Talk:Metodija Andonov-Čento

Cento outed as Bulgarian?

After a disagreement with the pro-Serbian and anti-Bulgarian policy of new Yugoslavia and having seen the repression of IMRO members, Čento gave announced his resignation. In 1946 he went back to Prilep but after that was arrested and sentenced to 12 years in prison for having worked to achieve a "completely independent Macedonia" as "IMRO member". [1]

Around the end of 1945 the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization IMRO was reorganized and began an illegal struggle

In 1946 IMRO issued a Memorandum to the Great Powers, expressing again the sufferings of the Bulgarian population in Yugoslav Macedonia.

The leaders were arrested but were defended by the Communist prime minister of Macedonia

Though a Communist,Chento also felt himself a Bulgarian.He was sentenced to 12 years and the delegation from the great powers was not allowed to meet him

Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook [2]

Early Life

"He was the first healthy child of Andon Mitskov and Zoka Koneva [1], as his siblings before him bore diseases." What does it mean by "bore diseases"? Did his younger siblings die of disease, or were these chronic illnesses that they had to live with? Finally, does anyone have an English translation for the reference cited? Or, is there a reliable translation service that would do the job well enough? X-Kal (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The source was nowhere near reliable, to start with. And I find the whole statement "He was the first healthy child of Andon Mitskov and Zoka Koneva [1], as his siblings before him bore diseases." pretty ORish and POVish. --Laveol ^T 09:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

At risk of sounding ignorant, what does "ORish" mean? I know "PoV" signifies "Point of View" X-Kal (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, problem. It's something I use (and like) - from WP:Original Research (OR)--Laveol ^T 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice line to remember

"In November 1946 he was sentenced to 12 years imprionment for his declaration as a Bulgarian".

Quick Guide to Ethnic Assimilation and Nation Making for Totalitarian States:

1. Ban the traditional identity and imprison people for 12 years for declaring it.
2. See 1.

Todor→Bozhinov 12:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice statement, but the whole article is biased and one sided. It doesn't even discuss the Macedonian rebellion against the Bulgarian occupation during WW2, it states the Macedonian language is a "serbianized" Bulgarian language (even though the language was modeled after the one used in the Krste Petkov Misirkov's books), and if you look at Bernard A. Cook's sources, what are they:

1. one from Thessolaniki
2. one from "Greece"
3. one from Sofia

In other words, Bernard A. Cook used biased Greek and Bulgarian sources to create a biased history of Macedonia. Now that I have reviewed it, please find other sources for the statement or it will be deleted. Mactruth (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting... Mactruth (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metodija Andonov-Čento. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929004153/http://www.maticanaiselenici.com/en/?page=read_news&id=1725&PHPSESSID=418facd8814c2a243262e30af9f73183 to http://www.maticanaiselenici.com/en/?page=read_news&id=1725&PHPSESSID=418facd8814c2a243262e30af9f73183

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK Content

I'm starting this discussion because I think @Kromid:'s removal today is valid and correct. This article is about Čento and the paragraph in question has nothing to do with him. It is solely on the article because @Jingiby: decided it's part of "the puzzle", which is not our purpose as Wikipedia editors. --Local hero ^talk 18:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is the background of his childhood and the background of his country in the late Ottoman times. According to Professor Kosta Tsarnushanov, Chento had initially Bulgarian self-consciousness. Since this view was reflected in an earlier version of this article, but isn't more, it is good to have some basic data on the historical background of the Bulgarophilia of Chento, which obviously appears in the article. The time in which he lived was very dynamic and very dramatic and in order that the ordinary reader can orient himself better in the situation, I think it is better to have this info. By the way, you understand Bulgarian, please check one of the the last articles written before his death from prof. K. Tsarnushanov: Коста Църнушанов. Обществено-политическата дейност на Методи Андонов—Ченто (непубликувана статия) в Македонски преглед, бр. 3, 2002 г. стр.101-113. Jingiby (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You will need to phrase the deleted component as being specific to Cento, otherwise it lacks direct relevance to the article and should be deleted per WP:COATRACK. You can really argue anything is apart of a complex "puzzle" or mosaic, however this comes at a cost of the article becoming less comprehensive and concise. This is especially problematic if many articles out there (with varying degree of relevance) state the exact same information, resulting into ugly redundancies and therefore making things more unencyclopedic. Kromid (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. The text is as follows: In his youth Čento underwent such a transformation of self-awareness from pro-Bulgarian to an ethnic Macedonian as a result of the assimilation enforced by the Serbian authorities. Jingiby (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK isn't relevant here because adding background information to an otherwise entangled matter is useful (as long as it's not in the lead). Such a context often explains other events surrounding the person hence its relevance. It is also quite normal for different articles to mention the same information and I see nothing wrong with that. It would be redundant if it was repeated in the same article. --ShockD (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Kromid, Kingdom of Yugoslavia never stimulated Bulgarian, or Macedonian ethnic development on its territory. Yugoslavs recognized the existence of a Macedonian nationality firstly during WWII to quiet fears of the Macedonian population that a communist Yugoslavia would continue to follow the former Yugoslav policy of forced Serbianization. For them to recognize the inhabitants of Macedonia as Bulgarians would be tantamount to admitting that they should be part of the Bulgarian state. Jingiby (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In "The Republic of Macedonia: finding its way" by Duncan M. Perry, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559228.008 : Paradoxically, Serbian leaders in Belgrade actually helped to strengthen the Macedonian identity by promoting a Serbianization policy that alienated, rather than assimilated, Macedonians. If people were unable to precisely identify what they were, they could clearly identify what they were not. They were not Serbs. Jingiby (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby, I am fine with your most recent edits. Although since people here don't believe that material is COATRACK, I will add addition material to further complete the complex puzzle of the situation. Kromid (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Kromid, the rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire occurred in the 19th century. These events are from the 20th century. As Ivo Banac has remarked then the Macedonians were Bulgarians in their struggles against Serbian and Greek hegemony, but within the Bulgarian community, they were increasingly becoming exclusive Macedonians. Tschavdar Marinov also has pointed the view of Pavel Shatev, who witnessed this process of slow differentiation, describing people who insisted on their Bulgarian nationality, but felt themselves Macedonians above all. In the early 20th century the times were not pre-nationalist but extremely nationalist. The Balkan wars are an example of this nationalism. Jingiby (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok Jingiby, I see where you’re coming from. I agree with your most recent edits to the page. I will finally suggest putting a close to this issue I brought up. Kromid (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Although, I agree with Local hero on one thing - adding the Bulgarian name in the lead is unwarranted. Lets not bite more than we can chew. Kromid (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have explained also the Bulgarian POV in the article backed by sources. Jingiby (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, WP:COATRACK isn't plausible in this case because adding background information to an otherwise entangled matter is useful. This is like removing the information that the area was under Bulgarian occupation or part of the Ottoman Empire during his lifetime, or part of Serbia and what kind of policy was implemented there then. Moreover it is not in the leading section. Such a context often explains other events surrounding the person hence its relevance for the surrounding circumstances. It is also quite normal for different articles to mention the same information and I see nothing wrong with that. It would be redundant if it was repeated in the same article and the like. Jingiby (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, I'd like to preface with WP:NOTEVERYTHING first, which states in it's first sentence Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

Either way, regarding the content which you are supporting, there are a few issues:

1. I've tried to verify Banac's statement, but to no avail. As with the rest of the additions, I fail to see how it's critical to include it.

2. About the interwar period - the statement is very misleading - the source states that the intelegentsia of Vardar Macedonia took that position, yet the use of "local" in the article implies that the intelegentsia of Prilep did that.

3. Grammar/spelling - Serbianization is spelled with an uppercase S, not a lowercase one.

4. Tsurnushanov's opinion - as per the "Legacy" section, the Bulgarophile claims have been fiercly criticized by foregin authors, even Bechev in his "Dictionary" calls Čento a Macedonian. Tsurnushanov has also assumed some very nationalist positions in some of his works. Regardless, a clarification that a Bulgarian author claims that is needed in order to make the reader well aware of the situation (if the statement is to be kept that is). Kluche (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, what Banac wrote is: Though the Bulgarian occupational administration in most of Vardar and in part of Aegean Macedonia (east of the Struma) was popular enough, except with the dislodged Serbian and Greek clergy and officials, the "Graecoman" and "Serboman" Macedonians were doubtlessly persecuted. I didn't know that the intelligentsia of Vardar Macedonia had different faith and development from that in Priep, which was part from itself. About the capital letter I agree. About Tsarnushanov I use him as a source very carefully. He described Cento in his adulthood as a convinced Bulgarian, that is very doubtful. In any case, he is not the only one who points out certain pro-Bulgarian tendencies of Cento's behaviour, and even in his adulthood, but there are also such Western researchers. Therefore, I use Tsarnushanov only for the fact that the Bulgarian primary and elementary school education of Cento, who lived in a town where during the Ottoman era and WWI, was a strong "Bulgarian party", and thus he was influenced by this movement in his youth. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, so Banac says nothing about "local activists", which you claim in your revert? I still fail to see the relevance of the statement.

I don't know where "Priep" is, but I still stand that a further clarification is needed if the statement is to be included.

The pro-Bulgarian tendencies of Čento have been refuted even by Western reaserchers. I fail to understand what you mean by calling Prilep during the Ottoman era and WWI a "Bulgarian party"? Either way, a better, more NPOV formulation should be enacted if the statement is to be used. Regards. Kluche (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

References