Talk:Yane Sandanski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Bulgaria Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Yane Sandanski:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents 1 .. 2 Sandanski's ethnicity 2.1 Some sources 3 Evidences 4 User FlavrSavr could you be so kind to explain why was all this rush and inadequate demands: 5 Petty question 6 Croatia and Slovenia 7 Rename 8 Common oppinion 9 Famous Quotes without sources 10 Quote source 11 Minority of historians?! 12 Enough! 13 The interview 14 Vandalism or NPOV 15 Protected 16 Several documents and texts of the People's Federative Party (Bulgarian section) 17 References 18 Albert Sonnichsen 19 Mac-Bul ethnic feuds again? 20 Question and Answer 21 Documents about the Bulgariannes of Yane Sandanski and his faction 22 Three unfortunate facts 23 Mercia MacDermott 24 External links 25 Town of Sandanski 26 Category 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg 28 References 29 name

[edit] ..

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

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

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

Мисли...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting quotations. But I have two serious considerations:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sandanski's ethnicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Some sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Evidences

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

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

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

А) Foreigners

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

B) Sandanski himself and his adherents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Petty question

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Croatia and Slovenia

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

[edit] Rename

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

[edit] Common oppinion

I found the following comment on this talk page:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Famous Quotes without sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Quote source

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

[edit] Minority of historians?!

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

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

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

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

[edit] Enough!

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

[edit] The interview

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

Here's the current version of the quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Vandalism or NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points here:

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

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

Capricornis 05:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

About the points:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Protected

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should go back and read again.

Two points here:

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

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

Capricornis 05:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Sandanski:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Albert Sonnichsen

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

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

[edit] Mac-Bul ethnic feuds again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Question and Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Documents about the Bulgariannes of Yane Sandanski and his faction

Source: "Macedonia. Documents and materials", published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History, Bulgarian Language Institute, Sofia, 1978, Part III National-Liberation Struggles (1878 - 1918), records No. 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121 (retrieved on September 7, 2007).

112. An excerpt from the leading article entitled "Our Positions" in the first number of Sandanski's party organ - newspaper "Narodna Volya", explains the demands of the Bulgarian People's Federal Party, Thessalonica, No. 1, January 17th, 1909 (the original is in Bulgarian language):

• Edinstvo and Constitoutsionna Zarya had only provisional tasks, the most important of which was to help the Bulgarians in the Empire to orientate their social and political thought amidst the sudden changes in the internal life of the country; to propagate the new ways of thought and new forms of struggle made necessary by the changes, to point out the need to organize Ottoman democratic parties and to raise their common slogans. This aim has been achieved. In the ranks of the Bulgarian element the organization of democratic forces is already taking place. On the one hand, we observe the speedy growth of the Bulgarian People's Federal Party (BPFP) and, on the other, the first beginnings of the Workers' Party. The need for the further concentration of the forces around the two party groupings, the need for purely party newspapers, led to the appearance of Narodna Volya as a Party organ of the BPFP which is already in formation, and the newspaper Rabotnik, which will soon begin to appear as the theoretical organ of the Workers' Party (WP). To disseminate the ideas of our party and to defend our positions - this will be our daily task. In this article, however, we want to set forth the general outlines of these positions and ideas. As an organ of the BPFP, Narodna Volya defends and expresses the in­terests mainly of that part of the Bulgarian population, which comprises its predominant majority, and which is the most important element in that party -the petty owners deprived of all state protection, the landless or poor farmers, petty shopkeepers, craftsmen and merchants. These are the social strata whose interests today are the interests of the Bulgarian nationality in the Empire.

113. An excerpt from an article entitled "Two Tactics" in newspaper "Narodna Volya" expresses the view that the Ottoman Bulgarians should not rely on external intervention and the Macedonian Bulgarians have to cooperate with other Ottoman nationalities as Sandanski's Bulgarian People's Federative Party offers, Thessalonica, No. 1, January 17th, 1909 (the original is in Bulgarian):

• In fact, the Constitutional Clubs, at the bottom of their hearts, still keep their old distrust of constitutional reforms. For this reason, they could not become a really significant force for the development of democracy, which alone provides conditions under which the Bulgarian element as well would, together with the other nationalities, be able to feel free and equal. They probably said to themselves: 'We shall wait and see what the "Young Turk" Revolution will bring us.' And they waited at a time when it was necessary to work with all their strength for the organization of those forces which alone could make the Constitution a reality. To see what the others will give us! This could be said only by a man, who relies on what the others will give him, instead of winning his rights through his own efforts and struggles. And such are the people around the Constitutional Clubs. Being for the most part foreign agents, they have neither the desire, nor the interest, to show the Bulgarian people in the Empire that the Bulgarians there should not rely on others, as they have done until now, but that they too, like the other nations eager to achieve equality and justice, should take the responsibility for what has been won and what remains to be won. But they are not doing it because they know that if they say 'A' they will have to say 'B' as well, i.e. if they teach the people to rely on their own strength, they will not be able to avoid a confederation of all freedom-loving forces in the Empire. And this is contrary to the interests of the Bulgarian pseudo-patriots. It is much more in their in­terests to prove that only the Bulgarians are unjustly treated. To say that out of 38 million Ottoman citizens only one million Bulgarian-Exarchists are unjustly treated! And this agitation of theirs obviously aims at keeping the Bulgarian population in an isolated state in order to enable some dirty hands to use them.

114. From the speech of Habib Bey at the 11th session of the Ottoman Parliament, January, 19th, 1909 (the original is in Turkish language):

• It is not improbable that the Bulgarians had something in mind. Recently they coined a phrase which has become a slogan: 'Macedonia for the Macedonians.' The faction of the Supremists thrived under the name of Centralists. One of the factions set con­siderable conditions before the Committee of the Young Turks, while the other is trying with all its might to become Ottoman. This latter is the faction of Sandanski. It is entirely Ottoman and will remain so forever. Let it propagate its views so that all Bulgarians will become genuinely attached to us.

116. An exceprt from a report by the Greek Consul in Syar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the dangerous propagation of the Bulgarian spirit in the region of Syar, January 31st, 1909 (the original is in Greek Language):

• The leaders and the revolutionaries make the rounds of the villages and some of them are appointed as teachers, the constant collec­tion of taxes from the peasants still continues, those that do not submit are punished, the Organization is supported, military drill continues and everything else as well, just as before the Constitution, and this with the knowledge and forbearance of the Turks and the government, who are afraid to persecute Bulgarians, nor do they even dare offend them. In actual fact, in the south there are no detachments except for the old revolutionaries, who, armed and un­troubled, visit the villages and freely come on their lofty and peace-loving work , while with us it is just the opposite. In the north there are two or three detachments maintained by Sandanski to strengthen his influence, to collect levies, drill the peasants, etc. The leader of the detachment at Melnik is a man named Tosho, who has fled from justice. Besides the detachments there are seven Bulgarian officers, disguised as peasants, who visit the villages and drill the peasants. In a fortified valley in the mountain of Orvil (Mount Pirin), Bulgarian peasants constantly practise shooting and various military exercises in companies and battalions. It is inexplicable how the leaders and deputy-leaders from Sandanski's party, having brainwashed the peasants, send them afterwards to the Bulgarian archpriest in Syar and to the Bulgarian diplomatic agent, when at the same time Bulgaria pretends to be mercilessly pursuing San­danski's men. The number of guests to the above-mentioned characters on the part of the Bulgarophone peasants recently is extraordinary.

118. An excerpt from the editorial "The Parties and the Workers" in the newspaper "Rabotnicheska Iskra" ("Worker's spark"), refers to the "People's Federal Party" and "The Union of the Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs" as being Bulgarian parties in Macedonia and the region of Odrin, Bitola, No. 4, February 15th, 1909 (the original is in Bulgarian):

• In contrast, the Bulgarian Federal Party is the representative of the petty merchants, artisans and peasants, of the grocers and innkeepers, in short, of what is called the petty bourgeoisie. Thus, if the first is a bourgeois party, the second is a petty bourgeois party. The fact that the latter sides with the farm workers and with the poor peasants in general and stresses as a special point on its programme a demand for social reform, in the sense that the government should give land to these peasants - this fact does not in itself make it any better than a petty bourgeois party, which it is in essence. Because, first of all, it regards the problem of the social reform as a means of creating more petty owners, i.e. a more numerous petty bourgeois class, as a solution to what is today called a 'social problem'; secondly, 'this same social reform is the aim of the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Constitutional Party, except that for this party, the reform has a different, a purely bourgeois meaning. On the other hand, the Bulgarian Federal Party is also as nationalistic as the first party. The difference lies in the fact that the first party wants the Bulgarians to be united with Bulgaria under any conditions, while the second party wants this only providing that there is no monarchism, -etc., in Bulgaria.

119. An excerpt from a report by the Greek Consul in Syar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Athens on the decline of Greek propaganda in the struggle against the Bulgarians, February 28th, 1909 (the original is in Greek):

• As I have already informed you, different leaders have formed their own detachments but they are not as yet active, either because of the winter, or because they are expecting a signal. I was informed yesterday that, besides the detachment of Stoyu Hadjiev, who fled from justice, one of Sandanski's aides, who has been roaming freely in the region of Kroushevo (Demir Hissar) has turned up near Yakovo and Bogoroditsa (Petrich), and also Mircho, with a detachment of six teen. Other smaller groups keep visiting those parts to boost Sandanski's in­fluence. In the south, and especially on the plain of Syar, efforts most energetic, varied and more consistent than ever before are being made to ensure the final predominance of the Bulgarians. I cannot but express my fears as to the final victory of the Bulgarians.

120. An excerpt from a report by the Greek Consul in Syar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Athens on the raising of the agrarian problem on the part of the Bulgarians, March 6th, 1909 (the original is in Greek):

• Before the Constitution, the agrarian question was one of the most impor­tant plans of the Bulgarian cause, but since July 11th this question has become the basic concern of Bulgarian propaganda. Indeed, if some other event, be it war or radical agreement among the European Powers, does not solve the Macedonian question, there is, in my opinion, no doubt that the solution of the agrarian question will prepare the final solution of the Macedonian question. Earlier on, the Bulgarians promised that the distribution of the farm land would start immediately after the unification of Macedonia with Bulgaria, or after it had acquired autonomy. Later, at the talks between the Young Turk Committee and Sandanski, the latter made the agrarian question the most important condition for his cooperation with the Turks and his services to Young Turkey. The Young Turk Committee, alarmed by the impending danger that the farm hands would be in constant excitement and would rise in the event of their demands not being met, promised to accept their demands and also to give the Bulgarians land sufficient for their needs.

121. An excerpt from an article in the Sandanski's party organ "Narodna Volya" about Gotse Delchev, Thessalonica, No. 19, April 25th, 1909 (the original is in Bulgarian):

• The Bulgarian population in Macedonia and the Odrin region has lived through such a historical moment. Under impossible conditions of life and development, it was forced to organize itself, and to start a struggle of life and death, an unequal and bloody struggle. In this agonizing and unequal struggle, the Bulgarian people in Macedonia demonstrated rare resilience and rare tenacity, it created strong characters and heroes, it reared innumerable modest people, steeped in bright idealism, people who were completely selfless, living with the interests and the ideals of their nation and finding their unnamed graves in the forests and plains.

Jackanapes 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three unfortunate facts

I can see at least three unfortunate facts here, but feel free to correct me:

1. The modern Macedonian state has not published NEARLY enough books, or propagated original documents to support its cause as the modern Bulgarian state (which is much older). This goes for print as well as web publications.
2. The Slavic population of the geographical territory of Macedonia has gone through so much suffering and oppression, and so many foreign propaganda's trying to put so many labels on it and force it to wear them, that the Bulgarian one seemed to stick the most, for one or another reason. That is, of course, until the national awakening in which most of the population decided to call themselves ethnic Macedonians, different from all others. Just remember the lyrics of the old song 'Narode Makedonski' (ah, I should put that in wikipedia :)
3. Whether because of the population ration, or for some other reasons, there are many more Bulgarians than Macedonians on wikipedia, and large percentage of the Bulgarians seem to be history buffs, well versed in Balkans history and know their way around secondary and primary sources, which cannot be really said for their Macedonian counterparts.

I was gonna write a 'soap box' conclusion here, but I am tired of preaching today :) Capricornis 02:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So what you mean is that Bulgarians are more familiar with Balkan history? If that is so why do you deny them/us that knowledge? Oh, and I'd really love to hear the reason why "Bulgarian propaganda" sticks best. Because of the identical language? Or because of what all the Ottoman censuses showed prior to WWI? Or is it something else? --Laveol ^T 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Identical language? Please don't show your ignorance in public, it is embarassing :) The Macedonian language is much more different from the Bulgarian Language, than Serbian Language is from Croatian Language or Czech Language and Slovak Language, and yet no one is killing themselves claiming they are the same languages. Also Serbs can understand bulgarian without studying it and vice versa, are those the same too? Capricornis 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacnapess, please post the macedonian and bulgarian passages that you deleted to show how similar they are, then i can post serbian and croatian passages, czech and slovak passages, ukrainian, russian and byelorussian passages, and even spanish and portugese passages, so we will let our readers judge which ones are more similar. Just because some languages are closely related and mutually intelligible it doesn't make them identical in the linguistic world Capricornis 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let it be almost identical then since this fires you up that much. It was just an answer to your sarcastic comments (not just on this talkpage). Since it sounds too offensive bear in mind that this is the official position of the Bulgarian government (Macedonian is a regional form of Bulgarian). --Laveol ^T 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the official position of the Bulgarian government and its irrationality, and believe me, so are many other people in the West. And no, it doesn't fire me up at all, why would it, as it is based on nothing substantial as any professional linguist would tell you. On the contrary, it seems to fire you up a lot, and stirs a lot of emotions and insecurity within you. Don't worry, most psychologists agree that it will pass as you grow up ;) Capricornis 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Civility, refrain from making statements that might be offensive to people, even if you regard them as "jokes". Mr. Neutron 04:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a fine line between a sense of humor and bad manners, and in my personal opinion I have not crossed it. As always, your mileage may vary :) Capricornis 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for people to find out how good or how bad your humor is. Stick to discussing content not contributors, and do not make any more attacks. Mr. Neutron 05:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to restrain your need to tell me what to do. thank you Capricornis 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am informing you about rules in Wikipedia you are breaking, so that they wont be broken again. It is for everyones benefit. Mr. Neutron 05:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercia MacDermott

Can somebody comment the book of Mercia MacDermott "For Freedom and Perfection? The Life of Yane Sandansky" [18] , London, 1988. It seems that the colections of big number of documents qouted above (Primary sources) are used by M. MacDermott for her work, which is a Secondary source - a literature created by scientist.--GrigorG 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, find this a perfect source that I already mentioned above. It's good that you have found the text in the Internet as we can have the exact quotes now. --Laveol ^T 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A speech by Yane Sandanski held in the town of Nevrokop (present day Gotse Delchev, Bulgaria) during the Young Turks' revolution, quoted in her book, p. 344:

• Today, all of us—Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews and others —we have all sworn that we will work for our dear Fatherland and will be inseparable, and we will all sacrifice ourselves for it, and, if necessary, we will even shed our blood. Enlightenment is the surest guarantee of the wellbeing of a country; therefore, open schools! And enlighten yourselves! And we will demand from the Sultan that which is necessary for the amelioration of the state of the population, and, if he gives us no satisfaction, we will demand it with force, and will shout with one voice: ‘Down with the Sultan! Down with the Sultan! Down with the Sultan!.

A footnote regarding this document: "This part of Yané’s speech is quoted from a hand-written leaflet, bearing the seal of the Razlog Committee for Union and Progress, and a price, i.e. the leaflet was one of many copies made for sale. The leaflet was found among the papers of Lazar Kolchagov of Bansko, and was published by Ivan Diviziev in Istoricheski Pregled, 1964, Book 4 /Nov Dokument za Yané Sandansky/." - Jackanapes 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm troubled by the balance of the "External links" section. There are 4 external links, out of which 3 are dedicated to the Bulgarian point of view and only 1 to the Macedonian point of view. I think this should be discussed. INkubusse 23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. Do you know of any? Capricornis 08:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of these are representing the Bulgarian POV - the macedonian link is actually a macedonian translation of the second bg source and a genuine Sandanski's text. Asenizator 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Bulgarian POV is more popular - including historians in the West. What about if this POV is NPOV?--GrigorG 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC) You don't seem to understand what NPOV is, Grigor. The 'N' stands for Neutral, including both sides' view, not for Bulgarian. iNkubusse ^? 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no "both sides". See Wikipedia:Fringe theories, also Wikipedia:Undue weight, both of which refer to the "Macedonian position". ForeignerFromTheEast 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Macedonian view is not a fringe theory. You suggest it's just some rumour, but it's accepted both in the Republic of Macedonia and by the Macedonian diaspora thoughout the world, and some other parties; so it shouldn't be qualified as a fringe theory.

"Undue weight" suggests that tiny minority views should deserve very little attention (or not at all). But again, this is not a tiny minority view and deserves some room in the "External links" part. iNkubusse ^? 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have already discussed the 'tininess' of these theories and got to the conclusion that it is at least 'a pretty small part' if not tiny. Especially in western sources. --Laveol ^T 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Town of Sandanski

The town of Sandanski is in the Blagoevgrad Province; there is no official Pirin Macedonia in the Republic of Bulgaria. Politis 10:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Politis, as I already have told you (as Jackanapes), the unofficial name "Pirin Macedonia" is quite popular in Bulgaria. It is common practice among Bulgarians from Macedonia to refer to the administrative region, known officially as Blagoevgrad Province, also as Pirin Macedonia. This name is used in the contemporary Bulgarian scientific literature as well. There is a variant "Pirin region" too. For example an encyclopaedia "Пирински край" or "Pirin region" in two volumes was issued in 1990ies. Please, don't ignore these facts, the official name of that province isn't the only name of that part of Bulgaria. - Dimitar Navorski 11:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg

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

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

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

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

[edit] References

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] name

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

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