Talk:Boatmen of Thessaloniki

Bulgarian sources and bias
The neutrality of this article is very poor. The attribute Bulgarian is subtly attached to anarchist group over several edits where the source is blog that discusses "Bulgarian Macedo-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Terrorism". IMRO stands for Internal Macedonian (Adrianopolitan) Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) and has no Bulgarian adjective. It has a reason why it has no Bulgarian adjective and that is because it is Macedonian. Please refer to neutral sources to support your claims (Toci (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)).


 * Zielonka, Jan; Pravda, Alex (2001). Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-19-924409-6. Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighboring nations.


 * Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. During the 20th century, Slavo Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.


 * Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236. Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.


 * "The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67. Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen.


 * The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66. At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.


 * Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war. Jingiby (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is general literature. Can you find me an international book about the assasins that shows that they are, or declared themselves as Bulgarians? I will not go in a general debate about how the Macedonians felt 100 years ago. That you can induce from the context of their struggle (Macedonian Organization, Macedonian commiteee, Macedonia for Macedonians, there was no slogan Macedonia for Bulgarians). Until you do not supply specific and international reference (not one that says that "all Macedonian villagers defined their identity  either as 'Bulgarian,' 'Serbian,' or Greek'" the neutrality tag will stay. Please do not revert the tag. This article shows Bulgarian POV and it clashes for example with the Macedonian Wikipedia page (Toci (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)).
 * All included in this article. References, sources, primary, secondary, in Bulgarian language, in English, in Greek etc. Check them one by one if you wаnt. Bellow are also two Macedonian sources:


 * Академик Иван Катарџиев, "Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот", интервjу, "Форум": "форум – Дали навистина Делчев се изјаснувал како Бугарин и зошто? Катарџиев – Ваквите прашања стојат. Сите наши луѓе се именувале како „Бугари“..."; also (in Macedonian; in English: "Academician Ivan Katardzhiev. I believe in Macedonian national immunity", July 22, 2000,issue 329, "Forum" magazine, interview: "Forum – Whether Gotse Delchev really identified himself as Bulgarian and why? Katardzhiev – Such questions exist. All our people named themselves as "Bulgarians"...")
 * "Уште робуваме на старите поделби", Разговор со д-р Зоран Тодоровски, (in Macedonian; in English: "We are still in servitude to the old divisions", interview with PhD Zoran Todorovski, published on, 27. 06. 2005. Трибуна: Дел од јавноста и некои Ваши колеги историчари Ве обвинуваат дека промовирате зборник за човек (Тодор Александров) кој се чувствувал како Бугарин. Кој наш револуционерен деец од ВМРО му противречел на Александров по тоа прашање? Тодоровски - Речиси никој. Уште робуваме на поделбата на леви и десни. Во етничка, во национална смисла сите биле со исти сознанија, со иста свест. In English: Tribune: Part of the public and some from your fellow historians accuse you for promotining a collection for man (Todor Alexandrov) who felt himself as Bulgarian. Are there some of our IMRO revolutionary activist who opposed him on that issue? Todorovski - Almost none. We are still in servitude to the old divisions of left and right. Ethnically, in a national sense, they all were  with the same sentiments, with the same (Bulgarian) consciousness.  Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Plaese. When you find an internationally published article in prominent historical scientific journal or book saying that the Gjemidzii group were declared as Bulgarians I will agree to cancel the neutrality tag. Please do not remove it by refering to general sources and infering. Wikipedia is not a place of inferences and POV (if there is such there is a tag that I have added).
 * Please do not refer to daily magazines or researchers in Republic of Macedonia or Bulgaria (they all serve someones interests in making daily or weekly spectacles). Keep it on the topic too. If it is about Gjemidzii group comment. If not, please do not write general comments about who was thinking what. That is their POV and personal POV should be out of Wikipedia.
 * The English Wikipedia must refer to English or scientific sources. If there are no sources the article should be neutral. Not mentioning what they were, but what they did. They were part of an anarchist group not Bulgarian anarchist group. If you remove Bulgarian as adjective and write what they did, I will remove the neutrality tag. It is so simple. They do not need to be Macedonian or Bulgarian anarchist group. Only anarchist group works. (Toci (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC))


 * The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire, Selcuk Aksin Somel, Scarecrow Press, 2010, ISBN 1461731763, p. ixx. 1903 29 April: Bulgarian terrorists blow up the Ottoman Bank.


 * A History of the Ottoman Bank, Edhem Eldem, ISBN 975333110X, Ottoman Bank Historical Research Center, 1999,pp. 239; 433. In April, 1903, the Salonika branch of the bank was bombed and burnt down by Bulgarian terrorists...
 * The Imperial Ottoman Bank in Salonica: the first 25 years, 1864-1890, John Karatzoglou, Ottoman Bank Archives & Research Centre, 2003, ISBN 9759369257, p. 9.: As known, the building was blown up by Bulgarian "terrorists" forty years later, on the 29 April 1903.
 * Frontiers and identities: cities in regions and nations, PLUS-Pisa University Press, 2008, Luďa Klusáková; ISBN: 978-88-8492-556-5, p. 174 The Bulgarian revolutionary campaign reached its peak in April 1903 when Bulgarian anarchists blew up the French steamship Guadalquivir and planted a bomb in the Ottoman Bank.
 * The Boatmen of Thessaloniki, The Bulgarian Anarchist Group and their Bombing Activities in 1903, Giannis Megas, Trochalia, 1994, ISBN-13 978-960-7022-47-9.Jingiby (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I propose this article to be merged into Thessaloniki bombings of 1903. The both articles are about the same events in Salonica. Jingby (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'''At first the anarchists started to make plans for bomb attack in Istanbul. In the summer of 1899, under the leadership of Slavi Merdjanov the group planned the assassination of the Sultan.'''?? The Amarchist organizations can't have a leader... There is something wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.114.118 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm, sorry m-r Arachinovo, but you must've missed the organization bit. Organizations have their leaders since they are organized. On theory Communists shouldn't have a leader as well ;) -- L a v e o l  T 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to rework this article. Nothing was redirected from the Thessaloniki bombings of 1903. Jingby (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The origis of the group was in Plovdiv, Eastern Rumelia, then its ideology was developed further in Geneve, Swiss and back in Plovdiv. Its founders were Bulgarian Students: Michail Gerdzhikov, Slavi Merdzhanov, Petar Sokolov and Petar Mandzhukov. Neither Russians, nor Armenians or ethnic Macedonians. Its terrorist set was stationed in Plovdiv, Istanbul, Adrianople and Salonica. Jingiby (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"bulgarian" high school in thessaloniki
the so-called bulgarian high-school link in the article...leads to a potentially bias wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Men%27s_High_School_of_Thessaloniki where all the sources cited are bulgarian. in absence of neutral sources,it is best to call the high-school by its real name. "Ss. Cyril and Methodius". just because a bulgarian reverts the correct name of the school to the bulgarian-bias wikipedia "bulgarian high-school" does not mean that he will change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goce.chekorov (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Acording to an external link added to this article, which consists from materials from the Archives from the Salonica Branch of Ottoman Bank, in April 1903 the Bulgarian comitadjis whose aim was to arouse the attention and the intervention of European opinion, multiplied their attacks. The development of these events led to the realisation of this aim and the Ottoman powers were obliged to accept certain reforms under pressure from the Great Powers. The explosion on 15 April aboard the Guadalquivir, a French vessel anchored in the port of Salonica, is only an episode in the incidents which followed. Half an hour later, the railway station was blown up. In the evening of 29 April, the main gas pipe was destroyed and the entire city was immediately plunged into darkness. Keep in mind that in April 1903 neither Macedonian nation, nor Macedonian language existed. Check the added into the articl sources and stop nonsenses. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The school is mentioned by the name used in its Wikipedia article. The full name ("Sts. Cyril and Methodius Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki") is mentioned there. Nothing wrong with that. There's no reason to assume it's a "potentially biased" article either. And before you start accusing me of Bulgarian-bias too, I don't give a toss about Bulgaria or Macedonia, I care about the quality of the articles on WP. If anybody here appears to be biased, it's you. Please find proper sources for your changes before you make them again. Also, your edits were breaking wiki links, please be a little more careful. Thanks, Yinta n   20:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

here are the sources from the article regarding the school References[edit source | editbeta]

Vanchev, Yordan (1970). Plamakat na Solunskia Svetilnik (in Bulgarian). Sofia: Narodna Prosveta. Shatev, Pavel (1934). Sbornik "Solun" (in Bulgarian). Sofia. Bozhinov, Voin (1982). Българската просвета в Македония и Одринска Тракия 1878-1913 (Bulgarian Education in Macedonia and Adrianopole Thrace 1878-1913) (in Bulgarian). Sophia: Izd-vo na Bŭlgarskata akademii︠a︡ na naukite. p. 73. Demetriades, Vasiles (1983). Topographia tēs Thessalonikēs kata tēn epochē tēs Tourkokratias, 1430-1912 (Topography of Thessaloniki in the Age of the Turkokratia). Makedonikē Bibliothēkē (in Greek) 61. Thessaloniki: Hetaireia Makedonikōn Spoudōn. p. 401.

all bulgarian and one greek,which could be fake for all we know. just a question...If I make a wikipedia article and call this school "greek high-school Ss.Cyril and methoduis" and quote 3 greek sources... does that make me right? what the school then? greek or bulgarian? all I am saying is the way the Ss. Cyirl and Methodius school is called bulgarian is wrong. the name of the school is Sc. Cyril and Methoduis. only in the first occurence is called something like that, after that it is called simply "Bulgarian" which is incorrect. Goce.chekorov (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to assume (as you do) that these sources are biased or fake simply because they are Bulgarian. If you can indeed find verifiable, third party sources that say the school has a different name, or is Greek, then it's another story but for now there's nothing to support your claims. WP wants sources. See als WP:NOTTRUTH. One quick quote from there: "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." Thanks, Yinta n   20:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Boatmen of Thessaloniki. 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/20110714223745/http://www.obarsiv.com/english/as-salonica-branch.html to http://www.obarsiv.com/english/as-salonica-branch.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarians or Macedonians?
In Mark Mazower's book Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430–1950  page 248 there is the title BULGARIANS AND MACEDONIANS. to be "Bulgarian" initially meant to support the Exarchgate : it was a linguistic-religious rather a natinonal category. In page 249 about the boatmen : Most of IMRO youthfull members were not much bothered about the old disputes over dead sacred languages whose motto was "Neither God nor Master"-and the devout supporters of the Bulgarian Exarchate a gulf emerged.. One from the 2 survivors was Pavel Shatev minister of Justice of... Yugoslavia!

So i think it's not clear that they were just Bulgarians. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, Mazower does not explicitly states that Boatmen might not have been Bulgarians (per quotation provided).Cinadon36 (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They were not only Bulgarians, they were also Macedonians (Bulgarians). But they were not Macedonians (nation). There are different kind of Macedonians. Also read the article about Shatev and how he was arrested and imprisoned in Communist Yugoslavia for his pro-Bulgarian sentiments. Jingiby (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was after the famous split of Stalin and Tito. Nothing sure can conclude from his imprisonment. They are national heroes in North Macedonia. Wikipedia must present all the views with neutral point of view. I will come back.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a pretty sourced section called Modern references at the bottom. Maybe you ever did not read the whole article? Jingiby (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the opposite. Cause i have read it i am thinking it is heavy biased. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you must change everything related to the Macedonian Question on Wikipedia. Try to start a general discussion on its talk-page an to gain a consensus there. Check before it some articles as: IMRO, Macedonian nationalism; Macedonism; Macedonian historiography; Macedonian Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, Ilinden Uprising, etc. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to see a POV template added to the article given all the sourced information and multiple POVs. Therefore I must ask - is this the discussion related to the template and, if so, which POV isn't reflected in the article? --ShockD (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In this article it is present, only the Bulgarian/Greek nationalistic view. North Macedonia historical view is disgraced as history denialism. Also it contains a lot of synthesis. Can users that are not from Balkans say another opinion please? I am too a Greek person and maybe i am a lot of POV in my view? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What means Bulgarian/Greek nationalistic view?
 * According to the German researcher Ulf Brunnbauer, who is Chair of History of Southeast and Eastern Europe at the University of Regensburg, the modern Macedonian historiography is highly politicized, because the Macedonian nation-building process is still in development. Diverging approaches are discouraged and people who express alternative views risk economic limitations, failure of academic career and stigmatization as traitors. For more see: Ulf Brunnbauer, "Serving the Nation: Historiography in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) after Socialism", Historien, Vol. 4 (2003-4), pp. 174-175.Jingiby (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Michael R. Palairet, who is a Cambridge scholar, in the three-way dispute about Macedonia, the Bulgarian view is closer to the objective reality of history than either the Greek or Macedonian, but the Macedonian historiographic version violates common sense and the historical record much more than either the Greek or Bulgarian ones For more see: Michael Palairet, Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Ottoman Invasions), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, ISBN 1443888435, p. 16. Jingiby (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As per L. Benson, who is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Sociology at the University of Northampton, under such historiography the past was systematically falsified to conceal the fact that many prominent 'Macedonians' had supposed themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were educated in pseudo-history. For more see: Michael L. Benson, Yugoslavia: A Concise History, Edition 2, Springer, 2003, ISBN 1403997209, p. 89. Jingiby (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Stefan Troebst, Professor of East European Cultural Studies at the University of Leipzig, between Macedonian historiography and Macedonian politicians is a mutual dependence, i.e. influence between politics and historical science, where historians have the role of registrars obedient to political orders. There is no similar case of mutual dependence of historiography and politics on such a level in modern Europe. For more see: Stefan Trobest, “Historical Politics and Histrocial ‘Masterpieces’ in Macedonia before and after 1991”, New Balkan Politics, 6 (2003). Jingiby (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the historian Eugene N. Borza, who is a professor at Pennsylvania University, the Macedonians, who are a recently emergent people and have had no history, are in search of their non existing past. This search is an attempt to help legitimize their unsure present, surviving in the disorder of Balkan politics. Fore more see: Eugene N. Borza, Macedonia Redux in The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity with Frances B. Titchener, and Richard F. Moorton as ed. University of California Press, 1999, ISBN 0520210298, p. 259. Jingiby (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As per Loring M. Danforth-professor of anthropology at Bates College, the political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the 20th century not have heard the call for a separate Macedonian national identity and continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians. They never seem to have doubted the Bulgarian character of the Slavic population of Macedonia. For more see: "The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world", Princeton University Press, Danforth, Loring. 1997, ISBN 0691043566, p. 64. Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That above are neither Bulgarian, nor Greek nationalistic views.Jingiby (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * please can you bring me the whole page? I fear that is a falsification of the source. I am certain that is not on purpose. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In order for someone to claim that there is POV at a certain article, he must provide us at Talk Page with mainstream RS that tells a different story. As far as I know, there is no mainstream narative claiming that boatmen were Macedonians. Is there? Αντικαθεστωτικός, can you provide us with one? Cinadon36 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They were Macedonians in regional aspect and had such regional identity, but in national sense they were Bulgarian. More, very strange but the Bulgarian students who founded in Plovdiv in 1895 the anarchistic "Macedonian Secret Revolutionary Committee", which was developed in 1898 in Geneva in a secret, anarchistic, brotherhood called "Geneva group", played the key roles in the anti-Ottoman struggles of the Gemidzii. Nearly all them were natives from Bulgaria but despite of non-Macedonian descent, they all espoused Macedonian identity, emancipated from the pan-Bulgarian national project. For more see: Marinov, Tchavdar, We, the Macedonians: The Paths of Macedonian Supra-Nationalism (1878-1912), in We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe, Diana Miškova, Central European University Press, 2009, ISBN 9639776289, p. 129. Jingiby (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

1 a neutral presentation ofMacedonian heroes conflict. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I fear that citation 11 has been used for POV reasons too. But it is not a direct falsification.

The writer discuss about the main view of north Macedonians, and this view is used to prove something about history denialism.

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

i fear that this article is a huge pov article. It contains a falsification of a source. Sources that are discussing the facts of 1944 to prove(!) that Macedonian historiography is generally full of history denialism.

i think the purpose of this article is not to inform but to present the one side of history.

For that reasons i think i justify POV template. I will check for falsifications and the others sources.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Αντικαθεστωτικός, Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edits seemed less than neutral. Please, stop pushing your biased agenda here. You are obviously not familiar with the Macedonian Question and did not reach any consensus here. Three editors oppose to your opinion. Prevailing RS support a view, very different from your opinion. During the 20th century, Slavo-Macedonian national feelings has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century most of the Macedonian Slavs saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian national loyalties as mutually exclusive. At that time Macedonian regionalism had become Macedonian nationalism. This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift. Keep in mind, that we talk at the moment about the eve of the 20th century. For more see: Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, p. 127., ISBN 3825813878. Jingiby (talk)

Please, check
Please, check The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world", Princeton University Press, Danforth, Loring. 1997, ISBN 0691043566, p. 64. it is falsified.

Can anyone check it? I fear that the deletion of words was happened to promote POV.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please keep the title of the section neutral. I do not have access to that particular page, have you? (note:I 've changed the title from "falsification of source" to "Please, check") Cinadon36 (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on earth do you think it is falsified? It is actually quite accurate apart from a minor detail: The original says "Misirskov's call", not just "the call", but this does not change the meaning. I have corrected the quote and added a link. --T*U (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * it is obvious. It was quite accurate not accurate.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changed the indentation of your answers in order to make the order of the postings clearer. Please see WP:INDENT.
 * Calling the difference between "Misirskov's call" and "the call" a falsification is completely off the mark. --T*U (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The exact text reads as follows here:The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarian rather than Macedonians.[...] In spite of their political differences, both groups, including those who advocated an independent Macedonian state and opposed the idea of a greater Bulgaria, never seem to have doubted "the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia" [...] Even Gotse Delchev, the famous Macedonian revolutionary leader, whose nom de guerre was Ahil (Achilles), refers to "the Slavs of Macedonia as 'Bulgarians' in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention" (Perry 1988:23). In his correspondence Gotse Delchev often states clearly and simply, "We are Bulgarians" (Mac Dermott 1978:273). Please, stop this game. Jingiby (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The same book discuss how Krste Misirkov was the founder of Macedonian nationalism since 1900. Please add accurate the texts, and also the view of the authors. I am not playing any game.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Misirkov was not related to this anarchist group in any way, neither to the IMRO. More, per Ivo Banac, professor of history at Yale University Misirkov viewed both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians, and espoused pan-Bulgarian patriotism in a larger Balkan context, and especially with regard to the Serbian and the Greek hegemonism in Macedonia. 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. Fore more see: Ivo Banac, The national question in Yugoslavia: origins, history, politics, Cornell University Press, 1988, ISBN 0-8014-9493-1, p. 327. Misirkov himself claimed 20 years later, in 1924: Whether we call ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians, we have always maintained a separate unified ethnicity, different from the Serbs, and with Bulgarian consciousness... I will repeat, you are not so familiar with that issue. Jingiby (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, i know nothing except that you didn't write a key name in your source that you have provided. Maybe it was a mistake of copy paste, in any case you didn't apologised but you are interested in my knowledge. I known nothing. I will search everything cause its obvious that here is a huge POV. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither do I see you apologising for your triple accusation of falsification here; in the text: "it is falsified", in the subtitle: "falsification of source" and in the edit summary: "Falsification". Please WP:Assume good faith and avoid WP:Personal attacks. And please, please learn how to use WP:Indentation in talk page discussions. --T*U (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your agenda is on Wikipedia but changing your mind from POV accusations to falsification accusations only supports the suspicion that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Several users have pointed out to you to assume good faith yet you continue cherry picking. After everything that's been said I witness general opposition to something that you say exists but you cannot explicitly name. --ShockD (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * go to ani there is a discussion to ban me. Please, not here. Thank you.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, no-one asked to ban you. The discussion is here. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

please check 2
citation 11. Do you think its quite accurate or not? i fear that it isn't. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This can not go on. Why do you start discussions based solely on "fears"?Cinadon36 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Citation 11: ''The origins of the official Macedonian national narrative are to be sought in the establishment in 1944 of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This open acknowledgment of the Macedonian national identity led to the creation of a revisionist historiography whose goal has been to affirm the existence of the Macedonian nation through the history. Macedonian historiography is revising a considerable part of ancient, medieval, and modern histories of the Balkans. Its goal is to claim for the Macedonian peoples a considerable part of what the Greeks consider Greek history and the Bulgarians Bulgarian history. The claim is that most of the Slavic population of Macedonia in the 19th and first half of the 20th century was ethnic Macedonian. For more see: Victor Roudometof, Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002,''

page 57-58 Roudometof, Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002 : ''The origins of the official Macedonian national narrative are to be sought in the establishment in 1944 of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This open acknowledgment of the Macedonian national identity led to the creation of a revisionist historiography whose goal has been to affirm the Macedonian nation (Kofos, 1986). Of course, since the Greek and Bulgarian narratives emerged during the course of the nineteenth century, the post-1945 Macedonian narrative has been “revising” narratives that were themselves “revisionist” when they first appeared. But to argue along these lines is to accept the logic of a “quest for origins” whereby locating the “authentic” origins of a modern-day people into the distant past provides these people with a special claim to the soil they inhabit today.''

bold emphasis is mine.

This is the section. Please provide me the correct word to describe the above. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What I have spotted is WP:CLOP.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first sentences are the same, the next are not. So its not WP:CLOP for sure. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is CLOP since the first sentence is the same. I 'll fix it. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I spotted that this edit was made by User:Jingiby. I would like his opinion about this edit. What is this? IMHO, i think it was a tottaly wrong edit. Do you have another opinion? Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

the negationist
Hi. I have noticed that you removed the phrase "the negationist " as unsourced, but one can read at ref number 11 of current version: "This open acknowledgment of the Macedonian national identity led to the creation of a revisionist historiography whose goal has been to affirm the existence of the Macedonian nation through the history. Macedonian historiography is revising a considerable part of ancient, medieval, and modern histories of the Balkans." Hence the word "denialist" is sourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The source you cite says "revisionist", you say "denialist", the lede said "negationist". Those are not necessarily interchangable terms. Anyway, discussion or evaluation of Macedonian historiography is undue for the lede in this article. --T*U (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick respond T*U. Maybe we could change the word from "denialist" to "revisionist" Cinadon36 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Already answered: "discussion or evaluation of Macedonian historiography is undue for the lede in this article" --T*U (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you T*U. It was obvious a mistake, but it was solved now. Thank you. Just to mention that Greek and Bulgarian nations were built during 19century, but Greek and Bulgarian (state) historiography try to affirm the existence of their nation through the history. The big difference with (North)Macedonians is that they are a newer nation about some 100 years from Greeks and Bulgarians.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to add, that these sources (10-14) don't mention Boatmen at all, but ok. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, read the leading sentences from the article Historical negationism: "Historical negationism or denialism is an illegitimate distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely or intentionally incorrectly referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also denotes a legitimate academic pursuit of re-interpretation of the historical record and questioning the accepted views."Jingiby (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jingiby, worth noting that the sentence you are referring to is well sourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)