Talk:Nikola Karev

Ethnicity and self-consciousness

Laveol, I see it's sourced, but there's another source where he states that he's not a Bulgarian. I'm trying to find a neutral solution, please don't make it harder. We cannot say for sure that he considered himself a Bulgarian, especially not since we know the fact that he was the president of the Republic. The sources that prove his Bulgarian self-determination are just as weak as the ones that prove his Macedonian self-determination. iNkubusse^? 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I said, please see the talk page, but nobody answered. You just revert the article, and you do it very well planed, so that only I receive a 3RR breaking notice. 2 rv's by Laveol, 2 by ForeignerFromTheEast, and 2 by Decx. I have no other choice but to use the talk page, but still, nothing. You're making troubles about a goddamn category, for Pete's sake! iNkubusse^? 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop insinuating. It is not just the category. The person is considered an ethnic Macedonian only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you only once. The fact is sourced with a Western secondary source. I have not reverted you on articles where the ethnicity is not sourced, but you're not even remotely right here. --Laveol ^T 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not. That's not true. Even if it was, he is still considered Macedonian by a whole state and a set of historians.

I'm sorry Laveol, you're right, it was only once. But either way, he gave an interview for that Greek newspaper where he states that he is not Bulgarian, and tell me what's more reliable, an interview from himself or a Western author? But we shouldn't even discuss about this, he is considered an ethnic Macedonian too and the category is relevant. I really, really can't see why you mind the category. iNkubusse^? 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The interview is not from a reliable source. Provide a reliable publication, not some latin-alphabet poor rendition. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i don't mind the category - I reverted you, cause you changed the article against the source given. As you see I have made no reverts on the other articles in discussion. --Laveol ^T 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry again then :) But what about the interview? iNkubusse^? 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the source [[1]] no where does it state that Karev stated that he is a Bulgarian. Ireland101 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have been very resourceful but as per my personal opinion Nikola Karev is not the best character to dispute one's nationality or ethnicity. In order to get the required neutral solution we should take into conideration the historical context before everything else. I think it is obvious that Karev was a politician and a leader. Being an Ottoman subject he undertook social and political actions of cultural emancipation and separatism. Bear in mind the fact that Karev was a socialist, whose nationalist feelings are usually supressed or surpassed by internationalism. Best regards, Litev (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The interview with Nikola Karev

Two articles from a Macedonian newspaper "Utrinski vesnik", published on 22. 07. 2000, archive number 329.

1.

По откривањето на интервјуто на Никола Карев за "Акрополис" во 1903

Одважноста на претседателот на Крушевската Република

Грчкиот новинар разговарал токму со Никола, најпознатиот борец за Македонија од семејството Кареви - сето вклучно во Движењето

Интервјуто на Никола Карев за грчкиот весник Акрополис, објавено на 8 мај 1903 година, е првото, досега познато интервју на член на најтесното раководство на ВМРО пред Илинденското востание. Тоа го предизвикува љубопиството на современите читатели и поради погледите на Карев за борбата на Македонците за ослободување и поради односот на Грците кон Востанието и кон Македонија и Македонците.

Овој исклучителен, слободно ќе може да се нарече, историски документ го откри и го преведе на македонски јазик г-ѓа Елефтерија Вамбаковска, вработена во Институт за национална историја. При вчерашната средба со г-ѓа Вамбаковска во редакцијата на "Утрински весник" најнапред не интересираше начинот на кој таа дошла до интервјуто.

- Пред извесно време од соседна Грција добивме неколку мошне интересни историографски изданија. Меѓу нив е и делото со наслов Та тетрадја ту Илинден, (Атина 2000) подготвена за печат и публикувана од Георгиос Пецивас што претставува еден вид независно издание и претпоставува заобиколување на силно присутната селекција, па и цензура (да ја наречеме), на официјалната грчка историографија. Книгата е поделена на два дела. Во првиот дел е поместен дневникот на првиот секретар на грчкиот конзулат во Битола Јон Драгумис, а во вториот дел Г.Пецивас има поместено цела збирка разни документи кои се однесуваат на Илинденскиот период.

Авторот на "тетратките" Ј. Драгумис е познат националистички борец за голема Грција. Во Битола дошол 1902 година и меѓу првите започнал да организира борба против Внатрешната организација, која, ете, успеала да ги привлече во своите редови речиси сите македонски патријаршисти, со што ги загрозувала грчките "интереси" во Македонија.

Прелистувајќи ја книгата, особено делот Прилози, бев пријатно изненадена кога на стр.553 (документот бр.21) пред мене се појави наслов "Интервју со член на Комитетот". Со љубопитност го барам името на членот на Комитетот, но и на новинарот.

Новинарот, чиј идентитет на крајот е означен со иницијали, ни ја открива личноста со која се сретнал, со следниот краток осврт: Во Битола ја имав среќата и честа да се запознаам со еден бугаризиран Македонец - учител, член на Комитетот кој се вика Карев. Со овој човек случајно се запознав во хот. "Монастирион", односно "Отел Монастир", како што го викаат во Битола. Карев се држеше многу резервирано кон мене се до оној момент кога "Гркот од Крушево, по име Папагудас" не ми го претстави. Потоа се ослободи и откако погледа лево-десно ми призна дека бил "бугарофрон" и член на Комитетот.

Дали елементите што ги дава грчкиот новинар биле доволни за да се тврди со сигурност дека станува збор за Никола Карев?

Уште на почетокот пред мене се поставија повеќе прашања и дилеми: прво, се споменува презимето, но не и името, а Кареви имало повеќе и сите биле во Движението. Но, меѓу нив само еден бил учител и раководител од повисок ранг, тоа бил Никола. Значи, нема сомневање дека тој е Никола Карев.

Второ, и можеби најважно: можно ли било во тие тешки години на конспирација, особено во времето пред Илинден кога во Македонија особено во Битолскиот округ, имало чести и жестоки судири меѓу четите и аскерот (период на т.н. непрокламирано востание) а будноста на турските власти била подигната на многу високо ниво, повторувам, можно ли било во едно такво време, во битолски хотел без разлика што бил сопственост на еден крушевски Влав, Карев да се открие пред еден Грк (и не само пред него), а се знаело дека Грците соработувале со турската власт во борбата против македонското движење?

Трето, на документот стои "Атина четврток 8 мај". По се изгледа тогаш било објавено интервјуто. Кога се водел разговорот не се знае, но сигурно тоа морало да биде неколку дена пред 8 мај, по солунските атентати. Карев само што беше минал во илегала по враќањето од Смилевскиот конгрес.

Четврто, познато е дека раководителите на Македонската организација не контактирале со новинари во земјата и надвор од неа. Исклучок е интервјуто на Јане Сандански и, веројатно, на Д.Груев дадени во друго време и поинакви услови. Дали интервјуто на Н.Карев е единствено дадено од еден раководител на Организацијата пред Илинденското востание, останува допрва да се потврди.

Како ја коментирате содржината на интервјуто. Што значи терминот бугарофрон?

Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"!

Самиот новинар го прогласува Карев за Македонец, но бугаризиран, а го започнува интервјуто со прашањето што е (по националност)? Се гледа дека за него поважно било етничкото потекло - дали бил Македонец, што за Грците било синоним за Грк. Инаку, тоа "по убедување" за нив не било важно - убедувањето се стекнувало и било менливо.

Бугарофрон, во буквален превод би значело - човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари. Денес Грците имаат сличен термин - етникрофрон кој има слично значење, имено - човек што мисли на својата нација, односно Грк кој мисли на Грција. Денес Македонците во Егејска Македонија своите сонародници кои се погрчиле ги нарекуваат - етникофрони.

За нив во 50-те и 60-те години се издаваа и посебни уверенија дека се етникофрони, а заедно со нив се издаваа и уверенија за подобност, наречени - пистопиитикон киноникон фрониматон кои беа потребни дури и за полагање на приемните испити на факултетите.

Како го објаснувањето поврзувањето на територијата Македонија со етничкиот карактер на населението кое живее во неа?

Новинарот, и не само тој, Македонија ја смета за грчка територија и оттука и луѓето кои тука живеат, според нив, мора да се Грци, потомци на Александар Македонски. Затоа и тој толку настојчиво се обидува да го убеди Карев дека Грк. А, ако не е Грк тогаш е "бугарофрон", "бугаризиран Македонец" и тн. Инаку, лесно се воочува дека интервјуто во е "малку дотерано", приспособено за грчките читатели во 1903 година.

2.

Разговорот на грчкиот новинар со Никола Карев

Јас сум Македонец!

Комитетот не е бугарски. И Грција да сакаше да ни помогне ќе ја прифатевме со целото срце

- Македонец ли си? Го прашувам.

- Да.

- И следователно Грк.

- За ова не знам, ми одговори, јас сум Македонец.

- Директен наследник на Александар Велики? Му велам иронично.

- Да.

- И Александар Македонски што беше, ве молам?

- Не знам, но историјата вели дека бил Грк.

- Тогаш и ти, како негов наследник, си Грк.

- Не, ми одговори.

- Значи, тогаш го прашувам пак, зошто кога веќе сте Грк сакате да се ослободите преку (со помош) на Бугарија?

- Која Бугарија, мислиш на Комитетот?

- Да.

- Ти одговарам дека Комитетот не е бугарски и, второ, изгледа дека сме наклонети кон Бугарија затоа што само таа се покажува расположена да ни помогне. И Грција, ако го правеше истото, ќе ја прифатевме со целото наше срце.

- Бугарската заштита ја гледате само површински, Бугарија не сака да ве ослободи од турското ропство, туку да ве (потчини) пороби.

- Хм! Ако Бугарија мисли да не претвори во нејзина провинција си направила лоша пресметка. Инаку, нас не не интересира што мисли Бугарија туку обрнуваме внимание само на следново: ВСи ја постигнуваме ли целта'? Си ја добиваме ли нашата слобода? Не не интересира дали ќе не ослободи Грција или Бугарија. Единствено што може да добие секоја една од нив е само наша благодарност.

- Добро, ако се ослободите, што сакате да бидете, автономија?

- Да, како што е во Швајцарија, во која три различни племиња живеат во крајна хармонија и љубов.

- Да, но, знаете дека на таков начин вршите услуга на интересите на Панславистичката Етерија, чиј огранок е и Комитетот?

- Каква услуга вршиме?

- Како што се изјасни погоре Македонија е грчка земја, а ако секоја грчка земја бара да биде автономна тогаш доаѓа до ослабнување на Грција, а тоа го бара Панславистичката Етерија.

- Зошто го бара?

- За еден ден да не пороби и нас и вас и затоа сака да не најде слаби за да го постигне тоа полесно.

Карев за момент изгледаше замислен. Јас побрзав да го прекинам молчењето.

- Зошто не сакате да се обедините со Грција?

- Затоа што ако не земе Мора (Грција) ќе стане една голема држава и следователно монархија. Во таков случај ќе произлезат многу зла - прво монархијата и тоа што произлегува од неа, а второ, Грција ќе не натера да војуваме со Бугарија нешто што (ние) не го сакаме.

- Вие што сакате?

Ми ја покажа капата:

- Сакаме република.

- Демократија и пријателство со Бугарија?

- Не само со Бугарија, туку со секој што ќе ни помогне да се ослободиме.

- Со Бугарија сакате да се обедините?

- Не!. Не!.

- И ова ви го проповеда (учи) Комитетот?

- Да.

- Тогаш овој Комитет кој толку многу се грижи за вашата независност зошто не бара заштита од Грција која има повеќе должности да ве ослободи, туку клоните кон варварите?

- Да ви одговорам веднаш. Ние личиме на човек кој паднал во морето и се наоѓа во опасност, секој момент да се удави. Е, не ми велите, ве молам, овој човек за да се спаси ќе се фати ли за се што ќе најде во тој момент пред себе, дури и за змија? Во таква положба сме ние, дури и Турчин да ни пружи рака за спас ќе ја грабниме со благодарност.

- Но, грчките првенци, свештеници и учители зошто ги убивате кога немате ништо посебно против никој?

- Ова се лаги. Комитетот не убива само Грци, туку и Бугари и Срби и Турци и секого кој предава.

- Ова се изговори за гревовите, уништивте многу грчки патриоти затоа што не даваа пари за вашиот Комитет.

- Овие работи ги измислувате вие Грците како и другите.

- Кои други?

- Ете, тие во Солун, поставивте вие луѓе да го направат тоа што го направија за да го оцрните Комитетот (станува збор за Солунските атентати, б.м.).

Не можев да се воздржам и страшно се насмеав што предизвика љубопитност кај сопственикот Таску Квата, кој ми се приближи.

- Што ти вели? Ме праша.

- Тоа и тоа.

- Хм! Ама како ќе се види дека е Бугарин дебелоглавец, ако не беше Бугарин не ќе кажуваше такви зборови, особено сега кога и ѕидовите имаат уши.

- Да, да ова што ви го велам јас повтори Карев - едно дрво кое ја проби земјата и изникна, зошто да не го вадат сите за да порасне?

- Да.

- Да, но знаете со што го вади Бугарија. Со отров на омраза кон грцизмот.

- Како и да е ова вадење (полевање), не освежува и не натера да ги завртиме гранките кон онаа страна кон која, признаваме дека ништо не не поврзува и да бегаме од вас со кои немаме иста крв и иста историја; ова е на некој начин протест против грчкото интересирање (за нас).

- Ова што го велиш е резултат на бугарското вадење, зашто Грција никогаш не престанала да ве поддржува и со писменоста и со оружје.

И пак Карев не ми одговори.

- И сега, по последните настани што мислите да правите? - Го прашав. (се мисли на т.н. Горноџумајско востание од есента 1902 б.м.)

- Ништо друго освен да ја продолжиме борбата.

- Да, но зар не знаете дека зад таа борба се крие борба подла и нечесна?

- Тоа нас не не интересира, доволно е да си ја постигнеме нашата цел.

- Значи и со убиства?

- Штом се вршат за доброто на еден народ.

- Имате право какви учители имавте такви лекции научивте...

Карев пак не ми одговори, само стана и полека тргна кон неговата соба, додека зад него сите гости на хотелот на разни начини ги коментираа неговите зборови.

С. Т. Стам.

(Акрополис, бр.7608, Библиотека - Стар Парламент)

Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this to do with the article. The mere fact that it has mentioning of the whole naming controversy between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia a lot of years before it started says enough. --Laveol ^T 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Three things at least. First, Karev defined himself in front of the Greek journalist who questioned him as "Бугарофрон", which means "човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари." Second, the word "Macedonian" was used by both of them, the Greek journalist and Karev, in regional meaning only: "Македонец ли си? Го прашувам. / Да. / И следователно Грк." Third, the contemporary Macedonian researcher г-ѓа Елефтерија Вамбаковска, who works in the Macedonian Institute for National History, defines the terms used by the Greek journalist about Karev as controversial (from contemporary ethnic Macedonian point of view) because Karev isn't represented as ethnic Macedonian. - GriefForTheSouth 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see it that way. I thought it was some reference to a problem not-existing at the time. Besides from being from a nationalistic paper. --Laveol ^T 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact the historical interview from 1903 contains two different concepts concerning the meaning of the term "Macedonian". Karev's point of view: he is "Macedonian" and "Bugarofron" (according to E. Vambakovska this word means "person who thinks in Bulgarian way, who thinks as all other Bulgarians think") at the same time. The Greek journalist's point of view: "Karev is Macedonian, therefore he is Greek". The ethnic Macedonian concept is absent. - GriefForTheSouth 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And just what is your proof that Macedonian is used in reagional meaning only? iNkubusse^? 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point, you have to show it is or it isnt. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't. iNkubusse^? 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And how are you showing it? All it says is that the inhabitants of the region of Macedonia are not all Greeks, whatever other ethnicity they might be. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he said "(Are you a Macedonian?) Yes. - (and consequently Greek?) No. ", that doesn't have to mean regionally. For example, if you ask me if I'm a Macedonian, I'd tell you "yes, and not Greek" (and I wouldn't mean it regionally). The Greek interviewer asked him if he was an ethnic Macedonian (and because, according to the Greeks, Macedonians are part of the Greek nation, also a Greek). Why on earth would the interviewer ask an inhabitant of Macedonia if he was a Macedonian in regional sense? By the way, Karev also said that the committee wasn't Bulgarian - was it Greek maybe? iNkubusse^? 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally wrong. The Greek interviewer interpreted "Macedonian" in the regional sense, as historically (Ancient) Macedonians have been equivalent with Greeks. And Karev basically responds he is not Greek. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see as an outsider unless there was a prefix infront of Macedonian (greek-macedonian, bulgarian-macedonian, albanian-macedonian ect..) we must take it as writen and not assume what else it could have meant. If the Greek jurnalist asked him if he was Macedonian or Greek and he said Macedonian that means ethnic Macedonian. Ireland101 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Too strong of an assertion with too little of historical basis. "we must take it as writen and not assume what else it could have meant" - Macedonian can mean a whole bunch of things, refer to this disambiguation page. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% Foreigner Macedonian can mean many things such as greek-macedonian, albanian-macedonian, bulgarian-macedonian or Macedonian. So unless it states Greek-Macedonian we should not assume this as it may mean something else. We need to read it as written which is Macedonian. Macedonian is what ethnic Macedonians refered to themselves back then and today, for example there is no record of ethnic Macedonians such as Chupovski or Cento refering to themselves as "ethnic Macedonians" they just referred to themselves as "Macedonian" simmularly as to how ethnic Germans refer to themselves as "German" and how ethnic French refer to themselves as "French".Ireland101 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, totally wrong. Macedonian can mean various things, as seen by the disambiguation page. It can be used by anyone (including by ethnic Macedonians and others) to describe a person from the region of Macedonia. German and French analogy does not hold because unlike Macedonian those terms are not regionally defined. I fail to see how Cento or Chupovski are relevant to Karev. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys trying to say that you know what the interviewer and Karev really meant? You're right, Foreigner, we mustn't assume, but he didn't say he was Bulgarian, did he? Karev simply said "Macedonian", and he said that he didn't know whether the Macedonians were Greeks, but that he was Macedonian, and that he was a direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians! And you still say that he meant it regionally? A direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians - regionally? =)) We really shouldn't tell what he meant, but one thing is certain: he said he was Macedonian, a direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians! (Edit conflict sucks.. Twice!) iNkubusse^? 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're shifting the problem to what the Ancient Macedonians are. Are they Slav or Greeks? Either way the point is you cannot use this interview to prove anything about his ethnicity other than it is not Greek. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand Macedonians are not Slavs but rather an ethnic group.Ireland101 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean ethnic Macedonians, they are of the South Slavic family, so yes. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the Macedonians that I have ever spoken to tell me that they are Macedonian and just that they never mention Slavs. They do however say that they are the people of Alexander the Great.Ireland101 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Foreigner, you're shifting my point to something else. We don't care what the Ancient Macedonians were, but we do care about how Karev felt about the Ancient Macedonians. He wasn't really into history and he had no idea what the Ancient Macedonians were, but he sure thought of himslef as an ethnic Macedonian, a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians. My point is that he didn't consider him an ethnic Bulgarian, but an ethnic Macedonian (again, a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians!); and that he didn't mean it regionally, since he mentions the Ancient Macedonians (which is, of course, a term that describes ethnicity). iNkubusse^? 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, I don't know for sure whether we are Slavs or Greeks or Ancient Macedonians, or if the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs or the Martians invaded Saturn, but I know for sure that I speak a Slavic language and that it's racist to speak of a pure Slavic nation (as the Greeks refer to Macedonians). iNkubusse^? 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to touch this one. The bottom line, vague interpretations, in the lack of any other evidence cannot support a claim that the person is ethnic Macedonian. You can twist it all you want, who meant what, who felt which way about whatever. Its a waste of time. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Foreigner, here's the bottom line:

1° You can't set bottom lines whenever you want;

2° Vague interpretations are ALL the articles about the Macedonian/Bulgarian revolutionaries from the Ilinden period;

3° The terms Bulgarian and Macedonian can both be interpreted in various ways: Bulgarian could mean an Orthodox Slav in those days and Macedonian could be used regionally - but still, you only take the latter term as such, only because you it suits your views;

4° The article still says that he was a Bulgarian revolutionary, based on the name of the organisation (?!).

This is really not right. iNkubusse^? 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by the facts. You're going by interpretations. Read the statute of BMARC at IMRO. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're interpreting the facts just like you want. I have read the statues, what should I do next? Karev simply states that he's a Macedonian, and he doesn't mean it regionally, that's a fact. And here's your interpretation: he meant it regionally. As Ireland said before, do we always have to say ethnic German, ethnic French in order to be precise? Besides, what about the letter from Karev to Delchev? iNkubusse^? 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are basically arguing in circles. This discussion is over for me. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. iNkubusse^? 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the interview

We seem to have focused too much on the first few lines of the dialog. As GriefForTheSouth says, he Karev describes himself as "Bugarofon", a person who things like a Bulgarian, like every other Bulgarian. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that he doesn't give a description of the term 'bugarofron', it's interpreted later. iNkubusse^? 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by a Macedonian scholar. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And since when do you take Macedonian scholars as normal people? I thought they were all delirious. iNkubusse^? 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The more I read your disputes the more trivial this whole thing seems to me. He said Bugarofon not Bulgarian therefore he did not say he is BulgarianIreland101 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Inkubusse, so do you agree or disagree with the assessment of the Macedonian Scholar? ForeignerFromTheEast 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on which one, but my opinion really doesn't matter. iNkubusse^? 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Elefteria Bambakovska. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Letter

Letter from Nikola Karev to Goce Delčev:

1902

Dear G(oce)

... In Kruševo and Bitola the night blockades appear almost every day, and a lot of affairs throw people in jail. We shouldn't wait anymore, Goce. It is time for us to stand up and fight. We shouldn't wait for freedom from Greeks, neither from Bulgarians, but we Macedonians should fight for our Macedonia, ... As I am concerned, nobody can take away my courage and my patriotism. I am proud to report to you, that all our men are prepared to fight, with guns in their hands.

N(ikola)

“Сами ние да се бориме за наша Македонија”, (Необјавено писмо на Никола Карев до Гоце Делчев) – Nova Makedonija (Skopje) year XXIV no. 7744 (5 May 1968) p. 8.

Ok so this letter has some sort of a source - could you, please, specify if this is some sort of a nationalist newspaper or something? It needs heavy sourcing. --Laveol ^T 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Letter from Karev to Delchev, "Сами ние да се бориме за наша Македонија", Нова Македонија (Skopje) year XXIV no. 7744 (5 May 1968) p. 8.

Here is the note for the letter. --Laveol ^T 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Macedonian"

Mr.Karev has referred to himself as "Macedonian" in a number of articles that I have seen here. He has never referred to himself as a "revolutionary from Macedonia". Weather some of you think Macedonian meant Bulgarian or Albanian or French or Dutch is irrelevant. What is important is his act of self determination and that is what should be respected in the article. Ireland101 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I do not care which of the old editors you are, just try to ease a little bit. Start by looking at what I proposed at Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board and, please, try to really discuss and work with the others. --Laveol ^T 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Laveol I am having trouble understanding you. You are the one that who has been deleting all of my changes and has been posting defamatory remarks on my user page. I have consistently been posting on talk pages and have tried to work things out. Unlike yourself I do not have enough time to watch this site twenty four hours a day so I think you are the one that should "ease" a little. I have also had enough of you attacking me and claiming that I am some "old editor". I propose that we have the head Wikipedia office verify weather this is true or not. If this is true I get banned, if it is not you get banned. I think this is only fair as you seem sure that this is the case and spare no effort to defame my reputation every chance you have. I have seen your notice board and it can be usefull in cases where there is no declaration of self determination. This is not the case in this article as he clearly states he is "Macedonian"Ireland101 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I've said something wrong or accused you of something that you have not done. It strikes me though that nooone that is innocent for something would say if asked something (not related to the subject) that he has never done this and that and that he is completely innocent for things he has not been accused for yet. --Laveol ^T 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is one supposed to say if they are falsely accused of something? Are they supposed to agree or disagree? Ireland101 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you weren't accused of anything. --Laveol ^T 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This[[2]] is not an accusation? Ireland101 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...Новинарот, чиј идентитет на крајот е означен со иницијали, ни ја открива личноста со која се сретнал, со следниот краток осврт: Во Битола ја имав среќата и честа да се запознаам со еден бугаризиран Македонец - учител, член на Комитетот кој се вика Карев. Со овој човек случајно се запознав во хот. "Монастирион", односно "Отел Монастир", како што го викаат во Битола. Карев се држеше многу резервирано кон мене се до оној момент кога "Гркот од Крушево, по име Папагудас" не ми го претстави. Потоа се ослободи и откако погледа лево-десно ми призна дека бил "бугарофрон" и член на Комитетот...Jingby 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please translate that into English for transparency. Ireland101 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Како ја коментирате содржината на интервјуто. Што значи терминот бугарофрон?

Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"! Jingby 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop writing in an unknown language as this is an English website and we cannot understand what you are saying. The fact that you continue to do this leads to the assumption that you might be conspiring in secret so that no one can understand you.Ireland101 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

When I edited the page I added link to the source. Not sure why Jingiby and Flix11 were undoing the changes even though I provided evidence of the source. "Cryptic Canadian" was OK with my edit after providing the evidence. Please make the changes and protect the page. 50.4.174.33 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. If other editors are reverting your edits, the proper course of action is to discuss it with them on the talk page to try to achieve a consensus. If you don't understand why they're undoing them, again, ask on the talk page. The page was protected apparently because of your disruption. Edit requests should only be for non-controversial changes or ones for which a consensus has already been reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian sources about Karev.

Nikola Kirov was cousin of Karev. His writings, which are among the most known primary sources on the rebellion, mention Bulgarians, Vlachs (Aromanians), and Greeks (sic: Grecomans), who participated in the events in Krushevo. Although post-World War II Yugoslav Communist historians objected to Kirov's classification of Krusevo's Slavic population as Bulgarian, they quickly adopted everything else in his narrative of the events in 1903 as definitive. However, during the Informbiro period, the name of insurgents leader Nikola Karev was scrapped from the Macedonian anthem, as he and his brothers were suspected of being bulgarophile elements. Some modern Macedonian historians such as Blaže Ristovski have recognized, that the entity, nowadays a symbol of the Macedonian statehood, was composed of people who identified themselves as "Greeks", "Vlachs" (Aromanians), and "Bulgarians".

I don't believe you've addressed the Greek source that @Darpos: is trying to add. --Local hero ^talk 21:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Let us take a look at the current page, clearly mentions Karev was interviewed by a Greek journalist, the exact one in question, the sources also confirm this, none of the sources dispute the authenticity of the interview, so by using them and mentioning them in the article, the article recognizes the authenticity of the interview. So, the next logical step, would be to see the interview for yourself, and use the information you find in the interview accordingly. Greece is a country in EU, so it is easy to assume its parliamentary archives have no been tampered with, and when we take a look at that interview, we see, that, by that time, at the eve of the Ilinden uprising, Karev sees himself only as a Macedonian, and sees the committee, as not being in service of Bulgaria, in fact, just as the current article proves, Karev wanted to help create an independent Macedonian republic free from Bulgaria, which aligns both with Krste Misirkov's book as a historical source and his comments in the exact interview in greece's parliamentary archives. So in this case, how can we justify not clarifying the dispute, and staying simply on the side of neutrality, not Macedonism, simply neutrality.

Archives from Greece showing the newspaper issue from May 8th 1903: https://srv-web1.parliament.gr/display_doc.asp?item=47395&seg=67871

From user:Darpos

I'm fine with the addition, it is presented neutrally and simply describes what is stated in the newspaper. I don't see any non-POV reasons to exclude it. --Local hero ^talk 01:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please check: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.

See also Wikipedia:AGE MATTERS and WP:PRIMARY.

1. Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, .
2. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
3. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Check also the the analysis of the historian Eleftheria Vambakovska who published the primary source you have cited, which analysis is a reliable secondary source. It is cited in the article as follows:

1. As to the content of the interview, I leave it free for interpretations by scientists and readers. In my opinion it contains contradictory and illogical claims. The interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian by conviction ("Bulgarophronos"), and on the first question of the reporter: "Are you a Macedonian", he answers with "yes"! The reporter declared Karev was a Macedonian, but Bulgarized one. The interview begins with a question "are you a Macedonian"? that means Karev's ethnic origin was more important for the interviewer – whether he is a "Macedonian", which to the Greeks was a synonymous of a "Greek". Otherwise, to the Greeks "(Bulgarian) by conviction" was not so important – the conviction is acquirable and it can by changed. "Bulgarophronos", literally translated would mean – a man who thinks like a Bulgarian, a man who thinks like all other Bulgarians.

Also in the article are a lot of other secondary sources based on other primary sources claiming Karev had Bulgarian identity. For example:

1. Yet the identity problem was glaring, Karev reportedly addressed an assembly of 60 Bulgarian, Greek and Vlach inhabitants, to establish his “temporary government” but he referred to those assembled “brother Bulgarians”. The revolutionaries flew Bulgarian flags, killed five Greek Patriarchists, accused to be Ottoman spies, and subsequently attacked the local Muslims (Turks and Albanians). For more see: Michael Palairet, Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 2), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, ISBN 1443888494, p. 149.

Also:

1. The phenomenon noted by Mise Karev, that Nikola carried Bulgarian baggage at some points in Yugoslav history, is confirmed by others in the town. They do not, however, necessarily link the origin of this version of Nikola Karev's career to a policy of disinformation by Kolisevski and his associates. Some people recall their grandparents’ unshakable conviction that in 1903 Karev addressed himself to his "brother Bulgarians" as recorded in the account given by Nicolaos Ballas... Karev's own close links to Sofia — he spent extended periods there before and after the Uprising — gave further grist to the rumor mill that associated him closely with pro-Bulgarian forces. For more see: Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation, Princeton University Press, 2018, ISBN 0691188432, p. 152.

Also keep in mind that after 1944 the name of Nikola Karev was present in the anthem of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia: "Today over Macedonia", but was deleted in 1953 without explanation by the communist leadership led by Lazar Kolishevski, ostensibly as Nikola and his brothers Petar and Georgi were considered to be "Bulgarophiles". For more see: Последното интервју на Мише Карев: Колишевски и Страхил Гигов сакале да ги прогласат Гоце, Даме и Никола за Бугари! 02.08.2018 Денешен весник. Jingiby (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the national anthem has to do with this discussion. Indeed the edits do not attempt to base the entire article on the newspaper, rather it is more or less a single addition of the actual words or a paraphrase of them. --Local hero ^talk 04:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, as user:Local hero said, the primary source is used to keep neutrality, during a major bilateral dispute mind you, a dispute means "a disagreement or argument", a dispute would not exist if a subject was not controversial. The edits specifically do not evaluate or interpret the words in the newspaper, but rather simply says what Karev says in the interview. (2nd and 3rd columns). Now yes, it can be even more direct and clear of course, and if that is needed to consider the edit, I am willing to rewrite the things I added in my edit. It also should be noted, as it seems, many of the sources in articles related to the region of Macedonia are not exactly scholarly or reliable, I've heard critiques that nationalist blog posts were being used, though I cannot confirm nor deny this, and one of the sources used mentions things that were not mentioned in the interview at all (despite analyzing the interview). Furthermore, we could clarify there was a rise of people self-identifying as purely Macedonia, and cite On Macedonian Matters which was written in 1903, it was written by a self-identified Macedonian-Bulgarian scholar and was published not to long after the Ilinden uprising, and has a lot of useful information that often gets overlooked, this can be considered a secondary source aswell.

Chapter from the book about the rise of seperatism and the Macedonian self-identification: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters#National_separatism_-_the_soil_on_which_it_has_grown_and_will_continue_to_grow_in_the_future --Darpos (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of a Macedonia secondary source on that issue: "Misirkov was completely right in his fundamental critique of the Ilinden Uprising and its leaders. His suggestions proved to be completely correct in recent practice. For example, in the liberated Krushevo a city administration was formed consisting of Bulgarians, Vlachs and Greeks, so in the preserved written documents there are no Macedonians ... "Blaze Ristovski," Century of the Macedonian consciousness ", Skopje, Culture, 2001, p. 458. Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

So why can we not state that in this interview Karev described himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great? --Local hero ^talk 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There are two secondary sources for the interview with a good interpretation of what it was. By the way, in the interview, Karev at first says that he is a Bulgarian. As for being a descendant of Alexander the Great, I don't think that matter. I prefer to stick to Wikipedia guidelines as follows:

1. In academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light.
2. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself;
3. Refer to reliable secondary sources that interpret material found in a primary source.
4. Do not base a large passage on such one. Jingiby (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We won't base a large passage on this source - just a sentence or two. We won't synthesize/analyze the text - just present it as it stated. We will keep your secondary sources that interpret this source. Great, I'll make the addition soon. --Local hero ^talk 05:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Local hero, do not forget this part from the interview: In Bitola I had the good fortune and honor to meet a Bulgarized Macedonian, a teacher, and a member of the Committee called Karev. I met this man by chance in the hotel "Monastirion", ie. "Hotel Monastir", as it is called in Bitola. Karev was very reserved towards me until the moment when the Greek from Krushevo, named Papagoudas did not introduce him to me. Then he released himself and after looking left and right he admitted to me that he was a "Bulgarophile" and a member of the Committee. Do not forget also secondary sources, please. Above I have opposed not accidentally on the addition of the text about Alexander the Great. This addition will cause a serious expansion explaining the irony of the Greek interviewer, who regarded a Macedonians only as Greeks, the role of the Greek propaganda on the adaptation of the designation Macedonian, the fact Macedonian Bulgarians regarded him a Slav, etc. Please, keep in mind that the idea of establishing a multinational autonomous entity and, therefore, a supranational and inclusive Macedonian identity propagated by the IMRO, was an umbrella identity, not ethnic identity. Jingiby (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence I added was about his own words in this article. So, if he described himself as a Bulgarophile, I'll make the adjustment to the sentence. Regarding the Alexander the Great comment, it does seem that the interviewer asked it ironically but it does not state that Karev's answer was ironic. I won't re-add for now but I do find it a notable piece of the interview. --Local hero ^talk 04:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Per secondary source. Please, do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself. Thank you. By the way Karev is described by the Greek as "Voulgarophron". Check the meaning of phron on Wiktionary. It means heard and mind. That means he was a Bulgarian in his heard and in his mind, i.e. as secondary source confirms: he was simply Bulgarian. Per "Macedonia, the Lung of Greece: Fighting an Uphill Battle" by Marcus A. Templar (November 7, 2012) pp. 13-14: In his interview with the Greek newspaper Akropolis, Nikola Karev identified his ethnicity as Bulgarian, but then he said that he was a Macedonian. Mrs. Elefterija Vambakovska of the Institute of National History of the FYROM thought that such a statement is illogical since in her opinion Karev could not have two ethnicities. But Karev had not declared two ethnicities. He identified himself as a Bulgarian who lived in Macedonia... Mrs. Vambakovska feels the way she does because she and her compatriots have been educated that the “Macedonian” ethnicity existed at the time of the Ilinden Revolt, something that Prof. Ivan Katardzhiev refutes... Ivan Katardzhiev, an expert on IMRO, has stated that "Skopje can not question the Bulgarian national consciousness of the members of the organization," etc. By the way, why don't you indicate who the interview was taken from. This was the Greek consul in Bitola, Ion Dragoumis. He was a Greek extreme nationalist and Bulgarophobe. Dragoumis was a blade of Greek propaganda in Macedonia, which claimed that Bulgarians did not live in Macedonia, but only Slavicized Greeks, heirs of Alexander the Great. Jingiby (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have not synthesized anything. I am only trying to present what is stated in this interview by Karev which is that he identified himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great. Putting that on this article is not a synthesis. The sentence I have added only attempts to illustrate what is said in the article. We can write: "In this interview, the Greek interviewer identified Karev as a Bulgarian, while Karev identified himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great." No synthesis here. I'm not sure why this simple addition makes you so nervous, we're only presenting the source as it is and we are not basing more than a couple sentences on the source. --Local hero ^talk 14:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The primary and two secondary sources confirm Karev self-identified in the interview as Bulgarian, and was identified by the counsel as such. Regarding your proposal, provide the secondary source from which you took this info, please. Jingiby (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I've been quite clear, I am taking this info solely from the primary source that without any synthesis. Not sure why I have to keep repeating that. The sentence I had added to the article makes it very clear that this is from the interview. Apologies that I may have missed it, but can you tell me where in the primary source Karev called himself a Bulgarian? --Local hero ^talk 02:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A newspaper clipping old ca. 120 years, written in an outdated variant of the Greek language that is unknown to the audience here, cannot be a basic source of important information. The text is written within a context which differs significantly from today's perspective, with a specific terminology unused today, that may cause interpretations of the text in a very controversial way. The interpretations of this source in the forums in North Macedonia are tragicomic. As far as I can see, you are trying to pass such a forum thesis here, which has nothing to do with the complex circumstances described above and the dozens of secondary sources cited in this article. Refer to secondary sources that interpret material found in such a primary source per Wikipedia guidelines of reliability in historical context. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that your addition to the sentence "In this interview, Karev identified him as Bulgarian" is not found in the primary source? Then we need to adjust the wording because now it is becoming close to synthesis/personal interpretation. It should state "In this interview, Karev identified himself as a Macedonia. Per secondary sources, Karev identified himself as a Bulgarian in another part of the interview."

Also, please don't distract from the discussion by attacking me as pushing a "forum thesis". Don't get so worked up when someone challenges your agenda on here. --Local hero ^talk 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

On a contrary, I insist Karev clearly self-identified in this interview as Bulgarian. And my view is supported as by the primary, as well by secondary sources. Jingiby (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to point out this Bulgarian self-identification in the primary interview source, I can't seem to find it. --Local hero ^talk 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Karev was very reserved towards me until the moment when the Greek from Krushevo, named Papagoudas did not introduce him to me. Then he released himself and after looking left and right he admitted to me that he was a "Bulgarophron" and a member of the Committee. Jingiby (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Bulgarophron" is different from Bulgarian. Therefore, the term in the sentence in question must be changed from Bulgarian to "Bulgarophron" / Bulgarophile. --Local hero ^talk 14:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since this is not a forum, I do not understand Greek, and you have not presented any reliable primary or secondary English source supporting your thesis, I suspend this communication for now. Jingiby (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, then neither of us can determine that he calls himself a Bulgarian in the interview. So I'll correct the article accordingly. --Local hero ^talk 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am waiting a sources, not a comments. Thank you very much. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No. *You* are the one claiming he called himself a Bulgarian. Therefore, it is *you* who must provide the place within this interview in which he did that. *You* have failed to show this. If you continue to insist on including *your own personal synthesis*, I will have to seek third-party support.

I have provided the source and place where Karev called himself a Macedonian. That's it. Jingiby, you've been banned before. Please do not resort to your problematic editing ways. --Local hero ^talk 15:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is this source, but translated by an authorized expert in English to discus its content? I disagree with your unsourced claims. Jingiby (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Would you really like me to start requesting translations by an authorized expert for all of your Bulgarian sources? That would probably require undoing all of your work on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOENG, it is perfectly fine to use a Greek source.

I have made *zero* unsourced claims. I have added to the article that Karev identified as a Macedonian - the interview states this. *You* have added that Karev identified as a Bulgarian which the interview does *not* state. Please revert yourself. --Local hero ^talk 16:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

May I see the whole interview translated in English, please and to verify your claim. Here is English language Wikipedia, I think. Thanks in advance. By the way, what I have added is based on a presented English-language secondary source, which confirms his Bulgarian self-identification in the interview. As far as I understand Greek, this is exactly the case. You have not provided any English source, but you insist that you are right and I am not. How to verify these claims? Jingiby (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

The disputed sentence.

In this interview, Karev identified him as Bulgarian, and called himself a Macedonian.

Local hero, my secondary source you know: In his interview with the Greek newspaper Akropolis, Nikola Karev identified his ethnicity as Bulgarian, but then he said that he was a Macedonian. Mrs. Elefterija Vambakovska of the Institute of National History of the FYROM thought that such a statement is illogical since in her opinion Karev could not have two ethnicities. But Karev had not declared two ethnicities. He identified himself as a Bulgarian who lived in Macedonia...Mrs. Vambakovska feels the way she does because she and her compatriots have been educated that the “Macedonian” ethnicity existed at the time of the Ilinden Revolt, something that Prof. Ivan Katardzhiev refutes...Ivan Katardzhiev, an expert on IMRO, has stated that Skopje can not question the Bulgarian national consciousness of the members of the organization. Even those members of the IMRO (United) who had adopted (during 1930s) the idea of Macedonism. maintained the view of political separatism, but in fact, they felt Bulgarians to the end their lives. For more see: "Macedonia, the Lung of Greece: Fighting an Uphill Battle" by Marcus A. Templar (November 7, 2012) pp. 13-14. Hero, may you explain what is incorrect here? Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we invite some of the Greek editors to confirm the content of the interview, which is not in English and we dispute. Do you agree? Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is my second source in Macedonian, a language we both understand:

– Елефтерија Вамбаковска: Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"! Самиот новинар го прогласува Карев за Македонец, но бугаризиран, а го започнува интервјуто со прашањето што е (по националност)? Се гледа дека за него поважно било етничкото потекло – дали бил Македонец, што за Грците било синоним за Грк. Инаку, тоа "по убедување" за нив не било важно – убедувањето се стекнувало и било менливо. Бугарофрон, во буквален превод би значело – човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари. (in English) Eleftheria Vambakovska: As to the content of the interview, I leave it free for interpretations by scientists and readers. My opinion is that it contains contradictory and illogical claims. The interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian ("in his mind and heard"; "Bulgarophron"), and on the first question of the reporter: "Are you a Macedonian", he answers with "yes"! The reporter declared Karev was a Macedonian, but Bulgarized one. The interview begins with a question "are you a Macedonian"? that means Karev's ethnic origin was more important for the interviewer – whether he is a "Macedonian", which to the Greeks was a synonymous of a "Greek". Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe @Future Perfect at Sunrise: could help with the Greek, though for the piece I am adding I am sufficiently sure that my knowledge of Greek plus machine translation confirms that Karev states he is a Macedonian. Conversely, I cannot find any place where Karev, or the interviewer, state that Karev identified as Bulgarian. Again, your secondary sources I have no issue with. However, the wording as it stands is a not backed by the primary source. The sentence should simply be "In the interview, Karev identified as a Macedonian. Per Vambakovska, he also identified as a Bulgarian in the interview." --Local hero ^talk 17:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A lurker, I have been following this interesting -but imho unnecessarily complicated- discussion over the past few days. I have now uploaded a translation of Karev's interview in full here, hoping that it helps resolve the dispute. Might I add that voulgarophron actually means "Bulgarian-minded", i.e. Bulgarophile, pro-Bulgarian, that is, in the article's context, someone siding with the pro-Bulgarian party formed amidst slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia. This Greek term can be found translated into English reliable sources as denoting persons "with pro-Bulgarian convictions" or "with [fanatic] Bulgarian leanings/"sentiments"/feelings" or "fanatical supporters of Bulgaria" . Might I also add that a scholar who happens to be an author of a book on the suppression of Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia and a historian with a PhD on the formation of national parties in late Ottoman Macedonia refers to Karev's interview in an unpublished paper, presented at a conferece -- see here, pp. 5-6, n.b. n. 21? Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and input @Ashmedai 119:. Your translation confirms my understanding of this interview. Therefore, to state that Karev identified himself as Bulgarian, as per the interview itself, is incorrect. We should also include the "Voulgarophron" term as provide the translations. Glad you have found the discussion interesting, though I do agree it has been unnecessarily complicated. Interesting find in that paper you've provided as well. --Local hero ^talk 22:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Proclamation of the Hellenic Macedonian Committee from Athens. For our Macedonian brothers. (1905)

The Prediction of Alexander the Great (1905).

Localhero, I don't think the interview confirms your understanding of the interview, as the multiple secondary sources presented show, the meaning of 'Macedonian' is not the same as that of ethnic Macedonian. A possible solution may be to explain the meaning of 'Macedonian' back then per the secondary sources.--SeriousCherno (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In this context is interesting to read the brochure “Proclamation of the Hellenic Macedonian Committee from Athens. For our Macedonian brethren "(in original Προκλαμάτσια να Ελληνομακεντόνσκη Κομιτέτ οτ 'Άτηνα. Α νάσητε μπράτε Μακεντόντσητ.) It is written in local Slavic with Greek letters. The introduction is aimed at forming hatred towards Bulgarianness. The Bulgarians are called "cattle" and "savages" and are said to be of "swine origin". It was later proved that the Macedonian Slavs were in fact Greeks, not Bulgarians, and that their language was not Bulgarian, and that there were even no Bulgarians in Macedonia, but only Slavophone Greeks, etc. At the time, the Greek press claimed that the Slavophones were simply brainwashed Greeks and avoided calling them Bulgarians, using only euphemisms as Voulgarophron, Voulgarophile, etc. We now that even today, any ethnic identity different from Greek, is not accepted there. At the same time, the Hellenic Macedonian Committee published the book The Predictions of Alexander the Great (Πρεσκαζανιε να Γολεμ Αλεζαντρ) also in a local Slavic dialect. The book contains 31 pages and is written on the basis of the so-called Alexander Romance. The preface suggests that the Macedonian Slavs are not Bulgarians, but have lost their original Greek language and culture over the centuries and have become Slavic, but it is time to return to their roots. Macedonian meant then Greek for the Greek public and the Macedonian Slavs were in historical aspect Ancient Macedonians (i.e. Greeks), not related to the Bulgarians. Jingiby (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

These brochures mentioned by Jingiby are definitely interesting (irrespective of Karev's interview), but I am not entirely sure that I understand what Jingiby is arguing as far as Karev's self-description is concernced. I mean to say, that what Jingiby describes above is the Greek take on Macedonian-ness, in an attempt to render it tantamount to Greek-ness/Hellenicity. This view is the one held by Stamatiou, as obvious via his questions and their implied criticism of Karev (Stamatiou basically tells Karev "since you call yourself Macedonian, you are Greek" and "if (a) Alexander the Great was Greek, and (b) you consider yourself descended from him, then you are Greek as well"). However, this Greek position is not identical with Karev's position, which is that of a Macedonian self-description, or "Macedonian consiousness" (per Kostopoulos, cited in my previous message), which is not considered by Karev essentially attached to either Bulgaria or Greece. On the contrary, it is clear IMO, that for Karev siding with Greece or Bulgaria is, at least at this present juncture, merely an instrument for attaining the supreme goal of the region's liberation [=autonomous status]. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

My thesis based on the above sources and the discussion to them is that the removed by the article sentence is correct. Karev identified himself in the interview as a Bulgarian and a Macedonian. The Greek nationalist interviewing him described Karev's self-identification in the typical way at the time: as a supporter of the Bulgarian idea. According to the then, and according to today's Greek view, there are no Bulgarians in Macedonia. At the same time, Dragoumis asked him if he is Macedonian, which for him was equivalent to Greek and remained satisfied with the affirmative answer, asking him whether he is successor of Alexander the Great, which would be a sure sign of his Greek origin. As for Karev, at that time there was not a single IMRO Slavic-speaking activist who did not feel Bulgarian. This is supported by sufficiently reliable sources, including for Karev himself. We must also keep in mind the first name of the IMRO was "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees", initially its membership was restricted only for Bulgarians, their documents all are written only in Bulgarian, etc. However by the Macedonian Bulgarians the term Macedonian was acquiring the significance of a certain political loyalty, that progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity promoted by the IMRO then, as the supranational (anti-nationalist) slogans Macedonia for the Macedonians, Autonomy for Macedonia, etc. Though, per Anastasia Karakasidou behind the IMRO idea of autonomy was hidden a reserve plan for eventual incorporation into Bulgaria. Because of that Karev is described as a Macedonian Bulgarian in this article. Jingiby (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What we've established: Karev identified himself as a Macedonian (and descendant of Alexander the Great) in the interview; and the interviewer stated that Karev admitted to being a "Voulgarophron" in the interview.

There isn't much left to discuss here. "In this interview, Karev identified himself as a Macedonian and a Voulgarophron (Bulgarophile)". Then you can insert your secondary source-backed content after this sentence. The only other thing is I think his claim of being a descendant of Alexander the Great is worth noting as well. --Local hero ^talk 21:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Localhero's vote for placing it, and then adding any explanations of the meanings of the terms underneath with secondary sources. Even though it may not mean ethnic Macedonian, it is still helpful to outline this and explain what he meant of this based on reliable sources. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It will offer good information about the Greek policy that Jingiby is outlining. I also don't object to saying that Karev identified as Macedonian Bulgarian.--MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

At the same time I agree with Jingiby that we should not analyze the quote ourselves as Wikipedia editors but should instead reference what the experts are saying. Non-related to this, it does not make sense to me why the Greek interviewer will mean ethnic Macedonian when they denied the existence of Slavs in the region of Macedonia, therfore it can only be regional term that fits in the Bulgarized Greeks theory that Hellenists at the time had. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to first agree on the wording which is the main issue here to avoid any edit warring. But up to the rest of the editor's consensus. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my addition had zero analysis made from the interview, whereas Jingiby's edit to it did. It seems we have consensus for this wording: "In this interview, Karev identified himself as a Macedonian and a Voulgarophron (Bulgarophile)."

I'll also propose the following: "Karev also claimed to be a direct descendant of Alexander the Great". Thoughts on this? --Local hero ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I support adding whatever is correctly in the text (I haven't read the interview) and then with the sourced explanations. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have created an article about the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group whose member Karev was, where it is explained what its members understand under Macedonia/n, backed by reliable sources. Per them every Macedonian should be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, etc., as he is, but on the first place, as a “political slave”. Its political agenda of a separate Macedonian people was based on Marxist class-ideological aspects, with a strong anti-nationalist motivation. Jingiby (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Up to you guys, I am worried that this section will require too much undue weight and will not add much to the article as Macedonian is not an ethnic thing in this case. I withdraw my vote as I don't think a quarter of the article should be dedicated to explaining a few sentences in this interview when they do not add anything knew. Already it says that most Macedonian historians see him as Macedonian. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)--MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, what does that have to do with this specific discussion about this interview? Let's not prolong this topic anymore.

@MacedonianGuy97: the difference is that this interview is Karev's own words, not the words of a Macedonian historian. And I definitely agree that we should not spend much of the article on it - I've proposed just one or two sentences. As MacedonianGuy97 stated, we should add the sentences as per the interview, and then add the secondary source-backed content, which Jingiby had already added in notes. So, I can make the necessary changes and we can consider this discussion resolved. --Local hero ^talk 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI I have also uploaded a transcrpition of the original Greek of the interview here at the Greek wikisource. It can be checked by anyone who reads Greek. With regards to Local hero's proposal, I think the relevant passage of the article could be worded as follows:

On the eve of the Ilinden uprising, in May 1903, he was interviewed in Bitola by the correspondent of the Greek daily "Akropolis" Stamatis Stamatiou. Karev presented himself as a voulgarophron (someone with pro-Bulgarian convictions) and displayed a Macedonian consciousness, describing himself as a Macedonian and claiming to be a "direct descendant of Alexander the Great". When asked what the revolutionaries wanted for Macedonia, Karev explained their plans to create in Macedonia a republic in the model of Switzerland, providing autonomy and democracy for its different "races" and that they would accept anyone's help in order to attain this goal.

No reference to Dragoumis should be included, because it has no basis on primary or -am I missing something?- on reliable secondary sources -- actually, I am wondering why and on what basis this edit was made to the article.

I also note that in the text of the new article that Jingiby created on the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group there is only one mention of Karev and the source the article's readers are referred to does not present Karev as the Group's member. But, in any case, this does not seem to have any bearing on how to word the bit on Karev's interview.

Nonetheless, I do not have a problem with Karev being described as a "Macedonian Bulgarian" at the beginning of the article. "Bulgarian" at that time and place could mean (i) from an (ethno)linguistic point of view any of the slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia, (ii) from a political point of view, those siding with the Exarchist/pro-Bulgaria party formed among members of that ethnolinguistic community or (iii) someone with a Bulgarian national consciousness/ideology. Karev seems to check definition (ii), so he does belong in the spectrum of Macedonian Bulgarians, that, as has been noted by Jingiby, "had complex identity fluctuating between Macedonian regionalism and Bulgarian patriotism". It seems that at the moment of his Akropolis interview, Karev's Macedonian regionalism had at least begun to acquire an ethnic dimension, clearly referring to his putative descent from ancient Macedonians, while his siding with Bulgaria was viewed as purely instrumental, but, as per Jingiby, these were fluctuating positions in a time of rapid change and violence. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, what about both secondary sources on the interview, which contradicts with your opinion. That all above is your personal evaluation? I have the impression that the whole article concentrates on a single primary source adapted for the then Greek audience. This breaches a lot of Wikipedia historical guidelines. I totally disagree with such an action. Jingiby (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby , could you please state which two reliable secondary sources dealing with the interview you think should be taken into consideration in deciding on the wording of the sentences I stated in my previous message? And, once more, could you please explain the basis on which you made this edit? Thanks. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, may I ask you to read carefully the article itself and the cited sources in it, together with the provided below citations. I don't think you've just done it yet. Please, check how dozens primary and secondary sources confirm directly and indirectly Karev's Bulgarian identity. May I ask you too, to read the Wikipedia rules I have mentioned above, which I will repeat again, because I think it is possible that you did not do that:

• In academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light.
• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself.
• Refer to reliable secondary sources that interpret material found in a primary source.
• Do not base a large passage on a primary source.

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

• Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
• "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
• Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.

Both secondary sources you are asking me are cited in the article itself and at the moment are cited alsoin that discussion above here. Your second question is not clear to me for now. Wold you explain it more accurate, please. I definitely believe that the return of the disputed sentence could be done solely on the basis of its analysis made on secondary sources. Any personal interpretations are undesirable. Jingiby (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, PS.By the way, the unpublished source you have promoted does not mention Karev anywhere. This source is a fringe theory and contradicts a number of published academic ones, around which the prevailing opinion of historians today is formed. That is, at the beginning of the 20th century, Macedonian national identity was promoted by several small circles of intellectuals outside the region of Macedonia. At that time, neither the IMRO, nor the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, nor any of their activists promoted such an identity. That is regognized even by Macedonian researchers. At least not one is known till now. Karev will obviously be the first here by such one original research. The Macedonian identity promoted by IMRO and BSDP was a supranational and included all nationalities living in the region. This is the opinion of the leading researchers in published academic works cited in the article. Jingiby (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, the reason I am asking "which two reliable secondary sources dealing with the interview" should be taken into consideration is that in the article's present form the reader of the relevant passage ("On the eve of the Ilinden uprising he was interviewed for "Akropolis" by the Greek council in Bitola, the nationalist Ion Dragoumis.[15][16] When asked what the revolutionaries wanted for Macedonia,[17] Karev explained their plans about creation of Macedonian Republic, providing autonomy and democracy for its different races.[18]") is referred, in reverse order, (a) to pages 163-164 of Michalopoulos's Oxford dissertation (where no pronouncement is made on Karev's self-desription), (b) to Karev's interview itself, i.e. the primary source, and (c) -bizarelly- to an article of Michalis Kaliakatsos on Ion Dragoumis along with (d) pages corresponding to appendix 21 of Petsivas's edition of Dragoumis's diaries, where the text of Karev's interview is reproduced. As far as (c) and (d) are concerned, I asked you in my previous message if you could please explain "on what basis this edit was made to the article" with which you added them. Do you have access to Petsivas's book that you added as a reference? I happen to hold it in my hands and it makes absolutely no claim that Dragoumis was somehow involved in the interview. Again, could you please explain on what basis you made this edit? It seems that the claim you inserted in the article is a false statement with no primary or secondary basis and has to be removed from the article.

There is also a reference to Karev's interview in the very first of the article's reference, which was also added to the article by Jingiby. However, this text (available to all interested readers here) is not a scholarly source, as (i) its author is not a historian or an expert in historical studies, or someone who conducts and publishes scientific research on topics relevant to late-Ottoman Macedonia, he is "a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst" who has a "career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer" (see here) and (ii) the text was not published in a scholarly context, but by a Greek (political) association dealing with Macedonian matters (see here for its publication in 2012) -- the author of the text, Marcus Templar, is "a former President of the Macedonian Society of Greater Chicago, and an advisor to the Pan-Macedonian Association of the USA Committees of National Issues and Strategic Planning" (see here). So, per WP:RS, it should be removed from the encyclopedia altogether.

Templar's piece of political propaganda, that Jingiby added to the article, is not the same (from the pov of Wikipedia's policies) with Kostopoulos's conference talk, that I propose being used as a reference in the presentation of Karev's interview. First, its author (Kostopoulos) is a historian, who holds a PhD on the formation of national parties in late Ottoman Macedonia and has scientific publications on the IMRO (see here and here). Second, it was not publised as a piece of political propaganda, but it is a paper presented at a scientific conference. As per WP:RSSELF, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Finally, it is not a fringe view, as its author is definitely not the only one to notice that during this period some Slavic speakers of Ottoman Macedonia had been developping an idea of belonging to a particular grouping, distinct from Bulgarians, [add: I forgot to add that it is, of course, not true that Kostopoulos's conference paper "does not mention Karev anywhere", as the reference to the interview is made in note 21 by way of comparison ("cf.") between Yankov's interviews in the Greek press and Karev's interview in the Greek daily Akropolis, as Yankov's "profession of a“purely Macedonian” consciousness was taken at face value by the most slavophobe newspapers, in sharp contrast to their distrust towards same set of arguments, when it was advanced by more radical IMRO activists of a lesser social status", i.e. Karev, whose interview to Akropolis is, I repeat myself, cited in n. 21 ("Cf. Σ.Γ.Σταμ[ατίου], «Από τα Βιτώλια. Συνέντευξις με έν μέλος του Κομιτάτου», Ακρόπολις, 8.5.1903, p.1") alongside Yankov's presentation in the Greek press.]

Having said that, I can see no reliable secondary source dealing with Karev's Akropolis interview that would suggest a significantly different wording from the one proposed above. If there is one that I happen not to have noticed, I would be grateful for it to be pointed it out. Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it looks like there is consensus on adding it, I think the right way forward is to add it and then if there are any disputes about the secondary sources then to just discuss them here. For Macedonian, I propose we link 'Macedonians (Greeks)'as based on the sources the interviewer does not mean Macedonian in the modern ethnic sense. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure I think it should be added and then explain the meanings based on reliable secondary sources while avoiding any original research. --SeriousCherno (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion started off as to discuss the section but so many different sources and topics are now discussed that it has turned into a mess. As MacedonianGuy97 said, someone should re-add teh quote and then editors can further expand it, if anyone disagrees with something they can remove it and make a new section on the talk. --SeriousCherno (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To the first question about the report and whether and why Dragoumis was added as a reporter. When I wanted to add the source, the discussion suddenly heated up and I gave up so, as not to look like an editorial war. Otherwise, the source is the Macedonian language and I took it from page 76. University "St. Cyril and Methodius ”- Skopje Faculty of Philosophy Institute of History. 70 YEARS INSTITUTE OF HISTORY 70 YEARS MACEDONIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 13 AND 14 DECEMBER 2016. 2017, UDC: 323.1: 316.347 (497.7) ”187- / 192- (093.2). The article is called: Before the Comintern by Dalibor Jovanovski from the Faculty of Philosophy, Skopje. The text is: Интервјуто, како што забележавме, било направено од извесен С. Г. Стам, кој се претставил како новинар на Акрополис. Најверојатно ова интервју било направено од страна на тогашниот заменик конзул на Кралството Грција во Битола, Јон Драгумис. Тој бил активен во работата на грчката пропаганда на теренот. Ова интервју може да го најдеме во книгата објавена од Пецивас која содржи документи и спомени на Јон Драгумис. In English: The interview, as we noted, was done by a certain S. G. Stam, who introduced himself as a journalist from Acropolis. This interview was probably conducted by the then Deputy Consul of the Kingdom of Greece in Bitola, Jon Dragumis. He was active in the work of Greek propaganda on the ground. This interview can be found in the book published by Pecivas which contains documents and memoirs of Jon Dragumis. I will answer the questions consistently because it really looks like a forum. Jingiby (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the second question on Marcus Templar publication, it should be borne in mind that I call it a secondary source, but I do not accept it as a completely reliable one. Therefore, I use it quite carefully and only insofar as it refers to other secondary sources. That is, it is practically a tertiary source. I use it because it analyzes another secondary sources that you missed. Probably because there are in Macedonian, but one of them it has been translated in this article. It is quite detailed and, in my opinion, reliable enough. In practice, this is the only reliable secondary source that deals in great detail with Karev's interview. It is the interview with Mrs. Eleftheria Vambakovska working in the Institute of National History in Skopje, who found and published in Macedonian Karev's interview at first. It is from the Macedonian newspaper "Utrinski vesnik", published on 22. 07. 2000, Archive number 329. Утрински Весник, сите права задржани, Сабота, July 22, 2000 Архивски Број 329. This lady is quite reserved and, although with certain reservations, which Templar explains, declares the interview to be quite controversial and adapted for the Greek audience. From the second conclusion, I ьяякпе that not everything said by Karev was explained correct by the interviewer. Per Vambakovska it contains contradictory and illogical claims. Per her the interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian-minded ("Bulgarophron"), and on the first question of the reporter: "Are you a Macedonian", he answers with "yes"! The reporter declared Karev was a Macedonian, but Bulgarized one, etc. Templar claims that Vambakovska thought that such a statement is illogical since in her opinion Karev could not have two ethnicities. But Karev had not declared two ethnicities. He identified himself as a Bulgarian who lived in Macedonia and adds: Mrs. Vambakovska feels the way she does because she and her compatriots have been educated that the “Macedonian” ethnicity existed at the time of the Ilinden Revolt, something that Prof. Ivan Katardzhiev refutes. Ivan was regarded as the country's most important expert on the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Macedonian history under Yugoslavia. He was also director of the Institute for National History. Academician Ivan Katardziev had other views on Macedonian identity and name, which he presented at the International Scientific Meeting 100 Years "On Macedonian Affairs" by Misirkov "in 2003: According to him, Macedonian consciousness began to develop only after the First World War, mostly in Serbia and Greece, because Bulgarian propaganda was prevented there. That is why Macedonian consciousness developed. Otherwise, we can talk about Macedonian intelligence only after 1945, and that thanks to the existence of the state entity - PR Macedonia within Yugoslavia. The Macedonian intelligentsia developed first on the basis of repression, so that that Macedonian consciousness could also develop ... National separatism presupposes a nation built with national consciousness and hence - separation. Thus, on the basis of the already formed Bulgarian nation in Macedonia, a separation was made. Macedonian nation was created after the Second World War for political reason. On the other hand According to Katardzhiev all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period until the early 1930s declared themselves as "Bulgarians" and he asserts that the political separatism of some Macedonian left-wing revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was yet only political phenomenon without ethnic character. This will bring even Dimitar Vlahov on the session of the Politburo of the Macedonian communist party in 1948, when speaking of the existence of the Macedonian nation, to say that in 1932 (when left wing of IMRO issued for the first time the idea of separate Macedonian nation) a mistake was made. Katardzhiev claimed even that all the left-wing veterans from IMRO (United) remained only at the level of political, not of national separatism. Thus, they practically continued to feel themselves as Bulgarians, even in Communist Yugoslavia after WWII. For more see: Академик Катарџиев, Иван. Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот, интервју за списание "Форум", 22 jули 2000, број 329.Jingiby (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on what Jingiby laid out I will like to retract my vote for including this in the article, as it is a primary source that may not be accurate. --SeriousCherno (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ashmedai 119:, I think your paragraph is the ideal treatment of this topic for the article. Jingiby, most of you last comment is simply bringing up secondary sources that cover the general topic of Slavs in Macedonia in this period as being of Bulgarian national consciousness, and you seek to apply these sources anywhere possible. In this discussion, however, we are narrowly focused on this interview and what Karev himself expressed in it. As Ashmedai 119 stated, no secondary source has been presented that allows us to use different wording than Ashmedai has proposed. --Local hero ^talk 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Jingiby for providing the source supporting his Dragoumis edit. I don't know the scholarly standing of Jovanovski, or the publication of this piece, but -please correct me if I am wrong- it seems that the idea that Dragoumis conducted the interview is a possibility that he puts forward on account of his -understandable- ignorance of the existence of S.(tamatis) G.(eorgiou) Stam.(atiou) and his inability to attribute the signature to the real person ("Неколку месеци пред почетокот на востанието Карев дал едно интервју за овој весник на извесен новинар кој се потпишал како С. Г. Стам." "Интервјуто, како што забележавме, било направено од извесен С. Г. Стам, кој се претставил како новинар на Акрополис."). Regardless, it is merely a hypothesis, promulgated without any supporting evidence and that has not been accepted -as far as I know- from any other scholar, so I think it would be better to describe it as such, i.e. a hypothesis made by Jovanovski, not a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, and relegate it to a footnote. A propos, I am wondering whether it would be possible for someone with a better grasp of the slavic Macedonian language than me to translate into English a sentence from p. 75 of Jovanovski's piece, that Jingiby proposes to be used in the article? Jovanovski writes "Во интервјуто Карев нагласил дека е Македонец, а не Бугаринидека целта на борбата е добивање на автономија на Македонија, нагласувајќи дека Бугарија си прави лоши сметки доколку мисли дека може да ја претвори Македонија во нејзина провинција." Thanks in advance for the translation. Do you think this should be used in the article?

As far as Templar's piece is concerned, I am sorry but it is just not true that "it is practically a tertiary source". Per WP:TERTIARY, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources", i.e. scholarly sources themselves, not unreliable pieces of political propaganda that happen to mention secondary sources.

I thus agree with Local hero's observation re Jingiby's remarks and conclude that we should move forward with modifying the relevant passage as suggested above by the undersigned, but at the same time consider using Jovanovski's source (if there are no questions to be answered about its reliability), as described in the first paragraph of my comment. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, I've added the text. We can add Jovanovski's hypothesis if we determine it is reliable here.

The translation you requested would be as follows: In the interview, Karev stressed that he is a Macedonian and not a Bulgarian, that the goal of the battle is to achieve autonomy for Macedonia, emphasising that Bulgaria is miscalculating if it thinks it can make Macedonia its own province. --Local hero ^talk 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not add more from the peace of Jovanovski because it obviously differs from the text in the interview in some aspects, as for example: "Karev stressed that he is a Macedonian not a Bulgarian", etc. It turns out that his statement about the reporter is also wrong. Jingiby (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Refinement of the disputed sentence.

I will try to bring additional clarity with the footnote. The text needs to be clarified a little more. It is not acceptable to advertise only the opinion of a single historian. The reporter's opinion and the context of the interview are missing but are very important. From the very beginning, I warned that the interview is extremely contradictory and everywhere the context must be conveyed exactly as it is explained below. This part from the interview below is extremely controversial:

-Are you a Macedonian? I ask him.

-Yes.

-And, consequently, a Greek.

-This I do not know, he replies, I am Macedonian.

-A direct descendant of Alexander the Great? I tell him ironically.

-Yes.

-And Alexander the Great, what was he, I pray you?

-I don't know, but history says he was Greek.

-Then, being his descendant, you are Greek as well.

-He did not reply.

I suggest that the sentence describing it in the article be removed from the text: Per Stamatiou Karev was a Bulgarianized Macedonian but on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective. This part of the interview related to Alexander the Great completely confuses the readers of the article. This sentence is enough: Karev presented himself as a voulgarophron[15] (i.e. Bulgarophile).[16] He revealed he was also a Macedonian.[17] The note at the end of the sentence explains the rest from the story. Also, as Vambakovska claims, the interview is adapted for the Greek audience and it is not certain exactly how the conversation was conducted. In my opinion, for example, it is absurd for Karev to use the term Voulgarophron for himself. This is a pure adaptation of the reporter for the Greek readers. Jingiby (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

On that occasion I have found a very interesting passage in an academic publication concerning the issue which sharply contradicts to the opinion of Kostopoulos: In 1902, in a manifesto issued during the so-called Gorna Dzhumaya Uprising (a series of attacks organized by bands of the Supreme Committee), the Bulgarian colonel Anastas Yankov, a native of Zagoričani (today Vasileiada, Greece) reffered to Alexander the Great as well as to medieval Slavic figures from Macedonia. These were obviously already part of a repertoire of a specific “local Macedonian” patriotism. The latter was described at the beginning of the twentieth century by foreign observers such as Henry Noel Brailsford and Allen Upward. They likewise noted the legend that Alexander and Aristotle were “Bulgarians.” Obviously, by the late Ottoman period, the ancient glory of the region was exploited for self-legitimation by groups with different loyalties—Greek as well as Bulgarian. It was also generating a new identity that, during that period, was still not necessarily exclusive vis-à-vis Greek or Bulgarian national belonging. This explains in a completely different light Karev's behavior in relation to Alexander the Great. This confirms my opinion that this part of the article should be dropped, because it is part from local not from national identity. For more see: Famous Macedonia, the Land of Alexander: Macedonian Identity at the Crossroads of Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Nationalism, In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One, Author: Tchavdar Marinov, Pages: 273–330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250765_007.Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Now the theory promoted by Tassos Kostopoulos in his unpublished study, that the Colonel of the Bulgarian Army Yankov (i.e. Karev) had a purely Macedonian consciousness turns out not to seem so at all, and according to Tchavdar Marinov's published study, it was a local identity. In the same year 1902, and during the same trip which is quoted by Kostopoulos Yankov wrote from Macedonia to the Bulgarian prince Ferdinand as follows: My walking in these places is a triumph for the Bulgarian population. I travel in Bulgarian military uniform. Almost all of the honest non-commissioned officers in Bulgaria are uniformly dressed and decorated with orders. The people here are so enthusiastic that one of my orders is enough to ignite Macedonia and the flame to cover the entire Balkan Peninsula. Cited by Елдъров, Светлозар. Генерал Иван Цончев. Биография на два живота. София, Военно издателство, 2003. ISBN 954-509-272-6. с. 104. Jingiby (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You suggested the change to the sentence and immediately implemented the suggestion without awaiting feedback. To make this talk section easier to read for others, I will note that Jingiby's second and third paragraphs in this section are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of this interview. The sentence was perfectly fine as-is. We are not "advertising the opinion of a single historian", we are simply presenting the interview and Karev's claim. You have presented nothing that suggests the text agreed upon by Ashmedai 119 and I is incorrect. I will be restoring the text. The interviewer may have asked the question ironically, but there is no evidence that Karev's response was ironic. --Local hero ^talk 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Local hero it is not clear to me while an important part of the interview was deleted from the article. I do not see anywhere in the interview what you claim that Karev said, and what you added now. Your addition does not match the text of the interview. Would you explain your action? Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Which important part was deleted? You realize you redundantly added "Bulgarized Macedonian" - we already state that he was identified as "Bulgarophron". The wording as it is now, as agreed upon above, matches the interview. --Local hero ^talk 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources explain what Bulgarophron means as someone that feels as a Bulgarian. Adding the exact quote without further context from the secondary sources available can be construed as misleading.

The section that Jingiby is talking about that you removed is "but on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but did not answer whether he himself was a Greek."--SeriousCherno (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Primary source policy, the meaning and authenticity of the primary source interview should be left to the secondary sources which are reliable that have analyzed it. As the literal meaning can be misleading in a contemporary period as the sources currently raised show. --SeriousCherno (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The text links the term Bulgarophron, which redirects to Bulgarophile. Not sure why this could be construed as misleading. If you look at the text I originally added to the article (as crafted by Ashmedai 119 here on the talk), it had even further description of the term, but this was something Jingiby removed.

Jingiby's secondary Marinov source doesn't even mention Karev, much less this interview. The question about Alexander the Great was asked ironically and Karev answered that he is indeed his direct descendant. Not sure how the current text misrepresents the interview at all. --Local hero ^talk 04:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the sentence as is now: In the interview, Karev presented himself as a voulgarofron,[15] i.e. someone with pro-Bulgarian convictions,[16] and replied he was a Macedonian, claiming to be a "direct descendant of Alexander the Great" doesn't exactly reflect the meanings in the interview and leaves open room for misconceptions. Because the sentence is failing to reflect precisely on the interview and at same time it failes to take in account that the modern readers may give different meanings to terms depending on their political background. To remedy for this, the interview should be covered more in detail. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My deleted variant was much more accurate per the interview itself: According to Stamatiou Karev was a Bulgarianized Macedonian and on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but did not answer whether he himself was a Greek.Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that your very first stated that Karev identified simply as a Bulgarian, which is entirely not supported by the source. It's clear that your edits must carefully examined.

The English of your sentence is not good. "According to Stamtiou" is not preferable to "In the interview" and the two actually have different meanings. Also, you added redundancy with your sentence as we already present the "voulgarofron" identification the preceding sentence - why would we have it again in the following sentence? --Local hero ^talk 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Stamatiou claims that Karev revealed to him that he was a Bulgarophile. Separately, Stamatiou defines him as a Bulgarianized Macedonian. These are different parts of the interview. Jingiby (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Apart from that, a third participant described in the report, namely the owner of the hotel, claims that Karev is a fat-headed Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Local hero, by the way, the assertion in an unpublished source, namely that a senior officer of the Bulgarian Army had a purely Macedonian consciousness in December 1902, contradicts his entire biography. The claim that Karev had such an ethnic consciousness too, is based also on this source and the story on that officer. At the same time, a published source categorically refutes such ideas and claims that this officer did not have such pure Macedonian consciousness at the same time, but was Bulgarian with regional Macedonian identity. And you claim that the second source is irrelevant and should be removed. I strongly disagree. In addition, the unpublished source contradicts a whole bunch of others but published ones, which categorically deny such a Macedonian consciousness at the time and among these Bulgarian Army circles. Jingiby (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Pure Macedonian consciousness in 1902-1903 among activists of IMRO and SMAC

Such statement, based on a single unpublished study, contradicts the academic consensus, which sets out quite differently. According to most non-Macedonian experts in this field, there was no pure ethic Macedonian consciousness then. There was a beginnings of such, but not among members of the IMRO (Karev) and Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee (Yankov). It was only among small circle of intellectuals, who resided outside Macedonia. Unpublished research that is cited here cannot be given more weight than a lot of published researches. Even Krste Misirkov, who died in 1926, and was proclaimed Macedonian №1 of the 20th century in North Macedonia, had mixed identity. Because Misirkov expressed conflicting views about the national identity of the Macedonians Slavs at different points in his life, according to the historian Ivo Banac, Misirkov viewed both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians, and espoused pan-Bulgarian patriotism in a larger Balkan context. However, in the context of the larger Bulgarian unit/nation, Misirkov sought both cultural and national differentiation from the Bulgarians and called both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia, Macedonians. Per Loring Danforth the political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the 20th century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity then and continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians. They never seem to have doubted "the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia". Per Dimitar Bechev prior to the Balkan Wars, Macedonist ideas were shared and disseminated by a handful of intellectuals and activists such as Krste Misirkov and Dimitrija Cupovski in contrast with the idea of establishing a multinational autonomous entity and, therefore, a supranational and inclusive Macedonian identity propagated by the IMRO. Jingiby (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Jingiby, the identity back then was a work in progress, not something that had concluded into how we understand it today. We ought to be careful with that or else it would easily tilde into POV territory. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing here is sliding into POV territory because it's all adequately sourced and appropriately presented. Jingiby just keeps re-hashing new talkpage sections to re-present his favorite sources that do not relate to the specific interview in question. I'm not sure why we've have like five sections on the same topic. Jingiby, both Ashmedai 119 and I have pointed out to you multiple times that the Marinov source you keep adding is not relevant to the text you are adding it to. It will need to be removed, again.

Your premise about there being ethnic Macedonian consciousness only being present among intellectuals outside Macedonia is, firstly, wrong because for example Georgi Pulevski expressed such a consciousness in the preceding decades to this time in question, and secondly, does not mean we cannot use sources that contradict your premise. We are not presenting Karev as a full ethnic Macedonian in the article based on this source. I'm not sure how you can say it is being given more weight than other sources. --Local hero ^talk 17:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any peer reviewed English language source in the article to confirm your claims on Karev's identity. Only a single fringe unpublished view. As per Pulevski, look at his article: ... his Macedonian self-identification was ambiguous. Pulevski viewed Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon, similar to Herzegovinians and Thracians.[19] He also sometimes described himself as a "Serbian patriot",[19] but he also viewed his ethnic designation as "Bulgarian from the village of Galičnik".[20][21][22] Pulevski's different identifications actually revealed the absence of a clear ethnic identity among part of the local Macedonian population at that time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't made any claims regarding Karev's identity. My claims and yours are beside the point. --Local hero ^talk 18:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119 and Local hero, I offer you a translation of the memoirs of Colonel Yankov which describe his meetings in Athens in December 1902. They categorically contradict the reports in the Greek press, used in the unpublished study and describing him as a man with a purely Macedonian identity: ... We boarded a train for Athens, where there were many Russian sailors. The day the Greek Prince Nicholas, married to a Russian princess, had come from Russia, and there were Russian and Greek flags in the streets. Athens is better than Sofia and Belgrade. Here I was greeted by our Kastorian peoples, they are divided into two parties and each other are spying and fiercely, as is typical of the Bulgarians, are persecuted and hated. I will leave another to describe their blades with the case, as well as the collection of money from a certain Kiselinchev, Chekalarova's partner and worthy like him. Here I was greeted extremely well by my countryman and distant relative Dimitri Kostandi and his son Costa. I went and visited a Greek officer, Lieutenant Colonel Geroyani, a Russian captain, now in Greek service, graduated from school in Russia and fluent in Russian, and his brother, Dr. Teohari Geroyani, who helped me examine the wounded and sick boys who they came after me to Athens. The Macedonian Greeks, originally from Macedonia, agreed to give Macedonia autonomy, but to embrace the Macedonians as the official Greek language and Prince Nicholas as governor-general. Here, in the Hellenistic Society, I met with its Greek Phanariot members from Macedonia and Epirus, who dreamed of conquering all of Macedonia and Constantinople. Their motives are that Alexander, who was Greek, reigned in Macedonia, and Constantine, who died for faith and nationality, reigned in Constantinople… When I told them that Constantinople and Macedonia could not take even Russia, which has 5 million bayonets, how will you take it with 50 thousand troops and armed with old rifles, they got angry and told me whether it would be Hellenic or Turkish Macedonia. I found myself in a fanatical Phanariotes assembly, in which there were several priests. Here, with these fanatics, the presence in such an assembly of Tsar Assen I, who was preparing an uprising in Constantinople for the liberation of Bulgaria, came to my mind. The Greeks have not improved in anything, although they are the reason for the arrival of the Turks in the Balkan Peninsula and they are the reason why the Turks are still holding on to my miserable homeland, which they want to assimilate for themselves, "either our Macedonia or to a Turks, we will not give it to the hated Slavs,” replied the venerable secretary of Hellenism, Mr. Michalopopoulos, a Greek Arnaut from Epirus. The faces of all the listeners became brutal. How could the Slavs take the old Greek land of Macedonia? "We don't give it," everyone shouted. "Good! I answered them, and the Serbs are Slavs, why aren't you angry with them, but only with the Bulgarians? ” "And we won't," they replied...At that time came the chairman of the Hellenic Society, Professor Casasis, a Greek from the islands, tall, with large eyes. Invite me to your committee. He was very restrained. I told him that we were on Mihajlovski's committee and working in Macedonia with all nations. He invited me for coffee at his house. I visited him. Here, too, restrained and serious, he said, "We can only help those who work in Macedonia for Greece. For us, autonomy is just as dangerous as reforms. We Greeks had a vital issue. It was Cretan, but he decided in our favor. We will wait, Macedonia will be Hellenic, and danger comes from you Bulgarians and Russians, but Europe will not give you anything .... At the door when I left his office, several correspondents of the Greek newspapers were waiting for me and wanted to know what I talked to professor, but I refused them. One allowed himself to offer me money, I cursed him and left. The Greek correspondents are everything in Greece, spies, secret police and everything. The press is so free that you can't move anywhere from newspapers. The police take all the information from them. On day 6, the police called me and offered to leave Greece because there was a lot of pressure from Turkey. I accepted and promised them that I would leave with the first steamer... It should be noted here that this person is extremely bad at the IMRO. Here is what he says in his memoirs: It remains for the future historians to say : Who had the right, those of us who hastened the 1902 uprising, or those who squander in Sofia the money earned by the Macedonian people in blood and battle and who lie to the Macedonian people that they work for the freedom of Macedonia, work with all the nations there etc., when they robe Turks there, kidnap American women and Bulgarians, kill Greeks, Grecomans, Turks and Serbomans, and even kill their Bulgarian brothers who demand an account for the money they had robbed. These liars from the IMRO who tell the Bulgarian people that they are an internal organization, and in fact they are here in Sofia a coterie of socialists - anarchists and from here they send bandits to robe money in Macedonia... The conclusion is clear: this man had Bulgarian national identity and regional Macedonian. He regarded the Greek correspondents spies, secret police etc. and even cursed them refusing any contact. Jingiby (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to use the quality secondary sources available to us, I don't agree with the proposals to add the quote without any explanations or context,leaving it essentially to the reader to make assumptions. The sources in question are related to the interview as they expand on the terminology and background of what is going on. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposal? Jingiby (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby: What I am proposing Jingiby is that we keep the quote in its original form in the primary source. And then underneath we expand on the context of the meaning of this quote using reliable secondary sources(I know you have added notes but not everyone reads them). We can make it into its own separate paragraph.--SeriousCherno (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Provide below your proposal, please. Jingiby (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby: For example " re-add but on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but did not answer whether he himself was a Greek. Also add "later in the interview Stamatiou describes Karev as a Bulgarinized Macedonian" Followed by 'During this period of time, the label 'Macedonian' was a regional qualitative....'[Sources: Ivan Katardzhiev, Loring Danforth etc]. Explanation of Stamatiou/20th century Greek nationalist view of the matter. " --SeriousCherno (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If you do not understand what I am proposing please tell --SeriousCherno (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It sounds good for me, but maybe this version is better: On Stanatiou ironic question whether he was a direct descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but refused to answer on the question whether he himself was a Greek. In the interview Stamatiou describes Karev as a Bulgarinized Macedonian. During this period of time, the label 'Macedonian' had various meanings, as today. Then putting the footnotes at the end. How about it? Jingiby (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest that the previous sentence be simplified. It seems quite crowded. I propose the following edition: Per Stamatiou, Karev presented himself as a "Bulgarophile", and revealed he was also a "Macedonian". Jingiby (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

SeriousCherno, Jingiby, this sounds like a good proposal to me too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yh I think it is a good start, it can be improved later on if needed. --SeriousCherno (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The secondary source you just inserted does *not* discuss this interview. And you do not have consensus for the addition. --Local hero ^talk 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources are for the development of the Macedonian identity and there is consensus 3:1, while Ashmedai hasn't stated a position as he thought this was a replacement to the existing passage. --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@SeriousCherno: please familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS which is not "the result of a vote". You don't have consensus for this addition and your addition violates WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are attempting to apply a source about the general topic of Macedonian identity to a specific interview of Nikola Karev. You arrive at a conclusion that is stated by neither source. --Local hero ^talk 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You should stop with the WP: STONEWALLING, there has been a discussion above between multiple editors about adding this and not a simple vote as you keep implying. Furthermore, most of the passage is from the interview that you adamantly wanted to be included so I am not sure why you are removing it.

And yes everyone involved in this discussion knows that the secondary sources in this passage do not discuss the interview. They discuss the meaning of the term 'Macedonian', that is why they are included to give the reader understanding of the context and use. Read up the policies about secondary sources, they are used to add further context to primary sources. --SeriousCherno (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You are yet to state actual reasoning for your reverts, instead, you are misappropriating Wiki policies. You can't just add primary sources without explanation of secondary sources and then remove primary source material that you do not like for some reason. --SeriousCherno (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple editors"... hmm let's see, it seems to be just you re-inserting the sentences which had not achieved consensus. Silent Resident simply agreed with no rationale, hence I point out to you that consensus is not the result of a vote. Ashmedai 119 and I are opposed to this addition because it is completely irrelevant to this interview.

You giving the reader "context" is attempting to determine, as a Wikipedia editor, what Karev meant when he said "Macedonian." However, your source does not discuss his self-identification in this interview, as you even concede. Since you love to decide what "context" readers need to be given, would you be ok with me inserting, per Petko Slaveykov, that in the 1860s, individuals in Macedonia were referring to themselves as Macedonians, not Bulgarians, and as descendants of Alexander the Great? Or can we finally agree that we cannot assign "context" to a specific interview? --Local hero ^talk 22:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby was the one that proposed this addition so I am not sure why you forgot to count him. Also Silent Resident agreed, and you forgot about his post in this section that says "Yes, I agree, Jingiby, the identity back then was a work in progress, not something that had concluded into how we understand it today. We ought to be careful with that or else it would easily tilde into POV territory". I was involved in the discussion. And then if you read Ashmedai 119's reply he was thinking that we were replacing the passage so you obviously cannot count him as his opinion is not clear on this. So your statement that there is no consensus is false.

And no I don't agree with what you are proposing to add quotes from primary sources without any reliable secondary sources from historians. I will re-add the content directly from the interview, and then submit this for dispute resolution. --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby edited the page to revert an anonymous editor but neglected to restore your revision, in addition to not responding to your proposal to add this on his talkpage. That's why I didn't count him. Again, this is not a vote. I hope we can get some good input at dispute resolution. --Local hero ^talk 03:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok I am happy to leave it as it currently is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikola_Karev&oldid=1029639870 . Since only us to want to discuss this for some reason. --SeriousCherno (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at these changes yet, will do soon. --Local hero ^talk 05:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I made one change to Jingiby's revision that I hope is agreeable. I do, however, disagree with the addition of the Marinov note because it does not describe Stamatiou nor Karev and thus is irrelevant to the text to which it is affixed, similarly to what we are discussing at the dispute resolution. --Local hero ^talk 19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I made small change to Local hero's last revision that I think is with better wording. I suggest also to remove the note with Tassos Kostopoulos' opinion, who compares Stamatiou's distrust towards Karev's self-presentation with the profession of a "purely Macedonian consciousness" of the Bulgarian Army colonel Anastas Yankov, because it is unpublished study, that contradicts with both: as with Yankov's memoirs, as well as with the opinion of Marinov on the same issue. Jingiby (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to see in this discussion a series of (i trust, unintentional) misunderstandings and misinterpretations introduced by Jingiby and promptly espoused by other users, which I will address in my message.

I begin with the simplest point. To the extent that Jingiby's proposed formulation ("According to Stamatiou"/"Per Stamatiou" instead of "In the interview") in the existing sentence of the article presents Karev's words from his interview (his statements that he is a voulgarophron, a Macedonian and a direct descendant of Alexander the Great), it would be wrong to present them as if this were an opinion among many about what Karev said in the interview, as if there are other opinions about what Karev said and how he presented/described himself. Moreover, removing Karev's statement on being "a direct descendant" of Alexander the Great is not making the sentence "simplified", as Jingiby says, it is making it lacking and does not allow the readers to gain an understanding of Karev's position, as articulated in the interview. Also, Jingiby's proposal to include more sentences on the Greek journalist's approach to the matter of Karev's identity is giving undue emphasis on a point that is beyond the scope of the article, i.e. Greek national discourse about Slavic speakers of Macedonia of the time and their rhetoric to persuade them that they were "truly" Greeks. This, however, is an article about Karev himself, not about what the rhetorical strategies Greek interlocutor could employ to persuade him that, contrary to what he thought and said, he "was" Greek.

However, this section of the talk page was created by Jingiby in order to question whether it is a correct to describe Karev's position in the interview as a display of a "purely Macedonian consciousness." This phrase (not anything about a "pure" [sic] Macedonian consciousness, as if promoting ideas of ethnic/national purity) is found in Kostopoulos's paper, describing the position put forward by Anastas Yankov during his visit to Athens. In the paper's footnote 21, Kostopoulos refers to a number of pieces in the Greek press dealing with Yankov's passage through Athens. Indeed, an interview was published in a Greek newspaper after "a private interview, in which he [=Yankov] answered in Greek, of course with great difficulty, the questions we posed to him". Even though any explicit talk of Yankov's "identity" is absent from the Skrip interview, a similar piece on an interview with Yankov right after his arrival at Athens for the newpaper Empros states that "Last evening we saw the Bulgarian, or rather, as he says, only Macedonian, colonel, Mr. Anast. Yankov", while Yankov himself states in the interview that despite serving in the Bulgarian army "I am not a Bulgarian. I am a Macedonian" Yankov's refusal to answer questions of representatives of the Greek press, according to the passage quoted by Jingiby (copied from a website of unkown scholarly reliability), occured a couple of days later, after Yankov's meeting with Neoklis Kazazis ("At the door when I left his office, [...]"). Indeed, after the second of Yankov's visits to Kazazis, in two consecutive days, the newspaper covering it contains no statement of Yankov's but also adds that "Mr. Kazazis, whom we say after Yankov's departure, told us that he can not, at least for the present time being, to announce what was told between himself and Mr. Yankov" This means that, even if we discount the natural scepticism towards basing a claim on a website of unknown scholarly reliability reproducing a primary source, there is no direct contradiction between the two as far as the events that took place in Athens are concnerned.

A further note should be made about a relevant misunderstanding. Jingiby writes as if someone is claiming that Yankov had formed and sincerely held this idea of him not being a Bulgarian, but only/exclusively/purely a Macedonian, that he presented in the Greek press. However, Kostopoulos's paper talks of Yankov's "profession of a purely Macedonian identity". To "profess" means "To make a claim (to be something); to lay claim to (a given quality, feeling etc.), often with connotations of insincerity". That Yankov was not being sincere in these statements rejecting his Bulgarian identity, can be deduced (or not) by placing it in the general context of other sources, primary and secondary. I do not wish to question that, as the choice of the word "profession" with regards to Yankov suggests in the paper, this was not sincerely his position. However, whether the same holds for a different person, Nikola Karev, is a different matter.

In this regard, Jingiby has re added to the article a passage from an article by Tchvadar Marinov] (n.b. a Bulgarian) that makes no reference to Karev, but is (mis)interpreted by Jingiby in order to present it as relevant to Karev. However, another article by the same author, also added to the article on Karev by Jingiby, does refer to Karev, describing him as "a local activist of the Internal organization with a socialist orientation" who led the "Krushevo republic", that "was supposed to have incarnated the principle of supra-national equality". In the previous section of his article, Marinov discusses at some length "the Macedonian socialists led by Vasil Glavinov". Karev was indeed one of these, being a meber of a organization led by Glavinov and now presented in an article on the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group recently created by Jingiby. Per Marinov "the socialists’ emphasis on a separate political agenda of “Macedonian people” was based on class-ideological aspects which bestowed it with “anational” aspects." Marinov quotes the newspaper of Karev's group that "the Macedonian” should by no means be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb or Greek as “he” is, on the first place, a political “slave”", while he informs us that "In some articles of the newspaper (as well as in party documents of the Macedonian socialist group) the term “Macedonian people” [makedonski narod] is contrasted with the “Bulgarian people” [bâlgarski narod]", which, per Marinov "actually asserts the contrast between these two “national” categories". Marinov's conclusions on this group state that "the “a-national” “nihilistic” aspect [of socialists/anarchists] could acquire, in some moments, a distinct national or ethnic meaning" leading to an "an ethnicization of Macedonian identity". This "ethnicization of Macedonian identity" among Slav Macedonian socialists, one of which was Karev, was not tantamount to a steady expression of Macedonian nationalism, but the "ethnicization of Macedonian ideology in general [...] firmly associated with a political agenda opposing in the first place the nation-states’ aspirations, [that] did not claim so much a distinct “core” culture." The position advocated by Karev in the interview with Stamatiou (a) presenting himself not as a Bulgarian, but as "pro-Bulgarian (b) and, more importantly, a Macedonian (c) accompanying this talk of Macedonian-ness with an ethnic component (that is, the putative descent of ancient Macedonians) and (d) stating plans that diverge from those of the Bulgarian nation-state make it fall squarely within the position described by Marinov with regards to the socialists led by Glavinov, among which Karev was one. This means that, if Marinov's scholarly articles are to be used in the notes, they should not be misconstrued to bring them into false contradiction to other scholarly sources, but used to explain Karev's position in the Akropolis in the context of the "ethnicization of Macedonian identity" by Slav Macedonian socialists, which is analytically presented in Marinov's piece. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, The author of the article to which I gave a link and where some of Colonel Yankov's memoirs were published is Tsocho Bilyarski. He is a professional historian and former director of the National State Archives of Bulgaria. I gave a link to this article because the text there can be read freely. Otherwise, in the article about Karev I quoted a book in which the same historian is one of the editors and it is a reliable source but without free access: Yankov, Anastas. 'My Memoirs on the Macedonian-Edirne Question.' In: From Sofia to Kastoria. Memoirs (compiled by Iva Burilkova, Tsocho Bilyarski). ISBN 954-99-83-23-4. Sofia: IK Sineva, 2003, p. 168-173. As for the text of the memoirs, they are quite long and my conclusion reflects them exactly. As to the conclusion of Marinov about the identity of the then Macedonian socialists it is as follows: "It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology... It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character." in Entangled Histories of the Balkans – Volume Two, Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 9004261915, p. 503. Another paradox per Marinov is that the members of the Macedonian leftist organization, who were militants natives from Bulgaria constructed a program of a “Macedonian state”, which does not presume the idea of a distinct Macedonian national entity, and reveals the fact that even people of “non-Macedonian descent” espoused a strong Macedonian identity and shows a considerable degree of development of a distinct political loyalty, emancipated from the Pan-Bulgarian national project. Jingiby (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, I think you have misunderstood, the passage that Jingiby proposed is in addition to the current text that already says that Karev saw himself as a descendant of Alexander the Great. --SeriousCherno (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Ashmedai 119, we should stay away from POV territory, for example to address some of your points,

(a) I guess if we assume that the Stamatiou interview in question has not been altered for the Greek audience and propaganda purposes. Which althought is not a major point that we should discuss it is important to keep in mind.

(b) As Jingiby pointed much furter above 'voulgarofron' was known to have the meaning as "Bulgarian in heart and mind" (something similar from what I remember reading from this discussion). Furthermore on the Bulgarophiles pages it says "is a term used for Slavic people from the regions of Macedonia and Pomoravlje[3][4][5] who regard themselves as ethnic Bulgarians".

The term is also interesting as during this period of time, there was the Greek propagated idea that the people of the region of Macedonia were all actually ethnic Greeks with some speaking Slavic languages (Bulgarinized/Slavized Macedonians).

(c) It is also interesting as Karev says that Alexander the Great is Greek yet describes himself as a bulgarophile while also having an ethnic/regional Macedonian identity depending on the interpretation. During this period, the left-wing of the VMRO believed in a supranational state of Macedonia inspired by the French ideals of liberalism. They wished that this state will be home to all 'Macedonians' (people of the region) such as Serbs, Greeks, Vlach, Turks, and Bulgarians etc.

Therefore the fact that Karev sees himself as Alexander's descendant is not necessary a hard point that this has to do with an ethnic identity. It can also be interpreted as a regional Macedonian identity such as that of Switzerland that the VMRO leftists at the time were inspired by, they even used the term 'Switzerland of the Balkans' to describe the state of Macedonia that they wanted to create. As you know the Swiss nationality is not generally an ethnic one, it is home to Germans, French, Italians, and Romansh.

(d) Again, the fact that Karev disagreed with the official policy of the Bulgarian government does not mean that he did not identify as a Bulgarian. This ties back to my point (c) that there were many Bulgarian revolutionaries that fought for the creation of a Macedonian republic, you can read more at Macedonia for the Macedonians

Therefore we need to be careful and try to avoid summarizing this topic from a few sentences of a primary source. --SeriousCherno (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to the spirit of what SeriousCherno writes, I do not think that it is within the purview of the encyclopedia's editors to opine on what Karev was or "identified as", but only to examine how to shape the article's text so as to best reflect what reliable sources relay about the matter. I mean to say that I understand that the "ethnic" or national "identity" of Karev (and other IMRO figures) is a point of contention in an ongoing Bulgaro-Macedonian historiographical dispute, and it is natural for editors from both nations to have formed rather solid views on historical matters, but this does not eliminate the obligation to conform with WP policies.

Having said that, with regards to the recent re-addition by Jingiby of the text referring to Yankov's memoirs, thanks are due to Jingiby for clarifying the source basing the claim. I set aside my personal skepticism about the professional integrity of a historian who has served as "State Security agent" (see here), I suppose under the Communist regime. The crux of the matter is this: the passage has been added by Jingiby on account of a contradiction he locates between Kostopoulos's paper, that provides references to Yankov's interviews in Greek newspapers, and the claim that Yankov "refused any contacts with Greek reporters". However, the passage from the memoirs quoted above in the discussion by Jingiby only refers to a single specific incident when Yaknov chose not to speak to Greek journalists, after a meeting with Neoklis Kazazis ("At the door when I left his office, several correspondents of the Greek newspapers were waiting for me and wanted to know what I talked to professor, but I refused them. One allowed himself to offer me money, I cursed him and left."). This quote does not contain a general claim about Yankov's days in Athens, but only about his actions in a precise moment in time, after his departure from Kazazis's office. This is is the reason why, as I had stated in my previous message, I had removed this reference from the note, as no contradiction can be detected between this particular claim and his interviews the previous days. Now, could Jingiby please provide here, in accordance with WP:NONENG, the exact original passage of the memoirs from pages 168-173 that states that Yankov generally avoided contact with Greek journalists during his stay in Athens, that supports the claim he added to the article? Thanks in advance.

A similar problem exists with Jingiby's edit adding the sentence that "Chavdar Marinov espouses aopinion [sic] different from that of Kostopoulos". Marinov and Kostopoulos in the passages from their respective texts refer to distinct issues. Kostopoulos speaks of Yaknov's "profession of a purely Macedonian consciousness" in the Greek press, when he was at Athens, while Marinov deals with the ideological content of the manifesto Yankov issued during the Gorna Dzhumaya revolt. Hence, this constitutes no contradiction, just an adoption of different "identity" positions in different situations (something that Marinov's text naturally affords, taking into account what he calls the "situational" character of the concept of identity). To present the two authors as disagreeing between themselves, when they are referring to different actions and incidents in time constitutes an improper WP:SYNTHESIS that contradicts Wikipedia's policies against original research. For this, if the text is nor removed, at a minimun Jingiby's false editorial comment on a supposed "contradiction" between Kostopoulos and Marinov should be erased from the encyclopedia.

Finally, I feel the need to state, after reading the final remarks of Jingiby's last message that, though it is no harm to cite relevant passage from secondary source, when arguing that Karev was not or, in any case, should not be presented in this article as an exponent of a full-blown Macedonian nationalism, he is preaching to the choir, as neither I nor anyone else of those participating in this discussion, as far as I can tell, seems to promote such a view. However, I should also note that the passage Jingiby quotes from Marinov, and other secondary sources on his interview, equally distance Karev from of what Jingiby and Serious Cherno seem to support, that his ideology was merely a regional variation of Bulgarian nationalism. As a closing note, I would propose, in accordance with SeriousCherno's admonition on relying on secondary sources, to add a note *summarizing* the key points of Marinov's description of what he portrays as the "anational" stance typical of Glavinov's socialists, and its variations, or perhaps find a way to add this short summary to the text. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to answer re SeriousCherno's claim that "Jingiby has pointed out [that] voulgarofron was known to have the meaning as "Bulgarian in heart and mind". I am afraid that this is an interpretation that is totally wrong, as natural, given that Jingiby (please someone correct me if I am wrong) does not speak any form of Greek (ancient, medieval or modern). Jingiby had based his interpretaion of the term on an entry from Wiktionary that presented the meaning of the ancient Greek word. In modern Greek, however, composite words with -φρων as a second composite do not denote someone that is "X in heart and mind", as you claim, but present a person's convictions ("φρονήματα"), in particular his political convictions. Thus, one can be a vasilophron (a supporter of kingship, royalist), an ethnikofron (a supporter of the nation, nationalist) and so on. Were X-fron to mean "an X in heart and mind", then the early Greek kingdom, divided as it were in "agglophrones" (supporters of England, members of the English Party), "gallophrones" (supporters of France/the French Party) or "rossophrones" (supporters of Russia/ members of the Russian Party) (see, e.g., ) would be a nation consisting of three factions considering themselves to be English, French or Russian -- which, of course, is not the case. Besides, this claim on the meaning of voulgarofron as "a Bulgarian in heart and mind" is a claim made with absolutely no basis on secondary literature, whereas all translations of the term in reliable secondary sources cited above refer to supporters of Bulgaria (see nn. 7, 8, 9). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, with all due respect I wasn't at any point in this discussion trying to bring my POV to the discussion or article. I was just adding a bit more context to your attempt above to analyze Karev's ethnicity through a few sentences in an interview. I tried to make this clear by stating "Therefore we need to be careful and try to avoid summarizing this topic from a few sentences of a primary source." I have stated the same thing over and over again in this discussion that we need to use reliable secondary sources rather than our POV. So please don't try to distort my point with false accusations.

But thank you for clearing up the voulgarofron point. --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Ashmedai 119, you said "However, I should also note that the passage Jingiby quotes from Marinov, and other secondary sources on his interview, equally distance Karev from of what Jingiby and Serious Cherno seem to support, that his ideology was merely a regional variation of Bulgarian nationalism".

This is another slight inaccuracy, for example Jingiby has quoted " "It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology... It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character." And I have pointed out the aim of some Bulgarian revolutionaries for a socialist Macedonian republic, so it is a bit inaccurate to say that I (can't talk about Jingiby) support the thesis that Macedonian was just a regional identity and not a national one.

This topic is also kind of raised right underneath "When asked what the revolutionaries wanted for Macedonia, Karev explained their plans to create a republic in the model of Switzerland, providing autonomy and democracy for its different "races",[17] that Bulgaria's expectations to annex the region were miscalculated[18] and that they would accept anyone's help in order to attain their goal.[15]" But if you want to add the note then add it (if anyone disagrees they can revert it) or propose it for discussion.

It is also good to point out that nationality and ethnicity is not exactly the same thing, for example you can be German and Swiss German. --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, SeriousCherno. I could formulate here, in the talk page, a proposal for a short note on the key points of the outlook of Glavinov's group per Marinov's article, though I am afraid the article is becoming overload with lengthy notes on matters not directly related to its subject matter. However, I think there is another matter that ought to be answered first and that is why I am restating the request I made in my previous comment: could Jingiby please provide here, in accordance with WP:NONENG, the exact original passage of the memoirs from pages 168-173 that states that Yankov generally avoided contact with Greek journalists during his stay in Athens, that supports the claim he added to the article? Thanks in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The passage is as follows: На вратата ме чакаха няколко кореспонденти на гръцки вестници и искаха да узнаят какво съм говорил с професора, но аз им отказах. Един си позволи да ми предлага пари, аз го изругах и заминах. Гръцките кореспонденти са всичко в Гърция: шпиони, тайна полиция и всичко. Печатът е толкова свободен, щото не можеш от вестници никъде да мръднеш. Полицията, всички сведения зема от тях. And its rough translation: Several Greek newspapers' correspondents were waiting for me at the door and wanted to know what I have said to the professor, but I refused. One allowed himself to offer me money, I cursed him and left. The Greek correspondents are everything in Greece: spies, secret police and everything. The press is so free that you can't move anywhere from newspapers. The police takes all the information from them.Jingiby (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Jingiby. I see that you this is the same passage that you had already quoted before, highlighted with bold letters. As I said above, no contradiction exists between this passage --which presents Yankov's refusal to talk to members of the Greek press at a specific point in time, after his meeting with Kazazis-- and his interviews with Greek journalists, published a couple of days earlier. In other words, this passage from Yankov's memoirs does not support the claim made in the text you re-added to the article's note and it should be removed. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119 I do not agree with you, because in the memoirs of Yankov there is no sign of another meeting with reporters in Greece. Jingiby (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here for example is the opinion of Germanos Karavangelis on Yankov, as it is written in his memoirs translated in Bulgarian on p. 344: The Bulgarian committee was divided into two parts. The Centralists, led by Sarafov, who aimed at the unification of Macedonia with Bulgaria, and the Supremachist led by Mihaylovski and Colonel Yankov from Zagorichane, who demanded Macedonia's autonomy as a first step towards its unification (with Bulgaria), as it happened with Eastern Rumelia. Jingiby (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Source precision

After this recent indicent, I got up to checking some of the article's references and I would like to ask a question about the very first reference of the article, in its current form, which was added to the article's lead by Jingiby last October. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems like a reference to a petition preserved in an archive collection. In the excerpt of the petition quoted in the footnote, Karev is described as a "бивш български учител" ("a former Bulgarian teacher").

These petitions are also discused in the main body of the article, in the first paragraph of the section titled "After Ilinden". The reference found in the end of this paragraph was also added with an edit of Jingiby's in July 2018, immediately followed by an edit providing a link to a website, which quotes the text of these petitions. However, when checking the website Jingiby had linked to for the text of the petition referred to in lead's reference, I found out that Karev is presented as "бивш учител" ("former teacher") not a "former *Bulgarian* teacher".

Could Jingiby please explain this inconsistency? Thanks in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I just checked and there is the difference that Ashmedai 119 highlighted, at the same it doesn't make any difference as in the letters on this website it says "In addition, we consider it unnecessary to report the following data regarding our personalities: Tome Niklev, 48 years old, former Kojabashi of the Bulgarian neighborhood. Nikola Karev, 28, a former teacher in the city.

With respect:

Tome Niklev, Nikola Karev"

And in another letter to the Ottomans: "Wishing to return to their homes, they want to know if the amnesty in The Turkish-Bulgarian agreement refers to the persons from their category and whether there will be no obstacles for their return and residence in Krushevo." Both written from Karev and the mayor.

I also found another secondary source from a Bulgarian that personally knew Karev (if I remember correctly), in this source it says that "Karev wanted to visit Bulgaria as he wanted to visit his homeland" (not exact quoting just paraphrasing). I have sent the links to Jingiby so he can check them out, you can find them on his talkpage (they are in Bulgarian).

Ashmedai 119, maybe you should report Jingiby to the administrators on the Admin noticeboard if you believe that he is falsifying quotes. There you can discuss. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this section, unless you are craving for a confrontation.... --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If possible Ashmedai 119, could you please not edit this article section so that other editors have an opportunity to discuss or provide another source if required. --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I appearently have overdid it when rewriting the text. There is one "Bulgarian" in more. I have corrected it. However, let me point out that this is not fundamentally wrong, as he was Bulgarian teacher. By the way, I am one of the few editors who often give quotes in addition to the source at the footnote. There are dozens of such cases in this article. Apparently I have to double-check every case a few times to avoid such mistakes. Regards Jingiby (talk)

Not sure why you're accusing Ashemdai 119 of trying to start "a confrontation". The user has not attacked anyone. You tell the user to not edit the article so other editors have an opportunity to discuss it and then you state that starting a talkpage section is inappropriate too? So, don't edit and also don't bring things up on the talkpage? Good logic there.

Unfortunately, these "errors" by Jingiby seem to not be so rare lately. --Local hero ^talk 04:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby has over 40,000 edits, and he adds many more sources than all three of us put together. I didn't tell Ashmedai 119 not to edit the article, I said that specific article section in order for Jingiby and others to get involved in the discussion. Not sure where I told him not to make any more sections?!

I am struggling with your logic here, what is the point of Ashmedai 119 of adding this section here asking Jingiby to explain himself to him. Whatever Jingiby replies, nothing will come out of it. This is why I mentioned the admin board as the correct place. If you look at Ashmedai 119's edit history, this is not the first time that he has directly or indirectly referenced that an editor he is disagreeing with is falsifying sources or being purposely misleading(1 (2) (3)).

Everyone just needs to be a bit more polite and assume good faith. If you think there is a big issue about something then report it on the admin noticeboard.

In my opinion Local hero, this is an obvious attempt of you to try and remove an editor that you disagree with for a non-existent issue. From the very start of this discussion you have used terms to Jingiby such as " Don't get so worked up when someone challenges your agenda on here" and "That's it. Jingiby, you've been banned before. Please do not resort to your problematic editing ways.". And many days before this you said "Would you really like me to start requesting translations by an authorized expert for all of your Bulgarian sources? That would probably require undoing all of your work on Wikipedia." From the very start of this discussion you have failed to assume good faith and have been behaving in what is, in my opinion, a confrontational way.

And to clarify my logic again, as you can see nothing will come out of this particular discussion because it is not the right place for it. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My comments are fully justified given Jingiby's opposition at first to including this interview in the article at all, inserting without basis into the article that Karev identified himself as a Bulgarian, trying to keep out parts of the interview such as where Karev claimed descent from Alexander the Great, inserting "Bulgarian" into a quote where it doesn't exist in the source, etc. At what point can I stop assuming good faith? Yes, Jingiby had an extensive block record prior to being outright banned for a period. Given recent identified "errors", I only stated his edits need to be looked at carefully. I've made zero attempts to "remove" him, though I will point out your timeline is off on the comments of mine you've copied and they are also taken out of context. --Local hero ^talk 02:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks cant be justified. And okay, lets not get too hang up on technicalities. All of the three quotes were posted on June 4th, with the "Would you really like me to start requesting translations by an authorized expert for all of your Bulgarian sources? That would probably require undoing all of your work on Wikipedia." one being posted a bit later on the same day. Regardless it is 10 days before this section was made on the 14th. Also the issue was not people trying to falsify the quote, it was about whether to insert it as it is in the primary source or based on the secondary sourced intrepreation. There is no point to this discussion here, this is my last reply in this particular section. --SeriousCherno (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)