Talk:Georgi Sugarev

Untitled
IMRO= Internal MACEDONIAN Revolutionary Organisation--> there is no Bulgarian in any letter of its name, naturally there was another movement that was a product of Bulgarian authorities in that time - Bulgaria made another IMRO that in fact was not the first and original IMRO but was a fraction that wanted to take over Macedonia in to Bulgarian hands. I can not understand how can Wikipedia do this bending of history in favor of Bulgaria, and not in the favor of the truth!?

The deletion of the term Bulgarian in this article and its substitution with Macedonian is nationalistic POV
Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th,  up until the early 20th century. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later. However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population. In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.

Lede
It says:
 * Georgi Kostov Sugarev was a Bulgarian revolutionary, vojvoda of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization. In the Republic of Macedonia he is considered an ethnic Macedonian.

What is that supposed to mean? In Republic of Macedonia he is considered Macedonian but otherwise, he is a Bulgarian. Firstly, only an individual may choose how to identify and it is not for other nations to make alternate choices. So, if is is documented that he ever declared his ethnicity, that is what it needs to be. If it were Macedonian, simply move it to the opening line. If it were Bulgarian, then take off what ethnic Macedonians think because it is unimportant. He can still be considered a national hero, an important figure and the like but the suggestion that he is one ethnicity and is considered something else by that someone else leaves the topic unclear and open to debate. --Zavtek (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * Hi Zavtek. The answer of your question you have found yourself: In Republic of Macedonia he is considered Macedonian but otherwise, he is a Bulgarian. By the yaw all topics related to IMRO-revolutionaries are written in this manner. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll find in Macedonia they even refer to Cyril and Methodius as makedonci but that is just sections of the population. The intelligent section of the population is not in any form of denial, so I think it is best to state that the man is "an important figure of Macedonian identity". During his time there was still the strong pro-Bulgarian element of Macedonian ideology. Zavtek (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * What means "an important figure of Macedonian identity"? This man was with Bulgarian identity. Jingiby (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In Macedonia, makedonec means anything the nation wants it to. Since this is an early IMORO figure, the individual represented some form of Macedonian identity. The organisation was predominantly anti-Serbian but contained two wings, one which favoured an all out Macedonian state and one which sought to unite with Bulgaria, similar to the Yugoslav federations which would come later. Sugarev was with the latter (I am presuming) which confirms he will have likely chosen Bulgarian ethnicity but represented a Macedonian perspective thus being part of the IMORO. I believe there did exist a third ideological take within today's Macedonia which is that someone identifying as Bulgarian may have only supported a Bulgarian united state with no Macedonian element at all - and of course there were people identifying as Serb wishing to be incorporated into the Serbian state gaining power from the north. Things in the 19th century were very fluid in that territory. Zavtek (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * The organization was predominantly anti-Ottoman, then anti-Greek and last anti-Serbian. This people had Bulgarian national identity and Macedonian regional identity. I strongly recommend you to read the article Gotse Delchev where this process of transformation of identity is well described and properly sourced. Then maybe also the article Macedonian nationalism and at the end the Macedonian Question. And then we can discuss the issue again. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't need to read those things, I'm familiar with the general basics of them. For the time being I have taken out this notion of Macedonians considering Sugarev Macedonian until such time that we know exactly what we want to say about them, because to keep in gives the impression of two-way friction. Bad for Macedonians as it makes them look like a nation in denial of fact; bad for Bulgarians because it gives rise to doubt over the universal recognition of something they cherish. I hope my idea proves suitable. Zavtek (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * You must be familiar also with a lot of academic sources and their conclusions about the issue. Your personal impressions and your opinion are irrelevant for this article. Jingiby (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "personal impressions" and "opinion". You don't follow my point do you? Sugarev could only have identified as Bulgarian or Macedonian. If it were Macedonian then that needs to go in place of Bulgarian. If it were Bulgarian then you need sources to show how another nation believed him to be theirs even in spite of documented facts, otherwise we are accusing the Macedonians of rewriting history and we have no proof of this. Zavtek (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * Now, you have got all it into the article. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In a word, PERFECT. So thanks. Zavtek (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * No problems. Jingiby (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)