Talk:Kruševo Republic

Disruptive edits
Please, stop deleting reliable information supported by University sources. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources needed
Please provide reliable sources about the use of a red plain flag as official banner of the republic. As per Hugh Poulton's Who are the Macedonians? ''...As the population of Krusevo was two-thirds hellenised Vlachs and Patriarchist Slavs, this was a wise move. Despite these promises the insurgents flew Bulgarian flags everywhere and in many places the uprising did entail attacks on on Muslim Turks and Albanians who themselves organised for self-defence...''.

Please provide reliable source that official language of the mixed Bulgarian-Vlach-Greek population in the city was Macedonian, which was codified in 1945. Jingby (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The population of Krusevo was comprised of Macedonians and Aromanians. These were the two common languages spoken in the town at the time. The language was codified in 1944, yes, however this doesn't mean that it wasn't spoken or used in a non-codified form before that (in fact there a many examples of the language's use before codficiation). Bulgarian was also codified in the 1890s wasn't it? Does this mean that before then the language did not exist. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Check again here. Jingby (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is especially hard to deal with you as you are willing to part from your views that before 1944 the Macedonian people did not exist. Please just show some respect. Macedonian users do not attack yourself claiming that you your nation exists as a communist-era invention or that our language has only existed since 1944, etc. I only ask that you recognise the Macedonian people as a distinct group of people who have our own history, language and culture. It is not "ultra-nationalistic" to ask for something so basic as recognition. Yes, we do have connections with Bulgarians, but by no means were our ancestors Bulgarians. Would you be willing to recipricate the recognition you are afforded?
 * Furthermore, I have had a look at the link which you posted, the Kanchov 1900 survey. Here is what Kanchov thought, he called these people Bulgarians, however by his own admission the "local Bulgarians call themselves Macedonians and the surrounding peoples also call them this" (People self-identifying as Macedonians). Kanchov admits that these people call themselves Macedonians yet, nonetheless, classifies them as Bulgarians. Lunch for Two (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe you. Stop POV. Jingby (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Open the link have a look. Kanchov writes "Местните Българи които живеят во пределите на Македония се наричат сами Македонци, и околните народи ги зоват тъй". He recognises that these people self-identified as Macedonians, yet despite this continued to write them as Bulgarians. I don't see why this should not be mentioned. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

On a contrary. Read the disambiguation page about the meaning of the term Macedonian, and especially read Macedonians. Jingby (talk)


 * I am aware of the terms. Bulgarians call themselves Българи and Macedonians call themselves Македонци. That is the long and the short of it. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? Jingby (talk)


 * Yes, that is the basis of self-identification. Kanchov goes onto say "...околните народи ги зоват тъй." If they self-identified as Bulgarian-Macedonians as you allege, then they would be called Bulgarians by the surrounding peoples and not Macedonians. Would they not? Kanchov is correct in recognising the existence of self-identifying Macedonians. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of the term Bulgarian in this article and its substitution with the term Macedonian is ultra-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.
 * This issue is rendered academic with the recognition of 'North Macedonia' between Greece and the FYRM.

Edit warring
Rather than blocking the disputants, I've reverted to the July version before this started and protected the article. If you are unable to work together as colleagues, then go to dispute resolution and have somebody babysit. Meanwhile, if there are non-contentious edits that need to be made, tell me here and I can add them in. — kwami (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to revert the biased edits back to Kwami's version. Please, discuss before edit-warring. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jingiby, 1 edit does not constitute edit warring. There is no reason why an infobox is not approrpriate here (as is common across all former states) The Bulgarian language was codified in 1899, the Macedonian in 1944. This does not mean that before this time both of the respective languages did not exist, it just means that they did not exist in the codified (literary) forms that they are today, however as you know, language has many forms. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If it was still not codified and the Slavic-speakers in the town had predominantly Bulgarian self identification and called their language Bulgarian, simply omit this issue in the info-box. Regs. Jingby (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Codification in regards to spoken languages is irrelevant. The fact that 4 years earlier in Varna a foreign language known as Bulgarian was codified by no means meant that the local inhabitants all spoke that language (to claim this would be absurd). The locals spoke the Prilep-Bitola dialect in 1903 and still speak that language today. This is an undeniable fact. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The locals spoke this dialect since centuries and the next step is to proclaim as it (the Macedonian language) has been existed since the down of the history, i.e. - long live the Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Why is an infobox needed here? Was this some sort of a long-term establishment or state.
 * 2. Why do you want to push that Macedonian language notion everywhere? It is simply not applicable to the article. At the time what is now a language was actually considered a dialect of Bulgarian. Or are you actually denying this?
 * Why don't we just stick to an article without an infobox and cut the lame pov-push wars? -- L a v e o l  T 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's real nice to see that your editing style has changed since the WP:AE thing, Jingiby. An infobox should be included because it makes the article more visually pleasing; however long this thing lasted doesn't matter. Jingiby, date of language codification ≠ date of "birth" of the language. You seem to bring the 1940s up on every fourth edit you make. Maybe we could just take out the 'Language' part so this discussion doesn't have to go on any longer. -- Local hero talk 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Local hero, could you please read pp. 79-83. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I agree that even if we have an infobox, the language would only spark tensions. But I am unsure as of how useful an infobox would be in this case. It would not contain enough data to make use of such an instrument. It would be handy and helpful if we had a lot of information about that state, like we would have for an existing one or for a state that has survived some time at the least. -- L a v e o l  T 06:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Laveol, there is sufficient information regarding the state to make an infobox useful. As for Jingiby, I don't think that his editing style will ever change. However in the constant pushing of his POV, Jingiby only needs to find any source on Google Books.bg which fits his POV (In this case "Grkomani in Krushevo"), and then it is a reasonable source and any suggestion otherwise is "Macedonism" and needs to be taken to the talk to get consensus, which the user almost always sidetracks and stonewalls. How about having both Aromanian and a link to here? Removing the language does not actually solve the issue, but simply makes it appear that it has been resolved. This entire article is full of awkwardly phrased POV, to say the least (ie. "Albanian-speaking Patriarchist Greeks", where simply Albanians will suffice). Lunch for Two (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And here we go with comments on editors. Yes, thanks for the thorough contribution. "I don't like him, I don't like his edits => he is wrong." How about we discuss the subject of the article a bit. The argument on the data that should be included there seems like the start of a nice Disinfobox to me. The language was described as Bulgarian at the time by both third-party commentators and the participants themselves. Yet, now we have people speaking a Macedonian language in the same region now. Does it mean they spoke Macedonian back then? Sounds like Original Research to me. I really fail to see the problem with Albanian-speaking Patriarchist Greeks. It sounds like Albanians who self-identified as Greeks and were under the Patriarchate. Was this the case with every single Albanian back at the time? I doubt it cause this would mean nobody was self-identifying as Albanian. The phrase does sound a bit clumsy but we could make it flow better instead of over simplifying it to plain Albanians. -- L a v e o l  T 09:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I will share some from my POV-thoughts with you: At that time in Krushevo didn't live any ethnic Macedonians, there are no preserved original documents in Macedonian language from this town from 1903. Also there was neither Macedonian state, nor Macedonian church, or ever Macedonian ethnic symbols were observed at that time in the town. On a contrary, the insurgents flew Bulgarian flags. Nobody had heart anything about such Republic in 1903 and nobody had recognized it. How to deal with this POV - facts. Jingby (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jingiby, you will find that the majority of sources talk about how the Republic of Krusevo was a Macedonian uprising heavily supported by local Vlachs. From what I'm aware, the Krusevo Manifesto was written in dialectal Macedonian (and not the recently codified Bulgarian language). Laveol, there is a strong case to be made for the validity of the infobox. As for "Albanian" being oversimplified, I hardly think so. Both Macedonian and Albanian Christians receive the same treatment in regards to this issue. For some reason if they affiliated with the Bulgarian church they were considered to be ethnically Bulgarian, and the same for the Serbian and Greek churches. I would be suprised if there is any evidence of Albanians from Krusevo identifying as ethnic Greeks. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And what is that strong case? I am yet to hear about that. Currently, it would only give ground for edit-wars and POV-speculations. Yes, most sources from the Republic of Macedonia might say this or that. As far as the world was concerned, they were Bulgarians. And what are your sources about "Albanians from Krusevo not identifying as ethnic Greeks?" As of now the statement seems sourced. What are you basing your argument on? -- L a v e o l  T 09:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My best source showing that they did not identify as such is the lack of sources you have provided that they identified as such. Neither source calls them Patriarchist Greeks who spoke Albanian. One simply says Albanian, the other makes no mention of the Patriarchate either. The rest of the world was divided, some wrote about Macedonians, some as Bulgarians. If it is was as black and white as you believe then surely there would have been no divergence, no? Lunch for Two (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The original or even a copy of the Krusevo Manifesto were never found. Its authentically is disputed. Jingby (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder what "Albanians and Vlachs falling victims to Greek propaganda" would mean then. It seems that Albanians in the town were referred to as Grkomani (belonging to the Patriarchate Church and self-identifying as Greeks). It is one the very page the source leads to. I wonder how you have missed on it...-- L a v e o l  T 10:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is disputed, here is however a copy of the text of the manifesto (the source from where is comes from is not necesserily NPOV though). It is clear however, that from the text, that the document is written in dialectial Macedonian, and not the Bulgarian language which was codified 4 years earlier. "Albanians falling victim to Greek propaganda", still refers to ethnic Albanians, not ethnic Greeks. Can you please link me to the source? (I honestly did not see what you quoted above). Lunch for Two (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Albanians self-identifying as Greeks would rather mean Greeks, wouldn't it? The source is the Keith Brown one. It has a link to the text. -- L a v e o l  T 11:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely if he meant an ethnic Greek he would have said "Albanian speaking Greeks" or something to that extent. At one stage it could have been said that half of Europe fell victim to American (or even Soviet?) propaganda, it hardly made all those people suddenly ethnic Americans, ethnic Russians, etc. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me guess - you are yet to read the whole section. Do it, please. -- L a v e o l  T 11:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please IP-Sock, stop POV-pushing! you need a lot of reliable, academic, secondary, unbiased sources to prove your Macedonistic thesis. Provide them, please. Jingiby (talk)


 * Please, stop edit warring and provide reliable sources, supporting the replacement of Bulgarians with Macedonians in this article. There is none. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a lot of specialized sources confirming the thesis of the article. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Language should be simply "Balkan Slavic" or dropped
I propose using Balkan Slavic instead of Bulgarian in the infobox, or just dropping that part. Basically the dialects spoken in Krushevo would have been part of the central dialects of Macedonia which are further away from standard Bulgarian than to standard Macedonian (with standardization based on central dialects). Historically these dialects where not always classified as Bulgarian per. To such avoid these complications, I think Balkan Slavic should do, the article anyway stipulates that these dialects where usually classified as Bulgarian if someone wants to do further reading. Kromid (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with using this or dropping it from the infobox. I'll note that the stable version of the article prior to yesterday did not have this in the infobox, so it's not clear there is consensus to have it there in the first place. -- Local hero talk 03:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me, I missed it when looking at the edit history. Removed. It's potential inclusion can be discussed in this section. Kromid (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd probably be best to drop it entirely, as the information saying it was in "Bulgarian" seems to be lacking. The sources that supposedly back this up don't really answer anything about the language used. Removing it somehow causes tension with some of the moderators on here (even though the languages are mentioned at the beginning of the article anyway).
 * Also, I know I'm responding 2 years after this was posted, but this is still the case on the page. The ushanka (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (at the beginning, I ment to say *It'd) The ushanka (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is best to have teh language out of the infobox, languages are already listed in the head. --James Richards (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. Kromid (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of sources
Please, don't delete citations and reliable sources related to the content of this article. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This article should have its topics more explored
i believe that this article somewhat rushes and doesn't go deep into the structure and creation of the government of the republic, i believe for starters a backstory or a introduction should be added exploring HOW and WHY they created the republic, it should also go into detail of the nation, this article forgets several infos about the structure such as : a temporary somewhat-advisory council containing 6 members (2 Aromanian, 1 Albanian, 3 Macedonian-Bulgarian) it should also get into more detail of previous attempts of retaking the city, like the turkish soldiers re-organizing in Bitola to launch an attack, and its extremely disappointing that not a single mention of the Cherry cannon is present despite the fact its one of the most famous icons from the republic (yes im aware a wiki already exist of it but it should still be mentioned) it should also go more deeper into the logistics and tactics used by the Turkish-Ottoman forces to re-capture Krusevo, also seeing that there is a celebration section i think a reaction or effects section should be added exploring the topic a little further

i would have added these stuff but only macedonian literature goes this deep into the topic, and we all know jingby loves his bulgarian sources over macedonian. and since im no bulgarian maybe someone with bulgarian understanding can gather some bulgarian sources Gurther (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, sources are the basis of an article. Any expansion and inclusion requires sources. I don't think the problem is whether a Macedonian or a Bulgarian source is used. It's about reliability and it's context that determines whether a source is reliable or not. So if you have any sources, you can present them here. I'd also recommend that you not assume things about other editors and practice good faith. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)