sic!), he showed the complete charm of an honest speaker and the attraction of one enlightened sould, because both Grecomans and Vlachs met him as a wanted guest and saw him off like a brother.)

"В името на тая борба Гоце канеше всички македонци: българи и не българи (sic!), християни и не християни, стари и млади, бедни и богати, прости и учени." (p. 19) (In the name of this struggle Goce invited all Macedonians: Bulgarians and non-Bulgarians (sic!), Christians and non-Christians, old and young, rich and poor, educated and uneducated)

And here are a few more quotes from the book:

The churches and the "supremists" in Macedonia were dividing the people into "българи, гърци и сърби, или по-скоро на българи, гъркомани и сърбомани" (sic!) (p. 10)

Goce, Dame and Pere "се чувствуваха като българи" because they had studied in Bulgarian schools. (p. 11)

"При него и българинът, и влахът, и гъркът, и албанецът, даже и турчинът - всички се чувствуваха като братя..." (p. 26)

Hope this explains why I deleted that passage from the article. (VMRO 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC))