Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Should the article refer to the peasantry of Macedonia in 1903 as "Bulgarian"?

The second paragraph of the article describes the peasants who supported the uprising as "local Bulgarian peasants". This claim is cited to five sources: "We the Macedonians" by Tchadar Marinov, The Macedonian Conflict by Danforth Loring, Contested Ethnic Identity by Chris Kostov, Blood Ties by İpek Yosmaoğlu, and "Famous Macedonia" by Tchavdar Marinov. None of these sources mention peasant support for uprising or describe the peasantry of Macedonia as Bulgarian on the cited pages. On the contrary, each explicitly says that the peasantry of Macedonia lacked a sense of national identity at the time of the uprising:

• Loring says (on page 65) that "At the end of World War I there were very few historians or ethnographers who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed. It seems most likely that at this time most of the Slavs of Macedonia, especially those in rural areas, had not yet developed a firm sense of national identity at all."
• "We the Macedonians" says (on page 109) that "However, from another perspective, Macedonia’s population from the turn-of-the-20th-century may seem—quite on the contrary—rather national or relatively well “nationalized,” involved in diverse political agenda and even developing its one. Of course, the very concept of a “Macedonian population” should be nuanced. If the large peasant majority was in most of the cases undoubtedly far from the univocal categories of “national identity,” the same does not hold true for its intelligentsia or 'elite.'"
• Kostov refers (on page 71) to "wide illiterate masses of peasants, who rarely expressed any ethnic identity"
• "Famous Macedonia" says (on page 314) that "The phenomenon of the Macedonian peasants’ unconcern for national allegiance was certainly not invented by scholars, but it became so well-known largely because of the complicated international setting of the Macedonian question: the battle of diverse national claims generated interest in the mentality of people whose national indifference in other geographic contexts went unnoticed.116 As in many other cases, for the Slav-speaking Macedonian peasantry the most important identity was often (albeit not exclusively) the confessional one."
• Yosmaoglu says (on page 15) that "As problematic as it is to accept the plans for an autonomous entity modeled after Switzerland as the progenitor of the modern Macedonian nation-state, simply capitulating to Bulgarian nationalists’ claims (i.e., that Macedonian Slavs were in fact Bulgarian) or to Greek nationalists’ dismissal (i.e., that Macedonian Christians did not know what they were) does not do justice to the people who lost their lives as these competing national projects claimed their loyalty. Here, it would behoove us to pause and consider whether by thinking of them as either this or that we place ourselves in an analytical straight jacket symptomatic of our own internalization of the notion that national consciousness is inherently exclusive and immutable."

Each of these sources is being used to support a claim that directly contradicts its content. The article, and whoever wrote this text, is lying about the content of these sources, presumably to pursue a Bulgarian nationalist agenda. My attempts to remove this lie have been "reverted" but I would appreciate it if someone with the power to edit the article without being reverted would remove this false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecentContributor2 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I thought this would be a SYNTH issue, however in this case the claim you point out indeed appears to be not only not supported by these sources but actually contradicted by them. It needs to be corrected. --Local hero ^talk 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I will only note that the citations above are not very precise and will point as an example at the reference # 1 by Loring Danforth on p. 65. The continuation of the quotation is: Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, etc. I think also two separate concepts are confused above. In one case, it is about the Slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia, which is a broader concept. In the second case, it concerns the Macedonian Bulgarians, as part of them formed the core of the IMARO. Part of the peasants in Ottoman Macedonia had undoubtedly Bulgarian identity. As a compromise, however, I would suggest that the term Bulgarian peasants be replaced by more accurate one: Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionaries. The article presents plenty of sources that confirm the Bulgarian national consciousness of these activists. At the same time, I do not deny their regional Macedonian identity, according to the sources too.Jingiby (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the sources support that, either. They say that the leaders of the uprising came from the tiny intelligentsia or elite which had developed a sense of national identity, but I don't think they support assigning a national identity to all participants in the uprising. Additionally, Yosmaoglu says (on page 15) that "There was, in fact, an undeniable attachment to the ideas of autonomy for Macedonia and action independent of Bulgaria in the program and manifestos of IMRO from its inception, which can reasonably be considered as indication of a separate Macedonian identity."

Bechev says (on page lvii of the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia) that the Slavic-speaking peasantry of Macedonia in the early 1900s had little sense of national identity. He then says (on page lviii) that "The IMARO was strong among the town-dwelling intelligentsia and craftsmen and also drew support from the rural masses attracted by its call for land redistribution at the expense of the big Muslim landlords". This shows that peasant support for the uprising was based on economic factors, not national identity. I think that these sources show that support for the uprising was too complicated to simply describe its supporters as "Bulgarian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecentContributor2 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

PS. Hundreds of Bulgarians from the Principality also participated in the uprising. They were Army officers, sergeants and simply volunteers. Jingiby (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I will emphasize three circumstances again. Each of the facts below can be confirmed by lot of reliable academic sources:

1. A group of conservative Bulgarians in Salonica organized a Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary Brotherhood. The latter was incorporated in IMARO by 1900 and its leader Ivan Garvanov, was to exert a significant influence on the IMARO. The members of the Bulgarian Brotherhood were to push the idea for the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising and later they became the core of IMARO right-wing faction. Under the direct leadership by the undeniable Bulgarian — Ivan Garvanov, the IMARO take a decision about the revolt. The decisions was taken in the early January 1903 at a congress held at the Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. The leaders of the uprising were teachers from the Bulgarian educational school system or officers from the Bulgarian Army. The insurgents flew Bulgarian flags on many places. The Revolutionary Organization used the Bulgarian standard language in all its programmatic statements and its correspondence was solely in the Bulgarian language, and received financial and military help from Bulgaria. The local revolutionaries declared their conviction that the "majority" of the Christian population of Macedonia is "Bulgarian." The group modeled itself after the revolutionary organizations of Vasil Levski and other Bulgarian revolutionaries, each of whom was a leader during the earlier Bulgarian revolutionary movement.
2. The dogma of modern Macedonian historiography is that IMRO was an ‘ethnic Macedonian’ organisation. In its early Statute, the official name of the organisation was Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees. its membership then was restricted explicitly only for Bulgarians until 1902. The groups of such rebels associated with the organisation were called by the Turks simply the Bulgarian Committees. The acronym BMARC has been routinely abbreviated in Macedonian historiography to IMRO to avoid difficult questions about the presence in the same organisations of people nowadays described as ‘ethnic Macedonians’ from geographic Macedonia – together with ‘ethnic Bulgarians’ from the Vilajet of Adrianople in Thrace. In this case a present-day ethnic reality is projected wholesale into the past. In fact the abbreviation IMRO was accepted in 1920s by the right-wing strongly pro-Bulgarian nationalist faction.
3. The Adrianople region (Southern Thrace) became one of the Bulgarians' most coveted irredentas, second only to Macedonia. By the end of the 19th century, the total population in the Adrianople region amounted to almost one million people, nearly one-third of whom were Bulgarians. A Bulgarian national liberation movement began to develop here in close cooperation with the liberation movement in Macedonia, and acquired an organized character after the creation of the IMARO. It were the Macedonian revolutionaries who created the first committee of the IMARO at the Bulgarian Men's High School of Adrianople. Its actions culminated in the Preobrazhenie Uprising, which broke out two weeks after the Ilinden Uprising, on 6/19 August 1903. Since the organization links in such close way the inhabitants of Thrace and Macedonia and separately links both communities directly to the Bulgarians, these facts are still difficult to be explained from the Macedonian historiography. Jingiby (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this article should refer to the peasantry of Macedonia in 1903 as "Macedonians", since that is how they referred to themselves. They definitely didn't call themselves Macedonian Bulgarians. That is an ugly and artificial term coined by Bulgarian propagandists in the 1960-ties. Even Bulgarian sources admit that: "The local Bulgarians and Kucovlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them so." GStojanov (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As explained elsewhere, the term "Macedonian" at the beginning of the 20th century didn't encompass an ethnic identity. Far from it. It only meant a regional designation. A person was Macedonian if they were born in the region of Macedonia. Their ethnicity was of their own self-identification and something completely different than the term "Macedonian". However, in 2022, this is not the case. The Macedonian ethnicity developed during the 20th century and thus this term now has a clear ethnic meaning, which didn't exist 100 years ago. Thus, it can't be used as an ethnic identifier for people who didn't identify with an ethnicity which emerged after said people passed away. TzCher (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This was not a mono ethnic uprising. All Christians and even some Moslems took part in it. So if we use the term "Macedonian population" or simply "Macedonians" that would describe the population better than anything else. GStojanov (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources, you need a lot of secondary academic sources in English language to support your baseless claims. Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Even in Bulgaria this uprising is known as Ilindensko

This uprising is named Ilindensko vostanie in Bulgaria also. Here are few examples:

• In 1917 Георги Баждаров от с. Горно Броди, Серско, Егейска Македония - "Годишнината на Илинденското въстание в Скопйе", публикувано във в. "Родина", брой 404, Скопйе, 1917 година
• In 1924 Панчо Дорев от с. Пътеле, Леринско, Егейска Македония - "Даме Груев. Илинденското Въстание. Един Спомен", публикувано в "Външна политика и причини на нашите катастрофи. Спомени, факти и документи.", София, 1924 година
• In 1943 Христо Силянов - "Освободителните борби на Македония; Том Втори: След Илинденското въстание", София, 1943 година
• In 1961 Георги Попхристов от с. Кърстоар, Битолско, Вардарска Македония - "Говор по случай 58 години от Илинденското възстание", програма "Христо Ботев" на Българското национално радио, София, 7 юли 1961 година
• In 2007 Анастас Лозанчев от Битоля, Вардарска Македония - "Политическо завещание (26.07.1945)", публикувано в "Хр. Тзавелла - Спомени на Анастас Лозанчев; член на главния щаб на Илинденското въстание", София, 2007 година
• In 2009 Ванчо Джоне (Иван Джонев) от Крушево, Вардарска Македония - "Кореспонденция с Никола Киров Майски (1957-1961); за смъртта на войводите Георги Ралев Свекянчето и Блаже Биринчето, за Илинденското въстание, Питу Гули и др.", публикувано в "Архив на Крушевския войвода Иван Джонев", Плевен, 2009 година

There are many more examples like this from all periods. This is the prevalent term used in Bulgaria. I propose we change the title to Ilinden uprising, and then in the first paragraph we can mention that sometimes in Bulgaria it is also named differently. GStojanov (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I get more hits on Google books for "Ilinden Uprising" than "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising". --Local hero ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The result of the former move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus to retain the current title.Jingiby (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You must be joking to point out a discussion from over 8 years ago in which every single individual opposing moving the name was Bulgarian, right? --Local hero ^talk 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not joking, just keep the rules. If you insist, you may open a new request about the title. Jingiby (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Lets open a new request for the move. Or we can just scrap this article and start a new one. The bias of this article is just too much. GStojanov (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You could open a new request, if you think there are new sources/evidence/information, which may lead to a new result. As for the alleged bias, perhaps better to just try to edit it or suggest possible changes in the talk page, and then, once agreed, move it to the main article? Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You could open a new request, but since you're the one alleging bias, you should first provide new credible primary or at least secondary sources which disprove the sources used to support the article. Simply saying "it's biased" because you don't like what the primary sources state doesn't mean much in a scientific context. TzCher (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Would Encyclopedia Britannica count? It is Ilinden Uprising in Encyclopedia Britannica GStojanov (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, for two reasons. Firstly, because you don't source an encyclopedia with another encyclopedia. You need primary or secondary sources to back up your claims. Secondly, because the link you just shared does not contain an article about the Ilinden Uprising and instead refers to the part of the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising in the region of Macedonia, which is also called the Ilinden Uprising, exactly as is discussed in the Wiki article in the lead and in the second paragraph.

You do source an encyclopedia with another encyclopedia. In Wiklipeda you can even verbatim cite older editions prior to 1911 that are no longer under copyright. GStojanov (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're wondering what a secondary source means, I'm adding an example from a Polish historian completely unrelated to Bulgaria. TzCher (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What you cite is not a secondary, but a primary source. Here is a definition of a secondary source: "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper"

GStojanov (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MILNAME, the article title belongs at the WP:COMMONNAME used among reliable English-language sources. So we need to establish whether that is the current title or "Ilinden Uprising". As stated above, I get more hits in a simple Google books search for "Ilinden Uprising". --Local hero ^talk 22:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If Britannica, the gold standard of encyclopedias, calls it "Ilinden uprising", this should be a no brainer. If we can't agree on an obvious issue like this, how will we deal with more controversial issues? GStojanov (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no wiki policy that supports naming pages based on Britannica. However, I do suspect that "Ilinden Uprising" is the appropriate name for this article, though it must be done through a WP:RM, illustrating more prevalent use in reliable English-language sources. --Local hero ^talk 16:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you like to start the process? If not I will. GStojanov (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This name change is not only unnecessary, it makes no sense in a scientific context. The WP:COMMONNAME policy refers to events or people which could have one long and elaborate name and one short name, but the crucial characteristic of the short name is that it refers to the entire event/same person as the longer name. This is not the case here. The uprising had two main parts - the Ilinden Uprising and the Preobrazhenie Uprising - but it's still one uprising, not two. Thus, the name Ilinden Uprising refers to the Ilinden part of the wider revolt, rather than to the entire revolt. That's how the name is used in Britannica and that's how it's used here in the Wikipedia article, re: second paragraph. Renaming the article as Ilinden Uprising based on the naming conventions would counter the source material itself, which clearly shows that the uprising is one and the same, organized by the same organizations, ran by the same people, in the same time period, with the same goal and supported by the same local people. WP conventions on naming do not take precedence over the historical and scientific findings in the source material. Moreover, the uprising is widely known with the current name, which is evident both in search engines (the hits of one name vs the other are almost 50%-50%), in secondary sources (there are enough secondary sources in English using the current name) and in foreign languages (the vast majority of WP articles on the same topic in foreign languages use the current name).

In conclusion, such a move would be counterproductive, unscientific and downright manipulative re: the source material. TzCher (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this change. Makes me wonder how two different uprisings that occurred on separate sides of the Balkans have been coupled together for this long. Kromid (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It makes you wonder because you've clearly not read the sources referenced in the article. They're not two unrelated uprisings, they're two parts of the same uprising, created by the same organization in the same time period with the same goal. All of this is easily verifiable in both primary and secondary sources, all reliable, all seen widespread use. The documents clearly show that the IMARO and SMAC intended the uprising to be one and the same with a clear goal - the autonomy and subsequent independence of the Macedonian region and the Adrianople region. Your first clue should've been that both organizations have MA in their initials - Macedonian-Adrianople organizations. Artificially separating the uprising into two parts makes no sense when they're clearly connected by documents, by organizers, by goals and by citizen support. TzCher (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 6 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Both numerically, and in terms of policy/guidelines, there is no consensus to move here. On the side of those favouring the move is the name used in one or more high(er)-quality sources, particularly Britannica, on the side of those opposing the move is a perceived accuracy/scope-change issue with the name. Particularly consider the potential vote-stacking issues, the consensus is against moving and for the article to remain where it is. I did consider letting this discussion run further but the lack of any recent activity makes this pointless. Nominators are reminded not to !vote in the discussion but instead simply comment, as their nomination is already considered a !vote.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising → Ilinden Uprising – Recognizability-The uprising is known in the English speaking world as Ilinden Uprising. Encyclopedia Britannica only referrers to it by the name of Ilinden Uprising. The longer term (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) is used only in Bulgarian language sources, and they use both terms. Concision-The uprising is uniquely identified by this name Ilinden and there is no need for the longer name that it now has. Precision-There is no other uprising by the name Ilinden, so there is no need for further qualification.

References

– GStojanov (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: GStojanov: [1], [2] & [3] is called Votestacking and is considered as inappropriate notification. --StanProg (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know this is inappropriate. I will not contact anyone regarding this from now on.GStojanov (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. One with no knowledge of these events would probably be confused as to why uprisings in western Macedonia have been grouped into one article with uprisings in eastern Thrace. As I stated above, I get more hits for "Ilinden Uprising" than "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising" in a simple Google books search. Looking at scholarly sources already cited in the article with quotes or links provided, it seems Kostov, Detrez, Bechev, Khadziev, Jelavich, Poulton and Brown use "Ilinden Uprising"; Gotsev and Hristov use "Ilinden-Preobrazhnie Uprising".

I find the following sentence from the sole Note in the article interesting and relevant to this discussion: Since the 1960s, the members of the Bulgarian historical community have been trying to popularize the name "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" uprising. --Local hero ^talk 05:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: In the previous move request discussion from 2014 ([4]) you mention as a reason for supporting the move the fact that most of the other language Wikipedias use "Ilinden uprising" as a term (17 vs 3 as per your words). In the present move request the situation is the opposite and almost all are in favor of "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising". Can you elaborate on why this fact was important for you in the previous move request, and not so important in this one? --StanProg (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I’ll elaborate about 8-year-old discussions right after you reply to my comments on this active discussion. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 15:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

My reply as promised: it should be obvious that the other wikis have simply followed English wiki's article title, as happens commonly. If we are to rightly change the title here, in eight years we will see that most other wikis will have followed suit. --Local hero ^talk 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This name change is not only unnecessary, it makes no sense in a scientific context. The WP:COMMONNAME policy refers to events or people which could have one long and elaborate name and one short name, but the crucial characteristic of the short name is that it refers to the entire event/same person as the longer name. This is not the case here. The uprising had two main parts - the Ilinden Uprising and the Preobrazhenie Uprising - but it's still one uprising, not two. Thus, the name Ilinden Uprising refers to the Ilinden part of the wider revolt, rather than to the entire revolt. That's how the name is used in Britannica and that's how it's used here in the Wikipedia article, re: second paragraph. Renaming the article as Ilinden Uprising based on the naming conventions would counter the source material itself, which clearly shows that the uprising is one and the same, created by the same organization in the same time period with the same goal. All of this is easily verifiable in both primary and secondary sources, all reliable, all seen widespread use. The documents clearly show that the IMARO and SMAC intended the uprising to be one and the same with a clear goal - the autonomy and subsequent independence of the Macedonian region and the Adrianople region. This is also why both organizations have MA in their initials - Macedonian-Adrianople organizations, not separate Macedonian and Adrianople organizations. Artificially separating the uprising into two parts makes no sense when they're clearly connected by documents, by organizers, by goals and by local support. WP conventions on naming do not take precedence over the historical and scientific findings in the source material. Moreover, the uprising is widely known with the current name, which is evident both in search engines (the hits of one name vs the other are almost 50%-50%), in secondary sources (there are enough secondary sources in English using the current name) and in foreign languages (the vast majority of WP articles on the same topic in foreign languages use the current name). In conclusion, such a move would be counterproductive, unscientific and downright manipulative re: the source material. TzCher (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing whether the Ilinden and the Preobrazhenie uprisings were connected. I don't think that is the point of the debate here. However, even if they were connected, this is not basis enough to cover them in the same article. For example, the Berkovitsa rebellion (1836), the Pirot rebellion, and the Belogradchik rebellion (1836) are all covered in separate articles even though they were connected. The simple geographical distance is reason enough to have separate articles here.

With that being said, this discussion is specifically about the title of this article as it is. 43 pages of books hits to 35 pages in favor of "Ilinden Uprising" is not "50/50". Also, I also pointed out that the sources already found in this article with quotes/links available strongly favor "Ilinden Uprising". I'm curious what is "enough secondary sources" to justify the current title? Because whatever that "enough" amount is, the amount for "Ilinden Uprising" is greater. The title of this article, per policy, should be "Ilinden Uprising". Whether the Preobrazhenie content should be split into a separate article thereafter, I believe, will require a separate discussion. --Local hero ^talk 04:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about Ilinden, Preobrazhenie and Krstovden uprising, including all of them, in which the IMARO and SMARC participated. Counterargument to Encyclopedia Britannica quotation: There is only 1 article about IMARO/IMRO alltogether there, no matter they are split in both W:BG and W:MK. Why dont we split them here in W:EN? --Протогер (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The uprising is a single entity and is widely known among the academic community as the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. In the Republic of North Macedonia, only the part of the uprising that took place in the region of Macedonia is considered, and for this reason it is simply called the Ilinden Uprising there. It was organized by the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization, it broke out on the territory of Macedonia and Adrianople, but in different parts it broke out on different days. The subject of the article is the entire uprising, not only the activities on the territory of the Macedonia region, so I think the current name is the most correct one. There are academic sources all over the world that use exactly that name for the uprising, which can be easily verified. --StanProg (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" is the whole uprising (2 August 1903 – November 1903), while Ilinden uprising is just part of it. "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" is recognizable as a term, it's natural, as most of the people search by this term, additionally searching for Ilinden uprising leads to the same article, it's precise, while "Ilinden uprising" is ambiguous (Quote: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.), it's concise as it's no longer than necessary to identify the subject and the pattern of the name is consistant with other uprisings. Also there was a previous consensus regarding that name. --StanProg (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per TzCher. Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Local Hero. Would be nice to get some NPOV opinions here since only Macedonians and Bulgarians are present in the discussion. Kromid (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per initial proposal: In the English speaking world this Uprising is only known as Ilinden Uprising. Encyclopedia Britannica, the gold standard of Encyclopedic knowledge, only refers to it as Ilinden Uprising. This name satisfies all recommendations for a title: it is Recognizable, Precise and Concise. GStojanov (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requested moves: Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. --StanProg (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per my opinion from 2014: That issue was discussed to death. Check the archives of that talk-page. I suggest you have read Wikipedia:Search engine test, but search engines are sophisticated research tools and often have bias and results need to be interpreted. According to Ivo Banac "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics", Cornell University Press, 1984, pp. 307-328, the IMARO movement in 1903 was movement, which embraced both Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace regions and the insurrection in August 1903 had two major centres - the Vilayet of Bitola and the Vilajet of Adrianople. The exclusion of the Preobrazhenie from the title of this article is in conflict with the historical facts and their non-nationalist interpretation. Keep in mind that this is article not only about the present-day ethnic Macedonian historical myth of Ilinden, but about the historical events, and the difference is between the much later Yugoslav communist concept (+Ilinden; - Preobrazhenie) and the historical event (+Ilinden; +Preobrazhenie;) is more than obvious. However, the first problem before such an interpretation stems also in particular from the combined Macedono-Adrianopolitan character of the IMARO. The statutes and directives of the Central Committee, as well as the other official documents of the Organization concern not only the Macedonian people but also the Adrianopolitan people, i.e. the Bulgarians (the IMARO membership was restricted only for Bulgarians till 1902) and (in theory) other nationalities inhabiting both areas. In the specialized literature as the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2006, ISBN 0810849011, the Uprising is called: Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. In the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, it is called: Ilinden (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) Uprising. Hristo Silyanov was the first historian who systematically described the Uprising after having participate in it. In his memoires, he used the designation linden-Preobrazhenie. Jingiby (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out above, "Ilinden Uprising" is favored among the existing references in the article, as well as in a books search. You may want to update years response now, eight years later. --Local hero ^talk 20:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Nearly 10 days into the discussion, we have no input from non-Bulgarian/non-Macedonian editors. Further the "oppose" voters still have yet to explain why the supposed "connectedness" of the uprisings means that we must title this article to name two uprisings rather than the most common name. --Local hero ^talk 20:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: It's not connectedness. This is one uprising, organized as one by IMARO for autonomy of the Macedonia & Adrianopole region, lead as one, which break out on different dates in the different parts of Macedonia & Adrianopole region. In the region of Macedonia the first date is St. Elijah`s day, while in region Adrianopol the first date is Transfiguration of Jesus`s day. This why the name is composite - based on the two regions, just like the Macedonian-Adrianopolian organization. --StanProg (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The text describes it as "a closely related uprising organized by Thracian Bulgarian revolutionaries in the Adrianople Vilayet", not "one uprising" as you claim. The Kruševo Republic was crushed on 12 August, and the Preobrazhnie Uprising began a week later in a different region. They may be connected or even executed by the same group but that does not make it one whole uprising. Further, for Wikipedia purposes, we choose the common name in reliable sources which is in fact "Ilinden Uprising" - regardless of whether this article also includes the Preobrazhnie Uprising or not. --Local hero ^talk 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is sad you don't know that the uprising in Western Macedonia did not end with the fall of Krushevo Republic. Battle for Chanishte took place on 2/3 october 1903. This seems as minimizing the activity of IMARO to just try to prove a point. A wrong one. --Протогер (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Firstly, the uprisings are not 2, but 4. Secondly, it was explained that in the specialized literature, the uprising is known by its combined name, for greater accuracy. he names of the 1903 uprising were given by the historians, not by the rebels. The names "Ilinden" and "Preobrazhenie" uprising gained popularity after the First World War in Bulgaria. Then the combined before the Balkan Wars Macedonian-Thracian liberation movement split in two organizations. As more numerous and active, the Macedonian activists imposed mainly the name "Ilinden" on the Bulgarian public. Since the 1960s, the members of the Bulgarian historical community have been trying to popularize the name "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" uprising. Their logic is that at the beginning of the 20th century the organization was one: "Macedonian-Adrianopolitan", and its goal was a common uprising. Some Bulgarian historians insist that to the name of the uprising must be added the "Day of the Cross" (Krastovden), because then was the beginning of the rebellion in the Serres Revolutionary District. Before the Second World War the historians in Yugoslavia emphasized the Bulgarian provenance of the rebellion, but after the War they insisted that these were two separate uprisings that were not related, one being Bulgarian and the other Macedonian, as this thesis has been maintained to this day in North Macedonia for political reasons. Jingiby (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Specialized literature"? Let's stick to Wikipedia naming policies. Thanks for pointing out that we only see "Ilinden-Preobrazhnie Uprising" used because of a push by Bulgarian historians to do so since the 1960s. --Local hero ^talk 18:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.