Talk:Goce Delchev/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

1 Obvious bias
2 Kuzman Shapkarev (response to FlavrSavr)
3 initial comments from VMORO
4 dispute
5 About the nationality of D.
6 IMARO
7 The quotes from Misirkov's book - incorrect translations
8 The opinion of Azwhoopin18: Incredibly stupid talk
9 Article rehaul
10 Sources
11 Protection
12 Suggestions for edits #1
13 Suggestions for edits #2
14 Suggestions for edits #3
15 Suggestions for edits#4
16 A REAL SUGGESTION FOR EVERYONE, PLEASE READ SOME REAL HISTORY WWW.MACEDONIAGREECE.COM

Obvious bias

In this article the big point of contention is what ethnicity or nationality was GD. This is a meaningless detail. National belonging or ethnicity are not "facts" - they are ideas that individuals or groups adopt in order to satisfy a political or philosophical need. Yes, even poor sheperds in Macedonia have philosophical needs and ask themselves questions: who am I, why am I here and how come I turned out this way, let alone revolutionaries. The circumstance under which they adopted these ideas about themselves or their group are political and subject to change - political truths are very slippery (just watch CNN for 10 minutes!). Finally, all national ideologies are (re)writen after the fact: they are a romanticised reformulation of evidence that fits rather nicely to mandate some type of politics. This is the same for all the Balkan entities: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serb, Greek, Albanian... What is funny is that people belonging to a particular group will argue with a strengh that is matching the time-depth of the historic propaganda, so those who have appropriated particular histories longer (or longest) will always seem "righter". In this scenario, any Macedonian POV gets argued out becuase it cannot be physically "older" than about 100 years. Unfortunately, it doesn't get replaced with a NPOV, but with a Bulgarian POV, which has a better-in-the-sense-of-older documentary quality. The only way to avoid this problem is to re-write the article from the perspective of what GD means for present Macedonian politics and ideologies, and the same for any other of the Balkan states.--Modi 10:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the theoretical part of your reasoning - history tends to be idealised by every nation. However, I don't agree with the rest of the reasoning - what and where is the Bulgarian POV, can you answer me that question? Is it that Delchev was educated at a Bulgarian school, or is it that he was a teacher at the Bulgarian Exarchate? This is not POV, these are the plain facts which the Macedonians omit because they are not convenient for them. Or is it that the IMARO leaders had Bulgarian ethnic identification? I have left a source list at the bottom of the page, it is incomplete - there are at least as many more (Western) sources which confirm what I am saying. As for the discussion of the way Macedonian and Bulgarian history looks at Delchev, that will be only useful to add. But there is a significant difference between facts and national narrative (whether it is Macedonian or Bulgarian) VMORO 12:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and this statement "The only way to avoid this problem is to re-write the article from the perspective of what GD means for present Macedonian politics and ideologies" is something I completely disagree with - this is antihistorical, antiwiki and anti-NPOV. VMORO 12:24, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point VMORO. However, your reasoning is idealistic because you assume that "these are the plain facts". The "plain facts" you discuss are actually ideological and political notions (i.e. niether plain - people are sometime very complex, in particular revoltutionary types! - nor facts: historic "facts" can and have changed all the time, usually to suit the "winner" - not Macedonia anytime soon). I actually have almost no problem with these "plain facts" in the article as long as they "live" given an understanding about what they really are: ideological and political notions. No one says that these can't be documented and ,indeed, you provide evidence supporting this. Still, historic encyclopedic entries dealing with current issues are always contentious - they are too closely tide to recent and current politics. This is perhaps why some Macedonians get irritated by certain entries. My advice is not to change the article, but to explore how GD is appreciated for what he did in the sense of how that effects present-day Macedonia, Bulgaria etc, in addition to the "plain facts". But maybe this is wishful thinking as fundamentalist notions - the current trend in political thinking worldwide, from USA to France to the Balkans to ME to Asia - puts more emphasis on what people and politicians "believe in" than what they actually do (or did)! Appart from stating in the intro that he was of Bulagrian ethnicity, I see no point in reaffirming this - especially as it is not a disputed issue. But it is underscored again ("Delchev spoke of himself as Bulgarian" + added underline emphasis in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goce_Delchev_Letter.jpg) and I wonder for what purpose in such a small article? Does it help explain anything? How has his "Bulgarity" affected present day Bulgaria? On the other hand, his actions have definately affected how Macedonians percieve themselves today because his historical persona has been used to construct, in part, the romanticism and idealism underlying current Macedonian nationalist ideology. This is not reflected in the article, but it is the reason why he is important, in Macedonia at least. I am not aware that he is as important an historic figure for current Bulgaria's own national or patriotic ideologies - outside questioning the historic validity of Macedonian nationalism - but I will stand corrected (and better informed) if this is the case! --Modi 15:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modi, I totally agree on the NPOV attitude you seem to have about this particular article. First of all, I'd like to state that I'm a Macedonian, so everything I'll say might be considered a POV, by definition, and I'm aware of that (unlike VMORO). I would also like VMORO to reveal his nationality, so it would be clear which POV he's representing. Thanks to the omnipresent VMORO, wiki articles concerning Macedonian history, are full with Bulgarian POVs, and he seems to be nervous when his nationalistic views are not accepted (he has several disputes with romanian users, also). I'm not a historian, and I hope, in time, the passive macedonian historians will express their arguments here - we also have plain facts. However, I have certain things to add, that a neutral reader of this article should have in mind:

I have never concealed my nationality - I am a Bulgarian Macedonian (or more exactly, a Macedonian Bulgarian) and I am proud of it. This is the reason why I am interested in articles concerning Macedonia - because they directly bear reference to the my own origins. A "Bulgarian Bulgarian" will never pay so much attention to them. I can, however, substantiate every single edit I have made in Wikipedia - with evidence and sources. And this is scarcely something which can be said about Macedonian editors here, FlavrSavr. It is likewise scarcely my fault that Macedonian history as seen by the Macedonian Slavs themselves diverges so much from the historical facts. As for the statement that you also have "plain facts", no, you don't. VMORO 21:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that macedonian users changed this article without argumenting, but this is a result of the poor involvement of macedonian users in the current wikipedia development. They have only reacted emotionally as every Macedonian would do. I hope my work on the macedonian wikipedia will help inform the macedonian public: 1. first of all, about the existence of this encyclopedia and 2. about the rules of the "game" - you just can't revert texts without argumenting. This would a difficult task, however, considering the poor internet distribution in Macedonia. As for the "plain facts", yes, we do have them, and I'll try to expose some of them here, although for a more thorough examination of GD's life, we need professional historians, I think. --FlavrSavr 19:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The previous version of this article by VMORO, was an obvious example of his intentions - the article wasn't about Goce Delchev, but to prove that he was a Bulgarian.

No, it was a layout, again, of the "plain facts". I am participating in this discussion in order to improve this article and make it more NPOV, if you are doing it for other reasons, may be it is about time you say what they are. VMORO 21:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

A simple innocent layout with facts about GD's life? Oh, come on. There were 3 or 4 paragraphs, each of them stating his relations to Bulgaria, not his revolutionary work within the Ottoman Empire, plus a picture of a letter where he says, "We Bulgarians"? You don't have to be too smart to see that this was intended to emphasise GD's "bulgarity", as Modi had observed. As for my reasons - I have deliberately avoided to edit this article just because I wanted to leave that to professional macedonian and world historians. My interests are philosophy and sociology, and I'll become more active on the english wikipedia on these fields as soon as I manage to build a solid base for the further growth of the macedonian wikipedia. Moreover, you don't see me in a nationalistic quarrels with Romanian, Serbian or other users, do you? --FlavrSavr 19:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

2. Bulgarian history has intentionally overstated these two or three letters where GD vaguely mentions his "bulgarian" ethnicity. Modi has put this properly, and this should be repeated again and again to Bulgarian imperialistic ideology: National belonging or ethnicity are not "facts" - they are ideas that individuals or groups adopt in order to satisfy a political or philosophical need. There's no such thing as 'Bulgarians by blood'! What is important in GD's case is the historical circumstances which construct his field of action - he fought for Macedonian authonomy, separate from the Bulgarian state, and he strongly resisted interference from the Bulgarian officers. Bulgarian history considers this a intermediate phase for the later unification of the two entities in one state, but this is somewhat illogical to me - why would he abandon a strong government and military behind him, and rely only on the forces of the Macedonian people in the struggle against a Goliath such as the Ottoman empire? (this is one of the key principles in the IMARO statute).

Have I ever stated in Wikipedia that the point with Macedonian autonomy was a successive union with Bulgaria. No. Because this is a POV opinion. But this is a POV opinion which was shared by nearly all contemporary observers at the beginning of the 20th century, including by Misirkov. VMORO 21:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is precisely why they are more important to Macedonian history, rather than Bulgarian - they fought for a Macedonian autonomy, in time when, they (as "pure Bulgarians") could have the luxury of the bulgarian state support.--FlavrSavr 19:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

3. He was a Bulgarian teacher. Yes, but this is a semantic trap. He was a teacher in a Bulgarian school, because there were NO macedonian schools present on the territory of Macedonia - not because there were no Macedonians, but because there were no funds for them, unlike bulgarian, serbian and greek schools which were generously funded by the governments of these states. This was intended to give Macedonians a Serbian, Greek, and Bulgarian national feeling. However, the historical process (the idea of history as a complex process is also ignored by Bulgarian historians - if someone regarded Macedonians as Bulgarians in the 19th century, this is a clear sign that Macedonians have always been and always will be Bulgarians "by blood") clearly resulted with a separate Macedonian identity, Macedonian language, Macedonian church, etc.

4.The "bulgarian ethnicity" of Goce Delchev is somewhat incorrect to me. As we have seen the concept of ethnicity is unclear - GD certainly didn't fought for a Greater Bulgaria. In MY OPINION, the notion of Bulgarian in the 19th century is not related to the Bulgarian state or nation, but as another way to differentiate from the muslim turks and greeks, "bulgarian" with the meaning of " slav christian", or to be more precise "member of the Bulgarian church" (this, again wasn't a statement about their 'bulgarity' - there was no macedonian church, and the efforts of Teodosi Gologanov to reestablish the abolished Ohrid Archibischopry as a separate macedonian church were persecuted as heretic). However, when it comes to the ethnicity of GD, I think that there should be a separate paragraph in the end of the article, considering the two views of this issue - Macedonian and Bulgarian.

No, he did not fight for a Greater Bulgaria, can you quote me saying that? No, you can't, because I haven't done it. He, however, didn't fight for a Macedonian Slav Macedonia. As for the thesis that "it was the Bulgarian Exarchate that bulgarised the Macedonian Slavs", it is about time you all give up this cock-and-bull story because it simply doesn't work. The Bulgarian Exarchate was founded in 1870 and its educational campaign in Macedonia started in the 1880s. I can quote around 20 books by European travellers until 1870 who passed through Macedonia and who defined its Slavic population as Bulgarian (Mackenzie and Irby, Hann, Griesebach, Grigorovich, Makushev, Lejean, Boue, etc.). Some of them, like Boue and Poukeville, travelled in Macedonia in the 1830s when even in northern Bulgaria educated Bulgarians thought they were Greeks. Serbian Verkovic published "Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians" in 1860, the first dictionary of the modern Balkan languages (Bulgarian, Greek, Aromanian and Albanian) was published in 1770 and was based on the vernaculars of Bitola. The Slavic population of Macedonia was considered Bulgarian for centuries before the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate, that is quite clear, I am afraid.

"We didn't have our own schools, we didn't have our own church, there was no funding, that's why GD studied at a Bulgarian school where he was brainwashed..." - Has anyone prevented these "Macedonians" from creating their own church and schools if they wanted? Did anyone make Shapkarev, Parlichev and Zhinzifov to work on the codification of Modern Bulgarian and for the establishment of Bulgarian schools? Did anyone make 97% of the population of the Ohrid and Skopje dioceses to vote for the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1872? Did anyone make Paisii Hilendarski (from Pirin Macedonia) to write History of the Slav-Bulgarians in 1762 (instead of History of the Slav-Macedonians)? Did anyone make Neofit Rilski (from Pirin Macedonia) to write "First Bulgarian Grammar" in 1840 (instead of "First Macedonian Grammar")? If there was a wide-spread popular desire for the establishment of separate, Macedonian-Slav church and schools, it would have succeeded. VMORO 21:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

This is a part from a letter of the Bulgarian poet Petko Ratchev Slaveykov to the bulgarian exarch (the highest priest in the hierarchy of the Bulgarian Exarchate), written in february, 1874: "And now, like it was 20 years ago, the word is about the macedonian question. In the conversations with some of the macedonian "patriots" I have found out that this movement, that has been only about plain words few years ago, it has now become a clear and precise thought: "Macedonians are not Bulgarians", and they are persistent to have their own separate church, regarldless the price. In their particularism, they have support from some high priests in Istanbul (Carigrad), especially the High Priest Natanail Ohridski, Panaret Plovdivski, Archimandrite Hariton Karauzov. During this last month, from classified sources, I have found out that every day letters are being sent from Istanbul to the municipality of Thesallonika (Solun), from where they are send to the other municipalites. The letters are written in that manner. One of them, sent from the Thesallonika municipality to the Edessa (Voden) municipality, is calling the Edessians to stop all links with the Exarchate until the macedonian church question was resolved because the "time was now". Our well known mister Kuzman Shapkarev from Ohrid is especially, active in spreading the idea of the Ohrid Archibishopry renewal, and is constatly traveling from Kilkis (Kukush) to Ohrid, I don't know on whose travel expenses. Mister Dimitar Makedonski, the "macedonian textbook writer", who is receiving salary from the Exarchate, is active also. Because of these irrational sermons of the macedonian patriots, claiming that the church question is resolved only in favor of the Bulgarians, there is a certain bad mood rising among the people towards the Danubian and Andrianople eparchies, and envy because of the earlier educational awakening of the Bulgarians. There is an especially big resistance against the use of the eastern Bulgarian speech in the literature. There is a general impression that the locals consider that the Macedonians are somehow damaged in the resolving of the chuch question in favour of the Danubian and Thrace Bulgarians. This seediness has already evolved into а mistrust towards the Exarchate and its high hierarchy and there are efforts to push the local macedonian dialect into a official (literature) language, and to establish a macedonian hierarchy.... According to all that, the separatism has its roots in the secret circle in Istanbul. If there is enough pressure there, this efforts in Macedonia will come down." It is interesting to note that contemporary Bulgarian citizens have the same confusion about the Macedonian nation - they consider us, traitors, or "ungrateful", separatists or whatsoever. They fail to see that these macedonian efforts in the 19th century, and later in the 20th century are not simply regional egoisms, but a separate nation in awakening. VMORO, Macedonians didn't fight for a Bulgarian church, but for a joint SLAVIC one, in their efforts to end the greek cultural dominance. There were supposed to be sermons on the mother tongue of the Macedonians, not in the Bulgarian official language. When their expectations were dissapointed, the first sparks of resistance appeared. Macedonian revolutionaries, including Goce Delchev, were educated in the schools of the Exarchate, some of them even become teachers, but they didn't have much options then. However, their hostile attitudes towards the Bulgarian Government and the Excarchate, show us that they were representing a different stance from the Bulgarian nationalistic ideals, a different path from the bulgarian one - the macedonian path. --FlavrSavr 19:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope you would take this POV in serious consideration. --FlavrSavr 03:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, your position is based on the assumption that "nationhood" could not have been born anything short of several hundred years ago. I disagree and assert that nationhood can equally be born today. It is niether an objective nor a scientific category. It is a political beast, sometimes a philosophical one. All it takes is political will (i.e. coordinated activity by a sufficient number of like-minded people) and a nation is born. After the fact, the ideologues will dive into the historical dustbin and reassemble "plain facts" to suit their nationalism. Last time this happened in the Balkans was between in 1961 and 1968 (see Bosniak) with a final and full outcome just several years old. Macedonian nationhood was born relatively late compared to mainstream European nationalisms, however, this does not make it less important, nor do its ideologues have, in any sense, "secondary" rights to interpreting the "plain facts" in order to substantiate Macedonian nation building. The fact that this irritates some of the neighbours (who had access to the historical dustbin first and established the "plain facts" some time ago) is normal: this is a by-product of nationalism. I have to insist that your citation of sources that predate the first political manifestation of the birth or development of Macedonian nationalism is irrelevant, however "correct" they may be from a documentary perspective. --Modi 07:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's get something clear, Modi, neither you, nor any other editer can prescribe which sources are relevant and which are not. And let's stop beating around the bush - if you don't see any difference between facts and national narratives, most people do so. Facts do not bend, narratives in most cases do - in the Macedonian one they do by 180 degrees. VMORO 18:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself, Modi. You insist that a nationhood can be born today, seemingly accepting the idea that the Macedonian nation has crystallized as a separate entity at some point in the 20th century (a notion shared by many researchers). But this also means that the Macedonians cannot lay any claims to the Macedonian liberation movement at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century as no notion of a separate Slav Macedonian nationhood existed, except among a handful of intellectuals. Yet, you want to "ban" all sources that "predate predate the first political manifestation of the birth or development of Macedonian nationalism". I don't know whether you realize this or not, but the only reason why there is any discussion nowadays as to whether the Macedonian liberation movement is a manifestation of the Bulgarian or the Slav Macedonian national idea is the existence nowadays of a separate Macedonian nation which lays claim to it. No one before the 1940s doubted that it was anything else but a liberation movement of the Macedonian Bulgarians. I also have a problem following your arguments as to the importance of Delchev for present-day Macedonian nationalism and how this should be turned into the "centre of the article". Do you mean that subjectivity should reign supreme? Comparing Macedonians with Bosniaks is a relatively bad idea, apart from the fact that both nationalities "attained nationhood" in the 20th century, there is nothing more linking the two. Bosniaks had a clear notion of being different from Serbs and Croatians for centuries due to their religion, Macedonians identified themselves and were identified as Bulgarians. Birkemaal

Kuzman Shapkarev (response to FlavrSavr)

Kuzman Shapkarev I

Kuzman Shapkarev II

Ok, let's first take a look at the views of Kuzman Shapkarev, apart from the two scanned documents here, there is more (unfortunately not whole works as yet, but I hope we'll get there as well, some day) on [1]. One of the main literary interests of Kuzman Shapkarev (the other one being largely to collect folktales) was to work for the inclusion of more Western Macedonian elements into Modern Bulgarian as he thought upper-Bulgarian (the dialect of the Central Northern Bulgaria) was overrepresented which was unfair to Western Macedonian - inasmuch as Western Macedonian and upper-Bulgarian were the two main Bulgarian dialects (these are his words, not mine). The article you are quoting refers to the middle of the 1870s when there was a conflict between "Western Macedonians" and "Upper-Bulgarians" regarding exactly the codification of Modern Bulgarian. After the April Uprising in 1876 and the beginning of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877, the conflict subsided, as quite clearly, other things were more important. In 1880, Shapkarev became the first director of the Exarchist Bulgarian high school in Solun "St. Cyril and Methodius" (this is the school which according to you brainwashed GD into being Bulgarian, so Shapkarev as a founder of the school had the greatest fault for the "bulgarisation" of GD) after advocating personally for the choice of Solun and winning against the Exarchate which insisted on Prilep. Later he moved to Sofia where he died. All of his works (including the scanned sheets on the website I indicated) are quite clear as to what his opinion was about his own nationality, as well as the nationality of all other Slavs living in Macedonia: Нова българска граматика, Градиво на българския език, Български народни умотворения, etc. etc. etc. His conflict in the middle of the 1870s with the "upper-Bulgarians" was a conflict of Bulgarians with Bulgarians concerning the codification of the Bulgarian language. It can only be regretted that he didn't manage to win over, his cause was a just cause. And please don't say again that the Bulgarians are trying to "bulgarize" the Macedonians, obvously it is impossible to "bulgarize" someone who was already a Bulgarian. VMORO23:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

For a long time even the Slovaks themselves would have trouble agreeing on the question of their language. Thus Jan Kollar and Pavel Jozef Shaflarik, the most prominent cultural and literary men of the times in Slovakia, supported the view that a single unified literary language be created for the Czechs and Slovaks. However, further developments went against this and led to the affirmation of an independent Slovak literary language. In the 19th century most of the Slavic literary languages had not yet been formed and the directions of development were still being sought, in accordance with the characteristic phases of development of national awareness of the Slavic nations. By the 20th century the process of formation of the individual Slavic literary languages had been completed. In the 19th century people believed with romantic fervor in the possibility of a future which they thought promised a deeper brotherly solidarity among the Slavs than was possible in reality. Among them were people such as the Macedonian Grigor Prlichev, who attempted to create a common Slavic literary language. Now, under these changed conditions, the autocratically oriented powers attempted, with the support of the state, to force the acceptance of their unitaristic conceptions. It is obvious that the difference between these two moments in the history of the Slavic nations is very great, and that there is a different significance to the two cases, even though at first glance they may appear identical. The fact that Jan Kollar was not in favor of the existence of an independent Slovak language can not be used as an argument against it, or Rajko Zhinzifov's and Kuzman Shapkarev's towards the Macedonian language be used as arguments against their existence as independent literary languages. However, the autocratic approach does just this, in complete disregard of history. In the case of the Macedonian national name and the name for the Macedonian language, use was made of a regional name with a long tradition, the scope of which changed with time. Within the Turkish empire non-Slavic neighbors usually called the Slavic population Bulgarians and their language Bulgarian (with the exception of the Albanians, who used the term Shqe meaning Slavs). This terminology took no account of the differences between the Slavic nations. Thus in the 17th century Evli Celebi speaks of Bulgarians even in Belgrade and Sarajevo. This name was used to some extent among the Macedonians as well, along with other general or regional terms. It is another matter to how great an extent the term was used and with what significance. --FlavrSavr 13:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, and Safarik and Kollar called their language Czech and themselves Slovakian Czechs? No, they did not. Shapkarev, Zhinzifov and Parlichev called themselves Bulgarians, called their language Bulgarian and produced works which were again called "Bulgarian" - Bulgarian Primer, Bulgarian Folk Songs, New Bulgarian Grammar. They talked about their own, Macedonian dialects as of dialects of Bulgarian. The comparison between Macedonian/Bulgarian and Czech/Slovak doesn't work.

No one in the 19th century called the Serbs in Kosovo or in free Serbia Bulgarians, and no, the name Bulgarians was not used about various Southern Slavs, it was used about the present-day Bulgarians and Macedonians. I have given good examples of foreign observers who noted that the name which the Slavs in Macedonia used to describe themselves was "Bulgarians" (for example, Verkovic). All the 19th century intelligentsia from Macedonia used also the name "Bulgarians". And the 19th century is, I will remind you, the rise of nationalism. So: the population called itself Bulgarian, the intelligentsia called itself Bulgarian and all other observers knew them as Bulgarians, but they were, in the end, something else... VMORO 22:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually Jan Kollar did consider that there was no national differences between the Czechs and the Slovaks and regarded Slovaks as a mere subset of the single Czechoslovakian nation. Karadzhic viewed the Croats as catholicized Serbs, while the distinguished Croatian writer Ivan Mazuranic was a proponent of a unifed Serbocroatian language. Does this make him a Serb? It is easy to use the "Pan-Slavist" (sometimes, especially in Macedonia, named as a "Pan-Bulgarian", just as Old Church Slavonic is regarded as "Old Bulgarian", but not "bulgarian" in a nationalistic sense) movement that was primarily ment to be a tool for a struggle against hellenization or germanization of the Slavs living within the Otoman or Habsburg Empire, for imperialistic thesis. You might argue then: Why then Bulgarian Grammar, instead of Macedobulgarian? Although, I think I have pointed out in several occasions the relative meaning that was given to the term Bulgarian, it is undeniable that macedonian "dialects" were considered a threat for the literary Bulgarian language just in the time when the Bulgarian nation with a codified language was being crystalized because: " when other goals are taken into account, the goals of breaking up our not yet fully organized nation, then every man is duty-bound to oppose such an evil" (P.R. Slaveykov, "Makedonskij V'pros" (The Macedonian Question ), in "Makedonija" (Istambul), January 18, 1871). Moreover, Gjorgji Pulevski published two books concerning this: The Slav-Macedonian Basic History (Slavyano Makedonska Opshta Istorija) and the Dictionary of three languages ("Rechnik od tri jezika") where he states: "A nation is the term for people who are of one origin and who speak the same language, and who live and associate with each other and who have the same customs and songs and festivals, these people are called a nation and the place where they live is called the fatherland of this nation. Thus the Macedonians are a nation and their home is Macedonia." (Pulevski, "Rechnik od tri jezika" (Dictionary in Three Languages) (Belgrade, 1875), p.49). Also there are other references by Pulevski which mark a clear distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians, if you want to I will quote them. As for the population of Macedonia declaring themselves as Bulgarians, I once again strongly suggest Brailford's chapter "Are Macedonians Serbs or Bulgarians" and a serious consideration of a bulgarian slavistic Balan's theory. Same applies for the foreign observers, and furthermore, a considerable ammount of them where positive about the fact that Macedonians were neither Serb nor Bulgarian (Draganov, Hron, Shtepan, Gavrilovic, Reiss, Barbusse, Meillet...) And the 19th century is, I will remind you, the rise of nationalism. (Exactly, the nationalistic propagandas from Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece were ment to give the average Macedonian some of these national grand states feeling, they have failed despite the fact that the Macedonians lacked state funded institutions to embrace the development of a separate macedonian nation)So: the population called itself Bulgarian, the intelligentsia called itself Bulgarian and all other observers knew them as Bulgarians, but they were, in the end, something else... Yes, isn't that an ironic fact for the "everlasting Bulgarians"? --FlavrSavr 20:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

initial comments from VMORO

To any unbiased readers who are in a quandary as to whether IMRO and Goce Delchev are Macedonian or Bulgarian but do not speak either language:

Check old newspapers (prior to the 1940's) and magazines, esp. ones published in the period July to September 1903 (the time of the Ilinden Uprising). I am hoping to get English newspapers about that time on the net soon, there should be a link here.

Skim through Henry Brailford's book "Macedonia, its races and their futures" (1906) or any other book written before the 1940's. Brailford is used abundantly in histories and anthologies published by Macedonian historians and linguists (though only certain sentences and statements), he can't be blamed for partiallity.

Check out and the following excerpt from the book "On the Macedonian Matters" (1904) by Krste Misirkov, the idelogist of the establishment of the Macedonian nation and the Macedonian language. The whole book can be found at http://nka.com.mk/misirkov/ in PDF format. The excerpt is from the second chapter, roughly pages 11 and 12. Here Misirkov talks about IMRO:

-- The "Comittee" as used by Misirkov means IMRO. The name is different as the first name of the organization until 1902 is Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople (Macedonian-Odrin) Revolutionary Committee. The name Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organisation was adopted in 1906 and the name Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation - in 1920.

--The "Uprising" as used by Misirkov means the Ilinden Uprising

"If this is so, can we really be surprised at the attitude of the Russian government concerning the Macedonian question or its declaration that Russia would not help the Committee if it meant the creation of a Bulgarian Macedonia? Some of us may naïvely remark that: '“the Committee does not want to make Macedonia Bulgarian; it seeks justice for all Macedonians, regardless of faith or nationality.”'

According to Macedonian historians, IMRO fought for Macedonia for the Macedonian Slavs, according to Misirkov IMRO fought for "all Macedonians, regardless of faith or nationality" (the Bulgarian position)

"How could the Committee prove that this is what it is working for? This cannot be proved by words alone. The very behavior of the Committee itself contradicts these assertions. If a revolution is to be started in the interests of all the nationalities living in Macedonia, then the Committee must be formed from the representatives of all the nationalities living in Macedonia. One cannot help asking who gave the Committee the right to act in the name of all Macedonians and on their behalf? The Committee could have worked both in the name of and on behalf of a large section of the Macedonians, i.e. the most powerful nationalities. But much proof would be needed to show that the Committee’s work is not bound up with the interests of the neighboring states and nationalities, that it is, in fact, opposed to these interests, and that its work is of benefit not only to the ruling nationalities but also to all the others. No such proof exists. The Organization has close links with Bulgaria. It was in Bulgaria that the movement of the Organization first made itself heard. This showed who was most interested in the Macedonian movement and this was why they shifted its center to Macedonia, making a number of other moves to show that the misunderstandings were internal and that they were the outcome of a self-generative phenomenon. But who was deceived by this maneuver? Is it not perfectly clear that the misunderstanding was in fact closely bound up with Bulgaria, with Bulgaria’s name and Bulgaria’s money?"

According to Macedonian historians IMRO was the Slav Macedonian party in Macedonia, which fought against Bulgarian-sponsored "Supremists" (the Bulgarian party).

"Most of those, you may say, who sacrificed themselves for the liberation movement belonged to the people. This is true, but one should not forget that most of the organizers of the movement were officials of the Exarchate. It is self-evident, then, that by taking part in the work of the revolution they were acting at variance with the interests of the Exarchate; yet for all this they were still Bulgarian officials."

The Bulgarian Exarchy was the independent Bulgarian ecclesiastical organisation before 1913. According to Macedonian historians IMRO activists were Slav Macedonian patriots, according to Misirkov they are Bulgarian officials.

"Thus the Revolutionary Committee was, both by origin and by constitution, a purely Macedonian organization; in its work, however, it represented only a part of one of the nationalities in Macedonia, linked in name, and in church and school matters, to the people of Bulgaria, their country and their interests. Although this Committee was essentially Macedonian, for the outer world and for the Macedonian Christians who did not belong to the Exarchate, it was a Bulgarian Committee."

No comment...

"The Committee could not prove to the outer world, or even to the Macedonians who did not belong to the Exarchate, that it was not Bulgarian."

The Committee did not succeed but present-day Macedonian historians have succeeded - without guns, just with falsifications and distortions of historical evidence.

Through his Mouvement Macédonien4 Radev hoped to convince Europe that the movement was purely Macedonian and that it had nothing in common with Bulgaria. Pravo and other Macedonian and Bulgarian papers wished to prove the same point. But did they achieve their aim? (No. 4 Simeon Radev (1879-1967), the well-known Bulgarian diplomat and politician, Macedonian by origin (from Resen); as a student he edited the Mouvement Macédonien in Paris, 1902-1903. Editor’s note.)

Macedonian historians claim that the Bulgarians tried to conceal in any way the "Slav Macedonian" character of Macedonia and IMRO, Misirkov says that Bulgarian newspapers and politicians tried to convince the world IMRO was a purely Macedonian movement. (The goal of IMRO was to gain autonomy for Macedonia as a whole so as to avoid its division - and later unite it with Bulgaria the way it was done with Eastern Rumelia)

"The late Rostkovski5 often said: “The Bulgarians think they are the only people in the world with brains, and that all others are fools. Whom do they hope to deceive with their articles in Pravo and other papers saying that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians? We know very well what they want!” And what sort of effect was made on the diplomatic world by the announcements made in the newspapers by the Committee and the Bulgarians concerning the Macedonian question! It should also not be forgotten that the European newspapers, when writing of the clashes between the rebel detachments and the Turks, referred to the detachments as “bands”, Bulgarian bands what’s more, and not Macedonian. And when speaking of the rebel losses they did not say “so many Macedonians were killed” but “so many Bulgarians.”"

Should I comment on that?

"One asks, then, who was persuaded by papers such as the Mouvement Macédonien, Pravo and Avtonomija that it was the Macedonians who were fighting for freedom and not those who were called Bulgarians and originated from Macedonia or Bulgaria? Nobody."

According to Macedonian historians IMRO activists were Slav Macedonian patriots, according to Misirkov they are Bulgarian patriots. I am sorry if I am repeating myself.

"The Committee did perhaps succeed within Macedonia in being accepted as Macedonian, but in Europe it did not gain this recognition, or only to a very small extent. The Revolution should be the concern of all. Macedonians, or at least most of them, if it is to be called a general revolution. All the nationalities – or several of them at least – should be represented in the Committee itself. The intelligentsia of these nationalities should offer one another a helping hand and do their best to popularize the idea of the revolution in their region. But what actually happened? Not only were the intelligentsia of all the nationalities, or the greater part of them, not represented on the Committee, not even the intelligentsia of the most powerful Macedonian nationality – the Slavs – were fully represented, for the Serbophile and Hellenophile Macedonian Slav intelligentsia were left out of the Committee, and their attitude was hostile. So, in the towns and villages attached to the Patriarchate, or in certain parts of the towns and villages, the Committee was an uninvited guest. The Patriarchate Slavs could have felt sympathetic towards it, but, since their intelligentsia were opposed to the Committee, the villagers themselves undoubtedly felt very little sympathy, and what sympathy they did feel was mixed up with a lack of conviction in the promises of the Committee. This ill-defined feeling was accompanied by a sense of fear. The villagers were caught between two fires: the army, and the rebel detachments. When a movement is spread by conviction in one place and by force in another, can it be called a general movement?"

"We can call the Uprising whatever we like, but in fact it was only a partial movement. It was, and still is, an affair of the Exarchists: that is, a Bulgarian ploy to settle the Macedonian question to its own advantage by creating a Bulgarian Macedonia.Perhaps it is still not clear whether Macedonia will really become Bulgarian if the Committee has its way? I shall try to explain more clearly how the reforms might lead to the Bulgarization of Macedonia..."

One of my favourites - the Ilinden Uprising which is proclaimed by Macedonian historians as the ultimate manifestation of SLAV MACEDONIAN NATIONALISM is a referred to by Misirkov as a BULGARIAN PLOT TO BULGARIZE MACEDONIA!!!

Poor Misirkov couldn't have suspected that there one day would be a Macedonian state which regards IMRO as the greatest manifestation of "Slav Macedonian" spirit and Goce Delchev as the greatest hero of Macedonia. If he knew, he would have written something "convenient"

You can go on reading the rest of the book - which is ok if you keep in mind that this is no pro-Bulgarian book but a proposal for the establishment of a Macedonian nation. The book is generally translated correctly with the exception of a "very accidental" mistake in the Preface, the beginning of the third paragraph:

(In the vernacular): "Мнозина од македонцките читачи ке бидат удивени от поiавуан'ето на таiа книга. За удивуаiн'е ке им бидит во неiа много. Некоiи ке речат: зошто отцепуаiн'е от бугарите, кога ниiе до сега сме се велеле бугари и соединеiн'ето, а не расцепуаiн'ето праит силата?"

(Translation): "Most Macedonian readers will be delighted at the appearance of this book. There will be much in it to surprise them. Some will ask why I speak of breaking away from the Bulgarians when in the past we have even called ourselves Bulgarians and when it is generally accepted that unification creates strength, and not separation."

The expression "до сега" means "until now", it has the same meaning in both modern Bulgarian and Macedonian. You can check that in any Bulgarian-English or Macedonian-English dictionary. "до сега" is INCORRECTLY translated as in the past + "even", which gives a completely different meaning to the sentence. That's what the passage should read:

"Most Macedonian readers will be delighted at the appearance of this book. There will be much in it to surprise them. Some will ask why I speak of breaking away from the Bulgarians when UNTIL NOW we have called ourselves Bulgarians and when it is generally accepted that unification creates strength, and not separation."

Contrary to what it looks like (the big nation trying to gulp down the little one) and contrary to what Macedonian propaganda says, this is no manifestation of Bulgarian irredentism, nationalism, jingoism or any other -ism. The victim in this case is our history, which is supposed to make a comparatively new nation enjoy "a glorious past" which it has never had. But if Hitler had won the war and had presented the six million Jews as happy labourers in the Ukraine and Poland, would that make them less dead???!

dispute

It's quite amusing to see the above monologue end with Godwin's Law :) I'm thinking we need a less biased presentation of opinions regarding Delchev -- it's not neutral to speak of the Bulgarian point of view without qualifying it, and then explicitly qualify the Macedonian point of view. We obviously can't know whether he would have opted for Macedonian nationality had he been born half a century later, but it's not exactly reasonable to entirely denounce that line of thought. --Joy [shallot] 23:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==VMORO Well, I wonder who will be able to give that *neutral* representation of the facts and what sources that editor will use: Macedonian history books, Bulgarian history books or old sources? As old sources are unequivocal as to what exactly Delchev and IMRO stood for and that was certainly not Slav Macedonian nationalism. To give two opinions an equal weight disregarding evidence and facts is, I think, solely unfair. As to which nationality would Delchev pick 50 years later - well, isn't that totally speculative or what?! I would say he would emigrated to Germany and apply for German citizenship. May be we should regard him as German after all.

The first statement is an assertion and the second is a red herring. Please... --Joy [shallot]

About the nationality of D.

I am not too happy with the present edit, either, but I am amazed to see that you consider your opinion 'an assertion', Joy. Personal POVs on what nationality, ideology or religion historical figures would opt for before or after their times might make a good topic when writing a fiction novel but have no place here. NikosP

I'm not saying what he would opt for, I'm saying what he basically did opt for. As far as the Macedonian Slavs are concerned, this was a time of national formation for them and he was a pioneer of Macedonian self-determination. Declared Bulgarian by ethnicity, sure, but ethnicity isn't always the same as nationality. --Joy [shallot] 11:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Joy, no offence, but the multicultural vision of Macedonia that D. seems to have professed has very little to do with the current Slav Macedonian nationality/ethnicity. NikosP

I suppose that could be right, but with regard to the history of all the other similar movements in the vicinity I can't force myself to agree that it would ever have managed to evolve into a multicultural society; rather, I'm pretty sure that it would end up concentrating on national unification like all the others did. --Joy [shallot]

Which is, of course, a point of view that can be deemed biased and revisionist and whatever. But it doesn't strike me as one particularly worth denigrating. --Joy [shallot]

-- This was the time of the first signs of Macedonian consciousness, the national formation was in the 1930's and 40's. And Delchev was certainly not a pioneer of national determination (like Misirkov). In Dobrudzha and Thrace there were also internal revolutionary organisations - IDRO and ITRO, which also strove for autonomy and independence.

Well, they have to begin somewhere. National movements don't tend to draw just from fervent exclusivists or whathaveyou. I don't see it as very unnatural for the Macedonian nationalists to claim descendence from Delchev as well as someone who was more determinate. --Joy [shallot] 11:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VMORO I have nothing against them claiming descendence from anyone (including Delchev). I certainly have a lot against them trying to conceal, hush up and distort the Bulgarian side of his activity, incl. the fact that he was a Bulgarian teacher at the Bulgarian Exarchate, that in written correspondence he used only formal Bulgarian and that he presented himself as Bulgarian.

My grandgrandfather was Goce Delchev's cousin, he was several years younger than him, and he used to say that most of the people from Kukush considered themself Bulgarians (including Goce Delchev). He also used to say that there never was Macedonian ethnicity and that they all were Bulgarian. --Lili100

IMARO

IMARO was founded on October 23, 1893, not 1895. VMRO, you can check this at [2] --webkid 20:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have seen several different versions as to where and when IMARO was founded, incl. 1893, 1895, Thessaloniki, Sofia and Resen. As I am not in Sofia and cannot check the Macedonian archives, I put 1895. BUT: the name IMARO was adopted in 1904 or 1908, I cannot remember exactly. The previous two names of the organisation were Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committee and Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committee.

Would you mind giving me your email address? It's very unpleasant to talk to a person of your nation in a foreign language. Or maybe we can talk in Bulgarian on your talk page? --webkid 12:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The quotes from Misirkov's book - incorrect translations

Regarding the following passage from Misirkov's book:

"Most Macedonian readers will be delighted at the appearance of this book. There will be much in it to surprise them...."

The first sentence here is a complete opposite of the original. The correct translation should be this:

"Most Macedonian readers will be perplexed and puzzled at the appearance of this book..."

And they really were not only puzzled but also disgusted with this book. In fact after the appearance of that book IMARO considered Misirkov as a traitor who sold his soul to the Serbs.

It is also worth noting that Misirkov completely changed his views not long after the publishing of that infamous brochure: all his subsequent works are imbued with a fervent Bulgarian nationalism.

---

Even if Delchev was Bulgarian (which he was not, the statement used usually relates to a different concept of Bulgarian than the one present day Bulgarians use for themselves

This sounds only bizarre VMORO 20:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)~),

he was still Macedonian revolutionary, for he fought for revolution in Macedonia. And as far as Misirkov goes, yes, he went through a period of Bulgarian nationalism, and then went back to the claim that he was a Macedonian.

--Vedm 19:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delchev was a Bulgarian according to himself and according to everyone around him. And this is well recorded in western sources, as well, for example [3]

A Macedonian revolutionary he certainly was, but many nationalities live in the geographical region of Macedonia. And since he himself admitted he was Bulgarian, since everyone else at his time considered him a Bulgarian (Greeks, Turks, Western observers), the question is closed. Pls, stop reverting. VMORO 20:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)~

The article you gave me is perfect, actually, in confirming my point. One, the Bulgarian nationality was applied to Macedonians through the education system, which is how Prlichev, Miladinov and Delchev, as intellectuals growing in environment where Bulgarian was equated with Slavic, learned that they were Bulgarians. Nowadays, even the 600 published Macedonian songs in Miladinov's collection are refered to as Bulgarian because of that title, which doesn't make them Bulgarian (and in the working process Miladinov and his friends did refer to the collection as a collection of Macedonian songs). Point is that being Bulgarian was considered equal to being Slavic. Bulgarians tend mute this point. Second, I have never changed the claim that he is Bulgarian (there is argumentation that he was, pure and simple), but as you said, he was a Macedonian revolutionary and this is what it has to stand on the page for him - Bulgarian or not, he fought for a Macedonian state, that is what made him important and that is what people who read the text should learn - he was a Macedonian revolutionary, he claimed he was a Bulgarian. It is a fine line, but if your interest is information that people should learn and not propaganda you will see it (and come on, I am Macedonian and I recognize the claim that he was Bulgarian). The question will be closed only when this point is settled. And as far as the claim by Lili100 goes, there is truth in that most people from Kukus claimed they were Bulgarians, as well as that the language he thaught was considered to be Bulgarian but as far the language he used and the claim that there never was Macedonian ethnicity - I believe those are personal interpretation for even nowadays Bulgarians claim that the Macedonian language and nationality are just a Bulgarian dialect and Serbian construction to hide Bulgarian blood, accordingly. Best regards. Dukoski

I don't see any argument against what I said. These people did not "learn" that they were Bulgarians as you say, neither the Miladinov brothers, nor Parlichev studied in Bulgarian schools, they studied in Greek schools where they "learned" they were Greeks. They chose their nationality by their own volition - in pretty much the same way that for example Vasil Aprilov or the Bogoridis from northern Bulgaria chose to be Bulgarians after he himself was educated in a Greek school to be Greek.

As for the people of Kukush - the town was the strongest Bulgarian centre in present-day Greek Macedonia with almost no supporters of the Patriarchate. And this was valid even before the establishment of the Exarchate in 1870. That's why so many of the Kukushans were actualy Uniate (I don't like the term Greek Catholic). The town was burned and destroyed by the Greek army in 1913 and its whole surviving population escaped to Bulgaria and settled in Sofia. My grandparents actually come from Kukush. More Bulgarian than that things cannot be, I am sorry. The inference that all Slavs coming from Macedonia should be Macedonian Slavs is just not valid - quite evidently many of them were and are Bulgarians.

So, I am taking a note about the "Macedonian", yet the ethnicity of Goce Delchev remains Bulgarian - and I am making the necessary correction. Regards VMORO 09:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)~

VMORO, if you are sincere about this, and about NPOV, you should change "was a Bulgarian revolutionary" to read "was a revolutionary of Bulgarian nationality". Applying the adjective "Bulgarian" to revolutionary seems a bit strange to me - consider this: Was the Marquis de Lafayette an American or a French revolutionary? --Modi 18:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No reason to become suspicious - this is a very good edit, thank you. I am just gonna change nationality to ethnicity if you don't mind... Regards VMORO 12:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of Azwhoopin18: Incredibly stupid talk

User:Azwhoopin18:

incredibly stupid talk

Goce Delcev, Jane Sandanski, Dame Gruev, Todor Aleksandrov, - they were all macedonians and fought for Macedonia

im not gonna get into this stupid talk, a total nonsense also, we can talk of Hristo Botev, he is thought to be a Macedonian, no?

You seem to be getting something wrong here - you are supposed to be able to substantiate your edits. If you cannot or you do not want to do that, you might as well stop editing. By refusing to discuss and substantiate your edits and viewpoints - as you did in your statement above - you allow your work here to be judged as vandalism. If you consistently pursue such a policy, the only probable result will be banning you from access. VMORO

With regard to the articles Samuil, Vasil Levski, Bitola Inscription - a simple look at Encyclopaedia Britannica ot Encarta is enough to validate the text prior to your edits. As regards Skopje, the text you changed is from an earlier article, Uskub, now merged with Skopje, which is created on the basis of material from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, which is again easily validated on [4]. About the other articles, Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Ilinden uprising, I am open to discussion, I have enough sources I can quote or show (including "Macedonian" ones). Do you? VMORO 16:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Article rehaul

An anon user seems to have replaced the article with his own version. Though it' pretty well written (though I'm still checking for copyvio) it's rather clear that this is a Bad Thing. Perhaps someone who knows anything about the subject could combine the two versions. -- Kizor 11:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Righto... copyvio check positive.

I just want the world to see the truth. Let the Macedonians write about Macedonian history. We have the same right, as any other nation. We dont mess with Bulgarian, Greek and no other history. So dont let them mess with our history. Thank you. CrazyC

The wider Macedonian region has been and is currently inhabited by a number of different peoples. You cannot claim exclusive right to write about Macedonia, the same can be claimed by both Bulgarians and Greeks. And anyway, there are criteria of objectivity and factual accuracy, no one owns "title deeds" to certain articles.

Something else, you have started to revert this article and Ilinden uprising without substantiating your reverts on the talk pages and without refuting any of the evidence I have provided. You have also erased the source list I have provided for Ilinden uprising (and which is valid also here), as well. VMORO 18:49, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

If we let Bulgarians and Greeks to write about our history, we will just get biased history full with propaganda, and that is not something that Wikipedia could be proud of. Macedonia was divided in 1913 betwen 3 countries, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. And that doesnt mean that they all have the right for Macedonian history. But if you take the right to write about our history, than write about Macedonian history as it really happend, and not with biased propaganda. Write about Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian propaganda that spread on Macedonian territory since 19th century. Write about Greek genocide, that happend after partition. Write about Bulgarian attempts to bulgarise Macedonia, about Bulgarian falsified stone inscriptions from 19th and 20th century. Macedonia doesnt need propaganda, we need the truth. CrazyC

Read about journalist Allen Upward and his visit to Macedonia in 1907/1908. Here is what he had to say;

"...I asked him what language they spoke, and my Greek interpreter carelessly rendered the answer Bulgare. The man himself had said Makedonski. I drew attention to this word and the witness explained that he did not consider the rural dialect used in Macedonia the same as Bulgarian, and refused to call it by that name. It was Macedonian, a word to which he gave the Slav form of Makedonski, but which I was to hear farther north in the Greek form of Makedonike".

Learn what Catholic Sister of Charity, Augustine Bewicke said on January 4th 1919 in a letter to Ian Malcolm, a British diplomat. Here is part of her letter;

"The Greeks will not admit the Slav language in Churches or schools; the inhabitants of Macedonia are in the great majority Slavs; they call themselves now Macedonians, and what they desire and what we ardently desire for them is an autonomy under European control. -In whatever way Macedonia might be divided, the people would always be discontented, and would fight again as soon as possible. The only hope I can foresee is in a strong autonomy, which neither Greeks nor Bulgars nor Serbs would dare attack; then the Macedonians, who are really intelligent and docile when they are well treated, would peacefully develop this beautiful fertile country, and might learn to be civilized. -Surely Europe will not leave Macedonia under people whom the Macedonians hate, and whom they will continually fight. As the little Balkan states can never agree, but always fight for Macedonia, let none of them have it. -We might then have peace, the Catholics would again have heart, and all the years of hard work among them would not have been wasted."

Sister Augustine lived in Macedonia for 33 years.

Read what Greek Infantry Lieutenant Dim. Kamburas has to say about a situation in the Village Armensko in his report of January 25, 1925;

"Being shocked and increasingly concerned, I struck the village mayor when I heard him speak Bulgarian, which he wishes to call Macedonian, and I recommended that in the future he should always and everywhere speak only Greek, and that he should recommend that his villagers do the same."

Even Greek administrators and officials were not above being severely punished for poor performance in their duties of terrorizing and forcibly denationalizing the Macedonian population. Caring and showing compassion for the so called "Bulgars" was considered a weakness and a form of incompetence.

A Greek writer observed in 1914: "On my arrival to Salonika the idea of Greek peasants and the people on the actual difference bewteen the Greek Orthodox Church and Bulgarian schismatics was rather shaky. I realized this because whenever I asked them what they were - Romaioi (i.e. Greeks) or Voulgaroi (Bulgarians), they stared at me incomprehendingly. Asking each other what my words mean, crossing themselves, they would answer me naively: 'Well we are Christians'-what do you mean, Romaioi or Vulgaroi"? (See, Mark Mazower, The Balkans, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000, 45).

I. Malesheski - Makedon

Sure. Macedonia has been and is inhabited by a number of different people. Those who have considered themselves or consider themselves Macedonian Slavs certainly have the right to do so. But those who considered themselves Bulgarians or Greeks also have the right to do so. Let's here what the Macedonian Slav Misirkov has to say about Delchev's organization:

The opinion of Misirkov [5]:

Мнозина од македонцките читачи ке бидат удивени от поiавуан'ето на таiа книга. За удивуаiн'е ке им бидит во неiа много. Некоiи ке речат: зошто отцепуаiн'е от бугарите, кога ниiе до сега сме се велеле бугари и соединеiн'ето, а не расцепуаiн'ето праит силата?

[6] Некоi од нас, можит наивно ке забележит: „Комитетот не сакат да напраит Македониiа бугарцка; тоi сакат праина за сите македонци без разлика на вера и народност".

Како можит комитетот да докажит, оти он работит во таква смисл'а? Со iедни зборои не се докажуат. Поведеiн'ето на самиiо комитет зборуат против негоите утврдуаiн'а. За да се дигнит револ'уциiа во полза на сите народности во Македониiа, требит комитетот да бидит образуан от предстаители на сите македонцки народности. Инак коi му iет дал прао на комитетот да работит од името на сите македонци и во полза на сите ниф? Комитетот можеше да работит и од името и во полза на iедна громадна част на македонци, т.е. од наi силната народност. Но требаше да имат цел ред докажуачки, оти работата на комитетот не iет врзана со интересите на соседните држаи и народности, а протиоречит им и iет во полза не само на господствуiуките, но и на сите друзи националности. Нишчо подобно немат. Организациiата iет тесно врзана со Бугариiа. Шумот од организационото движеiн'е отпрво се дигна во самата Бугариiа. Тоа покажа, коi наi много iет заинтересуан во Македонцкото движеiн'е, за тоа пренесоа центрот негов во Македониiа, и напраиiа ушче iеден цел ред фокуси, за да се покажит, оти брканицата iет од натре и iет самородно iавуаiн'е. Но кого излажаа со тоiа маневр? Не iет ли iасно, како бел ден, оти брканицата iет тесно врзана со Бугариiа, со бугарцкото име и со бугарцките пари?

И така револ'уциониiо комитет беше чисто македонцка организациiа по произлез и по состаот му, но тоа беше само работа на iедна част од iедна од македонцките нацiоналности, врзана по име и ло црковно-сколиiцките работи со бугарцкиiо народ и држаа и нивните интереси. Тоiа комитет, во сашност македонцки, за надворешниiо свет и за рисiаните во Македониiа не екзархисти, беше комитет бугарцки.

Комитето не можа да докажит ни на надворешниiо свет, ни на самите македонци не екзархисти, оти он не iет бугарцки.

Sources

My patience with the ignorance and the indoctrination demonstrated by people like you is wearing thin. It is amazing how people like you can come here and argue after having read several nationalist textbooks. I am giving you a list of sources (only Western ones, not Bulgarian, Greek or Romanian), most of the books have online versions so you can look at them now. Check them and come back if you wanna discuss them. Until then, please, refrain from reverting the article again, if you do it again I'll ask an administrator to block it temporarily. This is the source list:

Durham, Edith. (1905). The Burden of the Balkans
Brailsford, Henry Noel. (1906). Macedonia: Its Races and Their Future. London: Methuen & Co
Pozzi, Henry. (1935). Black hand over Europe. F. Mott and Co., London (for online version of relevant pages, click here)
MacDermott, Mercia. (1978). Freedom or Death - the life of Gotse Delchev. London: Journeyman Press
Banac, Ivo. (1984). The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics. Cornell

University Press: Ithaca/London (for online version of relevant pages, click here)

Poulton, Hugh. (1995). Who are the Macedonians? C.Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London
The Times, issues in August, 1903

Protection

Ok guys, play it nice.GeneralPatton 18:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi General. I make the following proposals for edits in order to de-emphasize the "Bulgarity" of Delcev. I agree that the initial statement of his ethnicity or nationality (as Bulgarian) should stay as it is, as such, formally documented - unless anyone can provide formal documents to the contrary (an impossible task as Macedonia formally came to be in 1992). Given this, what is not clear is how his "Bulgarity" is important for historic or present-day Bulgaria (aside natio-romanticist emotions of the "he is the son of our Bulgarian mother/father-land" type). Unless someone can explain this, VMORO's insistence on GD's "Bulgarity" is pointless at best and moves the article away from NPOV. Thus, aside from the introductory sentence, it should be removed.

Following this reasoning I propose the following edits:

1. Replace Delchev spoke of himself as Bulgarian and fought for Macedonian autonomy with Delchev fought for Macedonian autonomy;
2. Include the full text of the letter of Delcev to Nikola Maleshevski, rather than single out the part asserting his "Bulgarity";
3. Delete/erase the added underline in the picture of the letter of Delcev to Nikola Maleshevski: its purpose is to emphasise Delcev's "Bulgarity" and much worse - it is a falsification of an historical document. It stands "as is" and it does not need anyone's embelishment or intervention to help a reader better understand. (Very patronizing!);
4. Add to categories the category of "Macedonian people" and delete category "Bulgarian freedom fighters". Keep "Bulgarian people". As I have discussed in the article, GD did not seem to fight for freedom in or for Bulgaria nor where his revolutionary activities relevant for historic or contemporary Bulgaria. Thus he cannot be categorized as a Bulgarina freedom fighter: only as a Macedonia freedom fighter of Bulgarian ehtnicitiy or nationality. Earlier in the discusion I pointed out that Marquis de Lafayette was an American, but not French, revolutionary - although of French nationality; and
5. Add text explaining his relevenace for current/modern-day Macedonian nationalist ideology.

If we can continue the discussion based on these and other concrete and practical editorial suggestions, perhaps we could onlock it in the near future. --Modi 17:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Modi, I haven't answered to you as I agree with most of your suggestions here - with minor exceptions. I am against the deletion of the category "Bulgarian freedom fighters" as it applies to all people who professed Bulgarian ethnicity and conducted revolutionary activity, whether it was in Bulgaria proper, Macedonia or Thrace. A separate category "Macedonian revolutionaries" should, however, be created to include all revolutionaries who operated in Macedonia (regardless of their ethnicity). As this category could also be interpreted as "Macedonian Slav revolutionaries", this should allay at least to some extent nationalist resentment among Macedonian Slavs. The deletion of the underlining is a task which seems impossible (I personally do not know how this can be done), I can, however, easily translate the rest of the letter.

GD is certainly not part of Bulgarian national consciousness in the way he is part of Macedonian Slav national consciousness. But neither is Vasil Levski, for example... The myth-making which is present in Macedonian Slav collective memory (and which is centered around D and Misirkov) is practically non-existent among Bulgarians. There is one group of Bulgarians, however, for whom GD and IMRO as a whole have the same significance as they have for the Macedonian Slavs - the Macedonian Bulgarians (whether they are from Pirin Macedonia or are descendents of refugees - I am myself a descendant of refugees from Aegean Macedonia). The only real right-wing nationalist party in Bulgaria, VMRO-SMD, has its core support in Pirin Macedonia and among descendants of refugees resettled in the other parts of the country. So, some info about it should also be added.

The article can very easily be deblocked - I asked GeneralPatton for temporary protection in the hope of getting some real discussion going at last. The pattern until now has been that (usually anonymous) Macedonian editors come and play revert war for several days - until they start a discussion on the talk page. Then they vanish as quickly as they originally appeared as they cannot disprove anything I say. Well, I hope we can finally make some progress, I'll be looking forward to your answer. VMORO 22:37, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi VMORO, its good to see we are making some ground. You need to clarify something, however...

You say we can use ""Bulgarian freedom fighters" as it applies to all people who professed Bulgarian ethnicity and conducted revolutionary activity", (but you forgot to add "world-wide").

I think irony is counterproductive, do you suggest that I should get ironical, as well? It regards Bulgaria proper, Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet. VMORO 18:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Then you say that "A separate category "Macedonian revolutionaries" should, however, be created to include all revolutionaries who operated in Macedonia (regardless of their ethnicity)."

Does this not strike you as asymetric? In the first case the criteria for inclusion is "ethnicity" - a subjective political category that is often disputed. The second is a geographical definition - a rather objective notion, and one that in a positive and cosmopolitan way embraces and values all. If the Bulgarian list does not do this, is it worthy of a wikipedia and should we give it value by linking to it? Clearly, some of this discussion needs to be transfered there.

It strikes me as bizarre that a person is described according to its relevance to a country's politics. Mother Theresa stayed all her life in India, that doesn't make her less Albanian Catholic as she actually was. VMORO 18:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Now, don't misunderstand me, I don't say that GD should be taken of the Bulgarian freedom fighters list - that is a discussion for that article. I am saying that the GD article should not have a link to that list unless it can be shown that he is sufficiently relevant to Bulgarian politics. You claim that he is marginally relevant to one political party: is this sufficient to have the link and can you provide documentary evidence for this? If the evidence is not strong, we can still have an indication of GD being an ideological source for VMRO-SMD, I see no problem with this - everyone is free to seek their ideological sources where they please.

Sufficient relevancy for Bulgarian politics????? If you want to add a category "Relevance for Macedonian politics", be my guest. He was a Bulgarian revolutionary in a Bulgarian revolutionary organization which was active in Thrace and Macedonia - hence a Bulgarian freedom fighter. He was mostly active in Macedonia and had on his agenda autonomy for Macedonia, hence a Macedonian revolutionary. VMORO 18:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can delete the underlining and will post the repaired picture on my personal page and will allert the discussion to this. I think this and a full translation of the letter can be the first two edits. Perhaps GeneralPatton can insert these without unprotecting the article? The discussion can then continue and result in incremental edits. Modi --62.167.155.160 08:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I am again getting lost with this "relevance to Bulgarian and Macedonian" politics. The question which has relevance here is whether the ideas of Delchev were a manifestation of the Bulgarian or the Slav Macedonian national idea. Birkemaal

Well I would like to ask a question: What is the Bulgarian national idea(l)? Wouldn't that be a Greater Bulgaria state where all Bulgarians "by blood" would live happily ever after? How can Goce Delchev, known for his fierce resistance of any foreign interference in Macedonia could be important for the Bulgarian state, if we skip the ongoing assimilation attempts of the Bulgarian ideologues in their efforts to stress the "everlasting bulgarity" of Macedonia (which is also closely linked with territorial claims to Macedonia?) --FlavrSavr 21:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You are not right about the "fierce resistance" - between 1899 and 1901 the Autonomists acted in cooperation with the Centralists, following Delchev's death the two organizations even were united for some time. Fierce resistance is also the last description which can be used about the attitude towards the Bulgarian Exarchate, the two organizations continuously supported each other. Well, this is again after the death of Delchev, but in 1904 the Autonomists started to convert forcefully Patriarchist villages in the Kastoria, Florina and Serres region to the Exarchate. So, fierce resistance is rather a bad description.

As I suppose the question was directed towards me - I don't know what Delchev's view precisely was but Hristo Tatarchev says in his memoires that the formula "Autonomy for Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet" was adopted because a text advocating unification with Bulgaria was going to face too much opposition from Greece and Serbia, as well as from Turkey. He believed that an autonomous Macedonia could much easier be united with Bulgaria or if that was impossible, it could have served as a unifying link in a future Balkan federation made up of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. This is only the opinion of Tatarchev, who seems to have been one of the most Bulgarophile Autonomists, but he still was the first chairman of the organization. Birkemaal

Birkemaal, it is true that there were different conceptions within the IMARO about the future of Macedonia. However we were talking about Goce Delchev. I don't know whether or not you will find the following conversation with the bulgarian general Danailov "fierce" but I guess we can definitely talk about "resistance" against the involvement of Bulgarian officers in the liberation of Macedonia. This conversation is brought to us by Krum Hristov (Krum Hristov, Goce Delchev. Sofia. Izdatelstvo na Nacionaliya suvet na Otechestveniya front, 1955, pages 124 - 126). Goce Delchev is trying to get military aid from the Supreme Commitee, but under certain conditions:

February 1896,

General Nikolaev: So, you, young man, consider that the macedonian population is capable to fight, to make a revolution? Childish of you, young man! That is a slave population out there! Your plans I cannot accept, and I do not want to hear them. What kind of Organization you think you are creating there? Revolutionary? Internal? Macedonian? Nonsense! Nonsense! Nonsense! There is only one organization - that is the Supreme Commitee. I guarantee, that, when the time is right, I will lead 20-30 thousands of reservist soldiers. The officers are with me. Then we will make a revolution in Macedonia, and we will set it free. Nothing can be done seriously with villagers. They are slaves...(interrupted in the original)

Goce Delchev: They were slaves, mister General, but not anymore. So you are giving up from all the revolutionary work in the inside? According to you... (interrupted in the original)

General Nikolaev: No, I will not give up, but under certain conditions. The revolutionary work in the inside is important for us, the Supreme Commitee. It helps us scare the politicians in Bulgaria, as well the foreign diplomats, everytime there is a need for that. That's why we can provide help, but under one condition: you will listen to us and you will not take any actions out of the Ottoman Empire. You will leave us to carry all the necessary politics. When it comes to your work in the inside we will tell you when, where and what will you do. Moreover, we will decide when the uprising in Macedonia should be proclaimed. Besides that... we...(interrupted in the original)

Goce Delchev: That cannot be, mister General. You, - that is the Supreme Commitee and someone else...(interrupted in the original)No, we do not agree with your plans regarding Macedonia. We, you know who we are: the villagers, the macedonian population, the people. We cannot allow ourselves to play politics, nor can we allow others to play politics with Macedonia. Our struggle, that is a question of life and death to us. We cannot allow others to decide whether we should live or die, and when. The people will decide when the uprising will be proclaimed. We won't let you to command us from here (Bulgaria), and turn us, like you have tried last year, in a uprising-game. Now, such an adventure might be terrible and bloody, because the people is more excited and partly armed. It can be easily seduced to the scams, and that will cost rivers of blood, and mountains of corpses. No, we won't allow that. No, the blood of the people is expensive and we don't want corpses, but we want liberation, and the people want to live and grow.

I can see that you don't know the conditions in Macedonia, and that's why you should tell everyone not to meddle and to leave the Internal Revolutionary Organization to organize, to manage, to decide. We are expecting from you - the commitee and the emigration that you will provide us a fraternal help. But know that, we do not want sponsors, and even less masters.

General Nikolaev: How dare you! You don't know anything about the international situation. I have letters from abroad. We will decide when the moment has come to act. Do you understand? We will make the highest decision, and if you want to be an obstacle - we will paralise you.

Goce Delchev: Be our guests - you will paralise us, or we will do that to you!

The bolded text is mine. If you want to, I will provide you with further documented evidence in which you will see that the macedonian people was not considered bulgarian from all the foreign sources. Moreover, there is also evidence that the macedonian people did not feel like they belong within the bulgarian state. Actually the chapter: "Are Macedonian Serbs or Bulgarians" from Brailsford's book, is a good example about the state of their national feeling (bulgarian, serbian or greek). Best regards --FlavrSavr 14:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

first statute of the organization was written

I was under the impression that we were making progress. Let me reassure VMORO and Birkemaal that I DO NOT sugest changing or deleting the introductory description of GD that includes his Bulgarian ethnicity - there are formal records of this. What I do suggest is that repetitive assertions of his "Bulgarity" beyond the introduction should be deleted unless it can be explained that it has any meaning for understanding his life, actions and effect on current politics. As the article stands, this connection is missing and repetitions of his Bulgarity resonate a POV. There may be explanations of why GDs "bulgarity" is important of which I am not aware so VMORO and Birkemaal please explain and suggest edits. I have opened a new subsection for this so we can move away from philosophical or factual disputes which lead nowhere, or at least keep these sepearte from trying to make progress on the article itself.

The reference to Mother Teresa is a very good one: she is politically completely irrelevant for Alabanians as an ethnicity and totally irrelevant for the present-day Albanian state, thus insisting on her "Albanity", beyond a brief factual or casual mention, can only be seen as someone affirming their own inferiority complex (at best) or promoting some kind of politics (POV at worst). Wisely, the article has not insisted or overstated her Albanity. Everyone in this discussion should have a look. --Modi 10:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you remember the only thing which I disagreed with was the elimination of "Bulgarian freedom fighters", so the discussion about Mother Theresa is unnecessary (inasmuch as I do not disagree with the "de-bulgarisation" of GD, as you called it). Should I take it you agree with the preservation of the category and the addition of "Macedonian revolutionaries"? It looks so at least. I will write to GeneralPatton to ask him to remove the protection. About the nationalism/identity/relevance question - I think there is no point talking about it, let's just see how the edits in the article itself develop. I will try to translate the thing tomorrow. Regards. VMORO 23:39, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Protection has now been removed, I hope there won't be any further need for it. GeneralPatton 23:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits #1

I come back to my edit suggestions and include the cleaned up version of the picture of the GD letter to NM. --Modi 10:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC) Done --Modi 08:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

VMORO: can we have the full translation of the letter posted to this discussion? --Modi 10:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi VMORO. Yes, as far as I am concerned please keep the BFF category and add MR (I can do this); Macedonians of all sorts can then interpret this however they like, be it from a geographic, historic or ethnic perspective. I would also like to replace Delchev spoke of himself as Bulgarian and fought for Macedonian autonomy with Delchev fought for Macedonian autonomy, as earlier suggested. I understand that this is not a problem, but will wait for your "nod" before editing. Meantime I have, as well, updated the picture of the GD to NM letter.

I would also like to have a text explaining why GD is important for present day Republic of Macedonia (means, not geographic, not historic, not ethnic) one and for Bulgaria as well - perhaps citing the VMRO-SMD connection as suggested. Would VMORO, or any others participating or lurking on this discussion like to propose a text embracing BOTH these aspects?

--Modi 08:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This is bizarre. Modi, I agree with your arguments, but how did VMORO become so important that this article needs his nod for it to be changed? Or are we simply all so nice about not getting into another argument while (as it was noted at several points) he freely qualifies the Macedonian question as bull. In any case, let's play the game and wait for a few days to see how he reacts. In the meantime: "Goce Delchev is important for Macedonians as the leader of the Macedonian revolutionary organization, which set up the basis for the Macedonian statehood and raised the question of the Macedonian nationality. Through his activities and actions against both the Ottoman Turks and the Bulgarian forces meddling in the Macedonian matter, Delchev raised the collective awareness and spirit of the people and provided an invaluable example for the generations to come. Although he was killed before he could prevent the premature uprising, the 10-day Krushevo Republic that gave a blueprint for the Macedonian state was a direct consequence of his efforts. Thus, without Delchev present day Macedonia is impossible to imagine." Is this what you asked for, Modi? --Ivica83 14:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that GD's 'Bulgarian ethnicity' put in the first sentence would continue to raise argumented and non-argumented edits (I honestly hope that macedonian users won't practice this kind of edits) of this article. If we are here to make a complete and concise encyclopedia, then we have to consider that the concept of ethnicity is problematic, as Modi has concluded. In the discussions above I have provided some references where GD identifies himself with "the villagers, the macedonian population, the people", but that's not a definite proof that he had felt to have a "Macedonian ethnicity", just as "We are Bulgarians" statement in some letter is not a definite proof of his Bulgarian ethnicity.

Furthermore, Todor Pavlov (1890-1976), Bulgarian philosopher and social worker, for many years President of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, thinks that: "we can not be unjust to the memory of the great Macedonian son and therefore, all the same, we must note precisely here that Goce* had written in one of his letters: "So is there no-one to write even one book in Macedonian?" This exclamation of Goce's shows that if he had remained alive he would in no case have remained indifferent to the fact that today in Macedonia there is a volume of books, and not only poetic and publicistic ones, written in this very Macedonian language which has been formed to a significant degree and is continuously being improved upon and perfected exactly as a new Macedonian literary language. (T. Pavlov, "Goce Delchev", Makedonska mis'l, II, 1-2, Sofia, 1946, p.7)

We have to regard the complex situation that was present in Macedonia in the end of the 19th century - various propagandas from already established Balkan states imposed on the amorphous Slavic mass of Macedonia that were ment to give the average Macedonian, a Greek, Bulgarian, or Serbian national ideal - Macedonians were in the middle of this dramatic semantic battle, or shortly, they were in the process of gaining a national feeling. Sometimes words like "I'm a Bulgarian" didn't have the national meaning like they have it today. The Bulgarian Slavicist Aleksandar Teodorov Balan (1859-1959) analyses this semantic trap:"Was it very long before the liberation of the Bulgarians that one could hear throughout Bulgaria Bulgarians answering to the question "What are you?" (in nationality) that they are "Christians" or "raya" (non-Moslem Turkish subjects - translator's note)? And it is not so unusual even today to hear a Bulgarian answering in court to the question of his nationality that he is a "Christian". For him the concept of nationality has not yet become a new acquisition of his reason. During the Turkish period the Bulgarian peasant termed Bulgarians from cities "Greeks", and city clothing was for him "Greek clothing". And since the Greeks called this peasant a "fat-headed Bulgarian", his brother from the city loved to be called by the term "Hellene" in order to avoid the derision associated with his true national name. Is not this exactly the same as what Mr. Misirkov tells us about the names for the Macedonian Slavs? The name "Bulgarian" had in Bulgaria fallen to a level which brought it only the derision of foreigners. In the speech of the Bulgarian himself, this name had lost its national content to such an extent that it became a synonym for "Christian", which name came to signify the entire ethnic content of the Bulgarian individual and social consciousness. Our peasant, in saying "we are Bulgarians", thought "we are Christians", i.e. orthodox. The Russian emperor was for him the "Bulgarian emperor" not by nationality but by orthodox Christianity." (A. T. BaIan, Edna makedonska teorija" (A Macedonian Theory), Periodichesko Spisanie LXV, 1904, p.818).

Similar explanation of the "bulgarity" notion can be found in the works of other historians, such as the Czech historian Jan Ryhlik, while several others authors provide us with references that the nationality of the Macedonians, was neither Serb or Bulgarian. (I will provide a full list of these if someone thinks this is necessary). The contemporary Bulgarian proffesor Stefan Vlahov - Micov goes even further in his observations: "the macedonian population regarded the term 'Bulgarian' only from his political side, like a possibility of joint actions against the Turks. In the same way, some individuals from this population have taken part in the Serbian and the Greek uprising, as well in the Russo-Turkic war (1877-1878). Their resistance against the (Bulgarian)Exarchate, when it wanted to impose education on their (bulgarian) "mother tongue" and to act in their municipalities, is a proof that Macedonians regarded the term "Bulgarian" only as a political wrapping."

Goce Delchev might have used the term Bulgarian with some of this meanings, or he might have not. Unfortunately we do not have the tool to provide us a link to his opinions of his nationality. But we do have a scope of his actions, all of his revolutionary work shows us a different resonating from the mainstream bulgarian nationalistic ideal - he fought for a Macedonian Autonomy, separate from the Bulgarian State - which is enough not to be too simplicistic when referring to his ethnicity. That is why I propose that none of these ethnic references (he was neither a Macedonian, nor Bulgarian by ethnicity) should be included in the first paragraphs - I think there should be a brief part after his biography named "Goce Delchev ethnicity - Points of View" where each side should step out with its corresponding arguments (GD's letter to NM, Karev's letter, and brief viewpoints).

When it comes to its relevance in the modern states of Macedonia and Bulgaria, maybe it would be a good idea (or maybe not) that part to merge with the POV's of his ethnicity. However, I think of that the proposal of Ivica83 is a good one to start when it comes to GD's relevance considering Republic of Macedonia. I have two factographic additions that deserve mentioning: The remains of Goce Delchev were transferred to the People's Republic of Macedonia, on October 10, 1946. The following day, they were solemnly embedded into a marble sarcophagus, displayed in the front yard of the "Sv. Spas" ("Holy Savior") church in Skopje. Goce Delchev's name appears in the Macedonian national anthem "Denes nad Makedonija".

I don't know what to add about Goce Delchev's significance for modern Bulgaria, perhaps it would be better for VMORO to write this. They have named a town that carries his name. His "bulgarian ethnicity" is used again and again to show us the "pure bulgarian blood" that was spilled for the liberation of the ungrateful Macedonians. --FlavrSavr 17:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits #2

FlavrSavr and Ivica83 have proposed text. My problem with the proposal is technical, not substantive: it bundles too many issues and notions and therefore may not survive the fairly synthetic, in a positive sense, discussions we are witnessing here. Re comments on being nice to VMORO: just because you disagree with somenone doesn't mean you should not be correct or nice. I am sure that VMORO will be nice enough to relieve Ivica83 of any doubt that he by no means thinks that he owns the GD article; only that he is interested that Wikipedia arrives at a good one with a NPOV and that he expects all participants to discuss with good mind and solid references.

In order to facilitate the discussion of the FlavrSavr and Ivica83 proposals, I have divided them into logical entities and suggest that we discuss each seperately, comments being posted under each one. This may be more productive than spilling out a more consolidated block comment. I am aware that some of these are aleady in the article text. I don't know if it will work, but here goes:

1. Goce Delchev is important for Macedonians

2. He was the leader of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (IMARO)

I think this is established ion the text already.--Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

3. [IMARO] [and] [or] [GD] set up the basis for the Macedonian statehood

4. [IMARO] [and] [or] [GD] raised the question of the Macedonian nationality

5. GD's activities and actions were against the Ottoman Turks

6. GD's activities and actions were against the Bulgarian forces

7. Ottoman Turks and Bulgarian forces were meddling in Macedonian matters

8. The implied meaning of 7. is that such meddling had dire consequence for inhabitants of Macedonia

9. Delchev raised the collective awareness and spirit of the people and provided an invaluable example for the generations to come.

10. GD was killed before the Ilinded uprising

I think this is established ion the text already. --Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

11. GD thought that the uprising was premature

I think this is established ion the text already. --Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

12. The 10-day Krushevo Republic gave a blueprint for the Macedonian state

13. The Krushevo Republic was a direct consequence of his efforts

14. Without Delchev present day Macedonia is impossible to imagine

15. The remains of Goce Delchev were transferred to the People's Republic of Macedonia, on October 10, 1946. The following day, they were solemnly embedded into a marble sarcophagus, displayed in the front yard of the "Sv. Spas" ("Holy Savior") church in Skopje.

I have added this information, adding a footnote to clarify the use of "People's Republic of Macedonia" and deleting "front" - the Sv.Spas website says "almost in the centre" see [7]. --Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

16. Goce Delchev's name appears in the Macedonian national anthem "Denes nad Makedonija

Perhpas this can form part of a reference on Delcev's significance. --Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Any point-by-point commments about the rest of the numbered content? --Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Any comments? --Modi 21:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about number 6, what does this Bulgarian forces mean? If it is the Centralists we are talking about, than the reverse - GD cooperated with the Bulgarian forces - is equally valid, the relations of Autonomists and Centralists depended on who was in charge of the Centralists. Delchev cooperated quite well with Sarafov but rather badly with Tsoncheff. And if it is the Exarchate we are talking about, then the statement is an oximoron, most IMARO leaders were teachers at the Exarchate. It is a stand of the Macedonians that the Autonomists were anti-Bulgarian but that is not really true. I am also suggesting that the category *Bulgarian people* is erased, there is no need for it after *Bulgarian freedom fighters* is preserved. Birkemaal

Birkemaal, have you seen the conversation between Nikolaev and Delchev in the above discussions? I'm aware that the Autonomists weren't anti-Bulgarian (they needed all the military help they could get), but that does not mean they were pro-Bulgarian. --FlavrSavr 20:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, you have consistently argued until now that the Autonomists and Delchev in particular were anti-Bulgarian, you seem to be changing lanes now. The closest description to "not being pro-Bulgarian" I have encountered among the researchers I have read (I am studying Balkan history and I am trying to focus on the Macedonian question) is that the Autonomists "swung between pro-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian interests", for example in Roudometoff. Most of them just describe them as a branch of the Bulgarian liberation movement. Birkemaal

Bikermaal, I think you are applying your own context to FlavrSavr's words while avoiding to comment on the conversation between Delchev and Nikolaev. On several occasions Delchev has shown resistance against meddling from official Bulgaria - I believe that what FlavrSavr wanted to point out with the choice of "not pro-Bulgarian" instead of "anti-Bulgarian" was that while Delchev and the liberation movement did not act against the Bulgarian state, they did act against Bulgaria taking active part in the movement (there were several minor armed conflicts, as well). There is a clear difference here and this is what I want to underline with number 6. It is true, there were streams in IMARO who were pro-Bulgarian and wanted bigger association with the Bulgarian state, and these streams received more power after Delchev's death. Still, IMARO was independant for the most part of its actions. In addition, you said most of the revolutionaries were teachers in Bulgarian schools - it has been stressed several times that it doesn't tell us anything about their national or political opinions, since there was no other option at the time. Best regards. --Ivica83 14:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet the fact that they went to teach in Bulgaria out of all neighboring countries should tell you something about their political and cultural affiliation. Smartech 16:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Ivica (and FlavrSavr), in Macedonian history Bulgaria is usually represented as even a worse adversary to the IMARO than the Ottoman Turks, which is clearly a tendentious treatment and that's what I wanted to point out. I have never claimed that the IMARO was controlled by Bulgaria (the Bulgarian government or the Bulgarian military), the organization was clearly an independent entity. But you are again not right to say that "they did act against Bulgaria taking active part in the movement", it was for example expected during the rising in 1903 that Bulgaria would intervene on the side of the insurgents - a rather futile hope as it couldn't defeat the Ottomans by itself. Birkemaal

I have done what I can for the two files, I have a problem, however, reading the last sentence. Modi, I suggest that you just start editing the way you want and we can iron out the details as we go. I won't be able to participate too actively in the next several days because I am going on vacation but I'll follow with what is going on.

Statute BMORK

To FlavrSavr: What you say is absolutely true with one slight amendment - that it applies to the Bulgarians in Moesia and Thrace, as well. Nationality is a very relative concept when one is an illiterate peasant without a national language education and national church. And that was the position of all Bulgarians - whether they were from Macedonia, Thrace or Moesia - for several centuries (Most of the examples you quote refer to Bulgaria proper, not to Macedonia). Yet, if these illiterate peasants (or raya) had any national affiliations in the 19th century, they quite certainly had Bulgarian national affiliations, I think I have given enough examples of that. Did you look at the pages by Kuzman Shapkarev that I posted (and the link I gave), by the way? Is he a good example of someone whose national name "Bulgarian" is just a "proforma" label? Because it doesn't look to me this way when one reads them. So much passion about the codification of a unified Bulgarian language, and this language is just a proforma label. Ok, whatever.

This is the front page of the statute of IMARO until 1902 (then under the name BMORK), when GD was already chairman of the organisation, I think it was actually written in 1897 by both GD and Gruev. The same goals (political autonomy for Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet) are set, the only difference is that ethnic Bulgarians can be members. VMORO 23:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, I have commented on Shapkarev's case. As for BMORK, that doesn't prove anything: 1. There were also Macedonian - Albanian and Serbian committees which does not mean that their whole membership was of Albanian or Serbian ethnicity 2. As far as I know the name of IMARO was changed in the Thesalonika Congress in 1896 into Secret Macedonian Adrianople Revolutionary Organization, members could have been "every Macedonian and Adrianoplian" 3. I have already pointed out the generalization of the term "Bulgarian". Therefore there should be no notes about GD's ethnicity, or a special part concerning different POV's of his ethnicity. I think that's the best way to preserve the NPOV policy. --FlavrSavr 19:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

1)Should I quote again the (Western, not Balkan POV) sources according to which the name adopted in 1895 was BMORK or do you wanna fish them out by yourself? The name TMORO was adopted in 1902 and it was then that membership was allowed to others than ethnic Bulgarians. The name of the organization Macedonian-Adrianopolitan makes it very clear (I am glad that you admit it finally) that Macedonian is used as a geographical denomination. 2)To claim that Shapkarev, Parlichev or Delchev used the name "Bulgarian" as a generalisation and variation of "Christian raya" is close to declaring them imbeciles. They were not illiterate sheep herds, but illuminated and educated people, their use of the name "Bulgarian", a name which they used to describe their ethnic affiliations, is a conscious choice and neither you or me has the right to deny them this choice. This is pretty much like me saying, no, FlavrSavr, you are not Macedonian, you are simply a Bulgarian. VMORO 22:44, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll have to correct you VMORO, the initial name was just Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, the name BMORK was adopted at the Salonica Conference in 1896. Birkemaal 00:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, VMORO, Birkemaal, as far as I know the name SMARO was officially (put in a constitution of the Organization) adopted briefly after the Salonica Conference, in the year 1897. If we are to believe that the TMORO (SMARO) constitution was adopted as late as 1902, and that only Bulgarians were let into the Organization, then the mass incorporation of Vlachs (such as Pitu Guli, who was active in the Organization long before) in the Ilinden Uprising would be rather unbelieveable. Moreover, a copy of the SMARO constitution was send by the English Consul in Sofia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where it is registered in the year 1898 (4 years before 1902). VMORO, you are again confirming that BMORK was also used as a geografical denomination. As for, Shapkarev, Prlichev and Delchev, it was precisely the Bulgarian state which considered them inadequate - Prlichev's translation of the 'Iliad' into the local Slavic language of Ohrid was dismissed by Bulgarian critics, who said he had poor knowledge of Bulgarian. Prlichev himself wrote, "In Greek I sang like a swan; now in Slavic I cannot even sing like a donkey." As for me being simply a Bulgarian, heh, you would like that VMORO, wouldn't you? I guess OMO Ilinden members are also simply Bulgarians. --FlavrSavr 23:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

All western sources give the name BMORK as either the initial name adopted when the organization was established in 1893 or as the second name adopted at the Salonica Conference in 1896. There was never "mass membership" of Vlachs in the organization, the fact that many Vlachs supported the uprising in 1903 or even took active part in it is something else. I am not acquainted with the history of the membership of Pitu Guli, he might as well have joined the organization much earlier, but single cases like this do not disprove what I am saying - you yourself argued that people from a different nationality could become members of a certain national revolutionary organization. Bulgarian in BMORK quite clearly stays for national affiliations, Macedonian and Adrianopolitan are geographical denominations. As for Parlichev, until his death he though that his Bulgarian vocabulary and knowledge in Slavic was insufficient and inferior to his knowledge and vocabulary in Greek. But he was educated at a Greek school, how could it possibly be otherwise? He entered himself as Bulgarian in that poem contest in Athens which he won and which brought him so much fame. And he never stopped calling himself Bulgarian, check for example his biography [8]. What's more, in the later parts of his life, he began to write decisively more in the standard language which was being shaped on the basis of the northeastern Bulgarian dialects, this regards all of his works from the late 1870s and the beginning of the 1880s (versus a mixed language incorporating both western Macedonian and upper Bulgarian elements before that), including the biography. His ethnic affiliations were his own choice, FlavrSavr, don't try to Macedonize him, there was no Macedonian national consciousness back then. By the way, isn't it a little embarassing for the Macedonians that all great works from the 19th century which you consider as Macedonian, bear titles like Bulgarian folksongs, Bulgarian Primer, Bulgarian Grammar, etc.? It is not wondrous that you falsify their titles and content... VMORO 12:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)~

From the perspective of a neutral but interested reader this can get rather confusing. Can we stick to the name IMARO throughout the article (apart from the first sentence explaining it to be the predecessor of IMRO)? On its first mention we could footnote it and explain that the organization suffered various name changes and then link this to the IMRO article. The IMRO article could, in additon to its second paragraph, provide an easily and quickly understandable table-format chronology of name changes from IMARO to IMRO or whatever. Birkemaal, perhaps there, in the IMRO article in the first sentence under the "Origin..." subheading you may wish to insert your edit about the Salonica Conference in 1896. Concerning the GD article I think this proposal is not contentious, can we agree to proceed with this particular incremental edit? --Modi 06:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Modi, I agree on every point, and that we should stick the name IMARO throughout the article. However, I disagree on the reference about GD having a "bulgarian ethnicity". I'll try to give a simple example, though I am aware it might not be entirely appropriate: If we are to state that GD had a bulgarian ethnicity (although, I think I have posted evidence and neutral opinions of authors that should be enough to state that his ethnicity is, if not macedonian, at least disputed), then we should apply that model to every Austrian writer, philosopher, scientist etc. - "Ludwig Wittgenstein was a famous Austrian philosopher of German ethnicity", to every South American revolutionaries being of "Spanish/Portuguese ethnicity", to every American in the Independence Wars, being of "English ethnicity". If we try that we will get loads of emotional reactions from all these users - although Austrians are German-speaking people, it is highly innapropriate to state that Austrians are Germans, and this often is considered an insult. Actually, only far-right factions within Austria consider Austrians to be of "German ethnicity". It is interesting that the same applies to Macedonian - Bulgarian relations - VMORO said that the only "real right-wing nationalist party in Bulgaria" is VMRO-SMD. No wonder. Throughout the 20th century the macedonian "liberation from the Greek and Serb armies" was a matter of romantic mottos (with a strong imperialistic agendas behind them) and it was an expected thing that this chauvinistic mindset collaborated well with Nazi Germany. Vancho Michailov, who has sought Macedonian Bulgarians in Macedonia is a typical example of this era, and his murders and crimes are not forgotten here. Bulgarian historians might argue that modern Macedonians are brainwashed Bulgarians by Tito's propaganda, but it is somewhat inexplainable how modern Macedonians in Greece regard themselves as Macedonians, not Bulgarians. Furthermore, if Bulgaria is so confident about the bulgarity of Macedonians, it wouldn't have banned the political organisation of Macedonians out there (OMO Ilinden). In a way, I think that giving an "ethnicity" to GD, regardless whether it comes from Bulgarian or Macedonian side, is rather insulting to his cosmopolitan opinions that had seen "the world only as a field for a cultural competition between the nations". Therefore, I once again conclude that there should be only different POV's of his ethnicity, (or none), and its real relevance to modern Macedonia and Bulgaria (he is obviously more important to Macedonia, though). Everything else, leads us to endless discussions and confrotations. Regards --FlavrSavr 00:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone in the world knows that Austrians are ethnic Germans (Austrian nationality + German language). The same regards the Latin Americans (who speak either Spanish or Portuguese). Montenegrins are ethnic Serbs (Montenegrin nationality + Serbian language). If you wanna argue that it is likewise understood that all Macedonians are ethnic Bulgarians, be my guest, but this is not really so: at present there are Macedonians who are Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarians and Greeks, this are three different nationalities and three different languages so that's why the clarification is necessary. I personally have distant relatives both in Greece and in the Republic of Macedonia who are Greeks and Macedonian Slavs, respectively. This is their own personal choice, as my own personal choice is that I am Bulgarian. That's the magic in personal self-identification, right? You are trying to deny this right to self-identification to Delchev but this was his own choice, you don't have the right to that. If won't to add your POV opinion that his Bulgarian self-identification was a result of generalisation of the term Bulgarian as a synonym of "Christian raya", you are certainly free to that at the end of the article but his own self-identification (which is witnessed, for example, in Perry and MacDermott) should stay at the top of the article.

As regards OMO Ilinden Pirin, the party was registered in 1999 and took part in the communal elections in 1999 polling a total of 3,069 votes in Pirin Macedonia (just a comparison, rightwing VMRO-SMD polled well over 12,000 votes in Pirin Macedonia), you can check that at [9]. No Bulgarian party has, however, ever been registered in the Republic of Macedonia, registration has been refused to all parties which described themselves as Bulgarian from the beginning of the 1990s until now. This is a good example of the state of human rights in the Republic of Macedonia... Arguing that all Macedonians in Bulgaria are Bulgarians or that all Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia are Macedonian Slavs are nationalistic, quite clearly small groups of people both in Bulgaria and in the Republic of Macedonia have Macedonian Slav, Bulgarian consciousness, respectively. But that's exactly what you are trying to do - to deny the right to self-identification to GD. That's not fair to the article or to the Bulgarian Macedonians.

Vancho Mihailov was born in Shtip, in the present-day Republic of Macedonia. According to your own understanding, he should be a Macedonian Slav, right? But he considered himself to be Bulgarian, in the same way that Delchev and all others from the IMARO did. Mihaylov is not claimed by the Macedonians as Macedonian Slav but Delchev is. Why don't you try to be a bit more consistent, FlavrSavr? VMORO 12:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)~

Your concern over human rights is touching, VMORO. First of all I have already stated that the example is not entirely appropriate, just because I knew you would use that argument. My point was that, EVEN THOUGH Austrians speak a German dialect, it would be absolute nonsense to add "of German ethnicity" to all famous Austrians from the past such as Mozart, Schubert, Strauss, Wittgenstein, Klimt etc. just to appease far-right sentiments. It would also be nonsense to add of "English ethnicity" to George Washington. As for Montenegrins being of Serbian ethnicity, it wouldn't reccomend that telling that to a Montenegrin. You might try out the "of Serbian ethnicity" model on Petar I Petrovic Njegos's article. Americans, and Montenegrins are listed in the ethnic groups of Wikipedia. Austrians are not, but I suggest that you look the Austria article why it is not appropriate to label them Germans.

Second, did I ever denied your right to feel like a Bulgarian even though you live in the region of Macedonia? Did I ever stated, that GD was of Macedonian ethnicity? (allthough in his conversation with Nikolaev he identifies himself with "we the peasants, the macedonian population, the people" No, I have said that his ethnicity is disputed. It is you who denies my self-determination right, VMORO, I do not feel like a Macedonian Slav, (neither anyone in the RoM does) but as a Macedonian. --FlavrSavr 18:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a few edits focusing on agreed or purely factual issues re the remains. I have also right-justified the the pictures as they were not interacting well with my Firefox browser on a 1028x756 screen res (overlap with text and masking). Concerning the remains of GD, it would be interesting to know where they were in between 1903 and 1946: does anyone know?--Modi 10:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

They were in Bulgaria before that (of course), I'll dig up in the coming days the whole history about them but as far as I remember they were transferred to Bulgaria at some point (as it was considered his homeland at that point) and in 1946 they were again transferred to his new homeland:-))) So it goes. VMORO 21:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits #3

Hey VMORO & FlavrSavr: I asked a fellow I know who is of (distant) Montenegro-in origin if he would consider their king an ethnic Serb. He almost bit my head off ! He wanted to know who suggested that... etc and got into a real huff and declared wikipedia crap. I "agreed" to everything he said and paid for all the drinks in order to get home safely. Apparently "ethnic" is not taken lightly in the Balkans...

Here is the recompilation of the suggestion on "importance", talking into account the discussion:

Goce Delchev is important for Macedonians as his activities as a leader of IMARO provide an ideological basis for the latter development of the Macedonian nation and statehood. His revolutionary activities were primarily directed against Ottoman rule, towards which a general resistence was expressed by the majority of the Macedonian peoples. As a result, Delchev raised the collective awareness and spirit of all Macedonians and his cosmopolitan and wordly views have provided an invaluable example for the generations to come. Certain ideologues of Macedonian statehood and nationhood seek direct inspiration from Delchev's life and work and assert a linkage to the Krushevo Republic as a foundational event for the Macedonian state. In this sense, present-day Macedonian politics and the establishment of the state of the Republic of Macedonia can be better understood by taking note of Delchev's revoltiuonary activities and views.

Some reasoning:

I have ommited going "ethnic" in any sense.

I have ommited adding this sentence:

While Delchev's activities were not directed against Bulgaria, IMARO was often [split][unlcear] on the issue of just how welcome active military support from the autonomous principality of Bulgaria would be, given that this could jeopardise its political independence as a revolutionary movement.

because it imbalances the paragraph: perhaps it belongs somewhere else in the text? maybe in the IMRO article?

I have used "peoples" in order to promote inclusiveness of all ethnic and national entities, however they may have been categorized and (self)-expressed.

I suggest that any discussion to follow should suggest edits, deletions and/or replacements on this text. --Modi 14:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits#4

I have been away for some time so I haven't checked how the discussion has been developing. The last post I saw was by FlavrSavr, I didn't have the time to write an answer but may be it's for the best - I had some time to think over the matter during the weekend. FlavrSavr, we can continue to bombard each other with arguments for a long with the same result. I am suggesting a compromise variant now but, please, don't think that I can't continue bringing up arguments just because I am doing it. I can, the point is, however, for all of us to reach a compromise solution which is to some extent satisfactory for all of us. As I can I see that the thorn in your eye continues to be the Bulgarian ethnicity in the leading sentence, I can suggest the following:

Ok, VMORO, I have already said that we can continue argumenting forever, I'm glad we're finally making some sense. --FlavrSavr 10:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleansing of the leading sentence of all references to Macedonian or Bulgarian. Thus "Goce Delčev (Гоце Делчев, also transliterated Gotze Delchev and Gotse Delchev; 1872-1903) was a 19th century revolutionary, leader of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organisation (IMARO) which was active in Ottoman Macedonia and Thrace at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century." Or something in that sense.

Sounds fine. --Modi 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok. --FlavrSavr 10:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The reference to Bulgarian/Macedonian can be placed somewhere in the body of the text, for example: "Goce Delchev self-professed himself as a Bulgarian, yet he didn't advocate the annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria but fought for the autonomy of the region under a Christian governor and with guaranteed rights of all nationalities." This statement comprises the points on which we agree at least to some degree (you can argue as much as you want as to why and what meaning he put in "Bulgarian", this, however, does not change the fact that he did it.) Then: "He is honoured both in the Republic of Macedonia and in Bulgaria as the most significant figure in the struggle for the liberation of Macedonia from Ottoman rule. As a sign of honour, towns in both countries bear the name of the revolutionary: Gotse Delchev (town) in Bulgaria and Delchevo in RoM." Or something in that sense.

I would be happier with a seperate part in the article citing that as GD was at the political origins of embrionic Macedonian nationalism, and therefore his national and ethnic affiliation is a contentious issue. Then the varios disagreeing parties to this discussion can add citations of referenced documents were he himself used the word Bulgarian or Macedonian - aparently their are several of each. This can be followed by a brief explanation citing the ethnic and national comlexities of the region and linking to the article Macedonians were there seem to be at least three different types of Macedonians (althoug I've found a fourth one - the civil national Macedonian, in the sense of how the Swiss define their nationhood, in spite of their heterogenuous population). No wonder the French named their fruit salad "macedoine"... --Modi 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

A discussion between the use of the words Bulgarian and Macedonian would not be very appropriate as the two refer to different things: ethnic affiliations for the first one and a regional (and possibly national) identity for the second one. When I say "national", I mean the civil national identity which you mentioned and which exists in Switzerland. In this case we can talk about a double identity - an ethnic one which is Bulgarian and a regional (possibly also national) which is Macedonian. The Macedonian regional identity can be clearly regarded as a precursor to the Slav Macedonian ethnic and national identity (Roudometoff talks about its development as a "radicalization of the regional Macedonian identity during the attempts for forceful acculturation [understand "assimilation"] of the Macedonian Slavs by the Serbs and Greeks in the 1920s and 1930s). I have additionally read research on Pirin Macedonia which concludes that the majority population there have a double identity - a Macedonian regional one and a Bulgarian ethnic/national one which complement each other. This is more or less a preservation of the situation in most of Macedonia from the beginning of the 20th century. I think that a short explanation of the different levels of consciousness/identity and a note that the Macedonian regional identity can be regarded as a precursor to the Slav Macedonian ethnic and national identity is a better option than a discussion between the use of the words Macedonian/Bulgarian, which is factually not correct. User:Birkemaal

So, Macedonian is always used in a regional sense, while Bulgarian is always used in terms of ethnicity? How so? I have pointed out several examples about the relative use of the word "Bulgarian" in the XIX century, published by a Bulgarian slavicist, furthermore, a conversation where GD identifies himself with the 'macedonian people'. I do not claim that he necessarily felt he was an ethnic Macedonian, but I don't see how can we claim he was of indisputed "Bulgarian ethnicity"? Consequently, I think that you are actually claiming that modern Macedonians are of Bulgarian origin or roots, or blood, whatever that means. Sorry, but I don't see how that makes a NPOV. --FlavrSavr 02:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The relative use of the term Bulgarian by Balan refers to Bulgaria proper, not to Macedonia, I pointed to you that a long time ago, as well as the fact that this is something normal for any people which has lived long under political and cultural oppression. I have provided enough proof (I will provide even more if I have to) that the Slavic population of Macedonia considered itself Bulgarian and called its language Bulgarian throughout the 19th century. If the name Bulgarian has been used as a synonym of Christian among the rural uneducated populationl, this does not mean that it had any other national consciousness than Bulgarian (understand Macedonian Slav), it could only imply that it had no developed national consciousness at all. The vast majority of those who had a national consciousness, had a Bulgarian one, including GD. And what is this talk about "Bulgarian blood" and "Bulgarian roots"? The population of the Balkans is so mixed that no one can talk about a pure ethnic origin. The question is how the population of Macedonia viewed itself in the past and your forefathers clearly considered themselves as part of the Bulgarian people, whether you like it or not. VMORO 10:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Birkemaal, your proposal is regressive and unproductive for this article. My proposal was to note that the national/ethnic issue in Macedonia is complex (without giving judgement) and then let the complexities be explained in the Macedonians article (which they are to a large degree). Apparanetly you wish to encumber this discussion, while most of us would like to focus it. Lets be clear: GD is important because of his revolutionary activity in Macedonia. As Macedonia is disputed in so many ways by all its neighbours, it is unsurprising that GD nationality (a subjective expression) or ethnicity (a pseudo-scientific pseudo-objective categorization) is an issue. Therefore, the only way forward is to say that "there is a problem" and give space to cite the various references documenting what GD himself said. I think that references to what others thought GD was or what Macedonions were (at that time or later) are useless in this article as in the first case anyone can have an opinion and there seem to be way too many of them and in the later case this, again, belongs, in the [Macedonians] article. --Modi 07:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be making a direct connection between the geographical region of Macedonia and the present-day Republic of Macedonia (i.e. the Republic of Macedonia is the only "legitimate" descendant of the revolutionary work of the IMARO), which is scarcely so. People in Pirin Macedonia honour the IMARO and GD as much as people in the RoM do, the only difference being that they regard them as ethnic Bulgarians. So, please, do not make any more statements to the effect that GD is important for Macedonia meaning only RoM. VMORO10:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that there's should be a separate part on GD's ethnicity, containing the both views - macedonian and bulgarian. The neutral reader would decide which side is more consistent, and this is the best way to preserve the NPOV. The other reason for a separate part is that, obviously, discussions about his ethnicity dominate GD's subject, so they deserve a specific consideration. I propose the following text for its beginning: "Goce Delchev was at the political origins of embrionic Macedonian nationalism, and therefore his national and ethnic affiliation is a contentious issue. On several occassions, Goce Delchev self-professed himself as a Bulgarian, yet he didn't advocate the annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria but fought for the autonomy of the region under a Christian governor and with guaranteed rights of all nationalities." Then this is followed by very brief explanation(in order not to get more involved in GD's ethnicity, rather than his factual revolutionary work) of both POVs with citations, the letters etc. In conclusion, the issue of the macedoine "salad". --FlavrSavr 10:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Then there can be some text about the significance of GD for RoM and

ok, pls look at my suggestion #3 --Modi 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

ok. --FlavrSavr 10:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

+ "The name of Goce Delchev is incorporated in the macedonian national anthem "Today Over Macedonia" (Denes nad Makedonija). The town Delchevo (former Carevo Selo), located in eastern Macedonia, also bears his name." Think those are important facts about his significance for Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 11:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

then I can write some text for the significance of GD for Bulgaria.

ok. --Modi 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

ok. --FlavrSavr 10:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll be looking forward to your answer. VMORO 00:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the following is an excerpt from a report from the Helsinki Right Watch, which is otherwise least of all prejudiced in favour of Bulgaria:

Whatever the differences between the two groups (Autonomists and Supremists), it seems that neither of them doubted “the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia” (MacDermott, 1978:85, quoted in Danforth, 1995:64). Even the famous leader of the Macedonian revolutionaries, Gotse Delchev, openly said that “We are Bulgarians” (Mac Dermott, 1978:192, 273, quoted in Danforth, 1995:64) and addressed “the Slavs of Macedonia as ‘Bulgarians’ in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention” (Perry, 1988:23, quoted in Danforth, 1995:64).

This is an excerpt from Banac regarding the views of BMORK/IMARO and specifically of GD:

Since the term autonomy traced the Macedonian maze, it is essential to note its sense and reason. Its inspiration certainly belonged to the curious nineteenth-century Balkan practice whereby the powers maintained the fiction of Ottoman control over effectively independent states under the guise of autonomous status within the Ottoman state (Serbia, 1829 – 1878; Danubian principalities [Romania], 1829 – 1878; Bulgaria, 1878 – 1908). Autonomy, in other words, was as good as independence. Moreover, from the Macedonian perspective, the goal of independence by autonomy had another advantage. Goce Delchev (1872 – 1903) and the other leaders of the BMORK were aware of Serbian and Greek ambitions in Macedonia. More important, they were aware that neither Belgrade nor Athens could expect to obtain the whole of Macedonia and, unlike Bulgaria, looked forward to and urged partition pf gpss land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgar character of Macedonia's Christian population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper. In the words of an editorial in Pravo (Right), a Sofia newspaper close to the BMORK, the idea of Macedonian autonomy (or separatism) was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgar nationhood. Inasmuch as the ideal of San Stefano was unworkable, the autonomous idea was the only alternative to the partition of Macedonia by the Balkan states and the assimilation of its severed parts by Serbs, Greeks, and even Romanians (who claimed the areas of Vlach minority).

The Bulgars of the principality [of Bulgaria] – if there be still some who dream of the Bulgaria of San Stefano, have no reason to object to the separatism of the Macedonian population. Irrespective of the harm that the dream of the Bulgaria of San Stefano might bring both now and in the future, irrespective of all the opportunities that political separatism can bring, there is one essential and important consequence of this doctrine, that is, the preservation of the Bulgar tribe – whole, undivided, and bound by their spiritual culture, though separated politically. Without this politically separatism, the spiritual integrity of the Bulgar tribe seems impossible. It is in the interest of the Bulgarian principality not only to support this idea but to continue to work for its realization. As far as the other small Balkan states of Romania, Serbia, and Greece are concerned, we think that, should their policy be free of egotistical incentives but instead based on the broad mission of Balkan confederation, and should they sincerely believe that the majority of the Macedonian population is of the same nationality as they, nothing would be more urgent for them than to support autonomy and political separatism. [22]

Goce Delchev, the tolerant, wise, and forgiving theoretician of the Internal Organization, himself a former Bulgarian military cadet, was so firmly committed to the idea of an autonomous Macedonia that (in 1902) he took the step of changing the statute and rules of the BMORK and, in a departure from its Bulgarocentric character, renamed it the Tajna makedono-odrinska revoljucionna organizacija (TMORO, Secret Macedono-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Organization). The TMORO was to be an insurgent organization, open to all Macedonians regardless of nationality, who wished to participate in the movement for Macedonian autonomy. Delchev called for the "elimination of chauvinist propaganda and nationalist dissentions that divide and weaken the population of Macedonia and the Adrianople area in its struggle against the common [Ottoman] foe." [23] The TMORO guerrilla units (chetas) started recruiting "Graecomanes," Vlachs, and others.

So, I don't agree with "on several occasions", this is not correct. It is, furthermore, evident, the political autonomy demanded by IMARO (not only for Macedonia but also for the Adrianople vilayet) has not been meant as an ethnic secession. VMORO 09:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, I understand your concern and I see you argue your points well, however, most of your issues have nothing to do with how we proceed with this article. If you choose to make every article about anyone from Macedonia a proving point for Bulgarianism, you have clearly misunderstood the purpose of the wikipedia. Your general concerns can be better addressed in the article Macedonians or a selection of other articles that deal more generally with history in geographic Macedonia.

The issue here is rather simple: We have a problem over GDs ethnic or national characterization. Instead of beating each other up about this, lets go with explaining that there are different points of view and lets present the original documents where GD himself said he was this or what. I assume these exist.

So please, if there are some documents indicating GD's own explanations, lets have these.

I am getting this uneasy impression that there are actually very few documents: a letter or two and some documented hearsay. All these cited historians seem to have drawn their conclusions iether from these few documents as well or by drawing sweeping generalizations of the sort "he ate yoghurt, he must be Bulgarian... no wait yoghurt is a Turkish word! ... But Bulgarian yoghurt is the best... there is no such thing as Macedonian yoghurt, just Bulgarian yoghurt that's eaten in Macedonia (FYROM) - did Alexander eat yoghurt? Delchev ate Bulgarian yoghurt every day... But he did not live long so it must have been Macedonian yoghurt... etc".

Citing 20 historians that, in turn, all cite the same two letters does not make the evidence stronger.

Judgements about GD based on generalizations about what macedonian "really" "is" or "was", is second degree and interpretive, thus not NPOV. The actual discussion of what macedonian "really" is, is OK - but it should go in the Macedonians article were it is a first degree issue and we can link to it.

I think we have exhausted the discussion and I will go forward with making the edits maybe tomorrow. I hope that all of you will find them fairly NPOV, and what seems manky, we can fix in the edit. I will past the whole article here in the discussion page as a subsection GD-beta-v2. This way we can avoid editing the real article. --Modi 15:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha, Modi, if you are under the impression that I have the archive of the IMARO under my desk and I can conjure forth 500 documents tomorrow, you are under the wrong impression. I don't even live in Bulgaria. How you feel confident to deliver judgements that the opinions of "the 20 historians" are based on "the same 2 letters" is, likewise, a mystery to me. A history book is not written on the basis of "2 letters", I think you are intelligent enough to understand that, as well as what bibliography means. The one who makes the sweeping generalisations is you. There is also a considerable difference in the credibility of the opinion of 20 historians and the opinion of a user in Wikipedia (whether it is you, or me, or someone else). Your proposal that "only original documents by GD should be reviewed" is downright absurd. Certainly such should be welcomed if they are available but articles here are usually written on the basis of other books, or do you question that?:-)))

I would urge you to take a look at (MacDermott, Mercia. (1978). Freedom or Death - the life of Gotse Delchev. London: Journeyman Press), th

A REAL SUGGESTION FOR EVERYONE, PLEASE READ SOME REAL HISTORY WWW.MACEDONIAGREECE.COM

Categories: Talk archives