This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Macedonian Boy, provide reliable sources, and discuss the article, before changing it materially. The added by you sources are as follows: two primary, (i.e. unreliable and they do not support your thessis on the ethnic self-identification of Gruev), a tourist handbook - absolutely unreliable reference and one reliable source but on the period of Communist Yugoslavia, which also does not support your thessis. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 07:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Pleace, do not make blind reverts. In generall you know excellently that you are wrong. Read again Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, please. Thank you Jingby ( talk) 09:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No one source supports your thessis Macedonian Boy. In the only reliable source here from Ivo Banac he says that Gruev is a Macedonian hero. That is right. But that does not mean he was ethnic Macedonian. Banac's opinion is as follows:
The initial success of Serbian propaganda provoked Bulgar resistance. Macedonian students in Salonika and Sofia were determined to "make the liberation of Macedonia the order of the day, before Serbian propaganda succeed[ed] in growing powerful and pulverizing the people." In January 1894 a group of these young men formed the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, which, after intense agitation and propaganda that swelled its clandestine ranks, renamed itself the Bolgarski makedono-odrinski revoljucionni komiteti (BMORK, Bulgar Macedono-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committee) in 1896, and demanded "full political autonomy of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople [Ottoman Thrace]."... Goce Delchev and the other leaders of the BMORK were aware of Serbian and Greek ambitions in Macedonia. More important, they were aware that neither Belgrade nor Athens could expect to obtain the whole of Macedonia and, unlike Bulgaria, looked forward to and urged partition pf gpss land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgarian character of Macedonia's Christian population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper. In the words of an editorial in Pravo (Right), a Sofia newspaper close to the BMORK, the idea of Macedonian autonomy (or separatism) was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian nationhood. Inasmuch as the ideal of San Stefano was unworkable, the autonomous idea was the only alternative to the partition of Macedonia by the Balkan states and the assimilation of its severed parts by Serbs, Greeks, and even Romanians...
pp. 307-328 in of "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics" by Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1984) Jingby ( talk) 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And please, Macedonian Boy, stop speculating with the term Macedonian. If you do not know what Macedonian means, then read in Wikipedia, and especially this page: Macedonian. One of the meanings of Macedonian, as you well know, is a Bulgarian. Then, please read the article Macedonians (Bulgarians), and afterwards the article on the ethnic Macedonians, but especially the chapter on their Identities and when it has emerged. As a final, you can check the Macedonian Question. And now, on the self-identification of Gruev. Please, read this citation from the memoirs of the IMARO revolutionary Milan Matov from the book "The idea of the autonomy as a tactic in the programs of the national liberation movements in Macedonia and Thrace, 1893-1941," Proffesor Dimitar Gotsev, Publishing House of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1983:
"A false rumor was launched in Macedonia after the Ilinden Uprising that the Supreme Committee in Sofia wanted incorporation (of Macedonia) into Bulgaria, but the IMRO sought for autonomy. On this occasion in June 1906 I was in Sofia and I took for clarification by Dame Gruev, who replied as follows: "We are Bulgarians and always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgarians. All other formulas are a stage to achieve this goal. It is however still not the moment to resolve our (Macedonian) question, and is not the time now, for strifes and discussions on this issue. "
Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has problem with overcitation. There is one assertion which is cited 11 times. It is first sentence of the lede. According to WP:LEDE, it does not usually requires citations. There must be some particular reason for this. What is it? -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The text:
Quote from work of Ivo Banac:
What is the assertion in the first sentence which is supported by quote from work of Ivo Banac?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Please, try discussing what promises to be a controversial edit prior to actually performing it. The recent edits involved a major change to a sentence with 10 (ten!) whole sources. And the new wording went against those sources. Plus, an image was removed without any justification whatsoever. Further, the changes went against what other articles have to say on the matter. Consistency is of the utmost importance for an encyclopaedia, so, make sure, you respect that. Thank you. -- Laveol T 07:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Gruev was killed in 1906. At that time Macedonian identity had spread only among a hansome of intellectuals outside the Ottoman Macedonia. Gruev did not express ethnic Macedonian sentiments and self-identified as Bulgarian:
Because Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. Jingiby ( talk)
Check all about 20 primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the article and on talk again. All confirm he was a Bulgarian, including Britannica.Incorrect. Let me remind you that it was you who added cited assertion about Gruev's Macedonian ethnicity with this edit ( diff). This assertion is still in the article. Whatever was your intention with initiating this discussion, continuing with it does not make any sense at all. All the best. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Macedonian Boy, provide reliable sources, and discuss the article, before changing it materially. The added by you sources are as follows: two primary, (i.e. unreliable and they do not support your thessis on the ethnic self-identification of Gruev), a tourist handbook - absolutely unreliable reference and one reliable source but on the period of Communist Yugoslavia, which also does not support your thessis. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 07:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Pleace, do not make blind reverts. In generall you know excellently that you are wrong. Read again Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, please. Thank you Jingby ( talk) 09:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No one source supports your thessis Macedonian Boy. In the only reliable source here from Ivo Banac he says that Gruev is a Macedonian hero. That is right. But that does not mean he was ethnic Macedonian. Banac's opinion is as follows:
The initial success of Serbian propaganda provoked Bulgar resistance. Macedonian students in Salonika and Sofia were determined to "make the liberation of Macedonia the order of the day, before Serbian propaganda succeed[ed] in growing powerful and pulverizing the people." In January 1894 a group of these young men formed the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, which, after intense agitation and propaganda that swelled its clandestine ranks, renamed itself the Bolgarski makedono-odrinski revoljucionni komiteti (BMORK, Bulgar Macedono-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committee) in 1896, and demanded "full political autonomy of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople [Ottoman Thrace]."... Goce Delchev and the other leaders of the BMORK were aware of Serbian and Greek ambitions in Macedonia. More important, they were aware that neither Belgrade nor Athens could expect to obtain the whole of Macedonia and, unlike Bulgaria, looked forward to and urged partition pf gpss land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgarian character of Macedonia's Christian population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper. In the words of an editorial in Pravo (Right), a Sofia newspaper close to the BMORK, the idea of Macedonian autonomy (or separatism) was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian nationhood. Inasmuch as the ideal of San Stefano was unworkable, the autonomous idea was the only alternative to the partition of Macedonia by the Balkan states and the assimilation of its severed parts by Serbs, Greeks, and even Romanians...
pp. 307-328 in of "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics" by Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1984) Jingby ( talk) 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And please, Macedonian Boy, stop speculating with the term Macedonian. If you do not know what Macedonian means, then read in Wikipedia, and especially this page: Macedonian. One of the meanings of Macedonian, as you well know, is a Bulgarian. Then, please read the article Macedonians (Bulgarians), and afterwards the article on the ethnic Macedonians, but especially the chapter on their Identities and when it has emerged. As a final, you can check the Macedonian Question. And now, on the self-identification of Gruev. Please, read this citation from the memoirs of the IMARO revolutionary Milan Matov from the book "The idea of the autonomy as a tactic in the programs of the national liberation movements in Macedonia and Thrace, 1893-1941," Proffesor Dimitar Gotsev, Publishing House of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1983:
"A false rumor was launched in Macedonia after the Ilinden Uprising that the Supreme Committee in Sofia wanted incorporation (of Macedonia) into Bulgaria, but the IMRO sought for autonomy. On this occasion in June 1906 I was in Sofia and I took for clarification by Dame Gruev, who replied as follows: "We are Bulgarians and always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgarians. All other formulas are a stage to achieve this goal. It is however still not the moment to resolve our (Macedonian) question, and is not the time now, for strifes and discussions on this issue. "
Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has problem with overcitation. There is one assertion which is cited 11 times. It is first sentence of the lede. According to WP:LEDE, it does not usually requires citations. There must be some particular reason for this. What is it? -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The text:
Quote from work of Ivo Banac:
What is the assertion in the first sentence which is supported by quote from work of Ivo Banac?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Please, try discussing what promises to be a controversial edit prior to actually performing it. The recent edits involved a major change to a sentence with 10 (ten!) whole sources. And the new wording went against those sources. Plus, an image was removed without any justification whatsoever. Further, the changes went against what other articles have to say on the matter. Consistency is of the utmost importance for an encyclopaedia, so, make sure, you respect that. Thank you. -- Laveol T 07:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Gruev was killed in 1906. At that time Macedonian identity had spread only among a hansome of intellectuals outside the Ottoman Macedonia. Gruev did not express ethnic Macedonian sentiments and self-identified as Bulgarian:
Because Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. Jingiby ( talk)
Check all about 20 primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the article and on talk again. All confirm he was a Bulgarian, including Britannica.Incorrect. Let me remind you that it was you who added cited assertion about Gruev's Macedonian ethnicity with this edit ( diff). This assertion is still in the article. Whatever was your intention with initiating this discussion, continuing with it does not make any sense at all. All the best. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)