Talk:Boris Sarafov

The so-called source http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/2353/etd1944.pdf is ridiculous - it is not at all a historical document !!!

Untitled
Best regards to Blazhe Ristoski ! :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The false "quotation" from Sarafov has been erased. Here is the source itself: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E07E5D91E38E733A25754C0A9629C946097D6CF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.7.253 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Invalid link
Why is it an invalid link, ForeignerFromTheEast? i Nk u b u ss e ? 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it does not open. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to say that you're a liar, but I asked a few other guys to check it, and it works fine. Would you please try again? i Nk u b u ss e ? 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it does not work. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, the link to the .gif works just fine. In terms of good citation practice, it would be good to have an exact bibliographic reference to the publication of that newspaper though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the front page of the first publication. I think it says "Годъ I., № 1., 9 Іюня, 1913., С.-Петербургъ". i Nk u b u ss e ? 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It still does not work for me but since I've had at least one other confirmation, ok then. What does it say? ForeignerFromTheEast 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, Sarafov clearly says that they (he and the other Macedonians) are not Bulgarians or Serbs, but simply Macedonians. I think that there's no reason why he shouldn't be called a Macedonian revolutionary. i Nk u b u ss e ?  —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I found another way to open the picture. This is from 1913, about 6 years after the death of Sarafov. Also if I'm not wrong, this is a publication of a well known Macedonist Dimitrija Chupovski. There is no other evidence suggesting Chupovski and Sarafov have ever been in contact. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This newspaper seems to be quite an entertaining read. On page 3 it says that "Macedonia during Tsar Samuil (976-1014) ruled Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Epirus. Also ruled by Macedonian Prince Marko from 1371 to 1394. Also refers to Cyrill and Methodius as "Macedonians". I'd be hard pressed to quialify this as a reliable source. If you've gone as far as to label Samuil "King of Macedonia", might as well throw one more fictitious quote. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, you're quite an interesting person. Cyril and Methodius were not Bulgarians, and if they weren't Greeks, they were Slavs (not Bulgars). That's a fact. And no matter how much you hate that side of history, Samuil, Cyril and Methodius and Marko are regarded simply as Macedonians by them (Sarafov and the others) and by us (modern Macedonians). They also call the Slavic-speaking population of Macedonia simply Macedonians - that's another thing that looks ridiculous to you. Ah, I really shouldn't discuss about this, but one thing is clear: Sarafov wrote that thing that's in the paper -> he's an ethnic Macedonian. And you're not the one to qualify it as an unreliable source. i Nk u b u ss e ? 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He could not have written it because he'd been dead for 6 years. The article is by Chupovski afterall. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As we do not know what was the case it is probably better not to make unsourced statments that it may have been written by "Chupovski" as it may have just been a reprint of something Sarafov wrote.Ireland101 00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Refer to the facts above. This newspaper is not a reliable source. By the way it is not an unsourced statement that this is written by Chupovski, because that newspaper in 1913 was indeed printed by Dimitrija Chupovski, 6 years after the death of Sarafov. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This may be the case Forigner however I still do not understand why the newspaper is unreliable as it reflects how Macedonians felt in the 1900's. It is probably more reliable then our discussions today about how these people viewed themselves then.Ireland101 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unreliable because according to Reliable sources content should be not be supported by "nationalist feelings" but by academics. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me of this Foreigner I was not aware of this. Since this is the case I assume sources from Macedonia or Bulgaria should not be used in articles relating to ether of them as they may have nationalist POV. So a good step that you can take would be removing all Bulgarian sources that are in articles related to Macedonia as you feel that this should happen with Macedonian sources.Ireland101 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Academics could be from both Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia. Blogs, etc do not count. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so this article does not violate Wikipedias rules as it is not from a blog but rather from the president of the Macedonian scientific and literary society.Ireland101 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dimitrija Chupovski? No thanks, read above. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, Foreigner, you can't just say no, thanks to whatever you don't trust. For example, I don't trust anything that comes from Bulgarian sources (you shouldn't be offended), but there's nothing I can do if I cannot prove their falseness. i Nk u b u ss e ? 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive listed enough reasons above why this is unreliable source. If you have something to add in concrete then do so. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure: it's a reliable source ;) i Nk u b u ss e ? 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have pointed out why it is not. How do you address my concerns? ForeignerFromTheEast 01:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I told you, he wrote it and later it was published in the newspaper. But the article seems fine to me now, he was pro-Bulgarian oriented in the beginning anyway. i Nk u b u ss e ?  —Preceding comment was added at 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And where did he write it? Where is the quote from? ForeignerFromTheEast 02:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote is from the newspaper, I don't know where he wrote it, but they surely didn't fabricate it. i Nk u b u ss e ? 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote is not from the newspaper because Sarafov has been dead for six years when it was published. Where was it from? ForeignerFromTheEast 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you'll have to check that. But the Russians sure wouldn't let some "Bulgarians" include an counterfeit in their paper. i Nk u b u ss e ? 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So was Chupovski Russian? You claim usage of source, you show where it is from. ForeignerFromTheEast 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

References for ethnicity
Part 3 of the memoirs. Complete memoirs. On the page provided, please refer to the passage: "Истовремено еден руски полковник, некојси Бешков, обиколуваше низ Македонија, и се искажуваше многу неповолно за нас Бугарите во Македонија...". ForeignerFromTheEast 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this, I don't negate it, I mentioned earlier that he thought of himself as Bulgarian, but later he came out with the idea that the Macedonian people are a distinct ethnicity. That's why a Bulgarian revolutionary is not completely appropriate. Just like Krste Misirkov, he wasn't always aware of his distinct nationality, but nevertheless, he realised that later and wrote a whole study. i Nk u b u ss e ? 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When did he come up with the idea of the Macedonians being distinct. In Chupovski's newspaper? That one is out of the question as described earlier. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, you're not the one to decide. I'll try to find some other sources. i Nk u b u ss e ? 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then where is it from? ForeignerFromTheEast 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See my previous message. i Nk u b u ss e ? 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New source
Will you be providing a link to demonstrate what the source says? ForeignerFromTheEast 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What, now you don't trust London Times? I didn't know that it was a Titoist newspaper... BTW, you can check the .pdf file, it's included in the article. i Nk u b u ss e ? 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The famous "quote" of Sarafov by Chupovski is not by Sarafov himslef, but is a quote from Russian journalist Amfiteatrof, who claimed that he got an interview with Sarafov during his trip in Serbia. However no evidence can be found whatsoever that Amfiteatrov ever met Sarafov! K.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.171.198 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian/ethnic Macedonian
I can understand why in article of Boris Sarafov has Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group), I think that in this category must be the name of ethnic Macedonian only. Boris Sarafov always defined himself as ethnic Bulgarian. He has Memoirs and there every peopele can find what is his ethnicity. May be there is error because Boris Sarafov was born in Region of Macedonia. In Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group) i find again many ethic Bulgarians, all of them are defined like ethic Bulgarians, and all of them was born in Region of Macedonia (somebody in present Republic Macedonia, somebody in present Bulgaria, sombody in present Greece). --Li4kata 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In Republic of Macedonia say that almost all of Bulgarian national heroes which was born in Region of Macedonia are ethnic Macedonian, if somebody greek say that this persons are greeks, what we will do?--Li4kata 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way last month Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts say that Orpheus is ethnic Macedonian like Boris Sarafov e.g. It's not joke if you want i can give you the links but in MK and BG. In Republic of Macedonia announce 90% from people born in Region of Macedonia or near like ethnic Macedonian, it's doesn't matter whether they are defined themself like Bulgarians, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, Anciant Macedonians, Anciant Thracians. You can see that in google.com it's easily. --Li4kata 09:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Li4kata you may think that Sarafov is an ethnic Bulgarian, however their are people that think he is ethnic Macedonian. Wikipedia is not one-sided and somewhat of an agreement has been reached to consider Macedonian revolutionaries Bulgarian from the Bulgarian side, and Macedonian from the Macedonian side. Therefore he is also in the category Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group). Please do not continue spreading POV or you will be reported for vandalism.Ireland101 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the source. The ethnicity of all the people you've met in that category is disputed. There are different POV's and Wikipedia lists them all (sources are needed of course). i Nk u b u ss e ? 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't matter what i tnink and what I don't think. Boris Sarafov is Bulgarian (ethnic). He defined himself like Bulgarian, all of his friends and contemporaries defined Sarafov like Bulgarians. Bulgarian "Krastyo Sarafov National Academy for Theatre and Film Arts" in Sofia bring the name of Boris brother - Krastyo. Boris Sarafov has never said that he is ethnic Macedonian, never!!! If I consider you for Martian, then what, your Martian??! I know very well that people from Republic of Macedonia define B. Sarafov like ethnic Macedonian, but scientists in RM consider Orpheus (Thracian musician) also like ethnic Macedonin. In article we can read that in RM considered B. Sarafov for ethnic Macedonian this is fact and I never touch this text. But if there is Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group) then we understand that this person is Bulgarian and Macedonian together. It's not truth. Kind regards. --Li4kata 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, if you dreamt of Sarafov being Bulgarian, that's good for you. On Wikipedia, please refer to the sources. i Nk u b u ss e ? 14:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * INkubusse do you read the article??! In article is clearly say Boris Sarafov considered himself for ethnic Bulgarian. What do you need for evidence to beleive that Srafov is ethic Bulgarian. The question is not what you think for him and what Boris Sarafov thought for himself and whta thought for him his friends and contemporaries.--Li4kata 07:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna reason with you, definitely. You really need to read some of Wikipedia's guidelines. I see you don't understand anything we do here. Seriously. i Nk u b u ss e ? 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the cat is the slightest problem with these articles. Why don't you just let it go? If you're pretty sure that the article itself would make people believe he was Bulgarian just leave the cat alone. Everybody can figure it out for himself. This, I repeat myself again, is compromise for revolutionaries active in the XX century and that were at least born in the region. And, please, all of you join the discussion about this here -- L a v e o l  T 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this adds much to the debate, but Sarafov was identified as a Bulgarian during the time he spent in Romania. The Romanian writer Ion Luca Caragiale has a sketch story titled after him, which deals with the trial of Sarafov and his collaborators in Bucharest (at some point during the 1890s - the details of this remain to be investigated). "Sarafoff" is interchanged with "the Bulgarian", his movement is called "Bulgarian", and, one time, "Macedo-Bulgarian". This is not the only one of his texts where Sarafov is the main character. Btw: one would picture that this Romanian aspect of his activity/legacy should make it in the text at some point. Dahn 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, this might prove pretty useful. Ummm, any translation possible? -- L a v e o l  T 10:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is all over the text, so I didn't know which part to translate. This particular story is basically about his "Bulgarian conspiracy" and his "Macedonian committee". Sarafov initially escapes trial in Romania, and Caragiale creates a situation where one regular person mistakes another for Sarafov. During the confusion, he sees in that person "a Bulgarian", and one would have to assume that it is because Sarafov was one (his conspiracy is several times referred to as "Bulgarian"). See this sentence: "tânărul vede că Sarafoff n-are deloc intenţia să plece, şi mai observă că bulgarul n-are câtuşi de puţin aerul că ar lua seama la dânsul" (my translation: the young man [who believes he is visited by Sarafov] sees that Sarafoff has no intention of leaving, and also sees that the Bulgarian does not at all seem to care that he is present"). If I read and reread the story correctly, the mysterious man does not actually introduce himself as "Bulgarian" - he is merely silent throughout, and believed to be Bulgarian because he looks like and is thought to be Sarafov (I should add that the story is a comical piece).
 * Several such references are present in this another story, where a journalist describes a supposed Bulgarian conspiracy led by Sarafov (while Sarafov's ethnicity is not specifically discussed in there, it is stated that at least one participant is Bulgarian and implied that all others other). None of the characters are referred to as "Macedonian", but any one of those in any way named is referred to as "Bulgarian".
 * For other details of his biography that appear in Caragiale, I would have to look through this and several other texts (I have read some of them before, but not so I would memorize historic details). In any case, I was not so far able to find another source for the details of his time in Romania, but Caragiale makes it pretty clear that the trial was a scandal (I think it is because Romania agreed to try a person based on an Ottoman request), and Romanian authorities came to fear reprisals from the part of Balkan revolutionary groups. Dahn 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We the Macedonians, are no Serbs nor Bulgarians, but simply Macedonians.
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa260/Piperkata/Boris_Sarafov.gif

He was Macedonian, can someone please add this info in?

Recent edits
Please, MacedonianBoy, try to behave and act like a responsible editor. I, too, can provide you with a quote in which he says: " ...Истовремено еден руски полковник, некојси Бешков, обиколуваше низ Македонија, и се искажуваше многу неповолно за нас Бугарите во Македонија, правејќи не Срби, што не се достојни за слобода и сл.. По тој повод му напишав едно писмо до гроф Игнатиев, со кого се имав запознаено во Петербург. Му се оплакав на руските конзули, што отворено и даваат поддршка на српската пропаганда во Македонија.... And so what? What you're doing now is simple POV-pushing. Yes, blogs are no source, no matter what they've scanned (if they really have). And the wording "considered xxx in RoM and other counties" - what the hell is that. That's not something you'd expect to see in a encyclopaedia, is it? The article is better as of now and respects both points of you, including his own.
 * Just another note which someone interested might wish to read at some time. The other party in this obviously one-party discussion does not have the time to participate here, but does actually have the time to revert me (partially). -- L a v e o l  T 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are well aware about his Macedonian ethnicity Laveol, but your behaviour to revert Macedonian users makes me to think again about talking on English Wiki. Till I inform some admins, since they are the users that should decide what is reliable and what not, I won't edit this article. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of what? Well, discussing is far better than edit-warring, but you should know best. I'm amazed you still found time to write here. Btw, do you have a copy of the paper? Cause I read some incredible stuff there. -- L a v e o l  T 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionaly, you are deleting Sarafov's own words from Macedonian Voice magazine and British Times, not above mentioned. You have the scans of the magazine, you can find them everywhere, and I do not see what is wrong with it. Are Sarafov's words making problems? Is this article about him or about this silly edit war that you are creating. "Other countries" can be reformulated, not deleted since that is Polish source. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I found, instead making articles on the Macedonian Wikipedia, I am wasting my time convincing a common user to stop reverting me. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict)Wow, nice, and then I'll provide an American source claiming he was Bulgarian. So, we'll have to create a table with scholars for both views. Just like the naming issue. And btw Rocznik Slawistyczny is a linguist. I understand this is the only thing you could google on this, but how's he relevant? -- L a v e o l  T 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was added by other user (on MK WIKI take a look first). It is more reliable and more important what Sarafov thought about himself, how he felt, what he said about the Bulgarians in IMRO then present day opinions, right? I used that, his own words and you reverted me. That's not acceptable, right?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus this, when I say reliable source, I mean about his words written in Russian in the newspaper Macedonian Voice:

"Ние, Македонците не сме ни Срби, ни Бугари, ами просто Македонци ... но Србите и Бугарите нека не забораваат дека Македонија е само за Македонците."

- Борис Сарафов

"We, the Macedonians, are not Serbs nor Bulgarians, but simply Macedonians ... but the Serbs and the Bulgarians should not forget that Macedonia is for the Macedonians."

- Борис Сарафов --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You provided nothing reliable. You didn't read any of these and just added them, no? And now you're trying to convince me you're acting like a decent wiki editor?! Really, you need to act lot more seriously.-- L a v e o l  T 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I convince you?! Quoting text is serious enough, but depends if you like the quoted text.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting a text you just said you've only copy-pasted from another wiki. How should I put it...-- L a v e o l  T 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment about off topic statements. I have no time about that. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic? How's the fact that you've copy-pasted the stuff here off-topic? I should've guessed you were just playing yet again. Assuming good faith does not serve me well every time I try doing it.-- L a v e o l  T 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice. And why do you remove the link to Macedonian Bulgarians? He is a considered a Bulgarian from the region of Macedonia, so what's the problem with the link? -- L a v e o l  T 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pfff, and just to really add some off-topic: I was about to have an edit-conflict with myself due to some flaw in the site. Thankfully I saw it before hitting the save page button.-- L a v e o l  T 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Better to use just Bulgarians because "Macedonians (Bulgarians)" is only known in BG and here on Wikipedia. In other words, new Bulgarian terminology. It is more clear to use the word Bulgarian for your point of view.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, but you do actually use that word (or used to actually). The link just leads you to the specific article on Bulgarians of that specific region, which then leads you to the article on Bulgarians as a whole. -- L a v e o l  T 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not complicated the things, it would be better.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS:I added the word "now" since that country included territories from Macedonia, Greece, Serbia (I am not sure about Turkey).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It did not. Didn't you know that? -- L a v e o l  T 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you know I am not interested in Balkan history (except mine).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected - the Western outlands were annexed by Serbia later. But still, you do mention that he died in Sofia, which is the capital of Bulgaria even today. This makes it quite pointless and absurd to have the "now part"-- L a v e o l  T 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy, and now we had an edit conflict while we were trying to make the same edit... I think I need a little break :)-- L a v e o l  T 21:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which Western Parts?? As far as I now Bulgaria too annexed foreign territories too, non Bulgarian territories. Didn't I mentioned Sofia? I think it is written in the infobox.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For that uninformed user that reverts all the time: It should be very useful to review what are you reverting and please take a look again at your history book about the Principality of Bulgaria. Please do not vandalize or I should ask for help. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for threats, please. As for the annexation part, I cannot understand what you're trying to say. If by foreign territories you mean foreign-populated territories, then you are making a mistake. Bulgaria has annexed (or liberated) only Bulgarian-populated lands, thank you very much. -- L a v e o l  T 18:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the discussion under this one, someone showed an academic reference that confirmed the existence of these statements of Sarafov's, that the Macedonians are a separate nation. Radko Kovac (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
I believe that these recent edits fail to improve the article because they make poor use of some primary sources (which may be otherwise legitimate). Any piece of information, when taken out of context, can be misleading. This is especially true when it comes to a fairly complicated topic such as the history of the Macedonian revolutionary movement. This is why WP:RS advises caution when using primary sources. In some case it may take serious scholarship and a prolonged study of primary sources to draw legitimate conclusions from them, which is why Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Also, be aware that interpretation of primary sources is not only treacherous business, but also constitutes original research which is not allowed on wikipedia.

Let me illustrate how dangerous primary sources can be with a quote from K. Misirkov's On the Macedonian Matters (one of the sources added to the lead).

"The Committee (i.e. the internal Macedonian revolutionary organisation - translator's note) has been unable to prove it neither to the outside world, nor to the Macedonians (Misirkov here uses this term in the geographical sense - translator's note) themselves that it's not Bulgarian.

With his Mouvement Macedonien Radev thought he could convince Europe that the movement is purely Macedonian and has nothing to do with Bulgaria. Pravo and the other Macedonian and Bulgarian newspapers wanted to prove the same. Did they succeed? -No.

The late A.A. Rostovsky said more than once "The Bulgarians think that they are the only ones who have brains, and that everyone else is stupid. Who do they think that they will deceive - with their articles in Pravo and in the other newspapers - to think that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians? We know very well what they want!" What did the diplomats think of all these assurances that the Committee and the Bulgarians spread through the press about the Macedonian movement? We should not forget what the European newspapers wrote about the clashes between the cheti and the Turks: the cheti were called bands, and Bulgarian at that, and not Macedonian. About the killed chetniks they wrote not "So many Macedonians were killed", but "so many Bulgarians".

The question is, whom did Mouvement Macedonien, Pravo, Avtonomija, etc., convince that they are fighting for the freedom of the Macedonians and not for those who call themselves "Bulgarians" and come from Macedonia and Bulgaria? - No one."

This provides some context for the cited interviews with Sarafov in Pro Armenia and The Times. And this context obviously influences the conclusions we would draw from them: Sarafov (and the other Bulgarian revolutionaries) were trying to convince the other Balkan nations - most notably Greece and Serbia - and Europe that they were not fighting for a Bulgarian Macedonia, but for an independent Macedonia. This is explained in quite a bit of detail by e.g. Simeon Radev, a close friend and collaborator of Sarafov and editor of two of the revolutionary organisation's newspapers L'Effort and Mouvement Macedonien, in Лица и събития от моето време, том 1 (People and Events of my Time, vol. 1, in Bulgarian).

It's also a good idea to keep in mind that Misirkov later renounced his own book On the Macedonian Matters. This circumstance clearly diminishes its capacity to serve as a source.

Also, Macedonian Voice was a propaganda piece published years after Sarafov's death. It's not too reasonable to make conclusions about Sarafov's national feeling on the basis of publications in it.

I would suggest that the editor that made these edits consult some further literature on the subject. A good starting point might be the memoirs of Boris Sarafov, recorded by Prof. Miletich and the above mentioned book by Simeon Radev.

I think that there are numerous other problems with these recent edits, but it's probably good to stop here. Tropcho (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. You say that the newspaper published in 1913 is a manipulation, and the Memoirs published and redacted in Bulgaria in 1925, 18 years after the death of Sarafov, isn’t?! What about the papers from 1901 I’ve shown, in whose Sarafov himself says quite similar things?


 * 2. The manipulation about Misirkov's claim on "Bulgarian" Centralists is an absolved subject, many times by now, because he obviously talks about SOME of the Centralists. He eventually explicitly says that Dame Gruev, Goce Delchev and Boris Sarafov, for example are Macedonian national separatists. Here's another excerpt of Misirkov (that is the base of this issue):
 * - ''The Supreme Committee in Sofia was placed under the presidency of General Tsonchev, a Bulgarian and favorite of the Prince. But the Macedonians in Bulgaria convinced the Bulgarian people of the justness of their program as far as it concerned the complete separation of Macedonian interests from those of Bulgaria; they unmasked he political leaders, the Prince and the "General's Committee", or the committee of Tsonchev-Mihailov, as self-seeking and so won for themselves greater power in Bulgaria than that held by the "General's Committee" and the political leaders over the Macedonian question. This power was substantially aided by the solidarity of "Stanishev's Supreme Committee" together with the "Internal Organization".
 * ''Thus the committees, together with the Macedonians as a whole, shook themselves free from the influence of the Bulgarian leaders and set up their own independent plan of operation; this was publicized in Bulgaria and so the committee won influence amongst the Bulgarian people and, through them, over their leaders.
 * ''Once the Macedonian "job" had been thus settled in Bulgaria the Macedonians began to move into Serbia where they once again set out their program, this time to the Serbian leaders and the Serbian people. Sarafov, Radev, and Yankov assured the Serbs that they were fighting under the banner of Macedonia for the Macedonians, for all Macedonians regardless of differences, and that they would never unite Macedonia with Bulgaria. It is surely clear from these actions that the Macedonians had, through their leaders, decided to settle the fate of Macedonia themselves and that through their efforts they were prepared to make their interests conform to and harmonize with those of the other Balkan states, including Bulgaria, provided these states would agree to aid Macedonia in her designs.
 * '''So, all of it were tactics in favour of the Macedonian national interests, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.186.106 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's Misirkov's quote where he explicitly SAYS NAMES, he says that Dame Gruev, Goce Delchev and Boris Sarafov, for example are Macedonian national separatists - "They also began to persecute the Macedonian separatists. One of those who made his escape at this time was Dame Gruev, who was one of the Macedonian students who had moved from Belgrade to Sofia, and was also one of the separatists. Since they could not find favorable ground for their national separatist activity in Bulgaria, the Macedonians who had moved from Belgrade to Sofia turned to organizing revolutionary bodies in Bulgaria and Macedonia. The celebrated Macedonian revolutionary separatists, such as Gotsк Delchev, were simply the pupils of the first generation of Macedonians who had studied in Serbia and Bulgaria. So, too, Sarafov and the revolutionaries who followed were simply the successors and heirs of these first revolutionaries but not the founders of the revolutionary organization."
 * I agreed though, that the primary sources aren't enough, so I'd add an academical study along with the quotes from the interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.109.189 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Д-р Блаже Ристовски, Крсте П. Мисирков (1874–1926) - прилог кон проучувањето на развитокот на македонската национална мисла, MANU, Skopje, (1966)) - This isn't a primary source, and still, it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.188.253 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm… I was editing another article, and it led me here, onto this one. Interesting discussions. Earlier today I was accused for “sockpuppetry” about this editor who had initially added these references to this article, and had afterwards been blocked, like - forever. I was falsely accused, off course. But, as I understood the information says that he / she (probably he) was banned not for vandalism, but inappropriate behavior, lack of discipline and other technicalities, and yet, his / her edits have been removed, even though he / she featured them with an academic source after this discussion. Interesting. There are some valuable sources. I could use some of them in the future, including the academic source, as well. Radko Kovac (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, I've never seen anyone admit to sockpuppetry in such a manner. Its is kind of funny, actually. -- L a v e o l  T 05:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User talk:Laveol, I won't waste my time on your intrigues. I'm here to discuss history. Radko Kovac (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You already made it quite clear why you are here in the first place. And no, you are clearly not here to discuss history. I will proceed with reverting all your disruptive edits, no matter how many more sockpuppets you make. -- L a v e o l  T 08:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of a primary source
I also detected a primary source, that actually is quite disputable. The itself is disputable, It has no stamp of IMARO, and no signatures. Also, blogs and websites like https://www.promacedonia.org are depreciated and have not been allowed on Wikipedia, as I know. 79.126.188.253 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The source that you've indicated is not a primary source. The document is not a disputable at all it has the stamp of the Bulgarian National Archives and it's handwritten by Dame Gruev, which is proven. This is only the first sheet of the letter. The site www.promacedonia.org is not a blog, but books archive and such sites are preferred on Wikipedia, since you can quickly check the source and to see the context of the statements. --StanProg (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The full text of the letter is published along with a facsimile in Macedonia. Documents and Materials (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1979, pp 531 - 537). If you know of a study which says that the letter is forged, bring it on. Tropcho (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The content of the document can be checked here: Letter No. 534 from the General Staff of the Second Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Region to the Bulgarian Government on the position of the insurgent population, requestioning assistance from Bulgaria; the original is in Bulgarian and is published in "Macedonia: documents and materials", Voin Bozhinov et al. Bulgarin Academy of sciences, Institute of history, Sofia; 1978. It was sent with a letter dated September 17, 1903 to Dr. Kozhouharov, in charge of the Bulgarian agency in Bitola, to be forwarded to the government in Sofia; ЦДНА, ф.176, оп 1, а.е. 1972, (л.л. 243-244) The scans of the document are also available on the same site. The letter is mentioned also on that site, which is translatation in English by Will Firth from the book National Liberation and Libertarian Federalism, Sofia 1992, Georgi Khadzhiev, pp. 99-148. The text: On 9th September 1903 Damyan Gruyev, Boris Sarafov and Lozanchev met to discuss the hopeless situation. They prepared a statement to the Bulgarian government which was sent to Sofia through the Bulgarian mission in Bitola. It read: "... Having been placed in leading positions of the popular movement here, we appeal to you in the name of the oppressed Bulgarian population to come to its assistance in as effective a manner a possible - through military intervention..." As a source is cited: Hristo Silyanov, Osvoboditelnite borbi v Macedonia i Odrinsko, pp. 434-435.. The document is cited also in the book "A history of the Balkans: a regional overview from a Bulgarian perspective", volume 2 от A History of the Balkans, EM texts, Plamen Tsvetkov, 1993, ISBN 0773419586, p. 83.. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Jingiby, you've reverted my edit without explination, just stating to "disscuss at talk". I fail to see any issue with my edit:

1. I replaced the less clear term of "Yugoslav Macedonia" with a synonymuous, more clear term of "SR Macedonia"

2. I tweaked a statement per WP:OVERCITE and used more concrete terminology and linked it to a relevant article.

3. I tweaked a statement per WP:NOTEVERYTHING - if the reader is interested more in the project, they have an easly accessible link to the relevant article.

4. I deleted a statement not backed up by a presented source - while it is true that the street was renamed back to its' original name (part of a wider reversion by the City of Skopje), another street (which I also think is in the same municipality) was renamed to Boris Sarafov. You can see this here (official document of the City of Skopje) by searching "Борис Сарафов", or going to page 6 of the document, number 192 - the street "Ѓорче Петров 5" was renamed to "Борис Сарафов"

So please, state more concrete, constructive reasoning for reversion. Regards. Kluche (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Supremist in Macedonian historiography is not only a member of the Supreme Committee, but also a member of the right-wing faction of the IMRO, who are pro-Bulgarian oriented. This thesis is also supported by the sources and in this sense the term Supremist is used for Sarafov. That is precisely the meaning that should remain. There is also no doubt that the street bearing Sarafov's name has been renamed. That is, this text should also be preserved. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jingiby I'm fine with your proposal on the Supremist terminology, but the street renaming is a bit odd. Firstly, the street renaming was not "without reason" - you can see in the source which you added with your last edit that there is a reason. Secondly, another street was named after him, as I pointed above. Finally, WP:NOTEVERYTHING - I don't find this notable enough to be mentioned in the article.
 * Your comment also doesn't explain why the rest of my changes were revert. Kluche (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The story with those double renames has me a bit confused, but you're right. For the other proposed changes, they just don't change anything, so I don't see the point of them unless you care a lot. Jingiby (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)